Question for females about sexism

[Iti oj]

How is it sexist if the woman wants to be a housewife? It's what I want and I know others who want it. We are not saying all females ought to do that. It's called making a choice.

Then you didn't agree with the op, want vs must...

 

[Draka]

I would love to have been a housewife.
Instead I went out, got a couple of careers in the government sector, and worked myself into chronic illness.

Not a day goes by that I don't regret not trying for a simpler life.

Too. Late. Now.

I am. A SAHM that is. But I wasn't always. I've been a single provider, a sole provider for a family (with a SAHD for a husband), and am now the stay at home parent while my husband is the sole financial provider. Point is, it is a sexist way of looking at things to make a blanket statement that the man should be the provider for the family. It isn't just a matter of a woman "accepting" that, it is also a heavy responsibility to place upon the man as well and we are just assuming that he automatically accept that. It shouldn't be just assumed that one gender automatically has the brunt of the responsibility for providing. It should be a matter of what works best for a couple, case by case. Either one may work, either one may tend to the home and children, both may work and tend to home. The idea is that they are partners with one no more or less responsible for their joint financial well-being than the other.

 

[Thanda]

Because members of oppressed groups have never sided with their oppressors ever before. It's like how abuse victims never, ever think they deserve it and side with their abusers.

What an odd thing to say. Since when did a couples agreeing to a division of labour become oppression?

 

[Iti oj]

What an odd thing to say. Since when did a couples agreeing to a division of labour become oppression?

um history, centuries of oppression.........

 

[Draka]

How is it sexist if the woman wants to be a housewife? It's what I want and I know others who want it. We are not saying all females ought to do that. It's called making a choice.

It is sexist because it assumes predetermined roles for people based solely upon their genitals. Look at the original statement. He asked if this: "in a heterosexual relationship the male must take care of (be the provider for) the female because he is the male" is a sexist statement. It is. It is basing what roles particular genders MUST take based entirely on the fact that their genitals happen to be certain things. Whether a couple decides what is best for them isn't the question nor the issue. It is if that statement, as it is, as a judgment upon genders in a relationship, is sexist. And it clearly is.

 

[Thanda]

I am. A SAHM that is. But I wasn't always. I've been a single provider, a sole provider for a family (with a SAHD for a husband), and am now the stay at home parent while my husband is the sole financial provider. Point is, it is a sexist way of looking at things to make a blanket statement that the man should be the provider for the family. It isn't just a matter of a woman "accepting" that, it is also a heavy responsibility to place upon the man as well and we are just assuming that he automatically accept that. It shouldn't be just assumed that one gender automatically has the brunt of the responsibility for providing. It should be a matter of what works best for a couple, case by case. Either one may work, either one may tend to the home and children, both may work and tend to home. The idea is that they are partners with one no more or less responsible for their joint financial well-being than the other.

I like this post because you recognize the flawed logic in the assumption that the woman is the only oppressed party in societies that enforce gender roles.

 

[Thanda]

um history, centuries of oppression.........

Please explain how history and centuries of oppression lead you to the conclusion that a couple agreeing to a division of labour is oppression.

 

[Iti oj]

Yes I have my reasons for believing so. I believe women are generally more suited to nurturing children during their earlier stages than men. I also believe that two parents working (especially when both are working high stress jobs) often leads to a neglect of children and problems later on in life.

that sounds like a problem with how society is structured around work and careers and not families and individuals

 

[Rival]

Well, I do believe in gender roles. I guess that makes me an oppressive nutcase. *Shrug*

 

[Thanda]

that sounds like a problem with how society is structured around work and careers and not families and individuals

True, and while the problem lasts I find that the best solution from an individual level is to divide the duties in such a way that at least one parent may spend more time with their families. There is nothing intrinsically superior about being at work than being with your own children.

 

[Draka]

Well, I do believe in gender roles. I guess that makes me an oppressive nutcase. *Shrug*

Can you tell me what it is about a penis that automatically makes the bearer more qualified and responsible for being the main financial provider for a family?

 

[Iti oj]

Well, I do believe in gender roles. I guess that makes me an oppressive nutcase. *Shrug*

your only a nut case if you care about me following you gender roles i get the idea that you do not, as to weather you are oppressive or not i guess it depends on what you would teach and accept from your kids (if you ever had any) or others you influence .

 

[Iti oj]

True, and while the problem lasts I find that the best solution from an individual level is to divide the duties in such a way that at least one parent may spend more time with their families. There is nothing intrinsically superior about being at work than being with your own children.

No, my wife and i prefer it the other way, though i ended up in the roll. We were doing half and half so she got us each equally each day before she got laid off, now we are going to go homesestead.

 

[Rival]

Can you tell me what it is about a penis that automatically makes the bearer more qualified and responsible for being the main financial provider for a family?

It is not about the penis or the vagina.

And you know it.

It's about the differing way in which males and females think and behave. We are wired differently, so to speak.

 

[FTNZ]

It is not about the penis or the vagina.

And you know it.

It's about the differing way in which males and females think and behave. We are wired differently, so to speak.

Citation please.

 

[Mycroft]

Housewifery is oppression by social conditioning. In effect a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. Just because someone feels like they want to do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're not oppressed. It just means that the level of oppression is greater.

IE: North Koreans are undeniably an oppressed people. But you'd find it difficult to get 98% of North Koreans to believe that, because they believe that they're not.

 

[Rival]

Citation please.

Oh brother.

You seriously want proof that males and females think differently?

If I said the females are more emotional and males more rational you'd probably call me sexist, huh?

I'm out of here. The one thing I won't do is debate with feminists. To be brutally honest, it just drives me up the wall and over the other side.

Sorry for wasting your time

 

[Thanda]

No, my wife and i prefer it the other way, though i ended up in the roll. We were doing half and half so she got us each equally each day before she got laid off, now we are going to go homesestead.

Sure, whatever works. I have no specific science at my finger tips to show which is better (and that probably would not really matter to anyone even if I did) but it is just a belief I have which I go with and personally advocate for the wife to be home. At the same time I advocate for the husband to avoid overworking. I truly believe if we stopped chasing so many "things" and learned to live a simpler life we would have more fulfilling lives and more wholesome families, societies and nations.

 

[FTNZ]

Oh brother.

You seriously want proof that males and females think differently?

If I said the females are more emotional and males more rational you'd probably call me sexist, huh?

I'm out of here. The one thing I won't do is debate with feminists. To be brutally honest, it just drives me up the wall and over the other side.

Sorry for wasting your time

LOL. I didn't think you could back up your claim. Have a nice day.

 

[Thanda]

Housewifery is oppression by social conditioning. In effect a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. Just because someone feels like they want to do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're not oppressed. It just means that the level of oppression is greater.

IE: North Koreans are undeniably an oppressed people. But you'd find it difficult to get 98% of North Koreans to believe that, because they believe that they're not.

This assumption that housewifery is oppression must (for fairness sake) include the assumption that househusbandry is oppression. And having concluded both as oppression one is left to ask how you concluded taking care of a role in a corporation is of more value than taking care of ones own children and family.