Question for females about sexism

[MysticSang'ha]

Hi,

My name is Noah and I wanted to ask you this question.

Is it sexist in your opinion to say that in a heterosexual relationship the male must take care of (be the provider for) the female because he is the male?

Thank you very very much for all answers,
Noah

Female chiming in per request of the OP to say that I find the statement to be a clear example of benevolent sexism.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

If they still have a choice, & there is no coercion involved, then this doesn't look like oppression.
The option to go against one's conditioning is a crucial liberty.

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.

They don't have anywhere near the range of choice that we have though.
Even if they want to do what is chosen for them, without an alternative, this is oppression.

 

[Draka]

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.

Being the stay at home partner is not oppression if it is jointly decided upon. If the one staying at home was put into that position by no choice of their own, if they are forbidden from getting a job and so on, then yes, it is oppression. If, however, a couple makes the decision together that their situation would best be served if one of them were to stay home and they agreed upon who was staying home then it can hardly be considered oppression.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Househusbandry is a fairly modern concept that was born from the idea of freeing women from the necessity of housewifery. So it's actually anti-oppressional.

Being the stay at home partner is not oppression if it is jointly decided upon. If the one staying at home was put into that position by no choice of their own, if they are forbidden from getting a job and so on, then yes, it is oppression. If, however, a couple makes the decision together that their situation would best be served if one of them were to stay home and they agreed upon who was staying home then it can hardly be considered oppression.

It's not mutual the two participants are conditioned to a certain point of view in the first place.

It's like saying that North Koreans are not oppressed if they mutually agree that they should have less freedom and civil liberties than the Evil West.

 

[FTNZ]

Being the stay at home partner is not oppression if it is jointly decided upon. If the one staying at home was put into that position by no choice of their own, if they are forbidden from getting a job and so on, then yes, it is oppression. If, however, a couple makes the decision together that their situation would best be served if one of them were to stay home and they agreed upon who was staying home then it can hardly be considered oppression.

I mostly agree with you, except that societal beliefs can guide the couple towards that conclusion in subtle ways. And society tends to value men in paid work more than it values women who care for children at home. Personally I would have an arrangement where both parties worked part time and cared for the children part time, or they assigned roles according to that individual's skills and desires. Either gender can be well suited to child care. But I prefer to be single and childfree anyway.

 

[Revoltingest]

Being the stay at home partner is not oppression if it is jointly decided upon. If the one staying at home was put into that position by no choice of their own, if they are forbidden from getting a job and so on, then yes, it is oppression. If, however, a couple makes the decision together that their situation would best be served if one of them were to stay home and they agreed upon who was staying home then it can hardly be considered oppression.

Quiet, woman!
You're being oppressed.
Accept it.

Aw, dang....here comes the invisible unbreakable rope....again.

 

[Thanda]

If they still have a choice, & there is no coercion involved, then this doesn't look like oppression.
The option to go against one's conditioning is a crucial liberty.

They don't have anywhere near the range of choice that we have though.
Even if they want to do what is chosen for them, without an alternative, this is oppression.

I have a question for you, if you don't mind my asking. Supposing one of the spouses did not wish to work and preferred to raise and nurture the children - and suppose the other spouse refused and demanded that that spouse goes and gets a job so that a maid or nursery can raise the children - could that spouse be considered to be oppressed?

 

[Aquitaine]

Hi,

My name is Noah and I wanted to ask you this question.

Is it sexist in your opinion to say that in a heterosexual relationship the male must take care of (be the provider for) the female because he is the male?

Thank you very very much for all answers,
Noah

It constitutes predetermining a significant degree of someone's life by assigning them a role based purely on their genitals.

 

[Thanda]

Househusbandry is a fairly modern concept that was born from the idea of freeing women from the necessity of housewifery. So it's actually anti-oppressional.

This is faulty logic. So according to you no woman should choose to be a house wife since it is an old concept while men should be allowed to choose to be house husbands because it is a new concept? Are you sexist?

 

[Mycroft]

Female chiming in per request of the OP to say that I find the statement to be a clear example of benevolent sexism.

Ambient Sexism.

 

[Mycroft]

This is faulty logic. So according to you no woman should choose to be a house wife since it is an old concept while men should be allowed to choose to be house husbands because it is a new concept? Are you sexist?

No. I'm claiming that a housewife may agree or choose to be a housewife because it's socially conditioned into her that that's the way it should be.

A househusband may choose to be such because he believes not all women exist to be housewives.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a question for you, if you don't mind my asking. Supposing one of the spouses did not wish to work and preferred to raise and nurture the children - and suppose the other spouse refused and demanded that that spouse goes and gets a job so that a maid or nursery can raise the children - could that spouse be considered to be oppressed?

It would depend upon whether the spouse who wished to stay home was on an equal footing to resist such demands.
If unable, then oppression seems possible.
If able, then interesting times lie ahead for the family.

 

[Thanda]

No. I'm claiming that a housewife may agree or choose to be a housewife because it's socially conditioned into her that that's the way it should be.

A househusband may choose to be such because he believes not all women exist to be housewives.

And so what if she chose to do that because she was conditioned? Should we condemn a person who chooses not to pick their nose only because they were conditioned? And aren't we all conditioned? Isn't it a conditioning that working outside the home is superior to taking care of one's own children and family?

 

[Thanda]

It would depend upon whether the spouse who wished to stay home was on an equal footing to resist such demands.
If unable, then oppression seems possible.
If able, then interesting times lie ahead for the family.

What do you mean by "equal footing to resist such demands"?

 

[Mycroft]

And so what if she chose to do that because she was conditioned? Should we condemn a person who chooses not to pick their nose only because they were conditioned? And aren't we all conditioned? Isn't it a conditioning that working outside the home is superior to taking care of one's own children and family?

So you believe if someone is conditioned to believe that they deserve to stay at home and not seek a career, then that's fair?

 

[FTNZ]

And so what if she chose to do that because she was conditioned? Should we condemn a person who chooses not to pick their nose only because they were conditioned? And aren't we all conditioned? Isn't it a conditioning that working outside the home is superior to taking care of one's own children and family?

Yes, that is conditioning, which is why those people who consider the roles within a relationship from a neutral perspective are going against the grain. I do not think paid work outside the home is necessarily superior to caring for kids at home, but I can see clear evidence that the former are treated better than the latter, whatever their gender. A person considering forgoing paid work so they can work at home with kids must weigh that up. They are likely to have delayed career progression, and financial risk. It may be worth it, or it may not. It is hard work, and no easy ride.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you mean by "equal footing to resist such demands"?

Sometimes, oppression has to do with one being able to impose one's will upon the other (a weaker one), without the use of force or authority.

 

[Thanda]

So you believe if someone is conditioned to believe that they deserve to stay at home and not seek a career, then that's fair?

Only as fair as any other conditioning. The problem is Mycroft, there is nothing about your position - that people should seek careers - that is objectively truer or superior to my belief that women ( in most cases) should be the stay at home parent when it is possible to have a stay at home parent. Therefore clearly both you and I have accepted different types of conditioning (that is both of us have been conditioned) and that raises the question of what is wrong with a woman following her conditioning - even if it is to become a housewife.

In fact, I don't know about you but in my society a woman is actually conditioned to be a career woman. And so pervasive is the conditioning that when my wife became a stay at home mom she was subjected to a lot of shaming. So since the conditioning in my country is for women to be career women, do you also consider it oppression when a woman decides to work (for consistency's sake)?

 

[Mycroft]

So since the conditioning in my country is for women to be career women, do you also consider it oppression when a woman decides to work (for consistency's sake)?

Because, historically, it was men who made the decision that women should be the ones to stay at home. So all you're doing is buying into patriarchy in the end.

 

[FTNZ]

my belief that women ( in most cases) should be the stay at home parent when it is possible to have a stay at home parent.

Why do you believe this?