Article: The Healthy Female Submissive

[YourCaptor]

Where you are getting this I have no idea. There's a long distance between "I can't possibly be the only one like this, but from the way people are you'd think I am" and "everyone has to be like me."

I'd say that yes, when your existence is conducted in a state of near-invisibility you are more pathologized, more suspect, and more reviled. Otherwise why would your existence have to be pushed to the margins? I'm also saying, yet one more time, that there's a lot more lean toward submissive/bottom bedroom life among otherwise "vanilla" women than dominant. Ask any five women about their fantasies. Ergo - those who tend the other way begin to feel a bit lost when you're sharing confidences and looking to fit with other women. And then we get to listen to submissive women act like we've somehow got it easier, because supposedly society is now really friendly to female power and independence - basically being punished for their internalized discomfort. Which is sucky, but hello - wrong scapegoat.

I didn't get that memo. I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing beer commercials at halftime meant to raise another generation of insane people.

If female power is so dang doggity good, why was every single woman who came up that elevator with any power "a bitch" a "fucking bitch" and "a cunt" in front of a seventeen year old worker?

Yea, I really don’t see that.

Dominant woman smacks submissive woman. Dominant woman is a bitch, submissive woman gets a psychological evaluation.

More adversity does not equal a chapter in the DSM. It just means you need to push harder.

 

[JMohegan]

Hmm, well I don't have a female perspective.

But I don't see women being forced to take on a submissive role. Yes it is suggested, but nobody raises an eyebrow at a female masters, phd, etc.

As far as I can see women are even urged more then men to obtain an education.

And well I supose you have to asume here that an education while take you past a submissive role if you decide to do so.

Strong stereotypes still exist though, in that women aren't considered to be a capable physical force. However some truth does lie beneath that generalization and may just be a fact of life. Steeping past that I supose would be considered sick by society.

YC, you mentioned that you are currently studying in the U.S., but are a citizen of another country. Do you mind if I ask which one?

I'm curious because it seems possible that the relative gap in women's advancement in one country vs. another may be (understandably) coloring your perspective.

On the subject of the empowerment of women in modern societies, I agree with you that education is critical step #1 - though I would substitute the word "dependent" for "submissive" in what you wrote.

 

[JMohegan]

I guess I'm not subtle enough. I see a helluva a lot of girl power type messages being aimed at my kids. Sure, plenty of "be a sweet girl" crap too, but empowerment is there as well. And the boys are all but constantly emasculated. All the typical fun boy stuff is too dangerous, too scary, not emotionally healthy, etc.

In which ways are your sons being "constantly emasculated"? What "typical fun boy stuff" is being squelched? Straight questions, not rhetorical. I'm curious, because here's what I see.

Virginia sends eleven people to the U.S. House of Representatives. All male. Two Senators, both guys, as are the Governor and Lieutenant, and the mayors of Richmond, Virginia Beach, and Norfolk. From a political perspective, in VA '09, political power = cock.

More locally, you live in or near one of the greatest hubs of our military-industrial complex, right? I've only visited a couple of times, but to me the region seems like Testosterone Central.

Of course, in my elementary school there were female authority figures who failed to understand boy energy, and opposed it whenever they could. But very quickly, the application of that boy energy to athletic endeavors earned me and my peers kudos from authority figures across the board - not to mention considerable social success.

It has been 37 years since the passage of Title IX, but male sports still dominate the entertainment world. From players' salaries, to municipal funds spent for stadium construction, to collegiate & professional broadcast rights and advertising dollars, I'd say we can actually quantify the extent to which boy energy is celebrated in society today.

Now it's true that kids don't seem to be spending their days racing bikes or having "sword" fights with sticks or falling out of trees as often as we did, back in the day. But what are they doing instead? Aren't a lot of kids inside, playing video games, the point of which is to kill aliens or bad guys and blow shit up? Though I don't play video games personally, all of that seems recognizable as "fun boy stuff" to me. And it's catered to and fed by a very powerful economic force.

Speaking of video games, and shifting from "fun boy" to more mature, controversial, but wildly popular themes - ever watched anyone play Grand Theft Auto? That's not just implicit misogyny, it's an opportunity to act out and celebrate violence against women. [Netzach, this stuff makes the Mrs. Potato Head ad seem totally benign.]

 

[Homburg]

In which ways are your sons being "constantly emasculated"? What "typical fun boy stuff" is being squelched? Straight questions, not rhetorical.

I'm actually going to use parts of your post to answer your own question, so please forgive me snipping here and there.

More locally, you live in or near one of the greatest hubs of our military-industrial complex, right? I've only visited a couple of times, but to me the region seems like Testosterone Central.

The military-industrial complex is not kid-friendly any more. Growing up on military bases, I had access to all sorts of fun boy-energy things. Kids growing up on base no longer get to do those things (usually) due to liability concerns. So no playing on rapelling towers, jumping out of parachute simulators, flying multi-billion apache training sims, etc.

Well, I'm not in the military, my fault right? Nope, back then, military bases were also open to kids in the scouting program. Not so these days. If we call a local base to see if we can get access for my son's cub scout den, they no longer have the same programs. We would be allowed to bring them to the museum, or possibly to the other rec services areas. That's it.

Of course, in my elementary school there were female authority figures who failed to understand boy energy, and opposed it whenever they could. But very quickly, the application of that boy energy to athletic endeavors earned me and my peers kudos from authority figures across the board - not to mention considerable social success.

Athletic endeavours are sharply curtailed in primary schools. While high school sports are still popular, elementary and middle schools kids get almost no recess (often held inside) and far less gym than we did growing up.

It has been 37 years since the passage of Title IX, but male sports still dominate the entertainment world. From players' salaries, to municipal funds spent for stadium construction, to collegiate & professional broadcast rights and advertising dollars, I'd say we can actually quantify the extent to which boy energy is celebrated in society today.

Eh, there are other ways to use off boy energy. Tree houses were a thing I did as a lad. Can't due that now due to laws. I rode motorcycles from the age of 6 on. I can put my son on a motorcycle if I have access to private property, as opposed to riding on residential streets like I did. Can't even ride in local parks, barring a handful of motorcycle friendly trails, all of which require the rider to be over 13. I had a lot of fun plinking in the woods with a .22LR. That will get you arrested in most municipalities, even if you are observing safe shooting practices. And most ranges will not let the kid shoot until he is over a certain age. Again, I was doing it from 5 on, and can't with my sons.

To be frank, the idea that sports is the only acceptable channel of expressing boy energy is emasculating in itself. No, you can't do this. You may only do this over here.

Now it's true that kids don't seem to be spending their days racing bikes or having "sword" fights with sticks or falling out of trees as often as we did, back in the day. But what are they doing instead? Aren't a lot of kids inside, playing video games, the point of which is to kill aliens or bad guys and blow shit up? Though I don't play video games personally, all of that seems recognizable as "fun boy stuff" to me. And it's catered to and fed by a very powerful economic force.

Fun boy stuff, sure, but I don't want my kid to veg to computer games all day, no matter how much he may want to. The opportunities just aren't there like they were when I was a lad.

And, while it may be misanthropic to say, boys can't brawl or roughhouse. Little Johnny decides to roll around in the dirt with another boy, in my day it might mean a trip to the principal's office. Might. Today? Little Johnny is booted from school, and his parents might get sued (the validity of said suit is immaterial). Sure, violence is bad, but boys roughhouse. It is the nature of boy energy.

What you are talking about is simulated boy fun. You, of everyone here, champion real time, face to face interaction. Why would you accept video games as an outlet for a growing kid? (Honest, non-leading question, as the position does not seem consistent with your past positions on other topics)

Speaking of video games, and shifting from "fun boy" to more mature, controversial, but wildly popular themes - ever watched anyone play Grand Theft Auto? That's not just implicit misogyny, it's an opportunity to act out and celebrate violence against women. [Netzach, this stuff makes the Mrs. Potato Head ad seem totally benign.]

Holy jumping hell, yep, those games are just all kinds of sexist, misogynist, etc. They are also very well done, and a lot of fun. There are, however, MUCH better examples of misanthropic, misogynist games out there. GTA just happens to be high profile due to a combination of stellar success in the market, and Jack Thompson's obsessive hatred of them and subsequent media addiction.

(I've a couple of friends that worked for Rock Star Games, and they said sales exploded after all the controversy, every time it came up.)

 

[Netzach]

Yea, I really don’t see that.

Dominant woman smacks submissive woman. Dominant woman is a bitch, submissive woman gets a psychological evaluation.

More adversity does not equal a chapter in the DSM. It just means you need to push harder.

Dominant woman hits woman on the ass with spoon in MA and gets arrested for assault. Yeah, really this happened, it's not just me spouting out my ass about how I've decided the world is arbitrarily.

Blame the victim much?

Honestly, I don't care what you fail to see. It's being shown and you're sitting there with your hands over your eyes going "you're crazy, I don't see it. "

As a seventeen year old office worker, this is what I saw. Verbatim. Literally.
If you have a daughter and this is the message you want her to get about women with power, fine.

My experiences are not debate of the week club. Believe them, don't, whatever. But they're not something I'm going to debate like a proposal.

Your disbelief is your problem. Your unwillingness to consider that the world is different for women than your fantasy of what it's like based on not being one is your issue, not mine.


Not to mention I've had my share of fun at the shrink's when it comes time to talk about sexuality. I guess you're right, if pushing harder means whining about every single boo boo when you're not fully validated as a pervert, then everyone ought to. I've had as much frustration at the shrink as anyone else. Your point that Dominant women get a free pass in this culture which you are going to cling to like your own personal teddy bear is mitigated highly by the fact that you are not and never will be one ergo have inherently less clue as to what it means to be one. The only way to get a clue is to perhaps pay attention when women talk about their lives and consider what's being said, instead of dismissing every bit of the story.

More listen less talk. I know I'm doing a lot of the talking here but the subject is "what is it like for women" so I may actually know a limited amount of something.

Or just keep up with the sexist blinders on. I really don't care, you pick.

 

[the captians wench]

I like GTA. My favorite part was killing the hooker I just fucked and getting my money back plus some.

 

[Netzach]

I'm actually going to use parts of your post to answer your own question, so please forgive me snipping here and there.



The military-industrial complex is not kid-friendly any more. Growing up on military bases, I had access to all sorts of fun boy-energy things. Kids growing up on base no longer get to do those things (usually) due to liability concerns. So no playing on rapelling towers, jumping out of parachute simulators, flying multi-billion apache training sims, etc.

Well, I'm not in the military, my fault right? Nope, back then, military bases were also open to kids in the scouting program. Not so these days. If we call a local base to see if we can get access for my son's cub scout den, they no longer have the same programs. We would be allowed to bring them to the museum, or possibly to the other rec services areas. That's it.



Athletic endeavours are sharply curtailed in primary schools. While high school sports are still popular, elementary and middle schools kids get almost no recess (often held inside) and far less gym than we did growing up.



Eh, there are other ways to use off boy energy. Tree houses were a thing I did as a lad. Can't due that now due to laws. I rode motorcycles from the age of 6 on. I can put my son on a motorcycle if I have access to private property, as opposed to riding on residential streets like I did. Can't even ride in local parks, barring a handful of motorcycle friendly trails, all of which require the rider to be over 13. I had a lot of fun plinking in the woods with a .22LR. That will get you arrested in most municipalities, even if you are observing safe shooting practices. And most ranges will not let the kid shoot until he is over a certain age. Again, I was doing it from 5 on, and can't with my sons.

To be frank, the idea that sports is the only acceptable channel of expressing boy energy is emasculating in itself. No, you can't do this. You may only do this over here.



Fun boy stuff, sure, but I don't want my kid to veg to computer games all day, no matter how much he may want to. The opportunities just aren't there like they were when I was a lad.

And, while it may be misanthropic to say, boys can't brawl or roughhouse. Little Johnny decides to roll around in the dirt with another boy, in my day it might mean a trip to the principal's office. Might. Today? Little Johnny is booted from school, and his parents might get sued (the validity of said suit is immaterial). Sure, violence is bad, but boys roughhouse. It is the nature of boy energy.

What you are talking about is simulated boy fun. You, of everyone here, champion real time, face to face interaction. Why would you accept video games as an outlet for a growing kid? (Honest, non-leading question, as the position does not seem consistent with your past positions on other topics)



Holy jumping hell, yep, those games are just all kinds of sexist, misogynist, etc. They are also very well done, and a lot of fun. There are, however, MUCH better examples of misanthropic, misogynist games out there. GTA just happens to be high profile due to a combination of stellar success in the market, and Jack Thompson's obsessive hatred of them and subsequent media addiction.

(I've a couple of friends that worked for Rock Star Games, and they said sales exploded after all the controversy, every time it came up.)

The fact that this same cutback on recess and "excess energy" is leading to a nation of obese and diabetic girls doesn't seem to be as problematic?

Boys inherently have to jump around and play guns and blow shit up because they're boys, I don't debate that to an extent. There *is* a blow shit up gene that rides on the Y. We know that. But risk mitigation has taken a lot of the fun out of girlhood, too. For thousands of years in one form or another. Do we seriously think that the human female has less inquisitiveness, sense of adventure, disobedience potential and fun with loud noises or is it maybe something we kind of train in and reinforce? I wasn't a weenie because I'm a weenie, I was because I was expected to be. Sex work was the first totally risky non-weenie thing I think I ever did in my life, that's a bit of a late bloom. Some families, of course, being crazier than others.

And girls are defined by ---?

 

[Netzach]

YC, you mentioned that you are currently studying in the U.S., but are a citizen of another country. Do you mind if I ask which one?

I'm curious because it seems possible that the relative gap in women's advancement in one country vs. another may be (understandably) coloring your perspective.

On the subject of the empowerment of women in modern societies, I agree with you that education is critical step #1 - though I would substitute the word "dependent" for "submissive" in what you wrote.

Where exactly are women doing so well that the US is a positive backwater, JM? The only place I can think of where you might get away with the "independent women are the only role model I see" argument is iceland.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm actually going to use parts of your post to answer your own question, so please forgive me snipping here and there.

The military-industrial complex is not kid-friendly any more. Growing up on military bases, I had access to all sorts of fun boy-energy things. Kids growing up on base no longer get to do those things (usually) due to liability concerns. So no playing on rapelling towers, jumping out of parachute simulators, flying multi-billion apache training sims, etc.

Well, I'm not in the military, my fault right? Nope, back then, military bases were also open to kids in the scouting program. Not so these days. If we call a local base to see if we can get access for my son's cub scout den, they no longer have the same programs. We would be allowed to bring them to the museum, or possibly to the other rec services areas. That's it.

Athletic endeavours are sharply curtailed in primary schools. While high school sports are still popular, elementary and middle schools kids get almost no recess (often held inside) and far less gym than we did growing up.

Eh, there are other ways to use off boy energy. Tree houses were a thing I did as a lad. Can't due that now due to laws. I rode motorcycles from the age of 6 on. I can put my son on a motorcycle if I have access to private property, as opposed to riding on residential streets like I did. Can't even ride in local parks, barring a handful of motorcycle friendly trails, all of which require the rider to be over 13. I had a lot of fun plinking in the woods with a .22LR. That will get you arrested in most municipalities, even if you are observing safe shooting practices. And most ranges will not let the kid shoot until he is over a certain age. Again, I was doing it from 5 on, and can't with my sons.

To be frank, the idea that sports is the only acceptable channel of expressing boy energy is emasculating in itself. No, you can't do this. You may only do this over here.

Fun boy stuff, sure, but I don't want my kid to veg to computer games all day, no matter how much he may want to. The opportunities just aren't there like they were when I was a lad.

And, while it may be misanthropic to say, boys can't brawl or roughhouse. Little Johnny decides to roll around in the dirt with another boy, in my day it might mean a trip to the principal's office. Might. Today? Little Johnny is booted from school, and his parents might get sued (the validity of said suit is immaterial). Sure, violence is bad, but boys roughhouse. It is the nature of boy energy.

What you are talking about is simulated boy fun. You, of everyone here, champion real time, face to face interaction. Why would you accept video games as an outlet for a growing kid? (Honest, non-leading question, as the position does not seem consistent with your past positions on other topics)

Holy jumping hell, yep, those games are just all kinds of sexist, misogynist, etc. They are also very well done, and a lot of fun. There are, however, MUCH better examples of misanthropic, misogynist games out there. GTA just happens to be high profile due to a combination of stellar success in the market, and Jack Thompson's obsessive hatred of them and subsequent media addiction.

(I've a couple of friends that worked for Rock Star Games, and they said sales exploded after all the controversy, every time it came up.)

Thanks for answering my question, Homburg. Given your response, I'll revisit the original point from your earlier post.

I guess I'm not subtle enough. I see a helluva a lot of girl power type messages being aimed at my kids. Sure, plenty of "be a sweet girl" crap too, but empowerment is there as well. And the boys are all but constantly emasculated. All the typical fun boy stuff is too dangerous, too scary, not emotionally healthy, etc.

I can relate to some of your frustration. As a kid, I never understood why the neighbors complained about me setting model airplanes on fire and launching them out of the attic window. I mean, really, there's not much cooler than watching something like that. And besides, the wreckage almost always landed in our yard!

When talking about empowering kids, though, I'm looking at the bigger picture. And it seems to me that a boy growing up in your world has plenty of role models for male success, as well as outlets for society-celebrated boy energy of many kinds.

Proximity to the military-industrial complex has nothing to do with playground access, and everything to do with role models and evidence of our society's combined economic & political commitment to combat. A much more powerful and influential validation for testosterone than plinking in the woods.

Acknowledging the dominance of male sports in the entertainment world and violence in video games was not to encourage participation in one or the other, but simply to show that the application of male energy (real or fantasy) is celebrated throughout our society.

Putting all of this in the context of your exchanges with Netzach, I'm wondering what "girl power type messages" are being aimed at your daughters. Are the messages as pervasive? As explicit? As strong?

 

[Netzach]

In which ways are your sons being "constantly emasculated"? What "typical fun boy stuff" is being squelched? Straight questions, not rhetorical. I'm curious, because here's what I see.

Virginia sends eleven people to the U.S. House of Representatives. All male. Two Senators, both guys, as are the Governor and Lieutenant, and the mayors of Richmond, Virginia Beach, and Norfolk. From a political perspective, in VA '09, political power = cock.

More locally, you live in or near one of the greatest hubs of our military-industrial complex, right? I've only visited a couple of times, but to me the region seems like Testosterone Central.

Of course, in my elementary school there were female authority figures who failed to understand boy energy, and opposed it whenever they could. But very quickly, the application of that boy energy to athletic endeavors earned me and my peers kudos from authority figures across the board - not to mention considerable social success.

It has been 37 years since the passage of Title IX, but male sports still dominate the entertainment world. From players' salaries, to municipal funds spent for stadium construction, to collegiate & professional broadcast rights and advertising dollars, I'd say we can actually quantify the extent to which boy energy is celebrated in society today.

Now it's true that kids don't seem to be spending their days racing bikes or having "sword" fights with sticks or falling out of trees as often as we did, back in the day. But what are they doing instead? Aren't a lot of kids inside, playing video games, the point of which is to kill aliens or bad guys and blow shit up? Though I don't play video games personally, all of that seems recognizable as "fun boy stuff" to me. And it's catered to and fed by a very powerful economic force.

Speaking of video games, and shifting from "fun boy" to more mature, controversial, but wildly popular themes - ever watched anyone play Grand Theft Auto? That's not just implicit misogyny, it's an opportunity to act out and celebrate violence against women. [Netzach, this stuff makes the Mrs. Potato Head ad seem totally benign.]

Interestingly I see images more as mirrors than as destiny. Potato head outrage notwithstanding, I think the feedback loop between sexism and the crappy crap misogynistic bullshit images one is assaulted with every day is very weak in the perpetuation of violence/oppression because of image part of the loop, and very strong in the "this is what we think so this is what we make" part. I get pissed because when I take our pulse via these images, we're very sick indeed. Not because I think they made us sick.

I think porn/games are more release valve. They're an accurate mirror of our completely fucked psychosexual values and now we can sit around in our dung for a while. Which is where I spend most of my time, again, I think my psychosexual values are the some of the only ones you can get in a world that's this fucked - fucked.

 

[JMohegan]

Where exactly are women doing so well that the US is a positive backwater, JM? The only place I can think of where you might get away with the "independent women are the only role model I see" argument is iceland.

No, I'm looking at this from the other way around.

A buddy of mine has a son in the Peace Corps. Over Christmas, I had a long conversation with him about work he's doing to empower women who live almost completely under their husband's thumbs.

 

[Netzach]

No, I'm looking at this from the other way around.

A buddy of mine has a son in the Peace Corps. Over Christmas, I had a long conversation with him about work he's doing to empower women who live almost completely under their husband's thumbs.

Ah.

Well I'm always coming from the basis that I think what we do is code that can only exist in the postindustrial west. People have pain tolerances they like to play with globally, but that's so different in Bali than here that I have no basis for comment. I think the whole notion of female sexual power or not is something pretty much unintelligible to outsiders from a culture who aren't talking to women in it and finding out what their notions of it are or if the whole concept is laughable, as I'm sure it is many places.

Being brought up under your husband's thumb is so radically different than being a submissive woman in the postindustrial west that I draw no parallels and never have. Women negotiate power in every society they are born in just like men do - you get a hand with some cards on it and you play it the best you can.

 

[JMohegan]

Interestingly I see images more as mirrors than as destiny. Potato head outrage notwithstanding, I think the feedback loop between sexism and the crappy crap misogynistic bullshit images one is assaulted with every day is very weak in the perpetuation of violence/oppression because of image part of the loop, and very strong in the "this is what we think so this is what we make" part. I get pissed because when I take our pulse via these images, we're very sick indeed. Not because I think they made us sick.

I think porn/games are more release valve. They're an accurate mirror of our completely fucked psychosexual values and now we can sit around in our dung for a while. Which is where I spend most of my time, again, I think my psychosexual values are the some of the only ones you can get in a world that's this fucked - fucked.

Isn't there a female anthropologist who said something like: The biggest problem for any society is what to do with the males?

There has to be a release valve or positive outlet or constructive focus or something for male energy, or there's gonna be trouble. I'm not saying *this* release is optimal, but there does have to be something.

This isn't a moral/immoral issue; it's pragmatic. That's just the way it is.

 

[JMohegan]

Ah.

Well I'm always coming from the basis that I think what we do is code that can only exist in the postindustrial west. People have pain tolerances they like to play with globally, but that's so different in Bali than here that I have no basis for comment. I think the whole notion of female sexual power or not is something pretty much unintelligible to outsiders from a culture who aren't talking to women in it and finding out what their notions of it are or if the whole concept is laughable, as I'm sure it is many places.

Being brought up under your husband's thumb is so radically different than being a submissive woman in the postindustrial west that I draw no parallels and never have. Women negotiate power in every society they are born in just like men do - you get a hand with some cards on it and you play it the best you can.

I agree with all of this; I'm just trying to figure out where YC is coming from. Literally, and otherwise.

 

[Recidiva]

This is looking as complicated as the nature vs nurture argument.

Reminds me of a quote in "The Closer" where someone was pondering what caused a young boy to become a criminal, nature or nurture. "To tell the truth, by the time they get to us, it doesn't matter any more."

How do you dissect so many values and contributing factors?

Health or happiness are so intensely subjective.

Interesting points, but it's not as if you can define it for another, this it what it means to that person.

Just attempting to define it so closely really makes it seem part and parcel of needing absolutes and doing their damnedest to create them, justify them and enforce them or be assured they'll be enforced. Which is specific of the needs of a submissive.

Says much, much more about the person writing them, than it does about me or my needs, my world or the world of anybody else, except as an interesting generated template from which others will wildly deviate and then be deemed...unhealthy by the author.

 

[intothewoods]

When I think of "girl power" messages, I immediately think of encouragement to use sexuality to your advantage. Girls are certainly encouraged to play sports, to think about what they'll do when they grow up, but I find the whole tween thing - revealing clothes sold to really young girls, the books, tv shows, etc - to be really disheartening and gross.

 

[Recidiva]

When I think of "girl power" messages, I immediately think of encouragement to use sexuality to your advantage. Girls are certainly encouraged to play sports, to think about what they'll do when they grow up, but I find the whole tween thing - revealing clothes sold to really young girls, the books, tv shows, etc - to be really disheartening and gross.

I share that with you.

I also find that putting women off cooking, cleaning, raising a family, being a mother...all this as somehow demeaning, I find that to be sad and counterproductive.

Being able to look after myself, eat yummy food and have children are some of the best things I've done with myself. Despite the PR stating otherwise.

I'm all for preserving as many choices as possible for women (and men...and those in transition between those states.)

When it comes to eliminating choices because it's embarrassing to "a cause" - I worry.

 

[intothewoods]

I share that with you.

I also find that putting women off cooking, cleaning, raising a family, being a mother...all this as somehow demeaning, I find that to be sad and counterproductive.

Being able to look after myself, eat yummy food and have children are some of the best things I've done with myself. Despite the PR stating otherwise.

I'm all for preserving as many choices as possible for women (and men...and those in transition between those states.)

When it comes to eliminating choices because it's embarrassing to "a cause" - I worry.

I agree, except for the last sentence. I don't think the concern is embarassment. The argument is that if none of us work and demand paid maternity leave, flexible schedules, etc., parents who want to choose to work won't have those options. I personally like California's family leave laws, because it's not exclusively for women or mothers.

 

[Recidiva]

I agree, except for the last sentence. I don't think the concern is embarassment. The argument is that if none of us work and demand paid maternity leave, flexible schedules, etc., parents who want to choose to work won't have those options. I personally like California's family leave laws, because it's not exclusively for women or mothers.

I think men are due a liberation movement.

 

[Netzach]

I share that with you.

I also find that putting women off cooking, cleaning, raising a family, being a mother...all this as somehow demeaning, I find that to be sad and counterproductive.

Being able to look after myself, eat yummy food and have children are some of the best things I've done with myself. Despite the PR stating otherwise.

I'm all for preserving as many choices as possible for women (and men...and those in transition between those states.)

When it comes to eliminating choices because it's embarrassing to "a cause" - I worry.

Please send me the memo when those things are actually choices for a majority of women, working and non. Anything you are forced into is demeaning. Anything you aren't that into but you feel like the world will reject you over not doing so you do it anyway - is demeaning. The shame associated with being a good housekeeper still pales in comparison to the shame attached to being completely incompetent as one. The shame of staying at home with a kid still pales in comparison to the looks and comments you get if you admit to not liking children all that much.

They're mostly expectations, have remained expectations, and are going to remain expectations, outside a slim margin of the middle class world. If people had to be paid for it, everything would grind to a halt. The avid refusal you may find on the part of some of us actually has nothing to do with whatever we think you ought to be doing.

I also like a clean house and yummy food. I cover the yummy food part and I expect M to cover the clean house part. We both put in our work hours. The only choices I felt were eliminated for me was the choice to do what I felt best without a steady stream of familial and societal reproach, but I suppose that's the fun of being female. Most women I know who are neat and tidy (because God forbid you aren't) and who reproduce (because God forbid you don't) don't have the sense of being familial disappointment of the decade when it comes to these things. They don't have to explain, excuse, apologize or get the looks.

 

[Recidiva]

Please send me the memo when those things are actually choices for a majority of women, working and non. Anything you are forced into is demeaning. Anything you aren't that into but you feel like the world will reject you over not doing so you do it anyway - is demeaning.

They're mostly expectations, have remained expectations, and are going to remain expectations, outside a slim margin of the middle class world. If people had to be paid for it, everything would grind to a halt. The avid refusal you may find on the part of some of us actually has nothing to do with whatever we think you ought to be doing.

I also like a clean house and yummy food. I cover the yummy food part and I expect M to cover the clean house part. We both put in our work hours.

Actually, there's no memo.

I think everyone has to fight tooth and claw for what they want. Some of them have it easier, some of them have it harder, and none of it is fair.

I don't think you ought to be doing anything except fight for what you want, and in that regard I think you're doing fine.

If there is a damned memo and I didn't get one...damn it.

 

[Netzach]

I think men are due a liberation movement.

I think it's actually part of the same one. I think the fact that men are so uncomfortable attaching themselves to anything initiated by women is the reason that men as primary caretakers, primary housekeepers, and involved parents while maintaining professional lives is so novel.

 

[Recidiva]

I think it's actually part of the same one. I think the fact that men are so uncomfortable attaching themselves to anything initiated by women is the reason that men as primary caretakers, primary housekeepers, and involved parents while maintaining professional lives is so novel.

For one I'd like to see the law made so that if women have full control over their bodies and men really can't compel a woman to have or not have their child, men need to be relieved of the responsibility of raising that child and get the control of their wallets back.

But that's just me.

I'm sure lots of men make better parents. 'Cause I've met my mom.

 

[midwestyankee]

I think it's actually part of the same one. I think the fact that men are so uncomfortable attaching themselves to anything initiated by women is the reason that men as primary caretakers, primary housekeepers, and involved parents while maintaining professional lives is so novel.

For what it's worth, my best (i.e., most satisfying overall) year in the last twenty was the one that I spent as Mr. Mom with our then newborn son. Now, I did that without a career in progress, as mine was politely described as being "in hiatus at the moment," but it was my choice at my suggestion. I did do some work out of the house but my main focus for that school year was raising #3 while keeping the house clean, the laundry done, and the meals prepared on time.

And yes, I got more than my share of odd stares when I did grocery shopping with an infant in the basket after nap-time in the afternoon. Eh....that was their problem and not mine.

 

[BiBunny]

For what it's worth, my best (i.e., most satisfying overall) year in the last twenty was the one that I spent as Mr. Mom with our then newborn son. Now, I did that without a career in progress, as mine was politely described as being "in hiatus at the moment," but it was my choice at my suggestion. I did do some work out of the house but my main focus for that school year was raising #3 while keeping the house clean, the laundry done, and the meals prepared on time.

And yes, I got more than my share of odd stares when I did grocery shopping with an infant in the basket after nap-time in the afternoon. Eh....that was their problem and not mine.

This is why you rock.

I'm still following this thread with interest, even though I don't have anything interesting to say at the moment.