Why I Want a Wife

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I belong to that classification of people known as wives. I am A Wife.

And, not altogether incidentally, I am a mother. Not too long ago a male friend of mine appeared on the scene fresh from a recent divorce. He had one child, who is, of course, with his ex-wife. He is looking for another wife. As I thought about him while I was ironing one evening, it suddenly occurred to me that I too, would like to have a wife. Why do I want a wife?

I would like to go back to school so that I can become economically independent, support myself, and if need be, support those dependent upon me. I want a wife who will work and send me to school. And while I am going to school I want a wife to take care of my children. I want a wife a wife to keep track of the children's doctor and dentist appointments. And to keep track of mine, too. I want a wife to make sure my children eat properly and are kept clean. I want a wife who will wash the children's clothes and keep them mended. I want a wife who is a good nurturing attendant to my children, who arranges for their schooling, makes sure that they have an adequate social life with their peers, takes them to the park, the zoo, etc. I want a wife who takes care of the children when they are sick, a wife who arranges to be around when the children need special care, because, of course, I cannot miss classes at school. My wife must arrange to lose time at work and not lose the job. It may mean a small cut in my wife's income from time to time, but I guess I can tolerate that. Needless to say, my wife will arrange and pay for the care of the children while my wife is working.

I want a wife who will take care of my physical needs. I want a wife who will keep my house clean. A wife who will pick up after my children, a wife who will pick up after me. I want a wife who will keep my clothes clean, ironed, mended, replaced when need be, and who will see to it that my personal things are kept in their proper place so that I can find what I need the minute I need it. I want a wife who cooks the meals, a wife who is a good cook. I want a wife who will plan the menus, do the necessary grocery shopping, prepare the meals,serve them pleasantly, and then do the cleaning up while I do my studying. I want a wife who will care for me when I am sick and sympathize with my pain and loss of time from school. I want a wife to go along when our family takes a vacation so that someone can continue care for me and my when I need a rest and change of scene. I want a wife who will not bother me with rambling complaints about a wife's duties. But I want a wife who will listen to me when I feel the need to explain a rather difficult point I have come across in my course of studies. And I want a wife who will type my papers for me when I have written them.

I want a wife who will take care of the details of my social life. When my wife and I are invited out by my friends, I want a wife who take care of the baby-sitting arrangements. When I meet people at school that I like and want to entertain, I want a wife who will have the house clean, will prepare a special meal, serve it to me and my friends, and not interrupt when I talk about things that interest me and my friends. I want a wife who will have arranged that the children are fed and ready for bed before my guests arrive so that the children do not bother us. I want a wife who takes care of the needs of my quests so that they feel comfortable, who makes sure that they have an ashtray, that they are passed the hors d'oeuvres, that they are offered a second helping of the food, that their wine glasses are replenished when necessary, that their coffee is served to them as they like it. And I want a wife who knows that sometimes I need a night out by myself.

I want a wife who is sensitive to my sexual needs, a wife who makes love passionately and eagerly when I feel like it, a wife who makes sure that I am satisfied. And, of course, I want a wife who will not demand sexual attention when I am not in the mood for it. I want a wife who assumes the complete responsibility for birth control, because I do not want more children. I want a wife who will remain sexually faithful to me so that I do not have to clutter up my intellectual life with jealousies. And I want a wife who understands that my sexual needs may entail more than strict adherence to monogamy. I must, after all, be able to relate to people as fully as possible.

If, by chance, I find another person more suitable as a wife than the wife I already have, I want the liberty to replace my present wife with another one. Naturally, I will expect a fresh, new life; my wife will take the children and be solely responsible for them so that I am left free.

When I am through with school and have a job, I want my wife to quit working and remain at home so that my wife can more fully and completely take care of a wife's duties.

My God, who wouldn't want a wife?

Judy Syfers (1971)

***

37 years later, do you still want a wife?

[midnight marauder]

Moved to Chit-Chat.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Excuse me?

This is a satirical article attacking the patriarchal double standards of society, and the role of women as house-keepers and domestic servants for husbands.

Then I asked the serious question regarding how much had changed in 37 years.

You think that anti-patriarchal articles are chit-chat quality? :glare:

Despite the form of the article, I want serious responses.

Or I would have posted it in chit-chat.

[TC]

I'm moving this back to discrimination because this is a serious topic presented in whats quiet obviously meant to be social commentary not 'chit chat.' Especially since chit chat is now a usergroup, and this is clearly relevant and insightful to social discrimination.

[black magick hustla]

It remnds me how some families that I know would protest their sons studying shitty degrees like psychology or philosophy while they wouldn't mind their daughters pursuing them because obviously they would get "married".

[TC]

I think the article is excellent, it highlights how gender inequality isn't the result of some abstract 'sexism' or 'old boys network' but unequal relations in the family which are cyclically mutually reinforced by uneven socially productive work (the inequality in public role creates an inequality in private role which in turn creates a greater inequality in public role which creates a greater dependence and inequality in private role; thus there is a dialectical relationship between gender division of labour and resulting power dynamics and social expectation in the workplace and home).

[Dystisis]

I agree, I think this relates to the concept of social capital and labour. I don't know too much about this, so I'll just say I think it exists and has quite a fundamental role in society.

Anyways, I think the situation has changed a little bit -- in some countries -- and the living conditions between men and women, and the social expectations, are more equal. One of my reasonings for saying it is like this, in some countries, is that I personally would like a wife who did all those things but it is obvious I wouldn't find one... From a mans perspective it's not too bad in my opinion, in some degree we are becoming better at taking care of ourselves. On the other hand, many men are having problems with this, as I think is indicated in school grades.

With that being said, I am obviously for equal opportunity and equal conditions between sexes to the extent it is possible (which is more than today). Just trying to look at the whole picture.

[midnight marauder]

Excuse me?

This is a satirical article attacking the patriarchal double standards of society, and the role of women as house-keepers and domestic servants for husbands.

Then I asked the serious question regarding how much had changed in 37 years.

You think that anti-patriarchal articles are chit-chat quality? :glare:

Despite the form of the article, I want serious responses.

Or I would have posted it in chit-chat.

Ah, I see. I only briefly glanced at it while operating on very little sleep, and did not catch the undertones. I apologize.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I'm moving this back to discrimination because this is a serious topic presented in whats quiet obviously meant to be social commentary not 'chit chat.' Especially since chit chat is now a usergroup, and this is clearly relevant and insightful to social discrimination.

Thank you for that. :)


Ah, I see. I only briefly glanced at it while operating on very little sleep, and did not catch the undertones. I apologize.

That's okay, I apologise for biting. :)


I think the article is excellent, it highlights how gender inequality isn't the result of some abstract 'sexism' or 'old boys network' but unequal relations in the family which are cyclically mutually reinforced by uneven socially productive work (the inequality in public role creates an inequality in private role which in turn creates a greater inequality in public role which creates a greater dependence and inequality in private role; thus there is a dialectical relationship between gender division of labour and resulting power dynamics and social expectation in the workplace and home).

Yes, I think you summarised it perfectly.


It remnds me how some families that I know would protest their sons studying shitty degrees like psychology or philosophy while they wouldn't mind their daughters pursuing them because obviously they would get "married".

Indeed (not that psychology or philosophy are shitty degrees). :ohmy:


Anyways, I think the situation has changed a little bit -- in some countries -- and the living conditions between men and women, and the social expectations, are more equal.

I agree.


One of my reasonings for saying it is like this, in some countries, is that I personally would like a wife who did all those things but it is obvious I wouldn't find one... What countries, out of interest?

I will assume that you're American, and whilst its true that, generally, women have a more 'equal role' in America than in say, India, I think it would be safe to say that this sort of social role of a wife is not uncommon in America. Of course, it will be dressed up in 'nicer' terms of 'doing a mother's duties' etc.

If you are looking, I am sure you will find one, or indeed, follow the economic situation which creates one for you.;)


From a mans perspective it's not too bad in my opinion, in some degree we are becoming better at taking care of ourselves.Or having someone take care of you? :/

And yeah, whilst having, what is really a domestic 'slave', is beneficial to a man, why would you personally support this? (Or have I misunderstood?)


On the other hand, many men are having problems with this, as I think is indicated in school grades.I'm a bit suspect about this...

Could you give me a link or something? :)


With that being said, I am obviously for equal opportunity and equal conditions between sexes to the extent it is possible (which is more than today). Just trying to look at the whole picture.What 'extents' are there?

Is 'true' equality possible?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

By the way, there is also a man's response to this. I'll post it later.

[Awful Reality]

Whoop-Dee-Doo.

Yes, we get it. What are you trying to prove, everyone agrees with you.
You're mostly right, but it's really a trite argument.

It's in Chit-Chat because it's not serious, and is loaded with jokes and sarcastic bullshit.


...At least the modification to the boards allows me to go back to my old post, but it's on hold for now.I don't want to get kicked out of the CC, or worse, RevLeft.

[Mujer Libre]

AR, men are NOT systemically repressed by capitalist-patriarchal-familial institutions for being men. That is the key difference, and why what the OP posted is a pertinent source for reflection, and what you just posted is a knee-jerk reaction and is actually offensive.

Personally I don't think shit like that should be acceptable here, particularly considering that you used your post as an opportunity to bash feminists, but I'll leave it up to Midnight.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think a "Battle of the Sexes" is pretty fucking counterproductive.

[Mujer Libre]

But don't you think recognising male privilege is essential to women's liberation?

Also, the article's tone is hardly overly combative, more reflective, thought-provoking and (Jebus forbid) darkly humorous.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Whoop-Dee-Doo.

Yes, we get it. What are you trying to prove, everyone agrees with you.

Evidently not.


It's in Chit-Chat because it's not serious, and is loaded with jokes and sarcastic bullshit.

Its not in chit-chat. Re-read the thread.


I'm going to be frank with you guys, okay? I'm a man. I've been male for as long as I remember. But I want a husband.

I want a husband who works his ass off all day at a factory, and comes home to see me breastfeeding two kids and shoving Microwavable meals in the oven. I want a husband who doesn't care that those two kids aren't his. I don't want him to care if the microwavable meal is the family cat. What, I've been going through a very emotional time, okay?

I want a husband who's okay if I constantly ***** and go through PMS what seems like 5 times a month. I want him to be cool with the fact that I threw away his football jersey because it was clutter and I didn't know what it was. I want a husband who's okay with fixing the car without any help whatsoever, because I'm too busy pretending I'm undervalued by patriarchal society.

I want my husband to deal with the fact that I cheat on him and then lie about it. I want him to know that I can slap him for confronting me about my infidelity, but if he even touches me it's domestic abuse. I want to constantly gripe about his sexual impotency, and ignore the fact that he can't get hard because I'm a fucking repulsive 30 year-old washed up feminist.

Could a moderator please trash this (and perhaps consider the members you let into the CC next time?)

'Too bust pretending I'm undervalued by patriarchal society' 'washed up feminist'...:glare: that's pretty disgusting coming from a so-called leftist.


Note: This was a joke, and is probably as offensive as her bullshit above. Please. It's a joke. Don't delete it. I agree with almost none of these sentiments above.How was my post offensive?

It was an attack on patriarchal relations.

Yours was just an chauvinistic rant. Racist 'jokes' aren't funny if non-racists tell them. Nor are sexist rants funny because non-sexists tell them.


I think a "Battle of the Sexes" is pretty fucking counterproductive.

This article didn't argue that. Nor do I. :confused:

[Os Cangaceiros]

But don't you think recognising male privilege is essential to women's liberation?

Also, the article's tone is hardly overly combative, more reflective, thought-provoking and (Jebus forbid) darkly humorous.

Yes, I do.

However, I thought that this piece was snarky and annoying. Maybe it really was that awful in the 70s. I wouldn't know; I wasn't even alive in the 70s. I do know that great strides have been made in the area of gender equality, though. Much still remains to be done, of course, but progress has been made, none the less. And I do know that to apply the criticisms in that essay to today's society across the board would be to play fast and loose with obnoxious gender stereotypes: the men as cheating dogs who demand their wive's understanding, while the women slave away and put their husbands before themselves in every way, and act as the dutiful Goodie Homemaker.

And by the way, ants, I wasn't referring to you when I wrote "Battle of the Sexes". I was thinking of AR's rebuttal to your article.

[Herman]

I personally liked the "article". Quite witty, and the saddest thing is that it's still relevant today.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I found an interview with Judy Brady here. (http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_334_Why_I_Want_A_Wife.mp3/view)

She talks about her time in Cuba and later on says at one stage (regarding what has changed in USA) 'You can certainly show that privileged women have more privileges, but you cannot show me that there has been a positive change in this country for most of the people.'

Judy maintains that the radical feminist movement and the position of women in general has gained little since the 60s.

[Awful Reality]

Christ, calm down, it was an innocent joke. If you care that much, I'll take down the post.

[Awful Reality]

AR, men are NOT systemically repressed by capitalist-patriarchal-familial institutions for being men. That is the key difference, and why what the OP posted is a pertinent source for reflection, and what you just posted is a knee-jerk reaction and is actually offensive.

Personally I don't think shit like that should be acceptable here, particularly considering that you used your post as an opportunity to bash feminists, but I'll leave it up to Midnight.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN WHAT I WROTE. IT WAS A JOKE.

[Herman]

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN WHAT I WROTE. IT WAS A JOKE.

Poor excuse sir. You should have taken down the post while you had time. My advice? Say sorry before it's too late.

[farleft]

37 years later, yes I do want a wife (commited partner & possible mother of future children) but not for those out-dated reasons.

[Awful Reality]

Okay, okay.

I'm sorry for my post, and I apologize to whoever was offended with it. I was simply being sarcastic, and did not believe anything I wrote. I wrote it as a joke, as a response to the above "Why I Want a Wife" post. It has been deleted. I am hereby rescinding all that I wrote therein. However, don't dish it if you guys can't take it. A little humor is healthy, no matter how incorrect or offensive, as long as it's rare and at most sporadic. I can't reiterate enough that I don't find any of my earlier post to be true.

But still, the point remains that the above sentiment ("Why I Want a Wife") is trite. It really is. As leftists we really all agree, and I've heard seemingly the same message, even the same statement, over and over again.

PS: When I posted, I believe it was in Chit-Chat.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

But still, the point remains that the above sentiment is trite. It really is.

Offer an argument.

Trotskyists are really useless. Really.

Is that an argument? :rolleyes:

[Awful Reality]

Offer an argument.

Trotskyists are really useless. Really.

Is that an argument? :rolleyes:

You're ignorant in so many ways. An argument is not used when one says that something is trite. You need an argument to say "being trite is bad." When one says something is trite, they are expressing a fact not an opinion. What you're asking me for is justifaction. Here it is.

I come from a rather liberal family (not leftist, unfortunately), and I'm always around feminists. Most feminists I know are perfectly rational people, unwilling to jump to conlusions and be impulsive. However, I often, quite often, see sarcastic, impulsive statements like that you posted, and it annoys me, because it gets in the way of the actual point of feminism, furthers sexism, and is downright annoying.

Feminists are useful. You really are useless. Really.

[RNK]

Are you kidding me? Males are some of the most oppressed people on this planet.

Sexually oppressed. I haven't been able to get my girlfriend to fuck me in MONTHS. This is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS and I will no longer stand for this oppression! How dare women take advantage of our insatiable appetite for sex!

[Awful Reality]

Are you kidding me? Males are some of the most oppressed people on this planet.

Sexually oppressed. I haven't been able to get my girlfriend to fuck me in MONTHS. This is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS and I will no longer stand for this oppression! How dare women take advantage of our insatiable appetite for sex!

LOL. :cursing::cursing::cursing:

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

You're ignorant in so many ways. An argument is not used when one says that something is trite. You need an argument to say "being trite is bad." When one says something is trite, they are expressing a fact not an opinion.

The sun is purple.

Is that a fact?

No - it is an assertion. An argument needs justification.


I come from a rather liberal family (not leftist, unfortunately), and I'm always around feminists.

I don't care about you or your family.


Most feminists I know are perfectly rational people, unwilling to jump to conlusions and be impulsive.

I don't care about feminists you know.


However, I often, quite often, see sarcastic, impulsive statements like that you posted, and it annoys me, because it gets in the way of the actual point of feminism, furthers sexism, and is downright annoying.

Yes arguing against the role of a wife as a domestic servant is sooo detrimental to feminism. :rolleyes:

I am a critic of bourgeoisie feminism, but as for the above article, radical feminism, it gets my support.

And you might note from the above article, that there was nothing that said 'men are inherently evil.'

It simply argued against the social role which women have.

Again, you need to re-read it.


Feminists are useful. You really are useless. Really.

How am I useless?

Have you met me? Do you know me?

You seem very hostile.

[Awful Reality]

I've been hostile. So have you. I apologize. Will you?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

No - I have nothing to apologise for. When Dystisis offered some criticism I politely commented on them. I don't really care if you disagree with the article, as long as you are couth and offer some arguments.

You did neither.

Anyway, the point of this thread, really, was to question how much the role of women has changed in 37 years.

I didn't say that the article applied equally today because I don't know, and was interested in reading a materialistic analysis of the subject.

[Herman]

Sexually oppressed. I haven't been able to get my girlfriend to fuck me in MONTHS. This is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS and I will no longer stand for this oppression! How dare women take advantage of our insatiable appetite for sex!

Well... women also want sex. A lot of it. Just like you... or me.

[Luís Henrique]

Well... women also want sex. A lot of it.

But not necessarily with RNK...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I didn't say that the article applied equally today because I don't know,

Well, it seems that this thread in itself proves that it is still valid, even if perhaps some details have changed.

Luís Henrique

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

If women are treated as sex objects, they can hardly be blamed for 'commodifying' sex.

As unfortunate as that is for RNK's penis...


Well, it seems that this thread in itself proves that it is still valid, even if perhaps some details have changed.

Luís Henrique

Indeed. But I doubt my teachers would accept my experiences on a leftist messageboard as a valid source of evidence. :\

[Herman]

But not necessarily with RNK...

:(

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

At least people are able to divorce their husband/wife when they make a mistake and marry a person who expects too much from them.

I think marriage should be way more of a casual thing and less legalities involved, meaning that divorces are easier, streamlined and frequent.

Then those people who are expecting their partner to do way too much are quickly ditched for a better person and maybe they will learn or give up on it.

[RNK]

Well... women also want sex. A lot of it. Just like you... or me.

That is fucking bullshit, sir. You are spreading devious lies in order to disarm the men's movement by manipulating fact to make everything seem as though it's "all right", when it is infact not all right.

Women have held us down too long. Some of us have emancipated ourselves through discarding the need for sex with women and embracing their fellow men. For the rest of us, we must fight the long, hard fight until we are given what we both want and need.

[Invader Zim]

I want a wife who is sensitive to my sexual needs, a wife who makes love passionately and eagerly when I feel like it, a wife who makes sure that I am satisfied. And, of course, I want a wife who will not demand sexual attention when I am not in the mood for it. I want a wife who assumes the complete responsibility for birth control, because I do not want more children. I want a wife who will remain sexually faithful to me so that I do not have to clutter up my intellectual life with jealousies. And I want a wife who understands that my sexual needs may entail more than strict adherence to monogamy.

I am not sure I like the implication that this kind of behaviour is at all typical of men.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I want to hear people complain about their relationship problems, and not do a thing about it-- like leaving the bastard.
I want to read an article of complaints that are more than 3 decades old!
I want to hear complaints and moaning about anything that I can't do something about.
I just want to hear complaints about anything, because they make my life so fascinating.
I want to hear compaints about how peoples lives aren't fascinating.
I want to hear people complain that I should complain in order to make their lives more fascinating.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I hate my life!

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I want to hear people complain about their relationship problems, and not do a thing about it-- like leaving the bastard.

Judy was involved in the University of Chicago's strike (I think it was the University of Chicago) which demanded an African studies department.

She dedicated herself and her house to the strike.

Yet when it came time to acknowledge whom had supported the strike, she received no recognition. Her husband did.

That led her to 'found' the women's movement in Chicago.

Her husband subsequently left her.


I want to hear complaints and moaning about anything that I can't do something about.If you are involved in the anti-capitalist struggle then women's rights is something which you are inherently caught up in.

So...you can do plenty about it.

(Unless you think that there is nothing we can do about capitalism?)


I want to read an article of complaints that are more than 3 decades old!

How old is Das Kapital last time you checked? :/


I just want to hear complaints about anything, because they make my life so fascinating.
I want to hear compaints about how peoples lives aren't fascinating.
I want to hear people complain that I should complain in order to make their lives more fascinating.?


I hate my life!Spam somewhere else.

[Module]

I am not sure I like the implication that this kind of behaviour is at all typical of men.
It is not an implication that it is typical for men as people, it is a implication of gender roles, and the social role of a wife.
I think that it is quite clear that this social attitude towards women exists, although not explicitly expressed by individuals, social attitudes like this rarely are, at least nowadays.
The demonisation of the cheating wife and the 'other woman', the humorous victimisation of the man bound to monogamy by marriage, in the face of sexually attractive and interested women ...
These are very 'typical' attitudes indeed.

[Module]

Entrails Konfetti is the example on this thread.
It is absolutely bloody ridiculous how many people on this board disrespectfully write off feminist issues as unimportant "complaining".
It is also a very good indication of how very important feminist issues still are.

[Lector Malibu]

Entrails Konfetti is the example on this thread.
It is absolutely bloody ridiculous how many people on this board disrespectfully write off feminist issues as unimportant "complaining".
It is also a very good indication of how very important feminist issues still are.


I agree that feminist issues are very important. The problem is that alot of feminist exibit gender bias as a result of being confused as what feminism actually is.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I agree that feminist issues are very important. The problem is that alot of feminist exibit gender bias as a result of being confused as what feminism actually is.

That's why Desrumeaux set up a group for it. :)

We are discussing that topic here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminism-not-t77900/index.html?t=77900).

I'm not sure if non-members can see our posts...I think so. If not, join. :D

[Entrails Konfetti]

Entrails Konfetti is the example on this thread.
It is absolutely bloody ridiculous how many people on this board disrespectfully write off feminist issues as unimportant "complaining".
It is also a very good indication of how very important feminist issues still are.

Well, that poster didn't say how this was relevant to womens struggles, and who this woman was.

And this totally generalizes all men.

But, go ahead label me.

You have no idea.

[Entrails Konfetti]

It is not an implication that it is typical for men as people, it is a implication of gender roles, and the social role of a wife.
I think that it is quite clear that this social attitude towards women exists, although not explicitly expressed by individuals, social attitudes like this rarely are, at least nowadays.
The demonisation of the cheating wife and the 'other woman', the humorous victimisation of the man bound to monogamy by marriage, in the face of sexually attractive and interested women ...
These are very 'typical' attitudes indeed.

If thats how you interpret it, "implications".

She didn't say they were "implications".

So, with this in mind, shes just as discriminatory in attitude.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Well, that poster didn't say how this was relevant to womens struggles,

What?!

Did you read the article?!

Its critical of the role of women as domestic servants.

How is that not relevant to woman's struggle?


and who this woman was.

Err...why exactly does it matter whom Judy Brady is?

Regardless, I did provide an a link to an interview where she discusses her whole life. See post 18.


And this totally generalizes all men.

Yes, when someone analyses class society they do make generalisations.

Are there exceptions? Of course.

Generalisations, obviously, ignore them. Surprise.


But, go ahead label me.

You have no idea.

Going off your comments of 'I hate my life' and 'I want to hear complaints and moaning about anything that I can't do something about' and 'I want to hear people complain that I should complain in order to make their lives more fascinating' and the fact that you're acting in a very defensive manner, I think it would be reasonable to label you, at the very least, an asshole.


So, with this in mind, shes just as discriminatory in attitude.

The hell...?

Discrimination is based on irrational prejudices and a lack of empirical data.

Being critical of the role of women in society is hardly being discriminatory. It can be backed up by data and does not blame or 'discriminate' against men - rather economic conditions - like Judy did.

Frankly arguing that she is being discriminatory is insulting to real discrimination as well as the essence of what we are arguing for.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Judy was involved in the University of Chicago's strike (I think it was the University of Chicago) which demanded an African studies department.

She dedicated herself and her house to the strike.

Yet when it came time to acknowledge whom had supported the strike, she received no recognition. Her husband did.

That led her to 'found' the women's movement in Chicago.

Her husband subsequently left her.

Should have been told who the person was who wrote it, and how this connects. Otherwise it just looks like someone who just doesn't want to get a divorce.



If you are involved in the anti-capitalist struggle then women's rights is something which you are inherently caught up in.


I don't think it's a special case, within the struggle to overthrow capital.
It's part of the struggle.



So...you can do plenty about it.
(Unless you think that there is nothing we can do about capitalism?)


Capitalism is based on inequallities.
It will always be, you cannot reform capitalism to not have inequallities, even with maximum demands. You have to abolish capital.



How old is Das Kapital last time you checked? :/


Nowdays in the west, in most cases a wife can choose who to marry or not marry at all. Nowdays most women work.

[Entrails Konfetti]

What?!

Did you read the article?!

Its critical of the role of women as domestic servants.

How is that not relevant to woman's struggle?

Like nothings changed from the 70's in the west.




Err...why exactly does it matter whom Judy Brady is?

Regardless, I did provide an a link to an interview where she discusses her whole life. See post 18.



I didn't really read through this whole thing, cos it looked like everyone was fighting with whats his face over his generalisations.



Yes, when someone analyses class society they do make generalisations.

Are there exceptions? Of course.

Generalisations, obviously, ignore them. Surprise.


Generalisations that all men are pigs, not class attitudes. You get quite sick of these generalisations when your in a single mothered family, and you happen to be male.


Going off your comments of 'I hate my life' and 'I want to hear complaints and moaning about anything that I can't do something about' and 'I want to hear people complain that I should complain in order to make their lives more fascinating' and the fact that you're acting in a very defensive manner, I think it would be reasonable to label you, at the very least, an asshole.

God, why am I still on this thread.

Can I go, will you stop quoting me.


Discrimination is based on irrational prejudices and a lack of empirical data.

Discrimination is the actions of prejudice.
Doesn't change the fact that this women has a prejudiced attitude that all men treat wifes like servants.


Being critical of the role of women in society is hardly being discriminatory. It can be backed up by data and does not blame or 'discriminate' against men - rather economic conditions - like Judy did.

No she made generalisations about how men think and act.


Frankly arguing that she is being discriminatory is insulting to real discrimination as well as the essence of what we are arguing for.

Shes being prejudiced.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Should have been told who the person was who wrote it, and how this connects. Otherwise it just looks like someone who just doesn't want to get a divorce.

I didn't think I had to post the background of someone for you to understand what they are saying.

I wonder if you would request the background of someone who writes an article against capitalism, or against unions...

And really, you can't have honestly thought that this person was writing an article demanding a divorce? On a radical leftist forum?


I don't think it's a special case, within the struggle to overthrow capital. It's part of the struggle.

I haven't argued otherwise.


Capitalism is based on inequallities. It will always be, you cannot reform capitalism to not have inequallities, even with maximum demands. You have to abolish capital.

No you cannot reform capitalism to treat all equal.

But is it possible that male and female workers be treated equally?

I think it is materially possible, and most data (wages etc) point to a general narrowing of the gap. Of course that is only one, limited means of measuring the emancipation of women in society generally.

That said, I agree more with the left-communist idea that the struggle should not be divided up if you understand what I mean.


Nowdays in the west, in most cases a wife can choose who to marry or not marry at all.

They largely could in 1970 too.


Nowdays most women work.

Most women worked in 1970 too.

They were just not paid for it.

And I would be interested in data which showed what kind of employment they were engaged in. Typically I would think it would be office work, secretarial work, waiters, domestic cleaning jobs...scarcely a cry for the equal role of women.

And just because they work does not point to a more equal role in society - indeed they may still be expected to do their domestic chores in addition to their paid work. Then you add on the repercussions of being pregnant, and a decent chance of divorce...along with all of societies ideas about what it means to be a woman, or a mother, or a 'moral' female...

And the surface has not even been scratched.

[Awful Reality]

Christ ManyAnts, stop being so hostile.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Like nothings changed from the 70's in the west.

What has changed?

Regarding the social image of women, I think it is worse than it was in the 70s.

At least in the 70s and earlier their was a paternalistic attitude that 'our women' should be protected.

All that remains today is the depiction of females as mere sex objects to fulfil the desires of men.

And if women enjoy being sexual they are labelled sluts! So its even more of a hypocritical double standard.


I didn't really read through this whole thing, cos it looked like everyone was fighting with whats his face over his generalisations.

:rolleyes:


Generalisations that all men are pigs, not class attitudes. You clearly need to re-read (or simply read) the article. To quote Tragic Clown:


...it highlights how gender inequality isn't the result of some abstract 'sexism' or 'old boys network' but unequal relations in the family which are cyclically mutually reinforced by uneven socially productive work (the inequality in public role creates an inequality in private role which in turn creates a greater inequality in public role which creates a greater dependence and inequality in private role; thus there is a dialectical relationship between gender division of labour and resulting power dynamics and social expectation in the workplace and home).
You get quite sick of these generalisations when your in a single mothered family, and you happen to be male.Huh? I come from a 'single mother' family and could readily identify with this. In fact I think it would be even more pertinent to a single mothered family than a husband and wife family.


God, why am I still on this thread.

Can I go, will you stop quoting me.If you write bullshit expect me to call you on it.


Discrimination is the actions of prejudice.
Doesn't change the fact that this women has a prejudiced attitude that all men treat wifes like servants.Yes, in that time that was the role of women.

Females still have that role. Even in the West. Even more so in the less 'developing world.'

Hardly prejudiced.


No she made generalisations about how men think and act.Yes, because, I hate to break it to you, but that generally is how men think and act!

Obviously on a leftist message board, where males have a greater understanding of gender equality they will not act or think in such a manner. At least I hope.

But its wrong for you to think that just because you do not act in such a way that the rest of society does not.


Shes being prejudiced.Squawk says the parrot.

[Entrails Konfetti]

But is it possible that male and female workers be treated equally?

I think it is materially possible, and most data (wages etc) point to a general narrowing of the gap. Of course that is only one, limited means of measuring the emancipation of women in society generally.

That said, I agree more with the left-communist idea that the struggle should not be divided up if you understand what I mean.

But, you know how it goes when they say "the company is experiancing difficulties, and we must all make sacrifices". Then you're gains are being taken back. The rate of profit has been falling, markets are saturated, and there are times when after booms workers are told to make sacrifices. Different sacrifices for different workers.





And I would be interested in data which showed what kind of employment they were engaged in. Typically I would think it would be office work, secretarial work, waiters, domestic cleaning jobs...scarcely a cry for the equal role of women.

And just because they work does not point to a more equal role in society - indeed they may still be expected to do their domestic chores in addition to their paid work. Then you add on the repercussions of being pregnant, and a decent chance of divorce...along with all of societies ideas about what it means to be a woman, or a mother, or a 'moral' female...

And the surface has not even been scratched.

Judy may have good litterature, but this piece just isn't the case. It could have been good if she didn't go off and make generalisations based on her husband about all men (which I get from my mom all the time about her ex-husband, and it's really frickin irritating). Judy didn't go annalyse the problem in this article,she went and complained that there is a problem-- she didn't say anything about what should be done, nothing!

Furthermore, nowadays its easier to get divorces, and theres alimony
(Unless your ex-husbands broke, and you're stuck with the kids)

[Entrails Konfetti]

Yes, because, I hate to break it to you, but that generally is how men think and act!

So all men be damned upon entering the door of your life?


Squawk says the parrot.


Well, you didn't say how she wasn't being prejudiced with her thinking, you just agreed with her.

You're just in favour of a different form of prejudice, you don't see the harm in it.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Christ ManyAnts, stop being so hostile.

I have done nothing but argued politely in this debate until I had to read the offensive and snide comments which yourself and Entrails Konfetti have posted.

That sort of crap would put anyone off posting on this forum for good.

Certainly to someone who doesn't take the flippant approach that you follow.

I especially didn't expect this of a revolutionary leftist board - one which actively argues against such rubbish.

I would certainly hope that the members on this board take a hostile approach to such.

[Entrails Konfetti]

You're just as generalising as AW.
Only difference is, he claims sarcasm, you don't.

I don't care if someones a female or not, if they are going to generalise, and not examine anything-- they are prejudiced. But, I'm labeled a sexist cos the author happened to be female. How dare I critise the author, I can't do that no! They're a feminist!

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Judy may have good litterature, but this piece just isn't the case. It could have been good if she didn't go off and make generalisations based on her husband about all men

You are wrong.

Her husband was quite progressive for the time and supportive of her role.

Not a case of extrapolating her personal experiences onto the whole of society.


Furthermore, nowadays its easier to get divorces, and theres alimony (Unless your ex-husbands broke, and you're stuck with the kids)

Sure, more privileges for already privileged women.

You could divorce in 1970 and there was maintenance even back then, and even further back.

I don't really care if such and such a celebrity gets $140 million on divorce settlement. It is hardly indicative of working women.


So all men be damned upon entering the door of your life?

I judge people according to what they say and do. But no one escapes the society in which they are brought up in. Not you. Not Lenin. Not anyone.


Well, you didn't say how she wasn't being prejudiced with her thinking, you just agreed with her.

Yeah - because generally amongst leftist circles its accepted that women are prejudiced against.

Its, you know, why we have women's rights movements.


You're just in favour of a different form of prejudice, you don't see the harm in it.

No. I do see the harm in anti-male feminism and argue against it.

This is not a case of it.

And honestly, please. The poor white middle class man being discriminated against? Riiiiight...:rolleyes:

[Entrails Konfetti]

Um I'm not middle-class. You've already made generalisations on me.
I can't take you seriously, you have a prejudiced attitude.

You need to learn to examine your own thoughts, and not shit where you eat.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

You're just as generalising as AW.
Only difference is, he claims sarcasm, you don't.

No the difference as Mujer Libre stated is that women are actually discriminated against in all sorts of manners.


I don't care if someones a female or not, if they are going to generalise, and not examine anything-- they are prejudiced. No one expects this article to carefully examine the minute details of society and add a 'but there are exceptions' clause.

Marxists argue the concept of the worker trying to enter the bourgeoisie class is false.

However, people have done it. It has happened and is possible.

But for the most part, it is an accepted generalisation that trying to climb the class ladder is a deception.

Obviously we don't enter a 'but' clause.

But trying to argue that just because it lacks a 'but' clause that it therefore is prejudiced is a logical fallacy.


But, I'm labeled a sexist cos the author happened to be female. How dare I critise the author, I can't do that no! They're a feminist!No one labelled you sexist.

I labelled you an asshole.

Notice, no one labelled Agora or Dystisis sexist, even though they disagreed with the article.

Mainly because they didn't have the urge to say things like this:


I want to hear people complain about their relationship problems, and not do a thing about it-- like leaving the bastard.
I want to read an article of complaints that are more than 3 decades old!
I want to hear complaints and moaning about anything that I can't do something about.
I just want to hear complaints about anything, because they make my life so fascinating.
I want to hear compaints about how peoples lives aren't fascinating.
I want to hear people complain that I should complain in order to make their lives more fascinating.


I hate my life!

What a condescending and belittling attitude to have to oppressed women!

Would you honestly say that in real life? Or do you think that crap like that should be accepted because its on the internet?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Um I'm not middle-class. You've already made generalisations on me.

I didn't say you were middle class.


I can't take you seriously, you have a prejudiced attitude.

'I cannot counter what you have posted, hence I will repeat my silly arguments that you are prejudiced.'


You need to learn to examine your own thoughts, and not shit where you eat.Forget who said this:


I hate my life!


I want to hear people complain about their relationship problems, and not do a thing about it-- like leaving the bastard.
I want to read an article of complaints that are more than 3 decades old!
I want to hear complaints and moaning about anything that I can't do something about.
I just want to hear complaints about anything, because they make my life so fascinating.
I want to hear compaints about how peoples lives aren't fascinating.
I want to hear people complain that I should complain in order to make their lives more fascinating.

[Entrails Konfetti]

You are wrong.

Her husband was quite progressive for the time and supportive of her role.

Not a case of extrapolating her personal experiences onto the whole of society.

But you said he turned out to be a jerk and she wasn't recognized for her role in the struggle.



I don't really care if such and such a celebrity gets $140 million on divorce settlement. It is hardly indicative of working women.

I didn't know I was indicating rich women somehow in divorce cases... what?



I judge people according to what they say and do. But no one escapes the society in which they are brought up in. Not you. Not Lenin. Not anyone.

But you said all men think the same, all men are prejudiced, therefore all discriminate.



Yeah - because generally amongst leftist circles its accepted that women are prejudiced against.


Yeah, and the good ones know that capitalism is based on inequallity.



Its, you know, why we have women's rights movements.


God given moralitistic rights! Because god exists and all morals are universal!

I hate the concept of rights. Just make it known that people don't want to be exploited and treated inhumanely.


No. I do see the harm in anti-male feminism and argue against it.

This is not a case of it.
So you say.

You want to end discrimnation, yet you have a prejudiced attitude. The only difference with you're prejudice and that of Upper-class mysogynist is that you can't act on it. Whats the root of discrimnation; prejudice.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I didn't say you were middle class.
You were fishing, hoping that I would say
"How did you know that!".



I cannot counter what you have posted, hence I will repeat my silly arguments that you are prejudiced.'


I'm one of the few ppl on here that admits to being wrong when I'm wrong. I'm not afriad of being wrong.


Forget who said this:

And I said it was complaining because she didn't offer any solutions or examine anything in that article. Maybe you should post better stuff next time.

[Luís Henrique]

Christ ManyAnts, stop being so hostile.

Erm? She is being hostile?

She posted an article in the intention of having a discussion. It has been moved to chit-chat, derided, mocked, and dismissed as irrelevant... why do I have the impression that hostility began by other people, not by her?

Luís Henrique

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

But you said he turned out to be a jerk and she wasn't recognized for her role in the struggle.

No I didn't.

I said he was supportive of her role, but he divorced her.

For reasons I don't know.

And no, she wasn't recognised in the struggle. Her personal experiences do not invalidate her argument nor are they the sole pinning behind them.


I didn't know I was indicating rich women somehow in divorce cases... what?

The point was that you were trying to argue that 'look we have divorce laws' which is about as useful as pointing out to sweat shop workers 'look we have laws against sweat shops!'

Irrelevant to the majority of the working class.


But you said all men think the same, all men are prejudiced, therefore all discriminate.

What a disgusting lie.

I said generally that is how men think and act. Here:


Yes, because, I hate to break it to you, but that generally is how men think and act!

You are a liar and a poor one at that.


God given moralitistic rights! Because god exists and all morals are universal!

I know!

How dare we argue for equal voting rights!

How dare we argue for union rights!

How dare we argue for argue for equal employment rights!

We should just get back in the kitchen, shouldn't we?!


I hate the concept of rights. Just make it known that people don't want to be exploited and treated inhumanely.

Whether you like the concept of rights or not, they do exist and do have a role in society regardless of the lack of logic behind them.


You want to end discrimnation, yet you have a prejudiced attitude. The only difference with you're prejudice and that of Upper-class mysogynist is that you can't act on it. Whats the root of discrimnation; prejudice.

Absolutely no idea what crap you are vomiting here.

Discrimination and prejudice are parcel and parcel.

Go argue word definitions elsewhere.

I will repeat again:

I don't hate men.

I don't see men or a 'boy's club' as responsible for gender inequality.

I blame class society.

Is that clear enough for you?

Trying to paint me as an anti-male feminist is often a tactic of conservatives, not leftists.

[Luís Henrique]

But you said he turned out to be a jerk and she wasn't recognized for her role in the struggle.

No, that's not the point. He did what was socially acceptable at that time. It is a fact that it is, slowly, becoming less acceptable (and this is probably the reason that you call him a jerk); but that change has only come by people fighting against such attitudes - and, unhappily, as demonstrated by the ill-disguised angst this discussion has been provoking, it has yet not changed enough.

Luís Henrique

[Entrails Konfetti]

No the difference as Mujer Libre stated is that women are actually discriminated against in all sorts of manners.

And so they are.
But if you don't want to be treated as domestic servant, don't get married or marry a nice guy (if thats what you're into).


No one expects this article to carefully examine the minute details of society and add a 'but there are exceptions' clause.

Wheres the solution in the article?



Obviously we don't enter a 'but' clause.
But trying to argue that just because it lacks a 'but' clause that it therefore is prejudiced is a logical fallacy.

We know that at times of crisis class society polarises.

You're point isn't relevant to the issue at hand, this article can have a but clause. It didn't find the root of sexual discrimination, or say what to do about it-- therefore its complaining. I'm not saying complaints aren't invalid, this one isn't-- but it totally generalises. What makes you think I want to get married? Hell sometimes I'd like to be a hermit.



I labelled you an asshole.


Because I object?

Actually, I'm more like a large intestine, or a colon. A spastic colon at that, all shreaded up and thrown everywhere.


What a condescending and belittling attitude to have to oppressed women!

Thats my attitude towards the article. I'm going to write a bad response to a bad "article" (more like a poem really).

I'm sure Judy could kick my ass a thousand times, and you could too.

[Entrails Konfetti]

.
The point was that you were trying to argue that 'look we have divorce laws' which is about as useful as pointing out to sweat shop workers 'look we have laws against sweat shops!'

Irrelevant to the majority of the working class.

Okay, but social attitudes have changed a bit.

But yeah, you have a point.





What a disgusting lie.

I said generally that is how men think and act.


Well now that you highlighted it (seriously, the highlighting helped me grasp your point :D).



You are a liar and a poor one at that.


No, I have bad reading comprehention-- this is why you don't huff aerosal cans when you're 13.



I know!

How dare we argue for equal voting rights!

How dare we argue for union rights!

How dare we argue for argue for equal employment rights!

We should just get back in the kitchen, shouldn't we?!


I'm not arguing to go back into the kitchen, I think we shouldn't argue for "rights" but equallity. You read The Jewish Question right? Where Marx tears at the rights of man. All in all, we should argue for equallity simply because those who are treated unequally desire it, and will fight against oppressors to get it, and will mean better living and existence for the world. At the root of it all is class society.



Whether you like the concept of rights or not, they do exist and do have a role in society regardless of the lack of logic behind them.


They are subjective. I'm sorry but they are. Its not that I believe you're inferior, cos I don't.



Absolutely no idea what crap you are vomiting here.

Discrimination and prejudice are parcel and parcel.

Go argue word definitions elsewhere.


No really, prejudice is an attitude towards someone or a group before meeting them or having any real interactions with that person or group.
Discrimination is acting upon that prejudice, they aren't synonoms.



I will repeat again:

I don't hate men.

I don't see men or a 'boy's club' as responsible for gender inequality.

I blame class society.

Is that clear enough for you?

Trying to paint me as an anti-male feminist is often a tactic of conservatives, not leftists.

Okay, I just don't like the article. The men in the article Judy describes have a general attitude thats different from todays.

I'm sorry if I came off as a turd with my response. I should have said I thought it was just a complaint, and packed my claim. I've already said how she doesn't get to the root of the problem and tries to formulate a solution.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

And so they are.
But if you don't want to be treated as domestic servant, don't get married or marry a nice guy (if thats what you're into).Unfortunately, life is not as simple as that, or discrimination would be a choice.

And what person would choose to be discriminated against?


Wheres the solution in the article?I would say it was more a description of society not a 'call to arms.'

Of course, there are numerous 'solutions' you could draw from it - one being that we must change the way life is structured rather than simply substitute one husband for another of which the article was pointing out the irony of...

I think, therefore, it has an inherently revolutionary outlook.


You're point isn't relevant to the issue at hand, this article can have a but clause. It didn't find the root of sexual discrimination, or say what to do about it-- therefore its complaining.No I disagree.

As stated above, it argues against the idea that gender equality can be changed by a simple substitution of words and a reversal of roles.

Also, your point on it complaining is very loaded when talking about feminist issues - the idea that we are making a mountain out of a molehill and being told to shut up and stop complaining. Not that I am saying you hold that view, but that is how it may well be perceived nonetheless.


Because I object?Because you acted in an assholish manner.

I didn't call the other 'objectors' assholes.


Thats my attitude towards the article.An article which argues for gender equality...

***

Thank you for your kind words Luis. :)

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I'm not arguing to go back into the kitchen, I think we shouldn't argue for "rights" but equallity. You read The Jewish Question right? Where Marx tears at the rights of man. All in all, we should argue for equallity simply because those who are treated unequally desire it, and will fight against oppressors to get it, and will mean better living and existence for the world. At the root of it all is class society.

Yes I agree with that.

But really, the concept of a 'right' is easily understood and hence serves a good short-hand method when trying to discuss social issues.

Will there be rights in a communist society?

I certainly hope so!


They are subjective. I'm sorry but they are. Its not that I believe you're inferior, cos I don't.Yes they are subjective.

But that doesn't mean they don't have real application nonetheless.


No really, prejudice is an attitude towards someone or a group before meeting them or having any real interactions with that person or group.Discrimination is acting upon that prejudice, they aren't synonoms.Perhaps this topic deserves its own thread.

I see the words as largely synonymous. Prejudice seems to be more aimed at, like you said, uninformed views based on lack of interaction, whilst discrimination is a more active form perhaps...English is not my first language, so apologies.

That said, neither applies to myself.


Okay, I just don't like the article. The men in the article Judy describes have a general attitude thats different from todays.Now we are getting somewhere.

In what ways does their general attitude differ?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Yes I agree with that.

But really, the concept of a 'right' is easily understood and hence serves a good short-hand method when trying to discuss social issues.

It's good to organize around I guess, but you'd have to go beyond it.



Will there be rights in a communist society?

I certainly hope so!


Thats a real theoretical question.
I don't know what the legislation will be like, or if we'll even have it.



But that doesn't mean they don't have real application nonetheless.


There are limits to them. For example people are allowed to have property, but they aren't liberated from it (also, keeping in mind some people are forced to use others property in the form of rent, and are subsiquently owned by landlords).



Perhaps this topic deserves its own thread.


Maybe. If you want to.


I see the words as largely synonymous. Prejudice seems to be more aimed at, like you said, uninformed views based on lack of interaction, whilst discrimination is a more active form perhaps...English is not my first language, so apologies.

My mistake was worse than yours, don't worry.


That said, neither applies to myself.

I see.


In what ways does their general attitude differ?
For whats its worth,
men have to be more careful at work about not sexually-harassing women.
For my generation there isn't so much telling women "to go into the kitchen" (then again we haven't seen ourselves create families so much)
The notion that women can initiate sex, and be picky about their partner-- yeah, I know it's not a totallity.
For my generation, women are more able to argue with men, on anything, instead of being told to shut up.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

When women break with gender roles, like taking full time jobs etc. Is the gender role changing, or is the male gender role becoming a gender neutral role? Do you understand me?

[Module]

When women break with gender roles, like taking full time jobs etc. Is the gender role changing, or is the male gender role becoming a gender neutral role? Do you understand me?
I understand you, and it's something that I have considered before hand, also.
Somebody on this board once suggested that for women to gain a sense of independence she should go hunting ...:lol: for example, but this is also reflective of an attitude towards women's struggle.

I think people know that women are not oppressed simply for being women, but also more specifically for abiding by the female gender role, which is seen as being of lesser quality than the male gender role.

Something I've noticed is an attitude that for women to liberate themselves, they simply have to start acting more like men.

[Module]

Although these posts have already been replied to, I'll reply myself all the same.


Well, that poster didn't say how this was relevant to womens struggles, and who this woman was. The very fact you need it spoon fed to you is absolutely ridiculous.
I think it's quite obvious what the role of a wife has to do with women's struggle, and if you can't figure that out on your own then I dare say there's no hope for you.

And this totally generalizes all men. No it doesn't. That's the thing. It doesn't actually even mention men, in fact, it is written by a woman, who says herself, "My God, who wouldn't want a wife?" (if you read it). She talks about how the role of the wife is that of a possession.
But a criticism of the female gender role is automatically taken by you as being critical of the male sex, which highlights your attitude towards feminism, and women who question their position in society. (Not that you haven't done a good enough job, now, of highlighting that attitude yourself.)
'A woman who fights against her gender role fights against me, as a man, and the privilege I have because of it.'

But, go ahead label me.

You have no idea.Actually you've given my an excellent idea.
You constantly bring it back to "How dare you generalise men!", in an attempt to trivialise articles like these which critique gender roles, because you see any attempt at criticism of these gender roles as a threat to your gender, which you, of course, find yourself completely comfortable with. Why don't you try looking at how traditional gender roles manifest themselves in today's society, and how they impact you, as a man? How do you benefit from them, how are you disadvantaged by them?
You are not passive. You are not unaffected by sexism.

Gender roles are general!
You cannot possibly understand the nature of society, and it's racism, sexism, homophobia, or any sort of discrimination until you examine people as part of this society, whose relationships with one another create a social environment for all people, whose values, opinions, attitudes and specific interactions form the patterns that create this social environment, as well as being derived from it!
Not simply as individuals, whose personal views and experiences make all generalisations simply meaningless.
To do otherwise is a complete misunderstanding of society, and human beings, and discrimination!

[Entrails Konfetti]

Thankyou for your response.
I don't know what the objective of it was, since I've already been replied to.
You've made assumptions upon me, and just tried to make me feel stupid.

Get a hobby.

[Module]

Thankyou for your response.
I don't know what the objective of it was, since I've already been replied to.
You've made assumptions upon me, and just tried to make me feel stupid.

Get a hobby.

The objective was to call out your criticisms as unreasonable, to begin with, not simply as untrue.
A perfectly reasonable article was posted, and you automatically attempt to turn it into some sexist attack against men.
It's absolute bullshit, and yes I've made an assumption about you. That doesn't mean that they're unfounded assumptions.
All comments on personal attitude will be assumptions, because there is no way to prove somebody thinks a certain way. That doesn't mean that the things they say won't demonstrate it!

[Dystisis]

What countries, out of interest?

I will assume that you're American, and whilst its true that, generally, women have a more 'equal role' in America than in say, India, I think it would be safe to say that this sort of social role of a wife is not uncommon in America. Of course, it will be dressed up in 'nicer' terms of 'doing a mother's duties' etc.

If you are looking, I am sure you will find one, or indeed, follow the economic situation which creates one for you.;)

Or having someone take care of you? :/

And yeah, whilst having, what is really a domestic 'slave', is beneficial to a man, why would you personally support this? (Or have I misunderstood?)

I'm a bit suspect about this...

Could you give me a link or something? :)

What 'extents' are there?

Is 'true' equality possible?
I am not an American, I am from Norway. The term "mothers duties" would be regarded as discriminatory here, at least (in most cases).

I am not sure what you mean by following an economic situation? If you mean that the economic system in place creates the role of women/men in our society then that is true, or they are connected at least (like everything else).

My claim about men having worse grades is something I've gathered from norwegian/scandinavian gender research, might be confined to this country.

Define equality. I believe equal economic and social opportunity is possible. However, physically there are differences between the genders. Men should certainly have the same opportunities as women, and vica versa. In a system without capitalist middle men we would not need worry about who are more fit to do what job.

[Entrails Konfetti]

The objective was to call out your criticisms as unreasonable, to begin with, not simply as untrue.
A perfectly reasonable article was posted, and you automatically attempt to turn it into some sexist attack against men.
It's absolute bullshit, and yes I've made an assumption about you. That doesn't mean that they're unfounded assumptions.
All comments on personal attitude will be assumptions, because there is no way to prove somebody thinks a certain way. That doesn't mean that the things they say won't demonstrate it!

You assumed that I think all womens issues are unimportant and trivial.
I've already stated that I was wrong in calling it a sexist attack on men.
Yes that was the general attitudes towards wives in the 1970s.
Nowadays, in the west, if a husband acts like the wifes his servant that's grounds for divorce. It just might happen that some men will think that women are servants even when the institutions change-- the germ is still living in individuals after the source has died. Discrimination at this point would be inneffective, but there might still be prejudice.

From what I gather, either you have a grievance with the institution of marriage as a whole or the individuals petty prejudice.

Anyways what's you're need to reinforce what SomeAnts said?
Are you a dude? You act masculine.

[Luís Henrique]

Nowadays, in the west, if a husband acts like the wifes his servant that's grounds for divorce.
I suspect you are idealising "the West" here. Evidently, in most countries, divorce does not need "grounds" more than the wish of the parties. But this doesn't mean that divorced women aren't discriminated, or that a view that "normal" families are supposed to be based on monogamic marriage for life doesn't exist or even isn't predominant. Gee, there is a whole region of the United States called "Bible belt" - do you think that servant wives do not abound there? Have you read something on the infamous Yates case?

Luís Henrique

[Entrails Konfetti]

Yes, I was being a bit idealistic. However, the divorce rate is increasing-- it is becomming more common. It is more the "Great Generation" or the real early Boomers who look down on divorce. Soon they will all be dead-- then what?

Funny you bring up the Bible belt. I have an Uncle and aunt from there, who've recently divorced. He pretty much treated her like a servant. However, I wouldn't say the Belt is totally representative of the USA. As for Yates-- sorry, but what aspect about the case? This is the case where Yates drowned her children because she (according to a story) thought that because she had kids he wouldn't be interested in her, right?

[hekmatista]

Yes, I do.

However, I thought that this piece was snarky and annoying. Maybe it really was that awful in the 70s. I wouldn't know; I wasn't even alive in the 70s. I do know that great strides have been made in the area of gender equality, though. Much still remains to be done, of course, but progress has been made, none the less. And I do know that to apply the criticisms in that essay to today's society across the board would be to play fast and loose with obnoxious gender stereotypes: the men as cheating dogs who demand their wive's understanding, while the women slave away and put their husbands before themselves in every way, and act as the dutiful Goodie Homemaker.

And by the way, ants, I wasn't referring to you when I wrote "Battle of the Sexes". I was thinking of AR's rebuttal to your article.
As someone who was alive in the 70's and witnessed the "using up"
of my own mother, I can say that it was that bad, even in the USA.
Not that this annoying article, which I remember reading in '71 or '72, necessarily changed my practice or expectations with women; women did that while I protested, kicking and screaming all the way.

[Module]

You assumed that I think all womens issues are unimportant and trivial.
No, what I said was that you attempted to discredit the article which was dealing with women's issues by accusing it of being prejudiced towards men, pointing out that this in itself was an unreasonable thing to do.

I've already stated that I was wrong in calling it a sexist attack on men.And, this is good. : )


Yes that was the general attitudes towards wives in the 1970s.
Nowadays, in the west, if a husband acts like the wifes his servant that's grounds for divorce. It just might happen that some men will think that women are servants even when the institutions change-- the germ is still living in individuals after the source has died. Discrimination at this point would be inneffective, but there might still be prejudice.As said by Luis, treating your wife like a servant is grounds for divorce, but as are many other much smaller things.
Attitudes like this don't simply manifest themselves in the overt way described in this article, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
May I also add that the fact that these attitudes don't exist to the same extent doesn't mean that they are simply non-existent, and irrelevant to our present lives.
An example of this was an advertisement for Home and Away I saw recently (I think it was Home and Away ... one of those Australian soaps, anyway.) in which a married (or engaged) couple were having an argument with eachother, because the man expected the woman to leave her job if they had children, because he refused to let a nanny take care of them, which she didn't want to do. There was no argument that the man should leave his job.
Of course Home and Away is a television program, but the presence of that story line, in a mainstream soap opera, with emphasis on the fact the two characters were having a disagreement, not what that disagreement was in itself, means that this sort of thing is not considered unrealistic, yet.

There are unspoken expectations that the wife will leave work after having children with her husband. If they were spoken they would be considered outdated, of course, but the simple fact of the matter is, that these expectations, the role of the wife as described in that article does manifest itself in everyday life.
And what's more, the wife would, now, presumably just like back then, not see herself as a servant, if she is abiding by these expectations. The role of the wife is not just projected by men, but by society as a whole.

From what I gather, either you have a grievance with the institution of marriage as a whole or the individuals petty prejudice.I have a problem with sexist social attitudes. It's not an individual thing, it's a societal thing.


Anyways what's you're need to reinforce what SomeAnts said?
Are you a dude? You act masculine.No, I'm not a dude. What is masculine about what I'm saying?
(And why would you even bring that up?)

[Entrails Konfetti]

And what's more, the wife would, now, presumably just like back then, not see herself as a servant, if she is abiding by these expectations. The role of the wife is not just projected by men, but by society as a whole.
I just don't think it was fair to say that the husband would mess around on other women.



I have a problem with sexist social attitudes. It's not an individual thing, it's a societal thing.


Right, I know that the cause of prejudice and discrimination eminate from our institutions, but do you think once these institutions are raised to the ground and rebuilt, the old societial attitudes in some individuals will exist?


No, I'm not a dude. What is masculine about what I'm saying?
(And why would you even bring that up?)

You're as aggressive as the male posters on revleft, plus you're avatar is gender neutral. And you're profile says your gender is "other". Now usually on here this means you're a male who doesn't always act like a male.

What has happened in the past on these boards is that these other-males, have spoken for our female posters and been the most vociferous on the issues drowning them out. Like their words can't stand on their own. Just making sure you werent like that-- it gets irritating when the male thinks they have to reinforce what the female says. However, some women feel the need for a man to reinforce what they say.

[OrientalHado]

Entrails Konfetti, you don't have a fking clue:closedeyes:..I agree with Luís in it not changing enough..

I actually quite like the article, and any leftist should be able to understand the relevancy of it all..

[Invader Zim]

It is not an implication that it is typical for men as people, it is a implication of gender roles, and the social role of a wife.
I think that it is quite clear that this social attitude towards women exists, although not explicitly expressed by individuals, social attitudes like this rarely are, at least nowadays.
The demonisation of the cheating wife and the 'other woman', the humorous victimisation of the man bound to monogamy by marriage, in the face of sexually attractive and interested women ...
These are very 'typical' attitudes indeed.


It is not an implication that it is typical for men as people,Sorry, but that is exactly what it implies and how the author believes men see women.


The demonisation of the cheating wife and the 'other woman', the humorous victimisation of the man bound to monogamy by marriage, in the face of sexually attractive and interested women ...
These are very 'typical' attitudes indeed.That is as maybe, but that is not the point made by the article.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Entrails Konfetti, you don't have a fking clue:closedeyes:..I agree with Luís in it not changing enough..

I actually quite like the article, and any leftist should be able to understand the relevancy of it all..

I never said we've changed enough and thats that.

[Module]

I just don't think it was fair to say that the husband would mess around on other women.
Well, that's fair enough, if you take it that way.
I think further argument on this is just whipping a dead horse; I know you know and vice versa.


Right, I know that the cause of prejudice and discrimination eminate from our institutions, but do you think once these institutions are raised to the ground and rebuilt, the old societial attitudes in some individuals will exist? Of course. Social attitudes aren't things which will simply disappear when there is no need for them. The social attitudes that exist today are the result of slow evolution from those of the past, towards those reflected in our current economic environment, among other things.


You're as aggressive as the male posters on revleft, plus you're avatar is gender neutral. And you're profile says your gender is "other". Now usually on here this means you're a male who doesn't always act like a male.

What has happened in the past on these boards is that these other-males, have spoken for our female posters and been the most vociferous on the issues drowning them out. Like their words can't stand on their own. Just making sure you werent like that-- it gets irritating when the male thinks they have to reinforce what the female says. However, some women feel the need for a man to reinforce what they say.Because I knew I'd be arguing about gender issues on this board, I'd made a point not to make my gender clear for all those who, for whatever reason, whilst in discussion will feel compelled to click on my profile so they can check.

What you've said just makes me think that maybe us females should try being a little bit more aggressive in future!

[Lector Malibu]

And you're profile says your gender is "other". Now usually on here this means you're a male who doesn't always act like a male.



Could you explain what you mean by this statement.

[RedAnarchist]

You're as aggressive as the male posters on revleft, plus you're avatar is gender neutral. And you're profile says your gender is "other". Now usually on here this means you're a male who doesn't always act like a male.

Oh no, shes as aggressive as male members? Someone call the gender role police!:rolleyes:

People who put "Other" as their gender could have one of many reasons why they put that - maybe they dont want to be labelled as male or female, perhaps they don't feel like giving their gender out etc.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

One important thing about the article actually is that this stereotype of wives is essentially the situation for the capitalist class, as they get a person who consumes very little themselves, might take low paid unskilled work, raises the children in line with the average level of development in order to provide new sets of workers, they are also there too look after the living environment of the main worker and ensure that he is able to go to work everyday and can devote himself to his job.

so it is totally great for the capitalist class, but everyone else, especially the wife in this case it is really bad!