Hello Bluesmomma,

In article ,
 "bluesmama"  wrote:
> mark_sobolew...{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > bluesmama wrote:
> > > mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > A reason is not an excuse, it's just a way to understand why
> > people
> > > > do
> > > > > things the way they do. Men and women both have
contradictory
> > > social
> > > > > expectations placed on them - and as a woman I've had to
> struggle
> > > > with
> > > > > conflicting ideas like be strong, but feminine because a man
> > needs
> > > to
> > > > > feel like a man;
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes it's hard to be a woman...
> > >
> > > Sure it is, probably just as often as it's hard to be a man. Though
> > of
> > > course I can't write from a male perspective, I'm just trying to
> > > understand it better.
> >
> > You're making understanding all the more difficult as you
> > over-generalize.
>
> Point me to the over-generalizations, if you will, instead of just
> making the accusation.

Fair enough.

The statement "social expectations" is vague.
What do you mean by it?  How do you measure the impact
of these expectations?  What "social" people are
creating what kind of "expectations" in the person?
How strict are these expectations?

Tell me if I have it wrong or feel free to clarify:
By social expectations, do you mean the behaviour
REQUIRED by a person's co-workers, friends, family,
and boss?

Let's start with the woman: What behaviour is "expected"
or required of her?  If she asks out a man and pays
his way, for example, there may be a few men who
are shocked by this behaviour but most will probably
be quite ok with it.  Now reverse it: If a man
doesn't ask out women and pay for the date, is
the negative reaction going to be proportional?

Also, there's the social expectations created by one's
own choices: If you choose to get a dozen tattoos on
your head, the impact will probably be less if you
were married to a biker than if you were married
to a dentist.

The whole point of feminism, after all, was to free
women from such oppressive notions of "expectations"
on their behaviour.  What man, for example,
including your husband could have said to you
early in the relationship that a woman's place
was in the home?  I find it hard to see a "conflict"
when women are largely free to do what they want
provided they haven't committed a crime.  It's like
talking about a dress code in a nudist colony.

> > > Isn't it just human nature to want a full, fulfilling life and to
> > > develop all aspects (whether they be stereotypically masculine or
> > > feminine) of your self?
>
> > Want, yes.  NEED, no.  Whenever I hear someone talk about human
> > nature, especially when explaining their own behaviour, I suggest
> > they speak for only for themselves.  Remember the teenager
> > and the smokes?
>
> I wasn't talking about need, but am certainly aware of the difference
> between wanting and needing. Are you saying I'm using the argument of
> "it's just human nature" to explain some behavior of mine?

I'm saying that you're using that phrase to handwave
away explaining the issue.  WHOEVER we're talking about,
they're a human.  Just because that person is human and
does a certain thing doesn't mean that it's "human nature".
Look, I got a diet coke just now.  It's human nature...

> If so,
> please be more clear. As far as just speaking for myself - I'm
> inferring that you are giving me some unsolicited advice here - thanks
> for the advice, but I'm unclear as to how me asking a question is
> speaking for anyone but myself.

I don't think I'm giving advice other than merely venting my
own gripes and warning people of the consequences of their
actions.  Beyond that, there's not a lot that I want to
do right now.

In another answer to your question: Most men simply don't
have the luxury to be a "sensitive guy" even if they
wanted to (at least not as they might like.)  The legal
system largely empowered women to expand their role into
men's traditional workplace dominion while maintaining
and even EXPANDING women's monopoly on family
such as alimony, mommy-support, welfare, etc.

For men, therefore, they have to work harder just to
get by.  Saying "Why doesn't he look into exploring
another aspect of himself" while he's got yet more
work to do is like your husband suggesting that you
consider consider cooking him some dinner just
after you spent the day retiling the bathroom
and him watching TV.  Call 911!  There's spousacide! :-)

In other words, your remark sounds awfully similar
to Marie Antoinette's alleged "let them eat cake" quip.
Forget whether your remark is fair or not: Is it even
intelligent to make it?

> > Then again, as I was thinking about this last Easter Sunday,
> > many people find spiritual fulfillment through DENYING themselves
> > things.  Sure, you can stuff yourself with hot dogs on friday,
> > as you do every other day of the week, but why not give it a rest
> > and see if you really need it?  Sure, you can try to please
> > the "inner child" and be both feminine and masculine, but why
> > not try and see what it would be like to control yourself?
> >
>
> I'm guessing this is further explanation of the "wanting it all"
> comment. Deny yourself whatever processed meat you prefer; I don't
> touch the stuff, my husband calls it "sneaker beef" because it looks
> like something scraped off the shoes of slaughterhouse employees at the
> end of their shifts.
>
> I'm also confused as to how my inner child suddenly appeared, but don't
> see how wanting to develop both stereotypically masculine and feminine
> aspects of a person's self could be considered either childish or
> uncontrolled. I suppose we'll have to disagree there, as we do on so
> many points.
>
> > I get the impression about people who want to have it all as
> > being gluttons.  In some cases, literally.  I dated some chunky
> > American women who came across as slobs both intellectually and
> > physically.
>
> Again with the wanting it all and the women. No men want it all?

Here's where I talk about you generalizing: You phrase
the argument in terms of merely finding a single man
who "wants it all" to compare men and women overall.  This is like
saying: "What?  No men like to carry purses?" to imply
that men and women both have an interest in purses.

> And
> hey - why not bring the fat issue in, as well, and stereotype another
> segment of the population. And American women, too. Man, you're on a
> roll.

Why thank you.

But the fact is that you can't make generalizations yourself
about "social expectations" without trying to tar entire
groups of people with a brush in how they act and think.  Yes?

> > In trying to live up to both roles, many women degenerated
> > into nasty nags and harpies or half-cowardly adventurists.
> > Rather than enjoying the benefits of either role, they
> > instead lived up to none.
>
> Developing the stereotypically masculine or feminine aspects of one's
> character does not mean trying to live up to both roles.

Let's talk about hot dogs:

Can you make a hot dog that's healthy, vegetarian,
and doesn't taste anything like a hot dog and still
consider it a hot dog?

Like I said, it comes across as half-cowardly or self-centered:
Develop certain characteristics simply for the person's
own enjoyment or interest.  Now, hey, there's NOTHING
WRONG with some self-centeredness at times.  If you
like to paint, why not paint just to make yourself happy?

However, in order to women to play hobby-job, men must
work harder to compete with them.  It's not a game for them.

Think of it as riding a bicycle versus a professional
acrobat who does it 100 feet up without a net.

> It means
> developing your unique self.

Agreed.  And certainly these opportunities were desirable
to women and I don't blame them.  The problem is that
women didn't just merely go to an art class, the
law gave them equal rights to men.  This is like
paving over half of a maternity ward to put up a
hunting club for men.

> Some women are wonderful risk-takers.

Sure.  And a lot aren't and society has to pick up the mess.
And even when the women do take a good risk, they
are just in competition with any man that might want them.

> Some
> men have fabulous attention to detail.

Absolutely.  In fact, for most work, men must have good
attention to detail.

> But if those qualities are
> considered to be within their ascribed gender roles, they should
> repress them? This somehow makes them less childish, less nasty, less
> gluttonous, more in control of themselves?
>
> Again, we disagree.

I know personally that having developed all kinds of
very fru-fru interests such as Opera, classical music,
cooking, and the whole Frasier bit meant NOTHING
to the VAST majority of women so much as the bottom
line: income, taking the aggressor role, and clubbing
them over the head when they were bad girls.

Later, I've slowly educated them about how valuable those
skills are from me. :-)

> No, you committed that theft all on your own. Hope it wasn't during
> Easter or anything.

No.  I've done worse though. :-)

> What I said was that both men and women have societal pressures on
> them, that's all. And sometimes those masculine and feminine codes and
> expectations are stifling.

As I said, show me how women are stifled through "society"
in general.  If a woman feels stifled because all of
the rich guys she dates, for example, expect her
to be skinny that's not "society".  Get it?

I kicked this off because you said that for men to feel
like men, you felt a need to be stifled a little and
not so aggressive (I think.)  Pulease: The poor guy
is having to be captain caveman to impress you
AND have to keep his actions in the context of a modern
liberated society.

>   Simple, unchecked human selfishness is responsible
> > for women who want all the benefits of sexism without
> > the icky corresponding responsibilities.
>
> Women wanting it all. Again. I get your point, Mark, it's not necessary
> to beat it into the ground. I still don't agree, but I understand what
> you're saying.

You're entitled to your opinion.  I beat it into the ground
because I wanted you to be in the position that if you
were going to put your head in the sand, you'd keep
it there for a while and maybe learn something
at some sub-conscious level.

> > Men generally are far more generous on dates where they
> > hope to someday get nookie because they are, how shall
> > I put this, MOTIVATED, but the same greed and "pressures"
> > the women are.  Part of the service the men provide is
> > to lie to women (and even themselves) about their reasons.
> > If the server comes up to you and acts as if your money
> > is the only thing he cares about, that will impact
> > his ability to receive it.  We often want people to lie to us.
>
> Aren't you the guy who was all het up about men paying on dates? About
> "meal-ho'ing" feminazis, or something to that effect? Generosity can't
> be forced.

Not forced, but certainly extorted.

> A man who spends money on a date in hopes of getting laid is
> bartering, no more, no less.

Er, no.  He also has to spend it in such a way that she
thinks he's doing it because he "enjoys" spending money
on her.  That's why I think prostitutes are preferable.

> Lying to women is a service men provide? No, it's a self-serving
> gesture, usually done to avoid confrontation.

Nonsense!  If it's a gesture required by such women
as part of the courtship ritual, it's hardly
"self" serving.

"Self" serving is when someone does something they
enjoy but the other person could care less about.
For example: Women developing their "masculine" side.
It's like parsley.

> I don't crave a traditional man, thanks. The man I've got is a lovely
> mixture of traditional and non-traditional, just as I am. We live
> simply on one income because we both believe children need a parent at
> home until they start school. Because my husband's expertise in lasers
> means he would make more money than I would, he is the working parent
> and I'm the stay-at-home one. We don't have many goodies, but we do
> have a nice roof over our heads, thanks.

Good for you.

> > The difference between the menfolk and the ladyfolk is
> > the men are taking responsibility for their actions.  That's
> > why most of the money spent by the government is to protect
> > the ladies from their own actions.  Sorry, but you gals
> > really are a danger to yourselves and others.
>
> You're neither sorry for your comment, nor correct in your assumptions,
> but it's always interesting to hear dissenting points of view.

Actually, I am truly sorry.

It took me 20 years to "find" someone (again, I found
her at 18 but didn't know what I had so I had to find
another like her.)  I worked my butt off to find the
woman in my life.

I am very angry with feminism and womens lib for
making men's lives more difficult and creating resentment
in women for men no longer being able to give them
all the things they require a man to traditionally have.
I do sympathize with many women who unconsciously
were misled.  After all, if I view women as unsafe
to run around with scissors, I can't hold them
to be evil for the damage they do, right?

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/1/05 12:47:55 AM ---