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.

> Most people, across all social backgrounds, feel that they have
> difficult challenges in their lives.  What helps me is to sometimes
> pause and take a deep breath and compare my situation to others
> who might be jealous of me.  Those people may be thinking to
themselves
> that if they had the resources I have available, all of their
> problems would be solved.  So if that person could be happy
> with my situation, why can't I?
>
> That said, it's clear that some people have more hardships
> and challenges than others.  That doesn't mean nobody can
> whine (or that it doesn't matter) but just puts things
> into perspective: If Donald Trump was whining about
> his problems with his cable bill, would you think less
> of him than a grandmother on her retirement check doing
> the same thing?

I'm not entirely certain of the point you're trying to make, and why.
But here goes - in the context of male/female societal pressures,
you're saying everyone has them, some more than others, and the grass
often looks greener on the other side of the fence. If that's the
point, I agree.

> > > Yes, it's so hard for women who want to have it all to
> > > make those things work because "society" tells them.
> > > For example, I want lots of money but to not work very
> > > hard because "society" creates those expectations in me.
> >
> > 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? 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.

It's hard for anyone - man or woman - who wants it all to have it all,
especially in light of social pressures. Agreed.

> 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? 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.

> Women, in the past, were supposed to be the "nitpickers" or
> the members of the household who paid attention to detail
> BUT also took responsibility for it.  In other words, they
> functioned as helpmates while men functioned as the broad
> thinking risk takers.

Women were "supposed" to be nitpickers? Attention to detail sounds so
more respectful, but that won't do - have to denigrate first to keep
those women in line, I guess. "Broad-thinking risk-takers", though, now
that sounds like a quality someone could respect. And ascribed to a
man. Huh.

> 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. It means
developing your unique self. Some women are wonderful risk-takers. Some
men have fabulous 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'm not whining about how hard it is to be a
> > woman, it's hard just to be human... all I'm commenting on is that
> there
> > are societal pressures on both men and women to think and act in
> > certain ways.
>
> My wife was amused at how I would snarf copies of the Washington
> Post out of the newsbox at the train station.  "Why don't
> you pay for it?" She asked.  "Because I'm not giving the commies
> a quarter!" I responded.
>
> Now did the commie newspaper company "pressure" me to steal those
> papers?

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

> I mean, they were in that box and all.  Also, the newspaper
> company advertised their wares.  I mean, how could I resist
> the urge to steal?  (I'm going to have to say a dozen
> Hail Mary's for this one...)
>
> Anyways, you get the point: I didn't need "societal pressure" to
> snap the box lid open and snarf a paper.  I did that all on
> my own.

Societal pressure is not an excuse for bad behavior, and I'd be
delighted to say a few mea culpas if you point me to the post where I
claimed it was.

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.

  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.

> > > There are plenty of men around who aren't threatened whatsoever
> > > by strong women.  But then again, those guys are not going
> > > to be swimming through moats to rescue "liberated" women.
> >
> > "Strong" doesn't have to mean completely independent;
interdependence
> > is so much more satisfying.
>
> Nonsense.

According to you.

> Do you enjoy shopping more than work?  Do you enjoy taking
> vacations more than cleaning the house?

I hate the mall, and avoid shopping whenever I can, unless it's going
to the thrift store, which I love. Many of my female friends can't get
enough shopping; my mother was the same way. I'd rather go work in the
yard, but that doesn't mean I denigrate people who have different
sources of enjoyment in their life than I do. I just don't go to the
mall with them.

And what a silly paragraph, anyway. There are things I enjoy and things
I don't, and sometimes those things change and doing laundry is a
treat. I have a sign over my washer and dryer that says "Clean Clothes
are a Gift I Give my Family" just so I feel some sense of purpose as
I'm loading and unloading those clothes.

> Money and power allows people to indulge their most selfish
> fantasies.  This often includes people pretending to enjoy
> doing things for them that they hate.  When you go to
> a restaurant, you have people who provide service as
> if they enjoy doing so.  If you didn't pay them, they
> might develop a more surly attitude.

Even if you do pay them, they might have a surly attitude. Depends
where you go and what you choose to put up with.

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

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

> > > > Excuse me, I've got to go have a smoke before I jump off that
> > bridge.
> > > > ;-)
> > >
> > > Forget the smokes and bridges.  Let's look instead at the single
> > > struggling mothers with bastard babies, aging spinsters on
prozac,
> > > women who are stressed from working a full time job and
> > > managing a household, dealing with their weight problems
> > > from eating at restaurants, etc.
> > >
> > > It's not society or men who force fed these women their problems,
> > > it's all the choices feminists insisted upon women having.
> > > You got the vote and you couldn't make up your mind.
> > > It's as simple as that.  You "struggle" with your own
> > > indecisiveness.
> >
> > Oh, it's those evil feminists again.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> You gals clearly crave traditional men even as society has
> disempowered them to give you all the extra goodies such
> as mo' money at work.  Yes?

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.

> You're no better than I am when I stole newspapers except
> that I at least took responsibility for the broad consequences
> of my act.

I stole nothing. Well, except for those chocolate rabbits in high
school, but I got absolution for that, back when I went to church. And
I'm not sure how you took responsibility for the "broad consequences"
of your act, I must have missed that part. What you did was own up to
it, that's all. Taking responsibility involves some measure of redress
for wrongs committed.

> > No, I don't struggle with my own
> > indecisiveness, I struggle to attain some kind of balance.
>
> Oh, lessee: Get all the goodies without the icky stuff.
> Yeah, that's a balance.  I want to eat all the stuff
> I like and not get fat.  That's a balance too.

Not all the goodies, just some. And I don't use the word "icky" so
apply it in your condescending way to some other gal, thank you so
much. And back to the fat thing, again. Truly, women do worry about
other things.

> Sometimes, it works out for people and I'm happy for you.
> I stole the newspapers and never got caught.  You were maybe
> young and naive and the story works for your relationship
> that he had a "crush" on you and gave you all the goodies
> you liked AND he can stand up for himself AND he
> was motivated because he loved you for your mind, etc.

You stealing and not getting caught does not equal me finding a healthy
relationship, though you seem to be attempting to draw some kind of
comparison. I was not at all young and naive; I met my husband when I
was 36 and he was 34. No "crush" no "goodies", he
stands up for himself
just fine and loves me for my mind and my mammaries, among other
things.

> Super.
>
> But for a lot of people, it doesn't work out that way.
> And yes, I'm kind of happy about it because it was my
> "newspaper" the women were trying to snarf.

What was your metaphorical newspaper? Your heart? Your wallet? Your
pride?

>  > Most women I
> > know don't think in an "either-or" way, although most men I know
have
> a
> > tendency to do so.
>
> Nonsense.

No, experience. Mine. Which doesn't mean it's true for anybody but me.
Which is why the words "most women I know" as opposed to
"all women"
and "most men I know" instead of "all men" and "a
tendency to do so"
instead of "always do so".

> Let's say a man doesn't put up the mullah for a first date.
> Certain neurons kick off immediately.  Yes?

I'm assuming you mean "moolah" and we're not getting into discussion of
Islam here. And no, no neurons kick off immediately, at least not for
me, or if they do, they're not the ones you appear to be talking about.

> 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.

> > > Pardon me, I'm now thirsty because I didn't get up to grab
> > > a drink because I was writing to you.  That's YOUR fault!
> >
> > You can imagine how overcome with guilt and remorse I am at this
> moment.
>
> :-)
>
> Of course, you don't care and that's ok.  What's sad is when
> people do try to push guilt onto those close to them in their
> lives as some kind of sick power play.

It certainly is. Is that what you were trying to say with your drink
comment?

> The first thing you did for a man who had a crush on you was
> to mooch a meal off of him.

I did? When? Where you there?

You don't feel any guilt.

I feel guilt for several things, but none of them have to do with
crushes and mooching and meals.

> Then again, lots of people steal things and don't feel
> any guilt either.  Are they, or I, better off?

I'm not sure. The state of your immortal soul is your concern, not mine.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/28/05 4:46:42 PM ---