TOTALLY GEEKED!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: I’m a dad. So why do people call me ‘Mrs.’?


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
I’m a dad. So why do people call me ‘Mrs.’?
Permalink  
 


I’m a dad. So why do people call me ‘Mrs.’?

Dads can lean in, too.

 
 
 
grant-schneider_065.jpg&w=80&h=80
March 18 Follow @LeaninDad
Grant J. Schneider leads Fox Meadow Consulting, a brand strategy firm. He lives in New York with his husband and their 10-year-old twins.
 

The administrator at our children’s school recently called our house and asked if she could speak with “Mrs. Diamond.” I understood instantly — she wanted to speak to the mom. But my kids don’t have a mom. They have two dads. Sighing deeply, I replied, “This is Mrs. Diamond.”

The administrator apologized, explaining that she had recently returned from a leave of absence. But my mind was racing: Why do schools and so many aspects of child care – from baby-product commercials to changing stations in public restrooms – focus on moms and exclude dads, gay or not? When coordinating school parties and carpools, moms at our kids’ school often assume that everyone on the list is a woman, opening the e-mail chain with “Dear Ladies.” When we travel with our kids on a trip, strangers frequently ask if we gave their moms a weekend off. Even as women have rapidly moved out of the home and into the workplace, even as our society has increasingly accepted diverse family structures (including two-dad families), and even as more dads are staying home with their children, the perception of mom as sole caregiver has persisted.

Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg is challenging this notion. In recent years, she has pushed to increase women’s power in the workplace with her “lean in” mantra. Now she’s asking men to join that effort, with a new “Lean in Together” campaign that encourages men not only to advocate for women in the office, but to also take on more responsibility at home. I am thrilled that men have been invited to the “lean in” conversation, and I share Sandberg’s gender-equality goal. Her noble aspiration to broaden society’s perceptions of what women can accomplish in the workplace is matched by my hope to broaden perceptions of what men do at home. In a Yahoo News interview, Sandberg got it right when she said, “We also haven’t supported men as caregivers. … Women get discriminated against in the office; men get discriminated against when it comes to care.”

Addressing gender equality in the home has mostly focused on getting men involved in housework. As a dad in the mommy-centric world of child care, I often have a front-row seat to moms’ conversations at school events, ballet lessons and playing fields, as they discuss how challenging it is to juggle the demands of their jobs with the demands of their families. They feel unsupported when it comes to everyday responsibilities, ranging from taking care of a sick child to getting dinner on the table. Maybe, just maybe, Dad could load the dishwasher? Sandberg has validated this experience, insisting that men stand to gain when they “lean in” to the laundry. There’s a carrot at the end of all that choreplay, she says: Research shows that couples who share chores equally have more sex.

But the burden should not be just on dads. Moms – and society in general – seem to be under the impression that dads are incompetent when it comes to matters of the home. A very smart mom I know shared with me her secret to dividing labor and keeping harmony in her house. When her husband makes the bed she says “thank you”— even if he doesn’t make the bed the right way. And she never remakes the bed after him, to ensure she is not always stuck doing the chore. Validating that her husband is capable of doing housework was the key to freeing up her time.

 

As in housework, dads have more to provide in child care than they are given credit for. In a recent PopSugar.com piece, a mom expounded on her motherly wisdom and insisted on her infallibility “because I’m a mom!” From the most everyday occurrence of parenthood to the most tragic, she believes that mothers have more empathy than non-mothers. I have encountered this idea for 10 years, from mothers providing tips on everything from setting a sleep schedule to dealing with preteen mood swings. While I am grateful for these pearls of wisdom, the “I know because I am a mom” refrain insists that women know more, feel more, intuit more. It assumes that moms are naturally better at this parenting game than dads. My experience hasn’t supported that. One simple example happened recently when my 10-year-old daughter insisted she wanted bouncy hair just like Jessie on the Disney Channel. One YouTube lesson later, her hair was more “That Girl” than Disney, but she was happy. Some moms around town were astounded and exclaimed, “I couldn’t do that, much less my husband.”

Sometimes I hear my mom friends say that their husbands are “babysitting” their kids, implying that dad is not a true parent but just an inferior caregiver. If we want more gender equality at home, we have to get rid of these outdated notions. Moms and dads have come a long way from the “Leave it to Beaver” days. The assumption that moms have a greater sense of connection to and empathy for their children is based on outdated gender roles. Asserting superiority alienates fathers and undermines society’s effort to bring more gender balance to parenting.

There is some evidence that these notions are changing. If we believe what we saw in the latest Super Bowl commercials, there is a new dad in town. In between the tackles and touchdowns, there were images of dads dancing with their daughters and hugging their sons. Dove compiled images of dads taking care of their kids – lathering them in sunscreen, brushing their hair, comforting them and kissing them – under the tagline “care makes a man stronger.” As a marketer, I know this softer and more helpful guy must exist if advertisers are willing to spend $150,000 a second to reach him. This enlightened dad also knows what detergent to use to get out food stains, sweeps up behind his kids and sentimentally records moments in his child’s life. It appears that we are on the cusp of a lean-in dad archetype.

It’s about time that we realized that dads can clear both the dishes and their sons’ tears. Just as outmoded gender stereotypes are being challenged by women in the office, old assumptions about roles in the family need to be thrown out, as well. Society, schools and even some moms need to get comfortable with men contributing to a traditionally female domain. Dads are ready to lean in, and many already are. With 10 years’ experience as “Mrs. Diamond,” I am happy to be among them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/03/18/im-a-dad-so-why-do-people-call-me-mrs/?utm_hp_ref=parents&ir=Parents

 



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Let's just call everyone "Hey You". But, then someone will be offended because we didnt' say "Hey We or Hey They" because they are a unit, blah, blah. How the hell is society supposed to know how everyone wants to be addressed all the time? And, all the trans, one day they want He then She, etc. If YOU want to be addressed in a certain fashion, than YOU may speak up and say "Please address me as so and so" .

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

I think that's BS. Whenever we got anything from our kids' school, it was always addressed Dear Parent (or parents)/guardian.

I think probably a couple of things slipped through the cracks at his kid's school and he's just overly sensitive about it.

It's not the end of the world. Not everyone is out to purposely offend you. Get the fvck over it.

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Blame the centuries of men who have left most of the child-rearing duties to the mom.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:

Blame the centuries of men who have left most of the child-rearing duties to the mom.


That's not fair.  It is only relatively recently that most men have even had time to participate to a great degree in child-rearing.  Plus, in the upper crust of society in the past, even the mothers did not fully participate in that endeavor since nannies and even wet-nurses took over much of that for some sectors of society.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.

FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18703
Date:
Permalink  
 

Well, they wanted to live in a married world. Now that they have it, they're offended.

__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere



Owl drink to that!

Status: Offline
Posts: 4799
Date:
Permalink  
 

good-good-let-the-butthurt-flow-through-you_zpszdm81cos.jpg



__________________

Was it a bad day?

Or was it a bad five minutes that you milked all day?



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:

Blame the centuries of men who have left most of the child-rearing duties to the mom.


That's not fair.  It is only relatively recently that most men have even had time to participate to a great degree in child-rearing.  Plus, in the upper crust of society in the past, even the mothers did not fully participate in that endeavor since nannies and even wet-nurses took over much of that for some sectors of society.  


 Why is the truth not fair?  It doesn't matter the reason - the fact is that except for very recently, and still in many cases, women take on most of the child-rearing duties.  And even if there were nannies - the moms were the ones hiring them and directing them. 



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:

Blame the centuries of men who have left most of the child-rearing duties to the mom.


That's not fair.  It is only relatively recently that most men have even had time to participate to a great degree in child-rearing.  Plus, in the upper crust of society in the past, even the mothers did not fully participate in that endeavor since nannies and even wet-nurses took over much of that for some sectors of society.  


 Why is the truth not fair?  It doesn't matter the reason - the fact is that except for very recently, and still in many cases, women take on most of the child-rearing duties.  And even if there were nannies - the moms were the ones hiring them and directing them. 


Of course the reason matters.  You are placing blame on a gender when at the time, it couldn't be helped.

 

Sure, NOW men have more time and women have more duties outside the home in most cases--but again that is a very recent phenomenon in the scope of history.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

Did any of you actually read the article?
It is not at all about the wrong pronoun. It's about how men are discounted and disvalued as caregivers, even though more and more men are becoming the primery caregiver.

__________________


My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Status: Offline
Posts: 38325
Date:
Permalink  
 

Boo frickin who.

So what?

People are easily offended over every little stupid thing.

If this is your big problem in life, get over it.




__________________

A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.

FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18703
Date:
Permalink  
 

I didn't see this article as discounting men as caregivers. I saw it as dads "co-parenting" with each other, with one assuming the role of "mom" then getting offended. Ideally, children need positive influences from both genders..whether it be their own mom & dad, or a relative. Gay couples would benefit from accepting this instead of being offended by it, IMO.

__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:

Blame the centuries of men who have left most of the child-rearing duties to the mom.


That's not fair.  It is only relatively recently that most men have even had time to participate to a great degree in child-rearing.  Plus, in the upper crust of society in the past, even the mothers did not fully participate in that endeavor since nannies and even wet-nurses took over much of that for some sectors of society.  


 Why is the truth not fair?  It doesn't matter the reason - the fact is that except for very recently, and still in many cases, women take on most of the child-rearing duties.  And even if there were nannies - the moms were the ones hiring them and directing them. 


Of course the reason matters.  You are placing blame on a gender when at the time, it couldn't be helped.

 

Sure, NOW men have more time and women have more duties outside the home in most cases--but again that is a very recent phenomenon in the scope of history.  


 Exactly.  Which is the reason for the stereotype.  It is based on centuries of prescribed roles and typical facts.  Just like women still make less money, men are still not seen as primary care givers for children.  Change takes TIME. 



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

FNW wrote:

I didn't see this article as discounting men as caregivers. I saw it as dads "co-parenting" with each other, with one assuming the role of "mom" then getting offended. Ideally, children need positive influences from both genders..whether it be their own mom & dad, or a relative. Gay couples would benefit from accepting this instead of being offended by it, IMO.


 Again, did you READ it?

Being gay is relevant for about the first paragraph, and then if branches out from there. And no, he isn't offended, per se, it seems to me more frustrated at the moms-only sort of world parenting is. Sexism is not always blatant, but it can exist everywhere.

I get it.  I am a woman in a very male dominated industry. I very much get it.

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 6573
Date:
Permalink  
 

Men have only recently really wanted to be involved in parenting. I can't imagine most wives would have said no if their husbands had wanted to be more hands on in the past. It's not sexism if they did it to themselves.

__________________

“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.”
― Julia Child ―


 

 

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tinydancer wrote:

Men have only recently really wanted to be involved in parenting. I can't imagine most wives would have said no if their husbands had wanted to be more hands on in the past. It's not sexism if they did it to themselves.


 Whether they might have wanted to or not is irrelevant.  Most did not have time.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 6573
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:

Men have only recently really wanted to be involved in parenting. I can't imagine most wives would have said no if their husbands had wanted to be more hands on in the past. It's not sexism if they did it to themselves.


 Whether they might have wanted to or not is irrelevant.  Most did not have time.


 Hey you men had all the power to set it up anyway you wanted for most of our time here on Earth. Don't blame women because you all decided it was more important for you to work than to raise children. As I said, it's not sexism if you did it to yourselves.



__________________

“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.”
― Julia Child ―


 

 

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:

Men have only recently really wanted to be involved in parenting. I can't imagine most wives would have said no if their husbands had wanted to be more hands on in the past. It's not sexism if they did it to themselves.


 Whether they might have wanted to or not is irrelevant.  Most did not have time.


 Hey you men had all the power to set it up anyway you wanted for most of our time here on Earth. Don't blame women because you all decided it was more important for you to work than to raise children. As I said, it's not sexism if you did it to yourselves.


 Oh so letting the family starve or be homeless was a valid option.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 6573
Date:
Permalink  
 

Never said that. Women had no choice until recently to work outside the home and that's on men.

__________________

“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.”
― Julia Child ―


 

 

 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:

Men have only recently really wanted to be involved in parenting. I can't imagine most wives would have said no if their husbands had wanted to be more hands on in the past. It's not sexism if they did it to themselves.


 Whether they might have wanted to or not is irrelevant.  Most did not have time.


 Hey you men had all the power to set it up anyway you wanted for most of our time here on Earth. Don't blame women because you all decided it was more important for you to work than to raise children. As I said, it's not sexism if you did it to yourselves.


 Oh so letting the family starve or be homeless was a valid option.


 Please.  The men did the work because they wouldn't LET the women.  What happened to all the women workers when WWII ended - they lost their jobs to returning MEN.  Women belonged at home taking care of the kids - they weren't given real options of working like men, or the right to own property, or even the right to vote.  Don't try to turn centuries of sexism into men being a victim. 



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:

Men have only recently really wanted to be involved in parenting. I can't imagine most wives would have said no if their husbands had wanted to be more hands on in the past. It's not sexism if they did it to themselves.


 Whether they might have wanted to or not is irrelevant.  Most did not have time.


 Hey you men had all the power to set it up anyway you wanted for most of our time here on Earth. Don't blame women because you all decided it was more important for you to work than to raise children. As I said, it's not sexism if you did it to yourselves.


 Oh so letting the family starve or be homeless was a valid option.


 Please.  The men did the work because they wouldn't LET the women.  What happened to all the women workers when WWII ended - they lost their jobs to returning MEN.  Women belonged at home taking care of the kids - they weren't given real options of working like men, or the right to own property, or even the right to vote.  Don't try to turn centuries of sexism into men being a victim. 


Hell!  I STILL don't have the right to own my own property without my husband in KY!!!!! 



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 6573
Date:
Permalink  
 

Men had all the power for centuries yet they forced their wives to have no choice. You stayed home and raised the children. If men had allowed us to work sooner (heck maybe even vote sooner) you all could have chosen child rearing so yes it's on men that women do most of the childrearing. Even the Bible supports this way of life so don't blame us is my only point.

__________________

“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.”
― Julia Child ―


 

 

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

That statement shows an extreme ignorance of history. Most men weren't kings and lords. Most were peasants and serfs who had no power to change anything. In the case of the kings and lords, even the mothers were not always heavily involved in child rearing.

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

And yet peasant men still had the rights over peasant women.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1586
Date:
Permalink  
 


this is a thinly veiled " get used to it " opinion piece on homosexual marriage--almost laughable if not quite so insidious

__________________

" the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "--edmund burke

 



Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 675
Date:
Permalink  
 

Well, there isn't much he can do about the assumptions of random strangers. That's something we all have to deal with. But if he is serious about a change to the letters the school and activities are sending out, I am sure speaking to the school/those in charge of the activities about using a more neutral "Parents/Guardians" on the notes and for phone calls will go a long way in making a change. I think most schools do that nowadays anyway. I know ours does.

__________________

"I have a very strict gun control policy. If there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it." - Clint Eastwood

 



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

I see this as no different than divorced parents when the mother takes the new husband's name.

I got tons of calls asking for Mrs. Jones (Ex's and kids' last name). I just answered, "This is she".

It's an honest mistake. No one was trying to offend.

__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Really. Is there ANYTHING people won't get butthurt about. What's wrong with saying "there is no Mrs. Jones, but this is one of Jordan's fathers"? Did that HURT? Is it horrifyingly oppressive? Common sense, people. Geesh.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

No, YOU are supposed to be a mind reader. YOU are supposed to know that HE wants be called a SHE today but not tomorrow. And, if you don't automatically know that, they He/she is going run screaming and crying and all butthurt from the room.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:

Really. Is there ANYTHING people won't get butthurt about. What's wrong with saying "there is no Mrs. Jones, but this is one of Jordan's fathers"? Did that HURT? Is it horrifyingly oppressive? Common sense, people. Geesh.


 Did it say he was offended? His point is that our language and thought process are not keeping up with the changing times, and perhaps we should rethink our assumptions about  what men are capable of, in addition to women. 

I found it interesting, and thought provoking. 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 6573
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:

That statement shows an extreme ignorance of history. Most men weren't kings and lords. Most were peasants and serfs who had no power to change anything. In the case of the kings and lords, even the mothers were not always heavily involved in child rearing.


 I think it's you who' showing their ignorance of history. I never said all men were kings or lords. Men had all the rights, not women. If men had really wanted to raise the kids they would have done it. You keep acting like men were some kind of victim. There are still many many men who don't take a hand in actively raising their children so I'm not sure why it's anyones' fault but their own.



__________________

“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.”
― Julia Child ―


 

 

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

No. Most men COULD NOT have done it. They had to spend all their time providing for the family--and even then throughout most of history many were on the edge of starvation.

You seem to assume that society of 400 years ago was exactly the same as it is today.

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.

FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18703
Date:
Permalink  
 

this is a thinly veiled " get used to it " opinion piece on homosexual marriage--almost laughable if not quite so insidious

THIS.

__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 6573
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:

No. Most men COULD NOT have done it. They had to spend all their time providing for the family--and even then throughout most of history many were on the edge of starvation.

You seem to assume that society of 400 years ago was exactly the same as it is today.


 

I never assumed any such thing. So if it wasn't the MEN in charge who decided women would stay home and watch the babies then who was it? Men were the ones who decide the women's place would be at home. Whether they were living on the edge of starvation or not it was MEN making the rules. What part of that are you arguing against husker?

 



__________________

“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.”
― Julia Child ―


 

 

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Leaping from a letter that says to "mom" to saying 'this is a slam on all men raising children" is idiotic.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

I don't even know how to address anyone anymore. If you say Mrs so and so and they aren't a Mrs, then they are offended. If you say Ms So and so and they are a Mrs then they get offended. If you call a lady Maam, she thinks you are calling her old. Maybe hello "It".

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

No. Most men COULD NOT have done it. They had to spend all their time providing for the family--and even then throughout most of history many were on the edge of starvation.

You seem to assume that society of 400 years ago was exactly the same as it is today.


 

I never assumed any such thing. So if it wasn't the MEN in charge who decided women would stay home and watch the babies then who was it? Men were the ones who decide the women's place would be at home. Whether they were living on the edge of starvation or not it was MEN making the rules. What part of that are you arguing against husker?

 


 It wasn't a "decision" at all.  It developed that way naturally.  Men were physically stronger and were needed to hunt.  Women were not only not as suited to auch duties, but were often pregnant and/or nursing which also limited what they were able to do.   Human society didn't have the choices we have today for either gender.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Has it occurred to feminists that women WANT to raise their own children? I make more money than most of the men I know. But, even still, I choose to work in in more flexible arrangement so I could have more time at home with my kids. Why? Because I wanted too. And, yes, DH did stay home for the first year for our first child. He did a great job. But, I didn't like not being able to be home more. I had to work a lot and was tired and didn't get to enjoy my children in the way I wanted to. Once DH finished school, we changed our lifestyle in a way that gave me flexibility. No man made me do that. I choose too.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 6573
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

No. Most men COULD NOT have done it. They had to spend all their time providing for the family--and even then throughout most of history many were on the edge of starvation.

You seem to assume that society of 400 years ago was exactly the same as it is today.


I never assumed any such thing. So if it wasn't the MEN in charge who decided women would stay home and watch the babies then who was it? Men were the ones who decide the women's place would be at home. Whether they were living on the edge of starvation or not it was MEN making the rules. What part of that are you arguing against husker?

 


 It wasn't a "decision" at all.  It developed that way naturally.  Men were physically stronger and were needed to hunt.  Women were not only not as suited to auch duties, but were often pregnant and/or nursing which also limited what they were able to do.   Human society didn't have the choices we have today for either gender.


 

 It was and still is a decision that men make. Deny it all you want but men chose to leave it up to the women for most of humanity so why act like they had no choice. Once we were no longer hunter gatherers men could have chose to stay home. They didn't and until recently they showed no urge to do so. I'm not sure why you can't believe it was a choice.



__________________

“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.”
― Julia Child ―


 

 

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

Has it occurred to feminists that women WANT to raise their own children? I make more money than most of the men I know. But, even still, I choose to work in in more flexible arrangement so I could have more time at home with my kids. Why? Because I wanted too. And, yes, DH did stay home for the first year for our first child. He did a great job. But, I didn't like not being able to be home more. I had to work a lot and was tired and didn't get to enjoy my children in the way I wanted to. Once DH finished school, we changed our lifestyle in a way that gave me flexibility. No man made me do that. I choose too.


 I get your point.  The thing is that we now live in a society where such choices for both genders are possible.  Even if men had wanted to create some egalitarian utopia a thousand years ago, the reality is that it would not have been possible.  No birth control, few jobs that women could perform outside of child-rearing that would have benefitted society, no day care system, the need for man to spend most of their time scrounging up enough food to keep the family alive.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

No. Most men COULD NOT have done it. They had to spend all their time providing for the family--and even then throughout most of history many were on the edge of starvation.

You seem to assume that society of 400 years ago was exactly the same as it is today.


I never assumed any such thing. So if it wasn't the MEN in charge who decided women would stay home and watch the babies then who was it? Men were the ones who decide the women's place would be at home. Whether they were living on the edge of starvation or not it was MEN making the rules. What part of that are you arguing against husker?

 


 It wasn't a "decision" at all.  It developed that way naturally.  Men were physically stronger and were needed to hunt.  Women were not only not as suited to auch duties, but were often pregnant and/or nursing which also limited what they were able to do.   Human society didn't have the choices we have today for either gender.


 

 It was and still is a decision that men make. Deny it all you want but men chose to leave it up to the women for most of humanity so why act like they had no choice. Once we were no longer hunter gatherers men could have chose to stay home. They didn't and until recently they showed no urge to do so. I'm not sure why you can't believe it was a choice.


 Because for most of history it wasn't.  It has only been in the last couple of hundred years that society has changed to allow such choices.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Status: Offline
Posts: 38325
Date:
Permalink  
 

History shows women were the care takers.

Men were the teachers.

Men were the ones to get the kids in divorce.

Men conducted all the business, personal and for the family, including discipline.

But that beside the point.

This LW is boo hooing about being immediately being recognized as a male, a second dad.

Well big deal. Why is that a big deal?

I bet more often than not I have answered the "and about their father" question in the past at these meetings and such.

I guess I should have all offended and written a letter to someone.

But I chose to just say, "he isn't in the picture" and move on.

People get offended by so much now a days. It's tiring and ridiculous.

__________________

A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 6573
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tinydancer wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Men had all the power for centuries yet they forced their wives to have no choice. You stayed home and raised the children. If men had allowed us to work sooner (heck maybe even vote sooner) you all could have chosen child rearing so yes it's on men that women do most of the childrearing. Even the Bible supports this way of life so don't blame us is my only point.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was my point tons of posts back. Don't blame women because of the stereotypes that MEN forced on us long ago. Stereotypes are there for a reason. It doesn't matter if you don't like the reason it just is.



__________________

“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.”
― Julia Child ―


 

 

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tinydancer wrote:

Tinydancer wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Men had all the power for centuries yet they forced their wives to have no choice. You stayed home and raised the children. If men had allowed us to work sooner (heck maybe even vote sooner) you all could have chosen child rearing so yes it's on men that women do most of the childrearing. Even the Bible supports this way of life so don't blame us is my only point.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was my point tons of posts back. Don't blame women because of the stereotypes that MEN forced on us long ago. Stereotypes are there for a reason. It doesn't matter if you don't like the reason it just is.


 But you are just wrong.  It wasn't a matter of saying "ok I'll stay home while you go work."  That was not even a possibility.  There were no jobs for women in wider society until the industrial revolution--and the few that did exist were EXACTLY the same as what they were doing at home.

It's beyond foolish to say that it was a matter of men "allowing" women to work outside the home.  Such work did not even exist until recently.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 6573
Date:
Permalink  
 

So who was responsible for those attitudes about women and working outside the home? Societal mores are set by the people in charge which would be MEN.

__________________

“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.”
― Julia Child ―


 

 

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tinydancer wrote:

So who was responsible for those attitudes about women and working outside the home? Societal mores are set by the people in charge which would be MEN.


 You are wrong on that notion, as well.  How do you think prohibition passed? Because the men in charge wanted it?  No, it was a grassroots movement by women--before they could even vote.  Anti-prostitution laws?  Anti-pornography laws?  Same thing. Societal mores are not usually dictated by anyone (unless you are in North Korea or somewhere similar).  They develop over time based on a ton of factors.

 

 



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:

So who was responsible for those attitudes about women and working outside the home? Societal mores are set by the people in charge which would be MEN.


 You are wrong on that notion, as well.  How do you think prohibition passed? Because the men in charge wanted it?  No, it was a grassroots movement by women--before they could even vote.  Anti-prostitution laws?  Anti-pornography laws?  Same thing. Societal mores are not usually dictated by anyone (unless you are in North Korea or somewhere similar).  They develop over time based on a ton of factors.

 

 


 Well, people with power tend to work to keep power.  Men are more powerful than women.  That is a FACT.  The real saving grace for women in my opinion was the western spread of Christianity because Jesus Himself placed a very high value on women.



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:

So who was responsible for those attitudes about women and working outside the home? Societal mores are set by the people in charge which would be MEN.


 You are wrong on that notion, as well.  How do you think prohibition passed? Because the men in charge wanted it?  No, it was a grassroots movement by women--before they could even vote.  Anti-prostitution laws?  Anti-pornography laws?  Same thing. Societal mores are not usually dictated by anyone (unless you are in North Korea or somewhere similar).  They develop over time based on a ton of factors.

 

 


 Well, people with power tend to work to keep power.  Men are more powerful than women.  That is a FACT.  The real saving grace for women in my opinion was the western spread of Christianity because Jesus Himself placed a very high value on women.


 Sure, but having a stake in keeping a system going and making that, recent choice to do so when other choices became available is not the same thing as recognizing and reacting to realities when choices are much more limited or nonexistent.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:

Tinydancer wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Men had all the power for centuries yet they forced their wives to have no choice. You stayed home and raised the children. If men had allowed us to work sooner (heck maybe even vote sooner) you all could have chosen child rearing so yes it's on men that women do most of the childrearing. Even the Bible supports this way of life so don't blame us is my only point.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was my point tons of posts back. Don't blame women because of the stereotypes that MEN forced on us long ago. Stereotypes are there for a reason. It doesn't matter if you don't like the reason it just is.


 But you are just wrong.  It wasn't a matter of saying "ok I'll stay home while you go work."  That was not even a possibility.  There were no jobs for women in wider society until the industrial revolution--and the few that did exist were EXACTLY the same as what they were doing at home.

It's beyond foolish to say that it was a matter of men "allowing" women to work outside the home.  Such work did not even exist until recently.


 Women were also not allowed to own property except in very special circumstances.  It is ridiculous to try to pretend our society wasn't completely paternalistic until about 100 years ago.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 6573
Date:
Permalink  
 

Oh poor, poor men. They had no control over anything it was all just society...lol

__________________

“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.”
― Julia Child ―


 

 

 

1 2  >  Last»  | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard