• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What's in a Name?

And I'm genetically disposed to believing that's a lot of bull manufactured to get out of any job someone doesn't feel like doing.

NO, because we actualy do it. We just do a piss poor job of it. And its not on purpose. I can't dust for ****. I try and fail.
 
NO, because we actualy do it. We just do a piss poor job of it. And its not on purpose. I can't dust for ****. I try and fail.

Doing a piss poor job's a fantastic way to not be asked again. As long as your eyes are working, you can see the dust, you can see the food still crusted on the plates, and you can see it well enough to clean it away. Having a penis does not affect ones ability to sucessfully wield a feather duster, and anyone who claims it does is arguing that men are incapable of simple, basic activities. And here I thought it was the feminists who belittled the doodly doods.
 
Doing a piss poor job's a fantastic way to not be asked again. As long as your eyes are working, you can see the dust, you can see the food still crusted on the plates, and you can see it well enough to clean it away. Having a penis does not affect ones ability to sucessfully wield a feather duster, and anyone who claims it does is arguing that men are incapable of simple, basic activities. And here I thought it was the feminists who belittled the doodly doods.

Tucker's color blind. :shock:
 
..."without doing your fair share of the housework and childrearing and being a kind, loving supportive partner, and otherwise being a decent human bein...Ah, sc*** it! Can't please teh wimminz!"

Are you married?
Have you actually witnessed a marriage other than your parents?
I dont know, I work, I clean. My husband works, cleans and helps with the kids. I don't see the big deal about having your OWN money--I think the views you're sharing are all over the place. You contradict yourself with your own views on how woman should be treated.
Women have many benefits for getting married. First of all, men are EXPECTED to work, so if he makes enough money often times women are NOT expected to work. Should they work, I've never seen a man have a problem with it unless they have children. And if he does have a problem it's because he is the major bread winner. When I had my kids I had a better paying job so I actually ended up being the one who worked. And let me tell you, I got enough of an ear full from any woman who knew I was the working partner in the relationship. I did not hear any of this bull**** from a man.
Secondly, women reap the benefits of stress releif from being with a man. If women were so hard done by in marriages like you claim, then why are they still getting married? Oh I don't know, the biggest benefit is they walk OUT of a marriage with half of a man's ****. He doesn't walk out of a marriage with anything more than he walked in with. That's a pretty big benefit. The only man who has walked out with more than what he had was Kevin Federline. And there was a big deal made about it because of the fact that he was a man getting someone out of a divorce.

Your views come from more of a selfish stand point, the only thing youre fighting for is your freedom from marriage responsibilities. If you're single you're going to do the house work. If you're in a relationship, you're going to do housework. The main reasons why women will do more is because they're all anal about how they want things cleaned. My husband is not allowed to do the dishes for that reason.
I know plenty of couples where the man is the cook of the house hold.
Also men are definitely starting to get more involved with their children. And a lot of women hear **** from other women, not men. Why are you so angry at men?

You speak of "most women" when you're only talking for yourself.
If most women had such a problem they wouldn't be getting married, so your point there really is washed out when you stated the same thing about men.
 
Doing a piss poor job's a fantastic way to not be asked again. As long as your eyes are working, you can see the dust, you can see the food still crusted on the plates, and you can see it well enough to clean it away. Having a penis does not affect ones ability to sucessfully wield a feather duster, and anyone who claims it does is arguing that men are incapable of simple, basic activities. And here I thought it was the feminists who belittled the doodly doods.

What are your reasons for dusting? Is it for looks? Men don't have the same social anxieties as women. They're more for having enough money to keep the house on the ground. But they will clean. Again the reasons for women cleaning more is their own doing because of how anal they are about it. And a lot of this is drilled into our heads because of our ROLES in a family structure. Just like men wanting to **** anything with tits and an ass. It's biologically drilled into our heads.
 
What are your reasons for dusting? Is it for looks? Men don't have the same social anxieties as women. They're more for having enough money to keep the house on the ground. But they will clean. Again the reasons for women cleaning more is their own doing because of how anal they are about it. And a lot of this is drilled into our heads because of our ROLES in a family structure. Just like men wanting to **** anything with tits and an ass. It's biologically drilled into our heads.

If something is "drilled" into our heads, that imples it's there due to agressive socialisation, which means it's not based in our biology. How much of gendered behaviour is socialised is up for debate, althogh I'm happy to weigh into this debate with a big fat "Almost all of it."

Regardless of whatever reason you want to put up for why someone does or does not want to do housework, it's a shared responsibilty, part of taking care of a SHARED home. If one's willing to leave the majority of the burden on their partners shoulders, knowing how much extra work this creates for them, then this is a sign of a profoundly selfish personality. Male, female, whatever, you should want to take responsibility for the mess you helped create because is you don't, you're burdening your partner.
 
If something is "drilled" into our heads, that imples it's there due to agressive socialisation, which means it's not based in our biology. How much of gendered behaviour is socialised is up for debate, althogh I'm happy to weigh into this debate with a big fat "Almost all of it."


Absolutely agree.
Sex is a biological imparative; gender is a social construct.
 
If something is "drilled" into our heads, that imples it's there due to agressive socialisation, which means it's not based in our biology. How much of gendered behaviour is socialised is up for debate, althogh I'm happy to weigh into this debate with a big fat "Almost all of it."

Regardless of whatever reason you want to put up for why someone does or does not want to do housework, it's a shared responsibilty, part of taking care of a SHARED home. If one's willing to leave the majority of the burden on their partners shoulders, knowing how much extra work this creates for them, then this is a sign of a profoundly selfish personality. Male, female, whatever, you should want to take responsibility for the mess you helped create because is you don't, you're burdening your partner.

Women go into the "nesting phase" that men do not. Is this based on biology or socialization?

I don't see any reason to pry into the lives of other people if they are happy with the way it works in their household. If you want your partner on his knees scrubbing floors that's your own business. But I just don't see it the same way as you. There are many circumstances that come into play for me. Such as how much the other works, the times they work, and how reasonable it is to expect certain things be done. The one fight I always have with my husband is when it should be done.
 
Are you married?
Have you actually witnessed a marriage other than your parents?
I dont know, I work, I clean. My husband works, cleans and helps with the kids. I don't see the big deal about having your OWN money--I think the views you're sharing are all over the place. You contradict yourself with your own views on how woman should be treated.

No, I do not, but thanks for playing. I've consistently argued on this thread that a) I'm not fond of patriarchal naming traditions and b) I believe men should take responsibility for caring for a shared home, particularly when their wives are working just as many hours as they do, and then coming home to a "second shift" of housework and childrearing.

And I happen to see value in having money that I've earned for myself. No one's saying that couples shouldn't share some areas of financial responsibility, but if one has their own income, they don't have to depend on someone else to support them. They don't have to ask for money from someone else to buy the things they need. They have a higher measure of control over major purchases if they too are contributing money towards them. I fail to see how this is anything but a good thing.

[uote=Dynamic]Women have many benefits for getting married. First of all, men are EXPECTED to work, so if he makes enough money often times women are NOT expected to work. [/quote]

That's a societial expectation, and is not a universal benefit.

Dynamic said:
Should they work, I've never seen a man have a problem with it unless they have children.

I've never claimed that all or most men were against women working, so I fail to see who you think you're arguing this point with.

Dynamic said:
And if he does have a problem it's because he is the major bread winner.

In some cases, perhaps. In many cases, women want to return to work, but are bombarded with messages about how children need their mother's full-time care to thrive, even if cari ng for them full-time is leaving her stresed, dissatisfied and less able to send true quality time with them.

Dynamic said:
When I had my kids I had a better paying job so I actually ended up being the one who worked. And let me tell you, I got enough of an ear full from any woman who knew I was the working partner in the relationship. I did not hear any of this bull**** from a man.

Since I don't know these women, I can't comment on this, but if you don't think many men buy into the idea that women should be primary carer for children, and consequently reduce their working hours, you're mistaken.

Dynamic said:
Secondly, women reap the benefits of stress releif from being with a man. If women were so hard done by in marriages like you claim, then why are they still getting married? Oh I don't know, the biggest benefit is they walk OUT of a marriage with half of a man's ****.


I hear this constantly, and it's an incredibly misogynistic argument. How does shared property acquired during a marriage magicly become "his ****?" Marital property is divided more or less equitably between spouses for a very good reason. When people live together, often one will buy more items than the other, or one will have more receipts in their name, or one will have had a better credit rating allowing them to put more expensive purchases in their names, or one will have the main household account in their namd. Even if both parties contributed financially to the household funds which purchased said items, they'd be entitled to nothing if they had been merely cohabitating.

So what exactly is your rational for deaming all marital property "his ****?"

Dynamic said:
He doesn't walk out of a marriage with anything more than he walked in with.

Wrong. If his partner was wealthier than him, and no pre-nuptial agreement stating otherwise was signed, he benefits, just as a female spouse would.

Dynamic said:
That's a pretty big benefit. The only man who has walked out with more than what he had was Kevin Federline. And there was a big deal made about it because of the fact that he was a man getting someone out of a divorce.

Exactly my point above: marital assets are shared equally regardless of gender. If you have a problem with the fact that men are most often the higher-earning partners, perhaps you might consider that being responsible for the majority of housework and childrearing means women have less time to develop the skills and qualifications necessary to advance up the career ladder.

Dynamic said:
Your views come from more of a selfish stand point, the only thing youre fighting for is your freedom from marriage responsibilities.

No, what I'm "fighting" is the idea that one gender should be stuck with the doing the bulk of the work in a shared home. No more, no less.

Dynamic said:
If you're single you're going to do the house work. If you're in a relationship, you're going to do housework.

And if you're a woman in a realtionship, you'll be doing a great deal more housework than you would do as a single wman, while men's average of hours spent on housework decreases when they enter a relationship?

Dynamic said:
The main reasons why women will do more is because they're all anal about how they want things cleaned. My husband is not allowed to do the dishes for that reason.

That's an opinion, not a fact. And if that was the case, why do single men and women do fairly equitable hours of housework prior to entering a cohabitating relationship? Men don't suddenly lose the ability to clean dishes just because they have a partner. They're doing LESS, and their parents are picking up the slack.

I know plenty of couples where the man is the cook of the house hold.
Also men are definitely starting to get more involved with their children. And a lot of women hear **** from other women, not men.

Dynamic said:
Why are you so angry at men?

Because the evil feminist kabul tell me to be? :roll: I'm not angry at men. I'm angry at anyone receiving shoddy treatment due to their gender, whether within marriage or outside of it. But thank you for assuming that because I criticise inequality, I'm just so damn angry at men.

Dynamic said:
You speak of "most women" when you're only talking for yourself.

I spoke of most women when quoting studies that showed that MOST women did the majority of the housework and childcare in their relationships. I spoke of MOST women when quoting studies that showed that MOST married women suffered from higher stress levels than single women, while most married men were more content with their lot than their single counterparts. I did not claim that my views represented those of MOST women.


Dynamic said:
If most women had such a problem they wouldn't be getting married, so your point there really is washed out when you stated the same thing about men.

Are you denying that this problem, women being expected to do the bulk of housework and childrearing even when they're in employment themselves, exists? One can be unhappy with an aspect of a realtionship, but as opposed to ending the realtionship, work to make it more egalitarian.
 
Women go into the "nesting phase" that men do not. Is this based on biology or socialization?

Exactly what traits or biologically based and which are socialised are, as I said, still up for debate. What I am willing to say is that the majority of the behaviour we see as being gendered "male" or "female" is socialised. Little girls aren't born dying to wear pink, little boys aren't genetically disposed to prefer blue. Women aren't just naturally better at cooking or cleaning, or, in my opinion, even better at childcare. Men aren't naturally disposed to play football or do DIY. We pick up a hell of a lot of ideas regarding what a man or woman should be from the surrounding culture.

Dynamic said:
I don't see any reason to pry into the lives of other people if they are happy with the way it works in their household. If you want your partner on his knees scrubbing floors that's your own business. But I just don't see it the same way as you. There are many circumstances that come into play for me. Such as how much the other works, the times they work, and how reasonable it is to expect certain things be done. The one fight I always have with my husband is when it should be done.

That's your perogative, Dynamic, and none of my posts have been aimed at criticising that. The point I've been trying to hammer in all throughout this thread is that even when both partners are working full-time, even both are contributing good money to the household, the women of the family are expected to come home and do even more work at a higher rate than their partners. I fail to see why pointing out that that's incredibly unfair even inspired a debate.
 
No, I do not, but thanks for playing. I've consistently argued on this thread that a) I'm not fond of patriarchal naming traditions and b) I believe men should take responsibility for caring for a shared home, particularly when their wives are working just as many hours as they do, and then coming home to a "second shift" of housework and childrearing.

For B) I agree with you. But I haven't come across many relationships where it's not shared responsibilities. We're no longer in the 50s and a lot of younger relationships are showing that.
And I happen to see value in having money that I've earned for myself. No one's saying that couples shouldn't share some areas of financial responsibility, but if one has their own income, they don't have to depend on someone else to support them. They don't have to ask for money from someone else to buy the things they need. They have a higher measure of control over major purchases if they too are contributing money towards them. I fail to see how this is anything but a good thing.

Works for some, doesn't work for others. My husbands Father and Step mother happen to do it that way. Wouldn't work that way in my household though. My husband can be rather forgetful with how much he spends and he'd forget his portion of the bills, and I'd end up paying for them myself anyway. So we just share our money. Oddly enough we do have separate accounts, I just do all the finances. I don't have to ask for money and neither does he. Works just fine for us. Actually money is one of the bigger things we DO NOT fight about.
Dynamic said:
Women have many benefits for getting married. First of all, men are EXPECTED to work, so if he makes enough money often times women are NOT expected to work.

That's a societial expectation, and is not a universal benefit.



I've never claimed that all or most men were against women working, so I fail to see who you think you're arguing this point with.
The fact that it is a social expectation can make it a benefit.


In some cases, perhaps. In many cases, women want to return to work, but are bombarded with messages about how children need their mother's full-time care to thrive, even if caring for them full-time is leaving her stresed, dissatisfied and less able to spend true quality time with them.
This is a societal expectation--so I don't see where you're going with this point. Men are just as capable as women to stay at home. Most women hear this kind of garbage from other women. I know. I had that experience first hand.
But that doesn't tell me why they wouldn't want to get married, that tells me why they wouldn't want to have children.


Since I don't know these women, I can't comment on this, but if you don't think many men buy into the idea that women should be primary carer for children, and consequently reduce their working hours, you're mistaken.
Am I? That's strange. I must have run into a large number of that smaller percentage of men who don't have a problem with it. The men who knew my situation were excited for my husband because they wished they could have done the same thing. And the men that are working with me who have children tell me all the time how much they'd rather be at home so their wives could get out and work. Most of the time it's the woman who chooses to stay home. She is not forced.



I hear this constantly, and it's an incredibly misogynistic argument. How does shared property acquired during a marriage magicly become "his ****?" Marital property is divided more or less equitably between spouses for a very good reason. When people live together, often one will buy more items than the other, or one will have more receipts in their name, or one will have had a better credit rating allowing them to put more expensive purchases in their names, or one will have the main household account in their name. Even if both parties contributed financially to the household funds which purchased said items, they'd be entitled to nothing if they had been merely cohabitating.

So what exactly is your rational for deaming all marital property "his ****?"

It's not the property really that I'm concerned with. Anything that is bought while married should be split since typically you are using both parties credit and resources. But it's hard to prove what was yours before you were married. And if you did not do any kind of prenup then you're screwed out of everything. Now if this fell backwards on women the way it does men, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.
For the bolded parts--that's not true. Simon Powell was ordered to pay Palimony to his ex-girlfriend. All they did was cohabitat.

Wrong. If his partner was wealthier than him, and no pre-nuptial agreement stating otherwise was signed, he benefits, just as a female spouse would.

Show me a case other than Kevin Federline where this is actually granted.


Exactly my point above: marital assets are shared equally regardless of gender. If you have a problem with the fact that men are most often the higher-earning partners, perhaps you might consider that being responsible for the majority of housework and childrearing means women have less time to develop the skills and qualifications necessary to advance up the career ladder.

This has not been proven. And it's not based on whether a man makes more. It's whether a judge deems it necessary for the spouse to receive such funds.
Kevin would have walked out with half of the house because they bought it together. But it's the spouse support I was talking about. I have not heard of another case in which it was granted.


No, what I'm "fighting" is the idea that one gender should be stuck with the doing the bulk of the work in a shared home. No more, no less.

Why exactly are you fighting that for if you're not married? If you want things done a certain way in your relationship have it that way. But what works in others relationships shouldn't be changed just because you don't like looking in. A lot of women are quite happy with the balance in their relationships. The ones who are not get out of it or start making the changes within their relationship. They don't need help from a single woman who is not in their shoes.


And if you're a woman in a realtionship, you'll be doing a great deal more housework than you would do as a single woman, while men's average of hours spent on housework decreases when they enter a relationship?

In these studies did they bother asking how the women felt about this? Or did they ask for the circumstances behind this? A lot of women like the house wife role. Other's do not. But you'll make that choice before you marry and let it be known to your partner what you're prepared to do and what you're not prepared to do. There is no unfairness to this. It is all allowed by the women in the relationship. And of course I do more housework than I would if I were single, part of that is because I have more time. I'm not off playing around, getting drunk, and partying, like I would be if I were single.


That's an opinion, not a fact. And if that was the case, why do single men and women do fairly equitable hours of housework prior to entering a cohabitating relationship? Men don't suddenly lose the ability to clean dishes just because they have a partner. They're doing LESS, and their parents are picking up the slack.

Their partners*...(they do have the same letters so I'll not poke fun.)
Uhm I still don't see why you're so upset. You're not married. You're not picking up anyone's slack. And like I said, women have mouths you know. And we're very opinionated (you and I are GREAT examples of this). They will make changes if they are feeling mistreated.


Because the evil feminist kabul tell me to be? :roll: I'm not angry at men. I'm angry at anyone receiving shoddy treatment due to their gender, whether within marriage or outside of it. But thank you for assuming that because I criticise inequality, I'm just so damn angry at men.
You're asuming these women are unhappy with the roles they play in the relationship. You're assuming this is mistreatment. I have some friends who LOVE to clean. I think they're crazy, I could think of better things to do. But I have one friend who loves to clean so much her boyfriend is NOT ALLOWED to PERIOD.


I spoke of most women when quoting studies that showed that MOST women did the majority of the housework and childcare in their relationships. I spoke of MOST women when quoting studies that showed that MOST married women suffered from higher stress levels than single women, while most married men were more content with their lot than their single counterparts. I did not claim that my views represented those of MOST women.

You did not quote any studies though that showed the women were not happy with their roles in their relationship. Period. You're upset with their roles. Married women are not stressed because of cleaning, they're stressed with worrying about their children, finances, and other motherly things. Women have been proven to be more stressed than men whether they are single or not. So the studies don't really add up in my opinion. The variables are not consistant with everything else you're claiming. Based on why they're more stressed, why they do more house hold chores, and if they choose to or are forced to. The only way I'd see it as mistreatment is if the man forced a woman to do it.



Are you denying that this problem, women being expected to do the bulk of housework and childrearing even when they're in employment themselves, exists? One can be unhappy with an aspect of a realtionship, but as opposed to ending the realtionship, work to make it more egalitarian.

I'm in a relationship where I work and do more household chores than my counterpart does. He helps me when I need it and does some on his own accord. I don't see it as a problem, no. I am denying there is a problem if women are not complaining about it. If you can complain about it, don't you think a married woman can? Just because a woman gets married doesn't mean she all of a sudden doesn't know how to think for herself. Nor does it mean she can't defend herself either if she feels she's being mistreated. Being married does not staple your mouth shut.
 
Exactly what traits or biologically based and which are socialised are, as I said, still up for debate. What I am willing to say is that the majority of the behaviour we see as being gendered "male" or "female" is socialised. Little girls aren't born dying to wear pink, little boys aren't genetically disposed to prefer blue. Women aren't just naturally better at cooking or cleaning, or, in my opinion, even better at childcare. Men aren't naturally disposed to play football or do DIY. We pick up a hell of a lot of ideas regarding what a man or woman should be from the surrounding culture.



That's your perogative, Dynamic, and none of my posts have been aimed at criticising that. The point I've been trying to hammer in all throughout this thread is that even when both partners are working full-time, even both are contributing good money to the household, the women of the family are expected to come home and do even more work at a higher rate than their partners. I fail to see why pointing out that that's incredibly unfair even inspired a debate.

There is no PROOF that they are EXPECTED to though. The studies just show that's how it is. You don't know the reasons behind why it is. Please post these studies from our culture. I would like to read what the basis are for these. What all they took into consideration when conducting such studies.
 
My apologies to you, Tucker. I wasn't aware you literally had problems seeing dust.

Don't apologize to me over that silly ****. I could care less if I can see the dust or not. Its no big deal :mrgreen:

Now apologize for apologizing! :2razz:

:2wave:
 
Don't apologize to me over that silly ****. I could care less if I can see the dust or not. Its no big deal :mrgreen:

Now apologize for apologizing! :2razz:

:2wave:


Only if you promise not to make me apologise for apologising for apologising. Otherwise this shizness is gonna get confuzzlin. :cool:
 
Doode! If you would've held out a little longer you could have scored a mixed tape and some flowers! :doh

Or me standing outside his window with a boombox ala that scene in Say Anything . Now where's that Barry Manilow CD? :cool:
 
Don't apologize to me over that silly ****. I could care less if I can see the dust or not. Its no big deal :mrgreen:

Now apologize for apologizing! :2razz:

:2wave:


Two words. Signature-Worthy
 
Only if you promise not to make me apologise for apologising for apologising. Otherwise this shizness is gonna get confuzzlin. :cool:
would love to hear these sentences spoken in a Scottish accent :doh:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom