The list of male privileges

[Michael45]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

I don't have any grievances actually. I was trying to address Erki's original question.

Ok.......... I picked up one of your grievances from your post to Erki....

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

For instance the fact that men are paid more than women for equivelant work.

Could you please give facts to back up that statement?

It is against Federal Law to discriminate.......... So please give me examples of men getting paid more then women for the same job.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Michael45

Ok.......... I picked up one of your grievances from your post to Erki....

Again, not a grievance on my part. He asked about male privilege. This is an example.

Originally Posted by Michael45

Could you please give facts to back up that statement?

It is against Federal Law to discriminate.......... So please give me examples of men getting paid more then women for the same job.

It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay

[Michael45]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Again, not a grievance on my part. He asked about male privilege. This is an example.
It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay

Nice article but I don't see any facts of figures......... Could you elaborate on this?

[Michael45]

This article is closer to the truth................

ABC News: Is the Wage Gap Women's Choice?

[missing]

[quote={aspiring_to_clarity};168243]

Missing, I wonder what you say to the fact that women have historically been denied the right to vote, denied the right to hold property, were not considered heirs (only the male could inherit), were traded from father to husband as property with not much say of their own, not educated in the same way as men and could not hold jobs outside the home? It's not that men had no problems of their own during this time, only that women had no autonomy to decide for themselves what they would do. They were at the effect of men in all areas of their lives.

well I've said it before and I'll say again that I am no history expert. I actually don't trust very much "official" history as it pretty much always is backed by motivations other than truth, which is all I care about. I'm not going to claim these things you mention aren't true, but I believe the reasons for them are complex and go way beyond the black and white reading of "men oppressing women by denying them autonomy". I would personally be more inclined to think men were trying to protect women by keeping them outside of the corrupt and often ugly public sphere. Now you may find this kind of thinking absurd today and I think you'd be correct. But two or three hundred years ago, it might have made some sense. I'm not saying bad things didn't happen to women because of their lack of autonomy, but I'm speaking in terms of cultural generalizations (and not all cultures as their are always exceptions).

I also think the need to "protect" women is rooted in evolutionary biology, from our collective memory when life was short and survival of the species depended on women having as many children as possible. Because one man could impregnate many women, it was in the best interest of society to see men in general as more expendable (ie, send him out on a dangerous hunt, while she stays safe at home) and protect the women so they could bear as many children as possible. In successful societies, both the men and women most likely understood this.

As a result, the man developed as the public figure in society where women were in charge of the domestic. As we grew more advanced these cultural traditions remained. Now one could say they are now antiquated and should be eliminated, but that's a slippery slope. Culture is an organism that grows slowly. You can't discard it overnight and expect business as usual to go smoothly the next day. That's just not how it works in the real world. Which isn't to say we need to stick to the old roles, as that can be just as harmful. But we do need to be both aware and respectful enough of them to not toss them in the trash with some name calling (ie "sexist").

Of course men were not living a fantasy during those times. They had and continue to have their own issues to deal with which I can imagine are very hard as well. But can you really say that women have been considered equal by men throughout history?

this depends on how you define equal. Autonomy can be good but it can be nice to be looked after by somebody else. Don't we all sometimes wish to go back to the care free days of childhood?

I don't see how you can say that's so when men were in charge and made all the decisions. Who was it that forced these men to war? That is something I wonder about. Someone decided a war was necessary. And I would imagine it was a man since men have historically held positions of power.

yea but why is this relevant to this topic? Men hold most positions of power today, but so what. That doesn't say anything about how the average man's life is today or ever. Men had to go to war to be a part of society and there was no room to think about it. Though it's worth noting many significant intellectual dissidents were in history were men, they just didn't happen to be the ones in charge.

The fact that sociopaths who like war always rise to positions of influence is a social phenomenon that really goes beyond the scope of this topic. Not that it's unrelated entirely but it would be to complex I think to cover in a thread like this. I said earlier that male privilege exists at the very top of the food chain, but it does not trickle down to the rest of us. I find a lot of women (and some men) don't seem to get this (not referring to you) or if they do they imply that they don't by lumping us all under the same umbrella. The term "male privilege" means something entirely different than "alpha male privilege". Often times people will use the former term when in reality they are talking about the latter.

Still, I can see where you are coming from in saying the rates of suicide worry you. I agree that society places men in a tough spot when it comes to emotional well-being. Part of the problem I see which perpetuates all of the problems we are talking about on both sides is in fact viewing the genders as so distinct and separate. Men are often taught to hold in their emotions, perhaps that they shouldn't even have them,

well in fact sometimes men don't have emotions, or at least not in the same way women do. Testosterone suppresses emotional response in favor of a more dissociative one. This can come in handy for certain societal functions, but it's problematic for others.

but certainly that they should be able to control them. Women have much more freedom in the area of showing emotions and seeking help to deal with them. However, we are also belittled and called crazy sometimes for showing our emotions. But probably that has something to do with men being taught it's bad or unstable to do so.

There may be truth to this but see above, re; the dissociative perspective that men often have. I really don't think society could function if everyone felt their emotions as strongly as most women do. It'd be a mess. On the other hand if the reverse was true and everyone took the dissociative viewpoint of most men we'd be sorely lacking in empathy and compassion and it would be pretty awful. Both perspectives complement each other and need each other, IMO.

disclaimer - I don't mean to lump all men as being one way and vice versa, but this topic requires me to use generalizations which do have some truth to them.

I hope to raise my children not to believe in the stereotypes that are prevalent in society.

I would be careful here. There is a tendency for people to try too hard to treat boys and girls alike but that is just not reality. Equality does not mean symmetry but you wouldn't know it in today's politically correct environment. I think it's extremely hard for kids as they grow older (especially puberty) because their bodies are telling them things that aren't adequately acknowledged by society. This is one of the negative effects of trying to throw culture out the window overnight (as I alluded to earlier).

We tell kids what is physically happening to them but don't make any attempt to help them understand what it means in a cultural or historical context. By telling them that the differences between them are merely physical we imply they are trite and that they don't spill into other aspects of life where men and women are "equal". I think that's doing them a grave disservice. Is it any wonder delinquency amongst youth is on the rise?

This guy explains it far more eloquently than I ever could though;

The Sad Loss of Gender - Ivan Illich

The reign of vernacular gender marked a profoundly different mode of existence than what prevails under what I call the regime of economic sex. They are male/female dualities of a very different kind: Economic sex is the duality of one plus one, creating a coupling of exactly the same kind; gender is the duality of two parts that make a whole which is unique, novel, nonduplicable.

of course I imagine it obvious people should make their kids aware and accepting of things like homosexuality, feminine (low testosterone) men and masculine (high t) women, etc in themselves and others. This is where getting beyond stereotypes is useful, but always keep in mind that equality does not mean symmetry. Men and women ARE different at their core and I believe such differences are to be celebrated rather than denied or written off as "harmful stereotypes".

But I do see them perpetuated in many families. I don't think either gender has it so easy now that we are talking about it. In my own life I've seen some things in the men I know that have shown me as much. In individuals who will be open to you it's easier to see and understand.

on this note I would say the thing I value most about being male is that I don't have to worry too much for my physical safety and thus I can have a lot of autonomy. But this is as much a curse as a blessing as I'm far more alone and isolated and perhaps if I was female I'd have an easier time connecting to others, and feel less need to be out on my own so much.

I hope we can all try to understand each other and stop taking sides in defense. I don't want for anyone to feel marginalized or oppressed.

well as long as people remain civil and respectful of other's viewpoints. I think at this site most people are more enlightened and open minded than other places (especially online). I think people aren't used to it and that's why they become so defensive, as that's how they have to be everywhere else!

I'm also coming from a cultural viewpoint that has always told me "women had it worse" which has caused me some real confusion since that perspective didn't line up with my reality. My defensiveness is in part something I developed to stay sane, but I'm aware it is limiting and I think mostly behind me (but not completely).

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Michael45

This article is closer to the truth................

ABC News: Is the Wage Gap Women's Choice?

Thanks for that article. I can see how that would be true. At least for myself, I would rather have more time than more money. I can see that affecting women's choices since they are still responsible for the majority of housework and childcare.

I think maybe all of these issues are far too complicated to reduce to single sentence declarations. What do you think?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by missing

I believe the reasons for them are complex and go way beyond the black and white reading of "men oppressing women by denying them autonomy".

Agreed.

Originally Posted by missing

I would personally be more inclined to think men were trying to protect women by keeping them outside of the corrupt and often ugly public sphere. Now you may find this kind of thinking absurd today and I think you'd be correct. But two or three hundred years ago, it might have made some sense. I'm not saying bad things didn't happen to women because of their lack of autonomy, but I'm speaking in terms of cultural generalizations (and not all cultures as their are always exceptions).

I also think the need to "protect" women is rooted in evolutionary biology, from our collective memory when life was short and survival of the species depended on women having as many children as possible. Because one man could impregnate many women, it was in the best interest of society to see men in general as more expendable (ie, send him out on a dangerous hunt, while she stays safe at home) and protect the women so they could bear as many children as possible. In successful societies, both the men and women most likely understood this.

As a result, the man developed as the public figure in society where women were in charge of the domestic. As we grew more advanced these cultural traditions remained. Now one could say they are now antiquated and should be eliminated, but that's a slippery slope. Culture is an organism that grows slowly. You can't discard it overnight and expect business as usual to go smoothly the next day. That's just not how it works in the real world. Which isn't to say we need to stick to the old roles, as that can be just as harmful. But we do need to be both aware and respectful enough of them to not toss them in the trash with some name calling (ie "sexist").

I think the issue for many women is that some people still think that we have to conform to these gender roles -- that women need to be protected and taken care of by men. I also imagine that the loss of the necessity of some of these roles can cause an "identity crisis" of sorts. Both men and women are struggling (IMO) with what exactly their role is today. It's not just men who don't know whether to open the door or stay out of the way. Since there are so many variations now on what men and women can be, we can sometimes have trouble relating. We don't have to throw the past ideas out the window. Many people still feel very comfortable with them. But those who choose to do something different should be able to. I guess the main point for me is that everyone should have choice and equality. Old roles are fine, new roles are fine...so long as no one is forced into any role. Evolutionary arguments for why things happened the way they did do make some sense. It's something I would like to study more. I do think we are able to move past some of these now and survive as a species.

Originally Posted by missing

this depends on how you define equal. Autonomy can be good but it can be nice to be looked after by somebody else. Don't we all sometimes wish to go back to the care free days of childhood?

I believe we should all have equality and autonomy. That decision should not be made for us by anyone else. That is the main point. Anyone may then decide to be taken care of by another. The point is that it shouldn't be expected or required to be a certain way.

Originally Posted by missing

yea but why is this relevant to this topic? Men hold most positions of power today, but so what. That doesn't say anything about how the average man's life is today or ever. Men had to go to war to be a part of society and there was no room to think about it. Though it's worth noting many significant intellectual dissidents were in history were men, they just didn't happen to be the ones in charge.

The whole discussion about war and who chose to go to war was a tangent I went on because of what Erki said regarding men having to die for women.

Originally Posted by missing

The fact that sociopaths who like war always rise to positions of influence is a social phenomenon that really goes beyond the scope of this topic. Not that it's unrelated entirely but it would be to complex I think to cover in a thread like this. I said earlier that male privilege exists at the very top of the food chain, but it does not trickle down to the rest of us. I find a lot of women (and some men) don't seem to get this (not referring to you) or if they do they imply that they don't by lumping us all under the same umbrella. The term "male privilege" means something entirely different than "alpha male privilege". Often times people will use the former term when in reality they are talking about the latter.

I agree that wealthy white males are probably at the top. There are varying degrees according to gender, race and social status that afford people "privilege" the way I see it. A whole other can of worms .

Originally Posted by missing

There is a tendency for people to try too hard to treat boys and girls alike but that is just not reality. Equality does not mean symmetry but you wouldn't know it in today's politically correct environment.

I don't disagree with you I don't think. I believe there is a difference between equality and symmetry as well. My point was to say I would like to raise my children with respect and acceptance of everyone. We are all human under it all. But the differences are to be respected too. Mainly I just think we should all have equal rights and opportunities...not just become the same or pretend that we don't have unique differences.

Originally Posted by missing

on this note I would say the thing I value most about being male is that I don't have to worry too much for my physical safety and thus I can have a lot of autonomy..

I don't worry about my physical safety much, but I think it has more to do with not having fear of death or pain in general. Of course I take care to stay out of obviously dangerous situations, but I live alone in an area that can be dangerous. I have friends who wonder how I am not scared, but I just don't see the point.

Originally Posted by missing

well as long as people remain civil and respectful of other's viewpoints. I think at this site most people are more enlightened and open minded than other places (especially online). I think people aren't used to it and that's why they become so defensive, as that's how they have to be everywhere else!

I'm also coming from a cultural viewpoint that has always told me "women had it worse" which has caused me some real confusion since that perspective didn't line up with my reality. My defensiveness is in part something I developed to stay sane, but I'm aware it is limiting and I think mostly behind me (but not completely).

I agree that this discussion could have gone very differently somewhere else!

I also don't think so much that women had it worse, only that historically we were denied the same rights as men. I think that needs to change (and has very much so already), but I don't think that there needs to be a fight about it. Again, I want us all to let down the walls and come together and work together. Equal rights for everyone and respect for our differences (and similarities).

[Michael45]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Thanks for that article. I can see how that would be true. At least for myself, I would rather have more time than more money. I can see that affecting women's choices since they are still responsible for the majority of housework and childcare.

I think maybe all of these issues are far too complicated to reduce to single sentence declarations. What do you think?

As far as the article goes............. you're welcome...........

But what I was trying to do was make you think............. Make you explore it more............. find the facts............ before you jump on that bandwagon.

If you would have truely dug into that article, and researched it, and brought back some facts......... I would have been truely impressed........

All this is, is a lesson to make you look before you leap........Walk that path of truth and honesty and make others accountable for their actions.

I always have a rule of thumb.......

Believe none of what you hear (ask questions)
Part of what you read (research the topic)
And half of what you see...........(Question the obvious)

The rest is easy if you research it..........

[missing]

[quote={aspiring_to_clarity};168658]

I think the issue for many women is that some people still think that we have to conform to these gender roles -- that women need to be protected and taken care of by men. I also imagine that the loss of the necessity of some of these roles can cause an "identity crisis" of sorts. Both men and women are struggling (IMO) with what exactly their role is today. It's not just men who don't know whether to open the door or stay out of the way. Since there are so many variations now on what men and women can be, we can sometimes have trouble relating. We don't have to throw the past ideas out the window. Many people still feel very comfortable with them. But those who choose to do something different should be able to. I guess the main point for me is that everyone should have choice and equality. Old roles are fine, new roles are fine...so long as no one is forced into any role.

well today's world is so massive and globalized that the old roles really don't apply much. It's just about impossible to live on one salary thanks to inflation, so forget about being a stay at home mom even if you wanted to. People who try to hang onto the old mode of being are going to (and do) have a really hard time. In a sense that is going against what you say you believe in (that people should choose their own roles). What if people want to "choose" the old roles?

It's not as if all the new "choices" people have today sprung up in vacuum. They came at the expense of old roles. Why this happened is up for debate but I would say women entering the workforce had a huge impact. Suddenly the workforce has doubled at a rapid rate. Not to mention more taxable income for governments (and less for families) and nobody to watch the kids at home, leading to all sorts of societal problems. Now I'm not saying the 50's were some picnic (they certainly were not!) or that they didn't need to change (they certainly did!). But I think feminism took a "throw the baby out with the bath water" approach to changing gender roles. That really de-stabilized society, if not physically than psychologically. Depression is at an all time high!

Now some women might get offended by this viewpoint, thinking "oh sure, blame society's problems on women entering the workforce". I'm not "blaming" anybody cause like I said I don't think people really had much choice. What drove us in this direction is way to complex too think it can be reduced to "blame". But in our mainstream educational systems and institutions I don't see my perspective so much as mentioned. All you hear is that feminism was some wonderful "progression" that allowed people "freedom" and "choice" and (insert a bunch of other feel-good words) bla bla blah... to the point where it's become the official line. Nobody questions it and when you do the PC police clamp down on you with a little name-calling (ie "you must be a misogynist!").

Ok I'm getting off on a bit of a rant, but bringing it back;

Evolutionary arguments for why things happened the way they did do make some sense. It's something I would like to study more. I do think we are able to move past some of these now and survive as a species.

well it's interesting that many people seem to want to go back to the old roles. But I think most people in the industrialized world have accepted that they are gone and not coming back and have thus adjusted their mindset (or tried to). Still those old biological urges are there, and even if we "get past them", I think it's sever hubris to think we can remove them from societal influence even to a small degree. They are going to have a HUGE impact weather we like it or not. Pretending they don't exist or that they are negligible is going to cause people a lot of pain, misery and confusion. And frankly we're at the point where we are so disconnected from our natural selves (in more ways than just gender) we just see it as business as usual.

I believe we should all have equality and autonomy. That decision should not be made for us by anyone else. That is the main point. Anyone may then decide to be taken care of by another. The point is that it shouldn't be expected or required to be a certain way.

yea but what if you wanted to be taken care of and nobody wanted to take care of you? Heck I'd love to stay at home and raise a kid while a woman earned all the money at some "career". But it's not gonna happen. Even if it did it probably wouldn't feel right. Refer to what I said about biology. Most women do not date men who earn less than they do even if they themselves earn well above average.

The whole discussion about war and who chose to go to war was a tangent I went on because of what Erki said regarding men having to die for women.

i see.. I think a lot of people assume that cause men are in most positions of power, and that men are more aggressive, that all the wars and suffering in the world must somehow be due to male aggression. It's a great cliche that if women were in charge that we'd all sit around in a big circle holding hands discussing our "inner-feelings" rather than dropping bombs. But is there any real basis for this assumption? Especially considering that women can be just as calculating and cold as men.

I think we'd be just as screwed up with women in charge, it'd just look different. But who knows.

I don't disagree with you I don't think. I believe there is a difference between equality and symmetry as well. My point was to say I would like to raise my children with respect and acceptance of everyone. We are all human under it all. But the differences are to be respected too. Mainly I just think we should all have equal rights and opportunities...not just become the same or pretend that we don't have unique differences.

it sounds good but reality is often far more complex than thinking we can just "get along and be accepting" of one another and all our problems will be solved. No matter what you can't please everyone and it can be very hard to truly accept everyone as they are. You can do everything right (so you think) and raise a bigoted @$$hole. Of course if this stuff was easy and simple we would have figured it out long ago and probably be well beyond this rather contentious form of existence.

I don't worry about my physical safety much, but I think it has more to do with not having fear of death or pain in general. Of course I take care to stay out of obviously dangerous situations, but I live alone in an area that can be dangerous. I have friends who wonder how I am not scared, but I just don't see the point.

well I think the general point is that men are more apt to be left alone than women. Especially younger women; they just attract more attention in public (and everywhere, really). Of course some of this (probably much) is unwanted and it's nice to not have to deal with that. But there are times when you want/need attention in which case as a guy it won't come to you. You have to work at getting it and I find this a real pain in the @$$ so I just chose to be alone even if it's not preferable. I think many women take for granted the attention they get. Worrying about being attacked is kind of an extreme example of "attracting attention".

I also don't think so much that women had it worse, only that historically we were denied the same rights as men. I think that needs to change (and has very much so already), but I don't think that there needs to be a fight about it. Again, I want us all to let down the walls and come together and work together. Equal rights for everyone and respect for our differences (and similarities).

well be careful what you wish for. Rights (i mean real rights more so than what society deems as a right) come with responsibility. I notice that more women seem excited about the idea of a "career" then men do these days. I've heard it hypothesized that this is cause it's still kind of "novel" to be a woman working. Most men recognize (either subconsciously or through observing their father) that work is not so great. In fact the idea of a "career" as something fulfilling is kind of new that arose when women started entering the workforce. Before that it was called a "job". I expect the novelty of "careers" to wear off amongst women within a generation or two (if not already), when daughters realize their mothers are not all that "fulfilled" by them. Sons have already got a chance to figure this out observing their fathers. While daughters were busy observing their unfulfilled stay-at-home-moms. Which is probably why I think it would be so great to stay at home!

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by missing

It's just about impossible to live on one salary thanks to inflation, so forget about being a stay at home mom even if you wanted to.

I know a lot of women who are stay at home moms, actually. As for me, I'd prefer to spend as much time as possible with my children, but I would also like to do some kind of work. I am looking at something other than the 9-5 grind though. As I am sure many people are.

Originally Posted by missing

What if people want to "choose" the old roles?

Fantastic. My whole point is that anyone should be able to choose. Maybe choices they make will be constricted by financial need, etc. But what I am getting at is those choices not being constricted by societal expectations or "rules."

Originally Posted by missing

Depression is at an all time high!

I often wonder if depression is actually higher now than in the past or if it just wasn't acceptible to talk about it before. I am sure there is no way to know this. But to me the depression comes from striving for more and more in a materialistic society in which spiritual pursuits have been "back-burnered." And I am sure there are myriad reasons why we are in the place we are today, but that's just one theory. I think perhaps we are in such a time of great transition that it has profound effects??

Originally Posted by missing

well it's interesting that many people seem to want to go back to the old roles. But I think most people in the industrialized world have accepted that they are gone and not coming back and have thus adjusted their mindset (or tried to). Still those old biological urges are there, and even if we "get past them", I think it's sever hubris to think we can remove them from societal influence even to a small degree. They are going to have a HUGE impact weather we like it or not. Pretending they don't exist or that they are negligible is going to cause people a lot of pain, misery and confusion. And frankly we're at the point where we are so disconnected from our natural selves (in more ways than just gender) we just see it as business as usual.

I know people who have no urge whatsoever to have children or get married. I think that there are definitely biological urges to do certain things otherwise evolution wouldn't have happened at all. But I think it's stronger in some people than others. That's why I'd like to see a society that supports people doing what works best for them rather than prescribes certain roles based on factors such as gender, race, economic status, etc. I definitley agree we have moved very far from listening to ourselves for what is right for us. We have all of these mores and expectations we try to live up to...they cannot be right for everyone all the time!

Originally Posted by missing

yea but what if you wanted to be taken care of and nobody wanted to take care of you? Heck I'd love to stay at home and raise a kid while a woman earned all the money at some "career". But it's not gonna happen. Even if it did it probably wouldn't feel right. Refer to what I said about biology. Most women do not date men who earn less than they do even if they themselves earn well above average.

I know there are men who are the stay-at-home parent. I will agree that it's not as common as the reverse. This is one of those things that would be possible for more men to choose if we got rid of the gender stereotypes. They are still very pervasive in both men and women and many times it's inexplicable to me. I think that everyone can find someone who compliments them and wants the same set up as them. It just may not be as easy as more "traditional" ways .

Originally Posted by missing

i see.. I think a lot of people assume that cause men are in most positions of power, and that men are more aggressive, that all the wars and suffering in the world must somehow be due to male aggression. It's a great cliche that if women were in charge that we'd all sit around in a big circle holding hands discussing our "inner-feelings" rather than dropping bombs. But is there any real basis for this assumption? Especially considering that women can be just as calculating and cold as men.

I think we'd be just as screwed up with women in charge, it'd just look different. But who knows.

I am not one of those people who believes all the world's ills would be solved by women taking over power. All I advocate for, again, is rights for everyone (and not just women equal to men, but everyone equal to everyone else). We are all human. I think more could be done to change the world if people in power -- whoever they may be -- became more conscious and in touch with what connects us all.

Originally Posted by missing

well I think the general point is that men are more apt to be left alone than women. Especially younger women; they just attract more attention in public (and everywhere, really). Of course some of this (probably much) is unwanted and it's nice to not have to deal with that. But there are times when you want/need attention in which case as a guy it won't come to you. You have to work at getting it and I find this a real pain in the @$$ so I just chose to be alone even if it's not preferable. I think many women take for granted the attention they get. Worrying about being attacked is kind of an extreme example of "attracting attention".

I don't think I can agree with a blanket statement there. I am a woman and I don't get much attention at all!

Originally Posted by missing

well be careful what you wish for. Rights (i mean real rights more so than what society deems as a right) come with responsibility.

Don't worry, we can handle the responsibility .

If we all seek to understand each other instead of trying to be understood I think it would help a lot. Not everyone is willing to do that and so we struggle.

[missing]

[quote={aspiring_to_clarity};169276]

I know a lot of women who are stay at home moms, actually. As for me, I'd prefer to spend as much time as possible with my children, but I would also like to do some kind of work. I am looking at something other than the 9-5 grind though. As I am sure many people are.

well to do this you are going to have to find a man to work full time and earn a good salary. Unless you are going to get really creative and live off the grid or something. Now I'd say you'd have a pretty good chance of finding somebody to work a job while you raise kids. But if I wanted to do the same thing I'd be out of luck. I have no desire to work to support a family ergo I'm not going to have one. Maybe if I could see it from your shoes though I'd be more apt to want to have a family. It's the cultural/biological heritage, the same one that denies women "rights", that affords you an opportunity to live a way that somebody else is denied.

Fantastic. My whole point is that anyone should be able to choose. Maybe choices they make will be constricted by financial need, etc. But what I am getting at is those choices not being constricted by societal expectations or "rules."

restraints are restraints. What difference does it make if they are because of financial circumstances or societal expectations? If you can't do what you want to do, you can't do it, period.

I often wonder if depression is actually higher now than in the past or if it just wasn't acceptible to talk about it before. I am sure there is no way to know this. But to me the depression comes from striving for more and more in a materialistic society in which spiritual pursuits have been "back-burnered." And I am sure there are myriad reasons why we are in the place we are today, but that's just one theory. I think perhaps we are in such a time of great transition that it has profound effects??

if you like "history channel" like documentaries I'd recommend watching "The Century of Self" which was broadcast on the bbc. You can probably find it on DVD or online. It's long, 4 one hour parts but it makes an interesting case about how advertising shapes our existence so profoundly these days. And that it was by complete design!

I would say the idea that we live for ourselves as opposed to others is completely unique and novel to this day and age. Looking at the evidence, I'm not convinced this leads to the most spiritually fulfilling lives. But the cat is out of the bag and not going back in so we've got to make the best of it.

I know people who have no urge whatsoever to have children or get married. I think that there are definitely biological urges to do certain things otherwise evolution wouldn't have happened at all. But I think it's stronger in some people than others. That's why I'd like to see a society that supports people doing what works best for them rather than prescribes certain roles based on factors such as gender, race, economic status, etc. I definitley agree we have moved very far from listening to ourselves for what is right for us. We have all of these mores and expectations we try to live up to...they cannot be right for everyone all the time!

well I'm thinking more in terms of primal, animalistic urges. I don't really want to have kids (not that it was entirely my choice, just that I don't think it practical, but put that thought on hold) yet from ages 13 to pretty recently I've been dealing with every cell in my body telling me to "impregnate a female now!!!!!". Of course my mind tells me "don't do that you moron!" and in this society the mind has to win out. For me anyway, others are not so lucky! But there is a severe disconnect going on here between mind and body that I think is pretty pervasive in society and manifests itself a number of ways, not always pretty.

Now I'm not a woman but from what I've heard they get similar "urges" as they age to pop out a child before it's too late. With so many encouraged to focus on a "career" first I think many are going to (or already have) miss the boat and they may not be happy about it.

These are just a couple (rather obvious) examples but I think it's worth noting that the old roles catered to these urges to a certain point. It sounds nice to let everyone do what works for them and not prescribe roles, but that leads to a fallout, or confusion, or a mind-body separation. Most people just cannot handle the kind of freedom you are talking about, unfortunately. Then again, perhaps that's not a bad thing. Perhaps our obsession with "freedom" and making our own lives is what leads to our dissatisfaction. Of course it's kind of a moot intellectual discussion at this stage.

I know there are men who are the stay-at-home parent. I will agree that it's not as common as the reverse. This is one of those things that would be possible for more men to choose if we got rid of the gender stereotypes. They are still very pervasive in both men and women and many times it's inexplicable to me. I think that everyone can find someone who compliments them and wants the same set up as them. It just may not be as easy as more "traditional" ways .

there is a difference though between not as easy and impossible. Or maybe so difficult it may as well be impossible. When we have a society of people living for themselves, who is going to compromise to compliment somebody else? Not saying it can't or won't happen but it definitely is not the norm. I think we are going to see a lot more single, lonely people in the long run.

I am not one of those people who believes all the world's ills would be solved by women taking over power. All I advocate for, again, is rights for everyone (and not just women equal to men, but everyone equal to everyone else). We are all human. I think more could be done to change the world if people in power -- whoever they may be -- became more conscious and in touch with what connects us all.

maybe but we just aren't at that level as a society and I don't think we are going to get there overnight. So I wouldn't worry too much about it, just try to enjoy your own life and focus on things you actually do have influence over.

I don't think I can agree with a blanket statement there. I am a woman and I don't get much attention at all!

there are a lot of variables here that could explain why this is. Have you ever been asked out on a date (or otherwise had a guy show interest in you?).

Don't worry, we can handle the responsibility .

it's less a matter of weather or not you can, but do you want to? I personally think responsibility kind of sucks, to be honest.

If we all seek to understand each other instead of trying to be understood I think it would help a lot. Not everyone is willing to do that and so we struggle.

maybe but some people are just beyond understanding. Christan fundamentalists, for example. They drive me insane but they very well be doing the best they can under the circumstances they've been given. They still drive me insane and I'm going to be vocal about it.

besides, if nobody tried to be understood, I don't think much understanding would be going on.

crap, I hope you are not a born again Christian...

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by missing

well to do this you are going to have to find a man to work full time and earn a good salary. Unless you are going to get really creative and live off the grid or something. Now I'd say you'd have a pretty good chance of finding somebody to work a job while you raise kids. But if I wanted to do the same thing I'd be out of luck. I have no desire to work to support a family ergo I'm no