Jamil Ragland (12:45:45 AM):
But i've started to hate feminism because it has created this really awful relationship world for men and women
SovietDiesel (12:46:26 AM):
i agree. i consider myself a "sex-positive" feminist, and am annoyed by (mostly second wave) arguments about sex, because they boil down to an indictment of men who want sex with women, and especially women who want sex from men
SovietDiesel (12:47:54 AM):
it's this hostile environment where women are Uncle Toms if they are comfortable inhabiting traditional gendered roles. my position is that gender roles are only a problem when they are restrictive and enforced
Jamil Ragland (12:48:16 AM):
Exactly
Jamil Ragland (12:48:54 AM):
One of my problems too is that one of the takeaways from second-wave is that men are always the problem
Jamil Ragland (12:49:17 AM):
When Zoraida and I were going to marriage counseling, our counselor gave us a book to read
Jamil Ragland (12:50:17 AM):
The basic thesis was that women were fleeing from unsatisfying relationships because of feminism telling them to get rid of everything they don't like, and that men were unprepared to deal with the liberated women of the post-feminist world
SovietDiesel (12:50:22 AM):
was it one of those Dr. Phil things that's about how, no matter what, ultimately it is your fault because you subtly created a draconian environment?
SovietDiesel (12:50:36 AM):
oh, it was more nuanced than that
Jamil Ragland (12:50:55 AM):
So the message was, 'Women, have a little bit more patience while your man changes into what you want him to be"
Jamil Ragland (12:51:29 AM):
Which tries to make it sound like both parties have something to work on, but ultimately, the failure in your marriage is your husband's fault
SovietDiesel (12:51:44 AM):
yes.....that would piss me right off, actually
SovietDiesel (12:52:01 AM):
if anything, my greatest frustrating with dating has been how normative women's expectations have been
SovietDiesel (12:52:33 AM):
they *expect* me to be a provider, or an aggressor, or in some other way the traditionally masculine role. and it isn't always comfortable to be that
Jamil Ragland (12:54:07 AM):
It would be one thing if that were the only issue. But on top of that, they choose to inhabit both normative and "progressive" female roles at the same time, seemingly at random, and without telling you when they want to be "treated like a woman," and when they want to be treated equally
Jamil Ragland (12:54:51 AM):
So sometimes you have to be an alpha male, and sometimes you have to be sensitive, and sometimes she's a suffragette and sometimes she's a homemaker
SovietDiesel (12:54:51 AM):
yup. at risk of going into outright misogyny, i only see this as opportunism
Jamil Ragland (12:55:14 AM):
And she never tells you when each one is appropriate
Jamil Ragland (12:55:20 AM):
yes, I agree with you
SovietDiesel (12:55:46 AM):
institutionally, they want all the things feminism fought for. but interpersonally, they want to be treated as if society was structured such that men had to provide
SovietDiesel (12:57:02 AM):
going back into marxist readings of things. my sense is that "chivalry" and other masculine rules dictating behavior around women reflect a market reality: in the past, women were dependents, because they were disenfranchised from operating unrestrained in society
SovietDiesel (12:58:18 AM):
now, feminist movements have (rightfully) called attention to and seriously altered that imbalance. women don't need to be systemically dependent on men in any economic sense
SovietDiesel (1:00:47 AM):
but cultural rules dictating desirability, attraction, and social capital are tied up in the belief that women need to behave as if nothing has changed. they don't need to pay for dinner because that's "your job," but somehow the implication - that you own her and are paying for her as you would a child - is deeply offensive
Jamil Ragland (1:01:29 AM):
Exactly
