Your advice is directed towards individuals’ agency
Feminism - where are the threads?
- Thread starter JudithB
- Start date
So those things (standards) you thought were unnecessary and harmfu. Athos l -we agree that those activities, in and of themselves, are neither harmful nor unnecessary - it is the equivocation, inequalities, the weaponising and malign judging of keeping (or failing) such standards which are damaging and unnecessary? Mostly, I think the devaluing of neccessary domestic work is fundamentally dishonest., especially in terms of effort and skills. I have had a wide range of employment and can honestly say that the pressure and relentlessness of running a home and caring for dependents has been the most arduous and challenging areas of my life, while the financial rewards are zero.
Athos
Well-Known Member
As a necessary (but insufficient) condition for cultural change.
Treacle Toes
Time
I guess my point is more general and it made my blood boil seeing women once again told the solution is to lower their standards.
We don't need to lower our standards, , men generally need to and should do more. Thora admitting to judging women more harshly isn't evidence that our kids and homes don't need to be well kept and she should just abandon those standards, IMO, it's evidence of how we can be indoctrinated to judge women and men differently.
I am someone who likes a tidy home because clutter and mess make me feel claustrophobic. I don't think this comes from an aspirational desire to live a middle class, lifestyle magazine, minimalist existence because I don't like that either. I like to be able to use and enjoy the space I have, I can't do that when it's in chaos. I see it quite simply as something I can have control over and one less thing to be narked or irritated about, so I get on and continue to keep it the way I like to find it. I'm not married and don't have children though so my relationship with this stuff on a daily level isn't affected by the politics of parenthood and the distribution of care giving and house keeping. I resented it when I lived at home with my family, I resented that myself and my sister were expected to and made to do far more than my brothers.
Right. But not only is the insufficient part crucial, agency is also not necessary for change. We didn’t get here in the first place in an agentic fashion.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I agree that it's just the unequal application of standards, or the malign judgements applied to those who fail to meet them, that makes some standards harmful. A number are harmful in and of themselves, because they 'require' us to waste our time and efforts on things that are neither socially necessarily nor individually rewarding. But it is only some; I'm in no way suggesting that all standards associated with reproductive labour ought to be abandoned, nor denying the value (or difficulty) of it.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but I don't really follow what you're trying to say, here.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Don't you think that we'd all be happier if we relaxed some of the standards to which many of us hold ourselves and each other?
Treacle Toes
Time
My partner has a greater tolerance for mess than I. Over the time we've been together, even when at his place, he has become tidier and more conscious of his own mess because he knows it bothers me. He makes that effort. We both benefit from it.
I also, over time in my life, had to learn that some people, both women and men were never taught to do or accepted the need to do certain things, to fit them in, to get used to doing them for the sake of everyone so that they no longer seemed like the worst thing ever...that 5 minutes of labour at home was and is more than a fair exchange than to risk building resentment, over burdening one or two members of the household. That 'I just don't see it' isn't a good excuse and falls absolutely flat on it's face when you also admit to liking to cook in a clean kitchen or having clean clothes to wear.
I also, over time in my life, had to learn that some people, both women and men were never taught to do or accepted the need to do certain things, to fit them in, to get used to doing them for the sake of everyone so that they no longer seemed like the worst thing ever...that 5 minutes of labour at home was and is more than a fair exchange than to risk building resentment, over burdening one or two members of the household. That 'I just don't see it' isn't a good excuse and falls absolutely flat on it's face when you also admit to liking to cook in a clean kitchen or having clean clothes to wear.
Last edited:
same. in all relationships with men or women, i've always been the most messy, untidy, appearance unconcerned slob out of either of us. i'm voluntarily childless and intend on staying single for at least a few years - for the sake of me and the wider world. i'm not "economically active" at the minute, and havent been for years due to health issues of various flavours....BUT i have seen so many women discuss this stuff over the years and get how everything ties in together.
i'm ?lucky? - my house needs tidying and my cat refuses to take the rubbish out
but i'm also not responsible for anyone else - looking after them, or being looked after by them.
Last edited:
Where people systematically act in a particular way as a result of internalising roles, the resolution of inequality that arises from this role-performance does not come from individuals electing to behave differently — not only is asking them to do so insufficient, it is not even a necessary precursor. Alter the culture itself and the next generation will automatically behave differently. After all, it’s not like the current behaviour happens as a result of choice. Making it about personal choice is a very neoliberal perspective.
SheilaNaGig
Break requested
Athos
This idea that lowering our standards (in dressing children) will help create more equality...
Is this to happen in isolation from everything else? Or are you suggesting we need to lower our standards in all areas where we feel the burden of inequality? Of just in some areas and not others?
And would you also apply this policy to other aspects of society that suffer with entrenched inequalities?
This idea that lowering our standards (in dressing children) will help create more equality...
Is this to happen in isolation from everything else? Or are you suggesting we need to lower our standards in all areas where we feel the burden of inequality? Of just in some areas and not others?
And would you also apply this policy to other aspects of society that suffer with entrenched inequalities?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Whilst I agree that a social role (and the internalisation thereof) isn't a matter of individual choice, a group of individuals - a class - can, at least, go some way to reduce the reproduction of a culture.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I'm saying we need to abandon standards that do more harm than good.
SheilaNaGig
Break requested
Well that’s magic wand territory.
Let’s all abandon lthe expectation that (for example,) women have to appear to be sexually available and in a state of arousal in order to be considered attractive.
Your original suggestion was that women themselves lower the standards in order to reduce their own burden.
Can you really not see the problem with this position?
Let’s all abandon lthe expectation that (for example,) women have to appear to be sexually available and in a state of arousal in order to be considered attractive.
Your original suggestion was that women themselves lower the standards in order to reduce their own burden.
Can you really not see the problem with this position?
Athos
Well-Known Member
I specifically said that was part of the solution (as, obviously, men have a role). And, yes, of course I see the issue with that (and I alluded to it from the outset).
Clair De Lune
Apocalypse cocktails
In order to conserve energy for the good fight, I'm going to skip reading athos's posts entirely.
SheilaNaGig
Break requested
Your worry was that iit was victim blamey. Not that it’s a misunderstanding of the issue.
Going by most of what you've posted on these threads I’m surprised by this tbh.
I agree that these bullshit standards help no one and cause real harm. I agree that it would be great if we could somehow dismantle them and do away with the whole stupid system that pushes us further into consumerism and conspicuous demonstration of some capitalist notion of worth or value , from dressing the kids to ourselves, our homes, etc.
But I take issue with the idea that the people on the shitty end of this stuff have the agency - or the responsibility - to make a difference by lowering their standards.
SheilaNaGig
Break requested
Actually, yeah.
I’m going to lower my standards and let this bullshit go unchallenged.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No need, I don't want to monopolise this thread - I'll duck out for a bit.
Treacle Toes
Time
I think the discussion about 'standards' has gotten a bit muddled over the last page. I think there is both a micro and macro level discussion happening.
There are certain standards, by way of necessary chores/tasks/things that we all do to live and maintain ourselves/homes/children (housework/wifework) etc...these are the ones that women do not need to lower just because many (NAM) men don't do their share of them or only do when asked to even though they benefit from these things getting done.
There are other 'standards' by way of ideas/expectations that have become institutionalised as culture, often reinforced by arguments that they are caused by nature and biology, that we have internalised as benchmarks/blueprints, that we both consciously/unconsciously measure each other on.
Is there a relationship between the two? Yes, of course.
What is that relationship?
Which part/s of the relationship is doing the 'damage' and needs changing?
Which standards are unrealistic and need lowering? Who needs to do that?
Which standards are necessary and need raising? Who needs to do that?
There are certain standards, by way of necessary chores/tasks/things that we all do to live and maintain ourselves/homes/children (housework/wifework) etc...these are the ones that women do not need to lower just because many (NAM) men don't do their share of them or only do when asked to even though they benefit from these things getting done.
There are other 'standards' by way of ideas/expectations that have become institutionalised as culture, often reinforced by arguments that they are caused by nature and biology, that we have internalised as benchmarks/blueprints, that we both consciously/unconsciously measure each other on.
Is there a relationship between the two? Yes, of course.
What is that relationship?
Which part/s of the relationship is doing the 'damage' and needs changing?
Which standards are unrealistic and need lowering? Who needs to do that?
Which standards are necessary and need raising? Who needs to do that?
Athos are you talking about what weepiper called performative wealth on another thread? Or people trying to signal social status through dressing their kids, house, selves?
Humans are social animals and status within society has always been signalled. I’d bet my bottom dollar this went on during communism, and goes on in indigenous cultures.
Again there is this almost naive belief that ignores all the evidence about how humans behave across all cultures.
Humans are social animals and status within society has always been signalled. I’d bet my bottom dollar this went on during communism, and goes on in indigenous cultures.
Again there is this almost naive belief that ignores all the evidence about how humans behave across all cultures.
What do these roles result from?
Status is signalled but what status is, what confers it and how it is practiced varies wildly. For example, the kind of status signalling we’re talking about here — conspicuous consumption — was arguably not something practiced (outside the nobility, at least) in UK society before the late Victorian era. It still isn’t the way status is signalled in many types of culture, even in the Western world. You won’t find conspicuous consumption as the way status is signalled in Amish communities, for example.
To expand on that, actually: the roles are embedded within the cultural artefacts of the society. The very language itself is one of these, but so are the uses of that language (eg books). Also things like laws, values, beliefs (such as the belief that all this is “natural”). How childhood is interpreted and the nature of education, what family actually means, whether being human is something that is understood to take place individually or collectively. All these get realised as roles, which in turn feed back to reinforce the culture.
How that culture developed in the first place is obviously deeply embedded in historical events, including the state of technology when those events happened. That’s where we get into the nature of power — who had it, what did they use it for, how did they keep it?
Well, that’s the question researchers try to grapple with. It’s hard to give a pithy summary, but I would suggest “power relations” is probably as good a two-word phrase as any.Edie said:
To expand on that, actually: the roles are embedded within the cultural artefacts of the society. The very language itself is one of these, but so are the uses of that language (eg books). Also things like laws, values, beliefs (such as the belief that all this is “natural”). How childhood is interpreted and the nature of education, what family actually means, whether being human is something that is understood to take place individually or collectively. All these get realised as roles, which in turn feed back to reinforce the culture.
How that culture developed in the first place is obviously deeply embedded in historical events, including the state of technology when those events happened. That’s where we get into the nature of power — who had it, what did they use it for, how did they keep it?
Last edited:
Spandex
A crazy bulbous punchbag of sound
If you did have kids, and you did look after them, you'd learn how to do this, the same as you'd learn how to change nappies, heat milk to the right temperature, cut tiny finger nails and everything you have to do to look after little ones. None of this comes naturally to anyone and is all learnt on the job. If men have a reputation for being useless at this stuff, it's because they haven't done it enough to get the practice to be good at it. I couldn't keep a cactus alive before I had kids, but actually having a small person who's totally reliant on you forces you to do it and the more you do it the better you get.
For mostly financial reasons I became a stay at home dad for 2 years and now have a 'little' part-time job so I can take care of the kids while my girlfriend goes to do a 'proper' job and earn the bulk of our money. It's interesting to see how that reversal of traditional gender roles has bought with it many of the things that often come up in discussions of gender roles. I do the invisible housework keeping the flat habitable. There's been plenty of 'silly mummy' moments where she's less used to doing aspects of child care that the kids take for granted I know how to do. There's days when I've spent 10 exhausting hours with the kids that she'll come home from work and slump on the sofa saying what a hard day she's had at work. And I'm happy with this. Of course there's been stupefying, stressful and difficult moments, but they're balanced against how brilliant I've found having kids.
I find it sad that men and women are forced into these roles by societal expectations and financial considerations. There's plenty of women who'd be happier at work than a baby group and plenty of men who'd be great at childcare if they weren't constrained by expectations of masculinity and a culture that values 'male' work more than 'female' work. We're still long way from genuine choice about who cares for the kids though, or being able to split the role equally. At present in the UK only around 3% of dads are the primary carer for kids, and having spent years as the only man at the baby group I can easily believe it.
Treacle Toes
Time
Where are you seeing this 'naive belief' Edie ?
I might be misremembering but I think we covered the natural differences = assuming of certain roles for practical reasons some pages back? I thought there was broad acknowledgement about that but also that culture evolves along with us as we adopt new technology, change environments, have different needs?
elbows
Well-Known Member
If theres one claim about nature, very much including humans, that I would find easy to support, its the idea that we are quite adaptable to circumstances. With that in mind, I do not easily buy into too many other rigid ideas about what comes naturally to us. How can I, when such things are so often guided by circumstances that are variable, not fixed?
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
some of us have had little choice in our up bringing or in society demands and expectations on us. As a girl I was constantly bombarded with messages of male superiority and messages defining male/female traits / expectations. Very firmly telling me which groove I should be in, constantly - in law, at school, in my family, in the media and in the world generally.
It takes a lot of effort courage to get out out of such a groove. For many that sheer effort is not a possibility.
It's all very well to witter on about 'agency' and 'standards' in a lovely thoeretical way. If you haven't lived with that contant constraint / expectation / stress then it would be difficult to understand the cost on the individual. it doesn't equate with 'choice'.
You seem to be directing that at me, like I’m the one suggesting there is a choice in the matter?
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
No not at you personally - just further to what you said.
Similar threads
