NationStates Jolt Archive

In The Female Eunuch, Germaine Greer suggests that patriarchal social systems "castrate" women into roles which cultivate martyrdom. While martyrdom can be altruistic if it is without obligation, the martyrdom that a patriarchal system imposes on a woman is ingenuine, such that it is given with the expectation that the woman-martyr is owed a payoff for all her "selflessness."

Greer wrote this over 30 years ago, and yet I see this socially and self-imposed "martyrdom" in almost every woman I meet, and even in myself. We go above and beyond the call of duty in our service to friends and loved ones. We like to think (and like others to think, no doubt) that we do it out of selflessness, but after centuries of patriarchy, isn't it likely that we women still play the martyr out of socially imposed expectations?

Do you think you're a female martyr? Are you in denial? Is the revolution over?

In The Female Eunuch, Germaine Greer suggests that patriarchal social systems "castrate" women into roles which cultivate martyrdom. While martyrdom can be altruistic if it is without obligation, the martyrdom that a patriarchal system imposes on a woman is ingenuine, such that it is given with the expectation that the woman-martyr is owed a payoff for all her "selflessness."

Greer wrote this over 30 years ago, and yet I see this socially and self-imposed "martyrdom" in almost every woman I meet, and even in myself. We go above and beyond the call of duty in our service to friends and loved ones. We like to think (and like others to think, no doubt) that we do it out of selflessness, but after centuries of patriarchy, isn't it likely that we women still play the martyr out of socially imposed expectations?

Do you think you're a female martyr? Are you in denial? Is the revolution over?


For those of us not interested in reading the book, can you better explain what its all about?

What I found funny was in a recent article, a feminist writter noted, with some wit, that it seems every generation of women seem to suddenly discover this fact, swear that they will not fall into the same trap, and then proceed to teach it to their daughters.

Wash, rince, repreat.

Erm, and just how, exactly, dost the lady define "above and beyond the call of duty"?

For those of us not interested in reading the book, can you better explain what its all about? I'm not about to explain the entire book, because the entirety of it is far more than what this thread is about. (And I just had half of a spiffing bottle of Merlot, so I'm slightly liberated from my cognitive skills.)The gist of what I'm trying to say is that I observe some women (My mother, my friends...) who seem to enact a ritual of subservience to the man (or other people) they have attached themselves to. They defer to his opinion, they go without so that he can have enough of something, they put themselves as second and everyone else as first. Self-help articles in magazines try to address this by telling women "It's ok to say no instead of trying to please everyone." I have a friend who allows herself to be used by a specific friend of hers, out of no obligation to him, and without hesitation to the fact that he's using her. My question is that can others consciously see this kind of ingrained subservience or are people still completely oblivious to it? Both within themselves and within others? Erm, and just how, exactly, dost the lady define "above and beyond the call of duty"? Well, in this context I would define it as behaving in a way that far exceeds the generosity of their transactional counterpart, or far exceeds any obligation that could be defined as "fair" between two sexually neutral parties.

Yes, I do see it in myself and in my best friend.

I always thought I was pretty balanced when it comes to this, but in the last couple of months I realised, I really am not, and I tend to be exploited because of my willingness to give. One of my friends even said it'd be "about fuckin' time to become a selfish bitch" for me...

But there are counter-examples, too. The friend telling me to become more selfish, for example.

(And I just had half of a spiffing bottle of Merlot, so I'm slightly liberated from my cognitive skills.)"Liberated is an interesting choice-of-words. :p

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

...

The gist of what I'm trying to say is that I observe some women (My mother, my friends...) who seem to enact a ritual of subservience to the man (or other people) they have attached themselves to. They defer to his opinion, they go without so that he can have enough of something, they put themselves as second and everyone else as first. Self-help articles in magazines try to address this by telling women "It's ok to say no instead of trying to please everyone." I have a friend who allows herself to be used by a specific friend of hers, out of no obligation to him, and without hesitation to the fact that he's using her. My question is that can others consciously see this kind of ingrained subservience or are people still completely oblivious to it? Both within themselves and within others?Two things come to mind.

First, if we are talking about a romantic relationship, then I agree that it shouldn't be lopsided. Each partner should care about the other partners wants and needs and needs without completely abandoning their own. Compromise is necessary, but it should go both ways (at least to an extent that both partners are truly... truly comfortable with.

If it's not a romantic relationship, [shakes head and rolls eyes].

Second, I haven't taken any surveys or done any research, but from what I hear, this kind of lopsidedness isn't always male-first. The female-first variety is also common. There are the stereotypical "nice guys" and "lap dogs" who have no backbone, can't say "No" to a woman, does all these little favors for her, and get nothing in return. Buying lots of flowers, lots of gifts, pouring ones heart out (I love you! Marry me!"), all to a woman he's been out with for only a short amount of time (and by "short", I'm thinking "less than three months", here).

Nevertheless, regardless of which way it's lopsided, the fact that one is subservient to another to completely ignore ones own wants and needs is not a good thing.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

In The Female Eunuch, Germaine Greer suggests that patriarchal social systems "castrate" women into roles which cultivate martyrdom. While martyrdom can be altruistic if it is without obligation, the martyrdom that a patriarchal system imposes on a woman is ingenuine, such that it is given with the expectation that the woman-martyr is owed a payoff for all her "selflessness."

Greer wrote this over 30 years ago, and yet I see this socially and self-imposed "martyrdom" in almost every woman I meet, and even in myself. We go above and beyond the call of duty in our service to friends and loved ones. We like to think (and like others to think, no doubt) that we do it out of selflessness, but after centuries of patriarchy, isn't it likely that we women still play the martyr out of socially imposed expectations?

Do you think you're a female martyr? Are you in denial? Is the revolution over?
You mean, women making sacrifices for their family, as opposed to say a man working 10-12 hours a day 6 days a week to provide for his?

The female-first variety is also common. There are the stereotypical "nice guys" and "lap dogs" who have no backbone, can't say "No" to a woman, does all these little favors for her, and get nothing in return. Buying lots of flowers, lots of gifts, pouring ones heart out (I love you! Marry me!"), all to a woman he's been out with for only a short amount of time (and by "short", I'm thinking "less than three months", here).
I'm really glad you brought that up. Sycophants (guys who play the nice-guy-subservient role to get pussy) are not the kind of blokes I find myself hanging around as a rule, but they are out there, without a doubt. I personally don't regard the "niceness" of such blokes as genuine, because to me, it seems to be a pretentious routine to compensate for 1) his gutlessness and 2) her overbearing princess complex. Any feminist worth her salt can admit that there is good and bad on both sides - to deny that much is a failure to represent feminism in an honest and accurate way. You mean, women making sacrifices for their family, as opposed to say a man working 10-12 hours a day 6 days a week to provide for his? Come back and post when you can keep on the topic of the thread, luv.

Well, in this context I would define it as behaving in a way that far exceeds the generosity of their transactional counterpart, or far exceeds any obligation that could be defined as "fair" between two sexually neutral parties.
Would housing and convincing my parents not to rat my friend out to her parents for no other reason than friendship be considered an unfair agreement? Cause if it is than her argument is by no means limited to the female sex. Either that, or I'm too nice.

Would housing and convincing my parents not to rat my friend out to her parents for no other reason than friendship be considered an unfair agreement? Cause if it is than her argument is by no means limited to the female sex. Either that, or I'm too nice.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I guess you mean that you're her friend and you're letting her live with your family because she needs a place to live which isn't with her parents.
If you were only letting her live with you under the pretence that you cared for her, when in reality you just wanted to play with her conjugal orifice, then that would make you a sycophant. If you were only letting her live with you to fulfil some repressed need in yourself to bolster your self-esteem, then you'd be a martyr.

If you're letting her live with your family because you genuiniely respect her as a person, and want what is best for her, then you're a true friend. You know the answer to that question. I think the gravity of your intention is demonstrated by the fact that you have involved others in your actions. It makes your actions to help your friend concrete. I would think that such action requires more than sycophantism and martyrdom to motivate. I'm not saying that every person who goes out of their way for others is a martyr. I'm saying that I think there's an ingrained habit to defer to men in most women who I'm close to in real life. It's by no means specific only to women, but it is incredibly obvious to me in the women I know in real life. I was addressing it from a feminist perspective because the The Female Eunuch is a feminist text, and the theory of this occuring in women as an ingrained habit (a martyr complex) rather than a conscious decision (a genuine altruism) is what triggered my desire to start this thread.

In simpler terms...women are more compassionate in general (in my opinion) due to a mix of nature and nurture. Some women allow this desire to gain smiles of approval to overrule obvious negative long term outcomes. I'd agree with the martyrdom arguement in the context of codependency and spousal abuse.

i think female martyrdom is innate. sure it can be augmented by society's demand that girls be NICE and certainly some women allow themselves to become slave to their families/job/organizations. but i dont think we can blame society on it.

i prefer greer's concept of "the estrogen haze". this is a term i use fairly frequently to explain why women are so stupid when it comes to men. when a woman goes back to the man who beat her senseless with the explanation of "no one loves me like he does" she is living in an estrogen haze.

One of the myriad reasons I love my ex: She went sent me a book called "Bitch", which she was a fan of, and, rather than 'cheating' and telling me later, she made it quite clear, after she went back to Australia, that she was going to date, have sex, and enjoy life. Not in a mean "None for you!" way. Just a simple fact.

If anything, aside from romance, we're just that much closer for her honesty.

The world needs more 'bitches'.

.. probably. I put up with so much shit from other people for the sake of not hurting them and I end up horribly hurt in the process.

In The Female Eunuch, Germaine Greer suggests that patriarchal social systems "castrate" women into roles which cultivate martyrdom. While martyrdom can be altruistic if it is without obligation, the martyrdom that a patriarchal system imposes on a woman is ingenuine, such that it is given with the expectation that the woman-martyr is owed a payoff for all her "selflessness."

Greer wrote this over 30 years ago, and yet I see this socially and self-imposed "martyrdom" in almost every woman I meet, and even in myself. We go above and beyond the call of duty in our service to friends and loved ones. We like to think (and like others to think, no doubt) that we do it out of selflessness, but after centuries of patriarchy, isn't it likely that we women still play the martyr out of socially imposed expectations?

Do you think you're a female martyr? Are you in denial? Is the revolution over?
I suspect that, like most things involving human behavior, there are both a genetic component and a socialization component. Women seem genetically predisposed to value relationship over task, men seem to value task over relationship. It's only logical that social systems would arise which tend to take cognizance of this, and thus reinforce the genetic predisposition.

You mean, women making sacrifices for their family, as opposed to say a man working 10-12 hours a day 6 days a week to provide for his?
Or perhaps a woman who works the same hours, then comes home, cleans the house, cooks dinner and gets the kids off to ballet, soccer, et c?

Yes, men are the only ones who ever work in a marriage and work outside the home is the only thing to do in a marriage.

I suspect that, like most things involving human behavior, there are both a genetic component and a socialization component. Women seem genetically predisposed to value relationship over task, men seem to value task over relationship. It's only logical that social systems would arise which tend to take cognizance of this, and thus reinforce the genetic predisposition.
I get the feeling that it is socialization.

One of my sisters is a selfish bitch. She walked all over this one guy, he dumped her, she continued to ask him to drive her places. My parents gave her everything she wanted growing up, she expects the same from other people now.

I'm the oldest of 4 kids, a lot of the time, I was assumed to be most capable of fending for myself (they still fed me and all that) but I got a hell of a lot less attention than my sisters. I got rewarded for going out of my way and doing things that were unnecessary (One thing that stands out is my mom gave me some chocolate once because I not only cleaned, but organized my room at 8) I'm used to things not being fair and to everyone else getting more than me. I'm used to compromise and a lot of the time it feels like I'm the only one who ever does so.

Greer wrote this over 30 years ago, and yet I see this socially and self-imposed "martyrdom" in almost every woman I meet, and even in myself. We go above and beyond the call of duty in our service to friends and loved ones. We like to think (and like others to think, no doubt) that we do it out of selflessness, but after centuries of patriarchy, isn't it likely that we women still play the martyr out of socially imposed expectations?
Care to give an example of a real-life situation where this can be observed?

I like to refer to types of people. Some people are givers and some people are takers. If we don't apply any moral value to these two words, there is no problem - so please try not to. Givers feel the need, for whatever reason, to do for other people. They attempt to keep things placated and will generally go with what the other person in a relationship says. Takers feel the need to be the center. Things should be done for them, and they should have the last say.

And, of course, there are all manner of people in between the extremes.

If you have two people who are givers together, they will both be compromising to make the other happy, and thus will likely have a productive relationship.

If you have to people who are takers together, they will be forced to compromise at times, or give up the relationship altogether. Thus, they will be likely to be productive.

The problem is when you get two people on pretty opposite ends. The taker, without even meaning to do so, can end up taking advantage of the giver, leaving the giver constantly compromising and generally unhappy. This may appear, at first to be a productive relationship. The giver is doing for the taker, and the taker is getting things, so everyone is happy. However, over time, the giver will generally become unhappy, eventually reaching the end of their rope and getting angry.

It may be that more women are further over on the giver scale. It may be that this is socially induced, to a point.

Or perhaps a woman who works the same hours, then comes home, cleans the house, cooks dinner and gets the kids off to ballet, soccer, et c?

This is going to get me hard core burned by feminists, but I gotta say what I believe I guess. Is this really the fault of society? When a women is trying to balance a relationship, a career, a motherhood, and a personal life it doesnt work so well. I dont think it would work so well for a man either. I dont think it would work well for superman. This is not a result of society manipulating women, but women manipulating themselves by believing that they will only be free if they do the same things as a man (but still have the marriage and kids they desire). You cannot have it all. Your children are not going to care that you are sexually liberated when they grow up without you and become maladjusted.

And as a riposte for those of you that will argue that men should share in the child rearing process, its not exactly that easy. Men aren't very good at it. I dont believe that its all nurture and thats why we're aggressive apathetic go getters. There are aspects of raising a child (very large ones) that are best undertaken by a women.

I suspect that, like most things involving human behavior, there are both a genetic component and a socialization component. Women seem genetically predisposed to value relationship over task, men seem to value task over relationship.

Joseph Campbell, a mythologist who greatly increased the clout of the monomyth theory, said once that, according to his understanding of human nature through mythology, women are more into being and men are more into doing. Identity versus Achievement. This seems to be supported, in my eyes, in most of society. In other words, I agree.

This is going to get me hard core burned by feminists, but I gotta say what I believe I guess. Is this really the fault of society? When a women is trying to balance a relationship, a career, a motherhood, and a personal life it doesnt work so well. I dont think it would work so well for a man either. I dont think it would work well for superman. This is not a result of society manipulating women, but women manipulating themselves by believing that they will only be free if they do the same things as a man (but still have the marriage and kids they desire). You cannot have it all. Your children are not going to care that you are sexually liberated when they grow up without you and become maladjusted.
You see, housework can be done by men too.

So, after both you and your wife have returned home from a hard day at work to pay the bills (because many people do need two incomes) how about you get offf your lazy ass and help her with dinner, or clean up after she cooks it, or clean the living room or take the kids to ballet or soccer or whatever they do instead of just sitting there getting your wife to do it all. Ok?

And as a riposte for those of you that will argue that men should share in the child rearing process, its not exactly that easy. Men aren't very good at it. I dont believe that its all nurture and thats why we're aggressive apathetic go getters. There are aspects of raising a child (very large ones) that are best undertaken by a women.
Excuse me?

Men aren't good at child rearing? My father is a better parent than my mother is. It takes hard work and dedication from either sex. It isn't some innate trait that women posess that allows us to be parents, men can do it just as easily. Yes, it takes time and practise and paying attention to the children, but the same goes when it comes to women looking after kids.

This isn't something that's best undertaken by a woman with the support of a man, this is something that's best when both parents do their share, when they both contribute to raising the child.

I'm really glad you brought that up. Sycophants (guys who play the nice-guy-subservient role to get pussy) are not the kind of blokes I find myself hanging around as a rule, but they are out there, without a doubt. I personally don't regard the "niceness" of such blokes as genuine, because to me, it seems to be a pretentious routine to compensate for 1) his gutlessness and 2) her overbearing princess complex. Any feminist worth her salt can admit that there is good and bad on both sides - to deny that much is a failure to represent feminism in an honest and accurate way.The sycophant is a scenario that I hadn't thought of, but it is a good point.

What I actually had in mind was "actual nice guy playing subservient role to uninterested girl because he just doesn't know better".

Care to give an example of a real-life situation where this can be observed?Yeah, some examples would help clear things up.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

...

Come back and post when you can keep on the topic of the thread, luv.He's asking for a clarification. Specifically, it seems to me that he's confusing the situation where {a partner works hard and compromises his/her own desires for the sake of making sure that the family is able to get by} with the situation where {she stops hanging out with al her friends, does only the stuff that the male partner likes to do, abandons her own hobbies, or whatever other examples you might want to provide}. So, Demented Hamsters is asking for a clarification. He's being sarcastic about it, but his question is on topic.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

You see, housework can be done by men too.

So, after both you and your wife have returned home from a hard day at work to pay the bills (because many people do need two incomes) how about you get offf your lazy ass and help her with dinner, or clean up after she cooks it, or clean the living room or take the kids to ballet or soccer or whatever they do instead of just sitting there getting your wife to do it all. Ok?

That was fairly hostile. I wasn't being that rude was I? I never said men should sit and clap their hands like their wife is their maid, and I never said they shouldnt help with work. I do think that raising children falls on mothers more than on fathers. This is something we disagree on. Fine. Understand this is not me being a crazy chauvinist just for the hell of it. I believe that women and men are inherently different, and that they have inherently different roles. I dont think I'm better than women because of it, or that I'm somehow more rational or less clouded by my hormones. There is actually science backing me up on this fact, its debatable, but I believe in it. I also believe that the whole of human history might actually have something to show us about it. Tradition isn't always right, but its certainly telling of human nature. Being different than men does not mean being worse, or exploited.

This is going to get me hard core burned by feminists, but I gotta say what I believe I guess. Is this really the fault of society? When a women is trying to balance a relationship, a career, a motherhood, and a personal life it doesnt work so well. I dont think it would work so well for a man either. I dont think it would work well for superman. This is not a result of society manipulating women, but women manipulating themselves by believing that they will only be free if they do the same things as a man (but still have the marriage and kids they desire). You cannot have it all. Your children are not going to care that you are sexually liberated when they grow up without you and become maladjusted.

And as a riposte for those of you that will argue that men should share in the child rearing process, its not exactly that easy. Men aren't very good at it. I dont believe that its all nurture and thats why we're aggressive apathetic go getters. There are aspects of raising a child (very large ones) that are best undertaken by a women.
so much to say, so much poker to play...

you dont know the half of it. women are not driven by the desire to "be free like a man" but to support their families. yes they want a good job that challenges them and pays well. they are no longer content to be a secretary, nurse or teacher (not that those arent good job. they pay extremely much better than they did when i was a kid and those were al the choices ambitious women had)

yes women want children. yes they want good jobs. this isnt really the problem.

the problem comes when a woman insists on all the housework being done HER way or no way. so that her husband is rendered incompetent and unwilling to pitch in, she'll just redo it anyway. its when she doesnt teach her children to clean their own rooms and do their own laundry. it comes when she is on every committee at church and with the PTA. when she cant refuse any assignment no matter how busy she is. when she cant refuse to watch the neighbors kids even though she has a million things to do. this is what female martyrdom is and what men never do.

And as a riposte for those of you that will argue that men should share in the child rearing process, its not exactly that easy. Men aren't very good at it. I dont believe that its all nurture and thats why we're aggressive apathetic go getters. There are aspects of raising a child (very large ones) that are best undertaken by a women.
i hit the submit button in the middle of a hot poker hand before repsonding to this part

the world has changed. men take care of their children now. they are extremely good at it and society is better off now because of this change.

That was fairly hostile. I wasn't being that rude was I? I never said men should sit and clap their hands like their wife is their maid, and I never said they shouldnt help with work. I do think that raising children falls on mothers more than on fathers. This is something we disagree on. Fine. Understand this is not me being a crazy chauvinist just for the hell of it. I believe that women and men are inherently different, and that they have inherently different roles. I dont think I'm better than women because of it, or that I'm somehow more rational or less clouded by my hormones. There is actually science backing me up on this fact, its debatable, but I believe in it. I also believe that the whole of human history might actually have something to show us about it. Tradition isn't always right, but its certainly telling of human nature. Being different than men does not mean being worse, or exploited.
Raising the children should not be somethign that falls onto the shoulders of one parent though, I don't know what scientific study you read that stated women are better at it, but that's not so in all cases, and children who have fathers who don't do anything turn out shitty, just as kids whose mothers don't do anything to raise them turn out shitty.
There are cases in single parenthood of men sacrificing everything and becoming wonderful parents for their kids, and you are sitting here saying that men are no good at it.

Parenting takes effort. From both genders. For some people it comes naturally, but some people are already nurturing and caring, others have to work on that more, nurturing and caring are not traits that are exclusive to women.

And really, studies have shown that in dual income families, women still do 80% of the housework. Sure, that's down from 100%, but it's nowhere near a 50/50 split.

so much to say, so much poker to play...

you dont know the half of it. women are not driven by the desire to "be free like a man" but to support their families. yes they want a good job that challenges them and pays well. they are no longer content to be a secretary, nurse or teacher (not that those arent good job. they pay extremely much better than they did when i was a kid and those were al the choices ambitious women had)

yes women want children. yes they want good jobs. this isnt really the problem.

the problem comes when a woman insists on all the housework being done HER way or no way. so that her husband is rendered incompetent and unwilling to pitch in, she'll just redo it anyway. its when she doesnt teach her children to clean their own rooms and do their own laundry. it comes when she is on every committee at church and with the PTA. when she cant refuse any assignment no matter how busy she is. when she cant refuse to watch the neighbors kids even though she has a million things to do. this is what female martyrdom is and what men never do.

Well put. I actually quite agree. I happen to have a close friend with the misfortune of growing up in a family like this, and its where alot of my distaste for the feminist movement springs from. His mother was doing a medical residency and piled so much on herself that it kind of made her nuts. It really
seemed like she was just trying to keep everything from coming apart at the seams by trying to be on top of everything at once and making sure everybody adheared to her plan. He is now in college and has more or less broken off ties with her, which is really unfortunate. I do stand by my assertian that gender differences effect our roles.

Raising the children should not be somethign that falls onto the shoulders of one parent though, I don't know what scientific study you read that stated women are better at it, but that's not so in all cases, and children who have fathers who don't do anything turn out shitty, just as kids whose mothers don't do anything to raise them turn out shitty.
There are cases in single parenthood of men sacrificing everything and becoming wonderful parents for their kids, and you are sitting here saying that men are no good at it.

Parenting takes effort. From both genders. For some people it comes naturally, but some people are already nurturing and caring, others have to work on that more, nurturing and caring are not traits that are exclusive to women.

And really, studies have shown that in dual income families, women still do 80% of the housework. Sure, that's down from 100%, but it's nowhere near a 50/50 split.

Nor do I absolve men of any parenting responsibility. Men play a very important role. Poor parenting by men is even linked to problems like sociopathy. I believe though that women are responsible for nurturing and teaching children more than men, and that they are better at it by nature.

Off to class. I dont really think this would have gone anywhere terribly fast without getting into a long debate about the scientific theories behind it (which to be perfectly frank I just dont have the inclination to dig up right now). Nice to talk with you though, interesting ideas all around. Maybe I'll come back later and keep going.

Nor do I absolve men of any parenting responsibility. Men play a very important role. Poor parenting by men is even linked to problems like sociopathy. I believe though that women are responsible for nurturing and teaching children more than men, and that they are better at it by nature.
Geez. And people say that feminists stereotype.

Some men are just as good at bing nurturing as some women, some men and some women are terrible nutrurers. It is something that can and has been developped.

Geez. And people say that feminists stereotype.

Some men are just as good at bing nurturing as some women, some men and some women are terrible nutrurers. It is something that can and has been developped.

We're going in circles. Telling me that I'm that I'm deluded and my ideas are archaic might be satisfying, but it does little to encourage me to change them. What you are talking about is exceptions to a rule. Yes, these exist, even in almost every person to some degree. Lord knows I probably should never have been able to pass math past algebra and I'm a guy (whom according to studies are supposed to excel at math inherently). That doesnt change the fundamental rules though. But lets start at a more basic level. Will you concede that male (http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html) and (http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=159&page=2) female (http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1261) brains (http://apu.sfn.org/content/Publications/BrainBriefings/gender.brain.html) are different?

35 years ago when the female eunuch was published things were far different from what they are today. we were just on the far edge of the time when a woman wanting to go to college (and work afterwards) had the choice of being a teacher of a nurse. sure there were some women in the science and business school but a woman had to practically be a genius to be accepted in medical school or any other "man's" field.

at that time there were still "men wanted" and "women wanted" categories in the classified job ads. it was well understood that women werent mechanics, werent scientists, werent mathematicians, werent business executives. those that were were "unnatural". a woman wanting to use her brain was doomed to being an old maid. (or so we were taught) what man would ever want such an unnatural woman for a wife?

womens' jobs were seen as nurturing. teachers, nurses, secretaries, shopgirls, housewives. all were supporting roles for the big jobs that men had. society did stunt the ambitions of young women and try to fit them into tight little molds.

One of the myriad reasons I love my ex: She went sent me a book called "Bitch", which she was a fan of, and, rather than 'cheating' and telling me later, she made it quite clear, after she went back to Australia, that she was going to date, have sex, and enjoy life. Not in a mean "None for you!" way. Just a simple fact.
If anything, aside from romance, we're just that much closer for her honesty.
The world needs more 'bitches'. Wow. What a cool story! Honesty is so dependent on both parties having the guts to face said honesty. I think it would be much easier if people were all a little more secure in themselves and their sense of autonomy – to take a partner’s behaviour only as evidence of that partner’s autonomy rather than an indictment on their own performance/value. That said, I found www.heartless-bitches.com really refreshing. You might enjoy it. Care to give an example of a real-life situation where this can be observed? Example: Julie has a car, but few of her friends do, and rely on public transport. Julie goes out of her way to offer lifts to her friends. Her friends are appreciative, but while Julie’s motives may be “I empathise with people who have to walk everywhere and I want to help” on a superficial level, Julie may have an underlying motivation, that perhaps she doesn’t even admit to herself. This motivation may be: “If I make myself available and valuable to my friends, they will be in the habit of needing me, and therefore my risk of rejection is reduced,” or “Having transport in the group makes me powerful. People will be obligated to me because I have done favours for them.” I suspect that, like most things involving human behavior, there are both a genetic component and a socialization component. Women seem genetically predisposed to value relationship over task, men seem to value task over relationship. It's only logical that social systems would arise which tend to take cognizance of this, and thus reinforce the genetic predisposition. Yes agreed, though I do find the way you define it as relationship vs task oriented very interesting. I’m a woman and incredibly task oriented, to the extent that relationships with others don’t really register as priorities with me. That may sound very callous and selfish in a way, but I would specify that I define my love for people by my behavior (task) rather than my relationship with them. For example, when you force yourself out of a warm bed on a snowy morning to front up for work, you are allowing your behaviour define you as a responsible person rather than your thought “Damn I really don’t wanna get out of bed this morning.” A social system determining the inherited outcome is immensely plausible, though personally I’d lean toward a 70% Socialisation – 30% Inherited equation, out of my own experiences of nature vs nurture. This is going to get me hard core burned by feminists, but I gotta say what I believe I guess. Is this really the fault of society? When a women is trying to balance a relationship, a career, a motherhood, and a personal life it doesnt work so well. I agree with this only if we are arguing that the foundation of society which operates on these Working-man/Mother-woman definitions cannot be changed. I think they can be changed. I think if we adapted our beliefs to fit the uniqueness of every individual rather than the stereotype of their gender, we might observe a shift in the way we regard parenting. I’m aware, however, that this is akin to proposing jumbo-jet transport pre-kitty hawk.

Speaking personally, I think a great many people have kids because they’re expected to. I still believe there’s a taboo about remaining childless – I know my mother was disappointed but hopeful when I told her I wasn’t considering kids. I don’t believe in the theory that humans are overbreeding, but I believe religiously that the raising of offspring is a profound task, and not one to be undertaken lightly. Neither do I believe that remaining childless is selfish. A person can contribute to the world with or without children. I would say you can have what you want if you are careful what you want, and you know your limitations. Everything in moderation.

Men and women are all different. My mother is devoutly religious and yet my father is my enduring spiritual influence. Both of my parents are deeply kind and compassionate individuals. There is hardness and softness in every person, and I know quite a few deadbeat dads (go-getter? Heehee!) and hardarsed survivalist women (nanna was a pioneer – she had a horse and a gun!). Stereotypes are easy to see, but the reality is so much more inspiring.

What I found funny was in a recent article, a feminist writter noted, with some wit, that it seems every generation of women seem to suddenly discover this fact, swear that they will not fall into the same trap, and then proceed to teach it to their daughters.

Wash, rince, repreat.

LOL.

I do think though (other men take heed - this is an observation from the male side) that human society would absolutely, positively crumble without the contribution women make. So thanks to all the women out there.


/snip/
I don’t believe in the theory that humans are overbreeding, but I believe religiously that the raising of offspring is a profound task, and not one to be undertaken lightly.
/snip/


One of the most profound truths I've seen in a while.

<snip> Example: Julie has a car, but few of her friends do, and rely on public transport. Julie goes out of her way to offer lifts to her friends. Her friends are appreciative, but while Julie’s motives may be “I empathise with people who have to walk everywhere and I want to help” on a superficial level, Julie may have an underlying motivation, that perhaps she doesn’t even admit to herself. This motivation may be: “If I make myself available and valuable to my friends, they will be in the habit of needing me, and therefore my risk of rejection is reduced,” or “Having transport in the group makes me powerful. People will be obligated to me because I have done favours for them.”
I think she went into this further in "The Whole Woman". She said (if I recall correctly) that girls desperately seek approval from their fathers, but their fathers rarely succeed in supplying it correctly (basically, to the extent that the girl requires). The girl then feels rejected and seeks to limit her chance of rejection in later relationships (byputting up with everything).
I think she was correct in saying that women are too giving, but I think that in the majority of cases this is caused by neither party (in a love relationship) being entirely clear on what the other party is contributing. Although of course there are people who are selfish and wilfully cruel.

Speaking personally, I think a great many people have kids because they’re expected to. I still believe there’s a taboo about remaining childless – I know my mother was disappointed but hopeful when I told her I wasn’t considering kids. I don’t believe in the theory that humans are overbreeding, but I believe religiously that the raising of offspring is a profound task, and not one to be undertaken lightly. Neither do I believe that remaining childless is selfish. A person can contribute to the world with or without children. I would say you can have what you want if you are careful what you want, and you know your limitations. Everything in moderation.
<snip>
I agree 100%. I see lots of people where I live having their requisite 2.2 children and neglecting them simply because they aren't interested.

I have a suspicion that said martyrdom arises later in life; I don't see it as particularly prevalent in women of my age (26 - today...) or younger.

Generosity is often pretty selective. My dad loves to treat people, pay the bill, help them sample the good life, so to speak (despite being unable to afford it, the eejit). Yet he struggles to be emotionally generous sometimes.

In terms of giving of oneself emotionally and in terms of time, I don't see any real difference between men and women (though, again, my experience is mstly of those in their mid-twenties). Maybe the people I know are unusual in their generosity though.

Sorry, that was a wee bit tangential.