NationStates Jolt Archive

I found this article in today's New York Times interesting (though the information in it isn't new, and some of you might already be familiar with it):

Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/health/10well.html)
For insights into healthy marriages, social scientists are looking in an unexpected place.

A growing body of evidence shows that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach everyone else about marriage and relationships. Most studies show surprisingly few differences between committed gay couples and committed straight couples, but the differences that do emerge have shed light on the kinds of conflicts that can endanger heterosexual relationships.

...

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

“Heterosexual married women live with a lot of anger about having to do the tasks not only in the house but in the relationship,” said Esther D. Rothblum, a professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University. “That’s very different than what same-sex couples and heterosexual men live with.”

Other studies show that what couples argue about is far less important than how they argue. The egalitarian nature of same-sex relationships appears to spill over into how those couples resolve conflict.

One well-known study used mathematical modeling to decipher the interactions between committed gay couples. The results, published in two 2003 articles in The Journal of Homosexuality, showed that when same-sex couples argued, they tended to fight more fairly than heterosexual couples, making fewer verbal attacks and more of an effort to defuse the confrontation.

...

The findings suggest that heterosexual couples need to work harder to seek perspective. The ability to see the other person’s point of view appears to be more automatic in same-sex couples, but research shows that heterosexuals who can relate to their partner’s concerns and who are skilled at defusing arguments also have stronger relationships.

One of the most common stereotypes in heterosexual marriages is the “demand-withdraw” interaction, in which the woman tends to be unhappy and to make demands for change, while the man reacts by withdrawing from the conflict. But some surprising new research shows that same-sex couples also exhibit the pattern, contradicting the notion that the behavior is rooted in gender, according to an abstract presented at the 2006 meeting of the Association for Psychological Science by Sarah R. Holley, a psychology researcher at Berkeley.

So what does NSG think?

Do these findings (further) confirm the argument that egalitarianism is both possible and desirable in relationships? Or is their application to opposite-sex relationships necessarily limited?

Might movement toward greater legal and social recognition of same-sex relationships bring about broader cultural change with respect to equality in relationships? Will opposite-sex couples "learn" from same-sex ones? (Does that have anything to do with the intense fear and paranoia the prospect incites in some conservatives?)

It confirms what I'd thought for a while. Same-sex relationships are often healthier than heterosexual ones.

I'd say that my relationship is pretty healthy, due to my ladyfriend and I both seeing the need to be fairly open about our problems. Chores and stuff we usually try to do together, because then the work doesn't seem so bad. Except lawnmowing, which she watches me do while she drinks lemonade under a table umbrella, because for some reason that turns her on. Not sure why.

I think this is very interesting actually, though not entirely unexpected. People of the same sex communicate better than people of different sexes (for whatever reason). I think that the problem is more cultural than biological, so in effect heterosexual couples could "learn" from homosexual couples that gender roles are cultural.

I think this is very interesting actually, though not entirely unexpected. People of the same sex communicate better than people of different sexes (for whatever reason). I think that the problem is more cultural than biological, so in effect heterosexual couples could "learn" from homosexual couples that gender roles are cultural.

Indeed, in our culture, boys and girls are socialized by behavior of parents and peers to communicate differently from one another, oftentimes. This sometimes leads to problems in relationships.

So basically all this research done so that heterosexuals would finally understand that in gay relationships there isn't a "man and a woman" but a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Amazing. :rolleyes:

So basically all this research done so that heterosexuals would finally understand that in gay relationships there isn't a "man and a woman" but a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Amazing. :rolleyes:


Thats not what it says at all actually.


Well done.

Amazing.

What, that you can completely ignore the content and miss the point of the article?

There's no logical necessity that things turn out this way: the argument has been made, after all, that inequality is an essential aspect of human relationships. Same-sex couples could have simply replicated gender roles, with dominant and subordinate partners... whatever their gender composition, they could have shown exactly the same patterns of relationship difficulties as their opposite-sex counterparts.

But they don't. And that's not a trivial truth at all.

Same-sex couples could have simply replicated gender roles

What a stupid, inane, heteronormative position and it is quite telling about the state of a lot of heterosexual thinking out there that there needs to be "research" done to conclude that gay couples do not mimic straight couples, that there isn't some ridiculous state of affairs where "one is the woman, one is the man".

But they don't. And that's not a trivial truth at all.

Oh, it's an incredibly trivial truth to anyone who has half a brain and doesn't have most of it lodged up their heterosexist ass.

What a stupid, inane, heteronormative position and it is quite telling about the state of a lot of heterosexual thinking out there that there needs to be "research" done to conclude that gay couples do not mimic straight couples, that there isn't some ridiculous state of affairs where "one is the woman, one is the man".


Again, you totally missed the point of the article, and then went on some asinine rant about how much superior you are as a homosexual.



Oh, it's an incredibly trivial truth to anyone who has half a brain and doesn't have most of it lodged up their heterosexist ass.

Flame. But that tends to be what you resort to when people disagree and don fall to their knees in adoration when you speak your opinion.

*Cooks marshmallows over the nice heat of the thread*
i miss marshmallows, they're so simple. They don't need to put up with this.

What a stupid, inane, heteronormative position

What mindless, dogmatic nonsense.

It's not like gays are somehow immune to the dominant culture--fuck, because sexual orientation isn't hereditary in any obvious way, that's especially true with respect to gays, compared to other minorities.

and it is quite telling about the state of a lot of heterosexual thinking out there that there needs to be "research" done to conclude that gay couples do not mimic straight couples,

It's not a question of "mimicking", it's a question of what is it biologically and culturally that causes inequity in relationships, and how it does and doesn't manifest itself in same-sex relationships.

Mere opposite-sex status is in no obvious way the cause.

It's not like gays are somehow immune to the dominant culture--fuck, because sexual orientation isn't hereditary in any obvious way, that's especially true with respect to gays, compared to other minorities.


shhhh, don't you know that gays are immune from social conditioning? It's part of their super powers.

immunity to social conditioning, and a fashion sense that can be described only as fabulous

shhhh, don't you know that gays are immune from social conditioning? It's part of their super powers.

immunity to social conditioning, and a fashion sense that can be described only as fabulous

Neo Art wins the thread.

Mere opposite-sex status is in no obvious way the cause.

Of course it's not "obvious" to anyone who has their eyes covered by their own gluteals.

Of course it's not "obvious" to anyone who has their eyes covered by their own gluteals.

Funny, I have a completely egalitarian relationship with all of the women I know. It seems that opposite gender status isn't the culprit per se.

Of course it's not "obvious" to anyone who has their eyes covered by their own gluteals.

There are countless forms of inequality among human beings... plenty of which don't incorporate gender difference in any substantive respect.

That is obvious.

shhhh, don't you know that gays are immune from social conditioning?

And why would there be "social conditioning" for a man to act as a woman in a same-sex relationship? The entire premise of this "social engineering" you keep blathering about is that men are "engineered" to act like men and woman to act like women. By the very logic of that "reasoning" it should stand that two men in a relationship will act as men and two women as women.

The inanity of the premiss that somehow that would change and that gay people would go "hang on a minute, we're in a relationship and now one of us has to stop acting like their gender and assume a role that he/she was not "engineered" towards, all to act like the straights do, because, you know, what they do is how it should be done"... well, it is hilarious were it not oh, so sadly prevalent among heterosexuals who still at times, in this day and age, have come up to me and asked if in a relationship I "was the woman or the man". Imbecilic.

I predict that a quarter to half of the posts on this thread will be Fass's BAWWWWING. Based on how things are going.

I've read- in a Time article by a gay guy, who included personal anecdotes and a picture of him w/ his boyfriend- that gay relationships are less stable and break up ore easily after a fight than straight ones. I don't think this is something to learn. Any man ought to treat women with respect.

I've read- in a Time article by a gay guy, who included personal anecdotes and a picture of him w/ his boyfriend- that gay relationships are less stable and break up ore easily after a fight than straight ones. I don't think this is something to learn. Any man ought to treat women with respect.

The underlined is why that article fails.

As for why relationships fail, homosexual relationships are placed under stress that many heterosexual relationships never face. Quite frankly, ours is still an intolerant society, and homosexuals continue to be forced by intolerant parents and families to choose between maintaining a relationship with their family and being true to their own feelings.

And why would there be "social conditioning" for a man to act as a woman in a same-sex relationship? The entire premise of this "social engineering" you keep blathering about is that men are "engineered" to act like men and woman to act like women.

You oversimplify.

"Social engineering" need not only come into play with respect to individual gender roles, but also with respect to the way we conceive of relationships and sexuality: as characterized by power inequity and established roles, for instance. It doesn't necessarily matter which "side" we are on.

By the very logic of that "reasoning" it should stand that two men in a relationship will act as men and two women as women.

Again, you oversimplify. Culturally-established roles need not neatly coincide with the people who are "naturally" supposed to fulfill them. An egalitarian relationship is in some ways much more subversive of sexist relationship norms than one in which the roles are simply switched, because it implies that not only can people escape their assigned role, but that established unequal roles aren't even necessary in the first place.

How much social engineering is at play here? What kind? How does it affect our conceptions of men, women, and relationships? This study gives us at least part of the answer... that's why it's interesting. You seem to prefer making statements a priori about the way things work.

well, it is hilarious were it not oh, so sadly prevalent among heterosexuals who still at times, in this day and age, have come up to me and ask if in a relationship I "was the woman or the man"? Imbecilic.

This is an obnoxious question... though less for "heteronormativity" per se than its general assumption of the universal necessity of gendered patterns in relationships, in a society where plenty of people (gay and straight) have managed to escape them to one degree or another.

Fass, in a way the question you cite only reinforces my point.

It is typical in our society to conceive of relationships in terms of gender roles... and the fact that people ask such a question only goes to show that this conception is not automatically suspended when it comes to same-sex relationships. It remains (culturally) coherent.

A shame then that according to BBC there might be hormonal treatments to alter homosexual tendencies to the socially acceptable heterosexual norm, possibly as soon as the end of the century, considering the amount of money being funnelled into research of such "wonder treatments."

One of the examples where supply and demand are definitely not showing themselves at their most humanistic side. Guess as long as there are prejudiced parents who want the "best for their child" and are lined with money, such things are a natural evolution of the darker side of medicine.

Not that I give BBC too much credence. But it is food for thought. Also note that while homosexuality might not be merely hormonal, the goal is not the eradication of the persons homosexuality. Since that would make them asexual. But rather to make them heterosexual, and that is thought to be made possible through precision hormonal treatments which show signs of inducing a strong urge towards heterosexual behavior. Again. It's BBC. So meh. Either way, doesn't sound too healthy to me.

A shame then that according to BBC there might be hormonal treatments to alter homosexual tendencies to the socially acceptable heterosexual norm, possibly as soon as the end of the century, considering the amount of money being funnelled into research of such "wonder treatments."

Perhaps, in the future, the children of black parents could be altered towards the more socially acceptable white norm.

Also, it's worth noting that the historical pattern here is rather different: same-sex relationships in, say, classical Greece and Rome (or medieval Japan, for another example), were often highly unequal, and occurred across differences of age, status, and social class.

And there's no doubt that that had something to do with the influence of gender roles, especially with respect to penetration.

What a stupid, inane, heteronormative position and it is quite telling about the state of a lot of heterosexual thinking out there that there needs to be "research" done to conclude that gay couples do not mimic straight couples, that there isn't some ridiculous state of affairs where "one is the woman, one is the man".

Oh, it's an incredibly trivial truth to anyone who has half a brain and doesn't have most of it lodged up their heterosexist ass.

Fassitude, I would just like to take this opportunity to let you know that the hostile, childish, and defensive attitude that you display in any discussion that I see you participate in with respect to homosexuality does a great disservice to the GLBT community. Your willingness to take any small point and twist it into being an attack on homosexuality -- even when it is clearly not, as in the case -- only lends credibility to those who would paint the GLBT equal rights movement as not about integration at all. After all, even when the poster you responded to was clearly taking a positive viewpoint of homosexual relationships, you proceeded to relentlessly and aggressively lambaste him/her. Tell me, just what do you think you are accomplishing by behaving in such a manner? What harm was displayed when the poster noted that homosexual relationships have the possibility of mirroring the dominant-submissive pattern demonstrated in heterosexual ones? There was no reason for you to make any sort of attack against that discussion point, let alone such a profane, rude one.

Your immature behavior only alienates allies to our cause. Take this to heart the next time you decide to berate someone who is in fact an ally of yours.

I found this article in today's New York Times interesting (though the information in it isn't new, and some of you might already be familiar with it):

Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/health/10well.html)


So what does NSG think?

Do these findings (further) confirm the argument that egalitarianism is both possible and desirable in relationships? Or is their application to opposite-sex relationships necessarily limited?

Might movement toward greater legal and social recognition of same-sex relationships bring about broader cultural change with respect to equality in relationships? Will opposite-sex couples "learn" from same-sex ones? (Does that have anything to do with the intense fear and paranoia the prospect incites in some conservatives?)

Personally, I suspect this has to do with the fact that society still perceives gender roles, overall, which is an outdated concept. As such, I think homosexual marriages could be what we need to finally toss that concept into the trash once and for all.

That is a good point - is there something about the time period of today that results in same-sex relationships being more egalitarian than they were in times past?

The underlined is why that article fails.Yeah. Time sucks.

That is a good point - is there something about the time period of today that results in same-sex relationships being more egalitarian than they were in times past?

I think it may have to do, in part, with the emancipation of women. In times past those who men who were penetrated were linked to women, ie they were indulging in the "feminine" role. So basically a guy couldn't have a sexual relationship with an equal. Nowadays women are generally considered equal to men.

Your immature behavior only alienates allies to our cause. Take this to heart the next time you decide to berate someone who is in fact an ally of yours.

It's not really about homosexuality. Fass just has an ego the size of America. He's attacked different cultures, peoples, sexualities as inferior just because they don't fit within his mono-vision world. He's even equated people who don't waste food with a variety of negative stereotypes like being greedy and overweight.

I found this article in today's New York Times interesting (though the information in it isn't new, and some of you might already be familiar with it):

Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/health/10well.html)


So what does NSG think?

Do these findings (further) confirm the argument that egalitarianism is both possible and desirable in relationships? Or is their application to opposite-sex relationships necessarily limited?

Might movement toward greater legal and social recognition of same-sex relationships bring about broader cultural change with respect to equality in relationships? Will opposite-sex couples "learn" from same-sex ones? (Does that have anything to do with the intense fear and paranoia the prospect incites in some conservatives?)


I think the entire issue is much more about communication skills than a thing to do with genders being a culprit of some sort. My marriage is based in equality, but I don't consider it egalitarian at all. Nor do I particularly see a need for it to be. I have no desire to be a man's equal under that definition. Nor do I feel insecure that my husband has a role in our relationship as do I and wow surprise they aren't the same and yikes might be somewhat based in gender. :p

It works for us, so who is to say it needs to 'improve' to someone elses standards?

I don't think learning from same-sex or heterosexual couples is a solution of any kind (accept academia wishful thinking perhaps) to anything. A balanced happy relationship is achieved through honest communication, no matter the genders or roles. jmo

I found this article in today's New York Times interesting (though the information in it isn't new, and some of you might already be familiar with it):

Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/health/10well.html)


So what does NSG think?

Do these findings (further) confirm the argument that egalitarianism is both possible and desirable in relationships? Or is their application to opposite-sex relationships necessarily limited?

Might movement toward greater legal and social recognition of same-sex relationships bring about broader cultural change with respect to equality in relationships? Will opposite-sex couples "learn" from same-sex ones? (Does that have anything to do with the intense fear and paranoia the prospect incites in some conservatives?)
Not only am I not surprised, it also fits with a pet theory of mine: that part of the root for homophobia is the fear that traditional gender roles will be overthrown.

Not only am I not surprised, it also fits with a pet theory of mine: that part of the root for homophobia is the fear that traditional gender roles will be overthrown.

Why would that happen? I hold a very traditional gender role in my relationship (which I love), but I don't have a fear of losing that just because someone else chooses not to espouse that role in their relationship. Nor do I have a fear of such roles dying out anytime soon. I see people choosing mates with similar values and holding true to what they desire in a relationship.

Why would traditional gender roles be overthrown?

Am I missing something here?

Not only am I not surprised, it also fits with a pet theory of mine: that part of the root for homophobia is the fear that traditional gender roles will be overthrown.
I wouldn't say it is fear of gender roles being overthrown, but rather the inability to ID oneself as a particular gender.

Why would that happen? I hold a very traditional gender role in my relationship (which I love), but I don't have a fear of losing that just because someone else chooses not to espouse that role in their relationship. Nor do I have a fear of such roles dying out anytime soon. I see people choosing mates with similar values and holding true to what they desire in a relationship.

Um, not to put too fine a point on it, but...you're not a homophobe, right?

So, what I said wouldn't apply to you, right?



Why would traditional gender roles be overthrown?

Am I missing something here?
Traditional gender roles are maintained, in large part, by peoples' assertions that they are innate and immutable. The existence of gay couples basically fucks with all the notions of how men and women are 'separate but equal' by nature, and the yin-and-yang of human relationships must be male-female.

Personally, I don't much care if two people decide to adhere to traditional gender roles in their own relationship. I only think they're fuckwits if they start claiming that traditional gender roles are innate and immutable and everybody should/must adhere to them.

I wouldn't say it is fear of gender roles being overthrown, but rather the inability to ID oneself as a particular gender.
Which is only important if gender matters. Which it does mainly because of gender roles.

If I may address the original "study": where do children fit into this?

The money, time, and physical effort a hetero couple puts into the raising of a single child, not to mention multiple ones, it is not surprising that tempers flare and satisfaction goes on a roller coaster ride.

In today's world, the division of labor really kicks in with the birth of the first child and is hard to avoid if you want to maintain a respectable lifestyle. Yet I don't see any indication of children being added to this equation. Was this left out? Considered insignificant? Just missed?

I question such a study that does not take this into effect. I question making such conclusions off of a study of 1000 Vermont couples.

Why would that happen? I hold a very traditional gender role in my relationship (which I love), but I don't have a fear of losing that just because someone else chooses not to espouse that role in their relationship. Nor do I have a fear of such roles dying out anytime soon.
I suppose my situation is non-traditional. My wife earns a hell of alot more than I do, and I tend to do most of the cooking (because I enjoy it, and I'm reasonably good at it). It works for us, and I certainly don't think it's going to cause the downfall of civilisation which, reading between the lines, seems to be the fear of some of the people that spout off in the newspapers these days.

I think Bottle's point is that there are a lot of people clinging to the ideal of "Dad, Mum and 2 kids" as some sort of ideal family unit. In their cozy little ideal world, Dad goes out to work and earns the money, while Mum stays home, looks after the kids and keeps house, and any alternative to that style of living is seen as a threat to their way of life. It's an anachronism but I reckon Bottle's right, it probably does drive a lot (not all) of the homophobic sentiment that exists.

I think it may have to do, in part, with the emancipation of women. In times past those who men who were penetrated were linked to women, ie they were indulging in the "feminine" role. So basically a guy couldn't have a sexual relationship with an equal. Nowadays women are generally considered equal to men.

Yes, that seems like a plausible explanation.

The interesting point here, though, is that same-sex couples are not only more egalitarian than they were in the past (like opposite-sex couples), but more egalitarian than opposite-sex couples now.

It works for us, so who is to say it needs to 'improve' to someone elses standards?

And who says you should?

But there's no doubting that in society in general, there are issues of male social power that spill over into marriages... and that the division of tasks often is not so neatly a consequence of mutual equality and consent. The evidence in the article (and it's hardly alone) indicates that the consequence often is resentment and relationship problems, and whether or not you believe that the abolition of roles in relationships is a good idea, avoiding those surely is.

I don't think learning from same-sex or heterosexual couples is a solution of any kind (accept academia wishful thinking perhaps) to anything.

"Learning" is not, I think, the most appropriate phrase, which is why I put it in quotes.

The question I'm asking is not whether opposite-sex couples will look at same-sex couples and think, "Oh, I want to be like them." Rather, I'm asking whether the changes socially accepted egalitarian same-sex couples will make to our social conception of "relationships" will have a sort of destabilizing effect on dominant social norms of roles and inequality... in the same vein as modern feminism.

(Of course, in freeing up our social conceptions of relationships, it need not have any effect on couples who make the free, conscious, equal choice to live by a more traditional model.)

A balanced happy relationship is achieved through honest communication, no matter the genders or roles.

But, interestingly, same-sex couples appear to do better here, too.

I suppose my situation is non-traditional. My wife earns a hell of alot more than I do, and I tend to do most of the cooking (because I enjoy it, and I'm reasonably good at it). It works for us, and I certainly don't think it's going to cause the downfall of civilisation which, reading between the lines, seems to be the fear of some of the people that spout off in the newspapers these days.

I think Bottle's point is that there are a lot of people clinging to the ideal of "Dad, Mum and 2 kids" as some sort of ideal family unit. In their cozy little ideal world, Dad goes out to work and earns the money, while Mum stays home, looks after the kids and keeps house, and any alternative to that style of living is seen as a threat to their way of life. It's an anachronism but I reckon Bottle's right, it probably does drive a lot (not all) of the homophobic sentiment that exists.
Yeah, that's basically what I'm getting at.

I am not saying that everybody who has a "traditional" family is homophobic. I'm saying that I think a lot of people who are homophobic feel that way, at least in part, because homosexuality threatens their gender roles.

For example, my boyfriend's aunt and uncle have a very traditional relationship. We were over at their place last Thanksgiving, and the way it worked was the aunt was in the kitchen all day preparing the meal, while the uncle sat on the couch and chatted with people. After the meal, the women cleared the table and did dishes while the men went and sat on the couch again. I was honestly a bit shocked by this (it sure as fuck doesn't work that way in my family!) and I made some vague, tentative comment about it. Aunt replied that of course she didn't like it, but "That's just men, you know?"

But the thing is, that's NOT how men are, any more than it's how women are. That's how some people are taught to behave. Imagine living your whole life doing shit you don't want to do, doing it because you believe that's just how men and women have to be. And then you find out that this whole time you've been suckered, because it DOESN'T have to be that way. I know I would feel pretty shitty. I'd feel like a chump. I'd feel like I'd wasted my life. I'd probably want to deny it all and insist that it really does have to be that way and I didn't have a choice, because the alternative would be that I got chumped big time.

I think that's part of why some people cling to gender roles so tightly that they hate on anybody who breaks with those roles.

People who CHOOSE to be traditional, and who do so because it's what they genuinely enjoy, tend to be far more mellow. They don't much care if anybody else is traditional, because it doesn't matter...they're just doing what makes them happy. It's weird, but I've found that such people tend to be pretty open-minded about homosexuality, even though their own lives are very traditional.

It's the people who, secretly, AREN'T happy about their lot in life who get really pissed. Kind of like how the closeted homosexuals are often the most overtly homophobic.

Um, not to put too fine a point on it, but...you're not a homophobe, right?

So, what I said wouldn't apply to you, right?



Traditional gender roles are maintained, in large part, by peoples' assertions that they are innate and immutable. The existence of gay couples basically fucks with all the notions of how men and women are 'separate but equal' by nature, and the yin-and-yang of human relationships must be male-female.

Personally, I don't much care if two people decide to adhere to traditional gender roles in their own relationship. I only think they're fuckwits if they start claiming that traditional gender roles are innate and immutable and everybody should/must adhere to them.

I can only claim such a notion for myself. I think my role is innate, though certainly not immutable. I have done both roles in a family and I can honestly say being the role of bread winner head of the family blows and it does not come naturally to me (though I was successful at it for years). Being a housekeeper and cookie baking mom does come naturally. :p

That being said, obviously I could only know that about myself and no one else. :)

I can only claim such a notion for myself. I think my role is innate, though certainly not immutable. I have done both roles in a family and I can honestly say being the role of bread winner head of the family blows and it does not come naturally to me (though I was successful at it for years). Being a housekeeper and cookie baking mom does come naturally. :p

That being said, obviously I could only know that about myself and no one else. :)
Exactly! So you are definitely NOT the type of person I was talking about when I was saying that some folks cling to their gender roles.

You've worked out what feels right to you, but you don't assume it will feel right for everyone. That attitude makes it kind of hard to be a homophobe. ;)

I'm like bizarro-world you, in that sense; I'm pretty much the polar opposite of the traditional female gender role. Name a quality or trait that is "feminine" and I'm pretty much guaranteed not to have it. Aside from my boobies and an interest in cooking, I'm basically the traditional "masculine" through and through. But I don't assume all women are like me. I don't assume that my innate feelings are the same as anybody else's innate feelings. I don't assume that my femaleness is the sole source of my personality.

I only have a beef with "traditionalists" when they start telling me how I should feel or act or run my relationship. At that point it's GTFO, IMO.

For example, my boyfriend's aunt and uncle have a very traditional relationship. We were over at their place last Thanksgiving, and the way it worked was the aunt was in the kitchen all day preparing the meal, while the uncle sat on the couch and chatted with people. After the meal, the women cleared the table and did dishes while the men went and sat on the couch again. I was honestly a bit shocked by this (it sure as fuck doesn't work that way in my family!) and I made some vague, tentative comment about it. Aunt replied that of course she didn't like it, but "That's just men, you know?"
My parents had that sort of relationship and, whilst my Mum certainly seemed happy enough with it, it always just seemed to me that there was something not quite right with the whole thing.

I asked her about it after my Dad died last year and her answers surprised me a little. She said that they'd discussed the way they would manage family life when she became pregnant with me, and they'd worked out that if he took on a new job they'd be able to afford for her not to have to return to work. Since she'd always wanted to look after her own children, this suited her fine. From there on my Mum ran the house while my Dad brought in the money -- as traditional as can be -- until my youngest sister started school, at which point my Mum decided she was bored, and went back to work.

Another non-obvious thing (to me) was a point that she made about the division of labour. Yes, she tended to do the cooking and washing but, she pointed out, it was my Dad that helped out with homework, kept the garden and did all the relentless ferrying around in the car that we kids demanded. She had no regrets about the way the tasks were divided, and reckons that it worked out about even.

I think the point is that there is no one way that's inherently 'best' to run a household or family // and now I'll stop, since I've just refreshed the page and seen that you posted this...
Personally, I don't much care if two people decide to adhere to traditional gender roles in their own relationship. I only think they're fuckwits if they start claiming that traditional gender roles are innate and immutable and everybody should/must adhere to them.
...which renders the stuff I've been typing a bit superfluous :p

My parents had that sort of relationship and, whilst my Mum certainly seemed happy enough with it, it always just seemed to me that there was something not quite right with the whole thing.

I asked her about it after my Dad died last year and her answers surprised me a little. She said that they'd discussed the way they would manage family life when she became pregnant with me, and they'd worked out that if he took on a new job they'd be able to afford for her not to have to return to work. Since she'd always wanted to look after her own children, this suited her fine. From there on my Mum ran the house while my Dad brought in the money -- as traditional as can be -- until my youngest sister started school, at which point my Mum decided she was bored, and went back to work.

Another non-obvious thing (to me) was a point that she made about the division of labour. Yes, she tended to do the cooking and washing but, she pointed out, it was my Dad that helped out with homework, kept the garden and did all the relentless ferrying around in the car that we kids demanded. She had no regrets about the way the tasks were divided, and reckons that it worked out about even.

I think the point is that there is no one way that's inherently 'best' to run a household or family // and now I'll stop, since I've just refreshed the page and seen that you posted this...

...which renders the stuff I've been typing a bit superfluous :p
Hah, not at all superfluous to share your own perspective.

My partner and I are extremely non-traditional, but we still divide labor around the house.

I have this thing about dealing with stinky garbage...I loathe it. He doesn't love it, but doesn't really mind either, so he's the one to take trash out. Meanwhile, he hate hate hate hates smooshing bugs or getting rid of spiders, so I do that because I don't much care. I hate doing dishes but enjoy cooking, so I cook and he scrubs up after.

Division of labor is NOT the problem, in my opinion. The problem is when certain tasks are defined as "men's tasks" or "women's tasks" automatically. That's stupid. The individuals involved should sort out a balance that they are content with, based on their individual skills and preferences.

The annoying bit is that in traditional systems there's usually a power imbalance which favors the male partner, and this often leads to him getting to pick and choose which chores he will do. Not surprisingly, he usually chooses not to do the most boring, gross, repetitive chores (because who would choose to do those if they didn't have to?). He'll fix things around the house instead of scrubbing the bathroom. He'll work on the car instead of changing diapers. Etc.

I don't object to people wanting to avoid doing gross chores. What I object to is systems in which it is assumed that certain gross chores are the exclusive province of one sex. Once you get to that point, it's no longer a compromise or a system between partners. It's not an agreement or a balance, because one partner feels ENTITLED to have the other partner take care of certain chores.

If I may address the original "study": where do children fit into this?

There's been a good deal of research done on LGBT parenting... in a few quick Google searches and a Wikipedia examination, I found nothing illuminating as pertains to this particular question, but if someone is willing to look more thoroughly they may be able to find something.

I do know that the children of same-sex couples are more or less traditional in their gender roles, but then again, it's not like they're growing up in isolated gay communes.

Overall, I think I agree with the view that because of our gender role socialization, men and women tend not to communicate as well or share the same conceptions of what egalitarianism in a relationship would look like, even if they both profess to be "egalitarian."


The question I'm asking is not whether opposite-sex couples will look at same-sex couples and think, "Oh, I want to be like them." Rather, I'm asking whether the changes socially accepted egalitarian same-sex couples will make to our social conception of "relationships" will have a sort of destabilizing effect on dominant social norms of roles and inequality... in the same vein as modern feminism.

(Of course, in freeing up our social conceptions of relationships, it need not have any effect on couples who make the free, conscious, equal choice to live by a more traditional model.)

I think over time it might. But I don't think that sexism, homophobia, or any other problem stemming from gender roles can be solved by this kind of an education--just looking around and seeing same-sex couples doing better at communication and maintaining egalitarian relationships. I think that gender roles give us (especially men) a false sense of entitlement, and because we want our privileges, we will resist changes to these roles even as we see them slowly breaking down. I think some people are simply malicious.

Personally, I suspect this has to do with the fact that society still perceives gender roles, overall, which is an outdated concept. As such, I think homosexual marriages could be what we need to finally toss that concept into the trash once and for all.

Indeed. I think the breakdown of enforced gender roles and changing attitudes towards the LGBT community are very closely linked. I'm not sure which, if either, really comes "first", but they definitely reinforce each other.

Yes, that seems like a plausible explanation.

The interesting point here, though, is that same-sex couples are not only more egalitarian than they were in the past (like opposite-sex couples), but more egalitarian than opposite-sex couples now.

Just speculation, but I wonder if this is, in a way, a lack of social conditioning. Hetero couples are the main pattern that most people growing up - regardless of sexuality - have seen, and a lot of those couples follow traditional roles. Same-sex couples are already breaking the mold, as it were, so there's no clear example for them to follow. They kind of have to figure it out on their own.

We see that in less obvious ways than things like chore distribution. Take, for instance, name changes. Traditionally, a woman has taken her husband's surname when they get married. Even as our overall attitudes towards gender change, most hetero couples stick with that because it's the usual pattern. But same-sex couples don't really have that option. They don't have a man and a woman, so a woman can't just take the man's name. They have to work out what they really want to do. Do they want to keep their own names? Hyphenate? Concatenate? Choose a whole new name? Do they like one surname or the other better?

In that regard, I think same-sex couples really can be an example - because I think everyone should do that. Simply doing what is traditional because it is traditional is the lazy way out - and much more likely to lead to problems than figuring out what works best for you and your partner. If you do the work at the outset - really thinking through what's best for you, your relationship will also likely be healthier from the outset.

Again, you totally missed the point of the article, and then went on some asinine rant about how much superior you are as a homosexual.

Flame. But that tends to be what you resort to when people disagree and don fall to their knees in adoration when you speak your opinion.

Hilarious.

Those of you generally behaving as the largest asses in the room tend to be the ones crying about how Fass 'never listens!' while mangling his arguments beyond all recognition because you can't stand him.

At least Fass is honest about being an ass. And rightfully scornful of hets who are miles behind in their social development, when said hets ask for a pat on the back for figuring out something many gays have known for a loooong time.

Fassitude, I would just like to take this opportunity to let you know that the hostile, childish, and defensive attitude that you display in any discussion that I see you participate in with respect to homosexuality does a great disservice to the GLBT community.

Yes, because any individual represents the group, and if that individual has opinions which offend others, the group shall also be guilty of giving said offense.

Not only am I not surprised, it also fits with a pet theory of mine: that part of the root for homophobia is the fear that traditional gender roles will be overthrown.

And yet, if all this study is saying is that gender roles are maintained, but equality is more prevalent in same-sex couples because there is only ONE gender represented...homophobes have little to fear in that regard. It would be going against gender roles if a male same-sex couple suddenly decided that one of them should be the 'female'.

Hilarious.

Those of you generally behaving as the largest asses in the room tend to be the ones crying about how Fass 'never listens!' while mangling his arguments beyond all recognition because you can't stand him.

At least Fass is honest about being an ass. And rightfully scornful of hets who are miles behind in their social development, when said hets ask for a pat on the back for figuring out something many gays have known for a loooong time.

what exactly is it that gays "have known for a loooong time"? That gay relationships don't contain both sexes, in a physical sense?

Well, no shit and at no point did anyone ever claim to just become aware of this wonderful breakthrough. To fram the argument as "stupid heteroes just figured out that there are no women in a gay male relationship" is not only intellectually dishonest, it casts serious doubts on ones ability to have any honest discussion what so ever.

The discussion has never been whether two gay relationships contain both physical sexes, but whether homosexual couples still adopt social gender roles, and just because a relationship contains two physical men, doesn't mean one of them isn't a more dominant "male" type and one isn't a more subservient "female" type.

And what does happen when someone's physical sex doesn't mesh with their social gender, and how that plays out in relationships, and whether predominantly there is a social aspect to adopt gender roles, or create a more equal situation is by no means something "gays have known for a long time" especially with the prevelance of such things as the lipstick les/bulldike archtype, in which gender roles are apparent, even in two people of the same sex.

And yet, if all this study is saying is that gender roles are maintained, but equality is more prevalent in same-sex couples because there is only ONE gender represented...homophobes have little to fear in that regard. It would be going against gender roles if a male same-sex couple suddenly decided that one of them should be the 'female'.
Nope, because you have to remember that part of the "traditional" view is that certain relationship functions MUST be performed by the woman, and others MUST be performed by the man. In a gay relationship that shit gets thrown out the window because no matter who does what they are rejecting some of those requirements.

Nope, because you have to remember that part of the "traditional" view is that certain relationship functions MUST be performed by the woman, and others MUST be performed by the man. In a gay relationship that shit gets thrown out the window because no matter who does what they are rejecting some of those requirements.

that's why they rent *nods*

And rightfully scornful of hets who are miles behind in their social development, when said hets ask for a pat on the back for figuring out something many gays have known for a loooong time.

Of course, a lot of the people researching these questions aren't heterosexual at all.

what exactly is it that gays "have known for a loooong time"? That gay relationships don't contain both sexes, in a physical sense?


No, the argument has been that gay couples have known for a long time that individuals within said gay couple don't suddenly buck gender roles, and choose one of them to 'be the man' and the other to 'be the woman'.

In fact, anyone who is acquainted with same-sex couples whatsoever is generally aware of this as well. No shock, no amazing new information...except to people who are generally clueless about same-sex couples in the first place.


Well, no shit and at no point did anyone ever claim to just become aware of this wonderful breakthrough. To fram the argument as "stupid heteroes just figured out that there are no women in a gay male relationship" is not only intellectually dishonest, it casts serious doubts on ones ability to have any honest discussion what so ever. Well I'm glad you recognise this, as the above is a serious misrepresentation of anything Fass has said in this thread. Glad we're clear on this point.

The discussion has never been whether two gay relationships contain both physical sexes, but whether homosexual couples still adopt social gender roles, and just because a relationship contains two physical men, doesn't mean one of them isn't a more dominant "male" type and one isn't a more subservient "female" type. Ah! You are following along! Fantastic! Thank you for restating Fass' actual argument....that the above is exactly the tripe that hets seem to assume, and gays know from personal experience (for a looooong time) is not at all true. Except he said it in a few sentences.

And what does happen when someone's physical sex doesn't mesh with their social gender, and how that plays out in relationships, and whether predominantly there is a social aspect to adopt gender roles, or create a more equal situation is by no means something "gays have known for a long time" especially with the prevelance of such things as the lipstick les/bulldike archtype, in which gender roles are apparent, even in two people of the same sex. The dynamics among people with contrary gender roles is always complicated, whether said dynamic exists in the het or homo relationship. Transgendered invididuals, for example, often need to answer questions about their sexual orientation...whether said orientation should be decided by sex or gender. And the 'prevelance' of the 'lipstick les/bulldike archetype' is manifestly overstated, probably because it's what hets are more comfortable with, as it at least meshes with traditional gender roles in some way.

But don't take my word on that. Go do a study so you can shock and impress your het friends.

Holy fuck, I'm channeling Fass. It's an odd feeling.

Of course, a lot of the people researching these questions aren't heterosexual at all.

Many aboriginal people are involved in medical research, attempting to validate to western science what we have known for thousands of years. The fact that aboriginal people are playing this role doesn't change the fact that the intended audience are non-aboriginals. We don't just get to say, "look, we know this is true already"...we have to prove it to you.

Kind of like this.

Nope, because you have to remember that part of the "traditional" view is that certain relationship functions MUST be performed by the woman, and others MUST be performed by the man. In a gay relationship that shit gets thrown out the window because no matter who does what they are rejecting some of those requirements.

Hmmm, I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or just not making ourselves clear to one another...

The traditional view, as you've stated, includes gender specific roles. Okay. But let's just take the case of a single woman, as an example. A single woman is not going to refuse to hang up a painting, or do some other 'manly thing' if there's no man there to take on the role...I mean, I would hope. Right?

So if you have two gay women in a relationship, both being gendered female, then it's likely that they'll split the 'manly' role in order to get things done. Now, what has been assumed (and I'm talking anecdotally here, since the question of 'who's the man' is a common one when dealing with lesbians) is that one would gravitate towards the male role, while the other would remain in the female role.

So what Fass was saying is that no, THAT would be kicking gender roles. Instead, both keep their gender role, and more equally do the things that don't necessarily 'fit' with that gender role.

Are you feeling me?:D

And the 'prevelance' of the 'lipstick les/bulldike archetype' is manifestly overstated, probably because it's what hets are more comfortable with, as it at least meshes with traditional gender roles in some way.

How very nice that the whole example that kinda puts a damper on "women don't just act like males!" is dismissed as "manifestly overstated" based on...your personal word, I guess.

Not too long ago you would have dismissed such comments from others as unsubstantiated, undocumented, and uncited, and refused to accept it without some demonstrable proof of the assertions. Seems not too long ago you were actually interested in intelligent conversation, not argumentative self aggrandizement.

What happened to you?

There's been a good deal of research done on LGBT parenting... in a few quick Google searches and a Wikipedia examination, I found nothing illuminating as pertains to this particular question, but if someone is willing to look more thoroughly they may be able to find something.

I do know that the children of same-sex couples are more or less traditional in their gender roles, but then again, it's not like they're growing up in isolated gay communes.

I was not talking about the parenting of same-sex couples, I was talking about the complete lack of the factor of children in studies involving egalitarianism in same-sex vs. hetero relationships. I would say this is a major factor that has been overlooked and foolishly dismissed.

Hmmm, I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or just not making ourselves clear to one another...

The traditional view, as you've stated, includes gender specific roles. Okay. But let's just take the case of a single woman, as an example. A single woman is not going to refuse to hang up a painting, or do some other 'manly thing' if there's no man there to take on the role...I mean, I would hope. Right?

You would certainly hope.


So if you have two gay women in a relationship, both being gendered female, then it's likely that they'll split the 'manly' role in order to get things done. Now, what has been assumed (and I'm talking anecdotally here, since the question of 'who's the man' is a common one when dealing with lesbians) is that one would gravitate towards the male role, while the other would remain in the female role.

So what Fass was saying is that no, THAT would be kicking gender roles. Instead, both keep their gender role, and more equally do the things that don't necessarily 'fit' with that gender role.

Are you feeling me?:D
I think I see what you're saying, but I also think I partly disagree.

I don't see how keeping your gender role would be a way to kick gender roles, any more than specifically rejecting your gender role and making yourself take on more "masculine" or "feminine" roles specifically to bunk gender norms.

Personally, I don't much care for my gender role. It's generally lousy and annoying. I don't keep it often. Both my partner and I naturally gravitate toward the "masculine" gender type as defined by our society. Yes, traditionally "female" tasks still need to get done around our house, so we split them up in whatever way we can agree on, but our genders aren't considered a reasonable argument for why one of us should do any particular task.

I don't see why lesbians should feel obligated to be EITHER masculine or feminine, since I think the masculine/feminine distinction is bunk in the first place. I don't see how choosing your roles based on gender (no matter how you do that) is actually a way to buck tradition. The tradition is dividing work/roles based on sex. So buck THAT tradition.

Hmmm, I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or just not making ourselves clear to one another...

The traditional view, as you've stated, includes gender specific roles. Okay. But let's just take the case of a single woman, as an example. A single woman is not going to refuse to hang up a painting, or do some other 'manly thing' if there's no man there to take on the role...I mean, I would hope. Right?

So if you have two gay women in a relationship, both being gendered female, then it's likely that they'll split the 'manly' role in order to get things done. Now, what has been assumed (and I'm talking anecdotally here, since the question of 'who's the man' is a common one when dealing with lesbians) is that one would gravitate towards the male role, while the other would remain in the female role.

So what Fass was saying is that no, THAT would be kicking gender roles. Instead, both keep their gender role, and more equally do the things that don't necessarily 'fit' with that gender role.

Are you feeling me?:D

And on the same hand I could argue two men in a relationship, being socially males, would both skirt the responsibility of household chores, leading them to not getting done, and rising conflict in the relationship.

This, after all, would be the "male" thing to do, to let the "other person" deal with it. Except since that's not what happens, and they get chores done together, and I note, lacking conflict in doing so, it would appera that this is NOT conforming to "traditional" gender roles, but is taking a more gender neutral stance.

And look at that, men not acting like traditional social males? Wasn't the whole point of fass' little rant that this doesn't happen?

Well...shit

No, the argument has been that gay couples have known for a long time that individuals within said gay couple don't suddenly buck gender roles, and choose one of them to 'be the man' and the other to 'be the woman'.

In fact, anyone who is acquainted with same-sex couples whatsoever is generally aware of this as well. No shock, no amazing new information...except to people who are generally clueless about same-sex couples in the first place.

Two things.

First, I said from the start that this information isn't particularly new. The only particularly new thing is the new opportunities for research posed by increased legal recognition of same-sex couples, and even that is a few years old. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise--if you and Fass mean to critique the tone of the New York Times article, well, I guess that's fair, but that's how the media is, and it's not really the topic of this thread.

Second, like Fass you're oversimplifying. It need not be a matter of mimicking, of one partner "being the man" and the other "being the woman" in some imitation of heterosexuality. There could just as easily be other forms in inequality particular to same-sex relationships--ones parallel, but not identical, to those pervading opposite-sex ones. Again, we see plenty of historical cases.

And you're right, it doesn't take much research to realize that those cases don't match what happens today very closely... but so what? The issue here is not "How clear is this from the evidence?", it's "Why does this happen, and what does it show?"

The question is not whether it's "obvious" to people with experience or not; the question is whether it's trivial. And it clearly isn't.

The fact that aboriginal people are playing this role doesn't change the fact that the intended audience are non-aboriginals.

What's your point? Who are you trying to criticize?

Are you noting that straight people have less experience with, and know less about, same-sex couples? Well, obviously.

Does this influence their understanding of gender roles in same-sex couples? Again, obviously.

So what?

How very nice that the whole example that kinda puts a damper on "women don't just act like males!" is dismissed as "manifestly overstated" based on...your personal word, I guess. I specifically said, don't take my word for it. I'm sure in a few years, a study will come out that you can crow over and go...my god! The lesbos aren't all bulldyke/lipstick combinations!? Oh wait, such studies exist.

Your 'damper' is anything but, and I'm sure in a few years you'll catch up.


Not too long ago you would have dismissed such comments from others as unsubstantiated, undocumented, and uncited, and refused to accept it without some demonstrable proof of the assertions. Seems not too long ago you were actually interested in intelligent conversation, not argumentative self aggrandizement. You're right, I was amiss.

Gender roles in lesbian couples (http://family.jrank.org/pages/686/Gender-Gender-Roles-Stereotypes.html)
He found that heterosexual and gay couples were more likely than lesbian couples to divide household labor so that one partner did the majority of the work. Lesbian couples were most likely to share domestic tasks or take turns doing the tasks (Kurdek 1993).

More on lesbian gender roles (http://www.springerlink.com/content/l3083h361907168r/)
Sorry, the above is simply an abstract.
Contrary to theoretical assumptions, lesbians and heterosexual women did not differ in gender role orientation.

Moar (http://www.psychpage.com/gay/library/gay_lesbian_violence/choosing_gender.html)
Some still hold the idea that gay and lesbian couples somehow organize their relationship around traditional gender roles, with one playing "the man" or "the butch" and one playing "the woman" or "the femme." There is little if any research to support this (Jablow, 2000; Julien et al, 2003; Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983)

But by all means, ignore that said research was done as early as '83.



What happened to you?
Thanks for the reminder. Now I'll ask you to back your assertions up with some sources.

I was not talking about the parenting of same-sex couples

Not as such, no, but research on the subject would be a way to tell whether having children has the same results in terms of task-sharing and relationship roles as it does in opposite-sex couples.

Holy fuck, I'm channeling Fass. It's an odd feeling.
Turn off the computer, NOW, and walk away quickly ;)

You would certainly hope.


I think I see what you're saying, but I also think I partly disagree.

I don't see how keeping your gender role would be a way to kick gender roles, any more than specifically rejecting your gender role and making yourself take on more "masculine" or "feminine" roles specifically to bunk gender norms.

Personally, I don't much care for my gender role. It's generally lousy and annoying. I don't keep it often. Both my partner and I naturally gravitate toward the "masculine" gender type as defined by our society. Yes, traditionally "female" tasks still need to get done around our house, so we split them up in whatever way we can agree on, but our genders aren't considered a reasonable argument for why one of us should do any particular task.

I don't see why lesbians should feel obligated to be EITHER masculine or feminine, since I think the masculine/feminine distinction is bunk in the first place. I don't see how choosing your roles based on gender (no matter how you do that) is actually a way to buck tradition. The tradition is dividing work/roles based on sex. So buck THAT tradition.

Ok, ok, I get where you're coming from. But just working with 'traditional' definitions for 'traditional gender roles', if lesbian women both stay gendered 'women', then they are adhering to traditional gender roles, n'est pas? And if one takes on the 'manly role', then by traditional standards, this bucks tradition, right?

But you're saying all of the above is shite, with which I must agree.

And on the same hand I could argue two men in a relationship, being socially males, would both skirt the responsibility of household chores, leading them to not getting done, and rising conflict in the relationship. Or, just like a single guy will not simply give up feeding himself, washing his own clothes or (hopefully) cleaning the place...they'd split the 'womanly' tasks. Which would fit better with the lesbian example I gave, than your version of such.

-snip-

There, that wasn't so hard now was it?

Although curious note in your citations:

He found that heterosexual and gay couples were more likely than lesbian couples to divide household labor so that one partner did the majority of the work

So man/man relationships are more like man/woman relationships than woman/woman relationships when it comes to doing household labor, in that in gay relationships, it's more likely that one partner is going to be doing the bulk of the work.

Well, doesn't that seem 1) to indicate that some adoptive gender roles that are in contradiction to physical sex is going on and 2) to be actually somewhat CONTRARY to what this study in the OP is suggesting?

Not as such, no, but research on the subject would be a way to tell whether having children has the same results in terms of task-sharing and relationship roles as it does in opposite-sex couples.

Indeed, but I see no such information in this study. That was the comment I was making on the incomplete nature of the current study being discussed.

To set things straight, I am leery of any study that proclaims either situation to be optimal. The right combination of partners produces good results and that is about all you can say about relationships.

I think the point (brought up by a few people) about changes in social gender roles overall having a lot to do with this is a good one. And by the "this" in "a lot to do with this," I mean the fact that heteros are paying any attention at all to what goes on in gay relationships. If it means anything at all, then it will have a shit-load to do with heteros and very little to do with gays.

Throughout history, different societies have had different kinds of gender role structures, from strictly segregated and unequal, to fully integrated and entirely equal, and all variations and combinations in between. Because of this, I reject the idea that any particular kind of gender role is in any way "natural" or inherent in the sexes themselves. When it comes to the question of nature versus nurture in social gender roles, any given human being is capable of filling any role life requires of him or her, and that, I think, is something we can see proven time and time again, every day. So, clearly, gender roles are nothing more than a social construct, not an expression of the natures of men and women.

That said, though, we also have numerous historical examples of severe, even violent resistance to change in gender roles as well as to individuals who buck the social gender role system. Why is that? I have not done a lot of specific reading on this, but my sense of it from general reading is that the more social power and status are tied to gender roles, then the more resistant a society will be to change or variation in gender role behaviors. Even in highly unequal and intolerant societies, like feudal Japan for example, if gender roles and sexual behavior per se are not prime indicators of social status, more variation in such things will likely be accepted than in societies where one's gender and sexual behavior determine one's status in the group.

In Western society -- I'll talk about the US because that's the society I know -- gender roles have been one of the prime indicators of social status, right along with wealth and race. All our cant about all men being created equal notwithstanding, we have also for most of our history (to this day) been a society dependent on an inherently unequal hierarchical power structure. Anything which seems to change or undermine the significance of social determinors like gender roles, race and wealth, or anything which seems to level out the playing field too much and thus reduces the significance of such things as class or rank or status (because there's no more difference between the "in-crowd" and the "out-crowd"), is going to meet with stiff and persistent resistance, every time.

For instance, the Industrial Revolution changed how everyone in western societies live, and it initiated changes in gender roles, too. It didn't change how people behave within relationships, but it made a drastic change in the status-determining areas of income-earning and the division of labor. Practical necessity forced people to change these parts of their lives, and that brought in a whole slew of related social and political changes as well. Interestingly, as these unavoidable changes in public life came about, I think we saw, over the 19th and 20th centuries, a backlash in the form of an increased emphasis on strict conformity to the old traditional gender roles in the private life of personal relationships. If men and women no longer could related to society in the old ways, it seems they were expected even more to relate to each other in the old ways, even to ridiculously impractical and unrealistic degrees (the 1950s, anyone?). And those individuals who did not conform were met with social disapproval, ostracization, even physical violence and murder.

It has nothing to do with sex and gender, imo. It has more to do with people who were comfortable living in a hierarchical pecking order wanting to keep it going and keep their accustomed place in it.

If the research cited by the OP is an indicator that we are finally coming to the place where the "old school" can start to think a little like the "new school" and look at and think about gender roles in a way that doesn't bring knee-jerk rejection, but rather causes heteros to think a little more about why we do the things we do, then I say yippee, and thanks for the ray of hope. But I'm a pessimist at heart, and this "backlash" war of tradition against the future has been going on for 200 years. I'm sure it will happen, but whether we will live to see that great gettin' up day is another matter altogether. Tradition is like Dracula that way -- very hard to get rid of.

To set things straight, I am leery of any study that proclaims either situation to be optimal.

"Optimal"? Who said anything about "optimal"?

It's obviously not optimal for straight people to form same-sex relationships, any more than it is for gay people to form opposite-sex ones... and to the individual bisexual, making judgments based on averages rather than on individual cases would not be wise.

I'm not interested in "gay chauvinism." I'm just wondering about the broader social implications of this--by which I do not mean straight men lining up to marry straight men, or straight women lining up to marry straight women.

Or, just like a single guy will not simply give up feeding himself, washing his own clothes or (hopefully) cleaning the place...they'd split the 'womanly' tasks. Which would fit better with the lesbian example I gave, than your version of such.

I"m sure they would, eventually, that's common sense. The question is would such split be amicable, or under duress?

I'm reminded of the book Brave New World, the premise, for those who haven't read, is that everyone in society is genetically engineered to fill certain roles, from the extremely intellectual and highly intelligent "Alphas" to the barely intelligent, more akin to animal than man Gammas.

At one point someone asks one of the "world controllers', the "alpa double plusses" why they didn't just make EVERYONE alphas. The answer was that they tried once, they bred up a bunch of the most elite individuals and stuck them on an island, and came back a year later to see what happened.

The isnald civilization had nearly collapsed, since each individual tried to assert their dominance, and nobody wanted to do the dirty work.

A flawed analogy but one worth discussing. I'm sure in a relationship with two men, shit will get done, and if one doesn't take on the role of "household chores doer" (which your study that you linked suggests that IS actually what happens) then they have to share it equally. But merely sharing equally isn't enough of the question, the issue is whether this is a harmonious sharing, or a conflicted sharing. Is the fact that they do equal shares a source of harmony in the relationship, or a source of conflict, as each struggles against his own gender identity to "not do women stuff"?

Or are these models outdated entirely in today's society? It's a far deeper question than simply "do gays share household tasks"

"Optimal"? Who said anything about "optimal"?

It's obviously not optimal for straight people to form same-sex relationships, any more than it is for gay people to form opposite-sex ones... and to the individual bisexual, making judgments based on averages rather than on individual cases would not be wise.

I'm not interested in "gay chauvinism." I'm just wondering about the broader social implications of this--by which I do not mean straight men lining up to marry straight men, or straight women lining up to marry straight women.

Where did this go wrong? Where do I suggest that straight men or women marry other straight men or women?

I was speaking of this study that same sex couples are optimal for relational egalitarianism. You seem to have the amazing ability to pull meaning from my words that isn't there.

So man/man relationships are more like man/woman relationships than woman/woman relationships when it comes to doing household labor, in that in gay relationships, it's more likely that one partner is going to be doing the bulk of the work.

Yes, if I recall other research I've seen correctly, female same-sex couples tend to be the most egalitarian, opposite-sex couples the least, and male same-sex couples somewhere in between.

So same-sex status does have an effect, male or female, but it's most prominent in female same-sex relationships. Which is an interesting observation in its own right.

Two things.

First, I said from the start that this information isn't particularly new. Oh I know, I'm assuming a tone, just to make that clear. Sorry, I love playing the devil's advocate, in particular when I actually agree somewhat with the devil in question.

The only particularly new thing is the new opportunities for research posed by increased legal recognition of same-sex couples, and even that is a few years old. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise--if you and Fass mean to critique the tone of the New York Times article, well, I guess that's fair, but that's how the media is, and it's not really the topic of this thread. No, I think the point is rather annoyance with the fact that there is already quite a bit of research out there on the topic, but each time something like this comes out, people are all 'omg, wow, really?'. Yes, really. Again.

Second, like Fass you're oversimplifying. It need not be a matter of mimicking, of one partner "being the man" and the other "being the woman" in some imitation of heterosexuality. There could just as easily be other forms in inequality particular to same-sex relationships--ones parallel, but not identical, to those pervading opposite-sex ones. Again, we see plenty of historical cases.
Listen, if you're not going to scream at me, I don't know that I can respond.

I don't think Fass and I are the only ones oversimplifying...rather mocking the common oversimplification since that 'imitation scenario' comes most often from the heteronormative position. Once people can finally go, hmmm, okay, men don't have to do 'x' and women don't have to do 'z', then maybe we can actually start to figure out the other kinds of things going on in relationships in general...but to be honest, I don't think the majority of people have gotten that far.

And you're right, it doesn't take much research to realize that those cases don't match what happens today very closely... but so what? The issue here is not "How clear is this from the evidence?", it's "Why does this happen, and what does it show?"

The question is not whether it's "obvious" to people with experience or not; the question is whether it's trivial. And it clearly isn't. It would be trivial to those already quite familiar with the dynamics in question.

But I see that you're saying to know it is one thing, to understand it is another. Still, I think Fass' assertion is, that gays know it already and are still a step ahead of those who haven't even reached that point.

It'd be nice if he'd take the time to explain the why, but I know how impatient he gets with the plebs. And how frothy the plebs get about it. It's more entertainment than illumination anyway.


What's your point? Who are you trying to criticize? People who demand to have things 'translated' for them, and who refuse to attempt to cross the cultural divide. As in, Mohammad is always expecting the mountain to come to him, rather than getting off his silly ass and going to it himself.

Are you noting that straight people have less experience with, and know less about, same-sex couples? Well, obviously. But not necessarily. As in, it isn't in any way necessary for straight people to be so uninformed about same-sex couples. There are plenty of hets out there who aren't clueless...so what's up with the rest of them? Gays learn about heterosexual norms from birth on...perhaps we should stop acting like hets who learn a little about homosexuals are extraordinary, and instead expect all hets to catch up?

Then again, if only the nice, polite, sweet-toned homos are going to be listened to, I suppose there's little hope for that.

Does this influence their understanding of gender roles in same-sex couples? Again, obviously. And again, go to the mountain, Mohammad! I mean, it's not like there aren't gay couples all over the freaking place. Do people really segregate themselves so?

Turn off the computer, NOW, and walk away quickly ;)

Oh come on, you haven't been this entertained since the great heteronormative rant part XXVIII of last week.

There, that wasn't so hard now was it? Bite me.

Although curious note in your citations:

So man/man relationships are more like man/woman relationships than woman/woman relationships when it comes to doing household labor, in that in gay relationships, it's more likely that one partner is going to be doing the bulk of the work. Yes, that was interesting wasn't it? I suppose this proves that all men are pigs, whether they're gay or not:p

Well, doesn't that seem 1) to indicate that some adoptive gender roles that are in contradiction to physical sex is going on and 2) to be actually somewhat CONTRARY to what this study in the OP is suggesting? Unfortunately I can't access the rest of the damn study, because I'd like to get into that issue in more detail.

<snip>
And again, go to the mountain, Mohammad! I mean, it's not like there aren't gay couples all over the freaking place. Do people really segregate themselves so?
Mentally, yes, a lot of people do. Sometimes, you have to grab them by the neck and rub their noses right in the reality, and do it again and again and again, with lots of negative response to undesirable behavior and positive reinforcement for desirable behavior. But even so, some dogs just won't be trained.

But yelling at the dog about why they wouldn't pay attention the first 100 times you told them what's what doesn't make the dog any more responsive to the message. You either have to commit to the training or find some way to work around the bad dog.

And yet, if all this study is saying is that gender roles are maintained, but equality is more prevalent in same-sex couples because there is only ONE gender represented...homophobes have little to fear in that regard. It would be going against gender roles if a male same-sex couple suddenly decided that one of them should be the 'female'.

But, in a world of strong gender roles, one or both of them do have to, in some ways, be the "female."

Suppose you had a lesbian couple in which both held to traditional gender roles. There would be plenty of food in the house, the dishes and laundry would always be done, and the house would be spotless. But the grass in their yard would be hip-high, things that broke down around the house would never get fixed, both would be up on the tables in case of a rodent or cockroach, etc.

They still have to cover the "male" jobs somehow in order to have a functioning household. This could be accomplished by going with a traditional division of labor where one takes on all of the "male" jobs, or it could be accomplished by both of them splitting the "female" and "male" jobs.

And the same thing goes for a gay male couple. The "female" jobs still need to be covered.

And people in hetero couples who have been shoehorned into the traditional "male" or "female" role may begin questioning that role when they see men doing "women's work" or vice versa. So, from the point of view of someone who thinks traditional roles must be protected and enforced, such challenges are threatening. No one can look at the way a same-sex couple divides the responsibilities of their relationship without recognizing the fact that your genitalia don't necessarily define the role you take on.

Mentally, yes, a lot of people do. Sometimes, you have to grab them by the neck and rub their noses right in the reality,

*pictures the rubbing of noses into the reality in a dirty way*



and do it again and again and again, with lots of negative response to undesirable behavior and positive reinforcement for desirable behavior. But even so, some dogs just won't be trained.

But yelling at the dog about why they wouldn't pay attention the first 100 times you told them what's what doesn't make the dog any more responsive to the message. You either have to commit to the training or find some way to work around the bad dog. Ugh.

What if you don't want a dog in the first damn place? What if you expect the damn dog to train itself? What if you don't buy into the idea that some people are just so stupid that they should be labelled dogs, and led around on a leash?

Thing is, I sort of expect more of people, and maybe that's being a little too optimistic on my part.

*snip*

Fair enough.

I guess maybe I have a little more patience with ignorance than you or Fass... assuming the person in question is willing to listen, anyway. I figured that some people here would already be familiar with this information, but some wouldn't--and, in any case, it's always nice to start a thread by linking to something, rather than just pontificating.

So same-sex status does have an effect, male or female, but it's most prominent in female same-sex relationships. Which is an interesting observation in its own right.

I've read a study which I cannot now find that suggested once again that it was nature, not nurture...which of course is an extremely controversial assertion. In any case, from what I remember, the idea was that het men are 'male brained', gay men are somewhat more 'female brained' (but still more male), lesbian women are somewhat 'male brained'(still more female), and het women are 'female brained'. Thus, 'egalitarianism' would be a 'female brain trait'.

Damn, where was that study...it was dealing with actual cerebral structures...and was focused actually on transgendered MTFs...

But the idea that we are honestly genetically hardwired to take on certain roles is tough to swallow outside of extremely limited cases.

People who demand to have things 'translated' for them, and who refuse to attempt to cross the cultural divide. As in, Mohammad is always expecting the mountain to come to him, rather than getting off his silly ass and going to it himself.
But not necessarily. As in, it isn't in any way necessary for straight people to be so uninformed about same-sex couples. There are plenty of hets out there who aren't clueless...so what's up with the rest of them? Gays learn about heterosexual norms from birth on...perhaps we should stop acting like hets who learn a little about homosexuals are extraordinary, and instead expect all hets to catch up?

Then again, if only the nice, polite, sweet-toned homos are going to be listened to, I suppose there's little hope for that.
And again, go to the mountain, Mohammad! I mean, it's not like there aren't gay couples all over the freaking place. Do people really segregate themselves so?

And again, not exactly honest here. I know several gay and lesbian individuals. Do I know the intimate and internal workings of their private relationships? No. Why not? Because I don't know the intimate and internal workings of the private relationships of many of the heterosexual people I know.

For example, one gay couple I know, Josh and Aaron. I'm on good terms with them, I'm friendly with them, I've been over to their house for dinner I would say three times, all three times Aaron served dinner. Does that mean Aaron is the one who does chores around the house? the one who cooks? Or merely the one who cooked THAT NIGHT?

I have no fucking clue. Why? Because I don't go around asking the details of the inner workings of the relationships of people I am slight friends with. I don't know what Josh and Aaron do in the privacy of their home, and the dynamics of their relationships, any moreso than I know the private relationship interactions of Dan and Nora.

The inner workings of Aaron and Josh are just a mystery to me as Dan and Nora, however at least with Dan and Nora I might be able to form a rough estimate, based on my own heterosexual relationships. I don't know the personal details from their own mouths, but maybe I can approximate based on my own experiences. I have no experiences for a relationship like Josh and Aaron so I have no baseline to compare to, nor experience to draw from to envision how their relationship MIGHT work. If they told me, then I would, but why would I expect them to?

Do gay poeple know what gay relationships are like more so than heterosexual ones? Of course, they'r ethe ones that are in gay relationships. But to suggest that heterosexuals are "behind" gay people because we haven't made the effort to get to know gays nad how they work is insulting to a lot of people, and frankly, is insulting to a lot of gay folks as well, as it creates some insinuation that gays and lesbians aren't REAL people with a sense of privacy and boundaries and intimacy, but rather will spill the most itimate private details of their personal relationships to anyone who invites them out for a cup of coffee.

There's a huge difference between making gay friends, and sitting down with a notebook and going "so, tell me about your relationship"

Fair enough.

I guess maybe I have a little more patience with ignorance than you or Fass... assuming the person in question is willing to listen, anyway. I figured that some people here would already be familiar with this information, but some wouldn't--and, in any case, it's always nice to start a thread by linking to something, rather than just pontificating.

But no thread would be complete without pontification. Together, we are the ying and the yang.

My patience with ignorance is much more limited to real life, face to face situations.

And again, not exactly honest here. I know several gay and lesbian individuals. Do I know the intimate and internal workings of their private relationships? No. Why not? Because I don't know the intimate and internal workings of the private relationships of many of the heterosexual people I know. Speak for yourself then. Part of this could be gender-based :D Women tend to talk to each other about their relationships, in excruciating detail. What I know then about other people's relationships will tend to be skewed from one person's viewpoint, but the intimate and internal workings of private relationships are not generally private among female friends. Also, most of the gay men I know are more than willing to do 'relationship talk'. Also known as bitching about their partner.

Do gay poeple know what gay relationships are like more so than heterosexual ones? Of course, they'r ethe ones that are in gay relationships. But to suggest that heterosexuals are "behind" gay people because we haven't made the effort to get to know gays nad how they work is insulting to a lot of people, and frankly, is insulting to a lot of gay folks as well, as it creates some insinuation that gays and lesbians aren't REAL people with a sense of privacy and boundaries and intimacy, but rather will spill the most itimate private details of their personal relationships to anyone who invites them out for a cup of coffee. Uh, no, it suggests that some hets are simply 'distant' from certain couples, and closer to others...mainly, other het couples. If you're the kind of person who can't figure things out without interviewing someone about who makes the bed in the morning (or not), then...well, sorry.

There's a huge difference between making gay friends, and sitting down with a notebook and going "so, tell me about your relationship" Yes. And it all depends on just how close said friends are, and just perhaps, the kind of person YOU are and how you relate to your friends in general. Mr. Compartmentalization.

*pictures the rubbing of noses into the reality in a dirty way*


Ugh.

What if you don't want a dog in the first damn place? What if you expect the damn dog to train itself?
I'm a cat person, myself. I prefer both animals and people who don't need training and who don't seek either my approval, my permission, or my participation for every fucking thing they do. ;)

What if you don't buy into the idea that some people are just so stupid that they should be labelled dogs, and led around on a leash?
:D That is an idea no one ever had to sell me. I was born filled with a glowy-beaming faith in the boundlessness of human stupidity. It works out nicely because the relatively few people I've met in my life who aren't like dogs walking on their hind legs have stood out as a series of pleasant suprises. It's nice to have pleasant surprises, don't you think?

Thing is, I sort of expect more of people, and maybe that's being a little too optimistic on my part.
As I said in my first post, which I'm sure no one will read, I'm a pessimist. I feel sorry for optimists because they are so often disappointed. Pessimists are never disappointed. We're always either enjoying the gratification of being right or the happiness of being wrong. :D

I'd like to again suggest that it may not be best to conceive of this in strictly individualist terms. Gender roles need not be about who does what particular task in a strict sense; they can also be about relative power, about how we conceive of our relationships to other people, which is one reason they've survived rather significant social changes. In an egalitarian relationship (same-sex or opposite-sex), this aspect of traditional gender roles cannot be maintained. It's not just a smudging of traditional individual roles, it's a challenge to a notion of romantic and sexual relationships that conceives of them as unequal and divided.

I suppose this proves that all men are pigs, whether they're gay or not:p

Pigs are really wonderful creatures. On the whole, though, I'd rather be a dolphin.

As I said in my first post, which I'm sure no one will read, I'm a pessimist. I feel sorry for optimists because they are so often disappointed. Pessimists are never disappointed. We're always either enjoying the gratification of being right or the happiness of being wrong. :D

Read it, agreed, especially when it comes to the idea of other cultural paradigms being fairly convincing proof that gender roles are not inherent, biological traits (considering gender equity among my own people, traditionally).

Hmmm, the thing is, I'm convinced that most people are idiots, but I have the firm belief that this is not a necessary or permanent condition, and that at some point, we've all been idiots about something. Nonetheless, I don't believe that beyond the work I already do in real life, that it is on my shoulders to lead idiots into the light. I sort of believe that most people can do it on their own if they get off their asses. And if mocking them constantly isn't enough of a goad, it at least provides me with some entertainment.

I found this article in today's New York Times interesting (though the information in it isn't new, and some of you might already be familiar with it):

Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/health/10well.html)


So what does NSG think?

Do these findings (further) confirm the argument that egalitarianism is both possible and desirable in relationships? Or is their application to opposite-sex relationships necessarily limited?

Might movement toward greater legal and social recognition of same-sex relationships bring about broader cultural change with respect to equality in relationships? Will opposite-sex couples "learn" from same-sex ones? (Does that have anything to do with the intense fear and paranoia the prospect incites in some conservatives?)

I'd say the applicability of this to heterosexual marriages might be limited, however I think they're basically just saying what everyone already knew. "you have to work together and try to solve problems in your relationship." I'm not sure that how they apparently measured the power dynamic in the relationship is particularly valid- I mean just because I do the dishes more often doesn't mean I couldnt be beating my wife on the side. I would think you'd have to do a pretty indepth study on each couple to decide who really had more power in the relationship.

If you look at it only from a housework perspective I think you definitely will skew things. I would bet that in alot more homosexual couples, both partners work, whereas in heterosexual couples the woman is more likely to stay at home, and therefore do more chores, as hubby is busy with work during the day.

If you look at it only from a housework perspective I think you definitely will skew things. I would bet that in alot more homosexual couples, both partners work, whereas in heterosexual couples the woman is more likely to stay at home, and therefore do more chores, as hubby is busy with work during the day.

Isn't this itself an instance of roles-based inequality?

If you look at it only from a housework perspective I think you definitely will skew things. I would bet that in alot more homosexual couples, both partners work, whereas in heterosexual couples the woman is more likely to stay at home, and therefore do more chores, as hubby is busy with work during the day.

In this day and age? Seriously?

Other than women in my mother's generation (and not even then), I don't personally know any couples where one person stays home. Everyone is either studying or working.

Then again, if you mean 'more likely' in the sense of some women being able to stay home to raise kids, well, perhaps this is true since precious few jurisdictions allow same-sex couples to adopt.

So what does NSG think?

I don't know about NSG, but here's what Ithink:

Gays: 1
Breeders: 0


:p

I don't know about NSG, but here's what Ithink:

Gays: 1
Breeders: 0


:p

Heterophobe! Using discriminatory and derogatory terms like 'breeder'! Angry fag! I mean, gay man!

Read it, agreed, especially when it comes to the idea of other cultural paradigms being fairly convincing proof that gender roles are not inherent, biological traits (considering gender equity among my own people, traditionally).
See? I was wrong, and I'm happy about it. :D

Hmmm, the thing is, I'm convinced that most people are idiots,
I agree.

but I have the firm belief that this is not a necessary or permanent condition,
I partially disagree. I don't think it is necessary, but I do tend to assume it's permanent. Especially when the person feels a strong incentive to maintain their stupidity -- such as, it reinforces their sense of social entitlement.

and that at some point, we've all been idiots about something.
It is true that smart and stupid are not mutually exclusive conditions.

Nonetheless, I don't believe that beyond the work I already do in real life, that it is on my shoulders to lead idiots into the light.
Oh, I agree absolutely. But I find I can't avoid the work of kicking them out of my way while I try to get to the light myself.

I sort of believe that most people can do it on their own if they get off their asses. And if mocking them constantly isn't enough of a goad, it at least provides me with some entertainment.
Able and willing are two different things.

It's strange -- I've known people who were actually dumb, meaning that they had a very hard time learning and comprehending things and putting two different ideas together to come up with a new idea. Yet they tended not to wallow in their own ignorance, not refusing to think no matter how hard it may have been for them, not proud of all the things they didn't know, not resting complacent that they were secure in their positions and didn't need to pay attention to others.

And then I've known people who were brilliant in many ways, but none that mattered, who would reject any part of reality that didn't match their preconceptions and/or feed their egos, who had everything they needed in life, both personally and socially, to grow and learn and change but didn't because they felt they were already above everyone else, already top of the pile, who ignored everything that happened around them and then acted surprised when it finally bit them in the ass.

Guess which of the two groups I thought of as "idiots." Guess which I was more likely to liken to poorly trained dogs. And guess which I have less patience for -- the ones who can't, or the ones who won't.

Heterophobe! Using discriminatory and derogatory terms like 'breeder'! Angry fag! I mean, gay man!

angry fag sounds like a fantastic name for a punk rock band.

angry fag sounds like a fantastic name for a punk rock band.
Or a super hero.

Or a super hero.

"Save me angry fag!"

"No, fuck you. Breeder."

If you look at it only from a housework perspective I think you definitely will skew things. I would bet that in alot more homosexual couples, both partners work, whereas in heterosexual couples the woman is more likely to stay at home, and therefore do more chores, as hubby is busy with work during the day.
What planet do you live on, and how fast can I get married there? Because on my planet, not working has never been an option, and I'm fucking sick of it.

I don't believe that beyond the work I already do in real life, that it is on my shoulders to lead idiots into the light.
I can't help myself (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)

What planet do you live on, and how fast can I get married there? Because on my planet, not working has never been an option, and I'm fucking sick of it.

Yes, would someone please come along and support my ass so I can paint, write and compose music to my heart's content?

I can't help myself (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)

Exactly that which I wish to avoid.

I suppose this proves that all men are pigs, whether they're gay or not:p

Speaking as a gay man, I must reluctantly agree.

Yes, would someone please come along and support my ass so I can paint, write and compose music to my heart's content?
I'm thinking back over my family stories, and I actually think it's been close to 100 years that the women in my family have worked outside the home just as much as the men -- by necessity, not choice. And most of those women were factory workers (and union members, too).

This is one of those things that I meant by maintaining the traditional private roles to "ridiculous and unrealistic degrees." This notion that, in traditional gender roles, women keep house while men work outside the home is just bunk. It's a myth that people pretend happens even while they're not doing it, and when they do try to do it, it never works unless the one income-earner is earning a shit-load of money. And if that person dies or is disabled, then the whole play-act gets tossed out the window. It has never been any other way.

And another thing (ratchets up the rant engine): This bullshit that women or men who do keep house rather than hold an outside job are not working is just another myth, propogated to reinforce the social status value of earning money. The fact is that, for both men and women, maintaining a house (especially one with multiple residents) is extremely time- and resource-consuming. I can't remember which group it is that does this, but there's this group that calculates market values of various kinds of work and publishes the numbers annually. They also calculate the value of "non-paid" work like child-rearing and homemaking. Their 2008 numbers indicated that the market value of the work required to manage the typical American family household -- i.e. the wage you'd have to pay if you hired a professional homemaker -- totalled over US$100,000/year.

Neat trick to get a $100K job done for free, eh, beyotches? It would be nice if putting up with the dismissive and condescending attitude wasn't part of the work, though.

Heterophobe! Using discriminatory and derogatory terms like 'breeder'! Angry fag! I mean, gay man!

Guilty as charged.

Sue me, breeder! You and your kind are responsible for overpopulation! :D

Guilty as charged.

Sue me, breeder! You and your kind are responsible for overpopulation! :D

Yeah well YOUR kind is responsible for "What Not To Wear"

God I hate that show.

Yeah well YOUR kind is responsible for "What Not To Wear"

God I hate that show.

Hey, we also brought you "Queer eye for the straight guy". You'd all be wearing potato sacks, eating shit-tasting food in your ugly homes if it wasn't for "my kind".

Have some respect, dude. Even we can make a mistake once in a while. We're fabulous, not perfect.

Have some respect, dude. Even we can make a mistake once in a while. We're fabulous, not perfect.

So fuckin' sigged

So fuckin' sigged
Whee, I'm famous now! *grin*

Anyway, all jokes asides, I'm not at all surprised at what the study found. Same-sex couples are by no means immune to things such as abusive relationships, bad communication or unequal chore repartition, but they have one less issue to work around than opposite-sex couples have. They never have to deal with sexism (at least not within their own relationship). So it's one (significant) less opportunity for one of the two partners to hold most of the power.

I'm thinking back over my family stories, and I actually think it's been close to 100 years that the women in my family have worked outside the home just as much as the men -- by necessity, not choice. And most of those women were factory workers (and union members, too). Ditto. My father's grandmother was a divorcee in a time when such was ananthema, and she raised her brood on the salary of a teacher, which was also not something women were supposed to do at that time (amazingly now, since most teachers are female in these times). And yes, necessity is the mother of forcing you to work your fingers to the bone, at your job AND at home...


And another thing (ratchets up the rant engine): This bullshit that women or men who do keep house rather than hold an outside job are not working is just another myth, propogated to reinforce the social status value of earning money. The fact is that, for both men and women, maintaining a house (especially one with multiple residents) is extremely time- and resource-consuming. I can't remember which group it is that does this, but there's this group that calculates market values of various kinds of work and publishes the numbers annually. They also calculate the value of "non-paid" work like child-rearing and homemaking. Their 2008 numbers indicated that the market value of the work required to manage the typical American family household -- i.e. the wage you'd have to pay if you hired a professional homemaker -- totalled over US$100,000/year.

Neat trick to get a $100K job done for free, eh, beyotches? It would be nice if putting up with the dismissive and condescending attitude wasn't part of the work, though.
Agreed in full.

I would much rather work outside of the home than exclusively in it. It is much less work, and you aren't expected to bust your ass for free. I have enormous respect for homemakers, male or female, but I would never want to do it.

Or a super hero.

I was bored at work and just couldn't resist.

Behold the next great American hero...

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p233/poliwanacraca/superhero.gif

I was bored at work and just couldn't resist.

Behold the next great American hero...



Very nice! But shouldn't he be bare chested and buttocked? :D

Very nice! But shouldn't he be bare chested and buttocked? :D

and needs a moustache.

Very nice! But shouldn't he be bare chested and buttocked? :D

He totally is bare-buttocked - you just can't tell from that angle. ;)

and needs a moustache.

Your gay fashion sense is sooo off.

Angry Fag to the rescue! Defending homos and dykes from the eeebil of heteronormativity and heterosexism!

He's fashionable! He's got great taste! He can cook and decorate! He's Angry fag!

Angry Fag to the rescue! Defending homos and dykes from the eeebil of heteronormativity and heterosexism!

He's fashionable! He's got great taste! He can cook and decorate! He's Angry fag!

(to the tune of "Spider-Man")

Angry Fag, super-queen!
Heterosexism makes him mean!
He's got style; he's got flair!
Watch out, breeders, he's singing Cher!
Look out! It's Angry Fag!

:D

I was bored at work and just couldn't resist.

Behold the next great American hero...

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p233/poliwanacraca/superhero.gif

:fluffle:

Very nice! But shouldn't he be bare chested and buttocked? :D

Don't forget a Tom of Finland type package.

Ewww. No. The moustache would ruin it.

Fabulous super hero!

Indeed, but I see no such information in this study. That was the comment I was making on the incomplete nature of the current study being discussed.

To set things straight, I am leery of any study that proclaims either situation to be optimal. The right combination of partners produces good results and that is about all you can say about relationships.

I have to agree completely and was my point about communication has more to do with the success of any couple, no matter gender or whoevers percieved roles.

I can't see that this study tells us a thing really, there are too many factors that would alter the results. Children as you mention, also the age of the people involved in the couples, their prior experience in relationships, etc.

We all make mistakes in relationships, we all learn how to better get along or we get out of it. That is my experience anyway. So were these newlyweds? 50th anniversary couples or what?

The idea is interesting no doubt, but I don't see anything really conclusive at all here.

Fassitude, I would just like to take this opportunity to let you know that the hostile, childish, and defensive attitude that you display in any discussion that I see you participate in with respect to homosexuality does a great disservice to the GLBT community. --snip--

Your immature behavior only alienates allies to our cause. Take this to heart the next time you decide to berate someone who is in fact an ally of yours.

The only people doing a "great disservice to the GLBT community" are quislings willing to play according to the breeders' rules and on their turf. You see, I am not such a house ******, so my "cause" is in no way similar to your "cause", so never refer to it as "ours" again. I have far too much self-respect to be content with being lumped up with your subservient and docile ilk.

The only people doing a "great disservice to the GLBT community" are quislings willing to play according to the breeders' rules and on their turf. You see, I am not such a house ******, so my "cause" is in no way similar to your "cause", so never refer to it as "ours" again. I have far too much self-respect to be content with being lumped up with your subservient and docile ilk.

yup, you're doin a real good job raging against the machine, what with these rants on an internet board.

Fight the power man, fight the power!

Isn't this itself an instance of roles-based inequality?


Oppps, isn't it only inequality if they wanted to choose a different role? Lots of women want to stay at home and be a homemaker (and this is not just older women either, more and more are staying home when children enter the picture). The idea that somehow that is inequality isn't correct at all. Now if they are being forced to stay home and not cultivate an identity outside of home, that is different.

You oversimplify.

That's rich from you.

"Social engineering" need not only come into play with respect to individual gender roles, but also with respect to the way we conceive of relationships and sexuality: as characterized by power inequity and established roles, for instance. It doesn't necessarily matter which "side" we are on.

Still more heterosexist poppycock. Is it really that difficult to understand that gay people do not adhere to the "social engineering" straight people receive? The heterosexual archetype is not applicable on gay relationships and it boggles the mind that research has to be done to state that simple fact, let alone that it would be so hard to comprehend.

Again, you oversimplify. Culturally-established roles need not neatly coincide with the people who are "naturally" supposed to fulfill them. An egalitarian relationship is in some ways much more subversive of sexist relationship norms than one in which the roles are simply switched, because it implies that not only can people escape their assigned role, but that established unequal roles aren't even necessary in the first place.

Again, nothing new to anyone who only has the head of a cock up their ass and not an actual head.

How much social engineering is at play here? What kind? How does it affect our conceptions of men, women, and relationships? This study gives us at least part of the answer... that's why it's interesting. You seem to prefer making statements a priori about the way things work.

No, I prefer making statements that are in congruence with the reality I live in.

Fass, in a way the question you cite only reinforces my point.

It is typical in our society to conceive of relationships in terms of gender roles... and the fact that people ask such a question only goes to show that this conception is not automatically suspended when it comes to same-sex relationships. It remains (culturally) coherent.

It remains "coherent" only in a heterosexist culture from which everything is judged. I don't buy that premise. That's why this is ludicrous to me.

Still more heterosexist poppycock. Is it really that difficult to understand that gay people do not adhere to the "social engineering" straight people receive? The heterosexual archetype is not applicable on gay relationships and it boggles the mind that research has to be done to state that simple fact, let alone that it would be so hard to comprehend.

Yeah don't you understand, gay's don't respond to the same social conditions straights do. Gays are different. Their minds work differently. They're not the same as straight people are.

Wait, I thought the homosexual community has pretty much fought for the last 50 years to reject ideas like that.

But I guess I was right, gays do have superpowers, the power to resist social pressures that affect other people.

Power to resist social pressures, and fabulousness.

No, I prefer making statements that are in congruence with the reality I live in.

A sound ideology absent the problem that the reality you live in seems to bare very few similiarities to the reality the rest of us find ourselves in. But that's ok, I'm sure you make a lot of sense in your own head.

Oppps, isn't it only inequality if they wanted to choose a different role?

You can't directly measure power difference; you always have to go with indicators.

In any case, different sort of "equality": you're talking about power inequality, I'm talking about inequality in the distribution of tasks.

yup, you're doin a real good job raging against the machine, what with these rants on an internet board.

Fight the power man, fight the power!

Was that supposed to do anything else except demonstrate your ignorance of my person, that I have wilfully withheld from people here, yet again? You and I live in very different societies, fortunately for me, and I work to make mine ever better. If you think I do that on an Anglophone board... well, that's just cute.

Yeah don't you understand, gay's don't respond to the same social conditions straights do. Gays are different. Their minds work differently. They're not the same as straight people are.

Wait, I thought the homosexual community has pretty much fought for the last 50 years to reject ideas like that.

You thought wrong, if you for a second thought that the goal of the GLBT-movement is assimilation on breeder terms, and that it includes the denial of the differences between us. Some traitors in the movement may have given you that idea, that they would love to pretend the difference away - it is after all a very palatable suggestion for dimwitted breeders and gay self-loathers - but the lucky circumstance is that there are those of us who are not out to become or be seen as "the same as straight people", because we are not, nor do we wish to be. There are those of us who *gasp* fight for diversity and the right not to have to pretend to be like the breeders to be first class citizens.

A sound ideology absent the problem that the reality you live in seems to bare very few similiarities to the reality the rest of us find ourselves in.

I am very fortunate not to live in the backwards hell holes, be they physical places or just conditions of narrow, complacent minds, most of you live in, true.

You thought wrong, if you for a second thought that the goal of the GLBT-movement is assimilation on breeder terms, and that it includes the denial of the differences between us.

Ahhh, ok. So then...you admit there's something wrong with you.

Gotcha.

Ahhh, ok. So then...you admit there's something wrong with you.

From the inane heterosexist point of view that you subscribe to, there are many things "wrong" with me. Of that I am quite proud.

Is it really that difficult to understand that gay people do not adhere to the "social engineering" straight people receive?

Culture is a fact of life. Everyone is exposed to it, gay and straight.

How does it affect relationships, opposite-sex and same-sex? Well, that's an empirical question... the kind of thing we do research about.

The heterosexual archetype is not applicable on gay relationships

You're already begging the question, by assuming that what we're talking about is "the heterosexual archetype" and not a dominant feature of the way our culture tends to conceive of all relationships.

Apparently you assume that just because same-sex couples involve two men or two women, they automatically are resistant to every cultural convention associated with relationships... but there's no reason whatsoever to assume that.

and it boggles the mind that research has to be done to state that simple fact, let alone that it would be so hard to comprehend.

Well, some of us like to go on more than anecdotal evidence and blind assertion, but I guess that group doesn't include you.

It remains "coherent" only in a heterosexist culture from which everything is judged.

Homophobes, especially socially conservative homophobes, are often quite fine with asserting that same-sex couples ignore traditional relationship norms... this is a large part of their point.

You'll have to do better than that.

I think it may have to do, in part, with the emancipation of women. In times past those who men who were penetrated were linked to women, ie they were indulging in the "feminine" role. So basically a guy couldn't have a sexual relationship with an equal. Nowadays women are generally considered equal to men.

Oh, if only that were true. But we're getting closer. We can even have a woman come close to winning the democratic presidential nomination, as long as everyone knows she's a ball-busting bulldyke.

Personally, I think a LOT of homophobia and misogyny stem from the issue of penetration. The two worst ways you can insult a man is to say he's a woman or he's gay, which are really, in the general heterosexual male dominated culture, somewhat the same thing.

Not only am I not surprised, it also fits with a pet theory of mine: that part of the root for homophobia is the fear that traditional gender roles will be overthrown.

Totally agree.

Ahhh, ok. So then...you admit there's something wrong with you.

Are you just being obnoxious to Fass, or do you actually think that that's the premise behind arguments against assimilationism?

Are you just being obnoxious to Fass, or do you actually think that that's the premise behind arguments against assimilationism?

50/50. If you're honestly going to argue that gays are somehow immune to social conditioning (a ludicrus statement) then it's to argue that the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals goes beyond merely the gender of sexual attraction.

Which is far different than merely for arguments against assimilation. There's a significant difference between willfully betraying the differences that do exist in order to "fit in" and claiming that some special quality of being gay makes you so radically different than everyone else.

Culture is a fact of life. Everyone is exposed to it, gay and straight.

How does it affect relationships, opposite-sex and same-sex? Well, that's an empirical question... the kind of thing we do research about.

Ludicrous, heteronormative "research", yes.

You're already begging the question, by assuming that what we're talking about is "the heterosexual archetype" and not a dominant feature of the way our culture tends to conceive of all relationships.

"Our" culture, by which of course you mean that of the heterosexist society, is heteronormative. It doesn't "conceive" of other romantic relationships than those.

Apparently you assume that just because same-sex couples involve two men or two women, they automatically are resistant to every cultural convention associated with relationships... but there's no reason whatsoever to assume that.

Seeing as most, if not all, of these "cultural conventions" by the heteronormative society rest on the basis of gender difference and through that heterosexuality, there is no reason whatsoever to be so stupid as to think that gay relationships would be defined by them and that gay people, outside of some sick deliberate striving some individuals engage in out of some very sad motives, would be willing or even be able to live up to them. All you're doing is using heterosexist standards to judge gay people with, and I am telling you that it makes as much sense to look at the spectrum of light by rendering yourself blind beforehand.

Well, some of us like to go on more than anecdotal evidence and blind assertion, but I guess that group doesn't include you.

As I said, a lot of you like to go on by the shade of your rectal mucosa, which you're even too blind to see.

Homophobes, especially socially conservative homophobes, are often quite fine with asserting that same-sex couples ignore traditional relationship norms... this is a large part of their point.

No, the large part of their point is that it is somehow "wrong" of us not to be like them. And that's what makes so many of the "gay people are the same as straight people" idiots so similar to the homophobes. The homophobia is just slightly more polarized.

You'll have to do better than that.

I don't have to do anything except state that your premise is flawed, and so far it remains ever so.

The only people doing a "great disservice to the GLBT community" are quislings willing to play according to the breeders' rules and on their turf. You see, I am not such a house ******, so my "cause" is in no way similar to your "cause", so never refer to it as "ours" again. I have far too much self-respect to be content with being lumped up with your subservient and docile ilk.

So your goal is, what? World domination by gay white men? Do you have a goal besides being obnoxious?

You thought wrong, if you for a second thought that the goal of the GLBT-movement is assimilation on breeder terms, and that it includes the denial of the differences between us. Some traitors in the movement may have given you that idea...

All I'm saying is, has anyone ever seen Fass and AP in a room together? Suspicious...

Ludicrous, heteronormative "research", yes.

As I noted earlier, a good deal of this research is done by the non-heterosexuals in the field... more traitors to the cause?

"Our" culture, by which of course you mean that of the heterosexist society, is heteronormative. It doesn't "conceive" of other romantic relationships than those.

Well, sort of--certainly the conventions were developed within the context of opposite-sex relationships.

But that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about what happens to those aspects of the culture in same-sex relationships. At most, they indicate that we should not assume that they apply... and I'll even give you that. It reeks of heteronormativity to make such an assumption.

But it is equally dogmatic to make the opposite assumption--without evidence, anyway. That's why we do research.

Seeing as most, if not all, of these "cultural conventions" by the heteronormative society rest on the basis of gender difference and through that heterosexuality,

Do they? That's a question that theory can only go so far in answering... certainly the conventions incorporate gender difference, but is that an essential characteristic, or simply something attached to them in the context of opposite-sex relationships?

Actual research, of course, can give us something of an answer: it can compare same-sex couples to opposite-sex couples, and note their differences. This helps us understand which conventions really are based upon gender difference (cultural or biological), and which aren't.

No, the large part of their point is that it is somehow "wrong" of us not to be like them.

The two aren't mutually exclusive; they're separate halves of the same argument.

I'm not suggesting that assertion of difference somehow plays into the hands of the homophobes or anything ridiculous like that--simply that there's no reason homophobia would necessarily get people to deny difference.

All I'm saying is, has anyone ever seen Fass and AP in a room together? Suspicious...

You know, now that you mention it, the similarities are...striking.

Oh, if only that were true. But we're getting closer. We can even have a woman come close to winning the democratic presidential nomination, as long as everyone knows she's a ball-busting bulldyke.

Personally, I think a LOT of homophobia and misogyny stem from the issue of penetration. The two worst ways you can insult a man is to say he's a woman or he's gay, which are really, in the general heterosexual male dominated culture, somewhat the same thing.
Quoted for sheer truth.

BTW, who is AP?

So your goal is, what? World domination by gay white men?

There's something really telling about how you leap to that conclusion.

This time, Fassitude is not wrong: if liberation movements are always concerned with moderating their advocacy to suit the tastes of others, they will always fail. If people started out agreeing with them, they wouldn't have to exist in the first place. The route of "being nice" is fundamentally conservative; you don't get progressive change unless you demand it, loudly and militantly.

People who are wrong should be criticized for being wrong, not for giving bigots an excuse to be bigoted. They tend to be rather willing to make up ones as they go along anyway.

BTW, who is AP?

Andaras Prime, our resident Marxist-Leninist.

There's something really telling about how you leap to that conclusion.

This time, Fassitude is not wrong: if liberation movements are always concerned with moderating their advocacy to suit the tastes of others, they will always fail. If people started out agreeing with them, they wouldn't have to exist in the first place. The route of "being nice" is fundamentally conservative; you don't get progressive change unless you demand it, loudly and militantly.

I believe the Reverend King had something to say about that. ;)

I agree, as I would be very hard pressed to name a positive social change that did not proceed from force or militancy.


People who are wrong should be criticized for being wrong, not for giving bigots an excuse to be bigoted. They tend to be rather willing to make up ones as they go along anyway.
Are you saying Fassitude gives bigots an excuse to be bigoted?

Andaras Prime, our resident Marxist-Leninist.
Oh, okay. Well, in my opinion, there are considerable differences between the two posters. But that is not the point of this thread.

Are you saying Fassitude gives bigots an excuse to be bigoted?

Not at all. I'm saying quite the opposite--that as long as we continually worry about giving bigots an excuse they're sure to find on their own, we'll never actually succeed in overcoming bigotry.

The only people doing a "great disservice to the GLBT community" are quislings willing to play according to the breeders' rules and on their turf. You see, I am not such a house ******, so my "cause" is in no way similar to your "cause", so never refer to it as "ours" again. I have far too much self-respect to be content with being lumped up with your subservient and docile ilk.
I never said that you should cave to any position taken by heterosexuals that unjustly disrespects homosexuals. On the contrary, what I am asking you to do is to stop verbally assaulting anyone who disagrees with you and jumping on the defense at every chance possible. Of course you should stand up for what you believe in -- but you'll find it hard to convince people to see your point of view when you turn every discussion into the verbal equivalent of a trashy bar room fight.

In essence, I'm asking you to grow up.

All I'm saying is, has anyone ever seen Fass and AP in a room together? Suspicious...

Their argument style is strikingly familiar. Everything not agreeing to their vision, which incidentally includes even those supposedly on "their" side is a traitor or fake, and they produce no evidence of their own beyond bile and rhetoric.

I was bored at work and just couldn't resist.

Behold the next great American hero...

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p233/poliwanacraca/superhero.gif

Sweet! But yeah, he needs chaps more than tights.

In this day and age? Seriously?

Other than women in my mother's generation (and not even then), I don't personally know any couples where one person stays home. Everyone is either studying or working.

Then again, if you mean 'more likely' in the sense of some women being able to stay home to raise kids, well, perhaps this is true since precious few jurisdictions allow same-sex couples to adopt.
Just FYI, I checked with the US Census and as of 2004 there were 5.4 million stay-at-home moms and 98,000 stay-at-home dads in the USA.

Not really arguing one side or the other, here, just tossing the numbers out there.

Ok, ok, I get where you're coming from. But just working with 'traditional' definitions for 'traditional gender roles', if lesbian women both stay gendered 'women', then they are adhering to traditional gender roles, n'est pas? And if one takes on the 'manly role', then by traditional standards, this bucks tradition, right?

But you're saying all of the above is shite, with which I must agree.
The idea that a person can only be in the "woman" role or the "man" role is the problem.

In my personal experience, virtually no individuals naturally fit into either role. Just about everybody has some "masculine" traits as well as some "feminine" traits. However, we're encouraged pretty much from birth to "pick a side." If you're a girl, you can either be a "girly girl" or a "tomboy." If you're a boy, you can either be a boy or a faggot (:().

It's the "pick a side" thing that's the real tradition. The very notion of binary gender roles is the problem, at the core, and that's the tradition that needs to be bucked. In my opinion.

(to the tune of "Spider-Man")

Angry Fag, super-queen!
Heterosexism makes him mean!
He's got style; he's got flair!
Watch out, breeders, he's singing Cher!
Look out! It's Angry Fag!

:D
I'm singing out loud.

You win.

:)

Just FYI, I checked with the US Census and as of 2004 there were 5.4 million stay-at-home moms and 98,000 stay-at-home dads in the USA.

Not really arguing one side or the other, here, just tossing the numbers out there.
Also:

Married women spend nearly three times as many hours per week doing housework as their male spouses. Marriage increases the amount of housework a woman does by about seven hours per week, while it decreases the amount of housework a man does by about one hour per week. Once there are kids in the picture, the situation gets even more dramatic; a married woman with three kids spends about 28 hours per week on housework, while a married man with three kids spends about 10.
(Via http://www.umich.edu/news/research2/)

Also:

Married women spend nearly three times as many hours per week doing housework as their male spouses. Marriage increases the amount of housework a woman does by about seven hours per week, while it decreases the amount of housework a man does by about one hour per week. Once there are kids in the picture, the situation gets even more dramatic; a married woman with three kids spends about 28 hours per week on housework, while a married man with three kids spends about 10.
(Via http://www.umich.edu/news/research2/)


Thanks Bottle I needed this today. ;)

Here is the trade in my mind....I picked up seven hours of housework when I married....but I also picked up that I will never have to mow the yard again, or take out the trash, or clean the garage, or trim the trees/bushes.....or (and this is best of all to me) change a flat tire in the middle of Atlanta morning traffic!!!!!! (Which I had this morning, and my hubby fixed it.) :D

So increasing housework to me was a fair trade to decrease the crap things (those man jobs ;) ) I had to deal with as a single mother for years. :p

Just about everybody has some "masculine" traits as well as some "feminine" traits.

So agreed. This fact should only tend to make the irrelevance of gender roles increasingly obvious.


However, we're encouraged pretty much from birth to "pick a side." If you're a girl, you can either be a "girly girl" or a "tomboy." If you're a boy, you can either be a boy or a faggot (:().

It's the "pick a side" thing that's the real tradition. The very notion of binary gender roles is the problem, at the core, and that's the tradition that needs to be bucked. In my opinion.
And not only do you have to pick a side, you have to pick the right side.

Not a surprise but still neat to think about. Yes same sex couples could teach alot to opposite sex couples. Conservatives hate gays because they don't understand them-for what ever reason- religion, society, repressed sexual tension, confusion etc etc.

I think homosexuals ( I am one) tend to have a more egalitarian mind set, so it's natural to carry that over to loved ones or spouses etc.

I have always noticed that I have been more affectionate with my boyfriends then straight couples. This is due to the fact that I see him on the same level as me in our relationship. Maybe it's a chemical thing? Because we're both men?

I think many straight men in a relationship with women have a tendency to need to dominate the women. I could be wrong, but the chemicals and hormones may be playing different roles inso far as the brain is concerned.

:fluffle: <----Just realized these 2 smiley emoticons are both dudes and appear to be gay! Oh no max berry is a witch ! Burn her at the cross! A gay dyke witch!

Conservatives hate gays because they don't understand them-for what ever reason- religion, society, repressed sexual tension, confusion etc etc.


I'm a conservative and I don't hate gays in the least. It is stupid to generalize like that.

I'm a conservative and I don't hate gays in the least. It is stupid to generalize like that.

Agreed. I know plenty of lefties who cringe when it comes to homosexuality. Yet another reason why you can't base friendships on shared political ideologies alone. (though I'd have to say, homophobia is some sort of ideology...and should be shared by none)

Thanks Bottle I needed this today. ;)

Here is the trade in my mind....I picked up seven hours of housework when I married....but I also picked up that I will never have to mow the yard again, or take out the trash, or clean the garage, or trim the trees/bushes.....or (and this is best of all to me) change a flat tire in the middle of Atlanta morning traffic!!!!!! (Which I had this morning, and my hubby fixed it.) :D

So increasing housework to me was a fair trade to decrease the crap things (those man jobs ;) ) I had to deal with as a single mother for years. :p
I would have to check the studies, but I honestly don't know if things like taking out the trash were included as "housework." It's been interesting for me to learn that people have very different ideas of what "housework" really is.

To me, "housework" is any work that NEEDS to get done around the house. Unlike many people, I include much of "yardwork" as housework, since I consider the yard to be a part of the house-package.

Planting an attractive garden is not, in my opinion, housework, because it doesn't actually need to get done. Mowing the lawn is housework, on the other hand, because (at least where my parents live) you get in trouble if you simply let your lawn grow and grow.

When I first moved in with Himself, we discovered that I counted cooking as "housework," while he viewed housework as exclusively related to cleaning the house. We actually had a big fight degenerate into laughing because we realized we were each fighting about something completely different.

I'm all for dividing up the housework, as long as it's done fairly. It's not cool if one person always gets to pick and choose what jobs they want to do, and the other person has to do whatever else needs to be done. If there's a job that everybody really hates, I think it's only fair to take turns doing it.

I think this also helps remind everybody to APPRECIATE what the other person/people are doing around the house! When I used to have to take my turn at changing the kitty litter every week, it made me soooooooo thankful I didn't have to do it every week. If I'd never been expected to do that chore, I probably would have pretty much forgotten it existed, and I wouldn't have appreciated it as much that my parents also took turns at it.

I'm singing out loud.

You win.

:)

Hehe, I'm glad you enjoyed it. (I had it stuck in my head all afternoon yesterday, too.) :p

There's something really telling about how you leap to that conclusion.

This time, Fassitude is not wrong: if liberation movements are always concerned with moderating their advocacy to suit the tastes of others, they will always fail. If people started out agreeing with them, they wouldn't have to exist in the first place. The route of "being nice" is fundamentally conservative; you don't get progressive change unless you demand it, loudly and militantly.

People who are wrong should be criticized for being wrong, not for giving bigots an excuse to be bigoted. They tend to be rather willing to make up ones as they go along anyway.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Perhaps if Fass had taken the time to word it in such a way that invites analysis and critical thinking, rather than throwing around every slur he could get his hands on, I would have agreed with him, too.