Skip to main content

Someone asked the men what they thought their "role" are as men.

And it seems that there is this notion that women can define what makes a man a man and have expections of him meeting these ideals. But as soon as a man does the same it is met with an "how dare you" attitude.

So I really, really, want to know what are "women's" role in society, in marriage etc.
_______________________ "Morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart but they can restrain the heartless." Martin Luther King.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

MLM... there are a few firecrackers going off here. Women don't define what makes a man a man.
And EVERYONE on the planet has expectations. Everyone has ideals. Realistic or otherwise.

But as soon as a man does the same it is met with an "how dare you" attitude.

I have to ask... how often do men actually articulate WHAT they want from a woman? I mean on an individual personal level? Women have to drag it out of men most times.

As to what are women's roles in society, in marriage... well are you asking what is society's expectations? Or an individual's expectations? I have always placed more importance and relevance on what two individuals in a partnership value, over what society values.

I see both genders as aiming at 50% each of the partnership, and those lines move with change and depending who is better at what.

It is not "women's roles" that matter but your "woman's" role.

If men would speak/engage more with their women, the world would be a more harmonious place.
.
.
quote:
I have to ask... how often do men actually articulate WHAT they want from a woman? I mean on an individual personal level? Women have to drag it out of men most times.


The same can be said about women...see the post about the women being upset that her husband didn't buy her gifts that she like but didn't TELL HIM THAT IT BOTHERED HER. No one should have to be a mind reader.

I beg to differ. I have met a few woman, and I know I'm not the only one, that is quick to have "traditional expectations" for a man i.e. take out the trash, hold open doors, pay for dinner, fix my car, buy me jewelry etc but let him ask for a home cooked meal or sew a button on a shirt and Gloria Steinem pops out.

And for the record, men are NOT that complicated. Feed us, sex us, and leave us alone when we watch the game.
Big Grin
I used to be a hardcore feminist, totally against traditional values and traditional gender roles. I used to think that for a woman to do anything of a domestic capacity, including raising children, was THE most degrading thing that she could ever do and that by doing these actitivies, a woman is being deprived of "equal rights" to "live up to her potential." All of this I used to believe, UNTIL I became a teacher and saw how modern marriage "deals" between men and women are really shortchanging kids. They really are. Children are coming home to very large homes, but the homes are always empty, void of loving and concerned parents. One parent is out working to maintain his manhood, while the other parent is working to get rid of her womanhood. In the process, children lose everything because no one, neither the man nor the woman, wants to make any sacrifices. I have now come to accept and feel that a man's role is to be a family's foundation and a woman's role is to make certain that foundation remains stable. God provides, man protects, and women support and nuture. This is the way our ancestors related to one another, and I think it is the way we should have kept it. As they say, "If it ain't broke, then don't fix it."
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
I used to be a hardcore feminist, totally against traditional values and traditional gender roles. I used to think that for a woman to do anything of a domestic capacity, including raising children, was THE most degrading thing that she could ever do and that by doing these actitivies, a woman is being deprived of "equal rights" to "live up to her potential." All of this I used to believe, UNTIL I became a teacher and saw how modern marriage "deals" between men and women are really shortchanging kids. They really are. Children are coming home to very large homes, but the homes are always empty, void of loving and concerned parents. One parent is out working to maintain his manhood, while the other parent is working to get rid of her womanhood. In the process, children lose everything because no one, neither the man nor the woman, wants to make any sacrifices. I have now come to accept and feel that a man's role is to be a family's foundation and a woman's role is to make certain that foundation remains stable. God provides, man protects, and women support and nuture. This is the way our ancestors related to one another, and I think it is the way we should have kept it. As they say, "If it ain't broke, then don't fix it."


That is why I initially bawked at your earlier post expressing your desire to be a stay-at-home wife. I was not expecting such a desire from Ms. Rowe but the reasons are much clearer now..no arguments from me.
Well, I have never been a feminist ... hardcore or otherwise!!

I hava always wanted my door opened, my coat put around my shoulders, to be the first off the elevator, I want my groceries carried, my furniture moved, I can take out my own trash and can enjoy washing my own car ... but I'd prefer not to do that either! Big Grin

One of my main goals when I moved from Cali to Texas was to find a homegrown gentleman ... because they simply did not grow them in La La Land. Eek And when I got here, I learned that Southern Hospitality was indeed alive and well ... and I take full and complete advantage of it every chance I get! Smile

Now then, for my man, I will love, nurture and take care of him make sure he is ready to go out into the world every day, provide for our home and bring home the steaks (bacon is only for breakfast!) and I will have them hot and ready to eat for him when he gets home. My role is to know and understand him and treat him like the king that he is ... so that he has everything he needs to treat me like his queen. Smile Because I fully intend to be and be treated just like that!
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Well, I have never been a feminist ... hardcore or otherwise!!

I hava always wanted my door opened, my coat put around my shoulders, to be the first off the elevator, I want my groceries carried, my furniture moved, I can take out my own trash and can enjoy washing my own car ... but I'd prefer not to do that either! Big Grin


You can be a feminist and want all of those things too. As long as you support equal rights and opportunities for women, you're a feminist.

Hardcore feminism does not have to be at odds with family values, as long as you can see past your own personal desires and advocate for the greater good.

I'm very much a feminist. And proudly so! hat

Rowe, I think you're romanticizing what it was like for our female ancestors.

quote:
So I really, really, want to know what are "women's" role in society, in marriage etc.


I think women are for the most part naturally more nurturing and considerate and emotionally intelligent. Ideally, her role in society would be like that of any other human being: pursue what she is passionate about, contribute something positive to the world before she leaves. As it stands, a woman's role seems to be mainly problem-solver/Girl Friday. She does whatever is required to keep things from crumbling in her family and community.
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Well, I have never been a feminist ... hardcore or otherwise!!

I hava always wanted my door opened, my coat put around my shoulders, to be the first off the elevator, I want my groceries carried, my furniture moved, I can take out my own trash and can enjoy washing my own car ... but I'd prefer not to do that either! Big Grin


You can be a feminist and want all of those things too. As long as you support equal rights and opportunities for women, you're a feminist.

Hardcore feminism does not have to be at odds with family values, as long as you can see past your own personal desires and advocate for the greater good.

I'm very much a feminist. And proudly so! hat

Rowe, I think you're romanticizing what it was like for our female ancestors.

quote:
So I really, really, want to know what are "women's" role in society, in marriage etc.


I think women are for the most part naturally more nurturing and considerate and emotionally intelligent. Ideally, her role in society would be like that of any other human being: pursue what she is passionate about, contribute something positive to the world before she leaves. As it stands, a woman's role seems to be mainly problem-solver/Girl Friday. She does whatever is required to keep things from crumbling in her family and community.


If you are a feminist and want all those things, you are a walking, breathing double standard. The things Ebony Rose talked about are not "family values", they are things done historically to take care of & protect the "fairer" sex. If the goal of feminism is to show you are equal (in ALL senses of the word), then be equal ALL the time (open your own doors, pay for the dates, move your own furniture, wash your own car - remember you're equal- oops! there's Rowe's unintended consequnce again ohsnap )- but something has to give. It's simply the concept of opportunity cost. If you believe that women are innately the better nurturers (in general, I agree), why wouldn't the best person for the job raise the kids & maintain the home? Honestly, I seen two problems:

1) Women (some) devalue the importance of child-rearing & maintaining the home. Many stay-at-home moms maintain the finances for the household & set the family schedule. If you hired separate people to perform the individual tasks performed by homemakers, the dollar value is in the hundreds of thousands. Self-worth is not measured by salary & degrees alone. The success of a marriage & raising a family does not hinge on earning potential alone.

2) Couples (some) do not know how to live within the means of one salary (or two in a lot of cases!) - as a result, both have to go to work. Better financial discipline would allow for more stay-at-home moms. I've seen many women (in high-paying, status filled jobs) leave the workforce because "No one can raise my children as well as I can (not my words)!"
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:

If you are a feminist and want all those things, you are a walking, breathing double standard.


Not so hit. You can want all of those things personally without believing that all women should be forced into that role or believing that those thing make you an inferior human being. As I said before in another thread, there is nothing wrong with staying home with children or homemaking period (assuming your husband is capable of financially supporting you, which is unfortunately rare). But those women who choose a different path, who choose to or are financially forced to work outside of the home, they should receive equal pay and respect and consideration as any man would performing their job.

Chivalry and feminism do not have to be at odds. It comes down to the man's intentions for acting chivalrous. Are you opening my car door, taking out the trash, etc because you are being considerate and kind or because you think I am stupid and weak? When I cook your dinner and make sure the house is clean before you get home from work, is it because I am considerate and kind or because that is my obligation/because I think you are superior to me? Intentions is the key word.

Another thing I've previously said is that women are differ, NOT INFERIOR, but different. There is nothing wrong with appreciating or acting in a certain manner because I am a woman, as long as you are not doing it because you think I am an inferior human being. It is knowing that I am entirely capable of opening the door for myself and wanting to do it for me anyway out of consideration and kindness for the woman in your life.

Women didn't really start to enter the work force en masse until it became necessary for them to do so because of war. That is not why women remain in the workforce today. So actions are not entirely bound by their historical roots.

The goal of feminism is not show that I am equal. It is to be an equal (which I am not, refer back to salary and promotion differences for a start, then look at the current "equal" partnership of marriage where both parties work outside of the home and then the woman comes home and starts her second shift of homamking and child rearing).

Yes, I do think that women in general are better nuturers. But that is not the same as being all-day, everyday caregivers (which is an enormous job) and homemakers (another enormous job with very little respect). That is not suited to everyone. Some women aspire to it and enjoy it and their husband is willing to uphold his position as the financial caregiver. Other women are forced to because their husband doesn't make a suitable income. There are plenty of women who would love to quit their jobs (or not take jobs in the first place) and be homemakers, but they would be living in a cardboard box somewhere. Or worse, listen to their husband yap about what they can and cannot do as if they are children because he is bringing home the bacon. Other women are not suited for staying at home. And really "staying at home" is such an incomplete description of what the job actually is. Making the decision to enter the workforce willingly does not mean that you necessarily devalue the position of staying at home. Only that you are not suited for it. Not suited for having absolutely no relief from that 24-hour position, or any number of other ascpects of what that position entails. It's not necessarily that women are on a mad dash to aquire as many degrees and as much salaries as possible, to hell with everything and everyone else.

Lastly, I made mention before of men who do. not. want! a woman who would like to be a homemaker. That is a turnoff for a lot of men. So, women who are getting married and having children are not the ones who normally aspire to homemaking, they are women who have career objectives outside of the home. If those who are open about their wish to stay at home are immediately taken out of the marriage material pile, how do you expect to have an abundance of wives who want to stay at home and feel they are suited for it??

D, when you look for women you want to seriously date or marry, do you seek out a woman who wants to be a homemaker?

Edited to Add: Chivalry is very much about equal benefits. I get my door opened and you get to be seen in public with a beautiful woman. Big Grin
You are funny (in a good way)! laugh If I'd known more women like you in my early twenties...

I suspect we could go back & forth on this ad infitinum - I think our working definitions of gender, chivalry, & family values are different.

Ultimately, I think gender as a social construct has advantages & disadvantages for each gender. These pros & cons are interrelated; the current "good" cannot be separated from the current "bad" without the system changing. The new system will create new behaviours & roles that were unforeseen. Conseqently, the end result may be better or worse than status quo. Remember, the social sciences do not abide by any "hard" formulas.

I also believe equality as a societal construct is a fallacy. I bring this up because I think people comingle legal equality with absolute equality. Inherently, people have varying strengths & weaknesses. The mentally healthy person finds a way to take pride in their strengths while acknowldeging the strengths of others. The predatory manner of attacking perceived weaknesses (in this situation, born of gender) is at the heart of the friction between the sexes. The intimate relationship definitely should not be a battleground, but a place for harmonious effort.

P.S. What if the brother is flyer than you? Then, should you hold the door for him? Wink
quote:
Other women are forced to because their husband doesn't make a suitable income. There are plenty of women who would love to quit their jobs (or not take jobs in the first place) and be homemakers, but they would be living in a cardboard box somewhere.


And whose fault is it that women are choosing losers? If more women had their priorities straight, right from the jump, then they would selectively date prospects who are earning enough to support them and a family. I guarantee readers that if more women would raise their standards in terms of what they will and will not accept in a long-term mate, more men would get their shit together. But you all don't. Black women in particular have significantly lowered their standards to point that they don't even expect to be involved with a man who is capable of being the primary supporter. And its pathetic! Then you wonder why you have attitudes, you're always angry, and stressed out from having to do and be everything for everybody.

quote:
Or worse, listen to their husband yap about what they can and cannot do...


I don't deal with men like this. I only deal with men who understand fully that it is NOT my job to go out and support them. If a man ever fixed his mouth to make that kind of complaint to me, then I would drop has ass instantly, because if he is incapable of leading and supporting his family, then he does not deserve to have one.

quote:
Other women are not suited for staying at home.


Again, when you have children and start a family, its no longer about you or what suits you. You and your needs are no longer the most important things that need to be considered in such a relationship. And this is something that a lot of women have selfishly forgotten in their quest for "equality." Your child needs you AT HOME, not running the streets, not at the shopping malls, not at the Gucci and Louis Vuitton handbag counters, or competing with men in the corporate office. More importantly, if a woman feels that being a mother does not "suit her," then she should never consider becoming a vital part of a family. Once you have the child, however, whether you choose to accept them or not, there are certain maternal obligations and responsibilities to which you must adhere. And man does not impose these responsibilies onto women, NATURE DOES!

Finally, the idea of some women not being "suited for being mothers" is a learned lie. I recently met a pregnant Black woman who I saw slaving as a salesperson in a local five and dime store. I wanted to ask her what the hell was she doing working. When I approached her to ask her how many months was she, she replied, "I'm seven months." She went on to tell me that this was her third child. I told her my second eldest sister has five children, and she stays at home with her children. The woman admiringly replied, "I really wish I could stay at home with my children too like your sister, but I love to shop!"
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:

And whose fault is it that women are choosing losers?


The better question is "Why are so many men 'losers?'" I don't happen to think that not making a certain amount of money makes one "a loser." His income is simply not enough to support a family on. And dating a man who has financial promise or perceived financial stability doesn't particularly shield you from in the long run ending up with a man who does not make a suitable income for you to stay at home. Most people are a mere 2 paychecks away from tapdancing on the street for change. And we all know the men who start out looking and acting one way and then take a hard left somewhere down the line and want to sit at home and scratch their nuts all day instead of work. So, women choosing particular mates is not really solving everything.

quote:
If more women had their priorities straight, right from the jump, then they would selectively date prospects who are earning enough to support them and a family. I guarantee readers that if more women would raise their standards in terms of what they will and will not accept in a long-term mate, more men would get their shit together. But you all don't. Black women in particular have significantly lowered their standards to point that they don't even expect to be involved with a man who is capable of being the primary supporter. And its pathetic! Then you wonder why you have attitudes, you're always angry, and stressed out from having to do and be everything for everybody.


All the media and societal commentary about how Black women are too picky and want too much from a man have been lost on you? What is truly pathetic is that women are being repeatedly put in charge of changing men's behavior. "Have more standards!" "Take it easy on him!" Here's a better piece of advice: Things will change when HE decides it is important for him to change and there is not a damn thing you can do to bring that about before its time.

quote:
Again, when you have children and start a family, its no longer about you or what suits you.


No, it IS about what suits you. You can't be a good parent to a child unless you maintain your own sanity and life balance. Your children do not benefit from a mother who cannot handle a stay-at-home mom position.

quote:
Your child needs you AT HOME, not running the streets, not at the shopping malls, or competing with men in the corporate office. And if being a mother does not suit a woman, then she should not have had the children in the first place.


There is an enormous difference betweeen being a mother and staying at home with your children full-time. Children need parents who are well-adjusted, loving, caring human beings who will guide them and put effort into them. PERIOD. Not everyone has to be at home to do that. Let people make their own life choices based on what suits their family without imposing your own morality on them. My mother and father worked full-time when I was a small child and I never lacked for attention, care, love or parental involvement in my school and home life. There are mothers who are home 24/7 who have some of the most rambunctious hell-beast children on the planet because they are not equipped with the patience or the intelligence or the knowledge to shoulder the entire day-to-day responsibility of training up a child. And there are parents who work multiple jobs who have some of the most outstanding kids I have ever laid my eyes on and set an incredible example for them. And there are situations where the opposite of both situations are also true. Having a vagina and working reproductive organs does not mean that you are automatically suited for absolutely anything parenting throws your way. There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking outside help if that is what suits your family. As a matter of fact, that is the most intelligent and beneficial thing you can do for your child. The fact that I might see a teacher or daycare worker for a set number of hours in the day, does not automatically preclude me from receiving all the love, guidance, and lessons from my parents that I need.

Parents have an obligation to do what is best for their family, not to subscribe to some stranger's idea of what should be going on in their own household.
quote:
Things will change when HE decides it is important for him to change and there is not a damn thing you can do to bring that about before its time.


Absolutely. You'll get no argument from me on that point sister!


quote:
Your children do not benefit from a mother who cannot handle a stay-at-home mom position.


So leaving your children in the hands of "people" who you feel are "better suited" is suppose to improve the situation? Confused

quote:
There are mothers who are home 24/7 who have some of the most rambunctious hell-beast children on the planet because they are not equipped with the patience or the intelligence or the knowledge to shoulder the entire day-to-day responsibility of training up a child.


From my experience working in the school system, this has not been the case. When I was a physical science teacher at a local Middle School in Maryland, I'll never forget a student who caused me a great deal of frustration. An attractive eighth grade African American male student, who was very popular with the girls, when he did decide to attend class, he arrived dressed head to toe in the latest fashions and brand names and one signiture, rather large diamond stud in his left ear. However, the problem was that he would rarely attend class. And after talking to his other teachers, I learned that he rarely went to ANY of his classes, and he would consistently arrive 10 minutes before the class was over. What's worse, he would casually come into the classroom with no books, no school supplies, nothing that showed any interest in school. After contacting his mother for a parent-teacher conference, I, along with three other fed-up teachers and the school's vice principal discovered that his mother was a police chief. Her work day began very early in the morning and ended very late at night (usually 12:00 a.m.) Taking full advantage of his mother's unavailability, the young man skipped classes and was a notorious truant. The mother, visibly distressed, admitted to being at her wits end. She told us that she simply did not know how to balance a time-demanding career with raising the boy alone. Consequently, the vice principal privately advised me, and the other teachers, to simply give the boy a passing "C" grade at the close of the semester and "ride out the rest of the year" so that he can move on to High School.
Last edited {1}

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×