# Men, what the hell do you mean when you say things like



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

..."I believe in gender roles" or "I want a woman who respects gender roles"?

How would you describe these "gender roles"? What would make you feel satisfied? Should I be focused on cleaning the house more often than you? Should I be putting my relationship with you in 1st place and my work in 2nd? When discussing, should I be more agreeable and "submit" to your line of reasoning? What is exactly the proof I "respect" gender roles?

What shocks me, is how often I find men who I thought were somewhat "progressive" saying these kinds of things.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I'm sure you don't really want to know. Binary gender roles that have existed for a very long time, despite the fact that modern times have rendered many of those roles obsolete.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I'm sure you don't really want to know. Binary gender roles that have existed for a very long time, despite the fact that modern times have rendered many of those roles obsolete.


Actually I want to listen to the perspectives of these men. They say vague things such as "I believe gender roles are more efficient/the best way to build a relationship", but then don't proceed to give reasonings justifying their position.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Aiwass said:


> Actually I want to listen to the perspectives of these men. They say vague things such as "I believe gender roles are more efficient/the best way to build a relationship", but then don't proceed to give reasonings justifying their position.


They don't like change.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

tanstaafl28 said:


> They don't like change.


That's quite a generalization.


----------



## ImpossibleHunt (May 30, 2020)

As far as I can tell, there are legitimate reasons for men to believe in this line of thinking. There are also lots of women out there who believe the same thing too. 
But I find that lots of people either explain their position poorly, and they don't bother to think their beliefs through. 
However, in their defense, most people don't do that anyway, no matter which stance they end up taking.

When it comes to my opinion though, I personally don't care what people do.


----------



## ThisNameWorks (Mar 11, 2017)

LOL, doesn’t that mean they want you to do all the things their “culture” expects you to do?

Sorry if you’ve already answered this.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

secondpassing said:


> That's quite a generalization.


It is. Conservative people don't like change. The root of the word "conserve" seems to have something to do with it.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Aiwass said:


> ..."I believe in gender roles" or "I want a woman who respects gender roles"?
> 
> How would you describe these "gender roles"? What would make you feel satisfied? Should I be focused on cleaning the house more often than you? Should I be putting my relationship with you in 1st place and my work in 2nd? When discussing, should I be more agreeable and "submit" to your line of reasoning? What is exactly the proof I "respect" gender roles?
> 
> What shocks me, is how often I find men who I thought were somewhat "progressive" saying these kinds of things.


I'm not sure I really know the definition of gender roles, but I guess it means like place and position in society? Or what they're supposed to do in a family unit?

I think a woman should probably focus on cleaning the house more often than me, sure. Though, I think house chores allow for good bonding opportunities, so ideally the man would clean alongside her when possible. A woman cleaning the house would be a good way for her to support the man to support the family. When people get married, they vowed something. While marriage vows differ in most cultures, there's usually a line that says, "_through _sickness, through good and bad times, till death do us part..." which indicates a cooperative relationship. Thus, should I be married, my relationship with my wife would be a priority. The responsibility of caring for the family (which includes finances) would fall to me. She could possibly get a job too, but if the family ever ran out of money, that would be my fault. In the end, yes, I think women should put their relationship with their husbands before their careers.

It's also my job to make the decisions. This doesn't mean that the woman has no say in anything, but the final say would fall on the husband. As a result, it would do her well to be a submissive person. At the same time, the happiness of the family would be strained if the husband didn't consider the opinions of the wife, so he would work hard at gaining her respect.

I don't feel this is the right place for me to prove how gender roles should work in your eyes or why you should respect them on some line of reasoning, I didn't come to this site to evangelize after all, but I do notice that families who respect(?) gender roles in this manner find success in their marriage.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

secondpassing said:


> I'm not sure I really know the definition of gender roles, but I guess it means like place and position in society? Or what they're supposed to do in a family unit?
> 
> I think a woman should probably focus on cleaning the house more often than me, sure. Though, I think house chores allow for good bonding opportunities, so ideally the man would clean alongside her when possible. A woman cleaning the house would be a good way for her to support the man to support the family. When people get married, they vowed something. While marriage vows differ in most cultures, there's usually a line that says, "_through _sickness, through good and bad times, till death do us part..." which indicates a cooperative relationship. Thus, should I be married, my relationship with my wife would be a priority. The responsibility of caring for the family (which includes finances) would fall to me. She could possibly get a job too, but if the family ever ran out of money, that would be my fault. In the end, yes, I think women should put their relationship with their husbands before their careers.
> 
> ...


OK, just some few more questions: where does this view* comes from? Were you raised conservative or religious? Or it is (as you said) based purely on personal observation - your personal observation that families who respect gender roles find success in their marriage?

*edited


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Aiwass said:


> OK, just some few more questions: where does this vision comes from? Were you raised conservative or religious? Or it is (as you said) based purely on personal observation - your personal observation that families who respect gender roles find success in their marriage?


"Vision"? You mean "view" right? From the Bible. I don't identify as conservative, but I did start learning when I was six. I don't get why your beliefs have to be separate from personal observations. I grew up around many happy families, and these families were also following the same principles.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

secondpassing said:


> "Vision"? You mean "view" right? From the Bible. I don't identify as conservative, but I did start learning when I was six. I don't get why your beliefs have to be separate from personal observations. I grew up around many happy families, and these families were also following the same principles.


Yeah, I mean view, thank you for correcting me.

I'm going to describe a hypothetical situation and want to know what do you think you would you do if it ever happened to you.

Let's say you meet Mary and you both fall in love very hard. Everything goes perfectly fine, until you discover Mary is way more progressive than you are when it comes to a bunch of topics.
You want a woman who is more domestic and focused on cleaning the house than you are; Mary wants everything 50/50. You want a woman who puts you before her job, but Mary values her job as much as you value your job and Mary wants to contribute financially to the home as much as you contribute financially to the home. 
If you two decided to have a kid, Mary would expect you to be free to take care of the kid sometimes and help her to "take a break" (just like she would take care of the kid sometimes and give you a break from babysitting).

What would you decide to do in this scenario? Would you discard the relationship due to differences in values, or would you consider adapting to Mary's views and lifestyle choices?


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Aiwass said:


> Yeah, I mean view, thank you for correcting me.
> 
> I'm going to describe a hypothetical situation and want to know what do you think you would you do if it ever happened to you.
> 
> ...


Well, finding a woman more willing than I am to clean the house would be generally pretty easy XD, and even if that were so I find that one more of something small enough that I could just forgive and forget about. Before we get into any of the rest of it, she's already showing a non-submissive attitude, and I'd likely never have started this relationship to begin with. I mean, I'm assuming here that you're saying that this woman is unwilling to change her views here right?

If a woman is unwilling to put me before her job, that's quite a deal-breaker. I can't even imagine it like that. Aren't marriages supposed to be between devoted people? Why is this job so valuable anyway? Why is this woman wanting to contribute to the house financially as I am? Like, what's the purpose of that? I'm not going to stop women from having jobs, that'd be a rather odd view, but I don't see the point in the whole finance thing in the first place. Totally willing to care for the kids. Parents should spend time with their kids.

I'd probably just break up with her. If we could work it out, great, but her views are already revealing what she expects out of a relationship and I'm not going to be the one to give that to her. Now if we were already married, I wouldn't break up with her. Marriage is an oath.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

secondpassing said:


> Well, finding a woman more willing than I am to clean the house would be generally pretty easy XD, and even if that were so I find that one more of something small enough that I could just forgive and forget about. Before we get into any of the rest of it, she's already showing a non-submissive attitude, and I'd likely never have started this relationship to begin with. I mean, I'm assuming here that you're saying that this woman is unwilling to change her views here right?
> 
> If a woman is unwilling to put me before her job, that's quite a deal-breaker. I can't even imagine it like that. Aren't marriages supposed to be between devoted people? Why is this job so valuable anyway? Why is this woman wanting to contribute to the house financially as I am? Like, what's the purpose of that? I'm not going to stop women from having jobs, that'd be a rather odd view, but I don't see the point in the whole finance thing in the first place. Totally willing to care for the kids. Parents should spend time with their kids.
> 
> I'd probably just break up with her. If we could work it out, great, but her views are already revealing what she expects out of a relationship and I'm not going to be the one to give that to her. Now if we were already married, I wouldn't break up with her. Marriage is an oath.


I'm not saying her job would be more important to her than you are important to her (necessarily), just pointing out her job would be important to her the _exact same way_ your job would be important to you. I'm not someone who thinks people should put their jobs and finances above important relationships (hell no), but I don't understand why she should be less passionate about her job than you are, either.

I understand your PoV and respect it, but I know couples who live rather fulfilled lives following more egalitarian/progressive principles than the ones you have described. I mean, you do you - I'm not against people seeking traditional lifestyles if this is what makes sense to them, but IMO this isn't necessarily what works for everybody or even what's the "best".


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

I think it means something different for different men.
Some men want the trad wife, and some women want to be the trad wife. I think so long as a relationship doesn't become toxic or abusive there's nothing wrong with different people's preferences.
My fiance wants to support me financially as long as he can. I don't have a problem with that. 
If it gets to a point where he can't, I'll do what I can to support us.
He and I are also collaborating on projects that will likely provide another income in the future as well.
I don't mind doing much of the housework, although, I told him we'll probably do some cooking and cleaning together, but I also do some work to help him out as well, so it all kind of evens out.


----------



## ThisNameWorks (Mar 11, 2017)

dulcinea said:


> I think it means something different for different men.
> Some men want the trad wife, and some women want to be the trad wife. I think so long as a relationship doesn't become toxic or abusive there's nothing wrong with different people's preferences.
> My fiance wants to support me financially as long as he can. I don't have a problem with that.
> If it gets to a point where he can't, I'll do what I can to support us.
> ...


My boss’ wife is like that. She doesn’t work, his job pays for the nice house and two boys. His car is lovely too. He’s incredibly traditional in his private life, but is mildly modern in his business. He’s also the tallest, nicest guy in the world; picture perfect phlegmatic.


----------



## Astrida88 (Jun 6, 2019)

secondpassing said:


> Why is this woman wanting to contribute to the house financially as I am? Like, what's the purpose of that? I'm not going to stop women from having jobs, that'd be a rather odd view, but I don't see the point in the whole finance thing in the first place. Totally willing to care for the kids. Parents should spend time with their kids.


From my experience the most evident cause of family argues are money and who earns it.
Males who think like you are in constant stress "what if I don't earn enough" and blame the wife for "spending too much money", especially if she earns no money on her own or has some low pay part time job.
And if their wife happens to earn more than they feel "unneeded" and blame the wife she "treats them like a slave" which ain't true (she doesn't have time to keep the house spot free and cook, but doesn't it make him a slave that he cooks for himself and does some vacuum cleaning? If that's the case then husbands treat wives like slaves all the time).

In the family I grew up in females are generally better educated than men so they are able to get a well earning jobs (but some of them don't do that due to their husbands influence with "gender roles" - my aunt with doctors degree in finances is stay at home wife, afraid to leave the house during dinner time because her husband will be angry if she didn't have dinner on the table, as if he couldn't heat it up in microwave or frying pan).

Most men in my family do simple, physical jobs and are neadentartal when it comes to money management and economy knowledge. They earn the money due to the gender roles but the woman is the one who keeps the founds and savings because their husbands have no clue and wouldn't even make a bank account. And then the men blames the woman for not saving enough and him "not seeing" his money. 

I seriously don't want that kind of relationship. I want to have a proper job and earn enough money to support myself and the future kids so I don't have to rely on a man who will blame me for whatever I do. If he wants to contribute - alright. But I want the power balance to be equal or on my side. I want to be able to show him the door if he becomes aggressive. What I can't stand is being depended on a aggressive, manipulative guy. 

Not to mention - noone lives forever, the men have lower life expectancy and a lot of them do risky jobs, such as mining. The woman needs to have a proper job if she doesn't want to be worried sick. Unless you are planning to earn enough to keep enough saving for the wife to survive a few years after your death let her have a job that lets her support her and the children in case you are gone. Finding a proper job after 20 years of unemployment or part time jobs won't be easy.


----------



## Hexigoon (Mar 12, 2018)

Not sure, I'm really not as concerned about some arbitrary gender roles as much as I'd want her to follow sensible dating / social etiquette. I know they would expect the same from me.


----------



## TheDominator (Dec 9, 2017)

Most probably don't even know. 
And the simps who talk about wanting a biblical foundation only want the part about wives submitting. They don't want the second part about husbands being willing to die for the little woman or putting her needs above his own. 
Our pastor says if you ask her to submit, give her someone worthy of submission. 
It's why I'll never marry. I'm a selfish bastard.


----------



## Plusless (Aug 19, 2020)

Gender roles in relationships are a outdated way to force people together and to agreeing about the workload needed for the upbringing of a child. Current alternative is to have reliance on the good will of people to arrive to some conclusion about the subject, and see the people hurt by it as a necessary sacrifice for personal freedom. Gender roles require an update to make them relevant, and the current alternative method requires a different species of animal to make it work in the scale of society.

We are not meant to live like this. The two extremes are forcibly changing our behavior to be different from our natural impulses, or to let nature take its course and see the evil unfold. I pick the poison called gender roles, because I cant stand to see the people broken by their parents inability to solve a issue.


----------



## 76170 (Jan 23, 2014)

.


----------



## Ecchi (Jun 26, 2018)

I don't say that. I just want someone who loves to fuck.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Ecchi said:


> I don't say that. I just want someone who loves to fuck.


Bisexual women generally have the edge on this, higher sex drives than straight women


----------



## ThisNameWorks (Mar 11, 2017)

Kynx said:


> Bisexual women generally have the edge on this, higher sex drives than straight women


Yes. Also more likely to leave you for someone new.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

YearseRayneDon said:


> Yes. Also more likely to leave you for someone new.


Not necessarily. 

But if you're prioritising good sex, you can't also prioritise loyalty as well. You might be lucky enough to get both, but generally you'd be better to assume that someone who loves sex isn't going to only love sex with you. 

There's usually trade offs, can't expect everything our own way.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

As a bisexual woman who doesn't have a very high sex drive at all and is more romantic than "sexual", I feel misrepresented in this world


----------



## 545769 (Apr 3, 2019)

I am a very traditional woman and I’m perfectly happy with it. And if I were to marry, I would still be perfectly happy with it...It’s actually why I’m not married as of yet is because I realize marriage is a big responsibility and I can’t fulfill that right now due to health issues... But I don’t know why people think you have to be a housewife and extremely submissive. I find submissive is the wrong word to be honest. But maybe those who have never been in a healthy environment as a traditional woman, don’t realize it has nothing to do with submission/dominance...and everything to do with helping each other in roles we are better at fulfilling and trust...generally speaking. 

And even when you take out religious aspects, I can see the scientific reasoning behind the gender roles. And I could explain it to some degree...however, I find when no one even believes in real science anymore and basic understanding of a man and woman, it’s almost pointless to dive into. 

I actually believe the crumbling of our society has to do with the destruction from within...from our family lives.

Edit: This isn’t to say I believe each man should have full authority over the family. That is why there are so many steps of authority in this world, to make corruption in the authority a lot harder to poison. There are still basic humane rules that should be followed and if the man of the household isn’t following them to the best of his ability to do what’s right for his family, then sure...he’s abusing his own authority and therefore doesn’t have to be listened to.


----------



## 76170 (Jan 23, 2014)

.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

I’d love to know more about the “scientific reasoning” behind gender roles too.

However, even in case this “scientific reasoning” _existed_, it wouldn’t be a strong argument for us to be forced or persuaded into gender roles. It would be a fallacy of appeal to nature to say so, because not everything that is “natural” is desirable or good.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

As an ESTP woman, I'm comfortable conforming to socially acceptable gender roles in public. I don't care to prove anything. But in private in relationships, that's too exhausting to keep up. I need to just be myself at some point.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

I sometimes worry that people who focus a lot on gender roles don't see the other gender as a real person. 
It's probably just a fraction of those people in practice, but it still really worries me.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Oh it means "You should run far away from me and never look back"


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Aiwass said:


> I’d love to know more about the “scientific reasoning” behind gender roles too.
> 
> However, even in case this “scientific reasoning” _existed_, it wouldn’t be a strong argument for us to be forced or persuaded into gender roles. It would be a fallacy of appeal to nature to say so, because not everything that is “natural” is desirable or good.


Talking with straight "science" is tedious in this instance, so I'm just going to list out some widely accepted scientific ideas and then follow it up with my own opinion as to how it is connected to gender roles.


Humans are self-aware, and babies imitate their parents; children can identify between the two sexes and will imitate the one that is of their sex.
Mothers have and emit hormones; babies are more attached to their mothers so females are predisposed to care for children.
Females produce breastmilk, which is important to the baby's development; it would be more difficult to do various labors while being available to feed babies.
Men are biologically different, which makes them predisposed to aggression, to have more muscle mass, and to have their eyes focus better on moving objects; likely men would be better at competing for resources, like doing jobs->
Up until recently, service based jobs were basically non-existent. Hunting, farming, scavaging, and production were the majority of job tasks for much of human history.
Natural (especially sexual) selection, especially those coded into our DNA and our into culture
I don't think it's hard to see the "scientific reasoning" behind gender roles.


----------



## Infinitus (Jul 12, 2019)

The irony of users of a typology forum disputing the concept and/or usefulness of archetypes is too much for me to take.


----------



## cellarheat (Sep 17, 2020)

Infinitus said:


> The irony of users of a typology forum disputing the concept and/or usefulness of archetypes is too much for me to take.


In the 21st century, any and all micro-distinctions between people are celebrated, but we mustn't ever mention the one big distinction that applies to 99.99999% of humanity throughout our history and enables our continued existence on this planet.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

secondpassing said:


> Talking with straight "science" is tedious in this instance, so I'm just going to list out some widely accepted scientific ideas and then follow it up with my own opinion as to how it is connected to gender roles.
> 
> 
> Humans are self-aware, and babies imitate their parents; children can identify between the two sexes and will imitate the one that is of their sex.
> ...


I'm afraid you misunderstood what I meant. Sure, there are biological differences between males and females and I don't think anyone on this thread is trying to dispute that. Rather, what I'm questioning is the scientific basis behind gender roles being _desirable _or _enforced _like some people want it to be.

Just because something can be explained by evolution or nature, it doesn't mean such thing is "good". I could create an argument describing how racism is totally well explained by human "nature" and by the way our brain responds to threats, but this scientific explanation of racism wouldn't make it something moral or desirable.

TL;DR: Prescriptive or normative arguments of social nature should not be based on science. We should have a _reason _for doing what we do, and "I think nature wants society to be this way" is a cop-out argument for something that is much more complex.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Aiwass said:


> I'm afraid you misunderstood what I meant. Sure, there are biological differences between males and females and I don't think anyone on this thread is trying to dispute that. Rather, what I'm questioning is the scientific basis behind gender roles being _desirable _or _enforced _like some people want it to be.
> 
> Just because something can be explained by evolution or nature, it doesn't mean such thing is "good". I could create an argument describing how racism is totally well explained by human "nature" and by the way our brain responds to threats, but this scientific explanation of racism wouldn't make it something moral or desirable.
> 
> TL;DR: Prescriptive or normative arguments of social nature should not be based on science. We should have a _reason _for doing what we do, and "I think nature wants society to be this way" is a cop-out argument for something that is much more complex.


Then it seems like I misunderstood what you meant, and I still don't get what you mean, so now I can't fathom there being a satisfying answer. Science never tells us what we should or shouldn't do. It's culture, religions, and communities will tell you what is moral. 

Nature doesn't "want" anything as it is not a living being. It just incentivizes and perpetuates certain behaviors.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Aiwass said:


> ..."I believe in gender roles" or "I want a woman who respects gender roles"?
> 
> How would you describe these "gender roles"? What would make you feel satisfied? Should I be focused on cleaning the house more often than you? Should I be putting my relationship with you in 1st place and my work in 2nd? When discussing, should I be more agreeable and "submit" to your line of reasoning? What is exactly the proof I "respect" gender roles?
> 
> What shocks me, is how often I find men who I thought were somewhat "progressive" saying these kinds of things.


It's very simple, really. Like all aspects of all issues in life, the real deal is order against chaos. 

Men are inclined towards order by stereotype and that means by statistical weight, factually. Women are inclined towards chaos by stereotype and that means by statistical weight, factually. Individuals of course deviate from the norm. But these truths are genetic and real world issues. 

Right now the cultural zeitgeist is chaotic. It is Feministic. It is disintegrating, like all chaos is. 

Traditional gender roles are Patriarchal, the submission to order. They are thus hierarchical, with men slightly on top. This is the not quite balance that wisdom and first wave Feminism rejected. But second and third wave Feminism are chaos and over expressive of that force. They are destructive and unwise. 

What is GOOD in this universe is objective, not subjective. The balance is the proper path to what is good. So, for me, parity with my female mate is the real goal. But there is no perfect parity. In some ways each person will be more orderly and in some ways more chaotic. The trick is understanding what order and chaos are and how they interact.

Desire is incredibly useful and incredibly dangerous. It is the driving force of chaos. Desire effectively IS chaos. Likewise fear is order. The force that acts against these in the middle for balance is anger. Each of the three emotions restrains the other two naturally. 

You ... lament? ... that you find progressive men who nonetheless desire hierarchy and order. The first order expression of a person gives rise to the second order expression beneath it. Left wing people are motivated in the personal realm by chaos. But they most often flip the script in the group or social sens and demand order. Likewise fear people are very ordered and self restrained personally. They flip the script and socially they become desirous and predatory. This is required. It is the means to balance. If these people were not this way they would be too imbalanced to function. Balance WILL find you, one way or another. Every single force in the universe strives to check you. Balance is everywhere thwarting desire and fear with essence, being, anger. 

You would be then ... predictably ... surprised to find the personal order men to be surprisingly freedom (desire) minded as a second expression. Try it. ... What do you want?


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Aiwass said:


> Just because something can be explained by evolution or nature, it doesn't mean such thing is "good". I could create an argument describing how racism is totally well explained by human "nature" and by the way our brain responds to threats, but this scientific explanation of racism wouldn't make it something moral or desirable.


You did not ask why they should be staying. You asked the scientific reasoning behind them. There it is.

Now, and I'm gonna speak as someone who's an independent close to liberals, if we want to find out if gender roles are "good" or "bad", first we have to define the objective. "Good" or "bad" for what ?

If someone doesn't want to have a family, no marriage, no kids, then sure. On paper you can get rid of all that. Hell, you don't even need cohabitation. I'm in that category. If I'm gonna do 50% of chores, I'm living at my own place, alone, because that's the only way to have a perfect 50-50 division for chores, and a perfect 50-50 division for financial contribution, proportionally to what each person does.

But if someone wants a family, with marriage and kids, and you want gender roles gone, then you have a problem. First of all, I agree that pure appeal to nature is not an answer, however in that case… this is not one. I'm sure that some people, 1500 years ago, have tried switching gender roles up, ignoring them, and to abolish them, it probably even happened 10000 years ago. But the further in the past you go, the more those roles are necessary. It's not that they're being enforced by some misogynistic pig. Thought experiment : you and your tribe lives in a cave, around a fire, before civilization. Reverse the gender roles, or remove them, and try to survive. Spoiler alert : good luck.
If a pregnant woman has to go and hunt for her pregnant self, and her mate, while he takes care of the hearth, and takes care of the tribe's children, and gathers berries, what will happen is she will die at some point during her pregnancy. Because there is a point where the pregnancy is weakening her way too much for her to have intense and dangerous physical activities like hunting. A point at which she becomes a prey. You could say "and when the child is born ?", and to that, yes, you could, in theory, switch everything up. Except in practice, hunting is a skill, and taking care of a hearth, is another, different, skill (on top of now there being 3 mouths to feed instead of 2, and sending the weakest of the dimorphic species to hunt). It's anything you want, but an efficient way of surviving and having your child survive.
Again, you could say "but now we have civilization, we don't need to hunt anymore, we have safety at home, we have healthcare, etc…". And to that, yes, all of that is true. Except now it's carved in our reptilian brain. After thousands of years of environmental constraints positively selecting traditional gender roles (up to very recently, at the very least until WW1, possibly WW2). Except now, women still won't date dudes who don't have a job, aka who cannot bring in resources. The constraints have disappeared, yet the selection is still here. Except now, men still don't care for a woman's status, because they know they won't find a mate if they can't provide for 3+. So they do that, and then, having a partner who's a doctor, or a cashier, for men, doesn't matter. That doesn't make the sex better. It's not particularly attractive, and even worse, nowadays, those high-career women are generally pretty insufferable (and not intimidating as some would like the world to believe). And let's say you find a guy and you are both okay with switching things up… how many years are you going to stay attracted to him ? Realistically ? Well the answer is simple : not many years. How often do we hear about divorces initiated by women just after their promotion ? Where she gets a promotion, and suddenly she thinks she can do better than her current husband ? That's often, personally more often than I would like, tbh.

So if one wants a family, as much as I don't like gender roles, they are what works, it's undeniable, there are thousands of years of history and prehistory to prove it, and in that sense, they are "good". Trying to grow past nature in itself is not necessarily a bad idea. But what bothers me is when people who want everyone to grow past nature, are generally the first ones to be too weak to make that change in themselves. I'm thinking of that past date who was a feminist, demanded equality everywhere and in every circumstances, yet still wanted me to take the lead because she was lazy that day. Or that other feminist who's a friend's wife, who advocates against gender roles, yet quickly reverted back to gender roles when she got pregnant. If they just realized that everything that they fight against are not always strictly bad, their lives, and their entourage's lives would be better.

Lastly, being inquisitive like that about that topic doesn't put the burden of proof on the traditionalists. The traditionalists, on this particular topic, are not making weird claims. Claiming that gender roles are socially constructed however, is a weird claim, and _that_ claim needs support. So if you're asking for the scientific evidence that gender roles come from biology, you need to be able to bring scientific evidence that they don't first, you're the one making the weird claim. The burden of proof is on you.


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Aiwass said:


> ..."I believe in gender roles" or "I want a woman who respects gender roles"?


It means he wants a woman who will actually contribute to the household, devote effort into making him happy, will put in effort into her appearance, will show him some respect, and will keep things simple by defaulting to the expected gender-based behavior in a given situation. This does NOT mean as feminists say that he wants to completely dominate over you and for you to be a little slave (although many feminists clearly want that by the way they try to provoke men into domineering over them). It's a healthy male attitude to expect some positive value from the women around him. However, this doesn't mean all men are deserving of the sweet femininity that women can provide and that's up to the individual women to respect themselves and only love and provide for a man who will love and respect them properly.



Aiwass said:


> How would you describe these "gender roles"? What would make you feel satisfied? Should I be focused on cleaning the house more often than you? Should I be putting my relationship with you in 1st place and my work in 2nd? When discussing, should I be more agreeable and "submit" to your line of reasoning? What is exactly the proof I "respect" gender roles?


Description: The woman uses her feminine charm to seduce the male because he's a man worthy of your effort.
I'd feel satisfied if she loves and respects me in a way that aligns well with my personality and expectations.
Domestic chores: It depends. If I'm the sole one providing for the household, you're taking on the majority of the tasks for practicality and respect's sake. If we both work, then we split things reasonably based on practicality and preferences discussed.
Relationship Priority: Life is a practical matter. Sometimes work takes priority, sometimes your partner does. But in the end, there needs to be respect and love.
Arguments: The only time you should submit to a man in an argument is if you're actually wrong, but even then you need to stand up for yourself if you feel disrespected, but that can be done in a feminine way that avoids unnecessary fighting. A woman with too much pride is not attractive, but the same goes for men too. The master will tire of the slave. The salve will learn to hate and rebel against the master, so do NOT get into a relationship like that.
Proof that you respect gender roles: The key word is "role". It's more of a roleplay because yesterday's necessities are today's mere life choices. So you essentially look the part, love him, respect him, and NEVER under any circumstances do anything that would emasculate him, especially in front of his male friends.



Aiwass said:


> What shocks me, is how often I find men who I thought were somewhat "progressive" saying these kinds of things.


There's no such thing as a "progressive" man. All men are attracted to some kind of femininity. They are just lying because they don't want to offend you and were taught that their actual preferences are disgusting and evil.


Men who say this are testing women to see if they're the type who will put effort into the relationship or will be the "independent woman type" AKA the women who wont do anything for a man because she "doesn't need one".


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Aiwass said:


> ..."I believe in gender roles" or "I want a woman who respects gender roles"?
> 
> How would you describe these "gender roles"? What would make you feel satisfied? Should I be focused on cleaning the house more often than you? Should I be putting my relationship with you in 1st place and my work in 2nd? When discussing, should I be more agreeable and "submit" to your line of reasoning? What is exactly the proof I "respect" gender roles?


A general principle of relationships is that people look for a partner who has traits they both (a) lack and (b) desire to possess. Gender roles reflect the unequal distribution of personality traits in the population. For example, more women are known to have F and J preferences - in aggregate this leads to the stereotype of women being more emotionally driven and attentive to detail than men.

Also, if you are serious about nurturing a relationship, you must be willing to prioritize it over other concerns, including career advancement. I know from experience that throwing oneself into work, slaving away for money and neglecting other domains of life is a recipe for alienation and disillusionment.

P.S. I have observed that most women unhappy with "gender roles" still expect a man to be physically robust, calm and decisive, to actively court them, provide for them financially, initiate sex, propose marriage and much else besides. One rule for thee and another for me


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Looks like the future of families are over if the demand is gender roles because I don't know a lot of women that will go backwards. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Roslyn said:


> Looks like the future of families are over if the demand is gender roles because I don't know a lot of women that will go backwards. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


The foundation of a civilization is built on its traditions and they are such because they work. It is those who refuse tradition for stupid pride-related reasons that will be ending any of their potential for family formation.


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Meliodas said:


> Also, if you are serious about nurturing a relationship, you must be willing to prioritize it over other concerns, including career advancement. I know from experience that throwing oneself into work, slaving away for money and neglecting other domains of life is a recipe for alienation and disillusionment.


Absolutely agree and if I didn't make it clear enough in my original post, you have to be at least WILLING to do this. I don't think it's a hard rule to always value your partner over your career because a career IS important, but it depends on the demands. Some careers just demand more and that's a concern to discuss with your partner. But in the end, I would say that people > money.


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Kynx said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> But if you're prioritising good sex, you can't also prioritise loyalty as well. You might be lucky enough to get both, but generally you'd be better to assume that someone who loves sex isn't going to only love sex with you.
> 
> There's usually trade offs, can't expect everything our own way.


Harsh truth, although I think it's possible to take someone who is very loyal and open them up.


----------



## 545769 (Apr 3, 2019)

Jansen said:


> It means he wants a woman who will actually contribute to the household, devote effort into making him happy, will put in effort into her appearance, will show him some respect, and will keep things simple by defaulting to the expected gender-based behavior in a given situation. This does NOT mean as feminists say that he wants to completely dominate over you and for you to be a little slave (although many feminists clearly want that by the way they try to provoke men into domineering over them). It's a healthy male attitude to expect some positive value from the women around him. However, this doesn't mean all men are deserving of the sweet femininity that women can provide and that's up to the individual women to respect themselves and only love and provide for a man who will love and respect them properly.
> 
> 
> Description: The woman uses her feminine charm to seduce the male because he's a man worthy of your effort.
> ...


Thank you. Even if no one else gets convinced, it gives me a sense of relief that some people can still think rationally out there. 



Roslyn said:


> Looks like the future of families are over if the demand is gender roles because I don't know a lot of women that will go backwards. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


That’s where gender roles is misunderstood. Not everyone sees it as going “backwards.” Some of us see it as @Jansen described it. A mutual agreement but one with love and respect. It’s not degrading to love and care for a husband and child. I think that’s one of the root differences between a homemaker woman and a feminist. Perception. And it’s not like in a gender role relationship the man doesn’t have his own responsibilities and contributions.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Someone is having trouble taking the L. 😄


----------



## 545769 (Apr 3, 2019)

Meliodas said:


> P.S. I have observed that most women unhappy with "gender roles" still expect a man to be physically robust, calm and decisive, to actively court them, provide for them financially, initiate sex, propose marriage and much else besides. One rule for thee and another for me


This really is true. Maybe not all but many. I know this one woman who forces/wants her men to dominate her yet she won’t give them a moments peace by being cold and dominating. And she always tries to date really nicely guys who she can dominate and control. 🤷🏻‍♀️ And even in her way of trying to force them to dominate her, she’s still managing to dominate them by trying to force them. Also, she won’t do the housework and make meals and such because it’s beneath her and men can do it for themselves, but she’ll sit there and let them do all the “manly” work too. And if they ask her for some help she retorts that’s their job as men. So basically she thinks she’s exempt from both roles and doesn’t have to do anything. 🙄 I realize not every feminist is like this and some will do the work for themselves, but most have really unrealistic expectations and double standards. 

By the way, I consider myself a homemaker but I’m not afraid to work outside or do things “manly” when I have to. I’m not a sissy. 😛 I think a balance of skills is good. Just in case anyone thinks I’m against woman who do anything hard or tedious, that’s not what I’m saying.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Jansen said:


> The foundation of a civilization is built on its traditions and they are such because they work. It is those who refuse tradition for stupid pride-related reasons that will be ending any of their potential for family formation.


Okay. Sure. I'm not sacrificing myself for other peoples traditions.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Sweet but Psycho said:


> Thank you. Even if no one else gets convinced, it gives me a sense of relief that some people can still think rationally out there.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s where gender roles is misunderstood. Not everyone sees it as going “backwards.” Some of us see it as @Jansen described it. A mutual agreement but one with love and respect. It’s not degrading to love and care for a husband and child. I think that’s one of the root differences between a homemaker woman and a feminist. Perception. And it’s not like in a gender role relationship the man doesn’t have his own responsibilities and contributions.


Except most women see it as going backwards. So.... You can jump on that bandwagon. 

Pass.


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Sweet but Psycho said:


> Thank you. Even if no one else gets convinced, it gives me a sense of relief that some people can still think rationally out there.


Thank YOU! I realize my post could come off as harsh to some, but I'm really just trying to nail home that when men say they are looking for a traditionally feminine woman, they are NOT necessarily looking to abuse (Although, there ARE some men who absolutely have the wrong mindset/attitude and I advise anyone to avoid people like that. Likewise, I've seen women who want the traditional style relationship as predatory, so it can definitely go both ways. We all have to be aware of what we're getting into and the intentions we have going into things).




Sweet but Psycho said:


> That’s where gender roles is misunderstood. Not everyone sees it as going “backwards.” Some of us see it as @Jansen described it. A mutual agreement but one with love and respect. *It’s not degrading to love and care for a husband and child.* I think that’s one of the root differences between a homemaker woman and a feminist. Perception. And it’s not like in a gender role relationship the man doesn’t have his own responsibilities and contributions.


Yes! I don't think it's degrading for a man to do sweet things for his lady too. I think it's beautiful when a man loves his woman so much that he is willing to do everything to make her happy. It's a positive feedback loop


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Roslyn said:


> Okay. Sure. I'm not sacrificing myself for other peoples traditions.


If you're not willing to make sacrifices, you're not ready for love period. Harsh but true. "Tradition" means different things to different people. When I say it, I mean a relationship by which the woman uses her feminine charm to seduce the man. It's beautiful and sweet because it shows that she values him enough to put in that effort. Long hair, flowing dresses, heels, a sweet smile, positivity, etc. all feminine, all wonderful. It's not a hard rule. The essence of femininity can't be summed up in just appearance alone.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Sweet but Psycho said:


> This really is true. Maybe not all but many. I know this one woman who forces/wants her men to dominate her yet she won’t give them a moments peace by being cold and dominating. And she always tries to date really nicely guys who she can dominate and control. 🤷🏻‍♀️ And even in her way of trying to force them to dominate her, she’s still managing to dominate them by trying to force them. Also, she won’t do the housework and make meals and such because it’s beneath her and men can do it for themselves, but she’ll sit there and let them do all the “manly” work too. And if they ask her for some help she retorts that’s their job as men. So basically she thinks she’s exempt from both roles and doesn’t have to do anything. 🙄 I realize not every feminist is like this and some will do the work for themselves, but most have really unrealistic expectations and double standards.
> 
> By the way, I consider myself a homemaker but I’m not afraid to work outside or do things “manly” when I have to. I’m not a sissy. 😛 I think a balance of skills is good. Just in case anyone thinks I’m against woman who do anything hard or tedious, that’s not what I’m saying.


I think the common theme in these relationships is a rejection of mutuality. You are either the master or the slave, oppressing another or being oppressed yourself. BDSM is an erotic manifestation of this lack of trust between the sexes. Sadly, modern feminism teaches young women to view all social interactions through the prism of control. If you believe this, it makes sense to withhold sex from men and avoid any romantic attachment.


----------



## 545769 (Apr 3, 2019)

@Jansen It only comes across as harsh to some because they either haven’t experienced it themselves or just don’t understand. But I have felt it myself as well as have lived in many many homes. Let’s say my first nanny job was at 13 years old. I’ve seen every family aspect (or lack of) many times over and the results. The gender roles (between two selfless people) always had the strongest foundation and had the best affects of children. (In general) 

And so true. Most men enjoy doing nice things for woman.  My dad still opens the car door for my mother even for this day. And it isn’t about degrading her, he does it out of respect. And she respectfully in turn let’s him even if it might be faster if she just does it herself. Lol


----------



## 545769 (Apr 3, 2019)

Meliodas said:


> I think the common theme in these relationships is a rejection of mutuality. You are either the master or the slave, oppressing another or being oppressed yourself. BDSM is an erotic manifestation of this primitive dichotomy. Sadly, modern feminism teaches young women to view all social interactions through the prism of control, which leads women to fear men rather than love us.


Yea, it’s sad.


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Meliodas said:


> I think the common theme in these relationships is a rejection of mutuality. You are either the master or the slave, oppressing another or being oppressed yourself. BDSM is an erotic manifestation of this primitive dichotomy. *Sadly, modern feminism teaches young women to view all social interactions through the prism of control, which leads women to fear men rather than love us.*


Not only to fear us but also despise us, that we are not worthy of respect, love, or sacrifice because we were the "bad guys" that "oppressed" (In actually made the ultimate sacrifices and protected) women in the past.

I'm really tired of this whole "gender wars". People need to respect and love one another. We're all we've got in this world man...


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Jansen said:


> Not only to fear us but also despise us, that we are not worthy of respect, love, or sacrifice because we were the "bad guys" that "oppressed" (In actually made the ultimate sacrifices and protected) women in the past.


We do not value that which we receive without any effort on our part. Basic human nature.

For example, I think women should be drafted in the military, learn how to fight and gain basic survival skills. Women who've gone through this tend to be noticeably more sympathetic to the male condition than average. All of my past lovers have been "action girls" of some kind, even if they appeared outwardly feminine...this trope (Girly Girl with a Tomboy Streak - TV Tropes) is therefore invoked often.


----------



## 545769 (Apr 3, 2019)

Jansen said:


> Not only to fear us but also despise us, that we are not worthy of respect, love, or sacrifice because we were the "bad guys" that "oppressed" (In actually made the ultimate sacrifices and protected) women in the past.
> 
> I'm really tired of this whole "gender wars". People need to respect and love one another. We're all we've got in this world man...


You should have said “We’re all we’ve got in this world man and WOMAN.” That’s more gender appropriate. Are you a chauvinist? 

Haha I’m totally kidding. I’m sorry I couldn’t resist. 🤣

Actually, I think part of it too is we’ve been taught by society that we all have a lot more entitlements than we do and also that it’s ok to hold onto things from years ago because we are that important. Even in race wars you see the same thing. People upset about shit that happened lives and lives before our time. If we keep going back the way we are everyone has been hurt by everyone and everyone is entitled to be treated like the entitled one. It’s ridiculous. I can say that my Grandpa treated my Grandma like shit...but my Dad treated my mom like a queen...and she treated him like a king (within their means in poverty). We don’t have to keep going up the line to blame why we all lack kindness and work ethic. Sure, I believe there was a time the gender roles did get abused a bit by men as some did treat woman wrongly. But now I see men being so mistreated in our society and it’s ridiculous because us woman are still acting like victims because of what our ancestors went through when really we are the perpetrators. So I do see a little why their was a rebellion to start with because woman are still human beings and have rights, but it’s way overdone.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Meliodas said:


> P.S. I have observed that most women unhappy with "gender roles" still expect a man to be physically robust, calm and decisive, to actively court them, provide for them financially, initiate sex, propose marriage and much else besides. One rule for thee and another for me


I would think that in Western culture, being "calm" tends to be seen as more feminine.

So a woman to be interested in a "calm" man doesn't say anything about her acceptance of gender roles?

Also, I'm pretty sure many women and men prefer people who are physically healthy etc. I am not sure what you mean by "robust" --I am assuming you don't mean fat.

I think it's conceivable that both women and men who prefer a physically healthy partner do so for reasons other than adherence to gender roles. Though they could also prefer gender roles. 

I am not sure about the other women you observed--I don't know anyone who criticizes gender roles and also expects men to fulfill gender roles. Most of the women I know who expect a man to do traditionally masculine things like proposing marriage, and definately those who expect men to provide for them financially, tend to be conservative women who defend gender roles.

Though I also imagine it'd be rational to reject SOME gender roles or expectations because one disagrees with the specific expectation--like disagreeing with getting a child circumcised, or expecting a partner to put themselves in danger for a show of unnecessary bravado etc.

I personally don't care if people want to adhere to traditional gender roles or to create new roles in their relationships--so long as it's consensual. 

I do take issue with people trying to force them onto other people though.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Also, regarding the J and P and F vs. T preferences that men and women may tend to have, and that maybe reinforce the stereotypes that dictate gender roles...

Instead of relying on stereotypes and gender roles, you could also just accept that people are individuals.

People can be drawn to complementary types of personalities without needing to hammer people on the head about gender roles.

I know my close friend in high school used to think of herself as having a "masculine" brain--I suspect she was some type of TJ. And the men she ended up having close relationships were more similar to me in their temperment--artistic and creative, and perhaps more feelerish.

She didn't have to insist all men must become this way any more than men who are looking for more "traditional" qualities in women need to insist ALL women must exhibit those qualities.

Gender roles are unnecessary if you just accept everyone's an individual and people can form relationships that differ from the norm and it's okay so long as it's consensual.


----------



## 545769 (Apr 3, 2019)

@WickerDeer Oh for sure, I do see your point in some aspect. One thing I really watch in a guy is how he responds to kids and other woman. If he’s uncomfortable and such with kids I’m ok with that because he can learn...but if he treats them like crap and me really well...then I know he isn’t genuine.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sweet but Psycho said:


> Yes, but if woman think men and woman should be treated “equal”...then that would mean a man treating a woman different IS about gender roles if he has a specific way he would treat her than he would another man. That’s why I’m not quite understanding what you are debating with me here about. I’m not making the issue difficult. It’s actually quite simple to me.
> 
> Also, I was just using door opening as an example of many. So if you zone in on just opening doors it might not seem like a big deal but that’s just the tip of the iceberg.


If there's an expectation for it from all men, then it would be about gender roles. Doing something nice for another person, men hold doors open for other men too as do women, isn't something to be outraged over. If you, as a woman, expect a man to open the door for you, then you're expecting that as a relationship role, as I'm sure you wouldn't expect every man on Earth to open the door for you. Being different but equal is usually such couples who agree that men and women should be treated equally, is what they're striving for.

You can apply my logic to any number of examples and it would still apply. Don't get hung up on particulars.



WickerDeer said:


> I also think of chivalry as a code.
> 
> I do think it's roots might be based on viewing women as weaker, which probably also was affected by gender roles.
> 
> ...


It did eventually become codified yes.

Yes, of course in modern times, women can choose to be chivalrous too.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Redwizard said:


> Thank you,
> *Astrida88*
> 
> Especially for this:
> ...


One of the issues with having an equal partnership marriage is that if you want to have a biological family together, the one with the uterus will end up carrying the baby. They will likely end up missing work. Someone will end up needing to care for the child.

Domestic labor also exists. And it's very hard to quantify.

I think surrogate mothers can make like 70,000$ a year? So I guess, if we're to quantify the value of the physical labor of birth...it could be near that?

Anyway--I guess my point is that there are different types of labor and just because you want a woman who pays half the bills doesn't mean you're actually that concerned about equality or the welfare of the woman. Just saying.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Sweet but Psycho said:


> @WickerDeer Oh for sure, I do see your point in some aspect. One thing I really watch in a guy is how he responds to kids and other woman. If he’s uncomfortable and such with kids I’m ok with that because he can learn...but if he treats them like crap and me really well...then I know he isn’t genuine.


I am cool with a guy who doesn't like kids and expresses that privately, but yes--how someone treats someone more vulnerable than them can show a lot about character.

Someone who is unkind to a waitress, or to someone who they can be unkind to without much repercussion--to those more vulnerable, they are probably not someone you can trust your vulnerabilities to.

To me, true chivalry is helping an elderly woman carry bags if need be or giving up the seat on the bus to someone who really needs it no matter if you get anything out of it.

I do think what @Scoobyscoob is talking about though--within a relationship if one wants to hold doors open for the woman--that is sort of a romantic thing though as well. I can't say I completely understand it. But I assume it's more because of who they are as individuals--not like "I must hold the door for any woman" etc. It's related to gender roles, but it's also something that seems individually agreed upon by the individuals in the relationship. It seems like it might have more to do with love languages and preferences.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

WickerDeer said:


> I am cool with a guy who doesn't like kids and expresses that privately, but yes--how someone treats someone more vulnerable than them can show a lot about character.
> 
> Someone who is unkind to a waitress, or to someone who they can be unkind to without much repercussion--to those more vulnerable, they are probably not someone you can trust your vulnerabilities to.
> 
> ...


Well, I know what @Sweet but Psycho was talking about when she said something as simple as opening the door for someone was a cause for outrage. It was fake outrage because there was nothing else to complain about at the time. I was explaining to her, why it's not a serious issue, and sometimes doing something nice for someone is just that, because it was a nice thing to do for someone. It doesn't need to be some moral or ethical, or some issue on manners or proper behavior, because it isn't.


----------



## 545769 (Apr 3, 2019)

WickerDeer said:


> I am cool with a guy who doesn't like kids and expresses that privately, but yes--how someone treats someone more vulnerable than them can show a lot about character.
> 
> Someone who is unkind to a waitress, or to someone who they can be unkind to without much repercussion--to those more vulnerable, they are probably not someone you can trust your vulnerabilities to.
> 
> ...


For sure. If a man doesn’t like kids that’s not the worst thing in the world. But I want kids.  I more meant when men pretend to be nice only for something in return. I know a guy holding a baby in front of my sister because he liked her and the minute she left, he basically just dropped the baby in the mother’s arms, not caring at all about the baby’s neck or anything. He was just using the baby and it wasn’t genuine. 

Yes, I get opening doors is a romantic thing and love languages etc...I actually wouldn’t expect a man to open the door for me, that’s up to him. That’s the thing, I would never force a man to open a door for me the way he wouldn’t force me to cook for him...it would just be something we mutually agree on and want to do...But what I was explaining earlier about people turning it into being about gender roles was the feminist movement, not something I specifically myself agreed with.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Sweet but Psycho said:


> For sure. If a man doesn’t like kids that’s not the worst thing in the world. But I want kids.  I more meant when men pretend to be nice only for something in return. I know a guy holding a baby in front of my sister because he liked her and the minute she left, he basically just dropped the baby in the mother’s arms, not caring at all about the baby’s neck or anything. He was just using the baby and it wasn’t genuine.
> 
> Yes, I get opening doors is a romantic thing and love languages etc...I actually wouldn’t expect a man to open the door for me, that’s up to him. That’s the thing, I would never force a man to open a door for me the way he wouldn’t force me to cook for him...it would just be something we mutually agree on and want to do...But what I was explaining earlier about people turning it into being about gender roles was the feminist movement, not something I specifically myself agreed with.


That's sad--and he does sound like a pretty terrible person. That's even worse because he's not being honest and just using the child as a prop.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

WickerDeer said:


> That's sad--and he does sound like a pretty terrible person. That's even worse because he's not being honest and just using the child as a prop.


More like a dude (not me) doing something for all the wrong reasons then realizing it when it's too late to back out of the situation.

Again, that wasn't me, but I have a good idea of the situation and who she's talking about.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Well, I know what @Sweet but Psycho was talking about when she said something as simple as opening the door for someone was a cause for outrage. It was fake outrage because there was nothing else to complain about at the time. I was explaining to her, why it's not a serious issue, and sometimes doing something nice for someone is just that, because it was a nice thing to do for someone. It doesn't need to be some moral or ethical, or some issue on manners or proper behavior, because it isn't.


I thought it might be because I grew up in California.

Like I never felt like it was a weird thing--people just open doors for each other sometimes to be nice. I open doors for people too. 

I thought maybe it was more of an issue in a place that had more strict gender roles--like in the South or something? 

Like I can imagine if I did grow up in a society that said it's normal to y'know block people from sitting on the front of the bus but you must always open doors for women, it'd be weird. Not to totally rag on the South but that kind of mentality that acts as if it is all "gentlemanly" while still being unkind to women of other groups--I can see how it'd bother feminists and it'd be distressing in a way.

But I just don't remember growing up around that kind of negative influence, but again--we do have a different history here.


----------



## 76170 (Jan 23, 2014)

.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Scoobyscoob said:


> More like a dude (not me) doing something for all the wrong reasons then realizing it when it's too late to back out of the situation.
> 
> Again, that wasn't me, but I have a good idea of the situation and who she's talking about.


It's definately hard to tell a person's motivations just by looking at their behavior.

But if it is part of a pattern, or if it caused a lot of pain or stress to the child, it's definately something to be critical of.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Convallaria Majalis said:


> I see a lot of men (and sometimes women) who are unable to grow a healthy relationship and expression with their emotions, hence they deeply fear abandonment, become possessive and controlling with their partners because they cannot form proper fulfilling friendships and feel their partners will be/should be their salvation and only source of emotional support,
> 
> while a lot of women (and sometimes men) are unable to value their independance, hence they deeply fear abandonment, become dependant on others' validation and regard for their every choices and thoughts because of having no substantial achievements to build a sense of proper self-worth on their own and give value to their personal path (they also try to save or fix others as a way to give themselves this substantial worth).
> 
> ...


Much of what you have said is true. However one must be careful that in avoiding a sin, he or she does not fall into its opposite. Many young people avoid strong feelings and profound relationships out of a fear they will lose independence and become emotionally tied to another. If anything, we value our autonomy too highly and this interferes with the cultivation of other virtues.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

WickerDeer said:


> I thought it might be because I grew up in California.
> 
> Like I never felt like it was a weird thing--people just open doors for each other sometimes to be nice. I open doors for people too.
> 
> ...


Washington DC, not the South. Although the opening doors thing was a "confusing social issue" here in SoCal back in the 1990s, most people figured out what to do pretty quickly though and it wasn't an issue for longer than a few days. It was an issue in DC, because some people were trying to make it an issue then it became one. That was just a bad week for everyone involved. lol



WickerDeer said:


> It's definately hard to tell a person's motivations just by looking at their behavior.
> 
> But if it is part of a pattern, or if it caused a lot of pain or stress to the child, it's definately something to be critical of.


Really? I don't think so, well in some cases perhaps, but usually intent can be gauged fairly reliably from behavior.

Yes, if the baby was injured or stressed, then that would be something to be critical of, but that happened a long time ago and I'm sure he got enough criticism for his mistake by potentially harming an innocent baby.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Washington DC, not the South. Although the opening doors thing was a "confusing social issue" here in SoCal back in the 1990s, most people figured out what to do pretty quickly though and it wasn't an issue for longer than a few days. It was an issue in DC, because some people were trying to make it an issue then it became one. That was just a bad week for everyone involved. lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem to have a lot more historical reference for what's being talked about.

I haven't looked at the opening doors issue thing--I can just imagine it would be plausible in some circumstances. Here, the worst I've seen is when a young hispanic woman got on the bus, struggling with trying to close her baby carriage and hold her baby. The bus driver didn't even help her and no one else did either--I got up and helped her to close her carriage and find a seat.

But then another time I saw a homeless person get on the bus in the rain with a big black trash bag with stuff in it, and the bus driver kicked them off the bus because "there was no room" for the trashbag of their belongings.

So maybe it's about the bus. Maybe busses are like litmus tests for assholes.

I don't know what the baby thing is referring to--I assume that the man could have just gotten nervous about holding a baby--her description didn't clarify he harmed the baby. It's possible someone could react that way for a variety of reasons, though with a pattern of behaviour one could see if the person tends to treat others as objects or property.


----------



## 545769 (Apr 3, 2019)

What I meant was that he was acting very warm toward the child but the minute he didn’t have a reason to hold the baby anymore, my sister left the area, he didn’t care at all about the way he was treating the child and his attitude changed entirely. 

And yes, he did learn his lesson I assume. He went on to be in and out of jail...baby Daddy to bunch of different kids from different mothers...dead beat. And thankfully my sister, who he had his eyes on, wasn’t involved in any of it. 😛


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

WickerDeer said:


> You seem to have a lot more historical reference for what's being talked about.
> 
> I haven't looked at the opening doors issue thing--I can just imagine it would be plausible in some circumstances. Here, the worst I've seen is when a young hispanic woman got on the bus, struggling with trying to close her baby carriage and hold her baby. The bus driver didn't even help her and no one else did either--I got up and helped her to close her carriage and find a seat.
> 
> ...


Those social experiments, man. Completely useless and a waste of everyone's time.

I think buses are for transportation. If you think otherwise then you're possibly delusional.

Also, the baby thing, other than what's been said here, that's really none of your business.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sweet but Psycho said:


> What I meant was that he was acting very warm toward the child but the minute he didn’t have a reason to hold the baby anymore, my sister left the area, he didn’t care at all about the way he was treating the child and his attitude changed entirely.
> 
> And yes, he did learn his lesson I assume. He went on to be in and out of jail...baby Daddy to bunch of different kids from different mothers...dead beat. And thankfully my sister, who he had his eyes on, wasn’t involved in any of it. 😛


He probably asked for all of that too. It's really incredible how bad some peoples' desires are. As in, that wasn't the best thing to desire. -_-


----------



## Anonymous12345 (Apr 27, 2020)

Aiwass said:


> ..."I believe in gender roles" or "I want a woman who respects gender roles"?
> 
> How would you describe these "gender roles"? What would make you feel satisfied? Should I be focused on cleaning the house more often than you? Should I be putting my relationship with you in 1st place and my work in 2nd? When discussing, should I be more agreeable and "submit" to your line of reasoning? What is exactly the proof I "respect" gender roles?
> 
> What shocks me, is how often I find men who I thought were somewhat "progressive" saying these kinds of things.


It means I want you to get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich. (Joking)


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Anonymous12345 said:


> It means I want you to get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich. (Joking)


I would like a Rueben - oh, and make sure to use proper Gruyere, not that generic "Swiss cheese" that tastes like molten plastic.


----------



## 545769 (Apr 3, 2019)

Anonymous12345 said:


> It means I want you to get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich. (Joking)


Haha Thanks for the good laugh to lighten up this thread. 😂


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Those social experiments, man. Completely useless and a waste of everyone's time.
> 
> I think buses are for transportation. If you think otherwise then you're possibly delusional.
> 
> Also, the baby thing, other than what's been said here, that's really none of your business.


I'm not sure what social experiments you are talking about.

Busses are for transportation--but the reality is that there are several elements on a bus that should be considered. Like seating.

Busses specifically say to save the seats in the front for people who need them.

That means that people should be respectful if someone like an elderly woman who might have a harder time standing up and clinging to the railing needs to sit in one of the seats.

People should be aware that sometimes being courteous on a bus means to be courteous and acknowledge differences and weaknesses, in a tactful and respectful way.

There is nothing delusional about acknowledging that a young mother holding a baby carriage and a baby will have a harder time standing up on a bus than sitting in a seat, and that they _gasp_ might even benefit from having someone help them fold or bring on the baby carriage while they are holding the baby. I was appalled by people just sitting by and watching the woman struggle. Just because she speaks a different language doesn't mean you can't understand simple empathy and body language, and offer a hand to help her carry the baby carriage.

Anyway--these are just simple examples of when I think "chivalry" is appropriate.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Jansen said:


> Harsh truth, although I think it's possible to take someone who is very loyal and open them up.


Possible, but unlikely, especially long term. This is more of a man fantasy, tbh.
Women's sexuality doesn't really work that way. 

Expecting a woman to fit into narrowly defined roles doesn't do her long term sex drive any favours. 
Also the roles of mother + housewife and sexual being are very far apart. That's 2 main roles in her life working against her sexual desire. It leaves only a small window to find activities to boost it. It can work if husband remains dedicated to maintaining the marriage and providing/allowing non-sexual excitement and stimulation to make up for all the hours she spends feeding, cleaning, washing and supporting the family's needs. But in reality, husbands tend to see going to work, the occasional night "babysitting" or washing the odd teaspoon, as their contribution to the marriage & family. Then they want to pursue their own hobbies and interests, but still want her sex drive to be that of the woman he initially married. 
Meanwhile, wife can easily lose her sense of self, even when it's her choice in the first place. 18 + years, 24/7 is a long time to be seeing to the needs of others. 

Men wanting to maintain a long term happy marriage would do better to gain an honest understanding of female sexuality and look for solutions to work with it, even if it's difficult or painful for them to accept. 
Pretending it's a match for their own ideal is cute, but unrealistic.


----------



## 76170 (Jan 23, 2014)

.


----------



## Anonymous12345 (Apr 27, 2020)

Convallaria Majalis said:


> It makes sense. I would think this would go with the first category of people I mentionned. But does that work for friendships? It's sad, healthy and fulfilling relationships do not bring loss of autonomy, even when you have deep connexions.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that narcissists and abusers do jokes that disminish their partners that they should of course only take as jokes until the victims have no proper sense of self-esteem and identity anymore? I do not care how mainstream and overused your joke is, it's mysoginistic. But you brought the perfect example to illustrate how domestication easily slips toward domineering attitudes, even through jokes. This thread was made of rather logical explanations but you brought it to a lower point. It is a good thing that some people feel uncomfortable. If you are, then there are things to reflect on.


Like I said before I don’t want to argue with you. I saw that I hurt your feelings before so I don’t want to argue with you.


----------



## 76170 (Jan 23, 2014)

.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Jansen said:


> Not only to fear us but also despise us, that we are not worthy of respect, love, or sacrifice because we were the "bad guys" that "oppressed" (In actually made the ultimate sacrifices and protected) women in the past.
> 
> I'm really tired of this whole "gender wars". People need to respect and love one another. We're all we've got in this world man...


I can honestly say that my earlier negative views of men came purely from accumulations of my interactions with certain men, never from modern feminism. 

It continually amazes me when men think women are so impressionable that they'll believe feminist views over and above their own experiences. 

Does it ever occur to you that women's fear of men has come from their experiences with certain men? 
Just because you haven't given women any reason to fear you, don't assume all other men are like you. 
Just because you know you're not a "bad guy", don't assume she also knows you're not. Bad guy's dont have it tattooed across their foreheads, which is a shame because if they did, women would know which men they can't trust and other men would be able to see for themselves how many "bad guys" there actually are, instead of assuming women are pulling these beliefs out of their asses. 

Seriously, if you want to end "gender wars" start by gaining real insight into women's experiences in order to understand their positions.


----------



## Anonymous12345 (Apr 27, 2020)

Convallaria Majalis said:


> Fair enough. I am realizing I am also myself bringing this thread lower by reacting with aggressivity, so I'll stop answering now. I cannot advocate balance with truthfulness if it's not found in myself.


It’s all good.


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Meliodas said:


> We do not value that which we receive without any effort on our part. Basic human nature.
> 
> For example, I think women should be drafted in the military, learn how to fight and gain basic survival skills. Women who've gone through this tend to be noticeably more sympathetic to the male condition than average. All of my past lovers have been "action girls" of some kind, even if they appeared outwardly feminine...this trope (Girly Girl with a Tomboy Streak - TV Tropes) is therefore invoked often.


I know some countries such as Israel require their citizens men and women to undergo military service for some time. I'm not sure what the temperament of the average Israeli woman is though so I can't say what the effect of military service is on women. But I imagine it at the least teaches respect for authority, a love for one's country, and a sense of comradery with those around you.



Sweet but Psycho said:


> You should have said “We’re all we’ve got in this world man and WOMAN.” That’s more gender appropriate. Are you a chauvinist?
> 
> Haha I’m totally kidding. I’m sorry I couldn’t resist. 🤣
> 
> Actually, I think part of it too is we’ve been taught by society that we all have a lot more entitlements than we do and also that it’s ok to hold onto things from years ago because we are that important. Even in race wars you see the same thing. People upset about shit that happened lives and lives before our time. If we keep going back the way we are everyone has been hurt by everyone and everyone is entitled to be treated like the entitled one. It’s ridiculous. I can say that my Grandpa treated my Grandma like shit...but my Dad treated my mom like a queen...and she treated him like a king (within their means in poverty). We don’t have to keep going up the line to blame why we all lack kindness and work ethic. Sure, I believe there was a time the gender roles did get abused a bit by men as some did treat woman wrongly. But now I see men being so mistreated in our society and it’s ridiculous because us woman are still acting like victims because of what our ancestors went through when really we are the perpetrators. So I do see a little why their was a rebellion to start with because woman are still human beings and have rights, but it’s way overdone.


Haha, oh boy (or should I say oh girl? xD)

Completely agreed. It's such a breath of fresh air when you meet someone level-headed because based off of online experience, you'd think the majority of people hold these more extreme views. I don't deny that women were probably mistreated and still are, but women are also protected and valued in a way that men aren't. Yes, men have certain advantages within society, but many of their issues are not taken seriously and we are often called sexist for providing our insights into social issues. There's a bit of everything in the world, good and bad. It irks me when people tell half-truths, only telling one side of the story no matter what perspective.



WickerDeer said:


> Also, regarding the J and P and F vs. T preferences that men and women may tend to have, and that maybe reinforce the stereotypes that dictate gender roles...
> 
> Instead of relying on stereotypes and gender roles, you could also just accept that people are individuals.
> 
> ...


I personally like women who are more on the feminine side but I don't believe all women should be forced to be this way. There certainly are men out there who do want all women to be this way and I agree with you that it's a foolish request. Just because someone voices an opinion or a preference does not automatically mean they want everyone else to bend to that. Also, if I prefer a feminine woman, that doesn't make me an advocate for strict gender roles or some backwards thinking man (Not saying you're claiming this about me).



cellarheat said:


> I have difficulty imagining why a man _or_ a woman would want a marital relationship that lacked these dynamics of masculine pursuit and feminine seduction. Such a match strikes me as cold, mechanical, and de-sexed. Putting aside the practicalities of building and maintaining a family unit (the usual, and perfectly reasonable argument for traditional gender roles), it's just... not appealing to me. Taking on a feminine role in an intimate relationship is a _preference_. I can come up with all kinds of reasons why it might be a preference. But at the end of the day we choose our own partners, and I am not going to make a choice based on culture, politics, or philosophy. I'm not getting down with any man who doesn't jive with the dynamic I am interested in.
> 
> It's hard to describe this to people who do not desire that kind of relationship. I'm sure my more "progressive" girl friends have a hard time describing to me why they like ordering their men around at home and in the bedroom. Men (and women) who say that they appreciate gender roles are filtering out people who would be poor matches for them. They have every right to do so. It's not intended to be any more controlling or malicious than someone saying that they prefer not to date extroverts or Republicans.
> 
> As an aside, I'm loving your posts on this thread.





cellarheat said:


> Gonna be honest, people who act like they "just don't get" why someone might want masculine/feminine energies in their intimate relationship strike me as disingenuous. Have you really never felt this particular form of energy? But I am open to the possibility that I am just less evolved than the rest of you. Wouldn't trade it for the world.


Yes! Another harsh but true: They don't get it because they've never experienced it. I think "gender roles" or the masculine pursuit/female seduction is just biologically ingrained. I think there are those who it may not apply to (personality, psychologically, etc. as there are always exceptions).


Kynx said:


> Possible, but unlikely, especially long term. This is more of a man fantasy, tbh.
> Women's sexuality doesn't really work that way.
> 
> Expecting a woman to fit into narrowly defined roles doesn't do her long term sex drive any favours.
> ...


Fair enough and in my post I wasn't really specific when I said "open her up". I mean doing things that would excite her and if she is busy and stressed, then obviously I'd want to do something to lessen that. But when you say "Female sexuality doesn't work like that" it kind of implies you have a conception of what I think female sexuality is like. I'm curious to hear what you think my conception is, how it's wrong, or most importantly how you would describe female sexuality working. (not trying to be passive aggressive here, I'm genuinely curious as you probably know more than me on this being a woman yourself and from another post you suggested I ask women themselves about their experience).


Kynx said:


> I can honestly say that my earlier negative views of men came purely from accumulations of my interactions with certain men, never from modern feminism.
> 
> It continually amazes me when men think women are so impressionable that they'll believe feminist views over and above their own experiences.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your input. I personally think young women in particular are very impressionable and naïve when it comes to men for obvious reasons. I mean it's not like we get taught that we have any differences outside biology so how are women supposed to know who the good men are? In the past, women used to get this kind of knowledge from the community (grandmas, mothers, etc.) but as @Roslyn said, we are becoming increasingly too independent. That's how I'd explain why men tend to think women are pretty impressionable. At least in my experience as well, women are really impressionable, but I tend to only hang around similar types of women who are more of the "soft" and impressionable types haha.

But I agree with you!


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

HOW TO IMPRESS A WOMAN.
1. compliment her,
2. cuddle her,
3. kiss her,
4. caress her,
5. love her,
6. stroke her,
7. tease her,
8. comfort her,
9. protect her,
10. hug her,
11. hold her,
12. spend money on her,
13. wine & dine her,
14. buy things for her,
15. listen to her,
16. care for her,
17. stand by her,
18. support her,
19. go to the ends of the earth for her....


HOW TO IMPRESS A MAN.
1. show up naked and bring beer.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

WickerDeer said:


> I'm not sure what social experiments you are talking about.
> 
> Busses are for transportation--but the reality is that there are several elements on a bus that should be considered. Like seating.
> 
> ...


Sure.



WickerDeer said:


> There is nothing delusional about acknowledging that a young mother holding a baby carriage and a baby will have a harder time standing up on a bus than sitting in a seat, and that they _gasp_ might even benefit from having someone help them fold or bring on the baby carriage while they are holding the baby. I was appalled by people just sitting by and watching the woman struggle. Just because she speaks a different language doesn't mean you can't understand simple empathy and body language, and offer a hand to help her carry the baby carriage.


That wasn't what I was referring to, if you think buses are where you find assholes, then you're just delusional. Also, I've helped a woman in a similar situation for a week straight in the same circumstance until she thanked me and asked me to stop. I bring along a friend who helped the same woman once and he thinks he deserves a medal. It's of course nice to want to help, but doing the right thing, unless it's exemplary, doesn't deserve an award, it's called being a good samaritan.



WickerDeer said:


> Anyway--these are just simple examples of when I think "chivalry" is appropriate.


Good examples, but there are of course many more chivalrous acts that one can perform.


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Meliodas said:


> HOW TO IMPRESS A WOMAN.
> 1. compliment her,
> 2. cuddle her,
> 3. kiss her,
> ...


It is kinda true haha and maybe I'm taking it too seriously but I think men are more complicated than that xD I think men tend to underestimate how complicated they really are. If I took the woman's list I could easily find the male equivalent.

1. Compliment him
2. Cuddle against him
3. Kiss him
4. Touch him
5. Love him
6. _ahem_
7. Tease him
8. comfort him
9. Look out for him
10. Hug him
11. Hold him
12. Make him things or food
13. Spoil him
14. Buy things for him
15. Listen to him
16. Care for him
17. Stand by him
18. Support him
19. Follow him to the ends of the Earth

I know the joke is that women are complicated and require a lot of maintenance or something but ultimately if you love the other person, a lot of these things just come naturally. Sorry if I ruined the joke, I had to xD


----------



## Anonymous12345 (Apr 27, 2020)

Meliodas said:


> HOW TO IMPRESS A WOMAN.
> 1. compliment her,
> 2. cuddle her,
> 3. kiss her,
> ...


Alot of men have low standards these days.


----------



## Infinitus (Jul 12, 2019)

Leave the beer at home. I’ll do better without it. 

Sorry, I meant I have really high INTJ standards. Maybe I’ll “choose you” to hold the sacred privilege of being naked in my presence.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Jansen said:


> If you're not willing to make sacrifices, you're not ready for love period. Harsh but true. "Tradition" means different things to different people. When I say it, I mean a relationship by which the woman uses her feminine charm to seduce the man. It's beautiful and sweet because it shows that she values him enough to put in that effort. Long hair, flowing dresses, heels, a sweet smile, positivity, etc. all feminine, all wonderful. It's not a hard rule. The essence of femininity can't be summed up in just appearance alone.


smiling and being positive makes you feminine guys, you learned that here, in perc school of life


----------



## steffyb (Sep 24, 2020)

Roslyn said:


> Looks like the future of families are over if the demand is gender roles because I don't know a lot of women that will go backwards. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


I must warn you, that will only backfire.

Men, are always more independent no matter what. They can have more easy time to live purely as caveman if they have to. Yes they will feel that they missed something but it's not really unlivable at all. They can always invent and create things to satisfy whatever their needs, for daily routines or even for their spare times. You know, caveman!

Women on the other hand. Oh well, sigh. I don't have to explain anything. Just you go observe.


----------



## steffyb (Sep 24, 2020)

WickerDeer said:


> People should be aware that sometimes being courteous on a bus means to be courteous and acknowledge differences and weaknesses, in a tactful and respectful way.
> 
> There is nothing delusional about acknowledging that a young mother holding a baby carriage and a baby will have a harder time standing up on a bus than sitting in a seat, and that they _gasp_ might even benefit from having someone help them fold or bring on the baby carriage while they are holding the baby. I was appalled by people just sitting by and watching the woman struggle. Just because she speaks a different language doesn't mean you can't understand simple empathy and body language, and offer a hand to help her carry the baby carriage.
> 
> Anyway--these are just simple examples of when I think "chivalry" is appropriate.


Now, this is also interesting. I never have the experience to see with my own eyes that if there was seat occupied by men they wouldn't give it to those who needed more. Sounds like the place you living is so terrible.

I really love to observe people behavior, mostly in public places because those are the places to see. I went places too, crosses borders and seas.

Au contraire, want to know what I see on the other side?

In public transports, in public benches, in schools, in banks, in post offices, in hospital, in waiting rooms, practically every places with seats and benches. I see it more frequently than not that when there is actually no more man sitting, means all seats are already occupied by fairer sexes, whenever there's coming old lady or pregnant woman or mother with infant, nobody, no one, would budge, most would even pretend not seeing anything.

Why is that?


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

steffyb said:


> Now, this is also interesting. I never have the experience to see with my own eyes that if there was seat occupied by men they wouldn't give it to those who needed more. Sounds like the place you living is so terrible.
> 
> I really love to observe people behavior, mostly in public places because those are the places to see. I went places too, crosses borders and seas.
> 
> ...


How am I supposed to know? Because you live in a women's colony?


----------



## steffyb (Sep 24, 2020)

WickerDeer said:


> How am I supposed to know? Because you live in a women's colony?


Ironically, i actually wish i was wrong. But you didn't straight away dispute my observation so... now i am geting terrified...


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

steffyb said:


> Ironically, i actually wish i was wrong. But you didn't straight away dispute my observation so... now i am geting terrified...


Maybe because of gender roles--it's not expected of women to be proactive etc. but they are supposed to keep their eyes down in public and pretend not to see anything. In some cultures the gender roles prohibit women from being very active in public or even making eye contact.

Also, while I know there was a problem with merging your account with your other account, Contradictionary, and while I did ask VS_Admin to take a look at your account which was fubar yesterday, which it seemed like they managed to fix, I know that you have been acquainted with the rules and that you know we don't tolerate discriminatory remarks on this site. Just a reminder.


----------



## steffyb (Sep 24, 2020)

What are you talking about. Who is that user contradictionary and what was he/she doing wrong that do not deserve to be here? Tell me, i want to hear, maybe other would want to hear too so we may learn a lesson.

What discriminatory remarks? 

Oh, i would say you just did a good job in closing that lord voldemort thread. I never would have thought that a single man, a very secular man that is, could ever represent his entire ethnoreligiosity which has not even been mentioned one time in that thread. 

What a fascinating concept you had there, you left me flabbergasted. And also that his activities that widely recorded in the open, already explicitly spelled out in his organization website and his giving $billions to his global operation in every news site in the planet, is not conspiracy theory.

Good try though. But well, maybe only C-. Sorry.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Jansen said:


> Fair enough and in my post I wasn't really specific when I said "open her up". I mean doing things that would excite her and if she is busy and stressed, then obviously I'd want to do something to lessen that. But when you say "Female sexuality doesn't work like that" it kind of implies you have a conception of what I think female sexuality is like. I'm curious to hear what you think my conception is, how it's wrong, or most importantly how you would describe female sexuality working. (not trying to be passive aggressive here, I'm genuinely curious as you probably know more than me on this being a woman yourself and from another post you suggested I ask women themselves about their experience).


Due to my post which you quoted, where I said prioritising a woman who loves sex likely means not prioritising loyalty, too (serial monogamy is also a factor). You implied it's possible to find a woman who loves sex, but only with you. It's likely in the beginning, but unlikely long term.

A common view I've heard men express is they wish to find a chaste, submissive young woman who needs him to show her the pleasures of her own sexuality. High sex drive is kind of is dependent on the individual, it's not really dependent on the partner. Women generally get sex offered to them on a plate, frequently. Those women with a naturally high sex drive are less likely to be waiting around for a man they haven't yet met in order for him to "open her up". If she's waited around for Mr Right to introduce her, rejecting offer after offer, she's probably not very sexually driven, anyway.

Most women's sex drive kicks in for new relationships and wanes faster than men's in established relationships. It's not her fault or her husbands, it's just her biology. Attention from new men will keep reigniting her sex drive. That doesn't mean she necessarily wants to have sex with new men and it certainly doesn't mean she necessarily will, but it does something for her that an established partner can't always do. It's not ideal for husbands or wives, but nature doesn't care about what's ideal, it cares about what initially worked.




> Thanks for your input. I personally think young women in particular are very impressionable and naïve when it comes to men for obvious reasons. I mean it's not like we get taught that we have any differences outside biology so how are women supposed to know who the good men are? In the past, women used to get this kind of knowledge from the community (grandmas, mothers, etc.) but as @Roslyn said, we are becoming increasingly too independent. That's how I'd explain why men tend to think women are pretty impressionable. At least in my experience as well, women are really impressionable, but I tend to only hang around similar types of women who are more of the "soft" and impressionable types haha.
> 
> But I agree with you!


Hmmm. I obviously can't judge the women who you know. I can only judge myself, my own experiences and those of women who I know.
We can't know who the good men are, until we know them well. We find out they're not good at the same time we find out that we're in some danger. Until that point, which usually occurs in a private 1 on 1 situation, we're as oblivious as you are. In the past women got this knowledge in exactly the same way they do now, they just kept more quiet about it. Being blamed or disbelieved was even more probable than it is now.
Modern feminism has mostly given women the confidence to speak up about it and be believed. Of course it's also given some the opportunity to take advantage of the fact that they'll be believed.

However, the ugliness of the whole situation hasn't been created by feminism, it's simply enabled the ugliness to shift over slightly to a more even keel. If the law favours men's rights, there will always be a number of men who will take advantage. If the law favours women's rights, there will always be a number of women who take advantage. Either way, at least one gender will have innocents who suffer at the hands of selfish entitled men or selfish entitled women.
Arguing against feminism is essentially saying only women should suffer and they should suffer in silence, so that innocent men will never be taken advantage of or be judged negatively.
Obviously the most fair scenario would be for no innocent men or innocent women to suffer at all. Problem is, it's unrealistic because we can't eliminate assholes from the human race.


----------



## steffyb (Sep 24, 2020)

Aiwass said:


> ..."I believe in gender roles" or "I want a woman who respects gender roles"?
> 
> How would you describe these "gender roles"? What would make you feel satisfied? Should I be focused on cleaning the house more often than you? Should I be putting my relationship with you in 1st place and my work in 2nd? When discussing, should I be more agreeable and "submit" to your line of reasoning? What is exactly the proof I "respect" gender roles?
> 
> What shocks me, is how often I find men who I thought were somewhat "progressive" saying these kinds of things.


On you OP, I would make it simple. Why role, what about it?
Well for one, for straight couple, i think man want to date and mate woman, not man-like woman. Few does, most don't. And vice versa, albeit some would insist that they don't really mind, but are they the norm? The most common women would only date "real men" who "man up". And no they said that not as figurative words, they do mean it.

Then there's the non straights. I don't know much about this but somehow i can always see that in the same sex relationship they too "bother" to give role to each. Again, some would also insist, no no no, not all are like that. But hey, what is norm anyway when everything shall be relative?

It's all relative. Yeah, yeah, if it's all relative why even bother in the first place?

Just find a man who want to date man-like woman i guess? I am sure there are men like that. But seeing that you are somewhat "complaining", sorry to say, it only proves that it is not the norm.

One need to manage one's expectation. If one wants "real man" then one must be "real woman". No pain no gain. Don't be greedy, it will only disappoint.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

steffyb said:


> What are you talking about. Who is that user contradictionary and what was he/she doing wrong that do not deserve to be here? Tell me, i want to hear, maybe other would want to hear too so we may learn a lesson.
> 
> What discriminatory remarks?
> 
> ...


Publicly discussing mod decisions is against the site rules. Go to private feedback if you have an issue.


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Kynx said:


> A common view I've heard men express is they wish to find a chaste, submissive young woman who needs him to show her the pleasures of her own sexuality. High sex drive is kind of is dependent on the individual, it's not really dependent on the partner. Women generally get sex offered to them on a plate, frequently. Those women with a naturally high sex drive are less likely to be waiting around for a man they haven't yet met in order for him to "open her up". If she's waited around for Mr Right to introduce her, rejecting offer after offer, she's probably not very sexually driven, anyway.


I think it's a mix of dependence on the partner and the individual. There are a lot of external factors that contributes to ones drive many of which can directly be effected by a partner's actions. I don't experience the world as a woman, so I can't truly confirm or deny the claim that women continuously get offered sex. If you mean indirectly, then sure, but personally I don't know any men who really go around offering sex.

I think it's a bit more complex than just having a high drive or not. I think a person can have a high drive but not necessarily act on it and vice versa and I think sex is sought out for a variety of reasons. Sometimes people just want to be loved, others want pleasure, some want validation of their attractiveness, etc. But I see your general point.



Kynx said:


> Most women's sex drive kicks in for new relationships and wanes faster than men's in established relationships. It's not her fault or her husbands, it's just her biology.


That's an interesting idea. Why would it wane faster than men's? I thought men were generally considered the more "polygamous" and thus more likely to have the kind of biology that would prefer gaining new mates as opposed to keeping monogamy.




Kynx said:


> Hmmm. I obviously can't judge the women who you know. I can only judge myself, my own experiences and those of women who I know.
> We can't know who the good men are, until we know them well. We find out they're not good at the same time we find out that we're in some danger. Until that point, which usually occurs in a private 1 on 1 situation, we're as oblivious as you are. *In the past women got this knowledge in exactly the same way they do now, they just kept more quiet about it.*


You make this sound mysterious haha. How are the ladies figuring it out?



Kynx said:


> However, the ugliness of the whole situation hasn't been created by feminism, it's simply enabled the ugliness to shift over slightly to a more even keel. If the law favours men's rights, there will always be a number of men who will take advantage. If the law favours women's rights, there will always be a number of women who take advantage. Either way, at least one gender will have innocents who suffer at the hands of selfish entitled men or selfish entitled women.
> Arguing against feminism is essentially saying only women should suffer and they should suffer in silence, so that innocent men will never be taken advantage of or be judged negatively.
> Obviously the most fair scenario would be for no innocent men or innocent women to suffer at all. Problem is, it's unrealistic because we can't eliminate assholes from the human race.


I completely agree and I suspect that history is cyclical by which things like this will swap from time to time. If things are too far to one side, the opposite has to balance it out in some way.



Red Panda said:


> smiling and being positive makes you feminine guys, you learned that here, in perc school of life


Jeesh, I thought that being out exploring space and all you'd just see the bigger picture


----------



## 545769 (Apr 3, 2019)

@Kynx Yea, I kinda see life and situations like a pendulum. It just swings back and forth and only for a short while is it somewhat balanced.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Jansen said:


> Jeesh, I thought that being out exploring space and all you'd just see the bigger picture


a bigger picture made of absurd things like that is also absurd

point is, the concept has been stretched so much, anyone defines it how they want, based on their own projections of what they're attracted to

so simple human things like smiling sweetly is now considered feminine. Did you consider that it's simply your sexual attraction that makes you like that and not an objective truth of what feminine is? Sweet smiles from men can really make a difference to women who're attracted to them, btw.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Jansen said:


> If you're not willing to make sacrifices, you're not ready for love period. Harsh but true. "Tradition" means different things to different people. When I say it, I mean a relationship by which the woman uses her feminine charm to seduce the man. It's beautiful and sweet because it shows that she values him enough to put in that effort. Long hair, flowing dresses, heels, a sweet smile, positivity, etc. all feminine, all wonderful. It's not a hard rule. The essence of femininity can't be summed up in just appearance alone.


Oh no! I'm devastated!


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

WickerDeer said:


> But expecting others to do something just because that is what we, as an individual, prefer, is egotistical. Expecting society to enforce our preferences is also egotical.
> 
> There is a difference between preference and demanding. I think one of the issues many people who take issue with gender roles take is that they are expected and almost demanded (or outright demanded at times).


This is where I take issue. Doing ballet from when I was small until my early 20's, appearing feminine is not an issue for me. I'm pretty pragmatic. Except I'm not especially feminine beyond appearance or when performing. I'm an ESTP and traditional gender roles aren't comfortable for me. I don't want to hang out with people talking about cooking. I don't give a shit if someone enjoys my cooking. If I cook something, eat, don't eat it, I don't care. I won't be putting my career on hold to look after children. I don't mind supporting a partner to stay home with kids, but I'm not doing that myself. A lot of the stuff considered feminine gender roles are not things I'm willing to do, at least not for the next 20 years. 

I don't expect the men I date to fulfil traditional gender roles, so it hasn't been a problem for me.


----------



## Infinitus (Jul 12, 2019)

I do find it strange that some women blast traditional values and ideas of femininity, then in the next breath complain there are no good men available, etc. You get what you give. If you don’t act like a ‘woman’ you won’t attract a ‘man’.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

WickerDeer said:


> One of the issues with having an equal partnership marriage is that if you want to have a biological family together, the one with the uterus will end up carrying the baby. They will likely end up missing work. Someone will end up needing to care for the child.
> 
> Domestic labor also exists. And it's very hard to quantify.
> 
> ...


$50k to $80k over 9 months. Except that comes with a lot of risks and I don't think you can get much more intimate that carrying someone else's freaking child. The women that do this have lost their minds.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

On the surface, the phrase is vague enough to be almost meaningless. Gender roles, and how they are defined, are going to vary from culture, to religion, to even the individual person.

And how they work in relationships will vary and be defined by the relationship.

What has worked in my relationship would never work in my sister’s due to the different needs and people involved. You can even go into a relationship and down the road circumstances will change how you defined your relationship roles and you will need to adjust and adapt.

My advice to anyone is to figure out how you want your relationship to work, find someone of a similar mindset, but to always be open to the idea that life is unpredictable and your role may change.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Jansen said:


> Thanks for your input. I personally think young women in particular are very impressionable and naïve when it comes to men for obvious reasons. I mean it's not like we get taught that we have any differences outside biology so how are women supposed to know who the good men are? In the past, women used to get this kind of knowledge from the community (grandmas, mothers, etc.) but as @ Roslyn said, we are becoming increasingly too independent. That's how I'd explain why men tend to think women are pretty impressionable. At least in my experience as well, women are really impressionable, but I tend to only hang around similar types of women who are more of the "soft" and impressionable types haha.


I have doubts that women are anymore impressionable or naïve than men. I know that femininity tends to be expected with being agreeable and not pushing your own narrative. It's easy to come off as impressionable when being feminine. That's just a role, not necessarily the truth. I'm sure there are some people from very sheltered backgrounds who are very impressionable. However, most men and women don't come from sheltered backgrounds and reach opinions drawn from knowledge and experience. 

Because I dress and act feminine, people expect other behaviors from me, like being more submissive. I've experienced enough assholes shock and anger when I don't let them steamroller me. My perspective is from things like men in charge who ask to see me in private. If they're handsy in public then they'll be worse in private. No, we can talk here in front of other people because I don't see them talking to my male counterparts in private spaces behind closed doors. I haven't been a victim and I have no intention of becoming one. If that means I create incredibly awkward social situations, fine. 

It was my parents who taught me not to go into a private space with a guy in charge. It was my observation that the type of guys who want to do this are kinda shifty and that they aren't having long talks with the guys in private. My impressions didn't start with the feminists but personal experience and friends who are less willing to make a scene making different choices with different outcomes. A gender role expectation is to be submissive but it is a set up to be a victim in the real world. I'm not expecting someone to protect me, but I shouldn't be criticized but I sure as shit can speak up for myself. 

There's still the guys on the subway that grab, the guys who speak over you and repeat your own idea like it was his own. I promise you, if I was going to imagine someone grabbing me, it was be in a much sexier place than a subway smelling of piss and with rats. 

I do think there is a Dunning-Kruger issue with someone women and feminism. They don't actually read anything more than snippets and embrace it but don't take the time to learn more about feminism than that. I don't know how you fix people like that because you see the same thing with the president on science. How do you convince these people that they don't know what they're talking about and to maybe read some more?


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Jansen said:


> You make this sound mysterious haha. How are the ladies figuring it out?


Not mysterious at all. They're assaulted, raped, killed etc...


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Infinitus said:


> I do find it strange that some women blast traditional values and ideas of femininity, then in the next breath complain there are no good men available, etc. You get what you give. If you don’t act like a ‘woman’ you won’t attract a ‘man’.


Or it could just be traditional gender roles suck and there are no good men available, in the opinions of some women.

You sound like you're speaking from personal experience though--that when you don't "act like a 'woman' you won't attract a 'man.'"

If "acting like a 'woman'" gets you "good men" then you do you--a lot of women may not want the same kind of man that you do. No one's going to stop you from loving feminine gender roles and getting yourself a real man.


----------



## Infinitus (Jul 12, 2019)

WickerDeer said:


> Or it could just be traditional gender roles suck and there are no good men available, in the opinions of some women.


Opinions are fine. Though dismantling archetypes that have developed and proven over hundreds of thousands of years can’t be done convincingly with mere opinion, nor exclaiming that they suck. That’s my opinion.



WickerDeer said:


> You sound like you're speaking from personal experience though--that when you don't "act like a 'woman' you won't attract a 'man.'"


If I act like a woman I rarely attract men. I’m not really cut out for it.



WickerDeer said:


> If "acting like a 'woman'" gets you "good men" then you do you--a lot of women may not want the same kind of man that you do. No one's going to stop you from loving feminine gender roles and getting yourself a real man.


I’d hope people would stop me from acting like a woman, should I ever lose it to the extent I’m wearing dresses, makeup and trying to attract men.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Jansen said:


> I think it's a mix of dependence on the partner and the individual. There are a lot of external factors that contributes to ones drive many of which can directly be effected by a partner's actions. I don't experience the world as a woman, so I can't truly confirm or deny the claim that women continuously get offered sex. If you mean indirectly, then sure, but personally I don't know any men who really go around offering sex.


Lol. That's probably because they're not trying to have sex with you. Think about it, how would you know about it yourself otherwise? 
Heterosexual men are going to behave around women differently to how they behave around other men. You're being very naive, here.

They offer sex directly and indirectly, at almost any opportunity. Especially for women 16-30. To the point where it can become tedious and frustrating. Sometimes we really want a quiet drink with a friend or just to walk down a street to get from A to B. 
They're like buses, miss one and there will be another along shortly. 



> I think it's a bit more complex than just having a high drive or not. I think a person can have a high drive but not necessarily act on it and vice versa and I think sex is sought out for a variety of reasons. Sometimes people just want to be loved, others want pleasure, some want validation of their attractiveness, etc. But I see your general point.


Of course it's a bit more complex, but it isn't a lot more complex. How often would you turn down sex, if women continually threw themselves at you? 1 in 10? Average women could refuse 19 out of every 20 offers and still be considered promiscuous by some men's standards by the time they reach 25 years old. 



> That's an interesting idea. Why would it wane faster than men's? I thought men were generally considered the more "polygamous" and thus more likely to have the kind of biology that would prefer gaining new mates as opposed to keeping monogamy.


Most views on women's sexuality in history have been provided by men. 








A strong libido and bored by monogamy: the truth about women and sex


When a heterosexual couple marries, who’s likely to get bored of sex first? The answer might surprise you…




www.theguardian.com




Also look up spontaneous vs responsive sexual desire. Most men have spontaneous desire throughout relationships and most women only have spontaneous desire in new relationships 



> You make this sound mysterious haha. How are the ladies figuring it out?


Same reason we know women are regularly offered sex, because we're women and we experience it. 



> I completely agree and I suspect that history is cyclical by which things like this will swap from time to time. If things are too far to one side, the opposite has to balance it out in some way.


Good that we agree on something.


----------



## 545769 (Apr 3, 2019)

It’s interesting because I feel like everyone even has their own version of “acting feminine.” As I consider myself very feminine and a housewife type, I’m also entirely capable of working outside chopping and stacking wood, running around in the garden barefoot, driving 3 wheelers and fun machines, hunting and fishing...one of my favourite places to hangout is in a mechanic shop, actually. Yet I still dress like a woman and act like a woman while doing so. And I’m also perfectly capable of cooking and cleaning and caring for children. I don’t see being a feminine as someone who entirely has to just sip tea and speak about the weather and sewing...in fact that talk is so boring and the last thing I’d want to do. And I wear make-up at times but at times my face is splashed with mud and real paint depending on what I’m doing. So really I think to me it’s a lot more about how you carry yourself. And then also when a man is wanting to do the harder jobs (like carry something for me) I’m perfectly capable of letting them be chivalrous. Because I don’t have an independence complex. I know I’m capable but I also know the help is nice and I appreciate the effort and attention they are giving to me. And I’ll return the effort in my own way.


----------



## 545769 (Apr 3, 2019)

@Kynx I do agree with you there, it’s appalling how much I got harassed by men on the street, in the mall, at hotels...etc...so it does exist. I remember my friends telling me I should wear a shirt called jailbait. Lol

Though I know a lot of men who get harassed too by woman but just are more quiet about it. And then it’s one of those situations where yes some men are harassers, but not all. And so the good people are really just fighting each other instead of us turning toward the offenders and it becomes a huge gender war.

edit: though actually the harassers were really only the super bold ones, mainly immigrants.

A lot of other men who are inbetween and would really go after other woman in a hoe like manner generally, respected the type of woman I was and they were very gentlemanly like to me. Because I had set standards for myself and they followed it. While a lot of the other girls never did set standards so they got into a lot more trouble that way.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Kynx said:


> Lol. That's probably because they're not trying to have sex with you. Think about it, how would you know about it yourself otherwise?
> Heterosexual men are going to behave around women differently to how they behave around other men. You're being very naive, here.
> 
> They offer sex directly and indirectly, at almost any opportunity. Especially for women 16-30. To the point where it can become tedious and frustrating. Sometimes we really want a quiet drink with a friend or just to walk down a street to get from A to B.
> ...


I don't know about waning sex drive for women, but I'll agree with you rejecting offers because there's another one right around the corner. If I wanted to sleep around, supply hasn't been an obstacle.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Sweet but Psycho said:


> It’s interesting because I feel like everyone even has their own version of “acting feminine.” As I consider myself very feminine and a housewife type, I’m also entirely capable of working outside chopping and stacking wood, running around in the garden barefoot, driving 3 wheelers and fun machines, hunting and fishing...one of my favourite places to hangout is in a mechanic shop, actually. Yet I still dress like a woman and act like a woman while doing so. And I’m also perfectly capable of cooking and cleaning and caring for children. I don’t see being a feminine as someone who entirely has to just sip tea and speak about the weather and sewing...in fact that talk is so boring and the last thing I’d want to do. And I wear make-up at times but at times my face is splashed with mud and real paint depending on what I’m doing. So really I think to me it’s a lot more about how you carry yourself. And then also when a man is wanting to do the harder jobs (like carry something for me) I’m perfectly capable of letting them be chivalrous. Because I don’t have an independence complex. I know I’m capable but I also know the help is nice and I appreciate the effort and attention they are giving to me. And I’ll return the effort in my own way.


By feminine I mean wearing skirts and dresses and jeans that accentuate my shape. I mean most days my hair and makeup and done. I mean I have soft skin and hands. I mean I don't raise my voice at people. Everyone is capable of cooking, cleaning and caring for children. It's a lot easier for men to do those things than to look feminine. I work hard at the gym, dancing, running etc... but I rarely need to do manual labor. I'm not sure where you come to the conclusion women are demanding men don't help them lift heavier objects. I have rejected help when I suspected I was stronger and worried he would hurt himself. It's fine if someone stronger than me wants to help. I'm find helping people as well. This is about being a decent human being and not chivalrous. You use that word a lot and I'm not entirely sure why it's a focal point for you. It's nice if I open doors for other people if I get there first and it's nice if they open the door for me. Where do you get this idea of an independence complex? Most people are nice to each other. Not wanting to strictly adhere to gender roles is a long way from being harpy bitch pitching a fit over nothing.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Meliodas said:


> The essential difference between the two is that unlike the Greeks, the Romans only approved of buggery when they were on top.





Phil said:


> Hey, woah now, language — this is a Christian forum 😇


I'm not Christian, but I had to look up buggery.

I did not know that word or definition.


----------



## Phil (Dec 27, 2010)

WickerDeer said:


> I'm not Christian, but I had to look up buggery.
> 
> I did not know that word or definition.


Congrats you're now on an FBI watch list. Oh who am I kidding, we were both on it the whole time


----------



## alexhales (May 3, 2019)

I'm a male INFP. I am what what you might call, what society would definitely call, a "beta" male - I'm shy, not at all outgoing, not particularly outspoken, don't like to lead or take a lot of initiative, as is required from men in the dating world. So from the get go, if I believed in traditional gender roles, my whole life would be doomed and I'd have no hope of ever finding love or even making friends for that matter.
But I don't believe in gender roles. However I do believe that there are only two genders. It doesn't mean I hate strong, independent women, if anything these women would be my "type" because they balance out my weaknesses. I love badass intelligent women with minds of their own - If there was ever such a thing as a "real woman" just like we have a concept of a "real man", these would be it. I don't mind if she wants to takes charge and lead. What I have a problem with are control freaks. There's a difference between being the more proactive, initiative taking one in the relationship and straight up dominating and controlling your partner. It's like your typical 1950s relationship but the roles are reversed.
I also hate things like chivalry, it's disgusting to me as a man that women should get some kind of special treatment based on their sex, besides, if I were a woman, I would hate to have doors opened for me and my drink paid for - it's awfully patronising. Where housework is concerned, it should be shared equally. Both should pitch in and do their bit, that's just part of being an adult (and this is coming from someone who doesn't like housework.) Also, different types of housework need not be so rigid. Do away with stuff like it's a "man's / woman's job" that attitude is toxic. Men should cook more and women should do more DIY. I read about a man who can't do any DIY to save his life but is an amazing cook, and conversely, a woman who can't cook but is great with her hands (no pun intended.)
Sorry I went on a bit of a rant there, but I needed to get this off my chest.


----------



## Sentimentality (Oct 9, 2020)

Aiwass said:


> ..."I believe in gender roles" or "I want a woman who respects gender roles"?


Like most things that people say, it means whatever they want it to mean. The only way to know for sure is to press them on their lazy answers and get them to be specific.

It's a coward's way of saying that they want a woman who will play slave for them. Men who have to say this are usually inexperienced. Any woman who is around a dominant decisive man naturally becomes submissive and feminine around him. There's no need to ask.


----------

