Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
(I do not pay as much attention to my health as I should)
(Actually Im fibbing I didnt get all the way through (it was boring) but it was about 22/23 surely thats the sort of norm for Disers)
He was fibbing too
I'm not the best with some of them
as do I, ;)....
I already open lids on things and do the majority of the heavy lifting. Is that not enough for you people?
"Get in the habit of treating your maleness as an unearned privilege that you have to actively work to cede"
Share of housework should be agreed in a mutually agreeable but not necessarily equal manner, regardless of gender, and if you're not doing your share it's likely not because you're a woman-hating man, it's because you're a lazy filthy grotbag who would think nothing of making a cup of tea in whichever mug looked least fluffy if you didn't have other people around to wash-up.
One could also suggest that someone is a grotbag because someone else will always come and clean it up
The "I'm not sexist I'm just a useless, lazy bastard" defence is only available because of gendered divisions of labour within households. You don't need to "hate" women to be sexist.
much higher than mine? Like I'd keep things clean, but he'd spend hours doing deep cleans and pulling out appliances and all sorts. I wasn't slacking, I wouldn't say. He just felt like the house needed to be much cleaner than I did, and spent much more of his time dealing with it than me.
I think it was a massive waste of his time that he could have spent doing more productive things, personally.
cook all your meals, do your dishes, clean your room, manage your budget etc.
And presumably you had certain "tasks" which were appropriate to your level of cleanliness, like cleaning the bathroom, that you could have done your share of?
Seems like a slightly bad comparison to bring in an unusually clean housemate and relate it to the very engrained unequal relations in domestic labour in male/female couples.*
* having just read the article I think it makes a few normative assumptions about the "standard" relationship and is a bit too sweeping but overall it has the right idea.
as saying some people have higher standards of hygiene than others, and if you live with someone with higher standards, they're likely to take the majority of the housework, regardless of gender. I think that's true.
At the same time, yeah. If anyone's doing someone else's washing up, cooking and laundry, that's not really fair.
as if they're (1) not also very closely related to gender roles and how we're socialised (2) just personal rather than also potentially related to standards of cleanliness towards other people.
being very clean and tidy and houseproud etc. has very feminine associations. there are greater expectations on women and girls to learn the necessary "domestic" skills to maintain these standards. for some women it could be that there is a shame associated with being seen to be a bit of a pig. I certainly cant imagine any of my aunts or my mum's friends being open about their low standards of hygiene and cleanliness. some women do, and that's totally fine, but it's waaay more of a "man" thing to be able to proudly revel in your grubby habits.
I think if you think of yourself as having particularly "low" standards of cleanliness, and you're in a relationship with a woman, or you live with a woman who does most of your housework, then you should really consider why it is that you have these "low" standards and she doesn't. you're possibly being an inconsiderate, selfish, helpless baby.
But you might be in a similar position to the one I was in, and the genders in the relationship just happen to match the gender roles in wider society. That's all I meant. Of course, even if that is the case, it doesn't do any harm to think about it and reassess where the balance lies and what causes any imbalance.
Should also say that if the amount of housework you do was doubled, the house would be in a state you wouldn't be happy to live in, you're being unreasonable. It's just that doesn't always necessarily mean 50% of all work.
universal rules to apply to everyone's relationships and living arrangements. just never very impressed when someone does the whole "I just happen to have very low standards of personal hygiene. deal with it" or w/e.
you can expect from anyone if you're living with them. Just basic courtesy and responsibility.
I think that's probably true for the majority of my friends/people on this site, but that doesn't at all mean that it's true for everyone. These gender divisions are still ingrained.
Things are changing and that's great, but when I was growing up, my dad did all the cooking in our household (but my mum still did everything else). This was very very unusual at the time (80s/90s) and I never remember coming across anyone else at school who had this set-up.
living with people who do much more than is normal, to satisfy their own desire to live in hyper-cleanliness.
That said, I look back at my childhood and my dad is much more of a clean-freak than my mum, but my mum still did 75% of the housework. Clearly, that's a problem, and I appreciate that's probably pretty common.
I reckon my boyfriend does well on most of these, I reckon this one's the toughest one for him:
27. When in a romantic relationship, be responsible for events and special dates associated with your side of the family. Remember your family members’ birthdays, anniversaries and important events. Don’t rely on your spouse to send cards, make phone calls, organize reunions, etc. It is your family, and thus your responsibility to remember, care about, and contact them.
But I've refused to remember these things for him, so he either has to remember or get in trouble with his family.
I'm also not saying 'engaged', I'm saying 'planning to get married'.
so if you happen to remember do you mention it?
and I don't have the relationship with his family where I would contact them directly. But I've got a good memory so I could learn them! I've just chosen not to (and he hasn't asked in fairness). I could just never imagine forgetting my family's birthdays.
2. easier to read
3. fuck off, grandad
2. I'm too tired to fully commit to this joke
Not that I'd ever expect anyone else to do it either.
Cursory amount at best. More important stuff to be doing.
The rest I would say I do, except getting that vaccination thing which I would be open to getting. 33/35 where is my bronze medal.
how do you think you go about that? just ask your gp? will he tell you to sod off?
But I certainly give to different charities. I also give some support to the female members of my family (particularly my sister who has mental disabilities), overall well over a quarter of my money tbh, but yeah maybe not 23% to specifically feminist charities. You can chalk me down but I've started printing the spreadsheet now and it'll be a huge waste of paper!!!!!!1ones
25% if your income is no mean feat.
The idea of giving money to charities to specifically bridge a gender wage gap seems off. There's just people in my life who need money and I help them, some are women.
I've got no responsibilities but rent and bills and alcohol though, so giving to charities for women's shelters etc isn't hassle for me. It's obviously nowhere near the most important point on the list though.
But seems like a good place to put it.
A good friend of mine was seeing a girl for about a month, but she broke it off with him last week because he didn't want to have sex with her one evening when she was on her period. She told him the next afternoon that it showed he probably didn't respect women and so they should knock it on the head.
Well aware that I'm being a man child by being squeamish about it, but there you go.
condom or no condom?
a bit if they were squeamish about it but I probably wouldn't dump them unless I didn't like them that much anyway
The funny thing is, his claim is that he didn't go through with it because he thought maybe she was just doing it because she thought HE wanted to, but that it would actually be awkward for her. Crossed wires, eh?
is it fair for a woman to surmise that a man doesn't respect women purely cos he didn't want to get blood all over his knob? no
is it fair for a woman to ditch a guy for not respecting women? yes
is it fair for anyone to ditch anyone for any reason? maybe idk
Blood's blood, regardless of its origin, and some people are really uncomfortable with it.
but the relevant thing is, I don't really like "that" either. It caused some self-reflection on whether it meant I was even more of a awful human than was already established, or just weird about blood.
that anyone who is in a relationship with her can only say no to sex for a list of reasons that she approves of?
Should anyone be able to dictate to another person when and / or why they are allowed to say no to sex?
I'd say he's well enough out of it as that seems like a good first step towards emotional abuse.
She broke it off with the guy.
rather her be honest about it up front. Nothing wrong with her ending it. Maybe it was just a way out though - as in she wasn't really feeling it and saw it as her opportunity/reason to end things?
but it is her prerogative
for her to need a "way out" as such. They were probably still in that phase where you can drift away if needs be without needing a solid reason.
Besides which, I don't think you'd use that as the excuse unless you meant it. Nobody ended up hurt by the situation, it's just an interesting scenario I think.
"If you see a female friend in a bar/at a party/on the subway/wherever looking uncomfortable as a man is speaking to her, try to interject in a friendly way that offers her an opportunity for an “out” if she wants it."
I don't think anyone particularly wants a babysitter on a night out.
it specifies a friend there. I wouldn't necessarily appreciate it if a stranger did it (might feel like TWO men were hassling me) but yeah, friends should do this!
Don’t be an online bystander in the face of sexism. Challenge people who make, say, or post sexist things on the internet, especially on social media.
I'm normally a bit reluctant to post about feminism on social media, especially Twitter, because I'm afraid a) that some of the scary sexists will send me abuse and b) that I might get something 'wrong' and other feminists who are more radical than me might send me abuse. And I'm afraid of anyone shouting at me, I'm a bit over anxious.
But I do think about the issues a lot, and I've been thinking about the NotAllMen thing recently, trying to work out my position on it. So I did post a tweet with a link to this article: http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/08/laurie-penny/men-sexism saying I thought it was interesting and generally agreed with it, and I was careful not to use a hashtag but I did type notallmen.
Anyway, within SECONDS I got a reply from a man I didn't know telling me I'm an idiot :'( Fucking hell.
he wasn't following me, so he must have been specifically searching the phrase in order to send nasty replies to anyone who'd written it. That's a productive hobby.
then it's pretty productive for his cause
will put your tweet in the timeline for #notallmen
but maybe he was just looking at the timeline for notallmen, which includes #notallmen
(obviously not defending the guy or blaming you, just explaining why he saw your tweet so quickly)
hope you blocked/reported him?
I should probably just make my profile private, then I can post what I like! Blocked immediately, yep :)
cause twitter is potentially really useful. also there's a noticeable problem of "other feminists who are more radical than me might send me abuse."
^ those sorts of people aren't radical or better feminists than any of us. i mean, in my experience, very few people are unpleasant and aggressive and it seems to be more celebs and women who set themselves up as experts (mostly journalists) who get "abuse".
fwiw pretty much everything you ever post on here has me nodding in agreement.
I think it's just that I used to work at a museum of women's history and occasionally members of the public would have a go at me at work which I found a bit upsetting (once for posting on Facebook saying that Vivienne Westwood was cool, once for using the word 'ladies' in a tweet, and once someone phoned me up to shout at me for booking Sandi Toksvig to do a talk because they said she 'wasn't a feminist'. Most people that contacted us were great though!) I'm much more worried about anti-feminists sending me abuse though, obviously!
I'd like to be a bit braver and share my opinion and experiences about feminism/sexism online more - actually DiS is the place that feels safest for me to do it but I'm still quite careful. Fucking patriarchy.
http://rookiemag.com/ is my favourite feminist space because it's so thoughtful and inclusive and positive but it's for teenagers and they encourage adults not to take over the comments so I just read it and agree with it!
Oh, and thanks :)
i think it's getting better though, with regards to inclusivity and acceptance. it used to have what could be read as a strong 'us vs them' mentality (constant mention of 'girl gangs', 'being a weirdo', always featuring girls who had a similar aesthetic). i think their aesthetic is something that it's readers embraced (their following on tumblr and tavi's influence on girls starting their own blogs is evident of this) and tavi probably realised that 'rookie' became synonymous with a 'look' and that 'the message' was being ignored. it's good to tell young girls that being confident in yourself and comfortable is the most important thing, and i think they're doing this more now.
i guess it was interpreted as celebrating 'tumblr aesthetics' because of it's association with it (a lot of the contributors were prominent on the platform before rookie was launched) and the fact that tavi was a 'fashion' personality (after all, she got into fashion blogging after her friends sister took pictures of her for her own fashion blog).
but I've only got into it in the past year, and I don't get that feeling at all from it now. Actually there was a good article on there a few weeks ago by a girl who'd worried because she was popular and sporty and not an outsider, and how that had made her feel she wasn't 'cool' but now she was ok with that.
but I think the health one is a bit off- I don't think the issue of men and their lack of (willingness?) to access healthcare is that simple an issue
that you donate 23% of your income to social justice-oriented causes?
Yes I do
what the writer had in mind.
But it's just not happening. It's been a long day, so let's assume I thought of one and it was really funny.
We're not Arsenal, ffs
it's very liberal
moaning about something ≠ social justice
kind of assumes that everyone's individual relationship reflects the gender pay gap which is a bit weird. like if the guy's a cleaner and the woman's a lawyer or whatever, would be a bit stupid for him to give up loads of his pay packet. #NOTALLMEN
but it's certainly an interesting question. Of course, I'm guessing it's 23% before tax and I'm not sure what that means you'd have to donate. About 15%?
"33. Walk the walk about income inequality. Women still earn about 77% as much as men. If you are in a position where you are financially able to do so, consider donating a symbolic 23% of your income to social justice-oriented causes. If 23% sounds like a lot to you, that’s because it is a lot and it’s also a lot for women who don’t have a choice whether to forfeit this amount or not."
or, y'know, campaign for a more progressive tax system and policies which will give working class people better pay and conditions. pretty hilarious if this person actually thinks my dad giving 23% of his salary would have helped my mum. given that women disproportionately bear the responsibility for household budgeting and that this can be stressful especially when income is reduced... im not really sure this person's thought this one through.
Not sure what's distinctly liberal about it though?
the argument that it's the responsibility of individuals to address the systemic maldistribution caused by capitalism, is liberal. what the article should have said is something like "fight neoliberalism" or "support workers rights" or "become a socialist". people giving more money to charity isnt gonna close the gender pay gap lol.
Just not sure what's specifically "liberal" about the original suggestion other than it being implicitly against state (or even mobilised) intervention. You could argue it demonstrates more of a paternalistic conservative approach to social problems if anything.
Ignore me, just being geeky about political theory. Just find it curious when "liberal" is used as a criticism of things I wouldn't necessarily associate liberalism to have a coherent approach towards.
as in it's about individual rights and doesn't seek to address the workings of the capitalist system. something being described as "liberal" doesn't mean the same as the tenets of "liberalism" as such. e.g. neoliberalism doesn't have a coherent approach towards anything.
That "liberal" has increasingly become a synonym or shorthand for small-state/non-interventionism (especially when used a criticism) when there are plenty of other political approaches which that also applies to.
Wasn't a criticism at all, it's just a trend I've noticed and I'm not sure of its origins.
my point and my use of the word "liberal" wasn't limited to the idea of "small-state/non-interventionism (especially when used a criticism)" - it was much more in the sense of neoliberal discourses of individual responsibility (which aren't really specifically about the role of the state).
as long as people have been talking about neoliberalism since like the 80s. i think it does have specific uses too - particularly for stuff like that original point about giving to charity which have this illusory 'progressive' and reformist character. describing that as conservative or reactionary or something similar wouldnt really cover it.
And has a clear relationship to economics which I'm not sure liberal does.
It's "liberal" used on its own in this context I find curious - and which I think is possibly new - especially as UK and US usage seems to be very different.
i mean, it totally depends on what your position on neoliberalism is. imo it's the current era or manifestation of capitalism and also mode of governance - so it's social, economic and political. it's a complex (generally inconsistent but nevertheless related) articulation across a range of ideology, scholarship and policy. and it's a representation of social reality itself. and it's hegemonic. it's also not necessarily about reducing the role of the state and thats a bit of a myth. so i'd very much disagree that neoliberalism has any clear relationship to economics.
i think most recent uses of the word "liberal" in the way you're describing (if im understanding you correctly) inevitably mean something closer to "neoliberal" cause i think neoliberalism has changed the meaning of "liberal"(or the range of possible meanings of that word). using "liberal" as a criticism in this context seems to be more about resisting individualising tendencies, practices and ideas which seem to implicitly comply with or support neoliberalism by obscuring actual systemic power relationships.
though I completely agree regarding neo-liberalism being a complex, pervasive force across society\ies.
Your second paragraph is exactly what I was trying to get at though, thanks.
the word liberal has been appropriated to mean a great deal that has only tenuous connection to its underpinnings. Neoliberal - fine.
we're not in the nineteenth century anymore, grandpaw.
that blurring of borders is what leaves a lot of people with my worldview pretty conflicted tbh. Hard to explain on dis on a work day but if i ever see you in the street i'll run up to you with a copy of Rational Optimist shouting vaguely.
But she's 5.5 years younger than me. She pretty much earns as much as I earned when I was her age. A little less, but then her job isn't the same as my job, which is IT and tends to pay more. As it stands, I earn more so I put more into the joint account.
and I pay a higher % of our rent/bills as a result.
Always done so out of sheer pragmatism though rather than making a concession to gender pay gaps etc.
(hahahaha just say 5 years theo). I don't know how old you are so cant say whether that's statistically more likely. but if you're in a management position or w/e, she may never earn what you do.
tbh I think the whole pay gap/intra household income inequality thing is the massive weakness in this article. to articulate the gender pay gap as if it's something that's actually directly experienced by women (which this article does) really misses the point. if you look at women as a whole, there's a lot of intra-group income inequality. fewer outliers at the very top end compared to men but generally income spread is more unequal. I know the suggestion was meant to be "symbolic" and all that but it's more "tokenistic" and to me and totally misrepresents the actual structural problems of inequality and poverty.
I earn X but Mrs Theo earns 2/3X but that's because I work in [typical male profession] and she works in [typical female profession] so its all ok.
Plus, you're inferring that Ms theo works in a typically female profession without knowing if that's true or not.
I tend to focus my efforts on those groups that face really high levels of disempowerment and prejudice like people with LD and mental health issues
So 21% evil sexist
Let's call it 28
20% evil sexist
Concerning #9, had to check this was UK based, I didn't realise men could get the HPV vaccine, google brings up results saying that boys SHOULD be given it in school but nothing much more. Is it something you can ask your GP for?
You have to do it privately, as far as I can see, and can cost around £150 per dose:
"Parents who wish to have their sons vaccinated currently have to pay for the vaccine on a private basis. The complete course of the vaccine requires three doses with each dose costing around £150"
A good friend had a scare of cervical cancer (turned out it was just non cancerous cellular scaring, still caused by HPV). And while there are risks to men, the thought of ever being a vector for something like that really makes me nauseous.
However not £450 concerned. Probs just not stick my dick places it shouldn't be.
I had a slight problem with. The content of that point - that men should be amenable and willing to get the vaccine if offered, especially for their children - is right, but to blanket advise men to get the vaccine as a means of being a good feminist ally isn't appropriate. The main determinant of effectiveness for the vaccine is whether you've already had it, and after having a few sexual partners, most men have. (The same is true for women.)
Paying £450 for the vaccine is a nice gesture and gives peace of mind, but the actual effect of it is going to be minimal: the goal is herd immunity and an expensive privately-available vaccine isn't going to do that. The argument has always been that female-only vaccination was the most cost-effective way to ensure herd immunity, but last time I checked low uptake rates (thanks for the vaccine scares, everyone!) were threatening that.
see where i measure up on the sexist pig scale
If I'm being honest.
some of them arent relevant not getting married, not having kids, HPV..
others I dont do, which maybe I should, others I wont do, which is maybe bad of me..
so i'm the 2nd least awful person on dis so far
pretty pleased with that
Sad that a lot of the stuff isn’t self-evident. Sad that articles like this still have to be written. Have to say I’m pretty conscious of/active in pretty much all of it. Although I am pretty bad at clocking other women when out and about. Need to do better.
Some of these are written in a bit too restrictive a manner. A man doesn’t necessarily need to do 50% or more of the housework – it’s for couples to come to an agreement (in a power-neutral relationship setting) with regards to what is deemed acceptable between those 2 people. Which is probably what the article is saying in fairness, but it’d probably get greater resonance if it made a few concessions to that… A man giving away x% of his income because of structural inequalities in the workplace is also a nonsense. But, for the most part, there’s plenty of food for thought.
If your partner isn't into feminism and likes a more patriarchal vibe is it alright to perpetuate this or not?
and how that manifests in your relationship
and theyve both decided on that then thats fine imo, aslong as neither take each other for granted
but not mega often
without making her feel as though this 'patriarchal vibe' that you both love is slipping through your fingers?
Make more cups of tea.
i've solved the whole thing.
why the hell is this conversation happening.
without being asked too. Like when she's on the computer or in the bath. Top brewmaker me.
Safebruv is a feminist
it's whether she feels obligated to and you feel it's her role as a woman to do. If it's by her own choice because it's something she enjoys of course theres nothing wrong with it.
But its mainly because the boy isn't a good cook tbh
Still puts me on edge a bit, which I think the girl picks up on because she brings up how much she likes cooking for him. Different strokes for different folks and all that.
Not at all, it is the case with them though.
Probably a vegan, too.
i went to the shop to buy cigarettes and as i was walking home a woman crossed the street so that she was about 2 or 3 meters in front of me. it was dark and i was madly aware of exactly this so i started to slow down. i'm sure she slowed down as well (or i didn't enough) because she didn't seem to put any distance between us. so i just stopped and smoked a cigarette until she was gone. felt a bit weird just standing in the middle of a street i don't live on, smoking a cigarette and waiting for someone to vanish. i would have crossed the street but i'm scared of the kids on the park. that's probably why she crossed to the side i was on to be fair.
1. Don't diss the sisterhood
2. Trans are fair game though
3. Stereotypical jokes about man flu and multi tasking are hilar
About half of the list isn't applicable for gay men.
I think there's a case for addressing why someone might act in appropriately towards women whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol rather than eschewing them altogether. Also using moderation in the consumption of drugs and alcohol is also probably an option.
I am terrible at emotional support and just feel like I'm faking it. If someone presents me with a problem my goal is always to just fix it with a practice solution. :(
can just mean listening.
I just get itchy hearing someone talk about a problem they're having. I always feel the need to advise them - I would wager more so with women.
Fuck! I am the patriarchy.
Though I definitely definitely get this from my mum. A baby sitter told my dad she couldn't baby sit because her dad had just died that afternoon. My mum immediately phoned her back when she heard to advise her on getting probate for a will and other legal issues. She did the same with family friend who had pancreatic cancer and was given 2 weeks to live - she phones several times explaining how she needed to get her affairs in order to avoid inheritance tax for her children. She was told not to call anymore.
Yes. Fran can be difficult sometimes. #overshare
fuck that tho, i don't think it means the burden of emotional support work for our friends falls on my girlfriend, i don't believe she is being forced into this role through my non-engagement with some issues - she could choose, like i do, to not engage sometimes
If all men listened more and were more sympathetic, then women the world over would need to be doing that job as much as they find themselves doing.
i'm just not sure if i believe that (in my case, and possibly more generally) the woman is being put into a position of providing emotional support, when she doesn't want to be in that position.
like i get that that's reinforcing traditional roles, but i'm not sure that either of us need to fill that role really - i certainly don't feel there is any pressure put on her to fill that role (maybe there is, i dunno)
If I approach these thinking "I definitely think I should do this" I do alright.
If I approach these thinking "Do I actually do this in practice?" I score shit.
in the voice of Ramsey Snow from Game Of Thrones?