The upside of strict gender roles. Really.

[Syzygy321]

I am a staunch feminist.

That's one reason I was delighted by the NPR report yesterday on Alex Potter: a young woman who dreamt of being a photographer and ran off to an exotic, dangerous country to do just that. Now her beloved adopted country is at war, and she is one of very few western photographers there.

IOW, Potter has been autonomous, adventurous, successful, (and happy).

Her adopted country is Yemen. It's one of the world's worst places to be a woman. Many females are niqabis (face-veilers); females live in the clutches of fundy Islam, poor fathers make money by selling their female children as slave-brides to grown men. Nujood, of "I am Nujood, Age Ten and Divorced" is a Yemeni. Little girls have been raped to death on their wedding nights. The government shrugs. The imams encourage the practice. That's Yemen for ya.

But Alex Potter - the American photog - says this about her adopted home: That her neighbors and Yemeni friends are amazingly devoted to family. That they are warm and generous and just great, great people. Hearing her describe them, you get the feeling that she didn't have that kind of warmth during her American youth. And that she loves it.

Which tbh matches my experiences in a "traditional" (read: fundy religious with strict gender roles) family. There's a huge emphasis on The Clan, including cousins and great-aunties; there are big meals and much love and great caring. It's like living inside a warm security blanket.

It's wonderful. Of course it's all built on the sacrifices of women. Women are born and bred to both knit that security blanket and be trapped and muffled inside it. They're the rocks that anchor families. They do the cooking and the child care and the eldercare. They create the happy homes. And, like rocks, some of them get kicked or smashed and are helpless to stop it, because men rule over them. But many - the vast majority I think - are truly satisfied inside the security blanket. They don't mind that they can never leave it.

Maybe I am imagining it, but among my modern upwardly friends (male and female) and myself, there's more loneliness and angstiness. We've left our families, chased careers, ditched the security blanket or never had it. And not many of us, that I've seen, live in the same town with forty loving, annoying relatives who cluster at births and graduations and sickbeds and granny's 88th birthday.

(i see families like that among the poor farm and small-town people here. Not among the affluent and educated.)

So is that the trade-off? Big warm families (built on locking females into domestic roles and demanding they not pursue independent dreams), versus freedom for all, but loss of big warm families?

Am I broad-brushing? What does everyone think?

(Note: I originally titled this post, "The upside if misogyny.". Which was click-baity of me.

Strict gender roles and misogyny are like incestuous siblings to each other. Can you ever have one without the other? I say it's impossible.)
.

[Brickbat]

1. I think it has more to do with our culture's mobility and the size of our families.

And yes, you're broad-brushing.

[LanternWaste]

2. I don't think a close family is predicated on misogyny

I don't think a close family is predicated on misogyny any more than job security is predicated on slavery.

Your own choice of acquaintances is not indicative of the whole.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. I tend to agree with you.

Freedom from commitments comes with that ration of 'loneliness'. Males experience the same thing - you can be free to do whatever you want, without worrying about pets or human family, or you can choose companionship and closeness, and be tied down in ways that preclude you exercising more freedom to do things strictly for yourself. If I weren't tied down by family and pet obligations, I could take off to another state to find work that is eluding me locally.

[alarimer]

3. I think most of that "love" is a lie.

Buck the system and see how much "love" there really is. In any cast, close-knit communities can be stultifying for those who are different in any way. As long as you conform, it's great.

"They don't mind that they can never leave it." Sounds to me like a case of Stockholm syndrome. They are happy because they don't know what else is out there. And, yes, some of what is out there is scary and dangerous.

There is great satisfaction in knowing you have done what you wanted to do, that you have achieved something you set out to do. Being relegated to one role in life when you are capable of so much more really, really sucks. How many Einsteins have we lost because they were women?

Those women will never admit (can never admit, probably) that they wanted an education, that they want to do more than clean up after people. Those women live in such strict confines that they cannot buck the system or they will die. Literally. Some man will kill them for daring to be something other than what their assigned role is.

Happy or not, welcoming or not, these women are victims. Victims of an oppressive regime that does not see them as people. We have thrown off that yoke, by and large, and we are so much better off.

[Oneironaut]

56. +1 - It's like asking a prisoner if they're being treated well

while there are 10 guns aimed at their head. "They said they're being treated well, so it must be true!"

[seabeyond]

4. how many women/girls are raped, beaten and murdered in the name of male authority that have no

recourse?

[seabeyond]

5. staunch feminist? man or woman?

[Syzygy321]

7. Woman. And survivor of abuse. I am not defending

misogyny - you can check my old posts I suppose if you want to see where I stand on fundy religion and how it's awful for women.

But there's two sides to it.

And yup, the most of the women I know who are still in the fundy religious community do maintain they are very happy. Some others have been HORRIBLY abused, much worse than I was. Though they never blame the religion that strips their equality (that would be unthinkable!). They blame their abusers for not following Allah's laws. Or, worse, they blame themselves for not being patient or obedient enough.

(Yeah. I know. Dont preach to me; I'm in the choir.)

In this kind of society if you don't conform, or are unlucky enough to have a bastard for a husband or father, you're helpless. For the other 90 percent of women, it's fulfilling.

Alex Potter loves living among Yemenis. But if she had been born a Yemeni girl, she might be a slave to her husband. And if he were a good guy she might be deliriously happy (well not right now because, Saudi war). And if he were a bad guy she might be dead.

It's very confusing, is all I am saying.

[seabeyond]

10. "For the other 90 percent of women, it's fulfilling." seriously? you are only suggesting 10% of

women and girls in these countries are raped, beaten and murdered? you need to reevaluate stats. areas that allow women and girls absolutely no recourse for rape, beatings and murder.

secondly, ... you can not define this as an upside when you ignore a very real and very huge issue.

third, that one. no recourse to rape, beatings and murder was off the top of the head without any thought at all. if i wanted to put any thought into it, i could list shit out for you.

you cant call it an upside when that upside allows rape beatings and murder of women and girls.

[Syzygy321]

14. No - the 10/90 percent split is my guess at

Last edited Mon Aug 24, 2015, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

howat how many are trapped - abused - miserable in the American Muslim community in my city. And it's just an estimate. But please believe me when I say that MOST women in the community not only claim they are happy (and that they feel loved and protected etc), but gather and laugh together and watch each other's kids. And they really are incredibly generous, gracious, welcoming people. Come on over! Dinner's always cooking and you're always an honored guest!

It's really bizarre but it's true. They are raised for a role and are content in that role. Like American women before the 60's. Were they miserable, all of them?

Elsewhere: in Pakistan 95 percent of women have been beaten in the home. In Egyot 95 percent of women have been harassed on the street. You don't have to tell me; I already know.

I like pondering shades of gray. Nothing is a hundred percent bad or good.

That's why I can hate Islam - having survived it - and still see its upside and sometimes envy Muslim female friends their contentment. They really don't want to be "rescued" and dragged into gender equality, most of them.

Me: I desperstely wish they had an utterly open choice to be traditional or to say hell no to that shit ... like I did.

But there's a loss involved in that too, I think: The lack of a tribe to care for you if you get hurt or are poor or homeless. The emotional burden of having to make your own decisions and inevitably your own stupid mistakes out in the wicked world. Having to find your own spouse instead of getting matched up by parents.

Plus, minus. Pro, con. It's interesting.

[seabeyond]

17. i do not believe it even a little. stats over decades tell us a different story. also,

shades of gray are wonderful

how husband and i chose to run our family was as a unit. i did the traditional, stay at home. we were financially secure which allowed us to do, without financial stress. all the things you discuss, without his authority of me. it worked for us. but it was not under an illusion or reality one was authority over another, but a team.

[Syzygy321]

23. I am glad for your happiness.

But if you think all Muslim women in America are unhappy, I have to disagree based on personal experience.

I am not sure if that's what you are saying though. So, straight question:

Do you think all American Muslim women are unhappy?

(It is a fundamentalist religion and the husband is the undisputed leader at home. He is entitled to complete obedience unless he orders his wife to commit a sin. Of course most men keep their wives on a decently long leash. And almost all wives obey without needing a short leash - since they are raised in those roles.)

[seabeyond]

28. your post, and how you state it is so repulsive, asked as if you are reasonable, that i have

not a single bit of interest continuing this conversation with you.

i have to figure you are playing a nasty game.

[bettyellen]

37. I believe this OP is a sick joke. Let's watch the liberals defend misogyny!

Won't that be a hoot.
Expect this will be linked to at conservative sites by end of day, hardy har har.
Ward and June Cleaver my ass.

[seabeyond]

38. yup. nt

[Aerows]

48. Yep

Fortunately, it's so transparent that it is getting pretty funny!

I think ultimately, this is such a bad attempt that the hardy har har is ours !

[ismnotwasm]

83. Have to agree

If I thought it was honest it would be easy to pick apart--By why bother?

[suffragette]

25. "... content in that role. Like American women before the 60's." Yeah, right.

Much of that surface content hid simmering discontent. It's not that it didn't exist before the 60s, it's that it was unleashed then.

[Lisa D]

27. I would say that most women brought up in fundie religions/societies are trapped.

They're trapped because they don't have autonomy.
They're trapped because they grow up knowing they'll be shunned from people they love f they don't accept a submissive role.
They're trapped because most fundie religions--no matter what stripe--discourage woman from independence--of any kind.

Now, some women accept their "place" in these environments. It's a kind of Stockholm Syndrome where, if they follow the rules and accept any blame thrown at them, then they can find a type of contentment/happiness.

But it's a happiness based on a foundation of fear. Fear of abuse. Fear of abandonment. Fear of losing everything.

For many girls and women, this is ALL they know. It's like Anna Duggar blaming herself for Josh's sexual acting out. She's been trained *from childhood* to accept the blame if her husband isn't "happy.: Beiieve me, no one in the Duggar family environment is asking Anna what SHE wants. Anna is probably not even asking herself that question.

[LanternWaste]

46. You then have absolute knowledge of a collective contentedness?

"They are raised for a role and are content in that role. Like American women before the 60's...."

You then have absolute knowledge of a collective contentedness? Or is that merely a guess based on your own perspectives, made to better validate your own biases ?

[treestar]

75. they would if it went wrong

the problem is the men having the power. If they are nice about it in some cases, they don't have to be. They don't have to continue.

[bettyellen]

13. So you believe 90 percent of women are happy to conform- and not living in fear?

I don't believe it for a minute. Nope.

[Syzygy321]

19. Well: think about Ward and June Cleaver. Fiction I know,

but trust me, I see plenty of eighty year old couples who married in the time when "men were men and women stayed home", and have been perfectly happy in their roles for six decades and are still doting on each other.

(And yeah, there are some who have been friggn miserable).

It's conformity but not necessarily fear.

[bettyellen]

39. Fear is the reason for conformity. Fear of torture doesn't register with you eh?

That's why the OP is total bullshit.

[Syzygy321]

41. Muslim women - the ones I know - would be pretty

damned offended by the claim that they are all just afraid of torture.

That's a simple-minded answer that stereotypes a whole lotta diverse people as "victims."

Um, no. If that's what you think when you see a woman in a hijab who's laughing with her kids or diagnosing your pneumonia or whizzing by in her Toyota, that's a big problem.

I could alert on your post I suppose. But what wd be the point?

I cede DU to you. You win!

[bettyellen]

44. We are not taking about Muslim women in the USA- which makes your reply MORE BULLSHIT.

[smirkymonkey]

79. +1000

[Aerows]

81. Amen to that. n/t

[Aerows]

47. If I lived in Orange County

and tried to convince American women that it's great to be dominated by men, I'd be confused, too.

If you are looking for people to jump up and cheer for Islamic society, contrary to popular right wing belief, the Democratic Party and DU are not hotbeds for rah-rah-ing Islam and Islamic misogyny. Or any misogyny.

Other forums to peddle such ideologies are that direction ---->

[treestar]

73. I doubt it is really fulfilling

Women can remain completely uneducated in Yemen. They don't even know what they might have done.

[Hiraeth]

6. angstiness? Good word! I like it. Adding it to my vocabulary. Thanks!

[ladyVet]

8. If having control over my body and my life means I miss out on some mythical "happiness",

then so be it. That wasn't true happiness anyway. Doing something because you fear death isn't being happy, it's conforming.

If someone chases money/prestige/position over having a family, then that's their choice. I believe you can have both, if that's what you want. I managed to have a life and raise three fine young men without having to bend to the will of some man with the power to literally take my life if he didn't like what I did. I came close to living like that with the fundy ex, but I wouldn't submit and broke free.

My father didn't raise his girls any differently than he did his boys. We weren't made to stay inside and cook and clean. We were outside, doing yardwork and helping with home and car repairs. We were treated as if we had brains in our heads. My father was proud that I graduated from high school, as he never made it even that far. He was proud when I joined the USAF. He didn't tell me I was a girl and that wasn't for me.

I think this was immensely positive in my life, and I became the person I am because of it. I raised my boys to be people first, not men. They can cook, clean and take care of the house and yard and cars. Two can sew enough to fix seams and put on buttons. They've played with dolls and with trucks. They are kind and loving human beings.

Many people are afraid of women. They fear our minds and our bodies, our strength, our opinions, and our determination to be everything we want to be.

[Syzygy321]

9. Love your post! Love your voice.

I think my biggest contribution to a more just future is that I am raising my kids - M and F - like you were raised.

[seabeyond]

12. My father didn't raise his girls any differently than he did his boys.

huge gift from my parents i absolutely recognize and have discussed. we were not gender raised. i thank my mom in my heart and my father regularly for having given me this as a child.

[bettyellen]

11. So what if women are tortured and raped! Big families are so much fun for women

Who are tortured and raped if they aren't subservient to that big family. What the fucking fuck? That is no kind of trade off- and it's disgusting promoting it here.
I don't believe you actually believe it yourself.
Just no.

[LWolf]

15. I've never had that security blanket.

I'm an only child raised by a single working mother with no extended family, who was attracted to abusive men. Whatever security I've ever had was provided by me.

My first marriage, too young, was to someone who wanted me to be that rock. He made sure I was isolated; 50 miles away from my mother, my friends, and even his family. Home with 2 babies, no car, and no access to the family budget except what he chose to give me. Except that he wasn't all that interested in providing any stability or security, spending rent, utility, and grocery money out partying, while I was at home with no way out. It took me some years to get free.

My second marriage...wanted me to be that rock, but I didn't know how, and was too used to being independent, and expecting those around me to be so, as well. It didn't work, either.

Today, I AM that rock. I live alone, but am the anchor for my very small clan: my mother, 2 sons, 1 grandchild. I'm still doing it all myself, and don't see that changing. I sometimes wish there was someone, or some ones, out there who would take care of me sometimes; that it wasn't always assumed that I'm able to handle everything by myself. To be honest, though, I set myself up for that. I see my sons reaching out to take care of my mother as she is able to do less. I know they'll do the same with me when the time comes. When I literally CAN'T do everything on my own.

Would I like a big, warm, family? I don't know. Bigger? Maybe not. I don't deal well with large groups. Warmer? My family is warm. Most of us are within a reasonable distance. We're emotionally close. My sons' deep respect for all women, and particularly the women in their lives, comes from growing up with my strength and independence. They both have healthy, balanced, long-term loving relationships, something I wasn't able to do. I don't really have any regrets.

Still, I wish sometimes that someone else could be in charge of keeping things together some of the time. I get tired.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

16. Jury results

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This thread suggests the possibility of society sanctioned rape and murder is worth it to have the chance to live with a large loving family (who treats you as a slave(. This is incredibly offensive sexist bullshit and it seems from other posts they are trolling us too. This is some sick shit

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Aug 24, 2015, 10:00 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Deal with the issues in the thread, not a jury
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Whomever flagged this thread needs to read up on the British colonialization of Yemen and their post-colonial struggles. My one english class had a, Islamic woman writer from Yemen speak to the class, who spoke up against the gener and colonial issues in her country. She was a feminist, one who risks death for her thoughts. Granted 'fundy' is used to descrobe fundamentalists--and it is even spelled incorrectly, since it should be 'fundie,' but that term alone does now warrant a takedown.

Folk here have to freakin grow up!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's opinion, and doesn't seem to attack anyone. Not hide-worthy.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Are we on DU so fragile that we can't look at the other side of an issue without crumbling under the strain? Jesus Christ, we're supposed to be the "smart" party. No one here is sanctioning misogyny, but there's precious little discussion as to why WOMEN might find appeal in a society like Yemen's, and it's something we ought to think about no matter how repulsive we find other aspects of that society. The alerter's thinking is the kind of thinking that got this country into the Iraq War. Shame.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a post worthy of Phyllis Schlafly but I believe it should stand and it be pointed out for what it is. I agree with the alerter as to what it is saying

[DURHAM D]

21. I agree with Juror # 7.

Also, they agree with the Alert message but it is not included in your post. Could you put it up please.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

29. Alerter's message added to top of post 16. Thanks. nt

[DURHAM D]

31. Thanks. nt

[seabeyond]

33. after reading the reply about women on a leash, i agree with the alerter, absolutely.

seems to enjoy the idea a bit too much, and wanting conversation.

[Recursion]

18. Interesting question

I had a Linear Algebra professor who wore niqaab. And here in Mumbai I have a coworker (a fellow programmer) who wears niqaab.

One thing I did notice, from dealing with people I know from Iraq and Afghanistan, is that they had no language for the US concept of "homeless".

"What do you mean they had no home? Where was their family? Had they killed someone?"

Though they were also horrified that I had my own apartment. "Oh... what? Did you anger your family?"

[DirkGently]

20. Yikes. I think that view is a trap for women.

I have no problem seeing the value in a division of domestic labor and roles that includes someone staying close to the household while someone else does whatever is necessary outside the household to bring in resources.

And I agree with Elizabeth Warren that an unwelcome part of the social victory of recognizing that women must be as free as men to pursue careers outside the home is the "two income trap," wherein now that everyone "may" work, everyone HAS to work, because wages and costs of living are such that virtually no one can afford to have one spouse or parent stay in the home.

I'd love to see families able to center life more around the home rather than alienating and commoditizing our labor such that we all have to leave the house for 40, 50, or more hours per week simply to survive.

But I don't think the idea that it's in any way helpful to subjugate women, or tie them against their will into limited roles is a benefit to anyone. It's repellent and unacceptable under any conceivable rationale.

What would be good would be if we all had more flexibility in our time; if women and men both felt they could be at home and with family more; if maternity and paternity leave were guaranteed; in short if we could keep more of the benefits of our own labor for ourselves, rather than simply selling it on the open market for what is too often the grudgingly offered bare minimum.

[Syzygy321]

35. Beautiful thought... sounds like the best solution so far.

And the driven, work-centered people can just stay single and live at the office if that's their thing. Freedom for everyone.

I appreciate your views, and hope we can bring that vision closer. Honestly never thought of that.

[frazzled]

22. Yeah, sort of like how the slaves used to be so happy

under the slavery system. No worries, massuh!

I'd rate this a red alert on the I Can't Even meter

[DawgHouse]

74. I agree!

[beerandjesus]

24. Thoughtful post that asks some uncomfortable questions.

Viscerally, the description of Yemeni society makes me sick. But I think it's important that we think about these issues. Women's rights are such a no-brainer for most of us that it's hard to understand why any women in this country would still support Republicans, let alone tolerate what's described in the OP. This was hard for me to read, but I'm glad I did.

Thanks for posting.

[Syzygy321]

30. Funny thing about DU:

When I criticize Islam's misogyny (hello! I survived it!) I am called a bigot.

When I point out that the system has an upside I am called Phyllis Schlafly.

Basically some of you want me to say

ISlAM is GREAT!!!! It should be respected and never criticized!!

and also

STRICT GENDER ROLES ARE EVIL!!!!! Any system that enforces them has no redeeming qualities!

Juror seven and alerter: which position do you take? Really. Please explain your views.

Guess why that position makes no sense?

[geek tragedy]

32. when you start off by arguing that big warm families don't exist outside of oppression

and slavery, people are going to assume you're a troll

[Syzygy321]

36. I didn't mean to argue that. I gave a fair

accounting of Potter's views of Yeneni families. I gave a fair accounting of the upside of my (fundy) family. And I qualified that my experiences among angsty or adrift-y friends are just my experiences. And I ended by posing it as a question: am I broad-brushing? What do others think?

But still. The outrage.

I expect this OP will get me kicked off DU. - when all I wanted was to raise an idea among people who are (presumably)!feminst and also (presumably) not Muslim-haters.

Okay.

"Islam is great".

"Gender roles are awful."



Now are we happy?


(Admittedly the title was clickbait. Outright misogyny is horrible and has no upside. I should have said "the upside of strict gender roles.&quot

[bettyellen]

42. Baloney- to claim to be a staunch feminist and claim women on leashes are happy

That way, is complete and total bullshit.
You are pretending to be feminist while promoting the subjugation of women. Not buying it, but not shocked you are posting RW crap again.

[kcr]

70. It might be easier to give you the benefit of the doubt

If you didn't go on to pull the wounded victim act. Did you really not expect to be challenged on these views? Give me a break. Unless this is your first day on the internet, you had to. So, motives seriously questioned now.

[seabeyond]

34. in my mind with this discussion, religion nor a particular religion ever took hold.

it was not even a consideration.

the very title of your argument was the basis of my discussion.

the upside of misogyny.

there is not an UPSIDE to misogyny.

[WestCoastLib]

40. Um. No

Both my wife and I work and are well off, "upwardly mobile" people here. My mother worked and all my sisters are successful, professionals as well.

Our family is also very warm and caring. It has nothing to do with "keeping the women home"

[Gormy Cuss]

43. There's nothing warm about families that repress members into rigid gender roles.

There's the facade of loving warmth but members are only happy in that situation if they go along with it. It can get ugly very quickly when a member of any gender steps away from the mold.

There are plenty of warm, caring, loving families where individuals are supported in their choices.

So no, misogyny is never a good thing.

[PeaceNikki]

45. Yes, you're broad-brushing. I think you have a paternalistic skewed view of the world.

The only one who would think there is an "upside" to misogyny is a male who reaps the benefits of such bigotry.

[mercuryblues]

49. There isn't

a tradeoff when your only choice is to be chattel to be sold into marriage. These women know they have no choices about the life they live. Therefore they create their niches of happiness where they can. They are not allowed to even talk to a male who is not a close family member. Their only choice is to befriend other women in the same circumstances.

All fundy type religions put strict behavior codes on men and women. Somehow though it is mostly the women who suffer the most. Just look at Duggars wife. She followed the code, put her baby making machine in use. He most certainly did not. She is blaming herself for his serial cheating. Even though she also knows that he molested 5 girls in total, she is forced to stay with him because divorce is not allowed. She was raised to be subservient to men. I would be more shocked if she does divorce him, than if she stays.

So she will continue to make babies with him and raising them knowing that he is cheating on her and prone to molesting girls. If does molest them, they grow up believing that it is a normal accepted behavior in their community that must never be discussed. But most of all never ever believe that as a woman you have any control over your life.

So again, there is no tradeoff when you only have 1 choice for how you want to live your life.

[Skidmore]

50. I disagree with you.

Last edited Mon Aug 24, 2015, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Dependency is the only thing that is being nurtured in such closed systems. Having grown up in a fundamentalist Christian church and married into a fundamentalist Muslim family, I have lots of experience, real and observed. There is nothing that creates a sense of independence when your aspirations are overshadowed by the demands of prescribed gender roles. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about needing to have your father or husband's permission to attend university, to work outside of the home, to travel, or to take your children with you. There is nothing romantic about having no good options for a life partner when your spouse is selected for you by the patriarch, and there is certainly no romance to not having a way out of an unhappy marriage that doesn't involve totally losing contact with any children you may have. There is nothing romantic about being considered the repository of family honor and being in a position of possibly losing your life based on mere suspicion of misbehavior. That whether or not you operate with any degree of independence depends on the luck of the draw in who your father or spouse is, does not constitute autonomy at any level. The society is mysogynistic, and Seabeyond is correct--there is no upside to it.

[LittleBlue]

51. You should write headlines for the Daily Mail

This has to take the cake when it comes to inflammatory headlines.

[bettyellen]

53. This bit of advocacy to promote Sharia law as a happy choice ain't going how you'd hope, eh?

[Aerows]

82. DDS

"Democratic Derangement Syndrome."

In other words, a Republican.

[Oneironaut]

54. Until they want to have any sort of power or freedom.

Then they get stoned to death / raped / tortured / etc. Life is good in any patriarchy if you play by their rules and don't challenge them. It's either that, or you die. Doesn't sound very good to me.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Strict gender roles = misogyny?

This might be news to the selective service administration and "feminists" who think that it's just fine that it's made up of only men.

[Oneironaut]

58. Obvious strawman and not even related.

Plus, there is no one "feminist" opinion on the draft.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. I'd say it's closer to disproof of the premise than a strawman.

Some strict gender roles are not at all misogynist. Quite the reverse, in fact.

[Aerows]

60. If you don't want to be drafted

even a boil on your butt a la Rush Limbaugh will get you out of it, so there goes that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. Even Limbaugh had to register.

Failure to do so = no college.

[bettyellen]

66. The original wording of the OP was correct- she was speaking of women living under Sharia law

Being tortured and raped and forced into a life of servitude. The edit is bullshit.

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. I guess the takeaway is that "gender roles" aren't one thing.

One end of that spectrum includes sharia law and fundamentalism.

[bettyellen]

77. I think the takeaway is that living a subordinate life because of strongcultural

Pressure totally sucks- and that Sharia law if particularly enslaving for women. And that the OP hoped some here would agree that Sharia law is not so awful. Its a game. The OP is probably bummed she couldn't get more Democrats to make fools of themselves on this thread.

[Solly Mack]

57. My entire being rejects this.

[Starry Messenger]

61. By that measure, the Duggars must be your ideal.

I have a large, warm, wonderful family full of women who give no fucks about patriarchy.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Having religiously consevative fuckers raping 10 year olds and executing gay people is your idea of

a fair trade in order to have larger pot luck dinners? You see that as worth it? I don't. I assume Ms Potter is a harshly atavistic and bigoted person, as she has chosen to live in one of a handful of countries that will publicly flog their gay citizens and Potter finds that to be 'warm and generous'. I don't.

What are the benefits you see to being constantly controlled by 'family' that wants to rape kids and kill gay people? I don't see it. To be, being surrounded by such persons would be a living hell.

[Puzzledtraveller]

63. You could wipe out civilization today

and with a magic wand, recreate a blank slate human civilization tomorrow and gender roles would emerge. That's not to say they would look anything like what we experienced. Religion would pop up too.

[seabeyond]

64. except a handful of decades women gaining the freedom and independence has changed the scene, hence

the severe backlash we are seeing today from men.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. the only way people can have big connected families or supportive communities is via repression?

baloney.

[fishwax]

69. in my experience, strict gender roles are neither necessary nor sufficient for warm happy families

I suppose that strict general roles are more likely to lead to big families because of the emphasis on child-bearing and raising, but I don't think big families are necessarily happier. It isn't my experience that the vast majority of women inside the "security blanket" of strict gender roles are satisfied (nor that strict gender roles are much of a security blanket).

[yellowcanine]

71. False Choice. Big Warm Family does not equal strict gender roles.

Just sayin'

[treestar]

72. We don't trade off big warm families

Not even married and I have one.

The thing with the strict gender roles is that they only work well with men who don't abuse their position.

Makes me think of John Adams, he treated his wife as an equal, but that was his way or his choice and she was just lucky. Sure the old ways could make a woman happy, but it had to be one of the few really good men. The same men that eventually were the types to agree with the vote for women, feminism, anyway.

[Warpy]

76. From the late 60s on, I found women who were resistant to any of the ideals of feminism.

They wanted the security of knowing what was expected of them and of being told what to do when Himself was getting ready for work and had a list of errands for her to run. Too much autonomy was scary, it carried the risk of failure.

Some of those women woke up and some never did. The women who woke up did so because Himself flubbed something up very seriously, proving he was unworthy to be their Lord and Master, making all their choices for them. A few simply outgrew dependency.

Some of the women who chose the security of sexism had reasonable lives, weren't being isolated away from their friends and families and weren't being abused.

The point is that it needs to be a choice. It also works only when the participants are healthy.

It also worked reasonably well in some cultures in various places around the world, where the sexes were separate but neither was particularly subordinate. The gender roles aren't really the problem. Male tyranny is the problem.

[Syzygy321]

78. Yes - you and I are very much in agreement

that what matters is choice. Hell, I have no prob with a free woman deciding that what floats her boat is being a homemaker or a nun or her husband's handmaiden or an alpinist or foreign correspondent or politician. Choosing your own path is, to me, the heart of feminism.

In the "traditional" (**sexist**) communities, choice is sacrificed. And it's always the women who do the sacrificing. And that's not just.

I abandoned that cozy stifling world and vaulted myself into a much more cut-off one.

I don't desire a Himself to boss me around - I barely got out with my sanity the first time, and, well, NEVER again. But I miss the warm mutifamily, multigenerational community. I have autonomy, but I don't have a clan anymore.

I am not made for servitude and am glad I escaped. But I still see the other women hanging out in grouos in the store or in the park: maybe three sisters and their kids, or a gang of toddler cousins all chasing each other while the moms watch from benches and chatter and plan ifthar during Ramadan and wave over at me. And I'm like, geez... I don't regret my choice - and i am damn gratedul for American laws that protected my human rights... but I also think I lost something too.

[Aerows]

80. Bravenak - not here

This thread is here.

That is some mighty fucked up justice.

[yardwork]

84. I'm part of a close-knit group of parents caring for families.

We are raising our children, caring for our parents and other relatives and aging friends, building our careers, and caring for one another. No gender roles - we're all women.

There are lots of ways to build a family and nurture a supportive community without resorting to misogyny.

Gay people have done this for generations, because they were kicked out of the fundy families you describe. Those families aren't so loving if an individual doesn't toe the line.