Anti-woman laws in America

So if a woman has the idea of "coming home to a good man," does that mean she sees men as prizes?

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Is "coming home to a good man" actually a widespread social idea, though? *

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

probably, yes. But as the poster above pointed out, theres very few cultures in america who see it as the woman's place to breadwin while the man handles the domestic duties.

For a lot of the midwest, at least,. the "expected" lifestyle for anyone except gays or atheists or bisexuals, is that the male will work hard at a blue collar job, woo a woman, marry her, and whatever career she was in should immediately stop in favor of popping out babies and running the household.

It basically dehumanizes woman into non-working, babymakers, and men into nothing more than wage producing machines. And then gets celebrated as "more fulfilling" than middle class life.

edited 24th Apr '12 12:19:03 PM by Midgetsnowman

Truly men are the real victims, as evidenced by hypothetical women who I swear are out there.

Never build a character piecemeal out of tropes.

Irrelevant. The point of my question, more than anything, is that if a man wanting to win over a good woman equals "seeing them as prizes" then why doesn't it apply to women wanting to win over a good man?

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

It does. The difference is. The second doesnt happen very often. Even women who dont want to be prizes tend to not be taught to view men as prizes to keep at home.

Matt, we already said that yes, that would still be objectifying. You can't just pretend we didn't because that answer makes your argument obviously terrible.

Never build a character piecemeal out of tropes.

Yes, Matt, if women think their American dream involves winning a good man, and doesn't think of the man as a person in his own right pursuing his own dream, then that's objectifying and that's bad.

However, the reverse view is far more prevalent, and because it's so widespread, it gives people subconscious cues to treat women differently than men (sometimes even treating them better!). And that is what allows the sorts of laws that this thread is about to not be the work of fringe lunatics, but supported by part of mainstream America. And since it doesn't affect men, we're obviously not too fussed about it. When objectifying men starts to make its way into new radical laws that get mainstream support, we'll all weep about women objectifying men.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

This.

Got any idea how often I hear my college roommate basically without really meaning any malice behind it, basically considering women as categories of 'has had sex with me" and "hasnt been convinced yet to have sex with me"

Not many girls I know with similar views on males.

edited 24th Apr '12 1:54:03 PM by Midgetsnowman

That's not what was said, though. What was being referred to was "winning over a good woman," not "keeping her at home."

No, my question was about whether or not the same reasoning applies to the gender-flip, which is independent of the number of people involved. Midgetsnowman answered it, *

but Octo did not.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. But I don't think of wanting to win someone over as denying that they're a person in their own right, and more relevantly to this thread, I'm a little skeptical of the level of difference in prevalence being claimed here. First off, we need to be clear about our criteria here; on what level do we distinguish wanting to "win someone over" from wanting a relationship with them, and on what basis is it being claimed that this is something men are significantly more guilty of that women?

If you can't read their minds, how would you know? If you don't know billions of women, how can you claim the ones you've met to be a representative sample of the population?

edited 24th Apr '12 2:42:26 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

"You can't prove women aren't secretly oppressing us poor men behind our backs, therefore they definitely are! Feel sorry for me having to suffer from this objectification that I claim is totally happening!"

Never build a character piecemeal out of tropes.

...strawman...

Somehow you know that the time is right.

No, it's not irrelevant. The entire point of the discussion is how society at large views women. And in the view of society it are always women to come home to, it are always women who are seen as part of the man's wife, not vice versa. Different to what others here have said I don't think the individual sentiment "come home to a good man/woman" is in itself bad. But if it becomes a wider social view, a social expectation, then that is in fact telling how that society views said gender. Women in this case, and not coincidentally always women.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

The problem is. At least by midwestern ideals of family. you dont win a good woman so she can work. You win a good woman so she can take care of the kids and be home for you to come home to at night.

edited 24th Apr '12 2:52:39 PM by Midgetsnowman

To be honest, I don't think that most women I know of really think of "winning" a man. Those who cling to older stereotyped views generally probably think of being won by a man. I don't think there's any prevalent mode of thought that goes, "Men should be there to run my household, take care of my family, or give me their sperm so I can have children and fulfill my dream." Whereas some (or many) men will think, "I want a wife so she can give me children, which is a part of my dream, and run my perfect household."

And those men generally don't think badly of women. They just sort of see that as their place, never really thinking that those same women might have the same kind of dreams he has of being independent or having a career or whatever. They literally might value "their" women more than they value their own lives, but they still see them as fundamentally different people, and that's why I take issue with the whole, "win a good woman." Because it really is indicative of that worldview.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

Have you run that through your head cold?

I'm female: I wanted to find a partner (but, sadly, never have found a permanent one: men bail after they see the effects of my illness). To be honest, most of my relationships have collapsed partly down to the fact I, aparently, cannot look after them they way they expect me to.

Sorry for being ill... If it were the other way 'round, bet the view would be different. After all, women are supposed to nurse your fevered brows, aren't they?

So, yeah: I agree. Women, to quite a few men, should not be high-maintainance when that means 'hard'.

EDIT: Something's up with my spell-check... don't mind me. <finds a spanner to clonk the comp with>

edited 24th Apr '12 3:10:01 PM by Euodiachloris

It might be that I'm being dense here, but I really don't understand this question.

Oh that's cool. It might be that the question has a cultural meaning that I'm not familiar with.

Or I could be a moron...were you asking me if I ran that through my head before I said it out loud (or typed it)? If so, forgive me, I can be an idiot sometimes.

edited 24th Apr '12 3:21:16 PM by Vericrat

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

Rhetorical question. Sorry: it's hard to mix the emoties up. I would have gone for something more like ;o to aim for cheeky-mock-shock.

Not of this component of the discussion. This component was focused on the sub-point of how winning over someone of the opposite sex constitutes objectification. I asked about the gender-flip, and your previous response seemed irrelevant.

But that's still "winning someone over." How does the practical role of the "prize" being different mean they're not a "prize?"

Also, I thought the phrase "winning a good woman" as being about winning a relationship with her, rather than necessarily using her as a servant.

And she can both have a job and still be home when he gets home. o.o

Again, this comes back to the question about the role of a "prize," which in turn boils down to the sense of the term one is referring to. How does which role is assigned to the other partner negate the idea of them also being thought of as a status symbol?

And if a woman sees a man being manly as his place, is that the same as thinking of him as a prize?

edited 24th Apr '12 3:45:00 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Yes. Objectifying is bad either way.

And the general cultural idea in the midwest, matt, is that Career women dont for the most part exist in anything but the upper middle class and up. Any other class, theyre just women who havent settled down, had a baby, and gotten rid of those silly ideas.

edited 24th Apr '12 3:41:25 PM by Midgetsnowman

I don't see this "general cultural idea" expressed very often, though; actually, criticisms of the idea seem far more common than the idea itself.

edited 24th Apr '12 3:52:34 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

earlier it was mentioned it is no longer feasible for a household of single income to stay a float. I'm wondering if the women emancipation is indirectly responsible for that. The rise of women in the work force has effectively doubled the amount of candidates in the job market and hence driven value of labor down.

hashtagsarestupid

Curse those women keeping my labor's value down!

It's very commonly expressed and even more commonly implicitly assumed. It's basically impossible to NOT encounter it.

Never build a character piecemeal out of tropes.

This is an economics question, so Tomu would be best suited to answer it, but it probably isn't so cut-and-dried. The short version is that, while you're increasing the size of the labor market, you're also doing more stuff with all that extra labor, which balances it out at least somewhat.

Nice strawman. But it's worth talking about. There's no denying a single income doesn't go as far as it use too. Note this is the problem with capitalism, not feminism.

edited 24th Apr '12 4:45:09 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid