Twilight
discussion
Are people who dislike Twilight "obsessed" with Twilight?
Mocha Spresso wrote: "For some women, motherhood and the decision to be a stay at home Mom works pretty much the same way. In this day and age, most women know that they have choice and can do other things if they want. There shouldn't be anything wrong with making that choice. It is not yours or feminism's place to automatically assume that someone is unhappy or is making an uninformed choice for themselves if they make a choice that you can't understand or don't agree with."Did feminism shoot your puppies when you were a child? (or maybe take your pink dolls away?)
Alex wrote: Did feminism shoot your puppies when you were a child? (or maybe take your pink dolls away?)"No. My problem isn't with feminism at all. At least, what I think it means to me. It's with the version that is being discussed here which unfairly demeans a woman for the choices that she makes.
WHOA WHOA WHOA. Are we SERIOUSLY judging people for their choices in life?
So what that Mocha Spresso likes pink? Or liked dolls? Or wears heels? Who cares if a girl wants to stay at home and be a housewife? That's her prerogative.
I think you are severely misinterpreting the word feminism, Alex. Feminism is equality between genders. Both a woman and a man should be free to do what they want with their life without someone telling them they are only satisfying a gender role. The fact that people say, "You can't be a housewife! You're a woman and therefore you will be blindly following stereotypes set out by society!" seems like an anti feminist statement in itself.
As a woman and a feminist, I stand by the belief that men and women should be allowed to do whatever they want in their life and be treated like an equal human being because of it. If I wear heels and like pink, am I suddenly the face of all that's wrong with anti-feminism? No.
Men can stay at home. Women can stay at home. There is seriously something wrong with this world if someone is called anti-feminist because they believe women should be allowed to do what they want with their lives.
/endrant.
So what that Mocha Spresso likes pink? Or liked dolls? Or wears heels? Who cares if a girl wants to stay at home and be a housewife? That's her prerogative.
I think you are severely misinterpreting the word feminism, Alex. Feminism is equality between genders. Both a woman and a man should be free to do what they want with their life without someone telling them they are only satisfying a gender role. The fact that people say, "You can't be a housewife! You're a woman and therefore you will be blindly following stereotypes set out by society!" seems like an anti feminist statement in itself.
As a woman and a feminist, I stand by the belief that men and women should be allowed to do whatever they want in their life and be treated like an equal human being because of it. If I wear heels and like pink, am I suddenly the face of all that's wrong with anti-feminism? No.
Men can stay at home. Women can stay at home. There is seriously something wrong with this world if someone is called anti-feminist because they believe women should be allowed to do what they want with their lives.
/endrant.
Kyra wrote: "WHOA WHOA WHOA. Are we SERIOUSLY judging people for their choices in life?So what that Mocha Spresso likes pink? Or liked dolls? Or wears heels? Who cares if a girl wants to stay at home and be a..."
Very well put!
Kyra wrote: "WHOA WHOA WHOA. Are we SERIOUSLY judging people for their choices in life?So what that Mocha Spresso likes pink? Or liked dolls? Or wears heels? Who cares if a girl wants to stay at home and be a..."
great point
I think some of you are misinterpreting what Alex is trying to say. I don't think he's against choosing to be a housewife, he's against being a housewife without knowing all of a woman's options. Being a housewife, or being "feminine," doesn't mean you're a weak pathetic idiot. When did anyone say that?
I don't think that choosing anything makes it okay. Context matters as well. Humanity chose to look down on women for thousands of years, and in those thousands of years women chose to accept it. Does that make it feminist? Does that mean that feminism is just a stupid concept that doesn't really mean anything, since humanity "chose" to do this for so long?
I don't think that choosing anything makes it okay. Context matters as well. Humanity chose to look down on women for thousands of years, and in those thousands of years women chose to accept it. Does that make it feminist? Does that mean that feminism is just a stupid concept that doesn't really mean anything, since humanity "chose" to do this for so long?
Jocelyn wrote: "I think some of you are misinterpreting what Alex is trying to say. I don't think he's against choosing to be a housewife, he's against being a housewife without knowing all of a woman's options. B..."well, but who exactly are these women that y'all are assuming don't know that they don't have to become housewives? we're talking about the present, not the last thousand years, and the US, not pakistan...as you said- context.
also, I don't understand how acceptance equals choice. I think they're two different things. that seems to me to be kind of like trying to equate someone who's bleeding out from an accident coming to accept their impending, unavoidable death and someone who chooses to slit their wrists.
Kirby wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I think some of you are misinterpreting what Alex is trying to say. I don't think he's against choosing to be a housewife, he's against being a housewife without knowing all of a wo..."
I didn't mean to say were talking about history, I simply used it as a comparison.
When I said context, I was talking about how simply using a plot element isn't enough. What matters more is HOW you use that plot element. You have to really examine Bella's situation rather than simply saying, "since she chose it, that makes it okay." I think you misinterpreted this, especially with your comparison to the bleeding thing. I hope I was able to clarify.
I didn't mean to say were talking about history, I simply used it as a comparison.
When I said context, I was talking about how simply using a plot element isn't enough. What matters more is HOW you use that plot element. You have to really examine Bella's situation rather than simply saying, "since she chose it, that makes it okay." I think you misinterpreted this, especially with your comparison to the bleeding thing. I hope I was able to clarify.
Are we saying that Bella doesn't know that she has options to become something other than a housewife, or are we talking women in general?Because Bella wanted to become a teacher because her mother was a teacher. Renee's career was actually the thing Bella respected the most about her mother.
I think she knows it's an option.
As for women in general, it would help to actually know the reasoning behind wanting to become a housewife.
For me, my goals and intentions have nothing to do with making lots of money. I want to create a strong foundation for the future of whatever family I happen to have. From my personal experience, what you have a disorganized house filled with people who don't communicate well at home, and sufficient time is not spent developing anything at home, you lead a disorganized, unbalanced, disjointed life. I'd like to create a strong foundation so any children I have, my potential husband, as well as myself, can further enjoy life outside the home. I'd like to be the one responsible for that.
I figured out what I wanted to do after listening to a line of one of my favorite songs "I've got soul, but I'm not a soldier."
You don't have to be at the forefront getting all the attention and glory in order to be an important person.
I usually think of a tree. You can tell the leaves to strive to be the greenest leaves on the tree, but how green can the leaves possible be if the roots are neglected or damaged?
It really sickens me when people tell me I'm supporting or choosing patriarchy. Who says my potential husband is going to be in charge of me? Because he's making the money? Is your earning potential really what defines your worth?
Or that I'm oppressed because I want to help mold the future, instead of actually being the future. Nobody made me choose this.
There's actually a lot more pressure for me, as a female, to become a professional, just so I can prove myself to men or something; than there is to become a domestic.
Honestly Cassie, I don't know. I'm getting seriously confused.
I don't think anyone said there's anything wrong with being a housewife, or that anyone said people choose to be housewives because they're raised that way. It's more of a hypothetical thing than a solid fact. IF a woman chooses to be a housewife WHILE not knowing all of her options, that's not totally okay, at least for me. Conversely, if a woman chooses to be a housewife while being aware of what else she can do, that's fine.
What I'm going to say next is personal, I'm not speaking for anyone else or refuting anyone's argument. Just as a heads up.
I think all women have equal worth, equal potential to do something great with their lives--and yes, including being a housewife, which is great as well. Just as long as they are aware of that potential, it's awesome to do whatever they want. Again--including being a housewife.
I don't think anyone said there's anything wrong with being a housewife, or that anyone said people choose to be housewives because they're raised that way. It's more of a hypothetical thing than a solid fact. IF a woman chooses to be a housewife WHILE not knowing all of her options, that's not totally okay, at least for me. Conversely, if a woman chooses to be a housewife while being aware of what else she can do, that's fine.
What I'm going to say next is personal, I'm not speaking for anyone else or refuting anyone's argument. Just as a heads up.
I think all women have equal worth, equal potential to do something great with their lives--and yes, including being a housewife, which is great as well. Just as long as they are aware of that potential, it's awesome to do whatever they want. Again--including being a housewife.
Jocelyn wrote: "You have to really examine Bella's situation rather than simply saying, "since she chose it, that makes it okay." I think you misinterpreted this, especially with your comparison to the bleeding thing. I hope I was able to clarify."no, I think that you misunderstood me. I know you were using a comparison- and I'm saying that it's just as applicable as comparing an accident with suicide (i.e., not very).
forgive me if I DID misinterpret, but what it really sounded like to me was that you were trying to compare bella's situation in twilight (the particular female and situation under discussion here) to the women throughout history who "chose" to "accept" their shitty lot in life. I'm saying there's no comparison b/c bella DOES know that she had a choice. I AM looking at bella's situation, and that's why I'm saying that it was a choice- she knew her options and made her choice.
I guess that what I don't understand (as I said) is why you think she didn't know she had choices. she didn't just crawl out from in under a rock.
Kirby wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "You have to really examine Bella's situation rather than simply saying, "since she chose it, that makes it okay." I think you misinterpreted this, especially with your comparison to..."
I was using it to compare the ambiguity of "since it's choice, it's okay" to the ambiguity of "they chose to accept gender inequality, does that make it feminist?" That's all. This statement is much broader than anything to do with Bella.
You're right, she does know that she has options, and she does consider them. I simply felt that the "distraction" or, as it's probably better put as, "other option" of Jacob wasn't substantial enough to truly make the reader feel like she considered everything. To me it felt too rushed, like she didn't consider them enough, rather than not considering them at all. (emphasis on the phrase "to me.")
I was using it to compare the ambiguity of "since it's choice, it's okay" to the ambiguity of "they chose to accept gender inequality, does that make it feminist?" That's all. This statement is much broader than anything to do with Bella.
You're right, she does know that she has options, and she does consider them. I simply felt that the "distraction" or, as it's probably better put as, "other option" of Jacob wasn't substantial enough to truly make the reader feel like she considered everything. To me it felt too rushed, like she didn't consider them enough, rather than not considering them at all. (emphasis on the phrase "to me.")
Cassie wrote: "There's actually a lot more pressure for me, as a female, to become a professional, just so I can prove myself to men or something; than there is to become a domestic. "This part I agree with. I think that you probably face a lot of pressure whatever choice you make in life and doubly so, as a woman, because you have to make choices in a world that's filled with expectations placed on you - of one kind or another - because you're a woman.
I think what baffles me is that so many female posters on this thread find my ideas (for want of a better word) demeaning or degrading. I don't recall at what point I ever said that one shouldn't have the choice of being a housewife and if 1,000 years of history ahd been reversed and women were categorically not allowed to be stay-at-home mums for some reason, I'd be supporting your right to choose to do that, even though, personally I don't think it's a very good or very authentic choice in life (for reasons touched upon earlier about living your life through another person).The issue at hand however is this. You already have the right, the means, the will and the power to be housewives, but forces in society (let's call it "Patriarchy, shall we?") have conspired to make it difficult for you to become other things. yes, the situation has changed since 1950, of course it has and THAT IS AWESOME, and many, many, many, men are onboard with women succeeding in other roles in society as well as women now. But - see my post on socialisation and the dreaded colour pink - there are still structures setup in society that are defining the type of person a woman is likely to become and pushing her in certain directions to make certain choices.
Is this really so difficult to read without getting blind angry? I really don't see this as insulting to anyone. Go ahead, be a housewife, live your life the way you want to live it ... but also make an effort to understand how structures in society control people so you can help change these structures in the future, for your daughters (and sons), so you can be certain that if they choose to follow in your footsteps of housewifery they're doing it for the right and considered reasons, and not because you gave them pink swathes, dolls and Twilight. (By all means, give them Twilight to read, and Disney movies to watch but eh, maybe discuss gender roleing in the book/movie with them?)
Jocelyn wrote: I was using it to compare the ambiguity of "since it's choice, it's okay" to the ambiguity of "they chose to accept gender inequality, does that make it feminist?" That's all. This statement is much broader than anything to do with Bella.You're right, she does know that she has options, and she does consider them. I simply felt that the "distraction" or, as it's probably better put as, "other option" of Jacob wasn't substantial enough to truly make the reader feel like she considered everything. To me it felt too rushed, like she didn't consider them enough, rather than not considering them at all. (emphasison the phrase "to me.")
Jacob wasn't her only choice or option, though. She could have dated Tyler or Mike or any of the other boys at Forks HS that liked her. She just wasn't interested in them. I think Bella did know her options. I can understand faulting Bella for choosing to be with a vampire and wanting to become one herself...that's clearly not a "good" choice. I can even understand faulting her for becoming so wrapped up in Edward that she completely falls apart when he leaves. Could she have chosen "better" in several instances? I certainly think so....but better is in quotes because the whole point was that Bella wanted to be the one who chooses what she thinks is best for her.
Alex wrote: "I think what baffles me is that so many female posters on this thread find my ideas (for want of a better word) demeaning or degrading. I don't recall at what point I ever said that one shouldn't ..."You and the other person (Jocelyn?) did imply it initially. You backtracked when others took offense and claimed that it wasn't your intention....but that is exactly how it initially came across to me. You say that wasn't what you were trying to imply. I'll take you at your word.
But then you go on to write this.....
Alex wrote: "Is this really so difficult to read without getting blind angry? I really don't see this as insulting to anyone. Go ahead, be a housewife, live your life the way you want to live it ... but also make an effort to uinderstand how structures in society control people so you can help change things for the future, for your daughters (and sons) so you can be certain that if they choose to follow in your footsteps of housewifery they're doing it for the right and considered reasons, and not because you gave them pink swathes, dolls and Twilight. (By all means, give them Twilight to read, and Disney movies to watch but eh, maybe discuss gender roleing in the book/movie with them?) ..."
There it is again....the presumption that a woman who chooses that life for herself may be doing so for the "wrong reasons". Choosing to be ANYTHING for the wrong reasons is what is bad. No one ever faults a woman for having dreams of becoming a doctor (even when she is only doing it because she comes from a long line of doctors and it is expected of her to continue the family tradition)...but they do try to fault her for wanting to be a housewife instead of a doctor. I don't like any societal structure that doesn't value all women equally and I don't like one that places more value on women with careers and demeans women that choose to forgo a career in favor of raising their families. I don't like societal structures that tell housewives that "they can do so much more..." as if to say that what they are doing isn't important or is somehow less than or beneath what a career woman is doing.
btw, I don't think anyone is blind angry. I thought this was a rather calm discussion compared to others I've seen about Twilight on Goodreads.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Choosing to be ANYTHING for the wrong reasons is what is bad. No one ever faults a woman for having dreams of becoming a doctor (even when she is only doing it because she comes from a long line of doctors and it is expected of her to continue the family tradition."
I think you misunderstood me. I said that if she was only being a doctor because her family were all doctors I'd still encourage her to see beyond that. Personally she wouldn't have to consider as much, but that's just my opinion, not a statement of fact.
I think you misunderstood me. I said that if she was only being a doctor because her family were all doctors I'd still encourage her to see beyond that. Personally she wouldn't have to consider as much, but that's just my opinion, not a statement of fact.
Jocelyn wrote: I think you misunderstood me. I said that if she was only being a doctor because her family were all doctors I'd still encourage her to see beyond that. Personally she wouldn't have to consider as much, but that's just my opinion, not a statement of fact.Before I misunderstand you any further, I will just ask....what exactly do you mean by "she wouldn't have to consider as much"?
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: I think you misunderstood me. I said that if she was only being a doctor because her family were all doctors I'd still encourage her to see beyond that. Personally she wouldn't have ..."
I'm not sure exactly how to word this in both ways so that 1) no one is offended, and 2) to perfectly communicate what I'm trying to say. So anyway, please excuse it if I accidentally imply anything you or anyone else doesn't like.
Anyway...I know this won't fly with you too well. What I mean by "not considering as much" is that she doesn't need to be as careful when considering what she truly wants. It may be just me. I've always felt that someone who was raised in that way would be...more likely? that's the word I'll use...more likely to be aware of her options.
I do not mean to imply that someone raised as a housewife is stupider than someone who is not, or anything like that, so please, to you or anyone else reading this, do not take it like that.
I'm not sure exactly how to word this in both ways so that 1) no one is offended, and 2) to perfectly communicate what I'm trying to say. So anyway, please excuse it if I accidentally imply anything you or anyone else doesn't like.
Anyway...I know this won't fly with you too well. What I mean by "not considering as much" is that she doesn't need to be as careful when considering what she truly wants. It may be just me. I've always felt that someone who was raised in that way would be...more likely? that's the word I'll use...more likely to be aware of her options.
I do not mean to imply that someone raised as a housewife is stupider than someone who is not, or anything like that, so please, to you or anyone else reading this, do not take it like that.
Jocelyn wrote: I'm not sure exactly how to word this in both ways so that 1) no one is offended, and 2) to perfectly communicate what I'm trying to say. So anyway, please excuse it if I accidentally imply anything you or anyone else doesn't like.Anyway...I know this won't fly with you too well. What I mean by "not considering as much" is that she doesn't need to be as careful when considering what she truly wants. It may be just me. I've always felt that someone who was raised in that way would be...more likely? that's the word I'll use...more likely to be aware of her options.
I do not mean to imply that someone raised as a housewife is stupider than someone who is not, or anything like that, so please, to you or anyone else reading this, do not take it like that."
The only reason that this doesn't fly with me because I've never found that to be the case among the vast majority of women that I've ever encountered, professional/careerwoman or housewife. Actually, most of the women that I have encountered in my lifetime are or have been both. I also have known quite a few men in this present economy who are at home doing the housewife thing while their wives are the ones who work. So you are right in the statement that this is just your opinion and not a statement of fact.
Jocelyn wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: I think you misunderstood me. I said that if she was only being a doctor because her family were all doctors I'd still encourage her to see beyond that. Persona..."You may not mean to imply it, but the implication is certainly there. It appears to me that you are trying to word your posts so you sound politically correct instead of owning your opinion.
Alex wrote: "I think what baffles me is that so many female posters on this thread find my ideas (for want of a better word) demeaning or degrading. I don't recall at what point I ever said that one shouldn't have the choice of being a housewife ... even though, personally I don't think it's a very good or very authentic choice in life (for reasons touched upon earlier about living your life through another person)."You can choose whichever ice cream flavor you want, Alex. I'm not saying you can't. But just so you know, I'll look down on you if you choose chocolate.
There are parts of America where women are still expected to stay home and care for the family. Or if they do work, it should be a sensible job for a woman, one where they can be home in time to cook dinner. It is a terrible truth that the feminist movement has been trying to change for decades.
I agree with you wholeheartedly when you talk of eradicating the patriarchal conditioning still present within our system of society. What I cannot abide by is the further notion that any woman choosing (actually choosing, not being forced into some gender role) a stay-at-home life is inauthentic.
I've been thinking over your words to me since you posted them, wondering if you were right and I was just being overly sensitive to something that meant no harm. But the truth is this is an emotional subject. Words hold power. They can wound and they can heal. They can motivate and they can discourage. Your use of "inauthentic" is no different. It's not just a word. It's a well-placed bullet.
You say it isn't a question of worth, but I can't see how it could be taken any other way. Your statement that a woman can choose to be anything she wishes just before you say a housewife holds little weight with you says as much. You may respect a woman's choice to be a housewife, but you find that choice of little to no worth. Inauthentic.
"So choice. What chance do you have of making an informed choice about your life if everything in society is telling you "you're a girl, you'll be a mum and that's a good choice." ... What I'm trying to say is that it's not choice of the scales are tipped towards you making that choice. "
A child grows up in an athletic family, swims like the father and plays tennis like the mother. The child is expected, by all intents and purposes, to continue on in the parents' legacies. Now, the child loves swimming and loves tennis, but is it authentic? Was there not conditioning involved throughout the upbringing?
I do not disagree with you, Alex. Women, and everyone else, are conditioned by TV commercials, family traditions, religious values, etc., etc., so on and so forth. That does not mean, however, that a choice to be a mother and wife is uninformed or inauthentic.
Choices are influenced by so many different things: personal experiences, circumstances, expectations, upbringing. But just because the odds are weighed toward a certain outcome does not mean it's wrong. It does not mean it's uninformed. It does not mean it's inauthentic.
Take the child who chooses sports because sports are what this child has grown up with. In school, science, math, reading, drama, music, and art are taught. Other children go on and on about space camp, Harry Potter and other books, political internships, parents' careers, and the community playhouse musical. The exposure leads to curiosity, which leads to research and in some cases experimentation. When the child later considers what life would be like outside of sports and realizes that it would lead to a very unhappy existence, the decision is not uninformed. Nor is that of a housewife or mother for many women.
You've said several times that we should not live life for other people, but why is that a bad thing? Is the father who works a miserable 9-5 not doing so to give his family a good life? Yes, but he gets immense joy from watching his children go off to school dressed to the nines, with all the best supplies. The woman who devotes her life to God gives everything she is and everything she has to people in need. She does so out of duty, but also because it brings her happiness. And the wife who cooks dinner for her husband, teaches her children life-lessons, gives herself to building a happy home, the woman who chose this life does so for herself as well as for those she cares for.
Dorothy wrote: "Alex wrote: "I think what baffles me is that so many female posters on this thread find my ideas (for want of a better word) demeaning or degrading. I don't recall at what point I ever said that on..."I want to stand up and clap. Excellent post!
Angie wrote: "I want to stand up and clap. Excellent post! "Awe, thanks! *blushes*
You can choose whichever ice cream flavor you want, Alex. I'm not saying you can't. But just so you know, I'll look down on you if you choose chocolate.I think that life decisions are maybe a bit more lasting and permanent than your favourite dessert. Also, I’ve expressed reasons as to why I’ve said what I did, this phrase just arbitrarily chooses chocolate.
So no, that analogy doesn’t work.
There are parts of America where women are still expected to stay home and care for the family. Or if they do work, it should be a sensible job for a woman, one where they can be home in time to cook dinner. It is a terrible truth that the feminist movement has been trying to change for decades.
I’ve been trying to open up and broaden this conversation away from 50s housewifery a little bit but some people – yourself included - seem to be a little stuck on the point. I’ve already expressed an awareness that the world has moved on since 1950 and that a lot of women are making informed and relevant choices and that this is a good thing. I think, however, that a) a lot of men and a lot of female supporters would like to see a return to good ole family values (Sarah Palin, Stephanie Meyer, Mitt Romney etc) and that these voices are very powerful within society. I initially expressed displeasure at the idea that kids were being taught to value this option within schools because I fear a lurch to the right, because I’m well aware that this sentiment still exists in society. I think, also, although many more women are career women now that you under-rate the myriad ways that notions of motherhood and housewifery create glass-ceilings for women in society.
I agree with you wholeheartedly when you talk of eradicating the patriarchal conditioning still present within our system of society. What I cannot abide by is the further notion that any woman choosing (actually choosing, not being forced into some gender role) a stay-at-home life is inauthentic.
Which, of course, is not quite what I said and despite repeated attempts by myself and Jocelyn to explain my meaning, you don’t seem to be picking up.
I've been thinking over your words to me since you posted them, wondering if you were right and I was just being overly sensitive to something that meant no harm. But the truth is this is an emotional subject. Words hold power. They can wound and they can heal. They can motivate and they can discourage. Your use of "inauthentic" is no different. It's not just a word. It's a well-placed bullet.
If I outline to you exactly how I’m using the word inauthentic – non-emotively - and you still insist on giving it a massive emotional charge then I have little place left to go in this conversation. I’m glad that you allowed yourself to calm down because it’s much more enjoyable talking to you when you’re not in a rage – but this still makes no sense to me. If it’s a bullet, I must seriously be firing blanks.
Look, not to throw pretentious names around but I feel like I’m trying to do justice to the work of great thinkers like Virginia Woolf and Simone de Beauvoir, whom I pretty much idolise and I think they’d roughly agree with what I’m saying. They might tell me that I express myself appallingly, or that I’ve got this and that wrong and my argument seriously needs clarification, but I think if I were in a coffeehouse with them (would that I could) we’d be on the same wavelength and it would be a really good cup of coffee. I’m going to hide behind their names because I consider them to be intellectual geniuses and I think they’d despise Stephanie Meyer and everything she stands for ...
My point being, you continue to rely on this argument emotionally which others have approached intellectually to much greater success. Whether you think their ideas are outdated now, I think you owe it to them, as great feminists (since you don’t think you owe it to me as someone who you’re persistently arguing with) to meet their arguments/thoughts head on and to further them, not just dismiss them as rude. They’re bona fide geniuses afterall – we’re not.
You say it isn't a question of worth, but I can't see how it could be taken any other way. Your statement that a woman can choose to be anything she wishes just before you say a housewife holds little weight with you says as much. You may respect a woman's choice to be a housewife, but you find that choice of little to no worth. Inauthentic.
I don’t particularly respect the choice on a personal level, but then there are a lot of “choices” I don’t respect and think are poor for other reasons. I don’t respect people who become bankers, stockbrokers, marketers and advertising agents etc. I do respect Doctors, Nurses, Health Professionals Researchers, Academics, Charity Workers, any number of public workers etc etc. Go ahead, tell me that all the people in the first group are happy people and made their choices willingly, that’s fine and I’ll still say I’d rather those people chose to do things within the second group but I respect their right to make that choice. Actually, to be brutally honest, I personally like housewifery far more than stock broking or banking.
But none of this has absolutely anything to do with the arguments I’ve been making. What does it really matter whether I like housewifery or not? To you, or anyone else who is taking offense in this thread. Categorically , personally am not going to become emotionally attached/involved or to marry a woman who says to me “I want to be a housewife” and that’s that, and it’s my problem and not yours, surely? I had conversations with my now-ex about this and she, equally would have been horrified at the thought of being financially dependant on me, not developing herself to her full abilities or doing little more with her life than cleaning a house (no, we didn’t split up over this issue haw haw). But, as a couple that was our choice and I’m not demanding that you make it. I’m not saying that it’s the wrong choice if it’s the right choice for you. What I am saying, and I’ll say it again in bold for you is
It’s the wrong choice if it is not a well informed choice and I believe that the patriarchy does the best it can to tilt the scales towards that choice not being informed. Simple
A child grows up in an athletic family, swims like the father and plays tennis like the mother. The child is expected, by all intents and purposes, to continue on in the parents' legacies. Now, the child loves swimming and loves tennis, but is it authentic? Was there not conditioning involved throughout the upbringing?
Yes there’s conditioning involved. If he’s playing tennis as his parent’s dream then it’s pretty inauthentic. If he’s been brought up to have a broader education and options then it might be an authentic decision.
I do not disagree with you, Alex. Women, and everyone else, are conditioned by TV commercials, family traditions, religious values, etc., etc., so on and so forth. That does not mean, however, that a choice to be a mother and wife is uninformed or inauthentic.
Choices are influenced by so many different things: personal experiences, circumstances, expectations, upbringing. But just because the odds are weighed toward a certain outcome does not mean it's wrong. It does not mean it's uninformed. It does not mean it's inauthentic.
Well, yes, it does mean it’s inauthentic because you’re making choices at the behest of someone or something else. That’s what I mean by inauthenticity. Rather than fighting against words that sound like bullets, we should be wondering how we break free from making inauthentic choices, surely? If you think that housewifery as a choice can be made authentically then argue for that, but not off of the back of Stephanie Meyer because Bella’s the epitome of an inauthentic heroine and Meyer can’t write for shit... unless I suppose you can explain to me how Bella is really awesome.
Take the child who chooses sports because sports are what this child has grown up with. In school, science, math, reading, drama, music, and art are taught. Other children go on and on about space camp, Harry Potter and other books, political internships, parents' careers, and the community playhouse musical. The exposure leads to curiosity, which leads to research and in some cases experimentation. When the child later considers what life would be like outside of sports and realizes that it would lead to a very unhappy existence, the decision is not uninformed. Nor is that of a housewife or mother for many women.
I can’t decipher that there’s a point in this paragraph. Many women choose to live their life through another authentically because, according to you, some of them do. Ok.
You've said several times that we should not live life for other people, but why is that a bad thing? Is the father who works a miserable 9-5 not doing so to give his family a good life? Yes, but he gets immense joy from watching his children go off to school dressed to the nines, with all the best supplies. The woman who devotes her life to God gives everything she is and everything she has to people in need. She does so out of duty, but also because it brings her happiness. And the wife who cooks dinner for her husband, teaches her children life-lessons, gives herself to building a happy home, the woman who chose this life does so for herself as well as for those she cares for.
This is very circular. You didn’t respond to the last post that I made regarding the unsuitability of using the concept of “subjective happiness” to define what is right. It’s too problematic.
Alex wrote: Categorically , personally am not going to become emotionally attached/involved or to marry a woman who says to me “I want to be a housewife” and that’s that, and it’s my problem and not yours, surely? I had conversations with my now-ex about this and she, equally would have been horrified at the thought of being financially dependant on me, not developing herself to her full abilities or doing little more with her life than cleaning a house (no, we didn’t split up over this issue haw haw). But, as a couple that was our choice and I’m not demanding that you make it. I’m not saying that it’s the wrong choice if it’s the right choice for you. What I am saying, and I’ll say it again in bold for you isIt’s the wrong choice if it is not a well informed choice and I believe that the patriarchy does the best it can to tilt the scales towards that choice not being informed."
What offends me is the assumption that she is not developing herself to her fullest abilities (as if the only place that this can be done is in the workplace) and that she does little more with her life than clean house. (As if that is all that a housewife does....)
I don't care how one tries to sugar coat those words with empty caveats and disclaimers... you clearly hold housewives in low regard. I think this statement demeans housewives and it doesn't represent the view of feminism that I have or would like to be associated with.
Angie wrote: "You may not mean to imply it, but the implication is certainly there. It appears to me that you are trying to word your posts so you sound politically correct instead of owning your opinion."
Maybe that's true, Angie. It's kind of hard for me, I'm still trying to get the hang of properly wording my comments. I'm trying to be as safe as possible, since in the past I've stated my opinion, and called out for accidentally insulting someone. Then I've realized I need to be more careful.
I'm going to try not to sound too whiny--and this is not directed at anyone, it's just a general statement--it seems that whenever I try to "own" my opinion, as you put it, there's something insulting about it. SOMETHING. No matter how hard I try to be civil, there's SOMETHING rude and offensive with what I say. Or I state my opinion, and I'm asked why everyone needs to bow down to my opinion, as though I'd misworded my opinions to sound like facts (which I probably did in many cases). So that's why I may come off that way. But hey, practice makes perfect :)
Though I do have to ask, Angie (and this is out of curiosity, I promise I'm not trying to be rude or anything)--if I clearly do not mean to imply it, then what's the point of pointing it out? I mean, if I were unclear about what I was implying, and someone asked me to clarify, sure--but I truly can't see any purpose in calling someone out for possibly implying something they most likely did not mean to imply.
Hope that clarified a bit. I'm still working on it. XD
Maybe that's true, Angie. It's kind of hard for me, I'm still trying to get the hang of properly wording my comments. I'm trying to be as safe as possible, since in the past I've stated my opinion, and called out for accidentally insulting someone. Then I've realized I need to be more careful.
I'm going to try not to sound too whiny--and this is not directed at anyone, it's just a general statement--it seems that whenever I try to "own" my opinion, as you put it, there's something insulting about it. SOMETHING. No matter how hard I try to be civil, there's SOMETHING rude and offensive with what I say. Or I state my opinion, and I'm asked why everyone needs to bow down to my opinion, as though I'd misworded my opinions to sound like facts (which I probably did in many cases). So that's why I may come off that way. But hey, practice makes perfect :)
Though I do have to ask, Angie (and this is out of curiosity, I promise I'm not trying to be rude or anything)--if I clearly do not mean to imply it, then what's the point of pointing it out? I mean, if I were unclear about what I was implying, and someone asked me to clarify, sure--but I truly can't see any purpose in calling someone out for possibly implying something they most likely did not mean to imply.
Hope that clarified a bit. I'm still working on it. XD
I do have to point out something. I just can't help it.
When Alex said he had a problem with housewifery (I'm paraphrasing here, so it's not going to have the same connotation as Alex's words do), he made it clear that it was personal. Basically...so what if Alex doesn't respect housewifery? Who cares? It's his personal preference, not a concept he's trying to force on anyone. It's not like he's saying, IF YOU ARE A HOUSEWIFE YOU ARE A DUMBASS, AND THAT'S THAT. If you don't like that...well...what's the point in living a life if you're constantly worrying or being annoyed by just ONE person out of seven billion people on the planet saying that he doesn't like housewifery? It's just his own thing, his own problem, his own opinion. He's basically saying that no one needs to care, and even more, that no one should. It's because he views it as a simple personal preference that he approaches that so carelessly, and because everyone else takes it as an attack on their view that they take it so seriously. As best as I can see, at least.
When Alex said he had a problem with housewifery (I'm paraphrasing here, so it's not going to have the same connotation as Alex's words do), he made it clear that it was personal. Basically...so what if Alex doesn't respect housewifery? Who cares? It's his personal preference, not a concept he's trying to force on anyone. It's not like he's saying, IF YOU ARE A HOUSEWIFE YOU ARE A DUMBASS, AND THAT'S THAT. If you don't like that...well...what's the point in living a life if you're constantly worrying or being annoyed by just ONE person out of seven billion people on the planet saying that he doesn't like housewifery? It's just his own thing, his own problem, his own opinion. He's basically saying that no one needs to care, and even more, that no one should. It's because he views it as a simple personal preference that he approaches that so carelessly, and because everyone else takes it as an attack on their view that they take it so seriously. As best as I can see, at least.
Jocelyn wrote: "I do have to point out something. I just can't help it.When Alex said he had a problem with housewifery (I'm paraphrasing here, so it's not going to have the same connotation as Alex's words do),..."
The whole point of a discussion forum is for people to voice their opinions and often, people will not agree. He's free to express his personal opinion just like anyone else and anyone is free to counter it if they feel so inclined. That is pretty much all there is to it.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I do have to point out something. I just can't help it.
When Alex said he had a problem with housewifery (I'm paraphrasing here, so it's not going to have the same connotation as A..."
What I meant was that it was a completely personal level. It didn't really have anything to do with the discussion at all, in terms of arguing whether this or that was feminist or not. I don't think it was meant as a topic for argument, it was just a "by the way, I don't like housewifery, whatever." In my view it was more of personal preference, instead of an opinion and topic of argument. Which is why Alex's and you as well as anyone else arguing with him's approaches to it is so different.
When Alex said he had a problem with housewifery (I'm paraphrasing here, so it's not going to have the same connotation as A..."
What I meant was that it was a completely personal level. It didn't really have anything to do with the discussion at all, in terms of arguing whether this or that was feminist or not. I don't think it was meant as a topic for argument, it was just a "by the way, I don't like housewifery, whatever." In my view it was more of personal preference, instead of an opinion and topic of argument. Which is why Alex's and you as well as anyone else arguing with him's approaches to it is so different.
I think the best thing to do is to just say what you have to say. It's almost impossible to not offend someone when you're discussing beliefs. You don't have to feel guilty for offending anyone, and you certainly don't have to walk on eggshells, really not saying what you're trying to say, just to avoid it. But I think what should be done is acknowledging that you have offended someone, whether you intended to or not. Instead of the "No, you misunderstood me" or "no, you don't get it" (unless it's genuinely true. There is a difference.) or "No, your emotional reaction to what I'm saying is unwarranted". (I think that's the worse one)
And in return, don't be afraid to tell someone else when you feel offended in return.
I think that's a lot more civil than tiptoeing around the point. As long as you're truly respectful about it, and respectful toward how people react to it.
I think a lot of conversations would go by a lot more smoothly if people were just straight forward.
It's a love/hate relationship with me...
Mocha Spresso wrote: "I don't care how one tries to sugar coat those words with empty caveats and disclaimers... you clearly hold housewives in low regard. I think this statement demeans housewives and it doesn't represent the view of feminism that I have or would like to be associated with. "
I think that no matter what I write you're going to come back with some variation on "it's offensive that you said housewives suck" or something.
I didn't say that I hold housewives in "low regard". The one term I used earlier in this debate was "layabout stayathomemums" in a rhetorical sense to indicate that, in my eyes, the education system could encourage women to be so much should they wish, and that particular wording I think I would change now. I don't hold them in "low regard" I said - repeatedly - that a) I think it's an inauthentic choice because it involves living your life vicariously through others and b) it's a lifestyle "choice" that is often inauthentic because women are gendered into motherhood and housewife roles from a young age (although I accept this reality has altered a little in the last 20 years, it still remains oddly potent).
So there you have it. Shall we go around in circles again?
Cassie wrote: "I think a lot of conversations would go by a lot more smoothly if people were just straight forward."
I don't know. Maybe it's worked out for you, but all the times I was straightforward (and I'm not talking about this thread in particular, just the Internet in general), there was SOME tiny little word that was horribly offensive, oftentimes something that had little to nothing to do with the main point I was trying to get across, then there'd be another tangent arguing about it.
Sometimes I just feel like I can't post a single comment on the Internet without being scolded for what I dislike and like. It's what supports an argument people generally oppose, not the main opinion. For example, if you were debating which was better, Twilight or Harry Potter, you shouldn't be offended because they don't like Harry Potter. Conversely, you COULD be offended by a reason they used to back up their dislike for it.
In my view, whether Alex likes or dislikes housewifery seems as trivial as someone's personal preference to ice cream. He's not using his personal preference to argue anything, nor is he trying to impress it upon anyone. Whether or not housewifery is authentic--that's a totally different matter altogether. THEN I could see someone getting offended, even if I disagree with them. But in this case...he just doesn't like it. Is that so horribly offensive? It's a simple statement of "oh, by the way, I don't like this." Kind of like, "oh, by the way, I don't like chocolate." And then: "GAAAAR you offended me because what the hell is wrong with chocolate?" Answer: "I just don't like chocolate, that's all."
I don't know. Maybe it's worked out for you, but all the times I was straightforward (and I'm not talking about this thread in particular, just the Internet in general), there was SOME tiny little word that was horribly offensive, oftentimes something that had little to nothing to do with the main point I was trying to get across, then there'd be another tangent arguing about it.
Sometimes I just feel like I can't post a single comment on the Internet without being scolded for what I dislike and like. It's what supports an argument people generally oppose, not the main opinion. For example, if you were debating which was better, Twilight or Harry Potter, you shouldn't be offended because they don't like Harry Potter. Conversely, you COULD be offended by a reason they used to back up their dislike for it.
In my view, whether Alex likes or dislikes housewifery seems as trivial as someone's personal preference to ice cream. He's not using his personal preference to argue anything, nor is he trying to impress it upon anyone. Whether or not housewifery is authentic--that's a totally different matter altogether. THEN I could see someone getting offended, even if I disagree with them. But in this case...he just doesn't like it. Is that so horribly offensive? It's a simple statement of "oh, by the way, I don't like this." Kind of like, "oh, by the way, I don't like chocolate." And then: "GAAAAR you offended me because what the hell is wrong with chocolate?" Answer: "I just don't like chocolate, that's all."
Jocelyn wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I do have to point out something. I just can't help it.When Alex said he had a problem with housewifery (I'm paraphrasing here, so it's not going to have the..."
Conversations often snowball, evolve, get sidetracked or whatever. I understand that and I am fine with it. My voicing my opinions is no more a personal attack that him voicing his is.
No worries. I don't like some of his views....but that's my choice and I can respectfully say so if I feel so inclined and state my reasons why. We don't have to agree and we don't have to end this holding hands with Barney and singing happy songs. Life will be fine either way.
Mocha Spersso wrote: "I don't like some of his views....but that's my choice and I can respectfully say so if I feel so inclined and state my reasons why. We don't have to agree and we don't have to end this holding hands with Barney and singing happy songs. Life will be fine either way."
I misinterpreted you, then. I thought you took it as a personal attack, when in fact you just meant, "whatever, I like housewifery, you don't, that's fine." I'd just like to clarify...am I right in that?
I misinterpreted you, then. I thought you took it as a personal attack, when in fact you just meant, "whatever, I like housewifery, you don't, that's fine." I'd just like to clarify...am I right in that?
Jocelyn wrote: "Mocha Spersso wrote: "I don't like some of his views....but that's my choice and I can respectfully say so if I feel so inclined and state my reasons why. We don't have to agree and we don't have t..."Personal attack? No. I do take offense to his views on being a housewife....but I won't loose sleep over it if that is what you are asking.
Jocelyn wrote: "I misinterpreted you, then. I thought you took it as a personal attack, when in fact you just meant, "whatever, I like housewifery, you don't, that's fine." I'd just like to clarify...am I right in that? "I think what I find a little bit odd in this conversation is that it keeps swinging back and forth between disagreement and offense. Both Dorothy and Mocha want me to take their views seriously on an intellectual level, but every time I try to move the conversation into that sphere they come back at me with "you're being offensive". The problem I have - and have repeatedly stated - is that emotional discourse doesn't sit very well beside intellectual discourse. It's not really relevant to the conversation whether I've offended housewives around the globe with my viewpoint or not ... if one is to hold an intellectually radical position - which feminism once was and is still considered to be by most males and large swatches of women - then one is necessarily going to offend some people by saying "eh, you're doing it wrong....I think" To respond with "Out, out, you've offended me" is the weakest way to counter what someone is saying, but it's also the quickest way just to get rid of a controversial idea and to stamp it out.
Alex wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I misinterpreted you, then. I thought you took it as a personal attack, when in fact you just meant, "whatever, I like housewifery, you don't, that's fine." I'd just like to clarify..."
Yeah, maybe everyone's taking offense left and right because in this discussion, disagreement and offense have been used interchangeably (myself included, I'm a little ashamed to admit). "I disagree with that." "I'm offended!" "Dude, that's not what I meant!" "I'm still offended!" "That's not the point!" etc....
Yeah, maybe everyone's taking offense left and right because in this discussion, disagreement and offense have been used interchangeably (myself included, I'm a little ashamed to admit). "I disagree with that." "I'm offended!" "Dude, that's not what I meant!" "I'm still offended!" "That's not the point!" etc....
Alex wrote: I think that no matter what I write you're going to come back with some variation on "it's offensive that you said housewives suck" or something.I didn't say that I hold housewives in "low regard". The one term I used earlier in this debate was "layabout stayathomemums" in a rhetorical sense to indicate that, in my eyes, the education system could encourage women to be so much should they wish, and that particular wording I think I would change now. I don't hold them in "low regard" I said - repeatedly - that a) I think it's an inauthentic choice because it involves living your life vicariously through others and b) it's a lifestyle "choice" that is often inauthentic because women are gendered into motherhood and housewife roles from a young age (although I accept this reality has altered a little in the last 20 years, it still remains oddly potent).
So there you have it. Shall we go around in circles again? "
No need to go in circles. I disagree that it is an inauthentic choice that involves living one's life vicariously through others. I vehemently disagree with that. As to women being gendered into motherhood, possibly.....but then, aren't men equally gendered into being fathers? Seems to me that people in general are "conditioned" into being PARENTS and their sex isn't really as important in 2012 as some are still trying to make it out to be. Especially considering the fact that we now have same sex couples raising children.
Mocha Spresso wrote: ".....but then, aren't men equally gendered into being fathers?"
I think the difference is that men, especially when you look back at history, have always had so much more freedom than women. It's true that the idea that having power and freedom, along with responsibility, is instantly better than staying at home, might be slightly biased.
If you do look back at history...Susan B. Anthony got arrested for voting after the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified. If a father decided to stay home for a bit, would he get arrested? I agree with you in that--I mean, let's say a man was unsatisfied with all the responsibility that came along with his freedoms and rights. However, he still has the choice to not do so. He has so many more options than a woman. He could do his own thing if he wanted. I know we're talking about the present, not the past, but I think history is part of the reason why we never think of men's gender roles in general, mostly women's.
I think the difference is that men, especially when you look back at history, have always had so much more freedom than women. It's true that the idea that having power and freedom, along with responsibility, is instantly better than staying at home, might be slightly biased.
If you do look back at history...Susan B. Anthony got arrested for voting after the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified. If a father decided to stay home for a bit, would he get arrested? I agree with you in that--I mean, let's say a man was unsatisfied with all the responsibility that came along with his freedoms and rights. However, he still has the choice to not do so. He has so many more options than a woman. He could do his own thing if he wanted. I know we're talking about the present, not the past, but I think history is part of the reason why we never think of men's gender roles in general, mostly women's.
How about I just cut to the chase....I think housewives and career-women are equals. I don't value one over the other. I don't think one choice is particularly better than another. I don't think that choosing to be a housewife is an inauthentic choice that the woman was gendered into making. I don't think that this choice displays any lack of ambition on her part or that she is not capable of reaching her highest potential. Mainly because to me "highest potential" is a rather vague and subjective term that means much more than what career one chooses and much more than how much money one makes. I fully realize that housewives do much more that just clean house and I think most women in 2012 who make that choice are primarily doing it because they have decided that it is the best thing for their particular family and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Well, i have officially lost power due to sandy. Its been an interesting chat but i have to conserve battery power for now. check you guys later.
Jocelyn wrote: "Angie wrote: "You may not mean to imply it, but the implication is certainly there. It appears to me that you are trying to word your posts so you sound politically correct instead of owning your o..."I mean no respect to you either, Jocelyn. I point it out because if the implication is there, then it's obviously the way you feel. If it wasn't, there would be no need to include the comment at all.
You're continuously backtracking so as to not offend anyone instead of just giving your opinion, and the fact of the matter is that you're going to offend people. My guess is that most of the time it's going to be unintentional, but it's going to happen. (And I don't mean just on this thread, but in life in general.)
It's those comments that seep into the conversation that reveal what someone is really thinking as opposed to how they're trying to 'cloak' the views they think won't be received well.
My point is...if the implication is there, then so are the feelings. No matter how it's worded.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Well, i have officially lost power due to sandy. Its been an interesting chat but i have to conserve battery power for now. check you guys later."Hope you come through it okay!
Mocha Spresso wrote: "No need to go in circles. I disagree that it is an inauthentic choice that involves living one's life vicariously through others. I vehemently disagree with that. As to women being gendered into motherhood, possibly.....but then, aren't men equally gendered into being fathers? Seems to me that people in general are "conditioned" into being PARENTS and their sex isn't really as important in 2012 as some are still trying to make it out to be. Especially considering the fact that we now have same sex couples raising children. "Why yes I do think that males are conditioned, although as Jocelyn points out I think the nature of that conditioning is somewhat different since men are brought up to be leaders, movers and shakers. They are career men first and parents second, even today. One of the things that first got me interested in feminism was this awareness that my life was being controlled, I was expected to play out this masculine "type" and didn't feel entirely comfortable with it.
I get the impression that people want to believe that this issue isn't relevant in 2012. I don't really understand the willingness to believe that these issues have completely gone away ... times have certainly changed but if you've not noticed that the career ceiling for woman is significantly lower for women than men then you're not looking very hard. Added to that countless poor representations of the diversity of women in media and so on, again, I struggle to see how you can't be frustrated by how women are negatively perceived (often they are stupid or sexual or second fiddle)or wonder what damage this could do?
I wonder if young girls latch onto Twilight because at least Bella is a girl and the novel takes place in her head. Even if she's a negative representation she's still a woman and it gives girls something to identify with. For all its strengths even Harry Potter has a male protagonist and Hermione gets a little sidelined plotwise. I don't know all that much about YA fiction in general though ...
Alex wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "No need to go in circles. I disagree that it is an inauthentic choice that involves living one's life vicariously through others. I vehemently disagree with that. As to women ..."I didn't notice anyone here that thinks the poor representation of women in the media is not a problem.
It's just that you seem to belittle some types of women (housewives) in order to raise up some other types of women (career women).
I mean I get how traditional choices are thrust upon women and therefore it is more likely they are choosing it because of conditioning, societal norms, etc. But you make it sound like it's actually wrong to choose such traditional choices because they haven't tried or looked for all options. Women (or people in general) can make their own decisions and they shouldn't be belittled for that.
It doesn't matter if you personally prefer career women to housewives, but when you are speaking as a feminist you're gonna get called out by other feminists or women on the stances that they find problematic.
Radical feminism is not without its problems and it's also important to address that.
Angie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Angie wrote: "You may not mean to imply it, but the implication is certainly there. It appears to me that you are trying to word your posts so you sound politically correct instead ..."
I took down my old comment...anyway, I see what you mean. :)
I took down my old comment...anyway, I see what you mean. :)
Alex wrote: "I didn't say that I hold housewives in "low regard". The one term I used earlier in this debate was "layabout stayathomemums" in a rhetorical sense to indicate that, in my eyes, the education system could encourage women to be so much should they wish, and that particular wording I think I would change now. I don't hold them in "low regard" I said - repeatedly - that a) I think it's an inauthentic choice because it involves living your life vicariously through others and b) it's a lifestyle "choice" that is often inauthentic because women are gendered into motherhood and housewife roles from a young age (although I accept this reality has altered a little in the last 20 years, it still remains oddly potent).So there you have it. Shall we go around in circles again? "
I'd rather not go in circles myself. I'd like to say that I will dissagree with you. I was trying to think of someone who was a house wife that I know. In this day in age most people cant be one. My step mother was one for a while. But she was also a teacher and now she does something with education. To be honest, we arent on the best terms, so I have no idea what she does but she works now.
Right now I only have one friend that is a house wife. So the only thing I look at when I see her is an amazing person, she was valedictorian in high school. She majored in archeology and dug in the dirt for 4 years before she realized she wasnt passionate about it anymore. Worked for AIDS alliance and had her first baby. Went back to work and realized how much she was missing her child while she was at work. Worked until she had her second child and decided she wanted to stay at home and be with them. She isnt a layabout. She and her husband made informed decisions before they had kids to purchase a house around a neighborhood that had different ethnicities (ie they didnt want thier children to live in a predominantly "white" neighborhood). To assume shes a layabout or that shes living an inathentic life because she chooses to stay home with her children is... Well theres no way around it, crap, its crap.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Every Other Day (other topics)
The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Master and Margarita (other topics)Every Other Day (other topics)
The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
What I wanted as a kid was a Snoopy Snowcone Maker, a rock tumbler and a typewriter. So, apparently, I managed to avoid evil indoctrination because I wanted unisex toys. Yay for me!
Bella as a character is not a so-called girly-girl. She doesn't enjoy fashion. She doesn't want a big fuss made over her. She doesn't want to get married or have children. Although she took ballet, I can't imagine that she was very graceful at it. It's silly to fault Twilight on the grounds that the women in it are depicted as following gender roles. I won't even go into the other women characters, as this has already been pointed out. And did someone mention that some of the men apparently did not have jobs as well? We're not faulting them for that.
There's a double standard at work when male characters are free to act any way they wish, but female characters must follow a certain template.