To think MN has it all wrong re proposals?

[alfayruz]

Inspired by a thread the other day, but also a general observation on here, I was thinking ... whenever anyone posts on MN about waiting for a proposal from their DP, you can guarantee hundreds of posts along the lines of ‘just propose to him....’ AIBU to think this is ridiculous because -

1. Nobody in actual real life does this

2. Having to propose to a man would be a massive turn off anyway so what is the point?

3. Even if you could still muster some kind of sexual attraction towards him, the bar is set at rock bottom before you even start - so why would you expect any initiative or effort from him on any other occasions or general life going forward?

AIBU?

I still don’t understand how the OP thinks her daughter liking the colour pink is biological and therefore proves her confused notions of gender and biology? She could like any colour, but the gender stereotypes we have makes pink a ‘girl’ colour. So in essence you are fitting the stereotype to your child’s preference. It’s like saying my daughter likes the colour black, so biologically she must be a goth.

I don’t think her liking pink is biological. I’m getting exhausted with this now.,

I used the word ‘biology’ in a spin-off discussion. I stated that the biological fact that women are the childbearing sex will have had an impact on how the social construct of gender has evolved in the ways it has - over time and across cultures in multifarious complex ways.

Can you please try and understand that this is not the same thing as saying ‘girls like pink because biology.’ ‘Men propose because biology.’ I’m getting very tired of being asked to justify something I never even argued!

But yes, my daughter was very drawn to stereotypically feminine things as soon as she could express interest in anything. I don’t think it’s because of her biology! I was actually asking what people think caused that? Because although I don’t deny socialisation would have been a large part of it, I still don’t think that’s the whole story.

I can’t explain all this again.

Was it not you who said the exact following earlier:
The very stereotypically ‘girly’ daughter literally ‘came out’ like that as far as I’m concerned. So no, I don’t believe gendered behaviour are always and only down to socialisation. The evidence is here in this house! Some people naturally conform to gender types than others.

Stop insulting our intelligence by lying about things that we can see with our own eyes.

You can't explain it because you can't keep up with your own web of lies!

Yes she did come out like that, pretty much.

But it wasn’t because if biology.

Did I say that?

Rude, obnoxious and wrong again, cuno. You have missed the point since you came on.

Pink is just a colour. Is it possible she just likes it as a colour?

Interestingly it's only since since the 1940/1950's that pink has been considered a "girls" colour and previously pink was seen as a masculine colour. Shows the power of advertising.

I'm only rude and obnoxious because the truth hurts. 🤷‍♀️
I am right though.

The one missing the point here is you OP.

Are you capable of respectful, nuanced debate in any aspect of life cuno?

I doubt it. Goodbye.

But you have lied multiple times on this thread about things you have said and not said. I am not the only one who has pointed this out.
And you started this thread to bash women (and men) that don't conform to what you idea of a perfect proposal is.
You are incredibly defensive over everything people are saying.
And yet you get on your high horse about respectful, nuanced debate.
😂

But yes, my daughter was very drawn to stereotypically feminine things as soon as she could express interest in anything. I don’t think it’s because of her biology! I was actually asking what people think caused that? Because although I don’t deny socialisation would have been a large part of it, I still don’t think that’s the whole story.

But this isn't what you said.

@alfayruz

Yes I totally agree scottishnames. We have relatives who had arranged marriages in the previous generation and even some of DH’s cousins on our generation have had marriages that if not arranged, were kind of orchestrated (the men still has to propose though). These are doctors, lawyers etc. This is within a broadly Islamic cultural context.

So many of your family have had these discussions about marriage, whether arranged or orchestrated (which is just the conversation with a cup of tea only includes other family members, not just the couple themselves) and you still can't see it?

This is AIBU. You state an opinion or view and ask AIBU? That’s the whole point.

Don’t call me a liar. It’s not my fault you’re unable to grasp anything more than ‘But you said biology.’ ‘You are the Taliban.’ “I call you an idiot, not a c*.’

I don’t even know why I’m bothering.

I didn't call you the taliban! Oh my god. Are you for real???
And yeah, keep lying about what I have and haven't grasped if it makes you feel better. But I have said a lot on here, seems that you failed to grasp what I've said if that's all you seem to understand from what I said.

And tbh you're the one who doesn't seem to understand what AIBU. You've basically been told you're unreasonable and yet here you are still clutching at straws to defend yourself.

*what AIBU is

Spins - it’s is not what I was arguing but you and Jassy launched into the whole ‘it’s not about female biology, it’s how men have responded to female biology.’ So I was having to respond to that discourse from you and Jassy (even though it didn’t feel relevant to the point about my daughter). I didn’t talk about my kids to imply they are the way they are because ‘biology.’ I was saying I didn’t think they were like that because of socialisation and nothing else. You assumed that meant I was arguing it was biology, but I hadn’t meant that. I was asking what it could be - because if not socialisation, then what?

So much misunderstanding on this thread.

Yesterday 21:27 cuno

Honestly sounds like the dumb shit the taliban would argue.

This is what I said:
If you're trying to give credence to men proposing being the done thing because social constructs are the natural order of things influenced by biology (according to you), then you are automatically giving credence to all the horrible awful things that happens to women at the hands of men because of the same social constructs. You don't get to cherrypick which ways are okay for women and men to not be on equal footing because you think those ways are lovely, and ignore all the awful shit that is sneaking through the back door along with it.

Then you said:
Yes society determines social constructs.

And what is society composed of?

Humans.

And what drives humans?

Biology.

After that I said:
Honestly sounds like the dumb shit the taliban would argue.

I wasn't calling you the taliban. I was saying how the taliban can argue this biology bullshit to justify the way they treat women. Once you start using it to justify the little acts of sexism you consider to be all well and good, it can be taken to extremes i.e. taliban. Obviously you are not the taliban, but can't you see how the same argument can be used in a sinister way??? It's dangerous to give those arguments any legitimacy.

@alfayruz

Spins - it’s is not what I was arguing but you and Jassy launched into the whole ‘it’s not about female biology, it’s how men have responded to female biology.’ So I was having to respond to that discourse from you and Jassy (even though it didn’t feel relevant to the point about my daughter). I didn’t talk about my kids to imply they are the way they are because ‘biology.’ I was saying I didn’t think they were like that because of socialisation and nothing else. You assumed that meant I was arguing it was biology, but I hadn’t meant that. I was asking what it could be - because if not socialisation, then what?

So much misunderstanding on this thread.

The very stereotypically ‘girly’ daughter literally ‘came out’ like that as far as I’m concerned. So no, I don’t believe gendered behaviour are always and only down to socialisation. The evidence is here in this house! Some people naturally conform to gender types than others.

If you were referring to biology in this paragraph what did you mean? Surely you must read this back and realise why we came to that conclusion, especially given the conversation had been about biology vs socialisation.

I mean, I'm struggling to understand what else you could possibly mean when you use the phrase 'came out like that'? If you weren't referring to biology what did you mean?

The only think you've actually been consistent with on this thread is the constant contradictions!! It's very difficult to have any kind of discussion when someone constantly backtracks.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with much of what you've said and I suspect you'll continue to disagree with me on principle anyway! But enjoy the rest of your evening.

I did not use the word biology in that paragraph, Spins. There is no mention of biology. I said she ‘came out like that.’ Because she did basically. What I said was “ I don’t believe gendered behaviour are always and only down to socialisation.‘ This statement is NOT the same thing as the statement ‘my child’s gendered behaviour is down to her biology.’ Surely you can see that.

I was trying to discuss what I observed about my daughter as an example of something that cannot be purely ‘socialisation.’ I was actually asking what it could be - why are children born the way they are? I did not state anything about biology because I was not thinking that. You assumed I meant something I genuinely didn’t.

@alfayruz

I did not use the word biology in that paragraph, Spins. There is no mention of biology. I said she ‘came out like that.’ Because she did basically. What I said was “ I don’t believe gendered behaviour are always and only down to socialisation.‘ This statement is NOT the same thing as the statement ‘my child’s gendered behaviour is down to her biology.’ Surely you can see that.

I was trying to discuss what I observed about my daughter as an example of something that cannot be purely ‘socialisation.’ I was actually asking what it could be - why are children born the way they are? I did not state anything about biology because I was not thinking that. You assumed I meant something I genuinely didn’t.

But can't you see why we came to that conclusion? You might not have meant it but it's his it came across. We had been discussing biology and socialisation and when people use the phrases you did, they are typically referring to biology.

If that's not what you meant then it's still not clear what point you were actually making!!

To be honest, it felt like this was your 'gotcha' moment. Your proof that you were right and we were wrong. Then the discussion didn't go quite as you expected so you've back tracked (again) and are now claiming that's not what you meant at all and it's all our fault for making assumptions and not understanding you.

Obviously you'll never admit to that but it's how it's coming across.

I am exhausted with this now. I have not ‘backtracked’ at all. I’ve just tried to explain that you are misinterpreting me and then, when you see the difference, you interpret that as backtracking!

I have no reason to lie about what I meant or didn’t mean. I can kind of see why you interpreted that post as you did. But I’ve explained repeatedly now what I meant. It is what it is. I can’t say anymore. There is nothing to be gained through going on and on in circles about misunderstanding.

Interesting that you think everyone happens to be misinterpreting everything you say...
And your "explanations" to clear up the "misinterpretations" don't actually explain very much at all.
If someone being born a certain way you didn't mean it's biological, what then? What else are you implying? The debate is nature vs nurture and you clearly said it's not nurture in the example given.
Biological, innate, born this way, come out like that, people generally use these terms interchangeably.

No reason to lie? Really? All I'm seeing is mental gymnastics in a desperate attempt to justify that men are pathetic, feeble, unfuckable and whatever else for not proposing, and that all women (or 99% of women) want men to do the proposing, and apparently no-one in real life sits down and makes a mutual decision without any proposal at all.

“ But yes, my daughter was very drawn to stereotypically feminine things as soon as she could express interest in anything. I don’t think it’s because of her biology! I was actually asking what people think caused that? Because although I don’t deny socialisation would have been a large part of it, I still don’t think that’s the whole story”

You really want to know what made your daughter like the colour pink? Same reason I like the colour orange. It’s a preference based on pleasure from visual stimulation.

Recent stereotypes of gender colours are a social concept. If you daughter liked the colour yellow, trucks, sparkly wands, princesses, racing cars, and there were no gender stereotypes then you wouldn’t see a pattern. You are looking for a pattern because of social stereotypes, otherwise they would just be things, colours, attitudes, and preferences that all individuals have.