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?

YABU and a bit of a dick.

Of course women propose to men! Why the hell shouldn't they? And why should it be a turn off?

Don't be ridiculous 🙄

cuno
“Biological, innate, born this way, come out like that, people generally use these terms interchangeably.”

NO.

Saying I believe my daughter “came out that way” or had certain innate traits from a very early age, is in no way the same thing as claiming these traits are biologically-determined!

If something is biologically-determined, then I would be saying the same traits apply to all females!

If I was arguing that, why would I be telling you in the very next paragraph, my other daughter was not like this?

Why would I then go on to say that one of my sons showed characteristics that were what people might call more stereotypically masculine more so than than the other one?

This is insane. I did not use the word biology. You and others are having this reading something that is not there and was not intended.

Do I need to explain it again? When I talked about ‘biology’ earlier in the thread, it was in the context of women being the childbearing sex and how this has likely impacted societal structures, specifically notions of gender through history.

How many times do I have to say this?

I don’t think my daughter’s very feminine traits are biological. That goes without saying. In mentioning my observations if my own very different children, my point was, I don’t think the traits are entirely down to socialisation.

If it was all about socialisation and nothing else, my younger daughter would have been the same, surely?

I believe some traits are innate, basically. It’s not all about socialisation.

I also went on to describe my own feelings about wanting to be a SAHM. Of course I accept that will have been affected by socialisation but again, it also felt as if it ran deeper than that for me. It still does.

So I was asking - are people telling me my daughter is only stereotypically feminine because of socialisation? And am I only the way I am because of socialisation? Is this the argument? Because this rigidity does irk me to be honest, and I find it slightly patronising.

PLEASE DON’T NOW COME BACK AND SAY “OH SO YOU THINK WANTING TO BE A SAHM IS BIOLOGICAL DO YOU?”

It’s doing my head in.

‘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.’

Again, your words not mine cuno and I wouldn’t have quite put it like that, but yes, you are at least not misinterpreting my sentiment here so we’re not talking through cross wires.

I would not be attracted to a man who couldn’t even bring himself to propose no, because more passive men are not my thing.

Yes I can see how people sort of end up having a conversation about marriage and that’s it. To be perfectly honest, I have never come across this in real life but plenty of people are talking about it on here so I live and learn.

Call me old-fashioned (and no doubt you’ll call me a lot worse than that), but to me, it does seem kind of ungentlemanly for a man to put his girlfriend in a situation where she feels she has to propose to him! That would be the turn-off, for me.

But if people are telling me they feel proposing is taking control, then I accept that and you do you.

That would be the turn-off, for me.

Isn't that the crucial thing though? It's for you, not everyone else?

Sure.

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

Whereas remaining completely passive and having no agency over your own future gets you really hot to trot?

Again...

1) Nobody in actual real life does this

Yes they do.

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

Why?

Preferences!!!! You like things because of your preference! Your daughter likes pink sparkly things. Society has deemed those things ‘girlie’. If you honestly believe that she popped out liking pink then it’s to do with her preference and you have made the connection they are ‘girlie’ because society has deemed them so. If she liked pink and blue equally then you wouldn’t make this pattern. As for wanting to be a SAHM, I honestly don’t know what that has to do with anything, unless you think that preference is more ‘feminine’? Surely that was your preference based on a myriad of other factors?

@alfayruz

‘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.’

Again, your words not mine cuno and I wouldn’t have quite put it like that, but yes, you are at least not misinterpreting my sentiment here so we’re not talking through cross wires.

I would not be attracted to a man who couldn’t even bring himself to propose no, because more passive men are not my thing.

Yes I can see how people sort of end up having a conversation about marriage and that’s it. To be perfectly honest, I have never come across this in real life but plenty of people are talking about it on here so I live and learn.

Call me old-fashioned (and no doubt you’ll call me a lot worse than that), but to me, it does seem kind of ungentlemanly for a man to put his girlfriend in a situation where she feels she has to propose to him! That would be the turn-off, for me.

But if people are telling me they feel proposing is taking control, then I accept that and you do you.

So you’re turned n by your own self-chosen lack of agency, while deploring what you term ‘passivity’ in men? Do your entrenched ideas about gender not include the possibility that it’s ‘unladylike’ to put your boyfriend in a situation where he feels he has to propose to you? Or no, because female passivity is ‘normal’?

It’s also odd that you think all men who don’t propose are passive (and therefore unattractive). You get all that from one lifetime event (that doesn’t happen in everyone’s lifetime), when loads of people on here are saying they all discussed it first with their partner, so pretty much the opposite of passive. By your logic, all women that don’t propose are therefore passive?

By saying someone came out that way, it does absolutely suggest it is biological. You haven't explained how your daughter innately aligns with female stereotypes. You say it's not socialisation, then it has to be biological, no? Unless you accept she didn't "come out like that", then you are absolutely suggesting it is biological whether you use that word or not. But she just happens to match gender stereotypes across the board, which you say she just came out that way. She didn't come out like that at all. Remember it's nature vs nurture... so what is this third thing you allude to that is neither of those things yet still innate and you can't explain it? Is it something woo?

Sorry but no matter how deep your feelings run about being a SAHM being so innate to you, it is largely down to socialisation. Do you not understand how socialisation can make you feel so deeply about these things? Socialisation isn't something that just makes you do things without being fussed about it, it permeates everything we think and do and absolutely affects us all on a deep emotional level and drives us towards certain life choices. I'm not sure why you think being a SAHM is the exception to this, unless you are suggesting there is a biological element to it?

“Preferences!!!! You like things because of your preference! Your daughter likes pink sparkly things. Society has deemed those things ‘girlie’. If you honestly believe that she popped out liking pink then it’s to do with her preference”

Yes Thankyou! I totally agree.

The problem I have is when posters try to tell people that certain preferences can only be the result of socialisation.

The problem I have is when posters try to tell people that certain preferences can only be the result of socialisation.

But literally nobody said that .........

What we said was they play a HUGE part which you chose to interpret a particular way because you just want an argument.

@alfayruz

“Preferences!!!! You like things because of your preference! Your daughter likes pink sparkly things. Society has deemed those things ‘girlie’. If you honestly believe that she popped out liking pink then it’s to do with her preference”

Yes Thankyou! I totally agree.

The problem I have is when posters try to tell people that certain preferences can only be the result of socialisation.

Well, there’s nothing innately ‘feminine’ about liking pink, which was regarded as a masculine colour because of its closeness to ‘warlike’ red until well into the 20thc, while blue was regarded as the ‘prettier’ and ‘more delicate’ colour, hence suitable for girls and young women:

edition.cnn.com/2018/01/12/health/colorscope-pink-boy-girl-gender/index.html

So pink being ‘girlie’ is a fairly recent social story.

cuno - Biological means er, biological. Things like having a uterus, being the childbearing sex. Like I explained about ten times now.

Biology hardly determines whether you like pink, fgs? How can it?

Hormones are biological and these can influence how people feel about themselves, innate preferences etc, I guess. But I don’t think hormones are that relevant to a baby. Maybe more relevant to me in the peri-menopause, but it’s hard to say.

I would call it innate preferences - or personality, if you like. My two girls had different innate preferences, but have been socialised the same. They still have very different personalities, despite similar socialisation. So not everything is socialisation and it’s too simplistic to say it is.

But they both have the same biology!

There has been more twists in opinion than on a corkscrew. Op I don't think you know what your own points are anymore as you have flip flopped so much

‘ By your logic, all women that don’t propose are therefore passive?’

Yes in a way Quill. Can’t argue with that.

But you can also just be single. I’m not recommending hanging about for years of marriage really matters to you.

I have not flip flopped.

I said biology has affected the social construct of gender through history.

Hardly a shocker or difficult to grasp.

What I meant by this - as explained many times but here we go again - is that women being the childbearing sex has meant they have had to navigate life differently to men.

Because traditionally, women have been pregnant, risking their lives through childbirth and then breastfeeding, the have been less mobile than men and more confined to the domestic sphere.

Due to this position in the domestic sphere, the social construct of women as nurturers, homemakers has evolved and had become synonymous with gender expectations which still persist today.

This gender expectation of women as nurturers and homemakers has also manifested into other societal gender expectations. For instance, in Islam, the idea that men are the protectors and maintainers of women (because women are the maintainers of the home). Basically, there are many implications - the gender pay gap, women’s position in senior roles etc etc and I could go in all day obviously.

That is very brief and simple obviously but it is what I meant when I said biology affects the social construct of gender. I have consistently explained this many times now. I’m not sure what is not clear or what is even contentious?

@alfayruz

cuno - Biological means er, biological. Things like having a uterus, being the childbearing sex. Like I explained about ten times now.

Biology hardly determines whether you like pink, fgs? How can it?

Hormones are biological and these can influence how people feel about themselves, innate preferences etc, I guess. But I don’t think hormones are that relevant to a baby. Maybe more relevant to me in the peri-menopause, but it’s hard to say.

I would call it innate preferences - or personality, if you like. My two girls had different innate preferences, but have been socialised the same. They still have very different personalities, despite similar socialisation. So not everything is socialisation and it’s too simplistic to say it is.

But they both have the same biology!

It's enormously simplistic to think your two daughters had exactly the same socialisation because they were born to the same parents and brought up in the same household birth order will make a significant difference, particularly in terms of the influence of the elder on the younger (but also, to an extent, vice versa), as well as parents being different parents you can never parent a subsequent child in the same way you parented your first, because you can never be a first-time parent again, and you inevitably parent subsequent children through the lens of your experience with your first. And that's entirely leaving aside the different external influences from peers etc.

One 'explanation' of your second daughter being less stereotypically 'feminine' is that that slot was already filled by her older sister, and she was reacting against that, and marking out her own spot as the one who liked animals etc. Or, if either of her brothers had been born before her, she saw more and different ways of behaving exhibited in the household. Similarly, a younger child is always looking at the elder ones forging ahead in their lives, and deciding, consciously or unconsciously, whether they want to do things similarly or differently.

I have two sisters, the next two years younger than I am. I was plain, an early reader, and born with a slight physical handicap, and her reaction to that was (particularly from the time she started school, but not only then, as I imagine people's responses to her looks started early -- she was an angelic-looking baby) to be the pretty, popular one. I don't think for a second she's any less clever than I am, but I'd already taken that slot in the family, from her POV.

Both girls are also looking at your example of being a woman, @alfayruz -- looking at whether being a SAHM of four looks like an appealing life or not, for example, as well as other ways in which you model 'womanhood' and gender roles. My mother was also a SAHM of four, and her life looked so dreadful to me as a I grew up that many of my life decisions were made to ensure I would never live a life in any way resembling hers. I chose to focus my life around work I find meaningful and fulfilling, and to marry and have one child aged 39. Both of my sisters are childfree by choice.

Personality and preferences are a combination of biology and socialisation, more so the latter, but genes are also at play. So no, nothing is "just because", it is always nurture vs nature. Preferences never exist in a vacuum, not even your favourite colour. And biology is about far more than uteruses and hormones ffs, not everything is related to your sex.

Yes of course liking pink isn't determined by biology, hence it's silly to say to say your daughter came out liking pink, sparkles and princesses!

And no-one, not two single people are socialised the same way. You may think you raised all your kids the same, but tbh it's never identical and you'd be fooling yourself to think that. The dynamics are clearly different, for example, when you just have the one child then later transition to two. And no matter how much we try to treat all of our children equally, we live in a society with a gazillion different influences with so many push and pull factors. Even two different teachers in primary school result in differing socialisation. Now think of all the limitless outside influences that you have little control over both much smaller and bigger than a single teacher.

@SnakeLinguine
Cross post but I was trying to get across the same point, I think you explained it better though!

I've read the entire thread and you have flip flopped constantly.

It's biology/I didn't mean it's biology is just the lasted example.

I don't think you actually know what your point is any more. You are backtracking to "explain what you really meant" more and more.

“ The problem I have is when posters try to tell people that certain preferences can only be the result of socialisation.”

But nobody said this?!! It’s highly unlikely your daughter popped out and said she loved pink things (unless she could talk or point from birth). It would be a preference based on lots of factors, a lot of them social, she wouldn’t have been able to buy things herself or research things, all her information and toys and clothes would come from you. Nobody said it’s only because of social aspects, just that they play a massive part in preferences (which has been widely researched and documented).

SnakeLinguine - yes all that is perfectly possible.

The only issue I have here, is that socialisation works many ways. I could have been on a mission to socialise my daughter in the perceived ‘gender neutral’ way (whether she liked it or not). On MN, that type of socialisation is generally applauded and gender-neutral preferences are talked about as default and what people ‘should’ strive for.. How often do we hear, “Don’t be so bloody stupid, your daughter can’t have been fascinated by fairies and princesses as a baby, You have socialised her to be like that. Just don’t buy the stuff!’

Gender neutral doesn't mean fairies and princesses aren't allowed... it means you don't "gender" the toys. So fairies and princesses are for both girls and boys, just as much as trucks and dinosaurs. Although a princess in and of itself is already gendered but you get my point?