Understanding men

[cailindana]

I've had some interesting conversations with DH lately (who has recently got into feminism in a big way) about how patriarchy has affected him. It's something I'm interested in as I think it's part of the bigger picture and worth knowing in terms of combatting the effects of how our society is structured, both on women and men. As a woman of course I have limited insight into how men see the world and so would appreciate views specifically from men.

What DH has said to me is that he has been trained by his upbringing to overvalue what men do and undervalue what women do.
He says he has found it extremely hard to be in any way honest about his feelings as he has learned that it is not acceptable for him to share how he really feels.

Both of these things have contributed in large ways to the problems in our relationship and now that he's recognised them and tried to overcome them things have changed. I have to admit though I am a bit discombobulated by the change almost as though he doesn't quite fit my expectation of how men should be (indoctrinated in me by my sexist asshat of a father). So I've also had to change my attitude.

Any thoughts?

"What DH has said to me is that he has been trained by his upbringing to overvalue what men do and undervalue what women do."

How was he trained and by whom? Parents or society in general?
I've always seen that society values men more e.g. more men on banknotes, famous scientists, politicians, literary and artistic people but I put that down to historical oppression (women not being allowed to do these things) rather that women's achievements being valued more, because the women who have achieved in the past have generally been recognised for it.

Both I think Nosey. In his house his dad was always tired from work, always too busy, always needed space and rest because he "worked so hard" despite the fact that is mother also worked and did everything in the house, ie his work was super important, hers was easy. Equally he said in the media, traditional women's work isn't portrayed as being as important as traditional men's work. He extended that to our relationship and situation developed where he was getting a full night's sleep every night and going out to a relatively easy office job every day and he felt we were equally tired and stressed despite the fact I was getting practically no sleep and was left with a bored toddler and a very hard to handle baby while also doing most of the housework, running a toddler group and working part time from home (so my work had to be completed while at the same time looking after children). He says that was because, though he didn't realise it, he was seeing my work as just something women do while he was doing important work that needed attention and concentration. It's only since he's taken on more at home himself he realises how wrong he was and how he'd not questioned the value his own family had put on different, gendered types of work.

Society in general. As an example, industries dominated by men such as medicine, law etc are seen as better and are more valued than ones dominated by women, such as childcare, teaching and nursing. Oddly, when medicine became a female dominated industry in USSR during the communist regime, medicine become valued less. Not only are female dominated industries valued less, men who wish to cross over and become nurses for eg, are regarded with deep suspicion, or assumed to be gay (and therefore 'less than men')

Weird innit?

MrNosey, alongside all the statues commemorating men who were killed trying to take life, where are all the statues commemorating women who tried to give life and died in the process? Why do we solemnise the death men inflict on the world and say nothing about the women who gave birth to every single one of us?

Why do we solemnise the death men inflict on the world and say nothing about the women who gave birth to every single one of us?

Because violence is a horrible burden, and killing, even for the most just purposes, can break a mind and mark someone forever for social ostracism. Pregnancy doesn't have quite the societal stigma to require compensation via statuary.

I think your DH sound quite old fashioned in his views. Is he 50+? It's not something I recognise in my friends.

So in order to have a statue you have to go through something that could result in social ostracism? Do the women who had children out of wedlock before such things were acceptable and we socially ostracised and had their babies taken from them count?

And incidentally, I've seen a lot of statues to female nurses, Florence Nightingale being just one. There's plenty tucked around the quiet spaces of London, sharing the obscurity of generals whose names are forgotten and battles are lost to history.

So in order to have a statue you have to go through something that could result in social ostracism? Do the women who had children out of wedlock before such things were acceptable and we socially ostracised and had their babies taken from them count?

You have to do something self-sacrificing, that results in individual trauma, results in social ostracism and benefits society as a whole. And you have to do it on purpose, rather than by accident.

You have to do something self-sacrificing, that results in individual trauma, results in social ostracism and benefits society as a whole. And you have to do it on purpose, rather than by accident

So growing another person and shoving that person out of a tiny part of your body isn't self-sacrificing or traumatic? Producing new people doesn't benefit society? I don't get the doing it on purpose rather than by accident thing? So if someone was conscripted they don't count in war memorials because they didn't choose to do it?

Also I'm wondering why those are the criteria for getting a statue? Who decided those criteria?

Pregnancy and giving birth out of wedlock prior to 1980

Self-sacrificing - tick
Results in social ostracism - tick
Benefits society as a whole - in as much as society needs young people to be born to continue, tick

Where are all the statues?

Actually the doing it on purpose rather than by accident thing is very odd -how does that fit in with women have babies? Do you think if someone gets pregnant by accident the sacrifice they go through to get that person into the world doesn't count?

800 women a day die in childbirth.

"I think your DH sound quite old fashioned in his views. Is he 50+? It's not something I recognise in my friends."

king1982 does the 1982 reflect your birth year? if so, you are a similar age to me. believe me there are many men of your age and younger who have similar views. they may not recognise it, but their actions and attitudes demonstrate it. do you and your friends have children?

Mephistopheles your posts show zero insight, i'm afraid

So growing another person and shoving that person out of a tiny part of your body isn't self-sacrificing or traumatic?

Not on the scale of seeing the shattered bodies of hundreds of individuals for whom you had a personal responsibility, no. I don't imagine it would be. Especially as, at the end of it, there is new life rather than the aching pain of death.

Producing new people doesn't benefit society?

Not everytime, no. It can do, but it can also be a serious detriment. Most of the time its more of a break even proposition.

I don't get the doing it on purpose rather than by accident thing? So if someone was conscripted they don't count in war memorials because they didn't choose to do it?

You'll notice there's very few (none) statues to conscripts who turned up and did nothing, but there's more than few for the ones who chose to rise to the occasion.

Incidentally, I don't disagree with your husband about the undervaluing of womens contributions to society. I just find your particular example disingenuous.

So women who choose to have babies might deserve a statue but the women who get pregnant by accident don't?

800 women a day die in childbirth. I think you might have missed that bit. Many more end up traumatised and severely injured from giving birth. But you've decided that in comparison to what men go through in war, it doesn't count as much, ie men's work is valued more than women's. Proving my original point.

Hap shawl - it's not something my friends are like. Some friends do have children, I don't. I'm sure their are racist, sexist, disablist people of all ages.

Women could easily decide they didn't want to go through the inconvenience, risk and pain of pregnancy and childbirth. Where would be then? The human race would literally die out. And you're saying that my example is disingenuous? Why shouldn't we value the contribution that women make to continuing the species? Why in your view does it not warrant such value?

Out of interest Mephistopheles - what contributions from women should we value?

"I'm sure there are racist, sexist, disablist people of all ages."

so why suggest that the OP's husband's attitude must come from him being 50+yo then?