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?

Men: 1. Do you accept that in many ways women's experience of life and the work is dramatically different different to yours? 2. And that in many cases women may have a completely different but equally valid view on things?

1. Yes. But...you can't always put it down to gender. I will have a lot in common with a woman of my own class and ethnicity. And she would have far more in common with me that she would with, say, a member of the aristocracy or someone from a broken home or someone brought up in extreme poverty. There isn't a single, defining 'woman's' experience - is there? You aren't all the same! So I'm not sure what the point of the question is.

1. Yes.

What I mean is, people are not reliable witnesses because of things like selective memory and confirmation bias and the like.
I can't reference any specific studies but I recall some where crimes have been staged and people have been asked to describe certain aspects and are very susceptible to suggestion and also will change their opinion to agree with what others think.
It's a psychological thing.

Nice namechange buffy

Yops it is relevant because society sets us up as two distinct groups - female and male. It's the first category most people are put into, before they're even born. And for women, being in the female category is disadvantageous. That's pretty much universal and is one of the basic foci of feminism. You are not wrong to say other factors come into play such as class. However you seem to be saying (and correct me if I've picked you up wrong) that even though all women are put into the female category and are restricted in various similar ways because of that, we cannot as women claim a common experience, that in fact we should identify more with men in the same class/ethnicity as the gender distinction isn't as strong as class distinctions?

"I think there's something really interesting about the tendency of men to think of divisions as being a lot to do with distribution of resources, and women with… something else."

Interesting musings. I would imagine a lot of women thing along the same lines as Yops as well though.

Luis and hidden, so if I say many women see all unknown men as potential rapists, what is your response to that?

It makes me very sad that we live in a world that can make any woman conclude that, let alone many women.

I read an interesting piece of research about the amount of housework done by women and men living together as a couple. The researcher asked how much housework each did, and then actually monitored how much they did. The researcher found both the woman and man underestimated the amount the woman did, and over estimated the amount the man did. And this was even more the case when a woman said she was a feminist.

Sometimes we see our lives how we want to see them, rather than how they actually are.

I'm jumping into this very late on, but I do find that generally there is a very adversarial positioning of what I see as equally important aims in feminism. 1. Women ought to have access to traditionally male spheres such as male-dominated careers and power structures. 2. Traditionally female areas and tasks need to be seen as equally valid.

I find that this is often positioned as an either/or debate. So celebrating women who are successful in male dominated areas is denigrating women who stay at home with their children. Or that celebrating traditionally female roles means you are confining all women to those tasks. Thus you get the argument that if you think childbirth is an important act in society then you think Florence Nightingale isn't worthy of note.

One other thing Yops I'm not a fan of the term 'broken home' in general, but I also can't tell what you mean by it in this context.

Re: what Yops said. The week before last I was at a work conference with about 26 people, about half of them women. Everyone there was educated (PhD for most), intelligent and professional. A couple of the women were professors, some of them senior scientists, some PhD students.
I felt I had a lot in common with the male and female members of the team. We had a social meal and it was good company.
The following weekend I was away on a scout camp. There are many female leaders but at a certain time they went to bed leaving the men (about 10 of them) to sit, drink and chat. I was shocked by the crudeness, bad language and sexism displayed when the women had gone. It left me feeling really down and that I had very little in common with them and I soon made my excuses and left.

GirlSailor, I meant that I have had far more advantages in life that someone who grew up in what politicians like to term 'chaotic families.' Lack of parental support, family problems with substance abuse etc. Luckily for me, I did not.

There was a thread a while back started by a black British woman. She felt that her race was more of a societal barrier to her than her gender. So yes, it's complex, it's intersectional, and whilst gender is a big divide in our society, it is not the biggest one for everyone. If you drew a Venn diagram of all the advantages and disadvantages we face in our lives, there would be a lot of men that would sit outside my own comfortable bubble, and a lot of women inside it (I realise that a Venn diagram might not be the best mathematical structure for this, but hopefully you get my drift....)

You were interacting with the professional women in a professional context, Yops.

Did you mean that for Noseybonk, Yonic?

Err, yes!

Thanks Yops. I still think it's a pejorative term that I'm sure you weren't using to be insulting, but does come across that way. In the same way 'out of wedlock' ought to stay back in the Victorian era.

I honestly don't think that I've ever had a conversation (involving men and women) on the issue of rape that hasn't involved a man being insulted by the idea that women may regard all unknown men as potential rapists, and subsequently derailing the entire conversation along those lines.

There genuinely has been a lot of anger about the fact that a woman might not want to have a chat to a guy she doesn't know on a bus late at night. As if this is comparable to the real threat of assault. It's this attitude that my lived experience on top of a sensible risk/benefit analysis isn't valid, and really we all ought to be agreeable if a man wants us to be. There then always follows the 'if that is the case it is a very sad state of affairs' that implies that it isn't and women are being hysterical.

Point taken about the phrase, GS.

The 'potential rapist' thing is a shock to anyone unfamiliar with feminism. Men and women, I think. When you get over the shock, it's no different to saying that a bloke might come up and ask you for the time, or a light, with the intention of sizing you up for a fight or a mugging. If you put it in that context, men will invariably say 'Yeah, it's always possible.' Put it in terms of rape, even male-on-male rape, and the difference in reaction is night and day.

GirlSailor, this is where I'm genuinely unsure of what the right thing is.
It may be as simple as not all feminists agree, but I've read enough comments on here along the lines of: tell a woman to take care or be careful travelling alone late at night is victim blaming because the woman isn't responsible for any assualt.
And personally I think that's totally right.
But then another opinion is that it is ok to have this risk/benefit analysis where you wouldn't speak to a stranger because he might assault you.
I'm torn because I see both as a bit contradictory yet I agree with both of them.
Sorry if I haven't explained that very well.

I'd say the way women's experience and logical analysis is questioned on the subject of rape is similar to the way what women have traditionally done, and still do, is devalued.

On the subject of housework this is often the case. The response to being expected to do a fair share of the housework is often that the tasks aren't necessary. Women must have been doing something pointlessly for years, or just because women want to make things pretty. Men can see through the triviality of he tasks and aren't going to do them. If the woman wants to she's choosing to.

While I'm talking anecdotally here, it's supported by the statistics as well. The evening out of hours spent on housework that we have seen recently is due to women doing less, not men doing more.

Ocassionally, places like universities will run campaigns where they warn female students to be careful, not put themselves in risky situations when drunk, etc. and these usually end up on everydaysexism with demands to have them removed as victim blaming.
Is it ok to do those things (be careful, not put themselves in risky situations when drunk, etc.) but not to advise people to do those things?