"Old Fashioned" or "Traditional" gender roles

BAMFMeredith

"at the gas station I see an older lady staring at the gas pump like it's completely foreign to her. Went over to ask if she needed some help. She tells me her late husband pumped their gas since they started dating (when she was 18). 56 years later he passed away and she doesn't know how to pump gas. I simply explain everything and do it for her. Look over and she begins to cry and says how blessed she is to have a complete stranger help her out. "

Saw this on Facebook. All the women thought it was sweet. I do feel for her, she lost her husband. But at the same time I thought it was somewhat pathetic. I just can't understand how an individual can be so helpless.

I agree. While I let my husband do things he feels he "should" do for me, its never at the expense of me never learning to do them. I let him pump the gas, and he'll occasionally take my car down and fill it up at night, so I don't have to do it the next day, since there is no gas station on my route from home, to daycare, to work. I CAN very well do it myself, but he likes to "do" for me. It's how he shows his love.

I worked through the first few years of college at a gas station. You would be surprised at all of the ladies, and not just older ladies, but even middle aged women, who can't pump their own gas or to a larger extent, put air in their tires.

I've helped numerous women who would say that their husbands always took care of that type of stuff, and that's fine, but if you are going to drive, you have to know how to do these things.

Completely agree. My great uncle recently passed away, and his wife never did a thing for herself a day in her life (she's 76). She literally has no idea what to do with herself anymore. Doesn't know how to pay the bills, doesn't know how to drive, nothing. He did all of that for her, so now her kids have to come help her with everything and are looking for a nice assisted living facility for her. I just never want to be that way.

budhandy

as of right now I am working and my wife stays home and take care of the kids while im there. but if I lost my job and she was working I would have no problem taking care of them.

devilwhiterose

We're blended. I was raised by my dad and taught to take care of myself on my own two feet. I can change a tire, change the oil, change brake pads, mow the lawn, put stuff together, lift heavy things, manage the money, cook, clean, take care of the kids, take care of a house, have a career...

I can do all those things, so it's hard for me sometimes to let the man "be the man".

...I just wanna be treated like a lady. :laugh:

juicy011

In terms of jobs, chores, etc...doesn't matter.

But I want my man to cry less than I do, to weigh more than I do, and to know when to take charge in the sack. :devil:

^^^^this

enyo123

If I saw an ad where a guy wanted a woman with "traditional" or "old-fashioned" values I'd think he wanted a servant he could have sex with without paying. I'd also consider "trditional" to be more of a big into church, anti-gay, Republican stance as well. If I saw an ad where the woman wanted a "traditional" or "old fashioned" relationship I'd think she was lazy, didn't want to work, and wanted to be taken care of without having to get a job. Same bit for the "traditional" part. Neiter would appeal to me at all and I'd consider it a big time turn off and a red flag.

Wow. My husband and I are fairly traditional. I stay at home with the kids because that's what works best for us. When I work, I invariably end up getting promoted to a salaried managerial position, and then I spend more time at work than at home and our relationship suffers. I'm most certainly *not* lazy... and if you think being a SAHM is lazy, wow. On some days, it's a lot harder than the work that I did outside the home. Managing 25 adults can be far easier than managing/parenting a household, a toddler, and an infant.

We're both in favor of gay marriage, and live in a country where that's legal. We're pro-choice. I'm an American living abroad, but I am most certainly not a Republican, nor am I even Christian. Nor is the husband. So, yeah, every single one of your assumptions is wrong in our relationship.

enyo123

The man has to kill the bugs...

I used a .22 caliber pistol once - not popular with the ladies in the house.

That must have been a freaking huge bug.

penrbrown

This thread has been dead a few days but I randomly found myself thinking about it so thought I'd come on and share a thought.

Please don't blast me. I'm just working things out...

Aren't 'traditional' gender roles in place for a reason? Men and women function differently. How we express love is different.

I always believed men are more doers (I mean this VERY generally and I realize there are exceptions). They show 'love' by taking care of those around them. I wonder if this is how that 'traditional' role took root. This is how men express their love to their wife, by caring for her basic physical needs (IE: working, bringing home food, taking care of the car, the yard. etc. etc. etc.).

Whereas women are more inclined to be nurturing. Providing a comfortable home. Caring for and keeping the children safe. Emotional support. Caring for less obvious needs. Etc. Etc.

Anyway. I wonder if 'traditional' gender roles just stem from a very basic thing that makes males and females express themselves differently (hormones I guess?). Of course there are EXCEPTIONS to this and couples that buck these more traditional ways of expressing oneself but I wonder if the majority aren't more inclined to certain things and that's what makes those things 'traditional'.

I'm not sure if I explained that properly and I apologize if it made absolutely no sense. It was just a thought.

victoria4321

This thread has been dead a few days but I randomly found myself thinking about it so thought I'd come on and share a thought.

Please don't blast me. I'm just working things out...

Aren't 'traditional' gender roles in place for a reason? Men and women function differently. How we express love is different.

I always believed men are more doers (I mean this VERY generally and I realize there are exceptions). They show 'love' by taking care of those around them. I wonder if this is how that 'traditional' role took root. This is how men express their love to their wife, by caring for her basic physical needs (IE: working, bringing home food, taking care of the car, the yard. etc. etc. etc.).

Whereas women are more inclined to be nurturing. Providing a comfortable home. Caring for and keeping the children safe. Emotional support. Caring for less obvious needs. Etc. Etc.

Anyway. I wonder if 'traditional' gender roles just stem from a very basic thing that makes males and females express themselves differently (hormones I guess?). Of course there are EXCEPTIONS to this and couples that buck these more traditional ways of expressing oneself but I wonder if the majority aren't more inclined to certain things and that's what makes those things 'traditional'.

I'm not sure if I explained that properly and I apologize if it made absolutely no sense. It was just a thought.

I definitely agree with this. I think a lot of people want to take the feminism to such an extreme that they forget a lot of stuff is just basic instincts. I don't think the nurturing characteristics of women just falls out of thin air. The same way, I don't think they men are protective just because someone told them to do it.

crisanderson27

This thread has been dead a few days but I randomly found myself thinking about it so thought I'd come on and share a thought.

Please don't blast me. I'm just working things out...

Aren't 'traditional' gender roles in place for a reason? Men and women function differently. How we express love is different.

I always believed men are more doers (I mean this VERY generally and I realize there are exceptions). They show 'love' by taking care of those around them. I wonder if this is how that 'traditional' role took root. This is how men express their love to their wife, by caring for her basic physical needs (IE: working, bringing home food, taking care of the car, the yard. etc. etc. etc.).

Whereas women are more inclined to be nurturing. Providing a comfortable home. Caring for and keeping the children safe. Emotional support. Caring for less obvious needs. Etc. Etc.

Anyway. I wonder if 'traditional' gender roles just stem from a very basic thing that makes males and females express themselves differently (hormones I guess?). Of course there are EXCEPTIONS to this and couples that buck these more traditional ways of expressing oneself but I wonder if the majority aren't more inclined to certain things and that's what makes those things 'traditional'.

I'm not sure if I explained that properly and I apologize if it made absolutely no sense. It was just a thought.

I definitely agree with this. I think a lot of people want to take the feminism to such an extreme that they forget a lot of stuff is just basic instincts. I don't think the nurturing characteristics of women just falls out of thin air. The same way, I don't think they men are protective just because someone told them to do it.

I 100% agree as well.

The problem is, much like happens with many other 'extremist' minority points of view, extreme feminists have hand picked things that represent the 'opposition' (in this case, traditional males), and declared wholesale war on them. Because of what the few have done, the many (within that feminist minority, and usually women who would otherwise be incredibly reasonable) have come to view these 'traditional roles' as 'tools' society in general, and these men in specific, use to 'oppress' and 'control' them.

Here's the thing. If a man makes you walk on the inside of a sidewalk as a way to keep you from walking where you want, gets angry when other men look at you, pays for your dates as a way to lure you into thinking he's a nice guy, forces you to stay home, have kids, and take care of those kids...while he goes to work, and out with his friends...well, obviously that guy is a controlling, and probably eventually abusive (if not already) *kitten*.

If however, a man makes you walk on the inside of the sidewalk as a gesture of protective care, gets angry when other men look at you in a way that makes you obviously uncomfortable, pays for your dates as a way to show respect and appreciation for your attention and time, supports your decision to stay home and have kids, or have any type of career you choose, and helps you take care of those kids regardless of your choice between those paths. Well ladies, in my opinion...that guys a keeper.

The point of my comparison, is that it isn't the actions, or the in this case the 'traditional gender roles' that are oppressive, it's the person behind them, and their motives.

Just like most other things in life.

mtaylor33557

This thread has been dead a few days but I randomly found myself thinking about it so thought I'd come on and share a thought.

Please don't blast me. I'm just working things out...

Aren't 'traditional' gender roles in place for a reason? Men and women function differently. How we express love is different.

I always believed men are more doers (I mean this VERY generally and I realize there are exceptions). They show 'love' by taking care of those around them. I wonder if this is how that 'traditional' role took root. This is how men express their love to their wife, by caring for her basic physical needs (IE: working, bringing home food, taking care of the car, the yard. etc. etc. etc.).

Whereas women are more inclined to be nurturing. Providing a comfortable home. Caring for and keeping the children safe. Emotional support. Caring for less obvious needs. Etc. Etc.

Anyway. I wonder if 'traditional' gender roles just stem from a very basic thing that makes males and females express themselves differently (hormones I guess?). Of course there are EXCEPTIONS to this and couples that buck these more traditional ways of expressing oneself but I wonder if the majority aren't more inclined to certain things and that's what makes those things 'traditional'.

I'm not sure if I explained that properly and I apologize if it made absolutely no sense. It was just a thought.

I agree with this.. and my husband is a great provider, but .. he is one of the most nurturing men I have ever met.

He loves to rock our son and put him to bed, he kisses "boo boos" , he gives baths and changes diapers.

I think he enjoys "nurturing" more than "providing" but takes great pride in both, and I LOOOVVEEE him for that

Nataliaho

What I find ironic about much of this thread is that there has been very very little of what I would describe as radical feminist rhetoric or even slightly feminist. Why then so many anti-feminist comments? A woman is not some kind of irrational, man hating psycho merely because they acknoweldge that historically women had it pretty tough, and perhaps some of effects continue today. Personally I find the 'those crazy feminst" comments pretty lazy and unintelligent.

As for the notion that its all about what's natural. Personally I think it could be just as easily argued that those stereotypes exist to keep women and men in their respective places, rather than the other way round. OMG I guess that makes me a full radical feminist.

crisanderson27

What I find ironic about much of this thread is that there has been very very little of what I would describe as radical feminist rhetoric or even slightly feminist. Why then so many anti-feminist comments? A woman is not some kind of irrational, man hating psycho merely because they acknoweldge that historically women had it pretty tough, and perhaps some of effects continue today. Personally I find the 'those crazy feminst" comments pretty lazy and unintelligent.

As for the notion that its all about what's natural. Personally I think it could be just as easily argued that those stereotypes exist to keep women and men in their respective places, rather than the other way round. OMG I guess that makes me a full radical feminist.

This thread was a carry over thread from the 'paying for the first date' thread you were involved in the late stages of. There was substantial 'passive/aggressive' feminist commentary there, if you recall.

And here's the thing...when it comes down to the actual, true definition...I'M a freaking feminist. What people recognize today as 'feminism'...really isn't. It's a minority group who have lost sight of their original purpose. What the original feminists (non-radical) considered feminism, most men and women just consider common sense.

I've been involved in a number of threads where any comment/stance other than 'Ohh...poor you!! Here, you're sooooo downtrodden, lets overthrow society and make it all better for you!', is met with me being called a misogynistic, patriarchal *kitten*.

In their own 'passive/aggressive' way of course.

And for the record...I don't consider you in that light at all. You're open minded...and in the other thread if you recall, we had a very intelligent, respectful discussion, in which you were actually able to understand my point without issue. And that is the difference between you, and the others that I was talking about. They simply aren't capable of seeing any other viewpoint than their own.

Tamaralea88

I am a more modern role type person, but old fashioned is a woman catering to her man, staying home, having babies, and taking care of the house while the man goes to work and takes care of finances

mrsnathanandrew

Both my fiance and myself work, but I believe I am responsible for cleaning, cooking, and laundry. He is responsible for taking the garbage out, and fixing things lol.

It's how I was raised so it's how I act.

Nataliaho

What I find ironic about much of this thread is that there has been very very little of what I would describe as radical feminist rhetoric or even slightly feminist. Why then so many anti-feminist comments? A woman is not some kind of irrational, man hating psycho merely because they acknoweldge that historically women had it pretty tough, and perhaps some of effects continue today. Personally I find the 'those crazy feminst" comments pretty lazy and unintelligent.

As for the notion that its all about what's natural. Personally I think it could be just as easily argued that those stereotypes exist to keep women and men in their respective places, rather than the other way round. OMG I guess that makes me a full radical feminist.

This thread was a carry over thread from the 'paying for the first date' thread you were involved in the late stages of. There was substantial 'passive/aggressive' feminist commentary there, if you recall.

And here's the thing...when it comes down to the actual, true definition...I'M a freaking feminist. What people recognize today as 'feminism'...really isn't. It's a minority group who have lost sight of their original purpose. What the original feminists (non-radical) considered feminism, most men and women just consider common sense.

I've been involved in a number of threads where any comment/stance other than 'Ohh...poor you!! Here, you're sooooo downtrodden, lets overthrow society and make it all better for you!', is met with me being called a misogynistic, patriarchal *kitten*.

In their own 'passive/aggressive' way of course.

And for the record...I don't consider you in that light at all. You're open minded...and in the other thread if you recall, we had a very intelligent, respectful discussion, in which you were actually able to understand my point without issue. And that is the difference between you, and the others that I was talking about. They simply aren't capable of seeing any other viewpoint than their own.

I didn't make the connection to the other thread, so to be honest some of the comments here just sound kinda snarky. I guess I understand what you are saying about 'feminsm', however I can see the value to the extremist viewpoints. Afterall like you say today's 'common sense' was yesterday's radical feminsim...

KettleBellHoe

To me it spells out you bring home the bacon and ill cook it
But in my reality im the bread winner and my bf holds down teh fort and cooks me gourmet meals.

crisanderson27

What I find ironic about much of this thread is that there has been very very little of what I would describe as radical feminist rhetoric or even slightly feminist. Why then so many anti-feminist comments? A woman is not some kind of irrational, man hating psycho merely because they acknoweldge that historically women had it pretty tough, and perhaps some of effects continue today. Personally I find the 'those crazy feminst" comments pretty lazy and unintelligent.

As for the notion that its all about what's natural. Personally I think it could be just as easily argued that those stereotypes exist to keep women and men in their respective places, rather than the other way round. OMG I guess that makes me a full radical feminist.

This thread was a carry over thread from the 'paying for the first date' thread you were involved in the late stages of. There was substantial 'passive/aggressive' feminist commentary there, if you recall.

And here's the thing...when it comes down to the actual, true definition...I'M a freaking feminist. What people recognize today as 'feminism'...really isn't. It's a minority group who have lost sight of their original purpose. What the original feminists (non-radical) considered feminism, most men and women just consider common sense.

I've been involved in a number of threads where any comment/stance other than 'Ohh...poor you!! Here, you're sooooo downtrodden, lets overthrow society and make it all better for you!', is met with me being called a misogynistic, patriarchal *kitten*.

In their own 'passive/aggressive' way of course.

And for the record...I don't consider you in that light at all. You're open minded...and in the other thread if you recall, we had a very intelligent, respectful discussion, in which you were actually able to understand my point without issue. And that is the difference between you, and the others that I was talking about. They simply aren't capable of seeing any other viewpoint than their own.

I didn't make the connection to the other thread, so to be honest some of the comments here just sound kinda snarky. I guess I understand what you are saying about 'feminsm', however I can see the value to the extremist viewpoints. Afterall like you say today's 'common sense' was yesterday's radical feminsim...

That may very well be true.

But that's the thing for me...I'm not anti-feminism, I'm anti-extremist. That goes for other things than feminism as well...but there it is either way. Extremist view are rarely good for an organization, or for the people around them.

Take the whole 'glass ceiling' thing. Does it exist? Well...the fact of the matter is that neither you or I know...and any information passed on to us by our respective sources of information is likely to be biased.

But I know that the person who just resigned from Chase for losing them over $2 billion, wasn't male. Knowing that, it's sort of tough to recognize a 'glass ceiling' from my side of it, that's for sure.

christine24t

This thread has been dead a few days but I randomly found myself thinking about it so thought I'd come on and share a thought.

Please don't blast me. I'm just working things out...

Aren't 'traditional' gender roles in place for a reason? Men and women function differently. How we express love is different.

I always believed men are more doers (I mean this VERY generally and I realize there are exceptions). They show 'love' by taking care of those around them. I wonder if this is how that 'traditional' role took root. This is how men express their love to their wife, by caring for her basic physical needs (IE: working, bringing home food, taking care of the car, the yard. etc. etc. etc.).

Whereas women are more inclined to be nurturing. Providing a comfortable home. Caring for and keeping the children safe. Emotional support. Caring for less obvious needs. Etc. Etc.

Anyway. I wonder if 'traditional' gender roles just stem from a very basic thing that makes males and females express themselves differently (hormones I guess?). Of course there are EXCEPTIONS to this and couples that buck these more traditional ways of expressing oneself but I wonder if the majority aren't more inclined to certain things and that's what makes those things 'traditional'.

I'm not sure if I explained that properly and I apologize if it made absolutely no sense. It was just a thought.

This makes perfect sense to me and I think it is sooooo true.

Growing up, I knew I wasn't going to be one of those girls who meets someone the first chance she gets and settle down. It's just wasn't in the cards for me - I knew that. So in college, I chose to study a career in college that has a lot of jobs in the field and pays decently. I want to support myself. I have plans to get a job in that field and eventually purchase my own home. I'm not going to wait for a guy because I doubt one will come along anytime soon, and I'm not putting my life on hold waiting for something nonexistent. But if I were to meet someone, I'd love it. I'm not helpless. But in a relationship, I want to feel taken care of. I will still work because I want to, but besides that, I want a guy to take care of me, and I want someone to take care of.

Nataliaho

What I find ironic about much of this thread is that there has been very very little of what I would describe as radical feminist rhetoric or even slightly feminist. Why then so many anti-feminist comments? A woman is not some kind of irrational, man hating psycho merely because they acknoweldge that historically women had it pretty tough, and perhaps some of effects continue today. Personally I find the 'those crazy feminst" comments pretty lazy and unintelligent.

As for the notion that its all about what's natural. Personally I think it could be just as easily argued that those stereotypes exist to keep women and men in their respective places, rather than the other way round. OMG I guess that makes me a full radical feminist.

This thread was a carry over thread from the 'paying for the first date' thread you were involved in the late stages of. There was substantial 'passive/aggressive' feminist commentary there, if you recall.

And here's the thing...when it comes down to the actual, true definition...I'M a freaking feminist. What people recognize today as 'feminism'...really isn't. It's a minority group who have lost sight of their original purpose. What the original feminists (non-radical) considered feminism, most men and women just consider common sense.

I've been involved in a number of threads where any comment/stance other than 'Ohh...poor you!! Here, you're sooooo downtrodden, lets overthrow society and make it all better for you!', is met with me being called a misogynistic, patriarchal *kitten*.

In their own 'passive/aggressive' way of course.

And for the record...I don't consider you in that light at all. You're open minded...and in the other thread if you recall, we had a very intelligent, respectful discussion, in which you were actually able to understand my point without issue. And that is the difference between you, and the others that I was talking about. They simply aren't capable of seeing any other viewpoint than their own.

I didn't make the connection to the other thread, so to be honest some of the comments here just sound kinda snarky. I guess I understand what you are saying about 'feminsm', however I can see the value to the extremist viewpoints. Afterall like you say today's 'common sense' was yesterday's radical feminsim...

That may very well be true.

But that's the thing for me...I'm not anti-feminism, I'm anti-extremist. That goes for other things than feminism as well...but there it is either way. Extremist view are rarely good for an organization, or for the people around them.

Take the whole 'glass ceiling' thing. Does it exist? Well...the fact of the matter is that neither you or I know...and any information passed on to us by our respective sources of information is likely to be biased.

But I know that the person who just resigned from Chase for losing them over $2 billion, wasn't male. Knowing that, it's sort of tough to recognize a 'glass ceiling' from my side of it, that's for sure.

I don't know about that, I think you draw some conclusions from the numbers of women in positions of power in business, universities and government. Either you believe that is because women aren't as capable or because of less opportunity. I choose to believe the latter because I have never felt personally or in regard to female colleagues that men were inately more capable and that is working in a male-dominated field. To the contrary I have frequently been bemused when male colleagues were attributed as possessing skills they simply did not exhibit purely because it is assumed that as males they *must* be such. Being a 'tough boss' is a typical one, I have to LOL at the times I have seen weak old men percieved as tough and yet I am the one who has had to have the tough discussion with an under performer or deal with a difficult client.

As for the banker woman, I would only ask.. how many men managed us into the GFC?

crisanderson27

What I find ironic about much of this thread is that there has been very very little of what I would describe as radical feminist rhetoric or even slightly feminist. Why then so many anti-feminist comments? A woman is not some kind of irrational, man hating psycho merely because they acknoweldge that historically women had it pretty tough, and perhaps some of effects continue today. Personally I find the 'those crazy feminst" comments pretty lazy and unintelligent.

As for the notion that its all about what's natural. Personally I think it could be just as easily argued that those stereotypes exist to keep women and men in their respective places, rather than the other way round. OMG I guess that makes me a full radical feminist.

This thread was a carry over thread from the 'paying for the first date' thread you were involved in the late stages of. There was substantial 'passive/aggressive' feminist commentary there, if you recall.

And here's the thing...when it comes down to the actual, true definition...I'M a freaking feminist. What people recognize today as 'feminism'...really isn't. It's a minority group who have lost sight of their original purpose. What the original feminists (non-radical) considered feminism, most men and women just consider common sense.

I've been involved in a number of threads where any comment/stance other than 'Ohh...poor you!! Here, you're sooooo downtrodden, lets overthrow society and make it all better for you!', is met with me being called a misogynistic, patriarchal *kitten*.

In their own 'passive/aggressive' way of course.

And for the record...I don't consider you in that light at all. You're open minded...and in the other thread if you recall, we had a very intelligent, respectful discussion, in which you were actually able to understand my point without issue. And that is the difference between you, and the others that I was talking about. They simply aren't capable of seeing any other viewpoint than their own.

I didn't make the connection to the other thread, so to be honest some of the comments here just sound kinda snarky. I guess I understand what you are saying about 'feminsm', however I can see the value to the extremist viewpoints. Afterall like you say today's 'common sense' was yesterday's radical feminsim...

That may very well be true.

But that's the thing for me...I'm not anti-feminism, I'm anti-extremist. That goes for other things than feminism as well...but there it is either way. Extremist view are rarely good for an organization, or for the people around them.

Take the whole 'glass ceiling' thing. Does it exist? Well...the fact of the matter is that neither you or I know...and any information passed on to us by our respective sources of information is likely to be biased.

But I know that the person who just resigned from Chase for losing them over $2 billion, wasn't male. Knowing that, it's sort of tough to recognize a 'glass ceiling' from my side of it, that's for sure.

I don't know about that, I think you draw some conclusions from the numbers of women in positions of power in business, universities and government. Either you believe that is because women aren't as capable or because of less opportunity. I choose to believe the latter because I have never felt personally or in regard to female colleagues that men were inately more capable and that is working in a male-dominated field. To the contrary I have frequently been bemused when male colleagues were attributed as possessing skills they simply did not exhibit purely because it is assumed that as males they *must* be such. Being a 'tough boss' is a typical one, I have to LOL at the times I have seen weak old men percieved as tough and yet I am the one who has had to have the tough discussion with an under performer or deal with a difficult client.

As for the banker woman, I would only ask.. how many men managed us into the GFC?

I wasn't using her as an example of poor management (see, that kind of proves my point, why did you automatically assume I was trying to prove a man would do better, and then try to make a point to me that men have done just as bad or worse?). I was using her as an example of a woman in an incredibly high paying job, that extreme feminists would have you believe is reserved for men. The point of which by the way, was that as a middle class male, I don't see a lot to complain about.

Additionally, if you look...the number of female CEO's is on the rise. Of course the percentage isn't equal, nor is it even equal from a gender/population perspective...but the fact that it is climbing is very telling.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/fortune-500-female-ceos_n_1495734.html

I guess my point here is that no, we shouldn't be lax in stomping out inequality (where its truly inequality of course) when it raises its head. But to blame the average modern male for what was the status quo in his grandfather's day, isn't very realistic. Even more unrealistic, is to blame/villainize traditional values and gender roles (as seen through a modern filter, of course), or hold them up as a tool of oppression.