You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: Eating Your Cake and Having It Via Feminism 😂
Thanks for the reply!! I do think we agreed on many points!
But aha no, I don't think I missed your argument 😂
My point still stands - if she's
sitting around contributing absolutely nothing while he pays for everything, then yeah, she's being selfish - we agree there. I'm not defending that for sure - she's a shit girlfriend 😂
Where I disagree with you is this idea that because she's "letting him perform his patriarchal role" she's therefore entered into some bargain where she must perform hers unless she actively renegotiates it.
That's still an assumed deal though -
just because providing for her doesn't automatically mean she's agreed to cook, clean, wash his clothes and fetch his dinner in return.
If that's what he expects in exchange for providing for her, then that is something THEY need to agree on. You can't have an unspoken contract and then accuse the other person of breaking it.
Also I don't think "balance" necessarily means half the money and half the housework either - spreadsheeting a relationship is shitty. People contribute all kinds of things, and one person might earn five times what the other does anyway, so it's a bit hard to divide it up down the middle and unfair.
. The point is that the people IN the relationship decide what feels fair - and even us on the outside for sure think she shouldn't take advantage of him. We agree there 💯
But she accepts his provision, therefore she's letting him perform his patriarchal role and must either perform hers or opt out — I stand by my argument that you're making the patriarchal bargain the default until she explicitly rejects it.
I'm saying there shouldn't BE a default bargain based on gender in the first place.
Also 😂 you took one woman being a selfish girlfriend and somehow arrived at the craziest generalisation that "at least 80% of females who claim to be feminists misunderstand feminism" - lol - and women can't fully grasp feminism because they don't want to give up the benefits of patriarchy --- what a stat! Lmao.
Maybe she understands feminism perfectly well and she's just an arsehole.
I think we are general on the same page though 😁
Well, I'm surprised you disagree with this.
It's an assumed deal, but you've gotten it wrong again with this, it doesn't ONLY automatically mean she's agreed to do all that, it also means she should renegotiate if she's not down with that.
It's just like two people are assigned the duty of washing two cars, a benz and a jeep, and soon as they get there person A starts washing the Benz while person B watches, then when done with the Benz person A dusts himself and say "okay, your turn with the jeep" and person B starts to complain that they don't like washing jeeps.
Oh then why didn't you say so when I started washing the Benz, you watched me watch the whole Benz, it took hours, enough time for you to say something but you didn't say anything. Why now when it is your turn?
If you didn't want to wash the jeep you could have said something. You should have asked if I'll prefer jeeps. Or even though I had started with the Benz you should have said wash only half of it or thereabouts, while I wash the other half and we'll do the same on the Jeep. Or something
The bottom line is, when two people get in a relationship and staying together they are assigned two jobs mainly: provision and housekeeping. And if one person is doing one of them there are only two options left for the other, to either do the one left undone or renegotiating something so that they don't have to wholly do the one left undone.
Those are the only two options left and if you wouldn't agree with that, the calibration of your justice compass is really a wonder.
You're right about this, though, the guy is to blame too. But the post was from the girl's angle, the feminist angle and I never spoke of the guy's part once I introduced the girl's actions because the girl's actions are the focus here. She can't benefit from the excuse that it was an unspoken contract because she's supposed to be a feminist and someone whose eyes are supposed to be open for injustices like these.
Letting him do his patriarchal part shows she's down for the patriarchal arrangement. Her way of showing she's not down for it should have been rejecting it from the onset or renegotiating it.
I agree with you here and that's why I mentioned balance, and I used the words "aim for". It is only something you can attempt not something that can be gotten down to the letter. It's not supposed to be strict but should be reached for. That's why I didn't dwell on making sure it was exact and calculated to the last figure.
And who is supposed to know better about rejecting this default bargain? A feminist, right? That's why this post is pointing at how wrong it is that a so called feminist acquiesced to it, benefitted, and only complained when it was her time to give back.
LOL. I didn't arrive at that conclusion and stat because of this one case, but it is something I've come to find in my time observing women, so called feminists and related matters. You can say I'm wrong, though, because I can't necessarily prove it. I haven't carried out a scientifically verifiable research that arrived at the conclusion. But I stand by it, and I bet if that research is conducted I'll be proven right.
Very good one 😂. That could be the case.
Yes, fuck the small specifics we don't seem to agree on (shaking my fist in the face of the "small specifics")