You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Oooh, I'm really sorry if there was any counter I didn't reply, I actually love to be countered and to see someone else try to apply logic to my opinions. Gotta actually be logical, though 😃. I'll go and try to find any of such unreplied comment.
But then, in this comment of yours we agree on a lot of stuff.
You said feminism is about questioning the bargain. And I agree, I said so in the post you may have missed it. I said:
If she doesn't like to carry out hers then he also doesn't have to carry out his. She has to also provide and still carry out chores, she has to aim for half of both (provision and housekeeping). And the guy is to do the same.
In the post I also said:
they're just two compensating roles and if one person does one the other is to do the other. Except they want to share both roles and aim for balance.
That is clearly a bargain, because I'm not only saying her response to him carrying out his patriarchal role is that she has to carry out hers, I'm saying she also has the option to aim for about half of provision and half of housekeeping and the guy is to also do same. That is, they both provide and they both do the chores.
You said:
"people can contribute in other ways. If they don't, that's a relationship issue, not a failure of feminism."
And I never blamed feminism in the entire post, I instead used the post as a chance to defend feminism. Look what I said:
At this point it seems like I'm going to point at feminism and say this is how crazy feminism is, and that this is how feminism is ruining society. But that's not the truth, feminism is NOT ruining society, but misunderstanding feminism is ruining society.
Then you're making it about "what, dude, I give her all this stuff and she doesn't 'fetch" but I made it about she takes all these stuff and she doesn't want to give anything in return whether by way of fetching or if she doesn't like fetching renegotiating something that is more fair to both of them since she's supposed to be a feminist and feminism is about equality and fairness, not sitting back and letting one person carry a bigger burden than you do while saying nothing about fairness until it is your turn to contribute.
"he performs his patriarchal role, therefore she must perform hers" is just half the story. The full story is that she must perform hers or renegotiate something more balance. SHE MUST AIM FOR BALANCE.
Aiming for balance is a must if you are supposed to be someone interested in equality and fairness. You can't say you don't blame someone who is interested in equality and fairness for sitting back and watching their partner do most of the stuff. Her feminism is supposed to kick in immediately she notices it going on for a while like "hey, you're doing a lot while I do almost nothing, it is not fair I have to stop you right there".
Remember, he's not only performing his patriarchal role of his own accord, she's letting him perform it. If you're in a relationship with someone and they're doing something regularly and you say nothing about it but rather sit back and enjoy it then they're not just doing it, you're letting them do it. You're complicit.
If she's letting him perform it without stopping him or renegotiating then it means she has to perform hers. That's the only way it can be fair. If she's against patriarchy there's no way she should be comfortable letting a man perform his patriarchal role while she only speaks up when asked to perform hers and her speaking up is not in order to renegotiate or stop him from doing more but simply to stop herself from doing her part. That is just selfishness and hypocrisy. A complete lack of interest in the fairness that feminism is all about.
So, while reading the post, I think you just missed the extra stuff I added to
"he performs his patriarchal role, therefore she must perform hers"
Even if we try to prove some valid points, its a losing battle nowadays my friend. It sucks.
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 😁
View more