'traditional' roles

dearg lady

I searched this topic and something came up but it was quite a few years ago, hope it hasn't been brought up recently, forgive me if so!

I'm interested to hear people's opinions on 'traditional' male/female roles and whether they think there is a place for them in todays society?

In recent years there's been quite an influx of people from other countries with different cultures arriving in Ireland. I've noticed that some cultures still value these traditional roles, and the dynamic of relationships is quite different than say an Irish couple. I'm only using this as an example, the race isn't an issue.

So yeah, what are people thoughts? Were things better in the old day? Is it partially relevant? Complete nonsense? Would you judge someone who was very traditional in this way?

WindSock

Do you mean the man goes out and works while the woman stays at home with the kiddies? Or do you mean the man gets promoted to CEO and the woman gets to be his P.A?

Macha

dearg lady wrote: »

Were things better in the old day? Is it partially relevant? Complete nonsense? Would you judge someone who was very traditional in this way?

Well I'm sure it will be no surprise to anyone here if I say I don't think things were better in the old days

I don't I wouldn't judge someone who was very traditional, after all, everyone should be free to do what they want. If they started telling me I should be traditional as well, I might be less inclined to think so nicely of them..

dearg lady

any part of it really, but I suppose the woman staying at home idea is so blown out of the water already in our society. I know of very few who go for this. More so I've seen relationships where the woman takes on a more submissive role, or vice versa in fairness.

WindSock

Well I would be of the opinion that it is important to have at least one parent look after the kids for most of the time, while the other wins the bread. Male or female is irrelevant, but it is mostly going to be female anyway as men in general are in higher paid jobs.

Nervous Wreck

^^Why are you immediately assuming the involvement of kids and of a stable 2-parent relationship?




IMO, traditional 'values' blow. Just another way for chauvinist men to bully women into submission. "I'll make the money, you make my dinner." "I'll hold the door open, you put out." C*nt off, in fairness. Last time I went on a date, the girl bought me dinner. The time before, I paid for everything. Equality ftw.



(Of course, I'm being slightly dramatic but what's life without a little hyperbole?)

gillo_100

One thing I think is important to remember is these roles originated from when they made much more sense. The going out to work was men, who were the physically stronger going out on a hunt. The stay at home mum, stayed at home to mind kids as kids had to be breastfed, and they likely went from one baby to another. These traditional roles suited quite well for the past whatever number of years and it is only very recently that there has been opportunity to question them. And as such they are still quite ingrained in many people. And I would imagine more so in less developed countries.

Personally I like the idea of a stay at home parent. For various reasons I think it is benificial to the family unit and even society in general.

Should it be the wife? while it might be the more logical choice I'd have no problem in the traditional roles being reversed and the father staying at home while the mother earns.

herya

I wouldn't have problems with "traditional" roles as long as it doesn't influence the material status/security of the person who decides to stay at home. Unfortunately it does and it's actually a big sacrifice - if you stay at home you have no qualifications/work experience, your work is not financially recognised. Even a couple of years worth gap in your CV brings your salary and position down.

If you stay together forever it's fine, but with contemporary divorce rates it's very likely to end up in trouble because one side is clearly disadvantaged and even if granted some money by the courts will be seen as a leech (I don't really differentiate between men/women here).

Traditional roles were understandable in a traditional no divorce society - although even then the death of a sole provider often resulted in the degradation of the remaining family if they had no other family to fall back on.

As of today I believe that it's absolutely fine to opt for a traditional stay with kids/go out to work split; there are many advantages of this system. The person staying at home, however, should receive a fair cut of the household income as their salary for the work they do at home. They can save it, spend it or get themselves a pension just like everybody else, the money is theirs - but in case of divorce they don't get anything more in cash from the breadwinner.

SeekUp

It is interesting how quickly the discussion of traditional roles has turned to one parent staying at home and another going out and working!!!!

WindSock wrote: »

Well I would be of the opinion that it is important to have at least one parent look after the kids for most of the time, while the other wins the bread.

Personally, I wouldn't be a fan of that idea; I wouldn't want my children to think of one parent as "the one who takes care of us" and the other parent as "the one who makes the money." I'd like my kids to see both of us in a variety of roles, although I know that flexibility isn't always an option.

In terms of non-child-rearing gender roles, I find that we fall into them often . . . the tasks we do around the house, even our interests/hobbies. I'm not quite sure why, but I can't say that I've ever had a problem with it.

Macha

gillo_100 wrote: »

One thing I think is important to remember is these roles originated from when they made much more sense. The going out to work was men, who were the physically stronger going out on a hunt. The stay at home mum, stayed at home to mind kids as kids had to be breastfed, and they likely went from one baby to another. These traditional roles suited quite well for the past whatever number of years and it is only very recently that there has been opportunity to question them. And as such they are still quite ingrained in many people. And I would imagine more so in less developed countries.

Personally I like the idea of a stay at home parent. For various reasons I think it is benificial to the family unit and even society in general.

Should it be the wife? while it might be the more logical choice I'd have no problem in the traditional roles being reversed and the father staying at home while the mother earns.

You see, this idea of the traditional hunting family is actually a myth.

People lived in large groups, often with two, three, even four generations under the same roof. Women did leave the 'cave' for many hours at a time and were regularly responsible for bringing over 50% of the calories into the household.

The two-parent family is actually a more recent phenomenon that has been pushed, largely by Christianity, but also by others, in an attempt to protect the children and give them a more stable environment (whether that's actually the case is for another thread).

I don't see why it has to be parent A or parent B that stays at home. I think a better solution is more flexibility in the work place that acknowledges that the 'one-parent-stays-at-home' model is outdated and reflects the new reality that maybe both parents (shock) want to be involved in their children's lives but also work outside the home.

herya

taconnol wrote: »

I don't see why it has to be parent A or parent B that stays at home. I think a better solution is more flexibility in the work place that acknowledges that the 'one-parent-stays-at-home' model is outdated and reflects the new reality that maybe both parents (shock) want to be involved in their children's lives but also work outside the home.

You also need to take into account that people enjoy various kind of activities and have different aspirations.

I need to go out and work and learn or I'd go crazy. But there are people for whom spending time with their children is the most challenging and rewarding activity, moreso than any professional career. There are born playschool teachers out there and there are born full time parents out there, I've met them. It's not something I would personally do and it feels alien to me but I respect somebody's conscious decision to do it and if the other partner is a successful professional (and a part time parent) whose income allows them to split their duties this way it's cool. The only thing is that the person who decides to become a full time parent should not be put at a disadvantage financially. They have their share of duties within the household even though they are performed at home.

Joey the lips

There was never a traditional role in our life. But it has come to a stage where one of us need to be at home more. I lost my job and my wifes is more secure so I am working part time and looking after the house. I am lucky that the work is in my area that i worked full time.

It was always however going to be a case of who ever earns the most or is most secure works and who ever is the opposite works at home.

The only thing traditional in my home is I open doors etc for my wife or go the bar you catch the jist and this is only because she wants it that way.


I am reminded however of her mother when we started going out " My daughter wont be sitting at home cooking and cleaning and scrubbing while you are out in the pub and working" My reply "Thats no problem mother, once she leaves my wages on the side board she can feck off and do what she likes, I will stay at home and cook and clean" Needless to say it was not liked.

Macha

herya wrote: »

You also need to take into account that people enjoy various kind of activities and have different aspirations.

Oh sure, but I think those kind of people already are more than catered for in today's work/family set-up, no?

tinkerbell

WindSock wrote: »

Do you mean the man goes out and works while the woman stays at home with the kiddies? Or do you mean the man gets promoted to CEO and the woman gets to be his P.A?

lol ha ha, hmm I wonder too what the OP is wondering about.

Well, me for one, I will never be a stay-at-home-mom. I worked too hard to get where I am today just to give it all up when there would be no need when I do have children. Neither would I expect my partner to stay at home.

As for other normal male / female roles ... well yah, to me there are certain man and woman roles! e.g. I am quite happy to do the cleaning around the house, laundry, I do a lot of the cooking and I do all the grocery shopping (my favourite) etc. Himself does all the DIY man jobs. There is no way I could do DIY stuff. It works out perfect actually because well for one, himself absolutely detests grocery shopping and I love it! So happy days.

Khannie

We have a "traditional" setup. I work and my wife's a stay at home mum. We have 2 kids and a 3rd (probably not the last) on the way. When she left work she was earning more than I was, though my medium / long term earning prospects were slightly better than hers and also I'd go f*cking mental as a stay at home parent.

We came to the decision a bit like this:

Childcare is f*cking expensive.
Your child will receive more love and attention from you than from a paid carer (i.e. having a parent at home is better for the child).

We sat down, did the sums and figured out that you really need to be earning damned good money for it to be financially viable to pay for childcare when you have 2 or more children (at 3 I think it becomes prohibitively expensive even for the vast majority).

It's working out really well for us generally. There are downsides (less cash for all of us, less mental exercise / social interaction for my wife) but our kids are doing great. I'm constantly amazed at how well the little one is progressing and I (partly) put that down to devoted 1 on 1 time with her mum. She wouldn't go back to work if you paid her (badum-tish!).

tinkerbell wrote: »

I worked too hard to get where I am today just to give it all up when there would be no need when I do have children.

You can't really be sure of that until you have children. Frequently you couldn't care less about what's best for you, only what's best for them.

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

IMO, traditional 'values' blow. Just another way for chauvinist men to bully women into submission. "I'll make the money, you make my dinner." "I'll hold the door open, you put out."

This is utter bollox tbh. You can have traditional roles without being a prick about it.

PhysiologyRocks

I think it's up to the person.

I would HATE to be a stay-at-home mother. I detest any form of housework. I like quite a few people who happen to be children, but I'm not the world's most maternal sort.

My cousin plans to be a stay-at-home father when his wife has children.

Some love housework and childcare. Male or female, I very much respect stay-at-home parents. Still, I don't believe it's the only way to go.

Some appreciate men holding doors, etc. I can take or leave it. Men have held doors for me. If necessary, I have on occasion held doors for men (if they were carrying babies or on crutches, etc.).

Traditional roles can have a place in society for those who want them to.

chocgirl

Yeah I think it depends on the person and their situation too. At the minute I can't imagine giving up my job that I love and have worked so hard for to look after kids but then again I can't imagine having kids at the minute so I'm not in a position to judge.

metaoblivia

I think that different things work for different people, and if a couple decides that traditional roles work best for them, so be it!

If I had kids, I would like the option to stay home and be with them, especially during their early years. I'm only career driven when it comes to my writing. Anything else is just a means to an end.

CathyMoran

I would never want to be the stay at home parent if we are fortunate enough to have children - am not "domesticated" and while I love children the idea of staying at home all day would make me unhappy - there is a caveat to this though, I would like to be in a position of either me or my husband not working until they go to school and then work part time and eventually full time. Sadly it depends to some extent on the finances but we would do what was best for the child in question.

I saw how tough it was on my mum who was a traditional stay at home mother - I would never want to follow that.

I have never been good at following the traditional female stereotype - my interests would be for the most part traditionally male and I work in an area that is male dominated.

Dragan

WindSock wrote: »

Well I would be of the opinion that it is important to have at least one parent look after the kids for most of the time, while the other wins the bread. Male or female is irrelevant, but it is mostly going to be female anyway as men in general are in higher paid jobs.

I think the best solution is to have no kids and both people can earn a bit of bacon.:pac:

Xiney

My husband and I are young enough to be several years off trying for kids.

However, I've always wanted to be a stay at home mom at least when the kids were really young (up until school age). My mom stayed at home with us, which allowed her to instil her militant feminist viewpoints into us from a young age :P

Right now I'm unemployed and trying to be the happy housewife while my husband brings home the wages, which was working about as well as a square wheel since I hate cleaning and I love working, but it's going a lot better since we got a puppy. I've got someone to take care of now - I'm not bored and he's a lovely little guy. The house isn't any tidier but at least I can blame it on the dog

JC 2K3

I don't like the idea of someone aspiring to be a stay at home parent, and I could never be with someone like that, though I appreciate that in many circumstances it's the best option for couples and have no problem with it. (I do think that the idea that a stay at home parent is better for a child is elitist psychobabble, however)

What do you guys think should happen if a couple earning a similar amount have a child and decide a stay at home parent is the best option for them - but both of them want to do it? Should the man step aside and let the woman be the stay at home parent or should he have an equal claim to the position? i.e. should stay at home dads be strictly a conseqence of an unusual situation or should it be an arbitrary decision?

herya

JC 2K3 wrote: »

What do you guys think should happen if a couple earning a similar amount have a child and decide a stay at home parent is the best option for them - but both of them want to do it? Should the man step aside and let the woman be the stay at home parent or should he have an equal claim to the position? i.e. should stay at home dads be strictly a conseqence of an unusual situation or should it be an arbitrary decision?

They can always take turns which could in fact be better for both the family (children do not get used to one parent more) and their careers.

JC 2K3

That would be ideal, but practical?

tbh, I don't have enough experience of the working world to answer that, but I get the impression that it'd be difficult to alternate between your career and kids...

herya

JC 2K3 wrote: »

That would be ideal, but practical?

tbh, I don't have enough experience of the working world to answer that, but I get the impression that it'd be difficult to alternate between your career and kids...

Quite a lot of people do it every day - they alternate between 8 hours career, 8 hours kids, 8 hours sleep

Acacia

My dad has the weirdest ideas about a 'woman's place being in the home'. One time he came out with something along the lines of ''I think women were pushed into the workplace, I mean, the companies and government just wanted more workers so they started filling women's mind with stuff about 'equality' and 'their right to work outside the home'. It's all propaganda."

Needless to say I was like this :eek:. My response was something like "What about feminism and various women's movements to get women equal working rights?"

"Sure, feminists are very bitter people...they all hate men. I wouldn't listen to them...":pac:

As you may have guessed by now, my dad works and my mam stays at home. Well, fair enough, if that's what you want, but I'll be out working for sure ( if I can find a job, that is!):D

Stheno

JC 2K3 wrote: »

That would be ideal, but practical?

tbh, I don't have enough experience of the working world to answer that, but I get the impression that it'd be difficult to alternate between your career and kids...

Not especially ime, I work with a lot of guys who have kids, who tailor their working hours where possible around childcare, take time off to take their kids to the hospital/attend pta meetings/accomodate partners work hours/take holidays to accomodate their kids, and work late in the evening if they have to after they have had time with their kids.

I don't have a huge amount of experience of women who have kids and how they work as I work in a male dominated environment and always have with the exception of five months in 12 years.

With that approach imo, a lot depends on the company and how flexible they are in terms of family commitments.

Hermione*

I don't have a lot of time for traditional roles. I was brought up with no experience of them. When I was in primary school in the 80s, my dad was probably the only father waiting to collect children at the school gates. He and my mother both worked, but Dad worked nights/weekends and my mother worked 9-5, so it was Dad who collected us from school, did homework with us etc etc. My Dad can cook, bake, clean, and sew. Some of these things he did better than Mum, some things Mum did better so he left them for her.
He told me before that when they were getting married in the 1970s, my mum was afraid to bring up the subject of her job because she thought he'd want her to give it up. Most married women did at the time. He reckoned if working made her happy, why force her to be at home and unhappy?

My mother and her mother were both working mothers (in the 1980s and 1950s, respectively); by choice, both were married and evidently, to enlightened men. I imagine I'll be the same. I couldn't imagine being a housewife.

Khannie

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I do think that the idea that a stay at home parent is better for a child is elitist psychobabble, however

Elitist psychobable? :rolleyes: That sounds like elitist psychobable to me. What are you basing that on?

Stheno

Khannie wrote: »

Elitist psychobable? :rolleyes: That sounds like elitist psychobable to me. What are you basing that on?

Same here I'd always like a parent around to mind kids, my mum ran a small shop attached to our house and my dad had another job, and outside of nine to five they split the shop/house/kids responsibilites, my dad was as likely to be helping me make a stew as my mum was to be showing another kid how to do the books

It was a really collaborative relationship, and my mum and dad went through some bad times, but I'd ascribe some of the strength of their relationship to their ability to recognise each others strengths and work off them without ascribing it to gender

SeekUp

Hermione* wrote: »

My mother and her mother were both working mothers (in the 1980s and 1950s, respectively); by choice, both were married and evidently, to enlightened men. I imagine I'll be the same. I couldn't imagine being a housewife.

Same with my mother and grandmother -- both working women around the same time period. But I think it's important to note that just as there are more flexible work environments, there are more flexible professions. My mother, for example, was a teacher, so during holidays and school breaks, she was able to have the time off with my brother and myself. My father had a more structured 9-5 deal going on.

I'm also guessing that it's often just as much about necessity and practicality as it is about choice. As Khannie pointed out, when you have more than x children, it might be more cost effective for one parent to stay home than to pay for childcare. On the other hand, sometimes it isn't really a choice if the family needs income from both parents to make ends meet.

I also think that young professional women face a contradiction; they're encouraged to do well and be happy with their chosen career path nowadays, which makes it a bit more difficult when they (and their partner, if applicable) decide that they want to start a family -- and then they should have no problem leaving behind what they originally wanted. It's tough to have both, and I imagine that without that kind of flexible environment/profession, you'd feel as if you weren't getting satisfaction from either.

I wouldn't want to feel as if I didn't have an option either way.

What about traditional roles outside of the home/parenting?

Stheno

SeekUp wrote: »

Same with my mother and grandmother -- both working women around the same time period. But I think it's important to note that just as there are more flexible work environments, there are more flexible professions. .

I'd wonder the opposite actually, given their professions, I'd wonder if they ended up in them as a result and given their education, did they expect more from future generations of women.

The two things imo that has contributed most to the lack of advancement of women in careers is the lack of childcare friendly workplaces/lack of work friendly childcare, and the lack of equality when it comes to parental/maternity leave

3DataModem

Wow. I wish I was the one planning to stay at home when the twins are born in December, but as my wife is out of work and I'm currently earning more dough then she's likely to be able to anytime soon it's best for the kids-to-be that she stays with them. What's more worthwhile then raising children. I have a wonderful (and wonderful-paying) job but Christ I'd love to get to look after them rather than work outside the home.

To those of you placing great value on your employment status... it is transient and temporary. If you've fooled yourself into thinking that a job (or - ahem - career) is worth anything just wait until you are 50 and starting to get marginalised by the working society, and then when you retire your wonderful career is gone... and so are your kids.

A job ain't nothing but work (and I'm speaking as a high-earner in one of the most enjoyable jobs I could concieve).

Whilst I support equality, the greatest trick ever played on women is convincing them that working outside the home was somehow "better" than working in the home. Unless you happen to be teaching or doing something vocational, it just isn't.

Saying that, it's all about personal choice.... but we've somehow convinced ourselves that full time parenthood and home management is somehow the soft option!

herya

3DataModem wrote: »

To those of you placing great value on your employment status... it is transient and temporary. If you've fooled yourself into thinking that a job (or - ahem - career) is worth anything just wait until you are 50 and starting to get marginalised by the working society, and then when you retire your wonderful career is gone... and so are your kids.

That might be true if not one factor - money. As a parent you can't go all airy fairy and expect the bills to magically pay themselves. I don't mean 4x4 SUVs but basic stability I feel responsible parents should give their children.

3DataModem wrote: »

Whilst I support equality, the greatest trick ever played on women is convincing them that working outside the home was somehow "better" than working in the home. Unless you happen to be teaching or doing something vocational, it just isn't.

Questionable - I did spend some time at home and it's a slow intellectual death. No matter how much you read and what's your social circle without a good solid challenge I had at work I could feel my brain cells withering and dying. In this aspect I can't see homemaking ever trumping (decent) work.

SeekUp

3DataModem wrote: »

Whilst I support equality, the greatest trick ever played on women is convincing them that working outside the home was somehow "better" than working in the home. Unless you happen to be teaching or doing something vocational, it just isn't.

Saying that, it's all about personal choice.... but we've somehow convinced ourselves that full time parenthood and home management is somehow the soft option!

I would never, never say that being a full-time parent is a soft option!! (And neither would many people if they had to do it for 24 hours!) I don't think it's a question of one being better than the other either. But there's something . . . off, maybe? . . . about women being "convinced" of either option. If you like working, you shouldn't be made to feel guilty that you like working. And if you want to stay at home, you shouldn't be made to feel guilty about that, either.

Yes, some men stay home, and that's awesome. But aside from one parent having lost his/her job, the active decision of whether or not to stay home with a child/children seems to be a dilemma that's specific to women. (And certainly some aspects of it are practical, such as breastfeeding.) But again, in a time where both men and women are working full-time, this shouldn't be a gender-specific question anymore.

Hermione*

SeekUp wrote: »

Same with my mother and grandmother -- both working women around the same time period. But I think it's important to note that just as there are more flexible work environments, there are more flexible professions. My mother, for example, was a teacher, so during holidays and school breaks, she was able to have the time off with my brother and myself. My father had a more structured 9-5 deal going on.

You probably have a point there. My grandmother ran a business with her husband, and by herself after he died unexpectedly. She was told by a parish priest to hire a man to do it for her, but he got short shrift! My mother was a civil servant on flexitime, but Dad was at home during the day.

3DataModem wrote: »

Saying that, it's all about personal choice.... but we've somehow convinced ourselves that full time parenthood and home management is somehow the soft option!

I have a sister who's a housewife so I know it's not easy. It makes her happy though.

3DataModem wrote: »

To those of you placing great value on your employment status... it is transient and temporary. If you've fooled yourself into thinking that a job (or - ahem - career) is worth anything just wait until you are 50 and starting to get marginalised by the working society, and then when you retire your wonderful career is gone... and so are your kids.

A job ain't nothing but work (and I'm speaking as a high-earner in one of the most enjoyable jobs I could concieve).

Whilst I support equality, the greatest trick ever played on women is convincing them that working outside the home was somehow "better" than working in the home. Unless you happen to be teaching or doing something vocational, it just isn't.

I don't think either working at home or in an office is "better"; the only criteria which makes one superior to the other is that one will make an individual happier. I don't need to be convinced by anyone of which I should do. My choice is based on what would make me happy.

I really enjoy my job. I may not have children, I don't know, so it's a moot point as to whether being a housewife is a more valuable employment of my time. I would consider my job to be valuable regardless of how many children I may have, though.

My mother worked her whole life, from the age of 18 to 64, and she never regretted it. She inspired my little sister and I to believe we could do whatever we put our minds to.

JC 2K3

Khannie wrote: »

Elitist psychobable? :rolleyes: That sounds like elitist psychobable to me. What are you basing that on?

Not being screwed up.

I find that a lot of claims about what's better parentingwise seem elitist and, if supported at all, are based on seemingly dodgy science.

You shouldn't interpret my post to mean I think that stay at home parents are bad, that's not what I meant at all.

Morgase

I can't comment on which person stays home to mind the kids as I have no personal experience of that.

But as for traditional gender roles, I grew up with my dad going out to work and my mother staying at home. It was the same for most of my neighbours and I felt that a lot of these women were financially dependant on their husbands and I didn't like that one bit!

I was quite determined to never be in that position myself, and worked hard to make sure that I was dependant on me and no-one else. I'm not making a judgement on anyone who does stay at home, just saying that I couldn't do it.

WindSock

JC 2K3 wrote: »

What do you guys think should happen if a couple earning a similar amount have a child and decide a stay at home parent is the best option for them - but both of them want to do it? Should the man step aside and let the woman be the stay at home parent or should he have an equal claim to the position? i.e. should stay at home dads be strictly a conseqence of an unusual situation or should it be an arbitrary decision?

In an ideal world there would be more flexi time that would enable both parents to do both. I think the main reason there are more 'fors' for the stay at home parent is that the child gets to be brought up in a stable environment and he or she will have an idea on what to expect, rather than getting attached to carers that can leave and be replaced at anytime.

green dolphin

Everyone is talking about parenting rather than 'traditional roles', and I think the parenting discussion has been done to death. I'm much more interested in what I think the OP was trying to get at in the original post.

In many other cultures gender stereotypes are far more distinct, and it is interesting for me as an Irish person having a bigger variety of cultures around. You notice how different couples interact with each other, and what part each persons culture plays in the dynamic of their relationship. People from different cultures often have different expectations of how a relationship should function and sometimes can cause conflict or work perfectly.

I think Irish guys are a bit confused as to whats expected of them these days, and I think there's a big problem with the anti-male attitude of almost all advertisements and most sitcoms you see on tv these days - they portray men as dumb knuckleheads, incompetent, inadequate or lazy, and incapable of doing the right things to please their female partners. I know this is because most of those ads are trying to catch the female attention, but even if they were only seen by women its still bad. If an ad came out that portrayed a woman in the way many ads portray men it wouldn't be allowed on the air since it would be demeaning and unempowering to women. I'm sure these attitudes effect how we interact with each other, our relationship dynamics and the amount of respect we have for the opposite sex.

Independent working women have more disposable income and so are better consumers, and women in the workplace has been a huge part of the consumer culture we have today. So it's in the best interest of marketers, advertisers and businesses to encourage this new role [whether or not its in our own]

dearg lady wrote: »

I searched this topic and something came up but it was quite a few years ago, hope it hasn't been brought up recently, forgive me if so!

I'm interested to hear people's opinions on 'traditional' male/female roles and whether they think there is a place for them in todays society?

In recent years there's been quite an influx of people from other countries with different cultures arriving in Ireland. I've noticed that some cultures still value these traditional roles, and the dynamic of relationships is quite different than say an Irish couple. I'm only using this as an example, the race isn't an issue.

So yeah, what are people thoughts? Were things better in the old day? Is it partially relevant? Complete nonsense? Would you judge someone who was very traditional in this way?

SeekUp

green dolphin wrote: »

I think there's a big problem with the anti-male attitude of almost all advertisements and most sitcoms you see on tv these days - they portray men as dumb knuckleheads, incompetent, inadequate or lazy, and incapable of doing the right things to please their female partners. I know this is because most of those ads are trying to catch the female attention, but even if they were only seen by women its still bad. If an ad came out that portrayed a woman in the way many ads portray men it wouldn't be allowed on the air since it would be demeaning and unempowering to women. I'm sure these attitudes effect how we interact with each other, our relationship dynamics and the amount of respect we have for the opposite sex.

There's also the idea that the smart/capable/attractive woman "behind" the "dumb knuckleheads" have to do their best and put up with the men who are "incompetent, inadequate or lazy." I've seen/heard some of this attitude in casual conversation, and it's strange that this kind of dichotomy exists; we know that roles have shifted somewhat, yet both women and men still feel pressure in certain areas to conform to their preconceived roles.

(In terms of respect - I'd say that's diminished quite a bit in modern Western society. Even though I think we treat the opposite sex with less respect (than . . . before?), I would say we generally treat one another with less respect - and that's accepted by everyone.)

It's also a generational thing as well, perhaps? Mid- to upper-level executives realizing that there is/has been a shift in how we see men, women and the relationship between the two, and therefore going a bit too far in the other direction to reach those not buying the message that's worked in the past?

Macha

green dolphin wrote: »

I think Irish guys are a bit confused as to whats expected of them these days, and I think there's a big problem with the anti-male attitude of almost all advertisements and most sitcoms you see on tv these days - they portray men as dumb knuckleheads, incompetent, inadequate or lazy, and incapable of doing the right things to please their female partners. I know this is because most of those ads are trying to catch the female attention, but even if they were only seen by women its still bad. If an ad came out that portrayed a woman in the way many ads portray men it wouldn't be allowed on the air since it would be demeaning and unempowering to women. I'm sure these attitudes effect how we interact with each other, our relationship dynamics and the amount of respect we have for the opposite sex.

I fully acknowledge how insulting these ads are for men, but take a moment to consider this dynamic is always played out in the home.

As such, I look on the stereotype as also having a beneficial function for men as it absolves them of responsibility for doing menial, unpaid work like housework and cleaning. It also reinforces that housework is undervalued and looked down on by our society as 'wimmins' work and holds up the gendered division of labour.

Also, the power imbalance is supposed to be funny in these ads because it is the person with less power (ie the housewife) that gets to shake her head knowingly at the bumbling husband (for whom it doesn't really matter as he has a big well-paid job that he seems to be able to manage just fine).

Sarah Haskins covers this pretty well:

http://current.com/items/90569059_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-doofy-husbands.htm

It's similar to the cheating/oogling man meme, whereby men can't control their 'urges' and women are all insecure, jealous shrews. Sure it's insulting to both sexes but men do benefit as, well, they get to justify any form of sexual behaviour as 'in their nature'.

Also, are you serious when you say that there would be uproar if a similar ad came out for women? Try looking through a few of these videos:

http://current.com/target-women/new/

green dolphin wrote: »

Independent working women have more disposable income and so are better consumers, and women in the workplace has been a huge part of the consumer culture we have today. So it's in the best interest of marketers, advertisers and businesses to encourage this new role [whether or not its in our own]

Why do you assume that independent working women have more disposable income? Why is the consumer culture a result of women moving into the work place? Are you suggesting that women in the workplace may not be in our (ie society's) interest??!

Dragan

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Not being screwed up.

I find that a lot of claims about what's better parentingwise seem elitist and, if supported at all, are based on seemingly dodgy science.

You shouldn't interpret my post to mean I think that stay at home parents are bad, that's not what I meant at all.

Agreed, it's a huge leap to assume that because some can get knocked up, or knock someone up, they can be a good parent. There are plenty of people in the world who would be better off handing off their kids to someone for 12 hours a day.

green dolphin

taconnol wrote: »

Why do you assume that independent working women have more disposable income? Why is the consumer culture a result of women moving into the work place? Are you suggesting that women in the workplace may not be in our (ie society's) interest??!

The consumer culture isn't solely because of women moving into the workplace outside the home, but its a significant factor. If you imagine that before middle class women started to get serious well paid jobs most women would be financially dependent on their parents, and then their husbands, their income was limited and their money was not really theirs. In recent years a normal single working woman can make a decent wage and after rent, bills and necessary expenses, still has enough left over to indulge in luxury products and entertainment. As a working woman in a stable relationship it can be more significant because rent/mortgage/bills are shared and women usually end up taking on the 'traditional' responsibility of looking after their partner - which in a post industrial pro-consumer world means buying products or influencing his choice on which products to buy (for example I know so many cases where a mans unnderwear drawer is the result of the woman in his life - either his mother or his partner.). So yes, I think working women have more disposable income than their non-working counterparts, but what I'm guessing you thought I meant was that working women had more disposable income than working men, which is not the case.

Whether women working is in the best interest of society depends on what your view of society is. I think in society right now there's a lot of pressure to be constantly working in waged jobs at all stages in your life no matter what your gender or social status, and that just doesn't suit everyone. I think everyone should have a passion in their lives, and if they can they should make that the center of their lives. The fact is that many people, male and female, have ended up working in jobs and industries they don't like just to conform to the standards that have been set by a consumer based society where business and advertising has more control over us than government or religion.

That's why I thought the OP's original thoughts were interesting - how does our consumer based society measure up to other cultures where government or regligious beliefs are stronger than consumerism. I'm not saying either is worse or better. Just that we often see ourselves or the UK and USA as being freer or more advanced socially, but I think we are actually much more controlled by advertising and entertainment media than we like to believe - to the extent that we can end up doing work we don't like and living in chronic stress just to 'fit in'.

dearg lady

Finally got around to readin all the replies I didn't expect people to focus so much on the parenting aspect but it obviously is a huge factor in any debate in this area.

One thing that bothers me slightly is when people say both parents 'have' to work just to make ends meet. Agreed, there are situations where this occurs but for a lot of couples this simply isn't true. In many cases both parents only 'have' to work to afford luxuries. Not to sound like a mad oul one, but growin up, we didn't go on foreign holidays, had an absolute banger of a car and never had label clothes. Now all I'm sayin is for most couples it's possible to manage financially on one wage, just mean cuttin out a lot of luxuries!

Obviously if both WANT to work that's a different story, and it will depend from person to person, some people would want to stay home with the kids, some would find this gives them no stimulation at all and wouldn't enjoy it.

Of course Khannie raised the point of childcare bein so expensive, I really don't know how anyone with more than one/two children even could afford to put them in a creche, unless both partners were earning substantial wages.

My mother stayed home with us til we started school and I do appreciate that but it's quite a big sacrifice to make, for either parent, it could 5 or 10 years out of the work force, that's a lot of catching up to do!

Green dolphin, I think you make some very interesting points, it's kind of a chicken/egg situation, which came first, greater numbers of women working or increased consumerism?

Having spoken with some male friends they idea that some women are 'too demanding' has come up a few times, and I have to say I agree, I've known women where they and their partners both work, so each has their own wages. The woman is usually earning less(that's one area I still take issue with, women earning less for same job in some industries) and either hubby will pay mortgage/rent/bills or both will contribute based on their earnings. Outside of that, their money is their own, but the woman will still expect the partner to pay for nights out/meals/weekends away etc which seems a little unfair. This is obviously not all women, but I have met a surprising amount of women who think this way.

I also see in a lot of relationships that women call all the shots, they decide where they're going to eat, holiday, any major child related decisons etc etc.

Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, but my point is I see this more and more every day, would people think that in some areas things have turned on their head and society is now anti male?

Sometimes I see relationships falling apart because the woman has become so demanding, and I wonder if a slightly more submissive attitude would have worked better?

tbh I'm 100% how I feel about it myself, but these are just things I've been thinkin about a lot lately

994

Men going out to work and women minding the house is quite a recent idea - my grandmothers got up at dawn to milk the cows and would have smirked at the idea of being "excluded" from the workplace. In history, most people were peasant farmers, fishermen, labourers or craftworkers and everyone - even children - had to work, because technology didn't allow for the work of 1 person to feed a family.

valery

tinkerbell wrote: »

lol ha ha, hmm I wonder too what the OP is wondering about.

Well, me for one, I will never be a stay-at-home-mom. I worked too hard to get where I am today just to give it all up when there would be no need when I do have children. Neither would I expect my partner to stay at home.

As for other normal male / female roles ... well yah, to me there are certain man and woman roles! e.g. I am quite happy to do the cleaning around the house, laundry, I do a lot of the cooking and I do all the grocery shopping (my favourite) etc. Himself does all the DIY man jobs. There is no way I could do DIY stuff. It works out perfect actually because well for one, himself absolutely detests grocery shopping and I love it! So happy days.

Yep, me2:)