Chivarly = ''benevolent sexism'

HellFireClub

raveni wrote: »

I don't think many women would view their husband as their "protector".

Well that would also be my view, but the poster above says it is an opinion held in her family in relation to male relations seeking to protect female relations.

I'm just making the point that I don't think warnings, cautions and implied threats, issued by family members to new comers to the family, are the proper basis for a marriage or any kind of a relationship.

I certainly couldn't accept that I would be welcomed into a new family olong these lines, this would pretty much be a show stopper for me I have to say, no more than I would expect the same reaction from a girl I was to marry, if one of my aunts tried to lecture my future wife on the importance of fidelity.

southsiderosie

HellFireClub wrote: »

Yeah back on topic is right, an engineer on a building site is an exclusively administrative & managerial function. I ask again, why have the builders scaffolds not been 50% occupied by women, or even 1% occupied by women???

We are all equal apparently, or so I'm led to believe by the feminists who post on this site, so if we are all equal in every concievable way, how on earth have we gone through a housing boom where hundreds of thousands of properties have been built without a woman lifting a single brick???

I'm not sure about the situation in Ireland, but in the US, women have been historically kept out of the building trades by male-dominated unions where apprenticeships were handed out to the sons/male relatives of current members. There were a number of welfare-to-work programs in the 1990s designed to help more single moms get jobs in the building trades - they are well-paid, although the work is seasonal - but many of these jobs have been jealously guarded by men. So there are pretty significant historical reasons why women never really got a foothold in the skilled building trades...and over the last 20 years, mass (illegal) immigration has reshaped that labor market in ways that most of the unions couldn't have imagined.

As for Ireland, the female labor participation rate was one of the lowest in Europe until the 1990s, so I'm not surprised that there aren't many women working as builders, since there weren't many women working at all until relatively recently (and those that did were primarily nurses or teachers and stopped working when they got married).

SheFiend

Quote "They said making people aware of the sexism would help to change attitudes and help men feel "empathy" for the women who are the victims of "benevolent sexism". "

I think it's ironic how this feminist is labelling women as victims. Is that not sexist?

Logical Fallacy

SheFiend wrote: »

Quote "They said making people aware of the sexism would help to change attitudes and help men feel "empathy" for the women who are the victims of "benevolent sexism". "

I think it's ironic how this feminist is labelling women as victims. Is that not sexist?

Never mind that, if someone is nice to you and it makes you feel bad, you can just **** off I have to say. There is more than enough ignorance in the world without attaching negative stigma to the people who might do something nice every now and then.

metrovelvet

raveni wrote: »

I do think it's unecessary though, it's a hangover from an age where women where treated as if they were were as fragile as children.

Doesnt it also come from a day when it was ok to hit women and rape your wife?

Once upon a time women did need protection from family because the law itself didnt protect them.

Bottle_of_Smoke

metrovelvet wrote: »

Doesnt it also come from a day when it was ok to hit women and rape your wife?

Once upon a time women did need protection from family because the law itself didnt protect them.

Its not protection from those things though. Its usually to come across as a likable gentlemen in public. The women were raped and assaulted by men who had no such concerns for their protection in private

metrovelvet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its not protection from those things though. Its usually to come across as a likable gentlemen in public. The women were raped and assaulted by men who had no such concerns for their protection in private

I was referring to the 'if you hurt her I'll kill you' talk from other males mentioned in the thread.

LeeHoffmann

this would pretty much be a show stopper for me I have to say

does this mean you would break off the engagement? seems a tad excessive if so

if someone is nice to you and it makes you feel bad, you can just **** off I have to say.

I think we can all agree there's nothing wrong with having manners and being courteous to people. But doesn't it make sense to be courteous to everyone - not just women? Why give preferential treatment? - this question is directed to any men or women who are more polite to one gender: why???

HellFireClub

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

does this mean you would break off the engagement? seems a tad excessive if so

Not automatically. But I'd expect my partner and me to sit down this person and let them know that their recent attempt to interfere in our relationship isn't acceptable and there had better not be another instance of it.

If we were not both singing from the same hymnsheet there, then there would be a crisis in our relationship I reckon if it couldn't be resolved, and if I ended up with the notion in my head where interference in our relationship was something that was going to be tolerated, then I wouldn't be afraid to call off the engagement, it would be the right thing to do in my view, if we found that we were going to let people come between us in this way and cause divisions in our relationship.

That seems extreme, but in my defence, I've been around the block a few times now with different kinds of experiences and lessons in life, both in romance and in business and I tend to see problems emerging and coming down the track a lot quicker now than I would have in my 20's...

If I was your fíance, the behaviour of your uncle would leave you exposed to calling off a wedding, because if that "talk" was put to me, it would be either we both sit down and make the point very clearly that this interference is not going to be accepted in our relationship, pre or post marriage, or else maybe we have a serious issue here within our relationship, where other folks are going to be allowed to have a say.

Likewise, if one of my aunties or my sisters tried to give you a sermon on what she would do to you if you were unfaithful or tried to imply that you were capable of infidelity, the same logic would hold. In fact if that were to happen, the biggest problem you would have would be me telling the folks who interfered that they are not to show their faces at the wedding.

LeeHoffmann

If I was your fíance, the behaviour of your uncle would leave you exposed to calling off a wedding

luckily my fiance understands my uncle's motives better than you do. Also my fiance, for some reason, said he wouldn't mind getting that talk from my Dad

other folks are going to be allowed to have a say

nobody has a say in anything.

if you were unfaithful or tried to imply that you were capable of infidelity

I don't think the talk is about infidelity.

My fiance and I have very different outlooks here but that doesn't strike me as a 'crisis' as you say. It must be a long search looking for a partner who agrees with you on everything. I think a partner who loves you, puts you first, makes you happy, respects you and your views and is willing to compromise is all that's needed. I don't think any couple should wed if their relationship can be thrown so easily into a 'crisis'. God knows how they'd cope if faced with a real problem

HellFireClub

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

My fiance and I have very different outlooks here but that doesn't strike me as a 'crisis' as you say. It must be a long search looking for a partner who agrees with you on everything. I think a partner who loves you, puts you first, makes you happy, respects you and your views and is willing to compromise is all that's needed. I don't think any couple should wed if their relationship can be thrown so easily into a 'crisis'. God knows how they'd cope if faced with a real problem

It's not a question of someone having to agree with you on everything. I personally would not tolerate ANY relation, taking it upon themselves to have a "talk" with my girlfriend, about how she should or should not treat me. On the very same basis, I would not tolerate ANY relation of my girlfriend/fíance, thinking that I needed to be lectured on any aspect of our relationship.

Obviously your OH is fine with this, each to their own, but this would be one of those things that I personally would not be prepared to tolerate, no more than I would expect a partner to take it off any relation of mine, because it is unacceptable interference.

But if it was something along the lines of a talk the night before the wedding by a father or an uncle (in the absence of a father), along the lines of: "listen, I know you are going to look after her well and I'll be very glad have you as a son in law now and we'll always be here if you ever need us...", there is clearly nothing wrong with the kindness of this, but if the talk was more along the lines of, "I know you two will be husband and wife tomorrow and I wish the two of you the best, but if you ever hurt her, you'll have me to deal with, do we understand each other???"...

I don't believe you can start a proper healthy marriage on the basis of the latter kind of "talk"...

I think more and more these days, folks who get married, they do so on their own steam. Years ago, the brides mother used to pay and the brides parents names used to go on the invites, nowadays, couples pay for their own weddings and their own names go on the invites.

Also, it wasn't that long ago that a bride had to say out loud as part of her wedding vows that she had to "love, honour and obey" her husband. You wouldn't hear a bride saying those words these days...

Similarly I think, other traditions change with time as well, and I think the "talk", is something that is no longer acceptable in modern society, not unless it is a welcoming kind of a discussion, which I think it has evolved into where it happens at all these days, as opposed to the traditional warning-threat based type of discussion...