![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on July 6, 2016, at 22:49:00
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » baseball55, posted by Tabitha on June 13, 2016, at 23:19:03
I think I was way more likely to think the world was doomed when I was younger. After a while all the scares kind of make me detached. Somehow we muddle through. New hotspots break out. But I'd have never thought to see peace in Ireland or so much progress in Lebanon. We *did* make it through the cold war. There is always a disease or war that is supposed to end mankind, yet diseases are being fought and people eventually get worn out from war. In so many ways, things are better now than they ever were.
I know that's likely overly sanguine, and I might feel differently if I lived through WW2.
But the media seems to blow everything up into the newest disaster of disaster, and eventually you have to wonder if it's just good for their business.
Which doesn't stop me obsessively following the election and enriching their coffers...
Posted by Dinah on July 6, 2016, at 22:51:36
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Tabitha, posted by Dinah on July 6, 2016, at 22:49:00
To which I must add that if a disaster is personal to an individual, the world does sort of end, even if the global world keeps on ticking...
It's hard to keep those two viewpoints in mind, and I shift back and forth. The wider world will go on, but personal worlds shatter all too often.
Posted by Phillipa on July 6, 2016, at 23:00:30
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news, posted by Dinah on July 6, 2016, at 22:51:36
Dinah not you the World is in a turmoil and not much we can do about it. As for the election. I won't discuss politics but will say I would never ever vote for a know liar. And I personally don't feel a female should be a US President. Just my view irreguardless of who it were. Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on July 6, 2016, at 23:28:05
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on July 6, 2016, at 23:00:30
You know, it's the oddest thing. I must have been born slightly too late to understand the big deal about male/female. No one ever told me I couldn't be anything I wanted to be. Girls were perhaps more likely than boys to be at the top of my classes. As many women as men of my acquaintance were likely to be the dominant member of families. I've been surprised to discover that Mormons have a bad reputation about feminism. Most of the Mormon women I grew up with were incredibly strong role models with husbands who respected them and treated them as equal partners. I've never had the tiniest pushback on my gender in the workplace. I don't think my parents ever in my life built any expectation whatsoever on my gender.
I don't ever remember being referred to as "sweetheart" or "darling" by anyone who didn't have the right to refer to me as such. I think perhaps once a speaker referred to "the little ladies" in the audience, and my husband put his hand over mine (as I muttered about being taller than the "gentleman" in question) and reminded me that he was from a different era. But that was an anomaly, not the norm. And in retrospect, more amusing than anything.
I barely even notice gender of presidential candidates. It surprises me that they're making any sort of deal about it at all.
Why shouldn't a woman be president? Even if you buy into arguments about hormones, surely that is no longer an issue in this particular case.
To be clear, I can honestly say that I am no particular fan of any person currently in the runoffs for President.
Posted by Horse on July 7, 2016, at 2:17:16
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Tabitha, posted by Dinah on July 6, 2016, at 22:36:58
> I've actually had several appointments with my therapist lately due to the news. Or rather the election. It has badly pushed my middle school buttons.
>
> Ordinarily I go months between visits.
>
> I'm still sort of obsessive about watching.
Yes, the election. I take forced breaks to survive the Fall.
Posted by Tabitha on July 7, 2016, at 14:37:48
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on July 6, 2016, at 23:00:30
> And I personally don't feel a female should be a US President. Just my view irreguardless of who it were. Phillipa
OMG, Phillipa, I'm flabbergasted. And it's been a long time since I've used the word "flabbergasted"
Posted by Tabitha on July 7, 2016, at 14:46:02
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Tabitha, posted by Dinah on July 6, 2016, at 22:49:00
> In so many ways, things are better now than they ever were.
Yes, in many ways they are better. But I don't believe there's any sort of natural law of human progress in operation. I used to think that. I got pretty disillusioned by the losses in some areas where I thought I would see steady gains.
> But the media seems to blow everything up into the newest disaster of disaster, and eventually you have to wonder if it's just good for their business.
Exactly. Especially with the transition to internet media. It's all about creating stories that are immediately emotionally compelling, and the easiest way to do that is to push our outrage buttons (or our horror buttons, or our fear buttons).
Posted by Tabitha on July 7, 2016, at 14:53:58
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on July 6, 2016, at 23:28:05
> You know, it's the oddest thing. I must have been born slightly too late to understand the big deal about male/female. No one ever told me I couldn't be anything I wanted to be. Girls were perhaps more likely than boys to be at the top of my classes. As many women as men of my acquaintance were likely to be the dominant member of families. I've been surprised to discover that Mormons have a bad reputation about feminism. Most of the Mormon women I grew up with were incredibly strong role models with husbands who respected them and treated them as equal partners. I've never had the tiniest pushback on my gender in the workplace. I don't think my parents ever in my life built any expectation whatsoever on my gender.
It's great that you grew up with that mindset. I got the message that women were inferior, or even if they weren't inferior, were supposed to be subservient to men anyway. I always rebelled against the idea. Even after escaping that background, I still struggled with it, because it was so difficult to distinguish sexism from just run of the mill lack of respect and consideration for others. I'm not sure why it even matters, really, but it just still outrages me to think I'm getting treated as less than based on my gender, or to have others dismiss the possibility.
> Even if you buy into arguments about hormones, surely that is no longer an issue in this particular case.ha ha ha, that's just what I was thinking. The hormonal factor just isn't so prevalent as we age.
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2016, at 18:03:47
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Dinah, posted by Horse on July 7, 2016, at 2:17:16
> Yes, the election. I take forced breaks to survive the Fall.
>I probably need to go cold turkey. It's as if I'm afraid to look away for fear I'll miss something important. But truth to tell, I could probably cut myself off completely from news, and just pay attention in November. There'll be hundreds of ups and downs between now and then.
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2016, at 18:07:52
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Dinah, posted by Tabitha on July 7, 2016, at 14:46:02
> Yes, in many ways they are better. But I don't believe there's any sort of natural law of human progress in operation. I used to think that. I got pretty disillusioned by the losses in some areas where I thought I would see steady gains.
Oh, I agree. If there's one positive thing this election has done, it's to challenge certain assumptions I have about the nature of mankind. And that's only positive in that I now have to do a self correction when I find myself being dismissive of certain issues.
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2016, at 18:24:23
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Dinah, posted by Tabitha on July 7, 2016, at 14:53:58
> It's great that you grew up with that mindset. I got the message that women were inferior, or even if they weren't inferior, were supposed to be subservient to men anyway. I always rebelled against the idea. Even after escaping that background, I still struggled with it, because it was so difficult to distinguish sexism from just run of the mill lack of respect and consideration for others. I'm not sure why it even matters, really, but it just still outrages me to think I'm getting treated as less than based on my gender, or to have others dismiss the possibility.
I'd be really interested if you could share some specific examples of how that was conveyed to you.
I'm trying to think of how I learned the opposite. It's got nothing to do with careers, per se. I think there was a lot of expectation on me to live up to my potential, whether as homemaker or doctor or President. It may be that I come from a long line of strong stubborn women. :) Or it may have been that although my father worked longer hours than my mother, he did most of the cooking and a fair amount of other things around the house. Whoever cared the most took over any given task. Battles were won on both sides, based again more on who cared enough to keep fighting.
Was it gender specific feedback you got at home, or a general tearing down of self confidence? Were brothers considered to matter more? Did a father's wishes always override a mother's? Was it learned directly or through example? If you care to share...
Posted by Tabitha on July 8, 2016, at 13:40:14
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Tabitha, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2016, at 18:24:23
> I'd be really interested if you could share some specific examples of how that was conveyed to you.
The idea was everywhere, but not explicitly spoken. All the leaders I saw were male, except elementary school teachers. (Yet even with teachers, as you moved up in grades there were more and more male teachers, which conveyed to me the idea that male teachers were higher status.) The TV news anchors were male. Narrators on TV shows were male. The lead characters on cartoons were always male. Female characters, when present at all, were ultra-feminine and presented as romance interests. I remember being very confused, watching Bugs Bunny, Popeye, and so forth, that there was different music for when female characters appeared, and the male character suddenly had hearts popping out of his eyes. The original Star Trek was the first grownup TV show I saw. Again, the lead characters were all males, the few women were part of sex/romance subplots.
In social situations and families, it seemed like people showed more respect and deference to males. It seemed the women shrank back a bit, to let the males take center stage. Males got the "good" chair in the living room. Males had the better car (sportier, more expensive), and whenever Dad was in the family car, he drove, even though Mom was perfectly capable of driving.
At family gatherings, men sat around watching TV and playing games while women cooked. Then we ate, male at the head of the table, male saying the blessing, then once again women cleaned while men watched TV and played games. I never saw the men do even a token amount of helping. It just struck me as ridiculous and unfair.
In church, the pastor was always male, the Sunday school teachers always female. Again, that said to me that men led adults, and women only led children.
I remember movies (probably old 50s movies that were running on local TV in the 70s) where single women characters were pathetic stereotypes of desperation. Younger women were solely focused on getting their man. The women's stories always ended with marriage. Comedies had jokes about women needing to be reigned in by their husbands. There were shows where the dad was wise and amazing and everyone deferred to him (naturally), and other shows where the dad was a huge jerk but everyone deferred to him anyway.
Any time overt sexism came up, even as jokes in conversation, I don't recall my mom ever defending women. Instead, I recall her criticizing her mother-in-law, who she said was "domineering" toward her husband, and how wrong that was. My mom rarely said critical things about other people, so that really stood out. I got the idea mom thought that things just worked better, and were more right somehow, when women were subservient to men. Yet she also told me that there were "ways to get your way without seeming like you're getting your way" which must have been a necessary survival skill for her to have, while supporting the necessary order of things.
In my own family, my brother always got the larger bedroom. I complained that it was unfair. My mom's explanation was that he had larger furniture. I didn't think to point out that it was unfair he got larger furniture.
For maybe a year it was a fad among the boys to call each other a "woman" as an insult. They put the emphasis on the first syllable, "you're a WOMan". I was thinking, wait, why is it an insult to be a woman? My brother even called me a WOMan. I told him it didn't make sense because I was a woman. But most of the time he called me a dog. I remember it as him calling me a dog all through my childhood, in private and in front of my parents, and rarely if ever getting told to stop. So there was the heirarchy, laid out in children's insults. Put down the boys by calling them WOMan (the level below, even though they were boys and a WOMan was presumably an adult female). Put down the girls by calling them dogs (because to go lower than a girl you have to be a dog).
Personally, I never felt my family had any expectation for me whatsoever. By the time my brother was 6 or 7, I knew that my father insisted he would go to college. It was not mentioned for me. All through school, I was a top student, and he was an average student. I wasn't commended for my grades, and I was confused by it. I assumed it was because they didn't want to show up my brother. Which isn't necessarily sexism, but it was part of not feeling like my achievements mattered. In general, when the family talked about others, it seemed like the males' lives were of more interest and importance.
And this was before anyone in my family got into Christian fundamentalism. Then the hierarchy became overt. Men were the head of the family, women their "help-meet". The universe would come crashing down, apparently, if women were considered equals to men. My mom married a man that was less than her in any metric you could come up with-- education, intelligence, finances, family status, ability to get along with people, health, yet she was bound and determined to make him head of the household.
>
> it may have been that although my father worked longer hours than my mother, he did most of the cooking and a fair amount of other things around the house.I think if I had seen that, it would have made a big impression. In my 20s I spent a holiday with friends of a friend, and the husband cooked, brought us (ladies) drinks, and left the room so we could all talk. I was gobsmacked. I had literally never seen a bunch of women (a) get to have fun and be the center of attention or (b) have the husband bring drinks.
> Whoever cared the most took over any given task. Battles were won on both sides, based again more on who cared enough to keep fighting.Yeah, that's how it works with my current in-laws. Back home, things were just so much more gendered. And women were defined by their ability to keep an immaculate house.
>
> Was it gender specific feedback you got at home, or a general tearing down of self confidence? Were brothers considered to matter more? Did a father's wishes always override a mother's? Was it learned directly or through example? If you care to share...
>So that was a lot of examples. In general it was just a feeling that everyone around me agreed idea that males were the natural leaders, or entitled to the lead role whether or not they deserved it. And it just irked me, because I felt like a full human being. I had a sense of justice, and I wasn't naturally drawn to subservience, housework, child-care, or ultra-feminine clothing.
Posted by SLS on July 8, 2016, at 14:36:03
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Dinah, posted by Tabitha on July 8, 2016, at 13:40:14
Thanks for posting this. It makes for quite a treatise.
I grew up in the 1960s before feminism exerted any influence. Everything you described here is very familiar. Of course, in retrospect, it was absurd to treat women such that everyone accepted that there be subordinate roles that society dictated they assume. I was not immune to this. I had been exposed to very sexist messages growing up. At age 20, I remember being angry that my girlfriend began working. That was my job. I think I was also afraid of her becoming independent. In my mind, college was not for women to develop a career. It was just something to do to fill time. How very immature of me. I was clueless. Fortunately, I educated myself out of most of these role stereotypes and false sexist ideas. I discovered that I enjoy my relationships with women more when there is the presumption of equality and the recognition of, and respect for, each other's egos.
- Scott----------------------------------------------------
> > I'd be really interested if you could share some specific examples of how that was conveyed to you.
>
> The idea was everywhere, but not explicitly spoken. All the leaders I saw were male, except elementary school teachers. (Yet even with teachers, as you moved up in grades there were more and more male teachers, which conveyed to me the idea that male teachers were higher status.) The TV news anchors were male. Narrators on TV shows were male. The lead characters on cartoons were always male. Female characters, when present at all, were ultra-feminine and presented as romance interests. I remember being very confused, watching Bugs Bunny, Popeye, and so forth, that there was different music for when female characters appeared, and the male character suddenly had hearts popping out of his eyes. The original Star Trek was the first grownup TV show I saw. Again, the lead characters were all males, the few women were part of sex/romance subplots.
>
> In social situations and families, it seemed like people showed more respect and deference to males. It seemed the women shrank back a bit, to let the males take center stage. Males got the "good" chair in the living room. Males had the better car (sportier, more expensive), and whenever Dad was in the family car, he drove, even though Mom was perfectly capable of driving.
>
> At family gatherings, men sat around watching TV and playing games while women cooked. Then we ate, male at the head of the table, male saying the blessing, then once again women cleaned while men watched TV and played games. I never saw the men do even a token amount of helping. It just struck me as ridiculous and unfair.
>
> In church, the pastor was always male, the Sunday school teachers always female. Again, that said to me that men led adults, and women only led children.
>
> I remember movies (probably old 50s movies that were running on local TV in the 70s) where single women characters were pathetic stereotypes of desperation. Younger women were solely focused on getting their man. The women's stories always ended with marriage. Comedies had jokes about women needing to be reigned in by their husbands. There were shows where the dad was wise and amazing and everyone deferred to him (naturally), and other shows where the dad was a huge jerk but everyone deferred to him anyway.
>
> Any time overt sexism came up, even as jokes in conversation, I don't recall my mom ever defending women. Instead, I recall her criticizing her mother-in-law, who she said was "domineering" toward her husband, and how wrong that was. My mom rarely said critical things about other people, so that really stood out. I got the idea mom thought that things just worked better, and were more right somehow, when women were subservient to men. Yet she also told me that there were "ways to get your way without seeming like you're getting your way" which must have been a necessary survival skill for her to have, while supporting the necessary order of things.
>
> In my own family, my brother always got the larger bedroom. I complained that it was unfair. My mom's explanation was that he had larger furniture. I didn't think to point out that it was unfair he got larger furniture.
>
> For maybe a year it was a fad among the boys to call each other a "woman" as an insult. They put the emphasis on the first syllable, "you're a WOMan". I was thinking, wait, why is it an insult to be a woman? My brother even called me a WOMan. I told him it didn't make sense because I was a woman. But most of the time he called me a dog. I remember it as him calling me a dog all through my childhood, in private and in front of my parents, and rarely if ever getting told to stop. So there was the heirarchy, laid out in children's insults. Put down the boys by calling them WOMan (the level below, even though they were boys and a WOMan was presumably an adult female). Put down the girls by calling them dogs (because to go lower than a girl you have to be a dog).
>
> Personally, I never felt my family had any expectation for me whatsoever. By the time my brother was 6 or 7, I knew that my father insisted he would go to college. It was not mentioned for me. All through school, I was a top student, and he was an average student. I wasn't commended for my grades, and I was confused by it. I assumed it was because they didn't want to show up my brother. Which isn't necessarily sexism, but it was part of not feeling like my achievements mattered. In general, when the family talked about others, it seemed like the males' lives were of more interest and importance.
>
> And this was before anyone in my family got into Christian fundamentalism. Then the hierarchy became overt. Men were the head of the family, women their "help-meet". The universe would come crashing down, apparently, if women were considered equals to men. My mom married a man that was less than her in any metric you could come up with-- education, intelligence, finances, family status, ability to get along with people, health, yet she was bound and determined to make him head of the household.
>
>
> >
> > it may have been that although my father worked longer hours than my mother, he did most of the cooking and a fair amount of other things around the house.
>
> I think if I had seen that, it would have made a big impression. In my 20s I spent a holiday with friends of a friend, and the husband cooked, brought us (ladies) drinks, and left the room so we could all talk. I was gobsmacked. I had literally never seen a bunch of women (a) get to have fun and be the center of attention or (b) have the husband bring drinks.
>
>
> > Whoever cared the most took over any given task. Battles were won on both sides, based again more on who cared enough to keep fighting.
>
> Yeah, that's how it works with my current in-laws. Back home, things were just so much more gendered. And women were defined by their ability to keep an immaculate house.
>
>
> >
> > Was it gender specific feedback you got at home, or a general tearing down of self confidence? Were brothers considered to matter more? Did a father's wishes always override a mother's? Was it learned directly or through example? If you care to share...
> >
>
> So that was a lot of examples. In general it was just a feeling that everyone around me agreed idea that males were the natural leaders, or entitled to the lead role whether or not they deserved it. And it just irked me, because I felt like a full human being. I had a sense of justice, and I wasn't naturally drawn to subservience, housework, child-care, or ultra-feminine clothing.
>
>
Posted by Tabitha on July 8, 2016, at 17:12:01
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Tabitha, posted by SLS on July 8, 2016, at 14:36:03
> Thanks for posting this. It makes for quite a treatise.
You're welcome. It was a really thought-provoking question.
>
> I grew up in the 1960s before feminism exerted any influence. Everything you described here is very familiar.I was in the 70s in the heartland/bible belt, so the influence of feminism was fairly marginal. Fortunately I picked up on what leaked in through the limited pre-internet media channels.
> Of course, in retrospect, it was absurd to treat women such that everyone accepted that there be subordinate roles that society dictated they assume.
Right? What a source of strife and waste of human potential.
> I was not immune to this. I had been exposed to very sexist messages growing up. At age 20, I remember being angry that my girlfriend began working. That was my job. I think I was also afraid of her becoming independent. In my mind, college was not for women to develop a career. It was just something to do to fill time.
Right, I remember the joke that they were working on their "MRS" degrees. As if education would be wasted on them.
> Fortunately, I educated myself out of most of these role stereotypes and false sexist ideas. I discovered that I enjoy my relationships with women more when there is the presumption of equality and the recognition of, and respect for, each other's egos.
I assume many men are glad to be relieved of the expectation of being one-up all the time. It's good to hear of your personal evolution.
Posted by SLS on July 8, 2016, at 19:11:06
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » SLS, posted by Tabitha on July 8, 2016, at 17:12:01
> > I grew up in the 1960s before feminism exerted any influence. Everything you described here is very familiar.
I was actually born in 1960, but I remember quite a bit of that decade. I even remember watching the Cuban missile crisis on TV. I was 2.5 years old. It scared me because my mother was crying.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on July 25, 2016, at 19:59:01
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Dinah, posted by Tabitha on July 8, 2016, at 13:40:14
> The idea was everywhere, but not explicitly spoken. All the leaders I saw were male, except elementary school teachers. (Yet even with teachers, as you moved up in grades there were more and more male teachers, which conveyed to me the idea that male teachers were higher status.) The TV news anchors were male. Narrators on TV shows were male. The lead characters on cartoons were always male. Female characters, when present at all, were ultra-feminine and presented as romance interests. I remember being very confused, watching Bugs Bunny, Popeye, and so forth, that there was different music for when female characters appeared, and the male character suddenly had hearts popping out of his eyes. The original Star Trek was the first grownup TV show I saw. Again, the lead characters were all males, the few women were part of sex/romance subplots.
Well, Uhuru. :) But there was also the romance interest of the week. I do remember thinking it was excessively odd, that episode where Kirk couldn't be a Captain because he was a "woman". Bizarre. I think Gene Roddenberry had mostly left the series by then.
>
> In social situations and families, it seemed like people showed more respect and deference to males. It seemed the women shrank back a bit, to let the males take center stage. Males got the "good" chair in the living room. Males had the better car (sportier, more expensive), and whenever Dad was in the family car, he drove, even though Mom was perfectly capable of driving.
>In our family, Mother drove. Daddy drank beer. :) Besides, driving was one of Mother's greatest pleasures.
> At family gatherings, men sat around watching TV and playing games while women cooked. Then we ate, male at the head of the table, male saying the blessing, then once again women cleaned while men watched TV and played games. I never saw the men do even a token amount of helping. It just struck me as ridiculous and unfair.lol. I experienced that, but interpreted it as the boys watching TV while the more powerful women took care of things. The men were interested in football (the topic of most get-togethers), while the women weren't. I have to admit that I was generally with the less responsible men, watching football and arguing about strategy, and the guys never made me feel uncomfortable.
>
> In church, the pastor was always male, the Sunday school teachers always female. Again, that said to me that men led adults, and women only led children.
>
I know men in the Mormon congregations were in the priesthood, and the women were in the Relief Society, but I don't think I ever judged the roles as being greater or lessor. Had I ever wanted to hold the priesthood, I likely would have felt differently.
> I remember movies (probably old 50s movies that were running on local TV in the 70s) where single women characters were pathetic stereotypes of desperation. Younger women were solely focused on getting their man. The women's stories always ended with marriage. Comedies had jokes about women needing to be reigned in by their husbands. There were shows where the dad was wise and amazing and everyone deferred to him (naturally), and other shows where the dad was a huge jerk but everyone deferred to him anyway.
>
I guess I did notice that. But Jeannie ran rings around Tony and Samantha around Darrin, no matter how skimpily Jeannie was dressed or Darrin ranted. I do still dislike Darrin to this day for holding back Samantha from using her powers.> Any time overt sexism came up, even as jokes in conversation, I don't recall my mom ever defending women. Instead, I recall her criticizing her mother-in-law, who she said was "domineering" toward her husband, and how wrong that was. My mom rarely said critical things about other people, so that really stood out. I got the idea mom thought that things just worked better, and were more right somehow, when women were subservient to men. Yet she also told me that there were "ways to get your way without seeming like you're getting your way" which must have been a necessary survival skill for her to have, while supporting the necessary order of things.
>
> In my own family, my brother always got the larger bedroom. I complained that it was unfair. My mom's explanation was that he had larger furniture. I didn't think to point out that it was unfair he got larger furniture.
>I'm guessing that this was the key. My experience was so different. That would have been horrible. And I did have a very close friend who came from a family which was male dominated. I do think it greatly affected her, although she was a very strong woman herself once she gained the confidence.
> For maybe a year it was a fad among the boys to call each other a "woman" as an insult. They put the emphasis on the first syllable, "you're a WOMan". I was thinking, wait, why is it an insult to be a woman? My brother even called me a WOMan. I told him it didn't make sense because I was a woman. But most of the time he called me a dog. I remember it as him calling me a dog all through my childhood, in private and in front of my parents, and rarely if ever getting told to stop. So there was the heirarchy, laid out in children's insults. Put down the boys by calling them WOMan (the level below, even though they were boys and a WOMan was presumably an adult female). Put down the girls by calling them dogs (because to go lower than a girl you have to be a dog).
>I think there's an age where gender insults are the worst things a pre-adolescent mind can grasp.
> Personally, I never felt my family had any expectation for me whatsoever. By the time my brother was 6 or 7, I knew that my father insisted he would go to college. It was not mentioned for me. All through school, I was a top student, and he was an average student. I wasn't commended for my grades, and I was confused by it. I assumed it was because they didn't want to show up my brother. Which isn't necessarily sexism, but it was part of not feeling like my achievements mattered. In general, when the family talked about others, it seemed like the males' lives were of more interest and importance.
>
> And this was before anyone in my family got into Christian fundamentalism. Then the hierarchy became overt. Men were the head of the family, women their "help-meet". The universe would come crashing down, apparently, if women were considered equals to men. My mom married a man that was less than her in any metric you could come up with-- education, intelligence, finances, family status, ability to get along with people, health, yet she was bound and determined to make him head of the household.
>Ah, Tabitha. That makes all the difference. I took in the cultural stuff differently, either not noticing it at all or interpreting it differently, because there really was gender parity in our home. I wouldn't honestly consider either of my parents dominant. My mother was naturally but Daddy could hold his own in his own way. So it evened out.
>
> >
> > it may have been that although my father worked longer hours than my mother, he did most of the cooking and a fair amount of other things around the house.
>
> I think if I had seen that, it would have made a big impression. In my 20s I spent a holiday with friends of a friend, and the husband cooked, brought us (ladies) drinks, and left the room so we could all talk. I was gobsmacked. I had literally never seen a bunch of women (a) get to have fun and be the center of attention or (b) have the husband bring drinks.
>
>
> > Whoever cared the most took over any given task. Battles were won on both sides, based again more on who cared enough to keep fighting.
>
> Yeah, that's how it works with my current in-laws. Back home, things were just so much more gendered. And women were defined by their ability to keep an immaculate house.
>
>
> >
> > Was it gender specific feedback you got at home, or a general tearing down of self confidence? Were brothers considered to matter more? Did a father's wishes always override a mother's? Was it learned directly or through example? If you care to share...
> >
>
> So that was a lot of examples. In general it was just a feeling that everyone around me agreed idea that males were the natural leaders, or entitled to the lead role whether or not they deserved it. And it just irked me, because I felt like a full human being. I had a sense of justice, and I wasn't naturally drawn to subservience, housework, child-care, or ultra-feminine clothing.
>
>The funny thing is that I wasn't girly girl in most ways. But I am drawn to home tasks like cooking and sewing (not cleaning so much). I loved Barbie and baby dolls. And while I never was particularly feminine in my presentation, and don't even own any makeup, I do adore the swing of skirts against my legs as I walk. (Who wouldn't?!) I was no more interested in holding the priesthood than I was in joining the Relief Society. So to some extent, I think I had fewer problems because I never really pushed gender barriers. I also never really conformed to them either. I ignored them as much as I ignore most social conventions. ;)
I keep hoping that the next generation will be in a better place than ours, and so on. But sometimes my faith in that is shaken.
It's interesting how much our upbringings can affect us, isn't it? And how much culture can differ even between families?
Posted by Dinah on July 25, 2016, at 20:06:05
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » SLS, posted by Tabitha on July 8, 2016, at 17:12:01
Hmmm.... Maybe it was a Bible Belt thing.
I only remember the MRS comment being made about one girl in my high school graduating class, and it was not at all made in a positive way by either sex.
If anything, I think it would have been difficult for a woman to decide to be a stay at home mom.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 28, 2016, at 19:48:05
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news, posted by Dinah on July 25, 2016, at 20:06:05
(((((Dinah))))))
:-)
Posted by Dinah on July 29, 2016, at 12:26:35
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on July 28, 2016, at 19:48:05
Nice to see you!
Posted by alexandra_k on August 1, 2016, at 5:50:30
In reply to ((( Alex ))), posted by Dinah on July 29, 2016, at 12:26:35
Aw. It's really nice to see you, too :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on August 1, 2016, at 5:52:56
In reply to Re: ((( Alex ))), posted by alexandra_k on August 1, 2016, at 5:50:30
You know, I didn't figure you were Mormon. Not that I care, but I didn't figure that. Just saying. I figured you were religious, but I didn't figure Mormon. Mormons were a large presence in a township near where I grew up... When I went to the US my best friend there was a person who was raised in the Mormon Church... I've just had close connections to people from the Mormon church through much of my life... Not tempted into the religion myself, but have just had close connections to people who have grown up with it / through it / in it. Yeah. Anyway... I didn't figure that.
Yeah.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 1, 2016, at 5:55:29
In reply to Re: ((( Alex ))), posted by alexandra_k on August 1, 2016, at 5:52:56
P.S., and if you ever visit the place where I grew up...
You shall wear a suit and a bicycle helmet and will bike around with no more nor less than one friend. And everyone shall know that you are mormon.
Just saying.
Kidding.
But also saying (it was actually true).
Oh dear. I hope you don't take this the wrong way...
Posted by Horse on August 1, 2016, at 11:07:01
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Tabitha, posted by Dinah on July 25, 2016, at 19:59:01
They often died, too, didn't they?
>Well, Uhuru. :) But there was also the romance interest of the week. I do remember thinking it was excessively odd, that episode where Kirk couldn't be a Captain because he was a "woman". Bizarre. I think Gene Roddenberry had mostly left the series by then.
Posted by Dinah on August 2, 2016, at 22:16:40
In reply to Re: ((( Alex ))), posted by alexandra_k on August 1, 2016, at 5:55:29
:)
No more and no less than one friend sounds perfect.To be totally honest, while I was raised Mormon, I am not currently part of the church. I always say that my theology is Jewish, my soul will always be with my Mormon roots, but my body is firmly mainstream Protestant. Bless them, they understand me and will accept me anyway. I don't think I'm capable of being in a religion where you have to believe *everything*. My current spiritual home is very open minded and accepting.
Posted by Dinah on August 2, 2016, at 22:31:03
In reply to Re: Emotional reactions to news » Dinah, posted by Horse on August 1, 2016, at 11:07:01
I suppose they did. The cynical part of me believes that is the easiest way to appeal to rank emotion without sacrificing series regulars.
The first woman of the week that comes to mind is Joan Collins in City on the Edge of Forever, who was a powerful woman. So powerful, in fact, that it was necessary that she die to save the future. (But why couldn't they take her back with them?)
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.