Thought loosely spinning off this morning's pages: One of the reasons a lot of male feminists are kinda miserable is that the lack of a male lived experience informed theory means that often you remove one half of a message but not the other and the result is unsustainable.
-
Show this thread
-
For example your traditional heterosexual relationship implicit contract is basically a division of labour, with each side taking care of the other in slightly different ways. (Which is not to say everyone is *good* at this, but best case scenario this is how it works)
1 reply 0 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
But then you've got a bunch of feminist theory pointing out that many of the burdens placed on the woman in this scenario are unreasonable. Fair enough. This is true. BUT this really was two sides in the original format. Unequal maybe, but still two sided.
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
And if you don't address both sides, what you end up with is men believing: 1. It is inappropriate for me to expect my partner to take care of me (feminism). 2. It is my duty to take care of my partner (patriarchy). This is not a fun set of beliefs to hold.
4 replies 0 retweets 34 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GeniesLoki
I think there's a thing where the downside of having a standardized division of labour is that it's unfair for a lot of people. But the downside of having a "everyone make their own version" is that it's harder to tell if something is fair because you can't compare it to "normal"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Yeah. There's also the "Origins of Unfairness" argument that actually a standardised division of labour is often great for everyone when compared to its absence, it's just more great for one side than the other.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.