NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/bi/18887

Text File | 1993-01-22 | 5.1 KB | 103 lines

Newsgroups: soc.bi
Path: sparky!uunet!world!smoir
From: [e-mail] (Scott A Moir)
Subject: Re: phrases and sex roles
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:57:12 GMT
Lines: 92

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (d) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott A Moir) writes:
>> There are two roles in a realtionship.. a -two person- relationship. There
>> are the same number of roles as there are people. There are also a generic
>> set of tasks that are required to run a household, and those tasks get
>> split up among the respective members.
>
>  The two main stereotypical roles still exist; as you say, they are
>just cut into smaller pieces (assuming everyone does contribute.)  Quite
>often, though, from what I have seen, you still have the participants
>falling into one of the two roles... you might have two people in a more
>typically male role (breadwinner, etc.), and one in the stereotypical
>female role (housewife, etc.), or whatever, but they often still won't
>cross the artificial boundries.

You say 'sterotypical roles'.. I see what you mean by that phrasing, but
it has usurped the idea that the running of the household is every
member's job. Time was, when a woman didn't work, that it was the man's
job to earn the money. (The woman didn't have much of a choice, really)

I am in a FMF relationship, two of us work, one attends school full time;
all of us cook, all of us clean. We all participate in parenting the 9 year
old son of one of my partners. We share as much as possible without respect
to who's 'traditional' job it is. [I still get stuck cleaning up the cat
litter though. 8) ]

>> >defined by our society.  It seems to me that, even in a two-person
>> >relationship, these roles are somewhat oppressive, and that in
>> >multi-person relationships, the acceptance of these two roles as being
>> >"the parts of a relationship" is actively detrimental.

>> It would be detrimental only if you attempted to apply a two-person model
>> to a three person relationship.
>
>  It seems that you're saying that you think it is fine (or potentially
>so) for two people to try to fit into these roles, and it's only a
>problem if you try to fit that model to a three party relationship

No, actually, I don't think it is fine for these roles to be applied to a
two person relationship either. When it was just Deanne and myself, our
roles were rather mixed. I have a strong 'female' aspect, she has a strong
'male' aspect. Our household jobs and ways of dealing with each other mixed.
The only area where they did not was in the area of dealing with her son.
There were certain things that he would listen to me about that he would
NOT do with his mother. I can see aspects of a traditional 'dad' role,
which I'm not sure is a bad thing. I try and show him the way I believe in
things, and I try my hardest to impress upon him that there is always more
than one answer, and that just because you don't understand something
doesn't mean it is wrong. I really don't know what I would do different if
I could.

>-- if
>so, she was saying the same thing -- that it was detrimental in
>multi-person relationships... (3 person is multi-person, obviously) so I
>don't know why you were saying that, unless you're just disagreeing with
>the first point.

Which is what I was doing.

>In any case, I think trying to shoehorn yourself into
>what someone else thinks is a good idea of how a relationship ought to
>be is a Bad Thing (tm.)

I take most other people's opinions rather loosely, actually. If I didn't
I would be very affected by my homophobic neighborhood, my fundie
relatives, and the weird stares I get not only at the supermarket but at
the gay bookstore. [Yes, you heard right, the bookstore. I went to buy
some bi pins... I was decked out in my motorcycle jacket, jeans, boots, a
dangly earring and two feet of tail tossed over my shoulder. (for those
who don't know, I'm 6'2" (1.9m) 250# (96Kg) with short hair and a beard.)
I asked for the pins by their number. The guy behind the counter hopped
up to the rack where the pins were kept and looked up the number, gave me
a stunned look, then a doubletake, and got me the pins.]

On a side note, the bi pins I had mentioned earlier have more than one
version. There is the normal pink/blue pins, but there is also a
pink/black version as well.

I have been checking into getting a hold of the name of the company that
makes the pins, and have had little luck. I may just end up posting the
address of the bookstore and let you order them that way. For those who
mailed me, I will send the ordering info direct to you. I got a lot of
mail requests.. more than I can responsibly fill.

Scott

--
Scott Moir  /  Satyr on IRC    ______ # "There's really only one requirement
[e-mail]            \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+!) s+ m r p+    \/\/  # "What's that?"
Also: [e-mail]   # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbsl