The Thing with Feathers

05/28/12

grimesable:

This is a thing I disagree with immensely. I believe that relationships are a partnership. I believe that each member makes a commitment to preserve the other’s feelings and well-being within reason (defined by the temperament of the individuals at hand), and that the feelings of each are equally important, as long as the end-game intention is to treat themselves and each other well.
This simply sounds like one member is supposed to discount their feelings in favor the other’s (“Be there for her, regardless of what may happen to you. You gotta be willing to go through anything to keep her from getting hurt”). This is needlessly and idiotically simple, a conception of chivalry at a childish level. It attempts to create a rule to express and encourage a positive emotion (perhaps specifically of security), in the process enhancing gender roles in a way that could be described as inherently sexist (referring to the statement’s chivalrous roots).
Through this reinforcement, a male could read this and suppose he is a failure should a poor situation befall his loved one without his intervention. It then becomes the job, the literal occupation of the male counterpart of a relationship to fix their loved one’s problems, to shield them from all harm, to eliminate all unpleasantries. I have spent much time as a “fixer”. I do not believe it is healthy.
Furthermore, this could just as easily create an unrealistic expectation of female counterparts in relationships, skewing gender roles further. Is it not the goal of our society to express it’s equal value for all it’s individuals? And what of feminine independence? What of feminism as a whole? This is extrapolating wildly from the idea above, but I do not think it can be denied that this is at least lightly hinted: are we to take female individuals, indeed femininity as an identity, and suggest that such individuals are simply incapable of running their own lives? I find such an idea obscene.
I believe the individual (or possible group of individuals) who wrote the above statement is trying to express their desire for happiness, security, and protection. I disagree with them only in terms of severity and in the attribution of gender roles in the above scenario. I do however, agree with the sentiment. Love, kindness, desire to help and protect are all desirable emotions in any individual. However, no one should be discounted. Otherwise, me and the poster agree, because frankly, sometimes I need to be protected too.
Also I’m really excited to see if I come back to this rant later and think I’m a terrible person or something. haha.

Ladies and Gentlemen:
This.

This is a thing I disagree with immensely. I believe that relationships are a partnership. I believe that each member makes a commitment to preserve the other’s feelings and well-being within reason (defined by the temperament of the individuals at hand), and that the feelings of each are equally important, as long as the end-game intention is to treat themselves and each other well.

This simply sounds like one member is supposed to discount their feelings in favor the other’s (“Be there for her, regardless of what may happen to you. You gotta be willing to go through anything to keep her from getting hurt”). This is needlessly and idiotically simple, a conception of chivalry at a childish level. It attempts to create a rule to express and encourage a positive emotion (perhaps specifically of security), in the process enhancing gender roles in a way that could be described as inherently sexist (referring to the statement’s chivalrous roots).

Through this reinforcement, a male could read this and suppose he is a failure should a poor situation befall his loved one without his intervention. It then becomes the job, the literal occupation of the male counterpart of a relationship to fix their loved one’s problems, to shield them from all harm, to eliminate all unpleasantries. I have spent much time as a “fixer”. I do not believe it is healthy.

Furthermore, this could just as easily create an unrealistic expectation of female counterparts in relationships, skewing gender roles further. Is it not the goal of our society to express it’s equal value for all it’s individuals? And what of feminine independence? What of feminism as a whole? This is extrapolating wildly from the idea above, but I do not think it can be denied that this is at least lightly hinted: are we to take female individuals, indeed femininity as an identity, and suggest that such individuals are simply incapable of running their own lives? I find such an idea obscene.

I believe the individual (or possible group of individuals) who wrote the above statement is trying to express their desire for happiness, security, and protection. I disagree with them only in terms of severity and in the attribution of gender roles in the above scenario. I do however, agree with the sentiment. Love, kindness, desire to help and protect are all desirable emotions in any individual. However, no one should be discounted. Otherwise, me and the poster agree, because frankly, sometimes I need to be protected too.

Also I’m really excited to see if I come back to this rant later and think I’m a terrible person or something. haha.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This.

05/28/12