6 ms·

Which maxims, specifically, did you think were sexist?

tommorris 13y ago
"Do not marry till you are able to support a wife." It's not so much sexist as just outdated. Sometimes the wife will be supporting the husband. Sometimes the "wife" will actually be a husband. Sometimes there will be something close to parity between partners. At some points in a person's life they'll be economically on the up-and-up while the other isn't, and the situation might reverse, in which case the direction of support ought to change.
- Unosolo 13y ago
  I believe this still to be a very good advice and applies to both sexes. In family life circumstances when a household must depend only on a single source of income are abound. Families where each participating adult can provide a basic standard of living for the entire family in times of need are much stronger financially.
- EliRivers 13y ago
  "Do not marry till you are able to support a wife." Sounds pretty valid to me. It doesn't specify whether you're male or female (or other), and doesn't specify that you will have a wife to support; only that you shouldn't marry until you are able to support a wife. Maybe you'll have a wife, maybe you'll have a husband, maybe you'll reject those terms or find them inapplicable. Whatever term you use, if you could support a wife, you could support your <other>.
- FellowTraveler 13y ago
  Don't you think it becomes a lot more difficult to make your fortune, once you are tied down in a relationship? Suddenly the concern becomes about stability instead of success? Would you want your own son getting married before he had made a success of himself?
  - tommorris 13y ago
    I reject the premise that stability is the opposite of success. For some people, having a stable home life might be a condition of their success. Again, it rests on a gendered notion of support and a traditional model of marriage/relationships, which a lot more people reject these days. I'm currently single, but let's say I were to get into a fairly serious relationship in the next few weeks such that new partner moved in with me: would that mean that my work life would now change to be less concerned about success? No. They'd presumably have a job too. Difference is when I got home at the end of the day, there'd be a friendly, kind, loving companion to care for me. Having a dual income supporting the household means that in that particular case, I can be less concerned about stability - because making rent and paying bills and so on is a lot less of a struggle. In the long-term, it might change if one were to have kids, but having kids and getting married are not the same thing. I certainly wouldn't want to have kids until I reached a certain level of success and financial independence (and, hey, one of the benefits of being gay: no unplanned pregnancies!) but that's separate from the question of having a relationship or not, or even getting married or not. This is why I'm saying it's outdated advice rather than sexist advice: it presumes a model of marriage and relationships that has changed (incidentally, contrary to the views of anti-gay social conservatives, it was mostly changed by straight people unhappy with the previous arrangements). Most of the people I know - straight or gay - spend a lot longer living together before getting married. And they tend to delay having children or opt-out of childbearing altogether. How are people in long-term childless unmarried relationships "tied down" exactly? How does whether I go home to an empty apartment or an apartment with a boyfriend in it change whether or not I can be successful at work? Think of it like a partnership in business: a successful partnership means the partners can do more together than they could do apart (provide services to bigger clients, say, or have more capital to invest). But there might be a partnership where one partner works very hard, produces a lot of value and the other mooches off their success without doing much. Saying that a romantic relationship leads to people being tied down and stepping away from risk in business is a bit like saying all business partnerships are of the latter rather than the former kind. Some relationships enable both parties to flourish more than they would separately.
    - FellowTraveler 13y ago

"Do not marry till you are able to support a wife." It's not so much sexist as just outdated. Sometimes the wife will be supporting the husband. Sometimes the "wife" will actually be a husband. Sometimes there will be something close to parity between partners. At some points in a person's life they'll be economically on the up-and-up while the other isn't, and the situation might reverse, in which case the direction of support ought to change.

Unosolo 13y ago
I believe this still to be a very good advice and applies to both sexes. In family life circumstances when a household must depend only on a single source of income are abound. Families where each participating adult can provide a basic standard of living for the entire family in times of need are much stronger financially.
EliRivers 13y ago
"Do not marry till you are able to support a wife." Sounds pretty valid to me. It doesn't specify whether you're male or female (or other), and doesn't specify that you will have a wife to support; only that you shouldn't marry until you are able to support a wife. Maybe you'll have a wife, maybe you'll have a husband, maybe you'll reject those terms or find them inapplicable. Whatever term you use, if you could support a wife, you could support your <other>.
FellowTraveler 13y ago
Don't you think it becomes a lot more difficult to make your fortune, once you are tied down in a relationship? Suddenly the concern becomes about stability instead of success? Would you want your own son getting married before he had made a success of himself?
- tommorris 13y ago
  I reject the premise that stability is the opposite of success. For some people, having a stable home life might be a condition of their success. Again, it rests on a gendered notion of support and a traditional model of marriage/relationships, which a lot more people reject these days. I'm currently single, but let's say I were to get into a fairly serious relationship in the next few weeks such that new partner moved in with me: would that mean that my work life would now change to be less concerned about success? No. They'd presumably have a job too. Difference is when I got home at the end of the day, there'd be a friendly, kind, loving companion to care for me. Having a dual income supporting the household means that in that particular case, I can be less concerned about stability - because making rent and paying bills and so on is a lot less of a struggle. In the long-term, it might change if one were to have kids, but having kids and getting married are not the same thing. I certainly wouldn't want to have kids until I reached a certain level of success and financial independence (and, hey, one of the benefits of being gay: no unplanned pregnancies!) but that's separate from the question of having a relationship or not, or even getting married or not. This is why I'm saying it's outdated advice rather than sexist advice: it presumes a model of marriage and relationships that has changed (incidentally, contrary to the views of anti-gay social conservatives, it was mostly changed by straight people unhappy with the previous arrangements). Most of the people I know - straight or gay - spend a lot longer living together before getting married. And they tend to delay having children or opt-out of childbearing altogether. How are people in long-term childless unmarried relationships "tied down" exactly? How does whether I go home to an empty apartment or an apartment with a boyfriend in it change whether or not I can be successful at work? Think of it like a partnership in business: a successful partnership means the partners can do more together than they could do apart (provide services to bigger clients, say, or have more capital to invest). But there might be a partnership where one partner works very hard, produces a lot of value and the other mooches off their success without doing much. Saying that a romantic relationship leads to people being tied down and stepping away from risk in business is a bit like saying all business partnerships are of the latter rather than the former kind. Some relationships enable both parties to flourish more than they would separately.
  - FellowTraveler 13y ago