+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Anyone else see "Sister Wives" this week?

  1. #1
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default Anyone else see "Sister Wives" this week?

    It's a new reality show about a FLDS polygamist family. There's one husband (of course), 3 wives, and 12 kids. They live in a huge house which is divided up so each wife basically has an apartment in it with her own kitchen, bedrooms, etc., but they all open to each other so the husband (and everyone else) can go around from zone to zone.

    The first episode basically just introduced everybody, got their perspective about living in a poly situation, and the big reveal at the end is that he's courting wife #4.

    The interesting thing is that he's been married to all 3 of the current wives since before all the kids were born. The kids range in age from currently gestating up to about 16 or 17 years old, and they have all grown up with the 3 moms. So...the new mom will be a bit of an adjustment for them, and one or two of the wives don't seem real excited about it, either.

    One other notable thing about them is that they look like perfectly regular folks. I'm guessing the wives practice some kind of modesty dressing because you never see their arms or legs, but they wear jeans and long-sleeved t-shirts and that kind of thing, so they look like they would fit in in any suburban housing development. They also have jobs and one of them is going back to school to get her degree because she never got it. It seems kind of weird (to me) that they are so apparently liberated in some ways, and don't see the inherent sexism that I see in being one of multiple wives, but not being allowed to have multiple husbands.

    There are a lot of ways to be poly, and I can't say that any of them are for me, but this one in particular gives me the heebie jeebies. Which of course means I'll be watching more of this show!

  2. #2
    A Dude Peeta Mellark's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    I actually loved this show. The fact that the husband is apparently being investigated for bigamy (he's only married to one woman, but Utah has a special definition of what constitutes bigamy) makes me sad. They're weird compared to the rest of our society, but I don't think they're doing anything that should be treated as a crime.

    Robyn (Wife #4) is an interesting addition, since she has kids of her own that weren't fathered by Kody. Seems like it could be a huge adjustment for all the kids.

    As for the whole sexist angle...eh, I don't know. That is a really difficult thing for me to judge. Now, I sincerely doubt it'd be okay if the ladies decided they wanted another man around to help fulfill their needs, but I don't know if it's really my place to call it sexist or not. I don't like passing judgment on other people's lifestyle choices because I know people do the same to mine. If the choice is being actively taken away (such as in cases of child brides), though, hey judge on! I know a poly...union I guess you'd call it where everybody's free to date whoever they like, and yet the women end up doing a lot less dating and a lot more sharing of the one guy. Nobody's being denied the chance to get a second boyfriend. They just all really like that one, for whatever crazy reason. I find it baffling and don't see why they're poly if they only want the one guy, but to each her own.

  3. #3
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Well, I think it's an inherently sexist dynamic for a man to be allowed freedom in a relationship that the woman isn't allowed, simply by virtue of the fact that she's female (or vice versa). You can take the stance that it's ok as long as everyone's consenting, but I think it's sexist by definition.
    Last edited by Sarahfeena; 28 Sep 2010 at 04:43 PM.

  4. #4
    A Dude Peeta Mellark's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    Well, I think it's an inherently sexist dynamic for a man to be allowed freedom in a relationship that the woman isn't allowed, simply by virtue of the fact that she's female (or vice versa). You can take the stance that it's ok as long as everyone's consenting, but I think it's sexist by definition.
    I agree with you in principle. I just feel uncomfortable labeling someone else's relationship when there are no signs of unhappiness or abuse.

  5. #5
    Elephant artifex's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Haven't watched the show, I'm just speaking from my ex-Mormon (and now back in Utah) perspective...

    The problem I have with polygyny that FLDS practice is that it often involves uneducated women who are married off in their early teens, without a lot of say in whom they marry, and with little control over their lives. It sounds like that's not going on here, though, if the wives are going to school and whatnot. If grown adults want to engage in the practice of their own free will, without coercion or being trapped, then I have the same opinion as of other forms of polyamory: not for me, thanks, but you knock yourselves out. Sarahfeena, as to why they seem blind to the sexism in it, I would suspect it's the same reason that people of other religions accept sexist practices: it's not really sexism, it's just the order that God has laid out and commanded them to follow.

    I'm not surprised that the state of Utah is investigating them. Utah does not like polygyny: Mormons don't like being continually associated with it, since currently practicing it is heresy, they know what the rest of the country thinks of the practice, and they're embarrassed by it. (They do still believe in the doctrine, fwiw, and fully plan to practice it in heaven, and possibly again on earth if it's reinstated.)

  6. #6
    Elephant artifex's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    566

    Default

    duplicate
    Last edited by artifex; 29 Sep 2010 at 07:48 AM.

  7. #7
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Edited due to misreading of artifex's post.

    True what you say about religion...I know about sexist religions, god knows, I belong to one. But I do think there's a difference between sexism within the hierarchy of the church (which I don't agree with) and the church dictating sexism in one's personal life. For example, I can't really agree with Duggar-style religion, either, where the roles within the family are strictly defined. Not every woman is cut out to stay home and make tater tot casserole, and any church who tells her she has to is teaching a bunch of BS, in my opinion.

    Peeta, as far as the sexism goes, let's face it, how many of us would go willingly into a relationship where there was one set of rules for the man, and another for the woman? Probably not many. What would you think of someone, for example, who made a deal with their husband when they got married that he could go out with his friends whenever he wants, but she's not allowed to? Or he could go out and have a job, but she's not allowed to (and I don't mean she's choosing to stay home for the kids, but say the kids are in school or grown and she wants to go back to work, but within the parameters of the relationship it's not allowed). Would that be something that any of us would accept at face value that it's just her choice? Or would you worry that there was an imbalance in the relationship that maybe indicates something that's not quite healthy about the whole thing?
    Last edited by Sarahfeena; 29 Sep 2010 at 10:28 AM.

  8. #8
    A Dude Peeta Mellark's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    Peeta, as far as the sexism goes, let's face it, how many of us would go willingly into a relationship where there was one set of rules for the man, and another for the woman?
    I'm gay, so it isn't something I've personally experienced on gender lines. I can conceive of having different rules for each partner, but if that's unfair then it's just unfair and nobody can call it sexism.

    What would you think of someone, for example, who made a deal with their husband when they got married that he could go out with his friends whenever he wants, but she's not allowed to? Or he could go out and have a job, but she's not allowed to (and I don't mean she's choosing to stay home for the kids, but say the kids are in school or grown and she wants to go back to work, but within the parameters of the relationship it's not allowed). Would that be something that any of us would accept at face value that it's just her choice? Or would you worry that there was an imbalance in the relationship that maybe indicates something that's not quite healthy about the whole thing?
    Sounds like a total power exchange. I've only known people with that lifestyle online, not in person. It creeped me right the fuck out when I first heard about it, but after some exposure and talking to the people in the relationships I saw that even if I couldn't understand making those choices they did make those choices and they were happy. When it's a woman in charge and a man staying home and making no decisions, would you consider it sexist? In the case of TPE it's more about your orientation and if you're a Dom or a sub than the superiority of one gender over another. If everybody's consenting and giving up power like that is truly a choice and there's no abuse, I just don't feel right judging it. If your example was based not on personal choice, but the brutal subjugation of women and the belief that they had no rights to make choices, then yes. Hell yes. Sexist as all get out.

    In the case of Sister Wives, the women are all educted or in the process of being educated, so I can't shrug it off as being the product of them being young, ignorant things who have been manipulated. Maybe I could say religious brainwashing is at fault and therefore they can't truly consent, but I don't exactly feel comfortable with that either. They aren't acting like mindless cult victims and to insinuate they are because they're making choices I wouldn't isn't really right. I'd have to see a lot more than one episode before saying "yep, these folks are brainwashed."

    So in principle I can see that in their case it's based on some really sexist ideas, but I also see that they're all happy and consenting.

  9. #9
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Peeta Mellark View post
    I'm gay, so it isn't something I've personally experienced on gender lines. I can conceive of having different rules for each partner, but if that's unfair then it's just unfair and nobody can call it sexism.
    Even if you can't call it sexism, you might still wonder why a person might give up equality in a relationship, and whether or not it comes from a healthy place. But either way, is there some reason inequalities in a man/woman relationship SHOULDN'T be called sexist, just because that dynamic can't exist in your relationships? There IS sexism in this world, and plenty of it. The fact that inequities and unfairness can exist for a lot of other reasons too doesn't mean there isn't.

    Quote Originally posted by Peeta Mellark View post
    Sounds like a total power exchange. I've only known people with that lifestyle online, not in person. It creeped me right the fuck out when I first heard about it, but after some exposure and talking to the people in the relationships I saw that even if I couldn't understand making those choices they did make those choices and they were happy. When it's a woman in charge and a man staying home and making no decisions, would you consider it sexist? In the case of TPE it's more about your orientation and if you're a Dom or a sub than the superiority of one gender over another. If everybody's consenting and giving up power like that is truly a choice and there's no abuse, I just don't feel right judging it. If your example was based not on personal choice, but the brutal subjugation of women and the belief that they had no rights to make choices, then yes. Hell yes. Sexist as all get out.
    Well of course if it was the woman in charge and the man making no decisions it would still be sexist. It's a difference based on sex...that's the definition of sexism. And, this doesn't sound like a TPE to me, because of exactly what you say here...that it's based on the gender of the participants, and not on their personal desires or proclivities. These specific women may want to have this lifestyle, but if they wanted it the other way around, where they would have multiple husbands and the men had to accept it, that's not allowed. And, TPE has a strong sexual undercurrent that this doesn't seem to have; this is just based on the role these folks believe that women are born to. The idea that the position of inferiority is the natural one for women is frankly kinda abhorrent to me.

    Quote Originally posted by Peeta Mellark View post
    In the case of Sister Wives, the women are all educted or in the process of being educated, so I can't shrug it off as being the product of them being young, ignorant things who have been manipulated. Maybe I could say religious brainwashing is at fault and therefore they can't truly consent, but I don't exactly feel comfortable with that either. They aren't acting like mindless cult victims and to insinuate they are because they're making choices I wouldn't isn't really right. I'd have to see a lot more than one episode before saying "yep, these folks are brainwashed."

    So in principle I can see that in their case it's based on some really sexist ideas, but I also see that they're all happy and consenting.
    I don't know if they are brainwashed. On the other hand, I don't know if they're really happy. I'll take them at face value and say that they are, that's fine. I'm not in position to say they're kidding themselves about that or anything. As artifex said, they can knock themselves out. But, I CAN think it's kind of a sad choice when anyone makes themselves a second class citizen in their own home by virtue of their having two X chromosomes, and I really kind of do.
    Last edited by Sarahfeena; 29 Sep 2010 at 01:11 PM.

  10. #10
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,174

    Default

    I'm mostly grossed out by the TLC executives that keep putting together these voyeuristic sideshow-freak programs.

  11. #11
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,743

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Orual View post
    I'm mostly grossed out by the TLC executives that keep putting together these voyeuristic sideshow-freak programs.
    You know what would be cool? A show about polygamist hoarding dwarfs with sextuplets. That would be cool.

  12. #12
    A Dude Peeta Mellark's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    Even if you can't call it sexism, you might still wonder why a person might give up equality in a relationship, and whether or not it comes from a healthy place. But either way, is there some reason inequalities in a man/woman relationship SHOULDN'T be called sexist, just because that dynamic can't exist in your relationships? There IS sexism in this world, and plenty of it. The fact that inequities and unfairness can exist for a lot of other reasons too doesn't mean there isn't.
    I really don't know what to say, because that isn't how I view relationships. I can see people, assumptions, institutions and actions as sexist, but if two people are agreeing to a particular relationship I don't see how that makes the relationship itself sexist.

    Well of course if it was the woman in charge and the man making no decisions it would still be sexist. It's a difference based on sex...that's the definition of sexism. And, this doesn't sound like a TPE to me, because of exactly what you say here...that it's based on the gender of the participants, and not on their personal desires or proclivities.
    If two people decide that they want to do something and they both want to do it, I don't see how that's sexist. If it's in the context of them not having a choice, that's different. Of course that's sexist. But differences between the two when they're of the opposite sex doesn't automatically translate into sexism. Differences will arise in relationships and in a heterosexual relationship, by definition, those differences are going to be between two people of different genders. But that's because they're straight and thus partnered with someone of the opposite gender. That's different than the differences being based on sex.

    Say a man and woman are married. She hates to cook, so he does all the cooking. Sexist? He hates spiders, so she crushes them all. Sexist? She really enjoys being the aggressor in the bedroom, so he stays more passive. Sexist? Yes, these differences are between two people of opposite sex and yes, they chose one another and this relationship based on sex because of their orientation, but the differences between them are differences between individuals, not the sexes. They're making these choices based on mutual desires and those mutual desires include heterosexuality, meaning all their desires for a partner will involve someone of the opposite sex. You can't label all differences or inequities between them as sexist. It's more nuanced than that.

    I'm not arguing that the FLDS setup isn't sexist. It absolutely is. But I see a distinction between the organization and the power of each individual to make their own choices. I don't know enough about the Brown family to say that, yes, absolutely their lifestyle is sexist. It probably is, but I don't like making snap judgments.

  13. #13
    Elephant artifex's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    566

    Default

    OK, the thing that strikes me about the debate over sexism and the freedom to make choices and have them accepted as valid by those who wouldn't find the choices appealing and all that...

    They aren't entering into the situation because they find polygyny to be the thing that floats their sexual boat. They enter into it because their God and their prophet tell them that it's how to have righteous marriage, it's how they can go to heaven and have an eternal family. If there were a religious group that taught that the only way to have a righteous marriage was to engage in TPE, would that be cool?

    Maybe these women really are happy in their situation. If there were a religious group that insisted on TPE marriage, probably there'd be at least a few adherents whose sexual boats that actually floated. But personal sexual preferences really aren't what's driving the polygyny of the FLDS. I suspect that there are plenty of FLDS who act happy for the same reason I used to act like a happy believing Mormon: I was raised to believe it was true, and for a long time I thought my lack of fulfillment was *my* failing, so I smiled and pretended and hoped that at some point God would help me feel like the other Mormons around me apparently felt.

  14. #14
    The Apostabulous Inner Stickler's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Collegeville, MN
    Posts
    2,172

    Default

    Did I miss a post where TPE was defined?

    It doesn't sound like the sort of relationship that I'd be interested in but does that mean it shouldn't be allowed for anyone? I don't know. It certainly skeeves me out but so do snakes. I remember that ridiculous thread on the dope about freekalette where I recall thinking it was totally ok. But now, I wonder if I would be as ok with something like that. Anything where religion is used as justification, though, I get a little dubious.
    I don't think so, therefore I'm probably not.

  15. #15
    Elephant artifex's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Inner Stickler View post
    Did I miss a post where TPE was defined?
    Yeah, this one, I hope I grabbed the link correctly...

    Quote Originally posted by Inner Stickler View post
    It doesn't sound like the sort of relationship that I'd be interested in but does that mean it shouldn't be allowed for anyone?
    Well, see, that's my issue - the people going into polygyny aren't necessarily interested, either. I'm pretty accepting of people getting into whatever sort of relationship makes all involved parties happy campers, but FLDS don't enter polygynous marriages because they think it's hot, they're not monogamous individuals, whatever - they do it because they're commanded to by their spokesperson for God.

  16. #16
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Peeta Mellark View post
    I'm not arguing that the FLDS setup isn't sexist. It absolutely is. But I see a distinction between the organization and the power of each individual to make their own choices. I don't know enough about the Brown family to say that, yes, absolutely their lifestyle is sexist. It probably is, but I don't like making snap judgments.
    Keeping an open mind is commendable, but I really don't think anybody here's going to condemn you if you make a judgment on them. That's what reality TV is for.

    You guys have sufficiently roused my curiosity now to the point where I might watch this.
    So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.

  17. #17
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Peeta Mellark View post
    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    Even if you can't call it sexism, you might still wonder why a person might give up equality in a relationship, and whether or not it comes from a healthy place. But either way, is there some reason inequalities in a man/woman relationship SHOULDN'T be called sexist, just because that dynamic can't exist in your relationships? There IS sexism in this world, and plenty of it. The fact that inequities and unfairness can exist for a lot of other reasons too doesn't mean there isn't.
    I really don't know what to say, because that isn't how I view relationships. I can see people, assumptions, institutions and actions as sexist, but if two people are agreeing to a particular relationship I don't see how that makes the relationship itself sexist.

    Well of course if it was the woman in charge and the man making no decisions it would still be sexist. It's a difference based on sex...that's the definition of sexism. And, this doesn't sound like a TPE to me, because of exactly what you say here...that it's based on the gender of the participants, and not on their personal desires or proclivities.
    If two people decide that they want to do something and they both want to do it, I don't see how that's sexist. If it's in the context of them not having a choice, that's different. Of course that's sexist. But differences between the two when they're of the opposite sex doesn't automatically translate into sexism. Differences will arise in relationships and in a heterosexual relationship, by definition, those differences are going to be between two people of different genders. But that's because they're straight and thus partnered with someone of the opposite gender. That's different than the differences being based on sex.

    Say a man and woman are married. She hates to cook, so he does all the cooking. Sexist? He hates spiders, so she crushes them all. Sexist? She really enjoys being the aggressor in the bedroom, so he stays more passive. Sexist? Yes, these differences are between two people of opposite sex and yes, they chose one another and this relationship based on sex because of their orientation, but the differences between them are differences between individuals, not the sexes. They're making these choices based on mutual desires and those mutual desires include heterosexuality, meaning all their desires for a partner will involve someone of the opposite sex. You can't label all differences or inequities between them as sexist. It's more nuanced than that.

    I'm not arguing that the FLDS setup isn't sexist. It absolutely is. But I see a distinction between the organization and the power of each individual to make their own choices. I don't know enough about the Brown family to say that, yes, absolutely their lifestyle is sexist. It probably is, but I don't like making snap judgments.
    I have not labeled all differences or inequities betwen them as sexist. I'm labeling differences or inequties based on their sex as sexist. Woman cooking all the meals because she likes to and she's a good cook = not sexist. Woman cooking all the meals because she's a woman = sexist. This may be their mutual desire and it may not be, but if it's a belief system they have based on different, unequal, and proscribed roles for each sex, then that's a sexist belief system...whether they enjoy it or not is beside the point, because the system wouldn't change anyway. Happiness is not what the system is based on. This is one of the major ways it differs from TPE, in which the participants choose to be a D or s based on their personal preference. And yes, there's nuance, but as artifex points out, when you do something because your religion commands it, that's not a situation that's loaded with nuance.

  18. #18
    A Dude Peeta Mellark's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    I have not labeled all differences or inequities betwen them as sexist. I'm labeling differences or inequties based on their sex as sexist. Woman cooking all the meals because she likes to and she's a good cook = not sexist. Woman cooking all the meals because she's a woman = sexist. This may be their mutual desire and it may not be, but if it's a belief system they have based on different, unequal, and proscribed roles for each sex, then that's a sexist belief system...whether they enjoy it or not is beside the point, because the system wouldn't change anyway. Happiness is not what the system is based on. This is one of the major ways it differs from TPE, in which the participants choose to be a D or s based on their personal preference. And yes, there's nuance, but as artifex points out, when you do something because your religion commands it, that's not a situation that's loaded with nuance.
    Okay, I have wildly misunderstood what you were talking about. I thought this

    It's a difference based on sex...that's the definition of sexism.
    was in reference to any time people of opposite sexes were different in any way, not just where there were gender stereotypes governing things. I thought you were saying any heterosexual relationship in which the partners had differences in their behavior was inherently sexist. Sorry for reading comprehension fail. I've spent too much time around people who make Andrea Dworkin seem mellow, clearly.

    I am really, truly sorry for mischaracterizing what you were saying, Sarahfeena. I feel like an idiot.

  19. #19
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    No prob, Peeta, I obviously wasn't explaining myself well.

  20. #20
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Do you think the show would have been made if it had been one man and several uneducated, young teen women with no control over their lives?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  21. #21
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    Do you think the show would have been made if it had been one man and several uneducated, young teen women with no control over their lives?
    That's a good question. Upon viewing the first episode, I perceived a decided effort to portray the family as much like your average suburban family as possible...nothing you could point to and be judgmental about, other than the obvious 3 wives/1 husband dynamic. I think if there was anything else that seemed not right...if the kids were weird,the wives were too young, the guy seemed overly skeevy, it would be a really, really different show. Course, as Orual points out, that's probably not likely to stop TLC from forging ahead with it.

  22. #22
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    Do you think the show would have been made if it had been one man and several uneducated, young teen women with no control over their lives?
    That's a good question. Upon viewing the first episode, I perceived a decided effort to portray the family as much like your average suburban family as possible...nothing you could point to and be judgmental about, other than the obvious 3 wives/1 husband dynamic. I think if there was anything else that seemed not right...if the kids were weird,the wives were too young, the guy seemed overly skeevy, it would be a really, really different show. Course, as Orual points out, that's probably not likely to stop TLC from forging ahead with it.

  23. #23
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,743

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    Do you think the show would have been made if it had been one man and several uneducated, young teen women with no control over their lives?
    That's a good question. Upon viewing the first episode, I perceived a decided effort to portray the family as much like your average suburban family as possible...nothing you could point to and be judgmental about, other than the obvious 3 wives/1 husband dynamic. I think if there was anything else that seemed not right...if the kids were weird,the wives were too young, the guy seemed overly skeevy, it would be a really, really different show. Course, as Orual points out, that's probably not likely to stop TLC from forging ahead with it.
    It's pretty obvious they were going for a family as much like the one depicted in "Big Love" as possible. To the point that I've been pretty suspicious about the "reality" of the whole deal. I'll be interested in what the Utah bigamy investigation turns up.

  24. #24
    Registered user
    Registered
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default

    definition of sexism: ": behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on, sex. So according to this and your view you would have to also believe that a women who chooses to stay home and raise the kids are in a sexist situation. You can't stick to the definition wherever it's convenient for you to use it. And I say if a women chooses to stay home and raise the kids and this is sexist so be it.

  25. #25
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Logic View post
    definition of sexism: ": behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on, sex. So according to this and your view you would have to also believe that a women who chooses to stay home and raise the kids are in a sexist situation. You can't stick to the definition wherever it's convenient for you to use it. And I say if a women chooses to stay home and raise the kids and this is sexist so be it.
    If a woman chooses to stay at home and raise the kids that's her choice. Sexism would be her being forced to stay at home and raise the kids due to societal pressures.

    Same goes if a man wants to stay at home and raise the kids, it's his choice and no-one should gainsay him either way.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  26. #26
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Yeah, as I said before, I think it has more to do with attitudes then actual behaviors. If the woman is EXPECTED to stay home BECAUSE she is a woman, then that's clearly sexist. If she chooses to, well, that may well have to do with sexism in terms of how she was socialized, but it's a lot less clear-cut.

  27. #27
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    BTW, I watched an episode of the current season of this show, and to me it keeps getting weirder. They have moved to Las Vegas to avoid getting arrested in Utah, and each wife has her own house now, at least for the time being. A couple of them are kind of digging it, and the first wife, Meri, seemed very unhappy last season, and she seems even more unhappy now in general but happy to be in her own house. It's actually kind of uncomfortable to watch because I feel so bad for her. The husband seems concerned because she and one other wife seem to like being on their own just a bit too much, but one of the things each wife seems to like is that when he rotates into her house, she has his undivided attention. Which...that just seems ugh to me. There's something really strange about the sharing dynamic that I guess I just don't really understand.

  28. #28
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Was there anything in there about how they're adjusting to the different social climate in Las Vegas? Most of our polygamists didn't actually live in the city when I lived in the area. They'd come in from rural regions for healthcare and things like that, and were rare enough I don't think most people knew what was going on. If they weren't so high profile, I'd think they could benefit from that ignorance just because no one would really notice.

  29. #29
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    Was there anything in there about how they're adjusting to the different social climate in Las Vegas? Most of our polygamists didn't actually live in the city when I lived in the area. They'd come in from rural regions for healthcare and things like that, and were rare enough I don't think most people knew what was going on. If they weren't so high profile, I'd think they could benefit from that ignorance just because no one would really notice.
    Well, definitely no one would for a while, because they're each living in different houses, though in the same neighborhood. But of course, they had a big block party and explained it to their neighbors (good for television, I guess), and so of course there were some rather surprised reactions. They seem more concerned about the influences on their kids, although I'm not sure where it all goes, since I just watched the one episode. When I get a chance maybe I'll hunt the other episodes down online or something.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts