Posted on 12/25/2022 7:12:41 PM PST by FarCenter
Women have a greater eye for detail then men. At least, according to evolutionary biology, women needed to developed an eye for detail in order to find the best roots and berries to feed the family.
Imo, housework should be split according to one’s abilities. Men do the big and obvious stuff and women attend to the finer things. Housework does not have to be split on a room by room basis.
Yay women complaining on Christmas. Never ends.
Ok,I’ll wipe the counter. Go outside and replace my alternator.
Why should they? Men and women are different. Live with it. Vive la différance!
“Societal intervention”
That’s hysterical. I thought it was called “having parents” that “train up a child.” Blame everything on gender as the scapegoat and just cement those stereotypes. Yes, men and women think differently, and maybe we have something called...EDUCATION. Good luck finding that from a minimum wage daycare or preschool employee, and forget it after that.
“If it bothers you in its present state, then by all means, feel free to fix it to your satisfaction.”
Sounds pretty liberating to me.
Oh good cow. It takes at least five generations to change culturally-ingrained habits. Men have tended to things like taking out trash (which they are more likely to notice needs doing than women) while women tended to things like cleaning counters and baseboards (which they are more likely to notice needs doing than men) for at least the past two or three generations. We just naturally tend to notice what we are used to noticing. It doesn’t take a philosopher to figure that out.
To clarify, from “Gendered affordance perception and unequal domestic labour” from the journal “Philosophy and Phenomenological Research”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phpr.12929
2.1 Affordance perception
Let us start by unpacking the notion of affordance perception. What is an affordance? An affordance is a possibility for action. As you enter your kitchen the floor affords walking-on, the knife affords chopping-with and the cup affords drinking-from. The term ‘affordance’ was introduced by ecological psychologist J. Gibson. He explains ‘[t]he affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill.’15 J. Gibson deployed his concept of affordances within a complex theory of action with many contentious components. But the concept has since taken on a life of its own, with theorists across multiple disciplines utilising the term whilst jettisoning J. Gibson’s wider theoretical baggage. Although the term has been used in different ways by different theorists, the best way to pin it down is as follows: a situation affords an action for an agent if it is possible for the agent to perform that action in that situation. Affordances are thus subject-relative: if two people are looking at a tree it might afford climbing for one of them but not afford climbing for the other. And they are situation relative: a tree that affords climbing for you here and now ceases to afford climbing when you are no longer in its vicinity.
In itself, the claim that our environment affords different actions is not especially bold. The bolder claim, that J. Gibson himself emphasised, is that these affordances are perceptible. Rather than seeing the shape and colour of a tree then inferring that you can climb it, you can simply see the tree as climbable. So when entering the kitchen, an agent might perceive the floor as walk-on-able, the knife as chop-with-able and the cup as drink-from-able. Some argue that this is evident from first-person reflection: if you consider your perceptual experience of the kitchen you can recognise that besides perceiving various shapes, colours and textures you perceive the possibilities for action offered by that environment. Others focus instead on third-person evidence, citing empirical work that strongly suggests we are perceptually sensitive to the affordances around us.16
Perceiving an affordance does not, in and of itself, constitute a motivation to perform the afforded action. One can, for example, perceive a piece of lettuce as edible without being in any way moved to eat it. But in many cases our perception of an affordance does seem to have motivational force. Ridderinkhof et al. suggest ‘…intrinsic to the experience of an affordance is that stimuli incite or summon certain actions.’.17 Unlike the lettuce, a cake might be perceived not just as edible but as to be eaten. Siegel refers to these as soliciting affordances.18 This experience of being solicited has been variously described in terms of ‘demand character’ (Koffka)19, ‘a felt tension which fluctuates around a norm’ (Merleau-Ponty)20, ‘affective allure’ (Rietveld)21 and ‘a feeling of answerability’ (Siegel).22
Only a woman can walk through an entire store full of clothes and say “I couldn’t find a thing to wear’’.
ya’ think?
Probably not in before the sexist comments.
I think we have had all the societal interventions we can handle for awhile.
Absolutely.
A man should never marry a slob.
My idea of clean and my husband’s idea of clean are miles apart.
If I am sick and my husband cleans the kitchen, you can eat off the dishes. If I clean the kitchen, you can eat off the dishes, table, counters, stove top, cabinets, baseboards, switch-plates, doors, window ledges, and floors.
His focus is on utility and efficiency; I love that about him.
My focus is on keeping a clean and comfortable environment for the family. I am proud when he comes home and remarks how nice the house looks, smells, etc. It is one of my ways of showing him I love him.
I married a man. I don’t want, and have never wanted, my man to act like a woman.
Of course, it may also be true that young child-bearing age couples have entirely too much on their plates due to the breakdown of the extended family in order to have young adults moving around to serve the interests of employers from the time of the industrial revolution.
Used to be that they had a lot more hands available to help with the work, to say nothing of not having to pay strangers market rate for tasks that family used to do.
I have shopped with my wife and daughters. Given today’s fashions, I can completely understand that sentiment.
There is one thing women don’t do , can not do or ever will do: Kill bugs. Women can not bring themselves to ever kill a bug. I wish someone would explain that to me.
Oh, I understand.
Her man saw the stranger do or say something that disrespected his woman.
He was just putting the stranger in his place.
Why is it that women can never kill bugs?
If my wife asks me to clean something, I always ask, “Who is coming over?”
Why is it that women can never kill bugs?
Say what?
Yes....we can....
I use hubby’s flip flops to squash bugs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.