Gender roles in sailing and cruising

[alaskaflyfish]

Originally Posted by cyan

+1
In my case, she absolutely loves being on the boat while sailing, but has no interest in actually sailing the boat. None. This would take away from dolphin watching, reading, and doing what she truly loves: cooking. She would laugh at you if you suggested that we were a bit old fashioned in our division of labor

For purely practical reasons, she has gained the experience needed to be at the helm. However this was in the same category to her as learning how to use the pump in the head. Simply a practical skill needed to get to a new exotic location.

We work very well together in this way. It's perfect for us, actually.
I fully respect other arrangements, as everyone is different. Breaking away from "traditional" gender roles is a great concept, and I'm all for it.
However, there should be no shame in doing it the old way when all parties involved are happier that way.

Damn!!! you just described my wife to the tee. Maybe we are both married to the same woman! When I get home tonight I'm gonna find out for sure,,,, (joking). There are just some duties some women don't want to do, I respect that. There are some things that I don't want to do, (like taxes) and she is really good at it.

[Suijin]

In my experience whoever owns the boat, man or woman, is the captain unless they explicitly cede that role and responsibility to someone else.

I’ve crewed on a number of women owned and captained boats. Never occurred to me that it would be an issue with anyone other than troglodytes.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by alaskaflyfish

Beta males a.k.a...Nu-male or soyboy, are males who are gender confused (since there are 30+ forms of gender identity now) and who confuse fact with emotion. Emotional awareness is the primary focus in their ideology hence their willingness to lay down and be dominated by a strong masculine female. Facts and reality are meaningless. The appearance of fairness greatly outweighs the quality of competence. Thus, a strong masculine female presence in a traditional male role is celebrated whereas a hetero-normative male in the same role is considered toxic. Male self-hate is also of tremendous importance to further their ideology. I hope that clears things up,,,cheers.

I've got big balls
I've got big balls
They're such big balls
And they're dirty big balls
And he's got big balls
And she's got big balls
(But we've got the biggest balls of them all)

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Jammer

About a year ago, I was reading a well-known book, and introduction to cruising. The author was one of a well-known man-woman couple who have been cruising for years. It was an enjoyable read, and there were little hints here and there that the author was part of an egalitarian, highly functional couple. There was a section on decision making and on how the two of them dealt with the inherent tension between the need to have only one captain and the importance of both being involved in decisions.


That sort of stuff really warms my heart. I read on.


There was a section about emergencies where the author revealed that part of their contingency plan was a notarized document stating that she would have the authority to operate the boat worldwide in the event he were to become incapacitated. That was necessary because, well, the boat belonged entirely to him.


Reading that, for me, was sort of like finding out that there isn't really a Santa Claus.


So, is that what it's like out there in cruising land? Traditional male-led relationships? Sometimes carefully papered over with a thin layer of egalitarianism and feminism?


Is that a reflection of society at large?


Or is there something about cruising that attracts strong men and women who are willing to accept a voyage where they are not a full partner?

My mother was a full partner probably as good as Pop at things like docking or holding a course. I watched a wife dock a tight spot and the husband handled the lines years later, he said she is better at it than me.
Whether or not it is male led probably has nothing to do with cruising land.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

I personally don't "get it" when the women opt out. But it's pretty clear some do, and they don't much care for the other women who are more hands on. Here's an example: my friend Sue was in the bosun's chair at the spreader of their 40 footer, sewing on a new spreader boot, and a yacht club woman said to her, "You shouldn't be doing that. It's your husband's job." There are women who want to be treated like a princess--they're out there, and lots of the guys here on CF have had to deal with them, too.

This is not my experience. I'm with a woman who does opt out of certain tasks but who also admires those who opt in IF THEY WANT TO. This might be a different category, though. She would shake her head in disgust at that loud mouth yacht club woman. She would also choose to spend extra time in the galley perfecting the art of the perfect meal after bringing the teak back to life on deck. Respect for roles and choices of others is an underlying theme for us, no matter whether those choices look too traditional or too modern to anyone else.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by cyan

This is not my experience. I'm with a woman who does opt out of certain tasks but who also admires those who opt in IF THEY WANT TO. This might be a different category, though. She would shake her head in disgust at that loud mouth yacht club woman. She would also choose to spend extra time in the galley perfecting the art of the perfect meal after bringing the teak back to life on deck. Respect for roles and choices of others is an underlying theme, no matter whether those choices look too traditional or too modern to anyone else.

That may be your experience, but its going to be at least another generation before its a common truth. We had a woman this summer who tried to insist that we wait for her husband to grab our lines because there was a woman on deck — we are perfect capable of docking our own boat.

Assumptions... you know what they say.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

The only thing I'm not allowed to do is laundry .... cause everything turns out pink.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You truly are the luckiest guy on the planet!


PINK!!!


How'd you know?!?


When we sailed up the coast from SF to BC two years ago, my son and I were quite careful when we did the laundry.


Of course, most of the time I simply forgot the detergent back on the boat at the furthest dock from the washing machines.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

You truly are the luckiest guy on the planet!


PINK!!!


How'd you know?!?


When we sailed up the coast from SF to BC two years ago, my son and I were quite careful when we did the laundry.


Of course, most of the time I simply forgot the detergent back on the boat at the furthest dock from the washing machines.

We solved that problem: I'm allowed to do the laundry; I'm just not allowed to sort the laundry. Apparently pants, shirts, underwear are not acceptable categories.

[Mike OReilly]

Laundry … we basically do our own. I’m happy to do hers, but she doesn’t appreciate how I basically toss everything together into one pile. No sorting for me .

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

That may be your experience, but its going to be at least another generation before its a common truth. We had a woman this summer who tried to insist that we wait for her husband to grab our lines because there was a woman on deck — we are perfect capable of docking our own boat.

Assumptions... you know what they say.

You indeed might be right about another generation before gender roles and assumptions all even out a bit. While this seems ultimately good at first, there may be unintended consequences. Forcing or shaming people into "equal" roles merely for the good of this new nirvana is no better than continuing the old restrictions and assumptions of gender stereotypes.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by cyan

You indeed might be right about another generation before gender roles and assumptions all even out a bit. While this seems ultimately good at first, there may be unintended consequences. Forcing or shaming people into "equal" roles merely for the good of this new nirvana is no better than continuing the old restrictions and assumptions of gender stereotypes.

Equality is null concept. Not gonna happen whether it's gender roles, economic freedom or just plain social status. I just think we can learn to accept rich people aren't smarter, poor people aren't less cultured, or men and women have some sort of genetic predisposition to anything other than who can do the most pullups. And come to think of it, I had my ass kicked by women in pull up contests back in my rock climbing days...

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

I just think we can learn to accept rich people aren't smarter, poor people aren't less cultured, or men and women have some sort of genetic predisposition to anything other than who can do the most pullups.

Ah, but it is taboo to speak of spatial perception, verbal proficiency, or other traits that might happen to align differently between the genders? If so, the OTHER traits such as upper body strength are okay? This seems a bit convenient. Perhaps there will be a day when it becomes okay to celebrate differences again, without getting the stink eye.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by alaskaflyfish

Beta males a.k.a...Nu-male or soyboy, are males who are gender confused (since there are 30+ forms of gender identity now) and who confuse fact with emotion. Emotional awareness is the primary focus in their ideology hence their willingness to lay down and be dominated by a strong masculine female. Facts and reality are meaningless. The appearance of fairness greatly outweighs the quality of competence. Thus, a strong masculine female presence in a traditional male role is celebrated whereas a hetero-normative male in the same role is considered toxic. Male self-hate is also of tremendous importance to further their ideology. I hope that clears things up,,,cheers.

You know, that post is almost like Shakespeare. Hilarious, tragic, and frightening all at once. I hope that, like Shakespeare, you're writing for your audience, and don't actually think like that.


I mean, it's more like the sort of stuff that they post at Cruising Anarchy, than the stuff at Cruising Anarchy is itself.

[atmartin]

Originally Posted by cyan

Ah, but it is taboo to speak of spatial perception, verbal proficiency, or other traits that might happen to align differently between the genders? If so, the OTHER traits such as upper body strength are okay? This seems a bit convenient. Perhaps there will be a day when it becomes okay to celebrate differences again, without getting the stink eye.

It's not taboo (maybe at google). There's a history of social sciences creating psychometric data that measure something, but not necessarily what they think they're measuring. See Mismeasure of Man and the Flynn effect.

It's one thing to assert "data shows that men are on average less agreeable (a term we defined) than women". It's another to claim "men on average have more of hormone 35 that bind to receptors at sites 100, 117, etc, that creates this concrete, observable behavior"

The science isn't solid on personality/intelligence and it's healthy to be skeptical of these metrics after past hookum like craniometry. Maybe it's just my bias as an engineer, but lots of stuff in previous editions of the DSM is now considered normal behavior. No attack on psychology intended.

It's a lot easier to count pushups or time runners, than get inside people's heads.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by atmartin

It's not taboo (maybe at google). There's a history of social sciences creating psychometric data that measure something, but not necessarily what they think they're measuring. See Mismeasure of Man and the Flynn effect.

It's one thing to assert "data shows that men are on average less agreeable (a term we defined) than women". It's another to claim "men on average have more of hormone 35 that bind to receptors at sites 100, 117, etc, that creates this concrete, observable behavior"

The science isn't solid on personality/intelligence and it's healthy to be skeptical of these metrics after past hookum like craniometry. Maybe it's just my bias as an engineer, but lots of stuff in previous editions of the DSM is now considered normal behavior. No attack on psychology intended.

It's a lot easier to count pushups or time runners, than get inside people's heads.

What he said.

Don't get me wrong, I actually believe there are differences between the xx and xy. It's just most of them can't be proven either way in a nature vs nurture argument, so I hesitate to to make any public claims. If we get together for a beer though I will feel free to assert away.

But it has always bothered me that the average woman shouldn't be expected to pull herself back in if she suddenly found herself dangling from a windowsill. It's just not fair...