I thought All the Best Cowboys Have Chinese Eyes. Hmm…maybe the best of the best cowboys have both Daddy Issues and Chinese Eyes.
Anyway…just from the sheer fact that the word “Daddy” (what a toddler calls their father) is used rather than “Father” or “Dad” already suggests that the term is meant to be somewhat demeaning.
I’ve always understood ‘daddy issues’ to mean an unusual obsession with daddy, either good or bad. Kind of like ‘momma’s boy.’ That girl I dated who seemed to have derived every opinion she held from her father - daddy issues. The one who held up her father as the perfect male, talked about him way too much and deferred to him in all things - daddy issues. I don’t think there is necessarily a sexual component.
I’ve given this some thought, and I do think it is a little offensive.
“Daddy issues” is basically a way to dismiss a woman’s sexual choices. And I can’t think of any equivalent for a man. Indeed, men can experience a pretty wide swath of sexuality without being accused of having some basic character flaw. But us ladies get a pretty colorful vocabulary derisively describing everything from a “cold fish” to “damaged goods.”
I’d rather see women and men free to make their own sexual choice for what they are, without having to throw in all the armchair analysis and commentary.
But using your logic as I understand it, there would be nothing racist about calling a black man a nigger in Chris Rock’s sense of the term, because that only describes a particular sort of black man.
It’s sexist to say “all women are x”, but it may be equally sexist to say “women who aren’t x are bad”, depending on what x is and whether x is a double standard.
even sven just articulated this much better than I’m about to, but I what makes it sexist to me is that it externalizes women’s sexuality in a way I don’t see with men. If a man has sex with an older woman, he has a thing for older women, likes their experience, whatever. But if a woman has sex with an older man, she had a shitty father. Or she’s after his money. It speaks to this idea that women don’t have sex for its own sake.
In reality, the sexuality of men and women is influenced by both innate desires and external forces, but I perceive far more of a bias towards the external when it comes to women. And I think that’s sexist.
At the same time you need to separate meanings of there term. I’ve learned from reading this thread that the term is much broader than I had initially thought. If you don’t think the term necessarily has anything to do with sexuality, just some aspect of a woman’s character, I can entertain the idea that it’s probably not sexist, given that it is applied to both genders.
Well, that’s pretty much all of the pop-psychology buzz-terms. It’s a peeve of mine, the way people observe or hear about someone doing something once and slap on a label and dismiss them. Immediately they’re OCD, anal retentive, nymphomania, have parental issues, an oral fixation, whatever. Perish forbid you get to know someone - just label them and move on. :rolleyes:
At the same time too, people often embrace that type of simplistic label (not daddy issues but other ones) when describing themselves.
I wonder what that’s about. Is genuine introspection too difficult? Is it a convenient excuse for one’s personal failings that protects the ego?
No, it’s a simple way of communicating your issues in a concise form. Why are you assuming that everyone has some sort of psychological problem?
And, yes, introspection is something almost no one ever does. I personally thought it came with being an intellectual, but this board has disabused me of that notion. I’m considered a freak when I take the time to explain my internal motivations.
Where did I say that? I was saying that many people embrace labels. This includes psychologically neutral ones like INTJ or the Enneagram or whatever.
Given that so few people are introspective about themselves, how many people do you think extend that introspection to other people? Or do people have greater insight about other people than they do about themselves?
My conjecture is that there are two ‘yous’ (generic you) in people. The you you are, and the you you aspire to be. And people want to believe they really are like that idealized version. Advertising preys upon this weakness in my opinion.
Before I forget, another observation about the daddy issues label was that it reminds me A LOT of the way homosexuality used to be talked about. Or at least male homosexuality, I’m not sure if it was applied to women in the same way.
Namely, men became gay because they had an overbearing mother and/or a weak father.
Do you think there’s a significant parallel there?
I’ve never used the term because I don’t know what it means. I see that there is not necessarily agreement here. I’ve known many folks who exhibit all sorts of behavior that could be attributed to parental interaction, but it’s always hard to test these one-off theories.