7 ms·
While I support equality between biological sexes this had some ill effects. Giving birth is a woman job. Breastfeeding is a woman's job. Replacing breast milk
by wojciii 12d ago
While I support equality between biological sexes this had some ill effects.
Giving birth is a woman job. Breastfeeding is a woman's job. Replacing breast milk with something else might be one of the causes of allergies and other ill effects (I'm guessing).
To me it looks like women want to be compensated for the unpaid work of birthing children and taking care of them during their upbringing.
No one fucking likes unpaid work. It's not right.
For me this if the current feminism and I do support it.
- exmadscientist 12d ago> (I'm guessing) Please don't do this. It's not helpful.
- christkv 12d agoThe fact that everything in life is compared to monetary value is the problem. There abstraction of paternalism to the state is another. For the state you are a number for your family and friends you have a name
- swagasaurus-rex 12d agoIsn’t being a stay at home wife being compensated to do that work? Your bills and mortgage are paid for, so is the food. You get to spend time with the kids. Sounds way less stressful than a high stakes job.
- sersi 12d agoYou also have no way to get out of a bad relationship if things turn sour. Being stay at home is extremely risky, you give up freedom.
- hypfer 12d agoTbf, that's a very "modern"-ish way of viewing the idea of "committing". And there are good reasons for that, of course, but with that thinking, you're always going to be not fully there, which might be harmful in different ways than the ways it tries to protect against. It's a hard problem to solve, because Humans and interpersonal stuff is hard, but, ideally, one would frontload the friction, so that there is no need to keep an out on hot standby.
- sersi 12d agoSure in our modern era there are a lot more divorce and it's probably partly because people are less inclined to make efforts to stay in a relationship. But there's also statistically less abuse and domestic violence and that's partly because women by and large have a lot more options than they used to. I don't think the trade off of having less divorce and more long lasting relationships is worth the increase of domestic violence and abuse so I do believe that people in any relationship should have an out (even if it's not in case of abuse or a breakdown of a relationship but instead for supporting oneself after the death of the only parent bring money home). That still means that I would teach my kid that the secret behind any successful relationship is to make efforts and that one should not give up at the first problem but you never know what the future might bring and having some way out is always useful
- hypfer 12d ago> there are a lot more divorce That is not what I was talking about. Mainly because it's a dumb talking point. You've I think replied to what you expected one would write and not to what was written.
- sersi 11d agoThen I'm confused by what you're trying to say. Reread it a few times, let me try to state how I understand your argument: - thinking about having a way out (so not being a stay at home wife for example) is a modern way of thinking about "committing". - By thinking this way, you're not fully in the relation, so it's harmful to the relationship stability. (which I interpreted as divorce) ok, I admit the last part, I'm not sure what you mean by front-loading the friction... I just focused on not keeping a hot standby. Sorry for my confusion, not trying to be difficult here, I really don't get what you mean if not what I originally interpreted it as
- hypfer 11d agoAah, okay, I see. No, I wasn't referring to divorce, because divorce is actually a pretty healthy failure mode (or can be, at least). The worse failure modes are the ones where people do not disengage for whatever reason and stay in the situation indefinitely. What I wanted to get at is that "relationship turning sour" is (usually) nothing one has zero control over. Because the logical chain proposed was "Things can always turn sour" -> "You always need a way out". Or at least that's how I read it. So I've put the prerequisite into question there. My point, in a gist, is that I think it should be possible to greatly reduce the probability of "things turning sour" by doing much much more work upfront (before committing to a situation), and through that, the need for an out could be shrunk. Probabilities are of course probabilities, but still. Or, even simpler, I feel like people, generally speaking, could spend more time _actually_ getting to know each other before moving forward; and it would only do them good + they would treat each other better + they'd actually see each other (more). ___ Moving fast and breaking things is everywhere, and it seems to be breaking people too. => So the friction of _really_ looking at who a person _actually_ is (which might be unpleasant) might be necessary. Even though SV would love to have you believe that frictionless existence is desirable. It is, up until it isn't. And then you're fucked. But the solution is not to assume that everything is broken, but to build healthy stuff instead.
- dvfjsdhgfv 12d ago> Sounds way less stressful than a high stakes job. If it's by choice, then yes. Otherwise, it could be really bad.
- noosphr 12d agoGiven that surrogacy runs to 20-80k for the woman carrying the child I don't think women will appreciate their new wages if we convert all social relations into market ones.
- ndriscoll 11d agoPeople absolutely do like unpaid work, so much so that the phrase "do-it-yourself" appeared as a marketing term. I do all the unpaid labor I can. It builds competence, lets you ensure quality, and is generally cheaper/more efficient (out of the formal economy = no taxes, which is immediately a huge drag). Wanting compensation for raising your kids is like wanting compensation for making yourself a nice dinner. The compensation is right in front of you.
- wojciii 11d agoSome unpaid work might be character building yes, but what I'm talking about is not. Getting kids will give a guy high fives at work while a woman will be asked if she is going to get any more when looking for work. Also a guy salary will not be set back by 3-5 years of child bearing and it will also reflect badly on a woman's pension saving because exactly of this. While having children is rewarding is not an economical reward for all involved.
- ndriscoll 11d agoRaising children is probably the epitome of character building, self-actualizing work. There are no external stakeholders to motivate you. No one's going to do it for you if you don't. You get out of it exactly what you decide to put in, and you're efforts go purely to something you care about. It is the most important project you can do, and you and your spouse are solely responsible for it. It's not supposed to be economically rewarding to have children. It's the reward that economics are meant to enable.