6 ms·

My point is that the systems we've built optimize for things we choose to measure. We're very much measuring and optimizing for money and the kinds of goods and

by achou 9y ago

My point is that the systems we've built optimize for things we choose to measure. We're very much measuring and optimizing for money and the kinds of goods and services money can be exchanged for. But to a startling degree we're not choosing to measure all the other hard work that has to get done if we expect humanity to exist beyond one generation. This article just puts it in stark relief for me. All of the work that Lola had to do for so many decades, working herself to exhaustion... all of that work still needs to get done for every other family too.

Consultant32452 9y ago
>We're very much measuring and optimizing for money and the kinds of goods and services money can be exchanged for. "Money" is just a metric of economic value, and basically everything has an economic value, including leisure. The emotional and educational value of raising your own children instead of putting them in a daycare has a real economic value that can be measured in dollars. Just like housework has an economic value. Every family I know has weighed these values when they have children.
- diN0bot 9y ago
  we could as a society pay (women) people for emotional labor and for taking care of children and elderly. we could choose to economically value teachers and nurses instead of economically devaluing "feminine" roles -- and creating economic value specifically for masculine-branded roles. (those moments when piloting and programming became branded and $$ as male professions) in order to end professional segregation, we need not end capitalism so much as the patriarchy. we could redefine "masculinity" as cooking for one"s family, providing emotional support, and other domestic labor -- and stop assuming women need to do it or that a "masculine" worker's time is too important for doing their own laundry or their own dishes. it's complicated, and testosterone may even be a disability in a sense, but many of the differences between genders are not biological so much as social constructs that re-enforce constructed economic inequality. we can stop accepting and propagating a narrow status quo.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    >we could as a society pay (women) people for emotional labor They already get paid for emotional labor with emotional reward. >we could choose to economically value teachers and nurses instead of economically devaluing "feminine" roles Maybe you could stop being sexist and calling things like education and nursing "feminine." >in order to end professional segregation If you can point out actual instances of sexism in professions I'll be happy to back you up. Differential outcomes is not sufficient evidence of sexism. There are sexist people out there, and I'll be happy to metaphorically march alongside you against any of them. >it's complicated, and testosterone may even be a disability in a sense LOL, testosterone is a disability? According to you testosterone lets one gender "win" so it sounds like estrogen would be the disability, right? >, but many of the differences between genders are not biological so much as social constructs that re-enforce constructed economic inequality. Maybe money isn't the most important thing in the world? Maybe instead of complaining that there aren't more women at the top of the income food chain, we should be asking why any men at all are willing to work themselves to death to get there? Maybe women enjoy better lives than men because they realize earlier on that it's our connections and family that matters the most in life and they live their lives accordingly while men generally don't figure that out until much later in life. Maybe the reason why reported happiness among women has been on the decline since we wrote all these laws encouraging families to break up and shoving women into the shitty corporate ladder lifestyle men have been on for longer should tell us something about life.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      > They already get paid for emotional labor with emotional reward. Great, so they can just pay the rent with emotional reward then. > Maybe you could stop being sexist and calling things like education and nursing "feminine." Clearly these occupations have a larger percentage than average of female workers, they're associated with women, and probably not coincidentally, they also have low pay and low prestige. I don't know why it's the "enlightened" move to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that's not the case.
      - 9y ago
cirgue 9y ago
We did optimize for that, and our optimizations became gendered division of labor that enforced rigid gender roles.
zanny 9y ago
It really is up to society if they want to subsidize child rearing. On one hand, we really don't have a dire need for population - reproductive rates right now are sustainable, and we should be trying to disincentivize those from having kids who cannot afford it. They are very expensive and time consuming. On the other hand, people have kids anyway, and then the children suffer when the parents cannot afford them (in either money or time with them, as is the case of most two income households). It isn't a black and white moral situation though, because you don't want to put people in the state of mind that having children can be profitable.

by achou 9y ago

Consultant32452 9y ago

>We're very much measuring and optimizing for money and the kinds of goods and services money can be exchanged for. "Money" is just a metric of economic value, and basically everything has an economic value, including leisure. The emotional and educational value of raising your own children instead of putting them in a daycare has a real economic value that can be measured in dollars. Just like housework has an economic value. Every family I know has weighed these values when they have children.

diN0bot 9y ago
we could as a society pay (women) people for emotional labor and for taking care of children and elderly. we could choose to economically value teachers and nurses instead of economically devaluing "feminine" roles -- and creating economic value specifically for masculine-branded roles. (those moments when piloting and programming became branded and $$ as male professions) in order to end professional segregation, we need not end capitalism so much as the patriarchy. we could redefine "masculinity" as cooking for one"s family, providing emotional support, and other domestic labor -- and stop assuming women need to do it or that a "masculine" worker's time is too important for doing their own laundry or their own dishes. it's complicated, and testosterone may even be a disability in a sense, but many of the differences between genders are not biological so much as social constructs that re-enforce constructed economic inequality. we can stop accepting and propagating a narrow status quo.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >we could as a society pay (women) people for emotional labor They already get paid for emotional labor with emotional reward. >we could choose to economically value teachers and nurses instead of economically devaluing "feminine" roles Maybe you could stop being sexist and calling things like education and nursing "feminine." >in order to end professional segregation If you can point out actual instances of sexism in professions I'll be happy to back you up. Differential outcomes is not sufficient evidence of sexism. There are sexist people out there, and I'll be happy to metaphorically march alongside you against any of them. >it's complicated, and testosterone may even be a disability in a sense LOL, testosterone is a disability? According to you testosterone lets one gender "win" so it sounds like estrogen would be the disability, right? >, but many of the differences between genders are not biological so much as social constructs that re-enforce constructed economic inequality. Maybe money isn't the most important thing in the world? Maybe instead of complaining that there aren't more women at the top of the income food chain, we should be asking why any men at all are willing to work themselves to death to get there? Maybe women enjoy better lives than men because they realize earlier on that it's our connections and family that matters the most in life and they live their lives accordingly while men generally don't figure that out until much later in life. Maybe the reason why reported happiness among women has been on the decline since we wrote all these laws encouraging families to break up and shoving women into the shitty corporate ladder lifestyle men have been on for longer should tell us something about life.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    > They already get paid for emotional labor with emotional reward. Great, so they can just pay the rent with emotional reward then. > Maybe you could stop being sexist and calling things like education and nursing "feminine." Clearly these occupations have a larger percentage than average of female workers, they're associated with women, and probably not coincidentally, they also have low pay and low prestige. I don't know why it's the "enlightened" move to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that's not the case.
    - 9y ago

cirgue 9y ago

We did optimize for that, and our optimizations became gendered division of labor that enforced rigid gender roles.

zanny 9y ago

It really is up to society if they want to subsidize child rearing. On one hand, we really don't have a dire need for population - reproductive rates right now are sustainable, and we should be trying to disincentivize those from having kids who cannot afford it. They are very expensive and time consuming. On the other hand, people have kids anyway, and then the children suffer when the parents cannot afford them (in either money or time with them, as is the case of most two income households). It isn't a black and white moral situation though, because you don't want to put people in the state of mind that having children can be profitable.