7 ms·
Our success at combating strict gender roles that kept women out of the workplace hasn't been matched with a social embrace of stay-at-home dads or other family
by aalleavitch 9y ago
Our success at combating strict gender roles that kept women out of the workplace hasn't been matched with a social embrace of stay-at-home dads or other family members who don't work in order to focus on helping care for their loved ones. Unfortunately, instead we've ended up with a society where everyone is just expected to work all the time. There needs to be less stigma against people without jobs. We need to stop assuming that everything of value is always done for a profit.
- Radim 9y agoDo you mean to say "for a short-term, monetary profit"? Because there are other types of profit, more subjective ones, like feeling good, emotional well-being, long-term sustainability etc, which are more elusive by definition but nevertheless super important. Because if you're really talking about a lack "profit" in the very general (aka inviting a straight loss), then the question simply becomes: Who will pay for this loss, and why?
- aalleavitch 9y agoI think you answered this question yourself: some forms of value are subjective. Some vitally important benefits to the people around you don't show up on a balance sheet. People will gladly pay to be a patron of the arts, or just to make someone they like happy, and it doesn't have to involve a quantifiable return on investment.
- Radim 9y agoI get your point, you're using the word "profit" in its narrowest accounting sense.
- tonyedgecombe 9y agoI guess the market adjusts, in areas with constrained housing supply the prices rise to the level affordable by working couples, in other areas peoples material expectations rise. In the end we have moved from women not being able to join the workforce to women not being able to not join the workforce. It doesn't seem an obvious improvement to me, although I should mention I'm not a woman.