3 ms·

Presumably we don't do these things because the market indicates that they aren't valuable, right? In other words, we don't do them because we don't want to do

Presumably we don't do these things because the market indicates that they aren't valuable, right? In other words, we don't do them because we don't want to do them, or at least we lack the ability to do them at a price that is better than doing it ourselves? Also, we do pay some people for some of these tasks--childcare, for example. And increasingly I think we're seeing more penetration by the market--grocery shopping and other direct-to-home services. Lastly, can you clarify how this pertains to the conversation about the gender wage gap?

clairity 9y ago
i think we don't do those things, not because they're not valuable--in fact, we've shown they're immensely valuable by dedicaitng whole groups of people for decades of their lives to the task--but because patriarchal social structures benefit from the asymmetry in value placement. if only men can create value, they hold power. we've been moving towards a system where power is shared between men and women. that has benefits but also tradeoffs (e.g., men can't monopolize power as before). as the system moves in that direction, things like value placement necessarily shift along with it (as you point out). what we're conversing about here is the grapplings we face along that shift as we negotiate what the new equilibrium will be. the gender wage gap can then be seen as a measure of what that equilibrium is. that's my take on it, at least. =)
- weberc2 9y ago
  > not because they're not valuable It's not because they aren't valuable; they're just not more valuable than our leisure time (for the majority of people). Of course, even this varies--for example, outsourced child care is very popular. > patriarchal social structures benefit from the asymmetry in value placement. if only men can create value, they hold power. I don't think the patriarchy/power theory is a particularly good one. Men have never behaved as a social class nor monopolized social power. While it's true that men are overrepresented at the very top of almost every society, it's also true that men are overrepresented at the very bottom of almost every society. Theories of patriarchy don't predict this anywhere at any time, much less in almost every human society that has ever existed on the planet. I don't know what the right answer is, but it's very likely that for hundreds of thousands of years, a society's survival has depended on reproductive success where men are expendable and women are crucial. As such, men are left to do the risky work while women added social value in low risk (but important!) areas of life like tending home and family. These dynamics incentivize risk taking and competition among men, which explains men disproportionately occupying the tops and bottoms of every society. Working outside the home has only been the less risky occupation in the last hundred years or so, and our society is still adapting to the change. This is probably wrong on some of the particulars but right in general.
  - clairity 9y ago
    > I don't think the patriarchy/power theory is a particularly good one. [....] Theories of patriarchy don't predict this anywhere at any time, much less in almost every human society that has ever existed on the planet. that's gonna need some backup as you're going up against the likes of foucault and nietzsche on this one. besides, what happens at the bottom of the hierarchy is a non sequitur here. you can't just claim that power theory is wrong because not all men are at the top. that's an odd stipulation to impose. > ...men are expendable and women are crucial... this is also an odd statement. both men and women are crucial to species survival. that's actually the crux of my argument: both men and women do valuable work, but the power dynamic has disporportionately placed value on "manly" work and less so on "womanly" work. what do you think incentivized women to enter the workforce in the first place?
    - weberc2 9y ago
      > that's gonna need some backup as you're going up against the likes of foucault and nietzsche on this one. Sorry, I don't follow. What needs backing up? That men are disproportionally represented at the bottom or that this observation is incompatible with patriarchy theory? Regarding Nietzsche and Foucault, I'm afraid I don't put much stock in philosophy as a discipline. > besides, what happens at the bottom of the hierarchy is a non sequitur here. you can't just claim that power theory is wrong because not all men are at the top. that's an odd stipulation to impose. Agreed, but that's not what I claimed! :) I claimed _patriarchy_ is wrong because _men are disproportionally represented at the bottom_. This is different than "not all men are at the top". Patriarchy predicts a distribution in which men are skewed toward the top and women toward the bottom (as you pointed out, this is compatible with overlap in the distributions); instead we see that the distribution of men is relatively flat compared to that of women (more men at the extremes and fewer in the middle compared to the distribution of women), but no measurable skew. > this is also an odd statement. both men and women are crucial to species survival. They're not _equally_ crucial to _reproduction_. The society with 49 women and 1 man is much more likely to survive than the society with 49 men and 1 woman. The society that prioritizes the safety of its female constituents is the society that survives. This predicts the universally gendered nature of work and distribution of power without needing to invoke collusion. > the power dynamic has disporportionately placed value on "manly" work and less so on "womanly" work Society is a complex beast, but here's my best attempt at explaining the most relevant bits of the system (this mostly applies to any time between the Paleolithic and ~1900, inclusive): A household needs to bring in resources and it needs general maintenance/overhead. The best way to bring in resources tended to be to render services to the community (market). The highest value services were often the riskiest. Because men are less reproductively critical, men specialized in the high-risk, high-value work while women tended to take care of the maintenance/overhead (like caring for the family). The men who were very successful at their risky enterprises rose to the top of society, and the men who were not very successful sank to the bottom. Even though men brought in the resources, they didn't keep them for themselves, but shared them with the family, thereby compensating their wives equally for their work. > what do you think incentivized women to enter the workforce in the first place? There were 2 major catalysts: out-of-home, high-value work began to get significantly safer in the wake of the industrial revolution and two world wars killed off tens of million of men, creating huge economic opportunities for survivors who were disproportionately women.

clairity 9y ago

i think we don't do those things, not because they're not valuable--in fact, we've shown they're immensely valuable by dedicaitng whole groups of people for decades of their lives to the task--but because patriarchal social structures benefit from the asymmetry in value placement. if only men can create value, they hold power. we've been moving towards a system where power is shared between men and women. that has benefits but also tradeoffs (e.g., men can't monopolize power as before). as the system moves in that direction, things like value placement necessarily shift along with it (as you point out). what we're conversing about here is the grapplings we face along that shift as we negotiate what the new equilibrium will be. the gender wage gap can then be seen as a measure of what that equilibrium is. that's my take on it, at least. =)

weberc2 9y ago
> not because they're not valuable It's not because they aren't valuable; they're just not more valuable than our leisure time (for the majority of people). Of course, even this varies--for example, outsourced child care is very popular. > patriarchal social structures benefit from the asymmetry in value placement. if only men can create value, they hold power. I don't think the patriarchy/power theory is a particularly good one. Men have never behaved as a social class nor monopolized social power. While it's true that men are overrepresented at the very top of almost every society, it's also true that men are overrepresented at the very bottom of almost every society. Theories of patriarchy don't predict this anywhere at any time, much less in almost every human society that has ever existed on the planet. I don't know what the right answer is, but it's very likely that for hundreds of thousands of years, a society's survival has depended on reproductive success where men are expendable and women are crucial. As such, men are left to do the risky work while women added social value in low risk (but important!) areas of life like tending home and family. These dynamics incentivize risk taking and competition among men, which explains men disproportionately occupying the tops and bottoms of every society. Working outside the home has only been the less risky occupation in the last hundred years or so, and our society is still adapting to the change. This is probably wrong on some of the particulars but right in general.
- clairity 9y ago
  > I don't think the patriarchy/power theory is a particularly good one. [....] Theories of patriarchy don't predict this anywhere at any time, much less in almost every human society that has ever existed on the planet. that's gonna need some backup as you're going up against the likes of foucault and nietzsche on this one. besides, what happens at the bottom of the hierarchy is a non sequitur here. you can't just claim that power theory is wrong because not all men are at the top. that's an odd stipulation to impose. > ...men are expendable and women are crucial... this is also an odd statement. both men and women are crucial to species survival. that's actually the crux of my argument: both men and women do valuable work, but the power dynamic has disporportionately placed value on "manly" work and less so on "womanly" work. what do you think incentivized women to enter the workforce in the first place?
  - weberc2 9y ago
    > that's gonna need some backup as you're going up against the likes of foucault and nietzsche on this one. Sorry, I don't follow. What needs backing up? That men are disproportionally represented at the bottom or that this observation is incompatible with patriarchy theory? Regarding Nietzsche and Foucault, I'm afraid I don't put much stock in philosophy as a discipline. > besides, what happens at the bottom of the hierarchy is a non sequitur here. you can't just claim that power theory is wrong because not all men are at the top. that's an odd stipulation to impose. Agreed, but that's not what I claimed! :) I claimed _patriarchy_ is wrong because _men are disproportionally represented at the bottom_. This is different than "not all men are at the top". Patriarchy predicts a distribution in which men are skewed toward the top and women toward the bottom (as you pointed out, this is compatible with overlap in the distributions); instead we see that the distribution of men is relatively flat compared to that of women (more men at the extremes and fewer in the middle compared to the distribution of women), but no measurable skew. > this is also an odd statement. both men and women are crucial to species survival. They're not _equally_ crucial to _reproduction_. The society with 49 women and 1 man is much more likely to survive than the society with 49 men and 1 woman. The society that prioritizes the safety of its female constituents is the society that survives. This predicts the universally gendered nature of work and distribution of power without needing to invoke collusion. > the power dynamic has disporportionately placed value on "manly" work and less so on "womanly" work Society is a complex beast, but here's my best attempt at explaining the most relevant bits of the system (this mostly applies to any time between the Paleolithic and ~1900, inclusive): A household needs to bring in resources and it needs general maintenance/overhead. The best way to bring in resources tended to be to render services to the community (market). The highest value services were often the riskiest. Because men are less reproductively critical, men specialized in the high-risk, high-value work while women tended to take care of the maintenance/overhead (like caring for the family). The men who were very successful at their risky enterprises rose to the top of society, and the men who were not very successful sank to the bottom. Even though men brought in the resources, they didn't keep them for themselves, but shared them with the family, thereby compensating their wives equally for their work. > what do you think incentivized women to enter the workforce in the first place? There were 2 major catalysts: out-of-home, high-value work began to get significantly safer in the wake of the industrial revolution and two world wars killed off tens of million of men, creating huge economic opportunities for survivors who were disproportionately women.