3 ms·

This article read really biased. The part about wife being ruled by her husband is simply not true. In Japanese households traditionally wife stays at home to b

by Hitton 7y ago

This article read really biased. The part about wife being ruled by her husband is simply not true. In Japanese households traditionally wife stays at home to be a housewife and man earns the money. But when he brings the money home, he gives all of them to wife who traditionally controls household's money and only gives a husband a small pocket money which he is then allowed to spend how he wants. So obviously the article's allusions to Japanese sexism must be taken with reservation.

daenz 7y ago
Gender-based division of labor is heavily frowned upon in modern society, even if that division of labor still makes a lot of sense for a lot of people.
- lwhalen 7y ago
  Eh, "heavily frowned upon" in certain small (but incredibly vocal) urban pockets along the US coastline, sure. The rest of the nation... not so much.
  - Kadin 7y ago
    Those "urban pockets" contain a very large percentage, if not the majority (depending on how you measure and with what granularity), of the US population. One could just as easily say that it's "heavily frowned upon" by all but the retrograde inhabitants of the country's depopulated and backwards interior. But we won't, because that's rude.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      I'm a liberal but I still have to point out that "the country's depopulated and backwards interior" (your own words) provides the food, agricultural products, and mineral plus other natural resources that cities depend on. Until urban areas manage to figure out how to conjure their food and industrial input out of thin air, rural areas are as important (and arguably more important) than cities. It's also worth noting that a large portion of the armed forces come from rural areas. Need I point out the potential problem with a military that doesn't hold the same values as the civilian populace it's supposed to protect and obey? Bear in mind that history does have a nasty habit of repeating itself.
    - belorn 7y ago
      The number of people living along the U.S. coast is currently 123 million (https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1022/20130326/population-along-coast-hit-134-million-2020-noaa-report.htm https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1022/20130326/popul...). With a population of more than 327 million people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the coast is a bit more than 1/3 but significant less than half and quite far from being majority. (This is not a comment about calling it urban pockets. 123 millions is a lot. Just a note in regard to the statement that it could be called the majority.)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  The real problem is that it's a competitive environment. Women understandably want the ability to work -- even if you're married and have kids, picking up a shift at a diner here and there can help get your kids into a better school district. Until everybody does it. Then you need that shift just to be able to afford to live where you would have without it, and to be in the better school district you need a full time job as a second income. Then everybody does that and we have the two income trap, and the option to just be a stay at home parent evaporates because the other families have two incomes and you're bidding against them for positional goods. And it's no answer to ask each parent to work half as much and then split the child rearing duties, because that's still an economic disadvantage relative to the family where both parents work full time. It's even worse than having one full time worker and one full time parent, because one full time job pays more than two half time jobs due to the reduced training costs and other administrative overhead. So instead it creates the requirement that women become full time workers in addition to full time parents, only to have the same quality of life and economic stability they used to have as stay at home parents. And we see fertility rates and female happiness on the decline since the 1970s. A possible solution might be to fight against scarcity in existing positional goods. So make housing costs low enough that anyone can afford to own a home even with one income or two part time incomes (and build lots more homes to make that possible), untie school quality from housing and let people send their kids to any school they want to as long as they can get the kids there, etc. Another (complementary) option is to increase support for families with children, e.g. bigger child tax deductions/credits. But we clearly need to do something -- we shouldn't just pretend it isn't happening because it's politically inconvenient.
  - mlguy456 7y ago
    This is a very smart way to organise society, if we think about it: people have to do more and more work to bid against each other for the limited amount of resources. The only flaw is that this reduces birth rate to unacceptable levels. I don't believe that this can be fixed: this very smart ratchet mechanism won't let us work less. Rich countries like USA counter this problem by immigration of qualified individuals. Not so rich countries like Europe have to let everybody in. But this solution won't last for long and eventually the so called advanced countries will be replaced by people that don't give a s..t about women's and anyone's rights and don't have troubles with birth rate. Oh well, maybe this can be fixed, but nobody likes the solution: reimbursement for all kids related expenses and extra to compensate for time - schools, universities, healthcare are free for anyone under 25; better laws related to marriage, kids and divorce - it makes no sense to give up half of your earnings and the house, and this alone deters a lot of otherwise qualified men from starting a family; and there should be an option to delegate raising kids to those who are good at it - the best age to make kids is early 20s when you're healthy, but in our modern society it's a financial suicide to start a family until you are well off (35 if you're lucky) - this type of advanced childcare would be a big shift in our society. Or keep extracting profit from full time working men and women and watch the sunset of the modern civilization in 50 years.
- okcando 7y ago
  This is badly conflating things. Few care how any particular family divides up their responsibilities. It's only the gender part, the lack of agency, that is criticized. A woman shouldn't have to be a homemaker and a man shouldn't have to be a breadwinner but it's fine if they choose those things for themselves in a society that will accept and respect them regardless.

by Hitton 7y ago

daenz 7y ago

Gender-based division of labor is heavily frowned upon in modern society, even if that division of labor still makes a lot of sense for a lot of people.

lwhalen 7y ago
Eh, "heavily frowned upon" in certain small (but incredibly vocal) urban pockets along the US coastline, sure. The rest of the nation... not so much.
- Kadin 7y ago
  Those "urban pockets" contain a very large percentage, if not the majority (depending on how you measure and with what granularity), of the US population. One could just as easily say that it's "heavily frowned upon" by all but the retrograde inhabitants of the country's depopulated and backwards interior. But we won't, because that's rude.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    I'm a liberal but I still have to point out that "the country's depopulated and backwards interior" (your own words) provides the food, agricultural products, and mineral plus other natural resources that cities depend on. Until urban areas manage to figure out how to conjure their food and industrial input out of thin air, rural areas are as important (and arguably more important) than cities. It's also worth noting that a large portion of the armed forces come from rural areas. Need I point out the potential problem with a military that doesn't hold the same values as the civilian populace it's supposed to protect and obey? Bear in mind that history does have a nasty habit of repeating itself.
  - belorn 7y ago
    The number of people living along the U.S. coast is currently 123 million (https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1022/20130326/population-along-coast-hit-134-million-2020-noaa-report.htm https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1022/20130326/popul...). With a population of more than 327 million people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the coast is a bit more than 1/3 but significant less than half and quite far from being majority. (This is not a comment about calling it urban pockets. 123 millions is a lot. Just a note in regard to the statement that it could be called the majority.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
The real problem is that it's a competitive environment. Women understandably want the ability to work -- even if you're married and have kids, picking up a shift at a diner here and there can help get your kids into a better school district. Until everybody does it. Then you need that shift just to be able to afford to live where you would have without it, and to be in the better school district you need a full time job as a second income. Then everybody does that and we have the two income trap, and the option to just be a stay at home parent evaporates because the other families have two incomes and you're bidding against them for positional goods. And it's no answer to ask each parent to work half as much and then split the child rearing duties, because that's still an economic disadvantage relative to the family where both parents work full time. It's even worse than having one full time worker and one full time parent, because one full time job pays more than two half time jobs due to the reduced training costs and other administrative overhead. So instead it creates the requirement that women become full time workers in addition to full time parents, only to have the same quality of life and economic stability they used to have as stay at home parents. And we see fertility rates and female happiness on the decline since the 1970s. A possible solution might be to fight against scarcity in existing positional goods. So make housing costs low enough that anyone can afford to own a home even with one income or two part time incomes (and build lots more homes to make that possible), untie school quality from housing and let people send their kids to any school they want to as long as they can get the kids there, etc. Another (complementary) option is to increase support for families with children, e.g. bigger child tax deductions/credits. But we clearly need to do something -- we shouldn't just pretend it isn't happening because it's politically inconvenient.
- mlguy456 7y ago
  This is a very smart way to organise society, if we think about it: people have to do more and more work to bid against each other for the limited amount of resources. The only flaw is that this reduces birth rate to unacceptable levels. I don't believe that this can be fixed: this very smart ratchet mechanism won't let us work less. Rich countries like USA counter this problem by immigration of qualified individuals. Not so rich countries like Europe have to let everybody in. But this solution won't last for long and eventually the so called advanced countries will be replaced by people that don't give a s..t about women's and anyone's rights and don't have troubles with birth rate. Oh well, maybe this can be fixed, but nobody likes the solution: reimbursement for all kids related expenses and extra to compensate for time - schools, universities, healthcare are free for anyone under 25; better laws related to marriage, kids and divorce - it makes no sense to give up half of your earnings and the house, and this alone deters a lot of otherwise qualified men from starting a family; and there should be an option to delegate raising kids to those who are good at it - the best age to make kids is early 20s when you're healthy, but in our modern society it's a financial suicide to start a family until you are well off (35 if you're lucky) - this type of advanced childcare would be a big shift in our society. Or keep extracting profit from full time working men and women and watch the sunset of the modern civilization in 50 years.
okcando 7y ago
This is badly conflating things. Few care how any particular family divides up their responsibilities. It's only the gender part, the lack of agency, that is criticized. A woman shouldn't have to be a homemaker and a man shouldn't have to be a breadwinner but it's fine if they choose those things for themselves in a society that will accept and respect them regardless.