4 ms·

> The fact that women shoulder the primary economic burden of raising children is structural sexism. You seem to be making a fairly subtle point here that I th

by darawk 7y ago

> The fact that women shoulder the primary economic burden of raising children is structural sexism. You seem to be making a fairly subtle point here that I think others might be missing. Which is not that women choosing to take on the burden of childcare represents sexism (which is an argument some people make), but rather that the fact that their making this choice impinges upon their personal economic future is sexist. That is maybe a more interesting point than the former, but I don't think it really holds up to scrutiny. Choosing to take on the burden of childcare is choosing to spend less time working. In any other context, if a person chooses to work less, that negatively impacts their earning, and we consider that perfectly reasonable and fair. If I choose to play video games for 8 hours a day and work part time, basically everyone accepts it's reasonable that I make less money. Now, if women are being pressured or forced into accepting this childcare responsibility at their own economic expense, then yes. That is 100% structural sexism. Also, if society would have treated men making this choice differently than women, then that too would represent structural sexism. But there are men making this choice, and their careers are generally just as negatively impacted as the women who make it.

clairity 7y ago
to compare it to playing video games all day is (unwittingly?) falling prey to the very systemic sexism you're trying to fathom--that "women's work" such as childcare is not "work"--that it's economically unproductive and should be "free".
- darawk 7y ago
  No, that was not the point of my analogy. Whether it is work or not is irrelevant. When I clean my home, that is work, but nobody pays me to do it. I do the work because I receive the benefit of that work. People care for their children for the same reason. And many (most?) couples consider the income of the breadwinner to be shared between the two of them for precisely this reason: Because the couple values the childcare that the childcare-r provides. I'm not arguing that childcare isn't valuable. I am arguing that it isn't valuable to any employer of the person doing the childcare, and as such, they shouldn't pay for it.
  - clairity 7y ago
    yes, the employer is beside the point. the implicit assumption that women's work is not valuable is still (structural) sexism. that was the point. edit: e.g., > "Choosing to take on the burden of childcare is choosing to spend less time working."
    - darawk 7y ago
      No, the employer is not beside the point. The employer pays your salary. If you do less work, you get less salary. That isn't saying their work isn't valuable, it is saying it isn't valuable to the employer. The person who values work pays for it. In this case, it is the woman herself who values the work. She is literally choosing to pay herself, in the form of a well cared for child. In the same way that when I clean my home, I am choosing to compensate myself for the effort required to do so by having a clean home.
      - clairity 7y ago
        and that's the systemic sexism--the systemic choices about what should, and what doesn't need, to be paid for. why don't we instead have a society where all childcare is paid labor and we just "pay ourselves" for other self-benefitting labor (growing food, for example)? (collective) assumptions like these are the systemic sexism. note that this is different from calling a specific person a sexist.
        darawk 7y ago
        > and that's the systemic sexism--the systemic choices about what should, and what doesn't need, to be paid for. Who is it you think ought to be paying for childcare? It's clear who pays for wage labor. The employer pays for it, because they value it. > why don't we instead have a society where all childcare is paid labor and we just "pay ourselves" for other self-benefitting labor (growing food, for example)? The answer to this question is "the entire history of economics and every lesson ever learned about how to structure effective civilizations for the entire history of humanity". I'm not really sure how else to respond to that.
- zajio1am 7y ago
  > that "women's work" such as childcare is not "work"--that it's economically unproductive and should be "free". Obviously contractual childcare is work. Seems to me more similar to voluneer open-source development. It may be productive and useful for others, but that does not entitle anyone for compensation.
fzeroracer 7y ago
> But there are men making this choice, and their careers are generally just as negatively impacted as the women who make it. I don't think this claim holds up to scrutiny. Yes, there are men out there whose careers are negatively impacted by starting a family, but by and large the expectation is a man continues working while a woman drops everything. That's part of the reason why family leave for men is less common. Which boils down to structural sexism being an issue for both men and women. Men are not allowed to spend time with their family and women are expected to drop everything to take care of the children. In a more equally balanced situation, men would have the opportunity to be the full caregivers while women could continue their career in their field of choice. But right now a lot of options for families depend on your gender.
- darawk 7y ago
  > I don't think this claim holds up to scrutiny. Yes, there are men out there whose careers are negatively impacted by starting a family, but by and large the expectation is a man continues working while a woman drops everything. That's part of the reason why family leave for men is less common. That isn't what I said though. Obviously men who start a family but don't do the childcare won't be negatively impacted. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the ones who do curtail their careers to do the childcare. This is a less common arrangement to be sure, but I know more than one heterosexual couple who has done this (usually because the woman has a better paying career).
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    You said that they were equally negatively impacted though and I brought up an example of where that is clearly not the case. Which is parental leave, done in a way as to discourage men from taking time off to take care of a newborn while also pressuring women to be the primary caregivers. That's my entire point. They're not equally impacted because there are larger societal pressures designed to punish women who want to continue their career and men who want to spend time with their children.
    - darawk 7y ago

by darawk 7y ago

clairity 7y ago

to compare it to playing video games all day is (unwittingly?) falling prey to the very systemic sexism you're trying to fathom--that "women's work" such as childcare is not "work"--that it's economically unproductive and should be "free".

darawk 7y ago
No, that was not the point of my analogy. Whether it is work or not is irrelevant. When I clean my home, that is work, but nobody pays me to do it. I do the work because I receive the benefit of that work. People care for their children for the same reason. And many (most?) couples consider the income of the breadwinner to be shared between the two of them for precisely this reason: Because the couple values the childcare that the childcare-r provides. I'm not arguing that childcare isn't valuable. I am arguing that it isn't valuable to any employer of the person doing the childcare, and as such, they shouldn't pay for it.
- clairity 7y ago
  yes, the employer is beside the point. the implicit assumption that women's work is not valuable is still (structural) sexism. that was the point. edit: e.g., > "Choosing to take on the burden of childcare is choosing to spend less time working."
  - darawk 7y ago
    No, the employer is not beside the point. The employer pays your salary. If you do less work, you get less salary. That isn't saying their work isn't valuable, it is saying it isn't valuable to the employer. The person who values work pays for it. In this case, it is the woman herself who values the work. She is literally choosing to pay herself, in the form of a well cared for child. In the same way that when I clean my home, I am choosing to compensate myself for the effort required to do so by having a clean home.
    - clairity 7y ago
      and that's the systemic sexism--the systemic choices about what should, and what doesn't need, to be paid for. why don't we instead have a society where all childcare is paid labor and we just "pay ourselves" for other self-benefitting labor (growing food, for example)? (collective) assumptions like these are the systemic sexism. note that this is different from calling a specific person a sexist.
      - darawk 7y ago
        > and that's the systemic sexism--the systemic choices about what should, and what doesn't need, to be paid for. Who is it you think ought to be paying for childcare? It's clear who pays for wage labor. The employer pays for it, because they value it. > why don't we instead have a society where all childcare is paid labor and we just "pay ourselves" for other self-benefitting labor (growing food, for example)? The answer to this question is "the entire history of economics and every lesson ever learned about how to structure effective civilizations for the entire history of humanity". I'm not really sure how else to respond to that.
zajio1am 7y ago
> that "women's work" such as childcare is not "work"--that it's economically unproductive and should be "free". Obviously contractual childcare is work. Seems to me more similar to voluneer open-source development. It may be productive and useful for others, but that does not entitle anyone for compensation.

fzeroracer 7y ago

> But there are men making this choice, and their careers are generally just as negatively impacted as the women who make it. I don't think this claim holds up to scrutiny. Yes, there are men out there whose careers are negatively impacted by starting a family, but by and large the expectation is a man continues working while a woman drops everything. That's part of the reason why family leave for men is less common. Which boils down to structural sexism being an issue for both men and women. Men are not allowed to spend time with their family and women are expected to drop everything to take care of the children. In a more equally balanced situation, men would have the opportunity to be the full caregivers while women could continue their career in their field of choice. But right now a lot of options for families depend on your gender.

darawk 7y ago
> I don't think this claim holds up to scrutiny. Yes, there are men out there whose careers are negatively impacted by starting a family, but by and large the expectation is a man continues working while a woman drops everything. That's part of the reason why family leave for men is less common. That isn't what I said though. Obviously men who start a family but don't do the childcare won't be negatively impacted. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the ones who do curtail their careers to do the childcare. This is a less common arrangement to be sure, but I know more than one heterosexual couple who has done this (usually because the woman has a better paying career).
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  You said that they were equally negatively impacted though and I brought up an example of where that is clearly not the case. Which is parental leave, done in a way as to discourage men from taking time off to take care of a newborn while also pressuring women to be the primary caregivers. That's my entire point. They're not equally impacted because there are larger societal pressures designed to punish women who want to continue their career and men who want to spend time with their children.
  - darawk 7y ago