7 ms·

The plot by patriarchy is not asking women to stop working during the third trimester. The plot is to ignore those needs and punish women who stop working by no

The plot by patriarchy is not asking women to stop working during the third trimester. The plot is to ignore those needs and punish women who stop working by not paying them maternity leave or holding their pregnancy against them when they come back to the workforce.

stanfordkid 6y ago
I think we need to move past the genderization of capitalism (an abstract force) into "patriarchy" -- Capitalism has no interest in gender, age, or pretty much anything relating to human qualities. The trending force for capitalism is to have humans automated away -- let alone be given free money to have a baby. I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism? I happen to support capitalism as a means of production -- but it should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force like an optimization algorithm. "Patriarchy" is a red herring.
- whotheffknows 6y ago
  The Stanford kid wants to be Peter Thiel when he grows up.
- flamble 6y ago
  > I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism? "Patriarchy" is intertwined with the means of production but is also distinct therefrom. Women in Victorian England were not fully legally recognized as persons and did not have the same property rights as their husbands, and this is in a period during which capitalism obtained in England. This arrangement with men as the "patriarch" of the household, exercising control over subaltern women, predates capitalism by millenia (c.f. Roman "pater familias"). This "patriarchy" doesn't only consist of formal law, but may exist in tradition and social mores. For example adultery may be technically equally penalized for men and women but carry a vastly greater stigma and punishment in practice for women, as in feudal China. As another example, women may technically have recourse to the law if they are subjected to domestic violence but be prevented from doing this by the fear of social opprobrium and further mistreatment by family and community, as was again the case in Victorian England. "Patriarchy" doesn't refer to any concerted effort or plot, but is a description of the outcome of social institutions and cultural attitudes which, AS A SYSTEM, disadvantage women. > capitalism ... should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force Capitalism, and patriarchy, are BOTH generally understood as being systemic: i.e. properties of human institutions. The concepts DO NOT inherently place blame on individuals, or even make judgments about the morality of the system. Whether or not our society exhibits patriarchy is an empirical question, to be answered with reference to data. Arising from but separate from this, there is the ethical question of value-judgment about the society. But there is absolutely no basis to call the notion of patriarchy "sexist".
- ben_w 6y ago
  > I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism? Given that women didn’t have a vote when the Industrial Age made coal mining into a primary power source, and given that marriage was seen as making the concept of rape logically impossible until 1992 in the UK [0], I disagree. Separately, I would argue that while capitalism will exploit such prejudices, I don’t think it is the origin of them. [0] obvious trigger warning applies: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/12.html http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/12.html
  - nearbuy 6y ago
    > Given that women didn’t have a vote when the Industrial Age made coal mining into a primary power source, and given that marriage was seen as making the concept of rape logically impossible until 1992 in the UK [0], I disagree. I'm not following how this relates to the comment you're replying to. Are you saying that women are the original victims of capitalism? Or that capitalism was created by men? Or something else?
    - ben_w 6y ago
      I’m denying the claim “were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism?” Lots of men had their humanity disregarded, but women were treated worse, and that legacy continued for a very long time. These issues still exist in some places, based on what I’ve seen reported by trans people who transition so successfully that people who knew them before the transition mistook them for their own opposite gendered siblings and treated them differently in accordance with gender stereotypes rather than by merit.
      - mensetmanusman 6y ago
        As an aside, playing the ‘who is the greater victim game’ is a meaningless exercise that doesn’t focus on the simple facts of life: there is suffering, be a friend to those in need.
      - 6y ago
- watwut 6y ago
  Funny thing is, wifes in mining areas did earn own money, for themselves and kids, because males were dying much sooner then women.
tunnuz 6y ago
slaps knee Thank you.
irrational 6y ago
I thought the plot by patriarchy was trying to keep women at home instead of in the workforce?
- ketzo 6y ago
  It’s not 1962. It’s not that simplistic. But talk to literally any mother in literally any white collar job. “I’m expecting” or even “we’re thinking of having kids” results in fewer projects, getting turned down for promotions, and if you’re in a technical role, you’re pushed into management ASAP. I get that I’m a stranger on the internet, but you gotta trust me on this. This isn’t random/sometimes — this is CONSTANT. And it’s not even all malicious! It just comes from a place of, I would say, well-intended ignorance.
  - irrational 6y ago
    So you are saying that the plot of patriarchy used to be to keep women out of the workspace, but now the plot is the opposite, to keep them out of the home? It sounds like the patriarchs need to get together and make up their minds.
    - watwut 6y ago
      There is no contradiction as "keeping them home" was staying all the time at home with no income and advancement. And being forced to work here means "being punished for talking about possible pregnancy or needing more rest in the last few weeks or it or in case of health issues". Whether patriarchy or not, these are not contradictory.
    - nosewings 6y ago
      Is it really impossible to imagine that things change? Or, less succinctly -- that there isn't an actual literal plot, there's just people reacting to incentives, and those incentives change?
      - irrational 6y ago
dependenttypes 6y ago
> punish women who stop working by not paying them maternity leave How is that a punishment? You are not entitled to money that you did not earn.
- jlg23 6y ago
  So, effectively, women are just too stupid to have abortions or to sell their babies for a good price directly after giving birth? I might have misunderstood you, but what you said sounds like women actually had a choice. The only choices they have are those frowned upon by a large part of society.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    > women are just too stupid to have abortions or to sell their babies for a good price directly after giving birth? ...what? Not sure what this has to do with stupidity. > but what you said sounds like women actually had a choice They do. They can use protection, abort, or simply stay without a wage during the time of pregnancy. Or... they could accept the maternity leave as a gift if their employer decides to provide it.
    - thejosh 6y ago
      So glad here in Australia we aren't at the whims of if our employer chooses to give us maternity leave or not :-) https://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/maternity-and-parental-leave/paid-parental-leave https://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/maternity-and-parental-lea...
    - jlg23 6y ago
      * birth control women can apply comes with sometimes severe side effects (edit: and even for that my wife needs my consent here in the Maghreb) * Having an abortion just got a lot harder in parts of the US, is even more limited in most parts of south america, requires consent of a male guardian in lots of islamic countries or is just illegal * Staying without wage is not an option when you need to feed yourself and the unborn I still fail to see where the actual choices are.
dungdang 6y ago
that's not a plot. that's a refusal to let you externalize your baby costs to innocent people. do you want your company, which hired you to write code, to pay for your diapers too? what do they have to do with you having a baby? why are they paying you money when you are not working? why are they expected to spend more total money on you, than your equal who chose not to have a baby? baby -awesome. you were hired for work. keep your petsonal life out of the office please. if you cannot perform your job due to a baby, you don't get paid. having a baby is expensive and after taking time off -sorry, you're no longer at the same skill level. you want to do it? awesome. you are not entitled to externalize your costs to other people. there should be no maternity leave. zero.
- seamyb88 6y ago
  > there should be no maternity leave. zero. He said as he goose stepped into a wall
- akiselev 6y ago
  > why are they expected to spend more total money on you, than your equal who chose not to have a baby? Because if that's the way human beings behaved, our ancestors would have died out as a species hundred of thousands of years ago and you wouldn't exist. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but you must recognize why the vast majority of voters are not okay with jeopardizing our species to save a few tax dollars?
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    I’m a father with a handful of children, and I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable that in a fair society non-parents would make more than parents due to the extra time they would put towards their job. Tax rebates for children could help both parties think they are getting ahead to balance society’s needs.
    - dungdang 6y ago
      tax rebates -aka a tax deduction for each child already exists. this passes the tax burden to people without kids, and is also unfair. rebates would also be unfair. a child is not a rebate. what i don't get is why a child is treated as a child for taxes. a tax return should be for the family -a joint return. you take wife+husband+kids. you add up all the salary. and you divide by number of tax payers. exactly how a joint return is now, but count kids. this puts you in a much, much lower tax bracket, and saves you more than a rebate or dependent. it is actually unfair in my opinion to do it another way, and has nothing to do with babies. your family household just pays taxes on its income. and without various programs designed to steal from people without kids. and that's what maternity leave is -stealing.

stanfordkid 6y ago

I think we need to move past the genderization of capitalism (an abstract force) into "patriarchy" -- Capitalism has no interest in gender, age, or pretty much anything relating to human qualities. The trending force for capitalism is to have humans automated away -- let alone be given free money to have a baby. I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism? I happen to support capitalism as a means of production -- but it should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force like an optimization algorithm. "Patriarchy" is a red herring.

whotheffknows 6y ago
The Stanford kid wants to be Peter Thiel when he grows up.
flamble 6y ago
> I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism? "Patriarchy" is intertwined with the means of production but is also distinct therefrom. Women in Victorian England were not fully legally recognized as persons and did not have the same property rights as their husbands, and this is in a period during which capitalism obtained in England. This arrangement with men as the "patriarch" of the household, exercising control over subaltern women, predates capitalism by millenia (c.f. Roman "pater familias"). This "patriarchy" doesn't only consist of formal law, but may exist in tradition and social mores. For example adultery may be technically equally penalized for men and women but carry a vastly greater stigma and punishment in practice for women, as in feudal China. As another example, women may technically have recourse to the law if they are subjected to domestic violence but be prevented from doing this by the fear of social opprobrium and further mistreatment by family and community, as was again the case in Victorian England. "Patriarchy" doesn't refer to any concerted effort or plot, but is a description of the outcome of social institutions and cultural attitudes which, AS A SYSTEM, disadvantage women. > capitalism ... should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force Capitalism, and patriarchy, are BOTH generally understood as being systemic: i.e. properties of human institutions. The concepts DO NOT inherently place blame on individuals, or even make judgments about the morality of the system. Whether or not our society exhibits patriarchy is an empirical question, to be answered with reference to data. Arising from but separate from this, there is the ethical question of value-judgment about the society. But there is absolutely no basis to call the notion of patriarchy "sexist".
ben_w 6y ago
> I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism? Given that women didn’t have a vote when the Industrial Age made coal mining into a primary power source, and given that marriage was seen as making the concept of rape logically impossible until 1992 in the UK [0], I disagree. Separately, I would argue that while capitalism will exploit such prejudices, I don’t think it is the origin of them. [0] obvious trigger warning applies: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/12.html http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/12.html
- nearbuy 6y ago
  > Given that women didn’t have a vote when the Industrial Age made coal mining into a primary power source, and given that marriage was seen as making the concept of rape logically impossible until 1992 in the UK [0], I disagree. I'm not following how this relates to the comment you're replying to. Are you saying that women are the original victims of capitalism? Or that capitalism was created by men? Or something else?
  - ben_w 6y ago
    I’m denying the claim “were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism?” Lots of men had their humanity disregarded, but women were treated worse, and that legacy continued for a very long time. These issues still exist in some places, based on what I’ve seen reported by trans people who transition so successfully that people who knew them before the transition mistook them for their own opposite gendered siblings and treated them differently in accordance with gender stereotypes rather than by merit.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      As an aside, playing the ‘who is the greater victim game’ is a meaningless exercise that doesn’t focus on the simple facts of life: there is suffering, be a friend to those in need.
    - 6y ago
watwut 6y ago
Funny thing is, wifes in mining areas did earn own money, for themselves and kids, because males were dying much sooner then women.

tunnuz 6y ago

slaps knee Thank you.

irrational 6y ago

I thought the plot by patriarchy was trying to keep women at home instead of in the workforce?

ketzo 6y ago
It’s not 1962. It’s not that simplistic. But talk to literally any mother in literally any white collar job. “I’m expecting” or even “we’re thinking of having kids” results in fewer projects, getting turned down for promotions, and if you’re in a technical role, you’re pushed into management ASAP. I get that I’m a stranger on the internet, but you gotta trust me on this. This isn’t random/sometimes — this is CONSTANT. And it’s not even all malicious! It just comes from a place of, I would say, well-intended ignorance.
- irrational 6y ago
  So you are saying that the plot of patriarchy used to be to keep women out of the workspace, but now the plot is the opposite, to keep them out of the home? It sounds like the patriarchs need to get together and make up their minds.
  - watwut 6y ago
    There is no contradiction as "keeping them home" was staying all the time at home with no income and advancement. And being forced to work here means "being punished for talking about possible pregnancy or needing more rest in the last few weeks or it or in case of health issues". Whether patriarchy or not, these are not contradictory.
  - nosewings 6y ago
    Is it really impossible to imagine that things change? Or, less succinctly -- that there isn't an actual literal plot, there's just people reacting to incentives, and those incentives change?
    - irrational 6y ago

dependenttypes 6y ago

> punish women who stop working by not paying them maternity leave How is that a punishment? You are not entitled to money that you did not earn.

jlg23 6y ago
So, effectively, women are just too stupid to have abortions or to sell their babies for a good price directly after giving birth? I might have misunderstood you, but what you said sounds like women actually had a choice. The only choices they have are those frowned upon by a large part of society.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > women are just too stupid to have abortions or to sell their babies for a good price directly after giving birth? ...what? Not sure what this has to do with stupidity. > but what you said sounds like women actually had a choice They do. They can use protection, abort, or simply stay without a wage during the time of pregnancy. Or... they could accept the maternity leave as a gift if their employer decides to provide it.
  - thejosh 6y ago
    So glad here in Australia we aren't at the whims of if our employer chooses to give us maternity leave or not :-) https://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/maternity-and-parental-leave/paid-parental-leave https://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/maternity-and-parental-lea...
  - jlg23 6y ago
    * birth control women can apply comes with sometimes severe side effects (edit: and even for that my wife needs my consent here in the Maghreb) * Having an abortion just got a lot harder in parts of the US, is even more limited in most parts of south america, requires consent of a male guardian in lots of islamic countries or is just illegal * Staying without wage is not an option when you need to feed yourself and the unborn I still fail to see where the actual choices are.

dungdang 6y ago

that's not a plot. that's a refusal to let you externalize your baby costs to innocent people. do you want your company, which hired you to write code, to pay for your diapers too? what do they have to do with you having a baby? why are they paying you money when you are not working? why are they expected to spend more total money on you, than your equal who chose not to have a baby? baby -awesome. you were hired for work. keep your petsonal life out of the office please. if you cannot perform your job due to a baby, you don't get paid. having a baby is expensive and after taking time off -sorry, you're no longer at the same skill level. you want to do it? awesome. you are not entitled to externalize your costs to other people. there should be no maternity leave. zero.

seamyb88 6y ago
> there should be no maternity leave. zero. He said as he goose stepped into a wall
akiselev 6y ago
> why are they expected to spend more total money on you, than your equal who chose not to have a baby? Because if that's the way human beings behaved, our ancestors would have died out as a species hundred of thousands of years ago and you wouldn't exist. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but you must recognize why the vast majority of voters are not okay with jeopardizing our species to save a few tax dollars?
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  I’m a father with a handful of children, and I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable that in a fair society non-parents would make more than parents due to the extra time they would put towards their job. Tax rebates for children could help both parties think they are getting ahead to balance society’s needs.
  - dungdang 6y ago
    tax rebates -aka a tax deduction for each child already exists. this passes the tax burden to people without kids, and is also unfair. rebates would also be unfair. a child is not a rebate. what i don't get is why a child is treated as a child for taxes. a tax return should be for the family -a joint return. you take wife+husband+kids. you add up all the salary. and you divide by number of tax payers. exactly how a joint return is now, but count kids. this puts you in a much, much lower tax bracket, and saves you more than a rebate or dependent. it is actually unfair in my opinion to do it another way, and has nothing to do with babies. your family household just pays taxes on its income. and without various programs designed to steal from people without kids. and that's what maternity leave is -stealing.