5 ms·

It's mind-blowing that we live like this. We forced every adult into being a single atomic worker by completely eliminating jobs and benefits that enable singl

by rland 6y ago

It's mind-blowing that we live like this. We forced every adult into being a single atomic worker by completely eliminating jobs and benefits that enable single earners to care for their entire family (through the "unpaid" domestic work of the wife). Then, when we need to actually care for our families, we outsource that to the private sector, so that other atomic worker units can do the job for us. We have to do this, because nobody has time to care for our parents; we all have to work! What did we get for doing this? What life improvements were gained? The collective grief of the millions of people who have died alone is not worth any of this.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bluedino 6y ago
Very few people want to take care of their parents
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  I've seen our family share the burden among siblings over time. My SO's family often rotated duties too. This was more practical when there were many kids and the elderly didn't have as many years in need of assistance. In hindsight it looks like it was a blessing and a curse. More time with them but weighed heavily on the mothers and daughters of all ages.
  - scatters 6y ago
    Having multiple (more than 2) children is a pyramid scheme. It only works at times of population explosion.
seibelj 6y ago
In the golden olden days in which you allude, no one was paid to take care of children and parents. It's an argument to say we should subsidize those that care for their own parents and children (and there are numerous government programs and tax breaks that already do), but you are undercutting your thesis with this bizarre assertion. Many old people never had kids, and don't have any family. They need paid workers to take care of them. Many readers of this comment are perhaps planning on not having kids, or even not getting married. Just imagine yourselves in 40 to 60 years - this will be you!
- shadowmore 6y ago
  And why are we now comfortable with not having kids? Because of atomism. The "golden age" argument is flawed. No one seriously argues that literally everything was better in the past. Rather, the criticism is that it's absurd to have gotten rid of something positive we already had, only to replace it with something worse and gain no net benefit as a result. It's all a matter of interconnected systems, including systems like social shaming. If it's unacceptable socially to not have a family, you'll have one. If it's unacceptable for women to work and compete with men for wealth and power, men will make enough to support their entire families, allowing at least one parent to always be there to raise children properly, instead of outsourcing that to strangers -- same for elderly care. At the end of the day, atomism harms everyone and everything.
  - seibelj 6y ago
    In the past it was understood if you didn't have a family and kids, and find a way to make an income within the family unit, no one would help you. It is only within the last 100 years that social safety nets became cradle-to-grave regardless of your family circumstances.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > If it's unacceptable socially to not have a family, you'll have one. If it's unacceptable for women to work and compete with men for wealth and power, men will make enough to support their entire families, allowing at least one parent to always be there to raise children properly, instead of outsourcing that to strangers -- same for elderly care. Is it not socially unacceptable for men to abuse their wives? Yet it still happens. So I don’t know what you’re going on about atomism and whatnot, but I’m happy my sisters and my daughters will have the ability to stand on their own. And if women’s freedom causes the problem of parents not having enough time to spend with children, then that has something to do with minimum wage and overtime/maximum hours at work laws than it does women’s freedom.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
Women gained freedom, aka ability to earn income.
- User23 6y ago
  The freedom to work for a boss that sees her as just another disposable "human resource" instead of working for a family that sees her as it's essential heart.
  - 29083011397778 6y ago
    The financial freedom to leave an abusive spouse or family, as well.
    - User23 6y ago
      Modern no-fault divorce laws along with alimony and child support are a pretty comprehensive solution to this problem. And there's no way to legislate against emotional attachment if that's what's keeping a person in an abusive relationship. At that point it's up to his or her friends and family to provide support.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    I’ve seen plenty of families where the woman / daughter in law is seen as the essential maid rather than essential heart, whatever that means.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Speaking to my elderly relatives, a few of the women resented being told they were getting fired as soon as they were married “because [their] husband can do the earning now”. I certainly would’ve resented it too.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  Women also lost freedom. They went from not having the choice to work to not having the choice to not work.

by rland 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bluedino 6y ago

Very few people want to take care of their parents

paulryanrogers 6y ago
I've seen our family share the burden among siblings over time. My SO's family often rotated duties too. This was more practical when there were many kids and the elderly didn't have as many years in need of assistance. In hindsight it looks like it was a blessing and a curse. More time with them but weighed heavily on the mothers and daughters of all ages.
- scatters 6y ago
  Having multiple (more than 2) children is a pyramid scheme. It only works at times of population explosion.

seibelj 6y ago

In the golden olden days in which you allude, no one was paid to take care of children and parents. It's an argument to say we should subsidize those that care for their own parents and children (and there are numerous government programs and tax breaks that already do), but you are undercutting your thesis with this bizarre assertion. Many old people never had kids, and don't have any family. They need paid workers to take care of them. Many readers of this comment are perhaps planning on not having kids, or even not getting married. Just imagine yourselves in 40 to 60 years - this will be you!

shadowmore 6y ago
And why are we now comfortable with not having kids? Because of atomism. The "golden age" argument is flawed. No one seriously argues that literally everything was better in the past. Rather, the criticism is that it's absurd to have gotten rid of something positive we already had, only to replace it with something worse and gain no net benefit as a result. It's all a matter of interconnected systems, including systems like social shaming. If it's unacceptable socially to not have a family, you'll have one. If it's unacceptable for women to work and compete with men for wealth and power, men will make enough to support their entire families, allowing at least one parent to always be there to raise children properly, instead of outsourcing that to strangers -- same for elderly care. At the end of the day, atomism harms everyone and everything.
- seibelj 6y ago
  In the past it was understood if you didn't have a family and kids, and find a way to make an income within the family unit, no one would help you. It is only within the last 100 years that social safety nets became cradle-to-grave regardless of your family circumstances.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > If it's unacceptable socially to not have a family, you'll have one. If it's unacceptable for women to work and compete with men for wealth and power, men will make enough to support their entire families, allowing at least one parent to always be there to raise children properly, instead of outsourcing that to strangers -- same for elderly care. Is it not socially unacceptable for men to abuse their wives? Yet it still happens. So I don’t know what you’re going on about atomism and whatnot, but I’m happy my sisters and my daughters will have the ability to stand on their own. And if women’s freedom causes the problem of parents not having enough time to spend with children, then that has something to do with minimum wage and overtime/maximum hours at work laws than it does women’s freedom.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

Women gained freedom, aka ability to earn income.

User23 6y ago
The freedom to work for a boss that sees her as just another disposable "human resource" instead of working for a family that sees her as it's essential heart.
- 29083011397778 6y ago
  The financial freedom to leave an abusive spouse or family, as well.
  - User23 6y ago
    Modern no-fault divorce laws along with alimony and child support are a pretty comprehensive solution to this problem. And there's no way to legislate against emotional attachment if that's what's keeping a person in an abusive relationship. At that point it's up to his or her friends and family to provide support.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  I’ve seen plenty of families where the woman / daughter in law is seen as the essential maid rather than essential heart, whatever that means.
- ben_w 6y ago
  Speaking to my elderly relatives, a few of the women resented being told they were getting fired as soon as they were married “because [their] husband can do the earning now”. I certainly would’ve resented it too.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
Women also lost freedom. They went from not having the choice to work to not having the choice to not work.