4 ms·

It's surprising that human society has survived, given that half the population was artificially excluded from many intellectual pursuits - or many pursuits ful

by abraae 5y ago

It's surprising that human society has survived, given that half the population was artificially excluded from many intellectual pursuits - or many pursuits full stop really - and the other half perhaps underperformed as they wallowed in feeling of superiority form their position of privilege.

corndoge 5y ago
It's not really that surprising.
- mc32 5y ago
  Right. (Other) Animals can be much worse in many ways and their species survive. That’s not to say we want to be like savages, but it just is not a necessary ingredient for survival.
DoreenMichele 5y ago
What a fantastic way to dismissively say "Raising children is work that is of zero benefit to the human species and a complete waste of time. Women only have any value if they are doing something other than traditional women's work."
- stevula 5y ago
  > What a fantastic way to dismissively say "Raising children is work that is of zero benefit to the human species and a complete waste of time. I don’t know if there was an edit to the previous post, but “Excluded from many intellectual pursuits” does not mean anything like what you are saying. Isn’t it possible to lament a historic lack of choice without demeaning homemakers?
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    A. I'm reacting to It's surprising that human society has survived. B. Also the part you quoted implicitly suggests raising children takes no brains. I was one of the top three students of my graduating high school class, won a National Merit Scholarship, among other things, and was a full-time wife and mom for a lot of years. I homeschooled my twice exceptional sons because no other school was really capable of adequately serving their needs. My oldest tested at senior in college level in science at age 11 and also below grade level in writing. Addressing his needs required me to present high level materials without watering them down while accommodating his weaknesses. I take personal offense at the idea that full-time moms are not doing useful work and raising children is something any idiot can do well. The world would be a better place if we worried more about raising our children well. Studies show that investing in preschoolers saves money down the line by lowering prison costs for society. Edit in response to your edit: Isn’t it possible to lament a historic lack of choice without demeaning homemakers? Absolutely. But the comment in question doesn't manage to do so.
    - xvector 5y ago
      This really feels like an over-reaction. > I take personal offense at the idea that full-time moms are not doing useful work and raising children is something any idiot can do well. Where was this even remotely implied? OP said: > It's surprising that human society has survived, given that half the population was artificially excluded from many intellectual pursuits - or many pursuits full stop Even if you disagree with the premise - how in any way does this demean homemakers? What a bizarre reaction.
      - mattcwilson 5y ago
        I believe the idea here is that suggesting any degree of “surprise” that human society has survived implies that the work women were excluded from was more vital to human society’s survival than what most or all of those excluded women were actually doing at that time.
        xvector 5y ago
        Thanks for the explanation. I didn't see it that way at all, but I can understand why it might be offensive now. To me it read as "It is surprising that a species so stupid/incompetent as to arbitrarily exclude half their members has managed to survive this far."
      - spoonjim 5y ago
        You’re talking to a user with a history of bizarre overreaction — you may not know that. Check the post history.
  - abraae 5y ago
    There was no edit to my original content, and I'm astonished that anyone could read into it that raising children is work of zero value - that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.
- scubbo 5y ago
  It is possible to mourn the fact that women have historically been excluded from pursuits in which they might have excelled, while not demeaning the worth of the pursuits that they were forced into. Childcare and home-making are invaluable and important. Many other pursuits are also valuable and important. It's not unreasonable to suspect that _some_ women have historically been forced into being home-makers when they would have been happier and/or more productive in other pursuits, _even while acknowledging_ that other women have lived their best-possible-lives in the (I say this earnestly and unsarcastically) noble pursuit of home-making.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    One of the problems I have with such sentiments is that while probably most women were homemakers, most men had jobs like subsistence farmers. My father could remember when his mother had no choice but to cook from scratch because they had no fridge and there were no prepackaged convenience foods and microwaves had not yet been invented. "Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold" described a typical diet for a poor person of the time when that was written: A hot vegetarian meal with legumes, not meat, providing the protein for lunch and cold leftovers of the same for dinner. It was critical to the survival of the species for someone to cook regularly and it made sense for myriad reasons for it to be the mother, not the father, for most families. This was rooted in part in a lack of reliable birth control. Virginity until marriage and insisting the parents were responsible for the welfare of the children was the best we could do in most places on earth for much of human history. A lot of people lacked many things we think of as "basic" today, such as food security, hygiene and birth control. Such people probably mostly were not dreaming of intellectually interesting careers and having their name remembered by future generations. I'm glad to see we currently have the means for people to worry about such things. But it's a mistake to project such hopes and dreams overly much on people who often were dreaming much more humble dreams, like not starving to death this winter.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      We tend to romanticize the past, not least due to the huge volume of art that survives. But everyday life of a regular person sucked in ways that are hard to imagine for most Western people of 2021. Washing with cold water, shortages of food, exhausting physical work that damaged your body, infectious diseases, living in slums.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bendbro 5y ago
It isn't surprising at all considering hundreds of surviving, geographically isolated cultures all shared this same characteristic. It seems rather natural and unsurprising when we know it was successfully used so many times.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> It's surprising that human society has survived, given that half the population was artificially excluded from many intellectual pursuits A lot more than half were (and still are), by economic circumstance.

by abraae 5y ago

corndoge 5y ago

It's not really that surprising.

mc32 5y ago
Right. (Other) Animals can be much worse in many ways and their species survive. That’s not to say we want to be like savages, but it just is not a necessary ingredient for survival.

DoreenMichele 5y ago

What a fantastic way to dismissively say "Raising children is work that is of zero benefit to the human species and a complete waste of time. Women only have any value if they are doing something other than traditional women's work."

stevula 5y ago
> What a fantastic way to dismissively say "Raising children is work that is of zero benefit to the human species and a complete waste of time. I don’t know if there was an edit to the previous post, but “Excluded from many intellectual pursuits” does not mean anything like what you are saying. Isn’t it possible to lament a historic lack of choice without demeaning homemakers?
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  A. I'm reacting to It's surprising that human society has survived. B. Also the part you quoted implicitly suggests raising children takes no brains. I was one of the top three students of my graduating high school class, won a National Merit Scholarship, among other things, and was a full-time wife and mom for a lot of years. I homeschooled my twice exceptional sons because no other school was really capable of adequately serving their needs. My oldest tested at senior in college level in science at age 11 and also below grade level in writing. Addressing his needs required me to present high level materials without watering them down while accommodating his weaknesses. I take personal offense at the idea that full-time moms are not doing useful work and raising children is something any idiot can do well. The world would be a better place if we worried more about raising our children well. Studies show that investing in preschoolers saves money down the line by lowering prison costs for society. Edit in response to your edit: Isn’t it possible to lament a historic lack of choice without demeaning homemakers? Absolutely. But the comment in question doesn't manage to do so.
  - xvector 5y ago
    This really feels like an over-reaction. > I take personal offense at the idea that full-time moms are not doing useful work and raising children is something any idiot can do well. Where was this even remotely implied? OP said: > It's surprising that human society has survived, given that half the population was artificially excluded from many intellectual pursuits - or many pursuits full stop Even if you disagree with the premise - how in any way does this demean homemakers? What a bizarre reaction.
    - mattcwilson 5y ago
      I believe the idea here is that suggesting any degree of “surprise” that human society has survived implies that the work women were excluded from was more vital to human society’s survival than what most or all of those excluded women were actually doing at that time.
      - xvector 5y ago
        Thanks for the explanation. I didn't see it that way at all, but I can understand why it might be offensive now. To me it read as "It is surprising that a species so stupid/incompetent as to arbitrarily exclude half their members has managed to survive this far."
    - spoonjim 5y ago
      You’re talking to a user with a history of bizarre overreaction — you may not know that. Check the post history.
- abraae 5y ago
  There was no edit to my original content, and I'm astonished that anyone could read into it that raising children is work of zero value - that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.
scubbo 5y ago
It is possible to mourn the fact that women have historically been excluded from pursuits in which they might have excelled, while not demeaning the worth of the pursuits that they were forced into. Childcare and home-making are invaluable and important. Many other pursuits are also valuable and important. It's not unreasonable to suspect that _some_ women have historically been forced into being home-makers when they would have been happier and/or more productive in other pursuits, _even while acknowledging_ that other women have lived their best-possible-lives in the (I say this earnestly and unsarcastically) noble pursuit of home-making.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  One of the problems I have with such sentiments is that while probably most women were homemakers, most men had jobs like subsistence farmers. My father could remember when his mother had no choice but to cook from scratch because they had no fridge and there were no prepackaged convenience foods and microwaves had not yet been invented. "Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold" described a typical diet for a poor person of the time when that was written: A hot vegetarian meal with legumes, not meat, providing the protein for lunch and cold leftovers of the same for dinner. It was critical to the survival of the species for someone to cook regularly and it made sense for myriad reasons for it to be the mother, not the father, for most families. This was rooted in part in a lack of reliable birth control. Virginity until marriage and insisting the parents were responsible for the welfare of the children was the best we could do in most places on earth for much of human history. A lot of people lacked many things we think of as "basic" today, such as food security, hygiene and birth control. Such people probably mostly were not dreaming of intellectually interesting careers and having their name remembered by future generations. I'm glad to see we currently have the means for people to worry about such things. But it's a mistake to project such hopes and dreams overly much on people who often were dreaming much more humble dreams, like not starving to death this winter.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    We tend to romanticize the past, not least due to the huge volume of art that survives. But everyday life of a regular person sucked in ways that are hard to imagine for most Western people of 2021. Washing with cold water, shortages of food, exhausting physical work that damaged your body, infectious diseases, living in slums.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bendbro 5y ago

It isn't surprising at all considering hundreds of surviving, geographically isolated cultures all shared this same characteristic. It seems rather natural and unsurprising when we know it was successfully used so many times.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> It's surprising that human society has survived, given that half the population was artificially excluded from many intellectual pursuits A lot more than half were (and still are), by economic circumstance.