4 ms·

> How is this fair? Well, if I were going to argue the case I would probably start with the impossibility of any man ever getting that opportunity. Of course,

> How is this fair? Well, if I were going to argue the case I would probably start with the impossibility of any man ever getting that opportunity. Of course, whether those figures are enough or given out in the right way to the right people at the right time, all of those details can be argued over, but if you're going to start with fairness as your argument you'd better address the elephant in the room first. > AND that men are forced to take an equal time of Why is it right that anyone is forced to do anything so that your political views are enacted?

ushakov 4y ago
equality ends where it hurts the capital let me give you an example good equality: have more women enter workforce so the pool of candidates is bigger and the salaries (expenses) decrease bad equality: pay for parental leave of both parents
- jseban 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm constantly surprised that nobody every says this. With women entering the work force, now the family as a whole needs to work almost twice as much, as before when women were house wives. That's a pretty hefty price to pay for everyone, to save those women who were unlucky to have a cruel or unfair husband. I don't know if it's possible to say if it's "worth it" or not, but this independence sure does not come for free.
  - magicalist 4y ago
    > With women entering the work force What year is it again? > That's a pretty hefty price to pay for everyone, to save those women who were unlucky to have a cruel or unfair husband. Uh, I don't think that's the trade off here. > I don't know if it's possible to say if it's "worth it" or not, but this independence sure does not come for free. When one option is to go full Taliban, it's actually pretty easy to say if it's "worth it".
    - jseban 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - gus_massa 4y ago
        Some women like working. In particular, my wife like working and having her personal projects. I like to spends part of my time with my children. So we both work and we both take care of the children. We are lucky to have jobs that allow this.
        jseban 4y ago
        Sure it's going to work out for some people, but I still think the obvious downside of increased working hours in total is very significant and almost never mentioned. If you raise the working day from 8 to 12 hours, just because you find some guy who likes it, maybe doesn't mean it should be accepted as a perfect idea with no downside.
        ir123 4y ago
        its almost as if there should be better labour laws
      - magicalist 4y ago
        > It's just more communism and less freedom. Everyone has to make a big sacrifice for the unfortunate few. Corporal punishment to deal with the problem of some cruel husbands. Not sure if you think you're being philosophical or you know this is nonsense, but it is. Way over the not even wrong line now.
      - random-human 4y ago
        > It's just more communism and less freedom. How does women entering the work force (from your previous post) equal less freedom? Less freedom for whom? Certainly not women. Since you equate more communism with less freedom, I will assume you agree that money provides freedom, if women can only work as unpaid housewives, they have no freedom. It has nothing to do with their husband, cruel, unfair, or otherwise. This may be surprising, but not all women want kids or marriage, or may want them but also find great joy in working accomplishments - many just did not have those options in any safe stable way until recently. (historicity speaking) That's not less freedom, it's more, for both women and men (not as much stigma or pressure for not being the 'provider' when they may not want to be) - it does lessen some power and control males have historicity had over society and others. And that can be threatening for those who enjoy limiting others freedoms and controlling them.
  - ir123 4y ago
    why can't a new law be passed to reduce from 40 hour week to 20 hour week now that women are in workforce?
    - jseban 4y ago
      Yeah this is what I'm wondering too, seems like this is the obvious part of the deal that was somehow missed? It makes perfect sense, and it would also be fair and benefit both single/childless people as well as people with children.

ushakov 4y ago

equality ends where it hurts the capital let me give you an example good equality: have more women enter workforce so the pool of candidates is bigger and the salaries (expenses) decrease bad equality: pay for parental leave of both parents

jseban 4y ago
Yeah, I'm constantly surprised that nobody every says this. With women entering the work force, now the family as a whole needs to work almost twice as much, as before when women were house wives. That's a pretty hefty price to pay for everyone, to save those women who were unlucky to have a cruel or unfair husband. I don't know if it's possible to say if it's "worth it" or not, but this independence sure does not come for free.
- magicalist 4y ago
  > With women entering the work force What year is it again? > That's a pretty hefty price to pay for everyone, to save those women who were unlucky to have a cruel or unfair husband. Uh, I don't think that's the trade off here. > I don't know if it's possible to say if it's "worth it" or not, but this independence sure does not come for free. When one option is to go full Taliban, it's actually pretty easy to say if it's "worth it".
  - jseban 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - gus_massa 4y ago
      Some women like working. In particular, my wife like working and having her personal projects. I like to spends part of my time with my children. So we both work and we both take care of the children. We are lucky to have jobs that allow this.
      - jseban 4y ago
        Sure it's going to work out for some people, but I still think the obvious downside of increased working hours in total is very significant and almost never mentioned. If you raise the working day from 8 to 12 hours, just because you find some guy who likes it, maybe doesn't mean it should be accepted as a perfect idea with no downside.
        ir123 4y ago
        its almost as if there should be better labour laws
    - magicalist 4y ago
      > It's just more communism and less freedom. Everyone has to make a big sacrifice for the unfortunate few. Corporal punishment to deal with the problem of some cruel husbands. Not sure if you think you're being philosophical or you know this is nonsense, but it is. Way over the not even wrong line now.
    - random-human 4y ago
      > It's just more communism and less freedom. How does women entering the work force (from your previous post) equal less freedom? Less freedom for whom? Certainly not women. Since you equate more communism with less freedom, I will assume you agree that money provides freedom, if women can only work as unpaid housewives, they have no freedom. It has nothing to do with their husband, cruel, unfair, or otherwise. This may be surprising, but not all women want kids or marriage, or may want them but also find great joy in working accomplishments - many just did not have those options in any safe stable way until recently. (historicity speaking) That's not less freedom, it's more, for both women and men (not as much stigma or pressure for not being the 'provider' when they may not want to be) - it does lessen some power and control males have historicity had over society and others. And that can be threatening for those who enjoy limiting others freedoms and controlling them.
- ir123 4y ago
  why can't a new law be passed to reduce from 40 hour week to 20 hour week now that women are in workforce?
  - jseban 4y ago
    Yeah this is what I'm wondering too, seems like this is the obvious part of the deal that was somehow missed? It makes perfect sense, and it would also be fair and benefit both single/childless people as well as people with children.