6 ms·

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

by 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.
    - jseban 4y ago
      > How does women entering the work force (from your previous post) equal less freedom? Less freedom for whom? Certainly not women. Less freedom for those who happen to like traditional gender roles, now they are forced to work more and adapt to more "modern" gender roles. Otherwise they will lose out massively because the single earner has so much lower salary now. Less freedom because an almost doubled amount of total working hours for a family. Free time = freedom. Less freedom for childless people because they have much lower salaries now because of the larger supply of workforce (which is somewhat compensated by subsidies to people with children). Now they compete against couples with double income on everything on the market. A single childless person would previously have the same buying power as a single breadwinner, now they have half. Less freedom because this creates a much higher pressure and financial incentives for people to have children and to have modern gender roles, and anything else is discouraged. > if women can only work as unpaid housewives, they have no freedom. Well, are you more free if you trade free time for working hours? You are literally only more free to slave more. This freedom only manifests in the case when you want/need to leave your husband.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        > Less freedom for those who happen to like traditional gender roles, now they are forced to work more and adapt to more "modern" gender roles. Otherwise they will lose out massively because the single earner has so much lower salary now That's an equivocation. There is the freedom that comes from choice (what is not disallowed) and there is the freedom that comes from available choices. For example, homosexuals being able to marry is not the same kind of freedom as if I had a million dollars I'd be able to do what I want. Those who prefer traditional gender roles can still have them, they just need to compete to afford it, as they did before, or to cut their cloth.
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.

by jseban 4y ago

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.
  - jseban 4y ago
    > How does women entering the work force (from your previous post) equal less freedom? Less freedom for whom? Certainly not women. Less freedom for those who happen to like traditional gender roles, now they are forced to work more and adapt to more "modern" gender roles. Otherwise they will lose out massively because the single earner has so much lower salary now. Less freedom because an almost doubled amount of total working hours for a family. Free time = freedom. Less freedom for childless people because they have much lower salaries now because of the larger supply of workforce (which is somewhat compensated by subsidies to people with children). Now they compete against couples with double income on everything on the market. A single childless person would previously have the same buying power as a single breadwinner, now they have half. Less freedom because this creates a much higher pressure and financial incentives for people to have children and to have modern gender roles, and anything else is discouraged. > if women can only work as unpaid housewives, they have no freedom. Well, are you more free if you trade free time for working hours? You are literally only more free to slave more. This freedom only manifests in the case when you want/need to leave your husband.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > Less freedom for those who happen to like traditional gender roles, now they are forced to work more and adapt to more "modern" gender roles. Otherwise they will lose out massively because the single earner has so much lower salary now That's an equivocation. There is the freedom that comes from choice (what is not disallowed) and there is the freedom that comes from available choices. For example, homosexuals being able to marry is not the same kind of freedom as if I had a million dollars I'd be able to do what I want. Those who prefer traditional gender roles can still have them, they just need to compete to afford it, as they did before, or to cut their cloth.

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.