4 ms·

I don't think there's any benefit to that at all, but there's a lot of benefit to not forcing people into certain limited occupations and roles of subservience

I don't think there's any benefit to that at all, but there's a lot of benefit to not forcing people into certain limited occupations and roles of subservience because of their assigned gender. Capitalism demanded that to get one you have to pay with the other. It ain't great.

coolso 4y ago
[dead]
alwayslikethis 4y ago
> Capitalism demanded The nature of supply and demand means that adding people to the workforce lowers the bargaining power of individual workers, regardless of their sex, which lowers wages. Once a certain amount of women started to work without their spouses stopping to work, most women and men had to work to support the family. Socialist countries like the USSR are no different, but due to another tradeoff. By ignoring the nature of supply and demand in favor of a command economy, they had massive losses in efficiency in a way that forces everyone to have to work, and even then only producing mediocre results.
colechristensen 4y ago
Who said the one staying home had to be female or subservient?
- watwut 4y ago
  Trying to pretend itnis not about that is just bad faith. Of course topic is women dependent and without income rather then males being dependent on women.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    It’s not 1950. I know plenty of women who want to be breadwinners of the household and men who’d be happy to stay at home and manage the family not to mention folks who are rejecting the gendered identity all together. Also plenty of people in lower income brackets are finding that a second partner having a job is more expensive than staying home because of the high costs of child care. A few people want that kind of subjugation but broadly it just wouldn’t happen again, the vast majority of men and women wouldn’t stand for it.
    - watwut 4y ago
      In 1950, no one would make the comment I responded to, true. In 2022, it is super rare for a man to stay as stay at home father. Trying to pretend that dads are primary caregivers as often as women is just dishonest. And that goes for lower income brackets especially. Especially after pandemic when female dominated jobs got killed in higher numbers and especially since it was overwhelmingly women who started to spend way more time on childcare. > not to mention folks who are rejecting the gendered identity all together. And those folks are literally accused of being groomers by large parts of population just for existing and being visible. There is literal campaign of fearmongering going on against them. Threats of violence against these people are a thing now too. There are attempts to make gender non-comforming clothing in the presence of children into illegal acts. >A few people want that kind of subjugation but broadly it just wouldn’t happen again, the vast majority of men and women wouldn’t stand for it. Quite a lot of them would happily stand for "subjugation" I see nostalgia for it regularly. Seriously, abortion rights are being reversed and those were supposed to be untouchable too. Just teaching about ugly parts of history is in the process of being outlawed as boogeyman CRT. And Wisconsin did not even managed to make underage marriages illegal, because it is constitutional right of adult men to marry girls under 16.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  At the time, society did. Meaning most people (most men) did. This is not actually new information for you, right? I think there's a subtext of your question I am missing?
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    It’s not 1950. I’m talking about now.
    - jrochkind1 4y ago
      I too would love it if the economy were still such that a family could be supported with only one adult "earning income" outside the home, for the majority of occupations and jobs, but without people having their social and professional roles limited due to gender. I can't imagine any worker would not love this. I don't understand what we're disagreeing about, but if we are and you'd like to discuss it, less sarcasm and implied accusations and rhetorical questions and more just plain saying what you mean would help. Personally, I think that the only way we get this is with popular anti-capitalist movements, to change the nature of the economy to be structured around people's needs instead of maximal exploitation of labor for capitalist profit. But I'm open to hearing about other visions.

coolso 4y ago

[dead]

alwayslikethis 4y ago

> Capitalism demanded The nature of supply and demand means that adding people to the workforce lowers the bargaining power of individual workers, regardless of their sex, which lowers wages. Once a certain amount of women started to work without their spouses stopping to work, most women and men had to work to support the family. Socialist countries like the USSR are no different, but due to another tradeoff. By ignoring the nature of supply and demand in favor of a command economy, they had massive losses in efficiency in a way that forces everyone to have to work, and even then only producing mediocre results.

colechristensen 4y ago

Who said the one staying home had to be female or subservient?

watwut 4y ago
Trying to pretend itnis not about that is just bad faith. Of course topic is women dependent and without income rather then males being dependent on women.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  It’s not 1950. I know plenty of women who want to be breadwinners of the household and men who’d be happy to stay at home and manage the family not to mention folks who are rejecting the gendered identity all together. Also plenty of people in lower income brackets are finding that a second partner having a job is more expensive than staying home because of the high costs of child care. A few people want that kind of subjugation but broadly it just wouldn’t happen again, the vast majority of men and women wouldn’t stand for it.
  - watwut 4y ago
    In 1950, no one would make the comment I responded to, true. In 2022, it is super rare for a man to stay as stay at home father. Trying to pretend that dads are primary caregivers as often as women is just dishonest. And that goes for lower income brackets especially. Especially after pandemic when female dominated jobs got killed in higher numbers and especially since it was overwhelmingly women who started to spend way more time on childcare. > not to mention folks who are rejecting the gendered identity all together. And those folks are literally accused of being groomers by large parts of population just for existing and being visible. There is literal campaign of fearmongering going on against them. Threats of violence against these people are a thing now too. There are attempts to make gender non-comforming clothing in the presence of children into illegal acts. >A few people want that kind of subjugation but broadly it just wouldn’t happen again, the vast majority of men and women wouldn’t stand for it. Quite a lot of them would happily stand for "subjugation" I see nostalgia for it regularly. Seriously, abortion rights are being reversed and those were supposed to be untouchable too. Just teaching about ugly parts of history is in the process of being outlawed as boogeyman CRT. And Wisconsin did not even managed to make underage marriages illegal, because it is constitutional right of adult men to marry girls under 16.
jrochkind1 4y ago
At the time, society did. Meaning most people (most men) did. This is not actually new information for you, right? I think there's a subtext of your question I am missing?
- colechristensen 4y ago
  It’s not 1950. I’m talking about now.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    I too would love it if the economy were still such that a family could be supported with only one adult "earning income" outside the home, for the majority of occupations and jobs, but without people having their social and professional roles limited due to gender. I can't imagine any worker would not love this. I don't understand what we're disagreeing about, but if we are and you'd like to discuss it, less sarcasm and implied accusations and rhetorical questions and more just plain saying what you mean would help. Personally, I think that the only way we get this is with popular anti-capitalist movements, to change the nature of the economy to be structured around people's needs instead of maximal exploitation of labor for capitalist profit. But I'm open to hearing about other visions.