4 ms·

>Young women who want kids and don't want to work tend to be shamed for this decision, while women who remain single and focus on their careers are celebrated.

>Young women who want kids and don't want to work tend to be shamed for this decision, while women who remain single and focus on their careers are celebrated. That's only toxic feminism pushing for this narrative but pretty sure it's just a loud minority in certain echo chambers and not a national narrative. Toxic feminism promotes this idea that having kids and being a caring mother means being a slave of the patriarchy and that freedom and salvation comes at spending their lives trying to compete and beat men at their traditional role as the breadwinner. The problem is, nature and evolution hasn't built females and males to compete against each other, but to complement each other, for procreation of the species. Once you push the sex responsible for birth to do a lot of the breadwinning, procreation of the species starts to fall apart.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
Anyone opining on pre-historic nature and evolution is spinning a just-so story, unless they're literally data-mining paleontologic or genomic evidence, and if they're doing the later they're talking about the results and conclusions in a much different manner. > Once you push the sex responsible for birth to do a lot of the breadwinning, procreation of the species starts to fall apart. There's no reason to assume that single-mothers weren't common in the past, absent direct paleontological evidence. There's no reason to assume that a supported mother isn't being supported by her blood relatives, while the father of her child(ren) is off doing his own thing (there are actually societies which function this way). And absent very short period of time in the few months immediately around actual childbirth, hunter-gatherer women were probably quite capable of supporting themselves.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Anyone opining on pre-historic nature and evolution is spinning a just-so story Nobody was talking about hunter gatherer societies but you.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    >>> nature and evolution Evolution of humans doesn't happen so fast that it doesn't encompass hunter-gatherer cultures (or pre-historic cultures in general, the latest of which were agricultural).
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      Except women have been entering the workforce en-masse only about 70 or so years ago, in the post-WW2 industrialization. No need to bring up evolution for that.
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        You brought evolution up. And women exiting the workforce was a modern, temporary convenience, primarily for the middle classes. The only thing genuinely new is that women and men now have exactly the same job opportunities (with only minimal exceptions). https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1345/women-in-the-middle-ages/ https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1345/women-in-the-middl... > women worked alongside men in the fields and in the medieval guilds as equals or near-equals. > Throughout the Middle Ages, lower-class women were bakers, brewers, milkmaids, barmaids, artisans, weavers and, primarily, tenant farmers who worked alongside their husbands and children in the fields. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1136/women-in-ancient-china/ https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1136/women-in-ancient-c... > Women of lower status, such as farmer's wives, were expected to work in the fields - especially in regions where rice was cultivated. > Many women were forced into prostitution in times of drought or crop failure. Women worked in the home weaving silk and caring for the silkworms that produced it. Some were called upon, like men, to perform the labour service which acted as a form of taxation in many periods of ancient China, but this was only in exceptional circumstances. By the Song dynasty (960-1279 CE) women had more freedom and were running inns and acting as midwives amongst other professions. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/623/women-in-ancient-egypt/ https://www.worldhistory.org/article/623/women-in-ancient-eg... > Women, therefore, were regularly employed as weavers, bakers, brewers, professional mourners, sandal-makers, launderers, basket weavers, cooks, waitresses, or as a "Mistress of the House," known today as an estate owner or property manager. Female brewers and launderers frequently supervised male workers.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

Anyone opining on pre-historic nature and evolution is spinning a just-so story, unless they're literally data-mining paleontologic or genomic evidence, and if they're doing the later they're talking about the results and conclusions in a much different manner. > Once you push the sex responsible for birth to do a lot of the breadwinning, procreation of the species starts to fall apart. There's no reason to assume that single-mothers weren't common in the past, absent direct paleontological evidence. There's no reason to assume that a supported mother isn't being supported by her blood relatives, while the father of her child(ren) is off doing his own thing (there are actually societies which function this way). And absent very short period of time in the few months immediately around actual childbirth, hunter-gatherer women were probably quite capable of supporting themselves.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Anyone opining on pre-historic nature and evolution is spinning a just-so story Nobody was talking about hunter gatherer societies but you.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  >>> nature and evolution Evolution of humans doesn't happen so fast that it doesn't encompass hunter-gatherer cultures (or pre-historic cultures in general, the latest of which were agricultural).
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Except women have been entering the workforce en-masse only about 70 or so years ago, in the post-WW2 industrialization. No need to bring up evolution for that.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      You brought evolution up. And women exiting the workforce was a modern, temporary convenience, primarily for the middle classes. The only thing genuinely new is that women and men now have exactly the same job opportunities (with only minimal exceptions). https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1345/women-in-the-middle-ages/ https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1345/women-in-the-middl... > women worked alongside men in the fields and in the medieval guilds as equals or near-equals. > Throughout the Middle Ages, lower-class women were bakers, brewers, milkmaids, barmaids, artisans, weavers and, primarily, tenant farmers who worked alongside their husbands and children in the fields. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1136/women-in-ancient-china/ https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1136/women-in-ancient-c... > Women of lower status, such as farmer's wives, were expected to work in the fields - especially in regions where rice was cultivated. > Many women were forced into prostitution in times of drought or crop failure. Women worked in the home weaving silk and caring for the silkworms that produced it. Some were called upon, like men, to perform the labour service which acted as a form of taxation in many periods of ancient China, but this was only in exceptional circumstances. By the Song dynasty (960-1279 CE) women had more freedom and were running inns and acting as midwives amongst other professions. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/623/women-in-ancient-egypt/ https://www.worldhistory.org/article/623/women-in-ancient-eg... > Women, therefore, were regularly employed as weavers, bakers, brewers, professional mourners, sandal-makers, launderers, basket weavers, cooks, waitresses, or as a "Mistress of the House," known today as an estate owner or property manager. Female brewers and launderers frequently supervised male workers.