4 ms·

This is the first time I've heard of a cultural practice that I cannot fathom. Not "wow that was crazy for the time", but "I don't understand how this ever made

This is the first time I've heard of a cultural practice that I cannot fathom. Not "wow that was crazy for the time", but "I don't understand how this ever made sense". I guess it's borne out of extreme resource scarcity? The idea that someone is a permanent burden regardless of what they do is hard for me to wrap my head around.

dotnet00 3y ago
I can't really fathom it either, it feels somewhat like a self-reinforcing cycle which may have started from the earlier hunter-gatherer days. I'm just satisfied that in our recent generations we've quickly started to abandon a lot of these malignant ideas.
kelipso 3y ago
Lol, is this some sort of act? Having to take care of aging parents and thus them being a burden on their children is a fairly common trope in western film and literature. Common worldwide.
- ZephyrBlu 3y ago
  I actually typed out an addendum about children and elderly being burdens but adults not being, but deleted it because I thought it was extraneous since I was specifying "permanent burden regardless of what they do". Children/elderly are not permanent burdens because they grow up/die and they can sometimes do useful things. The difference here is that women are classified as burdens regardless of what they do. Cook, clean, take care of the house, your family, your husband, etc. Doesn't matter, you're still a burden. That's fucked up.
antisthenes 3y ago
> The idea that someone is a permanent burden regardless of what they do is hard for me to wrap my head around There are millions of such people, but it's not based on sex. People from the bottom parts of intelligence distribution are a "burden", because no amount of labor they produce will generate more value for society than they consume (in food, housing, healthcare). In developed countries we are able to collectively shoulder such a burden, because we do not live an a resource-scarce environment like you mentioned (when it comes to basic necessities) > The idea that someone is a permanent burden regardless of what they do is hard for me to wrap my head around. Don't get fixated on the "permanent" part of this. Some people can generate positive and negative value through different periods of their lives. Kids < 16 years of age are typically consumers of value. So are seniors of 80+ years. This is not a bad thing, just a natural cycle of life.
- ZephyrBlu 3y ago
  Yes, that's true but like you say most societies try to socialize some of that burden. There seem to be no such socialization in this case. > Some people can generate positive and negative value through different periods of their lives. Kids < 16 years of age are typically consumers of value. So are seniors of 80+ years I understand that, which is why I specified "permanent". In this case, women are permanent burdens regardless of how old they are. That's the fucked up bit.
- automatoney 3y ago
  Actually, archeological evidence shows that even in extremely harsh environments, many early humans took care of people who were unable to work. From the article linked below: "...an idea of what it must have taken to keep Burial 9 alive. Paralyzed from the waist down and with severely limited arm and neck movement, he depended on others to provide food and water, clean him and move him to prevent pressure sores. 'From the bones alone, we can say this person lived with a disease that required help from others to survive,'... The people who took care of Burial 9, for example, scratched out a precarious existence using stone tools to fish and raise pigs in prehistoric Vietnam. Signs of malnutrition in the bones of people buried nearby suggested famine was a constant threat. 'In a small society which was very stressed, that means somebody who couldn't contribute or go out hunting or undertake a lot of tasks was supported, accommodated, and adjusted to,'" https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/17/878896381/ancient-bones-offer-clues-to-how-long-ago-humans-cared-for-the-vulnerable https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/17/8788963...

dotnet00 3y ago

I can't really fathom it either, it feels somewhat like a self-reinforcing cycle which may have started from the earlier hunter-gatherer days. I'm just satisfied that in our recent generations we've quickly started to abandon a lot of these malignant ideas.

kelipso 3y ago

Lol, is this some sort of act? Having to take care of aging parents and thus them being a burden on their children is a fairly common trope in western film and literature. Common worldwide.

ZephyrBlu 3y ago
I actually typed out an addendum about children and elderly being burdens but adults not being, but deleted it because I thought it was extraneous since I was specifying "permanent burden regardless of what they do". Children/elderly are not permanent burdens because they grow up/die and they can sometimes do useful things. The difference here is that women are classified as burdens regardless of what they do. Cook, clean, take care of the house, your family, your husband, etc. Doesn't matter, you're still a burden. That's fucked up.

antisthenes 3y ago

> The idea that someone is a permanent burden regardless of what they do is hard for me to wrap my head around There are millions of such people, but it's not based on sex. People from the bottom parts of intelligence distribution are a "burden", because no amount of labor they produce will generate more value for society than they consume (in food, housing, healthcare). In developed countries we are able to collectively shoulder such a burden, because we do not live an a resource-scarce environment like you mentioned (when it comes to basic necessities) > The idea that someone is a permanent burden regardless of what they do is hard for me to wrap my head around. Don't get fixated on the "permanent" part of this. Some people can generate positive and negative value through different periods of their lives. Kids < 16 years of age are typically consumers of value. So are seniors of 80+ years. This is not a bad thing, just a natural cycle of life.

ZephyrBlu 3y ago
Yes, that's true but like you say most societies try to socialize some of that burden. There seem to be no such socialization in this case. > Some people can generate positive and negative value through different periods of their lives. Kids < 16 years of age are typically consumers of value. So are seniors of 80+ years I understand that, which is why I specified "permanent". In this case, women are permanent burdens regardless of how old they are. That's the fucked up bit.
automatoney 3y ago
Actually, archeological evidence shows that even in extremely harsh environments, many early humans took care of people who were unable to work. From the article linked below: "...an idea of what it must have taken to keep Burial 9 alive. Paralyzed from the waist down and with severely limited arm and neck movement, he depended on others to provide food and water, clean him and move him to prevent pressure sores. 'From the bones alone, we can say this person lived with a disease that required help from others to survive,'... The people who took care of Burial 9, for example, scratched out a precarious existence using stone tools to fish and raise pigs in prehistoric Vietnam. Signs of malnutrition in the bones of people buried nearby suggested famine was a constant threat. 'In a small society which was very stressed, that means somebody who couldn't contribute or go out hunting or undertake a lot of tasks was supported, accommodated, and adjusted to,'" https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/17/878896381/ancient-bones-offer-clues-to-how-long-ago-humans-cared-for-the-vulnerable https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/17/8788963...