5 ms·

Unfortunately this was probably pretty close to reality for most women in the timeframe that this author was writing this in.

judge2020 3y ago
Yes, given the author says this: > A basic argument for marriage is that it offers a logical division of labor. Imagine how much more complicated and inconvenient life would be if men had to do their own cooking and sewing, and women—all women—had to compete with men for a livelihood! Of course, since '46 capitalism has demanded women enter the workforce to compete with men and drive down wages.
- Veraticus 3y ago
  This is a weird way to frame women working.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    This is a quote from chapter one of the linked book. Not my words.
    - Veraticus 3y ago
      > Of course, since '46 capitalism has demanded women enter the workforce to compete with men and drive down wages. That is your words and is a weird way to frame women working.
      - judge2020 3y ago
        In the context of > But treats it like a game all the same, and treats women like pawns in that game. I point out that the author sees a positive of mating as how the woman is a "pawn" to do things like cook and sew for you. My words are only to show that "despite" this being an advantage in '46, women have since entered the workforce, but the point I make is how this only really happened because the forces of capitalism demanded/allowed them to, in order to drive down everyones' wages with the increased competition. This doesn't downplay the reasons women participated in the move towards both parties in a family working to make a livelihood. Just that capitalism saw an opportunity to thrive with the addition of women in the workforce; that benefit being either (A) they can increase total velocity within an organization without necessarily spending double the money by hiring 2x the amount of workers, or (B) can achieve the same output for less money. The benefits for the wealthy capitalists are compounded when you factor in how they were/are paying women less than men in general.
        Veraticus 3y ago
        > the point I make is how this only really happened because the forces of capitalism demanded/allowed them to, in order to drive down everyones' wages with the increased competition. Right, this is the part with the weird framing. Women work in order to achieve happiness, financial independence, have fun, give their life meaning -- all the reasons men do. Framing this as "capitalism forced women to work" seems entirely to ignore that women want to work just as much (or as little) as men do and for the same reasons. Saying that the result is everyone's wages being driven down entirely ignores the fact that prior to this many women had zero ability to make any wages. So, their willing participation in the workforce is just a net benefit to them and to society as a whole.
        judge2020 3y ago
        True, but in the end it's not real, even for men. You can increase Google's stock price by $x by serving better ads or implementing the next killer YouTube feature, but those things will eventually cease to exist, and your name will most likely not be tied to that any longer than you're alive. Capitalism glamourized working for these corporations, working to achieve this level of financial independence, in order to increase their own profits. Relevant clip from 1923: https://youtu.be/JZx5yiF-nPA https://youtu.be/JZx5yiF-nPA My point is that motherhood/fatherhood shouldn't be downplayed. It's the real end game of life, and is what this book is speaking about - even after you die, your child(ren) will possibly reproduce as well, leaving you with dozens, hundreds of eventual offspring. By allowing any women to enter the workforce, all wages got pushed down, so now instead of a married couple being able to have the mother permanently at home, rearing up their child in the way they see fit and forming a human connection for them, both parents are forced to work to make ends meet. By capitalism forcing/allowing women to work, they removed the option for a parent be a full-time caregiver for their child. Everyone must work now - if you don't, and the single earner isn't making bank, be prepared to eat off food stamps and sacrifice your convenience, health, and safety.
        Veraticus 3y ago
        > You can increase Google's stock price by $x by serving better ads or implementing the next killer YouTube feature, but those things will eventually cease to exist, and your name will most likely not be tied to that any longer than you're alive. Humans overall will eventually cease to exist. All of us will be forgotten within a few generations, even if we have children. Motherhood/fatherhood is not the "real end game of life." You might believe so, but many others do not. Why are their points of view less valid than your own? You continue to push the framing of this being bad for married couples. But again, it's simply better for unmarried women. Why should they be forced to suffer because we want artificially higher wages or because you have this idea that we need more babies?
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Nothing weird about it. Women are 51% of the population. Doubling the number of job applicants didn't do anybody any favors during salary negotiation.
    - Veraticus 3y ago
      Framing women's ability to work as being bad for men is indeed a pretty weird framing in my opinion. > Doubling the number of job applicants didn't do anybody any favors during salary negotiation. It seems like it might have done a few favors to the women who could even enter into those negotiations, whereas before those doors were entirely closed to them.
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        > Framing women's ability to work as being bad for men I framed it as bad for everyone because it essentially doubled the number of workers looking for jobs. Simple economics. > It seems like it might have done a few favors to the women They're certainly a lot more independent now but my point is it did not come without cost. Nowadays both husband and wife have to work to maintain a good standard of living.
        Veraticus 3y ago
        But it's not bad for everyone, because as I just pointed out, it provided a lot of women the ability to work and achieve financial stability on their own. For unmarried women, there is no cost, only benefits.
        judge2020 3y ago
        The externality of this is that fewer women are having kids. Even if it's overall a good situation for the individuals, in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline. Economic growth is a byproduct of population growth. This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's, where the average age is elderly with fewer and fewer young adults available to participate in innovation and economic growth. I'm not saying that any of this is bad in general, just that the U.S., and probably the world in aggregate, has paved its own path to a stagnant economy and an eventual declining population. And this isn't the fault of the individuals choosing this path, just that wealthy capitalists have put their own needs over incentivizing people to keep the world populated and participate in the end game of motherhood/fatherhood.
- FredPret 3y ago
  Except, in real terms, everyone is now vastly better off than in 1946?
  - medvezhenok 3y ago
    Everyone is likely better off, but not everyone is vastly better off. Some people are likely a bit better off economically but way worse off socially (since the dating market is much more "efficient" and competitive than it was in 1946, which will be a win for some, and a major loss for others). And some people's/professions economic potential peaked in the early 1970s (truckers, for example, and some other blue collar jobs)
    - FredPret 3y ago
      Comments like these used to infuriate me. How can you look at the massive wave of prosperity that has been hitting humanity since the Industrial Revolution and complain? But now I realize that the infinite human capacity to find fault even with paradise is key to the infinite human capacity for growth and new solutions.
      - tarboreus 3y ago
        Aren't you kind of overstating this? Perhaps for countries like India, which have seen massive increases in real wages and a corresponding rise out of poverty. In the US, the generation after the Greatest Gen (targeted here) was the Boomers, who made a lot more money and had a lot more opportunities. Since then, we've seen a massive rise in inequality, a wipeout of civic life, political disenfrancisement and lack of trust, and wage stagnation. If you just look at one number going up, great. But a rising total, and a rising average, disguises a falling median. Of course people aren't happy with that.
        FredPret 3y ago
        How has there been a wipeout of civic life? Since the time of the boomers, we've seen the end of colonialism in Africa and elsewhere, the civil rights movement in the states, equality for women, gay rights, overall a massive relaxation of rigid social norms. Just because old people remember halcyon times does not mean it was actually so. We've seen massive decreases in disease and infant mortality. Poor people in third world countries live longer, are healthier, and even grow taller. Communication and IT used to be horrendous, and horrendously expensive. Now even homeless people in Africa (where I'm from) have extremely connected supercomputers in their pockets. Mean and median wealth and income has skyrocketed in real and nominal terms. There's no perspective on median income and wealth that is both bleak and based on facts. This is true for the human population and especially for the US. And don't give me "inequality has gone up". It was very high, then it dipped, now it's going back up. What difference does it make - your life is much better, no matter who you are and where you live. Who cares if the richest person has ten yachts or twenty. Pessimism is a procrastination tactic. Sources: ourworldindata.org imf.org/en/Data who.int/data data.worldbank.org tradingeconomics.com
- jjkeddo199 3y ago
  The real sexism against women is the failure to treat motherhood as less valuable/noble than a 9/5 office career. Motherhood, collectively, is the most important job in the world.
  - Veraticus 3y ago
    Isn't the real sexism against women still ... sexism? If a woman wants to be a mother or wants a successful career, that's the most valuable/noble job in the world to that woman.
    - wnolens 3y ago
      Motherhood (and fatherhood) seems way more noble to me than optimizing ad-spend or whatever the hell half of us here do (either directly or indirectly). But no one is making a modern Western woman do anything.

judge2020 3y ago

Yes, given the author says this: > A basic argument for marriage is that it offers a logical division of labor. Imagine how much more complicated and inconvenient life would be if men had to do their own cooking and sewing, and women—all women—had to compete with men for a livelihood! Of course, since '46 capitalism has demanded women enter the workforce to compete with men and drive down wages.

Veraticus 3y ago
This is a weird way to frame women working.
- judge2020 3y ago
  This is a quote from chapter one of the linked book. Not my words.
  - Veraticus 3y ago
    > Of course, since '46 capitalism has demanded women enter the workforce to compete with men and drive down wages. That is your words and is a weird way to frame women working.
    - judge2020 3y ago
      In the context of > But treats it like a game all the same, and treats women like pawns in that game. I point out that the author sees a positive of mating as how the woman is a "pawn" to do things like cook and sew for you. My words are only to show that "despite" this being an advantage in '46, women have since entered the workforce, but the point I make is how this only really happened because the forces of capitalism demanded/allowed them to, in order to drive down everyones' wages with the increased competition. This doesn't downplay the reasons women participated in the move towards both parties in a family working to make a livelihood. Just that capitalism saw an opportunity to thrive with the addition of women in the workforce; that benefit being either (A) they can increase total velocity within an organization without necessarily spending double the money by hiring 2x the amount of workers, or (B) can achieve the same output for less money. The benefits for the wealthy capitalists are compounded when you factor in how they were/are paying women less than men in general.
      - Veraticus 3y ago
        > the point I make is how this only really happened because the forces of capitalism demanded/allowed them to, in order to drive down everyones' wages with the increased competition. Right, this is the part with the weird framing. Women work in order to achieve happiness, financial independence, have fun, give their life meaning -- all the reasons men do. Framing this as "capitalism forced women to work" seems entirely to ignore that women want to work just as much (or as little) as men do and for the same reasons. Saying that the result is everyone's wages being driven down entirely ignores the fact that prior to this many women had zero ability to make any wages. So, their willing participation in the workforce is just a net benefit to them and to society as a whole.
        judge2020 3y ago
        True, but in the end it's not real, even for men. You can increase Google's stock price by $x by serving better ads or implementing the next killer YouTube feature, but those things will eventually cease to exist, and your name will most likely not be tied to that any longer than you're alive. Capitalism glamourized working for these corporations, working to achieve this level of financial independence, in order to increase their own profits. Relevant clip from 1923: https://youtu.be/JZx5yiF-nPA https://youtu.be/JZx5yiF-nPA My point is that motherhood/fatherhood shouldn't be downplayed. It's the real end game of life, and is what this book is speaking about - even after you die, your child(ren) will possibly reproduce as well, leaving you with dozens, hundreds of eventual offspring. By allowing any women to enter the workforce, all wages got pushed down, so now instead of a married couple being able to have the mother permanently at home, rearing up their child in the way they see fit and forming a human connection for them, both parents are forced to work to make ends meet. By capitalism forcing/allowing women to work, they removed the option for a parent be a full-time caregiver for their child. Everyone must work now - if you don't, and the single earner isn't making bank, be prepared to eat off food stamps and sacrifice your convenience, health, and safety.
        Veraticus 3y ago
        > You can increase Google's stock price by $x by serving better ads or implementing the next killer YouTube feature, but those things will eventually cease to exist, and your name will most likely not be tied to that any longer than you're alive. Humans overall will eventually cease to exist. All of us will be forgotten within a few generations, even if we have children. Motherhood/fatherhood is not the "real end game of life." You might believe so, but many others do not. Why are their points of view less valid than your own? You continue to push the framing of this being bad for married couples. But again, it's simply better for unmarried women. Why should they be forced to suffer because we want artificially higher wages or because you have this idea that we need more babies?
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Nothing weird about it. Women are 51% of the population. Doubling the number of job applicants didn't do anybody any favors during salary negotiation.
  - Veraticus 3y ago
    Framing women's ability to work as being bad for men is indeed a pretty weird framing in my opinion. > Doubling the number of job applicants didn't do anybody any favors during salary negotiation. It seems like it might have done a few favors to the women who could even enter into those negotiations, whereas before those doors were entirely closed to them.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      > Framing women's ability to work as being bad for men I framed it as bad for everyone because it essentially doubled the number of workers looking for jobs. Simple economics. > It seems like it might have done a few favors to the women They're certainly a lot more independent now but my point is it did not come without cost. Nowadays both husband and wife have to work to maintain a good standard of living.
      - Veraticus 3y ago
        But it's not bad for everyone, because as I just pointed out, it provided a lot of women the ability to work and achieve financial stability on their own. For unmarried women, there is no cost, only benefits.
        judge2020 3y ago
        The externality of this is that fewer women are having kids. Even if it's overall a good situation for the individuals, in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline. Economic growth is a byproduct of population growth. This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's, where the average age is elderly with fewer and fewer young adults available to participate in innovation and economic growth. I'm not saying that any of this is bad in general, just that the U.S., and probably the world in aggregate, has paved its own path to a stagnant economy and an eventual declining population. And this isn't the fault of the individuals choosing this path, just that wealthy capitalists have put their own needs over incentivizing people to keep the world populated and participate in the end game of motherhood/fatherhood.
FredPret 3y ago
Except, in real terms, everyone is now vastly better off than in 1946?
- medvezhenok 3y ago
  Everyone is likely better off, but not everyone is vastly better off. Some people are likely a bit better off economically but way worse off socially (since the dating market is much more "efficient" and competitive than it was in 1946, which will be a win for some, and a major loss for others). And some people's/professions economic potential peaked in the early 1970s (truckers, for example, and some other blue collar jobs)
  - FredPret 3y ago
    Comments like these used to infuriate me. How can you look at the massive wave of prosperity that has been hitting humanity since the Industrial Revolution and complain? But now I realize that the infinite human capacity to find fault even with paradise is key to the infinite human capacity for growth and new solutions.
    - tarboreus 3y ago
      Aren't you kind of overstating this? Perhaps for countries like India, which have seen massive increases in real wages and a corresponding rise out of poverty. In the US, the generation after the Greatest Gen (targeted here) was the Boomers, who made a lot more money and had a lot more opportunities. Since then, we've seen a massive rise in inequality, a wipeout of civic life, political disenfrancisement and lack of trust, and wage stagnation. If you just look at one number going up, great. But a rising total, and a rising average, disguises a falling median. Of course people aren't happy with that.
      - FredPret 3y ago
        How has there been a wipeout of civic life? Since the time of the boomers, we've seen the end of colonialism in Africa and elsewhere, the civil rights movement in the states, equality for women, gay rights, overall a massive relaxation of rigid social norms. Just because old people remember halcyon times does not mean it was actually so. We've seen massive decreases in disease and infant mortality. Poor people in third world countries live longer, are healthier, and even grow taller. Communication and IT used to be horrendous, and horrendously expensive. Now even homeless people in Africa (where I'm from) have extremely connected supercomputers in their pockets. Mean and median wealth and income has skyrocketed in real and nominal terms. There's no perspective on median income and wealth that is both bleak and based on facts. This is true for the human population and especially for the US. And don't give me "inequality has gone up". It was very high, then it dipped, now it's going back up. What difference does it make - your life is much better, no matter who you are and where you live. Who cares if the richest person has ten yachts or twenty. Pessimism is a procrastination tactic. Sources: ourworldindata.org imf.org/en/Data who.int/data data.worldbank.org tradingeconomics.com
jjkeddo199 3y ago
The real sexism against women is the failure to treat motherhood as less valuable/noble than a 9/5 office career. Motherhood, collectively, is the most important job in the world.
- Veraticus 3y ago
  Isn't the real sexism against women still ... sexism? If a woman wants to be a mother or wants a successful career, that's the most valuable/noble job in the world to that woman.
  - wnolens 3y ago
    Motherhood (and fatherhood) seems way more noble to me than optimizing ad-spend or whatever the hell half of us here do (either directly or indirectly). But no one is making a modern Western woman do anything.