7 ms·

This is a weird way to frame women working.

by Veraticus 3y ago

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?
        judge2020 3y ago
        > 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? It's the end game of life in the sense that your goal in life is to achieve immortality. Pretty much all of our ancestors did this by mating, and within the past 500 years you're likely to be able to find the names of all who came before you on ancestry, which is effectively immortality in name. Irvin Yalom once said, "They say you die twice. Once when you stop breathing and the second, a bit later on, when somebody mentions your name for the last time" (this quote was not from Bansky). For those that don't, or didn't reproduce, immortality is so extremely hard to achieve. That's why I mention "increasing Google's stock price" - it doesn't matter, and nobody will remember your name for doing so. You'll leave a good life, but that's it. The only way to achieve immortality in this case is to leave a legacy. For example, Steve Jobs is slated to leave a legacy for as long as Apple is alive plus perhaps a thousand years or more. Of course, once humanity is wiped out, it won't matter all too much what anyone did or ever will do, save for all of the species of plants, animals, and insects we've extincted. It's no secret that money, i.e. capitalism, is one of the biggest factors why millenials and soon enough Gen Z will avoid starting a family. A lot will do it for financial independence but the amount of married couples that also forego children is likely large. For all of them, they won't leave a legacy if they don't create the next Apple. If that's not important to them, I respect that and wouldn't wish to force them into anything, but many married (or prospective) couples are having their dreams crushed by how infeasible it is becoming to financially support children without both parents working a job.
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.

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?
        judge2020 3y ago
        > 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? It's the end game of life in the sense that your goal in life is to achieve immortality. Pretty much all of our ancestors did this by mating, and within the past 500 years you're likely to be able to find the names of all who came before you on ancestry, which is effectively immortality in name. Irvin Yalom once said, "They say you die twice. Once when you stop breathing and the second, a bit later on, when somebody mentions your name for the last time" (this quote was not from Bansky). For those that don't, or didn't reproduce, immortality is so extremely hard to achieve. That's why I mention "increasing Google's stock price" - it doesn't matter, and nobody will remember your name for doing so. You'll leave a good life, but that's it. The only way to achieve immortality in this case is to leave a legacy. For example, Steve Jobs is slated to leave a legacy for as long as Apple is alive plus perhaps a thousand years or more. Of course, once humanity is wiped out, it won't matter all too much what anyone did or ever will do, save for all of the species of plants, animals, and insects we've extincted. It's no secret that money, i.e. capitalism, is one of the biggest factors why millenials and soon enough Gen Z will avoid starting a family. A lot will do it for financial independence but the amount of married couples that also forego children is likely large. For all of them, they won't leave a legacy if they don't create the next Apple. If that's not important to them, I respect that and wouldn't wish to force them into anything, but many married (or prospective) couples are having their dreams crushed by how infeasible it is becoming to financially support children without both parents working a job.

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.