2 ms·

> I’m not trying to be hostile to OP. You called the OP sexist, or at least the OP's so-called "throat clearing". An accusation of sexism is hostile, regardles

• rayiner 2y ago
  Please note the context. OP stated that the discussion is difficult because “it can be seen as sexist.” In other words, he feels the need to engage in throat clearing because others will perceive his point as sexist. My response is that it’s those other people—the ones creating the circumstances which make OP feel the need to engage in all the preliminaries—are being sexist. Being a mother is very important to most women. Most women will have kids, most women who do consider it important work, and a majority of women would prefer not to work while their kids are under 18. We can just go ahead and say that it’s bad to devalue their work in home making without dancing around the point.
  • lapcat 2y ago
    > he feels the need I wouldn't presume to psychoanalyze people I don't know. Perhaps you're right, or perhaps you're wrong, but in any case you wouldn't know unless you asked why and the OP answered. > those other people—the ones creating the circumstances which make OP feel the need to engage in all the preliminaries—are being sexist. Imaginary people, at this point. > a majority of women would prefer not to work while their kids are under 18 It's 50% to 45%, presumably with 5% undecided, so I think you're overstating the situation a bit. You also appear to be ignoring or erasing men. > We can just go ahead and say that it’s bad to devalue their work in home making without dancing around the point. It depends on what you mean by value. The article argues in favor of paying stay-at-home parents, which means economic value. Speaking for myself, I value freedom of choice, in the moral sense of value, but I don't think there's much if any relation between moral value and economic value. Our economy values many things that I find morally abhorrent and devalues many things that I find morally commendable. Capitalism is simply economic supply and demand. I support the personal choice to have children, in the same way that I support the personal choice to play video games, but I don't think the government should finance the playing of video games, even if the majority of women, or the majority of men for that matter, considered it very important. In other words, the personal preferences of women are not specifically relevant with regard to what the government ought to finance. On the other hand, you could argue plausibly that the raising and education of children is crucial for a healthy and functioning society and thus ought to be financed by the government, regardless of how individual women or men feel about staying at home vs. working outside the home. It's an open question, though, whether such an argument would entail direct government payments to stay-at-home parents.
  • K0balt 2y ago
    I agree with you here, but I’ve been shouted down before for saying that homemaking is valuable work. Perhaps I should not have couched my comment, but the reflex to do so didn’t appear in a vacuum.
    • rayiner 2y ago
      No, I would do the same thing in your situation. I apologize if it came across as critical to you. I was trying to criticize the situation. My wife’s a lawyer, and she did a trial nine months pregnant with our second. When we had our third, something clicked and she wanted nothing more than to stay home with him. My mom has a master’s degree in chemistry back in old country, then stayed home to raise us when we were young, then after we were teenagers was very successful selling furniture. Many women in my wife’s extended family, where most folks aren’t college graduates and don’t have exciting career options, would love to be able to quit their jobs. If you’re trying to do everything you can’t do anything. It shouldn’t be taboo to recognize that raising children is a socially valuable function. Nor should it be taboo to recognize that society’s devaluation of that social rule particularly hurts women.