3 ms·
> How do you look at this issue and see even a whiff of anything related to gender? How about the article's explanation? It requires historical context (that
by zzzeek 12y ago
> How do you look at this issue and see even a whiff of anything related to gender?
How about the article's explanation? It requires historical context (that is, can't be looked at in a vacuum).
> Walk through a museum. Look around a city. Almost all the artifacts that we value as a society were made by or at the order of men. But behind every one is an invisible infrastructure of labor—primarily caregiving, in its various aspects—that is mostly performed by women.
yes? or no?
- hueving 12y ago>yes? or no? No. Until I see some proof that these men were incompetent/useless until they had a caregiver, I think this is complete bogus to justify a role that wasn't really needed. If full-time caregiving was required, you would not encounter single people that could function in society and you would never meet a child with both parents employed.
- blueMist 12y agoAgree with the single people aspect, but a child whose parents are both employed is being cared by someone else. And unless the parents are well-off, that someone else is either not paid or badly paid.