Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Wikileaks founder rape charge? (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Wikileaks founder rape charge?
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
It was actively promoted, so much so that owning one's own house is often equated with the "American dream". This is a completely modern phenomenon.

Adam

Sure, in much the same way women voting is a modern phenomenon.

quote:
The promotion of the nuclear family to the norm has certainly increased and entrenched patriarchy in our society
No, if anything the opposite is true. How is a household of 1 female and 1 male adult patriarchal and a household of many adult males and females not?
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They took it with them. This change was prompted by a shift in the economic dynamic in western society. The reduced size of the household, combined with the relative prosperity of the middle class, meant that one man's labor could support a nuclear family-sized household. In other words, his job as a wealth generator was the same, since there were the same number of dependents relative to out-of-home workers. The loss due to less sharing of resources was offset by the increased prosperity of the social class in general (which was in fact a major cause of the move to nuclear family homes.)

The difficulty relative to child-rearing isn't so much inherent to the task, as it is relative to how the work can be divided. If me and my brother are brick makers, then we each make and get paid for 20 bricks a day (each). If my brother doesn't show up for work, I still make my 20 bricks, and the situation is basically unchanged. The modern fragmentation of labor means that my brother probably makes bricks someplace other than I do, or makes something else in some other place. Even were we living together, our work would probably be independent. Therefore, *our* labor is unaffected by splintering the household.

My wife and sister in law, however, have their work pretty much doubled when the household is split. Children, for one thing, need constant supervision up to a certain age, but they don't necessarily need redundant supervision. As long as one adult is present and available, other adults can be doing other tasks. This dynamic is strikingly obvious to any parent; its why we love sleepovers. Take turns sharing the kids, and you occasionally get time to spend an hour or two with your wife.

Interesting.

Now were you going to address my point about time saving appliances, and for that matter, the advent of full-day schooling? (in effect, government subsidized daycare)

Let me put this another way Adam. I seriously doubt that the typical modern full-time housewife in nuclear family, works harder than the typical wife in the extended family. Not in terms of hours or in terms of intensity.

What's your take on this?

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam...your point of view is sheer delusion.

The "nuclear family" is basically the structure of society because it is founded on Patriarchal descent.

The system of Patriarchy has been wrongly charged with the crime of being a systemic oppressor of the female gender.

But what it REALLY is, is a system of investing men into society, by giving men the meaningful role of "Father."

Take away that role (it's rights AND responsibilities), and you have the devolution of what was once a clearly ordered society.

By the way, my argument has NEVER been "the nuclear family" is the way it's "always been."

No, you've got it quite backwards.

Patriarchy - the guarantee to men that they can have a family with children genetically descended from him, so long as he provides for his wife and children - gave men the motivation and impetus to build civilization.

It's the primary driver for men to achieve.

This has been altered by feminist laws, family courts and divorce rulings that have inserted the State in between men and their families.

So now we have a whole mass of "families" that consist of women, her children, and either the support of the welfare state...or court mandated child support and alimony from divorced men.

It is most certainly a deliberate deconstruction of the nuclear family unit, by taking away the role of the "FATHER" and making it superfluous.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
you have the devolution of what was once a clearly ordered society.- Daruma28
quote:
We can end this destructive conflict, and bring order to the galaxy.-Darth Vader
Not all social orders are desirable, my friend. [Razz]

quote:
Patriarchy - the guarantee to men that they can have a family with children genetically descended from him, so long as he provides for his wife and children - gave men the motivation and impetus to build civilization.
That may be a true consequence of Patriarchy, but its a poor definition. Lets try the dictionary:
quote:
pa·tri·arch·y   
[pey-tree-ahr-kee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ies.
1.
a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.
2.
a society, community, or country based on this social organization.

Male rule, to put it briefly. To argue that its a good thing because it has good outcomes for men is kind of beside the point, isn't it? I'd also take issue with the idea that civilization is the product and property of men, but thats likely not a view you can talk one out of. Instead, I'll offer up an example (one I've always found tremendously moving) of an outspoken woman disrupting a well-ordered patriarchal society.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Let me put this another way Adam. I seriously doubt that the typical modern full-time housewife in nuclear family, works harder than the typical wife in the extended family. Not in terms of hours or in terms of intensity.

What's your take on this?

I lived (briefly) in India, and my impression in general was that day to day life there was significantly less stressful and more satisfying, and this with a level of material wealth that is well below our poverty line.

Look at it this way: Grandma, her two daughters, their seven children. Living together, child supervision (a 24 hour task) can be at least divided in half (time-wise) with little increase in intensity. Likewise with meal prep and domestic chores. Cooking a large meal is harder than a small one, but not a lot, and its much less work than cooking two separate meals (the amount of labor required by separate households.) In nearly every sphere, work time and intensity is reduced by communal living.

Now, modern appliances and such may ameliorate the increased workload, but how much is an open question. Much of the technological detritus of modern life comes with its own burden. My great-grandfather didn't have to take his horse to a mechanic every six months, and my car isn't likely to give birth to a couple of new cars anytime soon. [Smile]

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I lived (briefly) in India, and my impression in general was that day to day life there was significantly less stressful and more satisfying, and this with a level of material wealth that is well below our poverty line.

Look at it this way: Grandma, her two daughters, their seven children. Living together, child supervision (a 24 hour task) can be at least divided in half (time-wise) with little increase in intensity. Likewise with meal prep and domestic chores. Cooking a large meal is harder than a small one, but not a lot, and its much less work than cooking two separate meals (the amount of labor required by separate households.) In nearly every sphere, work time and intensity is reduced by communal living.

Now, modern appliances and such may ameliorate the increased workload, but how much is an open question. Much of the technological detritus of modern life comes with its own burden. My great-grandfather didn't have to take his horse to a mechanic every six months, and my car isn't likely to give birth to a couple of new cars anytime soon. [Smile]

Errr, it seems like you're shifting the goal-posts now. It's not about workload now but "stress" and "satisfaction", which are very difficult concepts to measure. Arguably the entire modern world is more stressful in some respects, but that hardly translates into a greater workload for an average housewife circa 1950-2010.

The original point you made was that the transfer from the extended family to the pure nuclear family increased the burden on the wife while having no impact on the husband. I kind of think the impact was more or less neutral, to be honest. But even if you're right and workload increased, I'm not sure what the point of this is. Are you saying that the housewives of the 1900's had it easy compared to the housewives of the 1950's?

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Trying to define Patriarchy as "MALE RULE" is a simplistic caricature designed to castigate the entire system of Patrilineal descent by associating it with authoritarian tyranny.

Your example is indeed of a noteworthy woman...who resisted the Nazi's, not Patriarchy!

Are you trying to say the system of Patriarchy is equivalent to the Nazi's?!?!?

Look, the term really means: when a man and woman marry, the woman takes his last name.

When they have children, the children take HIS last name.

In this way, men were guaranteed heirs to his estate.

The original Patriarchal construct was basically a marriage contract. In exchange for a lifetime of provider-support, a woman vowed sexual celibacy - to guarantee her husband all offspring are his.

That is Patriarchy.

This "oppression" feminists are talking about is essentially the oppression of enforced cultural and legal monogamy...this is why feminism supports female promiscuity as "empowerment."

Which why I correctly state we no longer live in a Patriarchy.

Men are not guaranteed the offspring are his, culturally or legally. A woman can cheat on her husband, divorce him, get half the marital assets, be awarded alimony and child support, and not allow her ex-husband to see his children.

In essence, the feminist movement has created a system for which women do not have to live up to their marital vows, and will in fact even be compensated for breaking them...

...while men are still held to their end of the agreement.

This is why marriage rates are declining. Men who grow up seeing the personal tragedies of divorce on themselves or their friends and family members are learning just how rigged the institution of marriage has become, and are now avoiding it. Consequently, society's demographic replacement levels are falling below replacement level.

Feminism and Socialism are like a two-pronged society trap. The more both are implemented, the more likely a societal collapse will occur.

As more and more people become dependent on the Government to redistribute the wealth, the more people will rely on the upcoming generation of workers to supply the taxation to pay for their redistribution entitlement programs.

Yet...the more feminism ascends as the cultural paradigm, the less children are actually born. Eventually, you reach a point for which there is a large, older generation of dependents...

....and a smaller working generation who will no longer be enough workers to pay the necessary tax load to support the much larger older generation. This is precisely why Socialist Security and Medicare/Medicaid are slated to implode within the next decade. Too many dependents, not enough workers.

Feminism combined with socialism is slow-motion, societal suicide.

Women don't have to be monogamous...but men are still forced to be providers.

So, Adam, let's take your simplistic definition of MALE RULE and apply it to our modern day reality...what do we really have?

FEMALE RULE.

Are we really better off for it?

I don't think so.

Under "MALE RULE" men were vested with familial authority. Their wives were vested in their husbands and their children.

Under our current "FEMALE RULE," Women have all the familial authority. Men are only allowed as much as she'll allow him. The moment she tires of his presence, she can call the police and have him taken out of the home and she can seize a majority of the assets and force him to support her and their children through the force of law.

Is this not "oppressive?"

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it were remotely true, it might be.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you saying that the housewives of the 1900's had it easy compared to the housewives of the 1950's?
That question presupposes that "housewife" was a directly comparable role between those times, rather than one that was mostly defined in the context of fragmentation and industrialization.

When you have a household with an extended family, even if there is a general convention that favors on sex generating income and another maintaining the home, you'll get far more role crossover than you do if you only have two adults in the household, since it's not as easy to split people among the roles at that point.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, Pyr, with regard to what is rape and what isn't, I think you're both as useless as the Obama admin is with regard to what is terrorism. You play politics and care little for the truth. If any victim anywhere gets any bit of respite or recovery, he or she does so in spite of you, not remotely thanks to you. With that said, have a nice life.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm confused. I looked through this thread again, and I honestly can't find the posts you're referring to, Pete. I thought Tom had posted more... are the posts gone or something?

Eh, never mind.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To my knowledge, I haven't posted once about rape on this site, ever, except in this thread (and only then to note that I have observed an anecdotal difference between separate categories of victim). Pete has absolutely no idea what my opinion on "rape" is in general, be it same-sex pedophilic rape or rape of adult women. But that's okay.

[ November 30, 2010, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good points on the division of labor in a nuclear family v.s. an extended family (or even an extended household). Through the years of me being a stay at home mom, I've traded babysitting, housecleaning, and cooking with my friends. It is MUCH easier to have two adults in the home with any number of children than just one with half the amount of children, just like it's much easier to cook one dinner for 10 people than 2 dinners for 5 people.

This fragmentation and isolation of stay at home moms in their work (as opposed to playdates and such, which most women have access to, with a car) is something I miss about the extended family model. My family even lives in town, but they're all at least a 20 minute drive from me and most work outside the home.

OTOH, one of the things I love about the nuclear family model is the privacy and autonomy of our family. My parents and siblings have no say about what time we put the kids to bed or what we do after they're in bed. When we shared a house with another family for a year, some of the workload was easier but the lack of privacy was hard to deal with.

[ November 30, 2010, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Carlotta ]

Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carlotta:
Good points on the division of labor in a nuclear family v.s. an extended family (or even an extended household). Through the years of me being a stay at home mom, I've traded babysitting, housecleaning, and cooking with my friends. It is MUCH easier to have two adults in the home with any number of children than just one with half the amount of children, just like it's much easier to cook one dinner for 10 people than 2 dinners for 5 people.

This fragmentation and isolation of stay at home moms in their work (as opposed to playdates and such, which most women have access to, with a car) is something I miss about the extended family model. My family even lives in town, but they're all at least a 20 minute drive from me and most work outside the home.

OTOH, one of the things I love about the nuclear family model is the privacy and autonomy of our family. My parents and siblings have no say about what time we put the kids to bed or what we do after they're in bed. When we shared a house with another family for a year, some of the workload was easier but the lack of privacy was hard to deal with.

I can see this being difficult to adjust to. My dad grew up in an extended family household, and my impression is that the space was segregated to a certain degree to provide some privacy. But it would be a factor even then.

I would direct Jason to your post, since its first hand experience of the dynamic I've been describing. I agree with Pyr that there are too many other factors to make a straight comparison between housewives of a different era; instead, I'll restate my original point: moving to a nuclear household while retaining traditional gendering of labor increases the burden on women, more-so than any increase in the burden on men. This is an all-else-being-equal dynamic; technology that reduces domestic burden may compensate for the increase, but it would have the same effect in an extended household, so the relative difference remains.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Tom, are you going to take the advice of your self-appointed counsel, Donald, as to what you "clearly" meant? [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam, has are you sharing your login with someone else? One momenent you say that you don't make moral judgments about cultural evolution and the next moment you're equating patriarchy to Naziism.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no clue what you're referring to, Pete. Do I need to read back through the posts in this thread to figure out what Donald said to get your panties all bunched up?

[ November 30, 2010, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Adam, has are you sharing your login with someone else? One momenent you say that you don't make moral judgments about cultural evolution and the next moment you're equating patriarchy to Naziism.

Um... no I didn't?

Y'know, I almost never speak in absolutes, because I don't really *think* in those terms. So I was not surprised to look back at where I "said" that I "don't make moral judgements" and found a much more qualified statement:

quote:
In general, I try to be very cautious in value-judging cultural evolutions
I also didn't equate Patriarchy with Naziism. You often use that word (equate) when the appropriate word is "compare". Comparisons are valid, even with subjects that are very different. Equating those same subjects is usually absurd. By calling every comparison "equating", you are just creating taboo subjects for discussion. I think a more careful word use would be helpful.

Specifically, I was pointing out that Naziism was both patriarchal and orderly. It is *also* horrific and evil (obviously so), which demonstrates that having a society that is patriarchal and orderly isn't *necessarily* desirable. Its irony; like my more humorous Darth Vader comparison (which, incidentally, doesn't equate Daruma with Darth Vader; which is proper, since Daruma hasn't ever strangled anyone to death with black magic).(that I know of).

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I'll restate my original point: moving to a nuclear household while retaining traditional gendering of labor increases the burden on women, more-so than any increase in the burden on men.

This point doesn't seem logical at all. If in an extended house hold men collectively don't do any "traditional labor" (for the sake of the argument) and the women collectively split the labor up y1+y2+... then breaking the extended house hold up into nuclear components doesn't change the amount of labor women do.

The overall split may change. Grandma might have more time off, while mom picks up the slack. But your overall thesis that somehow splitting extended households into nuclear households increases the loading on women in general is logically flawed.

quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
Specifically, I was pointing out that Naziism was both patriarchal and orderly. It is *also* horrific and evil (obviously so), which demonstrates that having a society that is patriarchal and orderly isn't *necessarily* desirable.

And you Godwin'ed the thread. You used a typical liberal attack of comparing things you don't agree with to an unrelated horrible example.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[ November 30, 2010, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This point doesn't seem logical at all. If in an extended house hold men collectively don't do any "traditional labor" (for the sake of the argument) and the women collectively split the labor up y1+y2+... then breaking the extended house hold up into nuclear components doesn't change the amount of labor women do.

The overall split may change. Grandma might have more time off, while mom picks up the slack. But your overall thesis that somehow splitting extended households into nuclear households increases the loading on women in general is logically flawed.

LOL.

Have you done housework?
I'll just tell you - the amount of work required to keep one household with eight people running is significantly less than the amount of work required to keep four households with two people running, or even two households of four people.

This is especially true for tasks like cooking, shopping, and childcare. I can easily cook a meal for eight or ten with exactly the same amount of effort I put into cooking for two. And four or six children are as easy to watch as two; easier, in some ways (depending on age).

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I'll restate my original point: moving to a nuclear household while retaining traditional gendering of labor increases the burden on women, more-so than any increase in the burden on men.

This point doesn't seem logical at all. If in an extended house hold men collectively don't do any "traditional labor" (for the sake of the argument) and the women collectively split the labor up y1+y2+... then breaking the extended house hold up into nuclear components doesn't change the amount of labor women do.

Read Carlotta's post, or one of my several. The logic isn't working for you because you are using a false premise, namely that domestic labor is evenly divisible. The fact is that supervising 6 children is much less labor that supervising 3 plus supervising 3.
quote:

The overall split may change. Grandma might have more time off, while mom picks up the slack. But your overall thesis that somehow splitting extended households into nuclear households increases the loading on women in general is logically flawed.


quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
Specifically, I was pointing out that Naziism was both patriarchal and orderly. It is *also* horrific and evil (obviously so), which demonstrates that having a society that is patriarchal and orderly isn't *necessarily* desirable.

And you Godwin'ed the thread. You used a typical liberal attack of comparing things you don't agree with to an unrelated horrible example.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Well, I guess I can live with the guilt of derailing this discussion about... what is the thread topic again? [Razz]

The reason I linked to Sophie Scholl was my reaction to the idea that civilization was made by men and is the accomplishment of the male gender. I immediately thought of all the women in history who give lie to that absurd prejudice, and picked out a personal favorite. Its fitting, because the patriarchal system would have had her keeping her mouth shut and letting the men make the decisions. Wouldn't that have been tragic, had she done that? (not that her story isn't horribly tragic as it is). So no, its not unrelated at all.

Maybe I should have used Shirin Ebadi. Except then, I would be comparing patriarchy to the vile, oppressive Iranians. Or maybe Hou Wenzhuo, except that would compare patriarchy to those dirty commies in China. Am I even allowed to observe that those are two deeply patriarchal societies? Maybe the comparison isn't so much inflammatory as uncomfortably apt.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
LOL.

Have you done housework?
I'll just tell you - the amount of work required to keep one household with eight people running is significantly less than the amount of work required to keep four households with two people running, or even two households of four people.

Yes, quite a bit. And I would agree that there is efficiency in scale. But then the whole argument comes down to smaller family size is less efficient than large family size and the whole patriarchal comment is spurious.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This point doesn't seem logical at all. If in an extended house hold men collectively don't do any "traditional labor" (for the sake of the argument) and the women collectively split the labor up y1+y2+... then breaking the extended house hold up into nuclear components doesn't change the amount of labor women do.
As has been pointed out, you're trying to imagine direct scaling on both sides that simply doesn't apply.

Imagine four couples, three of which have two kids each (Grandma and grandpa, their 3 kids and spouses)

Living separately, one of each couple needs to generate enough income to pay the bills and feed them, while the other supports the home. Since about 80% of their income goes to bills and basic needs, the income generating parent doesn't have much of a choice but to work and the other parent thus doesn't have the flexibility to choose to work, short of earning enough to afford day care. Grandma and grandpa have it a little better, because they only have to support two now, and not four, assuming no retirement yet (especially since we're comparing this to a structure used in an era before retirement was a generally a consideration in the first place.) When you populate sexes into the required roles using assumed gender roles, there's not flexibility for crossover.

Now, all living in one household, the actual support costs would only about double. Even forcing the required spots to be populated based on gender roles, that means two men generating income, two women in charge of childcare and household duties, and two of each free to contribute in which ever way they see fit. Maybe they help spread out the household duties, maybe they generate income, maybe they even take advantage of the margin to support art, invention, business endeavors or the like which don't generate immediate invention.

In any case, because the costs and support needs don't scale linearly, extended family arrangements allow for a lot more flexibility because they have wider margins to tolerate people taking on the roles that best fir them rather than having them dictated by external expectation.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
LOL.

Have you done housework?
I'll just tell you - the amount of work required to keep one household with eight people running is significantly less than the amount of work required to keep four households with two people running, or even two households of four people.

Yes, quite a bit. And I would agree that there is efficiency in scale. But then the whole argument comes down to smaller family size is less efficient than large family size and the whole patriarchal comment is spurious.
Except that the point was about retaining traditional gendered labor divisions while moving to a nuclear family household. So the man's labor, done outside of the home, is unchanged, while the woman's in increased. This is why its relevant to the issue of patriarchy.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
LOL.

Have you done housework?
I'll just tell you - the amount of work required to keep one household with eight people running is significantly less than the amount of work required to keep four households with two people running, or even two households of four people.

Yes, quite a bit. And I would agree that there is efficiency in scale. But then the whole argument comes down to smaller family size is less efficient than large family size and the whole patriarchal comment is spurious.
Only if you assume that the families are living in a cultural vacuum and not in a society that presses for conformity to certain gender norms (and punishes deviations from it).
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
Except that the point was about retaining traditional gendered labor divisions while moving to a nuclear family household. So the man's labor, done outside of the home, is unchanged, while the woman's in increased. This is why its relevant to the issue of patriarchy.

What point was that? I haven't seen anyone arguing that men shouldn't perform housework. I haven't seen anyone arguing that women shouldn't perform yard work. I haven't seen a person seriously arguing that in my life time. (Well technically my grandfather made comments to that effect, but he was born in the 1930's).

If you are arguing that the classic gender division of labor from the 1950's is out of date, I agree. It was out of date when my parents were born and they didn't follow it raising me and my sister.

My dad worked late, my mom cooked, we all cleared the table, I washed dishes, my sister dried them. Except on the weekends when we all did housework. That was 30 years ago. How many men in modern America refuse to do any housework? I'd bet it's a smaller percentage than the amount of women who refuse to do yard work. But in either case it's not the norm.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not even about gender roles, though. Or not necessarily. My husband does a lot of the traditionally female roles - he is totally in charge of the kids' baths and bedtime routines, and is the parent-in-charge pretty much all day Saturdays while I run our business.

And it's not about larger families being more efficient than smaller families, at least without the qualifier of the age and competency of the family members. Yes, a family of 8 is more efficient than a family of 4, but if we're talking 6 kids under 10 or 2 kids under 10, the smaller family will be less work for the adult at home. It's less work for me to cook one dinner for 8 than two dinners for 4, but cooking one dinner for 8 is still more work than cooking 1 dinner for 4. The lessening of labor only factors in more than 2 of those family members in a large family are either adults or old enough to pretty much take care of themselves and then some.

One more thing I want to bring up is that there is a big difference between housework and childcare. Housework can be somewhat quantified by the amount of labor, caring for children cannot. If I'm home with my kids by myself, I have to spend at least a portion of my attention supervising them the entire time. I can't get anything done which requires my full attention or requires that I not be interrupted, and this is the same regardless of whether I'm watching only my own children or mine plus a friend's. I may have a little less marginal time to get things done WHILE watching the children the more I have, but there are some jobs that can't be done while in charge of children no matter how few.

My ideal living arrangement would not be a totally shared household, but would be something like apartments built around a central common area for recreation, cooking, eating, and chores like folding laundry that aren't location specific. Almost like several mother-in-law suites built around a larger house. I can see how this type of arrangement wouldn't be stable enough to justify the expense though unless it was based off something like an extended family.

Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And yet, the biggest problem I have for Adam's statements here is not really the Nazi comparison...(lol - Ok Adam, I get your point, the Nazi's were a Patriarchal society...but than so was every first world industrialized nation in that era. Equating patriarchy with Nazi'ism is like equating highways to Nazi'ism, since the Nazi's built the autobahn.)...

...but his focus on the "unfairness" of increased household labor for women when it is divided by gender role.

I guess we forget that the majority of men up until the 80's were blue collar, manual labor workers.

For most of the entire history of Western Patriarchy, Father was busting his ass in adverse conditions to provide the money to pay for the household that his wife was in charge of up keeping.

And even in this day and age, when women supposedly have equal access to the labor market, men still make up 95% of the workforce fatalities.

i.e. - it's not women who get trapped in the coal mines, swept overboard the fishing boat into arctic waters, run over by heavy equipment, blown up on gulf of Mexico oil platforms or caught in industrial machinery...

...which is to say, your focus on the unfairness of gendered division of labor under Patriarchy is rather gyno-centric.

Why yes, the poor dears were so oppressed that they had to cook and clean the household while the unfair and oppressive Father was out "finding fulfillment in a career!"

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...but his focus on the "unfairness" of increased household labor for women when it is divided by gender role.

I guess we forget that the majority of men up until the 80's were blue collar, manual labor workers.

No one is forgetting it- issues like those are part and parcel of the overall problem. All people are hurt by enforcing conformity to a sex based social structure, even the one that's dominant.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam, I'm not sure I agree with you that income does not see benefits to shared resources while housework does. In fact, thinking about it, it's absurd. A four bedroom house does not cost as much as two 2-bedroom houses. Utility bills will decrease. You can probably get by with fewer cars. Food purchased in bulk is cheaper. Appliances, furniture, entertainment, etc. could all be shared. In short, the amount of income the men need to generate to support their families will be less. This could mean they work fewer hours, choose less stressful jobs, or retire earlier.

It seems obvious to me that extended families will have benefits on both sides of the aisle with the primary disadvantage, as Carlotta stated, being lower freedom and privacy. Trying to determine which side benefits more is probably nitpicking, relies too much on your own personal assumptions, and is irrelevant in any case given the destruction of traditional gender roles in a family anyway.

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
...but his focus on the "unfairness" of increased household labor for women when it is divided by gender role.

I guess we forget that the majority of men up until the 80's were blue collar, manual labor workers.

No one is forgetting it- issues like those are part and parcel of the overall problem. All people are hurt by enforcing conformity to a sex based social structure, even the one that's dominant.
Well said.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mariner:
Adam, I'm not sure I agree with you that income does not see benefits to shared resources while housework does. In fact, thinking about it, it's absurd. A four bedroom house does not cost as much as two 2-bedroom houses. Utility bills will decrease. You can probably get by with fewer cars. Food purchased in bulk is cheaper. Appliances, furniture, entertainment, etc. could all be shared. In short, the amount of income the men need to generate to support their families will be less. This could mean they work fewer hours, choose less stressful jobs, or retire earlier.


This is why I said that the nuclear family phenomenon is primarily an economic one. It was the prosperity of the postwar period that enabled the shift. So while men *could* have chosen to remain in extended family households and take advantage of that prosperity in the ways you suggest, what did happen (by and large) is that they became heads of their own households, which shifted a lot of labor burden to their wives.

quote:
It seems obvious to me that extended families will have benefits on both sides of the aisle with the primary disadvantage, as Carlotta stated, being lower freedom and privacy. Trying to determine which side benefits more is probably nitpicking, relies too much on your own personal assumptions, and is irrelevant in any case given the destruction of traditional gender roles in a family anyway.
While I wouldn't say destroyed, the gendering of tasks has certainly been reduced by practical necessity. Which is all well and good, barring absurd calls to return to patriarchal values and the obsessive gendering of every facet of life. I live in a nuclear household; I certainly don't think its inherently oppressive to my wife (she might disagree). But I imagine that me voicing a few words about what was "women's work", and you folks would not hear from me again for quite some time. [Big Grin]
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
...but his focus on the "unfairness" of increased household labor for women when it is divided by gender role.

I guess we forget that the majority of men up until the 80's were blue collar, manual labor workers.

No one is forgetting it- issues like those are part and parcel of the overall problem. All people are hurt by enforcing conformity to a sex based social structure, even the one that's dominant.
Well said.
Well said?

[FootInMouth]

Gender roles developed from some very practical reasons.

Men and women are different, physically and mentally.

Women who bear children are vulnerable and not physically capable of hard manual labor in the last few months of pregnancy and the first half-year to year of an infants life to care for it.

So man went out and did the hard work to provide, while the woman stayed home to tend the house.

That's not some rigidly enforced, oppressive system based on one gender taking advantage of another...

...that's common freakin' sense division of labor based on who is best suited to do what is required!

[DOH]

As I said...the feminists crow triumphantly that they've gained new grounds in entering the workforce, but the numbers regarding hazardous labor with very real risks of injury and death the job are still done 95% by men.

The women who wanted workplace equality...only wanted it only in certain job categories. Safe, non-manual ones.

But never mind that...it's unfair to expect women to do housework no matter what the husband does at his job! [Exploding]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interpol issues wanted notice for Julian Assange

quote:
Assange's details were also added to Interpol's worldwide wanted list. Dated 30 November, the entry reads: "sex crimes" and says the warrant has been issued by the international public prosecution office in Gothenburg, Sweden.
Link
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, what exactly do you want?

What do you want women to do? What do you want men to do? If I were to follow your belief, what should I say to my female friends in college?

You keep railing, but I'm wondering what the point is.

[ November 30, 2010, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: 0Megabyte ]

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What do I want?

I want an end to the mindless repeating of feminist memes and shibboleths as if they were factual premises that everyone accepts as reality!

Things like Adam's statement regarding traditional gender roles unfairly burdened women with the majority share of the housework. This is myopic and a and caricature of Patriarchy.

Than we Pyrtolin saying crap like this:

"All people are hurt by enforcing conformity to a sex based social structure, even the one that's dominant."

Right.

So why have we not seen the wymminz charging into the hazardous manual labor professions...

...yet they still complain about the mythical "glass ceiling" and "wage gap."

I'm "railing" because I'm sick of lies being parroted and repeated as if they were factual.

I'm sick of living in a world that claims is an oppressive Patriarchay, but if you look at the reality of it, is actually biased and oppressive to men - but the women are still regarded as the official victims.

I'm sick of people acting as if feminism was a perfectly reasonable and rational response to the unfairness of "MALE OPPRESSION." That's why I've saved and pasted a whole host of feminist leader's quotations to show that their agenda was in fact the deliberate destruction of the nuclear family.

Look at TomD's denial of the realities of the divorce court system. He tritely dismisses what is actually quite common in this country today as something not even "remotely true."

He's just being obtuse, ignorant and blind as a ****ing bat. I bet there is not a person who reads this forum that doesn't know of some family torn apart by the divorce courts in which the wife took the husband to the cleaners. That **** happens ALL THE TIME...

..yet people like Adam and Tom still discuss things as if Patriarchy was so oppressive and unfair.

What can be more unfair than a loving, devoted husband with children who's wife one day decides "I don't love you anymore" or "I need to find myself" and decides to divorce him.

That's not remotely true?

Bull ****ing ****.

Women initiate divorce far more than men do, and most of these don't involve abuse or adultery on the man's part to justify her decision to wield the power of the family court system to break apart the family and force him into child support/alimony indentured servitude.

**** that ****.

I just had a long time friend hang himself last week because his wife left him and took the kids and filed a temporary restraining order claiming she was "afraid of him" when he never once physically assaulted her.

She wouldn't let him see his kids, and was fixing to divorce him and take away his house and ask for child support and alimony.

And yet people like Tom come here and blithely act like my railing against this system is some paranoid fantasy of my deluded mind.

No, I'm trying to tell some of you to WAKE THE **** UP.

The first thing Feminism did was convince people that women were an oppressed class based on the traditional gender roles of Patriarchal family.

It's a lie.

And lies piss me off.

[ November 30, 2010, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Look at TomD's denial of the realities of the divorce court system. He tritely dismisses what is actually quite common in this country today as something not even "remotely true."

He's just being obtuse, ignorant and blind as a ****ing bat. I bet there is not a person who reads this forum that doesn't know of some family torn apart by the divorce courts in which the wife took the husband to the cleaners. That **** happens ALL THE TIME...

..yet people like Adam and Tom still discuss things as if Patriarchy was so oppressive and unfair.

Let me point out that I have never said that divorce courts do not generally find in favor of the woman. If you think that's the part of your rants which I find unlikely, you may want to revisit them.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is the part I believe you were referring to...Under our current "FEMALE RULE," Women have all the familial authority. Men are only allowed as much as she'll allow him. The moment she tires of his presence, she can call the police and have him taken out of the home and she can seize a majority of the assets and force him to support her and their children through the force of law.

I've seen it happen to plenty of families.

It's much more than "remotely true."

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So why have we not seen the wymminz charging into the hazardous manual labor professions...

...yet they still complain about the mythical "glass ceiling" and "wage gap."

So once more women start working in coal mines they will be able to work their way up to high paying CEO jobs?
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The fact is governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us and not because they think we can keep secrets," Gates said Monday.

---------------------------------------------

Gotta love this. President Obama was supposed to be working toward getting more of the world to like and trust us. Oh well... so much for that idea.

I love how everything that we were told matters so much before doesn't seem to matter so much anymore.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1