|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 22 2017 11:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 11:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:
Agree with all of those things, I just don't see how it is specific to black people. It's a racially neutral effect, but the problem is that black people have a far higher incidence of single parent households, so they have a larger incidence of the attendant adverse side effects. But is that because a larger percentage of their population is in poverty that whites? Or some other cause? How does welfare or any government policy increase the number of single parent house holds?
well obviously they end up not getting abortions like sane white people because they are incentivized by the exorbitant tax breaks and food stamps
|
On August 22 2017 11:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 11:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:
Agree with all of those things, I just don't see how it is specific to black people. It's a racially neutral effect, but the problem is that black people have a far higher incidence of single parent households, so they have a larger incidence of the attendant adverse side effects. But is that because a larger percentage of their population is in poverty that whites? Or some other cause? How does welfare or any government policy increase the number of single family house holds? Poverty and economic hardship are strains on marriage. However, most black children are born out of wedlock anyway, and in ever-increasing percentages. You're talking about a population that is stuck in a vicious negative feedback loop that has not built the communal infrastructure necessary to help support its youth (particularly given the lack of involved fathers) and stop them from doing really stupid shit that dooms them to hard lives -- whether it be having kids outside of marriage, joining gangs, drug abuse, etc. Though I'm not prepared to demonize welfare and pull the plug on it, it clearly isn't the solution to what is ailing black communities.
|
On August 22 2017 11:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 11:45 Plansix wrote:On August 22 2017 11:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:
Agree with all of those things, I just don't see how it is specific to black people. It's a racially neutral effect, but the problem is that black people have a far higher incidence of single parent households, so they have a larger incidence of the attendant adverse side effects. But is that because a larger percentage of their population is in poverty that whites? Or some other cause? How does welfare or any government policy increase the number of single parent house holds? well obviously they end up not getting abortions like sane white people because they are incentivized by the exorbitant tax breaks and food stamps
So the welfare queen, but for black people? Equally mythical too?
Xdaunt: this sounds like some respectability politics, which kinda went out of style. Although I think some of that stuff is true, lack of rebuilt communities and services is straight up a state problem. Not an lack community problem. It sounds like they need welfare and investment in this communities.
|
On August 22 2017 11:24 xDaunt wrote:
You don't necessarily need two wage earners in the house, but anyone who has children will tell you that being a single parent who is responsible for earning as well as taking care of the children is a brutal gig. That type of situation is a significant drag on a child's potential for success.
Tsk Tsk Dauntless. Aren't (or at least weren't) women virtual wage earners tied to their male provider? Isn't "taking care of the children" inevitably outsourced (usually at a liability wage) in single parent households? Maybe not two wage earners, but at least one wage earner plus a slave.
We must admit that capital has been very successful in hiding our work. It has created a true masterpiece at the expense of women. By denying housework a wage and transforming it into an act of love, capital has killed many birds with one stone. First of all, it has got a hell of a lot of work almost for free, and it has made sure that women, far from struggling against it, would seek that work as the best thing in life (the magic words: “Yes, darling, you are a real woman”). At the same time, it has disciplined the male worker also, by making his woman dependent on his work and his wage, and trapped him in this discipline by giving him a servant after he himself has done so much serving at the factory or the office. In fact, our role as women is to be the unwaged but happy, and most of all loving, servants of the ‘working class’, i.e. those strata of the proletariat to which capital was forced to grant more social power. In the same way as god created Eve to give pleasure to Adam, so did capital create the housewife to service the male worker physically, emotionally and sexually – to raise his children, mend his socks, patch up his ego when it is crushed by the work and the social relations (which are relations of loneliness) that capital has reserved for him. It is precisely this peculiar combination of physical, emotional and sexual services that are involved in the role women must perform for capital that creates the specific character of that servant which is the housewife, that makes her work so burdensome and at the same time invisible.
|
Jesus, what is that from?
|
On August 22 2017 12:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 11:24 xDaunt wrote:
You don't necessarily need two wage earners in the house, but anyone who has children will tell you that being a single parent who is responsible for earning as well as taking care of the children is a brutal gig. That type of situation is a significant drag on a child's potential for success. Tsk Tsk Dauntless. Aren't (or at least weren't) women virtual wage earners tied to their male provider? Isn't "taking care of the children" inevitably outsourced (usually at a liability wage) in single parent households? Maybe not two wage earners, but at least one wage earner plus a slave. Show nested quote +We must admit that capital has been very successful in hiding our work. It has created a true masterpiece at the expense of women. By denying housework a wage and transforming it into an act of love, capital has killed many birds with one stone. First of all, it has got a hell of a lot of work almost for free, and it has made sure that women, far from struggling against it, would seek that work as the best thing in life (the magic words: “Yes, darling, you are a real woman”). At the same time, it has disciplined the male worker also, by making his woman dependent on his work and his wage, and trapped him in this discipline by giving him a servant after he himself has done so much serving at the factory or the office. In fact, our role as women is to be the unwaged but happy, and most of all loving, servants of the ‘working class’, i.e. those strata of the proletariat to which capital was forced to grant more social power. In the same way as god created Eve to give pleasure to Adam, so did capital create the housewife to service the male worker physically, emotionally and sexually – to raise his children, mend his socks, patch up his ego when it is crushed by the work and the social relations (which are relations of loneliness) that capital has reserved for him. It is precisely this peculiar combination of physical, emotional and sexual services that are involved in the role women must perform for capital that creates the specific character of that servant which is the housewife, that makes her work so burdensome and at the same time invisible.
What exactly are you arguing? I have never downplayed the value of the housewife.
|
Mostly that being a single parent is like being out of slaves on the plantation.
|
This go real weird real fast.
|
On August 22 2017 12:11 IgnE wrote:
Mostly that being a single parent is like being out of slaves on the plantation.
Yes, single parenting is definitely an issue of having inadequate labor, which was my original point. Working, feeding kids, transporting kids to/from school, and putting them to bed are hard enough. But then schools start sending kids home with homework and big projects to do. Who the fuck has time for that shit? Much less a single parent. All the school is accomplishing is further disadvantaging the disadvantaged kids.
|
On August 22 2017 12:08 Plansix wrote:
Jesus, what is that from?
Google tells me it is "Silvia Federici is an Italian-American scholar, teacher, and activist from the radical autonomist feminist Marxist tradition"
|
On August 22 2017 12:19 Ghostcom wrote:Google tells me it is "Silvia Federici is an Italian-American scholar, teacher, and activist from the radical autonomist feminist Marxist tradition"
Yeah, I read the full post. Igne left out the best part where she talks about the "fraud of love and marriage." Goddamn, Miss Federici must be a miserable bitch.
|
Yeah, that sounds like the "I call myself a feminist, but I also tell women how to live their lives." Which is the opposite of how feminism works.
|
|
|
I fail to see how her ravings are relevant though?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 22 2017 12:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 12:19 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 12:08 Plansix wrote:
Jesus, what is that from? Google tells me it is "Silvia Federici is an Italian-American scholar, teacher, and activist from the radical autonomist feminist Marxist tradition" Yeah, I read the full post. Igne left out the best part where she talks about the "fraud of love and marriage." Goddamn, Miss Federici must be a miserable bitch. On August 22 2017 12:28 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, that sounds like the "I call myself a feminist, but I also tell women how to live their lives." Which is the opposite of how feminism works. On August 22 2017 12:31 IgnE wrote:
I bet she's lovely.
Personally, I'm failing to see how taking personal shots at her is a worthwhile use of time; is it only okay because nobody in the thread agrees with her point of view?
But yes, it doesn't seem worth discussing further.
|
I took umbrage with her use of feminism and talking about the fraud of love and marriage. To be fair, I don't know if she self labeled herself as an feminist.
|
On August 22 2017 12:33 Ghostcom wrote:
I fail to see how her ravings are relevant though?
Well because the Right is correct. Single parent households are all about misaligned economic incentives. They just got the analysis wrong. Sylvia's trenchant and perceptive analysis gets it right.
|
On August 22 2017 12:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 12:33 Ghostcom wrote:
I fail to see how her ravings are relevant though? Well because the Right is correct. Single parent households are all about misaligned economic incentives. They just got the analysis wrong. Sylvia's trenchant and perceptive analysis gets it right.
So I've read Sylvia's passage a few times now, and I'm having trouble seeing exactly where the Right diverges materially from her Marxist construction of the housewife. In other words, I don't see where the Right's analysis is wrong. Care to explain?
|
Edit: one at a time, I'll wait my turn.
|
Her analysis is also unnecessarily inflammatory, which undercuts its message. The economic pressure top be in a two person house hold can result is one party being saddled with under cutting their earnings to care for the child. This seems effective at its face, but promoting this as the standard disadvantages parents who do not have partners. Sometimes parents just die, so its not about personal responsibility. The widowed parent shouldn't be rushing out there to find a partner just to make ends meet. Social safety nets and services should exist for single parents and should be as much a priority and two parents house holds.
But this purely economic standpoints is myopic. We are talking about raising an entire human being, not just a economic money sink. There are considerations beyond simple providing sufficient money for food and shelter. And that can be best accomplished with a support system, though it does not need to be two parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
