|
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 23 2017 01:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 15:08 IgnE wrote:
I need a citation for "nuclear family with wage earner" working throughout all of recorded human history.
Wait. Are you a stay-at-home dad? How does it offend you like GH is offended by racism?
I mean nowadays we have the "two wage earner family who pay servants to raise their kids" working for the top half of us that pay taxes. It's like Edwardian England. You don't need a citation for a basic premise. I can't imagine where I would begin to start citing examples of the male providing for the family while the female raiseing the children. It offends me that you would call my mom and so many other moms a slave. I enjoyed spending time with my mom when I was a child I'm sorry if you didn't. See its one thing to advocate for government subsidized day care but its another to shit on peoples families and call people slaves. A lot of people are paid servants for someone else at times its the basis of our economy. That make manditory schooling and daycare "paying servants to raise the kids". This is one of the easy reasons to point to why liberals lose all the time. You can't be happy with just advocating for subsidies for single moms and for day care. You have to go and call those single moms and stay at home moms a slave.
this isn't a reason to point to liberals losing (not even sure igne is a liberal); this is pointing at someone cray cray talking cray cray.
please don't conflate crazy talking people iwth liberals; i'm also not sure you're getting his point rgiht; but igne's odd and I'm not that sure what his point is either; so I mostly try to stay out of the crazy. Just don't put it on liberals. every side has some cray cray like that.
|
On August 23 2017 01:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 15:08 IgnE wrote:
I need a citation for "nuclear family with wage earner" working throughout all of recorded human history.
Wait. Are you a stay-at-home dad? How does it offend you like GH is offended by racism?
I mean nowadays we have the "two wage earner family who pay servants to raise their kids" working for the top half of us that pay taxes. It's like Edwardian England. You don't need a citation for a basic premise. I can't imagine where I would begin to start citing examples of the male providing for the family while the female raiseing the children. It offends me that you would call my mom and so many other moms a slave. I enjoyed spending time with my mom when I was a child I'm sorry if you didn't. See its one thing to advocate for government subsidized day care but its another to shit on peoples families and call people slaves. A lot of people are paid servants for someone else at times its the basis of our economy. That make manditory schooling and daycare "paying servants to raise the kids". This is one of the easy reasons to point to why liberals lose all the time. You can't be happy with just advocating for subsidies for single moms and for day care. You have to go and call those single moms and stay at home moms a slave.
to be fair people often loved their slaves
|
Canada11369 Posts
|
United States43219 Posts
I think Igne was doing a feminist deconstruction of how gender roles and assumptions devalue stereotypically "female" labour and deprive women of both agency and the financial reward of their labour. That we maintain that we operate a capitalist society in which the value of labour is determined by the compensation given to it on the market but then add an addendum for "except childcare, women should do that shit for free, not because childcare has no value, just because they're women or something, thanks babe". I'm sure he meant no offence to your mother.
|
IgnE was pointing out the far extreme counter point the “two income household for kids” idea. Especially since the two income house was being presented as meritorious through so sort of "objective truth"
|
Ok I can accept that Igne was just being as asshole and that I was just triggered. I thought he was arguing it as part of a greater argument.
|
The greater argument is we should start from a base line created puritanical social norms and use that to set policy assuming it is the best for everyone.
|
it IS part of a greater argument about the revolutionary potential of women in solidarity. its lysistrata for postwar capitalism.
nowadays of course, the game done changed. two wage earners paying a day care to watch the kids until they are jailed everyday in school. its a division of labor.
i brought up before Plato's solution to child rearing. daycare/primary school is kind of like a corrupted version of that isnt it.
|
Capitalism is pretty good thing for women, as we've seen in the latest google scandal. The pressure of getting women into the workforce is a better liberator, especially in practical terms, than anything we've ever had before.
|
|
|
I mean, there are tons of perfectly viable family structures other than the nuclear family, many have just been wiped out by technological progress. There's a pretty big sliding scale from "child is functionally the property and responsibility of two adults" to "babies know their parents but are raised by the entire village" to "babies basically lose contact with their parents" and adults have generally won out regardless. People still say "it takes a village to raise a child" right?
It's also hard to discuss the track record of the nuclear family because there was a pretty recent chunk of time where it collapsed completely for the poor and they had to send their own children off to work for piss-poor wages in addition to the mothers, and even before that children were trained and married off well before they are today and the mothers often had paid jobs as well.
And this is setting aside farms where basically the entire family worked all the time
|
I understand people normally throw this shit away without opening it so you need to try something (I would anyway) but No.
Just no.
|
On August 22 2017 16:48 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Just wanted to point out two things about the whole single parent thing. 1. It's not unique to black people, the same trend was seen across races since the 60's, black people started at a higher percentage, and clearly were more impacted by mass incarceration since the war on drugs. ![[image loading]](http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/12/ST_2015-12-17_parenting-17.png) 2. Black fathers are as or more involved than fathers of other races in similar conditions. ![[image loading]](https://images.dailykos.com/images/142188/story_image/black-fatherhood.png?1431025883) There's a lot more here than the shallow conservative critique typically provides. 1) Everything that graph represents has been talked about by people like Larry Elder. In fact, if anything, it points to the opposite of your inference - that solely the War on Drugs has been the precipitating event. Are you calling the LBJ Welfare system and the rise of single parent HH's (mostly, but not always, women) which are color-blind (i.e there is no skin color requirement to receive these services), is simply a coincidence and has no impact on that graph line? Why would you say this, given that economic incentives are powerful ways to shape human behavior. Ceteris parabus we can say that subsidizing single parent outcomes will contribute to more single parents. No? It's not the sole cause (the War on Drugs definitely has an effect, but please, don't tell me that of the 75% of single parent HH's their father's are incarcerated - I'd love to see the statistics on that, which would bolster your argument instead of simply a graph line with information upon which you make your own inference, but isn't necessarily of supporting evidence). I can show you the % of single parent HH's utilizing Welfare and it is MUCH higher than the rate of incarceration incidence of the father. 2) What does this have to do with anything? I am quite sure the Father is quite involved in those 25% of HH's where they're present. Does anyone dispute such a thing lol? What would you say to Larry Elder?
1) if you think it's true then maybe some maths would help. Is it profitable to have a kid as a single parent HH? Moreso than a 2 parent HH?
What about other things the government subsidizes? Does increasing the child tax credit lead to more births?
It is possible you are looking at correlation with no causation. It's also possible that you are reversing causation (e.g. a rise in need lead to subsidies, not a rise in subsidies lead to need).
|
United States43219 Posts
On August 23 2017 02:24 Gorsameth wrote:I understand people normally throw this shit away without opening it so you need to try something (I would anyway) but No. Just no.
That's some A+ bullshit.
|
Every time I they do this, I wonder if there is some really terrible marketing staff that also has dirt on half of the DNC.
|
Canada11369 Posts
How can you be so dumb? Who thought that was a good idea for fundraising?
|
United States43219 Posts
A few months ago they sent me an email telling me they really valued my input and my opinions on the direction the DNC should go in with a link to an online survey form. I gave some pretty detailed responses and reasoning regarding the issues I thought were important to me. On the last page, before you could submit, they wanted a donation. They literally filtered out the opinions of anyone who couldn't pay.
|
On August 23 2017 02:39 KwarK wrote:
A few months ago they sent me an email telling me they really valued my input and my opinions on the direction the DNC should go in with a link to an online survey form. I gave some pretty detailed responses and reasoning regarding the issues I thought were important to me. On the last page, before you could submit, they wanted a donation. They literally filtered out the opinions of anyone who couldn't pay.
In fairness to the DNC, this is everyone. I have tried to fill out a ton of trump ones and always get hit with a pay wall
|
United States43219 Posts
On August 23 2017 02:40 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 02:39 KwarK wrote:
A few months ago they sent me an email telling me they really valued my input and my opinions on the direction the DNC should go in with a link to an online survey form. I gave some pretty detailed responses and reasoning regarding the issues I thought were important to me. On the last page, before you could submit, they wanted a donation. They literally filtered out the opinions of anyone who couldn't pay. In fairness to the DNC, this is everyone. I have tried to fill out a ton of trump ones and always get hit with a pay wall
Even so, do it up front. Or make donation optional. What they did was invite me under false pretenses to put in enough effort to be slightly invested and then told me to fuck off. It was nothing but a badwill generator. I went in feeling disinterested and left pissed off.
|
That's when you realize that while money obviously is speech, speech obviously isn't money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
