Originally posted by: K.Universe.
You are probably alluding to the roles of prehistoric men and women in hunter-gatherer societies but even those theories of man-the-hunter are now being debunked. Anthropology is showing that sexual division of labor was equitable even back then, that women too participated in hunting, farming and a variety of jobs that didn't merely confine them to homes. But why bring primitive models to justify a woman's confinement to home, in 2023? Instead of focusing on what-was, shouldn't the discussion focus on what-should-be? Bread-winning and home-making (including the drudgery of household chores) should be the responsibility of both partners in a relationship, right?
No I was not alluding to the roles of prehistoric men and women at all. Gender based roles were prevalent in our societies not more than 1-2 generations ago, and they still are in a lot of places. The reason people had defined gender roles in the past was to lessen each other's burden, now if each person has to do double the work (and lets be honest women still do the majority of household work), how is that beneficial for them? And why look down women who choose to do raise their children and homemaking over bread-winning because she finds it exhausting to do both?
This statement is farcical on multiple levels (for instance, even a rudimentary search will yield findings by UN, IMF, Harvard business review and such which would show that wages for men have increased as a result of greater inclusion of women in the labor force) but since we are not here to discuss economics, suffice it to say that when more women work, economies grow. Empowering women to participate equally in the global economy adds trillions of dollars more in GDP growth. Barriers to women entering the labor force is coming at a significant economic cost for a country. These are all well documented. Irrespective of whether we are nationalists or globalists, we can't let ignorance on these issues hamper progress.
What is progress and for whom? Please define it first and be specific. Also please explain how 'economic growth' benefits the average person.
It is textbook sexism to put the onus of thinking about the sacrifices one must make to run a family, on women. If sacrifices are to be made, they should be made by both people in a relationship and not just one.
Well, duh!! But when a woman works, who typically makes more sacrifices, the man or the woman? Is the man doing more household chores or looking after kids more often or is the woman doing all of that as well as working a job? Which gender typically makes more sacrifices? And why is that? Because the man has not evolved to be the nurturing gender, that has always been the woman's role.
No need to over analyze; self sufficient has many synonyms and in the context of a person, as an adjective, it would mean being independent. Simple as that.
Independent in what way? Again, please be specific. And what's wrong with being dependent btw? Are you doing all of your plumbing, house maintenance, cooking, driving alongside having a day job yourself? If not, unfortunately, you are not independent. This is not over-analysis, this is basic reality. Women have never been and still aren't self-sufficient, because once again, they are not evolutionary evolved to do building and maintenance work. That is a man's job.
Agreed! The notion of self sufficiency is unintelligible. "Ying-yang" on the other hand...
Sure, to a personal with a certain ideological standpoint, "ying-yang" is unintelligible, but then everything outside of their ideological framework is.😛😆
comment:
p_commentcount