While I support equality between biological sexes this had some ill effects.
Giving birth is a woman job. Breastfeeding is a woman's job. Replacing breast milk with something else might be one of the causes of allergies and other ill effects (I'm guessing).
To me it looks like women want to be compensated for the unpaid work of birthing children and taking care of them during their upbringing.
No one fucking likes unpaid work. It's not right.
For me this if the current feminism and I do support it.
The fact that everything in life is compared to monetary value is the problem. There abstraction of paternalism to the state is another. For the state you are a number for your family and friends you have a name
Tbf, that's a very "modern"-ish way of viewing the idea of "committing".
And there are good reasons for that, of course, but with that thinking, you're always going to be not fully there, which might be harmful in different ways than the ways it tries to protect against.
It's a hard problem to solve, because Humans and interpersonal stuff is hard, but, ideally, one would frontload the friction, so that there is no need to keep an out on hot standby.
Sure in our modern era there are a lot more divorce and it's probably partly because people are less inclined to make efforts to stay in a relationship. But there's also statistically less abuse and domestic violence and that's partly because women by and large have a lot more options than they used to.
I don't think the trade off of having less divorce and more long lasting relationships is worth the increase of domestic violence and abuse so I do believe that people in any relationship should have an out (even if it's not in case of abuse or a breakdown of a relationship but instead for supporting oneself after the death of the only parent bring money home).
That still means that I would teach my kid that the secret behind any successful relationship is to make efforts and that one should not give up at the first problem but you never know what the future might bring and having some way out is always useful
The thing is, assuming you get married as a step toward building your own family, once you have kids, there isn't an out that doesn't involve damaging them for life. Your contingency plan is going to be bad no matter what, and not being present in their lives and putting them in daycare is making a real sacrifice to mitigate a risk that is better mitigated by being discerning in the first place.
Being able to spend all of your time with your family is the freedom to strive for, not a loss of freedom. It is the ultimate form of being your own boss; you are accountable to no one, not even customers/market forces. The loss of freedom is trading your time to accomplish someone else's goals that you're not really invested in while you pay someone for their time to watch your kids who they're not really invested in. And this trade can only really make sense after overhead if you outsource to people who make a decent amount less than you, further decreasing their likelihood to be capable or driven to do a good job.
Then I'm confused by what you're trying to say. Reread it a few times, let me try to state how I understand your argument:
- thinking about having a way out (so not being a stay at home wife for example) is a modern way of thinking about "committing".
- By thinking this way, you're not fully in the relation, so it's harmful to the relationship stability. (which I interpreted as divorce)
ok, I admit the last part, I'm not sure what you mean by front-loading the friction... I just focused on not keeping a hot standby.
Sorry for my confusion, not trying to be difficult here, I really don't get what you mean if not what I originally interpreted it as
No, I wasn't referring to divorce, because divorce is actually a pretty healthy failure mode (or can be, at least). The worse failure modes are the ones where people do not disengage for whatever reason and stay in the situation indefinitely.
What I wanted to get at is that "relationship turning sour" is (usually) nothing one has zero control over.
Because the logical chain proposed was "Things can always turn sour" -> "You always need a way out". Or at least that's how I read it.
So I've put the prerequisite into question there.
My point, in a gist, is that I think it should be possible to greatly reduce the probability of "things turning sour" by doing much much more work upfront (before committing to a situation), and through that, the need for an out could be shrunk.
Probabilities are of course probabilities, but still.
Or, even simpler, I feel like people, generally speaking, could spend more time _actually_ getting to know each other before moving forward; and it would only do them good + they would treat each other better + they'd actually see each other (more).
___
Moving fast and breaking things is everywhere, and it seems to be breaking people too.
=> So the friction of _really_ looking at who a person _actually_ is (which might be unpleasant) might be necessary.
Even though SV would love to have you believe that frictionless existence is desirable.
It is, up until it isn't. And then you're fucked.
But the solution is not to assume that everything is broken, but to build healthy stuff instead.
Oh, now I get it. Thanks. For what it's worth, I agree with you about spending time getting to know each other before moving forward. I just believe that doing that doesn't reduce the necessity of not putting oneself in a situation with no alternatives or way out.
People absolutely do like unpaid work, so much so that the phrase "do-it-yourself" appeared as a marketing term. I do all the unpaid labor I can. It builds competence, lets you ensure quality, and is generally cheaper/more efficient (out of the formal economy = no taxes, which is immediately a huge drag).
Wanting compensation for raising your kids is like wanting compensation for making yourself a nice dinner. The compensation is right in front of you.
Some unpaid work might be character building yes, but what I'm talking about is not.
Getting kids will give a guy high fives at work while a woman will be asked if she is going to get any more when looking for work. Also a guy salary will not be set back by 3-5 years of child bearing and it will also reflect badly on a woman's pension saving because exactly of this.
While having children is rewarding is not an economical reward for all involved.
Raising children is probably the epitome of character building, self-actualizing work. There are no external stakeholders to motivate you. No one's going to do it for you if you don't. You get out of it exactly what you decide to put in, and you're efforts go purely to something you care about. It is the most important project you can do, and you and your spouse are solely responsible for it.
It's not supposed to be economically rewarding to have children. It's the reward that economics are meant to enable.
I'm not sure who's even meant to be whom in your sentence, but it's approaching things from an entirely wrong angle.
Like, my wife is a full-time mother. Economically, I bring in the income for everything, but we're married. Everything is shared. It's not I pay; it's we pay. And we both get the reward for the work we put into our family. No one is losing. We are all winning.
Given that surrogacy runs to 20-80k for the woman carrying the child I don't think women will appreciate their new wages if we convert all social relations into market ones.
Giving birth is a woman job. Breastfeeding is a woman's job. Replacing breast milk with something else might be one of the causes of allergies and other ill effects (I'm guessing).
To me it looks like women want to be compensated for the unpaid work of birthing children and taking care of them during their upbringing. No one fucking likes unpaid work. It's not right.
For me this if the current feminism and I do support it.