middle school logic

[NotCranky]

[quote=scaredyclassic]I’m pretty sure most men wouldn’t do a damp thing but lay around, get drunk and jerk off, but for women and the drive to satisfy them. I’m pretty sure ultimately women run the show.[/quote]
No one is stopping you but you, scaredy.

[scaredyclassic]

I obey my wife. I think I promised in wedding vow.

She has standards.

Also plans.

Me, I’m just here.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=FlyerInHi]If you’re a 6’4, 180 athlete you should care about mating with another genetic blue blood.

The rest of us short guys have to use social artifices of masculinity.[/quote]

A woman will rarely doubt that she will reproduce if she wants to. A male is never certain he will be accepted … big difference in reality that no social justice warrior can begin to eradicate.[/quote]

If biology is destiny, and women have the ultimate power of choice as to whom to reproduce with, then they have all the power. Like the Amazons.

CAr may argue that men have the power to force themselves upon women. Either that, or men are really good at fooling women, or women are desperate for any Dick.[/quote]

You are right, brian, women do have the power, technically speaking, which is why our laws and customs (and religion!) were created to make them subservient to men. It’s why the work that women have traditionally done has been devalued — our economy is structured specifically to value what men have traditionally done, while giving “women’s work” little to no value.

[scaredyclassic]

But women can do whatever they like now.

Except they cant.

Because biology is destiny.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]But women can do whatever they like now.

Except they cant.

Because biology is destiny.[/quote]

Correct…biology is, for the most part, destiny.

We still have a long, long way to go before we get equality between the sexes. That does not mean that we would be the same, just that we would have equal power, prestige, access to resources, etc. because the things we women contribute would be valued appropriately.

[scaredyclassic]

if by womens work you mean the birthing and raising of little people, long term, id say women’s work will be valued even lower, probably quite a bit lower because as i see it, people are increasingly worth less and less, maybe even have a negative value in most cases. people are not needed. we dont want excess syrians. we dont need more workers. we have enough consumers.theres no work for them, no money for them, they a re just sucking up resources and polluting us into obliivion.

probably, in an efficient marketplace, we need to value birthing even lower. perhaps even tax it. yes, why not; a $20,000 tax per birth … I mean, people pay more than that to adopt a child. thats not fair. we used th e tax code to give child tax credits. if we want true equality, lets stop making women into baby machines, lets get the tax code working int he right direction of saving the planet and save us from ourselves.

someties i feel like we are becoming like those desertified african countries, where it is just incomprehensible how the women can keep having babies in spite of the horrid conditions, the lack of food and water and opportunity. yet they keep on having kids, lots of them, more than we do, probably, on average.

should those birthing women be lauded for doing women’s work in those desertified lands? Should they get even more food than the women who ahve no kids?

Similarly, in our country, i sometimes darkly think that reproduction shoudl only be for the successful, the people who have the money and social capital to see it through. making “birthing” pay higher is just like promoting childbirth among the most impoverished and desperate in foreign lands. we dont want your offspring.

this is a very bleak view, and may not represent my actual viewpoint, but it is a thought that crosses my neural pathways from time to time. people of america, you just cannot afford to have a baby. some days, this is my true view. in my own case, we were marginally qualified, i’d say barely ont he edge of makign it. and we were doing well…

so this whole bringing children into the world thing is really a net loser. we definitely dont want to incentivize even more people to make more people, especially dumb people. women and mass reproduction are obsolete, maybe, except for the smartest and healthiest ones.

what else is women’s work, exactly, other than making kids and child care? everything else seems pretty much split or outsourced. i guess we can argue about who is doing more housework, but that’s just artificially created work, or work that need not be done. what else is essentially women’s work that cant be outsourced pretty easily…

i imagine the retort is, society cannot go on without more people…and yeah, maybe that’s true, a society based on pyramid schemes, leverage, and ever increasing consumption. but society could go on a really long time even if the birth rate dropped 90%….we’d skew older….but wed go on…

more people, more births , more competition, more fighting over resources.

the way to peace is to stop all this damned women’s work, stop creating more people fighting over less and less scraps. women’s work is worth way less than nothing, it is in fact the instigator of wars and deatha dn destruction, this ceaseless ever increasing humanity. no it’s not men destroying the world, but births, slowly, human by human, crawling into this world with infinite hunger and desire, and men, men can do nothing but fight for more resources for all these people, people, more and more peoples. stop, for the love of G-d, for the sake of us all, please stop all this women’s work. or at least tax the hell out of it. maybe i coudlve talked my wife out of more kids if there were a hefty tax.

of course, then i would not have my amazing little one…

[scaredyclassic]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/11/06/_need_a_mom_service_starts_in_brooklyn.html

huh. a new service in brookly, $40 an hour, you get to hang out with a “mom” who will listen to your problems and teach you how to sew on abutton.

maybe the marketplace really can sort out all this supposedly unique women’s work.

what a bleak world this is…

“Need a Mom is a service through which busy and/or emotionally needy customers can purchase, for $40 an hour, “a short-term, temporary” mother, as Nina Keneally’s website puts it: “When you need a mom … not just YOUR mom.” Keneally, a Brooklynite, will sit with you at a coffee house listening to your love-life woes. She will teach you how to sew a button back on a shirt. She’ll accompany you to Whole Foods and help you cook a meal with the groceries you buy.

One thing Keneally won’t do: actually be your friend, as in for real. Forty dollars an hour can’t buy you love.

In the few weeks since she’s been in business, Keneally’s attracted a bevy of press coverage that belies the size of her actual business—just six paying clients so far, with some more who have expressed interest. An agent from William Morris Endeavor has also gotten in touch about television possibilities, as Keneally told me when I caught up with her earlier this week.

Need a Mom started as an informal freebie, or what a less commercial age would call “talking to acquaintances.” Keneally and her husband, a stagehand on the Book of Mormon, moved to Bushwick two years ago after raising two sons in suburban Connecticut. Over time the twentysomethings surrounding her at yoga classes or volunteer projects began confiding in her, no doubt seeing her as a stand-in for Mom—she was, after all, the oldest person in the room.

After talking several of them through job losses and bad breakups, it occurred to Keneally—who worked for a number of years as a substance abuse counselor—that maybe there was a business model lurking in these new relationships. “There are people who have a mentor in their professional lives; now I am doing that in their personal lives,” she told me. Her clients need help with, for example, “writing an intelligent letter to a landlord to get a rent deposit back.”

But Keneally’s parenting skills have another application. “I am happy to talk to young parents, whose own parents are far away,” she says. “If you are a young parent without any parent nearby to talk to, that can be one of the loneliest things in the world.” Just one thing: Don’t call her a “substitute grandparent.” She’s not your child’s grandma any more than she’s your mom.

Is Need a Mom, as tiny and nascent as it is, a sign of the times? People of means can buy emotional labor and all the fawning attention they want. Haute nannies who have college degrees and speak Mandarin can watch their kids while they attend sessions with “wealth therapists.” They can even buy friend equivalents, as Richard Kirshenbaum pointed out in the New York Observer a few years back—everyone from the art consultant to the fashion stylist might also be getting paid just to hang around.

In The Outsourced Self: Intimate Life in Market Times, Arlie Hochschild writes about how overworked Americans, used to living in a society where almost any human contact can be reduced to a financial transaction and outsourced, have turned to the service sector to meet needs that were formerly provided by family, neighbors, and friends. Hiring help for everything from organizing a closet to planning a child’s birthday party has been normalized. Toddlers who once played in parks now go to outfits like My Gym.

Paid companionship is drifting down the food chain. While kiddie-play classes and rent-a-relative services are not for the poor, the amount of money they actually cost is, for some, an affordable luxury. It’s sort of the equivalent of buying a Gucci-branded keychain—you need to have some means to make the purchase, but you don’t need to spend a few thousand dollars on a handbag.

If you can’t afford Need a Mom’s rates, by the way, Keneally says she’s happy to barter. She has a Shar-Pei, for instance, and can always use a dog walker.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]
You are right, brian, women do have the power, technically speaking, which is why our laws and customs (and religion!) were created to make them subservient to men. [/quote]

The language of victimhood.

Pro Tip: Next time you “have the power” when laws are customs are being created, consider using that powers to influence the outcome.

[Anonymous]

dup

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]
You are right, brian, women do have the power, technically speaking, which is why our laws and customs (and religion!) were created to make them subservient to men. [/quote]

The language of victimhood.

Pro Tip: Next time you “have the power” when laws are customs are being created, consider using that powers to influence the outcome.[/quote]

Yes, feel free to go back thousands of years — to the earliest years of human existence, when physical strength was all that mattered — and change things. Good advice, Pri, thanks for the “pro tip.” Another “win” for you.

[CA renter]

Scaredy, if you think women’s work is losing value, check out what’s happening to the value of “men’s work” in an age where machines can do almost all of the physical labor; and where machines can’t do the work, desperately poor, exploitable laborers will do it, instead.

And women’s work doesn’t involve only birthing, nursing, and childcare. It involves physical caregiving (even for husbands, parents, and others whose families want to outsource the tasks), nurturing, and emotional support of all kinds.

No, cleaning, cooking, caregiving, etc. are not at all obsolete. Even if people outsource these things, a person is still needed to do the work…the work has simply been shifted from one person to the next.

[CA renter]

And you know what happened the last time someone seriously suggested that we select for certain physical and intellectual attributes.

Yes, there is logic to it, but not sure that you would really want to go down this road in real life.

[scaredyclassic]

Microrwaves. A quick pass with a swiffer. I see minivans with families scaring McDonald’s in temecula. Day care. I’m not sure it’s worth much in general, just to the right buyer. Limited market.

Men also a net loss.

We aren’t selecting for attributes actively. Just letting the market work. If people have no value, womens,work has no value. If you can afford children by all means, have thrm.

It’s just most people really barely csn.

[scaredyclassic]

I think most men feel that women’s constant housecleaning has very little to no value. It’s just too much. Just let it be.

[scaredyclassic]

Caring for old people just isn’t in our culture. Better/more efficient to let underpaid people do a half assed job.

[Author]

Posts