Tuesday, 15 March 2016

Hi Erick! 3/15/16

Fifteen Impossible Things To Believe Before Breakfast:
1. A mother who works a full-time job and delegates to strangers the raising of her children eight hours a day, five days a week does just as good a job as a mother who hand-rears her children full time.
Thanks for filling in the blanks of your own experience.  Your mother is definitely to be applauded for what she accomplished.  But I don't think a successful society can model itself on the choices and decision-making and adjustments of those who have had dire circumstances thrust upon them.  Any more than we should all, say, be following the strict medical instructions of someone who just had triple-bypass surgery.

What society chooses to do GENERALLY determines the kind of society that you have.  My points all centre on the fact that society was far more sustainable the way it was GENERALLY conducted up to 1970.  We can do whatever we want in a democracy.  Why not want something that works better, GENERALLY?

The fact that the situation I'm describing hasn't been the norm anywhere in the G7 -- not just the U.S. -- for some time, I don't think refutes my point.  It's like saying "We've been driving the wrong way for the last 50 miles but who wants to turn around and go back?"  If you're on a branch and you're pretending you're still climbing the tree, you're going to run out of branch and you'll have to turn back EVENTUALLY and find out where the tree is and start climbing it again.  That's why I called the essay "Tangent".  Feminism, in my view, is a branch that leads to societal oblivion.

Including women in the workforce is a WONDERFUL idea.  Along the lines of my own "A good idea can come from anywhere, so you don't want to IGNORE anyone".   Stay focussed on IDEAS and you'll recognize a good one when you hear it.  Employing women BECAUSE they're women is the opposite of that.  So it produces negative results.

There is a sensible -- but unknown -- percentage of women that you can have in the workforce before your replacement birth rate plummets to societal suicide levels.  And, in my view, that percentage is substantially below the 86% we have now.

Women are going to have to decide what that percentage is: which women are included and which women aren't included.  It can't ETHICALLY be legislated without intruding on protected free will choices.

The Feminist Theocracy's position on ALL issues is:  we need more feminism, we need more women in the workforce.  So, because we've chosen to BE a Feminist Theocracy, that's where we're going.

But I think I'm safe in saying that the end of the branch is up ahead, somewhere before we hit 100% of women in the workforce.


Sandeep Atwal said...

Relevant: http://www.thumotic.com/feminism-depression-epidemic/

Erick said...

to me this is a circular argument. In a nutshell You say 'Women should stay at home because it benefits society' I say, Women are part of society and their desires and needs outside of patriarchal and patronizing society must be accounted for.
Throwing replacement figures around simply obscures the essential point.
40 years ago books, and movies and television shows were all lamenting that the planet would have too many people by the year um, 2000. Yeah.
I tend not to be chicken little when it comes to extremes of any sort.
Yes population is going down but resources will be more abundant.
I think i had this argument with someone else on this site a few months ago.

Anyway i think gong in we both knew neither would persuade the other or our viewpoint, but its enjoyable to debate it.
I look forward to the second impossible thing.

iestyn said...

I'd just like to say that we're getting some interesting clarification of Dave's opinions on matters.

I disagree on many points, but it is good to see that Erick has actually stirred up some interesting debate by responding. There's some flesh here that makes it easier to see where Dave is coming from. It's given additional context to Dave's opinions which is for the good I think.

From my point of view (which - as most people won't remember - as left wing/ anarchist (not communist)) that Dave's opinions that stay at home mother's have been devalued is certainly the one thing I would agree with. I would add that I believe, in general, parenting has been significantly devalued and that feminism has played a part in that.

I would also point out that much of it comes from the rise in consumerism and individualism.

Whilst Dave labels societies collapse as a consequence of feminism, I think he has failed to consider the impact of hippie individualism and the rise of the individualist credo it led to in conservative circles.

It was an arch conservative (Margaret Thatcher) who in the 80's pointed claimed that there is no such thing as society, only the individual. This was swallowed hook, line and sinker by conservatives, hippies and punks alike.

I would also point out that since the 50's advertising has been playing up the message that housework and caring for your family is either a chore (save yourself from the drudgery of this or that) or is a competitive sport (be better than your neighbour by having THIS) and that these expenses have led to the NEED for more family income.

On a personal note, I do find Dave's assertion that a woman is hard wired to want to be a home maker more than a man to be short sighted. Men love there families and there homes and they want time as well. I'm going to say, look at DIY - that's a man making a home for his family!

And there are many fathers whose sole joy is getting to be with and spend time caring for their family, whether baking, playing or passing on their own personal joys.

iestyn said...

oh god - I should re-read what I type first!!

apologies for so many typos

iestyn said...

@Sandeep - a truly independent and reliable source of information? Not by my standards.

Glen said...

We're assuming that humanity was in perfect balance before feminism. That men were hired only for their abilities and not for their political, familial, and social connections. Monarchies were built on hereditary rule. It didn't matter how smart or capable you were. Men and women reigned over us because of their last names.

We survived then and we'll survive the extremes of radical feminism.

Anonymous said...

Not so long ago Dave was saying women were to blame for overpopulation.

Anonymous said...

Not long ago Dave still insisted allowing women the vote was a mistake.

Jeff Seiler said...

Now that Tim is gone, anarchy reigns!

Yay, anarchy!

Anonymous gets to stay that way!

Go, Damian!

I hope it gets your endorphines cookin'!