HUGE FLIP: Democrat John Ewing Jr. just turned Omaha blue—defeating the longest-serving GOP mayor in the country and becoming the city’s first Black mayor in history.
Comment
The app for independent voices
A photo of selling your soul.
ESPN is reporting that the ban has been lifted on Pete Rose and "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. The next step will likely be decided by the Hall of Fame Baseball Era Committee in December 2027, when the committee meets to consider players whose careers ended more than 15 years ago.
Thoughts?
You made it, you own it
You always own your intellectual property, mailing list, and subscriber payments. With full editorial control and no gatekeepers, you can do the work you most believe in.
It's great to be back in Cedar Rapids.
Great discussions
Join the most interesting and insightful discussions.
Just FYI because evidently Fox or OAN or whatever is pushing the lie that America accepted the Statue of Liberty and that’s equivalent to the plane.
Congress VOTED to approve receiving the statue. So congress should vote on the jet
I identify as a feminist and I kind of agree with your position, but I would phrase it as:
Feminism is the view that men and women should be treated equally AND that this currently is not the case.
The first part is unnecessary because nearly everyone already agrees with it.
As Bryan would probably say, that is equivalent to "The sky is blue and men are treated better than women."
There's lots of cultures or historical times where people don't or didn't agree. And on the other hand, you can prove the second part easily, for example by looking at the wage gap. That's why I think it's best to mention both.
The wage gap has been studied to death. Like for like, it doesn't exist (within statistical error). However, women work fewer hours per year and fewer years of their lives than men do; and they tend to emphasize the personal (nonfinancial) rewards of careers more than men do. Men prioritize financial reward over enjoyment or other aspects of the job; and they work more hours and more years. When you adjust for those, the wage gap disappears.
I understand that feminists like to say that women wor…
Well, biology's unfair too! I think we should compensate for that as a society of enlightened rational beings, that's what I mean by being a feminist.
The conventional family structure - woman does not need to work and earn money because husband, or extended family, does so - was supposed to be precisely the compensation you are referring to. The key is "does not need to". But if feminists consider this entire arrangement to be oppressive to women (bizarrely they consider any form of dependence or symbiosis to be oppression), then I can understand why they are up in arms. But the alternative they come up with is that the state should take the…
The "conventional family structure" may have made sense - or even been somewhat patriarchal - prior to 1850 or so, when a woman could expect to bear and raise 6-10 children; produce all the knitted clothing and cut and sew all the cloth-based clothing for the household; produce all meals from basic ingredients (having grown many of the vegetables and produced the eggs in her own garden); do laundry using boiling water, lye and a wringer; and keep the house clean and tidy.
The trajectory of produ…
"prior to 1850 or so, when a woman could expect to.........................."
I'll only quibble with this point. I don't think a single woman was ever expected to do all of this without any support whatsoever. In every culture in the world prior to the 20th century (more so in non-Western cultures but this was the norm in the West too), extended multi-generational families provided a lot of support. And domestic help was far more ubiquitous.
Aside from this, I don't know if we disagree on anything. I believe you misunderstood the point of my earlier comment. I wasn't trying to paint the conventional family structure as the ideal, or advocating that it should be mandatory. I was responding to John Stonehedge's comment about women not getting compensated for their work (which was ample). I was saying that the conventional family structure imposed responsibilities on both men and women as well as "compensated" both of them (because their partners took responsibility for different spheres of activity), but John (and perhaps feminists in general) doesn't see it that way because he only considers the income one makes working in some impersonal capacity as important. In that view, the woman is doing unpaid labor almost like a slave (disregarding the fact that she benefits from her partner's income) whereas the man is having fun and possessing privilege (disregarding the fact that he puts in a lot of hard work, sometimes in drudge work and sometimes in dangerous jobs). I think that is terribly reductive.
In the modern world, if domestic work is not as onerous or rewarding as it traditionally used to be whereas impersonal work and career-building are very fulfilling (as they are to me personally), then there is no problem in people sharing their roles as well as responsibilities for producing incomes as well as domestic work, as you say.
Apr 9, 2023
at
9:25 AM