The plot by patriarchy is not asking women to stop working during the third trimester. The plot is to ignore those needs and punish women who stop working by not paying them maternity leave or holding their pregnancy against them when they come back to the workforce.
It’s not 1962. It’s not that simplistic. But talk to literally any mother in literally any white collar job. “I’m expecting” or even “we’re thinking of having kids” results in fewer projects, getting turned down for promotions, and if you’re in a technical role, you’re pushed into management ASAP. I get that I’m a stranger on the internet, but you gotta trust me on this. This isn’t random/sometimes — this is CONSTANT. And it’s not even all malicious! It just comes from a place of, I would say, well-intended ignorance.
It's not ignorance, it's common business sense. Suppose you couldn't work full-time because of reason X. It doesn't matter what reason X is, I can not use your work in the same way, if for no other reason than Brooks's law applying.
Unless you're an anti-natalist, you can argue that X=pregnancy is really important to society as a whole, but then the burden should be carried by the whole of society, not just the slice that happens to run a business.
Either way, we have to admit that you can't be a mother and have equal career prospects to someone who stays childless, just like you can't put the same amount of work into two different careers and still get the same result for each as if you had put all the work into just one.
So you are saying that the plot of patriarchy used to be to keep women out of the workspace, but now the plot is the opposite, to keep them out of the home? It sounds like the patriarchs need to get together and make up their minds.
The hard thing to imagine is the in-between time. These two plots are so opposite one another that in the middle of switching between the two the patriarchy must’ve had a coup, or had a meeting where the head of the patriarchy laid down the law and everyone tied the line, or there was mass confusion. Did the old patriarchs get replaced by new patriarchs with a new plot? Did they purposefully change their plot and women currently are unwittingly playing their game? Did they just give in to the inevitable and then devise a new plot?
There is no contradiction as "keeping them home" was staying all the time at home with no income and advancement.
And being forced to work here means "being punished for talking about possible pregnancy or needing more rest in the last few weeks or it or in case of health issues".
Whether patriarchy or not, these are not contradictory.
Sorry to hear about these experiences. It reminds me of the prisoners dilemma in game theory. Business leaders may (wrongly, or not) think that putting women on projects that will get delayed by pregnancy will put them at a competitive disadvantage.
The prisoners dilemma can only ever be solved by an entity that sees the whole picture, i.e. the federal govt. They have to mandate everyone play by the same rule, or else those who stick their head out for charity’s sake may endure all the sacrifice that entails (which is not fair).
I think we need to move past the genderization of capitalism (an abstract force) into "patriarchy" -- Capitalism has no interest in gender, age, or pretty much anything relating to human qualities. The trending force for capitalism is to have humans automated away -- let alone be given free money to have a baby.
I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism?
I happen to support capitalism as a means of production -- but it should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force like an optimization algorithm. "Patriarchy" is a red herring.
> I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism?
Given that women didn’t have a vote when the Industrial Age made coal mining into a primary power source, and given that marriage was seen as making the concept of rape logically impossible until 1992 in the UK [0], I disagree.
Separately, I would argue that while capitalism will exploit such prejudices, I don’t think it is the origin of them.
> Given that women didn’t have a vote when the Industrial Age made coal mining into a primary power source, and given that marriage was seen as making the concept of rape logically impossible until 1992 in the UK [0], I disagree.
I'm not following how this relates to the comment you're replying to. Are you saying that women are the original victims of capitalism? Or that capitalism was created by men? Or something else?
I’m denying the claim “were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism?”
Lots of men had their humanity disregarded, but women were treated worse, and that legacy continued for a very long time.
These issues still exist in some places, based on what I’ve seen reported by trans people who transition so successfully that people who knew them before the transition mistook them for their own opposite gendered siblings and treated them differently in accordance with gender stereotypes rather than by merit.
As an aside, playing the ‘who is the greater victim game’ is a meaningless exercise that doesn’t focus on the simple facts of life: there is suffering, be a friend to those in need.
Those examples don't contradict the claim you're denying. The claim wasn't "men had it worse than women". It was that capitalism originally hurt men (coal miners, specifically). The commenter was arguing that capitalism is not a plot by the patriarchy devised to oppress women. To contradict their claim, you need an example of capitalism originally victimizing women.
I doubt anyone here would disagree that women have suffered more from sexism.
Incidentally, and unrelated to that point, you chose oddly mild examples of bad treatment of women. I'd much rather live in a society where I couldn't vote or charge my spouse with rape than be a coal miner and suffer from black lung and be in significant danger of dying in a workplace accident. You could have gone with the awful treatment of women under the Taliban, to name one example.
Thank you. I'm all for the Simone de Beauvoir flavor of feminism. I understand that women want more power, even if it is in a corrupt system -- but the problem I have with "Lean In" feminism is that it serves as cover for exploitation... it is, in our cultural zeitgeist, somehow "okay" for a black woman like Condoleeza Rice to bomb Iraqis -- does blackness and femininty now serve as the perfect mask and disguise for capital and oppression?... should we not elevate our consciousness towards an overarching view of the system?
Yes, the industrial system was not built for women... it was built to make cheap knick-knacks... which has no relation to having babies. It is indifferent to women, not beneficial by design to men... the scape-goating is counter-productive, and behind the male mask -- falls to deaf ears. That is my point.
I find your preferences shocking, considering when childbirth anaesthetic was invented, when abortions and woman-centric contraceptives became commonplace, and when the idea of doctors washing their hands between autopsies and the maternity ward became common sense rather than being treated as an insult.
I really couldn’t use the Taliban. They’re (1) modern day and (2) primarily a theocracy.
I think we're just interpreting how the hypothetical choice works differently. You're right, I wouldn't want to live in the 18th or 19th century at all. But I'd prefer to not be able to vote (in isolation of other factors) to being a coal miner (in isolation of other factors).
> I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism?
"Patriarchy" is intertwined with the means of production but is also distinct therefrom. Women in Victorian England were not fully legally recognized as persons and did not have the same property rights as their husbands, and this is in a period during which capitalism obtained in England. This arrangement with men as the "patriarch" of the household, exercising control over subaltern women, predates capitalism by millenia (c.f. Roman "pater familias").
This "patriarchy" doesn't only consist of formal law, but may exist in tradition and social mores. For example adultery may be technically equally penalized for men and women but carry a vastly greater stigma and punishment in practice for women, as in feudal China. As another example, women may technically have recourse to the law if they are subjected to domestic violence but be prevented from doing this by the fear of social opprobrium and further mistreatment by family and community, as was again the case in Victorian England.
"Patriarchy" doesn't refer to any concerted effort or plot, but is a description of the outcome of social institutions and cultural attitudes which, AS A SYSTEM, disadvantage women.
> capitalism ... should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force
Capitalism, and patriarchy, are BOTH generally understood as being systemic: i.e. properties of human institutions. The concepts DO NOT inherently place blame on individuals, or even make judgments about the morality of the system.
Whether or not our society exhibits patriarchy is an empirical question, to be answered with reference to data. Arising from but separate from this, there is the ethical question of value-judgment about the society. But there is absolutely no basis to call the notion of patriarchy "sexist".
Women are not entitled to money during maternity leave. Just like you are not entitled to having a highway to drive on when going to work. But a prosperous society lead by competent people decides those things are worth paying for via taxes.
> In addition to maternity leave, there is the option for the mother or father to take extended parental leave for up to a total of 24 months, with a parental allowance of 300 to 1200 Euros (depending on salary), paid by the government for the initial 14 months.
My brother used this for his first child, so I’m quite certain it exists.
Because I think that the taxpayers nor the employers should be forced to pay neither men nor women maternity leave?
> If I knew how little you made I wouldn't even considered you a developer who has opinions on this.
Sorry for chosing to be born in a poor country I guess. (besides, it is not as if unpaid people who are developers of open source software do not exist)
> If you don't work in the United States then this conversation isn't for you
Do you not realize that you are the first person who mentioned the US in this thread?
> However hard you think you have it at the expense of women getting paid while they give birth to humans isn't as hard as you think
What?
> because higher quality of life
Yeah no. The quality of life is much better in the US or in the capitals of richer EU countries (but not in their smaller cities).
* birth control women can apply comes with sometimes severe side effects (edit: and even for that my wife needs my consent here in the Maghreb)
* Having an abortion just got a lot harder in parts of the US, is even more limited in most parts of south america, requires consent of a male guardian in lots of islamic countries or is just illegal
* Staying without wage is not an option when you need to feed yourself and the unborn
> birth control women can apply comes with sometimes severe side effects
Condoms exist.
> and even for that my wife needs my consent here in the Maghreb
Time to fix it.
> Having an abortion just got a lot harder in parts of the US, is even more limited in most parts of south america, requires consent of a male guardian in lots of islamic countries or is just illegal
Time to fix that as well.
> I still fail to see where the actual choices are.
How about not having sex in addition with birth control and abortion? Anyway, I am pretty sure that most women who take maternity leave actually wanted to have a child.
> why are they expected to spend more total money on you, than your equal who chose not to have a baby?
Because if that's the way human beings behaved, our ancestors would have died out as a species hundred of thousands of years ago and you wouldn't exist. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but you must recognize why the vast majority of voters are not okay with jeopardizing our species to save a few tax dollars?
you have to be kidding. you do know our species did just fine for 200,000 years, before maternity leave, which is a recent thing. you think humanity will die out if a policy that's maybe 50 years old is cancelled? please tell me you're not serious.
a vast majority of voters are of course going to vote for what benefit them, not the company that employs them -that is not proof of what is right or ethical.
the company doesn't magically pick up the bill. they simply pay all people a little less, while spending more on just the ones with babies. this means people without babies pay for the babies. in no way is that fair. biology is unfair. that doesn't mean you can just pass on the cost to innocent bystanders.
being short is unfair. should i pay for short people?
our species behaves just fine. parents have an extra burden and need to be financially secure to handle a baby. without forcing random others to help with that. because it's unethical, and the term for that is tyranny of the majority. two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
but cool. let's go with your voter idea. let's let the whites vote on whether blacks should be slaves.
> you have to be kidding. you do know our species did just fine for 200,000 years, before maternity leave, which is a recent thing. you think humanity will die out if a policy that's maybe 50 years old is cancelled? please tell me you're not serious.
You mean when we were in tribal, nomadic societies? When all people did was hunt, gather, and take care of their young? Yeah, of course we didn't have maternity leave from maternity because the entire tribe participated in raising their young or they died out.
I'm not going to bother replying to the rest of your post because it's teenage angst levels of faux-libertarian nonsense. You're comparing the propagation of our species to slavery. Get a grip.
so you are delusional. no, 50 years ago, before maternity leave, we were not a 'tribal society.' you also literally think no maternity leave would wipe humans off the planet. this is not sane.
and as far as teenage angst... i'm 40 years old and married. and when i see resumes of women who i think might have kids within 5 years, i throw them in the trash. nit because of maternity leave, but because i don't want entitled people working with me. enjoy your grip.
I’m a father with a handful of children, and I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable that in a fair society non-parents would make more than parents due to the extra time they would put towards their job.
Tax rebates for children could help both parties think they are getting ahead to balance society’s needs.
tax rebates -aka a tax deduction for each child already exists. this passes the tax burden to people without kids, and is also unfair. rebates would also be unfair. a child is not a rebate. what i don't get is why a child is treated as a child for taxes.
a tax return should be for the family -a joint return. you take wife+husband+kids. you add up all the salary. and you divide by number of tax payers. exactly how a joint return is now, but count kids.
this puts you in a much, much lower tax bracket, and saves you more than a rebate or dependent. it is actually unfair in my opinion to do it another way, and has nothing to do with babies. your family household just pays taxes on its income. and without various programs designed to steal from people without kids. and that's what maternity leave is -stealing.
Agreed, I was just noting that if non-parents end up making a lot more than parents (who are working raising the next generation of citizens), the amount of tax deduction is a way to share the burden. Fairness is subjective.
