= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
polymathwannabe comments on Wikipedia articles from the future - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (86)
I would not describe any spot in the entire American continent as a place where patriarchy has completely collapsed. Or where you don't risk getting shot in the street, for that matter. Perhaps Iceland or Sweden might fit both descriptions.
Edited to add: I'm curious. What exactly happened in Detroit?
Most families are headed by women.
More comparisons are needed before drawing conclusions: single mothers vs. single fathers, single parents of any gender vs. two-parent families, single mothers with education vs. single mothers without, etc. If it turns out that it is specifically families led by women that are having more trouble making ends meet than families led by men, it sounds like patriarchy has not disappeared one bit in Detroit.
What do you mean by "having more trouble making ends meet"? Between welfare programs and the occasional affirmative action job the women are perfectly capable of providing enough food for their children. It's just that the children are growing up feral, for lack of a better word.
Are you claiming that women who are alone cannot raise good kids?
That's contradictory. I thought raising kids was what women were traditionally described as good for.
Or are you claiming that women can only raise good kids when a man is present?
That's the best argument I've seen for stay-at-home dads, but I bet you'd see that as a degeneration of the good old values.
Or are you claiming that men are the indispensable and irreplaceable moral compass of a family?
Now that's bovine feces, for lack of a better word.
Hint: present =/= literally present every second.
Translation: "I can't think of an even vaguely passable rebuttal, better resort to name calling."
... says the guy who at the beginning of this debate called me an ignorant in history.
Look, I made no claims about you. I dismissively sneered at one idea you expressed. There is a difference.
Now back to the actual argument: A city affected by bad management and a bad economy adds a ton of confounding factors to any assessment of gender relations. You need to look at non-patriarchal societies that have kept all other variables unchanged, and claiming that abandoning patriarchy is the cause of bad management and bad economy simply won't do.
The problem isn't being 'headed by' women, it's having only one caregiver who is on top of that locked into an on-average even-lower-wage state by their gender. Isn't that at least as much a 'men can get away with abandoning their offspring or being so shitty they are cast out' problem?