[Agent Steel]

Many people are angry at Harrison Butker for telling women that they should be looking forward to bearing and raising children.

I think we should bear in mind that being a homemaker is a religious tradition that is practiced as part of a certain culture, that being, the culture of Judeo-Christianity.

Some of us might not feel comfortable embracing such a tradition, and that's fine. But we have no right to try to impose our desire not to be homemakers onto another group that wishes to do so.

Every culture is different. In this particular culture, being a homemaker is an incredibly important and honorable vocation for a woman. If we are to ask for tolerance and respect for our particular cultural norms, then I think we should also be tolerant of their cultural norms. Being a homemaker is a cultural norm, and Harrison Butker is not necessarily wrong for advocating that this practice continues. It is after all a conservative traditional value and norm.

[Rich]

I think we should bear in mind that being a homemaker is a religious tradition that is practiced as part of a certain culture, that being, the culture of Judeo-Christianity.

What? What pre modern cultures were women not the home makers? There is squat zero that is particularly Judaic or Christian about this. Jewish supremacists and Cultural Marxists are not the same thing, but they both operate a similar playbook of lies and distortions, constantly seeking to steal the credits of Greek Roman Christian and European culture. Monogamous marriage and the abolition of slavery are western and Christian values owing squat zero to Judaism.

[Tainari88]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JS7RIKSaCc

Many people are angry at Harrison Butker for telling women that they should be looking forward to bearing and raising children.

I think we should bear in mind that being a homemaker is a religious tradition that is practiced as part of a certain culture, that being, the culture of Judeo-Christianity.

Some of us might not feel comfortable embracing such a tradition, and that's fine. But we have no right to try to impose our desire not to be homemakers onto another group that wishes to do so.

Every culture is different. In this particular culture, being a homemaker is an incredibly important and honorable vocation for a woman. If we are to ask for tolerance and respect for our particular cultural norms, then I think we should also be tolerant of their cultural norms. Being a homemaker is a cultural norm, and Harrison Butker is not necessarily wrong for advocating that this practice continues. It is after all a conservative traditional value and norm.

Most of Latin America is traditional with homemakers being women and raising children. They vote for the Left a lot. You can be a homemaker and have a breadwinner husband and a traditional setup and believe in the Left that is not liberal and rejects traditional marriages and setups. That is something falsely painted by American modern liberal hegemony that wants women to work till they drop while trying to raise children and clean a household and do fifty million things when all they have are the same 24 hours a day in which to live as the rest of the world. It is unrealistic and highly false to believe you can raise kids, keep a clean house, work a full-time job, keep a husband happy and so on without some massive help from grandparents, childcare centers, extended family, neighbors, friends, and community. All this rugged I can do it all on my own crap is destroying everyone. I am a pragmatist. I do not believe in bullshit about superwoman myths of Susie Homemaker can work an 8-10 hour shift, come home not exhausted, buy dinner, put the groceries away, cook, serve meals to her family, wash dishes, mop floors, put the dishes away and throw trash, supervise homework, do a load of laundry and iron some shirts, prepare lunch the next day for herself, her husband and kids, and then do this or that looking at bills and dusting at the same time. That is BULLSHIT. There are limits to the human psyche.

These capitalists want both mother and father to work outside in some low-paying gig work for them to make money. It used to be a man's main salary at his one job was enough to pay all the bills, save 10%, and go on a one-week vacation once a year every year. Now? Nothing is enough for greed reasons, no one wants to have kids, everyone is in debt and has to pay for the debt with a second job, and they live in filth at home and disorder because no one has the time for housekeeping. It is terrible. Something has to change!

[Rich]

These capitalists want both mother and father to work outside in some low-paying gig work for them to make money. It used to be....

Ascribing all evil to capitalists strikes me as mistaken, as ascribing all good to them. It certainly seems unlikely to me that the capitalists of today are particularly more selfish than the capitalists of yesteryear. When this halcyon golden age was is rarely made clear, was it 25, 50, 75 or a hundred years ago.

My mother's mother didn't work (outside the home), my mother's father was a rail worker, working his way up to be a train driver. From what she told me growing up in the forties and early fifties money was tight, damaging a school uniform was a major crisis. And of course there was no cars, TVs, Stereos, washing machines, inside toilet, showers. They never owned their own home. I think there's a number of reasons behind the perception that its impossible to live on one income, but at least part is that most people expect so much more. Probably one thing that has got worse is the ease for poor people to drink and smoke themselves to death.

[Wellsy]

The reality of women getting pregnant likely helped create the sexual division of labor but it was exacerbated with a more complex division of labor between the sexes which is now increasingly a social product rather than a natural extension of womens reproductive reality.
People shirk their responsibility to the care of children/dependents as strictly that of women, bunch of free loaders.

Lol at it simply being a cultural/religious tradition. Any practice can be subject to criticism as we are moderns. And one can assert the strength and importance of valuing care of dependents while also asserting how there is no natural essential connection based on sex but social relations which are increasingly ‘unnatural’, as mankind shapes itself by shaping the world in an extreme form of niche constructionism. We have some say in what we become as a human race.


https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/social.pdf

Let’s make a metaphor with the issue of women living in a location in the division of labour as unpaid child-carers; think of “women’s work” as a neighbourhood, and women as people living there, some by choice, some against their will. What options are available to women in this space? One option is increased child benefits for stay-at-home mothers, thus making life better in the ghetto, a measure welcomed and immediately benefiting people stuck there. It also has the effect of marginally enhancing the status of child-carers, but it is hardly likely to enhance the attractiveness of being a stay-at-home parent sufficiently to encourage men to give up their paid work and become househusbands. It actually emphasises a woman’s role as unpaid child-carer, trapping her in that role, since it is a disincentive to going out to get paid work, stigmatises the mother as a welfare recipient and relieves the male of responsibility for contributing to the upbringing of his own children. This is the kind of affirmative strategy which has immediate appeal but fails to solve the problem, and correspond to all those kinds of public policy strategies that are based around providing services to “areas of special need.” Good and necessary up to a point, but unable to resolve the underlying problems. Another strategy is to commercialise child-care, thus moving the job into the market and giving women the choice of doing the same work for a wage, or doing a different job while their own kids are cared for in a childcare centre. This is probably more effective in giving women a choice, but it runs into a couple of problems. So long as child-care is stigmatised as “women’s work,” then it remains low-paid and women move out of their homes into low­paid jobs doing “women’s work.” There is no way out of this trap until the gender division of labour is broken down. Once women are recognised capable of the same kind of work as men, then women can command wages equal to their male partners and make working for a wage worth putting the kids into child-care. Meanwhile, with child-care no longer stigmatised as “women’s work” she is more likely to be left a fair share of domestic duties and child-care centres are treated as seriously as other service. In other words, the “location” — “women’s work” — has to be deconstructed altogether, and “woman” no longer a socially constructed location.

What this corresponds to in the geographical analogue, is that the boundaries of the neighbourhood have to be broken down. That is to say any kind of person might want to live there, and living there is always a matter of choice. The neighbourhood is dissociated from the kind of people who live there. However, childrearing is an important social function. It ought not to be an occupation which is denigrated and no-one should be forced to go into the professional by reason of their gender, but whoever is there needs to do the job well. If women choose not to be child­raisers, then that has to be a matter of choice, not because they have to go out to work and “can’t afford children.” If we want the next generation to be raised well, then social arrangements have to be made to make it a worthwhile profession. Likewise, dealing with the social problems in a poor area is a vital social task for the whole country. Some people live in a neighbourhood only because they can’t afford to live anywhere else. If improvements force people to move out, then everyone has a problem. Someone has to take on the role of custodians of the neighbourhood, and it has to be made a worthwhile and honourable profession worth sticking around for. Now, just as I would question that commercialisation of child-care can ever provide the full range of things that children need, I also question whether paid social workers and security guards can provide everything that a neighbourhood needs. Like kids, streets need love, even if from amateurs. And it’s everyone’s problem. Making “women’s work” everyone’s responsibility, means getting men to take on that work and that generally means a fight for those stuck with “women’s work” not so much to change themselves or get better recognition for what they do (these too) but to get other people to accept their responsibility. Society at large is free-riding on the backs of people living in “poor neighbourhoods” who are bearing the brunt’s of society’s problems, problems arising from inequality, from social change, from immigration and even just raising the next generation of workers. A big part of what these people need to do is to spread the pain and get the wider community to start picking up their share of responsibility for these problems.

[Tainari88]

Ascribing all evil to capitalists strikes me as mistaken, as ascribing all good to them. It certainly seems unlikely to me that the capitalists of today are particularly more selfish than the capitalists of yesteryear. When this halcyon golden age was is rarely made clear, was it 25, 50, 75 or a hundred years ago.

My mother's mother didn't work (outside the home), my mother's father was a rail worker, working his way up to be a train driver. From what she told me growing up in the forties and early fifties money was tight, damaging a school uniform was a major crisis. And of course there was no cars, TVs, Stereos, washing machines, inside toilet, showers. They never owned their own home. I think there's a number of reasons behind the perception that its impossible to live on one income, but at least part is that most people expect so much more. Probably one thing that has got worse is the ease for poor people to drink and smoke themselves to death.

Rich, I know how hard it is to live a life where you are really pressured on all sides. In the years of 2006-2014, I had a full time job, I had two kids one of them an infant, I had to clean my house, go to graduate school on the weekends and write long papers every weekend, and do a lot of things. Those years are a damn BLUR for me. It was so busy!! I was exhausted. The laundry piled up, sometimes the bathroom looked disgusting. I could not do it all. I just could not. My husband worked two jobs for the part of when my son was an infant. Because paying $2000 US dollars a month for newborn care was double our mortgage payment. Even then? I would have to go on a public bus and go and shop for dinner and I had an infant that required constant care changing diapers, milk, and so on. I had a teen son with issues. I had to keep that house clean and I was exhausted. The bills were tight.

If I had added a full-time job on top of it all? You go insane. In the USA childcare is for very wealthy people and or living in a ghetto with crime galore with super low income with all the stresses that low income living brings in the USA. Which is crime and lack of resources. I lived in such neighborhoods before in PR and in the USA. You are going to be dealing with serious crime all the time.

You have to be making about $225k a year in income in the USA to afford a once a week cleaning company and full time child care, and landscaping etc. Very few people can afford that. It is a big struggle.

Mexico has free child care centers run by the government. It is beautiful stuff. I have toured a lot of them. They have qualified teachers the kids get a lot of care. So that working parents in Mexico can go to work with a peace of mind. The USA with tons more resources in taxes paid and so on can't give a cent for child care. It is super oppressive. Then they whine about not having enough children to replace the work force. Idiots.

[Agent Steel]

What? What pre modern cultures were women not the home makers? There is squat zero that is particularly Judaic or Christian about this. Jewish supremacists and Cultural Marxists are not the same thing, but they both operate a similar playbook of lies and distortions, constantly seeking to steal the credits of Greek Roman Christian and European culture. Monogamous marriage and the abolition of slavery are western and Christian values owing squat zero to Judaism.

Good point.

So then, what are feminists so upset about? What's the reason?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Agent Steel

Are you happy being a homemaker?

[Tainari88]

@Agent Steel

Are you happy being a homemaker?

Anything women traditionally have done has been devalued in my honest opinion. Women used to always take care of the elderly, the children, the home, and so on. Nurses, teachers and secretaries where the traditional jobs that women were allowed to do in the past. Not high earning jobs. Now? The reality is that the people who do that sort of job are essential workers in the most classical sense. Without them the entire society goes down the tubes. But they do not want to accept that.

Some feminists do not want to be homemakers. Period. They want to be child free, and have a single life. Some women choose that for themselves deliberately. That is their choice.