Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Want a Wife (1971) [pdf]

sevanoland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: I Want a Wife (1971) [pdf]

#91

Post by anal_reactor »

Jtarii wrote: post #82
globular-toast wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm not sure on balance it's been a good thing. It's doubled the number of wage slaves and created bitterness amongst them. Now they all get to come home to an unclean house with no food, fork out for someone else to raise their children and even walk their dogs. Perhaps the baby was thrown out with bathwater to some degree? Even the apparent victories of feminism are somewhat dubious. For example, the female v…

This is literally just patriarchy talking, you think that men know what's best for women, and what's best for them is for them to stay at home cooking and cleaning. Which is awfully convenient for the men that don't want to do those things. >I want to live in a fair and equitable society. Everyone deserves a chance. Except for the women that want careers, they can go fuck themselves apparently.

> Which is awfully convenient for the men that don't want to do those things.

I do. Now what.

Re: I Want a Wife (1971) [pdf]

#92

Post by noosphr »

makeitdouble wrote: post #85
noosphr wrote: post #54

I keep reading about what women did in the 70s as housewives and compare it to what they can do today. The current generation of women falls so wildly short pieces like this read more like science fiction than any fiction of the period. I'd happily pay mid six figures to someone who can provide the whole housewife package.

Hire a three person staff and you're set. On the salary, you might want to raise that a bit.

What's gone wrong in the period between that three women today are as capable as one in 1970?

Re: I Want a Wife (1971) [pdf]

#93

Post by anal_reactor »

Jtarii wrote: post #83
dissent wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that it's always been there, but wrong that you think it can be won. Every woman's gain is her son's loss, and every father's gain is his daughter's loss. It's an iterative game with a long term aggregate outcome for the society in question. You're framing it from the perspective of individuals. Women cannot win without men also winning and vice versa.

>Every woman's gain is her son's loss I don't even understand this at all. If you believe gender equality is an intrinsic good then any women's gain up to gender equality would be a gain for anyone who has that principle regardless of their gender. Do you think that black emancipation from slavery was "white's loss". It's just such a nonsensical position to hold.

> If you believe gender equality is an intrinsic good

First, I believe that women have privileged position compared to men. So tipping the scales in favor of women removes gender equality.

Second, comparison with black emancipation makes no sense. For evolutionarily foreseeable future, as long as humanity exists, so will men and women, and they need to get along with each other. Meanwhile you could imagine a perfectly functional world without emancipated black slaves.

Re: I Want a Wife (1971) [pdf]

#94

Post by globular-toast »

Jtarii wrote: post #82
globular-toast wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm not sure on balance it's been a good thing. It's doubled the number of wage slaves and created bitterness amongst them. Now they all get to come home to an unclean house with no food, fork out for someone else to raise their children and even walk their dogs. Perhaps the baby was thrown out with bathwater to some degree? Even the apparent victories of feminism are somewhat dubious. For example, the female v…

This is literally just patriarchy talking, you think that men know what's best for women, and what's best for them is for them to stay at home cooking and cleaning. Which is awfully convenient for the men that don't want to do those things. >I want to live in a fair and equitable society. Everyone deserves a chance. Except for the women that want careers, they can go fuck themselves apparently.

Have you asked women? Or even just observed their choices? Women overwhelmingly value motherhood over their careers when asked, see e.g. https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/8791-mult-country-survey-m...

There is no patriarchy. We live in an oligarchy and always have. Did anyone ever ask men whether they actually want to spend their lives in the workforce or if they'd rather spend more time at home working on their own things? Loads of men would love to be able to spend more time at home.

> Except for the women that want careers, they can go fuck themselves apparently.

Complete nonsense. You are putting words into my mouth. I never said women who want careers shouldn't be able to have them. I said I don't agree with forcing women into the workforce. Do you see the difference?

I also cannot do anything about how human reproduction works. Women, like men, have to make choices and that choice will come with sacrifice. Adults have to learn to accept this or live forever in frustration.

Re: I Want a Wife (1971) [pdf]

#95

Post by globular-toast »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #79
globular-toast wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then she would do well to look inwards and try to understand why that is. We all have to play the hand we are dealt. The sooner one realises this, the sooner one can begin the path to happiness. "My soul, will you ever be good, simple, individual, bare, brighter than the body that covers you? Will you ever taste the disposition to love and affection? Will you ever be complete and free of need, missing nothing, desiri…

We are not "dealt a hand". There are many possibilities, and the idea that you have to take the simplest, most obvious, one is largely false. There are other people in this thread talking about how they did things differently.

There are many ways to play a hand in poker, just as in life. Doesn't mean you don't have one.

I'd love for everyone to start out with the same hand. But this is not a gender issue. This is a human issue. The sooner we realise we're just duking it out in the gutter while the real winning hands are laughing in the street the better.

Re: I Want a Wife (1971) [pdf]

#96

Post by Jtarii »

anal_reactor wrote: post #93
Jtarii wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Every woman's gain is her son's loss I don't even understand this at all. If you believe gender equality is an intrinsic good then any women's gain up to gender equality would be a gain for anyone who has that principle regardless of their gender. Do you think that black emancipation from slavery was "white's loss". It's just such a nonsensical position to hold.

> If you believe gender equality is an intrinsic good First, I believe that women have privileged position compared to men. So tipping the scales in favor of women removes gender equality. Second, comparison with black emancipation makes no sense. For evolutionarily foreseeable future, as long as humanity exists, so will men and women, and they need to get along with each other. Meanwhile you could imagine a perfectl…

We have very different definitions of what functional means.

Re: I Want a Wife (1971) [pdf]

#97

Post by Jtarii »

globular-toast wrote: post #94
Jtarii wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is literally just patriarchy talking, you think that men know what's best for women, and what's best for them is for them to stay at home cooking and cleaning. Which is awfully convenient for the men that don't want to do those things. >I want to live in a fair and equitable society. Everyone deserves a chance. Except for the women that want careers, they can go fuck themselves apparently.

Have you asked women? Or even just observed their choices? Women overwhelmingly value motherhood over their careers when asked, see e.g. https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/8791-mult-country-survey-m... There is no patriarchy. We live in an oligarchy and always have. Did anyone ever ask men whether they actually want to spend their lives in the workforce or if they'd rather spend more time at home working on their own…

Can you explain how women can both be allowed to have careers if they want while also not being "forced" into the workplace?

It just sounds like you want women to face extreme societal pressure to be mothers, and the few women that break out and have careers are going to be ostracised.

In modern, liberal, western society women are free to do whatever they want. If they want to get married at 25 and have 5 children there is nothing stopping them. If they want to go study neurobiology there is also nothing stopping them. The vast majority of women when given the choice, do not want to have 5 children at age 25. They want 1-3 children at age 32.

Re: I Want a Wife (1971) [pdf]

#98

Post by hypfer »

sersi wrote: post #88
hypfer wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are a lot more divorce That is not what I was talking about. Mainly because it's a dumb talking point. You've I think replied to what you expected one would write and not to what was written.

Then I'm confused by what you're trying to say. Reread it a few times, let me try to state how I understand your argument: - thinking about having a way out (so not being a stay at home wife for example) is a modern way of thinking about "committing". - By thinking this way, you're not fully in the relation, so it's harmful to the relationship stability. (which I interpreted as divorce) ok, I admit the last part, I'm…

Aah, okay, I see.

No, I wasn't referring to divorce, because divorce is actually a pretty healthy failure mode (or can be, at least). The worse failure modes are the ones where people do not disengage for whatever reason and stay in the situation indefinitely.

What I wanted to get at is that "relationship turning sour" is (usually) nothing one has zero control over. Because the logical chain proposed was "Things can always turn sour" -> "You always need a way out". Or at least that's how I read it.

So I've put the prerequisite into question there.

My point, in a gist, is that I think it should be possible to greatly reduce the probability of "things turning sour" by doing much much more work upfront (before committing to a situation), and through that, the need for an out could be shrunk.

Probabilities are of course probabilities, but still.

Or, even simpler, I feel like people, generally speaking, could spend more time _actually_ getting to know each other before moving forward; and it would only do them good + they would treat each other better + they'd actually see each other (more).

___

Moving fast and breaking things is everywhere, and it seems to be breaking people too.

=> So the friction of _really_ looking at who a person _actually_ is (which might be unpleasant) might be necessary. Even though SV would love to have you believe that frictionless existence is desirable.

It is, up until it isn't. And then you're fucked.

But the solution is not to assume that everything is broken, but to build healthy stuff instead.

Re: I Want a Wife (1971) [pdf]

#99

Post by dissent »

Jtarii wrote: post #83
dissent wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that it's always been there, but wrong that you think it can be won. Every woman's gain is her son's loss, and every father's gain is his daughter's loss. It's an iterative game with a long term aggregate outcome for the society in question. You're framing it from the perspective of individuals. Women cannot win without men also winning and vice versa.

>Every woman's gain is her son's loss I don't even understand this at all. If you believe gender equality is an intrinsic good then any women's gain up to gender equality would be a gain for anyone who has that principle regardless of their gender. Do you think that black emancipation from slavery was "white's loss". It's just such a nonsensical position to hold.

Not at all. What I mean is each sex has a vested interest in the well being of the other, since both of them have a vested interest in the well being in their children of either sex. If my wife gains from affirmative action while her 5 sons lose, it's a net loss to my wife. By the same token, emancipation of women is good for the man with 5 daughters.

The race comparison doesn't hold in quite the same way, because there isn't automatically a heredity line. One group can just exploit the other indefinitely.

Re: I Want a Wife (1971) [pdf]

#100

Post by ndriscoll »

wojciii wrote: post #40
disdegeneration wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The social mechanics to decouple woman permanently from reproduction are already in the making. Incubators and AI educators and people can have children with a company, the rest of the social problems (the social network harem effect) then go out the window. If you need to be a millionaire to have a conventional family, tradition is out, corporate cloning is in. The working alternative to religious fundamentalism.

While I support equality between biological sexes this had some ill effects. Giving birth is a woman job. Breastfeeding is a woman's job. Replacing breast milk with something else might be one of the causes of allergies and other ill effects (I'm guessing). To me it looks like women want to be compensated for the unpaid work of birthing children and taking care of them during their upbringing. No one fucking likes un…

People absolutely do like unpaid work, so much so that the phrase "do-it-yourself" appeared as a marketing term. I do all the unpaid labor I can. It builds competence, lets you ensure quality, and is generally cheaper/more efficient (out of the formal economy = no taxes, which is immediately a huge drag).

Wanting compensation for raising your kids is like wanting compensation for making yourself a nice dinner. The compensation is right in front of you.

Post reply on HN