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

My Family’s Slave

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 645 posts

Re: My Family’s Slave

#441

Post by song »

Cyph0n wrote: post #113
naiveattack wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made no comment on whether it was or was not inexcusable. This isn't about what I believe is correct. Merely on the paradoxes and hypocrisy in this rather large stream of replies. What exactly makes it inexcusable to you though? The fact that the owner of the house could but did not, and the proximity of the rooms? That's what I'm talking about.

It's inexcusable because it's expected that the housemaid gets his/her own private area. Remember, they are employees, and their job is to maintain the household. They are not "homeless" people skulking around the house. I've lived in a country where live-in housemaids are quite widespread and this kind of behavior would definitely be out of the ordinary, especially among more affluent families. Yes, worse things can…

> I've lived in a country where live-in housemaids are quite widespread and this kind of behavior would definitely be out of the ordinary, especially among more affluent families. Yes, worse things can happen to housemaids, but I'm talking about the general case.

That's pretty typical of what I've seen in countries like Malaysia, Singapore and China. The maid gets the worst room and in many cases that room is basically an unfinished store room with just concrete. In China, it's usually a bit better, the live-in housekeeper is not locked in the house/apartment with no possibility to go out. Nor do they strip the houseworker before allowing her to go out to make sure she didn't steal anything.

I'm a loudmouth, it disgusts me, and I like to think that I have principles so I make my opinions about the treatment of those housekeepers clear. I've lost acquaintances over this and from what I've seen telling them that what they're doing is right almost never changes things for the housekeepers in question.

I strongly believe that the main issue in all those cases is that the housekeeper lives in the house, this is what creates the abuse, this is what causes the extreme dependence of the housekeeper with their employer.

Re: My Family’s Slave

#442

Post by dismantlethesun »

jimmywanger wrote: post #301
dismantlethesun wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're saying, but his implication is that dogs do not have to be taught not to aspire to be better than dog-status. They cannot be any more than dogs. This is clarified by using an inanimate object (wrench) as a the other example. Human beings though have to be molded in order to keep their 'place'. They can even aspire to want to be things that they cannot achieve, such as my never ending desire t…

That is also objectively false. Often, dogs will try to be part of the family and try to assert dominance over family members, especially younger, more timid children. They're aspiring to be a higher place in the pack than they should be, and they need to be trained in the fact that they're objectively and necessarily not equal to any human being. When a dog ever thinks it is the equal of humans, bad things happen, s…

> When a dog ever thinks it is the equal of humans, bad things happen, such as bites and euthanasia of the dog, and maulings.

You've pretty much laid out the limits of dog rebellion against human control.

Dogs' however can't foment revolution, conspire to free all the other dogs in the state, create an army, capture or hold territory and enslave their former masters.

To put it bluntly, even in the worst case scenario dog-revolt is an annoyance to humanity in general. No one is going to wake up with a collar around their neck, because a dog decided it was 'equal' or 'superior' to humans.

Dogs' are simply limited to dog-level actions, regardless of how hard they're trying.

Human slaves on the other hand have no technical barrier to acting as competently as their masters.

---

Now if you say "that is objectively false", let me remind you that we're not talking about dominance, submission, correct behavior, or otherwise. We're talking about objective status in society as determined by humanity in general.

Even if you can find a single person who says "aha! I am dominated by this dog!", humanity in general will never agree that a dog---any dog---has somehow achieved equality with humans. Imagine that: dogs voting, dogs marrying, dogs taking wages, dogs running for president.

When people say they are superior to dogs; they're just making things up. If you think "that is objectively false", well then you'll need a better argument than "oh dogs can bite you if you're not careful".

Re: My Family’s Slave

#443

Post by dracht »

Mz wrote: post #254
obstinate wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or because of how you phrase things, maybe. I won't rule out that I'm prejudiced -- it's all but a certainty that I am, to some extent or another. But despite that, I don't normally think women are asking me for money on the internet.

I am the highest ranked woman on HN because women are generally not all that warmly welcomed here. So if you don't think women are asking you for money on the internet, maybe it is because you are mostly talking to men. It is hard to ask for anything at all when silenced by the general behavior of men online. I offend in part because I fail to shut up, in spite of the sometimes horrible treatment I receive through no…

You felt it was appropriate to interject in a conversation about slavery to wonder why none of these people online haven't helped you out financially, which a typical person would construe as asking for money, despite being a woman with the highest internet points (or something). Maybe I don't frequent HN enough to know who's who, but your replies to obstinate read like the ramblings of someone with mental problems (I don't mean that as an insult).

Re: My Family’s Slave

#444

Post by anovikov »

gambiting wrote: post #433
anovikov wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are typing this sitting at your comfortable 1% Valley workplace. Nowhere in the world does $55K a year before tax provide anywhere like 'good life'. It means endless misery and generational psychological poverty passed on to your children. Only reason of doing it is if your desire to exert psychological pressure on your wife is greater than even desire to consume. It simply doesn't sound healthy, and it i…

Maybe you should stick your nose outside a bit more often? In Poland if you make ~$20k/year you are super rich, can easily afford to not just buy but build a new house. There's absolutely nothing miserable about it. Saying that "nowhere in the world" $55k provides a good life is just hilariously wrong. Even in UK, I make ~$35k before tax and I'm living a very comfortable life.

I live in Lithuania actually and spend about $140K a year. I don't scrap by, but no luxuries either, i fly coach and stay in 4* hotels. My kid goes to best private school, that's about the only luxury i can afford, and that's just because i am really determined to help her not live her life in same shit as myself.

Re: My Family’s Slave

#445

Post by adrianN »

anovikov wrote: post #444
gambiting wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you should stick your nose outside a bit more often? In Poland if you make ~$20k/year you are super rich, can easily afford to not just buy but build a new house. There's absolutely nothing miserable about it. Saying that "nowhere in the world" $55k provides a good life is just hilariously wrong. Even in UK, I make ~$35k before tax and I'm living a very comfortable life.

I live in Lithuania actually and spend about $140K a year. I don't scrap by, but no luxuries either, i fly coach and stay in 4* hotels. My kid goes to best private school, that's about the only luxury i can afford, and that's just because i am really determined to help her not live her life in same shit as myself.

Either you're missing a couple of 0's there, or I should retire to Lithuania right now.

Re: My Family’s Slave

#447

Post by abalashov »

It's been a while since I read something that truly brought tears to my eyes.

What a moving, eye-opening and well-written piece of literature! Everyone owes it to themselves to read this story.

Re: My Family’s Slave

#448

Post by anovikov »

adrianN wrote: post #445
anovikov wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Lithuania actually and spend about $140K a year. I don't scrap by, but no luxuries either, i fly coach and stay in 4* hotels. My kid goes to best private school, that's about the only luxury i can afford, and that's just because i am really determined to help her not live her life in same shit as myself.

Either you're missing a couple of 0's there, or I should retire to Lithuania right now.

140K of course LOL

Re: My Family’s Slave

#450

Post by yakult »

canoebuilder wrote: post #406
yakult wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with almost all optimization problems, applying twice the resources (in this case, work hours) won't bring you back twice the (net) bacon, due to diminishing returns. However, I think on net it is still more economically productive, at least in a large portion of cases. It's unlikely that housework and childcare would optimally take up a full 50% of our entire reservoir of workable-hours, especially in the age of…

However, I think on net it is still more economically productive, at least in a large portion of cases. "Economically productive" in what way? If you want to adopt a short term perspective of a particular nuclear family making X dollars over Y years, maybe. But that's a rather shallow and irresponsible way of looking at things without accounting for what's better for the future society of our descendants, economicall…

Economically productive as in

1. the economy is bigger and produces more goods. 2. much of those goods are distributed to the two-worker families. 3. a few bored minimum wage workers can look after a very large number of kids.

The quality of childcare is on average a function of how much you pay. The boutique ones have professionally trained staff that get more than minimal wage.

But what about the families that can't afford any but the most rundown centers, I hear you ask? Won't they be better off under the old system? You know, the one where the economy was 30% smaller due to halving the labour supply?

Perhaps they would be living poor but honest lives, perfectly happy in their squalid conditions and lack of medical care.

Post reply on HN