Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Egan_BW]

Probably get better return by just putting it back into the power grid~

[dragdeler]

-

[Maximum Spin]

I mean, a large part of our economy runs on treating the household work of women at a $0 material value. Get wife = print money.

yes because no husbands ever buy things for their wives such as but not limited to food, houses, clothing, jewelry, gifts...

[Vector]

I mean, a large part of our economy runs on treating the household work of women at a $0 material value. Get wife = print money.

yes because no husbands ever buy things for their wives such as but not limited to food, houses, clothing, jewelry, gifts...

The husband works -> a portion of his labor goes to paying for things for the wife. The wife works the same hours in the home -> she receives a subset of the assets that someone else controls.

Look, this is straightforward capitalism 101. I'm not saying that Men Are Bad or something. I'm saying though that 1. goods and services are being produced and 2. it's not through a regulated labor market.

[Maximum Spin]

The wife works the same hours in the home -> she receives a subset of the assets that someone else controls.

That's the normal situation for all labourers, though. If you work for a certain number of hours for a company, you will receive a subset of the assets that company controls. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be specific to women.

it's not through a regulated labor market.

Certainly it isn't regulated. If you think that's the problem, then we just have a fundamental philosophical difference.

[Rolan7]

It does apply to stay-at-home domestic partners of all genders, sure.  There's still a strong cultural expectation for women to fill that role, and a stigma against men doing so, though that's less true than a generation ago.  Depends a lot on where you live and how "traditional" one's family is.

Laborers (who aren't chattel) have contractually-obligated rights and compensation.  Domestic partners *might* have pre-nups, with all the stigma that entails.  They also get the general marriage laws (woo, divorce lawyers) and the arbitrary decisions of some judge.  Those judgements often favor women because those women traditionally own very little of their own, being dependent on their husband's wealth.  So we get a great system where women are at the court's mercy, and the court acts with an apparent and often actual anti-man bias.  And anyone who doesn't fit into that traditional arrangement is similarly at the mercy of some judge and expensive divorce lawyers.

That's a direct consequence of the lack of regulation...  Some basic contractual rights for domestic partners would help a lot.  The reason we don't have that is the original point:  We don't properly value domestic work.  It's widely dismissed and mocked as "women's work" (or undocumented immigrant work).  We ought to value homemaking like any other job.

Edit:  At the least we could stop vilifying women who ask for pre-nups as "gold diggers" etc.

[Maximum Spin]

Edit:  At the least we could stop vilifying women who ask for pre-nups as "gold diggers" etc.

I'm confused about this statement: in my experience, it's women who don't sign pre-nups who are considered gold-diggers, because pre-nups are generally presumed to include provisions that, in the event of divorce, both parties keep their own property instead of splitting it 50-50. The gold-digger stereotype is of a woman who marries a rich man so she can get half his stuff in the divorce.

[MrRoboto75]

smh the modern gold digger not even waiting for the rich guy to die, no patience in the modern world.

[Vector]

A couple of generations ago, my step-grandmother, who had property and married my grandfather, a minister (=no money), signed a pre-nup and was considered to have something deeply wrong with her because she wasn't willing to risk losing her land to her husband in case of divorce.

There is of course a problem in the case where a wife is expected to exit the labor market to care for children and then also expected to receive no assets in case of divorce.

[Maximum Spin]

A couple of generations ago, my step-grandmother, who had property and married my grandfather, a minister (=no money), signed a pre-nup and was considered to have something deeply wrong with her because she wasn't willing to risk losing her land to her husband in case of divorce.

Weird, where's this? In my culture women owning land has been normal for at least multiple centuries.

[heydude6]

A couple of generations ago, my step-grandmother, who had property and married my grandfather, a minister (=no money), signed a pre-nup and was considered to have something deeply wrong with her because she wasn't willing to risk losing her land to her husband in case of divorce.

Weird, where's this? In my culture women owning land has been normal for at least multiple centuries.

I’m gonna call bullshit on that. A few centuries ago, owning land was a privilege only the aristocracy got. Some of those aristocrats were women, but it was not “normal” for either gender to have any. What was normal was living on someone else’s land as a labourer of some sort.

I don’t know how much of a functional difference that made, I’m not that versed in the details of medieval serfdom, but I’m not gonna let you make a broad statement like that without you at least clarifying the period you’re talking about.

[Vector]

In the United States? I mean, recall that women were not allowed to open bank accounts in their own name until like ... 50 years ago, so it should maybe not be surprising that people felt any property a woman came with instantly belonged to her husband (note: this is what happened in England for a bit). She inherited from a male relative after spending most of her life working for him on that property.

[Maximum Spin]

I’m gonna call bullshit on that. A few centuries ago, owning land was a privilege only the aristocracy got. Some of those aristocrats were women, but it was not “normal” for either gender to have any. What was normal was living on someone else’s land as a labourer of some sort.

...in some parts of Europe...

[methylatedspirit]

So my Firefox install shat itself, taking with it most of its own files, and I had to reinstall it over what was left of it. Thankfully, I still have all my history and extensions, so I'll chalk that up to a freak accident. That, or it was Open Shell or WSL that nuked it; I wouldn't be able to tell.

What's a good lightweight (fast to launch, fast to browse, ideally small) browser that I can use in case it happens again? I had to use Edge (ugh), but was so bloated that it took actual seconds to get ready. I was in full speedrun mode, typing in "firefox.com" (which does indeed point you to Firefox's download page) to avoid Microsoft's chastising, and those few seconds evaporated away any respect I had for Edge.


PS: does an "Installing Firefox/Chrome from Fresh Windows 10" speedrun exist? I feel like that's the first step any competent Windows 10 user does, so it does seem like a speedrunnable thing, even if it's mostly a meme. Any% Tool-Assisted would probably be slipstreaming it, but that would give a negative time.

[Uthimienure]

I've been very happy with the performance of Opera for 15 years. Never a crash or problem.