rape culture/victim culture

*sigh*no.

i suppose giving both parental leave is a reasonable idea but certainly not just the woman. but i disagree that most children are born after careful consideration of both parties. most children are born due to the total lack of consideration of either or both parties.but my main point is not that men work and force their women to stay home, rather that women stay home and force their men to work.

Interestingly enough, I was using ‘ordered’ as in ‘placing an order’, or ‘services desired’ and not as There better be dinner on the table right at 6 PM! My point was that there seems to be a presumption in these types of discussions that —any- housework done has economic value to both parties. Once someone poses housework in terms of I do for you, so you owe me then it is reasonable to ascertain who the work is actually being done for.In the same vein, it amuses me when some men make a big deal that they’re helping when they barbeque and then leave a huge mess for their spouse to clean up.This is why I personally work out these dynamics in a relationship as early possible.

My response was poorly worded, sorry. I was commenting on the entire tangent as I saw it applying to what you wrote. You were talking about time expenditure and others were commenting on issues such as the value of household work.I wasn’t contradicting you, but attempting to add to the discussion that the time a housekeeper spends on housework, while a fair indicator of time they spent, is not always a fair indicator of value performed for another (which relates to other posts such as contracycle’s). If anything I believe it tends to bring your numbers closer together.Before someone jumps up and points out that sometimes the person doing housework is doing the opposite, scrubbing marble floors because their spouse insists on homes with marble floors, agreed.

quote:

---

Perhaps if fathers were given the chance to nurture early in their child's life they wouldn't be so reticent or hapless regarding "taking care of the kids" in general. Such rights would also go a long way to opposing the idea that men need to work outside of the home to support stay-at-home wives. Many men would like to be stay-at-home dads while their wives provide the source of income - as you say, if they want to they should quite whining and do so - yet such a scenario remains unaccepted by society's standards.

---

I would say the haplessness is far more tied to waiting until they become parents to begin to learn caring skills. If woman want men to have certain skills, waiting until males are married is not the best approach.

oh come on. you need to say more than that, or nothing at all.mick

quote:

---

How did the discussion go from rape (Violent assault on another human being) to economic matters?

---

Rape/power abuse/women being treated as property.
Spousal rape/power abuse in relationships/women being treated as property.

http://EvC Forum: rape culture/victim culture -->EvC Forum: rape culture/victim culture

Thanks for the reply.ITs just I can't quite get into my head what shared property in a marriage has to do with assault.When you marry both partys know (or should know) that you will share your assets. If the man makes more money, or has more assets to begin with - it is his choice to marry. If the woman makes more money or has more assets, then it still her choice to marry.So by the strange reasoning applied by some it would seem that it would be the man or the womans choice to be assaulted with no regress to law after marriage? This is sick!(How was it put - a man should have full access to his wifes body just like she has access to his money?)/Soren

Well there is a bit of all over the place going on here. ;-)If I recall someone pointed out that at least in the US, until rather recently, men had rights to their spouses body. It used to be a legal tenant that a man could not actually rape his wife.

quote:

---

When you marry both partys know (or should know) that you will share your assets

---

Ideally, that would be the case.

quote:

---

ITs just I can't quite get into my head what shared property in a marriage has to do with assault

---

I see it that way myself. Oddly, enough if I accept the standard religious perspective of marriage being ‘mating for life’ I find it harder to support that a spouse has sole and exclusive rights over their body.

quote:

---

Once someone poses housework in terms of I do for you, so you owe me then it is reasonable to ascertain who the work is actually being done for.

---

Well, I think that kind of thinking is rather inherent in most relationships, although to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the individual couples.It doesn't have to be a combative thing. For instance, I am currently the primary income earner in my marriage, and have been for the last 7 years, as my husband finishes graduate school. I bring in 2/3rds of our income. In the discussion we had about this situation long ago, it was negotiated that when he got a "real" job and started to earn a "real" income, I would take some time off from working at all. A leave of absence from the work force, if you will. I figure I will get bored after about 6 months and want to go back to work, but the point is there has to be some give and take in the relationship, and neither party likes to feel taken advantage of or unappreciated or taken for granted.

quote:

---

In the same vein, it amuses me when some men make a big deal that they’re helping when they barbeque and then leave a huge mess for their spouse to clean up.

---

Well, just the fact that they say they are "helping" is telling. You "help" someone do something, but it is really the other person's responsibility. That's why it bugs me to hear men talking about "helping" to raise their children or "helping" around the house, as if those things aren't their responsibility just as much as their wife's (espeically if she works outside the home, too).

quote:

---

This is why I personally work out these dynamics in a relationship as early possible.

---

Of course. But not everyone does. Some people don't think they have any options but to maintain the gender roles.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-26-2005 07:59 AM

Who said that, and where?Before you call a line of discussion "sick" perhaps you should check to make sure you aren't just twisting it into something sick...

quote:

---

The idea that bringing up a child is like a "paid vacation" is laughable. It is hard work, and there is no reason at all that a woman's employer or community should not pay her for that work, given that our employers want to have a market in the future (i.e. they need children to shill their wares to) and our communities generally don't want to go extinct due to people not being able to afford to have children...

---

The proof of this would be that before there was family leave we were on the brink of extinction.The other proof would be that the less money a couple has tends to result in a lower rate of childbirth.Now, do you really buy either of those? In you are correct, isn’t that a really good reason to cut these benefits to slow the reproduction rate in the US?I don’t buy that we have a vested interest in facilitating the reproduction of members of society who wish to reproduce. I have a personal interest in educating members of society, but interestingly enough, society is more interested in protecting ‘parents rights’ in that area then ‘children’s rights’.

quote:

---

The proof of this would be that before there was family leave we were on the brink of extinction.

---

No, but the number of children living under the poverty line in the US is shamefully high compared to many other Nordic and European countries, even though we are the richest country in the world, by far. Poverty is indicated as a large cause of crime and violence among youth, as well.Here is an interesting analysis: link

quote:

---

The other proof would be that the less money a couple has tends to result in a lower rate of childbirth.

---

Actually, a much larger factor in a lower birth rate is if a woman is employed or not. linkHowever, you are assuming a "couple". Just over a quarter of all births in the US are to single mothers, and three quarters of those are to teenagers.

quote:

---

Now, do you really buy either of those?

---

No, but there is more to consider than those two points.

quote:

---

In you are correct, isn’t that a really good reason to cut these benefits to slow the reproduction rate in the US?

---

I don't think you have demonstrated that cutting such benefits would do that.

quote:

---

I don’t buy that we have a vested interest in facilitating the reproduction of members of society who wish to reproduce. I have a personal interest in educating members of society, but interestingly enough, society is more interested in protecting ‘parents rights’ in that area then ‘children’s rights’.

---

On it's face, I agree with you, but I also think that we do have a vested interest in supporting family stability, so that parents can be parents. Over and over again we see that a strong family unit that is not in poverty is the best deterrant to youth crime, unwanted pregnancy, drug use, and school drop out.Remember, rich folks can spend lots of time with their kids because they can afford it, but the majority of the US population is in the struggling middle class who need both parents to work just to get by.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-27-2005 07:18 AM

Hi Trae, Okay, I grant that talk of extinction is an exaggeration. But it's worth bearing in mind that some communities DO believe they are at risk because of their low birth rate. Throughout the twentieth century, French politicians of all colours expressed this fear. A low French birth rate was considered a real problem. In the contemporary state of Israel, there is much talk of the demographic time bomb - i.e. that the reproductive rate of Palestinians is "too high" and this is one reason that the Isreali state say they don't want Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, because it would result in the loss of the state's Jewish nature. I don't know about Israel, but in France the fact that communities feared their extinction was fundamental in instituting paid maternal leave after pregnancy. The less money a couple has, the higher the probability of their child dying before adulthood. This is a fact. It clearly shows the relationship between the economic situation of parents and the human rights of children. Improving education and the autonomy of women would cut the reproduction rate without the harmful effects on children of making their parents poorer. That's assuming we don't want to increase the infant mortality rate as a means of reducing population growth. If we agree that adults have the right to choose when and if they want to reproduce, then I think it's incumbent on us to facilitate it, i.e. give economic assistance if its necessary for the wellbeing of those children. Clearly that's irrespective of whether the families those kids are born into believe in evolution or not. Unfortunately (for those who bemoan the "special treatment" of women, the best result for kids tends to be specifically to give financial support to mothers rather than to fathers. This is well documented as far as I know so I'll try to find a link.CheersMick