On females

[Ironside]

Considering the fact that the voting population almost doubled all of a sudden, womens suffrage had remarkably little impact on politics.

One thing I do regret in terms of 'feminist progress' is the fact that so many women work nowadays. Not because I oppose women working on principle, since the idea of a housewife is really a pretty modern innovation anyway. The problem is that society wasn't ready for it. The reality is that the family is the basic social unit - so the problem is we have all these two-income households, and then a bunch of no-income households.

As so often is the case, 'liberation' in one sphere often causes a far worse sort of oppression in another.

You are aware that one of the early driving forces for women on the workplace were male unemployment? As in the male unemployment came first, causing men to marry later, -> women marries later and their middle class dad can't support them for that long.

Unemployemnt compared to the workforce is quite a bit more complex than a simple ratio.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are aware that one of the early driving forces for women on the workplace were male unemployment? As in the male unemployment came first, causing men to marry later, -> women marries later and their middle class dad can't support them for that long.

Unemployemnt compared to the workforce is quite a bit more complex than a simple ratio.

Rhy's argument isn't about unemployment - it's about Class.

The central thesis being (not without merit) that middle class women are more likely to, say, get places at good universities than working-class men. That means that people from the working class actually have fewer opportunities to better themselves than they did when fewer women worked. Those few working-class people who do better themselves then marry within their profession (teachers marry teachers, solicitors marry solicitors) rather than in their community, i.e. they marry someone outside their own class.

The net result, the theory goes, is a reduction in social mobility.

As I said - some merit - but the counter point is that if women didn't work or go to university, our universities would not be the same size as they are now, and not all men would have a degree.

[Fragony]

As a found supporter of women's rights I just have to say that feminists can't control themselves sometimes. Horetore succeeded I had to say that.

[The Stranger]

It was a tragedy, what happened a hundred days ago. From the posters got the ability to thank people for their posts, our entire forum has gone in the direction of complete crap. Many are not even capable of imagining a forum today without the Thank You Button.

The end is nigh, I tell you.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You are aware that one of the early driving forces for women on the workplace were male unemployment? As in the male unemployment came first, causing men to marry later, -> women marries later and their middle class dad can't support them for that long.

Unemployemnt compared to the workforce is quite a bit more complex than a simple ratio.

All of which is of course obvious. The problem is that solutions to short-term problems (eg the need for women to work in factories during WWI) have been applied to wider society on a much longer term basis when it simply wasn't ready for it. Particular economic 'blips' aside, we had an economy based on one-income households. If two people from certain households get jobs, then that is going to result in households where nobody works.

As Philipvs said, it's a class issue, and that's why I always think it strange that self-identifying socialists should rejoice in the situation.

Of course, we then get a situation where the disgruntled working-class men are dubbed sexist for pointing out this issue, in much the same way they are dubbed racist for pointing out the impact of immigration on jobs. I will grant that often they are sexist and racist, but that is really just a knee-jerk way of expressing real grievances.

For all the talk about racism and sexism keeping the masses down, in a rather roundabout way, we've got to the stage where anti-racism, anti-sexism and the like are actually used by mainstream, middle-class society to demonize the underclass and justify their wealth by their moral superiority.

As I said - some merit - but the counter point is that if women didn't work or go to university, our universities would not be the same size as they are now, and not all men would have a degree.

I rarely hear positive things about universities and social mobility these days, so I question this as a counter-argument.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Double-post my mistake.

[Ironside]

All of which is of course obvious. The problem is that solutions to short-term problems (eg the need for women to work in factories during WWI) have been applied to wider society on a much longer term basis when it simply wasn't ready for it. Particular economic 'blips' aside, we had an economy based on one-income households. If two people from certain households get jobs, then that is going to result in households where nobody works.

And here it is where the complexity sets in. A double household will also have increased wealth so it will in turn have a higher consumption, which in turn produces more jobs. If the long term unemployed simply vanished, it wouldn't take that long before it would regrow from the working population.

As Philipvs said, it's a class issue, and that's why I always think it strange that self-identifying socialists should rejoice in the situation.

Repeat after me. To be independent, I'll need my own income. Otherwise I'll need to pray that my provider is both reasonable and not unlucky.

That should cover why socialists prefer it.

And you're barking up the wrong tree when it comes to the reason why UK has so low social mobillity. The UK aren't in any way special when it comes to women in the workforce, many countries with much higher social mobillity have more.

[The Lurker Below]

Oh good heavens please don't take my woman out of the work force, we'll be living on teachers pay. Our kids will qualify for free lunch. Don't punish the rest of us just because he of the stolen reply has not yet figured out how to take advantage of well employed females.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And here it is where the complexity sets in. A double household will also have increased wealth so it will in turn have a higher consumption, which in turn produces more jobs.

If there are four people spread across two households, then if any two of them work the total wealth will be no different regardless of which two they are, so I don't see how it affects total consumption.

If the long term unemployed simply vanished, it wouldn't take that long before it would regrow from the working population.

Why would this happen?

Repeat after me. To be independent, I'll need my own income. Otherwise I'll need to pray that my provider is both reasonable and not unlucky.

That should cover why socialists prefer it.

I don't have a problem with the woman working if the man is not. The problem is that a lot of the time women take jobs purely just to give them a bit of pocket money and maybe something to do all day, even when their husband already has a good wage.

Of course because this woman* gets pocket money, another family is left jobless. And that's why socialists take the wrong approach to this issue.

* I do not mean to sound chauvinistic, I am simply pointing out the trends that exist in our culture.

And you're barking up the wrong tree when it comes to the reason why UK has so low social mobillity. The UK aren't in any way special when it comes to women in the workforce, many countries with much higher social mobillity have more.

You are attributing things to me that I never said. Of course there are a lot of things that affect social mobility, and indeed I never said anything about the UK specifically. My point was simply that the education system, or at least higher education, no longer does much for social mobility. That's a whole separate issue from female employment.

[Papewaio]

Employment can be a positive feedback.

Look at a gold rush for instance.

Prospectors rush to the gold fields. They then need goods and services so around mining camps you had laundries, general stores, pubs/saloons, churches, gambling dens, houses of ill repute and banks.

All these employed more people.

[Ironside]

If there are four people spread across two households, then if any two of them work the total wealth will be no different regardless of which two they are, so I don't see how it affects total consumption.

The problem is that a lot of the time women take jobs purely just to give them a bit of pocket money and maybe something to do all day, even when their husband already has a good wage.

First of all, even a unemployed household spends money, otherwise it wouldn't be a household, but street beggars (and since they're alive even those spends some money). Second and more important, the nature of the spending would vary. The higher income household would have a more varied spending, thus creating more jobs.
It's really complex stuff, but I'll summarise it like this: The problem of unemployment was about as big now as it was before women entered the workplace, despite a 90% increase of the working population. They UK aren't running around with a 45-50% unemployment aren't they? That's what the 1:1 numbers would give.

Of course because this woman* gets pocket money, another family is left jobless. And that's why socialists take the wrong approach to this issue.

* I do not mean to sound chauvinistic, I am simply pointing out the trends that exist in our culture.

I don't have a problem with the woman working if the man is not.

Describing it as pocket money isn't exactly helping. And lets see what happens if we make the Rhyfelwyr law. Two single households needs their own income correct? That's stage A. These two have now found eachother and wants to live together. If they move together, then one needs to quit his/her job at the same time as their expenses increases (living 2 together is more expensive). Add having children, an extra expense. Basically, you'll encurage them to live separatly, the child came from "a one night" stand, daddy gets to pay child support and they live together unofficially. Marry? Hell no!!!

To prevent this, you'll need to prevent stage A. And how to that workingly? Gender lines!!

Why would this happen?

The consumption of the dissappeared wouldn't exist, causing work redundancy -> unemployment. Some unemployed aren't that much related to the market, so they would appear by people growing up.

You are attributing things to me that I never said. Of course there are a lot of things that affect social mobility, and indeed I never said anything about the UK specifically. My point was simply that the education system, or at least higher education, no longer does much for social mobility. That's a whole separate issue from female employment.

No, but you're generalizing from a UK perspective, which influences what you're saying.

For example, using your and Philivps words. but in another way than you expected.

You expect higher social mobillity by letting men work for "women middle class pocket money" and at the same time supporting his now unemployed working class wife (the working class women are a larger group than working class men). Of course that will never happen because he can marry upwards in class because of the status of your wife's dad (since the woman no longer works, any class she has related to her work is gone) and there's a huge excess of middle class women.

[The Stranger]

oh man, horetore must be laughing himself into a fit.

[Husar]

A world famous think tank has recently dealt with a very similar question and I think the result is very relevant for this topic as well:



Some parts of my body want to stand up for her right to say that.
Well, they would, if I didn't have a cold, but that's irrelevant.

The problem with female voting rights is that men don't like it. As such the men are the problem but since men own the rights to production they can't have their voting rights taken away which brings us right back to not allowing the unemployed to vote. Which would then hurt mostly women because they can't get jobs so it's a misogynistic policy even though we mostly think of male couch potatoes when we want to hate on the unemployed because if we think of unemployed women some parts of our bodies want to stand up for them again because we're all men arguing over this and women don't care. Which is why women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't care.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That's it, you may now try to resume a normal life. Thank you.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ugh, I had a proper point-by-point reply written out, that I have lost to the forum playing up.

Anyway, the gist of it was this: That the variety of consumption is far less important that its sum total, that the sum total does not change depending on who holds a job; and even then, petty gains in circulation do not excuse reducing whole households to poverty. Even such gains are questionable, since higher income households are more likely to save up and take money out of circulation.

As for criticism of the "Rhyfelwyr law", it is unfair because it is not intended as an isolated policy. And even if it did have the effect of many women choosing to leave work, I do not see that as a failing, since it is not the job of governments to take artificial measures to forcibly change cultural norms.

To address one point specifically...

You expect higher social mobillity by letting men work for "women middle class pocket money" and at the same time supporting his now unemployed working class wife (the working class women are a larger group than working class men). Of course that will never happen because he can marry upwards in class because of the status of your wife's dad (since the woman no longer works, any class she has related to her work is gone) and there's a huge excess of middle class women.

I'm not entirely sure I get what you are saying here. But, if a working-class man should gain middle-class employment and marry within the middle-classes, is that not the definition of social mobility? An unemployed woman married to a middle-class man is still middle-class herself.

Not to confuse with "internet debate" which is thinking you know about a topic when you really don't. We all have that one very high I think.

I think it is probably a more general human trait that the internet exposes, rather than being a product of the internet or the types of people that frequent it.

[Ironside]

Ugh, I had a proper point-by-point reply written out, that I have lost to the forum playing up.

Anyway, the gist of it was this: That the variety of consumption is far less important that its sum total, that the sum total does not change depending on who holds a job; and even then, petty gains in circulation do not excuse reducing whole households to poverty. Even such gains are questionable, since higher income households are more likely to save up and take money out of circulation.

My apologies for not going in to this earlier. Does 5 small factories employ more or less than 1 big one? They employ more. That's why employment increases. And money put into the bank isn't out of circulation.

As for criticism of the "Rhyfelwyr law", it is unfair because it is not intended as an isolated policy. And even if it did have the effect of many women choosing to leave work, I do not see that as a failing, since it is not the job of governments to take artificial measures to forcibly change cultural norms.

Well excuse me for not liking the idea of regress away 200 years and creating a system that promotes oppression when there's a conflict.

I'm not entirely sure I get what you are saying here. But, if a working-class man should gain middle-class employment and marry within the middle-classes, is that not the definition of social mobility? An unemployed woman married to a middle-class man is still middle-class herself.

The desirable middle class women will be in a minority compared to the middle+working class men, making it similar to the aristocracy, who aren't exactly known for strong social mobillity. It will enforce the status quo social layers rather than generating more social mobillity.

I think it is probably a more general human trait that the internet exposes, rather than being a product of the internet or the types of people that frequent it.

And "politician speak" is a mixture of being forced to answer a question you don't have an answer on, while not lying (since they'll smack you down after a factcheck).

It's more of a reference of were the behavior most obviously appears.

What makes you think you are an authority to make such a statement?!?!

That would be my title in bullshitium.