Fw: Gender Bias: Was capitalist religion

From: Olga Bourlin (fauxever@sprynet.com)
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 08:11:38 MDT

> J. R. Molloy wrote:
> > Unless, of course, the "someone else" is the wife and kids.

To which Eugene Leitl replied:

> Go easier on those quips and one-line wisecracks, J.R., you're dangerously
> near the NOISE cathegory.

Forgive me, I am not certain whether Eugene's reply was in jest, but count
me in as one who appreciated J.R.'s so-called wisecrack. Interesting
"contradictions" pop up with most political persuasions and beliefs (example
of latter is congruity of hateful bigotry with of Jesus-loves-you

Jerry Mitchell wrote:
> > > The
> > >guy who wants a family can be all the capitalist he wants, but he needs
> > >to give up some of his own earnings for the wife and kids.

Jerry is apparently talking about a stay-at-home-wife and kids (I may be
wrong, but otherwise why else would a "guy" need to give up some of his own
earnings any more than a working "gal" may need to give up some of her
earnings?). And later on Jerry did say:

> >Having to give up your own earnings to fund someone else's laziness is
> >certainly unfair

... and so I thought J.R. Molloy's observation was prescient (he caught the
contradiction)! The question seems to come down not so much as to whether
childrearing is tough work (a point on which Natasha and Samantha weighed
in), but whether it's work at all? Is it? If it is, then maybe that work
needs to be validated with a paycheck. After all, isn't that the capitalist
premise (promise?): you work = you get paid. I know if there's a discussion
on this topic, someone will point out that having children is a choice (and
I agree). But then, so is buying a Jaguar. But we will probably never see
Jerry Mitchell posting: "... but he needs to give up some of his own
earnings for the wife and luxurious family car." Whaaaaat? Add "children"
to the equation, and it's no longer the world's oldest profession?

Ingratiating as always,

To which Natasha retorted:
> > It makes sense to me that in a partnership where both parties want a
> > family, that both parties work and pay equally. Producing and raising a
> > child is said to be one of the toughest jobs there is.

And Samantha replied:
> Do you think that housewives don't work? Ha! It is a bit
> better today but in most two wage-earner families I know of the
> woman comes home from the office and does most of the cooking,
> cleaning and dealing with the children still on top of her
> workday at the office.

(Scenario 1), Natasha is talking about both parties working and paying
equally, and childrearing is always tough (Scenario 2), and Samantha seems
to be saying whether housewives work outside the home, inside the home, or
both, it's all work, and childrearing is always tough (Scenario 3).

, and I'm sure the socialist system recipient
> >acknowledges this as he/she cashes their government check.

Are you going to claim that guaranteed income or all social
programs only exist to fund the recipient's "laziness"? Do you
really believe this? Because that is sure what you seem to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:54 MDT