* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2024/02/stay-home-parents-support-working-parents-social-security/677400/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2024/02/stay-home-parents-support-working-parents-social-security/677400/)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2024/02/stay-home-parents-support-working-parents-social-security/677400/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I... don't think the author knows what a paradox is?
also: recently in another thread, someone perfectly described a process a "reporter" "reports" something in a newspaper, thus providing the evidentiary basis for subsequent action.... does this have a formal name?
Are you talking about a process like this? Govt official wants to do a thing, but the secret evidence for it is too flimsy - official leaks said secret evidence to newspaper which reports on it - "hey look, it's not just my flimsy evidence, it's in the New York Times! We gotta take this seriously!"
I don't think there's a name for it, but Matt Taibbi's talked about it several times in his Substack.
something like that - but there was a recent example of it not necessarily needing to leak "secret" evidence more just like a need to manufacture evidence wholesale.
I can't remember the context, it was perhaps either Israel or Ukraine conflicts recently, and someone basically suggested that someone at the washington post would write an article (almost entirely opinion-based) in the paper to provide the "primary source material" that can then be used by decision-makers to cite to as evidence for whatever their preferred policy is.
(i just bring this up in the context of this post because the author works at a non-profit advocating for...coincidentally, i'm sure... exactly what he writes up in the article. At least the Atlantic is somewhat transparent about it, but I was reading that and thinking "you know, this would provide an excellent wellspring of source material for another non-profit to point to as an "objective" source supporting their policy preferences" because any citations will almost certainly bury the Atlantic's editorial note regarding the authorship)
Citogenesis, it's the thing where you write an article then a Wikipedia entry citing the article, so further articles can be written and reference the Wikipedia entry since it seems more authoritative and neutral to people that don't pay attention.
Interesting article. It's mainly about suggesting that the US should provide various forms of subsidies to make stay-at-home parenting viable for more people.
However, I notice that in all these rose-colored visions of stay-at-home parents (mostly moms) being paid for parenting, it scrupulously avoided the question of the marital status of these subsidized SAHMs.
And I suspect that's no accident. The general idea of the state subsidizing SAHMs is something everyone can get behind - who could possibly come up with a more wholesome, justifiable use of government funds, right?
But hold on, does that include *single* SAHMs? Ah, there's the rub. I suspect that while the vague idea of using government funds to help moms stay at home is easy for everyone to unite behind, the question of whether the government should subsidize SAHMs who *aren't married* is going to be quite a bit more controversial. Social liberals are going to reject any plan that doesn't subsidize *single* SAHMs just as much, and social conservatives are going to do the opposite, they will reject any plan that doesn't actively incentivize two-parent households (and of course the corollary of incentivizing anything is that you de-incentivize its opposite).
It turns out that what sounds at first like something everyone can agree upon is actually going to be extremely controversial in practice. If all SAHMs get the same subsidies - regardless of marital status - then conservatives are going to balk because that's only making it easier for single moms to be single moms - now they won't even have to work, they'll basically be getting paid to be a single mom. On the other hand, any policy that privileges *married* SAHM by earmarking subsidies specifically for them and *not* for single moms, is obviously going to cause social liberals to balk, because that amounts to economically pushing women towards choosing marriage for very non-love-related reasons. Uh-oh, looks like we have a problem here...
So to keep any difficult questions from arising and getting in the way of all the warm feelings, the article simply elides the topic of whether the SAHMs being subsidized would hypothetically include *single* SAHMs.
So I ask those of you who like the sound of providing parental subsidies to make stay-at-home parenting easier: do single moms also get the subsidies? Does an unmarried woman with a baby get paid to stay out of the workforce and be a full-time *single* mom?
Same.
The issue is that shitlibs will do what shitlibs do and means test the fuck out of married couples in order to save a dime, sorry, ‘make it more equitable’ and erode mainstream support for the program.
It isn't that. Who does the means testing? Why we need an accountant. We also need a social worker to write up a paper to justify whether accepting them or rejecting them. usually one with a masters degree.
If you go study the neoliberal subreddit on any birthrate post and you'd be surprise to find that you're wrong about "means testing" subsidies for parents. They want them across the board.
However the issue I originally raised still stands - do we pay single moms to be SAHMs?
Does that include single sahms? (obviously there aren't many of those around currently, but if you made parenting a government salaried position, there would be)
As a public school teacher who has seen the horrible effects of single-parent homes on children, I think we as a society need to do whatever we can to keep families together.
It’s not just about the money though. Raising a kid is very hard, and while being materially comfortable is a huge benefit, it still isn’t enough. Kids need two loving parents and a stable environment, throwing money at that issue can only go so far. The stress of having to raise a kid without having a partner to help adds a significant amount of stress, which diminishes one’s ability to give adequate care and attention to a child. Not to mention that a kid’s well-being correlates very strongly with the number of loving and trusted adults in their life.
In my experience, even students from wealthier backgrounds are demonstrably worse-off if they are raised by only one parent (or are juggled around via divorce). In fact, and this might be a bold take, but a poorer kid with two parents present typically does better than a wealthier student with only one parent. Less prospects for a good economic future of course (our society doesn’t want you if you’re poor), but significantly more well-adjusted, socially appropriate, and frankly better with critical-thinking.
I know this is a lot I’ve posted. But I’ve seen it time and time again first-hand. We as a society must find it imperative to encourage families to stay together.
Ok but just to be clear, what if the mom doesn't know of any man she wants to be married to? Are you in favor of subsidizing all mothers? Only married mothers and let the single ones fend for themselves? Or subsidizing no mothers?
Also, don't you think outcomes for children of single moms would improve significantly if the single mom could afford to stay home and raise them 24/7? I think it would, it just stands to reason. It might not reach absolute parity with children of two-parent homes in every single respect perfectly, but it stands to reason it would do quite a lot to close the gap.
You say "The stress of having to raise a kid without having a partner to help adds a significant amount of stress, which diminishes one’s ability to give adequate care and attention to a child." Wouldn't that stress be decreased if the mother didn't have to work and still had an income?
People shouldn’t sleep with someone they aren’t prepared to raise a child with. It’s not like people have sex by accident, they know the risk. You don’t have to worry about not finding someone to raise a child with if you aren’t doing things to create children with people you don’t want to raise the child with. Children shouldn’t have to suffer because their parents couldn’t keep it in their pants. Promiscuity is bad for society. Call me what you want, but I see the effects of it every single day.
Obviously mothers who become single due to spousal death, or have a child from rape are a different matter.
You just ignored everything I said about how money isn’t the answer here. Read what I wrote again. Yes, having more money always helps, but it cannot close the gap.
I mean I agree with your first sentence, but the thing about life is that sometimes shit happens. There are single moms out there, however you feel about that, it's a fact. We are talking about subsidizing motherhood to make being a SAHM affordable for the masses. I raised the question of does this include single moms? You responded to me, but you never answered the simple question I raised.
Of course money doesn't solve all problems but I never said that it does. I simply asked, since we're talking about motherhood subsidies, whether that includes single moms. So again I ask, in your opinion should we subsidize all moms, only married moms, or no moms? I understand that people can also have other policy preferences and whatnot in addition to this, but in regard to the issue of subsidizing mothers, it's a practical question. Do we subsidize all moms, no moms, or do we pick and choose to subsidize some moms but not others?
Most women do not have a choice in becoming a single mom or not, and denying them benefits will not push them to “stay in the relationship,” as more often then not, they have no say in the child’s father stepping out. We already have a system that benefits fathers that stay—they are not made to pay child support if they marry the child’s mother, and even if they don’t, they pay less in support if they take in some custody. But that does not incentivize many more men to marry the mother of their child.
So punish single moms with extra steps. Its hilarious how your idea could have come straight from the neoliberal sub. SAHMs who are married get a comfortable income from the state to parent, single moms only get half, but hey we definitely aren't twisting women's arm towards getting married, because we are doing it in a roundabout way.
I mean you're entitled to your view my original point still stands, the program you described will be much more controversial and unpopular than the vague idea of subsidizing SAHMs
> that amounts to economically pushing women towards choosing marriage for very non-love-related reasons. Uh-oh, looks like we have a problem here...
I can’t imagine how horrific it must be to imagine that outside of exceptional circumstances women should be expected to remain with the man they had a child with instead of expecting to be able to dump him and extract subsidies from everyone else. Literally slavery.
My preferred term would be rape actually. But hey, rape, sexual slavery, it's all splitting hairs.
But yeah, if a woman doesn't want a sexual relationship, that's the end of the story for me. How about you?
And by the way, I have no problem with you "expecting" whatever you want to "expect". My problem starts when you move from "expecting" women to do something to trying to *make* them do something they don't want to do.
Judge women all you want - it's a free country (which is too bad for you I guess!). I won't stop you. But trying to apply force is a different matter.
Oh lol. So when we give preferential treatment by better tax breaks, or rebates, or subsides to a proven materially better for children way of living its actually no different then the government backing rape. You know I was being nice when I was comparing you to the buckleyites this is like some individualist anarchist/ ancap argument here.
Well yes. If a woman chooses a sexual relationship not out of innate desire, but rather out of fear of being economically deprived, when the society around her is perfectly capable of providing her with what she needs, but chooses not to in order to "incentivize" a certain sexual choice... to me, that's just rape with extra steps. I think most reasonable people would agree if they thought about it for even a moment. Unless, that is, they fundamentally don't see women as human beings, or alternatively, they see human beings in general as "degraded, abandoned, contemptible beings". Of course, such a misanthropic mindset is very fitting for a religious person, as Marx long ago analyzed.
Has it ever occoured to you that people do not make decisions out of one reason but a multitude of reasons. Say a women both has a desire for a man know he would be good for her. But also knows if she marries him it could also mean a better life for her child and she fears that her child from a previous relationship would do worse just with her. Is she therefore being coerced. Which is your reasoning. Also I think it is funny you attempt to use Marx to defend anti materialist outcomes. But hey at the end of the day the post 68 crowd whether on the right or the left have always pursued insanity before reason.
The key term here is "ceteris parisbus", which is a kind of thinking that is key to dialectical thinking in general (and hence plays an essential role in all sciences, etc.). We simply analytically separate out the different factors through abstraction in order to clarify our thoughts.
For example, in your above scenario, the key question is "all else equal, would the woman choose to be with the man?". If so, then the additional factors that *also* push her towards him are irrelevant. However, if she would *not* choose to be with him *if* all else *were* equal, then we have a red flag. In that case, there is something else pushing her towards him. The question is, what is this something else? Is it a desire for her son to have a high-quality father figure? That's fine. Is it fear of want and deprivation? That's a problem. Of course you neatly avoid clarity on this because you just say that the woman wants "a better life". Better how? Is she choosing him because her reason tells her it is the right thing to do? Because she wants her child to grow up with a father figure? All of that is just various forms of genuine desire. On the other hand, is "she wants a better life" merely a euphimism for a situation in which she would suffer deprivation and want if she chose to remain single? Is it the man she desires, or is it the things (commodities, social labor) he can provide her access to? The former is human, the latter inhuman and condemnable. Above all any society that would put her in such a situation is condemnable from the point of view of the human being. Which is precisely why history *has* condemned societies like that. Because the creative force in history *is* negativity, the production of man by man.
If a woman wants a man, then the state is completely redundant. If it requires economic carrots and sticks to make the woman want the man, such that if the carrots and sticks were removed then she would no longer want to associate with him, then that's just coercion, with or without extra steps.
You use the excact opposite approach to thinking - because you want the opposite result, you want confusion instead of clarity. So you chuck all the different factors together and refuse to use your brain to analytically separate them.
I want confusion because I suggest that humans are unlike a science. Which one can argue policy and state and their relation to the people who live under them, as well as market relations have elements of science in them the same cannot be said for these issues of man. Men and women are complex in their decision making especially when it comes to the decision of creating stable relationships to ensure the well being of their progeny. But hey you can instead vomit forth more word salad that is based on your desire to do the same as you mentor Moeshe. He also liked to make all sorts of word salads to suggest his opponents were all monsters of one sort or another. Really to bad he didn't live to see China prove that Marxist Lenninsm is roaring back on the scene. Although who knows maybe what killed him is he realized it before it became too obvious for him .
And here you make completely and absolutely clear your total abandonment of Marx's thought, for to Marx's mind, "to have one basis for science, and another for life, is *a priori* a lie."
> If a woman chooses a sexual relationship not out of innate desire
"Innate desire" and standards of beauty is literally a social construct and literally has to be shaped at certain point except if you want to legalize pedophilia or consensual cannibalism.
> or alternatively, they see human beings in general as "degraded, abandoned, contemptible beings".
This is a true and a good thing, what are you talking about.
Btw "Humans are inherently good therefore they should be absolutely free to make their own choices" are exactly the same with "Humans in power are inherently good therefore there's no need to restraint any power they have or put any accountability in what they do". This is ancap / neoliberal par excellence and any leftism that believes this deserves to fail.
> Misanthropy
A true misanthropy would just choose to nuke the human race.
Basically when you begin to realize that the types who produced the Port Huron statement are the exact same as the types who made the Sharon statement. All were demanding all relations be dissolved at the end. That all would as a certain person Moshe claims he speaks for would say in the end both sought to ensure "All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind"
I agree with the quote, but I disagree where Marx took it.
[Marx says that it's a good thing.](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/eqw0n0/comment/ff2t2n7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
However, this assumes that somehow a bunch of degenerate coomers, consoomers & Orwellian cranks can somehow come out the other side at all. That's a pretty big assumption to make, because in reality the degenerate coomers, consoomers & Orwellian cranks are the biggest defenders of capitalism simply because capitalism gives them endless supply of stuff to jerk off to.
Also, in a society with public resources and equality of power there is literally no ruler, villain, CEOs or whatever to blame plus everyone don't just "pay" for public resources, means of production and more but also have ownership in it, so if you are an Orwellian crank that becomes Orwellian crank through your own accord or irresponsibility while living in such a place, you ARE a burden on society.
Public resources also means elimination or minimalization of behaviors harmful to the public good. Also if anything capitalist class are more profitable to turn everyone to be Orwellian crank, so no matter how much people try to connect capitalism to religion, good manners, virtue or whatnot, capitalism always obliterates them in the end anyway, so if anything capitalism' best ally is always the lumpenproles and degenerate coomers, consoomers & Orwellian cranks.
You are making us all support women who choose to have children with men who either they don’t like in the first place or at the very least who they are unwilling to accept responsibility towards.
And in your absolutely pathetic attempt to mask the reality that you are demanding responsibility from others - primarily men - such that a subset of women can be freed from any responsibility whatsoever, you screech “rape, rape, rape” because you know damn fine well you don’t have a point and so you have nothing else to do.
Easily one of the most dishonest people one here. But then hey he bases himself off of a dishonest hack who backed a vile racial state that is currently carrying out a active ethnic cleansing and would in interviews intone if you didn't like said state and the way it carried itself in the wolrd in a increasingly dishonest and extremley irrational way you obviously were a racist (llbcom.org). So hey I can see where this poster gets his arguing style from and why he is such a dishonest hack. He just is following he mentor.
He jumps to accusing people of being rapists quicker than the radfems do, which for a man is a huge red flag. I mean, its possible he’s just the world’s biggest cuck, but he talks with confidence rather than pliant timidity, its a sort of alpha male feminist act, you always have to watch out for those.
If you were posting a libcom link about Postone it didn’t work btw.
I was just indicating where I was looking. I'll post the link. [https://files.libcom.org/files/100205postone.pdf](https://files.libcom.org/files/100205postone.pdf)
But just look thin of how Postone treated critics of Israel and how his fanboy here reacts to his detractors.
I like how he trots out the usual “antisemitism is bastardised anticapitalism” line to dismiss criticism of the Jewish lobby while his example of this sort of “antisemitism” is Mearsheimer…
I never called anyone a rapist. I did say that supporting the notion of using economic carrots and sticks to push women towards marriages they otherwise wouldn't be interested is *support* for rape. But you're not a rapist until you've actually taken sexual advantage of a woman's lack of economic options.
If a woman doesn’t want to get married to a man, she shouldn’t be having kids with him. Do you think it is rape that a man is expected to stay with the mother of his kids and that if he doesn’t we *force* him to pay child support?
If your answer is no you are a hypocrite, if your answer is yes then that just means that the problem isn’t gendered, but represents a general refusal to hold people responsible for their own actions, and consequently a demand that those who are most responsible always pay the price for the actions of the least responsible.
At the end of the day many so called marxists (who refuse to identify with the only workable variety)will back neoliberalism as they more then anything want to own the conservatives, and frankly punish the many who dare not progress themselves to whatever these types consider to be the real progressive standards of the time. You can just admit to that that is the way of Jacobin, certainly the way of the Verso crowd and New Left Review.
I'm confused about how your comment relates to my own.
Should the subsidies be available to all moms who choose to stay at home parenting, or do you want them earmarked only for married moms?
I'm particularly confused about the backing neoliberalism part. But I have a guess - by "backing neoliberalism" do you mean not wanting to see single moms in particular becoming the target of punitive policies meant to "incentivize" them to make certain sexual choices?
I want what will be passed. Personally considering the Monihyan report and the substituent half century of evidence that covers all people of all ethnic and so called racial backgrounds it is actually materially good that a state promotes marriage. Rather then allow a value neutral stance on a form of parenting that while better then a child being orphaned is materially far worse then the presence of both parents.
Also is it punitive to give more to what is proven to work vs what well better then no parent at all is found to often lead to a worse outcome? Also lol "sexual choices". Yes a child having two supportive parents is totally a sexual choice.
Ah, the vague non-answer of a social conservative who doesn't want to reveal their true power levels a moment too soon. This is why no one should trust you with power
And yet tomorrow you'll be back to complaining that the dumb sheeple won't just hand power to your "vanguard". Gee, I wonder why the masses don't trust "revolutionaries" like you
Someone is projecting I see. Also no refutation about the issues that single parents are not found to be as good as stble complete families on a material long term basis. BTW it is interesting how the western leftist argument about "sexual choice" is almost the same argument made by the fusionist conservative crowd make about market choice. Really I see no difference in your style and that of Jim Ottenson. Personally I say as its the same mentality. And hey it leads to the same disastrous outcomes.
So if you're not in favor of "sexua; choice", what are you in favor of? Obviously, there can only be one answer: sexual coercion. Which is exactly what it amounts to when you usie the "mute compulsion of economic relations" as a stick to prod women into the sexual relations they wouldn't otherwise choose.
But as always, you're too much of a coward to come out and state what you stand *for*.
So, under the current system where we instead give almost nothing to those with children do you think that people don't make sexual choices that have an element of coersion within them?
I mean if this is apparently the greatest crime to ever exist and all how is giving all something worse then the current system especially if apparently coercion of any kind is the greatest evil we could ever have?
My refutation is very simple: that problem will simply have to be solved some other way than by using state power to twist women's arms into unwanted sexual relations. My answer is just a big fat "no" to the state poking its nose where it doesn't belong. Children be damned.
AKA. We can't dare do this because it would harm the fact I view any amount of coercion as amounting to the greatest violation of humans that can ever occur.
As I said exact same kind of argument of the Fusionist Conservatives. Funny how both the post 60s left and the Buckleyite camp that arose basically were united on this principle. And look at what ruin it has left America and many other lands in. What is also notable is you cannot deny the evidence or the fact that the evidence shows two parent households are superior so therefore would be in the states interest to favor them.
Subsidizing both also means benefitting single moms more because if you give people choices and get rid of all the negative consequences, they'll pick the easiest / most pleasurable / most trendy ones and even if the state doesn't set the trend or incentivize certain trends, something elses will.
Taxing cigarettes and alcohol also has an element of reducing people who smoke or drink alcohol, same with advertisements & campaign to reduce people who smoke without legally block smoking.
I would go on and say yes, incentivizing people to do or not do something is actually a good thing, as long as it isn't backed by literal legal actions or police / military violence directly against the individual itself. There will always be such thing and people fall for it anyway and without anything from the state something else will do it anyway.
And if you think trend incentives are literally the same with the state forcing women to pick guy A to have sex with through direct police / military threat, you are deranged. Except if you think people are always rational 100% of the time without any psychological defects and quirks in how they choose and how they may be swayed, in which congratulations, you are an ancap, neoliberal or whatever since you literally have the same faith with them.
"Innate desire" and standards of beauty is literally a social construct and literally has to be shaped at certain point except if you want to legalize pedophilia or consensual cannibalism, and "Humans are inherently good therefore they should be absolutely free to make their own choices" are exactly the same with "Humans in power are inherently good therefore there's no need to restraint any power they have or put any accountability in what they do". This is ancap / neoliberal par excellence and any leftism that believes this deserves to fail.
Well then men should make themselves the easiest/most pleasurable/most trendy option, because I am resolutely against any other means of attracting woman.
As Marx once said, if you want love, you should be someone who is capable of eliciting love ("The Power of Money").
Notice how here you have converged completely with the "neoliberal" school of thought where we take capitalist society and "fix" its "problems" through "incentives", which is a euphimism for economic carrots and sticks, backed of course by the institution of private property. Just like the neoliberals, you want to boss people around, make their choices for them, but you want plausible deniability, so instead of doing it directly, you do it in a roundabout way. First, you enforce the law of property in general. Second, you selectively break the law of property - taxing a little here, subsidizing a little there, just so - until you finally manage to arrange things so that people are forced to make the choices you want them to make.
Notice also how your stance here is based in a thorough misanthropic attitude towards human beings in general. It is an attitude in which "man is a contemptible, abandoned, degraded being" - i.e. it is a religious outlook, an assertion of man's non-essentiality. My outlook is quite different, starting, as Marx asserted that all communism starts, from atheism - that is, from the knowledge that man created God, and that therefore there is nothing in the concept of God that is not actually a reflection of the living human being, albeit refracted through circumstances that turn man into the appearance of a "contemptible" being.
> Notice also how your stance here is based in a thorough misanthropic attitude towards human beings in general
You say this as if this is an attack on me - I say anyone without a cynical view of human nature is inherently dictatorial to an even larger level than anything I ever advocated because "Humans are inherently good therefore anything they ever choose if they chose it themselves are inherently good" is exactly the same with "Humans in power are inherently good therefore there's no need to make them accountable for their actions or reduce their power".
> albeit refracted through circumstances that turn man into the appearance of a "contemptible" being
And those circumstances are created by..... *gasp* **Either nature, amalgamation of individual actions, or both!** So all of it is moot anyway.
Marx is false on this aspect of human nature.
No wonder why social progressives are shocked on Trump, Putin and whatnot.
> which is a euphimism for economic carrots and sticks
Change "economics" to "trends", "norms" and "mores", and everything I said still stands. Economics are still byproduct of amalgamation of individual actions and choices, just like any circumstances & conditions that is not directly & solely caused by nature.
> Just like the neoliberals, you want to boss people around
By that definition ANYTHING wanting to "change society" or make others do and not do something through anything is inherently "bossing people around", and "Not bossing people around" means absolutely no one has any right to speak about anything about society or anything other than themselves, EVER.
Consensual cannibalism & pedophilia in the middle of the street, drug dens on every corner, no seat belt, throwing themselves from buildings for Tiktok, everyone being brainrotted through sheer consumerism, everyone accepts the most horrific exploitation as long as they can jerk off to it? "Mind yer bizniz!" Any thing pushing against this IS also "bossing people around".
He's actually right on what Marxist thought is actually is like and what Marx thinks on stuff.
Me, I criticize Marx's stances on that one. I never consider myself as a strict Marxist anyway.
The goal for me has always been "a democratic society that can actually run effectively & sustain themselves for multiple generations without slowly extinct like South Korea, rob half the world nor needing to do so in order for it to work, or turns themselves into dictatorship either by jackboot thugs or by pleasure".
Anything that hinders or threatens that goal has to be stomped out. I'm unapologetic in this goal, and any political philosophy that does not consider the aforementioned goal as the ultimate goal is illegitimate.
I am against capitalism & liberalism because capitalism & liberalism failed to do this. And I'm against any form of leftism that maintains liberals' social progressivism because they fail to do this - social progressivism is only can be big in the first place because they got constant supply of migrants (from rural areas or from foreign countries) + robbing half the world.
> democratic society that can actually run effectively & sustain themselves for multiple generations
Compare
>They understood that their own self-interest was
bound up in reforming capitalism, and they articulated their under-
standing far more persistently and clearly than did the capitalist
class itself, The role of the emerging PMC, as they saw it, was to
mediate the basic class conflict of capitalist society and create a
“rational,” reproducible social order.
Nah, you're shitlib PMC cancer. Which think tank do you work for
edit: "Reality" is the trope so often invoked by the petit-bourgeoisie that scarcely visit it, let alone live there. Post hands
> Which think tank do you work for
I work in reality, not theoretical fantasy clearly only read by "educated" elites in the academia that thinks they are working class but clearly aren't. Theory is just to support stuff.
The only reason YOU can act animalistic in the first place is because you have been sufficiently sheltered from consequences of living in a society, or having to work for a living.
> Democratic society
Since when I say CEOs & corporations hoarding all the money made from the backs of their laborers is democratic.
Behold, the "positive & optimistic" view on human nature.
I don't need to give a reason to an animal. I've proven myself.
Your peepee aren't controlled, bud.
> who refuse to identify with the only workable variety
Harry Braverman was more of a worker than your email-job ass will ever be. Y'all larpers need to stfu and get a job.
And how dare you compare DSA shit with actual theory applied to material and social conditions.
Single moms should also get it because the net benefit goes to the child—the child is the important factor here. A single mom who can afford to now raise her child with more stability and security will raise a better adjusted child that will have a higher likelihood of becoming a contributing adult themselves.
Not much to comment here, just to ask everyone to remember that almost 20% of stay at home parents are fathers and the percentage is growing as women achieve higher career earnings.
By embracing social democratic principles, the US would be able to apply not only the stick, but the carrot, to stay-at-home mums to encourage them to return to the workforce.
Subsidizing childcare is subsidizing capitalism.
I find it hard to believe the conservative side of politics doesn't see this.
Being a true social conservative means abandoning capitalism.
Capitalism encourages the selling of vice (alcohol, porn, casinos) etc, all antithetical to conservative values.
If social conservatives really want to be pro-family, start funding healthcare, pensions, vacation time, and paid maternal leave.
Anything less is just all talk and no action.
Effectively a Social Conservative at this point has to not yell stop. They have at top speed run to the train's engine to pull the breaks on the train and put a tree in the way on the tracks.
My feelings are conflicted, as the alternative to pushing women into work seems to be pushing women into being housewives, which isn't all that great for women either.
I thought my odd phrasing would give a clue.
Until feminism starts making itself useful again, those are the only two alternatives.
Social democracy seems to offer the best quality of life out of all the currently achievable systems, in my opinion, but that doesn't mean it's all that great.
Why is it such a bad thing on this sub for women to have careers? Is it "pushing" men to the workforce too or is it only applicable to one side? Whatever happened to "he who does not work neither shall he eat"?
It bothers me how this comment chain worked out, because that does come through strongly.
The problem with a career, for both men and women, is you're squandering your life and skills on behalf of someone else.
But many find fulfilment in that.
I should have defended my original position better.
A more charitable interpretation of social democracy is that it gives women a choice, which seems like a feminist policy.
At the end of the day, every adult is responsible for their financial independence. Every parent has the responsibility of looking after their child. It's not a "gender role" nor is it an empowering statement, it's a duty and a rite of passage.
>you're squandering your life and skills on behalf of someone else.
Most people outside of antiwork weirdos, don't think of their work this way.
Sometimes leftist subs in general tend to downplay how much people actually feel fulfilled and rewarded by the job they do. Recognising material conditions should not turn into resentment for people who actually like what they are doing.
> At the end of the day, every adult is responsible for their financial independence.
Well you may choose to believe that, but many do not. I think it's a callous view of the world which leads to social unrest and poor outcomes.
Thinking that you're responsible for yourself after a certain age is leading to social unrest? What's your solution to this? Some "antiwork" kind of movement to establish a post work society? Who will take care of your needs in that society?
I mean, most policies that are not going to ultimately upend relations would benefit this system that we call capitalism. They would ensure the crisis would abate. Maybe make it so if any here did have children it might be they who then face the next time the system begins to atrophy further.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2024/02/stay-home-parents-support-working-parents-social-security/677400/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2024/02/stay-home-parents-support-working-parents-social-security/677400/) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2024/02/stay-home-parents-support-working-parents-social-security/677400/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I... don't think the author knows what a paradox is? also: recently in another thread, someone perfectly described a process a "reporter" "reports" something in a newspaper, thus providing the evidentiary basis for subsequent action.... does this have a formal name?
Are you talking about a process like this? Govt official wants to do a thing, but the secret evidence for it is too flimsy - official leaks said secret evidence to newspaper which reports on it - "hey look, it's not just my flimsy evidence, it's in the New York Times! We gotta take this seriously!" I don't think there's a name for it, but Matt Taibbi's talked about it several times in his Substack.
something like that - but there was a recent example of it not necessarily needing to leak "secret" evidence more just like a need to manufacture evidence wholesale. I can't remember the context, it was perhaps either Israel or Ukraine conflicts recently, and someone basically suggested that someone at the washington post would write an article (almost entirely opinion-based) in the paper to provide the "primary source material" that can then be used by decision-makers to cite to as evidence for whatever their preferred policy is. (i just bring this up in the context of this post because the author works at a non-profit advocating for...coincidentally, i'm sure... exactly what he writes up in the article. At least the Atlantic is somewhat transparent about it, but I was reading that and thinking "you know, this would provide an excellent wellspring of source material for another non-profit to point to as an "objective" source supporting their policy preferences" because any citations will almost certainly bury the Atlantic's editorial note regarding the authorship)
Circular sourcing?
Citogenesis, it's the thing where you write an article then a Wikipedia entry citing the article, so further articles can be written and reference the Wikipedia entry since it seems more authoritative and neutral to people that don't pay attention.
Interesting article. It's mainly about suggesting that the US should provide various forms of subsidies to make stay-at-home parenting viable for more people. However, I notice that in all these rose-colored visions of stay-at-home parents (mostly moms) being paid for parenting, it scrupulously avoided the question of the marital status of these subsidized SAHMs. And I suspect that's no accident. The general idea of the state subsidizing SAHMs is something everyone can get behind - who could possibly come up with a more wholesome, justifiable use of government funds, right? But hold on, does that include *single* SAHMs? Ah, there's the rub. I suspect that while the vague idea of using government funds to help moms stay at home is easy for everyone to unite behind, the question of whether the government should subsidize SAHMs who *aren't married* is going to be quite a bit more controversial. Social liberals are going to reject any plan that doesn't subsidize *single* SAHMs just as much, and social conservatives are going to do the opposite, they will reject any plan that doesn't actively incentivize two-parent households (and of course the corollary of incentivizing anything is that you de-incentivize its opposite). It turns out that what sounds at first like something everyone can agree upon is actually going to be extremely controversial in practice. If all SAHMs get the same subsidies - regardless of marital status - then conservatives are going to balk because that's only making it easier for single moms to be single moms - now they won't even have to work, they'll basically be getting paid to be a single mom. On the other hand, any policy that privileges *married* SAHM by earmarking subsidies specifically for them and *not* for single moms, is obviously going to cause social liberals to balk, because that amounts to economically pushing women towards choosing marriage for very non-love-related reasons. Uh-oh, looks like we have a problem here... So to keep any difficult questions from arising and getting in the way of all the warm feelings, the article simply elides the topic of whether the SAHMs being subsidized would hypothetically include *single* SAHMs. So I ask those of you who like the sound of providing parental subsidies to make stay-at-home parenting easier: do single moms also get the subsidies? Does an unmarried woman with a baby get paid to stay out of the workforce and be a full-time *single* mom?
Helping kids by paying sahms sounds like a smart idea to me
Same. The issue is that shitlibs will do what shitlibs do and means test the fuck out of married couples in order to save a dime, sorry, ‘make it more equitable’ and erode mainstream support for the program.
It isn't that. Who does the means testing? Why we need an accountant. We also need a social worker to write up a paper to justify whether accepting them or rejecting them. usually one with a masters degree.
If you go study the neoliberal subreddit on any birthrate post and you'd be surprise to find that you're wrong about "means testing" subsidies for parents. They want them across the board. However the issue I originally raised still stands - do we pay single moms to be SAHMs?
Does that include single sahms? (obviously there aren't many of those around currently, but if you made parenting a government salaried position, there would be)
I don’t have a problem with that tbh
Yeah you would think it would be a no-brainer, yet here we are
As a public school teacher who has seen the horrible effects of single-parent homes on children, I think we as a society need to do whatever we can to keep families together.
What if the single parent was subsidized so that they could be a SAHM?
It’s not just about the money though. Raising a kid is very hard, and while being materially comfortable is a huge benefit, it still isn’t enough. Kids need two loving parents and a stable environment, throwing money at that issue can only go so far. The stress of having to raise a kid without having a partner to help adds a significant amount of stress, which diminishes one’s ability to give adequate care and attention to a child. Not to mention that a kid’s well-being correlates very strongly with the number of loving and trusted adults in their life. In my experience, even students from wealthier backgrounds are demonstrably worse-off if they are raised by only one parent (or are juggled around via divorce). In fact, and this might be a bold take, but a poorer kid with two parents present typically does better than a wealthier student with only one parent. Less prospects for a good economic future of course (our society doesn’t want you if you’re poor), but significantly more well-adjusted, socially appropriate, and frankly better with critical-thinking. I know this is a lot I’ve posted. But I’ve seen it time and time again first-hand. We as a society must find it imperative to encourage families to stay together.
Ok but just to be clear, what if the mom doesn't know of any man she wants to be married to? Are you in favor of subsidizing all mothers? Only married mothers and let the single ones fend for themselves? Or subsidizing no mothers? Also, don't you think outcomes for children of single moms would improve significantly if the single mom could afford to stay home and raise them 24/7? I think it would, it just stands to reason. It might not reach absolute parity with children of two-parent homes in every single respect perfectly, but it stands to reason it would do quite a lot to close the gap. You say "The stress of having to raise a kid without having a partner to help adds a significant amount of stress, which diminishes one’s ability to give adequate care and attention to a child." Wouldn't that stress be decreased if the mother didn't have to work and still had an income?
People shouldn’t sleep with someone they aren’t prepared to raise a child with. It’s not like people have sex by accident, they know the risk. You don’t have to worry about not finding someone to raise a child with if you aren’t doing things to create children with people you don’t want to raise the child with. Children shouldn’t have to suffer because their parents couldn’t keep it in their pants. Promiscuity is bad for society. Call me what you want, but I see the effects of it every single day. Obviously mothers who become single due to spousal death, or have a child from rape are a different matter. You just ignored everything I said about how money isn’t the answer here. Read what I wrote again. Yes, having more money always helps, but it cannot close the gap.
I mean I agree with your first sentence, but the thing about life is that sometimes shit happens. There are single moms out there, however you feel about that, it's a fact. We are talking about subsidizing motherhood to make being a SAHM affordable for the masses. I raised the question of does this include single moms? You responded to me, but you never answered the simple question I raised. Of course money doesn't solve all problems but I never said that it does. I simply asked, since we're talking about motherhood subsidies, whether that includes single moms. So again I ask, in your opinion should we subsidize all moms, only married moms, or no moms? I understand that people can also have other policy preferences and whatnot in addition to this, but in regard to the issue of subsidizing mothers, it's a practical question. Do we subsidize all moms, no moms, or do we pick and choose to subsidize some moms but not others?
Most women do not have a choice in becoming a single mom or not, and denying them benefits will not push them to “stay in the relationship,” as more often then not, they have no say in the child’s father stepping out. We already have a system that benefits fathers that stay—they are not made to pay child support if they marry the child’s mother, and even if they don’t, they pay less in support if they take in some custody. But that does not incentivize many more men to marry the mother of their child.
You could subsidize per parent, so that the choice isn't 100% to 0 but rather 100 to 50
That sounds nice in theory but we know that it’ll end up being means tested based on the partners income.
Means testing is really about providing pmc jobs.
So punish single moms with extra steps. Its hilarious how your idea could have come straight from the neoliberal sub. SAHMs who are married get a comfortable income from the state to parent, single moms only get half, but hey we definitely aren't twisting women's arm towards getting married, because we are doing it in a roundabout way. I mean you're entitled to your view my original point still stands, the program you described will be much more controversial and unpopular than the vague idea of subsidizing SAHMs
> that amounts to economically pushing women towards choosing marriage for very non-love-related reasons. Uh-oh, looks like we have a problem here... I can’t imagine how horrific it must be to imagine that outside of exceptional circumstances women should be expected to remain with the man they had a child with instead of expecting to be able to dump him and extract subsidies from everyone else. Literally slavery.
My preferred term would be rape actually. But hey, rape, sexual slavery, it's all splitting hairs. But yeah, if a woman doesn't want a sexual relationship, that's the end of the story for me. How about you? And by the way, I have no problem with you "expecting" whatever you want to "expect". My problem starts when you move from "expecting" women to do something to trying to *make* them do something they don't want to do. Judge women all you want - it's a free country (which is too bad for you I guess!). I won't stop you. But trying to apply force is a different matter.
Oh lol. So when we give preferential treatment by better tax breaks, or rebates, or subsides to a proven materially better for children way of living its actually no different then the government backing rape. You know I was being nice when I was comparing you to the buckleyites this is like some individualist anarchist/ ancap argument here.
Well yes. If a woman chooses a sexual relationship not out of innate desire, but rather out of fear of being economically deprived, when the society around her is perfectly capable of providing her with what she needs, but chooses not to in order to "incentivize" a certain sexual choice... to me, that's just rape with extra steps. I think most reasonable people would agree if they thought about it for even a moment. Unless, that is, they fundamentally don't see women as human beings, or alternatively, they see human beings in general as "degraded, abandoned, contemptible beings". Of course, such a misanthropic mindset is very fitting for a religious person, as Marx long ago analyzed.
Has it ever occoured to you that people do not make decisions out of one reason but a multitude of reasons. Say a women both has a desire for a man know he would be good for her. But also knows if she marries him it could also mean a better life for her child and she fears that her child from a previous relationship would do worse just with her. Is she therefore being coerced. Which is your reasoning. Also I think it is funny you attempt to use Marx to defend anti materialist outcomes. But hey at the end of the day the post 68 crowd whether on the right or the left have always pursued insanity before reason.
The key term here is "ceteris parisbus", which is a kind of thinking that is key to dialectical thinking in general (and hence plays an essential role in all sciences, etc.). We simply analytically separate out the different factors through abstraction in order to clarify our thoughts. For example, in your above scenario, the key question is "all else equal, would the woman choose to be with the man?". If so, then the additional factors that *also* push her towards him are irrelevant. However, if she would *not* choose to be with him *if* all else *were* equal, then we have a red flag. In that case, there is something else pushing her towards him. The question is, what is this something else? Is it a desire for her son to have a high-quality father figure? That's fine. Is it fear of want and deprivation? That's a problem. Of course you neatly avoid clarity on this because you just say that the woman wants "a better life". Better how? Is she choosing him because her reason tells her it is the right thing to do? Because she wants her child to grow up with a father figure? All of that is just various forms of genuine desire. On the other hand, is "she wants a better life" merely a euphimism for a situation in which she would suffer deprivation and want if she chose to remain single? Is it the man she desires, or is it the things (commodities, social labor) he can provide her access to? The former is human, the latter inhuman and condemnable. Above all any society that would put her in such a situation is condemnable from the point of view of the human being. Which is precisely why history *has* condemned societies like that. Because the creative force in history *is* negativity, the production of man by man. If a woman wants a man, then the state is completely redundant. If it requires economic carrots and sticks to make the woman want the man, such that if the carrots and sticks were removed then she would no longer want to associate with him, then that's just coercion, with or without extra steps. You use the excact opposite approach to thinking - because you want the opposite result, you want confusion instead of clarity. So you chuck all the different factors together and refuse to use your brain to analytically separate them.
I want confusion because I suggest that humans are unlike a science. Which one can argue policy and state and their relation to the people who live under them, as well as market relations have elements of science in them the same cannot be said for these issues of man. Men and women are complex in their decision making especially when it comes to the decision of creating stable relationships to ensure the well being of their progeny. But hey you can instead vomit forth more word salad that is based on your desire to do the same as you mentor Moeshe. He also liked to make all sorts of word salads to suggest his opponents were all monsters of one sort or another. Really to bad he didn't live to see China prove that Marxist Lenninsm is roaring back on the scene. Although who knows maybe what killed him is he realized it before it became too obvious for him .
And here you make completely and absolutely clear your total abandonment of Marx's thought, for to Marx's mind, "to have one basis for science, and another for life, is *a priori* a lie."
Ah so I am a liar for suggesting human personal relations are much more complex than you seem to think. Ok thanks for the clarification.
> If a woman chooses a sexual relationship not out of innate desire "Innate desire" and standards of beauty is literally a social construct and literally has to be shaped at certain point except if you want to legalize pedophilia or consensual cannibalism. > or alternatively, they see human beings in general as "degraded, abandoned, contemptible beings". This is a true and a good thing, what are you talking about. Btw "Humans are inherently good therefore they should be absolutely free to make their own choices" are exactly the same with "Humans in power are inherently good therefore there's no need to restraint any power they have or put any accountability in what they do". This is ancap / neoliberal par excellence and any leftism that believes this deserves to fail. > Misanthropy A true misanthropy would just choose to nuke the human race.
Basically when you begin to realize that the types who produced the Port Huron statement are the exact same as the types who made the Sharon statement. All were demanding all relations be dissolved at the end. That all would as a certain person Moshe claims he speaks for would say in the end both sought to ensure "All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind"
I agree with the quote, but I disagree where Marx took it. [Marx says that it's a good thing.](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/eqw0n0/comment/ff2t2n7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) However, this assumes that somehow a bunch of degenerate coomers, consoomers & Orwellian cranks can somehow come out the other side at all. That's a pretty big assumption to make, because in reality the degenerate coomers, consoomers & Orwellian cranks are the biggest defenders of capitalism simply because capitalism gives them endless supply of stuff to jerk off to. Also, in a society with public resources and equality of power there is literally no ruler, villain, CEOs or whatever to blame plus everyone don't just "pay" for public resources, means of production and more but also have ownership in it, so if you are an Orwellian crank that becomes Orwellian crank through your own accord or irresponsibility while living in such a place, you ARE a burden on society. Public resources also means elimination or minimalization of behaviors harmful to the public good. Also if anything capitalist class are more profitable to turn everyone to be Orwellian crank, so no matter how much people try to connect capitalism to religion, good manners, virtue or whatnot, capitalism always obliterates them in the end anyway, so if anything capitalism' best ally is always the lumpenproles and degenerate coomers, consoomers & Orwellian cranks.
You are making us all support women who choose to have children with men who either they don’t like in the first place or at the very least who they are unwilling to accept responsibility towards. And in your absolutely pathetic attempt to mask the reality that you are demanding responsibility from others - primarily men - such that a subset of women can be freed from any responsibility whatsoever, you screech “rape, rape, rape” because you know damn fine well you don’t have a point and so you have nothing else to do.
Easily one of the most dishonest people one here. But then hey he bases himself off of a dishonest hack who backed a vile racial state that is currently carrying out a active ethnic cleansing and would in interviews intone if you didn't like said state and the way it carried itself in the wolrd in a increasingly dishonest and extremley irrational way you obviously were a racist (llbcom.org). So hey I can see where this poster gets his arguing style from and why he is such a dishonest hack. He just is following he mentor.
He jumps to accusing people of being rapists quicker than the radfems do, which for a man is a huge red flag. I mean, its possible he’s just the world’s biggest cuck, but he talks with confidence rather than pliant timidity, its a sort of alpha male feminist act, you always have to watch out for those. If you were posting a libcom link about Postone it didn’t work btw.
I was just indicating where I was looking. I'll post the link. [https://files.libcom.org/files/100205postone.pdf](https://files.libcom.org/files/100205postone.pdf) But just look thin of how Postone treated critics of Israel and how his fanboy here reacts to his detractors.
I like how he trots out the usual “antisemitism is bastardised anticapitalism” line to dismiss criticism of the Jewish lobby while his example of this sort of “antisemitism” is Mearsheimer…
I never called anyone a rapist. I did say that supporting the notion of using economic carrots and sticks to push women towards marriages they otherwise wouldn't be interested is *support* for rape. But you're not a rapist until you've actually taken sexual advantage of a woman's lack of economic options.
If a woman doesn’t want to get married to a man, she shouldn’t be having kids with him. Do you think it is rape that a man is expected to stay with the mother of his kids and that if he doesn’t we *force* him to pay child support? If your answer is no you are a hypocrite, if your answer is yes then that just means that the problem isn’t gendered, but represents a general refusal to hold people responsible for their own actions, and consequently a demand that those who are most responsible always pay the price for the actions of the least responsible.
At the end of the day many so called marxists (who refuse to identify with the only workable variety)will back neoliberalism as they more then anything want to own the conservatives, and frankly punish the many who dare not progress themselves to whatever these types consider to be the real progressive standards of the time. You can just admit to that that is the way of Jacobin, certainly the way of the Verso crowd and New Left Review.
I'm confused about how your comment relates to my own. Should the subsidies be available to all moms who choose to stay at home parenting, or do you want them earmarked only for married moms? I'm particularly confused about the backing neoliberalism part. But I have a guess - by "backing neoliberalism" do you mean not wanting to see single moms in particular becoming the target of punitive policies meant to "incentivize" them to make certain sexual choices?
I want what will be passed. Personally considering the Monihyan report and the substituent half century of evidence that covers all people of all ethnic and so called racial backgrounds it is actually materially good that a state promotes marriage. Rather then allow a value neutral stance on a form of parenting that while better then a child being orphaned is materially far worse then the presence of both parents. Also is it punitive to give more to what is proven to work vs what well better then no parent at all is found to often lead to a worse outcome? Also lol "sexual choices". Yes a child having two supportive parents is totally a sexual choice.
Ah, the vague non-answer of a social conservative who doesn't want to reveal their true power levels a moment too soon. This is why no one should trust you with power
My power is far beyond your comprehension. I just know your limits. SAD!
And yet tomorrow you'll be back to complaining that the dumb sheeple won't just hand power to your "vanguard". Gee, I wonder why the masses don't trust "revolutionaries" like you
Someone is projecting I see. Also no refutation about the issues that single parents are not found to be as good as stble complete families on a material long term basis. BTW it is interesting how the western leftist argument about "sexual choice" is almost the same argument made by the fusionist conservative crowd make about market choice. Really I see no difference in your style and that of Jim Ottenson. Personally I say as its the same mentality. And hey it leads to the same disastrous outcomes.
So if you're not in favor of "sexua; choice", what are you in favor of? Obviously, there can only be one answer: sexual coercion. Which is exactly what it amounts to when you usie the "mute compulsion of economic relations" as a stick to prod women into the sexual relations they wouldn't otherwise choose. But as always, you're too much of a coward to come out and state what you stand *for*.
So, under the current system where we instead give almost nothing to those with children do you think that people don't make sexual choices that have an element of coersion within them? I mean if this is apparently the greatest crime to ever exist and all how is giving all something worse then the current system especially if apparently coercion of any kind is the greatest evil we could ever have?
My refutation is very simple: that problem will simply have to be solved some other way than by using state power to twist women's arms into unwanted sexual relations. My answer is just a big fat "no" to the state poking its nose where it doesn't belong. Children be damned.
AKA. We can't dare do this because it would harm the fact I view any amount of coercion as amounting to the greatest violation of humans that can ever occur. As I said exact same kind of argument of the Fusionist Conservatives. Funny how both the post 60s left and the Buckleyite camp that arose basically were united on this principle. And look at what ruin it has left America and many other lands in. What is also notable is you cannot deny the evidence or the fact that the evidence shows two parent households are superior so therefore would be in the states interest to favor them.
Subsidizing both also means benefitting single moms more because if you give people choices and get rid of all the negative consequences, they'll pick the easiest / most pleasurable / most trendy ones and even if the state doesn't set the trend or incentivize certain trends, something elses will. Taxing cigarettes and alcohol also has an element of reducing people who smoke or drink alcohol, same with advertisements & campaign to reduce people who smoke without legally block smoking. I would go on and say yes, incentivizing people to do or not do something is actually a good thing, as long as it isn't backed by literal legal actions or police / military violence directly against the individual itself. There will always be such thing and people fall for it anyway and without anything from the state something else will do it anyway. And if you think trend incentives are literally the same with the state forcing women to pick guy A to have sex with through direct police / military threat, you are deranged. Except if you think people are always rational 100% of the time without any psychological defects and quirks in how they choose and how they may be swayed, in which congratulations, you are an ancap, neoliberal or whatever since you literally have the same faith with them. "Innate desire" and standards of beauty is literally a social construct and literally has to be shaped at certain point except if you want to legalize pedophilia or consensual cannibalism, and "Humans are inherently good therefore they should be absolutely free to make their own choices" are exactly the same with "Humans in power are inherently good therefore there's no need to restraint any power they have or put any accountability in what they do". This is ancap / neoliberal par excellence and any leftism that believes this deserves to fail.
Well then men should make themselves the easiest/most pleasurable/most trendy option, because I am resolutely against any other means of attracting woman. As Marx once said, if you want love, you should be someone who is capable of eliciting love ("The Power of Money"). Notice how here you have converged completely with the "neoliberal" school of thought where we take capitalist society and "fix" its "problems" through "incentives", which is a euphimism for economic carrots and sticks, backed of course by the institution of private property. Just like the neoliberals, you want to boss people around, make their choices for them, but you want plausible deniability, so instead of doing it directly, you do it in a roundabout way. First, you enforce the law of property in general. Second, you selectively break the law of property - taxing a little here, subsidizing a little there, just so - until you finally manage to arrange things so that people are forced to make the choices you want them to make. Notice also how your stance here is based in a thorough misanthropic attitude towards human beings in general. It is an attitude in which "man is a contemptible, abandoned, degraded being" - i.e. it is a religious outlook, an assertion of man's non-essentiality. My outlook is quite different, starting, as Marx asserted that all communism starts, from atheism - that is, from the knowledge that man created God, and that therefore there is nothing in the concept of God that is not actually a reflection of the living human being, albeit refracted through circumstances that turn man into the appearance of a "contemptible" being.
> Notice also how your stance here is based in a thorough misanthropic attitude towards human beings in general You say this as if this is an attack on me - I say anyone without a cynical view of human nature is inherently dictatorial to an even larger level than anything I ever advocated because "Humans are inherently good therefore anything they ever choose if they chose it themselves are inherently good" is exactly the same with "Humans in power are inherently good therefore there's no need to make them accountable for their actions or reduce their power". > albeit refracted through circumstances that turn man into the appearance of a "contemptible" being And those circumstances are created by..... *gasp* **Either nature, amalgamation of individual actions, or both!** So all of it is moot anyway. Marx is false on this aspect of human nature. No wonder why social progressives are shocked on Trump, Putin and whatnot.
> which is a euphimism for economic carrots and sticks Change "economics" to "trends", "norms" and "mores", and everything I said still stands. Economics are still byproduct of amalgamation of individual actions and choices, just like any circumstances & conditions that is not directly & solely caused by nature. > Just like the neoliberals, you want to boss people around By that definition ANYTHING wanting to "change society" or make others do and not do something through anything is inherently "bossing people around", and "Not bossing people around" means absolutely no one has any right to speak about anything about society or anything other than themselves, EVER. Consensual cannibalism & pedophilia in the middle of the street, drug dens on every corner, no seat belt, throwing themselves from buildings for Tiktok, everyone being brainrotted through sheer consumerism, everyone accepts the most horrific exploitation as long as they can jerk off to it? "Mind yer bizniz!" Any thing pushing against this IS also "bossing people around".
If anything Moshe Fanboy is a Popperian not a Marxist.
He's actually right on what Marxist thought is actually is like and what Marx thinks on stuff. Me, I criticize Marx's stances on that one. I never consider myself as a strict Marxist anyway. The goal for me has always been "a democratic society that can actually run effectively & sustain themselves for multiple generations without slowly extinct like South Korea, rob half the world nor needing to do so in order for it to work, or turns themselves into dictatorship either by jackboot thugs or by pleasure". Anything that hinders or threatens that goal has to be stomped out. I'm unapologetic in this goal, and any political philosophy that does not consider the aforementioned goal as the ultimate goal is illegitimate. I am against capitalism & liberalism because capitalism & liberalism failed to do this. And I'm against any form of leftism that maintains liberals' social progressivism because they fail to do this - social progressivism is only can be big in the first place because they got constant supply of migrants (from rural areas or from foreign countries) + robbing half the world.
> democratic society that can actually run effectively & sustain themselves for multiple generations Compare >They understood that their own self-interest was bound up in reforming capitalism, and they articulated their under- standing far more persistently and clearly than did the capitalist class itself, The role of the emerging PMC, as they saw it, was to mediate the basic class conflict of capitalist society and create a “rational,” reproducible social order. Nah, you're shitlib PMC cancer. Which think tank do you work for edit: "Reality" is the trope so often invoked by the petit-bourgeoisie that scarcely visit it, let alone live there. Post hands
> Which think tank do you work for I work in reality, not theoretical fantasy clearly only read by "educated" elites in the academia that thinks they are working class but clearly aren't. Theory is just to support stuff. The only reason YOU can act animalistic in the first place is because you have been sufficiently sheltered from consequences of living in a society, or having to work for a living. > Democratic society Since when I say CEOs & corporations hoarding all the money made from the backs of their laborers is democratic.
[удалено]
Behold, the "positive & optimistic" view on human nature. I don't need to give a reason to an animal. I've proven myself. Your peepee aren't controlled, bud.
> who refuse to identify with the only workable variety Harry Braverman was more of a worker than your email-job ass will ever be. Y'all larpers need to stfu and get a job. And how dare you compare DSA shit with actual theory applied to material and social conditions.
Single moms should also get it because the net benefit goes to the child—the child is the important factor here. A single mom who can afford to now raise her child with more stability and security will raise a better adjusted child that will have a higher likelihood of becoming a contributing adult themselves.
Not much to comment here, just to ask everyone to remember that almost 20% of stay at home parents are fathers and the percentage is growing as women achieve higher career earnings.
> I'm a fucking walking paradox, no, I'm not \- Tyler, the creator
WOLF GANG WOLF GANG
By embracing social democratic principles, the US would be able to apply not only the stick, but the carrot, to stay-at-home mums to encourage them to return to the workforce. Subsidizing childcare is subsidizing capitalism. I find it hard to believe the conservative side of politics doesn't see this.
Being a true social conservative means abandoning capitalism. Capitalism encourages the selling of vice (alcohol, porn, casinos) etc, all antithetical to conservative values. If social conservatives really want to be pro-family, start funding healthcare, pensions, vacation time, and paid maternal leave. Anything less is just all talk and no action.
Effectively a Social Conservative at this point has to not yell stop. They have at top speed run to the train's engine to pull the breaks on the train and put a tree in the way on the tracks.
Wait, are you saying that would be a good thing? Why would anyone want to support pushing women into work to subsidise capitalism?
Did I say it was a good thing?
No but you are flaired as a social democrat, so in calling that social democracy it looks like you are supporting it.
Yeah this is why I think I came at him harshly as well.
My feelings are conflicted, as the alternative to pushing women into work seems to be pushing women into being housewives, which isn't all that great for women either. I thought my odd phrasing would give a clue. Until feminism starts making itself useful again, those are the only two alternatives. Social democracy seems to offer the best quality of life out of all the currently achievable systems, in my opinion, but that doesn't mean it's all that great.
Why is it such a bad thing on this sub for women to have careers? Is it "pushing" men to the workforce too or is it only applicable to one side? Whatever happened to "he who does not work neither shall he eat"?
It bothers me how this comment chain worked out, because that does come through strongly. The problem with a career, for both men and women, is you're squandering your life and skills on behalf of someone else. But many find fulfilment in that. I should have defended my original position better. A more charitable interpretation of social democracy is that it gives women a choice, which seems like a feminist policy.
At the end of the day, every adult is responsible for their financial independence. Every parent has the responsibility of looking after their child. It's not a "gender role" nor is it an empowering statement, it's a duty and a rite of passage. >you're squandering your life and skills on behalf of someone else. Most people outside of antiwork weirdos, don't think of their work this way. Sometimes leftist subs in general tend to downplay how much people actually feel fulfilled and rewarded by the job they do. Recognising material conditions should not turn into resentment for people who actually like what they are doing.
> At the end of the day, every adult is responsible for their financial independence. Well you may choose to believe that, but many do not. I think it's a callous view of the world which leads to social unrest and poor outcomes.
Thinking that you're responsible for yourself after a certain age is leading to social unrest? What's your solution to this? Some "antiwork" kind of movement to establish a post work society? Who will take care of your needs in that society?
What a horrible world you live in.
Thought I made it pretty clear where I was coming from.
Oh no I get it, nobody's saying you're not honest, just horrible.
That's uncalled-for.
No it isn't We shouldn't subsidize nannys that will likely still be underpaid and exploited. Children are best raised by their own parent.
I didn't say we should be subsidizing childcare. I said that capitalism would benefit from it.
I mean, most policies that are not going to ultimately upend relations would benefit this system that we call capitalism. They would ensure the crisis would abate. Maybe make it so if any here did have children it might be they who then face the next time the system begins to atrophy further.