Leaving Reddit for trying erase women.

submitted by hylia from self.Introductions

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Futon_Everlasting 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There's very active parts of radical feminism looking at the social factors that discourage women from choosing motherhood or from being able to do it safely (health outcomes, not getting fired from jobs). A lot of radical feminist discussion is about women's role in perpetuation of the species. Can we make it less risky? Less miserable? Can we set up systems that encourage those wanting to be mothers to do it well and those same systems don't pressure women who don't want to be mothers away from other life work? What makes for a healthy family? What family systems support a healthy society? What do alternatives look like? How do we mitigate relationship risks? At least, those are the conversations I've followed.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

These are all questions worth pursuing answers for. I don't think these questions can best be addressed in an echo chamber.

What makes for a healthy family?

Positive male and female role models that are present and don't abrogate the responsibility for raising their children to the state - would be my opinion.

What family systems support a healthy society?

The nuclear family structure supports a healthy society. Research has strongly shown that what I described above results in optimum outcomes for the success of children and the happiness and health of the parents. Especially into old age, wherein they have people willing to take care of them. Young men that have no options for relationships get into all sorts of trouble. The modern "hookup" culture that has arisen is terrible for both men and women.

What do alternatives look like?

Cancer in my experience, but I'd love to hear some of the things you've heard discussed.

How do we mitigate relationship risks?

If you don't mind, expand on this. Do you mean where one of the partners is abusive? We definitely have flawed systems set up to address those issues. Men often get run over in divorce and custody proceedings but the whole thing is damn uneven and fucked up. From a woman sleeping around and taking everything a man owns, to a man abusing his wife and children for years and getting away with it. These flaws are more systemic to our corrupt justice system though, than they are specific to family court.

[–]Futon_Everlasting 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

LOL, we'll be lucky if these questions are systematically addressed anywhere. Final answers require people having plenty of time to explore issues in smaller settings where they can feel their voices are heard. And a whole lot of research.

Positive male and female role models is insufficient by itself for a healthy family. A healthy family has got to have so much more. You need role models to consistently demonstrate good emotional skills on the part of both sexes (looking at American history I'm not sure this ever happened on a mass scale - our history is full of families broken by alcohol, violence, and bad choices). You need adequate management of physical and mental health (problems will arise - best to plan for it and insurance only deals with the financial aspects). You need adequate caregivers (placing 100% of this role on one person is exhausting to the person). More than ever I'm certain children need way more than two responsible, caring adults in their lives and to see them with high frequency. Studies looking at post-birth maternal health (post-partum depression IIRC, but maybe also how the birth went) are finding that extended family structures are healthier for women than nuclear family structures. Before the mid-20th century nuclear family structures were rare in the US (and elsewhere). "The Feminine Mystique" is basically an expose of the isolating, crazy-making aspects of the nuclear family combined with suburban development and strict gender role enforcement. Prior to that mothers had significantly more support and more diverse (and challenging) contributions to the household.

So that's one alternative I think deserves better exploration. And that leads me to mitigating risks. Yes, I'm largely thinking of abuse (from any of the responsible adults). My family blew itself up in pretty fantastic style, but the emotional problems were compounding well before the breakup, and seem to have been multigenerational. The breakup was the beginning of healing. So can we support families in better emotional management? Can we interrupt abusive cascading behavior? Here's an article I found that suggests we can without breaking families up: How High Point, N.C., Solved Its Domestic Violence Problem.

The other risk mitigation and family structure thought I've had is - so your interventions could not prevent family breakup? Can you recombine broken families into larger groups of unrelated adults willing to be responsible for each others' children? Does it help if you contribute to mutual finances? This is an idea I've seen women talk about, but never seen any writeup of anyone trying it out and how it's gone.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

LOL, we'll be lucky if these questions are systematically addressed anywhere. Final answers require people having plenty of time to explore issues in smaller settings where they can feel their voices are heard. And a whole lot of research.

I think the issues need to be culturally addressed rather than legally. People are pretty inventive and the government usually makes social problems worse, not better.

You need role models to consistently demonstrate good emotional skills on the part of both sexes (looking at American history I'm not sure this ever happened on a mass scale - our history is full of families broken by alcohol, violence, and bad choices). You need adequate management of physical and mental health (problems will arise - best to plan for it and insurance only deals with the financial aspects). You need adequate caregivers (placing 100% of this role on one person is exhausting to the person). More than ever I'm certain children need way more than two responsible, caring adults in their lives and to see them with high frequency.

I don't disagree with a thing you've said, but you've basically laid out my definition of "positive role models" in a very verbose fashion. I enjoyed reading it.

Studies looking at post-birth maternal health (post-partum depression IIRC, but maybe also how the birth went) are finding that extended family structures are healthier for women than nuclear family structures. Before the mid-20th century nuclear family structures were rare in the US (and elsewhere). "The Feminine Mystique" is basically an expose of the isolating, crazy-making aspects of the nuclear family combined with suburban development and strict gender role enforcement. Prior to that mothers had significantly more support and more diverse (and challenging) contributions to the household.

In the old days, people didn't move far from home. So, you had a nuclear family (mother, father, kids) in a house that was probably adjacent to or within walking distance of other family. In addition, since old fashioned agrarian lifestyles required lots of community cooperation in many respects the kids were raised by their parents in cooperation with kin, grandparents, and other members of the community.

Much of the comparatively less fulfilling modern life and less stable nuclear family can be laid at the feet of Techno-Industrial society and innovations that have made our lives easier, but also far less fulfilling. I don't think any laws can help this situation - only dedicated lifestyle changes by people. Idle hands are the devil's playground, and people given everything on a silver platter are never happy.

https://www.victorpest.com/articles/what-humans-can-learn-from-calhouns-rodent-utopia

Don't want to go all Unabomber on you, but read his manifesto. His critique of the human misery caused by Techno-Industrial society is spot on, and has many ramifications in regards to the current problems facing families.

So that's one alternative I think deserves better exploration. And that leads me to mitigating risks. Yes, I'm largely thinking of abuse (from any of the responsible adults). My family blew itself up in pretty fantastic style, but the emotional problems were compounding well before the breakup, and seem to have been multigenerational. The breakup was the beginning of healing. So can we support families in better emotional management? Can we interrupt abusive cascading behavior? Here's an article I found that suggests we can without breaking families up: How High Point, N.C., Solved Its Domestic Violence Problem.

I'm usually not fond of solutions that rely upon state force to solve social problems. Largely because all states inevitably end up, sooner or later - corrupt. Ours is certainly well into that territory.

The other risk mitigation and family structure thought I've had is - so your interventions could not prevent family breakup? Can you recombine broken families into larger groups of unrelated adults willing to be responsible for each others' children? Does it help if you contribute to mutual finances? This is an idea I've seen women talk about, but never seen any writeup of anyone trying it out and how it's gone.

It's a thought, and you might be able to achieve it with a close circle of very good friends; but probably not. Human nature is not caring about other people's children nearly as much as you do your own. Then of course, are the systemic risks. I'm actually terrified of other people's children, and refuse to be alone with any of them. Too easy for a man these days to be accused of inappropriate behavior, and if that happens to you, the burden is on you to prove your own innocence. In the interest of protecting women and children the application of the law has gone from "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" to "Guilty until Proven Innocent" and mounting any sort of defense is incredibly costly. Our legal system is based on money, not justice. Have enough money and you can walk on murder, have none and piss off a prosecutor, you'll do hard time for jaywalking.