#unequal household work

[dreamy-conceit]

I feel like female contribution to the family can be summed up in the simple fact that mothers could absolutely never have a "secret second family."

— emilykmay, posted on Twitter 23 March 2023.

[homunculus-argument]

Hi! Regarding your post that starts like this “Sometimes whether or not something is abusive behaviour depends on context, but not infinitely nuanced and complicated context, just one simple question: does it go both ways?”

How do you fit accommodations or varying needs into this? Ex. An autistic person easily overwhelmed by sound so you can’t yell around them who themselves have bad control over their own voice volume.

This is not critique btw, I’d just like an elaboration.

It's not about the act itself as much as the effect it has. Let's say that you're autistic, loud noises cause you pain, but you also make loud noises. Living with neurotypical people who don't have either of those issues, it's not a matter of "if I am not allowed to make loud noises, then you are not allowed to make loud noises", but "I am not allowed to recreationally do things that cause you pain, and you aren't allowed to recreationally do things that cause me pain." It's about reciprocal respect of everyone's needs.

Let's take a non-autistic example: There's a household of three people, out of whom one works nights, and needs to sleep during the day. The other two are awake during the day, and have no hesitation to make as much noise as they want, while the one who works night shift tries to keep dead quiet at night when they sleep. As far as the two day-active people are concerned, the rules are the same for everyone: Nobody can make noise during the night, everyone can make noise during the day.

But to the night shift person, it's an unequal arrangement, as they have the obligation to keep quiet when they're awake, and nobody has the obligation to keep quiet when they're trying to sleep. So the rule is "I am allowed to disturb your sleep, but you aren't allowed to disturb my sleep." Unequal rules.

And if everyone in your household is bothered by loud noises, and makes loud noises involuntarily, I'd suggest trying to find some other living arrangement. That can't be tolerable.

[ukiyowi]

Past Life PAC ✫

Note: Have fun and take care also stay hydrated muah muah, photo credits me that's why they suck (/hj) If you like the pac please reblog!! It helps a lot 💏

1 -> 3

Masterlist ✧ Paid readings ✧ Tip Jar

🍄 Pile 1

☆ You were someone who was constantly transforming, both spiritually and mentally and may have gone through multiple cycles. You were someone who took things in stride and believed that everything will turn out well even if it didn't seem that way. You had a tendency to change a lot in a small period of time to the extent of people not recognising you, you may also have been extremely intellectual and learned, being interested in the arts and subjects like philosophy or psychology. You wanted to get to the bottom of everything in existence and were very curious. However, you also tended to be stuck in the past, reliving old days and collecting old ornaments, nostalgia held you back. You didn't travel a lot nor did you want to, you were set in your ways and your self-doubt led to you missing out on opportunities that would have made you thrive.

☆ Your life on the other hand, was nothing short of glamourous. You were probably born in a wealthy and well to do household with servants and butlers, people were at your beck and call. You may have been close to your father and he may have had a huge impact on you and your decisions. Your life looked perfect from the outside but it was not what you desired. You wanted to make a name for yourself however could not due to restrictions put on you by your family members. You may have tried to stand up for yourself but were only lectured or turned down. Your sibling’s nay has gotten more chances than you did and you felt life to be unequal and unfair. You may have had an unstable family life, and their unhappy marriage may have affected your views on love.

☆ Initially you did not feel fulfilled in your long-term relationship and both parties may have been involved in infidelity and bring closed off about their relationship. This relationship could have been established against both of your wills as a business deal or relationship for the profit of the families rather than the individuals. This harboured a lot of negative feelings from both of your sides, and you both were unwilling to commit. You may have left your home to go be with this person. However, as time passed, you leading to a deeper level of emotional understanding. From this point on, it may have felt like fate or magic that brought you two together. You may have had one child together.

☆ You've learnt your karmic lessons in your previous lifetime and this lifetime is like a blank slate. You understand and accept how the universe is trying to guide you and are more spiritually enlightened, you may have psychic abilities that may be related to your calling in life. You're starting over completely and you will feel called to indulge and try out different activities and hobbies, and enjoy life at its fullest.

🍄 Pile 2

☆ You were indecisive and lacked direction in life. You felt trapped in every situation you were in and were quite pessimistic, which developed a lot of self-limiting beliefs you never tried to grow out of. You were a fatalist and believed you couldn't do anything to make your life better, and were doomed from the start for a lack of better words. You may have been apathetic and a sceptic and were quite discontent and angry with the universe. You may have spent hours, days even months soul searching, you loved nature and believed that it had the power to heal, you may have liked meditating in caves. You tried to be introspective and listen to your inner guidance, but due to your impulsiveness you never did.

☆ You may have lived a life that was lively but you didn't feel like you belonged. Your family may not have been the most well off but you made it work. Seeing them struggle you may have taken it upon yourself to study and educate yourself to find a way to help. You planned a lot and spent loads of time trying to decide what to do, only to come up empty handed because you believed you wouldn't want to live an empty life. You may have gone through a lot financially, and faced homelessness in your adulthood as well as a myriad of financial problems and health problems leading to a lot of loss. Your feeling of not belonging lead to you lashing out at people randomly making you stay away from romantic relationships, being averse to the very idea of it, you may have gone through more than one marriage due to separation or divorce.

☆ You may not have been the luckiest in matters of the heart either as your relationships may have fallen apart due to lack of communication and secrets from either of the parties, you may have gone through a divorce or your s/o leaving you in the past for someone else, however when you did end up meeting someone that you felt comfortable with, you tried your best to communicate with them. You may have felt like your love and affection towards them was illegal (I'm getting lgbtq+ vibes but it can be a secret romance or inter-religion/caste too) and that you need to get rid of your feelings before either of you get in trouble. You may have been avoiding the reality of the situation at the start but after a period of time you may have decided to either get together regardless of what people say, or, eloped. This made you feel free and content, however there were still certain commitment issues and the love fizzled out after a brief period of excitement, and did not procreate rather choosing to live a calm and peaceful life alone in the hills.

☆ Your lesson to learn in this life is to find value in things that are not necessarily materialistic and to stop trying to run after money, and let it flow into your life naturally. You're meant to learn how to balance work and life without burning out in both areas, and learn how to actually execute your plans and work on them rather than simply staying in the planning stage. You need to learn how to accept challenges without doubting your abilities and skills because you already possess what you need.

🍄 Pile 3

☆ You were an extremely traditional person and held strong conventional ethics and morals that made you come off as a perfectionist or stickler for the rules. You were an extremely 'by the book' person and believed that nothing could go wrong if you followed all the rules. You were also extremely religious and prayed every morning, you may have felt very connected to the divine and felt that someone was watching over you. You may have been overbearing and harboured a lot of insecurities especially in regards to your own self but physically and mentally and felt like you were never growing or moving forward.

☆ You may have moved slowly in your life, you may have had a strict and traditional upbringing, with your family being close knit and extremely loving. You had very supportive people around you that always tried to lift you up no matter what and offered their wisdom and advice whenever you needed it. You may have progressed slower than others in terms of your career, but your uncertainty never stopped you from doing what you wanted. You may have travelled a lot in search of what you want to do, and may have wanted to teach or be involved in a career that allows you to impart knowledge. You may have faced failure multiple times and put in a lot of effort in everything you did but we're let down frequently before you could find the correct path. You may have worked in a field where you helped guide people or helped children, you were also someone who got exhausted easily.

☆ You may not have had a lot of romantic relationships and had an arranged marriage which was conducted traditionally. You had similar values, ideas and opinions which led you to have great conversations and you gave each other mutual respect. You were both extremely committed to each other and had similar goals which could mean you both worked towards it together, leading to prosperity and abundance in your career after this relationship as you both built each other up. You both will prioritise your relationship and involve each other in your daily lives, keeping the other in the loop. You'll also make big financial decisions together and have a balanced relationship. You may have two kids together as well.

☆ In this life you're meant to learn how to be alone with yourself without feeling lonely. You are meant to introspect and search for what you truly desire deep in your heart and to stop settling for things but rather striving for more. You'll be learning how to be more intuitive and to be open to taking a spiritual path in the future, while making major sacrifices especially in regards to your ideas or beliefs in order to be more open minded.

All Credits and Rights Reserved to Ukiyowi. Do not STEAL do not PLAGIARISE

[coochiequeens]

Anthropologists just proved what every women already knows

For most people around the world, physical work takes up a great amount of time and energy every day. But what determines whether it is men or women who are working harder in households? In most hunter-gatherer societies, men are the hunters and women are the gatherers – with men seemingly walking the furthest. But what’s the labour breakdown in other societies?

We carried out a study of farming and herding groups in the Tibetan borderlands in rural China – an area with huge cultural diversity – to uncover which factors actually determine who works the hardest in a household, and why. Our results, published in Current Biology, shed light on the gender division of work across many different kinds of society.

The majority of adults across the world are married. Marriage is a contract, so one might expect roughly equal costs and benefits from the union for both parties. But unequal bargaining power in a household – such as one person threatening divorce – can lead to unequal contributions to the partnership. 

Leaving home

We decided to test the hypothesis that leaving your natal area after heterosexual marriage to live with your spouse’s family may contribute to a higher level of workload. In such marriages, the new person typically isn’t related to, and doesn’t share a history with, anyone in their new household. Without blood relatives around them, they might therefore be at a disadvantage when it comes to bargaining power.

The most common form of marriage around the world is where women are the “dispersers”, leaving their native home, while men stay with their families in their natal area. This is known as patrilocality. 

Neolocality – in which both sexes disperse at marriage, and the couple lives in a new place away from both their families – is another common practice in many parts of the world. Matrilocality  – where women stay in the natal family and men move to live with the wife and her family – is quite rare. And duolocality – where neither sex leaves home and husband and wife live apart – is very rarely seen. 

Luckily, in the diverse Tibetan borderlands, all four of these different dispersal patterns can be found across various different ethnic groups.

Our study focused on rural villages from six different ethnic cultures. With our collaborators from Lanzhou University in China, we interviewed more than 500 people about their dispersal status after marriage, and invited them to wear an activity tracker (like a fitbit) to assess their workloads.

Women work harder

Our first finding was that women worked much harder than men, and contributed most of the fruits of this labour to their families. This was evidenced both by their own reports of how much they worked and by their activity trackers. 

Women walked on average just over 12,000 steps per day, while men walked just over 9,000 steps. So men also worked hard, but less so than women. They spent more time in leisure or social activities, or just hanging around and resting.

This may be partly because women are, on average, physically weaker than men, and may thus have reduced bargaining power. But we also found that individuals (be they male or female) who disperse at marriage to live away from their kin have higher workloads than those who stay with their natal families. 

So if you are female and move away from home at marriage (as most women do throughout the world), you suffer not just in terms of missing your own family but also in terms of workload. When both sexes disperse and no one lives with their natal families, both sexes work hard (as there is little help from kin) – but the woman still works harder. According to our study, perfect sex equality in workload only occurs in instances where men disperse and women do not. 

These results help us to understand why women globally disperse, but men generally do not. Dispersal is especially bad for men – adding about 2,000 more steps per day to their step count, but only adding about 1,000 steps per day for women.

Time and energy spent on farming, herding and housework competes with free time. So substantial labour contribution to households in these rural areas can result in less time spent on rest. From an evolutionary view, giving up rest isn’t favourable unless it contributes to higher fitness – such as enhancing offspring survival.

We don’t actually know whether it is favourable in this case, as it hasn’t been researched much. It may be true in poor and rural areas around the world, but less so in wealthier settings.

In most urban areas, for example, an inactive lifestyle is becoming more pervasive. And research has shown that sedentary lifestyles in such areas among white-collar workers are becoming a significant public health issue. They are linked to many chronic health conditions such as obesity, infertility, and several mental health disorders. 

Sex inequality in workload persists both in the home and outside. Now our study has given an evolutionary perspective on why women are more likely than men to be bearing a heavy work burden. 

But things are slowly changing. As women are increasingly starting families away from both their partner’s and their own family, their bargaining power is increasing. This is further boosted by their increasing levels of self-generated wealth, education and autonomy. Ultimately, these changes are leading men to take on an increasing workload in many urban, industrial or post-industrial societies.

[probablyasocialecologist]

A new study launched this week highlights the work of Andhra Pradesh Community-Managed Natural Farming (APCNF) and the remarkable untapped potential of agroecological natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India.  Spanning over 6 million hectares, and involving 6 million farmers and 50 million consumers, the APCNF represents the largest agroecological transition in the world. Amidst the diverse landscapes of Andhra Pradesh, this state-wide movement is addressing a multitude of development challenges—rural livelihoods, access to nutritious food, biodiversity loss, climate change, water scarcity, and pollution—and their work is redefining the way we approach food systems. Farmers practicing agroecology have witnessed remarkable yield increases. Conventional wisdom suggests that chemical-intensive farming is necessary to maintain high yields. But this study shows agroecological methods were just as productive, if not more so: natural inputs have achieved equal or higher yields compared to the other farming systems—on average, these farms saw an 11% increase in yields—while maintaining higher crop diversity. This significant finding challenges the notion that harmful chemicals are indispensable for meeting the demands of a growing population. The advantages of transitioning to natural farming in Andhra Pradesh have gone beyond just yields. Farmers who used agroecological approaches received higher incomes as well, while villages that used natural farming had higher employment rates. Thanks to greater crop diversity in their farming practice, farmers using agroecology had greater dietary diversity in their households than conventional farmers. The number of ‘sick days’ needed by farmers using natural farming was also significantly lower than those working on chemically-intensive farms. Another important finding was the significant increase in social ‘capital’: community cohesion was higher in natural farming villages, and knowledge sharing had greatly increased—significantly aided by women. The implications for these findings are significant: community-managed natural farming can support not just food security goals, but also sustainable economic development and human development. The study overall sheds light on a promising and optimistic path toward addressing geopolitical and climate impacts, underlining the critical significance of food sovereignty and access to nourishing, wholesome food for communities. Contrary to the misconception that relentlessly increasing food production is the sole solution to cater to a growing population, the truth reveals a different story. While striving for higher yields remains important, the root cause of hunger worldwide does not lie in scarcity, as farmers already produce more than enough to address it. Instead, food insecurity is primarily driven by factors such as poverty, lack of democracy, poor distribution, a lack of post-harvest handling, waste, and unequal access to resources. 

[wehavecomeforyourprivateschools]

Much of this analysis comes from a new book, When Nothing Works, written by a team of scholars. Although specialising in economics and accountancy, what they have produced is an essential text for understanding British government: the polarised politics of a highly unequal and increasingly stagnant society.

Take the issue at the top of today’s agenda: wages. Why can’t you and I take home more money? Because of a lack of productivity, politicians will say. Yet the researchers point to how labour has got a smaller and smaller share of economic output since the 1970s.

If the same share of GDP was paid out in wages today as in 1976, the average working-age household would have an extra £9,744 a year. We haven’t lost that 10 grand a year through laziness at work but because politicians from Thatcher onwards smashed up trade unions, undermined labour rights, and crowed over the result as a “flexible labour market”. What they really created was a low-wage workforce, in a low-growth country ruled by politicians with low ambitions for everyone bar themselves

[johannestevans]

straight people in bdsm spaces are always so wild to me bc it's like.

bc of straight people's Thing about the gender binary, one of two things happens

either the woman is the submissive, and coincidentally the whole power dynamic just replicates misogynistic abuse

esp bc like, me and my bf were talking about it the last day, about how the dynamic between straight couples often continues outside of the bedroom and/or is not negotiated in the broader context of their relationship dynamic

like they'll confidently talk about it in other spheres or want to advertise how In Charge he is and how much she's submissive to him in the home and the domestic sphere - often he'll present it in a praising way but it's just. unequal labour disguised as kink

like yes, some ppl really get off on doing household labour and doing the domestic tasks, i know some ppl who are into that as kink and like, esp w the gender play that goes with it

but you have to understand your whys and whats, and crucially, cis men NEED to study it

they need to understand

a) what those tasks involve, and the amount of work and effort they realistically take their sub

b) how to do them themselves, bc if they're not capable of doing them to the same degree as their sub then. "oh it's just kink" is a moot point

bc if she's doing it anyway and you're going "Oh well, she gets off on it" like :/ ok, does she really? or were you gonna have her do it anyway, and you're just trying to make it into a kink thing bc you suck?

it makes me so mad too bc like. one of the most important things about bdsm is being able to relax into the dynamic and trust your dominant to take care of you, and to take care of the situation you're in

and like. how as a woman are you meant to relax and assume this man can take care of things when like… you can't trust him to wash a pan

like. i don't care if he's done 1000 hours of workshops and tutorials and read all the bdsm safety books in the world

if you refer to him looking after your shared child as "babysitting" or you have to write step-by-step instructions for him on how to defrost the meals you prepped for him before going on an overnight trip somewhere, how can you trust him to dom you responsibly lmao

and then the OTHER side which is like…

oh well, the woman is the dom, and that's female empowerment

and it's like. ok so now she's doing all the work, and also you only respect a woman when you can wank over it. and that doesn't really count, champ

like i hate it when people say that bdsm is inherently misogynistic because it's honestly not that, as evidenced by when queer people engage in diff forms of bdsm play

but like. a thing that's OFTEN inherently misogynistic, without both parties (and esp the cis man) going to the work to recognise and address it, is a heterosexual relationship between a cis man and cis woman

putting a whip in either of their hands doesn't automatically fix it

[bimboficationblues]

I find the Marxist stance on the family strange and counterintuitive because it is pretty much the only area of society not penetrated by exchange. Marxists themselves will usually admit this but their criticisms almost sound like liberal criticisms that the "exchange of equivalents" doesn't apply therefore exploitation.

For example, here's Adorno in his essay "On the Problem of the Family": "The family is presented with the bill not only for the crude oppression so often inflicted by the head of the family on the weaker woman and especially on the children up to the threshold of the modern age, but also for economic injustice, the exploitation of domestic labor in a society that otherwise obeys the laws of the market..."

So is Adorno's problem ("bill") that... the family doesn't obey the laws of the market? That's the injustice? Very uncharacteristic of him, but that's how it sounds and that's how Marxists generally sound to me when they talk of "unpaid labor" and "wages for housework". Like look at how bluntly the SEP article on "Feminist Perspectives on class and Work" puts it: "Typically, liberal feminists critique housework because it is unpaid. This makes women dependent on men and devalued, since their work is outside the meaningful sphere of public economic production (Friedan 1963). Marxist feminist theorists see this as part of the problem..."

So it's acknowledging that liberal and Marxist critiques of the family are pretty much the same but with different solutions suggested. If you look at the SEP paragraph after, it talks about comparing the total amount of hours spent working between couples, and then exploitation is present if they're unequal, which sounds to me like an ideal of "equivalence". The paragraph even uses the term "bargain" to refer to the arrangement made between partners. It sounds to me like extending the ideal of exchange to the family (or abolishing all remaining relations of nonequivalence, i.e. the family). Am I understanding this right? Because sounds pretty cringe tbh. When I was younger I envisioned communism as extending familial relations to all of society, but it sounds like what Marxists want is the reverse.

it is pretty much the only area of society not penetrated by exchange.

I think this is a popular fiction, it seems clear to me that the family qua family is also caught up in webs of exchange relations, the idea that the household exists "outside" of the sphere of exchange doesn't really map onto reality but is more of an ideological narrative that holds some kind of "social objectivity"

Marxists themselves will usually admit this but their criticisms almost sound like liberal criticisms that the "exchange of equivalents" doesn't apply therefore exploitation...So is Adorno's problem ("bill") that… the family doesn't obey the laws of the market? That's the injustice? Very uncharacteristic of him, but that's how it sounds and that's how Marxists generally sound to me when they talk of "unpaid labor" and "wages for housework".

hm I certainly think this is true of some Marxists, but I think that is just like, how a lot of Marxists talk about exploitation in general (that it is wrong because it fails to conform to liberal ideals of contract and exchange of equivalents). this is sort of the view Marx was trying to rail against (more or less successfully depending on your view), arguing that the conditions of bourgeois freedom are predicated on various forms of unfreedom. this is in part what the "wages for housework" movement was meant to highlight - it was in a broader web of political tactics and not like, an end conclusion. (you can argue that it's not the right tactic and I think there can be a discussion on the merits of that, but I don't think it should be conflated with the theoretical critique).

So while I agree that making "universal exchange of equivalents" is not an aspiration of mine, I guess I'm saying you can't isolate "*the* Marxist view of the family" as something that exclusively points in this direction (of moralizing exploitation as a kind of betrayal of liberal principle that ought to be fulfilled), there are many competing perspectives on this topic as there are with work more broadly.

If you look at the SEP paragraph after, it talks about comparing the total amount of hours spent working between couples, and then exploitation is present if they're unequal, which sounds to me like an ideal of "equivalence". The paragraph even uses the term "bargain" to refer to the arrangement made between partners. It sounds to me like extending the ideal of exchange to the family (or abolishing all remaining relations of nonequivalence, i.e. the family). Am I understanding this right? ... When I was younger I envisioned communism as extending familial relations to all of society, but it sounds like what Marxists want is the reverse.

Yeah I mean, I think this is an issue of defining one's terms, the concept of "exploitation" in the Marxian sense gets a bit wonky when you take it out of the contexts of M&E working in and against the literature of radical republicanism and political economy and examining the wage-relation (the same paragraph also talks about trying to distinguish between "leisure/play" and "work" to determine exploitation, and that is a distinction worth exploring for some questions, but is somewhat alien to Marx's object: "The fact that the worker performs acts of individual consumption in his own interest, and not to please the capitalist, is something entirely irrelevant to the matter. The consumption of food by a beast of burden does not become any less a necessary aspect of the production process because the beast enjoys what it eats."). So perhaps they're using "exploitation" in a colloquial sense or in an unelaborated sense or are speaking in broad strokes - difficult to say because multiple authors (Federici, Vogel, Delphy, Barrett, who I would say all have overlapping but different kinds of commitments to a Marx-influenced feminism) are being cited to different ends.

Your "bargain" objection, though, seems like a misreading, because the use of that language there:

"Since non-market activity does not have a clear criterion to distinguish work from non-work, nor necessary from non-necessary social labor, an arbitrary element seems to creep in that makes standards of fairness difficult to apply to gendered household bargains between men and women dividing up waged and non-waged work."

is describing the currently existing arrangement of how men and women divide household labor under various conditions - which (under your assumptions) would point towards the idea that there are indeed exchange relations going on within the family, which is part of what Marxists dislike about it. Like I think if they are calling the currently existing familial relation that they're critiquing a kind of "bargain," it's hard to leverage the critique that Marxists want to make such bargaining a universal law. get me?

I don't really know what you mean by "extend familial relations to all of society" so it's difficult for me to weigh in on your question, but that sounds unpleasant.

More "procedural" stuff under the cut.

As far as the Adorno quote goes I agree that that's oddly phrased, but because he doesn't really elaborate on that specific point in the essay it's hard to muster much of a defense or attack. but I do think it is reasonable to observe the various arenas within civil society where we rely on laboring activity that is performed under various conditions of unfreedom.

though I think it speaks to another issue I find here: you are also honing in on one very particular line of Marxist-(feminist) criticism I think, which is the division of labor within the family. Definitely a very important critique to many Marxist-feminists, but that seems non-exhaustive of "the Marxist position on the family" to me, which is also concerned with e.g. the family as a site of social reproduction (in the various different senses that term is used in post-Marx literature), as a form of arbitrary power that subjects women and children, as a tool of psychological repression, as a pre-capitalist hangover, the treatment of sexual intimacy as a form of value or exchange, the reliance of society on these forms of unfree labor, and so on

this ties into the use of SEP - I think where you cut the sentence off produces a disingenuous effect, because in the remainder of the section they elaborate various alternative explanations of what Marxist-feminists think is "wrong" with the family (as they said, the libfem diagnosis is merely "part of the problem"). I also think SEP is like a merely adequate resource for these kinds of questions - it's often a good launching point for like broad pictures of debates and finding good sources (as is IEP, which I generally prefer in its detail), but those articles typically aim for breadth that results in oversimplification (often in a way that does damage to the argument for the sake of covering a lot of material accessibly).

I think Kirstin Munro's work on these kinds of questions is really edifying and might resonate with you in some form if these are your concerns.

[zeus-japonicus]

A Eulogy for Graham; or, a fanfic to celebrate the one year anniversary of Trice Forgotten

cw: death, misogyny, referenced unequal racial dynamics, spoilers for episode 10

Been wracking my brain on how to thank you all for being fans of the show and supporting it throughout the last year, and so I wrote something that will never be canon, but may entertain those of you who love to hate or hate to love Graham. Some dead doves in this notes-app-un-proofread fic so, you know. Take care of yourself and be good to others.

When Graham Peters was a child, he knew he would be king.

When he had grown some, enough to understand how his world worked, he conceded that the only caveat he would accept was that the qualifier "a" and not "the" might preceed his title.

His world became extraordinarily more enjoyable once he realised what his life was to be. He was not close to his peers because he was above them: a king does not entertain the existence of friends - meerly holds court with associates, allies and enemies.

How he thrilled when he understood that society was something he could create. Factions, wars, religions zealously protected, all manipulated by his word. His say. To cast a man into exile for a simple slight; to raise a man above his station for quick work well done. All this belonged to Graham. His whims were laws and his fancies were gospel.

And then to graduate from schoolboy turf wars into real politics, just as his ancestors had taught him! Petty jealousies held against him for pranks in their younger years, employed as allegations like a handful of nails cast into the road. It barely slowed him. For what care does a king have that the horse's hooves bleed, or that the driver is damned to debt?

These years he bouyed through like a Captain who only knows smooth sailing. Wind in the sails and a clear heading. He had his destiny mapped, and the route, though complex and laden with savage obstacle, would forever remain in his favour.

And then there were his women. His sister and his strays, all three snide and serious. Graham was not a stupid man. He understood that a King was only as capable as his Queen. What, after all, had doomed Troy but a woman?

His sister could not be queen of his household, no, but she understood his court. Operated, throughout his education, as his feminine touch. Brought him his intelligence from places a King cannot broach, and slid rumours only believed from the voice of an innocent. The voice of the mother of the child in the country's womb. A future wife to some loyal servant and thus necessary to keep in good graces. Good, old Mary: sometimes unwieldy in her vitriol, but otherwise ideal in her plain and unattractive nature.

His men thought him the fool to keep two bitches by his side. Two who especially seemed inclined only to yapping at one another, nipping at his heel in demand of his attention, destroying the tableware out of some small attempt to mark their territory. But Graham understood these girls because he had seen their type bicker and fight throughout his life.

It was all very well keeping by your side a loyal woman: quiet and reserved, the kind you expected to sink into the backdrop so efficiently one's enemies forgot to check for eavesdroppers, but it was quite another to let the mutineers damn themselves with their audacity. He knew malcontent by its fetid smell, could hear treason in the silences. And his two strays, with their roiling hatred, would eventually turn on their King like the dogs they were. They knew his power, and they knew only one could shed the shackles of indignity and ascend to his service; their true purpose achieved.

All this passes through Graham's consciousness as he understands that he is to die on this godforsaken hill, in this nasty little country, no closer to being a King than he had been as a boy.

He wants to rally against the ingrates: to curse their names and damn them to a fate worse than his. He wants to wonder if he is to be buried in the ashes of his exotic, bullet-strewn manor house, feeding the ground of a country that has bled him dry, or if his sister can find some way - any way - of bringing him home so he can rest eternally, as he had always hoped, amongst his fellow men, buried in their Royal sanctuaries. He wants to wonder if he would prefer a grave under the quiet green hills of home.

What he does wonder is if Alestes is alive. He wonders where he went wrong. He wonders if - as a King, a God might take his life for hers. He understands, as he dies, that this is not the correct thought to have. A King is buried with his belongings and his servants, and so it is Just that Alestes dies with him. That they can be buried together, here or in London, and that this final act will be his coronation.

It dawns on him that he is going to die, and in that moment he would give anything to have been fated to have been born to be a man and not a king. What a fool he had been, to craft a death like this! A man can live a long and weighty life but a king? A king is doomed to tragedy. Alestes, about to choose him over that bastard Baker, Mary, on the verge of her final submission to his grand plan, and Anh, nearly dead by his Alestes' hands.

Tragedians, playwrights and Gods punish Kings for reaching too close to powers not meant for mortal hands. Unfair in their judgement because they themselves cannot grasp the very concept of Worth.

But Graham is worthy. He has always known this of himself. And so he is doomed, not because he is a King of false pretences, but because to his bitter end, though he weeps for Alestes, he takes the time to consider how best to convince the angels soon to greet him that a King amongst men deserves the status of a god amongst Gods.

[heterorealism]

Reasons Why Many Heterorealistic Women Are Rejecting Marriage

Historically, marriage perpetuated power imbalances between men and women. Married women transitioned from being a laborer within their father's household to one in their husband’s until they soon died, most likely in childbirth. They would then be immediately replaced by new, younger wives, like kitchen appliances.

In the past, the roles of husband and wife were distinctly gendered and unequal. Obviously, some things have changed. Since the 1980s, at least, for example, husbands are no longer permitted by law to rape their wives. So there’s that.

While women existed as household property for millennia, it’s only been a couple of decades since women were allowed to have their own bank acounts. Suffrage has not flattened centuries of inequity. 

Most men and women say they want something different for themselves than what they regard as “traditional marriage.” But wanting something and making something happen are two different things. For a long time, we have accepted on blind faith that when men express their desire for an equal marriage, it also implies their readiness to find equal partners or actively work towards creating equality within their marriage. 

Many women struggle with being wives because because achieving equality in their marriage is another thing on a long list of things you’re expected to do as a wife. Cleaning, laundry, shopping, doctor’s appointments, childcare, and achieving equality.

Equality between genders is this thing we’ve been taught has already happened. No, it’s never happened. There’s never been a point where men and women have measured equally on any metric that matters except for maybe college enrollment. The false assumption of parity between genders is society-level gaslighting. 

However, as single women begin to acknowledge this unacknowledged inequality that persists between wives and husbands, it can deter them from marrying altogether. Call it self-preservation.

[solcorporeal]

shoutout to all my straight radfems 🙌🏿

Here's some topics to think about:

Amatonormativity:

the assumption that a central, exclusive, romantic relationship is normal for humans, and is a universally shared goal.

Feeling incomplete or worthless without men? Does the idea of never dating a man embarrass or scare you? make you feel forever alone? Maybe something to look into. We can be satisfied with other types of love, romantic love is not inherently more valuable.

Non Penetrative Sex:

A safer option against STDs or STIs, reduces pregnancy risk, a focus on finding your own pleasure instead of the whole "getting off on your man getting off" cope, actually find what works for you.

NOT Living with your SO:

No need to worry about the oh-so common unequal division of household labor. Co-habitation with romantic partners can be isolating. Seperate living spaces can encourage you to meet other people and have a life outside of your partner. Several couples stay in relationship only because of all the mutual friends and acquaintances they share. Live with other women instead maybe.

Open Relationships:

Keeping things light and non-committal, as a lot of relationships get unnecessary bogged down by societal expectations (which tend to be gendered and sexist). Combats the narrative that it's a woman's job as a partner to "get over" not being in the mood for sex. Only have sex if you both want to, with each other.

Living for Yourself

Less and Less women are getting married. There is so many possibilities for us now. Travel, pick up hobbies, learn languages, help others, etc. Tying yourself to men is not the only choice. Think about choosing yourself.

[gogglemouse]

"Ulysses"

"It little profits that an idle king, By this still hearth, among these barren crags, Matched with an aged wife, I mete and dole Unequal laws unto a savage race, That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me. I cannot rest from travel; I will drink Life to the lees. All times I have enjoyed Greatly, have suffered greatly, both with those That loved me, and alone; on shore, and when Through scudding drifts the rainy Hyades Vext the dim sea. I am become a name; For always roaming with a hungry heart Much have I seen and known—cities of men And manners, climates, councils, governments, Myself not least, but honored of them all,— And drunk delight of battle with my peers, Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy. I am a part of all that I have met; Yet all experience is an arch wherethrough Gleams that untraveled world whose margin fades For ever and for ever when I move. How dull it is to pause, to make an end, To rust unburnished, not to shine in use! As though to breathe were life! Life piled on life Were all too little, and of one to me Little remains; but every hour is saved From that eternal silence, something more, A bringer of new things; and vile it were For some three suns to store and hoard myself, And this gray spirit yearning in desire To follow knowledge like a sinking star, Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. This is my son, mine own Telemachus, To whom I leave the scepter and the isle, Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfill This labor, by slow prudence to make mild A rugged people, and through soft degrees Subdue them to the useful and the good. Most blameless is he, centered in the sphere Of common duties, decent not to fail In offices of tenderness, and pay Meet adoration to my household gods, When I am gone. He works his work, I mine. There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail; There gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners, Souls that have toiled, and wrought, and thought with me, That ever with a frolic welcome took The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed Free hearts, free foreheads—you and I are old; Old age hath yet his honor and his toil. Death closes all; but something ere the end, Some work of noble note, may yet be done, Not unbecoming men that strove with gods. The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks; The long day wanes; the slow moon climbs; the deep Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die. It may be that the gulfs will wash us down; It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles, And see the great Achilles, whom we knew. Though much is taken, much abides; and though We are not now that strength which in old days Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are, One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -Alfred, Lord Tennyson

[nerves-nebula]

i have a question for the neglecred boys, and this is kinda from a personal experience, did they ever when younger watch some sitcom about families and like how they always end eps with the family issue being solved and they all hug or whatever and just kinda wished that that was their family, that they had the dad who might have been grumpy or always working but tried to be around and active in the kids lives, the nice mom who cooks nice family meals, etc

yes, sometimes. i think especially Donnie would yearn for that kinda stuff. But I think for the most part they'd just talk about how unrealistic the conflict resolution was, or joke about how the underlying issues hadn't ACTUALLY been resolved. obviously there'd still be that desire there, but they probably wouldn't have talked about it with each other.

BUT I'll throw you a bone and tell you what each one would secretly be focused on/wishing for:

Leo: Leo is a sucker for fatherly approval, obviously. All-American-type dads telling their sons that they’re proud of them for doing the right thing & cheesy shit like that. He’s also secretly a sucker for makeover montages.

Donnie: most predictably, donnie likes stories where people’s emotions are first dismissed, and then eventually taken seriously. He liked the idea of a family apologizing and crying and hugging and all that stuff. He’s noticed that a lot of sitcoms have an unequal status quo though, where emotional issues really only get resolved for one episode, so he doesn’t like them as much as like, a series with a STORY and CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. 

Raph: Raph was always kinda annoyed that all the families seemed to be getting on fine with food and shelter and stuff. He doesn’t know a lot about how most people live but he thinks its unrealistic and it breaks his immersion that they all live in such “fancy” homes and don’t usually worry about food/resources. But when he lets himself indulge, he likes to imagine what it’d be like to not worry about that kinda stuff. He wants to be able to worry about dumb stuff like school.

Mikey: Mikey likes hijinks of sitcoms a lot. He wishes his household was more Wacky and Funny and less Leo and Raph are fighting again. He’s actually very enraptured by the idea of “Neighbors” that live nearby and can just like,, drop by. The closest he has to that is Draxum (and then later on Casey and April) and Draxum is not Fun or Wacky in any way :/

[seasurfacefullofclouds1]

Larries don’t believe in free will either, they think Louis’ existence is to ensure fulfilment of Harry’s life’s needs. Don’t worry about them, all of their logic is convulated.

Louis has also said he doesn’t like greedy musicians who make live music unaffordable for fans. How come Larries don’t go pester Harry to listen to what “his husband” says and be less greedy?

How come Larries don’t go to Harry and ask him to leave the label that mistreated Louis? How come they never ask him to leave his friends, employees who openly make fun of Louis?

The only criticism is towards Louis not liking the same things as Harry? It’s not the 70s, even if they were in a romantic relationship, they can like different music.

Many Larries have an almost chauvinistic conception of a romantic relationship, because they simply cannot reconcile the reality and the incongruity of facts with the mythology of Larry that exist in their minds.

It’s like a collective hallucinatory interpretation of reality: “If we all agree that something didn’t happen, or did, then our version of events is stronger than what actually exists. We can overcome reality.”

What I mean by chauvinism is Larries’ tacit acceptance of the unequal division that exists between two people who are in identical careers.

In any other real or fictitious relationship, we as liberated 21st century human beings generally expect partners to be mutually supportive, with a division of labor financially, mentally, emotionally, and in intimacy and public stance. We expect partners to uphold their end of morality and ethics. We expect their loyalty.

“Being closeted” is not an excuse for abusing your partner. “Being closeted” is not an excuse for working with people who actively harm your partner. “Being closeted” isn’t a valid reason to have opposing ethical views of the human condition, or of capitalism.

In trying to adhere to their Larryverse, Larries inadvertently advocate for one partner to carry the burden of abuse, much like the marital social contract of the 1950’s— women should do all of the domestic heavy-lifting, withstand criticism and judgment, but shut up about major household financial decisions.

[marxism-transgenderism]

At the end of the eighteenth century, Indian dress flourished as cloth, glass beads, silk ribbons, and silver were reshaped for Indian consumption. European trade goods were incorporated into clothing and signified the economic and spiritual well-being of the households and villages in the Ohio River valley. The patterns that arose during this era remain a crucial part of Native dress; the regalia of ceremonies and powwows enables American Indians to literally clothe themselves in their unique heritage.

The daily interaction among American Indians and French, English, and Spanish fur traders brought together very different people. When the fur trade was at its eighteenth-century height, Indigenous dress exhibited hybrid cultural forms, and these new styles spread rapidly westward to other villages. The syncretism of dress was indicative of the dramatic changes in American Indian lives in the Great Lakes region. Rather than leading down the path to ruin, the fur trade exposed Indians to European trade goods, which they acquired and appropriated for their own use and to which they gave new meanings. Native agency remained at the fore, and the power relations between the Indians and their foreign visitors were not yet unequal. In the early eighteenth century, the few Europeans who lived in this highly populated Indian world found intermarriage the most frequent path to acceptance into village life. With the rise of trading villages like Kethtippecanuck and Miamitown, traders with an array of goods became welcome commercial partners, and the intrusion of the marketplace created impersonal exchanges when marital alliances were no longer crucial to acceptance. During this same period, the hybridization of cultures became increasingly apparent. The images displayed in this chapter, the written historical records, and the archaeological evidence reflect a past in which change was part of daily life for Indians. Indian identity has often been elided or silenced in the documentary record because of our static portraits of traditional Indians and our belief that authentic Indians were unchanging. We tend to categorize the eighteenth-century Ohio River valley as inhabited by Indians and by Europeans cast as different and oppositional cultures when, in fact, their dress, lifestyles, and even occupations were in flux. We strip Indians of their Indianness simply because they were as prone to change as any group of human beings or because we see their adoption of selected French practices as a sign of their aspiring to be Frenchmen. Instead of addressing the remaking of social practices from an Indigenous perspective, we transform Indians into French, métis, or a static peoples separated into unbridgeable ethnic categories. Rarely do we imagine the evolution of a new social world as Indians integrated diverse peoples into their cultures. The pictures displayed in this chapter are not those of a vanishing race but of a colorful, multiethnic society fashioned by a vibrant fur trade world.

In the nineteenth century, the villages of the Great Lakes world were drawn together into a larger Pan-Indian world—the work, not so much of Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa, but of earlier women’s involvement in the fur trade: women facilitated intermarriage, processed huge quantities of peltry, demanded and secured large amounts of cloth, and transformed trade cloth into beautiful dress that first displayed and ultimately eased the ethnic divisions of the various villages that settled in the Ohio River valley. Which traders were incorporated into this village world was determined by the people who lived there; women were central to decision making, selecting which outsiders to include in their households.

When growing divisions in material wealth threatened to splinter villages and fragment this diverse world, Indians, rather than outsiders, took measures that leveled those disparities. Villages intervened to level and reallocate individual accumulations of wealth. In his captivity narrative, William Biggs described how the Kickapoo attempted to redistribute the lopsided accumulation of material goods: “I was taken to that town, there was a number of Indians went from that town to the old Kickapoo trading town. They took me with them to dance what is called the ‘Beggar’s Dance’. It is a practice for the Indians every spring, when they come in from their hunting ground, to go to the trading towns and dance for presents; they will all go through the streets and dance before all the traders’ doors. The traders then will give them presents, such as tobacco, bread, knives, spirits, tomahawks, etc.” In this Indian world, authority and respect emerged from generosity, not the individual accumulation of wealth.

As we shall see, Indians from the northern Great Lakes and the eastern seaboard came from great distances to defend this village world from the United States’ armed intrusion. The fur trade established new pathways of trade that linked villages in the northern Great Lakes with those in the Ohio River valley. When corn harvests failed in the north, Indian villages along the Wabash provided surplus corn. In exchange, the Ojibwe provided winter furs or highly prized eagle feathers. Clothing was exchanged along these same pathways, and marital alliances sealed and expanded those trade routes.

Between the Seven Years’ War and the Revolutionary War, most of the remaining Shawnee and Delaware moved west and settled adjacent to the Miami. Some were also incorporated into the Wyandot villages at Fort Sandusky; others were absorbed into established Shawnee and Delaware villages. Populations increased dramatically because of the large number of refugees but also because of natural increases among existing Indian populations. Except for the Illinois to the west, most villages recovered from the initial onslaught of diseases associated with encounter.

This population increase was endangered by Anglo-American newcomers moving into the region before Indian lands were ceded. Well-dressed Indians living in prosperous villages were an enticing target for Americans who squatted on Indian lands and who considered Indian people fit objects for plunder. They regarded Indians as “savages”—despite the material evidence to the contrary.

— Susan Sleeper-Smith, Indigenous Prosperity and American Conquest: Indian women of the Ohio River Valley, 1690–1792

[thatsonemorbidcorvid]

“Researchers examined data on childhood poverty in India, Ethiopia, Peru and Vietnam, which included over 12,000 children.

Following the lives of the children from the age of eight until 22, the team analysed employment in any paid work and sector, type of employment and earnings. 

The study found that the amount and nature of housework influenced girls’ participation at school, reduced their time to study and therefore worsened their future employment opportunities. 

At age 22, women were more likely to be unemployed than men (70.6 per cent of women compared to 85.7 per cent of men) and had lower wages, as women earned US$1.46 an hour compared to men who earned US$1.77 an hour.”

Young women and girls taking part in unpaid housework contributes to the gender pay gap, according to a new study.

Research from the Universities of East Anglia (UEA), Birmingham and Brunel has shown that women’s employment participation in later life is impacted by the amount of chores they take on during childhood.

According to UNICEF, young women and girls taking part in unpaid housework contributes to the gender pay gap, according to a new study. Girls spend 40 per cent more time on housework than boys, and unequal shares contribute and are linked to wider inequalities such as lack of access to water, which can lengthen cleaning times.

Researchers examined data on childhood poverty in India, Ethiopia, Peru and Vietnam, which included over 12,000 children.

Following the lives of the children from the age of eight until 22, the team analysed employment in any paid work and sector, type of employment and earnings. 

The study found that the amount and nature of housework influenced girls’ participation at school, reduced their time to study and therefore worsened their future employment opportunities. 

At age 22, women were more likely to be unemployed than men (70.6 per cent of women compared to 85.7 per cent of men) and had lower wages, as women earned US$1.46 an hour compared to men who earned US$1.77 an hour.

Dr Vasilakos, Associate Professor of Sustainable Business Economics and Public Policy at UEA, said: “Unequal participation in household work starts at a young age. Widening differences over time suggest gendered trajectories.”

Professor Fiona Carmichael, of the Birmingham Business School, said: “Longer hours of unpaid household work that reduces girls’ time for study may therefore limit their future lives by constraining employment opportunities.

“This confirms that the care burden to women of their greater share of household work starts back in childhood.”

Shireen Kanji, Professor of Human Resource Management at Brunel University London, said: “It seems that in comparison to men, women’s employment is likely to be driven to a greater extent by lack of choice or by need, and is characterised by fewer opportunities for well-paid, higher-quality employment.” 

However, the study also found that girls whose parents had higher aspirations for them at age 12 had a better chance of being employed in a high-paying role at age 22.