this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2025
-10 points (40.7% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6437 readers
26 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So prior to WWII there was an order to things. Women stayed home. Men went off to work all day. The woman raised the kids, the man made the money, and together their home was well taken care of both financially and emotionally.

Then WWII happened, and Hitler was like "Hey man, come join these parties on the beaches! We got invited to France, and now we're hanging out! Come on over!"

Well.....it didn't happen EXACTLY like that, but the end result was that something like 60% of men in the USA were now over in Europe fighting WWII. Which left the issue of the ecconomy. Who was going to work, if the men weren't even in the country? So, the women did both jobs. They went to work. Then they came home and tried their best to raise the kids.

Doing that alone is tough.

Then the war ended, and the men came back with the idea that they'd just take over their old jobs, the women would go back home, and things would return to normal.

Except that didn't happen. The women decided that they enjoyed being at work more than they enjoyed being at home. And the men were stubborn like men are, and they ALSO went back to work. This left the entire boomer generation with a situation where nobody really raised them. Instead of previous generations who got good discipline from their mother, and a punishment from their father if they were bad, they instead got.....nothing. They were allowed to freely do whatever the fuck they wanted. Which is why that entire generation has felt so entitled from the time they were kids to now in AARP. There has never been a time when the boomers mentality as a generation has felt "I should be more responsible for myself and for others". Whereas that was the main mentality for centuries prior.

So now you got households throughout the 50s and 60s with 2 incomes, at a time that stores and the economy was designed for 1 home income. So families spent in excess because they had excess. Houses were cheaap, salaries were abundant, life was good.......as long as you ignored the cold war, and the fact that both America and the USSR were playing chicken with nuclear warheads. Other than that though.....

So now you got the 1980s, and the economy is starting to catch up to the idea that most houses have 2 incomes. They gouge a little more, because fuck it. The 1980s became the decade that was all about corporate greed. Remember that movie line? "Greed is good", and people were revoling in that concept. They were even dumb enough to believe in trickle down ecconomics, because their lives weren't fucked yet.

And the 90s is when things started tightening even more, where now it wasn't just known that you had a 2 income home, it was expected.

So then life went on, and corporate America just kept down that path of asking "In the 80s, we took.....and in the 90s, we took more! How much more can we take and take and take?"

And that's a question that they've been asking for decades now, and only very very very recently with Luigi Mangione have we seen any sign of what would it take for the public to fight back corporate America taking from them? We're FAR removed at this point from the average American household doing well. Most people are living paycheck to paycheck, budgeting in a way that asks the question "Which is more important this month, heat, or food?"

Meanwhile the CEOs of this country have never had it better. The gap between them and the plebs has never been bigger.

Now let's look at the other side of things. People. Starting as kids. Now, each generation has different identities. The boomers are known for being self entitled brats who never grew up despite growing old. Gen X is known for self deprication in a way that's not really humor. They just kind of laugh to themselves but it's more to hold back tears because they know how fucked up their world is, but they also have never been allowed to overcome the boomers shadow. The millenials are known for being whiney, because that's what works. They whine about an issue, and now suddenly it gains traction, and you have millions of people whining about it. Now something can be done. The Zoomers are known for being politically minded from a young age, because they have to be. Growing up in the first age where school shootings are a more real threat than a fire.

But the one thing that all these generations have in common is the idea that nobody was there for them at home. Their parent(s) were always at work. They had either babysitters, or other temporary family watching (as in, maybe your grandparent watches you for the day. It's not that they're leaving your life, but they're also not the one who will be raising you).

And so you look at how kids have acted over the years. Kids will always rebel. They'll always act up. They'll always do something that needs a parent to raise them. Discipline is just as much about the guidance as it is the rules. Punishment is only there to make you understand that discipline has consequences for breaking.

Except kids today, and for a long time, have gotten none of that. Dating all the way back to the boomers. And just like corporate america taking a little bit more with each passing day, the youth with each generation falls a little more behind what they should be being taught. And not just in the schools. Not just knowledge. I'm including that, but I'm also talking about empathy, emotional guidance, character building. No, they get none of that. They get a screen 16 hours a day that the parent doesn't pay attention to. With the logic being "So what, they have an iPad all day? I had TV all day growing up, and I turned out fine."

No. No you didn't turn out fine. You, and everyone else around you, has turnout out horrible. So horrible that you don't even recognize what a stable person acts like. That's just your own ego refusing to admit to yourself that you might be flawed. You are. You are flawed. You're passing those flaws onto your children, or already have. This is a cycle that nobody is trying to break. The idea that a TV show, or an app, or a website, or whatever the fuck on a screen should fill in for your responsibility as a parent is mind boggling. You're entrusting a corporation to instill into your child good morals, empathy, how to be a good person. But as we've already covered, corporations do not give a shit about you. Corporations do not give a fuck about your family. Corporations just care about you long enough to let you watch their advertisements to sell you their products, and take your money. That's all you are to them. That's all your children are to them. That's all it's ever been. There's an entire industry out there to pay the grocery stores to place the kid friendly products on low shelves where they can reach them more easily. It's all very well thought out. It's designed to manipulate your kids into manipulating you into giving them more money. That's all it's ever been. That's all that screen is there to do. To feed you ads. To take your money. And now you've entrusted those people to raise your kids for 16 hours a day. Are you begining to see how flawed that is now?

So, I say we take an approach, as an entire society, to correct this coarse of action. We COLLECTIVELY need to go back to 1 income households. One parent stays home. One parent works. And I honestly don't see any advantage right now in making that a gender exclusive thing. For what the goal is, I think each individual household needs to discuss between partners who's better suited to work, and who's better suited to stay home? Because I think one person, even if they're not a parent staying home to cook and clean is important. With both of you working, it becomes an issue of "Ugh the house is messy" "Yeah, but I just worked for 10 hours. I just want to sit in this chair and do nothing" "Yeah me too.....guess we'll clean on the weekend". And then the weekend comes, and you got shit to do. You gotta go grocery shopping, you gotta pay bills, you gotta do all this other shit, and oh by the way, the dishes haven't been washed in like 4 days.

Well, they're only not getting washed because you're exausted. If you woke up at 10am, and did the dishes at like noon, and every day did some light cleaning. And then maybe did the grocery shopping for the week, then your partner would come home, the house is clean, and you can both spend time together doing nothing. Then the weekend comes, and all those chores are done. Your weekends together are free. And now you both have the time, and the energy to go to an art muesum, or to a baseball game, or whatever. Fuck it. The bills are paid, the house is clean, the meals are made. And the kids are getting life lessons all day from whomever is home, and best suited to teach them how to be good people.

Then suddenly, over the coarse of 3-4 generations, you have a smarter society, which leads to more people reaching bigger discoveries. Medicine, space, underwater, these are all feilds that we think we're experts in, but we only know less than 1% of what's out there. Nobodies even invented time travel yet!

And why are we living in a society where men work, and women also work? Because it brings home more money. But we're all living month to month. So are we REALLY making more money? Or are we just doing double the work?

We need to end the 2 income homes. 1 income should be all a home needs to survive.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 26 points 4 days ago (2 children)

That's not what fucked us, corporate greed is what fucked us.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 4 days ago

I mean it's both. The expectation of two income households enabled corporate greed to really go crazy.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Yeah. That's what the whole post is about.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

That's a terrible title you chose if that's the true thrust of your argument.

Edit: as for the alliteration, t's were on sale at the shop today.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 8 points 4 days ago

Then you really shit the bed writing that title.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 15 points 4 days ago

This is a lot, but I'm on mobile, which means responding in-depth is a pain. Anyway, the hitch here is in the idea that women entered the workforce only after WWII. That'd be quite a shock for our feudal and working class ancestors. The idea of a nuclear family with one parent staying home was a nice dream for the middle class, fought hard for by labor and progressives, and enabled by the post-war economic boom. Only decades earlier, not only the mothers, but the children were working in the factories. My grandmothers were housewives, but their mothers certainly were not.

That is to say, the growing necessity of 2 income families, and women in the workforce, is just a symptom of the old economic order re-asserting itself, not the cause. Having one parent stay home isn't going to reverse course, if it were even possible for most families. So, yes, we should do all of these things, but it's not like we don't because we hadn't thought of it. The reasons that we don't are a lot more intractable.

Citation needed

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yessss let's go back to the good old days where you didn't dare get divorced if you were the "homemaker", because who the hell's going to hire a person who spent the last 15 years at home raising children? And it was awesome that when 1 parent was the one making money, they spent less time with their kids, so kids bonded more with just one parent!

Liiike, maybe start with work-life balance? Or, more importantly, have a think on how we do families nowadays? The "nuclear family" concept, which only really got going in the 40's, is fundamentally broken and unsalvageable, but you're just assuming that's the way things should be and that the real problem is with both parents working.

Think about how children were historically raised in western countries, and still are in many many cultures around the world (and even in the west too for that matter.) "It takes a village" was pretty literal: it wasn't just the parents looking after their own kids, but various grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles, friends etc. were a part of it. The fact that kids mostly grow up without those kinds of "networks" has been a huge factor in how alienated people feel from society. Growing up in a hermetically sealed cube with much less watchful adult guidance or a feeling of community, yeah that's going to cause problems.

We as a species dumped all out skill points into cooperation and being social, and we seem to have forgotten about that.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world -2 points 4 days ago

You're missing the point, while argueing me with points that support what I'm saying.

"It takes a village". Yeah, those villages have disappeared. You know where they are? They're all at work.

Here's the line in your post that makes me realize you're hearing my words, but missing my message.

you’re just assuming that’s the way things should be and that the real problem is with both parents working.

I'm not saying the problem is that both parents ARE working. I'm saying the problem is that both parents HAVE TO work. And are EXPECTED from a financial standpoint to be able to survive.

I'm saying things would be better if someone could support a family of 5 on one salary.

Hell, I'm alone. No partner. Working 7 days a week at 2 jobs, with NO free time. My days are wake up, work go home, eat cereal because I'm too tired to cook, sleep. And there is no weekend. Grocery shopping just means I only sleep 3 hours that day, and use my sleep time to go buy groceries.

[–] HeroHelck@lemm.ee 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

You are not supposed to downvote "unpopular opinions" because you disagree with them folks. That is not how this sub is supposed to work. OP posted a legitimately unpopular opinion, tell him why he's wrong or upvote responses that disagree, don't downvote him.

For my two cents OP, I think you have a point about more time needing to be devoted to child rearing. But I disagree that it needs to be a specific parent. If you reduce both parents workload enough to let them balance life responsibilities that's actually BETTER than letting one parent take up all the slack. We require simply TOO much labor from EVERYONE, it's totally unnecessary and wasteful and it's part of what leads to our culture of burnout.

[–] JayTreeman@fedia.io 5 points 4 days ago

It seemed to me that they were almost saying the title tongue in cheek in order to get people to read.

I'm with you. Toxic gender roles need to gtfo. I would have been a great stay at home dad, but toxic gender roles got in the way.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

See, what I like about your reaponse, is that you understand my point, you disagree with it, but you're not argueing points that I either never made, or are argueing by agreeing. You're not doing that. You have a legitimate differing view that raises further points of discussion that can branch out from your contribution.

I mean, I still disagree, but it's a respectful disagree.

I just don't see a world that actually works with both partners working, but both working half the time they do currently. So, are you thinking they do more like 5 days at 4 hours? Or more like 2 1/2 days per week? And how would you handle overlapping schedules? Because if you work half the time, but I work the OTHER half the time. Then.......isn't that the same effect as 1 full time free partner, just in alteration?

[–] HeroHelck@lemm.ee 3 points 4 days ago

Our society already does effectively nothing to reconcile people's conflicting schedules. Nor did it attempt to resolve this before the rise of the dual income household. You can see this is in the amount of media that portrays children's trauma from fathers that are "too busy" being a breadwinner to be present in their life. Children want, and NEED all members of their family involved in their life. So I don't think that the rise of women in the workforce deprived families in any unique way. Instead, I'd argue that it simply divided that neglect between two people. It's not "good enough" to have one parent there 24/7 and another who exists to put food on their table and otherwise barely exists in their social life. They need to interact with their father, with their mother, with their uncles, aunts and grandparents. It's simply rational socialization. I think there is a legitimate argument to be made for a "max workhours per household" instead of per person, instead of trying to divide households into a labourer at home and a labourer at large.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

The counter to this are the strongly patriarchal countries around the world having the exact same problems as the western world. Cost of living problems are a population growth problem, that humanity has done an amazingly shit job of dealing with.

Consider that there hasn't been a shortage of food for humans on Earth for over 500 years. And yet, starvation and famine have very much been a thing. Not because there wasn't food, but because the food that existed was restricted to some populations, usually intentionally. Resource restriction is just another tool for authoritarians. From companies taking away health care, to trade embargoes, to wiping out the buffalo. Starving your opponent has always been a viable strategy.

Stopping a system from starving you of resources has always been a problem too. That's why it works.

[–] pugsnroses77@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

1 income should make life doable. 2 incomes should be a dream. dink life ftw

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

.........what is "dink life"? And do I want to know?

[–] HeroHelck@lemm.ee 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Stands for "Dual Income No Kids".

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

I'm partial to DISCAK

Dual income, still can't afford kids

DINK ain't what it used to be, even twenty years ago. For most it's just the only way to survive. I couldn't imagine supporting me and my partner on just one of our paychecks

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Ooooooooooh. I thought it involved midgets farting into cakes, and then serving those cakes to unsuspecting bakery shop customers.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Username checks out

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 3 points 4 days ago

I was going to say you picked the right place to post this for that take on things. Yet you end with a very popular opinion for anyone who isn't part of the .1%. So I don't know now...your reasoning is not popular, but the fix is.