One thing really annoying that I’ve noticed working in the white collar industry is that some people get a free pass all the time on important things, just because they have kids. For example, in a different team who often has to step away during business hours and becomes unreachable, simply because they have kids. There’s always some sort of excuse with them. Have to go pick him up from the bus stop, have to go pick him up from school because they got in trouble, dance recital during the middle of the day, always something. But when it comes to ordinary normal people who don’t have kids, it feels like there’s a lot more scrutiny. Why do you need a doctor’s appointment in the middle of the day? Why do you need to go pick up a prescription at lunch time, like why can’t you work through lunch?

But also, when it comes to employment, it feels like there’s a lot of preferential treatment for people with children. Oh that person has kids / children! They need the job a lot more. They have a little girl! Clearly they need it more than the the person who has a disabled spouse, because kids are way more important than an adult dependent! We can’t fire this person, they have kids! Let’s choose someone who doesn’t have a family. Like, stuff like this. Why is there so much preferential treatment to people who have children? Is this some sort of utilitarian thing? The least number of people affected?

  • ZoDoneRightNow@kbin.earth
    0·
    12 days ago

    Reproductive labour is the largest segment of labour and entirely necessary to the continuation of society yet is entirely unpaid. Why is that and why do you think that someone contributing to that segment of the labour economy should be treated the exact same as someone not doing that unpaid labour? You say it is entirely their choice yet you benefit from that labour without contributing to it. That is your choice

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      0·
      12 days ago

      Earth is overpopulated.

      There’s an argument to be made that the “reproductive labour” is as good for humankind as “extracting oil to keep polluting the atmosphere”.

      Also, most if not all people have kids for selfish reasons, not for society not for others, only for themselves, so cut the bullshit here.

      • ZoDoneRightNow@kbin.earth
        0·
        12 days ago

        “Earth is overpopulated” is a toxic and wildly incorrect classist conspiracy theory. I am not even going to humour it.

        • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          0·
          12 days ago

          It’s a fact. There’s nothing more contaminating that a human being.

          We contaminate, we take a LOT of resources. There’s not enough for so many people.

          Is completely irresponsible advocate for a everlasting increase of the population. It’s just calling for human suffering and nature destruction.

          I’m not going to defend the destruction of humanskind and Earth just for some people’s whims and lack of responsibility.

          And surely I’ll never defend to give privileges to those who decide to keep overpopulating our planet. Specially because, as I said, they only do it for selfish reasons, because their whims.

        • Two2Tango@lemmy.ca
          0·
          12 days ago

          For the sake of challenging my own views I’d love to hear an explanation of this? It does seem rather overpopulated, and I can’t see where class enters into it?

          • ZoDoneRightNow@kbin.earth
            0·
            12 days ago

            I don’t have a lot of energy so please excuse the dot points

            • Overpopulation is a myth that goes back centuries and has been used to fuel racism and genocide.
            • We currently produce enough food and water and have enough shelter to sustain the whole human population.
            • 1% of the worlds population is responsible for 15% of the worlds carbon emissions and nearly 25% of growth in emissions since 1990. The number of people is not the cause of the climate catastrophe, it is the people on top.
            • The majority of all crops grown is used to feed livestock instead of people. We don’t need this much meat to survive.
            • It is capitalism and the 1% that is the cause of all of this and not the majority of people. It is not the number of people that is the issue but the system and the people on top. Daniskarmas points about how much resources we require and how much we pollute are just false when you look at the cause of those issues and how much disparity there is between the majority of people and the top 1%. We currently produce enough food to feed 10 billion people and could easily produce enough to sustain the same amount with far less emissions, water, and land use if we didn’t produce so much meat. To summarise, it is not overpopulation that causes climate change, death by starvation and thirst or pollution but the capitalist system that prioritises profits over the planet and life