Hacker News Reader

Comment by toxik | Hacker News Reader

While this sounds nice and good, the removal of generational living was completely intentional. Why? Because of the one thing you left out: it is the women who disproportionately end up taking care of the home and the children.

There is no real feminism with this traditional system in place. Even with the modern setup, women take care of children more _even if they don't want to_, simply because nursing takes a lot of time.

View on HN

I don't have much of an opinion on generational living, but could you elaborate on how it guarantees women disproportionately end up with kin work? Also I find it interesting that the institution of motherhood is completely removed from the modern day narrative of empowerment. As long as it is fairly left up to the woman to choose, why would choosing motherhood not be empowering?

You choose motherhood by having kids. You choose fatherhood by having kids. Do you feel empowered by fatherhood? What does it even means? If no, then that is the answer of why would choosing motherhood not be empowering.

Empowering means: "make (someone) stronger and more confident, especially in controlling their life and claiming their rights". Having child does not really make that and I dont see how it should make that.

I have found fatherhood empowering but did not go into it with that expectation. Fatherhood has opened me to new emotional expression and capabilities that I lacked beforehand and I now speak for more than just me when I look for new work or increase my responsibility at work, since any pay or benefit improvements go directly to the family. Fatherhood added more responsibility to my day, which ends up feeling like I have more power, even if I traded some of my personal freedom in order to obtain it. I'm not sure if that means I actually have been disempowered; if so, my more powerful life before marriage and childhood felt less fulfilling.

I don't think multi-generational households necessarily need to put a heavier burden on women. In fact, my argument is exactly that households like that do a better job of allocating labor to those who are less able to earn.

I don't think there's a real argument to be made that the nuclear household developed because of feminism. The New Deal and post-WWII policies that gave returning vets and their families cheap mortgages in sprawly suburbs appears to have had more to do with it (an era that was notably accompanied by an expansion of household technologies whose goals were to enable a single person to care for an entire household).

That may be so for the US, but I’m not American nor is America the only country with nuclear family ideals.

Yes, my perspective was perhaps US-centric, but so is my experience of social history. My understanding was that much of the European and Japanese post-war reconstruction operated on a similar (if less supercharged) model, but I'm hazier on the Eastern Bloc. I'd be very interested in alternative processes, if you can suggest them.

They do, because many grandparents will expect women to do more of traditional household and will treat her more badly or with more resentment if she does not.

Also, full time childcare is quite tiring for older people, grandparents who are strong enough are typically employed.

> full time childcare is quite tiring for older people

Full-time, sure. But what about flexibly available when necessary?

Also, traditional household provides too little privacy, but living within 10 minutes walking distance is fantastic.

There are all these situations like "grandma, I need to go shopping, could you please take care of the kids for about 30 minutes? maybe later if it is more convenient for you" where having good social infrastructure is awesome, and I cannot imagine how more difficult life would be without it.

Seems to me that as a society we went from one extreme to the other, skipping over the point where things could work really great.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com