Everything explained

[SG854]

The industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race -

1. No antibiotics.
2. No refrigeration.
3. No running water in homes, go to the well.
4. No sanitation, no flush toilets.
5. No reasonably safe surgery. (see #1)
6. No electric light.
7. Best/fastest travel is by horse.
8. Slavery, serfdom, indentured servitude
9. Dentistry = extraction by pliers. No painkillers. Infection likely. (see #1)
10. No TV or internet. Read a book. If you're rich, that is. Chances are you're illiterate though, no education.


That's just a small list of why. Out of all of human history, we are exceedingly fortunate that our lives are in the here and now, and not the pre-1900 past.

It must've been anoying to live pre 1800's.

No refrigeration so food had to be constantly bought fresh and goes rotten faster. Or preserve meat with lots of salt.

No all in one super markets where you can get almost everything you need in 1 location. You had to go to many individual specialty stores which takes up more time.

No cars to pack all of your food so many things had to be carried by hand which limits what you carry so multiple store and home trips or put on a slow carriage moving horse.

No stoves so fire had to be made by burning wood. Cooking took all day.

Clothing had to be nit by hand.

No toilets or sewage system or charmin ultra extra strenght toilet paper. Light had to be from candles.

 

[impeeza]

47

 

[jimbo13]

I enjoy Noam, thanks for posting.

It must've been anoying to live pre 1800's.

No refrigeration so food had to be constantly bought fresh and goes rotten faster. Or preserve meat with lots of salt.

No all in one super markets where you can get almost everything you need in 1 location. You had to go to many individual specialty stores which takes up more time.

No cars to pack all of your food so many things had to be carried by hand which limits what you carry so multiple store and home trips or put on a slow carriage moving horse.

No stoves so fire had to be made by burning wood. Cooking took all day.

Clothing had to be nit by hand.

No toilets or sewage system or charmin ultra extra strenght toilet paper. Light had to be from candles.

You heavily over estimate the values of these modern conveniences.

I do have a fridge and a freezer but I store food in a root cellar as was common in the 1800s, it's entirely feasible and effective. I'd be just fine without a fridge. My veggies are in better than shape than anything refrigerated.

I get all my food at one location, it's called my back acre.

I only drive once or twice a month, if your homes a place you enjoy without a bunch of obnoxious neighbors you wont find the need to escape all the time.

Plenty of other ways to do fire other than wood, all just as reasonable as gas/electric ovens.

I don't have a "city sewer" we have a composting toilet and a incinerating toilet commonly used on yachts. Both entirely sanitary, most people wouldn't know the difference. Grey water drains out to the plants.


No criticism intended, but most of these things aren't nearly as important as you are accustom to believing. I live next door to Hutterites (like the Amish) they get by just fine with few modern conveniences.

 

[SG854]

I enjoy Noam, thanks for posting.



You heavily over estimate the values of these modern conveniences.

I do have a fridge and a freezer but I store food in a root cellar as was common in the 1800s, it's entirely feasible and effective. I'd be just fine without a fridge. My veggies are in better than shape than anything refrigerated.

I get all my food at one location, it's called my back acre.

I only drive once or twice a month, if your homes a place you enjoy without a bunch of obnoxious neighbors you wont find the need to escape all the time.

Plenty of other ways to do fire other than wood, all just as reasonable as gas/electric ovens.

I don't have a "city sewer" we have a composting toilet and a incinerating toilet commonly used on yachts. Both entirely sanitary, most people wouldn't know the difference. Grey water drains out to the plants.


No criticism intended, but most of these things aren't nearly as important as you are accustom to believing. I live next door to Hutterites (like the Amish) they get by just fine with few modern conveniences.

For you root cellars would be fine as you are close to your produced food and you have your own farm land.

But refrigeration is incredibly important that got really fast wide adoption for a reason and practically nearly every industry and american home has one.


Industrial revolution happened. Cities got bigger. Jobs changed, less farmers now. People are father away from the source of produced food. Refrigeration is important in transporting food over longer distances. And the way many homes are built especially apartments where root cellars and farm lands are not possible in their back yard.


Prior to 1800's there was little need for refrigeration as most americans mostly ate bread and salted meat. Fruits, vegitables, fresh meat, fish and milk wasn't really a part of the American diet at this time period.


And refrigeration benefited the metal working industry, textile mills, it helped boost iron production, oil refineriers, paper, drugs, soap, glue, sugar mills, bakeries, chocolate factories.


Modern technology like refrigeration and microwaves and many others is what freed Women from past gender roles, probably more so then the Feminist movement. Women now spent less time preserving food, pickling and all that, spent less time cooking food by buying microwavables and have more free time to devote to things like a career. It was technology that was the main force that freed women from gender roles. The feminist movement probably did speed this process, but it was not possible without the aid of modern technologies.

 

[subcon959]

Modern technology like refrigeration and microwaves and many others is what freed Women from past gender roles, probably more so then the Feminist movement. Women now spent less time preserving food, pickling and all that, spent less time cooking food by buying microwavables and have more free time to devote to things like a career. It was technology that was the main force that freed women from gender roles. The feminist movement probably did speed this process, but it was not possible without the aid of modern technologies.

Are you specifically talking about the US? Because I can assure you that there are plenty of places in the world where nothing about this has changed by getting a fridge and microwave.

 

[SG854]

Are you specifically talking about the US? Because I can assure you that there are plenty of places in the world where nothing about this has changed by getting a fridge and microwave.

world wide too when importing meat and produce from other countries, like from Australia to Europe. Or transporting spoils from cooler to warmer climates.

 

[subcon959]

world wide too when importing meat and produce from other countries, like from Australia to Europe. Or transporting spoils from cooler to warmer climates.

Yeah, I just don't see that it has made much difference in women's roles in large parts of Asia and Africa.

 

[SG854]

Yeah, I just don't see that it has made much difference in women's roles in large parts of Asia and Africa.

Not just womens roles but also mens. Men no longer had to farm to survive. Mental labor started to replace physical labor. Farming was an all day task without todays modern technology

In africa that are still living in hunter gatherer tribes I don't think so.

But every part of the world had different climates and different period of rates before food will spoil. So different areas were impacted by refridgeration and other modern technologies.

We can mass produce things on a scale we couldn't before. Which frees up everybodies time for other tasks.

 

[Foxi4]

Not just womens roles but also mens. Men no longer had to farm to survive. Mental labor started to replace physical labor. Farming was an all day task without todays modern technology

In africa that are still living in hunter gatherer tribes I don't think so.

But every part of the world had different climates and different period of rates before food will spoil. So different areas were impacted by refridgeration and other modern technologies.

We can mass produce things on a scale we couldn't before. Which frees up everybodies time for other tasks.

In the 1800's 90% of the population globally were farmers - this was necessary to produce enough food to sustain the population. Contemporary it's 26.7% globally, and only 1.3% in the United States. Figures from most first-world countries are similar, most farms below 10 hectares are located in Asia, which is still pretty rural. The idea that technology, particularly mechanisation, food preservation technology and cooking appliances did not free up people's time to pursue other walks of life that do not involve agriculture is silly though, your point is obviously correct. All three have caused rapid progress in all walks of life since food is the quantum of life and the number one concern. Not having to worry about it opens up untold possibilities, especially for women and the poor who would otherwise tend to the home and their fields all day.

 

[SG854]

In the 1800's 90% of the population globally were farmers - this was necessary to produce enough food to sustain the population. Contemporary it's 26.7% globally, and only 1.3% in the United States. Figures from most first-world countries are similar, most farms below 10 hectares are located in Asia, which is still pretty rural. The idea that technology, particularly mechanisation, food preservation technology and cooking appliances did not free up people's time to pursue other walks of life that do not involve agriculture is silly though, your point is obviously correct. All three have caused rapid progress in all walks of life since food is the quantum of life and the number one concern. Not having to worry about it opens up untold possibilities, especially for women and the poor who would otherwise tend to the home and their fields all day.

The problem is people view the past with the convinience of todays technology. They just don't sinply understand how things were different back then.

Traditional gender roles were out of neccesisty for survival and not because one day men wanted to be sexist and keep women in the Kitchen.

Technological invovation was the biggest driving force behind equalizing gender roles. A women can accomplish many physical labor type tasks men can today with machines.

And also making things like the medical field to prosper in better ways. A doctor who is also a farmer won't have the time to dedicate full time to tending peoples medical needs.

 

[Dakitten]

The problem is people view the past with the convinience of todays technology. They just don't sinply understand how things were different back then.

Traditional gender roles were out of neccesisty for survival and not because one day men wanted to be sexist and keep women in the Kitchen.

Technological invovation was the biggest driving force behind equalizing gender roles. A women can accomplish many physical labor type tasks men can today with machines.

And also making things like the medical field to prosper in better ways. A doctor who is also a farmer won't have the time to dedicate full time to tending peoples medical needs.

Have you by chance considered that many fields were still unavailable to women even if children and physique were not relevant? Your viewpoint is awfully convenient if you're a man, but I dare you to try it on a date~

 

[SG854]

Have you by chance considered that many fields were still unavailable to women even if children and physique were not relevant? Your viewpoint is awfully convenient if you're a man, but I dare you to try it on a date~

Considering that alot modern careers didn't exist in the past they were inaccessible to men also.

I don't bring politics on a date thats ridiculous, I'm on a date not a debate. lol

I bring it it with my female co-workers and they seem to not be phased by it. They seem to agree also.


I am not connected to men in the past. I am my own individual person. So I have no Idea how that'll be convenient or benefits me in any way.

 

[Dakitten]

Considering that alot modern careers didn't exist in the past they were inaccessible to men also.

I don't bring politics on a date thats ridiculous, I'm on a date not a debate. lol

I bring it it with my female co-workers and they seem to not be phased by it. They seem to agree also.


I am not connected to men in the past. I am my own individual person. So I have no Idea how that'll be convenient or benefits me in any way.

That seems a bit blind to reality. We are all the total sum of what came before us, and the mentality of the modern day is an evolution (or decaying stagnation) of yesterday. Men never had to handle things like witch burnings, gender focused anti voting laws, and of course the ramifications of being property, both by laws and faiths. These mentalities trickle down (and in some cases persist) to now.

That being said, women still make a lot less than men at the same jobs with the same qualifications, and there is a lot of harassment and discrimination they have to deal with.

I am curious, what women-only professions were you thinking of?

 

[SG854]

That seems a bit blind to reality. We are all the total sum of what came before us, and the mentality of the modern day is an evolution (or decaying stagnation) of yesterday. Men never had to handle things like witch burnings, gender focused anti voting laws, and of course the ramifications of being property, both by laws and faiths. These mentalities trickle down (and in some cases persist) to now.

That being said, women still make a lot less than men at the same jobs with the same qualifications, and there is a lot of harassment and discrimination they have to deal with.

I am curious, what women-only professions were you thinking of?

Well I was specifically talking about the past during hunter gatherer days and farming days which the majority of people were.

If we were to talk about times after that, early industrial working days it was hell for men.

There was no child labor laws, no saftey regulations, no modern concept of 5 day work days, no minimum wage laws, no unions existing, technology was still primitive so work hazards was still very high & death happened alot. Majority of men were at the bottom working for some big corporate boss who didn't gave a shit about them and constantly fucked them over. There was constant fights to be treated with dignity and to get better pay and better working conditions. It was an uphill battle to get to where we're at today.

In addition to the problems you listed that women faced.



Well its not black and white for today. Some jobs women face discrimination and some jobs they benifit for being women. I remember a while back a womens sports team the soccer team they were complaining about less pay but then found out they were paid more then men. Then you have video game companees that paid women less.



And I wish I can benifit from the past efforts of people besides the obvious work conditions I mentioned. If not then I would not stress today about graduating college and getting into a good career or face homelessness.

 

[Foxi4]

That seems a bit blind to reality. We are all the total sum of what came before us, and the mentality of the modern day is an evolution (or decaying stagnation) of yesterday. Men never had to handle things like witch burnings, gender focused anti voting laws, and of course the ramifications of being property, both by laws and faiths. These mentalities trickle down (and in some cases persist) to now.

That being said, women still make a lot less than men at the same jobs with the same qualifications, and there is a lot of harassment and discrimination they have to deal with.

I am curious, what women-only professions were you thinking of?

They most definitely do not because that's illegal in most civilised countries, for instance the U.S. and the UK. The gender pay gap is the average gap in wages between all men and all women, adjusted to nothing - the 23% gap can overwhelmingly be explained by different work hours, different choices of occupation or, in salaried positions, negotiation skills. If you know a company that has different wages based on gender and not another obvious explanation then you should report them immediately to the authorities.

https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/

 

[Dakitten]

Well I was specifically talking about the past during hunter gatherer days and farming days which the majority of people were.

If we were to talk about times after that, early industrial working days it was hell for men.

There was no child labor laws, no saftey regulations, no modern concept of 5 day work days, no minimum wage laws, no unions existing, technology was still primitive so work hazards was still very high & death happened alot. Majority of men were at the bottom working for some big corporate boss who didn't gave a shit about them and constantly fucked them over. There was constant fights to be treated with dignity and to get better pay and better working conditions. It was an uphill battle to get to where we're at today.

In addition to the problems you listed that women faced.



Well its not black and white for today. Some jobs women face discrimination and some jobs they benifit for being women. I remember a while back a womens sports team the soccer team they were complaining about less pay but then found out they were paid more then men. Then you have video game companees that paid women less.



And I wish I can benifit from the past efforts of people besides the obvious work conditions I mentioned. If not then I would not stress today about graduating college and getting into a good career or face homelessness.

You... do realize women workers were also exploited, and had even less agency in how they might starve or become homeless, since they had fewer protections where and when they could be employed, right? You're literally pulling a "Well, I suffered, too!" against a history of being property and considered less human. I would strongly endorse a women's history class, comrade!

They most definitely do not because that's illegal in most civilised countries, for instance the U.S. and the UK. The gender pay gap is the average gap in wages between all men and all women, adjusted to nothing - the 23% gap can overwhelmingly be explained by different work hours, different choices of occupation or, in salaried positions, negotiation skills. If you know a company that has different wages based on gender and not another obvious explanation then you should report them immediately to the authorities.

https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/

C..c..c..counter-link!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-equity/aeeca66c-790c-4867-bbce-5106890027b8/

No, but seriously, that Times article is a gross misinterpretation of a limited dataset by an employee of a conservative economic think tank. She is literally rich off of being a woman fighting against a deviation of "traditional values".

As for the pay gap and discrimination, it happens all the time. I have repeatedly experienced it in my lines of work, and while there are countermeasures in place, they are unwieldy and time consuming, not to mention varies in quality depending on your region. Beyond even that, utilizing said tools generates enormous hostility. There needs to be a cultural shift, but at a time where male supremacy groups are actually on the rise, and certain people are literally paid to attack progressive initiatives, it is an uphill battle.

 

[SG854]

They most definitely do not because that's illegal in most civilised countries, for instance the U.S. and the UK. The gender pay gap is the average gap in wages between all men and all women, adjusted to nothing - the 23% gap can overwhelmingly be explained by different work hours, different choices of occupation or, in salaried positions, negotiation skills. If you know a company that has different wages based on gender and not another obvious explanation then you should report them immediately to the authorities.

https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/

We do not embrace gender pay discrimination and have laws to protect this and thats the important part.

But that does not stop it from happening anymore then having laws against murders does not stop it from happening. We do not live in a perfect world

But when it does happen we move to stop it from happening. Its not law to discriminate against womens pay. It not something we embrace in society.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You... do realize women workers were also exploited, and had even less agency in how they might starve or become homeless, since they had fewer protections where and when they could be employed, right? You're literally pulling a "Well, I suffered, too!" against a history of being property and considered less human. I would strongly endorse a women's history class, comrade!



C..c..c..counter-link!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-equity/aeeca66c-790c-4867-bbce-5106890027b8/

No, but seriously, that Times article is a gross misinterpretation of a limited dataset by an employee of a conservative economic think tank. She is literally rich off of being a woman fighting against a deviation of "traditional values".

As for the pay gap and discrimination, it happens all the time. I have repeatedly experienced it in my lines of work, and while there are countermeasures in place, they are unwieldy and time consuming, not to mention varies in quality depending on your region. Beyond even that, utilizing said tools generates enormous hostility. There needs to be a cultural shift, but at a time where male supremacy groups are actually on the rise, and certain people are literally paid to attack progressive initiatives, it is an uphill battle.

Considering I do not live in the past, I do not suffer from past problems against gender.

I could've of sworn slavery happened and men were property too.

Im well aware of womens history comrade. And never said anything you said did not happened. I never did imply either that womens suffering didn't count and aknowleged they suffered confirming your posts. Only that men also suffered too. I have no idea what you are arguing against.

 

[Foxi4]

C..c..c..counter-link!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-equity/aeeca66c-790c-4867-bbce-5106890027b8/

No, but seriously, that Times article is a gross misinterpretation of a limited dataset by an employee of a conservative economic think tank. She is literally rich off of being a woman fighting against a deviation of "traditional values".

As for the pay gap and discrimination, it happens all the time. I have repeatedly experienced it in my lines of work, and while there are countermeasures in place, they are unwieldy and time consuming, not to mention varies in quality depending on your region. Beyond even that, utilizing said tools generates enormous hostility. There needs to be a cultural shift, but at a time where male supremacy groups are actually on the rise, and certain people are literally paid to attack progressive initiatives, it is an uphill battle.

When adjusted for hours worked, career choices and other controls the wage gap vanishes. Women are overall paid less than men, that I will not disagree with you on, but it's not because they're women. Rather, it's because they make different decisions regarding their education and employment. They have equal opportunity, what's bothering you is that the outcome is not the same - it can't be the same because women make different choices than men. That's not to say that those choices are bad - there's a reason why women live longer while men overwork and die early. The "79 cents to a dollar" figure comes from a misinterpretation of the Bureau of Labour Statistics which compared median incomes of men and women per capita *without* accounting for whether the women worked and for how long compared to the men. If you refuse to compare like for like, you're not going to end up with an accurate figure.



https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/08/01/are-women-paid-less-than-men-for-the-same-work

The reason why Johnny is paid more than Sally is not because Sally is a woman, but rather because Johnny works 10 hours longer, or doesn't take as many holidays, or chose not to take advantage of paternity leave, or chose a higher-paying, but less fulfilling career, or a myriad of other differences that you can't possibly account for in their totality. You're welcome to believe in the wage gap as a form of discrimination, but broadly speaking that's not a thing. Actual instances of sex-based discrimination are harshly prosecuted and I strongly encourage everyone to report unfair employment practices to keep the market level, open and fair to everybody.

 

[Dakitten]

We do not embrace gender pay discrimination and have laws to protect this and thats the important part.

But that does not stop it from happening anymore then having laws against murders does not stop it from happening. We do not live in a perfect world

But when it does happen we move to stop it from happening. Its not law to discriminate against womens pay. It not something we embrace in society.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Considering I do not live in the past, I do not suffer from past problems against gender.

I could've of sworn slavery happened and men were property too.

Im well aware of womens history comrade. And never said anything you said did not happened. I never did imply either that womens suffering didn't count and aknowleged they suffered confirming your posts. Only that men also suffered too. I have no idea what you are arguing against.

That men's suffering was different, and measurably less than women's suffering, and that the after effects of this fact stretch into the here and now. I actually wasn't wanting to get into outright slavery, as that gets into even uglier waters with rape and child ownership, to which an argument could be made that women had it worse there, too.

We may not live in the past, but we all live with the past and how it impacts our present.

When adjusted for hours worked, career choices and other controls the wage gap vanishes. Women are overall paid less than men, that I will not disagree with you on, but it's not because they're women. Rather, it's because they make different decisions regarding their education and employment. They have equal opportunity, what's bothering you is that the outcome is not the same - it can't be the same because women make different choices than men. That's not to say that those choices are bad - there's a reason why women live longer while men overwork and die early. The "79 cents to a dollar" figure comes from a misinterpretation of the Bureau of Labour Statistics which compared median incomes of men and women per capita *without* accounting for whether the women worked and for how long compared to the men. If you refuse to compare like for like, you're not going to end up with an accurate figure.

View attachment 273601

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/08/01/are-women-paid-less-than-men-for-the-same-work

The reason why Johnny is paid more than Sally is not because Sally is a woman, but rather because Johnny works 10 hours longer, or doesn't take as many holidays, or chose not to take advantage of paternity leave, or chose a higher-paying, but less fulfilling career, or a myriad of other differences that you can't possibly account for in their totality. You're welcome to believe in the wage gap as a form of discrimination, but broadly speaking that's not a thing. Actual instances of sex-based discrimination are harshly prosecuted and I strongly encourage everyone to report unfair employment practices to keep the market level, open and fair to everybody.

Oy, I hate replying by phone with sources. I owe you one for Texas, I was reminded too. TBA... also, that chart doesn't list where the data was collected from, or... a lot of things? I still say the department of Labour Statistics data stands fairly well, and that Blizzard's recent lawsuits are a fun sampling that women get paid less for MORE work at major corporations.

I will say you have an awful lot of faith in a system to manage a problem while at the same time wanting to reduce its abilities to enforce and gather data on issues, though. It would be lovely if the government was involved enough to investigate and proactively handle discrimination before it has to be reported.

 

[Foxi4]

Oy, I hate replying by phone with sources. I owe you one for Texas, I was reminded too. TBA... also, that chart doesn't list where the data was collected from, or... a lot of things? I still say the department of Labour Statistics data stands fairly well, and that Blizzard's recent lawsuits are a fun sampling that women get paid less for MORE work at major corporations.

I will say you have an awful lot of faith in a system to manage a problem while at the same time wanting to reduce its abilities to enforce and gather data on issues, though. It would be lovely if the government was involved enough to investigate and proactively handle discrimination before it has to be reported.

I am also on my phone, so you'll have to excuse the poor cropping. It's the same chart as the one in the linked article. There are many studies that come up with pretty much the same conclusion - there is a measurable difference between median wages of men and women, which I also agree is true, but most (if not all, since, we're getting close to margin of error here) of it is accounted for by factors that women are in control of rather than prejudice or discrimination. I could probably find more if it really interests you that much, but from what I've read on the subject, when proper controls are in place there's no noteworthy difference between wages of men and women (which is not surprising considering discrimination based on sex is, as I mentioned, a crime). It's exceedingly rare, and when it does occur, attorneys salivate at the opportunity to sue - those are easy wins. The lawsuit at Blizzard is only further evidence that this is the case (regardless of our subjective definitions of "more").