feotakahari: (Default)
feotakahari ([personal profile] feotakahari) wrote2022-10-28 02:36 am
Entry tags:

(no subject)

Probably an obvious take: when folks say “men should take care of women,” they tend to be really bad at planning for what to do when men within their community don’t take care of women. Women can easily end up in situations where they need to protect themselves but aren’t allowed to.

A less obvious take: I think the same often goes for “adults should take care of children.”
lb_lee: Sneak smiling (sneak)

[personal profile] lb_lee 2022-10-28 04:55 pm (UTC)(link)
Sneak: Don't, and also CAN'T! Like, in the man and woman situation, what if Breadwinner Bill gets hit by a bus and is suddenly completely incapacitated? That happens! The "men should take care of women" scenario doesn't account for reality, and thus bus scenarios become not just a terrible accident, but also a personal FAILING. Which just makes an already hard thing even worse!

And unfortunately, that happens with adults and children too. We don't like to admit it, but sometimes an adult CANNOT take care of a child (again, sticking with morally neutral situations, Parent Paulie gets hit by a bus), and again, it becomes a personal failing. Especially since scooping up a child and moving them somewhere completely different to strangers, even if it IS for the best, is still a huge strain for a kid!
lb_lee: Sneak smiling (sneak)

[personal profile] lb_lee 2022-10-28 07:03 pm (UTC)(link)
Sneak: Same! The best I can imagine right now is a stronger sense of community child-rearing, and less focus on a nuclear family. Obviously, it doesn't work if the barrel is full of rotten apples, but in a case of parental stress or incapacitation, that's less devastating if you have, say, uncles or aunts or grandparents living nearby, or a neighborhood tradition of caring for each other's children.

That presumes that the family stays in one place though, and that the neighbors or extended family are trustworthy...