Philosophical/sociological discussion...
Do you think society at large has the idea that with X gain in skill, comes X loss in inherent value? That is to say, if a person gains a skill, they become valued only for that skill, and no longer in and of themselves?
For instance, the trope Men Are The Expendable Gender could be seen this way. Once a boy grows up and gains the physical strength of a man, he becomes valued for his strength, but loses the inherent value he was seen to have as a boy. Another example would be how people say things about frail elderly people that they'd never say about babies. Once you grow up, you're supposed to be valued for being useful, not just for being you, as you were as a kid.
Another example could be how people usually define themselves before and after a job or hobby. Before a person gets their first job, they don't see themself as lost in any way for not having a job. But often, someone who loses a job will have a bit of an identity crisis. This can also be the case for someone who is "beaten at their own game" in a hobby, or loses the ability to participate in it. They might wonder who they are because of it.
What do you think? Agree or disagree that society at large sees things this way?
For instance, the trope Men Are The Expendable Gender could be seen this way. Once a boy grows up and gains the physical strength of a man, he becomes valued for his strength, but loses the inherent value he was seen to have as a boy. Another example would be how people say things about frail elderly people that they'd never say about babies. Once you grow up, you're supposed to be valued for being useful, not just for being you, as you were as a kid.
Another example could be how people usually define themselves before and after a job or hobby. Before a person gets their first job, they don't see themself as lost in any way for not having a job. But often, someone who loses a job will have a bit of an identity crisis. This can also be the case for someone who is "beaten at their own game" in a hobby, or loses the ability to participate in it. They might wonder who they are because of it.
What do you think? Agree or disagree that society at large sees things this way?
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
How can you actually measure the validity of a statement like this, a lot of people young and growing into adults are stressed because they don't know what direction they want their life to go in, heck even a lot of adults feel lost when it comes to what their life to be like.
I disagree with this statement.
It's not that people do not have inherent value - rather, it seems that they are only allowed to have it in addition to being good at something. That using inherent worth to justify oneself if one does not have any achievements is making excuses and generally being lazy, obnoxious and entitled.
Also, I think that you are definitely onto something when saying that inherent worth seems to be negatively related to "worth for doing something". However, I don't think that it is a matter of skill. Rather, an assumed capability.
Like people tell children they can be anything, but then after a job or two and after college classes, you'd never see anyone tell an adult that they could be whatever the wanted, just that they should be complacent in their position in life.
In the same way that slave were not believed to be full people capable of making decisions regarding their own lives, this is how women were regarded as well. not that they were treated as badly or put in conditions like slaves were, but their actions were merely seen as extensions of those with control over their own lives. and this just had the unfortunate effect of making the lose of lives of those who had the agency to fight with them skew heavily towards males.
A sort of "grass is greener" thing, in that because of the better living conditions and opportunities presented to them HERE, all the inequalities they face shouldn't be discussed.
I say this because you use the phrase "It's a vast improvement over what it was"(in terms of how women lived in the past) and this is the thought that comes to mind.
well the reason they're not getting the support they need is specifically because the victim of woman-on-male rape or male-on-male rape is seen as "unmanly" and feminine and what have you.
It's an issue within a larger group of issues, essentially.
From what I can tell, your theory about the "wage gap" is not an unpopular one. To sort of back that up, I have heard that countries with the highest degree of female employment (e.g., Sweden) happen to have universal, inexpensive day care, maternity leave protections, and social insurance policies that do not penalize people for withdrawing from employment from time to time. They also have more government care for the elderly and those with disabilities, which some say would otherwise disproportionately be provided by female relatives.
I think there are probably other obstacles related to gender besides just social pressures though and I am not about to suggest that every country become a Sweden clone. Honestly, I do not really know much about this subject, but it seems like the problem is pretty complicated since people ideally want to close the "wage gap" without being patronizing to women or men who do not subscribe to traditional gender roles. I guess you sort of encounter the same problem that anyone who talks about "women's issues" does.
Remember, this is your enemy: the Patriarchy.