gayhanguangjun:star-anise:70slesbian:jellybeanforest-a-go-go:70slesbian:raging-fan-human:70slesbian:

gayhanguangjun:star-anise:70slesbian:jellybeanforest-a-go-go:70slesbian:raging-fan-human:70slesbian:i do care if someone hires someone to clean though like you can’t just throw that out there as if it isn’t well known that those people that are hired to clean your home exist because they’re poor. wash your own dirty dishes I understand what you’re saying, but you also seem to be ignoring the fact that people who are hiring these poor people to clean their houses are giving those people jobs. If they weren’t hiring them to clean their houses, these people may not have a job at all.i don’t agree with this logic. i don’t think we need to settle for a job or nothing, is the same to be said for women who work under slavery like conditions in clothing factories in poor countries? why can’t we fight for change instead of accepting that some people just have to be maids Before she moved in to take care of her, my aunt hired a maid to come to my disabled grandmother’s house once a week to clean for like 2-3 hours and paid her $80 every time she came over. There’s no way my grandmother, who had a bum hip from a car accident and hobbled around with her walker (back when she could even walk), could clean her own house. Maids provide an invaluable service, especially for the elderly and disabled, and they shouldn’t be eliminated just because you think their jobs are somehow not good enough for anyone to be doing. Many jobs like housecleaners, gardeners, etc., are great for people who may not speak the local language, who may have had a limited education, or who came here as adults with limited opportunities. My grandfather, who could speak four languages fluently but his English sucked, became a janitor at the age of 58 to support his family when they first came to America, and his kids always advocated that you should treat blue-collar and traditionally low-paid workers with respect because those jobs are valuable and even someone who cleans toilets is a person who is trying their best. Basically, we shouldn’t try to eliminate these jobs; they should just be better compensated.yes i agree! i think that disabled people should have help and that it should be easily available for them but to me that wasn’t what the post was talking about!! i read it as a wealthy people simply hiring help to clean just because they can not because they need to. in an altruistic society people who love to clean could become a maid without having to depend on it, if everyone’s basic needs where met and no one would be walking hungry without their job that’s a different story to me! so while yes we do need to bring respect and wages to these jobs i also don’t think it’s unfair to think about if people actually need their houses cleaned by someone else! some do, including the disabled, some don’t!But here’s the thing. By focusing our attention and wrath on people who might buy things they don’t really “need” (OH the wailing over AOC’s $300 purse) we lose sight of the actual problem (Uber and Lyft spending $200 million dollars to defeat legislation that would require them to treat their workers as employees). Rich people hiring cleaners because they’re “lazy” is not the problem. It is a symptom of the problem. If all rich people started picking up their socks and doing their own dishes tomorrow, it wouldn’t increase the wellbeing or economic security of the rest of us one iota. No small cosmetic change will do that. Only fundamentally changing the legal and economic landscape will do that. And in the meantime, people’s goalposts for who is “rich” and who is “lazy” will always be so flexible that it will inevitably hit a lot more poor people with disposable income than actual 1%ers. I know as a disabled person that we are constantly put under scrutiny to prove we’re “disabled enough” to afford accommodation so you absolutely CANNOT say “this is the rule but of COURSE disabled people are excepted uwu.” If the rule isn’t built to accommodate disabled people in the first place, it WILL be used to treat us like shit unless we can meet whatever level of “disabled enough” a random unqualified stranger has decided is today’s benchmark, and meeting that will mean a constant surrender of our rights to privacy and dignity. This is all probably useless when talking to someone named “70s lesbian” but I really truly promise you, policing people’s choices and “rescuing” people from immoral or “demeaning” work is not nearly as useful as focusing on improving societal and material conditions for workers and poor people. I agree with all of this but what’s wrong with the url 70slesbianThe user with that URL says she’s 19 and therefore not actually like, a lesbian in her 70s, so she probably means “I’m like a lesbian from the 1970s.” And well, 70s lesbianism, in particular, was a time of claiming Lesbianism wasn’t a sexual orientation, it was a political choice all women should make (political lesbianism)Any woman who had social contact or sex with men was actively cooperating in her own oppression/incapable of being a feminist (lesbian separatism)Pornography and sex work are inherently exploitative and any woman who works in these fields must be “rescued” from them (sex-negative feminism)BDSM is inherently abusive and should never be allowed (kink-critical feminism)Which made me think it’s highly likely that a young person who’s very into 70s lesbianism probably agrees with a lot of feminist arguments that women should not be allowed to make choices they deem “demeaning”, whether that’s cleaning houses or anything else. Therefore she’s probably unlikely to agree that we should let people choose this kind of work, but fight to give them better working conditions. (Whether such people also believe that trans women aren’t women is incredibly varied. These beliefs are fundamental building blocks to TERFdom and similar schools of thought, like “trans women are ok but trans men are traitors”, but many people embrace them without becoming full-on transphobes) -- source link

More pics about