My old person trait is a belief that anyone that works full time should be able to aspire to own their own home, support their wife and kids and still have a little left over to save at the end of the month.
Edit: It kind of sucks that I wrote a comment about making work pay like it used to and people are arguing about whether I’m a mysoganist that wants women back in the kitchen. (I’m not, I’m happy for women to work as much as they want too, it’d just be nice for double income homes to be doing it out of choice and thriving because of it, rather than having to do it out of necessity.)
Whoa there. Won’t anyone ever think of the c
hildren-level executives? How could they afford a new Lamborghini or a new yacht when they also have to pay you?What about the executives’ children? They need a ten grand a month per year they’ve been alive (so when they’re three it’s thirty grand a month) salary. We need someone anyone to sit on the scholarship boards run by the company.
I didn’t mean to be mysoganistic in any form, but it is in the DNA of men to want to be a good provider
Yeah but you said this so…
That’s a fact, not an opinion that implies contempt, prejudice or a hatred of women.
You can try to deny millions of years of evolution if you want.
People don’t like to admit it, but despite all the advantages of our modern society, our DNA is essentially unchanged from when we were all cavemen.
If you were a cave woman and you had the option of two cavemen who are essentially identical except for that one makes a successful hunt everyday and the other only makes a successful hunt every week. Who would you choose to help you raise a family? And vice versa, if you were the caveman and you knew that women were selective of men based upon who can provide well for the raising of children, would you want to be making a successful hunt daily, or weekly?
We can cry about how unfair it is, but the vast majority of women today, whether they want to admit it or not, absolutely consider economic status as something to weigh up when selecting a partner, men do also consider this, but not nearly to the same extent. Please don’t misinterpret anything I’m saying here as resentful or hateful, it’s not it’s life, you can choose not to accept this, but it doesn’t change the facts.
Inb4, yh but we’re not cavemen any more. I’ve already addressed that.
Anthropologists challenge the traditional view of men as hunters and women as gatherers in prehistoric times. Their research reveals evidence of gender equality in roles and suggests that women were physically capable of hunting. The study sheds light on the gender bias in past research and calls for a more nuanced understanding of prehistoric gender roles.
Lacy and her colleague Cara Ocobock from the University of Notre Dame examined the division of labor according to sex during the Paleolithic era, approximately 2.5 million to 12,000 years ago. Through a review of current archaeological evidence and literature, they found little evidence to support the idea that roles were assigned specifically to each sex. The team also looked at female physiology and found that women were not only physically capable of being hunters, but that there is little evidence to support that they were not hunting.
I was just using hunting as an example as a way that a man could provide for a woman that wanted to raise children in prehistoric times, the accuracy of which is entirely irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make. I’m really not interested in challenging the traditional view, it was merely an example to help you understand how women evolved with a tendency to prefer men with a high, or at least stable economic status and why men evolved to want to have that economic status. Just in the same way that I was using the example of a man being able to own a home and support an entire family just a few decades ago to show how much less work pays today.
The semantics of this debate and how far off track it has gone, when I was just trying to make a point about how work doesn’t pay as much as it used to is mind boggling.
Fucking Jesus.
As long as you’ve realised I don’t hate woman, I’m happy.
So your old person trait is really that “wife stay at home with the kids” should be the norm?
It should be an option.
Dad works, and mum stays at home to focus on the home and kids. ✔️
Mum works and dad stays at home to focus on the home and kids. ✔️
Both work part time to both spend quality time with the kids. ✔️✔️✔️
All should be completely viable for an average income couple.
This. As a working woman I can’t really upvote the “I wanna support wife and kids” stuff. Thanks, but I want to work.
I understand it from the women’s point of view and I didn’t mean to be mysoganistic in any form, but it is in the DNA of men to want to be a good provider and I think, if you’re being honest, that many women look for that as an attractive trait in a male partner.
I understand that you weren’t trying to be mysoginistic, but I am disagreeing with your premise that the provider role for men & women wanting it is some kind of natural state. These roles have been enforced, and can be unlearnt. It’s also not binary. It may well be that in a perfect world without any societal pressure, more men than women want to provide. But how many? Having a higher probability doesn’t imply that it’s deterministic for all people.
The only biological aspect I agree with is that being pregnant changes women, because this is backed by studies.
I respect your opinion and thank you for tackling my point of view head on, rather than just picking the bones out of semantics the way that some others in this thread have.
I agree with you. But that’s not what OP wrote. Now, maybe he’s simply writing from his own perspective. But it does sound a bit weird imo.
How the hell did you come to that conclusion?
Wanting to support your family is sexist in 2024 /s
The lemmy, land of the contrarian.
“support their wife and kids” is right there in plain text.
Yes, shortly after “be able to.”
Your reading comprehension astounds me.
The fact that one working man could support his whole family just a few decades ago didn’t mean women shouldn’t, couldn’t or didn’t work, just that they didn’t have to.
Women worked fulltime, just unpaid. This is always forgotten. Household with multiple kids is not free time.
So “women” didn’t have to work, but men had to, right? That’s the model you want back?
You really haven’t noticed that you have this role model of the breadwinner as the man and the stay-at-home-mother deeply ingrained into your thinking, right?
It’s in that response as well. That’s not an accusation, stuff like this is in everyone somewhere, it’s just good to challenge oneself on such matters.
I’m not opposed to having a well-off working wife and being a stay at home dad, so all these accusations of mysogany when I’m just trying to talk about making work pay like it used to is rather tiresome.
Yes, I wrote using a traditional family model as an example, sorry it triggered you so much.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. I think having a stay at home parent is kind of yesteryear, and should probably be viewed as such for a multitude of reasons, but I think, full time salary and able to support what are basically three people’s needs + savings is not an unreasonable demand. The more this is commonplace, the more everyone can afford to support everyone else collectively, since only a quarter of the total population would really need to be working at any given time, and the rest could be paylessly employed to manage each other. Beyond just stay at home moms or dads, it could entail any number of people in any number of living situations, but the free time means that taking care of the elderly, disabled, children, or whatever else could just be split among the local social network, instead of just kinda being foisted onto underfunded social systems which should more realistically not be the first option.
Probably this is the main driver of why the social fabric of america is coming undone, that I can think of, but it’s also not so easy to solve, because none of this is really something you can solve long-term in a capitalist economy, where there are always incentives to undercut your competition by underpaying your workers, or outsourcing. Or really in any system that prioritizes short term gains over long term ones.
It should be an option for those outside the top 1%. Let’s be honest, plenty of jobs suck and a lot of people who look after a children professionally are not the brightest sparks in the fire (at least where I am). Why should someone be forced to do a crap job then give all that salary to someone less cultures than the to look after their kids. Why not just do it themselves?
If one of you has a good, full-time job that should cover basic living expenses. It should also not be looked down. My wife is a stay at home mum, she is also a feminist and I certainly did not not force her to to work. The only thing we regret is the way people (especially other women but not only) look down on her.
I’m an equal opportunity house person. I wouldn’t mind staying home taking care of the kids while the wife worked, living in our owned home and having something extra at the end of the month
Not necessarily the wife.
And not necessarily the same person all the time.
OP did specify “the wife”. I would take him by the word.
It kind of sucks that I wrote a comment about making work pay like it used to and people are arguing about whether I’m a mysoganist that wants women back in the kitchen.
Then said
I didn’t mean to be mysoganistic in any form, but it is in the DNA of men to want to be a good provider
deleted by creator
Cars should have buttons and knobs. Not complicated menus and touchscreens. That’s not a “I don’t like change” thing, it’s a safety thing.
Hell yes I should own it if I pay for it.
Event tickets shouldn’t cost a month’s pay or more, fuck middleman businesses that do nothing except price gouge you as a “service.”
Exactly, I’ve railed on this exact topic.
a screen offers no tactile feedback.
You can learn what buttons feel like, and where they are (and the same for knobs) so yo ucan operate your vehicle without having to take your eyes off the road.
Tablets are sleek and shiny, and fundamentally horrible as a car interface.
I don’t necessarily have an issue with the screens. The problems are:
Commonly accessed features like choosing a media source, setting environmental controls, or even lighting, are buried several “clicks” deep. These need to be surface-level and need zero distraction from driving to interact with.
The “touch” part of touch-screen often sucks. Every car I’ve driven with touch interface requires too long of a press and/or doesn’t pick up the press. So you have to look away from driving to repeatedly mash a touch control. That’s not safe.
The touch area is often too small, such as arrow buttons to raise or lower volume, skip a song, or change temperature. Not only do they not register the touch, they’re too small. Double whammy for distraction.
and theres no tactile feed back. you have no idea where your finger is on the screen, So you have to take your eyes off the road to futz with a stupid menu in a stupid interface.
a button/knob? You can just reach, feel, and operate without ever taking your eyes or attention off the road.
This is why, at the ripe old age of mid-thirties, I just drive with one finger on the scan radio button and stop when I hear a song I like. About a year ago we purchased our first car with a touch screen and I will not adapt.
I’m fairly certain I saw the EU already put something into action about trying to turn this tide. It needs to be expanded for sure
And they should bring back knobs and tactile functions for all white goods for people with disabilities or at least prepare and provide the model for exactly that. Touch screen was a terrible idea for washers, driers and dishwashers. This isn’t just an old person thought, it’s an inclusive thought.
Shitty user interfaces for the sake of looking “modern” can genuinely jack themselves off with the entire monkey paw
I freaking hate this software trend. Years of good engineering design practices have been thrown away for almost no reason.
On purpose! You having agency is your masters losing it.
Knobs are highly underrated for control interfaces. Gives users a fine degree of control to dial in as quickly or as slowly as they’re comfortable. They’re an old concept, but they can still benefit from contemporary tech. Have you ever used a Nest thermostat? The little blocks as you scroll through the settings, pushing the whole thing in like a button to select. It’s weirdly satisfying and I want to control everything with a big knob now.
Agree completely with the first 3, but my young person/introvert trait is that I think I should be able to get anything, including paying my bills, to work without having to talk to someone on the phone like I’m my boomer dad.
Unfortunately now it seems to be the worst of both worlds: companies don’t have a contact email, but only a phone number and sometimes a useless chat bot. When I finally work up the courage to use the phone, I have to go through a long automated menu system, and/or wait for half an hour.
Once I actually get a human on the phone it’s never as bad as my mind made it out to be -but I would still very much prefer an email.
At this point, I only buy from places with physical locations, so if I need something replaced, I can just take what I’m owed.
Also in a lot of cases it’s simply a waste of an employee’s time to answer basic questions on the phone all day long. Robots should be able to do that better. But I do agree that customers should be trapped on hold for 30 minutes.
But I do agree that customers should be trapped on hold for 30 minutes.
…You’ve worked in customer service, haven’t you? 😛
Oops
I think at least there should be at least a digital queue system so that you can just get an automated call back instead of having to wait for hours listening to the hold music.
We actually have this here in Denmark. Not for every phone queue, but more and more. My ISP is one of the companies that do that ❤️
My old person trait is that UI shouldn’t change unexpectedly when you are trying to click or touch something.
it should not change unexpectedly, period.
I don’t want to install an update and have the ui completely change on me because some dev wanted to pad out his resume by starting a new project on the fresh-framework-of-the-day.
Yes.
Pointless UI changes are a fucking atrocity, cause they are always more complicated and more informational overload than the previous design, while being more resource intensive and slower.
KISS is a motto for a reason. Unfortunately its the stupid people that seem to make the decisions and don’t register that they are the ones KISS is directed at.
Of course it shouldn’t, that’s one of the core principles of UI design, but these days it does anyway so it is an old person trait now
TIL ‘old person’ means 'having literally any god damn standards and not getting on your knees for corpodaddy at the drop of a hat.
Pretty much
agreed
I feel like this is a product of a lack of UX team or outsourcing it. When engineers are left to make a UI… they make what works (barely), not what is easy to use…
As a developer I need to be reigned in when it comes to design. I don’t know shit and have learnt that there are conventions for a reason.
Especially when you’re given a deadline where you know that you can’t afford to spend 10-20% of the time designing the interface lol
Right? I wait for everything to load and snap into place and then I touch my screen. SIKE! it’s got one more button to put under my finger that instant.
My old person trait is a bad back
None of these are actually old person traits. These are just things that should be happening automatically.
That’s exactly what an old person would say!
my old person trait is wanting to overthrow capitalism and give everyone basic necessities
Look at this guy pulling out traits from the grandparent of a Boomer.
my old person trait is that I think I should be able to afford college, a car, and a home, on a part time job, like our grandparents could.
deleted by creator
This.
Don’t fall for framing of these type of things as a flaw in you. None of these are unreasonable ends for the young or the old. This is not about young/old, it’s about wealthy/not wealthy - the greedy fucks making these decisions are trying to make you casually take a side in a generational conflict so that you turn your pitchforks away from them.
My old person trait is that i keep butterscotch in my pockets in case grandchildren stop by.
We have a winner!
I don’t have any old person traits! Now get off my lawn, damn kids!
My old person trait is not liking it when someone doesn’t take out their wireless earplugs when I talk to them.
Why should they when they can lower the sound to hear you perfectly ?
Mine have microphones for listening to you. Deal with it.
My old person trait is wishing my neighbors would stay out of my yard and stop breaking noise ordinance.
My old person trait is that I think people should understand the technology they use in order to be allowed to use it
To what degree? I know how to plug inputs into my tv and turn it on, I have no idea how the TV actually works. I know how to flip a light switch, I don’t understand how to wire a house.
You should know to the extent that you’re using it, not the other way around. You should understand that the house is wired, and you don’t know how to wire it, and that the light in that bulb is from fire, not wizard shit. Maybe also where to find books on how to wire a house.
The light in the bulb is most certainly not from fire.
If its an actual bulb? Yes it is. But nowadays, no probably not, but you get the point.
Yeah, light emitting diodes don’t work like traditional incandescents. I suppose you could say that a filament bulb is a controlled fire, at the most simplistic and basic level, but that’s a misrepresentation of what’s really happening. The filament heats up to a very high temperature, causing it to glow and emit light. This process is known as incandescence, and it involves heating a material until it emits light, rather than burning or combustion, which would involve a chemical reaction with oxygen to produce fire. The bulb is filled with an inert gas or a vacuum to prevent the filament from burning up due to oxidation.
Fair. I think to the extent of “if you use a web browser you have to know what HTTP is”. Not really how it works, just being conscious of the technology in use.
But how does my IE chromes the google bing?
Knowing what HTTP is has 0 effect on someone’s ability to use the internet. Knowing what web browsers and search engines are does.
The idea is it’s a litmus test for tech literacy. It doesn’t have to be relevant to the daily browsing experience, it would just ensure that everyone on the internet knows what things like cookies are and what they actually do.
It’s like not bothering to learn what an engine is before learning to drive a car.
The problem with your examples is that they do affect the user’s ability to use the tech in question, and the same can’t be said for HTTP. If there isn’t a clear benefit to knowing something, then making it a requirement is just an artificial gate and an unnecessary burden. For example, pharmacists don’t withhold your prescriptions because you don’t understand a drug’s mechanism of action, but they do make sure you understand the risks and any drug interactions. Airlines don’t force you to learn how their planes create lift, but they do educate you on what to do in an emergency. I don’t see why tech should be any different from those 2.
Why don’t you understand those things? Both are technologies that have existed for your entire life. You’ve never been curious how either of them work? I’m biased because I’m a naturally inquisitive person, but I can’t imagine being surrounded by things I don’t understand. You can learn about both of them in less than a single evening, and your life will be richer because of it.
My point is there are plenty of things people use every day and don’t fully understand the mechanisms behind them. That is the benefit of society having people with expertise.
The average person doesn’t need to know how springs are formed, the chemical make up of the metal involved, the process of cutting trees, harvesting their lumber, cutting it into planks, how to make screws, how to weave cloth, how to create the thread for the weaving, or how to collect the materials for the thread, all in order to sleep in a bed.
Do that for every item you use on a daily basis and you see how it becomes impossible. There’s always more you can learn and one person can’t learn everything.
deleted by creator
This is such a big deal. The englebart paradigm of tech losing out to fucking Steve jobs put us on the bad timeline, maybe even more than Ronald Reagan.
I’m not sure you should have to fully understand, but tech that you use, and increase your agency by using abd knowing, rather than shit so simple it can use a child, is so fucking important.
Also, maybe we shouldn’t let every shiny algorithm with a primary color on its front page use children?
Bro please proofread your post
Sorry, new soft keyboard mangles fucking everything.
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
I read that three times and gave up. I now have the image of Mr. Hanky trying to use a child as a cell phone.
Nah. The cell phone uses the child.
