3 ms·
The parent point assumed nothing of the kind. For the point of this analysis, it doesn't matter whether the non-breadwinner was busy homemaking, skydiving, or c
by lliamander 5y ago
The parent point assumed nothing of the kind. For the point of this analysis, it doesn't matter whether the non-breadwinner was busy homemaking, skydiving, or collecting stamps.
The point is that they didn't need to trade their labor for money, and now they do.
- klyrs 5y agoNo, you and OC are equating labor with leisure. Women were treated as property until very recently in history, and a married man was at significant advantage to an unmarried man. Some women of the time had a choice: to enrol in a relationship with a man and toil for his household, or to toil for a paltry income; many needed to do both. Skydiving and stamp collecting were only options for the independently wealthy
- xupybd 5y agoI don't think women were treated as property by the vast majority.
- klyrs 5y agoLegally speaking, coverture laws stuck around until the 1960s. There was certainly a gradient both de jure and de facto, in time and in space, but my grandpas certainly beat my grandmas like they were property. One wouldn't stand that crap, and left his ass. The other was just subservient. I have cousins whose husbands won't allow them to learn how to drive, and only let them spend money on groceries. De jure, they could leave at any time. De facto, they're treated as sub-human. Today.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]