5 ms·

>economically (I know this is dehumanising) this makes absolutely no sense. Honestly, I think the breadwinner-homemaker dynamic makes a lot of sense. Life has

>economically (I know this is dehumanising) this makes absolutely no sense. Honestly, I think the breadwinner-homemaker dynamic makes a lot of sense. Life has become harsher for everyone now that two incomes are required in order to remain competitive, and the work that women used to do as homemakers in a stable marriage has primarily been replaced by immigrant labour in insecure and underpaid jobs. Yes, GDP has risen, but I don't think that necessarily means the new system works better.

ggm 5y ago
So, if we took the breadwinner-homemaker dynamic, which of the two is more likely to have the time to be literate? the one in the field, or the one by the hearth?
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  Neither, because books are completely unaffordable to anybody who is a part of the working class. ;)
  - ggm 5y ago
    These books, yes. Horn books, chapbooks, slates and wax tablets, not to mention lead scrolls, have been available in volume since people had leather, shoulder bones, horn and lead. They found letters from ordinary Romans home to wives and mothers in vindolanda, there have been overt religious/political diatribes against widespread literacy and women's literacy and I think that begs questions too: arguing to keep people illiterate suggests a state of literacy at large.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      >arguing to keep people illiterate suggests a state of literacy at large. I don't think anybody is arguing this.
      - ggm 5y ago
        Historically, at some points in time I believe both the church and state did. The reformation is blamed in part on increasing adult literacy, and the translation of the bible into the vernacular, combined with a drastic drop in the cost of the means of production of written materials.
  - speedybird 5y ago
    Literacy is not a binary. It was apparently common for working class people to have some practical literacy; the ability to recognize and write words in their local vernacular that were relevant to their lives and professions. A little bit of literacy goes a long way to facilitate trade and commerce, even if you're not comfortable reading a whole book. In fact there are still some people who go through life like this in developed countries today.
watwut 5y ago
And the moment man gets sick, dies, becomes alcoholic (not an exception in past), becomes dangerous, the partner is utterly absolutely effed. If you look at employment rates per gender in 1950, you find surprisingly a lot women working. It is not like legend has it as if only middle class existed. Notably, Rosa Parks employment mattered to her family a lot and loss of it caused the issues after protests.
nobodyandproud 5y ago
I don’t know if life became more harsh; rather a few decades of the 20th century were anomalies. Before automation and modern conveniences, running a household was a very demanding job. Have you tried washing clothes using a bar of soap and a scrubbing board? Or firing up a meal using an old stove? Or preserving foods (canning, drying, pickling) because no refrigeration. Or drawing water for a bath from a well, and firing up hot water? Never mind the kids… Edit: Not aimed at you specifically. I just think people don’t appreciate that historically, both genders had to contribute a LOT to build a successful family.
- watwut 5y ago
  And animals. Milking cows, feeding chicken, killing chicken and all that were done by women, at least here. By men too, it is not that men slacked. And a lot of work was physical and superior strength mattered. But there was ton of work all the time and even kids had to be useful. The situation in which you have full adult boring her brains out being idle was not historical norm except for richest classes.

ggm 5y ago

So, if we took the breadwinner-homemaker dynamic, which of the two is more likely to have the time to be literate? the one in the field, or the one by the hearth?

AussieWog93 5y ago
Neither, because books are completely unaffordable to anybody who is a part of the working class. ;)
- ggm 5y ago
  These books, yes. Horn books, chapbooks, slates and wax tablets, not to mention lead scrolls, have been available in volume since people had leather, shoulder bones, horn and lead. They found letters from ordinary Romans home to wives and mothers in vindolanda, there have been overt religious/political diatribes against widespread literacy and women's literacy and I think that begs questions too: arguing to keep people illiterate suggests a state of literacy at large.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    >arguing to keep people illiterate suggests a state of literacy at large. I don't think anybody is arguing this.
    - ggm 5y ago
      Historically, at some points in time I believe both the church and state did. The reformation is blamed in part on increasing adult literacy, and the translation of the bible into the vernacular, combined with a drastic drop in the cost of the means of production of written materials.
- speedybird 5y ago
  Literacy is not a binary. It was apparently common for working class people to have some practical literacy; the ability to recognize and write words in their local vernacular that were relevant to their lives and professions. A little bit of literacy goes a long way to facilitate trade and commerce, even if you're not comfortable reading a whole book. In fact there are still some people who go through life like this in developed countries today.

watwut 5y ago

And the moment man gets sick, dies, becomes alcoholic (not an exception in past), becomes dangerous, the partner is utterly absolutely effed. If you look at employment rates per gender in 1950, you find surprisingly a lot women working. It is not like legend has it as if only middle class existed. Notably, Rosa Parks employment mattered to her family a lot and loss of it caused the issues after protests.

nobodyandproud 5y ago

I don’t know if life became more harsh; rather a few decades of the 20th century were anomalies. Before automation and modern conveniences, running a household was a very demanding job. Have you tried washing clothes using a bar of soap and a scrubbing board? Or firing up a meal using an old stove? Or preserving foods (canning, drying, pickling) because no refrigeration. Or drawing water for a bath from a well, and firing up hot water? Never mind the kids… Edit: Not aimed at you specifically. I just think people don’t appreciate that historically, both genders had to contribute a LOT to build a successful family.

watwut 5y ago
And animals. Milking cows, feeding chicken, killing chicken and all that were done by women, at least here. By men too, it is not that men slacked. And a lot of work was physical and superior strength mattered. But there was ton of work all the time and even kids had to be useful. The situation in which you have full adult boring her brains out being idle was not historical norm except for richest classes.