2 ms·
Yeah, I think if those 62 people were all women nobody's life were improved (except for those women, I guess). That note is largely tangential to the claim. Th
by hnbad 4y ago
Yeah, I think if those 62 people were all women nobody's life were improved (except for those women, I guess). That note is largely tangential to the claim.
The reason women are generally more affected by wealth inequality (i.e. why more women are poorer) is that women generally perform more unpaid labor (e.g. in traditional mixed gender couples, women typically perform a larger share of domestic duties and spend more time raising and nurturing children than men).
For a less obvious example: my grandfather was a homeopathic practitioner and when his wife wasn't doing chores or looking after their daughter she would help in the practice as an unpaid assistant. As she had never formally been an employee and thus never paid into the federal pension fund, she ended up on welfare when he died and left her without any savings. We had to teach her the basics of banking after his death because he had always insisted on managing the family finances and insurances. This may sound absurd and careless by modern standards but was culturally normal when they were young. In fact, married women only gained the right to seek employment without the permission of their husbands during her lifetime.
- rightbyte 4y ago> women generally perform more unpaid labor If a couple is married, it is not effectivly unpaid if the other part can work becouse of the unpaid labour. The main problem I see is that the woman's carrier might suffer which would be a problem in the event of a divorce.