4 ms·
Fully agree with the first part, disagree with the second: women elected to work, they did not needed to work. Single income family was in a way better than dua
by AdrianB1 4y ago
Fully agree with the first part, disagree with the second: women elected to work, they did not needed to work. Single income family was in a way better than dual income family, the world was in a great shape in the '60-'70 when women started to move to paid jobs. Now you have a lot more workers, more leverage to employers and a lot less time spent in the family and less time to have kids when you want to build a career at the same time (and that career is just a regular job in 90% of the cases).
- amriksohata 4y agoI dont know why people have down rated your reply, its a fair assessment on my original comment.
- roncesvalles 4y agoAs someone born in the 90s, it does seem like I was born in the "rubble" of a great societal shift from the family to the individual as the atomic unit of evaluating someone's societal stature. Although this shift has had benefits, it made the role of a housewife that of a worthless dependent. I'm not at all lamenting that this is a bad thing. Women should obviously be able to pursue careers the same way as men. However, it does seem that there is a lag between this change and how society is organized. There are some facts that are hard to ignore: 1. Raising young children without help is a lot of work. 2. Somebody needs to cook. Ordering 3 meals a day from a restaurant is unaffordable for most. There is also a trust/perception issue that "outside food" is not as good as homemade food. 3. If you work a full-time job you can give very little time for anything else. Some major societal change needs to occur that invalidates one of these three points.