4 ms·

Firstly, the feminist bullshit you linked to doesn't support your point, because it lists women's occupations like "governesses" and "middle-management" - is th

by ucee054 14y ago

Firstly, the feminist bullshit you linked to doesn't support your point, because it lists women's occupations like "governesses" and "middle-management" - is that supposed to be blue collar? Secondly, the period referred to in the original post was like a century later than that referred to in the feminist bullshit. Thirdly, the feminist bullshit is trying to "put to bed" the "myths" of the nuclear household, non-working woman and the child-devoted mother. You try telling the matriarchs in my family that these are "myths". And fourthly, even if the feminist bullshit were true, you still didn't address my point that the returning soldier 70 years ago couldn't get away with being a house husband. Hell, I doubt you could get away with that now. I admire how you managed to squeeze so much wrongness into just two lines of comment.

jpatokal 14y ago
Your assertion was that "In those days the men worked, and the women stayed home to take care of the children." As the link makes clear, this has historically, in the 1950s, and in the present day only been true of upper middle class families, where the man's income was sufficient to support the entire family. Everybody else, man or woman, had to work together to scrape together enough income and outsource childcare in some form or another. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_workforce#19th_century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_workforce#19th_cen... (and onward)
- ucee054 14y ago
  No the feminist bullshit you linked to originally was about the Victorian era. And the feminist bullshit wikipedia page section on the 20th century contradicts you (and itself). Money quote: "In the beginning of the 20th century ... The role of men was to support the family financially." I tire of this. Either you somehow evidence how the hell a returning soldier in 1945 could become a house-husband or shut the hell up.
  - jpatokal 14y ago
    You appear to be wilfully ignoring the context there, so let me quote it for you: In the beginning of the 20th century, women were regarded as society's guardians of morality; they were seen as made finer than men and were expected to act as such. Their role was not defined as workers or money makers. Women were expected to hold on to their innocence until the right man came along so that they can start a family and inculcate that morality they were in charge of preserving. The role of men was to support the family financially. In other words, the idealized (upper-middle-class) role was that men should be able to support their family financially, but obviously not all of them actually did.
    - ucee054 14y ago
      No, you are ignoring things. Namely that the article doesn't say that this was for the upper class at all. Let me clue you in on some basic history. Way back when, it wasn't just the women but the whole damn family who were working, in horrible dangerous conditions down the coal mine. Social reform led to the children being pulled out of the mine and put in school. And it became a normative thing. The children were expected to be in bloody school. And this was an excellent result. Slower than it should have happened, women got dragged out of the mine and put in the kitchen. And it became a normative thing. Women were expected to be in the bloody kitchen. And this was an excellent result. Finally, men increasingly got dragged out of horrid, dangerous jobs like coal mining and sewage-toshing, and more into safer, more lucrative jobs like manufacturing or trucking or even (gasp!) office jobs. With their children safely in school, and their wives safely at home, men were expected to be the bloody breadwinners. And this was an excellent result. A massive, hard-won 20th century social advancement over what came before. Then, a bunch of Joan Collins shoulderpad-wearing idiots out of the Women's studies department decided that this advance was "Oppression" and "Male privilege", completely missing the unbalanced expectations on men. And since the 1970s these harpies have been putting out the kind of garbage that you linked to, trying to undermine the massive social advance that was the "1950s" family norm. Note that the fight to get women and children out of the mines and mills was all about the working classes and never about the rich, because the rich didn't need to go down the mine anyway. I'm sure if you google for "family wage" you can find more details about it. Here is one link I found http://www.profam.org/docs/acc/thc_acc_dectnf.htm http://www.profam.org/docs/acc/thc_acc_dectnf.htm

by ucee054 14y ago

jpatokal 14y ago

Your assertion was that "In those days the men worked, and the women stayed home to take care of the children." As the link makes clear, this has historically, in the 1950s, and in the present day only been true of upper middle class families, where the man's income was sufficient to support the entire family. Everybody else, man or woman, had to work together to scrape together enough income and outsource childcare in some form or another. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_workforce#19th_century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_workforce#19th_cen... (and onward)

ucee054 14y ago
No the feminist bullshit you linked to originally was about the Victorian era. And the feminist bullshit wikipedia page section on the 20th century contradicts you (and itself). Money quote: "In the beginning of the 20th century ... The role of men was to support the family financially." I tire of this. Either you somehow evidence how the hell a returning soldier in 1945 could become a house-husband or shut the hell up.
- jpatokal 14y ago
  You appear to be wilfully ignoring the context there, so let me quote it for you: In the beginning of the 20th century, women were regarded as society's guardians of morality; they were seen as made finer than men and were expected to act as such. Their role was not defined as workers or money makers. Women were expected to hold on to their innocence until the right man came along so that they can start a family and inculcate that morality they were in charge of preserving. The role of men was to support the family financially. In other words, the idealized (upper-middle-class) role was that men should be able to support their family financially, but obviously not all of them actually did.
  - ucee054 14y ago
    No, you are ignoring things. Namely that the article doesn't say that this was for the upper class at all. Let me clue you in on some basic history. Way back when, it wasn't just the women but the whole damn family who were working, in horrible dangerous conditions down the coal mine. Social reform led to the children being pulled out of the mine and put in school. And it became a normative thing. The children were expected to be in bloody school. And this was an excellent result. Slower than it should have happened, women got dragged out of the mine and put in the kitchen. And it became a normative thing. Women were expected to be in the bloody kitchen. And this was an excellent result. Finally, men increasingly got dragged out of horrid, dangerous jobs like coal mining and sewage-toshing, and more into safer, more lucrative jobs like manufacturing or trucking or even (gasp!) office jobs. With their children safely in school, and their wives safely at home, men were expected to be the bloody breadwinners. And this was an excellent result. A massive, hard-won 20th century social advancement over what came before. Then, a bunch of Joan Collins shoulderpad-wearing idiots out of the Women's studies department decided that this advance was "Oppression" and "Male privilege", completely missing the unbalanced expectations on men. And since the 1970s these harpies have been putting out the kind of garbage that you linked to, trying to undermine the massive social advance that was the "1950s" family norm. Note that the fight to get women and children out of the mines and mills was all about the working classes and never about the rich, because the rich didn't need to go down the mine anyway. I'm sure if you google for "family wage" you can find more details about it. Here is one link I found http://www.profam.org/docs/acc/thc_acc_dectnf.htm http://www.profam.org/docs/acc/thc_acc_dectnf.htm