ahahahahaha
Oh, I have missed Dotard's posts.
First of all, OP, "back in the day" a single woman would have to be supported by the nearest male relative if she didn't have the ability to support herself, so it makes more financial sense for single women to be liberated solely because then a brother, uncle, father, cousin, etc wouldn't have to feed her and his own family. These women frequently became 'burdens' and had to go to poor houses or work houses and live in appalling, dismal conditions that many could have avoided if it were socially acceptable for women to live by their own means without risking their reputations.
Second, Dotard, I think you'll find that the highest paying jobs have nothing whatsoever to do with "danger" - unless it comes from someone raiding their pocket book. I get paid more to do office work than our plant workers get to mess around with things in vats of molten zinc. That's because office work is deemed more "acceptable" and supposedly requires more intelligence. It really doesn't - if you're doing your job well and understanding what you're doing. Men earn more because people still assume them to be more intelligent. End of story.
That's not to say I don't agree with the flex-time part. I think it should be more socially acceptable for men to stay home with kids and not get flack for it if the woman decides she should be the bread-winner. It's biologically impossible for a man to trade places when it comes to bearing a child, but I see no reason for other roles to be traded. Me, I think it's silly for you to decide to have a child when you're absolutely engrossed in your career - it isn't fair to anyone involved.
As for society and men being able to support women back in the day - you have to understand that it wasn't just women liberating themselves. Things became more expensive because they came with better safety features, because the labor that went into electronics or mechanics got pricier, etc. People discovered that they could afford more with two incomes, adding to the economy. If you wanted to live like in the 50's, you can...just be prepared not to have all those wonderful toys we now all want (or are convinced we should by advertising and society pressure) unless your breadwinner makes mad money. You would need a very bare-bones car, a bare-bones house, probably no iPad and many other things.
Oh, I have missed Dotard's posts.
First of all, OP, "back in the day" a single woman would have to be supported by the nearest male relative if she didn't have the ability to support herself, so it makes more financial sense for single women to be liberated solely because then a brother, uncle, father, cousin, etc wouldn't have to feed her and his own family. These women frequently became 'burdens' and had to go to poor houses or work houses and live in appalling, dismal conditions that many could have avoided if it were socially acceptable for women to live by their own means without risking their reputations.
Second, Dotard, I think you'll find that the highest paying jobs have nothing whatsoever to do with "danger" - unless it comes from someone raiding their pocket book. I get paid more to do office work than our plant workers get to mess around with things in vats of molten zinc. That's because office work is deemed more "acceptable" and supposedly requires more intelligence. It really doesn't - if you're doing your job well and understanding what you're doing. Men earn more because people still assume them to be more intelligent. End of story.
That's not to say I don't agree with the flex-time part. I think it should be more socially acceptable for men to stay home with kids and not get flack for it if the woman decides she should be the bread-winner. It's biologically impossible for a man to trade places when it comes to bearing a child, but I see no reason for other roles to be traded. Me, I think it's silly for you to decide to have a child when you're absolutely engrossed in your career - it isn't fair to anyone involved.
As for society and men being able to support women back in the day - you have to understand that it wasn't just women liberating themselves. Things became more expensive because they came with better safety features, because the labor that went into electronics or mechanics got pricier, etc. People discovered that they could afford more with two incomes, adding to the economy. If you wanted to live like in the 50's, you can...just be prepared not to have all those wonderful toys we now all want (or are convinced we should by advertising and society pressure) unless your breadwinner makes mad money. You would need a very bare-bones car, a bare-bones house, probably no iPad and many other things.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
