Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The question doesn't have to be addressed in terms of good or bad. It is a personal choice, indeed, and nothing's wrong with those opting for it. Judging from the replies to this threat, it's a decision people get pretty defensive about.
Back in the days, women were expected to be homemakers and nothing else. Access to employment was perhaps the greatest landmark in women's emancipation.
No. Women of privilaged social classes were expected to be homemakers. Poor and working class women and mothers (heck,children too, until child labor laws put a stop to it) have always worked.
No. Women of privilaged social classes were expected to be homemakers. Poor and working class women and mothers (heck,children too, until child labor laws put a stop to it) have always worked.
Yep. Thanks for unmasking the classicism of the original poster.
Your question is not clear. Define what you mean by patriarchy in this context. Patriarchy dictated terms to women. Today the choice to work outside the home or not is a personal decision, although many women may not have a choice but to work. Others may choose to work, or leave their work to stay home to raise their children. In that case they may have another source of income to afford that, often the father, in which case they are sharing the work of child care.
Personally I think women do sacrifice a career, and financial security and retirement benefits, when they choose to stay home. It is a long term decision that is often short changed due to cost of child care. If they would look at that cost as an investment into their future they may choose differently.
No. Women of privilaged social classes were expected to be homemakers. Poor and working class women and mothers (heck,children too, until child labor laws put a stop to it) have always worked.
"Working" and being employed are 2 different things. Working can take place at home. A SAHM works, but is not employed. Old days women worked on the family's farm, which is also working at home. On the other hand, employment usually takes place away from home. As an example, one of the first profession open to women, nursing, was heavily regulated until not so long ago. Nurses were not allowed to get married, had to live on on-site.
"Working" and being employed are 2 different things. Working can take place at home. A SAHM works, but is not employed. Old days women worked on the family's farm, which is also working at home. On the other hand, employment usually takes place away from home. As an example, one of the first profession open to women, nursing, was heavily regulated until not so long ago. Nurses were not allowed to get married, had to live on on-site.
Keep going further back in history; women were indeed employed. Yes, on family farms, but also on other people's farms, in factories, domestic service in wealthier people's homes, taking in sewing, laundry, and piecework for manufactures. Thet did this while keeping house and rearing children.
I take some minor issue with the word patriarchy. It's the right word by definition, but it fails to convey some important information. Most businesses and other government or private institutions are essentially run by men, but they're also oligarchies. Patriarchy privileges a very few men in any real sense. Away from the seats of power, many men get acknowledged more profusely for their crappy station in life than women do for theirs. Until recently, men nearly exclusively were lauded, sometimes posthumously, for being soldiers or cops or fireman or mine workers, whereas women's roles were ignored or derided. That's significant, and I would have rather been an ordinary man as opposed to being an ordinary woman at just about any point in history, but mostly in the sense that I'd prefer to be punched than stabbed.
Having said that, I do think that the assumption that a woman is more likely to want to be a SAHM than a man would want to be a SAHD is a remnant of patriarchy. The tendency for us to see it as more natural and fitting is also. And men who are SAHDs are alternately applauded as exceptional and then snickered at when they make that choice, whereas women often get a shoulder shrug.
So our perceptions are a remnant, but the choice is something people, middle class people anyway, make for themselves with patriarchy as an influence, to whatever extent those making the choice are influenced in general by patriarchy.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms.Mathlete
Keep going further back in history; women were indeed employed. Yes, on family farms, but also on other people's farms, in factories, domestic service in wealthier people's homes, taking in sewing, laundry, and piecework for manufactures. Thet did this while keeping house and rearing children.
Totally. It was a post WW2 boom time luxury for middle class women to be stay at home mothers so much. But that was an artificial economic situation where Europe was destroyed and Japan destroyed, and China/Eastern Europe closed off, so we supplied everything for a couple of decades.
That standard of life isn't realistic or sustainable.
Keep going further back in history; women were indeed employed. Yes, on family farms, but also on other people's farms, in factories, domestic service in wealthier people's homes, taking in sewing, laundry, and piecework for manufactures. Thet did this while keeping house and rearing children.
Going further back in history to a time when the country was far more rural and far less service jobs were available, and seeing greater women employment is unlikely.
Going further back in history to a time when the country was far more rural and far less service jobs were available, and seeing greater women employment is unlikely.
To believe that, one must have either a very poor or very miopic grasp of history. One example is textile production in the pre-industrial era: raw materials were brought to rural homes for women to make fabrics, yarn, thread, etc., and then the finished product were picked up and sold to merchants.
Last edited by Ginge McFantaPants; 10-25-2017 at 10:46 AM..
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron_stick
Going further back in history to a time when the country was far more rural and far less service jobs were available, and seeing greater women employment is unlikely.
Yeah, really not true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
