I'm very aware of the '70's, and I witnessed the changing of the guard when younger women of my generation took over and redefined the definition of feminism, often clashing with the older more radical women who denounced housewives and sex workers. We were the ones who started the work on recognizing housewives, stay at home moms, sex workers, and beauty pageant participants as valid choices for women and we were the ones who started the crusade against spouse abuse (trust me, there were no systems in place in the '70s to report abuse. No one wanted to get involved)
There are a lot of women like me who consider themselves feminists, and don't like the confusion of it being a label for the man bashers, and anti-housewife, anti-stay at home mom.
This doubling of income had the inadvertent economic affect of creating record inflation, and cost of living shot way up. Prior to 1976 MOST FAMILIES lived on one income Today it is almost impossible to have a family and children on only one average income.
I used to think this, too. But it is a fallacy.
1. the economy has been going this direction for almost a century. It wasn't women working outside the home who caused the great depression, or any of the recessions since then. It wasn't women who took the currency off the silver standard or the gold standard. It might have been men starting to take on two jobs to make two incomes to keep up with the costs of living. It wasn't a handful of radical feminists going to work who destroyed the economy. Many women started going to work after Nixon took the currency off the gold standard in the '70s because they had to. (I've studied some finance and economy - who plays with the economy? The Federal Reserve)
2. This implies that women should have stayed home to keep the cost of living from going up, as if they were responsible (again, the Fed, the government playing with the currency that causes inflation). That's a pretty tough position for a single mom like myself. Those of us who do not have the good fortune of having a husband would suffer because no one would have challenged glass ceilings, or minimum wage levels. Instead we would have to be with content low paying jobs when we can work.
3. Some women, myself included, have found that being independent of men is the best way. You are indeed very fortunate to find a man that can be depended on and not abusive of even the subtle power nuances of the one who brings home the money. Good men, very good decent men, are out there, yes, but not all of us are going to win one.
4. No woman should have to justify wanting to earn her own money, married or not. This is the positive outcome- women shouldn't have only housewife as an option for life.
5. Most men don't want to "take care" of a woman. You can blame it on the women's rights movement, but there are plenty of viewpoints that men feel liberated from having no choice but be the "head of household," or "breadwinner," or the "wallet" It even allows for the role reversal of a cousin of mine who is the breadwinner, being successful at her career, and her husband is the caretaker, he stays at home with the kids, cooks, cleans. They've done this for some decades now, and they're very happy.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: The second 'stay-at-home-mom' point
Date: 2010-10-03 03:28 pm (UTC)There are a lot of women like me who consider themselves feminists, and don't like the confusion of it being a label for the man bashers, and anti-housewife, anti-stay at home mom.
This doubling of income had the inadvertent economic affect of creating record inflation, and cost of living shot way up. Prior to 1976 MOST FAMILIES lived on one income Today it is almost impossible to have a family and children on only one average income.
I used to think this, too. But it is a fallacy.
1. the economy has been going this direction for almost a century. It wasn't women working outside the home who caused the great depression, or any of the recessions since then. It wasn't women who took the currency off the silver standard or the gold standard. It might have been men starting to take on two jobs to make two incomes to keep up with the costs of living. It wasn't a handful of radical feminists going to work who destroyed the economy. Many women started going to work after Nixon took the currency off the gold standard in the '70s because they had to. (I've studied some finance and economy - who plays with the economy? The Federal Reserve)
2. This implies that women should have stayed home to keep the cost of living from going up, as if they were responsible (again, the Fed, the government playing with the currency that causes inflation). That's a pretty tough position for a single mom like myself. Those of us who do not have the good fortune of having a husband would suffer because no one would have challenged glass ceilings, or minimum wage levels. Instead we would have to be with content low paying jobs when we can work.
3. Some women, myself included, have found that being independent of men is the best way. You are indeed very fortunate to find a man that can be depended on and not abusive of even the subtle power nuances of the one who brings home the money. Good men, very good decent men, are out there, yes, but not all of us are going to win one.
4. No woman should have to justify wanting to earn her own money, married or not. This is the positive outcome- women shouldn't have only housewife as an option for life.
5. Most men don't want to "take care" of a woman. You can blame it on the women's rights movement, but there are plenty of viewpoints that men feel liberated from having no choice but be the "head of household," or "breadwinner," or the "wallet"
It even allows for the role reversal of a cousin of mine who is the breadwinner, being successful at her career, and her husband is the caretaker, he stays at home with the kids, cooks, cleans. They've done this for some decades now, and they're very happy.