This isn't really a downside. You are in no way under some feminist obligation to have a career and support your family.
As far as the inflation thing, there were lots of poor people before the women's rights movement. It sounds like you're thinking of the 1950s in pretty stereotypical terms, which really only applies to part of the population. Women who weren't rich and/or white in the 1950s had it really bad. They were still poor, but didn't have the option of getting reasonably high paying jobs to help support their families. Many women are still in this position today, but women's rights have helped massively. Back then, women in your position were just stuck being poor.
In conclusion: STOP ROMANTICISING THE 50s. The 1950s were an awful time to live for a lot of people, and things have gotten much, much better. It's still socially acceptable to be a housewife, and the women's rights movement is not responsible for your financial position today. Yes, if you just look at rich white people in the 1950s (which is almost exclusively what people talk about when they talk about that time period, unless they're specifically talking about civil rights), it looks pretty alright. But life is still pretty great for rich white people today, so that's not really a fair comparison.
To clarify, I do agree that wages should be increasing more to match inflation, but that really has nothing to do with the women's rights movement. There are still loads of single income households, and the increase in double income households is largely a RESULT of worse wages, not the cause of it.
Also, when you say that "with so many women working now, less men have the chance of finding a really good job (since there's more competition)", I don't really see that as a disadvantage. If a woman is more qualified for a job than a man is, she should get the job. I don't understand how choosing the most qualified applicants for jobs, regardless of gender, is a bad thing. Yes, this might mean that fewer women can be housewives, but a lot of women don't want to be housewives. Also, some men want to be home makers, too, so that opens up chances for them to do that.
Women's Rights - The Downside
← View full post
This isn't really a downside. You are in no way under some feminist obligation to have a career and support your family.
As far as the inflation thing, there were lots of poor people before the women's rights movement. It sounds like you're thinking of the 1950s in pretty stereotypical terms, which really only applies to part of the population. Women who weren't rich and/or white in the 1950s had it really bad. They were still poor, but didn't have the option of getting reasonably high paying jobs to help support their families. Many women are still in this position today, but women's rights have helped massively. Back then, women in your position were just stuck being poor.
In conclusion: STOP ROMANTICISING THE 50s. The 1950s were an awful time to live for a lot of people, and things have gotten much, much better. It's still socially acceptable to be a housewife, and the women's rights movement is not responsible for your financial position today. Yes, if you just look at rich white people in the 1950s (which is almost exclusively what people talk about when they talk about that time period, unless they're specifically talking about civil rights), it looks pretty alright. But life is still pretty great for rich white people today, so that's not really a fair comparison.
--
VioletTrees
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
To clarify, I do agree that wages should be increasing more to match inflation, but that really has nothing to do with the women's rights movement. There are still loads of single income households, and the increase in double income households is largely a RESULT of worse wages, not the cause of it.
Also, when you say that "with so many women working now, less men have the chance of finding a really good job (since there's more competition)", I don't really see that as a disadvantage. If a woman is more qualified for a job than a man is, she should get the job. I don't understand how choosing the most qualified applicants for jobs, regardless of gender, is a bad thing. Yes, this might mean that fewer women can be housewives, but a lot of women don't want to be housewives. Also, some men want to be home makers, too, so that opens up chances for them to do that.