I keep hearing that it's impossible to restrict female labour in modern industrialised society. Granted, some professions, like midwives, have always been typically female. Yet, as the photo above taken at a trade auction in Amsterdam proves, a world where few women worked existed, and not so long ago.
I'm not arguing here whether it's good or bad, just stating a fact that it's possible. Northern Europe in the 1930s was pretty much industrialised and yet, it was still largely a man's world. Love it or hate it, but it existed...
I grew up in a rather small town but did get about outside of it to see other places. I actually knew of only one mother in my area that worked outside of her home. Others worked but taught music or did china painting and such from home. Course I am 70 and to many ancient and so knew of life ages ago... :-) I actually still feel that men should be allowed to have their clubs and such with men only. Why not? I am not taking about any wild things just the places a man can go and relax with men and talk business or whatever they want alone. Women only women and such too of course. We could all do without so much anger over so many subjects now a days. :) If a women needs or really want to work they can. If they choose to stay home, with or without children they should also be able to without protest. Can a country do without women working now? We will probably never know cause things will probably never flip and be different. Sadly in many ways. Sarah
ReplyDeleteSarah, I always love your comments! I sometimes feel myself ancient, too:) I think a country needs some female labour, but by no means so much as we have now. Many of the jobs these women are doing wouldn't even exist without huge government subsidies (paid by taxpayer), like daycare, preschool (in some countries starting at 2.5, is it really necessary?) etc etc. I think about 20% of all women working is about right number.
ReplyDeleteSomeone commented me in one internet forum today that the world I would like to live in "never exected", and the ideal woman I believe in never existed either.
ReplyDeleteBrainwashing has been very efficient: people do not know history anymore!
You see, that's the result of learning history from Hollywood productions:) Also, the storyline changes every minute. One moment, it's all the women were locked up could never leave the house, next it's they all used to work in the fields except 1%. They can't even keep it straight:)Of course, from statistics existing in different countries we know that since the onset of modern age (17th century) it was anywhere from 10 till 30% of ALL women (not married with children) working, until about after WWII.
ReplyDeleteI like this post, and, yes, I think it is more than possible to have only about 20% or so of women working- desirable even. 20% or so would be a good number because it would mean that some women, especially with gifts or callings or those never married, would still have employment and be able to use their feminine abilities out in the world, but for the most part men would still be providers of women and children. It would work better that way. I would rather have fewer "things" in this life and be happy, loved, and live simply than take lots of expensive family vacations and live in some big empty house! I know growing up my mother always took us on vacations and I hated it! She also has gone from man to man all her life and lives in a nice fancy house now but it feels cold and empty (at least that's how I've felt when I've been there in the past). I would have been much happier and thrilled as a child if my mother would have just stayed home and made us a nice pan of cornbread than took us on a vacation.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if you do have the means, vacations are nice (yes, I'm referring to you Sanne :)) but my point is that i would rather have a life of family and love than of coldness and emptiness even if we have more money.
There's more contentment to be found spent in the arms of a strong man who provides for me than there would ever be in an "equal" relationship where we had things but no passion or peace!!
Fewer women working means more opportunities for men. Men would be happier, families and marriages more stable and you wouldn't have all this fighting and hatred. Of course, men and women would still complain about each other, but there would be no "war of the sexes" and women would be taken care of (as all women deep down want to be) by their men and men would be validated and important to society and civilization once again and be honored as husbands and fathers and necessary.
ReplyDeleteRadical,it's a powerful testimony. Yes, children tend to value a warm home more than material stuff and wealth, at least, until certain age. Remember Jane Eyre? She liked it more at Lowood among friends than in her aunt's luxurious house.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the more a woman works the less her husband will be inclined to do it. After all, why should he bother?
Our vacations are all budget, btw.
ReplyDeleteThen there is the idea I have heard floating around that when married women work it has the effect of the husband not trying as hard to 'get ahead' in his job. Why work so hard? The wifey will be working and so between the two of them they will make what he would at that better job he didn't try for. So now they Have to have two working as many times the wife's job has the health insurance or the best one and if she didn't work he would have to work harder. I have seen this many times in marriages. If both don't work how are they going to afford all the extra goodies they are now used to? What a merry go round. Many times once you get the ticket and get on the ride you are stuck riding it forever. I am glad we didn't. Sarah
ReplyDeleteSarah, that's exactly the idea, both work part-time and "share equally" in everything. Of course, Western civilisation was built upon the surplus of male labour and whether it can be supported on the same high level of functioning by men dropping out and working part-time, remains to be seen.
ReplyDeleteHere's a difficulty for me here in Canada:
ReplyDeleteAll the young women in my church circles here pursue higher education and aim to have a career. I have recently met a young woman who tickles my fancy; she's a lawyer. It occurs to me that I can stick to my principles, preferring to marry a woman intent on being a homemaker and thus staying single in a society where no such women are around me, or I can jettison my principles, and marry the first lovely young woman who seems otherwise compatible in faith and values who is alas also unfortunately career-minded, and hope and pray that eventually she tires of the rat race, and changes her mind, unless fights because of two people coming home tired wanting dinner, etc. ruin the marriage in the first place.
What a dilemma.
See, unlike in Europe, and America, where many are still committed to the traditional middle-class model of stay-at-home-wives-and-mothers, that ideal is almost dead here in Canada, and any who do choose that route have to be prepared for much sacrifice, economically, compared to America and Europe, where somehow people seem more able to afford such choices; perhaps costs of living being overall less high, vacations being cheaper because travel costs less, etc.
Yes, Canada is different, unfortunately! However, don't forget that many women change after they get children. Also, if staying home isn't an option, working part-time and/or from home can be a solution. You can also encourage your wife to be more domestically minded. If a woman is in love, she'll be inclined to try and please her significant other:)
ReplyDeleteGood points. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome!
ReplyDelete