Sometimes I wonder if women’s lib was only successful because it happened to align with the capitalist desire to double the labor pool. Is that too cynical? Maybe we still would’ve gotten there otherwise.
It’s irritating that you used to be able to run a 2.4 children household on a male breadwinner, and now two incomes is often not enough. We’ve normalised everyone working and noone able to focus on home and the family.
I guess the idea of the “stay at home dad” didn’t take off enough to normalise a single worker after women were able to leave the house.
(I’m aware of the broad strokes hetronormative language here, but it’s relevant)
Sometimes I wonder if women’s lib was only successful because it happened to align with the capitalist desire to double the labor pool. Is that too cynical? Maybe we still would’ve gotten there otherwise.
It’s irritating that you used to be able to run a 2.4 children household on a male breadwinner, and now two incomes is often not enough. We’ve normalised everyone working and noone able to focus on home and the family.
I guess the idea of the “stay at home dad” didn’t take off enough to normalise a single worker after women were able to leave the house.
(I’m aware of the broad strokes hetronormative language here, but it’s relevant)
Part of that is women’s wages didn’t rise to match men’s wages.