reply to post by Exuberant1
"a man"......which man was that...
was it all men?? highly doubt it....
some men....well what about the others, what about their wives, who had to work, it was necessary for the families survival, but then, well, they made
so little, it really didn't take the family that far out of proverty??
what about those women who's husband decided to up and leave to run off with that pretty sexitary leaving her with six kids, very loose child support
laws, and a labor market so tilted against here that she was doomed to live in proverty??? was it better for her? was it better for other women, who
remained in abusive relationships...oh wait a minute they weren't considered abusive back then were they...it was all pretty much legal... just so
the kids weren't living in proverty...was it better for them?
was it better for my husband, for me, for my kids for my husband to have worked 60 hours a week trying to support his family just because he was so
stubborn, he couldn't see why he should have to come home to take care of kids?? did it really help that much when I did go to work, only to find
that no matter what I did.....I couldn't earn as much as he did with that part time job working half the time I was?
ya...life was better, for the richer families, who could afford to have mom at home and not working...
and well, what can you say, those rich people seem to have way too much time on their hands sometimes, and they tend to stick their noses into the
common folks business, thinking they know what's best....and that their way is the best way, the only way.....
and besides, having a bunch of women and children stuck in a labor market where it's justified to pay them pennies on the dollar just makes the rich
a man's home is his castle for him to rule over as he sees fit......
it's a nice bribe, till you look closer, and find out that as you accept that rulership, well, you also have to accept the idea that it's also quite
natural, justifiable, for you to be ruled in like manner!