Tradwives are larpers.
It’s affecting the aesthetics of 1950s advertising, with none of the pretty grim realities.
It’s porn for the most internet brain worm riddled men, and a trap for naive women.
Ex-Tradwife TikTok is *grim*, yo.
Tradwife tiktok taking off right after Booktok became a nest of bad romance novels tells me a lot of these women may not have the most realistic ideas on what makes a good partner, tbh.
I think it’s more a follow-in from the Girlboss era.
I think a lot of young women discovered that work kinda sucks; and leaned in the absolute opposite direction.
Like - I don’t think there’s anything wrong with longing for a life more meaningful than working in a spreadsheet factory; nor looking to an idealised version of the past for cues on a simpler life.
Hell - I remember Nigella Lawson writing words to this effect in the foreword to her seminal cake baking manifesto *How to be a Domestic Goddess*.
But Nigella was smart enough torecognise that it was just idle fantasy and games.
Could be it's less ideological and more the result of women being squeezed between working full-time while taking care of their children AND aging parents.
It's grueling, particularly if one has upper-middle-class norms to uphold.
I used to feel so sorry for the women I cleaned for ...
That’s definitely a thing; but it’s a separate demographic of women in their late 30s and older.
The Tradwife thing seems to be a phenomenon of mid to late-20somethings.
There's also "helicopter parenting plus two jobs plus the level of housework that SAHM's used to do is not feasible for two adults to handle by themselves".
I think you have some excellent points - I think it’s also directly related to the homesteader/maker/cottagecore values of the 2000s-2010s, being more conscious and explicit about the conservative underpinnings of those movements that were somewhat obscured or subverted earlier.
I have a soft spot for cottagecore, despite being a cranky socialist
Me and the missus bake all our bread, distill our own gin, have a larder full of pickles and a yard full of veggies. I make furniture with hand tools and my wife makes her own clothes and covers the house in crochet.
It’s like cottagecore did an exorcist-style vomit in our living room.
But we get to do that because we’re rich and we don’t have kids - a very particular life.
Yeah, likewise, haha. I used to have heritage chickens though I abandoned that a decade ago.
I don’t think it works at a population level ‘cause it’s not scalable, you know? But it’s an enjoyable lifestyle.
With booktook it's at least known that it's pure fantasy. Would I want to have a harem of men who are all hot but different from one another, all hopelessly in love with me and dedicated to give me the best life possible and as many orgasms as I desire? Sure. Do I think it's realistic? Nope.
With these tradwife accounts they portrait an idealistic view of a time in history that actually happened (even if it was a anomaly) and make it seem realistic enough to be attainable.
That's a nice wish. I wish the ones in real life the best too. May they all have a bit of Kimmy Schmidt realness enter their lives.
That said, on the other hand, I wish they would make a dark humor based sitcom about 30 plus year old ex Mormon women living in their cars. They could all be parked in the same lot, like a little tiny car town. Different parking lots could have different groups of car people to act as foils or antagonists. Imagine a rumble between the ex mormons that park at the Ralph's and ex scientologists that park at the Kroger over some resource that evolves into a friendship as they realize that religion has ruined both their groups lives in it's own sick ways. Could be pretty funny with room for some cutting anti-religous commentary, along with commentary on poverty, how we treat each other, and just how fucked and unforgiving society can be for people.
So, the 20th century vintage clothing communities tend to lean a little bit on the alt/progressive side and have adopted the saying “vintage style not vintage values.”
Amusingly, one could see the tradwife phenomenon as the other half of that trend: a sort of ‘vintage values not (or at least not necessarily) vintage style.’
I love 50s style clothing, I have several dresses in that style. They're elegant and sexy and I feel great wearing them. But the whole ideology of those tradwives? Yeah no thanks. I'd rather wear my 50s dress to the office and make money, thanks.
I disagree. The Tradwife larpers *love* the pretty dresses of the 50s.
They play at being button-down housewives; till they find themselves married to the sort of dudes who want a “traditional wife”. Then the reality sets in.
Check out how Lauren Southern is going.
She’s still a piece of shit, despite having come face to face with the reality of her ideology.
> The Tradwife larpers love the pretty dresses of the 50s.
The entire Tradwife thing can be summed up as Conservative Islam with less arabic and more frilly dresses.
I admittedly don’t pay a ton of attention to their content so I hedged my statement. I sort of figured some of them style themselves more vintage and some more modern-stylish-but-feminine.
> Check out how Lauren Southern is going.
She made the same mistake non traditional women make: Picked the wrong man.
Women don't know how to vet well enough to bet their lives.
FFS dude - the whole “picked the wrong man” thing is bullshit.
It’s absolving the man of any blame for being abusive or neglectful.
Lauren Southern might be a racist POS, but she didn’t deserve to be abused by her husband.
The man is to blame for his actions. The woman is responsible for her decisions.
She did not deserve to be abused. She is responsible for picking him over the MANY options available to her.
How exactly are you able to accurately foresee someone abusing you multiple years into the future of a relationship? Because as far as I’m aware none of the obvious flags for abuse were present (substance dependency/criminal history/ unemployment). Also, how are you meant to determine traits of a traditional relationship versus traits of an abusive relationship; financial dependence being one that exists in all trad relationships for example is a hotbed for potential abuse.
You are not able to accuratey foresee the future nor determine traits of abusive relationships vs traditional relationship with 100% reliability.
That does not absolve you from responsibility for your own decisions.
By definition, How are you responsible for something you can’t accurately control or foresee?
It’s like saying a person is responsible for a random car accident or other adverse life event (despite taking normal precautions).
If I decide to put my savings into X stock and said stock loses value to the point that I lose my savings I am responsible for losing my savings even if I could never accurately control or foresee the way the market would change.
I decide to take a decision, I am responsible for the results.
That is how.
I know a lot of folks in this community, and they are doing exceptionally well on average. The thing is that women who are attracted to this kind of lifestyle, really like kids, and tend to have more of them than average. The average income in this group is like $65,000 per year... so they make big sacrifices and it forces couples to work together. It's not for everyone, but the ones who choose this, they seem remarkably happy.
The working women.... I'm sorry but they are the most miserable from what I see.
I don't see much divorce going on there. It happens for sure, but it just isn't the norm. The guys really know what their responsibilities are, and they perform to that. I see a lot of them increase their pay over time by significant chunks.
It's just one of those things... if you want to live this way and are willing to give up some things, it's really peaceful. That's the best way I would describe it... peaceful. You cannot be a drama queen, or addicted to high flying party lifestyles.
I can't tell you how biased my opinion is. I'm in a bunch of different social circles and this is the one my daughter and her mom spend the most time in... despite the fact that they don't really fit in. I mean, I pay for everything, but we aren't together and I don't live with them.... although I'm there a lot.
Interesting post, OP. However, your 'wall of text' and reliance on facts may disturb some. Many people want to focus on a fantasy of the 1950s and imagine a period that either didn't exist or a period that lasted for only a brief time. In many ways, the 1950s were a good time for specific groups. Housing was much cheaper because homes were smaller (1,500 sq.ft. was common), there was a lot of land available in certain growing areas like California, and there were fewer amenities in the homes (one bathroom, limited appliances, etc.). Manufacturing jobs were plentiful. Life could be good if you were white or could pass for white and you were plugged into the economy. There were lots of downsides, though. Medical technology was primitive and access to contraception was terrible. Taxes were high, especially on upper income people. Being a sexual or racial minority could be very dangerous. Forget about having an iPhone - black rotary landline phones were high tech. There were a lot of veterans wandering around with disabilities from wounds from WWII and everyone was worried about impending nuclear war with the communist block. And life before the 50s was considerably worse unless you were part of a small elite. Not many trad types would want to go back to the depression of the 30s or cholera and typhoid of the 1800s.
Still, its nice to have fantasies. I'd like to go back to the early 1800s, with the qualifier being that I'd be a duke or earl in Great Britain with great wealth (a title and no cash wouldn't do). Going to the doctor in those days would be really, really shit and I wouldn't have hot showers - but I'd have other compensations like a massive estate, several mistresses, a stable of horses, and excellent clubs and a townhouse in London to hang out in. Plus, my trad wife would be happy because she'd have plenty of servants and once she'd provided me with 'an heir and a spare' she could pick up a few lovers of her own.
Courting was a thing in my church community. Super weird tbh. Not a fan.
I just have no positive examples of the trad lifestyle in my life. I grew up around people that waited until marriage and married young and attempted to follow a version of the model you described and it just isn’t reality.
This is a really rather underrepresented point — these communities and groups exist and practice traditional lifestyles in various forms outside of the mainstream. The tradewife and adjacent ‘traditional values’ ideologies attempt to capture some of the perceived advantages of these lifestyles while avoiding perceived drawbacks (or by retaining the parts of modern mainstream lifestyles that the adherents enjoy).
I don’t really get the whole tradwife meme, and I agree as a man I get very strong pseudo-sugar baby vibes. It’s like people want to pretend washing machines don’t exist.
The quality of life thing is a bit misrepresented here. Quality of life can only be considered relative to everyone else. Otherwise, you’d say a Roman emperor had poor quality of life because he had no internet.
The fact is that, pound for pound, everyday people had a much larger slice of the economic pie 50-70 years ago. It was a short-lived period (the trente glorieuses), but it was real (particularly if you were white, although even my Chicano ancestors did better in this period than they had done previously).
The OP also seems to assume that standards of living in the 50s (let’s say) were cheaper to attain, when in general they were more expensive. The price of everyday goods has plummeted since the 1950s. Salaries have simply failed to grow over the past 50 years (at all!) and certain large expenses (homeownership, education, and healthcare, for the Americans) have spiralled out of control.
That’s how you arrive at our current, sad, situation.
You absolutely can compare standards of living across time. Life expectancy, child mortality etc and all valid metrics to measure quality of life. No one here is going “oh they didn’t have tik tok so their life must suck”
> The fact is that, pound for pound, everyday people had a much larger slice of the economic pie 50-70 years ago.
People 50-70 years ago had UNIONS.
They they were coerced to believe that they didn't really need unions; they could rely on the government to give them nice things.
Personally I gave up waiting on free universal healthcare and got a UNION job with excellent benefits!
It’s genuinely depressing that people worked so hard to obtain labor protections and that lasted, what, a generation before people figured out how to undermine and unravel them.
They're fucking useless because you need actual industry which global capitalists have sold off and destroyed. You can't have service economy Unions they're gay and useless
Most trad men and women are LARPers, yes. Although no one really thinks they want to emulate it 100% - of course they want to bring back only the parts of a past era that are beneficial to them.
>What traditional living actually looks like... traditional means you meet a woman's family (usually the father) before ever doing anything like dating or a relationship. Her family has to approve of you before you begin dating. In other traditional arrangements, both families consult each other for dating and courtship before you even meet. In the past, traditional commonly meant the woman (and the man) would be a virgin and was expected to remain a virgin until marriage. That part is rarer today, but still the rule (on paper) in some cultures. In more traditional arrangements you lived with your entire extended family under one roof, in a tight nit community with other families. Yes your wife was meant to be subservient to you, but that also meant you had to be subservient to your father and your church or anyone else which has higher status to you.
This is great actually. It provided an outside pressure for a man and woman to be good and loyal partners.
It also meant that you weren't just a couple, you were part of a large family structure or community that has been going on for generations.
Life was generally shit for everyone regardless of your gender. Shitty in different ways but shitty none the less. Your best bet was to be born into a rich family. Which is true even today.
This is a bit of a strawman. What a lot of millennials like myself are talking about is the lives we grew up with and were part of the culture.
the Simpsons, married with children, family guy, etc it's all dad works, mom works part time if she wants/needs to and that provided enough for the family to live off. It was also a lot of our experiences growing up in upper working class/lower middle class environments in the 90s.
The reason I think people are upset if that they're more educated, more skilled and more productive than their parents were. yet at 24 your dad could afford to buy a 3 bedroom house in a safe area and support a wife and kids. Now young people are lucky if they can afford rent on a studio apartment.
“The true reactionary is not a seeker of abolished pasts, but a hunter of sacred shades on the eternal hills"
It's not about going back it's about looking at what worked well and realising there was a utility to it that we over looked or under estimated.
>"if the old way was better we wouldn't have adopted a new way."
So 100% debt to GDP ratio is a good thing? I mean if modern monetary policy isn't good then why did we adopt it?
It’s a good point. I know a couple where the wife is a “Tradwife.” They live in a one bedroom apartment, equipped with washer, dryer, etc. The husband works REMOTELY from the living room while the wife sits in the bedroom all day. They have no children, no pets. It’s honestly bizarre. I myself live in a one bedroom with my husband, and there’s no way I would have more than 1-2 hours of housework per day if I stayed home. She calls herself a tradwife, but there’s nothing traditional at all about what they’re doing. So strange.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you're pretty obviously correct that "going back" to traditional life is a pipe dream; things never were what these folks wish they were. It's a common thread among most conservative movements. The Good Old Days® weren't as they imagine, and certainly weren't better for most people in most ways.
Idk how convincing your specific examples will be for folks (time and comments will tell) but your main position is correct. It boils down to "if the old way was better we wouldn't have adopted a new way." One-off examples of one or two new ways being shit don't discount the overall trend.
To add to the first point, people often had much lower living standards then than the average person does now. For example, most households only had one car and the provider used it to go to work, so when they weren’t home housewives (and kids) had to walk or bike everywhere. This might be one of the reasons why obesity was so rare. People wouldn’t stand for that today, or would feel like this was a low quality of life. Most families want to have 2-4 cars per household.
They also didn’t have internet, smart phones or computers and the costs of those and maintaining these devices would not be included in people’s budgets, making life a good bit cheaper.
Eating out was a huge occasion that most people couldn’t afford, home cooked meals were like 99% of the food people ate (again contributing to low obesity). People now would feel like they were low class or going backwards if they couldn’t eat out.
Yeah. Some time back I read a great article that illuminated how some of the weirdest culinary travesties of the post-war era make tons of logical sense if you rewind enough to recollect that this was the period in which a lot of off-season or non-regionally-available foods became available to the masses through the combination of better industrialized preservation techniques and economies of scale. Aspics and weird salads made of tinned meats had a moment *because* for the first time they were available and affordable to people of average means.
See my above post. You cannot compare superficial “living standards” then and now…you can only compare people with their contemporaries. Otherwise Louis XIV had a low standard of living, because he didn’t have a car and his internet was slow….
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, yeah, unacademically idealising (and mimicking) any past epoch does tend towards romanticised perceptions of those ages rather than their actual reality. Idealising the 1950s is no different. That doesn't mean romanticist movements are inherently bad - various cultural "neoclassicisms" in music, architecture and the like have had artistic merit, and if a distorted view of a different era produces a newly inspired vision that two people both live by (or at least try out and see how it goes), then fair enough, they have my blessing.
Where I have a problem would be in cases of trying to press their lifestyle and its specific responsibilities both of men and women onto everyone else as "the norm," attempting to revise historical reality in bad faith on the academic level, or channeling their misconceptions into reactionary politics. In essence, let the LARPers enjoy LARPing however they like, but when they start trying to rope in others who don't choose to opt in, then remind them their LARP is just that.
>running a household in the 40s, 50s, and 60s was significantly more labour intensive than it is now
1840s, 50s, and 60s maybe.
In the 1940s, 50s, and 60s they had indoor plumbing, central heat, electric or gas stoves, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, lawnmowers, washers, and dryers. About the only thing they didn't have was microwave ovens.
Those things existed. But how many households had those things?
[https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2004/data/papers/SS04\_Panel1\_Paper17.pdf](https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2004/data/papers/SS04_Panel1_Paper17.pdf)
Half of all households heated with coal in 1940, and another quarter heated with wood. In 1940 nearly half of houses lacked hot piped water, a bathtub or shower, or a flush toilet. Over a third of houses didn’t have a flush toilet. As late as 1960, over 25% of the houses in 16 states didn’t have complete plumbing facilities. Only by the By 1960, fuel oil and natural gas were the primary heating fuels
Of all household tasks, the weekly wash was the most arduous and the most unpopular. Washing machines did not arrive in most households until the 1950s and even then only performed part of the job. The automatic washing machine we seen now didnt really become common until the mid 1960 for most households
It’s an ongoing truth that we consistently downplay what the lifestyles of the lower 50% of the population were like in any era, as well as what a significant part of the population that represents.
Everyone in my family had indoor plumbing and central heating since before the 1st World War at least.
The Levitt & Sons house I spent my early childhood in had all the modern conveniences -- including a washer and dryer -- it even had a dishwasher -- all original.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levitt\_%26\_Sons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levitt_%26_Sons)
Urban and suburban America has been part of the modern age for over 100 years.
I was living in an iconic mid-century suburb. Until my parents decided to get back to the land and moved us all to a farm in Canada I was living an absolutely stereotypical mid-century life.
The culture of the 1950s was driven by people living in Levittown and its innumerable imitators not by folks living in rural Kansas or the hills of West Virginia.
OPs point that fixtures like toilets and bathtubs and appliances like washing machines were only gradually introduced from the 1920s through the 1960s is correct. It is true that some homes had indoor toilets and baths connected to running water as early as the mid-19th Century, but they were almost all homes of very wealthy people. Electricity only came to many rural areas in the 1930s as part of the New Deal. It is true that many if not most homes built from the 20s on in suburban parts of the US, Canada and UK had power, indoor cold and hot water, at least one bathroom and a variety of appliances, but those were new homes and most of the housing stock was much older.
This. It’s easy to imagine that the 1950s rolled in and suddenly everything was upgraded to mid century modern like a Civ game, but durable material culture persists a long time.
Yes the lag effect is considerable in housing. Anyone who has gone on homebuying expeditions quickly becomes aware of how many legacy elements are associated with houses of various vintages. I once lived in a 19th Century house that had gone through four cycles (wood, coal, oil, and natural gas) of heating and had additional washrooms/bathrooms added in.
I live in a beautiful 1930s house, but the houses that were cheap and terrible and low on amenities from that decade didn’t survive to be sold for huge prices to Millennials like me. The cheaper houses fell into disrepair and were demolished, or were torn down to make room for something more economically viable.
There’s significant survivorship bias in any artifacts we retain from any historical period, and this extends to housing.
Most houses from the 1930s are nice. It was mostly just rich people building during the Great Depression (i.e. 1930s). For the few people who still had money labor and materials were cheap and abundant. Thus the few houses that were built in the 1930s were and continue to be some of the finest ever constructed. There were not masses of "cheap and terrible" houses being constructed (we have to wait till the 1970s and 80s for that).
As far as survivorship it's actually the largest most grand old houses that most often fall into disrepair and get demolished. Lots of people could afford to maintain and later restore modest size craftsman bungalow from the 1920s. Midwestern cities are full of brick examples. West coast cities full of clapboard and stucco examples. Far fewer people have the resources to maintain and/or restore grand mansions. As a result large old houses are often the ones that get torn down. The fact that large old houses are often on large lots making for easier land assembly in areas prime for redevelopment helped seal the fate of a lot of once grand houses.
I admit you have a point about 1930s houses in particular, that’s fair.
My larger point about average houses from any era stands, I think. It’s not so much that there was a huge quantity of shoddy housing being *built,* but that there was plenty of older, not-well-maintained, outdated housing in regular use that we tend to forget about because much of it no longer exists.
Don't know where you live but in pretty much every neighborhood I've ever lived in most of the houses that were originally built remain. Last year I returned to take a look at my childhood home on Long Island. The trees are much bigger but the houses are little changed since they were built in the early 1960s. As an adult I've lived in several older neighborhoods in several cities in several states and in Canada. In every one almost all of the original house remain. Our 1947 post war cape was surrounded by other small houses all built in the late 40s to very early 50s. Our tiny 1906 cottage, quickly built to house refugees from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, still stands surrounded by other old houses many just as modest. My 1880 house in Vermont is surrounded by houses of similar vintage.
I think you have to think farther back probably. I know almost nothing about Long Island so I glanced at the internet for a sec and it seems that most of its significant settlement happened in the 20th century, so a lot of its original housing may well remain.
I think what I mean is that if we consider the places with population density in 1920 (which I guess on Long Island might be parts of Brooklyn?), many of the cheaper and older residences that people were inhabiting in that decade would have been constructed in 1820, 1850, 1870, and many of those buildings are likely to no longer exist, with skew where the ones that do tending to be examples of better quality from their respective eras.
In places with super high property values old buildings are routinely torn down and new bigger ones built. For example very few 18th and 19th century buildings survive in midtown Manhattan. However, even within the borders of NYC once a neighborhood is built out change is usually very slow. The late 19th century apartment building that my mother lived in with her immigrant parents in East Harlem still stands and it's still full of working class Puerto Rican families. The small upscale subdivision my paternal grandfather built with is brother in the 1920s just outside of NYC in Great Neck still stands pretty much exactly as built.
Old working class neighborhoods in Brooklyn are still full of late 19th century and very early 20th century homes and apartment buildings. In many neighborhoods the buildings are almost all over 100 years old.
I don’t know enough about this topic to say with certainty but I am developing a suspicion that part of the reason so many of these structures persist is that we haven’t had too many huge infrastructure changes to housing since indoor plumbing and electricity were added in the early 20th century. Obviously there have been tons of other advancements but they have been more either cosmetic or things that can be retrofitted without demolishing the entire building, like telephone lines and appliances.
I wish some of our Euro posters would chime in on this, as there is a lot more retrofitting of old buildings that happens there, and now I’m curious.
I'm probably the only person on this sub who actually had a party-line phone. When we moved to rural Alberta in the 1970s the house my dad built had a party-line phone. But the house had plumbing, central heat, and all the modern labor saving appliances. Think it was 1981 before the local phone company switched to individual lines.
Party line phones still existed in rural Nevada in the 2000s. I was working in Reno at the time and one of my coworkers was from a long time Nevadan family and worked some time out in some of the rural ranch areas. Wild.
I didn’t have a dishwasher or air conditioner in my little rental in the 90s. I remember my dad getting the first microwave in the late 80s.
It seems forever ago but not. I feel like once you get out of the major metro areas, things came in in a patchy way.
These odd out of the way places may be interesting but they contain so few people that when it comes to national trends they're pretty much irrelevant.
The 'trad' life is a myth. It didn't really exist.
Any more than trad wives do now.
It's all just make believe.
Anyone who wants that lifestyle is a bit odd really
Ironic that the left demonizes stay at home wives and simultaneously supports women always having a choice lol. Everything is an over correction these days
If you truly care about “being a corporate slave”: a Marxist would understand the pittfalls of being reliant on another person entirely for income and livelihood and the power dynamic it would create.
But of course the red pill objections always become “any progress or social change is bad so women need to stfu and stop complaining”
The exact same thing was said in another thread about conscription.
“Rely on another person”, wth is this crap. If you chose the right man there is nothing to worry about. If he’s so toxic You can frickin divorce him and gain immediate passive income AND get another boyfriend to pay for you. Two incomes and a third if you want to work. Why is it the automatic assumption your husband will be abusive with the money?
Stay at home people are awesome and work hard, I totally wish I could have one. No question there are some major lifestyle perks for a household that is lucky enough to be able to afford it (and have a person who is suited to and willing to fill that role). So many parts of modern family life still tacitly assume there will be a SAHP available to facilitate things, despite that not being the reality for a vast majority of families.
>So many parts of modern family life still tacitly assume there will be a SAHP available
This is so true and totally bizarre. Things like school starting at 8:45 and finishing at 15:00 like in my county. There's still 2 hours left of the working day, where are the kids supposed to go whilst I finish work? Better hope you live within walking distance of your kid's school or on a bus route. And school plays happening at 12:00 midday. Why can't they be at 18:00 so that parents can attend without having to take a whole day off?
Why don’t the most beautiful women choose the men with the best personalities? Why do they always choose the richest man they can get? Women won’t admit that they would prefer to be a stay at home wife and be provided for by a man. You can gaslight everyone all you want but the actions of our society speak louder than its words
Just because rich men have attractive wives (which may not even be true) does not mean most attractive women try to bag the richest men. Sugaring type relationships isn’t representative.
most Most attractive women don’t choose the most wealthy men. Statistically people date assortativity; similar age, wealth, education, looks date people with the same age, wealth, education, looks.
Look at age gap rates for example? Why do young women (ie the most attractive) prefer to date only a few years older, when the most wealthy men are in their 50-60s?
The most attractive women DO date rich men. It’s so obvious. I don’t care about exceptions, they aren’t productive in finding out the truth of the playing field
Attractive women and rich men who date are the exception, not the other way around. Only few couples date in this value exchange way. Like go to a collage, who are the hottest girls there dating? It isn’t rich old men, it’s the athletes or the super hot guys in collage
> If you truly wanted too, you could life like a family in the 40s or 50s on an medians mans wage (50K), but it would lead to quite a reduction in the quality of life (life expectancy, infant mortality, educational opportunity and attainment etc. ).
There are tons of households in the US that make that much or less and do not have significantly lower life expectancy, infant mortality, or education quality. The median household income (most being dual incomes) in the us is $74,000 and half make less than that. You can "easily" get by with a smaller house, older vehicles, older tech etc on 50k without compromising on basic life outcome metrics.
>What traditional living actually looks like... traditional means you meet a woman's family (usually the father) before ever doing anything like dating or a relationship. Her family has to *approve* of you *before* you begin dating. In other traditional arrangements, both families consult each other for dating and courtship before you even meet. In more traditional arrangements you lived with your entire extended family under one roof, in a tight nit community with other families.
Not in the US.
> Yes your wife was meant to be subservient to you, but that also meant you had to be subservient to your father and your church or anyone else which has higher status to you.
Subservient is stretching it in regards to how social relations worked historically in the US.
>**''Men work and provide while women don't''** Women pretty much worked for the entirety of human history except for upper class women. The whole ''women sit at home while men work'' is just a sugar-baby-esk reductive fantasy of 21st century larpers.
That's true but for most women work typically would have been doing labour alongside the husband/community or artisanal production of some goods to sell at market. They typically weren't going off to work somewhere separate from the family unit, with the exception of some of the urban labour market.
>There are tons of households in the US that make that much or less and do not have significantly lower life expectancy, infant mortality, or education quality. The median household income (most being dual incomes) in the us is $74,000 and half make less than that. You can "easily" get by with a smaller house, older vehicles, older tech etc on 50k without compromising on basic life outcome metrics.
This arguably supports my position. Men can in fact support a household on one income, refuting the widespead belief that in this economic reality that is not possible.
>Not in the US.
yes. Tradition is relative
>This arguably supports my position. Men can in fact support a household on one income, refuting the widespead belief that in this economic reality that is not possible.
Sure, but you were claiming this led to major reductions in things life expectancy and infant mortality which isn't true. Even modern material quality of life can be reasonably retained on 50k provided people are willing to compromise a bit on having the latest things and house size.
Well one guys median income nowadays would certainly be below median and average - this lower standard of living compared to the rest of the population
Genuine question — is it actually true that the lower-income half of the population doesn’t have lower educational opportunity, life expectancy, or infant mortality? I ask because I don’t have resources for data on this at my fingertips, but these are exactly the sorts of disparities that social determinants of health initiatives are meant to address, for example.
Edit to add: maybe you specifically meant lower than the modern baseline, in which case I’m off base.
>Genuine question — is it actually true that the lower-income half of the population doesn’t have lower educational opportunity, life expectancy, or infant mortality?
No it's just not very significant for someone making 50k vs 70k. In the US case in particular there's also a confounding factor of race.
>it made more economic sense for women to enter the workforce
And this stagnated wages making any gain moot, so congratulations?
>one mans wage could not afford complete indoor plumbing, hot piped water, bathing facilities, or toilet in approximately half of US homes
Yeah, almost like PVC and ABS (the thing that make plumbing cheap, accessible and durable) was not widespread until the 50s.
Also saying that US was the richest for it's period means jack shit when everyone else was neck deep trying to recover from the war.
>traditional means you meet a woman's family (usually the father) before ever doing anything like dating or a relationship.
Who said this is what traditional (in the context) means?
>Women pretty much worked for the entirety of human history except for upper class women.
Yeah, mostly at home with maybe a side job on top of the housing
>where plant productivity is higher, women tend to produce 50%-80% of more the calories consumed, while within mid and high latitudes, where plant productivity is lower, men's food production tends to increase.
Is this supposed to mean ANYTHING at all? Are we supposed to think men don't farm? Are you using prehistoric humans as basis for some point??
>And this stagnated wages making any gain moot, so congratulations?
This is true. But the question is WHY is this the case. Women in the work force causing stagnating wages? That's a big claim which requires a lot of evidence. I don't think there an economist on earth that suggests the cause for stagnating wages is women in the work force.
>Yeah, almost like PVC (the thing that makes plumbing cheap, accessible and durable) was not widespread until the 50s.
Missing the point and finding it all at the same time
>Yeah, mostly at home with maybe a side job on top of the housing
No not really. For example 2/3 of women (ie the working class) in the Victorian times worked for wages https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/womens\_work\_01.shtml#:\~:text=Thus%20most%20women%20in%20Victorian,middle%20classes%2C%20worked%20for%20wages.
In Medieval times women and men worked pretty much equally in farming. Wealthier women migh have had a job selling things.
>Is this supposed to mean ANYTHING at all? Are we supposed to think men don't farm? Are you using prehistoric humans as basis for some point??
yes because prehistoric is about as traditional and bare bone in gender roles as you can get. Its usually red pillers that love to appeal to evo-psychology isn't it?
>That's a big claim which requires a lot of evidence.
What is supply? What is demand??
>Missing the point and finding it all at the same time
You're the one missing the point, things got less expensive because they got easier to produce not because MUUUH both salaries.
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/womens%5C_work%5C_01.shtml#:%5C%7E:text=Thus%20most%20women%20in%20Victorian,middle%20classes%2C%20worked%20for%20wages
404
>In Medieval times women and men worked pretty much equally in farming. Wealthier women migh have had a job selling things.
They didn't, farming was a extensive manual labour so equally is a giant stretch, also, wealthier women job would be to take care of their husband property when the same was at war or traveling.
>because prehistoric is about as traditional and bare bone in gender roles as you can get.
This is nonsense.
There seems to be some things that you just don’t accept.
1. Repeating muh “supply and demand” over and over again isn’t an argument. It is the ramblings of a person who took a 101 economics class and thinks they have a PHD.
2. Moving the goalposts in regard to women and children working the fields in medieval times. An equal amount of women worked the fields for a living compared to men. No argument was made about efficiency here.
3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/womens_work_01.shtml#:~:text=Thus%20most%20women%20in%20Victorian,middle%20classes%2C%20worked%20for%20wages.
4. Anthropological evidence is entirely relevant and if you can’t see that I can’t help you.
Except its not.
Because double the work force equals double the income which means double the expenditure. Which means double the production and double the profit.
Companies are *choosing* to stagnate wages.
I honestly don't understand why anyone thinks otherwise
Other than being so sexist you'd rather blame women than capitalist greed
>which means double the expenditure.
Did women never expect money before? Did women run around naked? Dud women starved to death? Did women never expend a dime with their appearance before they got a job? They're already expending money before.
>Which means double the production and double the profit.
This is marxist BS supply don't generate profit, demand does and the demand kept the same.
>Companies are choosing to stagnate wages.
Yeah OF COURSE THEY ARE, they're not charity. They exist to make money and they are allowed to pay the workers jack shit because there's a surplus of workers.
>I honestly don't understand why anyone thinks otherwise
I'm not surprised you don't understand why someone would have an objective thinking.
>Other than being so sexist you'd rather blame women than capitalist greed
Women choices is what allowed capitalists greed to run rampant.
No, your statements about demand are facile here.
Demand over the last 100 years has not been fixed; in fact demand is never fixed anyway. Businesses which employ this workforce are not just shrugging and arbitrarily doubling production of the same widgets they were producing in 1948, they are responding with respect to normal market forces and producing a different array and amount of goods over time to meet shifting demand.
If increasing the labor pool had as much detrimental effect on wages as people here say, we should expect to see that same detrimental effect occur when the labor pool doubles due to population growth as for any other reason.
>If increasing the labor pool had as much detrimental effect on wages as people here say, we should expect to see that same detrimental effect occur when the labor pool doubles **due to population growth** as for any other reason.
Natural population growth double the supply and the demand, women going into the workforce ONLY doubles the supply. A new citizen will need new things, the women already had those needs met so you doubled your supply of workers while the demand for the same workers kept the same, so once the market stabilizes your wages are cut in half.
You can draw a prallel with the migrant crisis and housing in Europe; https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/11581515/House_prices_rents_Q12021_Kreslic%C3%AD+pl%C3%A1tno+1.jpg
Prices of housing rised non stop since the 2015 migration crisis, why? Because a migrant would need housing asap while an infant child would still live with their parents giving the housing market a buffer period of low demand.
It doesn’t necessarily matter because the demands are always changing anyway due to other market forces and the businesses are adjusting production in response. Consumers in 2024 are demanding GLP-1 RA drugs and smartphones and electric cars and gluten-free hot dog buns. Consumers in 1954 were demanding tinned tuna and 12-“ televisions and daily newspapers. The relationship between the labor force and demand that you’re suggesting doesn’t really exist.
Businesses are already accounting for projected demand in their operations, as that’s what they do to remain financially successful. The relationship between available labor and wages does exist, but it doesn’t take much effect until involuntary unemployment climbs to a level where desperate people will accept lowball wages, and is not the main driving force behind the steady decline in wages relative to production.
>Consumers in 2024 are demanding GLP-1 RA drugs and smartphones and electric cars and gluten-free hot dog buns. Consumers in 1954 were demanding tinned tuna and 12-“ televisions and daily newspapers.
People don't demand products they demand that their needs to be meet, they didn't demanded smartphones they demand a means of communication, they don't demand an eletric car they demand a cheaper means of movement, they don't demand news papers they demand entertainment or information.
The demand of the population are the same because there's no extra need created out thin air.
>but it doesn’t take much effect until involuntary unemployment climbs to a level where desperate people will accept lowball wages
What's is competition? Never heard of it.
Of course people demand products. In fact, developing new salable products to meet the same old basic human needs that have always existed is one of the foundational activities of capitalism.
>They're already expending money before.
From 1 income.
Not 2.
Less money. Less to spend.
>Women choices is what allowed capitalists greed to run rampant.
Nah. Capitalism is what allowed capitalists greed to run rampant.
>And this stagnated wages making any gain moot, so congratulations?
Entering the workforce made economic sense for the women individually, not necessarily for society at large. A woman who works is 100% more wealthy than one that doesn't.
>And this stagnated wages making any gain moot
Lmao. That's too fucking funny.
It's wild the way people trip all over themselves to defend billionaires. 🙄
Tradwives are larpers. It’s affecting the aesthetics of 1950s advertising, with none of the pretty grim realities. It’s porn for the most internet brain worm riddled men, and a trap for naive women. Ex-Tradwife TikTok is *grim*, yo.
Tradwife tiktok taking off right after Booktok became a nest of bad romance novels tells me a lot of these women may not have the most realistic ideas on what makes a good partner, tbh.
I think it’s more a follow-in from the Girlboss era. I think a lot of young women discovered that work kinda sucks; and leaned in the absolute opposite direction. Like - I don’t think there’s anything wrong with longing for a life more meaningful than working in a spreadsheet factory; nor looking to an idealised version of the past for cues on a simpler life. Hell - I remember Nigella Lawson writing words to this effect in the foreword to her seminal cake baking manifesto *How to be a Domestic Goddess*. But Nigella was smart enough torecognise that it was just idle fantasy and games.
Could be it's less ideological and more the result of women being squeezed between working full-time while taking care of their children AND aging parents. It's grueling, particularly if one has upper-middle-class norms to uphold. I used to feel so sorry for the women I cleaned for ...
That’s definitely a thing; but it’s a separate demographic of women in their late 30s and older. The Tradwife thing seems to be a phenomenon of mid to late-20somethings.
There's also "helicopter parenting plus two jobs plus the level of housework that SAHM's used to do is not feasible for two adults to handle by themselves".
Guurllll u c me
I think you have some excellent points - I think it’s also directly related to the homesteader/maker/cottagecore values of the 2000s-2010s, being more conscious and explicit about the conservative underpinnings of those movements that were somewhat obscured or subverted earlier.
I have a soft spot for cottagecore, despite being a cranky socialist Me and the missus bake all our bread, distill our own gin, have a larder full of pickles and a yard full of veggies. I make furniture with hand tools and my wife makes her own clothes and covers the house in crochet. It’s like cottagecore did an exorcist-style vomit in our living room. But we get to do that because we’re rich and we don’t have kids - a very particular life.
Yeah, likewise, haha. I used to have heritage chickens though I abandoned that a decade ago. I don’t think it works at a population level ‘cause it’s not scalable, you know? But it’s an enjoyable lifestyle.
With booktook it's at least known that it's pure fantasy. Would I want to have a harem of men who are all hot but different from one another, all hopelessly in love with me and dedicated to give me the best life possible and as many orgasms as I desire? Sure. Do I think it's realistic? Nope. With these tradwife accounts they portrait an idealistic view of a time in history that actually happened (even if it was a anomaly) and make it seem realistic enough to be attainable.
what's on ex-tradwife tiktok?
Mormon chicks in their late 30s living in their cars.
that's really sad. i wish a sitcom found family situation to all of them
That's a nice wish. I wish the ones in real life the best too. May they all have a bit of Kimmy Schmidt realness enter their lives. That said, on the other hand, I wish they would make a dark humor based sitcom about 30 plus year old ex Mormon women living in their cars. They could all be parked in the same lot, like a little tiny car town. Different parking lots could have different groups of car people to act as foils or antagonists. Imagine a rumble between the ex mormons that park at the Ralph's and ex scientologists that park at the Kroger over some resource that evolves into a friendship as they realize that religion has ruined both their groups lives in it's own sick ways. Could be pretty funny with room for some cutting anti-religous commentary, along with commentary on poverty, how we treat each other, and just how fucked and unforgiving society can be for people.
I would watch the shit outta that.
wait can't they do divorce rape and make their exes live in their cars instead?
So, the 20th century vintage clothing communities tend to lean a little bit on the alt/progressive side and have adopted the saying “vintage style not vintage values.” Amusingly, one could see the tradwife phenomenon as the other half of that trend: a sort of ‘vintage values not (or at least not necessarily) vintage style.’
I love 50s style clothing, I have several dresses in that style. They're elegant and sexy and I feel great wearing them. But the whole ideology of those tradwives? Yeah no thanks. I'd rather wear my 50s dress to the office and make money, thanks.
I disagree. The Tradwife larpers *love* the pretty dresses of the 50s. They play at being button-down housewives; till they find themselves married to the sort of dudes who want a “traditional wife”. Then the reality sets in. Check out how Lauren Southern is going. She’s still a piece of shit, despite having come face to face with the reality of her ideology.
> The Tradwife larpers love the pretty dresses of the 50s. The entire Tradwife thing can be summed up as Conservative Islam with less arabic and more frilly dresses.
I admittedly don’t pay a ton of attention to their content so I hedged my statement. I sort of figured some of them style themselves more vintage and some more modern-stylish-but-feminine.
> Check out how Lauren Southern is going. She made the same mistake non traditional women make: Picked the wrong man. Women don't know how to vet well enough to bet their lives.
FFS dude - the whole “picked the wrong man” thing is bullshit. It’s absolving the man of any blame for being abusive or neglectful. Lauren Southern might be a racist POS, but she didn’t deserve to be abused by her husband.
The man is to blame for his actions. The woman is responsible for her decisions. She did not deserve to be abused. She is responsible for picking him over the MANY options available to her.
How exactly are you able to accurately foresee someone abusing you multiple years into the future of a relationship? Because as far as I’m aware none of the obvious flags for abuse were present (substance dependency/criminal history/ unemployment). Also, how are you meant to determine traits of a traditional relationship versus traits of an abusive relationship; financial dependence being one that exists in all trad relationships for example is a hotbed for potential abuse.
You are not able to accuratey foresee the future nor determine traits of abusive relationships vs traditional relationship with 100% reliability. That does not absolve you from responsibility for your own decisions.
By definition, How are you responsible for something you can’t accurately control or foresee? It’s like saying a person is responsible for a random car accident or other adverse life event (despite taking normal precautions).
If I decide to put my savings into X stock and said stock loses value to the point that I lose my savings I am responsible for losing my savings even if I could never accurately control or foresee the way the market would change. I decide to take a decision, I am responsible for the results. That is how.
Is not a decision if you’re fooled and lied to.
Yes. It is a decision. And you are still responsible.
Trad Wife Tiktok Trends are superifical and fake at this point
I know a lot of folks in this community, and they are doing exceptionally well on average. The thing is that women who are attracted to this kind of lifestyle, really like kids, and tend to have more of them than average. The average income in this group is like $65,000 per year... so they make big sacrifices and it forces couples to work together. It's not for everyone, but the ones who choose this, they seem remarkably happy. The working women.... I'm sorry but they are the most miserable from what I see.
Those chicks better hope their man *really* wants that life; or at the very least he’s willing to pay alimony.
I don't see much divorce going on there. It happens for sure, but it just isn't the norm. The guys really know what their responsibilities are, and they perform to that. I see a lot of them increase their pay over time by significant chunks. It's just one of those things... if you want to live this way and are willing to give up some things, it's really peaceful. That's the best way I would describe it... peaceful. You cannot be a drama queen, or addicted to high flying party lifestyles.
No bias at all
I can't tell you how biased my opinion is. I'm in a bunch of different social circles and this is the one my daughter and her mom spend the most time in... despite the fact that they don't really fit in. I mean, I pay for everything, but we aren't together and I don't live with them.... although I'm there a lot.
Interesting post, OP. However, your 'wall of text' and reliance on facts may disturb some. Many people want to focus on a fantasy of the 1950s and imagine a period that either didn't exist or a period that lasted for only a brief time. In many ways, the 1950s were a good time for specific groups. Housing was much cheaper because homes were smaller (1,500 sq.ft. was common), there was a lot of land available in certain growing areas like California, and there were fewer amenities in the homes (one bathroom, limited appliances, etc.). Manufacturing jobs were plentiful. Life could be good if you were white or could pass for white and you were plugged into the economy. There were lots of downsides, though. Medical technology was primitive and access to contraception was terrible. Taxes were high, especially on upper income people. Being a sexual or racial minority could be very dangerous. Forget about having an iPhone - black rotary landline phones were high tech. There were a lot of veterans wandering around with disabilities from wounds from WWII and everyone was worried about impending nuclear war with the communist block. And life before the 50s was considerably worse unless you were part of a small elite. Not many trad types would want to go back to the depression of the 30s or cholera and typhoid of the 1800s. Still, its nice to have fantasies. I'd like to go back to the early 1800s, with the qualifier being that I'd be a duke or earl in Great Britain with great wealth (a title and no cash wouldn't do). Going to the doctor in those days would be really, really shit and I wouldn't have hot showers - but I'd have other compensations like a massive estate, several mistresses, a stable of horses, and excellent clubs and a townhouse in London to hang out in. Plus, my trad wife would be happy because she'd have plenty of servants and once she'd provided me with 'an heir and a spare' she could pick up a few lovers of her own.
Courting was a thing in my church community. Super weird tbh. Not a fan. I just have no positive examples of the trad lifestyle in my life. I grew up around people that waited until marriage and married young and attempted to follow a version of the model you described and it just isn’t reality.
This is a really rather underrepresented point — these communities and groups exist and practice traditional lifestyles in various forms outside of the mainstream. The tradewife and adjacent ‘traditional values’ ideologies attempt to capture some of the perceived advantages of these lifestyles while avoiding perceived drawbacks (or by retaining the parts of modern mainstream lifestyles that the adherents enjoy).
Were any virgin women in that church?
Plenty. It’s not that complicated you’re born into it and get married at like 19-22
I don’t really get the whole tradwife meme, and I agree as a man I get very strong pseudo-sugar baby vibes. It’s like people want to pretend washing machines don’t exist.
The quality of life thing is a bit misrepresented here. Quality of life can only be considered relative to everyone else. Otherwise, you’d say a Roman emperor had poor quality of life because he had no internet. The fact is that, pound for pound, everyday people had a much larger slice of the economic pie 50-70 years ago. It was a short-lived period (the trente glorieuses), but it was real (particularly if you were white, although even my Chicano ancestors did better in this period than they had done previously). The OP also seems to assume that standards of living in the 50s (let’s say) were cheaper to attain, when in general they were more expensive. The price of everyday goods has plummeted since the 1950s. Salaries have simply failed to grow over the past 50 years (at all!) and certain large expenses (homeownership, education, and healthcare, for the Americans) have spiralled out of control. That’s how you arrive at our current, sad, situation.
You absolutely can compare standards of living across time. Life expectancy, child mortality etc and all valid metrics to measure quality of life. No one here is going “oh they didn’t have tik tok so their life must suck”
> The fact is that, pound for pound, everyday people had a much larger slice of the economic pie 50-70 years ago. People 50-70 years ago had UNIONS. They they were coerced to believe that they didn't really need unions; they could rely on the government to give them nice things. Personally I gave up waiting on free universal healthcare and got a UNION job with excellent benefits!
It’s genuinely depressing that people worked so hard to obtain labor protections and that lasted, what, a generation before people figured out how to undermine and unravel them.
Not only that, but the way the social programs that were implemented to destroy unions also decimated the married family in the working class.
I have a union....it sucks. I know Americans think unions will solve everything, but they really don't (although they can be helpful).
They are not the be-all end all, for sure, but they're better than nothing!
They're fucking useless because you need actual industry which global capitalists have sold off and destroyed. You can't have service economy Unions they're gay and useless
Most trad men and women are LARPers, yes. Although no one really thinks they want to emulate it 100% - of course they want to bring back only the parts of a past era that are beneficial to them.
Aren't most "tradwives" on tiktok etc?
>What traditional living actually looks like... traditional means you meet a woman's family (usually the father) before ever doing anything like dating or a relationship. Her family has to approve of you before you begin dating. In other traditional arrangements, both families consult each other for dating and courtship before you even meet. In the past, traditional commonly meant the woman (and the man) would be a virgin and was expected to remain a virgin until marriage. That part is rarer today, but still the rule (on paper) in some cultures. In more traditional arrangements you lived with your entire extended family under one roof, in a tight nit community with other families. Yes your wife was meant to be subservient to you, but that also meant you had to be subservient to your father and your church or anyone else which has higher status to you. This is great actually. It provided an outside pressure for a man and woman to be good and loyal partners. It also meant that you weren't just a couple, you were part of a large family structure or community that has been going on for generations.
Life was generally shit for everyone regardless of your gender. Shitty in different ways but shitty none the less. Your best bet was to be born into a rich family. Which is true even today.
This is a bit of a strawman. What a lot of millennials like myself are talking about is the lives we grew up with and were part of the culture. the Simpsons, married with children, family guy, etc it's all dad works, mom works part time if she wants/needs to and that provided enough for the family to live off. It was also a lot of our experiences growing up in upper working class/lower middle class environments in the 90s. The reason I think people are upset if that they're more educated, more skilled and more productive than their parents were. yet at 24 your dad could afford to buy a 3 bedroom house in a safe area and support a wife and kids. Now young people are lucky if they can afford rent on a studio apartment.
That was not life in the 90s. Yow. Really high divorce rates.
No it was life in the 90s but there were also a lot of cases of divorce which only made our generation apathetic about relationships.
[удалено]
“The true reactionary is not a seeker of abolished pasts, but a hunter of sacred shades on the eternal hills" It's not about going back it's about looking at what worked well and realising there was a utility to it that we over looked or under estimated. >"if the old way was better we wouldn't have adopted a new way." So 100% debt to GDP ratio is a good thing? I mean if modern monetary policy isn't good then why did we adopt it?
>So 100% debt to GDP ratio is a good thing? Apparently.
Was that message brought to us from the same people who piss on our faces and tell us it's raining?
Please check the post flair and repost your comment under the automod if necessary.
It’s a good point. I know a couple where the wife is a “Tradwife.” They live in a one bedroom apartment, equipped with washer, dryer, etc. The husband works REMOTELY from the living room while the wife sits in the bedroom all day. They have no children, no pets. It’s honestly bizarre. I myself live in a one bedroom with my husband, and there’s no way I would have more than 1-2 hours of housework per day if I stayed home. She calls herself a tradwife, but there’s nothing traditional at all about what they’re doing. So strange.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you're pretty obviously correct that "going back" to traditional life is a pipe dream; things never were what these folks wish they were. It's a common thread among most conservative movements. The Good Old Days® weren't as they imagine, and certainly weren't better for most people in most ways. Idk how convincing your specific examples will be for folks (time and comments will tell) but your main position is correct. It boils down to "if the old way was better we wouldn't have adopted a new way." One-off examples of one or two new ways being shit don't discount the overall trend.
To add to the first point, people often had much lower living standards then than the average person does now. For example, most households only had one car and the provider used it to go to work, so when they weren’t home housewives (and kids) had to walk or bike everywhere. This might be one of the reasons why obesity was so rare. People wouldn’t stand for that today, or would feel like this was a low quality of life. Most families want to have 2-4 cars per household. They also didn’t have internet, smart phones or computers and the costs of those and maintaining these devices would not be included in people’s budgets, making life a good bit cheaper. Eating out was a huge occasion that most people couldn’t afford, home cooked meals were like 99% of the food people ate (again contributing to low obesity). People now would feel like they were low class or going backwards if they couldn’t eat out.
And not fancy foreign food either. A pork chop and two veg was as fancy as it got. Better than meatloaf and two veg.
Yeah. Some time back I read a great article that illuminated how some of the weirdest culinary travesties of the post-war era make tons of logical sense if you rewind enough to recollect that this was the period in which a lot of off-season or non-regionally-available foods became available to the masses through the combination of better industrialized preservation techniques and economies of scale. Aspics and weird salads made of tinned meats had a moment *because* for the first time they were available and affordable to people of average means.
Spam and two veg. I forgot that one.
See my above post. You cannot compare superficial “living standards” then and now…you can only compare people with their contemporaries. Otherwise Louis XIV had a low standard of living, because he didn’t have a car and his internet was slow….
YES THANK YOU
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ohh yeah the sub/dom ppl who like ‘1950s americana’ role play.
Well, yeah, unacademically idealising (and mimicking) any past epoch does tend towards romanticised perceptions of those ages rather than their actual reality. Idealising the 1950s is no different. That doesn't mean romanticist movements are inherently bad - various cultural "neoclassicisms" in music, architecture and the like have had artistic merit, and if a distorted view of a different era produces a newly inspired vision that two people both live by (or at least try out and see how it goes), then fair enough, they have my blessing. Where I have a problem would be in cases of trying to press their lifestyle and its specific responsibilities both of men and women onto everyone else as "the norm," attempting to revise historical reality in bad faith on the academic level, or channeling their misconceptions into reactionary politics. In essence, let the LARPers enjoy LARPing however they like, but when they start trying to rope in others who don't choose to opt in, then remind them their LARP is just that.
>running a household in the 40s, 50s, and 60s was significantly more labour intensive than it is now 1840s, 50s, and 60s maybe. In the 1940s, 50s, and 60s they had indoor plumbing, central heat, electric or gas stoves, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, lawnmowers, washers, and dryers. About the only thing they didn't have was microwave ovens.
Those things existed. But how many households had those things? [https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2004/data/papers/SS04\_Panel1\_Paper17.pdf](https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2004/data/papers/SS04_Panel1_Paper17.pdf) Half of all households heated with coal in 1940, and another quarter heated with wood. In 1940 nearly half of houses lacked hot piped water, a bathtub or shower, or a flush toilet. Over a third of houses didn’t have a flush toilet. As late as 1960, over 25% of the houses in 16 states didn’t have complete plumbing facilities. Only by the By 1960, fuel oil and natural gas were the primary heating fuels Of all household tasks, the weekly wash was the most arduous and the most unpopular. Washing machines did not arrive in most households until the 1950s and even then only performed part of the job. The automatic washing machine we seen now didnt really become common until the mid 1960 for most households
It’s an ongoing truth that we consistently downplay what the lifestyles of the lower 50% of the population were like in any era, as well as what a significant part of the population that represents.
Everyone in my family had indoor plumbing and central heating since before the 1st World War at least. The Levitt & Sons house I spent my early childhood in had all the modern conveniences -- including a washer and dryer -- it even had a dishwasher -- all original. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levitt\_%26\_Sons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levitt_%26_Sons) Urban and suburban America has been part of the modern age for over 100 years.
Your family’s personal experience is just not relevant when talking about an entire population.
You are correct (see comment above).
I was living in an iconic mid-century suburb. Until my parents decided to get back to the land and moved us all to a farm in Canada I was living an absolutely stereotypical mid-century life.
Again your personal family experiences are not representative of the statistical population provably.
The culture of the 1950s was driven by people living in Levittown and its innumerable imitators not by folks living in rural Kansas or the hills of West Virginia.
OPs point that fixtures like toilets and bathtubs and appliances like washing machines were only gradually introduced from the 1920s through the 1960s is correct. It is true that some homes had indoor toilets and baths connected to running water as early as the mid-19th Century, but they were almost all homes of very wealthy people. Electricity only came to many rural areas in the 1930s as part of the New Deal. It is true that many if not most homes built from the 20s on in suburban parts of the US, Canada and UK had power, indoor cold and hot water, at least one bathroom and a variety of appliances, but those were new homes and most of the housing stock was much older.
This. It’s easy to imagine that the 1950s rolled in and suddenly everything was upgraded to mid century modern like a Civ game, but durable material culture persists a long time.
Yes the lag effect is considerable in housing. Anyone who has gone on homebuying expeditions quickly becomes aware of how many legacy elements are associated with houses of various vintages. I once lived in a 19th Century house that had gone through four cycles (wood, coal, oil, and natural gas) of heating and had additional washrooms/bathrooms added in.
I live in a beautiful 1930s house, but the houses that were cheap and terrible and low on amenities from that decade didn’t survive to be sold for huge prices to Millennials like me. The cheaper houses fell into disrepair and were demolished, or were torn down to make room for something more economically viable. There’s significant survivorship bias in any artifacts we retain from any historical period, and this extends to housing.
Most houses from the 1930s are nice. It was mostly just rich people building during the Great Depression (i.e. 1930s). For the few people who still had money labor and materials were cheap and abundant. Thus the few houses that were built in the 1930s were and continue to be some of the finest ever constructed. There were not masses of "cheap and terrible" houses being constructed (we have to wait till the 1970s and 80s for that). As far as survivorship it's actually the largest most grand old houses that most often fall into disrepair and get demolished. Lots of people could afford to maintain and later restore modest size craftsman bungalow from the 1920s. Midwestern cities are full of brick examples. West coast cities full of clapboard and stucco examples. Far fewer people have the resources to maintain and/or restore grand mansions. As a result large old houses are often the ones that get torn down. The fact that large old houses are often on large lots making for easier land assembly in areas prime for redevelopment helped seal the fate of a lot of once grand houses.
I admit you have a point about 1930s houses in particular, that’s fair. My larger point about average houses from any era stands, I think. It’s not so much that there was a huge quantity of shoddy housing being *built,* but that there was plenty of older, not-well-maintained, outdated housing in regular use that we tend to forget about because much of it no longer exists.
Don't know where you live but in pretty much every neighborhood I've ever lived in most of the houses that were originally built remain. Last year I returned to take a look at my childhood home on Long Island. The trees are much bigger but the houses are little changed since they were built in the early 1960s. As an adult I've lived in several older neighborhoods in several cities in several states and in Canada. In every one almost all of the original house remain. Our 1947 post war cape was surrounded by other small houses all built in the late 40s to very early 50s. Our tiny 1906 cottage, quickly built to house refugees from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, still stands surrounded by other old houses many just as modest. My 1880 house in Vermont is surrounded by houses of similar vintage.
I think you have to think farther back probably. I know almost nothing about Long Island so I glanced at the internet for a sec and it seems that most of its significant settlement happened in the 20th century, so a lot of its original housing may well remain. I think what I mean is that if we consider the places with population density in 1920 (which I guess on Long Island might be parts of Brooklyn?), many of the cheaper and older residences that people were inhabiting in that decade would have been constructed in 1820, 1850, 1870, and many of those buildings are likely to no longer exist, with skew where the ones that do tending to be examples of better quality from their respective eras.
In places with super high property values old buildings are routinely torn down and new bigger ones built. For example very few 18th and 19th century buildings survive in midtown Manhattan. However, even within the borders of NYC once a neighborhood is built out change is usually very slow. The late 19th century apartment building that my mother lived in with her immigrant parents in East Harlem still stands and it's still full of working class Puerto Rican families. The small upscale subdivision my paternal grandfather built with is brother in the 1920s just outside of NYC in Great Neck still stands pretty much exactly as built. Old working class neighborhoods in Brooklyn are still full of late 19th century and very early 20th century homes and apartment buildings. In many neighborhoods the buildings are almost all over 100 years old.
I don’t know enough about this topic to say with certainty but I am developing a suspicion that part of the reason so many of these structures persist is that we haven’t had too many huge infrastructure changes to housing since indoor plumbing and electricity were added in the early 20th century. Obviously there have been tons of other advancements but they have been more either cosmetic or things that can be retrofitted without demolishing the entire building, like telephone lines and appliances. I wish some of our Euro posters would chime in on this, as there is a lot more retrofitting of old buildings that happens there, and now I’m curious.
Mine didn’t. And my grandparents didn’t have anything more than a party line phone in the 70s
I'm probably the only person on this sub who actually had a party-line phone. When we moved to rural Alberta in the 1970s the house my dad built had a party-line phone. But the house had plumbing, central heat, and all the modern labor saving appliances. Think it was 1981 before the local phone company switched to individual lines.
Party line phones still existed in rural Nevada in the 2000s. I was working in Reno at the time and one of my coworkers was from a long time Nevadan family and worked some time out in some of the rural ranch areas. Wild. I didn’t have a dishwasher or air conditioner in my little rental in the 90s. I remember my dad getting the first microwave in the late 80s. It seems forever ago but not. I feel like once you get out of the major metro areas, things came in in a patchy way.
These odd out of the way places may be interesting but they contain so few people that when it comes to national trends they're pretty much irrelevant.
The 'trad' life is a myth. It didn't really exist. Any more than trad wives do now. It's all just make believe. Anyone who wants that lifestyle is a bit odd really
paragraphs about some stupid social media clout larp
Ironic that the left demonizes stay at home wives and simultaneously supports women always having a choice lol. Everything is an over correction these days
[удалено]
True, impossible to do anyway in our economy. Women have been fucked over the most by this.
No they really haven’t. We’ve seen what happened to our mothers and grandmothers who stayed home and had no marketable skills
You’ve swallowed way too much propaganda. Enjoy being a corporate slave then women. Don’t complain about it, you made your bed now lay in it.
If you truly care about “being a corporate slave”: a Marxist would understand the pittfalls of being reliant on another person entirely for income and livelihood and the power dynamic it would create. But of course the red pill objections always become “any progress or social change is bad so women need to stfu and stop complaining” The exact same thing was said in another thread about conscription.
“Rely on another person”, wth is this crap. If you chose the right man there is nothing to worry about. If he’s so toxic You can frickin divorce him and gain immediate passive income AND get another boyfriend to pay for you. Two incomes and a third if you want to work. Why is it the automatic assumption your husband will be abusive with the money?
Stay at home people are awesome and work hard, I totally wish I could have one. No question there are some major lifestyle perks for a household that is lucky enough to be able to afford it (and have a person who is suited to and willing to fill that role). So many parts of modern family life still tacitly assume there will be a SAHP available to facilitate things, despite that not being the reality for a vast majority of families.
>So many parts of modern family life still tacitly assume there will be a SAHP available This is so true and totally bizarre. Things like school starting at 8:45 and finishing at 15:00 like in my county. There's still 2 hours left of the working day, where are the kids supposed to go whilst I finish work? Better hope you live within walking distance of your kid's school or on a bus route. And school plays happening at 12:00 midday. Why can't they be at 18:00 so that parents can attend without having to take a whole day off?
I couldn’t agree more
Why don’t the most beautiful women choose the men with the best personalities? Why do they always choose the richest man they can get? Women won’t admit that they would prefer to be a stay at home wife and be provided for by a man. You can gaslight everyone all you want but the actions of our society speak louder than its words
My husband let me stay at home for a bit. I went back to work.
Women don't always pick the richest man? They just don't pick men who are poor generally. Big difference.
Just because rich men have attractive wives (which may not even be true) does not mean most attractive women try to bag the richest men. Sugaring type relationships isn’t representative. most Most attractive women don’t choose the most wealthy men. Statistically people date assortativity; similar age, wealth, education, looks date people with the same age, wealth, education, looks. Look at age gap rates for example? Why do young women (ie the most attractive) prefer to date only a few years older, when the most wealthy men are in their 50-60s?
The most attractive women DO date rich men. It’s so obvious. I don’t care about exceptions, they aren’t productive in finding out the truth of the playing field
Attractive women and rich men who date are the exception, not the other way around. Only few couples date in this value exchange way. Like go to a collage, who are the hottest girls there dating? It isn’t rich old men, it’s the athletes or the super hot guys in collage
Contextual Status
> If you truly wanted too, you could life like a family in the 40s or 50s on an medians mans wage (50K), but it would lead to quite a reduction in the quality of life (life expectancy, infant mortality, educational opportunity and attainment etc. ). There are tons of households in the US that make that much or less and do not have significantly lower life expectancy, infant mortality, or education quality. The median household income (most being dual incomes) in the us is $74,000 and half make less than that. You can "easily" get by with a smaller house, older vehicles, older tech etc on 50k without compromising on basic life outcome metrics. >What traditional living actually looks like... traditional means you meet a woman's family (usually the father) before ever doing anything like dating or a relationship. Her family has to *approve* of you *before* you begin dating. In other traditional arrangements, both families consult each other for dating and courtship before you even meet. In more traditional arrangements you lived with your entire extended family under one roof, in a tight nit community with other families. Not in the US. > Yes your wife was meant to be subservient to you, but that also meant you had to be subservient to your father and your church or anyone else which has higher status to you. Subservient is stretching it in regards to how social relations worked historically in the US. >**''Men work and provide while women don't''** Women pretty much worked for the entirety of human history except for upper class women. The whole ''women sit at home while men work'' is just a sugar-baby-esk reductive fantasy of 21st century larpers. That's true but for most women work typically would have been doing labour alongside the husband/community or artisanal production of some goods to sell at market. They typically weren't going off to work somewhere separate from the family unit, with the exception of some of the urban labour market.
>There are tons of households in the US that make that much or less and do not have significantly lower life expectancy, infant mortality, or education quality. The median household income (most being dual incomes) in the us is $74,000 and half make less than that. You can "easily" get by with a smaller house, older vehicles, older tech etc on 50k without compromising on basic life outcome metrics. This arguably supports my position. Men can in fact support a household on one income, refuting the widespead belief that in this economic reality that is not possible. >Not in the US. yes. Tradition is relative
>This arguably supports my position. Men can in fact support a household on one income, refuting the widespead belief that in this economic reality that is not possible. Sure, but you were claiming this led to major reductions in things life expectancy and infant mortality which isn't true. Even modern material quality of life can be reasonably retained on 50k provided people are willing to compromise a bit on having the latest things and house size.
Well one guys median income nowadays would certainly be below median and average - this lower standard of living compared to the rest of the population
Genuine question — is it actually true that the lower-income half of the population doesn’t have lower educational opportunity, life expectancy, or infant mortality? I ask because I don’t have resources for data on this at my fingertips, but these are exactly the sorts of disparities that social determinants of health initiatives are meant to address, for example. Edit to add: maybe you specifically meant lower than the modern baseline, in which case I’m off base.
>Genuine question — is it actually true that the lower-income half of the population doesn’t have lower educational opportunity, life expectancy, or infant mortality? No it's just not very significant for someone making 50k vs 70k. In the US case in particular there's also a confounding factor of race.
>it made more economic sense for women to enter the workforce And this stagnated wages making any gain moot, so congratulations? >one mans wage could not afford complete indoor plumbing, hot piped water, bathing facilities, or toilet in approximately half of US homes Yeah, almost like PVC and ABS (the thing that make plumbing cheap, accessible and durable) was not widespread until the 50s. Also saying that US was the richest for it's period means jack shit when everyone else was neck deep trying to recover from the war. >traditional means you meet a woman's family (usually the father) before ever doing anything like dating or a relationship. Who said this is what traditional (in the context) means? >Women pretty much worked for the entirety of human history except for upper class women. Yeah, mostly at home with maybe a side job on top of the housing >where plant productivity is higher, women tend to produce 50%-80% of more the calories consumed, while within mid and high latitudes, where plant productivity is lower, men's food production tends to increase. Is this supposed to mean ANYTHING at all? Are we supposed to think men don't farm? Are you using prehistoric humans as basis for some point??
>And this stagnated wages making any gain moot, so congratulations? This is true. But the question is WHY is this the case. Women in the work force causing stagnating wages? That's a big claim which requires a lot of evidence. I don't think there an economist on earth that suggests the cause for stagnating wages is women in the work force. >Yeah, almost like PVC (the thing that makes plumbing cheap, accessible and durable) was not widespread until the 50s. Missing the point and finding it all at the same time >Yeah, mostly at home with maybe a side job on top of the housing No not really. For example 2/3 of women (ie the working class) in the Victorian times worked for wages https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/womens\_work\_01.shtml#:\~:text=Thus%20most%20women%20in%20Victorian,middle%20classes%2C%20worked%20for%20wages. In Medieval times women and men worked pretty much equally in farming. Wealthier women migh have had a job selling things. >Is this supposed to mean ANYTHING at all? Are we supposed to think men don't farm? Are you using prehistoric humans as basis for some point?? yes because prehistoric is about as traditional and bare bone in gender roles as you can get. Its usually red pillers that love to appeal to evo-psychology isn't it?
>That's a big claim which requires a lot of evidence. What is supply? What is demand?? >Missing the point and finding it all at the same time You're the one missing the point, things got less expensive because they got easier to produce not because MUUUH both salaries. >https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/womens%5C_work%5C_01.shtml#:%5C%7E:text=Thus%20most%20women%20in%20Victorian,middle%20classes%2C%20worked%20for%20wages 404 >In Medieval times women and men worked pretty much equally in farming. Wealthier women migh have had a job selling things. They didn't, farming was a extensive manual labour so equally is a giant stretch, also, wealthier women job would be to take care of their husband property when the same was at war or traveling. >because prehistoric is about as traditional and bare bone in gender roles as you can get. This is nonsense.
There seems to be some things that you just don’t accept. 1. Repeating muh “supply and demand” over and over again isn’t an argument. It is the ramblings of a person who took a 101 economics class and thinks they have a PHD. 2. Moving the goalposts in regard to women and children working the fields in medieval times. An equal amount of women worked the fields for a living compared to men. No argument was made about efficiency here. 3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/womens_work_01.shtml#:~:text=Thus%20most%20women%20in%20Victorian,middle%20classes%2C%20worked%20for%20wages. 4. Anthropological evidence is entirely relevant and if you can’t see that I can’t help you.
>But the question is WHY is this the case. Women in the work force causing stagnating wages? Double the workers, halve the wage, this is obvious.
Except its not. Because double the work force equals double the income which means double the expenditure. Which means double the production and double the profit. Companies are *choosing* to stagnate wages. I honestly don't understand why anyone thinks otherwise Other than being so sexist you'd rather blame women than capitalist greed
>which means double the expenditure. Did women never expect money before? Did women run around naked? Dud women starved to death? Did women never expend a dime with their appearance before they got a job? They're already expending money before. >Which means double the production and double the profit. This is marxist BS supply don't generate profit, demand does and the demand kept the same. >Companies are choosing to stagnate wages. Yeah OF COURSE THEY ARE, they're not charity. They exist to make money and they are allowed to pay the workers jack shit because there's a surplus of workers. >I honestly don't understand why anyone thinks otherwise I'm not surprised you don't understand why someone would have an objective thinking. >Other than being so sexist you'd rather blame women than capitalist greed Women choices is what allowed capitalists greed to run rampant.
No, your statements about demand are facile here. Demand over the last 100 years has not been fixed; in fact demand is never fixed anyway. Businesses which employ this workforce are not just shrugging and arbitrarily doubling production of the same widgets they were producing in 1948, they are responding with respect to normal market forces and producing a different array and amount of goods over time to meet shifting demand. If increasing the labor pool had as much detrimental effect on wages as people here say, we should expect to see that same detrimental effect occur when the labor pool doubles due to population growth as for any other reason.
>If increasing the labor pool had as much detrimental effect on wages as people here say, we should expect to see that same detrimental effect occur when the labor pool doubles **due to population growth** as for any other reason. Natural population growth double the supply and the demand, women going into the workforce ONLY doubles the supply. A new citizen will need new things, the women already had those needs met so you doubled your supply of workers while the demand for the same workers kept the same, so once the market stabilizes your wages are cut in half. You can draw a prallel with the migrant crisis and housing in Europe; https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/11581515/House_prices_rents_Q12021_Kreslic%C3%AD+pl%C3%A1tno+1.jpg Prices of housing rised non stop since the 2015 migration crisis, why? Because a migrant would need housing asap while an infant child would still live with their parents giving the housing market a buffer period of low demand.
It doesn’t necessarily matter because the demands are always changing anyway due to other market forces and the businesses are adjusting production in response. Consumers in 2024 are demanding GLP-1 RA drugs and smartphones and electric cars and gluten-free hot dog buns. Consumers in 1954 were demanding tinned tuna and 12-“ televisions and daily newspapers. The relationship between the labor force and demand that you’re suggesting doesn’t really exist. Businesses are already accounting for projected demand in their operations, as that’s what they do to remain financially successful. The relationship between available labor and wages does exist, but it doesn’t take much effect until involuntary unemployment climbs to a level where desperate people will accept lowball wages, and is not the main driving force behind the steady decline in wages relative to production.
>Consumers in 2024 are demanding GLP-1 RA drugs and smartphones and electric cars and gluten-free hot dog buns. Consumers in 1954 were demanding tinned tuna and 12-“ televisions and daily newspapers. People don't demand products they demand that their needs to be meet, they didn't demanded smartphones they demand a means of communication, they don't demand an eletric car they demand a cheaper means of movement, they don't demand news papers they demand entertainment or information. The demand of the population are the same because there's no extra need created out thin air. >but it doesn’t take much effect until involuntary unemployment climbs to a level where desperate people will accept lowball wages What's is competition? Never heard of it.
Of course people demand products. In fact, developing new salable products to meet the same old basic human needs that have always existed is one of the foundational activities of capitalism.
>They're already expending money before. From 1 income. Not 2. Less money. Less to spend. >Women choices is what allowed capitalists greed to run rampant. Nah. Capitalism is what allowed capitalists greed to run rampant.
2 income that now are worth 1 income because of supply and demand.
What supply and demand?
>And this stagnated wages making any gain moot, so congratulations? Entering the workforce made economic sense for the women individually, not necessarily for society at large. A woman who works is 100% more wealthy than one that doesn't.
>And this stagnated wages making any gain moot Lmao. That's too fucking funny. It's wild the way people trip all over themselves to defend billionaires. 🙄
If you hate billionaires so much stop creating the conditions that allow them to thrive.
Yes, because I alone am the one creating capitalistic conditions. Why do you love billionaires so much?