Primal Women - did cave girls really exercise as much as men? page 4

[zoebird]

I think it's important to understand that women have worked in one capacity or another for a long time.

First, in "primitive" societies, it's much more "socialized" in that women do women's work (often together) and men do "men's work." What that work is depends upon where they are. But I can say that in viking eras, women and men were well into gender-determined work by the time they were 7 (as evidenced by the deaths/burials of viking-age chlidren).

Second, when we develop into larger societies that have heirarchies, women commonly worked outside of the home. Fishmongers often had their wives managing market stalls, because they fished. So their wives sold the fish. Often the same was true of farmers. Women took in work -- such as washing, sewing, or similar.

And then it continued on. Women became secretaries, housemaids, cooks and kitchenmaids, teachers and governesses, etc.

As we headed into industrialization, they went into factories, and of course worked on farms, and went into science and medicine as well. Soem went into politics.

Honestly, women have always worked in some capacity or another -- while also managing to take care of their children.

Both of my grandmother's worked -- one as a secretary, one taking in laundry and mending as well as cooking and cleaning. All four of my great-grandmothers worked -- two of them had college degrees and worked as a professional artist (graphic arts for advertising and such) and a professional writer/editor (advertising again). The other two worked in a library (mostly assisting in shelving not the professional archiving side of things -- or library science) and as a secretary. Go back another generation -- my great-great grandmother on my mother's father's side (his father's mother) ran a string of general stores in 3 towns while managing two farms that her husbands and sons worked. It was well known that she was the "brains" of the outfit, creating a lot of wealth for her family by her particular head for business. My great-great grandmother on my father's mother's side worked in a factory in Ireland, saved up enough money to move to the US, and then was able to buy a derelict almond ranch and make it into a productive, profit-making venture before she got married to her husband -- the neighboring upstart irish land owner.

And, from what we can tell, both of their mothers worked in factory/housekeeping work in Ireland. And I would assume that their mothers worked as well -- you know, since we're now talking about Ireland in the -- what, 1850s? prior?

I'm not saying it to be proud. But this idea that women just stayed around the house and did the housekeeping, caring for children and cooking -- which is itself a lot of work -- is the "way it was". . .well, it's simply not factual.

Poor women worked outside of the home. That's just what was.

[Figlio di Moros]

No doubt, I never claimed they didn't. Notice I said feminists encouraged women back into the workforce. During the 19th century, the rising Nouve Riche, followed by the emergent middle class, didn't need two-parent homes. Naturally, the women were the ones to stay at home. This trend then reversed in the 1960's and 70's, for no logical reason.

[canio6]

However, even the men in here seem to be arguing women are so much more useful.

I'm arguing neither because frankly wtf is the point? Yes, both worked in hunter-gatherer societies because starving or being killed off by your neighbors sucks. We can sit here all day and argue about whether having a certain set of genitalia makes you special. It doesn't. We can argue from personal experience but n=1 does not a society make. If every man you know is worthless well the constant in this equation is you so hmm...same goes if every woman you know is a tramp etc. (Not saying this applies to you specifically more the all encompassing 'you').

Figlio, I don't think you can "thank the feminists" for women having to work.... women working is just an inevitable outcome of the economic system we live in. Everyone must offer up their labor eventually, senior citizens are remaining in the workforce longer do you think they are there by choice? I know plenty of women (and men too!) who would love to opt out of the labor force. Blaming it on feminists is such a simplistic view of things.

Yes, I think many of them are there by choice or more accurately by the choices they have made. I've been married a combined total of 12 years and my wife (of which there were two...not at the same time) has worked a total of one of those years. We have had a place to live, a car to drive (not a great one but it runs), food to eat, etc. We do not have two cars, a 3 car garage, vacations to the Caribbean or kids in private school, but those are all choices. I've also made some shitty financial decisions so will probably be saying "Welcome to Walmart" one day. Such is life. Sure my wife could work (outside of the home) and one day will but it is hardly necessary. Much depends on the lifestyle one has chosen. There are many one income families out there. It is just not as easy or as common as it once was. As for feminists, well, what can I blame them for? :P

btw...bring back the raccoon mask!


my apologies to the OP for having jack to add on hunter-gather women folk. I've never been one and frankly never will be.

[zoebird]

I wasn't really referencing you directly, just the idea swirling around it.

I wouldn't necessarily characterize 'feminists' in that way per se, either.

[cori93437]

No doubt, I never claimed they didn't. Notice I said feminists encouraged women back into the workforce. During the 19th century, the rising Nouve Riche, followed by the emergent middle class, didn't need two-parent homes. Naturally, the women were the ones to stay at home. This trend then reversed in the 1960's and 70's, for no logical reason.

Except that maybe, just MAYBE, some women prefer to go to school and then have careers rather than stay at home and participate in homemaker tasks that are to them less than stimulating mentally.
Yeah... no logical reasons at all.
Just sit in the house, wash, fold, bake, and be completely dependent on the whims of your husband.
Awesome!

[Figlio di Moros]

So, we agree we're being ridiculously off-point and pretty much in consensus about disagreeing to agree? Seems like it's gonna be a debate where we all say the same thing, but continually clarify eachother and ward of the random ad homs from passer-bys.

[canio6]

So, we agree we're being ridiculously off-point and pretty much in consensus about disagreeing to agree? Seems like it's gonna be a debate where we all say the same thing, but continually clarify eachother and ward of the random ad homs from passer-bys.

You mean like pretty much any thread that isn't about "AMG I ate wheat and now my stomach hurts. Should I call Mark?!"

but yes, what you said.

[Figlio di Moros]

Except that maybe, just MAYBE, some women prefer to go to school and then have careers rather than stay at home and participate in homemaker tasks that are to them less than stimulating mentally.
Yeah... no logical reasons at all.
Just sit in the house, wash, fold, bake, and be completely dependent on the whims of your husband.
Awesome!

If you think a housewife is "sitting at home all day", you have no idea what their lives are like. Yes, some housewives will just sit and watch TV(in fact, too many, without doing the laundry, cooking, or cleaning, even), but they actually have a lot of time open for any number of activities. At the very least, housewives have the full day to visit family and friends, and can do almost anything from gardening to charity work. Not to mention, spending time with your kids is far more fullfilling than being chained to a desk.

I should point out the number of women choosing to stay home, and who really want to, is on the rise. This probably has something to do with the fact work sucks, there's only a handful of decent, fulfilling jobs to begin with, and being a homemaker is far more satisfying across the board.

It's funny, the idealic "career woman" was Barbara Walters, now Mika Brzezinski, and yet the reality tends to end up being working in a call center, or waitressing. Not the best paying or most fulfilling jobs, unless you're waitressing at the resturant you own, and then you're probably spending more time with your kids, anyways.

[cori93437]

So, we agree we're being ridiculously off-point and pretty much in consensus about disagreeing to agree? Seems like it's gonna be a debate where we all say the same thing, but continually clarify eachother and ward of the random ad homs from passer-bys.

Of course...
But then, in the vein of ridiculously off-point, there was also no logical reason for you to make the post that I responded to.

[Urban Forager]

Feminism encouraged women back into the workforce; as a result, there was more labor. Companies didn't need to increase wages as much to maintain the necessary supply of labor, so they dropped relatively overtime. As wages dropped, avg. household income dropped. Women who previously chose to work, now needed to. Women who previously chose to be housewives discovered they had to enter the workforce to help cover bills and food costs. Of course, as we shifted to two-income households, there became less time either of the parents could dedicate to children, so costs relative to that went up, too.

I agree with most of what you say but I think we need to look at who benefits most from women entering the labor market, it obviously isn't the average worker because we agree that the more workers there are the lower the wages will be. If you follow the money I don't think it is going to lead you to rich feminists, but that's just my opinion.