Women being domestic was in the best interest of society

anitapk · 2016-10-05T05:33:21+00:00

Someone had to stay at home and women were more suited for child rearing.

Women already worked before the advent of technology in poor homes, just not in careers. Children worked too.

"Chasing your dreams" is a modern thing for pretty much everyone. Up until 100 years ago most people worked into a factory, tending to crops, farms, in harbors, very few jobs where one could shine.

Women not working was just a small parentheses of time and didn't apply to poor people.

Tl; Dr : everyone had it shitty back then

DarkLord0chinChin · 2016-10-05T05:26:23+00:00

I've thought for awhile, OP, that TRP (and some other groups) massively downplay the existence of children - and their need to be cared for - when talking about women as weak, dumb, silly little girls etc.

For most of history, women stayed home and men worked (either at a job or just out in the fields tending crops and livestock etc.) because that was simply how it had to be due to circumstance. Women get pregnant, give birth to and breastfeed children. It would have been physically impossible, up until very recently, for an infant to thrive without the physical presence of their mother. As it would have been physically impossible, up until very recently, for a family to have enough food to eat, a solid roof over their heads etc., without male labour (and female labour, yo - women were often responsible for domestic tasks related to food gathering and prep, but it is men who are physically strong enough to take on the heavy lifting tasks). And I guess part of me just fails to see why "it had to be that way" = "it should be that way now."

If women are built to be in the home and men are built to work outside the home, you'd think that's what you'd consistently see. And I do believe that given the choice, more women would choose to stay home than men and more men would choose to do heavy labour type work than women. But a hefty minority obviously wouldn't. There are many historical accounts of women who felt constrained and intellectually bereft due to child-rearing and home-making, just as there are accounts of men who hated the work they had to do to support their families. And now, hey, we're in a place where babies can thrive without being physically attached to their mothers 24/7 and where men have the option to choose the kind of work they do, or to not do any outside-the-home work at all in the case of SAHDs. It's also very recent that people have even been able to choose when - or if - to have children.

The presence of a penis/vagina, isn't enough information, basically, for me to say 'that penis-haver would be happiest working all day to support his eight children' or 'that vagina-haver would be happiest tending her eight children and doing laundry all day.' Nor do I even care to instruct other people on what they should or should not be doing with their lives. We've never been more able to choose our paths in life.

And as to the strong/smart thing - anyone who thinks keeping a house and raising children is something you don't need smarts or toughness for is just wrong.

KrispyMcSockington · 2016-10-05T05:50:33+00:00

TRP is wrong, women are smart, society thought it was a good idea to ensure smart people stayed home so the home life could be improved for future generations

I am not sure what the point you're trying to make is. Is it that it's wrong women were kept at home? Or that it was a good idea?

But just so you know, women always worked. It is a myth that they were all home makers. Only the rich could afford to stay at home.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/13/working-women-stay-at-home-wives-myths

Everyone knew women were smart and passionate all along more so than men.

I...don't know how they could know or not know this. The point is that women had roles in society like men did. Pre-industrialisation, people had to do things manually. There were no machines to do the bulk of the work like today. The difference is in war. Men are the ones who went off to fight, either to invade or defend. Those who successfully repelled the enemy were treated as heroes.

Women did a lot more breastfeeding then than now. Children were a sign that there was future in your tribe. Keeping them safe and fed was very important. Because kids are so vulnerable in their early years, and because they relied on mother's milk, women were needed for those kids to survive. Furthermore, with their smaller build and generally weaker bodies, it would not be a good idea to send them to war against bigger, stronger invaders. They could also be captured and used as concubines, and it's not a good idea to allow the tribe you're going to war with to have extra soldiers in a couple of decades.

Now with women in the field, TRP tries to tell us we do not belong there because we lack something fundamental that allows us to be there, and look @ history as evidence? History is not good evidence of this, since it could have been purposefully mandated so women would be able to develop strong home life's.

This is not true. The nuclear family was really an ideal proposed in the past century or so. Again, only the upper class could afford to have someone staying at home. Post industrialisation, post war and the ever increasing advancements in technology allowed some homes to become like this. Today, that's just not possible as inflation and increasing costs of living demand that both partners have jobs. Furthermore, corporations wanted women in the workforce because they could pay them less.

Today this is not the case because there is no wage gap. Now everyone has to work and struggle along. Women were never "purposely" kept at home. They fought for things like equal pay for equal work, the right to own property and the right to vote. They have all these now.

However, if your point is that the lack of parents at home with their kids is raising a spoiled, emotionally stunted generation crying for "safe spaces" on campus to avoid emotional discomfort? Then yes, I'd say the current arrangement is not great for kids. The question is, why should adults be forced to care for kids and make the sacrifice to their own development and career when it's not needed anymore? It would be simpler for them to have grandparents helping out when raising kids, though, while they could work. Younger folks have kids, older ones raise them. But that would require more people to adopt a community-minded approach as opposed to an individualistic one.

Entropy-7 · 2016-10-05T05:55:14+00:00

Assortive mating has thrown a monkey wrench into the works. Back in the old days class separated people, wealth tended to be intergenerational, access to higher education and elite jobs was limited to the upper class. The result was that when you found yourself a husband or wife it was a crap shoot as to how smart or talented they were and regardless you were still stick in your socio-economic box.

Today, the smart tend to attain higher education and income levels and then pair up with someone similar. With two potential breadwinners in the house they don't want to make the economic sacrifice to have kids and then personally take care of them.

Meanwhile, the welfare state has expanded such that it makes more sense for a not-so-bright, lower class woman to have 2 or 3 or more kids - with or without a husband - and then stay at home to take care of them.

SetConsumes · 2016-10-05T13:39:32+00:00

It would be nice to think you're right, but even male philosophers of the past centuries (supposedly among the brightest male minds) thought poorly of women.

Women were not thought of as smart or passionate. They were thought of as basically emotional, nonintellectual dullards who were best suited to domestic life or simple menial jobs.

That is what women got for all their hard work in raising children and caring for the home and working in hard, menial jobs outside the home.

No wonder women fled from domestic life as soon as they had the opportunity.

i_have_a_semicolon · 2016-10-05T16:18:44+00:00

Women weren't "solving problems at home", women were doing manual labor. So were men when subsistence agriculture was the thing.

Mental energy is rarely needed in these settings, what you need is a strong back.

Don't confuse what you do today (programming) with what women did generations ago (clean, cook, grow food, wrangle kids). They are fundamentally different things.

AutoModerator · 2016-10-05T04:47:48+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" 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, 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 if you have any questions or concerns.

[deleted] · 2016-10-05T05:05:27+00:00

[permanently deleted]

alreadyredschool · 2016-10-05T07:07:28+00:00

TRP tries to tell us

No it doesn't, that's all.

ThrowawayCactus6012 · 2016-10-05T09:51:06+00:00

TRP is wrong, women are smart, society thought it was a good idea to ensure smart people stayed home so the home life could be improved for future generations

If this is true, then does this mean that women intentionally shirked their obligations to society by demanding to work outside the home? Has their greed and selfishness had a negative effect on society?

Princeso_Bubblegum · 2016-10-05T11:29:15+00:00

Kids are not that hard to raise. My dad put me and my sister in front of a TV at his job while he was working and was fine.

The notion that anyone needs to spend their entire life being a stay at home parent is laughable.

And yes, I am shitting on homemakers. Deal with it.

sublimemongrel · 2016-10-05T13:45:31+00:00

Women being "domestic" was also in the best interests of the women who wanted it and chose it.

Even during the vaunted "1950s" which was a period of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity in the US, no one was "keeping women down". No one was telling women they HAD NO CHOICE whatsoever but to be housewives and to pump out baby after baby after baby. Women who wanted to get an education could, and did, do that. Women who chose to work could still work. Women who didn't want to marry could stay unmarried. Women who wanted to have promiscuous sex did so. No one was throwing women in prison for having sex with a boyfriend. No one was rounding women up and marrying them off to the Billy Betas of the world.

No one has any sense of history any more. Everyone's sense of the entirety of human history begins with each individual's earliest conscious memory.

Most women chose marriage and motherhood because that's what they wanted.

No one in the history of the US has ever told women that they can't work, live independently, earn their own money, own their own property, and fuck whoever they want. It was only when they married that their rights became more restricted, and they became subject to their husbands. What happened was that women wanted to marry AND STILL do all those things independent of their husbands, including fuck who they wanted. Well, make a goddamn choice. Do you want to be married or don't you? If you do, then here's what it is. If you don't, then OK, and be well and God bless you.

What women want is to be "married", i.e. have a man who selected them and is legally obligated to support them; while she gets all the benefits of being a single woman, including the right to fuck whoever she wants. That's not marriage, but it is what women want.

sunkindonut149 · 2016-10-05T14:27:46+00:00

I don't think the so-called traditional '50s suburban lifestyle was really normative for most Americans throughout history before WWII.

Blue collar (actually the majority of women) always had jobs and of course you're going to be busy on a farm 3rd world style if you're doing some sort of Little House style subsistence farming.

Rich people (men and women) didn't work normal jobs in many parts of the US and UK historically because they were rich. Some of the guys went into politics from time to time but that's it.

SetConsumes · 2016-10-05T14:45:43+00:00

Kind ofish.

Women's primary source of power comes from ruling the house, and controlling the man in it. Sure we seem to have a patriarchy, except that most men are slaves to their woman, especially most powerful men.

Its also way less work to take care of a house than work 9-5 + work on improving career outside of work.

Why do more work if you can do less work for more resources and free time and status by hooking a valuable man?

Well you want to. So go for it, be like a man and do the harder work, instead of enjoying your free time and living more easily and comfortably.

i_have_a_semicolon · 2016-10-05T15:19:32+00:00

You are underestimate how much "domestic work" there used to be. Think of how much time youd spend washing clothes by hand (for 4+ children), repairing and making clothing - processing, canning and fermenting food etc.
You are overestimating the amount of agency the overwhelming majority of people had to "solve problems" for virtually all of human history through their labor outside of the home.
You are underestimating how much "problem solving" took place in the home, at least relative to paid labor outside the home.

hippydipster · 2016-10-05T16:44:40+00:00

I work as a programmer. I'm quite sure I'd be happier solving kitchen problems than the ones here at work.

Anyone need a stay at home man? Will cook and clean (AND mow the lawn and shovel the driveway!) for good sex and being provided for.

CovenantoftheSun · 2016-10-05T18:41:00+00:00

I don't buy into the whole "women force marry betas to strengthen civilization narrative".

I believe that whole conspiracy theory was invented to justify the old system with morals of some kind.

Truth is, the statistically average male is always going to be unhappier, face more tension, compete and lose for sex, etc. etc. and there's no reason in nature or civilization to help everyone you might characterize as beta get laid.

Its time for men to let go of this idea that bending the will of sexual selection against itself is good for anyone or civilization. Time would be much better spent putting effort and work into not being a statistic.

It would be easier to lasso a tsunami than it would to actually create a system where humans didn't follow their sexual drives.

[deleted] · 2016-10-05T05:27:26+00:00

[permanently deleted]

RareBlur · 2016-10-05T05:43:41+00:00

But by purposely keeping an entire gender at home, humanity was able to ensure good resources were put into home life and upbringing of children

This was not done on purpose but out of necessity and even then the gender divide in terms of actual labor of our ancestors wasn't that divided. What we would consider traditional home work took A LOT of more effort than it does now requiring someone to be at the home to take care of it. That said however, women were still expected to work in the fields when required.

Once the work of the home became less strained, for example, if you were rich and had servants, then the women were expected to learn specific skills / hobbies such as needle work and music.

There is also the possibility that there are more women stupider than you than there are women smarter than you. If you are on the edge of the curve you can't really use yourself as the definition of normal. However, that is probably unlikely (i.e. it's more likley that any 1 person is average).

Most women do not gravitate towards programming. Is it because they find it too difficult? Not rewarding enough? Who know.. regardless, those that do are better than most men who have gravitated to it. Programming becomes something almost expected of a guy who is slightly into computers. It's not expected of women to be programmers therefore the ones that are, are there because of their passion for the work. They likley are.. I don't want to say smarter necessarily but rather are more suited and thrive on those particular challenges more than other women.

i_have_a_semicolon · 2016-10-05T14:11:34+00:00

Everyone knew women were smart and passionate all along more so than men.

Not really, no.

Title	Women being domestic was in the best interest of society
Author	i_have_a_semicolon
Upvotes	10
Comments	121
Date	October 5, 2016 4:47 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/55xvrm/women_being_domestic_was_in_the_best_interest_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/women-being-domestic-was-in-the-best-interest-of.272589 https://theredarchive.com/post/272589

Comments