The notion that men would insist that their women do not work out of some sort of abstract dictate of "female privilege" is laughable and dangerously naive. You really expect me to believe this is true?
If a woman was able-bodied, could walk and had a pair of hands, you better believe her husband made her work. And when I say “work,” I don't mean an easy cushy comfy job that is performed sitting in a chair in an air conditioned office and which does not require much thinking. We know women don't mind doing that kind of work at all. Here, I am talking about manual labor.
You better believe they sure as hell made her work if they needed the money. It's just that the woman's parents knew that if they had a daughter, they would lose any sort of future income she could earn to support them. she would of course go to her husband's parents home, and any money she would make by working would be their property.
This is especially true of the poverty classes throughout history.
In terms of current affairs, how exactly are reporters obtaining their information? I am not being facetious, I really want to know what their sources are. Are they getting their statistics from the respective labor departments of various countries?
See, here's the thing about getting your stats from the official information-gathering body of a country. They can only report wha is reported to them._____
People will find ways to skirt around laws. The wife could work, but the factory owners could write paycheques in the husband's name. Or the factory owner could pay the wife off the books, thereby not subjecting it to scrutiny from federal prying eyes.
Where exactly are these reporters getting the idea that throughout history women have rarely worked disgusting jobs outside the home?
Now, if these historians/reporters are speaking of professional jobs such as local town council, studying philosophy, and things of that wish-washy nature, I am afraid that is true. Men have enforced this directive under some misguided notion that reading and thinking would offend women's delicate feminine sensibilities. This was while conveniently ignoring the fact that women did already work outside the home. apparently they reached the conclusion th
So. We know that women were not always allowed to work in legitimate, honest jobs such as teacher or medical aide. But poor poverty stricken families really needed the money. So this left only the option of illegitimate, dishonest jobs.
The thing about serf drivers, i.e. foremen and people from the lower working classes that direct manual laborers in grueling physical work is the following. News flash -- they do not give a crap what "polite society" or customs or chivalry dictate. Do you think they care that it is "ungentlemanly" to make women do backbreaking manual labor? Working outdoors in the rice paddies under the relentless bakin sun, or later with industrial revolutions in various countries, making women work in factories. Of course there are always the cleaning and laundry work jobs.
If those societies had no qualms forcing children into child labor, ore mining, etc. -- and they most certainly did not -- then chances are they had no particular moral qualms against women working manual labor jobs, either.
I will probably offend a lot of people with my declaration that poor people are not all noble angelic little angels. But this is the truth. They don't care what manly chivalry says they should or should not do. They are simply grateful for another pair of hands to help do the work.
On the other hand, more sniveling uppity fields are more exclusionary and more prone to following some "protocol." The point I'm trying to convey is that "proper" jobs that are performed sitting at a chair behind a desk tend to establish and enforce arbitrary rules and regulations. They are far more likely to_____
Yes, you are correct in one regard-- women do not tend to go for dangerous work such as oil rigs, coal mining, etc. women have done dirty and disgusting work since time eternal. but dirty, disgusting, <and>> dangerous? No. For the simple reason that dangerous work like that requires far more muscle brawn. Women are not physically capable of doing work of that magnitude of ((((((physical) demand))). They know this, the foremen know this, and the other workers know this, so why waste everyone's time?
So, non. Women have not generally worked in construction throughout human history.
Oh, wait.
I'm not trying to say that the men don't also work hard. They do. But don't kid yourself into thinking that the women have it easy.
If a woman was able-bodied, could walk and had a pair of hands, you better believe her husband made her work. And when I say “work,” I don't mean an easy cushy comfy job that is performed sitting in a chair in an air conditioned office and which does not require much thinking. We know women don't mind doing that kind of work at all. Here, I am talking about manual labor.
You better believe they sure as hell made her work if they needed the money. It's just that the woman's parents knew that if they had a daughter, they would lose any sort of future income she could earn to support them. she would of course go to her husband's parents home, and any money she would make by working would be their property.
This is especially true of the poverty classes throughout history.
In terms of current affairs, how exactly are reporters obtaining their information? I am not being facetious, I really want to know what their sources are. Are they getting their statistics from the respective labor departments of various countries?
See, here's the thing about getting your stats from the official information-gathering body of a country. They can only report wha is reported to them._____
People will find ways to skirt around laws. The wife could work, but the factory owners could write paycheques in the husband's name. Or the factory owner could pay the wife off the books, thereby not subjecting it to scrutiny from federal prying eyes.
Where exactly are these reporters getting the idea that throughout history women have rarely worked disgusting jobs outside the home?
Now, if these historians/reporters are speaking of professional jobs such as local town council, studying philosophy, and things of that wish-washy nature, I am afraid that is true. Men have enforced this directive under some misguided notion that reading and thinking would offend women's delicate feminine sensibilities. This was while conveniently ignoring the fact that women did already work outside the home. apparently they reached the conclusion th
So. We know that women were not always allowed to work in legitimate, honest jobs such as teacher or medical aide. But poor poverty stricken families really needed the money. So this left only the option of illegitimate, dishonest jobs.
The thing about serf drivers, i.e. foremen and people from the lower working classes that direct manual laborers in grueling physical work is the following. News flash -- they do not give a crap what "polite society" or customs or chivalry dictate. Do you think they care that it is "ungentlemanly" to make women do backbreaking manual labor? Working outdoors in the rice paddies under the relentless bakin sun, or later with industrial revolutions in various countries, making women work in factories. Of course there are always the cleaning and laundry work jobs.
If those societies had no qualms forcing children into child labor, ore mining, etc. -- and they most certainly did not -- then chances are they had no particular moral qualms against women working manual labor jobs, either.
I will probably offend a lot of people with my declaration that poor people are not all noble angelic little angels. But this is the truth. They don't care what manly chivalry says they should or should not do. They are simply grateful for another pair of hands to help do the work.
On the other hand, more sniveling uppity fields are more exclusionary and more prone to following some "protocol." The point I'm trying to convey is that "proper" jobs that are performed sitting at a chair behind a desk tend to establish and enforce arbitrary rules and regulations. They are far more likely to_____
Yes, you are correct in one regard-- women do not tend to go for dangerous work such as oil rigs, coal mining, etc. women have done dirty and disgusting work since time eternal. but dirty, disgusting, <and>> dangerous? No. For the simple reason that dangerous work like that requires far more muscle brawn. Women are not physically capable of doing work of that magnitude of ((((((physical) demand))). They know this, the foremen know this, and the other workers know this, so why waste everyone's time?
So, non. Women have not generally worked in construction throughout human history.
Oh, wait.
 |
| Varanasi, India- Source |
 |
| Nepal- Source |
 |
| No location specified; probably India- Source |
 |
| Amritsar, India- Source |
 |
| India- Source |
 |
| Bangladesh- Source |
 |
| Bangladesh- Source |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment