Does giving women equal rights course poverty?
Sorry for such a provocative question name. I have been reading about the society in early 20th century and it seems like that even without modern technology 1 man could afford to feed the whole family, and thus could afford to marry early and start one. Nowadays, you have to both be working to support a household, at least if you have not-above-average average job. That change also coincided with it becoming acceptable for women to work instead of staying at home and caring for the family. Is there a causation here? Would making strict limitation on how much and where women could work make us a richer society. I can really see it lowering underemployment and unemployment.
- random_manLv 74 weeks ago
Absolutely not. If you want to consider it from a strictly economic viewpoint, having half of your productive capacity (the female workforce) idled, is inefficient, and would increase poverty rather than decrease it.
- billLv 41 month ago
Yeah we're just spinning our wheels here aren't we? In the 50's 1 family member worked and 1 stayed at home. Now even with 2 working we can't afford a house.
- Anonymous1 month ago
No, there is no causation here. Get a fcuking grip.
- RayLv 61 month ago
Women working doubled our workforce, making our economy far moire productive. The answer to your question is no.
1 man can still feed a whole family if he lived like people did in the early 20th century.
That includes: no internet bill, no phone bill, no cellphone bill, no car insurance bill, no car or maybe 1 car, in some cases no electric bill, no ac, no tv, no video game or game subscriptions, no eating out that is expensive, no traveling most people did not travel back then, etc.
They lived frugally back then.
Since women began working our economy became far wealthier so now we can afford all of these nice things. 1900-1950 only the rich had cars
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- OiyLv 61 month ago
That is not a reason that the real wage in the US since 1970s has been stagnated. The equal rights have been given long time before that. If it is not because of no democracy at the workplace,then it must be something wrong with outsourcing. Poverty in the US is not absolute,but relative. The hobo guys are still better than the middle class in Sudan.That was said in California, but not in NY anymore. The liberal should ask your question seriously.
- .Jerry.Lv 71 month ago
"Does giving women equal rights course poverty?"
It's not the equal rights that causes poverty, but it was the second wave co-opting of feminism into cultural Marxism (that espouses critical theory from the Frankfurt school). Oddly enough, it was the corporate elite Rockefeller foundation mostly along with the Ford foundation and Peabody that funded second wave "women's liberation" in order to "liberate" women from their "oppressive" home life by having them work a wage slave job everyday just like their men always had to. And they convinced women to ask for this "liberation" by telling them that it was their own men that were holding them back from this liberation.
So many women took to the Establishment promoted messages in feminism. And over time, beginning around the early 1970's most women joined the workforce. Within a decade, the workforce had naturally doubled. This resulted in the value of labour being worth half of what it used to be. So now, most women HAVE TO work whether they want to or not. The economy has adjusted to the new reality of women in the workforce, and we are not going back.
Women naturally pay the bigger price here if they want to be single mothers, or choose work that more suits their female nature. Most women do not choose to work heavy labour, or dangerous jobs, or dirty jobs, or night shift. Thus women are paid less for making those choices. Here is where a lot of poverty orginates.
- ZirpLv 71 month ago
Questions don't have a name.
Does giving women equal rights CAUSE poverty?
No. wages not keeping up with productivity because workers aren't smart enough to join a union or vote for a leftish party does
- 1 month ago
By the same logic, men shouldn't have equal rights. They should stay home with the family while women work. By your logic, having strict limitation on how often men work would also improve society somehow. What the heck are you talking about? Women entered the workforce during the war, and economically the US had a post-war boom, so if there was any kind of causation, one would assume that women in the workforce increased the GDP.
Right now the USA is facing vast wealth inequality, where people are in general paid less for working more. Unless you think women weren't in the workforce until after the economically-healthy 1980s (in which case, have you SEEN the shoulder pad trend?), your idea is already obviously rubbish.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Yes. Women no longer need men, apart from to fertilize their eggs and pay towards raising their children.