# Women had it better in the past/should remain at home while men work **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 24, 2003, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710 "2003-07-24T20:27:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![kimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f0a364/32.png) [@kimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kimera)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/1 "2003-07-24T20:27:43Z")
On another board, someone posted a link to [this](http://www.angryharry.com/esWomen-WeakandPathetic.htm) article. A shocking number of people agreed with what the article said while I thought a lot of it was BS. What do you think, dear members? Some points the rant makes: > [@](#): > > Moreover, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, societies that did not do this [have women trained to care properly for the children] were not going to succeed in the face of competition from those that did! In terms of cultural ‘evolution’, therefore, societies whose women did not care properly for the children, while the men laboured on their behalf, never made it! Well, duh, any society in which women do not care properly for their children isn’t going to make it. However, we started out in most hunter-gather societies where women do plenty of work. > [@](#): > > For example, there are now many pockets in Britain today where women are, indeed, failing to bring up their children properly, and where the fathers are - thanks to feminism - ‘not required’. > > And, as a result, across the entire country, there are vast areas where young delinquents terrify the inhabitants and where criminality is the norm. And the activities of these young anti-social individuals spill out to affect the rest of British society. And this is the fault of the women? I see this as more of a fault of the men. As I understood it, most women in such situations do not chose not to have fathers, the fathers run off themselves. > [@](#): > > The best road to success in the past was for women to bring up the children - and to be trained to do so properly - while the men spent much of their time developing the environment and tapping its resources, giving just some of their time for helping out with the rearing of their own children - particularly the boys. Not all people **want** to have children. What about the couples that remained childless? From this article’s point of view, they were at guilt for taking away good jobs. > [@](#): > > Indeed, if the men had been given their way, many would have been more than happy to have their daughters and wives working out there - for money - in order to help to pay the bills. But, I repeat, it would have been a recipe for social disaster for one family to have both parents earning while their neighbours had no income at all. > [@](#): > > And for feminists to keep blaming men for what Nature gave to women is pointless, hysterical and malicious. Indeed, if anything, the men of the past should be recognised for having devoted most of their waking hours to working (or, rather, slaving) in order to support their loved ones. > > While misandric feminists like to portray men as having oppressed women by ‘keeping them at home with the children’, it is clear that both genders benefited hugely from the deal. The WHOLE of society did. Further, what this deceitful and gullible group of women describes as ‘oppression’, was, in reality, men trooping out, day in, day out, to work, sometimes in the most awful jobs imaginable, in order for their families to survive as best as they could. This part bothers me the most. Poor men, slaving away for their wives and families while the women just watched tv at home all day. Can we get a :rolleyes: As I always understood, women in those days did plenty of tasks at home. In the pironeer days, they farmed, cooked, cleaned, did just as much, if not more, work as the men. > [@](#): > > The belief that women have been oppressed throughout History is only true to the extent that EVERYONE was oppressed by somebody else. For example, for every miner who ‘oppressed’ his wife at home, there was another man, an employer or manager, who oppressed 100 miners in the pits. And the idea that women were the only oppressed ‘victims’ in all of this is ridiculous, and completely beyond belief. > > One only has to look at the selfless way that men sacrificed their lives on the Titanic, where ‘women and children first’ was the order for escape and safety, to appreciate just how valuable the female gender was regarded by men in the recent past. This was the reality then, no matter what feminists will tell you about the ‘oppression’ and the ‘low status’ of women in those days. > > Indeed, if women had been truly oppressed and seen to be of low status, then they would have been oppressed right back into their cabins while the men escaped into the lifeboats! ::Nearly dies:: Ah, I understand it now, being treated like children without minds of their own is a way that men showed respect for women. Right. > [@](#): > > Indeed, there surely has never been a successful society in which women, as a whole, were treated badly. Well… you seem to be in denial of their bad treatment. > [@](#): > > The answer is that the female is weak and pathetic in comparison to the male - and this was especially so in more primitive times and places where muscles were almost as important as brains! Again, going back to my anthropolgy class, women provided most of the food for the family with their gathering. > [@](#): > > Indeed, even today, those groups that are still very much attached to ‘the family’ (such as found in many UK Asian communities) and the traditional roles contained therein, are doing exceedingly well in comparison to those where the ‘family’ is more loosely structured and where the men have, effectively, been disempowered. These latter groups (e.g. as found in many council estates) are failures, and they would disintegrate completely were it not for the fact that they are kept alive by tax burdens placed upon the rest of us. > > In conclusion, it seems that if in any social groups from the past had handed more power to their women and less to their men, they would, quite simply, have rapidly disappeared. I can not think of a culture where women did have more power, but if one did/does exist, I think it would work rather nicely. I know my arguments against this article are rather weak and I only took one course of anthro, so I could be totally wrong but… Please look over this and tell me what you think, dopers. ---
**Author:** ![Palo\_Verde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Palo\_Verde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palo_Verde)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/2 "2003-07-24T20:46:30Z")
I agree with part of the article. For most of history, women couldn’t really avoid having babies. For them, to be in a situation in which one has to take care of the home, children, plus have an outside job, is a huge extra burden. I imagine that for many of these women, having the luxury of staying home with the kids was liberating. But not all women. The point he misses is that life and society today are different what what he describes. Women can control their fertility. Have no children, or only a few if they want. This makes child rearing less (although still partially) an issue. There have always been some women more interested in a career than in having a family. Now they have that choice. And the economy has expanded so that if all women suddenly stayed home, we would have a huge worker shortage. Women who works aren’t taking away the only job available to support another family. So… this guy has some good points, but he’s mostly full of shit. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/3 "2003-07-24T21:21:57Z")
He does very well apart from his titular assertion - that women were weak and pathetic. This is manifestly untrue as is made clear by looking at primitive tribes today. His explanation of primogeniture is also lacking. Why not first-born child? There are a number of reasons, but the relevant one here is that childbirth was one of the most dangerous events for a woman. Just think of the problems that would arise if a reigning queen were to die in childbirth! ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/4 "2003-07-24T21:44:08Z")
Does the “society benefits when women stay home” argument also apply to the way women were denied the right to vote or in general to have a say in public life? The way they were treated as property? That seems to have happened across the board in societies, and I’d say it’s a direct result of the “men are superior physically, and are thus just plain superior” line of thinking that always developed. Likewise, from the quotes posted, the author appears to be arguing that society today is failing, or is failing its children and falling apart. I’d say that, given the record literacy, education, prosperity, and etc. enjoyed in so much of the West - I’m singling out the West here because that’s where feminism has made the greatest impact - this is not the case. He also seems to be implying that crime is going out of control, which as far as I know is also untrue. Further, in much of America at least, it is NECESSARY for both parents to work - it’s not just an exercise in feminist vanity or neglect of children. That’s the way things have developed, and going backwards won’t solve anything. ---
**Author:** ![jlzania](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/67e7ee/32.png) [@jlzania](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jlzania)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/5 "2003-07-24T22:47:01Z")
I think that the article is simplistic drivel. For one thing it fails to address the fact that the average woman has always worked in some capacity or another-be it in an agrarian role on a family farm or as a house servant, dairy maid, seamstress etc. What they haven’t had historically is an equal paycheck or even the right to retain their own wages. ---
**Author:** ![kimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f0a364/32.png) [@kimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kimera)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/6 "2003-07-24T22:59:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jlzania \* > \*\*I think that the article is simplistic drivel. > For one thing it fails to address the fact that the average woman has always worked in some capacity or another-be it in an agrarian role on a family farm or as a house servant, dairy maid, seamstress etc. > What they haven’t had historically is an equal paycheck or even the right to retain their own wages. \*\* That’s what I thought about it. From what I’ve studied, most women didn’t just remain in the house but were actively involved in the work. Even in cultures in which women were confined to the house mostly (middle-class ancient Japan I believe), they had the duty of running the household, taking care of the servants and had plenty of tasks. I don’t think that women ever just had the job of raising children, but rather were constantly doing work that was considered less than that of the ones men were doing. That was the major problem I had with the article. But again, I could have had the wrong impression of how things used to be. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/7 "2003-07-25T04:40:32Z")
Plus women have been working outside the home since time began-farming, factories, etc. Upper class women had someone else taking care of the kids. Lower class had the kids working as well. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/8 "2003-07-25T09:43:36Z")
**Ava** , while your OP subject is worth discussing, I wouldn’t use this “article” as the basis for a serious argument. It’s an anonymous opinion piece posted on an extremist agenda website. Did you read some of the other “articles” listed on the [**homepage**](http://www.angryharry.com/index.html): “Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?” “Women Responsible for Rape” “Domestic Violence - It’s Always The Same Women” “Men Are More Violent Than Women? … So What?” Or this manifesto: > [@](#): > > On this website - hither and thither - and with STRONG evidence - **FEMINISM** is shown to be a **CAUSAL** factor when it comes to violence, assault, domestic violence, sexual assault, robbery, child abuse, drug abuse, teenage pregnancies, poverty, poor educational standards, prostitution, paedophilia, harassment, bad manners, traffic congestion, pollution, terrorism, vandalism, burglary, murder, teenage delinquency, road rage, alcoholism, other addictions, hooliganism, depression, gender conflict, hysteria, the judicial punishment of innocent individuals, the poor educational achievement of boys, the growing prison population, family breakdown, the increasing alienation of men, the corruption of the justice system and the democratic process, the corrosion of academic integrity, the degradation of the social sciences and the law, poor public services, the impoverishment of pensioners and the looming pension crisis, long hospital waiting lists, hostile rap music, and the terrible shock now being experienced by thousands of women who are discovering that they are too old to have children. It gets worse from there (be sure to read THE THIRD MILLENNIUM piece that follows). It would be hilarious if it wasn’t serious. Unfortunately, there are people looking for scapegoats who will buy into this stuff without question. Sorry if this is hijack-ish, but I thought the source was worth noting. Also, **Ava** , could you post the link to the thread where this was first cited? (who on the SDMB seriously agreed with this and _why_???) ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/9 "2003-07-25T10:09:27Z")
IIRC, women stayed @ home AND worked. ---
**Author:** ![SanibelMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@SanibelMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanibelMan)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/10 "2003-07-25T15:56:50Z")
According to [this](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/25/international/asia/25JAPA.html?hp) article in today’s New York Times, the fact that the Japanese are resistant to allowing women to hold management and other high-power positions in the workplace is a large factor in their current economic slump. So Japan is suffering economically because women are either staying at home or doing nothing more than secretarial work. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/11 "2003-07-25T16:06:11Z")
Here’s what I don’t understand about that site. I don’t see why a site trying to fight misandry does it by publishing misogyny. Hate on both sides doesn’t make the situation better. ---
**Author:** ![jlzania](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/67e7ee/32.png) [@jlzania](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jlzania)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/12 "2003-07-25T16:36:14Z")
I went to the site and read an article or two. God give me strength- what a load of whiny crap. Women encourage sexual harrassement by dressing seductively. Women should bear total responsibilty if they become pregnant. Women are responsible for the failures of the NHS in England. It goes on and on. ---
**Author:** ![kimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f0a364/32.png) [@kimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kimera)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/13 "2003-07-25T16:37:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \* > **Ava, while your OP subject is worth discussing, I wouldn’t use this “article” as the basis for a serious argument. It’s an anonymous opinion piece posted on an extremist agenda website. Did you read some of the other “articles” listed on the [homepage](http://www.angryharry.com/index.html):** I didn’t, which was a big mistake. :eek: Is there a place where we can find reasonable arguments for his case? \*\* > [@](#): > > Also, **Ava** , could you post the link to the thread where this was first cited? (who on the SDMB seriously agreed with this and _why_???) \*\* It was on another message board (one for people with a certain hobby) and I believe it is against the rules to post links to discussions in other message boards on the SDMB. But most people on the other message board were very tolerate of it and said that the author “made a lot of good points” and things of that sort. I thought he was full of it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Elyzabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@Elyzabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elyzabeth)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/14 "2003-07-25T18:27:24Z")
Thank God you’re not the type saying you won’t be saved unless you believe this or that. Is your soul like tupperware and it has to be saved or it goes bad?! “Only the good die young and the wicked remain behind to repent their sins” I think is the quote. So here is hell if there’s such a thing… all of us are “saved”. We all go to heaven. It’s not the exclusive domain of Christians or followers of Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![Elyzabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@Elyzabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elyzabeth)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/15 "2003-07-25T18:34:13Z")
Oops. Wrong board. Please excuse me. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/16 "2003-07-25T19:28:03Z")
I believe women did a great deal of work historically. Homemaking was a big job before the invention of appliances, prepared food, etc. In fact, my impression is that women worked harder than men in some Native American tribes. However, during the period when I grew up, 1945- 60, women had been substantially pushed out of the workplace, but there was less work at home, due to advances in technology. Wives whose children were grown could play cards, gossip, hang out, go to the beauty parlor, do daytime radio and TV, etc. Since I’ve retired, my life is pretty much like that. I like it. So, I’d say that married women during that particular, brief period did have it better. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/17 "2003-07-25T20:11:45Z")
Like the old song says: Kept by my father ‘til I was a wife A slave to my husband the rest of my life. The good old days are gone and changed because they were not that good. It was a pretty restrictive view that relegated women to the role of wife and mother, nun or whore. Those were the good old days. Anybody really want them back? Did anybody consider what happens to the economy of the western world if women all go home to become brood mares? The social history of women and family has been one of continuing and progressive liberation from “Kuchen, Kinderen und Kirk.” While it may offend the more paternal among us, it has been a steady and beneficial progress and it is not about to stop. ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/18 "2003-07-25T22:29:24Z")
I’ve been unemployed for the past two years. I do the house-husband bit while Marcie goes to work every day. I cannot keep up with the housework. As my mother used to say, “A man may work from sun to sun, but a woman’s work is never done.” That’s true for a househusband, too. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/19 "2003-07-25T22:37:39Z")
I’d suggest that people these days simply don’t realise how hard life was even 100 years ago for both men and women. As **december** says, simply keeping house and home was a big job - and a lot of men and women were employed as maids or valets. **spavined gelding** I think you are being a bit biased. I’d suggest that the general improvement in the wealth of society has made it better for both sexes. Men hardly had it better. It’s easy to look at the upper echelons of society, but they were the minority - and within that minority, talented women could still shine like Sophie Germain, the Bronte sisters… Looking at the majority, you had both men and women working in the mines and fields and mills and factories. Again, compared with 100 years ago, the amount of leisure time we have is astounding. Further, until recently there was no concept of a state pension: your children supported you in your dotage in the rare event that you survived that long. Surviving to 60 was quite an achievement. This, of course, meant that the woman **had** to be pregnant and childrearing (and don’t forget that infant mortality was much higher) for a significant part of her life; it also meant that men **had** to provide for their wife and children. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710/20 "2003-07-25T22:46:01Z")
If you understood how much taxes have increased since the 1950’s, you would understand why women work today. Taxes now take up more than food, clothing, and shelter combined for the average family. In the 1950’s, there was no state income tax, property taxes were not much more than social security which was less than $200 max! Few families paid much if any federal income tax. The plain fact is, that most women today are working just to pay taxes. This is what everybody wants(an expensive government that provides a lot of welfare and services) , so there isnt much point in trying to rationalize other reasons for why women work today. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-had-it-better-in-the-past-should-remain-at-home-while-men-work/190710.md?page=2)