Let me unpack.
Many of the posts in anti-work are about a time where one male breadwinner was able to provide for their whole family, often without a college degree.
Part of the reason these systems worked was because companies didn’t expect both men and women to be in the workplace. They expected one person to work, and so wages were commensurate to a time when there was a significantly tighter labor force.
One of the many goals of second wave feminism was to bring more women into the workforce, and for equality of opportunity to work.
Well that is a windfall for corporations because all of a sudden you’re doubling the labor force, which keeps wages down. There is good evidence that despite a huge increase in productivity in the 1980s and 1990s, wages didn’t rise in large part because there were so many more workers entering the workforce. That increase in workers comprises of women and immigrants.
I am 100% in favor or the equality of rights and opportunity between all genders (I.e. a feminist) and also think we need to allow way more immigration into the US. But some of the erosion of workers rights and stagnant wages are because of these we’ll intentioned policies.
So I guess my point is summed up by:
– Posts glorifying single family breadwinners in this thread ignore the fact that that was possible in large part because society limited the rights of women from entering the workforce. When I see posts like – “my grandfather was a MaiLMan and took care of a whole family” – all I can think is, well I bet his wife was at home raising 4 kids without any support, and maybe that’s a damn shame she could’ve been a nuclear physicist.
– does anyone else ever think like that?