Why are people who want women to stay in the kitchen always obsessed with the American 50s?
Traditionally women have divided themselves into two categories: peasants who worked the fields, and noblewomen who enjoyed a life a luxury. Neither stayed in the kitchen. The peasant had to work the fields for her lady and the lady had nurses and maids and governesses to raise her children for her. That was the tradition among nobles, the child in its childhood would not be taken care of by the mother but by a nurse. Marie-Therese of Austria had her Archdukes and Archduchesses be nurses and caretakers to her children while she was busy running her Empire, upper class European families employed governesses to look after the children, etc. etc. Peasants just made their children work at age 6 rather than send them to school. The stay-at-home housewife is a modern invention of the middle class. Day care centers are nothing but the modern evolution of the old nurses and governesses. So why do "traditional gender roles FTW" hate them?
Personally I want the traditional gender role of the rich, powerful, spoiled noblewoman. I want to own land and riches, have my own army of servants at my command (including nurses and nannies to raise my children) and to be a matron of the arts. I also want to marry for political gain with a man who will expand my power.
Do americans just not have history?
Pic related a governess with someone's children.
>I want the traditional gender role of the rich, powerful, spoiled noblewoman. I want to own land and riches, have my own army of servants at my command (including nurses and nannies to raise my children) and to be a matron of the arts. I also want to marry for political gain with a man who will expand my power.
lol you're a fucking twat
>Why are people who want women to stay in the kitchen always obsessed with the American 50s?
Because they have the same mental and intellectual capacity as people from the 1950s. Sounds easy, but from what I have seen in the world, these guys exist. Ignoring them is the best way.
>So why do "traditional gender roles FTW" hate them?
Because they don't know shit about history.
For example, the idea of the non-working woman originated from the Biedermeier period.
There IS a certain grain of truth in the "traditional genderroles bullshit" they want to re-establish though - there were way more incentives for men to get married and have children with women. That is, even if things were tough back then, men and women gave each other support - in times ways worse than our current age.
>there were way more incentives for men to get married and have children with women. That is, even if things were tough back then, men and women gave each other support - in times ways worse than our current age
Depends on what that support entails. I'm not against giving a man my support, in principle, or have children with him, but I am very selective and picky about who to do all that with since I have no intention of lessening my quality and enjoyment of life for it.
honestly, i'm pretty sure it's not about "women stay in the kitchen" It's about the fact when no one is at home "making a home" which is actually very difficult to do, it takes a lot of intelligence and time to properly teach a kid behavior and educate as well as giving them emotional support and will power to succeed in life. and it takes a lot of time and energy to cook, and every one in the family unit should be putting energy into cleaning and maintaining a nice home.
Traditionally it was the role of the woman to do this, not because of "muh patriarchy" but because women do genuinely have a biological disadvantage(or advantage depending on how you want to look at it.)
Most modern women literally cannot even handle their period 2 weeks out of the month.
Every one wants to be "successful" in career paths and "succeed at life". But modern men do try to relate to past times when women accepted the biological roles that made sense.
It's harder for a man to provide and cultural shifts have made it less interesting for women to be stay at home moms or w/e. So those are some of the reasons that shit doesn't happen, why people want it, why people don't want it, and why it's harder to do in modern culture and society.
That's mostly in western countries though. Most countries still have traditional households, but even there women work from home, making chocolates or knit to make some extra cash(which is optional).
>That is, even if things were tough back then, men and women gave each other support
While this isn't untrue, there's also the shitty side where that 'support' was more just taking having someone to take your shitty life out on, and people just marry each other because they're supposed to or as a means to an end or because they're scared to be alone or because they're too young to think ahead. And when your lifestyle and social acceptance depends on staying together, making a mistake in who you marry could set you up for a life of misery.
But as I said, it's certainly not without merit, there are as many advantages as disadvantages. There's a certain temptation to a much simpler life where men just know they're going to get the best job they can to support a family and women know they're going to be the best home makers they can be and attract a man. But the catch is it's a bit too simple, it's naive and idealistic, and actual human beings are to complex to fit into such tidy boxes. Which sets people up to depend on each other and cheat on each other and abuse each other and feel like they're the only ones who just aren't getting it because it's not okay to be out of step with it all.
History is history and for a very good reason. People don't have to work on the fields now to feed themselves and they realised if they work and become entrepreneurs, they can live a much better life than enduring the shit of your cunty kind. Nobility was abolished for a very good reason.
Traditional gender roles are traditional because in societies close to nature that's how things settle in naturally, even if you try to spoil it up.(see second generation kibbutz societies in Israel)
The roles you mentioned are a byproduct of a gone society, and your wishes is just unhealthy.
Both my parents worked and I turned out fine. My father had no problem cooking and cleaning and taking care to raise me, and my family moved up the social ladder for it. I think you're generalizing bullshit.
Poor countries, yuck. Those women live in squallid conditions. I don't want that. You'll notice the richer, developed countries all have plenty of women in the workforce. And don't say "Western Women" because that happens in Japan, South Korea, Russia, Eastern Europe, Argentina, and the rich parts of Mexico, China and Brazil too. In fact it happens in every rich part of the world.
>It's harder for a man to provide
Good, weeds out the undesirables. Also men have a warped idea of what "provide" means. It'd be one thing if it were like the Japanese were the wife has complete, total and exclusive control of the family finances, and the man is only allowed a small allowance. But western men think "provide" just means basic shit I can get myself (and better than he can) by working, since it's all according to my tastes and choices. I want to improve my condition, not let it stagnate or make it worse.
I dunno, primitive tribes which are the societies closest to nature we have often have the women have a very active social life, give the possibility to have a role that's not just being a mother and make child-rearing a collective affair. The primitive African tribe Aka has the women hunting while the men nurse the children.
I think part of the problem you're having is due to ignorance, and part of it is that you're not too bright.
The idea that "women should stay in the kitchen" is not that kitchens are literally the only place a woman should be, it's that a woman's place is in the home taking care of her family.
The 1950's are relevant to this idea in the USA because families where the father worked and the mother stayed at home were the norm, and the 50's were relatively stable and prosperous economically. It's also the last time where a lot of white males didn't feel like they were under attack for being white and/or male. Oh, and do you think it's coincidence that a very large segment of the US population was raised in the 1950's, so growing up then is their experience?
You're making a straw man argument about something that isn't even really relevant to your original question, and your contention that everyone was a peasant/serf involved in agriculture or a noble is crap. It's such crap that you even refute it yourself. Cities didn't suddenly appear only in the middle of the 20th century even in the uncivilized backwater that is western Europe.
As far as fantasizing that you'd like to be born into wealth, sure, whatever. You might as well wish to be bitten by a radioactive spider so that you can become Spider-Man.
Though desu even the Japanese wah isn't good enough. If shit happens you end up in poverty and in misery, or if you get stuck with a lesser man you're stuck being poor forever. Having your own source of income makes social mobility easier, allows for better and greater mating options as it gives you access to the men of higher society, is fulfilling and rewarding, gives freedom and independence since you don't need to depend on someone to live, and is also a good safety net in case the male side goes rotten.
>>I want the traditional gender role of the rich, powerful, spoiled noblewoman. I want to own land and riches, have my own army of servants at my command (including nurses and nannies to raise my children) and to be a matron of the arts. I also want to marry for political gain with a man who will expand my power.
Sounds fine to me, I could give you all that but here's the problem princess, you don't get any political gain of your own, you have to earn that but not skate by on my coat tails.
And frankly I'd be more interested in you in the bedroom than anywhere else. Once you're less interesting in bed then it's out you go.
Look at the Clintons. Bill has more clout than Hilary. Without him she's nothing and she knows it. It's why she never got divorced and let him fuck his way through the political power belt. Now, he uses her to still fuck anything in a skirt and if she divorced him her power would dissipate.
Dream on babe. Make me a sandwiche and how about a little time in bed after. Good girl.
History is full of accounts of patrician women who did anything but stay in the kitchen and even in Ancient Greece women were traders, business owners, philosophers, poets, teachers, artists, musicians, priestesses, etc. Try again.
>The idea that "women should stay in the kitchen" is not that kitchens are literally the only place a woman should be, it's that a woman's place is in the home taking care of her family
Nah, I don't want that.
Thanks but no thanks, you're the kind of man to avoid.
What admire of the Japanese though are their many women artists. I love female mangaka's works and I want to make comics like that myself. An eventual husband and children would have to accomodate that since nothing makes me happier than creating my own works.
He's the kind of man who's sane.
Why would anyone give you pretty just for existing? You're just a spoilt brat nothing more. In the real world nothing is for free and people who has something aren't stupid (unless inherited from rich daddy and spoilt by out of touch with reality even more spoilt mommy)
Whoa there, I'm not demanding anything. It's men who are desperate to marry and have children, me I'm happy doing my thing. If a man wants to have a relationship with me, I have conditions. Otherwise I'm happy alone providing for myself.
>Traditionally women have divided themselves into two categories: peasants who worked the fields, and noblewomen who enjoyed a life a luxury.
Peasant women worked the fields, managed animals, raised children, but spent a great deal of time cooking and preparing to cook. They also raised children and often - made outside money with projects and artisanal businesses. In the majority of traditional societies hard currency was earned by the wife as much as the husband.
Aristocratic women *also worked* - they had to manage the cellars, pantries, etc.; manage and care for the staff; and yes, they supervised the kitchen. The traditional symbol of a female aristocrat's authority was her ring of keys - she was in charge of making sure the manor/etc. was prepared for any emergency.
The merchant class is a lot older than you think, as well as the artisan class - these women worked in the home and outside of it raising children and running side businesses and cooking a great deal.
Further, nurses and governesses did not remove the mother - she still spent a great deal of time *raising her children*.
Being a high-born woman was a full time job for all but a tiny handful, and they spent their time in their quarters powerless and gossiping.
>he thinks the Roman Empire fell because of smart women
>he thinks he's not trash
A man who is not genuinely interested in a woman but just wants to use her as a sex toy and daycare center is the one who's trash. It really is best to avoid people like you, you'd only make me unhappy.
Daycare centers do not remove the parents either so you have no point.
Also your fetish for cooking is bizarre, modern instruments and pre-made food take a lot of less time and I've never cared for elaborate food. I like simple, quick, easy meals anyone can make and if someone wants more than that he can make it himself.
If those women tech their kids actual values, Rome wouldn't have gone bankrupt. Who says I would use any woman? I avoid your kind and share my life with an emotionally healthy woman who I can hold dear and love because she is a real woman and in exchange I give her the best of myself and be a man.
>Who says I would use any woman?
The fact you don't accept a woman having life and ambitions of her own, buddy. You just want to use her for your own gain and dictate her life. No need to be butthurt then when women want to do the same.
I saw a hilarious bit by Steve Hughes regarding how women were tricked out of the home because the government was only getting 50% of taxes from their population, and so on.
Taking care of a home is a full time deal, and the husband brought home a paycheck you both spent, in middle class. In poor class, you both worked, huh... kinda like now? And then you had to take care of the home when you got done with your 12 hours in "the jungle" for pennies and no medical care if you lose a finger.
Anyway, look at Japan. If the wife stays home, she controls the finances. It wasn't that different in the western world either prior to the 20th century.
Now I don't usually post images like this because I don't think anyone here will get it, but sometimes you have to bring down the house of cards.
Coming from a girl who actually was the breadwinner while my boyfriend stayed home-
I'm confused as to what your actual point is.
Stay at home wives are nothing to be turning your nose up at. At least, ones who do it correctly. Many people itt have given you an idea of what it was like.
More too but I'm sick of looking through the thread.
Anyways, it seems like you're just complaining/blogposting.
Even Japan abandoned that idea since the man would bitch and complain and moan about the wife's choices or become violent with her and he didn't earn enough for her anyway.
Nowadays Japanese women earn their own money to spend as they please with no one to bitch or turn violent at them. And they're happy and fulfilled for it too, just look at all the women mangaka and animators who are more than happy to sacrifice family for their passions. That's what I want too.
I accept her having a life of her own, I also don't want to support and share my life with someone who doesn't have good values and who is self centered. It's simply not attractive. I want to share love with her and being each other happiness. A concept you will never understand because pride and selfishness clouds your judgement.
Others can do what they want, but you people seem bent to force me to deny my will and that's unacceptable. Not every woman is happy being a homemaker or doesn't have big dreams. That's what you retards don't understand.
No one's forcing you to do anything. If you want to be the breadwinner, be the fucking breadwinner. If you want 50/50, get 50/50.
Not all men want a housewife just like not all women want to be a housewife.
You're coming across like a stubborn child in the way you post.
They do, but most misogynistic men are the ugly middle-low class wagers. That's why they want a girl to reserve herself for him because he can't get it on his own due to being ugly inside and out. They favor that structure for their own insecurities.
Every girl wamts to be a noble's woman, but there aren't many rich and attractive guys out there, so we try to earn our own income that way.
Fuck you, fuck every girl like you, I don't care if you're just a troll because there are girls like you out there. You are the reason my gender is turning to shit.
I see, I just never get what produces people like this. Deep rooted daddy issues with mommy spoiling her? I just don't get it how people can live their whole life for pride and close their eyes to the best and most importantly things in life.
Why do you care what the men here want? Are you seriously looking into marrying one of these men? Get outside and find someone who has the same beliefs as you.
If you wanted a loving relationship you wouldn't want to enslave women.
My happiness and well-being are among the most important things in life, and they don't necessarily come from a man or children. Dunno what's so hard to understand.
> there aren't many rich and attractive guys out there, so we try to earn our own income that way.
>Such entitlement. Wow!
>we try to earn our own income
>our own income
Alright ladies that's enough.
So you own property? You get a round of applause.
While you are miserable and complaining on 4chan, I'm simply killing time before I come home to my wonderful boyfriend who treats me like a fucking queen and who I treat like a king. We are going to go out, have fun, fuck like rabbits, go to sleep, wake up and do it all over again. This conversation will be forgotten the second I close this thread.
But you will always be a miserable, lonely cunt trolling on 4chan for ??? profit?
Have a nice life :)
Not really, I'll be coming home to three boyfriends and a girlfriend soon, as a fellow bread winner and property owner.
Jealousy is really unattractive, dear.
Because people are going to take her seriously.
It's like a rage thread at this point. I read them, I get pissed, then I close the thread and continue with my life.
Lol, you're probably up in arms because you actually don't own property. You never mentioned a house in your posts, just your boyfriend.
Here's your entitled women example guys.
Damn, thought I was in there. I'll just have to go home and chill with my other wives I guess.
>obsessed with the American 50s?
It was after US recovered from the great depression, but before it succumbed to all the gibsmedats.
I don't agree with single mothers. Raising a child yourself is impossible, I'd rather abort it. Either my man agrees to daycare centres/kindergarten/etc and is willing to look after the baby too, take time to be with it and so on since I don't want to quit working, or I won't have children.
She's right. It's why guys like me get to pick and choose. I married a super bright, gorgeous and well balanced woman. I get to fuck many more.
Wifey knows it'd be dumb to throw in the trappings of wealth because I am the generator and incubator. Other girls compete to fuck me because they want to prove they're better than wifey and their peers.
Life is sweet.
Because they believe the lies their families told them about that time period and the shows made about them.
So much alcoholism and drugs during the 50s, it isn't funny. Also, you could beat the shit out of anyone who was different from you in any way for yuks and the cops would not give a damn so long as you won the fight. So it was a lot of drunken brawls, cheap substances and easy pussy so long as you didn't exchange physical cash for it.