How was it possible for an average man to support his wife from

>>2985075
Society realized there were too many wagecucks saturating the market and so wages adjusted accordingly since individual laborers have lower wage bargaining power.

>>2985082

(((Capitalism))) strikes again

>>2985075
Capitalism obviously.

But do people not realise women were also in the workforce? Only a minority of rich women sat around doing nothing.

The white picket fence women at home rearing the children was a blip not a historical norm.

>>2985075
>>2985082
>>2985167
>>2985184
Most commoner women worked so that's obviously all bullshit.
>go on /his/
>don't even bother to read a history book

>>2985204
Domestic work. Don't act like there isn't a huge difference.

>>2985204

Wrong. Just wrong.

Poorfag women and single women worked but married women working is a very recent thing. In 1900 ~10% of married women worked in the US. In 1940 it was 1 in 6. In 1880 about 1 in 20 married women worked in the US. In Britain in the middle of the century something like 4% of married women worked.

Most women did not work, since they married young and most married women didn't work; only if you were an ultra poorfag.

>go on /his/
>spout feminist propaganda

>>2985184

>get taken care of your whole life by your husband
>no that's ok honey 55 hr weeks at the office sound more fun

Are women literally retarded?

File: die-aehrenleserinnen.jpg (63KB, 600x453px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 600x453px

>>2985284
>>2985263

lmao are you guys stupid or what?

women had to do backbreaking work longside with ther husbands if they were peasants, which was the vast majority of people.

then with the Industrial revolution, women and children alike went into the industries, the mines and all that. then after getting social rights, we see the middle class ideal of the working man and the domestic mother. after female liberation feminism and al that we see the crumbling of this institution as well.

today it is a bit chaotic, with all sorts of constructions like working 3/5, 1/2, still one person at home and one working, step-families, single mothers, massive amount of singles,....

obviously this goes for the common people, not for nobility or rich Merchants/bourgeois/patricians/...

File: abs08z.jpg (49KB, 394x380px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 394x380px

>>2985823
This, only based muslims didn't force their women to wagecuck for them.

>>2985823

Are you stupid or what? We're literally only talking about 1815 to the 70s you Hmong. I posted stats that showed most women in this time didn't work; you went off in another direction.

>>2985842

tfw live in the West and all the women here fell for the working meme

File: housing.jpg (76KB, 558x727px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 558x727px

>>2985075
One reason would be that until the 1900s a lot of people worked 60 week hours and lived a far lower standard of living compared to us.

I could just about support a family on my part time work wage. But I wouldn't want to because pretty much all the money would go into basic needs.

File: sdf.jpg (134KB, 800x642px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 800x642px

>>2985842

imo what did the most damage in general was the fact that work place became divorced from living place.

peasants used to work on their own land on the commons, and the trades and guilds all had their own shop, street, piece of town,.... soldiers had their own barracks and training place, nobility ruled, taxed, governed directly from their estates and manors. everyone ahd their place, where they worked, lived,... among their neighbours and family.

ofcourse you always had the misfits, the beggars, the poor, day workers,....not saying it was a utopia.

the Industrial revolution, the expansion of commerce, the service sector,... but above all the enclosures started the idea of going somewhere to work, to work for someone, to work not for your own needs but for the satisfaction of someone else with whom you had (and have) no connection but your job.

even in feudalism you ofcourse had to work for your lord or pay taxes, but though the land in theory belonged to the lord, in reality it was your own, to do with as you pleased, provided you paid taxes or harvested the land of the owner and left his hunting game alone, you had the commons, you worked where you lievd, no spatial divorce between huband, children and wife and sometimes even extended family,...

an important reason for the decline of traditional male authority is that men were supposed to leave the house to work, leaving their wives in charge, had to leave education to the school, and then were yet supposed to be the patriarch of the family. this is nonsense ofcourse.

even today being able to work from home is seen as a symbol of status, a very desirable thing.

>>2985865

>trading strong happy families for another car

This is why Muslims are literally outbreeding you. I'm Asian and wh*tes are pathetic d esu

>>2985860

yea nice stats without any source you mong.


>Most women did not work, since they married young and most married women didn't work; only if you were an ultra poorfag.

you are a retard.

>>2985075

>tfw you'll never get to have a pure, obedient wife who's dependent on you and looks up to you

Feels bad man. We should've just imprisoned or shot all the suffragette leaders during WWI for sedition.

>>2985919
are you that insecure?

>>2985942

Why would I not want to retain as much power in a relationship as possible?

>>2985963
Out of respect for the other person in said relationship?

>>2985969

Equality is a meme. Families and marriages were hierarchical for all history until the love meme came around 100-150 years ago.

>>2985969

Also a power imbalance is not "lack of respect". I would love to have said wife like I described but I would absolutely consider it my duty to keep her in a respectable material state, guide her and protect her. It's not like I'm Fritzl tier

>>2985823
> women and children alike went into the industries
Most of the women working in industry were young and unmarried. Once they settled down with a man they quit the job because domestic work back then was practically a full time job.

>>2985075
Around the early 70s, inflation continued to rise but wages did not.

>>2985075

Lifestyle

If you live in a small home, the wife makes all food from scratch including produce from garden, and only use electricity for cooking and cleaning and a tv, if you mow your grass with a handpowdered cylinder-mower, if you wear clothes until they fall apart and then the wife sews them back together, and the kids start doing odd-jobs as young as possible

Then it is perfectly liveable to support a family on a middle-income from a factory or somesuch.

Thing is that many middle-class jobs are dissapearing and you either make mad dough or earn 10 bucks an hour

Also saving up for big deposits on car and home instead of frivolous credit-card spending and mortgaging a home that takes 70% of your income because you need to live in the right zip-code

>>2986701

Why was that

loads of women worked, often unpaid, but nonetheless. in britain they had a role even in male dominated unions
http://www.historyworkshop.org.uk/west-yorkshire-lasses-female-trade-unionism-and-its-radical-past/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_matchgirls_strike_of_1888
only middle class and upper class women didn't have to, but since they control the narrative, that's the picture that was painted of that era
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/what-19th-century-women-really-did

>>2987362

Only middle and upper class people matter anyway; poorfags are just expendable.

>>2987362

Also,

>spotlighting basically the SJWs of Victorian Britain and claiming they represent a typical Victorian woman

>>2985823
>women had to do backbreaking work longside with ther husbands if they were peasants, which was the vast majority of people.

Yes, however there is a huge BUT. That backbreaking work was only about 6 or 7 weeks out of the year. This time was divided into planting season and harvest and was months apart. Other then that peasants did very little work outside of domestic stuff.

The issue is that during planting season and harvest it takes all of the peasants time & effort, plus that of their kids and in many cases seasonal hired workers on top of that. Thus the peasants can not do any economic activity that can not be stopped or put on the back burner during those time periods. Leaving the farm during the summer months for work elsewhere faced very real logistical issues. Goods for resale could be done, but the demand was very limited because everyone had tons of free time to make the things they needed. Access & transportation to larger markets also faced logistical issues.

The work thru system fixed the latter issue way better then previous attempts. A merchant would buy the tool & supplies needed to make a good and then hire a peasant family to make said good. He would leave the tools with them and come back at a given time to put everything up. This very simple system took til the mid 1720s to become thing a thing.

Before the work thru system peasant would, barring labor taxes, have very little to do during the summer or winter months.

>>2987437
Wew that's pretty edgy

>>2989281

Nothing he said was incorrect, R*ddit