Why do you men believe, without irony, that historically women did not work or were involved in providing for the family and place in different ways? this romantic view is historically false.. my arguments below
Why do you men believe, without irony, that historically women did not work or were involved in providing for the family and place in different ways?
the needs of pregnancy and child rearing also mediated the jobs that were typically performed by women, it's obvious, even the most "redpill" man knows this, but it goes further;
Craftsmen's wives typically helped run their businesses in one way or another
and For most of human history, “housekeeping” included things like sewing, waving, feeding animals, making minor repairs as needed, etc. You had to wash something all the time, with your hands. And that doesn't even include the fact that, for most of human history, women have actually helped with the work necessary to provide food. Feed the animals, be part of the harvest. From the Neolithic Anatolians to the feudal peasants, in fact, even among the WHG, collecting was often the main or irreplaceable means of feeding the group...
But the point is that, for most of human history, women outside the nobility could not help but help support their families.
Her vision of what is a traditional female role is a product of the modern, urban sentiment of the wage earner, where the family does not produce goods for its own survival, providing only work. It's not traditional, my dear men. And it's not really stable enough to thrive and survive long term....it's never been that way. Women were just as important and played roles in social support in different ways, especially in the family.
Therefore, assuming that all of this is male is historically false
To conclude, the "bringing" vision we see in the midst of ideological groups is, at the very least, a sentiment reeks of the modernist, urbanite bullshit. Traditional roles were born from inherent differences between men and women, living their lives and trying to survive and thrive, not some form of navel gazing about who does what
Thank you
>For most of human history, “housekeeping” included things like sewing, waving, feeding animals, making minor repairs as needed, etc. You had to wash something all the time, with your hands. And that doesn't even include the fact that, for most of human history, women have actually helped with the work necessary to provide food. Feed the animals, be part of the harvest. From the Neolithic Anatolians to the feudal peasants, in fact, even among the WHG, collecting was often the main or irreplaceable means of feeding the group...
Doesn't this also imply modern day stay at home wives (or husbands as that too started appearing even if in small numbers) is currently much easier than it was in the past?
Also your idea is sound, though i don't understand the purpose of it. Have you encountered any person that actually believes women in say the middle ages just sat around and did nothing? I feel like everyone knows women worked throught human history, as the vast majority of families in history couldn't afford to have members of the family not provide any labor.
>This also doesn't imply that modern wives stay at home (or husbands either)
What did you really mean? I do not know if I understand.
but no, what I meant was that even domestic tasks were not the same as we thought in the 60s. In addition to not being restricted to the domestic environment.
>is it much easier today than it was in the past?
tell me you;
Did they have washing machines? dryers? Practical and fast ovens? market with ready-to-cook foods? Did the majority live inside or outside the cities? just to name a few examples. Life in the countryside was extremely complicated. even for women.
>Also, your idea is good, although I don't understand the purpose of it. Have you ever met someone who actually believes that women in, say, the Middle Ages, just sat around and did nothing?
Yes. this is very common. the idea of how ancient women lived is the same as an American housewife in the 60s, and that they never worked.
>I feel like everyone knows that women have worked throughout human history, as the vast majority of families in history could not afford for family members to not provide any work.
you felt wrong then.
and providing work is extremely what we are talking about here
>you felt wrong then.
I'm noticing this now, though it is baffling.
I meant it is moronic to base your definitions on what the people around you think, as then it becomes a highly subjective matter that isn't worth discussing.
>The simples way is making money. Housework doesn't make money, so its not work.
Alright, therefore serfs or slaves never worked a day in their lives according to you, if you believe this definition makes sense despite the very clear issues with it i don't know what else to tell you.
Housework doesn't produce shit, so if you don't consider money a viable metric, then what else?
>Housework doesn't produce shit
Neither do service jobs, yet you probably believe they are jobs nonetheless
>so if you don't consider money a viable metric
Neither do you, otherwise you would be mentally demented enough to believe serfs and slaves weren't working as they weren't getting paid.
Matilda of Tuscan
Ok but I just need a wife, I don't really mind any of this, if the woman is useful that's great
Because when people think of women in history they think of wealthy 19th century women or 20th century housewives who were effectively NEETS and not the vast majority of women across all of history
Yes
pretty much this. women were never not uninvolved in commerce historically, they were just placed in subservient roles. Every woman in my family in living memory worked most of their lives, save one, whose husband became a successful businessman.
I would say their were than just NEETS, they were spoiled childs, and now that the artificial conditions to have them at home doing nothing productive are no more people still treat them as little princesses, leading to many of today problems
Actually no
This is where conservatives and communists get lost....
women always actually worked.
especially with the various extended families, and I say more
I grew up in a rural area in Kosovo and many women had toned legs and arms from the effort of being a farmer.
>Women worked… at home!
Ok? These prostitutes still shouldn’t be in the conventional labor force or the military or the government. Women helping with the family business, or cleaning the house bothers nobody.
In which country do you think this idea of feminity is most widespread?
now thousands of egalitarians will appear with their fanfics, oops, personal stories.
blame capitalism.
and before you come and bother me> I'm not a communist
It turns out that it was capitalism that removed women from their ancient work practices and general assistance due to industrialization, the funny thing about this was that it put women back into work roles LOL.
The rural families that went to the rural exodus were literally shocked and took a while to get used to the fact that women did nothing but just stay at home, many of these families had their wives and daughters as helpers and direct contributors
I'm not a feminist, but saying that civilization is male is an exaggeration.
No? Just history. Now, if YOU do not like... well, your own problem
>Just history. Now, if YOU don't like it... well, that's your problem
Why is it my problem? I may not want to hear other arguments? "you" do exactly the same thing here, you are acting as if this is an argumentative monopoly. Hold your anger, you little woman
1. improve your English, it looks like a child forgetting
2. >Why is it my problem? Yes. It is. just as those who deny the land have their own problems.
3. >May I not want to hear other arguments? Maybe you can, but it only takes someone to be able to refute this, it's kind of difficult to debate against facts, isn't it my friend? but we are waiting for counterarguments
>"you" do exactly the same thing here, you are acting as if this is an argumentative monopoly.
no? As my friend said... THEY ARE FACTS, it's not my opinion or that of the OP, they're facts, nowaaaa if for some reason you fell for the fantasy argument of post-English industrial revolution traddudes, I'm more sorry you're 100% wrong. I wanted to see what you would do if you were thrown back to 1400 and told your wife to stay at home hahahaha
I didn't even argue about the female role in wars.
go home
>Hold your anger, you little woman
I'm married and I have 3 children, I'm not a "woman", but you're angry... maybe you're the woman
Lol
the level of arrogance is disgusting
but you didn't answer the main question, as you said, this is not a monopoly, I have the right to hear other arguments
Very cringe
we said exactly that haha
Combination of industrialized agriculture and overpopulation inflating the cost of living (mainly due to pressure from mass immigration).
And?
I already know that
Yes.
see that the view of women at home comes directly from the 1920s, because even in the 1800s, they still basically worked and had jobs outside the home.
they worked in the fields, raised animals, etc. as the OP mentioned, especially the medieval accounts and descriptions are clear about how women also performed such functions, in fact, seeing the father as the only figure who worked and brought in money is false.
Of course
A good wife is her husband's partner. A second pillar of your shared family.
believe that women have never worked historically and it is men's job to let them do nothing but stay at home and watch soap operas
I don't know if this is true or if it is being exaggerated to say the least.
It seems to me that it was written by a proto-feminist woman, does anyone have any different thoughts on this? Here everyone apparently agreed.
Yes.
and a woman being a "housewife" in the sense that we all imagine comes directly from a feminist or romantic vision. at least
Until recently (1870) the idea of seeing women as just housewives never existed, it is a new concept and not widely applied until the end of the industrial revolution, where the same women worked in the same way at the beginning.
Honestly, I don't know why there are people who think that a trad wife = stays at home
In the ancient world, Celtic and medieval women participated directly in agriculture and the provision of crops; in medieval France, women were a kind of "accountant" for their husbands, and most tailors had a very practical female presence. whether directly in the form of employees or in the form of "bosses" alongside their husbands....
as this anon said:
Even today in remote places, women work.
traditional and their lies have lost, again
you forgot the most important part
>We wouldn't have to hire third world people as pseudo-slaves if your selfish bunch continued with the status quo. The 30s were a mistake, just like that.
with women being helpers in these jobs and having a general (not total, mind you) role, migrants would be basically useless.
This is very disingenuous, they worked to provide for their family or husband, they did not took over their future husband joke. They helped, not compete.
Why go so far madam OP?
just look at the agricultural societies in Galicia, northern Portugal, eastern Ireland, etc.
All of them women work, whether in the fields or in some family business.
in Portugal families that sell cheese, for example, their workers are women and children, they play a role in the trade as well
STRANGELY, everyone has the same opinion.... either we find something that everyone IQfy agrees with or it's the same people commenting with their pre-conceived views and I read very similar arguments in a topic similar to this
Hummmmm
I just dislike women
No
Patriarchal bros.. i dont fell so good
Patriarchy is based, but just like monarchy, if you don't reciprocate with your family members/estates it's bound to frick up, and if not with you, with your descendants.
????
>for most of History, women were "that huntress/farmhand/commonhand tomboy girl next door"
just another proof that this is objectively the worst time to live in historically
I heit wamen
Whatever b***h post breasts where the frick do you think you are?
as I thought;
no one refuted it
Working means getting paid to do something. Doing housework and chores is hardly work(in the modern sense).
Nta
>Working means getting paid to do something.
not necessarily. as I showed here:
women had various trades and occupations, which is work.
>Doing household chores is hardly work (in the modern sense).
Depends on what you're talking about, a house alone? with children? husband? big or small house? It's not that simple. but even if it were, women were never restricted to just the domestic space.
Women could not be merchants and sell stuff in muslim societies.
As I said, when modern people hear the word "work" they think of a job, not washing dishes or milking the goats.
When men say women didn't work in the past, they mean to say women were never a serious economic competitor for a job. Women didn't compete for the same job that men do.
At least that's what I think.
>Women could not be traders and sell things in Muslim societies.
they could. Commerce was never restricted to the act of making long trips on ships, as I said above, many families had family businesses where women participated in this, especially in ancient cities. In the Middle Ages, for example, many women were traders and tailors.
Like I said, when modern people hear the word “work,” they think of a job, not washing dishes or milking goats.
It's not really what they say, but it's not important.
The act of working for any nation is limited to joining companies, as you said, working in the field are the various examples, to which women have always been included. again, your view is based solely on 21st century women.
>When men say that women didn't work in the past, they mean that women were never serious economic competitors for a job.
I already answered this above.
>Women did not compete for the same job as men.
At least that's what I think.
and when industrial companies did not exist? what about the peasants? everything pre-from the rural exodus? his argument is based on the world of the 1960s.
women worked and contributed to supporting the family, always
Feminists and tradguys are both wrong
Work is something you get paid to do, you just have a liberal definition of work.
>Work is something you get paid to do
That's dumb, according to your logic an independant producer of goods isn't considered a worker because he gets an income through the sale of his produce rather than getting a salary or forward pay to make said goods.
I never said that.
You do a job and you get paid, I never implied you need a boss or a manager.
Dude, she's btfo you 100%
I'm a dude, not op
Right, then with this premise in mind medieval serfs weren't workers either, as they didn't get paid but were simply allowed to keep a part of the agricultural produce they grew.
Similarly, a farmer that worked in his fields and sold only a portion of his produce has only worked the amount of hours spent to work on what he sold, and not the actual hours he spent to cultivate his crops.
You guys are forgetting money is used to purchase first and foremost necessities, if you are doing something to go past the middlemen and procure said necessities directly you are working.
Medieval workers were workers, but they weren't workers in the modern sense. Since most people didn't live by wages, but by their produce. Only craftsmen and traders who go from town to town would have a wage the way we do.
This of course depends on the region and time we are talking about.
Workers produce goods, tangible goods you can consume or interact with. House work and the job most women would work do no produce anything. The chickes were paid or bartered with the man's labour/money, the cows, sheep, goats, land and so on. The women and the children (elderly assuming you had one)just maintain what the man bought or made. They don't produce things.
>Workers produce goods, tangible goods you can consume or interact with.
tailoring either produced clothing or was used to repair it, so a good was either produced or was rendered usable so you could use it.
>Workers produce goods
So services aren't included in your idea of work? Does this mean chefs or doctors aren't considered as workers, neither today nor throught history?
If their services are considered as work, wouldn't work put into a household also be considered as such?
And don't change the definition once again and arbitrarely define that only service jobs require a wage to be considered work, give a clear definition and make it so that it can apply to all jobs whilst excluding housework, you cannot prove your point in any other way.
Most tailors in history were males.
Chefs and doctors are workers because their job is a profession, they sell something, to gain something. Making youself a sandwich and cooking in restaurant are two different things.
"Housework" is not a real profession, maids, buttlers, that's a profession, but cooking and cleaning the house is not work.
A woman doesn't trade her houseskills for being a wife.
>Most tailors in history were males.
As a professional function, yes.
>doctors are workers because their job is a profession, they sell something, to gain something
You are fitting your definition so that services are included ONLY when they are being sold while also claiming that production jobs can be considered as work even when you aren't selling, it is a sloppy and inconsistant definition.
"Housework" is not a real profession
Agreed, however it remains fundamental work that must be done. An activity doesn't have to be a profession to be categorized as work.
Would you say the overwhelming majority of professions were dominated by men? Historically.
No.
the Agricultural environment certainly does not.
Women don't plough fields though.
No.
They contributed a lot in the process, whilst the heaviest duties might be done my males for obvious reasons, women would still for example plant the seeds, harvest crops, prepare them for preservation, tend to animals and other hard labor functions they shared with males, whilst doing the household chores necessary to keep the machine running.
A lot of work was done by both men and women and then they had their own gender specific roles to be able to survive as a unit.
and I forgot to say it;
you lost
But housework isn't work
Is that why you live in squalor?
Is a hunte-gatherer who lives in the savannah a worker?
You're not a hunte-gatherer who lives in the savannah.
Yeah, i herd goats in Bulgaria and my neighbour herd sheep.
Goats are such fricking moronic animals by the way.
Nevermind, you have an excuse for living in squalor, I apologize for my barbs.
Well why wouldn't they be workers? While their means to sustain themselves differ from that of the independant farmer or the person that exchanges their labor for money, they still work to obtain the resources they need to survive. Yes they are workers.
This
Then a lion is also a worker and all the animal kingdom is full of workers.
I'd say limiting the scope of human categorizations such as "worker" to humans exclusively makes more sense, but if you really wanted to extent it to animals you could definitely draw some parrallels between us and them, while we are just different species, we both require resources to sustain ourselves, and generally speaking we have to work to obtain said resources, though in our case the process is more sophisticated.
It wasn't a good argument.
Firstly, no one is talking about domestic work, and secondly you said they didn't work in the fields... which is a lie, besides being irreplaceable, their work was very important.
Do you realize how hard it is to maintain a land? Do you really think that just men in the field would be viable?
Professions? perhaps, since in many societies women weren't allowed to perform a lot of professions due to strict gender roles, however that doesn't mean they weren't working or that their work wasn't fundamental, and most would be born into certain professions anyways (for example farming).
True, women can work, i never said they can't. Maids, cooks, merchants in non muslim societies, but housework isn't work. Its not a job. Sorry.
I have goats, i have chickens and I have planted potatoes, tomatoes and corn. I don't sell them and they are for personal consumption. Are you going to say I work in the agricultural sector od society? Frick goats btw, it was easier raising pigs than these moronic animals.
>True, women can work, i never said they can't.
Exactly, how they did since the Neolithic
>True, women can work, i never said they can't.
Well then we agree, women can work and have done so throught history.
>I don't sell them and they are for personal consumption. Are you going to say I work in the agricultural sector od society?
That's a good question. You definitely are working while tending to them, assuming you have another primary employment you could probably say you have a secondary occupation in the agricultural sector, no? I don't know if you would fit the modern day criteria to be considered a worker of the sector, but for sure you would fit those of an independant mountain farmer of the middle ages who produced only for his consumption, even if it was a full time thing for him 🙂
>Frick goats btw, it was easier raising pigs than these moronic animals.
Never raised either but i fully believe you, pigs seem far more laid back.
Feminist, ok
Not once have i mentioned modern day politics, that women have been an important part of human history is obvious, they are 50% of the population, them working was a either a necessity or an advantage to keep the species going and thriving.
Old feminism is ok?
Humm
now being direct and without using other people's examples;
How does this refute what I actually commented?
Work is when you get paid to do something, women don't get paid for housework just like Timmy doesn't get paid to do his weekly room cleaning.
If work is producing goods then women don't work because they don't produce shit.
You simply consider any time of activity a human can do work, when most people would consider work making money or making shit.
>Work is when you get paid to do something
Then serfs never worked a day in their lives.
>If work is producing goods then women don't work because they don't produce shit.
Then service workers never worked a day in their lives.
>You simply consider any time of activity a human can do work, when most people would consider work making money or making shit.
That is a moronic way to determine what is work and what isn't.
>That is a moronic way to determine what is work and what isn't.
The simples way is making money. Housework doesn't make money, so its not work.
He regulates work just by whether it is paid or not.
well;
In my country there is a concept of people who take care of other people's properties when the owners are away, and get paid for it, in the same way that today's employees receive a salary, but magically this becomes work today and not in the middle ages or in the world old for the simple reason that they are paid? it reduces the concept and work just for the salary
its main argument is the word "Work"...
Well, if that bothers you so much, imagine that I used the word "office"
but my point still stands.
women had several "jobs" outside the domestic environment, even considering that work is something when it is paid
Housekeeping doesn't make money tho.
Most have never worked outside or have any experience subsistence farming or living in a closed, self sufficient community. They wouldn't know, and what they think they know is tainted by pop culture and lack of historical knowledge.
Only in the modern days
Kind of. Quite a few people, especially in rural areas in the US, still live fairly traditionally. I raise chickens/meat rabbits and have a garden to feed myself and my family. I live somewhat traditionally, so does my family and so does my wife's. This extends to our neighbors as well. While we don't go whole hog and aren't exactly a 1:1, we share enough overlap with our ancestors to get a good idea of how they lived and what the daily and seasonal beats of life were.
You are right that it doesn't hold true for most modern households though. The flow of work is totally different from modernity.
You don't understand what I said and you don't even realize that exactly what you argued has already been said... it's a shame that people write before reading.
>Why do you men believe, without irony, that historically women did not work or were involved in providing for the family and place in different ways
This is what OP posted. I replied.
>Most have never worked outside or have any experience subsistence farming
The next reply was
>Only in the modern days
Which is rather vague and open ended.
No, I am not going to read through the entire thread to see if my point has been made word for word.
Well, you are wrong.
Farm wives are some of the hardest workers in the whole world. Salt of earth
Whatever you are trying to say is false as it presumes that the modern 9-5 is remotely similar to life on a farm