I see a very common claim today in response to the "traditionalist" question: that women have always "worked hard," and that traditional women as housewives is merely a propagated American myth that is no older than the 1950s, and that before that, they worked whatever they did. To what extent is this claim sound and legitimate? My personal example: my family comes from Tuscan migrants, and my ancestors in Italy were not rich, nor were they poor, and my great-great-grandmother is remembered as an excellent cook. So? Although her great-grandmother was already in her 50s and 60s working in a factory. Can someone clarify my doubt?
>>18039538It's ironic how a woman's first response in the comments is a type of feminism>I can do it too!lolNow about your question, I don't know how exactly we can analyze this over the ages, through personal accounts or by analyzing the names of the company members? Either way, I think we forget that people had many more children
>>18039538For most history people were farmers so they needed to grow plants, with that the entire family would pitch in. A man would plow the field and plant the seeds, while woman could take care of animal, mainly milking and producing dairy products. They would also do chores like house maintenance, cooking, laundry, garden work, making beer and one most important jobs woman had was making clothes, both processing raw materials and turning them into clothes. At the end of the harvest man would cut down the wheat while woman and children would collect the stalks. While preparing firewood woman could gather smaller branches and man would gather bigger ones and logs. So while woman did some traditional womanly household jobs they also helped man in the fields, since you needed way more time without the modern machinery.
>>18039550Much text>>18039538Quick answer: no.
>>18039538"Tradwife" is just a euphemism for "sex slave", so yes, women in history were often tradwives
>>18039538Nonsense propagated even by many masculinist media moids of the "sole male provider"This idea of the 1 parent earning money society is a very mid-century and very upper middle class myth. My father's mother stayed home but they were wealthy. My mother's mother worked her whole life. Women doubled in the workplace see pic relatedWomen worked agricultural work throughout history>>18039550we also worked in craft industry. Women during industrialization were forced into factories like the men. Working class women have almost always worked.It was in the Victorian era whereChildren could work basic construction. Southern women lounging around with a fan was a trope for the wealthy. Assistant labor is not turned down when a man is not wealthy
>>18039546this video looks like shit, i already watched it
>>18039538Well if I understand your esl post correctlyYes, women have always worked. Housewife is derogatory now because of the industrial revolution. Before that women typically had way more children. Just that is a lot of work. And a "household" would typically have all kinds of jobs ranging from livestock to cloth making to improving your house. So that would be a full time job in itself. But they weren't all the same. They did many of the things women do now as well.>>18039546As above, the industrial revolution was the largest change to an older more traditional lifestyle. You don't need women to sew when there's sweatshop workers doing it for pennies on the dollar. You seen those old videos where guys make a grake a grain stone by hand? Well thier wives would have chickens or a cow or make dyes or textiles. Plus canning for winter and cooking was more of an art before supermarkets.The traditional movement reflects peoples desire to return to this simpler way of life
>>18039570I'm not going to read this
>>18039550One thing I forget to mention is that woman would work outside of the house, as servents, clean, laundry and the like. An they would also help their husbands in their crafts sometimes, it comes to my mind that woman would see some fish their husbands would catch.
>>18039538I think it's an issue of people conflating "the wife doesn't work a full-time job" with "the wife doesn't work at all/only does domestic chores".If you were a peasant, your wife tended the fields/stables with you or else the crops she needed to make the meals wouldn't be getting harvested. If the bottom floor of your home was a shop, your wife was probably the one greeting customers, taking orders, and counting the money as you performed the actual service. I'd fathom to guess that's how secretarial duties became a "woman's job". Wives helping their husbands run the business and doing the paperwork.
>>18039538I see that many people here are talking about things they don't know, but we must first define what "work" is. Using medieval Spain, for example. I don't know what it was like in Europe. Agricultural labor was indeed family-based. However, it was still divided. The tools weren't as advanced as we have today, and there were no labor laws. So, it was generally more masculine, at least the hardest part. But there was a lot of community unity. So, let's say that the family that lived near the river sold fish or traded with the family that raised cattle, and the same with the family that owned sheep and produced wool. I mean, families had their own businesses, but we can't generalize this; not everyone had the conditions or capabilities for larger-scale production.
>>18039584In the rest of Europe*
>>18039562Excuse me, ma'am, Moid asks permission to speak(I bow) Where did you get this graph?
Tradwifes bros? Our answer? We got just BTFO'd
>>18039578it turns out that we don't want or are willing to listen to your imaginations, they are useless
>>18039538In Catholicism, it's acceptable for men to be housewives and women to be providers. And even warriors a traditional Catholic family is one where women even work in public office and are paid for it? Hmm, okay.
>>18039538Women working has been the norm for the overwhelming majority of human history. Even in the 1950s United States, which was in a unique place due to the relative strength of the US economy at the time, around 30-40% of women worked from my memory of the charts. Even if women didn't have formal jobs, most of the time they provided a lot of the informal work, and managing a pre-industrial household is no joke - cleaning, laundry, cooking, food preparation, making clothes, food preservation, and just childcare and child raising meant that women had extremely busy and hard lives, probably just as much as their husbands. And women tended to constitute an outright majority of industrial workers in the early industrial revolution, since they dominated textile industries.In effect, the 1950s stay-at-home housewife as a relatively small fraction of a society that was a historical abnormality, and unsurprisingly didn't last very long.
>>18039618domestic work is not "work" per se, it is an occupation
>>18039618I don't necessarily agree with you, but automation in the form of various home appliances and daycare services has made this work obsolete
>>18039538One of the few positives of living in a country where there is still peasant labor is you get to see actual "trad" life. And in a lot of agrarian societies like what we have over here, everyone, male or female, child & adult, pitches in during agricultural labor. The only time you don't is when you are old, or taking care of a baby (and there's even cases where babies are just carried around by peasant moms).
>>18039593The obvious corollary is that women's natural state throughout history has been to work. It's no surprise that when their domestic lives became easier and they no longer needed to work (as much), their work shifted elsewhere—in this case, to the formal sector, with jobs outside the home.You lost
It's funny how the domino effect works in /his/: one person makes a statement and then everyone follows suit. The problem with the arguments here is that they don't have the option of having many children because they're too busy with work to bother. Do you really believe it would be easier for a woman to have five children and work full-time than it would be for a housewife to have five children and have been a housewife for 50 years? I'm just trying to be direct.
>>18039538Define "throughout history"? Are we talking about the Middle Ages? The ancient world? I assume we don't have many sources of our own for this. Domestic culture is well documented. Women competed and boasted about how well they cared for their husbands and families, and home economics was taught to them in elementary school, with the primary goal of being a great housewife.
>>18039644There are certainly many women who would have preferred to be housewives like this throughout history.Jobs that were completely closed to women in the early 20th century became available at the end of it.
>>18039562>>18039618Are you honestly telling me that you think women had the same economic opportunities in 1900 as they did in 1990?
>>18039584>Using medieval Spain, for example. I don't know what it was like in Europekek
>>18039674You are objectively wrong. Women participate and have always participated in the material labor necessary for the maintenance of society. Society is also more than a set of material things, and women also participate in immaterial labor, which is an absolutely necessary component for the existence of a social system: the transmission of norms, behaviors, and knowledge. And women are also necessary for the maintenance of society in a purely direct and biological way.>Are you honestly telling me that you think women had the same economic opportunities in 1900 as they did in 1990somehow
>>18039685Tard>>18039587
>>18039644There were jobs that needed to be done quickly and there were jobs that you could delay. You needed to plow the fields when the soil was soft, you needed to plant crops at certain time, you needed to harvest before bas weather ruins it. But you could leave animals in the pasture for a day, you could milk a cow during a different time of the day, sheep don't have to be shorn at an exact moment you could delay it for a few days, an animal can be butcher later. Also they didn't work from dawn til dusk, after your chores were done you could rest a bit and socialize, including having sex. People were also surround with extended family members and friends who would help with child care.
>>180396902/2>>18039674there’s also this census from the 19th century and it seems like a lot of women were working uh, explain to me that toohttps://eh.net/encyclopedia/women-workers-in-the-british-industrial-revolution/Silly moid...prove to me that women completely relied on the men in their lives to avoid starvation
>>18039698>There were jobs that needed to be done quickly and there were jobs that you could You have interpretation problems and are mixing up formal work with agricultural work, and no, the latter could not be done quickly and would take a long time, and there were no labor laws at the time, my question still stands, and things get even worse when we take into account the number of children per family. It would not be useful and daycare centers were not yet a thing.
>>18039538So in an agricultural society women did lots of work and a lot of it you don't even imagine people doing at home. For instance - people in the medieval Europe tended to have small patch of field dedicated to linen farming, these would be collected, processed, spun into threads weaved into fabrics and then those fabric turned into clothes during winters and that was one of the things women tended to do.>But what about tailors!The guys who lived in towns and typically made clothes for the townsmen or fancier clothes for peasants they weren't going to work in? Yeah what about them?Obviously a lot of field work required all hands on deck as well. A woman is weaker, of course, but she can pull the turnip out of the soil just as well as a man can and this allows given family to harvest it faster(granted turnips were usually left in place until you had to cook them because they survive winters just fine, but you get the picture).Animals also require round the year care and that doesn't always require you to do heavy lifting.As the industrial revolution got going what happened was that it became more economical for the woman to pick up a factory job and make money to then exchange for things the more sustenance-focused farmers would make themselves(both more male and female oriented cottage crafts). The housewife at home was middle class and wannabe middle class thing until about 1900 and onwards when labour laws often made ut harder for then to find the kinds of jobs they would often go for(the kind where you get your paycheck at the end of the workday as you're leaving the building). At the same time the general life quality has improved so more and more people simply could afford having a luxury of a stay at home wife especially after the end of WW2, the fact that it went away is a sign of austerity policy and I think that's how this whole thing should be framed as.
Women did not completely depend on the men in their lives to avoid hunger.
>>18039699>Industrial RevolutionWhat you and your friends above don't understand, or don't want to understand, is that we are dealing with an example of the beginning of this dynamic. Where women began to have their own income, although*** that wasn't exactly how the first factories worked.
>>18039712Agriculture work was most work during history, there were other work of course but it's kinda dumb to not count it, since then most people would be considered as non workers. You are correct about work being slow, but they wouldn't work the whole day all the time, why would someone make 100 when he could sell 10 at most. Lastly I didn't say daycares I said extend family, like uncles, aunts and grandparents, now tell me would they go nah I won't take care of my family member for a few hours. And when it comes to friends they would also help with kids, since they were a part of the community and they also could have kids to they would socialize and play.
>>18039538I just find it funny that women WANTED to go back to the workforce, ok go work 40 hours a week... you fucking retard
>>18039748>AgricultureI never mentioned this, so I'm not obligated to answer that.>You are correct about work being slow, but they wouldn't work the whole day all the time, why would someone make 100 when he could sell 10 at most.So there's a serious problem here. First, you're comparing agricultural practices (and note that you didn't even specify a period, a time period, or anything else), which weren't even remotely similar to the organization or effort in formal jobs. Agricultural people, as you assume, worked together as a family unit. This is different from formal, structured work in a factory, for example, which, like today, makes life difficult in terms of family presence. If you research, especially in a Christian context, some priests complain about how the Industrial Revolution distanced fathers from family life in terms of time and how women could have more influence over their children than normal.
>>18039799For massive amount of our history we were farmers. In comparison the time from industrial revolution is a tiny spec. Woman also worked during industrial revolution, it comes to mind the match factory where they placed phosphorus on stick, they also worked in textile industry, and they also sometimes worked in processing fish. They also worked as servents, maids, laundry worker. So my point still stands women always worked. They had different jobs.
>>18039813You're talking about agriculture again, so I'll have to end here. I apologize if I didn't read your comment, but it turns out it's beyond what I'm talking about and irrelevant to my argument.
>>18039813>>18039748and you're wrong, we were HG for most of history, besides lying, do you need to constantly use this argument ad nauseam? We already understand that women helped in the fields (but how, that's another question)
>>18039760Women hate being alone more than men.
>>18039760Women in Belgium in the late 19th century protested their right to become housewives. Roger Devlin gives the anecdote when he talks about the sexual revolution.Women used to work, in many societies they actually worked harder than the men. West African farming is pretty easy and the soil requires a lot less toiling, and they were growing root vegetables. Dutch explorers would travel down and find polygamous black men sitting around on couches gossiping while the women toiled away. In rice growing societies you had women working the rice paddy picking away, working pretty damn hard. Not every crop or job requires physical strength, in societies where famines hit like every 15 years and people regularly died from being poorfags, it would make absolutely no sense to have 50% of your labour force idle.
>>18039538They didn't work in some megacorporation (though working for a local lord is sort of like that). women helped with their man's trade, if he was a tanner, a blacksmith or a farmer. childrearing was still the main job of women though. i'd say it's 60-40, for both men and women.
>>18039538>playing with dolls for incelsLook! Look! Now Wojak is dressed as a pretty pretty princess!
>>18039538>American myth that is no older than the 1950sIt's a bit older, it goes back to Victorian times. Even then, it was a minority. Working-class wives had to work for a wage to put food on the table. They wouldn't always go to the factories but many would do stuff like sewing, cleaning etc. for richer people. Farmers' wives were also doing the same farming-related work they have been doing since forever.But there was at that time and emerging upper-middle class which was able to live off one income. The majority working-class aspired to reach that status, so the houswife idea was born, but it was only aspirational for most families. Also, housewives controlled a lot of the day-to-day spending, they would decide what curtain to buy for home and so on, since they were at home more. So a lot of advertizing was being targeted at them, making the housewife idea even more prevailent in culture.
>>18039538>To what extent is this claim sound and legitimate?For lower and middle classes extremely. In a society where famine was a real possibility and you worked the land you couldn't afford to have a member of the household whose sole job was cooking and cleaning (about 2 hours active work per day). Women made and repaired clothes, often worked goods produced by husband for resale (if you grew cabbage wufe would probably pickle them to sell as sauerkraut), women wove wool inti fabric if you raised sheep or turned milk into butter and these were work and trades no different than farming, they were to profit, not simply care for the family. If you call a woman who turns milk into butter, wool into fabric, and cabbage into sauerkraut for resale a housewife you should call a man who milks cows, shears sheep, and harvests cabbage a house husband since he's not leaving the house to work either.Pretty much unless you were the top of society your wife worked just like you would.
The United States always had comparatively advanced women's equality. A British writer of the 1890s who visited America reported finding women attorneys, women doctors, women business owners. He rode on a river boat he said had a female skipper at the helm.
>>18039538Feminists never actually want to plow a field or work in a hot dirty factory when they talk of women's equality, they want some easy low effort job in an air conditioned office.
>>18039546>>18040157that's no different than /pol/ incels who brag about working in a farm field or digging a ditch in 100 degree heat because it's so manly but would never actually want to do it if the opportunity was presented to them
>>18040157industrial jobs always preferred women except in those roles that were too dirty, dangerous, or physically demanding for them to pull off. they don't have to be paid as much as men, they're a more compliant labor force less likely to cause trouble for their boss, and can be made to have sex with their boss if they want to keep their job.
>>18039618>In effect, the 1950s stay-at-home housewife as a relatively small fraction of a society that was a historical abnormality, and unsurprisingly didn't last very long.the 60s women's lib movement was a joke really, it rebelled against this one specific and short lived time and lifestyle
>>18039693No you were accidentally right the first time; Africa ends at the Pyrenees.
>>18039538women never got to be NEETs or full-time parents outside the aristocracyyour average peasant woman was "trad" in some respects (lots of kids - had to, they ddn't all grow up back then) and spent most of her time doing things you could do while watching or nursing kids. Which usually meant spinning and sewing and other aspects of turning wool/linen/whatever into clothing; clothing, much like food, was not cheap in the past.
>>18040166feminism has always been about bougie woman identity politics, not any actual issuesthat's why feminists never worried about working class women or outright attacked them as "degenerate". they were a threat to the feminists image as saintly other-wordlly angels being oppressed by the evil manfolk because working women got dirty, took (some) care of themselves and kinda acted like men
>>18040236as he said >>18040157
>>18039538Women worked hard but they rarely had formal jobs until the industrial revolution, this seems to be the source of confusion. A medieval woman might spin wool in her cottage, but there was little chance of her becoming a blacksmith's apprentice, for example. The most common job outside the home was a servant or working for their family, but the vast majority of women would be in the home. Domestic chores were far more labor intensive, in addition they had to manufacture and repair many things for themselves, like clothing.The industrial revolution saw mass produced goods replace homemade goods, labor saving devices, an increase in economy of scale and demand for labor, poor women were thus funneled into the mills. Middle class women remained in the home, many were from poorer backgrounds and could have worked, but if her husband earned far more he might prefer her to maintain the luxuries of his home. If she worked he would prefer her to work as a schoolteacher or something more prestigious than say gutting fish.As the industrial revolution progressed there were more labor saving devices, education became more widespread and a new lower-middle class emerged, the role of the housewife diminished until the 1960s counterculture did away with it altogether, to the point of women wanting to work even when they are pregnant or with young children.
>>18040252not at all, women were employed in various industrial jobs since the Middle Ages eg. the textile industries of the Netherlands and especially manufacturing women's clothing items like undergarments
>>18039538>To what extent is this claim sound and legitimate?Not remotely, they are anachronistically reading modern feminist concepts of gender dynamics into the middle ages, which is laughable.
>WHAMEN HAVE NEVER LOVED THEIR HUSBANDS>WHAMEN HAVE NEVER HAD LOTS OF CHILDREN>WHAMEN HAVE NEVER LOOKED AFTER THE HOME>WHAMEN HAVE NEVER BEEN SUBMISSIVE TO MEN>WHAMEN HAVE NEVER STAYED AT HOME>WHAMEN HAVE NEVER COOKED>WHAMEN HAVE NEVER DRESSED MODESTLY>EVERY WAHMEN EVER WAS HECKIN POST MODERN FEMINIST AS FUCK>REEEEEEEEEEDilate
>>18040236blacks and browns have a much more realistic view of women and don't idealize them. putting women on a pedestal is a white person's sport and it's why only whites have a feminist/incel problem.
>>18039818This
>>18039904You copied and pasted this shitty for other post
>>18039570All this comes out to is less people being born. And the elites see that as a good thing.
The only thing that truly matters is that the children learn the values of the parents, and that the man is in charge of the house.If that means the wife stays home and teaches them, so be it. If that means the grandparents stay home and teach the children those values, so be it. Even in weird cases, the father might have to stay home while the wife works. But as long as he's in charge, and the children are learning the parents values, that's what matters.
>>18039618I think the problem is the decentralization of the household
>>18040294I was going to add urban women saw a similar trend to women in the industrial revolution but people where are complaining about explanations being too long.
There is a lot of misinformation from people who apparently want to prove at all costs that women "always worked." It is possible to do this without lying and going too far, and I feel that many comments here are made by the same person... I will focus only on formalized work and not on a pre-industrial revolution analysis, that is another topic.Now, did women "work"? The answer is yes, they were never prohibited from doing so, now the real question is how often this could happen, here we can discard 2/3 of the posts here.the number of women who worked outside the home was actually quite low, the majority were actually housewives, and as I said, although they weren't prevented, the culture still promotes motherhood, so there was social and cultural incentive. >Only 8 percent of wives had husbands in the military; a majority of married men were civilians working at home. Most women remained housewives; of 33 million women at home in December 1941, seven out of eight were still there in 1944, at the peak of wartime employment. Nine out of ten young mothers did not work outside the home.>Of working women, only 16 percent were in war industries, partly because men did not want their wives in the grimy, often dangerous war plants where, due to round-the-clock production, they were also open to sexual advances on the night shift
>>18040416Sourceshttps://books.google.com/books/about/The_Best_War_Ever.html?hl=pt-BR&id=KXz0BgAAQBAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>18040419I didn't know, but finally someone posted some source and didn't say what was revealed in a dream
>>18040160most pol incels work manual labor, tard.
>>18039748>Agriculture work was most work during objectively false.
>>18040374>it's why only whites have a feminist/incel problem.Blatantly false. Korean incels make Western incels look like boy scouts.Also Blacks have ton of gender wars in their communities
>>18039538Not necessarily, anon.Although women did venture out to gather water and food, such as berries, they did so in an area where their safety could be guaranteed by the village men.Now compare this to bands of men who hunted up to 50 km in a single day for a hunt. Furthermore, women were confined to their homes while performing tasks (literally domestic) while the men were away.So, while the idea of a woman being completely confined to the home is a somewhat false idea, yes, they are much more domestic compared to men, which is where my idea of a biological core arises. Men can physically afford to be away from home, women cannot. In agricultural times (I'll use the Neolithic), community help, while it existed, was still structured. The most manual and heavy work was done by men, and the harvesting was usually done by children and women.Sexual dimorphism is a fundamental characteristic of attractiveness, so the loyal housewife displays a femininity that is considered attractive to men, again a biological argument.
Semi-related but I fucking hate how the shield maiden myth has been slowly created over the past couple decades. Viking women were given weapons to defend their homes and children while the men were away on raids. They were in no way, shape, or form considered to be socially equal to men and they did not go raiding or fight in armies. At most they would travel to frontier settlements with the men.
>>18040340fascinating and insightful post thank you for sharing
>>18040510You're welcome xir
>>18039538The idiots here think that when they say "housewives" we're talking about housewives from the 1960s, right? Being a housewife was more complex (not necessarily difficult, but boring) than in the 1960s, so a woman taking the trouble to be a "worker and housewife" would be pointless and fruitless. Women also had to make and mend clothes for the family, and depending on how primitive we're talking, they also spent their days weaving straw baskets. There was also hand-washing, butter, and soap making with animal fat and leftovers. The main factor was infant mortality, where women had to have a lot of children to ensure at least some survived.Lower-class families needed this more to ensure they also had hands to help them survive and with household chores. And it's a myth that women felt unworthy or undervalued even with the advent of household appliances.
>>18040374The men's rights movement began in black communities so thats a lie.
>>18039538>that women have always "worked hard," and that traditional women as housewives is merely a propagated American myth that is no older than the 1950sThat's partially an issue of people talking past each other, and partially a massive misunderstanding of the amount of work required to run a premodern household.Outside of the upper classes, women weren't allowed to just lounge their day away through history.The key point is, people talking about traditional women aren't talking about some stepford bullshit, they're talking about women whose priority is taking care of the household. Women whose main activity is taking care of domestic chores and the children, whose work outside the home comes from need and lack of alternative (short of starving) rather than choice.This has always been the case through history, till very recently.
>>18039538It is hogwash. Medieval women did not work.>Eulogium Historiarum sive Temporis>The Eulogium Historiarum sive Temporis (meaning 'Good words of history up to our times') was written in the 1350s by the monks of Malmesbury Abbey in Wiltshire. The following is what they wrote about the Black Death:>In 1348, on about 7 July, the cruel pestilence, hateful to all future ages, came from countries across the sea to the south coast of England at the port of Melcombe in Dorset. Travelling over the south country it wretchedly killed countless people. Next it came to Bristol, where very few were left alive, and then went northwards, leaving not a city, town, village or even, except rarely, a house, without killing most or all the people there, so over England as a whole, a fifth of the men, women and children were buried. As a result, there was such a shortage of people that there were hardly enough living to look after the sick and bury the dead. Most of the women who survived could not have children for many years, and those who became pregnant usually died, along with the baby, giving birth.>By the time the Black Death stopped at God's command it had caused such a shortage of servants that men could not he found to work the land, and women and children had to be used to plough the land, which was unheard of.
>>18041950Tranny revisionists BTFO
>>18041927Its just that anons seem to grosly underestimate how prevalent hard physical labor was and how completely normal it was for women to do it, what with 80% of the population being rural and basicaly illiterateAlso people often lived in large households, several generations with cousins and so on all together, so there was a lot of female workforce, the older ones organised the younger and so things got done, and it was often the dumbest hardest work, like washing clothes at the creek, hauling water uphill, chopping wood, moving rocks, digging the field whole day long, women would sometimes work till their water broke, as in literaly kids got born in the fields and people didnt see a problem with it, before boat engines the way they got fishing nets out of the sea is that the women and children would line up on the shore and just pull them in, there were endless amounts of mindless menial tasks you would think a donkey wouldnt want to do but women sure got to do it, kids too
>>18041960The people making arguments against trad wives are trying to project postmodern feminism onto medieval society in order to normalize it. It's a bad faith argument. They aren't actually commenting on women working back then, they're trying to suggest that radical modern feminism has always been the norm.
>>18039538women worked like crazy except for really rich or noble women(<1%) who worked slightly less than their rich male family members. Many rich women knew math and writing and would handle trade and household inventories. It just didn't have direct monetary rewards or involved shit that wasn't written down a lot.Since women would die a lot in childbirth and would pump out tons of kids this was the norm because you HAD to split gender roles.
>>18040429>most pol incels work manual labor, tard.You mean retail or service anon
>>18041960>Its just that anons seem to grosly underestimate how prevalent hard physical labor was and how completely normal it was for women to do itIt was normal for women to take part in what could be considered hard physical labor, but at the same time not all hard labor is the same.Women normally did not do the same stuff men did, the harshest jobs requiring actual physical prowess were always the domain of men.Another anon posted a relevant source on the matter (which he misunderstood, but whatever): >>18041950>By the time the Black Death stopped at God's command it had caused such a shortage of servants that men could not he found to work the land, and women and children had to be used to plough the land, which was unheard of.It was not normal for women to do the same jobs as men, but that doesn't mean their own particular jobs weren't harduous. Spending the whole day weeding the field is very harsh and tiresome, but it's still significantly below the toughest jobs.
>>18041982I dont think the jobs were distributed so much based on how hard they were as by how menial and repetitive they were
>>18041950What's your point? Why do you need to keeping lying aroung? Just trolling or something else?
>>18041960>Its just that anons seem to grosly underestimate how prevalent hard physical laborMaybe if you stopped talking to yourself, you would realize that it was never said that work in the field was easy, but there was a division of labor even in time.
>>18040416This
>>18042003My point is I dont think the division of labor was based on how hard it was, it was all relatively hard, but by how 'important' or menial the task was, other things went into it than how much heavy lifting there was, in some places they treated women like mules and it still worked
>>18042018It turns out that it's not a matter of what I or you think, you know? A read on Wikipedia itself, which is a questionable source, states that there was a division of labor and that the most complicated tasks and those that required more hard work were with men. You're desperate to prove how "women worked hard" that you're trying to make things up. One way for you to analyze this is to look at Egyptian and Roman slave records; certain things were restricted to men
>>18041950You have been debunked 3 times here
>>18041982>It was normal for women to take part So, you just debunked yourself here>>18041950
>>18041956How exactly?It was in the Victorian era whereChildren could work basic construction. Southern women lounging around with a fan was a trope for the wealthy. Assistant labor is not turned down when a man is not wealthy
>>18042037see>>18041971
>>18042025I just know what old people told me, you can say thats not a historical record pretaining to the middle ages as such but realy things werent that much different I doubt a few hundred years here or there would make a difference in that respect, also slaves didnt realy have any choice at all so its culturaly a different matter
I thought tradwives were *supposed* to be doing all that traditional farm wife work. They're not supposed to be "housewives".
>>18042211Trade wives should do work, but only where they can look after the children at the same time.In contrast to letting the state take care of your children for most of the day
Children were not looked after beyond the age of 5. This idea of child rearing is also very modern. Children after some point were looked after by their older siblings. Women indeed worked but when men were away they could do some basic chores crafts or whatever the fuck they wanted. Before the modern era Women who were not forced to work the fields or had enough property to handle their finances, had more free time than 90% of the rest of the population. But the problem for those women, was that they were forced into marriages for financial security of the rest of the family. Marriage is primarily an economic transaction, there is no "modern" or "traditional" form of marriage, legally and socially it is the same arrangement. That's was the main critique of modern feminism against marriage, that it not valuing women's labor within the household. Not that marriage was socially "traditional", forms of marriage exist almost everywhere in human societies and a traditional extended family network was more helpful than the nuclear family is today.
>>18042211Tradwife is just another word for housewife at this point
>>18042048Your point is?
>>18042051Is your closing argument a mere Ad Populum?>told meFirst, this may seem quite relative. We don't know how rich or in what country and culture your "relatives" lived. I can use the same argument. I've been told that there was a division of labor even in the countryside, based on how my great-grandparents lived. This is not an objective argument.
>>18042371>Children were not looked after beyond the age of 5why do you need to lie? that's not true
>>18041950Wrong
>>18041982So, is there an attempt here to say that their work was harduous? Do you want to equalize "hard"? But it's not true. Their work was not hard and they didn't stay in the field all day.
>>18039538I'll just make a final statement to summarize all the logical points raised in the ITT about genres and their inevitable demise in the 1960s. The thread will end and should not be continued.Gender roles and the distribution of labor by sex were already an important element in early human civilization.1. Nature was dangerous, and most work outside the home (war, trade, hunting) required a lot of strength, more suited to men.2. "Housework" once took about 8 to 10 hours a day, using primitive technology, and included work that would make even your modern, pampered office worker sweat a bit.3. Infant mortality was high, so not only did all women (especially the lower 99%) need to have 5 to 10 children to ensure at least some survived to adulthood, but they also had to start early.4. Lower-class families also needed more children to help with household chores, so there was even more incentive to marry early.5. Marrying early means there's no time for extensive schooling, even for upper-class women.
>>18039584>depends on what you mean by "work"peterson pls go
>>180429686. Postmodern feminism is a strange aberration not a historical norm. Troons like OP will never gaslight us into supporting it with disingenuous threads like this.
>>18039538This entire thread was made by - and brigaded by - discord trannies.Medieval women WERE tradwives.Medieval women did NOT work.You will NEVER be a woman.
>>18043017thread
Fucking jannies are deleting comments in this thread now. Can't even have an open discussion on this board anymore.
>>18043017/threadeven in the 19th and early 20th centuries, women only worked while young and unmarried for some extra spending money before they were married, and that's only if they needed to work at all
>>18043044Jannies just deleted a meme about gaslighting. Its fucking over lmao.
>>18039538Here's part of how the Bible (Proverbs 31) describes an ideal wife. She seeks wool and flax and works with willing hands.14 She is like the ships of the merchant; she brings her food from far away.15 She rises while it is still night and provides food for her household and tasks for her female servants.16 She considers a field and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.17 She girds herself with strength and makes her arms strong.18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable. Her lamp does not go out at night.19 She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle.
