Why do social conservatives have such a fetish for a lifestyle that represents only a tiny snapshot of history, GS?

Question

To my understanding, through most of history, both genders did work that, to the extent any work paid, was paying work. In hunter-gatherer times, both men and women obtained food. In most agricultural societies, both men and women were involved in growing crops and/or tending livestock, and if they were not, generally either women did all the work, or women did some other work, such as spinning and weaving, that was at least sometimes sold for money. Even for most of the industrial era, if you were wealthy enough to not work, neither gender worked; if you were poor enough to need to work, generally both genders had paying jobs. There was, perhaps, a brief snapshot of time--possibly as wide as the '20s to the '70s, possibly much narrower--where any substantial fraction of households in the Western world had a model where men did paying work outside the home, while women did unpaid work inside the home.

Yet, if you hear social conservatives speak of it, you'd think that brief snapshot somehow represents all of history, or possibly some sort of natural law. That the natural way of things is for men to be "providers", while women are housewives.

What gives?

Answer 1

Could be that those social conservatives grew up in that tiny historical window, where women were heavily discouraged from working for money, by shaming them for their lack of a husband (whether they chose to remain single or were simply not interested in men) or their lack of offspring from a husband (because in reality, not all women want to be mothers and not all men and women are fertile), or shaming them into sticking with an abusive partner because the only other option was abject poverty.

Answer 2

"Why do social conservatives [seem, in my mind, to] have such a fetish for a lifestyle that represents only a tiny snapshot of history, GS?"



Do you have proof that all or even some "social conservatives" fetishize the brief period of history that you describe, moreso than, say the 1800's or medieval Europe? The perception surely has much more to do with the internal mental & emotional state of the observer, than with any external reality.

Answer 3

I know a lot of extreme leftist inclined thinking females (and men). By extreme, I mean not really brought to the point of extreme in a naturalistic sense, but in a Marxist or Orwellian sense through keeping those things or being exposed to things not inclined to family being the nucleus of life - on a constant. It's selfish to the self and perhaps others, to arrive at a point, because of ideals not centered in one's own thinking, where idealism trumps the actual experience that could bring good things.



On the other hand, there are those that have an idea that two people should act a certain way according if they are a man or woman - depending on extreme conservatism. Ideally, especially when children are conceived, it's better for the female to be at home - if it's within the budget. It's not really a matter of adhering to idealistic 'social constructs' - a child needs it's mother, especially in the first five years of its life. It also provides a much better sense of comfort for all parties involved.



I think this is the primary reason a lot of marriages are set up this way or may outwardly appear "oppressive" to a feminist inclined female. Feminism is an ideology based on trying to readjust normal socialization between men and women's connective values - rooted in negative psychology. There's a picture painted, within feminist thought, that a large majority of women are kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. This has a polarizing effect on what happens in reality and what one creates for themself in the mind.



That's not to say I don't love a beautiful and successful woman. However, there's not too many instances of a wealthy and attractive female taking care of a man that is of a lesser social/financial class than herself. This is why the opposite is usually the case - because men are more inclined to being the financial backbone of the family and FEMALES the heart of the home. It doesn't mean the opposite does not happen. I'm just a traditional guy that doesn't believe in having his kids raised by someone that is not family.

Answer 4

It's feminists I hear that misrepresent the work women historically did, often claiming women were forbidden from working outside the home, when as you say women historically often worked outside the home. Women were employed and even owned their own businesses in early America. (Though not in the numbers of men).



In early Human history there was no such thing as being employed in return for wages. Money didn't exist. People did the work they needed to to survive. A division of labor has existed for all of human history and is not unique to humans. Many species have gender roles.

Answer 5

Thank you for this question. First I think the "snapshot" is narrower. I think it's the Baby Boomer Era. But I couldn't care less if it was only a 5-year period. The reason I "have a fetish" for it is because that was the greatest economic and strongest social era of our history in the United States. It is dubbed the Greatest Generation ever.



Your "snapshot" is a nude polaroid in comparison!

Answer 6

The more answers I read here in GS, the more I'm convinced that a lot of people here have a very very very poor understanding of history - like they learned ZERO in school.



Sometimes conservative anti-feminists even attempt to rewrite history in their own version. The famous MRA women, Karen Straughan, argued in the only video I ever was able to stand to listen to that women didn't deserve the vote because they didn't go to war. However, she failed to realize when women first started to agitate for human rights was when the egalitarians shafted the women who fought side by side next to them in the French Revolution. They had fought and were shafted anyway - basically with sexism trumping all logic and fairness. I think you have to have a poor knowledge of history to be an anti-feminist - so ignorant you can believe your own lies.

Answer 7

In distant history, work would mostly be local, and families were typically larger and less likely to be as geographically spread apart as they are today (so more family members could help with child rearing) - a few things you failed to consider.



Besides that, you're knowledge and perspective on history seem to be a little lacking. Are you seriously suggesting that women primarily handled the household and child rearing only from the '20s to the' 70s?

Answer 8

but you're forgetting how in those days, schooling for kids was short or non-existent, freeing up the kids to help with child care and domestic jobs. once mandatory schooling became universal, families could no longer take advantage of child labor, kids were off at school, yet young children still had to be taken care of. someone had to do it.

Answer 9

You are confused because of your poor intellectual method, namely, vague, non-specific, abstract, collective, generalizations.