Hmm, I'm much on the go the past several days and haven't had time to follow comments closely. I thought you were saying something else. Let me sketch my position and then I'm curious what yours would be.
I think one of the great achievements of the past fifty years or so has been the degree to which women have moved into the out of the home workplace. It's not only money, but it's status, centrality, a host of very good things.
However, it was not (much passive voice here) accompanied by a parallel reapportioning of work at home. Had men come to carry half of the work at home as more women worked at more significant work outside the home, then the gender revolution would have been complete. It hasn't and it wasn't.
The last time I looked at the data on men working at home when their wives worked outside the home as well (sometime in the mid 90s), there were two large truths. In those homes in which women worked outside, men picked up more work inside than compared with homes in which women did not work outside. But it was something like did perhaps 20 to 30% more; while women in such situations were now carrying the two jobs bag.
The other major study conclusion was the women and men differed dramatically in recounting how much work each did at home. You can imagine how that went.
As for whether we are all better off than before, it's a mixed bag in my view. For an awful lot of women, it's much, much better. And for their kids. The last time I looked at the studies of day care, it's effect was basically a wash. Save that kids who had day care early were more gregarious.
I agree that for some it's been difficult. But I think the gender revolution had little to do with it. Working class and poor women have worked. Forever. My wife's mother and father raised four children, terrifically, while he worked on the railroad as a conductor and she assembled televisions. And when the plant moved, she found other jobs.
Well, I could go on and on. But I need to run again. |
