All of the whining about how the economy was so amazing in some undefined past always relies on profound sexism.
Look at the following fragment from a table that condemns the present and praises the past:

Starting from the late seventies, more women joined the workforce. According to the Marxist economist who posted this sexist table, this is some sort of a huge disaster for our society. This table informs us that women started working in greater numbers “to sustain household spending.” Men, as we all know, work because they want to achieve professional realization, become successful, enjoy themselves, and have a life outside of the kitchen. Women, however, are expected to be happy mopping the floor and cleaning the toilet. Only a huge societal disaster can force those poor creatures out of the domestic bliss and into the cold, harsh reality of having a life of their own.
Notice also how the table refers to “women with children.” Have you ever seen any table like this mention “men with children” as a separate category? Does the fact that a woman have a child make her some kind of a social cripple who can only have a career out of dire necessity? Why aren’t we all equally horrified that many “men with children” work? How is the fact that a woman with a 17-year-old son has a job more remarkable than a man with a 17-year-old daughter having a job?
This is what it always comes to whenever you talk to any of the doom-and-gloom pseudo-progressives. The main reason they hate today’s state of affairs is that they aren’t as likely to find themselves a housewife who’ll be happy to clean after them and shut up.
Seriously, if you want to discuss the economy and not be ridiculed, try not to bemoan the fact of women’s liberation too loudly. It’s only a problem in the economic sense because you can’t buy woman as easily as you could in the 50ies. For women themselves, having a greater access to the workplace is the best thing that could have happened to us.
Like this:
Like Loading...