This is a comment from JC posted at Home Paddock well worthy of further exposure. It covers quite a complicated picture succinctly;
In 1960 it was one man, one job, one family, over 4 kids and compulsory wife and mother.
Now its two parents, two jobs, 2 kids and other families/partners optional.
The big difference is that equal opportunity and pay had the effect of making two jobs a necessity for the average family as the state could spend vastly more on social spending, allow plenty of inflation that eroded the value of just one wage packet and allow the concept of the nuclear family to erode.
Somewhere between 1960 and today we allowed the equilibrium between the nuclear family and fairness to women to be lost, to the point where two wage packets are needed to support a national structure where 50% of the population are net beneficiaries of the state.
It seems to me that what was initially a fair recognition of women in the workplace has morphed into women becoming an economic necessity first with family in the rear.
Of course there are lot's of other influencing factors like increased consumerism, increased ability to control fertility, and greater (often unrealistic) demand for personal happiness but, well-said JC. I am sorry I don't know who you are and probably should. You have provided a valuable overview.
A Written New Zealand Constitution?
2 hours ago
1 comment:
That's an interesting perspective but I think it is more of a case of women's expectations of their lives changing. They want to work, and couples are happy to have two incomes to have a larger house and more consumer goods.
I notice that many women don't have much of a problem stopping work for years at a time when they start having babies. Women working rather than staying home with the kids is a choice, not a necessity.
Post a Comment