Bubble Trouble

Well now, that's an interesting debate you're having with yourself! (And I can certainly see how these points of view will piss somebody off - ) The camps, after all...are divided.
So many of the points you make jump out at me - miserable working women, for one.
In California are many Philipino nannies and caregivers. They're here working because the economic conditions in their homeland are atrocious, and this is something they can do that balances out the inequity. Notice - that it is the women who have such an employment opportunity - not the men. Perhaps some of the men, if they're lucky, find something they can do in Kuwait, or Dubai....but I'm sure a much smaller percentage of them are so lucky.
The Philipino woman works in America, and sends remittances home to her family - for the economic welfare of her children - for food, shelter, clothing, education...but she is not there for them. In her place is perhaps, a Vietnamese nanny. And the pattern is repeated (with a much smaller paycheck.)
One can question - what is wrong with a world economy where women must leave their children to look after someone else's...in order to survive economically?

In Bangladesh (and also in India, I believe) there exists a banking institution which has become famous for its microcredit loans....small loans that allow for setting up small buisinesses, land purchase, agricultural pursuits, etc.
The vast majority of these loans (over 90%) go to women. Why? The man who set this business up was pretty smart. He realized that it was the women who were more financially responsible. They took the loans, and improved their lives and the lives of their children. They didn't drink or gamble the money away, or otherwise waste it foolishly.
This was an absolute fact, and they were recognized and respected for these abilities. These women....weren't interested in sitting around waiting for their men to assume leadership and responsibility...(although I'm sure many of these men work hard in support of their wive's endeavors.) These aren't gender stereotypes - as much as just the hard facts of life. In situations such as this, it has probably been thus for hundreds of years.

I agree with one important point - huge, I think. That a certain measure of choice has been removed from the equation. When my son was in his first year of university, he used to complain to me about the ferocity he found in the young (well-educated?) women he was meeting...who, instead of making friends in an easy and relaxed sort of way....wanted to know in great detail all his plans and aspirations for the future - especially the economic goals.
My response at the time was half-joking, but now, would be a little more serious, I think.
I told him at the time, that for them - the big fantasy was the double income. The seductiveness of that factor to young people who have been conditioned to CONSUME (and I mean that in capitals!) is a powerful force.

The choice, that was so prevalent after WW2 - was entirely related to the economy of the time. This needs to be examined in the cold hard light of numbers. A man worked hard at a so-so job, and brough in $400 a month.
But the rent on a modest house was $65. A week's groceries for a family of 4 was less than a twenty dollar bill.
There was no cable, internet, cellular.....no bills of that sort. No techie-toys to buy. Hydro was two or three bucks.
A family of this sort was not rich, but not poor either. This is the kind of reality that allowed that kind of choice.
It was a reality that bears examination for precisely what it offered people at the time - and played right into the natural inclination to set up family lives in a way that worked for everybody. Worked best? Ah - the big question.
I agree - worked better! - than the choices on the plates of millions of working people now - mean and women.

............and now I'll step aside again - to allow for responses.
Don't wanna hog all the airtime, now.







Captain Midnight
Just let me laugh when it's funny
and when it's sad, let me cry