Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site madvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!varian!madvax!susan
From: susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: \"Traditional Values\"
Message-ID: <350@madvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 17:43:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: madvax.350
Posted: Fri Oct 18 17:43:45 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Oct-85 05:49:26 EDT
References: <828@decwrl.UUCP> <281@fear.UUCP>
Organization: Varian, Walnut Creek, CA
Lines: 26

> It's only in the 20th century that there was any point arguing the
> case. Even then, traditional marriages held together as long as
> housekeeping was a full-time job, and the husband worked long hours,
> six days a week.
> 
> Before World War II, housework took an immense amount of time.
> Laundry was line-dried and hand-ironed. Frozen food hadn't caught on
> yet, so shopping was more frequent, and pre-packaged stuff wasn't
> available. Cooking took a lot of time, too.
> 
> Go back a few more decades, and you lose time-savers like the washing
> machine, the refrigerator, the electric iron, and the gas or electric
> range, complicating and lengthening housework. Add epidemics, lack of
> personal transportation, no birth control, and a lower general
> standard of living.
> 
> Get the idea? "Man works from sun to sun, but a woman's work is never
> done."

Just wanted to mention that if one was in an industrialized area and
not too well off, a woman might just be trying to do all of that 
and be taking in piece work to sew, even if she were married.  If she
wasn't, she'd probably be working in a factory or as domestic help.
That myth that women were always at home is just that: a myth.

Susan Finkelman