thegreekdog wrote:
The rhetoric is largely irrelevant (at least to me). I do not support those that would put women back in the kitchen, or whatever we want to call it.
Yeah, I said that.. three times now.
thegreekdog wrote:I know you think this is a major issue right now, and I know the Democrats are trying to make it a major issue, but let's put that issue aside.
Like I said, he who ignores history....
thegreekdog wrote: The question I asked, from purely from a numbers perspective, is whether the inclusion of twice as many people in the workforce raised the supply of available employees which, in turn, lowered the price that such employees could be paid. That being said, I think I largely agree with your (1) and (2), although I haven't done enough research on the subject to know (to put it another way, your (1) and (2) make sense).
I answered that question.
In recent times, the blame has fallen on immigrants. That is pretty traditional as well. Blaming women is not as politically attractive, even though reading through the lines makes it hard to ignore that this would be the effect of various actions, no matter how much the supporters claim they are not attacking women.
Denying women the ability to make choices about their own reproductive healthy other than to not have sex, not get married at all; heavily limiting childcare support, degrading public education to the point that homeschooling is considered viable not because it makes actual economic sense for the families, but becuase moms tend to care more about their children's futures than their own current security. Limiting social security, upon which far more women than men still depend (because more women still work in jobs without nice 401K's), etc.
ALL of those things will very much make it far more difficult for women to continue to work.. or at least to work and have children.