Because with only one person working, there wouldn't be enough bread.
Women are liberated and much more independent.
For many good reasons. First of all, 2 incomes means more money for the whole family, and less burden on only one member of the family!! What person wants to be responsible for supporting not only themselves but another person as well and probably if they have a family 2 other people also? With NO ONE helping?! That seems unfair completely and I'd never make my husband have that burden. I think that BOTH people in a marriage should be breadwinners. But some people prefer an old-fashioned way of dividing work up rather than teamwork. To me, the woman being a breadwinner is EQUALLY as old-fashioned as the man being the breadwinner.
A long time ago women weren't even allowed to get jobs. The only jobs they would ever be hired for were nurse, teacher of children, or secretary. But as time went on, people realized the value of women, and the value of more people in the workforce, and probably men noticed the value of women working most, because there is nothing more romantic than helping the one you love instead of sticking them with all the work. And I am sure that male bosses all over america at the very least got bored working with only men all the time. Variety is the spice of life, and more people means more choices. Diversity means more creativity. No one wants a workforce made up of clones, every business needs fresh ideas, creative problem-solvers, and different approaches.
AHHHH the old days when men had to be the bread winner--No matter how poor the family might have to stay!
It is economicly possible but we would have to settle for Less STUFF!
Women found out they could do it and liked the feeling .
because the stupid ideology that women are the weaker sex is long gone
Because we have all been conned by whoever has been in power. Women;'s Liberation was a serious joke on the working classes - perpetuated by the middle class highflyers. Someone my age was brought up to be a wife, mother and homemaker, it was what was expected of those born in the 50s. As time went on we were "liberated". Liberated my ***, I now have to run the home, keep the family together, feed them and cook the family meals and clean the house and on top of that work full time! I could bore you with the rest of the cultural changes woman have had to endure but I will stop right here... got to get the shopping and get dinner on...
....we are getting fleeced ....soon children will have to work at this rate ...just for the family to survive
Because thats what they want.
because he doesnt have to be
It's funny, I completely agree with all of you, however, I still see stay at home moms driving Range Rovers, BMWs etc and I know the husband isn't a tycoon. So they refinance or move or who knows what they do and try hard to keep up with the Jones. until you see the sheriff at their door.
Because of all the rhetoric about women's equality and women's rights it has become easier for some men to drop responsibility for paying their way in the world. For the most part a man should either share the burden of financial support in a relationship or carry it himself. To do otherwise detracts from him as an independent individual. When a woman, by agreement with her partner, chooses to carry the burden of financial support a man must take up other equally important responsibilities in the relationship such as homemaker or child raising. If he does not then he is no longer a man but a leech who is feeding off of the work of another. For women to assume their rights as equals does not require for men to give up their rights or responsibilities. I wish my woman made enough to support the family but she, through circumstance and choice has left the financial responsibility to me. She is in no way required to accept a subservient role nor am I limited in the other things that I can contribute to the family.
Summerwind18 has got it haha. I have no reason to comment.