>My point is that masculinity runs the full spectrum.

It absolutely runs.

Robert Brockway has a very good article on this topic. Enjoy: http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/men-are-exceptional-2/

The middle class originated in the Renaissance. Even as far back as 1800, fully 1/3 of Americans lived in cities.

Not only did both my grandmothers work, but so did 3 of my 4 greatgrandmothers (the 4th may have also, but I don’t know much about her life)

Before industrialization most people worked and live in the same place, and yes most adults in every household worked to produce products for sale or trade. The middle class is much older than the industrial revolution.

The stupidity required for you to think that AVfM has a feminist on staff is all the proof we need that you’re here to stir shit, rather than to have a discussion. Stop wasting our time. Buh-bye!

Feminism maintains that it recently freed women from the oppressive confines of the home. This is a cornerstone of many feminist arguments.

In hunter-gather cultures women were active in obtaining food for the community, participating in hunting and gathering alongside men and children in many cases.

Following the development of agriculture women were often in the fields alongside the men and children. Few families were wealthy enough that they could afford to maintain people who did not contribute at least part of their time to agriculture.

One of my favourite examples is from Europe in the Renaissance. Women earned trade qualifications, worked alongside men in those trades, and sometimes ran their own businesses.

They also had take out food in medieval and renaissance Europe – a lot of women worked in the service industry providing take out food then as now.

When industrialisation occurred women could often be found in factories alongside men and children.

The idea of the stay-at-home mother is quite a recent one and came about largely as a result of increasing material wealth. It was in fact a conspicuous demonstration of wealth to be able to show that some members of your family need only keep house and raise children. As wealth grew this phenomenon spread from the wealthy classes to the middle classes.

Hilarious.

A “few generations ago” puts us somewhere between 1940 and 1970, yet as early as 1880 a majority of adults did not work on farms. Get a grip and a clue.

Total population: 50,155,783; farm population:
22,981,000 (est.); farmers 49% of labor force; Number of farms: 4,009,000; average acres: 134; Most humid land already settled; heavy agricultural settlement on the Great Plains begins

https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm

It’s true that most women weren’t employed outside the home. And yes homemaking was hard work and it was a necessary and economic addition to the household, but outside the upper class, women also contributed to actual household income – weaving, spinning, (“Spinster” was an unpaid job) knitting, sewing, laundry, selling eggs, milk and produce, and working in their husbands’ businesses.

Don’t forget that before industrialization, a large part of the male population wasn’t “employed” either. Tradesmen fishermen and farmers worked for themselves and most of their “employees” were family (including their wives) who worked for food and shelter. When your extended family lives withing shouting distance of the family business, “employment” tends to be distributed fairly evenly according to strength and aptitude.

“Women weren’t employed in the sense they had bosses and received wages (e.g. fishing or construction,) and that’s what most people mean by ‘working.'”

This is true for most men too, especially for those who faced the new frontier. Much of the work spent was for pure survival, just as it was for women. Surviving in such ruthless conditions requires joint traditional roles.

Wages are relatively new to most of the U.S. Both women and men were self-sufficient. Women would often sell milk, eggs, and baked goods to increase household income.

Families were THE business.