Off My Chest

940 readers

22 users here now

RULES:

I am looking for mods!

1. The "good" part of our community means we are pro-empathy and anti-harassment. However, we don't intend to make this a "safe space" where everyone has to be a saint. Sh*t happens, and life is messy. That's why we get things off our chests.

2. Bigotry is not allowed. That includes racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and religiophobia. (If you want to vent about religion, that's fine; but religion is not inherently evil.)

3. Frustrated, venting, or angry posts are still welcome.

4. Posts and comments that bait, threaten, or incite harassment are not allowed.

5. If anyone offers mental, medical, or professional advice here, please remember to take it with a grain of salt. Seek out real professionals if needed.

6. Please put NSFW behind NSFW tags.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

[politics] (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 21 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

1 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is not a personal issue.

Real wages have gone down 50% since the 1970s. One person used to provide enough for a family, now typically both partners go to work and it's still "just enough".

In the conservative 1960s, the woman's rights movement would have never succeeded if it wasn't backed by the media (big news), and we all know they're owned by the rich. So what does the rich gain by making women go to work?

The labor market is a free market. It is regulated by supply and demand. If there's higher supply in workers, wages go down. I'm worried that the women's rights movement was allowed by the rich to increase supply of workers and bring down the wages.

top 1 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 3 points 20 hours ago

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the media backed the women’s rights movement? I’ve seen clips of people in the media being very critical of bra burnings from that period.