Quote Originally Posted by slowlickitysplit
Dutchlover...sorry to be hikacking your thread but I feel I have to respond. Guess I've spent too much time around BFA.

Dave Byrd.
I am sure you are a well educated man and I imagine at some point you must have taken micro and macro economics so I think you can see that you either dismised or ignored my central point that todays economy is a direct result of women CHOOSING to supliment thier husbands income in the 60's. When the few became the many it became the norm to have two incomes (Remember the euphemisim DINC? Dounble income, no children.) Well, the norm has become a necessity and in a strange twist of fate we are back to the old days when many couples stay together for economic reasons alone. I know you are white collar but if you doubt this go to your local chain store and ask some of the young women working there. I know of at least 3 women where I work who stay with there husbands only because they can't afford to go out on thier own. Sounds a lot like the old farm days when a man and a woman NEEDED eachother for survival.
My point, though I know you disagree, is that women choosing to go back to work has led to women having to go back to work and it was the feminist movement that started the ball rolling.

PS. I am aware that Susan B. Anthony was not the first suffereget, I was trying to keep things clear as we could debate the true beginings of feminism for days.

- Slow -
Wow is all I can say. You certainly can attributed deindustrialization and administrative costs to rising living costs. To say it's solely because of more women entering the workforce is absurd. You can't point out a sole factor because the economy is too complex for such closed-minded analysis. It's just like saying civil rights is the cause for rising living costs. It's amounts to put it bluntly, slander.