who worked and why (was sexism and division of labor)

[lupinesque]

> a no-longer-valid cultural reality: men were
> paid more because they were assumed to have wives and families to 
support.
> Women who were working were presumably supporting only themselves, 
because
> wives were generally at home being supported by their
> proportionally-higher-paid husbands. 

This was middle-class reality, but never true for very poor people.  
Most women through most of history have worked for the simple reason 
that they or their families would starve, be evicted, etc. unless 
they helped to bring in money (or, in agricultural societies, raise 
food).  Yes, plenty of men have insisted that their wives not work 
(even though the family really needed the income) because they 
believed it was their role to be the sole provider, but plenty more 
have sacrificed their (as they saw it) masculinity because going 
without that income was just not an option.  Look at old photos of 
factory women, migrant farmworkers, etc.: the women in those photos 
aren't just young women supporting themselves until they get 
married.  They are mothers to the little girls combing cotton beside 
them.  The whole family went off to work.

I.e., I'm not sure this cultural reality was ever real except for a 
small percentage of people.

Amy Z