> Social mores have dictated the man be the provider for centuries, if not millenia.
That is kind of not true.
1.) That is what happens when there is no war, country is rich and when industrial revolutions take people to factories. When they worked on small family farm, both genders had to tend animals, do crafts and so on. Most of things had to be made. The work was gendered, physical strength mattered, but it was not women twiddling fingers at home painting pretty pictures out of boredom.
2.) During economically bad periods, women had to work to survive. Their chances and options were just inferior. Victorian england required male to provide for women, but economics was bad - marriages not happening. (A lot of prostitution tho.)
3.) Plenty male occupations killed males soon. Miners were old by 40 and dead. Women lived longer and used to live from crafts they made and sold.
4.) And obviously, as men die in wars (and some wars killed a lot of men) or are just away then you cant possibly have all women having male provider. Plus, women were raped making them less viable partners.
5.) Take California gold fever - demographics very heavily skewed toward males (and very violent). That means, other places necessary lack males. There is no way for all women to be provided by males, social mores or not. Because males are not there, they are in California and anyway are killing each other. Not coming back. Some women were provided for by family and brothers etc, but the less rich family was the more they had to figure out how to make themselves some money.
That is kind of not true.
1.) That is what happens when there is no war, country is rich and when industrial revolutions take people to factories. When they worked on small family farm, both genders had to tend animals, do crafts and so on. Most of things had to be made. The work was gendered, physical strength mattered, but it was not women twiddling fingers at home painting pretty pictures out of boredom.
2.) During economically bad periods, women had to work to survive. Their chances and options were just inferior. Victorian england required male to provide for women, but economics was bad - marriages not happening. (A lot of prostitution tho.)
3.) Plenty male occupations killed males soon. Miners were old by 40 and dead. Women lived longer and used to live from crafts they made and sold.
4.) And obviously, as men die in wars (and some wars killed a lot of men) or are just away then you cant possibly have all women having male provider. Plus, women were raped making them less viable partners.
5.) Take California gold fever - demographics very heavily skewed toward males (and very violent). That means, other places necessary lack males. There is no way for all women to be provided by males, social mores or not. Because males are not there, they are in California and anyway are killing each other. Not coming back. Some women were provided for by family and brothers etc, but the less rich family was the more they had to figure out how to make themselves some money.