
Only issues here are contextual issues. Paid to work? This calls into question what kind of work and what kind of pay. If we’re talking equal pay for equal work, sure. If we’re talking about the ability to have new and different jobs besides something based on childcare or even kinda early forms of nursing, sure. But always worked certainly calls into question the context of what work they did. If it’s work around the house, which was very common and expected in a traditional patriarchal society
Then that isn’t even paid work to this day. There’s nothing wrong here at all with the post. It just asks the question and begs the clarification of what kind of work was there before and what kind of pay was or wasn’t there in comparison to males doing the same job. This context would shut the haters the absolute fuck up and prove the argument more solidly.
In the United States, 1974 was the year it was made legal for women to have a bank account without a male co-signer. Before then, and especially prior to the 1920’s, any money women earned automatically went to her closest male relative (husband, father, brother son). For example, an unmarried woman in the 1800’s does work as a seamstress. When the service is paid, it automatically goes to her father. While she worked, it was not her money to keep. And I think that’s what op is getting at
The og never said normal people wanted to date gold diggers. They said you can’t expect ur woman to not work, but also not care about your finances. If I can’t work, I expect my man to be making atleast 100k or MORE per year to make up for the fact that we won’t have two salaries.