I really enjoyed the piece by Tove K. However, the thing that comes to mind every time I read a piece like “A girl’s got to have an insurance policy,” (Regan had a piece like this a few months ago, I was calling BS in the comments section) I am left asking the question, why is everyone acting like a median income job provides that much security in a marriage or in the dissolution of that marriage)? A median income job can’t purchase a median cost home or support a family without a second income, women STILL DEPEND ON THEIR MALE SPOUSES. So if a woman has a regular job, and most women do, their median income earnings are less than median male earnings, they aren’t necessarily insured against the damage caused by a divorce.
I feel like the “feminist job security” narrative is just a mirage in the desert.
I really enjoyed the piece by Tove K. However, the thing that comes to mind every time I read a piece like “A girl’s got to have an insurance policy,” (Regan had a piece like this a few months ago, I was calling BS in the comments section) I am left asking the question, why is everyone acting like a median income job provides that much security in a marriage or in the dissolution of that marriage)? A median income job can’t purchase a median cost home or support a family without a second income, women STILL DEPEND ON THEIR MALE SPOUSES. So if a woman has a regular job, and most women do, their median income earnings are less than median male earnings, they aren’t necessarily insured against the damage caused by a divorce.