>If it is poverty that mainly induces women to become economically dependent on their husbands, we may expect the poorest women to be the most dependent on men, but women's economic dependence on men is the least common among the poorest and the most common among the bourgeoisie in rich modern nations. That is because poor men whom poor women tend to encounter, sexually or otherwise, are the least capable of supporting dependents, especially as employment patterns have changed proportionally from manufacturing-centered to service-centered ones, with union density going down, too. In contrast, the richest men can afford to have women become totally economically dependent on them, so they often acquire "trophy wives" who do neither wage labor nor unpaid "household labor."
That threw me for a second, but then I realised that your mistake is in classifying women as rich or poor according to the relative wealth OF THEIR HUSBANDS! I'm sure you will agree that this is a problematic system of classification?
Its interesting though. I think it was about 10 - 15 years ago that the systematic dependence of women in the Australian social security system was done away with. "Dependendant" women in a relationship until then were not paid any welfare benefits. Unemployed couples would receive a married rate of benefits , usually paid to the male partner. (Though technically the woman in the relationship could just as easily have the full benefits paid to her, while her husband/partner could passively be a dependent.
(I took advantage of this a couple of times, in my battles with the bureaucracy. Whenever they would cut my benefits we would simply march into the welfare office and have the cancelled payment made to my partner instead. It allowed us to keep getting paid as normal while I fought and won the appeal.)
Anyhow, they've done away with that now, It has been replaced with an "active" welfare system, "dependent" spouses have to qualify for a welfare payment in their own right, a spouse who doesn't have young children to care for, thus qualifying for a parenting benefit, must separately qualify for unemployment benefit by being actively looking for work. No automatic welfare benefits simply because your breadwinner partner is unemployed.
Mind you, that doesn't mean an unemployed spouse can qualify for welfare simply because she is unemployed. The government has it both ways now, if her partner has a job she is automatically ineligible for welfare based on her partner's income. Considered "dependent" in that case you see, via a joint income test. The systematic dependence of women on their husbands has been officially replaced with a system of women having to be dependent on the capitalist class. A victory for feminism. But hardly a victory for working class women, rather a change in the nature of their dependence. Eliminates my ability to make them pay me while I appeal their arbitrary and illegal decisions too, unfortunately.
Yes, rich men can better afford to support their spouses, so their spouses are obviously more likely to rely on that support than women whose spouses simply don't earn enough to support them. But that doesn't contradict my argument in the least. Having a rich spouse doesn't make the wife rich, she is still dependent ands thus subject to exploitation because of HER limited means. She is subject to exploitation because SHE is economically insecure, even if she is exploiting someone else to do the housework. Her husband is NOT subject to that same form of exploitation.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas