Answer: I don’t remember when it was. Back in the days when primitive people sat around a fire? 🙂
No, the correct world is universal participation in human society where we believe that we are one common family and understand that we need to reduce [consumption].
Let’s say I have a family, a wife, and children. My wife has no opportunity to go back to work. We decided that she would stay at home, I would work, and the children, naturally, would go to school. Now let’s go from one family to many families, unite them as one family. What will we get?
How can we make sure that the family is still able to exist normally? How can this be distributed among all the others? We must take into account that in most families only the husband works and receives one salary. We need to somehow average this for everyone.
In general, we need to see the world community as a single whole, in which we must come to a balance. Otherwise, we will not be able to live. The next virus will come and still knock us out and make us shrink in our production.
Comment: Many believe that it is still unknown who the breadwinner in the family will be: a man or a woman.
My Response: It doesn’t matter. You can decide as you like. I’m not saying it’s going to be exactly this way. But in principle, even less than 150 years ago, the percentage of working women was very small. Mostly men worked.
The woman was responsible for maintaining the house, the man for providing for the family. So it was in all countries, as is customary in humanity. Look at the history over tens of thousands of years. The man went hunting, the woman supported the family hearth, and took care of the children.
Why should I open your eyes to the obvious?
Comment: It’s just that in some families, it’s the woman who’s left with a job, and the man who’s lost it.
My Response: Naturally, there are different cases. But in the vast majority, a woman earns less than a man, her earnings are considered secondary, while the home and family need her much more than a man. It is destined for us from the point of view of nature.
Question: But would you like to live on a minimum?
Answer: We are not talking about a living wage. No need to make all sorts of conclusions from what I say.
I’m saying there should be fewer jobs, less employment, because it really is twice as much as necessary. Hence the pollution of the atmosphere, water, environment, etc.
Let us engage in education, mutual connection, and give women an opportunity to unite and nurture. This is what she will be able to do once freed from all unnecessary work.
From KabTV’s “Fundamentals of Kabbalah,” 5/3/20