I really really need a husband!!

You are making a huge assumption that wages will increase if there are no women in the workforce. I personally don't see the evidence that wages have decreased significantly due to women entering workforce. If you inflate minimage wage from the 1950s to today's worth using CPI, today's wage is in the same ballpark. Or you can pick another profession such as engineer.

What has increased substantially is cost of goods, which is not really related to wage increase which is why people are seeing an increasing gap between wages and cost of goods. If wages are basically on par with inflation, there are other cost drivers which are driving cost of goods. A home or vehicle costing more now than in 1950s is not entirely related to wages but other factors such as supplies and energy, and value of land.

This is not an assumption. We've seen it happen - it's called history. You describe its effects in your comment, but fail to identify its cause. Real wages dropped drastically since women entered the (male) workforce in large numbers (obviously, this would have been much harder to hide/fudge with real money, which is also a problem). Since real wages have dropped, it's very difficult (in some cases, nigh on impossible) for wives and mothers to opt out of the so-called workforce, to actually do real women's work such as giving birth and raising families. The government and its sycophants may try and argue against this with deceptive government inflation figures (significantly understated from actual inflation) and cost of goods increasing (this is actually inflation), but the truth is, goods will only be as expensive as people are able to pay. (This is called the free market - if the goods are more expensive than this, manufacturers won't produce them - unless the goods are a type of weapon, but this is another issue).

My point is there is the illusion of choice, but the psychological operation called feminism and subversive government methods to discriminate against traditional families continues to weaken and destroy Western society. As a simple example of the results, the transgender agenda would have been very difficult for the governments to obtain mass acceptance for, with stay-at-home moms teaching their many children traditional values - remember sodomites don't reproduce so can only influence through school/daycare/government propaganda.

High inflation has happened even before women really entered the workforce, including one of the worst periods during the Great Depression, and to a lesser extent when Carter was president. So, women entering workforce is not tied to high inflation since inflation numbers go up and down.

The number of jobs have not remained finite since the 1950s, where there is an expanding pool of applicants so employers can hire the cheaper ones thereby depressing wages. Rather, what has happened is that the number of jobs and opportunities have grown significantly since that time so people are not competing for the same number of jobs. There are more jobs and opportunities now than ever before that sometimes employers have trouble finding employees (of course, this also varies on economic climate which goes up and down).

Perhaps wages would not drop (if they did), if women were paid as much as men? It is true during the past few years wages have not kept up with inflation (as they do not during periods of high inflation) however over a long span of time there is no significant difference based on government statistics.

The main reason why both husband and wife may need work is because of housing cost (mortgage, property tax, etc.). Other costs are more variable, especially with change in habits or purchasing cheaper items. Especially with Chinese-made goods, some prices have not increased too much. One reason why housing prices increase is because there may increased demand due to more singles buying, etc.

I'm not going to get into an economics debate on the thread. In economic theory, an increased supply usually leads to a drop in price, without an increase in demand. Suddenly doubling the labour force by encouraging women to work effectively doubled the size of the labour force. We shouldn't therefore be surprised that where a household once could be supported on one income, it now requires two. Of course, there are other factors that led to the current poor economic situation for families, but women in the workforce is probably one of the most significant ones.

The problem with women "working" is that a man can usually do the job better, and it means that less children are being born into the world, loved or looked after. Of course, this is a generalisation, but the more women "work", the more real families (that's everyone) suffer. I use the word "work" in inverted commas, as women can and do real work as wives and mothers - this is real woman's work that men can never do.

In economic theory, an increased supply usually leads to a drop in price, without an increase in demand.

Suddenly doubling the labour force by encouraging women to work effectively doubled the size of the labour force. We shouldn't therefore be surprised that where a household once could be supported on one income, it now requires two.

So I am very lonely and need a husband. I want someone to watch Disney movies with and take me to Target with credit card. Someone who makes a lot of money so that I don’t have to work. Also, he should be a virgin and be willing to stay virgin forever because I’m not interested in that.
Where is he? Where could my soulmate be?

So I am very lonely and need a husband. I want someone to watch Disney movies with and take me to Target with credit card. Someone who makes a lot of money so that I don’t have to work. Also, he should be a virgin and be willing to stay virgin forever because I’m not interested in that.
Where is he? Where could my soulmate be?

And then you find one. And later realize, I could have a best friend and a job and do all those things happily single.

Or, so I've heard.

I get what you're saying, but a lot of families don't fit into the traditional nuclear family with mom, dad and kids. Sometimes the dad isn't around and the woman has to work to provide for her kids. My grandma and mom did this. If society were to go back to only men working, would working men be willing to support single women and their children too? Would they take on the responsibility of not only their own wife and children but also all the single mothers and their kids too?

Ever hear about a woman in the Bible named lydia? What about priscilla? Does the name Phoebe ring a bell?

I sure hope you're not saying women should meekly stay home and not be businesswomen...

Then your hope is not in vain, as that's not what I'm saying. But for a woman, being good at business is secondary to being a good wife and mother, and society would benefit from adopting such a viewpoint.

Ever hear about a woman in the Bible named lydia? What about priscilla? Does the name Phoebe ring a bell?

I sure hope you're not saying women should meekly stay home and not be businesswomen...

Don't forget the Proverbs 31 woman. She worked like an army of people. LOL

She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands.
She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar.
She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls.
She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.
She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.
In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy.
When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.
She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.