Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think women entering the work force has had a negative impact. The need for both parents to work has.
It may be the case today that two incomes are needed to support a family, but the reason women originally entered the workforce was not due to the falling incomes of their husbands.
At the time women began entering the workforce in large numbers (1970-74), inflation adjusted incomes earned by men were at an all-time high.
In the time since then, incomes earned by men have fallen as women`s incomes have increased.
Today, with advances in technology, unchecked illegal immigration and global trade making US workers all but obsolete, even women are now seeing their incomes decline.
-higher costs of housing and day care-- competition over better housing and better day care combined with dual-income households has driven the prices up to the point where a lot of people can't afford them, exacerbating the wealth gap even further.
-decreased social value of men and relationships in general. Finding a man used to be a woman's top priority as without one she would be doomed to lower socioeconomic status. Not anymore.
-gender identity issues. Conflicts between practicality/necessity and tradition-- for example, men still want to make more than their SOs, women still want men to make more than they do. People still expect certain behaviors and certain personalities that are simply not supported or nurtured by an egalitarian society.
I know I'm going to immediately be accused of misogyny for even thinking about such a thing, but it's a worthwhile debate to have. Note: I'm not asking whether it's a good thing that women are integrating into the workforce and outpacing men, that is, whether the plusses outweigh the minuses. I'm only asking whether there are any minuses.
The biggest impact is the loss of teachers. Female doctors and scientists would have been teachers in the past. I'm not saying gaining female doctors and scientists is a bad thing or they should of should be relegated to teaching, I'm just pointing out the loss to the education system in this country is unimaginable.
I know I'm going to immediately be accused of misogyny for even thinking about such a thing, but it's a worthwhile debate to have. Note: I'm not asking whether it's a good thing that women are integrating into the workforce and outpacing men, that is, whether the plusses outweigh the minuses. I'm only asking whether there are any minuses.
Women in the work force has improved society. Women and their children are no longer stuck in abusive relationships. Families can improve their standard of living which means children grow up with more opportunities. SES is strongly tied to outcomes for children. This is really like asking if freeing the slaves was good for society. For men, women working probably created more issues but women and their children benefitted so more society members benefit than are harmed. That makes women in the work force good for society.
Poor and blue collar women have always had jobs so I assume you are talking about middle class women entering the workforce. Sure, there have been some negative consequences from middle class women, especially mothers, entering the workforce. Mothers and wives no longer cook home made meals and obesity has risen dramatically since the 70s. Divorce has increased, splitting up families, as women became more independent and didn't need a man for financial support. There are other negatives, too, but the positives of women working outside the home far, far outweigh the negatives.
The biggest impact is the loss of teachers. Female doctors and scientists would have been teachers in the past. I'm not saying gaining female doctors and scientists is a bad thing or they should of should be relegated to teaching, I'm just pointing out the loss to the education system in this country is unimaginable.
This is incorrect. There is no shortage of teachers. I have no idea why the government keeps saying we do. I've been one of as many as 150 applicants for a math opening and never been less than 1 out of 6 applicants for a chemistry or physics opening. I hear the odds are much worse in all subjects except foreign language. There we have a shortage of certain languages like German. I have no idea why the government wants to dupe people into thinking we have a shortage of teachers when teachers cannot find jobs. With a masters in chemical engineering and a MAT, it took me three years to find a job that wasn't in a charter school. This was 7 years ago when they were crying that we don't have enough STEM teachers and the issue wasn't me. I was consistently placing in the top two or three just never the stand out. The problem was there was a glut of teachers to choose from. There still is. It's rare today to see a STEM posting. They were more common a few years back because the state offered buy outs on pensions to try and create jobs for new teachers. Without that move I'd probably still be working for a charter school making $32K/year with no pension and benefits that suck.
Women and their children need more options than just being teachers when you have too many teachers.
Poor and blue collar women have always had jobs so I assume you are talking about middle class women entering the workforce. Sure, there have been some negative consequences from middle class women, especially mothers, entering the workforce. Mothers and wives no longer cook home made meals and obesity has risen dramatically since the 70s. Divorce has increased, splitting up families, as women became more independent and didn't need a man for financial support. There are other negatives, too, but the positives of women working outside the home far, far outweigh the negatives.
Obesity hasn't risen because mom isn't home to cook. It has risen because children don't play outside anymore. They watch TV and play on video game systems. It's the loss of physical activity. We were nto obese because after school you could hear shouts of "Be home when the street lights are on." down the street as kids ran out to play with their friends. We rode our bikes or walked where we needed to go instead of parents driving us. We played physical games. We climbed trees. We ran to get somewhere fast. If mom needed milk she had us walk 6 blocks to the store.
Oh, and my mom worked. 6 kids and none of us were obese as kids. I can't say the same as adults but again I'd blame lack of physical activity. This has nothing to do with working moms. In fact I'd argue that the children of working moms probably get more physical activity than the kids of SAHM's today because day cares have requirements to take kids out to play and aren't sitting them in front of a TV or video games. There are requirements day care centers must follow and TV time is restricted under the guidelines. When dd#1 was little, it worked out that I would get there just as they were going out to play. Dd would look at me and tell me to go back to work, lol. She wanted to go out and play with her friends. I would just stay for half an hour until the kids came in and then go home with her.
FTR, there was only one obese child in my extended family and he was a video game geek whose mom SAH. Her SAH probably hurt him here as he would not have had access to video games at day care or latch key however he's not obese as an adult. The latch key my kids attended had snack time and homework time then the kids hit the playground.
Blaming childhood obesity on working moms is just bunk. So much more has changed than just moms working. Kids are glued to electronic devices today instead of our walking around with their friends. That has way more impact than mom working.
This is incorrect. There is no shortage of teachers.
I'm not talking about volume, I'm talking about quality. When women had very few job opportunities available teaching was one profession they could enter. Highly intelligent women gravitated to that profession.
it may be the case today that two incomes are needed to support a family, but the reason women originally entered the workforce was not due to the falling incomes of their husbands.
At the time women began entering the workforce in large numbers (1970-74), inflation adjusted incomes earned by men were at an all-time high.
In the time since then, incomes earned by men have fallen as women`s incomes have increased.
Today, with advances in technology, unchecked illegal immigration and global trade making us workers all but obsolete, even women are now seeing their incomes decline.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
