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 agree ! let me explain myself. Women would be better off staying out of any workplace that isn't 100% theirs. Women who don't have to kiss up to a boss are far more efficient, and organised. They can take long vacations, and call the shots in their own lives. Women in control of their own lives. Rolls right off the tongue. A self realised woman. Never mind women's liberation. It's HUMAN liberation, babycakes !!!!
Anyone can do anything until they create something that is helpless and depends upon them. That goes for male and female.
Then it becomes the focus of their life. What family deserves less than the best of it's members? Someone is raising the child. Someone is doing the laundry. This work is fulfilling, rewarding. You should go to college, you need an educated mind to tend to your family.
Traditionally women have been the home-makers for many reasons.
1) They have breasts. IE milk for their babies. Yes, we do have formula now, but there are many studies saying breast-fed babies are healthier.
I am a breast feeding proponent myself, but the breast feeding issue covers the first two years, at most. Virtually all kids can be weaned by a year.
2) For them to have children in the first place, they would need to get pregnant, and pregnancy means they would have to leave their jobs for a period to have their child. Since men never have to stop working, its more convenient for the man to maintain his job.
Depending on the job, the medical need to stop working runs two to six weeks. (I am not advocating women going back to work in two weeks, but this is what the schools require of teen moms, and physically, a woman can return to all but the most extremely physically demanding jobs by six weeks.) I personally would like to see longer maternity leaves for women. A man who has surgery has to be out at least the same length of time as a woman who has a baby. Considering most women have only 2-3 kids per lifetime, this is not an inordinate concession to make.
I think children have some instinctual connection with mothers for their general needs. And women seem to have a more instinctual natural desire to care for children.
That doesn't mean that men can't take care of kids, at least after a certain age. But, for every additional child that a family has, the woman would need to take off work at least a couple months. Which puts a huge burden on their finances.
As someone else mentioned, men can learn this. My friend's husband was laid off and she took a full time job. She said her husband quickly learned many housekeeping tasks, even though he had never done much in the past.
And in the past, the women that did work usually became nurses and teachers. Those occupations allow for women to take extended leaves without really disrupting their company. Doctors and lawyers can't casually take off work for long periods of time. They have responsibilities to their patients.
Are you kidding me? I am a nurse, and back in the old days, nurses were expected to be back in 6 weeks after delivering a bably. Do you think nurses "grow on trees"? They are professionals that have to be replaced when on maternity leave. Teachers can't leave their classrooms uncovered. Gimme a break!
I have no problem with women working, as long as they either have no children at all, or are done having children, or if they have a husband that wants to be a stay at home "dad", and a job where its acceptable for the women to take off for a couple months or more each time she has a child.
The reality is, in almost all situations its just better for the man to work and the woman to take care of the kids.
Family is the most important thing in life. Having a strong family unit, where you have positive male and female role models is very important. It definitely doesn't help a kids confidence if their mother and father aren't the ones raising them. But grandparents and even uncles/aunts can help, and raise great kids.
To me, the reason it requires two incomes to "make it" now is because there are almost always two incomes in every family these days. If no women worked then everyone would seem to do just fine with a single income. Women working has not increased prosperity and happiness for America. It has only caused more social problems, where kids don't have adequate supervision and guidance. And those kids raise their kids to reflect these "new values".
Any family with children where both parents work outside the home, especially those families that spend very little time with their kids, are doing their children a great disservice. To me, its societies fault for pushing people to be materialistic and self-centered. Like you have no worth as a person unless you have a big house and a nice car. The community should be more appreciative of great parenting and sacrifice.
I think you are speaking under the false assumption that all parents are good parents, and I'm sorry, but that is simply not the case. If everyone lived in a Utopian fantasy where no parent ever died, no mother was ever evil, and no father was ever abusive, then fine yes, maybe I could go along with this. The NY Times just did a story on toxic parents, and it garnered nearly 1,000 comments of people expressing their grief over terrible parents (Divorcing Your Parents - Well Blog - NYTimes.com).
I think people all love to look back to some fantasy past, where they believe everyone lived in some sort of ideal world. I bet if you went back to some of those families, and truly inspected their situations, you would find that many of them were not happy, contrary to popular belief. Maybe I'm cynical, but I believe that people need to do what works for them. There is no ideal, many women have always had to work, and I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe that society ever was, or will be, perfect.
Last edited by 17th Street; 11-07-2009 at 08:52 AM..
One thing that has not been mentioned here so far is changes in the workplace over the last few years. My dad worked 8-5 Monday through Friday, seldom worked overtime, and seldom traveled. My husband works overtime when the job demands it, and travels 50-75%. It would be extremely hard if I worked for my kids to take part in any after-school activities, or even to participate in school activities. I definitely think some work environments have become even more family-unfriendly. My point is things are not even as they were 20 years ago on the work front. Job demands have changed, and family structures have changed.
This question is posed very simply, and there are a lot of ways to look at the question, hence, there can be many different answers and perspectives.
Some of my thoughts, just in a random list:
1) Mothers should strive to stay at home and care for their children. If a woman has no interest in this, she shouldn't have children. I see no benefit to a mother working fulltime or even parttime if it interferes with her ability to be a good, present, mother. Forget "quality time." That has been debunked. Children need "quantity time." I worked fulltime because I had no choice (many women also have no choice) because by the time I had a child, it was too late to replace the lazy louse I had chosen to mate with. But if young women could have this value BEFORE they choose a mate, it will positively affect the kind of man they choose, the way they time starting their families, and they can discuss their goals and expectations with regard to material things they wish to acquire or what they can live without in the interest of putting children first.
2) On the other hand, a woman 100% dependent upon a man is not a good thing. A woman should be educated or trained in some skill so that if she needs to work, she can. Perhaps very parttime work while being a SAHM can help her keep one foot in the work world, keeping her skills current, while making her job at home the priority.
3) A woman who chooses to be a mother should consider that her primary occupation. Some women do not particularly want children (which is fine -- good for those who knows this about themselves beforehand). Some women have extraordinary talents and skills and the world is better for their career contribution. However, I have known many women who pursued certain occupations in service to their ego needs, trying to "measure up" to society's new expectations of them, and they were lousy lawyers, mediocre doctors, whatever, in addition to being bad mothers. There is nothing wrong with deciding that you are best at caring for children, or that you are best at styling hair. I think the egotistical push for everyone to have prestigious careers, even if they don't really have the ability, has hurt society in many ways. It's the intellectual version of "keeping up with the Joneses." Certainly we can argue that we don't want mediocre male lawyers and doctors either, but my point is that mothers should not sacrifice their children in order to have a career that they also aren't very good at.
This question is posed very simply, and there are a lot of ways to look at the question, hence, there can be many different answers and perspectives.
Some of my thoughts, just in a random list:
1) Mothers should strive to stay at home and care for their children. If a woman has no interest in this, she shouldn't have children. I see no benefit to a mother working fulltime or even parttime if it interferes with her ability to be a good, present, mother. Forget "quality time." That has been debunked. Children need "quantity time." I worked fulltime because I had no choice (many women also have no choice) because by the time I had a child, it was too late to replace the lazy louse I had chosen to mate with. But if young women could have this value BEFORE they choose a mate, it will positively affect the kind of man they choose, the way they time starting their families, and they can discuss their goals and expectations with regard to material things they wish to acquire or what they can live without in the interest of putting children first.
2) On the other hand, a woman 100% dependent upon a man is not a good thing. A woman should be educated or trained in some skill so that if she needs to work, she can. Perhaps very parttime work while being a SAHM can help her keep one foot in the work world, keeping her skills current, while making her job at home the priority.
3) A woman who chooses to be a mother should consider that her primary occupation. Some women do not particularly want children (which is fine -- good for those who knows this about themselves beforehand). Some women have extraordinary talents and skills and the world is better for their career contribution. However, I have known many women who pursued certain occupations in service to their ego needs, trying to "measure up" to society's new expectations of them, and they were lousy lawyers, mediocre doctors, whatever, in addition to being bad mothers. There is nothing wrong with deciding that you are best at caring for children, or that you are best at styling hair. I think the egotistical push for everyone to have prestigious careers, even if they don't really have the ability, has hurt society in many ways. It's the intellectual version of "keeping up with the Joneses." Certainly we can argue that we don't want mediocre male lawyers and doctors either, but my point is that mothers should not sacrifice their children in order to have a career that they also aren't very good at.
""mothers should not sacrifice their children in order to have a career that they also aren't very good at."
Men do.
I agree with the part of your post that basically says all women are not meant to be mothers...but if society keeps telling them that is what they were meant to be and should be then more non-parent women have children. Which is just as wrong as non-parent MEN having children.
AND: true equality comes when women CAN be mediocre, even lousy, and still keep their jobs...just like men.
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.
