Agree or disagree: American society would be better off if women stayed out of the workplace

[Zimbochick]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Let's be honest ... OK ... you want to have a dishonest debate, I won't play along.

I was not being dishonest.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

The issue at hand was women in the workplace which didn't begin with the 1960's feminist movement ... though I think the predominant leaning here IS the huge shift that occurred in the demographics of the workforce associated with that 1960's Gloria Steinem movement. And historically, this was created by the social engineers/corporations reflecting upon the experiences during WW II, when massive numbers of women were recruited and put to work in factories to support the war. Prior to that, it was extremely UNCOMMON for women in large numbers to be a part of the workforce either in pre-industrial America or during the industrial revolution period.

I agree, I think mobilizing the female work force during WWII had a huge impact on women and their role in society in the US. And more importantly what happened at the end of the war when they were expected to quietly resume their pre-WWII roles without question.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

And apparently you are employing selective reading when analyzing my posts and opinions, or I'm not articulating very well. I have no problem with women in the workforce, and the poll as it was devised (total baiting, IMHO) didn't offer a reasonable position to which I could support.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

What I have a problem with is stupidity and selfishness, and just so as to be clear, I'll give you a couple of examples ....

1) Selfishness - when a woman chooses to ship her children off to day care centers at age 3 months with a case of baby formula because she values her career more than her children. This doesn't apply to women (like my mother) who's husband died, and left to support the kids by working ... or in similar situations that might place a mother in that predicament. That DOES NOT include the professional woman who decides that she wants a career and to experience "motherhood", but doesn't want a husband or traditional family, and THINKS it's well within her powerful nature to be all things to all people simultaneously, when such a notion is foolishness and selfish.

I'm talking about the very well documented understanding that from birth to age 3, the most important developmental stage of children, when they need full time mothers, and not surrogates at a kennel for kids.

I certainly don't agree with the choices many parents make, but it's a slippery slope to judge them. I can only say for certain what I think is good for my family, but even then, who knows for sure how things will turn out.

You are forgetting a few important things here. Having one parent at home does not come without a price. Living on one income is hard. One parent is essentially shelving their career, which is way harder than it sounds. You have to be emotionally able to handle that, and some people just can't. A lot of our ego and self-worth is linked to our career choices. It's how we meet like-minded people, and receive intellectual stimulation. Giving that up can be extremely difficult for some people.

The other biggest issue for me is the way children see their mother if she chooses to stay home, and honestly this is seldom talked about. My kids have never seen me work. I gave up a very active career path to stay home, and I don't regret it for one minute, but the major female role-model in my kids life is a glorified maid, and I have to work very hard to make sure they know and understand other aspects of my life regarding my education and past career. I try to have women in their lives who have made different life-choices, so they can see things from a different perspective. Also luckily we have many stay-at-home dads locally, and they see that too.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

2) Stupidity - When the hardcore delusions of some female that thinks she'd make a great Linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys rather than a cheerleader, and views the cheerleaders as exploited women. AND THEY EXIST. On a less dramatic note, and the earlier swat team member example notwithstanding, the 110 LB, 5' 4" female street duty police officer is NOT the cop I want showing up to stop a 240 LB crack head maniac trying to bust into my home. I want one of those ex-special forces types who's arms are as big as my legs, who gets chill bumps just thinking about body slamming a criminal and cracking his head.

And though my spouse is ex-military (non-combat), I do not believe in female combat soldiers .... I believe a society that has women choosing to kill people for a living, or a country that chooses to brainwash them into enjoying it isn't far from total ruin. Jesus C. we have enough men willing to do it, and the other half of the population should be focussed entirely on trying to convince them not to.
However, you cannot deny that the most vocal of the feminists tend to claim they can do ANYTHING a man can do, and do it better. While I appreciate confidence and self esteem, such claims demonstrate neither ... just pure ignorance, for which I have little patience.

And like in every other situation, a few extremists don't speak for the majority. There are a few women who may have physical characteristics very similar to those of a man with regard to strength and stamina, but those are exception, most peole would agree. I honestly have mixed feelings with regard to placing limitations on women in the military, and think there are some good models around the world to look at. If a woman wants to play in the NFL, and she has what it takes, I have no problem with that.

[GregW]

GuynTexas -

During the industrial revolution in New England most of the textile mills employed women to do the actual work. The tradition of women doing light production work has never stopped. Who do you think is doing all the sewing that makes the shirts of the world?

A 5' 4" woman can carry a very big gun. The sanest way for anyone to subdue a crazy giant is to blow his brains all over the wall. Fighting the guy is really foolish. Maybe this is why I am not a cop.

[eskercurve]

I would contend that inflation and the demand for more worldly possessions is what got women in the workforce in the first place. Our nation's competitiveness on the world stage demanded it, basically.

We'd have a lot more babies if women weren't in the workplace. But that's basically the only thing that would have changed.

[chessgeek]

A lot of families would be at near poverty or at a low income level instead of in the middle class with only the man working. Now if a family can make it work with only one wage earner, that is fine. That decision is theirs to make and not ours.