Did the womens movement kill the family unit? (generation, ideology, program)
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.
And many have made very poor choices, in the absence of having cultivated a sense of responsibility to others -- something which the women's libbers conveniently forgot in the thrill of their politicization of life.
This is your characterization, your perspective, your reality. But it's not mine. A working women certainly has at least as well cultivated a sense of responsibility to others as a working man. It may be that the issue so many men have with women's liberation has nothing to do with women failing to live up to their responsibilities as it is with men who've been free of certain responsibilities for generations not wanting to take on those responsibilities. If working at home was such an inviting proposition, why didn't more Victorian men or men even in the 1940's do so? Certainly we see men now doing it, but loading the washer is much easier than doing laundry in big pots over a fire. It's much nicer that we can go to the store and buy soap than try to make it out of lye and rendered fat. Cleaning your floors on your hands and knees is a bit more laborious than running the vaccum or swiffering the tile in the kitchen. Times have changed, and the industrial revolution brought about a lot of modern conveniences that freed up women's time. If women began to look at the workplace as an avenue to improve their lives and their homes, by being able to economically assist their families and pay for advantages for their children they previously could not provide, how is that irresponsible? If women who worked began to notice that they weren't being paid as much as men for the same labor, and they demanded the same respect and compensation for their work that men enjoyed, how is that irresponsible? You seem to think that the woman, by virtue of her ability to give birth, should be the primary parent to make sacrifices for the benefit of her children. The man can reap the benefits, he can continue to have a career, a social life, he can expect a clean home, washed and pressed clothes, healthy meals prepared on demand, and while the family may have to give up a few luxuries since mom doesn't work, that's the price for a traditional family. If she's miserable, lonely, unsatisfied, that's the extra price she gets to pay. After all, what more does she want?
To the OP: No, the decline in rate of increase of REAL WAGES in America killed the American family unit, because that decline led to the NECESSITY of women entering the workforce so that REAL HOUSEHOLD INCOMES could continue rising similarly to previous post-WW2 rates. That is, the decline in the rate of increase in the standard of living in America is the culprit.
This is your characterization, your perspective, your reality. But it's not mine.
You disagree that many women have made irresponsible choices?
Quote:
A working women certainly has at least as well cultivated a sense of responsibility to others as a working man. It may be that the issue so many men have with women's liberation has nothing to do with women failing to live up to their responsibilities as it is with men who've been free of certain responsibilities for generations not wanting to take on those responsibilities.
That may be true for some men. It is not true of me or of my sons.
Quote:
If working at home was such an inviting proposition, why didn't more Victorian men or men even in the 1940's do so?
My dad always helped my mother with the housework. Watching him is how I learned; watching me is how my sons learned.
Quote:
Certainly we see men now doing it, but loading the washer is much easier than doing laundry in big pots over a fire. It's much nicer that we can go to the store and buy soap than try to make it out of lye and rendered fat. Cleaning your floors on your hands and knees is a bit more laborious than running the vaccum or swiffering the tile in the kitchen. Times have changed, and the industrial revolution brought about a lot of modern conveniences that freed up women's time.
And those conveniences were, almost without exception, invented and developed by men.
Quote:
If women began to look at the workplace as an avenue to improve their lives and their homes, by being able to economically assist their families and pay for advantages for their children they previously could not provide, how is that irresponsible?
Many women did so without being aware of the ways in which their absence would affect their children's development or the subtle changes which would take place in the family dynamic by valuing economic factors above familial ones.
Quote:
If women who worked began to notice that they weren't being paid as much as men for the same labor, and they demanded the same respect and compensation for their work that men enjoyed, how is that irresponsible?
I have never had any direct eivdence, either in my own career or from the careers of anyone that I have ever known, that women were either paid unfairly or disrespected without recompense. My parents, for example, were both blue-collar workers, and were paid the same...
Quote:
You seem to think that the woman, by virtue of her ability to give birth, should be the primary parent to make sacrifices for the benefit of her children.
No, I think that both parents are equally responsible to limit their own freedoms to a degree. That constitutes, in my mind, a loving and responsible approach to family life.
Quote:
The man can reap the benefits, he can continue to have a career, a social life, he can expect a clean home, washed and pressed clothes, healthy meals prepared on demand, and while the family may have to give up a few luxuries since mom doesn't work, that's the price for a traditional family.
I think every member of a happy (traditional or not) family has a career, a social life, expects and contributes to a clean home, washed and pressed clothes (though little pressing is necessary these days, what with polyester easy-care fabric blends), enjoys nutritious meals (not on demand but prepared with care and intelligence) eaten together as a family, and is willing to forego luxuries in exchange for having mom at home and in charge of the family harmony and health.
Quote:
If she's miserable, lonely, unsatisfied, that's the extra price she gets to pay. After all, what more does she want?
If she's miserable, lonely, and unsatisfied, it's the responsiblity of her husband and (learning by example) the other members of the family, to do something about it. That's not a function of feminism, and certainly not of misogyny. It's living one's love.
My only point is that we work for our families and should always make sure they come 1st.
Ah, that's very different then. Before, your points were that this "family unit" thing had been weakened because liberated women weren't giving 100% to their very important role anymore, and men were doing nothing to pick up the resulting slack. Pretty much bashing everybody, there.
Now, it turns out that you just want parents to place the interests of their families first, apparently leaving them free to make and act on their own best judgments as to how the family should be structured and how it should function so as to best serve or advance those various familial interests over time. I don't have so much to argue with there...
Times have changed, and the industrial revolution brought about a lot of modern conveniences that freed up women's time.
I can't resist twice, so this time I'll point out the connection in what you describe here to the dawn, and then the advancement of consumerism, starting in roughly the first decade of the 20th century. In theory, entire new industries (and therefore profits and capital accumulations) were possible if workers could be lured away from the labors and chores of the home and into employment where their wages would make them the market for the products being produced in those new industries. Though he was actually only a peripheral actor in this drama, Henry Ford gets remembered for the idea of paying his workers enough so that they themselves could afford to buy his cars, which does at least illustrate the principle. It didn't take long for consumerism to succeed, and it's been something of a double-helix ever since, with technology and consumerism evolving and revolving around each other all the way to where we are today.
And many have made very poor choices, in the absence of having cultivated a sense of responsibility to others -- something which the women's libbers conveniently forgot in the thrill of their politicization of life.
Responsibility to others?? How about it's the job of both the parents to keep a family together. Chauvinistic.
Blame our greedy, morally deficient lawmakers, a more mobile society that breaks up the extended family unit, the degradation of public education, video games, gigantic TVs and the Internet, rampant sexuality and materialism encouraged in the media, the building of gated subdivisions instead of towns (are towns established at all anymore?) the loss of decent paying jobs due to outsourcing and a shrinking middle class. These are just a few contributors to the weakening of families in America that I can think of.
The women's' rights movement is entirely NOT to blame. To say that it is, is pretty stupid.
Women's' rights are not about the necessity for all women to work outside of the home. It's about equal choices on an equal playing field. And yet, women still make lower salaries than men for the same positions, women's health issues are still not being properly addressed, and Viagra is covered by insurance but birth control isn't. Oh, and haven't you noticed that almost all of the women on the news who are commenting on these issues still need to look like Barbie? Most of the men look like dried up old toads. Lots of double standards still abound.
I can understand yearning for a simpler time, but use you brain cells for a minute. Equal rights in no way adds up to the breakdown of families. You need to go back to the drawing board.
Okay, let's use your brain cells for a minute. Why do you think that women don't make as much as men today? Could it be they take off time away from the job for personal reasons? It's very fair for the person who puts in the time and effort to make the most $$$. That would apply to a man or woman.
Okay, let's use your brain cells for a minute. Why do you think that women don't make as much as men today? Could it be they take off time away from the job for personal reasons? It's very fair for the person who puts in the time and effort to make the most $$$. That would apply to a man or woman.
That's only assuming the woman in question has a child, how does that explain a childless woman?
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.
