Agree or disagree: American society would be better off if women stayed out of the workplace (financial, education)
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.
Some argue that the women's movement has caused more problems than its been worth, even claiming that dual-income families have driven up the cost of living.
What do you think?
The American Taliban (Christian fundamentalists) would like to have us believe that. In all truth, many women (and mothers) would LOVE to stay home with the children (and even those who don't have children) if finances afforded. Heck, there are some men that wouldn't mind to stay home with the kids while there wives worked. "It's about the money stupid" (as the saying goes).
The truth of the matter is that the extreme right-wing Republicans/extreme Christian fundamentalists would like us to believe in the glory of yesteryear when "women didn't work." Women have always worked, and have worked years, often for no money, that's all. They have done back-breaking labor inside and outside the house, given birth, tended to the children, their husbands, and everyone else. The Leave-it-to-Beaver image is an illusion that never was. My husband's grandma was a widow of 13 children; my grandma was a widow of 9. Both worked extremely hard inside and outside the home in order to provide for the kids. These were in the days BEFORE the social programs we have available today. Look at Rosie the Riveter poster from the WWII days; there were plenty of women working, there still are. Women have always worked; the women that HAD to work have always worked, the ones that HAVE to work are still working today. Absolutely NOTHING has changed except that there are a few more laws in place that protect ALL workers (not just women workers).
I'm from the NE OH area; an area that had a lot of immigrants living there after WWII. Many worked at various factories around here when jobs were plentiful. BOTH the husband and wife worked; these were people from the "old country" - people that had no idea what "women's liberation" or "feminists" were. In fact, I am positive that they could care less even if they did know (but I know they didn't because they didn't waste their time on talking about stupid things, they just went out and did it). Both husband and wife worked because they came here to make a better life for themselves and their families. These are the types that were able to buy a small house IN CASH for their son or daughter when they got married, or pay for their son or daughter's college education in cash (even though they didn't have a college degree themselves). These people worked their fingers to the bone because they wanted a better life in America than they had from where they came from. People still want the same.
What in the world is wrong with people today that they are so easily manipulated with lies and half-truths? Are they totally that dumb, ignorant, and naive as to believe the garbage/lies that are being spewed forth from comedian con artists or greedy, "hold out their hands for your tithes" religious gurus? Seriously.
So, when I hear the argument of women working as something new or something that is attributed to "women's lib", I just think to myself how contrived this whole argument about women working is. Women have ALWAYS worked; this is nothing new.
Did going from single income to dual income households cause economic problems, probably so.
Are many people in this thread too hung up on the "women" part of it, absolutely.
And holy crap, right below my post to prove the point. People never cease to amaze me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donna7
The American Taliban (Christian fundamentalists) would like to have us believe that. In all truth, many women (and mothers) would LOVE to stay home with the children (and even those who don't have children) if finances afforded. Heck, there are some men that wouldn't mind to stay home with the kids while there wives worked. "It's about the money stupid" (as the saying goes).
The truth of the matter is that the extreme right-wing Republicans would like us to believe in the glory of yesteryear when "women didn't work." Women have always worked, and have worked years, often for no money, that's all. They have done back-breaking labor inside and outside the house, given birth, tended to the children, their husbands, and everyone else. The Leave-it-to-Beaver image is an illusion that never was. My husband's grandma was a widow of 13 children; my grandma was a widow of 9. Both worked extremely hard inside and outside the home in order to provide for the kids. These were in the days BEFORE the social programs we have available today. Look at Rosy the Riveter poster from the WWII days; there were plenty of women working, there still are. Women have always worked; the women that HAD to work have always worked, the ones that HAVE to work are still working today. Absolutely NOTHING has changed except that there are a few more laws in place that protect ALL workers (not just women workers).
So, when I hear the argument of women working as something new or something that is attributed to "women's lib", I just think to myself how naive and ignorant people must be to actually believe what these comedian con artists are saying.
I put strongly disagree. Women shouldn't be removed from the workplace. However 2 full time jobs is destructive to families. Particularly in a society with longer work weeks, ridiculously long commutes and 24/7 culture where people work opposite shifts.
As I've already posted in my longer post which is above this one, this is nothing new with the husband and wife working opposite shifts. This is how it's been for a long time. What made it work (I know it did for the immigrant population that was raising kids 60-70 years ago in my ethnic neighborhood in which I grew up in) is that grandma and grandpa would often live with the family and help take care of the kids. Both Mom and Dad went out to work. People still have extended family living with them. My son studied in Chile last year and lived with a family that had four children. Grandma and grandpa helped out a lot - from both sides. The one grandma prepared the daily dinner for the family and dropped it off every afternoon so that when everyone came home, dinner was already done.
Do people in our country do that today for their families who are working and raising kids? I don't know, maybe they are. I won't get into my own personal situation, but no one ever did that for us. To be honest, things were always expected of us...as we were younger....even though we were working and taking care of our own large brood of kids. Things might be better in the world if all generations helped each other out...it seems that people are really pulled at the seams nowadays and are working feverishly taking care of their own kids and household while taking care of the older generation and their needs. If there is stress about anything, it's about that, not about women working. The "Sandwich Generation" is real. I know that that's where my own stress was for a good number of years. Heck, "working" was a break/reprieve from all the other cr*p that was happening around us.
I think that the advent of the nuclear family has perhaps done more damage to the whole family than anything else. Yes, it IS hard to do it all, to work, raise the children, run the household when only two people are doing it. It is a hard job - period - no matter how you slice it.
That's not an angry male that is a male who has completely lost it.
But in my experiences we should blame angry women. They do contribute to such problems. There have been several times where I've been ridiculed and taunted by angry women in college. Not so much in the workplace.
And the best way to handle chronically unprofessional and unethical people is to expose them. At least others will have a heads up. We have to weave around toxic workplaces, colleges, and bullies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?!
And that shouldn't apply to men??????????
Ever notice the "disgruntled" ANGRY employee who comes back to his former workplace and shoots a bunch of former coworkers is almost always
M A L E ?
So angry MEN have a right to work but not women????
That's not an angry male that is a male who has completely lost it.
But in my experiences we should blame angry women. They do contribute to such problems. There have been several times where I've been ridiculed and taunted by angry women in college. Not so much in the workplace.
And the best way to handle chronically unprofessional and unethical people is to expose them. At least others will have a heads up. We have to weave around toxic workplaces, colleges, and bullies.
So those "big strong emotionally stable" MEN are blaming women for their actions????
NO, it is NOT women's fault when men do stupid things. It's THEIR fault ....and if they WERE strong and stable and responsible and more intelligent they'd realize that.
Look at it like this. During the Depression we had at times what 20-25% unemployment? If women had been as much of the workforce as they are today then that would have been closer to 60% since you'd already lost 20% of the jobs, and if women had been working then that's would be fully half the work force without jobs without ever even factoring in the actual folks who were working but lost jobs.
Now look at today we have 9-10% unemployment overall in the US. If you take out half the workforce then you have full emplyment plus millions of jobs going wanting for workers. Those who remain at work thus make a lot more as the workplace becomes a definite seller's market instead of the buyer's market it is now and has been for a while.
I'll note here those percentages may be off a bit as I've never set down to work it out on paper.
This isn't intended to be anti-women in the workforce. They just happen to provide an easy before and after picture. You could really cut out anyone be they a random assortment of individuals or some easily definable group like women. The bottom line is if fewer people were working in normal times (and those not working were being supported by some other individual and not the government) then the country would have much lower unemployment and hopefully be better off financially.
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.