Has women in the work force helped or hurt the family?

[irishpatrick]

Originally Posted by Tantum ergo

As many have noted, it has been for some a 'positive personal experience' and for others, not so much.

As others have also noted, women have been 'in the work force' part time and full time for much longer than just the 20th century, particular women of minorities and of a lower socio-economic background.

I'll also note that even through the mid 1950s, working 'at home' was the equivalent, for all but the wealthy, of working a 'full-time job'. Before the big labor saving devices came in (mostly in the 20th century) and especially among the rural and/or poor even then, jobs like cooking, cleaning, subsistance farming, food preservation, etc. took a long time. Today we walk out into the kitchen and turn on the dishwasher or oven or even microwave and pick our huge variety of foods out of the refrigerator. . .back then before you even went into the kitchen you went out to the woodpile or over to the coal cellar, and got the fuel ready to HEAT the old coal-burning or wood burning stove, which you then had to gauge by 'feel' would be the right temperature to do whatever (bake, roast). And while you might have an ice box and some canned (home canned) food, you'd also have much LESS to make do with. And you'd have a larger family to care for. Also more diseases for which (early on) there were no such things as antibiotics.

Detergents? Hah. Home made lye soap (ever try making it? Not fun), scraped. No washer or dryer; you'd haul by hand water from the pump, boil it, and you would HAND agitate those clothes. Then, those heavy hot wet things would need to be WRUNG and RINSED and finally hung out, and when dry they would need to be IRONED.

I've barely scraped the topic but people need to realize how much WORK women who 'stayed at home" did, historically speaking. And it was just as noble an occupation as any PAID one.

IMO, staying home and caring for children and the family is the most noble of all possible careers/vocations. IMO, it is truly a vocation, and not just a task or job. I just think that the majority do not view it that way any longer; most see it as a burden that means somehow they are missing out on something.

IMO, kids do better when a parent is at home, and I think they best when the mom stays home and the family is stable and loving...that is--imo--the best scenario and yes I know there are many exceptions.

But, I am a man, so what do I know, right?

[irishpatrick]

Originally Posted by Rence

I only know one man who wanted to stay home and run the fort, and he's doing so. His wife is a lawyer, and they can afford to live off her salary. I don't know of any other man who wants to stay home and run the fort. I know many women who wouldn't mind it --- if they could afford to make that change. Men, in general, are epected to work even if they want to stay home and care for the kids, if their wife can't make enough money to support them all. In the real world, there are many women who would choose to stay home and take care of the kids, but their husbands don't make enough money to support the family, so the woman has to help. So it goes both ways.



It depends on the women. Some women do miss staying at home, and some women are happy to be working and are confident that their arrangement benefits the whole family. Some women are grateful for their career, but still miss their children and make up the time when they don't work.



If the dad stays home, and does what mom does, I can't see how it would make a significant enough difference for the children. Of course there's a *difference*: mom is mom and dad is dad. But if one of them is staying at home and running the fort, the fort should be running regardless of who is running it.

So, have things gotten better or worse--in general?

[Katie966]

Originally Posted by irishpatrick

I think in the vast majority of families the husband/father does NOT have the choice to stay home and care for the kids/family. Men, in general, are expected to work for money.

Women have more choices regarding caring for the family from what I can see (yes, there are exceptions, so please no posting the exceptions--these are generalizations, not absolutes).

(btw, I agree that caring for kids is real work)

Well, I only know one man who stays home with the kids, and it's because his wife makes a significantly larger salary than he would and is happier as a career woman. I think this is the exception though. Most men I know want to have a job outside of the home. I'd say that if a man wants to stay home with his children, he should make it clear up front and should seek a woman who would be okay with that and who would prefer to focus on her career. Given the choice though, the men I know would still choose to work outside of the home.

[Serap]

IrishPatrick...I believe that you have already made your opinion known using a passive/aggressive stance and you are now hoping to slowly prove your point to all of us by getting us to give our opinions individually and once you have them all, you will make your original intentions known more clearly. I believe that you are currently against women working outside the home and you believe that this has been a huge downfall in our society.

I cannot say for certain if a woman working (i.e. having a career) is a bad thing or a good thing. It depends on the individual family and the childcare arrangements that have been made.

While I agree with TheRealJulianne's point that she never missed any "firsts" with her children; I also don't necessarily agree that being a working mother is a neglectful stance with regards to her children.

A working mother can ensure that she only works 8 hours a day and begins her working day very early so that she can be home by 4:30 p.m. A working mother can also work 12 hour days and be neglectful towards her children. A working mother can have her loving mother or a very loving nanny take care of her children while she is a at work - children can and will flourish in this environment. A mother can also leave her children with a not so great daycare institutue or with a no so loving babysitter.

A working mother can be a very loving mother and fully engage her children when she is with them. A SAHM can be neglectful and unloving towards her children. A working mother can be selfish and unloving towards her children...always leaving them with a nanny. A SAHM can be a loving, nuturing provider to her children.

A working mother could have a very supportive husband who loves his children and shows it through loving actions. A working mother could have a cold husband who works 12 hours a day and is always too busy for his family. A SAHM could have a supportive husband or an unsupportive husband also.

There are too many variables to make a sweeping statement that a working mother is good or bad or that a SAHM is better than a working mother.

[silentstar]

Originally Posted by irishpatrick

That last sentence made me smile--really. Awesome.

However--and be honest here--is it fair that women have choices, but men really do not? Is that fair, is that true EQUALITY?

I think men have choices. They need to be unconventional to go against the tide, but for example my uncle stayed home for several years. A man who wants to stay home can marry a woman who wants a family but also has strong career ambitions. The couple would have to deal with social prejudice that says they are doing the 'wrong' thing but if they persisted and made friends and had a support network they could do it.

[Warrenton]

1. Has women working fulltime outside the home been a good or bad development for the American family?

It has been a bad development. Of course, the fact that men work fulltime outside their homes has also been a bad development.

Has our culture improved since women entered the workforce in massive numbers

Our culture has practically disappeared. The question is analogous to "did the development of the shotgun improve the condition of passenger pigeons?"

Are our children better or worse off?

Worse. Unless, of course, one believes that children prefer being raised by strangers.

Has women working fulltime made this nation stronger, weaker, or no impact?

We get into some deeper waters, here. Who, or what, is the "nation"? If we mean the interests that own it and direct it, then it has gotten stronger. They have twice the number of workers, and in the absence of twice the amount of work to do, they have reaped the benefit of the depressing tendency that has on wages. With twice as many people making capital investments in a career, they have reaped the benefit on the interest charged for the investments.

However, if one defines the nation differently, for instance, as the government, then manifestly it is getting weaker. Ten years to not win a war in Afghanistan? Weak.

If the people are deemed to be the nation, then again, they are becoming weaker. As the mortgage crisis illustrates, they are being dispossessed. The number of people with a meaningful amount of land is less than ten percent, and declining. Whether this is attributable to women in the workforce is hard to say, but that the two things coincide is undeniable. Women may be working, but they are not owning in like percentages. If they are owning, they are not having much of a positive impact, therefore are indistinguishable from the owners who were not women.

We may have women senators, but the country is still broke.

Have our children become stronger or weaker in the faith?

It would be difficult to argue they have become stronger, because many now have no one to teach them.

Has entering careers and fulltime work been good or bad for women (and women who are moms)?

Good, in that women who have no husbands, or whose husbands have left have some means to support themselves. However, this has been overrated. Most of the women who lack husbands and have children are poor.

In general, however, women in the paid workforce is bad for them. It has put them in the same position as men in the paid workforce, which is generally a position of subservience. It teaches them, as it teaches men, to look to the master for support, to owe to the master the loyalty that belongs to Christ, and should be expressed through family devotion.

It makes them slaves.

Would women prefer to work and let their husbands stay at home and care for their children? Or, would women rather both spouses work?

One presumes that like men, women want a convergence of all good things! The problem is that it is the false promise of being able to acheive a utopia has induced women into giving up what they had, as it did men. That is the essence of sales: you persuade someone with something of value to part with it for something of lesser value.

Humanity has trod this path already, and the future of women will be no different than the past of men.

In the beginning, man and woman loved each other because they saw God intended them to do so. They lost this knowledge, and loved each other for their strength. When men first began to get weak, women loved them for their money. Without the money, women ceased to love them at all.

A woman can be loved for her beauty, or her loyalty, or her wealth. The problem with love, though, is its exclusivity. If the wealth is not exclusive, or if it is not constant, then....

People may want many things. But they won't get them.

Would it better to have men stay at home with the kids, rather then neither parent staying home

A third of a loaf is still better than no loaf.

I say a third, because when men went out to work and women stayed home, humanity was still half right: the female half was still doing what it was supposed to do, although under the difficult condition of having to do it when the male half was effectively insane.

If we just switch positions, no body will be doing what they are meant to do, except at least the children will not be brought up by total strangers.

[irishpatrick]

Originally Posted by Katie966

Well, I only know one man who stays home with the kids, and it's because his wife makes a significantly larger salary than he would and is happier as a career woman. I think this is the exception though. Most men I know want to have a job outside of the home. I'd say that if a man wants to stay home with his children, he should make it clear up front and should seek a woman who would be okay with that and who would prefer to focus on her career. Given the choice though, the men I know would still choose to work outside of the home.

I agree and think you explain it quite well. However, the point I am making is not about whether men want to stay home; rather, I am pointing out that men (in general) are expected to work and are not expected to stay home. That choice is left to women (in general).

[orlh]

I admit I have not read all the entries (yet) but I couldn't help expressing my opinions here.

Working women in itself is not a bad thing, and is not a good thing. Each case is different and like I read earlier, there could be awesome and nurturing working moms and stay-at-home-moms that are neglecting the kids.

One thing is clear to me though, society has failed to recognize that the work of a mother is really indeed work, and very hard work at that! Because of it, a lot of women feel the need to work outside the home in order to feel recognized. The masive entry of women in the workforce, and in particular Europe I think has contributed to the increase of unemployment. I don't know, maybe I am just exagerating, but seems like it is. Another thing I'd like to bring up, and I hope it doesn't sound very "conspiracy theorist" is that goverments in general (and again, especially in Europe) have an interest in making the family weaker, therefore they have been encouraging the women to work, and currently in most countries in Europe it's nearly imposible to raise children without both parents having to work to support the family.

Just my thoughts

[silentstar]

Originally Posted by 1ke

This just isn't true.

The idea of women staying home and solely raising childre (i.e. the quintessential "stay at home mom") is a recent phenomenon, post WWII.

That's true and as other posters have pointed out it generally applied to middle and upper middle class white mothers. Black women have generally not had the same opportunities due to racism which lowered wages, opportunity and job security so both parents had to work.

[irishpatrick]

Originally Posted by Warrenton

It has been a bad development. Of course, the fact that men work fulltime outside their homes has also been a bad development.



Our culture has practically disappeared. The question is analogous to "did the development of the shotgun improve the condition of passenger pigeons?"



Worse. Unless, of course, one believes that children prefer being raised by strangers.



We get into some deeper waters, here. Who, or what, is the "nation"? If we mean the interests that own it and direct it, then it has gotten stronger. They have twice the number of workers, and in the absence of twice the amount of work to do, they have reaped the benefit of the depressing tendency that has on wages. With twice as many people making capital investments in a career, they have reaped the benefit on the interest charged for the investments.

However, if one defines the nation differently, for instance, as the government, then manifestly it is getting weaker. Ten years to not win a war in Afghanistan? Weak.

If the people are deemed to be the nation, then again, they are becoming weaker. As the mortgage crisis illustrates, they are being dispossessed. The number of people with a meaningful amount of land is less than ten percent, and declining. Whether this is attributable to women in the workforce is hard to say, but that the two things coincide is undeniable. Women may be working, but they are not owning in like percentages. If they are owning, they are not having much of a positive impact, therefore are indistinguishable from the owners who were not women.

We may have women senators, but the country is still broke.



It would be difficult to argue they have become stronger, because many now have no one to teach them.



Good, in that women who have no husbands, or whose husbands have left have some means to support themselves. However, this has been overrated. Most of the women who lack husbands and have children are poor.

In general, however, women in the paid workforce is bad for them. It has put them in the same position as men in the paid workforce, which is generally a position of subservience. It teaches them, as it teaches men, to look to the master for support, to owe to the master the loyalty that belongs to Christ, and should be expressed through family devotion.

It makes them slaves.



One presumes that like men, women want a convergence of all good things! The problem is that it is the false promise of being able to acheive a utopia has induced women into giving up what they had, as it did men. That is the essence of sales: you persuade someone with something of value to part with it for something of lesser value.

Humanity has trod this path already, and the future of women will be no different than the past of men.

In the beginning, man and woman loved each other because they saw God intended them to do so. They lost this knowledge, and loved each other for their strength. When men first began to get weak, women loved them for their money. Without the money, women ceased to love them at all.

A woman can be loved for her beauty, or her loyalty, or her wealth. The problem with love, though, is its exclusivity. If the wealth is not exclusive, or if it is not constant, then....

People may want many things. But they won't get them.



A third of a loaf is still better than no loaf.

I say a third, because when men went out to work and women stayed home, humanity was still half right: the female half was still doing what it was supposed to do, although under the difficult condition of having to do it when the male half was effectively insane.

If we just switch positions, no body will be doing what they are meant to do, except at least the children will not be brought up by total strangers.

Thank you for that in-depth post.

[irishpatrick]

Originally Posted by orlh

I admit I have not read all the entries (yet) but I couldn't help expressing my opinions here.

Working women in itself is not a bad thing, and is not a good thing. Each case is different and like I read earlier, there could be awesome and nurturing working moms and stay-at-home-moms that are neglecting the kids.

One thing is clear to me though, society has failed to recognize that the work of a mother is really indeed work, and very hard work at that! Because of it, a lot of women feel the need to work outside the home in order to feel recognized. The masive entry of women in the workforce, and in particular Europe I think has contributed to the increase of unemployment. I don't know, maybe I am just exagerating, but seems like it is. Another thing I'd like to bring up, and I hope it doesn't sound very "conspiracy theorist" is that goverments in general (and again, especially in Europe) have an interest in making the family weaker, therefore they have been encouraging the women to work, and currently in most countries in Europe it's nearly imposible to raise children without both parents having to work to support the family.

Just my thoughts

So, reading your post, it would seem you would side with the idea that things have gotten worse. Is that accurate?

[Scoobyshme]

Originally Posted by irishpatrick

It has now been a well established fact that women pursue careers at nearly the same rate as men and they work fulltime at nearly the same rate as men. Those numbers have steadily increased for the last three decades. This has been the case long enough to help us create an informed opinion about the impact of these developments.

So, here are a few questions"
My answers below, are general answers. Of course there are exceptions, but, "generally speaking" this is what I believe to be true. And, I realize that my answers may be a little oversimplified, but I think the facts would support my conclusions.


1. Has women working fulltime outside the home been a good or bad development for the American family?

It has been a disaster. Most children are now raised by the state/school system/tv. Before WWII, children were raised by parents. They were taught their Catholic faith, and shown, first hand, how to live their Catholic faith. Now, they're pretty much on their own, except for what the school system, which is now heavily influenced by secular humanism (atheism as promoted by the Enlightenment). That's why so few of our children, percentage-wise, really have the faith compared to yesteryear. And that's why one of the biggest killers of our children now is suicide. The suicide rates are through the roof, as are unwed pregnancies. The big picture is very grim when comparing the two time periods (pre-WWII and now). Families before WWII worked and struggled to survive. Families now work and struggle to gain and maintain material goods and the highest "standard of living" they can afford. This mad rush to "have things" has put most families in the red and under tremendous stress. Without the anchor of a mother at home, all matters of unhealthy things are possible for children growing up.


2. Has our culture improved since women entered the workforce in massive numbers?

I'm not sure this is the only reason, but our culture has become the culture of death. I think that really started, though, in 1930, at the Anglican conference that changed Protestantism's view of artificial birth control. Before that time, all major Christian religions held that ABC was morally sinful. After that, only the Catholic Church maintained that belief. And even then, people claiming to be Catholic in our culture use ABC at about the same rate as Protestants. The result from widespread ABC use (and it might take a lot more explanation than these short posts...) is that we now have "legalized" abortion upon demand, consideration for euthanasia, and a divorce rate through the roof. These are massive changes for the worse!

3. Are our children better or worse off?

Our children are far worse off. Premarital sex, teen pregnancies, illegal drug use, attacks on prayer and religion, secular humanism, teen suicide, etc.


4. Has women working fulltime made this nation stronger, weaker, or no impact?

Based on the results shown in my previous answers, it's much worse off.


5. Have our children become stronger or weaker in the faith?

Much weaker in the faith, although, I think we've seen a little resurgence in recent years. The problem is that today's young parents don't have the faith, so they have nothing much to offer their children. You cannot pass on what you do not have.


6. Has entering careers and fulltime work been good or bad for women (and women who are moms)?
I think, overall, it has been bad. Rather than seeking self-fulfillment, mothers should be seeking fulfillment of God's will. They have a "solemn" obligation to raise their children in the faith. Their priorities, however, seem more to increase or maintain a certain standard of living, along with certain material goods. Big home, two cars, color TV's, big vacations, etc. At what expense, though? The children. God will not judge anyone based on how many material goods they had in life, but on how they fulfilled their obligations to Him. A mother's top obligation is to her family, and with regard to the kids, to raising them according to His plan.


Add on questions for married couples:

7. Would women prefer to work and let their husbands stay at home and care for their children? Or, would women rather both spouses work?

What about asking the question, "What would God prefer...?"

8. Would it better to have men stay at home with the kids, rather then neither parent staying home?
Only in extreme circumstances. Best that a mother stay at home and the father work. While a man is the "head of the family," a mother is the "heart of the family." And, besides, if the woman gets pregnant, she has to stop working (at least for a while). If the husband is working, and the mother gets pregnant, the family doesn't lose any income.

I can't wait to see the responses to my responses! LOL I'll bet the worldly people will jump all over this, espousing the politically correct values they've been taught. My answers were pretty counter-cultural, I think.

[irishpatrick]

Originally Posted by silentstar

I think men have choices. They need to be unconventional to go against the tide, but for example my uncle stayed home for several years. A man who wants to stay home can marry a woman who wants a family but also has strong career ambitions. The couple would have to deal with social prejudice that says they are doing the 'wrong' thing but if they persisted and made friends and had a support network they could do it.

Let's create a different analogy to illuminate my thought here.

If a couple were married for say five years, both people worked, they had no children. Then, they both decided it was time to build a family. In general would the husband or the wife be given the choice to stay home with the kids (if that was financially possible)? More importantly, if the wife did not want to stay home, does that not normally lead to the children being cared for by someone else since most husbands are expected to work (and in general want to work)?

So, again, since women now really love their careers, has it not lead to children being care for by other people with the husbands not even being thought of to do that role? And wouldn't most people agree that is NOT the best situation?

[irishpatrick]

Thank you. I really agree with your point #7, choices should be God centered, yet in most cases they are self centered. Great point!

[orlh]

Originally Posted by irishpatrick

So, reading your post, it would seem you would side with the idea that things have gotten worse. Is that accurate?

Define "things" Seriously though, I think that is just one small part of a whole series of things that have contributed to the moral corruption of today's society. Again, each case has its own circumnstances and is hard to make such a general statement. But I guess if only given the two options and no wiggle room, I would that yes, working women has helped make things worst in general for the family.