Why women's rights are wrong...

[ChiRho]

Why women's rights are wrong
Posted: August 8, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

The greatest media scribe of these latter days, Bill Simmons, is known for a certain pithy mantra. "The lesson, as always: Women ruin everything." While one does not usually expect to find deep sociological truths in the sports pages, so great has been the degradation of the acerbic art once known as the editorial, so filled with fear are the vanilla-minded commentators, that one finds more veracity on a single page of ESPN than in opinion pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal combined.

Now, at this point, it is customary for women to immediately reject any assertion that women's rights are wrong as the Talibanistic ranting of an embittered man who has been denied ready access to attractive women's bodies. In the interest of dismissing this red herring, I merely note that few men fortunate enough to possess a turbo Porsche and a record contract at 23 have any reason to be bitter about the hand that life has dealt them.

In fact, I very much like women and wish them well, which is precisely why I consider women's rights to be a disease that should be eradicated. For what is rather more difficult to dismiss are the simple and easily verifiable facts that indicate women have seldom been less able to pursue their dreams and less able to achieve their desires than today, the Golden Age of Feminism.

Consider the two great laments of the modern American woman. For the unmarried woman, it is the reality that she must marry later in life than ever before, if she is able to marry at all. For the married woman, it is that unlike generations of women before her, she cannot afford to stay home with her children unless she is fortunate enough to have married to a man of the financial elite.

Both of these developments can be traced directly to women's rights. Men's increasing unwillingness to marry stems primarily from two causes -- the feminized family court system that transformed marriage from a mutually beneficial contract into a financial and emotional liability, and the removal of paternal responsibility for the sexual behavior of young women. Ergo, the need for marriage has been eliminated while its liabilities have increased. As Blue America and de-Christianizing Europe increasingly show, in the absence of religion there is now very little impetus for marriage.

And few indeed are the women who understand that their present need to work is inextricably tied to the societal expectation that they will do so. When women began to enter the work force en masse in the latter half of the 20th century, the overall supply of labor increased, obviously. As per the iron law of supply and demand, over the last 60 years, this increase in supply has somewhat outstripped the growth in the economy and the attendant demand for labor, which is why real wages are still lower in 2005 than in 1973. Combined with the ever-increasing tax burden, this decline in real wages is why both husband and wife must now work when previously the husband's labor alone would have sufficed.

(The decline in wages would be much more obvious to the casual observer if men had not begun retiring earlier at the same time women entered the work force. To state that young women are working today so their grandfathers can play golf is reasonable shorthand for what happened.)

But the greatest evil of women's rights is demographic. Europe's demise is all but assured, thanks to them, as women's individual choices taken in the collective have stricken European society and brought on successive waves of feminist-friendly Islamic immigration by reducing Europe's birth rates far below replacement levels. And women's-rights advocates are now finding themselves in an ironic intellectual bind, as the onset of sex selection technology has them arguing that while a woman has a right to choose abortion, she can only do so for approved reasons.

This is because scientists are estimating that there are 100 million women missing from India and China and as the technology becomes cheaper and more widespread, this rate of loss is increasing. A U.N. official named Khalid Malik has warned that at present birth rates, with only 826 girls born per 1,000 boys, China will be missing 60 million more women within a decade. And in India, when a family already has two girls, a third pregnancy results in 78 percent of unborn girl babies being aborted.

The women of America would do well to consider whether their much-cherished gains of the right to vote, work, murder and freely fornicate are worth destroying marriage, children, civilized Western society and little girls. They can at least console themselves with the thought that, in the long run, it doesn't matter what they do, because the women's-rights ideology is an evolutionary dead end, and it is increasingly apparent that societies embracing it will not survive.

In the end, it's not that hard to understand. A little girl who is not born will never vote, work or raise a little girl of her own.

-Vox Day

Correction (from Vox Popoli):

In the unlikely event that anyone wants facts

It turns out my column today was slightly inaccurate. Weekly real wages peaked in 1972, not 1973 as I wrote, at $331.59 (in 1982 dollars), which equals an annual salary of $34,979.36 in 2005. In the last 32 years, wages have declined 16.3 percent to an annual salary level of 29,280.68. This long-term decline resumed again in 2004, as the Congressional Joint Economic Committee reported that real wages declined another .4 percent last year despite the economic recovery.*

Meanwhile, the average married women's contribution to family income has increased from 26.7 percent to 35.2 percent in the same time frame, a 31.8 percent increase. In other words, fully half of a wife's contribution to household income is eaten up by the decline in wages, which stems from the increase in the labor supply.

From 1973 to 2004, the percentage of women working rose from 44.7 percent to 59.2 percent. The effects of this increase were obviated somewhat by the declining percentage of men who worked, from 78.8 percent to 73.3 percent. The reason that this effect is a generally negative one is that unlike in the case of immigration, these new workers were already consumers, so they did not bring the concomitant increase in consumption (and demand for labor) that immigrants do. Considering that this had a definite effect on the number of children being raised, it should probably be characterized as a net demand-reducing development.

*The situation is actually worse than it looks here because the Federal Reserve's CPI manipulations seriously underestimate inflation and therefore the true decline in real wages and purchasing power is greater than these statistics would indicate. But we have to work with the tools available to us.

Responses?

[Protoevangel]

I read this article this morning. I was wondering if it would make it here! :D

[Flipper]

As a female...

I don't subscribe to the "burning of the bras" type of feminism. I also think Affirmative Action in the long run did more harm than good. Personally, I rather work with men, than women.

That being said, equal job, equal pay - no exceptions, no excuses. If a female can do a better job, the female should be hired and paid accordingly. No matter what kind of spin men want to make on the situation, there are females who can do just a good of a job, if not better in pretty much every occupation. Further, they bring a different perspective and way of thinking to the table that can only make an approach to a task more rounded.

Interesting about the end of the article regarding numbers of jobs that men and women are in, and wage percentages - is it trying to say that women are pushing men out of the workforce?

What I find most interesting, is that it kind of mirrors what's going on in the legal field as a whole. Currently, there are less jobs for lawyers, but more jobs for paralegals. The reasoning is cost effectiveness. It is more cost effective to give more "non legal advice" tasks to paralegals. Traditionally, there are more male lawyers than female (though schools are graduating at 50/50 right now). There is a much higher percentage of female paralegals than male. Because the importance of what we do is gaining, our wages are also rising (for example, I make more than a few lawyers I know) - as is the level of education required (for example, I have a BA, and most paralegals I know have at least an AAS). When you look at the numbers in the legal field alone, it certainly looks like the number of women in general is rising, and the number of men is declining. With percentates regarding wages, it does look like the wages women make compared to men are rising - there are more female paralegals, and they are getting paid more - it doesn't have to do with specific male/female dominance issues that could be due to female influence, but the types of jobs needed, and who is willing to work them. Many women in other fields are getting hired on as paralegals because of their experience in the field they were in, and how it can contribute to whatever kind of law the firm is practicing (e.g. engineers in an IP firm). Men usually don't want to be in the legal field unless they are in it as a lawyer. Women are less picky. You can't exactly blame women or the sexual revolution for this. It's purely supply and demand.

[ctay]

Some women have to work if they aren't married or have kids and no husband either by divorce or some other means. I'm lucky I got to stay home with the kids. I did get a couple of jobs at fast food a couple of times. I would rather work for a man than a woman too.

[Flipper]

I'm blessed to have the choice. We don't have children, so I see no reason to work full time. When we have children, I'll rethink that, but he's made it abundantly clear the choice is mine to make.

If you take the ratio to what the wife makes to the husband's, it really can be better financially for the wife to stay home - taking into consideration the costs of daycare, transportation, dry cleaning, taxes on the add'l income, etc. MSN Money sometimes has a chart where you can plug in both salaries and it can determine it for you. For us, there's a smaller ratio, so it would be a big financial adjustment if I were to stop working. However, it would be much worse for us if I were to go to 20 hours/week. So, if I were to switch, my choices should be to either drop to 32 hours/week, or quit entirely.

As far as me working now, we definitely need for me to, because it will help us to be able to afford our next big decision - to spend the money to adopt, or spend the money for modern medicine. :(

[ChiRho]

As a female...

I don't subscribe to the "burning of the bras" type of feminism. I also think Affirmative Action in the long run did more harm than good. Personally, I rather work with men, than women.

Sorry Flip, I should never have posted this and just vanished. Kinda been unexpectantly swamped the last couple days.

I am glad that you do not burn your bra. Affirmative Action accomplished all the harm it needed, to accurately be denounced as pure evil, the very first time that Uncle Sam forced a company to hire a candidate over any other candidate because of minority status. Unfair and wrong. I wonder why you would rather work with men, than women. This may be important to reflect upon.

That being said, equal job, equal pay - no exceptions, no excuses. If a female can do a better job, the female should be hired and paid accordingly. No matter what kind of spin men want to make on the situation, there are females who can do just a good of a job, if not better in pretty much every occupation. Further, they bring a different perspective and way of thinking to the table that can only make an approach to a task more rounded.

Now, we are getting into the thick of things. Yes, ideally, I agree with you. So would most businesses, well, atleast the ones that desired to remain in business. But passing legislation to force employers to hire specific people based upon sex, for the sake of "fairness" is wrong. Do you see the difference. We allow for people to fail, as well as succeed. That is reality. That is what distinguishes success from failure. A moral action from one coerced. A smile, from a frown. Anytime one adds force to the ingredients, it completely consumes any validity or integrity.

You would rather work with men, but women "can do just a good of a job, if not better in pretty much every occupation." I wonder why you are so biased against, what you seemingly describe as "the master sex (women)." Why would you declare that women are as good, if not better in EVERY occupation, yet desire to work with a man? Should your husband be nervous? :scratch:

Does every occupation need to be "more rounded." (Not really sure what this means, unless, of course, you are intending that men are "more square" than women?)

Interesting about the end of the article regarding numbers of jobs that men and women are in, and wage percentages - is it trying to say that women are pushing men out of the workforce?

Well, yes. But it's not what you think, I think. Vox is saying that society is indoctrinating women (girls) with ideas that they must always compete and destroy men in every aspect. This mantra has caused many to feel obligated to enter the workforce to feel any sense of worth. Vox is not against women working. He is against feminism, which says that women must work and stay at home moms are gutter-trash, idiotic, baby-making, sex-slaves.

What I find most interesting, is that it kind of mirrors what's going on in the legal field as a whole. Currently, there are less jobs for lawyers, but more jobs for paralegals. The reasoning is cost effectiveness. It is more cost effective to give more "non legal advice" tasks to paralegals. Traditionally, there are more male lawyers than female (though schools are graduating at 50/50 right now).

* ChiRho, while certainly aware that there are plenty of women much smarter than him (even in this congregational forum), wonders whether 50/50 is government mandated number?*

There is a much higher percentage of female paralegals than male. Because the importance of what we do is gaining, our wages are also rising (for example, I make more than a few lawyers I know) - as is the level of education required (for example, I have a BA, and most paralegals I know have at least an AAS). When you look at the numbers in the legal field alone, it certainly looks like the number of women in general is rising, and the number of men is declining. With percentates regarding wages, it does look like the wages women make compared to men are rising - there are more female paralegals, and they are getting paid more - it doesn't have to do with specific male/female dominance issues that could be due to female influence, but the types of jobs needed, and who is willing to work them. Many women in other fields are getting hired on as paralegals because of their experience in the field they were in, and how it can contribute to whatever kind of law the firm is practicing (e.g. engineers in an IP firm). Men usually don't want to be in the legal field unless they are in it as a lawyer. Women are less picky. You can't exactly blame women or the sexual revolution for this. It's purely supply and demand.

With so many women flooding the "law scene," where are all the children being raised? By a stay at home dad? I am not suggesting that all professional women are shrugging their mother responsibilities, but I do know that the more time and effort spent in anything yields better results. So, is it unfair to say that the stay-at-home-moms have quite the advantage over a mom who, lets say, spends half the time with her children? Are women prepared to admit this? Or is the "super-female" mantra going to resurface? No one would argue that a hitter, who puts half the effort and time in, would be just as good as another hitter (of equal talent and ability) who dedicates all of his time and energy into being better. There are verifiable results to the old truth: "Practice makes perfect."

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

Some women have to work if they aren't married or have kids and no husband either by divorce or some other means. I'm lucky I got to stay home with the kids. I did get a couple of jobs at fast food a couple of times. I would rather work for a man than a woman too.

Could I have your reasoning?

[SPALATIN]

Sorry Flip, I should never have posted this and just vanished. Kinda been unexpectantly swamped the last couple days.

I am glad that you do not burn your bra. Affirmative Action accomplished all the harm it needed, to accurately be denounced as pure evil, the very first time that Uncle Sam forced a company to hire a candidate over any other candidate because of minority status. Unfair and wrong. I wonder why you would rather work with men, than women. This may be important to reflect upon.



Now, we are getting into the thick of things. Yes, ideally, I agree with you. So would most businesses, well, atleast the ones that desired to remain in business. But passing legislation to force employers to hire specific people based upon sex, for the sake of "fairness" is wrong. Do you see the difference. We allow for people to fail, as well as succeed. That is reality. That is what distinguishes success from failure. A moral action from one coerced. A smile, from a frown. Anytime one adds force to the ingredients, it completely consumes any validity or integrity.

You would rather work with men, but women "can do just a good of a job, if not better in pretty much every occupation." I wonder why you are so biased against, what you seemingly describe as "the master sex (women)." Why would you declare that women are as good, if not better in EVERY occupation, yet desire to work with a man? Should your husband be nervous? :scratch:

Does every occupation need to be "more rounded." (Not really sure what this means, unless, of course, you are intending that men are "more square" than women?)



Well, yes. But it's not what you think, I think. Vox is saying that society is indoctrinating women (girls) with ideas that they must always compete and destroy men in every aspect. This mantra has caused many to feel obligated to enter the workforce to feel any sense of worth. Vox is not against women working. He is against feminism, which says that women must work and stay at home moms are gutter-trash, idiotic, baby-making, sex-slaves.



* ChiRho, while certainly aware that there are plenty of women much smarter than him (even in this congregational forum), wonders whether 50/50 is government mandated number?*



With so many women flooding the "law scene," where are all the children being raised? By a stay at home dad? I am not suggesting that all professional women are shrugging their mother responsibilities, but I do know that the more time and effort spent in anything yields better results. So, is it unfair to say that the stay-at-home-moms have quite the advantage over a mom who, lets say, spends half the time with her children? Are women prepared to admit this? Or is the "super-female" mantra going to resurface? No one would argue that a hitter, who puts half the effort and time in, would be just as good as another hitter (of equal talent and ability) who dedicates all of his time and energy into being better. There are verifiable results to the old truth: "Practice makes perfect."

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

The one benefit I could see in stay-at-home Dads is that he can use the time to properly catechize his children.

[ChiRho]

The one benefit I could see in stay-at-home Dads is that he can use the time to properly catechize his children.

This should be done if father works. Primarily this should be done first by the church, then also at home...by both parents, but led by the father. We are commanded to provide (see above).

[Fantine]

Hmmmm...seems like women's equality has done an awful lot of bad things to our culture.

But, of course, men bollixed up an awful lot of things before 1960.

I have an idea. Let's make men unequal, and let women run the world for the next two thousand years, and see if things get better.

For starters, there'd be fewer superfluous wars.

[ctobola]

How dare you question the words of a man who had "a turbo Porsche and a record contract at 23"? Those achievements [and a penis] obviously qualify him to speak authoritativly on all issues social, economic and moral. Look how much those qualifications did for Michael Jackson and Kurt Cobain.

-Cloy

Hmmmm...seems like women's equality has done an awful lot of bad things to our culture.

But, of course, men bollixed up an awful lot of things before 1960.

I have an idea. Let's make men unequal, and let women run the world for the next two thousand years, and see if things get better.

For starters, there'd be fewer superfluous wars.

[Protoevangel]

How dare you question the words of a man who had "a turbo Porsche and a record contract at 23"? Those achievements [and a penis] obviously qualify him to speak authoritativly on all issues social, economic and moral. Look how much those qualifications did for Michael Jackson and Kurt Cobain.

-Cloy
Thus speaks the All-Wise Cloy!
Listen and learn, all you uneducated, uncritical circus-freaks!

[Phoebe]

WWII had a lot to do with the large influx of women into the paid workforce.
I don't think it's wrong for women to be able to stand on their own. Husbands have been known to die, leaving a destitute widow behind.

[Flipper]

Amen Phoebesters!

Chi Chi - In previous generations, women had to be extremely agressive and cut throat to be able to succeed in anything outside of the home. The problems I ran into, is when some of these women get their position and security, they still can't shake that agressive attitude, which makes them difficult to work for - it's almost like they see other women as potential threats. I don't know why - I didn't grow up when many of them did. Women in our generation and in future generations don't have it quite as bad and it's a bit easier for us to be ourselves

While I prefer to work with men, that doesn't mean I won't take a job because I'm working for a female or anything like that - it also doesn't mean that I like working for most men - some male lawyers have everyone beat in being a slimy jerk.

As far as who would be staying at home with the kiddies? I really like that assumption that every couple has children, or that it's the way it's supposed to be. Some couples can't have children, btw, and I can think of two married women, who have posted on this thread, who can't. Also, is every female who is working married?

Also, where did I say that women are master over men? Geez.

[ctobola]

Phoebe,

I think you're on the right track... but I'd argue that WWII was just one of many factors that changed the workforce... or at least the way we measured the workforce.

The industrial revolution also had a major impact. Mechanization diminished the agricultural focus of our workforce. (In that setting, the male farmer was "employed," while his wife -- who tended the house, did the cooking and cleaning, fed the hired hands, watched the kids, planted and picked the garden, did the canning AND frequently helped with the farm work -- was unemployed and was not considered to be contributing to the farm income.)

Once Rosie the Riveter came on the scene, women were suddenly "working" -- the big difference is that they received a quantifiable paycheck.

Numerous other factors contributed to the sex/labor changes in society, including movement toward a service-based economy, the increase in literacy, unionization, urbanization, mass transit, advances in communication and health technology, greater availablity of education, the introduction of electronic media, more extensive use of consumer credit, inheritance taxes, and transportation advances (it's only been about 100 years since humans achieve flight). The list goes on and on.

The author's argument that there are direct causal links between women working outside the home and other social factors is remarkably simplistic -- at a time when so much was changing, declaring simple reasons for massive social changes amounts to ignorance or demagogery -- or possibly both.

Excelsior! -Cloy




WWII had a lot to do with the large influx of women into the paid workforce.
I don't think it's wrong for women to be able to stand on their own. Husbands have been known to die, leaving a destitute widow behind.

[Protoevangel]

Of course, Cloy... Anything you disagree with is, by it's very nature, "remarkably simplistic."

The author's argument that there are direct causal links between women working outside the home and other social factors is remarkably simplistic -- at a time when so much was changing, declaring simple reasons for massive social changes amounts to ignorance or demagogery -- or possibly both.

[SPALATIN]

Of course, Cloy... Anything you disagree with is, by it's very nature, "remarkably simplistic."

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DanHead again.

nuf said. :D

[ChiRho]

Hmmmm...seems like women's equality has done an awful lot of bad things to our culture.

But, of course, men bollixed up an awful lot of things before 1960.

I have an idea. Let's make men unequal, and let women run the world for the next two thousand years, and see if things get better.

For starters, there'd be fewer superfluous wars.

Untrue. The women in charge would just use men to fight their wars for them.

[ChiRho]

How dare you question the words of a man who had "a turbo Porsche and a record contract at 23"? Those achievements [and a penis] obviously qualify him to speak authoritativly on all issues social, economic and moral. Look how much those qualifications did for Michael Jackson and Kurt Cobain.

-Cloy

This is supposed to disprove something? Did you fail to understand why the Porsche and record contract were mentioned? Or was this a weak attempt to gather support from like minds, without actually confronting any of the issues put forth?

[SPALATIN]

Untrue. The women in charge would just use men to fight their wars for them.

Women are not Stupid. ChiRho, You are such a genius. :D

[ChiRho]

WWII had a lot to do with the large influx of women into the paid workforce.
I don't think it's wrong for women to be able to stand on their own. Husbands have been known to die, leaving a destitute widow behind.

Civil rights and the feminist movement of the sixties is what led to the influx of women into the workforce. One question, what variable was missing during WWII that insisted women work?

As far as women "standing on their own," I am not sure what you mean. Unless of course, you are assuming that stay-at-home moms lack integrity and resourcefulness? Is value once again being given only to "working" women? Think about what you are saying. Also, never did I state, nor did Vox state, that women should be forbidden, by law, to work. And for the destitute women left by dead husbands? Come on. Do you really think that this is a real argument? Besides, as a Christian, we know who is given the responsibilities of taking care of the widows, remember? If you are arguing legally, well, I have already covered that.

Pax

[ChiRho]

Amen Phoebesters!

Chi Chi - In previous generations, women had to be extremely agressive and cut throat to be able to succeed in anything outside of the home. The problems I ran into, is when some of these women get their position and security, they still can't shake that agressive attitude, which makes them difficult to work for - it's almost like they see other women as potential threats. I don't know why - I didn't grow up when many of them did. Women in our generation and in future generations don't have it quite as bad and it's a bit easier for us to be ourselves

Ok.


While I prefer to work with men, that doesn't mean I won't take a job because I'm working for a female or anything like that - it also doesn't mean that I like working for most men - some male lawyers have everyone beat in being a slimy jerk.

I was only going by what you posted. You prefer men, yet claim women are equal or superior in every occupation. To me, something just doesnt add up. Also, I challenge your assumption that women are equal or superior in every occupation. Leaving professional sports alone (because you have no argument), there are specific occupations that women absolutely fail at, while men fail at others. It is not as you suggest.

I think that there is plenty of slime in humanity, in all jobs, but I doubt that men are the slimiest. Perhaps in the small sliver that you have dealt with, maybe, but then again, why would you prefer working for/with men? Doesnt add up.

As far as who would be staying at home with the kiddies? I really like that assumption that every couple has children, or that it's the way it's supposed to be.

The only assumption I made was that female lawyers/para legals have children. Am I wrong? And if they do have children, who is raising them? It isn't the way it is supposed to be? Are you seriously challenging this? People are not assumed to procreate?

Some couples can't have children, btw, and I can think of two married women, who have posted on this thread, who can't. Also, is every female who is working married?

Ok, I didn't assume that you had children. I am sorry for any burden you must bear. Is every female working married? Among professionals, I would guess that few are. They are usually career oriented and families, especially children, slow their ascent to the top.

Also, where did I say that women are master over men? Geez.

Not master over, but superior. "No matter what kind of spin men want to make on the situation, there are females who can do just a good of a job, if not better in pretty much every occupation."

Pax

[SPALATIN]

Civil rights and the feminist movement of the sixties is what led to the influx of women into the workforce. One question, what variable was missing during WWII that insisted women work?

As far as women "standing on their own," I am not sure what you mean. Unless of course, you are assuming that stay-at-home moms lack integrity and resourcefulness? Is value once again being given only to "working" women? Think about what you are saying. Also, never did I state, nor did Vox state, that women should be forbidden, by law, to work. And for the destitute women left by dead husbands? Come on. Do you really think that this is a real argument? Besides, as a Christian, we know who is given the responsibilities of taking care of the widows, remember? If you are arguing legally, well, I have already covered that.

Pax

ChiRho,

I would have to disagree somewhat with your opening statement. Women have been in the workforce far longer than the 60s and in fact it was WW2 and even WW1 that enabled their more noticeable existence there. The 60s brought out the equality issue of women being paid equally for the work that they do comparable to men.

Here we are in the 21st Century and to some extent women are still paid less per capita than men in the same position. Some women even do a far better job than their male counterparts.

[ChiRho]

Phoebe,

I think you're on the right track... but I'd argue that WWII was just one of many factors that changed the workforce... or at least the way we measured the workforce.

This is incorrect. Feminism and the Civil Right Movement are the main contributers to the flood of females into the workplace. Why were women working during WWII? Which gender was missing from the workplace during that time?

The industrial revolution also had a major impact. Mechanization diminished the agricultural focus of our workforce. (In that setting, the male farmer was "employed," while his wife -- who tended the house, did the cooking and cleaning, fed the hired hands, watched the kids, planted and picked the garden, did the canning AND frequently helped with the farm work -- was unemployed and was not considered to be contributing to the farm income.)

Industrial Revolution? Statistics? Oh, and being from rural ndiana, there are still plenty of familial situations like the ancient one you describe.

Once Rosie the Riveter came on the scene, women were suddenly "working" -- the big difference is that they received a quantifiable paycheck.

Two things I would like to discuss about this. 1) What does suddenly mean in the above statement? It couldnt be a result from the War (II)? Do you think that history would be different (as far as gender labor statistics) for the 1940's if there was no war? 2) Do you really think that women are able to perform physically demanding jobs, as men are? Think before you type.

Numerous other factors contributed to the sex/labor changes in society, including movement toward a service-based economy, the increase in literacy, unionization, urbanization, mass transit, advances in communication and health technology, greater availablity of education, the introduction of electronic media, more extensive use of consumer credit, inheritance taxes, and transportation advances (it's only been about 100 years since humans achieve flight). The list goes on and on.

All of this is assuming that it is better that females work. It is not better, it is killing us. Families are traded for careers. Besides, none of the above is evidence of why a specific gender flooded the workforce during the last 35-40 years.

The author's argument that there are direct causal links between women working outside the home and other social factors is remarkably simplistic -- at a time when so much was changing, declaring simple reasons for massive social changes amounts to ignorance or demagogery -- or possibly both.

A simple, "I don't know," or "I do not understand," would have sufficed.

[ChiRho]

ChiRho,

I would have to disagree somewhat with your opening statement. Women have been in the workforce far longer than the 60s and in fact it was WW2 and even WW1 that enabled their more noticeable existence there. The 60s brought out the equality issue of women being paid equally for the work that they do comparable to men.

Here we are in the 21st Century and to some extent women are still paid less per capita than men in the same position. Some women even do a far better job than their male counterparts.

Statistics, Scott. We need verifiable evidence of what you claim.http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/art/fig05.jpg

We know why there is an increase in the 1940's. But what sustained the level of increase over the next decades? Civil Rights and Feminism. No longer were women filling the roles of men who were fighting and dying overseas, but filling positions while they were back home. Thus, Vox is correct that there were less jobs for more people, while no "new" consumers were added. Now we arrive at the current situation, where many women must work just to supplement the income that used to provide for both.

Edit: Just in case,

Chart 1. Labor Force Participation Rates of Men and Women, 1890-1990
SOURCES: Men: 1890 to 1970, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Government Printing Office, 1975; and 1980 to 1990, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings.
Women: C. Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women, table 2.1., 1990.

Also, Scott, you may want to take a look at this: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GenderGap.html

Notice this:

The gender gap in U.S. labor force participation has been eroding steadily for 100 years (see chart 1). In 1890 the percentage of married white women who reported an occupation outside the home was extremely low—just 2.5 percent for the entire United States. The figure increased to 12.5 percent by 1940, 20.7 percent by 1950, and then by about 10 percentage points for every decade since then. By 1990 the labor participation rate for all married women had climbed to almost 60 percent, versus 78 percent for married men. (By 1990 women made up 45 percent of the total labor force.) In the forties and fifties, increases were the greatest for older married women, and then for younger married women in the seventies and eighties. And the eighties witnessed an increase in labor force participation of the sole group that had resisted change in previous decades—women with infants.

[SPALATIN]

Statistics, Scott. We need verifiable evidence of what you claim.http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/art/fig05.jpg

We know why there is an increase in the 1940's. But what sustained the level of increase over the next decades? Civil Rights and Feminism. No longer were women filling the roles of men who were fighting and dying overseas, but filling positions while they were back home. Thus, Vox is correct that there were less jobs for more people, while no "new" consumers were added. Now we arrive at the current situation, where many women must work just to supplement the income that used to provide for both.

That is an on-going problem. how long do you think it will be before children will be put on the workforce just to help the family buy groceries or pay the mortgage or rent? Two incomes are barely sufficient now.

Maybe the level of women wasn't sustained but it was the introduction of women into the workforce. The Feminist movement which has been around for more than 200 years really became alive in the 60s to promote equal pay for equal work and because of this more women were going to college and entering the workforce to get a piece of the pie that wasn't available to them before.

[ChiRho]

That is an on-going problem. how long do you think it will be before children will be put on the workforce just to help the family buy groceries or pay the mortgage or rent? Two incomes are barely sufficient now.

Maybe the level of women wasn't sustained but it was the introduction of women into the workforce. The Feminist movement which has been around for more than 200 years really became alive in the 60s to promote equal pay for equal work and because of this more women were going to college and entering the workforce to get a piece of the pie that wasn't available to them before.


Scott, that is incorrect. First of all, the feminist movement is as old as sin. (Eve, Sarah, the wife of Lot, Jezzabel, Herod's wife, etc,) It is as old as the rebellous nature of man (narrow and broad sense) desired and digested that forbidden fruit. "Equal pay for Equal work" is not what the feminists desire. They desire control and power above equal. More and more women were/are convinced that somehow a paycheck equated to self-worth. Independence meant more than "bondage to those filthy, ignorant men." If a woman didnt attend college and seek to up their male counterparts, they were labeled slaves and worthless. This is the mantra that marches forth, pressuring even those women who desire to stay home to feel horribly guilty, and now essentially forcing those to work just to survive. So it rarely is about acquiring a slice of pie that wasn't available, unless you mean this: they are acting on unhealthy desires to destroy everything in their path to possess what is meant for someone else. Then I agree.

Before anyone unleashes a blazing attack on me, I am not referencing all females who work. I am speaking strictly of feminist and their supporters. I would never support a law forbidding female labor.

[SPALATIN]

Scott, that is incorrect. First of all, the feminist movement is as old as sin. (Eve, Sarah, the wife of Lot, Jezzabel, Herod's wife, etc,) It is as old as the rebellous nature of man (narrow and broad sense) desired and digested that forbidden fruit. "Equal pay for Equal work" is not what the feminists desire. They desire control and power above equal. More and more women were/are convinced that somehow a paycheck equated to self-worth. Independence meant more than "bondage to those filthy, ignorant men." If a woman didnt attend college and seek to up their male counterparts, they were labeled slaves and worthless. This is the mantra that marches forth, pressuring even those women who desire to stay home to feel horribly guilty, and now essentially forcing those to work just to survive. So it rarely is about acquiring a slice of pie that wasn't available, unless you mean this: they are acting on unhealthy desires to destroy everything in their path to possess what is meant for someone else. Then I agree.

Before anyone unleashes a blazing attack on me, I am not referencing all females who work. I am speaking strictly of feminist and their supporters. I would never support a law forbidding female labor.


Ok, aren't you being a bit technical about the timeframe here. I agree it goes back to Eve in the Garden with the Serpent. Maybe I should have qualified my statement to say the National Organzation of Women. Which to my knowledge was started in the 60s.

ChiRho,

take it easy. I am not disagreeing with you here and quite frankly when they began is not really a statistic that I keep under my hat to pull out at any given time.

[ChiRho]

Ok, aren't you being a bit technical about the timeframe here. I agree it goes back to Eve in the Garden with the Serpent. Maybe I should have qualified my statement to say the National Organzation of Women. Which to my knowledge was started in the 60s.

ChiRho,

take it easy. I am not disagreeing with you here and quite frankly when they began is not really a statistic that I keep under my hat to pull out at any given time.


Actually my reference to the Fall was because of the 200 year old date you offered. If we were going to go back 200 years, then I thought we might as well go back all the way. ;)

I promise to take it easy and not assume that you have anything under your hat (by the way, should I include hair in that assumption?). Sorry, old man! :D

I thought you were disagreeing with me. I may have misinterpreted your last post.

[Flipper]

Not master over, but superior. "No matter what kind of spin men want to make on the situation, there are females who can do just a good of a job, if not better in pretty much every occupation."

Pax

1 man, 1 woman come in to apply for the same job. What are the chances one will be better than the other? For most all jobs, it goes either way. That was what I meant.

[Joykins]

Why are married white women the only ones who qualify for that chart? Working class and black (and other minority) women have worked pretty much constantly throughout our history but no one cared because they were mostly paid beans.

My guess is that what you're seeing is the growing re-entry into the paid labor force of married, mostly middle class, white women.

[BeanMak]

Factors that hasn't been mentioned- the increase of labor saving devices. Laundry is no longer an all day affair, bread doesn't need to be baked daily, clothes don't need to be sewn. Lace doesn't need to be tatted, mittens don't need to be knitted. Spending all day cooking for the family, and the field hands is no longer necessary. Running a household is no longer a full time occupation.

[LilLamb219]

Running a household is no longer a full time occupation.

That depends on how many people are living in the household. Yes, being a homemaker IS a full time occupation and not one to be knocked.

[BeanMak]

Not knocking it, I just can't/don't want do it full time.

[Joykins]

Well, being an "at-home" mother of small children is a full-time occupation, and I think anyone who is that deserves to have a housekeeper or at least all the appliances their hearts desire ;)

[ctobola]

My comment is pointing out that having a Porsche and a record contract has no bearing on the issue.

As Aristotle notes, in order to have credibility a speaker (or writer) needs to establish his/her credentials or expertise (known as ethos) as related to the argument at hand.

The author is trying to use his financial status to inflate his credibility (i.e., he is using a "red herring" argument) in order to deceive those who are less thoughtful/critical about what they believe.

In short, the author is noting "you should listen to me because of this criterion." I'm pointing out that the qualifications he presents have no bearing on his ability to intelligently speak to this issue -- and I specifically cite cases where early sucess in the music business had no bearing on intelligent, ethical thinking.

Aristotle would have said that using earthly posessions as an indication of great insight is not only misleading, it's unethical.

Excelsior! -Cloy


This is supposed to disprove something? Did you fail to understand why the Porsche and record contract were mentioned? Or was this a weak attempt to gather support from like minds, without actually confronting any of the issues put forth?

[ctobola]

This is incorrect. Feminism and the Civil Right Movement are the main contributers to the flood of females into the workplace. Why were women working during WWII? Which gender was missing from the workplace during that time?

Women worked outside the home more during WWII because of the absence of approximately 16 million males -- approximately one in four men -- who served. (Source: US Census Bureau) Of these, about half a million would not come home.

As the government contracted $175 BILLION to supply the war effort, woment were enlisted in large numbers to sew the enormous number of uniforms and boots, prepare canned foods prepared, etc., etc. In the munitions field alone, approximately 30,000 women were added. U.S. Labor Statistics list only 36 women employed in ship-building in 1939; by 1943 that number was 200,000.

The U.S. Government understood the large need, and so it started its own propaganda campaign to encourage women who had not previously been employed outside the home to help. The "Rosie the Riveter" and "Molly the Munitions Worker" symbols were used.

Some women returned to working in the home after the war; however, as ChiRho's graph indicates the number of employed women did not drop off. This is likely due to the fact that the war had significantly bolstered the U.S. economy and increased the nation's labor needs.

[More on ChiRho's other questions as I have time.]

Excelsior! -Cloy

[ctobola]

You raise a good point, Bean.

And because we can now buy what we formerly had to make, the skills have been lost. My grandmother tatted, but neither I nor my sister learned how. I can make a mean loaf of bread, but my sister can't.

In many cases, we've lost ability to do these things ourselves.

-Cloy


Factors that hasn't been mentioned- the increase of labor saving devices. Laundry is no longer an all day affair, bread doesn't need to be baked daily, clothes don't need to be sewn. Lace doesn't need to be tatted, mittens don't need to be knitted. Spending all day cooking for the family, and the field hands is no longer necessary. Running a household is no longer a full time occupation.

[MORTANIUS]

I still know how to order pizza

[Flipper]

That depends on how many people are living in the household. Yes, being a homemaker IS a full time occupation and not one to be knocked.

It's also an honorable profession for those who choose it, and yes, I believe raising kids as a SAHM or SAHD is as much a profession as an occupation. Meaning, some people can do it well, and some aren't cut out for it. My mother wasn't cut out for it, I don't think I'm cut out for it, but I know others who were/are.

I don't think technology in the home as much saves one's time, as it adjusts the focus of one's time more to the children.

[ChiRho]

Why are married white women the only ones who qualify for that chart? Working class and black (and other minority) women have worked pretty much constantly throughout our history but no one cared because they were mostly paid beans.

My guess is that what you're seeing is the growing re-entry into the paid labor force of married, mostly middle class, white women.


The chart includes all working women, not just married white women.

[ChiRho]

My comment is pointing out that having a Porsche and a record contract has no bearing on the issue.

As Aristotle notes, in order to have credibility a speaker (or writer) needs to establish his/her credentials or expertise (known as ethos) as related to the argument at hand.

The author is trying to use his financial status to inflate his credibility (i.e., he is using a "red herring" argument) in order to deceive those who are less thoughtful/critical about what they believe.

In short, the author is noting "you should listen to me because of this criterion." I'm pointing out that the qualifications he presents have no bearing on his ability to intelligently speak to this issue -- and I specifically cite cases where early sucess in the music business had no bearing on intelligent, ethical thinking.

Aristotle would have said that using earthly posessions as an indication of great insight is not only misleading, it's unethical.

Excelsior! -Cloy


Neither the Porsche nor the record contract were used to demonstrate great insight. They were used only to disspell of the first conclusion that most women would jump to: He is a bitter male who cannot get women, so he must hate women. It is not disputable that women are attracted to money and musicians. Vox is right, even small town local bands have small groupie followings. Being young, rich, driving a fast, expensive car, and playing in a modestly successful band, would have granted him access to any number of attractive women. The car and contract only served to counter the most common reaction to discredit him...it had nothing to do with the actual content of the article. He is not saying, I drive a nice car and play the drums, therefore you should give me credibility. He is saying, do not discredit me because of some "red herring," instead try to respond objectively to what I have written.

[ChiRho]

Some women returned to working in the home after the war; however, as ChiRho's graph indicates the number of employed women did not drop off. This is likely due to the fact that the war had significantly bolstered the U.S. economy and increased the nation's labor needs.

But what maintained the increase over the next five decades? A bolstered economy? Increased labor needs? Nope. It would reflect in real wages. See initial article:

"And few indeed are the women who understand that their present need to work is inextricably tied to the societal expectation that they will do so. When women began to enter the work force en masse in the latter half of the 20th century, the overall supply of labor increased, obviously. As per the iron law of supply and demand, over the last 60 years, this increase in supply has somewhat outstripped the growth in the economy and the attendant demand for labor, which is why real wages are still lower in 2005 than in 1973. Combined with the ever-increasing tax burden, this decline in real wages is why both husband and wife must now work when previously the husband's labor alone would have sufficed.

(The decline in wages would be much more obvious to the casual observer if men had not begun retiring earlier at the same time women entered the work force. To state that young women are working today so their grandfathers can play golf is reasonable shorthand for what happened.)"

[SPALATIN]

Objective? Cloy? Are we talking about the same person?

[ChiRho]

That depends on how many people are living in the household. Yes, being a homemaker IS a full time occupation and not one to be knocked.

Amen. Thank you.

[ChiRho]

Not knocking it, I just can't/don't want do it full time.

"Don't want to"


Always motive. Always.

[ChiRho]

It's also an honorable profession for those who choose it, and yes, I believe raising kids as a SAHM or SAHD is as much a profession as an occupation. Meaning, some people can do it well, and some aren't cut out for it. My mother wasn't cut out for it, I don't think I'm cut out for it, but I know others who were/are.

I don't think technology in the home as much saves one's time, as it adjusts the focus of one's time more to the children.


Hard time understanding "not cut out for it." What do you mean?

[Joykins]

The chart includes all working women, not just married white women.

The chart here http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17642037&postcount=25 very clearly states All Men and Married White Women. Unless there is some other chart you are referring to?

[ChiRho]

The chart here http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17642037&postcount=25 very clearly states All Men and Married White Women. Unless there is some other chart you are referring to?

My apologies. I stand corrected. Back to the statistical hunt. Here ya go:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0032/fig01.gif

[Protoevangel]

Red Herring? How about a Straw Man?

My comment is pointing out that having a Porsche and a record contract has no bearing on the issue.

As Aristotle notes, in order to have credibility a speaker (or writer) needs to establish his/her credentials or expertise (known as ethos) as related to the argument at hand.

The author is trying to use his financial status to inflate his credibility (i.e., he is using a "red herring" argument) in order to deceive those who are less thoughtful/critical about what they believe.

In short, the author is noting "you should listen to me because of this criterion." I'm pointing out that the qualifications he presents have no bearing on his ability to intelligently speak to this issue -- and I specifically cite cases where early sucess in the music business had no bearing on intelligent, ethical thinking.

Aristotle would have said that using earthly posessions as an indication of great insight is not only misleading, it's unethical.

Excelsior! -Cloy
You are so full of it here, Cloy. The very paragraph you refer to, exposes your Straw Man for what it is.

Now, at this point, it is customary for women to immediately reject any assertion that women's rights are wrong as the Talibanistic ranting of an embittered man who has been denied ready access to attractive women's bodies. In the interest of dismissing this red herring, I merely note that few men fortunate enough to possess a turbo Porsche and a record contract at 23 have any reason to be bitter about the hand that life has dealt them.
"To dismiss the red herring..." NOT "to establish credentials or expertise..."

Hey, but if Cloy disagrees, doesn’t that automatically make the author ignorant, simplistic, uneducated and uncritical?

Oh, but we're all real impressed with your Aristotelian reference to ethos!

[ChiRho]

Red Herring? How about a Straw Man?


You are so full of it here, Cloy. The very paragraph you refer to, exposes your Straw Man for what it is.


"To dismiss the red herring..." NOT "to establish credentials or expertise..."

Hey, but if Cloy disagrees, doesn’t that automatically make the author ignorant, simplistic, uneducated and uncritical?

Oh, but we're all real impressed with your Aristotelian reference to ethos!

I am afraid you have been too blunt, too masculine, and too correct.

*ChiRho wonders what response DanHead will most likely receive from Cloy*

:doh:

Oh yeah, unfortunately, this one is easy: silence.

Anyone wanna take that bet?

[Joykins]

I wonder how higher education for women plays into this trend. This trend started in the early 20th century (and a little earlier) and became a big deal around mid-century when all those women went to college, many for their "MRS"--and ended up with the educational background to hold jobs that are not traditionally feminine.

There's a certain break-even point when some mothers realize that it is not financially worth their while to work, if after day care and other work-related expenses the take-home pay is minimal. However, with higher education, more high-paying jobs became available to women, and thus the number of women falling below the break-even point becomes fewer.

At this point in time, more women than men have bachelor's degrees. I believe this also plays a role.

[Joykins]

Hard time understanding "not cut out for it." What do you mean?

Neither skilled nor fulfilled at it?

I'm a lousy housekeeper but try to be a good mom. I also work outside the home. Now throw tomatoes at me :P

[C.F.W. Walther]

So what do all these graphs represent as far as the decline of males in the work force. Do these represent the parallels in the Church? Do men take less responsibility for being the head of the family in both cases because of the feminist movement or men being relegated to a more minor position? How has that affected our Church body? Women rising up to take positions in the body because we are too weak to be spritual. Look at the media and notice how wimpy men are represented. Are we believing that we are not heads of anything anymore? We have ouselves to blame when we listen to the hype that is trolled out and thrown in our faces that we can no longer be the top competitors and that everthing is equal under affirmative action and feminism. Because we are weak, and pursue other puriant interests, we have lost focused on what the BIble has given us as our God given rights. We discuss things from the Bible as though they are an anathema to us; ie: Spiritual heads, treat our wives as Christ treats his Church, leaders in the church and community etc. Are we Bibile believers or do we just take out what we want and leave the rest?

We (men) are our own worst enemy!









:confused:

[SPALATIN]

So what do all these graphs represent as far as the decline of males in the work force. Do these represent the parallels in the Church? Do men take less responsibility for being the head of the family in both cases because of the feminist movement or men being relegated to a more minor position? How has that affected our Church body? Women rising up to take positions in the body because we are too weak to be spritual. Look at the media and notice how wimpy men are represented. Are we believing that we are not heads of anything anymore? We have ouselves to blame when we listen to the hype that is trolled out and thrown in our faces that we can no longer be the top competitors and that everthing is equal under affirmative action and feminism. Because we are weak, and pursue other puriant interests, we have lost focused on what the BIble has given us as our God given rights. We discuss things from the Bible as though they are an anathema to us; ie: Spiritual heads, treat our wives as Christ treats his Church, leaders in the church and community etc. Are we Bibile believers or do we just take out what we want and leave the rest?

We (men) are our own worst enemy!









:confused:

Radidio,

This problem has been around since creation as ChiRho put it to me on an earlier post. While Eve was talking to the Serpent, Adam was keeping his big mouth shut instead of interrupting and saying "Honey, I don't think that is what our creator wants." He was silent. God upon kicking them out of the Garden put Eve in her place and she has diligently worked ever since then to rebel against the Almighty.

It is because of sin that woman wants the power she was not given. You can relate it to the world at large, the USA or the Church. Some countries suppress women to the point of being slaves which is not right either. They were created to be a mate an equal partner in the plan of life.

Scott Strohkirch

[JADVirginia]

Factors that hasn't been mentioned- the increase of labor saving devices. Laundry is no longer an all day affair, bread doesn't need to be baked daily, clothes don't need to be sewn. Lace doesn't need to be tatted, mittens don't need to be knitted. Spending all day cooking for the family, and the field hands is no longer necessary. Running a household is no longer a full time occupation.

I blame dishwashers.

No, really. They (along with refrigeration, gas stoves, clothes washers and dryers, vacuum cleaners and mega-grocery stores serving prepared food) created too much efficiency in the home, thereby reducing the economic value of traditional housewife labor. This should not be a shock. GM replaces workers with machines all the time because it is more economically efficient. Indeed, doing things the old way generally is less efficient, and markets abhor inefficiency.

Decades ago, husbands could support a traditional household because the labor supply required adequate compensation to cover the expense of the work performed at home. As that home-labor cost (in woman-hours!) decreased, the male laborer's wage no longer had to cover the expense. As a result, males became able to work for less so the supply of less costly male labor increases in the market. At the same time, the under-used female labor supply entered the market, further increasing the supply of labor outside the home. The result is lower wages.

Now I certainly recognize that stay-at-home moms do a lot of work. But ... at the same time, to achieve relatively the same standard of living between 2000 and 1900, the amount of household work has decreased markedly. Has anybody seen the PBS show 1900's House? Hours of handwashing clothes, hand wringing, line drying, and hot iron pressing is now handled with a 15 minute permapress cycle, plus 65 minutes in the dryer. Daily trips to the green grocer, the butcher and the baker are now done in two hours per week at the supermarket.

So I blame dishwashers. Dishwashers replaced women, so women could replace men. Equal pay laws or female access to higher education are not to blame. Rather, blame good ol' American capitalism's market efficiency.

JADVirginia

[Flipper]

Radidio,

It is because of sin that woman wants the power she was not given.

Because of sin? Wanting to have a career is not wanting a power trip.

The Bible is clear that I am to submit to my husband as the spiritual head of the household (and I wish and pray he would take that role). Where does it say that I have to submit to him financially? Intellectually?

I also guess sin doesn't have anything to do with power hungry men.

[SPALATIN]

I blame dishwashers.

No, really. They (along with refrigeration, gas stoves, clothes washers and dryers, vacuum cleaners and mega-grocery stores serving prepared food) created too much efficiency in the home, thereby reducing the economic value of traditional housewife labor. This should not be a shock. GM replaces workers with machines all the time because it is more economically efficient. Indeed, doing things the old way generally is less efficient, and markets abhor inefficiency.

Decades ago, husbands could support a traditional household because the labor supply required adequate compensation to cover the expense of the work performed at home. As that home-labor cost (in woman-hours!) decreased, the male laborer's wage no longer had to cover the expense. As a result, males became able to work for less so the supply of less costly male labor increases in the market. At the same time, the under-used female labor supply entered the market, further increasing the supply of labor outside the home. The result is lower wages.

Now I certainly recognize that stay-at-home moms do a lot of work. But ... at the same time, to achieve relatively the same standard of living between 2000 and 1900, the amount of household work has decreased markedly. Has anybody seen the PBS show 1900's House? Hours of handwashing clothes, hand wringing, line drying, and hot iron pressing is now handled with a 15 minute permapress cycle, plus 65 minutes in the dryer. Daily trips to the green grocer, the butcher and the baker are now done in two hours per week at the supermarket.

So I blame dishwashers. Dishwashers replaced women, so women could replace men. Equal pay laws or female access to higher education are not to blame. Rather, blame good ol' American capitalism's market efficiency.

JADVirginia

Interestingly I did see that show. My wife and I have come to the horrible realization that we are in way over our heads. With her prospect of losing her job we have decided that we need to sell our beautiful home and downsize. We are also going for the contingency of ler being a stay-at-home mom after all so my income will be the only income. We have gained about $60000+ equity since we moved. Part of this money will go to pay our debts and the other will be our down payment.

We will have to live about 30 miles further south of the metropolitan area than we do now. But to have no debt other than mortgage would be a good thing.

[Flipper]

I blame dishwashers.

No, really. They (along with refrigeration, gas stoves, clothes washers and dryers, vacuum cleaners and mega-grocery stores serving prepared food) created too much efficiency in the home, thereby reducing the economic value of traditional housewife labor. This should not be a shock. GM replaces workers with machines all the time because it is more economically efficient. Indeed, doing things the old way generally is less efficient, and markets abhor inefficiency.

Decades ago, husbands could support a traditional household because the labor supply required adequate compensation to cover the expense of the work performed at home. As that home-labor cost (in woman-hours!) decreased, the male laborer's wage no longer had to cover the expense. As a result, males became able to work for less so the supply of less costly male labor increases in the market. At the same time, the under-used female labor supply entered the market, further increasing the supply of labor outside the home. The result is lower wages.

Now I certainly recognize that stay-at-home moms do a lot of work. But ... at the same time, to achieve relatively the same standard of living between 2000 and 1900, the amount of household work has decreased markedly. Has anybody seen the PBS show 1900's House? Hours of handwashing clothes, hand wringing, line drying, and hot iron pressing is now handled with a 15 minute permapress cycle, plus 65 minutes in the dryer. Daily trips to the green grocer, the butcher and the baker are now done in two hours per week at the supermarket.

So I blame dishwashers. Dishwashers replaced women, so women could replace men. Equal pay laws or female access to higher education are not to blame. Rather, blame good ol' American capitalism's market efficiency.

JADVirginia

All that does is increase time to be spent with the children - and that is not a bad thing at all. If anything, it makes a SAHM's job that much more rewarding, and I don't think less challenging.

It also makes it easier for those of us who don't want to stay at home - I didn't say easy, but easier than years ago.

[Joykins]

It is because of sin that woman wants the power she was not given. You can relate it to the world at large, the USA or the Church. Some countries suppress women to the point of being slaves which is not right either. They were created to be a mate an equal partner in the plan of life.

Suppressing anyone is wrong, period.

I'm not sure what "wanting the power she was not given" has to do with the growing proportion of women in the work force, or the decline of the 1950s-era middle class ideal gender role arrangements either. I think a MUCH bigger problem is the number of households without fathers at all :(

[ChiRho]

I blame dishwashers.

No, really. They (along with refrigeration, gas stoves, clothes washers and dryers, vacuum cleaners and mega-grocery stores serving prepared food) created too much efficiency in the home, thereby reducing the economic value of traditional housewife labor. This should not be a shock. GM replaces workers with machines all the time because it is more economically efficient. Indeed, doing things the old way generally is less efficient, and markets abhor inefficiency.


"Economic value of traditional housewife labor"? Huh? Perhaps I am missing something, but were "traditional housewives" paid according to the chores they did (allowance!)? Didn't think so. If technology advances, thereby cutting time and money at home, doesnt the overall household save? Why would this be a strain on a household's finances? Shouldn't families gain wealth, making it less necessary for the woman to work and more reasonable to live off of one income? I do not believe a household to be a "market," and certainly not comparable to GM.

Decades ago, husbands could support a traditional household because the labor supply required adequate compensation to cover the expense of the work performed at home. As that home-labor cost (in woman-hours!) decreased, the male laborer's wage no longer had to cover the expense. As a result, males became able to work for less so the supply of less costly male labor increases in the market. At the same time, the under-used female labor supply entered the market, further increasing the supply of labor outside the home. The result is lower wages.

This paragraph makes no sense. Men were not paid more to cover the expense of "home-labor" costs. They were paid according to the ratio of supply/demand for the specific profession. Think about this, if you (and your wife?) decided to enable cost cutting options around the house, would your employer pay you less for it? The one thing that actually makes sense is your last two sentences. It certainly was the flooding of abundance into labor supply that drove down real wages, but not because of "under-use."

Now I certainly recognize that stay-at-home moms do a lot of work. But ... at the same time, to achieve relatively the same standard of living between 2000 and 1900, the amount of household work has decreased markedly. Has anybody seen the PBS show 1900's House? Hours of handwashing clothes, hand wringing, line drying, and hot iron pressing is now handled with a 15 minute permapress cycle, plus 65 minutes in the dryer. Daily trips to the green grocer, the butcher and the baker are now done in two hours per week at the supermarket.

And before the wheel, life was slow and bumpy. What is your point? Technology may advance, but a mother's "job" does not increase or decrease. Humans remain humans. We will always need to sleep and eat. Children need love and nurturing that technology cannot give. We will always need to be properly instructed and comforted. Dishwashers, refrigerators, child-care services, nannies, nor the gubmint can fulfill this role. We need more full-time mothers and less career oriented women. Our society is dying. Our families are dying. Those who think otherwise are either blind, foolish, or card-carrying feminist.

So I blame dishwashers. Dishwashers replaced women, so women could replace men. Equal pay laws or female access to higher education are not to blame. Rather, blame good ol' American capitalism's market efficiency.

JADVirginia

Wrong again. Capitalism is not the guilty party, though fingered frequently for blame for nearly everything evil. It must be the whole "money = root of all evil" misconception that has people fooled.

cap·i·tal·ism
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Pay close attention to the last two words. We do not have a free market. Not even close. When the gubmint is used as force to achieve an agenda favoring one race, gender, or group over another, it is not only wrong, but devastating on society. As much as people desire them a couple, socialism does not know success. They have never met.

Pax

[ChiRho]

Because of sin? Wanting to have a career is not wanting a power trip.

The Bible is clear that I am to submit to my husband as the spiritual head of the household (and I wish and pray he would take that role). Where does it say that I have to submit to him financially? Intellectually?

I also guess sin doesn't have anything to do with power hungry men.

Are you serious, Flip?

[ChiRho]

Suppressing anyone is wrong, period.

I'm not sure what "wanting the power she was not given" has to do with the growing proportion of women in the work force, or the decline of the 1950s-era middle class ideal gender role arrangements either. I think a MUCH bigger problem is the number of households without fathers at all :(


I wonder why the fathers want to leave? Hmmm...

[Joykins]

Technology may advance, but a mother's "job" does not increase or decrease.

Mothering has been so much easier since the advent of the TV. No more having to tie children to a post so you can do the chores. ;) (yes, I'm kidding. Kind of.)


Humans remain humans. We will always need to sleep and eat. Children need love and nurturing that technology cannot give. We will always need to be properly instructed and comforted. Dishwashers, refrigerators, child-care services, nannies, nor the gubmint can fulfill this role. We need more full-time mothers and less career oriented women. Our society is dying. Our families are dying. Those who think otherwise are either blind, foolish, or card-carrying feminist.

What do you think of the statistic that mothers of school-aged children spend approximately the same amount of time with their children whether they work or not? I believe the difference is on the order of 3 or 4 hours per week difference.

I wonder why the fathers want to leave? Hmmm...

Too many different reasons to count, but it's not always the wife's fault, you know.

[C.F.W. Walther]

I wonder why the fathers want to leave? Hmmm...

Joykins
My inferance from what DanHead said was not so much whose fault it is but what society has fostered on us with the feminist movement, the degredation of the male role and our inability to tolerate this trend. You have to read his previous post and I think this is Dan's and Scott's point. 'Course what do I know:)

[Protoevangel]

My inferance from what DanHead said...
:confused: Do you mean ChiRho?

[C.F.W. Walther]

:sigh: OOps---yea---senility creeping in

[Joykins]

And here I thought it was all because of the bimbos.

[JADVirginia]

"Economic value of traditional housewife labor"? Huh? Perhaps I am missing something, but were "traditional housewives" paid according to the chores they did (allowance!)? Didn't think so. If technology advances, thereby cutting time and money at home, doesnt the overall household save? Why would this be a strain on a household's finances? Shouldn't families gain wealth, making it less necessary for the woman to work and more reasonable to live off of one income? I do not believe a household to be a "market," and certainly not comparable to GM.


Yes, you are missing something. Indeed, quite a lot. All work has value, regardless of whether a wage has been paid, or a cost has been avoided. To obtain comparable services on the market, a family would have had to pay a servant to perform the work. Thus, the wife's contribution would be measured monetarily by the cost avoided. Naturally, as appliances decrease the cost avoided, the value of household labor is reduced. Get it?



Think about this, if you (and your wife?) decided to enable cost cutting options around the house, would your employer pay you less for it?

Don't confuse an individual situation with a societal situation. If many labor suppliers obtained reduced costs through technological improvements, they use it as a competitive advantage that enables them to lower their bid price. So yes, employers as a group will pay less. The way suppliers avoid that situation is to use cartels, guilds or --- gasp --- labor unions. (Eeks!! That sounds liberal! :eek: )

And before the wheel, life was slow and bumpy. What is your point? Technology may advance, but a mother's "job" does not increase or decrease. Humans remain humans. We will always need to sleep and eat. Children need love and nurturing that technology cannot give. We will always need to be properly instructed and comforted. Dishwashers, refrigerators, child-care services, nannies, nor the gubmint can fulfill this role. We need more full-time mothers and less career oriented women. Our society is dying. Our families are dying. Those who think otherwise are either blind, foolish, or card-carrying feminist.

Hold it. No, you're saying that as labor saving devices decrease dishwashing, etc. that the "mother job" should increase; i.e., you want women to devote more of their time to that job. But the market does not place the same value on that kind of labor as what the women feel they can earn in the marketplace. So this isn't about name calling: it's about the innate desire of all individuals to be economically secure.



Wrong again. Capitalism is not the guilty party, though fingered frequently for blame for nearly everything evil. It must be the whole "money = root of all evil" misconception that has people fooled.

cap·i·tal·ism
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Pay close attention to the last two words. We do not have a free market. Not even close. When the gubmint is used as force to achieve an agenda favoring one race, gender, or group over another, it is not only wrong, but devastating on society. As much as people desire them a couple, socialism does not know success. They have never met.

Pax

Nice quote, wrong cite. My original post referred to "American capitalism," which is a regulated market economy. Pay close attention to those two words.

And nobody is bashing capitalism, so get off of your rhetorical high-horse and cut the Rush Limbaugh schtick. From a law and economics point of view (which I will add is definitely a Republican backed jurisprudence strongly supported during the Reagan and Bush presidencies), laws that remove non-economic barriers in the market, like race and gender discrimination, stimulate the national economy by promoting efficient use of human resources. Rather than "devastate" a society, such laws have substantial societal benefits.

[C.F.W. Walther]

And nobody is bashing capitalism, so get off of your rhetorical high-horse and cut the Rush Limbaugh schtick. From a law and economics point of view (which I will add is definitely a Republican backed jurisprudence strongly supported during the Reagan and Bush presidencies), laws that remove non-economic barriers in the market, like race and gender discrimination, stimulate the national economy by promoting efficient use of human resources. Rather than "devastate" a society, such laws have substantial societal benefits.

Well your "societal benefits" have all but ruined our economy where a person is considered by race/gender because they could not compete any other way. Lowering the standards in competency to accomadate a persons ethnic/gender persuasion, lowering the hireing standards for the same reason, position promotion according to the same standards; thereby frustrating the ones that can accomplish or meet better standards to not even want to be competitive. What do you think causes people then to sit back and say "OK I'll lay back, collect my paycheck, not be a team player and screw em". 50/50 college standards and "aids", the only plague that is protected by civil rights laws and the above mentioned problems are the laws that came out of the liberal agenda long before Reagan/Bush and were capitalized by "Slick Willy". How's that for Rush Limbaugh reatoric!!!

Affirmative action sucks so why don't YOU get off your liberal high-horse.

[Joykins]

Well your "societal benefits" have all but ruined our economy where a person is considered by race/gender because they could not compete any other way. Lowering the standards in competency to accomadate a persons ethnic/gender persuasion, lowering the hireing standards for the same reason, position promotion according to the same standards; thereby frustrating the ones that can accomplish or meet better standards to not even want to be competitive. What do you think causes people then to sit back and say "OK I'll lay back, collect my paycheck, not be a team player and screw em". 50/50 college standards and "aids", the only plague that is protected by civil rights laws and the above mentioned problems are the laws that came out of the liberal agenda long before Reagan/Bush and were capitalized by "Slick Willy". How's that for Rush Limbaugh reatoric!!!

Affirmative action sucks so why don't YOU get off your liberal high-horse.

The post didn't say anything about affirmative action. It spoke about removal of discrimination. If I am the most qualified for the job, I should get it regardless of my irrelevant characteristics like race, sex, religion, etc.

[C.F.W. Walther]

The post didn't say anything about affirmative action. It spoke about removal of discrimination. If I am the most qualified for the job, I should get it regardless of my irrelevant characteristics like race, sex, religion, etc.

I agree with you but I'm talking about affirmative action and as far as I'm concerned so is he; alluding to it or not. Affirmative action and equal rights are totally differant things.

I came from 35 years of corporate miss-management and the only thing I've seen is people get promoted by back stabbing and brown nooseing because their ability to be competitively competent was eroded by the "numbers" game.

[ChiRho]

The post didn't say anything about affirmative action. It spoke about removal of discrimination. If I am the most qualified for the job, I should get it regardless of my irrelevant characteristics like race, sex, religion, etc.

Idealogically, yes, but realistically, no. We assume that business owners would not choose against the welfare of each one's business. Since that is the foundational principle of business, we need no laws mandating the selection process of employees. If owners put their own personal biases ahead of the welfare of their businesses, well, that is their poragitive. It should correct itself, as those businesses would usually fall behind fair competitors and eventually fail.

Separately, but related, no one deserves to be hired. Just because you are the most qualified for the job, does not mean that you should get it. That is why one must apply. Complete discretion lies with the one who owns the business, as it is his/her business.

[Joykins]

Libertarians, eh?

[ChiRho]

Yes, you are missing something. Indeed, quite a lot. All work has value, regardless of whether a wage has been paid, or a cost has been avoided. To obtain comparable services on the market, a family would have had to pay a servant to perform the work. Thus, the wife's contribution would be measured monetarily by the cost avoided. Naturally, as appliances decrease the cost avoided, the value of household labor is reduced. Get it?

First of all, labor does not equal value. It is not objective. Labor is worth how much you are willing to pay or perform for it. It is supply and demand. An employer does pay according to an employee's wife's house chore efficiency. The owner could not care less about how many hours employee John Doe's spends hand washing the dishes after dinner. This is absolutely silly and sounds a little Marxist.

Don't confuse an individual situation with a societal situation. If many labor suppliers obtained reduced costs through technological improvements, they use it as a competitive advantage that enables them to lower their bid price. So yes, employers as a group will pay less. The way suppliers avoid that situation is to use cartels, guilds or --- gasp --- labor unions. (Eeks!! That sounds liberal! :eek: )

Please remember that a society cannot act; only individuals are capable of action. And also, there is no connection between house chores completely more efficiently, and the money an owner saves at a business who uses advanced technology. They are separate. They are not directly linked.

Employers, as a group, pay less! Outside of gubmint interference, which produces monopolies and encourages collusion, this is insane. Business, rightly, is selfish. It cares about it's sustance (more correctly, the owner cares about the owner's well being. His business makes him money, so he directs his business in the best manner he sees fit, while remaining in accordance with the law).

Unions are horrible and unnecessary. How full of one's self one must be to dream that he is able to boss his boss. One may negotiate, individually, for more money or benefits according to his subjective value. But for a group to ban together and expect to bully the owner for higher raises and more benefits, insane. I hope the door it's everyone one of them on the way out. Owners should never deal with strikers. You might ask, "and what if the strikers are refusing to work for a legitimate reason?" Go find a different job.


Hold it. No, you're saying that as labor saving devices decrease dishwashing, etc. that the "mother job" should increase; i.e., you want women to devote more of their time to that job. But the market does not place the same value on that kind of labor as what the women feel they can earn in the marketplace. So this isn't about name calling: it's about the innate desire of all individuals to be economically secure.

Ah, so what you are saying is this:

A long time ago, the work that was done at home equated to so much money saved, that it was more appealing for a woman to stay at home. Now women are deciding to work because they can make more money in the workforce, then the money they save at home.

Correct? If this is what you believe, then it is false. Upon your answer, you will receive my explanation.

Nice quote, wrong cite. My original post referred to "American capitalism," which is a regulated market economy. Pay close attention to those two words.

Fair enough.

And nobody is bashing capitalism, so get off of your rhetorical high-horse and cut the Rush Limbaugh schtick. From a law and economics point of view (which I will add is definitely a Republican backed jurisprudence strongly supported during the Reagan and Bush presidencies), laws that remove non-economic barriers in the market, like race and gender discrimination, stimulate the national economy by promoting efficient use of human resources. Rather than "devastate" a society, such laws have substantial societal benefits.

1) No Rush Limbaugh in this Libertarian. Sorry, I hate Republicrats.

2) I believe I will remain high upon my horse. At least until I am safely across this murky, parasitic, swamp of feministic liberalism/Marxism.

Do you really believe that the government chooses better employees for someones business then they would? Go check out your nearest BMV (or DMV). I didn't think so.

Pax

[Joykins]

First of all, labor does not equal value. It is not objective. Labor is worth how much you are willing to pay or perform for it. It is supply and demand. An employer does pay according to an employee's wife's house chore efficiency. The owner could not care less about how many hours employee John Doe's spends hand washing the dishes after dinner. This is absolutely silly and sounds a little Marxist.
...
Please remember that a society cannot act; only individuals are capable of action. And also, there is no connection between house chores completely more efficiently, and the money an owner saves at a business who uses advanced technology. They are separate. They are not directly linked.


The employer may not care at all about John Doe's wife--but John Doe's wife does care that she isn't spending 6 hours a day cooking, cleaning, laundering, and washing dishes. And now the kids are in school she doesn't need to be home full-time for her children either. She'd rather earn money with those leisure hours, and increase the household's net income, save for the kids' college funds, keep her skills current should she lose her husband's income, save for her old age, etc. Her husband thinks this is a good idea. Many (though not all) of her friends feel the same way. The influx of this previously-untapped source of labor increases labor supply and decreases demand. Overall wages decline or remain steady instead of increasing. Add to that, the labor-saving devices in offices are doing the same thing. The secretary's previous work is now being done by the boss, on a PC. Again, as labor demand decreases, wages may decline or stagnate.

It is her and her family's perception of her labor value that makes the difference, not her husband's employer's.

Full-time mothering is great if your kids are really small or if you're homeschooling, but children grow and take on their own lives, they even go to school usually for 6 hours a day or more. Some women take on volunteer work but for many the economic incentives of entering the workforce (even on a part-time basis--in fact, even "at-home" mothers often work part time, or at home for an outside business, or are self-employed to one extent or another (even if it is a pyramid like Tupperware or Mary Kay).

[JADVirginia]

I agree with you but I'm talking about affirmative action and as far as I'm concerned so is he; alluding to it or not. Affirmative action and equal rights are totally differant things.

I came from 35 years of corporate miss-management and the only thing I've seen is people get promoted by back stabbing and brown nooseing because their ability to be competitively competent was eroded by the "numbers" game.

I have enough problems putting words in my own mouth without assistance from others! Affirmative action, whether as a policy or a legal remedy, differs from prohibitions from future non-productive discrimination. My post did not address affirmative action, or even affirmative employment.

[JADVirginia]

Oh my. So many opportunities, but such a waining interest in this discussion. I respectfully suggest that focusing on economics rather than Libertarian dogma may be in order.


First of all, labor does not equal value.
It is not objective. Labor is worth how much you are willing to pay or perform for it. ... This is absolutely silly and sounds a little Marxist.

Labor does not "equal" value; it has value. That's why employers pay. And even if something is not for sale, it has a value. The value can be measured by averaging similar potential transactions. That's how a Blue Book values used cars, or how real estate agents and appraisers value a house. Stay-at-home labor can be valued by what comparable services would cost from house keepers, gardeners, nannies, etc. This isn't Marxism.




Please remember that a society cannot act; only individuals are capable of action. And also, there is no connection between house chores completely more efficiently, and the money an owner saves at a business who uses advanced technology. They are separate. They are not directly linked.

To the contrary, they are linked very simply: Lots of individuals are needed to have a society.

Employers, as a group, pay less! Outside of gubmint interference, which produces monopolies and encourages collusion, this is insane. Business, rightly, is selfish.

Recall that I stated that when costs decrease among many supplers, the suppliers will lower their bids to remain competitive. Selfish employers will take the lower bids. To put it more simply . . . they pay less. It does not matter if they are private or public employers.

Unions are horrible and unnecessary. How full of one's self one must be to dream that he is able to boss his boss. One may negotiate, individually, for more money or benefits according to his subjective value. But for a group to ban together and expect to bully the owner for higher raises and more benefits, insane. I hope the door it's everyone one of them on the way out. Owners should never deal with strikers. You might ask, "and what if the strikers are refusing to work for a legitimate reason?" Go find a different job.

How sad for so-called libertarians to deny so basic a human liberty as the Freedom of Association! ROFL my head off! :D I'm cryin' because it's so funny!!!






Ah, so what you are saying is this:

A long time ago, the work that was done at home equated to so much money saved, that it was more appealing for a woman to stay at home. Now women are deciding to work because they can make more money in the workforce, then the money they save at home.

Correct? If this is what you believe, then it is false. Upon your answer, you will receive my explanation.

No. You put it too black-and-white. I am saying that women have more incentive to move from being home-labors to being wage earners. There remains other, non-economic incentives not to move.


Do you really believe that the government chooses better employees for someones business then they would? Go check out your nearest BMV (or DMV). I didn't think so.

Checkmate. You lose. The Government is not a market driven employer motivated by profit. It is motivated by cost, i.e., political reluctance to overspend taxpayer dollars. Now resign the game.

[LilLamb219]

Children need love and nurturing that technology cannot give. We will always need to be properly instructed and comforted. Dishwashers, refrigerators, child-care services, nannies, nor the gubmint can fulfill this role. We need more full-time mothers and less career oriented women. Our society is dying. Our families are dying.

Great statements (although this was said a page or two ago, I just got back from vacation last night LOL)!

The family isn't the same as it used to be. It's not as tight as it was and can easily fall apart with parents thinking it's ok to just go from one family unit to the next without consequences.

At my daughter's school, the children who have stay-at-home moms are the bright ones in the school and the most talented, secure and level-headed children. There are few exceptions though, I will admit. But for the most part, the ones who have moms who stay home thrive better than the others.

I'm the leader of my daughter's Girl Scout troop and have been since she was in Kindergarten (she's now going into 6th grade). There have been a few children who have joined the troop who had moms who worked full-time. Some do well, but a couple concerned me. One felt like her mom didn't want to be around her because after work her mom just yelled at her and went off to do whatever MOM wanted to do. The girl really needed her mom to just be there for her and not keep pushing her away as she was doing.

I disagree with a statement in this thread (sorry can't remember who wrote it) about stay at home moms with school aged children spending the same amount of time as the full-time moms anyway just because the kids are in school. My daughter goes to school from 8:10 until 2:40. I'm with her from 6:30 AM until 8:05 and then again with her from 2:50 until she goes to sleep at 9:30pm. That's much longer than the 3-4 hours that was estimated by the poster that the full time mom only spends with the child. I'm THERE with my child when she needs me to be her mom, her support, her homework helper, her chauffer for gymnastics (and I stay during gymnastics and watch), her cook, her clean up person when messes are made, her consoler when she's feeling down, her playmate when she needs to be active, besides being Scout leader, room parent, etc...

I get my housework done during the time my daughter is at school so that I can be a part of the family after school lets out. I think it's great that technology has afforded me this benefit!

[SPALATIN]

Great statements (although this was said a page or two ago, I just got back from vacation last night LOL)!

The family isn't the same as it used to be. It's not as tight as it was and can easily fall apart with parents thinking it's ok to just go from one family unit to the next without consequences.

At my daughter's school, the children who have stay-at-home moms are the bright ones in the school and the most talented, secure and level-headed children. There are few exceptions though, I will admit. But for the most part, the ones who have moms who stay home thrive better than the others.

I'm the leader of my daughter's Girl Scout troop and have been since she was in Kindergarten (she's now going into 6th grade). There have been a few children who have joined the troop who had moms who worked full-time. Some do well, but a couple concerned me. One felt like her mom didn't want to be around her because after work her mom just yelled at her and went off to do whatever MOM wanted to do. The girl really needed her mom to just be there for her and not keep pushing her away as she was doing.

I disagree with a statement in this thread (sorry can't remember who wrote it) about stay at home moms with school aged children spending the same amount of time as the full-time moms anyway just because the kids are in school. My daughter goes to school from 8:10 until 2:40. I'm with her from 6:30 AM until 8:05 and then again with her from 2:50 until she goes to sleep at 9:30pm. That's much longer than the 3-4 hours that was estimated by the poster that the full time mom only spends with the child. I'm THERE with my child when she needs me to be her mom, her support, her homework helper, her chauffer for gymnastics (and I stay during gymnastics and watch), her cook, her clean up person when messes are made, her consoler when she's feeling down, her playmate when she needs to be active, besides being Scout leader, room parent, etc...

I get my housework done during the time my daughter is at school so that I can be a part of the family after school lets out. I think it's great that technology has afforded me this benefit!

That's all well and good and it seems that you and your husband have your priorities straight putting the welfare of the children first. I think it comes down to what the parents set as a priority when they first get married. If they determine that they want a house that costs $100k and are willing to sacrifice some really nice things that others have and put the children first they will reap the benefits of their sacrifice when their children come home with good grades and are socially fit.

Parents who choose to have the really nice house where both have to work to keep up the payments and have the really nice things but their children spend their time at daycare and school are reaping the rewards of keeping up with the Joneses and their children are starving for their attention. I think that LilLamb has come on to the truth here. It is a matter of priorities. My wife is tired of working in a job she doesn't love and doesn't have time to invest in her children's lives.

Since she has been home over the last 3 weeks she has not raised her voice to her children. She and I have had to face the facts that we need to put our children first and get out of debt. She wants to be a stay at home mother. At first I was hesitant about this, but I think that God is saying that I need to make this work for our whole family. Please keep us in your prayers that God is going to make it all work for his good.

Scott

[Protoevangel]

Well, my interest in the direction this thread is going is so minimal; I am barely even paying attention at this point. But, I did see a couple of glaring errors that were so incredibly abusive and devoid of any semblance of logic or rational thought that I just had to say something.

Unions are horrible and unnecessary. How full of one's self one must be to dream that he is able to boss his boss. One may negotiate, individually, for more money or benefits according to his subjective value. But for a group to ban together and expect to bully the owner for higher raises and more benefits, insane. I hope the door it's everyone one of them on the way out. Owners should never deal with strikers. You might ask, "and what if the strikers are refusing to work for a legitimate reason?" Go find a different job.
How sad for so-called libertarians to deny so basic a human liberty as the Freedom of Association! ROFL my head off! I'm cryin' because it's so funny!!!
So, tell me again JAD, who is denying anyone any liberty? Is calling something "horrible and unnecessary" or even "insane" the same thing to you as denying anyone the liberty to do that thing? Just in case you plan on stretching your fallacious logic further, neither is suggesting that owners of businesses have the freedom to not deal with strikers (and should not do so) the same thing as denying the freedom of association to anyone.

Was this an intentional strawman, or do you really not understand the difference between not liking something and not allowing people to do that something?

Do you really believe that the government chooses better employees for someones business then they would?
Checkmate. You lose. The Government is not a market driven employer motivated by profit. It is motivated by cost, i.e., political reluctance to overspend taxpayer dollars. Now resign the game.

What kind of twisted "logical" process you are basing your "checkmate" on? ChiRho never claimed the government was a "market driven employer." More straw men. Maybe you can try to address ChiRho's points, and not just the peripheral minutiae before you claim "checkmate" next time.

[Joykins]

I disagree with a statement in this thread (sorry can't remember who wrote it) about stay at home moms with school aged children spending the same amount of time as the full-time moms anyway just because the kids are in school.

That's just an average for mothers of children 6-12. Obviously a lot of people are going to fall over it and under it.

I get my housework done during the time my daughter is at school so that I can be a part of the family after school lets out. I think it's great that technology has afforded me this benefit!

I only do minimal housework in part because I prefer to spend time with my family. Something always has to give. It's a complicated thing--I don't feel like I have an option not to work in our financial situation, but I am basically content with the situation (I don't have a high powered career, just a decent middle class job) and I don't know that I would be a good at-home mother either.

[ChiRho]

Well, my interest in the direction this thread is going is so minimal; I am barely even paying attention at this point. But, I did see a couple of glaring errors that were so incredibly abusive and devoid of any semblance of logic or rational thought that I just had to say something.


So, tell me again JAD, who is denying anyone any liberty? Is calling something "horrible and unnecessary" or even "insane" the same thing to you as denying anyone the liberty to do that thing? Just in case you plan on stretching your fallacious logic further, neither is suggesting that owners of businesses have the freedom to not deal with strikers (and should not do so) the same thing as denying the freedom of association to anyone.

Was this an intentional strawman, or do you really not understand the difference between not liking something and not allowing people to do that something?



What kind of twisted "logical" process you are basing your "checkmate" on? ChiRho never claimed the government was a "market driven employer." More straw men. Maybe you can try to address ChiRho's points, and not just the peripheral minutiae before you claim "checkmate" next time.


To Danhead:

Thanks, homie.

To JADVirginia:

Twice, in two straight days I have written a detailed response and upon completion, clicked that 'ole submit button. Twice my answers have been lost in cyber-space. Once Firefox froze :mad: and the other time, the forum rebelled against my will. So as soon as I feel the motivation to address your response again, I will. But this time I will simply cut and paste from an already saved piece of work in MS Word.

PS. DanHead, you have brought up two points that I addressed in my last two attempts at posting:

1) I do not deny the freedom of association. I believe modern Unions to be the product of the more insecure and less skilled employees, who by association, use the best employees as leverage to negotiate more money and benefits without actually being worth the increase. I never said they should be illegal. I detest homosexuality. It is nasty and perverted. I believe it is sinful. I would never support legislation that restricts the right for gays to be civily united. Anyone, of legal age and sound mind, that consents, should be allowed to join and be recognized by the state. Yes, that does mean that a lot of "married" couples in Kentucky would be free to exit from the shadow of their lone family tree. :thumbsup:

2) As Danhead correctly points out, I never claimed the gubmint is a market driven employer. I will say this, I did laugh out loud when you claimed the gubmint's motivation was "political reluctance to overspend tax dollars."

Now that is funny. :D

Pax

[ChiRho]

Labor does not "equal" value; it has value. That's why employers pay. And even if something is not for sale, it has a value. The value can be measured by averaging similar potential transactions. That's how a Blue Book values used cars, or how real estate agents and appraisers value a house. Stay-at-home labor can be valued by what comparable services would cost from house keepers, gardeners, nannies, etc. This isn't Marxism.

I really think the boundaries are being blurred. When one is speaking of a limited demographic (those within the actual market that receive monetary compensation for services or products) factoring in such things as non-monetary work is impossible. First of all, the asinine extreme could be brought to the table. You claim that a gardener, a maid, a nanny, a hooker, etc. should provide the "value" or cost saved, by a wife accomplishing the same tasks. There are plenty of problems with this. Are men supposed to factor in room and board, meals, pain and suffering, etc., and deduct this from the overall money saved? Since there is no money exchanged, housechores should not factor in this discussion of economics. Imagine, by your logic, the amount I save by feeding myself, dressing myself, driving myself, breathing on my own, etc. How insane! If actual money is not exchanged, then it has no [measurable] value [in this discussion]. Do you look upon a marriage agreement as a business contract?

Oh yeah, estimates (outside of the money paid for the expert opinion of a professional; the advice, or knowledge, is as valuable as one is willing to pay for it) do not contain any kind of actual value [for the object being estimated]. If a real estate agent appraises your house at $150,000, and you receive no offers over $115,000, is your house still worth the estimate? Or is it worth what someone will actually pay for it? Hypothetical estimates contain hypothetical value.


To the contrary, they are linked very simply: Lots of individuals are needed to have a society.

Again, a blur, but I must take some credit for the confusion. I should have been more clear. While there is a connection between the concept of society and the reality of individuals, there is not a direct link between the pay scale of an employer and the money saved by the employee's wife. That is the link that I was denying.


Recall that I stated that when costs decrease among many supplers, the suppliers will lower their bids to remain competitive. Selfish employers will take the lower bids. To put it more simply . . . they pay less. It does not matter if they are private or public employers.

Who is arguing against "supply and demand?" Certainly not me. It seemed that you were describing collusion.

How sad for so-called libertarians to deny so basic a human liberty as the Freedom of Association! ROFL my head off! :D I'm cryin' because it's so funny!!!

See post above.


No. You put it too black-and-white. I am saying that women have more incentive to move from being home-labors to being wage earners. There remains other, non-economic incentives not to move.

What is the incentive for the move? What does your last sentence mean?

Checkmate. Yo