OT: How Did Women Inundating The Labor Market Affect The Economy?



R

Ryan Case

Guest
Jason Earl wrote:

> Ryan Case <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I would never even suggest that women are more lazy than men.
>>>Women have always been obliged to work, and feminism didn't change
>>>that one bit. However, feminism has done a disservice to society
>>>in that it has created a perception that a woman that works outside
>>>of the home is more "successful" than a woman that focuses on being
>>>a mother first and a "worker" second. Jason

>>
>>A-men. But of course we now have "a village" to help take care of
>>the kids in the now empty home.

>
>
> I grew up in a small town and I now live in an area where I know all
> of my neighbors. Having a large support group is definitely a good
> thing, even if you have the traditional nuclear family with a
> stay-at-home mother. For one thing my wife needs the social
> interaction with adults, and it has been very handy on any number of
> occasions to be able to rely on friends and neighbors when your little
> boy has wandered off or you need someone to watch the older kids while
> you take the little one to the doctor. I know in my own case that a
> lot of the positive socialization that I received came from friends
> and relatives.
>
> I would argue that "a village" is pretty darn useful in the raising of
> children, but nothing can possibly replace a mother. I would also
> argue that society has yet to come up with an alternative that is as
> successful on average at parenting as the traditional nuclear family.
> Sure, there are plenty of cases where single mothers, single fathers,
> grandparents, etc. etc. have been able to raise outstanding children.
> Likewise, there are all sorts of examples of traditional families that
> have done a horrible job of raising children. The reality is,
> however, that the further that you stray from the traditional family
> the more likely you are to have serious problems with your children.
>
> Jason



My folks are both graduates of Pasco High Jason, and I am from that
little High School out in Moxee. I hesitate to say it, but I came up and
worked the annual ram show at the Moses Lake fairgrounds as a handler
every year in High School.

I understand the positive effects of a close knit community and having
family and neighbors that can and do help out in various ways. I grew up
that way.

I don't, however, think that was the intention of the "it takes a
village" idea from a few years back, and believe that you stated exactly
what I was trying to. There is no substitute for a parent in the home
during a child's younger years. The ability to be involved in the school
and den mother/father cub scouts and be there when the children get home
from school etc. etc. can not be replaced by a village. Augmented and
strenghtened yes, but not replaced.

Now if all things were created equal, I wouldn't care less if it is the
father or mother at home. But, since men are at a serious disadvantage
for breast feeding, and pregnancy prolly made hunting and farming a
little difficult earlier, society seemed to develope in a manner where
it was the mother staying home. Just seems to make sense to me, but then
again I am just some dumb hick Eastern Washingtoner, so what do I know. ;~)
 
J

Jason Earl

Guest
Ryan Case <[email protected]> writes:

> Jason Earl wrote:
>
>> Ryan Case <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>I would never even suggest that women are more lazy than men.
>>>>Women have always been obliged to work, and feminism didn't change
>>>>that one bit. However, feminism has done a disservice to society
>>>>in that it has created a perception that a woman that works outside
>>>>of the home is more "successful" than a woman that focuses on being
>>>>a mother first and a "worker" second. Jason
>>>
>>>A-men. But of course we now have "a village" to help take care of
>>>the kids in the now empty home.

>> I grew up in a small town and I now live in an area where I know all
>> of my neighbors. Having a large support group is definitely a good
>> thing, even if you have the traditional nuclear family with a
>> stay-at-home mother. For one thing my wife needs the social
>> interaction with adults, and it has been very handy on any number of
>> occasions to be able to rely on friends and neighbors when your little
>> boy has wandered off or you need someone to watch the older kids while
>> you take the little one to the doctor. I know in my own case that a
>> lot of the positive socialization that I received came from friends
>> and relatives.
>> I would argue that "a village" is pretty darn useful in the raising
>> of
>> children, but nothing can possibly replace a mother. I would also
>> argue that society has yet to come up with an alternative that is as
>> successful on average at parenting as the traditional nuclear family.
>> Sure, there are plenty of cases where single mothers, single fathers,
>> grandparents, etc. etc. have been able to raise outstanding children.
>> Likewise, there are all sorts of examples of traditional families that
>> have done a horrible job of raising children. The reality is,
>> however, that the further that you stray from the traditional family
>> the more likely you are to have serious problems with your children.
>> Jason

>
>
> My folks are both graduates of Pasco High Jason, and I am from that
> little High School out in Moxee. I hesitate to say it, but I came up
> and worked the annual ram show at the Moses Lake fairgrounds as a
> handler every year in High School.


One of the advantages of using your real name is that people recognize
you. Or, more likely in this case, they recognize your family. Yes,
I am Jason Earl from Moses Lake.

> I understand the positive effects of a close knit community and
> having family and neighbors that can and do help out in various
> ways. I grew up that way.


Yeah, in Moxee, I bet you did.

> I don't, however, think that was the intention of the "it takes a
> village" idea from a few years back, and believe that you stated
> exactly what I was trying to. There is no substitute for a parent in
> the home during a child's younger years. The ability to be involved
> in the school and den mother/father cub scouts and be there when the
> children get home from school etc. etc. can not be replaced by a
> village. Augmented and strenghtened yes, but not replaced.


I agree completely.

> Now if all things were created equal, I wouldn't care less if it is
> the father or mother at home. But, since men are at a serious
> disadvantage for breast feeding, and pregnancy prolly made hunting
> and farming a little difficult earlier, society seemed to develope
> in a manner where it was the mother staying home.


I don't think that mothers are even replaceable by loving caring
fathers. I am a father myself, and I love my kids, but there is more
to being a mother than being able to breastfeed. Even Dally would
probably concede that men and women are different enough so as not to
be interchangeable. Women make better mothers than men do :).

> Just seems to make sense to me, but then again I am just some dumb
> hick Eastern Washingtoner, so what do I know. ;~)


I might be biased, but I personally believe the world needs more
Eastern Washington hicks.

Jason
 
D

Dally

Guest
Jason Earl wrote:
> I would also
> argue that society has yet to come up with an alternative that is as
> successful on average at parenting as the traditional nuclear family.


By "traditional nuclear family" do you mean the model from the fifties
and sixties that is practically unique from that era? Before that
people lived in extended families. That's the REAL tradition, having
Grandma and the maiden great-aunts around to help with the kids.

It sort of creeps me out a bit to hear people talk about the downfall
from Feminism when they mean that women are now able to command a salary
and venue for their talents in excess of what they used to be able to
command.

The fundamental assumption I'd argue that you two guys have wrong is the
concept that women were at home being house-wives with nothing else to
do but watch the children (and soap operas while they were in school.)
There WAS a phenomenon like that, but it was artificially induced and
was part of the transformation of our society from a Mom&Pop FamilyFarm
economy to an industrialized labor force, AND it only refers to a subset
of well-off people. But even well-off women worked - they worked in
charities, they worked as assistants to their husbands, they were
artists, etc. etc. The ornamental woman is a fiction. Yes, people are
occasionally ornamental for some period of time, but only the most vapid
and wealthy can be ornamental all the time. When anyone else tries it
they start agitating for the right to be all they can be. Read "The
Feminine Mystique" sometime. Bored suburban housewives have a way of
finding something to do.

Meanwhile, working class women ALWAYS worked. That's what made them
working class. They just didn't make much money for it and they weren't
counted as being workers because they didn't punch a time clock, but
they were maids and washerwomen and private tutors and prostitutes.

The concept that fewer women are staying home with no other economic
impact than raising the kids may very well be because there are fewer
affluent middle-class families than there used to be. Partly this is
because real wages have been stagnant, but partly it's because the
standard of living that constitutes "middle class" is so inflated.

I just had a client call me with a tale of economic woe. In short,
she's broke and in debt. She's got one kid in college, a boomerang
adult child at home eating (without paying rent), three properties (a
home, a vacation home and a pied a terre in the city) and their 100K
salary doesn't stretch as far as it used to. We talked about things she
could cut - sell a house, get rid of expensive cellphone calling plans,
drop the satellite TV... but she didn't want to hear this. She is
middle class and thinks three homes and unlimited cellphone and tv
channels are normal. She ended the call saying she was going to look
for a better paying job.

The only thing feminism can be "blamed" for in this is that she is able
to command a 50K salary in the workplace.

Dally
 
D

Dally

Guest
Ryan Case wrote:

> There is no substitute for a parent in the home
> during a child's younger years. The ability to be involved in the school
> and den mother/father cub scouts and be there when the children get home
> from school etc. etc. can not be replaced by a village. Augmented and
> strenghtened yes, but not replaced.


Children are at home for a small subsection of a woman's working life.

Dally
 
R

Ryan Case

Guest
Dally wrote:
> Ryan Case wrote:
>
>> There is no substitute for a parent in the home during a child's
>> younger years. The ability to be involved in the school and den
>> mother/father cub scouts and be there when the children get home from
>> school etc. etc. can not be replaced by a village. Augmented and
>> strenghtened yes, but not replaced.

>
>
> Children are at home for a small subsection of a woman's working life.
>
> Dally


And?
 
D

Dally

Guest
Jason Earl wrote:

> I don't think that mothers are even replaceable by loving caring
> fathers. I am a father myself, and I love my kids, but there is more
> to being a mother than being able to breastfeed.


It's good if a kid has a loving father AND a loving mother. It's even
better if the kid has a loving father, a loving mother and a loving
Grammy and a loving Grandpa and a loving Uncle whose only twelve years
older than the kid and lives there, too.

Not everyone gets everything they'd like to have.

> Even Dally would
> probably concede that men and women are different enough so as not to
> be interchangeable. Women make better mothers than men do :).


I agree with this, but going to work doesn't stop them from being
mothers. Never did, and it doesn't now.

I've done every version of working and parenting. I've stayed home full
time. I've worked part-time. I've worked from home. I've worked
full-time in the defense industry. At one point my husband stayed home
and was primary parent.

This is in the exact same life-time. Personally, I think the set-up
we've got right now is the one that is working the best: I have a job
that ranges from 20 to 70 hours a week but it's from the home so I can
be available to sick kids or for the ever-constant chauffering or
volunteering in their schools. Luckily, my skills are such that I can
command a decent income in a cottage industry.

Sadly, the years when I was breastfeeding happened to be the ones where
I had to work full-time in industry: we just couldn't afford everything:
a stay-at-home mother as well as the benefits of a consumer culture. If
I hadn't worked when they were infants I wouldn't be able to be so
available to them now. I had to launch that career so I had the earning
potential and credentials to start my own business.

Even if I had spent their early years at home full-time I would still
have gone back to work at some point. Even those Stepford Wives you
guys point to had to go to work when the kids hit college age in order
to pay for school.

Actually, I'm curious: do you guys know women who had no economic input
through-out their lives? Not before the kids, not after the kids, not
ever? Just stayed home and ate bon bons and scrubbed the kitchen sink
until is shone?

I don't know those women.

Dally
 
D

Dally

Guest
Ryan Case wrote:

> Dally wrote:
>
>> Ryan Case wrote:
>>
>>> There is no substitute for a parent in the home during a child's
>>> younger years. The ability to be involved in the school and den
>>> mother/father cub scouts and be there when the children get home from
>>> school etc. etc. can not be replaced by a village. Augmented and
>>> strenghtened yes, but not replaced.

>>
>>
>>
>> Children are at home for a small subsection of a woman's working life.
>>
>> Dally


Women may take a step sideways out of the labor force to perform
economically discounted work in the home, but those exact same women
were in the labor force before and after that period.

In my case, I'm at home AND in the work force. It confused everybody.

Dally
 
D

DZ

Guest
Dally <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just had a client call me with a tale of economic woe. In short,
> she's broke and in debt. She's got one kid in college, a boomerang
> adult child at home eating (without paying rent), three properties (a
> home, a vacation home and a pied a terre in the city) and their 100K
> salary doesn't stretch as far as it used to. We talked about things she
> could cut - sell a house, get rid of expensive cellphone calling plans,
> drop the satellite TV... but she didn't want to hear this. She is
> middle class and thinks three homes and unlimited cellphone and tv
> channels are normal. She ended the call saying she was going to look
> for a better paying job.
>
> The only thing feminism can be "blamed" for in this is that she is able
> to command a 50K salary in the workplace.


I don't see how feminism fits into this story at all.
 
D

Dally

Guest
DZ wrote:

> I don't see how feminism fits into this story at all.


Middle class now requires two high salaries.

It isn't feminism that makes that woman go to work, it's feminism that
allowed her access to the sort of earning power that the middle class
lifestyle demands.

Dally
 
J

Jason Earl

Guest
Dally <[email protected]> writes:

> Jason Earl wrote:
>
>> I don't think that mothers are even replaceable by loving caring
>> fathers. I am a father myself, and I love my kids, but there is more
>> to being a mother than being able to breastfeed.

>
> It's good if a kid has a loving father AND a loving mother. It's
> even better if the kid has a loving father, a loving mother and a
> loving Grammy and a loving Grandpa and a loving Uncle whose only
> twelve years older than the kid and lives there, too.
>
> Not everyone gets everything they'd like to have.


Of course not. Life is rough, and then you die. However, I
personally believe that having a mother around (especially when the
kids are young), trumps just about everything else. Once again, I'm
pretty old-fashioned. I still believe that there is something magical
about mothers.

TBR will almost certainly jump in with something crude.

>> Even Dally would probably concede that men and women are different
>> enough so as not to be interchangeable. Women make better mothers
>> than men do :).

>
> I agree with this, but going to work doesn't stop them from being
> mothers. Never did, and it doesn't now.


No, but in many cases it means that someone else spends a lot of time
substituting for the mother, and that's something that is a relatively
recent phenomenon. This is especially true if you hire strangers to
watch your children. Leaving your children with grandparents or an
aunt on a daily basis is something that's been done forever. Leaving
your children with random strangers in a daycare is something else
entirely.

> I've done every version of working and parenting. I've stayed home
> full time. I've worked part-time. I've worked from home. I've
> worked full-time in the defense industry. At one point my husband
> stayed home and was primary parent.


Yes, and I have little doubt that your children are going to turn out
fine. That's the funny thing about parenting. There really are no
hard and fast rules. There are lots of things that everyone would
agree help raise good children, but lots of exceptional children come
out of families with broken homes, single parents, etc, and lots of
horrible children were given every chance to properly socialize.

If you would have had unlimited resources there is little question
that you would have stayed home when your children were little.

> This is in the exact same life-time. Personally, I think the set-up
> we've got right now is the one that is working the best: I have a
> job that ranges from 20 to 70 hours a week but it's from the home so
> I can be available to sick kids or for the ever-constant chauffering
> or volunteering in their schools. Luckily, my skills are such that
> I can command a decent income in a cottage industry.


The price you paid to be in this position was that you missed your
children's early years. In your case it would appear that this was a
good decision.

> Sadly, the years when I was breastfeeding happened to be the ones
> where I had to work full-time in industry: we just couldn't afford
> everything: a stay-at-home mother as well as the benefits of a
> consumer culture. If I hadn't worked when they were infants I
> wouldn't be able to be so available to them now. I had to launch
> that career so I had the earning potential and credentials to start
> my own business.


Lots of people still make the choice to make do with less in order to
give their young kids a full-time mother. Making do with less is not
something that is very popular in our society. That's not feminism's
fault, but it certainly doesn't help.

> Even if I had spent their early years at home full-time I would
> still have gone back to work at some point. Even those Stepford
> Wives you guys point to had to go to work when the kids hit college
> age in order to pay for school.


Of course you would have, and if you hadn't invested in education and
your career when you were younger then you would make far less than
you do now when you returned to the work force. Women that "step out"
of the work force for a few years to raise children invariably find
that there is a cost involved.

> Actually, I'm curious: do you guys know women who had no economic
> input through-out their lives? Not before the kids, not after the
> kids, not ever? Just stayed home and ate bon bons and scrubbed the
> kitchen sink until is shone?


My mother and both of my grandmothers were stay at home mothers. All
three graduated from college, received their teaching certificates,
and then went on to raise families instead of entering the work
force.

Of course, my grandma Jones was the wife of an Idaho rancher, and so
it can't really be said that she didn't work outside the home. She
invariably drove tractor during the harvest and assisted with all
sorts of farm duties. On the other hand, my understanding was that
even when the kids were small they went wherever grandma went. That
definitely put a crimp in her economic output when she was newly
married.

My grandma Earl and my mother were both the wives of small town
lawyers (my grandfather and father became partners in a law firm), and
so they didn't really have anything to do with their husband's
business, and neither worked outside the home. They didn't eat many
bon bons (although my grandmother makes ridiculously good cinnamon
rolls). Both my mother and grandmother raised 8 children (each), and
were very active in the community so they were also very very busy. I
was the oldest grandchild on both sides, and I can attest to the fact
that all of these women kept immaculate houses. Grandma Earl also
baked all of her own bread and other "Leave it to Beaver" stuff. I
can honestly say that I know of dozens of women with similar stories.
College educated women who chose to raise families and keep house
rather than enter the work force. Of course, I'm Mormon, and I grew
up in a rural community, so I am probably an outlier.

> I don't know those women.


They exist. They just don't run in your social circles.

Jason
 
D

DZ

Guest
Jason Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dally <[email protected]> writes:
>> Feminism is arguing that women ought to be able to work at the
>> levels that they're capable of in non-traditional fields.

>
> OK, then I am a feminist too.


I'm a feminist too. Women ought to be able to work where they want -
they are so cute after all! I find their demands to do whatever they
wish so irresistible.
 
R

Ryan Case

Guest
Dally wrote:

> Ryan Case wrote:
>
>> Dally wrote:
>>
>>> Ryan Case wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no substitute for a parent in the home during a child's
>>>> younger years. The ability to be involved in the school and den
>>>> mother/father cub scouts and be there when the children get home
>>>> from school etc. etc. can not be replaced by a village. Augmented
>>>> and strenghtened yes, but not replaced.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Children are at home for a small subsection of a woman's working life.
>>>
>>> Dally

>
>
> Women may take a step sideways out of the labor force to perform
> economically discounted work in the home, but those exact same women
> were in the labor force before and after that period.
>
> In my case, I'm at home AND in the work force. It confused everybody.
>
> Dally


I still don't see how this relates to my belief that there is no
substitute for a parent in the home during a child's younger years.

Could you please explain it to an Ignorant Eastern Washington Hick.
(Heretofore to be referred to as IEWH for space sake).

I said nothing about whether or not homemakers had been in the workforce
prior to having kids, or would be later. I said that, and I quote
myself, "There is no substitute for a parent in the home during a
child's younger years." And I stand by it.

Be careful that you aren't so keen on making a point related to the
subject that you come across as a zealot with blinders on. A lot of
your responses to Jason and I recently in this thread have been really
hard for me to follow in the context of the conversation. In fact
sentences like, "The concept that fewer women are staying home with no
other economic impact than raising the kids may very well be because
there are fewer affluent middle-class families than there used to be."
don't even make sense to me. Especially in response to a couple of guys
discussing how they think having a stay at home parent is better then not.

You also throw this in, "The fundamental assumption I'd argue that you
two guys have wrong is the concept that women were at home being
house-wives with nothing else to do but watch the children (and soap
operas while they were in school." This I actually find a little
upsetting. At this point I feel as if you are trying to put words in my
mouth. Please show me where I indicated anything of the sort.

I say these things because, although I almost always don't agree with
your politics, I usually find you to be an intelligent and well argued
individual. You are actually one of the ones from the other side of the
fence that I usually enjoy listening to. But this time around you seem
so hell bent on making a point that you are not making sense within a
certain aspect of the conversation.

BTW, I applaud your efforts at running your business out of the home. I
am sure that your children are benfitting, and wish that it was possible
for more families to do this.

Ryan
 
D

DZ

Guest
Dally <[email protected]> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> I don't see how feminism fits into this story at all.

>
> Middle class now requires two high salaries.


Not high enough it seems, as they can't manage, but thanks for
clearing that up!

> It isn't feminism that makes that woman go to work, it's feminism
> that allowed her access to the sort of earning power that the middle
> class lifestyle demands.


Given that women are now "allowed", what is the present day relevance
of feminism?
 
D

Dally

Guest
Jason Earl wrote:

> Dally <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Jason Earl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't think that mothers are even replaceable by loving caring
>>>fathers. I am a father myself, and I love my kids, but there is more
>>>to being a mother than being able to breastfeed.

>>
>>It's good if a kid has a loving father AND a loving mother. It's
>>even better if the kid has a loving father, a loving mother and a
>>loving Grammy and a loving Grandpa and a loving Uncle whose only
>>twelve years older than the kid and lives there, too.
>>
>>Not everyone gets everything they'd like to have.

>
>
> Of course not. Life is rough, and then you die. However, I
> personally believe that having a mother around (especially when the
> kids are young), trumps just about everything else. Once again, I'm
> pretty old-fashioned. I still believe that there is something magical
> about mothers.


I agree that mothers are grand, but having mothers at home trumps
everything else? I'm not sure I agree with that. Is it okay for the
mother to go to work so the kid can afford college? Medical insurance?
How about to reduce the stress on the father so he can change careers
or be less burdened by having to work two jobs (meaning he never sees
his wife and they end up getting divorced?)

>>>Even Dally would probably concede that men and women are different
>>>enough so as not to be interchangeable. Women make better mothers
>>>than men do :).

>>
>>I agree with this, but going to work doesn't stop them from being
>>mothers. Never did, and it doesn't now.

>
> No, but in many cases it means that someone else spends a lot of time
> substituting for the mother, and that's something that is a relatively
> recent phenomenon.


I don't believe this is true... but then, you go on to refute it in a
moment, too.

> This is especially true if you hire strangers to
> watch your children. Leaving your children with grandparents or an
> aunt on a daily basis is something that's been done forever. Leaving
> your children with random strangers in a daycare is something else
> entirely.


Most women still use family-based childcare. I live far from family
(and my parents were working during the infant years) so I paid through
the teeth for high quality childcare, but I was unusual in that I'm
highly compensated and could AFFORD high quality childcare. Most women
- now and always - just left the kids with whoever would watch them (or
with an older child.) Remember all those dreams about the "good old
days when we used to play outside after school until it was dark and Mom
never even knew where we were?" You weren't playing alone, there were
latch-key kids out there, too.

The other point I'd make is that "random strangers" don't STAY random
strangers. From my perspective I engaged the services of a professional
nanny to help me learn the parenting ropes. If I'd had my mother nearby
- well - shudder - it wouldn't have been as useful. The woman who did
my infant care was MUCH better at understanding infants than I was. I
recall her telling me all sorts of things I wouldn't have known on my
own, from what was causing diaper rash to when a kid had an ear infection.

Stupid, uneducated children can give their kids love, but it's not
necessarily enough. And besides, you can still give your kids love even
if you go to work. You're not at work 100% of the time.

Well, no, that's not true. I've definitely known some fathers who have
been at work 100% of the time their kids are awake. A guy in my
engineering department 15 years ago had a conversation with me about
this. He thought he was doing such a great thing to work two jobs so
his wife could stay home with the kids.

His wife had an affair and they got divorced. That guy was so utterly
screwed - screwed out of spending time with his kids, screwed out of a
normal relationship with his wife, and screwed into having to work two
jobs without any help from the other adult in the family.

Feminism is sometimes about PEOPLE's rights.

> If you would have had unlimited resources there is little question
> that you would have stayed home when your children were little.


No... I would have worked part-time. Working full-time seriously sucked
and I don't recommend that time famine to anyone. But part-time was
great. Except for the money. I need stimulation, my own achievements,
and to provide a larger world to my children than our livingroom. I
like working.

> The price you paid to be in this position was that you missed your
> children's early years. In your case it would appear that this was a
> good decision.


I didn't miss them. I was there every single day.

Do you feel like you're missing YOUR children's early years?

> Lots of people still make the choice to make do with less in order to
> give their young kids a full-time mother. Making do with less is not
> something that is very popular in our society. That's not feminism's
> fault, but it certainly doesn't help.


It's not as simple as a moralistic view about whether they need cable TV
or not. Health insurance benefits, the ability to get a decent
education (when more and more places require private school to do so),
the ability for the woman to keep her job skills current enough to
retain some earning abilities... there are lots of reasons why the
choice to work makes a lot of sense for the entire family, INCLUDING the
children.

>>Actually, I'm curious: do you guys know women who had no economic
>>input through-out their lives? Not before the kids, not after the
>>kids, not ever? Just stayed home and ate bon bons and scrubbed the
>>kitchen sink until is shone?

>
>
> My mother and both of my grandmothers were stay at home mothers. All
> three graduated from college, received their teaching certificates,
> and then went on to raise families instead of entering the work
> force.


They never taught? Not before marriage? No home-schooling afterwards?
No taking in of neighbor children?

> My grandma Earl and my mother were both the wives of small town
> lawyers (my grandfather and father became partners in a law firm), and
> so they didn't really have anything to do with their husband's
> business, and neither worked outside the home.


Your father and grandfather wouldn't have been able to make partner if
they had to rear the kids, stay home with snuffly noses, be there to let
in the plumber and could never entertain clients. There is some
economic value to a wife of a high-functioning man who only gets to be
high functioning because he has a wife.

> They didn't eat many
> bon bons (although my grandmother makes ridiculously good cinnamon
> rolls). Both my mother and grandmother raised 8 children (each), and
> were very active in the community so they were also very very busy.


So, they WERE in the work force - that's what "active in the community"
means. You just didn't spot it until now.

Obviously they were engaged in the home during the time they had 8 small
children at home, but what did / do they do now? Volunteer at the
library? Work at the hospital auxiliary? Fundraise for the church
steeple? Watch grandkids so their daughters can work? Can you spot how
your mother(s) actually ARE engaged in the labor force without being
counted?

> I
> can honestly say that I know of dozens of women with similar stories.
> College educated women who chose to raise families and keep house
> rather than enter the work force. Of course, I'm Mormon, and I grew
> up in a rural community, so I am probably an outlier.
>
>>I don't know those women.

>
> They exist. They just don't run in your social circles.


You're describing women who are active in their communities, doing
unpaid economic work.

Dally
 
D

Dally

Guest
DZ wrote:

> Dally <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>DZ wrote:
>>
>>>I don't see how feminism fits into this story at all.

>>
>>Middle class now requires two high salaries.

>
>
> Not high enough it seems, as they can't manage, but thanks for
> clearing that up!


Heh. No one ever makes enough money. No matter how much you have, you
always spend slightly more.

In my work I see over and over again that money doesn't equal happiness,
but I have detected a rotten spot in the continuum where money seems to
make people unhappy. It's right around 100K - you're making enough not
to be poor, but not enough to be wealthy. You think you ought to be
able to have a timeshare and be able to send your kid to private school,
but also to have a newish car and an XBox 360 and a good cellphone plan
and eat free range pesticide-free foods and have a cleaning person. But
you just can't have it all. So you're in debt and unhappy with your
desire for things you can't quite afford.

>>It isn't feminism that makes that woman go to work, it's feminism
>>that allowed her access to the sort of earning power that the middle
>>class lifestyle demands.

>
>
> Given that women are now "allowed", what is the present day relevance
> of feminism?


How about to value the work that women do even when men can't spot it?

I.e., to uphold the option to stay home when the kids are little. :)

(I'm not arguing that women OUGHT to enter the workforce, just that they
always HAVE been working whether you notice it or not.)

Feminism means less and less and people get away from the mindset it was
required to shake. Can you even understand why someone might think a
woman couldn't be a pharmacist?

Dally
 
J

Jason Earl

Guest
Dally <[email protected]> writes:

> DZ wrote:
>
>> I don't see how feminism fits into this story at all.

>
> Middle class now requires two high salaries.


You have an interesting definition of "middle class" if your client
with a vacation house qualifies.

> It isn't feminism that makes that woman go to work, it's feminism
> that allowed her access to the sort of earning power that the middle
> class lifestyle demands.


Fah, feminism did nothing of the sort. Economics did that trick.
When educated women started putting their careers before the raising
of their families it was only a matter of time before they started
making the same as men. Employers (in the aggregate) are just worried
about getting the most bang for their buck. The only reason that
there is still a differential today is that employers can't be sure
that a given individual woman they hire won't decide to get pregnant
and miss a lot of work (or worse yet, quit) in the future. This makes
employers somewhat less likely to invest in women.

Feminism simply made it fashionable to trade raising your own children
in exchange for building the sort of career that men traditionally
built.

Besides which, by your definition a single woman (or man) can't
achieve a middle class lifestyle unless they can earn the equivalent
of two high salaries. As someone that saw what actual poverty looked
like in Peru I am having a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around
being "lower class." However, if you are right then feminism
basically condemned all single parents to lower class status simply
because the middle class now brought in two high salaries.

Admit it Dally. You to admit it you are not middle class at all.
You're officially upper-class. If you lived out West you would even
have to vote Republican.

Jason
 
C

Charles

Guest
On 30 Nov 2005 21:28:16 GMT, DZ
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Dally <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I just had a client call me with a tale of economic woe. In short,
>> she's broke and in debt. She's got one kid in college, a boomerang
>> adult child at home eating (without paying rent), three properties (a
>> home, a vacation home and a pied a terre in the city) and their 100K
>> salary doesn't stretch as far as it used to. We talked about things she
>> could cut - sell a house, get rid of expensive cellphone calling plans,
>> drop the satellite TV... but she didn't want to hear this. She is
>> middle class and thinks three homes and unlimited cellphone and tv
>> channels are normal. She ended the call saying she was going to look
>> for a better paying job.
>>
>> The only thing feminism can be "blamed" for in this is that she is able
>> to command a 50K salary in the workplace.

>
>I don't see how feminism fits into this story at all.


It's just Dolly talking out of her ample bum again.
 
C

Charles

Guest
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:27:51 -0500, Dally <[email protected]> wrote:

>DZ wrote:
>
>> Dally <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>DZ wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't see how feminism fits into this story at all.
>>>
>>>Middle class now requires two high salaries.

>>
>>
>> Not high enough it seems, as they can't manage, but thanks for
>> clearing that up!

>
>Heh. No one ever makes enough money. No matter how much you have, you
>always spend slightly more.
>
>In my work I see over and over again that money doesn't equal happiness,
>but I have detected a rotten spot in the continuum where money seems to
>make people unhappy. It's right around 100K - you're making enough not
>to be poor, but not enough to be wealthy. You think you ought to be
>able to have a timeshare and be able to send your kid to private school,
>but also to have a newish car and an XBox 360 and a good cellphone plan
>and eat free range pesticide-free foods and have a cleaning person. But
>you just can't have it all. So you're in debt and unhappy with your
>desire for things you can't quite afford.
>
>>>It isn't feminism that makes that woman go to work, it's feminism
>>>that allowed her access to the sort of earning power that the middle
>>>class lifestyle demands.

>>
>>
>> Given that women are now "allowed", what is the present day relevance
>> of feminism?

>
>How about to value the work that women do even when men can't spot it?
>
>I.e., to uphold the option to stay home when the kids are little. :)
>
>(I'm not arguing that women OUGHT to enter the workforce, just that they
>always HAVE been working whether you notice it or not.)
>
>Feminism means less and less and people get away from the mindset it was
>required to shake. Can you even understand why someone might think a
>woman couldn't be a pharmacist?
>


Because she failed the exams to graduate? Much like they may think a
man couldn't be a pharmacist for the same reason.

Who got this verbal diarrhoeic on her bloody hobby-horse?
 
D

Dally

Guest
Jason Earl wrote:

> Dally <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>DZ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't see how feminism fits into this story at all.

>>
>>Middle class now requires two high salaries.

>
>
> You have an interesting definition of "middle class" if your client
> with a vacation house qualifies.
>
>
>>It isn't feminism that makes that woman go to work, it's feminism
>>that allowed her access to the sort of earning power that the middle
>>class lifestyle demands.

>
>
> Fah, feminism did nothing of the sort. Economics did that trick.
> When educated women started putting their careers before the raising
> of their families it was only a matter of time before they started
> making the same as men. Employers (in the aggregate) are just worried
> about getting the most bang for their buck. The only reason that
> there is still a differential today is that employers can't be sure
> that a given individual woman they hire won't decide to get pregnant
> and miss a lot of work (or worse yet, quit) in the future. This makes
> employers somewhat less likely to invest in women.


I agree with this.

> Feminism simply made it fashionable to trade raising your own children
> in exchange for building the sort of career that men traditionally
> built.


I wouldn't say "fasionable", though I see why you would. I'd say
"acceptable". Personally, I've not seen any backlash against women
dropping out of the paid work force from time to time as family
situations warrant it. In fact, I've seen movements towards family
leave and flexible work hours to try to keep people from just up and
quitting when family needs would previously have required it. So it's
not "fashionable" to work up to your economic potential, it's "possible".

> Besides which, by your definition a single woman (or man) can't
> achieve a middle class lifestyle unless they can earn the equivalent
> of two high salaries. As someone that saw what actual poverty looked
> like in Peru I am having a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around
> being "lower class."


"Lower class" in the U.S. means having cable TV, a car, a pack-a-day
cigarette habit and eating meat every day. It's mind boggling to anyone
who's ever been poor.

> However, if you are right then feminism
> basically condemned all single parents to lower class status simply
> because the middle class now brought in two high salaries.


I'm not sure I follow this. Single parents were ALWAYS doomed to lower
class. When wasn't this true?

But single people can be middle class just because they scale their
lifestyle to one person's needs. A couple have roughly twice the
consumerism. A couple with kids have far higher costs than a single person.

> Admit it Dally. You to admit it you are not middle class at all.
> You're officially upper-class.


I didn't say I was middle class. My maternal grandparents were
millionares and I went to an elite New England Liberal Arts college and
have a master's degree. But my mother was a poor single parent
(disabled by wealth, it's a complicated story) and my paternal line are
poor midwestern farmers, so I see both sides.

> If you lived out West you would even
> have to vote Republican.


The shocking thing is that I'm not Republican now, considering my
pedigree and the fact that I'm a relatively wealthy business
owner/employer. I consider this a failing of the Republican turn
towards corporate greed and away from its core values of independence,
smaller government and staying out of other people's business.

Dally
 
S

Spungo

Guest
"Dally" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Jason Earl wrote:
>> I would also
>> argue that society has yet to come up with an alternative that is as
>> successful on average at parenting as the traditional nuclear family.

>
> By "traditional nuclear family" do you mean the model from the fifties and
> sixties that is practically unique from that era? Before that people
> lived in extended families. That's the REAL tradition, having Grandma and
> the maiden great-aunts around to help with the kids.
>
> It sort of creeps me out a bit to hear people talk about the downfall from
> Feminism when they mean that women are now able to command a salary and
> venue for their talents in excess of what they used to be able to command.
>
> The fundamental assumption I'd argue that you two guys have wrong is the
> concept that women were at home being house-wives with nothing else to do
> but watch the children (and soap operas while they were in school.) There
> WAS a phenomenon like that, but it was artificially induced and was part
> of the transformation of our society from a Mom&Pop FamilyFarm economy to
> an industrialized labor force, AND it only refers to a subset of well-off
> people. But even well-off women worked - they worked in charities, they
> worked as assistants to their husbands, they were artists, etc. etc. The
> ornamental woman is a fiction. Yes, people are occasionally ornamental
> for some period of time, but only the most vapid and wealthy can be
> ornamental all the time. When anyone else tries it they start agitating
> for the right to be all they can be. Read "The Feminine Mystique"
> sometime. Bored suburban housewives have a way of finding something to
> do.
>
> Meanwhile, working class women ALWAYS worked. That's what made them
> working class. They just didn't make much money for it and they weren't
> counted as being workers because they didn't punch a time clock, but they
> were maids and washerwomen and private tutors and prostitutes.
>
> The concept that fewer women are staying home with no other economic
> impact than raising the kids may very well be because there are fewer
> affluent middle-class families than there used to be. Partly this is
> because real wages have been stagnant, but partly it's because the
> standard of living that constitutes "middle class" is so inflated.
>
> I just had a client call me with a tale of economic woe. In short, she's
> broke and in debt. She's got one kid in college, a boomerang adult child
> at home eating (without paying rent), three properties (a home, a vacation
> home and a pied a terre in the city) and their 100K salary doesn't stretch
> as far as it used to. We talked about things she could cut - sell a
> house, get rid of expensive cellphone calling plans, drop the satellite
> TV... but she didn't want to hear this. She is middle class and thinks
> three homes and unlimited cellphone and tv channels are normal. She ended
> the call saying she was going to look for a better paying job.
>
> The only thing feminism can be "blamed" for in this is that she is able to
> command a 50K salary in the workplace.
>
> Dally


You are a kook. Period.