Feminisms effect on women

[neat62]

Tracyms1974:
How about those who have pets to care for? Should businesses be REQUIRED to allow employees to bring in their pets, so they are not left at home all day? Or perhaps allow them to go home twice a day to let their pets out or take the for a walk?

Pets are not people, don’t be ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? To many people their pets are indeed their family…but because you don’t think its “fair” it makes it so?

How about those who have parents to care for? Like I do? Should my business offer me hours off everyday so I can go home and care for my mom? Or give those with parents in nursing homes, time everyday to go visit them?

Maybe not time to go see them every day, but if there was an emergency, or your adult sitter didn’t show, or your mom was seriously sick, then yes, they should let you stay home a day or two and take care of her. When my child is sick, she can’t go to day care.

Can you name me one business today that does not allow you emergency leave or time off to care for your personal needs? Heck, by law here in CA family leave allows you up to six weeks off WITH pay to care for ANY family member in need of your care.

It goes on and on…I could think of countless things that could require “accomodations” by businesses…but guess what? As soon as I start making those demands, I will find myself without a job, simply because its NOT businesses duty to support ME in MY life!

You’re human aren’t you? You’ve got other stuff besides the job. Any GOOD employer would understand this. As long as you don’t abuse the privilege, which it DOES NOT sound like you would, it should be all good. I think businesses should support their employees (reasonably, of course) if they want to keep them around.

I am human, but what does that have to do with anything? Are employers supposed bend over backwards to keep me working at their place of employment? If so…I best be able to give them darn good reason, by being the best…(insert career name here) they have ever seen…or guess what? Once again, SOMEONE else can ALWAYS be found to replace me! And, yes, you are absolutely correct…if your employer treats you in a manner you don’t like or you think you are not paid enough…well then you are ALWAYS free to leave, find a new job.

 

[Calliso]

This is my own limited observations but I think the stay at home mother or father is the worse thing you can do to kids.

My parents both had a great work ethic. My father worked seven day weeks and my mother worked and went to night school. She got her degree became a manager and worked from seven in the morning to latenight and volunteered on the weekends. Both climbed the ladder through hardwork and deligence. Now both are retired, own their house, have no debts and do not even need require a social security check because of their savings. They were and are a wonderful example to live by. We also were not babied, when I was young I do not remember an idle time, at fourteen my mother found a job for me to work at farm, when I became legal at fifteen I got my workers permit kept my job at the farm and worked at a resturant at night during the summer. My sister and brother all got jobs and one even became a manager while still at college. Work was expected along with good grades. Also we maintianed the house. If you make a mess you clean it up no “mommy” to help you. We all graduated from college with honours and my brother and I went on to graduate school with pay. Im about to defend, and my brother and sisters all have excellent paying jobs and live all over the country and we are all very happy. You get us talking about our work we can go on for hours with a smile.

Of the people I know in graduate school, science, most of us are like this and have a similiar childhood and share this drive.  We are self sufficient and do not feel a need to be parasitic on anyone.  If we get into trouble, we do not run to mother or father to help us, we help ourselevs by picking up a second job.

Now I also know two individuals that stay still live at home at age25. Guess what they both have? Thats right stay at home mothers. Yes it is a very small sample size so it means nothing but I heard a little voice say one day "Why are you surprised? You dont work for a living and survive. Lo and behold your child does not see a purpose in working. " When one of the mothers asked me to talk to them about moving on.

Also I must admit I thought sahm were an ok idea till I talked to my grandmother who was a sahm till the seventies when she got her first job because she did not need to stay at home any more.

She thinks that it is absolutely insane or just plan lazy for a woman to be one today because they do not have to work. She says a SAHM in her day did work, not an “oh no I have to drive to a store to pick up food once a week that is already prepared for me… Its sooooo hard …woe for me.” (She likes to be dramatic) but the I have to take care of my half of the farm duty. She than goes on to say when woman today have to slaughter and prepare their own chickens and pigs harvest the eggs, bake bread everyday, milk a cow, make the butter, clean clothing by hand, with water you got from outside, shear a sheep, make wool, weave, make the clothing, cook with a fire stove, gather wood, canning every summer and fall from your own garden, prepare and bottle the cider, sell the extra goods, buy the supplies you cant get your self in a tripthat takes all day…(she can go on for hours, she cant stand lazy people ) Only then will she once again consider SAHM a worthy occupation. She is traditional too, but she does believe that a man and woman are equal and that they should both work there bums off. You got to love the Irish. (She does not want me to marry a girl thats wants to stay home if I ever marry again)

You know having lazy kids that stay at home too long and have no work ethic has nothing to do with having a SAHM. It has everything to do with bad parenting. Also being a SAHM mom doesn;t mean sitting on home on your bum eating chocolates contrary to what your mom apparently thinks. No offense to her but she seems to be subsribing to the stereotype of SAHM having it easy. But that isn;e necessarily true in fact I would say that it usually isn;t true. Sahm maintain the home…cooking cleaning and what not take care of the children which isn;t easy either. Often times they also home school. And they normally are the ones resonsible for taking their kids to appointments or anything activities they do.
Not to mention they often volunteer and work from home. And I am probably not even getting at it all maybe a SAHM mom here could explain just how much work they do. But the idea that all of todays stay at home moms are lazy and have it easy is just plain insulting. And you know there is something to be said about actually having quality time to spend with your kids. I mean no offense but how much time did you actually spend with your parents? I am talking about quality time here too.

 

[leftistdestroye]

Polaris;3626504]

She thinks that it is absolutely insane or just plan lazy for a woman to be one today because they do not have to work. She says a SAHM in her day did work, not an “oh no I have to drive to a store to pick up food once a week that is already prepared for me… Its sooooo hard …woe for me.” (She likes to be dramatic)

I think that she is ignorant to the negative consequences of what she thinks is insane. My grandparents did not have to slaughter animals, but they had six kids to deal with. I’m pretty sure her day’s were filled.

 

[leftistdestroye]

neat62;3626936]

Between the government taking about 43% of small businesses profits in taxes, the social security tax they have to match for each employee, the benefits they are expected to provide, workers comp, health and dental insurance, life insurance, 401k’s, retirement, paid time off, vacation, sick days,

Sorry, why are things so expensive now?

 

[Carolinagirl411]

Carolinagirl411;3626898]

That is absolute BS in my opinion. You can’t do the job, then go elsewhere. Absolute nonsense.Sounds like socialism to me. I don’t like it one bit.And that is just bad law. No doubt, a Democrat wrote that BS legislation.

I was required to take an Ethics course in graduate school for my master’s since I’m dealing with humans…and we talked about discrimination against gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, among many other issues… Our professor was an I/O Psychologist and worked with some of the largest businesses in the area (IBM, Bank of America, Grady White Boats) as a consultant dealing with all the human resource/employee/employer issues. Showed us all the legislation etc. I thought it was nation wide but could just be for our state.

I really enjoyed that class overall though…the one thing I didn’t agree with is affirmative action…and I hope I don’t get pelted with stones for saying that…I’m not a minority as far as race is concerned, so to that I can’t say anything. But as a woman, I would not want a college/job/whatever hiring me or accepting me JUST b/c I was a woman. That’s ridiculous. If a man and I were up for the same position and he had better qualifications, then by all means give the job to him. If it is the other way around and I had better qualifications, then give me the job. If we had the same qualifications then they should evaluate us as they would evaluate two people of the same gender who had the same qualifications.

I would not want a woman getting into medical school not based on qualifications but on gender and end up being MY doctor. that is Ridiculous. I want the best qualified. lol so that is why I’m against it…now I guess race is a different story so don’t get mad at me people.

 

[neat62]

neat62;3626936]

Sorry, why are things so expensive now?

Yea…its amazing that people seem to “miss” that huh?

They want to dare cry about the “profits” of “big business” but have no idea of what it costs those big businesses to operate, or how much they are asked to pay in taxes…and somehow, many seem to forget altogether that CEO’s, CFO’s, etc…are held responsible for INCREASING profts by the shareholders…shareholders who are very often, employees as well!

 

[Polaris]

What was that all about again???

Are you actually saying that a parent staying at home is a bad thing?

Yes, I think it breeds lazyness, dependence and sense of entitlement that should not be there.

Both parents who lead by example, with hard work, will raise a child who loves work, and raise an independent child .

 

[neat62]

Yes, I think it breeds lazyness, dependence and sense of entitlement that should not be there.

Both parents who lead by example, with hard work, will raise a child who loves work, and raise an independent child .

So raising children, keeping house and maintaining a devout and God fearing home, is NOT work?

Hmm…guess I’ll have to tell my mom who raised six of us, while being a stay at home mom, that she’s just a lazy no good, entitled woman who taught us nothing…

 

[Calliso]

Yes, I think it breeds lazyness, dependence and sense of entitlement that should not be there.

Both parents who lead by example, with hard work, will raise a child who loves work, and raise an independent child .

And you can raise a hard working independent child with a SAHM believe it or not. Despite what your parents tought tyou it is bad parenting that creates bad lazy kids not SAHM;s .

 

[Calliso]

So raising children, keeping house and maintaining a devout and God fearing home, is NOT work?

Hmm…guess I’ll have to tell my mom who raised six of us, while being a stay at home mom, that she’s just a lazy no good person, entitled woman who taught us nothing…

Exactly I mean I didn;t have a full time stay at home mom I am not a stay at home mom…and even I know better then to claim that SAHM:s moms are lazy and teach their kids to be lazy and dependent.

 

[neat62]

And you can raise a hard working independent child with a SAHM believe it or not. Despite what your parents tought tyou it is bad parenting that creates bad lazy kids not SAHM;s .

Yea…no kidding…aren’t the libs always telling us that kids today are obese and insinuating that they do not get enough activity? Wonder how that could be when MOST households today have dual income parents…guess that sort of blows his whole theory huh?

 

[leftistdestroye]

Carolinagirl411;3626993]

…the one thing I didn’t agree with is affirmative action…and I hope I don’t get pelted with stones for saying that…

If you do, then throw them right back! AA IS racism/sexism and it is wrong. If they have that, then I should be able to practice the exact same thing! Sometimes two wrongs Do make a right, but not in this case. The gov say’s that it is illegal to not choose based on race or sex, yet they mandate that race and/or sex be considered, as long as they are not a white male.

 

[leftistdestroye]

neat62;3627024]

So raising children, keeping house and maintaining a devout and God fearing home, is NOT work?

Hmm…guess I’ll have to tell my mom who raised six of us, while being a stay at home mom, that she’s just a lazy no good, entitled woman who taught us nothing…

I love you sweety!

 

[Swan]

You know, the internet is an interesting thing. It allows virtually anybody with computer access to post pretty much anything. As a result, it is possible to find web pages containing info to back up what ever position you are putting forward (if not, you can just set one up yourself!). But the mere fact than someone posts something does not make it true or even sane. Many times folks simply their post their own opinions, things that can in no way be substantiated, verified or supported. Nuts and crackpots about, they always have. But the fact that they now have a wider audience does not make them any more credible.

The anrgy, bitter and paranoid have always been eager to shove their opinions down the throats of others. Logic and reason seldom, if ever, enter the equation.

 

[neat62]

You know, the internet is an interesting thing. It allows virtually anybody with computer access to post pretty much anything. As a result, it is possible to find web pages containing info to back up what ever position you are putting forward (if not, you can just set one up yourself!). But the mere fact than someone posts something does not make it true or even sane. Many times folks simply their post their own opinions, things that can in no way be substantiated, verified or supported. Nuts and crackpots about, they always have. But the fact that they now have a wider audience does not make them any more credible.

The anrgy, bitter and paranoid have always been eager to shove their opinions down the throats of others. Logic and reason seldom, if ever, enter the equation.

And this has to do with the topic at hand because? Are you insinuating that those of here posting are crackpots and nuts…or are you calling yourself that??

There is something else “cool” about the internet…and in particular forums like this one…1) you don’t have to read what you don’t want to…and 2) you can choose to say NOTHING if you have nothing of value to add…cool isn’t it?

 

[neat62]

neat62;3627024]

I love you sweety!

I love you too honey!

 

[Calliso]

Yea…no kidding…aren’t the libs always telling us that kids today are obese and insinuating that they do not get enough activity? Wonder how that could be when MOST households today have dual income parents…guess that sort of blows his whole theory huh?

Yep exactly, like I have said before it comes down to bad parenting.

 

[Polaris]

You know having lazy kids that stay at home too long and have no work ethic has nothing to do with having a SAHM. It has everything to do with bad parenting. Also being a SAHM mom doesn;t mean sitting on home on your bum eating chocolates contrary to what your mom apparently thinks. No offense to her but she seems to be subsribing to the stereotype of SAHM having it easy. But that isn;e necessarily true in fact I would say that it usually isn;t true. Sahm maintain the home…cooking cleaning and what not take care of the children which isn;t easy either. Often times they also home school. And they normally are the ones resonsible for taking their kids to appointments or anything activities they do.
Not to mention they often volunteer and work from home. And I am probably not even getting at it all maybe a SAHM mom here could explain just how much work they do. But the idea that all of todays stay at home moms are lazy and have it easy is just plain insulting. And you know there is something to be said about actually having quality time to spend with your kids. I mean no offense but how much time did you actually spend with your parents? I am talking about quality time here too.

It was my grandmother that said this and convinced me, she is 90 something now, Im not sure because she always say old enough to know better. But she does have a lot of points. SAH parents do not have to work as hard as they did in the past. We have vacuum cleaners, hot water, dishwasher, washing machines, dryers, and half of our food is already prepared. I only plucked a chicken once in my life, I never want to do that again Heck even our surfaces are easy to clean . Most SAH are lazy or just have bad time management skills either one. Ones that work from home I do not consider lazy because they are actually working
Seriously though Appointments? That is just a lame excuse. I went to the dentist twice a year and I had three siblings that also went at the same time, which was never during school. If I did have to go to the doctor we went on a Saturday. ( We were healthy though. If you have a disable child that needs constant care. Im fine with SAH parent because they are working.

Quality time. I remember my father use to butter my toast in the morning in his uniform, the smell of mothers perfume in the bathroom The “As long as you tried your best” routine when I got a B, which just made me work harder. I got hugged and kissed every night by mother when she came home. I have lots of good memories Yet I also learned to depend on myslef, and learned not to be lonely and to entertain myself, which is what is suppose to happen. I also realise that one day my parents are going to die. It will be sad, but I do dont depend on them for my happiness.

 

[Camron]

Yes, I think it breeds lazyness, dependence and sense of entitlement that should not be there.
Both parents who lead by example, with hard work, will raise a child who loves work, and raise an independent child .

I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense.

I’m not saying that having one parent home and one parent working is a guarantee that everything will be fine. That’s not what I’m saying at all.

But you seem to be assuming that a stay at home parent (not necessarily a mom by the way) breeds laziness, which is flat-out contradicted by thousands of years of parents (mostly mothers) staying home with their children and those children being exceptionally hard workers.

One has to remember that the whole idea of mothers going out into the work force is in itself is a fairly recent phenomenon (I think the Babylonians may have been an exception, but I can’t think of any others of the top of my head)

Regardless, bad parenting or else a rebellious mindset of the child leads to laziness. The increased leisure time due to advances in technology play a part too. But parents staying at home do not necessarily lead to this. Good “tough-love” parenting can most certainly encourage independence and self-reliance without “babying” the child. We often hear of responsible children who are very young dialing “911” when mommy or daddy gets hurt for example. They’re not total morons simply because their parents are home with them.

Besides that, children who do stay at home without a parent figure are more likely to play too many video games, get addicted to other things, get injured, and get into trouble as well. They may have more ambitions because no one is taking care of them, but the “witching hour” for unmonitored children roughly between the time of 3:00pm and 6:00pm speaks volumes in and of itself. And, as stated above, it is again unmonitored children who tend to suffer more major injuries during this same time-frame mentioned above, precisely because no one is watching them. This doesn’t even get into the issue of illegal drug use either.

In addition to this, what of the quality time spent with children? Are there any studies to display the effects of long-lasting marriage for example? Who tends to stay with their spouse more? The child who has been raised by parents who are both working or the child who has been raised by parents, one who is working and the other who is at home?

I don’t have any data on this. But I would be interested in finding some to see what the statistics say.

You may have indeed had a good experience. If so, I think you were fortunate that nothing seriously went wrong during the time you were alone. In other words, I think you may have been an exception to the rule. Living on the farm is one thing. Living in the city is quite another thing altogether.

Then again, maybe something did go wrong when you were younger and your siblings were able to help because of their independence. How old were you when you were on your own? Are we talking 8, 12, or 16 for example? This can make a big difference. Even if this were the case, people who are raised by a parent who stays home with them are quite capable of doing the same thing.

Regardless, parents who stay home with their children do not have it easy. And, I think a good argument could be made that some parents who both work may have lost site of the reason why they are working in the first place. And I know for a fact that there are indeed some parents who both work precisely because they don’t want to deal with the difficulties of raising competent well-mannered children. They’d rather get someone else to do it or have them learn the “hard-way” – code language for “I don’t really care”, which is what the children are learning these days.

In other words, what you define as “independence” I may see as a “cold heart”. I guess this depends on how we define the terms.

I’m not talking all parents who both work. There are indeed viable reasons for both parents working, such as when their combined incomes are really required to support their family. Not everyone is guaranteed a high-paying job.

I’m talking about the parents who have well enough with one income and get selfish and greedy and want more, regardless of how much time they have to spend away from their children to do it. This is exactly what’s driving a significant part of the inflation we’ve been experiencing since the 70’s too. The real value of our dollar has become pathetic since the major influx of both parents deciding to work.

In other words, we’re working more and earning less.

And even if one of two parents did want to stay home with their children, they could have an exceptionally difficult time doing this without the other parent having an exceptionally high-paying job. This is precisely because the economy has adjusted to the financial constraints of a “two-income” family, which has pretty much shafted parents who wish to maintain a traditional family all to hell.

This is not necessarily related to feminism so I’m sorry if this is off-topic. I don’t mean to be offensive. But if you’re going to present a case for both parents working, I’m hoping that you’re going to give me more than what you’ve offered as a defense. I don’t see it as such a good thing myself.

 

[strngrnrth]

Since the dawn of civilization, most men and women worked in home workshops and on farms. “Separate spheres” theory came into being as a way of dealing with a moral dichotomy in the Industrial Revolution: If the hard-headed, detached way of living was effective for getting productivity up, but society agreed that the soft-hearted, involved approach was more wholesome for the kids, then how would children be reared? The answer the middle class came up with was that women would be insulated from the harsh facts of busiess and politics, while boys would leave home and be trained in a completely neww way of thinking at an early age. This created a gulf of understanding between boys and mothers, wives and husbands. The men felt an obligation to protect the “better” ideology of woman’s sphere while knowing they were to think of their own retraining as the “real” ideology. Women felt obligated to prove they were ladies and be sentimental and naive even when they couldn’t help picking up how the world really worked. Literature at the time showed how both sexes felt some strain between respect and disdain for each other because of the double ideology.
But it applied only to the middle classes, who were actually the lower-upper classes. The upper-upper classes had little sentimentality and also didn’t do business. In Europe, they descended from conquerors. In the Americas, they descended from more recent conquerors and from generations of early successful businesspeople. They didn’t work anymore.
The poor were the majority, and most poor people, either sex, worked from age five or so until death or extreme disability. In the home or out, country or city, they worked long hours and faced danger and deprivation to have a chance to give their children something better. They couldn’t afford separate spheres.
We are the heirs to the world their hard work built and we now must find the way to use it with kindness and responsibility.