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

[sharmin]

I understand why women work…yet how can you say a woman is mothering her child when she is at work? She clearly is not with the child, so how could she be mothering then?
)

You and I have completely different views, then, on mothering and fathering.

 

[Serap]

I am going to start helping my husband with his business accounting and administrative work. The business will pay me, of course that is money that would have gone to some outside agency or employee. Whatever I get, I plan to donate at least half of it, maybe more, to our local pro-life organization. My husband has always had a problem with tithing and it’s hard for me to contribute as much as I would like to give. But this will be “my” money and I am going to do it.

sounds like a great plan

Perhaps your husband will also begin to appreciate your talents more.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

sounds like a great plan

Perhaps your husband will also begin to appreciate your talents more.

I hold no hopes for that. He is relieved that he will not need to keep up with all the scut-work that having 2 companies entails, that is all. Just as I have done all the mundane drudgery of parenthood, allowing him to concentrate on the work he loves, (not parenthood) now I’m going to be picking up the stuff he can’t do any more, and taking care of it. He is only here 2 weeks out of every month so it’s either hire someone else or I do some of it. At least, as I said, I will have more money to give to causes dear to my heart.

One of the games he learned growing up is to feign incompetence when he doesn’t want to do something, so one of his parents would do it for him. Also, he will break something instead of fixing it, so the next time something goes wrong, he is not asked to help. He gets angry and frustrated easily when the natural world around him doesn’t cooperate with his agenda and instead of having to clean up after a tantrum, I just do the task myself.

Yeah, I am an enabler.

 

[Serap]

I hold no hopes for that. He is relieved that he will not need to keep up with all the scut-work that having 2 companies entails, that is all. Just as I have done all the mundane drudgery of parenthood, allowing him to concentrate on the work he loves, (not parenthood) now I’m going to be picking up the stuff he can’t do any more, and taking care of it. He is only here 2 weeks out of every month so it’s either hire someone else or I do some of it. At least, as I said, I will have more money to give to causes dear to my heart.

One of the games he learned growing up is to feign incompetence when he doesn’t want to do something, so one of his parents would do it for him. Also, he will break something instead of fixing it, so the next time something goes wrong, he is not asked to help. He gets angry and frustrated easily when the natural world around him doesn’t cooperate with his agenda and instead of having to clean up after a tantrum, I just do the task myself.

Yeah, I am an enabler.

He sounds like a lot of men my friends are married to

 

[MrsNoahMoerbeek]

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

Bad.

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

No, it has gotten worse.

1. Are our children better or worse off?

Worse.

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

Weaker, but that’s not the only reason. Men have become weaker as well in allowing women to rule them they way they have.

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

Weaker, but anti-woman feminism isn’t solely responsible.

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

It’s not good, though not evil in all circumstances. If it’s necessary, then it’s necessary.

**Add on questions for married couples: **

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

It’s the man’s responsibility to provide for the family. As there are many women in the work force, some wives may have to work to bring in enough money.

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

Well, if Dad cannot work - and I don’t mean doesn’t want to, but literally cannot, whether this is temporary or permanent - then it would be better for him to stay home, as long as he doesn’t turn into a “wife and mother”. He is still the head of the house and needs to continue to behave like a man.

 

[Serap]

Bad.

No, it has gotten worse.

Worse.

Weaker, but that’s not the only reason. Men have become weaker as well in allowing women to rule them they way they have.

Weaker, but anti-woman feminism isn’t solely responsible.

It’s not good, though not evil in all circumstances. If it’s necessary, then it’s necessary.

It’s the man’s responsibility to provide for the family. As there are many women in the work force, some wives may have to work to bring in enough money.

Well, if Dad cannot work - and I don’t mean doesn’t want to, but literally cannot, whether this is temporary or permanent - then it would be better for him to stay home, as long as he doesn’t turn into a “wife and mother”. He is still the head of the house and needs to continue to behave like a man.

I’m just curious and in no way intend to offend you.

Are you a traditionlist Catholic? Do you prefer Latin mass and support pre-Vatican II era?

Do you therefore disagree with Pope JP II’s teachings about working women?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

One of the interesting things about this whole post is that ‘women in the work force’ itself is a topic that means different things to different people at different times.

First, we are all ‘in the work force’ pretty much whether we are women at home, men at home, women ‘out of the home working’, men ‘out of the home working’, whether we are married or single.

Second, women have also pretty much ‘always’ been in the work force. The ‘woman of leisure’ whose children were raised by nanny or mammy before being shipped out to boarding school, was very much a Victorian/Edwardian creature to begin with and ‘came over the pond’ to those women of either new or old money/position as an example.

Most American women of the 20th century of the ‘low’ and ‘lower middle’ class worked ‘outside the home’ well before it became ‘fashionable’.

And of course during the Depression and World War II when it was ‘necessary’ to work, women were praised for it.

Perhaps if the depression and World War II had not happened so close together after one great war (WWI), when so many young men died or were unable to provide for their families, there would not have been such an emphasis in the 50s of how the ‘ideal’ was daddy out earning and mommy home with the children.

But think about it. Women marrying in the 1940s often had to ‘wait’ for marriage until the man came back from the war. And many women lost their fiances and husbands. So marriage itself was something more precious because it was something one didn’t take for granted. Same with children. A man coming back from depression and war, coming back to a booming economy, safe and free, would WANT to have a wife and children for whom he could work and demonstrate his love.

So the young mothers and fathers of the 50s were a lot like the young marrieds of the 1870s. . .but THEY had a country to settle in, wide open spaces, lots of outdoor work.

The young families of the 1950s were instead ‘encapsulated’ in suburbia. Everything was ‘handed to them on a platter’. Instead of having things to strive for (as the man still did), a woman was expected to concentrate solely on making life ‘perfect’ for hubby and children.

And life, even in suburbia, even when you have lots of material goods and health and wealth–is NOT perfect.

So what happened? As these husbands and fathers of the 1950s aged, as they saw their beloved children turning into beatniks and hippies who rejected everything that had been given to them. . .these husbands and fathers wondered why they had even tried. And since THEY had done THEIR part, and somebody must be to blame --who better to blame than the WIFE who had been home ‘all those years’ and must have badly raised those children? And wife was starting to age. Husband ‘trades in’. Older women are having to go back into the work force. And they’re angry. They feel they did THEIR part and got gypped. And so they’re going to raise THEIR daughters (the younger ones) to go out there and get a decent career because the career won’t dump you for a younger model (yes, it will but by then hopefully you’ll have a big stock portfolio to rely on!). And to raise their daughters to sneer at marriage and children because, "what did I get out of it --nothing but misery.’

So their daughters go off to college in record numbers and delay having children until they can afford it.

But even with all that, the daughters’ marriages end in divorce in record numbers. . .because the SONS have also been taught by daddy’s example. . .get all you can from your wife, then trade for a newer model, you’re entitled. Listen to the woman anyway, they all say they hate men. But with the pill, they’ll fall into your bed. Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? You are free, boy. . .do what you want because you’ll never be ‘good enough’ for those women anyway. . .

And now the children of THOSE marriages are cautiously trying to find a middle ground between those who have been hurt and who rail against those who ‘deceived them’, and those who ‘tried to have it all’ and still wound up with nothing; between the men who tried to be great fathers and sons and were scorned and called pigs and saw their children rise up to call them stupid, and the men who just wanted to have nothing but a new ‘chick’ every night and nothing to tie them down so they could be the eternal studs. . .

It’s been a rough ride and it doesn’t get easier. .

 

[Chovy]

Are these two things related? Was having a higher number of mothers at home raising children and keeping the house correlated to a more moral and well-run society?

One could argue that through the feminist movement, women took away their opportunity to be treated as special. By demanding that we are equally, do we also communicate that we are not worth treating with kid gloves? Some would say that women don’t deserve to be treated in a special manner, because we can take care of ourselves now, and that opportunity wasn’t afforded to us before.

Anyhoo… my two cents- I think women pursuing careers has impacted the downfall of society. But I don’t think it’s a cause and effect relationship. I think there are many factors involved, which are too complex to analyze in one post on Catholic Answers.

I work from home, and started my business with the intent to work part time while raising our family. Then my husband lost his job, we moved and he got a job paying much less. Now the company he worked for has shut down.

So it’s a good thing I started my business else we’d be living on government assistance while he looked for another job.

My dream- to be a stay at home mom. My reality- working my hiney off for pay and caring for our daughter and my husband.

 

[Serap]

One of the interesting things about this whole post is that ‘women in the work force’ itself is a topic that means different things to different people at different times.

First, we are all ‘in the work force’ pretty much whether we are women at home, men at home, women ‘out of the home working’, men ‘out of the home working’, whether we are married or single.

Second, women have also pretty much ‘always’ been in the work force. The ‘woman of leisure’ whose children were raised by nanny or mammy before being shipped out to boarding school, was very much a Victorian/Edwardian creature to begin with and ‘came over the pond’ to those women of either new or old money/position as an example.

Most American women of the 20th century of the ‘low’ and ‘lower middle’ class worked ‘outside the home’ well before it became ‘fashionable’.

And of course during the Depression and World War II when it was ‘necessary’ to work, women were praised for it.

Perhaps if the depression and World War II had not happened so close together after one great war (WWI), when so many young men died or were unable to provide for their families, there would not have been such an emphasis in the 50s of how the ‘ideal’ was daddy out earning and mommy home with the children.

But think about it. Women marrying in the 1940s often had to ‘wait’ for marriage until the man came back from the war. And many women lost their fiances and husbands. So marriage itself was something more precious because it was something one didn’t take for granted. Same with children. A man coming back from depression and war, coming back to a booming economy, safe and free, would WANT to have a wife and children for whom he could work and demonstrate his love.

So the young mothers and fathers of the 50s were a lot like the young marrieds of the 1870s. . .but THEY had a country to settle in, wide open spaces, lots of outdoor work.

The young families of the 1950s were instead ‘encapsulated’ in suburbia. Everything was ‘handed to them on a platter’. Instead of having things to strive for (as the man still did), a woman was expected to concentrate solely on making life ‘perfect’ for hubby and children.

And life, even in suburbia, even when you have lots of material goods and health and wealth–is NOT perfect.

So what happened? As these husbands and fathers of the 1950s aged, as they saw their beloved children turning into beatniks and hippies who rejected everything that had been given to them. . .these husbands and fathers wondered why they had even tried. And since THEY had done THEIR part, and somebody must be to blame --who better to blame than the WIFE who had been home ‘all those years’ and must have badly raised those children? And wife was starting to age. Husband ‘trades in’. Older women are having to go back into the work force. And they’re angry. They feel they did THEIR part and got gypped. And so they’re going to raise THEIR daughters (the younger ones) to go out there and get a decent career because the career won’t dump you for a younger model (yes, it will but by then hopefully you’ll have a big stock portfolio to rely on!). And to raise their daughters to sneer at marriage and children because, "what did I get out of it --nothing but misery.’

So their daughters go off to college in record numbers and delay having children until they can afford it.

But even with all that, the daughters’ marriages end in divorce in record numbers. . .because the SONS have also been taught by daddy’s example. . .get all you can from your wife, then trade for a newer model, you’re entitled. Listen to the woman anyway, they all say they hate men. But with the pill, they’ll fall into your bed. Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? You are free, boy. . .do what you want because you’ll never be ‘good enough’ for those women anyway. . .

And now the children of THOSE marriages are cautiously trying to find a middle ground between those who have been hurt and who rail against those who ‘deceived them’, and those who ‘tried to have it all’ and still wound up with nothing; between the men who tried to be great fathers and sons and were scorned and called pigs and saw their children rise up to call them stupid, and the men who just wanted to have nothing but a new ‘chick’ every night and nothing to tie them down so they could be the eternal studs. . .

It’s been a rough ride and it doesn’t get easier. .

Wow! What a great post!!! I am not sure about all these husbands trading in their wives for a newer model, but your post made a great deal of sense on so many levels. You’re definitely onto something.

Kids that are given too much, take things for granted. This is very true. I think that’s what happened to kids in the 50’s. It created the first generation of very selfish teenagers.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Wow! What a great post!!! I am not sure about all these husbands trading in their wives for a newer model, but your post made a great deal of sense on so many levels. You’re definitely onto something.

Kids that are given too much, take things for granted. This is very true. I think that’s what happened to kids in the 50’s. It created the first generation of very selfish teenagers.

It actually CREATED “teenagers.” That life stage hadn’t really existed until the 1950’s. I mean, of course the years from 13-19 existed, but they hadn’t been thought of as a stage of life separate from childhood and adulthood. At 13 one was still a child - and if you weren’t working and married at 19, you were pretty odd.

It could be argued that some of what is so dysfunctional about society was started with the invention of “teenagers.” With all the mythology of rebellion, angst, dissatisfaction with society’s rules - none of that is any more real than anything else our culture invents.

 

[leonie]

I’m really jumping into this thread late and I’ve only read the last couple of pages. But…my opinion is that families were better off when they ran family businesses and farms. Everyone worked… together.

Who knows, really?

I’ve been a SAHM for 16 years. My mom and grandma were both working moms.

I know one thing: if I had had to work, I wouldn’t have had more than 3 kids. And, that would have been a tragedy for the world. It would have missed out on four pretty neat people.

 

[Serap]

It actually CREATED “teenagers.” That life stage hadn’t really existed until the 1950’s. I mean, of course the years from 13-19 existed, but they hadn’t been thought of as a stage of life separate from childhood and adulthood. At 13 one was still a child - and if you weren’t working and married at 19, you were pretty odd.

It could be argued that some of what is so dysfunctional about society was started with the invention of “teenagers.” With all the mythology of rebellion, angst, dissatisfaction with society’s rules - none of that is any more real than anything else our culture invents.

So these post WW2 parents created “teenagers”. Selfish teenagers at that. Interesting.

So perhaps the 50’s ideal of a wife at home who only concentrates on the family (using automated cleaning machines), didn’t work out as well as pre-WW2 when women were out working on farms, etc.

I am in no way minimalizing what you did RealJul…I think what you did was amazing for your family.

I am just being objective and seeing a trend of selfish teenages…then selfish adults all stemming from the ideals of post WW2.

 

[Serap]

I’m really jumping into this thread late and I’ve only read the last couple of pages. But…my opinion is that families were better off when they ran family businesses and farms. Everyone worked… together.

Who knows, really?

I’ve been a SAHM for 16 years. My mom and grandma were both working moms.

I know one thing: if I had had to work, I wouldn’t have had more than 3 kids. And, that would have been a tragedy for the world. It would have missed out on four pretty neat people.

Yeah I noticed this spring that family vacation packages are always for 4 people

 

[TheRealJuliane]

So these post WW2 parents created “teenagers”. Selfish teenagers at that. Interesting.

So perhaps the 50’s ideal of a wife at home who only concentrates on the family (using automated cleaning machines), didn’t work out as well as pre-WW2 when women were out working on farms, etc.

I am in no way minimalizing what you did RealJul…I think what you did was amazing for your family.

I am just being objective and seeing a trend of selfish teenages…then selfish adults all stemming from the ideals of post WW2.

Hey - Don’t worry about offending me! I have a really thick skin, and I don’t take any of this personally because like all of us, I’m a product of the world around me. The Baby Boomer generation, raised through Dr. Spock, has carried on being spoiled their whole lives. I’m in that group of birth years, but since my daddy was a Depression-era teen, I didn’t really get spoiled. Plus I’m at the very tail end of the Boomers. So I didn’t get into all the protests, etc. and I was shocked at Roe v. Wade.

We all live in what will be the history others will judge. We can only do what we think is best for ourselves and our families.

 

[Serap]

Hey - Don’t worry about offending me! I have a really thick skin, and I don’t take any of this personally because like all of us, I’m a product of the world around me. The Baby Boomer generation, raised through Dr. Spock, has carried on being spoiled their whole lives. I’m in that group of birth years, but since my daddy was a Depression-era teen, I didn’t really get spoiled. Plus I’m at the very tail end of the Boomers. So I didn’t get into all the protests, etc. and I was shocked at Roe v. Wade.

We all live in what will be the history others will judge. We can only do what we think is best for ourselves and our families.

From what I’ve read, Dr. Spock advocated “cry it out” and cruel methods of parenting that child psychologists now say was an ineffective way of parenting. My mom raised me with Dr. Spock also…I’m a “Generation X”; 1970’s baby.

I find this all very interesting to say the least. I was definitely a very selfish teenager and young adult. When I graduated from university, I expected everyone to bow down to me (metaphorically) and give me a high paying job. It was an eye opener to realize that I had to work hard for it.

 

[Serap]

ooopss…Just did some quick research and I see that Dr. Spock was against spanking and advocated treating the child gently as an individual. I read that Dr. Spock has even been blamed for the hippies…selfish teens revolting against society.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Yeah I noticed this spring that family vacation packages are always for 4 people

Yeah…

Last summer and this winter we had a hard time booking a room for 3 kids 2 adults. We don’t need 2 rooms. I feel uncomfortable saying we only have 2.

And we aren’t a huge family.

 

[Sparki777]

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

Good in some cases, bad in others.

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

Our culture has not, but working women isn’t the only problem - or even most of the problem. There are many more profound factors that contribute to societal demise than working women. Like, you know, the objectification of women, human trafficking, sexualization of children, mindless technology, schools that don’t teach interpersonal respect, an increase in bullying, poverty, racism, etc., etc., etc.

1. Are our children better or worse off?

Some are better off, such as kids who were living in poverty with no health insurance until their moms went to work. Some are the same, such as families in which a bread-winning dad got laid off and only mom could find work, so now dad’s home while mom’s away. Some are worse off, such as kids abandoned by their fathers and now lose their mothers a great deal of the time because she must work.

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

In some ways, it’s made the nation stronger. In others, weaker. In others, it’s neutral.

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

The faith of a child depends more on the faith of the parents that is exhibited to them than who has a job.

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

It depends on the woman, the career, the employer, the support network that the mom relies on, and the kids themselves. Some employers are very supportive of mothers (like my current employer, but not my last one). Some careers are conducive to leaving on time every day so that you can go home to parent; others are not.

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

It depends. Seriously, do you think that every person and every family has an identical mindset?

Here, I’ll lay out my case for you. When my husband and I got married, he was in a ministry that I fully supported, but it wasn’t much money. So I worked full time to keep us going, while he did his best to grow the ministry and secure funding. Alas, his partners in the ministry decided they wanted to chase the Almighty Dollar instead of serve the Almighty God, so they dropped out - and the guy who handled the business dealings smartly left a huge tax burden all in my husband’s name. So we both worked for 2 years to pay off the tax debt (lesson learned: even if a person says they are a Christian, you can’t always trust them to be ethical with the books). Then my husband started a new career, which didn’t pay much at first, so I kept working. Child #1 was born. Then 9/11 happened and my husband’s career came to a screeching halt. He started another career. Child #2 was born. Child #3 was right on her heels, and I was still working to help pay the bills. Then my husband switched to a new employer (more potential), and on his fourth week of the job, he was walking to work when he was hit by an armored truck (negligent driver) and suffered a brain injury. Two and a half years later, we finally got our settlement, but because we live in a certain state where you can’t sue for damages and emotional distress, he only got enough to pay the medical bills and go back to school for retraining. He graduates in August and is currently applying for jobs. I’ve been the primary bread winner for quite some time now, and I don’t know where my family would be if I didn’t have the skills and willingness to work. In my profession, had I stayed home when my first child was born, I would not have been able to resume my career at a level that supports my family of 5 when my husband’s brain injury occurred 9 years later (I have to stay current). So even though I wanted to be home with all my kids all this time, I thank the Lord that it didn’t happen that way.

My husband has been home with the kids while I worked from time to time, and frankly, he doesn’t like it, even though he does a fine job as a full-time parent. He feels that he is the man, he needs to be the provider. I can’t tell you how much it bothers him that he hasn’t become that yet. So no, I don’t prefer for him to be home while I work, because it’s bad for him.

Would I prefer that both spouses work? No. I would prefer to be home with my kids full time. I have not had that option, though, so we’re making do with the lot we’ve been given.

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

Perhaps. I know families that operate that way quite successfully. But in my family, my husband is working very hard to achieve a living wage so that he becomes the primary breadwinner and I no longer have to work full time outside the home. (I will probably always work part time now, having been through “the unexpected” once with my husband’s brain injury.)

 

[LemonAndLime]

Some people might find this interesting -

Do working mums make healthy children?
A new study suggests the children of mothers who work part-time are healthier than those of their full-time or stay-at-home counterparts. Where does this take the debate on the effects of working mothers on the health and happiness of their offspring?
The study of 4,500 Australian pre-schoolers found those whose mothers worked some of the week were less likely to eat junk food, watch TV and over the course of the two-year research period were less likely to become overweight.
The authors suggested that mothers who worked part-time went to “considerable lengths” to ensure the time they did spend with their children was high quality.
“When mothers work part-time, there’s obviously something about the way the house is run, and the way parents are looking after their children that is protective,” said Jan Nicholson of Melbourne’s Murdoch Children’s Research Institute.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8547984.stm

 

[Serap]

Some people might find this interesting -

Do working mums make healthy children?
A new study suggests the children of mothers who work part-time are healthier than those of their full-time or stay-at-home counterparts. Where does this take the debate on the effects of working mothers on the health and happiness of their offspring?
The study of 4,500 Australian pre-schoolers found those whose mothers worked some of the week were less likely to eat junk food, watch TV and over the course of the two-year research period were less likely to become overweight.
The authors suggested that mothers who worked part-time went to “considerable lengths” to ensure the time they did spend with their children was high quality.
“When mothers work part-time, there’s obviously something about the way the house is run, and the way parents are looking after their children that is protective,” said Jan Nicholson of Melbourne’s Murdoch Children’s Research Institute.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8547984.stm

very interesting. I work very flexible full-time hours…I’m home everyday at 4:45 p.m.

My daughter eats junkfood…her aunt gives her chocolate everyday…a small piece, but everyday…