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

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I admit I have not read all the entries (yet) but I couldn’t help expressing my opinions here.

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

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

Just my thoughts 🙂
So, reading your post, it would seem you would side with the idea that things have gotten worse. Is that accurate?
 
It has now been a well established fact that women pursue careers at nearly the same rate as men and they work fulltime at nearly the same rate as men. Those numbers have steadily increased for the last three decades. This has been the case long enough to help us create an informed opinion about the impact of these developments.

So, here are a few questions"
My answers below, are general answers. Of course there are exceptions, but, “generally speaking” this is what I believe to be true. And, I realize that my answers may be a little oversimplified, but I think the facts would support my conclusions.
  1. Has women working fulltime outside the home been a good or bad development for the American family?
It has been a disaster. Most children are now raised by the state/school system/tv. Before WWII, children were raised by parents. They were taught their Catholic faith, and shown, first hand, how to live their Catholic faith. Now, they’re pretty much on their own, except for what the school system, which is now heavily influenced by secular humanism (atheism as promoted by the Enlightenment). That’s why so few of our children, percentage-wise, really have the faith compared to yesteryear. And that’s why one of the biggest killers of our children now is suicide. The suicide rates are through the roof, as are unwed pregnancies. The big picture is very grim when comparing the two time periods (pre-WWII and now). Families before WWII worked and struggled to survive. Families now work and struggle to gain and maintain material goods and the highest “standard of living” they can afford. This mad rush to “have things” has put most families in the red and under tremendous stress. Without the anchor of a mother at home, all matters of unhealthy things are possible for children growing up.
  1. Has our culture improved since women entered the workforce in massive numbers?
I’m not sure this is the only reason, but our culture has become the culture of death. I think that really started, though, in 1930, at the Anglican conference that changed Protestantism’s view of artificial birth control. Before that time, all major Christian religions held that ABC was morally sinful. After that, only the Catholic Church maintained that belief. And even then, people claiming to be Catholic in our culture use ABC at about the same rate as Protestants. The result from widespread ABC use (and it might take a lot more explanation than these short posts…) is that we now have “legalized” abortion upon demand, consideration for euthanasia, and a divorce rate through the roof. These are massive changes for the worse!
  1. Are our children better or worse off?
Our children are far worse off. Premarital sex, teen pregnancies, illegal drug use, attacks on prayer and religion, secular humanism, teen suicide, etc.
  1. Has women working fulltime made this nation stronger, weaker, or no impact?
Based on the results shown in my previous answers, it’s much worse off.
  1. Have our children become stronger or weaker in the faith?
Much weaker in the faith, although, I think we’ve seen a little resurgence in recent years. The problem is that today’s young parents don’t have the faith, so they have nothing much to offer their children. You cannot pass on what you do not have.
  1. Has entering careers and fulltime work been good or bad for women (and women who are moms)?
    I think, overall, it has been bad. Rather than seeking self-fulfillment, mothers should be seeking fulfillment of God’s will. They have a “solemn” obligation to raise their children in the faith. Their priorities, however, seem more to increase or maintain a certain standard of living, along with certain material goods. Big home, two cars, color TV’s, big vacations, etc. At what expense, though? The children. God will not judge anyone based on how many material goods they had in life, but on how they fulfilled their obligations to Him. A mother’s top obligation is to her family, and with regard to the kids, to raising them according to His plan.
**Add on questions for married couples: **
  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?
What about asking the question, “What would God prefer…?”
  1. Would it better to have men stay at home with the kids, rather then neither parent staying home?
    Only in extreme circumstances. Best that a mother stay at home and the father work. While a man is the “head of the family,” a mother is the “heart of the family.” And, besides, if the woman gets pregnant, she has to stop working (at least for a while). If the husband is working, and the mother gets pregnant, the family doesn’t lose any income.
I can’t wait to see the responses to my responses! LOL I’ll bet the worldly people will jump all over this, espousing the politically correct values they’ve been taught. My answers were pretty counter-cultural, I think. 🙂
 
I think men have choices. They need to be unconventional to go against the tide, but for example my uncle stayed home for several years. A man who wants to stay home can marry a woman who wants a family but also has strong career ambitions. The couple would have to deal with social prejudice that says they are doing the ‘wrong’ thing but if they persisted and made friends and had a support network they could do it.
Let’s create a different analogy to illuminate my thought here.

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

So, again, since women now really love their careers, has it not lead to children being care for by other people with the husbands not even being thought of to do that role? And wouldn’t most people agree that is NOT the best situation?
 
40.png
Scoobyshme:
Thank you. I really agree with your point #7, choices should be God centered, yet in most cases they are self centered. Great point! 🙂
 
So, reading your post, it would seem you would side with the idea that things have gotten worse. Is that accurate?
Define “things” 🙂 Seriously though, I think that is just one small part of a whole series of things that have contributed to the moral corruption of today’s society. Again, each case has its own circumnstances and is hard to make such a general statement. But I guess if only given the two options and no wiggle room, I would that yes, working women has helped make things worst in general for the family.
 
Some other questions arise for single women and men:
  1. Are women better off now that they enter into pre-marrital sex as frequently and as willingly as men do?
  2. Are women better off with the falling marriage rates and the increasing rates of living together?
  3. Are men better off now that they can obtain sex pretty much any time they want, without any thought to morality or even just human decency? (in the past the women were gate keepers, now no-one is)
 
ooo boy…here we go…blame women for the fall of our society; blame women for being selfish and wanting a career and motherhood; blame women for the downfall of religious beliefs and church attendance; blame women for being selfish unloving mothers b/c they leave the house everyday to make a living.

It’s all the fault of women…descendents of Eve…nasty creatures…:rolleyes:

Men have absolutely nothing to do with the downfall of society…:rolleyes:
 
That’s true and as other posters have pointed out it generally applied to middle and upper middle class white mothers. Black women have generally not had the same opportunities due to racism which lowered wages, opportunity and job security so both parents had to work.
And it certainly didn’t apply to any but the highest nobility in the entire history of the Church. The stay at home wife/mother is romanticized, and for the most part a fiction other than for a brief period in society of about 30 years.

Women supported Jesus and the Apostles from their funds-- Priscilla the tentmaker, Lydia the clothmaker/seller, Phoebe a wealthy woman who supported the Apostles. And, let’s not foget the Proverbs 31 worthy wife or Ruth going out in the field to earn her living.

Most women in history were wives, mothers, AND employed in some form of business, trade, or agriculture to support the family.
 
Very good point, yet is it not somewhat accurate to say single female professionals often delay having a family, mainly because they enjoy their careers? Which means there is some impact there as well? Or no?
In my circle of friends and coworkers, it is common for the women to delay their children for careers. I work in public accounting, and after 5 years to obtain an MS, one must sit for the CPA - another 1-2 years. After that kind of monetary investment and commitment, the women want to wait another 2-3 years to move up the ladder before taking time off to start a family. And at that point, they will chose to either work a minimized schedule (in our specific firm, that is 30-35 hrs/week, some from home), or a nanny for the children.

I see this with my friends who chose law school and medical school as well.
 
And it certainly didn’t apply to any but the highest nobility in the entire history of the Church. The stay at home wife/mother is romanticized, and for the most part a fiction other than for a brief period in society of about 30 years.

Women supported Jesus and the Apostles from their funds-- Priscilla the tentmaker, Lydia the clothmaker/seller, Phoebe a wealthy woman who supported the Apostles. And, let’s not foget the Proverbs 31 worthy wife or Ruth going out in the field to earn her living.

Most women in history were wives, mothers, AND employed in some form of business, trade, or agriculture to support the family.
THANK YOU!

Some men just set out to make women feel like complete failures b/c they choose to have a career AND be a mother.

Many mothers in history…even BC…have had careers out of necessity…whether it being working on a farm and taking eggs to market, clean the barn, water the gardens, handwash clothes, all while grandmother or oldest child watches the children at home. Many women would go to market daily to sell their goods. Many women were dressmakers working for wealthy families that required them to leave home for hours at a time while someone watched the children at home.

This is not new 🤷
 
Let’s create a different analogy to illuminate my thought here.

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

So, again, since women now really love their careers, has it not lead to children being care for by other people with the husbands not even being thought of to do that role? And wouldn’t most people agree that is NOT the best situation?
I agree with Serap, who noted awhile back that it seems you have an agenda. So I’m just going to ask you- what do YOU think? How would you answer all these questions?

I don’t think your hypothetical situation is all that realistic. If the wife preferred not to stay home, there are two possibilities- either the husband wants to stay home, or doesn’t. If he does, what makes you think that a wife wouldn’t consider him staying home as an option?

In response to your first question, most men would not want to stay home anyway. But if he and his wife both did, they would either work out a compromise (both working part time) or one of them would stay home. And yes, I think if a woman wants to stay home and it’s financially possible, she should be the one to do it. Not only does it make sense if they have multiple children, but there is a biological connection a woman has to her child that a man does not. And even in the case of adoption, a mother’s role isn’t exactly the same as a father’s. Aside from some exceptions, generally women are the more nurturing ones, whether they have a career or not.

I think you are looking for people to give you simple answers to a very complex situation, and it just isn’t possible. As several others have pointed out, each family’s circumstances are different, and in a good marriage what is best for the family as a whole is more important than individual preferences.
 
I am profoundly grateful that I have been able to raise my own children from their birth up until they leave the home to go to college. .
I’m sorry…I can’t help but be slightly offended by this. You do realize that working women are also able to raise their own children from birth to college too, right? You do realize you don’t have to be standing next to your child to raise him, right? And dads who work are also raising their children too, right? I’m not trying to be difficult, but to imply that working women are not raising their children is very hurtful.
 
ooo boy…here we go…blame women for the fall of our society; blame women for being selfish and wanting a career and motherhood; blame women for the downfall of religious beliefs and church attendance; blame women for being selfish unloving mothers b/c they leave the house everyday to make a living.

It’s all the fault of women…descendents of Eve…nasty creatures…:rolleyes:

Men have absolutely nothing to do with the downfall of society…:rolleyes:
That is not even remotely close to reality.
 
I agree with Serap, who noted awhile back that it seems you have an agenda. So I’m just going to ask you- what do YOU think? How would you answer all these questions?

I don’t think your hypothetical situation is all that realistic. If the wife preferred not to stay home, there are two possibilities- either the husband wants to stay home, or doesn’t. If he does, what makes you think that a wife wouldn’t consider him staying home as an option?

In response to your first question, most men would not want to stay home anyway. But if he and his wife both did, they would either work out a compromise (both working part time) or one of them would stay home. And yes, I think if a woman wants to stay home and it’s financially possible, she should be the one to do it. Not only does it make sense if they have multiple children, but there is a biological connection a woman has to her child that a man does not. And even in the case of adoption, a mother’s role isn’t exactly the same as a father’s. Aside from some exceptions, generally women are the more nurturing ones, whether they have a career or not.

I think you are looking for people to give you simple answers to a very complex situation, and it just isn’t possible. As several others have pointed out, each family’s circumstances are different, and in a good marriage what is best for the family as a whole is more important than individual preferences.
Okay, thank you. 🙂
 
THANK YOU!

Some men just set out to make women feel like complete failures b/c they choose to have a career AND be a mother.

Many mothers in history…even BC…have had careers out of necessity…whether it being working on a farm and taking eggs to market, clean the barn, water the gardens, handwash clothes, all while grandmother or oldest child watches the children at home. Many women would go to market daily to sell their goods. Many women were dressmakers working for wealthy families that required them to leave home for hours at a time while someone watched the children at home.

This is not new 🤷
All I am doing is asking questions. We have now seen many permanent changes in our culture, and it is always appropriate to ask if those changes were for the good or bad, or if they had no impact. I am simply curious…nothing more to it than that. 🙂
 
In my circle of friends and coworkers, it is common for the women to delay their children for careers. I work in public accounting, and after 5 years to obtain an MS, one must sit for the CPA - another 1-2 years. After that kind of monetary investment and commitment, the women want to wait another 2-3 years to move up the ladder before taking time off to start a family. And at that point, they will chose to either work a minimized schedule (in our specific firm, that is 30-35 hrs/week, some from home), or a nanny for the children.

I see this with my friends who chose law school and medical school as well.
I think that happens quite often.
 
Priscilla the tentmaker, Lydia the clothmaker/seller, or Ruth going out in the field to earn her living.
Yes, but she carried on her business in her home, not some else’s factory or office. Except Ruth, but she was amid “the alien corn.”

OUr language retains a memory of this reality in referring to feminine things as “distaff,” after the tool used for spinning wool, which women did in their own homes.
 
*1ke

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

I think what really needs to be dispelled is the myth that in the past women were not “in the workforce.” This simply isn’t true. Only women of the nobility, very wealthy women, did not work and even that is a misnomer since women of position and nobility did oversee very vast estates, which was its own job. *👍

1ke is correct. It is a myth that prior to the 60-70’s; women did not work outside the home. Lower class women and women of color have always worked and been wives/mothers. Upper class women were allowed leisure, but a financial setback could doom her to life as the dreaded, Governess (read, Jane Eyre)! Black women ALWAYS worked outside the home. I don’t know any African-American women of my mother’s generation (born in 1928) that were the stereotypical “stay at home” mother. Even without the “sexual revolution”, women would still have begun working full-time. The freedom to pursue advanced education, as well as voting rights made economic emancipation inevitable. When a girl was barred from pursuing higher education or aspiring to a career; she was more likely to remain in the home. When higher education became attainable and career fields opened; outside employment was certain to follow.
 
*1ke

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

I think what really needs to be dispelled is the myth that in the past women were not “in the workforce.” This simply isn’t true. Only women of the nobility, very wealthy women, did not work and even that is a misnomer since women of position and nobility did oversee very vast estates, which was its own job. *👍

1ke is correct. It is a myth that prior to the 60-70’s; women did not work outside the home. Lower class women and women of color have always worked and been wives/mothers. Upper class women were allowed leisure, but a financial setback could doom her to life as the dreaded, Governess (read, Jane Eyre)! Black women ALWAYS worked outside the home. I don’t know any African-American women of my mother’s generation (born in 1928) that were the stereotypical “stay at home” mother. Even without the “sexual revolution”, women would still have begun working full-time. The freedom to pursue advanced education, as well as voting rights made economic emancipation inevitable. When a girl was barred from pursuing higher education or aspiring to a career; she was more likely to remain in the home. When higher education became attainable and career fields opened; outside employment was certain to follow.
So, would you say that our culture has improved, gotten worse, or had no (name removed by moderator)act as a result of women entering the workfoce at easily 90% or higher rates?

That really is my basic question. Have things gotten worse, better or remained the same?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top