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

[irishpatrick]

They’re a proper tool when they have substantial statistical data to back them up.
Otherwise, they’re personal opinions based on a limited observational scope.

Nonsense. It does not require scientific proof.

“Most older ladies have grey hair!”

No studies, no scientific proof, just a common sense general statement backed-up by common sense life.

Thanks much. Take care.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Nonsense. It does not require scientific proof.

“Most older ladies have grey hair!”

No studies, no scientific proof, just a common sense general statement backed-up by common sense life.

Thanks much. Take care.

Science isn’t statistics…

 

[irishpatrick]

…

 

[Katie966]

Nonsense. It does not require scientific proof.

“Most older ladies have grey hair!”

No studies, no scientific proof, just a common sense general statement backed-up by common sense life.

Thanks much. Take care.

One opinion isn’t necessarily as valid as the next. You need to back them up if you want anyone to understand what you’re saying. If you’re going to say that “most women” do something, it’s simply not enough to base that on anecdotal experience.

 

[manualman]

I say mixed bag.

The positive is that women are no longer dependent on a man for the necessities of life. Not terribly long ago, it was marry, be a dependent spinster, or work your butt off for 1/4 the wages paid a man for the same work. Women no longer are forced to stary in abusive relationships to feed their children. Women are no longer looked at as unfit for any profession.

But there are downsides too. The two full time income family has become so dominant that it has shaped the economy of America. Supply and Demand is the driver of markets and the market has adapted to the large increase in earning power by demanding more money for products and only offering high end products.

Example: Go try to find a minivan without power windows, power locks, ABS brakes, dual sliding doors and magic folding seats. Doesn’t exist anymore. Which is ALSO why you can no longer buy a new family minivan for $18,000. The dual income folks drove up prices by the character of their demand. Houses are another example. Prior to the collapse (since which nobody builds ANY houses anymore), you simply couldn’t buy a 3 bedroom, 1 bath ranch in new construction anymore. Nobody built them. Which is a large part of why they COST so much more than they did when housing was built for a 1 income family economy.

In short, the downside is that economics nearly forces people to be two income families today regardless of whether they want to be or not.

 

[Serap]

You’ve posted opinions…
“General statements” need to be based on statistical data. I haven’t seen any provided.

OOOHHHH you’re good! I love reading your posts.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

It’s written in Tolstoys biography that when his wife had given birth to 5 children in a row she was exhausted and begged him to stop. He didn’t.
I read a self biography of a woman in the very area I live in… Less than hundred years ago she got married, had to work full time in the fields and gave birth to 12 children. her husband didn’t concern himself with her exhaustion, he didn’t even allow her to go home from the fields to nurse her hungry children when they were babies.
My brother in laws father said that while he was growing up the priest would keep an eye on whether women in the parish were always pregnant, and if they were he would take a talk with the husband…

I think we can’t understand the age before psychology and emancipation… All I know is I am happy to live today instead of back then. Indeed it was not a society that valued the intelligence, work and opinions of women as equal to those of men.

So your 3 examples are more true than irishpatrick’s generalizations, or his example of the very wealthy couple not sacrificing their lifestyle for the sake of their child’s health?

We all see what we want to see, and prove what we want to be proven. We all have our biases, which is what this thread has shown more clearly than anything else. We all want to feel that we are doing the right thing by our families and our children, and if we need to justify our choices then we will try to do that, however we can, even if we selectively tune out anything that doesn’t fit our paradigm of history and current societal behavior.

There’s little point in continuing because both sides are just talking AT each other, not gaining any true understanding.

 

[Serap]

Nonsense. It does not require scientific proof.

“Most older ladies have grey hair!”

No studies, no scientific proof, just a common sense general statement backed-up by common sense life.

Thanks much. Take care.

here’s my generalization.

Most older ladies DO NOT have grey hair b/c they color it!

You are in fact stating your opinion as fact and that’s why you have gotten so many debates. You keep stating that you have high esteem for women whether or not they work and then you turn around and state an opinion that working women are selfish and that they should stay at home. This generalization DOES go deep for working women who already feel guilty for working.

You are contradicting yourself in your arguements and we’re catching you in the act. I find it amusing that men left this thread for the most part…they read it…and then realized that it didn’t really make any sense.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Nonsense. It does not require scientific proof.

“Most older ladies have grey hair!”

No studies, no scientific proof, just a common sense general statement backed-up by common sense life.

Thanks much. Take care.

Most older PEOPLE have gray hair! I’ll take your generalization and raise you one! LOL

 

[Serap]

So your 3 examples are more true than irishpatrick’s generalizations, or his example of the very wealthy couple not sacrificing their lifestyle for the sake of their child’s health?

We all see what we want to see, and prove what we want to be proven. We all have our biases, which is what this thread has shown more clearly than anything else. We all want to feel that we are doing the right thing by our families and our children, and if we need to justify our choices then we will try to do that, however we can, even if we selectively tune out anything that doesn’t fit our paradigm of history and current societal behavior.

There’s little point in continuing because both sides are just talking AT each other, not gaining any true understanding.

I’m walking away from this with even more respect for SAHM full-time mothers. I am now more cognizant that they need to be treated with more respect; espcially after hearing some of the stories as to how they are treated by society.

That’s something very significant to walk away with even if Irish Patrick has peeved me off a couple of times He did PM me to apologize, so I assume that he’s a nice person. His personal opinions just came across as judgemental, but hey, I am sure I’ve done this too on CAF.

 

[Warrenton]

Even more, do you think women should not go to college?

In many, if not most cases, college is superfluous to the job someone will hold after graduation.

College largely serves the purpose of indoctrinating a person into the permissive, relativistic mindset of the day.

Not hiring people who lack the degree is usually just bias.

 

[Katie966]

In many, if not most cases, college is superfluous to the job someone will hold after graduation.

College largely serves the purpose of indoctrinating a person into the permissive, relativistic mindset of the day.

Not hiring people who lack the degree is usually just bias.

What does this have to do with what I asked?

 

[Em_in_FL]

In many, if not most cases, college is superfluous to the job someone will hold after graduation.

College largely serves the purpose of indoctrinating a person into the permissive, relativistic mindset of the day.

Not hiring people who lack the degree is usually just bias.

Probably depends on the career… I can tell you this is FAR from reality in the engineering world.

 

[Warrenton]

Women have somehow ‘ruined’ the family unit by daring to get educated and seek employment out of the home.

Better to say, most men and women no longer work about the home, and most children no longer learn about the home, and the family has been ruined.

The ultimate question is how can we repair the family?

We cannot repair the family by having more people leave the home and the children for longer periods of time. That is simply making the present problem worse.

If half the people work about the home with the children, then it is a step toward reform. If all the people work about the home with the children, it is accomplishing reform.

 

[Warrenton]

Probably depends on the career… I can tell you this is FAR from reality in the engineering world.

That is why I qualified the statement. Most people in colleges are not engineers, however. Even within engineering, most of what needs to be learned could be taught at an earlier age or on the job.

An engineer does not need to know what some communist wanna-be thinks of Shakespeare’s treatment of women in the history plays, for instance.

 

[Warrenton]

What does this have to do with what I asked?

You asked whether the writer thought women should not attend college.

I said yes, but only in the context that many less people - ie, men and women, should go to college.

Because college serves the purpose of acclimatizing people to evil.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Because college serves the purpose of acclimatizing people to evil.

 

[Katie966]

You asked whether the writer thought women should not attend college.

I said yes, but only in the context that many less people - ie, men and women, should go to college.

Because college serves the purpose of acclimatizing people to evil.

Well, ok, that’s a little clearer.

And I agree that people go to college who don’t really belong there. And that there are some pretty ridiculous courses out there that people get credit for.

But evil? Really?

 

[Warrenton]

And I agree that people go to college who don’t really belong there. And that there are some pretty ridiculous courses out there that people get credit for.
But evil? Really?

Sadly, yes.

First, there is the overall environment of mixing young people together in close quarters.
Second, there is the frequent criticism of the Church that marks the curricula.
Third, there is the absence of any criticism of non-marital sexual conduct.
Fourth, there is the absence of structured community prayer.

Many, many young people first experiment with premarital sex and intoxication at college.

Happily, there are exceptions to what I am describing. However, one has to search, whereas the opposite environment is ubiquitous.

 

[Katie966]

Sadly, yes.

First, there is the overall environment of mixing young people together in close quarters.
Second, there is the frequent criticism of the Church that marks the curricula.
Third, there is the absence of any criticism of non-marital sexual conduct.
Fourth, there is the absence of structured community prayer.

Many, many young people first experiment with premarital sex and intoxication at college.

Happily, there are exceptions to what I am describing. However, one has to search, whereas the opposite environment is ubiquitous.

This is all probably a topic for another thread, I think.