Why women's rights are wrong...

[ChiRho]

WWII had a lot to do with the large influx of women into the paid workforce.
I don't think it's wrong for women to be able to stand on their own. Husbands have been known to die, leaving a destitute widow behind.

Civil rights and the feminist movement of the sixties is what led to the influx of women into the workforce. One question, what variable was missing during WWII that insisted women work?

As far as women "standing on their own," I am not sure what you mean. Unless of course, you are assuming that stay-at-home moms lack integrity and resourcefulness? Is value once again being given only to "working" women? Think about what you are saying. Also, never did I state, nor did Vox state, that women should be forbidden, by law, to work. And for the destitute women left by dead husbands? Come on. Do you really think that this is a real argument? Besides, as a Christian, we know who is given the responsibilities of taking care of the widows, remember? If you are arguing legally, well, I have already covered that.

Pax

 

[ChiRho]

Amen Phoebesters!

Chi Chi - In previous generations, women had to be extremely agressive and cut throat to be able to succeed in anything outside of the home. The problems I ran into, is when some of these women get their position and security, they still can't shake that agressive attitude, which makes them difficult to work for - it's almost like they see other women as potential threats. I don't know why - I didn't grow up when many of them did. Women in our generation and in future generations don't have it quite as bad and it's a bit easier for us to be ourselves

Ok.

While I prefer to work with men, that doesn't mean I won't take a job because I'm working for a female or anything like that - it also doesn't mean that I like working for most men - some male lawyers have everyone beat in being a slimy jerk.

I was only going by what you posted. You prefer men, yet claim women are equal or superior in every occupation. To me, something just doesnt add up. Also, I challenge your assumption that women are equal or superior in every occupation. Leaving professional sports alone (because you have no argument), there are specific occupations that women absolutely fail at, while men fail at others. It is not as you suggest.

I think that there is plenty of slime in humanity, in all jobs, but I doubt that men are the slimiest. Perhaps in the small sliver that you have dealt with, maybe, but then again, why would you prefer working for/with men? Doesnt add up.

As far as who would be staying at home with the kiddies? I really like that assumption that every couple has children, or that it's the way it's supposed to be.

The only assumption I made was that female lawyers/para legals have children. Am I wrong? And if they do have children, who is raising them? It isn't the way it is supposed to be? Are you seriously challenging this? People are not assumed to procreate?

Some couples can't have children, btw, and I can think of two married women, who have posted on this thread, who can't. Also, is every female who is working married?

Ok, I didn't assume that you had children. I am sorry for any burden you must bear. Is every female working married? Among professionals, I would guess that few are. They are usually career oriented and families, especially children, slow their ascent to the top.

Also, where did I say that women are master over men? Geez.

Not master over, but superior. "No matter what kind of spin men want to make on the situation, there are females who can do just a good of a job, if not better in pretty much every occupation."

Pax

 

[SPALATIN]

Civil rights and the feminist movement of the sixties is what led to the influx of women into the workforce. One question, what variable was missing during WWII that insisted women work?

As far as women "standing on their own," I am not sure what you mean. Unless of course, you are assuming that stay-at-home moms lack integrity and resourcefulness? Is value once again being given only to "working" women? Think about what you are saying. Also, never did I state, nor did Vox state, that women should be forbidden, by law, to work. And for the destitute women left by dead husbands? Come on. Do you really think that this is a real argument? Besides, as a Christian, we know who is given the responsibilities of taking care of the widows, remember? If you are arguing legally, well, I have already covered that.

Pax

ChiRho,

I would have to disagree somewhat with your opening statement. Women have been in the workforce far longer than the 60s and in fact it was WW2 and even WW1 that enabled their more noticeable existence there. The 60s brought out the equality issue of women being paid equally for the work that they do comparable to men.

Here we are in the 21st Century and to some extent women are still paid less per capita than men in the same position. Some women even do a far better job than their male counterparts.

 

[ChiRho]

Phoebe,

I think you're on the right track... but I'd argue that WWII was just one of many factors that changed the workforce... or at least the way we measured the workforce.

This is incorrect. Feminism and the Civil Right Movement are the main contributers to the flood of females into the workplace. Why were women working during WWII? Which gender was missing from the workplace during that time?

The industrial revolution also had a major impact. Mechanization diminished the agricultural focus of our workforce. (In that setting, the male farmer was "employed," while his wife -- who tended the house, did the cooking and cleaning, fed the hired hands, watched the kids, planted and picked the garden, did the canning AND frequently helped with the farm work -- was unemployed and was not considered to be contributing to the farm income.)

Industrial Revolution? Statistics? Oh, and being from rural ndiana, there are still plenty of familial situations like the ancient one you describe.

Once Rosie the Riveter came on the scene, women were suddenly "working" -- the big difference is that they received a quantifiable paycheck.

Two things I would like to discuss about this. 1) What does suddenly mean in the above statement? It couldnt be a result from the War (II)? Do you think that history would be different (as far as gender labor statistics) for the 1940's if there was no war? 2) Do you really think that women are able to perform physically demanding jobs, as men are? Think before you type.

Numerous other factors contributed to the sex/labor changes in society, including movement toward a service-based economy, the increase in literacy, unionization, urbanization, mass transit, advances in communication and health technology, greater availablity of education, the introduction of electronic media, more extensive use of consumer credit, inheritance taxes, and transportation advances (it's only been about 100 years since humans achieve flight). The list goes on and on.

All of this is assuming that it is better that females work. It is not better, it is killing us. Families are traded for careers. Besides, none of the above is evidence of why a specific gender flooded the workforce during the last 35-40 years.

The author's argument that there are direct causal links between women working outside the home and other social factors is remarkably simplistic -- at a time when so much was changing, declaring simple reasons for massive social changes amounts to ignorance or demagogery -- or possibly both.

A simple, "I don't know," or "I do not understand," would have sufficed.

 

[ChiRho]

ChiRho,

I would have to disagree somewhat with your opening statement. Women have been in the workforce far longer than the 60s and in fact it was WW2 and even WW1 that enabled their more noticeable existence there. The 60s brought out the equality issue of women being paid equally for the work that they do comparable to men.

Here we are in the 21st Century and to some extent women are still paid less per capita than men in the same position. Some women even do a far better job than their male counterparts.

Statistics, Scott. We need verifiable evidence of what you claim.

We know why there is an increase in the 1940's. But what sustained the level of increase over the next decades? Civil Rights and Feminism. No longer were women filling the roles of men who were fighting and dying overseas, but filling positions while they were back home. Thus, Vox is correct that there were less jobs for more people, while no "new" consumers were added. Now we arrive at the current situation, where many women must work just to supplement the income that used to provide for both.

Edit: Just in case,

Chart 1. Labor Force Participation Rates of Men and Women, 1890-1990
SOURCES: Men: 1890 to 1970, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Government Printing Office, 1975; and 1980 to 1990, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings.
Women: C. Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women, table 2.1., 1990.

Also, Scott, you may want to take a look at this: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GenderGap.html

Notice this:

The gender gap in U.S. labor force participation has been eroding steadily for 100 years (see chart 1). In 1890 the percentage of married white women who reported an occupation outside the home was extremely low—just 2.5 percent for the entire United States. The figure increased to 12.5 percent by 1940, 20.7 percent by 1950, and then by about 10 percentage points for every decade since then. By 1990 the labor participation rate for all married women had climbed to almost 60 percent, versus 78 percent for married men. (By 1990 women made up 45 percent of the total labor force.) In the forties and fifties, increases were the greatest for older married women, and then for younger married women in the seventies and eighties. And the eighties witnessed an increase in labor force participation of the sole group that had resisted change in previous decades—women with infants.

 

[SPALATIN]

Statistics, Scott. We need verifiable evidence of what you claim.

We know why there is an increase in the 1940's. But what sustained the level of increase over the next decades? Civil Rights and Feminism. No longer were women filling the roles of men who were fighting and dying overseas, but filling positions while they were back home. Thus, Vox is correct that there were less jobs for more people, while no "new" consumers were added. Now we arrive at the current situation, where many women must work just to supplement the income that used to provide for both.

That is an on-going problem. how long do you think it will be before children will be put on the workforce just to help the family buy groceries or pay the mortgage or rent? Two incomes are barely sufficient now.

Maybe the level of women wasn't sustained but it was the introduction of women into the workforce. The Feminist movement which has been around for more than 200 years really became alive in the 60s to promote equal pay for equal work and because of this more women were going to college and entering the workforce to get a piece of the pie that wasn't available to them before.

 

[ChiRho]

That is an on-going problem. how long do you think it will be before children will be put on the workforce just to help the family buy groceries or pay the mortgage or rent? Two incomes are barely sufficient now.

Maybe the level of women wasn't sustained but it was the introduction of women into the workforce. The Feminist movement which has been around for more than 200 years really became alive in the 60s to promote equal pay for equal work and because of this more women were going to college and entering the workforce to get a piece of the pie that wasn't available to them before.

Scott, that is incorrect. First of all, the feminist movement is as old as sin. (Eve, Sarah, the wife of Lot, Jezzabel, Herod's wife, etc,) It is as old as the rebellous nature of man (narrow and broad sense) desired and digested that forbidden fruit. "Equal pay for Equal work" is not what the feminists desire. They desire control and power above equal. More and more women were/are convinced that somehow a paycheck equated to self-worth. Independence meant more than "bondage to those filthy, ignorant men." If a woman didnt attend college and seek to up their male counterparts, they were labeled slaves and worthless. This is the mantra that marches forth, pressuring even those women who desire to stay home to feel horribly guilty, and now essentially forcing those to work just to survive. So it rarely is about acquiring a slice of pie that wasn't available, unless you mean this: they are acting on unhealthy desires to destroy everything in their path to possess what is meant for someone else. Then I agree.

Before anyone unleashes a blazing attack on me, I am not referencing all females who work. I am speaking strictly of feminist and their supporters. I would never support a law forbidding female labor.

 

[SPALATIN]

Scott, that is incorrect. First of all, the feminist movement is as old as sin. (Eve, Sarah, the wife of Lot, Jezzabel, Herod's wife, etc,) It is as old as the rebellous nature of man (narrow and broad sense) desired and digested that forbidden fruit. "Equal pay for Equal work" is not what the feminists desire. They desire control and power above equal. More and more women were/are convinced that somehow a paycheck equated to self-worth. Independence meant more than "bondage to those filthy, ignorant men." If a woman didnt attend college and seek to up their male counterparts, they were labeled slaves and worthless. This is the mantra that marches forth, pressuring even those women who desire to stay home to feel horribly guilty, and now essentially forcing those to work just to survive. So it rarely is about acquiring a slice of pie that wasn't available, unless you mean this: they are acting on unhealthy desires to destroy everything in their path to possess what is meant for someone else. Then I agree.

Before anyone unleashes a blazing attack on me, I am not referencing all females who work. I am speaking strictly of feminist and their supporters. I would never support a law forbidding female labor.

Ok, aren't you being a bit technical about the timeframe here. I agree it goes back to Eve in the Garden with the Serpent. Maybe I should have qualified my statement to say the National Organzation of Women. Which to my knowledge was started in the 60s.

ChiRho,

take it easy. I am not disagreeing with you here and quite frankly when they began is not really a statistic that I keep under my hat to pull out at any given time.

 

[ChiRho]

Ok, aren't you being a bit technical about the timeframe here. I agree it goes back to Eve in the Garden with the Serpent. Maybe I should have qualified my statement to say the National Organzation of Women. Which to my knowledge was started in the 60s.

ChiRho,

take it easy. I am not disagreeing with you here and quite frankly when they began is not really a statistic that I keep under my hat to pull out at any given time.

Actually my reference to the Fall was because of the 200 year old date you offered. If we were going to go back 200 years, then I thought we might as well go back all the way.

I promise to take it easy and not assume that you have anything under your hat (by the way, should I include hair in that assumption?). Sorry, old man!

I thought you were disagreeing with me. I may have misinterpreted your last post.

 

[Flipper]

Not master over, but superior. "No matter what kind of spin men want to make on the situation, there are females who can do just a good of a job, if not better in pretty much every occupation."

Pax

1 man, 1 woman come in to apply for the same job. What are the chances one will be better than the other? For most all jobs, it goes either way. That was what I meant.

 

[Joykins]

Why are married white women the only ones who qualify for that chart? Working class and black (and other minority) women have worked pretty much constantly throughout our history but no one cared because they were mostly paid beans.

My guess is that what you're seeing is the growing re-entry into the paid labor force of married, mostly middle class, white women.

 

[BeanMak]

Factors that hasn't been mentioned- the increase of labor saving devices. Laundry is no longer an all day affair, bread doesn't need to be baked daily, clothes don't need to be sewn. Lace doesn't need to be tatted, mittens don't need to be knitted. Spending all day cooking for the family, and the field hands is no longer necessary. Running a household is no longer a full time occupation.

 

[LilLamb219]

Running a household is no longer a full time occupation.

That depends on how many people are living in the household. Yes, being a homemaker IS a full time occupation and not one to be knocked.

 

[BeanMak]

Not knocking it, I just can't/don't want do it full time.

 

[Joykins]

Well, being an "at-home" mother of small children is a full-time occupation, and I think anyone who is that deserves to have a housekeeper or at least all the appliances their hearts desire

 

[ctobola]

My comment is pointing out that having a Porsche and a record contract has no bearing on the issue.

As Aristotle notes, in order to have credibility a speaker (or writer) needs to establish his/her credentials or expertise (known as ethos) as related to the argument at hand.

The author is trying to use his financial status to inflate his credibility (i.e., he is using a "red herring" argument) in order to deceive those who are less thoughtful/critical about what they believe.

In short, the author is noting "you should listen to me because of this criterion." I'm pointing out that the qualifications he presents have no bearing on his ability to intelligently speak to this issue -- and I specifically cite cases where early sucess in the music business had no bearing on intelligent, ethical thinking.

Aristotle would have said that using earthly posessions as an indication of great insight is not only misleading, it's unethical.

Excelsior! -Cloy

This is supposed to disprove something? Did you fail to understand why the Porsche and record contract were mentioned? Or was this a weak attempt to gather support from like minds, without actually confronting any of the issues put forth?

 

[ctobola]

This is incorrect. Feminism and the Civil Right Movement are the main contributers to the flood of females into the workplace. Why were women working during WWII? Which gender was missing from the workplace during that time?

Women worked outside the home more during WWII because of the absence of approximately 16 million males -- approximately one in four men -- who served. (Source: US Census Bureau) Of these, about half a million would not come home.

As the government contracted $175 BILLION to supply the war effort, woment were enlisted in large numbers to sew the enormous number of uniforms and boots, prepare canned foods prepared, etc., etc. In the munitions field alone, approximately 30,000 women were added. U.S. Labor Statistics list only 36 women employed in ship-building in 1939; by 1943 that number was 200,000.

The U.S. Government understood the large need, and so it started its own propaganda campaign to encourage women who had not previously been employed outside the home to help. The "Rosie the Riveter" and "Molly the Munitions Worker" symbols were used.

Some women returned to working in the home after the war; however, as ChiRho's graph indicates the number of employed women did not drop off. This is likely due to the fact that the war had significantly bolstered the U.S. economy and increased the nation's labor needs.

[More on ChiRho's other questions as I have time.]

Excelsior! -Cloy

 

[ctobola]

You raise a good point, Bean.

And because we can now buy what we formerly had to make, the skills have been lost. My grandmother tatted, but neither I nor my sister learned how. I can make a mean loaf of bread, but my sister can't.

In many cases, we've lost ability to do these things ourselves.

-Cloy

Factors that hasn't been mentioned- the increase of labor saving devices. Laundry is no longer an all day affair, bread doesn't need to be baked daily, clothes don't need to be sewn. Lace doesn't need to be tatted, mittens don't need to be knitted. Spending all day cooking for the family, and the field hands is no longer necessary. Running a household is no longer a full time occupation.

 

[MORTANIUS]

I still know how to order pizza

 

[Flipper]

That depends on how many people are living in the household. Yes, being a homemaker IS a full time occupation and not one to be knocked.

It's also an honorable profession for those who choose it, and yes, I believe raising kids as a SAHM or SAHD is as much a profession as an occupation. Meaning, some people can do it well, and some aren't cut out for it. My mother wasn't cut out for it, I don't think I'm cut out for it, but I know others who were/are.

I don't think technology in the home as much saves one's time, as it adjusts the focus of one's time more to the children.