Why women's rights are wrong...

[ChiRho]

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.

The chart includes all working women, not just married white women.

 

[ChiRho]

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

Neither the Porsche nor the record contract were used to demonstrate great insight. They were used only to disspell of the first conclusion that most women would jump to: He is a bitter male who cannot get women, so he must hate women. It is not disputable that women are attracted to money and musicians. Vox is right, even small town local bands have small groupie followings. Being young, rich, driving a fast, expensive car, and playing in a modestly successful band, would have granted him access to any number of attractive women. The car and contract only served to counter the most common reaction to discredit him...it had nothing to do with the actual content of the article. He is not saying, I drive a nice car and play the drums, therefore you should give me credibility. He is saying, do not discredit me because of some "red herring," instead try to respond objectively to what I have written.

 

[ChiRho]

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.

But what maintained the increase over the next five decades? A bolstered economy? Increased labor needs? Nope. It would reflect in real wages. See initial article:

"And few indeed are the women who understand that their present need to work is inextricably tied to the societal expectation that they will do so. When women began to enter the work force en masse in the latter half of the 20th century, the overall supply of labor increased, obviously. As per the iron law of supply and demand, over the last 60 years, this increase in supply has somewhat outstripped the growth in the economy and the attendant demand for labor, which is why real wages are still lower in 2005 than in 1973. Combined with the ever-increasing tax burden, this decline in real wages is why both husband and wife must now work when previously the husband's labor alone would have sufficed.

(The decline in wages would be much more obvious to the casual observer if men had not begun retiring earlier at the same time women entered the work force. To state that young women are working today so their grandfathers can play golf is reasonable shorthand for what happened.)"

 

[SPALATIN]

Objective? Cloy? Are we talking about the same person?

 

[ChiRho]

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.

Amen. Thank you.

 

[ChiRho]

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

"Don't want to"


Always motive. Always.

 

[ChiRho]

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.

Hard time understanding "not cut out for it." What do you mean?

 

[Joykins]

The chart includes all working women, not just married white women.

The chart here http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17642037&postcount=25 very clearly states All Men and Married White Women. Unless there is some other chart you are referring to?

 

[ChiRho]

The chart here http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17642037&postcount=25 very clearly states All Men and Married White Women. Unless there is some other chart you are referring to?

My apologies. I stand corrected. Back to the statistical hunt. Here ya go:

 

[Protoevangel]

Red Herring? How about a Straw Man?

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

You are so full of it here, Cloy. The very paragraph you refer to, exposes your Straw Man for what it is.

Now, at this point, it is customary for women to immediately reject any assertion that women's rights are wrong as the Talibanistic ranting of an embittered man who has been denied ready access to attractive women's bodies. In the interest of dismissing this red herring, I merely note that few men fortunate enough to possess a turbo Porsche and a record contract at 23 have any reason to be bitter about the hand that life has dealt them.

"To dismiss the red herring..." NOT "to establish credentials or expertise..."

Hey, but if Cloy disagrees, doesn’t that automatically make the author ignorant, simplistic, uneducated and uncritical?

Oh, but we're all real impressed with your Aristotelian reference to ethos!

 

[ChiRho]

Red Herring? How about a Straw Man?


You are so full of it here, Cloy. The very paragraph you refer to, exposes your Straw Man for what it is.


"To dismiss the red herring..." NOT "to establish credentials or expertise..."

Hey, but if Cloy disagrees, doesn’t that automatically make the author ignorant, simplistic, uneducated and uncritical?

Oh, but we're all real impressed with your Aristotelian reference to ethos!

I am afraid you have been too blunt, too masculine, and too correct.

*ChiRho wonders what response DanHead will most likely receive from Cloy*



Oh yeah, unfortunately, this one is easy: silence.

Anyone wanna take that bet?

 

[Joykins]

I wonder how higher education for women plays into this trend. This trend started in the early 20th century (and a little earlier) and became a big deal around mid-century when all those women went to college, many for their "MRS"--and ended up with the educational background to hold jobs that are not traditionally feminine.

There's a certain break-even point when some mothers realize that it is not financially worth their while to work, if after day care and other work-related expenses the take-home pay is minimal. However, with higher education, more high-paying jobs became available to women, and thus the number of women falling below the break-even point becomes fewer.

At this point in time, more women than men have bachelor's degrees. I believe this also plays a role.

 

[Joykins]

Hard time understanding "not cut out for it." What do you mean?

Neither skilled nor fulfilled at it?

I'm a lousy housekeeper but try to be a good mom. I also work outside the home. Now throw tomatoes at me

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

So what do all these graphs represent as far as the decline of males in the work force. Do these represent the parallels in the Church? Do men take less responsibility for being the head of the family in both cases because of the feminist movement or men being relegated to a more minor position? How has that affected our Church body? Women rising up to take positions in the body because we are too weak to be spritual. Look at the media and notice how wimpy men are represented. Are we believing that we are not heads of anything anymore? We have ouselves to blame when we listen to the hype that is trolled out and thrown in our faces that we can no longer be the top competitors and that everthing is equal under affirmative action and feminism. Because we are weak, and pursue other puriant interests, we have lost focused on what the BIble has given us as our God given rights. We discuss things from the Bible as though they are an anathema to us; ie: Spiritual heads, treat our wives as Christ treats his Church, leaders in the church and community etc. Are we Bibile believers or do we just take out what we want and leave the rest?

We (men) are our own worst enemy!

 

[SPALATIN]

So what do all these graphs represent as far as the decline of males in the work force. Do these represent the parallels in the Church? Do men take less responsibility for being the head of the family in both cases because of the feminist movement or men being relegated to a more minor position? How has that affected our Church body? Women rising up to take positions in the body because we are too weak to be spritual. Look at the media and notice how wimpy men are represented. Are we believing that we are not heads of anything anymore? We have ouselves to blame when we listen to the hype that is trolled out and thrown in our faces that we can no longer be the top competitors and that everthing is equal under affirmative action and feminism. Because we are weak, and pursue other puriant interests, we have lost focused on what the BIble has given us as our God given rights. We discuss things from the Bible as though they are an anathema to us; ie: Spiritual heads, treat our wives as Christ treats his Church, leaders in the church and community etc. Are we Bibile believers or do we just take out what we want and leave the rest?

We (men) are our own worst enemy!

Radidio,

This problem has been around since creation as ChiRho put it to me on an earlier post. While Eve was talking to the Serpent, Adam was keeping his big mouth shut instead of interrupting and saying "Honey, I don't think that is what our creator wants." He was silent. God upon kicking them out of the Garden put Eve in her place and she has diligently worked ever since then to rebel against the Almighty.

It is because of sin that woman wants the power she was not given. You can relate it to the world at large, the USA or the Church. Some countries suppress women to the point of being slaves which is not right either. They were created to be a mate an equal partner in the plan of life.

Scott Strohkirch

 

[JADVirginia]

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.

I blame dishwashers.

No, really. They (along with refrigeration, gas stoves, clothes washers and dryers, vacuum cleaners and mega-grocery stores serving prepared food) created too much efficiency in the home, thereby reducing the economic value of traditional housewife labor. This should not be a shock. GM replaces workers with machines all the time because it is more economically efficient. Indeed, doing things the old way generally is less efficient, and markets abhor inefficiency.

Decades ago, husbands could support a traditional household because the labor supply required adequate compensation to cover the expense of the work performed at home. As that home-labor cost (in woman-hours!) decreased, the male laborer's wage no longer had to cover the expense. As a result, males became able to work for less so the supply of less costly male labor increases in the market. At the same time, the under-used female labor supply entered the market, further increasing the supply of labor outside the home. The result is lower wages.

Now I certainly recognize that stay-at-home moms do a lot of work. But ... at the same time, to achieve relatively the same standard of living between 2000 and 1900, the amount of household work has decreased markedly. Has anybody seen the PBS show 1900's House? Hours of handwashing clothes, hand wringing, line drying, and hot iron pressing is now handled with a 15 minute permapress cycle, plus 65 minutes in the dryer. Daily trips to the green grocer, the butcher and the baker are now done in two hours per week at the supermarket.

So I blame dishwashers. Dishwashers replaced women, so women could replace men. Equal pay laws or female access to higher education are not to blame. Rather, blame good ol' American capitalism's market efficiency.

JADVirginia

 

[Flipper]

Radidio,

It is because of sin that woman wants the power she was not given.

Because of sin? Wanting to have a career is not wanting a power trip.

The Bible is clear that I am to submit to my husband as the spiritual head of the household (and I wish and pray he would take that role). Where does it say that I have to submit to him financially? Intellectually?

I also guess sin doesn't have anything to do with power hungry men.

 

[SPALATIN]

I blame dishwashers.

No, really. They (along with refrigeration, gas stoves, clothes washers and dryers, vacuum cleaners and mega-grocery stores serving prepared food) created too much efficiency in the home, thereby reducing the economic value of traditional housewife labor. This should not be a shock. GM replaces workers with machines all the time because it is more economically efficient. Indeed, doing things the old way generally is less efficient, and markets abhor inefficiency.

Decades ago, husbands could support a traditional household because the labor supply required adequate compensation to cover the expense of the work performed at home. As that home-labor cost (in woman-hours!) decreased, the male laborer's wage no longer had to cover the expense. As a result, males became able to work for less so the supply of less costly male labor increases in the market. At the same time, the under-used female labor supply entered the market, further increasing the supply of labor outside the home. The result is lower wages.

Now I certainly recognize that stay-at-home moms do a lot of work. But ... at the same time, to achieve relatively the same standard of living between 2000 and 1900, the amount of household work has decreased markedly. Has anybody seen the PBS show 1900's House? Hours of handwashing clothes, hand wringing, line drying, and hot iron pressing is now handled with a 15 minute permapress cycle, plus 65 minutes in the dryer. Daily trips to the green grocer, the butcher and the baker are now done in two hours per week at the supermarket.

So I blame dishwashers. Dishwashers replaced women, so women could replace men. Equal pay laws or female access to higher education are not to blame. Rather, blame good ol' American capitalism's market efficiency.

JADVirginia

Interestingly I did see that show. My wife and I have come to the horrible realization that we are in way over our heads. With her prospect of losing her job we have decided that we need to sell our beautiful home and downsize. We are also going for the contingency of ler being a stay-at-home mom after all so my income will be the only income. We have gained about $60000+ equity since we moved. Part of this money will go to pay our debts and the other will be our down payment.

We will have to live about 30 miles further south of the metropolitan area than we do now. But to have no debt other than mortgage would be a good thing.

 

[Flipper]

I blame dishwashers.

No, really. They (along with refrigeration, gas stoves, clothes washers and dryers, vacuum cleaners and mega-grocery stores serving prepared food) created too much efficiency in the home, thereby reducing the economic value of traditional housewife labor. This should not be a shock. GM replaces workers with machines all the time because it is more economically efficient. Indeed, doing things the old way generally is less efficient, and markets abhor inefficiency.

Decades ago, husbands could support a traditional household because the labor supply required adequate compensation to cover the expense of the work performed at home. As that home-labor cost (in woman-hours!) decreased, the male laborer's wage no longer had to cover the expense. As a result, males became able to work for less so the supply of less costly male labor increases in the market. At the same time, the under-used female labor supply entered the market, further increasing the supply of labor outside the home. The result is lower wages.

Now I certainly recognize that stay-at-home moms do a lot of work. But ... at the same time, to achieve relatively the same standard of living between 2000 and 1900, the amount of household work has decreased markedly. Has anybody seen the PBS show 1900's House? Hours of handwashing clothes, hand wringing, line drying, and hot iron pressing is now handled with a 15 minute permapress cycle, plus 65 minutes in the dryer. Daily trips to the green grocer, the butcher and the baker are now done in two hours per week at the supermarket.

So I blame dishwashers. Dishwashers replaced women, so women could replace men. Equal pay laws or female access to higher education are not to blame. Rather, blame good ol' American capitalism's market efficiency.

JADVirginia

All that does is increase time to be spent with the children - and that is not a bad thing at all. If anything, it makes a SAHM's job that much more rewarding, and I don't think less challenging.

It also makes it easier for those of us who don't want to stay at home - I didn't say easy, but easier than years ago.

 

[Joykins]

It is because of sin that woman wants the power she was not given. You can relate it to the world at large, the USA or the Church. Some countries suppress women to the point of being slaves which is not right either. They were created to be a mate an equal partner in the plan of life.

Suppressing anyone is wrong, period.

I'm not sure what "wanting the power she was not given" has to do with the growing proportion of women in the work force, or the decline of the 1950s-era middle class ideal gender role arrangements either. I think a MUCH bigger problem is the number of households without fathers at all