Why women's rights are wrong...

[ChiRho]

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.

"Economic value of traditional housewife labor"? Huh? Perhaps I am missing something, but were "traditional housewives" paid according to the chores they did (allowance!)? Didn't think so. If technology advances, thereby cutting time and money at home, doesnt the overall household save? Why would this be a strain on a household's finances? Shouldn't families gain wealth, making it less necessary for the woman to work and more reasonable to live off of one income? I do not believe a household to be a "market," and certainly not comparable to GM.

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.

This paragraph makes no sense. Men were not paid more to cover the expense of "home-labor" costs. They were paid according to the ratio of supply/demand for the specific profession. Think about this, if you (and your wife?) decided to enable cost cutting options around the house, would your employer pay you less for it? The one thing that actually makes sense is your last two sentences. It certainly was the flooding of abundance into labor supply that drove down real wages, but not because of "under-use."

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.

And before the wheel, life was slow and bumpy. What is your point? Technology may advance, but a mother's "job" does not increase or decrease. Humans remain humans. We will always need to sleep and eat. Children need love and nurturing that technology cannot give. We will always need to be properly instructed and comforted. Dishwashers, refrigerators, child-care services, nannies, nor the gubmint can fulfill this role. We need more full-time mothers and less career oriented women. Our society is dying. Our families are dying. Those who think otherwise are either blind, foolish, or card-carrying feminist.

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

Wrong again. Capitalism is not the guilty party, though fingered frequently for blame for nearly everything evil. It must be the whole "money = root of all evil" misconception that has people fooled.

cap·i·tal·ism
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Pay close attention to the last two words. We do not have a free market. Not even close. When the gubmint is used as force to achieve an agenda favoring one race, gender, or group over another, it is not only wrong, but devastating on society. As much as people desire them a couple, socialism does not know success. They have never met.

Pax

 

[ChiRho]

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.

Are you serious, Flip?

 

[ChiRho]

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

I wonder why the fathers want to leave? Hmmm...

 

[Joykins]

Technology may advance, but a mother's "job" does not increase or decrease.

Mothering has been so much easier since the advent of the TV. No more having to tie children to a post so you can do the chores. (yes, I'm kidding. Kind of.)

Humans remain humans. We will always need to sleep and eat. Children need love and nurturing that technology cannot give. We will always need to be properly instructed and comforted. Dishwashers, refrigerators, child-care services, nannies, nor the gubmint can fulfill this role. We need more full-time mothers and less career oriented women. Our society is dying. Our families are dying. Those who think otherwise are either blind, foolish, or card-carrying feminist.

What do you think of the statistic that mothers of school-aged children spend approximately the same amount of time with their children whether they work or not? I believe the difference is on the order of 3 or 4 hours per week difference.

I wonder why the fathers want to leave? Hmmm...

Too many different reasons to count, but it's not always the wife's fault, you know.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

I wonder why the fathers want to leave? Hmmm...

Joykins
My inferance from what DanHead said was not so much whose fault it is but what society has fostered on us with the feminist movement, the degredation of the male role and our inability to tolerate this trend. You have to read his previous post and I think this is Dan's and Scott's point. 'Course what do I know

 

[Protoevangel]

My inferance from what DanHead said...

Do you mean ChiRho?

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

OOps---yea---senility creeping in

 

[Joykins]

And here I thought it was all because of the bimbos.

 

[JADVirginia]

"Economic value of traditional housewife labor"? Huh? Perhaps I am missing something, but were "traditional housewives" paid according to the chores they did (allowance!)? Didn't think so. If technology advances, thereby cutting time and money at home, doesnt the overall household save? Why would this be a strain on a household's finances? Shouldn't families gain wealth, making it less necessary for the woman to work and more reasonable to live off of one income? I do not believe a household to be a "market," and certainly not comparable to GM.

Yes, you are missing something. Indeed, quite a lot. All work has value, regardless of whether a wage has been paid, or a cost has been avoided. To obtain comparable services on the market, a family would have had to pay a servant to perform the work. Thus, the wife's contribution would be measured monetarily by the cost avoided. Naturally, as appliances decrease the cost avoided, the value of household labor is reduced. Get it?

Think about this, if you (and your wife?) decided to enable cost cutting options around the house, would your employer pay you less for it?

Don't confuse an individual situation with a societal situation. If many labor suppliers obtained reduced costs through technological improvements, they use it as a competitive advantage that enables them to lower their bid price. So yes, employers as a group will pay less. The way suppliers avoid that situation is to use cartels, guilds or --- gasp --- labor unions. (Eeks!! That sounds liberal! )

And before the wheel, life was slow and bumpy. What is your point? Technology may advance, but a mother's "job" does not increase or decrease. Humans remain humans. We will always need to sleep and eat. Children need love and nurturing that technology cannot give. We will always need to be properly instructed and comforted. Dishwashers, refrigerators, child-care services, nannies, nor the gubmint can fulfill this role. We need more full-time mothers and less career oriented women. Our society is dying. Our families are dying. Those who think otherwise are either blind, foolish, or card-carrying feminist.

Hold it. No, you're saying that as labor saving devices decrease dishwashing, etc. that the "mother job" should increase; i.e., you want women to devote more of their time to that job. But the market does not place the same value on that kind of labor as what the women feel they can earn in the marketplace. So this isn't about name calling: it's about the innate desire of all individuals to be economically secure.

Wrong again. Capitalism is not the guilty party, though fingered frequently for blame for nearly everything evil. It must be the whole "money = root of all evil" misconception that has people fooled.

cap·i·tal·ism
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Pay close attention to the last two words. We do not have a free market. Not even close. When the gubmint is used as force to achieve an agenda favoring one race, gender, or group over another, it is not only wrong, but devastating on society. As much as people desire them a couple, socialism does not know success. They have never met.

Pax

Nice quote, wrong cite. My original post referred to "American capitalism," which is a regulated market economy. Pay close attention to those two words.

And nobody is bashing capitalism, so get off of your rhetorical high-horse and cut the Rush Limbaugh schtick. From a law and economics point of view (which I will add is definitely a Republican backed jurisprudence strongly supported during the Reagan and Bush presidencies), laws that remove non-economic barriers in the market, like race and gender discrimination, stimulate the national economy by promoting efficient use of human resources. Rather than "devastate" a society, such laws have substantial societal benefits.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

And nobody is bashing capitalism, so get off of your rhetorical high-horse and cut the Rush Limbaugh schtick. From a law and economics point of view (which I will add is definitely a Republican backed jurisprudence strongly supported during the Reagan and Bush presidencies), laws that remove non-economic barriers in the market, like race and gender discrimination, stimulate the national economy by promoting efficient use of human resources. Rather than "devastate" a society, such laws have substantial societal benefits.

Well your "societal benefits" have all but ruined our economy where a person is considered by race/gender because they could not compete any other way. Lowering the standards in competency to accomadate a persons ethnic/gender persuasion, lowering the hireing standards for the same reason, position promotion according to the same standards; thereby frustrating the ones that can accomplish or meet better standards to not even want to be competitive. What do you think causes people then to sit back and say "OK I'll lay back, collect my paycheck, not be a team player and screw em". 50/50 college standards and "aids", the only plague that is protected by civil rights laws and the above mentioned problems are the laws that came out of the liberal agenda long before Reagan/Bush and were capitalized by "Slick Willy". How's that for Rush Limbaugh reatoric!!!

Affirmative action sucks so why don't YOU get off your liberal high-horse.

 

[Joykins]

Well your "societal benefits" have all but ruined our economy where a person is considered by race/gender because they could not compete any other way. Lowering the standards in competency to accomadate a persons ethnic/gender persuasion, lowering the hireing standards for the same reason, position promotion according to the same standards; thereby frustrating the ones that can accomplish or meet better standards to not even want to be competitive. What do you think causes people then to sit back and say "OK I'll lay back, collect my paycheck, not be a team player and screw em". 50/50 college standards and "aids", the only plague that is protected by civil rights laws and the above mentioned problems are the laws that came out of the liberal agenda long before Reagan/Bush and were capitalized by "Slick Willy". How's that for Rush Limbaugh reatoric!!!

Affirmative action sucks so why don't YOU get off your liberal high-horse.

The post didn't say anything about affirmative action. It spoke about removal of discrimination. If I am the most qualified for the job, I should get it regardless of my irrelevant characteristics like race, sex, religion, etc.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

The post didn't say anything about affirmative action. It spoke about removal of discrimination. If I am the most qualified for the job, I should get it regardless of my irrelevant characteristics like race, sex, religion, etc.

I agree with you but I'm talking about affirmative action and as far as I'm concerned so is he; alluding to it or not. Affirmative action and equal rights are totally differant things.

I came from 35 years of corporate miss-management and the only thing I've seen is people get promoted by back stabbing and brown nooseing because their ability to be competitively competent was eroded by the "numbers" game.

 

[ChiRho]

The post didn't say anything about affirmative action. It spoke about removal of discrimination. If I am the most qualified for the job, I should get it regardless of my irrelevant characteristics like race, sex, religion, etc.

Idealogically, yes, but realistically, no. We assume that business owners would not choose against the welfare of each one's business. Since that is the foundational principle of business, we need no laws mandating the selection process of employees. If owners put their own personal biases ahead of the welfare of their businesses, well, that is their poragitive. It should correct itself, as those businesses would usually fall behind fair competitors and eventually fail.

Separately, but related, no one deserves to be hired. Just because you are the most qualified for the job, does not mean that you should get it. That is why one must apply. Complete discretion lies with the one who owns the business, as it is his/her business.

 

[Joykins]

Libertarians, eh?

 

[ChiRho]

Yes, you are missing something. Indeed, quite a lot. All work has value, regardless of whether a wage has been paid, or a cost has been avoided. To obtain comparable services on the market, a family would have had to pay a servant to perform the work. Thus, the wife's contribution would be measured monetarily by the cost avoided. Naturally, as appliances decrease the cost avoided, the value of household labor is reduced. Get it?

First of all, labor does not equal value. It is not objective. Labor is worth how much you are willing to pay or perform for it. It is supply and demand. An employer does pay according to an employee's wife's house chore efficiency. The owner could not care less about how many hours employee John Doe's spends hand washing the dishes after dinner. This is absolutely silly and sounds a little Marxist.

Don't confuse an individual situation with a societal situation. If many labor suppliers obtained reduced costs through technological improvements, they use it as a competitive advantage that enables them to lower their bid price. So yes, employers as a group will pay less. The way suppliers avoid that situation is to use cartels, guilds or --- gasp --- labor unions. (Eeks!! That sounds liberal! )

Please remember that a society cannot act; only individuals are capable of action. And also, there is no connection between house chores completely more efficiently, and the money an owner saves at a business who uses advanced technology. They are separate. They are not directly linked.

Employers, as a group, pay less! Outside of gubmint interference, which produces monopolies and encourages collusion, this is insane. Business, rightly, is selfish. It cares about it's sustance (more correctly, the owner cares about the owner's well being. His business makes him money, so he directs his business in the best manner he sees fit, while remaining in accordance with the law).

Unions are horrible and unnecessary. How full of one's self one must be to dream that he is able to boss his boss. One may negotiate, individually, for more money or benefits according to his subjective value. But for a group to ban together and expect to bully the owner for higher raises and more benefits, insane. I hope the door it's everyone one of them on the way out. Owners should never deal with strikers. You might ask, "and what if the strikers are refusing to work for a legitimate reason?" Go find a different job.

Hold it. No, you're saying that as labor saving devices decrease dishwashing, etc. that the "mother job" should increase; i.e., you want women to devote more of their time to that job. But the market does not place the same value on that kind of labor as what the women feel they can earn in the marketplace. So this isn't about name calling: it's about the innate desire of all individuals to be economically secure.

Ah, so what you are saying is this:

A long time ago, the work that was done at home equated to so much money saved, that it was more appealing for a woman to stay at home. Now women are deciding to work because they can make more money in the workforce, then the money they save at home.

Correct? If this is what you believe, then it is false. Upon your answer, you will receive my explanation.

Nice quote, wrong cite. My original post referred to "American capitalism," which is a regulated market economy. Pay close attention to those two words.

Fair enough.

And nobody is bashing capitalism, so get off of your rhetorical high-horse and cut the Rush Limbaugh schtick. From a law and economics point of view (which I will add is definitely a Republican backed jurisprudence strongly supported during the Reagan and Bush presidencies), laws that remove non-economic barriers in the market, like race and gender discrimination, stimulate the national economy by promoting efficient use of human resources. Rather than "devastate" a society, such laws have substantial societal benefits.

1) No Rush Limbaugh in this Libertarian. Sorry, I hate Republicrats.

2) I believe I will remain high upon my horse. At least until I am safely across this murky, parasitic, swamp of feministic liberalism/Marxism.

Do you really believe that the government chooses better employees for someones business then they would? Go check out your nearest BMV (or DMV). I didn't think so.

Pax

 

[Joykins]

First of all, labor does not equal value. It is not objective. Labor is worth how much you are willing to pay or perform for it. It is supply and demand. An employer does pay according to an employee's wife's house chore efficiency. The owner could not care less about how many hours employee John Doe's spends hand washing the dishes after dinner. This is absolutely silly and sounds a little Marxist.
...
Please remember that a society cannot act; only individuals are capable of action. And also, there is no connection between house chores completely more efficiently, and the money an owner saves at a business who uses advanced technology. They are separate. They are not directly linked.

The employer may not care at all about John Doe's wife--but John Doe's wife does care that she isn't spending 6 hours a day cooking, cleaning, laundering, and washing dishes. And now the kids are in school she doesn't need to be home full-time for her children either. She'd rather earn money with those leisure hours, and increase the household's net income, save for the kids' college funds, keep her skills current should she lose her husband's income, save for her old age, etc. Her husband thinks this is a good idea. Many (though not all) of her friends feel the same way. The influx of this previously-untapped source of labor increases labor supply and decreases demand. Overall wages decline or remain steady instead of increasing. Add to that, the labor-saving devices in offices are doing the same thing. The secretary's previous work is now being done by the boss, on a PC. Again, as labor demand decreases, wages may decline or stagnate.

It is her and her family's perception of her labor value that makes the difference, not her husband's employer's.

Full-time mothering is great if your kids are really small or if you're homeschooling, but children grow and take on their own lives, they even go to school usually for 6 hours a day or more. Some women take on volunteer work but for many the economic incentives of entering the workforce (even on a part-time basis--in fact, even "at-home" mothers often work part time, or at home for an outside business, or are self-employed to one extent or another (even if it is a pyramid like Tupperware or Mary Kay).

 

[JADVirginia]

I agree with you but I'm talking about affirmative action and as far as I'm concerned so is he; alluding to it or not. Affirmative action and equal rights are totally differant things.

I came from 35 years of corporate miss-management and the only thing I've seen is people get promoted by back stabbing and brown nooseing because their ability to be competitively competent was eroded by the "numbers" game.

I have enough problems putting words in my own mouth without assistance from others! Affirmative action, whether as a policy or a legal remedy, differs from prohibitions from future non-productive discrimination. My post did not address affirmative action, or even affirmative employment.

 

[JADVirginia]

Oh my. So many opportunities, but such a waining interest in this discussion. I respectfully suggest that focusing on economics rather than Libertarian dogma may be in order.

First of all, labor does not equal value.
It is not objective. Labor is worth how much you are willing to pay or perform for it. ... This is absolutely silly and sounds a little Marxist.

Labor does not "equal" value; it has value. That's why employers pay. And even if something is not for sale, it has a value. The value can be measured by averaging similar potential transactions. That's how a Blue Book values used cars, or how real estate agents and appraisers value a house. Stay-at-home labor can be valued by what comparable services would cost from house keepers, gardeners, nannies, etc. This isn't Marxism.

Please remember that a society cannot act; only individuals are capable of action. And also, there is no connection between house chores completely more efficiently, and the money an owner saves at a business who uses advanced technology. They are separate. They are not directly linked.

To the contrary, they are linked very simply: Lots of individuals are needed to have a society.

Employers, as a group, pay less! Outside of gubmint interference, which produces monopolies and encourages collusion, this is insane. Business, rightly, is selfish.

Recall that I stated that when costs decrease among many supplers, the suppliers will lower their bids to remain competitive. Selfish employers will take the lower bids. To put it more simply . . . they pay less. It does not matter if they are private or public employers.

Unions are horrible and unnecessary. How full of one's self one must be to dream that he is able to boss his boss. One may negotiate, individually, for more money or benefits according to his subjective value. But for a group to ban together and expect to bully the owner for higher raises and more benefits, insane. I hope the door it's everyone one of them on the way out. Owners should never deal with strikers. You might ask, "and what if the strikers are refusing to work for a legitimate reason?" Go find a different job.

How sad for so-called libertarians to deny so basic a human liberty as the Freedom of Association! ROFL my head off! I'm cryin' because it's so funny!!!

Ah, so what you are saying is this:

A long time ago, the work that was done at home equated to so much money saved, that it was more appealing for a woman to stay at home. Now women are deciding to work because they can make more money in the workforce, then the money they save at home.

Correct? If this is what you believe, then it is false. Upon your answer, you will receive my explanation.

No. You put it too black-and-white. I am saying that women have more incentive to move from being home-labors to being wage earners. There remains other, non-economic incentives not to move.

Do you really believe that the government chooses better employees for someones business then they would? Go check out your nearest BMV (or DMV). I didn't think so.

Checkmate. You lose. The Government is not a market driven employer motivated by profit. It is motivated by cost, i.e., political reluctance to overspend taxpayer dollars. Now resign the game.

 

[LilLamb219]

Children need love and nurturing that technology cannot give. We will always need to be properly instructed and comforted. Dishwashers, refrigerators, child-care services, nannies, nor the gubmint can fulfill this role. We need more full-time mothers and less career oriented women. Our society is dying. Our families are dying.

Great statements (although this was said a page or two ago, I just got back from vacation last night LOL)!

The family isn't the same as it used to be. It's not as tight as it was and can easily fall apart with parents thinking it's ok to just go from one family unit to the next without consequences.

At my daughter's school, the children who have stay-at-home moms are the bright ones in the school and the most talented, secure and level-headed children. There are few exceptions though, I will admit. But for the most part, the ones who have moms who stay home thrive better than the others.

I'm the leader of my daughter's Girl Scout troop and have been since she was in Kindergarten (she's now going into 6th grade). There have been a few children who have joined the troop who had moms who worked full-time. Some do well, but a couple concerned me. One felt like her mom didn't want to be around her because after work her mom just yelled at her and went off to do whatever MOM wanted to do. The girl really needed her mom to just be there for her and not keep pushing her away as she was doing.

I disagree with a statement in this thread (sorry can't remember who wrote it) about stay at home moms with school aged children spending the same amount of time as the full-time moms anyway just because the kids are in school. My daughter goes to school from 8:10 until 2:40. I'm with her from 6:30 AM until 8:05 and then again with her from 2:50 until she goes to sleep at 9:30pm. That's much longer than the 3-4 hours that was estimated by the poster that the full time mom only spends with the child. I'm THERE with my child when she needs me to be her mom, her support, her homework helper, her chauffer for gymnastics (and I stay during gymnastics and watch), her cook, her clean up person when messes are made, her consoler when she's feeling down, her playmate when she needs to be active, besides being Scout leader, room parent, etc...

I get my housework done during the time my daughter is at school so that I can be a part of the family after school lets out. I think it's great that technology has afforded me this benefit!

 

[SPALATIN]

Great statements (although this was said a page or two ago, I just got back from vacation last night LOL)!

The family isn't the same as it used to be. It's not as tight as it was and can easily fall apart with parents thinking it's ok to just go from one family unit to the next without consequences.

At my daughter's school, the children who have stay-at-home moms are the bright ones in the school and the most talented, secure and level-headed children. There are few exceptions though, I will admit. But for the most part, the ones who have moms who stay home thrive better than the others.

I'm the leader of my daughter's Girl Scout troop and have been since she was in Kindergarten (she's now going into 6th grade). There have been a few children who have joined the troop who had moms who worked full-time. Some do well, but a couple concerned me. One felt like her mom didn't want to be around her because after work her mom just yelled at her and went off to do whatever MOM wanted to do. The girl really needed her mom to just be there for her and not keep pushing her away as she was doing.

I disagree with a statement in this thread (sorry can't remember who wrote it) about stay at home moms with school aged children spending the same amount of time as the full-time moms anyway just because the kids are in school. My daughter goes to school from 8:10 until 2:40. I'm with her from 6:30 AM until 8:05 and then again with her from 2:50 until she goes to sleep at 9:30pm. That's much longer than the 3-4 hours that was estimated by the poster that the full time mom only spends with the child. I'm THERE with my child when she needs me to be her mom, her support, her homework helper, her chauffer for gymnastics (and I stay during gymnastics and watch), her cook, her clean up person when messes are made, her consoler when she's feeling down, her playmate when she needs to be active, besides being Scout leader, room parent, etc...

I get my housework done during the time my daughter is at school so that I can be a part of the family after school lets out. I think it's great that technology has afforded me this benefit!

That's all well and good and it seems that you and your husband have your priorities straight putting the welfare of the children first. I think it comes down to what the parents set as a priority when they first get married. If they determine that they want a house that costs $100k and are willing to sacrifice some really nice things that others have and put the children first they will reap the benefits of their sacrifice when their children come home with good grades and are socially fit.

Parents who choose to have the really nice house where both have to work to keep up the payments and have the really nice things but their children spend their time at daycare and school are reaping the rewards of keeping up with the Joneses and their children are starving for their attention. I think that LilLamb has come on to the truth here. It is a matter of priorities. My wife is tired of working in a job she doesn't love and doesn't have time to invest in her children's lives.

Since she has been home over the last 3 weeks she has not raised her voice to her children. She and I have had to face the facts that we need to put our children first and get out of debt. She wants to be a stay at home mother. At first I was hesitant about this, but I think that God is saying that I need to make this work for our whole family. Please keep us in your prayers that God is going to make it all work for his good.

Scott