Tony Miller wrote:
I think you have it all wrong.

Nope!
Women have always been on par with men at least in a marriage, and if they didn't it was because they were married to the wrong men.

Not even close!
In "old fashioned" marriages, certain roles were expected, but that didn't mean that you were unequal.

Equality is not about roles, it's about control and decision making
ability.
You just did different things. I don't consider homemaking as a "lesser" vocation than Computer Programming,

Neither do I. But I would consider one in a *lesser* position
if they have no choice but to be a homemaker. For a short while
when I was home with kids I didn't feel lesser at all, neither did
my husband. It was wonderful to be able to do as we wanted.
The feminist "revolution" seems to have taught that being a SAHM is somehow a "cop out" or a lesser vocation then going out into the workforce.

The women's movement, more than taking women out of the home,
has given the option. I am very grateful to live in this era and this part
of the world, where someone like Jayne can choose her lifestyle, and
I can choose mine. A few decades ago I would be EXPECTED to
live like her. There is nothing wrong with her lifestyle, but *I* would
be miserable living it.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:25:56 GMT, Ellie
<ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote: Tony Miller wrote: I think you have it all wrong. Nope!

Yup!
Women have always been on par with men at least in a marriage, and if they didn't it was because they were married to the wrong men. Not even close!

Guess you're married to the wrong man.
In "old fashioned" marriages, certain roles were expected, but that didn't mean that you were unequal. Equality is not about roles, it's about control and decision making ability.

Then my wife and I have equal decision making ability.
You just did different things. I don't consider homemaking as a "lesser" vocation than Computer Programming, Neither do I. But I would consider one in a *lesser* position if they have no choice but to be a homemaker. For a short while when I was home with kids I didn't feel lesser at all, neither did my husband. It was wonderful to be able to do as we wanted.

It's nice isn't it.
The feminist "revolution" seems to have taught that being a SAHM is somehow a "cop out" or a lesser vocation then going out into the workforce. The women's movement, more than taking women out of the home, has given the option. I am very grateful to live in this era and this part of the world, where someone like Jayne can choose her lifestyle, and I can choose mine. A few decades ago I would be EXPECTED to live like her. There is nothing wrong with her lifestyle, but *I* would be miserable living it.

No, it hasn't just "given the option". It forcefully advances the agenda
that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller wrote: It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.

Thinking about this, who really benefits from
having so many women in the workforce? Men?
Women? Business owners who have a greater supply
of labor (and so can pay less)?

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

Tony Miller wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:25:56 GMT, Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote:Tony Miller wrote:
The feminist "revolution" seems to have taught that being a SAHM issomehow a "cop out" or a lesser vocation then going out into theworkforce.

I don't think you are a very good person to state the feminist position.
The women's movement, more than taking women out of the home,has given the option. I am very grateful to live in this era and this partof the world, where someone like Jayne can choose her lifestyle, andI can choose mine. A few decades ago I would be EXPECTED tolive like her. There is nothing wrong with her lifestyle, but *I* wouldbe miserable living it.

Exactly right. But more than that, it frees men up to be who THEY want
to be, which sometimes includes being the primary parent. My husband
took paternity leave after I went back to work with each of our three
kids. Now I'm home with the kids most of the year but he takes over as
primary parent when I'm busy with my seasonal business.
No, it hasn't just "given the option". It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.

Where on earth do you get this idea? Women-hating feminists?

Dally

Jack C Lipton wrote: Tony Miller wrote: It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work. Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)?

The women who want to work benefit. That's it.

Bill in Co. wrote:
Jack C Lipton wrote:Tony Miller wrote:It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are"lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.Thinking about this, who really benefits fromhaving so many women in the workforce? Men?Women? Business owners who have a greater supplyof labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it.

How about the men who don't want to work? Who want to stay home with
their children? Might they benefit from having a bread-winner in the
family?

Dally

"Bill in Co." wrote:
Jack C Lipton wrote: Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it.

No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work
has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he
was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he
enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more
stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse
a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to
enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide
without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.

Overall, my husband has benefited as much as me, if not more,
from my work. Not to mention our children who have benefited
greatly for having both their parents being involved in their lives
equally (because we both have been able to choose the kind of
work that gives us a lot of flexibility and leisure). And this is only
the economic aspect of it. My husband very much likes the fact
that we both have similar "lifestyles", so to speak! We have more
in common because of it, appreciate each others' efforts at work
and home instead of each thinking "the other has it easier", etc...

Dally wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Tony Miller wrote:> It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are> "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work. Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. How about the men who don't want to work? Who want to stay home with their children? Might they benefit from having a bread-winner in the family? Dally

So are we talking about all of ten men here? OK, make it a hundred. :-)

Come on now, let's not "spin" this too far. You know, and I know (perfectly
well) that this is but a tiny exception.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com... "Bill in Co." wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.

I benefit this way from my wife working as well.

JWB

Ellie wrote: "Bill in Co." wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.

I'm NOT talking about the "materialism" and the "higher standard of living"
side. I'm talking about the "good parenting" side (incl involvement in PTA
meetings, and school events), or the lack of good parenting (and its
consequences and effects on society), as is so well seen in today's world (by
and large).

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9Ou5c.42492$aT1.7575@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Jack C Lipton wrote: Tony Miller wrote: It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work. Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it.

My kids who ate groceries tonight that I paid for out of my earnings while
sitting in a house that I was able to buy because I have a job benefitted.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:
"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com... "Bill in Co." wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: > Thinking about this, who really benefits from > having so many women in the workforce? Men? > Women? Business owners who have a greater supply > of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.I benefit this way from my wife working as well.

I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly
never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that
gets in the way of a good relationship.

Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:9Ou5c.42492$aT1.7575@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Jack C Lipton wrote: Tony Miller wrote:> It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are> "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work. Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. My kids who ate groceries tonight that I paid for out of my earnings while sitting in a house that I was able to buy because I have a job benefitted.

Yes, but in the 50's you would still be married (well, a better chance,
anyways, compared to TODAY) to a nice husband, who would be bringing in the
bacon, and you would be free to be home with the kids - at least for the early
years, anyways.

Yeah, I know - it's RETRO thinking. But regardless, Joy, the divorce rate
today totally TRUMPS what it was back in the 50's, and you can't tell me it was
because *EVERYONE* back then was locked in a "prison and a corset". That's
bull****. Some were, to be sure. But there were also a lot of happy SAHMs
too. And TWO PARENT homes. Something that NOBODY wants to acknowledge
today, because it isn't "chic".

Yes, I know there is another side to this. But how many today even recognize
this side? Few, if any. All they believe is ... "corset prisons back
then", end of story.

Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com... "Bill in Co." wrote:> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it. No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide without having to work much harder and longer than he likes. I benefit this way from my wife working as well. I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that gets in the way of a good relationship.

Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the process.
There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids, for
the family, and for society. (If children are involved)

(JMHO) well, ok, (JMO)

Bill in Co. wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Tony Miller wrote: It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work. Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it.

My point wasn't at the individual level; yes, many
women benefit by having an income.

My point was that the larger labor pool worked well
to lower the cost of labor; more people competing
for jobs so the employers could pay less. A lot of
"systems" were encouraged like this; racism like
the KKK existed to keep low-income earners down by
distracting them with the threat of "lower paid"
workers, so that exacerbated racism.

BTW, the arguments that the 50s weren't the prison
for women that some think it is today doesn't take
into account the stigma then attached to divorce
(for either gender) and, by then, the workforce had
already been expanded by quite a bit.

Of course, nowadays it seems that SAHMs get
stigmatized as if raising children ISN'T a full-time
endeavor. Granted, child raising is more of an
investment in the success of the human race which
won't be seen for decades, but it's _also_ a very
important "job" (just underpaid and overworked).

The biggest problem is that there's no *real*
solution to any of these that works at a systemic
level; any solutions that shake things out will
need to be on a case-by-case basis.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
I'm NOT talking about the "materialism" and the "higher standard of living" side. I'm talking about the "good parenting" side (incl involvement in PTA meetings, and school events), or the lack of good parenting (and its consequences and effects on society), as is so well seen in today's world (by and large).

And you ignored that part of my post. Our kids have benefitted greatly
from having two parents who are equally involved in their lives (PTA
meetings and all). They love the fact that their dad is available to
them when they need him. And he wouldn't be as available if he had to
carry the whole load of the family finances.

Lack of good parenting has nothing to do with parents working. You
have this false image in your head that doesn't fit reality.

cupasoup@softhome.net (Jack C Lipton) wrote in message news:<slrnc5cp3r.r01.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>... Tony Miller wrote: It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work. Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)?

Seems our economy has handled women entering the workforce just fine,
Jack. Unemployment rates since WWII have averaged 6% and dipped below
4% in 2000. Per capita income has steadily risen at an average rate of
2 percent per year. Obviously the "greater supply of labor" has not
equated with less pay!

jen

Dally <dally@myself.com> wrote in message news:<c35tuj$23hsla$3@ID-217902.news.uni-berlin.de>... Bill in Co. wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote:Tony Miller wrote:>It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are>"lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.Thinking about this, who really benefits fromhaving so many women in the workforce? Men?Women? Business owners who have a greater supplyof labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. How about the men who don't want to work? Who want to stay home with their children? Might they benefit from having a bread-winner in the family? Dally


Yep. Because I bring in a good paycheck, DF has the luxury of pursuing
a field he loves that doesn't pay all that well but interests him
immensely. He did the "high-paying lawyer" thing with SAH wife for
years and it made him desparately unhappy. And we've been discussing
the possibility of him quitting his job and going back to get his PhD,
which will allow him to be at home afterschool with the kids.

jen

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<1Cv5c.42561$aT1.32921@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>... Dally wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote:> Tony Miller wrote:>>> It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are>> "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from> having so many women in the workforce? Men?> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply> of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. How about the men who don't want to work? Who want to stay home with their children? Might they benefit from having a bread-winner in the family? Dally So are we talking about all of ten men here? OK, make it a hundred. :-) Come on now, let's not "spin" this too far. You know, and I know (perfectly well) that this is but a tiny exception.

Actually it's a percentage that is rapidly growing.

Also you need to take into account the men that are working but have
temporarily daddy-tracked their careers. We've got lots of examples of
this where I work (the motto is "work to live, not live to work"), and
my ex is also an example. This provides the flexibility to work
shorter hours and be able to leave work early to pick up the kids, or
attend their activities. Most of the parents I know at work tag-team
the childcare responsibilities. The kids enjoy the benefit of two
parents equally involved in their school and extracurricular
activities, not just one. The workplace also benefits because
employees are more well-rounded and have a balance between work and
family.

Today, it's all about options and choice. And that's a very good
thing. Those that work because they want to, are happier. They aren't
watching the clock at work - they are fully engaged in what they're
doing. The workplace benefits. Those that choose to stay at home
because they want to, are happier. They aren't drugging themselves
with Valium just to get through another day with screaming kids,
marking time until they're grown and gone. They're fully engaged in
every facet of their children's lives. And the kids benefit.

jen

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<z6x5c.23675$%06.18429@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>... Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:9Ou5c.42492$aT1.7575@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Jack C Lipton wrote:> Tony Miller wrote:>> It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are>> "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from> having so many women in the workforce? Men?> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply> of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. My kids who ate groceries tonight that I paid for out of my earnings while sitting in a house that I was able to buy because I have a job benefitted. Yes, but in the 50's you would still be married (well, a better chance, anyways, compared to TODAY) to a nice husband, who would be bringing in the bacon, and you would be free to be home with the kids - at least for the early years, anyways. Yeah, I know - it's RETRO thinking. But regardless, Joy, the divorce rate today totally TRUMPS what it was back in the 50's, and you can't tell me it was because *EVERYONE* back then was locked in a "prison and a corset". That's bull****. Some were, to be sure. But there were also a lot of happy SAHMs too.

If that's true, Bill, then how come so many ended up divorced after
the kids were grown, after decades of marriage? Because it's not only
those with the seven-year itch that get divorced. The next most common
anniversary to get a divorce is at the 20-25 year mark.
And TWO PARENT homes. Something that NOBODY wants to acknowledge today, because it isn't "chic".

I don't think anyone intends to get divorced and become a single
parent. And you know that. C'mon, Bill.
Yes, I know there is another side to this. But how many today even recognize this side? Few, if any. All they believe is ... "corset prisons back then", end of story.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5cnvh.ri1.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:25:56 GMT, Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote: Tony Miller wrote: I think you have it all wrong. Nope! Yup! Women have always been on par with men at least in a marriage, and if they didn't it was because they were
married to the wrong men. Not even close! Guess you're married to the wrong man. In "old fashioned" marriages, certain roles were expected, but that
didn't mean that you were unequal. Equality is not about roles, it's about control and decision making ability. Then my wife and I have equal decision making ability. You just did different things. I don't consider homemaking as a "lesser" vocation than Computer Programming, Neither do I. But I would consider one in a *lesser* position if they have no choice but to be a homemaker. For a short while when I was home with kids I didn't feel lesser at all, neither did my husband. It was wonderful to be able to do as we wanted. It's nice isn't it. The feminist "revolution" seems to have taught that being a SAHM is somehow a "cop out" or a lesser vocation then going out into the workforce. The women's movement, more than taking women out of the home, has given the option. I am very grateful to live in this era and this
part of the world, where someone like Jayne can choose her lifestyle, and I can choose mine. A few decades ago I would be EXPECTED to live like her. There is nothing wrong with her lifestyle, but *I* would be miserable living it. No, it hasn't just "given the option". It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.


I think that's phooey. If you read any parenting mags lately, each type of
mom, sahm and working, both view the OTHER as the more valued. Many working
mothers perceive a great deal of persecution for doing something so
horrifying as sending their children to daycare.

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc5cp3r.r01.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Tony Miller wrote: It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work. Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)? -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net |
http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/


Women benefit from having choices.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com... "Bill in Co." wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it.

And that is bad?
No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide without having to work much harder and longer than he likes. Overall, my husband has benefited as much as me, if not more, from my work. Not to mention our children who have benefited greatly for having both their parents being involved in their lives equally (because we both have been able to choose the kind of work that gives us a lot of flexibility and leisure). And this is only the economic aspect of it. My husband very much likes the fact that we both have similar "lifestyles", so to speak! We have more in common because of it, appreciate each others' efforts at work and home instead of each thinking "the other has it easier", etc...

"Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message
news:f6Gdnc7nFfqZgsrd4p2dnA@telcove.net... "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5cnvh.ri1.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:25:56 GMT, Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote: Tony Miller wrote:> I think you have it all wrong. Nope! Yup!> Women have always been on par with men at> least in a marriage, and if they didn't it was because they were married> to the wrong men. Not even close! Guess you're married to the wrong man.> In "old fashioned" marriages, certain roles were expected, but that didn't> mean that you were unequal. Equality is not about roles, it's about control and decision making ability. Then my wife and I have equal decision making ability.> You just did different things. I don't> consider homemaking as a "lesser" vocation than Computer
Programming, Neither do I. But I would consider one in a *lesser* position if they have no choice but to be a homemaker. For a short while when I was home with kids I didn't feel lesser at all, neither did my husband. It was wonderful to be able to do as we wanted. It's nice isn't it.> The feminist "revolution" seems to have taught that being a SAHM is> somehow a "cop out" or a lesser vocation then going out into the> workforce. The women's movement, more than taking women out of the home, has given the option. I am very grateful to live in this era and
this part of the world, where someone like Jayne can choose her lifestyle, and I can choose mine. A few decades ago I would be EXPECTED to live like her. There is nothing wrong with her lifestyle, but *I*
would be miserable living it. No, it hasn't just "given the option". It forcefully advances the
agenda that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work. I think that's phooey. If you read any parenting mags lately, each type
of mom, sahm and working, both view the OTHER as the more valued. Many
working mothers perceive a great deal of persecution for doing something so horrifying as sending their children to daycare.

This is an example though of how far things still need to go. Where's the
talk about fathers who work? Aren't fathers important too? Ideally you
should have both parents participating in childrearing. It shouldn't be
seen as totally the mother's responsibility and thus if the child is in
daycare as being her fault. This is something both parents should be
deciding together.

On 16 Mar 2004 05:25:38 -0800, Ellie
<ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message I'm NOT talking about the "materialism" and the "higher standard of living" side. I'm talking about the "good parenting" side (incl involvement in PTA meetings, and school events), or the lack of good parenting (and its consequences and effects on society), as is so well seen in today's world (by and large). And you ignored that part of my post. Our kids have benefitted greatly from having two parents who are equally involved in their lives (PTA meetings and all). They love the fact that their dad is available to them when they need him. And he wouldn't be as available if he had to carry the whole load of the family finances.

Why do you believe this is true? If women dropped out of the workforce
tomorrow, companies would have to scramble to fill all the open positions.
This means that they would have to negotiate better hours and better pay
for the men who were working.

One of the reasons that men have to work long hours for less pay is
because they are competing in the workforce with women, many of whom have
a man who is also working so they can accept less pay without
substantially affecting the family income.

Do I believe women shouldn't work? No, I never said that. I believe the
option to stay at home with their children ought to be open to as many of
them as want to do it, without pressure from the feminist community and
the "women's studies" programs at colleges.

But please, don't understate the impact of women (extra supply for the
same demand) on wages and benefits.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Lcx5c.23681$%06.22122@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes. I benefit this way from my wife working as well. I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that gets in the way of a good relationship. Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the
process. There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the
kids, for the family, and for society. (If children are involved) (JMHO) well, ok, (JMO)

I had it both ways as a child. First my mother didn't work and my father
supported us. He worked so much I didn't see him. My mother was bored
silly staying at home all day. Then she got a job and had something to
do. The result was she was happier and my father didn't have to work so
much extra time and was around more. That certainly seemed to me like the
time the price was paid was when they were being "traditional."

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On 16 Mar 2004 05:25:38 -0800, Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message I'm NOT talking about the "materialism" and the "higher standard of living" side. I'm talking about the "good parenting" side (incl involvement in PTA meetings, and school events), or the lack of good parenting (and its consequences and effects on society), as is so well seen in today's world (by and large). And you ignored that part of my post. Our kids have benefitted greatly from having two parents who are equally involved in their lives (PTA meetings and all). They love the fact that their dad is available to them when they need him. And he wouldn't be as available if he had to carry the whole load of the family finances. Why do you believe this is true? If women dropped out of the workforce tomorrow, companies would have to scramble to fill all the open positions. This means that they would have to negotiate better hours and better pay for the men who were working.

That's quite possible. Or it might just accelerate outsourcing.
One of the reasons that men have to work long hours for less pay is because they are competing in the workforce with women, many of whom have a man who is also working so they can accept less pay without substantially affecting the family income.

That is quite conjectural. It may be (slightly paradoxically) that
the reason there are enough jobs to employ most adults is because most
adults work, and thus consumption is higher than it would otherwise be.

It is a mistake to view the number of jobs as a fixed constant. It
depends very heavily on the general size of the economy. The more
people work, the more new jobs can potentially be created.
Do I believe women shouldn't work? No, I never said that. I believe the option to stay at home with their children ought to be open to as many of them as want to do it, without pressure from the feminist community and the "women's studies" programs at colleges.

It is.
But please, don't understate the impact of women (extra supply for the same demand) on wages and benefits.

OK. Two problems here. Why are the _women_ the "extra supply?" And
you are making the same oversimplification of the underlying
economics. You are assuming that the demand for labor is not
influenced by other factors.

Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com... "Bill in Co." wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote:> Thinking about this, who really benefits from> having so many women in the workforce? Men?> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply> of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. And that is bad?

IF, as a result of this, the kids are being sent off to day care, and the cost
of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two incomes to survive,
yes, it can be certainly be seen in that light. Let's be honest here.

For anyone (usually the women) to be both a good full time worker and a good
full time mom, ain't really possible. It is too much for anyone to be able
to do, obviously. And women know it. Let's face it - it places tremendous
pressure on them. And on the marriage.

Now, OTOH, if you're talking about not having a family, that's a totally
different ballgame. Just choose.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it. And yes, I do believe moms tend to be
the better caregivers for their kids (in most cases), so if you want to take
pot shots at me on that one too, go for it.

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:z6x5c.23675$%06.18429@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:9Ou5c.42492$aT1.7575@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Jack C Lipton wrote:> Tony Miller wrote:>> It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are>> "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from> having so many women in the workforce? Men?> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply> of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. My kids who ate groceries tonight that I paid for out of my earnings
while sitting in a house that I was able to buy because I have a job
benefitted. Yes, but in the 50's you would still be married (well, a better chance, anyways, compared to TODAY) to a nice husband, who would be bringing in
the bacon, and you would be free to be home with the kids - at least for the
early years, anyways. Yeah, I know - it's RETRO thinking. But regardless, Joy, the divorce
rate today totally TRUMPS what it was back in the 50's, and you can't tell me
it was because *EVERYONE* back then was locked in a "prison and a corset".
That's bull****. Some were, to be sure. But there were also a lot of happy
SAHMs too. And TWO PARENT homes. Something that NOBODY wants to acknowledge today, because it isn't "chic".


It is not that it is not chic. It is that there is no going back. All
throughout history, there never has been any going backward. Where is the
SOLUTION to problems you propose by pining for the good old days? And where
is the recognition that single parent homes can provide a wonderful
upbringing for children, whether they are forced into single parenthood...
or not.
Yes, I know there is another side to this. But how many today even
recognize this side? Few, if any. All they believe is ... "corset prisons back then", end of story.


I do not think that is true. With freedom comes responsibility. Some
parents, like myself and my husband, take the responsibility that this new
order calls for very seriously. We will not be socially pressured into
trying for the healthiest of marriages, we have to do that ourselves.
Society will not make us remain together and even maritally strong for the
sake of the children. It is our very freedom to end our marriage that makes
us personally responsible to not ending it. It is no longer society's
responsibility to oversee this for us. This freedom has saved plenty of
people from ... what did you call it? "prison and a corset?" And it saved
others from the result of just plain stupid mistakes, like marrying a bad
person with a good line. Kids do not benefit from a hell marriage. "Staying
together for the kids" is not necessarily any better than just ending it.
And it has allowed some irresponsible jerks to flit from thing to thing
refusing to take the responsibility that is the natural other half to
freedom. Is the answer to remove the freedom and the benefits it provides in
order to force responsibility on folks who will not take it themselves? I
don't think so.

S

Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:z6x5c.23675$%06.18429@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:9Ou5c.42492$aT1.7575@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net...> Jack C Lipton wrote:>> Tony Miller wrote:>>> It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are>>> "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it. My kids who ate groceries tonight that I paid for out of my earnings while sitting in a house that I was able to buy because I have a job benefitted. Yes, but in the 50's you would still be married (well, a better chance, anyways, compared to TODAY) to a nice husband, who would be bringing in the bacon, and you would be free to be home with the kids - at least for the early years, anyways. Yeah, I know - it's RETRO thinking. But regardless, Joy, the divorce rate today totally TRUMPS what it was back in the 50's, and you can't tell me it was because *EVERYONE* back then was locked in a "prison and a corset". That's bull****. Some were, to be sure. But there were also a lot of happy SAHMs too. And TWO PARENT homes. Something that NOBODY wants to acknowledge today, because it isn't "chic". It is not that it is not chic. It is that there is no going back. All throughout history, there never has been any going backward. Where is the SOLUTION to problems you propose by pining for the good old days?

I honestly don't know. I'm not even sure there is one.
And where is the recognition that single parent homes can provide a wonderful upbringing for children, whether they are forced into single parenthood... or not.

I recognize that can - and does - happen. But it is still not as ideal as
having a mom and a dad (together) in the picture, all other things being equal.
But then, sometimes I tend to be an idealist, and a Don Quixote, to boot. :-)
Yes, I know there is another side to this. But how many today even recognize this side? Few, if any. All they believe is ... "corset prisons back then", end of story. I do not think that is true. With freedom comes responsibility. Some parents, like myself and my husband, take the responsibility that this new order calls for very seriously. We will not be socially pressured into trying for the healthiest of marriages, we have to do that ourselves. Society will not make us remain together and even maritally strong for the sake of the children. It is our very freedom to end our marriage that makes us personally responsible to not ending it. It is no longer society's responsibility to oversee this for us. This freedom has saved plenty of people from ... what did you call it? "prison and a corset?" And it saved others from the result of just plain stupid mistakes, like marrying a bad person with a good line. Kids do not benefit from a hell marriage. "Staying together for the kids" is not necessarily any better than just ending it. And it has allowed some irresponsible jerks to flit from thing to thing refusing to take the responsibility that is the natural other half to freedom. Is the answer to remove the freedom and the benefits it provides in order to force responsibility on folks who will not take it themselves? I don't think so. S

I don't know what the solution is. All I do know is that we have some major
societal problems today. Again - with reference to the waning of the two
parent homes, neighborhood villages, and the difficulty in making ends meet, on
a single income these days (thus making it next to impossible for SAHMs
families to stay afloat - and THAT part is NEW). And I don't view these
parts as "social progress"; do you?

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IpG5c.24179$%06.21605@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com... "Bill in Co." wrote:> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it. And that is bad? IF, as a result of this, the kids are being sent off to day care, and the
cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two incomes to
survive, yes, it can be certainly be seen in that light. Let's be honest here.

That's right. When someone has a different opinion or point of view,
wuestion their honesty.
For anyone (usually the women) to be both a good full time worker and a
good full time mom, ain't really possible. It is too much for anyone to be
able to do, obviously. And women know it. Let's face it - it places
tremendous pressure on them. And on the marriage.

There are SO many different ways to handle this pressure. Surely some do it
poorly. And some do it very well. The burden is on both grown members of the
family to make the best situation.
Now, OTOH, if you're talking about not having a family, that's a totally different ballgame. Just choose. Anyway, that's how I feel about it. And yes, I do believe moms tend to
be the better caregivers for their kids (in most cases), so if you want to
take pot shots at me on that one too, go for it.

I never understand if you are proposing some solution to the problems. Are
you proposing something? Or just whining that things ain't what they used to
be?

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QTG5c.24218$%06.15950@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:z6x5c.23675$%06.18429@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Joy wrote:> "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:9Ou5c.42492$aT1.7575@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net...>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>> Tony Miller wrote:>>>> It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are>>>> "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>> My kids who ate groceries tonight that I paid for out of my earnings
while> sitting in a house that I was able to buy because I have a job
benefitted. Yes, but in the 50's you would still be married (well, a better chance, anyways, compared to TODAY) to a nice husband, who would be bringing in
the bacon, and you would be free to be home with the kids - at least for
the early years, anyways. Yeah, I know - it's RETRO thinking. But regardless, Joy, the divorce
rate today totally TRUMPS what it was back in the 50's, and you can't tell
me it was because *EVERYONE* back then was locked in a "prison and a corset". That's bull****. Some were, to be sure. But there were also a lot
of happy SAHMs too. And TWO PARENT homes. Something that NOBODY wants to acknowledge today, because it isn't "chic". It is not that it is not chic. It is that there is no going back. All throughout history, there never has been any going backward. Where is
the SOLUTION to problems you propose by pining for the good old days? I honestly don't know. I'm not even sure there is one. And where is the recognition that single parent homes can provide a wonderful upbringing for children, whether they are forced into single
parenthood... or not. I recognize that can - and does - happen. But it is still not as ideal
as having a mom and a dad (together) in the picture, all other things being
equal. But then, sometimes I tend to be an idealist, and a Don Quixote, to boot.
:-) Yes, I know there is another side to this. But how many today even recognize this side? Few, if any. All they believe is ... "corset prisons back then", end of story. I do not think that is true. With freedom comes responsibility. Some parents, like myself and my husband, take the responsibility that this
new order calls for very seriously. We will not be socially pressured into trying for the healthiest of marriages, we have to do that ourselves. Society will not make us remain together and even maritally strong for
the sake of the children. It is our very freedom to end our marriage that
makes us personally responsible to not ending it. It is no longer society's responsibility to oversee this for us. This freedom has saved plenty of people from ... what did you call it? "prison and a corset?" And it
saved others from the result of just plain stupid mistakes, like marrying a
bad person with a good line. Kids do not benefit from a hell marriage.
"Staying together for the kids" is not necessarily any better than just ending
it. And it has allowed some irresponsible jerks to flit from thing to thing refusing to take the responsibility that is the natural other half to freedom. Is the answer to remove the freedom and the benefits it
provides in order to force responsibility on folks who will not take it themselves?
I don't think so. S I don't know what the solution is. All I do know is that we have some
major societal problems today. Again - with reference to the waning of the
two parent homes, neighborhood villages, and the difficulty in making ends
meet, on a single income these days (thus making it next to impossible for SAHMs families to stay afloat - and THAT part is NEW). And I don't view
these parts as "social progress"; do you?

I honestly cannot answer this without getting into a tyrade related to
national policy and local policy decisions and how Americans are a bunch of
valueless lemingings marching where our "leaders" point. I would further
have to start lambasting the political party which I perceive is a little
bit more corrupt and self serving than the other political party. And I will
have to start talking about we have all the wrong foci in our public
discourse because people are stupid and too easily swayed by the sound
bite...

Honestly, I tried to formulate a response to this which did not involve
politics and such. But I could not.

S

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com... "Bill in Co." wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide without having to work much harder and longer than he likes. Overall, my husband has benefited as much as me, if not more, from my work. Not to mention our children who have benefited greatly for having both their parents being involved in their lives equally (because we both have been able to choose the kind of work that gives us a lot of flexibility and leisure). And this is only the economic aspect of it. My husband very much likes the fact that we both have similar "lifestyles", so to speak! We have more in common because of it, appreciate each others' efforts at work and home instead of each thinking "the other has it easier", etc...

And what about all the businesses that benefit from having a wider pool of
talented people to hire?

Cheryl

Red wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com... "Bill in Co." wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote:> Thinking about this, who really benefits from> having so many women in the workforce? Men?> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply> of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide without having to work much harder and longer than he likes. Overall, my husband has benefited as much as me, if not more, from my work. Not to mention our children who have benefited greatly for having both their parents being involved in their lives equally (because we both have been able to choose the kind of work that gives us a lot of flexibility and leisure). And this is only the economic aspect of it. My husband very much likes the fact that we both have similar "lifestyles", so to speak! We have more in common because of it, appreciate each others' efforts at work and home instead of each thinking "the other has it easier", etc... And what about all the businesses that benefit from having a wider pool of talented people to hire? Cheryl

Aren't these the same businesses that are outsourcing all our jobs, in this new
Age of Enlightenment?

Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:IpG5c.24179$%06.21605@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it. And that is bad? IF, as a result of this, the kids are being sent off to day care, and the cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two incomes to survive, yes, it can be certainly be seen in that light. Let's be honest here. That's right. When someone has a different opinion or point of view, wuestion their honesty. For anyone (usually the women) to be both a good full time worker and a good full time mom, ain't really possible. It is too much for anyone to be
able to do, obviously. And women know it. Let's face it - it places tremendous pressure on them. And on the marriage. There are SO many different ways to handle this pressure. Surely some do it poorly. And some do it very well. The burden is on both grown members of the family to make the best situation. Now, OTOH, if you're talking about not having a family, that's a totally different ballgame. Just choose. Anyway, that's how I feel about it. And yes, I do believe moms tend to be the better caregivers for their kids (in most cases), so if you want to take pot shots at me on that one too, go for it. I never understand if you are proposing some solution to the problems. Are you proposing something? Or just whining that things ain't what they used to be?

Solutions? First step is to recognize there is a problem. Let me see a
show of hands. OK, I count three. Next step is to ask how many are willing
to give up their current (materialistic) lifestyle (with a TV in EACH room, a
cell phone in EACH room, etc). Let me see a show of hands please? (all
hands go down). Nope, I guess I don't have a solution.

And just by the way..... I can well remember some time ago when we (meaning,
our family) considered ourselves fortunate to be able to get ONE (black and
white) TV set, to be used by the ENTIRE family (meaning, it was shared). A
TOTALLY foreign concept today.

/end rant

shinypenny wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<1Cv5c.42561$aT1.32921@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>...Dally wrote:Bill in Co. wrote:>Jack C Lipton wrote:>>The women who want to work benefit. That's it.How about the men who don't want to work? Who want to stay home withtheir children? Might they benefit from having a bread-winner in thefamily?
So are we talking about all of ten men here? OK, make it a hundred. :-)Come on now, let's not "spin" this too far. You know, and I know (perfectlywell) that this is but a tiny exception. Actually it's a percentage that is rapidly growing. Also you need to take into account the men that are working but have temporarily daddy-tracked their careers.

When I was a little tyke in the early seventies I recall asking my Mom
if she was "for women's lib". She explained to me that she was for
"people's lib" and that freeing women to choose their roles necessarily
meant freeing men to choose their roles, too.

Men absolutely benefit from removing the presumption that they will be
wage-earners family-providers for the rest of their lives. When women
are allowed to contemplate becoming self-actualized then men necessarily
are too.

Dally

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:47:38 -0800, Chrys
<notarealaddress@lycos.com> wrote: "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message news:f6Gdnc7nFfqZgsrd4p2dnA@telcove.net... "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5cnvh.ri1.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:25:56 GMT, Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote: > Tony Miller wrote: > >> I think you have it all wrong. > > Nope! Yup! >> Women have always been on par with men at >> least in a marriage, and if they didn't it was because they were married >> to the wrong men. > > Not even close! Guess you're married to the wrong man. >> In "old fashioned" marriages, certain roles were expected, but that didn't >> mean that you were unequal. > > Equality is not about roles, it's about control and decision making > ability. Then my wife and I have equal decision making ability. >> You just did different things. I don't >> consider homemaking as a "lesser" vocation than Computer Programming, > > Neither do I. But I would consider one in a *lesser* position > if they have no choice but to be a homemaker. For a short while > when I was home with kids I didn't feel lesser at all, neither did > my husband. It was wonderful to be able to do as we wanted. It's nice isn't it. >> The feminist "revolution" seems to have taught that being a SAHM is >> somehow a "cop out" or a lesser vocation then going out into the >> workforce. > > The women's movement, more than taking women out of the home, > has given the option. I am very grateful to live in this era and this part > of the world, where someone like Jayne can choose her lifestyle, and > I can choose mine. A few decades ago I would be EXPECTED to > live like her. There is nothing wrong with her lifestyle, but *I* would > be miserable living it. No, it hasn't just "given the option". It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work. I think that's phooey. If you read any parenting mags lately, each type of mom, sahm and working, both view the OTHER as the more valued. Many working mothers perceive a great deal of persecution for doing something so horrifying as sending their children to daycare. This is an example though of how far things still need to go. Where's the talk about fathers who work? Aren't fathers important too? Ideally you should have both parents participating in childrearing. It shouldn't be seen as totally the mother's responsibility and thus if the child is in daycare as being her fault. This is something both parents should be deciding together.

In some cases, the woman wants to go back to work, in other cases the man
wants his wife to go back to work. I think those who put their children
in day care by choice are irresponsible. Those who are forced into it
(single moms) really have no choice.

We were lucky enough to have grandparents who could take care of our
children when they were little. If we hadn't had them, my wife would have
quit her job and did the full time mom thing until the kids were in school
all day. We would never have put our kids in the care of strangers for
most of the week.

Would we have had to cut back on the "things"? Sure. But we considered
what we thought was important.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:47:38 -0800, Chrys <notarealaddress@lycos.com> wrote: "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message news:f6Gdnc7nFfqZgsrd4p2dnA@telcove.net... "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc5cnvh.ri1.tony@home.cigardiary.com...> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:25:56 GMT, Ellie> <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote:>> Tony Miller wrote:>>>>> I think you have it all wrong.>>>> Nope!>> Yup!>>>> Women have always been on par with men at>>> least in a marriage, and if they didn't it was because they were married>>> to the wrong men.>>>> Not even close!>> Guess you're married to the wrong man.>>>> In "old fashioned" marriages, certain roles were expected, but that>>> didn't mean that you were unequal.>>>> Equality is not about roles, it's about control and decision making>> ability.>> Then my wife and I have equal decision making ability.>>>> You just did different things. I don't>>> consider homemaking as a "lesser" vocation than Computer Programming,>>>> Neither do I. But I would consider one in a *lesser* position>> if they have no choice but to be a homemaker. For a short while>> when I was home with kids I didn't feel lesser at all, neither did>> my husband. It was wonderful to be able to do as we wanted.>> It's nice isn't it.>>>> The feminist "revolution" seems to have taught that being a SAHM is>>> somehow a "cop out" or a lesser vocation then going out into the>>> workforce.>>>> The women's movement, more than taking women out of the home,>> has given the option. I am very grateful to live in this era and this
part>> of the world, where someone like Jayne can choose her lifestyle, and>> I can choose mine. A few decades ago I would be EXPECTED to>> live like her. There is nothing wrong with her lifestyle, but *I* would>> be miserable living it.>> No, it hasn't just "given the option". It forcefully advances the agenda> that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.> I think that's phooey. If you read any parenting mags lately, each type of mom, sahm and working, both view the OTHER as the more valued. Many working mothers perceive a great deal of persecution for doing something so horrifying as sending their children to daycare. This is an example though of how far things still need to go. Where's the talk about fathers who work? Aren't fathers important too? Ideally you should have both parents participating in childrearing. It shouldn't be seen as totally the mother's responsibility and thus if the child is in daycare as being her fault. This is something both parents should be deciding together. In some cases, the woman wants to go back to work, in other cases the man wants his wife to go back to work. I think those who put their children in day care by choice are irresponsible. Those who are forced into it (single moms) really have no choice. We were lucky enough to have grandparents who could take care of our children when they were little. If we hadn't had them, my wife would have quit her job and did the full time mom thing until the kids were in school all day. We would never have put our kids in the care of strangers for most of the week. Would we have had to cut back on the "things"? Sure. But we considered what we thought was important.

You obviously had your priorities misplaced, as is so well exemplified by
today's "Age of Enlightment". Furthermore, you sound like you are from the
Stone Age.

So whadda got say about THAT? :-)

Tony Miller wrote:
And you ignored that part of my post. Our kids have benefitted greatly from having two parents who are equally involved in their lives (PTA meetings and all). They love the fact that their dad is available to them when they need him. And he wouldn't be as available if he had to carry the whole load of the family finances. Why do you believe this is true? If women dropped out of the workforce tomorrow, companies would have to scramble to fill all the open positions.

Yes, and they'll have a grand time outsourcing all of them
to India, China, Mexico, and all over the world.
This means that they would have to negotiate better hours and better pay for the men who were working.

Yeah right! During the "golden" days that white men
had monopoly on good jobs, still an average man who
supported a family had very little time (or desire) to get
involved with the day to day upbringing of the children.
How many dads used to go to PTA meetings in the 50s?
I see quite a few at ours regularly.

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pfI5c.43267$aT1.29630@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Red wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com... "Bill in Co." wrote:> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it. No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide without having to work much harder and longer than he likes. Overall, my husband has benefited as much as me, if not more, from my work. Not to mention our children who have benefited greatly for having both their parents being involved in their lives equally (because we both have been able to choose the kind of work that gives us a lot of flexibility and leisure). And this is only the economic aspect of it. My husband very much likes the fact that we both have similar "lifestyles", so to speak! We have more in common because of it, appreciate each others' efforts at work and home instead of each thinking "the other has it easier", etc... And what about all the businesses that benefit from having a wider pool
of talented people to hire? Cheryl Aren't these the same businesses that are outsourcing all our jobs, in
this new Age of Enlightenment?
I don't see how that's related to women being able to have careers. Or is
the bad economy entirely our fault? :P

Cheryl

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:
Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes. I benefit this way from my wife working as well. I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that gets in the way of a good relationship.Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the process.There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids, forthe family, and for society. (If children are involved)
Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a
stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go
to work I did and came home late.

Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and
spend more time with their kids.

"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:r5ue505hhmql94ej2n5se8o3gc37bl8gs7@4ax.com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that gets in the way of a good relationship.Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the
process.There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids,
forthe family, and for society. (If children are involved) Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids.

Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We haven't
"lost" anything.

Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that gets in the way of a good relationship. Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the process. There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids,
for the family, and for society. (If children are involved) Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids.

But that is not what is happening. What IS happening is that neither of them
(when you can still find two parent homes, nowadays) have LESS time for their
kids, cause they're all tied up at work (IF they are both working full time).
Let's at least be honest about it.

Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that gets in the way of a good relationship. Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the process. There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids,
for the family, and for society. (If children are involved) Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids.

But that is not what is happening. What IS happening is that neither of them
(when you can still find two parent homes, nowadays) have LESS time for their
kids, cause they're all tied up at work (IF they are both working full time).
Let's at least be honest about it.

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:z6x5c.23675$%06.18429@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:9Ou5c.42492$aT1.7575@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Jack C Lipton wrote:> Tony Miller wrote:>> It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are>> "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from> having so many women in the workforce? Men?> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply> of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. My kids who ate groceries tonight that I paid for out of my earnings
while sitting in a house that I was able to buy because I have a job
benefitted. Yes, but in the 50's you would still be married (well, a better chance, anyways, compared to TODAY) to a nice husband, who would be bringing in
the bacon, and you would be free to be home with the kids - at least for the
early years, anyways.

Excuse me, Bill, but are you trying to say that if this were the 50's my ex
would have been a nice husband instead of the clod he actually was? Do you
realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Yeah, I know - it's RETRO thinking.

Look at it from my point of view - it isn't so much retro thinking to me as
it is pie-in-the-sky pretending-things-would-have-been-different-in-the-50s
thinking. Yeah, if these were the 50s I might have been stuck with the
clod, because I would have had a much harder time being self-supporting.
No, that would NOT have been a good thing.

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:z6x5c.23675$%06.18429@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:9Ou5c.42492$aT1.7575@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Jack C Lipton wrote:> Tony Miller wrote:>> It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are>> "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work.>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from> having so many women in the workforce? Men?> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply> of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it. My kids who ate groceries tonight that I paid for out of my earnings
while sitting in a house that I was able to buy because I have a job
benefitted. Yes, but in the 50's you would still be married (well, a better chance, anyways, compared to TODAY) to a nice husband, who would be bringing in
the bacon, and you would be free to be home with the kids - at least for the
early years, anyways.

Excuse me, Bill, but are you trying to say that if this were the 50's my ex
would have been a nice husband instead of the clod he actually was? Do you
realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Yeah, I know - it's RETRO thinking.

Look at it from my point of view - it isn't so much retro thinking to me as
it is pie-in-the-sky pretending-things-would-have-been-different-in-the-50s
thinking. Yeah, if these were the 50s I might have been stuck with the
clod, because I would have had a much harder time being self-supporting.
No, that would NOT have been a good thing.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:51:09 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:
"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:r5ue505hhmql94ej2n5se8o3gc37bl8gs7@4ax .com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:Rauni wrote:> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:>>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>>>>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.>>>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.>>>> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that> gets in the way of a good relationship.Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in theprocess.There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids,forthe family, and for society. (If children are involved) Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids.Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We haven't"lost" anything.
In the early sixties I recall a couple of women who stayed in an
abusive marriage because they had no way to get out. No job skills and
no experiences.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:51:09 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:
"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:r5ue505hhmql94ej2n5se8o3gc37bl8gs7@4ax .com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:Rauni wrote:> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:>>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>>>>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.>>>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.>>>> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that> gets in the way of a good relationship.Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in theprocess.There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids,forthe family, and for society. (If children are involved) Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids.Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We haven't"lost" anything.
In the early sixties I recall a couple of women who stayed in an
abusive marriage because they had no way to get out. No job skills and
no experiences.

"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bd8f50pe86mfassrtpmhn20h8o5ngrn778@4ax.com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:51:09 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:r5ue505hhmql94ej2n5se8o3gc37bl8gs7@4ax .com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: >Rauni wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote: >> >>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com... >>>> "Bill in Co." wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from >>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men? >>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply >>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)? >>>>> >>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it. >>>> >>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work >>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he >>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he >>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more >>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse >>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to >>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide >>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes. >>> >>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well. >>> >> >> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly >> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that >> gets in the way of a good relationship. > >Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in theprocess. >There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the
kids,for >the family, and for society. (If children are involved) > Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids.Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We haven't"lost" anything. In the early sixties I recall a couple of women who stayed in an abusive marriage because they had no way to get out. No job skills and no experiences.

That's only the start of it. Back in "the good old days", we had "whites
only" signs, the media was under strict government regulation, Frankie was
having "one for the road", and "broads" could use a "slap" now and again.
Yea, real golden times.

"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bd8f50pe86mfassrtpmhn20h8o5ngrn778@4ax.com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:51:09 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:r5ue505hhmql94ej2n5se8o3gc37bl8gs7@4ax .com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: >Rauni wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote: >> >>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com... >>>> "Bill in Co." wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from >>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men? >>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply >>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)? >>>>> >>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it. >>>> >>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work >>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he >>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he >>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more >>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse >>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to >>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide >>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes. >>> >>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well. >>> >> >> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly >> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that >> gets in the way of a good relationship. > >Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in theprocess. >There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the
kids,for >the family, and for society. (If children are involved) > Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids.Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We haven't"lost" anything. In the early sixties I recall a couple of women who stayed in an abusive marriage because they had no way to get out. No job skills and no experiences.

That's only the start of it. Back in "the good old days", we had "whites
only" signs, the media was under strict government regulation, Frankie was
having "one for the road", and "broads" could use a "slap" now and again.
Yea, real golden times.

Dally <dally@myself.com> wrote in message news:<c37jp4$24t56b$1@ID-217902.news.uni-berlin.de>...

When I was a little tyke in the early seventies I recall asking my Mom if she was "for women's lib". She explained to me that she was for "people's lib" and that freeing women to choose their roles necessarily meant freeing men to choose their roles, too. Men absolutely benefit from removing the presumption that they will be wage-earners family-providers for the rest of their lives. When women are allowed to contemplate becoming self-actualized then men necessarily are too. Dally

Amen, sister!

My mom said the same thing to me, too. Incidentally, she was a career
SAHM and proud of it, but encouraged her kids to make our own choices.

jen

Dally <dally@myself.com> wrote in message news:<c37jp4$24t56b$1@ID-217902.news.uni-berlin.de>...

When I was a little tyke in the early seventies I recall asking my Mom if she was "for women's lib". She explained to me that she was for "people's lib" and that freeing women to choose their roles necessarily meant freeing men to choose their roles, too. Men absolutely benefit from removing the presumption that they will be wage-earners family-providers for the rest of their lives. When women are allowed to contemplate becoming self-actualized then men necessarily are too. Dally

Amen, sister!

My mom said the same thing to me, too. Incidentally, she was a career
SAHM and proud of it, but encouraged her kids to make our own choices.

jen

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:01:20 -0800, Rauni
<ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co."<surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that gets in the way of a good relationship.Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the process.There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids, forthe family, and for society. (If children are involved) Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids.

So if you get the kids to work too, you will probably be able to find all
kinds of extra time!!!

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:01:20 -0800, Rauni
<ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co."<surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that gets in the way of a good relationship.Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the process.There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids, forthe family, and for society. (If children are involved) Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids.

So if you get the kids to work too, you will probably be able to find all
kinds of extra time!!!

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:27:23 GMT, JWB
<tom765@servo.com> wrote: "Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:bd8f50pe86mfassrtpmhn20h8o5ngrn778@4ax.com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:51:09 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:r5ue505hhmql94ej2n5se8o3gc37bl8gs7@4ax .com...> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co."> <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:>> >Rauni wrote:> >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:> >>> >>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message> >>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...> >>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:> >>>>> >>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from> >>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?> >>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply> >>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?> >>>>>> >>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.> >>>>> >>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work> >>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he> >>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he> >>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more> >>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse> >>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to> >>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide> >>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.> >>>> >>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.> >>>> >>> >> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly> >> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that> >> gets in the way of a good relationship.> >> >Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in theprocess.> >There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids,for> >the family, and for society. (If children are involved)> >> Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a> stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go> to work I did and came home late.>> Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and> spend more time with their kids.Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We haven't"lost" anything. In the early sixties I recall a couple of women who stayed in an abusive marriage because they had no way to get out. No job skills and no experiences. That's only the start of it. Back in "the good old days", we had "whites only" signs, the media was under strict government regulation, Frankie was having "one for the road", and "broads" could use a "slap" now and again. Yea, real golden times.

And now we have AIDS, driveby shootings, middle aged tits flashing on the
superbowl, 30,000,000 babies killed since roe-v-wade, 50% of the babies in
this country being born to single moms, pornography on the internet to
anyone who wants to look at it...

We have definitely made quite an improvement over the years.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:27:23 GMT, JWB
<tom765@servo.com> wrote: "Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:bd8f50pe86mfassrtpmhn20h8o5ngrn778@4ax.com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:51:09 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:r5ue505hhmql94ej2n5se8o3gc37bl8gs7@4ax .com...> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co."> <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:>> >Rauni wrote:> >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:> >>> >>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message> >>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...> >>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:> >>>>> >>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from> >>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?> >>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply> >>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?> >>>>>> >>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.> >>>>> >>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work> >>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he> >>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he> >>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more> >>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse> >>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to> >>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide> >>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.> >>>> >>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.> >>>> >>> >> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly> >> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that> >> gets in the way of a good relationship.> >> >Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in theprocess.> >There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids,for> >the family, and for society. (If children are involved)> >> Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a> stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go> to work I did and came home late.>> Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and> spend more time with their kids.Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We haven't"lost" anything. In the early sixties I recall a couple of women who stayed in an abusive marriage because they had no way to get out. No job skills and no experiences. That's only the start of it. Back in "the good old days", we had "whites only" signs, the media was under strict government regulation, Frankie was having "one for the road", and "broads" could use a "slap" now and again. Yea, real golden times.

And now we have AIDS, driveby shootings, middle aged tits flashing on the
superbowl, 30,000,000 babies killed since roe-v-wade, 50% of the babies in
this country being born to single moms, pornography on the internet to
anyone who wants to look at it...

We have definitely made quite an improvement over the years.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5fe87.tja.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:27:23 GMT, JWB <tom765@servo.com> wrote: "Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:bd8f50pe86mfassrtpmhn20h8o5ngrn778@4ax.com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:51:09 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote: >"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message >news:r5ue505hhmql94ej2n5se8o3gc37bl8gs7@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co." >> <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> >Rauni wrote: >> >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com... >> >>>> "Bill in Co." wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from >> >>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men? >> >>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply >> >>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it. >> >>>> >> >>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work >> >>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he >> >>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he >> >>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more >> >>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse >> >>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to >> >>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could
provide >> >>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes. >> >>> >> >>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well. >> >>> >> >> >> >> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I
certainly >> >> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation
that >> >> gets in the way of a good relationship. >> > >> >Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the >process. >> >There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids, >for >> >the family, and for society. (If children are involved) >> > >> Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a >> stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to
go >> to work I did and came home late. >> >> Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and >> spend more time with their kids. > >Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We
haven't >"lost" anything. > In the early sixties I recall a couple of women who stayed in an abusive marriage because they had no way to get out. No job skills and no experiences. That's only the start of it. Back in "the good old days", we had "whites only" signs, the media was under strict government regulation, Frankie
was having "one for the road", and "broads" could use a "slap" now and
again. Yea, real golden times. And now we have AIDS, driveby shootings, middle aged tits flashing on the superbowl, 30,000,000 babies killed since roe-v-wade, 50% of the babies in this country being born to single moms, pornography on the internet to anyone who wants to look at it... We have definitely made quite an improvement over the years.

I'm not saying things are any better. I'm just saying they are not worse.

and let's be honest - online porn is a big improvement ;)

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5fe87.tja.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:27:23 GMT, JWB <tom765@servo.com> wrote: "Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:bd8f50pe86mfassrtpmhn20h8o5ngrn778@4ax.com... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:51:09 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote: >"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message >news:r5ue505hhmql94ej2n5se8o3gc37bl8gs7@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co." >> <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> >Rauni wrote: >> >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com... >> >>>> "Bill in Co." wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from >> >>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men? >> >>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply >> >>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it. >> >>>> >> >>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work >> >>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he >> >>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he >> >>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more >> >>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse >> >>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to >> >>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could
provide >> >>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes. >> >>> >> >>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well. >> >>> >> >> >> >> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I
certainly >> >> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation
that >> >> gets in the way of a good relationship. >> > >> >Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the >process. >> >There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids, >for >> >the family, and for society. (If children are involved) >> > >> Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a >> stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to
go >> to work I did and came home late. >> >> Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and >> spend more time with their kids. > >Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We
haven't >"lost" anything. > In the early sixties I recall a couple of women who stayed in an abusive marriage because they had no way to get out. No job skills and no experiences. That's only the start of it. Back in "the good old days", we had "whites only" signs, the media was under strict government regulation, Frankie
was having "one for the road", and "broads" could use a "slap" now and
again. Yea, real golden times. And now we have AIDS, driveby shootings, middle aged tits flashing on the superbowl, 30,000,000 babies killed since roe-v-wade, 50% of the babies in this country being born to single moms, pornography on the internet to anyone who wants to look at it... We have definitely made quite an improvement over the years.

I'm not saying things are any better. I'm just saying they are not worse.

and let's be honest - online porn is a big improvement ;)

>> Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We haven't "lost" anything.

Whoever made this statement just revealed their total ignorance of the era,
obviously because they weren't even around back then, and are just blowing
smoke out of their ***.

To say we haven't lost anything, is totally, and I mean totally, assinine - and
just reveals their total ignorance.

>> Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We haven't "lost" anything.

Whoever made this statement just revealed their total ignorance of the era,
obviously because they weren't even around back then, and are just blowing
smoke out of their ***.

To say we haven't lost anything, is totally, and I mean totally, assinine - and
just reveals their total ignorance.

"JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote in message
news:xxL5c.26350$tP6.6667173@twister.nyc.rr.com... Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We haven't "lost" anything.

For every "It's a Wonderful Life," there's a "Street Car Named Desire."

"JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote in message
news:xxL5c.26350$tP6.6667173@twister.nyc.rr.com... Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We haven't "lost" anything.

For every "It's a Wonderful Life," there's a "Street Car Named Desire."

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 02:58:04 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:
"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in messagenews:slrnc5fe87.tja.tony@home.cigardiary.co m... On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:27:23 GMT, JWB <tom765@servo.com> wrote: "Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:bd8f50pe86mfassrtpmhn20h8o5ngrn778@4ax.com...> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:51:09 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:>> >"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message> >news:r5ue505hhmql94ej2n5se8o3gc37bl8gs7@4ax.com...> >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co."> >> <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:> >>> >> >Rauni wrote:> >> >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:> >> >>> >> >>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message> >> >>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...> >> >>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from> >> >>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?> >> >>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply> >> >>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.> >> >>>>> >> >>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work> >> >>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he> >> >>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he> >> >>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more> >> >>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse> >> >>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to> >> >>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone couldprovide> >> >>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.> >> >>>> >> >>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. Icertainly> >> >> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectationthat> >> >> gets in the way of a good relationship.> >> >> >> >Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the> >process.> >> >There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids,> >for> >> >the family, and for society. (If children are involved)> >> >> >> Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a> >> stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before togo> >> to work I did and came home late.> >>> >> Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and> >> spend more time with their kids.> >> >Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. Wehaven't> >"lost" anything.> >> In the early sixties I recall a couple of women who stayed in an> abusive marriage because they had no way to get out. No job skills and> no experiences. That's only the start of it. Back in "the good old days", we had "whites only" signs, the media was under strict government regulation, Frankiewas having "one for the road", and "broads" could use a "slap" now andagain. Yea, real golden times. And now we have AIDS, driveby shootings, middle aged tits flashing on the superbowl, 30,000,000 babies killed since roe-v-wade, 50% of the babies in this country being born to single moms, pornography on the internet to anyone who wants to look at it... We have definitely made quite an improvement over the years.I'm not saying things are any better. I'm just saying they are not worse.and let's be honest - online porn is a big improvement ;)
Hee I laughed

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 02:58:04 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:
"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in messagenews:slrnc5fe87.tja.tony@home.cigardiary.co m... On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:27:23 GMT, JWB <tom765@servo.com> wrote: "Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:bd8f50pe86mfassrtpmhn20h8o5ngrn778@4ax.com...> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:51:09 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:>> >"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message> >news:r5ue505hhmql94ej2n5se8o3gc37bl8gs7@4ax.com...> >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co."> >> <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:> >>> >> >Rauni wrote:> >> >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:> >> >>> >> >>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message> >> >>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...> >> >>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from> >> >>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?> >> >>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply> >> >>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.> >> >>>>> >> >>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work> >> >>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he> >> >>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he> >> >>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more> >> >>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse> >> >>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to> >> >>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone couldprovide> >> >>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.> >> >>>> >> >>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. Icertainly> >> >> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectationthat> >> >> gets in the way of a good relationship.> >> >> >> >Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the> >process.> >> >There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids,> >for> >> >the family, and for society. (If children are involved)> >> >> >> Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a> >> stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before togo> >> to work I did and came home late.> >>> >> Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and> >> spend more time with their kids.> >> >Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. Wehaven't> >"lost" anything.> >> In the early sixties I recall a couple of women who stayed in an> abusive marriage because they had no way to get out. No job skills and> no experiences. That's only the start of it. Back in "the good old days", we had "whites only" signs, the media was under strict government regulation, Frankiewas having "one for the road", and "broads" could use a "slap" now andagain. Yea, real golden times. And now we have AIDS, driveby shootings, middle aged tits flashing on the superbowl, 30,000,000 babies killed since roe-v-wade, 50% of the babies in this country being born to single moms, pornography on the internet to anyone who wants to look at it... We have definitely made quite an improvement over the years.I'm not saying things are any better. I'm just saying they are not worse.and let's be honest - online porn is a big improvement ;)
Hee I laughed

What I said here was the truth, perhaps with a little bias (as we ALL have),
and perhaps the truth hurts. And there is no way to reverse it. I still
challenge anybody to rebutt this post, and show me the fallacies.

Bill in Co. wrote: Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:IpG5c.24179$%06.21605@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Stephanie Stowe wrote:> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>> And that is bad? IF, as a result of this, the kids are being sent off to day care, and the cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two incomes to survive, yes, it can be certainly be seen in that light. Let's be honest here. That's right. When someone has a different opinion or point of view, wuestion their honesty. For anyone (usually the women) to be both a good full time worker and a
good full time mom, ain't really possible. It is too much for anyone to be able to do, obviously. And women know it. Let's face it - it places tremendous pressure on them. And on the marriage. There are SO many different ways to handle this pressure. Surely some do it poorly. And some do it very well. The burden is on both grown members of the family to make the best situation. Now, OTOH, if you're talking about not having a family, that's a totally different ballgame. Just choose. Anyway, that's how I feel about it. And yes, I do believe moms tend to
be the better caregivers for their kids (in most cases), so if you want to
take pot shots at me on that one too, go for it. I never understand if you are proposing some solution to the problems. Are you proposing something? Or just whining that things ain't what they used to be? Solutions? First step is to recognize there is a problem. Let me see a show of hands. OK, I count three. Next step is to ask how many are
willing to give up their current (materialistic) lifestyle (with a TV in EACH room, a cell phone in EACH room, etc). Let me see a show of hands please? (all hands go down). Nope, I guess I don't have a solution. And just by the way..... I can well remember some time ago when we (meaning, our family) considered ourselves fortunate to be able to get ONE (black and white) TV set, to be used by the ENTIRE family (meaning, it was shared).
A TOTALLY foreign concept today. /end rant

What I said here was the truth, perhaps with a little bias (as we ALL have),
and perhaps the truth hurts. And there is no way to reverse it. I still
challenge anybody to rebutt this post, and show me the fallacies.

Bill in Co. wrote: Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:IpG5c.24179$%06.21605@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Stephanie Stowe wrote:> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>> And that is bad? IF, as a result of this, the kids are being sent off to day care, and the cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two incomes to survive, yes, it can be certainly be seen in that light. Let's be honest here. That's right. When someone has a different opinion or point of view, wuestion their honesty. For anyone (usually the women) to be both a good full time worker and a
good full time mom, ain't really possible. It is too much for anyone to be able to do, obviously. And women know it. Let's face it - it places tremendous pressure on them. And on the marriage. There are SO many different ways to handle this pressure. Surely some do it poorly. And some do it very well. The burden is on both grown members of the family to make the best situation. Now, OTOH, if you're talking about not having a family, that's a totally different ballgame. Just choose. Anyway, that's how I feel about it. And yes, I do believe moms tend to
be the better caregivers for their kids (in most cases), so if you want to
take pot shots at me on that one too, go for it. I never understand if you are proposing some solution to the problems. Are you proposing something? Or just whining that things ain't what they used to be? Solutions? First step is to recognize there is a problem. Let me see a show of hands. OK, I count three. Next step is to ask how many are
willing to give up their current (materialistic) lifestyle (with a TV in EACH room, a cell phone in EACH room, etc). Let me see a show of hands please? (all hands go down). Nope, I guess I don't have a solution. And just by the way..... I can well remember some time ago when we (meaning, our family) considered ourselves fortunate to be able to get ONE (black and white) TV set, to be used by the ENTIRE family (meaning, it was shared).
A TOTALLY foreign concept today. /end rant

Well Rauni?? Come on back...

Bill in Co. wrote: Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: Rauni wrote:> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:>>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>>>>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.>>>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.>>>> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that> gets in the way of a good relationship. Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the process. There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids, for the family, and for society. (If children are involved) Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids. But that is not what is happening. What IS happening is that neither of
them (when you can still find two parent homes, nowadays) have LESS time for their kids, cause they're all tied up at work (IF they are both working full time). Let's at least be honest about it.

Well Rauni?? Come on back...

Bill in Co. wrote: Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: Rauni wrote:> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:>>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>>>>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.>>>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.>>>> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that> gets in the way of a good relationship. Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the process. There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids, for the family, and for society. (If children are involved) Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids. But that is not what is happening. What IS happening is that neither of
them (when you can still find two parent homes, nowadays) have LESS time for their kids, cause they're all tied up at work (IF they are both working full time). Let's at least be honest about it.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:29:20 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:

Heh I rather slow your nic is a hoot!
Well Rauni?? Come on back...Bill in Co. wrote: Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:> Rauni wrote:>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:>>>>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message>>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>>>>>>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work>>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he>>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he>>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more>>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse>>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to>>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide>>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.>>>>>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.>>>>>>> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly>> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that>> gets in the way of a good relationship.>> Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the process.> There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids,> for the family, and for society. (If children are involved)> Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids. But that is not what is happening. What IS happening is that neither ofthem (when you can still find two parent homes, nowadays) have LESS time for their kids, cause they're all tied up at work (IF they are both working full time). Let's at least be honest about it.

Yeah unfortunately that had been a problem with too parents working.
but I think that is a function of the new martialism. Everyone seems
to want more and more stuff. It can work and work well.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:29:20 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:

Heh I rather slow your nic is a hoot!
Well Rauni?? Come on back...Bill in Co. wrote: Rauni wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:15 GMT, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:> Rauni wrote:>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:44:13 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:>>>>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message>>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>>>>>>>> No, that's not "it"! The fact that my husband and I both work>>>> has given him a kind of freedom that he would never had if he>>>> was the only provider. He has been able to choose a job that he>>>> enjoys and reject a higher paying one which would be more>>>> stressful. He has also been able to take 1.5 year off to peruse>>>> a hobby without worrying about paying the bills. He is able to>>>> enjoy a much higher standard of living than he alone could provide>>>> without having to work much harder and longer than he likes.>>>>>> I benefit this way from my wife working as well.>>>>>>> I think the benefit goes beyond working or not working. I certainly>> never expected my husband to support me. One less expectation that>> gets in the way of a good relationship.>> Yes, but what you fail to realize is what you/we have lost in the process.> There is a consequence to this - a price to paid for this - for the kids,> for the family, and for society. (If children are involved)> Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids. But that is not what is happening. What IS happening is that neither ofthem (when you can still find two parent homes, nowadays) have LESS time for their kids, cause they're all tied up at work (IF they are both working full time). Let's at least be honest about it.

Yeah unfortunately that had been a problem with too parents working.
but I think that is a function of the new martialism. Everyone seems
to want more and more stuff. It can work and work well.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:29:20 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:
Well Rauni?? Come on back...

Hi Bill I hope you don't mind an unsolicited email. I'm sorry abut the
cross posts from my sister and her ex. I was very stupid yesterday and
responded to them. I will prolly change my nic (to bad as I have had
Rauni since 96). Hubby and ex-hubby (yes I am *very* close to the ex)
say I have no choice to sue her for slander.

BTW I enjoy your posts. Actually I enjoy this group a lot. It's a good
bunch of people Although as much as I like Jayne she sometimes has me
scratching my head.

I showed my husband your email he though it was damn funny

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:29:20 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:
Well Rauni?? Come on back...

Hi Bill I hope you don't mind an unsolicited email. I'm sorry abut the
cross posts from my sister and her ex. I was very stupid yesterday and
responded to them. I will prolly change my nic (to bad as I have had
Rauni since 96). Hubby and ex-hubby (yes I am *very* close to the ex)
say I have no choice to sue her for slander.

BTW I enjoy your posts. Actually I enjoy this group a lot. It's a good
bunch of people Although as much as I like Jayne she sometimes has me
scratching my head.

I showed my husband your email he though it was damn funny

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rtP5c.25170$%06.6387@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We haven't "lost" anything. Whoever made this statement just revealed their total ignorance of the
era, obviously because they weren't even around back then, and are just blowing smoke out of their ***. To say we haven't lost anything, is totally, and I mean totally,
assinine - and just reveals their total ignorance.

you will provide proof, of course? Not just rants about single mothers and
lawyers either. How about some real proof instead of your usual "look
around".

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rtP5c.25170$%06.6387@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Besides, the "golden times" that Bill pines for never existed. We haven't "lost" anything. Whoever made this statement just revealed their total ignorance of the
era, obviously because they weren't even around back then, and are just blowing smoke out of their ***. To say we haven't lost anything, is totally, and I mean totally,
assinine - and just reveals their total ignorance.

you will provide proof, of course? Not just rants about single mothers and
lawyers either. How about some real proof instead of your usual "look
around".

Tony Miller wrote:
We were lucky enough to have grandparents who could take care of our children when they were little. If we hadn't had them, my wife would have quit her job and did the full time mom thing until the kids were in school all day. We would never have put our kids in the care of strangers for most of the week.

We had a complete reversal on what we thought we'd do once we actually had
children. I'd worked until I was in mid-pregnancy with my first child, loved
my job and fully expected to take a year off on maternity leave and return
to work utilising centre-based daycare. The reality was that we were
enjoying being parents so much that I was pregnant when our son had his
first birthday and I postponed looking for a job until our daughter was 13
months old.

Daycare didn't work out because both children went through the "catch
everything that's going" time that they all do when they eventually start
spending time with groups of other children and I literally had one or other
of them home sick half the time. We didn't have access to grandparent care
and neither of us like the idea of unsupervised nanny care for very young
children so we decided I would finish my 3 month contract and stay home. In
hindsight we'd have got through that period in about 6 months but at the
time it just seemed a frightful thing to be doing to all of us.

However, it wasn't a huge sacrifice because while I enjoyed being a systems
analyst I also loved being at home with my children. Both careers have their
pluses and minuses but I find childrearing particularly fulfilling and
though we have very good daycare here I don't believe full-time daycare is
good for children. I liken it to keeping a child within the confines of the
living room and garden for five days of the week. A couple of days of that
is fine but any more and I don't think it's healthy for them. (Disclaimer:
I respect every parent's right to make other choices for their own
children.)
Would we have had to cut back on the "things"? Sure. But we considered what we thought was important.

We're fortunate that we were in an excellent financial position when I
stopped work and that has made a difference. We didn't have a mortgage or
car debt and we had savings and investments. We do have less money than we
could but what we do have is far more time than many of the families we know
where both parents work, even when one spouse is working part-time.

Also, my husband has quite a bit of job flexibility and has always been able
to attend parent-teacher interviews, special days at school and is a very
hands-on kind of father anyway. He gets to do everything I do with our
children, just a bit less of it.

I look on this period as just one (very important) stage in my life. I
worked until I was 30 and I will again when my 3 year old has been at school
for a couple of years. I'm grateful I live in a time when I have a choice!

I would like to see far more flexibility for men and women to job share
and/or work flexible hours so that they can organise their personal lives to
suit their needs - whether that includes caring for children, elderly
relatives, or whatever activities are important to them.

Tai

Tony Miller wrote:
We were lucky enough to have grandparents who could take care of our children when they were little. If we hadn't had them, my wife would have quit her job and did the full time mom thing until the kids were in school all day. We would never have put our kids in the care of strangers for most of the week.

We had a complete reversal on what we thought we'd do once we actually had
children. I'd worked until I was in mid-pregnancy with my first child, loved
my job and fully expected to take a year off on maternity leave and return
to work utilising centre-based daycare. The reality was that we were
enjoying being parents so much that I was pregnant when our son had his
first birthday and I postponed looking for a job until our daughter was 13
months old.

Daycare didn't work out because both children went through the "catch
everything that's going" time that they all do when they eventually start
spending time with groups of other children and I literally had one or other
of them home sick half the time. We didn't have access to grandparent care
and neither of us like the idea of unsupervised nanny care for very young
children so we decided I would finish my 3 month contract and stay home. In
hindsight we'd have got through that period in about 6 months but at the
time it just seemed a frightful thing to be doing to all of us.

However, it wasn't a huge sacrifice because while I enjoyed being a systems
analyst I also loved being at home with my children. Both careers have their
pluses and minuses but I find childrearing particularly fulfilling and
though we have very good daycare here I don't believe full-time daycare is
good for children. I liken it to keeping a child within the confines of the
living room and garden for five days of the week. A couple of days of that
is fine but any more and I don't think it's healthy for them. (Disclaimer:
I respect every parent's right to make other choices for their own
children.)
Would we have had to cut back on the "things"? Sure. But we considered what we thought was important.

We're fortunate that we were in an excellent financial position when I
stopped work and that has made a difference. We didn't have a mortgage or
car debt and we had savings and investments. We do have less money than we
could but what we do have is far more time than many of the families we know
where both parents work, even when one spouse is working part-time.

Also, my husband has quite a bit of job flexibility and has always been able
to attend parent-teacher interviews, special days at school and is a very
hands-on kind of father anyway. He gets to do everything I do with our
children, just a bit less of it.

I look on this period as just one (very important) stage in my life. I
worked until I was 30 and I will again when my 3 year old has been at school
for a couple of years. I'm grateful I live in a time when I have a choice!

I would like to see far more flexibility for men and women to job share
and/or work flexible hours so that they can organise their personal lives to
suit their needs - whether that includes caring for children, elderly
relatives, or whatever activities are important to them.

Tai

shinypenny wrote: Dally <dally@myself.com> wrote in message news:<c37jp4$24t56b$1@ID-217902.news.uni-berlin.de>... When I was a little tyke in the early seventies I recall asking my Mom if she was "for women's lib". She explained to me that she was for "people's lib" and that freeing women to choose their roles necessarily meant freeing men to choose their roles, too. Men absolutely benefit from removing the presumption that they will be wage-earners family-providers for the rest of their lives. When women are allowed to contemplate becoming self-actualized then men necessarily are too. Dally Amen, sister! My mom said the same thing to me, too. Incidentally, she was a career SAHM and proud of it, but encouraged her kids to make our own choices.

Ditto.

Tai

shinypenny wrote: Dally <dally@myself.com> wrote in message news:<c37jp4$24t56b$1@ID-217902.news.uni-berlin.de>... When I was a little tyke in the early seventies I recall asking my Mom if she was "for women's lib". She explained to me that she was for "people's lib" and that freeing women to choose their roles necessarily meant freeing men to choose their roles, too. Men absolutely benefit from removing the presumption that they will be wage-earners family-providers for the rest of their lives. When women are allowed to contemplate becoming self-actualized then men necessarily are too. Dally Amen, sister! My mom said the same thing to me, too. Incidentally, she was a career SAHM and proud of it, but encouraged her kids to make our own choices.

Ditto.

Tai

It is not that it is ripe with fallacy. I have never said that. (I do not
CARE.) Because no solution will ever / has ever worked that involves ramming
sacrifice for the sake of some abstract like society down people's throats.

Possible REAL solutions (if one admits this is the whole cause of the
problem)

- Massive tax credit for double parent, single earner families with
children.
- Foodstamps, same criteria...

See how those are solutions rather than OK YOU PEOPLE STOP BEING
SELFISH??!!??

I do not propose that those are real solutions. I am merely trying to point
out the difference between proposing and bellyaching.

S



"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:DAP5c.25175$%06.21469@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... What I said here was the truth, perhaps with a little bias (as we ALL
have), and perhaps the truth hurts. And there is no way to reverse it. I
still challenge anybody to rebutt this post, and show me the fallacies. Bill in Co. wrote: Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:IpG5c.24179$%06.21605@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net...> Stephanie Stowe wrote:>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>>>> And that is bad?>> IF, as a result of this, the kids are being sent off to day care, and
the> cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two
incomes to> survive, yes, it can be certainly be seen in that light. Let's be
honest> here.> That's right. When someone has a different opinion or point of view, wuestion their honesty.> For anyone (usually the women) to be both a good full time worker and
a good> full time mom, ain't really possible. It is too much for anyone to
be> able to do, obviously. And women know it. Let's face it - it
places> tremendous pressure on them. And on the marriage.> There are SO many different ways to handle this pressure. Surely some
do it poorly. And some do it very well. The burden is on both grown members
of the family to make the best situation.> Now, OTOH, if you're talking about not having a family, that's a
totally> different ballgame. Just choose.>> Anyway, that's how I feel about it. And yes, I do believe moms tend
to be> the better caregivers for their kids (in most cases), so if you want
to take> pot shots at me on that one too, go for it.>> I never understand if you are proposing some solution to the problems.
Are you proposing something? Or just whining that things ain't what they
used to be? Solutions? First step is to recognize there is a problem. Let me
see a show of hands. OK, I count three. Next step is to ask how many are willing to give up their current (materialistic) lifestyle (with a TV in EACH
room, a cell phone in EACH room, etc). Let me see a show of hands please?
(all hands go down). Nope, I guess I don't have a solution. And just by the way..... I can well remember some time ago when we
(meaning, our family) considered ourselves fortunate to be able to get ONE (black
and white) TV set, to be used by the ENTIRE family (meaning, it was shared). A TOTALLY foreign concept today. /end rant

It is not that it is ripe with fallacy. I have never said that. (I do not
CARE.) Because no solution will ever / has ever worked that involves ramming
sacrifice for the sake of some abstract like society down people's throats.

Possible REAL solutions (if one admits this is the whole cause of the
problem)

- Massive tax credit for double parent, single earner families with
children.
- Foodstamps, same criteria...

See how those are solutions rather than OK YOU PEOPLE STOP BEING
SELFISH??!!??

I do not propose that those are real solutions. I am merely trying to point
out the difference between proposing and bellyaching.

S



"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:DAP5c.25175$%06.21469@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... What I said here was the truth, perhaps with a little bias (as we ALL
have), and perhaps the truth hurts. And there is no way to reverse it. I
still challenge anybody to rebutt this post, and show me the fallacies. Bill in Co. wrote: Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:IpG5c.24179$%06.21605@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net...> Stephanie Stowe wrote:>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message>> news:40568353.AC76EF13@hotmail.com...>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:>>>>>>> Jack C Lipton wrote:>>>>>>>>> Thinking about this, who really benefits from>>>>> having so many women in the workforce? Men?>>>>> Women? Business owners who have a greater supply>>>>> of labor (and so can pay less)?>>>>>>>> The women who want to work benefit. That's it.>>>> And that is bad?>> IF, as a result of this, the kids are being sent off to day care, and
the> cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two
incomes to> survive, yes, it can be certainly be seen in that light. Let's be
honest> here.> That's right. When someone has a different opinion or point of view, wuestion their honesty.> For anyone (usually the women) to be both a good full time worker and
a good> full time mom, ain't really possible. It is too much for anyone to
be> able to do, obviously. And women know it. Let's face it - it
places> tremendous pressure on them. And on the marriage.> There are SO many different ways to handle this pressure. Surely some
do it poorly. And some do it very well. The burden is on both grown members
of the family to make the best situation.> Now, OTOH, if you're talking about not having a family, that's a
totally> different ballgame. Just choose.>> Anyway, that's how I feel about it. And yes, I do believe moms tend
to be> the better caregivers for their kids (in most cases), so if you want
to take> pot shots at me on that one too, go for it.>> I never understand if you are proposing some solution to the problems.
Are you proposing something? Or just whining that things ain't what they
used to be? Solutions? First step is to recognize there is a problem. Let me
see a show of hands. OK, I count three. Next step is to ask how many are willing to give up their current (materialistic) lifestyle (with a TV in EACH
room, a cell phone in EACH room, etc). Let me see a show of hands please?
(all hands go down). Nope, I guess I don't have a solution. And just by the way..... I can well remember some time ago when we
(meaning, our family) considered ourselves fortunate to be able to get ONE (black
and white) TV set, to be used by the ENTIRE family (meaning, it was shared). A TOTALLY foreign concept today. /end rant

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<DAP5c.25175$%06.21469@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>... What I said here was the truth, perhaps with a little bias (as we ALL have), and perhaps the truth hurts. And there is no way to reverse it. I still challenge anybody to rebutt this post, and show me the fallacies.

Okay I'll bite, but mostly because I'm bored, not because I'll
convince you of anything since you seem to have your mind so set.
> IF, as a result of this, the kids are being sent off to day care, and the> cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two incomes to> survive, yes, it can be certainly be seen in that light. Let's be honest> here.

On the issue of sending the kids off to day care so mom can work.
Mothers, since the beginning of time, have *always* worked and have
relied quite heavily on others to help shoulder the childcare
responsibilities. When we were hunters and gatherers, moms went out to
the wilderness and gathered for hours on end while leaving toddlers in
the care of the elderly tribe members back at the village. Later when
we were an agricultural society moms put the kids in the center of the
field and worked around them, all keeping an eye on them. In
heirarchical societies, those with money routinely handed their kids
off to a wet nurse or boarding school and weren't bothered with the
daily childcare responsibilities.

IOW, this whole thing with a nuclear family living in a single family
house with no extended family around them - with mom working and
caring for children alone for hours during the day - is quite new and
unique in relative terms.

And before you say something about the need for mothers to be on hand
to nurse their babies, I am the first one who will tell you I think
it's preferable to be on hand as much as possible in the first 4
years. And I doubt too many women are going to disagree with me. But
I'm the last person to say this means that women should be career
SAHM's and drop out of the job market entirely. Once kids are past age
4 and no longer nursing, they are in school much of the day and I
think it'd be a terrible waste to have all these women staying at home
if they don't want to. Especially since we have so many labor-saving
devices these days that make cleaning and cooking fast and efficient
compared to days past.

The thing I think you don't realize, when you make your gross
generalizations, is that a large number of families manage to juggle
things around during the preschool years. You seem to assume that all
working women are working full time the moment the baby pops out of
the womb. It's not true. They take maternity leave. Many, like me,
drop out temporarily for a few years. Increasingly dad is the one who
drops out for awhile. Many more switch to part time work, or shift
work that enables one or the other parent to be at home at all times.
Still others have grandparents who can help out.

As for your statement, "the cost of living goes sky high so that
everybody must now have two incomes to survive," I'll address that a
little later...

> For anyone (usually the women) to be both a good full time worker and a good> full time mom, ain't really possible. It is too much for anyone to be> able to do, obviously. And women know it. Let's face it - it places> tremendous pressure on them. And on the marriage.

But very few are trying to be a good full time worker *and* a good
full time mom at the same time. They rely very heavily on an extended
support network including their husbands, family, school, care
providers, and yes, workplaces.

IMHO, this is all goodness because you can't raise a child in a
vacuum. One person can't do the best job all by themselves. Every
person has weaknesses and having multiple adults in a child's life
balances another's strengths where the primary parent may be weak.

I am amazed at the changes I've seen over the 15 years of my career,
in particular, the last 5 years. For example we now have cell phones
(yes cell phones), laptops, VPNs and NetMeeting, technologies that
enable us to work virtually. While 10 years ago my boss might've given
me the cold shoulder for wanting to take a day off with a sick kid,
today he couldn't care less, because I can work just as productively
at home or in the office. To me there is no difference if I'm working
on a powerpoint presentation at home, or doing laundry. It's all work
that needs to get done, while *also* juggling homework and snacks and
things like that. (Okay, except I happen to get paid to work on the
powerpoint... )
> Anyway, that's how I feel about it. And yes, I do believe moms tend to be> the better caregivers for their kids (in most cases), so if you want to take> pot shots at me on that one too, go for it.

If that's the way you feel Bill, then I guess I can understand your
frustration at trying to tell someone else what they should do when
you have never done it yourself and don't ever intend to be expected
to!


Solutions? First step is to recognize there is a problem. Let me see a show of hands. OK, I count three. Next step is to ask how many are willing to give up their current (materialistic) lifestyle (with a TV in EACH room, a cell phone in EACH room, etc). Let me see a show of hands please? (all hands go down). Nope, I guess I don't have a solution. And just by the way..... I can well remember some time ago when we (meaning, our family) considered ourselves fortunate to be able to get ONE (black and white) TV set, to be used by the ENTIRE family (meaning, it was shared). A TOTALLY foreign concept today.

Heh. And I'm betting that one B&W t.v. cost a fortune. In relative
terms, I'd venture to say today you could buy TWO color t.v.'s for the
price of that ONE B&W!!!

Okay, so here's the question for you. How can you complain that "the
cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two
incomes to survive" and *also* kvetch that we're too materialistic and
everyone owns two t.v.'s and cell phones... ? Something is not adding
up. Which *is* it? If the cost of living so high we're all barely
scratching out a living......... then how could we possibly afford to
buy all these unnecessary electronic gadgets?

Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is whether or not it
might be possible all these people are opting for a second income not
necessarily for the money, but because they actually like to work? I
personally feel that it is a basic human necessity to work. It's not
natural, IMHO, to lay around doing nothing and being idle. The human
body and brain evolved to thrive on physical and mental challenge of
challenging work. Women especially.

While men as hunters evolved to be able to stay still for long hours
in the cold, hiding in the underbrush to sneak up on their prey, and
take long rests after a grueling hunt, women as gatherers evolved to
be constantly busy gathering, cooking, bringing in firewood, caring
for infants, storing food, packing and moving tents, creating baskets
and clothes.

With all our modern day conveniences, and smaller families, caring for
an infant and a home just doesn't take the same amount of energy and
challenge as it did for our ancestors! IME, the women who are happiest
choosing to SAH are those who have numerous hobbies that fill a large
block of their time. IOW, they aren't *just* dealing with a child and
keeping the house clean round the clock 24/7. They are making arts and
crafts, gardening, sewing... keeping their hands constantly busy!

When I was a SAH, as the kids grew older and more independent, I
desparately needed something else to keep me occupied. Personally I'm
not a crafty person and I don't have a green thumb... I did try
though. Ultimately going back to work was what kept my hands and mind
busy, and met my basic human need to work.

jen

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<DAP5c.25175$%06.21469@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>... What I said here was the truth, perhaps with a little bias (as we ALL have), and perhaps the truth hurts. And there is no way to reverse it. I still challenge anybody to rebutt this post, and show me the fallacies.

Okay I'll bite, but mostly because I'm bored, not because I'll
convince you of anything since you seem to have your mind so set.
> IF, as a result of this, the kids are being sent off to day care, and the> cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two incomes to> survive, yes, it can be certainly be seen in that light. Let's be honest> here.

On the issue of sending the kids off to day care so mom can work.
Mothers, since the beginning of time, have *always* worked and have
relied quite heavily on others to help shoulder the childcare
responsibilities. When we were hunters and gatherers, moms went out to
the wilderness and gathered for hours on end while leaving toddlers in
the care of the elderly tribe members back at the village. Later when
we were an agricultural society moms put the kids in the center of the
field and worked around them, all keeping an eye on them. In
heirarchical societies, those with money routinely handed their kids
off to a wet nurse or boarding school and weren't bothered with the
daily childcare responsibilities.

IOW, this whole thing with a nuclear family living in a single family
house with no extended family around them - with mom working and
caring for children alone for hours during the day - is quite new and
unique in relative terms.

And before you say something about the need for mothers to be on hand
to nurse their babies, I am the first one who will tell you I think
it's preferable to be on hand as much as possible in the first 4
years. And I doubt too many women are going to disagree with me. But
I'm the last person to say this means that women should be career
SAHM's and drop out of the job market entirely. Once kids are past age
4 and no longer nursing, they are in school much of the day and I
think it'd be a terrible waste to have all these women staying at home
if they don't want to. Especially since we have so many labor-saving
devices these days that make cleaning and cooking fast and efficient
compared to days past.

The thing I think you don't realize, when you make your gross
generalizations, is that a large number of families manage to juggle
things around during the preschool years. You seem to assume that all
working women are working full time the moment the baby pops out of
the womb. It's not true. They take maternity leave. Many, like me,
drop out temporarily for a few years. Increasingly dad is the one who
drops out for awhile. Many more switch to part time work, or shift
work that enables one or the other parent to be at home at all times.
Still others have grandparents who can help out.

As for your statement, "the cost of living goes sky high so that
everybody must now have two incomes to survive," I'll address that a
little later...

> For anyone (usually the women) to be both a good full time worker and a good> full time mom, ain't really possible. It is too much for anyone to be> able to do, obviously. And women know it. Let's face it - it places> tremendous pressure on them. And on the marriage.

But very few are trying to be a good full time worker *and* a good
full time mom at the same time. They rely very heavily on an extended
support network including their husbands, family, school, care
providers, and yes, workplaces.

IMHO, this is all goodness because you can't raise a child in a
vacuum. One person can't do the best job all by themselves. Every
person has weaknesses and having multiple adults in a child's life
balances another's strengths where the primary parent may be weak.

I am amazed at the changes I've seen over the 15 years of my career,
in particular, the last 5 years. For example we now have cell phones
(yes cell phones), laptops, VPNs and NetMeeting, technologies that
enable us to work virtually. While 10 years ago my boss might've given
me the cold shoulder for wanting to take a day off with a sick kid,
today he couldn't care less, because I can work just as productively
at home or in the office. To me there is no difference if I'm working
on a powerpoint presentation at home, or doing laundry. It's all work
that needs to get done, while *also* juggling homework and snacks and
things like that. (Okay, except I happen to get paid to work on the
powerpoint... )
> Anyway, that's how I feel about it. And yes, I do believe moms tend to be> the better caregivers for their kids (in most cases), so if you want to take> pot shots at me on that one too, go for it.

If that's the way you feel Bill, then I guess I can understand your
frustration at trying to tell someone else what they should do when
you have never done it yourself and don't ever intend to be expected
to!


Solutions? First step is to recognize there is a problem. Let me see a show of hands. OK, I count three. Next step is to ask how many are willing to give up their current (materialistic) lifestyle (with a TV in EACH room, a cell phone in EACH room, etc). Let me see a show of hands please? (all hands go down). Nope, I guess I don't have a solution. And just by the way..... I can well remember some time ago when we (meaning, our family) considered ourselves fortunate to be able to get ONE (black and white) TV set, to be used by the ENTIRE family (meaning, it was shared). A TOTALLY foreign concept today.

Heh. And I'm betting that one B&W t.v. cost a fortune. In relative
terms, I'd venture to say today you could buy TWO color t.v.'s for the
price of that ONE B&W!!!

Okay, so here's the question for you. How can you complain that "the
cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two
incomes to survive" and *also* kvetch that we're too materialistic and
everyone owns two t.v.'s and cell phones... ? Something is not adding
up. Which *is* it? If the cost of living so high we're all barely
scratching out a living......... then how could we possibly afford to
buy all these unnecessary electronic gadgets?

Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is whether or not it
might be possible all these people are opting for a second income not
necessarily for the money, but because they actually like to work? I
personally feel that it is a basic human necessity to work. It's not
natural, IMHO, to lay around doing nothing and being idle. The human
body and brain evolved to thrive on physical and mental challenge of
challenging work. Women especially.

While men as hunters evolved to be able to stay still for long hours
in the cold, hiding in the underbrush to sneak up on their prey, and
take long rests after a grueling hunt, women as gatherers evolved to
be constantly busy gathering, cooking, bringing in firewood, caring
for infants, storing food, packing and moving tents, creating baskets
and clothes.

With all our modern day conveniences, and smaller families, caring for
an infant and a home just doesn't take the same amount of energy and
challenge as it did for our ancestors! IME, the women who are happiest
choosing to SAH are those who have numerous hobbies that fill a large
block of their time. IOW, they aren't *just* dealing with a child and
keeping the house clean round the clock 24/7. They are making arts and
crafts, gardening, sewing... keeping their hands constantly busy!

When I was a SAH, as the kids grew older and more independent, I
desparately needed something else to keep me occupied. Personally I'm
not a crafty person and I don't have a green thumb... I did try
though. Ultimately going back to work was what kept my hands and mind
busy, and met my basic human need to work.

jen

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
While men as hunters evolved to be able to stay still for long hours

Hmmph. Tell this to my 8 year old son!

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
While men as hunters evolved to be able to stay still for long hours

Hmmph. Tell this to my 8 year old son!

"Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c38rjv$25d69p$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>... Tony Miller wrote: We were lucky enough to have grandparents who could take care of our children when they were little. If we hadn't had them, my wife would have quit her job and did the full time mom thing until the kids were in school all day. We would never have put our kids in the care of strangers for most of the week. We had a complete reversal on what we thought we'd do once we actually had children.

Us, too. I intended to continue working full time, and we had just
purchased a house that required both our incomes, but something
clicked in once I got pregnant and I panicked at the thought of
continuing to work. So my ex got a relocation package, which enabled
us to get out of our new mortgage and downsize to a smaller one so I
could stay at home.
Both careers have their pluses and minuses but I find childrearing particularly fulfilling and though we have very good daycare here I don't believe full-time daycare is good for children. I liken it to keeping a child within the confines of the living room and garden for five days of the week. A couple of days of that is fine but any more and I don't think it's healthy for them. (Disclaimer: I respect every parent's right to make other choices for their own children.)

I strongly believe that if at all possible it is best if one or the
other parent, or a combination of both, can be at home the majority of
the time during the first 4 years. These are crucial developmental
years, and there's no one else I'd trust to raise my own child quite
the way I would. After that, once the child begins school (around here
Kindergarten is full time) I don't think it's necessary to be at home
and think it can even be a good thing for children to be exposed to
other caregivers.

I look on this period as just one (very important) stage in my life. I worked until I was 30 and I will again when my 3 year old has been at school for a couple of years. I'm grateful I live in a time when I have a choice!

I agree completely. For me, SAH those first 5 years was really only a
blip in the grand scheme of things for my career. I restarted my
career fairly easily (although initially it felt overwhelming to go
back). Ultimately, I believe it made a tremendous difference in how my
kids are turning out. And I am very proud of that, and it was worth
every minute. (The strange thing is, my daughters can barely remember
the time when they were little and mommy didn't work!)

I also think the SAH dad trend is a great one. I think dad's make
great SAH parents and it is nice that we live in a society that
affords them that option.
I would like to see far more flexibility for men and women to job share and/or work flexible hours so that they can organise their personal lives to suit their needs - whether that includes caring for children, elderly relatives, or whatever activities are important to them.

I *am* seeing this flexibility in the workplace. I see it more and
more all the time. It helps that I work for a high-tech company that
sells technologies designed to increase worker productivity and that
includes products that enable a virtual workplace. Our company
practices what we preach. There are about 10 people in my department.
On any given day, at least half of us are working at home. It's not
uncommon to hear a coworker (male or female) say they're ducking out
early to make their kids' baseball game or piano lessons. Nobody gives
much care to the hours kept, as long as the work gets done. Since
we're a global company, it's not unusual to get up early, have an
early morning conference with Beijing before the kids wake up, then
take the kids to school, come home to do some more work, then knock
off early to get dinner on the stove before the kids get home. You
still put in 8 hours, but you get to pick *which* hours.

This week I worked at home - daughter was sick on Monday, Tuesday I
had back-to-back con-calls with offices in various parts of the world
so there really was no necessity to go in and do it from the office,
and today we had too much snow to bother with the commute. The
flexibility is very nice.

jen

"Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c38rjv$25d69p$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>... Tony Miller wrote: We were lucky enough to have grandparents who could take care of our children when they were little. If we hadn't had them, my wife would have quit her job and did the full time mom thing until the kids were in school all day. We would never have put our kids in the care of strangers for most of the week. We had a complete reversal on what we thought we'd do once we actually had children.

Us, too. I intended to continue working full time, and we had just
purchased a house that required both our incomes, but something
clicked in once I got pregnant and I panicked at the thought of
continuing to work. So my ex got a relocation package, which enabled
us to get out of our new mortgage and downsize to a smaller one so I
could stay at home.
Both careers have their pluses and minuses but I find childrearing particularly fulfilling and though we have very good daycare here I don't believe full-time daycare is good for children. I liken it to keeping a child within the confines of the living room and garden for five days of the week. A couple of days of that is fine but any more and I don't think it's healthy for them. (Disclaimer: I respect every parent's right to make other choices for their own children.)

I strongly believe that if at all possible it is best if one or the
other parent, or a combination of both, can be at home the majority of
the time during the first 4 years. These are crucial developmental
years, and there's no one else I'd trust to raise my own child quite
the way I would. After that, once the child begins school (around here
Kindergarten is full time) I don't think it's necessary to be at home
and think it can even be a good thing for children to be exposed to
other caregivers.

I look on this period as just one (very important) stage in my life. I worked until I was 30 and I will again when my 3 year old has been at school for a couple of years. I'm grateful I live in a time when I have a choice!

I agree completely. For me, SAH those first 5 years was really only a
blip in the grand scheme of things for my career. I restarted my
career fairly easily (although initially it felt overwhelming to go
back). Ultimately, I believe it made a tremendous difference in how my
kids are turning out. And I am very proud of that, and it was worth
every minute. (The strange thing is, my daughters can barely remember
the time when they were little and mommy didn't work!)

I also think the SAH dad trend is a great one. I think dad's make
great SAH parents and it is nice that we live in a society that
affords them that option.
I would like to see far more flexibility for men and women to job share and/or work flexible hours so that they can organise their personal lives to suit their needs - whether that includes caring for children, elderly relatives, or whatever activities are important to them.

I *am* seeing this flexibility in the workplace. I see it more and
more all the time. It helps that I work for a high-tech company that
sells technologies designed to increase worker productivity and that
includes products that enable a virtual workplace. Our company
practices what we preach. There are about 10 people in my department.
On any given day, at least half of us are working at home. It's not
uncommon to hear a coworker (male or female) say they're ducking out
early to make their kids' baseball game or piano lessons. Nobody gives
much care to the hours kept, as long as the work gets done. Since
we're a global company, it's not unusual to get up early, have an
early morning conference with Beijing before the kids wake up, then
take the kids to school, come home to do some more work, then knock
off early to get dinner on the stove before the kids get home. You
still put in 8 hours, but you get to pick *which* hours.

This week I worked at home - daughter was sick on Monday, Tuesday I
had back-to-back con-calls with offices in various parts of the world
so there really was no necessity to go in and do it from the office,
and today we had too much snow to bother with the commute. The
flexibility is very nice.

jen

Bill in Co. <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:
Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids. But that is not what is happening. What IS happening is that neither of them (when you can still find two parent homes, nowadays) have LESS time for their kids, cause they're all tied up at work (IF they are both working full time). Let's at least be honest about it.

People vary. My H and I both promised that we would never be
workaholics, and we've stuck to that. Our kids see lots of both of us.

Bill in Co. <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:
Maybe maybe not. When I was small and my father worked and I had a stay at home mom I *rarely* saw my dad because he got up before to go to work I did and came home late. Quite frankly with both spouses working they each can work less and spend more time with their kids. But that is not what is happening. What IS happening is that neither of them (when you can still find two parent homes, nowadays) have LESS time for their kids, cause they're all tied up at work (IF they are both working full time). Let's at least be honest about it.

People vary. My H and I both promised that we would never be
workaholics, and we've stuck to that. Our kids see lots of both of us.

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9Ou5c.42492$aT1.7575@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Jack C Lipton wrote: Tony Miller wrote: It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work. Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it.

Is that a bad thing? Should I feel bad for benefitting?

S

"Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9Ou5c.42492$aT1.7575@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Jack C Lipton wrote: Tony Miller wrote: It forcefully advances the agenda that SAHM's are "lesser" than the "sisteren" who decide to work. Thinking about this, who really benefits from having so many women in the workforce? Men? Women? Business owners who have a greater supply of labor (and so can pay less)? The women who want to work benefit. That's it.

Is that a bad thing? Should I feel bad for benefitting?

S

shinypenny wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<DAP5c.25175$%06.21469@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>... What I said here was the truth, perhaps with a little bias (as we ALL have), and perhaps the truth hurts. And there is no way to reverse it. I still challenge anybody to rebutt this post, and show me the fallacies. Okay I'll bite, but mostly because I'm bored, not because I'll convince you of anything since you seem to have your mind so set.

Nah, you got the cart before the horse. I'm trying to convince YOU!
(C'mon,
Jen). :-) But this is so long now, I'm gonna pare it down to some of
the bare essentials.... you can resurrect others if u want...
>> IF, as a result of this, the kids are being sent off to day care, and the>> cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two incomes>> to survive, yes, it can be certainly be seen in that light. Let's be>> honest here. On the issue of sending the kids off to day care so mom can work. Mothers, since the beginning of time, have *always* worked and have relied quite heavily on others to help shoulder the childcare responsibilities. When we were hunters and gatherers, moms went out to the wilderness and gathered for hours on end while leaving toddlers in the care of the elderly tribe members back at the village. Later when we were an agricultural society moms put the kids in the center of the field and worked around them, all keeping an eye on them. In heirarchical societies, those with money routinely handed their kids off to a wet nurse or boarding school and weren't bothered with the daily childcare responsibilities. IOW, this whole thing with a nuclear family living in a single family house with no extended family around them - with mom working and caring for children alone for hours during the day - is quite new and unique in relative terms.

"Quite new"? OK, like you mean the 50s' was "quite new" compared to the
rural farming days? OK, I can agree with ya on that one.
As for your statement, "the cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two incomes to survive," I'll address that a little later...

Yeah - let's address that one....
>> For anyone (usually the women) to be both a good full time worker and a>> good full time mom, ain't really possible. It is too much for anyone
to be>> able to do, obviously. And women know it. Let's face it - it places>> tremendous pressure on them. And on the marriage. But very few are trying to be a good full time worker *and* a good full time mom at the same time. They rely very heavily on an extended support network including their husbands, family, school, care providers, and yes, workplaces.

"Care providers"? As in, "contracted-out-for-care" providers? And you're
proud of that? (Amazing.....)
Okay, so here's the question for you. How can you complain that "the cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two incomes to survive" and *also* kvetch that we're too materialistic and everyone owns two t.v.'s and cell phones... ? Something is not adding up. Which *is* it? If the cost of living so high we're all barely scratching out a living......... then how could we possibly afford to buy all these unnecessary electronic gadgets?

That is easy to answer Because all of the ones with two incomes (which is
the majority nowadays) ARE able to afford those goodies, but the single income
and SAHM families (typically) are not. Well, unless you're living in Needles,
CA, or Podunksville, WV.

shinypenny wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<DAP5c.25175$%06.21469@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>... What I said here was the truth, perhaps with a little bias (as we ALL have), and perhaps the truth hurts. And there is no way to reverse it. I still challenge anybody to rebutt this post, and show me the fallacies. Okay I'll bite, but mostly because I'm bored, not because I'll convince you of anything since you seem to have your mind so set.

Nah, you got the cart before the horse. I'm trying to convince YOU!
(C'mon,
Jen). :-) But this is so long now, I'm gonna pare it down to some of
the bare essentials.... you can resurrect others if u want...
>> IF, as a result of this, the kids are being sent off to day care, and the>> cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two incomes>> to survive, yes, it can be certainly be seen in that light. Let's be>> honest here. On the issue of sending the kids off to day care so mom can work. Mothers, since the beginning of time, have *always* worked and have relied quite heavily on others to help shoulder the childcare responsibilities. When we were hunters and gatherers, moms went out to the wilderness and gathered for hours on end while leaving toddlers in the care of the elderly tribe members back at the village. Later when we were an agricultural society moms put the kids in the center of the field and worked around them, all keeping an eye on them. In heirarchical societies, those with money routinely handed their kids off to a wet nurse or boarding school and weren't bothered with the daily childcare responsibilities. IOW, this whole thing with a nuclear family living in a single family house with no extended family around them - with mom working and caring for children alone for hours during the day - is quite new and unique in relative terms.

"Quite new"? OK, like you mean the 50s' was "quite new" compared to the
rural farming days? OK, I can agree with ya on that one.
As for your statement, "the cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two incomes to survive," I'll address that a little later...

Yeah - let's address that one....
>> For anyone (usually the women) to be both a good full time worker and a>> good full time mom, ain't really possible. It is too much for anyone
to be>> able to do, obviously. And women know it. Let's face it - it places>> tremendous pressure on them. And on the marriage. But very few are trying to be a good full time worker *and* a good full time mom at the same time. They rely very heavily on an extended support network including their husbands, family, school, care providers, and yes, workplaces.

"Care providers"? As in, "contracted-out-for-care" providers? And you're
proud of that? (Amazing.....)
Okay, so here's the question for you. How can you complain that "the cost of living goes sky high so that everybody must now have two incomes to survive" and *also* kvetch that we're too materialistic and everyone owns two t.v.'s and cell phones... ? Something is not adding up. Which *is* it? If the cost of living so high we're all barely scratching out a living......... then how could we possibly afford to buy all these unnecessary electronic gadgets?

That is easy to answer Because all of the ones with two incomes (which is
the majority nowadays) ARE able to afford those goodies, but the single income
and SAHM families (typically) are not. Well, unless you're living in Needles,
CA, or Podunksville, WV.

shinypenny wrote: "Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c38rjv$25d69p$1@ID- I strongly believe that if at all possible it is best if one or the other parent, or a combination of both, can be at home the majority of the time during the first 4 years. These are crucial developmental years, and there's no one else I'd trust to raise my own child quite the way I would. After that, once the child begins school (around here Kindergarten is full time) I don't think it's necessary to be at home and think it can even be a good thing for children to be exposed to other caregivers.

I agree.

However, I think after school care can be tiring for children and now that I
have middle-school aged children who can be unsupervised for longish periods
I am still rather glad that I am home when they get home from school. I
don't really want them to be latch key kids. It's difficult to know what's
for the best for everyone! Ideally I would like school-hour type part time
work but the few hours I work at freelancing IT doco can't be classed as
that until I ramp up the hours.
I look on this period as just one (very important) stage in my life. I worked until I was 30 and I will again when my 3 year old has been at school for a couple of years. I'm grateful I live in a time when I have a choice! I agree completely. For me, SAH those first 5 years was really only a blip in the grand scheme of things for my career. I restarted my career fairly easily (although initially it felt overwhelming to go back).

It will be about three times longer than that for me but I made my peace
with that when we decided to have a third child. I mean, I can see all the
downsides to the decision my husband and I have made to have me at home but
it still seems to be the best choice for us all.

Ultimately, I believe it made a tremendous difference in how my kids are turning out. And I am very proud of that, and it was worth every minute. (The strange thing is, my daughters can barely remember the time when they were little and mommy didn't work!) I also think the SAH dad trend is a great one. I think dad's make great SAH parents and it is nice that we live in a society that affords them that option.

The trend must be moving faster in your society. :(

I would like to see far more flexibility for men and women to job share and/or work flexible hours so that they can organise their personal lives to suit their needs - whether that includes caring for children, elderly relatives, or whatever activities are important to them. I *am* seeing this flexibility in the workplace. I see it more and more all the time. It helps that I work for a high-tech company that sells technologies designed to increase worker productivity and that includes products that enable a virtual workplace. Our company practices what we preach. There are about 10 people in my department. On any given day, at least half of us are working at home.

That's terrific. We have some businesses like that but very few that employ
people I know.

This week I worked at home - daughter was sick on Monday, Tuesday I had back-to-back con-calls with offices in various parts of the world so there really was no necessity to go in and do it from the office, and today we had too much snow to bother with the commute. The flexibility is very nice.


That's great, Jen! You know earlier you wrote that your daughters
don't/can't remember that you were at home with them when they were tiny but
they are seeing, today, yet another example of the commitment you've made to
their care their whole lives. They are very lucky.

Tai

shinypenny wrote: "Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c38rjv$25d69p$1@ID- I strongly believe that if at all possible it is best if one or the other parent, or a combination of both, can be at home the majority of the time during the first 4 years. These are crucial developmental years, and there's no one else I'd trust to raise my own child quite the way I would. After that, once the child begins school (around here Kindergarten is full time) I don't think it's necessary to be at home and think it can even be a good thing for children to be exposed to other caregivers.

I agree.

However, I think after school care can be tiring for children and now that I
have middle-school aged children who can be unsupervised for longish periods
I am still rather glad that I am home when they get home from school. I
don't really want them to be latch key kids. It's difficult to know what's
for the best for everyone! Ideally I would like school-hour type part time
work but the few hours I work at freelancing IT doco can't be classed as
that until I ramp up the hours.
I look on this period as just one (very important) stage in my life. I worked until I was 30 and I will again when my 3 year old has been at school for a couple of years. I'm grateful I live in a time when I have a choice! I agree completely. For me, SAH those first 5 years was really only a blip in the grand scheme of things for my career. I restarted my career fairly easily (although initially it felt overwhelming to go back).

It will be about three times longer than that for me but I made my peace
with that when we decided to have a third child. I mean, I can see all the
downsides to the decision my husband and I have made to have me at home but
it still seems to be the best choice for us all.

Ultimately, I believe it made a tremendous difference in how my kids are turning out. And I am very proud of that, and it was worth every minute. (The strange thing is, my daughters can barely remember the time when they were little and mommy didn't work!) I also think the SAH dad trend is a great one. I think dad's make great SAH parents and it is nice that we live in a society that affords them that option.

The trend must be moving faster in your society. :(

I would like to see far more flexibility for men and women to job share and/or work flexible hours so that they can organise their personal lives to suit their needs - whether that includes caring for children, elderly relatives, or whatever activities are important to them. I *am* seeing this flexibility in the workplace. I see it more and more all the time. It helps that I work for a high-tech company that sells technologies designed to increase worker productivity and that includes products that enable a virtual workplace. Our company practices what we preach. There are about 10 people in my department. On any given day, at least half of us are working at home.

That's terrific. We have some businesses like that but very few that employ
people I know.

This week I worked at home - daughter was sick on Monday, Tuesday I had back-to-back con-calls with offices in various parts of the world so there really was no necessity to go in and do it from the office, and today we had too much snow to bother with the commute. The flexibility is very nice.


That's great, Jen! You know earlier you wrote that your daughters
don't/can't remember that you were at home with them when they were tiny but
they are seeing, today, yet another example of the commitment you've made to
their care their whole lives. They are very lucky.

Tai

In article <ktlf50pkcm7o4f692ltivrld73le3pql72@4ax.com>, Rauni says...On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:29:20 GMT, "Bill in Co."<surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:Well Rauni?? Come on back...Hi Bill I hope you don't mind an unsolicited email. I'm sorry abut thecross posts from my sister and her ex. I was very stupid yesterday andresponded to them. I will prolly change my nic (to bad as I have hadRauni since 96). Hubby and ex-hubby (yes I am *very* close to the ex)say I have no choice to sue her for slander.

Dear stupid person, truth is an absolute defense to a
defamation suit. Slander refers to spoken defamation.
You obviously mean libel or the written form of
defamation.

You are more vulnerable to a defamation lawsuit than
anyone involved in that flame war. Malicious reposting
of untrue material that was posted and retracted long
ago constitutes a new instance of defamation you
stalker.

Any lawsuit will be occasion for several countersuits
from the various interested parties and will be
contested vigorously.

Crash Street Kidd

<repost>

Well I will admit I did repost Ondrea's rant about Vlad this time and her
ifreinds account.
<SNIP>
Actually it was Ondrea who gave me the idea to hit her. It hadn't even
occurred to me until she looked into my eyes and said don't you hit me. So
I did.
- -Rauni <ladywolf@newsguy.com>
Message-ID: <gl1c50hvqujiiqimdcn12cahf75fflbp83@4ax.com>

</repost>

In article <ktlf50pkcm7o4f692ltivrld73le3pql72@4ax.com>, Rauni says...On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:29:20 GMT, "Bill in Co."<surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:Well Rauni?? Come on back...Hi Bill I hope you don't mind an unsolicited email. I'm sorry abut thecross posts from my sister and her ex. I was very stupid yesterday andresponded to them. I will prolly change my nic (to bad as I have hadRauni since 96). Hubby and ex-hubby (yes I am *very* close to the ex)say I have no choice to sue her for slander.

Dear stupid person, truth is an absolute defense to a
defamation suit. Slander refers to spoken defamation.
You obviously mean libel or the written form of
defamation.

You are more vulnerable to a defamation lawsuit than
anyone involved in that flame war. Malicious reposting
of untrue material that was posted and retracted long
ago constitutes a new instance of defamation you
stalker.

Any lawsuit will be occasion for several countersuits
from the various interested parties and will be
contested vigorously.

Crash Street Kidd

<repost>

Well I will admit I did repost Ondrea's rant about Vlad this time and her
ifreinds account.
<SNIP>
Actually it was Ondrea who gave me the idea to hit her. It hadn't even
occurred to me until she looked into my eyes and said don't you hit me. So
I did.
- -Rauni <ladywolf@newsguy.com>
Message-ID: <gl1c50hvqujiiqimdcn12cahf75fflbp83@4ax.com>

</repost>

Crash Street Kidd wrote:

[....] Dear stupid person, truth is an absolute defense to a defamation suit. Slander refers to spoken defamation. You obviously mean libel or the written form of defamation. You are more vulnerable to a defamation lawsuit than anyone involved in that flame war. Malicious reposting of untrue material that was posted and retracted long ago constitutes a new instance of defamation you stalker. Any lawsuit will be occasion for several countersuits from the various interested parties and will be contested vigorously. Crash Street Kidd

[....]


Dear Vlad,

I really enjoyed reading your lawyer letter. I was impressed
with the conciseness of how you were able to go directly to
the point without elaboration and superfluous detail. I
really really liked the greeting of "Dear stupid person". I
feel if more lawyer letters were written addressing the litigator
as "Dear stupid person" then we might be able to bring about an
end to some of the costly and unnecessary litigation that goes on
in this world.

thank you for an enjoyable read.

good day to you Vlad.

Crash Street Kidd wrote:

[....] Dear stupid person, truth is an absolute defense to a defamation suit. Slander refers to spoken defamation. You obviously mean libel or the written form of defamation. You are more vulnerable to a defamation lawsuit than anyone involved in that flame war. Malicious reposting of untrue material that was posted and retracted long ago constitutes a new instance of defamation you stalker. Any lawsuit will be occasion for several countersuits from the various interested parties and will be contested vigorously. Crash Street Kidd

[....]


Dear Vlad,

I really enjoyed reading your lawyer letter. I was impressed
with the conciseness of how you were able to go directly to
the point without elaboration and superfluous detail. I
really really liked the greeting of "Dear stupid person". I
feel if more lawyer letters were written addressing the litigator
as "Dear stupid person" then we might be able to bring about an
end to some of the costly and unnecessary litigation that goes on
in this world.

thank you for an enjoyable read.

good day to you Vlad.

In article <40601819.C445B8E0@bellsouth.net>, Jim Ledford says...Crash Street Kidd wrote:[....] Dear stupid person, truth is an absolute defense to a defamation suit. Slander refers to spoken defamation. You obviously mean libel or the written form of defamation. You are more vulnerable to a defamation lawsuit than anyone involved in that flame war. Malicious reposting of untrue material that was posted and retracted long ago constitutes a new instance of defamation you stalker. Any lawsuit will be occasion for several countersuits from the various interested parties and will be contested vigorously. Crash Street Kidd[....]Dear Vlad,I really enjoyed reading your lawyer letter. I was impressedwith the conciseness of how you were able to go directly tothe point without elaboration and superfluous detail. Ireally really liked the greeting of "Dear stupid person". Ifeel if more lawyer letters were written addressing the litigatoras "Dear stupid person" then we might be able to bring about anend to some of the costly and unnecessary litigation that goes onin this world.thank you for an enjoyable read.

You are welcome, Jim.
good day to you Vlad.

Good day to you too, Jim.

Crash Street Kidd

In article <40601819.C445B8E0@bellsouth.net>, Jim Ledford says...Crash Street Kidd wrote:[....] Dear stupid person, truth is an absolute defense to a defamation suit. Slander refers to spoken defamation. You obviously mean libel or the written form of defamation. You are more vulnerable to a defamation lawsuit than anyone involved in that flame war. Malicious reposting of untrue material that was posted and retracted long ago constitutes a new instance of defamation you stalker. Any lawsuit will be occasion for several countersuits from the various interested parties and will be contested vigorously. Crash Street Kidd[....]Dear Vlad,I really enjoyed reading your lawyer letter. I was impressedwith the conciseness of how you were able to go directly tothe point without elaboration and superfluous detail. Ireally really liked the greeting of "Dear stupid person". Ifeel if more lawyer letters were written addressing the litigatoras "Dear stupid person" then we might be able to bring about anend to some of the costly and unnecessary litigation that goes onin this world.thank you for an enjoyable read.

You are welcome, Jim.
good day to you Vlad.

Good day to you too, Jim.

Crash Street Kidd