# Revert back to one person working outside the home



## billinwv (Sep 27, 2013)

When I was a kid almost no family had two people working outside the home. At that time it was usually the man. I wonder if we went back to that if it would help the middle class in the long run (one or the other could work regardless of sex) I think it would lower the unemployment rate and raise wages because employers would be competing for workers, one person in the 60's and even the 70's could work and support a family. This would open entry level jobs back up to the teenagers who are now competing with adults for low paying positions. Forget raising the minimum wage, that would take care of itself as employers competed for help. Not to mention the fact that children would have a parent at home, clean laundry, home cooked meals etc. Heck might even reduce the divorce rate and teenage delinquency. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, just been on my mind lately. Been watching too much Leave it to Beaver lol. I seriously do not know how parents work 40 plus hrs each per week and maintain a household much less care for children. Mothers can't even count on help from Nana because she works also!


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Women taking regular work outside the home just diluted the workforce and resulted in lower pay all around. I'm sure the corporations love it.


----------



## V-NH (Jan 1, 2014)

My wife would love to stay at home. Unfortunately, after paying for a bachelors and a masters degree, staying at home is not an option. It would be great if she could though


----------



## billinwv (Sep 27, 2013)

V-NH said:


> My wife would love to stay at home. Unfortunately, after paying for a bachelors and a masters degree, staying at home is not an option. It would be great if she could though


My SI has two masters degrees and is working on a doctorate and has not worked full-time outside our home for more than 2 of the last 18 years. I, on the other hand, have worked lots of 60 plus hr weeks and boy do I appreciate a clean home, dinner etc. and the time it still gives me to garden, milk goats, and do the general homesteading thing. I'm very lucky.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

I would wonder if the husband and wife would be willing to reduce their vehicles down to ONE single vehicle. That is what many of the households had - ONE vehicle. Dad took it to work, and Mom would go once a week for groceries - either in the evening or on Saturday.

And back in those days - grocery stores were only open Monday - Saturday - they were CLOSED on Sundays. There was no Walmart and NO store open 24 hours / day. Restaurants, gas stations, were only open morning to evening.

There are a lot more expenses than there used to be. TV used to be free - IF your antenna could pick up the station. Nowadays you need Cable or a Satellite. Everyone in the family now has a cellphone. Not only does Dad and Mom each have their own car, nowadays many of the kids have their own car.

And women's rights would take a huge step backwards. After all, it would be the majority of husband's working out in the world, the wife - well, she "just" is a stay at home Mom.

Wishful thinking - but there is NO going back to those days.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

My parents are in their 80's. Our household always had 2 working parents. In theory, the idea of having one parent at home sounds doable. However, not everyone is wired to be a stay at home parent. My mom always enjoyed the work pace and problem-solving that was necessary to run an office in a hospital. My dad enjoyed the work that he did, too. I don't think that either of them were necessarily suited to staying home full-time with the kids and I'm not sure that we would have wanted them to! 

They were always frugal and never had more than one vehicle. They commuted to work together each day, so there was only one insurance payment and they paid cash for their cars.

I do think that the financial expectations have changed in modern society. Most children no longer receive hand me down clothes from older siblings and most households have at least two vehicles. Children are programmed to believe that they must partake in every costly extra-curricular activity and that they need the latest and greatest electronics. Kids' sports are approached as aggressively as though a pro-ball contract is the works and parents pay for all sorts of "special" training sessions and equipment to support that foregone conclusion. Parents are deluded into thinking that they are not successful unless they are able to provide all of those things, so they spend to the hilt to provide those things.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

TheMartianChick said:


> My parents are in their 80's. Our household always had 2 working parents. In theory, the idea of having one parent at home sounds doable. *However, not everyone is wired to be a stay at home parent.* My mom always enjoyed the work pace and problem-solving that was necessary to run an office in a hospital. My dad enjoyed the work that he did, too. I don't think that either of them were necessarily suited to staying home full-time with the kids and I'm not sure that we would have wanted them to!
> 
> They were always frugal and never had more than one vehicle. They commuted to work together each day, so there was only one insurance payment and they paid cash for their cars.
> 
> I do think that the financial expectations have changed in modern society. Most children no longer receive hand me down clothes from older siblings and most households have at least two vehicles. Children are programmed to believe that they must partake in every costly extra-curricular activity and that they need the latest and greatest electronics. Kids' sports are approached as aggressively as though a pro-ball contract is the works and parents pay for all sorts of "special" training sessions and equipment to support that foregone conclusion. Parents are deluded into thinking that they are not successful unless they are able to provide all of those things, so they spend to the hilt to provide those things.



I don't understand. If neither parent is wired to be with their kids, why did they have them? Seems like a dog would be a better choice.

I liked being with the kids, but fortunately was able to support the family while my wife stayed home. Can't imagine putting a 6 week old in daycare.

Now raising kids is about efficiency. Have a herd of them watched by one person so ten or twenty parents can do what they want. My wife now teaches school and sees how little interest many parents have in their kids. They need a lot more attention than she can provide.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The explosion of women into the work force was one of the factors that increased the living standard. So losing that would most likely reduce it. But I don't know, with so many one parent households, whether it is doable at the moment. Eventually it could change but a sudden change would not even be a starter.

BTW in my parent's household, my mother drove my father to work and picked him up each evening. She had the car during the day. But then again, hardly anyone had huge commutes that so many have today.

But as theory for increasing work availability and wages, with immigration such as it is, it would not have an effect any more than the number of nonworking Americans has already effected it.


----------



## clovis (May 13, 2002)

My question would be:

Would anyone in our society actually do this? 

I see a ton of younger people who say, at least in some crowds, that they would love for their wife or husband to be able to stay home. "We just can't do it" they'll say.

I tend to agree that often, it takes two incomes to make ends meet, especially if you want to own a home. Home values vary tremendously. Our area tends to have high house values, so you better have one really great income, or two decent ones.

But on the other hand, I interpret "We just can't make it on one income" as really meaning "We don't want to live on one income."

I know several young couples. Many of them absolutely refuse to give up the fancy cars with leather seats, the tricked out 4WD diesel trucks with rims and tires that cost more than two of my cars combined, two iPhones, an annual vacation to a swanky destination, do without cable TV with 900 channels, a 60 inch TV in each bedroom, expensive hobbies, drinks on the weekends, and steak every night, all in the comfort of their 3,200 square foot home.

The truth is that they could do it, but it is going to have to be in 1,500 SF home, giving up the iPhones, driving sensible vehicles, and paying cash for them....and they are not going to be living in the new "up and coming subdivisions" where all of the other Jones' live.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I'm not understanding how a person out of a couple staying home and working there means a step backwards for women's rights. That makes no sense what so ever. It's people like you who say things like that and I guess mean them that belittle and dismiss women who chose to work at home, for no pay and _currently_ reduce the respect due a fellow human.

And Where I want to, you are right between immigration and H1B Visas, it wouldn't make any difference these days.


----------



## Skandi (Oct 21, 2014)

When I was living in the UK (Scotland) rent on a one bed flat in my area was Â£600 a month so that's Â£7,200 a year property tax is (middle band) Â£1,000 gas/electric/water runs at Â£200 a month. (Â£2400 a year) 

Minimum wage was Â£6 per hour maximum hours per week under the european working time directive is 48 (some employers will let you sign and do more but many will not.)
overtime doesn't exist, neither does sat/sun bonus pay. so yearly pay before tax is 15k 
after tax that's 12,300 ish. SO that leaves you Â£2000 a year or Â£40 a week (about $60) I've not included a car, telephone, internet, insurances or ANY travel costs. 

On a minimum wage it really is not possible to live on one persons income. to even survive you would need to earn over double the minimum. and even then if you needed dental work, or something went wrong, it would be very difficult to manage and in my numbers above I have used a 1 bedroomed apartment for the rent (aprox 600-700sqr ft) a friend of mine in the South of England pays twice that in rent for a two bedroomed house. I doubt the UK and US are that different in pay/costs not from what I have read on here. One worker just isn't viable unless you earn very well these days.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

My parents are in their 80s. I'm the youngest of 4. We always had 2 vehicles and my mom stayed home. We always had a big garden, wore hand me downs, and my mom made many of the clothes that my sister and I wore. Don't know why she didn't make clothes for my brothers. 

I wonder how many people actually need the income of 2 people. I sat down one day and figured out about how much I could make if I were to work outside the home. By the time I had added in extra for nice clothes, make up, child care, higher utility bills, higher food costs, etc, I was left w/about $40.00/week. So that meant I would have been making a whole dollar an hour, if that. It wasn't worth it.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Living with a single income does not mean living poorly. Perhaps it means living frugally but not poorly. Dizzy brings up a good point. I know my grandparents always had a garden and ate well for less because of it. And because cousins and neighborhood kids were in 4-H they participated in the auctions and had nice meat too.

We don't purchase brand new vehicles, we buy with cash. It's cheaper, here at least, to purchase a live grass fed steer and take him to a processor than to buy beef at a store. We raise chickens and goats, we are moving into rabbits too. I work hard in exchange for our superior food and lower grocery bills.

And technically I guess we pay double for schooling since there is no property tax discount for home schoolers. I do that too for all three and will for number four that I am carrying too. 

I can make, or have in past, made as much as my husband. But between higher childcare costs, and more gas, giving up time on weekends to make a full week of lunches and dinners for everyone before hand... what exactly would be the benefit? More stress and less contact? 

Some people value things that I find to be very silly and frivolous.


----------



## V-NH (Jan 1, 2014)

billinwv said:


> My SI has two masters degrees and is working on a doctorate and has not worked full-time outside our home for more than 2 of the last 18 years. I, on the other hand, have worked lots of 60 plus hr weeks and boy do I appreciate a clean home, dinner etc. and the time it still gives me to garden, milk goats, and do the general homesteading thing. I'm very lucky.


I am salaried, not hourly, and my job already requires me to work 50+ hours a week. I also commute 80 minutes each way, to and from work. There's no more time in a day for me to work more and I definitely don't make enough money to pay her student loans and all of our other expenses on my own. Our student loan payments are larger than our mortgage payment because we're trying to pay them off in a reasonable time frame. We still do really well financially, it just requires that we both work full time. Gotta live with the consequences of our life decisions, and our consequence is that we both have to work 50+ hours a week for at least six more years. You know what I mean?


----------



## MamaTiger (Jun 11, 2008)

We already live that way. I have a BS in education and I have been a SAHM for over 24 years now. We have two vehicles, but dh uses one and our oldest son uses the other, both are needed for business use (we have a fruit/produce business where dh and son deliver food and other products to customers and they run different routes).

We have two cell phones, both are used by dh and oldest son because they are out and away from home without an office phone all day...up to 5 hours from home.

I homeschool the remaining children, can and dehydrate whatever I can get my hands on, pay the bills, both personal and business. It's my job to make the money stretch as far as I can.

It's not easy. We do without a lot of things that others have...because they have a 2 income family. But I am happy to be at home.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

TheMartianChick said:


> My parents are in their 80's. Our household always had 2 working parents. In theory, the idea of having one parent at home sounds doable. However, not everyone is wired to be a stay at home parent. My mom always enjoyed the work pace and problem-solving that was necessary to run an office in a hospital. My dad enjoyed the work that he did, too. I don't think that either of them were necessarily suited to staying home full-time with the kids and I'm not sure that we would have wanted them to!
> 
> They were always frugal and never had more than one vehicle. They commuted to work together each day, so there was only one insurance payment and they paid cash for their cars.
> 
> I do think that the financial expectations have changed in modern society. Most children no longer receive hand me down clothes from older siblings and most households have at least two vehicles. Children are programmed to believe that they must partake in every costly extra-curricular activity and that they need the latest and greatest electronics. Kids' sports are approached as aggressively as though a pro-ball contract is the works and parents pay for all sorts of "special" training sessions and equipment to support that foregone conclusion. *Parents are deluded into thinking that they are not successful unless they are able to provide all of those things, so they spend to the hilt to provide those things.*


Quite a coincidence. I just started a thread related to the corollary of your point.

I grew up very poor. My parents could not give me much in the ways of material items. 

I was lucky to earn a good living and I think maybe gave my kids too much. It simply made me feel good to be able to give my kids things.

I am not saying indulging my kids was good. I do think I have learned something about raising kids. Unfortunately I learned a little to late.

My wife worked on and off, never had a career. She just wanted to be outside with adults some. She stayed home mostly when the kids were young.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

I've pretty much made the living the last thirty years (I'm 55). I've worked some long, long hours - I wouldn't know a 40hr week if it walked up and kicked me in the shins. Because of all that, I missed a lot of things with the kids, from ball games to band concerts.

But...

My kids had the advantage of having Mom home almost all of the time. I had the advantage of knowing the kids were well taken care of and whenever I did get home, 30,000 things that had to be done NOW, weren't staring me in the face.

That's worth every hour and every minute, even if some of them were staring glass-eyed at a wall at three in the morning.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

That is something each family has to decide for themselves. Some women thrive as SAHM's, others don't. 

Most women didn't work outside the home when I was a kid, either. 
Most homes didn't have a/c, even a window unit
Most families had 1 car. There was no "shame" in riding the bus, me and my grandmother did it often.
Seldom ate in a restaurant
It was still common to hang laundry out on the line
Kids got hand me down clothes and toys from older siblings
Few kids had their own room
Most houses only had 1 bathroom
One tv in the house, many were still b/w
No cell phones, no cable, no internet to pay for
Soda was a treat, a carton of 8, 20 oz glass bottles was a week's supply for the family
Water out of the tap was fine to drink, or out of the garden hose when you were outside
One galvanized trash can for the family for a week was plenty. We didn't generate such mountains of trash back then.

...and so on. Most people would have to scale down their lifestyle substantially to allow one parent to stay home with the kids.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

There are now more than 76 million cats in the United States.

The amount of money needed to buy merely food and litter for that number is astronomical; and that doesn't even take into account the spending for silly catnip toys or those goofy carpet-covered tree thingies.

But, put all those cats out on their own and we'd have no songbirds.

So, almost everyone in the house has to work, mainly to pay for our civilization's mistakes.


----------



## dlskidmore (Apr 18, 2012)

It's all about priorities. If we gave up farming and moved to suburbia near work, sold the truck and got a smaller car of the same age, I could quit work immediately. But... We have 17 acres 40 miles from where we work, and the old home is a big, drafty and expensive to heat. Farm expenses like fencing are killing the short term budget as well. We work hard on paying down debt, we have two vehicles over 10 years old with no liens on them, but we do get to live fairly well on our incidental spending. I'd get the farm startup expenses paid for faster if I lived less well, but it's hard to see that long term budget when each individual purchase isn't a big deal.

The only reason we can afford the farm at all is because we spent 10 years living in the hood, paying off school loans and saving up our down payment. (The house in the hood was paid off in 4.5 years, leaving us with only maintenance costs while we took care of other priorities and weathered a storm.)

I really want to be at home, I may already have put off childbearing too long, but I couldn't see putting an infant in daycare nor staying in the hood as the child grew.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Skandi said:


> On a minimum wage it really is not possible to live on one persons income.


Minimum wage is an entry level wage for teens, it was never meant to be a living wage.


----------



## Skandi (Oct 21, 2014)

mnn2501 said:


> Minimum wage is an entry level wage for teens, it was never meant to be a living wage.


oh no..not in the UK, minimum wage doesn't kick in till 18 and between 18 and 21 it is way less. full minimum wage is only for people over 22 most supermarkets, pubs, shops etc etc pay minimum, or just over. It isn't a choice to have two people working there, it is a necesity, mainly becasue rent will take half your earnings before you even start


----------



## Debbie in Wa (Dec 28, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> That is something each family has to decide for themselves. Some women thrive as SAHM's, others don't.
> 
> Most women didn't work outside the home when I was a kid, either.
> Most homes didn't have a/c, even a window unit
> ...



I remember this oh so well. We always hung our clothes out on the line. The only times we got new toys was for our birthdays and Christmas. We got new clothes every new school year. Our old clothes were then turned into play clothes. We drank out of the garden hose every day since we were outdoors playing all the time. We only got three stations back then on the antenna. We only ate out once or twice a month and went to Grandma's house every Saturday for supper. After supper we watched t.v, Hee Haw, Women's roller derby, Men's wresting. We took all the leftovers home. Once or twice a month Dad would load us up in the car to go for a Sunday drive. Dad turned the pony corral into a huge vegetable garden and if we wanted a snack, we headed that direction.
Oh how I loved to live in those days. They were so simple back then and your neighbor didn't try to out do you with the latest of anything cause it just wasn't that important enough. We always had our neighbors help if and when it was needed, and we always helped out when we could.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I'd like to know more about what happened. From what I can understand, woman's lib came along, they got jobs and someone saw prime time to raise the cost of everything. Now here we are.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Skandi said:


> oh no..not in the UK, minimum wage doesn't kick in till 18 and between 18 and 21 it is way less. full minimum wage is only for people over 22 most supermarkets, pubs, shops etc etc pay minimum, or just over. It isn't a choice to have two people working there, it is a necesity, mainly becasue rent will take half your earnings before you even start


See that sounds to me like people who are conditioned to accept a low standard of living. ~shrug~ But then again, living on less than 20 acres seems like a low standard of living to me.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

DJ in WA said:


> I don't understand. If neither parent is wired to be with their kids, why did they have them? Seems like a dog would be a better choice.
> 
> I liked being with the kids, but fortunately was able to support the family while my wife stayed home. Can't imagine putting a 6 week old in daycare.
> 
> Now raising kids is about efficiency. Have a herd of them watched by one person so ten or twenty parents can do what they want. My wife now teaches school and sees how little interest many parents have in their kids. They need a lot more attention than she can provide.


We never lacked for attention. Our parents spent time with us, but it was in the evening and on weekends. We weren't left to our own devices...I had the same babysitter from the age of three until I was 12. My dad taught each of us to read long before we ever went off to school and mom helped with homework when we got older. My parents were never the type to go out and hang out with other couples, so every night and weekend was family time.

We played board games and had lots of really good conversations about articles from magazines or newspapers. We had chores and learned to garden and take care of our farm animals. All of our food was cooked from scratch and it was a rare treat to get fast food. The house was generally neat and everyone was expected to clean up after themselves. We all knew how to do a load of laundry, so we weren't naked or anything! I really don't see what additional benefit there would have been if one of my parents had been at home 24/7.

As it was, my parents had successful careers and my sisters and I got good grades and grew up to be productive citizens.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

CraterCove said:


> I'm not understanding how a person out of a couple staying home and working there means a step backwards for women's rights. That makes no sense what so ever. It's people like you who say things like that and I guess mean them that belittle and dismiss women who chose to work at home, for no pay and _currently_ reduce the respect due a fellow human.
> 
> And Where I want to, you are right between immigration and H1B Visas, it wouldn't make any difference these days.


For parents who wish to stay at home with their children, it is a wonderful option and I fully support and respect that decision. I have many friends who have opted to homeschool. They find it extremely rewarding and beneficial. I've also seen a few folks who homeschool and probably shouldn't! (Of course, it isn't really my place to tell them that, so I don't!) Life is about being able to make the choices that are best suited to your set of circumstances and there should be no shame in that.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

7thswan said:


> *I'd like to know more about what happened.* From what I can understand, woman's lib came along, they got jobs and someone saw prime time to raise the cost of everything. Now here we are.


You have that a little bit in reverse.

War happened. It happened before women's lib and women's lib happened after women started working outside of the home during war.

In the order of occurrences - The men went away to war and the women had to go to work to do the men's jobs so that the nation could carry on without the men. Women discovered they were just as good as men were in the men's domain doing what had always been called men's work and the women got paid for doing it. Albeit, typically they didn't get paid as much as men did for doing the same work but they still got paid and the nation survived with the women doing the work. When the men came back from war many women didn't want to go back to doing what they felt was the equivalent of being unpaid brood mares and servants with no personal income, very few rights and no say or control over their own lives and bodies and destinies.

That was the catalyst that began the women's liberation movements of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Many, many women continued at doing outside jobs and being paid for it, contributing extra income into the family and raising the living standards and benefits of themselves and their families (whether they were married with children or not) and then the women's liberation movements started and women demanded equal rights and equal pay for equal work as well as equal say over their own bodies. More woman elected to stay single for longer and started going on to higher education and more professional, higher paid jobs instead of marrying straight out of high school and starting a family right away. They wanted what was, for them, a better life and more benefits and advantages for themselves and their families.

There's nothing wrong with women or men electing to be stay at home parents/spouses for their families if they can afford it. But the majority of families cannot afford it today because there are so many more expensive things that need to be supported if people want to maintain the status quo and the more advantaged and privileged lifestyles that people today have become accustomed to.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I want to add something extra to my above post.

It wasn't just America that it happened in, it happened in all nations. And it wasn't only WW2 that was the catalyst. It started with WW1 and then again with the Depression and then again with WW2. 

In each of those 3 events women had to take any employment they could find to help support the nations and to support their families for the sake of everyone's survival. In many instances husbands and fathers didn't return from the wars because they died, or else they were injured and no longer able to carry on with employment when they returned and so the women still had to continue working and supporting their families.


----------



## InTownForNow (Oct 16, 2008)

We do this. Since I became pregnant with our first child I have stayed home. We now have 4, soon to add two more. It's not oppressive and I don't feel that my "rights" are being trampled on. I have a very important job. I homeschool and raise our kids, feed our family, take care of them when they are sick, and teach our kids to be responsible contributions to society. I love doing it and I would hate to work at another job. 
I think it helps that all dh's sil's are stay at home moms and in the family and in our church family it's considered a good thing. Not that we do it because our faith demands it or anything. We made these kids, we will raise them. It's not anyone else's job or right to do it. 
I think if the country went back to natural roles of males and females- males( being generally stronger, hardier, and having that seemingly lost quality of leadership/ responsibility for their families) and females ( being generally more nurturing, tender, and having that seemingly lost ability at homemaking) we would be in a better place all around. 
I understand about single parent homes, my thoughts on the issue are not a condemnation or judgement on them. No one is perfect, no situation is perfect.


----------



## fixitguy (Nov 2, 2010)

I know many people that only have 1 or 1 1/2 incomes, since the great recession of 08'
I am the stay a home guy~kinda.
After my big plant closing in 2005 and the economy going south after that, I was taking home about $200 per week after child care and fuel expenses. At the time my son was young, and we would get calls from the school to come and pick him up all the time. (long story there)
I opened my business in 07', I had little expectations, after all, I just had to make more than $200 per week and I would be ahead of the game.
Now, If he is sick, school closes or vacation time, he comes to work with me.

My nephew has two young kids (3 & 5) at home. His wife is the bread winner. His plans are to open a repair shop at home this spring. He is in about the same boat I was, $400 per week in childcare and $100 per week in gas for the car.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

V-NH said:


> My wife would love to stay at home. Unfortunately, after paying for a bachelors and a masters degree, staying at home is not an option. It would be great if she could though


I have to call general bull feathers on this. Unless you have tons of debt and are just making it now you can make it on one pay check, you just have to adjust your life style.

I know lots of people in all sorts of jobs who are doing it; teachers, truck drivers, factory workers.

I don't know about you in specific but most of the people who tell me this look at me like I'm stupid when I ask them how many vehicles do they have and how many of them have loans on them. They almost always have at least two 'cars' (each with loans on them). Then they will also talk about their boat or ATVs. Then there's their cell phones (everyone in the house has the latest and greatest with a big dollar plan), their cable/satellite TV bill (and of course a TV in almost every room), the trips to the high dollar theme parks and computers, tablets, gaming systems. . . .

They look at me like I have two heads when I suggest they sell their toys and cut back on their spending. Then you could have one person working and one at home. You'll notice that Wally and the Beaver didn't have a lot of junk in their room (notice they didn't each have a room, smaller house equals lower cost).


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2014)

A lot of the dual income surge came around when Mothers, who had been working for whatever reason, decided to stay employed - it afforded them a better house, in a better neighborhood, with better schools -- when their home had the second income. 
Pretty soon, everyone wanted to become dual income families...

I recently quit working. 
I just am not making enough as a 30 year IT professional in this area. My income had dropped by 60% over the past decade. It was to the point that I was making LESS than I had in 1987 as a secretary!

The month I quit work, my gasoline bill dropped from over $200 per month, to about $50 every six weeks or so...
Then add in the days I was unable to come home for lunch and had to buy lunch. Tools. Clothing. Wear and tear on my vehicle. Certifications in my field are very pricey! All sorts of crap...
Add to that, having to purchase foods that were not necessarily a bargain, so dinners cost more. The house always was a mess, because South Texas is a dusty place and we have three dogs traipsing in and out, tracking in gunk. LOL! Errands had to be run after work or on weekends, so wasted time swimming through the throngs of other workers trying to get their errands done after work. 
All sorts of odd wasters...

Losing my income, hasn't really been very impactive. Sad to say...


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

That is a lot of the point though Traci. I feel like people put too much value on their dollar price in the job market. You are not worth what someone else will pay for you, you are a human and therefore of infinite value. 

I watched my husband struggle with the fact no one in his field of 25 years would hire him for over two years. He only thought of himself in terms of how much money someone else would give him to work for them. Sheesh... being a female who has always been a stay at home wife and mother I had to come to terms with the fact that many people, the majority of people I came across felt my existence had little value or negative value.

I hope the comparison is not too harsh for the forum but seriously I feel like the world as it stands has people in the position of prostitutes and feeling unworthy if no one will buy their body.


----------



## Whisperwindkat (May 28, 2009)

My husband works outside the home and I am a stay at home mom. I have a BS in biology and I do some freelance work as I am able. We live on a very tight budget but we live well. We have 2 cars, one of which is parked most of the time, own our little farm and we manage. I grow a large garden year round (mostly), I grocery shop frugally, we hunt or barters with friends that are hunters, homeschool the children, sew, cook from scratch, and anything else to keep within our budget. When I was working full time, I made more than my husband. I also worked more hours, sometimes 70 plus a week. I never saw my daughter, never had time to cook, had to hire someone to clean the house. We also paid private school tuition and before and after school care costs. Then we had the extra gas and maintenance expenses of a car that was on the road everyday. I had work clothes to buy and maintain and our grocery bill was large because I wasn't home to cook from scratch. I "make" almost as much as I did when I worked because of all the things that I do around the house to save money. Just the housekeeper and child school/afterschool costs were half my salary. Yes, sometimes it means that we do without something until we save enough for it. We manage to live comfortably, the children don't want for much, they are happy and well adjusted, we are happy and well adjusted. Life is good and very doable on a LEOs pay in today's world. Blessings, Kat


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

billinwv said:


> When I was a kid almost no family had two people working outside the home. At that time it was usually the man. I wonder if we went back to that if it would help the middle class in the long run (one or the other could work regardless of sex)


Both of my parents worked. I was a latch key kid in the 70's.
Went to babysitters before that.
That left me with A LOT of free time....



> I think it would lower the unemployment rate and raise wages because employers would be competing for workers, one person in the 60's and even the 70's could work and support a family. This would open entry level jobs back up to the teenagers who are now competing with adults for low paying positions. Forget raising the minimum wage, that would take care of itself as employers competed for help.


IMHO if the work force was predominately male, then you would have less work-place affairs destroying marriages!! Double bonus!!



> Not to mention the fact that children would have a parent at home, clean laundry, home cooked meals etc. Heck might even reduce the divorce rate and teenage delinquency.


Yep, but LONG gone are the days of "Doing the right thing" or "Sacrificing Self on the alter of Parenthood"
Stay at home moms are treated like garbage by the working moms (which out number the stay at homes these days). 

It's a mixed up screwed up world, but it's all we got so we make the best of it!!



> I know I'm preaching to the choir here, just been on my mind lately. Been watching too much Leave it to Beaver lol. I seriously do not know how parents work 40 plus hrs each per week and maintain a household much less care for children. Mothers can't even count on help from Nana because she works also!


Yep. That's why so many people have nannies, or they stick the oldest kid (12 or so) with the responsibility of the youngers. 

Hey women wanted all this liberation.......
Sad the rest of us have to pay for it.


----------



## dlskidmore (Apr 18, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Yep, but LONG gone are the days of "Doing the right thing" or "Sacrificing Self on the alter of Parenthood"


I disagree, and think that is part of the problem. How much time did Mrs. Cleaver actually spend with The Beve? She spent her days doing her own thing, and was a resource for the boys when they needed her. Today's mother is convinced the children need her every minute of the day for proper development. It's not enough to give your children one-on-one attention when they need it, and provide proper discipline, you have to arrange activities, plan their lives, and solve every difficulty for them. Young mothers are in total burnout and find it easier to hire a professional to take care of the kids and go back to work to pay for it. If they had more pride in their homes, and hobbies to do at home, and friends to socialize with during the day, they could have a life with the children in tow, give the kids more exposure to adult activities and real life, rather than spending all their energy creating happy child bubbles.


----------



## dlskidmore (Apr 18, 2012)

Whisperwindkat said:


> I ... sew, ... and anything else to keep within our budget.


Have things swung back around to make it cheaper to make than to buy again? We gave up on making our own clothes in the 90s because the cheap stuff from overseas costs less than fabric and patterns.

Mending is definitely a net savings.

I do still sew sometimes anyway, there are things it is hard to find in the store that fit properly, and sewing it myself is certainly more economical than hiring a tailor. I even make my own shoes because I have funny shaped feet, but poorly fitting store shoes would be cheaper than the leather and wool I buy.


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

My mother was a stay at home mom way back when.My older brother was born in the late 40s, I was born in the early 50s. Was it tough living on my dad's salary alone? Sure it was, but we got by. I once told my mom that I had no idea we were 'poor' as we were always rich in love. The only time I can remember my mom working was for a short period of time when my dad injured his back and unable to work. Then he was our stay at home dad. There was always a parent at home when we went to school though and when we got home.

Something has seriously happened to our culture though and I won't even venture a guess as to what it is although I seriously suspect it is an addiction to materialistic possessions over the closeness of family.

Several years ago I remember sitting in the dental hygienist's chair getting my teeth cleaned. The hygienist was a young lady I knew and I was aware that she had just had her second baby. Her other little one was 3 or 4 years old and I commented on how hard it must be on her being at work and not with her newborn baby. She just snorted and said, "goodness no! I couldn't stand to be around the kids all day!"

It's a good thing I had my mouth open with her polisher working on my teeth because my jaw hit the floor mentally. 

Why have children if you do not want to be the driving influence in teaching them and being with them in their earliest years? I guess I'm a dinosaur compared to the way people think today.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

I was just reminded of something that my mother told me when I interviewed her for a college project several years ago.

Most black families had working mothers, even when my mom was a child. Very few black families could afford to have mom at home because the wages were too low to allow a family to survive. My mom's family was an exception because it was a large one. With 13 children, there was always a ton of laundry and other household chores to be done. It required an adult at home to manage the workload. 

However, one black parent could not earn enough to support that many children. The kids were expected to work and the money was turned over to the parents to make ends meet. The older kids babysat, shoveled or rode trucks to the country to harvest crops in the field when school was out for the summer.

My mom was raised in an urban neighborhood that was mostly white and attended a school that had similar demographics. Kids were sent home for lunch and most of those white kids had no parent at home to prepare it for them. My mom wasn't raised in that idyllic, Leave It To Beaver-type world. As a kid, I think that I saw more of that type of upbringing among my friends in the 1970's, than she saw in the 1930's and 40's.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

TheMartianChick said:


> I was just reminded of something that my mother told me when I interviewed her for a college project several years ago.
> 
> Most black families had working mothers, even when my mom was a child. Very few black families could afford to have mom at home because the wages were too low to allow a family to survive. My mom's family was an exception because it was a large one. With 13 children, there was always a ton of laundry and other household chores to be done. It required an adult at home to manage the workload.
> 
> ...


I remember my mother telling me about her father collecting their pay checks as they came in the door on payday. It seemed that was the practice at that time- your money was the family's til you married (in that order) and left home. And father knew best- in a totally un-fifties way.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

CraterCove said:


> I'm not understanding how a person out of a couple staying home and working there means a step backwards for women's rights. That makes no sense what so ever. It's people like you who say things like that and I guess mean them that belittle and dismiss women who chose to work at home, for no pay and _currently_ reduce the respect due a fellow human.
> 
> And Where I want to, you are right between immigration and H1B Visas, it wouldn't make any difference these days.


As a SAHM for 30 years now, thank you!


----------



## mrs whodunit (Feb 3, 2012)

I for the most part stay home. I do work very part time, 3 different jobs. One of those jobs pays for our monthly haircuts, another cleaning job the girls also help me with..... that job pays for internet and cell phones.

The third job pays for all of our hay. What we don't need in hay is $. 

We decided before we got married that I would stay home for our kids.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

badlander said:


> My mother was a stay at home mom way back when.My older brother was born in the late 40s, I was born in the early 50s. Was it tough living on my dad's salary alone? Sure it was, but we got by. I once told my mom that I had no idea we were 'poor' as we were always rich in love.* The only time I can remember my mom working was for a short period of time when my dad injured his back and unable to work. Then he was our stay at home dad. There was always a parent at home when we went to school though and when we got home.*


The bolded passage stood out to me... Life can often come at you fast and when there is a financial issue in a one income household, the other parent may have to step up to the plate. However, decades spent outside of the workforce can make it difficult to rejoin it when necessary. If one parent is earning an income that can support a family, the loss of that one income can be devastating. If the other parent can only qualify for a low wage job due to not having current skills (or the perception that their skills are obsolete), then that family may find it difficult to stay afloat.


----------



## dlskidmore (Apr 18, 2012)

Financial stability is not the only kind of stability kids need, although the tighter things are for a family the more valuable a discipline of saving to get through tough times is. Even if both parents work, there is a lot of belt tightening going on after one income is lost. People find ways to spend money if they have it, it's not like the second income just goes into savings.


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

My mother worked, my grandmothers worked, and all but one of my great grandmothers worked outside the home. The great grandmother who didn't still worked, they were share croppers and she had to do his share of the work during WWI and then after he died. Maybe my family was rare but I didn't meet a stay at home mom till I started school.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

tiffnzacsmom said:


> My mother worked, my grandmothers worked, and all but one of my great grandmothers worked outside the home. The great grandmother who didn't still worked, they were share croppers and she had to do his share of the work during WWI and then after he died. Maybe my family was rare but I didn't meet a stay at home mom till I started school.


I don't think your family was rare. It was the same story in my family and I didn't meet any stay at home moms either until after I started school, and very few of them at that. My mother was born in 1907 and she was working a full time job by the time she was 14 (1921) to help support her large family of younger brothers and sisters. The next oldest sisters helped look after the younger siblings. Her mother worked and her grandmother (my great grandma) also worked full time. They didn't have a choice in the matter, they were all from blue collar families and had to contribute an outside income if they wanted their families to survive. 

Mom never stopped working full time outside of the home until the 1960's and then even after that she took in extra work as a seamstress to help make ends meet and to buy supplies that couldn't be produced from the homestead. In all those decades I think stay at home moms were the exception, not the rule. They were from more upper middle class white collar families (like the Bever's fantasy family) or privileged upper class families who could afford a stay at home mom and often a servant or two or more. I really haven't seen much change in society except that most middle class people today are somewhat wealthier and more privileged with more material luxuries and expectations by comparison with what middle class people had prior to the 1970's.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

I honesty believe there would have to be several changes in both the employment market as well as the family structure. When todays young parents say they would love to stay home but they just cant, I believe the "just cant" encompasses a bit of "I wont". I wont give up my whole life to raise kids, I wont forgo my educational plans to raise kids, I wont give up my friends and intellectual pursuits to raise kids.

It is really a very complicated topic that encompasses most parts of our current society. There is the wage thing, the value thing, the religious thing, the sexism thing, the equal rights things, the undervalued housewife thing, the bored stay at home mom thing etc etc. Once women were "allowed" into the general work force, I think in WWII maybe, all sorts of new ideas came to women and to men as well. Different ways life could be lived, should be lived, would be lived. You really cannot go home again it seems. sis


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

I have mostly been home with my children for the last 24+ years. I worked one day a week for 5 hours when my oldest was a baby and my in-laws watched her. I did this not for the income but to help a friend with his business. I stayed at home until about 7 years ago when I started doing part time work for the church that my husband is a pastor at. I homeschool so my kids have come with me while I did the computer work and the time was pretty flexible to work with our schedule. I'm grateful for these years I've been able to bring in a little something and have the great flexibility but I do prefer to just be home with the kids. I will most likely be getting a more full time job in a few years when my youngest begins high school in our local district.


----------



## dlskidmore (Apr 18, 2012)

sisterpine said:


> It is really a very complicated topic that encompasses most parts of our current society.


And that is the only thing everyone will agree on. Everyone has different circumstances and values which affect these decisions.


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

> In all those decades I think stay at home moms were the exception, not the rule. They were from more upper middle class white collar families (like the Bever's fantasy family) or privileged upper class families who could afford a stay at home mom


My mom worked when I was young. It wasn't that she didn't want to stay home and be part of the Bever Fantasy Family lifestyle, it's that her kids would have been hungry if she didn't. That was just the reality of life. People worked at all sorts of things to keep things going. 

And I don't know that "the good old days" were all that good for a large segment of society. I would not want to go back to that reality. Personally, I like being able to vote. I like being able to have a checking account or purchase property without having to have a man co-sign for it. I remember being shocked over some of the stories my mom told me about how "in the good old days" if a man abused his wife her only course of action was to contact the Humane Society. I had to go look it up because I couldn't quite believe it - and there it was. Sad, but true. I like being able to keep my own paycheck and not have to hand it over to someone else and then have to ask for some back if I need/want something. I also like it that the young women in my family have all kinds of opportunities available to them in terms of education and a career. They have choice. When I was growing up women were not encouraged to be anything other than stay at home moms or secretaries or elementary teachers. They can also stay home if that is what the family decision is. But they have a choice. 

The point I'm getting at is that I think it's better now because people have rights and choices not available to them in "the good old days." Maybe a lot of that wouldn't have come to pass had it not been for Rosie the Riveter. Hat tip to Rosie. You go, girl.


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

TheMartianChick said:


> The bolded passage stood out to me... Life can often come at you fast and when there is a financial issue in a one income household, the other parent may have to step up to the plate. However, decades spent outside of the workforce can make it difficult to rejoin it when necessary. If one parent is earning an income that can support a family, the loss of that one income can be devastating. If the other parent can only qualify for a low wage job due to not having current skills (or the perception that their skills are obsolete), then that family may find it difficult to stay afloat.


You are spot on, TMC. Mom had no work skills out side of being a homemaker. When Dad hurt his back (even though I was very young, I can still remember it) it was a pretty serious injury. He ruptured two discs in his back and underwent the first back surgery of that type in our area to repair it way back in the late 50s. It didn't turn out well and he suffered pain for the rest of his life.

Mom worked as a cashier for a while and then cleaning a house which allowed her to be home more and Dad to find part time work that he could handle. Was it tough for them? Definitely. We ate a lot of hamburger gravy on bread and hot dogs. Sunday was our 'big meal' day and we had fried chicken then. But we were never hungry, cold or unloved. Everyone pulled together, which is something I don't see happening in a lot of situations today.

To this day I shudder at the thought of hamburger gravy but look at those few years as being some of the happiest in my childhood simply because life was simpler.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> IMHO if the work force was predominately male, then you would have less work-place affairs destroying marriages!! Double bonus!!


The same could be said if the workplace were predominantly female ... no? 

I'm happiest when I work but have a SAH partner. Numb excels in this regard ... I tell him all the time, I couldn't do it without him! And I mean it! :kiss:

Two people working full-time is tough, though (BTDT too).


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

> Revert back to one person working outside the home


The world is a lot more complicated place today than it was 50 years ago. It's just not the kind of thing we can go back to.


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2014)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> ...
> 
> Hey women wanted all this liberation.......
> Sad the rest of us have to pay for it.



And even "with women's liberation" my wages were never equal to my male peers. I call shenanigans.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

billinwv said:


> When I was a kid almost no family had two people working outside the home. At that time it was usually the man. I wonder if we went back to that if it would help the middle class in the long run (one or the other could work regardless of sex) I think it would lower the unemployment rate and raise wages because employers would be competing for workers, one person in the 60's and even the 70's could work and support a family. This would open entry level jobs back up to the teenagers who are now competing with adults for low paying positions. Forget raising the minimum wage, that would take care of itself as employers competed for help. Not to mention the fact that children would have a parent at home, clean laundry, home cooked meals etc. Heck might even reduce the divorce rate and teenage delinquency. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, just been on my mind lately. Been watching too much Leave it to Beaver lol. I seriously do not know how parents work 40 plus hrs each per week and maintain a household much less care for children. Mothers can't even count on help from Nana because she works also!


LOL, are you volunteering? 

Ask many women, if they would like to go back home and become a "housewife".

"no thanks, I'll pass" might be the answer from many. It's more than money in many cases. It might lead to less stressful life, though.

I might do it now, only because our kids are gone.  



> one person in the 60's and even the 70's could work and support a family.


One person - usually with a high pay/benefit Union job, could but since then, wages have remained flat since then, while average consumer prices are 10 times higher.

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx?reloaded=true


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

V-NH said:


> My wife would love to stay at home. Unfortunately, after paying for a bachelors and a masters degree, staying at home is not an option. It would be great if she could though


I have 3 college degrees, and did 8 1/2 years in college. I'm still paying back the loans I took out for my Master's Degree. My DH has taken about a year's worth of college classes over his lifetime, and he works full time. I'm a SAHM 

Making ends meet in this day and age on a single salary is HARD. Especially in areas like we live in, where the cost of living is very high and the salaries aren't. However, it can be done, IF you're very careful in spending your money and IF the spouse who works makes enough to afford the ridiculously high housing costs here.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> The same could be said if the workplace were predominantly female ... no?
> 
> I'm happiest when I work but have a SAH partner. Numb excels in this regard ... I tell him all the time, I couldn't do it without him! And I mean it! :kiss:
> 
> Two people working full-time is tough, though (BTDT too).


.....


----------



## Jokarva (Jan 17, 2010)

CraterCove said:


> That is a lot of the point though Traci. I feel like people put too much value on their dollar price in the job market. You are not worth what someone else will pay for you, you are a human and therefore of infinite value.
> 
> I watched my husband struggle with the fact no one in his field of 25 years would hire him for over two years. He only thought of himself in terms of how much money someone else would give him to work for them. Sheesh... being a female who has always been a stay at home wife and mother I had to come to terms with the fact that many people, the majority of people I came across felt my existence had little value or negative value.
> 
> I hope the comparison is not too harsh for the forum but seriously I feel like the world as it stands has people in the position of prostitutes and feeling unworthy if no one will buy their body.



'You' may be invaluable, but your skills are only worth what someone else will pay for. Having zero marketable skills is a scary place to be, not a place I ever wanted to find myself.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Jokarva said:


> 'You' may be invaluable, but your skills are only worth what someone else will pay for. Having zero marketable skills is a scary place to be, not a place I ever wanted to find myself.


Sure. But I do think people underestimate the skills they have. (And many overestimate the skills they don't have )


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Ask many women, if they would like to go back home and become a "housewife".
> 
> "no thanks, I'll pass" might be the answer from many. It's more than money in many cases. It might lead to less stressful life, though.


I would stay home in a heartbeat - and I mostly do other than my part time job. But if I didn't have to work, I wouldn't and I'd just be home.

The best compliment I ever got - and a reality check of just how important my job as a stay at home mom and housewife was when we were really struggling financially and I offered to get a job. My husband said to me that he didn't want me to go out to work and he'd rather get a second job because as crazy life was, he knew home was a safe haven for him. He knew that when he crossed that threshold, there would be peace. Sure the kids might be crying and I may have burned dinner but it was what he could handle. He knew at least part of his life was under control and he SO appreciated me providing that for him and the rest of the family. Wow. I had no idea. That has always stuck with me and even now when we are once again struggling and I'm trying to figure out if I should get a better part time job with some more hours, I realize just how much that will affect our family in a negative way. Sometimes the money is not the real need.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

That is a great compliment.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

My wife had worked in banking for 15 years. Finally last year she did what she wanted abs became a stay at home mom and homeschooled our children. It has worked out well for us. We got frugal cut out TV and all unnecessary things like adult toys and what not. It's been great. Kids love it. Family is closer than ever as are my wife and I. I put in 50 hours a week on the farm and it pays the bills. If you can be frugal having a parent always home for the family and kids is the way to go.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> My wife had worked in banking for 15 years. Finally last year she did what she wanted abs became a stay at home mom and homeschooled our children. It has worked out well for us. We got frugal cut out TV and all unnecessary things like adult toys and what not. It's been great. Kids love it. Family is closer than ever as are my wife and I. I put in 50 hours a week on the farm and it pays the bills. If you can be frugal having a parent always home for the family and kids is the way to go.


That great, and the government encourages that by allowing people who were married for 10 years to inherit SS from a spouse. It's assumed that the say-at-home spouse provided a valuable service to society by raising kids to become productive, law-abiding citizens.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Michael W. Smith said:


> I would wonder if the husband and wife would be willing to reduce their vehicles down to ONE single vehicle. That is what many of the households had - ONE vehicle. Dad took it to work, and Mom would go once a week for groceries - either in the evening or on Saturday.
> 
> And back in those days - grocery stores were only open Monday - Saturday - they were CLOSED on Sundays. There was no Walmart and NO store open 24 hours / day. Restaurants, gas stations, were only open morning to evening.
> 
> ...


I think there are a lot more expenses today only if you want to have them. Our TV is free (well, we did pay a little bit for the antenna). We have one cellphone from Walmart we share. I personally think that is a luxury too but DH does not feel comfortable with me on the road with the kids without one. I do not think it is a step backwards for women's rights. I don't feel restricted in any way because I am a woman and a stay at home mom. We have lived on one income for years. We do have two vehicles but only because they are paid for. We do not have any debt and while we are looking for work right now to get some income coming in, only one of us will go to work (the one who gets a job first). 

While I agree that at $7/hour you cannot live on one paycheck, many "necessary expenses" are really just luxuries.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> The best compliment I ever got - and a reality check of just how important my job as a stay at home mom and housewife was when we were really struggling financially and I offered to get a job. My husband said to me that he didn't want me to go out to work and he'd rather get a second job because as crazy life was, he knew home was a safe haven for him. He knew that when he crossed that threshold, there would be peace.


I can so relate to this!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The world is a lot more complicated place today than it was 50 years ago. It's just not the kind of thing we can go back to.


That depends on how you look at it. If people keep demanding everyone in the family have a car, 100" HDTVs in every bedroom, the latest and greatest cell phone for every family member then you are probably correct.

But if people decide children should be raised by their parents and not put in kiddy prisons to be raised by someone who is only there to make money and that kids raised this way tend to be better adults then we can easily.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Which do you think an adult is going to look back on and remember fondly: Getting that expensive toy or having a parent making a costume for a class play AND having the *only* parent to show up (because all the other parents had to be at work) to watch the class do it?


----------



## itsb (Jan 13, 2013)

all this talk about the good old days, man working- wife a homekeeper and so on.
We now have internet,cable or sat tv,cell phones,2 or more new autos in the driveway,fancy campers,life insurance,health insurance.
When I was growing up we did not have anty of this stuff,even drinking a pop was seldom.We have made our lives too expensive for one person to provide for a family :ashamed:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

itsb said:


> all this talk about the good old days, man working- wife a homekeeper and so on.
> We now have internet,cable or sat tv,cell phones,2 or more new autos in the driveway,fancy campers,life insurance,health insurance.
> When I was growing up we did not have anty of this stuff,even drinking a pop was seldom.We have made our lives too expensive for one person to provide for a family :ashamed:


We have three (though granted not brand new)vehicles, Dish TV, high speed internet and health care insurance is not optional anymore (though lord knows what it's actually covering with all these stupid hefty co-pays). We live in a one income family. 

Our largest expenditures are gas and electricity. Oh, get this our local electricity co-op announced that people's electricity usage was down significantly, congratulated everyone for their efforts and then said because of the decrease in usage they were increasing rates again...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

itsb said:


> all this talk about the good old days, man working- wife a homekeeper and so on.
> We now have internet,cable or sat tv,cell phones,2 or more new autos in the driveway,fancy campers,life insurance,health insurance.
> When I was growing up we did not have anty of this stuff,even drinking a pop was seldom.We have made our lives too expensive for one person to provide for a family :ashamed:


I must again ask which do you think kids would rather have all that stuff or memories of all the things they did with their mom or dad?

To paraphrase something I read; you'll never hear someone say "I wish I had spent more hours working to buy my kids more stuff."


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

watcher said:


> I must again ask which do you think kids would rather have all that stuff or memories of all the things they did with their mom or dad?
> 
> To paraphrase something I read; you'll never hear someone say "I wish I had spent more hours working to buy my kids more stuff."


Your right on. I think today people get into trouble keeping up with the Jones. Greed is rampant. We have decided as a society that material things are what creates happiness and determines our station in life. House sizes have tripled in just 30 years while families sizes have decreased by about 80%. I'm so glad we walked away from that type of societal thinking and that type of life. We are plain and simple and I love it.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

watcher said:


> I must again ask which do you think kids would rather have all that stuff or memories of all the things they did with their mom or dad?
> 
> To paraphrase something I read; you'll never hear someone say "I wish I had spent more hours working to buy my kids more stuff."


This is a good point, Watcher. I think that there are plenty of parents who work long hours and never really spend much quality time with their kids. Then there are those who work hard and still manage to be available to participate in activities with the kids. I think that being an involved and attentive parent is more of a mindset, as opposed to something that just happens as a result of a parent being present in the home 24 hours a day. Ron and I worked opposite shifts to reduce the costs of childcare when the kids were young. They were with a family member or close family friend for about 2 hours per day. During the summers, they spent half of the week on the farm with my parents.

When my husband and I look back at raising our children, we tend to discuss the various things that we did as a family. The vacations, the concerts, trips to the beach, hiking, watching movies together, etc. We still have a certain amount of family telepathy and we often finish each others sentences. Our kids never had a lot of "things" that the average consumer-influenced kids had. We didn't allow video games, vulgar music lyrics or things that would distract from their studies. They weren't enrolled in every activity and they spent a good deal of time running around our yard with the neighbors' kids. We invested money on music lessons and instruments, but even practice time was a family affair.

I think that people who strive to be good parents will find a way to do it, whether they work full time or not!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I must again ask which do you think kids would rather have all that stuff or memories of all the things they did with their mom or dad?


_DO_ parents do stuff with their kids, though? I had a SAHM growing up, but I can't remember her doing all that much with me. She spent her time taking care of the house and gossiping with her girlfriends on the phone, or drinking coffee with them. I was expected to do my chores and keep myself entertained (if I complained about being bored, she would give me more chores to do!), and not break things or otherwise mess up her house. It was understood that when my father came home from work, he was tired and I was not to pester him. Usually he went off to his basement workshop until dinnertime, then right back to it (or to watch TV by himself in the den).

In those days, kids played with other kids, or by themselves if their friends weren't available. There were always parents (usually moms) around somewhere, but they were off doing adult things ... they didn't really pay attention to us, and we only sought them out if someone got hurt. The lives of adults and children didn't seem to overlap much, and when they did, it seems it was usually because we kids were in trouble for some reason! :teehee:

I can't say my childhood would have been different if my mother had been working instead of cleaning house most of the time. On a similar note, today I work as a housecleaner ... I don't think the children in the families I work for are somehow suffering because I make their beds or clean their bathrooms instead of their moms. JMO. :shrug:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Good point Willow... my SAHM did nothing but eat and sleep on the couch all day and complain about how much work she did all the time. ~shrug~ Takes all kinds?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

TheMartianChick said:


> This is a good point, Watcher. I think that there are plenty of parents who work long hours and never really spend much quality time with their kids. Then there are those who work hard and still manage to be available to participate in activities with the kids. I think that being an involved and attentive parent is more of a mindset, as opposed to something that just happens as a result of a parent being present in the home 24 hours a day. Ron and I worked opposite shifts to reduce the costs of childcare when the kids were young. They were with a family member or close family friend for about 2 hours per day. During the summers, they spent half of the week on the farm with my parents.
> 
> When my husband and I look back at raising our children, we tend to discuss the various things that we did as a family. The vacations, the concerts, trips to the beach, hiking, watching movies together, etc. We still have a certain amount of family telepathy and we often finish each others sentences. Our kids never had a lot of "things" that the average consumer-influenced kids had. We didn't allow video games, vulgar music lyrics or things that would distract from their studies. They weren't enrolled in every activity and they spent a good deal of time running around our yard with the neighbors' kids. We invested money on music lessons and instruments, but even practice time was a family affair.
> 
> I think that people who strive to be good parents will find a way to do it, whether they work full time or not!


I sort of agree but not quite. Think about your job. Depending on your work you might be able to do an OK job if you only showed up 4 or even 6 hours a day but you could do a better job if you were there for the entire 8 hour shift.

Split shifting the kids is better than putting them in kiddy prison for 10-12 hrs a day but its not like having one person the kids KNOW is *always* there.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> _DO_ parents do stuff with their kids, though? I had a SAHM growing up, but I can't remember her doing all that much with me. She spent her time taking care of the house and gossiping with her girlfriends on the phone, or drinking coffee with them. I was expected to do my chores and keep myself entertained (if I complained about being bored, she would give me more chores to do!), and not break things or otherwise mess up her house. It was understood that when my father came home from work, he was tired and I was not to pester him. Usually he went off to his basement workshop until dinnertime, then right back to it (or to watch TV by himself in the den).
> 
> In those days, kids played with other kids, or by themselves if their friends weren't available. There were always parents (usually moms) around somewhere, but they were off doing adult things ... they didn't really pay attention to us, and we only sought them out if someone got hurt. The lives of adults and children didn't seem to overlap much, and when they did, it seems it was usually because we kids were in trouble for some reason! :teehee:
> 
> I can't say my childhood would have been different if my mother had been working instead of cleaning house most of the time. On a similar note, today I work as a housecleaner ... I don't think the children in the families I work for are somehow suffering because I make their beds or clean their bathrooms instead of their moms. JMO. :shrug:


Do stuff. Stuff like help them catch bugs (and snakes at our house), make Halloween costumes, go to in class plays, go to school open house, pick them up when they get sick at school, go to the school and jump on the principal's desk when there's something going wrong. You know parenting stuff.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> Good point Willow... my SAHM did nothing but eat and sleep on the couch all day and complain about how much work she did all the time. ~shrug~ Takes all kinds?


Sorry but that doesn't really sound like a mom/mother. Just like people who have kids but hire someone else to raise them (kiddy prison guards or nannys) are, IMNSHO, not parents. 

IOW, genetics alone doesn't make you a mom or dad. I know several adopted people and their parents are not genetic related to them at all. And I know many people who grew up in a house with genetic related people but didn't have parents at all.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Sorry but that doesn't really sound like a mom/mother. Just like people who have kids but hire someone else to raise them (kiddy prison guards or nannys) are, IMNSHO, not parents.
> 
> IOW, genetics alone doesn't make you a mom or dad. I know several adopted people and their parents are not genetic related to them at all. And I know many people who grew up in a house with genetic related people but didn't have parents at all.


I wonder if it's a generational thing? I can't remember my childhood friends' parents being any more involved in our (kids') activities than my own were. Generally we played in bedrooms or basements or backyards, at games of our own choosing, and adults didn't intervene unless we became loud or boisterous enough to interrupt their activities. 

Maybe the expectations are different nowadays -- it certainly seems as if my clients, who are mostly young parents, spend a lot of time shuttling their kids to after-school and weekend activities. They seem to be much more involved in their kids' lives than parents were in my generation. 

Back then, it seems the parental emphasis was more on providing for children and disciplining them; of conforming to some community standard of proper living and behavior. I can remember my mother being concerned as to whether I was clean and tidy, and displayed proper manners if (for instance) we ran into a neighbor in a store. But as far as being my buddy or pal, or interested in my activities or opinions .. not so much. 

One might say it was an adult-centered world, not a child-centered one ... but perhaps this had some benefits, as we were permitted a great deal of freedom in which to play, explore and invent our own entertainment. It's my perception that kids' lives are much more regimented nowadays, and most of their supposed 'free time' is spent in activities that are organized and supervised by adults. A pity! :shrug:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I wonder if it's a generational thing? I can't remember my childhood friends' parents being any more involved in our (kids') activities than my own were. Generally we played in bedrooms or basements or backyards, at games of our own choosing, and adults didn't intervene unless we became loud or boisterous enough to interrupt their activities.


Could be. Depending on how old you are and where you grew up a stay at home parent had a LOT more to do than just raise kids and those things were a lot more difficult than today. Take washing clothes for example. Today it takes maybe 30 minutes of actual hands on work because the machines do all the labor. Now think how long it takes to do a load in a wringer washer and having to use a clothes line to dry them. During that time you needed the kids to amuse themselves.

The involvement I'm talking about is different than you seem to be thinking of. I'm not saying parents should be their kid's playmate being part of all their games and such. AAMOF, that should be a very, very small part of it. Kids need to be allowed to be kids with other kids and play their own games. That's how kids learn to interact socially; become leaders; become followers; learn to handle differences; develop their creativity and many other things they need to know to be good productive responsible adults.




willow_girl said:


> Back then, it seems the parental emphasis was more on providing for children and disciplining them; of conforming to some community standard of proper living and behavior. I can remember my mother being concerned as to whether I was clean and tidy, and displayed proper manners if (for instance) we ran into a neighbor in a store. But as far as being my buddy or pal, or interested in my activities or opinions .. not so much.


There you go. She was involved in raising you to be a good adult. Some of the worst kids come from homes where the parents try to be their kids "friend". 




willow_girl said:


> One might say it was an adult-centered world, not a child-centered one ... but perhaps this had some benefits, as we were permitted a great deal of freedom in which to play, explore and invent our own entertainment.


I disagree. I'd say its a child centered one. Adults all want to be children today. They don't want to work for things (like adults) they want/demand things be given to them (like children). They don't plan for the future (like adults) they just live for today (like children).




willow_girl said:


> It's my perception that kids' lives are much more regimented nowadays, and most of their supposed 'free time' is spent in activities that are organized and supervised by adults. A pity! :shrug:


This I agree with. IMO its a response to the fact the kids are being raised by someone else. The "parents" are trying to cram themselves down the kid's throats in a few hours because they ignore the kids the rest of the time. I view it like keeping your dog in a cage all week then taking him to an all day obedience class each Saturday and expecting to have a well trained loving dog. Not going to happen.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I hate how regimented people have their kids' lives. It does them no service to have their every minute scheduled out for them. Besides school work and chores my kids are allowed to do as they please.

If they want to go to a sports program with the rec department, cool, I make it happen. 4-H? Yup, sure. Library programs? Definitely. But I don't force them into a bajillion different programs and classes.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

watcher said:


> Do stuff. Stuff like help them catch bugs (and snakes at our house), make Halloween costumes, go to in class plays, go to school open house, pick them up when they get sick at school, go to the school and jump on the principal's desk when there's something going wrong. You know parenting stuff.


Most working parents did that stuff when I was growing up and still do most of that today. The stay at home moms that I saw in the 1970's were very much like the ones that Willow described. They gave each other home permanents, did each others nails, did housework, made the latest craft items advocated by Woman's Day magazine, watched soaps and cooked dinner. The kids ran around outside all day playing softball and building forts in the woods.

My mom taught me to catch bugs and toads but she also taught me to kill snakes (sorry snake lovers!) She made all of our Halloween costumes because she hated those awful plastic ones that stores sold in the 1970's. Each summer, she also made costumes for us for the Fireman's Field Days parade. ( I always won!) Both parents were in attendance at every school performance and open house and came to school (just) once for each of us to address school policy issues. They also attended every piano recital. 

If I got sick, my father took time off from work to pick me up from school. If I felt ill prior to going to school, then my mom would stay home with me.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Could be. Depending on how old you are and where you grew up a stay at home parent had a LOT more to do than just raise kids and those things were a lot more difficult than today. Take washing clothes for example. Today it takes maybe 30 minutes of actual hands on work because the machines do all the labor. Now think how long it takes to do a load in a wringer washer and having to use a clothes line to dry them. During that time you needed the kids to amuse themselves.


Not the case here; I was born in 1966 and the home I grew up in had all the modern conveniences. 



> There you go. She was involved in raising you to be a good adult. Some of the worst kids come from homes where the parents try to be their kids "friend".


One thing that I think has changed over the decades is the emphasis on conformity and propriety. My parents were very much concerned about what the neighbors thought about them; of being regarded as fine, upstanding people. In those days, a child's behavior was a direct reflection of its folks' parenting abilities (and perhaps their morals in general!), and thus it was crucial for a child to be well-behaved, polite and to conform. 

Nowadays, I think parents are a lot more relaxed about manners (some probably would say_ a little TOO casual!  _) and they're also more indulgent of their children's whims and preferences and individuality. I remember my stepdaughter allowing her kids to dye their hair all kinds of crazy colors when they were still in elementary school, and at first I looked a little askance at this, before realizing that it wasn't really hurting anyone, was it? So, OK! But in my generation, more value was placed on conformity than creativity. Letting a kid express him- or herself in a way that stood out and, perhaps, would have reflected poorly on his or her parents, simply wouldn't have been tolerated. 

I guess that's kind of what I meant about the world of my childhood being more adult-centered. In my generation, kids were given to understand that what we wanted or needed or preferred didn't matter; we were kids. Our feelings, umm, kinda didn't matter! Adults called the shots, and if you didn't like something, well too bad, and you'd better keep your mouth shut about it, or face a lickin'. In this regard, parents weren't unusually brutal or even unkind; it was just the natural order of things, and everyone understood their place and more or less stayed in it -- well, at least until the teen years! But that's another story ... :teehee:

It just occurred to me that maybe things have changed in part because women have more avenues for fulfillment nowadays than just homemaking and child-rearing. Having clean, neat, well-behaved children was one of the few ways a woman could make her mark in the SAHM-world I grew up in. A properly-raised child was not only a mother's greatest accomplishment; in many cases, it may have been her _only_ accomplishment (besides, perhaps, a tidy house). The stakes were probably higher than for a modern woman, who might also measure her success in terms of her career. 

I think women of my mother's era also tended to pour a lot of energy into homemaking and family life (for better or for worse!) perhaps because it was the only outlet available to them. We've all seen those pictures on www.awkwardfamilyphotos.com of families of yesteryear wearing home-sewn, matching (usually gawdawful!) outfits. On a similar note, I can remember my mother making a very elaborately decorated Holly Hobbie cake for my seventh or eighth birthday. The funny thing was, I loathed Holly Hobbie, and my mother knew it, but she loved the character, and my birthday gave her an excuse to bake a cake that _she_ wanted to make. My feelings on the subject were incidental and not really important ... I was just a kid.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well, my mom was 16 years older than my dad. She had a good career that was potable. Dad did not have the education mom had but he had a photo memory and and started his own corporations. I grew up wealth.

Mom was home and active in schools and community. I learned to cook, clean and manage a home. Mom was the driver as we had two cars and she was a licensed driver....other moms were younger and mom taught them to drive.

She knitted and sewed our clothes never had a housekeeper....drive my dad crazy cause she did not have to and he wanted folks to know we had money. Mom said things could change at any moment. They did. Dad was never home always on business trips. My brother got Burnt and my parent took an apt. Near the hosptial...I was ten so since I new what to do I did it. They moved back two years later they only came home on the weekends but dad's office where were in a wing of the house so 9 to 5 there were adults in an emergency I could call on them.

I missed the way it was. 

I saved money and had no debt because I wanted to be a stay at home mom...but plans do not always mesh with life. I like working and in a weird way my having to stay and care for my husband allowed me to be a mom I wanted to..having land and learning g new things made for a different life but it's work. Hold on to the land I hope will provide for my son to have the option for a stay at home parent...18 years goes by so fast....too fast.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> One thing that I think has changed over the decades is the emphasis on conformity and propriety. My parents were very much concerned about what the neighbors thought about them; of being regarded as fine, upstanding people. In those days, a child's behavior was a direct reflection of its folks' parenting abilities (and perhaps their morals in general!), and thus it was crucial for a child to be well-behaved, polite and to conform.
> 
> Nowadays, I think parents are a lot more relaxed about manners (some probably would say_ a little TOO casual!  _) and they're also more indulgent of their children's whims and preferences and individuality. I remember my stepdaughter allowing her kids to dye their hair all kinds of crazy colors when they were still in elementary school, and at first I looked a little askance at this, before realizing that it wasn't really hurting anyone, was it? So, OK! But in my generation, more value was placed on conformity than creativity. Letting a kid express him- or herself in a way that stood out and, perhaps, would have reflected poorly on his or her parents, simply wouldn't have been tolerated.
> 
> I guess that's kind of what I meant about the world of my childhood being more adult-centered. In my generation, kids were given to understand that what we wanted or needed or preferred didn't matter; we were kids. Our feelings, umm, kinda didn't matter! Adults called the shots, and if you didn't like something, well too bad, and you'd better keep your mouth shut about it, or face a lickin'. In this regard, parents weren't unusually brutal or even unkind; it was just the natural order of things, and everyone understood their place and more or less stayed in it -- well, at least until the teen years! But that's another story ... :teehee:


Again I view it differently. What you see as advancing childhood to be more adult centered I see as devolving adulthood to childishness. I guess if I think about its more of a blending; children are acting more adult while adults are acting more childlike. Adults have abandoned their responsibility for raising kids therefore kids have started acting like adults and raising themselves.

I lay some of this on the two parent working family. Raising kids is a lot of work and after spending 9-12 hours getting to work, working then getting home you really don't want to have to put our any more effort. So when you kid says they want to dye their hair green you take the easy way out (like a child would) and say "Go ahead." Or because you never see your kid you don't want them 'mad' at you so the keep them 'happy' you do the same thing (again a very childlike thought process).

Right now I won't even get into the fact that kids are doing some VERY adult things (e.g. sex, drugs, booze) at younger and younger ages.


----------



## dlskidmore (Apr 18, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> One thing that I think has changed over the decades is the emphasis on conformity and propriety.


I think the focus has just changed. It used to be that we were to dress alike and style our hair alike now we're supposed to all think alike. Try having a dissenting opinion in a classroom full of kids with riotous hair colors.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

I was able to stay home with our kids when they were small and now am reaping the benefits. By most people's standards we had little..... but truly, we had it all.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

2dogs-mom said:


> I was able to stay home with our kids when they were small and now am reaping the benefits. By most people's standards we had little..... but truly, we had it all.


Having options is what is most important. It is nice when you aren't expected to conform to the expectations of someone else and can have the lifestyle that you truly want and desire.


----------



## billinwv (Sep 27, 2013)

Enjoy your posts MartianChick. I do feel sometimes parents choose a lifestyle that is not conducive with proper child rearing. This isn't a new thing but maybe more prevalent now? I think I see too many "me" folks these days. 
My mother had all the modern conveniences also. She still always hung cloths out(with her children's help) and in her 70's still does. The last two years before college I thought she hated me. I literally was to keep house in all regards. Meal preparation, laundry, ironing, shopping, tending to younger siblings, and even white glove house keeping that included waxing window glass! Not to mention keeping a check book and a budget. When I unpacked in my dorm room I discovered fried apple pies and a letter explaining that she had no intention of sending her son out into the world without him knowing how to fend for himself. Very Thankful.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Thank you, billinwv! I always thought that I was being worked to death by my parents with the number of chores that I had. Though I wasn't responsible for running the house, I remember thinking that it was unreasonable that I was expected to put away dishes, feed the animals, throw a load of laundry in and put the pre-cooked portion of dinner into the oven to warm up. Even worse, I only had 3 hours...3 HOURS to get those tasks accomplished before my parents came home. I was in high school and I had more important things to do. I needed to grab a snack, watch the Twilight Zone re-runs on PBS, chat with friends on the phone and spend time imagining what my life would be like when I married my favorite star!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I lay some of this on the two parent working family. Raising kids is a lot of work and after spending 9-12 hours getting to work, working then getting home you really don't want to have to put our any more effort. So when you kid says they want to dye their hair green you take the easy way out (like a child would) and say "Go ahead."


Well, neither my stepdaughter nor her husband worked, so there goes that theory. 

It's quite possible some parents indulge their children because, as you say, it's taking the easy way out, but among the young, working parents who employ me, I get the sense that _their kids are their lives_! Their lives simply _revolve_ around those kids, and their wants and needs and activities, to a much greater extent than I experienced growing up. It's a different mindset. Whether it's for better or worse, I can't say, although the kids generally are nice, and seem well-adjusted.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Well, neither my stepdaughter nor her husband worked, so there goes that theory.


Not to be nosey but if neither one of them worked, how did they live?


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Mine wanted to dye hers pink/red. She was 11 at the time and I let her, with the caveat that she had to let me help. It was actually fun. She found a tuitorial on youtube and we did it with Kool-Aid. We didn't do a lot, just a stripe. I figured it was less permanent than true hair color but more permament than those sprays you find for holiday/spirit activities. She is the kind of kid who doesn't care what the trends are at school, rather marches to her own drummer. I've always supported that trait of hers..even when she was small..to not be a follower. I figured it was only hair and there were no rules in the school book about it not being allowed, so we went for it. 

Naturally my dad said she'd be teased at school about it and seemed upset that I let her do it. I didn't have the heart to tell him that a month or so later, I noticed identical stripes in other girls' hair.  Once again she had started a trend. lol. 

So..I stay home with the kids, yet I work from the home so I'm here always..I'm a hands on mom, yet I've always supported their independence. I love being in their lives, but I also have my own life (and also am secretly jealous I can't have a red stripe in my hair too) :thumb:


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

2dogs-mom said:


> Mine wanted to dye hers pink/red. She was 11 at the time and I let her, with the caveat that she had to let me help. It was actually fun. She found a tuitorial on youtube and we did it with Kool-Aid. We didn't do a lot, just a stripe. I figured it was less permanent than true hair color but more permament than those sprays you find for holiday/spirit activities. She is the kind of kid who doesn't care what the trends are at school, rather marches to her own drummer. I've always supported that trait of hers..even when she was small..to not be a follower. I figured it was only hair and there were no rules in the school book about it not being allowed, so we went for it.
> 
> Naturally my dad said she'd be teased at school about it and seemed upset that I let her do it. I didn't have the heart to tell him that a month or so later, I noticed identical stripes in other girls' hair.  Once again she had started a trend. lol.
> 
> So..I stay home with the kids, yet I work from the home so I'm here always..I'm a hands on mom, yet I've always supported their independence. I love being in their lives, but I also have my own life (and also am secretly jealous I can't have a red stripe in my hair too) :thumb:


Very Cool! But I noticed you said you have your life. I'm not saying you are doing this but I think one of the biggest problems today with kids is that parents do they'd thing and the kids do theirs. I believe as a parent our lives lived for ourselves stops and child birth and doesn't resume until they are out on their own and even then it still centers around the family. We have 18 plus years to live our lives for us. Then it's about our kids. I know people who pawn their kids off regularly to go drink and do their thing. I think it's a fundamental problem with families today.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Annsni said:


> Not to be nosey but if neither one of them worked, how did they live?


SSI and whatever benefits were available to them by virtue of having kids. (Most people will continue to at least get SNAP even after their cash bennies run out.) They did OK; my stepdaughter always had a bunch of dogs and horses.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I know people who pawn their kids off regularly to go drink and do their thing. I think it's a fundamental problem with families today.


Well, I do admit we sometimes play hooky from Bible study and have a quick coffee together while the kids are at youth group. :thumb: That's about as wild and crazy as we get. Most free nights are spent happily at home playing board games.  I guess what I was getting at was that while my kids are important and a priority, so is my relationship with my SO. We've found a happy medium. I've seen parents dote on their kids to the point where they grow apart once the kids have grown - as it was the only thing they had in common. I'm not going down that path. Granted, my kids are older now and have their own lives as well. Playing jenga isn't always their first choice - lol!


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

My wife and I met when we were both 23. She was out of school and working, I was recently discharged from the Marines and in my first year of college (Biology major).

Once we got serious (about two days into our relationship!) we had lots of talks about priorities, values, dreams etc.

We both agreed that we wanted children and we both agreed that our ideal would be to make whatever sacrifices were needed for her to be a stay-at-home mom.

I switched majors to Chemistry and Business (much greater income potential with just a B.S. degree), she was able to stay home with the kids. 34 years later we would not change a thing!

Now that the kids are grown, my wife is back out in the workforce and wondering how she can return to staying home! 

The key for us was early communication and being able to agree on what our goals were. Then we made a few adjustments to help make that happen, and we worked the plan.

My wife is one heck of a great partner, and a tremendous blessing. 

Tim


----------



## Whisperwindkat (May 28, 2009)

dlskidmore said:


> Have things swung back around to make it cheaper to make than to buy again? We gave up on making our own clothes in the 90s because the cheap stuff from overseas costs less than fabric and patterns.
> 
> Mending is definitely a net savings.
> 
> I do still sew sometimes anyway, there are things it is hard to find in the store that fit properly, and sewing it myself is certainly more economical than hiring a tailor. I even make my own shoes because I have funny shaped feet, but poorly fitting store shoes would be cheaper than the leather and wool I buy.


 Probably not if buying retail fabric and patterns. However, I make my own patterns. I made my own seamstress dummy and many times just use that with no real pattern per se. I also re-purpose/re-make clothing that is given to us. Most people in our family know that I won't turn down any clothing or fabric of any kind. My aunt recently replaced a set of 800 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets in a beautiful taupe color. They had a small rip in the bottom sheet and she won't sleep on mended sheets. I made a great skirt and top out of the top sheet and now have the bottom sheet to make something else. I also shop yard sales and estate sales for fabric. Really the only fabric purchased from a retail fabric store in the past 5 years has been on clearance and I think I only have about 25.00 in that fabric. Things I have made lately: top and skirt for me, new dress for me, 2 dresses for oldest, 2 skirts for youngest, new slip for me, new kitchen hand towels (4), new potholders (2), new dog bed. The cost for all of those things was pennies. All of the fabric was free. The only cost I had for any of those things was the thread which cost me pennies because I scored at a yard sale years ago and bought a large Rubbermaid tote full of thread. The couple had passed away and the kids were cleaning out the house. She was a seamstress and had tons of thread, beading, lace, etc. I hundreds of dollars worth of stuff for about 25.00. Have been using it for years and will keep using it for years to come. So for me, as long as I am frugal and careful sewing is much cheaper than buying quality clothing and I never feel guilty about updating my wardrobe.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

tarbe said:


> My wife and I met when we were both 23. She was out of school and working, I was recently discharged from the Marines and in my first year of college (Biology major).
> 
> Once we got serious (about two days into our relationship!) we had lots of talks about priorities, values, dreams etc.
> 
> ...


That is really impressive that you and your wife had this conversation at 23. :thumb: My husband and I did the same but we were both muuuuch older than you when we met and had this conversation. I guarantee you that at 23 we would not have been smart enough for that.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

LOL interesting turn this thread has taken but to return to the OPs question I do belive the middle class And ALL classes would be better off if there were half as many employble in this country.
But I also belive a better way to achive that would be to limit or stop immigration .


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> LOL interesting turn this thread has taken but to return to the OPs question I do belive the middle class And ALL classes would be better off if there were half as many employble in this country.
> 
> But I also belive a better way to achive that would be to limit or stop emmigration .



I don't think limiting or stopping people from leaving the U.S. will help your economy much.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Sadly reverting back to single working households as a normal thing in society, will never happen. As women demanded more work and more pay, the mortgage, electric and pretty much every other company realized that two working in the household ment they could charge more. They aren't gonna change that. That's why in the 60s everything spiked dramatically. Car prices, house prices and utilities. While I support women's right with all my heart, women's lib really hurt the American dream and the financial system.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

> Sadly reverting back to single working households as a normal thing in society, will never happen. As women demanded more work and more pay, the mortgage, electric and pretty much every other company realized that two working in the household ment they could charge more. They aren't gonna change that. That's why in the 60s everything spiked dramatically. Car prices, house prices and utilities. While I support women's right with all my heart, women's lib really hurt the American dream and the financial system.


Why only in America then and not all the other countries where women have gained equal rights and employment? There has to be a reason for why women's lib has only had a detrimental effect in America and not elsewhere. So what is the reason? 

It doesn't make any sense to me that women's lib has hurt the American Dream considering that America is the wealthiest, most advanced and most powerful nation in the world all motivated by the American Dream. Isn't the American Dream supposed to be for everyone in America?

Sorry, but I have to say this. Blaming women's liberation and using working women as a scapegoat for woes about the American Dream and the financial system being a failure is a cop out and avoidance of admitting what really happened.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

One thing most people don't realize is what it *cost* for that second person to work. The percentage of that income which goes to taxes is much higher than the first because you don't get any more, or very many more, tax deductions or 'credits' on that income. So you are already starting out with less money than you think.

Then there's the actual extra cost. Unless you both work at the same place on the same scheduled you are going to have to drive one car more. If not there's the extra cost of a second (or third) car.

Got kids? Someone is going to have to, most likely, drive more to get them to kiddy prison. Then there's the cost of keeping them confined either before school, after school or the entire time you are not at home.

After working all day who want's to, or who has the time to, come home and cook a meal from scratch? That means you'll find yourself buying more expensive ready to eat or 'heat & eat' food.

Depending on the second job you could also need a larger clothing budget. Some places would not like it if you showed up to work wearing a t-shirt, sweats and flip-flops. Some actually you to wear "dress" clothes <gasp>

One last thing, how many thing would you have to pay to have done which you could do yourself if you weren't working?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

No its not fair to blame the woes of America on working women.
One thing to keep in mind is the "American Dream" is a shifting target.
Today I think most of us live the American dream of 50 years ago but not the one of today.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I'm not blaming it all on women's lib. Today many women who stay home and work on that lemon pie recipe are an seen as setting women back. Our own president said as much about sahm. Greed also played a part. As Americans wanted bigger and better the cost of everything went up. When unions and most working Americans through a fit about their value the cost of everything went up again. And Greed is not going anywhere. Women wanting employers to pay for birth control and abortions isn't going anywhere which drives up everyone's cost. There is faults all around. But we cant ignore the affects of some of the causes we have faught for.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> Sorry, but I have to say this. Blaming women's liberation and using working women as a scapegoat for woes about the American Dream and the financial system being a failure is a cop out and avoidance of admitting what really happened.


Agree
Men are equally pathetic.
Makin' babies all over everywhere and letting the government pay for them.
Not being a man, but lazing around not working; again, attached to the gov. teet.
Being weak and letting bull dog women run all over them; stepping back and allowing the women run the show because he doesn't want to make a commitment / or mistake.
Allowing women to be boy scout troop leaders.

I could go on.

So no one sex is 100% to blame, nor is any one movement.
It still takes 2 to tango!


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Um women have been Den mothers since the 50's? My grandmother was one.

Allowing childhood scouting clubs to be sexualized, yes that's a problem.

The economics of sex explain a lot of the reasons things have slid downhill, because we don't acknowledge these issues.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1ifNaNABY[/ame]


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Agree
> Men are equally pathetic.
> Makin' babies all over everywhere and letting the government pay for them.
> Not being a man, but lazing around not working; again, attached to the gov. teet.
> ...


Agreed 100%. Dead beat dad's are ruining the youth of today. As are lazy dad's. But why are so many families failing? Because it's simple. You cant have two chiefs. And lots of women today want to be chiefs. My wife was one. And it almost cost us our marriage. Thankfully she stated going to church and realized God had a reason for the order he put in place. Now we are a team and 15 years later we are the happiest we have been. Now sometimes because of a worthless man the woman has to be chief. And God love em for it. They deserve much respect. As I said there are many factors at play. But marriage in general is at its lowest point in over 60 years. Less people are tieing the knot. A recent survey of 300k people from 18 to 35 said they are not even considering marriage. The number one reason for males were because the women were seen as to much self maintenence and lack of drive in the pursuit of a family. So men wanted a wife and family. The number one reason for the women was a marriage and family would not allow enough time to focus on career. And that a man was not needed and would only be a hinderence in that pursuit. So the focus has changed in America from a little white house and a picket fence to corporate gain and lonely goals. Is that good or bad? I don't know. You decide.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

These things would be less of a problem if people did not belittle Stay at home wife and mother as a career choice.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

CraterCove said:


> These things would be less of a problem if people did not belittle Stay at home wife and mother as a career choice.


Very well said. My wife went to college for 8 years, got all her degrees and worked in the financial field for 15 years. She decided to stop and be a sahm and educate our children. She says it's harder than anything she has ever done. She says there aren't enough hours in the day. But her family acted like she is crazy and belittled her and blamed me. Lol


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I know not every parent does this but I have made a study of child behavior and development, (saves my husband from freak-outs when they behave like barbarians) basic first aid training plus learning from my pediatrician anything I can. I spend most of my online time researching curriculum and finding techniques to help teach my children more effectively. I raise much (working towards the 90% mark hopefully) of our own food, animal and vegetable. Plus I make bargain hunting my job. You want to know which store locally has the cheapest price on things I buy? Cause I always track it.

If you take your job seriously as a wife and mother your job is seven days a week, 24 hrs a day, every day of the year and when people take vacation, you work harder, not less.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> Um women have been Den mothers since the 50's? My grandmother was one.
> 
> Allowing childhood scouting clubs to be sexualized, yes that's a problem.


I thought *girl scouts*, led by women, were supposed to be just as much as the Troop Leader (female) as a role model guiding young girls into woman hood..........as the *boy scouts *(lead by men) were to be led from boyhood to manhood??

Teaching the children valuable life skills / lessons, and mentorship?

Maybe I'm wrong?

The reason I didn't do scouts; all the troops were led by "PTO-type" mom's....overbearing, perfectionist, that wanted the boys to sit still, behave, be quite, etc. and do artsy fartsy projects. 
_Now this may just be the troops in my area, and I was an exception to the rule......_

But he had all female teachers, all female youth group leaders, etc and I wanted him to have a male influence....so I looked to the Boy Scouts. 

It is *my personal* Belief that men and women were Created to have certain roles in life. I simply could not find anything in my area that subscribed to this Belief.


----------



## V-NH (Jan 1, 2014)

watcher said:


> I have to call general bull feathers on this. Unless you have tons of debt and are just making it now you can make it on one pay check, you just have to adjust your life style.
> 
> I know lots of people in all sorts of jobs who are doing it; teachers, truck drivers, factory workers.
> 
> ...


We started out in the working world four years ago with $180,000 worth of student loan debt. In six more years or so it will be all gone. Until then, bringing home less than the 80-90k range just isn't a possibility. The vast majority of our income, after we're obliterated by taxes, is split between student loans and a small home (plus more taxes!) We chose to go to upper tier private universities that were extremely expensive for our bachelors and masters degrees. The downside to that is that it has severely limited our options at this point in our life. The upside is that once the debt is all paid off, we will have way more options than we would have had minus the education and work experience. I always joke with people that we live a 1950s style, frugal lifestyle, even though we have two high income earners. Old vehicles, buy most things used, do as much as we can ourselves (which doesn't quite work out when I destroy the plumbing), and don't spend money on "toys." We're certainly not the type of people saying we can't live on one income because we have lots of toys... it's all due to student loans and a modest mortgage. Our student loans and mortage alone add up to about 110% of what I make in a month, and I am the higher earner in the household


----------



## plowhand (Aug 14, 2005)

Well, I ain't a stay at home mom, but I have to look after my elderly mother that lives with me now...........I have to run a farm cook, clean, can, garden, be a personal asistant/ chauffer/do what ever.............A stay at home mom that does the same plus has/raises children, and puts up with a normal average fella like myself........

It demeans all women to make fun of plain ole Stay at Home Mom.....she's always had the hardest....oft unappreciated job of all......next to the woman that tries to work a 8 hr jobs and do everything a stay at home does as well


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

CraterCove said:


> These things would be less of a problem if people did not belittle Stay at home wife and mother as a career choice.


You think the world is tough on SAH wives/mothers? Imagine how tough it must be to be a SAH husband/dad! :teehee:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> It is *my personal* Belief that men and women were Created to have certain roles in life.


It is my *personal belief* that some women are happier working and some are happier staying at home, and the same goes for men!

If we needed the money, I'd rather take on a third job than have Numb go to work. Having him home to pick up my slack just makes my life so much better.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> You think the world is tough on SAH wives/mothers? Imagine how tough it must be to be a SAH husband/dad! :teehee:


Heh, yeah... especially that breast feeding thing.  But no, really I would _not_ want to be a stay at home dad... I have met too many 'hungry' wives to want to place myself in that position, were I male.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

CraterCove said:


> These things would be less of a problem if people did not belittle Stay at home wife and mother as a career choice.


I wonder if this problem of SAHM's being belittled is a cultural thing unique to America? And if it is, I wonder why and what is so different? I've never heard of it happening in other countries where it's common for there to be both dual income families and single income families. 

Certainly when I was raising my family and sometimes I was being a SAHM but other times I was working I never encountered such an attitude. The only thing I really found different was that when I was being a SAHM I actually had more leisure time to myself and was less stressed out because I could set my own schedules without having to account to any employer and their agendas. But at no time when I was being a SAHM did I ever have anyone belittle or rag on me about being at home. Nor did I ever have anyone belittle me or accuse me of shirking my family responsibilities when I was working. 

Nobody cared. So why do people in America care about what their neighbours, friends, family are doing? Is it possible that many SAHM's simply _imagine _they are being looked down on because they might be secretly feeling guilty or inadequate for not contributing income to the family? When perhaps, in reality, nobody else could care less what other people choose to do?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I'm not going to say there aren't neurotic chicks pretty much everywhere who imagine plenty. But no, it's a real thing and it's perpetrated mostly by so called 'feminists'. It's an extreme ideology here used to push a weird and detrimental agenda. It's not actually for women here, the feminist movement, it's against everything a woman should be proud of and about demonizing all males as misogynistic rapists.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> But no, it's a real thing and it's perpetrated mostly by so called 'feminists'. It's an extreme ideology here used to push a weird and detrimental agenda. It's not actually for women here, the feminist movement, it's against everything a woman should be proud of and about demonizing all males as misogynistic rapists.


I disagree. 

Feminism, as I see it, is about women having _choices_.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

That's equality, not feminism. A feminist is like a racist.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

How so?

I'd be very interested in hearing how I'm "like a racist."


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Paumon said:


> I wonder if this problem of SAHM's being belittled is a cultural thing unique to America? And if it is, I wonder why and what is so different? I've never heard of it happening in other countries where it's common for there to be both dual income families and single income families.
> 
> Certainly when I was raising my family and sometimes I was being a SAHM but other times I was working I never encountered such an attitude. The only thing I really found different was that when I was being a SAHM I actually had more leisure time to myself and was less stressed out because I could set my own schedules without having to account to any employer and their agendas. But at no time when I was being a SAHM did I ever have anyone belittle or rag on me about being at home. Nor did I ever have anyone belittle me or accuse me of shirking my family responsibilities when I was working.
> 
> Nobody cared. So why do people in America care about what their neighbours, friends, family are doing? Is it possible that many SAHM's simply _imagine _they are being looked down on because they might be secretly feeling guilty or inadequate for not contributing income to the family? When perhaps, in reality, nobody else could care less what other people choose to do?


Interesting point ... I have been a SAHM for 6 1/2 years and will be going back to work on Monday (DH will be SAHD). I cannot recall any time someone belittled me in person over leaving a highly lucrative career to be home. Some people were surprised that I would give up the money but to me a change in lifestyle was totally worth spending time with my kids.

However, I have seen tons of discussions online (on message boards or blogs) putting SAHMs down. Lots of it is on "mommy message boards." I guess it is one of those things that people think but will not say to your face. It is right there with other parenting choices that mothers belittle other mothers for in the online world. (E.g. breastfeeding or bottle feeding, circumcision or not, co-sleeping vs. crib sleeping, baby wearing vs. stroller, pacifier or not, spanking or not, using "no" with your kids or not, "Ferberizing" or tending to your baby at night, homemade baby food vs. commercial baby food, vaccinating or not, raising your child along some gender stereotypes vs gender-neutral parenting, the list goes on an on ...). No matter what you do, there is a woman on the internet that will find a fault with your parenting choice and will be glad to tell you so. But at the same time, I have never met anyone in person who would put me down for my choices.

ETA: I think part of it also comes from what happens when a woman who has been home with kids for years tries to come back to work. I have read so many different pieces of advice on how to handle the absence from workforce and most of them say not to admit to being home with kids (my favorite one is to say that you were in a coma for all those years). What is wrong with having the right priorities in life? The big corporation won't be there for me when I am 90 and need someone to drive me around, my kids will be. I have just gone through the job search and got hired in less than a month. No, I am not making anywhere near what I was making when I left my last job but I found a new employer where there are opportunities to advance. I was upfront about being home with kids and I did not feel I was being looked down upon over it. If a man took 6 1/2 years off to be a SAHD (or even just to travel the world and have fun), his business skills would be rusty too and I am guessing he would have to start on lower level than where he was before. It has nothing to do with being a mom or dad.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> How so?
> 
> I'd be very interested in hearing how I'm "like a racist."


I would actually love to get into that but it's bedtime for the Bonzos here and being 4 months pregnant I am going down with them. Good night!


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

CraterCove said:


> I'm not going to say there aren't neurotic chicks pretty much everywhere who imagine plenty. But no, it's a real thing and it's perpetrated mostly by so called 'feminists'. It's an extreme ideology here used to push a weird and detrimental agenda. It's not actually for women here, the feminist movement, it's against everything a woman should be proud of and about demonizing all males as misogynistic rapists.


Something I've noted in my travels in USA as well as reading on internet is that there are still a lot of men who disapprove of women who do not stay home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and under the thumb of men, so I think it's not just the American feminazis that you're up against. The proof's in the pudding of that, I often see that disapproving attitude as well as rabid misogyny right here from some men and it's those kinds of men that I think the feminazis are out to demonize. 

The most disappointing thing for me to see is that some women agree with or "like" the posts of the misogynists just to stay in the clique and on the good side of them, rather than speaking out. I feel sorry for those women like that who don't realize how badly they are betraying not only themselves but all of womanhood while approving and perpetuating the misogyny in others. 

Don't confuse feminists with feminazis though. Feminists are both men and women, they are not racists and for the most part they are good, gentle, kind people with ALL of society's best interests at heart. Feminazis are a whole different kettle of fish that seem to have sprouted up in various places throughout the States in recent years and some of them verge on being like domestic terrorists. They're not all mentally stable and should be ignored, not given the attention they demand..... rather like the Westboro group and a few other extremists I can think of.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

V-NH said:


> We started out in the working world four years ago with $180,000 worth of student loan debt. In six more years or so it will be all gone. Until then, bringing home less than the 80-90k range just isn't a possibility. The vast majority of our income, after we're obliterated by taxes, is split between student loans and a small home (plus more taxes!) We chose to go to upper tier private universities that were extremely expensive for our bachelors and masters degrees. The downside to that is that it has severely limited our options at this point in our life. The upside is that once the debt is all paid off, we will have way more options than we would have had minus the education and work experience. I always joke with people that we live a 1950s style, frugal lifestyle, even though we have two high income earners. Old vehicles, buy most things used, do as much as we can ourselves (which doesn't quite work out when I destroy the plumbing), and don't spend money on "toys." We're certainly not the type of people saying we can't live on one income because we have lots of toys... it's all due to student loans and a modest mortgage. Our student loans and mortage alone add up to about 110% of what I make in a month, and I am the higher earner in the household


Good gravy man! Starting out of college with that much debt and you got married? First off what kind of education is worth that much money? I know people with PhDs who didn't pay that much for their degrees. The only people I know with that kind of cost are in the medical field (MDs, DDSs and DVMs).

Second back in the day men didn't usually get married until they were established and could afford it. If you can't afford to make car payments what makes you think you can afford a wife and household? I tell 'kids' all the time not to even think about getting married until they have been out of school for 5 years. That's high school or college. Most people don't really know a dag-blasted thing about themselves nor the 'real world' until then.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> How so?
> 
> I'd be very interested in hearing how I'm "like a racist."


Honestly Willow, I don't think she understands what real feminists are and is confusing feminists with feminazis. Feminazis certainly can be like racists in their rabid extremism and they're not truly interested in educating women. They are nut cases that can rarely be reasoned with. Whereas the true feminists, both the men and the women, their goal is to see that girls and women be properly educated and aware of what their rights, priorities and best interests are.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> You think the world is tough on SAH wives/mothers? Imagine how tough it must be to be a SAH husband/dad! :teehee:


Depends on the husband/dad. I never had a problem with people. They were usually shocked to find out I was the 'house keeper'. Once they got to know me they realized I met Heinlein's definition of a human/man.

_A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects._




I could talk about the best treatment for diaper rash one second then tell them the best way to weld up a broken part and a little later be talking about braiding hair then trimming horse's hooves. 

I tend to confuse most people. I know enough about just about everything to hold a discussion on just about anything. Knowledge is power after all


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Feminism, as I see it, is about women having _choices_.


As long as women make the "proper" choices. Such as choosing a career rather than be a 'bare footed and pregnant' stay at home mom.

I have NEVER heard a man talk bad about a SAHM but I've heard a lot of working women do it. Have you ever hear a man say to a SAHM "Oh so you _just_ stay at home?"


----------



## V-NH (Jan 1, 2014)

watcher said:


> Good gravy man! Starting out of college with that much debt and you got married? First off what kind of education is worth that much money? I know people with PhDs who didn't pay that much for their degrees. The only people I know with that kind of cost are in the medical field (MDs, DDSs and DVMs).
> 
> Second back in the day men didn't usually get married until they were established and could afford it. If you can't afford to make car payments what makes you think you can afford a wife and household? I tell 'kids' all the time not to even think about getting married until they have been out of school for 5 years. That's high school or college. Most people don't really know a dag-blasted thing about themselves nor the 'real world' until then.


I can afford to make car payments and pay for food, utilities, daycare, and livestock, insurance, etc. There just isn't much left over for toys. Most of the debt is actually my wife's, but I consider it to be mine now since we are married. My student loans make up about 10% of our total payments while hers make up about 90%. We are both educators. College is not cheap, and great private colleges cost a premium. I feel like you're being very condescending and not taking into account the fact that the world we live in today is absolutely nothing like it was a few decades ago in terms of workforce competition or financial requirements.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Dave Ramsey and several other financial experts would disagree with you


----------



## V-NH (Jan 1, 2014)

With who, and on what points?


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Something I've noted in my travels in USA as well as reading on internet is that there are still* a lot* of men who disapprove of women who do not stay home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and under the thumb of men


That's funny.

Generalize much?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

tarbe said:


> That's funny.
> 
> Generalize much?


It's not funny, it's a shame and it's archaic. It's not a generalization, it's a fact. If you haven't observed or recognized it then you are either part of the problem and a perpetrator who MUST deny it, or else you haven't gotten around much in your own country or done much travelling in other countries to make such observations and comparisons.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Paumon said:


> It's not funny, it's a shame and it's archaic. It's not a generalization, it's a fact. If you haven't observed or recognized it then you are either part of the problem and a perpetrator who MUST deny it, or else you haven't gotten around much in your own country or done much travelling in other countries to make such observations and comparisons.


Yes, I am sure you are much more familiar with the attitudes of the men in this country than I am.

I have only lived here 57 years, in 8 different states. I have also traveled to every country from Portugal to Turkey plus South Africa, for work and pleasure.

What is funny is your willingness to judge an entire nation from such a limited sample. The assumptions you make about my perspective do not surprise me, and are consistent with your M.O. You will do what you need to do to convince yourself that your opinions are correct. 

So, I will call you out on your generalization, and do so with confidence.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Something I've noted in my travels in USA as well as reading on internet is that there are still a lot of men who disapprove of women who do not stay home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and under the thumb of men, so I think it's not just the American feminazis that you're up against. The proof's in the pudding of that, I often see that disapproving attitude as well as rabid misogyny right here from some men and it's those kinds of men that I think the feminazis are out to demonize.


Hmmm - I'm not sure I've met any of these men - and I'm even an Evangelical Christian pastor's wife. I don't think we have one full time stay at home mom in our church. Oh wait - yes, there is one but she also has health issues and so working is very difficult for her. Otherwise, every other wife/mom works at least part time.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Paumon said:


> Something I've noted in my travels in USA as well as reading on internet is that there are still a lot of men who disapprove of women who do not stay home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and under the thumb of men, so I think it's not just the American feminazis that you're up against. The proof's in the pudding of that, I often see that disapproving attitude as well as rabid misogyny right here from some men and it's those kinds of men that I think the feminazis are out to demonize.
> 
> The most disappointing thing for me to see is that some women agree with or "like" the posts of the misogynists just to stay in the clique and on the good side of them, rather than speaking out. I feel sorry for those women like that who don't realize how badly they are betraying not only themselves but all of womanhood while approving and perpetuating the misogyny in others.
> 
> Don't confuse feminists with feminazis though. Feminists are both men and women, they are not racists and for the most part they are good, gentle, kind people with ALL of society's best interests at heart. Feminazis are a whole different kettle of fish that seem to have sprouted up in various places throughout the States in recent years and some of them verge on being like domestic terrorists. They're not all mentally stable and should be ignored, not given the attention they demand..... rather like the Westboro group and a few other extremists I can think of.


/I/ don't understand the difference? You can call them what you want to but they call themselves feminists or 'femynists'. 

I have never run up against this misogynistic attitude you speak of here in the US. You can hear a lot of guy talk about women needing to shut up and bring them a sammich but you won't hear those same men talk that way face to face with a woman. There is a difference between how men talk with each other and how they talk to people they respect and revere as opposed to feel the need to measure up to and one up.

But you guys know it all, so I'll just leave you to it. /out


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Feminism is just one more thing created to go against God's order and his word. Now fighting for the right to be able vote and own property and such that's great and should def be fought for. But to fight to say that being a sahm or being a submissive wife is setting women back is a shame. In just the last week that actress from the show big bang theory said she didn't want to be a feminist. She says she likes to cook and serve her husband. She was hammered for it. Recently candace Cameron bure wrote that she is a submissive wife and that her husband is head of the house. She was hammered for it. It's very sad. Because that is God's order. It's the only harmonious order there is. Being a sahm today should garner the highest respect. The bible says the affairs of the household and the children as well as keeping the affairs of the house in order falls upon the woman's shoulders. Does that mean she can't work? No. The bible says a good wife makes goods and sells them at the market. But if the orders of the house don't come first then she isn't walking in God's word. The good book also says a man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. Unless a man is disabled I don't think a man should be a sahd. Funny thing is its my wife who taught me these things. When we married my wife want sure there was a God. And she certainly did not want to live like it and frankly even though I was raised in the church I didn't think I wanted to either. My father was a minister and my mother worked in the school cafeteria for 35 years. So the whole sahm thing meant nothing to me. I figured all mom's worked and should work. But there was always alot of stress in our house. I seen it with mom and dad. Part of it was because we lived in the richest County in the nation. Yet we lived on a small income. Then my wife and I moved to a very conservative small town. With mostly homeschool, sahm families. And the change in people were dramatic. The joy was much more abundant. My wife noticed this and SHE started making the changes. Then we studied the word together. And man so many truths came about to us. Now I'm a firm believer in God's order. My wife now wears a head covering and is a very happy sahm. She keeps the house in order as well as the kids. I work 50 plus hours a week then come home and work our woodworking business that she also works on during the days. I don't bash feminism because I'm a male shovenistic pig. I push God's order because I seen the difference in made in our lives and the lives of so many others. The book of corinthians, Timothy and ezekial are great at setting the order of the house and how to have a godly marriage. It truely changed our lives. And when we go out and people see my wife's conservative dress and head covering (which is just a bandana) they know what we represent and is sparked many conversations in Walmart and gave us a chance to witness and even make me friends who are longing for that same peace in this sad world


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

CraterCove said:


> I would actually love to get into that but it's bedtime for the Bonzos here and being 4 months pregnant I am going down with them. Good night!


Oh, no hurry! Take your time ...


----------



## Whisperwindkat (May 28, 2009)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Feminism is just one more thing created to go against God's order and his word. Now fighting for the right to be able vote and own property and such that's great and should def be fought for. But to fight to say that being a sahm or being a submissive wife is setting women back is a shame. In just the last week that actress from the show big bang theory said she didn't want to be a feminist. She says she likes to cook and serve her husband. She was hammered for it. Recently candace Cameron bure wrote that she is a submissive wife and that her husband is head of the house. She was hammered for it. It's very sad. Because that is God's order. It's the only harmonious order there is. Being a sahm today should garner the highest respect. The bible says the affairs of the household and the children as well as keeping the affairs of the house in order falls upon the woman's shoulders. Does that mean she can't work? No. The bible says a good wife makes goods and sells them at the market. But if the orders of the house don't come first then she isn't walking in God's word. The good book also says a man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. Unless a man is disabled I don't think a man should be a sahd. Funny thing is its my wife who taught me these things. When we married my wife want sure there was a God. And she certainly did not want to live like it and frankly even though I was raised in the church I didn't think I wanted to either. My father was a minister and my mother worked in the school cafeteria for 35 years. So the whole sahm thing meant nothing to me. I figured all mom's worked and should work. But there was always alot of stress in our house. I seen it with mom and dad. Part of it was because we lived in the richest County in the nation. Yet we lived on a small income. Then my wife and I moved to a very conservative small town. With mostly homeschool, sahm families. And the change in people were dramatic. The joy was much more abundant. My wife noticed this and SHE started making the changes. Then we studied the word together. And man so many truths came about to us. Now I'm a firm believer in God's order. My wife now wears a head covering and is a very happy sahm. She keeps the house in order as well as the kids. I work 50 plus hours a week then come home and work our woodworking business that she also works on during the days. I don't bash feminism because I'm a male shovenistic pig. I push God's order because I seen the difference in made in our lives and the lives of so many others. The book of corinthians, Timothy and ezekial are great at setting the order of the house and how to have a godly marriage. It truely changed our lives. And when we go out and people see my wife's conservative dress and head covering (which is just a bandana) they know what we represent and is sparked many conversations in Walmart and gave us a chance to witness and even make me friends who are longing for that same peace in this sad world


Same with us. The day that I made the decision to stay at home was the best day of our marriage. I made that decision and I made the changes in myself and in my attitude towards my husband and we healed. Now, we are happier and stronger as a couple. I am happier now than I ever have been in my life. And I can assure anyone that I may spoil my husband and I may be a submissive wife, but I am not a doormat. The thing is that my husband respects me and seeks my advice. Every decision we make, we make it together. Just because a woman stays home doesn't mean she is "under the thumb" of some man.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Interesting topic. IMHO it basically comes down to what is best for your family, what lifestyle is agreed upon by both adults. 

Never been married nor do I have children, but have seen in my own family how different situations work or don't. To me it all comes down to a team effort and what works for one family will not always work for another. 

I like that there are many options.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

OMG... I lost my lengthy discourse on modern feminism. :Bawling:

I am going to sum up though, even being extremely frustrated.

Modern Feminism claims desires for equality yet pushes for subjugation instead. It looks to redress past ills by perpetrating ills against what they have considered their oppressors. In modern feminism there is no such thing as consensual sexual intercourse because it assumes that no matter what a man always holds some ability to use position or subtle force for sex.

I had some pertinent links and here's one: http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

A racist puts one race above others as better. Feminists put males above females as better. They assume a woman has no power, no control, no choice and no ability. When in fact I had a really good part about how women are the backbone of civilization but that is lost... ~sigh~

Forever, dating back to the Norse people and farther back in history women have controlled much power. Celts had a matriarchal society when men went viking in Norse culture, who raised the children, handled civil issues and made sure things were secure when their men returned. Need I bring up Hatshepsut? Cleopatra? Exceptional women seem exceptional in historical texts until you read more carefully. 

You see that what passes for a 'strong' female in amongst feminists is someone who apes a caricature of how they see men. Men are frightening to them and so they lash out with vitriol.

I am not a feminist because I believe that females are superior, even males were female once. All things come from us. 


(what I had before was better... but in the process of logging me into minecraft and stealing my stuff my four year old closed all my windows...)


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

To me, this topic is like asking a group of people which season is the best. Everyone is going to have an opinion based upon their own preferences and experiences.

I've been married for almost 27 years. My husband and I are quite happy leading our family as dual earners and making decisions together. Neither one of us trumps the other in decision making. Instead, we acknowledge that we each have various attributes that allow us to be far stronger together than we would ever be if we were to separate. While I always tell him if the car is making a strange noise, I don't try to tell him what is wrong with it because that is one of his areas of expertise. He would never try to tell me the correct way to write a business plan or to do urban planning, because those fall under my bailiwick.

Choosing to live by certain religious tenets is okay for some, but we don't all share the same views on religion. Even the various sects of most religions have some areas of disagreement as to the correct interpretation of their respective holy books. Sometimes, two preachers from the same sect disagree! 

For those who feel that their way is the right path for their families...They're probably right! They've found something that seems to work for them and that is most important when you are raising a family.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

V-NH said:


> I can afford to make car payments and pay for food, utilities, daycare, and livestock, insurance, etc. There just isn't much left over for toys. Most of the debt is actually my wife's, but I consider it to be mine now since we are married. My student loans make up about 10% of our total payments while hers make up about 90%. We are both educators. College is not cheap, and great private colleges cost a premium. I feel like you're being very condescending and not taking into account the fact that the world we live in today is absolutely nothing like it was a few decades ago in terms of workforce competition or financial requirements.


I didn't mean it that way. I was just shocked that people actually go into debt that much for their education. My wife got her BS (years ago) with no debt, my daughter has her masters in education with some debts coming out and my son got his BS with with almost no debt at all.

I'm still shocked when I think about how long someone will have to work and how much of their lives they will spend to pay off that kind of debt.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

TheMartianChick said:


> To me, this topic is like asking a group of people which season is the best. Everyone is going to have an opinion based upon their own preferences and experiences.
> 
> I've been married for almost 27 years. My husband and I are quite happy leading our family as dual earners and making decisions together. Neither one of us trumps the other in decision making. Instead, we acknowledge that we each have various attributes that allow us to be far stronger together than we would ever be if we were to separate. While I always tell him if the car is making a strange noise, I don't try to tell him what is wrong with it because that is one of his areas of expertise. He would never try to tell me the correct way to write a business plan or to do urban planning, because those fall under my bailiwick.
> 
> ...


As long as its just a husband and wife it really doesn't matter that much. Its when you toss kids into the mix that it becomes a major issue.

Study after study after study supports history. Kids from a single intact family where one of the parents stays at home and raises the kids do better across the board. They do better in school, they do better in careers, they are less likely to wind up in jail, they are less likely to get divorced, etc.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Study after study after study supports history. Kids from a single intact family where one of the parents stays at home and raises the kids do better across the board. They do better in school, they do better in careers, they are less likely to wind up in jail, they are less likely to get divorced, etc.


I'd be interested in seeing some of these studies. Because the ones I'm familiar with find a clear advantage to two-parent families, but I've yet to see one that addresses the question of SAH parenting. The only reference to the subject I can recall was in "Freakonomics," where, IIRC, having a SAH parent was NOT one of the factors that was found to improve outcomes for children. 

I'm not saying it isn't so; just that I've never seen any studies to this effect.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Freakonomics was a good book, very interesting read.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Modern Feminism claims desires for equality yet pushes for subjugation instead. It looks to redress past ills by perpetrating ills against what they have considered their oppressors. In modern feminism there is no such thing as consensual sexual intercourse because it assumes that no matter what a man always holds some ability to use position or subtle force for sex.
> 
> I had some pertinent links and here's one: http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/...lways-rape-ok/


I think feminism is probably a lot like religion, in that it will mean different things to different people.

My own definition is more along the lines of gender neutrality ... that is, people should be free to do anything they're capable of doing, without artificially-imposed gender-based barriers.

So, if a woman wants to be a fighter pilot, and can meet all the necessary standards, good for her -- let her in. On the one hand, we shouldn't lower the bar in order to make women eligible, but on the other, we shouldn't create artificial constraints, either. Male genitalia is not required to fly a plane! 

That's pretty much the long and short of it. 
http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> I think feminism is probably a lot like religion, in that it will mean different things to different people.
> 
> My own definition is more along the lines of gender neutrality ... that is, people should be free to do anything they're capable of doing, without artificially-imposed gender-based barriers.
> 
> ...


Actually women make better fighter pilots than men--- we take g-force better. 

ETA: of course though, when you look at the whys of that it's because women are on average shorter, not some peculiarity of female anatomy or physiology, btw


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

The reality is that women have always worked outside the home - both single and married women. Just read history. Not all women worked but the number of women staying home is/was based on financial, political, class and geographic reasons. And of course religious restrictions imposed on them. Geography restricted outside work because of difficulties with travel - in the city but especially in the countryside.

As a single woman of lower economic standing you worked as soon as you were in your teens (or even sooner because there were no child labour laws) and you contributed to your family's income. If you were married you worked if your husband did not earn enough or was ill or a bum or dead. Just as many women became a single parent back then - just without divorce or legal separation as they did not exist or were very hard and expensive to get and widows had no social security net to help them. 

In the "olden days" women were mainly restricted to domestic, retail, millinary, farm and factory work but many did own and operate their own businesses and many worked side by side with their husbands to build businesses. Just as today. 
Of course domestic help was very inexpensive and many generations of families lived in the same house or area so babysitting was not a problem and in large families the older children were usually used as both servants and caregivers. Or if you did not have anyone to watch your kids you left them on their own. No laws to protect kids back then.

Married and widowed women worked in all areas of the economy and the fact that women have been acknowledged for their service on the home front in WW2 is rather a point of too little too late since women have always been the ones to pick up the slack when men have gone to war. Ditto for when men have gone to sea or to take up work in a different area from where they lived. Many were great providers but then there were those who sent very little home if anything so women found work to feed their kids.

As education opportunities expanded for women many worked in education, healthcare, and finance (my Grandmother lost everything in WW1 and became the first woman bank manager in her country).

One of the main reasons so many women work outside the home today is because a single income just does not cut it. The earning power of a single income (men and women) has been so steadily decreased due to the belief in the idiocy of the trickle down economy that the nation with the largest and wealthiest middle class is now heading for the distinction of being one with a very large working poor. Like China.


----------



## V-NH (Jan 1, 2014)

watcher said:


> I didn't mean it that way. I was just shocked that people actually go into debt that much for their education. My wife got her BS (years ago) with no debt, my daughter has her masters in education with some debts coming out and my son got his BS with with almost no debt at all.
> 
> I'm still shocked when I think about how long someone will have to work and how much of their lives they will spend to pay off that kind of debt.


Yup. 10 years for us, 20+ for many others.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

My oldest daughter graduated with about $24,000 in loans and my second daughter will be over $100,000 in loans when she is done. I hate that she has to have them so high but she will be able to earn good money right away when she is out and she will be done with her education unless she wants her PhD (she will have her doctorate of audiology when she's finished). More than likely, we will help pay it off when we get an inheritance but for now, loans it is. The schooling is actually going to only cost her $40,000 but the apartment in New York City is what kills.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I think feminism is probably a lot like religion, in that it will mean different things to different people.
> 
> My own definition is more along the lines of gender neutrality ... that is, people should be free to do anything they're capable of doing, without artificially-imposed gender-based barriers.
> 
> ...


You are clearly not a feminist otherwise you would realize that we must have a different set of standards which allows women to do the job. Such having a lower weight for female firefighters than males. So if you are a heavier person you'll just have to hope a male firefighter find you passed out in a burning building.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Um no we don't _need_ to have different standards for males and females for anything. If there is a rule, you must be able to lift 'X' amount to do this job it's idiocy to allow anyone male or female to have the job who can't cut it. 

See this is what I am saying about modern feminism, they assume women can't meet the standards and fight to have them lowered. It's ridiculous. There are definitely women who can do it and meet the same standards that they have for men.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> Such having a lower weight for female firefighters than males. So if you are a heavier person you'll just have to hope a male firefighter find you passed out in a burning building.


Is this the case? I've often wondered about this..I would hope they would make it straight across the board that in order to be a fireman you have to be able to carry 200 pounds. :thumb: I don't care if you're a man or woman, just be able to physically do the job. 

I've seen some tough chicks out there..I am NOT one of them. I could rescue a small dog or a baby and that's about it. :facepalm:


----------



## handymama (Aug 22, 2014)

I wasn't sure whether to be offended by the comment watcher made or not. As a CNA I've picked up loads of heavy people. And I've helped guys and girls both with moving overweight patients. I'm here to tell you, just being a man does NOT mean you're good at picking up heavy people. There were little petite women cnas who could throw me around all day, and there were some men cnas who were six foot six and heavily muscled that were weak as water. And vice versa.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

handymama said:


> I wasn't sure whether to be offended by the comment watcher made or not. As a CNA I've picked up loads of heavy people. And I've helped guys and girls both with moving overweight patients. I'm here to tell you, just being a man does NOT mean you're good at picking up heavy people. There were little petite women cnas who could throw me around all day, and there were some men cnas who were six foot six and heavily muscled that were weak as water. And vice versa.


Hence having the one standard and all must pass it.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Well, if anyone is interested, I found this which is standards for New York. I like getting into the nuts and bolts of things.

http://www.dhses.ny.gov/ofpc/documents/standards/Part426LawBook.pdf Page 9 talks about the physical aspect (pdf page 9 but on the page itself it says page 8). It talks about carrying a combined weight of 75 lbs up some stairs. Holy carp. Yeah, I could never do this. And these are just minimum standards!


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Hmmm - I carry 50 lbs. up stairs regularly at our barn when I put away feed. 75 is quite heavy but I'll bet I could do it if I had to.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Annsni said:


> Hmmm - I carry 50 lbs. up stairs regularly at our barn when I put away feed. 75 is quite heavy but I'll bet I could do it if I had to.


I carry my 50 lb son and my 45 lb son at the same time and I am carrying another that's still cooking. Strength is absolutely not a problem for women.

And before anyone says anything about not carrying heavy things while pregnant... it's okay if it's work you are accustomed to and if my abdominal muscles object I don't push.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Boy..it was a sad day when I realized I couldn't pick up my son anymore.  Now he can carry me! He's almost 17. He was just over 4 lbs at birth so it cracks me up that this once miniature doll-like baby is so huge now.

Crater Cove - when are you due, if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Last week of April-first week of May.

And after three boys, this one is a girl. We are excited.


----------



## CraftyLady (Jul 18, 2014)

We have gone back to a one income household. Not for any outside reason, just because my minimum wage income didn't pencil out with the factors of driving, clothing needs, and extra car. My husband and I have been thinking of other ways to cut expenses and to make a little extra money. I'm 5 years from retirement now and the fact is no one wants to hire a woman of my age in the area except for low wage jobs or entry jobs. 

So, on the brighter side my house is cleaner, we have more balanced meals and we don't eat as much junk food. If I make it, that's what we eat. 

Example - I was on a website - low cost - and found a dog/blanket all weather to put in the car when we take the dog out to the park to walk. Right now I have an old blanket in the back seat. Nice blanket - 22.00 - hummm - home used blanket works just fine. Think I'll use it instead. That's how we think now. And it works for us.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> Um no we don't _need_ to have different standards for males and females for anything. If there is a rule, you must be able to lift 'X' amount to do this job it's idiocy to allow anyone male or female to have the job who can't cut it.
> 
> See this is what I am saying about modern feminism, they assume women can't meet the standards and fight to have them lowered. It's ridiculous. There are definitely women who can do it and meet the same standards that they have for men.


But. . .but. . .but if you don't lower the standards you can't get the percentages correct because there are so few women who can met the current standards.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

watcher said:


> But. . .but. . .but if you don't lower the standards you can't get the percentages correct because there are so few women who can met the current standards.


I understand but... well... if women really wanted those jobs in the percentages some bean counting social justice warrior wanted to see, they'd be there despite the standards. Equality means anyone has a chance to get the job... not that everyone gets the job. It's what frustrates me about so many people who use the word equality to mean 'a leg up'.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

handymama said:


> I wasn't sure whether to be offended by the comment watcher made or not. As a CNA I've picked up loads of heavy people. And I've helped guys and girls both with moving overweight patients. I'm here to tell you, just being a man does NOT mean you're good at picking up heavy people. There were little petite women cnas who could throw me around all day, and there were some men cnas who were six foot six and heavily muscled that were weak as water. And vice versa.


I'm not talking about male vs female strength I'm talking about FIREFIGHTER strength. 

There's a HUGE difference in helping move someone and moving an unconscious person yourself. There's a HUGE difference in moving someone in a medical setting and doing while wearing 70+ pounds of bunker gear after moving around in a smoke filled building feeling for a body.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

watcher said:


> I'm not talking about male vs female strength I'm talking about FIREFIGHTER strength.
> 
> There's a HUGE difference in helping move someone and moving an unconscious person yourself. There's a HUGE difference in moving someone in a medical setting and doing while wearing 70+ pounds of bunker gear after moving around in a smoke filled building feeling for a body.


Dead weight vs live weight is always an issue.

However, I don't think I believe that women of similar frame and height cannot do just as well in these roles. No, maybe not _every_ woman--- but neither can every man. Women don't need lower standards.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> Dead weight vs live weight is always an issue.
> 
> However, I don't think I believe that women of similar frame and height cannot do just as well in these roles.


Men and women are designed differently. I'll give you a classic experiment you can try yourself. Get a group of people together. Get a straight back kitchen chair. Put the chair against a wall, have each person stand facing a wall far enough away that when they bend over they form a near 90 degree angle at the waist. Now have them pick the chair up and while holding it next to their chest stand upright. You will discover that very few, if any, men will be able to do this while most, if not all, of the women will. For extra credit explain why. 

Even if they are about the same height and weight their circulatory systems are different, their muscle mass is different and other things.




CraterCove said:


> No, maybe not _every_ woman--- but neither can every man. Women don't need lower standards.


The problem for the feminist is the fact that so many more (by number and percentage) women can not meet the standards that the number of women in these jobs doesn't meet with their approval therefore we MUST have lower standard for women. After all if you just lower the standards then you'd still have more men who could meet them than women.

I've known women who could physically do everything 80+% of the male population could. But not very many. My wife, who is one of those women, will tell you even in her prime she could not do as much as most men could.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I don't know that puzzle but if its like most other ones it's a gimmick.

However, a woman who can lift 100 lbs can do so for as long as a man who can lift 100 lbs. Males and females accumulate muscles more easily in different areas but where there is a will there is a way. It doesn't matter. It doesn't warrant altering standards that are necessary to doing a task.

One of the troubles I find with the feminist version of equality is that it defies our biological make up in other ways. Women can say things to a man that were it another man saying it would get him punched. That's not equality, that's privilege. Men are draft-able and I think a culture fails when they make their breeding stock (not to be demeaning, just practical) be drafted or fight in front line positions. Women are capable in combat but if you take all the combat worthy out to war then who defends home and hearth? It's a bad idea. 

But suggest such a thing to a feminist and watch the conniption fit.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> I don't know that puzzle but if its like most other ones it's a gimmick.


No gimmick, its biological.




CraterCove said:


> However, a woman who can lift 100 lbs can do so for as long as a man who can lift 100 lbs. Males and females accumulate muscles more easily in different areas but where there is a will there is a way. It doesn't matter. It doesn't warrant altering standards that are necessary to doing a task.


I don't think so. Men can work longer because they have a larger cardiopulmonary system.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

FarmerKat said:


> many "necessary expenses" are really just luxuries.


This is so true, but sadly most people just don't understand this.
America has the richest poor people in the world.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

watcher said:


> I don't think so. Men can work longer because they have a larger cardiopulmonary system.


Proportionately?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Oh and the trick with the chair? Shorter men can do it too.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Paumon said:


> Why only in America then and not all the other countries where women have gained equal rights and employment? There has to be a reason for why women's lib has only had a detrimental effect in America and not elsewhere. So what is the reason?
> 
> .


 America is not the only place, look at Europe, Russia ,Japan, much of Asia. Anyplace where 2 people working is the norm has the EXACT same economic issue.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Annsni said:


> The schooling is actually going to only cost her $40,000 but the apartment in New York City is what kills.


there are no schools for her elsewhere?

A person with a medical degree from Harvard and a person with a medical degree from 'your state' university are both doctors.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Fortunately for women their advancement in the work force does not depend on physical attributes only. This is continuously proven by how many women are excelling. In fact there are far more professions, careers and jobs where intellect, experience, organization and application are the most important requirements. 

And of course their is the simple yet vital skill of being able to find a way. Problem solving. When you look back at the real beginning of the modern women's work force it takes place during WW2 when women were doing all the jobs that were necessary. And not having the same physical attributes as men did not slow them down or stop them. In fact in many cases the women found better and easier ways to do things that were adopted and used after the war. And this has continued on into current times. More than one way to do anything.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

emdeengee said:


> Fortunately for women their advancement in the work force does not depend on physical attributes only. This is continuously proven by how many women are excelling. In fact there are far more professions, careers and jobs where intellect, experience, organization and application are the most important requirements.
> 
> And of course their is the simple yet vital skill of being able to find a way. Problem solving. When you look back at the real beginning of the modern women's work force it takes place during WW2 when women were doing all the jobs that were necessary. And not having the same physical attributes as men did not slow them down or stop them. In fact in many cases the women found better and easier ways to do things that were adopted and used after the war. And this has continued on into current times. More than one way to do anything.


To me, this is a classic example of what diversity in a workforce can accomplish. When people approach problems from a different perspective, they can often find the solution that has eluded everyone else. 

My hubby and I have different skill sets, but there are some tasks that we can both accomplish. When he needs to tighten a screw, he grabs a screwdriver from his tool box. I have my own tool box, but it is usually not as easy to access. When I tighten a screw, I grab a metal nail file, a butter knife... or use a thumbnail! The outcome is the same, but we have different approaches.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> Oh and the trick with the chair? Shorter men can do it too.


Maybe but not that I've seen. Boys can usually do it but I have only seen one adult male do it and he was average height.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> there are no schools for her elsewhere?
> 
> A person with a medical degree from Harvard and a person with a medical degree from 'your state' university are both doctors.


This IS the state school (well, city). $10,000 a year for a doctorate is shockingly good, IMO.  

As I said, the thing that will get us is the apartment which really isn't THAT expensive considering she's living in Manhattan ($1025 a month for one bedroom in a 3 bedroom, 2 bath apartment in a building that is 4 years old and has 24 hour human security, a gym, laundry and rooftop lounge). Add in a train ticket to get home for the weekends ($91 a month which we are covering as her parents) and a Metro card ($130 a month) and any food and incidentals, and it's just costly. It's especially costly considering she's only working 2 days a week at a grocery store and picking up babysitting whenever she can on a Saturday night. But fortunately, she's going to be an audiologist which has a starting salary around here of about $75,000 and it is 100% placement within 3 months of graduation!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I fail to understand why people (not you, Ann  ) complain about the cost of tuition when an education will lead to a good-paying job. 

On the liberal forum which just banned me ound: people were bellyaching about how students end up with debt that will be a millstone around their necks for the rest of their lives, etc. 

I pointed out that the debt with which the average student graduates is around $35,000 (IIRC) or about the cost of a new pickup truck. Now, when a young person goes out and buys an F-150, no one cries about how his life has been ruined, and he'll never get out of debt or be able to buy a house or start a family, etc. 

It's especially ironic because that new truck will depreciate the moment you drive it off the lot, while a degree ought to retain some value and provide the recipient with higher earning potential throughout his or her career! 

So, best wishes to your daughter, Ann. I'd think demographic trends -- the large percentage of aging Americans -- will mean her profession will be in high demand for several decades to come.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I think that there are lots of parents that don't counsel their children about dumb education moves. There are degrees that are worth more and less in the job market and I also think the idea that one must go to the most expensive school possible or popular or whatever is not a good notion. You can get a bad or good education at most any school because it's more about you and the effort you put into it than which school you went too. That is my opinion and experience.

A higher education does cost an awful lot... because we let it. The more expensive schools would have to cut rates if more people bargain hunted. 

Also I think the ones graduating with the most debt are the ones that don't work at all while going to school. They don't do anything in the immediate to offset the costs of their degree and I think that costs them in the long run.

And what are you talking about? Liberals would totally get their knickers in a wad over their kid purchasing a brand new truck! You can't be in their club with out an Aveo or a Prius or something, right?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I fail to understand why people (not you, Ann  ) complain about the cost of tuition when an education will lead to a good-paying job.
> 
> On the liberal forum which just banned me ound: people were bellyaching about how students end up with debt that will be a millstone around their necks for the rest of their lives, etc.
> 
> ...


This is really true! I do wish we could help her out so she ends up with less to no debt but since hubby is a pastor and not making what he used to when he was a computer software engineer, we just do what we can to help with the day to day costs. She was accepted to two programs but the one that would allow her to live at home was $46,000 a year and there was just no way to do that. Fortunately, this program that she's in is actually the better program so the choice was pretty clear. But as you said, this is a good field and I have no doubts about her ability to support herself after she's done. Now her older sister who had to go for art education? That's another story.....


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> I fail to understand why people (not you, Ann  ) complain about the cost of tuition when an education will lead to a good-paying job.
> 
> On the liberal forum which just banned me ound: people were bellyaching about how students end up with debt that will be a millstone around their necks for the rest of their lives, etc.
> 
> ...


Not so true today. I'm in the richest area of the nation. There are so many people with extreme education that cant find work. The job market is so tight it takes much more than education. Even in the medical field I see people posting daily looking for any place needing rns and what not. So to strap yourself with debt today isn't necessarily a smart move. I also know many peyote with no extra education making 6 figures. Is about the person, the common sense and the drive that person posseses. Employers can take one look at a person today abs know if they got what it takes. They don't even care about the education because there are plenty of peyote out there qualified based on education. If you ain't got it they wont higher you. That truck will give me 20 years good service at minimal cost. Lol


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Not so true today. I'm in the richest area of the nation. There are so many people with extreme education that cant find work. The job market is so tight it takes much more than education. Even in the medical field I see people posting daily looking for any place needing rns and what not. So to strap yourself with debt today isn't necessarily a smart move. I also know many peyote with no extra education making 6 figures. Is about the person, the common sense and the drive that person posseses. Employers can take one look at a person today abs know if they got what it takes. They don't even care about the education because there are plenty of peyote out there qualified based on education. If you ain't got it they wont higher you. That truck will give me 20 years good service at minimal cost. Lol


I just looked up Shenandoah VA and that is far from the richest area of the nation. Median income is about $34,000 a year. Where I live, we're running over $100,000 a year for median income. A nurse has no problem getting a job around here. I live about 45 minutes from New York City and trust me, education IS important where you have high paying jobs.


----------



## Belldandy (Feb 16, 2014)

billinwv said:


> When I was a kid almost no family had two people working outside the home. At that time it was usually the man. I wonder if we went back to that if it would help the middle class in the long run (one or the other could work regardless of sex) I think it would lower the unemployment rate and raise wages because employers would be competing for workers, one person in the 60's and even the 70's could work and support a family. This would open entry level jobs back up to the teenagers who are now competing with adults for low paying positions. Forget raising the minimum wage, that would take care of itself as employers competed for help. Not to mention the fact that children would have a parent at home, clean laundry, home cooked meals etc. Heck might even reduce the divorce rate and teenage delinquency. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, just been on my mind lately. Been watching too much Leave it to Beaver lol. I seriously do not know how parents work 40 plus hrs each per week and maintain a household much less care for children. Mothers can't even count on help from Nana because she works also!


I think you are one hundred percent correct.

I know that I know that I KNOW this would fix all our current dilemmas. Yet my knowledge cannot convince anyone else.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I fail to understand why people (not you, Ann  ) complain about the cost of tuition when an education will lead to a good-paying job.
> 
> On the liberal forum which just banned me ound: people were bellyaching about how students end up with debt that will be a millstone around their necks for the rest of their lives, etc.
> 
> ...


Depends on the degree and the school. One of the top five engineering schools in the nation is a state ran school, U of MO S&T, with a cost of just under $10K/yr and the average job at graduation pays $60K. Now you could go to MIT and pay just over $60K/yr and your starting pay after graduation will be $65K. 

Assuming you borrowed all the money. . .in one case you come out with $40K debt making $60K/yr. In the other you have $240K making $65K/yr. Which seems the smarter to you? 

We won't even get to the differences in the cost of living in the two areas.

Now saying "I went to MIT" may impress some people more then saying I went to U of MO S&T. But for those looking to hire engineers your I heart MIT button doesn't mean much.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Annsni said:


> I just looked up Shenandoah VA and that is far from the richest area of the nation. Median income is about $34,000 a year. Where I live, we're running over $100,000 a year for median income. A nurse has no problem getting a job around here. I live about 45 minutes from New York City and trust me, education IS important where you have high paying jobs.


Try loudoun county va. That's where I'm from and where all my family is located. I drove an hour west for cheaper land.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> And what are you talking about? Liberals would totally get their knickers in a wad over their kid purchasing a brand new truck! You can't be in their club with out an Aveo or a Prius or something, right?


You are absolutely right. I stand corrected! 



> I also know many peyote with no extra education


I've known a fair share of peyote myself, back in the day, but that was in a another country, and besides, the wench is dead! 

Isn't autocorrect a wonderful thing?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> You are absolutely right. I stand corrected!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess my phone has a thing for peyote. It is what it always puts in place of people. Lol


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I know that a lot of people "blame" the current unemployment rates and low salaries on the two adult working family but there are a lot of other factors that contribute to this. The population explosion is one of them. In 1970 the US had a population of 205 million. Today it is 317 million. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in every sector have been outsourced to countries where there are no employment standards to protect the people. Meanwhile the population has grown by 100 plus million and we are not even including illegal aliens in the calculation who really drive down wages. Employers get away with exporting jobs and importing/supporting illegal workers. Time to blame them. 

And we cannot just look at our own backyard as the world population was 3.6 billion in 1970 and is 6.9 billion in 2014. Three billion more people on the planet trying to earn a living and there are not that many new jobs available. The competition for work is not only fierce but it is dangerous.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Three billion more people on the planet trying to earn a living


Which also means 3 billion more people buying lattes and smartphones and haircuts. No? 

Reminds me of an old joke: A shoe manufacturer sent two sales reps to a remote tropical island to prospect for new business. The boat dropped the reps off at opposite ends of the island. At the close of the first day, each phoned the office to report on his progress.

"It's hopeless!" said the first rep. "We'll never make any sales here. No one wears shoes!"

"An unprecedented opportunity!" said the second rep. "We can corner the market! It's wide open! _No one wears shoes!_"


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Unfortunately not. The number of jobs and consumer purchases does not equal the population growth and those looking for permanent long term, life building employment. 

You must also factor in modern technology which reduces the number of people required for a job (we have had a large increase in population in my city and yet with modern automatic garbage trucks there is only one man running the truck when there used to be three) and the increase in the retirement age (in poor countries many never retire) which does not open up the job ladder for the young and the huge increase of part time employment which is advantageous to employers but severely restricts earning capability. 

And in the future as we head for 8 and 9 billion people on the planet prices will increase because of shortages which means people will afford less and less and more and more people will compete for the jobs, land and water.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

emdeengee said:


> And in the future as we head for 8 and 9 billion people on the planet prices will increase because of shortages which means people will afford less and less and more and more people will compete for the jobs, land and water.


The natural system is perfect. These shortages will eventually be managed by famine, disease and war. It will not be an issue for ever. Perhaps it's not a pretty idea but all the beauty in nature is surrounded by blood, gore and poop.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I don't think so. The natural system got short circuited with the industrial revolution and there's no turning back now unless we go back to pre-industrial times .... which ain't gonna happen. 

More likely what will happen is there'll be a change of tune from the same people that are complaining now about all the economic ills of the world being women's fault because too many women are out in the work force instead of staying home raising babies. Instead, they'll start complaining about how the economic ills and food shortages of the world are all women's fault because too many women are staying home having too many babies and starving everyone out. Then they'll want population controls put in place so everyone will be limited to 1 child per family (or none) until sufficient employment catches up to the population explosion.

:facepalm:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

It is true human arrogance that thinks anything humans do is outside of the influence or ultimate control of nature. People like to take themselves outside of the system and place themselves above it but the only thing really unique about us is our arrogance and even that is a safety mechanism if you look at it correctly.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You must also factor in modern technology which reduces the number of people required for a job


But that new technology also opens up a host of new opportunities! Twenty-five years ago, no one was building smartphones or developing apps. And doing things more efficiently generally leads to a reduction in the cost of products, making things like big-screen TVs and tablet computers surprisingly inexpensive (and increasing so). 


> and the increase in the retirement age (in poor countries many never retire) which does not open up the job ladder for the young


What is preventing them from starting their own businesses?



> and the huge increase of part time employment which is advantageous to employers but severely restricts earning capability.


Ehh. It's possible to work two part-time jobs that add up to a full-time one. I know this because I've been doing it for the past 7 years! But I do think it's unwise for government policy to encourage employers to hire part-time workers instead of full-time ones, as most people probably would prefer to work a single job.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Paumon said:


> I don't think so. The natural system got short circuited with the industrial revolution and there's no turning back now unless we go back to pre-industrial times .... which ain't gonna happen.


Hh. . .no. Remember the big economic boom in the 50s? It was a result of war. When there's another major war then one of two things will happen in the aftermath. 1) There will be a major economic boom or 2) the last two Mad Max movies will look like the good old days.




Paumon said:


> More likely what will happen is there'll be a change of tune from the same people that are complaining now about all the economic ills of the world being women's fault because too many women are out in the work force instead of staying home raising babies. Instead, they'll start complaining about how the economic ills and food shortages of the world are all women's fault because too many women are staying home having too many babies and starving everyone out. Then they'll want population controls put in place so everyone will be limited to 1 child per family (or none) until sufficient employment catches up to the population explosion.:facepalm:


I don't see it as an economic issue, I see it as a social one. Humans are designed to be raised by a person and that doesn't happen if kids are put in kiddy prisons within weeks of birth. I deal with kids from toddlers to early adults and I can usually spot a kiddy prison kid in a group. They have what the wife and I call the thousand yard stare and have a way of acting which shows they are insecure. 

Ever wonder why back in the 50s there was a huge problem with "juvenile delinquents"? Ever wonder why the juvenile crime rate is so much higher than before? IMO, one of the reasons is that there are no longer 2 parent families with one of them raising the kids.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> But that new technology also opens up a host of new opportunities! Twenty-five years ago, no one was building smartphones or developing apps. And doing things more efficiently generally leads to a reduction in the cost of products, making things like big-screen TVs and tablet computers surprisingly inexpensive (and increasing so).
> 
> 
> What is preventing them from starting their own businesses?
> ...


I worked 3 part time jobs for several years to more than equal a full time job (monetarily) but the jobs were available. They are not available today. When my generation graduated from high school or university or a trade program or apprenticeship we walked into lucrative jobs. There was never a doubt that we would find work. That is definitely not the case today. China graduates as many engineering students every four years as there are University students in the US.

Perfect examples of the influence of technology over employment is the banking industry. Hundreds of thousands of jobs disappeared over night with the introduction of ATMs. These machines are wonderfully practical for the consumer and they certainly have made a fortune for the banking industry. But all those steady, entry level, part time jobs that fueled the income of many families and young people are no longer available and as is clearly shown - have left a huge void in employment around the world. 

In the 1960s 95% of all clothing worn in the US was made in the US. Today only 5%. Hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs disappeared with the fashion industry (direct and indirect employment) and have not been replaced. Moved to other countries which helps them with THEIR overpopulation and employment situations. 

It is wonderful to have product price reductions due to efficient (or more likely cheaper) production but if people do not have a job they can't buy the products anyways. Successful countries have huge middle class (income) sectors. 

As for starting their own businesses. Sure. But 3/4 of small businesses fail or fail to produce a living income. And of course even businesses that will eventually fail can saturate the market and cause other businesses to fail or fail to produce. The cream will keep floating but there is not that much cream.

The situation of overpopulation and thus unemployment is not just about one country. It is about the entire world. And our limited resources.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

You know what I see anytime someone starts talking about limited resources and overpopulation? I see the F.U.D. that keeps rich people rich and powerful corrupt people safely in their positions. Buy into that, ration more, pay more, have less-- But it's largely lies that refuse to take into account that we do live in a self correcting system.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

If by self correcting you mean death through famines and disease and wars and insurrection then yes it is self correcting. And has always been so and it is already starting to heat up around the world.

An example of what happens when basic human needs are not met and people are deprived has resulted from the one child policy of China. The result was the death and thus imbalance of the female population. As a result there are 10 million men (estimated) who will never marry or have children and this frustration and deprivation is already causing huge political unrest in China. The Chinese government is trying to satisfy and solve this problem and the result is piracy against neighbouring countries as well as a huge sex trafficking industry. Rules and morality flies out the window when too many people are deprived. This is what is already happening.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

emdeengee said:


> If by self correcting you mean death through famines and disease and wars and insurrection then yes it is self correcting. And has always been so and it is already starting to heat up around the world.


That is what I mean.


----------



## Jenn (Nov 9, 2004)

MamaTiger said:


> We already live that way. I have a BS in education and I have been a SAHM for over 24 years now. We have two vehicles, but dh uses one and our oldest son uses the other, both are needed for business use (we have a fruit/produce business where dh and son deliver food and other products to customers and they run different routes).
> 
> We have two cell phones, both are used by dh and oldest son because they are out and away from home without an office phone all day...up to 5 hours from home.
> 
> ...


MT you are stay at home but you ARE working- at least part time- in the family business. You replace at least an answering service if not a receptionist/operator


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Jenn said:


> MT you are stay at home but you ARE working- at least part time- in the family business. You replace at least an answering service if not a receptionist/operator


Being a stay at home mom, sans nanny and housekeeper, automatically means one is working. And very often being a stay at home wife/spouse means working in a family business without paycheck as well. 

The attitude that working in the home for the family is not actually working is detrimental to women's rights.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I worked 3 part time jobs for several years to more than equal a full time job (monetarily) but the jobs were available. They are not available today. When my generation graduated from high school or university or a trade program or apprenticeship we walked into lucrative jobs. There was never a doubt that we would find work. That is definitely not the case today. China graduates as many engineering students every four years as there are University students in the US.
> 
> Perfect examples of the influence of technology over employment is the banking industry. Hundreds of thousands of jobs disappeared over night with the introduction of ATMs. These machines are wonderfully practical for the consumer and they certainly have made a fortune for the banking industry. But all those steady, entry level, part time jobs that fueled the income of many families and young people are no longer available and as is clearly shown - have left a huge void in employment around the world.
> 
> ...


OK, so everything is hopeless, and there's no sense even trying. I get it!

It's a free country, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's been my experience that there is no shortage of opportunities here for people who are willing to work hard and keep their noses clean. Your mileage may vary. 

I am off now to work my two jobs (one being a small business I started myself, which is doing just fine).


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

CraterCove said:


> Being a stay at home mom, sans nanny and housekeeper, automatically means one is working. And very often being a stay at home wife/spouse means working in a family business without paycheck as well.
> 
> The attitude that working in the home for the family is not actually working is detrimental to women's rights.


I couldn't agree more. I'm a feminist, but I'm also a stay at home, homeschooling mom. I think one thing that some of my feminist sisters, and perhaps society as a whole, have gotten wrong is the idea that traditional men's work is somehow more valuable than traditional women's work.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Elffriend said:


> I couldn't agree more. I'm a feminist, but I'm also a stay at home, homeschooling mom. I think one thing that some of my feminist sisters, and perhaps society as a whole, have gotten wrong is the idea that traditional men's work is somehow more valuable than traditional women's work.


Yes, to me that's the exact opposite of female empowerment.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> OK, so everything is hopeless, and there's no sense even trying. I get it!
> 
> It's a free country, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's been my experience that there is no shortage of opportunities here for people who are willing to work hard and keep their noses clean. Your mileage may vary.
> 
> I am off now to work my two jobs (one being a small business I started myself, which is doing just fine).


Apparently you do not get it. I have never said that everything is hopeless. Humans are very inventive. All I am saying is that we need to face the realities of overpopulation and the huge demands this makes on resources and the jobs and incomes available and that this is not a problem that stops at your door. This is a world wide problem and it comes to your door. If you face reality you can make the necessary changes.

It is actually naive to believe that all you have to do is work hard and keep your nose clean and there will be opportunities. All over the world (including in the US) people work hard and the circumstances of environment and politics make it impossible to attain the basics of life let alone advance. Add in a few more thousand people to every town or village and desperation sets in. We are beginning to see this in Europe and North America.

I ran my own business starting in 1995 and it was very, very successful until I retired two years ago. The irony was that my business was helping those whose businesses were in trouble or failed. And the work for me never ran out. It would be nice to be able to just blame the people for being lazy. But that was never the case. 

The reality is that every market can be saturated. Where I live we had two goat farms and both were doing very well but two others opened (all make excellent products) and although our little city has grown by over 10% over the last few years this is not enough to support 4 farms. All are now not making it. Not sure which one(s) will survive. Same for our quilting stores and teaching centres. Two closed this fall and one of those declared bankruptcy.


----------



## Belldandy (Feb 16, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> OK, so everything is hopeless, and there's no sense even trying. I get it!
> 
> It's a free country, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's been my experience that there is no shortage of opportunities here for people who are willing to work hard and keep their noses clean. Your mileage may vary.
> 
> I am off now to work my two jobs (one being a small business I started myself, which is doing just fine).


I understand this. 

When did this become an Overpopulation thread anyway?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

When some posters stated and/or inferred that the job situation (lack of jobs, poor wages and benefits, outsourcing, part-time instead of full time, techno employees instead of humans etc) was due to so many households having to be two income households today - mostly directed at women who left the home for outside work - and that if one person just stayed home then there would be better work for all at higher wages. People have become two income earners BECAUSE there is a lack of better work and adequate wages. This of course also does not take into consideration the huge population increase (not even including illegals) even as companies move to low wage/no employment standard countries and the decrease in the middle class continues a downward spiral and the clear preference by business for part-time no benefit employees.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Apparently you do not get it. I have never said that everything is hopeless. Humans are very inventive. All I am saying is that we need to face the realities of overpopulation and the huge demands this makes on resources and the jobs and incomes available and that this is not a problem that stops at your door. This is a world wide problem and it comes to your door. If you face reality you can make the necessary changes.


I apologize for my earlier post being snappy. I just wasted a huge amount of my time arguing with a bunch of liberals on another board who are convinced that life is hopeless, any sort of initiative is fruitless, and the plutocrats are inevitably keeping us down. The only possible solution they could envision was income redistribution, which will of course solve everything. :facepalm:

So please forgive me if your stance reminded me of their steadfast pessimism and resistance to any facts that contradicted their beliefs!

As far as the overpopulation angle, it seems as soon as a nation becomes Westernized, birthrates fall. Much of Europe as well as Japan are not reproducing at a rate that will sustain their populations without an influx of immigrants. I've seen projections that world population will peak and then begin to level off, and think that's entirely possible, even without famine, wars, etc.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I enjoy a good snap myself - bet you couldn't tell lol!

Birth rates are falling in many countries but unfortunately that is not the whole story or the whole impact. The world population has been on a continuous growth spurt since the 14th century despite such population trimmers as war, plague, famine. We have reached a growth rate of 1.1% and this is expected to remain constant. If this is correct (and so far the projections have been) then the unfortunate part is that there are 134 million births every year and only 56 million deaths. A difference of 78 million which in 12 years or so will total another billion people on the planet. 

As of March 2012 the world population exceeded 7 billion and the median age was 29.7 years. That is a very young world.

Mother Nature will do some trimming but how horrific and sad is that? 21,000 children die everyday NOW from preventable diseases and situations (lack of food and clean water). I would rather we controlled birth then to have this number continue and increase. Less people less resources to be spread thin.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

The problem is that there is no way to control human birth rates, besides on an individual level that does not end up being evil for some nebulous 'greater good'.

Until then, nature will rule. As others point out when nations reach a certain level the birth rates reduce. If all places were elevated, which will surely happen eventually, this will all become less of an issue. But that will also take time and might not happen without some natural axing as it is.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

If only that were true. In 1970 China's population was 814 million. Today it is 1.393 billion. And this was during their westernization and one child only policy. The population is projected to keep growing until 2040 when there may be a downward shift. However these projections were made before China recinded its one child policy.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Gotta watch projections. According to AL gore Manhattan should have been under water 5 years ago and the polar ice caps gone along with the polar bears. All still there. Lol


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Well... some projections are based on fairy dust and some on studying human behavior over thousands of years and seeing natural population control in action through history.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

As I mentioned before, natural population control ended with the industrial revolution. Add the advances in medical sciences to that and there's been even less of natural population control happening during the past 200 years.

It took 50,000 years for the world population to get to 1 billion in 1830. Population went BOOM with industrialization that started in the mid 1800's. 100 years later in 1930 the world population had reached 2 billion. Now 85 years later it's 7 billion. 

In the past 15 years more people around the world have started reducing the rate of births of their on free will and accord, not because of natural population control. That's in addition to birth rate reduction policies having been implemented in places like China and India during the past 40 years. If China and India had not implemented birth rate reduction policies or incentives there would be a great deal more people on earth today than 7 billion.

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm

[SIZE=+1]*Time to Get to Each Billion*[/SIZE] 

1 B 1830 .... 50,000 years
2 B 1930 .........100 years
3 B 1960 ...........30 years
4 B 1975 .......... 15 years
5 B 1989 ...........14 years
6 B 1999 ...........10 years (birth rate reduction started in the period from 1999 to 2011)
7 B 2011 ...........12 years 
8 B 2025 ...........14 years
9 B 2045 ...........20 years

*What could intervene?*

1. *Starvation* - Can we feed 8 billion people?
--- Many say no. Drought-induced famine

2. *Disease Epidemic* -
--- SARS, a new bird flu, Ebola?

3. *Nuclear winter* -
--- Super volcano, nuclear war, comet, asteroid?

4. *Birth rate change*
--- Happening now

5. *The **Earth's poles flip*
--- Calamity, happened many times before

6. *The Apocalypse* (religion induced)
--- People lose their minds on massive scale


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Belldandy said:


> I understand this.
> 
> When did this become an Overpopulation thread anyway?


The conversation is _evolving_ naturally. I sure hope you don't have control issues about that.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Well... some projections are based on fairy dust and some on studying human behavior over thousands of years and seeing natural population control in action through history.


And even the best projections are very often wrong. 

I have here a textbook published by Cambridge University Press in 1992 that asserts quite confidently that "the human population will reach 8 billion people by the year 2000, 14 billion 2010, 60 billion in 2020, and infinity in the year 2023. That, of course, will not happen, because environmental devastation, famine, disease, and strife will grow at even higher exponential rates."

Now, we're not to 2023 yet, so we probably shouldn't write off Cesare Emiliani's predictions entirely, but let the record show that the Earth's population was about 6 billion in the year 2000 and 6.8 billion a decade later. The United Nations is currently predicting we'll reach 8 billion by 2024.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Willingly giving birth less is a natural population control. 

If you think medical science is at the point where it can cure all epidemics/pandemics... well I'm glad you have something to help you sleep at night.

When resources are scarce it is human nature to go to war, one could argue that the only real reason is to reduce population and any other reason we think we are going to war is incorrect.

Birth control in some countries is done through tyranny and convincing women to get surgery in such awful conditions that they die lying in fields where they were dumped in horrible pain--- I'm not willing to advocate such things.

Yes, science advances but to think that because of that we have ultimate control over everything that could happen is as lunatic in nature as any other religious fanatic. 'The science will save us!' Is a call for help to a headless god. And to suggest that the only reason people might 'lose their minds' and start an 'apocalypse' is religious in nature--- okay I'll grant that if we add animal rights, environmentalism, political zealotry and blind science worship to the list of religions. Oh, and Aliens . Because people, in general, do not do any of those listed thing for any reason but to fill the gap between their ears where they were encouraged to toss out a god/s based religion in order to accept some different set of controls. And to that all I have to say is 'Hail Discordia!' Embrace chaos and free yourself.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Oh, and has that one child limit been lifted in China or something? This dude is dad to five in China: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/jilted-wife-chopped-husbands-penis-4969780


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Because people, in general, do not do any of those listed thing for any reason but to fill the gap between their ears where they were encouraged to toss out a god/s based religion in order to accept some different set of controls. And to that all I have to say is 'Hail Discordia!' Embrace chaos and free yourself.


I think it's a false dichotomy to assert that humans must embrace a religion of some sort or be consigned to chaos. 

I believe there is a third way -- the way of rational thought and decision-making -- and that is the path we ought to pursue.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

CraterCove said:


> Oh, and has that one child limit been lifted in China or something? This dude is dad to five in China: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/jilted-wife-chopped-husbands-penis-4969780


It looks like the ban is 'easing' http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/28/world/asia/china-one-child-policy-official/index.html


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> I think it's a false dichotomy to assert that humans must embrace a religion of some sort or be consigned to chaos.
> 
> I believe there is a third way -- the way of rational thought and decision-making -- and that is the path we ought to pursue.


Yes but it is rational to embrace the way things are. Chaos is order you are too small to recognize.  The universe is vast and it's ways still largely conjecture. Nothing is out to get you when things go wrong nor will any magical force protect you--- things as they are. We live as small creatures in an indifferent universe and there is no meaning or depth but that which we choose. I see it as a great freedom.

And human brains are designed for religion of some kind. No, not all require it but there are many so called free thinkers who don't realize their dogma is not much different from other religious followers. As stated in the GMO thread, people just have certain cues they give knee jerk reactions to and they don't even understand where their beliefs come from. They just accept what is handed to them.


----------

