toldailytopic: Homemaker. Do women who choose to stay at home and raise the family mi
TOL Topic of the Day - Chime In!Every day we will post a new topic and we want to get your comments on that topic. The topic could be about literally anything from the vague to the specific, important or trivial. The TOL membership can take that topic and run with it!
Slogan/motto:
You , too, can have an exciting and glamorous engineering career like me!
Reputation:
May 11th, 2012, 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breathe
It's a lot of fun, isn't it? I pitied my husband for having to miss so much.
husbands
Your problem is not technology. The problem is YOU. You lack the will to change...You treat this planet as you treat each other. - Klaatu
What are you talking about? There is no such thing as the "Mafia"......it doesn't exist. Just a bunch of lies told to defame honest hardworking Italians like myself. - TomO
I will do you, let's see, goofy, wacky, and to the left side of the bell curve. -Ktoyou
I'm white. I'm not black. I can't convert to being black. It doesn't matter how much I want to become black. I could listen to rap and date fat white women all day; for all that, I'll still remain white.- Traditio
Knight, what you're saying about Obama and "liberals "bullying " women into thinking that they have to go to college and work if they're married and have children, and that there's some sinister liberal plot to undermine the family by forcing mothers to work is pure baloney. Nothing but a straw man.
If a woman wants to stay at home and raise children, and her husband earns a good enough living for her to do this, that's her right. No one is forcing her to work. But you fail to realize that in this very difficult economy, many married women with children have no choice but to work or their families would not be able to stay afloat and they would never be able to earn an adequate living.
Many families are having a rough enough time today keeping their heads above water even with both parents working .
Conservatives have this idealized image of the past, where supposedly every family consistred of a father earning a living and bringing home the bacon while the mother stays home raising the children, and supposedly everything was hunky dory .
Bu this is nothing but a conservative myth .
You are either naively young or old senile-stupid.
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Slogan/motto:
Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
Isaiah 1:17
Reputation:
May 12th, 2012, 12:09 AM
You miss out on something either way. Of course to me it depends what your occupation is outside of the home. Some are more valuable than others. If you're working outside the home just to work at a menial or frustrating job purely for the money, I don't really see the point.
As an instructor I get my summers mostly off to spend with my son and am able to raise our standard of living far beyond what it would be with me staying home. My husband's occupation is flexible enough that we have only minimal need for baby sitting (once a week). Plus I feel like I am able to make a difference in the lives of many more young people other than just my son through my work.
The problem I see underlying the question is there isn't much of a choice for many women to NOT work outside the home. Wages have remained virtually stagnant since the 1970s meaning families with a single working parent are worse off than they were before and families with two working adults are no better off than the one wage earner version of the 1970s.
Romney says women on assistance need the "dignity of work". So I guess very poor women shouldn't have that choice, because we can't have the government paying you to be a stay at home mom (cause then you'd be lazy), but if you're rich it's a valuable lifestyle choice . . . Double standard much?
“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.
Slogan/motto:
In a world with so many ready to hear, why waste words on the willfully deaf?
Reputation:
May 12th, 2012, 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One
The problem I see underlying the question is there isn't much of a choice for many women to NOT work outside the home. Wages have remained virtually stagnant since the 1970s meaning families with a single working parent are worse off than they were before and families with two working adults are no better off than the one wage earner version of the 1970s.
The problem of course is that biggest reason for that decline is women entering the workforce. That's not some sort of moral judgement, just basic supply and demand. You can't double the supply of available labor without the value of that labor dropping.
"When the lights go out all over the world, when history seems headed only into a dead end and total disaster, God brings forth light. He changes the direction of history and regenerates men and redirects events and institutions to fulfill His purposes."
Slogan/motto:
Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
Isaiah 1:17
Reputation:
May 12th, 2012, 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WandererInFog
The problem of course is that biggest reason for that decline is women entering the workforce. That's not some sort of moral judgement, just basic supply and demand. You can't double the supply of available labor without the value of that labor dropping.
You could assert that, and it sounds simple and easy I'm not sure that is actually the case. In the looking I have done on this issue there are quite a number of factors in play. One of the main ones being technology which allowed outsourcing to lower wage countries. Computers and robots taking the place of people (male and female) in many professions. This also meant that individual workers become more productive. Higher skilled workers become more valuable and would seem to become more highly paid.
However, we also see executive pay ballooning over this same period. And in other countries with high participation of women in the labor force we don't see the level of wage stagnation and growth of inequality that we see in the USA.
“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.
Chatmaggot, I "openly promote the murder of the unborn?"
Oh come on, now. This istatement is beyond idiotic. Abortions will happen whether I am pro- or ant-choice. Or whether they are legal or not. Making them illegal will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop abortion. In fact, it will only INCREASE the abortion rate and threaten the lives and health of poor women all over America, especially poor b;lack and Hispanic ones.
I've never forced a woman to have an abortion. I wouldn't want to anyway. That's HER decision, not mine . But I don't want to force a woman to bear a child against her will, if it would be disastrous for her and her family.
"What more can destroy the family than murdering its members".
A foru week old fetus, which cannot even see,hear or feel pain, is not a "mewmber" of a family .
There' nco better way to destroy families than when women die from botched illegal abortions .
I love being an at home Mum. I wouldn't have it any other way.
I gave birth to these beautiful children, therefore, it is my responsibility to raise them....not some stranger at a childcare facility.
They are young for such a small amount of time...such a small portion of my life. It's no sacrifice to give them myself for that amount of time.
I was a non-believer when I had two older children. Even though I stayed home to take care of them I raised them secular way and they turned out to be very secular cold hearted when they became teenager.
When my two younger children was still young I became Jesus' follower and raised them His way and they turned out to be spiritually, emotionally healthy young adults now. They never gave me a headache like my older children.
My children are my testimony of how Jesus' teachings make difference in our lives vividly if we practice what He teaches..
Do women who choose to stay at home and raise the family miss out on something?
Every decision in life is a trade-off. So of course if you choose plan "A" you will lose out on some of the experiences that plan "B" had to offer, and likewise. But choices have to be made. We can't be and do all the things that are possible for us to be and do. That's just the way it is.
Slogan/motto:
Being led into relationships by urgings of love which arise and are sustained naturally and spontaneously within my heart, is always 'God-righteous' even if I have to transgress the Ten Commandments.
Reputation:
May 12th, 2012, 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight
Obama and the rest of the liberals in this country are constantly bullying women into thinking that if you don't go to college and you don't have a career you are somehow missing out on something. They make women think that if you want to be a stay-at-home mom you are a lesser person.
What's wrong with aspiring to be a homemaker?
Men and women in Christ are the same. That is, for Christians, there is no division of labor according to sex.
Among Christians (children of God), either men or women (according to their calling) can stay home and take care of the family.
Children of God are led by the Spirit as discerned within their own hearts. They do not go to college to become competent. They are informed by the Spirit as discerned within their own heart. And they take up their intuitively oriented works in the body of Christ.
However among those who are still children of God, the tradition remains intact. Jesus is the head of men and men are the head of women. God is the head of Jesus.
Women who are not in Christ, must cover their head in church and say nothing. They can speak only through their husbands. Their husbands are their Lord.
Seem that women who are children of the flesh (i.e. not in Christ), must stay home and raise children. Their men who are still children of the flesh, can go to college and then take up work under their essentially intellectually oriented work, in the body of men.
Romney says women on assistance need the "dignity of work". So I guess very poor women shouldn't have that choice, because we can't have the government paying you to be a stay at home mom (cause then you'd be lazy), but if you're rich it's a valuable lifestyle choice . . . Double standard much?
The republicans are trying to blame the economic disaster that their own greed and incompetence has created on some imaginary horde of welfare parasites. And sadly, there are plenty of people who want to believe their lies. So we now have a political crusade against the poor and unemployed at a time when they most need our help.
husbands
- TomO
-Ktoyou
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Linear Mode
