[Son of Jack]

Originally Posted by chrysostom

you obviously do not appreciate how important a flat screen high definition tv is

Apparently not...

[Son of Jack]

Originally Posted by The Horn

A foru week old fetus, which cannot even see,hear or feel pain, is not a "mewmber" of a family .

So much foolishness...Tell that to my friends that have lost children at seven weeks...Tell it to them as they still mourn for their children...Tell them that that which they still love wasn't ever really a member of their families. You are a fool, and you have believed a lie.

[Changed]

My mother worked when I was growing up. I missed out on having a mother and was raised by housekeepers. I decided to work at home and raise my child working with me.

[Ktoyou]

Originally Posted by The Horn

.......................
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.

No, no no! It may seem rightfully arguable that way, but it is not so? Who is going to take care of the children, a babysitter? They charge and usually unless related hardly love the children in their care. You say daycare, well daycare also costs. Consider, the expense of driving to work, the cost of childcare and the loss of love for most of the wake hours for children?

We have more problems with kids today because most were not raised with much love. Does this apply to you? I think it may?

Most of this is the result of social decadence.

[Ktoyou]

Originally Posted by Changed

My mother worked when I was growing up. I missed out on having a mother and was raised by housekeepers. I decided to work at home and raise my child working with me.

Good point!

[meshak]

Originally Posted by Ktoyou

Most of this is the result of social decadence.

Yes, the world is getting colder and colder. Love less and less.

I am so glad that I am Jesus' follower.

[Ktoyou]

Yes, it is getting pretty bad. I was reading a book late night and it was a bit upsetting, when thinking about how pernicious this is. You see the book was about the European population loss because European women were not having children while Muslims have now filled in the work force, yet the second generation Muslims are living like low-life hip-hop hoods, off the dole and making trouble.

I blame the social structure, and more than anyone, those sociologists, who started with this 'homemaker is oppressive' nonsense! I would like to dunk them all and give the spoiled Muslim boys a good whipping! Someday, this will all change!

[meshak]

Originally Posted by Ktoyou

Y Someday, this will all change!

Yes, when Jesus returns. Until then it will be worse and worse.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Ktoyou

I blame the social structure, and more than anyone, those sociologists, who started with this 'homemaker is oppressive' nonsense! I would like to dunk them all and give the spoiled Muslim boys a good whipping! Someday, this will all change!

What do sociologists have to do with anything? It was women themselves who decided that 'home-making' was oppressive. It was the 1960s, and people were reacting to the oppressiveness of the 1950s. It wasn't just women, everyone wanted to be 'emancipated' in some way or other.

And women had a point, back then. We forget, now, how constrained they really were. How women were locked into abusive marriages by husbands who kept everything in their own names and by a society that helped enforce their servitude to the point of demoralization.

Now days women can choose to be a housewife or not to be, and can expect to be treated respectfully either way. And she can do something about it if she's not. But that wasn't always the case. A big reason why women wanted to fight for the right to work back in the 60s was to create a way out of an abusive or oppressive domestic situation if they needed it. Also, not EVERY woman is suited for, or desirous of being a mother or a housewife. And until the social battles of the 1960s, they had few other options.

But none of this has much of anything to do with 'sociologists'. They study social trends as and after they happen. They don't propose them.

[Gagafritz]

Those are good points. There is good and bad to everything. Things can be used for evil or used for good. There are good points to women being able to support themselves and have options. There are good points about being at home and raising your children. We can take a lot of good things and twist them in one wrong direction or another.
I do think that children need a parent at home as much as possible. I feel sorry for little kids who are warehoused all day in daycares for 40+ or more hours per week. My older son was in daycare more than my other two as i adjusted my career to my children. They really didn't like daycare at all. And, i have been home much more for my daughter and that is a good thing. I want to be the one home with her.

[bybee]

Originally Posted by PureX

What do sociologists have to do with anything? It was women themselves who decided that 'home-making' was oppressive. It was the 1960s, and people were reacting to the oppressiveness of the 1950s. It wasn't just women, everyone wanted to be 'emancipated' in some way or other.

And women had a point, back then. We forget, now, how constrained they really were. How women were locked into abusive marriages by husbands who kept everything in their own names and by a society that helped enforce their servitude to the point of demoralization.

Now days women can choose to be a housewife or not to be, and can expect to be treated respectfully either way. And she can do something about it if she's not. But that wasn't always the case. A big reason why women wanted to fight for the right to work back in the 60s was to create a way out of an abusive or oppressive domestic situation if they needed it. Also, not EVERY woman is suited for, or desirous of being a mother or a housewife. And until the social battles of the 1960s, they had few other options.

But none of this has much of anything to do with 'sociologists'. They study social trends as and after they happen. They don't propose them.

I remember the line being espoused by sociology professors back in the 60's and 70's and they most certainly passed negative judgment on almost all that was traditional in society!

[lifeisgood]

Originally Posted by The Horn

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.

For those women that ARE married:
If a married woman does not want to have any more children because they already have a number of children they are happy with, one solution would be to ask the husband to do a vasectomy. OMG, how could you. Simple, it can be reversed easily if they later decided to have more children. My understanding is that a tubal ligation is not so good for the woman and it cannot be reversed. But the decision should be made between husband and wife.

For those women who are NOT married:
If she is an adult, then she should have never gone to bed with the guy she went to bed with without protecting herself. I know that now days ALL WOMEN know that going to bed = having baby. In the old days, my mom says, "We was stupid, we knew nothing about that stuff. We just did it and took care of it when it came and we was happy with it. So, go away." So, today, if a single woman does not want to take care of a baby DO NOT go to bed with any man, because you will be left alone with the baby. But if you got pregnant and you do not want the baby, please, consider adoption and not abortion.

Now to answer the question about if a woman loses something by staying at home. No, I do not think so. I know a couple of women who had to work and regret that they could not stay with their children at home, because the children are always telling them, 'You were never there for me,' which is not true, but that's the feeling the children were left with.

So, if you can stay at home, stay at home.

If you have to work, make sure that you make time with the children, make them feel special, no matter how tired you are, they have to come first in your eyes --- and definitely in theirs --- you can do no more than your best.

And for those who do not know the situation of each woman, let's encourage them. If we know a woman with children, let's help them in what we can. It is hard enough in these economic times.

[Desert Reign]

toldailytopic: Homemaker. Do women who choose to stay at home and raise the family miss out on something?


I'm all for women's equality and Paul the apostle emancipated women in his day (as well as slaves and broke down racial barriers between Jews and Greeks). But let's get something straight: unfair discrimination is based on discrimination in areas which are unconnected with the basis of the discrimination. You can't employ a bedridden person as a football coach. That is reasonable discrimination, not the unfair kind. And it is abundantly clear that women were designed generally to build nests: have children and look after the home. You generally get pleasure from fulfilling what you were designed for, whether it is eating, drinking or pooing and what could be more honouring than bringing up children to be responsible, healthy adults?

Of course men can do it as well, just as women can do paid jobs; but isn't it comforting to have someone bring up your children who is a natural born expert at it?

And of course women who stay at home miss out on something just as we all miss out on things whatever choices we make. But no one should say that a woman at home is somehow inferior to any other. Whole areas of society are created and sustained by women who bring up children; they don't just create a home, they also create a village or a town, they enhance schools, parks, local shops and the like. And when you have done with your ambitions, at the end of the day you want to retire or just live a comfortable life, you come full circle to live in an environment created largely by those who never had such ambitions in the first place.

[Nick M]

Originally Posted by Gagafritz

Those are good points. There is good and bad to everything.

What is bad about a mother tending to her hungry baby instead of day care?

[Lighthouse]

As a man I've worked outside the home for years. Trust me when I say homemakers aren't missing anything.