toldailytopic: Homemaker. Do women who choose to stay at home and raise the family mi

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 11th, 2012 09:33 AM

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

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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? :idunno:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

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? :idunno:

On this we agree.

Try dating those kinds of women! Not pleasant.

 

[ebenz47037]

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? :idunno:

Honestly, I think that the opposite is true. I think that if a woman doesn't have and take care of her children, she's missing out on someone. Although I only have one, I feel sorry for women who never have children.

My own family has always looked down on me because I chose to be a stay-at-home mom, even the women who were stay-at-home moms from the previous generation. My mother, who was a stay-at-home mom, treats me differently than she does my two sisters who work outside the home as nurse's aides. She says that I'm missing out on the "experience of being around people other than my family/child all day." The funny thing is that she should have noticed that I was different than my sisters from our childhood. I used to follow Nana around, learning how to clean and cook and garden. The only two things that Nana did that I don't do are crocheting and sewing. But, most of you old-timers on TOL know that I have an obsession for recipes. I got that from Nana.

I don't look down on women who choose to work outside the home. I look down on women who, like my sister L, say they work outside the home because they need a daily break from their children. Why did she have four children if she needed a daily break from them? I look down on women, like my sister L, who abuse and/or abandon the children that they chose to have.

Personally, I think that a woman should choose either to have children or to work outside the home. It is hard on the children when the mother isn't home for them, at least for the first five years.

 

[The Horn]

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 .

 

[Rusha]

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

No ... they do not.

 

[annabenedetti]

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 .

I assure you, it is no myth.

 

[vegascowboy]

God bless stay at home moms.

They are heroes is my book.

 

[Maximeee]

I don't feel like I miss out on something. It's hard work, but it's incredibly rewarding.

 

[vegascowboy]

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 .

And liberals like YOU have done their utmost to destroy the family as it existed then. Congratulations. You should be so proud.

 

[The Barbarian]

In every choice, there is something lost and something gained. It depends. Given the way my kids grew up, I have to think my wife made the right choice for them.

 

[meshak]

What's wrong with aspiring to be a homemaker? :idunno:

Noting is wrong about it, on the contrary, taking care of the children and husband is the most honorable duty for women. Raising children is not part time work.

Christians have responsibility to raise children as they should go. We should not rely on others to take care of them and teach them.

 

[annabenedetti]

And liberals like YOU have done their utmost to destroy the family as it existed then. Congratulations. You should be so proud.

One of the aims of marxism is to break down the family unit, to separate parent from child. The reason for this is to prevent the parents from passing on their religious and moral values to their children, not only in the crucial early development years, but in the crucial teen years when peer pressure is strongest. In marxist thought, the state is the primary influence, and this is why Castro took children from their parents at the age of seven. This is why communist regimes encouraged children to spy on their parents. The family is the cornerstone of human society. When it's broken, the state can step in and fill the void.

 

[Sherman]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 11th, 2012 09:33 AM

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

Women that work and put their kids in daycare miss out on something very important, time with their kids. This society has it backwards.

 

[vegascowboy]

The family is the cornerstone of human society. When it's broken, the state can step in and fill the void.

And for that very sentiment we are accused of being overlydramatic and ridiculous.

Society itself crumbles when the traditional family goes away.

 

[Tambora]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 11th, 2012 09:33 AM

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

I don't feel like I missed out.
I had a very blessed life as a wife and mother.
My cup runneth over.

 

[Tambora]

Honestly, I think that the opposite is true. I think that if a woman doesn't have and take care of her children, she's missing out on someone.

 

[Buzzword]

In every choice, there is something lost and something gained.

This.
Balance seems to be the ideal state.


The economic side seems to be the primary motivator for most of the "millennial" generation (born in the 80's, raised in the 90's), both for working mothers and for married couples who choose not to have children.

Older, upper-middle-class parents tend to scoff at younger, lower-class couples who don't have children because they "can't afford it," but that's really what it comes down to most of the time.

As for "passing down religious and moral values," I would think teaching the child to draw conclusions using his/her own reasoning ability would be a higher priority than slamming political views down his/her throat.
The reason the KKK still exists is because parents "passed down" their religious and moral values to their children without ever giving their children a chance to be rational, thinking individuals who make choices and prioritize values for themselves.

My wife wants to be an elementary music teacher, not because she's had "YOU MUST HAVE A CAREER RAAAAAARR!!" shoved down her throat from day one, but because she loves music, loves children, and loves sharing the former with the latter.

We don't have children because I just finished college, she has three more semesters, and neither of us make enough money to do more than break even at the moment.


Should we bring a child into this situation, in which the two of us barely have time to be SPOUSES, much less PARENTS?

 

[Lon]

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

You fairly opened and:

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? :idunno:

...closed the thread. The rest is just icing on the cake :up:

 

[The Horn]

Vegasa Cowboy, what kind of incredibly dense doofus are you ? "Liberals" have done everything in power to destroy the family ?
You imbecile ! Socio-economoic conditions have changed vastly.
I may be a liberal, but I'v e never done anything to "destroy" the family.
Nobody is trying to. You conservatives(really reactionaries) DO have an idealized idea of the past, when everything was hunky dory and everybody was virtuous, a devout Christian, there was no sex before or outside of marriage, no abortions, there were few gay people and they were all in th e closet etc, .
Poppycock ! There were just as many gay people as now, and they lived in fear of being fired from their jobs or being sent to mental institutions for briutal electric shock "therapy" to "cure" them of their homosexuality, and illegal abortions happened EVERY DAY all over America, and poor women died routinely or nearly perished from botched illegal abortions while women who could afford them easily arranged safe ones for themselves , etc.
Pornography was already rampant, just underground .
Look, I have absolutely no problem with married heterosexuals having stable marriages and bringing up their children .
But it's just not possible for all children to be brought up this way .
If you think I want to "destroy" the family, or that other liberals want to, you're an idiot ! As an individual America, I have zero power to "destroy" the family , and I wouldn't want it even if I could !