I thought it was just my computer!
toldailytopic: Homemaker. Do women who choose to stay at home and raise the family mi
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I thought it was just my computer!
Cruciform
New member
Fixed it. Thanks for the heads-up.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Son of Jack
New member
I think the reason a number of people believe the mother needs to work is simply because they have misunderstood and misappropriated the word "need."
Breathe
New member
I have an advanced degree, and had a great career. Then I had a son, and that degree and that career didn't mean squat anymore. All I could see was that beautiful baby. So I stayed home until he started school, then only worked during his school hours. Sick days, holidays, snow days and summer vacations were spent being a full time mom and homemaker. My child never rode the school bus, and I never missed a school program, ball game, church program or anything else he participated in. I saw his first steps, heard his first words, sat by his bed during long nights of childhood illnesses. He never had a babysitter other than my parents. It was the best time of my life.
Now that he is grown, I have my career back - but I would give anything to go back to those years, when what I did really mattered.
Thunder's Muse
Well-known member
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 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.
Breathe
New member
It's a lot of fun, isn't it? I pitied my husband for having to miss so much.
The Berean
Well-known member
:mock: husbands
Lon
Well-known member
You are either naively young or old senile-stupid.
No, its the ones who leave their family that miss many things.
S
Strefanash
Guest
Perhaps we should ask the women in our lives if they think they are missing out.
After all my studies of feminism suggest that women resent being spoken for by anyone, just as we men do
Not being female, and being a long term bachelor living alone I don't think the question is really any of my business
After all my studies of feminism suggest that women resent being spoken for by anyone, just as we men do
Not being female, and being a long term bachelor living alone I don't think the question is really any of my business
Alate_One
Well-known member
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?
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?
WandererInFog
New member
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.
Alate_One
Well-known member
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.
Last edited:
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 .
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 .
:thumb:
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..
PureX
Well-known member
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.
you obviously do not appreciate how important a flat screen high definition tv is
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.
PureX
Well-known member
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.