Stay at home women degrade the status of women in our society.

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

I disagree , a human cannot know they are alive without confirmation of their existance from another living being !
without another person or living thing to acknowledge you then you would just think you were dreaming or dead or something else !

however most of us are lucky enough that we are surrounded by other humans from day 1.

But how would you know what dreaming or being dead is if you cant even recognise your own existence?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Yeh well thats a the great question many a philosopher has tried to explain!

We are lead to " I think therefore I am " and we are supposed to be satisfied at least with that in some way.

I think that we have wandered onto a tangent here about confirmation of existance rather than validation of worth !

but we are both right , we do require confirmation of our existance before we can be deemed worthy!

Bah, I stay at home to raise my child, I don't feel bad and I won't feel bad over what I consider to be the right choice for me. We don't earn a tonne of money, we get by, but raising my family properly is what matters.
I'd much rather raise my own child, than dump him off at a pre-school every day for 11 hours, take him home, and put him to bed. I don't think I'd even know who my son was, being allowed to be raised by strangers for his waking hours

Originally posted by Lulzaroonie
Bah, I stay at home to raise my child, I don't feel bad and I won't feel bad over what I consider to be the right choice for me. We don't earn a tonne of money, we get by, but raising my family properly is what matters.
I'd much rather raise my own child, than dump him off at a pre-school every day for 11 hours, take him home, and put him to bed. I don't think I'd even know who my son was, being allowed to be raised by strangers for his waking hours

Well and by the Atlantic journalist's reasoning, you'd be doing feminism good by going to work at that preschool. Because that's real work.. versus the "life" of being a mother. Semantics !

Originally posted by dawnstar
many of those educated women are opting to stay home and postponing their careers because it is saving the family money for them to do so...

But, maybe the discussion needs to be extended out a little more and the question asked, why? in many cases the reason is just what I stated... the family will literally lose money if they are working, or that extra hundred or so that they clear just isn't worth the hassle.
this is the problem that needs to be addresses. not weather or not any particular person is making the right choice one way or another. economics has taken the choice away from many of these women (or in some cases men)!!

Excellent point and very true. I applaud your post and a new spin on the thread.
My daughter's best friend had twins and her job (she is a college grad) didn't pay enough for her to work, by the time she paid day care, clothing requirements, gas, eating out, etc.
So she is one of those stay at home Moms you are talking about, and she is working hard taking care of those three year old rowdy little boys.

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Yeh well thats a the great question many a philosopher has tried to explain!

We are lead to " I think therefore I am " and we are supposed to be satisfied at least with that in some way.

I think that we have wandered onto a tangent here about confirmation of existance rather than validation of worth !

but we are both right , we do require confirmation of our existance before we can be deemed worthy!

Haha, probably wise to leave it at that then!

People should be allowed to do either if they have that option and the resources to do so.

I would be bored as solely a stay-at-home mom/wife. Sorry.

I admire those that do, up to a point. Just like I admire women who work at what they like, up to a point.

Women's places were NOT honoured. SOME had family like that. All you have to do to get it is give up any possibility of being anything that your family doesn't agree with. Pretty much everything that defines you as something other than a brood mare.

Patriarchies only had several thousands of years to negotiate this minor problem and pretty much never did. They'd like another couple of thousand years of it to see if they can finally negotiate hating women for being dependent while insisting they be dependent. Guess what...women aren't just your ticket to some spiritual enlightenment that you can continue to dehumanize just to prove that you rule.

Now is there a problem with the current model still? Yes, there clearly is. Blaming feminists and THE MEN WHO SAW THE PROBLEM AND DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT won't fix it.

The underlying problem remains. That is that societal contribution is measured soley in resource income. Therefore those who do not provide resources are literally unvalued. Assessing non-employment value would not just effected stay-at-home parents, but those who are unemployeed for other reasons. If you value only those with children, the singles and those without children will cry.

Those who claim that women in the past were honoured have clearly never read descriptions of men's views on women during those times, particularly when they stopped loving them. It isn't flattering, and calling it an honoured place is a downright lie. I like in the Talmud how a prayer men do when women aren't around is to thank God for not making them one.