Working women

[12th Doctor]

I strongly disagree. It shames the nation that some still believe that women have a duty to fill the offices of wife and mother.

A woman who is married and has children should fullfill the duties of wife and mother.  If not she shouldn't be married and have kids.  This doesn't mean that she can't hold these down while having a life.

[Gabu]

I strongly disagree. It shames the nation that some still believe that women have a duty to fill the offices of wife and mother.

A woman who is married and has children should fullfill the duties of wife and mother.  If not she shouldn't be married and have kids.  This doesn't mean that she can't hold these down while having a life.

I believe that what migrendel was speaking out against was the assumption that when a married couple have children, the mother must be the one who stays home to take care of the child while the father works at his job.  I completely agree with that, since the only thing that a father can't do that a mother can is feed the child breast milk.  Since most mothers don't do that anyway and since there are alternatives, there really isn't anything a mother can do that a father can't.

The only law that says women must cook and clean and take care of children while men work is the arbitrary one formed through a patriarchal worldview that was prevalent up until the '50s, although it's not exactly vanished today.

[The Dowager Mod]

Strongly Disagree.

[muon2]

I strongly disagree. It shames the nation that some still believe that women have a duty to fill the offices of wife and mother.

A woman who is married and has children should fullfill the duties of wife and mother.  If not she shouldn't be married and have kids.  This doesn't mean that she can't hold these down while having a life.

I believe that what migrendel was speaking out against was the assumption that when a married couple have children, the mother must be the one who stays home to take care of the child while the father works at his job.  I completely agree with that, since the only thing that a father can't do that a mother can is feed the child breast milk.  Since most mothers don't do that anyway and since there are alternatives, there really isn't anything a mother can do that a father can't.

I fed a lot of breast milk to my children, thank you . My wife and I strongly believe in its nutritional value to infants and pumps work very well. I frequently sat with a bottle of it when my wife was away with a client. One of the most tragic days was when the motor on our refigerator failed, and we lost about 15 bottles in the freezer.

[ilikeverin]

I wouldn't mind being a stay-at-home dad

[Gabu]

I strongly disagree. It shames the nation that some still believe that women have a duty to fill the offices of wife and mother.

A woman who is married and has children should fullfill the duties of wife and mother.  If not she shouldn't be married and have kids.  This doesn't mean that she can't hold these down while having a life.

I believe that what migrendel was speaking out against was the assumption that when a married couple have children, the mother must be the one who stays home to take care of the child while the father works at his job.  I completely agree with that, since the only thing that a father can't do that a mother can is feed the child breast milk.  Since most mothers don't do that anyway and since there are alternatives, there really isn't anything a mother can do that a father can't.

I fed a lot of breast milk to my children, thank you . My wife and I strongly believe in its nutritional value to infants and pumps work very well. I frequently sat with a bottle of it when my wife was away with a client. One of the most tragic days was when the motor on our refigerator failed, and we lost about 15 bottles in the freezer.

I never said that nobody does that.  I just said that most mothers don't, which from what I've seen seems simply to be the truth.

[muon2]

..., since the only thing that a father can't do that a mother can is feed the child breast milk. ...

I fed a lot of breast milk to my children, thank you . My wife and I strongly believe in its nutritional value to infants and pumps work very well. ...

I never said that nobody does that.  I just said that most mothers don't, which from what I've seen seems simply to be the truth.

I think you did say that, though your reply indicates that you didn't quite mean what you wrote. Be careful with absolute statements.

[12th Doctor]

I strongly disagree. It shames the nation that some still believe that women have a duty to fill the offices of wife and mother.

A woman who is married and has children should fullfill the duties of wife and mother.  If not she shouldn't be married and have kids.  This doesn't mean that she can't hold these down while having a life.

I believe that what migrendel was speaking out against was the assumption that when a married couple have children, the mother must be the one who stays home to take care of the child while the father works at his job.  I completely agree with that, since the only thing that a father can't do that a mother can is feed the child breast milk.  Since most mothers don't do that anyway and since there are alternatives, there really isn't anything a mother can do that a father can't.

The only law that says women must cook and clean and take care of children while men work is the arbitrary one formed through a patriarchal worldview that was prevalent up until the '50s, although it's not exactly vanished today.

If he meant what you said, I argee, as I expressed earlier, but I would like to here that from Migrendel.  You never know with him.

[dazzleman]

A married woman with kids has a duty to fulfill the role of wife and mother, just as a married man with kids has a duty to fulfill the role of husband and father.

What that means can be determined by each couple, in the interests of what works best for them.

Just as men should not unilaterally dictate the workings of the family, neither should women, notwithstanding the feminist position to the contrary.

[12th Doctor]

A married woman with kids has a duty to fulfill the role of wife and mother, just as a married man with kids has a duty to fulfill the role of husband and father.

What that means can be determined by each couple, in the interests of what works best for them.

Just as men should not unilaterally dictate the workings of the family, neither should women, notwithstanding the feminist position to the contrary.

That is was the point I was driving at.

[TeePee4Prez]

Strongly disagree.  If my mother didn't work, our family would have been up sh!ts creek.

[??????????]

Somewhat agree.

[12th Doctor]

Strongly disagree.  If my mother didn't work, our family would have been up sh!ts creek.

Your mistaking the question.  It says that mothers can work, the question is should working mothers still serve the classical motherly function?

[John Dibble]

Well, the question is if the mother's primary duty is to be a homemaker. Dictionary.com gives only two definitions of homemaker:

1. One who manages a household, especially as one's main daily activity.

2. a wife who who manages a household while her husband earns the family income

Now, given these two definitions, I'd strongly disagree. The man can easily do the housework and the wife can be the main source of family income. Does this excuse her from being a parent to her children? No, just as it doesn't excuse a father from being a parent to his children if he is the primary source of income - you have to parent your children no matter how income producing work and housework is divided.

[TeePee4Prez]

Strongly disagree.  If my mother didn't work, our family would have been up sh!ts creek.

Your mistaking the question.  It says that mothers can work, the question is should working mothers still serve the classical motherly function?

I think parenting is both parents' responsibilty.  Still vote strongly disagree.  Men can cook and women can be wage earners.  

[12th Doctor]

Strongly disagree.  If my mother didn't work, our family would have been up sh!ts creek.

Your mistaking the question.  It says that mothers can work, the question is should working mothers still serve the classical motherly function?

I think parenting is both parents' responsibilty.  Still vote strongly disagree.  Men can cook and women can be wage earners.  

I never suggested otherwise, but it depends on how you define it I suppose.

[migrendel]

I'm sorry for any confusion, supersoulty. But here's what I meant exactly. I intended to make a statement slightly different from how it has been interpreted. I mean to say that the expectation is to conceive the familial structure around women being wives and mothers. Now first of all, women need not be wives. The uxorial role is voluntary, and to me, non-sexual. If anyone is  to get married, I would suggest to not base that decision on child bearing or sexual intercourse. The fact of the matter is, women lose their ability to have babies, and everyone fades in sexual attractiveness (Unless you have the plastic surgeon retained by Joan Collins, who incidentally looks like she belongs in a wax museum.). From that standpoint, only a fool would go into marriage unless there was platonic love or a good reason to stay together financially. Since the role of child bearing is associated with the role of the wife in the minds of many, I am compelled to oppose it, because it ties in, quite perniciously, with the totality of bourgeois family structure, repressive child rearing, and sexual monotony.

Dazzleman, I really don't pay much heed to what you consider anti-male. Your anti-feminism is so ingrained, vitriolic, and unthinking that you assign bad conotations to anyone or anything associated with the women's movement. You read an insidious subtext into any statement which mildly broaches upon your sensibilities (I can recall when you said I supported women making false claims against men in the sexual harrassment thread. I asked you to show me where I made this statement. You never did. Check the thread.), and I really don't think that anything but those positions Phyllis Schlafly considers most winsome would meet your approval. For those reasons, I find it difficult to give serious consideration to any of your criticisms.

[TeePee4Prez]

I'm sorry for any confusion, supersoulty. But here's what I meant exactly. I intended to make a statement slightly different from how it has been interpreted. I mean to say that the expectation is to conceive the familial structure around women being wives and mothers. Now first of all, women need not be wives. The uxorial role is voluntary, and to me, non-sexual. If anyone is  to get married, I would suggest to not base that decision on child bearing or sexual intercourse. The fact of the matter is, women lose their ability to have babies, and everyone fades in sexual attractiveness (Unless you have the plastic surgeon retained by Joan Collins, who incidentally looks like she belongs in a wax museum.). From that standpoint, only a fool would go into marriage unless there was platonic love or a good reason to stay together financially. Since the role of child bearing is associated with the role of the wife in the minds of many, I am compelled to oppose it, because it ties in, quite perniciously, with the totality of bourgeois family structure, repressive child rearing, and sexual monotony.

Dazzleman, I really don't pay much heed to what you consider anti-male. Your anti-feminism is so ingrained, vitriolic, and unthinking that you assign bad conotations to anyone or anything associated with the women's movement. You read an insidious subtext into any statement which mildly broaches upon your sensibilities (I can recall when you said I supported women making false claims against men in the sexual harrassment thread. I asked you to show me where I made this statement. You never did. Check the thread.), and I really don't think that anything but those positions Phyllis Schlafly considers most winsome would meet your approval. For those reasons, I find it difficult to give serious consideration to any of your criticisms.

While I agree with you a lot, your posts seem to come off at times as anti-traditional family and maybe a little too far to the left, though your arguments are very eloquently written.  Look, most of us are heterosexual and want to start a family.  There is nothing repressive about that.  What exactly do you mean about "repressive child rearing" and sexual monotony?  Of course, I'm going through the financial strains of getting married to get laid and have SOME kids.  You seem at times to not know what a heterosexual person goes through outside of Cambridge, MA.  And it's not to say you're bad, you in fact balance out with say Waco, TX.  Me and Nym90 are the mid-left and so on.  One thing I will reassure you as a Pennsylvanian- PRICK SANTORUM MUST GO!!!  Cheers.  

[Gabu]

In my view, there is no other way for a family to be, than to live the traditional family life.  I have seen all types of family's and I can tell you that the most successful ones are traditional.

I grew up in a completely different sort of family.  My father was the one who stayed at home while my mother worked.  When I was 13, my parents got divorced, and since then I've been raised instead by a single mother.

Today I'm a 19-year-old university student with an optomistic outlook in life and good career prospects.  Both I and my mother are content in life.  Given my slightly rougher upbringing, I can't say it adversely affected me in any way.  I have self-confidence and I feel loved in my household.  I turned out, by all accounts, very well.

Because of this, I personally don't believe what I hear about the traditional family - a stay-at-home mother with a working father - being the only form of family that works.  I personally think that other forms of family have just as much of a chance of turning out well-adjusted children as the traditional family.

If you find a wife who's very willing and happy to be a stay-at-home mother, by all means, let her be one.  However, if you find a wife who doesn't want to be a stay-at-home mother, I would recommend not trying to force her into it.  In my opinion, a good household for children is a happy household, not a traditional household, though the two are not in any way mutually exclusive.  A household in which the wife feels trod upon and repressed is not a happy household.

[Gabu]

In my view, there is no other way for a family to be, than to live the traditional family life.  I have seen all types of family's and I can tell you that the most successful ones are traditional.

I grew up in a completely different sort of family.  My father was the one who stayed at home while my mother worked.  When I was 13, my parents got divorced, and since then I've been raised instead by a single mother.

Today I'm a 19-year-old university student with an optomistic outlook in life and good career prospects.  Both I and my mother are content in life.  Given my slightly rougher upbringing, I can't say it adversely affected me in any way.  I have self-confidence and I feel loved in my household.  I turned out, by all accounts, very well.

Because of this, I personally don't believe what I hear about the traditional family - a stay-at-home mother with a working father - being the only form of family that works.  I personally think that other forms of family have just as much of a chance of turning out well-adjusted children as the traditional family.

If you find a wife who's very willing and happy to be a stay-at-home mother, by all means, let her be one.  However, if you find a wife who doesn't want to be a stay-at-home mother, I would recommend not trying to force her into it.  In my opinion, a good household for children is a happy household, not a traditional household, though the two are not in any way mutually exclusive.  A household in which the wife feels trod upon and repressed is not a happy household.

I would never support a household were the wife was repressed.  I believe that each parent has an equal say in everything.  I also agree, forcing a woman to stay home obviously isn't a good and I would never support such a thing.  But you are right, in that good people come out of different kind of families.  I guess I shouldn't have included that last statement or at least made it that general.  I was trying to portray what I felt, and what I wanted in life.

Well, in that case, I have no objections.  I don't mean to say that there's anything wrong with having a traditional household with a stay-at-home mother in my advocation of other types of households.  There certainly isn't, as long as everybody is happy with it, and they can work very well.

Like I said, I believe that the only requirement of a household for it to be beneficial to the children living in it is that it's a happy one.