Wondering what the impact of women entering the work force has been in your opinions.

Rise in GDP, Rise in costs of goods (able to pay more so make them), Rise in child delinquency or social issues, etc. ?

Anyone got thoughts on it. The good and the not so good of it.

Disclaimer: This is not meant as some Christian attempt to turn back any clock, just asking to understand the impact it had on American life.

Do we play more for medicine, because we can? Are houses more expensive, because families can/will try to pay it? THanks.

Wondering what the impact of women entering the work force has been in your opinions.

Rise in GDP, Rise in costs of goods (able to pay more so make them), Rise in child delinquency or social issues, etc. ?

Anyone got thoughts on it. The good and the not so good of it.

Disclaimer: This is not meant as some Christian attempt to turn back any clock, just asking to understand the impact it had on American life.

Do we play more for medicine, because we can? Are houses more expensive, because families can/will try to pay it? THanks.

Isn't this kind of like starting a conversation like, "No offense, but.." Because the first thing out of your mouth is going to offend whomever you're talking to? Indeed.

Women entering the work force, well, let's start back at WWII. Without women in the work force, we wouldn't have won that war, simple as that. I don't think women working has anything to do with rising (if that's even true) child delinquency, it has to do with bad parenting. Also, what kind of social issues are you talking about? Like indepedent strong minded women who don't need a man to take care of things for them?

I do see this as attempt on your part to start another flame war about how you think women should stay home and take care of the kids while the big strong man goes out and brings home the bacon. I love your old timey thinking. It brings me back to days of yore that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

Isn't this kind of like starting a conversation like, "No offense, but.." Because the first thing out of your mouth is going to offend whomever you're talking to? Indeed.

Women entering the work force, well, let's start back at WWII. Without women in the work force, we wouldn't have won that war, simple as that. I don't think women working has anything to do with rising (if that's even true) child delinquency, it has to do with bad parenting. Also, what kind of social issues are you talking about? Like indepedent strong minded women who don't need a man to take care of things for them?

I do see this as attempt on your part to start another flame war about how you think women should stay home and take care of the kids while the big strong man goes out and brings home the bacon. I love your old timey thinking. It brings me back to days of yore that shouldn't have existed in the first place.
Plus I think the only ladies that post on PO right now are Il Sogno and JTolleson so you won't get a ton of responses if you limit it to ladies.

Plus I think the only ladies that post on PO right now are Il Sogno and JTolleson so you won't get a ton of responses if you limit it to ladies.

Plus, what he really wants is <i>women</i> to respond. Not all women are ladies, just as not all men are gentlemen. Opening with "Ladies" makes me think of Jerry Lewis. Hey Lady!

Opening with "Ladies" makes me think of Jerry Lewis. Hey Lady!
have you seen jerry lately?

have you seen jerry lately?


One of my favorite Chirs Rock acts is one he did on Jerry Lewis.

He starts off mentioning how the telethons Lewis does are scams. The audience lets out a muffled "boo". Chris says "now hear me out:"

"Frank Sinatra...........dead"

"Dean Martin.............dead"

"Sammy Davis Jr........dead"

"Jerry Lewis.............full head of thick, black hair"

"Jerry! That money was supposed to be for the kids.....the kids, Jerry"

Deek

have you seen jerry lately?

damn, he almost looks like dizzy gillespie!

Is that a recent pic? He was on Letterman a few weeks back and he said he lost a lot of weight. I doubt he put it back on that fast.
Dunno...I just goggled it.

Is that a recent pic? He was on Letterman a few weeks back and he said he lost a lot of weight. I doubt he put it back on that fast.

Plus I think the only ladies that post on PO right now are Il Sogno and JTolleson so you won't get a ton of responses if you limit it to ladies.Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's on Snap's ignore list.

Wondering what the impact of women entering the work force has been in your opinions.

Rise in GDP, Rise in costs of goods (able to pay more so make them), Rise in child delinquency or social issues, etc. ?

Anyone got thoughts on it. The good and the not so good of it.

Disclaimer: This is not meant as some Christian attempt to turn back any clock, just asking to understand the impact it had on American life.

Do we play more for medicine, because we can? Are houses more expensive, because families can/will try to pay it? THanks.

Don't fight the future....please!!!

Wondering what the impact of women entering the work force has been in your opinions.


It doesn't matter, as long as I get to look at them.

Wondering what the impact of women entering the work force has been in your opinions.

Rise in GDP, Rise in costs of goods (able to pay more so make them), Rise in child delinquency or social issues, etc. ?

Anyone got thoughts on it. The good and the not so good of it.

Disclaimer: This is not meant as some Christian attempt to turn back any clock, just asking to understand the impact it had on American life.

Do we play more for medicine, because we can? Are houses more expensive, because families can/will try to pay it? THanks.


I assume that by saying it "isn't meant to flame" you at least somewhat acknowledge the woman-blaming assumptions behind your post, particularly regarding child-rearing.

The rise in working moms should mean a rise in mutual, joint, responsible parenting (ie., more involved fathers, more equal divisions of responsibilities). In a way, your post assumes that men are do-nothings who won't step up to fill the slack. Can your post be both anti-male and anti-female at the same time? I can argue either way.

I don't see how you can tie changes in the cost of good to women entering the workforce. Too many concomitant variables... increasing industrialization, increasing costs of raw materials, routine inflation, war, politics, and normal economic change. How in the world do you really causally connect a rise in the cost of goods to the increasing number of women in the workforce?

PS -- I've never seen specifically a rise in the GDP cited as a flaw before, much less one to be blamed on either sex. If the US GDP did not increase and the rest of the world's did, this country would be in a world o' hurt.

I assume that by saying it "isn't meant to flame" you at least somewhat acknowledge the woman-blaming assumptions behind your post, particularly regarding child-rearing.

The rise in working moms should mean a rise in mutual, joint, responsible parenting (ie., more involved fathers, more equal divisions of responsibilities). In a way, your post assumes that men are do-nothings who won't step up to fill the slack. Can your post be both anti-male and anti-female at the same time? I can argue either way.

I don't see how you can tie changes in the cost of good to women entering the workforce. Too many concomitant variables... increasing industrialization, increasing costs of raw materials, routine inflation, war, politics, and normal economic change. How in the world do you really causally connect a rise in the cost of goods to the increasing number of women in the workforce?

PS -- I've never seen specifically a rise in the GDP cited as a flaw before, much less one to be blamed on either sex. If the US GDP did not increase and the rest of the world's did, this country would be in a world o' hurt.BAH! It's all the womens fault, if those womens would just get back in to the house, everything woudl be better. I say we lock the womens up, at home and only us men types can go outside. Those radical muslim countries had it right all along.

As for the GDP stuff, Flip is talking out of his ass, that's all becuase us men types are hardworkers, making up for the lazy slackery womens!

I wasn't just looking for the ladies to comment. Nor was like Magnolia assuming that I was trying to start anything bad, which is why I made sure it was clear. Maybe my question only mentions women, because they historically are the home person.

I just wonder if things cost so much in the US because "families" can pay for them. Look at housing, if people couldn't pay, it wouldn't cost so much. Look at how much the exact same drug costs in Canada, Africa or Mexico versus the US, when it's made in the US.

Woman are great at many things. I do think that if it's possible (and a lot of times it's a matter of will, rather than money or important lifestyle) someone should stay home with the kids.

My wife made the call herself (we weren't Christian's then) and it's been the best thing I could have imagined for our kids. Sure it was risky and a struggle, but things worked out.

Again, I'm more interested in the economics of it, if anyone has thoughts or data. I've always just wondered if things cost so much because people were willing to pay it and if having two working parent families have driven up prices of, well, everything.

Maybe my question only mentions women, because they historically are the home person.

Maybe you should question why women historically are the home person. Do those historical reasons still exist and to what extent?

Women's curling on CNBC right now! US and UK. Now I know why the founding fathers crossed the drink.

BAH! It's all the womens fault, if those womens would just get back in to the house, everything woudl be better. I say we lock the womens up, at home and only us men types can go outside. Those radical muslim countries had it right all along.

As for the GDP stuff, Flip is talking out of his ass, that's all becuase us men types are hardworkers, making up for the lazy slackery womens!


Ummm, I think you must have it wired.

PS -- if I have to wear that traditional garb, I don't want to go outside anyway.

Wondering what the impact of women entering the work force has been in your opinions.

Rise in GDP, Rise in costs of goods (able to pay more so make them), Rise in child delinquency or social issues, etc. ?

Anyone got thoughts on it. The good and the not so good of it.

Disclaimer: This is not meant as some Christian attempt to turn back any clock, just asking to understand the impact it had on American life.

Do we play more for medicine, because we can? Are houses more expensive, because families can/will try to pay it? THanks.
and try to answer this seriously.

There is a "chicken & Egg" going on here......do more couples have both partners working because that's the only way they can afford to live, or are the 2 incomes driving consumption? In addition, economics is not the only dimension.......I would need the fulfillment of work in order to maintain my sanity......I'm sure many women feel the same way.

I know many women who would tell you that they are better parents because they work.

My sister is the breadwinner, while my BIL stays home with the kids.....and you know what......they are both in the role they are best at. Could this have happened 40 years ago?

There are so many dimensions to this that you could explore that in order to have a meaningful discussion, you need to narrow the question a bit. (Something like What effect has more women in the workforce had on the economy?....even that is very broad.)

I would suggest you narrow the question somewhat.

Len

I wasn't just looking for the ladies to comment. Nor was like Magnolia assuming that I was trying to start anything bad, which is why I made sure it was clear. Maybe my question only mentions women, because they historically are the home person.

I just wonder if things cost so much in the US because "families" can pay for them. Look at housing, if people couldn't pay, it wouldn't cost so much. Look at how much the exact same drug costs in Canada, Africa or Mexico versus the US, when it's made in the US.

Woman are great at many things. I do think that if it's possible (and a lot of times it's a matter of will, rather than money or important lifestyle) someone should stay home with the kids.

My wife made the call herself (we weren't Christian's then) and it's been the best thing I could have imagined for our kids. Sure it was risky and a struggle, but things worked out.

Again, I'm more interested in the economics of it, if anyone has thoughts or data. I've always just wondered if things cost so much because people were willing to pay it and if having two working parent families have driven up prices of, well, everything.
3 different issues...which one do you want to talk about:

1.) Have 2 income families raised the cost of goods in the US?

2.) Why are drugs so much more expensive in the US than elsewhere?

3.) Are women better stay at home moms than men?

Len

3 different issues...which one do you want to talk about:

1.) Have 2 income families raised the cost of goods in the US?

2.) Why are drugs so much more expensive in the US than elsewhere?

3.) Are women better stay at home moms than men?

Len

I've wondered about all three of those questions. I'd take answers or takes on any of them.

FTF doesn't appreciate me. Three great questions at once. That's what I'm talking about.

1) I think yes, is it true? 2) Because of 1. 3) Yes, it's a psychological thing. Women, in my opinion, are generally better nurturers and long term thinkers than men. Meaning, my opinion is that men are short term thinkers better suited to just getting out there and accomplishing today's sales, today's production, etc. Women are better at nurturing and growing kids into well mannered, smart, secure kids. Dad's aren't good nurturers, in general, aren't as well mannered, aren't as smart nor as secure as moms.

Anyone who thinks I'm a male pig is wrong. I think women are way smarter and better suited for the real tough job of being charged with the development of the kids, much more prudent about taking care of running a home (I'll take going to work any day) and in short much tougher than men.

Mo chair makes my point. He's looking for economic and societal answers, typical man, when the question is whose better suited for the job. Hands down women are better at it. Any good thing that people say about our family, about my kids, about me, stems from her overseeing everything about us, teaching the kids right and wrong, good and best, and her challenging me to be better than I am.

FTF doesn't appreciate me.No, you just embody all that is wrong with this world. That's all.

If those kinds of comments are supposed to persuade me you are "pro woman," maybe you should ask an African-American if feel flattered when someone tells that that their "people" are "naturally good dancers."

hoo,

Can I use the "M" word?

i would be pleased, fulfilled, and proud to stay home with my son and care for the house and lot, and take care of domestic things. always stated that while married, but $ didn't work out. fwiw, it's much more fulfilling IMO than "working for the man" and all that. and i think my kiddo would be better for it. much. but that was not to be.

traditional gender roles are still being played but widely being phased-out as we progress in time. even in the south.

the girl i'm dating is far more "southern" and "macho" than i am. although she's girly and does all the girly stuff...but if push came to shove, i'd step up and lay the smack down to someone in our faces. i'd be the first responder...there is a great difference between the 50's and today. there is very little "black and white" in gender roles anymore...a balance in each member of the relationship, is acceptable.

I've wondered about all three of those questions. I'd take answers or takes on any of them.

FTF doesn't appreciate me. Three great questions at once. That's what I'm talking about.

1) I think yes, is it true?


I don't think so.....I think the gain in productivity probably offset the rise in costs. These jobs weren't just created because there were women in the workforce, they were created because there was a demand for them......How much would it have cost us if we didn't have this workforce? Costs are rising slowly (Relativly)....we've had fairly low inflation for quite some time now. Why do you think this is not true?

Housing costs have risen because interest rates were so artificially low for such a long time. The same dollar in mortgage bought a bigger house. It has little to do with two income families IMO



2) Because of 1.


No, you would be incorrect, see my answer to 1. The reason drugs are so much more expensive here is the relative lack of price regulation in the US compared to the rest of the world. Here, it is basically what the market will bear...the rest of the world are using the leverage of government buying to reduce the price charged (or the amount they will pay) for drugs.



3) Yes, it's a psychological thing. Women, in my opinion, are generally better nurturers and long term thinkers than men. Meaning, my opinion is that men are short term thinkers better suited to just getting out there and accomplishing today's sales, today's production, etc. Women are better at nurturing and growing kids into well mannered, smart, secure kids. Dad's aren't good nurturers, in general, aren't as well mannered, aren't as smart nor as secure as moms.

Anyone who thinks I'm a male pig is wrong. I think women are way smarter and better suited for the real tough job of being charged with the development of the kids, much more prudent about taking care of running a home (I'll take going to work any day) and in short much tougher than men.


I happen to think you are wrong on this. Men are just as capable of being nurturing parents as women are....it is a matter of will. I think that both parents contribute something important to the childs development....or at least should. Women have trafditionally been better stay at home parents then men...I would ask you is this because that is what they were trained to do from birth or is it innate....How would you know?




Flip:

I'm not sure where you get your ideas,....see my comments above.

Len

Thanks for the answers. Let's see about Jtoll. I say tons of good things about women and she thinks I'm slapping her. I guess some women are wired differently.

Regarding questions 1 and 2. It was just wondering. I really have no idea, which is why I asked the forum.

As for question 3, I have no idea why it's so, it just is. That doesn't mean that my wife and I don't know men who are great at taking care of the kids and stuff. They are really good at it. Heck I think I could be good at it.

My point was merely, which Jtoll missed, was that any good thing about what's going on I attribute to my wife. If that's not a compliment, then I guess I'm wrong.

Maybe Jtoll, just hangs around a different sort of group.

I don't understand how I make your point when you didn't bother to respond to my post, and then you missed my point.

The question was not who is better suited for the job. My question is why, historically, has it been assumed that women are better suited for the job? Clearly some women are not.

My point is that the historical role of women is not necessarily based on reality. Are women the weaker sex? Are they not smart enough for intellectual pursuits? Should they avoid physical exertion? They weren't qualified to work, they weren't qualified to vote, they weren't qualified to own property, etc., but they were qualified to raise and teach children, which might be the two most important jobs.

My point is that historically, women have been forced into certain roles and functions because that is all men allowed them to do. That is no longer the case.

I think this is what Flip is getting at:

My point is that historically, women have been forced into certain roles and functions because that is all men allowed them to do. That is no longer the case.


stop making sense or I will have to post another pic of a hot chica......

No need to be so pointed.

No one acted slapped. I just said that if you think that merely giving out a "compliment" based on a sex stereotypes give you a free pass from questions about sexism, my point was that it doesn't.

You could either have a fair exchange on the merits (such as when can a compliment directed at a group be nevertheless sexist/racist/whatever) or you can mention me by name several times in your thread and merely state that I must be "wired" differently or hang out with "different" kinds of people.

Personally, I'm sorry you didn't choose the first route, which I think is the higher road. Ymmv.


I see that you simply ignored my more substantive points above and instead chose to get all prickly when I raised the issue of whether the flattery of my sex's "nuturing" abilities could nevertheless be questioned as sexism. Too bad we can't have a fair exchange, but that's pretty much the way you like to react when you see my name.

economics.. rich countries are expensive to live in. if you live in the 3rd world, housing, food will be cheap while techology goods will be twice the price. drugs, housing and food cheap.. and women working as much or even more than america.
i don't get you flip.. you are always preaching to this crowd who is FAR AWAY from your beliefs. what's the point? really.. you have an agenda. it won't work.. you know it and yet you persevere..

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's on Snap's ignore list.

nuh-uh. :p

I think this is what Flip is getting at:
"Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him" Whats wrong with that? Oh, old dictionary, b0llocks

I think this is what Flip is getting at:

i'd hit it.

3 different issues...which one do you want to talk about:

1.) Have 2 income families raised the cost of goods in the US?

2.) Why are drugs so much more expensive in the US than elsewhere?

3.) Are women better stay at home moms than men?

Len

1- No- they are dirt cheap compared to the rest of the industrialized world. Try moving to Europe or Japan if you think things are expensive in the US.

2- Because the government does not control cost like it does in the rest of the world- and actually, most insurance companies have negotiated paying lower costs than could be received by a private individual.

3- I aint touching that one. Maternity benefits in the US are almost non-existent. Here, women get two years- paid leave. Trouble is, women have a harder time finding a career.


Anyone see this article?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11435567/site/newsweek/