Rosie the Riveter

[Mrs. Merl]

Just a pondering here...is it possible that putting everyone to work if they *choose,* could dilute "the funds" to the extent that in order to pay everyone who *wants* to work that now we cannot pay a single person enough to support a family on their own. And therefore, could this perhaps be a factor in sooo many people requiring two incomes to survive? Just a thought not saying it is right, but it is a possibility that I have been thinking about.

 

[cecil]

That's exactly what I was trying to get at in discussing how middle-class feminism tends to overlook the issues of working-class women.

Sorry, you said this a few pages back as a response to me but I can't keep up! lol

I agree. My mother was my age (early twenties) during the Women's Lib movement and while by no means a traditional homemaker thought Germaine Greer and bra-burning was "all a bit silly".

Re: Feminism being a dirty word, while second-wave feminism seems a bit man-hating and disdainful of housewives, it had to be. It was a knee-jerk reaction to the conservatism in the '50s! Young women in intellectual circles were reading The Second Sex, other women were noticing the huge gap between pay cheques, some women were wondering whether raising a family was the right path for them. Then in the early '60s the pill was legalised, Kennedy started the Commission on the Status of women, the equal pay act was finally passed, and it snowballed. It was only natural.

Then in the '90s new (third-wave) feminists reacted to and began questioning the ideas of feminists in the '60s and '70s. FooFooGal, you'll be pleased to know that everything that feminists got wrong during the Women's Lib movement has already been questioned, denounced, pored over and reacted to. By feminists.

 

[cecil]

Just a pondering here...is it possible that putting everyone to work if they *choose,* could dilute "the funds" to the extent that in order to pay everyone who *wants* to work that now we cannot pay a single person enough to support a family on their own. And therefore, could this perhaps be a factor in sooo many people requiring two incomes to survive? Just a thought not saying it is right, but it is a possibility that I have been thinking about.

Of course. Bigger workforces can drive wages down. Same thing with immigration, but I daresay it would be a mite unconstitutional if only white men were allowed to have jobs. I'd be a little miffed.

 

[Foofoogal]

Just a pondering here...is it possible that putting everyone to work if they *choose,* could dilute "the funds" to the extent that in order to pay everyone who *wants* to work that now we cannot pay a single person enough to support a family on their own. And therefore, could this perhaps be a factor in sooo many people requiring two incomes to survive? Just a thought not saying it is right, but it is a possibility that I have been thinking about.
__________________

:eusa_clap you win.

oh but that is common sense. feminists want so many women working and same pay. they could care less if they are exhausted and family hurting. pitiful.

once again. we have come a long way baby..

 

[Mrs. Merl]

Also, another question to put out there...is it possible to have integrated women's "choice" to work into our ideas so much that we have swung to the extreme instead. I do think there is a certain pressure on women to work rather than stay in the home. I say this from personal experience, through two generations. Both, my mother and I, have husbands willing to work and allow us to stay home. However, she and I have both been pressured at the low end and belittled at the other to get jobs. I think frequently we have integrated the "choice" to be in the work place to an extent that some feel it is a "duty" instead. Please note that I am not trying to make a blanket statement here, I know all people do not feel this way. I simply wish to conjecture that some have reached an extreme and this may explain a great deal of the differing opinion in this thread.

 

[Mrs. Merl]

Of course. Bigger workforces can drive wages down. Same thing with immigration, but I daresay it would be a mite unconstitutional if only white men were allowed to have jobs. I'd be a little miffed.

I am not at all implying that it would be right to have a society that only allows men to work, but it would seem then that it would put undue pressure on women who would otherwise *choose* not to work. And that combined with my next thought - the overt pressure to join the work force even when you prefer not to creates a very bad cycle.

 

[C-dot]

And that combined with my next thought - the overt pressure to join the work force even when you prefer not to creates a very bad cycle.

I understand what you mean - But like I said before, what if you have to work? I would like to be a full time homemaker, but if I want to eat and have a roof over mine and my fiancé's heads, I need an income. Living expenses are a lot higher than they were in the Golden Era.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Also, another question to put out there...is it possible to have integrated women's "choice" to work into our ideas so much that we have swung to the extreme instead. I do think there is a certain pressure on women to work rather than stay in the home. I say this from personal experience, through two generations. Both, my mother and I, have husbands willing to work and allow us to stay home. However, she and I have both been pressured at the low end and belittled at the other to get jobs. I think frequently we have integrated the "choice" to be in the work place to an extent that some feel it is a "duty" instead. Please note that I am not trying to make a blanket statement here, I know all people do not feel this way. I simply wish to conjecture that some have reached an extreme and this may explain a great deal of the differing opinion in this thread.

I think if someone is *pressured* into doing or not doing something, by whomever, and for whatever reason, it ceases to be a true "choice." And if we ourselves are pressuring someone else to behave in a certain way in order to live up to our own particular ideology, we ourselves need to learn to mind our own business.

 

[cecil]

Also, another question to put out there...is it possible to have integrated women's "choice" to work into our ideas so much that we have swung to the extreme instead. I do think there is a certain pressure on women to work rather than stay in the home. I say this from personal experience, through two generations. Both, my mother and I, have husbands willing to work and allow us to stay home. However, she and I have both been pressured at the low end and belittled at the other to get jobs. I think frequently we have integrated the "choice" to be in the work place to an extent that some feel it is a "duty" instead. Please note that I am not trying to make a blanket statement here, I know all people do not feel this way. I simply wish to conjecture that some have reached an extreme and this may explain a great deal of the differing opinion in this thread.

Yes this is true, but I think more women are pressured to do both than to choose a career over children. You weren't pressured to have a career instead of a family, you were pressured to have a job ON TOP of your full-time job of homemaking. This is a huge issue. My mother personally was forced to work because she was on her own, but women in general are now being told by the media to be "supermums". Hardly fair!

 

[C-dot]

Yes this is true, but I think more women are pressured to do both than to choose a career over children. You weren't pressured to have a career, you were pressured to have a job ON TOP of your full-time job of homemaking. This is a huge issue. My mother personally was forced to work because she was on her own, but women in general are now being told by the media to be "supermums". Hardly fair!

Just like 50's housewives were supposed to be June Cleavers - Raise the children, be a great lover to your husband, have an immaculate home, join charity groups, and look fabulous.

It is a fact that thousands of women were driven to psychiatrists because of this ideal.

 

[cecil]

Mothers' little helper

Just like 50's housewives were supposed to be June Cleavers - Raise the children, be a great lover to your husband, have an immaculate home, join charity groups, and look fabulous.

It is a fact that thousands of women were driven to psychiatrists because of this ideal.

And this is how my grandmother ended up addicted to Benzos. My father says that his mother was not the only one, either, even just amoungst his circle of friends.

Note I'm not saying in any way that being a homemaker will make you a drug addict, just that ridiculous pressure and irresponsible doctors can.

 

[Foofoogal]

but women in general are now being told by the media to be "supermums". Hardly fair!

geez Louise. this is what I have been yacking about for how many pages.
Now the choice is pretty much gone.
I really feel for young families trying to make it. I really do. This is the one thing I want to get across. I know it is not some flippant easy decision to work for most women.
For me though I will give some blame to some men (the ones that did not treat their women nicely) but much, much more to women libbers.
I will not even go so far as to blame all women that see themselves as women libbers but there are definitely some that did great harm to the family.

 

[ThesFlishThngs]

Earlier, someone suggested capitalism might be responsible for the high-pressure world in which we find ourselves today; while I know capitalism (the big evil C) has become a dirty word in recent times, I don't think it can be blamed for the bulk of our ills.
Now, the other 'big C' - Consumerism - certainly may have some things to answer for. Never has the world contained so many 'necessary' expenses.
Back in the day of our parents and/or grandparents, what did they strive for? What was considered the American Dream? (I know FL is global, but I can only speak from the US perspective.) Decent clothing, enough food, a roof over one's head (not even necessarily home-ownership, though in a world with 2, 5, 10 thousand dollar homes, it was possible for those who worked hard and were prudent with their money), a car, if your situation required one, but having two would certainly have been rather a luxury......Enough money to pay the bills, which would have been water, electricity, heating source, telephone, but little else.
What now? Housing is very expensive - rent OR mortgage; aside from the basics from the past, we are also expected to have gadgets of cell phones, ipods, computers, laptops, flat screen tvs, dvd players, whole-house music systems, at least one car for every resident of the home, cable services, internet access, and of course a proportionately higher electric bill to cover the operating costs of all these things.
Oh, and in certain instances, a pristine, perfectly-maintained lawn requiring the cost of water, fertilizing, mowing, hired crews, etc.
When something breaks, there's no fellow down the street to repair it for 10 bucks; you have little choice but to discard it and buy the newest, most expensive current model. (The one that will be obsolete within 6 months.)

Of course everyone doesn't live like this, but in the developed world, it's perceived to be the norm, and certainly people can feel under pressure to live up to that 'grand illusion' that they're being bombarded with 24/7 by advertisers.

 

[C-dot]

For me though I will give some blame to some men (the ones that did not treat their women nicely) but much, much more to women libbers.
I will not even go so far as to blame all women that see themselves as women libbers but there are definitely some that did great harm to the family.

I'm sorry - But how can you confuse media pressure and family dynamics with feminism?

The issues you mention are sociological. This is a study and classification of human societies and trends, not a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women.

What was considered the American Dream? (I know FL is global, but I can only speak from the US perspective.) Decent clothing, enough food, a roof over one's head (not even necessarily home-ownership, though in a world with 2, 5, 10 thousand dollar homes, it was possible for those who worked hard and were prudent with their money), a car, if your situation required one, but having two would certainly have been rather a luxury......Enough money to pay the bills, which would have been water, electricity, heating source, telephone, but little else.

Interesting point! I read a really great Vanity Fair article on the origins of the American Dream. Today, we see it as getting rich and having it all - But originally, it was that everyone, regardless of background or caste, could come to America, work, and get the same results as everyone else. Necessities and a few earned luxuries.

 

[Mrs. Merl]

I understand what you mean - But like I said before, what if you have to work? I would like to be a full time homemaker, but if I want to eat and have a roof over mine and my fiancé's heads, I need an income. Living expenses are a lot higher than they were in the Golden Era.

That is exactly what I am saying, actually. I am in that situation. And here, to me, is where the rub comes...

My husband is willing to work and let me be home.

He cannot get a job in his field that will pay enough to support us (and if we are playing fair he should have the *choice* to work in a chosen field just as we feel we have a *choice*. Because it would be easy to write off what I am going to say by saying "he should get a better career.") Perhaps all because of my hypothesis. (I am not saying that this is the end all beat all reason here, I am sure there are other economic/political facts we could add in, but that isn't what we are discussing.)

I have to work to make ends meet.

I don't - therefore - get a choice. Based on my hypothesis.

To add to it I wish I could have kids. But I choose not to be a "supermom" because I don't feel my quality of life would be what I wanted (for me or them.) So, in my *opinion* I really do not get a choice in anything, including reproducing. I know this is a personal opinion, but for me I wouldn't see a point in having a child someone else gets to raise while I am at work.

I guess I am beating a pretty not healthy horse at this point, but I just think maybe we have reached a point with "equality" that maybe we don't really have as much of a choice as we first intended.

 

[Foofoogal]

I'm sorry - But how can you confuse media pressure and family dynamics with feminism?

I am sorry but do not understand you at all. I can only think it is because you are young and have different experiences than me or something.

May I ask you why you are a feminist or call yourself one?

 

[C-dot]

I am sorry but do not understand you at all. I can only think it is because you are young and have different experiences than me or something.

Did you read the last sentence I wrote? I am not talking about experiences, I'm stating facts.

I call myself a feminist because I admire the feminists of the early 20th century who fought for many of the rights, freedoms, and equalities we have today. This is also a fact - Without these women, we would not be voting, driving cars, gathering in groups, or working outside the home.

I can't speak much plainer than that.

 

[ThesFlishThngs]

Interesting point! I read a really great Vanity Fair article on the origins of the American Dream. Today, we see it as getting rich and having it all - But originally, it was that everyone, regardless of background or caste, could come to America, work, and get the same results as everyone else. Necessities and a few earned luxuries.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the definition of 'the dream' seems to have morphed into an unhealthy fantasy.
Judging by the original idea, I'm happy to report I believe my husband has achieved it, by coming here from another country, working hard, asking for no handouts, putting himself through college for a bachelor's degree, and now on the verge of graduating medical school. There was opportunity. Was it easy? No. Did Uncle Sam come to our door and give us money, a free house, free tuition? No. Despite some current grumblings (not here, just in the country in general), opportunity still exists. Sadly, one does have to jump through more and more moronic, bureaucratic hoops in order to succeed, but there you go.

Incidentally, friends have asked us if we will be moving once he has a job, and for the most part they seem surprised that we have no such plans. No plans to change our lifestyle whatsoever, actually, other than perhaps add a bit to the mortgage payment once we can afford to. I guess it really is ingrained in many people that success equals more money and a higher-maintenance lifestyle.

 

[cecil]

That is exactly what I am saying, actually. I am in that situation. And here, to me, is where the rub comes...

My husband is willing to work and let me be home.

He cannot get a job in his field that will pay enough to support us (and if we are playing fair he should have the *choice* to work in a chosen field just as we feel we have a *choice*. Because it would be easy to write off what I am going to say by saying "he should get a better career.") Perhaps all because of my hypothesis. (I am not saying that this is the end all beat all reason here, I am sure there are other economic/political facts we could add in, but that isn't what we are discussing.)

I have to work to make ends meet.

I don't - therefore - get a choice. Based on my hypothesis.

To add to it I wish I could have kids. But I choose not to be a "supermom" because I don't feel my quality of life would be what I wanted (for me or them.) So, in my *opinion* I really do not get a choice in anything, including reproducing. I know this is a personal opinion, but for me I wouldn't see a point in having a child someone else gets to raise while I am at work.

I guess I am beating a pretty not healthy horse at this point, but I just think maybe we have reached a point with "equality" that maybe we don't really have as much of a choice as we first intended.

That's you personally. That IS your choice. You CAN choose to either work and see less of your (future) children or not work and go without certain things. Life is full of such consequences. This isn't a feminist issue, it's a your personal economic issue. I could choose to not work and go on welfare, but it would mean no more meals out, walking to work and -worst of all- no new hats! So I suck it up and exchange 40 hours of my time a week for cash to support the lifestyle I enjoy. Them's the breaks.

 

[LizzieMaine]

When something breaks, there's no fellow down the street to repair it for 10 bucks; you have little choice but to discard it and buy the newest, most expensive current model. (The one that will be obsolete within 6 months.)

That's my greatest gripe with the modern world -- the whole notion of forced disposability. And I think every woman owes it to herself to get as familiar with tools and such as she possibly can so as not to be a victim of it -- I've learned to repair my own radios, TV set, washing machine, sewing machine, kitchen stove, and I-cant-think-of-what-else because I absolutely refuse to be a part of modern consumerist throwaway culture. It's the main thing in today's world that makes me physically *angry.* It's the antethesis of everything I was raised to believe in -- the whole Rosie-like ethos of "Use It Up, Wear It Out, Make It Do, or Do Without."