Do you think that society would be better off if women weren't encouraged to enter the work force?

Question

I'm asking because someone here said that the women's movement, etc., was pushed by the government. Do you think this is true? It probably did lower wages because it created about an almost 50% increase in the work force.

I believe everyone should be free to work if they want, but I think that many women would probably choose not to work if that was an option (financially) because taking care of the family already takes so much time. Do you agree?

Answer 1

Many women have no choice.  They need to support themselves because they don't have a man to do it for them.  Would you encourage them to either USE some chump, or to enter into a poor quality relationship for purely economic reasons?

Answer 2

There were much better economics when the men provided the complete package , sadly our economy doesn't work that way anymore , in order to be a stay at home mom , Ur man has to make the bug bucks , or you have to have some sort of Internet home based business etc, 1 income generally doesn't cut it anymore ,

Answer 3

All women don't have husbands

Those who do don't want to have to beg men for money

Women should have the freedom to make their own choices for their family

Answer 4

the increased number of women in the workplace is probably based on two factors: an evolving concept of the woman's "place" in society and the need for two paychecks in some households. it certainly would be interesting to see if the participation of women in the workforce was maintained under a system in which the minimum wage was replaced with a living wage. this would likely drive all wages up and there probably would be some decline in the numbers of women working. how big a decline i have no idea though.

Answer 5

yes definetly!!

Answer 6

Personally I think when women entered the workfield leaving their kids to be raised by others destroyed the family. It's not so bad once they are in school in their older years to go part time but otherwise no. The government didn't push it, it started in WW2 when there were no men around to work and they needed war planes and stuff.

Answer 7

Originally a lot of the women getting in the workforce on a discretionary

basis were there to afford the extra car and other expenses

necessitated  by  their  going into the work place.  

The destruction  of the   "nuclear family" model as the basis of our

society also put a lot of non-discretionary women workers in the

workforce.  You're quite right in the observation that more workers

looking for about the same number of job lowers the value of labor.

That helped to undercut  the union stranglehold  on  labor, and cutting

their  water off helped to  increase tolerance for  foreign-made goods

and after decades of acceptance of  foreign-made goods  the U.S.

was primed for  being  dopey enough to embrace bringing  the chi-coms  and their slave-level labor values to bear in competition

with our already-lowered labor values.

Now things seem almost hopeless, short a  powerful grass-roots

movement to live without all the modern luxury junk that comes

out of  the PRC--and I don't see that happening any time soon.

So now asking  if women should  stay out of the  workforce is

sort of like asking if you should slam the  gate shut after all

the chickens have run out of the pen.  I think almost everyone

has to work in households below the high income bracket, they

have to let a bunch of strange weirdos  do a lot of the raising

of "their*   children--thank goodness there's more of nature

than nurture in how a kid will turn out!  All would be lost

if that weren't true as opposed to most being lost.

Would you accept as answer that women  ought to have

stayed out of the workforce before it was too late?

Answer 8

maybe---Im not sure

Answer 9

No. Its a sucker bet. Women have always been in the work force. Now they're more visible.

Answer 10

Women should be able to work if they want to. However, women going to work did lower wages and makes the cost of living go up because there were more two income households and corporations took advantage of the increased income. Women working was not a government conspiracy of any kind, The women's movement was a natural evolution of 200 years of role stereotyping. Women should have always gotten equal pay for equal work, however, I do believe that traditional roles are better for a society as long as there is no restriction on personal freedom. A feminist is just a radical. A feminist wants to shove her values down the throats of all women. It is too bad that life in the United States is almost impossible for a single person any more be they man or woman. I really feel bad for people, particularly single parents, who have children.

Answer 11

Do you mean like the '50's when women stayed at home coifed and dressed up as they did the dishes.  Society was not better, babe.  The people were just MORE constipated.

We, the boomers, fixed all of that because we saw the look on our parents faces and knew we could not live like that.

Answer 12

Yes. Children wouldn't be so mouthy if they had someone at home to guide their after school activities. Less hanging out at the mall and more studying their homework.