Saturday, October 08, 2011

EU proposal could see women being paid double for the same work

Feminists have often raised the slogan of "equal pay for equal work". That is not a principle they truly believe in. What they want is equal or more pay for women regardless of the hours of work put in.

The latest evidence comes from the European Union. The EU is proposing not only that new mothers get 20 weeks leave on full pay after the birth of a baby but that they also get 2 hours a day to breastfeed the child when they return to work.

So let's say that there are two workers in a firm. Tony is a hardworking dad supporting a family. He gets paid $70,000 for putting in 8 hours a day for 48 weeks in the year. So he is working 1920 hours to get his $70,000. His female counterpart Julia had a baby at the start of the year. So she ends up only working for 30 weeks. Then she breastfeeds for at least one hour a day on her return. So she earns $70,000 for working 1050 hours. She gets the same wage for working 55% as much as Tony. If she takes the full 2 hours breastfeeding time then she will end up being paid the same as Tony for less than half the hours.

Is that equal pay for equal work? Surely not.

Now it might be argued that there are reasons for paying the woman so much more than the man - that it has to do with her family responsibilities. But the same could also have been said for the older system that the feminists complained about so much. Men used to be paid more because it was assumed that men had to support not only themselves but also a wife and children.

So if the older principle was so terribly unjust in feminist eyes, then how can they justify the new system?

89 comments:

  1. I don't know why many people do not understand the serious damage giving women more pay than men causes to society.
    It does away with men basically, women seeking a mate will not look positively towards males earning less than them. Even if they are not that sort of woman (there are women who love more than money) they will still look harshly at a male who is earning less than them.
    So you have males forming families later , not at all, not finding the best partner , not finding a partner and starting families in a terrible financial position. This all leads to dysfunction , shrinking of the number of nuclear families and divorces.

    One thing i've found that is almost impossible is explaining this to women even women very close to you. Since women have been transformed into an adversarial interest group, they cannot understand the issue. They refuse to because its an attack on womenkind.
    To fix this western men and women need to be reunited and see each other as one entity again(or different sides of the same coin).
    This however is a titanic task as I'd be suprised if at least one western women has even aknowledged that there is a rift!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am thoroughly bemused by the self flagellation white men will indulge in in order to ingratiate themselves with white women.
    These proposals were generated for the most part by rich and powerful men for whom feminism is a positive because it doubles the labor force and the taxable population.
    I don't believe this is sustainable even in the short term because the revenue generated will not be proportional to the money spent to indulge breastfeeding whims. Turnover will be high in such companies and ironically women will be much less likely to be hired because they cost more and produce less than they normally do. Competitors without such policies will outperform them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As Davout said the self flagellation of men is a real issue. Will men do anything to get the short term positive approval of women? I know men have been trained and conditioned, mostly evolutionarily I suspect, to fight and compete with outher but can they not see the damage they are doing to themselves and to the future? This cannot be a serious strategy by men but must be a "do anything for an easy life" response. Individualism, a lack of regard for others and a general malaise are societal killers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "These proposals were generated for the most part by rich and powerful men for whom feminism is a positive because it doubles the labor force and the taxable population."

    Its more accurate to say that it doubles the amount of mass consumers in society. When women were allowed in the workforce they had access to money other than their husbands. They then spend this on junk like clothes.
    It doesn't really double the labor force as women will not do all the jobs men do and end up just taking jobs that men could do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Davout,

    How can companies not hire women when they're COMPELLED to by the government? How can they stay in business if the gov't fines or punishes them to the point of insolvency because they don't hire enough women?

    Don't get me wrong; I agree with you. No company would hire women, given the costs they incur to do so. That said, most of your Western governments are going to punish companies that don't conform to the feminist, PC orthodoxy...

    MarkyMark

    ReplyDelete
  6. I live in Holland and I believe we have those rules already. However, few women work full time, most will only work 1-2 days a week if they return to work at all. Also, generally they are paid less than men, and can be fired first, as part-timers. A lot of bosses will only give a temporary contract for a half year to young women. My husband had a female colleague with such a contract who married and got pregnant. The moment her contract time was over, she got fired immediately. As a result of those guidelines, it will just be more difficult for young females to find permanent jobs, especially full time jobs. Private companies won't hire them and cushy govrnment positions are evaporating quickly due to budget cuts. Unlike Anglos who take all the rules seriously, continental Europeans will always find a way not to comply.

    Further, the issue of women working has NOTHING to do with placating women, as a lot of women, outside some irrational feminists don't want to work. POliticians just keep pushing their agenda because they are cultural Marxists who believe in equality. To blame women for this is ludicrous.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Feminists have often raised the slogan of "equal pay for equal work". That is not a principle they truly believe in. What they want is equal or more pay for women regardless of the hours of work put in."

    I work for the government. My wife fell pregnant this year. 3 months into the pregnancy I applied for 1 week of paternity leave(my entitlement as a male). My female manager howled about this.

    Me:"What's the problem?" Manager:"It's nice that your wife is having a baby but we have a service to run and too many people have applied for leave that month!"
    Me:"It's just 1 week."
    Manager:"We have a service to run!"
    Me: "Females(doing same job)get 1 year of maternity leave(and take it regardless of workplace leave issues). I'm only asking for 1 week, I only get 1 week."
    Manager:"We have a service to run."

    Sound of crickets.

    The leave was eventually granted, grudgingly.

    I have mentioned the above scenario to females close to me and they just don't seem to see the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have mentioned the above scenario to females close to me and they just don't seem to see the problem.

    That's because women are HYPOCRITES, and see no problem with double standards operating in their favor...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Davout- "Turnover will be high in such companies and ironically women will be much less likely to be hired because they cost more and produce less than they normally do. Competitors without such policies will outperform them."
    You're not wrong there!
    I've seen this in action. I'm a Network Engineer by profession looking after large corporate networks for telecommunications companies. The last one I worked for had their Headquarters in Europe but had us registered as an Australian companies.

    On our intranet site you could see the Maternity leave policy for women in our European Headquarters and generous was an understatement, well over the statutory requirement for that country, as a women you got 12 Months at full pay or 2 years at half pay, men got not a single day by the way, you took annual leave to see wife and new child in hospital. Rumor had it they made it generous to win favor for some huge Government contracts.
    However it was the the reason so many of the contracts were being moved to Australia as you need a certain number of Engineers per contract and they are not cheap to employee.
    If that policy was applied in Australia in my Group there was about 70 professionals like Engineers and Accountants, well if you average the cost to employ (more than what you earn of course) at say 150K each, about 10% of the female population is pregnant at any given time, so you budget half of 70 workers being 35 women, 3.5 women pregnant at minimum and they are out for 1 year at full pay, rounded up very conservatively to 4 by 150K equals 600K but we need to bring in workers to cover them and that costs a further 600K. This Maternity pay if implemented would add about 1.2Million in expenses.
    Now in reality Network Engineers are about 90% Men both in Australia and Europe so the costs aren't paid, except in Europe the Affirmative Action plans insists you up the number of women to 50% which in the case of the company I worked for they were on the way to achieving when they layed most people off and work came to Australia.
    So what will they do if costs rise using the same rules in Australia? Well the answers on the Intranet site, just navigate to the Hong Kong Human Resources page and do a search for the term "maternity leave" and you get "please advise your Manager as soon as you planning to give birth so a proper handover of your duties can occur in a timely fashion". Try competing with that!

    ReplyDelete
  10. We wouldn't have those problems at all if women stopped working upon marriage as it used to be and if number of out-of-wedlock births was insignificant.

    One of the main tenets of feminism is wives as equal partners and full female participation in the workforce. Men nowadays often complain about feminism yet think that women should continue working after marriage, and even after the birth of the children, which will invariably lead to the politics described in this blog entry. Then those same men (and here I don't mean the commenters on the entry, just speaking in general)will complain about feminism.

    I have a friend who always says that women should give their jobs to men and I agree. In some countries it was forbidden by law for married women to participate in the workforce until mid 1980s, and I think it was a reasonable law. China has a policy: One family, one child. I think that we should adopt One family One income policy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think that we should adopt One family One income policy.

    Uh, that WAS the de facto policy in our culture until it was deemed sexist and discriminatory by the feminists...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jesse_7,

    ...can they not see the damage they are doing to themselves and to the future?"

    The evidence suggests they are wilfully ignorant of it. Individualism, a lack of regard for others and a general malaise are societal killers as you say but they are also palliatives.

    "It doesn't really double the labor force..."

    What I should have said is it significantly increases the potential labor force. In retrospect, even 'doubles' is not entirely accurate because a sizable minority of women have always worked, many of whom did so due to necessity and not choice. In using the word 'doubles', I fell into a feminist trap which presumes almost no women worked outside the house well before the legal enactment of second wave feminism.

    Markymark,

    There is a cyclic problem: governments and big business are linked together. The 'statesmen' disappeared when the two colluded together because the element of nationalism was wiped away. I would strongly support a mechanism to permanently remove the influence of big business from government.

    The breastfeeding thing is a proposal and not law yet. Consider the following scenario: two countries A and B with equal productivity. Country A enacts legislation mandating breastfeeding payments to women and country B doesn't. My contention is a company in country A will ceteris paribus lose out to a competitor in country B. The breastfeeding payments also incentivize babymaking. Thus mat. leave payments would also rise which means more free lunches for women and less revenue for their companies.

    Anonymous,

    "Further, the issue of women working has NOTHING to do with placating women,"

    Actually, it does. If men kowtow to women it causes women to believe that they are always right whenever they are disputing with men. Count the number of times you have seen male politicians speak out against feminism and compare that with the number of time you have heard them extolling its alleged virtues... Hence the rampant entitlement among women and the inferiority complex among men. So there is plenty of blame to go around, not just on women. Nevertheless, I am more sympathetic to men because they, unlike women, get the short end of the stick from the time they are born in a feminist country.

    meerkat,

    So what will they do if costs rise using the same rules in Australia?

    According to the iron law of supply and demand, outsourcing will occur to a country without those rules. Obviously, the feminist will target such countries through NGOs and other propaganda routes, and try to 'make feminism happen there' but since feminism is a function of excess wealth, it will not manifest itself dramatically in poor countries.

    I do not believe anyone should get paid for making babies.

    Anonymous,

    "I think that we should adopt One family One income policy."

    The feminist reaction will be to advocate 50% of men stay at home...

    ReplyDelete
  13. If women don't work the same hours as men they shouldn't get equal pay. It's atrocious. This EU proposal highlights the denigrating liberal influence on governments and corporations.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Davout, you write as if women are a monolith group and all want the same thing. The proposed feminist employment policies will placate working women and irritate those who don't work. Yet the politicians never seem to care about placating housewives. That's why in my eyes it's not about placating "women", it's about pushing left liberalism and cultural marxism.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Davout said,

    "Individualism, a lack of regard for others and a general malaise are societal killers as you say but they are also palliatives."

    Can you explain that a little more please? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these workplace fertility rules must be supported. If the fertility rate is getting so dire because people put off their children until its sufficiently convenient career wise, then measures must be brought in to help them have babies during their career. I realise that this is an option that helps only some women whilst other stay at home women aren't supported in the same way, although there are increasing efforts to financially support them as well.

    The alternative to these kinds of measures will not be women leaving the workforce to have babies it will be continually declining fertility rates and more and more immigrants being brought in. Many young women would rather have a gun put to their head than be required to leave their careers for extended periods and so consequently they won't have children or leave it too late.

    Women must have the valid option of leaving the workforce to have children, and if the male wage can't be increased I imagine the support will be in the form of govt assistance. However, we must be realistic and try to incorporate baby making into career women's lives. I would not support the breast feeding option as I don't believe children belong in the workforce and I feel that daycare is satisfactory.

    We have to deal with the situation as it is on the ground today in realistic manner.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous at 2.43 advocates the one child policy of the red beasts in China. Perhaps he would like to see some of Mao's other policies put into effect as well such as shooting anyone that isn't considered sufficiently revolutionary. Those who are in favour of this sort of thing never imagine that it will be applied to themselves. They're very often surprised. I'm sure that Trotsky would never have believed that he would finish up being killed with an ice axe by a fellow Marxist. Yezhov, also, probably never realized that he would get the same bullet in the head that he so liberally handed out to others. Our Lord's justice is always done, very often even in this world do we see His wrath fall on the servants of the evil one. Our Lady of Fatima pray for us.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous at 2.43 advocates the one child policy of the red beasts in China. Perhaps he would like to see some of Mao's other policies put into effect as well such as shooting anyone that isn't considered sufficiently revolutionary. Those who are in favour of this sort of thing never imagine that it will be applied to themselves. They're very often surprised. I'm sure that Trotsky would never have believed that he would finish up being killed with an ice axe by a fellow Marxist. Yezhov, also, probably never realized that he would get the same bullet in the head that he so liberally handed out to others. Our Lord's justice is always done, very often even in this world do we see His wrath fall on the servants of the evil one. Our Lady of Fatima pray for us.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jesse_7,

    "Individualism, a lack of regard for others and a general malaise are societal killers as you say but they are also palliatives."

    I mean that men indulge in the three tendencies you mentioned because they are preferable to fixing the problem. Pursuing individualistic activities helps divert them from the reality of their emasculation in the patriarchal sense. Their attitude is: "If I didn't break it, why should I fix it?"
    I, myself, used to think in that vein but I came to realise that conflict avoidance = maintenance of status quo. The problem with the question is that it relies on the assumption that men can function perfectly as islands in a sea of liberalism, an assumption that is false.

    If the status quo is to be overturned, lots of thankless work must be done.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Davout,

    Good argument and I agree. I'm not sure that individualisation is totally a response to the dismantling of patriarchy though.

    ReplyDelete
  21. anonymous,

    "...you write as if women are a monolith group and all want the same thing."

    When I speak of 'women' I mean 'a majority of women', not 'all women'.

    If you see John Lott's paper on the cause and effect relationship of female voting and socialist policies, you will understand why I, as a man, am wary of the political power of women as a group.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I'm not sure that individualisation is totally a response to the dismantling of patriarchy though."

    I agree. I think there are two types of men: those who get women easily and those who don't. The individualization of the first group caused the dismantling of the patriarchy while that of the second is a response to aforementioned dismantling.

    ReplyDelete
  23. So Jesse, you propose surrendering to feminism in the name of the greater good? I don't see why my taxes should support personal choices of some women to combine motherhood with a career, and I don't see why private businesses should subsidize life style choices of their employes. In the times when women stayed home, the fertility rate was much higher.

    To anon 12:27 I can only suggest taking reading comprehension course. I have never advocated one child policy, but one family one income policy, which is perfectly reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Davout, I know what you mean, but you come from UK, don't you? In my country situation is somewhat different, we have many political parties with different programs. Generally a big group will vote left no matter what, not specifically because of feminism. Christians will vote Christian and so on. Anyway the big issue nowadays seems to be immigration and that's what people are ranting about, not feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Davout, let me give you an example to illustrate my point. Several years ago major political parties got upset because of absense of day care and after school care. If only we got more day care, they reasoned all the housewives would go to work. We know they secretly desire it but are too oppressed by patriarchy. So they spent a lot of money on building those day care centers. Built one in my neighbourhood and it stays empty and is now used to give language lessons to immigrants. Guess those women didn't want to work after all. Now we got recession, no money for day care subsidies, the price goes up. The women who did use day care are upset, the housewives are happy, serves those career women right. See what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous at 9.49,

    I'm not sure I'm advocating surrendering to feminism but I don't have a problem with women in work provided they still have families and babies. I realise that work complicates the matter but it doesn't have to disastrously considering the home labor saving devices we have today.

    The problem I see with feminism is not that women do some male roles, such as in the workplace, but that they utterly abandon their traditional personas and see themselves as in open conflict with men.

    If your taxes subsidise women theirs do also. Additionally I don't see the number of jobs in the world as fixed so I don't really see women entering the labour force as taking men's jobs but rather adding to the overall potential labour pool. Provided that is that they can actually carry out the job unlike the situation with the female prison guards in Sweeden.

    If we could realistically get women to go back to the home that would have many social benefits, but I find a total division of household labour to have some symbolic difficulties. I like being able to talk about work issues with career women and I like really well educated women. Personally I hate to say it but I would struggle to marry a housewife. Where this attitude comes from I can't rightly say.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jesse, with friends like this the traditionalist cause doesn't need enemies. You wouldn't want to marry a housewife, because career women are better educated? Really? That is straight out of feminist textbook.

    You said "they (women) utterly abandon their traditional personas and see themselves as in open conflict with men". You seriously expect women to perform the traditional male role and not to come into conflict with men? Not to abandon their traditional feminine personas>? Did you ask yourself what created those traditional personas, as surely it wasn't climbing the career ladder.

    Further what have labour saving devices to do with the whole thing? Will they raise children while mummy sits in the office? Do you know how much time housekeeping takes if performed to the mid-last century standards?

    As for taxes, I know families who sacrificed a lot in order for mother to stay home and raise her own children. Two income families have, well, two incomes and many more luxuries, should they get government subsidies on top of that? It's not like they are starving.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous,

    I am Canadian, not British. In Canada the majority of people just accept feminist policies as something beyond discussion.

    What you mention regarding the day center is encouraging but it needs to happen on a wider scale. A big movement always begins with small successes :-)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jesse_7,

    "I don't have a problem with women in work provided they still have families and babies."

    The question is 'what kind of family and how many babies'. We already know the answers to those questions. We do not need to penalize men in order to realize the 'do it all' fantasies of career women because that is really the only way those dreams can come about.

    We also know how unfavorably daycare compares to the care provided by mothers themselves. The fact that so many women put their kids into daycare brings into question the whole idea that most women are nurturers.

    The libertarian argument regarding the number of jobs increasing with female employment is simply not true if you look at the numbers. This is because women net-net take up dead end jobs and do not create any new ones. These are the jobs that would have gone to relatively unproductive men who are now unemployed. Of course employed men generally don't give a crap about such men because people just assume that being men they will get jobs out of thin air. Most women don't care either because they are primarily interested in is getting access to the more productive men, which they do leaning on the crutch of affirmative action. The very people who created the losers blame the losers for being losers...

    At the company I work in, it is only women who prattle on forever exchanging the minutiae of their lives, disturbing me and others. I can only imagine how much more productive I would be without them. The problem is that workplace women combine the aspects of femininity that men dislike, like gossiping, with an attempt to become men, which men really abhor.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think a lot of women are very valuable in the workforce and often have a good work ethic. I've been in all male environments where the guys only want to strut and do nothing. On the point about family formation yes you're not likely to have more than 2-3 kids on average if both parents are working,and maybe that's a bit high. It doesn't have to be 1 or 0 though. Being raised from a house where both parents worked and were generally conservative I'm not too fussed about it. I see equality as an issue here, I'd like to be doing a lot of the same things as my wife, study and work wise and if I married a women totally outside of that I'd worry that I'd build closer relations with my work colleagues than with her.

    Does this put me in a weak position with her? Of course. She works therefore doesn't really need me economically, is liable to be stressed by her employment and possibly take it out on me or the relationship, and she's also far more likely to catch the whole full feminist thing and adopt a blame attitude. However, I believe work and contributions to the public sphere are increadibly important callings that shouldn't be limited to one sex. I also thing that things like work are important if woman are to fully achieve their potential in terms of character development and skills. There are traditionalist and labour specialisation arguments for women staying at home but there are also gender superiority arguments. I'm a male, I'm better, only I should work, its no suprise that this pisses women off. If we are better we shouldn't have too much difficulty dominating them in the workforce and I'm generally not that sympathetic to people complaining about unequal playing fields. I have generations of examples of working men to summon up and call on at work whilst they have only their peers and sex in the city.

    Davout I'll have to take your word on the working statistics, however, my feeling is that if we had a surplus of labourers we wouldn't be importing migrants of all different working types.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Davout, so you are a Canadian? Now I understand where you are coming from as Canada is very feminist, isn't it? Here we are still not that progressive, luckily. It's still quite normal to stay home after you get a baby and our women aren't that keen on careers. The last statistics I heard was that less than 10% women worked full time, but politicians are constantly busy with inventing new schemes for general emancipation.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jesse, you wrote: " However, I believe work and contributions to the public sphere are increadibly important callings that shouldn't be limited to one sex. "

    So you agree with feminists that housewives don't contribute anything of value to society? That making power point presentations is more of a contribution than raising well adjusted children?

    "I also thing that things like work are important if woman are to fully achieve their potential in terms of character development and skills "

    Managing the household and raising children is work. What do you think homemakers are doing the whole day, eating bonbons?

    "there are also gender superiority arguments. I'm a male, I'm better, only I should work, its no suprise that this pisses women off.."

    And some MRAs state that being a breadwinner turns men into slaves of women. I guess it all depends one one's point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I believe one of Karl Marx's statements was to the same effect of one previous commenter: women at home do not contribute anything of value to society. That was his excuse to get them out of the home into factories. His own wife and daughters were apparently left on their own quite a bit, forcing them into poverty and helplessness (probably to force them to the workplace) while he pursued higher education and philosophised with his friend Engels about how this world should be run. The feminist agenda was actually begun by men like him.

    Those who want to follow the Bible know that it speaks of women as having a special place in the home, to guide it, guard it, and to keep the house. This is greater than you can see upon first glance. It provides an influence and role model for the children and others, and puts the man in a role of great responsibility to provide for and protect his family from the strain and stress of the pressures of this world, so that the home can be a peaceful refuge. Modernists either can't understand this contrast between Marxism and the Bible, or they do understand it and don't want it. If you have women at home, you can't extract taxes from their paycheck for all the liberal programs and the welfare money.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I don't want to offend people, but if the housework can be done on the weekend why do you need to stay at home all day? If well adjusted children can be raised with women taking some time off, some time in daycare and then school why do you have to stay at home all day? If a working environment, ie surrounded by lots of other people, exposed to lots of new ideas and competition, is beneficial why should this be denied women? A nice house with a beautiful garden is a wonderful thing but women can work too.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You could probably apply and "if" or an exception to any good principle and nullify it, so an "if" does not justify changing something.

    Secondly, housework cannot be done in a day.

    Thirdly, children cannot be completely well adjusted raised by other people in the most developing moments of their lives or the most teachable moments of the day.

    Fourthly, why is the workplace a better place than the home, for a woman, and what is wrong with a nice house and garden, if that is what a woman desires?

    Fifthly, If children can be raised better in the home atmosphere and can be home schooled and the mother stays home and guides the home, and she does it better than anyone else and she thrives there and so do her children, better than in daycare or work, then what is wrong with that.

    Six, its not really a matter of comparison with what seems to the human eye to be better than something else. With many women, staying home and homeschooling is a personal conviction based on belief. When you have that determination, it does not matter if the school bus is better transportation or not. It matters that the parents raise the children, even if it is more difficult or more expensive or they cannot have all the toys of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  36. LadyLydia,

    I agree that women staying at home provides many advantages to the family and to society, if that is what the woman wants to do. We were talking previously about broad generalisations, "all women should stay at home" or "all women should go out to work". Once you get past that they you can say sure what does my family, or this family, want to do and what should they do in this case.

    If we say that women staying at home is a reasonable choice, then it should be in practice a reasonable choice. It should be realistic for men, or some men, to earn enough for women to stay at home, provided you don’t totally distort the labour market to allow men unreasonably high wages, as occurs in some union sectors. Government assistance to families should also be given, if its necessary, and it probably is. As you say women who educate their children or develop their children strongly provide a great service to society as well as to their family.

    If on the other hand women being in the workforce is a reasonable choice then that choice too must be facilitated. I believe that women in work also provide a great service to society and also to their families. I do believe it is possible to raise your kids well if the mother works, perhaps not very well if both are at the top of the career ladder but that won't be the reality for most working couples.

    If that choice is to be facilitated then women must be able to take time off work to have children. If this means government subsidies then so be it. If this means that the husband of the stay at home wife has to pay for this in part through his taxes then so be it. The moment you start saying what is fair or not in terms of who pays you're on a slippery slope, next thing single people will come out and say they don't want to subsidise families. Taxes aren't about individual desires they're about reasonable social need. I believe its reasonable that family formation and childbirth should be supported by government whether that support goes to stay at home mothers or working mothers.

    You might say "but Jesse, all this government intervention, why can't government just stay out of it?". Well if the government stays out of it many women may be forced to work because of costs of living issues. Many working women will delay childbirth until it is precariously too late and maybe childbirth in totality will suffer. Also many couples may lose themselves in a degenerate “dink” (dual income no kids) lifestyle that does nothing for society. It is the governments role in part to provide direction for society and to support worthwhile social initiatives. There is no bigger worthwhile social initiative then the raising of the next generation and provided the government intervention isn't excessive Government can play a role here.

    For those who say that women who want to work shouldn’t have kids at all if they won’t prioritise it, I’ll simply say that that genie is out of the bottle. Unless you have an awesome way to put it back in again you should deal with the reality of the situation on the ground and not alienate or isolate a huge proportion of your population or open the way for further immigration. For those who say “these subsidies have been tried before in Europe and they didn’t work” I’ll say Europe has a lot of problems and just because they weren’t fully successful there doesn’t mean they won’t be here.

    ReplyDelete
  37. They have been saying that same thing about socialism for years. Where it has been prove to have failed, they say, "It just was not done right. It could work here." They insist on living in the past, and can't get past it.

    A reasonable choice. There again you are using an "if." "If" its a reasonable choice, then it is okay. You could use that with just about anything, allowing anyone to reason within their own minds, based upon their own reason, whether or not it was reasonable.

    There has to be law and principle and eternal values to guide mankind, not just a bunch of "if's" which could end up being millions. It might be a reasonable choice for my neighbor to let her chickens run around on my property and it might be a reasonable choice for me to have them for dinner, but we neither of us are allowed to use reasonable choice. We have to go by law and principles.

    In the end, those mothers who understand nursing, motherhood, keeping the home--who really study and understand that it is more than just cleaning up a house on a weekend, it has to be a belief which is backed up by determination, rather than on what is convenient or easy or brings in the most money.

    ReplyDelete
  38. It is a reasonable choice because it has been proven in many instances to be very workable. If staying at home and not working was so awesome you wouldn't have to sell it as every woman would want to do it. Sorry can't say "if". Work is not just about money but is very fullfilling to many women. Any government intervention does not equal socialism. Of course the chip on the shoulder that many stay at home women express at any criticism of their choice is palpable.

    ReplyDelete
  39. It is not necessary to "sell" staying at home to women. Liberals find it necessary to "sell" them the belief of going to work, and many find themselves being pushed into it, while they reluctantly leave their children.

    As for it being "proven" that working women find it "works" that depends on how many people you have actually polled or interviewed. How would you ever go about finding accurate information on whether it works or not and what criteria would you use to determine that?

    Women are either going to believe in staying home with their children, enough to do it, or not believe in it enough to do it. How do you influence, change, or establish belief? You may use a statement like, "it has been proven to work, " or "It has been shown to be true," yet it may not be true at all. It may be your agenda, and so you will pickk your information that supports your beliefs. So will I. There will always be two choices.

    As for determining whether or not something works or is legitimate based on whether or not you have to "sell" it or convince someone of it, that is not true. Imagine a candidate running for a political office not bothering to sell his agenda or convince people that he was the best choice.Imagine him just sitting there and never trying to convince anyone with true facts or evidence that he is the best one to vote for. Then imagine him sayhing, "If the other guy were the best choice, he would not have to sell anyone on it." The same is with products in the store. If it were a good product, why advertise and draw attention to the product? Why not just be quiet and let people "want" it. It is possible people would not know they had a choice if only one choice is presented. That is why I have my blog where I tell women there is another side to this working-woman thing that is wearing women down to a frazzle. The working world is not run the same as a home, which is entirely different and has a different effect on a woman.And, it is not all about money. Women do it sacrificially, and with love, for an entirely different purpose , which would take a lot more space than google allows in the comments area. Please go to my blog to read further.

    ReplyDelete
  40. If work is only about fulfillment, then women would work for free. If work didn't pay, I wonder how many women would go to work.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I think its great you're promoting your choice and position on your blog, I just promoted mine. Ultimatly slightly a moot argument as to which children are better off if there's no strong evidence on it. As I've experienced first hand coming from a working home, along with most of my friends, that gives me evidence to talk on.

    I would not suggest taking away your right to stay at home. Here we're not talking about women's right to work either. The issue is should we facilitate women who work to also have children. I would argue that we should. What are the stats on the numbers of working women? I would like to see them have children. What is our current fertility rate? I would like to see it go up. Ours is a free country and as women should have the right to stay at home they should also have the right to work... if they choose to. "Not on my taxpayer funded dime!" Its small change in the scheme of things if you ask me.

    Now would it better for the overall fertility rates if women stayed at home? Yes of course, and we know that. Yet how do you keep them there by force? We've already said that if we don't do something different our fertility rates will drop off and the numbers of migrants will increase.

    Work is a freedom, for all of the drudgery. I'm sure staying at home is as well, however, actually equality between the sexes must be a noble goal. How can the sexes be equal if men can withdraw their finances from women like parents can deny the pocket money of children? Should we change the financial practises of employment so half of the working man's wage goes directly to the wife?

    One of the reasons women are so reckless or aggressive today I believe is because they are like cultural teenagers. The shackles have been let loose and all they know how to do/or want to do, is tear it up. I would like women to enter cultural maturity. If they want to stay at home they should. If they want to work they should, with the proviso that they must parent the next generation or there will not be one, and migrants are no solution for our culture. I would like women to be able to manage the freedom that they are given. One of the ways for that to happen is for the government, like a patient parent, to prod and lead them into certain behaviours. Too paternalistic? Government has always done, or had a hand in that, long before C19th socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jesse_7,

    I am not against women working so long as they fulfill two conditions:
    1. they put their family first
    2. they compete on the same terms as men

    Assuming those two conditions are met, the problem (for feminists) is that women would then represent a locus of uncertainty to hirers because of pregnancy and their likelihood to take more days off, and so employers will be more likely to hire men, all else being equal. The wage gap indicates that women earn a fraction of what men earn over a period of time. If one removes the threat of affirmative action lawsuits, employers would be unlikely to consider women for long term jobs, given enough men for a position.

    So women would be able to work if I had my way, but not in the numbers that they currently do.

    I agree with you that there are several women who work better than men but I am willing to go out on a limb and speculate that working women's kids do more poorly than housewives' kids. So if you extend the frame of reference beyond the work environment to include the home environment, I think those same women are not good parents.

    Men and women are not interchangeable in regards to parenting and I feel that women (who, unlike men, abundantly produce the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin that facilitate nurturing) are more valuable than men when the kids are very young. So the argument that men, in general, could do just as good a job staying home with very young kids just doesn't wash with me.
    One also has to remember that there is an entire legal infrastructure (such as sexual harassment legislation and diversity training) in place to maintain women in the workforce in the numbers that they currently are. Removal of this will also increase the ratio of male hires.

    In Canada, a lot of migrant women work in the daycare industry. I speculate this is because white women want to pay the minimum possible to someone to look after their kids and primarily migrants will view such wages as 'high' compared to what they got in their native countries. This allows white women to maximize their earnings sans daycare payments. It also helps create a polarized class system with white women at one end and immigrant women at the other. Since men are unlikely to ever be comprise large percentage of daycare workers, feminist careerism necessitates a class system of women. This is similar in principle to the feminism of abortion where the independence of one group of females must come at the expense of the lives of other females.

    I personally am inclined to keep my work and home spheres separate. I view my home as a safety zone away from the turmoil of work. Thus a housewife would be better for me than a career woman. I feel that if someone who is my companion were in a position to second guess my professional work at home, I would be less likely to pair bond with her. In fact, I would quite possibly come to view her as a competitor and thus a threat.

    I do not want to be dependent on a woman's goodwill for stability in marriage on under pressure to earn more to keep up with her 'earnings' so as to mitigate the effect of female hypergamy, and I would hazard a guess that most other men do not want to either.

    ReplyDelete
  43. You make some good points Davout and I'd have to research it further to see how women in the workforce really get on, before I made any additional comment. The next question is where to from here? Merely remove all affirmative action or pro women policies. It seems to me a sorry situation where women couldn't take off a year or so to have children when life expectancies are growing and women could realistically work into their 70's.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jesse, are you sure you are reading the right site? This is supposed to be a site promoting the traditional ideas not the convention of young socialists. It looks to me like your ideal of a wife is a comrade and your idea of a traditional family is government subsidizing day care and maternal leaves, and the private enterprise better cooperate too or else.

    As for housewives having chip on their shoulder, since you insist on making this discussion personal, I will oblige you. Your reasoning on the subject is evidently clouded by the fact that your mother worked. You are like those "conservatives" who will come out and support any destructive lifestyle because someone in their family chose to follow it. Just like for feminists, for you personal is political.

    I will tell you this, i have close female relatives whom I love dearly who work. It doesn''t change my ideas on the subject. were my brother an alcoholic I would still maintain that alcoholism is wrong because I draw the line between my personal circumstamces and my (political) principles.

    Finally you serve as an example of what I previously stated, feminist politics in the workplace are supported not by women in general, but by working women and their (potential) husbands as both will profit from them. It's not man versus woman issue, it's one income versus two income family issue.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I guess me and the comrades will stop the socialist revolution long enough to answer your post. Obviously my opinions are "clouded" by my first hand experience of my mother working, and her mother, both had children and it was good enought for them. Day care was also good enough for me so it doesn't phase me.

    On your point about this being motivated by financial gain, the overwhelming majority of the women of my "class" work. To marry a stay at home wife therefore is to go outside of my class. I'd rather not if you don't mind. Additionaly as I value work as one of the highest goods, not money, I have no problem with women who do also.

    ReplyDelete
  46. With all the banter back and forth about what women want..what they "deserve" and how to best remove all vestiges of their God-ordained and blessed role, we are sorely missing the point.

    In nations such as mine, (the US), women have abandoned the God that was once the bedrock of their lives, for sake of self-pursuit and me-ism.

    Anytime you enter into a contract, whether it be marital or to choose to have children, you are responsible for certain terms of that contract. If the foundation and "terms" of the contract are not based in something concrete, then what naturally happens, is people seek their own happiness, self-fulfillment, and personal recognition.

    With the foundations of what marriage actually is-a lifelong contract not based in emotions (though emotions are a great part of marriage when God is the center), but based on principles that guide and sustain through emotions. Women and now men, no longer desire that; the separation and gift of gender roles.

    Women seek to disobey and rebel against God Almighty, and in doing so, want to create their own reality. Their reality states that no matter what, they 1) Can have it all, 2) Are not only equal, but better than, higher than men and 3) Can choose whatever makes them happy, consequences to their spouse, children, society and world be damned.

    The other reality, despite feminists desiring the creation of their own reality, is that having someone else raise your children is always less ideal than the mother and father raising the child(ren) themselves.

    Daycare has been shown in numerous secular studies, to be less than healthy for children. Yet, the WHO, the UN, and all forms of "modernized" governments choose to push it as a "requirement" for humanity. It is indeed not a requirement to say that bonding is worthless, or that it can be properly done in the off-hours of a woman who has chosen herself over her child.

    This separation of woman and child has led to a generation of really screwed up adults with absent parents. It has also led to a generation of me-centered children and adult children, as people attempt to cover their guilt from being absent with material possessions.

    I've yet to meet one child or adult child of a stay at home mother who has said to me, "I sure wish my mother would have left me in order to have more stuff", yet I've met plenty of daycare raised children who have stated they'd have given anything for more time with their mother, and more time at home.

    No matter what the pay, women cost businesses an arm and a leg. What an oxymoron that they claim this is equality. It's nothing but shackles and chains for women, men, children, businesses and society.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Rightthinker,

    Its hard for me to defend my generation or the babyboomers who heralded the women into work move. They are generally indulgent, irresponsible, shockingly self focused, highly self righteous, and short term in their thinking. Under them the fertility rate has crashed and many of their kids also have all sorts of ridiculous emotional hangups. Yet these people are not a total write off, they make a huge percentage of our population and additionally many in these generations aren't like that.

    Equally I have seen uselessness on the other side, a casual disregard for women, stultified emotional growth, and catch all generalisations regardless of people's merit, desire or worth. I would suggest that in terms of virtue or spirit, work does not necessarily lead to indulgence. Work can in fact lead to the opposite and can be a devotion, whether you're a man or women. Likewise not working does not necessarily lead to virtue and the experiences of the stay at home wives of the aristocrats, or "Dr's wives" of today, shows that.

    I would also suggest that its only fairly recently that the majority of women have been able economically to not work, prior to that many did, in either cottage industries or family businesses. On this point we have had this discussion before, although I can't recall the results of it.

    I would suggest that God calls women to be mothers, not necessarily to stay at home.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You talk of work as a way to better women, as if work at home does not exist and does not benefit a woman. If work at home were paid for by government, then would it benefit a woman, in your opinion? Is there something so wrong with home life that women should not desire to stay home and guard and guide the family with good teaching and good worth ethic? I suspect you have been shuffled around quite a bit in your life and did not have a pleasant enough home experience to regard it highly enough to recommend it to women. Yet women at home is what will save the family and save the economy. With children being raised conscientiously by women at home, it cost the govt a lot less money for juvenile court and jails. With women at home, there is more work for men, and none need to be unemployed. There is no point trying to equalize men with women.Their roles, functions, feelings, abilities, instincts, and other things are totally different. They compliment each other when each stays in their own role.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Jesse,
    (I re-wrote my above comment, and then deleted the old one, as I read later and saw it had too many typos for my liking. Sorry)

    I think Proverbs 31, Titus 2:5 and 1 Timothy 5:14, in addition to all the Old and New Testament commandments, instruction and prophecy that instructs women to be at home, to nurse their babies, to guard the home, and to be keepers at home show you are incorrect that God calls simply to be a reproductive vessel and nothing more.

    Additionally, Deuteronomy 5:5-9 commands us the parents to "teach our children diligently". One can easily see that diligently teaching cannot happen when you drop your newborn through high schooled child at daycare and then other people's instructional care, an average of 10 hours per day. (the average amount of time a child is in daycare, due to commuting)

    Most would find "Training your child up the way they should go" to be awfully hard to do with having other people outside the family more influential in the amount of time spent with the children, then their own parents.

    I've even read stories where people become so accustomed to living their lives without "their burdensome children around" that even when they have a day off work, they take the child to daycare so they can more easily run errands, catch up on cleaning and getting groceries, etc! Appalling!

    I also realize that many people are not Christians Rightfully, I do not expect much from the world in this way. I expect them to be feminists, marxists and socialists. They have no moral compass of conviction, and only moral relativism. This is why I'm most bothered by our so called "Christian community" of believers here in the US and abroad, who identify themselves as Christian, yet look no different than the world with their choice for careers and jobs outside the home.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Motherhood likes fatherhood does not involve merely siring children but is a responsibility and I do not mean to say that women's responsibility should not be strongly on the home.

    1 Timothy 5:14:

    "So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander."

    This is as opposed to being a young widow and running around trying to find a new husband while serving in a holy ministry. Also you can manage your home, in the sense of being responsible, whilst not doing every part of it yourself.

    Titus 2:4-5, "Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."

    Busy at home and not idle at home. You can also be a submissive wife and be in the workforce. Many maybe aren't but many wives at home aren't either.

    Proverbs 31:

    "A wife of noble character who can find?
    She is worth far more than rubies.
    Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value.
    She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.
    She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands.
    She is like the merchant ships,
    bringing her food from afar.
    She gets up while it is still night; she provides food for her family and portions for her female servants.
    She considers a field and buys it;
    out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
    She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.
    She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.
    In her hand she holds the distaff
    and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
    She opens her arms to the poor
    and extends her hands to the needy.
    When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
    She makes coverings for her bed;
    she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
    Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
    She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.
    She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come.
    She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
    She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.
    Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:
    “Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all.”
    Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
    Honor her for all that her hands have done, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate."

    This woman does many things including buying and selling for profit.

    So I don't think the Bible is that clear cut.

    ReplyDelete
  51. On the point about Deuteronomy 5:5-9, I cannot remember any of my daycare workers from that time, but I certainly have memories of my parents and I always looked forward to being picked up. Real family time occured in the evenings after work. What we did do at daycare was mostly play and some basic activities, but you do have to interact with others as well as your parents.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Motherhood likes fatherhood does not involve merely siring children but is a responsibility and I do not mean to say that women's responsibility should not be strongly on the home.

    "Strongly on the home". How can it be strongly on the home, when more hours per year are spent at work, and away from the home? This is the lie of the "you can have it all" mentality. Something always has to give. When selfishness is involved, it is always someone else.

    Busy at home and not idle at home. You can also be a submissive wife and be in the workforce. Many maybe aren't but many wives at home aren't either.

    With only daycare experience for your youth, how do you know if wives at home aren't busy? That's a really ugly feminist myth..the idea that there is nothing to do at home.

    Just today, I've homeschooled children (we have 6), kept my house clean and tidy, prepared a wholesome meal from scratch for dinner, fed the children meals, read to the children, baked bread for the week, and studied my Bible. I don't know how this verse can be twisted any more illogically to fit a pro-working woman agenda.

    All the things the Proverbs 31 woman does are God, husband, family and home focused. She is focused on preparing for the needs of her family. She is focused on making things with her hands and selling them..much like a lady would do on Etsy or the like today. Something she is gifted at, and turning it for the profit of the entire family, by not putting the profit above the family.

    I think the Bible is very clear cut. While I don't personally begrudge women who choose to work, I do believe they are making a selfish choice, and one that we cannot pretend has no impact on society as a whole. It most certainly does.

    ReplyDelete
  53. On the point about Deuteronomy 5:5-9, I cannot remember any of my daycare workers from that time, but I certainly have memories of my parents and I always looked forward to being picked up. Real family time occured in the evenings after work. What we did do at daycare was mostly play and some basic activities, but you do have to interact with others as well as your parents.

    I would look forward to being picked up, as well. I cannot imagine dropping my children at daycare..oh my goodness, the emotional toll that would take..the things I would miss. My heart would break, and I'd be completely useless to my employer. I think it takes a different heart to be able to do it. A socialist conditioned heart.

    The real family time after work is having lots of negative societal impact, as well. Many families don't even eat dinner until 8 or 9 pm. Mothers do not cook, because they are pressed on time, and make excuses. Therefore we have obesity epidemics among children and adults alike. Women can't breastfeed because they have to leave their infants. This impacts infant mortality, as well as long term health in ways such as diabetes.

    Children are going to bed far too late, and awoken early to be hurried and readied for daycare and our pressured school system. They are then shuttled through fast-food or given some crappy excuse for a breakfast. It's just sad all around.

    Again, I want to be clear. I absolutely have a heart for women, and I understand where they are concerned, worried, and unfamiliar with staying home. I also understand how many of them buy the myth that they "can't afford to". I don't blame them for this pervasive mentality. My prayer is that more women who have chosen to do so, and LOVE being the home provider, nurturer, etc., will speak up, speak out, encourage and implore women to stay home and raise their God-given blessings.

    There is no greater role, and therefore it isn't one that can be divided.

    God bless you this evening (or whatever time it is where you live!)

    ReplyDelete
  54. Jesse_7,

    I am glad that you consider my points have merit, and I reciprocate the sentiment.

    "The next question is where to from here? Merely remove all affirmative action or pro women policies."

    I am strongly in favor of that. I realise that it is impractical for women to not work outside the house throughout their lives but I think taking good care of the babies must come first.

    Once the children are toddlers, the grandparents can take over mothering so as to allow the mother to work part-time if that is what she wants. A teaching job would be ideal especially one where the toddlers will transition to the same school. This is the advantage of a joint or a close-knit family. Families have to come together again to allow flexibility.
    In my opinion women are exceptionally good at, and would have maximum utility in, localized community building activities. Local vibrant communities do not exist anymore because too many women are at work and they need to be rebuilt. Such communities are a source of prestige and soft power which is just the ticket for most women IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  55. You both make strong points and thank you for your statement Rightthinker. I would say on the homeschooling that most women, housewife or otherwise, don't homeschool. I realise I'm sure that the kids would be active in the church community but is there not a danger that sons wouldn't be sufficiently connected to the public sphere? Which is afterall their rightful place. How will he interact in that field if he doesn't sufficiently "bustle" with boys on the playground, which is as much about the school experience as the study? I'm very much a public sphere kind of guy and don't want to surrender that to the left.

    Davout, with women in work much community life suffers, also elderly parents have to go to homes and everyone is likely to be stressed as they deal with their seperate activities. You've both given me something to consider. Bless you too.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Jesse,

    I can hardly speak for all homeschooling parents, but I can speak for myself, and what I've witnesses from other homeschooling families.

    We have four sons, and they are very well socialized and extremely male. Our oldest is 14.5 and had a rapidly growing business in our area. He provides physical work to people in the area, and therefore is quite masculine, physically capable, responsible and trustworthy.

    Our sons wrestle with one another, and are completely different from our girls. My husband is responsible for training them to be men, as no other member of society can do that effectively for him, nor can any woman train him to be a man-including myself!

    They are active in church, and very plugged in at home. They are being raised to be young men, and don't need public schools or worldly involvement to do so. In fact, involvement in those for us would be akin to throwing them to the wolves! If every day we strive to raise honest, compassionate, responsible, young people who fulfill their gender roles in order to bring God glory, we certainly can't let them spend more time with worldly people than with those we trust!

    We are called to raise our children..none of this "it takes a village" socialist garbage. The village is burning!

    All of our children have plenty of friends, and weekly contact with those friends. The only difference from public schooled children in this way, is that we have a say in who they develop friendships with-it's all people who raise their kids in a similar fashion.

    God bless :)

    ReplyDelete
  57. Davout said, "Once the children are toddlers, the grandparents can take over mothering so as to allow the mother to work part-time if that is what she wants"

    I don't know why you would recommend that. Why not send the grandmother to work instead and then the state won't have to provide daycare. After all, Jesse says that women will be working into their 70's anyway. That way, you can let the younger mothers stay home.

    Between the ages of about 18 and 35, according to some health studies, women are supposed to increase their load bearing exercise in order to develop strong bones. That would be exactly the age that they would most likely be lifting their children and carrying them, picking them up, playing with them, and other home activity. When they put them in daycare or send them to grandma's, someone else is getting all the exercise, and they are missing out on other important emotional things that must go on between mothers and children. People are not just animals that need food and shelter. They are created with emotional and spiritual needs, as well, and to just say that all you have to do is provide for a child and feed him and such, is to view people in a very materialistic way.

    As for Australian women in labor, I grew up there and found that women were put to work as young as 15 years of age (back in the 1960's). So if they work from the age of 16 til they are 70, they will work nearly 50 years outside the home. The only kind of sense that makes is to a socialist government that can extract taxes from their paychecks to support wars and all the wacko programs they initiate to make everyone equal.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Rightthinker said
    "
    We are called to raise our children..none of this "it takes a village" socialist garbage. The village is burning!

    Someone on another blog who was home teaching her own children addressed the "village" thing, and said, "I have seen the village, and I don't want it raising my children."

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ladylydia,

    My recommendation is that women should work part-time so long as the children are not harmed by the absence of mothering and so long as they are not cheating their way into jobs.

    There are two reasons to work that some women will put forth that I consider valid arguments:
    1. boredom from not having structured activities outside the house
    2. fear of the husband not being able to financially provide for whatever reason

    With flexible part-time work such as teaching etc., a wife can mitigate these issues. I am certainly not proposing that women work continuously until 70.

    I have not considered the homeschooling aspect mainly because I don't know much about it. If homeschooling were to be publicised in a positive fashion, I think more women would take to it.

    You also have to remember that any movement to a traditional conservatism will require a transition. Career women will transition to part timers first before even thinking of being housewives.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Ladylydia,

    If work at the home is work then women will be working well past 70 anyway. Many men work to that age. My big problem with subcultures, whether they be Christian or otherwise, is you lose your connection to the country. You should closely idenitfy with your country not just your community or family. If your country is not going the way you want you should do what you can to influence it. I don't have that much time for people who want to live in a country or culture without contributing to it, in the form of fighting "wars" or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @Rightthinker:
    for your profile you wrote "...
    I am a mom-to-many, homeschooling, homebirthing, cloth-diapering, non-vaccinating, natural medicine using, bread baking, loving to cook,..."

    Wow! I wish there were far more well-adjusted (and intelligent) women just like you and Lady Lydia in this world. The world would be a far, far better place than it is now.

    ReplyDelete
  62. RightThinker wrote:

    The real family time after work is having lots of negative societal impact, as well. Many families don't even eat dinner until 8 or 9 pm. Mothers do not cook, because they are pressed on time, and make excuses. Therefore we have obesity epidemics among children and adults alike.

    As it happens, the most recent Mangan's blogpost is about this very topic.

    Here is an excerpt:
    The obesity epidemic started around the mid-70s, and it will not escape notice that this was also around the beginning of enormous cultural changes in the U.S. and the world. That the U.S. has been among the leaders in the epidemic and that other countries, such as in Europe, have lagged slightly might also indicate a cultural influence, since the U.S. has arguably been in the lead (so to speak) in cultural changes. The changes I have in mind are feminism, the rising divorce rate, increased labor participation of women, broken families, increased commuting times, and others.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Jesse you mentioned your class. Feminism definitely seems to be a middle class sickness, and that the lower classes get incredibly screwed in the process doesn't seem to bother people like you in the least.

    Middle class men benefit from feminism as it lifts the provider's burden of their shoulders. In the times past a daughter of a middle class home would often stay home too, so the father had to tare care of her as well and often the unmarried female relatives. Whether the daughter makes a good match was a point of concern for many fathers.

    Nowadays they don't have to worry about such things. They don't stop to consider that most of those wonderful working places for their wives, daughters and aunties were created by the government and that their salaries are paid by the taxpayer. After all we all know government just has money growing on trees.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Also Jesse, concerning cottage industries, they were not usually created by women of your class. The difference with the modern situation is that women employed in those industries worked from home and they did it because of poverty and not for self-fulfillment. You should do a Bible study on the meaning of Titus 2. King James Version translates the verse as women being keepers AT home and the Greek word denoted someone who stayed home the whole day keeping it. You can't sit in the office and be a keeper at home.

    My church uses 16th century wedding sermon, which says that women should take good care of their housekeeping and that men should WORK in their godly profession so that they can SUPPORT their families with honour. There was not a word about women helping with this support. Apparently those 16th century protestants were not aware that at their time most women worked.

    Anyway, if most women were in paid employment or working in the fields, why did we ever need feminism to emancipate them from home? It doesn't even make sense. Feminism needs to get its story together, either all women were slaves of their husband, chained to the stove, or they all worked in the businesses and plowed the fields.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I'd like to apologise for much of the negative tone of these exchanges.

    On your point Anonymous, some of the crassest feminists I know are in the working classes. They ditch their husbands, frequently in outrageous circumstances, are the chief culprits in laddette culture and of course they're some of the biggest princesses you're likely to meet. The middle class women might have the obnoxious politics but these women frequently behave in truly appalling ways.

    ReplyDelete
  66. In my parents generation it was the done thing for a women when she got married to leave the workforce, if she didn't leave should would likely be fired. This was just par for the course and it was these kinds of situations that feminists complained about.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "On your point Anonymous, some of the crassest feminists I know are in the working classes"

    Because as it was noted on reactionary blogs before, the lowest classes are always hit stronger by society dysfunction. Their rate of out-of-wedlock birth is also higher. Guess what, who taught them all those things? It was middle class feminists who are too intelligent to follow their own advice.

    There used to be such a principle, noblesse oblige, but not any more I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thanks for the compliments on my daily life/tasks, yet I must say that many Christian women who believe in submission (which is a gift from God, and in no way makes a woman "inferior" to a man, but rather actually places her on a Biblical pedestal) live their day much like mine, and rejoice in it.

    It isn't the norm these days, but it once was! There is definitely a movement afoot to simplify, and to return to living that existed before the cultural shift of the 40's, when women entered the work force.

    I have room to grow everyday, and I'm allowed to do so as my haven is my home. I am in charge of things home..so long as my "boss' is the Lord almighty, then my life comes from conviction, not from bribery through pay or pressure from business.

    The comment from Davout regarding women needing to work part time so if they "lose their husbands" they can make ends meet, is another ridiculous feminist myth. My husband has life insurance that we are committed to providing in our budget. He owns a business, and therefore must carry insurance anyway. So, it makes sense to insure his life. In the sad event something should happen to him, I will stay home until the children are raised. Since we live with no debt, aside from our mortgage, which would be paid at that time, I could easily live on a very modest retirement income.

    We once did the calculations. Based on the handouts the gov't would give us in the form of SS for our kids in his death, we'd be a lot better off financially!

    Women who don't have this, should be looking to their church for support, and to families. What did women do historically when their husbands died (and they did at a much younger age)? They lived with family so that their children would have a family, guidance and support as well.

    Just because you say the ideal is to work at least part time does not make it so! What is ideal is a return to pre-feminist lies in our world. That's ideal. Since that is unlikely, unfortunately, the next best thing is for people to stop whining that others do not do enough for them, and buy into the socialist feminist myth, but rather plan for their own futures in a responsible fashion. That starts with ending the reliance of credit and living beyond ones' means. Another product of the feminist movement, due to 2 incomes.

    Thanks a lot for the link to the blog about bedtimes/obesity, etc. I will check it out!

    ReplyDelete
  69. "'I'd like to apologise for much of the negative tone of these exchanges. "

    Jesse you are nice guy, I mostly like your comments, but you are young and having grown up in a modern liberal societal paradigm accepted some liberal premises without question.

    You write: "In my parents generation it was the done thing for a women when she got married to leave the workforce, if she didn't leave should would likely be fired. "

    There was a reason for this, as jobs are not an infinite resource. Before the modern welfare state there were not many cushy office positions for nice middle class ladies to fill, and there were no generous welfare cheques for unemployed. It was considered unethical for a family to have 2 incomes when some families had none. A woman who has an able-bodied husband who can provide for her who goes to work out of boredom takes a job from another man or a single woman who must earn her own living.

    I have read forum discussions where young women complained they were not able to find full time employment which they needed to pay the bills as they were single because all the positions were stuffed by part-time working mothers who already enjoyed their husband's income. This is happening right now in education.

    I'd rather have a dedicated single career lady like spinsters of the time past than part-time working moms who take their jobs as a hobby. In my country they ruined medicine and dental care. We have to invite surgeons from Eastern Europe and dentists from Israel because women graduate medical school and then decide they'd rather work part-time so we have constant shortage of specialists.

    If she works full time she will likely need day care, maternal leave and all those policies criticised by the original blog post. Think of it.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Also, Jesse in your posts you come strongly against divorce. Do you know that in my country they msde a research which showed that the more hours the wife worked the more chance of divorce the couple had. Husbands of working women stated that they felt neglected and that was the chief reason for marital problems. Staying home is not only about raising children, a lady can be childless and a fulfilled housewife.Last time I read an article stating that Kate Middleton stays home. A home is not a prison. Ladies who stay home do volunteering, some whom I know sing in a choir, they take music lessons, they draw, they write books. There is a lot of space for self development. If the woman is bored in her own house, it's her character deficiency. She'd likely be bored in the office as well.

    ReplyDelete
  71. To the last anonymous comment, I say that was a superbly succinct overview of so much truth in such little words!

    Thank you for it!

    I just did a post yesterday on my blog about this topic, and just received my first feminist comment of indoctrinated fabrications..Alas, I cannot respond until my needs at home are met here..so she will have to wait, thinking they are so smart, ha!

    Blessings to you..I appreciate people like you, anon and Lady Lydia!

    ReplyDelete
  72. Rightthinker thank you very much and allow me to return the compliment! I prefer to lurk on blogs and generally don't comment by the same reason you mentioned - internet discussion tend take a lot of my time and energy.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Homeschooling and homemaking, with mothers at home, are things that do exist in Ausralia and always have existed. Just because they aren't in the news, and no one has actually counted the number, does not mean they don't exist or even that they are in the minority. They may not be in the minority at all. THey may be quietly going about their business and not trying to "get their rights" or "be equal" but just do their duty to their families. YOu can do a websearch for homeschool families in your area and find that there are probably people living quite near you who are homeschooling.

    ReplyDelete
  74. In Australia we have many debates about whether our country is just an "economy" or something more. Right liberals are always accused by the left of not caring enough for the community, always looking for the bottom line, at ways to improve efficiency and productivity without regard, or sufficient regard for people or the consequences for people.

    So for example issues like job security are frequently analysed through this view, we don't want too much entrenched union involvement according to right liberals because that leads to inflexibility and inefficiency in the workplace and overall weaker outcomes.

    This rationality focus, or instrumental rationality focus, is frequently targeted as not appreciating some of the fundamentals of human nature. We as people need a certain degree of security in our lives, whether it be in the workplace or elsewhere, for instance in marriages. We need things like culture, so consequently we can't just replace our workforce with a foreign one without huge cultural changes which affects us as people. We need other people involved in our lives to grow and nurture us, (we also need to grow and nurture others) and we are not simply disembodied wills intent on efficient activity or allocation.

    According to a rationality or instrumental rationality focus kids can go to daycare, because it is efficient to specialise labour in this way, ie a smaller number of carers can specifically look after a larger number of children and the parents can do something else more productive, which frequently means more economically productive. Likewise it makes sense to send aged or ill grandparents into homes.

    Now people turn around and say that you might not get good care or concern for you parents or children in these facilities, the answer to that raised becomes to find a better, which generally (although not always) means a more expensive, facility. As long as there is a need or desire for high quality care the "market" will move to satisfy this if people are prepared to pay.

    What we're talking about is a more impersonal society. I can get on in such a society without knowing my neighbours because I don't really need to. In such a society things like community or culture, are seen to a degree as a bit of a luxury. Things that are desirable but at the end of the day not really essential or alternatively replaceable to some degree.

    We go on this site and we generally rail against much of this. "You can't have a rational society without culture! Many of the things which make it work are intangible and expressed and created though things like culture". "You can't just see marriages as another contract (and if you could the terms are currently too favorable to one party) but these are profounder and deeper relations or commitments". "Your rationality isn't rational if it means the destruction of our society rather than the improvement of it!". “What about community which is the cradle of our citizenry?” So what we raise is the crisis in confidence as to what the future ideals of our society should be, because we see as everyone does, that there are strong growing fractures coming to the surface in our western /welfare/rational state which can't be politely ignored...

    ReplyDelete
  75. cont.

    The issue is where to from here? If we move away from this kind of instrumental society because of the negatives, and there are obvious negatives, we are in danger of potentially throwing out many of the advantages which this society has brought us. And it has brought us the dominance of this globe, continued improvements in external living conditions such as life expectancy, and the envy of all other countries even as they often grumble about us.

    Rightthinker, you bake bread, and I think that's great for spiritual and personal satisfaction. However, I don't have to bake bread because I can go to a baker and get it, in exchange for money which I earn in some specialist area through which I contribute to society, and consequently I have one less specific worry about what I'm going to eat and I can do something else, hopefully productive. The fact that it may be of lesser quality in many instances doesn't phase me because something is frequently better than nothing, if I wanted homebaked bread I’m sure I could buy it, and now I’m not required to be a baker in terms of the commitment of time and skill gathering and can do other things.

    I would like us to keep the benefits of our rational society and have it recognise again what it is frequently ignores, ie culture, religion, community not to mention future population makeup, as well as its creation of people with someone limited resilience because they’re always look for other specialists to do things for them, without turning our backs on what made us number one. I also think that rationality is an essential human trait and we do it better, well at least we certainly used to, than anyone.

    Women into work in my view is not some money driven conspiracy or even selfish drive, its a fulfillment of a rational idea, that you can contribute to society through an intellectually focused specialisation of labour and that this is highly fulfilling or engaging for individuals and beneficial to society overall. Women staying at home, home schooling etc, has the potential to be seen as a desire to move away from this “rational” society of many relations to create self sufficiency. Self sufficiency in food, self sufficiency in schooling, self sufficiency in health ie a refusal to vaccinate. I know that Jesus heals but scientists have laboured for generations to produce those vaccinations and people in the developing world die regularly because of their absence and aren't so choosey.

    Self sufficiency, while necessary to some substantial degree, is not the way to real security or strength as an individual cannot stand against mobilised groups and through the success of nations we as individuals are strengthened with nations largely being unable to thrive if people don’t contribute to them. Additionally true self sufficiency is largely a myth as we benefit from time to time from societies infrastructure, ie hospitals, social security, sources of information/education.

    Whilst there are many arguments to be made against women going to work, and some excellent ones have been made here. I would also not like us to see everything of the modern world to be viewed as a failure or disaster. "If" children aren't adversely affected by daycare, and I believe that that largely is the case because humans aren't "babies" and we are resilient in all environments even when sometimes they aren't ideal, then women leaving the home does become a possible practice. If its possible, and the big change and challenge of the modern world is that many things are possible now which weren’t previously, then women can maybe contribute to society in this way.

    ReplyDelete
  76. LadyLydia,

    Women do homeschool in Australia but they aren't the majority.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I do not know why anyone would assume that women at home or homeschooled children would not be participating in their country, in the marketplace, in the government or in society in general. It is simply not true. In fact, women at home have more freedom to do so.We shop, we pay bills, we help husband in his business, we look for good values, interact with people in town, and do most of the major business deals such as buying a house, a car, or researching plans for travel,etc. to free up our husband's time. Many women spend a lot of time comparing curriculums so they can get the best one to teach their homeschool children. Other women at home are very well versed in how to work with the internet and make connections for various reasons. I fail to see how being a homemaker would limit a woman in any way from being part of a larger world. Homemakers visit every area of life at one time or other, from a courtroom where they are asked to be on the jury, to a hosptial where they may be visiting a patient, to city hall, where they might get a "slow" sign put on the street in front of their neighborhood. They know how things work in the world, and being at home makes them even more savvy, as they do not have an obligation to a place of employment to spend most of their alert hours. They know a lot about growing things to eat in their own back yard and making the most of the space they have. Homemakers are not isolated, having no interaction with society at all. Most of them belong to churches, which have plenty of social interaction and plenty of work to do to help others. While working women are in the majority, unfortunately, it leaves a lot of the visiting of the widows and making food for families in need, to the homemakers. They actually know more about what is going on in real life, than many people do at work, where they do the same thing day in and day out. Life in the home is as varied as life itself. There is no way a homemaker could ever be guilty of not being part of the country she lives in. In fact, many of them are more patriotic and know more history and have deep loyalties to their countries. I suppose in saying that homemakers will be disconnected from things, you mean if they are not actually earning money in a place of employment. But actually, it is the women who work away from their homes every day that do not have the time to really connect or see how the world around them is working.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Jesse and Dave, you might like to read The Thinking Housewife, a very intelligent woman, who writes a column here http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/ and who homeschools also.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Yes, and as I bake bread (as many homemaking and homeschooling mothers do), I impute a particularly extraordinary virtue to my family. For my daughters, I instruct them in an artform and a lifestyle that has been largely lost. I could nourish them with a loaf purchased of high quality ingredients, sure, but the lesson would be, "Pay money for something you can do better, healthier, more effectively, and more frugally yourself, all while better glorifying the Lord, as your hands are not used for purposes that aren't unto the Kingdom", which is something amazing, and likened to the choice to be home rather than to daycare my children.

    For my sons, they learn from me submitting to my role, and doing so joyfully, that the feminist ideals the world peddles are lies, and that indeed, there is a biblical woman of virtue for them, as well. One that will stay home to raise children for God's glory, and he can thus be fulfilled at home as he embraces his role as husband and sole provider.

    Please do not discount the homemaking purpose with your one dimensional analysis of homemaking activities. Perhaps you've never met a true homemaker, if you think that it's about buying something you could have learned the art of doing yourself.

    What a blessing my sons will have in a wife who rejoices in her role! What a blessing to come home to peace, joy, order, obedient, intelligent, healthy and happy children!

    What a joy to find a wife who looks like a woman, and enjoys her marital role and the marital bed with no guilt..no worries of daycaring another...what a delight my sons will have when they find their helpmeet hand picked by God to partner them..to strive for frugality and yet beauty in the home..to lighten their load and exalt the name of Jesus over self interests and money.

    God help our culture where all we see is how the money is the prize, and the self-fulfillment of pats on the back from other males in the work place is glorified, and women are at home doing something "we could just buy at a bakery".

    ReplyDelete
  80. "... self sufficiency in health ie a refusal to vaccinate. I know that Jesus heals but scientists have laboured for generations to produce those vaccinations and people in the developing world die regularly because of their absence and aren't so choosey."

    Barbara Loe Fisher

    Dr. Sherri Tenpenny articles

    Tenpenny bookstore

    ReplyDelete
  81. Amen, Anon! Great links!

    Most who chooses to abstain from injecting our brand new, pure newborns full of neuro-toxins, does so out of intelligence and research and common sense, not ignorance, stupidity and rejection of Scientific discovery. Science itself disproves vaccinations..but I digress.

    Lady Lydia has written an outstanding overview of staying at home here: http://homeliving.blogspot.com/2011/10/reasons-to-stay-home.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FmEDvi+%28Home+Living%29

    In the effort of full disclosure, she links to a post of mine at the end, but if one chooses not to visit my post, they'd have gained a lot by reading hers.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Jesse, are you a Christian? Because if you are you should understand that a person has not only material needs, but spiritual needs as well. If you are a Christian, you should believe that there are immutable laws of God and The Bible gives us cautionary tales about societies which disregarded those laws and what happened to them.

    I guess you realise that something is wrong with the world around you otherwise you would not be reading this particular blog. You see the rampant divorce, abortion, lower birth rates, delayed marriages, ladette culture etc but you refuse to see that those are but simptoms of the disease. When Western man decided to disregard traditional sex roles established by God, he planted the seeds of his own destruction.

    Jesse, our great civilisation is the result of enforced monogamy and the division of labour according to sex. Men have surplus of labour, women don't. They are generally less productive than men. Women are valuable because they produce babies. The traditional marriage contract bound the man to a wife and pushed him to excel in his chosen profession as to provide for her and their children. Nowadays when women have their own income men are not ispired to work hard and it's detrimental for the economy. The society which disregards the division of labour according to sex will stagnate and become less productive. There is enough written on this topic by bloggers like Vox Day and in Manosphere.

    And as for children surviving day care because human being are resilient, sure and I heard some children of alcoholic parents thrive as well. It hardly makes either of those situations ideal for children.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anon Friday, 14 October 2011 5:36 wrote:

    "[...] our great civilisation is the result of enforced monogamy and the division of labour according to sex. [...] The traditional marriage contract bound the man to a wife and pushed him to excel in his chosen profession as to provide for her and their children. Nowadays when women have their own income men are not ispired to work hard and it's detrimental for the economy. The society which disregards the division of labour according to sex will stagnate and become less productive. There is enough written on this topic by bloggers like Vox Day and in Manosphere."

    Daniel Amneus wrote about this in
    The Garbage Generation

    But it is his contention that society won't merely "stagnate and become less productive" if women are financially independent but that society (civilization) will crumble and fall.

    ReplyDelete
  84. This piece from Henry Makow has been around for a long time, but is appropriate for anyone who has any doubts about the real purpose of getting women out of the home into wage-earning:

    Feminism was promoted for the purpose of de stabilizing society, and creating dysfunctional people.

    Stunted people can be brainwashed and manipulated. Rockefeller's new war (a.k.a. The War on Terror) is an extension of this elite agenda of world monopoly.

    Feminism masquerades as a movement for women's rights. This kind of deception is typical of subversive movements of Communist origin. In reality, feminism is ruthlessly opposed to femininity, masculinity, heterosexuality, the nuclear family and children.

    It deliberately promotes homosexuality which, according to experts, is a form of arrested development. Feminism neuters women, rendering them less fit to become wives and mothers. Men are emasculated, unable to create families, or make sacrifices for the sake for their children.

    If feminism were genuine, it would have disappeared when discrimination against women ended. It continues as a tool of the elite agenda: depopulation, de stabilizing society, and dismantling Western Civilization.

    In academia, feminists are the storm troopers of the Brave NW0, making politics supreme over science, objective fact and reason. Feminists believe western culture needs to be "reformulated" because men ("the patriarchy") created it. Essentially, this involves throwing it out.

    Modern feminism is a classic Communist "popular front" subversive movement. Betty Friedan, and virtually all its leading exponents were/are Communist/ Marxist activists. Feminism has taken over the education and legal systems, the media and federal bureaucracy because dismantling our culture is the elite agenda.

    It comes from http://www.henrymakow.com/130302.html

    ReplyDelete
  85. Rightthinker said,

    " Science itself disproves vaccinations..but I digress."

    Just don't get sick hun, science disproves nothing of the sort. Oh wait a couple of crank articles? Well like I said don't get sick or you'll need that bad intrustive and non pure Mr Science.

    ReplyDelete
  86. First, I would kindly ask you to not call me "hun", as I'm not your "hun". Secondly, "getting sick" is not prevented by vaccines.

    Even with six children in the house, and a focus on nutrition and natural remedies, we are blessed to all have very rare and very minor illnesses.

    I don't expect others to agree with the non-vaccinating stance, yet the most enlightened feminist would be for respecting the "free choice" of the matter, no?

    Interestingly, many of the feminists that frequent sites such as mothering.com, disagree with you. Perhaps feminism isn't as united as it claims.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Jesse, find out how vaccines are made, and read the ingredients listed on the package insert. Then tell me which ingredients are: medicine, nutrients, cures, preventative, immunity, etc. They are chemicals mixed with a vile business of other things, which when injected into the body do not promote health in any way. People read the ingredients on their cereal boxes but never on the so called medicines they take, and they have a right to know what the list of ingredients are. If you would not take a so called vaccine on a spoon and swallow it, you probably wouldnt want it injected at hypodermic speed with a needle into your tissues. There are plenty of places to find out more about what the ingredients are and how much of it is metal or chemical. There are a lot more diseases now as a result of several generations getting these cvhemicals and metals injected into their bodies. A little research will help you find the ingredients list.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I continually read Laura Wood and find her very insightful.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.