The Sexism of Economics.

I absolutely agree with everything you said.

Especially about women being better suited for the role of raising a family. I have three kids and another on the way very soon, and it's no rocket science...when the kids start crying for one reason or another, they go to mom, not me. It's not because I have no emotions, it's just a natural thing for kids to do.

It would be ignorant for me to say that women should stay in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Obviously. And there is no but to this statement. That being said...

In 1950's America, life was a little simpler than it is now.

This of course is for many, many reasons. The biggest material differences between now and then are of coursethe electronic age, the age of communications and the motor vehicle industry.Electronics have gone from a mono-stereo record player and radio, to blu-ray discs and the Xbox 360. Communications have gone from a dozen families sharing a party line on a rotary dial phone system, to every dog and his fleas having a cell phone with full colour video conferencing. Transportation has gone from the `57 Bel Air to the Hybrid car that runs on a nuclear cell battery.
Amazing, but not what this topic is about...directly.

On a more important note.
The family unit was much stronger then, than it is now.

Moms were moms, and dads were dads. The world was simple. Moms had a solid career once they started their family, with taking care of the kids until they were old enough to go to school. They had the home to take care of, with chores that consumed much of their time. They also had the family's emotional dealings to take care of.

Moms in those times were emotional caregivers who kissed scraped knees better, and lashed out with the wooden spoon when needed to keep the kids from harming themselves or others. Moms took care of many things that the Dads could not, because the dads were working for the food to be on the table.

The Dads were the disciplinary force that kids respected. Dads would go to work at a job that, if they were lucky, they could easily keep for the time they graduated school until the time they retired.

During this time the economy was not only stable, but growing in the aftermath of two world wars and the Korean War.

But then the women's liberation movement came into full effect and the job pool became congested. Men could no longer simply leave school and get a career. There was now competition in the work force from the women.
Unfortunately, the women were no longer in the home as often to be those emotional caregivers.

Without these emotional caregivers, the kids would grow up with nannies, daycare workers, and babysitters. The 1980's was a time where the term "latchkey kids" came into play, and talk shows approached the subject that because so many moms were in the workforce, that kids would come home from school and let themselves into their homes with the keys they had on strings tied around their necks. (I'm sure some of you have experienced this first-hand as I did) These kids would throw something in the microwave to reheat, and tend to themselves until their parents came home...sometimes after bedtime even.
Of course kids left to their own devices do not eat properly, do their homework, or clean up after themselves.

The crime rate in youth related crimes escalated to all-time highs in the 1990's and continues to rise still.
So does the rate of career moms, and the rate of childcare facilities that are so full that their waiting lists are over 6 months in many places.
So does the rate of unemployment.

This was the conversation that a group of us at work had a few times, and it seems to be ongoing for some reason. The question at hand is: Has the fact that women left the home to enter the work force on such a large scale damaged the economy as well as caused such a rift in the family unit that kids now call 911 on their parents for spanking them?

This is not a sexist topic, this is a question of has event A affected events B and C. Gender has nothing to do with it. If the woman goes to work and the man stays home to take over all those roles the woman formerly had in the 1950's, then would it have stayed the same as it was back then?

It sure would be ignorant to say that. I will try not to attack you personally on this matter for you do not have this opinion, but merely are interested in the subject. And maybe, just maybe, in arguing with yourself took a more sexist, black and white method than was appropriate.

I just want to stop you there, and make sure that America is not the only important state and culture in this world. The following arguments you supply are based upon American & Western Europe (Thanks to WWII). However other cultures should be taken into account to give this question more room to breath in.

You are talking about technology that...

Quote:

...is relevant to the common everyday household. This is about the common everyday household. F-18s and nuclear technology don't really apply to the average Joe.

Quote:

However you totally ignore the most crucial part, and the technology on which your argument is based; household appliance.

Again, I used the comparison from then to now using a few simple and easy to relate to objects. I wasn't about to compare a food processor from 1950 to a food processor from 2008. Not everyone would relate to it.

Quote:

I think you took 1950 because the change was more apparent in that time, however every change has a beginning, and that beginning was...

I chose 1950's era because it is something we can all visualize much easier than life in 1488 or 1867. The family unit was even more solidified before this era, and the economy was not growing simply because the country had not finished growing yet. The political parties had yet to establish themselves entirely, and the wars were slowing things down before that.

Quote:

Vacuum cleaners, ...And what happens when people get spare time?
I can guess you can fill in the blank.

They have sex. The population increases, and the need for family stability increases with it. Diluting the job market becomes a larger problem, and the family unit begins to crumble as the value for possessions increases, as does the desire to keep up with the Joneses.

Quote:

This is purely economical; ...while the richer part China (and Hong Kong SAR) is starting to be "westernize" and fall apart.

That's my whole point.
The poorer parts of the country are remaining stable. Their economy may not be increasing, but it is also not decreasing. Their way of life is not affected as much as the richer parts because they have not Westernized themselves. The whole topic is about how it affects the economy. Family unit just fell into it somehow while I was in the middle of a tangent.

Quote:

The reason for this is wealth. ...a large chunk of it got lost because of wealth.

That's the problem though. Kids are only playing by the rules as long as their parents are around, which is not as often as they used to be in the decades past.

Quote:

1950 America and Europe where at that time still Christian. One of the Christian (unwritten) rules is that you have to marry someone if you want to have sex with them.

Actually it is a written rule. It's called fornication. It's a very bad sin according to the bible. anyways...let's not get religious here.

Quote:

The people who married in the 1950's and got kids during that time still were born in the 1920-1930's. When Christianity was even more around. They have obeyed to the rules their parents and religions laid upon them.

Yes. When families were active with each other, for so many reasons. Being religious helped, but the question is: Has the fact that the mothers are spending 40+ hours a week outside of the homes creating this gap between the youths of today and their elders? And is this adding to the complications that I have mentioned regarding the economy and the crime rates?

Quote:

Of course Moms were Moms and Dads were Dads, because that is because how their parents raised them.

So why has that changed? Is it because parents spend less time raising their children and more time working so they can buy a second car or an in-ground pool? Is it because the kids spend more time with care workers than their parents, or is it because the television has become the babysitter when mom and dad need some peace and quiet after a long day's work?

Quote:

The other social rules at that time (and closely bound with Christianity) were that a man had to work, and the woman had to stay home.

I don't see how Christianity made housewives out of women, and workers of the men. Can you point me in the right direction on this point please?

Quote:

It wouldn't be until the next generation that this changed.

Yes. And it changed drastically.

Quote:

That is one wrong statement. Moms still are emotional caregivers who kissed scrapped knees. Of course the level in which this "kiss on the knee" was given might have been changed for better or for worse. But still people care about their children. The fact that some parents don't do in this age doesn't mean that all parent's in the 1950's cared about their kids. Mom's took care of things dad could not because dad was always working is right. But that is also right in any situation. Soldier #2 kills the enemy if soldier #1 failed. Person A posts the letters because Person B is to busy to do it.

I wouldn't call it a wrong statement. I would say it's exaggerated to make a point. Obviously not every mom works a full time job. My point was that moms are not there for their kids as much as they were 60 years ago.
In the 1950's we did not have daycares like we do today.

Quote:

Dads are often the disciplinary force indeed. But that is logic. Mom takes care of A, B en C and dad takes care of D, E and F.

There's a place for everything. Once you figure out who has what role, then you can relax a little when things go haywire.

Quote:

Economy was stable ... about the question.

True. The wars and some presidents have inflated the dollar a little. (740% or something like that) But with women going off to war, you could open a whole new can of beans. I personally know two women who have left their three children (ages 4, 6 and 11) in the hands of caregivers while they go overseas to fight the war.
These women are gone for two and three years on tour. To say that this will not affect their childrens' emotional growth and attachment with their mothers would be a stretch of the truth for certain.

Quote:

However the Economy .... seen the vietnam war since the age of 4!.

I'm not certain what you were getting at in this point. Could you elaborate a bit please?

Quote:

Why do you think kids started to rebel, started to experimenting with drugs and other illicit junk, ...second or even third rank citizens.

They began to doubt their elders' judgment. For many reasons aside from the war as well. But think about it...before the hippie and drug movement there was WWII, WWI, Korean war, Civil War, war of 1812, etc etc...war had never had an impact on society like the VietNam war had. Kids in the '50's would have never gotten away with what the kids of the '70's did.

Quote:

It was a mixed combination of; economics, loss of religion, human nature and the freedom they were experiencing that changed the world and made sure womans finally be accepted into society as someone who has the same right as man.

I'm all about women having the same rights as man. That was never the issue at all. The whole talk about women having equal rights as men disgusts me, because it should never have been an issue to begin with. People are people. Regardless of whether or not they have innies or outies. This mixed combination that you mention though...it's what I'm talking about. The chain reaction that was caused by the influx of women entering the workforce and leaving the kids at home is what led to this mixed combination you mentioned, is what I'm getting at.

Quote:

Woman literation movement was also something that came out of the new generation.

Liberation, you mean...they already knew how to read.

Quote:

It was closely linked with the other things i just discussed. Woman started to be accepted into society. And why start a family at age 20 when you can have fun for many more years and settle down when you are 30?

Try building a snowfort with your 10 year old when you're over 40 years old.
My wife is 38 years old and is in ful realization that she will not be able to be as active with our newborn when he is older, than she can be with our young ones now. If she could go back and do it all when she was 20, she would in a heartbeat.
I recently quit smoking, started watching what I eat, and went back to the gym on a regular basis, because I want to live long enough to see my grandkids.
If I started having kids when I was younger, I wouldn't be so concerned about it.

Quote:

I got to admit you got me at this point. I still grew up in a traditional household (even being born in 1989) and did not experience the same thing you did. But i knew many people who did. Of course kids were left to themselves more then was needed. However do you really feel betrayed by it?

No, I was independent at a very young age to begin with. If I was like other kids around me, then yes I probably would.

Quote:

I guess you might have done some things you are not proud of, just because you had the freedom to do it, and the supervision was not there. However even i who grew up in a traditional household did those things. Kids in the 1920 also did the things that were forbidden at that time. It really does not matter that much.

If my mom was around, maybe I wouldn't have. That's my point.
And kids in the 1920's probably wouldn't have gone around vandalizing the neighborhood...they would have seen trouble as picking apples from Farmer John's tree as a bad thing to do. (In general comparison. I know kids in the '20s had gangs and stuff like we do now.)

Quote:

I think the change of household does have it effect on this numbers, but they are quite low. America has been quite stupid and arrogant. Why is it that the most important and richest country in the world fails to supply all its citizens (only 200 million) with health care and proper education. If America had the balls they would have solved their own problems instead of freeing countries like Vietnam and Korea from Communism. Rest assured that I mean The American Government with America and no American personally. The discussion about American being ignorant for fighting an other approach then their "democracy" is one for another topic, so if you want to say something about it; open a new topic.

huh?! what the...where did this come from??? I never called anyone arrogant or ignorant...what are you talking about?

Quote:

Criminality only grows because poverty is growing larger and larger; New Orleans has not been rebuild after Katrina. People still are left forgotten.

Quote:

The house market crash has put millions out of their house. Those people will eventually all steal because of they need to.

Less than 8% of white collar crimes are reported in USA. Since 9/11, white collar crimes have seen 30% less convictions, while the conviction rate of blue collar crimes have seen an increase of 200%, even though the rate of the actual crimes has not increased more than 9%.

Quote:

Kids call 911 because they are being taken seriously.

The system is being abused by brats. Kids occasionally need a spanking to keep them from getting themselves seriously hurt or in trouble. Unfortunately, our society has determined that spankings are abusive for some reason.

Quote:

America has gone nuts over the freedom of speech thing. If i say *** on national TV in America i will .....A simple court order was enough.

Terry Schaivo was her name. And I don't see how the 1st Amendment fits into this...can you please explain?

Quote:

Fun thing is ...

People have their priorities, and they aren't always what you would expect.

Quote:

I guess you got my answer on this question.

You're a little vague in some places, and ambiguous in others, but I think you were getting at the point that the economy is the government's fault for getting their noses into other peoples' affairs and creating the whole Fiat affair.
But you never once disagreed with me, in the fact that having both parents in the workforce has been detrimental to both the economy and our standard of living (which has created a gap between generations that will take decades to repair if we start now) which also contributes greatly to the increase in youth related crimes.

Vasska, the economy is a contributing factor to the condition that families have found themselves in today, but what the original question was, is "did the fact that women entering the workforce on such large scales contribute to disrupting the economy to this point?"

If the woman goes to work and the man stays home to take over all those roles the woman formerly had in the 1950's, then would it have stayed the same as it was back then?

Has the fact that women left the home to enter the work force on such a large scale damaged the economy as well as caused such a rift in the family unit that kids now call 911 on their parents for spanking them?

When I pointed out the change in technology, it was to point out that we have evolved as a sentient race so quickly in such a short period of time.

Almost all of our gadgets today are made to make our lives convenient. Electric can openers, car starters, microwaves, computers, cell phones, and silly string are all things we have now that we didn't have in 1950.Yes, you made a very good point for that by stating that some of these things make life easier for the housewives. But why would people spend less time with their children if they have so much time freed up for themselves by owning these items?When I find more time in the week for myself, I don't separate myself from my family. So where did we go wrong since 1950 until now?

But why would people spend less time with their children if they have so much time freed up for themselves by owning these items?When I find more time in the week for myself, I don't separate myself from my family. So where did we go wrong since 1950 until now?Why is it that since the lifestyle in 1950 that surrounded itself with family has disintegrated by 2008? Why have moms left their families to fend for themselves so often?

I wanted to expand this much wider to fully understand what is going on. You now talk about 1950 ~ 2008. We can call 1950 A and 2008 C, but you still have to trough B to get their. This B was the era between that also marked our future, and made the world what it is today. What happened in those years has already been mentioned but i will mention them again; The Vietnam war, hippies, woman liberation movements, Martin Luther King etc.

A high percentage of women are working at jobs that do not actually produce anything tangible.