3 ms·

> Absolutely true, but also absolutely the traditional and current norm. Traditional? Yes. Current? No. https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2011/women/ https://ww

by dpark 10y ago

> Absolutely true, but also absolutely the traditional and current norm. Traditional? Yes. Current? No. https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2011/women/ https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2011/women/ In 2009, 59 percent of working-age women in the United States were in the labor force. Well over half of working-age women are employed. That means the percentage of women who would qualify as stay at home moms is less than 41%. Likely well under, between 23 an 29 from a quick look. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/04/10/percentage-of-stay-at-home-moms-on-the-rise-after-decades-of-decline/ http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/04/10/percentage-of-stay...

gnaritas 10y ago
> Traditional? Yes. Current? No. You're mixing two different statements. Look at what I said was current norm, being dependent when married and trying to have kids. So your stats don't disprove anything I said. > Well over half of working-age women are employed. That means the percentage of women who would qualify as stay at home moms is less than 41%. Likely well under, between 23 an 29 from a quick look. Not relevant to what I said, at all. I didn't say the majority of women are stay at home moms, I said they're financially dependent on their husbands. You can be a working women and still be uneducated and financially dependent. These are not mutually exclusive things.
- dpark 10y ago
  I don't see what I'm mixing up. You said that the current norm is a woman "basically giving up any hope of having a real career, ever, and consigning herself to being nothing more than a "housewife" for her best adult years. She'll never have a serious career after that. Worse, she's making herself entirely financially dependent on the man." (Yes, these are not your words, but they're the words that you quoted when you said it was "absolutely" the current norm.) If by "norm" you mean this still happens a lot, sure, but that's not what's actually the norm. The norm is to be part of the labor force.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    Being part of the labor force doesn't stop one from being basically a housewife. A job isn't equal to a career. He's talking about educated women with real careers. You're talking about jobs, we're talking about careers. If you can find labor force statistics that break out low skilled jobs from careers requiring degrees, then you have something to add if that's still over 50%, I highly doubt it is. And my point is largely, women's equality has a long way to go; it's really not the norm yet.
    - dpark 10y ago
      Ok, you went back and edited your comment to add more detail about what you meant. Yes, you can be a wife who's financially dependent on your husband but still hold a job. It could also happen in reverse, of course. For the record, I'm not sure how common that actually is vs stay-at-home mom. If you have kids, it becomes glaringly obvious how expensive it is to put kids into daycare. For low-earning mothers with a better-earning husband, it can be really hard to justify working vs staying home to raise the kids. It costs more than minimum wage to put a single kid into daycare. If you have some stats indicating that most women earn so little as to be financially dependent on their husbands, I'd like to see it.
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        You act like I'm attacking women, I'm not. Most married couples with kids are financially dependent on each other; single income families are no longer the norm either. I don't think it's a stretch to say that within most marriages, moms still dominate the child care side of the marriage and work when they can while dads still dominate the working full time side. And I've already stipulated that most married couples with kids are financially dependent on each other, so it's not just women. I don't have any data to show you, if you think I'm wrong so be it, I really don't care, but this is what I see all around me and the stats you posted I think basically back me up since it's barely over half counting all jobs and I'm only counting real careers that require education since we were discussing that, not just employment. You seem to really want to make the point that more than half of women work; ok great, but it's a non-sequitur, we weren't talking about jobs, but educated women with careers and more to the point about how many men care about being with educated women with careers. The OP said who but religious and conservative men want an uneducated women, but religious and conservative men account for the majority of men so it's an odd thing to say.

by dpark 10y ago

gnaritas 10y ago

> Traditional? Yes. Current? No. You're mixing two different statements. Look at what I said was current norm, being dependent when married and trying to have kids. So your stats don't disprove anything I said. > Well over half of working-age women are employed. That means the percentage of women who would qualify as stay at home moms is less than 41%. Likely well under, between 23 an 29 from a quick look. Not relevant to what I said, at all. I didn't say the majority of women are stay at home moms, I said they're financially dependent on their husbands. You can be a working women and still be uneducated and financially dependent. These are not mutually exclusive things.

dpark 10y ago
I don't see what I'm mixing up. You said that the current norm is a woman "basically giving up any hope of having a real career, ever, and consigning herself to being nothing more than a "housewife" for her best adult years. She'll never have a serious career after that. Worse, she's making herself entirely financially dependent on the man." (Yes, these are not your words, but they're the words that you quoted when you said it was "absolutely" the current norm.) If by "norm" you mean this still happens a lot, sure, but that's not what's actually the norm. The norm is to be part of the labor force.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  Being part of the labor force doesn't stop one from being basically a housewife. A job isn't equal to a career. He's talking about educated women with real careers. You're talking about jobs, we're talking about careers. If you can find labor force statistics that break out low skilled jobs from careers requiring degrees, then you have something to add if that's still over 50%, I highly doubt it is. And my point is largely, women's equality has a long way to go; it's really not the norm yet.
  - dpark 10y ago
    Ok, you went back and edited your comment to add more detail about what you meant. Yes, you can be a wife who's financially dependent on your husband but still hold a job. It could also happen in reverse, of course. For the record, I'm not sure how common that actually is vs stay-at-home mom. If you have kids, it becomes glaringly obvious how expensive it is to put kids into daycare. For low-earning mothers with a better-earning husband, it can be really hard to justify working vs staying home to raise the kids. It costs more than minimum wage to put a single kid into daycare. If you have some stats indicating that most women earn so little as to be financially dependent on their husbands, I'd like to see it.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      You act like I'm attacking women, I'm not. Most married couples with kids are financially dependent on each other; single income families are no longer the norm either. I don't think it's a stretch to say that within most marriages, moms still dominate the child care side of the marriage and work when they can while dads still dominate the working full time side. And I've already stipulated that most married couples with kids are financially dependent on each other, so it's not just women. I don't have any data to show you, if you think I'm wrong so be it, I really don't care, but this is what I see all around me and the stats you posted I think basically back me up since it's barely over half counting all jobs and I'm only counting real careers that require education since we were discussing that, not just employment. You seem to really want to make the point that more than half of women work; ok great, but it's a non-sequitur, we weren't talking about jobs, but educated women with careers and more to the point about how many men care about being with educated women with careers. The OP said who but religious and conservative men want an uneducated women, but religious and conservative men account for the majority of men so it's an odd thing to say.