2007-03-22 07:10:16 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
i would recommend it.
my mother was a 'traditional' housewife & mother, married at age 16 to my father, never worked (except seasonally when my dad was hurt or laid off). they just got divorced (finalized this week), and she is 49 yrs old. she has no job skills, no health insurance, no retirement, no job, no income, and no hope (that's her assessment, not mine). she got an inheritance, but put it in my dad's retirement, and so she doesn't get it back. the divorce seems to have favored my dad, as he has a very good job, a lot of retirement, insurance, etc... she got the house which is not paid off. she is in a very tough situation, emotionally and financially.
that is why i would encourage women to work outside the home, to have some job skills in the case of divorce or death or serious injury of a spouse. but that is not always ideal for a woman, in such a case i would encourage her to have her own savings &/or retirement accout.
2007-03-22 10:22:24 · answer #1 · answered by Ember Halo 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Touchy subject to post when you use a word like "ALL".
Should All men work? Get my point?
Anywho, the core of your question rests in the reality that middle America is financially pressed. Its not really a discussion if they should, its a private decision of whether their is a financial need in their family and also if its the woman's desire to.
Its becoming more and more a reality that the average family needs two incomes to support their family with increasing costs and wages that are not keeping pace with these increases. However, it isn't a trival matter when considering the costs of not having a parent at home with the children.
Financially, there is the cost of daycare services, probably the need for an additional vehicle and transportation costs. Emotionally, there is arguably a much larger cost though. What is the impact on children when they are raised by baby-sitters? What is the value of playing with your kids and having the time to be with them? What is it worth to be on a schedule that may conflict with your kid's afterschool activities and only briefly being with your spouse?
The debate is more then the value of money.
2007-03-22 07:28:14 · answer #2 · answered by mrairtraffic 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
women should have their own source of credit or income, in case, something should happen to the husband. There are so many women who are homemakers and when the husband dies, they don't have any credit history to establish themselves. If not working outside of the home, they should at least keep up on an education in a field of their choice. That way if the husband should die or decide to quit the marriage they would have something to fall back on. There are so many things that can happen to the main bread winner that there has to be a back up plan. I think this is why there are so many people filing bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures happening now.
2007-03-22 07:26:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
no I don't think ALL women should work outside the home, but I do believe a good education and a continuing education should be key if ever the need arises. Also, there are other ways of protecting your economic future without having to work outside the home, there are plenty of home business opportunities out there as well as other options.
2007-03-22 07:56:10 · answer #4 · answered by Ms. Roger Rabbit 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Not at all. Once the basic necessities of food, housing and essential transportation are covered, it's entirely the family's choice whether they want luxuries and how they want to pay for them.
Realize these are luxuries:
- Cable
- TV
- Computer and internet
- Car
- iPod
- Cell phone with texting, ringtones, video and all the fancy stuff
Lots of people would tell you these are essentials; they are not. What's different for us (as compared to those growing up in the 1950s) is that our world is flooded with gadgets and things we "need" to spend our money on. We actually have a lot more income than our grandparents did; yet in real terms, we are poorer, because we have more "stuff".
2007-03-22 07:50:27 · answer #5 · answered by Wolf Harper 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes I believe so, because you never know what may happen in the future and the cost of living is very high.
2007-03-22 19:47:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not just to protect their economic futures, but to be an equal partner in the marriage. To help contribute to the betterment of the family unit. And to reap the self-esteem that comes from being able to contribute equally in the partnership.
2007-03-22 07:25:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anastasia 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
It probably is a good idea. Should she divorce later in life, it will be more difficult for her to re-enter the job market. Another option is to have completely separate accounts.
2007-03-22 10:44:44 · answer #8 · answered by Rio Madeira 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, both women and men should do what they enjoy and what makes them happy, if that means being a homemaker then that's their choice, it's still a contribution, and if you get divorced you still get something back for what you put in, as well the skills used are applicable to the workforce.
So do what makes you happy.
2007-03-22 07:20:26 · answer #9 · answered by Luis 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
no. there's a way to stay home as a wife and still be financialy secure such as a pre-nup, a pre-marraige savings account for any future emergencies, investments, stocks, life insurance, a secret account for any extra money your husband gives you to spend on stuff, an inheritance, trust fund, and child support.
2007-03-22 07:22:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋