Who here feels that feminism is why most women "can't" stay at home anymore?

Question

By this I mean, the fact that women are now able to work has adjusted the US economy greatly so that now most people feel they must live off of two incomes.

Yes, of course there is inflation. However, do you honestly believe that by basically doubling the spending power of this country (by adding women to the workforce) that the cost of living did nothing to adjust accordingly?

Lioness: I look forward to your comments. Those people need to make smarter decisions with their money from the start.

Answer 1

I think feminism has contributed to it, yes. Very much so.

Which is the famous feminist who said that women shouldn't have the choice to remain at home, because then too many of them would choose to do so? I don't remember, but I think that's a very telling statement.

Think about something. Say you have a very small society - because it's a nice round number, let's say it's 200 adults and various children. Say also that in order for the people in this small society to have enough money to support themselves and meet all their needs, 100 of them have to work. So 100 of them work, and 100 of them care for the children, and make sure everything is running smoothly on the homefront. Maybe they do rewarding volunteer work so they don't go insane being cooped up at home all the time. Maybe they work part time someplace to earn a little extra pin money, or to help pay off the mortgage quicker.

Not everyone is happy with this arrangement. Some of the 100 who work hate their jobs; some of the 100 who stay at home feel stifled. But they all make the sacrifice, for the good of their families, and for the good of the society. It's just part of being a grown-up. Sometimes we have to do things we don't want to do, but we make the best of it.

Now say all of a sudden, someone tells the ones who stay home that they are being abused by having to stay home, while the ones who work are enjoying the freedom of working their dream jobs and being waited on hand and foot. It's not true, of course - very few people have their dream job, very few are waited on hand and foot - but that little point is glossed over. The stay-at-homes become very indignant! They're being abused! What the heck?! And they tell the workers that they're unhappy, and they want to pursue their dream jobs.

The workers love the stay-at-homes; they don't want them to be unhappy! So they say, "Of course! Of course, my dear. We'll make it work. We'll do whatever we have to do. I want you to be happy. You get right out there and work."

It never enters anyone's mind that the workers should have the option to be stay-at-homes. They have a responsibility to support their families. Self-sacrifice for the greater good, that's what it's all about, remember?

So now we have the same economy, but we have 200 workers to do the work 100 workers were doing before. How can we pay 200 people with the same money we were using to pay 100 people before? We have no choice. We must lower the amount we pay everyone. Some will make more than others, but with all the competition, the bigger producers will get the bigger salaries.

Years go by, and the former stay-at-homes see that their children aren't getting the attention they once did, and the homefront isn't operating nearly as smoothly as before. Some of them want so badly to become a stay-at-home again. But they can't. Because their spouse doesn't make as much money as they used to, and besides, with the extra money that has inevitably been added to the economy, prices are now higher for everything. In addition, the whole society has gotten a little spoiled, with the new toys they were able to afford. Not only that, but a generation or two has gone by, and many of the traditional stay-at-home skills have been lost. They simply don't know how to make the money stretch the way they used to. Cooking from scratch, sewing your own clothing, living in a smaller home, making do with one vehicle - these are things that have become very rare in our new, enlightened society.

And so in the end, most everyone worked in a job they hated, or at least in a job they didn't love, and their children were raising themselves, and everyone lived unhappily ever after.

Answer 2

Because many people must work outside the home. I agree it has made it hard socially, in the attempt to gain the right to enter the work force many woman now do not understand why a woman would ever want to stay at home etc.

But as far as the economy, I grew up in California where many people had two or even three jobs if they were paid minnimum wage, even if they were paid a little higher. Combine with that the materialistic instant gratification tendencies of society and the natural inflation of things you soon have people that truly must work outside teh home in order to make ends meet.

Historically, in low income familes, wives would find work outside, and they would be bringing extra money in. everything from a little seamstress work on the side to working as maid/cook in the homes of more well to do family. Thus women working outside the home didn't come about just because of the feminism movement, it's just commonly believed to be one of the causes.

Answer 3

Yeah, well, the advent of an industrial society over an agricultural society and the huge population increase has had some changes too.

For example, I would love to have about 200 acres and spend my days farming them and raising (and then killing and eating) animals. But because of enormous land prices (because of industrial revolution and population boom, mentioned above) and excessive property taxes I will never be able to afford to do that.

So...what's my point? My point is that society often changes, and sometimes those changes make it to where it's difficult to maintain old-fashioned lifestyles.

It's too bad for women like you that want to be housewives, but it would be even more unfair for the vast majority of women who want to have careers to have to stay home just to satisfy the minority who'd rather stay home.

Tips:
1. Marry a rich guy.
2. Win the lottery.

Answer 4

rather than saying people think they "must live off of two incomes" it's more of a reality that we have to. It's hard to get by with only one income nowadays unless you or your man is an executive of some sort or if you live in an area where living expenses are not too high. this really has nothing to do with feminism....

Answer 5

Women can and do still stay at home. I know quite a few women, all of whom are very educated, that have either chosen careers that allow them to work while their children are at school such as teachers and professors, one bakes wedding cakes from home, ect, or that have simply chosen to stay home with their children.
It is important to point out that while duel-incomes feel necessary, couples often spend almost the entirety of the second income on child care. Therefore, it makes sense for the person who makes the lesser of the two incomes to stay home with the children. In many cases, it is the woman who chooses to stay home, but I also know a fair number of stay at home fathers.
Feminism had everything to do with a woman's right to work, her right to choose to stay home, and her right to work while the child's father chooses to stay home. The idea that feminism was somehow the sole financial cause with the ability to "adjust" the US Economy so much that women are now unable to stay home is a fallacy.
People see the reality they want to see. Some people (male or female) want to stay at home with their children and yet lament that they are unable to do so for financial reasons. However, anything is possible if you are willing to make the required sacrifices. I know people who have made very happy lives living on one income, under $18,000 a year in California, they simply were not able to have the "luxuries" that some put a lot of stock in. I also know families that make well over $150,000 a year in Oklahoma who can not afford for one spouse to stop working because they would be unable to pay their bills. Feminism didn't do that...People, and their own personal desires, did that.

EDIT:

There is an answer on here about a small village where half worked and half didn't...you can read the answer if you want the full story.
The logic is flawed in some fundamental ways. First off, the dynamics of a small group (your village) is going to be very different than the dynamics of a nation. Small groups are generally much less technologically advanced than nations...ie No Internet, phone service, cable television, ect. This is not in and of itself a bad thing, but these services require workers. They are also services that most US families deem important. It takes money to pay for them and people to work in these industries. It is a give and take arrangement which is not accessible in the smaller group setting you have envisioned.
The second major issue with your scenario is that you go from Point A to Point C without ever making a stop off at Point B. You said that some people want to work and some want to stay home, but then suddenly it became a decree that everyone MUST work...why not have a switching of roles where those that want to work outside the home can and those who want to work at home can do that as well. Since that is the way it works in modern society.

Answer 6

I dont think that is the case at all. I beleive it is more a matter of survival. there are more single parents with only one income. Women are less tolerant to put up with a mans crap and makes the decision to go about it self sufficiently. Couples have a hard time making ends meet with the cost of every day living going up dramatically. Try to rent a house on one income let alone buy one for the most part not possible. I think very few people put their careers 1st over their family. Having a decent place to live and food and clothes is putting your family first and if that means 2 working people thats what you gotta do.

Answer 7

You have a severe misunderstanding of economics if you think that feminism and women who work instead of stay home are the cause of forced dual family incomes in the US.
First of all, many families could survive on one income if they really wanted to, its just that most Americans do not want to cut down on disposable income.
Secondly, if someone wanted to stay home with their kids, but couldn't because they are forced economically to have a job, maybe they should have planned better; perhaps furthering their education so one partner could make enough money to stay home, before they decided to have their child.
The fact is, my dear, women have ALWAYS been in the workforce, even before the feminist revolution. The problem was when a woman joined the workforce she had a very narrow scope of jobs to choose from, most of which paid very little. If she did not need a job for economic reasons, she was pretty much expected and almost forced into being a housewife. The feminist revolution was about allowing a women to further educate herself and obtain a high paying and skilled job if she so desired, or staying home if she so desired. It was about allowing women to choose their career paths for themselves, not the men in their lives and not society.

Answer 8

I believe when the sheriff is outside of your door ready to evict you, it's more than a "feeling" that two people need to work :)

EDIT: 'm a single woman with my own $2,800 mortgage payment and financial independence and it's stressful but manageable so far. I think it's great if one person chooses to stay home, if they can afford it and it's a mutual agreement. However, to state that the nation's economy and inflation is caused by Feminism, is simply an ignorant statement.

Answer 9

A failing economy is why you need multiple incomes. Deflated dollar along with puny pay raises and the housing costs skyrocketing. Lots of other garbage, too.

Although, when you have such a huge burst of workers the supply and demand curve for labor was definitely changed. So yeah it may have a fairly significant effect.

Answer 10

feels feminism women stay home anymore