Feminism has failed women

[Ethereal]

I agree with everything you said but when Hillary used that nugget of wisdom she wasn't calling for a return to intimate, traditional communities.

Just the opposite, in fact. Her conception of a "village" is basically the central government.

[Dr. Who]

I agree with everything you said but when Hillary used that nugget of wisdom she wasn't calling for a return to intimate, traditional communities.

The article doesn't mention Hillary. It doesn't even reference "It takes a village...", however, since it was mentioned in the post to which I responded, I clarified its meaning.

The article discusses the fact that the stress of mothers working in their final trimester, contributes to higher rates of pre-natal mortality. It also notes that children who are not in day-care, are not subjected to as many viruses, so they are overall, in better health. Most mothers would dearly love to stay home with their children for at least the first year of their lives and ideally, until they are in school full-time. Not all women have "careers".

Most women who work, have jobs that they need, because economically, they can't afford to stay home and raise their children. The reason that they can't afford to stay home is, in part, because of wage stagnation and cost of living. One income is often simply not enough money to pay for housing, food and clothing for a family, unless one wants to live in poverty. We can argue the impact of materialism, but then we also have to factor in built-in obsolescence that also drives the need to repurchase bigger ticket items repeatedly and the fact that clothing is simply not all that durable anymore as well as the cost of housing, whether it be rental or home ownership, that is, on a relative basis, consuming far more of the family budget than it used to. Most women trying to raise families and work are not card carrying feminists with an anti-male agenda and Marxist politics. They are simply exhausted from trying to do it all without an appropriate support system, in a working world that penalizes taking time off to raise children. Perhaps society needs to decide whether they want to grow their own next generation or import it from other nations because the status quo is resulting in a steep decline in the birth rate. The status quo is dysfunctional.

[Peter1469]

The article doesn't mention Hillary. It doesn't even reference "It takes a village...", however, since it was mentioned in the post to which I responded, I clarified its meaning.

The article discusses the fact that the stress of mothers working in their final trimester, contributes to higher rates of pre-natal mortality. It also notes that children who are not in day-care, are not subjected to as many viruses, so they are overall, in better health. Most mothers would dearly love to stay home with their children for at least the first year of their lives and ideally, until they are in school full-time. Not all women have "careers".

Most women who work, have jobs that they need, because economically, they can't afford to stay home and raise their children. The reason that they can't afford to stay home is, in part, because of wage stagnation and cost of living. One income is often simply not enough money to pay for housing, food and clothing for a family, unless one wants to live in poverty. We can argue the impact of materialism, but then we also have to factor in built-in obsolescence that also drives the need to repurchase bigger ticket items repeatedly and the fact that clothing is simply not all that durable anymore as well as the cost of housing, whether it be rental or home ownership, that is, on a relative basis, consuming far more of the family budget than it used to. Most women trying to raise families and work are not card carrying feminists with an anti-male agenda and Marxist politics. They are simply exhausted from trying to do it all without an appropriate support system, in a working world that penalizes taking time off to raise children. Perhaps society needs to decide whether they want to grow their own next generation or import it from other nations because the status quo is resulting in a steep decline in the birth rate. The status quo is dysfunctional.

Rising standard of living always leads to a lower birth rate.

[Dr. Who]

Rising standard of living always leads to a lower birth rate.

The rising standard of living also comes with a rising cost of living and a current situation where women are unprepared for any kind of economic reversal because both parents a required to work in order to afford their 2.4 children. When anything happens to upset the delicate balance of steady income and paid child care, it all falls apart.

[FindersKeepers]

The article doesn't mention Hillary. It doesn't even reference "It takes a village...", however, since it was mentioned in the post to which I responded, I clarified its meaning.

The article discusses the fact that the stress of mothers working in their final trimester, contributes to higher rates of pre-natal mortality. It also notes that children who are not in day-care, are not subjected to as many viruses, so they are overall, in better health. Most mothers would dearly love to stay home with their children for at least the first year of their lives and ideally, until they are in school full-time. Not all women have "careers".

Most women who work, have jobs that they need, because economically, they can't afford to stay home and raise their children. The reason that they can't afford to stay home is, in part, because of wage stagnation and cost of living. One income is often simply not enough money to pay for housing, food and clothing for a family, unless one wants to live in poverty. We can argue the impact of materialism, but then we also have to factor in built-in obsolescence that also drives the need to repurchase bigger ticket items repeatedly and the fact that clothing is simply not all that durable anymore as well as the cost of housing, whether it be rental or home ownership, that is, on a relative basis, consuming far more of the family budget than it used to. Most women trying to raise families and work are not card carrying feminists with an anti-male agenda and Marxist politics. They are simply exhausted from trying to do it all without an appropriate support system, in a working world that penalizes taking time off to raise children. Perhaps society needs to decide whether they want to grow their own next generation or import it from other nations because the status quo is resulting in a steep decline in the birth rate. The status quo is dysfunctional.

Today's families have more money--on average--for non-necessities than they ever have in the past. The real problem is with the "instant gratification" attitude, that makes some feel entitled to have all the little toys, even if they have to put them on credit cards rather than saving for them. It's not that housing is out of reach, it's that they're paying hand over fist in interest for the privilege of buying now rather than saving as our ancestors were prone to do.

Yes, the birth rate is dropping, but not all that steeply, and mostly, it's dropping for white families--Hispanic and black families still have relatively high rates, so those who want a diverse "balance," will likely get their way.

I don't really think most moms want to stay home with their kids, at least not all the time. Working outside the home makes for happier women, and the suicide rate is higher for stay-at-home moms.

[Dr. Who]

Today's families have more money--on average--for non-necessities than they ever have in the past. The real problem is with the "instant gratification" attitude, that makes some feel entitled to have all the little toys, even if they have to put them on credit cards rather than saving for them. It's not that housing is out of reach, it's that they're paying hand over fist in interest for the privilege of buying now rather than saving as our ancestors were prone to do.

Yes, the birth rate is dropping, but not all that steeply, and mostly, it's dropping for white families--Hispanic and black families still have relatively high rates, so those who want a diverse "balance," will likely get their way.

I don't really think most moms want to stay home with their kids, at least not all the time. Working outside the home makes for happier women, and the suicide rate is higher for stay-at-home moms.

I believe most moms would like to stay home for at least the first year of their children's lives and ideally until they are in school. That's not really all the time, but it does cover the years when children are the most dependent and labor intensive. Daycare isn't cheap and for many women, the cost of commuting to work, taxes and daycare, eats up a substantial portion of their earnings, especially if they have more than one child needing full and part-time daycare. However, even if they can just about afford to leave their jobs to stay home with their young children, they are penalized when they try to get employment again several years later. I have never met a woman who wanted to go back to work within two weeks of having a baby. I guess it takes all kinds to make a world, but most women are an emotional mess when they have to leave their infants in the care of strangers.

[Peter1469]

I believe most moms would like to stay home for at least the first year of their children's lives and ideally until they are in school. That's not really all the time, but it does cover the years when children are the most dependent and labor intensive. Daycare isn't cheap and for many women, the cost of commuting to work, taxes and daycare, eats up a substantial portion of their earnings, especially if they have more than one child needing full and part-time daycare. However, even if they can just about afford to leave their jobs to stay home with their young children, they are penalized when they try to get employment again several years later. I have never met a woman who wanted to go back to work within two weeks of having a baby. I guess it takes all kinds to make a world, but most women are an emotional mess when they have to leave their infants in the care of strangers.

Daycare around here is extremely expensive. And if you are late in picking up your kid(s) you get hit with steep fees.

[carolina73]

I believe most moms would like to stay home for at least the first year of their children's lives and ideally until they are in school. That's not really all the time, but it does cover the years when children are the most dependent and labor intensive. Daycare isn't cheap and for many women, the cost of commuting to work, taxes and daycare, eats up a substantial portion of their earnings, especially if they have more than one child needing full and part-time daycare. However, even if they can just about afford to leave their jobs to stay home with their young children, they are penalized when they try to get employment again several years later. I have never met a woman who wanted to go back to work within two weeks of having a baby. I guess it takes all kinds to make a world, but most women are an emotional mess when they have to leave their infants in the care of strangers.

I'm old fashion. A man should get an additional part time job if he cannot afford to raise a family. At least until the kids are ready for alternative care. I'm also not against stay at home husbands if the woman is uniquely qualified but she and her employer have to fight the possibility that she is going to go missing for months at a time.

Consumerism has killed the family.

[Adelaide]

I believe most moms would like to stay home for at least the first year of their children's lives and ideally until they are in school. That's not really all the time, but it does cover the years when children are the most dependent and labor intensive. Daycare isn't cheap and for many women, the cost of commuting to work, taxes and daycare, eats up a substantial portion of their earnings, especially if they have more than one child needing full and part-time daycare. However, even if they can just about afford to leave their jobs to stay home with their young children, they are penalized when they try to get employment again several years later. I have never met a woman who wanted to go back to work within two weeks of having a baby. I guess it takes all kinds to make a world, but most women are an emotional mess when they have to leave their infants in the care of strangers.

As a woman of childbearing age, (no offense to any other women on here, but I think only Polly and I are the only ones?), most of the women that I know in my age bracket would want the first year and possibly a second if it were in the realm of possibilities. It is absolutely unfathomable to think about anyone going back to work after 2 weeks - between the physical impact of pregnancy/birth (and possibly surgery if a c-section was needed) and the emotional and psychological aspects.

I think women who have children, whether accidentally or planned, quickly realize the importance of staying home for the first year and possibly longer (a fair amount of women never returned to work from mat leave when I was working). The women who can birth a child and go back to work in 2 weeks and wants to do that is the exception, not the norm. They are not a bad mother for making that decision, either - this isn't about judging women. But, I think this discussion can be hard to have among feminists because it questions the mantra of having it all - it's not possible without role burnout. The period immediately before and after birth is where this is most evident, particularly in terms of the lack of support for mothers.

[Rationalist]

Do women, feminists... try too hard because they're not men?

Let me put that another way, white men have traditionally been the dominant majority in our society as in most. Was "feminism" an over-compensation to that fact, and generally when there is overcompensation there is self affliction.

That's a good description of most identity politics in general.