View Single Post
Old 01-12-2011, 04:10 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: What America has to offer the world

Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Oh, for God's sake, you mean you want me to take BornAgainDem's argument seriously?
i didn't consider his post an argument, exactly. more a frustrated person waving their hands in the general direction of a perceived problem. For some quixotic reason i wanted to salvage an argument out of it : )

i don't know why i have these odd urges.

Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
I think you are focusing on an overly narrow time period and segment of the population in claiming that, but more importantly I'd like some evidence that the reason for the change is working women. Even if it were it would not give a moral basis to limit women's opportunities (as you seem to acknowledge), but I simply don't think you can show the link.
i wasn't trying to point towards any causality, merely pointing out that a choice is still absent in the lives of most people and that is still a problem (the lack of choice). to me, its a pretty big problem because my experience raising children (and having had a mom around growing up because i was lucky enough to be poor before bill clinton was president) leads to me to believe that a stay at home parent is a pretty optimal solution if the economic realities will allow it.

Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Also, of course, the link to how having stay at home moms allowed us to defeat Communism (even though we largely didn't for a good part of the Cold War, including the Reagan era).
yeah, see quixotic above.

Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Edit: To address this fairly and perhaps help identify where we agree and disagree, I'll be a little more specific. If the economic problems you reference were do to a dramatic increase in the workforce (as the working women are to blame hypothesis would suggest) I think we would see it in the following ways: (1) high unemployment in the fields women are entering or high unemployment that otherwise can be traced to an overly rapid growth in the workforce and a loss of bargaining power by workers that resulted; and (2) inflation due to a greater number of families with more income driving up prices. (This is the "working women hurt the US, because successful women tend to marry successful men resulting in a greater disparity of income between richer and poorer families.)

(2) is clearly not the case. Inflation hasn't been a problem for ages, and the prices for consumer products, food, gas and so on on average have been quite low over the relevant period, for the most part (blips in gas prices, obviously, but nothing like what was expected back in the 70s). (The demand for low prices in part fuels the demand for free trade and unwillingness to have a gas tax of the sort existing in many other countries, but I don't think you can blame working women for that.)

(1) doesn't seem to be the case either. The unemployment and workers losing bargaining power and generally the loss of the traditional segments of well-paying jobs for uneducated men aren't in fields in which women have been flocking into. They are in fields hurt for other reasons, basically the decline of US manufacturing. One reason women are doing better, probably, in the current economy is that they haven't joined these segments in great numbers.
mmmm yeah. my point was much less intellectual and thought out - merely the observation that the huge struggle to have choices has coincided with other changes such that the the constraints on choice have shifted from societal to economic grounds - the end result being much less of a victory than is generally presumed by the left.

i'm not advocating for reversing the gains in women's rights and choices on the off chance that it would magically undo the economic changes we have undergone in the last 50 years.
Reply With Quote