Teh One Who Knocks
08-20-2012, 07:27 PM
The Observer-Reporter
Prior to World War II and immediately thereafter, most married women in this country worked in their homes raising their children and keeping house. Then during the late 1960s, radical feminists encouraged young women to set aside their traditional family roles as homemakers, helpmates, child nurturers and husband civilizers for something trumpted as much more rewarding.
Women were told that being a stay-at-home mom was nothing more than enslavement perpetrated by their male chauvinist husbands. Forget family life and children. Women could be happy and achieve fulfillment by capably competing with men in the workplace for equal jobs with equal pay.
Wrapped in the radical feminist banner, many young women were convinced they shold shun marriage, delay marriage and even put aside having children. Nothing was to be allowed to interfere with their career paths. Over the years, millions of young women entered the American labor pool. This influx of additional labor has had an unforeseen consequence. Eventually, the law of supply and demand kicked in, and the oversupply of labor forced wages for both genders to fall. As a consequence, it now requires both partners to be employed in order to make ends meet. This dual working requirement is expensive for a family. Added costs including transportation, taxes, daycare and work apparel often erode a woman’s paycheck almost to the point where it’s not worth working.
Maintaining equal opportunities for women on today’s diverse payroll is also expensive for employers. As it turns out, young married women often prove to be chronically absent and less productive workers compared to their male counterparts. The conflict between being a wife and mother versus the pressure of being on the job results in a worker whose mind is not totally focused on the work at hand. Women by nature are not designed to be competitors in the workforce. This added stress and energy-drain often leads to serious health and marital problems which translate to excessive benefits costs. Caring and loving mothers are compelled to stay home with their sick children resulting in excessive rates of absenteeism. Paid leaves of absence extended to pregnant employees cause more problems for employers.
What would happen today if most married women remained in the home fulfilling their traditional family roles? Think about how salaries and wages for men would move upward if a shortage of labor prevailed in this country. It’s the law of supply and demand again. Today’s eight percent unemployment figure would be reduced. I am guessing most young wives today, if given the choice, would opt to stay at home. Husbands would more likely have the ability to earn living wages to support their families without the need for a second income.
Donn C. Drummond
Houston
Prior to World War II and immediately thereafter, most married women in this country worked in their homes raising their children and keeping house. Then during the late 1960s, radical feminists encouraged young women to set aside their traditional family roles as homemakers, helpmates, child nurturers and husband civilizers for something trumpted as much more rewarding.
Women were told that being a stay-at-home mom was nothing more than enslavement perpetrated by their male chauvinist husbands. Forget family life and children. Women could be happy and achieve fulfillment by capably competing with men in the workplace for equal jobs with equal pay.
Wrapped in the radical feminist banner, many young women were convinced they shold shun marriage, delay marriage and even put aside having children. Nothing was to be allowed to interfere with their career paths. Over the years, millions of young women entered the American labor pool. This influx of additional labor has had an unforeseen consequence. Eventually, the law of supply and demand kicked in, and the oversupply of labor forced wages for both genders to fall. As a consequence, it now requires both partners to be employed in order to make ends meet. This dual working requirement is expensive for a family. Added costs including transportation, taxes, daycare and work apparel often erode a woman’s paycheck almost to the point where it’s not worth working.
Maintaining equal opportunities for women on today’s diverse payroll is also expensive for employers. As it turns out, young married women often prove to be chronically absent and less productive workers compared to their male counterparts. The conflict between being a wife and mother versus the pressure of being on the job results in a worker whose mind is not totally focused on the work at hand. Women by nature are not designed to be competitors in the workforce. This added stress and energy-drain often leads to serious health and marital problems which translate to excessive benefits costs. Caring and loving mothers are compelled to stay home with their sick children resulting in excessive rates of absenteeism. Paid leaves of absence extended to pregnant employees cause more problems for employers.
What would happen today if most married women remained in the home fulfilling their traditional family roles? Think about how salaries and wages for men would move upward if a shortage of labor prevailed in this country. It’s the law of supply and demand again. Today’s eight percent unemployment figure would be reduced. I am guessing most young wives today, if given the choice, would opt to stay at home. Husbands would more likely have the ability to earn living wages to support their families without the need for a second income.
Donn C. Drummond
Houston