'Should women work?' is a question often asked – even though the answer is clearer than the morning sun on a cloudless Friday. It's a resounding YES. In our day and age, such questions are similar to questioning the roundness of the earth: redundant contemplations that shift our focus away from important issues. But, apparently, there are people from the Stone Age living among us today who argue that women must stay at home to uphold their sacred duties of cooking, cleaning, raising kids and such. How ridiculous. Simply put, both men and women have a head on their shoulders. Females actually get better grades than males; the yearly results at my university testify to this consistently. Moreover, women are half of the world's population. Therefore, entirely excluding them from the workforce will decrease production dramatically. In the past few decades, the increase in female employment in the first world has been the main cause of growth. Over the coming years, prejudices will slowly disappear giving women a chance to increase their productivity and income even more. Throughout history, many prominent women have impacted the world: visionaries, warriors, humanitarians and leaders. Names such as Florence Nightingale, Benazir Bhutto, Rosa Parks and Margaret Thatcher are instantly recognizable to most people. Dorothy Hodgkin was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for confirming the structure of penicillin, and then the structure of vitamin B12, which improved healthcare by a milestone. Joan of Arc led the French to victory against the English at Orleans - at the tender age of seventeen. Yes, that's right, only seventeen. An issue of The Economist mentions that some people think that if more women work rather than mind their children, this will cause lower birth rate among other negative social phenomena. Yet developed countries where more women work have higher birth rates than other countries where women stay at home. Lois Hoffman, a professor of psychology in the University of Michigan, published a study called The Effects of the Mother's Employment on the Family and the Child with very interesting conclusions, most of which are positive: 'the higher academic outcomes for children, benefits in their behavioral conduct and social adjustment, and the higher sense of competence and effectiveness in daughters'. Women should have the right to choose the way they would like to live their life, without pressure from others. It's also necessary to create a balance between family and work; being a workaholic is an extreme that's wrong for both men and women. In closing, life is not a war between both sexes, but a cooperation for a better future.
A partnership should be just that. In my world, neither work nor raising children should (automatically) be divided as being 'daddy's job' and 'mummy's job'. People need to work out what works for them, their family and situation. As you say, balance is the name of the game. Let me speak up for the guys here one second too: paternity leave. There are oftentime calls for men to be more involved, yet we give them (at least in the UK) a ridiculous amount of paternity leave to bond with their baby. Two weeks? Women get up to a year. I think this imbalance needs some serious re-thinking.
Yes if they wanted. No if they don't want to. A preferable answer would be it is best if one could both at different stages of one's lives in order to experience both.
^ Is work always about 'want'? Are we as forgiving to a man who says 'I don't want to work, it's a choice?'
In an ideal world on should have the choice to do both or one or none. One should be able to have a say in everything they decide about themselves. At the present time, there is no such a thing as a wish to do as one see fit. It should be that is what freedom is about, choice. Of course you are now to diasgree and you are entitled to it.
It's man's instinct to protect women, right? Maybe that's why some men don't want their women to suffer the hardships of work. Or is it because these men feel threatened? Hmmmm...
I'm trying hard to find a way to say this without being sexist because that's not what I intend. I am completely of the belief that women should work and that men aren't superior (or inferior) to them. I don't think men and women can ever be completely equal simply because we're different and have different needs. Certainly, though men and women should be able to do the same jobs, but women are suited to some roles better than men and men are suited to some better than woman. However as we've removed ourselves from our natural environment most of the jobs on offer aren't ones we'd naturally be doing, so men and women are generally equally suited to these jobs (though perhaps in different ways.). However one role that is still around is that of the mother. I don't think there's any denying that the female body and mind is designed to look after children more so than men. They have the womb and the wider hips to give birth and also they've got breasts and breasts milk, which by the way is more than just food. It's got a hormone in it called oxy-something-or-other I believe which is designed to bond mother and child. Clearly this points to women being designed to be the ones looking after the children. But then we've got single working mums, stay-at-home dads, and of course women who never have children and go on to have successful careers. So while women are technically designed to look after children there are certainly ways around it that allow them to be independent. That probably sounded like garbled, sexist nonsense but there we go, I tried.
Didn't sound like garbled sexist nonsense to me. I've often said the same thing - but then I get accused of being sexist, which is rather strange considering I've been a feminist for decades (and I'm female to boot! LOL) But hey - biology is biology. It's when society starts placing value judgements on such things that the problems occur.
^ Some things are just facts, like who gives birth etc. Once the kid is here though, I think the role of the father cannot be underestimated. In my humble opinion, it is sometimes undervalued in society. I think it's no less important than the mother. Men can look after children just fine (whether people think they were 'designed' for the job or not...) I've known some amazingly caring fathers in that respect.
how is that not 'work'!? [yes, i know you meant work outside the home, but couldn't resist pointing out that you should have added those 3 important words, to make your meaning clear... ]
I said it first. If a couple decide to divide 'tasks' up in some fashion, good for them. Otherwise, a job is normally a 'must' for people. Simple as.
I really enjoyed reading your replies; they made me think. Shadowwalker and Protar, I agree that the mother's role in raising a child is important and I'm not trying to challenge biology. I'm saying that if women want to work, and they believe they can balance work and home, they should be given a chance. And there's always the solution of paternity leave in times of need. Anyway, you don't sound sexist, you're just using common sense which is always a good thing. Alright, mammamaia, work outside. I was motivated to write this after witnessing extreme religious clerks who insist that women should stay at home to clean, cook and take care of the kids and husband, even if the kids are well past infancy or there are no kids at all. They claim that women should always stay home. Full stop. Here's an extremist saying that education is for men only, that women are stupid and they should not work under any circumstances whatsoever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w65CZFVPRSg
Yeah obviously I don't believe that. I think women should be able to work if they want to. But at the same time I think that biologically women are the ones made for nurturing the children while men are made to go out and get food. But seeing as we've defied nature so much already (which isn't always bad.) I see no reason that we can't bend the rules so to speak with this as well.
In a perfect world I would be making a living writing. So I could be a stay-at-home-dad. Which means my wife would be able to work if she wanted. Otherwise, she could stay at home with me and we would split all the household chores and duties. I am a chef by trade, so I have no aversions to cooking and cleaning a kitchen. And I have been doing my own laundry for years; I have no aversions to that either. So, basically, my self-indulgent dream is to get out of professional kitchens and into a house as a writer with my (eventual) family. I much prefer to work from home as a writer; so I can be a very much hands on father and husband everyday. But, if my (eventual) wife decides she wants to work, more power to her. However, since we live far from a perfect world, I will most likely be stuck being a chef, haha. So, I will have to marry someone who wants to be a stay-at-home-mom. I am firmly against daycare; I want my kids raised by my (eventual) wife and I.
In the past, men went out to get food because the task of hunting and exploring required great physical strength. In our day and age, many jobs need a sound mind rather than a strong body. Biologically, women are the ones made for nurturing children, I agree - but they're also, biologically, blessed with a mind and intellectual capacity similar to man's. This means that, biologically, they can both nurture kids and get a job outside. I don't see it as a defiance of nature.
I guess I had good role models, even though I grew up in the 50s and 60s. My father worked on the railroad; my mother worked as a seamstress out of our house. Dad cooked, cleaned, did dishes and laundry, and looked after us kids. Mom cooked, cleaned, did dishes and laundry, and looked after us kids. Who did what depended on how their individual jobs went that day. If Dad was replacing ties that day, Mom took care of things. If Mom had a rush job due, Dad took care of things. Worked for them (and us kids )
I addressed that in my first post were I said we've been so removed from our natural habitats that most of the jobs we do aren't what either of us were evolved to do. So yes it is a defiance of nature but that's only because practically all of modern human society is completely removed from nature. I didn't mean that it was bad or wrong, just that it's doesn't fit what we'd be doing in prehistoric times.
Alright. I don't think prehistoric times are the standard from which we should draw what's natural or what's not. Back then, man killed man over food, or even beat their women. But we have evolved to become more civilized and superior. Men adapt and improve. I argue that it's an improvement of nature, not defiance of it. If nature intended that women don't work or become intellectuals, it would've given them a sub-standard mind. If anything, we're now closer to nature than in prehistoric times, because women are doing what they were meant to do all along. This is my opinion.
I was using it as a standard for what's natural because it was before technology. I never said the natural stuff was necessarily better. Killing for food and such technically is a natural instinct. It's only through civilization that we've developed morals. But defiance doesn't always mean worse. If someone defies an oppressive regime, that's an improvement. Maybe calling it a divergence from nature would be better. But certainly yes, the divergence is an improvement. This is really a splitting hairs argument. We both agree on the main topic of this thread.
