Women and work

[longskirts]

It's too bad Mrs. Anna T. didn't study economics during her time in college. I'm shaking my head over her latest statement that there would be more jobs for men if all the women just left the labor force.

1. There isn't a fixed number of jobs out there, and

2. Women buy stuff with the money they earn--if they stopped working, there would be a lot fewer customers for the men's businesses.

Not bothering to leave a comment for her because I know she wouldn't post this.

[kpmom]

Can you imagine a world where NO woman works outside the home? Even if your doctor and dentist are male, they would have no office help. Hospitals would close. Schools too, although the fundies would applaud that. Restaurants would close.

Her argument reminds me of the "illegal immigrants take our jobs" argument. How many guys would work these "pink ghetto" jobs, many of which keep the business world moving, but pay crap?

[fundiefan]

Her position on this is pretty predictable. I'm more interested in all these people who send her emails asking these questions. How many posts does she begin with "I received an email asking...." often about things she would have no clue about, opening the door for her to go into detail regarding what she thinks about the world.

[lilwriter85]

Anna T is stupid. I have seen similar postings and arguments on other fundie blogs. People like Anna T don't realize that in our current society working women are one of the reasons, our society functions as well as it does. Things are always changing in the world and in the past societies did function ok when women weren't working outside the home as much but in time industries grew, the need for education was advanced and more opportunities arose for women and people who are minority or low income to enter various workplaces and careers.

I agree with kpmom many things would shut down in the world if women didn't work outside homes. There are certain occupations/career fields that men don't enter as much as they used and without some women there would be shortages of certain occupations in the medical and legal worlds. Without working women, men would be end be overworked in different workplaces which would lead to some bad consequences.

[themadapple]

I see. So I wonder how poor Anna T. can explain the - ah, oh so terrible - time she had to take that (woe!) horrendously strenuous two day a week job when her husband was out of work. Does she toss and turn at night wracked with guilt because she potentially "took" a job from a guy (who probably weren't clamoring for that position, anyway) so that she could feed her child? She repeats this bullshit incessantly and it just boggles the mind.

As she's keen on excusing herself from the world outside the confines of her little haven, I'd say she's sure as hell not qualified to lecture me or any other woman on its realities.

[FundiesInMyFamily]

If there were no working women at all, I'm sure Anna T. and the other fundie superwomen would absolutely LOVE it if, for example, they went to a nicer lingere shop and had a man measure them correctly for a bra. They would also love a man measuring them (in their undies) for their wedding dress. And there's always everyone's favorite TSA agents and those lovely pat downs at the airport. I know these examples are trifle compared with teachers, doctors, lawyers, ect, but these are a few examples of positions that these women would freak the fuck out at if men occupied them.

[emeraldskull]

I don't think they are realizing that this world IS NOT THE SAME WORLD IT WAS 100 YEARS AGO!!! The economy would crash in a heartbeat if half of all employees quit their jobs in favor of staying home. Businesses require a certain amount of employees to even stay running. And seriously, fundiesinmyfamily... have they really thought through what that would look like? :-P Yeah, lets get men to help us into our wedding dresses at the salon, to model for the undies in the store, to pat us down... :-P

It's like they put no thought into what they say and just puke up ideals and "visions" for the world that essentially are wanting the US to go back to the dark ages. :-P Not to mention, it is pretty much impossible.

[failsafe]

It very much reminds me of a Serena Joy position. You think you want it... until it happens. And all of a sudden your headship and your government decide they doesn't like you speaking or having opinions in public. And all of a sudden there are no forums for your pseudo-intellectualism. There's no one to email you to ask questions, no forums which encourage you to speak, because you have been speaking for so long about how women aren't as smart, aren't as capable, aren't as fit for the public world - and so all of a sudden, you are removed from it. And you end up miserable and bitter in a prison of your own making.

[ADoyle90815]

Those fundies seem to be stuck in the 19th century, and don't realize that the world has changed a lot to the point where things would shut down if women were forced to quit their jobs. There are other churches that are patriarchal, yet they realize that if women no longer worked, the world would shut down, and it would mean less tithing or other donations to the church.

[bananacat]

I don't think they are realizing that this world IS NOT THE SAME WORLD IT WAS 100 YEARS AGO!!! The economy would crash in a heartbeat if half of all employees quit their jobs in favor of staying home. Businesses require a certain amount of employees to even stay running. And seriously, fundiesinmyfamily... have they really thought through what that would look like? :-P Yeah, lets get men to help us into our wedding dresses at the salon, to model for the undies in the store, to pat us down... :-P

It's like they put no thought into what they say and just puke up ideals and "visions" for the world that essentially are wanting the US to go back to the dark ages. :-P Not to mention, it is pretty much impossible.

100 years ago, most women worked. Women in the cities toiled for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week in factories. If they had kids, they would either switch to a job that they could do at home (taking in laundry or sewing), or they would work as a community to exchange childcare with their neighbors. Rural women did hard labor on their family farms. They couldn't afford to lose the mother's labor so she could sit around all day and have special quality bonding time with their children. Women worked very hard, and children did too. They simply didn't have the luxury of leisure time, and most families needed the input of every single member just to avoid starving to death.

Women have always worked throughout history. There has never been a time when the majority of women were solely devoted to caring for their own children.

[emeraldskull]

100 years ago, most women worked. Women in the cities toiled for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week in factories. If they had kids, they would either switch to a job that they could do at home (taking in laundry or sewing), or they would work as a community to exchange childcare with their neighbors. Rural women did hard labor on their family farms. They couldn't afford to lose the mother's labor so she could sit around all day and have special quality bonding time with their children. Women worked very hard, and children did too. They simply didn't have the luxury of leisure time, and most families needed the input of every single member just to avoid starving to death.

Women have always worked throughout history. There has never been a time when the majority of women were solely devoted to caring for their own children.

Very true. I guess they want to take us back to a time that never existed in human history. :-P

[CelticGoddess]

I work in LTC, most of the staff who have direct patient care are women. I can't even begin to imagine what would happen to the medically fragile elderly and those who have dementia if women didn't work. I would say, overall, there is a 25 to 1 ration of women to men on staff (this includes social workers, kitchen staff, housekeeping staff, etc. Laundry is sent out)at my facility. I just can't see these manly men (the Vision Forum dweebs) wiping the butts of the incontinent residents, or (as I had to do last night), changing a colostomy bag 3 or 4 times per shift. Please!

For all their talk, I really don't think they respect human life. They certainly don't act like it.

[Effie]

I wonder if she could find some kind of scientific studies/researches which would indicate that a society of today is possible to maintain without working women...

[themadapple]

I wonder if she could find some kind of scientific studies/researches which would indicate that a society of today is possible to maintain without working women...

That would be interesting (and probably impossible). Still, I get the feeling that many of these people abhor quite a bit of what makes up the society of today. When people like Anna T. spout this stuff, I have the feeling they want to make it into an "idealized" (to them) world of yesterday. As others have pointed out, even in those days, whenever they were, most women worked in some capacity. Of course, they're not going to acknowledge that...

[GenerationCedarchip]

That would be interesting (and probably impossible). Still, I get the feeling that many of these people abhor quite a bit of what makes up the society of today. When people like Anna T. spout this stuff, I have the feeling they want to make it into an "idealized" (to them) world of yesterday. As others have pointed out, even in those days, whenever they were, most women worked in some capacity. Of course, they're not going to acknowledge that...

I think what they really want is for the world to be like it was 100 years ago for the royalty and aristocracy of the world. Playing dress-up isn't as much fun if you're a peasant.

[doggie]

what would fundies do for porn? they would have to watch guy on guy porn. We all know there is more porn watching in the fundie world then ever is know. Studies have shown that more porn is paid for in the bible belt then anywhere else in the us.

[lilwriter85]

what would fundies do for porn? they would have to watch guy on guy porn. We all know there is more porn watching in the fundie world then ever is know. Studies have shown that more porn is paid for in the bible belt then anywhere else in the us.

Love this post. So true.

[Cassandra]

I think what they really want is for the world to be like it was 100 years ago for the royalty and aristocracy of the world. Playing dress-up isn't as much fun if you're a peasant.

I think that's so interesting, because whenever I think about going back in time (nerdalert!) I always remember that my family has been poor forever, so I'd probably be a potato farmer or something. Its amazing how unaware these people can be.

[Crackedeggs]

I think these women watched too many episodes of Little House on the Prairie, to be honest. Aside from a few times when mostly Charles Ingalls ( as portrayed by Michael Landon) is very dirty and sweaty to make the audience sympathetic to his plight of having to work extra hard, the cast is clean, with combed, clean hair, beautiful skin, beautiful smiles. The home is simple, but clean. They are never hungry. The kids do what they are supposed to do for the most part... most of the time, tragedy is averted and love saves the day... you don't have piles of shit laying around and mud and kids drowning in ponds because the parents were too busy to watch them, you don't see the disease and the cripples and the dirt, and you don't have the SMELLS. I read a book called Pioneer Women, and it was historically accurate regarding how bad conditions were for the Pioneers, it was no " Little House".

They all think they can be the wealthy of the Victorian Era, or Ma Ingalls as played by Karen Grassle, or some storybook version of the Amish. It just isn't and wasn't that way.

[Cassandra]

I think these women watched too many episodes of Little House on the Prairie, to be honest. Aside from a few times when mostly Charles Ingalls ( as portrayed by Michael Landon) is very dirty and sweaty to make the audience sympathetic to his plight of having to work extra hard, the cast is clean, with combed, clean hair, beautiful skin, beautiful smiles. The home is simple, but clean. They are never hungry. The kids do what they are supposed to do for the most part... most of the time, tragedy is averted and love saves the day... you don't have piles of shit laying around and mud and kids drowning in ponds because the parents were too busy to watch them, you don't see the disease and the cripples and the dirt, and you don't have the SMELLS. I read a book called Pioneer Women, and it was historically accurate regarding how bad conditions were for the Pioneers, it was no " Little House".

They all think they can be the wealthy of the Victorian Era, or Ma Ingalls as played by Karen Grassle, or some storybook version of the Amish. It just isn't and wasn't that way.

I mean even the Little House books made it seem more difficult than the tv show. I remember being 8 or 9 and reading those books and being kind of horrified at the idea of making my own butter, and cooking everything from scratch, and only getting a few dresses a year. (I was 100% spoiled for a long long time)

[lilwriter85]

I work in LTC, most of the staff who have direct patient care are women. I can't even begin to imagine what would happen to the medically fragile elderly and those who have dementia if women didn't work. I would say, overall, there is a 25 to 1 ration of women to men on staff (this includes social workers, kitchen staff, housekeeping staff, etc. Laundry is sent out)at my facility. I just can't see these manly men (the Vision Forum dweebs) wiping the butts of the incontinent residents, or (as I had to do last night), changing a colostomy bag 3 or 4 times per shift. Please!

For all their talk, I really don't think they respect human life. They certainly don't act like it.

I have a few relatives and friends work in LTC and the ratio of women to men is around the same in the facilities they work at. I also can't picture fundie men working in LTC facilities caring for the needs of elderly and disabled patients.

[lilwriter85]

I think these women watched too many episodes of Little House on the Prairie, to be honest. Aside from a few times when mostly Charles Ingalls ( as portrayed by Michael Landon) is very dirty and sweaty to make the audience sympathetic to his plight of having to work extra hard, the cast is clean, with combed, clean hair, beautiful skin, beautiful smiles. The home is simple, but clean. They are never hungry. The kids do what they are supposed to do for the most part... most of the time, tragedy is averted and love saves the day... you don't have piles of shit laying around and mud and kids drowning in ponds because the parents were too busy to watch them, you don't see the disease and the cripples and the dirt, and you don't have the SMELLS. I read a book called Pioneer Women, and it was historically accurate regarding how bad conditions were for the Pioneers, it was no " Little House".

They all think they can be the wealthy of the Victorian Era, or Ma Ingalls as played by Karen Grassle, or some storybook version of the Amish. It just isn't and wasn't that way.

My maternal grandmother loathed Little House on the Praririe because how a lot of things were portrayed on the show. My grandma came from a long line of farmers/ranchers who lived in the Hispano section of New Mexico and through generations people were told that the "old days" weren't so pleasant.

[SweetTexasCrude]

Do we know if anti-working fundie women go to female doctors? Wouldn't there be defrauding if all your doctors are men? Or are unattended childbirth and home remedies supposed to get around that problem entirely?

[lilwriter85]

Do we know if anti-working fundie women go to female doctors? Wouldn't there be defrauding if all your doctors are men? Or are unattended childbirth and home remedies supposed to get around that problem entirely?

I wonder if they only go to male doctors. Some of these fundie bloggers do go to midwives.

[emeraldskull]

I mean even the Little House books made it seem more difficult than the tv show. I remember being 8 or 9 and reading those books and being kind of horrified at the idea of making my own butter, and cooking everything from scratch, and only getting a few dresses a year. (I was 100% spoiled for a long long time)

I was thinking that too. Laura Ingalls herself didn't gloss over the hardships of life as she lived it, I just got the feeling that she had a romanticized view of life and an amazing imagination! But the show totally glossed over how life then REALLY was. Ma Ingalls worked just as hard as her husband... tending crops, cooking everything from scratch, making all of their clothes, raising kids, keeping the house, feeding and tending animals...

The books I thought showed Laura's love for life as it was, neither looking back for the "olden days" nor to "better days" in the future, but living as best as she could in her present. Which is something these fundies can't seem to accomplish. :-P