Banty wrote:
In article , Penny Gaines says...
Rosalie B. wrote:
Given*that,*the*"no"*responses*don't*put*me*o ff*much.**If*one
is to answer the question "no", in fact, I'm not sure what other
reasons they could give.**What*"no"*rationale*could*a*parent
give that would be logically acceptable to a working parent?
How about - she is taking the job from a man who is supporting his
family?
Well, not neccessarily from a man: if the spouse has an above
average income, and the mother's job paid below or at the average
income, then the mother-with-a-well-paid-spouse might be taking
the job which could be done by the mother-with-a-badly-paid-spouse.
But where are we going with this?
IIRC, the question was - what other significant reason could someone
give to the question "Should a mother work if she doesn't need to do
so?" OTHER THAN that she should be home mothering her kids because it
will be better for the kids. I was offering the old
taking-a-job-from-a-man idea as one that could be used in the NO WOHM
argument. Not a very good argument, but better than the idea that
women have to follow their nurturing instincts or they will be
unhappy.
How about the single man who 'takes a job' away from a man with two kids?
How about the man with two kids who 'takes a job' away from a man with four
kids?
Yadda yadda.
Only when it's mothers do we worry about who is 'taking' whose job.
Banty
Right
grandma Rosalie
|