Skip to comments.Not 'All Americans' Are 'Proud That We Have More Women in the Workforce Than Ever Before'
Posted on 02/12/2019 7:02:44 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In his State of the Union address, President Trump announced, "All Americans can be proud that we have more women in the workforce than ever before." It was one of the few times he received a standing ovation from both Democrats and Republicans.
I would not have stood and cheered.
Either the president or whoever wrote that line honestly thought it was something worth celebrating, or the president simply wanted to say something that would sound wonderful to both Democrats and Republicans, as well as to Americans who do not otherwise support him.
Whatever the reason, both the fact that there are more women in the workforce than ever before and the fact that Trump thought mentioning it would bring credit to his administration constitute a victory for the feminist left. Getting women to leave home for the workplace has been one of the central goals of modern feminism.
Feminists deny this, claiming they don't prefer women work outside the home; they only want women to have the choice to do so. But if that were true, why did congressional Democrats -- the women in white, feminists all -- jump up and cheer?
The answer is obvious: Feminists consider women who eschew a career to take care of their home, their children and their husband to be less than women who place career first.
But even if one prefers that women work outside of the home, "All Americans can be proud that we have more women in the workforce than ever before" is simply not true. As feminists often note, many women work outside of the home not because they want to but because they have no choice: They have to support themselves, their household and/or their children.
Why should we be proud of that?
What if every woman in America were in the workforce? Would we be proud of that? By the "more of women than ever" logic, we should be.
On the other hand, if the president had said, "All Americans can be proud of the fact that more women than ever now have the choice to work inside or outside the home," that would be true. That is something I, too, would have cheered.
But the members of Congress did not stand and cheer because more women have the choice to work outside the home. They cheered because more women than ever before are working outside the home.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2017, nearly 75 million women were in the American civil workforce. But it is inconceivable that 75 million women want to be in the workforce. So, again, why all the cheering?
We know why Democrats did: They want women to eschew homemaking and time with children in favor of work outside the house.
But why did Republicans stand up and cheer?
One reason bears testimony to the thesis of a recent column I wrote: The greatest fear in America is fear of the left. The last thing Republican members of Congress wanted was to be photographed sitting quietly after the president of the United States announced, "All Americans can be proud that we have more women in the workforce than ever before"-- especially while every Democrat was standing and cheering. The left-wing media, meaning virtually all mainstream media, would have depicted every such Republican "sexist" and "misogynist."
A second reason bears testimony to another fact of contemporary life: Republicans have been far more influenced by leftism than Democrats have been by conservatism. While many of the Republicans who cheered did so out of fear of the left and/or to support their party's beleaguered president, many sincerely believe the record number of women in the workplace is something worth celebrating.
But believe it or not, there are still many women and men who do not agree. We all acknowledge that with enough money and/or familial support, a woman can raise fine children and maintain a happy home and a loving marriage. Nevertheless, we also know that doing all three is difficult enough when a woman devotes full time to those three goals. But when a woman works outside the home, devoting full time to home and family is impossible.
So, yes, more women than ever are in the workplace. But before we stand and cheer, it is worth asking:
Are women happier today?
Are families doing better today?
Are marriages happier with wives at home or in the workplace?
Do young people grow up happier and better-adjusted with mothers at home or with mothers in the workplace?
Is society's emphasis on work and career inhibiting more young women from marrying and having children?
Is society better off or worse off when a record number of women leave home to enter the workplace?
Only when those questions are answered will we know whether to cheer.
Maybe it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the rise of e-thots.
Well once we implement Socialism we won’t HAVE a workforce, so the joke’s on them.
High taxes forced women into the workplace so families could keep up.
I share mixed feelings about the women-in-the-workforce statistic because it makes me wonder about what is happening to the culture and to the children while the mothers work. However, the TAX POLICIES of the United States and the accompanying problems with the costs of housing and life basics are very skewed against one-income, working male head-of-household families. These so-called “conservatives” have not been very persuasive or powerful in the face of government demands on families so it honestly makes me sick to hear them complain about measures that assist working women.
I say this as part of a one-income family. Do something that makes one-income families more likely, and then have the luxury of complaining about Ivanka Trump and her efforts to support working families!!
source: an anonymous FReeper
BKMK - Prager’s youtube series is excellent. Given the chance, most women (mothers) I work with would rather stay home, and I work with about 85% females.
:) Or maybe it was a reference to women making money creating baby body parts for sell.
I thought we needed more women in STEM jobs so I changed my gender.
Americans have a lot of debt and taxes to pay.
That’s why women must work
Americans have a lot of debt and taxes to pay.
That’s why women must work
Truth is that we as a society have managed to inflict SO much damage upon the institution of marriage that if I were a young woman, I would be afraid to NOT pursue a career.
” mixed feelings about the women-in-the-workforce statistic because it makes me wonder about what is happening to the culture and to the children while the mothers work. “
I feel that there is no substitute, in the first 6 / 7 years,for a ‘at home’ wife....
And... a dog to illustrate constant love and affection....
RE: Americans have a lot of debt and taxes to pay.
Thats why women must work
Mortgage + Taxes + Credit Card Bills + Other debt ( e.g. Cars ) + Rent/Property Taxes + Energy Bills/Utilities + Healthcare
Even if a Woman wants to stay home, one income from her husband can’t make those ends meet.
I didn’t cheer from home at that remark OR the one where both parents should get leave for a baby’s birth.
I agree with you about women working. Most I know with younger children are stressed with work and care time. Probably the best idea is for a 3 day work week for moms. That keeps their work knowledge up to date and then allows them to get chores at home done so when the husband and kids are home, they can love on them vs. boot camp schedules! Two of my nieces work 4 day weeks and that works well for them too, even the one with young children.
Paid time off for leave for dads. SUPER bad idea. Dad’s are supposed to support the family so working at this time makes everyone strong, IMO. The major problem with this is those who get EIC and have babies every year. Imagine what that would do at their business?!!! Then, in this fluidity sexual craze we are in, a dad can identify as a mom and probably get leave!!!! It has too many loopholes and will burden most small businesses beyond their means to survive.
You can’t fix stupid, but we must try.
If women worked it generally wasn't out of economic necessity because they needed two incomes to survive.
Why do we now need two incomes?
It seems to me wages began a long period of stagnation in the 70s' and the cost of living has increased faster than wages.
What were the economic/social shifts?
It’s a political speech reflecting the state of the union, Prager.
Gotta support all the welfare leeches, illegal aliens, and other assorted hangers-on ...
Cut Fedzilla back to Constitutional size (and yes, that means eliminating some programs that some FReepers adamantly support), and there won't be so many taxes to pay.
The U.S. was the only industrial power to emerge from World War II with its infrastructure and industrial capacity unscathed. We were able to enjoy a very high standard of living because nobody else could compete with us in most industries.
There is this misconception among a lot of people that these were the "good old days," and we could just go back to that if we wanted to. The reality is that those years were an anomaly in history, not the norm.
By the 1970s, Europe and Japan were back on their feet and new emerging countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Indonesia were starting to become major global competitors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.