Women now make up virtually half of the workforce. On the whole, do you think that is:

I've been working way too long and would love to find a woman with either money or a great job so I could lay around the house for the rest of my life!

Any takers? I shower weekly.

Thank you for your contribution to the work-force. I would hope that we are now in an environment that allows for either the man or woman to Choose to work or stay home. My wife stays at home to raise our children and it has been a huge sacrifice economically. However we have seen the intangible benefit in our children's behavior. (She was working when they were younger). That is our choice, and we are respectful for those that choose differently.

Yeah and Norway is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. WHY in the world would I WANT to be required to have my own health insurance. This is just one more way for the Government to bully capitalism, to grow as a giant monopoly, and to make more money. I'M GETTING absolutely FRUSTRATED with Big Government because people can't take care of themselves!

"Outraged" You're a jerk. I think you are a left wing liberal hippie that had OD problems and want hard working Men and WOMAN paying for your healthcare!!!

Hey Joe? You sound just like a Redneck Republican to me...

Enough name calling Joe and Tom. We all have to work together towards a common goal. Although I would agree somewhat with Joe in regards to Outraged. What exactly does Outraged mean by a community raising our children and how do we not work together towards that end? I, for one will take on the responsibility of raising my own children and be a good community citizen towards others. I would appreciate more specifics when asking us to be "like" other countries.

If I had a choice, and PLANNED my pregnancies, I would have preferred to stay home until my children were in school full time, like the 1st grade. This way, I would have had the time to BOND, TEACH them what I could before sending them out into Society.

But I got pregnant young, and had to work; because of it, I was a very strict, and disciplined mother; (my son's did not have much fun with me). IT WORKED, because I had very few issues at school regarding my son's behavior. When time permitted, I made SURPRISED visits to school to ensure my son's were not acting out, and BEHAVING, properly! I attended their social activities in school, and sporting events. At home after cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, & grocery shopping, I was so tired, I could not enjoy them, as I am enjoying my grandchildren now. and I cooked just about EVERYTHING from scratch! McDonald's was a once or twice a month TREAT! So it really makes a difference.

When you're home all day, you have time to stay on top of things, therefore when the kids get home from school you can really enjoy talking about their day and what they learn, and what homework needed to be done. Your mind is relaxed, and your body is not tired from the stress of work, and staying on top of things that need to be taken care of at home. Don't tell me, we women are not SUPER WOMEN;

On the other hand, I also enjoy working, but would have preferred to stay at home with my sons until they started the 1st grade.

There is still plenty of discrimination in the work place where as women are NOT paid the same salaries men are paid for performing the SAME JOB. Also there is discrimination in pay between white men, and "men of color," doing the same jobs. I KNOW first hand, as I use to work in PAYROLL, and had access to employees personnel files, work history, merit and performance reviews, because we had to maintain these files.

All I know is, it just doesn't make any sense, if you're a single parent, or even a couple, that women should NOT be paid less than a man for doing the same job, after all, she has to pay rent or mortgage, buy groceries and pay everyday living expenses. Therefore, when the bills come in, they are CHARGED the SAME RATE, men have to pay; women don't get a break in these bills because she is a woman!

This is exactly why we need MORE WOMEN in Leadership position, because they are more balanced, and no where as prejudice as men are. Yes, women do have their PETTY ISSUES, and can be just as discriminating, but overall, I believe they would be more fair when it comes to salaries. If they screw you, its over some dumb petty/jealous issue.

In addition, women should be paid MORE, because of MAKE UP and CLOTHES! Men can wear the SAME SUIT all week, but if a woman came to work in the same outfit for more than one day, she would be talked about something awful. Let alone, the cost of panyhose, versus men socks! Women also have MORE physical issues then men do. It just cost more for women to maintain themselves then it does a man!

Gee, you don't like women in the workplace because you are no longer "free" to be a jerk! You make a good argument FOR women in the workplace.

Women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. We totally messed up by giving them the right to vote!!!

porsche_dude, you're a fool. If you were one of my employees, I'd fire you.

Lize, that was obviously a joke. Get a grip.

porsche_dude knows he can only make these comments online because his wife probably has him by the balls. His wife is probably out busting her @ss while he's sitting at home on the computer. Actually - I hope there wasn't anyone that desperate to marry him. And Homer you're absolutely right about this being "a man's world" - you can't actually think women would want to take credit for the mess. Golf clap to all you men - you're doing a wonderful job with your world and you can definitely take all the credit.....

Wait, let me get this straight. Your argument against having women in the workforce is that women place a downward pressure on wages. However, you openly admit that this is due to social inequality, and not due to any performance issues on the part of the women themselves. So anyone who places downward pressure on wages simply shouldn't work, and the problem would be fixed? Cool, lets get rid of teenagers, seasonal laborers, foreign workers, and anyone in a desperate finanical situation too.

What if this inequality was actually addressed, and women were paid equally for equal work? If women are equal contributors in the workforce, it seems ridiculous to restrict their participation and potential contributions simply because of an outmoded and gendered division of labor that has unjustly managed to stay in place despite drastic social change. You realise that more than half the population is made up of women, and that many of these women are just as capable, if not more so, than their male counterparts in the same field? Why dumb down the workforce just because some bigots get their panties in a twist whenever a woman steps away from the stove? You seem to be under the impression that women only work because they have to, and would happily return to their homes if the opportunity arose. Like men, women work for a variety of reasons, only one of which is the need to support their families.

I understand and respect women who stay home to take care of their families, but we no longer live in an age where women are locked into a system in which they are dependent upon the financial contributions of men. Many families require the contributions of women to stay afloat...and you know what, some women actually enjoy working. As a single woman, I work for myself knowing that I'm making a contribution to my field and putting my education to use.

The fact that we even need to ask this ridiculous question now is just incomprehensible.

Ahh! HomeSweetHomer! You've been living in a Ziploc Bag! The economic downturn has changed the way most Households operate now. What most people fail to see is that whatever jobs (especially Office jobs like Clerical, Accounting positions like A/P & A/R, Billing Clerks will most likely be filled by woman because they can pay us less and always have! I work in NYC and find it a very convincing statistic that more and more companies have all female accounting & administrative staff. In these types of positions, we still haven't found our equality. So, before you guys start blaming us for taking your jobs...you should first blame Corporate Management for looking at the bottom line. Hell, I don't mind competing with you for a position if it means I'm gonna' get paid what you would!! Unfortunately for both genders that isn't going to happen. I will get the job over you because they can pay me less, not because I am equally qualified. Which is an insult to both of us!!

As for you Homer, you're pretty lucky that your fartin', swearin' self has a job! Way to go Homers' Mom...you raised a real Gem!!!

You and your outdated views should retire (if you're not already) so that an unemployed person can take your position.

"girls"? I think if they are in the workplace most if not all have already began their menstral cycle which would mean they are now women. I suspect you are a "wing nut" (conservative)?

By my estimations, you must have entered the workforce no later than the 1960s, making you somewhere between the ages of my parents and my grandparents. It was my grandfather, a brilliant and accomplished civil engineer born in 1924, who was always the most adamant that with my brain I could accomplish at least as much as my older brothers, if not more.

It seems to me that you are not simply behind the times for today, but behind the times for your own glory days.

Now, now, girls, first and foremost you need to show respect for your older peers! second thou you may not like what Harold said, you fail to see the message he has in between the lines.  In his time, when a man made enough to support a family of 4, people prospered, families lived a good life, society and companies valued people, not profits because companies didn't need to make a 42-75% profit margin (I think the true question is how much of a profit do companies need to make and Wall Street is the main leading factor to Corporate America GREED ) and they viewed employees as a asset not a liability as they do today, which shows what greed has done. I'm sure Harold falls into the scenario that he was a employee who gave it his all and loyalty only to be laid off because the company wanted to hire a cheaper worker because they had to satisfy the investors with profitable earnings so that they would live the high life.  You say that Harold can live a nice retirement life? well thanks to Wall Street the investment firms swindled Harold's 401k money and just as Wall Streets shows again and again it is nothing but a cesspool EVIL and GREED. As for you my dear young ones, you are the new players of this game called Corporate America, step right up we need new, innocent, naive employees!  what's that you say, you want to provide for your family, sure you can have a family as long as your life is spent here in the office.

Hey Harold? Maybe we could give old the unemployed (both men and women) jobs sending the old farts like you into retirement...

You're assuming that these women are being supported by someone at home, and that their financial contributions are not necessary.

But hey, if they all just got married this whole situation would fix itself, right?

P.S. It's 2009

That's because there still isn't equality between men and women. Where are these children's fathers when the kids are sick? At work! They don't sacrifice their career for their children, but mothers are expected to. Don't be fooled that your manager doesn't notice which moms are coming in late, taking time off, etc., etc. Their careers suffer. If you choose not to have kids, your career will definitely go further without the distractions of kids. If you end up having children, good luck. You will become one of "those" moms. Be careful of throwing stones.

I agree with you about the holidays. I have seen women expect all holidays off because they have kids, while these women think the women without or older kids have no life and should work whick is total bull. No one person is entitled to holidays off because of children. We all have family or friends we want to be with on holidays.

A sick child is a different story entirely. The husband would never think of going home but the woman is expected to. A sick child is is something a parent has no control over and I never minded staying overtime if needed so a mom could be with an ill child. As long as is was a fact and not made up "as some do" and the person appreciates it which most mom's do.

Debra,

The husbands never consider going home because they know that their wives will. This doesn't really play out so well for single dads, you'll notice.

Don't you want to get home? If they hired a single person without kids you would.

Sounds like a business that needed some policies and an employee manual. Seniority usually determines the order in which people schedule.

However, you just can't give all the good vacation slots to the parents. I'm single, childless and not a caregiver. But, I also have a 500 mile round-trip drive to see my family at the holidays. (Some people aren't afraid to move away from their hometown). If Christmas doesn't fall on a Fri. or Sat., that means I wouldn't get to spend many Christmases w/ them, and my dad is almost 90. That wouldn't be fair to someone like me.

The best place I ever worked listed holidays. If you were off for the first official holdiay of the year you would most likely not be off for the next. So many grabbed the first official holiday of the year that I always got the 4th of July, as the others whined.

It was fair to everyone so nobody really had a legitamate complaint.

Good point of view! teacher's salaries would fall under the redistributed category due to it being a set rate for all teachers and paid by the state through the county and district. As for degrees not every one is able to attend college. You are so spot on in regards to cost of living but lets not forget that the government realized that they would be able to collect more taxes if women were forced into working by raising the cost of living, see how this all falls into play. Even if you have the right degree it does not mean you will have a career, that's why America needs to balance itself by creating more manufacturing jobs.

In reality, this is a multifaceted problem. However, once you peel off all of the layers, the real problem is technology. There is a price to pay for technology. As technology becomes ever better, less and less people are "needed" to support the whole. Think about it, a couple of hundred years ago, each man supported himself and perhaps his wife and kids. Not much was left over. Now one man can supply enough products to support perhaps a thousand people or more. What do those 1000 people do now? Well the argument is they will spend their time working on other "things", they don't have to spend their efforts digging potatoes to eat. They develop cars, planes, computers, etc, life is good for a while. Then technology steps in and reduces the number of people required to do that (automation). What now, then they develop the internet, that employs workers for another 10-20 years. Now what? We keep developing artificial economies to replace the ones we lost. However, with each transition, ultimately less and less people are needed. We once thought that people would have so much spare time because of technology, now we realize what this spare time actually means, it is called unemployment.

I am a college professor and one of the few that admits to "riding" the system. Colleges and universities have become mechanisms to extract money from the federal government. Research, research, research, that is all you hear about. At then at the end of the day, this money is coming from the federal government, NSF, DOT, NIH, CDC, DHS, etc, and what isn't, is being extracted from the students who end up with useless degrees that cannot get a good paying job, mostly young girls who have been promised a pipe dream of being the next Martha Steward if they will only get a degree in fashion design.

Sometimes I really get worried about this. For example, I am testing new technology that allows me to sit in my office and teach and unlimited number of students with two way interaction. Now, we don't need a classroom, we don't need a maintenance worker, or a janitor. In addition, I am using an open source textbook that is free, so the students don't have to buy a book (I am trying to look out for their best interest). Now, guess what, their goes to the publisher, their goes the printers, with the internet, I don't even have to mail them (the post office) the text, they download it. Wow, now more and more people can get degrees easier, and then what? Technology is cutting more and more middle men out, which as a consumer I love. However, if you are one of the middle men, what do you do now? Even though things are getting cheaper, if you don't have a job to make any money you can't buy the goods.

Our economy has been built on unrealistic dreams. Sooner or later we will realize that life can only be so good. We have to reduce our expectations as people if we are to survive long term, simple as that. You cannot make more than 5% in the market, period. And, those that do are taking away from those that lost, wealth redistribution. Sad thing is, we lived the last 20 years thinking that our 401k's would yield 8-10%, and spend the money accordingly. In fact, they did thanks to everyone believing they would (check out the Dow Jones in 1983 when people starting putting their retirement in the stock market). Point is, don't criticize the "old way" of doing things or "traditional" roles, there is a reason why they exist, it is not because people were ignorant or stupid, they simply had figured out what works.

I am a single female scientist from England. I work primarily with men and most of my friends are in similar level positions in male dominated areas. Some have children, some do not. Some are married, some are not. I simply do not understand why, simply because of my gender, I should be expected to get married, have children and be a stay at home mother. I think that women that do that are incredible. I know how hard they work and I think they are often not given the credit that they are due. BUT, for me, I simply can not imagine NOT having a career. On of my friends in an MD. She is married with three children. Her husband stays home with the children and he is a GREAT parent. She knows that she simply could not do what he does because she needs (as I do) the mental challenge.

The correct answer is "no, you should not be expected to get married and have kids because of your gender." However, I keep saying, their is a price to pay for breaking "the natural order of things." Physiologically men and women are "built" for different purposes, I didn't do it so don't blame me. I work with many capable women, many more capable than myself, so often times I think it would be a waste for this women to stay home and just raise kids. However, when I look at cultures where this happens, you are seeing a huge difference in the reproductive rate. In a short period of time, and trust me it doesn't take long (just research any models that demonstrate simple birth rates, Netlogo is a good place to look), these cultures will overtake cultures that believe in smaller families (which is ultimately the byproduct of two working parents). Now in a democracy, won't this be interesting, the old traditional thinking once again becomes the majority. It seems that nature has a way of forcing its design one way or another.We'll see what happens with this one.

Really, I suppose what I am arguing against is individualism. I'm am not really arguing against it, I am just saying I am not sure how well this idea can compete with cultures that do not teach it, in the long run that it. On the short run, it has served the west quite well, it has allowed for a tremendous amount of innovation. But we are so individualized that we think we should be allowed to do whatever we want, including breaking gender roles (that have been defined by society for thousands of years, they were not defined by me).

Let's take you for example, you are a single female, probably very intelligent. If you choose to remain so (I am not saying you will, let's just use this for arguments sake.) Then all of your intelligence will not be passed on to any offspring, you don't get to pass on any of your morals, beliefs, skills, etc. It ends with you, period. Now take someone, that isn't say as intelligent and successful as you, but they believe in staying home and raising (or not) 10 kids, within one generation, this "ignorant, old, traditional" thinking has overcome all of your intelligence. So I am not blaming you, I am just saying in the long run, there is a price to pay and I am as guilty as anyone. I have chosen to have only one child and invest in her as much as possible, I want her to become a famous scientist also. However, I also admit that in many ways I am selfish, I don't want 10 kids because I want to be able to focus on my career, vacation, leisure time, etc. However, someone that is willing to sacrifice raising 10 children will negate my behavior in the long run. This is also true with marriage, we have been taught that marriage is about love and happiness, it is not and that is not why it exists, it exists to raise children to a certain age. Cultures that understand this (and their are several), put up with a lot of crap and stay in the marriage for this purpose, they sacrifice their happiness for the sake of the children, we do not because our expectations are unrealistic and this degrades our family values (which has nothing to do with religion, BTW) even further. So my point to all of this is that we live in a time where we have enough of an excess that even allows for women to be in the workplace. Trust me, if times get really tough again, like a collapse in society due to some catastrophic event (finical meltdown, nuclear war, etc.) we will revert back to the old traditional ways. The hope is now that we have enough smart women in the workplace to keep this from happening :-).

It seems like you're suggesting that women should only work if they are in careers that "create wealth," because otherwise their work is not going to benefit society. Do you suggest the same for men?

Also, I have to correct your misconceptions about teacher pay. It's not due to excess supply of female workers in education, as you suggest. In fact, most schools suffer from a shortage of teachers, while students receive lower quality educations because of high student-teacher ratios. The reason for this is simple: the public doesn't like to pay taxes, period. It doesn't matter that the tax money would be used on an extremely lucrative and worthwhile investment (i.e. the education of future generations). People just can't get passed the idea of "giving" their hard-earned money to the government. Look how often school levies fail around the country. Teachers aren't paid little because the market dictates it. As most of them are government employees, their positions are largely removed from market influences. They're paid little simply because their salaries are paid by taxpayers.

University professors are another story. They are less underpaid than their primary and secondary education counterparts, but they are still paid very little considering their education levels. But unlike primary and secondary school teachers, university educators have traditionally been men. Yet they have always been paid little relative to their education level and the fact that the supply of workers with advanced degrees is extremely low. What is your explanation for that?

I am not suggesting that women only work in fields that create wealth, I am just saying that most of them do and this has the impact of driving up the cost of living without actually bringing in more revenue into the country, the money just gets recycled. And, they are being taken advantage of in the process of getting their education. They overpay for the education and get underpaid at work, couple this with the cost of daycare, and the cost of maintaining a vehicle going back and forth to work, in addition to the increased taxes from more income, and they barely break even. As my dad once stated, correctly, "basically, I have to pay for your mom to work." Unless a woman is making a lot of money in her job, it is hard to justify. However, I still think she has the right to do it. I mean I wouldn't want to be stuck in the house all day either. I am just saying that society has to pay a price for this.

I find it interesting that you say the public doesn't like to pay taxes for education. We spend more money per student on education than any country in the world. While I cannot say with complete certainty, probably one of the primary reasons there is a perceived shortage of teachers is because of location. Trust me, good schools have teachers knocking down the door trying to get in to teach. No one wants to teach in a Ghetto school for obvious reasons. What is interesting is how the markets takes advantage of an over supply, it forces more people to get advanced degrees, forces them to get more certifications and training, etc, we say that all of this is necessary for a good education, but in reality this comes from some professor getting a 5 million dollar federal grant to study this and wanting to make a name for themselves. While we are studying everything to death (extracting money from the federal government), the rest of the world is providing quality educations. The real problem is that we don't have a failure mechanism in this society. I once asked my wife what would happen to a student if the student did something bad, like throw a spit wad at the teacher or something in China (she was a Chinese teacher). Her response was, "I don't know, because I have never (as a student or teacher) seen this happen, but it would be bad and the student would be kicked out of school completely." The parents would have to come and beg and bribe the teacher to get back in school. Here, the parents and student would both be happy, "wehew no more school, now I don't have to worry about it." Then the kid would get into crime and probably end up killing someone and spend the rest of their life in prison.

Honestly, I don't see anyone turning down any type of government positions. I mean apply for any government position and see what competition you face.

In my opinion, I don't think University professors are underpaid at all. It really depends on what they teach. Their salaries are correlated to how much their students make. Professors in science and engineering commonly make over $100K a year, which I don't think is too bad considering how much they work., business school professors make even more, and administrators commonly make in the $150K - $300K range. The public is the one that has the misperception about how much college professors make. Mainly because most of the jobs go to foreign professors with high educations and the public doesn't really know the profession. They just assume, "these poor college professors."

Once again you are asking the government to support your lifestyle. You are asking the government to force companies to provide these things for you. These companies are now competing internationally with countries such as China that has 1.5 billion people and all (most) parents only have one child. In addition you are competing with a culture where the grandparents raise the child until they are around 5-8 years old. So basically you have 4 grandparents plus two parents raising the child for free. It is hard for US companies to compete with these foreign companies even without the government forcing them to provide more benefits. Only goverment supported institutions can afford this, and again we are putting that on the federal credit card. I agree that as a culture we should support family because in the long run our children are vital to the country's success. But once again, as individuals we are not investing in our families as evidenced by high divorce rates, irresponsible child reproduction, etc. So how can we ask to government to do something that benefits the citizens when the citizens are not doing it themselves.

I'm sorry but I am not seeing where above I am asking the government to support my lifestyle. I am not asking the goverment to provide me with anything. I am asking my employer to be more supportive of a work/life balance for everyone involved, it is unfortunate that we have become so greedy and only think of ourselves that nothing can get done unless the government forces it upon them. There are companies out there that do it now without being forced by the goverment and I think that the practice has only helped them (SAS is a good example). You mention China but you fail to mention as an industrialized country, we are near the bottom in the area of work/life balance. People in China only have one child because the GOVERNMENT has enforced that rule upon them. Does sending my child to daycare mean that I am not investing in my family?? Wow. High divorce rates are due to people not fully understanding or accepting what a marriage means when they enter into one, irresponsible child reproduction is due to lack of comprehensive sex education and the way the sex is viewed in our society. Your comment that citizens are not investing in their families so therefore should expect nothing from their government is a gross generalization.

Remember you are unique, just like everyone else, this is what allows for generalizations. SAS is an excellent example, Jim Goodnight, the owner of SAS is to be admired, I refer to him often in my classes. However, SAS is a niche market. That aside, currently there are no laws requiring companies to provide ANY benefits to employees, this is a byproduct of WW2, when there was a labor shortage and the government put a cap on salaries, companies offered benefits to attract workers. However an equlibrium was created based on "traditional" families, companies offered these benefits based mostly on a male workforce. Now we are asking them to change this, that is tough to do because our economy has gotten used to things based on "Traditional" families. So you use the argument, how does Europe do it? Good question, they started it half a century or so ago, they socialized first and then there economies evolved around their system. They accepted higher taxes, high fuel costs, small cars, houses and apartments, we didn't. Now we want a system like their's but they paid the price over the last half century or so. They got lots of benefits, but sacificed on a lot of other things. Now we say, "hey, we want that too", "but can I keep my 2,500sq/ft house, and 3 SUV's, and all of the other luxuries we are used to?" That is my point, you are asking the government to step in an give you these things because companies won't/can't do it for you. If we were going to socialize, we should have done it in 1950. But, hey the rest of the world was in ruins from WW2 and had to buy our products, that is why we excelled not because of our superior system.

Your quote,

High divorce rates are due to people not fully understanding or accepting what a marriage means when they enter into one, irresponsible child reproduction is due to lack of comprehensive sex education and the way the sex is viewed in our society. Your comment that citizens are not investing in their families so therefore should expect nothing from their government is a gross generalization.

I agree with, I am just saying, if we were to invest in our families as a society, we would not have to ask the government for help. Actually we would but it would not be for this reason.

Working Mom,

Are you saying that sending a child to daycare is better than being home w/Mom while that child is growing up?!  There is NO comparison.  None, zip, nada.  A child being home w/a parent while growing up fairs much better, we all know that.  Unfortunately, like you said, greed has infiltrated society and because of that, in most families now, both parents have to work.  It's a sad commentary on people as a whole today.

People should be able to have as many kids as they want, as long as they can support them.  Marriages are failing because of moral decay in society and a lack of commitment.  And I certainly don't think that a lack of comprehensive sex education is the problem because people are so self centered these days that they could care less!  It's all about them, to hell w/the kids, they can raise themselves, I deserve a career dam-it!  I am woman hear me R-O-A-R!  I'm sick of that self-centered woman's lib attitude!

I think that the pedulem is swinging back, back to a more simpler time when families were the center and core of life, Mom saw the value in being around and Dad supported that idea.  I see that happening w/my daughter and her friends right now, today.  God mattered and because of that we felt a moral obligation to make the world a better place, not just for our kids and our grandkids but for generations to come. 

That is pretty presumptive of you to assume that only one of those Moms needed to work (and what about the Dad's while we're making assumptions here, could any of them stay home with the kids instead?). I don't pretend to know anyone's financial situation but my own, especially in this economy. It's not as simple as reprioritize and spend less. Been there, done that and still can't afford it (partly because of health insurance cost increase if one parent stops working but that's a topic for another discussion).

And you're also saying that one of those children was so traumatized by the fact that his Mom brought him to daycare that he now has drug issues. It's his Mom's fault he's on drugs??? What does that say about the care YOU provided him????? Or the subsequent care his grandmother provided him??? If I knew that was how you viewed the whole scenario I would never leave my child with you.

There are good parents and bad parents, period. Whether they work or not. Having children at home with Mom or Dad does not automically assume that the children are getting the best care possible.

That's pretty presuptive of you to say I didn't know their situation, I am still in contact w/these families 20 plus years later. Ha, infact one of them is coming to dinner Sat night! Anyway, their children were affected and they would agree. Several of those Mom's QUIT work to be at home w/their kids a few years later.

You know, I would probably never have wanted to watch your kids because of the attitude you are exhibiting. A daycare provider isn't the soul responsibility of YOUR child's life and neither are the grand parents, that's the parents job. So to suggest that I somehow was responsible in this adult child's drug use is ludicrous. I agree, some kids have more trouble than others and that was my point, --he needed his Mom and for a Mom to ignore that or say it's the daycare providers fault, is troubling in itself, it proves my point, that I take issue w/a parent who expects me to raise their child.

You can not ignore the fact that a Mom at home is MUCH better, and I know that you know that, I believe that's is why you are so defensive. I agree, it's hard but if I could make it on a measly income w/o anything I think other people can too, it's a matter of priorities, plain and simple.

"Oh sure the article spins it positively but read on...over 60% say it's bad for the kids. I agree. "

You must be reading a different survey...The results I see show that almost 57% of survey respondents think that working women are good for the economy AND good for society. I can't believe this is still an issue in 2009! Of course, women should have the same freedoms, rights, AND responsibilities that men do.

Taking care of children should be shared equally by both parents. I think it does children good to see BOTH their parents go to work each day to provide for their families. There is nothing selfish about that.

As far as the child "traumatized" by child care. We have only your viewpoint on this and obviously you are extremely biased. I do not believe that any child would be traumatized by going to a good daycare facility. So either YOU traumatized the kid by providing subpar care or there were other factors in this child's life that led to his drug abuse. But because of your bias against working mothers, you are quick to place all the blame on the mother (and without one word about the father in this situation.)

It's also pretty telling that you criticize working mothers when you were one yourself Taking care of other people's children -- even in your home -- means you can't lavish all your attention on YOUR precious little one(s).... which is actually a good thing. Children should not grow up with the false expectation that they are the center of the universe.

Here here Homeboy!!!

This is exactly what I was trying to say in my response!!!!!

Wow, very well said!

The natural order of things is for women to be at home raising the kids as caregivers, and men to be at work as providers.

that is not the 'natural' order of things...that is the cultural order of things, or was.

i am a grandmother. i have worked most of my adult life. when my children were adolescents, my husband stopped working and stayed home with them because he was the 'better' parent. he was more patient, more consistent, more structured with them.

i do agree that having a parent home is a good thing...i do not agree that that parent must or should be the mother.

So that heart surgeon that may save your life in the future has no place in the work force? We have female scientists, educators, nurses, etc that without them we would all have a more difficult life.

Men can just as easily stay at home as women. I do believe we are to materialistic but that is not the only reason for women needing or wanting to work.

I want to thank you for your comments, they are spot-on!

I stopped reading after "God created us".

This is horsepucky. Some men--A LOT of men--are afraid that women are fed up with doing everything at home. There is no such thing as "natural roles"--this crap about women's natural place being at home with kids and men outside working is a result of patriarchy, at least in the western world.

Go read a book or get on a plane. There are egalitarian societies worldwide where women and men do not battle for power, instead,, they work toward equity and peaceful resolution of work duties, childrearing, etc.

It is really in America and Europe where men are so intent on keeping women out of the money-making realm of working. Put your egos aside and get over it. Women HAVE ALWAYS WORKED AND THE DECLINE OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY STRUCTURE is due to men not changing with the times, as WOMEN ALREADY HAVE. So men, get with it!!!!!

I don't know where or how you live, but it must be pretty bad. I fare much better today than I ever would have fifty years ago.