Wow

[paterfamilias]

Definitely considered those things as well. That's why I don't really support women chosing that path to their own detriment, I just don't think the solution is getting married and having children entirely too young, just to struggle to financially care for them. I find both scenarios a bit extreme, what's wrong with a happy medium and a little preparation? Not only for our own sake but for our children and families.

Nothing wrong with it and I suspect that in the 70's and 80's we probably had that median point.
There are trillions in extra economic action to be had in pushing women further down that path and doing anything we can to slam a door behind them with each additional step they take. There can not be allowed a revolution in women wishing to embrace the past.

Maybe we will overcome my expectations. Hope springs eternal

 

[LDremoved]

Children are not a cost - like a PET, no enduring value

How dare you

 

[LDremoved]

There are trillions in extra economic action to be had in pushing women further down that path and doing anything we can to slam a door behind them with each additional step they take

You're saying women are being pushed in this direction to benefit the economy?

 

[paterfamilias]

You're saying women are being pushed in this direction to benefit the economy?

Have been for a long time. It is not Just about the all mighty GDP but it is about...geez...this is a legitimately Huge topic where I would need to take some time and do some citations for you. I am in the middle of getting breakfast in my boy and then I have to go uncover all the freeze protection shenanigans over the various parts of the garden and get out the door for a cross state drive. So you will need to be patient and I will give a better answer in a bit. In the meantime maybe some of the other members who are up on the unfolding of our economic and cultural history in the last 150 years +/- could weigh in

 

[LDremoved]

Have been for a long time. It is not Just about the all mighty GDP but it is about...geez...this is a legitimately Huge topic where I would need to take some time and do some citations for you. I am in the middle of getting breakfast in my boy and then I have to go uncover all the freeze protection shenanigans over the various parts of the garden and get out the door for a cross state drive. So you will need to be patient and I will give a better answer in a bit. In the meantime maybe some of the other members who are up on the unfolding of our economic and cultural history in the last 150 years +/- could weigh in

Take your time lol I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly because it's something I've been curious about as well that's why I was asking. I tend to lean towards women working benefiting the economy and people in general due to the careers they tend to chose. Just wanted to hear another side.

 

[NickF]

This goes back to my opinion of holding others to our ideals.

How about God’s ideals? His stated purpose. Let’s hold ourselves to His standard and not hold our “opinions” higher as you are.

Also there was no lie spread to influence my opinion, it's from my personal experience.

This illustrates exactly the biblical stated reason women should not be in positions of authority or leadership. They lack discernment. The fact you believe you weren’t lied to is testament to your lack of discernment.

I could have spent more time with them had I taken the educational opportunities offered to me at a younger age thus the ability to have a higher paying job.

You could have spent more time if you were married instead of trying to be a single parent. Again, the world says it’s honorable and good for mothers to stay single. God says the opposite. Stop believing the world’s lie.

 

[LDremoved]

How about God’s ideals? His stated purpose. Let’s hold ourselves to His standard and not hold our “opinions” higher as you are.

You're entitled to follow God's ideals just as I am but you can't expect the entire world to cater to your belief system.The article was about women as a whole, not all women are Christian, that's the reality of it. Even from a biblical standpoint I don't recall a time frame being mentioned. I fail to see how suggesting that it's ok for women to wait until they're are financially stable to have children is worldly and influenced by lies.

This illustrates exactly the biblical stated reason women should not be in positions of authority or leadership. They lack discernment. The fact you believe you weren’t lied to is testament to your lack of discernment.

My statement was that I did not form my opinions based on lies as Edward suggested, I formed them on personal experience and an open mind. I absolutely have the ability (particularly at my age) to differentiate between how the world tells me to feel and how I really feel.

What I find ironic is how many times my opinions are dismissed as being influenced from the outside world. Then when I make an opinion to the outside world I'm dismissed as being religiously brainwashed. Did it ever occur that someone can see both sides of something. I'm sorry if you don't have the ability to do that even with your extensive leadership qualities. I think those characteristics are what make women beneficial, it's a shame you see it as a negative thing.

You could have spent more time if you were married instead of trying to be a single parent. Again, the world says it’s honorable and good for mothers to stay single. God says the opposite. Stop believing the world’s lie

Single parent? They weren't my children lol. I had no time to get married and have children of my own when I'm struggling to take care of someone's else's who are already here. Why in the world would I bring more children or even a husband into that situation.

Forgive me for refusing to breed freely like cattle when I already had two children without a mother or a father that needed to be cared for. There are plenty of married women with children who have to work outside of the home and spend more time away from their family because they don't make much money. That argument holds no weight.

Stop telling me I'm believing the world's lies just because I don't mimic your beliefs or opinions. It's such a cop-out to an actual argument.

 

[FollowingHim]

You're saying women are being pushed in this direction to benefit the economy?

To enrich a few at the expense of the women themselves. Just a few points off the top of my head:

If the majority of women work, this:
- Almost doubles the available labour, while
- Almost halving the available hourly wages through supply/demand (more supply than demand = low prices, applies to anything including labour).

This means that the wealthy owners of businesses can easily obtain cheap labour (male or female), which simultaneously enriches the wealthy (makes their businesses more profitable), and harms the masses who must now work two jobs to get the same economic value that one job could bring in before.

This means that both parents must work, not just one. So women are forced into the workforce. They are no longer home doing all the things they did before to save money - making and repairing clothing, cooking from scratch, caring for young children.

That means the family must buy clothing instead of making or repairing it. Is more likely to buy pre-prepared or takeaway food. Puts young children into childcare - and must pay for it. And so forth. Society becomes a consumer society, buying many more products of big business that, in the past, they simply did not need.

This means far more money flows through the economy - money which can be taxed at many points, enriching the government. But not enriching the common person, who simply has money flow in and out of their wallet.

High competition for jobs means that everyone tries to have an edge over the other applicants through higher education. People spend far more years in education than they did in the past for the same job - when I worked for a large research organisation, we expected people to have a masters degree before applying for a job as a research technician - but our best old technicians who were approaching retirement had started straight out of high school at the age of 15 with no higher qualifications at all. There was actually no need at all for higher qualification to do the job (the specialist knowledge required could more effectively be taught on the job), but because of competition the educational expectation had grown unnecessarily.

This creates a new market for unnecessary university education - and universities have turned from repositories of knowledge to profitable businesses churning out graduates. This once again enriches the owners and high executives of THESE businesses - while harming the common people, who are now crippled by massive debts to repay that education.

And all the debt induced at all stages of this enriches the banking sector.

I'll stop there. Yes, putting women into the workforce massively boosts the on-paper economy while enriching the few at the expense of the many.

 

[Communication]

This illustrates exactly the biblical stated reason women should not be in positions of authority or leadership. They lack discernment.

God shared this as the reason for his command? The "biblical" stated reason why women should not be in (spiritual and non-spiritual) positions of authority or leadership?
I always assumed my authority in my household was despite my thick-headedness and meant to glorify Gods use of weak/stupid/small/insignificant things!

 

[FollowingHim]

I'm curious how much is housing there? Housing has went through the roof here lately, I know even the crime ridden places here are $1,000 per month and the average rent is $1,300- $2,000 per month. Which I think is ridiculous still lol

Rents in the main centres are high and climbing to ridiculous levels in both the US and New Zealand. However, in general the purchase prices in the USA are far lower than here. This means there are many places in the USA (both rural and undesirable urban) where you can buy a house and/or land extremely cheaply. Such cheap opportunities simply do not exist in New Zealand.

 

[The Revolting Man]

But even men on here need their wives to work outside of the household at times. Most men don't make enough money to support an infinite amount of children especially if they're young as well. Why should women work outside of the household for less money when they could work less for more money because they at the very least took a year or two to pick up a trade or get some career experience (4-6 years at most for higher paying). Women would be in their lower to mid 20s still, that's very young with plenty of time to start a family on a far more solid foundation which would also benefit your husband

You would be shocked how big of a family you can have one embarrassingly small income.

 

[The Revolting Man]

True but children cost a lot more.

They do not. I promise.

 

[LDremoved]

You would be shocked how big of a family you can have one embarrassingly small income.

I agree from experience but it was not fun and I wouldn't want to do it over again if I had other options. I just can't fault other women for exploring those options first.

 

[LDremoved]

They do not. I promise.

Just as an example, I went to two technical colleges for 25k total. I've spent well over that on two children in 13 years lol that's why I made that statement. We've spent that much just on my niece's braces alone.

 

[FollowingHim]

You would be shocked how big of a family you can have one embarrassingly small income.

To do that, you need a stay-at-home wife. That's what makes it affordable. It would be far more difficult with all parents working. I think you are misapplying your own experience @LovesDogs.

Just as an example, I went to two technical colleges for 25k total. I've spent well over that on two children in 13 years lol that's why I made that statement.

And if you had a stay-at-home wife who hadn't been to two technical colleges, you'd already be $25k in credit before beginning!

 

[FollowingHim]

The insurance we have for the kids doesn't even cover braces, my niece has had two sets which were 10k each. We're still paying back the loan for the last set and my nephew is going to need them soon as well.

I was thinking about this and I wonder - how much does dental insurance cost in the USA? And what does it cover - does it cover general dental checkups but not when a major expense is required?

The point of insurance is to cover unexpected large expenses that do not happen for most people. There is no point in insurance for everyday expenses. For instance, it makes economic sense to insure against your house burning down - most people's houses don't burn down, so a few dollars a year from everyone easily covers the cost of the few houses that do. But it would make no sense to have "electricity bill insurance", because everyone gets electricity bills regularly, spreading that cost around would only make it more expensive for everyone (due to added administration costs), and less fair as individuals could not do anything to reduce their own bills.

If your "insurance" is paying for checkups and minor fillings, then you are paying for everyone else's fillings, and whatever you do to preserve the health of your own teeth you cannot reduce your own dental expenses.
If it then doesn't cover large unexpected expenses that don't happen to everyone (such as braces), then it's not covering the one thing that insurance is supposed to cover.
So it's not really insurance. It's the exact inverse of insurance - it's a rort.

Have you ever added up the actual cost of all the dental work you've had done under it and worked out if you'd be better off without the policy at all?

 

[LDremoved]

To do that, you need a stay-at-home wife. That's what makes it affordable. It would be far more difficult with all parents working. I think you are misapplying your own experience @LovesDogs.

And if you had a stay-at-home wife who hadn't been to two technical colleges, you'd already be $25k in credit before beginning!

I was using my personal experience as one argument, I think many can be made for the benefit of women chosing to pursue a higher paying career or educational opportunity to benefit her future family.

 

[LDremoved]

I was thinking about this and I wonder - how much does dental insurance cost in the USA? And what does it cover - does it cover general dental checkups but not when a major expense is required?

The point of insurance is to cover unexpected large expenses that do not happen for most people. There is no point in insurance for everyday expenses. For instance, it makes economic sense to insure against your house burning down - most people's houses don't burn down, so a few dollars a year from everyone easily covers the cost of the few houses that do. But it would make no sense to have "electricity bill insurance", because everyone gets electricity bills regularly, spreading that cost around would only make it more expensive for everyone (due to added administration costs), and less fair as individuals could not do anything to reduce their own bills.

If your "insurance" is paying for checkups and minor fillings, then you are paying for everyone else's fillings, and whatever you do to preserve the health of your own teeth you cannot reduce your own dental expenses.
If it then doesn't cover large unexpected expenses that don't happen to everyone (such as braces), then it's not covering the one thing that insurance is supposed to cover.
So it's not really insurance. It's the exact inverse of insurance - it's a rort.

Have you ever added up the actual cost of all the dental work you've had done under it and worked out if you'd be better off without the policy at all?

It's actually a catch 22 in her case. She has an issue with her jaw alignment, her health insurance says it's a dental issue and her dental insurance says it's a health issue. We even paid out of pocket for specialist to report back to both policies in hopes of getting either to cover braces and neither would. Honestly as far as I'm aware of most dental insurance policies don't cover braces, I could be wrong but the ones offered through our employment do not pay for them. It covers a portion of cleanings, fillings, extractions and xrays.

I do appreciate the suggestion though.

 

[FollowingHim]

I was using my personal experience as one argument, I think many can be made for the benefit of women chosing to pursue a higher paying career or educational opportunity to benefit her future family.

And I was using a smiley face to be very clear I wasn't criticising your personal experience, but also simply taking it as an opportunity to comment on a general principle.

There is a time and a place for everything. For instance, we want to use female midwives - and it takes a lot of training for a woman to become a midwife. And that's not the only example. There is certainly a place for women in higher education.

Nevertheless I think that in most cases there is likely even more benefit in avoiding that time and expense.

 

[LDremoved]

And I was using a smiley face to be very clear I wasn't criticising your personal experience, but also simply taking it as an opportunity to comment on a general principle.

There is a time and a place for everything. For instance, we want to use female midwives - and it takes a lot of training for a woman to become a midwife. And that's not the only example. There is certainly a place for women in higher education.

Nevertheless I think that in most cases there is likely even more benefit in avoiding that time and expense.

Oh I didn't take it like you were criticizing me, I thought you made a good point, sorry if it appeared that way. I was just stating that I see multiple valid arguments for taking the career/education option. I also see valid arguments for not pursuing that option as well and the benefit of polygamy really shows when it comes to discussions like these.