• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mothers now top earners in 4 in 10 US households

PeteEU said:
So the only thing women should think about is finding a man to provide and protect them and start producing babies?
Click to expand...

Not what I wrote at all. Not by a long shot. It's about choosing who you have children with if you have them.

Read the article.
 
ecofarm said:
That's true (last I saw a study), and there's the glass ceiling.
Click to expand...

I'm extremely familiar with both the "glass ceiling" and the "mommy track," and this is why I asked.

Take your line of work, for example. Do female teachers/profs earn less on average than men? (I've never checked and don't know.) Does a male Taco Bell manager earn more than a female manager?
 
Erod said:
This is universal to any time.
Click to expand...

No it is not... it so far from reality in the 21st century as it can be. Women have rights now days... and can think for themselves. They are not the slaves of men.

Who you decide to have children with has a great deal to do with what the rest of your life will be. How can you possibly argue with that?
Click to expand...

Well that implies that you have to have children..... this is the 21st century and women are not slaves of men in the western world. They dont HAVE to have children like in the "good old days".
 
ecofarm said:
How can single mothers be the "higher earner" in a household?
Click to expand...

That's the point of the article. In a single-parent household, obviously that parent is the high earner, and when 63 percent of that 4/10 is made up of single mothers.......well, that's the reason for the 4/10.

The article didn't state what the percentage was in married families with two earners.

EDIT: Actually it did, the mother is the breadwinner in 15 percent of married couples.
 
Erod said:
Not what I wrote at all. Not by a long shot. It's about choosing who you have children with if you have them.

Read the article.
Click to expand...

I have and it shows that times are changing... I would say for the better. I would rather have a single mom/dad that is loving and caring than live in a house with a mother and father who cant stand each other but are forced by social norms to stay together to raise children that also were most likely forced on them by social pressures from family.

Who you have children with should always be based on love, not social pressure and no being married is in no way a requirement.
 
PeteEU said:
So the only thing women should think about is finding a man to provide and protect them and start producing babies?
Click to expand...

...and a false dichotomy fallacy. You're just wandering around the forums using every debate fallacy to fill a quota, maybe?
 
Erod said:
That's the point of the article. In a single-parent household, obviously that parent is the high earner, and when 63 percent of that 4/10 is made up of single mothers.......well, that's the reason for the 4/10.

The article didn't state what the percentage was in married families with two earners.

EDIT: Actually it did, the mother is the breadwinner in 15 percent of married couples.
Click to expand...

And what percent of the 4/10 stat was married couples?

Mixing the two stats makes the discussion of either rather tedious.
 
In this economy people need two steady incomes to support a family
 
PeteEU said:
No it is not... it so far from reality in the 21st century as it can be. Women have rights now days... and can think for themselves. They are not the slaves of men.



Well that implies that you have to have children..... this is the 21st century and women are not slaves of men in the western world. They dont HAVE to have children like in the "good old days".
Click to expand...

Good gawd, you missed the point entirely.

So if women are so "free from men" and don't "need to have kids anymore", why are unmarried women having them in litters? .
 
ecofarm said:
And what percent of the 4/10 stat was married couples?

Mixing the two stats makes the discussion of either rather tedious.
Click to expand...

37 percent married, 63 percent single moms.
 
PeteEU said:
No it is not... it so far from reality in the 21st century as it can be. Women have rights now days... and can think for themselves. They are not the slaves of men.



Well that implies that you have to have children..... this is the 21st century and women are not slaves of men in the western world. They dont HAVE to have children like in the "good old days".
Click to expand...

Just FYI, women have always been able to think for themselves.

And while it's true that women don't "have" to have children, what Erod's saying is, in my opinion, truthful: The ideal situation is two loving parents. Sometimes, it's better for the family to be led by one parent, and I've done this. But it's terribly hard even if the woman has a marketable skill-set.
 
Erod said:
37 percent married, 63 percent single moms.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm all for women being the top earner in married households, it should be 50%. I'm not for single parents, I think that's a very difficult situation wherein it is impossible to avoid compromising the needs of the child.
 
PeteEU said:
I have and it shows that times are changing... I would say for the better. I would rather have a single mom/dad that is loving and caring than live in a house with a mother and father who cant stand each other but are forced by social norms to stay together to raise children that also were most likely forced on them by social pressures from family.

Who you have children with should always be based on love, not social pressure and no being married is in no way a requirement.
Click to expand...

No one is forcing anyone, and there are no "requirements".

But it makes an ENORMOUS difference in the eventual lives of those children. Growing up in a happy two-parent home is the greatest advantage a kid can have these days.
 
PeteEU said:
Who you have children with should always be based on love, not social pressure and no being married is in no way a requirement.
Click to expand...

Who you make a baby with generally is always based on love. Who sticks around after the "love" fades away and the hard work of raising a baby starts makes the social pressure a necessary part of the equation. Babies need more than itinerant parents who feelings about each other are blown around like leaves in the wind.
 
ecofarm said:
Well, I'm all for women being the top earner in married households, it should be 50%. I'm not for single parents, I think that's a very difficult situation wherein it is impossible to avoid compromising the needs of the child.
Click to expand...

And it would be, if not for the fact that many women PREFER to back off their career goals in order to be more involved with their kids.

Not every woman has the same personal, social, or political views you wish they did. Therefore, it's 15 percent, not 50.
 
Erod said:
And it would be, if not for the fact that many women PREFER to back off their career goals in order to be more involved with their kids.

Not every woman has the same personal, social, or political views you wish they did. Therefore, it's 15 percent, not 50.
Click to expand...

This is not about my political "wishes". You can wish all you want, and pray to an invisible sky wizard... that's great. But I don't do that. This about a society in which both sexes are provided equal opportunity. Crap about women being nurturing (and men being less capable of such) is nothing more than neanderthalic grunting. I reject your societal dogma and substitute reality.
 
Erod said:
Please, not this thread.

I didn't write the article.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter on the article. You are arguing its best for a family to have 2 parents to create a stable loving home and I am wondering if it applies to all types of families.
 
ChuckBerry said:
No kidding, that's a mountain of TNT ready to derail the thread and throw the whole train into the upper atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Yep, every thread here tends to devolve into gay marriage or Hitler. LOL
 
americanwoman said:
Doesn't matter on the article. You are arguing its best for a family to have 2 parents to create a stable loving home and I am wondering if it applies to all types of families.
Click to expand...

It is best for a family to involve THE mother and THE father in a happy marriage, yes. But again, let's please not let this digress into a gay marriage thread. That will take this discussion a million miles away from the OP. Let's at least wait until page 80.
 
Erod said:
It is best for a family to involve THE mother and THE father in a happy marriage, yes. But again, let's please not let this digress into a gay marriage thread. That will take this discussion a million miles away from the OP. Let's at least wait until page 80.
Click to expand...


This is nothing to do with gay marriage but the perception on what an ideal "good stable family" has to be.
 
So if Hitler and Eva Braun were the only parents available for your child (assuming the child isn't Jewish), why would you NOT want them to adopt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom