We have a society that praises volunteerism but wants everyone in the workforce. The socialist state makes it a necessity for women to work, so that the the army of informal caregivers (women) who took care of kids, grandparents, and neighbors, and volunteered in all the organizations and activities that held communities together no longer exists. Only a wealthy society can afford to have people doing the hard, unappreciated job of being full time informal caregivers, and the US is growing poorer by the day. Funny, all the women joining the work force was supposed to make everyone wealthier.
I'm not trying to start up the stay-at-home vs working women wars. I respect what choices people make for themselves. I am pointing out how values have changed so that when people choose to be out of the workforce to care for someone, is is considered to be an economic burden to society, and that's a shame.
Well said.
But a lot of it is cultural not economic. Even in very poor countries (were women do work in farming or as small market traders) families take care of their own kids and older people. They work it out somehow ... I’m sure there are many sacrifices being made.
Even in pioneer days, women worked tending gardens and putting up food for the winter, making clothing, etc. They weren’t just sitting around with a lot of leisure time. And people still took care of their elder family members.
In native american families, women put in a full day’s work gathering food, making and mending clothing, making baskets, etc. They weren’t called “stay at teepee” moms. They have a full workload + taking care of children, elderly parents etc.
Most families today could afford for one person to be outside the paid workforce if they had more modest standards of living. But would they choose to spend that time taking care of older family members?
New book out:
Invisibles: The Power of Anonymous Work in an Age of Relentless Self-Promotion
http://www.amazon.com/Invisibles-Power-Anonymous-Relentless-Self-Promotion-ebook/dp/B00G3L7YCC