OK, so let the flaming begin - I don't think women should work.
Let me justify that statement.
First of all I am a woman and I do work, but I still don't think it's right, and here's why:

Think back to when my folks first got married in the 70s. In those days it was not so common for a woman, especially a married woman to work. Many women did work - and I'm sure I'll get people telling me they did but I'm just speaking about what I know.
When they bought their house it cost £13,000 - today it is worth £350,000.
As it was uncommon for women to work a woman wage was not counted in the mortgage. Therefore the cost of houses were low as they had to be bought with just one wage.

As the years went by more and more labour saving devices came into the home. The introduction of the automatic washing machine meant that washing didn't take all day like it did with a twin tub (I used to have one, it really did take all day). Fridges and freezers meant that food could be bought ready made days in advance so removed need for a daily shop. Dishwashers and microwaves also cut down on kitchen tasks.

Then women decided that they should work. This meant that more children were becoming what a generation earlier had been looked down on as latch key children, coming home to an empty house.
Dinners were ready meals rather than home cooked, mums were not there during the day if a child needed to come home from school.
But the most important change was that the price of houses went up. In the late 80s it was decided to take account of the womans wage when lending money for a mortgage. As couples could now afford bigger houses the cost of them went up accordingly. Take my folks house for example.

The up shot of all this is that for most families to live in a decent house both partners have to work. They have no choice. I work, I'd like to have children, but I just don't see a way we could afford for me to take time off work.

This means that now most women work just to make ends meet. This means that many children spend more time with child minders than their family. when children come home from work mothers are to stressed from work to spend 'quality time' with their children.


*sits back and awaits flaming*
( Mrs Entity is in hiding., Wed 30 Dec 2009, 10:02, 25 replies)

Don't worry too much.
Global financial armageddon is coming soon, so houses should be a lot cheaper. UK treasury bonds might almost be worthless soon, and that's sure to bring down housing prices.
(stuntsmile, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 10:23, closed)

it is hard to flame
sound arguments.
(Pingoo likes cheese, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 10:24, closed)

I agree that it's important that a parent is home for the children as much as possible.
I don't agree that it HAS to be the woman.
( girlinthehole, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 10:30, closed)

this ^
symmetry: i don't see why a man should work?
( writerblock ... embedding disabled by request on, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 10:36, closed)

I agree, either parent will do.
However, if women hadn't started working in the first place we wouldn't be in this situation.
( Mrs Entity is in hiding., Wed 30 Dec 2009, 10:58, closed)

Or.......
If men had helped more with the kids all those years ago thus making it seem normal, then this wouldn't be an issue.
( girlinthehole, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 11:25, closed)

fair point but...
... you could make the case that both genders were trapped in highly constrained roles for quite some time and where men could be violent, anti-social, controlling and got killed in wars, women could be bitchy, manipulative and got raped 'because they were asking for it' ... neither was really very good ... so what we used to do has been used as a template for what happens *now*, but what happens *next* is up to us to decide ...
( writerblock ... embedding disabled by request on, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 12:18, closed)

This is the hamster complaining the wheel is going too fast.
( Larry Vest One day at a time, sweet Jesus, FFS., Wed 30 Dec 2009, 11:23, closed)

The real reason house prices went up so much...
is a tad more complicated. More money, because more people work, is a part of it.

But what happened was rather pointless and simply indebted many of us to the banks.

Here's how (assuming zero inflation, by the way):

Houses are a fairly finite resource. More accurately, the land to put them on is, and in the UK we still have something of a phobia for high-rise, although some cities are starting to get past this now.

So, you have a plot with a house on it, once worth £13k. It was an average house, and average household income was, say, £5k. Banks were much more reluctant to lend back then, so they'd only give 2x income mortgages at best. That meant that an average household could afford an average house at £10k + £3k deposit. Perfectly fine.

In the recent madness, banks found it was very cheap for them to borrow even for what were actually quite high risk borrowers. It was a slow process - first mortgages went up to 3x with a 5% deposit. The same family who could afford the £13k house can suddenly afford a £15k+deposit house - say, £18k. The borrowers didn't see the increased risks to them and their livelihoods, and all that happened was that it might take longer to pay back the mortgage, and people are rubbish at looking at future costs. If they weren't, they wouldn't buy into so many rubbish 24mth mobile phone contracts.

Anyway, before long you had 5x mortgages. So Mr & Mrs Average can suddenly afford £25k+deposit house. Then some banks had the fantastic wheeze of self-certified mortgages, where you didn't need to prove your income - you just signed a declaration that said "I really really promise that this is true." Well guess what, many people are dirty rotten liars. Especially the ones who are rubbish at seeing ahead. Suddenly Mr & Mrs Average declare that they actually make £8k a year. Now they get that £40k+deposit dream house. Far better than the poxy £13k house they'd have got at the beginning.

Except it's the Same. Freaking. House.

Who benefits? Well, the banks, of course. Not the liars. Not Mr & Mrs Average. They all bought into it because so many people have been fed the bizarre belief that houses are great investments that only ever go up. With the geared investments made on a house (you actually only 'invest' the deposit) the profits seem massive. That £10k house has a £3k investment, but by the end of the story it's worth what? £43k? So in the period of the story, the original investment will have returned £43k - £3k - £10k = £30k. That's a hell of a return.

So the real value behind a house disappears as people get caught up in a borrowed investments frenzy. Banks take excessive risks, individuals take excessive risks, and the only people that actually benefit are those who bought their homes when they were relatively cheap. Old middle-class people, funnily enough. Which helps them pay for their care homes when they get all frail, and also fills in the pension gap.

And that, dear friends, is why the government allowed this to happen...

PS - I just realised what a long rant that was. Soz.
(clopinettes, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 11:24, closed)

also...
... if you dropped into the middle of the housing frenzy of the last 15 years say, and found that your housing options were

1. stretching past the limit to get a mortgage on a decent place or
2. renting a flat underneath a sociopathic ex junkie

then most people would aim for '1' ... which also added to the upward price spiral, until such times as '1' was no longer an option for anyone earning less than £35k pa unless they had rich parents ... now lots of people live underneath sociopathic ex junkies (not that i'm bitter)
( writerblock ... embedding disabled by request on, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 12:13, closed)

but...
...you weren't forced to live under the sociopath. Of course, the cost of renting is linked to the cost of property, so that's an issue too.

Blame the banking industry which was, in effect, generating a housing based Ponzi scheme. Sorta.

One thing I've noticed is that far fewer people seem to share with friends, especially outside of London, than they used to. This is a shame - this is a chance for some people to maybe learn some social skills, meet new folks, etc.
(clopinettes, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 18:56, closed)

All too true...
But I blame Womens Lib. Yes you can have a career and children and marriage, but you will suffer the conscequencies of such selfish foolishness. Well done lezzers!
(minky, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 11:25, closed)

*click*
a good sound argument
( cakelady, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 12:08, closed)

What about
Those of us who want to work and don't want kids?
(DryGoldfish, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 13:02, closed)

I agree with this post.

( idonthaveafunnynickname Drink-Aware? Sure. I'm aware I want another drink., Wed 30 Dec 2009, 13:17, closed)

True only for specific cases
What about girls who don't get married at 18? Am I supposed to be scrounging off my parents until I get married, even if I'm 40 when that happens, if ever? And what if they don't have children? Having one parents not work when a married couple has children makes a lot of sense, less when all children are old enough to be at school most of the day, little sense when they don't have any children, and retarded sexist bullshit when the woman is single.

It is also homophobic bullcrap because what are lesbians supposed to do?
(GothicTechie, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 14:23, closed)

Let me clarify
the 'women shouldn't work' was something of an attention grabbing headline.

Really what I'm saying is that it is sad that we have got into a situation where all the adults in a family have to work.
To be honest I am the breadwinner in our household, earning nearly twice what husband does.
If we have children, which has been put off due to not being able to afford to, it will be him that drops hours at work to look after them.

As for homophobia, if the situation didn't exist then only one person from a gay couple would have to work leaving the other free to look after children.

What I am really saying is that more women entering the work place has pushed up the cost of living and therefore forced both members of a couple to work even if they don't want to.

Women are being pressured by the media, especially womens magazines, to have it all. Your house should be beautiful, you should have a great job and your children should be well mannered, working hard at school and be well presented.
It can't be done, and the sooner the cost of living gets back to a stage where people can live off just one salary, be it that of either partner the better it will be for everyone.
( Mrs Entity is in hiding., Wed 30 Dec 2009, 14:54, closed)

That's fair enough
but not what you said in your original message.

I'm very glad to be living in a society where getting married at 18 isn't a financial necessity, even if that is a contributing factor to house prices being insane. Saying the world would be better if only one half of married couples had to work is a good thing (partly because either one can become unemployed), saying it's the man who has to work is what causes societies where women are forced into loveless marriages to be able to afford to eat because that's what makes people think no women should work.
(GothicTechie, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 15:23, closed)

And
missing the point on a massive scale in 3..... 2...... 1........

At what point did I say women should stay in loveless marriages?
If you read the original message, womens wages were not taken into account when a married couple bought a house.
Do you really think that I think that women shouldn't work period?

Also, who the fuck cares what I think. This is a funny website where people call each other cunts.
Do what you want with your life, I don't give a shit.
( Mrs Entity is in hiding., Wed 30 Dec 2009, 15:33, closed)

"I don't think women should work."

"First of all I am a woman and I do work, but I still don't think it's right"

You have a weird definition of "missing the point", since you have yet to explain where you expect the unmarried womens' incomes to come from if they're not supposed to be working. You also seem to be overly sensitive for a website where people enjoy calling each other cunts :)
(GothicTechie, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 17:47, closed)

Fair point
Missing the point of QOTW.

It doesn't fucking matter.

So that is my ill considered opinion which contradicts itself. Don't care. It was a comment made on the internet.
Do what you want with your life, I don't care.
( Mrs Entity is in hiding., Wed 30 Dec 2009, 18:51, closed)

My missus and I can live off my income, comfortably.
But she enjoys working part time - she's a scientist and enjoys the company of her colleagues. It also gives her adult company away from me and our son.

And extra pennies for toys!

Win-win.

Although we only use family for childcare...
( disasterprone "Pyjamas caused the Holocaust", Mon 4 Jan 2010, 14:48, closed)

I understood what you meant
And I've been saying the same for a while. It's more about people being encouraged to abandon family values to attain a secondary income that's the issue.

Too many were pushing for women to work when what should have been pushed was that it doesn't matter who actually gets the income.

But I do have to say, often when you figure everything in, you really don't get much more net income with a second income anyway. Between transport costs, child minding and pre-prepared foods, the difference can be accounted for with mild lifestyle changes.

Which is not to disparage anyone who feels the need to work. It's just often less necessary than people would imagine.
(Richy_T hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Wed 30 Dec 2009, 19:47, closed)

Agree, but boring...
...can't we get back to jokes about women's tits??
(Colonel Blink is now officially a pretentious prick, Thu 31 Dec 2009, 14:52, closed)

two facts* to consider
Working class women always worked (taking in washing, factory work etc). It was a relatively short lived phenomenon of women not working, confined to the middle classes. As the middle classes grew so did the number of women staying at home working. Women at home had a hell of a lot more work to do then they would have now eg collecting firewood to for the copper to do the clothes, making soap, making and mending clothes, keeping the fire going to heat the home and cook food, stringing beans, looking etc etc

The other thing to consider is the standard of housing in the old days compared to now. In the 70s (and earlier) a new home typically did not include things like light fixtures, carpeting, landscaping etc, and was rather smaller (even though families were larger). Aspiration demands bigger and better things.

The way I see it, it is the middle class values of aspiration and keeping-up-with-the-jonesesness which is the real cause of /ALL/ our problems.

*may not be facts, too lazy to check at the moment.
( Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Fri 1 Jan 2010, 12:14, closed)