Banty wrote:

In article , Penny Gaines says...

Rosalie B. wrote:

Given*that,*the*"no"*responses*don't*put*me*o ff*much.**If*one
is to answer the question "no", in fact, I'm not sure what other
reasons they could give.**What*"no"*rationale*could*a*parent
give that would be logically acceptable to a working parent?

How about - she is taking the job from a man who is supporting his
family?

Well, not neccessarily from a man: if the spouse has an above
average income, and the mother's job paid below or at the average
income, then the mother-with-a-well-paid-spouse might be taking
the job which could be done by the mother-with-a-badly-paid-spouse.

But where are we going with this?

IIRC, the question was - what other significant reason could someone
give to the question "Should a mother work if she doesn't need to do
so?" OTHER THAN that she should be home mothering her kids because it
will be better for the kids. I was offering the old
taking-a-job-from-a-man idea as one that could be used in the NO WOHM
argument. Not a very good argument, but better than the idea that
women have to follow their nurturing instincts or they will be
unhappy.


How about the single man who 'takes a job' away from a man with two kids?
How about the man with two kids who 'takes a job' away from a man with four
kids?

Yadda yadda.

Only when it's mothers do we worry about who is 'taking' whose job.

Banty

Right

grandma Rosalie