How attitudes have changed towards women?

@HettyMaud you've not met my daughter - she is a physically strong woman, taller than her father, I'd have hoped that the attitude that women were little and weak had died the death by the 21st century. Many women are physically very strong. Not just here, look at the women abroad who have to carry huge pots of water for miles many times a day
I have lost strength as I've aged, but I think that happens to men too, and often help I've needed from a man has been because he was physically bigger than I was, taller, with longer arms.

Not my attitude. The apparently feral kids here have a working father and stay at home, non-functioning mum.

The little one was screaming outside my house, having tripped and skinned her elbow. I carried her home and through their (permanently open) door.

The woman didn't move a muscle, appearing glued to the sofa and TV. 'What now?' she said 'I can't watch anything without being interrupted'.

I deposited the screamer and left, saying 'Your welcome!'

I still remember with horror when I worked for 6 months in the USA. There was a discussion about a forthcoming election and one of my colleagues, who I had considered an intelligent and rational woman, said that she would vote for whoever her husband told her to.

I think it went off on a tangent because there’s obviously still the attitude amongst some that good mothers stay at home to raise well behaved children whereas bad mothers go out to work, neglect their children and raise feral mischief makers who cause menace in their neighbourhoods. I paraphrase but you get my drift.

Oh and YES totally agree no matter how much equality in life. MEN will always be stronger physically than women!

Why has this thread gone off on a tangent about stay at home mums? It was originally about different attitudes to women as opposed to say the 70’s wasn’t it?

That doesn’t answer my question Hetty

SirChenjin, I'd only want to be rescued by somebody who had the physical strength to do it. Most women wouldn't and that's a fact.

Grammaretto
You have chosen to comment on one point out of my whole post, and ignored the others. Yes, the thread is about attitudes to women, but they can only really be discussed in relation to attitudes to men, can't they?

Do you have any comment to make on the other points?

I'm not remotely concerned about having the last word - I have been out all day, and wanted to reply to the posts I missed, is all.

Also - I haven't 'chosen' to take offence - I am offended by some of your comments. Either you are very clumsy at getting your point across, or you are deliberately continuing to be dismissive of points of view that differ from your own. Putting a at the end of a barbed comment doesn't diminish the barb, incidentally - it is passive aggressive, as is the rest of your post.

You may not have intended to cause offence but your choice of language to describe working parents (specifically mothers) and the consequence of that in terms of creating children who are turfed out to roam the streets and cause mayhem has been offensive. It’s an outdated and rather ignorant view of mothers who work and one which I suspect you continue to hold without apology.

The reason it is all about the mother is because, at the time of writing, the mother is the woman. The thread subject was about attitudes towards women. Doodledog
We can always have another thread about changing attitudes to men.
I think we have probably had all the mileage out of this one. Unless you want to have the last word of course.

I think you have chosen to take offence at some of my words where none was intended.

In 1970 I was told by my boss that as I was married I shouldn't earn as much as men as it was just "pin money". He knew nothing of my personal circumstances.

This conversation isn't getting us anywhere. I do think attitudes have changed but I also think society has changed and whereas it was safe and acceptable to turf your DC out onto the streets in the past, it is no longer the case.

What attitudes do you think have changed? If you mean the attitude that mothers should be dependent on their husbands, and give up their careers to stay at home bringing up their children, then they don't appear to have changed very much.

Or do you mean the attitude that feral youth are a product of poor mothering (as defined by a woman who works for a living and contributes to society and to her family) then that doesn't seem to have changed either.

I think it is your dismissive attitude that is the problem. You talk of your children 'breaking the mould' by staying at home with their respective children, when others, including my husband, were doing this 30 years ago or more.

You talk of the 'vital work' that your daughter does, which suggests that those who work both outside and inside the home are not vital to their children, or not providing a vital part of their lives.

As has already been said, to suggest that 'bringing up children' only happens when there is a parent on the premises at all times is ridiculous - many, if not most, parents work, and still bring up their children in a loving, caring and responsible way.

You talk of children 'roaming the streets' in the holidays when their mums are at work. They are 'in danger' and a 'menace' because they have been 'turfed out' with nobody 'in charge' of them. There is no mention of a male role model, which research has shown to be vital in preventing delinquency in young men and boys - it is all about the mother, whose place is in the wrong.

Is it any wonder that the conversation isn't getting anywhere? You accused posters of being defensive, but people do get defensive when they feel attacked, and that is certainly how your posts are coming across.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by getting us anywhere. If you mean we're not going to agree that poor parenting as opposed to working parents per se is the root cause of mischief making, then probably not. Unsupervised, mischief making youths have been around for centuries - and that includes periods in history when women have traditionally been at home.

My youngest child is still at an age where he's out playing and going into town on the bus with his friends - it's perfectly acceptable and so it should be, as it was when I was nearly 13. As someone upthread said, these children (and their parents) are either being accused of being couch potatoes who spend too long in front of their screens or menaces who are a danger to themselves and others.

This conversation isn't getting us anywhere. I do think attitudes have changed but I also think society has changed and whereas it was safe and acceptable to turf your DC out onto the streets in the past, it is no longer the case.
I'm not saying it's an improvement, just different.
I didn't mean to imply that all mischief makers were the DC of working parents. Certainly not, but in my experience, and I can only speak from that, unsupervised youth can be a menace and have been a menace on several occasions to me and my family.

Thanks for everyone's input. It has been an interesting thread.

No, I paraphrased when I said feral layabouts. So you believe that mischief making is solely down to working parents? No other forms of parenting can be blamed for that? Was roaming the streets not something that my generation or yours did with a mother (always a mother...) at home? Because I can remember doing a lot of roaming as a child, but funnily enough my mum and my friends’ mums weren’t blamed for that, nor were we seen as being in danger - it was classed as healthy, outdoor pursuits necessary for our confidence building, ability to make friends and learn a bit of independence.

I doubt I have much influence on DD. She lives 5 hours away so I can't help her much. The roaming children are a bit of a feature in our small Scottish town. I suppose I do wonder who is supposed to be in charge of them when they are not at school.

The recent council cuts mean that there are no longer holiday play schemes so some parents feel they have no alternative.

I did not suggest they would become feral layabouts but I do think they are in danger.

I was 15 when I left school and started my first job in 1972. Had lots of friends there of my age and all said that they were going to leave work when they got married and had children. We were thinking around the age of 20. As it happened I tried to go back to work after I had my son when I was 21 but after my (rare) child minder got ill after a couple of months, I left my job ...which was incidentally my 3rd typing job in a row with a very good salary. I had many part time jobs later on after children went to Nursery. My then husband just carried on as normal in his job and he earned less than me.

Of course no-one should feel they have to justify their decision to work or not work - I just found it interesting that she chooses to cite ‘bringing up my children’ as a reason for not working when it’s the norm for other parents to work and bring up their children. I also found it interesting (and not helpful) that you implied that working parents = children roaming the streets and causing mischief. I wonder if you’ve passed your views onto her and she somehow feels that she shouldn’t work because their children will become feral layabouts as a result (which is nonsense, of course).

I know SirChengin but sometimes the boot is on the other foot and DD is almost alone among her peers in being a SAHP. She feels patronised for her choice which is financial as well as practical because the kind of job available where she lives, would not pay for childcare but anyway she wants to be with her DC all the time at least until they start school.

I’m not getting defensive - I’m 22 years into parenting and I now just roll my eyes at people who claim they have to stay at home to be parents or keep their hooligan children out of trouble.

Please try not to get defensive! What I am trying to point out is that, both/all ways of bringing up children are valid but whatever you choose and for whatever reasons there is someone who criticies you or makes you feel you have to defend yourself/your choices.
There should not need to be a justification.
I believe that SAHMs are becoming rarer as more nurseries open and childcare is on the political agenda (at least it was....) and as couples/parents are choosing/encouraged/forced to work outside the home.

DH worked away for sixteen years so all the mundane tasks were my job. We needed new double glazing but they wouldn't let me sign the contract, it had to be signed by the man of the house. I told them that was a bit short sighted as I was the one who had all the money and promptly chased them, they lost a lucrative order.
I was also considered a chattel of DH and I had to tell him about my savings and interest so that he could fill in his tax form.

Excellent post Doodledog. I remember almost having a serious fall out with my sister when she announced that she was taking a break from nursing to stay at home to be a “proper mum”. Of course, her husband didn’t feel the need to give up work in order to be a proper dad, but somehow that was what she believed was necessary. As a working parent it was both incredibly hurtful and insulting to face an accusation that I somehow wasn’t a proper mum.

I worked and still work now for a company, where they used to have uniforms that only went up to a certain size. If you put on weight you couldn’t work as you couldn’t fit into the uniform. There would be outrage if this was still their company policy. I also wouldn’t be able to work there now if that was still their policy, 2 children later and the menopause has thickened my middle considerably.