It is a reality that today many women cannot stay at home because they have bills to pay. Beyond economic problems, there are other reasons and many benefits that explain why a mother should have a part-time job. Approximately 25% of all women currently work part-time schedules (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009) and a majority of mothers work part-time at some point during their adult years (Budig & England, 2001). In their investigation, Buehler and O’Brien (2011) put the focus on mothers’ part-time employment because it’s a normative experience for U.S. mothers. They defined part-time employment as between 1 and 32 hours of work per week.
Every day it seems, someone announces an engagement, wedding, or a conception. Unlike past generations, these announcements do not automatically mean the employee is leaving her job to stay home with her new child for the next eighteen years. Some trends are showing that more women are choosing to stay at home and leave the work force when they do have a baby. (Hirshman, 2009:463) Woman in my workplace are adding a new dimension to herself; marriage or in the case of this essay, children. Usually there is excitement for the impending engagement or wedding.
When a Kuwaiti lady marries someone that is not Kuwaiti and living in Kuwait for many years, even their entire life the husband will not be a Kuwaiti. This is a problem because, the children will not be Kuwaiti and so they will not have a fair life. In fact, that’s why Kuwaiti women most of the time do not marry anyone that is not Kuwaiti. Moreover, the children’s of Kuwaiti women have very little rights. Like education, they have the ability to study until the university after that they should pay using their own money.
By 1945 80 percent of collective farm workers were women, providing a more traditional role for women in manual labour. The rapid growth of industrialisation and collectivisation led to a dramatic decrease in births in the early 1930’s. The government tried to implement measures to bring the birth rate back up. Women who had more than 6 children qualified for state help. The rewards were considerable amounts of money, women with 7 children received 2,000 roubles a year for five years and 5,000 a year for women with 11 children.
Women were another vulnerable group because they were always paid at a lower rate than men. There was no safety net for people who fell into poverty other than resorting to the ‘workhouse’ which had been established to deal with cases of extreme poverty in Trade unions had little power as the Taff Vale Incident of 1901 showed and Friendly Societies could only provide a limited amount of help. Attitudes to poverty in the early 20th century were quite unsympathetic many politicians from both the Liberal and Conservative party felt that poverty came from personal laziness. Both parties had an attitude of “laissez-faire” i.e. non interference from the government.
Thus, families that had to turn over much of their produce to landlords relied on these girls to send money home. This document comes from an outside source, a Buddhist priest, though, which could affect its truthfulness. In Document nine, Indian workers are described as peasants and farmers who earned low wages and lived in small huts. The speaker of this document was from the British Commission of Labor in India, so it was probably very accurate, coming from a government source. In document five, it is explained that wages are low from the factories because the factory workers are unattached parts of their family and only need to earn enough money to support a single person, not a whole family.
They see the rise in the symmetrical family as a result of major social changes in the past century; changes in women position, including married women going out to work, geographical mobility, more couples living away from the communities in which they grew up. Additionally, Gershuny found that wives who worked full time did less domestic work and that the longer the wife had been in pain work, the more housework her husband was likely to do. However, the most important thing is that the roles of the husband and wife, although not identical, are more similar now then they
For example, women now go out to work, just as men now help with housework and childcare. However Feminists reject the ‘March of Progress’ theory, and argue that women remain unequal within the family. Anne Oakley argues that we still live in a patriarchal (male dominated) society, and therefore women occupy a subordinate and dependant role within the family and wider society. In addition in Mary Boulton’s research backed this, she found that fewer than 20% of husbands had a majority role in childcare. Overall it could therefore be argued that rather than partners becoming more equal, women now have to carry a ‘dual burden’, whereby she is responsible for two jobs of unpaid or paid labour.
This shows that teenage pregnancy may be one of the major causes of poverty. Poor girls who have babies when they are teenagers, are more likely to be economically unsuccessful in the long term than their friends who wait to have children. Teen mothers are less likely to get the education to qualify for a well paying job, so they are stuck working very minimal hours at places like fast food restaurants.
The sole provider in a single parent home often does not have the ability to work a full time job or rather obtain a job with a high paying salary. Risman states, “Women who become single mothers are especially likely to have inadequate wages… because the shortage of publicly subsidized child care makes it difficult for them to work full time.” Although single parent households with the provider working full time has a much higher chance of not living in poverty, working full-time, as Thompson states in her article, leaves less time to spend with your child. This leads to my next point. Financial stress can also lead to improper child development, education, and social exposure. To give a hypothetical example,