E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe latest Mommy Wars hoopla on the presidential campaign trail centers on a Mitt Romney statement: “I want individuals to have the dignity of work.”
Romney recently defended his wife’s decision to be a stay-at-home mom and never punch a clock, but in a past speech called for welfare moms to earn a paycheck because of the dignity earning money provides.
Politics aside, the candidate’s declaration about the benefits of paid work opens up an important question. Does earning a living provide individuals with dignity?
“In American culture, it is very difficult to substitute the kind of honored dignity that comes with paid work,” said Katherine Newman, a sociologist and the dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Johns Hopkins University.
“There’s a premium we place on people in the work world; not that there isn’t tremendous effort put into raising a family,” said Newman, author of “Falling from Grace: Downward Mobility in the Age of Affluence.” “But our society has always defined being in the work world as essential to being a respected adult, and this is self reinforcing.”
Of course, any mother – including Ann Romney – will tell you that parenting is hard work. But in our society, we tend to value paid work differently than difficult tasks that do not come with a paycheck.
Jeremy Carter of Polara Studios
Janie Marsh, an excon who found dignity in work
Janie Marsh, 43, from McMinnville, Ore., is a prime example. She battled drug addiction and alcoholism for 20 plus years, living in the woods and behind dumpsters until ultimately ending up in jail at 36 for a host of charges including stealing cars.
She eventually went through drug treatment, took employment classes at Goodwill Industries, and landed a job in landscaping. “I had never mowed a lawn in my life,” she said.
But, she added, “the first time I saw those lines on the lawn, and a paycheck, it was the greatest feeling. It reconnected me with my community I’d been estranged from. It gave me back my dignity.”
Dignity is hard to define. Merriam-Webster defines it as: “The quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed.” And The American Heritage Dictionary’s meaning says it’s “the presence of poise and self-respect in one’s deportment to a degree that inspires respect.”
The idea of dignity -- according to one extensive study on the topic, “A Taxonomy of Dignity,” by a University of Toronto researcher published in the online journal BioMed Central in 2009 -- “has been criticized for being vague and contradictory.” But the study defined “dignity of self” as “a quality of self-respect and self-worth that is identified with characteristics like confidence and integrity and a demeanor described as dignified.”
So does employment really help bring about self-respect and self-worth?
Of the list of dignity promoters in the University of Toronto study, being self-sufficient, doing the job right, and working with others were among a list of many contributors to dignity.
“This is why I’m an enduring fan of Roosevelt,” said Newman, about President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who championed the New Deal giving the unemployed jobs during the Great Depression. “He put the nation to work and understood that it's more important that people have jobs, no matter who’s providing them jobs, because if you’re not working you don’t feel you’re whole.”
But Stephen Balzac, a professor of organizational psychology at the Wentworth Institute of Technology and author of “The 36-Hour Course in Organizational Development,” said not all work promotes dignity.
“In general, jobs have the potential to provide people with dignity, defined as greater confidence, feelings of success, and a sense of control over one's life,” he said. “However, for the job to do that, it must be appropriately constructed to increase motivation and self-worth. Jobs that are seen as pure drudgery provide little dignity.”
Not everyone agrees.
Jim Gibbons, president and CEO of Goodwill Industries International, said dignity could be found in the most menial jobs.
“You can probably say there are a lot of high-paid consultants out there who aren’t feeling dignity in their work,” he pointed out. “It depends on the person, and it depends on the culture of an organization.”
Karen Dillon, co-author of the forthcoming book, “How Will You Measure Your Life?,” and contributing editor of the Harvard Business review, said it’s all about what makes you happy and makes you feel good about yourself.
She’s reluctant to use the word “dignity” in this context because she believes “it’s a simplistic way of looking at it.”
A baseline need has to be met by work, she continued, such as being able to support yourself and putting food on the table.
But no matter what an individual’s economic status, she added, the key is how you feel at the end of the day. “Did they feel like something mattered and did they feel they were valued?” she said.
When Diane Johnson was newly married, in her twenties, and working as a broker, she pondered leaving the work world and focusing on starting a family but a friend at the time told her you need to "understand what work means" and told her to read the passage about work in Kahlil Gibran’s ‘The Prophet.’”
The section changed her mind and now, as she nears her 50th birthday, she said she’s happy she stayed in the work force, ultimately starting her own communications company.
The passage from the piece by Gibran, a poet and artist, that touched Johnson most:
“Always you have been told that work is a curse and labor a misfortune. But I say to you that when you work you fulfill a part of earth's furthest dream, assigned to you when that dream was born.”
Leave a Comment:
Always defined? What a short memory. In the fifty's and sixty's, two income families were in the distinct minority. Feminists convinced women that working was more rewarding than raising a family.
BS. No one disputes that raising a family has value. The issue is, how in the world does Ann Romney have any standing to "report" about women and the economy when she has never worked?
Most adults work or at least did work at some point in their lives. As hard as being a SAHM is--I've done it, it IS hard work--it isn't a qualifier to understand what most of us deal with daily.
Sure, maybe in the fifty's and sixties, but today, most people don't have the luxury of choosing. It's not a failure of morals as you seem to suggest, but more a decision based on economic need.
It is an honor to be able to throw your kids in daycare and "work" for an employer. Certainly dignified and independent. Lots of honor!
Parents, I suggest you "grow up" and at least work different shifts.
He was talking about welfare moms. Some people have to work and some work because they want more stuff. Why should a welfare mom not have to work? Dignity comes from not taking the free money. I have been a stay at home mom when my boys were little. We drove one car. Lived within our means. After I went back to work a a software engineer, we still lived on one income. We earned every dime we have. There are families in my neighborhood that are in over their heads financially. Mortgaged to their eyeballs and driving Lexus and BMWs. That is way different than the two income families in low paying jobs trying to really make ends meet. Ann Romney may not have had money problems but that does not mean she has no empathy for those who may be in difficulty. She impresses me as a person who can listen and give feedback to Mitt.
Yes. And children have been paying for this ever since.
Rickeroo, I like your comment, too.
I take issue with parents who both work because they put material gain before their children's well being. I am not talking about couples who both work out of necessity, but rather those who both work because they want the huge house, the iPhones, the trips, etcetera. These people think they are working because they have to, but really it's just to support materialism. And, I believe that people who fit the preceding description are the majority.
The problem I have is that, to me, many people are unable to divorce want from need. People are also, in my opinion, unable to make choices in their lives. If one wants material gain, by all means, pursue that goal...just don't have children. I don't think that we as a society are doing ourselves any favors by buying into the "have it all" mentality. You have to have priorities in life, or something--or someone--will lose out in the end. In our society, I think the children are the ones who are losing, sadly.
I agree with Liz and Rickero. I have had conversations with women where they come right out and say that they feel a little selfish about putting their kids in daycare but they didn't go to college to get tied down and stay home with the kids. If that is the case why have them? My wife gave up her career to stay at home to raise her own kids. She realized that the children were her most important thing in her life. It was tough with one salary but that is what she wanted to do so we made it happen. Fast forward 6 years she is now re-entering the workforce since both are now in school full time. I must say that I am jealous that she was able to stay home those 6 years and see all the first experiences that the kids went through. I was only able to see my boys 3 hours a day with my work schedule on the weekdays. I feel short changed.
U.S.A. population 313,409,166
U.S.A. income tax payers 133,455,113
Unemployed 12,829,963
actual employed 22,713,834
state & local employees 15,390,823
federal employees 4,338,335
U.S.A. work force 141,568,905
U.S.A retirees & SSI 67,066,207
food stamp recipients 46,653,828
There are 113,455,113 tax payers in the U.S.A. (actual producers.)
There are 133,449,213 who make their bones from the government. (tax funded pay.)
www.usdebtclock.org
For me, well,
I think most of you just brought out a bunch of straw men and executed them without the proper trial. Not even a straw judge, for chrissakes. And Ms. Tahmincioglu has a possibility of having the worst copy editor available. And that's saying something after seeing the headlines in the "Science" section here.
Seriously? Are you really this gullible? Where is the @!$%#ing DATA?!?!?! For those of you who can't tell (and it seems that is most), "data" is not the plural of "anecdote." I can appreciate that work can be helpful to some people, but this whole broad-brush painting, "common sense" bull@!$%# is undermining real understanding.
Here's an idea, the next time you want to do some "feel-good" piece about the hip "new" trend (that's been running in conservative circles for decades) and using such broad outlines to encompass a situation that you have little cognitive understanding of, just don't. Really.
Editors, take note.
bottom line is there are good jobs that provide a decent life, and then there are the majority of BS jobs that are demeaning, pay little wages, and offer no benefits.
I have had my share of crap jobs, and if I was still forced ot take crap jobs I owuld of left the owrk force and just said __ck it.
The problem today is there are way to many no benefit low wage crap jobs, and that doesn't provide any dignity, it just makes you more bitter that their aren't enough better options out there.
We need more union jobs where people make a decent wage, have some job security and benefits that make life a lot easier, and provide the real incentive for a days work.
Today we have put to much value in jobs where people just push paper instead of actually providing a real service. Those that provide good labor are not be rewarded or compensated properly IMO. Bureaucracy in this nations number one employer and that is part of our downfall
Yep, why even look for a job. "Dignity" is NOT a buzz word for Obama Bucks recipients:
@GuyLittle: It's very easy for you to think that those on the government paycheck don't count, but you're ignoring the invaluable service some of the government organizations provide that cannot be provided by the private sector, namely, scientific research and national defense.
Maybe in your eyes they produce nothing, but look at all the universities, hospitals, and laboratories that receive federal funding to continue their valuable research -- I don't see private companies shelling out money to do these necessary things. If you're unsure, I suggest you look into the following branches of the government: DoE, DoD, NSF, NIH, EPA, FDA, USGS, DARPA, ARPA, and their associate ilk.
Feminists convinced women and men that women should have the opportunity to work outside the home if they wanted too. Soon enough, a family HAD to have two wage earners to survive because of govt waste and debt.
If Ann R. had ben a person who had to get up at 4 take kids to babysitter,work 8hrs come home cook and take care the house plus kids then I would say she had someting to brag about. She go to these GOP rallies and come back wanting people to think she is talking to both parties.GOP women might not have pot to piss in and widow to throw it out. The only thing they want is Obama not to be president. It is so sad what this world has come to. Or I would say Obama being president made people come out the closet with all their hatful remarks.
Jesus, and the whole narrative about the "feminists" telling women to get out and work, and of course that's BAD, M'KAY? Because women BELONG at home, barefoot and pregnant, and couldn't possibly have anything to contribute to a society that a big strong man couldn't do better, because girls suck at math, amirite? (/sarcasm)
Seriously, this comment section is too depressing. So many stupid people spouting their @!$%#tardedness. I'm out.
Guy Little,
I want you to remember your comments about "government" workers the next time you go to the mailbox, you bank gets robbed, you are the victim of a natural disaster, or you use the public roadways, trains, or an airport. Remember those government employees include: police, firefighters, postal workers, flight controllers and FAA inspectors, the dreaded TSA and the FBI, the Veteran's Administration, and so on. The very fact that you can sit, in relative comfort and safety, at a computer and complain is due to those you complain about.
Plus, I find it humorous that your Dickensanian world view would have us all working in non-existent harnesses until we died and were pushed to the curb. I suppose you also want us rendered down for our fat and calcium content? Social Security and Medicare are neither free nor welfare, but benefits paid for by years of taxes.
Feminism has little to do with women working outside the house. Working is both a practical need for cash, and a practical need for socialization outside the household.
Single young women of middle or lower classes were always expected to support themselves. But, until the 1930's, most families lived in extended family environments, often with three or four generations living together or in close proximity. This provided time for seeing others, going to church, or talking to other adults. But the Depression splintered many of those ties, isolating women with their children. Spending all day with children? You try it. World War Two gave many the chance the chance to prove they could do "man's" work and excell at it. But all those men returning from war relieved American women of this "burden". Ironically, the same was not true in Europe, where so many men did not return, and women had to help rebuild the continent. The Recession of the 1980's effectively ended most arguments about two income households, as they became necessary to make 14-17% mortgage payments (common at the time). Even now, women are frequently THE breadwinner as their unemployed husbands look for work for the first time in decades.
All feminist goals, right?
Romney's right??? Like this headline suggests Romney's genius mind came up with this original thought "A Paycheck Can Provide Dignity". Maybe he ought to suggest that to his wife. Minimum wage for the 99% minions so Sir Romney can satisfy the elite.
Obama 2012 (Because 8 years of W and the GOP was more that the country can take)
Well Obama sure as hell didn't think of it! In fact there has been no initiative by him, or his administration to link benefits with work. That would make his base angry and maybe they wouldn't turn out to vote for the putz. Also bigfinn, the economy was doing just fine under W for the vast majority of those 8 years. Unemployment in the low 5's remember? You have it all backwards, 4 more years of Obama is more than this country can take. Finally, take off the blinders, yes republicans had a hand in the mess we're all in, but even more so the democrats who were in most cases the architects of this failure.
No one has been able to link benefits with work since Roosevelt. There was an effort in the 80's to do it, but nothing came of it.
Why not link benefits to some sort of work or job training for able-bodied people? I'm sure there are unemployed people who would jump at the chance to be retrained for another field. Of course, that costs money, and we can't have that.
hardtostarboard - are you serious? The economy fell during Ws watch. Here in Florida as early as 2007.
yes a paycheck can provide dignity, and so can being a stay-at-home mother, provided you have planned appropriately and can actually afford to stay at home and not depend on tax payers to support your choice.
If you don't think the (unpaid) job Mrs. Romney does to support her politician husband is worthy of a feeling of dignity, then I suppose you're disgusted by the lazy do-nothing Mrs. Obama sitting around the White House "not working."
Hard to starboard -- Give me a break. A decade in which unemployment was low but wages stagnated or went down is not a fully functioning economy. It was a mess and it showed when everything collapsed in the last months of his presidency. The whole 8 years was a sham. To try and convince us that Bush was somehow a good steward of ANYTHING is asenine. Be ignorant if you wish.
Bush was a disaster...
Vigla, you are the one whose ignorance is on full display. The left has done everything it can to discredit the Bush years, and I'm not a huge fan of W at all, I wish he'd been far more conservative. If you want to blame all the ills of our country on republicans, you are only looking at part of the problem. Democrats were front and center all along. The only difference is the dems and their accomplices in the media got to flood the airwaves with their propaganda from the beginning. people like you were gullible enough to swallow it hook, line, and sinker. America was a better place under Bush than Obama, he has been an utter failure. Nothing about the America of today is better than the America on the eve of the Obama presidency.
I would have amended the article to say that family income derived from work is very important for the dignity of its members. It doesn't matter whether that income is from one or more contributing members. That's one major thing we seem to have forgotten in our rush to outsource jobs to other countries. Along with the jobs, we exported the dignity that came with them.
Most people work because of the paycheck. An employer provides a job because it makes them profitable. Dignity is a side benefit. The government should not be in the business of making sure people are dignified. And to say Romney's wife never worked because she wasn't paid is ridiculous.
I think this comment is ridiculous. I have been a stay-at-home mom for 10+ years, after putting in 16 years of work, and his comment is an insult to those who don't want a babysitter to raise their kids. Sure, a paycheck is great (money makes the world go around, right?) but the only way I can lose my dignity is if my husband is not supportive of me staying home and resents sharing his paycheck! Government needs to keep its nose out of personal decisions.
Kristi, Romney is not talking about you UNLESS you're a welfare queen. And from what I read in your post, you are not. Romney is talkingabout all those who get and expect something for nothing. If anything it is the democrats who would view your decision to raise your family as undignified. Remember Hillary's comment 2 weeks ago to the affect that Mrs. Romney didn't work because she was a stay-at-home mom. I think you're backing the wrong horse in this race.
BS!!! I will notbe lectured by a party that views women and minorities with contempt. It shows when you embrace policies that restrict their rights. I grow tired of this self serving blather from the right that they are somehow better than the rest of us. The party of rich white men should not be allowed to dictate the rules for everyone else...
Vigla, you are right, how humiliating for the left to view women and minorities as lesser people, in need of special treatment. I'd be mad too.
Where came this idea that because a woman stays at home to focus on raising her children for a time that she'll never have paid work? It's like people can't wrap their heads around the idea that a woman's opportunity for work isn't limited to a simple either/or choice.
I'm now at home with my boys, but I wasn't always. Previously, I was an indexing project manager for an online records company, managing all our projects for Italian, German, Australian, and US census projects. In my college days I had a number of fantastic and educational jobs including police dispatching, fossil lab technician (coolest job ever), and research/editorial assistant for a research periodical. All these jobs were critical in developing skills and knowledge that I am now using as a mom at home. I choose to be here, and this is my work.. for now! When my boys are grown or in school, I look forward to finding fulfilling paid work to do. I might have a part time job while they're in school or whatever... I'm not stuck at home forever just because I choose to work here for a few years.
Su the point is Ann Romney was born into wealth. She could have like Jacky Kennedy and Mrs. Bush, worked outside the home before she got married or worked Period. She has not worked at all. She had money, she married money, she's sat on her A** for years with maids and nannies (do you have maids and nannies?) while her husband went to work. That's the point. She doesn't know how it feels to work and raise kids, therefore, she has nothing in common with the average working woman.
She's "money" "silver spoon." At least Leona Helmsley and Ivana Trump WORKED.
They did not have maids and nannies. They had a cleaning person one day a week. She married very young and then started a amity pretty quickly. Stop the envy.
Oh please, it's nothing about envy. It's reality. It's much easier to make decisions when your mortgage is paid up.
Oh, please, it's ALL about envy. If you think you must actually experience something to be able to talk about it, then no one in government is qualified to make decisions about the poor, the homeless, the disabled, they can't regulate factories unless they've actually worked in one, can't regulate airlines unless they have a pilot's license -- where does it stop?
How many women have nannies and housekeepers? I'll bet Hillary Rosen does, so who is she to imply she can relate to working moms who don't have access to such help, but Mrs. Romney can't?
Smart people learn from their mistakes. Really smart people learn from the mistakes of others.
The GOP double standard: It's okay for me, not you.
Hmmm... More people are working than in 2007... the American auto industry is still intact (which Romney wanted to destroy) and the stock market has recovered.
Richie rich can't make any convincing case for his own presidency...
Romney wanted a managed bankruptcy and that is in fact what ended up happening to the auto industry. The markets are still unstable. The futures are way down ths morning.
Patrick and the others on the left want to distort the truths because it fits their agenda!
All of that "dignity in work" seems pretty ironic from a man who got rich firing people and even liking to fire people. Hmmm....hypocrisy maybe??
He said he liked firing people who provided more service to him personally. Also learn something about venture capitalism before you are critical . Some companies succeed and some are doomed to fail.
oh please....spare me. I've fired many people and I couldn't say I've ever enjoyed firing anyone. Make excuses all you want.
So did you fire them because their work was poor or because you were part of a management that made bad decisions for your company? Maybe you should have been fired as well.
I have found you need to give up your dignity to receive a paycheck. In most jobs you become a wage slave.
Thomas Blue,
No firing someone is not fun. But apparently getting other people to finance your business acquisitions, borrowing heavily on those acquisitions while taking the lion's share of the money borrowed as management fees, and then filing bankruptcy on those firms screwing creditors and employees is fun. At least 93% of the time. Which is what Mitt did at Bain Capital while Ann sat at home.
So according to Romney the the most difficult job is being a "Mother" (we will assume he means stay at home parent). Unlike other countries, in the US, this job pays nothing and provides no nationwide health coverage. We should respect it unless the parent doesn't have a spouse that can support him or her at which point (s)he needs to get a real job for dignity's sake.
Next in importance, those who collect money after they stop working i.e. capital gains. These people deserve a special tax rate (15%) that fosters an environment in which the the deconstruction and selling off of a companies valuable assets (even when it leads to the companies bankruptsy) is rewarded.
Next, in order of value, it stands to reason, are those that labor for their money. With a top tax rate of 35% and few loopholes at their disposal, its the evershrinking middle class that is of the least importance to the conservative philosophy and it is easy to see why. People making a living wage is inefficient from a capitalist's standpoint. Pay people less than it costs to survive and they will become indentured. Let the state pick up the difference and allow the recipients of federal funds to use it on Lays potato chips and pepsi cola baught from Wal Mart.
You have any mutual funds? A lot of them pay capital gains. Some benefit from the lower rates. Lots of average people have these funds not just the rich.
Poor people don't have mutual funds, or IRAs or 401-Ks or pensions. None of the "average" people I know have mutual funds. When you earn more than $100,000 per year you ARE one of the rich.
So what? I earned it all as did my husband. We worked our way through college and grad school. Gave up a lot to do that. Why should we appologize because you were too lazy to get off your a$$. Most of by friends have mutual funds. Although I am an engineer, they were teachers. They still saved.
The only true wealth is in our labor. It is what we create, our real tangible products. Without labor, there is no food, no buildings, no goods. Without these essentials, no stock, bond, or paper of any kind has any backing at all. When we reward labor above all else, investment takes its rightful place as a tool.
Its simple really, do you think a person who punches a time clock or runs a true small buisness )10 employees under $150,000 yr) should be taxed at over double the rate that someone like romney does? A person who no longer works for the 10s of millions of unearned dollars he rakes in.
If you think that this is right then I will accept it, but I will never respect it. Nomatter the labor repect it. It is our only true wealth.
Lulu - you cry about class warfare and envy and then, you post something sure to provoke and belittle. No one is denying that you don't deserve everything you work for, why can't you grant a little of the same dignity to the hard working poor?
Lulu this "Back in the day" mentality does not apply anymore. What used to be a good middle class job is now paid minimum wage. All the great corperations of your time have been aquired by investment banks the profitable parts sold off for quarterly profit. If this time that you worked and saved was prior to 1979, this sort of vulture capitalism didn't exist. It didn't make sense to canibalize these dacades old companies because the top tax rate was +70%.
This old man defense is tired and no longer has a place in the new reality.
It always existed. I went back to work in 1981. Prior to that except for two years right out of college, I stayed home with my sons. I also went back to school for a grad degree in the 80s. My teacher friends who saved did about the same. When I worked for large corps, they were and remain independent of venture groups. After I got the bug for more entrepreneurial ventures which were new companies, some went well others not so. But that is the game with startups. If venture capitalists did not put up the money, how would startups exist...biotech, dot coms. You exaggerate what goes on in corps. And businesses are cyclical st times so sometimes the auto business or home building are rip roaring and other times not. Also people need to be constantly upgrading skills and moving to where the jobs are. We had to do that and actually so did our parents. So I am not old school at all.
lulu,
Ironically, Mitt the job creator cannot point to any start-ups that Bain funded. Bain specialized in deconstruction, bordering on fraud, of existing firms. Bain found small or weak companies, got outside funding to buy them, and the dismantled them. Out of over 40 companies Bain acquired interests in, only three survived.
George Soros, the scourge of conservatives, actually does fund start-ups. Warren Buffet buys companies he values, and will spend B-H money (much of it his own) to try to ensure their success. Now tell me who believes in the dignity of work. The pretty face that made over $200 million destrying jobs, or the grizzled old men who risk their money creating or preserving jobs?
It's a shame that we evolved a society in which "women's work" was not valued. Now few people even know what women used to contribute--they think it was all about "raising children" in the sense of changing diapers.
To begin with, there was a real economic contribution by the old-fashioned housewife. She was a careful shopper, made meals from scratch, and knew how to make cheaper cuts of meat and such staples as beans into palatable meals. She often made household items, such as curtains and toss pillows, and even sometimes made clothing. My mother was an excellent seamstress and made many of my clothes, (not to mention an entire wardrobe for my Barbie).
Many studies have shown that at the level of average earnings, women who have the skills to be a "housewife" actually save the family more than she can earn after expenses associated with holding a job--such as work wardrobe, fast food, etc. are deducted.
But aside from the financial issue, women participated in PTA and in their children's extracurricular activities, were there to teach their kids moral and ethical issues, knew where their kids were and who their friends were, and consequently played the major role in maintaining a "civilized" society.
Men were less stressed too, because they had a role in society. They were respected for providing for their family, and they weren't expected to work all day then come home and take care of the kids and help do the laundry and clean the house. It's not only women who have "two jobs" now. Many men do, too. And minimum wage workers at day care centers raise the kids.
What is "dignified" about handing your 6 week old baby to strangers to raise? These children grow up with no bonding. They "go home" every morning, and every evening someone takes them away to this other place to sleep at night. Then we wonder why so many kids have no empathy for others. Many studies have shown that children who are "institutionalized" from birth grow up with low levels of empathy and other developmental issues. What is a day care except an institution by another name?
Woman's contribution was vital, but society refused to acknowledge it. So now they no longer participate, and society is crumbling by anyone's standards. In another generation, no one will remember what women used to do and the world will be unrecognizable to a person of my father's generation. And I'm not talking about technology.
Our entire society is lacking in "dignity" today. Plenty of shiny gadgets, but no quality of life, and certainly no dignity.
Could not agree more with you.
patter,
Unfortunately your view is based solely on a period from 1950 to 1970.
Before that women were members of the workforce, often out of neccessity. Single women were expected to be self-supporting, working in offices, diners, or light manufacturing. Even after they married they were expected to work until they became pregnant, because their young husbands could earn barely enough to pay the rent. I raise as a tragic example of women in the workforce, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, women locked into an eighth story sweatshop. The lucky ones leapt to their death, the rest burned alive. In the 1910's, in downtown Manhatten. "Leave It to Beaver" was a tv show. Many of us at the time envied the Cleavers, especially Mom and Dad, for the time that Ward and June always seemed to have with no money worries.
By the way,
Dignity is something you carry within you. It is not inherited, nor taught, nor dependent on your condition. It is something you have, or do not.
Dignity is self-strenght. Dignity is self-worth. Dignity is self-humility.
Ghandi had dignity. Franklin Roosevelt had dignity. Nelson Mandela had dignity, even in a South African prison. John McCain had dignity in a Vietnamese POW camp, but seems to have lost part of it lately.
Poor women have always had to work outside the home. Middle class women usually did not.
patter,
Until the 1950's, middle class was defined as professionals (doctors, lawyers, non-railway engineers) and upper business managers of medium size business owners. Most would either be today's 1% or close there to. Remenber, millionaires could still be counted in the dozens.
If only Hilary Rosen had said Ann Romney has never been EMPLOYED a day in her life we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is a great example of choose your words carefully!
You are SO right!!!
This particular national conversation has degenerated once again into the "working mom" v. "stay-at-home mom" discussion which NEVER resolves the real issues: the way women's efforts are valued across the board. For women in the workplace, we still fight for equality in our paychecks, and for those who work as stay at home moms (or even as outside child care providers), there is no consensus on how that labor is valued. I believe it would be far more effective, and far more to our benefit to come together, regardless of our state of formal employment, and examine the broader implications for women as a whole.
And what difference does it make if she was or was not employed? Unless she spent her life locked in her house, there's a possibility she may have actually met some women who did work and did have children, and certainly can understand the problems they might face.
If Ms. Rosen had criticized the Kennedys work on behalf of the poor because they were never poor a day in their lives, you might understand just how silly her remark is.
I am a stay at home mom. Personal decision for my family no one including governments business. But if I were a welfare mom it would be different. If you rely on the government to support you they have a say! If you are asking for a hand out then working to support your family should give you dignity. Where I live people brag about being on welfare! Where is the dignity in that?
How would Romney know work that provides dignity? He certainly doesn't know what hard work is! Unless he considers taking a shower, combing his hair and dressing in fancy clothes work?
Do you really think he never worked or are those who work with their hands the only people who work. Typically class warfare.
Iam so sick of this Ann Romney bull, the woman has NEVER worked a day in her life so how could she relate to any of the millions of women that do not have the resources to be "stay" at home moms? As for her being a "mother", please, let's not forget that the woman was born into privilege and had many, many helpers in raising her boys. From maids, butlers, nanny's, chauffeurs, cooks other middle class people don't have that luxury most have to be moms and full time workers so how can Ann relate to any of that?
So now any mom who stays home cannot understand because she doesn't work outside the home? If the families in my neighborhood gave up some of their luxuries they could stay one too. For some and I say some it is a matter of choice.
A self made man, extremely successful businessman the bain (pun intended) of every liberal in this country. Pelosi states that unemployment checks and food stamps will get America out of its financial malaise. Romney thinks getting people back to work will.
Since the fateful inauguration of the "illusionist" Obama, 1 in 6 live in poverty, an unfortunate all time high. Double digit increase in Food Stamp recipient to 46.7 million people. 23 million out of work, 19% underemployed. 5 Trillion+ added to our nations debt (another unfortunate all time high for any president, of any length of office) of $15.7 TRILLION. He plays a lot of basketball, more golf in three years than Clinton and GWB combined, 125 campaign extravaganzas with the ominous 1 %'ers, (Clinton 35, GWB 54). Yes, he cares about the economy, just won't let the countries plight interfere with his life! One and Done!
Exactly
Neither Romney can relate to the average joe. They are so far out of touch with the reality that faces millions of Americans, they cannot possibly empathize with the myriad of reasons that mothers may or may not be in the work force.
Paychecks, dignity and you total deflection from the issue. Take a nap.
Amazing. Ayn Rand covered all of this half a century ago and Aristotle over 2000 years before that. To understand the value of work simply add a word in front, the word "my". Anyone who values thier sense of self will look at what they do as "my work" not "my job". Work is something you have a hand in creating a job is nothing more than a means to survive day to day. Like an artist or an artisan when you see your career and what you do as "your works" your sense of life is clear and when your clear about who you are dignity is a given.
R-money's plan will work even better when he gets rid of the minimum wage, and other worker protection laws, like he wants.
That way both parents living in poverty can work for 1/2 the paycheck.
"A working peasant is a happy peasant"
Facts? You're really reaching.......
Please provide references for your allegations.
If you read some of his economic plan on his own website, he talks about "removing regulatory constraints on businesses" and getting rid of unions. Those are but thinly veiled ways of saying he's for the bosses, not the workers.
A fair wage brings dignity, a slave wage does not.
I agree with Stephen Balzac. Not all work provides dignity for all people, but that's because not all jobs are right for all people. Yes, people can find dignity in even the most menial jobs, but that is less likely if you have a PhD is physics as compared to having a high school diploma. Depending on such things as education, possibly debt from acquiring that education, overall intelligence, upbringing... some jobs can actually be humiliating. So whether or not work is dignifying is not that simple of a question to answer. A number of variables need to be looked at.
When it comes to having a job at all, or one you would really like, but can't have now, self responsibility trumps handouts. Unless you were brought up on dependency.
What I have seen transpire over the last 10 years is more people want others to validate them and grant meaning to their lives rather than validating themselves and finding meaning in just the simple things. What your lot is in life isn't as important as your attitude in life. I'll always remember fondly a guy from the movie theater. He was the theater sweeper. You know, the guy who sweeps up all the popcorn, etc. between shows. He was so genuinely filled with simple joy. As he worked whistled a happy tune and just exuded a sense of being happy while he did his job. I still think of that guy to this day. There are just some people who are miserable, period. And they expect others to be miserable with them. Really is it that hard to smile and be courteous to others? Especially those that have direct contact with the public like cashiers and store clerks. Sure, if your manager and the company's service model doesn't put a high value on being pleasant and courteous, employees will not see the importance of how meaningful those little things are.
I've been working since I was 15. I have always, always been proud of getting that paycheck. Whether it was from cashiering at Caldor's to bartending at a hotel.
I'm not going to trivialize the fact that child care is ridiculously expensive and that is a deterrent for a lot of women. Shouldn't be that way. But instead of having a President making people angry at companies and wealthy individuals, wouldn't he have gotten a lot more support and success had he tried to implement some type of work site daycare initiative where companies got points and deductions for helping off set the costs of child care for their workers? I don't think our President has done nearly enough to initiate public/private endeavors. I personally believe that the private sector is very open to collaborative ideas that won't harm their bottom line. If he could just stop will all the forced rules and do it cause i said so power rants, we'd probably have a more trusting, cooperative, smiling work force. For the most part, corporations are NOT against their workers. The problem with today's work pool is their lack of desire to bring to the table the basic traits that both customers and employers need and want : dependability, focus, courtesy, manners, good attitude, neat appearance, attention to detail and positive energy. Come on, let's be honest. Customer service in America has been on a rapid decline. Texting while working is getting to be a huge problem. Surly attitudes is becoming the norm. If one doesn't have a sense of pride in themselves, they surely are not going to have pride in their work.
We really do need to bring back our National pride. Everyone has a reason to believe their lives have a purpose and meaning. Even if it's sweeping the floors of a theater.
Right on target.
My 26 year old daughter is disabled and collects SSI. She has a job washing dishes in a restaurant, you know, the kind of work that Americans don't want to do. Her wages she earns are deducted from her check, and if she makes too much, she loses her medicare coverage. So it is actually better economically for her to stay home and collect a check, but she goes to work even when she's tired or her friends are having a party or it's a great beach day. Why? DIGNITY. Romney is exactly right.
And clearly your daughter was raised right. Trying to make her own way.
ETCH-A-SKETCH is full of bullsh-t! How in the hell can a job be had, let alone be dignified when HIS corrupt corporates won't part with a nickel? He's such a phony, he only can say what his corrupt corporates tell him to say! HE IS COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH, with us, the 99% American People! He even thinks the POOR should take care of themselves! Then, what would the corrupt CRIMINAL TAX EVADERS, the "NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS/ FOUNDATIONS" for a living! They might have to get a REAL JOB and there AIN'T NONE!!!
Vote STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC, the lives you save WILL be YOURS & your CHILDREN!
You are ridiculous. And there is no evidence that he evades taxes. If you want tax laws changed,then work at that. And yes the poor should contribute something and many do. Work at anything honest should be respected. That is not to say people should not try to better themselves. I live outside of a certain city where there is a high high school dropout rate. Those people generally will be poor all their lives because they thought it more important to hang on the street corners. There are consequences for choices.
What about turning tricks? Do they feel dignified in doing such jobs? I can't tell and I can't put myself in that shoe since I'm a male. But if someone can vouch for it then I'll feel less guilty in supporting them for sure.
I agree that working provides more dignity than receiving handouts. I think many govt programs could be rolled into a work program. Everyone works - we will find work for someone to do. I think the welfare and public assistance numbers would go way down to almost zero. That would be incentive to get a better private sector job. If someone really really is not employable in the private sector, then at least there is some safety net, but they have to show up to work to get it.