A comment at a NYT piece titled "Mounting Evidence of Advantages for Children of Working Mothers." The term "mommy wars"is in the article, the third sentence of which is:
The mommy wars might seem like a relic of the 1990s, but 41 percent of adults say the increase in working mothers is bad for society, while just 22 percent say it is good, according to the Pew Research Center.That Pew poll is from 2007, which seems a little relic-y, but the term "mommy wars" comes from a 1990 Newsweek article called "Mommy Vs. Mommy" that begins:
Tension between mothers is building as they increasingly choose divergent paths: going to work, or staying home to care for their kidsMan, that is desperate journalism. And yet it is remembered a quarter century later.
These are the Mommy Wars...
Picture the working mother. Like most mothers of her generation, she probably grew up in a family with an at-home mom, so she's vulnerable to criticism that she's not spending enough time with her children.... She is anxious that her children are growing up without her, that she's missing the important landmarks in their lives...A truce won't be possible until Congress passes legislation...
Now cross the battle lines for a look at the working-at-home mother. She's usually there because she believes that's best for her children. Either she's lucky and her husband can support them easily, or they've agreed to sacrifice and economize so that they can live on one salary. Once ensconced, however, she is often isolated....
Making peace... Many feel that feminism's first wave didn't give them the alternatives they need. Because of that, some gave up on feminism... But perhaps the mothers can't "get it right" all on their own. It seems likely that a truce won't be possible until Congress passes legislation to give families more choices, without sacrificing either the children's welfare or the mother's individual needs. After all, isn't choice what feminism was supposed to be all about?
Posts
85 comments:
I see a lot of women who've been both.
The first victim of mommy wars is truth.
A truce won't be possible until Congress passes legislation...
This is a problem. I've worked with talented female officers and civilians. But they've been vastly outnumbered by the ones who had gotten a job or position simply because of the phantom quota to hire women. If you have to legislate a hire, you don't really get the best.
And there is always a call for Congress to do ... something. what crap.
The year was 1986 India and I had just got married, after having just finished my post-graduate degree. My new husband took me to his office party and introduced me to various people, among them a woman. She asked me if I worked. I said no and she walked away or turned her attention away (I can't remember) which left me thinking how rude (and I remember it to this day, haha). She was working as a receptionist for the company which was a big name in those days.
Jesus wept. I stayed home with my child until she could drive, and it wasn't because I was "lucky enough". It was because I decided it would be better for her than to be raised by other people. Dealing with children is difficult, and I thought the chances were too high that impatience and bad decisions would be the norm in a situation where the person doing the dealing didn't also love the child. The financial fallout will last until I die and beyond. Money I might have earned using my law degree, small windfalls that might have been invested rather than spent on food and shelter, credit not used to get by - And every penny worth it. But not "lucky enough". The sneering by women with "real" careers has been ongoing. Men never do this.
It seems likely that a truce won't be possible until Congress passes legislation to give families more choices, without sacrificing either the children's welfare or the mother's individual needs. After all, isn't choice what feminism was supposed to be all about?
But what about the man's needs?
Fuck him, he's nothing but a splooge stooge with a wallet.
I could accept the idea that women should not be barred from any avenue of gainful employment solely on the basis of gender. I can accept the inherent fairness of equal pay for equal work. Beyond those two constructs, the rest of what has come from the women's movement has been very destructive of our society in my lifetime. Children, on average, fare better in the care of their own mothers. Not too radical an idea, easy to verify. Progressive social scientists and ideologues have spent 50 years trying to torture the opposing point of view from observation of reality.
It is my idea that one should be able to see the roots of all historical human behavior in world around you. The efforts of feminists and environmentalists in my lifetime illustrate one mode of the creation of a religion.
Didn't congress give us 'affirmative action' and 'quotas'? Or was that the courts?
Taking 'choice' away from businesses in who they think would be the best person for a given job.
Because women are little girls and can't compete on their own?
"Mounting Evidence of Advantages for Children of Working Mothers."
The headline is just horseshit on stilts.
Crabs in a bucket, man. Crabs in a bucket.
The idea that this is a problem to be "solved with legislation" is also more horseshit.
Women already HAVE the choices. What they don't like is having to choose one or the other, because of cost or convenience.
God bless you, robinintn. My mother did the same for my sister and me, for which we'll always be grateful.
"That was wonderful."
"That was."
"Wonderful anal sex."
"Wonderful."
"I gotta say: I love these meet-the-client trips. Spend a few hours with them, and then a wide-open afternoon out of the office."
"Maybe we should have gone back to the office."
"No, no: this is a perk."
"Anal sex is a perk?"
"The ability to go to a hotel at 1:00PM on a Thursday is a perk."
"I'm going to take a shower -- I gotta go soon..."
"Got to pick up the kids?"
"Yeah. My day to to pick up the kids."
"I have to admit: I enjoy the fact that my wife stays at home. She's good with the kids."
"Yeah. I bet that's nice sometimes."
"I would get bored, myself, but she: she seems to like it."
"I don't know; maybe I could've left after the meeting and picked up the kids early. Spend some extra time with them. Take them out for some ice cream or something."
"Take them out for ice cream? That sounds like what divorced dads do when they have the kids for a day."
"I just... I feel like I'm missing out or something."
"My wife tells me if there was anything new with the kids when I get home. She just taught one to tie his shoes, as a matter of fact."
"That's nice."
"Yeah. Hard to imagine there was a time when we couldn't tie our own damned shoes. Crazy."
"Yeah... Maybe what we are doing isn't such a good idea..."
"This is because I haven't been going down on you lately, like I did at the start, isn't it? I'll be better at that."
"It's not that."
"I'll still try to be better at that. You're special."
"My husband at least gets to spend some time with them in the mornings before he takes them to day-care; me, I'm already out the door."
"Kids are just fine at day-care -- they're with people paid to take care of them."
"I don't think it's the same."
"They're kids: they're not picky."
"Still.."
"You need the time for YOU, you know."
"Anal sex."
"Yeah. Anal sex."
"A perk."
"C'mon: don't go getting all moody on me now..."
I am Laslo.
The simple truth is most women are never happy or satisfied. When you realize that, all the "have it all" articles and leaning in and calls for gender "equity" legislation makes sense.
An aggravating factor is the destructive force of Father Time, which makes many women grim and resentful about their youth and the time they wasted in sterile office environments. Why can't everyone else just pay more in taxes so she can stay home with her child, keep her job and do what is necessary to maintain her fading beauty?
"Ensconced"
Now there's a loaded word.
More women working equals more tax dollars for the government. Is it any surprise politicians and their compliant media would be extolling the virtues of the working mom?
A truce won't be possible until Congress passes legislation...
The NYT out-Orwell's Orwell.
I absolutely love Stay-At-Home-Moms. The salt of the earth, the cream of the crops.
Nearly impossible to raise good, healthy children without. SAHM.
My wife work part-time for 10 years, which enabled her do to both (raise kids & work) and this was an excellent compromise.
""Mounting Evidence of Advantages for Children of Working Mothers."
It is so sad that the political left feels the need to make working women (working by choice) feel better about their decisions by denying nature.
One thing that is never spoken of is the fact that the era of stay-at-home mothers was an era of much more modest living conditions. The average house in California in the 1950s was about 700 square feet with one bathroom and two bedrooms.
I have the greatest sympathy for women who have no choice but to work to keep their children fed and housed. I have little sympathy for the "two earner couple" who spent extra money on a 3500 square foot house and two cars plus additional toys. I am OK with their decision to do so but I feel no sympathy requiring dishonest stories in left wing newspapers (virtually all news media these days) telling women who work as a choice that they are better mothers than those who stay home and give up a large share of prosperity for the period when their children are small.
Looks like the jury is still out on whether money buys happiness.
"My wife work part-time for 10 years, which enabled her do to both (raise kids & work) and this was an excellent compromise."
That is fine. My mother went back to work when I was in 8th grade, not because she had to but because she did not want to ask my father for money.
Know many educated women who take ten or fifteen years to raise kids. The ones for whom I have contempt are the ones who whine about salary differences,
However did I raise children through that era and avoid conscription in the "mommy wars" alleged to be raging all 'round, even while operating on both sides of the battlefield of SAHM v. "working mother"?
Not sure, but having no interest in the company or writings of the sort of adults who refer to themselves or other grown women as "mommies" probably helped.
"My wife work part-time for 10 years, which enabled her do to both (raise kids & work) and this was an excellent compromise."
This is what we've chosen but there are a lot of things confounding this option too. Part time income means the margin of net earnings after paying for sitters is slim, and it's harder to find sitters as well (if I worked full time I'd find a full time nanny, and one who would take on a few other household task to keep things more organized.)
Part time can be the best of both worlds but also the worst of both. I try to keep the focus on the good parts and minimize the bad. Frankly it would be easier if my spouse's career was less demanding and if we had extended family or some other support network. I think young people should consider those factors when making choices about career and kids.
I had the movie PCU on in the background yesterday and was actually surprised to hear "rape culture" from one of the uber-feminist characters. PCU came out in 1994.
Oso Negro said
"The efforts of feminists and environmentalists in my lifetime illustrate one mode of the creation of a religion."
And it has taken our culture to hell.
The Mommy Wars, just like the War on Women, was created by the left for its political needs. They don't care about any particular woman, just want to get votes from single young women, by trying to keep then from getting married and then trying to keep them from becoming stay at home Moms.
Another way to try to keep people from having to actually make decisions.
Another way to try to keep people from having to actually make decisions.
Just reread the article. The issue isn't whether mothers work (especially since they looked at whether moms were working when the child was age 14 vs. unemployed); the issue is who cares for the child as an infant, a toddler, a 2 or 3 year old. Are they in a daycare center or with a parent or other relative (e.g., grandma) for most of their waking hours, 5 days a week, or not?
"You should live your life the way you see fit," every woman should tell herself that everyday, {I would include men too but majority of them generally get to do what they want, anyway without judgement from the rest of us}. I think all this hype about mommy wars or war on women is preoccupation of the liberal. Notice that they are not fighting for more men to stay at home and take care of babies, (which some men may appreciate doing if there were no pressure for them to get a job and stick with it}. It is all about pitting women against women.
Two comments: 1) I came home from high school one day and found my mother in tears. She'd just read another article about how she'd wasted her life by not working outside our home. She'd been a successful homemaker -- a role she had been taught in her youth was among the highest callings on earth. After she'd dedicated the first quarter-decade of her adult life to that calling, society belittled her achievements and she felt bitterly betrayed.
2) When my wife and I married, my wife and I decided to not organize our life together around stereotypical gender roles. That lasted until we had children and one of them had/has special needs. After a full day at work, she picked our two kids up from daycare and, as soon as she saw me, spurted: "Even if I were not their mother, I could do a much better job of taking care of our children than they're doing at daycare. I have a degree in child development!" We took our children out of daycare and my wife opened her own daycare center, which she ran until I finished grad school. Since then, she's been a stay at home mom. Our three kids have all graduated from college. (When first diagnosed, the doctors told us our special needs child would never graduate from high school. She wouldn't have without my wife's efforts.)
After I graduated, my wife asked if I would quit inviting her to professional dinners. The other women she met there all snubbed her because she "wasn't doing anything".
The mommy wars are real. The casualties are all women.
I propose converting all abandoned amusement parks into nationalized Day Care centers.
Jobs for carnies; a win for working moms.
It's going to get worse with the generation of delicate little snowflakes we're raising. They need "safe space" from any words or ideas that might threaten them.
Get out in the real world, and leave the cosseted comforts of college, and they'll be faced with making real choices. And the real world doesn't give a flying fig about their delicate little selves. Little Snowflake will be in the batter's box, and life's pitches will be headed for the plate. Will he or she swing and connect, or drop the bat and run crying back to Mommy?
My wife was a stay at home mom from the impending birth of daughter number one, until daughter number one was old enough to drive herself and daughter number two to high school. Then my wife went back to work.
Daughter number two was and is an ardent proponent of women's liberation---but raised holy hell at age 14 when HER mom went back to work. All that stuff was good for other families--but not for ours.
Seriously, stay at home moms who would otherwise have a career pay a terrible career price. Take the first 15 years or so of progress in a career off the table--and start over at say age 42--it's tough. And I appreciate my wife's sacrifice. But we made the choice--and it was the best one for us. Every pleasure has its price though, and our choice might not be right for others.
It's not "working women vs non-working women".
It's "professional women vs working women".
Professional women want a career and kids, but in order for that to happen non-professional women have to give up time with their own children to care for the children of strangers--being, in effect, stay-at-home mothers for children not her own, and thus having all the consequences of being stay-at-home without any of the benefits.
And that's fine if it's contracts freely entered into, but government childcare mandates are conscripting working-class women to care for the children of professional-class women.
People forget that women have always worked outside the home, especially poor women, farming women, and women whose husbands owned businesses. They brought the kids with them and did their best.
The fact it makes little or no difference results in phrases like "mounting evidence" and "mommy wars". If it made a significant difference there'd be clear evidence and no "war".
After I graduated, my wife asked if I would quit inviting her to professional dinners. The other women she met there all snubbed her because she "wasn't doing anything".
Contrary to feminist supremacist mythology about "more caring and nurturing", many women are assholes to each other.
here, daughters of working mothers earned 23 percent more than daughters of stay-at-home mothers, after controlling for demographic factors, and sons spent seven and a half more hours a week on child care and 25 more minutes on housework"
(a) What demographic factors? I think that's kind of important, since I would expect there to be massive distortions at the low-end of the income scale, at that borderline where the phase-out of welfare benefits actually penalizes mothers for working. The article notes:
The positive effects were particularly strong for children from low-income or single-parent families; some studies showed negative effects in middle-class or two-income families.
And if the effect is mostly coming around that borderline, I don't think it's hard to see why -- if you're desperately poor and your mother avoids working so you can keep welfare benefits, TANF, SSI disability, Section 8 Housing, etc., all of which phase out as your mother starts earning income (and incurring new expenses like gas and transportation), your family is caught in the "safety" net. There's no way that won't negatively affect your future earning potential. On the other hand, if your mother has managed to disentangle herself from the safety net, and is actively working, that would naturally have a positive impact on your future earning potential. Those effects would disappear higher up on the income scale, so the headline result here -- if it does come primarily from big effects at the bottom of the income scale as I suspect -- is basically irrelevant to the majority of the population.
(b) Spending 7.5 hours a week more on child care does not sound like a good deal for me, personally, as a man.
Is anyone truly surprised by these articles? It's a backlash. The dominant opinion has been that a working mother is either a narcissist or a poor victim of circumstance. To get to parity, we'll see the opposite position inlated for a while.
Contrary to feminist supremacist mythology about "more caring and nurturing", many women are assholes to each other.
This. 100%
I don't meet that many judgemental SAHMs (I know there are more than a few), but I do meet a lo of working moms who give the whole song and dance about how "daycare is so much better for little Sophie." I just met one at my spouse's work party yesterday. The good thing about our lifestyle is that when someone asks what I do, I say, "I have four kids. That's a full time job" and most people tend to agree.
I'm sure that behind my back there are people who fret that I've wasted my talents, but even the most equality obsessed person has to admit that regular people cannot afford to put four kids in daycare, so we're done. I find it interesting that the people who applaud me the most for staying home are my children's pediatricians (both women with kids--one actually went super part time after the birth of her second).
Gahrie said...
"...without sacrificing ... the mother's individual needs. ..."
But what about the man's needs?
Fuck him, he's nothing but a splooge stooge with a wallet.
The Newspeak term for him is "sexual predator".
I think an interesting sociology experiment is going on. Intelligent well educated mothers are turning over their children to dull-normal uneducated women to raise them. How will those kids turn out? I doubt we will ever be allowed to know but the present state of college life suggests the experiment has not been a success. The hysterical tone of these articles, which resemble pieces about climate change "deniers" suggests the results are bad.
My Father was a college coach and my Mother a 2nd grade school teacher. I arrived in 1944 and my Mother was a stay-at-home-mom until I reached 1st grade--at which time she returned to teaching until she retired in '74. When our son was born, my wife the RN returned to work almost immediately due to both our financial circumstances and the fact that most hospitals are reluctant to hire an RN who has been out of the work-force over two years because of fear of atrophy of skills, consigning our son to Day Care until he entered the first grade. Two different approaches to child rearing, but seemingly equal results. Flip a coin..
"Sometimes I think I would've been better off if I was a stay-at-home mom."
"You know, I feel that too, sometimes. But us working women -- we need to stick together."
"It's funny: I trust my kids at day-care to a woman I'm not sure I would trust with my car."
"Well, you do have a nice car."
"You as well. Can't go wrong with a BMW."
"That's so true. Still: just the other day I picked up my Johnny from day-care and he had a black-eye. The day-care woman said he ran into a door-knob, but I have my doubts..."
"You think that's bad? I came home to find out that my son Samuel
traded his bicycle to another kid for a gun and then shot our neighbor's dog."
"That's horrible! What did your husband do?"
"Well, unfortunately Samuel shot HIM, too."
"Oh God! Is he okay?"
"Yeah, it was just a shot to his leg -- he only missed one day at work."
"Lucky."
"Indeed."
"So -- how is Samuel?"
"He's grounded. No TV or video games."
"I mean -- how is he coping? I'm sure it was traumatic for him."
"His psychiatrist says he was just acting out -- it's pretty common at that age."
"Pretty common?"
"Well, not the gun part. We just need to make sure that Samuel takes his Ritalin."
"That's amazing: you have gone through all of this and you haven't missed a day's work."
"The Office would go to Hell if I wasn't there."
"If only more people understood that..."
I am Laslo.
I spent my children's childhoods working full time, so I was too busy to notice the "mommy wars." When I was at work, I devoted my attention to work, when at home, to my children. I do have a friend, though, who gave up medicine to stay at home with her kids. She seems to have felt it acutely. Even now, she is always asking me if I am close to my children, in a way that suggests the answer must be "no." Hmm. Maybe I am experiencing the mommy wars after all.
(And I have never said anything to her that would suggest I think she made a poor choice. She is definitely projecting on me.)
I will say that a supportive spouse makes it easy to avoid the mommy wars. I don't need other women or some random study telling me I'm doing a great job to feel good about my choices. My spouse will tell people that start asking about our home arrangements that we decided to put our best asset in charge of our most valuable resources. That line could come out as an empty platitude, but he shows that is not.
A few months ago, my oldest kids were asking him why he didn't stay home instead of me. HE started to say, "because I make way more money" and then stopped himself and said, "No, that's not true. If your mom worked, she'd probably be way more successful than me. She stays home because she's better at it and we need someone who's going to do it the best, rather than more money." I was in the other room. It made my day.
Seriously, stay at home moms who would otherwise have a career pay a terrible career price. Take the first 15 years or so of progress in a career off the table--and start over at say age 42--it's tough.
Exactly. And I can't help but suspect that this is the truth behind all of those statistics about "wage disparity"
It also occurs to me that, if they're looking at income and childcare patterns of children raised by working vs. SAH mothers, then this is all evidence of what happened a generation ago, and not necessarily revealing much of childcare patterns in 2015.
Among other things, this was assessing patterns in the pre-welfare-reform area.
Yeah, I apparently need to blog about this.
As a professional woman (physician) who decided to become a SAHM because it was clearly in the best interests of my children and as a mature woman who has never regretted/complained/ whined about my lost career/earning potential/retirement benefits/snubs by working moms at social functions, I am horrified at the attitude of some thirty-something professional women today. They expect that their career should take precedence over their husband's career and they debate endlessly the best time to have a child because any time taken out of their career will sidetrack their
march to success. It is a sad state of affairs when raising a child becomes secondary to career.
Balfegor,
If the mother is not working because of welfare, then she should be devoting herself to raising her children and their education. And the result would be just one generation on welfare, instead of consecutive.
I happened to be in her office when a female manager of mine received a call from her child in high school, apparently very ill and in need of attention. I don't know which was more appalling, that she'd carry on a private conversation in front of one of her staff or that she'd tell her sick kid to suck it up, he's on his own. Clearly her kid suffered from his mother's career aspirations. Did she realize it?
"Mounting Evidence of Advantages for Children of Working Mothers."
This is the companion piece to that other canard:
"Mounting Evidence of Advantages for Children of Single Mothers With No Father in the Home."
And coming soon:
"Mounting Evidence of Advantages for Children Raised by Same Sex Couples."
re: exhelodrv1:
Balfegor,
If the mother is not working because of welfare, then she should be devoting herself to raising her children and their education. And the result would be just one generation on welfare, instead of consecutive.
I'll be the first to admit that I only really deal with the destitute through the narrow window of pro bono legal cases in which they probably do not look their best. But the scenario you suggest strikes me as rather uncommon.
"Part time income means the margin of net earnings after paying for sitters is slim,"
Grandparents used to do this but times have changed. It's a dilemma for women who want careers. I understand that. I have a daughter-in-law who is able to work from home and does very well. Her husband, my son, is a fireman and works three days a week, 24 hour days. I know of quite a few women physicians, some my former students, whose husbands are firemen or policemen. Different educational level but happy and that helps the childcare dilemma. The shift work helps a lot with childcare.
The positive benefit cited of working mothers is that the daughters are more likely to work. Sort of a tautology, isn't it?
It is a sad state of affairs when raising a child becomes secondary to career.
But that has been the exact goal of the modern feminist movement.
If the mother is not working because of welfare, then she should be devoting herself to raising her children and their education. And the result would be just one generation on welfare, instead of consecutive.
That was Herman Cain's mother, no?
Piece seems to be a desperate attempt to be convincing.
WHO she is trying to convince is the real question.
I'm not sure I buy the argument that taking time off to raise kids wrecks a promising career for women.
My high school girlfriend graduated from Purdue as an engineer and married a classmate. They then moved to California where he worked as an engineer and she took time off to raise their kids. We used to socialize for a time. When her kids were old enough, she went back to school, got another degree and then went back to work as an engineer.
She was recently president of the Society of Women Engineers.
This is either not that unusual or I was very good at choosing girlfriends.
Male professionals in the next generation will be finding their mates (and the mothers of their children) among semi-acculturated Muslim women. These women place a very high value on family and the education and success of their children. I know two PhD's who have made this choice. The toughest part of these relationships was overcoming the prejudices of the women's families, but, if they're not Fundies, the prospect of an educated, potentially successful, son-in-law overcame any MuzzieWorld objections. And to be a valued son-in-law in a Muslim family is a very warm and ego-enhancing role, by all accounts.
I remember touring day cares to put my infant daughter in. At one, little toddlers were coming up to me with their arms held out, wanting to be held even if it was a stranger. I got in my car and cried and realized I couldn't possibly put her in a daycare despite money being tight. I waited until she was about three years old before I went back to work. She hated daycare so I quit and waited until she was in school and got a job that matched school hours. I could give a crap what any other woman thinks of me.
What Kelley said: 12:28 PM
I had a similar experience when my first child was 18 months old and I thought it was time to return to work. Feminist dogma be damned. Daycare choices were abysmal and my son did not think spending hours without mom would be a superior experience.
Perhaps many of today's educated American women would in fact be poor choices to successfully raise children, so let them work and keep them away from the kids as much as possible.
I am Laslo.
I'' take the seventeen-year-old girls off their hands. It takes about a year to build trust, so it should work out just fine.
I am Laslo.
"At one, little toddlers were coming up to me with their arms held out, wanting to be held even if it was a stranger."
I made a similar observation in memoir I'm going to publish later this year. Children in children's hospitals are usually very wary of anybody in a white coat, which is why nurses wear multi-colored smocks.
When a child was not afraid of me and wanted to be held, even by a guy in a white coat, it was almost a certainty that they had been abused at home.
Certainly, they had been ignored.
It is obvious to anyone who has ever been around children that they prefer being with their mothers. Even the fathers see it. So it takes all these articles, studies, etc., to assuage the guilt that working mothers feel.
I also wonder when they say 'it makes no difference,' what outcomes they are referring to. Measuring who does the housework when the kids grow up, or what careers they choose is not exactly the kinds of outcomes I would measure to be confident saying 'it makes no difference.'
Also, there are all different arrangements that working mothers use for child care. Some use extended family, or a one-on-one nanny, or au pair, or some use a day care with the maximum staff/child ratio. Lumping them all together in terms of outcomes is disingenuous to put it mildly.
From the NYT article:
In a new study of 50,000 adults in 25 countries …
We are way beyond the point from where we can trust most social research to be about truth. Most of it is nothing more than high-blown, impressive-looking bullshit, designed with the intention of producing a certain politically motivated result. In general, social research done after the 60's(when Academia went south) is suspect and not to be taken seriously. The articles linked below explain it in depth.
https://tinyurl.com/llrs3u4
https://tinyurl.com/o5ffjrh
https://tinyurl.com/pe49uw4
The responsibilities of motherhood vary throughout a child's lifetime. The mother who marginalizes or excludes the father from their child's life has limited her choices. The feminist first women seem unable to balance the desires of childhood and demands of adulthood -- a Peter/Roe Pan syndrome.
"A truce won't be possible until Congress passes legislation..."
People can never work things out on their own. Nor should they. When they are successful at it, how would the politicians take the credit?
So I was at Orchestra Hall a while back to see Yo-Yo Ma. We were early, having a drink in the reception area. When my companion went to the restroom, I overheard a cellphone conversation the woman next to me was having.
She had arrived directly from work and hadn't seen her kids all day, and was calling them before the nanny put them to bed. Midway through, it became clear she had mistaken one child for another, and hilarity ensued.
One reason I'm single is because if I had kids, I would feel I needed to give up things like going out to see Yo-Yo Ma at night. So that I would be able to recognize which kid was which.
I said all that to my date later. It started an interesting fight.
Why are $'s the measuring stick of success?
Therein lies the flaw.
Even trying to figure out which is best, demands that the conclusions are tossed out as flawed, biased, fabricated or just fucked up.
The best way to raise a child is as far away from govt contact as possible. What ever that takes is the best.
Jeez, what year is it?
"t seems likely that a truce won't be possible until Congress passes legislation to give families more choices, without sacrificing either the children's welfare or the mother's individual needs. After all, isn't choice what feminism was supposed to be all about?"
If it's your "choice" and my tax bill to pay for that choice, then where's my choice?
When a feminist says "freedom," does she mean "You're free to pay for what I want, when I want it"?
Laslo, that was amazing.
Hey! What about me!? I'm a stay-at-home dad with four kids (two with special needs). How come no one is talking about me?!
Wait a second... I just remembered... I don't give a flying fuck what others think about our family arrangement.
Oh, I also just remembered that I don't give a flying fuck what other people do in their families. Life is much easier this way.
What a terrible insult to tell a mother that her child is better off without her.
If you kid is better off without your presence, what does that say about you, and the speaker's opinion of you?
My wife raised four kids while she supported my career (and even worked part-time for me sometimes).
Now I'm the SAHD, and she's a Nurse Practitioner, helping kids and bringing in the salary.
"Once ensconced, however, she is often isolated...."
Really? Then volunteer at your kid's school. Join the PTO. Be a teacher's aide. There are all kinds of things you can do while your kids are in school.
@Kelly 12:28
I remember touring day cares to put my infant daughter in. At one, little toddlers were coming up to me with their arms held out, wanting to be held even if it was a stranger.
I went to see my son in kindergarten. He was radiant with pride that his dad had come. Apparently none had. I noticed two things:
-- I was swarmed by 5-year-old kids climbing on me, touching me, holding out arms. There were no males in that school. I expect there were not a lot of fathers.
-- many of the 5-year-olds had a U-shaped gap where their front teeth ought to have been. Those perfect, pearly teeth that Peter Pan retained. Night after night for years they had been put to bed with a bottle full of 7-up, sugar water, cows' milk, until the front teeth rotted out. It didn't matter, you understand, because they would get permanent teeth in 1 - 2 years. It would be different then. Of course the parent would not be different then.
It was just one of those simple, unforgettable, dismal realizations you get: they're so tiny, so young, so unable to defend themselves, and this is what we do to them.
When my two kids were real young wife's salary paid for daycare and cable tv. Stress on both of us to work, kids and taking care of the home felt like a never ending hamster wheel. She became a SAHM and it was the best decision we ever made. Money has been tight ever since, but the extra time she spent raising kids left them less stressed and anxious. I made out best of all, as everyone was calm, homework done, dinner on the table. Forced to lead a frugal lifestyle, kids don't care as its all they've known. Both are top 5% in high school. Well adjusted and always known they are loved. Raising kids is our greatest legacy. Not easy but wouldn't change a thing .
I quit working as a systems analyst three weeks before the birth of my first child. I looked for a daycare for him at about 4 months, thinking about returning to work. I left him there for 3 hours while I went to get a haircut and perm. He was sick when I got him home. I couldn't believe I had done that to him.
I never took either of them to daycare, never returned to a regular day job, but for awhile it bugged me that I wasn't hauling in the bucks like I had before. I saw a woman lawyer who dropped her kids off at the same Montessori preschool that I took him to when he was 4. She was wearing a suit, heels and stockings, had on makeup and styled hair, and looked like a million bucks. I was in bluejeans, as always.
I told her I was envious of her, just a little. She said she was envious of me. She said her husband made her work to pay off her law school debt, but that she would gladly live in a tent if she could stay home with her kids.
That fixed my attitude problem.
I was at a deposition and on a break some chit chat came up. A lady attorney asked me what my wife did for a living, and I said she works 24/7 as a Mom and added that she and I agreed on this while I was in law school. The other lawyer, who had 2 kids under the age of 5, asked me condescendingly I if really gave her a choice in the matter. I answered that of course I did because if I didn't I don't think I'd be married too long.
Here's the thing. I see women on Facebook and hear them other places complaining about leaving their kids and wishing they could stay home. Most of them could stay home, but don't because of fears of falling behind in their career or giving up the income they have become accustomed to. Choices have consequences. My wife and I lived on less for years, and our children will reap the benefits of that for their entire lives.
Choose to raise your children ladies and get back to work later on.
"{I would include men too but majority of them generally get to do what they want, anyway without judgement from the rest of us}."
-- Very few men are doing what they want any more than women.
I find it interesting that is an either/or decision. We share responsibility. We each have our "turn" so that we each have a strong and separate bond. We also think school is great for an only child. Now he can approach others on the playground and know how to engage. He has little friends and get togethers. No one can have it all by themselves, but with a real partner you can achieve a strong family with a child who knows both parents care.
Post a Comment