Dally <
[email protected]> writes:
> Jason Earl wrote:
>
>> Dally <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>Jason Earl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't think that mothers are even replaceable by loving caring
>>>>fathers. I am a father myself, and I love my kids, but there is more
>>>> to being a mother than being able to breastfeed.
>>>
>>>It's good if a kid has a loving father AND a loving mother. It's
>>>even better if the kid has a loving father, a loving mother and a
>>>loving Grammy and a loving Grandpa and a loving Uncle whose only
>>>twelve years older than the kid and lives there, too.
>>>
>>>Not everyone gets everything they'd like to have.
>> Of course not. Life is rough, and then you die. However, I
>> personally believe that having a mother around (especially when the
>> kids are young), trumps just about everything else. Once again, I'm
>> pretty old-fashioned. I still believe that there is something magical
>> about mothers.
>
> I agree that mothers are grand, but having mothers at home trumps
> everything else? I'm not sure I agree with that. Is it okay for the
> mother to go to work so the kid can afford college? Medical insurance?
> How about to reduce the stress on the father so he can change careers
> or be less burdened by having to work two jobs (meaning he never sees
> his wife and they end up getting divorced?)
>
>>>>Even Dally would probably concede that men and women are different
>>>>enough so as not to be interchangeable. Women make better mothers
>>>>than men do 
.
>>>
>>>I agree with this, but going to work doesn't stop them from being
>>>mothers. Never did, and it doesn't now.
>> No, but in many cases it means that someone else spends a lot of
>> time
>> substituting for the mother, and that's something that is a relatively
>> recent phenomenon.
>
> I don't believe this is true... but then, you go on to refute it in a
> moment, too.
>
>> This is especially true if you hire strangers to
>> watch your children. Leaving your children with grandparents or an
>> aunt on a daily basis is something that's been done forever. Leaving
>> your children with random strangers in a daycare is something else
>> entirely.
>
> Most women still use family-based childcare. I live far from family
> (and my parents were working during the infant years) so I paid
> through the teeth for high quality childcare, but I was unusual in
> that I'm highly compensated and could AFFORD high quality childcare.
> Most women - now and always - just left the kids with whoever would
> watch them (or with an older child.) Remember all those dreams
> about the "good old days when we used to play outside after school
> until it was dark and Mom never even knew where we were?" You
> weren't playing alone, there were latch-key kids out there, too.
>
> The other point I'd make is that "random strangers" don't STAY
> random strangers. From my perspective I engaged the services of a
> professional nanny to help me learn the parenting ropes. If I'd had
> my mother nearby - well - shudder - it wouldn't have been as useful.
> The woman who did my infant care was MUCH better at understanding
> infants than I was. I recall her telling me all sorts of things I
> wouldn't have known on my own, from what was causing diaper rash to
> when a kid had an ear infection.
>
> Stupid, uneducated children can give their kids love, but it's not
> necessarily enough. And besides, you can still give your kids love
> even if you go to work. You're not at work 100% of the time.
>
> Well, no, that's not true. I've definitely known some fathers who
> have been at work 100% of the time their kids are awake. A guy in
> my engineering department 15 years ago had a conversation with me
> about this. He thought he was doing such a great thing to work two
> jobs so his wife could stay home with the kids.
>
> His wife had an affair and they got divorced. That guy was so
> utterly screwed - screwed out of spending time with his kids,
> screwed out of a normal relationship with his wife, and screwed into
> having to work two jobs without any help from the other adult in the
> family.
That's just dumb. It's far better to do without some of the luxuries
than to miss your life completely. I work so that I can enjoy my
family. If I don't have time to hang out with my family then
something at work needs to give.
> Feminism is sometimes about PEOPLE's rights.
They should have called it people-ism then.
>> If you would have had unlimited resources there is little question
>> that you would have stayed home when your children were little.
>
> No... I would have worked part-time. Working full-time seriously
> sucked and I don't recommend that time famine to anyone. But
> part-time was great. Except for the money. I need stimulation, my
> own achievements, and to provide a larger world to my children than
> our livingroom. I like working.
Yeah, my wife teaches dance for the same reason.
>> The price you paid to be in this position was that you missed your
>> children's early years. In your case it would appear that this was
>> a good decision.
>
> I didn't miss them. I was there every single day.
>
> Do you feel like you're missing YOUR children's early years?
I wake up with the children every morning, feed them, dress them, and
make sure that the oldest is ready for school. I don't work late, and
I don't have any hobbies that take me outside of the home. Even
weight training is a family affair. Instead of kettlebell swings I do
"kidbell" swings. My kids love that.
However, there is still an 8 hour (sometimes more, sometimes less)
hole in my day where I don't see my children. There is no question
that I miss a great deal.
>> Lots of people still make the choice to make do with less in order
>> to give their young kids a full-time mother. Making do with less
>> is not something that is very popular in our society. That's not
>> feminism's fault, but it certainly doesn't help.
>
> It's not as simple as a moralistic view about whether they need
> cable TV or not. Health insurance benefits, the ability to get a
> decent education (when more and more places require private school
> to do so), the ability for the woman to keep her job skills current
> enough to retain some earning abilities... there are lots of reasons
> why the choice to work makes a lot of sense for the entire family,
> INCLUDING the children.
I recognize this. However, there are still lots of folks that manage
to make do with one income. Sure, their children might have to go to
public schools, and possibly (gasp) a public university.
>>>Actually, I'm curious: do you guys know women who had no economic
>>>input through-out their lives? Not before the kids, not after the
>>>kids, not ever? Just stayed home and ate bon bons and scrubbed the
>>>kitchen sink until is shone?
>> My mother and both of my grandmothers were stay at home mothers.
>> All three graduated from college, received their teaching
>> certificates, and then went on to raise families instead of
>> entering the work force.
>
> They never taught? Not before marriage? No home-schooling
> afterwards? No taking in of neighbor children?
My mother never taught. My grandma Jones taught at the local one room
school when all of her children were old enough to be in her class.
That's probably cheating
. She was with her children all day, but
she got paid to watch them.
>> My grandma Earl and my mother were both the wives of small town
>> lawyers (my grandfather and father became partners in a law firm), and
>> so they didn't really have anything to do with their husband's
>> business, and neither worked outside the home.
>
> Your father and grandfather wouldn't have been able to make partner
> if they had to rear the kids, stay home with snuffly noses, be there
> to let in the plumber and could never entertain clients. There is
> some economic value to a wife of a high-functioning man who only
> gets to be high functioning because he has a wife.
My father and grandfather were partners. The firm was "Earl & Earl
Attorneys at Law." There is no question, however, that both men would
have been far less successful without their wives. The old adage
about good men having good wives is pure gold.
>> They didn't eat many bon bons (although my grandmother makes
>> ridiculously good cinnamon rolls). Both my mother and grandmother
>> raised 8 children (each), and were very active in the community so
>> they were also very very busy.
>
> So, they WERE in the work force - that's what "active in the community"
> means. You just didn't spot it until now.
I suppose that if you consider being active in the church as being
part of the workforce then you have a point. I think that you are
stretching a bit though.
> Obviously they were engaged in the home during the time they had 8
> small children at home, but what did / do they do now? Volunteer at
> the library? Work at the hospital auxiliary? Fundraise for the
> church steeple? Watch grandkids so their daughters can work? Can
> you spot how your mother(s) actually ARE engaged in the labor force
> without being counted?
Both my grandpas are dead now. Grandma Jones lives with my parents.
Grandma Earl lives by herself. She just got a job working for one of
my uncles. Both women spent a few years caring for their ailing
husbands. Grandpa Jones had Alzheimer's, Grandpa Earl just got old.
>> I can honestly say that I know of dozens of women with similar
>> stories. College educated women who chose to raise families and
>> keep house rather than enter the work force. Of course, I'm
>> Mormon, and I grew up in a rural community, so I am probably an
>> outlier.
>>
>>>I don't know those women.
>> They exist. They just don't run in your social circles.
>
> You're describing women who are active in their communities, doing
> unpaid economic work.
Yes. If that counts then I agree with your assessment that women have
always been "in the workforce." Of course, June Cleaver would have
qualified as well.
My point is that there used to be more women who, while active, didn't
have a career as such, and whose lives revolved around caring for
their family. If you'll agree that this used to be more the case in
the past than it is now, then the discussion is over. We both agree
. Either way it is always interesting to discuss with you.
Jason
