rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (07/06/85)
I have a question for the people out here on this net, for both women and
men. How should you decide on who stays home and brings up the children,
when and if you have any?
I know that there is no choice about who carries it to term, but in the jobs
that everyone here seems to have, that wouldn't make a difference except at
the very end of the nine months.
My main questions are, do you feel it's the woman's job? Do you feel that
since it's always been "women's work", the man should do it? Should it be
the one making less money, the one with smaller prospects for advancement,
the one who would prefer doing it? The one who would do a better job?
This is a straightforward question that I'm asking, and I'd like to hear
some of the views of the older (more experienced) people, since I am only
20, want to have children some day (not too soon, though), and would like to
hear what other people think about this.
Please note, I am assuming that both want to have children, since the
question is who puts in the time, not whether the time should be put in.
----
Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University }jon@boulder.UUCP (Jonathan Corbet) (07/09/85)
> I have a question for the people out here on this net, for both women and > men. How should you decide on who stays home and brings up the children, > when and if you have any? There are a couple cases at NCAR that I believe are good solutions to this problem. The first couple consists of two scientists, both employed at NCAR. What they do is stagger their work hours so that somebody is available most of the time, and the kid is in day care the rest of the time. The problem with this approach is that it can seriously impact on the amount of time the couple has to spend with each other, which is hard on a marriage. The second case involves just the husband, who worked in my group. Here, the boss simply let him take a MicroVAX home, and he somehow managed to work and deal with the kids at the same time. -- Jonathan Corbet National Center for Atmospheric Research, Field Observing Facility {seismo|hplabs}!hao!boulder!jon (Thanks to CU CS department)
scott@hou2g.UUCP (N. Ersha) (07/09/85)
I think the best solution would be for both partners to take turns (a year or two each, at least until the child gets into nursery school or something). This would only work if each is capable of earning enough to support three; not necessarily the same amount, but it would probably have to be close. For this reason alone it would be nice to marry someone of my own economic "class" (NO FLAMES!) if given a choice. Not that anyone has a choice about such things--I don't expect to *select* the person I fall in love with. Granted it could be a pain in the ass at times, but there must be a lot of rewards to raising the kid(s) also. It'd be kind of neat to take a year or two off of "work"... Then with a terminal and net "connection" I would have the time to be as prolific as some of the rest of you--uh oh, maybe I shouldn't have given you any warning... SJBerry
grwalter@watnot.UUCP (Fred) (07/11/85)
In article <537@hou2g.UUCP> scott@hou2g.UUCP (N. Ersha) writes: >I think the best solution would be for both partners >to take turns (a year or two each, at least until the >child gets into nursery school or something). This >would only work if each is capable of earning enough >to support three; not necessarily the same amount, but >it would probably have to be close. > >For this reason alone it would be nice to marry someone >of my own economic "class" (NO FLAMES!) if given a choice. >Not that anyone has a choice about such things--I don't expect >to *select* the person I fall in love with. > >Granted it could be a pain in the ass at times, but there >must be a lot of rewards to raising the kid(s) also. It'd >be kind of neat to take a year or two off of "work"... > >Then with a terminal and net "connection" I would have the >time to be as prolific as some of the rest of you--uh oh, >maybe I shouldn't have given you any warning... > > SJBerry I have only one question : how many companies will allow you to take a year off every other year for 5-6 years ? Wouldn't most say 'bye' and then find somebody that would work full time ? (Look at it from their viewpoint - they have this position to be filled and you obviously wouldn't be filling it.) Just curious, Fred UUCP : {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watnot!grwalter CSNET : grwalter%watnot@waterloo.csnet ARPA : grwalter%watnot%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (07/12/85)
> I think the best solution would be for both partners > to take turns (a year or two each, at least until the > child gets into nursery school or something). This > would only work if each is capable of earning enough > to support three; not necessarily the same amount, but > it would probably have to be close. Unfortunately not all of us can take a year or two off and not risk spending another year obtaining another job. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 (allegra!phri!lonetto) Do you think it's REAL?
jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) (07/12/85)
>> I think the best solution would be for both partners >> to take turns (a year or two each, at least until the >> child gets into nursery school or something). >Unfortunately not all of us can take a year or two off and not risk >spending another year obtaining another job. Unfortunately, MOST OF US can't take a year or two off and not risk spending another year obtaining another job. (Women too!) So what!? It's this kind of logic that's used to convince women not to go back to work for years! To convince couples that it's not worth the effort for the man and woman to take turns stopping work. Typically the woman takes off first, because she bore the child/feeds the child. Then we get in the rut of the couple deciding not to take that turn they'd talked about. I think the taking turns solution is a VERY GOOD solution.... but far too often the couple agrees ahead of time, but when it comes to the change, the man isn't so interested in giving up work, and the woman is too interested in not upsetting the marriage, so they don't. Myself, I think I'd just go ahead and get the job anyway and force the husband to decide between himself and the baby. Yep, I'd put me ahead of the welfare of the baby. Enough of this shit about the woman always having to choose between herself and the baby! I say to women... You choose yourself. Let your man do that choosing. If he chooses to put the kid in a day care center instead of quitting his job, let that be on his head! -- Julia Harper [ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdh
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/13/85)
In article <593@mtung.UUCP> jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) writes: >....the baby. Yep, I'd put me ahead of the welfare of the baby. >Enough of this shit about the woman always having to choose between >herself and the baby! I say to women... You choose yourself. Let >your man do that choosing. If he chooses to put the kid in a >day care center instead of quitting his job, let that be on his >head! > Julia: A little angry today, perhaps? I would hope that you would see childrearing as being a joint responsibility, and none of this "you take care of [him,her] --- I did my job" crap! Aren't you glad *your* parents didn't have this fucked-up attitude? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.
unixcorn@dcc1.UUCP (math.c) (07/14/85)
In article <307@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >In article <593@mtung.UUCP> jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) writes: >>....the baby. Yep, I'd put me ahead of the welfare of the baby. >>Enough of this shit about the woman always having to choose between >>herself and the baby! I say to women... You choose yourself. Let >>your man do that choosing. If he chooses to put the kid in a >>day care center instead of quitting his job, let that be on his >>head! >> > >I would hope that you would see childrearing as being a joint responsibility, >and none of this "you take care of [him,her] --- I did my job" crap! >Aren't you glad *your* parents didn't have this fucked-up attitude? Excuse me?.. I believe that the attitude above WAS the attitude of a lot of our parents, only DAD was the one saying it!! (His job was over with quickly and hers took a number of years...) Childrearing OUGHT to be a joint responsibilty, some times it is. Unfortunately, there are still a goodly number of men who don't put in the amount of time with their children as do their wives ( or SOs) -- unixcorn (alias m. gould) "there's a unicorn in the garden and he's eating a lily" gatech!dcc1!unixcorn
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/16/85)
> >> I think the best solution would be for both partners > >> to take turns (a year or two each, at least until the > >> child gets into nursery school or something). > > >Unfortunately not all of us can take a year or two off and not risk > >spending another year obtaining another job. > > Unfortunately, MOST OF US can't take a year or two off and not > risk spending another year obtaining another job. (Women too!) So what!? > -- > Julia Harper Today none of us men or women can afford to take a year or two off either for economic or profesional reasons. If the decision to take time off from work is determined by reasoning that the woman will naturally be the one to lose the time (and it is a professional loss) than we have a defacto set of rules which discriminate against women (even if these rules ever see ink and paper). Any man who can use this kind of arguement or who allows this reasoning to shrug off a responsibility he voluntarily created is guilty of working to maintain the very discrimination which has kept women ** in the kitchen ** for so many years (generations). I have heard and seen many examples of just this kind of reasoning and many good and valuable people (all women ) have been removed from the work force. When at last theyare able to return they are so far behind that they have one of two choices: 1) give up and go back to the home and be good little housewives. 2) Study like hell to catch up only to find that they are now also battling an issue of age as well as sex. Julia goes on in her posting to urge women to throw off the burden imposed on them to put the child before themselves. She forgot one other thing which is to urge men to assume it. I belive that if more men were to act on the belief that they had a part inthe childs birth and so also have a responsibiltyto see to the childs up-bringing the societal pressures to leave it all to women would begin to diminish. I know several men who would jump at the chance to be house-husbands the only reason they have not is because peer pressure and pressure from the work place have made it extremely difficult. There are men who have taken this step and most of them seem to have found an inner balance which allows them to admit they feel realy good about it eventhough their friends, neighbors and professional associates try to make them feel that they are less than "manly" for it. To these men goes my respect and admiration to those who back down from the same pressure goes my disdain . -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
crs@lanl.ARPA (07/16/85)
> Yep, I'd put me ahead of the welfare of the baby. > Enough of this shit about the woman always having to choose between > herself and the baby! I say to women... You choose yourself. Let > your man do that choosing. If he chooses to put the kid in a > day care center instead of quitting his job, let that be on his > head! > > -- > Julia Harper > [ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdh To HELL with the kid, right? -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
benson@dcdwest.UUCP (Peter Benson) (07/16/85)
As a long-time single parent, I have some experiences to share
concerning the watching of children during the day. My
children went to a university day care center starting at 4
years for the elder and 7 months for the younger. The older
one had been in other child care during the first years of her
life. I became involved in the day care center, doing my
co-op time, cleaning, cooking, and helping to manage the
place. I feel that my children got quality care during the
day, which included love and individual attention.
This experience with day care has left me with the conviction
that parents can leave their children at day care centers with
no ill effects. I reserve one proviso: parent involvement is
essential. This involvement should be both effective and
visible. By effective I mean that if something needs work,
one must be ready to help fix it. Note that I did not say
"if something is wrong". One problem I experienced with day
care parents is their readiness to cite the day care for
failings they themselves had.
By visible, I mean visible to the children. I earned a lot of
credibility with my kids by helping build a fence. They
considered it their fence. What's more they considered the
center their center. Both have returned to volunteer their
services now that they are teens.
Finally, I feel that good day care gives parents the freedom
to continue to grow and develop. Being a parent has its
points and I can think of nothing which has given me more
emotional nutrition, but full-time parenting as a life's work is
and was not for me. Now that my kids are leaving the nest, I
am glad I have a career and friends outside the home to
provide the support I need.
--
_
Peter Benson | ITT Defense Communications Division
(619)578-3080 | 10060 Carroll Canyon Road
decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!benson | San Diego, CA 92131
ucbvax!sdcsvax!dcdwest!benson | greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/16/85)
In article <219@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: >> >> Unfortunately, MOST OF US can't take a year or two off and not >> risk spending another year obtaining another job. (Women too!) So what!? >> -- >> Julia Harper > >Today none of us men or women can afford to take a year or two off >either for economic or profesional reasons. Is it me, or does no one else realize that most states and employers *allow* a women time off for "maternity leave" and are *forbidden* to discriminate against these women when they return to their place of employment? Men, of course, don't have the same rights. So if a man takes time off to raise, or to help raise, his child, it hurts him more professionally than the women. Sad to say, but something that must also be realized is that the *supposed* wage discrimination we have heard about that *may* indicate women making less money also encourages the women to be child-raiser. >Any man who can use this kind of arguement or who allows this reasoning to >shrug off a responsibility he voluntarily created is guilty of working to >maintain the very discrimination which has kept women ** in the kitchen ** >for so many years (generations). Hogwash! So if *we* decide that *we* wish for *our* family to have the highest possible standard of living and (for whatever reason) I make more than my spouse, then by *our* deciding who quits the job to raise *our* kid, then *I* am guilt of some foul deed? >Julia goes on in her posting to urge women to throw off the burden >imposed on them to put the child before themselves. She forgot one >other thing which is to urge men to assume it. But what about the child? Anyone who would assume such beliefs as you and Julia seem to encourage would (in my opinion) make a horrendous mother! You seem to look at the child , once out of your womb, as no longer is your responsibility. And pretending that the man out there --- working from nine-to-five --- to bring home the bacon isn't sharing in the responsibility of the child is just plain blind! >I belive that if more men were to act on the belief that they had a >part inthe childs birth and so also have a responsibiltyto see to the childs >up-bringing the societal pressures to leave it all to women would begin to >diminish. C'mon! Now you are telling me that the guy figures that once the women is impregnated, his "job" is done? Just what the heck kind of men do you know? They don't even sound human to me! >I know several men who would jump at the chance to be house-husbands >the only reason they have not is because peer pressure and pressure from >the work place have made it extremely difficult. As well as the above mentioned bacon bringing! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I was riding a wombat this morning, 'till it broke its leg. I had to shoot it" -- Ranger on Camel
seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) (07/17/85)
I like to think that if you're good enough at your job, you can get some time off or work part time. I would like to work out an equal sharing of parenting responsibilities. I work 3/4 time and he works 3/4 time. I think you can still be on top of things at 3/4 time, especially if you are a software developer and have access to a terminal on the days you are off. If a company puts a lot of money into training you I would think they'd like to keep you even if you only worked 3/4 of the time. Obviously understanding management has a lot to do with this. If your management types are a bunch of creeps you aren't going to get anything out of them. Maybe that's a good reason to go look for another job. Your company should attempt to mold its policies to keep the employees happy. The company usually has a lot of money invested in you and it would be short-sighted of them to get rid of you because you couldn't give the company your un- divided attention. A big push right now is for child-care at work for working couples. There are a lot of working couples at ATTISL and Bell Labs and it would definitely please the employees if day-care through the company was instituted. Besides, working couples get shafted be- cause they get double benefits that are worthless to them. I think it's our responsibility to push our employers to make it easier for both men and women to leave to take care of the children. If they don't make it easier for us to leave, they should provide day- care. The 2 career family is no longer an anomaly. You can barely support a family these days on one salary. Our employers have to come to terms with the changes in the working population so that they can keep their employees happy and productive. Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/17/85)
In article <148@dcc1.UUCP> unixcorn@dcc1.UUCP (math.c) writes: (Quoting me): >> >>I would hope that you would see childrearing as being a joint responsibility, >>and none of this "you take care of [him,her] --- I did my job" crap! >>Aren't you glad *your* parents didn't have this fucked-up attitude? > > Excuse me?.. I believe that the attitude above WAS the attitude of a lot >of our parents, only DAD was the one saying it!! (His job was over with >quickly and hers took a number of years...) > Right. How could I have forgotten that Dad was busy working to help pay for my diapers and the mortgage and the babysitters and the medical bills and the life insurance --- all because he was selfish. How silly of me. There is the possibility that, although childraising is a joint responsibility, the duties do not have to be split down the line. I know that my Dad (a wonderful guy, BTW) would have loved to spend more time with the kids. But he was busy jet-setting from one aerospace firm to another trying to pay the bills -- so Mom wouldn't have to work. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I was riding a wombat this morning, 'till it broke its leg. I had to shoot it" -- Ranger on Camel
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (07/17/85)
Julia Harper writes (among other things); >>...Let your man do that choosing. If he chooses to put the kid in a >>day care center instead of quitting his job, let that be on his >>head! >> and then Ross M. Greenberg (of Time Inc. mind you) replies; > > <useless garbage>.. > >I would hope that you would see childrearing as being a joint responsibility, >and none of this "you take care of [him,her] --- I did my job" crap! > >Aren't you glad *your* parents didn't have this fucked-up attitude? > Consider this a flame Ross, if I wrote what I am thinking you'd have to move away from your terminal. I don't know if you have any children or a current SO but if you don't I hope your attitude changes before you do. There, my blood pressure has returned to normal and I didn't even type any nasty words. Peter B
falk@uiucuxc.Uiuc.ARPA (07/17/85)
{}
Less than a year ago, my husband and I had our first child. We are both older
(I was nearly 30, he 33) than "typical" first parents and both well established
in professions. We had decided beforehand to BOTH take off some time immed-
iately after her birth to recuperate (we both needed it) and to get to know
our child. My husband took the better part of 4 weeks, I stayed out about
8 weeks (although we have several computer terminals/pcs at home, so we weren't
totally idle).
After doing some interviewing, we found a babysitter that we were happy with,
but we made the arrangement that she would sit three full days and two half
days and that each of us would take her one afternoon a week as "individual"
time (we have flexible work schedules, so we were able to make up the after-
noon during the evening or on weekends). This has worked out quite well- I
don't feel like I'm herding her off to day-care all the time and yet I can
keep my professional standing.
Actually, there was never any question about either of us quitting work- we
really couldn't afford it (with a new house, new baby, etc.). Now, we probably
could afford it, but don't want to give up the lifestyle we've gotten used to
(the only problem with both spouses making about the same amount of money is
that if one quits, income is cut in half!)
Our daughter seems quite well-adjusted and happy and I feel comfortable with
the arrangement (originally, I felt some pangs of guilt- what kind of mother
was I not willing to give up my job for my daughter), but we continue to have
flexible schedules and will from time to time take extra afternoons off during
the week to play with her during her "peak" times. I realize that everyone
does not have the type of flexibility that we do, but I am very happy about
the current arrangement!
Connie
(uiucdcs!uiucuxc!falk)moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (07/18/85)
In article <316@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > >Is it me, or does no one else realize that most states and employers >*allow* a women time off for "maternity leave" and are *forbidden* to >discriminate against these women when they return to their place >of employment? > >Men, of course, don't have the same rights. So if a man takes time >off to raise, or to help raise, his child, it hurts him more >professionally than the women. Well, here at Tek, the "maternity leave" is generally six weeks (ie only until she is physically capable of working again). Any time the mother or father takes in addition is personal leave, and there are no guarantees regarding a job when they return. Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram
susan@vaxwaller.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (07/18/85)
> Typically the woman takes off first, because she bore the child/feeds > the child. Then we get in the rut of the couple deciding not > to take that turn they'd talked about. I think the taking turns solution > is a VERY GOOD solution.... but far too often the couple agrees ahead > of time, but when it comes to the change, the man isn't so interested > in giving up work, and the woman is too interested in not upsetting > the marriage, so they don't. Myself, I think I'd just go ahead > and get the job anyway and force the husband to decide between himself > and the baby. Yep, I'd put me ahead of the welfare of the baby. > Enough of this shit about the woman always having to choose between > herself and the baby! I say to women... You choose yourself. Let > your man do that choosing. If he chooses to put the kid in a > day care center instead of quitting his job, let that be on his > head! > > -- > Julia Harper > [ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdh It's not all that simple. I am not sure life ever is. One chooses, one hopes, for the greatest good of the family of which one is voluntarily a part. Fortunately it is possible to choose not to have children. I recommend that option to people (men included!) who value their careers more than their families. Susan Finkelman {zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susan
moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (07/18/85)
In article <322@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >But he was busy jet-setting from one aerospace firm to another trying >to pay the bills -- so Mom wouldn't have to work. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH! Just WHAT THE H*LL do you think raising children and keeping house is? Leisure time activities? Sheesh! It is this enobling of the role of "bringing home the bacon" so the little woman "doesn't have to work" that makes me see RED. (* mutter mutter mutter *) Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram
pc@hplabsb.UUCP (07/18/85)
This is always a topic where people can get VERY self-righteous,
defending what they do. I offer my input not as a defense but just as an
example of solutions that work for some people.
We have a 2-1/2 yr old boy who is very active. He is one of the
happiest, most easy-going kids I have ever known. He's very affectionate,
communicative, and in tune with his feelings. (all values of mine)
I stayed home for the first 4 months, doing little but nursing him,
talking with (to) him, and relaxing (important for nursing & for having a
relaxed kid). At 4 months, I went back to work 5 hrs/day; his dad works
9 hrs/day. We had mornings at home together to get the day going at our own
pace. In the afternoon, Adam went to a small day care center where all of
the staff are exceptionally well qualified and where the philosophy of child
care is explicit & matches our philosophy at home. He got all of the snuggling,
playing, and communication he could have needed. Unlike a private home setting,
these people do NOTHING but take care of the kids needs, and the careproviders
are well educated in early childhood development (most private homes are run
by women whose only qualification is that they raised their own kids).
At 8 months, I returned to work full time (as part-time scientists
aren't taken seriously here). It turned out that by working full time, I
was less rushed and hassled and Adam didn't have a disruption in his day.
He is still at the same little (12 child/3 morning teachers, 3 afternoon
teachers) day care center.
We cherish our time together and I can see the major impact I have
had on Adam's perspectives and attitudes. I can also see the wonderful things
the staff at his center have given him-- benefits of his exposure to a number
of people with different personalities. Adam has a very strong bond with his
daddy. They shower together every morning (since Adam was 6 months old!),
and often go off for a bike ride or a wagon ride to the park on the weekend.
One has to be prepared to take vacation days as the little one develops
an immunity to viruses (the first year is a dilly), but that happens either
in daycare, preschool, or kindergarten-- wherever the child is first around
other people.
It's great that you are thinking these things out now! With such
consideration, your child will be very fortunate. Good luck.
Patricia Collins
--
{ucbvax|duke|hao|allegra}!hplabs!pcgreenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/19/85)
In article <5513@tektronix.UUCP> moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) writes: (Quoting me): >>But he was busy jet-setting from one aerospace firm to another trying >>to pay the bills -- so Mom wouldn't have to work. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >AAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH! Just WHAT THE H*LL do you think raising children and >keeping house is? Leisure time activities? Sheesh! > Of course not! Raising me was probably one of the hardest jobs in the world --- I know: I was there. We are talking REAL brat, here! :-) Yeah, I fell into a language trap here...sloppy thinking, or sloppy writing. Of course you knew what I meant though, didn't you?? Let me amend that, okay: >>But he was busy jet-setting from one aerospace firm to another trying >>to pay the bills -- so Mom wouldn't have to go somewhere to work. This >>work around the house was more than enough for one person --- and it >>didn't even pay well! Better??? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I was riding a wombat this morning, 'till it broke its leg. I had to shoot it" -- Ranger on Camel
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) (07/19/85)
In article <316@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >Is it me, or does no one else realize that most states and employers >*allow* a women time off for "maternity leave" and are *forbidden* to >discriminate against these women when they return to their place >of employment? > It isn't quite as great as it sounds. A woman who takes maternity leave is covered by disability payments. She must return to work when her doctor decides she is physically capable. In the cases I paid attention to the women took off 6 weeks. The first 2-3 weeks were considered vacation instead of disability because it paid more. -- PKW hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/19/85)
> > Yep, I'd put me ahead of the welfare of the baby. > > Enough of this shit about the woman always having to choose between > > herself and the baby! I say to women... You choose yourself. Let > > your man do that choosing. If he chooses to put the kid in a > > day care center instead of quitting his job, let that be on his > > head! > > > > -- > > Julia Harper > > To HELL with the kid, right? > -- > All opinions are mine alone... > > Charlie Sorsby By what stretch of reasoning do you imply the to HELL with the kid attitude. Is there any really good reason why the father should not have to make a choice between caring for a child and working or providing day care etc.? Why is the implicit assumption in your statement that the woman is in the wrong and the man is not? -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/21/85)
In article <1083@vax1.fluke.UUCP> tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) writes: >and then Ross M. Greenberg (of Time Inc. mind you) replies; > > <useless garbage>.. > First thing, Mr. Barbee, is that (as the disclaimer at the bottom of each of my articles indicate) these are my views, not the views of Time Inc. Second: I am grateful for the *guest* account that Time Inc has given me on their machine. Since I don't work for them in any way, manner or form, it seems silly for you to impress my views as representing theirs. Third, if you consider what I have to say garbage, that is your right --- but at least I have the guts to come out here and express an attitude that I know may draw a *legitimate* flame, not this kind of chickenshit: >Consider this a flame Ross, if I wrote what I am thinking you'd have to >move away from your terminal. I don't know if you have any children or >a current SO but if you don't I hope your attitude changes before you do. > Say your mind, sir. Otherwise.......why bother sending all those useless bytes through so many machines, when you say NOTHING? If you really want to impress upon me your attitudes, then feel free to drop me a line. But please be sure that any mail you opt to send me says something or at least has some content that makes me (or even my dog!)think. The above drivel does not do either. Have a nice day...... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I was riding a wombat this morning, 'till it broke its leg. I had to shoot it" -- Ranger on Camel
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/22/85)
> In article <148@dcc1.UUCP> unixcorn@dcc1.UUCP (math.c) writes: > (Quoting me): > >> > >>I would hope that you would see childrearing as being a joint responsibility, > >>and none of this "you take care of [him,her] --- I did my job" crap! > >>Aren't you glad *your* parents didn't have this fucked-up attitude? > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York > I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. The presumption that only the father can and should "bring homw the bacon" is just what everyone is stirred up about. Selfishness is not the issue only the implication that it must of necessity be a father's role to support the family while the mother stays home to raise the child. It would be equally wrong to insist that only the mother support the family while the father stayed home. Obviously someone must work for the means of support Obviously who ever stays home while raising a child will lose ground in their profession In our current societal setting it is not generaly possible to allow both parents both the time to work and raise a child (not impossible by the way but very difficult). I dont have a workable general case solution but what we need is recognition that women are not only mothers they are workers and fathers are not only workers but fathers as well. -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie ================================================================================ These are my opinions! I worked for them and I intend to enjoy them. Handle carefully or else someone might think they are yours also. ================================================================================
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (07/23/85)
Good news: no rhetoric today, just a simple observation. One argument in favor of day care which I have found goes over really well with grandparents, in-laws and other republicans is the following: Once upon a time, families stayed together in the same town or county for many generations. One of the functions of the local extended family was the care of the younger children. Aunts and Grandmothers too old to garden or weave would watch the children while the young mothers tended to chores. This arrangement was far healthier than the current nuclear family arrangement which can leave young mothers stranded in a suburban wasteland with the screaming, colicky brats -- no escape, few chores, and no extended family to help out (she dutifully followed her husband to wherever he got the best job, right?). Day care, if properly done, performs the task that the extended family once performed. In the absence of a local extended family, day care is not just a nice thing for the little lady who wants her little job, or a social program for the bad lady who has to work because she couldn't keep her husband -- it is a phenomenon which answers a real need of even the most traditional nuclear family, a need which was once filled by the extended family, and which now must be filled by community organizations, because few people live in the same town as their parents, siblings and cousins. Why does this argument work so well? Because it appeals directly to the importance of the family in support of day care. This cuts the heart out of any anti-day care argument which attempts to claim that day care is anti-family. And just the use of the phrase "community organization" can make even the weirdest longhair sound like a John Bircher. Oh, well. I guess it is rhetoric. The trick is to sound like Phyllis Schlafly while building a case in favor of the ERA, to appeal to conservative principles in support of liberal policies. --