peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (08/30/84)
I've just caught up on reading net.women; please excuse the references to old topics, but, after reading all the responses, I feel there are some things that still should be said. On women being ashamed to stay home and raise children: Whether right or not, I know one person who is quite deeply troubled by this. She's about to graduate with a degree in CS, but would rather stay at home and raise a family than go out into the work force. Germaine Greer's latest book appears to sympathize with her, going by interviews I've seen. Of course, the problem with promoting mothering as a career (indeed, it need not be a lifelong career, as it could occupy only one or two decades of one's life in a full-time way) is that there are negative associations with it, along with all the positive ones. Feelings of dependence, isolation in the home, and stultifying work. But these feelings do not appear to be intrinsic. Financial dependence can be eliminated by splitting all income 50-50. Isolation can be alleviated by setting aside time when the mother can leave the house, leaving the child with father, relatives, or paid assistance. Finally, housework can be shared, though this might be tough for low income people. It has never been my impression that mothering *per se*, that is, the raising of children, guiding their emotional, physical, and intellectual development, is considered an unskilled or menial job. Surely to help in the development of a healthy, vital member of society is as valuable as, say, helping to develop a compiler. On the other hand, many mothers, I am sure, feel quite bitter about, e.g., financial dependence and the feeling that they do very little for themselves. And thinking of the children as their "product" (a la the compiler of above) can be dangerous for those children. So perhaps it is also necessary for a "full-time" mother to have a part-time vocation, which can also be used to help reduce feelings of isolation. And time must be particularly provided for this vocation, by arrangement with spouse, relatives, etc. Anyone out there who is/was a full-time mother (or father) like to comment? p. rowley, U. Toronto
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/05/84)
From Peter Rowley >Of course, the problem with promoting mothering as a career (indeed, it need >not be a lifelong career, as it could occupy only one or two decades of one's >life in a full-time way) is that there are negative associations with it, >along with all the positive ones. Feelings of dependence, isolation in the >home, and stultifying work. But these feelings do not appear to be intrinsic. >Financial dependence can be eliminated by splitting all income 50-50. Isolation >can be alleviated by setting aside time when the mother can leave the house, >leaving the child with father, relatives, or paid assistance. Finally, >housework can be shared, though this might be tough for low income people. >It has never been my impression that mothering *per se*, that is, the >raising of children, guiding their emotional, physical, and intellectual >development, is considered an unskilled or menial job. Surely to help in >the development of a healthy, vital member of society is as valuable as, >say, helping to develop a compiler. I think that the worst problem of all with promoting motherhood as a career, that you mentioned but haven't expanded on is the fact that it is not a lifelong career, and that many women who take motherhood as a full-time career have a lot of trouble when that career is over, either accepting the fact that it is over, or looking for another career. Even though raising children is NOT a menial job, and is a very valuable one as you pointed out, I disagree with you on how it is considered by society at large. My observation has been that it is considered a non-job and that women who stay at home to raise children are assumed to be, in many people's minds, and certainly in their future employer's minds, "doing nothing". When it comes to going back on the job market, mothering skills are usually never considered as valuable skills; on the contrary, mothers who try to get back on the job market after a few years of absence to raise children often have to face the attitude that their choice of motherhood as a first career is not a sign of great skillfullnes but rather a sign of stupidity: "obviously she can't really be very intelligent, why else would she choose to stay home and raise children?". Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/06/84)
Note: I'm not taking issue with Mr. Rowley's statements below; they serve as convenient springboards for my own. > [p. rowley] > On women being ashamed to stay home and raise children: Whether right or > not, I know one person who is quite deeply troubled by this. She's about > to graduate with a degree in CS, but would rather stay at home and raise a > family than go out into the work force. Germaine Greer's latest book appears > to sympathize with her, going by interviews I've seen. > Of course, the problem with promoting mothering as a career (indeed, it need > not be a lifelong career, as it could occupy only one or two decades of one's > life in a full-time way) is that there are negative associations with it, > along with all the positive ones. Feelings of dependence, isolation in the > home, and stultifying work. But these feelings do not appear to be intrinsic. The negative associations are considerable! When my wife and I got married, she decided to stay at home and be "just a housewife". Neither of us feel she's "just" a housewife, but a number of people, when inquiring what Karen was "doing these days", gave the definite impression of "oh, is that all?" when I said she was staying at home. Or, "she's not working, huh?", as though she sits around all day doing nothing. (The next sentences need not be read by the non-religious.) The thing that really surprised me was the number of Christians who also shared these sentiments. This amazed me because our own beliefs are that being a homemaker and mother are honorable and valuable professions, that this is consistent with the Bible, (no flames, please. I *said* you could skip this part!) and that there is no reason to be ashamed of the desire to stay in the home. (I'm not saying all working mothers are negligent of their families. Many have no choice. But on the other hand, many who put their career before their family. It's the "me first" attitude, and, to be fair, men who consider their families of lesser importance than their careers are also guilty of that attitude, and fail to realize the worth of those they live with.) > Financial dependence can be eliminated by splitting all income 50-50. Financial dependence can be eliminated in at least one other way, too. There is no dependence because I don't consider my money mine. It's *ours*. Neither of us establish any exclusive rights over any of it. Perhaps you could say that ultimately it's mine because in a conflict over how it should be spent, I would have the final say. But in practice, we don't have those conflicts because we are both directed toward the same end: the welfare of our family, not the welfare of ourselves. > Isolation > can be alleviated by setting aside time when the mother can leave the house, > leaving the child with father, relatives, or paid assistance. Finally, It's also important for the husband to realize that his wife occasionally wants to spend some time out *with* her husband and *without* the kids. And not only to realize it, but to do something about it. Like take her out to a nice restaurant once in a while (that's kind of a superficial statement, but you get the idea?) > It has never been my impression that mothering *per se*, that is, the > raising of children, guiding their emotional, physical, and intellectual > development, is considered an unskilled or menial job. Surely to help in > the development of a healthy, vital member of society is as valuable as, > say, helping to develop a compiler. That's for sure! It's much *more* important! > On the other hand, many mothers, I am sure, feel quite bitter about, e.g., > financial dependence and the feeling that they do very little for themselves. That's right, some do feel bitter. One factor (among others) that contributes to this is when the husband himself fails to realize the worth of the contribution of his wife to the well-being and stability of their family. Compliments and thank-you-for-that- marvelous-dinner-type remarks are small things, but on such small things an enormous amount of how my wife thinks about herself depends. And any husband who really cares how his wife feels will not only say such things when he feels like it, but *go out*of*his*way* to notice occasions when he can say something nice, or something appreciative. Not fake things, either. This becomes particularly important with the passage of time, because it is so easy to start to take people for granted. Husbands, when was the last time *you* told your wife "I love you." Be honest, now! -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage forever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. Psalm 119:111
hawk@oliven.UUCP (09/19/84)
>It is admirable that a woman does >make such a commitment of her time, effort, and suspension of her career >but it must also be realized to outsiders that she has arrested her >intellectual and "productive" development and therefore "not working." >I don't necessary agree with that attitude but there is a certain logic >why that attitude exists. Ahh! We're supposed to put up with this predjucial attitude! I see now. One of the four most productive things my mother ever did, rick -- [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk