mts (01/21/83)
If you're single, it would really be tough. But, if married and your husband has a favorable attitude toward raising a family and sharing the load, then no problem is insurmountable. I have found that the key to having children and a career depends very heavily upon my husband's total support and understanding. In addition, I have found that one of the greatest hurtles a new mother must overcome is the "overwhelming urge" to put her child's and her husband's interests and needs first.(That's what causes most burn-out.) I'm a Systems Engineer, working full-time, with two small children (one 8mo. and the other 4.5 yrs) at home. My priorities are myself first then my children. My husband can take care of his own vital needs. So long as the kids are fed and healthy, I worry about nothing else. Of course, you must understand I'm trying to be brief here. The house doesn't get cleaned unless it really needs it and then we do it together. I make sure I have my personal outlets, such as involvement in community affairs (I'm a member of my town's Planning Board, etc.). I also make sure I don't interfere with what my husband may feel important to him. Finally, the bottom line is working out your priorities, and always keeping your needs in the big picture.
goodday (01/25/83)
I agree with Kimberly Kutsch that children need the guidance and support
of a parent or both parents at home on a daily basis. Children do live in the
'now' and also pick up the beliefs and life styles of those who raise them
(to a large extent). My question or want for discussion is about having the
father home as the one to raise the children. I am not married yet, but feel
that when/if I do and we decide to have children that I have a responsibility
to my wife and children to help raise them. One approach seems to me to
'exchange roles', my wife could work (if she so desires) while I stay home and
raise the children. Another approach seems to be for me to take off several
years in my job to be home and later for my wife to do the same as I go back to
work so that we both have time with the children and make the necessary job
sacrifices and reap the joys (and sorrows) of being a parent as well.
How do some of you feel about this?
Thanks for listening. Hope to get some response and discussion.
(Am interested in the effects of the second approach on the children,
for one.)
David Schiferlwakeup (01/27/83)
I too like the idea of men staying at home and the women working, possibly on an alternating basis. I do feel it is impracticle. I can see myself in a job interview after staying at home for 3 years: "What have you been doing for this three year gap in work?" "Well, I have been at home watching my children grow, doing house work and supporting my wife in her career." "What about YOUR career? Are you going to quit after 3 years here so your wife can work again?" "Well....." I think that assuming you are not physically moving about that you will soon run out of possible employers after a couple of rounds of job alternation. This assumes that the kind of job you are looking for demands a certain skill or education. And if it does how are you going to stay uptodate during your off times. I prefer to go the parttime route. Let both parents work about 3 days(hopefully the same three days). this leaves 4 days per week you can be together as a family, have time to counteract the bad influences the child experiences at daycare or babysitters, have time to do the house work, and maybe have time to do special activites most parents do not have time for such as trips, both educational and for fun.(WOW, that was some run on sentence, sorry.) The basic problem with this idea is still the over importance employers place in career minded people. As an emgineer I do not see any employer letting me work parttime for an extended period of time especially since I am a male.I asked for such a plan once and got a resounding NO WAY. Even my wife who works got the same reply. Companies feel that work and career are the only thing which should be of importance to a person. If a career is not imortant than either work somewhere else or don't work at all. This I feel is a very poor attitude. Many people want more than work in their life. Also many people have talents and skills to offer the companies, and at the same time want an escape form home to maintain sanity and want to work for that type of fulfillment. I feel companies should be more flexible to people's needs in this area.
lin (01/30/83)
For years black women have had to work, and you can't say that their children were dirty, sick, or poorly adjusted. I agree with the person who said that it's the parents' love and attitude that matters, not what profession they are in. Child abuse can result from a mother being around the kids too often. Another very important factor in handling a career and job, though, is the physical health and stamina of the parents. I personally have chosen not to have children just becase the stress and energy demands of a job are as much as I can handle. However, I know people who can do with less sleep and who have lots of energy. For professional people, hiring someone to clean the house is very helpful. If both parents have good jobs the advantages of financial well being, sending the children to schools in a good neighborhood, etc., may be better than in a one-worker family with less money. The discussion should not focus on whether a mother should work, but on how to be a supportive, honest and loving parent, regardless of the employment situation.
charlie@cca.UUCP (Charlie Kaufman) (09/09/83)
What's needed is simply:
1. The recognition by all that child nurturing is the highest
achievment of a man's or woman's life, ...
A survey: Do people agree with this?
I do not. In an overpopulated world, adding another person is doing no
great service unless you happen to possess some unusual and valuable
genes. If you choose to have children, effort spent developing them
into responsible members of society is certainly socially as well as
privately beneficial, but must be weighed against efforts spent on
alternate socially beneficial projects.
I'm sure child nurturing is the highest achievement in many people's
lives. And I do not dispute the desirability of the business community
displaying more flexability in helping employees reach their conflicting
life goals. What I fear is encouraging people to have children which
neither they nor the world need out of some perverse sense of duty.
--Charlie Kaufman
charlie@cca
...decvax!cca!charlie
p.s. I am reluctant to post this to net.women, since it reinforces
undesirable stereotypes, but this is where the issue came up and
net.philosophy seems to be into more abstract issues.beth@umcp-cs.UUCP (09/10/83)
Perhaps raising children is not the absolutely best pursuit in life. There are some people who make terrible parents. However, if we all decided that we should not have children, the human race would soon be extinct. That scenario will not occur, of course. However, we do need to strike some sort of balance between raising children and other pursuits. Many parents, and mostly mothers, are trying to balance careers and children. Often, a parent will want to stay home with the children for a few weeks, months, or years. Perhaps the parents believe one or the other of them should be there when their child first walks, first speaks, or comes running in with a skinned knee or the latest drawing from school. Sometimes it is not feasible for only one parent to work. Many businesses have developed at-home work schedules, job-sharing, part-time jobs (with prorated benefits), and flexible schedules. Some have both maternal and paternal leave of reasonable length. However, too many businesses are not this flexible. I believe that businesses need to become more tolerant of parents and their needs. Parents, and mostly mothers, need to weigh the needs of their jobs against the needs of their children. For some, the decision is to not have children. That is their choice. I want to have children. I want either my husband or myself to be home with them the majority of the time. I have to consider what constraints that will put on our careers. Hopefully, we will be able to find something where one of us can work part-time and/or mostly at home. There aren't many jobs like that, but at least in computer science it is plausible.
ellis@FLAIRMAX.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (09/10/83)
Re: Child nurturing as one's highest achievement, superior genes, &c.
Admittedly, there are too many people in this world. Most advanced nations,
however, have their populations well under control, such that most
couples can have one or two children. Sadly, most of the `enlightened'
people I know, those who would probably produce the most creative children,
have decided not to have families. Too bad...
And the possession of unusual or valuable genes, nice though it may be,
is clearly only part of the issue. Equally (more?) important is the quality
and amount of attention a child would likely receive from you.
If you'd send your children to daycare centers their first six years, why
have them at all? These first six years comprise the most fascinating event
in the world, and yet somehow our society (including many in the
progressive vanguard) believe that they should be spent in mass production.
What are we saying about ourselves when self creation is treated as a
menial task, not worthy of attention from the best minds? It's sad how
little creative effort most parents devote to their offspring.
And if you'd have children out of some ugly sense of duty, please note
that here's one person who feels it's your duty to be sterilized
immediately. Duty is a cheap substitute for genuine interest/love.
Almost everyone hopes they'll make some great contribution to this world.
But we can't all be Einsteins or Stravinskys -- which takes equal amounts
of luck and creativity, anyway.
Face it, most people's professional contributions to this world are totally
forgettable, and hardly equal to the existence of one reasonably happy
person. Think of all that life force most parents pour into their
insignificant careers while their children are being treated facelessly by
some institution. This, I believe, is the source of the worst problems in
the `advanced nations' today.
-michael
-ps Charlie@cca, how does this conversation `reinforce undesirable
stereotypes'? I feel men should be househusbands 3 years per child!mason@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Mason) (09/10/83)
Yes I do think that child nurturing is one of if not THE most
rewarding thing(s) that a man or woman can do.
The arguments about "...with so many people creating more ... seems
less appropriate than other social concerns.." were arguments I once
subscribed to, and I think this planet would be a lot better with .5 rather
than 4 billion souls, but I don't think childless people in the North
are seriously contributing to the social welfare of the South (Hemisphere).
If you have gone and worked with CUSO (Canadian University Students Overseas)
or the American equivalent, or another of these kinds of things, then clearly
you are in a position to question the relevance of another baby, but otherwise
, if you are figuring out whether to put the 3rd VCR in the study or cottage,
I think the question smacks seriously of hypocrissy!
....ssssss...call the firefighters...I thought I had it under control...
I make more in 10 hours in front of a class than 80% of the world makes a
year, and feel the social responsibility very acutely, though I do not
have a solution. Sometimes it is worthwhile to put our problems in
perspective by thinking of those who can't afford to eat, and have never
even heard of computers, let alone have the luxury of deciding whether
to get VMS or Un*x.
-- Gandalf's flunky Hobbit -- Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRG,
{cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!mason
or {decvax,linus,lsuc,research}!utzoo!utcsrgv!mason (UUCP)mason@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Mason) (09/10/83)
I heard an interesting statistic a couple days ago. There was a study
done (no refs..sorry) of how much "Quality time" fathers spent with their
kids. Quality time was defined as time verbally communicating. First
the parents were asked how long they thought. They estimated what would
seem to be low numbers like 1 hour. Then they put microphones on the kids
and checked for several days. The actual time?: 38 seconds per day!
Meanwhile the kids were watching 6 hours of TV a day.
No further comment....
-- Gandalf's flunky Hobbit -- Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRG,
{cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!mason
or {decvax,linus,lsuc,research}!utzoo!utcsrgv!mason (UUCP)franka@tekcad.UUCP (09/12/83)
#R:cca:-568400:tekcad:22000006:000:1694 tekcad!franka Sep 11 14:26:00 1983 I have heard many people talk about how businesses should try to accomidate job sharing, at home work, etc. to allow people more time to parent (I apologize to all English language lovers out there who bemoan my misuse of the language by using a noun as a newverb). I hate to say this, but it's not up to your company to make life easier for you who have FREELY CHOSEN to have children at the expense of those who FREELY CHOOSE not to have children. The costs to provide benefits for two people doing the same job as one person or to provide extra equipment to work at home must be gotten somewhere. This is usually subsidized by the entire company. This includes MANY people who will never benefit from the services provided. I don't begrudge your choice to have children. I do resent the fact that some of you seem to believe that other people in your company have the obligation to lighten your responsibilities of being BOTH a parent and an employee (by your own choice) by forcing changes in the workplace which will increase business costs at the expense of others (I'm sorry, but we're trying to save money which we spent by giving benefits to 200 people instead of 100 people. No raise this year.). You made the choice to have children. How about taking the added responsibilities without forcing others to pay for it? Frank Adrian P.S. I know that it's always been hard to raise children. But why should that stop you if you really want them? And why try to lighten the burden on your- selves by putting more burdens on the backs of others. P.P.S. I also think that I should say that these opinions are my own and may not reflect the views of Tektronix, Inc., who employ me.
preece@uicsl.UUCP (09/16/83)
#R:cca:-568400:uicsl:16400018:000:1221 uicsl!preece Sep 15 09:02:00 1983 I'd like to see a little broader notion of 'quality time' than just time spent 'verbally communicating.' I think quality time is any time you give your children in which you are directly and obviously responsive to what they want. If they want to watch tv, ok, let them do it in your lap. If they want you to build castles with their Legos, that's ok. The point is that it's time when they know they have your attention, whether you're talking or not. I've been fortunate in my employment -- I can get home a lot earlier than most people, so I've been more a part of my kids' lives than many men, but even my brother-in-law the (medical) doctor spends more than 38 seconds a day paying attention to his kids. As to daycare, I think parttime daycare is very valuable to kids in several ways. I think kids need some time every day when they are NOT the center of attention. I think kids need to learn to deal with kids their own age long before school. I think kids need to learn early on that the world doesn't end if Mommy and Daddy are both away for a while. But I definitely don't think 8-to-6 care is a good idea unless it's the only thing that keeps the wolf from the door. scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
engels@ihuxs.UUCP (09/16/83)
One vote for a net.kids or net.parents. Being a woman doesn't mean I'm a parent.
preece@uicsl.UUCP (09/19/83)
#R:cca:-568400:uicsl:16400017:000:374 uicsl!preece Sep 12 11:21:00 1983 I hate to suggest new notefiles, but it might be interesting to have a group called something like net.kids or net.parenting for the discussion of the obvious subject. Given the age distribution of the industry, there must be a lot of us with young kids, and there's no good reason for parenting to be a sub-topic within net.women. scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece