andy (02/03/83)
Rather than reply to all you hecklers via mail, I though I would save myself a lot of typing and do it here. To all those who mailed me their "comments" and flames, thanks for your concern but all you have done is reinforce my (ok guys, jump on this; I said MY, not OUR) convictions. I have to admit I find the need to justify and defend the moral obligations of parents and the rights of children distasteful and troubling (but after reading the pro-abortionists' articles it is easier to understand). Is it so unreasonable and unsavory to give your children the love, attention and care they deserve? Is a career or money or "ME" all that matters? It is a sad commentary on our society that we can rationalize and justify our selfishness and then mock and attack those that refuse to accept cop-outs. Sure there are exceptions, the single parent who needs to work, the rape victim whose child would be an unwanted further trauma. But let's not generalize and rationalize on the basis of a comparatively small number of cases. It all boils down to convenience and the ME generation. Sacrifice vs. convenience. If you choose to let someone else raise your children or if you choose to abort a child conceived as a result of an "accident", in most cases (I repeat MOST, not all) it is out of convenience. You may feel guilty about it but you do it anyway because it's your life and you come first. If you put yourself or your career ahead of your children you rationalize it by saying you need to be happy with yourself or you need the "experience" or "self-fulfillment". You can have your career and make up for time lost when you come home after work--it's quality not quantity that counts anyway, so you just try harder in the little time you have. Come on people, open your eyes. Do you really think that after a day of full-time work you can give your child the attention and love it desperately needs? Your children will be sent to school soon enough, don't rush them out of the house even before they can walk. How many sitters and daycare workers hear a child's first words; how many children adopt views and develop personalities with little or no parental input; how many children (or adults for that matter) can really talk to their parents and consider them friends? Sure, there are children that are indeed better off with both parents at work, but again, let's not get bogged- down with comparatively small percentages. Maybe I am an overly- sensitive, emotional jerk. But when my children grow up I won't be worried by doubts that I didn't sacrifice and didn't try to do my best. Being a parent is a sacrifice, don't ever doubt it, but if you think your children aren't worth that sacrifice and that you are number one on the priority list, don't have children. And don't assume that all non-working mothers are mindless, subservient char ladies. And also don't assume their working husbands are selfish, chauvinist pigs. Mothers are the ones who accept the responsibility of the most important and rewarding career there is. Fathers are the ones who are forced to make enough money to pay the bills (that's a fact of life; men make more money than women.) and spend what little free time they have with their children in the hope they can in some way make up for time lost at the workplace (in between helping clean house, do shopping, fixing cars, maintaining the home, etc.--maybe it's time for a men's liberation movement.). Maybe I am living on another planet and my neighbors and I are atypical of the "average" family, but that's the way it is. My wife is lucky enough (those are her words, not mine, so dont flame at me) to be able to actively partake in the care and nurturing of our children. She is a mother, the heart of our family, someone that keeps it all together and makes all of us thankful that the ME-generation advocates haven't succeeded in their brainwashing. So please don't belittle her and other mothers by assuming all non-working mothers are forced into their position by domineering husbands--just because you wouldn't want to do it doesn't mean everyone thinks likewise. I have been talking about sacrifice and I am sure there are many itching fingers out there ready to blast me with the question, "What are YOU sacrificing while your wife raises YOUR children?" I have to admit that my sacrifices don't seem like very much. Sure I go out and work and will do so for the next 30 years, I do all I can to help with cleaning and maintaining the house, I babysit when my wife goes to evening classes or needs a "night out", I take the children to the zoo or for a walk in the woods to give my wife some quiet time for herself, and other seemingly trivial things that all responsible fathers/husbands normally do. I don't have an expensive wardrobe, I fix my own car, I don't "go out with the boys", I have abandoned most of my hobbies, etc., but I don't really feel I am sacrificing anything. Whatever I do or don't do is because I love my children. I have yet to sit around grumbling about reading some dumb story to the children when I could be out fishing. I don't begrudge the last 30 dollars in the checkbook when it goes for gymnastics lessons, books or something one of my daughters wants (not needs) instead of a few fishing lures or something else for myself. I guess what I am saying is that the sacrifice is just something to think about before having children. Once they are born, the word "sacrifice" doesn't seem to mean anything any more. You just want the best for your children and don't consider yourself a martyr when "denied" or "forced" into doing things. I don't think I have been very successful in articulating the feeling; maybe only parents reading this know what I mean. We thought about the change in lifestyle and "sacrifices" ahead when we decided to have children. We decided we were ready to accept the responsibility and sacrifices. The decision who would stay at home was made for us. In our case, we were lucky because it was mutually agreeable (i.e. my wife wanted to stay at home and my salary was twice hers). So long as you are willing to accept sacrifices (perhaps other parents may indeed feel they are making sacrifices), both parents are supportive of each other (don't forget the working parent needs a pat on the back too), and you are willing to put your children at the top of your priority list, then you have the makings of a good parent. Remove any one of these three prerequisites and your chances of success are diminished (I am not saying it's impossible, it's just very difficult and the odds are against you.) An obstinate but proud parent Andy Rubaszek decvax!utzoo!andy
jss (02/05/83)
andy, that men make more money than women is not a fact of LIFE, it's a fact in our society. also, take another look at "women's lib". most of us are agreeing that you should be able to enjoy taking care of your children instead of having to be the only one out there in the cruel world grubbing for money. we ARE talking "people's lib", really, we are. judith schrier !decvax!brunix!jss
pn (02/05/83)
"it's a fact in our society that men make more money than women" I would like to solicit opinions, mailed or posted, on how this inequality can be minimized. I can think of two issues right off: society doesn't place a high enough value on the kind of work women traditionally do, such as nursing, teaching, homemaking and secretarial, among others. On the other hand, most women are not attracted to many professions which pay better, such as law, medicine (doctors) and engineering (present audience excepted). I'm also curious if young women are giving fields such as engineering more consideration than it has been given in the past.
leichter (02/06/83)
"Women earn 60 cents for every dollar men earn." This is a marvelous example of Mark Twain's comment on there being "Lies, damn lies, and statistics". While it is true, it ignores so many factors that drawing conclusions from it are is next to impossible. Thus: There is a strong correlation between age and income (up to retirement age). Up until quite recently, women did not enter the job market as much as men (for whatever reasons - the facts exist independent of the causes). Before you can compare average incomes, you have to compare average ages. Even if you control for ages, you have to consider the strong correlation be- tween time on a job and income. Again, men have the edge here because even if you look at older women, they entered the workforce relatively recently. (If I remember the numbers right, earning peaks in the late 40's, if not even later. Men in their late 40's have been working for over 20 years. In 1962, relatively few young women were entering the workforce.) Finally, tied in with the previous point, there is a correlation between steady work at a relatively small number of jobs, with no real breaks, and income. (Obviously, there are exceptions - job-hopping executives, etc. - but few people are in this catagory.) Women are much more likely to change jobs and take time off. (I heard a figure of something like an average of 3 jobs over a lifetime for men and 13 for women.) Hence, you can explain a large portion of the "income gap" in terms of factors that have nothing to do with current discrimination (as opposed to discrimi- nation 20 years ago). If you intend to "do something" about the income gap, you will have to "do something" about these factors. I would submit that they are extraordinarily difficult to change quickly, if at all. (Consider the oft- cited proposal that work be reorganized to allow women - and men - to take time off and return "without penalty". No matter how you organize things, the per- son who stays on the job has advantages - improved skills, expanded contacts - than the person who leaves. There really is no way to overcome the advantages, and this will show up in the averages. Hence, the only way you could expect to see a change would be for men, on average, to take as much time off for child-rearing as men. Ignoring the merits of this, it doesn't seem likely in our culture - and it's certainly not something that we have any idea how to "cause to happen".) -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter
jss (02/07/83)
re Jerry Leichter's comments: well, we are trying to change things so that we can ALL have families and continue our careers without penalties. we do realize that it's difficult to change, and nearly impossible to change quickly, but don't feel that's a reason not to try, and keep on trying, because it's important! judith schrier !decvax!brunix!jss
turner (02/07/83)
#R:utzoo:-278900:ucbesvax:10300001:000:5275
ucbesvax!turner Feb 6 16:30:00 1983
Dear Andy,
First of all, I have NEVER in my life encountered the word "sacrifice"
with such revolting frequency! Let's just isolate a few of of your comments
(yes, "out of context", I know, I know) to get a clearer view of what passes
for thinking in the forgoing diatribe.
"...exceptions, the single parent who needs to work, the rape
victim whose child would be an unwanted further trauma....[Why]
...generalize and rationalize on the basis of a comparatively
small number of cases".[?]
By and large, that "single parent who needs to work" is a WOMAN, and a
poor one at that. She's not out for "ME" - she needs to support her children
too, the one's she ALREADY has to feed. Why should her right to abortion be
denied? It is precisely this group of women who are most hurt by recent
social policy...and it is one of the largest and fastest-growing section of
poverty in the country.
"You may feel guilty about it but you do
it anyway because it's your life and you come first."
And you're not going to let any right-wing $25K+/year MALE techo-wizard
tell you that you can't, even if he DOES have much more disposable income
that he can divert from his daughter's gymnastics lesson to some right-to-life
organization which, in turn, is run by some even MORE benighted man.
"Do you really think that after a day of full-time
work you can give your child the attention and love it
desperately needs?"
How very much many of these women would like to! And what are YOU
doing about it? Looking out for "MY FAMILY", instead of "ME"? One idol
in place of another?
"Sure, there are children that are indeed better off with both
parents at work, but again, let's not get bogged-down with comparatively
small percentages."
Listen: you talk a lot about "sacrifice" -- but there are LOTS of people
in this country who are in income brackets such that their combined income
will never equal your individual income. To be both working really IS the
best that they can do for their children.
"(don't forget the working parent needs a pat on the back too)"
And you're actually talking about YOURSELF, here, aren't you? Hey, I say:
"Let's not get bogged down in small percentages!"
"Being a parent is a sacrifice, don't ever doubt it, but
if you think your children aren't worth that sacrifice and that you
are number one on the priority list, don't have children."
Point of definition here: you are asking us whether our children
are worth the sacrifice of being a parent. Put another way: "is being a
parent worth the sacrifice of being a parent." Yet another: "is having children
worth the sacrifice of having children?" PLEASE TRY TO MAKE SENSE!
"Fathers are the ones who are forced to make enough money to pay
the bills (that's a fact of life; men make more money than women.)
and spend what little free time they have with their children in the
hope they can in some way make up for time lost at the workplace..."
A-a-and!:
"The decision who would stay at home was made for us. In our case, we
were lucky because it was mutually agreeable (i.e. my wife wanted to
stay at home and my salary was twice hers)."
"Forced"? I know families where MEN are "forced" to stay at home
because there is no work. "...fact of life; men make more money than women".
You don't seem to be too broken up about your advantage, buster. And is this
"fact of life" as unchangeable as sex?
It's like we learned in school: Mommies take care of the house, Daddies
go to work, where they suffer "...time lost in the workplace..." -- well NOW
it comes out: you actually begrudge the labor you sell (at so high a price!);
is this the "sacrifice" which you so evasively refer to? Don't you ever wish
you could break out of these constraining roles? But these roles are part of
a system that you don't really want to change.
"I guess what I am saying is that the sacrifice is just something
to think about before having children."
Hey: we've heard enough of this. It just so happens that they are
very many people in the world, and even in this country, who have little
or nothing to sacrifice in the first place. These people are called "poor".
They often have lots of children. They often love these children, even
when they go real bad, which is frequently. They don't have your advantages,
Andy, they probably never will, and they know that their children probably
never will. But they can, at least, have children -- nobody has been able
to take that away from them.
Poor people might escape this cycle if people like you and me can
stand up for their right to do it themselves. THIS is, to me, what
reproductive rights and sexual equality is all about. Not "Me-Decadence"!
It has EVERYTHING to do with joyful family life, and love of children.
If you think that I'm "pro-abortion" (yuck!) because I'm young and
affluent, and don't care about anybody but ME, that's just a little out of
line. If you think that makes me "anti-family", or even, "anti-life", it
could really just be because I am ALSO
"...an overly-sensitive, emotional jerk."
An obstinate but but-not-so-proud non-parent
Michael Turnermcewan (02/19/83)
#R:brunix:-142900:uiucdcs:31600003:000:876
uiucdcs!mcewan Feb 18 17:29:00 1983
A woman who wants an abortion is likely to be a bad parent, if forced
to have a child.
Therefore:
She should have an abortion.
Mia Shinbrot
Microtel Pacific Research
Vancouver, BC, Canada
... !ubc-vision!mprvaxa!shinbro
----------
The following is NOT an anti-abortion flame.
This argument verges on circular reasoning. You have clearly made the
unstated assumption that abortion is not murder (the central question
in this debate) to show that abortion is "good". I can use the same
argument to justify infanticide - if the mother of a 6 month old child
wants to kill her baby, she's a bad mother. Therefore, she should
kill her child. I've assumed that a 6 month old child has no right to
life, but so what. My reasoning is perfectly clear to everyone who
already agrees with me.