karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (11/26/84)
Periodically, I hear or see something about full-time-mothers versus
working-mothers and the relative merits of each. In particular, my wife
Lucy occasionally catches some flak because she's "justahousewife."
That really ticks me off; I view the work which my wife does with our
son Todd (18 months) as being of considerably more importance than my
own work, and I think it's fine that she doesn't even want to find
paycheck-producing work until Todd is at least into 1st grade, and
possibly not for some time after that.
Hence this posting. Around mid-May or thereabouts, the following
article appeared in _T_h_e _C_o_l_u_m_b_u_s _D_i_s_p_a_t_c_h. It's written by a guy by the
name of D.L. Stewart, who writes a (daily?) column titled _P_a_t_e_r_n_i_t_y
_W_a_r_d. He normally writes some reasonable stuff, and this one really
caught my eye. I cut it out way back then and saved it, something which
I do once in several blue moons. I feel (for reasons which wouldn't be
terribly important to the Usenet public) that it would be good to post
it here today.
=======================================================================
_M_O_T_H_E_R _N_E_E_D_S _N_O _E_X_C_U_S_E
By D.L. Stewart
It was a "tease," one of those little television announcements they use
to promote an upcoming feature on the 6 o'clock news.
"Tomorrow," the announcer said, "we'll take a look at some women who
have elected to stay home and raise their children."
It wasn't, as the saying goes, what she said that startled me. It was
the way she said it. The tone in her voice implied: "Don't miss this
one, folks, these women really are unique."
It was the kind of tone you might hear in front of the side-show tent.
The tone that gets the rubes inside to see the two-headed calf. The
bearded lady. The crocodile boy. Hurry, hurry, hurry. Full-time
mothers. You'll gasp. You'll blush. You'll tell your friends.
And I looked at my wife, the one who had elected to stay home and raise
our children, and I asked: "How long has full-time motherhood been a
curiosity?"
Of course, I already knew the answer.
For some women, motherhood became an elective on the day their husbands
skipped town and forgot to leave a forwarding address. Or the month
after their husband died and the insurance policies that once looked so
reassuring began to disappear beneath a pile of mortgage payments and
orthodontist bills and Jordache jeans.
Motherhood became a part-time job for some women at the moment they
decided that wiping noses and tying shoestrings and driving a station
wagon full of infielders to Little League practice was not fulfilling
and there was more to life than PTA and Cub Scouts. Or at the moment
they looked at their husband's take-home pay and discovered that it
covered food and clothing, but left nothing for second cars and college
tuition and TVs.
No one can dispute their decisions. No one should. No one, after all,
asks me why I have elected to be part-time father.
And yet, there is something in that television tease that bothers me.
Something that makes me wonder why it is necessary to take a camera
into a woman's home and ask her to explain her reasons for staying home
all day and caring for her children.
Is it really all that unusual for a woman to want to be there when a
baby takes its first, lurching steps across the living room floor into
her arms? Is there something strange about a woman who chooses to
spend her time listening to her baby's first words? I may be wrong
about this, but it seems to me that there must be a special
satisfaction in tip-toeing into a 2-year-old's room at nap time and
just standing there, watching a small body at sleep.
What's so odd about electing to be there when a 6-year-old rushes home
from school clutching a paper with a gold star on top, filled with the
joy of accomplishment and the need to share it? Has the world changed
so much that there's no longer room for a woman who feels it's
important for a 10-year-old to know that there will be someone waiting
at home who really wants to hear about all the good things that
happened today?
And all the bad things. Who decided that there's no satisfaction in
holding a crying child on her lap and kissing away the tears?
At what point did we start looking with curiosity at the woman who
finds fulfillment in guiding an adolescent through some of the toughest
years of life? A woman who doesn't feel that it's a waste of her
talents to create a life and nurture it and help it grow and send it
into the world with the best possible preparation it is in her to
provide.
When did motherhood become newsworthy?
=======================================================================
I don't think much needs to be added to this item as it stands, but I'd
just like to comment that, yes, in fact there is a great deal of
satisfaction in going into a sleeping (not-quite-)2-year-old's room and
"just standing there, watching a small body at sleep."
--
From the badly beaten keyboards of best address---+
him who speaks in _*_T_y_P_e_* _f-_O-_n-_T-_s... |
V
Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!_c_b_r_m_a_!_k_k
@ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 cbosgd!osu-eddie!karlpmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (11/26/84)
Thanks Karl, I'll share this one with my wife. For the first four years of our marriage she worked here at Bell Labs. She's been home now since our daughter, Jessica, arrived in February. Sometimes I've gotten tired of feeling apologetic when I have to explain to those who ask when she's coming back to work that she's decided to stay at home, at least until our kids are in school (we plan to have more). One woman here wanted to be assured that it was really my wife's choice (and not mine, I suppose). I tell people seriously that, if she doesn't want to stay I would. Most people think I'm kidding. Sometimes I wonder if I am. But if it came down to it I think I would. The only thing that scares me is that her job is so much more challenging than mine. I'd have to learn a lot of new skills. And, yes, I know what it's like to miss out on the many joys of parenthood. When my wife calls during the day to tell be that Jessica has started to crawl or climb the stairs I really feel like I've missed something. Getting home to watch a replay is okay, I guess, but not quite the same. By that time the child's own excitement at doing something new is less. I don't get to watch that initial excitement. It's a special treat for me when she wakes up before I have to leave for work. That little girl is so happy in the morning ... it makes my whole day. It is not my intent here to make those in "two-career" families feel bad. I understand there are good reasons for this and don't begrudge anyone there choice in this matter. But I'd like them to understand the other side of the picture. There are some (most visibly feminist leaders) who are saying that parents really don't know how best to raise their children, indicating that we should turn the job over to "experts". I think this is only a justification for doing their own thing with a pretense of having the child's best intrests in mind. To me parenthood involves more than just giving birth to offspring. Of course that doesn't make us "expert" parents. (Who defines what an "expert" in parenting is anyway?) Being a parent has as much importance in the growth of the adult parent as it does for the child. -- The "resurrected", Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
marie@harvard.ARPA (Marie Desjardins) (11/27/84)
Three cheers! I have no children (not even married yet) but am looking forward to the experience eagerly. My fiance and I have talked about it and decided that we will have probably 2 (possibly 3) children, that I will stay home with them when they are very young (until age 3 or so) while he works, then he will stay home with them until school age (age 6) while I work. Possibilities of the current housewife/husband could be to do part-time at-home consulting or courses in night school. My question is: has anybody out there done this? Are there any real-life househusbands or ex-househusbands out there (or any wives of househusbands!)? My experience has been that every time I mention this plan to anyone (mostly students) they drop their jaw and look dumbfounded. It didn't seem so outrageous to us. Marie desJardins marie@harvard
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (11/30/84)
>It is not my intent here to make those in "two-career" families feel bad. I >understand there are good reasons for this and don't begrudge anyone there >choice in this matter. But I'd like them to understand the other side of >the picture. There are some (most visibly feminist leaders) who are saying >that parents really don't know how best to raise their children, indicating >that we should turn the job over to "experts". I think this is only a >justification for doing their own thing with a pretense of having the >child's best intrests in mind. To me parenthood involves more than just >giving birth to offspring. Of course that doesn't make us "expert" parents. >(Who defines what an "expert" in parenting is anyway?) Being a parent has >as much importance in the growth of the adult parent as it does for the child. >-- >The "resurrected", > >Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd > Whoooooo!!! which "feminist leaders" are you talking about here? First I am not even sure of what you mean by a "feminist leader", but if what you meant was "prominent feminists" instead, I want names!!!! I haven't heard of any feminists claiming that "experts" would be able to do a better job of parenting than parents are, except maybe for some old-school feminists like Simone de Beauvoir. I have read books by prominent contemporary feminists (Deirdre English, Barbara Eirenreich try reading their book "For her own good: 150 years of the experts' advices to women") claiming just the opposite. Prominent "experts" on child care have often been men who usually did not raise children themselves: Jean-Jacques Rousseau had his 4 children put in an orphanage; Skinner treated his daughter like a guinea pig by putting her in a box (sure it was a nice box, but still a box); I don't really know about Dr Spock. If there is any trend that I have noticed in feminist writings, it is certainly a dislike for "experts" simply because "experts" have so often claimed so many things about women which were completely erroneous and even often dangerous (witness the current trend of high-tech intervention during childbirth). The "self-help" movement in health care is mainly a feminist movement. So be careful who you point your finger at. You are dead wrong in this case. True, many feminists are pro-daycare. But the reasons they usually give for this have more to do with economics and freedom of choice rather than trying to pretend that it is better for the children involved . In some cases day-care is better, not because the "experts" know better, but because these are cases where the parents would end up abusing the children because of the resentment they might feel towards them for "tying them down" and lowering their economic situation. If the parents don't enjoy parenting or enjoy it, but couldn't stand doing it on a full time basis, then the children are probably better off in daycare. Feminists might be pro-daycare but they are often also usually the ones pushing for parental benefits such as maternal and paternal leave. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (11/30/84)
Sophie, The "feminist leader" I had in mind was Gloria Steinem as quoted in "Ms." magazine. Sorry, I can't give you the issue and page so you're welcome to throw it out as an unsubstantiated claim. I just rember her opinion as being something to the effect that parents don't really know how to raise children properly. Obviously someone must raise them and I'm not sure if these "experts" are in day care centers or what, though that seems the logical conclusion. I also have the impression (falsely perhaps) that the leader of NOW (her name escapes me) has similar opinions on the family. (Though that immpression is even less substantiated). I definitely did not mean to give the impression that feminism supports this view. I'm sorry that I didn't word my response carefully. I should have said "some feminist leaders" and not implied that the "some" were feminist leaders. My apologies to all. At any rate, I'm fairly confident that the opinion of the "some" will not influence the opinion of the "many" too much on this issue. But I still feel the need to express my disagreement with regard to the influence they *do* have. Thanks for your word of balance. -- The "resurrected", Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
marie@harvard.ARPA (Marie Desjardins) (12/01/84)
> Sophie Quigley: > If the parents don't enjoy parenting > or enjoy it, but couldn't stand doing it on a full time basis, then the > children are probably better off in daycare. if the parents don't enjoy parenting or enjoy it, but couldn't stand doing it on a full time basis, then everyone is probably better off if they don't have children. My father enjoyed having children (he had 4) but couldn't stand it full-time. He left (I still see him lots, and love him though!) I'm just glad my mother didn't have this attitude, or where would I have been? (Not here, I'm sure!) Marie desJardins marie@harvard
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/01/84)
Ah well, if this is so, then I take my criticism of your article back.
I'd still be interested in knowing when this article was published.
It is true that there was (and still are) a lot of negative feelings
against the traditional family in the feminist movement, but I was
never aware of people going as far as saying that "experts" would
do a better job of raising children than parents would. If they did,
then my apologies for flaming you.
It is true that AT TIMES children are better off being raised by non-family
members than by their parents but I really can't see how one can generalise
either way.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigleyjeff@ISM780.UUCP (12/02/84)
> There are some (most visibly feminist leaders) who are saying > that parents really don't know how best to raise their children, indicating > that we should turn the job over to "experts". In THE SECOND STAGE, Betty Friedan explains that the whole point of the women's movement wasn't to get every woman into the marketplace working her way up to corporate ladder, but to show that women have a choice about what they do. It is equally valid to exercise that choice by consciously deciding to stay home and raise children, as it is to be the chairman of GM. Claiming that feminism demands women go out and work misses the whole point of the movement by substituting a new status quo for the old one.
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/03/84)
> Sophie Quigley: > If the parents don't enjoy parenting > or enjoy it, but couldn't stand doing it on a full time basis, then the > children are probably better off in daycare. >Marie desJardins: >if the parents don't enjoy parenting or enjoy it, but couldn't stand >doing it on a full time basis, then everyone is probably better off if >they don't have children. > >My father enjoyed having children (he had 4) but couldn't stand it >full-time. He left (I still see him lots, and love him though!) I'm >just glad my mother didn't have this attitude, or where would I have >been? (Not here, I'm sure!) I don't think we are talking about the same thing: By full-time, I meant full-time, not just every day, but also most of the day every day. Surely you're not suggesting that people should only have a child if they are willing to take care of him/her full-time (my definition). If you ARE suggesting that, why? (obviously your mother was not a full-time mother if she had to support you, and you here!). Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (12/03/84)
Concerning the "Mothr needs no excuse" clipping; I know this isn't net.woman but wouldn't the article been even more powerful if the author had said "Is it that unusual for a person to want to see their child's first step..." etc. Since women now have their choice about careers and/or parenthood when do men get this choice? Peter Barbee decvax-+-uw-beaver-+ ihnp4--+ allegra-+ ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron sun-+ ssc-vax-+
betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (12/04/84)
> > Sophie Quigley: > > If the parents don't enjoy parenting > > or enjoy it, but couldn't stand doing it on a full time basis, then the > > children are probably better off in daycare. > > Marie Desjardins: > if the parents don't enjoy parenting or enjoy it, but couldn't stand > doing it on a full time basis, then everyone is probably better off if > they don't have children. > Whooa, Jessie! Have you ever spent twelve hours alone with a toddler? I have friends who do. It's mind-numbing work. Rewarding,often, but two-year-olds just can't provide much in the way of intellectual conversation. "Yes, Mommy, I liked Sartre's defense of suicide a lot. NOW can I have a cooky?" Women (and men!) shouldn't be condemned for wanting to spend part of their time away from their children. It doesn't make you an unfit parent to prefer to spend some time with adults discussing your chosen career. My parents both worked full-time; I don't feel damaged. In fact, I think I was better off with half of a happy, contented mother's time than I would have been with all of a bored, trapped mother. (I'm not claiming that all housemothers are unhappy, merely that mine was.) What I'm trying to say is that no one lifestyle is right for everybody. I oppose forced daycare *and* forced mothercare; different strokes for different folks. -- Elizabeth Hanes Perry UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!betsy CSNET: betsy@dartmouth ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay
marie@harvard.ARPA (Marie Desjardins) (12/10/84)
> > I don't think we are talking about the same thing: > By full-time, I meant full-time, not just every day, but also most of the > day every day. Surely you're not suggesting that people should only have > a child if they are willing to take care of him/her full-time (my definition). > If you ARE suggesting that, why? (obviously your mother was not a full-time > mother if she had to support you, and you here!). > Oh, O.K. I personally happen to believe that (at least when young) I would like to have at least one parent home with the children at all times, but can see the other side. If by "not full-time" you mean "not all day" and not "not every day" as I interpreted it, then I think you're correct. However, I still believe that if one does't enjoy parenting, that person should not have children! Marie desJardins marie@harvard