It takes a village - Page 2

[chipper26]

I think our transient society has a lot to do with it. All of my family lives at least 4 hours away... so no help/support.

Neighborhood aren't like they used to be... everyone works and many people do not stay put. I think it can be hard to get to know your neighbors.

[CatsCradle]

I have enjoyed reading this thread. I have a similar situation to many of the previous posters in that my family (including in-laws) live in other states / cities and my parents have taken a very hands-off approach to grandparenting.

With me, it is not so much that DH and I need help, it is the sad fact that my DD will never grow up around grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles. When I was growing up, we lived around most of our relatives, and it gave me a certain sense of belonging and love and concept of family.

We were over at a close family friends' apartment the other day (the husband was my prior boss). They are in their late 60's. DD called his wife "grandma." She continued to do this throughout the visit, and although it may be charming on some level, my friends are not her grandparents and it saddened me that she made that connection.

What has caused this the isolation? I think a previous poster made a good point that in our society, independence is valued and that has had a negative impact on the closeness of extended family. I can even say that the isolation that DH and I feel is mostly of our own doing: to get work and to get ahead, we moved to another state and have been here ever since - buying our own apartment, becoming part of the community, etc. Given our personal situations, it would be a huge leap to move back to where we grew up. The economy isn't good in the state that I grew up in and it would be tough to leave a life-time of work (I am 46 and DH is 59) and try to set down roots somewhere else.

Anyway, I didn't really offer any good solutions, but just from my observations, I think that it comes down to individual situations. I live in a neighborhood now that is multi-generational. People don't leave (generally) and their lives and connections to family are so much different then our own.

[chipper26]

Originally Posted by suzukiaustin

i hope i don't get flamed for my post...it's truly sincere...

But i think our villages have been destroyed with the influence of modern technology and women moving out of the home and into the workforce (think rosie the riveter). I must say that i am for women's rights, rights to equal education, healthcare, equal pay when working, voting rights, but, if there is not an extenuating circumstance, a young mother should have the right to be at home with her new baby (not 3 months maternity leave...but years), a grandmother should have the right to nurture her daughter and the new grandchild, the husband should be out working (hunting), the children should be running around naked in the sun with their cousins, we should be dependent upon one another...we shouldn't carry the burden of a male when we clearly are more skilled in motherly things, like lactating. with modern technology we have slowly strayed from our natural roles in this world.

What can we do about it? Unplug from the matrix and teach our children that we all need each other. Get back to the basics. Grow our own food. Buy food from the same farmers at farmer's markets. Teach our children to say hello to people, to call them mr. And mrs. Take on our natural role as nurturers. Become a domestic goddess. I really think it's up to our generation to start pushing the pendulum in the other direction. Our mothers and grandmothers (at least mine) were pushing things too far on the other side of the spectrum.

Just my opinion...

ita.

[BroodyWoodsgal]

Originally Posted by suzukiaustin

I hope I don't get flamed for my post...it's truly sincere...

But I think our villages have been destroyed with the influence of modern technology and women moving out of the home and into the workforce (think Rosie the Riveter). I must say that I am for women's rights, rights to equal education, healthcare, equal pay when working, voting rights, but, if there is not an extenuating circumstance, a young mother should have the right to be at home with her new baby (not 3 months maternity leave...but years), a grandmother should have the right to nurture her daughter and the new grandchild, the husband should be out working (hunting), the children should be running around naked in the sun with their cousins, we should be dependent upon one another...we shouldn't carry the burden of a male when we clearly are more skilled in motherly things, like lactating. With modern technology we have slowly strayed from our natural roles in this world.

What can we do about it? Unplug from the Matrix and teach our children that we all need each other. Get back to the basics. Grow our own food. Buy food from the same farmers at farmer's markets. Teach our children to say hello to people, to call them Mr. and Mrs. Take on our natural role as nurturers. Become a domestic goddess. I really think it's up to our generation to start pushing the pendulum in the other direction. Our mothers and grandmothers (at least mine) were pushing things too far on the other side of the spectrum.

Just my opinion...

I would tend to agree with you.

I have always said that, I feel somewhat robbed by the femme movement. I feel robbed and lied to. There was this grand idea, that we could work, keep a home and raise kids...DO IT ALL...if we only had the chance. IMO...that's simply not possible. Keeping women out of the workforce is wrong. Trapping women IN the workforce and perpetuating this idea that she is supposed to be able to do it all, is just as wrong and unfair.

There is absolutely no way I could be doing ANYTHING but keeping my home, feeding my family and taking care of my LO right now. If I had a job on top of everything I'm doing, I think I might go insane.

I think it's wonderful that a woman can become a doctor, nurse, scientist, etc and that no one can tell her she can't, because she's a woman. I believe that a business/medical/scientific/artistic world, without the influence of women, is not in balance.

What makes me feel robbed, is the fact that now EVERYONE has to work. Women are expected to work and since they have for a while now, many women are forced back to work too soon after having babies, because now most families are dependant upon two incomes.

Two thoughts I have, which I'll just throw out because I dont know where they fit in this....are:

1. Way too many people have kids because it's "what you do" - I have known so many women, who didn't really have an insane push, like, a maternal drive...they loved their kids, but they REALLY loved their careers and honestly, I don't think would have missed motherhood had they never had it. They had kids, put them in daycare at around 6 weeks and were gleefully off to the office. I say this with the fear that I'll be flamed....but if this is what you WANT to do (NOT forced to do because your family wishes it were differnt, but cannot survive without your income)..if this is what you WANT, why are you having kids in the first place? They are in daycare when they are 6 weks....until they are 5...EVERY DAY, then in school EVERY DAY, all day...then they are gone. If this is REALLY the preferable situation for you, WHY have kids? Again, if you HAVE to put your kids in daycare, and it kills you inside to do it because you wish you could be with them at home...I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the mom I know, who BARELY made it through that first 6 weeks. She hated being home, hated caring for the baby...couldn't WAIT to get back to work..."practically skipped out of the daycare" she was so happy <---- HER words.

I just think, that too many people have children. I think it should be a REAL choice...like whether or not to work. People should think about it, consider it. And, if the love working more...reject it. I think some people would be happier.

2. I think it is important to realize, that this "9-5 life" we've been tricked into believing is real life...isn't real life. The vast majority of people these days, work meaningless jobs or paper pushing jobs. It's...stunning. A pile of paperwork, which is on the left side at the beginning of your day...and by the end of the day, is on the right side of you. Or manning a chicken slaughter machine...or, screwing bottle caps, or whatever. Who works a craft anymore? Who works the land anymore? As a REAL trade...not because they are a migrant (practically slave) worker, who is terrible taken advantage of, but still needs the .70/day? This is not real life....this is not real anything.

We are CHAINED to working, as a people, we are chained to working. It's not supposed to be that way. Money truly is the root of all evil. Humans have developed a nasty, dependant, controlling, abusive relationship with money. It's an illusion. It sucks...I hate it. This "work life" we live now, is replacing "family life"...it is what, I think, lies at the very core of this problem.

Take, for instance, this idea that dads work and moms work or stay home. This is false. Yes, dad goes out into the woods to hunt...but he also doe a lot of other things which are supposed to be closer to home. I believe that many many dads these days don't even know their children. They are working for the 40-60 hours a week that their children are awake, learning and growing. Weekend time, is not enough. Work, the way we have come to know it, is BAD.

Too many people on the planet. Too much work on the planet.

[EnviroBecca]

Suzukiaustin wrote:

I think our villages have been destroyed with the influence of modern technology and women moving out of the home and into the workforce (think Rosie the Riveter). . . . a young mother should have the right to be at home with her new baby

It seems to me that a mother at home alone with her baby IS ISOLATED, and therefore that's part of the problem. Of course when a baby is brand new, you don't want to be taking it out a lot or having a lot of different people in, but having a few people around to help is wonderful. After those first few weeks, I think it's important to both mother and baby to have plenty of contact with other people, whether in their own home or in others' homes or in public.

I think our villages have been destroyed not by WOMEN going out to work but by ANYONE going out to work long hours on a fixed schedule, i.e. the Industrial Revolution. The factory/office lifestyle is not natural for humans, and after 100+ years we still haven't adjusted well to it.

I agree with your ideas that this problem can be solved by depending on others more, localizing our economy, and being friendly. I don't think limiting ourselves to rigid gender roles will help, though.

What else we can do:
People of both sexes, parents and others, can do their best to choose jobs with reasonable hours and flexibility; if enough people do that, employers will have to allow more of it, and the economic downturn may be an opportunity to increase job-sharing in order to have more people employed.
Share stuff: Go in together on a bulk purchase and split it. Have a weekly meal with another family, alternating houses. Carpool. Pass on things you don't need to friends, instead of to strangers through a thrift shop. Form a babysitting co-op.
Participate in free events in the community.
Have lots of informal parties, potluck dinners, open houses, and such.
Join a house of worship or community center, and get involved in multiple activities there until it's like a second home.

Ann of Loxley wrote:

It takes a village...yes...and wouldn't that village be nice? But if 1/4th the village spanks and another 1/4th uses punishments/rewards and the other 1/4th doesn't even know they have children as they are stoned half the day... it doesnt leave much of a village left for my child.

You know, the place where I grew up was far from a village atmosphere, and hardly anyone there was like my family in parenting style or values--we almost felt like we were foreigners! But I think it would have been a serious mistake for my parents to "protect" me from visiting others' homes and witnessing different parenting styles. If the choices you've made for your family truly are the right ones, you have nothing to fear from your child seeing that there are other options. Sure, you have to protect your child from people who would spank HIM or wouldn't take adequate care of him...but if he goes over to a friend's house and sees that when she spills the juice her father hits her with a board, he will be all the more grateful for your gentle approach! Honestly, that is how it worked for me.

Avery's Momma wrote:

I have always said that, I feel somewhat robbed by the femme movement. I feel robbed and lied to. There was this grand idea, that we could work, keep a home and raise kids...DO IT ALL...if we only had the chance. IMO...that's simply not possible. Keeping women out of the workforce is wrong. Trapping women IN the workforce and perpetuating this idea that she is supposed to be able to do it all, is just as wrong and unfair.

And trapping MEN in the workforce is just as wrong. So is keeping men out of domestic life. You mentioned the stereotype of supermom; have you ever noticed how many ads and TV shows and "jokes" demean men as bumbling idiots in the areas of childcare, cooking, and caring for others?

We've had a movement to open up career options for women. Now we need a movement to open up nurturing options for everyone--for men, who've never been "allowed" to do those things, and for women, who've been discouraged from doing those things by over-zealous feminism.

One more thing: I believe that public schools (preferably smallish, neighborhood ones) are very important in building community. People who don't have school-aged children still should care about their local schools and go to the school plays, sports, carnivals, etc., maybe even volunteer at the school. Homeschooling CAN be a way to build a village with other homeschoolers, but many families don't wind up doing much of that, and even when they do it's an "our tiny village against the world" kind of thing. If the schools are not good enough for your child, they're not good enough for other children, so pitch in and be part of the village instead of withdrawing from it! I really don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings by saying this--I know there are many wonderful homeschooling families here. But my parents' involvement in my schools, their continued involvement since my brother and I graduated, and my own efforts to get to know my local schools have been so rewarding in connecting us to the village.

[mlh]

I agree that the change is due to the fact that families live far away from each other. I don't have any family that lives in my same town, so it makes it hard to find help and support. I so long for my village and have found it somewhat through friends. A friend and I started a group called the Conscious Mamas a few years ago. We had the idea of getting a few families together to do pot lucks, play groups, community service, and much more. We also have an online group so we can chat and help each other there. We bring meals when needed, give support, and just have fun.

These online groups are also a great idea. I love chatting on MDC and it is comforting to know others are going through similar situations!

I am also hopeful that things are starting to come full circle and people like us are reaching out to other mamas for help and support. If we don't have our immediate families near by, we need to help each other out!

[spughy]

Originally Posted by Igraine

Great book that addresses these concerns. I am almost through it. It discusses how our culture has moved towards a peer oriented society and the negative influences it has on parenting our kids.

Hold On to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More Than Peers
by Gordon Neufeld (Author), Gabor Mate M.D. (Author)
Key Phrases: orienting instinct, attachment conscience, peer orientation, Court the Competition, Discipline That Does Not Divide, Collecting Our Children (more...)

I would love to see this discussed on the book discussion section. I have not finished it yet. It has a lot of research and data and I am trying to take my time so I glean every morsel of knowledge out of it.

: EVERY parent should read this book. I just finished it. It speaks perfectly to this problem - and lays out that if parents are incapable - either by virtue of personality or circumstance - of maintaining and attachment relationship with their kids, then they MUST foster other adult attachments or the kids will end up peer-attached, which delays or stops maturation, prevents normal socialization, creates insecurities, desensitization, bullying, victimization, hypersexuality and all manner of things we don't want for our kids. The authors have a lot of good concrete examples of things you can do to create villages full of like-minded adults and how to foster attachment relationships between kids and teachers.

I can't say enough good things about this book. I know it sounds like fear-mongering but the message is actually really positive: use your parenting instincts, don't push your kids into independence, create villages, be involved.

[siobhang]

You know, back in the prehistory days, it did literally take a village to raise a child. In most environments, it would be physically impossible for a woman to gather enough food for herself and her offspring if she was encumbered by carrying the offspring. Add onto that the need for shelter, protection from animals, etc.

Sarah Hrdy (who wrote Mother Nature) just published Mothers and others, about cooperative parenting being the basis of our evolution into social creatures, and possibly to our large brains/advanced development. Her theory is that while mother/infant attachment is important, human infants are amazingly adept at creating attachments with non-mother caregivers- something that would be very useful if needing to rely on other caregivers (either direct or indirect through supporting the mother). And the most important other caregivers were older women - grandmothers, in addition to fathers.

In the 21st century, a mother giving birth to a baby without family and/or paternal support is no longer a death sentence for either/both. The couple can survive, especially if the mother has the ability to earn enough money to pay for others to provide the cooperative parenting roles. "Nuclear" families survive through a combination of technology (less labor to find and prepare food, ward off predators, toilets and washing machines, etc), societal investments (police, clean water, free schooling), and financial earning power (paying for the house, technology, childcare, food).

But while it is technically possible to survive and even thrive as a small core unit, I suspect that we are still hard wired to seek out cooperative parenting and community when raising children. After all, women who were good at finding people to help them raise their kids tended to have kids who survived to adulthood and who then went on to raise their own kids. It is a big reason, in my mind, why families tend to join religious organizations upon the birth of a first child, why extended family often becomes more important, why moms join moms groups and online forums, and why the PTA and other volunteer/civic organizations become so centrally important to so many parents - because we instinctively look for other people to help us raise our kids.

The good news is that we have much more control now about who gets to be in that community. Ranging from joining religious groups to having a moms group that shares babysitting from time to time, we all are trying to shape the world in which our kids are raised, and call on others to help us raise our kids.

[calpurnia]

siobhang & envirobecca, great posts.

[lara1828]

Very interesting thread!

I just wanted to add that I think the wider spacing of generations also contributes to this problem.

My inlaws are close by, but it has been 40 YEARS since they had young children. They just don't remember how to do it. When they do watch my children for a little while, they are exhausted (or they lose one) - then they wonder why I don't ask for help more often. My own parents are further away (an overnight trip), but my dad is old and doesn't feel well so he doesn't really enjoy having kids around for long. So I don't even feel like I can leave my children in the care of my mom, whom I would completely trust, at their house. The situations I've seen where a grandma and/or grandpa truly provides a lot help and support are when the baby has come to parents who are young and are still somewhat dependant on their own parents. My own children know and love all of their grandparents - but none of them is functioning as part of my "village."

Having children later also means that people are more likely to have moved away from the home "village" and become invested in their careers. It was HARD for me to leave my job and coworkers behind. It was HARD for my husband to choose lower pay in exchange for a shorter commute and shorter hours.

What's the solution? Do I want my boys to have kids in their 20's? Well, sorta yes and sorta no. There are pro's and con's - younger grandparents is one of the pro's. But I'm glad I waited until later, despite the grandparent issues.

Lara

[TinkerBelle]

Originally Posted by Mama2Jesse

Y'know though, I don't think we have the right to expect help. Some people decide not to be hands-on grandparnts/aunts/uncles, and they have, after all, raised their kids and it's their life. If someone is that uninterested in my kid, I wouldn't want them to help anyway for fear they'd do a crappy job.

Others push it so far you want to scream. Suppose there's a happy medium in there, but I've not seen it.

I say this from the standpoint of having no one we can trust with our son and a DH who works eighty+ hours each week. We live a few hundred miles away from everyone and are toying with the idea of moving across the ocean... truly, having people feel entitled to "alone time" with my child is infuriating.

I'm not a village dweller; I'm the hermit with the big stick, lol.

If grandparents don't want to help, fine. Don't. But, their day will come.

When they get older and need help themselves, who do you think they will depend on? The ones who they refused to help.

My mom lives 900 miles away. And I certainly would not expect her to take over my kids and do everything. Her health is not the greatest. But, I know that if push came to shove and I really, truly needed her, she would do her best to help me.

I would have loved to have had some help after #3 was born. I was in the hospital and about to get my tubal, when DH's sister called and told him to come get the other two children, because she wanted to go to church. She could have put mine in the children's class. We went to the same church. Nope. She hates me, so I guess she decided that I didn't deserve my husband to wait on me while I had surgery.

That meant I had to go it alone and I was scared to death, because they were putting me under. I will never forget that feeling of helplessness and I will never ever help that SIL with anything, ever again.

[ChinaDoll]

Originally Posted by Igraine

Great book that addresses these concerns. I am almost through it. It discusses how our culture has moved towards a peer oriented society and the negative influences it has on parenting our kids.

Hold On to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More Than Peers
by Gordon Neufeld (Author), Gabor Mate M.D. (Author)
Key Phrases: orienting instinct, attachment conscience, peer orientation, Court the Competition, Discipline That Does Not Divide, Collecting Our Children (more...)

I would love to see this discussed on the book discussion section. I have not finished it yet. It has a lot of research and data and I am trying to take my time so I glean every morsel of knowledge out of it.

I totally agree - I'm reading it now, too, and am amazed at his insight into culture!

[AngelBee]

:

[Tigerchild]

Originally Posted by Rivka5

I think increased diversity plays a role. In a monocultural society, there is strong agreement on how children should be raised. It's easier to share the parenting load because everyone has the same social assumptions, so you know your neighbors will be okay with what you say to their kids.

Today, not only are there hugely divergent cultures with radically different social assumptions, but there is wide diversity of thought even within families. How many people on MDC would be okay with having their parents take a significant role in childrearing? We see so many posts here about grandparents not doing things "the right way."

Having the village help raise your kids means giving up some control over your kids' experiences and environment. Many, many people aren't okay with that.

This. I could not agree more.

I think most people like the idea of the village. But let's be honest. The village means *mainstream* (for that village). I don't know why people have the expectation that the village would be so much better when they're constantly negatively talking about the society around them. That is the village!

I DO think though that the village concept can work--in the sense of mamas/adults supporting each other and being kind. Unfortunately we all tend to fall rather quickly into yet another ancient "village" custom--demonization of outsiders and ostracization of anyone who doesn't fit our concept of "mainstream".

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by Tigerchild

I think most people like the idea of the village. But let's be honest. The village means *mainstream* (for that village). I don't know why people have the expectation that the village would be so much better when they're constantly negatively talking about the society around them. That is the village!

I would guess that the same population of people who are constantly speaking negatively about those who surround them are not the same population of people who would like to see a little more "village" in their own lives. I, for example, am very supportive of my community taking an active role in my children's lives; I also don't really have a lot to say when the conversation turns to "I can't stand the mainstream," "my parents, in-laws, and downstairs neighbors are all toxic people," etc.

[Tigerchild]

Originally Posted by Liquesce

I would guess that the same population of people who are constantly speaking negatively about those who surround them are not the same population of people who would like to see a little more "village" in their own lives. I, for example, am very supportive of my community taking an active role in my children's lives; I also don't really have a lot to say when the conversation turns to "I can't stand the mainstream," "my parents, in-laws, and downstairs neighbors are all toxic people," etc.

It does sound counterintuitive..but I actually DO see the same people complaining quite a lot. But when they say they want a village, what they really mean is that they want everyone to be like them. Or they really overromanticize the past (or the stereotype of the past).

It's a little like blaming the fracturing of families because of employment on "feminists", instead of industry itself. Most women in our soceity have NEVER truly not been "working women". To a large extent, the reason why more women have had to go into the industrial workforce is because it was also chewing up and spitting out men, and with more and more families moving to the city and less opportunity for subsistance living, there wasn't much choice. Women working outside the home was common way before even first wave feminism.

The village is complex, just as our families (and we ourselves) are. Many people look at things way too simplistically. Barring great catastrophe, we're not probably going to go back to an agrarian society (and it's not like that society did not have its whole host of problems as well). I think that we have become too accustomed to segregating ourselves and too spoiled about having to learn to get along with lots of different types of people. Yet I think our society right now has greater potential to do that than at any other time in our history (at least in the US).

But first we kind of have to give up the idea that there's one group of people who can be faulted and one group of people who is always right. Can we do it? I don't know. It's a pretty damned hard thing to do.

[eloise24]

Originally Posted by riverscout

American culture values and promotes independence and always has. There is this sense of pride to go it alone and be make your own way. People left their home countries and families to come here. They moved out to the frontier alone to make a life for themselves. We are built on independence. It's weak to be dependent on anyone. Trying to overcome that idea, especially now with modern technology making it even easier to be isolated..oh I mean independent , seems insurmountable sometimes, but it sure would be nice.

This is what I was going to say. We live in a country whose CORE value is independence and accomplishing life by yourself. This is one of the reasons people "train" their kids to sleep by themselves and in their own rooms- it's a lot about independence (other issues here but this is the #1 reason my friends give . . . they "need to learn to be independent"). So along with this comes the idea that who needs grandparents? Everyone does their own thing, etc.

It is sad to me- we lived in Malaysia for two years and loved it. We now work at a group home, so there are 7 other couples on campus with their families . . . my daughter wouldn't have a clue who "real" aunts and uncles were vs the ones we work with.

What to do about it? Work on making your own family interact with others. Gently share about your ideas with others. Meet MDC people IRL.

[rockycrop]

Originally Posted by AverysMomma

I would tend to agree with you.

I have always said that, I feel somewhat robbed by the femme movement. I feel robbed and lied to. There was this grand idea, that we could work, keep a home and raise kids...DO IT ALL...if we only had the chance. IMO...that's simply not possible. Keeping women out of the workforce is wrong. Trapping women IN the workforce and perpetuating this idea that she is supposed to be able to do it all, is just as wrong and unfair.

There is absolutely no way I could be doing ANYTHING but keeping my home, feeding my family and taking care of my LO right now. If I had a job on top of everything I'm doing, I think I might go insane.

I think it's wonderful that a woman can become a doctor, nurse, scientist, etc and that no one can tell her she can't, because she's a woman. I believe that a business/medical/scientific/artistic world, without the influence of women, is not in balance.

What makes me feel robbed, is the fact that now EVERYONE has to work. Women are expected to work and since they have for a while now, many women are forced back to work too soon after having babies, because now most families are dependant upon two incomes.

Two thoughts I have, which I'll just throw out because I dont know where they fit in this....are:

1. Way too many people have kids because it's "what you do" - I have known so many women, who didn't really have an insane push, like, a maternal drive...they loved their kids, but they REALLY loved their careers and honestly, I don't think would have missed motherhood had they never had it. They had kids, put them in daycare at around 6 weeks and were gleefully off to the office. I say this with the fear that I'll be flamed....but if this is what you WANT to do (NOT forced to do because your family wishes it were differnt, but cannot survive without your income)..if this is what you WANT, why are you having kids in the first place? They are in daycare when they are 6 weks....until they are 5...EVERY DAY, then in school EVERY DAY, all day...then they are gone. If this is REALLY the preferable situation for you, WHY have kids? Again, if you HAVE to put your kids in daycare, and it kills you inside to do it because you wish you could be with them at home...I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the mom I know, who BARELY made it through that first 6 weeks. She hated being home, hated caring for the baby...couldn't WAIT to get back to work..."practically skipped out of the daycare" she was so happy <---- HER words.

I just think, that too many people have children. I think it should be a REAL choice...like whether or not to work. People should think about it, consider it. And, if the love working more...reject it. I think some people would be happier.

2. I think it is important to realize, that this "9-5 life" we've been tricked into believing is real life...isn't real life. The vast majority of people these days, work meaningless jobs or paper pushing jobs. It's...stunning. A pile of paperwork, which is on the left side at the beginning of your day...and by the end of the day, is on the right side of you. Or manning a chicken slaughter machine...or, screwing bottle caps, or whatever. Who works a craft anymore? Who works the land anymore? As a REAL trade...not because they are a migrant (practically slave) worker, who is terrible taken advantage of, but still needs the .70/day? This is not real life....this is not real anything.

We are CHAINED to working, as a people, we are chained to working. It's not supposed to be that way. Money truly is the root of all evil. Humans have developed a nasty, dependant, controlling, abusive relationship with money. It's an illusion. It sucks...I hate it. This "work life" we live now, is replacing "family life"...it is what, I think, lies at the very core of this problem.

Take, for instance, this idea that dads work and moms work or stay home. This is false. Yes, dad goes out into the woods to hunt...but he also doe a lot of other things which are supposed to be closer to home. I believe that many many dads these days don't even know their children. They are working for the 40-60 hours a week that their children are awake, learning and growing. Weekend time, is not enough. Work, the way we have come to know it, is BAD.

Too many people on the planet. Too much work on the planet.

I hate to quote your whole post, but I really agree with most of it! I think the feminist movement had great intentions, but they just got it wrong. As much as it pains a lot of people to hear, men and women do not have interchangeable roles. Of course there is a spectrum and you will find very nurturing men and women who could care less about kids and are very goal oriented (and a mix of both). But for the most part, women are biologically attuned to care for their children, and men are more concerned with providing and protecting.
I definitely think some major changes needed to be made with our society when the feminist movement arose, and they attempted as best they knew. I wish there would have been more of a focus on empowering women who were doing "women's work". Saying-"wow, you have babies, you raise them, you take care of your house and family. WHAT AN AMAZING AND INCREDIBLE JOB YOU ARE DOING! Let's get together and help each other." Instead we become freed from the shackles of the mundane, utterly unglamorous and tedious work of a mother and homemaker. And childcare became just another chore that needed to be done, like cleaning out the toilet and taking out the trash. And guess who did it?-Mom.

I also totally agree with you about what "work" is considered today. If you are knowledgeable about traditional life skills, you make things for your home and grow your own food and prepare it, you take care of things so they last longer, you use the resources that are available to you--somehow that's considered pretty meaningless in this society. But if you drive your car to an office, hee-haw with your co-workers, mess around on the internet, make some phone calls, shuffle some paper around, drive back home with everybody else on the freeway-then you're good and everybody pats you on the back for having a "job". Bleh.

Originally Posted by EnviroBecca

Avery's Momma wrote: And trapping MEN in the workforce is just as wrong. So is keeping men out of domestic life. You mentioned the stereotype of supermom; have you ever noticed how many ads and TV shows and "jokes" demean men as bumbling idiots in the areas of childcare, cooking, and caring for others?

We've had a movement to open up career options for women. Now we need a movement to open up nurturing options for everyone--for men, who've never been "allowed" to do those things, and for women, who've been discouraged from doing those things by over-zealous feminism.

Hmmm, I might be biased because two of my cousins are stay-at-home dads, but I don't see this. I think, if anything, over-zealous feminism would push dads towards being caretakers....somebody's gotta take care of the kids, after all.
And I don't really think men have never been "allowed" to nurture and care for their children, they probably just didn't need or want to.
Most fathers I know love their kids, a whole lot. But they're not as consumed by it as the moms are. They don't research tirelessly, and worry, and put their own needs aside as so many mothers do. I think moms and dads are biologically different.

Originally Posted by siobhang

You know, back in the prehistory days, it did literally take a village to raise a child. In most environments, it would be physically impossible for a woman to gather enough food for herself and her offspring if she was encumbered by carrying the offspring. Add onto that the need for shelter, protection from animals, etc.

Sarah Hrdy (who wrote Mother Nature) just published Mothers and others, about cooperative parenting being the basis of our evolution into social creatures, and possibly to our large brains/advanced development. Her theory is that while mother/infant attachment is important, human infants are amazingly adept at creating attachments with non-mother caregivers- something that would be very useful if needing to rely on other caregivers (either direct or indirect through supporting the mother). And the most important other caregivers were older women - grandmothers, in addition to fathers.

In the 21st century, a mother giving birth to a baby without family and/or paternal support is no longer a death sentence for either/both. The couple can survive, especially if the mother has the ability to earn enough money to pay for others to provide the cooperative parenting roles. "Nuclear" families survive through a combination of technology (less labor to find and prepare food, ward off predators, toilets and washing machines, etc), societal investments (police, clean water, free schooling), and financial earning power (paying for the house, technology, childcare, food).

But while it is technically possible to survive and even thrive as a small core unit, I suspect that we are still hard wired to seek out cooperative parenting and community when raising children. After all, women who were good at finding people to help them raise their kids tended to have kids who survived to adulthood and who then went on to raise their own kids. It is a big reason, in my mind, why families tend to join religious organizations upon the birth of a first child, why extended family often becomes more important, why moms join moms groups and online forums, and why the PTA and other volunteer/civic organizations become so centrally important to so many parents - because we instinctively look for other people to help us raise our kids.

The good news is that we have much more control now about who gets to be in that community. Ranging from joining religious groups to having a moms group that shares babysitting from time to time, we all are trying to shape the world in which our kids are raised, and call on others to help us raise our kids.

I agree, and I'm glad to hear Sarah Hrdy's has a new book, I LOVED "Mother Nature".