Motherhood and feminism - Page 8

[boongirl]

Originally Posted by Brigianna

Well, I wouldn't say that it's a reason to *justify* paying anyone less money, but think about it--if you're a business owner and you have two employees, Employee A who has no family responsibilities, shows up early and leaves late every day, is always free to travel, and works a lot of overtime, and Employee B who is the mother of young children, has to come late and leave early to pick up her kids from daycare, never works overtime, can't travel, and has to take frequent days off, isn't it only logical for you to promote Employee A over Employee B? It might not be the moral thing to do, but it would be the sound business practice.

Originally Posted by Brigianna

Well, I wouldn't say that it's a reason to *justify* paying anyone less money, but think about it--if you're a business owner and you have two employees, Employee A who has no family responsibilities, shows up early and leaves late every day, is always free to travel, and works a lot of overtime, and Employee B who is the mother of young children, has to come late and leave early to pick up her kids from daycare, never works overtime, can't travel, and has to take frequent days off, isn't it only logical for you to promote Employee A over Employee B? It might not be the moral thing to do, but it would be the sound business practice.

If they have the same job and are both working the same 8 hours per day, their pay should be the same. And, I am not writing about employee B taking frequent days off and time off. I am writing about B working 8 hours per day and working hard and still not getting equal pay because she is a mother. If employee A wants to work overtime and travel and employee B cannot, then employee A should be eligible for a promotion or overtime pay or whatever compensation the boss deems appropriate. But, their baseline pay should be the same for the beginning 8 hours per day of work. The reality is that this baseline pay is often very different for working mothers and that is not fair. It is good business to pay people fairly for the work that they do. The difference is not between a working mother who takes a lot of time off and a worker who never does. It is between two workers who work equally hard and works equal hours but the working mother still gets paid less.

You have to realize that you are beginning to make statements that sound very much like they are coming from the 1950s? If this is lifestyle you live, that is your choice. But, women are not making less money because of attachment parenting. Woman have always made less money than men and the situation has not gotten better, even though it should be, and FEMINISTS are working to change that.

[boongirl]

Originally Posted by Brigianna

And freely-given authority that can be revoked at any time is certainly consistent with liberty. Haven't you ever been in a group situation where someone else was the group leader who made the final decisions? But no one forces you to participate. You're not losing your freedom if you willingly choose to go along with someone else's authority.

I think what is happening here is that you are confusing authority and leadership. From dictionary.com;

authority: The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

leader: a person who rules or guides or inspires others

I have been in group where there is a leader who helps the group make decisions but is not in a position of authority. I do not have to do what that person says but as a group member it is in my interest to work cooperatively, as the leader should. As one cannot freely give authority to a person only to demand it back at a later time, this is the type of leadership where you have a leader but still your own personal liberty.

I have also been in situations where I have a boss who is the leader and who may try to lead democratically but the buck stops with her in the end. In that situation, I am free to quit my job if I don't like it but I have to do what she says if I want to keep my job. I have choices with a leader but not with the person of authority. Another example is the police. They have authority over me but I do not have a say in it. If I am breaking the law, they can arrest me. I cannot choose which laws to follow and which to break.

[Brigianna]

Originally Posted by boongirl

If they have the same job and are both working the same 8 hours per day, their pay should be the same. And, I am not writing about employee B taking frequent days off and time off. I am writing about B working 8 hours per day and working hard and still not getting equal pay because she is a mother. If employee A wants to work overtime and travel and employee B cannot, then employee A should be eligible for a promotion or overtime pay or whatever compensation the boss deems appropriate. But, their baseline pay should be the same for the beginning 8 hours per day of work. The reality is that this baseline pay is often very different for working mothers and that is not fair. It is good business to pay people fairly for the work that they do. The difference is not between a working mother who takes a lot of time off and a worker who never does. It is between two workers who work equally hard and works equal hours but the working mother still gets paid less.

Yes, people working the same job for the same amount of hours should get the same pay. Equal pay for equal work. I only meant to point out that just because mothers on average earn less money, that does not necessarily indicate that they are being unfairly discriminated against. I do think that in general, as a whole, mothers and people with family obligations probably really are not as productive workers as those without family obligations. I'm not saying it's fair or right, but businesses don't usually operate based on what's fair or right.

Obviously, paying a mother less than a non-mother when they are equally productive working equal hours is unjust discrimination. However, I don't actually think that happens very often.

You have to realize that you are beginning to make statements that sound very much like they are coming from the 1950s

Well, there is clearly a difference between the 1950's and today. In the 1950's there were more high-paying (relatively) union jobs, especially in manufacturing, and it was generally less necessary for a family to be supported by two adults working full-time. Of course there were all kinds of problems, too, but that one particular issue was better.

If this is lifestyle you live, that is your choice. But, women are not making less money because of attachment parenting. Woman have always made less money than men and the situation has not gotten better, even though it should be, and FEMINISTS are working to change that.

Yes, women have always made less money on average than men, but this does not necessarily indicate gender discrimination. There is some gender discrimination, and that is of course wrong and should be fixed and changed, but the majority of the wage gap is due to differences in qualifications, differences in jobs performed, and differences in time off.

One of the main problems, as I see it, is that our system relies far too heavily on employers to provide things. Health care and a secure retirement should be basic social services provided to everyone, not tied to employment. If these things alone were changed, more mothers would be free to quit their jobs, switch to part-time, or open their own businesses. Putting even more on employers (paid leave and child care) would make the situation even worse. The big corporations could deal with it but small family businesses would suffer. The other main problem is that children exist, and children need to be taken care of by adults. Obviously as a homeschooler and a homeschool advocate, I would like to see less institutionalization of children, not more. I don't think it is reactionary to say that I think children are better off being cared for by a parent or other relative or even a nanny or babysitter than by a government-run daycare center. And if we were to make the radical social change of looking at what's best for children as well as for adults, I think that most people would support making it easier for parents and other family members and community members to take care of children than to provide more institutional daycares.

I think what is happening here is that you are confusing authority and leadership. From dictionary.com;

authority: The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

leader: a person who rules or guides or inspires others

I have been in group where there is a leader who helps the group make decisions but is not in a position of authority. I do not have to do what that person says but as a group member it is in my interest to work cooperatively, as the leader should. As one cannot freely give authority to a person only to demand it back at a later time, this is the type of leadership where you have a leader but still your own personal liberty.

I have also been in situations where I have a boss who is the leader and who may try to lead democratically but the buck stops with her in the end. In that situation, I am free to quit my job if I don't like it but I have to do what she says if I want to keep my job. I have choices with a leader but not with the person of authority. Another example is the police. They have authority over me but I do not have a say in it. If I am breaking the law, they can arrest me. I cannot choose which laws to follow and which to break.

There is more than one kind of authority. There is of course the kind of authority which has the power to coerce compliance, but there is also authority which is derived from respect. For example someone who is an expert on something might be said to be an authority on that subject, not because he has power over others, but because he is respected in that area. But anyway, it's a semantic issue. What I meant was that he is the decision-maker, by mutual agreement. He isn't infringing on my freedom or exerting power over me or anything like that.

[mommytolittlelilly]

[QUOTE=Brigianna]


Well, I wouldn't say that it's a reason to *justify* paying anyone less money, but think about it--if you're a business owner and you have two employees, Employee A who has no family responsibilities, shows up early and leaves late every day, is always free to travel, and works a lot of overtime, and Employee B who is the mother of young children, has to come late and leave early to pick up her kids from daycare, never works overtime, can't travel, and has to take frequent days off, isn't it only logical for you to promote Employee A over Employee B? It might not be the moral thing to do, but it would be the sound business practice.

Look, I support equal pay for equal work. But it is only logical that a person with fewer family responsibilities is going to be, ceteris paribus, a better worker, and therefore better paid, than someone with more family responsibilities. If a business is actually discriminating against women or mothers, that is another matter. But I don't think you have to go to that to explain why mothers might, as a whole, earn less money. That is the nature of business and capitalism, not patriarchy.

That is why I think a better solution would be to make it less necessary for mothers to work apart from their young children. There should be more options for working from home or bringing young kids to work. And there should be a true social safety net so that losing your job isn't the end of the world. And there should be more high-paying union jobs so that fewer families will need to rely on two incomes if they would prefer not to. I think these are better solutions than setting up a bunch of government-run daycare centers.



{QUOTE]

Allow me to blow your little theory out of the water.

In my particular profession, I am accountable for deadlines, a billing quota, and low rate of errors. I had a male co-worker who was hired about 2 years after me, with about the same level of work experience and expertise, for the same job. By his own admission, he *floundered* at this job - he missed deadlines, his billing quota was routinely under goal, and he worked less hours due to family obligations. I, on the other hand, was the reverse of all this, had greater seniority, was also very well-respected by everyone I worked with and for, and I was single and CHILDLESS! Despite all of this, WE MADE THE EXACT SAME SALARY and he even had more time off with pay than me. There is no economic reasoning for this scenario. THIS CAN BE EXPLAINED BY THE SIMPLE FACT THAT HE IS A MAN AND I AM A WOMAN.

I have observed PLENTY of unfair and preferential treatment, such as the above, in the white collar world which I work, BASED SOLELY ON GENDER. What I have found is that while many employer decisions are made on the basis of economics, many decisions are actually very contrary to good economics. That's a big reason why I try to view things from not only a class/economic standpoint, but also gender and racial standpoints.

I have nothing but admiration and gratitude for second wave feminism and the strides these women have made for the benefit of my generation and others. For me, it's a continuum to be built upon, not to pick apart and complain about.

[mommytolittlelilly]

Originally Posted by EnviroBecca

Annakiss, I am curious about your opinion on this situation that occurred at my college: A man passed out drunk in a lounge of the fraternity house where he lived. He awoke to find a woman he didn't like performing oral sex on him. He told her to stop. She refused and got two female friends to sit on him while she continued for a long time until he finally ejaculated. He attempted to press disciplinary charges against her, but campus police just laughed at him. She claimed that because he responded physically to the stimulation, he must have wanted it. He said that was equivalent to sticking your finger down someone's throat and then saying, "You must have wanted to throw up." What do you think?

I very much agree that rape and sexual assault can be hard to define because of all the gray areas. Of course there ARE cases that are blatantly obvious, but many are not. It isn't even as simple as "it comes down to anatomy": It may be more difficult for the average woman to physically restrain the average man than vice versa, but in most states physical restraint is not required for an act to be considered rape or sexual assault. It's true that intercourse is difficult if a man doesn't have an erection, but that's not the only form of sexual contact, and it's possible for a man to have an erection when he doesn't want to, just as it is possible for a woman to lubricate when she doesn't want to. So it's all very complicated. While it is true that the vast majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by men against women, I agree with Brigianna that there has been a trend toward placing blame on the man in some situations where both parties are culpable.

Okay, for me this is the "Men are Raped To, Ya' Know" argument. If you want to assert this argument, I think it's really important to remember that most rapes of men are committed by other MEN.

If this is a true story, and for the sake of argument let's say it is, I totally agree that this constitutes rape/sexual assault. What a lot of people don't understand about rape and sexual assault is that it about power, domination and humiliation of the victim, albeit with a sex dynamic. A good source of information about the history of rape can be found in the classic feminist book, Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller. Please set aside any biasis you might have toward second wave feminism and come to it with an open mind. I encourage anyone who's interested in the subject to read this book.

I really have to say, it's a slippery slope when we start talking about "culpability" by the person raped/sexual assaulted. That leads to those age-old series of questions: was she wearing provacative clothing? what's her sexual history? why was she drunk?
I believe that any combination of poor judgment, low self esteem, and overall vulnerability NEVER mean that a person is culpable in being raped/sexually assaulted.

[Brigianna]

Originally Posted by mommytolittlelilly

Allow me to blow your little theory out of the water.

In my particular profession, I am accountable for deadlines, a billing quota, and low rate of errors. I had a male co-worker who was hired about 2 years after me, with about the same level of work experience and expertise, for the same job. By his own admission, he *floundered* at this job - he missed deadlines, his billing quota was routinely under goal, and he worked less hours due to family obligations. I, on the other hand, was the reverse of all this, had greater seniority, was also very well-respected by everyone I worked with and for, and I was single and CHILDLESS! Despite all of this, WE MADE THE EXACT SAME SALARY and he even had more time off with pay than me. There is no economic reasoning for this scenario. THIS CAN BE EXPLAINED BY THE SIMPLE FACT THAT HE IS A MAN AND I AM A WOMAN.

I have observed PLENTY of unfair and preferential treatment, such as the above, in the white collar world which I work, BASED SOLELY ON GENDER. What I have found is that while many employer decisions are made on the basis of economics, many decisions are actually very contrary to good economics. That's a big reason why I try to view things from not only a class/economic standpoint, but also gender and racial standpoints.

I have nothing but admiration and gratitude for second wave feminism and the strides these women have made for the benefit of my generation and others. For me, it's a continuum to be built upon, not to pick apart and complain about.

From your description it sounds like you had an unfair boss. I know there are plenty of unfair bosses out there; I have had my own experiences with a few. But I don't think it's accurate to say that as a whole, as a matter of policy, most businesses discriminate against women. I'm not naive about unethical practices, but I don't think most of them are being unethical for the sake of being unethical. It is not in any business's best interest to keep someone on the payroll who is not doing a good job. Of course there are unfair employers, but most of them will not be very successful if they are not using good economic practices. I'm not denying that there are unfair employers and businessmen out there. But I really doubt it's some kind of systemic patriarchal conspiracy.

Okay, for me this is the "Men are Raped To, Ya' Know" argument. If you want to assert this argument, I think it's really important to remember that most rapes of men are committed by other MEN.

But how is this relevant? The man has still had his rights violated, whether by a man or a woman.

If this is a true story, and for the sake of argument let's say it is, I totally agree that this constitutes rape/sexual assault. What a lot of people don't understand about rape and sexual assault is that it about power, domination and humiliation of the victim, albeit with a sex dynamic. A good source of information about the history of rape can be found in the classic feminist book, Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller. Please set aside any biasis you might have toward second wave feminism and come to it with an open mind. I encourage anyone who's interested in the subject to read this book.

This is true most of the time, but not always. People are prosecuted for things that have nothing to do with power, domination, and humiliation of a victim.

I really have to say, it's a slippery slope when we start talking about "culpability" by the person raped/sexual assaulted. That leads to those age-old series of questions: was she wearing provacative clothing? what's her sexual history? why was she drunk?
I believe that any combination of poor judgment, low self esteem, and overall vulnerability NEVER mean that a person is culpable in being raped/sexually assaulted.

Yes, of course if a person was assaulted, it is unfair to say that he or she was culpable. But the issue is what constitutes assault. If the person consents to the act, I don't consider it assault. People do stupid things while drunk. This is a well-known risk that people choose to take when they choose to drink to excess. And there is still the double standard of why a drunk man is culpable but a drunk woman is not.

[la mamita]

***

[Brigianna]

Originally Posted by la mamita

jumping in:
a drunk man or woman is culpable if the other party does not give consent to sexual activity. period. where is the double standard? i'm confused by your last sentence.

i think you are confusing the fact that if a drunk woman says NO and still gets sexually assaulted, many people dismiss the assault saying "why did you get so drunk?? if you hadn't been drunk, you could have fought him/her off" putting blame on the woman for drinking. when the real blame should be on the person who committed the assault.

if i go out for some drinks in my mini-skirt, i'm not asking for it nor am i giving non-verbal consent with my clothing or my drinking.

Right, I agree, if anything non-consensual happens, that is assault, regardless of whatever the victim was doing beforehand (drinking or anything else). What I am talking about is this common situation: a woman goes out to a party or bar and drinks to excess. While under the influence, she consensually has sex with a man. Some laws and most university policies regard that man as a rapist, even though the act was entirely consensual, because they assert that a drunk person cannot give meaningful consent. The double standard is that in most of these cases, he was as drunk as she was. So if she couldn't give meaningful consent, than neither could he. By their own logic, the drunk woman could be accused of raping the drunk man. But that isn't what happens.

But I totally agree with you that if someone was actually assaulted, i.e. actually had something done to them that they didn't consent to, then it is never the victim's fault at all, even if some people think that she could have done a better job of protecting herself. It is ridiculous that in a supposedly free society an individuals are held responsible for her own protection--why even have laws then?

[la mamita]

***

[Brigianna]

Okay, passed out drunk is another matter. If you're unconscious you can't give consent, whether you're unconscious from drinking or anything else.

In a case where he said it was consensual but she was to drunk to remember, I would still give him the benefit of the doubt, though, because of considered innocent until proven guilty. If her memory is foggy that's a reasonable doubt.

[siobhang]

I'd like to move this thread back to the topic of motherhood and feminism and away from what is feminism, if all possible. ; )

I find that my own personal views on feminism have changed profoundly since having children. I think very differently about abortion, about supporting women's right to be with her kids, about childcare, and loads of other things. I do believe that mainstream feminism did focus on the rights of middle class professional women to break through the glass ceiling, and not on the daily realities of women who couldn't care less about being in managment.

Has anyone read Spin Sisters? The author is irritating at times, but she makes some interesting points about how women's magazines, targeted at middle class moms are all written and managed by upper class women from NYC. The politics in many of these magazines reflects their sensibilities. In addition, she makes the point that we are all told over and over again how tired we are, how oppressed we are, how taken for granted we are - basically the cult of mother as victim that I do take serious issue with.

Thoughts, comments, arguments?

Siobhan

[EnviroBecca]

People told me that I would not be so pro-choice once I had a child. It's true that when I was TTC for a year and a half and when I was finally pregnant, the idea of some other woman throwing away an embryo because it was inconvenient to her was more upsetting to me. It's true that when two magazines I read ran articles about intact D&X while I was pregnant, I found them upsetting to read because they made me think about someone sticking a scalpel into my little Thumper. BUT my opinion of what the LAW should say about abortion is exactly the same! My pregnancy was a debilitating ordeal that was worthwhile because I deeply desired a child. I could never make anyone go through that against her will. If anything, I feel more strongly about that now that I know what it's like to be pregnant.

One way in which my views on gender roles HAVE changed since my young adulthood--in a process that began before I became a mother but has continued because of it--is that I no longer believe that the direct care of a newborn should be split exactly 50/50 between the parents. I won't say that's "not realistic" because I can imagine a family in which it would work, but in most families each parent has some tasks which he/she does better and/or enjoys more, and also the biological tie between mother and baby makes many of the baby-care tasks easier for the mother. Thus, my new belief is that a child adds to the total tasks to be done by the family, and the TOTAL tasks should be split 50/50 between the parents, with the father doing more of the non-baby tasks because the mother is doing most of the baby tasks, but there should be at least one baby task that is primarily the father's responsibility from the very beginning. As the child grows out of some needs and develops some new ones (for example, nursing less and eating more solids), the parents should adjust their responsibilities; which specific tasks are done by whom is less important than finding an overall balance that works for the individual family.

I have not read Spin Sisters, but this point resonates with me:

we are all told over and over again how tired we are, how oppressed we are, how taken for granted we are - basically the cult of mother as victim that I do take serious issue with.

Yet those magazines rarely even hint that we might ask our men for help! And right next to the tips on how to de-stress are new things to stress about! Basically, the editorial content is arranged to keep the readers "needing" the products advertised. The mom magazines particularly upset me because they plug all these "time-saving" products that cost so much that you have to keep working in order to afford to neglect your child (I know that's putting it a bit too strongly, but I am ranting here! ) and disposable products that you "need" because you're so pressed for time that you can't think about the world of garbage you're creating for your children!

[zinemama]

huh. just lost my post. must try again!

[Ellien C]

Originally Posted by Brigianna

Well, I wouldn't say that it's a reason to *justify* paying anyone less money, but think about it--if you're a business owner and you have two employees, Employee A who has no family responsibilities, shows up early and leaves late every day, is always free to travel, and works a lot of overtime, and Employee B who is the mother of young children, has to come late and leave early to pick up her kids from daycare, never works overtime, can't travel, and has to take frequent days off, isn't it only logical for you to promote Employee A over Employee B?

Nope! Completely disagree. Producivity is not equal to activity. What if instead of a mother, you had 2 employees and one was going to school at night, and was thus unavailable to work overtime or travel? But they brought new ideas into the organization, had empathy and inspired loyalty in their co-workers? Now who would you promote?

The issue is that the mother is penalized BECAUSE she is a mother, but the student, who may have the same restrictions is rewarded. Why are men informally penalized for taking paternity leave at work, but not for taking military leave? It isn't the being gone from work, it's our attitudes toward children and parenting.

More doesn't equal better. As long as the job requires 40 hours a week on average and both employees are working 40 hours a week on average, it is not necessarily true that the 50 hour a week employee is bringing more to the job. Maybe they are too disorganized, inefficient, unmotivated, depressed or unskilled to get their work done in 40 hours. Maybe they create their own problems through perfectionism.

I happen to think that mothers, students and other employees "with lives" bring a LOT MORE TO THE JOB than employees whose only interest is work. I completely disagree with the notion that the 50 hour a week employee is more worthy of promotion simply by putting in more face time. That's a baby-boomer mentality and we Gen-X-ers and younger aren't gonna take it anymore....

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion on motherhood and feminism.

[annakiss]

Originally Posted by siobhang

Has anyone read Spin Sisters? The author is irritating at times, but she makes some interesting points about how women's magazines, targeted at middle class moms are all written and managed by upper class women from NYC. The politics in many of these magazines reflects their sensibilities. In addition, she makes the point that we are all told over and over again how tired we are, how oppressed we are, how taken for granted we are - basically the cult of mother as victim that I do take serious issue with.

Thoughts, comments, arguments?

Siobhan

Well I haven't read the book, but I am tired, I am overworked and I am taken for granted. However, I might not have realized it if no one else ever mentioned it. I might have just assumed that this is how it is. But does questioning the situation and realizing that there may be ways to make it better mean that I'm manipulating myself (or being manipulated) into a place of frustration and that I would have been better off leaving well enough alone? I'll agree that magazines do us a disservice in their constant barrage of an oversimplification of our problems. I looked at a mag the other day that told me that all I needed was to change my dining room into a play room and life woud be simpler, my children would be happier. As if their bedroom wasn't enough space for all their crap.

I don't really see myself as a victim at all. I don't think my friends see themselves as victims, even when we're all dishing about how much we have to do. I do think that the race for equality in the home is really only half won. I know that there are a lot of men out there who do a lot, and my husband is one of them, but I get very frustrated by the fact that still the majority of the care for the household falls to me. I don't think that my husband can appreciate the full scope of housekeeping I do - the mental energy devoted into organizing and supporting everyone and our physical space. I would like very much for more time to sit and think. I get the feeling that regardless of how much time my husband puts in at home, or perhaps because of the time he puts in, there is a sense of entitlement to benefits that I just don't have.

Maybe it's not my husband making me not have a sense of entitlement, maybe it's something else. I know he doesn't intend for me to lack it, I just do. I don't know where that comes from. Maybe from women's magazines, actually. The ones that say we need to emulate the upper-middle-class (despite the fact that they often hire people to do the work) in the way their homes are designed and the way their clothes look and their food and cars and whatever else.

The sense of entitlement, btw, is to things like a shower everyday, the ability to poop whenever the mood strikes, the ability to consider only one's own stomach when deciding when dinner is (okay, maybe that one is a fault of my DH), the ability to relax, take a nap, enjoy music, or be online even when children are awake, because after all, there is someone else in the house to keep an eye out. The sense of entitlement is about not feeling guilt for not doing something. I think maybe the guilt comes from my mother though, now that I think about it, which probably comes from her mother and so on... Either way, it's a manifestation of one gender carrying the weight of the household. And, fwiw, I think that doing so is a much bigger job than what DH does outside of the home, AND it's something that he can participate in without neglecting his woh job and anyway his woh job provides him with adult contact, intellectual stimulation and time away from the home, which my sah job most certainly does not, so it's only fair, I feel to split it up a bit.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by annakiss

Either way, it's a manifestation of one gender carrying the weight of the household. And, fwiw, I think that doing so is a much bigger job than what DH does outside of the home, AND it's something that he can participate in without neglecting his woh job and anyway his woh job provides him with adult contact, intellectual stimulation and time away from the home, which my sah job most certainly does not, so it's only fair, I feel to split it up a bit.

I carry the weight of the household, because I chose to be a SAHM. DH does things around the house, too. And, I really don't think that what I do is a "bigger job" than what dh does. We can't survive without dh's income. I may not be able to go to the bathroom without company, but I can wear whatever I want. I can decide to go to the store, go for a walk, go to the farm or whatever anytime I want to (except when dd is napping). DH has no control over his day at all.

I don't have much adult contact, but I generally don't miss it. Intellectual stimulation can be found online or in a book, but I certainly never found much of it in the asinine office politics that went on around me. Time away from home...well, as I said, I can have that at any time. I just need to get the kids dressed and go. DH gets tons of time away from home, but it's all at the office - not a big improvement.

I used to be a WOHM. Admittedly, that was with a completely worthless spouse, who did nothing at home. But, that was the only time in my life that I felt ripped off. I didn't see ds1's first steps. I often wasn't there when he fell down and needed someone to kiss his knee better. Someone else fed him and took him for walks. Yeah - I had adult contact, but that was in lieu of contact with my son. I rushed to work in the morning, rushed home at night, and never, ever had enough hours in the day to get anything done, or to relax. Now...I'm NAK. When ds2 falls asleep, I'll get dd an orange, and do some cleaning, and take something out of the freezer for supper, and play with dd. Somewhere in there, ds2 will wake back up and I'll go upstairs and play with them for a while. Maybe they'll play outside and get mucky, and I'll have to give them both early baths. Maybe we'll go up to my mom's (who WAH) and visit for a bit, so they can run around in her HUGE yard. It's up to me...not my boss, not a customer...me. I have so much more control over my life than dh does that it's not even funny.

I chose this. DH is working all day, and missing out on a lot of much-wanted time with his children, for my sake, because he knew how desperately I wanted to be a SAHM. Now, he's the one who will probably miss ds2's first steps. He's the one doesn't get to kiss dd's "owies" better. He's the one who spends his days interacting with adults that he doesn't know very well, and aren't people he'd have chosen to spend time with. I'm the one who is spending my days exactly the way I want to.

Sometimes, I'm overtired, overworked, and feel taken for granted...but dh is also overtired, overworked, and sometimes taken for granted. When the kids are napping, I get a break (I usually use it to clean or cook, but I don't [i]have[/] to. DH doesn't get a break...not at all.

Now, I don't know about other WOHMs. My ex did nothing. I'd have to pick ds1 up from childcare, even if dh had been home before school got out, because he was "too tired" to go get him from school (I had bronchitis). I wasn't doing "a lot" - I was doing everything. His paycheque disappeared without more than a fraction being applied to household expenses, and he didn't make as much as I did or work as many hours. I did all the childcare (if I wasn't there, ds1 didn't eat), all the cooking, all the bill payments, all the school stuff, all the housework, all the shopping (even though I didn't drive, and he did) and looking after the cat that he brought home that ds1 fell in love with. And, eventually, I left. Because, the reality is...I chose all that, too. Nobody made me stay with a drug-addicted, lazy bum with a "feel sorry for me" complex. I chose that, too.

I have a great life. I chose to have the lion's share of the housework and childcare, so I'm not about to complain when there's another load of laundry (or six) ready to go, or I can't use the bathroom by myself. This job has more perks than any other kind of work I can imagine, and the drawbacks are really pretty minor in comparison.

[Ellien C]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

Now, I don't know about other WOHMs. My ex did nothing.

Your ex was a bum! Domestic duties are split much more equally in my house and I frequently see both mothers and fathers picking up children at day care, discussing grocery shopping or planning what to make for dinner. My DH does most of the laundry, all of the grocery shopping and half of the cooking. I think this is HUGE progress from when I was a child and my mother was employed. My father cooked breakfast and once took me to the doctor - and he was "enlightened" then! My mother did all of the shopping, all of the dinners and all of the cleaning. And picked me up and dropped me off.

I think I've become much more of a feminist since becoming a mother. I can see how marginalized we ALL are. I can see how difficult things are. I have a LOT of support - social, financial, etc. I'm comfortable with my decision to work outside the home, as is my DH. We make enough money together to get the roof fixed, save for retirement, and go on a modest vacation once in awhile. Our daughter is delightful and thriving. I get positive feedback about her from strangers on the street and from my family. And sometimes - I'm a freakin' wreck!!!

My god - what's it like for women who don't want to work outside the home, don't have social support, can't afford alternatives, and have high needs kids?! This has GOT to change. We can't keep living like this.

What was the original topic?
Women's magazines ONLY exist to sell products to women. My mother subscribed to none and I can't stand them! A friend of mine got me a subscription to Fit Pregnancy and it was awful! Like how to minimize your make-up routine because of the morning sickness- like I need THAT?! I don't think they are helpful in any way.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Ellien C

Your ex was a bum!

No argument here. He's actually been living on the street intermittently for about three years now, and in jail six times.

When dh moved in with me, I had two days off work, then had to go back. I walked in the door after work, and the living room was spotless, dinner was on the stove (dh had never cooked before - he has a form of colourblindness that makes it very hard for him to tell if meat is cooked, so he'd avoided cooking), ds1 was finished his homework and was playing outside. I honestly thought I'd died and gone to heaven...

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Ellien C

My god - what's it like for women who don't want to work outside the home, don't have social support, can't afford alternatives, and have high needs kids?! This has GOT to change. We can't keep living like this.

Pretty hellish, really. I wouldn't want to go back.

[annakiss]

Being a SAHM is certainly a privilege, and there is a lot I get to do because of it. But my husband isn't trapped in an office all day. He's a PhD student and he does something he absolutely loves. His colleagues are people he would choose to spend time with, his hours are flexible, and his work is very much intellectual stimulation that he is deeply passionate about and much better than what I get online or from a book.

My work on the other hand, though I enjoy it, is limited. My children, who I love, also grate on my nerves very very easily. I'm certain that DH doesn't enjoy every moment with his colleagues, but they don't whine at him all day long either. The point really isn't which is better. The point is that this household, to which we are both devoted, deserves attention somewhat more equally from both of us. At least a 60/40 split maybe...

Originally Posted by Ellien C

My god - what's it like for women who don't want to work outside the home, don't have social support, can't afford alternatives, and have high needs kids?! This has GOT to change. We can't keep living like this.

This is absolutely a good point.