or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Leaving sleeping children in the car for under 3 minutes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Leaving sleeping children in the car for under 3 minutes - Page 13

post #241 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessed View Post
I think it's actually against the law in many states.

But it's hard to see the actual harm in the situation you described.
ITA
post #242 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by katheek77 View Post
This is just silly. According to your definition any day care provider and any teacher is a servant, then, as well. And SAHMs (except for the family part). Maybe more so...SAHMs are often waaaay more UNable to leave than someone who is hired to work for the family.
If your day care provider lives with you or on your property as a "domestic employee," then yes.

A teacher is not directly paid by you, but by your tax money and therefore you are not directly that teacher's employer and do not have the power to fire or hire her or him.

Of course you think it's "silly" if you don't recognize the degree to which euphemisms perpetuate disempowerment, especially for women and minorities. I'm reminded of the scene in the film Gone With the Wind in which Pork, an African-American valet, is requested to pick cotton. Tara has been spared by Sherman's march, but there are few people or servants available to pick the crop. Pork protests, saying, "But Miss Scarlett, we're house workers!" The euphemism for "slave" helped keep Pork from realizing that he had to do what he was told, whatever that was.

But perhaps that's just "silly."

Or, to pick another example, many prostitutes don't like acknowledging a pimp is a pimp because that would make clear not only what they themselves are doing to make money, but how they are being exploited. I believe the preferred term is "boyfriend."

But perhaps that's just "silly.

Silly me!
post #243 of 407
Then anyone who works for ANYONE else is a servant. An administrative assistant is the servant to the CEO. The dental hygientist (sp?) is a servant to the dentist. The chef is a servant to the restaurant owner. I guess unless you're CEO somewhere, you're a servant.

Equating a legally employed au pair, with all the protections and benefits afforded her, to a slave in the Deep South *is* just silly.
post #244 of 407
Yeah, I was SOOOOOO disempowered my year in Europe where I traveled more than ever in my life, learned a new language, learned a new culture, lived with a family who treated me like a beloved sister/grandchild, gave me practically anything I wanted. Wow, I never realized how bad I had it when I was with them. :

So, now you are comparing au pairs and nannies to slaves and prostitutes. Jeez, I dread to imagine how such a person would be treated in your home should you ever need one.
post #245 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by katheek77 View Post
Honestly, if you don't want to leave your child in the car while you run inside to drop off a video, pick up a pizza, whatever, then DON'T. No one's forcing you to leave your child anywhere you don't feel comfortable. But to say you'd call the police b/c, OMG, there's a baby sleeping peacefully and her mother is THIRTY FEET AWAY, and so, that's NEGLECT, is ridiculous.
That's exactly what I've been trying to say, over and over. Let's each make our own parental choices, and back off and give other parents the space to make theirs.

Quote:
I am just so SICK of people getting all busy-body and nosy and playing "false hero" when there are much more serious issues to address.
Yes.
post #246 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunflowers View Post
Trust me, I understand the constant pressure to be a perfect parent because there is someone hovering over me, lurking, waiting for a wrong move. And it's not CPS, unfortunately.
I'm sorry your ex is treating you this way.
post #247 of 407
Webster's aside, I just think it sounds more respectful to call people employees rather than servants. And I don't see how it's inaccurate.

An employer has the power to hire and fire. I suppose most employees don't live with their employers -- but I don't see how even a shared residence would necessarily make the employee's job "demeaning."

And it doesn't sound like au pairs are coerced into doing jobs they weren't hired to do -- such as heading out to the fields to harvest cotton. I just don't see any similarity between au pairs and slaves.
post #248 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by katheek77 View Post
Then anyone who works for ANYONE else is a servant. An administrative assistant is the servant to the CEO. The dental hygientist (sp?) is a servant to the dentist. The chef is a servant to the restaurant owner. I guess unless you're CEO somewhere, you're a servant.

Equating a legally employed au pair, with all the protections and benefits afforded her, to a slave in the Deep South *is* just silly.
I will quote the OED definition yet again:
1. A personal or domestic attendant; one whose duty is to wait upon his master or mistress, or do certain work in his or her household. (The usual sense when no other is indicated by the context; sometimes with defining word, as domestic servant.)

Works in house = servant
Does not work in house = not a servant
Au pair = "nice word" for servant
House worker = "nice term" for domestic slave

Hope that helps.
post #249 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by woobysma View Post
Ah, I think you're right. I know the parking lot where it happened. The liquor store is right next to the pizza place.
I probably never heard that story because I no longer watch the news. I haven't for years....well, since the Florida abduction of that 9yo girl. I can't handle the news. I'm much happier without it.

Lisa
post #250 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by katheek77 View Post
Honestly, if you don't want to leave your child in the car while you run inside to drop off a video, pick up a pizza, whatever, then DON'T. No one's forcing you to leave your child anywhere you don't feel comfortable. But to say you'd call the police b/c, OMG, there's a baby sleeping peacefully and her mother is THIRTY FEET AWAY, and so, that's NEGLECT, is ridiculous. If you're that concerned, wait a couple of minutes and see that mom does indeed come out (b/c, yeah, there are some crazies out there) and then move along.
And there are very few things I can think of off the top of my head that would cause a knee jerk "let's bring law enforcement into these people's lives" reaction from where I sit in the comfort of my dining room.

It's scary to me that so many people are ready and willing to call the police, to call CPS, to yell at parents, and even BREAK INTO CARS, based on something they have READ on the internet. :
post #251 of 407
I think it's nuts how people act about this. Now, I personally wouldn't be comfortable with anyone else but me leaving my kids in the car... because it *is* a fine line sort of situation and I don't trust that anyone else would necessarily do exactly what I would do. But I am totally fine with leaving my kids in the car (not running of course) if they are in full view of me at all times, I can get to them quickly (within seconds) and it's not too warm out. I really don't see what could happen. If you trust someone else like you trust yourself... then I'm no one to judge.

Sorry your au pair was treated so rudely. Give her a hug for me, will you? Tell her us Americans are not all such paranoid, ugly people.
post #252 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
Webster's aside, I just think it sounds more respectful to call people employees rather than servants. And I don't see how it's inaccurate.
Hopefully, I can explain. It is indeed more respectful, but it is inaccurate, and both are part of the same problem.
It is "respectful" to call a servant an au pair in the same way and for the same reason as it is "respectful" to call a slave a "house worker" in the context I cited from GWTW.

Both disguise and soften the realities to make them palpable -- even glamorous -- for the servant and for the mistress or master. It's the same logic that softens "firing" by calling it "reduction in force" or the logic that makes killing human beings palpable by calling it "termination of opposing troop forces." There are many examples of how we disguise unpleasant realities from ourselves in order to perpetuate those realities. I just don't want to cop to it because it helps to exploit people.
post #253 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meg Murry. View Post
Hopefully, I can explain. It is indeed more respectful, but it is inaccurate, and both are part of the same problem.
Are you against any private person/household hiring another person to do a job for them inside their house or on their property? Because if not, then I'm unclear of the "problem" that you think exists.
post #254 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Of_60 View Post
Are you against any private person/household hiring another person to do a job for them inside their house or on their property? Because if not, then I'm unclear of the "problem" that you think exists.
Do you want to PM me? I've yanked this thread too OT as it is.
post #255 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meg Murry. View Post
Do you want to PM me? I've yanked this thread too OT as it is.
It appears that a lot of people are put off by your usage of the word servant, so perhaps this question is better answered publicly? You referred to using the word servant as contributing to "the problem".

What is the problem, and how does using the term au pair, or nanny, or professional domestic keeper, contribute to that problem? I get the distinct impression that the problem, as you it, is that you are simply against anyone but a parent being a primary caregiver, ie; "hiring a servant to be a paid substitute parent to my child". I find that mindset disturbing, as do I'm sure the mama's who have to work and are left leaving their children with "paid substitute parents".

And please don't reference gone with the wind again. "House workers" of that era did not have government agencies advocating for them, nor did they receive any health benefits, or competitive wages and perks packages. They simply aren't comparable.
post #256 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisa49 View Post
I probably never heard that story because I no longer watch the news. I haven't for years....well, since the Florida abduction of that 9yo girl. I can't handle the news. I'm much happier without it.

Lisa
This is my thought, too. I think the media skews our perception of risk to a huge extent and I'm much more calm without the constant scare tactics and flashpoints.

I LOVE public radio, but really never watch TV news programs. There are so very few topics that can be covered adequately in the 1-3 minutes that most news programs will devote to them that it seems like those programs do more damage than good, imo.
post #257 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Of_60 View Post
It appears that a lot of people are put off by your usage of the word servant, so perhaps this question is better answered publicly? You referred to using the word servant as contributing to "the problem".

What is the problem, and how does using the term au pair, or nanny, or professional domestic keeper, contribute to that problem? And please don't reference gone with the wind again. "House workers" of that era did not have government agencies advocating for them, nor did they receive any health benefits, or competitive wages and perks packages. They simply aren't comparable.
Honestly, I have said the same thing several times. I don't know how to make it any simpler other than this. I apologize if this sounds condescending because I don't mean it to, but it's hard to walk the line between sounding non-condescending and communicating my point, which I guess I really have not been successful in doing. I did try, but I guess it didn't work. Here goes:

Euphemisms are bad.
Euphemisms are bad because they disguise realities that make us feel bad.
For instance, euphemisms make everyone feel nice and fuzzy inside about exploiting others or being exploited.
Euphemisms allow people to do bad things and feel good inside.
Euphemisms allow bad things to continue.
If things were called what they were, it would be harder for people to do bad things.

"Au pair" is one example of a euphemism
"House worker" is one example of a euphemism.
"Sex worker" is a euphemism.
"Reduction in employed forces" is a euphemism.
"Termination of opposed personnel" is a euphemism.
Servant, slave, prostitute, firing, and killing are not euphemisms. For example, it is hard to fire someone. It is easier to reduce a workforce.


Women are more likely than men to be exploited.
Women are more likely to be paid less than what they deserve.
Women are less powerful in most societies than men are.
Women's jobs are held in less esteem.
Therefore, women's jobs such as "au pair," "nanny," "governess," "domestic child care worker," or other versions of "paid parental proxy" are more likely than the norm to be positions in which women are exploited.

Often, servants come from different countries. They may not speak the language well. They may feel uncomfortable in American society. They may not have friends or family here. They may not have any security other than their job as a servant. They are very likely to be exploited.

Calling your servant an "au pair" makes many people feel fancy and glamorous.
Calling oneself an "au pair" makes oneself feel fancy and glamorous.

In America, we have a complicated relationship with class and money.
We know that there are class differences and money differences.
However, if we are from the middle class, these subjects make us uncomfortable.
If we are from the middle class, we would much rather talk about politics or sex than our own money.
If we are from the middle class and become wealthy, our bank accounts change, but our baseline attitudes toward money take longer to adjust.
We are comfortable with the idea that we are all equal.
We feel uncomfortable calling a servant a servant and a master a master because this implies that we are not equal.
Because "au pair" is a euphemism that makes everyone feel glamorous, it is a term that rich people and servants both like.

However, I prefer to call things as they are.
post #258 of 407
I hate that in our society fear and paranoia take the place of listening to your instincts and feeling out each situation. The only thing I'm worried about is some paranoid and self-righteous person calling the cops on me for nothing. For those who say they'd call the cops immediately if they saw a child in a car... what age of child? I mean, if it's hot out sure but if it's not, would you call on an 8 year old? A 6 year old? That's legal most places.

Quote:
but you will get arrested or physically attacked if you break a persons car window and take their children out of the car. I think that is called breaking & entering and attempted kidnapping.
Yeah, talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only *you* become the one doing what you're so worried would happen!

Does anyone remember the thread like this from a couple years ago where a few different mothers said it was dangerous and irresponsible to go out of the car even to pump gas while your kids are inside!? OMG, I can't even go there. s

I judge things by my gut feeling of each individual situation and it has kept me and my children very safe. I think it's important to listen to your instincts instead of relying on a set of rules.
post #259 of 407
I don't think sex worker is a euphemism for prostitute. I use it when discussing anyone who works in the sex industry, not just prostitution.

Again I don't see what is wrong with calling this woman an employee if you don't like au pair or nanny. I don't think employee is a euphemism.

Like I said, many minimum wage workers are exploited. I have never heard anyone call them servants though.
post #260 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by llp34 View Post
Once I left both kids asleep in our van, in our garage, with the door down, no sun getting in anywhere, and the van doors shut, for just a couple minutes while I ran in the house to pee because I really had to go and thought if I started the whole process of waking them and getting them out of the van first I would not make it. It was about 70 outside, and about 70 in our garage, so I wasn't worried about it getting hot. I was really alarmed when I came back to the van after a very short time.......with no air circulating, the inside of the van got hot very quickly even on a 70 degree day with no sun involved and they were both starting to sweat. I won't do that again. If it had been a hotter day I think it could have been really dangerous.
The sun was not involved beating down on the garage?

Shade means shade outdoors, or in an open carport. Not a closed garage, which suffers from the same situation that causes cars to heat up in the first place. The garage got hot, your car got hot because it was now 85 degrees in your garage. For a car to heat up, it has to have a heat source. Otherwise why don't we all just live in cars outside when it gets cold in the winter?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Leaving sleeping children in the car for under 3 minutes