Leaving sleeping children in the car for under 3 minutes - Page 14

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by Meg Murry.

We feel uncomfortable calling a servant a servant and a master a master because this implies that we are not equal.

Bosses and employees are just as unequal, and when I am an employee it is not uncomfortable to acknowledge that. I fail to see your point.

Are the words "boss" and "employee" euphemisms as well? What is the different between a child care worker who receives benefits and health insurance and works in a free standing building being employed by a corporation/propriety, and the same person who works in a private home? One, by your definition, is an employee, and the other a servant, the difference being their work environment? :

I fail to understand how an au pair is being exploited, and how that is exacerbated by using the term au pair, as opposed to servant. Because au pairs are usually women? So anytime a profession is dominated by, but not limited to one sex, they are being exploited?

[felix23]

Originally Posted by Meg Murry.

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.

I spent several summers caring for children in their parents' homes, and I considered myself a child care specialist. At that time I had one degree in Early Childhood Education (I now have another one in Educational Studies), so in no way was I exploited. The parents treated me as a professional, not just some servant. A child care provider is someone who the parents hire to care for their children either in or out of the home, why do you have a problem with this term? Why do you have such a hard time grasping that some people really enjoy and want to care for other people's children and that it is not a horrible job?

[PGTlatte]

No - our garage stays very cool even with the door down. It was not hotter in the garage. We pretty much keep the garage door closed all the time, and I visit our garage frequently each day because our diaper pails are in it, and our garage stays very cool even on hot days. The inside of the garage did not feel hot at all. It was much warmer in the van than in the garage.

I believe the heat source was my children. The van was sealed up and the heat they generated built up in it.

Originally Posted by pigpokey

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?

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by felix23

I spent several summers caring for children in their parents' homes, and I considered myself a child care specialist. At that time I had one degree in Early Childhood Education (I now have another one in Educational Studies), so in no way was I exploited.

I actually find it pretty derogatory to use the word servant to describe a profession that affords its employees the opportunity to be highly educated, and thus more then fairly compensated for their services in the form of competitive wages, benefits, and perks packages (many au pairs are given vehicles to drive, expense accounts, paid living expenses, etc). Most au pairs and nannies are treated better then the employees of Burger King and Walmart, but since those people work for corporations and not in private homes, they are employees and not servants.

[mammal_mama]

It sounds like many au pairs and nannies are better treated than many daycare workers. I also know someone who worked happily for many years as a housekeeper for a wealthy family. He had excellent pay and benefits, and owned his own home as well.

I don't think "servant" is a bad word in itself: it just has negative connotations in our society. So I'd rather call someone a housekeeper, cook, nanny, au pair, or employee than servant. Simply out of respect for the person, not my desire to "glamorize" what they're doing.

What is there that's inherently evil about a "reality" that one person chooses to clean people's houses, or care for their children, as a source of income -- and another person chooses to hire someone to do these things? I have a friend who enjoys cleaning houses, and she prefers this work over a typical 9 to 5 job because she can make more money in a shorter time, and can work the cleaning around her family responsibilities.

I suppose the "unpleasant reality" is the fact that some people have to work harder than others for a living, while some are in a position to hire out jobs that most of us have to do ourselves?

[mcng]

Originally Posted by blessed

I also call the police anytime I see a child sleeping in a bedroom by themselves, without a parent present.

Because I knew of a child who was abducted out of her bedroom while her parents were sleeping in the next room.

For a minute there I thought you were serious , sarcasm in other languages takes a little more to understand

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

I suppose the "unpleasant reality" is the fact that some people have to work harder than others for a living, while some are in a position to hire out jobs that most of us have to do ourselves?

Yeah, it sucks that some people are so stinking rich that they can have a private chef while I have to suffer in a hot kitchen every day, so let's demonize the whole dang thing and just call them servents. Never mind the fact that they spent 3 years at Le Cordon Blue. :

[NotAMama]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

Yeah, it sucks that some people are so stinking rich that they can have a private chef while I have to suffer in a hot kitchen every day, so let's demonize the whole dang thing and just call them servents. Never mind the fact that they spent 3 years at Le Cordon Blue. :

I think it's amusing that she refuses to listen to the people who have actually . . . oh, I don't know . . . BEEN THERE. I was an au pair. I was given room and board, two and a half days guaranteed off a week (many times, it was more), all the time I needed to travel, a very generous spending stipend, no questions asked time off when I wasn't feeling well, a set of adoring "grandparents" who felt it was their personal duty to constantly bring me little trinkets every time they came over, a "big brother" and "big sister" in the parents of the children I cared for who comforted me through homesickness and the death of a friend, four lovely children who thought I hung the moon. In other words, I was treated FAR BETTER as a live in domestic "servant" than I ever was in any other job I've ever worked.

In return, I cared for the children 4.5 days a week -- taking them to the park, preparing their meals, playing with them, teaching them English, kissing their boo-boos, hugging them and loving them.

I fail to see how I was exploited, and MegMurray seems to be unable to explain it to me.

[kaspar]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

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.

it always amazes me how this philospohy applies to mamas who smoke while preg and leave their kids unattended in a car, but not to mamas who formula feed/cio/feed purees/use sposies/give babe his own room/use a stroller etc. etc. etc...

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by NotAMama

I fail to see how I was exploited, and MegMurray seems to be unable to explain it to me.

Nor has she explained what is inherently wrong with one person hiring another person to do private work. I asked above if she was against one person hiring another person to work for them in their house or on their property, and instead got a lesson in euphemisms.

I don't understand why using the euphemism "au pair" makes the profession more palpable, unless she is fundamentally against the idea of people hiring other people to work within their homes, especially in regards to "paid substitute parents".

What is so bad about hiring a person to care for your children that requires a euphemism to glorify it? That's what I want to know.

[madskye]

So, au pair and sex worker are euphemisms...I am wondering how you decide what is a euphemism and what's not?

I find this all pretty inane, to be honest. My cousin is an au pair, and getting her ECE degree, I think she'd be pretty appalled to be called "the servant"--and I'd be surprized if you would use that term to her face.

Not because she's tough or anything, but because if it actually had to come out of your mouth you might realize that it sounds totally whackdoodle!

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by madskye

My cousin is an au pair, and getting her ECE degree, I think she'd be pretty appalled to be called "the servant

Especially since au pair means "equal to".

[veggiemomma]

I am a "servant"...oh, wait, I mean, I am a Stay at Home Mom.

Whether you want to call them "servants" (: ) or au pairs or nannies or purple crayons...whatever name you want to give them, they have extremely important and stressful jobs. Therefore, I don't understand why anyone would want to intentionally use a hurtful and demeaning word such as "servant" to describe the position they hold in a household. The ONLY reason you would use the term "servant" that I can see is if you did just want to be snarky and hurtful. Why all the hate?

[North_Of_60]

No, The word "au pair,” doesn’t mean nanny at all. It is pronounced “o pair” in French, and means "on par" or equal, denoting living on an equal basis in a reciprocal, caring relationship between the host family and the young person.

http://www.euraupair.com/aupair-questions.htm

Au pair is an anglicization of the French term "au pair," which means "on par" or "equal to..

An au pair shall be treated as an equal part of the family, not as a servant"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_pair

The words "au pair" come from the French meaning 'at par', or 'equal to'. Taking this into consideration, the au pair is meant to be an equal part of the family and treated as a family member.

http://www.euroconnect.ca/gpage.html

The word “au-pair” derives from the French expression “at par”, which means “equal to” or “on equal terms”. An Au-Pair comes to live as part of the family, and is treated as a family member

http://www.a1kidscare.com/html/childcareaupair.shtml

From the sounds of it, Meg is probably just not familiar with what au pairs are, so hopefully this clears it up. And live-in nannies that I know are also treated this way. The only thing that sets them apart is that they are not in this country on a contract or employment agreement.

[siobhang]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

From the sounds of it, Meg is probably just not familiar with what au pairs are, so hopefully this clears it up.

Thank you for hunting down those definitions.

Meg, you wanna talk class, we can talk class. And you wanna talk definitions of words, we can. I didn't get my Masters in Anthropology of International development for nothing, I can tell you. ; )

First and foremost, your issue with euphemisms is that they hide uncomfortable truths. Well, while I agree that this is the role of euphemisms, there also has to be an uncomfortable truth to be hidden.

Yes, women, especially of lower economic class, are often exploited, and traditionally in the areas of domestic and sexual labor. However, you cannot then turn around and say THEREFORE ALL women who perform that sort of labor are ALWAYS exploited. It just isn't true, unless you completely disregard the disparities of choices, opportunities and personal freedoms in the huge range of situations. Class trumps gender, pretty much every time (there are some exceptions, but they are notable in themselves). It is when class and gender together meet that you are likely to find exploitation - and add in race/ethic/sexual minority status and you have a trifecta.

So let's define exploitation, shall we, and see whether au pairs - a legal visa definition, mind you - meet the requirements.

To define exploitation, from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation

the term "exploitation" may carry two distinct meanings:

1. The act of utilizing something for any purpose. In this case, exploit is a synonym for use. My note: I am assuming you are not using exploited to mean use - if so this is a completely pointless conversation
2. The act of utilizing something in an unjust, cruel or selfish manner for one's own advantage. It is this meaning of exploitation which is discussed below.

In political economy, economics, and sociology, exploitation involves a persistent social relationship in which certain persons are being mistreated or unfairly used for the benefit of others. This corresponds to one ethical conception of exploitation, that is, the treatment of human beings as mere means to an end — or as mere "objects". In different terms, "exploitation" refers to the use of people as a resource, with little or no consideration of their well-being. This can take the following basic forms:

* taking something off a person or group that rightfully belongs to them
* short-changing people in trade
* directly or indirectly forcing somebody to work for you
* using somebody against his will, or without his consent or knowledge
* imposing an arbitrary differential treatment of people to the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others (as in ascriptive discrimination)

Or how about Allwords http://www.allwords.com/word-exploitation.html

exploit
noun

1. An act or feat, especially a bold or daring one.
Thesaurus: accomplishment, achievement, feat, deed, adventure, stunt.
Form: exploits (usually)

verb exploited, exploiting

1. To take unfair advantage of something or someone so as to achieve one's own aims.
Thesaurus: capitalize on, take advantage of, misuse, profit by, use, abuse, manipulate, cash in on.

2. To make good use of something.

Bolding mine for emphasis.

Now, the critical definitional element is unfair advantage. The wikipedia definition includes elements of theft, coercion, and prejudicial treatment.

Now, in a situation where each party is getting something out of the deal, and helped define the terms of that deal - even if what they gain is unequal - AND have options to negotiate or find better deals for themselves - and ultimately, each party can walk away if they think they are getting a raw deal, there is no exploitation.

The exchange may not be *equal*. It may not be fair (however we define that word. But it isn't exploitation unless there is theft or coercion. My employer bills my hours out at twice what I take home in pay. Am I being exploited? No, because I have the right and the option to walk away at any time. This is the deal I have negotiated. If I want a better deal, I need to negotiate a better one, or walk away.

Note, not everyone has the same abilities to walk away - when working for the only employer in town or held hostage by health insurance or other elements, then yes, exploitation can occur. But it isn't automatic.

The au pair is getting a free place to live, free food, a visa to work in the US*, catastrophic health insurance, educational benefits, round trip plane tickets, and a stipend - all of which which we pay for. We get in return 45 hours of childcare a week, no more than 10 hours a day, with guaranteed 1.5 days off a week and 2 weeks a year minimum (our au pairs normally get 3 days off a week and 4-5 weeks off a year).

I am certain legal nannies negotiate themselves very good deals - and if they don't they should because in most markets, they really can. In my area, ANY nanny will earn between $10-$15 an hour. Advanced degree, experience, etc and the price goes up.

Don't get me wrong. Exploitation happens. And yes, women can be party to their own exploitation - it is a common way for women to give themselves the appearance of power they don't really have. But at the end of the day, it is all about power. When power dynamics are too unequal - where one party has no options to walk away - exploitation occurs.

Exploitation is a very real, and very serious situation. Lets not dilute it by throwing the term around too loosely at any situation that seems unequal.

Siobhan

*which is priceless - trust me, my dh came here on the H1B visa which are not available any more - if someone wants to live legally the US, even with a family member/marriage to a US citizen, it can take YEARS to process the visa - and without that family member, good luck with the lottery unless you are an exceptional citizen - i.e. nuclear physicists or international supermodel - oh, and it costs thousands of dollars in immigration lawyers fees. Hell, he was more a hostage to his employer on his H1B because they could fire him at any time and he'd be deported within a month. If we decide we don't like our au pair, she at least gets the opportunity to rematch with another family.

[MommytoTwo]

The mama congratulating herself for waking her sleeping child to get coffee has not yet had to carry a preschooler and a baby, diaper bag, books, papers etc etc thru a parking lot.

Untrue. I am a mother of three small children and I dont leave one in the car because its a hassle to get them out. I do not live in a city where I would consider it safe to leave a kid in the car. I also remind myself of the idea that if I wouldnt leave a $50 bill on the dashboard, then I also wouldnt leave my children.

McDonalds drive throughs have juice water and milk. No need to run into a store for a quick drink. If we need something else we all get out of the car and go intot he grocery store and get it.

[siobhang]

dh just pointed out something really critical. Trade is almost always unequal. in fact, unequal perceived value is pretty much crucial for any trade to occur - what I have you want more than I want to keep it, and what you have I want more than your want to keep it. We work out a deal for a swap - the trade is mutually beneficial even if the arbitrary values are not equal.

For example I grow zuccinis. I have a Sh!t load of zuccinis this time of year. I am desperate to get rid of them. You like zuccini and want to take them off my hands. Normally zuccini would be a $1lb, but since I have so much zuccini, I sell them for $0.25 lb. WE BOTH WIN. You have not exploited me - I have sold my zuccini and cleared out my storage space, even if I didn't get the normal price for the zuccini.

This is because there is no such thing as real value - only perceived value. My friend knits beautiful scarves. She spends days on them - but can only sell them for under $40 a scarf. The perceived value of her scarves has nothing to do with the inputs (yarn, needles, time) and skill (exceptional - she won state a few years back).

However, if she were Madonna, and selling her scarves, they would go for boatloads of cash.

This understanding of trade, which does not include a need for the trade to be "equal", is crucial for really understanding exploitation and how it happens.

[applejuice]

siobhang, you know that wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information, don't you, with your Master's Degree in Anthropology. Your professors would not have accepted that reference as valid for your thesis.

[woobysma]

Siobhan - you rock

(wanna do my Econ. homework for me?)

[mamazee]

Originally Posted by MommytoTwo

Untrue. I am a mother of three small children and I dont leave one in the car because its a hassle to get them out. I do not live in a city where I would consider it safe to leave a kid in the car. I also remind myself of the idea that if I wouldnt leave a $50 bill on the dashboard, then I also wouldnt leave my children.

McDonalds drive throughs have juice water and milk. No need to run into a store for a quick drink. If we need something else we all get out of the car and go intot he grocery store and get it.

It might depend on where you live. Here, most women leave their purses in their cars when they run in places. I usually do when I take my daughter to the park, and I keep the windows down so it doesn't get too hot in the car while she's playing. It just isn't a danger here. And there is my purse, sitting on the front seat with the windows down and the doors unlocked. I've never heard of anyone around here having their purses snatched out of their cars.

ETA: Also, there are many many many more thieves than kidnappers and pedophiles in the world. There's a good chance that someone interested in a $50 bill could walk by your car, though if the doors are locked and it's within view it wouldn't do them any good anyway. But very few people would be interested in someone else's baby. The chance of one of them just happening to be there when you're there is really slim. And, again, if the door is locked and the car is within view, they'd be out of luck regardless.