Who's responsible for the stereotypes against SAHM's? - Page 4 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-27-2005, 09:53 PM
Banned
 
~member~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: on a lily pad
Posts: 11,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Money and obtaining money are seen as more valuable than human beings, especially children.
~member~ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-27-2005, 10:15 PM
 
mamawanabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: lorrie in Chicago
Posts: 1,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies
Money and obtaining money are seen as more valuable than human beings, especially children.
What does that have to do with daycare or the BTK killer.

Women are not woh because they care about money and making money more than their kids. I'd chance to say that the majority of women woh because they thrive on this work (it is important to their identity and to their life) or because they need to finacially. The BTK killer was born wrong in the head - the sexual kick he got from tying people up and watching them die did not originate in his rather normal and benign childhood nor from the materialism of America. He is not that way because he had bad parents.
mamawanabe is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 10:29 PM
 
mamawanabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: lorrie in Chicago
Posts: 1,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamawanabe
What does that have to do with daycare or the BTK killer.

Women are not woh because they care about money and making money more than their kids. I'd chance to say that the majority of women woh because they thrive on this work (it is important to their identity and to their life) or because they need to finacially. .
he he, I'm quoting myself.

Any why is woh important to women who do it. Not becuase of money but because they are part of a shared enterprise; the public nature of job does make a difference. I do a lot of menial admin work at my job (and it pays next to nothing - seriously, I am a grad student they pay me poverty wages) but I love completing the little projects and love the public thanks I get and I love answering people questions etc. I will miss it and the collegiality when I am a sahm.

There will be compensations, of course. It will be worth it to me because that is the kind of moterh I want to be. I want to sah. For many women (who have a choice - so many women don't) the desire to woh is stronger and/or the kind of mother they want to be is a woh. They will be just as wonderful a mother as me . . . and the are not putting money before their kids
mamawanabe is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 10:30 PM
Banned
 
~member~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: on a lily pad
Posts: 11,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamawanabe
What does that have to do with daycare or the BTK killer.

Women are not woh because they care about money and making money more than their kids. I'd chance to say that the majority of women woh because they thrive on this work (it is important to their identity and to their life) or because they need to finacially. The BTK killer was born wrong in the head - the sexual kick he got from tying people up and watching them die did not originate in his rather normal and benign childhood nor from the materialism of America. He is not that way because he had bad parents.
you must be reading my posts all wrong. I never said it had anything to do with woh or daycare.

I was talking about how American society values money more than it does human beings.
~member~ is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 10:33 PM
Banned
 
~member~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: on a lily pad
Posts: 11,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinemama
I don't get it. He didn't ask people to raise their hand if the $20 was more important than the person next to them; he just asked who wanted it. How does the judgement follow?
Sorry, I don't remember the exact phrasing, so I didn't want to write it. He was talking about how American society values money more than human beings. Something about how ppl will pick up a dirty, nasty piece of paper from the ground, but if they see a homeless person they are blind to them. Does that make more sense?
Sorry if I got ppl confused.
~member~ is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 10:39 PM
 
mamawanabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: lorrie in Chicago
Posts: 1,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies
you must be reading my posts all wrong. I never said it had anything to do with woh or daycare.

I was talking about how American society values money more than it does human beings.
oh sorry (do we have a nevermind emoticon? )

I guess I just didn't understand how your post moved from money to daycare to BTK killer. Like waht could be the connecting tissue? So, I assumed you meant that society's valuing of money was behind daycare and the BTK killer.

American society does value money too much. It vaules human being in the concrete, but not the abstract. Thus we love and value every child we know, but we aren't willing to properly fund our public schools for children we don't know.
mamawanabe is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 11:08 PM
Banned
 
~member~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: on a lily pad
Posts: 11,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamawanabe
oh sorry (do we have a nevermind emoticon? )

I guess I just didn't understand how your post moved from money to daycare to BTK killer. Like waht could be the connecting tissue?
:LOL Yeah, I don't either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamawanabe
American society does value money too much. It vaules human being in the concrete, but not the abstract. Thus we love and value every child we know, but we aren't willing to properly fund our public schools for children we don't know.
I just wanted to point out that it is not just about public school, or the education system, but also in the lack of value of the SAHM. Better countries give both parents paid leave for up to a year or more.
They actually value their people/citizens, including the children who will be tomorrow's leaders.

There is more to add about that, but I have to nurse my baby....
~member~ is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 11:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
judejude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bloomington, MN
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinemama
Quote from judejude:
The biggest question to me is---why do we feel like we have to list all the things we do if we don't earn an income? As if we have to prove that we aren't lazy shits?

I listed the things I will be doing with my time when my kids are in school because I believe it's important to do something productive/creative/helpful/whatever with the time I am given. When my kids are in school and I have that free time, I won't be doing anything more around the house than I already do: meal preparation and a fairly sketchy approach to housecleaning, plus laundry. Personally, I couldn't justify having that time for loafing around. NOT that this is what other sahms do, just that it's what I'd find myself doing if I didn't have a specific plan in mind.

You're right that what many of us do with our "free time" does not seem valuable to the world. I guess what I'm getting at is that for me, spending time on writing is a valuable use of time. For others, "a little of this, a little of that" is valuable. For some it's volunteering. For some it's nothing really that quantifiable, but it makes the home what it is. These are hard things to explain to a system that wants to quantify and place a monetary value on almost everything.
Well, I listed all the crap I do too and of course I care about how I spend my time. I just was making the point of how we have to be always defending ourselves (or feeling like we do) and making sure people know that we're not eating bon bons all day.
So, basically we agree. I just wanted to clarify

Me : , husband ,daughter Raven : 10-28-95 :
judejude is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 11:59 PM - Thread Starter
 
judejude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bloomington, MN
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamawanabe
Women are not woh because they care about money and making money more than their kids. I'd chance to say that the majority of women woh because they thrive on this work (it is important to their identity and to their life) or because they need to finacially.
I know this has been straightened out already but I think the idea is and I agree fully is not to say that women that work care more about money than their kids but I feel like our society cares more about money than kids; thus the focus of this thread which is how we're perceived and stereotyped, etc.

Me : , husband ,daughter Raven : 10-28-95 :
judejude is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 12:10 AM - Thread Starter
 
judejude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bloomington, MN
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamawanabe
American society does value money too much. It vaules human being in the concrete, but not the abstract. Thus we love and value every child we know, but we aren't willing to properly fund our public schools for children we don't know.
I agree fully but thought I'd add that we're not even willing to properly fund our public schools for the kids we do know---including our own. If they did they would vote for those things---which they don't, or haven't lately---not the majority anyway. Lord help us!

Me : , husband ,daughter Raven : 10-28-95 :
judejude is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 12:25 PM
 
Linda on the move's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: basking in the sunshine
Posts: 10,635
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies
: Better countries give both parents paid leave for up to a year or more.
I disagree with this statement. In many countries where there are more goverment programs such as state paid child care and longer paid leaves, taxes are so high that it is impractical for most families to live on one income. We have our choice of living in the US, the UK, or Canada and we choose the US because it is easiest place for us to have a parent at home. With my DH in the exact same job, we would have a harded time making ends meet with me at home in either the UK or Canada (specifically Quebec where we lived for a while) because of the tax rates.

but everything has pros and cons  shrug.gif

Linda on the move is online now  
Old 09-28-2005, 02:11 PM - Thread Starter
 
judejude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bloomington, MN
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow! That's good info.
I guess we all assume that those programs are so awesome and superior.
thanks for chimin' in

Me : , husband ,daughter Raven : 10-28-95 :
judejude is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 02:30 PM
 
mamawanabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: lorrie in Chicago
Posts: 1,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda on the move
I disagree with this statement. In many countries where there are more goverment programs such as state paid child care and longer paid leaves, taxes are so high that it is impractical for most families to live on one income. We have our choice of living in the US, the UK, or Canada and we choose the US because it is easiest place for us to have a parent at home. With my DH in the exact same job, we would have a harded time making ends meet with me at home in either the UK or Canada (specifically Quebec where we lived for a while) because of the tax rates.
Actually it is a trade off. In our society, there are large numbers of women who would love to stay with their kids the first year of their kid's life but simply cannot. No amount of frugality will make this an option finacially - especially for single or welfare moms. Plus, good daycare is prohibitively expensive for many of these women who simply have to work - thier kids end up with substandard childcare. We could live in a society that supported all moms that first year and helped fund good childcare thereafter (though this would mean that high taxes could propell women to return to work after that first year, women who might have stayed home longer if they didn't live in a country that hada high tax rate to support moms their first year and didn't fund good chilcare.)

Neither option is inherently better than the other. It is a matter of different priorities.
mamawanabe is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 03:17 PM
Banned
 
~member~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: on a lily pad
Posts: 11,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In America in 2003, over $200 billion dollars was spent on making weapons. Our tax dollars at work.

I haven't found a link for how much money was spent last year or even this year, but I am sure it is still in the billions. Also, look at the money spent making a spacecraft to send to the moon. Again, tax money.
Look at the amount of tax money spent on prisons where most prisoners are in there for non-violent crimes, like possession of drugs.

Again, I would rather my tax dollars be spent on parents to be with their children, than to be spent killing other human beings.
~member~ is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off