SAHM: a right or a privilege? - Page 7 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#181 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 01:20 AM
 
mykdsmomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: On the way to or from Starbucks
Posts: 3,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I dont think it's a privilege or a right. For me, I feel it's an obligation to my children.

Here's me I married then we had dd15 , dd11 , ds10 , and then and now we and I blog!
mykdsmomy is offline  
#182 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 01:27 AM
 
Ahimsa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Time
Posts: 969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesOfTheWorld View Post
And I believe it's benefitting my children, and children are supposed to be the most important thing we have, the future of our world. If that doesn't deserve good pay, I don't know what does. It's the most important job.

Mother to two great kids. &
Ahimsa is offline  
#183 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 02:10 AM
 
Thystle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Not a right if it means your family truly suffers for it.



Privilege I guess.




But in the end it's a choice.

Resistance is futile Matey
Thystle is offline  
#184 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 02:13 AM
 
Thystle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That was too general.



I think it is a very important choice and that it is best for kids to be raised by their own parents. It would be awesome of there was pay or a tax break of some kind for it. There is no way to put a price tag on it though.



But I understand there are some due to various circumstances that just cannot.




In our day and age for some it's not a true choice if there are no other viable options.


For others it is the ONLY choice they would ever make and they will move heaven and earth to make it work.




You can argue it all ways until you are blue.

Resistance is futile Matey
Thystle is offline  
#185 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 02:19 AM
 
EyesOfTheWorld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: in the kitchen
Posts: 967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skueppers View Post
No, everyone doesn't have access to the same resources. But everyone does have choices. Choices about whether they decide to become parents in the first place, who they choose to have children with, when they decide to have children, how many children they have, what sort of educational opportunities they take advantage of, what kind of career they decide to pursue, where they decide to live, how they manage money and debt, etc.

I often think that, given the same background situation, the difference between those who are content with their lives and those who are not lies in their ability to identify the available choices and make wise selections between them.


It's always that simple? No one ever had an accidental pregnancy with a man they didn't wish to have children with? More than once? No one ever had to work to survive and support others instead of pursuing higher education first? No one ever picked a career that later turned into a bad idea, or one that didn't make enough money? No one has had trouble with money, no matter how well they try to manage it? Sometimes you just don't have enough to even pay for food, let alone saving for a rainy day.

I'm sorry, but that's alot of assumptions on your part. These are not options for many, many more people than you realize.

It's not always that easy.

Mama to our nose-in-a-book Autumn (6) & our old soul Molly (4)
Imaginative, fun jewelry & photography Shenandoah Sunshine
EyesOfTheWorld is offline  
#186 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 04:08 AM
 
*GreenMama*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Right where I want to be.
Posts: 1,229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have to go for the its a right vote. I think every mother has a right to raise her children from home without others involved, and that every child has a right to have their parent stay at home with them. However, I also find that I am very priveledged to be able to enjoy this right!

Cindy + DH Paul = DS1 (4/26/06), DS2 (11/30/07), DD (12/20/10) & surprise 4th edition coming in April 2014.

Bradley Method Natural Childbirth Educator, Doula, and Breastfeeding Counselor

*GreenMama* is offline  
#187 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 04:15 AM
 
*GreenMama*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Right where I want to be.
Posts: 1,229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh, and also, I completely understand that its not possible for some people to SAH. I truly wish it was a choice that everyone could make because it was subsidized. I also think its just as important to have a mentally stable parent, and if you're going to go bonkers being a sah, go to work and be the best parent you can when you return! Neither job is easy. Peace to the SAH, WOH, WAH and all others!

Cindy + DH Paul = DS1 (4/26/06), DS2 (11/30/07), DD (12/20/10) & surprise 4th edition coming in April 2014.

Bradley Method Natural Childbirth Educator, Doula, and Breastfeeding Counselor

*GreenMama* is offline  
#188 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 10:18 AM
 
bczmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"Until recently, our society wasn't so based on a two-income household. 50 years or so ago, you could raise a family on one income. Now it's very difficult for many families to pay for necessities on one salary (sometimes even two)."

This is a historical fantasy. You are taking a ten to twenty year period (50-60s), looking at what the movies/tv want to tell you about that time and extrapolating as if that was the norm. Historically, during and after the industrial revolution the large majority of women have worked for pay, or in the family business (family farm, family store, etc., etc.) My paternal grandmother was forced to leave school at the 8th grade to work the family farm. My maternal grandmother and step-grandmother started working (at 15 and 16 respectively) as a telephone operator and as a jewelry store clerk (eventually rising to store accountant). It was always a matter of pride to my stepgrandmother that when she retired, the store had to hire two male accountants to take her place. I still have the $5 gold coin that was my grandmother's first pay "check".

Prior to the industrial revolution women were usually involved in cottage or home industries. A woman might have a husband who was a weaver (usually a masculine trade in England before the industrial revolution). Both she and the children would be involved in the preparation of the wool for weaving -- carding, dying, etc. Or she might have a trade of her own -- for example, girls as young as 6 were sent to "lace schools" were they were taught to make handmade lace for sale.
bczmama is offline  
#189 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 11:09 AM
 
TinkerBelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
"Until recently, our society wasn't so based on a two-income household. 50 years or so ago, you could raise a family on one income. Now it's very difficult for many families to pay for necessities on one salary (sometimes even two)."

This is a historical fantasy. You are taking a ten to twenty year period (50-60s), looking at what the movies/tv want to tell you about that time and extrapolating as if that was the norm. Historically, during and after the industrial revolution the large majority of women have worked for pay, or in the family business (family farm, family store, etc., etc.) My paternal grandmother was forced to leave school at the 8th grade to work the family farm. My maternal grandmother and step-grandmother started working (at 15 and 16 respectively) as a telephone operator and as a jewelry store clerk (eventually rising to store accountant). It was always a matter of pride to my stepgrandmother that when she retired, the store had to hire two male accountants to take her place. I still have the $5 gold coin that was my grandmother's first pay "check".

Prior to the industrial revolution women were usually involved in cottage or home industries. A woman might have a husband who was a weaver (usually a masculine trade in England before the industrial revolution). Both she and the children would be involved in the preparation of the wool for weaving -- carding, dying, etc. Or she might have a trade of her own -- for example, girls as young as 6 were sent to "lace schools" were they were taught to make handmade lace for sale.

My grandmother worked. And this was with 5 children, in the late 40s, early 50s. She worked fulltime in Dr's offices until she was of retirement age.
TinkerBelle is offline  
#190 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 11:59 AM
 
skueppers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Takoma Park, MD
Posts: 1,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesOfTheWorld View Post
It's always that simple? No one ever had an accidental pregnancy with a man they didn't wish to have children with? More than once? No one ever had to work to survive and support others instead of pursuing higher education first? No one ever picked a career that later turned into a bad idea, or one that didn't make enough money? No one has had trouble with money, no matter how well they try to manage it? Sometimes you just don't have enough to even pay for food, let alone saving for a rainy day.

I'm sorry, but that's alot of assumptions on your part. These are not options for many, many more people than you realize.
Those were just examples of the kinds of choices that most people in industrialized countries do have. In most such countries, reliable contraceptive methods are readily available, and options such as abortion and adoption exist for those who become pregnant anyway.

Most people could pursue some educational option that would provide them with better earning potential than working at Wal-Mart -- perhaps at the same time that they were working to support themselves. Here in the U.S., even a "nothing" retail job can, over the course of 15 years, turn into a well-paid regional manager's slot.

Many people do choose careers that turn out to be a bad idea or insufficiently lucrative, but that's often avoidable, and career change is always an option.

And yes, many times people do have trouble with money no matter how carefully they try to manage it.

I've had plenty of negative experiences myself, including several years when I had a lot of trouble affording food. I'm not trying to suggest that one's choices are always easy to identify, and many times, the current situation may seem better than whatever the options are. In that case, we've also made a choice -- we've chosen to stick with what we were already doing.

But I really do believe that we all have choices. Even a prisoner in solitary confinement still has choices, even if the only choices he or she has are related to his or her internal thought processes.

Sonja , 40, married to DH (42) since 5-29-93, DD born 11-3-2004, DS born 1-18-2007.
skueppers is offline  
#191 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 12:26 PM
 
EyesOfTheWorld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: in the kitchen
Posts: 967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
"Until recently, our society wasn't so based on a two-income household. 50 years or so ago, you could raise a family on one income. Now it's very difficult for many families to pay for necessities on one salary (sometimes even two)."

This is a historical fantasy. You are taking a ten to twenty year period (50-60s), looking at what the movies/tv want to tell you about that time and extrapolating as if that was the norm. Historically, during and after the industrial revolution the large majority of women have worked for pay, or in the family business (family farm, family store, etc., etc.) My paternal grandmother was forced to leave school at the 8th grade to work the family farm. My maternal grandmother and step-grandmother started working (at 15 and 16 respectively) as a telephone operator and as a jewelry store clerk (eventually rising to store accountant). It was always a matter of pride to my stepgrandmother that when she retired, the store had to hire two male accountants to take her place. I still have the $5 gold coin that was my grandmother's first pay "check".

Prior to the industrial revolution women were usually involved in cottage or home industries. A woman might have a husband who was a weaver (usually a masculine trade in England before the industrial revolution). Both she and the children would be involved in the preparation of the wool for weaving -- carding, dying, etc. Or she might have a trade of her own -- for example, girls as young as 6 were sent to "lace schools" were they were taught to make handmade lace for sale.
Maybe I worded it incorrectly, but historically, most mothers didn't HAVE to leave thier children. On a family farm, the children worked alongside the parents. Going back on a broader scale, most of the time children have been involved in the work, which I think is actually ideal. It's not really feasible in our society however.

Since we're pulling out the personal experiences here, my grandparents weren't rich at all, but my maternal grandmother never worked. My paternal grandmother did, but only once the children were in school and she had to support them herself (and her husband's drinking problem). My husband's grandmothers both never worked, and neither were wealthy. I'm just curious, since (in my knowledge) there probably weren't widespread daycares in your grandparents time, who watched the children?

I don't believe it's a historical fantasy, especially going outside of the 20th century. Like you pointed out, many mothers worked, but it was usually in a family business, and the children were a part of it.

Mama to our nose-in-a-book Autumn (6) & our old soul Molly (4)
Imaginative, fun jewelry & photography Shenandoah Sunshine
EyesOfTheWorld is offline  
#192 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 12:29 PM
 
EyesOfTheWorld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: in the kitchen
Posts: 967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skueppers View Post
Those were just examples of the kinds of choices that most people in industrialized countries do have. In most such countries, reliable contraceptive methods are readily available, and options such as abortion and adoption exist for those who become pregnant anyway.

Most people could pursue some educational option that would provide them with better earning potential than working at Wal-Mart -- perhaps at the same time that they were working to support themselves. Here in the U.S., even a "nothing" retail job can, over the course of 15 years, turn into a well-paid regional manager's slot.

Many people do choose careers that turn out to be a bad idea or insufficiently lucrative, but that's often avoidable, and career change is always an option.

And yes, many times people do have trouble with money no matter how carefully they try to manage it.

I've had plenty of negative experiences myself, including several years when I had a lot of trouble affording food. I'm not trying to suggest that one's choices are always easy to identify, and many times, the current situation may seem better than whatever the options are. In that case, we've also made a choice -- we've chosen to stick with what we were already doing.

But I really do believe that we all have choices. Even a prisoner in solitary confinement still has choices, even if the only choices he or she has are related to his or her internal thought processes.
I see what you're getting at, but like you said yourself "over a course of 15 years". What are they supposed to do during that time? How are they supposed to support thier family while they go back to school to get a better job?

Not to pick an argument, I just feel like there are many people for who those choices aren't realistic.

Mama to our nose-in-a-book Autumn (6) & our old soul Molly (4)
Imaginative, fun jewelry & photography Shenandoah Sunshine
EyesOfTheWorld is offline  
#193 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 12:32 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skueppers View Post
Those were just examples of the kinds of choices that most people in industrialized countries do have. In most such countries, reliable contraceptive methods are readily available, and options such as abortion and adoption exist for those who become pregnant anyway.

Most people could pursue some educational option that would provide them with better earning potential than working at Wal-Mart -- perhaps at the same time that they were working to support themselves. Here in the U.S., even a "nothing" retail job can, over the course of 15 years, turn into a well-paid regional manager's slot.

Many people do choose careers that turn out to be a bad idea or insufficiently lucrative, but that's often avoidable, and career change is always an option.

And yes, many times people do have trouble with money no matter how carefully they try to manage it.

I've had plenty of negative experiences myself, including several years when I had a lot of trouble affording food. I'm not trying to suggest that one's choices are always easy to identify, and many times, the current situation may seem better than whatever the options are. In that case, we've also made a choice -- we've chosen to stick with what we were already doing.

But I really do believe that we all have choices. Even a prisoner in solitary confinement still has choices, even if the only choices he or she has are related to his or her internal thought processes.
Ok, here's the thing....when you speak from a positon of power and privledge, it is very easy to not see, or to ignore the interlocking strutures of oppression that exist. i.e; racism, sexism, classism, that work to subvert the so-called "choices" that you assume everyone has the ability to exercise.

I think the tragedy of the hurricane katrina aftermath was one of the most visible indications of how intrenched the structures of racism and classism are in the U.S. I supose you would argue that everyone had similar choices there as well?

Yes, contraceptives are available, but that doesn't mean that everyone has access to them. Also, there are cultural and religious factors that come into play here.

In my books, the "choice" to have an abortion, or to give up a baby because you cannot afford to be a mother, is not a choice. It is a sad consequence of our culture's refusal to make mothers and children a priority, and speaks to the elitist assumption that only certain women "deserve" to be mothers.

I wish we lived in the kind of world that you describe. I wish we all had that kind of control over our lives.

We don't.
lolalola is offline  
#194 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 12:37 PM
 
shayinme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: land of lobster and lighthouses
Posts: 5,272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesOfTheWorld View Post
Maybe I worded it incorrectly, but historically, most mothers didn't HAVE to leave thier children. On a family farm, the children worked alongside the parents. Going back on a broader scale, most of the time children have been involved in the work, which I think is actually ideal. It's not really feasible in our society however.

Since we're pulling out the personal experiences here, my grandparents weren't rich at all, but my maternal grandmother never worked. My paternal grandmother did, but only once the children were in school and she had to support them herself (and her husband's drinking problem). My husband's grandmothers both never worked, and neither were wealthy. I'm just curious, since (in my knowledge) there probably weren't widespread daycares in your grandparents time, who watched the children?

I don't believe it's a historical fantasy, especially going outside of the 20th century. Like you pointed out, many mothers worked, but it was usually in a family business, and the children were a part of it.
Not to bring up race and class but I think its necessary here but women of color and poor women have always worked and did leave their kids. Often kids were taken care of by an older family member or friend. In white middle class culture I think women working is still a relatively new concept, I am thinking the women's movement and how middle class white women were fighting to work but women of color had always been working. In Black American culture we have always had 2 income families.

Even now this debate/discussion over SAHM vs WOHM seems to be largely a white middle class argument. I say that as a Black woman in Maine, I know my white Mama friends struggle with the concept of working and whether or not they should. I have met few women of color who have that same internal struggle, not that it doesn't happen for women of color but really for many of us women/Mamas working has always been a necessity.

Just my two cents.

Shay

Mothering since 1992...its one of the many hats I wear.
shayinme is offline  
#195 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 12:41 PM
 
sunnmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: surrounded by love
Posts: 6,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesOfTheWorld View Post
. I'm just curious, since (in my knowledge) there probably weren't widespread daycares in your grandparents time, who watched the children? .
My dad's mother worked in a textile factory. His grandmother lived with them and watched him when he was small.

Yes, historically many mothers worked closer to their children (farming, for example). But the point is that they had children and cared for their children (often considered "mouths to feed")--and never expected to be paid to care for their own children. Seriously, the idea is absurd to me. It is not absurd to have social programs for those in true need. But simply to expect pay for caring for our own children.

On the idea of deserving pay for caring for our children--mothers who WOHM care for their children, too. They pay for someone to care for their children while they work, but no one pays *them* to care for their children the rest of the time. Would they be paid, as well?
sunnmama is offline  
#196 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 02:38 PM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I dont think it's a privilege or a right. For me, I feel it's an obligation to my children.
This is how I think of it. It's not about me. Now, IMO, to be a SAHW would be a privelage, and I'd feel very lucky to be able to do that. But now that I have children, I feel obligated to be with them.
cappuccinosmom is offline  
#197 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 03:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
weeirishlass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shayinme View Post
: I don't even know why I read threads like this but as others have posted, there are plenty of women in the world and in this country to whom this discussion would simply not be happening.

Shay
I don't really understand why we should not have this discussion because others can not? Yes, it is sad that some women simply do not have the choice to stay home or how many kids to have. But I fail to see how that means those of us who do have those choices shouldn't discuss them... Maybe I'm misinterpreting...
weeirishlass is offline  
#198 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 03:12 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by weeirishlass View Post
I don't really understand why we should not have this discussion because others can not? Yes, it is sad that some women simply do not have the choice to stay home or how many kids to have. But I fail to see how that means those of us who do have those choices shouldn't discuss them... Maybe I'm misinterpreting...
Are you implying then, that only women who have the money/resources to "choose" whether to SAH should participate in this discussion?
lolalola is offline  
#199 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 03:51 PM - Thread Starter
 
weeirishlass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
Are you implying then, that only women who have the money/resources to "choose" whether to SAH should participate in this discussion?
Wow. No. Not even close. I'm just wondering why this conversation shouldn't take place (earlier posters seem to believe) just because the choices being discussed aren't available to everyone. Did I say that anyone should be excluded from the dialogue?
weeirishlass is offline  
#200 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 04:01 PM
 
Cardinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 2,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbowmoon View Post
I definitly think it's a priviledge. and one I don't take for granted.

This is exactly how I feel about the situation. I am so glad I can stay at home with my son. If my husband were to get killed (he's in Iraq) then obviously I'd have to go back to work to make money for food and such. I am so blessed that I can stay home. I don't see how it could be a "right" to stay home.
Cardinal is offline  
#201 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 04:05 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by weeirishlass View Post
Wow. No. Not even close. I'm just wondering why this conversation shouldn't take place (earlier posters seem to believe) just because the choices being discussed aren't available to everyone. Did I say that anyone should be excluded from the dialogue?
No, you didn't SAY that anyone should be excluded. However, you asked why "those of us" who have choices cannot discuss them, and that implies a difference between "us" and "them".

I think that eariler posters (myself included), were disheartened by the universalizing mentality of the so-called "choices" being offered up as if they applied to everyone EQUALLY. I do not assume to speak for others, and I do not think it is appropriate for others to speak for me.

You posed the question "Is SAHM is right or a privlegde". This should not be about "choices", but rather, how we, as a "society" define rights and privledges.
lolalola is offline  
#202 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 05:06 PM
 
zannster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
When I was last in Germany, DH and I got together with a close friend of DH's father. This man's wife and I met for the first time. She was from the former East Germany. While going through the usual introductory chat, she asked what I did for a living. DH told her I stayed at home with DS. There was no mistaking the look on her face. She did not approve. In East Germany, women worked, children or not. I didn't get a chance to discuss child care arrangements there (she spoke only German and I didn't, so we didn't talk much), so I don't know if there was mass government arranged child care or if children stayed with relatives. Anyway, the situation made me uncomfortable. At least here, many people recognize the benefit of a mother being home with her children. I got the impression that this woman felt I was lazy for not holding a paying job.

I see being a SAHM as a choice - though clearly some mothers have that choice made for them. If something were to happen to DH, and other arrangements were not possible, I'd have to go to work. I'm not sure that I'd be able to earn enough to live comfortably and afford child care. I don't like to think about that option, because I really want to be there for my DS, but at the same time, I don't think it is up to the government to directly support me for an extended period of time. If I had to pick between priviledge and right, I guess I'd say it's a priviledge. It used to be a right, but then we didn't have the right to work (among other things). Plus the economic structure is different now.

Mama to Marcus (1/05) and Arianna (3/10). hbac.gif

zannster is offline  
#203 of 356 Old 11-11-2006, 09:59 PM
 
EyesOfTheWorld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: in the kitchen
Posts: 967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shayinme View Post
Not to bring up race and class but I think its necessary here but women of color and poor women have always worked and did leave their kids. Often kids were taken care of by an older family member or friend. In white middle class culture I think women working is still a relatively new concept, I am thinking the women's movement and how middle class white women were fighting to work but women of color had always been working. In Black American culture we have always had 2 income families.

Even now this debate/discussion over SAHM vs WOHM seems to be largely a white middle class argument. I say that as a Black woman in Maine, I know my white Mama friends struggle with the concept of working and whether or not they should. I have met few women of color who have that same internal struggle, not that it doesn't happen for women of color but really for many of us women/Mamas working has always been a necessity.

Just my two cents.

Shay
I see where you're coming from Shay, but here I was talking long, long term - back before the whole "America" thing anyway. How our ancestors lived hundreds and thousands of years ago. I don't know much about black life at the time, but I'm assuming (which can get me in trouble, please correct me if I'm wrong!) that it was similar to European, Native American, etc life at the time, where people were farming and hunting to survive, and society was structured quite differently, more "village" mentality that made leaving your children unnecessary, and a totally different event when it did occur.

I may be (mostly) white, but I'm far from middle class, and for me, working isn't even really an option. I had to drop out of college when I got pregnant with my first daughter, and without my degree there is no job I've could take that would even pay for daycare. We live on my husband's salary (he's finally finishing college in December after dropping out when we got pregnant too) and can barely pay the bills (and sometimes don't). I sometimes think it's a privilege to have a job that pays well enough to afford day care if needed.

Mama to our nose-in-a-book Autumn (6) & our old soul Molly (4)
Imaginative, fun jewelry & photography Shenandoah Sunshine
EyesOfTheWorld is offline  
#204 of 356 Old 11-12-2006, 12:50 PM
 
skueppers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Takoma Park, MD
Posts: 1,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
Ok, here's the thing....when you speak from a positon of power and privledge, it is very easy to not see, or to ignore the interlocking strutures of oppression that exist. i.e; racism, sexism, classism, that work to subvert the so-called "choices" that you assume everyone has the ability to exercise.

[...]

I wish we lived in the kind of world that you describe. I wish we all had that kind of control over our lives.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that there are often a great many barriers to identifying and acting upon one's choices.

In my professional career, one of my greatest joys was in fostering the career growth of staff members who came from backgrounds which didn't really give them the best preparation for work in my department, so I'm very well aware of the barriers in question.

In addition to encouraging people who already worked for me, there were a number of occasions when I encouraged administrative assistants and other low-paid workers to apply for better-paying jobs with better advancement potential in my department. No one ever took me up on it, even though I did my best to persuade them that they had the necessary skills and abilities to do well in the jobs. They always seemed to think that it was better to stick with the job they were comfortable with, the one they had been prepared their whole life to think was the best they could aspire to. Which is, of course, their choice, and I hope they were happy in their careers, but I also recognize how their aspirations came to be set where they were.

I'll freely admit that my views on choice are based on my ideals -- I hope for a world in which racism, classism, sexism, etc. do not hold people back from having and achieving their dreams, and believe that encouraging young people of all backgrounds to look at the world as one in which they do have freedom of choice is a worthwhile step in achieving this.

Sonja , 40, married to DH (42) since 5-29-93, DD born 11-3-2004, DS born 1-18-2007.
skueppers is offline  
#205 of 356 Old 11-12-2006, 02:22 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skueppers View Post
For what it's worth, I agree with you that there are often a great many barriers to identifying and acting upon one's choices.



I'll freely admit that my views on choice are based on my ideals -- I hope for a world in which racism, classism, sexism, etc. do not hold people back from having and achieving their dreams, and believe that encouraging young people of all backgrounds to look at the world as one in which they do have freedom of choice is a worthwhile step in achieving this.
I respect your honesty and thoughtfulness regarding this issue of choice.

The reason I am such a big advocate of a 'guaranteed annual income' for mothers (not exclusively, but primarily for the reasons I've forementioned in this discussion ), is for the exact sentiment that you have highlighted here.

I too believe in encouraging young people to see the world as one, in which they have freedom of choice. I also believe that in order to facilitate this, action is required on the part of our government and citizens to make the world a place which truly provides a relatively 'equal' standpoint from which individuals can identify, and act on their choices.

It is one thing to say "As long as you work hard enough, you can achieve anything". And another, to recognize that not everyone begins from the same place. And to begin to think of creative ways to change this.
lolalola is offline  
#206 of 356 Old 11-12-2006, 06:42 PM
 
Sharlla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Springfield Mo
Posts: 12,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I don't encounter many mothers willing to work the kind of hours and jobs required to allow their children's fathers to stay at home full time with their children.
I did, DH stayed at home for 2 years before I got PG with DS2. he'll be a SAHD again here in a couple of years. I really loved working and although staying at home is fun, it gets kind of boring and I miss being busy and being proud of bringing in a paycheck.

Unassisted birthing, atheist, poly, bi WOHM to 4 wonderful, smart homeschooling kids Wes (14) Seth (7) Pandora Moonlilly (2) and Nevermore Stargazer (11/2012)  Married to awesome SAH DH.

Sharlla is offline  
#207 of 356 Old 11-12-2006, 09:50 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I haven't been able to read the whole dialogue yet, but wanted to say I believe every child has a right to be cared for full-time by his or her mom. No baby or child should have to be raised by babysitters or daycare workers, and I think it's sad that many in our culture see children's birthright to be with their moms as a priveledge.

I wish our culture would create more family-friendly workplaces -- by family-friendly I don't mean having a day-care center in the building: I mean allowing mothers to bring their babies and children to work with them, and allowing those children continuous access to their moms.

I stay home 'cause it's my children's right to have me there. I do feel priveledged to have a husband who's willing to be the sole income provider, but I don't feel my kids are priveledged -- they're just getting what's due to them.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#208 of 356 Old 11-12-2006, 10:17 PM
 
bczmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"I wish our culture would create more family-friendly workplaces -- by family-friendly I don't mean having a day-care center in the building: I mean allowing mothers to bring their babies and children to work with them, and allowing those children continuous access to their moms."

Have you ever worked? The impracticality of such a suggestion indicates no. I'm trying to imagine holding a multistate conference call while everyone on the line has a 3 year old yelling in the background. Or the joys of chasing a 2 year old around the factory floor. Or your doctor having his 6 year old son in your examination room.

If we, as a nation, had the desire to increase taxes there are so many more beneficial things we could do with the money than paying mothers to stay at home. How about healthcare for the uninsured? How about instituting an adequate foster care system? How about improving social services for the elderly? Increased police protection for areas with heavy gang violence? More shelters for the homeless? Better mental health services for the poor? How about meeting our pledge for AIDS contributions to Africa? Each one of those would have a far greater positive impact on the lives of those involved than paying people to SAH. When we look at circumstances of life and death (which many of those examples involve), I have a really hard time getting all excited about someone feeling deprived of their so-called "right" to stay at home. Quite frankly, I don't think the kids of SAHPs turn out any better than those of WOHPs -- so I see no value in investing tax dollars in making it possible. It is a lifestyle choice, and I don't think the government should be in the business of subsidizing lifestyle choices (though of course they already do to a certain extent).
bczmama is offline  
#209 of 356 Old 11-12-2006, 10:54 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
"I wish our culture would create more family-friendly workplaces -- by family-friendly I don't mean having a day-care center in the building: I mean allowing mothers to bring their babies and children to work with them, and allowing those children continuous access to their moms."

Have you ever worked? The impracticality of such a suggestion indicates no. I'm trying to imagine holding a multistate conference call while everyone on the line has a 3 year old yelling in the background. Or the joys of chasing a 2 year old around the factory floor. Or your doctor having his 6 year old son in your examination room.

If we, as a nation, had the desire to increase taxes there are so many more beneficial things we could do with the money than paying mothers to stay at home. How about healthcare for the uninsured? How about instituting an adequate foster care system? How about improving social services for the elderly? Increased police protection for areas with heavy gang violence? More shelters for the homeless? Better mental health services for the poor? How about meeting our pledge for AIDS contributions to Africa? Each one of those would have a far greater positive impact on the lives of those involved than paying people to SAH. When we look at circumstances of life and death (which many of those examples involve), I have a really hard time getting all excited about someone feeling deprived of their so-called "right" to stay at home. Quite frankly, I don't think the kids of SAHPs turn out any better than those of WOHPs -- so I see no value in investing tax dollars in making it possible. It is a lifestyle choice, and I don't think the government should be in the business of subsidizing lifestyle choices (though of course they already do to a certain extent).

Wow. Such hostility.

Yeah, God forbid we create more children-friendly environments where adults actually have to interact with children, and acknowledge their existence...shudder... Just because you can't imagine a different kind of world, doesn't mean others can't.

In other parts of the world (cause there is a world outside the bubble of the U.S.) women do take their children to work. In parts of Peru, no one would even understand the concept of not bringing their children with them, wherever they go.

You have no idea what kind of impact a guaranteed annual income would have on the culture. Investing in motherhood naturally means investing in children, which inevitably means an investment in the future.
lolalola is offline  
#210 of 356 Old 11-12-2006, 11:36 PM
 
EyesOfTheWorld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: in the kitchen
Posts: 967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
"I wish our culture would create more family-friendly workplaces -- by family-friendly I don't mean having a day-care center in the building: I mean allowing mothers to bring their babies and children to work with them, and allowing those children continuous access to their moms."

Have you ever worked? The impracticality of such a suggestion indicates no. I'm trying to imagine holding a multistate conference call while everyone on the line has a 3 year old yelling in the background. Or the joys of chasing a 2 year old around the factory floor. Or your doctor having his 6 year old son in your examination room.
That really was a hostile response to an interesting suggestion.

This couldn't work for *every profession* but it would be possible in alot of office situations. Maybe have an "open daycare" situation where the kids are free to stay with thier parents when it's feasible, and during a conference call, etc., they can go to the daycare room. This would actually work in lots of professions, most people do have some sort of downtime during thier day and wouldn't it be nice to be with your kids during that time, instead of having them an hour away with the sitter or at daycare while you read MDC or play solitare?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
If we, as a nation, had the desire to increase taxes there are so many more beneficial things we could do with the money than paying mothers to stay at home. How about healthcare for the uninsured?
If we had money for me to stay at home, we could afford healthcare.

Mama to our nose-in-a-book Autumn (6) & our old soul Molly (4)
Imaginative, fun jewelry & photography Shenandoah Sunshine
EyesOfTheWorld is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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