SAHM: a right or a privilege? - Page 9 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#241 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 04:27 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
I believe that children have a right to free, continuous, unscheduled access to their mother.
Yes, see, I am starting to realize that if the wording of the initial question was something like: "Is it a child's 'right' or 'priviledge' to have mom SAH?", than the responses might lean very much to the 'right'.

Of course, children are not raised in a vaccum, and so IMO, a mother's right to SAH, naturally reflects her child's right.


Quote:
I am looking for a new form of feminism that acknowledges the elephant in the room, namely that in two-parent families the whole "women have to work" thing is just the latest permutation in the invariable tendency of men to shirk duty and let women shoulder bigger burdens. But people are too addicted to old habits of thought, and afraid to break with the orthodox second-wave feminist concept of the "hard-won right to work." And they think I'm insulting their dear husbands. So what if I am? The personal is political.
ITA. The nasty 'double-duty', or 'second-shift' business.

Quote:
It is almost funny that on this website we pretend that a woman who leaves her baby in the car seat carrier when she brings him somewhere is somehow damaging him horribly, but a baby whose mother has to leave him for 50 hours a week so they can have a roof over their heads, or health insurance, will be unscathed. I don't know what it will take for APers to begin acknowledging that babies can't tell the difference between reasons for detaching. The impulse to protect the feelings of women who are in hard positions is a good one. Nobody wants to kick them while they're down. But there will be no hope for change as long as we pretend that their situation is completely healthy and unproblematical. It is impossible for most people to see this as a feminist issue because we are trapped by the rhetoric of the "hard-won right to work."
Yes, well the 'hard-won right to work' is a white, middle-class argument, which has been used to de-value the actual 'work' involved in raising children. It also serves as an insidious way of reliquishing any kind of responsibilty from the government/state with respect to childcare isues.

In the seventies, motherhood was viewed as problematic for women. White, middle-class women assumed that motherhood was the cause of women's oppression and subordination. Even today, there are 'feminists' who claim that the only way for women to be truly emancipated is to withdraw from motherhood.

Quote:
I am sick of hearing that women had no "right" to work before second-wave feminism. Elizabeth Blackwell got her medical degree in 1849, people. Her counterpart in the legal profession, Myra Bradwell, passed the Illinois state bar exam in 1869. Yes they faced obstacles, but those are 18's, not 19's in those dates. What second-wave (1960s/70s) feminism got us was the expectation that we must work no matter how it affects our families. Prior to that there were women in all sorts of professions, with few if any legal barriers. Of course their numbers were fewer, but - here come the tomatoes : - given that most women want to be mothers, it is natural and OK that there are fewer of us in the job market than there are men.
lolalola is offline  
#242 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 04:39 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=kxsiven;6533824]
Quote:
In the end is about the value of human life. It is about individuals. So easily dismissed when one has lots of money and everything is OK. But no one knows the future.


Quote:
Voters decide that and it is very clear that values in USA are quite different from Scandinavia. So in that way I probably should not have 'popped in' since I am coming from totally different POV.
I think we desperately need different perspectives! Don't feel you shouldn't have popped in. This discussion is not limited to the values of the USA.
lolalola is offline  
#243 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 05:00 PM
 
choli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=lolalola;6534668]
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel
I believe that children have a right to free, continuous, unscheduled access to their mother.

Yes, see, I am starting to realize that if the wording of the initial question was something like: "Is it a child's 'right' or 'priviledge' to have mom SAH?", than the responses might lean very much to the 'right'.

Of course, children are not raised in a vaccum, and so IMO, a mother's right to SAH, naturally reflects her child's right.
The problem is the slippery slope between the child's "right to free, continuous, unscheduled access to their mother." and the mother's right to control her own time. If it's a child's right to have continuous, unscheduled access to his mother, what does that mean if a mother wants to work outside the home without her child? What does it mean if she wants a break from her kids for a few hours? A few days? At what stage is she violating this "right" of her child, and at what stage can CPS or some other government agency step in to prevent this violation?

Considering the path the US has taken over the past few years, I would be extremely uncomfortable with any such ideas that could be used as an excuse to remove rights from women. We are coming way to close to a Handmaid's Tale scenario in this country as it is.
choli is offline  
#244 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 05:02 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
I think we desperately need different perspectives! Don't feel you shouldn't have popped in. This discussion is not limited to the values of the USA.
I completely agree. I brought the taxation figures in only because there had been some question about what the actual tax rates were in different countries, not because I was suggesting that families in the USA were better off than families in Finland!

Incidentally, it may surprise you (kxsiven) to know that here in Maryland, we also have extensive programs of speech therapy, state-paid preschool, etc. for children who have been diagnosed with certain kinds of developmental delays. These are available irrespective of income.

You might also find it interesting to know that a family income of 50,000 euros ($64,150) is by no means "rich" where I live -- even a family income of 100,000 euros ($128,300) isn't that far above the median income for married-couple families of $111,302. Men with a university education in my county earn a median income of $62,310 a year, while those with advanced degrees earn $97,541. I imagine there may be places in the U.S. where someone earning 50,000 euros would be "rich," but it certainly isn't here!

Sonja , 40, married to DH (42) since 5-29-93, DD born 11-3-2004, DS born 1-18-2007.
skueppers is offline  
#245 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 05:31 PM
 
GalateaDunkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=choli;6535057]
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
The problem is the slippery slope between the child's "right to free, continuous, unscheduled access to their mother." and the mother's right to control her own time. If it's a child's right to have continuous, unscheduled access to his mother, what does that mean if a mother wants to work outside the home without her child? What does it mean if she wants a break from her kids for a few hours? A few days? At what stage is she violating this "right" of her child, and at what stage can CPS or some other government agency step in to prevent this violation?

Considering the path the US has taken over the past few years, I would be extremely uncomfortable with any such ideas that could be used as an excuse to remove rights from women. We are coming way to close to a Handmaid's Tale scenario in this country as it is.
No we're not. I call BS on that one. Handmaid's Tale! ha! IIRC in Handmaid's Tale they didn't have an unlimited right to exterminate full-term fetuses up to and including the point where the entire body short of the head had been vaginally delivered. In the Handmaid's Tale they weren't pushed to go out and earn money while their children languished in substandard institutional care, while the few holdouts who resisted and stay with their babies are spat upon for "laziness." Etc etc. I suppose in a sense you could say that we are living in a Handmaid's Tale society inasmuch as the natural functions of womenhood are being cut down to size for the benefit of the powers that be. But I suspect that's not what you meant. What would it take for it to be far away enough from Handmaid's Tale for you? Maybe if we make abortion mandatory instead of just a heavily pressured "option." Maybe if we make SAHMing against the law. Oh yeah and Christianity too. Islam and Orthodox Judaism will also have to go - those headcoverings are just like the outfits in the novel! Eek!

Nobody's talking about having government social workers come in and forbid you to leave your kids with your husband or your sister or your neighbor or your third-world nanny who took a train from Guatemala to earn her children's rice and beans by caring for yours. We're talking moral rights, not legal ones. If a woman is so concerned about loss of autonomy through motherhood that her thoughts immediately veer to totalitarian patriarchalist nightmare scenarios the moment anyone even slightly suggests that kids have any rights at all, she should probably think about whether she really wants to have kids.
GalateaDunkel is offline  
#246 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 05:40 PM
 
choli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=GalateaDunkel;6535407]
Quote:
Originally Posted by choli View Post

No we're not. I call BS on that one. Handmaid's Tale! ha! IIRC in Handmaid's Tale they didn't have an unlimited right to exterminate full-term fetuses up to and including the point where the entire body short of the head had been vaginally delivered. In the Handmaid's Tale they weren't pushed to go out and earn money while their children languished in substandard institutional care, while the few holdouts who resisted and stay with their babies are spat upon for "laziness." Etc etc. I suppose in a sense you could say that we are living in a Handmaid's Tale society inasmuch as the natural functions of womenhood are being cut down to size for the benefit of the powers that be. But I suspect that's not what you meant. What would it take for it to be far away enough from Handmaid's Tale for you? Maybe if we make abortion mandatory instead of just a heavily pressured "option." Maybe if we make SAHMing against the law. Oh yeah and Christianity too. Islam and Orthodox Judaism will also have to go - those headcoverings are just like the outfits in the novel! Eek!

Nobody's talking about having government social workers come in and forbid you to leave your kids with your husband or your sister or your neighbor or your third-world nanny who took a train from Guatemala to earn her children's rice and beans by caring for yours. We're talking moral rights, not legal ones. If a woman is so concerned about loss of autonomy through motherhood that her thoughts immediately veer to totalitarian patriarchalist nightmare scenarios the moment anyone even slightly suggests that kids have any rights at all, she should probably think about whether she really wants to have kids.
I've never been pressured to have an abortion. Have you?
My children have never "languished" in substandard institutional care. Have yours?
I don't know one person who has been spat on for staying at home. Do you?

I believe in the right to choose an abortion for any reason. I have had two abortions. Yet I still have kids. I bet that REALLY burns your butt.
choli is offline  
#247 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 05:46 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
Nobody's talking about having government social workers come in and forbid you to leave your kids with your husband or your sister or your neighbor or your third-world nanny who took a train from Guatemala to earn her children's rice and beans by caring for yours. We're talking moral rights, not legal ones. If a woman is so concerned about loss of autonomy through motherhood that her thoughts immediately veer to totalitarian patriarchalist nightmare scenarios the moment anyone even slightly suggests that kids have any rights at all, she should probably think about whether she really wants to have kids.
Amen to that!

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#248 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 06:32 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
Nobody's talking about having government social workers come in and forbid you to leave your kids with your husband or your sister or your neighbor or your third-world nanny who took a train from Guatemala to earn her children's rice and beans by caring for yours. We're talking moral rights, not legal ones. If a woman is so concerned about loss of autonomy through motherhood that her thoughts immediately veer to totalitarian patriarchalist nightmare scenarios the moment anyone even slightly suggests that kids have any rights at all, she should probably think about whether she really wants to have kids.
Yes, exactly. I think everyone here is trying to participate in an intelligent discussion and exchange of ideas. Why must there be an attempt to derail it with nonsense?


Quote:
I've never been pressured to have an abortion. Have you?
My children have never "languished" in substandard institutional care. Have yours?
I don't know one person who has been spat on for staying at home. Do you?

I believe in the right to choose an abortion for any reason. I have had two abortions. Yet I still have kids. I bet that REALLY burns your butt.

I have been pressured to have an abortion. I was pressured by my parents, my boyfriend, my boyfriend's parents, and my so-called feminist 'friends'. No one ever once asked me what I wanted. And no one ever told me that I had a 'right' to choose motherhood. If I had been wealthy, married, and had a great job, I guess I would have been 'counseled' differently. I don't believe now, as I didn't believe then, that my so-called 'choice' to have an abortion was anything other than subtle, yet explicit bullying.
lolalola is offline  
#249 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 06:48 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by choli View Post

I've never been pressured to have an abortion. Have you?
My children have never "languished" in substandard institutional care. Have yours?
I don't know one person who has been spat on for staying at home. Do you?

I believe in the right to choose an abortion for any reason. I have had two abortions. Yet I still have kids. I bet that REALLY burns your butt.
I realize the questions were for GalateaDunkel, but I feel I should say that though I've never personally been pressured to abort a baby, I have a friend who was pressured to abort when she was pregnant as a single woman. And when I had medical prenatal care with my first, I made it clear that abortion was not something I'd ever consider: the doctor thought amniocentesis was advisable for someone my age (thirty-five) even though it would greatly increase my risk for miscarriage, and have no practical purpose since nothing I found out would persuade me to abort my baby. When I turned down the amnio, she suggested genetic counseling ... I was like, isn't it a little late for that: I'm ALREADY PREGNANT? -- and she finally dropped it.

I agree that's not quite the same as being forcibly dragged to an abortion clinic, or being strapped to a table and forcibly given an amnio (one friend, however, was on Medicaid for her first pregnancy and said she was threatened with a charge of child-endangerment, and the risk of having her child taken at birth, if she didn't submit to the amnio the doctor recommended because of her risk factors). I realize some caregivers feel really really compelled to make SURE pregnant women know beyond a shadow of a doubt there's such a thing as abortion and they can have one if they want one -- but in my case it did seem they went a little beyond that: once they knew I knew about it and wasn't interested, why the hype about amnio and genetic counseling? Still, it's not like I was forced into anything. With my second, I was forty and just decided to avoid the medical system altogether; it was nice having a midwife who saw the new life as a cause for celebration, and didn't see me as a bunch of risk-factors waiting to happen.

No one's literally spat on me for staying at home either -- yet I wonder if questions like, "Is staying home your right or your priveledge?" are maybe just a little denigrating to the profession of stay-at-home mom. I'm not saying the OP meant it that way, but I've sure come across a LOT of people who think Mom being home with the kids is just a luxury only possible for the wealthy few, that if couples run into any difficult circumstances, the stay-at-home-mom's job should be the first to go out the window. I dated a couple of guys who felt this way -- and had friends with husbands who felt this way; it didn't seem to have much to do with the husband's income: one wife of a high-earning guy said she was so glad when they had their third child and he finally told her she could stay home 'cause it no longer "paid" for her to work. So I realized I needed to look NOT for the highest earner -- but simply for a family-guy who valued having his wife home with the kids enough to do without the fringe benefits of being a two-income family.

I found one. And really, he doesn't even see any fringe-benefits to having a second income. His previous wife worked but they lived at the very limit of their income and were continually stressed out by serious debt.

I just don't hear people asking wohm's if they view work as their right or their priveledge: nowadays that seems to be viewed as the more responsible choice, when really I believe most wohm's and most sahm's do what they do out of love for their families and a desire to give them the best.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#250 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 07:05 PM
 
choli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Nobody's talking about having government social workers come in and forbid you to leave your kids with your husband or your sister or your neighbor or your third-world nanny who took a train from Guatemala to earn her children's rice and beans by caring for yours. We're talking moral rights, not legal ones. If a woman is so concerned about loss of autonomy through motherhood that her thoughts immediately veer to totalitarian patriarchalist nightmare scenarios the moment anyone even slightly suggests that kids have any rights at all, she should probably think about whether she really wants to have kids.
and
Quote:
one friend, however, was on Medicaid for her first pregnancy and said she was threatened with a charge of child-endangerment, and the risk of having her child taken at birth, if she didn't submit to the amnio the doctor recommended because of her risk factors
It's not that far - as I said, a slippery slope.
choli is offline  
#251 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 07:30 PM
 
GalateaDunkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
I realize the questions were for GalateaDunkel, but I feel I should say that though I've never personally been pressured to abort a baby, I have a friend who was pressured to abort when she was pregnant as a single woman. And when I had medical prenatal care with my first, I made it clear that abortion was not something I'd ever consider: the doctor thought amniocentesis was advisable for someone my age (thirty-five) even though it would greatly increase my risk for miscarriage, and have no practical purpose since nothing I found out would persuade me to abort my baby. When I turned down the amnio, she suggested genetic counseling ... I was like, isn't it a little late for that: I'm ALREADY PREGNANT? -- and she finally dropped it.
I would classify that as pressure to abort. The primary purpose of all the amnios, AFPs etc, is to decrease the number of special-needs children who are born (I'm not saying that that is the motivation of every woman who consents to testing, but that from the system's POV, that is the whole reason the tests are available in the first place).

Quote:
No one's literally spat on me for staying at home either
I obviously didn't mean "spat on" literally - just as when choli invoked Handmaid's Tale she didn't literally mean that women were being enslaved as reproductive surrogates for the wives of uber-fundamentalist warlords. :

Quote:
-- yet I wonder if questions like, "Is staying home your right or your priveledge?" are maybe just a little denigrating to the profession of stay-at-home mom. I'm not saying the OP meant it that way, but I've sure come across a LOT of people who think Mom being home with the kids is just a luxury only possible for the wealthy few, that if couples run into any difficult circumstances, the stay-at-home-mom's job should be the first to go out the window.
Well, the whole unspoken premise of the question is that SAH is of benefit primarily to the mother herself, and the benefit to the children is so negligible as to not be worth taking into account (especially not when compared to the benefits of Money, our culture's god, and now I am speaking literally), - or, worse yet, that benefit to children, however great, is not a factor because children do not have the same moral worth as adults. So the SAHM is up against a one-two punch:

who does she think she is, to suppose that she can do any better at caring for her children than anyone else?

where does she get off putting the emotional needs of children she ~chose to have~ (could have had an abortion, after all!) over the money-based imperatives of adult society?
GalateaDunkel is offline  
#252 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 07:40 PM
 
charmander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Latteland
Posts: 2,507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
where does she get off putting the emotional needs of children she ~chose to have~ (could have had an abortion, after all!) over the money-based imperatives of adult society?
I hope there aren't any single moms moms reading this.
charmander is offline  
#253 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 07:50 PM
 
GalateaDunkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmd View Post
I hope there aren't any single moms moms reading this.
Huh????? Did you not get that that was me sarcastically representing the POV I disagree with?

ETA....especially since it's single moms who get the worst of the judgment if they dare to hope that society will help them minimize time away from their kids! Yay welfare reform!
GalateaDunkel is offline  
#254 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 07:52 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmd View Post
I hope there aren't any single moms moms reading this.
Well, as long as the single moms read GalateaDunkel's post in its entirety, they're not likely to feel hurt or offended since she's actually supporting the moms who choose to have their kids and lamenting the societal attitude that says she should abort.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#255 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 07:53 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 mammal_mama View Post
I just don't hear people asking wohm's if they view work as their right or their priveledge....
I'd be willing to bet that if asked, many wohm's would view paid work as their 'right'.
lolalola is offline  
#256 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 07:55 PM
 
choli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
I'd be willing to bet that if asked, many wohm's would view paid work as their 'right'.
Which it is. I just don't hear people asking wohd's if they view work as their right or their priveledge....
choli is offline  
#257 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 07:59 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 choli View Post
Which it is. I just don't hear people asking wohd's if they view work as their right or their priveledge....
How is it any less of a right for me to work at home? (I guess I'm going in circles with this)...

Why is there a insistance on bringing men into a discussion about SAHM's?
lolalola is offline  
#258 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 08:08 PM
 
choli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
How is it any less of a right for me to work at home? (I guess I'm going in circles with this)...

Why is there a insistance on bringing men into a discussion about SAHM's?
Because I feel that the welfare of children should be seen as a family issue, not ghettoized as a "mother's issue".

Also, I believe that pretending it's OK to question a mother's right to work outside the home, but not a father's is incredibly sexist.
choli is offline  
#259 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 08:16 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 choli View Post
Because I feel that the welfare of children should be seen as a family issue, not ghettoized as a "mother's issue".

Also, I believe that pretending it's OK to question a mother's right to work outside the home, but not a father's is incredibly sexist.

If the welfare of children should be seen as a 'family' issue, what happens in the case of single moms? What happens to widowed moms? divorced moms?

Sorry to say, but 'motherhood' as it is socially/culturally defined, is a woman's issue.

I wasn't questioning a mother's right to work outside the home. I am questioning why a mother's right to work outside the home, is considered the only valid right.

And, please, sexist?.....you'll have to explain this further.
lolalola is offline  
#260 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 08:19 PM
 
choli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
If the welfare of children should be seen as a 'family' issue, what happens in the case of single moms? What happens to widowed moms? divorced moms?

Sorry to say, but 'motherhood' as it is socially/culturally defined, is a woman's issue.

I wasn't questioning a mother's right to work outside the home. I am questioning why a mother's right to work outside the home, is considered the only valid right.

And, please, sexist?
If the welfare of children should be seen as a women's issue, what happens in the case of single dads? What happens to widowed dads? divorced dads? Motherhood may be a women's issue, but we don't have to contribute to the socially defined ghettoization by pretending that parenting is solely a mothering issue.

Extremely sexist, and damaging to the status of childrens' rights.
choli is offline  
#261 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 08:23 PM
 
GalateaDunkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by choli View Post
Because I feel that the welfare of children should be seen as a family issue, not ghettoized as a "mother's issue".

Also, I believe that pretending it's OK to question a mother's right to work outside the home, but not a father's is incredibly sexist.
Nobody's questioning a mother's right to work outside the home.

What is being questioned, threatened, and constantly undermined, both in this discussion and in society at large, is a mother's right not to work outside that home.

And every time SAHMs resist that threat, we are hit with the Orthodox Second-Wave Feminist Smackdown: "oh???? so you don't support women's right to work outside the home???"

It's oppressive. People who earn money are the privileged group, and the rest of us are only allowed to assert ourselves as long as it doesn't impinge on their privilege, even if only in their paranoid imaginations!

If you go back and read the original source documents and manifestoes of 1960s/70s feminism you will see that it was their explicit goal to create a situation where social and economic pressures would force women out of the home whether they liked it or not. This goal has been largely achieved and is constantly being pushed forward. Housewives/SAHMs were seen as a major barrier to feminist progress, not to be tolerated. When people try to make nice and say "isn't this what our foremothers fought for - so women could have a choice?" it is a sweet sentiment but incorrect. They explicitly fought so that women would not have a choice. And they continue to do it by colonizing other women's minds with guilt about "privilege" and "women's progress." They do it by inventing a fake revisionist history of American womanhood, pretending there was Taliban-style oppression prior to 1965. And by engaging in silly futuristic fantasies (Handmaid's Tale!) rather than rational, evidence-based discourse about the way our society is headed.
GalateaDunkel is offline  
#262 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 08:23 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by choli View Post
Because I feel that the welfare of children should be seen as a family issue, not ghettoized as a "mother's issue".

Also, I believe that pretending it's OK to question a mother's right to work outside the home, but not a father's is incredibly sexist.
When I said woh moms weren't generally being questioned, I was expressing my hunch that the whole question as to whether staying home is a right or a priveledge is really a subtle put-down to sahm's. People don't question the woh dad's decision to work because he's doing work that's valued in our society. Ditto with woh moms. In their cases, their work is seen as a RESPONSIBILITY, not a right or a priveledge. The value of the sah mom's work is seen as very, very negligable -- not as a responsibility she is fulfilling towards her children.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#263 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 08:26 PM
 
choli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
Nobody's questioning a mother's right to work outside the home.

What is being questioned, threatened, and constantly undermined, both in this discussion and in society at large, is a mother's right not to work outside that home.

And every time SAHMs resist that threat, we are hit with the Orthodox Second-Wave Feminist Smackdown: "oh???? so you don't support women's right to work outside the home???"

It's oppressive. People who earn money are the privileged group, and the rest of us are only allowed to assert ourselves as long as it doesn't impinge on their privilege, even if only in their paranoid imaginations!

If you go back and read the original source documents and manifestoes of 1960s/70s feminism you will see that it was their explicit goal to create a situation where social and economic pressures would force women out of the home whether they liked it or not. This goal has been largely achieved and is constantly being pushed forward. Housewives/SAHMs were seen as a major barrier to feminist progress, not to be tolerated. When people try to make nice and say "isn't this what our foremothers fought for - so women could have a choice?" it is a sweet sentiment but incorrect. They explicitly fought so that women would not have a choice. And they continue to do it by colonizing other women's minds with guilt about "privilege" and "women's progress." They do it by inventing a fake revisionist history of American womanhood, pretending there was Taliban-style oppression prior to 1965. And by engaging in silly futuristic fantasies (Handmaid's Tale!) rather than rational, evidence-based discourse about the way our society is headed.
Ah yes, the dreaded feminists that are out to turn women gay, and have them kill their kids.

No rational discussion can be had here, I guess. You win, I'm out of here.
choli is offline  
#264 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 08:27 PM
 
GalateaDunkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
In their cases, their work is seen as a RESPONSIBILITY, not a right or a priveledge.
Yes, exactly. A responsibility SAHMs are seen as neglecting. SAHMs are perceived as getting a free ride.

Of course, it all goes back to the fundamental problem of our culture, that nothing is real that cannot be measured in dollars and cents.
GalateaDunkel is offline  
#265 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 08:34 PM
 
RedWine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,993
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
Nobody's questioning a mother's right to work outside the home.

What is being questioned, threatened, and constantly undermined, both in this discussion and in society at large, is a mother's right not to work outside that home.

And every time SAHMs resist that threat, we are hit with the Orthodox Second-Wave Feminist Smackdown: "oh???? so you don't support women's right to work outside the home???"

It's oppressive. People who earn money are the privileged group, and the rest of us are only allowed to assert ourselves as long as it doesn't impinge on their privilege, even if only in their paranoid imaginations!

If you go back and read the original source documents and manifestoes of 1960s/70s feminism you will see that it was their explicit goal to create a situation where social and economic pressures would force women out of the home whether they liked it or not. This goal has been largely achieved and is constantly being pushed forward. Housewives/SAHMs were seen as a major barrier to feminist progress, not to be tolerated. When people try to make nice and say "isn't this what our foremothers fought for - so women could have a choice?" it is a sweet sentiment but incorrect. They explicitly fought so that women would not have a choice. And they continue to do it by colonizing other women's minds with guilt about "privilege" and "women's progress." They do it by inventing a fake revisionist history of American womanhood, pretending there was Taliban-style oppression prior to 1965. And by engaging in silly futuristic fantasies (Handmaid's Tale!) rather than rational, evidence-based discourse about the way our society is headed.
RedWine is offline  
#266 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 08:44 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 choli View Post
Ah yes, the dreaded feminists that are out to turn women gay, and have them kill their kids.

No rational discussion can be had here, I guess. You win, I'm out of here.
I know you are meaning to be sarcastic here, however, in my mind, the argument that GalateaDunkel has just made above, is far more feminist than simply espousing "sexism" as a reactionary response to the idea that it should be a right to be SAHm's.

I also think its curious that you would interpret GalateaDunkel's powerful argument as "irrational". Interesting how whenever a woman speaks with assertiveness, strength and conviction, she is often labeled as "irrational"
That to me reeks of sexism and is very anti-feminist.
lolalola is offline  
#267 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 08:57 PM
 
phathui5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,474
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by christyc View Post
That seems like SUCH a condescending response. I have worked in environments (as has my husband) where our children were able to come into work with us on a regular basis when they needed to. Sure, it meant I wasn't a speed demon on the efficiency, but if you plan for it, bring activities, snacks, and stuff, it's far from impossible.
I've had two jobs other than childcare where I took my children to work with me:

- I worked in the babysitting drop off area at the YMCA, where parents left their kids so they could go exercise

- I was a Breastfeeding Counselor for WIC

There are other areas where I could see taking kids with you, in fact Mothering has an issue (don't remember which one) with this as a focus.

Midwife (CPM, LDM) and homeschooling mama to:
13yo ds   10yo dd  8yo ds and 6yo ds and 1yo ds  
phathui5 is offline  
#268 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 09:31 PM
 
lilylove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SE MI
Posts: 4,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just a friendly reminder to keep the UA in mind when posting. This has been an amazing thread with much thought provoking discussion. Please, lets keep this respectful!


Quote:
You are expected to avoid the following when you post:


1. Posting in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, namecalling, personal attack, or in any way which violates the law.

Sandy, proud mama and henna artist. :
lilylove is offline  
#269 of 356 Old 11-14-2006, 09:41 PM
 
phathui5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,474
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by choli View Post
Which it is. I just don't hear people asking wohd's if they view work as their right or their priveledge....
My dh would say that it is his responsibility.

Just like being home is mine.

Midwife (CPM, LDM) and homeschooling mama to:
13yo ds   10yo dd  8yo ds and 6yo ds and 1yo ds  
phathui5 is offline  
#270 of 356 Old 11-15-2006, 01:26 AM
 
almasmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just wanted to throw in here, that all you ladies are incredible. I mean that in a good way. So much thought, energy and passion. rock on
almasmom 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