|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are workplaces designed by default to penalize mothers?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
CBC recently broadcast a documentary which explicitly states this. The Motherload. They also referenced the Atlantic article Why woment still can't have it all.
The basic thrust is that women start a career, then interrupt it to have children, and get penalized in their careers for doing so. Further, because they worry and are pressured about it, they then return to their careers with the career penalty only to then start penalizing their children. Their partners also suffer as they see the problem and begin the contribute, with everyone becoming overwhelmed, but women still suffer by far the most.
Do you see your workplace as penalizing mothers, stopping their advance because they had the temerity to try to do career and kids? The Canadian support for mothers is 1 year of maternity leave, using (un)employment insurance to pay a small percent of actually salary. On return to work, everyone is stressed due to daycare issues, dual family career focus, and everything else.
I wonder, I really wonder what could be done to improve it all. How about requiring daycares at work? how about starting work days at 9:30 a.m.? How about breast feeding kids at board meetings? Having kids transported to the office for after school care there? And why not? What do you think?
[ 10. January 2014, 02:47: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
I am at risk of making many an enemy with this post... but here goes: women who think they are entitled to a great career while having children at the same time have got it wrong. Their children will invariably pay the price. One cannot "have it all".
If a couple has children, they have founded a family. And that family must have priority. Except for a few sad and extreme cases, children belong to their parents, and while their education/broader socialisation must of course take place in a school, their primary place of reference/safety/grounding must be the family.
The family is the primary unit of society. A safe haven from "society". A child who grows up in "society" (daycare etc) and not in a family will never learn to see society with an analytical, critical eye. He will never know that the basic unit of social life is that of kin and loved ones, the "outside world" being, well, outside. The child who does most of his growing-up up in a family will be better able to be an individual, himself, with a strengthened and distinctive character.
Guess why fascist and communist régimes all over the world love the idea of getting children into full-time daycare as soon as possible? Because that's the one way to make sure they all remain stunted, formatted, and uncritical.
What we have at the moment is another kind of dictatorship: the dictatorship of the "free" market. A world where markets are free indeed, but nothing else. A society that stunts children's moral and spiritual growth and harnesses mummies and daddies into the ultimately silly struggle of the corporate treadmill.
Formatting children into mindless consumers and smooth corporate drones.
Too many parents today have in fact no choice but to join that treadmill and dump their kids into daycare, because of financial imperatives.
So we don't need more facilities to store & entertain the kids while mummy has a career. We need a society where parents have time and (financial) grounding to devote themselves to childcare. We need to find a way to ensure families can make a decent living with just one partner working full-time. Children and their freedom to grow up should be at the centre of society. Society should serve the family -not the other way round (!)
For a glimpse of the alternative, I suggest reading "Brave New World".
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
Desert Daughter, I agree with about 90% of your post with two exceptions.
Firstly, I feel that 'mothers' should be replaced with 'mothers or fathers'. Sadly, the expectation that mothers should be the ones to stay at home has prevented many women from realising their full potential or from contributing to the wider community as they could while, at e same time, preventing fathers from having a vital input to the nurturing and guidance of their children.
Parenting really should be a shared responsibility and joy.
The other point I would question is where you say children belong to their parents. I'm not sure that's true. Patents have the primary duty and responsibility to care for, love, guide and nurture their children, but not as possessions but in order for them to grow into wise and responsible adults who will contribute to the society in which they they are born.
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
The family is the primary unit of society. A safe haven from "society". A child who grows up in "society" (daycare etc) and not in a family will never learn to see society with an analytical, critical eye. He will never know that the basic unit of social life is that of kin and loved ones, the "outside world" being, well, outside. The child who does most of his growing-up up in a family will be better able to be an individual, himself, with a strengthened and distinctive character.
This is a sweeping generalisation! There is nothing wrong with good daycare!
My two boys both went to daycare from six months old - two more well adjusted, caring young men you couldn't hope to find. They learned a good work ethic and how to balance career/family very young!
One is now a nurse and the other an airline pilot.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
@ Edith: Both points taken. About point two: I did not mean "belong" in the sense of "possession", it was more a teleological sense of "belong" I had in mind, the link of responsibility. Of course parents do not "own" their children.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It is perhaps worth mentioning that the capacity of workplaces to provide flexibility - part-time hours, job sharing, working from home and the like - has been observed to increase when male members of management decide that they want these things for themselves.
(I remember reading this in a Australian Human Rights Commission report, but I can't find the relevant report at the moment.)
Males and females alike benefit from this. The unfortunate thing is that until the males want it, it tends to be seen as the role of mothers to juggle their work and home responsibilies as much as they can, without a lot of assistance or understanding from their workplace.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Having children involves sacrifice. Many people who take time out of work slide down the greasy pole somewhat. Small children are often made to go at adult pace (long days, staying up too late).
We've been blessed my having a job which (more or less) financially enabled Mrs Tomsk to stay at home with mini and micro tomsk (it was her idea). It's quite counter-cultural in the UK nowadays. The economic benefits of two-income families to the families is probably illusory (it's enabled prices to rise accordingly).
I agree with everything Desert Daughter says.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Do you see your workplace as penalizing mothers, stopping their advance because they had the temerity to try to do career and kids? The Canadian support for mothers is 1 year of maternity leave, using (un)employment insurance to pay a small percent of actually salary. On return to work, everyone is stressed due to daycare issues, dual family career focus, and everything else.
I wonder, I really wonder what could be done to improve it all. How about requiring daycares at work? how about starting work days at 9:30 a.m.? How about breast feeding kids at board meetings? Having kids transported to the office for after school care there? And why not? What do you think?
I think the question is the wrong way around. Workplaces are designed to maximise profits for employers. Of course employers want to incentivise employees as that makes them work harder and part of this involves promoting the ideas that salaries have something to do with 'fairness'. In reality the fact that one workers wages cost more than another's is no more to do with fairness than the fact that apples and pears have different prices in a grocery shop.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
@ Desert Daughter
Yeah, how dare a woman prefer a fulfilling career to staying home with her children. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
What an appalling bit of misogyny.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
@ Desert Daughter
Yeah, how dare a woman prefer a fulfilling career to staying home with her children.
What an appalling bit of misogyny.
For most women just as for most men their work is not a 'fulfilling career', its a boring treadmill that they climb onto because they have to pay the bills. Only a minority of either sex have a 'fulfilling career'.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Do you see your workplace as penalizing mothers, stopping their advance because they had the temerity to try to do career and kids?
Yes, I do. Because the workplace is based on an outdated view of 9-5 work by a man who has a wife at home taking care of all domestic issues on his behalf. This system is bad for parents in general, not just women, but women are disproportionately affected because of the social pressure related to working mothers - women are made to feel guilty for working when they have children.
Most people work hours that are unnecessarily long. I am an office worker and if not interrupted by pointless meetings and imaginary deadlines I would be able to do the work that supposedly requires 8-9 hours a day in the office, in half the time.
There is an obsession with "face time" in many jobs - if you are there for 1 more hour than Bob you are working harder than Bob. This is completely wrong from an efficiency standpoint and in white collar work makes no sense at all.
So - if we actually asked serious questions about modern working culture and if it works for anyone - not just mothers - we'd probably realize that it's completely messed up in a lot of ways and for a lot of people. Anyone who has responsibilities at home - for children, elderly parents, a pet, you name it - is disadvantaged by the expectations placed on workers. It only works for people who have absolutely nothing to do at home other than pay bills.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
Jade, I don't think DD or those who agree with her, in whole or impart, are misogynists. I have been involved in feminist campaigns for fifty years and still am. But after all those years it seems me that the most important matter, for women and for men, is the proper care and nurture of children. That care is, I think, best provided for the majority of the time, at home with parents or close extended family with whom the child can form a close attachment. It's society / the neoliberal hegemony, that needs to change. Of course women as well as men should have the right to participate in the workplace for all sorts of reasons, but that doesn't have to be for forty plus years without a break. It is perfectly possible, if the political will was there, for mothers AND fathers to work part time and to share the upbringing of their children. This is most important in the first three years when the child develops more rapidly than at any other time and when the basis of loving relationships are formed. If this became the norm, then all workplaces could and would adapt to manage the deployment of the workforce.
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
There is an obsession with "face time" in many jobs - if you are there for 1 more hour than Bob you are working harder than Bob. This is completely wrong from an efficiency standpoint and in white collar work makes no sense at all.
Agreed. I read a fascinating article about this a couple of years ago, which pointed that 'standard hours' were worked out during the Industrial Revolution, as a means of preventing factory owners from working their employees until they dropped. A major point of the article was that a direct relationship between hours worked and productivity made sense in manufacturing (and thus, the laws on standard hours were required to prevent over-maximising productivity), but doesn't make sense in a huge array of modern jobs.
If your sole task is to make widget X following a set process, and it takes a certain amount of minutes to make one widget X, you'll probably make twice as many widgets if you work for twice as long. But as soon as your job isn't about following a set mechanical process, and it requires interaction and creativity, the direct correlation between time worked and 'product' made starts disappearing.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Yeah, how dare a woman prefer a fulfilling career to staying home with her children.
I think the point is that since your children didn’t ask to be born, you can’t expect to put your personal fulfilment in front of their needs in all circumstances. You brought them into the world, you have a responsibility to do what’s best for them and sometimes that involves choosing an option that’s less enjoyable for you. Whether it is in children’s best interests for their mother to be bored and frustrated (I suspect I would make a very bad housewife) is a separate question.
On employers providing day-care – it is only possible in large structures. For smaller organisations, it’s just prohibitively expensive for the employer. Most SMEs can’t possibly afford it. How I know this – I am on the Works Council in my place of employment. We have about 50 salaried staff. For this number of people, providing or subsidising any kind of childcare is out of the question. It would cost more than our entire annual budget. The only way we could possibly do this would be via a shared facility with other companies, but even then, it would be a huge expense that we would have a very hard time justifying for something that benefits only a minority of the staff.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
^ Which highlights the vast financial value of the work society has traditionally expected mothers to do at no charge.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Do you see your workplace as penalizing mothers, stopping their advance because they had the temerity to try to do career and kids?
Yes.
I work for a great firm, but it is institutionally sexist. As an example, at the Christmas lunch for partners and directors in my sector, the head of the group made a short speech of thanks for all our hard work. He made a point of singling out some particularly fine examples of commitment to growing the firm. All of these were examples of partners agreeing to demanding overseas commitments in the hope of winning work. In one case, the speech-maker actually referred to "[M] who has returned to the UK, leaving his family in Hong Kong".
Did I slip back into the 80s? How, in the year 2013, could willingness to live at a distance from your family be seen first and foremost as a sign of praiseworthy commitment to your job?!
The firm, along with competitors frequently throws up its hands at the lack of effect being brought about by diversity policies. But they don't actually *listen* to women's and other minorities' experience of working in an environment where an outmoded model of (white, male, able-bodied) working life is still routinely used to measure contribution and to find minority groups lacking.
If they keep doing what they've always done, they'll keep getting what they've always got.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Do you see your workplace as penalizing mothers, stopping their advance because they had the temerity to try to do career and kids?
At the risk of being painted as some weirdo MRA - it might actually be worse for men who choose to stay at home and look after the kids.
The workplace is often based on a seniority-based, partriarchal, career structure. Women are, at least partly, expected to buck that system by going off and having kids at some point. Men are not.
So I'd argue at its simplest, a workplace penalises mothers by default only because society expects mothers to do the childcare by default. A factory is not outside of society, even though it might have its own (possibly good, possibly toxic) culture. It certainly penalises parents of either sex if they want to be involved in the upbringing of their children.
On the other hand, companies would argue that they're not charities, and their employees' private arrangements are just that. Private.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
On the other hand, companies would argue that they're not charities, and their employees' private arrangements are just that. Private.
This argument gets weaker though if they expect to be handed a cookie for their wonderful diversity policies.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
Jade, I don't think DD or those who agree with her, in whole or impart, are misogynists. I have been involved in feminist campaigns for fifty years and still am. But after all those years it seems me that the most important matter, for women and for men, is the proper care and nurture of children. That care is, I think, best provided for the majority of the time, at home with parents or close extended family with whom the child can form a close attachment. It's society / the neoliberal hegemony, that needs to change. Of course women as well as men should have the right to participate in the workplace for all sorts of reasons, but that doesn't have to be for forty plus years without a break. It is perfectly possible, if the political will was there, for mothers AND fathers to work part time and to share the upbringing of their children. This is most important in the first three years when the child develops more rapidly than at any other time and when the basis of loving relationships are formed. If this became the norm, then all workplaces could and would adapt to manage the deployment of the workforce.
Well yes, but then it should be clear that it's about both parents (including same-gender couples) sharing childcare, and not about chaining women to Kinder, Kirche and Kuche.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Desert Daughter: If a couple has children, they have founded a family. And that family must have priority.
Is the fact that women have to choose between a career and their family their fault, or the fault of the way the career system has been designed?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I would think daycare at work would be funded by a gov't subsidy and grant. If schools are so funded why not daycare?
It is no more a handout than money given to banks and low corporate tax rates isn't it?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I think a key problem we have is that we expect a seamless career flow. Birth, kindergarten, school, university / vocational training, job, career (advancing to better jobs), pension, death. Where exactly is there room for having kids? At any point the advantage in the rat race is with those who run on hard, rather than pausing for children in any way or form.
A serious issue that follows from this is that women (and men, but for biologically reasons it is worse for women) have their kids way too late. Basically, people are waiting until they can risk the pause in their career progression without falling too far behind. This now often means having established oneself in a job, after university. So we get the tragic spectacle of women in their forties desperately trying to conceive their first child, if need be by throwing expensive biomedical technology at a problem that would not have existed a decade or two earlier.
So here's my counter-suggestion: the state pays all fees for higher education (or the equivalent during vocational training) if you or your partner is pregnant or has a child less than five years old. If you live in a place where higher education is not horrendously expensive, replace that with some kind of living stipend you can receive if you are studying (or training).
In short, the state pays so that the optimal time to have children is after school and before getting into "real jobs", during the time when now the majority of young people are at university (those doing vocational training should get an equivalent compensation, perhaps as direct pay-out). Make having children then a financially very attractive option. Note that I have said that both partners of a couple can have access to that deal. And yes, I am saying that you can keep on having kids (at least once every five years) and prolong the deal, if that is what you wish to do.
This would disrupt the rat race, and would mean having children when this is biologically optimal without falling (as much) behind childless competitors. It would also place child-bearing and the hardest part of raising children into a period where people are full of energy and the demands are not as crushing and more compatible with children. Finally, to not put too fine a point to it, many students lack focus and the will to work hard. Having a baby to feed may wonderfully concentrate some young minds on getting their shit together and becoming a purpose-driven adult.
If the supply of qualified workers started to include more and more young families, then that would put pressure on the following career chain. Imagine a world in which a business will find it very difficult to attract top graduates without offering benefits for families, simply because many or even most top graduates have families.
Thoughts?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
If you think that is all that is involved in being a stay-at-home mother you are sadly misinformed!
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
As much as I hate interacting with other adults, this. Yes, there are rewards, but they tend to be reaped much later on in life - at the time it's pretty much a shit-smelling grind.
I had one - one - other mum out of my daughter's cohort who'd actually talk to me as a human being, rather than someone who was either emasculated or wanting in their knickers. So I spent a lot of time, just me and the kids, out walking, in the park, or in museums, just to stay sane. Also, thank God for the internet, of which I was an early adopter.
[ 10. January 2014, 13:11: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Thoughts?
Interesting idea, but it would only work if it's for a first degree or it's restricted by age. Otherwise 35 year old women with young children would leave work to do a part-time masters or post-graduate diploma for free until their kids are old enough for school.
It also seems to only work for people who find a suitable partner at a young age. I didn't meet my husband until I was 24 so even if such a benefit existed, it wouldn't have helped. If anything it might have encouraged me to settle for my university boyfriend and have a child with him, which would have been nothing short of a disaster.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
If you think that is all that is involved in being a stay-at-home mother you are sadly misinformed!
Indeed. There's dealing with squabbles, responding to demands that invariably come the moment your arse touches the settee with a coffee in hand, sprinting to the school when one of them falls over and cracks his head open, and distinguishing between constipation, overeating and a ruse to avoid clearing the table.
How much better and more rewarding (or how less) that is than the average workplace may be a moveable feast, I suppose.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
From my own experience I have done full time work as a non-mother, part time work as a non-mother, part time work as a mother, full time studying as a mother, and full time stay at home mother.
I have to say the most nightmare year was the one where husband and I were both studying language full time. I was stressed and tired all the time. When our fellow students without children had time off to relax and do fun stuff we were desperately trying to fit in all the household stuff such as shopping, washing clothes, etc etc as well as us trying to have some quality time doing fun things with our children.
In my experience the problem is a household doesn't run itself and children need the attention of their parents. It is very hard for these two to happen if both parents are working full time. These are not exclusively the woman's responsibility but every family needs to find a way to cover all the bases between them.
[ 10. January 2014, 13:16: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
We have, in one generation, moved from 'no mother should work' to 'all mothers should work' - both extremes are, of course, not desirable outcomes. I'd like to see a situation where people can choose according to what suits their own unique family situation and, as long as at least one parent is working, not be penalised at all for that choice. The biggest problem now is high rents and mortgages which do seem to assume that there are two wage earners in the family.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
We have, in one generation, moved from 'no mother should work' to 'all mothers should work' -
It's more like "all mothers have to work because families can't pay the bills on one income."
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Interesting idea, but it would only work if it's for a first degree or it's restricted by age. Otherwise 35 year old women with young children would leave work to do a part-time masters or post-graduate diploma for free until their kids are old enough for school.
And that would be a bad thing, how? It's not the primary target of the policy, but if families are willing to take the earnings hit for the woman to quit her job for child-raising, then I would consider it positive if the state paid for her getting more qualified at the same time with view to a later return to work.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It also seems to only work for people who find a suitable partner at a young age. I didn't meet my husband until I was 24 so even if such a benefit existed, it wouldn't have helped. If anything it might have encouraged me to settle for my university boyfriend and have a child with him, which would have been nothing short of a disaster.
I'm not sure if you already had a PhD at that age, or perhaps would have found a second degree in a different field useful. Then you could have combined that with having a child. 24 is hardly late for having a child these days. Also I think society may well shift for the better if there is competition for serious "husband / wife material" in the early twenties. If a considerable fraction of people are looking for genuine partners at that age, it will have an impact on overall behaviour patterns in that age group. Basically, I'm not sure that you would have had that boyfriend, or that that boyfriend would have been as impossible, if society had reshaped to make young families common. Anyway, no social policy benefits all or avoids all problems.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
I'm sorry you feel like this Jade. I'm assuming that you don't have children yourself, and if you know you don't want to have much to do with them, that's a fair choice. But this view is not held by many - men as well as women. Watching a new new human being be born and seeing how they grow and develop and how as an adult you can aid that development, is in fact a rewarding intellectual experience as well as an emotional one.
If the only way you see bringing up children as 'singing nursery rhymes and watching Cbeebies' you really need to extend your experience of young children instead of making sweeping generalisations about the rewards of interacting with adults as a contrast.
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Might one say that stating that women ought to gain more pleasure / reward from one set of activities rather than another is an example of the misogyny that you've castigated others for?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
Watching a new new human being be born and seeing how they grow and develop and how as an adult you can aid that development, is in fact a rewarding intellectual experience as well as an emotional one.
You are right but only in retrospect. I spent six years being utterly exhausted.
Maybe I was just doing it wrong, but it's kind of patronising to assume your 'rewarding intellectual experience' isn't someone else's 'I am so tired I cannot remember my own name'.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
I'm sorry you feel like this Jade. I'm assuming that you don't have children yourself, and if you know you don't want to have much to do with them, that's a fair choice. But this view is not held by many - men as well as women. Watching a new new human being be born and seeing how they grow and develop and how as an adult you can aid that development, is in fact a rewarding intellectual experience as well as an emotional one.
If the only way you see bringing up children as 'singing nursery rhymes and watching Cbeebies' you really need to extend your experience of young children instead of making sweeping generalisations about the rewards of interacting with adults as a contrast.
I'm a happy mother of two lovely children, but based on the two years I was at home full time, I think Jade's opinion is valid and certainly doesn't reflect negatively on how she would cut it as a mum, should she feel the calling. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
I'm sorry you feel like this Jade. I'm assuming that you don't have children yourself, and if you know you don't want to have much to do with them, that's a fair choice. But this view is not held by many - men as well as women. Watching a new new human being be born and seeing how they grow and develop and how as an adult you can aid that development, is in fact a rewarding intellectual experience as well as an emotional one.
If the only way you see bringing up children as 'singing nursery rhymes and watching Cbeebies' you really need to extend your experience of young children instead of making sweeping generalisations about the rewards of interacting with adults as a contrast.
I'm a happy mother of two lovely children, but based on the two years I was at home full time, I think Jade's opinion is valid and certainly doesn't reflect negatively on how she would cut it as a mum, should she feel the calling.
She may well make an excellent parent, however, I still feel that her comments sounded quite disparaging of parents who find bringing up children more, or just as, rewarding than being in the workplace. There's plenty of room for all points of view but I don't thing generalisations are helpful - or for that matter, assertions about child rearing which seem to be based on little evidence.
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And that would be a bad thing, how?
It wouldn't be - it would be fantastic as would help women gain skills so that they can go back to work when their children are older. But it wouldn't in itself address directly the issue of age of mothers.
Most educated young people don't want to have a child without a stable home (preferably owned) which is the main factor I see among my friends (late 20s/early 30s age group).
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure if you already had a PhD at that age, or perhaps would have found a second degree in a different field useful. Then you could have combined that with having a child. 24 is hardly late for having a child these days.
Not a PhD, but a masters. And he also already had one. I can't imagine the taxpayer would delight in paying for either of us to get another degree for free because we've had a child.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except the point of view that finds the day to day realities of looking after young children rather trying, unrewarding and unfulfilling, it appears.
A man is more likely to be able to get away with holding this view than a woman. Which again, I think, reflects on societal norms, not on some genuine difference in how men and women feel about repetitive, mundane activity/children.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
Oh dear, poor soul! And yes as a mother and grandmother and as someone who has been involved in education as well as family law all her live, I'm well aware that there are many down sides as well as many joys to being a parent
At the tresent time I look after two small grandsons three days a week and while it's tiring it's never dull and observing their developing intellect and skills and social awareness is a never ending delight.
. And, as I said above, there is room for all points of view and everyone should make their own choices about becoming a parent. I just don't think it's helpful to those parents who have chosen or who are able to stay at home to imply that bringing up children equates to mind blowingly dull days and total exhaustion.
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
And thank you so much for that link, Karl. *hug*
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
Oh dear, poor soul! And yes as a mother and grandmother and as someone who has been involved in education as well as family law all her live, I'm well aware that there are many down sides as well as many joys to being a parent
At the tresent time I look after two small grandsons three days a week and while it's tiring it's never dull and observing their developing intellect and skills and social awareness is a never ending delight.
. And, as I said above, there is room for all points of view and everyone should make their own choices about becoming a parent. I just don't think it's helpful to those parents who have chosen or who are able to stay at home to imply that bringing up children equates to mind blowingly dull days and total exhaustion.
Au Contraire, I wish someone had warned me what it was really like. I'd still have had children, but I'd have been better prepared and less disappointed with the reality. Dirty nappies and being piddled on by babies are the fun bits.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
I just don't think it's helpful to those parents who have chosen or who are able to stay at home to imply that bringing up children equates to mind blowingly dull days and total exhaustion.
Why not? It's not all like that. But a lot of it is. Sometimes it was simply a triumph to get to the end of the day in the same clothes everyone started with.
Underplaying the demands of the role means that 'going out to work' ends up looking like actual work, while 'staying home with the kids' ends up looking like one long round of coffee mornings, walks in the park and happy, healthy mealtimes - barely work at all, more a five-year extended holiday.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Dirty nappies and being piddled on by babies are the fun bits.
IIRC, they're the bits when you actually know what you're *meant* to be doing, unlike the rest of the time.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
I just don't think it's helpful to those parents who have chosen or who are able to stay at home to imply that bringing up children equates to mind blowingly dull days and total exhaustion.
Why not? It's not all like that. But a lot of it is. Sometimes it was simply a triumph to get to the end of the day in the same clothes everyone started with.
Underplaying the demands of the role means that 'going out to work' ends up looking like actual work, while 'staying home with the kids' ends up looking like one long round of coffee mornings, walks in the park and happy, healthy mealtimes - barely work at all, more a five-year extended holiday.
Who's underplaying? Not me. Bringing up children is one of the most demanding - and rewarding things I've ever done. And, I have no idea where your shangri la image above comes from, not one I've ever encountered except from a few dinosaurs who needed reeducating.
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
Who's underplaying? Not me. Bringing up children is one of the most demanding - and rewarding things I've ever done. And, I have no idea where your shangri la image above comes from, not one I've ever encountered except from a few dinosaurs who needed reeducating.
Actually, it is you. Go back and read what you've written, and you'll see why a bunch of us have taken agin it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
I know exactly what I've written. You go back and reread. I have never implied that parenthood is a bed of roses. But I AM heartily sick of people who seem to think that there are few pleasures and an excess of pain in being around children. I really do wonder sometimes why they feel the need to rubbish bringing up children and focus on the downside.
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
I know exactly what I've written. You go back and reread.
"never dull"
"a never-ending delight"
Being with my children is sometimes dull. Watching their personalities and interaction develop is not always a delight.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
I know exactly what I've written. You go back and reread. I have never implied that parenthood is a bed of roses. But I AM heartily sick of people who seem to think that there are few pleasures and an excess of pain in being around children.
You are heartily sick of people whose experience isn't the same as yours. Do you think these people are lying or something?
quote:
I really do wonder sometimes why they feel the need to rubbish bringing up children and focus on the downside.
We don't rubbish it. We give an accurate description of our experience of it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
