Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (4989)	11/6/2005 7:11:54 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542050

Having children isn't any more difficult than it used to be? Really? Having a job AND raising children is just as easy as staying home and raising children? Does that make sense to you? Do you really believe that? No, and if you were paying close attention you'd know that I was talking about choices. Or perhaps you missed the "all things being equal." If a mom stays home and raises her children, how is that more difficult? Dr. Seuss and Monopoly and Little League are different than they used to be? Earaches and eating bugs and tracking mud into the house are different? Some things may be easier and some harder because times are different. You don't have to make Halloween costumes from scratch any more and you have the internet as a great reference. OTOH the streets are more dangerous and soccer practice may require a long drive. None of those factors is directly related to the women's movement. I don't know of anything more difficult due to the women's movement except maybe that there aren't as many moms in the neighborhood during the day looking after each other's kids. If the mom chooses to be a trial lawyer taking murder cases, well, yeah, raising kids would be more difficult than if she were at home baking brownies all day. But that's her choice. Do you have statistics on this either or thing? No, I'm speaking from my recollection of the times, although you can see it in old movies if you're interested. From what I remember, the creative ones became amazing homemakers, were active in the community, and did all that community social work that now we have to pay government to do (taking meals to elderly neighbors, for example). Sure, lots were great homemakers. They engaged themselves by coming up with the moistest cake. That used to be a big deal. And spaghetti sauce. I remember the interaction on spaghetti sauce. There was always a secret ingredient. And the secret ingredient was always oregano. Some even managed to convince themselves that that was stimulating and fulfilling. As for community service, I can remember back that far. You could putter a little to get out of the house. Or you could really put your talents to work. I remember very clearly how pleased the latter group was at finally getting paid for their efforts. You have one hell of a pair of rose colored glasses. As for the meals for elderly neighbors, I feal I'm in the twilight zone. Aren't you one of those who says that charity is inadequate and you need a big government service sector? I'm sure women are forgoing having children- it's too hard to have a job and children Most of the moms with whom I've worked have had only one child. That seems to be workable. I think, though, that where we're at odds is that you're talking about the difficulty of having to take care of kids and have a career and I'm talking about choosing how much to take on. There's no requirement to hold a job and you're comparing apples and oranges if you compare moms without jobs back then and moms with jobs now.

To: epicure who wrote (4989)	11/6/2005 7:28:06 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542050

Well, we have the depressing confessional poetry of Sexton and Plath giving a voice to the women of that time. I think you have a strangely idyllic view of the Old Days. You were born just as I started middle school, I think. I remember women being frustrated and angry (my mother was one of these) at not being able to do the things they knew they were capable of. If you think they were content running charities and being amazing homemakers, you will have to find me some statistics of your own. If women were that content, we wouldn't have had such a reaction to the movement. Also women did a lot more than childcare and homemake; they just got very little credit or pay for it. They were nurses and teachers and secretaries and they got no help at all at home. A lot of women helped in the family businesses fulltime. I don't believe it was nearly the 'before and after'dichotomy that seems to be getting set up here. What I agree with you on is the damage done in demeaning of the homemaker and maternal role by women themselves. But I think some of that has changed also. Both you and I love parenting, but we also had options. That to me is where the movement succeeded. We aren't made to feel guilty any longer for choosing to stay home- and that is progress. That damage was done at the same time-- well, that was predictable. The old omelet thing. I like the idea of the the next step- kind of a second movement to the Women's Symphony-- but it would be nice to see it done "in conjunction with" rather than "as the enemy of" men, and with an emphasis on recognizing our uniqueness now that equality is accomplished. I think we are making strides. We have househusbands- a concept that wasn't even considered in the 50s, we have day care within companies, we have maternity leaves that protect jobs. I don't understand your intense anger, but maybe it will take that for the next step.