Letters to the Editor
-
Where do they find these people?
As a college-educated former "professional" now staying at home to raise two young kids, I wonder where news outlets find these people, and where letter writers who write in decrying sahms are meeting them. Perhaps the lack of navel-gazing or whining martyrdom is just making some of us less noticeable.
Someone needs to take care of our kids when we choose to have them. For some families, it is better or necessary to hire someone to assist with that job. Others of us do the work by ourselves. Either way, somebody has to do it. There is so often an implication that because I went to college and could bring home the almighty dollar, it is a waste for me to do this work myself. How absurd! That argument that we are wasting our education is sad, not to mention insulting to both the children and those whom we hire to provide childcare. I did not go to college just to be a better worker, but to be a better person. There will be times throughout my life that I will (and have) used those skills to bring home a paycheck, and times that I will use them in other ways.
My worth or power in my relationship did not change when I quit my job to stay home. My paycheck was not a reason he married me. I am still an equal partner in our marriage and no less valued in his mind. I didn't become a less interesting partner or reduce me to being "just" the person who raises his kids. I'm sure if you asked him, my conversational wit only increased now that he doesn't have to listen to gripes about workplace politics or some mundane detail of my former job. We continue to run the household as a partnership, each doing what needs to be done when we can. I would not have married him otherwise.
As another letter-writer said, most people are working mainly for money. Many people get their fulfillment or make their meaningful contributions outside of paid work. If I thought for a moment that my returning to the workplace would cure cancer, bring peace to the world or get George Bush out of office, my kids would be in daycare tomorrow, but that�s not reality for me, or for most people. Even though my former job had many good points, it did not define me or fulfill me. Someone was hired to replace me and the office runs like it did when I was there. The same cannot be said for our roles in our families.
I still read books, stay informed on current affairs and volunteer for causes I believe in. I also take time for myself now and then. My kids have some days where we run from activity to activity and some where we watch PBS and they play on their own while I write diatribes to Salon.com. I refuse to be held accountable for or defined by those sahms who are always in the media (or annoying the people without kids at Starbucks) who, for whatever reason, cannot or will not find that balance.
-
"The Stay-at-Home Mystique"
Jesus,I don't even know where to start.This woman sounds disturbed.If my girlfriend started counting out loud to me I'd suggest therapy.I kept trying to understand and I just couldn't do it.My mother stayed at home and was fucking crazy for fifteen years-until we all left and she could go out and be her own person.I don't think I am any healthier than if she had worked.
And one-dollar blowjobs?Was she watching Maury?Please O Great Spirit-save us all from this backward-ass shit!
And baby,will you please pass me the dishscrubber?
-
To Nicole Shield
To Nicole Shield - I completely agree with what you said about
"anything that men traditionally do is given a higher value
than what women traditionally do". I actually started looking up
the numbers for the trend you gave as an example:
"Pediatricians do not earn as much as other doctors...
when more and more women started being pediatricians,
salaries went down". Right on!
To me FEMINISM means not the traditional definition about choices,
but that my value as a woman is of equal value of a man. So far
women can only hope for fairness - as Nicole pointed out:
"As long as status means "doing what men do", then women will never
gain it." A woman's value and everything she does carries less weight
from the start (whatever it might be).
-
Critics
There are a lot of leters to the editor debating the larger topic of whether or not it is 'better' or more 'moral' to be a stay-at-home mom. Many focus on how it reflects (or doesn't reflect) on current or past attitudes regarding feminism and work politics. Very few write about the details involved without reference to gender, family makeup, etc. Most of the letters make very relevant points regarding opinions about the big picture, but it seems responses to individual details haven't been addressed.
I worked until the day I gave birth to my first son, and then returned after six weeks. There were problems from the beginning, in finding good childcare that fit in with my work hours, and I went through a couple of places (on the recommended list from the state of CA)... the first was a young mother with two children of her own, who after beginning a severely regimented diet plan with herbal supplements began exibiting bizarre behaviour and personality problems. I immediately pulled my son out, struggled to bring him to work with me until I found another recommended childcare- an older 'grandmother type' who also cared for her own grandchildren. Everything seemed fine until I arrived early one morning and found her beating her own granddaughter with a clothes hanger. Again, I had to take time off to find another childcare, eventually finding one run by a local church, which we still use.
I continued to work throughout my second pregnancy, because I had huge medical bills due to medical malpractice during my first son's delivery, and although I was not making more than $200 a month after daycare expenses, my insurance was paying for the deductibles and non-covered surgeries left over from my husband's insurance coverage. I continued to work fulltime until my husbands insurance changed and we didn't need the second coverage. My employer had been very flexible during this time, but after a while it was clear that my medical problems were too invasive to keep the job. I had to quit, just before I had my second son.
I still continue to have to pay for childcare, even though I do not work, because I have a lot of medical appointments and ongoing medical problems- I need the help.
Here's where the details come in... family dynamics have changed since the 50s. We do not live near any of my husband's or my family, so there are no grandparents, aunts or uncles. During this whole time I have had no help from my immediate family, but in the 50s families lived closer together, and there was more support for stay-at-home mothers. It is valid to say that although there are many rewards in spending a lot of time with your children, it can be very lonely. Maybe in households with very high income this is not the case, but it has been for me. Where I live there are few 'mommy' groups around, and I haven't ever been 'let out' to go gossiping with other mothers (or fathers), because I don't know anyone who does that. There has been discussion about attitudes about feminism here, but not much mention about attitudes towards the working spouse. It is still very common to expect the working spouse to not contribute much in the way of chores at home, because after all, they WORKED all day, and it really isn't perceived as being the same to 'work' at home. In the neighborhood I live in, most of the couple both work, have full-time live-in nannies, and do seem to be keeping up with the latest SUVs, boats, etc.
From where I stand, common old-fashioned stereotypes are alive and well. I have noticed a change in attitude towards me when people find out that I am not employed because I have medical problems and am currently appealing for disability, rather than being unemployed by choice. I think there are a lot more variables in the who, what and why of stay-at-home parents than the bigger picture of 'feminism' as a filter on the dynamics involved, and the smaller details may be more revealing when discussing problems or benefits of the topic.