Letters to the Editor
-
The Wisdom of Clarence
As if we needed more proof that Clarence Darrow was right. "The first half of our lives is ruined by our parents, and the second half by our children."
-
the hardest job
When people say motherhood is the "hardest" job, they're not necessarily saying it's harder than being an ER doc or a Mideast peacekeeper. It's more that it's the hardest job that a typical person is likely to take on in her lifetime. What makes it hard is the cumulative effects -- the around-the-clock responsibilities, the extreme isolation, the tedium combined with terror, the lack of mobility, the endless cleanups of poop and vomit, etc. Who would do this unless we were in love with our children? No wonder some moms joke that they have to go back to work to "rest."
Sometimes I think motherhood is more difficult today than it was in our mothers' time -- maybe for self-imposed reasons, and maybe for other reasons. I'm not sure if today's mothers are overly frightened or yesterday's mothers were overly lax about safety, but I do know I wouldn't recommend my own mother as a babysitter for anyone's small child. ("Car seats? We got along fine without them in my day. I'll just hold her in my lap. . ." Yikes! You get the picture). Maybe we have impossibly high standards, or maybe we have more crushing financial pressures, such as the much higher inflation-adjusted cost of housing. Schools, even public schools, seem to be making more demands of students' parents, financially and otherwise, than they used to. Suburbia seems much less pedestrian-friendly than in the past, causing a variety of problems. Or, as has been suggested, maybe we just overschedule.
Perhaps someone will do an objective study into these questions.
Although there have been a few hostile clunkers, most of the comments that I've read here have been quite good and insightful. Thanks for posting, ladies.
-
Workplaces with flextime, childcare, etc
I'd like to respond to one specific strand in Traister's article about Total 180. The magazine's editor makes the point (as many people do) that workplaces should adapt to employees who are parents by providing on-site day care and flexible hours. I work in such a place; there is quality day care and employees with childcare responsibilities (fathers and grandparents included)are given first priority when schedules and responsibilities are assigned. Of course I support this, though I don't have children or plan to. During a recent multi-year spate of births/adoptions in my department, however, we non-mothers really had to bite our tongues about our extremely lousy, overloaded schedules. It was hard not to whine "isn't my family important, too?" I'm willing to make some sacrifices so my colleagues can have time with their infant or sick kids, but for my own health I really need them to be temporary, and I'd hope that my colleagues understand that by "putting family first" they are sometimes forcing someone else to put their own family second.
-
Holy hell
I have two things to say about this article.
1) As a female college student who busts her butt every day in a male-dominated field, this article scared the hell out of me. What is the point of so many women fighting and proving themselves to be equal in every way to men when all a bunch of them are going to do is bend over and become a door mat? What has the feminist movement sacrificed for? What have we protested against and what liberties have we earned that are getting squandered so that these women can turn future generations of smart, motivated women into FemBots?
2) I also speak as a woman who was raised in a single-parent house where my mother had no choice but to work 40-hour weeks and my three siblings and I often came home to an "empty house". Look how I turned out! She claims kids that were in my situation would seek solace elsewhere, like in a gang, and I say that's complete rubbish. We learned to be self-sufficient. We learned to take care of ourselves. We learned to be self-motivating. We learned to cook.
This woman is a complete embarassment to the female gender. Every day I go to campus and I have to raise my hand twice as often and work twice as hard just to stay abreast. And if this is what's awaiting me?
I'm moving to Europe.
-
The world of work has changed
One thing these articles never seem to mention is that the white collar workplace has changed -- for both men and women -- since the early days of feminism. Employees are expected to work longer hours. Traffic in many parts of the country is much worse, making it longer to get to and from work. Housing costs prevent many families from living closer to their jobs. Many of the "privileged" women I know who have "opted out" of their careers have done so not because they were dying to be stay-at-home moms but because, logistically, it is often too hard/near impossible to maintain two demanding careers in one family. When you have kids, somebody has to be able to leave the office at a decent hour, be able to stay home with them when they are sick, be home in time to help with homework, etc. (And those Ivy League kids are in for a rude awakening if they really think they'll be able to restart their careers at the age of 40.)
-
Being There Is Not Always Enough
So, kids join gangs because their moms work? Really? I thought kids joined gangs because their deadbeat absentee fathers left their familes dead broke with no way out of poverty, thus depriving their sons of positive male role models and imbuing them with the dog-eat-dog lesson of taking care of your own needs first, screw your responsibilities, screw the family.
Ridiculous, yes, but no more so than Ms. Klett's bizarre pop psychology view that all they lack the love and attention of a stay at home mom. Race, poverty and social and political disenfranchisement don't even rate a mention. Huh.
And what about this idea that all attention is good attention, and that any mother who stays at home full time is by defintion practically a saint giving her children the best possible childhood? Is there no one, no one in this world, that was raised by a stay-at-home mom who was pissed off, depressed, and maybe just generally not too thrilled with the whole situation? Am I the only one in the world raised by an imperfect mom?
My mom wanted to stay home with us. I guess it just didn't sit as well with her as she thought it would. Wanting, it seems, is not automatically equated with "doing it really well, or better than someone else you pay."
I love my mom, and I have no doubt that she loved us. But staying at home with us was not the best thing for her, or her children...that much is pretty clear to all of us. I'm wondering - if Ms. Klett's kids grow up to be anything other than private school-going, top college attending, highly paid white collar executives, is she prepared to take responsibility? She seems to think that moms who stay at home are somehow guaranteeing some future nirvana for her kids. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way for two reasons: 1)kids have their own nature, and 2) not all nurturing is guaranteed to have the desired effect.
Staying at home to parent is a valid choice for men and women. It may or may not help your kids succeed later in life - like every other career choice, it's not the job itself but how well you do it.