Preparing sibling for birth process?

In the gender-defined jobs of the past, women did HUGE amounts of
physical labor. In many parts of the world women still do so today. If
you don't think hauling water from a well or river to your family's home
is physical labor (just one example) then you've clearly never tried it.

The traditional difference has been that women's labor tends to allow
them to also do childcare, and can be shared with other women when
pregnancy interferes with the heaviest jobs. Men's physical labor may
be further from the home.

There are other differences, of course. But the big change in labor
roles in the 20th century came from control over reproduction. Birth
control has changed our society enormously, probably more than any other
single invention.

--Beth Kevles
-THE-COM-HERE
http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the GMAIL one if you would
like me to reply.

In article ,
says...

On Apr 6, 1:45 pm, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 24, 9:09 am, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
wrote:

[...] So yes, a traditional
marriage of the "50's" where a woman is not selfish and is supportive
of her husband is much better than a modern marriage with a high
divorce rate.
[...]
As I understand it, the traditional marriages to which you refer have
two salient features:

1. One partner gives up their career, or their chance at having a
career, in order to take care of all the cleaning, cooking, and
childcare needs of the couple.

Ideally, one person should stay home with the children.

When they're young, yes. That doesn't mean the entire job should fall
to a single person within the marriage. For many marriages, it might
work very well for both partners to work part-time so that they can
split childcare between them. Or for the two to alternate the time they
take off so that first one person takes a career break of a couple of
years, then the other.

2. The decision as to which partner does this is made not on the basis
of ability or desire but on the basis of gender.

With modern technology, either parent can now stay home with the
child.

Not sure what modern technology has to do with it (beyond the fact that
it's made it easier to keep a baby on breast milk even if its mother
isn't staying home full-time),

I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which
men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The
jobs of the past women did not want to do and they still do not want
to do jobs of physical labor. However, if there ever becomes a day
where a person can construct a building or home with a push of a
button, women will jump on that opportunity.

My foremothers pioneering in the American Northwest and dairy farming in
Wisconsin would be very amused by this.



but I agree entirely with the rest of
your statement. The point I was making was that the traditional 50s
marriage model was for the woman always to be the one who stayed home.
You may have meant the phrase 'traditional marriage of the 50s' in a
looser sense, in which case we may be talking at cross-purposes.

[...]

I could care less who stays home. However, I also think having
predetermined roles in place can avoid arguments and build and
maintain a healthy relationship. It is also important to note that
each role is equally important to the stability of the family. When my
wife stayed home, she wasn't seen as a maid (even though her friends
told her she was) and I didn't consider myself to be a walking ATM
machine. Both her and my role were equally important.

As long as the predetermined role *you* get is the one that gives you the
earning power and therefore the most options. I can assure you that it does
*not* mean less strife to have roles so defined.

How about taking in account that people have differing needs and desires, and
how to make the best lives together?



However, lots of women did, and do, want careers either after or instead
of bringing up children. In addition, some men rather like the idea of
staying at home with children full time for at least some years. For
people who feel that way, traditional marriages really aren't better.

I don't see how having two parents play a certain role defies a
traditional marriage.

Not quite clear on what you mean by this?

I meant that the traditional marriage model of one parent focusing on
the family while the other parent earning the living is a great model.
What I see in America today is a couple has a baby and immediately
dumps the baby in daycare while they both pursue careers.

The parent-earning and parent-caretending is indeed model that works for a lot
of people. But not all or even most.

Even in my parents' generation (and I'm 53), mixing roles were becoming more and
more common. Mostly in women taking on some work.


The problem with one-size-fits-all solutions is that generally they don't.

Generally they do. It's the feminist doctrine that perverts and
attacks the marriage model.

shrug I don't think there's such a thing as *the* feminist doctrine.

It exists. It tells women that they are doormats, maids and human
slaves if they stay home and/or take care of their husbands and
children. It also tells women that they are inferior and taken
advantage of when in fact, the realty was that women had/have a better
life and were more respected and valuable prior to and after feminism.

*Valued* (not necessarily respected) if they fulfilled a role of doing for
others, by said others.

Having you define what feminism means is like having Putin define what America
means. You're way, way off.

Banty

In article , toypup says...



wrote in message
...

I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which
men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The
jobs of the past women did not want to do and they still do not want
to do jobs of physical labor. However, if there ever becomes a day
where a person can construct a building or home with a push of a
button, women will jump on that opportunity.

And why not? If a woman can do It as well as or better than a man and she
wants to do it, why not?


This air conditioned office thing is just plain silly. There are female
soldiers, female firefighters, female ironworkers, female atheletes. Never mind
recent examples, we have Clara Barton working in hot battlefields, Jane Goodall
working and living in jungles.

I guess he imagines it's the women shouldn't swe..., um, perspire.

It's the woman-on-pedestal thing. It's the old expectation that she be an
object of admiration for physical looks, while fulfilling a limited set of
roles. That's long been confused with 'respect'.

Banty

On Apr 6, 4:45*pm, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 24, 9:09 am, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
wrote:

[...] So yes, a traditional
marriage of the "50's" where a woman is not selfish and is supportive
of her husband is much better than a modern marriage with a high
divorce rate.
[...]
As I understand it, the traditional marriages to which you refer have
two salient features:

1. One partner gives up their career, or their chance at having a
career, in order to take care of all the cleaning, cooking, and
childcare needs of the couple.

Ideally, one person should stay home with the children.

When they're young, yes. *That doesn't mean the entire job should fall
to a single person within the marriage. *For many marriages, it might
work very well for both partners to work part-time so that they can
split childcare between them. *Or for the two to alternate the time they
take off so that first one person takes a career break of a couple of
years, then the other.

The obvious problem is that working half the hours often means earning
less than 50% of the original income, because part-timers are much
less likely to progress within their organizations to positions of
greater responsibility and pay. It also shuts you out of certain high-
paying careers, such as investment banking or management consulting.
Often, a couple can maximize its income by having one spouse work full
time, and almost always that spouse is the husband, in part because
few men want to be full-time dads.

A woman can stay at home for a few years when the children are young
and resume her career later. I believe that's what, for example, Nancy
Pelosi (speaker of the House), mother of five, did. It's easier to do
if the educational system does not retard one's progress, as it can in
the U.S. For example, a doctor here will attend a four-year college
and then go to medical school for another 4 years, maybe graduating at
26. My wife tells me that in India, aspiring doctors are effectively
taking pre-med classes in what would be 10th to 12th grade here, and
one graduates from medical school at 23. In both countries, there is
still a residency to do, but finishing earlier makes a family,
especially a large family, more feasible.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , toypup says...



wrote in message
...

I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which
men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The
jobs of the past women did not want to do and they still do not want
to do jobs of physical labor. However, if there ever becomes a day
where a person can construct a building or home with a push of a
button, women will jump on that opportunity.

And why not? If a woman can do It as well as or better than a man and she
wants to do it, why not?


This air conditioned office thing is just plain silly. There are female
soldiers, female firefighters, female ironworkers, female atheletes.
Never mind
recent examples, we have Clara Barton working in hot battlefields, Jane
Goodall
working and living in jungles.

I guess he imagines it's the women shouldn't swe..., um, perspire.


No, ladies merely glow surely?
Debbie
It's the woman-on-pedestal thing. It's the old expectation that she be an
object of admiration for physical looks, while fulfilling a limited set of
roles. That's long been confused with 'respect'.

Banty

On Apr 13, 11:28 pm, " wrote:

I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which
men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The
jobs of the past women did not want to do and they still do not want
to do jobs of physical labor. However, if there ever becomes a day
where a person can construct a building or home with a push of a
button, women will jump on that opportunity.

Right. There are no female construction workers.

Right. No woman would dare to lift a hammer.

uh-huh. Those callouses on my hands didn't appear there by magic! My
husband would love to restore our home with the push of a button, alas
it is not to be, so I must use my tools.

On Apr 14, 12:05 am, "toypup" wrote:
wrote in message

...

I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which
men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The
jobs of the past women did not want to do and they still do not want
to do jobs of physical labor. However, if there ever becomes a day
where a person can construct a building or home with a push of a
button, women will jump on that opportunity.

And why not? If a woman can do It as well as or better than a man and she
wants to do it, why not?

We are not living In primitive conditions anymore and so we are not
constrained by them.





but I agree entirely with the rest of
your statement. The point I was making was that the traditional 50s
marriage model was for the woman always to be the one who stayed home.
You may have meant the phrase 'traditional marriage of the 50s' in a
looser sense, in which case we may be talking at cross-purposes.

[...]

I could care less who stays home. However, I also think having
predetermined roles in place can avoid arguments and build and
maintain a healthy relationship. It is also important to note that
each role is equally important to the stability of the family. When my
wife stayed home, she wasn't seen as a maid (even though her friends
told her she was) and I didn't consider myself to be a walking ATM
machine. Both her and my role were equally important.

I do agree that someone should stay home with the child, if possible. I
also agree that both the role of provider and SAHP are equally important.

You know, I used to think this, and still hope that in a few years
when the bills are paid off, I can stay home because I *want* to.
However, after having my child in daycare for some 18 months now, I've
learned the value of it. She's really thriving, and though I am sure I
could teach her a lot, I can't provide 6 other kids of multiple ages
to play with her all day, every day and teach her things of their own,
nor do I have the experience of child-rearing for 25 years, as my
babysitter does, to guide me. DD really loves her daycare, and I
almost feel guilty when we're home alone on weekends because she has
just mom and dad instead of a bunch of kids to play with. Even if we
were to do playgroups, we wouldn't be able to do that 8 hrs/day
everyday.

As a mom - even one who's been around kids and helped rear others kids
all her adult life, I really turn to my babysitter for advice and
suggestions, as she's had so much more, and varied experience.

I personally prefer that I be home rather than DH. It's sort of a selfish
thing, because I want to see my kids grow up. I'm glad I have that choice.
I wonder if men would like the choice to be home sometimes.

My DH likes the idea in theory, but realizes he'd have a hard time
doing it in practice.

On Apr 14, 8:07 am, Beliavsky wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:45 pm, Sarah Vaughan wrote:



wrote:
On Mar 24, 9:09 am, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
wrote:

[...] So yes, a traditional
marriage of the "50's" where a woman is not selfish and is supportive
of her husband is much better than a modern marriage with a high
divorce rate.
[...]
As I understand it, the traditional marriages to which you refer have
two salient features:

1. One partner gives up their career, or their chance at having a
career, in order to take care of all the cleaning, cooking, and
childcare needs of the couple.

Ideally, one person should stay home with the children.

When they're young, yes. That doesn't mean the entire job should fall
to a single person within the marriage. For many marriages, it might
work very well for both partners to work part-time so that they can
split childcare between them. Or for the two to alternate the time they
take off so that first one person takes a career break of a couple of
years, then the other.

The obvious problem is that working half the hours often means earning
less than 50% of the original income, because part-timers are much
less likely to progress within their organizations to positions of
greater responsibility and pay. It also shuts you out of certain high-
paying careers, such as investment banking or management consulting.
Often, a couple can maximize its income by having one spouse work full
time, and almost always that spouse is the husband, in part because
few men want to be full-time dads.

A woman can stay at home for a few years when the children are young
and resume her career later. I believe that's what, for example, Nancy
Pelosi (speaker of the House), mother of five, did.

A woman can do this no more than a man can. It isn't dependent upon
gender but on career. Some careers allow for time out, others don't.

You'd have a hard time being an academic research in the sciences and
taking a few years off, then go back and try to get tenure, let alone
grants to fund your work if you haven't been active in your field in a
number of years. That's true whether you're a man or a woman.

It also only often works if you're just starting out in your career
and willing to resume at a low level then work your way up. It's not
easy to re-enter the field at the same level you left it, if it is
above entry-level.

"cjra" wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 12:05 am, "toypup" wrote:
wrote in message

...

I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which
men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The
jobs of the past women did not want to do and they still do not want
to do jobs of physical labor. However, if there ever becomes a day
where a person can construct a building or home with a push of a
button, women will jump on that opportunity.

And why not? If a woman can do It as well as or better than a man and
she
wants to do it, why not?

We are not living In primitive conditions anymore and so we are not
constrained by them.





but I agree entirely with the rest of
your statement. The point I was making was that the traditional 50s
marriage model was for the woman always to be the one who stayed home.
You may have meant the phrase 'traditional marriage of the 50s' in a
looser sense, in which case we may be talking at cross-purposes.

[...]

I could care less who stays home. However, I also think having
predetermined roles in place can avoid arguments and build and
maintain a healthy relationship. It is also important to note that
each role is equally important to the stability of the family. When my
wife stayed home, she wasn't seen as a maid (even though her friends
told her she was) and I didn't consider myself to be a walking ATM
machine. Both her and my role were equally important.

I do agree that someone should stay home with the child, if possible. I
also agree that both the role of provider and SAHP are equally important.

You know, I used to think this, and still hope that in a few years
when the bills are paid off, I can stay home because I *want* to.
However, after having my child in daycare for some 18 months now, I've
learned the value of it. She's really thriving, and though I am sure I
could teach her a lot, I can't provide 6 other kids of multiple ages
to play with her all day, every day and teach her things of their own,
nor do I have the experience of child-rearing for 25 years, as my
babysitter does, to guide me. DD really loves her daycare, and I
almost feel guilty when we're home alone on weekends because she has
just mom and dad instead of a bunch of kids to play with. Even if we
were to do playgroups, we wouldn't be able to do that 8 hrs/day
everyday.

Hey Crja,
Don't underestimate the value of down time -- quiet play and interaction
one-on-one or two-on-one, and even alone time for her. I don't think it
would be good for any child to have playgroups every day for 8 hours a day
7-days a week, unless of course you're talking about a large family of
siblings. And even then, I think kids need some one-on-one, two-on-one, and
alone time.

Letting your child play alone is a good thing too, as it helps stimulate her
own creativity and allows her to learn how to entertain herself. Don't feel
guilty on weekends, instead, relish your time with her (which I'm sure you
do), and value your contributions to her.
--

Jamie Clark

In article ,
cjra says...

On Apr 14, 8:07 am, Beliavsky wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:45 pm, Sarah Vaughan wrote:



wrote:
On Mar 24, 9:09 am, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
wrote:

[...] So yes, a traditional
marriage of the "50's" where a woman is not selfish and is supportive
of her husband is much better than a modern marriage with a high
divorce rate.
[...]
As I understand it, the traditional marriages to which you refer have
two salient features:

1. One partner gives up their career, or their chance at having a
career, in order to take care of all the cleaning, cooking, and
childcare needs of the couple.

Ideally, one person should stay home with the children.

When they're young, yes. That doesn't mean the entire job should fall
to a single person within the marriage. For many marriages, it might
work very well for both partners to work part-time so that they can
split childcare between them. Or for the two to alternate the time they
take off so that first one person takes a career break of a couple of
years, then the other.

The obvious problem is that working half the hours often means earning
less than 50% of the original income, because part-timers are much
less likely to progress within their organizations to positions of
greater responsibility and pay. It also shuts you out of certain high-
paying careers, such as investment banking or management consulting.
Often, a couple can maximize its income by having one spouse work full
time, and almost always that spouse is the husband, in part because
few men want to be full-time dads.

A woman can stay at home for a few years when the children are young
and resume her career later. I believe that's what, for example, Nancy
Pelosi (speaker of the House), mother of five, did.

A woman can do this no more than a man can. It isn't dependent upon
gender but on career. Some careers allow for time out, others don't.

Pelosi was amazingly well-connected politically to begin with. You're right -
some careers can handle it, some can't (an academic career? be ready to be
consigned to research associate!). Some people can do it (connections in the
family), some can't. It all depends.

Suffice to say we don't see very many people taking decades long sabbaticals for
other reasons more compelling than raising a family! Else we'd see it much more
often.

A good friend of mine has a master's degree, but now that her kids are teens,
she's having a heck of a time reentering the market. She's actually been asked
if she can be a receptionist! She has a master's degree in administration and
military experience to boot. But she's been raising two kids and working as a
high school tutor. But it's not been *current* experience in her field, and
it's taken her out of forming connections. And, no, this cant they tell you to
say about how householding has given wunnerful administrative and organizational
experience just doesn't wash in the real world - they've heard it a million
times.

Her biggest worry? (Other than going stir-crazy) - she and her husband had
thought that her previous experience and degrees would be the fallback position
should he ever lose his IT job. That didn't happen in their 25 years of
marriage, but it's been a shock to find out how little earning power she would
have.


You'd have a hard time being an academic research in the sciences and
taking a few years off, then go back and try to get tenure, let alone
grants to fund your work if you haven't been active in your field in a
number of years. That's true whether you're a man or a woman.


Heck - I worked in a well-known research lab for five years between college
(B.S.) and grad school. I was one of the students on the search committee to
full academic positions at my grad school for our engineering department - in my
early '30s I would have myself been considered already too OLD to start in a
tenure track position!

It also only often works if you're just starting out in your career
and wiling to resume at a low level then work your way up. It's not
easy to re-enter the field at the same level you left it, if it is
above entry-level.


You have to go back to entry level for a lot of things; even worse than that as
the education is considered stale!

Banty