upset at nanny -- vent

"Circe" wrote in message
news:YHwWb.39211$QJ3.2799@fed1read04...
Nina wrote:
I was thinking, however, that colored was considered a less
offensive term than Negro first, since blacks themselves used the
term (as in the NAACP). I'll admit, my regionalism may be
showing!


Black people (using a modifier as a noun is offensive, since
"black"
is not a noun in English) use the term negro.

It's fairly rare nowadays, though, wouldn't you agree? I have never
met a
black person who called him or herself a "Negro".
Its a term that would be used only amongst black people.
So no, you wouldn't hear it.



Maybe I'm sheltered,
though I had several black roommates in college and work with a
number of
black people, so I don't *think* that's it.

Its an insiders word/term/joke. You wont hear it used, that doesnt
mean it isnt being used.

Perhaps, once again, it's
regionalism coming into play.



Negro is a noun, black isnt. So a person can be a black person or
a
negro, but not a negro person or a black.

I don't agree. I rarely hear white people called Caucasian, either,
though I
suspect that's the term you'd think of as being analagous to Negro.

I *do*
hear white people called "whites" and black people called "blacks",
and I've
never heard any offensive connotation imputed to either term.
Many black people take offense to the term "blacks" as well as
"coloreds".


In the
singular, I grant you it sounds a bit odd, but both Caucasian and
Negro
sound just as clunky to my ear. I prefer the use of the words black
or white
as modifiers, frankly, because it puts the emphasis on the *person*,
not on
the color.

I agree.

The words Caucasian and Negro and similar terms have, IMO, the
affect of emphasizing the ways in which we differ more than the
(vastly
greater) ways in which we're all alike.

Certainly, in slave-holding times, the term for blacks was Negro
(or a much ruder variation thereof). IMO, that means it was, by
definition, not a value-neutral word.

It was neutral and over time it fell out of favor as did
"coloreds".
You imply that by definition, any term used to refer to black
people
in those days
would not be neutral. That's absurd. Negro was a perfectly legit
and
preferable term as opposed to darky, coon, ****** , nigra.

It was a legal term that applied, typically, to people who had a
lesser
legal status than those who were white. Now, I'm not trying to say
that I
think there's some racist *intent* behind the word Negro, but I
understand
why it bothers most of the black Americans I know. It's carrying a
lot of
baggage and its similarity to words that are clearly insulting and
degrading
doesn't improve its currency, IMO.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [23 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
Financing for "5" years -- car dealership sign

Mommy: I call you "baby" because I love you.
Julian (age 4): Oh! All right, Mommy baby.

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and
insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider,
its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin'
for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Barbara ) wrote:

Er, 35 years ago, I was 4 years old. I'm reasonably sure that Negro was in
disfavor by then. I believe "colored" was actually the favored term by that
time.

I thought it had gone the other way, from colored to Negro, and then a bit
later, to black. In fact, my mother wrote two children's books within a year or
two in the 1960's that featured black characters. One used the word Negro and
the other black. The terminology had changed that fast. Fortunately the one
that was actually entirely about a black family was the one where they had time
to make the editorial change to black.

My grandmother (born in the late 1890's) is the only person I ever recall
talking about "colored people."

--Helen

"Michelle Spina" wrote in message
om...

This is *clearly* very person dependent, then. I was thinking as I was
reading this "you have no idea what it's like to be a working mother!"
When exactly do you think the house *gets* cleaned? I'd love to have
the picture you painted - clean house in the morning, come home to
same clean house. Hmmm - when would I manage that? Mornings are busy
getting parents ready for work, and kids ready for their day. The day
is filled with work. Come home, play with kids, make dinner, play more
with kids, put kids to bed. Now it's 8:30 - 9:00pm. Some cleaning can
be done, but nothing too noisy, because, well, the kids are sleeping.
And, we've been going since 6:30am - cleaning is NOT at the top of my
list at that point. So, dirty house remains dirty. Repeat 5x. Weekends
are a blur of errands and cleaning that should have been done during
the week. Hardly the nirvana painted above.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't want to go back to work Michelle

If you work full-time, you have ALL of
those tasks to do, but substantially less time to do them in. How
could that be easier? Cripes, we even have a nanny. I honestly have NO
idea how people do it when they have the get the kids ready for
daycare in the mornings on top of it all.

IIRC, you have always had a nanny (except when you were jobless) and your
nanny doesn't do much in the way of housekeeping. The big difference that
some people fail to see (including my husband) is that when there are people
home all day (nanny and kids or mom and kids) there is a lot more work to do
on the weekends. We did really good at keeping the house in shape when DD
was in daycare, but once we hired the nanny I was amazed at how much more
natural mess there was. She vacuumed, and did any dishes associated with
feeding the baby and herself and tried to pick up their messes as they went
along but any one of those things went by the wayside if they needed to
because that is the way I wanted it. Her focus on the baby. Now I've spent
eight months at home and I try to do things the same way. Kids first, house
second (or occassionally even third to me time). Which means there is a
much bigger mess that must be dealt with when husband is home or on the
weekends. Husband of course thinks I'm eating bon-bons and letting the kids
destroy the house :-) FTR, I think what I'm saying supports your statement
that its hella hard to work and keep house, but also others statements that
its hard to be home because there is simply more to do.

--
Rhiannon
Mom to M. Girl (29 months) and O. Boy (7 1/2 months)

"Nina" skrev i en meddelelse
...

It isnt difficult at all for me to believe, but I like to learn,
my mothers degree is sociology and I spent my teen years
reading her papers for her post-masters work. I still read
cultural anthropology books, case studies etc for fun.
So having the chance to bat ideas around and explore
other peoples views, I cant resist asking more questions and probing.
When other people ask me, I dont generally get defensive, but simply
explain
what factors lead me to believe as I do.

Yes - yes - yes! That's exactly what makes this discussion fun. I studied
cultural/social anthropology (it's called 'etnologi' in Danish) at the
university until I got pregnant and fell asleep for three months. I still
have my house full of books and still buy them.

Have you felt that I was defensive in this conversation - I haven't felt so,
but written words don't always come across as they are ment?

Tine, Denmark

"Nina" wrote in message
...

My personal belief is that children are raised by their primary
caregivers
so if my kid is at daycare 10 hours/day and with me maybe 3 waking
hours/day
I would feel as if someone else were raising my child, based on MY
definition of
"raise".

Um...ack. Our nanny was an integral part of our child's life, but we were
raising her. By our philosophies and our rules. Raising isn't just taking
care of. Its forming the child's knowledge and beliefs and hiring the right
people to help you do that when you have to be away from them.

--
Rhiannon
Mom to M. Girl (29 months) and O. Boy (7 1/2 months)

"Nina" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Wow, thats great. I know few places that discount for additional kids
in a fmaily
but not an entire 50%. I have a friend who would pay nearly
$1500/month for child care
its just not worth it foir her.

It's regulated - and partly paid for - by government. High taxes - low
payment.

Ah, so you have a short work day? Here, by the time you get off of
work at 5, get all the kids,
it is 6 pm. Then you have to get (in my case) 3 kids fed, bathed,
homeworked, loved and ready for bed
by 8.

When it's not my turn to pick up Niels I have long work days - when it's my
turn I have short work days.

The one that pick up also cooks and does dishes. The other returns at 6 and
we have dinner between 6 and 7. It gives us both 2-3 three long days and 2-3
short days a week. That way it ends up being the right amount of hours in
the end. I can also put in a couple of hours at home if I feel like it.

I never bathe the kids every day - twice a week at most. DH puts Niels to
bed at 8:30-9-ish - I read to our big daugher (11 yo) at 9:30 - 10ish. She
can brush her own teeth :-)

Things get a lot easier when they grow older.

Tine, Denmark

"Nina" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Michelle Spina" wrote in message
m...
"iphigenia" wrote in message
...


So if you want to raise your children yourself, are you looked
down on?

Heck, SAHM's with that opinion are looked down on here by many, as
well. ;-)

Sorry, pet-peeve of mine. Both DH and I are raising our children.
Our
employment status has no bearing on this fact. I don't *think* you
meant it in the tone that I read it, but I still couldn't just let
it
go...

My personal belief is that children are raised by their primary
caregivers
so if my kid is at daycare 10 hours/day and with me maybe 3 waking
hours/day
I would feel as if someone else were raising my child, based on MY
definition of
"raise".

I just made a calculation: My DS is awake 14 hours a day = 98 hours a week.
On weekdays he's with either mom or dad or both for 5 hours a day = 25 hours
a week.
On weekends he's with either mom or dad or both for 14 hours a day = 28
hours a week.

That gives me an advantage of 53 hours over 45 (school and day care). I
won!!! I'm the child raiser. :-)

Tine, Denmark

"Nina" skrev i en meddelelse
...
When I was a kid it was afro-American, now its African-American.
Really, who can keep up?

I give up - I'll try to keep up with my own language and be funny and
old-fasioned in English.

Tine, Denmark

"PattyMomVA" skrev i en meddelelse
...
This is the same reason I cringe when I hear someone refer to "the blond."
(And, I can't get DH to stop doing it.)

But 'blonde' is a noun, isn't it?

Tine, Denmark

"Tine Andersen" wrote in message
k...
"Nina" skrev i en meddelelse
...

It isnt difficult at all for me to believe, but I like to learn,
my mothers degree is sociology and I spent my teen years
reading her papers for her post-masters work. I still read
cultural anthropology books, case studies etc for fun.
So having the chance to bat ideas around and explore
other peoples views, I cant resist asking more questions and
probing.
When other people ask me, I dont generally get defensive, but
simply
explain
what factors lead me to believe as I do.

Yes - yes - yes! That's exactly what makes this discussion fun. I
studied
cultural/social anthropology (it's called 'etnologi' in Danish) at
the
university until I got pregnant and fell asleep for three months. I
still
have my house full of books and still buy them.

Have you felt that I was defensive in this conversation - I haven't
felt so,
but written words don't always come across as they are ment?

Tine, Denmark

TYPING W/1 FINGER,BABY IN ARMS

no, i dont feel u have been defensive,i've enjoyed the exchange
i am in a military family so have always had to deal with different
cultures
plus having a stepmother and also a husband who are both ethnically
different from me
and living in an area culturally different, i get to see a lot of this
stuff in real life
and there are times when i may ask provocative questions or play
devils advocate
but its usually to learn more and not to attack