Preparing sibling for birth process?

In article , Banty says...

In article ,
cjra says...

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


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.


From Wikipedia:

After moving to San Francisco, Pelosi worked her way up in Democratic
politics. She was elected as party chairwoman for Northern California on January
30, 1977. She later joined forces with one of the leaders of the California
Democratic Party, 5th District Congressman Phillip Burton. And in 1987, after
her youngest child became a high school senior, she decided to run for political
office.

She was *party chairwoman* (not exactly staying home knitting booties) in 1977 -
her youngest was about 7 or 8. She didn't *run for office* until the kids were
grown. But I wouldn't call her a SAHM.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Banty says...
In article ,
cjra says...

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

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.

From Wikipedia:

After moving to San Francisco, Pelosi worked her way up in Democratic
politics. She was elected as party chairwoman for Northern California on January
30, 1977. She later joined forces with one of the leaders of the California
Democratic Party, 5th District Congressman Phillip Burton. And in 1987, after
her youngest child became a high school senior, she decided to run for political
office.

She was *party chairwoman* (not exactly staying home knitting booties) in 1977 -
her youngest was about 7 or 8. She didn't *run for office* until the kids were
grown. But I wouldn't call her a SAHM.

Banty

I think her background in politics started WELL before she moved to SF
and is of more interest than what she did there after she married.

My sister went to school with her sister Claire because their father,
Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr. was a congressman from Maryland (1939-47) and
mayor of Baltimore (1947-59). And her father wanted to be 'of the
people' by having the kids in public school when almost everyone who
was anyone put their kids in private school..

Her father Thomas, one of 13 children, was born in 1903 in the Little Italy of Baltimore, Maryland, educated at St. Leo's parochial school, and married an Italian girl who bore him seven children. At age 23 he won a seat in the Maryland House of Delegates and then a Congressional seat that he held for many years. An ardent New Deal Democrat he even named a son after Franklin D. Roosevelt. He also never forgot his ethnic roots as, for example, during and after the Second World War when his radio broadcasts exhorted Italians to abandon Benito Mussolini and join the Allied side, and in the postwar period his was a stalwart voice urging Italians to vote against the Communist party. In 1947 he won the Baltimore mayoralty –the first of his nationality to gain that position and was re-elected three more times. His eldest son Thomas J. D'Alessandro, Jr., served as Baltimore's second Italian American mayor from 1967 to 1971. Born in the family's Baltimore homestead in 1929, and raised in the
immigrant neighborhood, Thomas, like his father, married a neighborhood Italian girl, attended local schools and received a law degree. Thomas Jr., however, tired of politics after one term and retired from the field.

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

I don't mean when a mom stays home that her kids can't also be in daycare.
I'm a part-time worker. My kids loved daycare and preschool and I wouldn't
have it any other way. In fact, daycare was my paid-for playdates (so I
wouldn't have to go through the trouble of arranging playdates). They would
beg to go to daycare to see their friends.

Anyway, I do think someone should be available to them when possible,
meaning not too busy to help with homework or too busy to take them to their
extracurricular activities or too busy to come watch them play sports or too
busy to attend parent-teacher conference.

I have absolutely nothing against someone else caring for my kids, but I do
think it's better if the child has at least one parent available.

On Apr 14, 11:49*am, "Jamie Clark" wrote:
"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.

On Apr 14, 7:45*pm, "toypup" wrote:
"cjra" wrote in message

...





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

On Apr 14, 12:22*pm, Banty wrote:
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.

Yup. DH and I have discussed this a lot lately. I have a PhD but am no
longer in academic research. Still, I've accepted that if I leave my
career for any length of time, I'll basically be giving it up. I do
have enough connections that I could probably do *something* if I
wanted to get back into my career field, just not at this level.

I'm kind of hoping that I can keep a minor lecturer position - part
time teaching/advising to stay 'active' in the field, just in case and
also because I do like it.

I am ok with giving it up if I have to though, provided we can
financially manage it. I love what I do and spent my life getting
here, but it's already not exactly what I'd prefer (ie I'm working in
the US instead of the tropics!) thanks to marrying, so quitting
altogether for kids is not that big of a step.

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!

In France there's actually a maximum age of ~35 (maybe younger) to
qualify for such a position. In the US it's not so strict, a nd I know
many older new faculty, but they're new only because they've more
recently moved into this field. They are very current and active in
it. They just did other stuff in their younger days.

On Apr 14, 11:49*am, "Jamie Clark" wrot

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. *

I meant to respond to this point as well - though DD is usually very
anxious to have us play with her, her play is very child-directed,
full of her own creativity. She shows us what she wants us to do, we
just go along with it.

So, stimulating her creativity is not a problem for her, she just
likes to have other people around while she's doing it. Even if she's
playing by herself, she wants you nearby. She's not particularly
clingy usually, but for example, if she's playing in the living room
and I walk into the kitchen (2 rooms away but connected), she
immediately comes over to join me. She might carry whatever she's
playing with, but she wants to make sure she's in my sight.

I don't know why this is. It just is. She's very independent in what
she wants to do, she just wants an audience ;-)

"cjra" wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 11:49 am, "Jamie Clark" wrot

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.

I meant to respond to this point as well - though DD is usually very
anxious to have us play with her, her play is very child-directed,
full of her own creativity. She shows us what she wants us to do, we
just go along with it.

So, stimulating her creativity is not a problem for her, she just
likes to have other people around while she's doing it. Even if she's
playing by herself, she wants you nearby. She's not particularly
clingy usually, but for example, if she's playing in the living room
and I walk into the kitchen (2 rooms away but connected), she
immediately comes over to join me. She might carry whatever she's
playing with, but she wants to make sure she's in my sight.

I don't know why this is. It just is. She's very independent in what
she wants to do, she just wants an audience ;-)

_______

It might well be because she is away from you all day, so she just wants to
be "sure of you," as Piglet said. Makes perfect sense to me.

Piglet sidled up to Pooh from behind.
"Pooh!" he whispered.
"Yes Piglet?"
"Nothing" said Piglet, taking Pooh's paw. I just wanted to be sure of you."
A. A. Milne

--

Jamie Clark

On Apr 14, 11:54 pm, "Jamie Clark" wrote:
"cjra" wrote in message

...
On Apr 14, 11:49 am, "Jamie Clark" wrot



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.

I meant to respond to this point as well - though DD is usually very
anxious to have us play with her, her play is very child-directed,
full of her own creativity. She shows us what she wants us to do, we
just go along with it.

So, stimulating her creativity is not a problem for her, she just
likes to have other people around while she's doing it. Even if she's
playing by herself, she wants you nearby. She's not particularly
clingy usually, but for example, if she's playing in the living room
and I walk into the kitchen (2 rooms away but connected), she
immediately comes over to join me. She might carry whatever she's
playing with, but she wants to make sure she's in my sight.

I don't know why this is. It just is. She's very independent in what
she wants to do, she just wants an audience ;-)

_______

It might well be because she is away from you all day, so she just wants to
be "sure of you," as Piglet said. Makes perfect sense to me.

Piglet sidled up to Pooh from behind.
"Pooh!" he whispered.
"Yes Piglet?"
"Nothing" said Piglet, taking Pooh's paw. I just wanted to be sure of you."
A. A. Milne

yeah, that's probably very likely. Although oddly enough the times she
does become clingy have been when I've been with her 24/7. That said,
those are usually holiday times and we're travelling so the
environment is different.

On Apr 13, 10:05 pm, "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.


Never stated otherwise.


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.

All you have to do is look to more traditional societies to see that women
are more often than not viewed as inferior to men. That view didn't begin
with the feminists.

A woman's life and value was always higher than a man's. One only has
to look at the events of the Titanic when it sank as proof.

Regards...