If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Preparing sibling for birth process?
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. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Preparing sibling for birth process?
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. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Preparing sibling for birth process?
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. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Preparing sibling for birth process?
"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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Preparing sibling for birth process?
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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Preparing sibling for birth process?
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. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Preparing sibling for birth process?
"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. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Preparing sibling for birth process?
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. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Preparing sibling for birth process?
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sibling rivalry | Sue | General | 116 | March 10th 08 04:16 PM |
Preparing a sibling for new baby - any thoughts? | Cathy | Pregnancy | 15 | October 19th 04 01:22 AM |
how long was sibling w/caregiver during birth? | Karen | Pregnancy | 11 | March 18th 04 02:56 PM |
AP and new sibling | Lisa Besko | Breastfeeding | 14 | August 19th 03 06:01 PM |
Kiwi chiros and the birth process | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | August 8th 03 12:46 PM |