upset at nanny -- vent

"PattyMomVA" skrev i en meddelelse
...
"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:FQrWb.462164$JQ1.333434@pd7tw1no... AND I snipped!

She was ASKED what NAmericans do that she finds unusual
and shocking.

Yes, that was me who asked. I was curious. It's been an interesting
thread
to read. Thanks, Tine, for answering honestly.

Anytime! I used to study social anthropology :-)

Tine, Denmark

PattyMomVA wrote:
"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:FQrWb.462164$JQ1.333434@pd7tw1no... AND I snipped!

She was ASKED what NAmericans do that she finds unusual
and shocking.


Yes, that was me who asked. I was curious. It's been an interesting thread
to read. Thanks, Tine, for answering honestly.

Seconded. I think Tine does extremely well in a second language
(English) to make her points clearly and honestly, and she's
refreshingly straight-forward.

:-)

Dawn

"Tine Andersen" wrote in message
k...

"Nina" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Here, a lot of us find that having 2 incomes doesnt help much. The
2nd
income is eaten
away by daycare, transportationa nd other costs. So its beneficial
for
one person to stay home.
If one person provides money and one provides services, it may not
be
equal or identical
but it is an equitable distribution of labor. Honestly, regarding
laziness, my husband could never afford
to pay someone for the services I render. If I were to work, my
salary
wouldnt cover
child care
housework
laundry
etc.
Since we do have a small baby, i prefer to stay home and do these
things rather than work and pay someone for it.
With the number of kids we have, all the Drs appointments, school
meetings, housework etc, there really needs to be someone
home full time.


Things are very different. Daycare is 250-300$ per month. I make
3000$ after
taxes. I can take some hours off - with full pay - to go to the
dentist,
doctor, what have you with the kids. When they are ill I can take
one day
off - fully payed - and so can DH. When I'm on sick leave I'm payed
my full
salary. We have maternaty leave for nearly a year - so I was a SAHM
for 6
mos (it has become longer since my kids were born). As everyone
works,
school metings are during the evenings - always. Distances are
short - most
people can bike to work. This country has more bikes that people. We
are
four people - we have (counting) six bikes. They come in all kinds:
carrier
cycles, with two chairs for kids, with trailers for groceries and
kids.

There is absolutely a difference between having one and two incomes
here.

There is here too. But with 3 kids,if the daycare is 300/child,thats a
big chunk of money.
Plus the lack of time because there are generally only 3 hours between
coming home from work
and kids going to bed. With more than 1,it gets very rushed.

Marie wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:56:09 +0100, "Tine Andersen"
wrote:
I just cook, housekeep and clean BESIDES having a full time job. If I only
had to do that my house would be spotless, or I would spin, knit, sew and
weave which I don't consider work but play.

Trust me, no one's house is spotless just because they stay at home.
During the hours you are working "full time", what do you think stay
at home mothers are doing? Like the joke about the husband who comes
home and looks around and asks "So what did you do all day?" Our days
are full of taking care of our children, with children at home they
make messes. We don't just leave our nice clean house in the mornings
and come home to the same nice clean homes at night as working mothers
do...our homes are constantly lived in. Our children are being
interacted with, taught, doing arts/crafts, eating... The way I see it
working out of the house is the easy thing to do as far as how much
work is concerned. And I've been there so I know.
As for knitting/sewing, LMAO No stay-at-home moms *I* know have the
time for that.
Marie

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.

But then you said that you have done both, so I'm somewhat baffled, as
I've also done both. When I was home full-time, my house was MUCH
cleaner, shopping was always done (never the panic of "oh crud, what
on EARTH are we going to eat tonight?!?"), laundry was regularly done,
AND I had time to myself (short snips, to be sure, but still time). To
me, there is NO comparison to the stress level, and amount of work
total that is done when you compare SAH vs WOH. Not even *close*. I
don't even understand how you can logically think otherwise, actually.
I mean, in terms of household chores, they are a constant, regardless
of work-status. When you are home full time, you have all day, every
day, to schedule them in, in short bits (so you don't have to do a
massive, multi-hour clean job - lots of 15 minute jobs scattered
through the week). Engaging the children in these tasks is easy, and
fun. This isn't hard to manage (or perhaps I should say it wasn't hard
to manage in my experience). 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.

Most of my friends are SAH's, and they do lots of extra activties -
tennis, sewing, knitting, scrapbooking, book clubs, etc. And in none
of these situations are the kids ignored or are suffering. My son used
to LOVE to help me clean. It was a fun activity that we did together,
and I think it was good for him to learn how to do such things.

m., now yearning for those months at home again! :-)

Nina wrote:

"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:FQrWb.462164$JQ1.333434@pd7tw1no...


Nina wrote:


"Tine Andersen" wrote Being quite
frank: I would probably look down at someone who chose to let


her DH support her and stay at home. I would consider it lazy, I

think.


You're supposed to provide for yourself. I myself would hate to

stay

at


home - I need the satisfaction my job gives me. I'm an acceptable

mother,


but I'm not born to be a MOTHER, if you KWIM.


You dont consider the tasks of maintaining a home and family o be
work? I find it
ironic when people approve of working as a daycare worker outside

the

home for pay
but consider it laziness when the same job is performed in ones

home.

Being a:
daycare worker
cook
housekeeper
are work when paid professsions, but laziness when same functions

are

provided at home.

and imo, this is why NAmerican daycare is poorer than what Tine is

used

to. We have to be as sensitive to the differences in culture as

Tine

has been, if we are to continue asking her to spell out those
differences. She was ASKED what NAmericans do that she finds

unusual

and shocking.

Dawn


My goodness, you tend to be testy.
Where was i insensitive? I was disucssing in depth with her her
perceptions
and asking her further questions to get a better idea of her
perspective.
I cant see how thats insensitive.
Dialogue.

Sure, but the general reaction to Tine's posts about the differences
between the Danish culture and what she reads here was "WHOT!! How can
you feel that way?" the moment she said that there are few SAHM in
Denmark and they are viewed in a certain way. In the context of "our"
culture, SAHM are viewed differently, and it's difficult to accept (it
seems) that another culture may feel otherwise, and be set up socially
in a completely different way. The anecdote of the Danish mother who
was jailed in the USA points that out to an extreme.

:-)

Dawn

"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:FQrWb.462164$JQ1.333434@pd7tw1no...


Nina wrote:

"Tine Andersen" wrote Being quite
frank: I would probably look down at someone who chose to let

her DH support her and stay at home. I would consider it lazy, I

think.

You're supposed to provide for yourself. I myself would hate to
stay

at

home - I need the satisfaction my job gives me. I'm an acceptable

mother,

but I'm not born to be a MOTHER, if you KWIM.


You dont consider the tasks of maintaining a home and family o be
work? I find it
ironic when people approve of working as a daycare worker outside
the
home for pay
but consider it laziness when the same job is performed in ones
home.
Being a:
daycare worker
cook
housekeeper
are work when paid professsions, but laziness when same functions
are
provided at home.

and imo, this is why NAmerican daycare is poorer than what Tine is
used
to. We have to be as sensitive to the differences in culture as
Tine
has been, if we are to continue asking her to spell out those
differences. She was ASKED what NAmericans do that she finds
unusual
and shocking.

Dawn

My goodness, you tend to be testy.
Where was i insensitive? I was disucssing in depth with her her
perceptions
and asking her further questions to get a better idea of her
perspective.
I cant see how thats insensitive.
Dialogue.

"Nina" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Tine Andersen" wrote in message
k...

"Nina" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Here, a lot of us find that having 2 incomes doesnt help much. The
2nd
income is eaten
away by daycare, transportationa nd other costs. So its beneficial
for
one person to stay home.
If one person provides money and one provides services, it may not
be
equal or identical
but it is an equitable distribution of labor. Honestly, regarding
laziness, my husband could never afford
to pay someone for the services I render. If I were to work, my
salary
wouldnt cover
child care
housework
laundry
etc.
Since we do have a small baby, i prefer to stay home and do these
things rather than work and pay someone for it.
With the number of kids we have, all the Drs appointments, school
meetings, housework etc, there really needs to be someone
home full time.


Things are very different. Daycare is 250-300$ per month. I make
3000$ after
taxes. I can take some hours off - with full pay - to go to the
dentist,
doctor, what have you with the kids. When they are ill I can take
one day
off - fully payed - and so can DH. When I'm on sick leave I'm payed
my full
salary. We have maternaty leave for nearly a year - so I was a SAHM
for 6
mos (it has become longer since my kids were born). As everyone
works,
school metings are during the evenings - always. Distances are
short - most
people can bike to work. This country has more bikes that people. We
are
four people - we have (counting) six bikes. They come in all kinds:
carrier
cycles, with two chairs for kids, with trailers for groceries and
kids.

There is absolutely a difference between having one and two incomes
here.

There is here too. But with 3 kids,if the daycare is 300/child,thats a
big chunk of money.
Plus the lack of time because there are generally only 3 hours between
coming home from work
and kids going to bed. With more than 1,it gets very rushed.


2nd kid half price, 3rd even cheaper. I would make it four hours, but yes,
it's not much.

Mine are 6 and 11, so if we pick the small one up at 4:30 and he goes to bed
8:30-9:00 we do have some time. The big one comes home by herself (or she is
home) and she goes to bed at 10, så we have lost of time for home work and
beating dad in chess.

Tine, Denmark

"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...

m.

"Circe" wrote in message
news:Y0sWb.39169$QJ3.36800@fed1read04...
Nina wrote:
"Tine Andersen" wrote in message
k...
"Nina" skrev i en meddelelse
...
It's not 'negro' in Danish - it's 'neger'. But it's the same
word.

The english translation of "neger' would be "black" not "negro"
as
"negro" is basically
a euphemism for black. So calling black people "neger" is the
equivalent of calling them "black" here,
not "negro". Neger probably sounds like ******, which is a Bad
Word.

You are right - I checked my vocabulary - it's 'black'. Was negro
a bad word 35 years ago?

No, negro was then standard usage. It changes.

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.



Hmm, not sure. I am only 33. AFAIK colored is an older term, one used
by my grandmothers generation.

mplications because it
was coined and used at a time when black people were considered so
inferior
in the US that it was okay to enslave them. For obvious reasons,
most people
in the US now want to dissociate themselves from that term and all
its
baggage.
--

No, Negro hasnt always been a negtive term. There are a great many
organizations
by and for African Americans that contain the name Negro, the United
Negro College fund
for one.
The terms that are acceptable change, its in a constant state of flux
it seems.

"Clisby" wrote in message
...


Circe wrote:
Nina wrote:

"Tine Andersen" wrote in message
.dk...

"Nina" skrev i en meddelelse
...

It's not 'negro' in Danish - it's 'neger'. But it's the same
word.


The english translation of "neger' would be "black" not "negro"
as
"negro" is basically
a euphemism for black. So calling black people "neger" is the
equivalent of calling them "black" here,
not "negro". Neger probably sounds like ******, which is a Bad
Word.

You are right - I checked my vocabulary - it's 'black'. Was negro
a bad word 35 years ago?

No, negro was then standard usage. It changes.


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 think you have it backward - at least, for where I grew up, in
S.C.
and Mississippi. "Colored" had been around for a long time -
that's
the term my parents (now in their 70s) had used all their lives.
The

Agreed.,my 80 year old Granny from Lousiana still uses the term
colored
as do many older people in the South.

NAACP is almost 100 years old, after all. I'm pretty sure "Negro"
was
more a '40s and '50s successor to "colored" - when I was growing up,
the
word "Negro" came with the implication the person saying it wasn't
Southern.

Negro was an attempt to be more formal.


That said, Negro was *always* a word with negative implications
because it
was coined and used at a time when black people were considered so
inferior
in the US that it was okay to enslave them. For obvious reasons,
most people
in the US now want to dissociate themselves from that term and all
its
baggage.


I'm not sure I'd say "Negro" was coined - it just means black. And
I
disagree that it always had negative connotations - at least not in
the
way I think you mean. When I was a child, my parents would consider
a
person calling himself/herself a "Negro" to be an outsider, almost a
radical - like someone leading a voting rights drive, for example.
To
them, it was a negative term - I doubt that it was to the people who
used it to refer to themselves. (I'm sure Malcolm X considered it a
negative term, but that's another story.)


Yup