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 |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
Ericka Kammerer wrote: However, other research has suggested that fathers who are primary caregivers have similar physiologic responses. To me, that undermines the notion that this plasticity and adaptivity is purely female. A very viable alternate explanation is that our society's concepts of mothering and fathering get in the way of supporting the sort of infant-father bonding that can trigger many of these same changes in the *father*. Perhaps what this research is really finding is changes associated with being the primary caregiver (which just happens to be the mother in the overwhelming majority of cases) rather than changes associated with motherhood in particular. I'm not able to look this up right now, but I remember reading something which suggested that there might also be a basic variable which controls some of this, which is how *fast* a parent responds. I think there was some reseach showing that men and women were both able and willing to respond to an infant's needs, but that a typical man's response was just slightly slower than a typical woman's response, so that if a mother and father were around the infant together, the chances were good that the woman would respond to many more of the infant's signals just because she was a little more reactive. If this goes on for long enough, the mother does get better at interacting with the infant than the father, because she's done it a lot more times. So you can take a very small difference which - who knows? - could even be biolgically based but isn't very meaningful, and it prompts a whole variety of changes which wind up looking like 'women are better at taking care of babies'. Beth |
#372
|
|||
|
|||
Banty wrote:
In article , Penny Gaines says... Rosalie B. wrote: Given*that,*the*"no"*responses*don't*put*me*o ff*much.**If*one is to answer the question "no", in fact, I'm not sure what other reasons they could give.**What*"no"*rationale*could*a*parent give that would be logically acceptable to a working parent? How about - she is taking the job from a man who is supporting his family? Well, not neccessarily from a man: if the spouse has an above average income, and the mother's job paid below or at the average income, then the mother-with-a-well-paid-spouse might be taking the job which could be done by the mother-with-a-badly-paid-spouse. But where are we going with this? IIRC, the question was - what other significant reason could someone give to the question "Should a mother work if she doesn't need to do so?" OTHER THAN that she should be home mothering her kids because it will be better for the kids. I was offering the old taking-a-job-from-a-man idea as one that could be used in the NO WOHM argument. Not a very good argument, but better than the idea that women have to follow their nurturing instincts or they will be unhappy. How about the single man who 'takes a job' away from a man with two kids? How about the man with two kids who 'takes a job' away from a man with four kids? Yadda yadda. Only when it's mothers do we worry about who is 'taking' whose job. Banty Right grandma Rosalie |
#373
|
|||
|
|||
Rosalie B. wrote:
Emily wrote: P. Tierney wrote: Given that, the "no" responses don't put me off much. If one is to answer the question "no", in fact, I'm not sure what other reasons they could give. What "no" rationale could a parent give that would be logically acceptable to a working parent? How about - she is taking the job from a man who is supporting his family? Dear Rosalie, I think that that argument might not make sense in the context of the sort of jobs in question. That is, we're talking about the scenario where the family is economically fine with just one parent working, but the other chooses to work as well. I'm guessing that it would be very rare for a parent in that situation to be, say, flipping burgers. Most of the folks that I know in academia could be making more money doing something else. If I'm taking a job from someone, they could likely be doing something else and making more money at it. Which isn't to say that there aren't more people who want jobs like mine than get them, but it doesn't make sense to talk about it in terms of economic need: the people who want this job could all be doing something else, but they want it because they want to be academics. In that sense, I think I'm as deserving as anyone else, even though my family could get by on DH's salary. Emily |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
Emily wrote:
Rosalie B. wrote: Emily wrote: P. Tierney wrote: Given that, the "no" responses don't put me off much. If one is to answer the question "no", in fact, I'm not sure what other reasons they could give. What "no" rationale could a parent give that would be logically acceptable to a working parent? How about - she is taking the job from a man who is supporting his family? Dear Rosalie, I think that that argument might not make sense in the context of the sort of jobs in question. That is, we're talking about the scenario where the family is economically fine with just one parent working, but the other chooses to work as well. I'm guessing that it would be very rare for a parent in that situation to be, say, flipping burgers. I had two boyfriends who said to me more or less the same thing - no wife of mine is ever going to work. There was no consultation about this - although one of them also indicated that I could work to support him through seminary at the same time attending classes in how to be a minister's wife. He also said that I would have to beg him for money. This was a fairly prevalent attitude at the time I was married, and neither one of these guys had any doubt that I would praise them for this attitude. Both of them had mothers who worked BTW. When my dh and I were dating and thinking of marriage, I asked him about this, and he said that if I had a job that I loved so much that I would do it without pay, that it would be OK for me to work, but that I couldn't work as a salesperson in the 5 and 10. He wanted me to know that he would be capable of supporting his family, and also that we should be able to live on his salary. Of course in those days, women were routinely paid less too. Most of the folks that I know in academia could be making more money doing something else. If I'm taking a job from someone, they could likely be doing something else and making more money at it. Which isn't to say that there aren't more people who want jobs like mine than get them, but it doesn't make sense to talk about it in terms of economic need: the people who want this job could all be doing something else, but they want it because they want to be academics. In that sense, I think I'm as deserving as anyone else, even though my family could get by on DH's salary. Emily Making more money somewhere else isn't IMHO really relevant to the argument, nor is the venue of academia, which is kind of an ivory tower situation. I don't mean to dismiss your job, but the vast majority of people do not work under those situations. grandma Rosalie |
#375
|
|||
|
|||
"Rosalie B." wrote in message ... Banty wrote: In article , Penny Gaines says... Rosalie B. wrote: Given that, the "no" responses don't put me off much. If one is to answer the question "no", in fact, I'm not sure what other reasons they could give. What "no" rationale could a parent give that would be logically acceptable to a working parent? How about - she is taking the job from a man who is supporting his family? Well, not neccessarily from a man: if the spouse has an above average income, and the mother's job paid below or at the average income, then the mother-with-a-well-paid-spouse might be taking the job which could be done by the mother-with-a-badly-paid-spouse. But where are we going with this? IIRC, the question was - what other significant reason could someone give to the question "Should a mother work if she doesn't need to do so?" OTHER THAN that she should be home mothering her kids because it will be better for the kids. I was offering the old taking-a-job-from-a-man idea as one that could be used in the NO WOHM argument. Not a very good argument, but better than the idea that women have to follow their nurturing instincts or they will be unhappy. Sorry, I don't think it is a better argument than anything. I think that in a competition between a man and a woman for a given job, qualifications are the determining factor. Of course, I think the idea that a woman needs to justify her decision to work outside of the home to anyone is absurd. And I think these parenting mag polls are all about throwing gasoline on a burning fire and are irresponsible. But I think that vast majority of what I have read in the parenting mags that I have read are crap. Can someone explain to me why significant portions of a mag named "Parenting" has makeup ads? The mag is not named "Mothering." There is too much catty bitch festing going on in the op ed sections of these mags, and the advice is often shallow and stupid. Do you think I ought to stop holding back and tell you how I really feel? How about the single man who 'takes a job' away from a man with two kids? How about the man with two kids who 'takes a job' away from a man with four kids? Yadda yadda. Only when it's mothers do we worry about who is 'taking' whose job. Banty Right grandma Rosalie |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
toto wrote:
Emily on mk-fl posted this url for a response I think is telling. The problem isn't a new one at all. http://chezmiscarriage.blogs.com/che...thers_the.html I adore Chez Miscarriage, and I think her analysis is spot-on. Her posts over the next few days are also very interesting - she asked for stories about mothers criticizing each other, and got hundreds and hundreds of responses. Rivka Li'l Critter due 4/3/05 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good Newsweek article | Sue | General | 353 | March 22nd 05 03:19 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 29th 04 05:26 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 | Beth Weiss | Info and FAQ's | 1 | March 3rd 04 10:06 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 | Beth Weiss | Info and FAQ's | 1 | February 16th 04 09:59 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | February 16th 04 09:59 AM |