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 |
#321
|
|||
|
|||
dragonlady wrote: In article lgbSd.13284$kS6.9388@attbi_s52, "P. Tierney" wrote: wrote in message oups.com... My problem is with your belief that EVERY mother who works ought to feel bad, and if she doesn't, she is lacking in maternal instincts, Where did she make this claim? P. Tierney She says that women have maternal instincts that make it painful for us to be away from our children, I said uncomfortable. and that men do NOT have this instinct. Actually I never commented on whether men have this instinct or not. She listened to this instinct, and so is now home with her children. If we accept the premise that women are genetically hardwired with a maternal instinct that would make them want to stay home with their children, there are only two conclusions: 1 - Many women choose to ignore this instinct, and feel no great pain in doing so. But don't most feel some discomfort when first leaving their infants? In order to do this without pain, they must be less in touch with their true selves. Never said that. or 2 - Many women must be lacking in this maternal instinct. I actually don't think many women are lacking this instinct. My point was that the majority have it. IRL I have never really met any mother who did not express some anxiety at leaving her infant (if we talked about the subject). She accepts that some women must work outside of the home for economic necessity, but assumes that they do so in pain and anguish Discomfort. (if they are proper mothers with the proper maternal instinct and aren't refusing to listen to their instincts) and that they'd quit and stay home with their babies if they wanted to. I had no thoughts about being proper. I did say that I think many people think that they decide everything they do rather than realizing they have instincts (or something to that effect), but that did not mean that they are not listening to their instincts. I do think that if women wanted to and could, they would stay home with their babies. And I did think that I had the instinct to be with my babies quite badly, and since others didn't there was probably some variation in the instinct. It was all other people who acted like I ever said my instinct was better in any way. I did not say it or imply it. I was just being my old boring, scientific, analytical type self, and alot of people thought I meant alot more than I did (as I can see by your recap of what you thought I said). I even said all levels of instinct were fine as long as the babies survive. I do not mean to make anyone feel bad in any way. I am sure you are fine mamas. I am far from perfect. I let my kids watch too much tv and eat too many sweets. I do not think I am better than you. And yet I am still a believer that there is this instinct to be with my babies. When she continues to assert that a woman wanting to stay home with her children (and a man wanting to go out and earn a living) is natural and normal, Yes, I do think it is probably what the majority will prefer if the economy allows. she is saying that people who choose otherwise -- women who are happy working outside of the home, or men who want to stay home with their children -- must be doing something unnatural and abnormal. Never said that, and am not at all against people doing what they want. I know she doesn't intend to be insulting -- but that's how it feels to many of us. I will probably start a whole new rant by saying this, but what you say is not what I have said, and I think it is just other people's touchiness on the subject that is making them read more into what I am saying and get so defensive. In the absense of technology, breastpumps and formula, it would not be possible for us to be away from our babies, and we haven't had those for many generations at all, so I do not see why it is so farfetched to think we may have instincts to stay with our babies when it was physically necessary not very long ago. That is not to say that we cannot go against our instincts. If anyone replies to these last few posts, I am not sure I will reply again. This is just taking too much of my time. I say we agree to disagree. KC -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#323
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... My problem is with your belief that EVERY mother who works ought to feel bad, and if she doesn't, she is lacking in maternal instincts, thus stating that YOUR way is the best way for "proper" mothers. Nope, I said I thought the majority wouldn't like it. Well that one is an easy one to test. What do stats show about the number of women who work outside of the home because they want to? And I never said anybody was lacking in maternal instinct, just that we had varying amounts, but that all were acceptable as long as children survived. KC |
#324
|
|||
|
|||
"Emily" wrote in message ... Stephanie Stowe wrote: I volunteered to write it for our agency in this area. They turned me down! Go figure. Just now, or at some time in the past? Emily At some time in the past. I told them that I thought this was a useful service, and would write it for them if they wanted. They apparently did not want it. |
#325
|
|||
|
|||
|
#326
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... snip However dh found the multitasking involved in being a SAHP very stressful, and he thought that perhaps men were less evolved to that because their prehistoric role as hunter needed more focus on target rather than keeping a broader view of many things going on like you have to when taking care of kids. I do not mind the multitasking. It does not stress me out. I doubt that has been studied, but that male and female minds are different in other ways has been documented, so it is not unreasonable to postulate that they could be different in this way. If that were true, then the Information Technology field, in which I have worked for 18 years, would be mostly female-dominated. In this field, complicated multi-tasking can be involved depending on what one does, particularly with deadlines to meet. Yet, many men do just fine. Marie DD-1yo |
#327
|
|||
|
|||
"P. Tierney" wrote in message news:dEhSd.13870$4D6.10058@attbi_s51... wrote in message oups.com... Similarly, although we know there are some differences between men's and women's brains, I think it's bunk that this means women are "naturally" unsuited to certain careers, or analytic thinking, or any number of other things that have been said. I haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps others have said things like this, but I wanted to make sure you didn't think I was meaning anything like this. I have a computer science and engineering degree, and worked in computers before I changed careers to be with my kids more. I definitely don't think women are incapable or analytical thinking. Oh don't fool yourself. Women most certainly are incapable of doing such things. I know this for certain. You see, my sister once pursued a career in the sciences. It seemed like a good idea, but once she got a job and worked at it everyday, the tasks required *really* stressed her out. It made her too thin and unhealthy looking. It didn't work out at all and we knew that we had to fix it before she went insane. So, we talked about it, and the reasons for her struggles was inescapable: Women simply must not have the instincts for the sciences. We think that it may be because women are less evolved due to their prehistoric role as the caregiver. Now, she stays at home and parents, and of course, dabbles in a bit of charity work with her ladies tea group. It is clear, from this experience, that her natural role is better for her, and that she stay away from those things that, through no fault of her own, she does not have the proper instincts for -- since she is female. Some might disagree, but it's really better and easier for everyone if we do what has been done for millions of years and let men do the sciences rather than the women. And by the way, I certainly don't expect anyone to be offended by such notions. It's just how it is, you know? P. Tierney Man, I was having a totally crap day. Thanks for perking it up! I really needed a good laugh! |
#328
|
|||
|
|||
Marie wrote: wrote in message ups.com... snip However dh found the multitasking involved in being a SAHP very stressful, and he thought that perhaps men were less evolved to that because their prehistoric role as hunter needed more focus on target rather than keeping a broader view of many things going on like you have to when taking care of kids. If that were true, then the Information Technology field, in which I have worked for 18 years, would be mostly female-dominated. In this field, complicated multi-tasking can be involved depending on what one does, particularly with deadlines to meet. Yet, many men do just fine. I was thinking exactly the same thing. Those poor guys I worked with, having to fight against their hunter role to handle the constant interruptions, schedule changes, new assignments, and emergencies that went along with IT work. They seemed to be handling it well, but I guess they were crying inside. Clisby |
#329
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:14:50 GMT, "P. Tierney"
scribbled: Oh don't fool yourself. Women most certainly are incapable of doing such things. I know this for certain. You see, my sister once pursued a career in the sciences. It seemed like a good idea, but once she got a job and worked at it everyday, the tasks required *really* stressed her out. It made her too thin and unhealthy looking. It didn't work out at all and we knew that we had to fix it before she went insane. So, we talked about it, and the reasons for her struggles was inescapable: Women simply must not have the instincts for the sciences. We think that it may be because women are less evolved due to their prehistoric role as the caregiver. Now, she stays at home and parents, and of course, dabbles in a bit of charity work with her ladies tea group. It is clear, from this experience, that her natural role is better for her, and that she stay away from those things that, through no fault of her own, she does not have the proper instincts for -- since she is female. Some might disagree, but it's really better and easier for everyone if we do what has been done for millions of years and let men do the sciences rather than the women. And by the way, I certainly don't expect anyone to be offended by such notions. It's just how it is, you know? Hahaha! Bet she still doesn't get it ;-) Nan |
#330
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:29:45 GMT, Clisby
scribbled: Marie wrote: wrote in message ups.com... snip However dh found the multitasking involved in being a SAHP very stressful, and he thought that perhaps men were less evolved to that because their prehistoric role as hunter needed more focus on target rather than keeping a broader view of many things going on like you have to when taking care of kids. If that were true, then the Information Technology field, in which I have worked for 18 years, would be mostly female-dominated. In this field, complicated multi-tasking can be involved depending on what one does, particularly with deadlines to meet. Yet, many men do just fine. I was thinking exactly the same thing. Those poor guys I worked with, having to fight against their hunter role to handle the constant interruptions, schedule changes, new assignments, and emergencies that went along with IT work. They seemed to be handling it well, but I guess they were crying inside. You guys are cracking me up this morning G That said, my dh is *much* better at multi-tasking than I am, and handles many of the domestic duties more efficiently in addition to working full-time. He'd be great as a SAHP, but his earning capacity exceeds mine too significantly for us to make the switch. Nan |
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 |