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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
upset at nanny -- vent
"Nina" skrev i en meddelelse
... "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. It's OK with me - I love these exchanges of ideas and ways of living. And I accept that not everyone recognize my descriptions as mere descriptions and not statements of a better way of living. Tine, Denmark |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
upset at nanny -- vent
Marie wrote: On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:24:38 GMT, Dawn Lawson wrote: Marie wrote: I know LOTS of people who have spotless houses, hot meals, and enjoyable children because they stay at home. Hot meals, I have. Enjoyable children, *I* think so! I guess I do too much with the kids to spend too much time doing other things. (I homeschool and the kids are the main part of my life) You made quite a sweeping statement that no one with similar commitments has a spotless house. I've been pondering this, as I know literally dozens of families that do, AND they do things like make most of their own clothing, food (bread, canning, butchering, etc) AND are very involved in community and such. I'm finding it very interesting to try to pinpoint the difference between these families (where i'm guessing the average number of kids is 4 or 5) and families I am reading about here where there's *one* child and a SAH parent, and the household so frazzled it seems ok to walk past animal waste because it's too difficult to manage to clean it up. (Ok that's not said commonly, but at least two people have posted just that) I'm curious because I find the first group to be a calm, warm, loving group, with welcoming homes, and a commitment to quality workmanship. I find the second group to be frazzled and harried and generally struggling to keep one disaster or another at bay. There's clearly some fundamental difference between the SAHM and the communities in both groups. Again, these same moms I know sew, knit, do woodwork, maintain enormous gardens to feed the families etc. I want a garden, I just need to figure out where to have one where the cows(not mine) won't eat it through the fences, but there will still be room for the kids to play. Double fence the garden area, with about a six foot gap if you can, the kids can play around in the gap, the cows can't get near the garden. And garden in raised beds, and the kids can play in the garden too. (plus you get more yeild for the area gardened) I suspect from what I have been told by people coming here or hearing what my plans are for the day that I am further to the camp of spotless house and such than not. I dont' see why you can't do all these things if you wanted, when you're a SAHM. I guess if I wanted to do it I could, I just feel there are more important things to spend my time on. Hmm, I do play piano, do my online stuff and read as hobbies, and I go out every other weekend with a friend so I guess there are my "me" times. Except my hobbies are usually done with a baby on me! I'm not even talking about "me" time. I'm talking about doing all the things people say you have to stop doing when there are kids, because there isn't time in the day. So. Now I'm curious. Again. ;-) WHAT are the more important things that you spend your time on? I wonder if I *don't* do them, or if I do them *as well* as all the other things I do, ditto for the first group I mentioned... Dawn |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Cultural differences (was: upset at nanny -- vent)
"Circe" wrote in message news:sZsWb.39183$QJ3.10241@fed1read04... Clisby wrote: Circe wrote: 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. 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 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. That's interesting. I'd have guessed that in California (where I grew up), the term in favor by the late '60s or early '70s would have been neither colored nor Negro, but black. Certainly, when I was 8 (1972 or thereabouts), I had a neighbor friend who was black and we said she was "black", not Negro, not colored. (Of course, there were some kids in the neighborhood who called me a deregatory term I'll leave to your imagination as well.) Black power, "Im black and Im proud" had a lot to do with the change in terms I believe this was in the late 60's early 70's. It was a pretty hip young radical thing to do, to be Black. I was thinking, however, that colored was considered a less offensive term than Negro first, since blacks themselves used the term (as in the NAACP). I'll admit, my regionalism may be showing! Black people (using a modifier as a noun is offensive, since "black" is not a noun in English) use the term negro. , 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. I disagree for the simple reason that Negro is *never* used to define the color of objects in English. It just isn't. The *only* use of the word is to describe people. That makes it a word with implications that the word "white"--and by extension "black"--don't have. Negro is a noun, black isnt. So a person can be a black person or a negro, but not a negro person or a black. Certainly, in slave-holding times, the term for blacks was Negro (or a much ruder variation thereof). IMO, that means it was, by definition, not a value-neutral word. It was neutral and over time it fell out of favor as did "coloreds". You imply that by definition, any term used to refer to black people in those days would not be neutral. Thats absurd. Negro was a perfectly legit and preferable term as opposed to darky, coon, ****** , nigra. 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.) That's very interesting. I really had no idea. Perhaps this was a bit like the gay movement appropriating the word "queer", however? No Queer began as a negative word that was appropriated. Negro never had negative connotations. FWIW, black people often use the term "negro" amongst themselves jokingly. Some white people didnt like the term because it was "uppity" and formal, as if the nigras were putting on airs by demanding to be called Negroes. e, Tine, we've got cultural differences even *within* the US! -- Be well, Barbara (Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [23 mos.] mom) This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop: Financing for "5" years -- car dealership sign Mommy: I call you "baby" because I love you. Julian (age 4): Oh! All right, Mommy baby. All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
upset at nanny -- vent
Tine Andersen wrote: "Nina" skrev i en meddelelse ... 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. It's OK with me - I love these exchanges of ideas and ways of living. And I accept that not everyone recognize my descriptions as mere descriptions and not statements of a better way of living. Again, Tine, you've been more clear in your second (?) language then I have in my first.....your last sentence is EXACTLY what I was trying to say. ;-) Dawn |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
upset at nanny -- vent
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
upset at nanny -- vent
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:58:17 GMT, Dawn Lawson
wrote: Marie wrote: Hot meals, I have. Enjoyable children, *I* think so! I guess I do too much with the kids to spend too much time doing other things. (I homeschool and the kids are the main part of my life) Ok, here I was talking about hobbies, all the extra things being talked about like sewing and woodworking. You made quite a sweeping statement that no one with similar commitments has a spotless house. I've been pondering this, as I know literally dozens of families that do, AND they do things like make most of their own clothing, food (bread, canning, butchering, etc) AND are very involved in community and such. I'm finding it very interesting to try to pinpoint the difference between these families (where i'm guessing the average number of kids is 4 or 5) and families I am reading about here where there's *one* child and a SAH parent, and the household so frazzled it seems ok to walk past animal waste because it's too difficult to manage to clean it up. (Ok that's not said commonly, but at least two people have posted just that) Ok I can't imagine walking past animal waste! I don't remember anyone saying that, I will have to look on google for that one. I'm curious because I find the first group to be a calm, warm, loving group, with welcoming homes, and a commitment to quality workmanship. I find the second group to be frazzled and harried and generally struggling to keep one disaster or another at bay. There's clearly some fundamental difference between the SAHM and the communities in both groups. Double fence the garden area, with about a six foot gap if you can, the kids can play around in the gap, the cows can't get near the garden. And garden in raised beds, and the kids can play in the garden too. (plus you get more yeild for the area gardened) Our landlord at the time will not let us do anything to the fencing or yard. (I can't even pull up the ugly buggy bushes beside the house) I'm not even talking about "me" time. I'm talking about doing all the things people say you have to stop doing when there are kids, because there isn't time in the day. So. Now I'm curious. Again. ;-) I have been talking about "me" time, hobbies. That's what I thought you were talking about. What do people say should be stopped because of having kids? Housework? Hobbies? WHAT are the more important things that you spend your time on? I wonder if I *don't* do them, or if I do them *as well* as all the other things I do, ditto for the first group I mentioned... I teach the kids, I do work with them, we do do some housework together, and for now my toddler is taking up the biggest part of my time. I cook one or two meals a day, I go out in the yard and play with the kids. Just, most of my time is spent on and with the kids. I try to give each child some time alone with me. Marie |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Cultural differences (was: upset at nanny -- vent)
"Nina" skrev i en meddelelse ... e, Tine, we've got cultural differences even *within* the US! Yup - but I'm learning as I'm reading. I spent some years in NYC ('60 to '64) as a very small child - I was late to talk so I learnt English in day care and Danish at home. I'm sure an appropriate word was negro where I lived. I remember being threatened by a young Afro-American/colored/black/brown/negro/KWIM? boy: I'm gonna sue you! I believe I had stolen his shovel in the sandbox. He was five and I was four. Tine, since age of six Denmark |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
upset at nanny -- vent
"Marie" skrev i en meddelelse home. With the three kids here we are always doing something. Normally cleaning is done when the baby goes to bed at night. If I clean I do it on weekends - mostly I just don't. No-one has become ill yet. I do the 'wet' cleaning (bathroom/kitchen) - DH does the 'dry' (broom/vacuum) . I wash our clothes and DH does the folding and putting away. I do the plumming, DH does the electricity. I cook thursday-sunday - DH monday-wednesday. So today I'm just sitting here while he can take care of the kitchen - yummy. Tine, Denmark |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Cultural differences (was: upset at nanny -- vent)
Circe wrote: Clisby wrote: Circe wrote: Nina wrote: "Tine Andersen" wrote in message ne.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 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. That's interesting. I'd have guessed that in California (where I grew up), the term in favor by the late '60s or early '70s would have been neither colored nor Negro, but black. Certainly, when I was 8 (1972 or thereabouts), I had a neighbor friend who was black and we said she was "black", not Negro, not colored. I started college in 1971, and I agree - I think it was about then that the term "black" was becoming common. I was speaking more of my childhood, in the late '50s and early '60s. By the way, when I said the above, I didn't mean southern blacks didn't use the term Negro - Martin Luther King Jr. did, just to give one example. But I grew up with the impression that a white person who said "Negro" (not getting into "nigra" or "******" here), was deliberately making a statement that he/she was treating blacks with dignity. (Of course, there were some kids in the neighborhood who called me a deregatory term I'll leave to your imagination as well.) I was thinking, however, that colored was considered a less offensive term than Negro first, since blacks themselves used the term (as in the NAACP). I'll admit, my regionalism may be showing! Well, the United Negro College Fund and the National Council of Negro Women both came along after the NAACP. 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. I disagree for the simple reason that Negro is *never* used to define the color of objects in English. It just isn't. The *only* use of the word is to describe people. That makes it a word with implications that the word "white"--and by extension "black"--don't have. Certainly, in slave-holding times, the term for blacks was Negro (or a much ruder variation thereof). IMO, that means it was, by definition, not a value-neutral word. 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.) That's very interesting. I really had no idea. Perhaps this was a bit like the gay movement appropriating the word "queer", however? See, Tine, we've got cultural differences even *within* the US! |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
upset at nanny -- vent
Marie wrote: On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:58:17 GMT, Dawn Lawson wrote: Marie wrote: Hot meals, I have. Enjoyable children, *I* think so! I guess I do too much with the kids to spend too much time doing other things. (I homeschool and the kids are the main part of my life) Ok, here I was talking about hobbies, all the extra things being talked about like sewing and woodworking. Is sewing a hobby if you are clothing your family? I suppose. Woodworking if you are using the income from it to buy groceries? I suppose. some people view gardens as a hobby. For me they are a source of quality food, and NOT a hobby. Maybe that's why these things aren't valued as contributing to family life, because they are seen as taking away time with the family? Which seems strange to me, because they are practical, useful, (geez, Tine? What AM I trying to say? ;-) skills and don't detract from any of the families I know that do them all. In fact they strengthen the families and I don't hear the same 'issues" coming from them as I do from the average person in my "second group of families" I'm not even talking about "me" time. I'm talking about doing all the things people say you have to stop doing when there are kids, because there isn't time in the day. So. Now I'm curious. Again. ;-) I have been talking about "me" time, hobbies. That's what I thought you were talking about. What do people say should be stopped because of having kids? Housework? Hobbies? Everything but the basics, it sounds like. Anytime other things are mentioned like having a clean house, or a garden or baking or such, they are sort of brushed off as "not as important as what I chose to do instead". WHAT are the more important things that you spend your time on? I wonder if I *don't* do them, or if I do them *as well* as all the other things I do, ditto for the first group I mentioned... I teach the kids, I do work with them, we do do some housework together, and for now my toddler is taking up the biggest part of my time. I cook one or two meals a day, I go out in the yard and play with the kids. Just, most of my time is spent on and with the kids. I try to give each child some time alone with me. Ok, sure. But the first group I was describing do ALL these things, cook three meals every day and all the rest. I don't see why they can do more and to the majority of posters here it seems impossible or somehow self-indulgent to do. I'm honestly wondering what the fundamental difference is. Perhaps I will call and talk to a few of the people I'm closest to in the first group of families and pose these questions to them, too. For the "other" side of the coin, and how they manage to do all that they do and still remain calm and organised and attentive to their children, etc. Dawn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
nanny question | Stephanie Stowe | General | 2 | June 6th 04 07:49 AM |
"How to find a nanny" | Mike | General | 0 | May 4th 04 03:36 PM |
Toddler's way of telling us they are upset - what does your kid do? | Cathy Weeks | General | 12 | October 17th 03 03:33 PM |
sad about nanny | Andrea | Breastfeeding | 13 | August 30th 03 06:03 PM |
Nanny needs a wonderful family in MA. | It's always something | General | 0 | July 9th 03 03:58 PM |