A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Pregnancy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Good Newsweek article



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #371  
Old February 22nd 05, 04:50 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old February 22nd 05, 11:01 PM
Rosalie B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 23rd 05, 05:06 AM
Emily
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 23rd 05, 03:01 PM
Rosalie B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 23rd 05, 03:09 PM
Stephanie Stowe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 24th 05, 01:36 AM
Rivka W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good Newsweek article Sue General 353 March 22nd 05 04:19 PM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 December 29th 04 06:26 AM
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 Beth Weiss Info and FAQ's 1 March 3rd 04 11:06 AM
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 Beth Weiss Info and FAQ's 1 February 16th 04 10:59 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 February 16th 04 10:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.