Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    Don't know as I get the connection between "moms...happy staying at
    home" and an attitude of "if it feels good..."  When I was growing up
    in Maine during the '50's, many mothers worked outside the home 
    (economics have always been precarious down east).  In fact, most of
    the kids had part time jobs, too.  It didn't seem to be a
    socially destabilizing influence.  Nope.  Don't buy the cause and
    effect.
    
    Ron

    Mike - can you provide references?  I don't recall seeing anything
    along the lines you mention.  If anything, the trends are accelerating
    towards working couples and full-time child care.
    
    I also disagree with your point of view on the matter.
    
    				Steve

    Actually from what I have read, the wide spread presence of  the
    'non-productively' working or 'stay at home mom' is a brief phenonemenon
    in human history. It is largely American and largely a 'creature'
    of the affluent '50s after WWII. Before that time it was only the
    relatively small middle class where the mother was home with the
    children and doing no productive work to support the family. The
    very wealthy largely turned their children over to nurse maids,
    nannies, governesses, tutors and private boarding schools. The lower
    classes had to work. This may have been as domestic servants for
    the better off, or as crafts persons in home businesses...weavers,
    and potters, and shoe makers..etc.. or they worked in the feilds
    on the farms. Children were cared for by older siblings, by
    unmarried relatives or were taken along on the job. In many ways
    the 1980s situation of both parents being gainfully employed is
    the more typical pattern throughout human history.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: .5
    
    Sorry, wrong Mike.  I meant Mike Wannemacher of .0.  I should learn
    to be more specific.
    
    			Steve

    re: .0
    
    Presumably those articles, like the ones I've seen, say that
    *some* men and women are pursuing the "traditional" family
    style.  I've also seen articles stating that there are more
    single-parent families than ever and that two-income families
    are a necessity for more people than ever today.
    
    Steve
    

    
    I watched a Nightline Show with Ted Koppel last week in which they
    discussed the "Mommy Track", wherein a career woman works parttime
    to have a child and then take care of it.  This Mommy Track idea
    is happening because some women want to devote more time to child
    rearing.  The effect, say some experts, is that the woman's
    career is significantly slowed down.  Other experts say this option
    lets a woman fulfill her desires for more involvement in nuturing
    of her child.
    
     The return of the full time mother is not happening as
    far as I can tell.   I have heard that somewhere between 6-13% of
    today's families are the traditional type with father working and
    mother home making.  I have even heard some say that women with
    children who are full time mothers/home makers are considered to
    have a luxury.
    
    I was raised by a full time mother and currently my children have
    a full time mother and home maker.  I have a question for those
    people who had a working mother.  How do you feel now as an adult
    about having a working mother?
    
    Just curious,
    
    
                                    

    
    I don't see how too many couples can ever save enough to buy
    a house if the mother (or father) stays at home. 
    
    							Hank

    re:8 - regarding how do you feel about Mom working..
    
    I think you have to draw the line at the career level.
    
    When both Mom and Dad absorb themselves into a career, the kids
    tend to get left out.  Sure, the moneys nice, but where went the
    quality time kids need to anchor to ?
    
    My situation:
    
    My mother never worked a day in her life after she started having
    children (# of which I'm the youngest).  Hence she doesn't have a
    clue as to what it's like to balance a check book, live on a tight 
    budget etc..  Should she out live my dad, she's gonna be in deep 
    sneakers picking up where he left off.  
    
    I assume thats where I'd come in to the picutre....  
    
    My wfe works mothers hours and is home for the kids in the afternoon.
    
    Part time ?  Sure, but ask her how she likes it.  She loves it.
    She was going nuts staying at home..  She's full of life, and being
    a full time home-maker was sapping that life out of her.
    
    She used to work at Dec, but stopped when we had our first.  She
    then stayed home for 6 years...  She's much happier, (though a little
    more tired)now thatn when she was full time at dec and staying home
    full time!  She found a happy medium and is still there for the
    kids.
    
    /ray
    

    I think its wonderful if a woman can stay home and take care of
    the kids and home.  I know of a few that do, and frankly I envy
    them.  I never wanted to work or have a career, but have worked
    my entire adult life.  Now as a single mom, I really don't have
    a choice.  But, my mom quit working when she was 5 months pregnant
    with me, and hasn't worked since.  And both of my sisters stay home
    and take care of their kids. (both of them, by the way own their
    own homes.) and let their hubbies bring home the paycheck.  
    
    I still *dream* of the day when I can stay home and be a mommie.
    Maybe, it will be with my grandkids.....

    Well, the last article I read on the subject was in the Washington Post
    magazine.  The one before that was in the Washington Times newspaper.
    I cannot site references as it didn't make that big of difference
    to me at the time.  It is more and more evident that it is
    advantageous, IF POSSIBLE, for the mother to stay at home with the
    kids.  (see the latest Parents magazine, "50 reasons why mommy should
    stay at home")  It is a good thing.  
    
                                                     Mike

    Oprah Winfrey (sp ?) had a show on this, but I thought that the
    guest expert said that by 1995 the majority of the workforce would
    be women. 
    
    Funny thing I noticed through these years of women going out into
    the workforce, is that it first was called a "profession", then a
    "career", now its starting to be called "earning a living". When its
    called a "job", then I believe they'll be battles on who's has the
    right to stay at home. Mothers or fathers ? I hope its the fathers,
    but by that time I'll probably be a grandfather, so it won't matter.

    Jim

    re: .12
    
    Mike - did Parents say or indicate if it was more advantageous for
    the mother to stay home versus the father?  Is it simply an assumption
    about who makes the most money, or were there other reasons (or
    was "mommy" in the title simply editorial license)?
    
    Steve
    

    I don't know about the majority but my wife and I decided she would
    stay home with the kids.  She stayed home for 6+ years and now has
    gone back to work part time.  For her to go back to part time I
    had to sacrifice and move to the 3rd shift so I can be home all
    day with both kids and play Mr. Mom.  Now at least one of us is
    home with the kids and there are no sitters.  I think both of my
    kids are turning out great due to my wife being there in the begining
    stages of thier lives and I believe I now have the EASY part.  They
    are now 6 1/2 and 4.  We are both thrilled with the decissions we
    made and wouldn't do it any different.
    
    Steve...

    Re: .13
    
    > Funny thing I noticed through these years of women going out into
    > the workforce, is that it first was called a "profession", then a
    > "career", now its starting to be called "earning a living". When its
    > called a "job", then I believe they'll be battles on who's has the
    > right to stay at home. Mothers or fathers ? I hope its the fathers,
    > but by that time I'll probably be a grandfather, so it won't matter.

    Jim, I can recall the time in the late 60's to early 70's, when
    women used the term "finding themselves".
    
    My first ex-wife, Karen, stayed at home with the kids, until our young-
    est child started first grade. Then she got a job with a local bank.
    Her hours were such that she was home when the kids came in the
    door from school.
    
    At this point in our marriage, I had been working 10 years, and
    Karen had tired of hearing my laments about rush-hour traffic,
    crazy managers, impossible deadlines, etc.
    
    Two weeks after she began "finding herself", she said to me, "Alan,
    now I understand what you've been saying to me all these years.
    I (Karen) can quit any time I want and stay home again. You're
    stuck with f-ck-ng work the rest of your life."  
    
    Sigh, how true. :-)
    
      Alan

         The one wage earner household is rather rare out here in the
    San Jose, CA area.  In order to buy a house out here most people
    need two incomes.  I think that the income necessary to buy the
    median house here in the San Jose area is $52,000 or $58,000.  That
    is assuming that you have the $40,000 20% down payment in the first
    place.
    
         We know very few couples who are homeowners with a singel wage
    earner.  Those who can afford to be usually got substantial help
    from their parents, or bought their homes 7 or more years ago.
    
    ASP

    Why does this sort of discussion seem to revolve around mothers and the
    maternal role.  Good parenting does not reside solely within the domain
    of females.
    
    Craig

    I daknow. Maybe its because its insecurity or something.

    Jim    

This week's Newsweek has an opinion page item called "The Daddy Track",
which effectively states that parenting issues are NOT restricted to
women.  Makes for good reading.

				Steve

    I agree that being a good parent is the #1 job of both parents.
    Of that responsibility is providing food, clothing and shelter for
    your children.  This does not relieve the provider(s) from instilling
    values and morals into their children.  
    
    People still speak of being a housewife as if it weren't work. 
    I do not agree with this concept at all.  It is perhaps the most
    important profession around.  It is an unselfish thing to do and
    it has the longest lasting effects.  
    
    Barbara Bush had an interview printed in the Washington Times where
    she speaks of her decision to be a full time mother.  She speaks
    of how the womens libbers made her to doubt her decision and her
    self worth.  It was a very enlightening article and worth reading.
    
    My wife just turned in her resignation here at Digital as she just
    had our second child.  Things are going to be very tight for a while
    however we both feel (and have been told) that is going to be well
    worth it.  
                                                    Mike

    Hey Mike, congratulations! What was it boy or girl?
    
    Jim

    Jim,
    
          Thanks, it was a little girl, Lauren Elizabeth.  Born Jan
    26.  People are probably saying, "Oh no, not another Wannemacher";')
    
                                                 Mike

    
    Mike,
    
    I agree that it is best for one parent to stay at home full time
    if possible.  My wife quit her career to stay at home with our child
    and we *know* that the child and our relationship will be much better
    than if she worked - even without the extra money.
    
    It was a difficult decision.  And for us it came down to priorities
    in life.  When we documented and discussed the pros and cons of
    working or staying at home the pros for working were *strictly*
    material (ie could buy more things).  Being serious about not being
    people bent on material things we made the choice for her to not
    work outside the home.
    
    It's amazing how hard my wife works with our one year old.  She
    is up every day at 6:30 and to bed (from exhaustion) each evening
    by 9.  There is no doubt that she works harder in some ways than
    I do.  I exercise my brain a great deal at work but sit on my butt
    alot doing it.  My wife not only physically works herself in home
    management but she also has to learn and exercise those harder skills
    of patience, love, teaching, nurture and so on.  
    
    But we are a very solid family.  I work with two-career couples
    and I am very aware of alot of their problems - and they do have
    them.  In every case, the mother would love to stay home but they
    are either locked into two incomes because of debts or are do not
    have the courage to let go of one income.  It is a tough decision
    but it is much preferable for all involved - *if* a solid, happy
    family life is your goal.
    
    
    jeff

    
    	Congrats Mike, here's wishing you all the very best.
    
    						Hank

    Thanks, Hank, oh for the days of a full night sleep.
    
                                                      Mike

    Mike,
      I am glad to hear of your new arrival, and sorry if you feel the
    current economic/social situation makes it difficult for your wife
    to stay home since that is what she so much wants to do.  But please
    do not insist on pretending that staying home with the kids is every
    woman's dream.  This outlook is scary.  If homemaker is such an attractive
    role for you, have you ever considered trying it?  I am not being
    sarcastic here, it just bothers me to hear someone else tell me
    what is good for me and will make me happy, especially when they 
    themselves would not consider it.  And I agree with Steve(?) or 
    whoever said that parenting is important, not mothering.
    	Linda
    p.s.  Didn't we already have this whole conversation some time ago?
    I have not seen anything in the news to indicate that droves of
    women are eager to give up their careers outside of the home.

    Linda,
    
          I'm not saying that women think that being a housewife
    is not a sacrifice for them and their careers.  I want to make it
    clear that the woman are doing it for their childrens sake, not
    their own.  After the studies which have been done on the effects
    of daycare on child development, it is clear that the BEST thing
    for the children is to be with their mother.  This is not to imply
    that children who have a mother who works is doomed. it is saying,
    however, that in the majority of cases, the children are better
    off emotionally.  The mothers I talk to who have started their careers
    later because they stayed home with their kids when they were younger
    said it was frustrating at times, but it was worth it without a
    doubt.  As I said earlier, it may not be a decision that is made
    for the mothers sake, but for the sake of the kids.
    
                                                       Mike

.28>>> As I said earlier, it may not be a decision that is made
>>>    for the mothers sake, but for the sake of the kids.

I can't disagree; sounds plausible from what we know of teacher:student ratios;
maybe what we need are governesses (or "governors"!). 

But I wonder if this reasoning might cause some people to think a woman selfish
or irresponsible for preferring a career over having kids. Do men (or women)
ever think that about career women?  I likewise expect these people to also
think the it's the woman, not the man, who should stay home and start their
career later.

What do y'all think?

    personally, I am looking for a house husband now.  I want some man
    to help raise my 10 year old daughter, wash and clean and have dinner
    on the table when I get home.  He can work part time if he wants,
    but the home and kid have to come first.  If I found such a man, 
    I know my career would be more successful and more rewarding. ;-)
    
    vivian

    
    
    	RE: .30
    
    	 Where does one go to fill out the application????  ;^)

    George,
    
    Do you do windows and taxes?
    
    If so you are hired!  Don't forget househusbands work for free...
    
    

    re .-1,
    yea, they work for free, but the perks are fun!
    
    vivian
    

    So it looks like the question is, "Why is it that men work and women
    stay home?"  
    
    Easy answer.  Work used to be much more physical than mental.  Men
    are stronger than women.  Sorry it's not my opinion, it's a fact.
    
    RE: Last few-Just be sure your wife brings you flowers from time
    to time, also to keep the spark in your relationship it might be
    well advised to be all dolled up in a teddy or something when she
    comes home from work.:')
    
                                                  Mike

Re: .34

I suppose it depends on your definition of "work", Mike.  Seems to me that
a lot of the things women used to (and sometimes still) do required a fair
amount of physical strength.  (Ever seen those pictures of farm women carrying
huge jugs of water, milk and food to and from the market?  I sure wouldn't
want to do that!)

However, "facts is facts" doesn't hold up today or really even in this
century.  But social mores change more slowly than other aspects of
society.

				Steve

    
    	RE: .32
    
    	 Windows, yes.. taxes ... well it all depends, if I have to
    	sign the forms it's a NO!! :^} 
    
    	Let's see... was that 2+2 = 4 or 5?????
    
    	BTW, What's the benefit package look like??   I may not be cheap,
    	but i'm easy!!!!! ;^)

    re Mike
    
    so for jobs that don't require muscle power should we still
    hold by the old divisions? How about if the job requires brain
    power we decide who stays home by administering an I.Q. test?
    
    The person who stays home with children ought to be the one
    who most wants to, male or female without regard to steryotypes.
    Or if a couple wants children or at least one child and neither
    wants to stay home, and they can make arrangements that will
    well care for the child then they should be allowed to do so.
    
    There is nothing inherant genetically that predisposes XX types
    to be domestic or XY types to be nondomestic.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Re: .37 by Bonnie...
    
    That sounds idealistic. What I mean is that nowadays, it may
    boil down to the partner with the greater earning power works.
    Admittedly, men "generally" earn more, but that is changing.
    
    When my wife Lynn and I were making that decision I was hoping
    that her company would indeed give her the raise she was asking
    for. And if they had, we would have, by mutual decision
    designated me as the homemaker. 
    
    							Hank

    Hey Vivian,
    
    I am very good with taxes and I look great in a teddy.  Mail me the 
    plane ticket.  ;^)
    
    Craig (Who you haven't heard from in a long, long time.)

    re .28 (although the diversions are fun)
    From what I have heard in the news, the jury is still out on whether
    kids are emotionally better off if they are in day care or cared
    for all day by a parent.  Kids in day care were found to be more
    social, more independent, better at cooperating, etc..  And I think
    that by the age of 6 or so the differences disappeared.  There has
    not been conclusive evidence to show that kids placed in day care
    suffer long term ill effects.  And the studies haven't even looked
    at women who didn't want to be at home, but were forced to by social
    pressures.
    	Linda

    	Assuming that the women being discussed here are adults, I think
    the rightness or wrongness of working vs not working must be a very
    personal matter, not subject to judgement by others. I cannot set
    myself up to be the judge of any woman's personal beliefs and actions
    which do not directly affect me.
    
    	Some women remain at home, and do a terrible job of child rearing,
    while some women pursue full time careers, and do an excellent job
    of child rearing. Generalities and statistics are often deceiving,
    as are the flood of studies being unleashed by the social engineers.
    
    	Within a family structure, the woman must be the decision maker,
    and
    	as mother, should consider the pro's and con's in the context
    of the effect on the family, just as the father is the decision
    maker regarding his career - job, etc... 
    
    	Many children would have been better off had they not been brought
    up by dysfunctional parents, while some children may have been better
    off had they been brought up in a traditional home (non working
    mother). 
    
    	Being a mother should be no more restrictive to a woman than
    being a father is to a man, and whichever role a woman opts for,
    she should be free to do so without worrying about other people's
    judgements.
    
    
    	Guy B.
    
    

    RE: Bonnie,
          You know sometimes stereotypes are true. (gasp)  Oh no, I've
    done it now.  And while the women were carrying the things you
    mentioned, the men were out plowing acres upon acres of land.  In
    the last 20-25 years we have seen the trend drastically increase
    of women in the wokplace.  We have also seen the family unit break
    apart, drug and alcohol abuse rise drastically, crime increase
    dramatically, and the state of our nation take a turn for the worse.
    The trends of woman working outside the home is not solely responsible
    for this but it has been a factor.  
    
    Linda,
          You are right in that kids at daycare were seen to be more
    outgoing and more socially interactive, but the kids whos mother
    stayed home were more secure and emotionally stable. 
    
    Guy,
          Dysfunctional is a word that the psychologists have given
    us to rationalise why wew are a certain way.  It seems to me that
    all families are dysfunctional in some way or another.  I haven't
    seen many June and Ward Clevers running around lately.  Please don't
    take this as being sarcastic as it wasn't meant that way.  I am
    trying to make a point.  That being that everyone has had things
    in their lives that weren't perfect.  You have to accept them (you
    can't change the past), learn from them and move on.  I've done
    things as a parent that I wish I hadn't done but there is nothing
    I can do to change them now.  I just don't think it's fair to label
    a family dysfunctional when the mom and dad busted their butts to
    provide and take care of their family.
    
                                                    Mike

    Re: .42
    
    You're connecting women working (or rather, not at home childrearing)
    with "the destruction of the family, drug and alcohol abuse...". I'm
    sorry, but I don't see the connection.
    
    Are you saying, then, that because a person is born as a woman, she
    should not expect to be able to expand her mind in a career, but should
    humbly accept her lot as a childbearer, without grumbling? I realise
    some do want to be childrearers - more power to them! But some do not,
    and do have children, and successfully raise them. To attribute women
    working with societies problems, in a small way, seems to be a little
    bit extreme to me.
    
    Persumably, Mrs. Thatcher, a woman, the Prime Minister of my country is
    part of Great Britain's turn for the worse? (Ah... some might agree
    with me... 8*) ).
    
    Pete.

re: < Note 334.42 by GRANMA::MWANNEMACHER >

�    			... We have also seen the family unit break
�    apart, drug and alcohol abuse rise drastically, crime increase
�    dramatically, and the state of our nation take a turn for the worse.

You're blaming women working outside the home for contributing to this?
arrggh...give me a break.

You still haven't told us why the mothers should stay home instead of the
fathers. Now if the fathers would just stay home and keep these criminal kids 
off the street we'd be much better off..;-)
    
Jenna

    Mike,
    
    Just because some people fit a stereotype (i.e. it is true for
    some) doesn't make the stereotype valid for all people. and, sorry,
    I don't believe that there is any connection between women
    working in jobs outside the home and the societial ills that
    you catalogue. The fact that two events occur at the same time
    or sequentially in time doesnot prove any causal connection.
    
    Bonnie

	 my observations while growing up...

	 the kids who's parents both worked were emotionally stronger,
	 more self confident, more outgoing, more stable all around
	 than those children who had one parent at home.

         I think it is much more beneficial to the child for both
         parent's to work AS LONG AS the child gets the love/attention
         it needs.

	 A wonderful home-life depends on quality, not quantity.

	 kath

    	Kids who have two parents capable of handling a full time job and
    still keeping a home together are likely to be hereditarily emotionally
    stronger, more self confident, ...
    
    	Parents who escape to work because they can't stand a close
    full-time relationship with their children are likely to breed....

I don't buy any connection between both parents working and various social
ills.  It's just too simplistic for me.  The problems mentioned have to do
with a broad range of factors - economics, education, politics, nutrition,
racism, health care, housing, and population, to name a few.  I'd say that
the increasing polarization of America into haves and have nots, and the
shortsighted (and frequently ruthless) policies of the Reagan administration
had a lot more to do with the problems than working mothers.

It's so easy to say, "Let's turn the clock back and make everything nice like
it used to be."  It has never worked.  (Plus, for a lot of America, there
never were any good old days - children left home early to work in dangerous
occupations, or were apprenticed to craftsmen far away from home; families
broke up due to drought and famine; in many immigrant families, everyone
worked who could stand on two feet.)  

Change is a constant, and we need to change to survive.  Business is 
making changes (albeit slowly) in their recognition of women as a 
vital and integral part of the workforce.  Trying to go back only
delays change (and tends to make it more painful).  We need to work on
the *real* problems at hand and look for solutions in the future instead
of in the past.

(I'll get off the soapbox now.  This note caught me in one of my more
radical moods.)

Ron

    	Re .42
    
    	Mike - no sarcasm taken, and I guess my definition of dysfunctional
    is a bit different than yours. True - there is some element of
    dysfunctionin most if not all families, but the context o fthe terrm
    in my note is one where the dysfunctional aspect is a severe problem
    -
    such as alcoholism, child abuse, drug abuse by parents ...
    
    	I would not advocate putting down parents who have worked their
    butts off for their family - but then neither would I overlook their
    shortcomings. Some very abusive parents work very hard - supposedly
    for their family (in reality - for their own ego ? ).
    
    	Thanks for the feed-back.
    
    
    	Guy B.
    

    Guy,  I can see the term applied to the more severe problems, and
    excuse me for appearing a little uppity but its becoming a term
    which is being widely overused today.  Like I said before no offense.
    
    Everyone else, I did not and will not say that this situation is
    the ENTIRE reason for our social ills, only that it was a contributing
    factor.  You may not think so, but I do.  I guess time will tell.
    
    Lastly, one of the biggest pieces of evidence that I have that says
    it is right for the WOMAN to rear the kids is the Bible.  To me
    this, along with the evidence I have seen and read are sufficient
    for me to have formed my opinion.  
                                                                         
    
                                                      Mike
                                                          

	I will also second, third, the replies who said that there has
    	been no causal connections made between women working outside
    	the home and an increase in drug abuse and crime.  Just maybe
    	there is a connection with the rise in divorce, since a woman
    	is not condemned by economic necessity to a marriage she hates,
    	but frankly I don't see that particular item as a sign of a
    	breakdown in society, but as an improvement in choices people
    	can make about their lives.
    
        Regarding the bible saying that women should take care of the
    	kids while dad dons suit and briefcase and heads off to work,
    	where does it say that?  And even if it does you realize that
    	the bible is not everyone's source of how life should be lived,
	and is certainly not a replacement for scientific studies on
    	cause and effect.

        	Linda

    Linda,
          I cannot quote book, passage, and verse however I've read
    it and know it's in there.  
    
          Also please do not equate science with fact.  Science is nothing
    but proving a hypothesis.  There have been many scientific theory
    taught as fact which have later been disproven.  Things which
    occur five times, but the sixth time things go awry.  If you really
    want to get down to the nitty gritty, nothing is fact.  Do as the
    early philosophers have done and question everything.  When you
    do that it comes down to a conclusion that there is a God (or supreme
    being if you wish).  
                                             Later for now,
    
                                             Mike      

    Hmm, interesting, it is through the process of questioning everything
    that I arrived at the conclusion that there is no supreme being.
    	Linda

    That is illogical, where did it all begin?  Your logic is in no
    doubt flawed.  
    
          Mike

    >                       -< Plain and simple! >-
    
    I daresay thats correct, but you wouldn't like my conclusions.
    
    Shouldn't this be taken to one of the philosophy or religion
    conferences?
    
    DougO

pleasepleaseplease

if you don't want to take this argument to another conference please start a
new note:

is there a supreme being and if so of what gender(s)

might be a good title

	Andrew.

 It's really a pity that some people can make some intelligent statements and
then negate them by blaming "The Regan Administration's harsh and ruthless
policies." Funny. I was under the impression that the democratically controlled
congress had _some_ input. Remember? Checks and balances? Sometimes I think
that ideology should be spelled idiology. :-)

 The Doctah

    Actually, I have personally spoken to God about this matter, and She
    assures me that She does not want women to stay home; in fact, She
    wants to make it clear that She in no way advocates the oppression of
    women, and fully supports the right of women to work outside the home
    if that is what they want.  "After all," She told me, "I am not an
    ogre!" 

    Many of you may be surprised that I know God personally, but actually
    we have been old pals for a long time.  In fact, She has appointed me
    to be one of Her prophets.  You may think that being a prophet is all
    glamour and fame--getting to write Holy Books, possibly starting a new
    religion, being known for all eternity, talk show appearances,
    groupies, etc.--but let me tell you, it is hard work. For one thing,
    every time I want to receive a new revelation, I have go to the trouble
    of climbing up to the top of Pike's Peak; you see, all the great
    prophets, like Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed, have to climb a mountain or
    go into the wilderness or do some such thing.  In my case, climbing a
    mountain sucks because I am not in good shape. 

    After the exhausting ordeal of the climb, She appears to me in all Her
    splendor. At first we engage in small talk, discussing such issues as
    the weather, pro wrestling (she's a big fan), and MTV.  Then we move on
    to the important Divine Revelation. 

    I climbed up the mountain yeste�rday, and God and I were {talking
    abou�t this {issue of women staying h(ome.  God w{as t{r�uly...excu{se
    m{e, there appear�s to be som{e static on this line.  Le{t me ju�st
    kick )my VT220... 


    There, much better.  By the way, please don't try that at home.  The
    VT220 terminal is an expensive piece of equipment, and should be fixed
    with the help of a trained professional.  Or, if you can't find one,
    call Field Service (hahahaha only kidding!  I am personally a software
    specialist in Field Service myself, I date a former Field Service
    hardware engineer, and some of my best friends work in Field Service!
    Really!  It was only a joke!) 

    Now where was I?  Oh yes.  Well, here is part of the Holy transcript of
    my conversation with God:

        Me:  But God, given that you exist, does it follow that the Bible is
        Your Word?  What about the Koran?  Or the Bhagavad-Gita?  After all,
        it is not like there are not other monotheistic religions in the
        world besides Christianity, right? 

        The Grand Poobah:  All of those works are pretty neat.  Yeah, I'd
	say it would be worthwhile to read all of them.

	Me:  So you're saying that I shouldn't just blindly let the Bible
	decide everything for me?  That I should think for myself?

        The Big Cheese:  Absolutely.  After all, I gave you a brain, didn't
        I?  I gave you the capacity to think for yourself, didn't I?  I
        didn't create humans just so they would be idiots in my name, did I?
        After all, if you took everything in the Bible literally, you'd
        believe that the world was created just 6000 years ago in a period
        of six days. I mean, come on, be serious! 

        Me:  But God, there are people in the world who do believe the world
        was created just 6000 years ago in a period of six days. 

	The Fearless Leader:  No!  You're pulling my leg!

    By the way, I am sure that many of you would like to know what God
    looks like.  Well, I am sorry to say that God made me sign a
    non-disclosure agreement, so I can't reveal that information. 

    Now that I have explained what God really believes about women, we can
    settle this issue once and for all.  God definitely does want women to
    work outside the home if that is what they want to do.  End of
    discussion.  For those of you who do not believe that I am a prophet of
    God, well, you are just being illogical.  However, for those of you who
    do, please send money to me.  Lot's of money.  As much as you have. 

    Well, that closes {my discussion o{f the issu{e.  Just in t{ime, it
    appears, because (@$&(%(#typedef) it seems that (&#for;#include*&#$i++)
    my VT220 is starting to spew more garbage, and this time some of it
    looks to be in the form of C code, and we all know $#(&#main()#$(*& how
    dangerous that can be.  Good-bye, and thank you for your support. 

    -- Mike

    RE: .60
    
    Yea, now THAT was rich........  HAR HAR.....

    RE: .60 It appears to me that your terminal was screwed up during
    the whole note.  All I see contained in that note is a bunch of
    garbage.;')
    
                                                          Mike


    

    Re: .63

    Normally, God gets real ticked off when someone scoffs at the words of
    one of Her prophets.  However, you'll be happy to know that I pleaded
    with God and begged Her to forgive you, and after a long, drawn out
    discussion She finally relented.  Luckily, She had been listening to
    some New Age music at the time, and so was feeling pretty mellow.
    However, in order to obtain Her forgiveness, you'll have to repeat the
    following mantra 10 times: 
    
    	Om My Soul is Wretched But I Repent om
	Om God is One Cool Deity om
    	Om Dodge trucks are ram tough om
    	Om any rebroadcast without the express written consent of the
    		National Football League is strictly prohibited om

    -- Mike, prophet of God

    
    
    Came thru loud and clear on my terminal, Mike V!!  The only
    problem is, I can't get the screen to stop displaying
    
        "GIGGLEGIGGLEHAHAHAHTEEHEEHEHHEHEHE"
    
    Is that a hardware or software problem? :-)
    
    Deb K.
    
    

 Somebody help Valenza please. it appears that SC of =wn= fame has gotten
control of his terminal. :-)

 the Doctah

    I would like to quote from the holy scriptures:
    
        And they came bearing gifts of incense and peppermints, frankenstein
        and myrrrrrrh.  The people rejoiced, and sang the holy song,
        "Incense and Peppermints," by the Strawberry Alarm Clock.  There was
        a clap of thunder, a voice boomed from the heavens, babies cried,
        children danced, angels mooned passers by (when you're an angel you
        can get away with things like that), cats barked, and dogs meowed.
        The booming voice from heaven proclaimed, "Mike Valenza is My
        prophet, and for all who disbelieve there will be a place in hell
        with your name written on it." 

    So there.

    On another subject, I was attending an angel potluck the other day
    (Gabriel makes a hell of an onion dip, by the way), and we were
    discussing the Judgement Day.  We were trying to decide what song
    Gabriel should blow with his trumpet to sound the onset of the
    End of the World.  I suggested something along the lines of "Heaven" by
    the Talking Heads, but he would have nothing of it; in fact, he got
    rather excited, and spilled some of his Jack and Coke on his wings.  I
    went away to get a paper towel, and when I came back he said had a great
    idea:  why not have a contest?

    Well, that sounded great to me, so here I am to announce the Official
    Name That Judgment Day Song Contest.  Here's how it works.  Submit your
    entry to me, Mike the Prophet of God, preferably along with large sums
    of cash, and the winner will be guaranteed the right to spend eternity
    in Paradise.  The address is

		Profits for the Prophet
		Pike's Peak
		Colorado Springs, CO

    -- Mike

    re.68
    My entry is" God is Alive, Magic is Afoot" written by Leonard Cohen
    re.69 
    Mike Z
    Do the words "lighten up" mean anything to YOU? ;-)
    
    Barry

Ok - enough levity.  We now return you to the original topic, already
in progress.  Thank you.

				Steve

    Steve, 
            You are hereby renamed 'Oscar' the moderator (aka Oscar
    the grouch. ;')
    
                                                  Mike

    re.73
    Mike W.
    Anyone that comes up with 
    >> ok-enough levity
    after notes about "lighten up" and "inhale helium" isn't much of
    a grouch in my book ;-)
    
    Getting back on track, so Steve, did your mother have to work when
    you were growing up and how does this effect your ability to moderate
    this note??

    Barry

    Re: .74
    
>    Getting back on track, so Steve, did your mother have to work when
>    you were growing up and how does this effect your ability to moderate
>    this note??
    
    As a matter of fact, she did, and I think it does.  My mother worked
    outside the home (in contrast with working INSIDE the home) since
    I was two (when my parents divorced).  Though she remarried later,
    she continued to work.  During much of my childhood, my mother was
    a single parent, and held down two or even three jobs to support
    me and my three brothers.   Because of this, I, as the oldest, was
    placed in an early position of responsibility to my family; this
    continued until I entered high school.
    
    I feel that the independence that was thrust upon me because
    I had no "stay at home parent" contributed to (what I like to think
    is) a caring and responsible attitude that reflects on my moderation
    style, though I had not thought about it in exactly those terms.
    
    It is interesting to watch this phenomenon from "the other side" - 
    as a father.  My son is now 5-1/2, and didn't have a stay-at-home
    parent since he was eight weeks old.  And like me, his parents were
    divorced when he was 2.  The difference is that for him, both of his
    parents continue to care for him equally, as they did before, and
    anyone who knows him can see that he is a friendly, intelligent and
    well-adjusted child.  I see no ill effects from not having a
    stay-at-home parent.  Furthermore, I see it as an advantage as he
    has become flexible and easy-going about new situations, something
    that kids who have seen only one primary caregiver (usually the
    mother) up to the same age don't appear to come by quite so easily
    (from my observations - I don't intend this as a universal statement).
    
    So, if you asked me, I'd say that having mothers move out into the
    workforce is an overall benefit to children and society; I certainly
    don't see any obvious benefits to a stay-at-home parent as regards
    reducing our society's ills.  If I were to blame the problems we
    have on anything, it would be the way our society throws away a
    majority of its resources on such non-productive things as military
    buildups, support of drug smugglers, etc.
    
    				Steve

    Excuse me, Mike, but I WAS addressing the base note subject, or
    at least I thought I was.
    
    			Steve

    	That was a spectacular tie-in, Steve...
    
    							Carla
    

    re.76
    Mike Z 
    Do you remember what the original topic was??
    Or is this a cry for the attention that your mother didn't give
    you when you were growing up because she had to work?? ;-).....
    
    re.78
    >> that was a spectacular tie-in Steve....???????
    Carla 
    Steve's "spectacular type-in" was in response to my query in .74
    lets give a liitle credit to the straight man :-0
    (At least my mother loved me ;-) )
    
    I think that how a mother feels about where she is ,is more important
    than where she actually is. If a mother is at home and would rather
    be out in the work force her relationship with her children will
    suffer. Conversely if she would rather be at home and economic
    necessity forces her to have to work, the relationship suffers.
    Most parents don't get to pick the "best" solution but have to live
    with a compromise and try to adjust.
    
    Barry

    
    re.0
    I just got plugged into this conference and stumbled across this
    note. The base note talks about traditional VALUES. There is a
    significant difference between traditional VALUES and traditional
    ROLES.
    If you have tracked the behavioral sciences for the last fifty-sixty
    years (even longer) you will, of course, know that there has been
    a steady convergence of roles, i.e. both men and women performing
    roles that once were considered the perogative of the other. This
    is not changing--or reversing--but is continuing.
    
    Also I  was stunned: I cannot believe that people are still trying
    to make women the scapegoat for disintegrating families, and all
    the other ills of society. If you REALLY want to look at causal
    reasons, perhaps the greatest single cause of societal ills
    (that is, if one is simple-minded enough to buy into a single cause
    theory) is urban crowding. As population density increases there
    is a marked increase in any kind of ill you want to name: from
    number of crack dealers to registered republicans!
    
    The idea of  trying to make a biblical connection to "mothers should
    stay at home" frankly takes a lot of scriptural dishonesty. You
    can only do it by leaning heavily on the Old Testament,  and Old
    Testament tradition. I'm constantly amazed at the number of practicing
    Christians who are perfectly willing to rely on Levitical Law
    (which, in most cases, their denominational orientations decry)
    to support a bias such as the one under consideration in this note,
    when they are just as willing to ignore such law when they sit down
    to a lobster dinner, or buy a cotton/polyester shirt. 
    
    I personally have seen too many women/girls (as in female children)
    psychologically bashed and abused by boorish a******s claiming some
    sort of righteous indignation over whether "their wimmin" should
    work. In most cases they're a helleva lot less interested in whether
    "their wimmin" work than they are in the maid-service they get with
    a stay-at-home wife.
    
    In addition, if we've learned anything about families in the last
    45 years, we've learned that raising children is not "just" the
    female role: it is a role the properly belongs to both parents when
    there are two parents in a family. To say that its the woman's
    job to raise the kids and the man's job to earn the money has got
    to be a sure sign that the speaker or writer is brain-dead, or that
    he stopped reading 20-30 years ago or can't understand what he
    sees on television (or all of the above).
    
    If women choose to work: that's fine. If women choose to stay at
    home: that's fine too. But Please, PUH_LEEZE men, don't kid yourself
    into thinking that one choice is "good" and the other "bad." And
    don't be foolish enough to think its YOUR choice, either. If you
    do, you deserve the consequences.
    J
    
                                   

    Re: "J"  (Whatever that means)
    
          Spoken like a true pablum puking liberal democrat:').  If you
    go back and read the not (as well as a followup note that followed)
    you would have seen that I didn't say it was an exclusive reason
    to the way things are.  Get the chip off your shoulder, it's not
    very becoming.  
    
                                                      Mike 

Also,  It has been the last 20-30 years which have been the years of
    major decline in society.  Claiming that the findings of those years
    have been a revelation is ludicrous.  If you base your opinions
    on these things, it's no wonder you see things as you do.
    
                                               Mike

>    In addition, if we've learned anything about families in the last
>    45 years, we've learned that raising children is not "just" the
>    female role: it is a role the properly belongs to both parents when
>    there are two parents in a family. 

This triggered a thought:

I'm doing a lot of work in therapy.  Although my therapist and I do a 
pretty good job at staying on the track of "What makes me happy in 
this life and why aren't I doing what I need to do to be happy," 
sometimes we take some relevant excursions into my childhood.  When I 
do that, I have all sorts of stuff that comes up around my mother.  
Anger, guilt, love, happiness..."good" or "bad," the relationship is 
clear, strong, and influential.

Just for the record, my mother stayed at home till the youngest was in 
Kindergarten, then she went back to work.  She was and is a nurse.  
Back then, she worked in the Emergency Room and eventually became head 
nurse there.

Something bizarre happened late last year that was very relevant to 
me.  I glimpsed into my past only to see a big, black hole.  That hole 
is my father, or, more accurately, my relationship with my father (or 
lack thereof).  I don't remember much about him, though I lived with 
him for 18 years.  My most frequent feeling in regard to him is 
"embarrassment," the kind of embarrassment you have for a fool who 
doesn't know she/he's a fool?  The kind of embarrassment you feel when 
you sense other people tolerating a person's presence, waiting for a 
chance to break away.  It was sad.

I watched an episode of "The Wonder Years."  It was the one about the 
friend having his Bar Mitzvah (sp?) and feeling like he was a 
"mongrel."  During that whole episode, the father is fuming about a 
bad carborator (sp?) and isn't hearing a single word the kid is 
saying, even though the kid is asking him questions.  Only the mother 
bothers to really talk to him, though sometimes what she says is off 
the wall or not very helpful.  I felt a lot of anger rising to the 
surface when I saw that father.  It reminded me very much of how my 
father was physically there but was emotionally 1000 miles away.

Maybe this doesn't belong in this topic string.  I dunno.  It's just 
that when I look back at my mother being there for me until I got into 
school and her going to work as I made my way towards adolescence, I'm 
amazed at how little that has to do with the issue I am now working on 
at age 27.  However, when I think back to how distant my father was 
and how nonexistant our relationship was, that has had a ripple effect 
on my--from my choices of sexual partners to my vision of my own 
masculinity to the way I behave at work to the way I befriend men to 
the way I befriend women--that I will probably be working out the 
kinks for years due to that lack of a relationship with my father.

Even though she at times did things that were mean-spirited and nasty
and even though there were times when I had to wait till she got home
from work, my mother had a solid mother-son relationship with me, she
listened to me, and she was there for me.  Dad was not.  I think of my 
family portrait, all of us are in color except for my father, he is 
a black silhouette where a man should be....

"But, darn it, my mother worked, so it's her fault that I can't get my 
life together!"

						--Ger

    I'm a single guy and I occasionally have a date.  A lot of the women
    I date have kids.  Whenever there are 2 or more kids (I notice the
    same kind of thing with my own kids) there is this unbelievable
    power play between the kids.  It's a good thing they don't have
    claws.  They kick and bite and wheedle and whine and do anything
    and everything for the attention of whoever is there to give attention.
    With two kids and two parents each kid wants each parent at the
    same time.  Parents are played against each other, sometimes.
    Single parents have theri own problems.  Two wage earner families
    have their own problems.  Everybody has problems.  I think they
    are caused by a lack of skill more than a lack of time/attention.
    Yes!  There are some biblical references that describe
    the modern family...in Cain and Able.  Parents came, themselves,
    from a family situation.  If their parenting role models weren't
    skillful enough to handle these situations then the current parents
    have to learn by themselves.  Sometimes they get lucky.  
    	I was an abusive parent.  My oldest son cried constantly (or
    so it seemed at the time) for 2 years, day and night.  I freeked!
    Many years later I realized that when I was very young every time
    my little brother cried I got the crap beat out of me.  I used to
    tease him and he used to cry.  My mother punished me.  (or my father
    if he was around) Soon my brother learned that he could get me punished
    by crying.  
    	Families will not be fixed by putting one parent in the home
    unless that is a parent perfectly suited to the task.  A rarity.

    .83
    
    yo, Mike, please do a little reading in contemporary history.
    What you said just plain isn't true over any long range view
    of human society.
    
    I know that you feel it is true and your view of the world
    works for you and your wife and family friends, but, you
    just plan aren't accurate over the long term of human society.
    
    Bonnie

    .87  Bonnie, I think you are the one who is mistaken.  Yes there
    have been periods and cultures which have had mothers working out
    side the home, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
    
    I want to point out to everyone that my opinion has nothing to do
    with ability.  I believe that women are just as capable as men.
    I don't want to leave the wrong impression.  I am looking at what
    appears (to me) to be the best for the majority, and I think it
    is best for society and family for the mother to raise her own kids.
    I also realize that in todays societies, it is very hard to survive
    this way.
    
                                                 Mike

    
    re.81
    What in the hell does "pablum puking liberal democrat" have to do
    with anything?
    j.

    
    Look, Mike:
    If you want to state that it is your opinion that working mothers
    are contributing to the dcline of society, that's your privilege.
    
    But please don't present that opinon as fact: because there is an
    enormous body of research done by skilled researchers of both liberal
    and conservative persuasions that simply does not provide a factual
    basis for such an opinion. If you're interested in gathering data,
    go to the nearest large public library or university library: there
    are a half-dozen to a dozen reputable journals dedicated to the
    family, the family in society, child-rearing, etc.
    
    If you feel I had (or have) a chip on my shoulder perhaps its because
    I get extremely upset at a line of logic and a series of conclusions
    which simply cannot be supported with the evidence.
    
    ALL of the claims made by people concerning the negative impact
    of the working mother are based on correlations (i.e. more mothers
    in the workplace and and increase in crime rates for juveniles,
    OR, more mothers in the work place and an increase of divorce,
    etc.etc.)	and correlations studies. Correlation studies are very
    easy to do, BUT NO CORRELATION STUDY UNDER THE SUN SHOWS CAUSE AND
    EFFECT!!, and individuals, groups, whatever who attempt to show
    cause and effect through correlation studies are using statistic
    inappropriately (They may even be deliberately trying to deceive).
    Sorry, but the case you're trying to build just doesn't hold up
    under any kind to ethical scrutiny.
    

    Thanks John,
    
    that was my point also
    
    Bonnie

    
    I'm in the middle of an excellent biography of Charlotte Bronte by
    Rebecca Fraser.  When reading along the other night, I came across a
    passage that has some bearing on this topic.  Fraser wrote about the
    rise of the "cult of domesticity" in the early to mid-1800's as a
    result of the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent redistribution
    of wealth.  Women in England had almost exclusive control of certain
    areas of business (innkeeping was mentioned) and were expected to 
    provide income for the family.  Very often, financial control of the
    family account was in the hands of women.  As the middle class grewe in 
    numbers and in wealth, more and more men isolated women from
    traditional areas of work and finance.  The woman's realm was expected
    to be that of home, church, and family.
    
    Fraser points out the incredible frustration and damgage to self-esteem
    that many woman felt.  Women were forced into a form of financial
    bondage, dependent upon the whims of fathers, uncles, and husbands.
    Attempts to break into areas once open brought ostracism and derision.
    
    Having been reading this note recently, the passage took on a 
    special poignancy.
    
    Ron
    
    (btw, I can recommend the bio highly - fascinating in its insight
     and its recreation of a life in context.)