| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 8.2 | Doing It All.... | CIPHER::GREENBERG | | Tue Apr 29 1986 09:57 | 23 |
|
It seems to me that a constant undercurrent of new opportunities
for women is that not only can we "have it all" we also have to
"do it all". I'm having a hard time living up to this new standard.
Women are still primarily responsible for raising children (making
sure they are the most self-fulfulled kids ever), keeping a
smooth-running household (decorated in the most chic way, cooking
the most nutritious meals ever), and seeing to it that they attain
the most education, the best job, and the biggest network. Ever.
I'm exhausted just thinking about it. Oh, yes, we're also supposed
to have time for ourselves, and be the sexiest things on high heels.
You know: bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan....
Re: the day care issue. Rumor has it (just repeating what I heard)
that the reason DEC doesn't have daycare is that the powers that
be believe that mothers should be home with their children, not
out working. What do you think about that?
Fanning the flames,
Fern Ellen
|
| 8.3 | sometimes *are*, never *should be* | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Tue Apr 29 1986 16:07 | 36 |
| > It seems to me that a constant undercurrent of new opportunities
> for women is that not only can we "have it all" we also have to
> "do it all". I'm having a hard time living up to this new standard.
First off, if you're single, then you *do* have to do it
all... or find someone to help. Nothing'll get done by itself.
The rest of this reply assumes the presence of a supposedly
competant mate...
The expectation that women should "do it all" is not a new
standard. It's the archaic remnants of the old standard. The
"traditional male" (thankfully a dying breed---although they're
not dying out as quickly as I'd like) fought for a long time to
keep women in the home, cooking, cleaning, and making babies,
where she "belongs".
Luckily, they lost. At least, we'd like to think they lost.
I've gotten the distinct impression that *they* don't think
they've lost. They "compromised". You can go out and "work"
(the implication is that this is merely for your own enjoyment)
as long as you continue to perform your *real* duties in
the home.
You have no more duties at home than your spouse (if any).
Your job is as important as his. If *he* won't accept that,
then you'll have to work on him to wake him up and civilize
him. If your pressure to "do it all" is coming from anyone
else, then simply ignore it. Most especially if the pressure
is coming from *you*.
"Housework" and especially raising kids (if you have any)
are important, of course... but it's unreasonable to expect
one person to do it all when there are presumably two competant
adults in the house. Don't let anyone pull that on you!
/dave
|
| 8.4 | I'm still learning to just listen | COGNAC::GLICK | Life in the Wierd lane | Tue Apr 29 1986 18:27 | 30 |
| > You have no more duties at home than your spouse (if any).
> Your job is as important as his. If *he* won't accept that,
> then you'll have to work on him to wake him up and civilize
> him. If your pressure to "do it all" is coming from anyone
> else, then simply ignore it. Most especially if the pressure
> is coming from *you*.
Hmmm, First impression is here's another man telling another women how she
should be. At the risk of contributing to a problem I see, I'd say I sign
on here more to hear what the women have to say than to hear our masculine
voices.
Second pass, while most of us would agree that household duties should be
shared equally, Carol Gilligen (-sp-I'm really bad at remembering names...)
in her book _In A Different Voice_ seems to imply that men grow up learning
to take refuge in the rules (Read Duties), where as women grow up learning
to take refuge in the well being of the group. This would make it easier
for you, Dave, to say that one should do one's duty and let it go at that.
A woman might perceive needs beyond her "duty" and in trying to meet those
needs get trapped in the have-it-all do-it-all syndrome.
CG goes on to say that men will spend most of their lives adding group well
being considerations to their foundation of rule making, while women will
be learning rule making to add to their foundation of consideration of
group well being.
Has any one else read this book? Is this a fair distillation? How do these
ideas strike y'all?
-B
|
| 8.5 | What do women have to say? | CIPHER::GREENBERG | | Wed Apr 30 1986 09:18 | 38 |
|
Flame On:
I am not in the least bit interested in hearing men intellectualize
about how things "should" be. My interest in this notes file in
general and this note in particular, is to hear about how my peers
perceive social messages about how to "succeed" as women, people,
workers, mothers, etc...
I do not believe in exclusion or discrimination for any reason.
However, I was hoping that male readers of this discussion could
control themselves enough to be sensitive to the purpose of this
file to provide a forum for women to share feelings, experiences,
ideas, hopes, etc. (At least I hope this is a purpose of this file.)
I want to hear how other women feel about the pressure to "succeed"
and if they have developed ways to cope or other ways to define
success or satisfaction for themselves.
It's all very well for you to get up on a soapbox and talk about
how all men "should" be taking equal responsibility. But you
continue the list of tasks for women by saying that when encountering
a "traditional" man, we also have to re-educate him.
When your child is sick, who stays home, or goes to pick him/her
up at school?
Flame Off.
Yes, things are better than they were. But the requirements for
"making it" today are staggering. I don't even have any children
yet, and still I have enough to do to manage a career and home life,
forget social life or continuing education.
My point is, that I take exception to the new image of women as
superpeople who can do everything, be everything, and still have
enough energy left over to just be happy.
|
| 8.6 | maybe, partly... | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Wed Apr 30 1986 09:46 | 49 |
| >Hmmm, First impression is here's another man telling another women how she
>should be.
Huh? All I'm saying is that she shouldn't let herself be
forced into a lifestyle which is evidently not very satisfying
to her.
If a woman *wants* to "do it all", *can* "do it all", then
fine. If she doesn't want to or can't, and there's someone
available to help, it seems, at best, rather unfair. If
she doesn't care to do anything about the situation, that,
again, is her decision.
As for your desire to "hear what women have to say", fine...
my replies aren't stopping anyone, male or female, from either
agreeing or disagreeing. I rather like to hear *everyone's*
opinions. If you don't want to hear mine, don't read them.
On to the real paragraph of your note... I would tend to
agree in that women have traditionally been brought up as
nurturers, considering others' needs (particularly family)
before their own, while men have traditionally been responsible
for providing the raw materials (meat, money) which the woman
turns into kids and nurturing environment (food, clothes,
shelter).
But I don't think it's "duty vs. group"; both were doing
their duties as they and their society defined them. It
is part of the "duty" of both to sacrifice for the well being
of the group---particularly of the family. The difference
was that men, being the providers/protectors, sacrificed
primarily in large ways (risking life to save a child,
travelling widely through dangerous territory to find food,
etc.) while the women as nurturers, at home, were more likely
to sacrifice in the small things (taking the burned toast
or the slightly soured milk); of course, there are more small
sacrifices to be made than large ones, and less of a feeling
of universal significance to them.
Of course, the large sacrifices are generally no longer a
part of our culture... the small ones are, and while many
people have redistributed them more equitably, society as
a whole still lists them under "woman's work".
There *is* a lot of pressure... thousands of years of intertia
don't disperse quickly. The only way to stop it is for everyone
to push against it as much as they can...
/dave
|
| 8.7 | Yikes, shields up, Sulu! | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Wed Apr 30 1986 10:23 | 63 |
| .5: (which got snuck in while I was entering .6)
When this conference was originally announced it was "for
women only", and I stayed out as requested. That designation
was then retracted and men were invited to participate.
If this is supposed to be a hand-holding therapy group for
women, then we should be gone. If this is supposed to be
a discussion group about women, their problems, their role
in society, their duties to society, society's duties toward
women, or any other interesting issues, then men as much
as women should be involved, or you've got a very one sided
and probably not very educational conference.
I *am* sensitive to the purpose of this file, as I understand
it. Obviously you don't understand it the same way, and
it may be that neither of us is "right". You want to "share
feelings, experiences, ideas, hopes, etc."... are none of
mine of interest to you, or do you dislike sharing yours
with me?
> It's all very well for you to get up on a soapbox and talk about
> how all men "should" be taking equal responsibility. But you
> continue the list of tasks for women by saying that when encountering
> a "traditional" man, we also have to re-educate him.
It's to your own benefit to defend yourself. If you're too
busy "doing it all" to defend yourself, you're in no better
position than the manager who says "we don't have time to
write quality software... we're too busy maintaining the
buggy stuff we already *have*!". You don't *have* to re-educate
him, but society would most likely be better off in the long
run if *someone* would. A spouse is in the best position
to try.
> When your child is sick, who stays home, or goes to pick him/her
> up at school?
We don't have kids (yet). Logically, I can only assume we'd
manage it the same way we manage going home to meet delivery
or repair people... if one is more able to get away than
the other, that one does it. Otherwise it's whomever feels
more like getting away. I'd say it works out to about half
and half. Sounds pretty fair to me.
On a more general note, don't flame about my life in a reply
where you're primarily trying to chastise me for commenting
on things which might apply to your life. OK?
> My point is, that I take exception to the new image of women as
> superpeople who can do everything, be everything, and still have
> enough energy left over to just be happy.
My point was exactly the same. I merely attempted to offer
some possible reasons for the "superwoman" mythology and
suggested that it was to the victim's benefit to attempt
to do something about it. I know that's not easy. I
sympathize. If you're not concerned with the sympathy or
contributions of a mere man, well, what can I say? I learned
long ago that there's very little I can do to solve the problems
of the world except to avoid propagating them.
/dave
|
| 8.8 | Cool out Please | ELSIE::LTSMITH | Leslie | Wed Apr 30 1986 15:32 | 30 |
| Hey, can we cool down a bit please? I must admit that I felt a
bit of preaching was going on in some of the replies here, but on
reading today's entries, I believe I misunderstood the authors'
intents.
But haven't we just learned something that was one of the intents
of this file? That even though men and women may have similar goals
that the method of expression often causes us to mis-communicate?
Given this info, we can be sensitive to this and more tolerant of
people in the future. Sounds like we all win there. (Now I'll
stop *my* preaching.)
So, onto the topic. I admit that as a professional woman I must
continually make choices between my career, my spouse, my family,
friends, and community. I ask myself questions like (1) What's
the most important factor now? and (2) What's the affect if I don't
do this? I get frustrated that I must continually do this, but
have you ever heard the adage : always ask a busy person to to take
on something more ('cuz they'll get it done, rather than an idle
person).
When I ask these questions of myself, I also attempt to answer them
for myself and my relationship with my spouse. I try to exclude
what 'society' *says* I should do. So I will never live up to the
'SuperWoman' mystique. Its unattainable and undesirable.
So how do other women handle this? What do you do about things
like house cleaning, child care, vacations? How do you reward yourself
for accomplishments? As far as I'm concerned, if I can be happy
with myself then all the reset will fall into line.
|
| 8.9 | not SUPER anything | NAAD::GERMANN | | Thu May 01 1986 14:08 | 49 |
| Getting back to the original topic ---
Over the past few years I have seen and read lots of things on this
same topic. I don't know that I could say I have followed any specific
ideas, but I think I have developed for myself a life where I am
pretty content with the things I accomplish.
I am a single mother of 3 kids (ages 15, 12, 6). I work full time
and then some for DEC, I attend graduate school (graduation in August),
have a large house with a garden I love, and have a special man
in my life. Sometimes all that seems pretty overwhelming, but I
do manage to keep things going.
Cleaning -- Saturday is the main day for this, although some goes
on during the week. The kids are responsible for their rooms, for
other jobs in the house, and in general we share this load.
School -- this is mine alone. I love it -- it is what I am doing
for me. Much studying is done late at night, during lunch, or in
place of other things.
Kids -- I give them as much of me as I can. We have breakfast and
dinner together and watch the news every night. Otherwise, I try
to take each one, alone, on some shopping trip, play at the park,
etc. at least once a month.
My guy -- We have agreed (kids, man, and I) that Sunday night is
for him and me. We leave the kids, go to his apartment, and we
make dinner, watch TV, go for walks, whatever. Other times we fit
in as we can.
House -- it is never super clean or super repaired. This does not
bother me. I don't need perfection -- it is more than adequate.
In all -- I guess I have accepted that I can't be supermom, super-
housecleaner, super lover, super student, super whatever. I like
what I am, I like the way things go in my life. There are times
I would like to give more to the kids, more to my guy, more to my
house, and more to me, but I don't let them get me down. I know
I am doing a GOOD job at all (not a SUPER job).
Perhaps the impertant thing is to give up trying to be SUPER. I
never could figure out what was wrong with just being GOOD.
Not sure this helps -- not even sure I said what I feel -- but maybe
it is food for thought.
Ellen
|
| 8.10 | also --- | NAAD::GERMANN | | Thu May 01 1986 14:17 | 29 |
| Sorry, I forgot to address day care and DEC.
I have never felt it was my employers responsibility to concern
themselves with my life outside work. This includes what I do with
my kids so I can work (in my case, I have to work, being the sole
support of these kids)
For years, I used the day care facilities offered by the local YMCA.
They have a good program, and all my kids learned to swim well.
I gave them up in January for personal reasons. I now have a young
woman who comes to the house. I love this, because my little one
can now come home. He is very shy and needed the personal attention.
Also, someone is there for my teenagers (who probably need watching
more than the little one.)
My boss has been super to me about my personal situation. I work
at home often. Anytime I have had to leave, or arrive late, for
the kids, there has never been a problem. I have brought my kids
to my office. I even got my office moved to NH so I wouldn't be
an hour away from them. I don't know of other companies that would
be that flexible.
I think DEC has provided me the best means for "having it all".
They pay for my education, they understand when I have to be home
for my kids, they respect my knowledge and professionalism. What
more could I ask??
Ellen
|
| 8.11 | Sizzle | WFRPRT::OPERATOR | | Fri May 02 1986 00:03 | 31 |
| First: Regarding the earlier controversy over whether or not men
should "talk" in the notes section or whether they should
contain their responses to a "Men's ONLY Section."
. I agree with "Flame" in the sense that women should have
a definite space to write in and to feel safe in.
. I also agree with /dave [CLT <giggle>] that men's opinions
have value too. I would never want to oppress anyone
(even those who have oppressed me).
. I think that it can be very difficult to discuss some
very painful and basic issues (integrity and dignity)
with symbols (men) of oppressors.
Second: Should companies do more for their employees in the way of
day care?
YES
. More women have custoday of children than men.
. Women still make only a percentage of what men make.
. Women do not get promoted as often as men.
While the above facts are gradually changing, it is still unfair
to expect women to work longer, harder, get paid less, and
then tell them, "You have to provide for these kids, but we're
not going to give you enough money, support or credit for trying
to "do it all--after all you are a woman."
Mel
|
| 8.12 | (-; That's *Sir* Oppressor, to you! ;-) | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Fri May 02 1986 10:20 | 44 |
| I don't much enjoy being called an "oppressor"---or even
a "symbol of oppressors", but I'll forgive you (probably
because I was still smiling from the "<giggle>" when I got
to that part... :-))
RE: "You have to provide for these kids, but we're not going
to give you enough money, [etc]". I won't argue the issues
of lower compensation and generally having to work harder
for the same performance reviews... while I haven't noticed
that around here, there are only a few cases where I *know*
it's not true, and I don't generally look at others' performance
reviews or paychecks. I don't doubt that it's true many,
many places, likely even in Digital.
Nevertheless, I've never heard of a case where someone says
"you *have* to provide for these kids". Usually, it's more
of a case of "want". Most single parents come from divorce.
In most divorces, both parents appear to want custody: in
nearly all of such cases, the courts give them to the women.
If the women involved really thought they couldn't take care
of them, those women could always have let the fathers take
custody. In the case of women who choose to have children
without a mate... well, the word "choose" is instrumental
here: there are a number of alternatives it shouldn't be
necessary to go into.
I realize there are sometimes other factors involved which
may give the mother no "practical" choice... but I doubt
that's common. In general, a single mother has children,
by whatever mechanism, because, for one reason or another,
she *wants* them, not because she's forced into it.
I also realize that it would be hard to give up kids, at
a divorce or any other time, and I know that our skewed society
can make it difficult for single women to take care of the
kids it encourages them to have (after all, women tend to
win custody in divorce because society *expects* them to
take the kids). I suppose I'm arguing more with what you
said than with what I assume you meant (with which I have
no argument).
That being the case, I should probably shut up... :-)
/dave
|
| 8.13 | Set FLAME/ON | VORTEX::JOVAN | the Music kiss.... | Fri May 02 1986 16:01 | 66 |
| re:
Note 8.12 Having It All
CLT::BUTENHOF "Approachable Systems"
-< (-; That's *Sir* Oppressor, to you! ;-) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nevertheless, I've never heard of a case where someone says
> "you *have* to provide for these kids". Usually, it's more
> of a case of "want".
Well, dave, you are hearing of one now. 12 1/2 years (1974) ago when I was
divorced, I was *made* to have custody of my child. At the time, I wanted
the divorce to be written so that both my ex and myself would have equal
responsibility for our child. I was told at that time, that it was not
possible, since my ex did not want the responsibility, although he did
*want* the child at the time I became pregnant and that if I insisted upon
this condition, my son would have to be put in a state foster child home, as
my ex would not accept the divorce to be written that way.
> In general, a single mother has children,
> by whatever mechanism, because, for one reason or another,
> she *wants* them, not because she's forced into it.
Please refer to above.
> I also realize that it would be hard to give up kids, at
> a divorce or any other time, and I know that our skewed society
> can make it difficult for single women to take care of the
> kids it encourages them to have (after all, women tend to
> win custody in divorce because society *expects* them to
> take the kids).
It is hard, damn hard. I have given up my child basically for financial
reasons. I could not afford to raise him anymore. Do you realize what it
takes to raise a child from birth to adulthood?? A 12 almost 13 year old
is very demanding and does not have any sense of *paycheck*.
Right after my divorce, I had to go on welfare in order to finish my
college. I did so, and worked as a waitress at nights in order to pay the
rent and feed myself and my child. I should mention here that his father
conveniently left the country for two years, so I received no child support
from him then, or for 3 years after that. As soon as I was out of college I
started work, for minimum wage, and was immediately taken off welfare. As
it was considered that I could now afford to raise my child without help.
Little did I know how much those waitress tips counted... Needless to say
the rent got paid and we ate, but we never had any extra. In 1980 I was
remarried and for the next 5 years could breath a little easier because I
had two incomes to count on for the support of my son. But then, I was
divorced again and lived for 6 months with my 12 year old on my own. At
the end of that time, I had to borrow money for rent and food, as my
*paycheck* did not meet all the demands that a single mother faces.
So dave, there are cases, where we *have* to take care of our children even
though we did not plan it this way. And in most of these cases a woman has
to work double or triple the time a man does in order to do it. I feel
since you don't have any children, are a man who has not had to raise any
children, that you ought to keep your generalities to yourself.
I don't mean to repress the oppressor, (or do I?). Please continue to
submit your contributions to this file. However, you have hit a very
touchy button with me here. I can not read it and not reply. :-}
Angeline
|
| 8.14 | set jacket/flame_proof, ok? | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Sat May 03 1986 17:25 | 27 |
| In the purest, technical, noncompassionate, unemotional sense,
you *did* have a choice... you could, theoretically, have
put your child with someone else. In actual practice, that
wasn't a very reasonable alternative; but as I said, I was
objecting more to the words rather than the intent of "being
*forced* to take care of the kids". I certainly don't see
why you felt it necessary to "flame" back at me... although
I must say that, as flames go, you were pretty nice about
it.
You'll have to forgive me, I have this (probably bad) habit
of arguing with someone, when I understood and agreed with
what they meant, but they simply didn't say it accurately.
I tend to react violently to people talking about absolutes.
Of course, if I hadn't felt insulted over being lumped with
"the oppressors", I probably wouldn't have started the reply
at all, much less wandered over into commenting on the other
part. I probably should be more forgiving about that, too,
since this is, after all, a conference primarily oriented
towards women's problems---many of which do originate with
oppressive traditions of primarily male society. Nevertheless,
*I* have never oppressed anyone... and the same is likely
true of most if not all of the other men who might be interested
enough to read this conference.
/dave
|
| 8.15 | Sizzle | WFRPRT::OPERATOR | | Sun May 04 1986 10:50 | 81 |
| Dave, I have several responses to your last two notes. I would
like to preface my remarks, though. What I say should not be taken
as an insult. None of my remarks are personal attacks. (At least
that is what I'm striving for.)
First, regarding my earlier note, I was not talking in "absolutes".
I also feel that it is not unusual for men to "react violently."
The reason that I have not included women in this statement is because
women have not been conditioned to think of violence as a solution
for themselves, i.e., girls do not play "war" as much as boys, and
girls do not get into fights as often as boys. I also am not judging
men, I am merely stating a fact. Now it is very possible that I
just overreacted to your use of the word violently because I'm sure
that what you meant to say was that you get very angry when people
talk about absolutes.
So much for the bad habit of arguing semantics when you "really
agree with what the other person said."
> I have never repressed anyone.
I have never repressed anyone, at least not to my knowledge, and
if I did, a thousand pardons. However, because I am "white" I am
an oppressor to people of color. I am a symbol of oppression to
all people of color. That does not necessarily mean that I,
specifically have oppressed anyone. It does mean that because I
belong to a group that has typically oppressed people of color,
I therefore own a portion of the responsibility for correcting the
wrongs in as much as I can. At the same time, being an indirect
oppressor does not mean that I am a "bad" person. All it really
means is that I need to be extra careful not to oppress anyone
typically oppressed by my "people." (Like the American Indians).
What I was so loquaciously trying to say was, "I was not lumping
you with the oppressors, nor was I intimating that you have oppressed
anyone. I was making an indirect association that exists by virtue
of your sex and conditioning by society. Unfortunately, there are
somethings which are difficult, if not impossible to change. This
is one of them.
On to content....
1. You state that wimmin in general do not experience the problems
that I stated earlier. You stated that wimmin in DEC do not have
those problems. Well, DEC is a big company, but it's not that big.
Of all the wimmin in the world, I could say a whole lot more than
I did about the injustices of male oppression. Even if I cut the
range down to just wimmin in the U.S. I could say more than I did.
Most single mothers come from disadvantaged backgrounds, i.e., they
have not had the luck, $, etc. to even be able to get a job with
DEC. Are you suggesting that wimmin at DEC have created a standard
for ALL wimmin in the U.S.??? If so, then we have come NOWHERE
NEAR the mark!
More wimmin and children live in poverty than any other group of
people.
To say that "wimmin in general" have a choice is not only inaccurate,
it is absurd.
To say that "wimmin in general" have the options of birth control
available and open to them in a time when birth control clinics
are being bombed and sex education is being banned in schools and
pro-lifers are gaining sentiment and momentum is more than just
uniformed, it is a good example of oppression through dening the
true nature of things.
To say that wimmin could give their children to their fathers is
to deny that entire social existence of conditioning and it is also
assuming that fathers WANT their children. (Many more fathers DO
wnat their children now, so I don't want you to think that I'm saying
they don't. I'm only saying that still the MAJORITY of fathers
in custody cases do not want their children.
Mel
|
| 8.16 | I am a human being, not a symbol. | VAXUUM::DYER | Iceberg or Volcano? | Mon May 05 1986 01:01 | 3 |
| To label people in a divisive way is to alienate allies.
Unity works much better.
<_Jym_>
|
| 8.17 | sigh, here we go again... | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Mon May 05 1986 10:02 | 55 |
| .15:
> So much for the bad habit of arguing semantics when you "really
> agree with what the other person said."
Touch�. I never said I wasn't sometimes prone to the same
failings for which I rag on other people. Does that mean
I'm not perfect? Aww...
> I have never repressed anyone, at least not to my knowledge, and
> if I did, a thousand pardons. However, because I am "white" I am
> an oppressor to people of color. I am a symbol of oppression to
> all people of color.
I'd have to argue very strongly against this one. If you
haven't oppressed anyone, you aren't an oppressor. Those who
have been historically opressed may choose to *consider* you an
oppressor, but that doesn't make them right. Labels aren't a
very good way to judge people. If you insist on considering me
"the enemy" just because I'm different from you, you are
practicing exactly the sort of prejudicial descrimination
which caused you to consider men as oppressors to begin with.
Do you think that's somehow OK for you, even though you
agree it was wrong of them?
*Everyone* should try to be "extra careful" not to oppress
*anyone*. Whether the historical predecessors of the
"oppressees" had also been "oppressees" or even oppressors
should really be irrelevant.
And *everyone* owns a portion of the responsibility for
correcting the wrongs as much as they can... you no more nor
less than I. It's not a question of sharing responsibility for
the oppression, though, merely of having a responsibility, by
virtue of sharing the universe with each other, of seeing that
everyone (including ourselves) has the opportunity to make the
most of of that shared universe as possible.
This won't work as long as people cling to "us" versus "them"
mentality, whether it's "women vs. men", "blacks vs. whites",
"americans vs. soviets", or any others. These are battles
between labels: we're not labels (at least, *I'm* not!), we're
humans. Humans have no real stake in such battles, because the
only way anybody can really "win" any of them is by forgetting
the labels and coming down to the basic fact that, like it or
not, people have to live together, and it behooves us to enjoy
each other for what we are.
Of course, we're not close to this ideal state. But at best,
you're diluting your efforts by fighting "men", and likely
turning off some allies in the process. If you need a label,
how about "people who are oppressing women"? Not all of them
are men, you know. And sure as hell not all men are them.
/dave
|
| 8.18 | Meanwhile, back at the topic.... | MOSAIC::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Mon May 05 1986 15:33 | 16 |
| I tried to "have it all" when my kids were growing up: work fulltime,
keep the kids feeling loved, carry a full courseload at school, and
have a (rudimentary) social life.
The social life was the first to go. Then I hit gradschool and
it was like trying to run a footrace through treacle. I had to
pare back my courseload to 3/4 time and then 1/2 time and then finally
when the kids said they still felt neglected I just gave it up and
went back to industry to work, at least it wasn't starvation wages
(and I had had a Staff rather than Faculty appointment!).
Now the kids are grown and away and I'm seriously toying with going
back and finally finishing the *#$@!^* degree. I didn't have what
it took first time 'round, but maybe it'd be easier now.
=maggie
|
| 8.19 | what makes women different...? | HYDRA::BARANSKI | Did YOU wake up with a smile? :-> | Tue May 06 1986 11:00 | 4 |
| What makes women think that they should/could/have to "have it all"? Women's
Lib? Have you ever heard of a man saying he should/could/have to "have it all"?
Jim.
|
| 8.20 | IT IS *NOT* A CHOICE | VORTEX::JOVAN | the Music kiss.... | Wed May 07 1986 10:37 | 7 |
| Re: 14 - you *did* have a choice...
Dave - i do not consider giving my child to a state foster home
a choice. IT IS NOT A CHOICE. I don't understand how you can perceive
it to be one.
angeline
|
| 8.21 | | PAUPER::KIMBROUGH | gailann, maynard, ma... | Wed May 07 1986 11:31 | 43 |
|
I am a young mother of two girls... I say young as I am soon to
be thirty and they are 8 and 10 years of age. My husband left us
for parts unknown 4 years ago and for 3 years following his departure
we had little to no contact with him. What I did know of him I
found out from some of his family that were willing to talk to me
and let me know that he was at least o.k.
For four years now I have been working at least 2 jobs to make ends
meet.. at one time I was working 4!!! Two outside the home and
2 inside... I went through a period where a social life was just
something I heard about but never had time for. I am still working
2 to 3 nights a week as a bartender on top of my full time job here
with DEC as a secretary. I am tired.. I am still young and want
to do things that young people do and often I can't as I am working
or trying to make up to the girls when I am home for the times when
I am not. This is a rough existence... We are making it, not easily
but we manage. Every year that goes by seems to add expenses..
this year it was music lessons, dance lessons, an increased wardrobe
as the girls are getting older and are now getting into that stuff.
Finally after all this time their father is once again keeping in
touch. He is taking them for the summer and for the first time
in 10 years I will actually have a break. I will have to continue
to work the way I do so as to have enough money put away for when
they come back.
The kicker is he has a real good job now.. makes twice what I make
but refuses to pay child support. I mean I could push it but he
will just quit his job and disappear if I do. The bargain he is offering
me now is he will take them summers and support them fully while
he has them, pay their air fair both ways and he would also like
to take one next year and have her go to school out there with him.
He has even hired a Nanny for when he has them. This is fair to
him and because I want the girls to know their father and be able
to spend time with him and yes I need a break this is what I am
accepting. So for 9 months out of the year I can rest a little
but for the rest of the time I am their sole support. God if this
is having it all then I am missing something.
later, gailann
|
| 8.22 | Women's Lib? Hardly. | MOSAIC::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Wed May 07 1986 12:08 | 33 |
| <--(.19)
No, Jim, you are quite right: men rarely say anything about "hav[ing]
it all".
Men are considered Men if only they have a career and a sex life
(no I'm not being snide). Having a family is an "extra", valued
in some circumstances for its "steadying" effect, devalued in others
for its demands.
Women, on the other hand, are not considered Women without children
and (at least the history of) a husband. And the willingness to
work at being a reasonable cook, housekeeper, and so forth ad
infinitum. Having a career buys nothing in terms of cultural
expectations.
That this division is still considered the norm may be seen
in the popularity of the comic strip "Adam" in which those "normal"
social roles are reversed. Sitcom humor.
So if a woman wants to be both self-sufficient AND validated by
the culture as a Woman, she's to "have [and do] it all": have a
full-time paid career (at which she will in general earn 64% of
what a man will earn), have and raise children, be a competent
homemaker, keep herself as attractive as possible, and try to find
time for a social life. If she also has a husband, he will often
be more an energy sink than a supplement (this has changed for some
women especially in the US but is by no means the norm anywhere
yet).
No, Jim, not "Women's Lib". Reality.
=maggie
|
| 8.23 | can I say something.. | CAD::SULLIVAN | | Wed May 07 1986 13:57 | 36 |
| I've just read all the replies to this note, and I keep hearing people
say that they have no (little) choice, and that they are pressured into
roles by society. I tend to agree with Dave that you have a choice in
all things. Of course your morals will make some choices impossible, and so
you make the best of things. As a popular book/movie says, "no one ever
promised you a rose garden". [By the way, I was surprised by the flack
Dave got from his first reply, I agreed with him, and didn't know he was
"male" until I read his signature, would you have complained if a woman
wrote that note?]
As to pressure from society, do you really have to listen? I've long ago
learned that I can respect myself regardless of how my peers feel (even
if you wish they'd agree with you). I can't really blame men for putting
me in the "woman's" role, when I find myself doing it to me (how often
have you wished someone would solve a problem for you and a man's image has
popped into your head before you realize that you're being sexist).
Now what was this note about? How do I cope with everything? I (fortunately?)
don't have any children, so I do not have to worry about them (yet?). I
do find myself living a hectic schedule with my husband. We both work full
time, I garden, We're finishing our basement, etc. I find that weekends are
the only time we can do any shopping, which leaves us little time for
house-cleaning. I tend to let things slide a little, but my husband likes
things very neat, and will often stay up late cleaning the house. We have
slid into jobs that each of us do. He mows the lawn, I garden. We try to
work in the same area (both outside, both inside) so that we have each other's
company even if we can't talk.
We prioritize, and we share. Sure we sometimes argue about what work each
one does, but it's not based on sexist roles. I don't think it will change
even if we do have kids.
Hope I didn't ramble on to much. My basic points are sharing tasks and
prioritizing them (just like you do at work).
...Karen
|
| 8.24 | assorted replies... | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Wed May 07 1986 14:28 | 32 |
| .20: It all depends on how you mean "choice", I suppose.
Technically, you *always* have a choice, and that's what
I'm talking about. Your own preferences, beliefs, and the
particular situation may cause you to discard some of those
choices as personally unacceptable, but that doesn't mean
they weren't choices. Certainly you *wouldn't* give your
children up to an adoption agency. But you *could* if all
other alternatives were less attractive. If you think about
it positively, you'll probably realize there are advantages
to the "more attractive" alternative you chose (even if it's
not optimal) which could give you reason to be happy with
your choice. Like the fact that you have your kids with
you.
It's a matter of your *attitude* towards what you do. If
you look for reasons to be gloomy, you'll always find plenty,
no matter how great your life might seem to an outsider.
But you can always find reasons to be happy, too; and life
is usually more fun that way.
.22: Yep, unfortunately, that's about how things are. But, as
several replies have suggested, you should realize that you
don't really need the approval of the rest of society to be
happy... especially when society is a bit sick. Live for
yourself and try not to let yourself be forced into someone
else's image of who you should be.
.23: Thankyou, thankyou! I was beginning to think I was
all alone here, with the whole world against me. The sound
of a friendly voice was much appreciated...
/dave
|
| 8.25 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Wed May 07 1986 15:19 | 22 |
|
Naaaawwww, Dave, we all luv ya; it's just your imagination, you're
misinterpreting things. <snicker>
Seriously, though, the question of power is a vexed and vexing one
whether for philosophers, psychologists, or just folks. We are
not merely the helpless and hopeless victims of forces far beyond
or control, but we are also by no means so powerfully autonomous
as we might like.
As you point out, we do usually have choices at least in a technical
sense ...but often they are more apparent than real because the real
power is vested outside ourselves. Fact of life. For example, we all
theoretically have free choice of occupation consonant with our
training and skill. If someone will hire us. And we have free choice
of where to live depending on our financial resources. If someone will
rent/sell to us. And so forth. Will someone hire us/rent to
us/whatever? Sure, if we aren't female/black/whatever.
Nobody owns many free choices on significant issues.
=maggie
|
| 8.26 | i agree. | VORTEX::JOVAN | the Music kiss.... | Wed May 07 1986 17:21 | 3 |
| Thank you Maggie.
angeline
|
| 8.27 | sigh | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Wed May 07 1986 17:44 | 28 |
| .25: Yes, Maggie, but remember there's a difference between
wanting a particular job and having someone tell you you
can't have it... and being perfectly capable of taking the
job but choosing to take another job: even if you would really
like to take the first job but it doesn't pay enough money,
is in the wrong place, or whatever.
They are two very different sorts of contraint on your free
choice. There's nothing good to be said about the first case,
no honest way to put the constraint in a positive light (aside
from possibly "I wouldn't want to work for a jerk like that
anyway"); but in the second, you *did* make a free choice, and
in most cases you can apply the constraints in a positive manner
("with this job I can see more of my family", or "... afford
better food", or "... go out to dinner more often"), rather than
applying the constraint in a negative manner ("If I take the job
I *want*, I won't be able to eat"). After all, just because
half the world's out to make your life miserable doesn't mean
you have to help them.
By the way, just in case it's not completely obvious (a
re-reading shows it's perhaps not quite as obvious as I thought
at the time), the final paragraph of .24 was supposed to
be humorous. (I *enjoy* having the world against me... but
this time I'll remember to add a :-))
/dave "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean
they're not out to get you"
|
| 8.28 | WORRIED ABOUT THE FOREST | JETSAM::HANAUER | Mike Hanauer, 223-5991, PK01/F3 | Thu May 08 1986 12:26 | 19 |
| Have been only an observer of this notes file, and expect to remain so.
But, I do have an overall concern which I feel compelled to share.
There is some pretty heavy human emotion, even hostility, being aired.
I suspect some people have tears while making replies.
Is a computer notes file, which can emit no "human warmth", no body
language, no real-time response and no qualified professional moderator
a *constructive* forum; or might it be destructive in too many cases. Is
it creating personal grudges which would not exist, or at least be
quickly resolved, if it were a true and in person discussion group or
group therapy session.
The issues are real and honest. But is the media as constructive as the
participants deserve?
Mike
|
| 8.29 | changes | 6639::SHUBIN | Sponsor me in a walk for AIDS research and care. | Thu May 08 1986 17:34 | 44 |
| re: .22 (maggie's note: "Women's Lib? Hardly.")
> Men are considered Men if only they have a career and a sex life...
> Women, on the other hand, are not considered Women without children
> and (at least the history of) a husband...
How much this affects you (men or women) depends on how important
you consider someone else's opinion. I've learned that although it's
hard to ignore or brush off what other people think about me, it is
possible. A lifetime of conditioning make us sensitive to being "men"
and "women" (or whatever other categories), but after years of fighting
it, i've managed to not care (too much) if someone thinks that i'm
wrong because i don't do what i'm "supposed" to do.
It may be possible to change other people, but that's harder than
changing ourselves; at least we have control over our selves.
Sometimes it means fighting against what we've been taught, which is hard.
If enough people change themselves, the others will have to adapt, or
they'll just be outnumbered. It's not easy, but if it were easy, it
would be done already.
> That this division is still considered the norm may be seen
> in the popularity of the comic strip "Adam" in which those "normal"
> social roles are reversed. Sitcom humor.
It may be "sitcom humor", but i think it's great. Think about all the
kids who grow up seeing at least one man responsible for "women's
work"; they might actually learn something from the strip. Granted,
the strip sometimes pokes fun at Adam, but i they get some good points
in.
> So if a woman wants to be both self-sufficient AND validated by
> the culture as a Woman, she's to "have [and do] it all":
Aside from letting yourself be what you want to be, you can have an
effect on "the culture". When you see advertisements that imply
certain standards for women (or men, or people in general) write a
letter. i've been doing it for a couple of years; i'm not sure how
much of an effect i've had on them, but i make me feel better by doing
something.
-- hal
|
| 8.30 | | NFL::CANNOY | John Dillinger died for you | Fri May 09 1986 10:14 | 32 |
| I don't want it all.
I think I must be lucky because I rarely allow other people's
opinions to influence me. The opinions I value come from those
close to me, but run-of-the-mill persons saying to me, "You
should do thus" get short shrift.
I can't work, keep house, and have children. I decided not to
have children, EVER and my partner quite agrees. We have our
house cleaned by someone else twice a month. We are lucky in
that we can afford to do that.
I don't try to live up to other people's expectations. It
doesn't bother me that if someone drops in for a visit, they are
apt to find 2 weeks of newspapers stacked at the end of the
couch, and yesterday's dishes in the sink. I have a high untidy
tolerance.
But the time I am not working is definitely "quality" time. I
enjoy my life. I garden, but not fanatically. I would rather
spend Sat. morning in bed reading and drinking coffee, than
feeling I MUST get up and do something "useful".
I have found that I want to enjoy my life and sharing the lives
of people I love is much more important to me than accomplishing
things society deems to be right and proper and imperative for
everyone to do.
Free yourself from the chains of expectations. Rise up and dare
to enjoy your life.
Tamzen
|
| 8.31 | commercials | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Fri May 09 1986 11:15 | 21 |
| >When you see advertisements that imply
>certain standards for women (or men, or people in general) write a
>letter. i've been doing it for a couple of years...
You must not watch much TV... after one evening of commercials
you'd go broke just from the stamps.
Besides, advertisers spend a *lot* of money on those ads... and
they do lots of research to see how well they work. I doubt
they'd be shown if the companies involved weren't pretty well
convinced they were selling product... (although most of them
are more likely to convince me *not* to buy it). Most companies
aren't going to let minor quibbles about morality interfere with
their profits. Although it can't hurt to try...
Then, of course, there's Dave Barry's theory that those
commercials (specifically Wisk) haven't sold a thing in 30
years, but there's these aliens who have threatened to blow
us all up if the ads stop coming... :-)
/dave
|
| 8.32 | FYI | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Fri May 09 1986 11:43 | 17 |
| By the way, there was a long (overly long, in fact) article
in the Nashua Telegraph yesterday about some research claiming
that (as of '83, the latest data they had, apparently) 5
million wives (they say this is something like 16 or 18%...
I don't have the article here) make "more" money than their
husbands. Unfortunately, for all that the article ran a
good half of the page, it didn't make much of this data,
or explain things like "how much more", whether the husband
was working at all, what sorts of jobs they had, etc. (there
was speculation, but nothing which they even implied to be
backed up by data).
Which of course all basically means that the data is virtually
useless, at best proves nothing, and at worst may be misleading.
Still, for whatever it's worth, here it is.
/dave
|
| 8.33 | GONNA DO IT!! | SPIDER::BAINE | Kathleen Baine MLO21-3 x223-9164 | Fri May 09 1986 17:58 | 28 |
| WOW! When I started this file, I had no idea the responses would
be as many or as explosive as they were. I think my original intent
was to ask for practical tips on how to make life easier - how to
find a good, reliable sitter, or cleaning service. I DO have a helpful
spouse - he's certainly done his share of diaper changing, dishes,
staying home with a sick child, not to mention being in the delivery
room holding my hand when both girls were born. I don't feel pressured
from others to work, have children etc. I do it to myself. But ...I'm
not going to do it anymore!! June 20th is my last day as a full
time worker at DEC. I'm leaving to stay home with my little girls,
one just a 6-month old infant, and write free-lance on my Rainbow
in the few hours they are asleep. My husband enthusiastically endorses
this, and even tho it will mean a lot less money, we feel this will
be easier on everyone. After I decided to do this, I gave a big
mental sigh of relief. I feel so good about myself.
Good luck to all of you other working moms out there. I wish each
of you could find a solution. I never felt like I was trying to
do it all - I think I WANTED it all, and now I know I can't HAVE
it all. Kind of like when Dorothy says in the Wizard of Oz - If
it wasn't to be found in my own back yard, it wasn't very important
to begin with. I feel great. I'm going to stay home with my sweet
babies most of the time, get them out of the day care center, and
keep a hand in on my writing and keep up, somewhat, with the computer
technology. My only regret in leaving is I won't have my own VAX
account and won't be able to converse electronically with you all.
Sign me a little scared, but happy, Kathleen Baine - Having it all
- MY WAY!!!@@
|
| 8.34 | Men don't cry | PAMPAM::WYMAN | bob wyman | Sat May 10 1986 20:17 | 26 |
| In re 8.28:
First, if you want to discuss the appropriateness of notesfiles
why don't you do it someplace more appropriate? Perhaps in a separate
note.
Second, you say "I suspect some people have tears while making
replies."... Why tears? Men don't cry... Must be because there are
women writing here and you know it. Sounds pretty sexist to me.
I suggest that if this was a predominantly male conference that
you would have used a phrase like "people are getting pretty upset"
or "things are getting very personal" or something similar.
You may complain that you don't believe your comment to be sexist.
That at least you didn't intend it to be so. However, it's the
unconscious sexism based on the learned "differences" between men
and women that is the most dangerous. Do us all, and yourself, a
great favour and please try to guard against such things in the
future. Every comment like yours, when in a context such as this,
tends to reinforce the image of women as people who are weak.
(Yes, I know that tears don't *mean* that you are weak... Yet, society
teaches us that they are a sign of weakness. This is one of the
lessons that we must work to overcome.)
bob wyman
|
| 8.35 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Mon May 12 1986 10:06 | 13 |
| <--(.33)
Congrats and BEST of Luck, Kathleen!
(If it isn't too future-oriented a question: are you ever planning
to rejoin the rest of us rats in the race? <grin> My kids had
very mixed feelings in adolescence about my working: they were
proud of me, and the girls were grateful for the role model, but
they also envied the kids whose mothers worked at home (i.e., "didn't
work", in traditional terminology) for the support and "storybook
goodness" in those kids had in their lives.)
=maggie
|
| 8.36 | so what's wrong with tears? | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Mon May 12 1986 10:06 | 31 |
| .33: I would think that would be a tough choice. One of
the reasons we haven't had kids yet is that we both want
to work... and yet we both want to be with the hypothetical
kid(s). We haven't come up with a satisfactory solution.
I hope you have a happy life with your decision... if you're
really doing things "your way", you probably can't lose!
.34: Who says "men don't cry"? Another sexual stereotype
as damaging as "women are weak", which we'd do well to snuff
out. Tears are a natural emotional response; and even if
tears themselves haven't flowed over some of the stuff in
this conference, I'm sure the necessary emotional states
have been provoked in readers of both sex.
I've never cried due to anger or hurt over anything in this
conference... as I said somewhere else, I've been reading
notes and usenet mailings long enough to have a less personal
philosophical outlook on flames. However, I've come close
to tears while laughing over a few of the little prods in
my direction recently (presumably provoked by my "paranoia
note").
In any case, Bob, if the writer of the note you're commenting on
truely did intend something sexist, well, perhaps it was good of
you to point it out. However, what about assuming that the
writer was being sexist merely because "tears" were mentioned
and you assume they would not have been had this not been a
largely feminine audience? To me, that sounds more sexist
than merely referring to emotional response by saying "tears".
/dave
|
| 8.37 | Rejoining the Ratrace? | SPIDER::BAINE | Kathleen Baine MLO21-3 x223-9164 | Mon May 12 1986 11:19 | 32 |
| TO Margaret:
At this point, I'm not planning to rejoin the ratrace. I want to
give this new venture my full attention and opportunity for a while.
Who knows, it could be just as crazy being at home with the children.
I've never done that befoer - just the 12 shorts weeks after each
was born, then right back to work. But right now, my instincts
tell me that once I get used to setting my own hours, workstyle,
projects, etc., I won't want to come back to the regular job, unless
something catastropic happened (like my husband died), and i had
to. And I've found that as the children get older, they need you
more than when they were infants. I want to be there if my daughters
are in sports - which is likely because one is already quite
athletically inclined - and those take a lot of parental participation,
not to mention if they get involved in other after-school activities
like Brownies, drama, or other things kids do. I feel very strongly
about wanting to be home when my kids get home from school - so
I can be there to hear about all their little trimphs and sorrows
so important to a child. Or be their if they want time to themselves
to read a book or play by themselves and not have to be around other
children at a sitter's or at a day care center, or if they want
to have a friend over for the afternoon after school. Tough to do
that if mom is working and there's no one home. Right now, I would
say I would never allow my child to come home to an empty house.
I know there are many very responsible, latchkey kids, but the idea
scares the willy out of me. There are too many sickies out there
just looking for kids who are alone and left to their own defenses.
Anyway, that topic makes me a little crazy, so I'll just sign off
and thanks for the words of encouragement. If I ever do come back
to work, I'll apply to DEC first. It's been a wonderful company
to work for. Kathleen
|
| 8.38 | | PIGGY::LEWIS | | Thu May 15 1986 13:20 | 12 |
| (Oppression)
Just wanted to make a comment or two.....
I feel that ANYONE who believes they have never "oppressed" another
is not being honest with themselves. Take a closer look....oppression
comes in many forms, many of which don't appear as such on the surface
(e.g. telling or laughing at ethnic or sexist jokes).
The tough part is identifying this type of behavior in ourselves.
Once that's accomplished, eliminating that behavior isn't too difficult
if there's a desire to do so.
|
| 8.39 | Oppressors Are Made, Not Born | VAXUUM::DYER | Iceberg or volcano? | Thu May 15 1986 15:22 | 11 |
| [RE .38]: We're digressing, so I'll be short.
Some of us *have* taken that closer look, identified such
behavior and eliminated it.
Some of us came of age during the latest wave of feminism,
with raised consciousness.
Some of us grew up in "abnormal" circumstances that hindered
our assimilation of "normal" sex-role behaviors.
And some of us are just misfits who never did figure out how
to oppress anybody in the first place.
<_Jym_>
(All of the Above)
|
| 8.40 | One more for the road... | JETSAM::URATO | | Tue Jun 03 1986 12:36 | 46 |
| re: 8.33:
Congrats, Kathleen!!!
I, too, am headed back to the homestead after being w/ DEC for almost
9 years.
The stress caused by an overload of working full time, trying to
keep up with the housework (w/ the help of my husband), cooking,
shopping, landscaping, major renovations to the house, spending
time with the puppy, teaching a class one night a week and trying
to train 4-5 times a week for myself is burning me out. Am also
trying to start a family, and having a rough time in that department,
but how could I possibly fit kids into this schedule, anyway??
Someone said to me, "Why don't you stop training." Ya, right, and
just work for the rest of my days. I figure that the training helps
relieve some of the stress caused by the 95 other things I try to
accomplish every day.
Finally my schedule got to me, and I decided I had to do something
about it. I got approval for a personal LOA (in case I later realize
I made the wrong move, so I could come back). My last day will
be 6/12.
We've planned for years living off one check (installed wood stove,
solar hot water, etc.), but giving up the check I've always brought
home is still really scary. And it will be quite an adjustment,
but we're determined to make it work.
I guess to me "having it all" doesn't necessarily include an outside
career, new clothes and other material things I'll be giving up.
Having more time to be with my family means more to me. I won't
be a "lady of leisure" (I hate hearing people say that, when they
hear I'm quitting work OUTSIDE THE HOME), but will be working my
butt off at home. And enjoying it.
Sorry this is so long, but I'd like to say one more thing: I just
found out about this notes file, and already feel that I'm going
to miss it. I really admire everyone that is able to have a house,
family and career, and is able to successfully juggle everything.
I don't even have kids yet; I don't know how you do it.
Take care,
Jake
|
| 8.41 | Some Comments | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | | Wed Jun 11 1986 14:21 | 48 |
| I just finished reading this file and found it very interesting.
I have several comments.
Re: Sullivan (I'm sorry I don't remember your first name or note
number) your situation - happily married, with enough money, and
no children - certainly sounds ideal. But, unfortunately is far
from typical in today's world. I think the problem is how do those
of us in less fortunate circumstances cope with career, children
and housework.
Re: the man who said, "Why do women think they should have it all?"
My initial response to that is, "Because MEN have ALWAYS had it
all!" Men have always had careers, wives, homes, children and hobbies.
Why can't women also have careers, husbands, homes, children and
hobbies? That's what "having it all" means to me. Besides, a lot
of women work because they need the money, not because they want
careers. These women may be forced to have it all whether they
actually want it all or not.
Angeline, Maggie and Mel, I appreciate and agree with all your
comments!
Gailann, I can't even imagine having to raise two kids alone! I
really hope you enjoy your free time while the kids are with their
father. You deserve a break.
I have the most mixed feelings in regard to the two women who ae
are quitting work and staying home for awhile with their families.
The only reason you have this option is because you are each married
to men who earn enough money for you to do this and who apparently
don't mind your doing this. Part of me is bitterly envious of you
for this opportunity. Staying at home to pursue my personal interests
and have a child is a lot more appealing to me than working as a
secretary at Digital. However, since I am divorced with one child
and not independently wealthy, it is not an option I have. Also,
I think it is not an option for a lot of women today. Given the
high cost of living and the high frequency of divorce, most women
today HAVE to work - either to help their husbands or to support
themselves and possibly kids. It is because the option of being
a stay at home wife and mother is quickly slipping into the realm
of fantasy, that it is so important that the conditions of working
women be addressed now - i.e. money, respect, daycare.
Also, I really don't like the idea of women being economically
dependent on men. That's what got us into this mess to begin with!!
Lorna
|
| 8.42 | I agree! | VORTEX::JOVAN | the Music kiss.... | Wed Jun 11 1986 14:50 | 5 |
| Right on! (to coin a phrase..)
Thanks Lorna - your comments are great.
Angeline
|
| 8.43 | but "having it all" isn't all good! | KALKIN::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Thu Jun 12 1986 12:55 | 53 |
| .41:
> Re: the man who said, "Why do women think they should have it all?"
> My initial response to that is, "Because MEN have ALWAYS had it
> all!" Men have always had careers, wives, homes, children and hobbies.
> Why can't women also have careers, husbands, homes, children and
> hobbies? That's what "having it all" means to me. Besides, a lot
But men *haven't* always "had it all", even in that sense.
In any case, this topic has focused more on "being expected
to *do* it all", but more on that later.
Men have traditionally had careers, wives, homes, children,
and hobbies because the career and hobbies came first. Homes
were places to relax and sleep, wives were tools to ensure
that the home was clean, food was available, sex was plentiful,
and there were babies. Children were fun toys when they
felt like it, and could be counted on to stay out of the
way otherwise (another job of the convenient wife).
That's not *my* idea of "having it all". I can't see leaving
it solely to my wife to maintain the house, and when/if we
have kids I sure as hell want to be intimately involved in
their lives. That takes *time*, and the time comes out of
career and hobbies.
A woman who wants "it all" has the same problems. Priorities
have to be set, and time has to be allocated. You *can't*,
physically, spend full time with the kids if you want a career.
If both parents work, and can't manage non-conflicting work
schedules, than *neither* is with the kids... they're in
a daycare center somewhere. If they *can* manage
non-conflicting schedules, then, as a team (but not
individually), they may spend more time with the kids, but
lose time with each other. In any case, house maintenance
suffers. Time spent vacuuming is lost from activities of
more financial or emotional importance.
You *can't* "have it all". You can have *all* of some, or
*some* of all... but never "all of all". There's only 24
hours in a day, and that limit simply isn't expandable.
You have to accept that fact and adjust to it.
The problem discussed in this topic is that while more and
more women *want* to work outside the home, and more and
more families need the money from two working parents to
support the home and kids, many women are still expected
to devote the same effort to kids and home as a wife who
did nothing else. That's the *negative* side of "having
it all". Men have *never* been forced to have it all...
and women shouldn't be either!
/dave
|
| 8.44 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Thu Jun 12 1986 15:42 | 8 |
| You 'n' Lorna sound t'be in violent agreement, Dave. <snicker>
Actually, I think that is The Crux Of The Matter: men have (often)
"had it all" because the women have (often) had nothing at all;
only the wealthy ever escaped by downloading to servants. Servant
women, mostly.
=maggie
|
| 8.45 | "all" or just "the good part"? | KALKIN::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Thu Jun 12 1986 15:57 | 22 |
| You may be right, Maggie... I noticed after entering the
reply that the part I was reacting to was not strictly
representative of the whole note, and she may not have intended
the paragraph quite as I took it.
In any case, to continue arguing with *you* (:-O [that's
a surprized face :-)]), by my definitions you're wrong.
The traditional man didn't "have it all" any more than the
traditional woman. The man had "what he wanted", and the
woman had the rest... an important distinction. Regardless
of the fact that *he* may have thought he "had it all", I
wouldn't want to be in his life, 'cause I would think he
was missing a lot.
Now, few people are going to worry about not "having it all"
if they have "what they want" of it all. The problem comes
when there's not enough time for everything you want. I
want a lot more out of life than either the traditional male
or female roles could supply, and there ain't enough time
for it all.
/dave
|
| 8.46 | | RAINBO::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Thu Jun 12 1986 16:50 | 11 |
| In any case, to continue arguing with *you* (:-O [that's
a surprized face :-)]), by my definitions you're wrong.
The traditional man didn't "have it all" any more than the
traditional woman. The man had "what he wanted", and the
woman had the rest... an important distinction. ....
==================================================================
Fair enough, Dave, hard to argue with that. <grin>
=maggie
|
| 8.47 | Having it all? | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | | Mon Jun 16 1986 13:10 | 18 |
| Dave, in regard to your responses to my .41, I think that basically
we feel the same about this issue. But, daycare, spending time
with children, and vacuuming the house are problems for working
people whether they want a career or whether they are just forced
to work. What's the difference? It's the same problems.
If time is the only factor keeping you from "having it all" you
are very lucky.
Personally, I don't really want to have it all. I really only WANT
my hobbies and my one daughter. But, I am forced to work in order
to get money to live so I wind up with the same problems as people
who do really want careers. (I KNOW that men never had it all in
the sense that they had to do menial household chores or childrearing
but who, in their right mind, would consider housework in the realm
of "having in all". I said jobs, spouses, children, homes and hobbies.
I didn't say mopping the floor.)
|
| 8.48 | `Maintenance' Work Often Maligned | CLOSET::DYER | Banish Bigotry | Tue Jun 17 1986 12:04 | 12 |
| There are people who, "in their right mind" (-:), like to do
housework (or, at least, some of it). Our culture has a bias for
`productive' work and against `maintenance' work, and many people
internalize this bias.
Except for ironing (which I despise), I don't find housework
to be an exceptionally unpleasant experience. I love to cook,
and I'd rather be baking bread than writing programs, if you
want the truth of the matter!
Those with a bent toward Eastern philosophy may know the
value of simple, routine, `maintenance' work in a different
sense.
<_Jym_>
|
| 8.49 | | KALKIN::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Tue Jun 17 1986 13:53 | 51 |
| .47:
You have a point. I already mentioned, 'way back in the
early replies to this note, that things are a bit different
if you're working because you *need* to, rather than because
you *want* to (although the two aren't mutually exclusive:
my wife and I both enjoy our work, and we wouldn't *want*
to quit even if we could: but we still *need* the money).
Obviously, if you're doing things which aren't by choice,
then by definition your choices are restricted. There's
nothing anyone can do about that. If you have nobody to
share work or responsibility with, and no way (or no desire)
to get rid of the work/responsibility, then you have to keep
it yourself.
In some sense, though, you *are* working because you want
to (and I shouldn't say this, both 'cause I already have,
and because I've no wish to listen again to the flames which
resulted)... because you want to have your hobbies and your
daughter, and you can support neither without money. Maybe
it's easier if you look at it that way, I don't know... it's
not relevant here.
As for "men having it all", I wasn't just arguing on the
literal semantic definition of "having it all" this time,
I really mean it. As I tried to explain, those men *didn't*
really have children and homes... or even spouses, as far
as I'm concerned. Their homes might as well have been hotel
rooms, their spouses might as well have been divided into
a prostitute and a maid, and their children might as well
have been cardboard cutouts pasted on the walls (many might
have preferred it that way). You may argue that you're not
satisfied with what people like that might want to leave
for you. I'm saying that I wouldn't be even close to satisfied
with what *they* had. They had everything they wanted, but
*I* think their definitions were stupid and narrow.
Admittedly, I'm not crazy about housework, or even yardwork...
But I feel guilty sometimes just because I *let* Barbara do work
I think should be shared more (she often argues that she should
do things because I "do almost everything", but that never
really seemed true to me). I *know* I'd be miserable if she
*really* did everything. I happen to *like* my wife!
Oh yes... time may not be the *only* thing keeping me from
"having it all", but since it is, and the amount of time
in a day is absolutely inflexible, what difference does the
rest make? A million dollars a day won't buy an extra minute.
/dave
|
| 8.50 | Late, but Sincere | ADVAX::ENO | | Thu Nov 20 1986 10:37 | 21 |
| Re: the entire "having it all" concept
Face it, folks, no one EVER has it all, despite the beer commercials
(one of my pet peeves - thus the late reply to this topic). We
all have to make choices, often with very limited options, like
"I choose to eat, so I work". Making choices implies that something
is NOT going to be chosen. What we have to learn to do is not be
bitter about the options we don't have, or guilty about the options
we don't choose.
Let's stop apologizing for not being able to "do it all" in order
to "have it all". I have the suspicion that people whose lives
seem so full and in order are pressed down with the weight of their
"success".
Gloria
|
| 8.51 | Buy now pay later? | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Tue Dec 30 1986 10:48 | 40 |
| Another very late response. First, I can't relate to being a single
parent and will never properly appreciate the demands of such a
role.
What ever we get comes with a price tag. Therefore, we can have
what we can afford. The cost is very rarely stated in monitary
terms, as we all know, but in emotional terms. The most important
point, in my opinion, is to assume the responsibility for paying
your own way.
DEC should not be in the child care business. DEC is not a parent.
DEC might put aside some space in various plants for daycare centers
but the financial responsibility for the centers must be assumed by
the people who use them.
Male and female responsibilities must be divided between couples
who are sharing their lives. How the responsibilities are divided
is up to each couple. What works for one may not work for any other.
There is a cost to dividing up the responsibilities, an emotional
one which many couples are not ready to invest. Who does what job
in a relationship should not be measured by people outside the
relationship since it is none of their business.
I believe men have had it easier from the female point of view and
woman have had it easier from the male point of view, dealing in
generalities of course. The female role, when I was a child, was
envied by many of my male associates. They paid for nothing, never
had to make the first move, assumed no responsibility (except to
say YES or NO at certain moments), etc. As a young adult with career
drives (something I have not had) the men felt the women had it
easy since they stayed home and did not have to fight their way
up the ladder of success, etc. What truth is in all of this? Ultimate
truth if the men believed it to be so. None if the women believed
it be otherwise. The "real" truth surely is somewhere between the
perceived truth of the two groups.
Each of us makes a decision concerning what we want out of life.
As we learn of the associated costs we reevaluate our decisions,
whether we know it or not. Recognizing the decision process results
in a better person.
|
| 8.52 | SuperWoman | DSTAR::ARNOLD | | Mon Jan 19 1987 11:02 | 2 |
| AMEN! SuperWoman is definitely unobtainable and undesirable! I
know from my own bad experience.
|
| 8.53 | Another late note. | FXADM::SWEENEY | | Tue Feb 03 1987 10:39 | 22 |
| "Having it all" is a matter of definition. In my eyes, "I" have
it all. I am a remarried mother of a 20 yr old girl, sophmore in
college, a 17 yr old boy, senior in high school, a 19 yr old step-son,
freshman in college and 18 yr old step-son, high school senior.
All four children are healthy and basically good kids. I have a
GREAT loving, helpful husband, who is also my best friend and I
am a temporary worker currently here at DEC. My husband and I have
the luxury of being able to spend time together (he owns his own
business) and do almost anything we want. I work because I WANT
to work. There is very little that would keep me busy enough at
home. There was a time when I was not married, with two yound children
that I HAD to work to survive. No extra anything, my children knew
not to even ask because the answer was always NO. But we all lived
through it, although at times I didn't think we would. So you see,
"Having It All" to me means, health and love. Not much more. I
do my own cleaning, with my husbands help. He does 85% of the cooking,
I hate to cook, he helps with laundry but so do the kids. In other
words everyone helps. The bottom line is I AM HAPPY! And at this
time of my life, I wouldn't change a thing. And NO we do not have
a lot of money especially with 2 in college and 2 more going soon.
|
| 8.54 | | SCOMAN::AUDIT | | Mon Feb 01 1988 16:03 | 12 |
| I have been a working Mom for 19 years! I feel that if you can
stay home and take care of your children you should. When I think
of all the times I've missed, all the little things that happen
every day things, that I should have been there for, I want to
start all over again, but it's to late. Those days are gone
and my children are almost grown and graduated from high school.
It went by so fast all those years of draging my kids out in the
cold and leaving them with a babysitter,listening to them cry
as I was leaving, and crying myself all the way to work! If
I had it to do all over again, I'd stay home. My children needed
me, not strangers. bev
|
| 8.55 | sad | VIA::RANDALL | back in the notes life again | Thu Feb 04 1988 08:30 | 8 |
| My husband feels exactly the same way about the things he's missing
with our kids.
But because of our society's deep-seated sexism, I don't think he
could handle staying home while I brought in the bacon. Certainly
only a handful of people would think he had made a reasonable choice.
--bonnie
|