Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Joyce, I think you've touched on one of the biggest conflicts in 
    the women's movement.  I think *the* goal of feminism is to 
    ensure that everyone gets to choose her (or his) life's work 
    (or works).  Raising children is certainly important work, and I 
    think feminists have been trying to get everyone to see how important 
    and valuable that work is.

    Here's where some of the conflict comes in, though.  The notion of 
    FAMILY as it has been defined: as a husband who works and a mother 
    who *stays* at home with children (Note the difference between those 
    two verbs: to work vs. to stay) has been oppressive to women.  Not 
    because raising children is unimportant but because:

	o Women who didn't want to raise children felt they had to;
	  he certainly wasn't going to do it.

	o The work of raising children was devalued; it wasn't considered
	  REAL work.

    So in throwing off the chains, I think we've garbled the message a bit.
    Women who work in offices and factories and schools and hospitals do 
    important work.  But women have always done important work. Sometimes 
    we get so excited when our sisters succeed in jobs that were once held 
    exclusively by men, that we forget about our sisters who are doing the 
    important job of helping children to learn what it means to be a part
    of the world.  I hope that when we lose sight of that, we'll keep
    calling each other on it.  
    
    I think raising children is one of the most important and most
    difficult jobs there is.  I suspect that anyone who's ever spent 
    more than 10 minutes in the same room with a child and her or his 
    primary caretaker would agree.  Wouldn't it be lovely if women and
    men felt free to choose not to *stay* at home but to do the important
    work of raising children?

    Justine

    I agree that raising children is an important and difficult job.
    I also agree that both sexes should be raised with having a CHOICE,
    not to exclude either working outside or inside of the home.
    
    There is a reason, though, that in our move for equality that we
    have tried to get away from being homemakers: a homemaker is dependent
    upon the spouse (if any) for financial support.  If the spouse dies
    then the homemaker has no income.  If the homemaker's relationship
    with the spouse is not recognized as a legal union (such as in 
    homosexual relationships) then upon the death of the spouse, the
    homemaker gets no Social Security or retirement benefits.
    
    I have heard people suggest that the government pay homemakers for
    their important work, but is it the government's responsibility
    to do this, or is there another way?
    
                     Carol

    Feminism (the current wave) has *ALWAYS* been about CHOICE (as has
    been said previously). There has never been a feminist statement,
    agenda, or whatever, which put down homemaking/ers, parents, and/or
    people who chose that for full-time work. The implications that
    the feminist movement is anti-homemaker/full-time parent have been
    made by non/anti-feminist persons/groups/media.
    
    The following statement came out of the feminist movement, and nowhere
    else.
    
    "Every mother is a working mother"
    
    Perhaps some women's adamance (eek. is that a word?) in seeking
    alternatives, and their anger at feeling hemmed in by a forced life
    of wife/mother have seemed STRIDENT. But I doubt very much that
    there are any anti-homemaker/fulltime-parent statements which have
    come out of the (for lack of a better term) feminist movement.
    
    CHOICE is the operative word, not denigrating any woman for her
    choice. Never.
    
    Dawn
    

    Carol hit the nail on the head regarding the pay issue.  Part of
    the reason being a homemaker/primary childcare provider is not seen
    as "work" is because the individual is not compensated for it. 
    
    I'm expecting our first child in early April (!) and plan not to
    return to work full-time for at least a year; that decision is
    currently under "budget review".  I've always been very vehement
    about being financially independent and it makes me nervous to think
    that I won't have an income of my own.  
    
    The way I think of it, to keep from feeling like I'm going to be
    totally dependent on someone else, is to consider the family situation
    like a partnership or joint venture.  My husband contributes the
    finances, I contribute the household management and child care and
    everyone profits.  But the only thing that makes it possible to
    think this way is to place a high value on the contributions of
    the homemaker/caregiver.  And most people don't.  
    
    Which is very strange, because if one considered what it would cost
    to have an outside firm provide these services (cleaning, cooking,
    budget management, child care, etc.), you add up to quite a high
    dollar amount.
    
    Gloria
            

    <--(.4)
    
    You're right about the "high dollar amount", Gloria.  I remember a
    study done under the auspices of (NOW?) in the late 70s that figured a
    full-time parent/homemaker at ca. $35,000 p.a. equivalent!  The
    breakdown was interesting. 
    						=maggie 

    RE: 505

I certainly wish I had received some bad press about "marriage, motherhood,
and white picket fences"!!!  But...since I was always told -by everyone-
that the only "real woman" was married and had 2 children (boy first, girl
second), I took the only option available.  My first failure was having
two sons!  Though, that was more okay than my brother who had two girls.
I'm only being slightly sarcastic here....this was an actual message
given to me by my "family and friends".

I have two children.  It was not the "greatest experience" I have ever had!
Raising my sons has not been my greatest accomplishment.  Finding out who
I am - is my greatest accomplishment.  My ex-husband helped by having the
two boys live with him while I searched for myself.  If I hadn't had that
time, I wouldn't be able to be a loving and caring mother/friend to my sons.

I do agree with your statement about not always having liked being a woman.
Now I know that what I didn't like was not having male privilege, money
or power.
    
I do think that the feminist movement does support a woman's right to 
be valued for whatever job she does - including raising babies and 
staying home.  

However, it is important to point out to young women that when they choose
the option of staying at home, to raise those babies, they have positioned 
themselves in a possible future economic dilemma.    

I believe we were indeed oppressed, that pregnancy and being a wife turned
out to be a form of slavery....economic slavery.  My message to any young 
woman is to put great weight on her ability to earn her own living.     
    
    
Flora

    re .6 thank you Flora, your message is a help to *all* of us who
    value equality. 

    When I really stop and think about it ....my kids are one of
    the most important achievments of my life...and that includes
    having gotten into a good college, having gone on for advanced
    work and having taught continuing ed to women who were returning
    to school for an education .....all of which matter a lot to me
    that I have done them.
    
    But it is interesting for me to tell people that I have five children.
    The general response is that I am regarded as having an extra head
    or two. But I freely admit that one is home grown and the rest
    adopted...
    and then I get all kinds of praise for being so wonderful ....which
    is just as an uncomfortable a situation...
    
    But I do want to say that I like my kids. and I am proud of the
    people that they are growing into. none of them are in any kind
    of trouble, they are careing independant people, and tho they
    may not always buy my values or agree with my opinions...I think
    that they are one of the most important things I have chosen to
    do with my life.
    
    I think the child that has given me the most heart ache and the
    most rewards is the child that we adopted at seven who is mildly
    retarded and legally blind.  To watch him make steps toward maturity
    - no matter how slow and how frustrating and how painful, and how
    angry we get at him....his growth is at times all the reward that
    is needed for having him as a child....
    
    
    and I get mad and frustrated and yell and love and talk and listen
    and refuse to listen, and am loved back and yelled at and gotten
    angry at....just like any other mother and child....
    
    but I am glad I did it, and if I had the space and the time I would
    have adopted more!
    
    Bonnie

    Regarding the raising of children as ones greatest accomplishment
    is not the sole province of women by the way. Though I tend to
    give my wife most of the credit for my son being the worlds best
    kid, I regard my part in raising him as my greatest accomplishment.
    
    		Alfred

The most important achievement of my life has been our marriage 
and our two children. And that includes having two advanced degrees and 
having written and published several books. 

My wife, Joy, did not work when the children were young because we both 
felt that it was far more important that one of us be a full time 
nurturer, caregiver, and homemaker. Although being the homemaker was her 
choice, both of us felt that raising children was important and a real 
job. Financially it has been difficult, and at times I have felt 
overburdened and resentful because I had no choice but to work.

The worst thing that happened to our family was the death of 
our son when he was five. If Joy and I had not been as unified 
and close in our love, friendship, and personal beliefs as we were, 
I think this tragedy, awful as it was, would have been even worse.

I have been moderately successful in my career because the rest 
of the family depends on me to maintain the finances. Although I 
would be bored being a houseperson, work for me has always been 
secondary to home and family life. 

Our oldest daughter recently graduated from college, got married, and 
is beginning a successful professional career. Our youngest daughter is a 
college sophomore and doing well. Both of them are convinced (and so 
am I) that they can achieve anything they want to, and no man or 
woman is going to stop them. I enjoy their company and like to 
have them around when possible. (An aside for parents of teenagers: 
hang in there - they finally turn into human beings!)

Joy has lots of interests and talents to keep her busy, and probably 
will be active politically in the upcoming elections. She has 
thought of going to work, but without a degree and experience, it 
is difficult to find something that is interesting and/or pays 
more than the minimum. Volunteer activities seem to be a better 
choice.

Having a job confers a certain status on you. Being a homemaker 
(or doing volunteer work) does not, in the eyes of many, give you 
much status. Our culture puts a dollar value on things, and if your 
time is not paid for at $X per hour, society says that what you 
are doing (and the person doing it) is not particularly valued. 
What damage does this do to a person's self image?

This attitude is slowly changing. (You may say, "too slowly," but 
it certainly has improved from when I was kid.) It is almost a 
converse of equal_pay_for_equal_work: sort of an equal_status_
for_equal_contribution.

Bruce

    Re: Motherhood
    
    I can't say that I've seen much disapproval from the feminist movement
    of a woman who chooses to stay home and raise children.
    
    I have seen wide spread disapproval from the feminist movement of
    men that have the same sense of the importance of motherhood.  If
    I choose a wife partly based on her ability and desire to fill
    the motherhood role, I might get a little disapproval from some
    feminists.  Would it mater that I felt that nurturing was an important
    and worthy task for anyone?
    
    I guess the real question is; if I feel that the task is that important
    would I be will to fill that role myself?  I think I would like
    to have that option.  I won't really have that option until I
    can be sure that a future wife would be free to fill the provider
    role for me and my children.  That is one reason that I participate
    here.
    
    I don't expect that I will actually fill that role in my lifetime.
    I am confident that I have what it takes to be a provider.  I
    am not at all confident that I could do the motherhood role but
    I hope I get the change to learn.
    
    Women are now getting some of the support and freedom they need to
    learn to support themselves and hopefully their families too.  I
    hope that someday young men will get support for choosing the
    'Motherhood' role.  The first step in that direction is believing
    that men can do the job.  To that end I would like to see more
    child custody going to the fathers after divorce.
    
    					MJC O->

        When I tell a new manager that my family is more important than
        my career it takes a moderate amount of courage and I've taken a
        fair amount of flak for it. But, if I'd been a *woman* and said
        that to my boss... !!! It's tough. I don't envy the "working
        mother" (the ones who work outside of the house) who want to
        give her family the priority that it deserves. 
        
        And my wife--who's been working at home caring for our three
        boys--she has not merely my love, but my admiration and my very
        deep gratitude. When there was just the on boy we balanced the
        child rearing pretty evenly (although breast feeding was easier
        for her), although I must admit the house work ran more her
        direction than mine. When the second boy came along we just
        weren't managing to find enough hours in the day to do silly
        things like sleep. She decided that she would rather stay home.
        A very hard decision. I questioned it at the time, but she's
        doing a great job.
        
        On a completely different tangent, the idea of undervaluing a
        woman's contribution because she earned no money and just
        satayed home with the kids is a pretty modern notion. Please
        notice that the idea of unemployeement is fairly new. For most
        of history almost no-one worked for pay. People weren't
        employeed. They worked, they struggled, they slaved. Today if
        you aren't paid for it it isn't work, but that isn't the way it
        has always been. 
        
        Also, with modern appliances and modern schools as well as the
        modern trend towards specialization and purchasing almost
        everything, the woman's role in the home has diminished. It is
        less work, and less respected. "Housewives" in the past made the
        clothes, made the food, taught the children, supervised the
        household, and kept the garden if the husband wasn't a farmer by
        trade. Many of my ancestresses were married to sea captains and
        fishermen. When the men went off to sea the women would even run
        the land-bound part of his occupation. Others of my ancestresses
        were married to churchmen and they too contributed to their
        husband's professions.
        
        This isn't to say that modern housewifery is a snap. It is no
        such thing and my beloved Selma would heat up the old skillet if
        I claimed it was. It's just that it is easier to belittle the
        occupation today than it was in days past. We have in this, and
        in many other things lost touch with our own culture, at least
        that's the way it seems to me.
        
        JimB. 

    re. housewifery being less work now than in the past.  I read an
    interesting book a couple of years ago (sorry, I can't remember
    the title) that proposed that all of our "labor-saving" devices
    haven't really saved us all that much labor.  
    
    For example, with modern washing machines, we expect our clothes
    to have a higher level of cleanliness.  With ready-made clothing,
    we have more of it.  With modern cooking appliances and a readily
    available variety of foods, we expect a better balanced diet with
    more interesting foods. We have more living space to keep clean
    and expect it to be cleaner (we didn't have to scrub tile bathtubs
    when we only took sponge baths on Saturday nights).
    
    Interesting notion.

    Gloria
    

    You may have read that idea in many places, but it was first
    espoused by Betty Friedan in _The_Feminine_Mystique_.
    
    						Ann B.

    Hmmm, I have noticed also that most people are referring to women
    working in the home and raising children synonymously (sp?).  
    The two can be separate.  How are your feelings changed when discussing
    a person's choice to work as a homemaker when there are no children,
    and no plans for children?
    
              Carol

    Joy has still chosen to be a homemaker now that the children have
    left home (see 505.10). 
    
    Like just about everything else in life, it's a tradeoff. It's her
    choice. It has some negatives (financial, mostly), but it has a
    lot of positives, some of which are not immediately apparent. She
    can make shorter, but more frequent visits to her mother, who is
    alone, aging, in deteriorating health, and 600 miles away. She can
    be more active politically. She can do various volunteer projects.
    She has time to sew, do her carpentry projects, work in the garden,
    and wallpaper the house. She can cook us gourmet meals that take 4 
    hours to prepare.
    
    -bs

    It must be nice to be able to "retire early" by doing enjoyable things
    at home instead of working.  I'd love to be able to do that.
    Unfortunately, it does not work out economically for me.  If it
    does for somebody else, great!
    
    Dave
    

    Re .11, you mention that you would like to see more fathers get
    custody after divorce.  I would like to see more joint custody.
     Why should one parent have to lose their child because of divorce?
     
    You also mention that men should also have the option of staying
    home with the children and taking care of the house.  Of course,
    either a man or a woman who wants to stay home has to find a spouse
    both willing and able to finance the arrangement.  It's harder for
    men because less women can *afford* to support a husband and kids.
     If just the wife working means a family income of $25K a year,
    and just the husband working means a family income of $40K a year,
    it makes sense that the one who can make the most money will be
    the one to go out to work and that's still *usually* the male.

    Somebody recently told me of a couple who were both consultants
    making about the same pay who took turns being the one to work and
    the one to stay home.  That sounds perfect, but not very many couples
    fall into that category.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .18 , and the consultant couple trading outside/in-home work.
    
    Maybe the modem/remote dial-in technology will help in these
    situations. [Whomever, or both parents] will have the option of
    being at home and still being able to make $$$.
    
    Dawn
    

    Re: .18

    > Re .11, you mention that you would like to see more fathers get
    > custody after divorce.  I would like to see more joint custody.
    > Why should one parent have to lose their child because of divorce?
    
    In most cases, joint custody is probably the proper solution to the
    custody problem.  I guess it would be more clear to say that I would
    like to see less exclusive custody going to the mother by default.  I
    would like to see that the courts do not assume that the children are
    the property of the mother.  Maybe these changes are happening, I don't
    know. 
    
    I also don't think it is right for a woman to decide that she
    doesn't want to be married any more and leaves with the children.
    My position would be "If you want to leave this family, go ahead.
    Just don't take my family with you."
    
    > ...it makes sense that the one who can make the most money will be
    > the one to go out to work and that's still *usually* the male.
    
    That exactly why it still isn't an option for men.  Men must choose
    to work because they are the only ones who *CAN* support the family.
    As it is now, a woman does not have to have high career ambitions
    in order to have a family.  In fact the lack of ambitions helps.
    A man without ambition is unlikely to have a family either.
    It has even been shown that highly successful men are more likely
    to still married to their original spouse.
    
    "Motherhood" should be an option for some of these men with lower
    ambition.  This would also help women who have high ambition because
    they would no longer have to choose between career and children.
    
    					MJC O->

RE: .1

"The notion of FAMILY as it has been defined: as a husband who works and a
mother who *stays* at home with children (Note the difference between those two
verbs: to work vs. to stay) has been oppressive to women."

This notion has been no less oppressive to men.  I for example would have
preferred to stay home with my children. 

"Every parent is a working parent."

"Every homemaker is a working homemaker."

Something should be done about providing security for homemakers, especially
since relationships seem to be more unstable these days...

I wonder how it would work out if a homemaker was paid 1/nth of the outside
household income before taxes, and had to pay 1/nth of the household expenses,
including taxes, and the homemakers own pay?

n might be the number of adults, or the number of outside incomes, or the
number of people, including children in the household...

I think that that might be more equitable, but I wouldn't expect it to be
a goldmine.

RE: .12

"Please notice that the idea of unemployeement is fairly new. For most of
history almost no-one worked for pay." 

True!

RE: .15

It seems to me that in today's society, unless there are children to rear, there
is not enough work in a home to make a full time job.  Now if you really want to
work at it, as in the days of old, roughing it, it could be quite a job!

RE: .20

"Maybe these changes are happening,"

It isn't, not that I can see.

"I also don't think it is right for a woman to decide that she doesn't want to
be married any more and leaves with the children. My position would be "If you
want to leave this family, go ahead. Just don't take my family with you.""

I've been hearing a lot of this happening lately... 
    
Jim.      

    RE: .15, .21
    
    I'm a working non-Mother, so I can't speak from experience.  In
    fact, I've never not worked outside home.  However...
    
    I have a maid who cleans the house once a week.  My husband and I both
    have our shirts (& my blouses) done at the laundry.  He does our
    finances (bill paying, balancing the checkbook, etc.) at night. We eat
    convenience foods a lot, in fact we eat out probably three nights a
    week when one or the other of us is not on the road.  We go literally
    for weeks at a time, passing in airport parking lots since both of us
    travel in our jobs (remember two people who travel 25% of the time are
    potentially apart half the time).  We have a neighborhood boy who mows
    the lawn.  There is *NEVER* enough time to 
    
    work in the flower beds
    
    read & study ways to invest wisely for the future
    
    read for pleasure
    
    do anything else for pleasure
    
    do special projects (we bought pegboard for the garage three weeks ago
    and it's still sitting in the garage un-hung)
    
    work on the boat (my passion, not my husband's)
    
    While I don't plan to quit work and stay home, I can easily see how I
    could be busy full time if I did.  Between keeping the yard and the
    house clean, cooking the way I enjoy (gourmet meals and *everything*
    homemade), gardening (along with canning & freezing), paying bills and
    handling finances, laundry and ironing his dress shirts -- the list
    goes on and on and on.  While my leaving the workforce would definitely
    put a dent in our financial well-being, our quality of life would be
    greatly improved if I stayed home and did all those things.  And
    there's no doubt in my mind that it would be a full time job. 

    
    							Pat

    Last night I was buying a cake for my son Steven's birthday.
    The clerk - who I have known for years - asked my how old he
    was and I replied that he was 13 which made me the mother of
    four teenagers. Another customer looked at me and said "bless
    you!"
    
    Bonnie

        RE: .13
        
        I think you're right. With modern labor-saving inconveniences,
        housewifery may very well be more work than it was once. This
        makes the problem I spoke of in my .12 even worse! Home making
        is, if this is correct, *more* work, but perceived as less and
        less respected. It diminishes the importance of the house wife
        without compensating by making it any easier.
        
        JimB.