| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 359.1 | Yup | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Fri Dec 30 1988 09:00 | 0 |
| 359.2 | Had to run before I could reply myself | CADSYS::RICHARDSON | | Fri Dec 30 1988 09:17 | 16 |
| As for me, I had a couple of different reactions when I read it. I
thought that the college women surveyed were very perceptive to realize
the nastiness of reality (or, why do you suppose I don't have any
children?? Right! Because I'm *NOT* superwoman, that's why!). The
women who graduated with me, with engineering degrees in the early
seventies, were led to believe that we could have the same kind of a
future as the men we graduated with, and some of us are disappointed
(yes, I was a very idealistic, you might say naive, college student)
and disheartened that that didn't turn out to be the case after all (as
my friend Maria says, "I need a 'wife'!" - she means a servant, someone
to take care of the things we have to make compromises about). I guess
I'm still very idealistic and naive, because it still seems terribly
hurtful and *wrong* that life is like this for new college graduates,
as if nothing has changed in the intervening years. So, I don't know
whether to be appalled or happy that these women are recognizing the
imperfectness of the double standard society!
|
| 359.3 | First Choice then Change | PNEUMA::SULLIVAN | | Fri Dec 30 1988 09:44 | 45 |
|
Charlotte, thanks for typing all that in.
I think the article touched upon one reason why some men and some
younger women (i.e., women who have been out of fulltime school
for 5 years or less) who don't have children might believe that the
world is not very sexist. Opportunities for women have increased
greatly in the last 20 years or so. In fact, men and women who are
graduating from college today have probably seen very little overt
sexism. For example, girls and have been allowed to play in little
league and take shop for some time now; and women in highschool and
college are taking more math and science courses these days. So to
a person who has not yet spent much time in the fulltime working world
and/or does not have children; I think the world seems like a pretty
fair place.
But when you start talking about the issue of children and childcare,
things change. Women can choose to have a career outside the home or
raise children or both. The fact that women have this choice
represents a huge breakthrough for women (and men) everywhere. Now,
I think some folks might suggest that we can pretty
much stop there - women have a choice, now let's just keep an eye
on issues like pay equity, and we'll be fine. But I think there's
still an important piece of work that we've barely begun to do.
The fact that WOMEN have to make the choice of career, family or
both IS THE ISSUE. Women (for the most part; we all know exceptions
where the man changes the diapers, and the woman changes the spark
plugs, but I think if we stick to the vast majority of heterosexual
households here, we can come to some general agreements) have to
do the juggling, the compromising, the worrying.
I found a lot of truth in the article where it talked about how
men generally believe that their success or failure is largely
(if not entirely) dependent on their skill and effort. I think
that women who were raised in and went to school in the 70s and 80s
have also believed that they are "masters" of their own fate.
I have also seen, however, a fair number of women (not scientific
proof - just some observations that explain why I believe what I
believe) let go of some professional goals because of family
responsibilities and vise versa. I don't think men have had to make
those kinds of tough choices. Perhaps that will change.
Justine
|
| 359.4 | | DMGDTA::WASKOM | | Fri Dec 30 1988 14:06 | 20 |
|
Well, I read the article and my reaction was "The women seem to
have their heads tied on straight. Now, how do we get the MEN to
have their expectations meet reality, too?" While it is easier
for men to have a 'straight-line' to a career, they too wind up
making compromises for the sake of family. They too get caught
in all sorts of Catch-22's that lead to making compromises that
result in different paths than what they saw in college.
How can we women, who deal with the career/family compromise more
directly, encourage men to see that they aren't likely to have it
all, either? How do we encourage men to see family as being of
equal importance to the men as it is to the women in their lives, and
equally deserving of men's time and effort?
I don't really have answers, only questions. None of us is really
Superman. We have to work out mores that work for Joe Average.
Alison
|
| 359.5 | It's worse when your career is your life | USCTR1::RMCCAFFREY | Love, Loyalty and Friendship | Fri Dec 30 1988 14:56 | 19 |
|
From what I've lived through in the past 4 years, I found the
article's assessment of female undergraduates' expectations pretty
accurate. Most of my male friends, which is not to say all males
by any stretch of the imagination, also realised the problems they
would face. In my case, the whole situation gets uglier. Many
of my good friends are officers; it's very hard to make that particular
career field mesh with a family life. To make matters worse, it's
one career field that you can't "put on hold" and pick up at a later
time. Although I'm extremely excited about my entry onto active
duty I do not look forward to trying to develop a long-term
relationship with someone because of the problems that I know I
will encounter. I would be happy to listen to anyone with advice
or ideas about how to handle a military career and a family. As
far as I can tell, the whole situation will probably get ugly.
GO IRISH!
Rachel
|
| 359.6 | Challenge or Problem..?? | HARPO::NIXON | Malicious Mischief | Fri Dec 30 1988 22:56 | 26 |
| As I sat and read this article and reply, the one thing that strikes
me most is how women "perceive" their future lives regarding career
and family.
Why is it that women see "problems" as opposed to "challenges"?
I ask this because of recent conversations with a male friend of
mine. I have been discussing with him, some problems that I have
encountered lately. One of the most enlightening aspects of our
conversations is learning how he sees challenges where I have seen
problems. Lately, I had forgotten how to take the positive aspects
from something. He reminded me how to do that.
I see in the last reply (Rachel ?) that your career is extremely
important to you. You have chosen your career to meet specific
needs in your life. How do you view the rough spots you will encounter
in your career...challenges or problems? I would guess from reading
your reply that you view them as challenges.
I feel we will fare much better by altering how we look at things.
The base article said that women tended to be more unsure when they
looked ahead at their future. I believe it is time for us to be
more positive, more agressive, and more sure of our abilities to
have careers and families, if we so choose. We can meet the challenges
we will face if we just start looking at the positive side.
Vicki
|
| 359.7 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Sat Dec 31 1988 01:44 | 95 |
| RE: .6
> As I sat and read this article and reply, the one thing that
> strikes me most is how women "perceive" their future lives
> regarding career and family.
> Why is it that women see "problems" as opposed to "challenges"?
What you probably saw in the article was the author's
interpretation of the study (more than the women's perception
that their situations involved problems, specifically, as
opposed to challenges.)
The author's opening statement was: "A recent study has found
that young men and women think about the future and solve
problems in vastly different ways." If the concept of "problems"
was part of the author's premise, then it is no wonder that
the rest of the article continued to employ that word to describe
the situations of the people who took part in the study.
> I ask this because of recent conversations with a male friend of
> mine. I have been discussing with him, some problems that I have
> encountered lately. One of the most enlightening aspects of our
> conversations is learning how he sees challenges where I have seen
> problems. Lately, I had forgotten how to take the positive aspects
> from something. He reminded me how to do that.
Well, it's good thing to learn (or re-learn, as the case may
be,) but I challenge the idea that seeing certain situations
as positive opportunities for challenge or growth is a male
trait. (Hopefully, you weren't trying to imply that only or
mostly men do this, and not women.)
> I feel we will fare much better by altering how we look at
> things. The base article said that women tended to be more
> unsure when they looked ahead at their future.
If it is true that women tend to be more unsure about their
futures than men, there are reasons for it. Rather than simply
wiping out justifiable uncertainty, how about it if we work on
the cultural conditions that may such uncertainty a reality
for many women in the workplace? Rather than seeing women's
awareness of real problems as being a negative aspect of
women, why not view the women more positively as being
simply "perceptive" about the reality that currently faces
many/most of us (including men) in our culture?
> I believe it is time for us to be more positive, more agressive,
> and more sure of our abilities to have careers and families, if
> we so choose. We can meet the challenges we will face if we
> just start looking at the positive side.
Well, I do like the idea of taking a positive attitude about
the future (and I've tended to live my life that way since I
left High School.) I became a single Mom after High School,
but before I received my college education (so I ended up
spending my college years trying to raise a baby, earn enough
of a living to keep a roof over our heads despite my complete
lack of job skills by working two halftime jobs, and balancing
myself between the needs of an infant/toddler/pre-schooler/
kindergartener and work plus school.
When people tried to explain to me how unbelievably difficult
it would be to do all those things at the same time (especially since
I hadn't successfully done any *ONE* of those things before,
much less all three of them together) -- I kept a positive
attitude and did them anyway (by literally BLINDING myself
to reality.)
Had I seen reality a bit more clearly (and faced it honestly
enough to know that people were right about how difficult my
chosen path would be,) I'm sure I could have found a way to
achieve my goals in a way that wouldn't have taken so much
out of me. As it was, I prevailed (and was able to become
a college graduate and find a good career,) but not without
making excessive sacrifices and suffering serious delays in
seeing my goals because of having developed a "tendency" to
blind myself to the hard realities of trying to combine
Motherhood with a professional career.
What I'm trying to say is that while having a positive attitude
is a good thing, having one's eyes open to the reality of one's
situation is just as important.
Since those tendencies are not mutually exclusive, it is possible
(and probably more common than not) to have both of those
perspectives at the same time. Let's not assume that the use
of the word "problems" in regards to one's future is a sign
that a "positive outlook" is lacking.
Pretending that problems don't exist won't make them go away.
It seems to me that the AWARENESS of obstacles/pitfalls/whatever_
one_chooses_to_call_them can be seen more positively as a tool
rather than as the sign of a negative attitude.
|
| 359.9 | We should control our destinies | 2EASY::PIKET | | Tue Jan 03 1989 14:58 | 7 |
|
Definitely agreed. I could not love, much less marry, a man who
would not believe that the family burden should be equal.
Very perceptive of you to put it in terms of the individual.
Roberta
|
| 359.10 | | PRYDE::ERVIN | Roots & Wings... | Tue Jan 03 1989 15:13 | 6 |
| Roberta, I hope you don't have plans for marriage, then...
The last of the 3 men in the entire world willing to make sacrifices
in their careers for child-rearing just got married this past weekend
in Cincinnati :-)...
|
| 359.11 | ...Just wondering | 2EASY::PIKET | | Tue Jan 03 1989 15:24 | 8 |
|
So that's where they were! Darn!
Just my luck to miss them.
So tell me, do they have a brother?
Roberta
|
| 359.12 | social pressure | RAINBO::TARBET | | Tue Jan 03 1989 15:32 | 30 |
| Gregg, I think I understand your puzzlement.
It's a matter of social expectations, and how threatening it can be to
feel that you're maybe gonna disappoint *everyone* in your life if you
don't put family first. Girls get it at home, at school, on the telly,
in the playground, everywhere. Sometimes it's said out loud, sometimes
not, a lot of times it's so subtle a part of the social background that
you can't even put your finger on it if you try. But it's *real*.
And it's *heavy*.
There've been at least a couple strings here and in V1 that talk about
the pressure women get from family to have kids. Now, this is *adult*
women who are getting this pressure, and it's just the *overt*
pressure. Think of being a little kid and hearing this "of course
you'll..." every day as you're growing up. Wow. It's like any other
part of socialisation, by the time you're an adult you can't even think
about it very easily any more much less not do it.
Here's a good experiment from psych grad school: Think about doing
something that's intrinsically harmless but socially disapproved. Talking
out loud to yourself all during your next trip to the shopping mall,
for example. Really get in touch with how it would feel to do that...
Not so swell, huh? How hard would it be to really truly *do* it?
It ain't easy.
=maggie
|
| 359.16 | | CIVIC::JOHNSTON | OK, _why_ is it illegal? | Tue Jan 03 1989 17:28 | 39 |
| reply to Gregg, [an angle I do not think =maggie covered]
Fact: Children & families require sacrifices.
[Actually, I prefer 'compromise' because 'sacrifice' sounds
very martyr-like]
Opinion [mine]: Anyone wanting children & a family should be willing
to make compromises. Man or woman.
More Opinion: Anyone not willing to make compromises, should
re-evaluate why they want children & a family. Man
or woman.
That young men embarking upon Real Life want families but do not
see a family as having an impact on a career is telling. It almost
sounds like they feel that they have the option to father a child
or to be a parent. All those options. It sounds very nice, but
not very fair.
That young women see a series of choices and trade-offs facing them
reflects reality. It's not always nice, but it has rewards.
I do not hope for the day that women don't have to make choices.
I find the notion of not making choices rather silly.
If women continue to work -- and why shouldn't they? -- there may come
a day when the young man poised on the brink of Real Life will be
viewing a vary narrow field of options on marriage and family if
he feels that they should have no career impact. i.e. not marry
until you can support a wife and not marry a woman with a career.
fwiw, I know several men who put the fast-track on hold, although not
their careers, in order to have children. There's some griping
when promotions and raises are handed out [just like with women],
but no real regrets.
Ann
|
| 359.17 | oops | RAINBO::TARBET | | Tue Jan 03 1989 17:39 | 9 |
| You're absolutely right, Gregg, and I'm sorry I didn't convey my
understanding of that more clearly. The idea that a man could choose a
more human, less competitive path is every bit as threatening to
entrenched social interests and scary to individual young men as the
idea of career-first for young women.
It's disgusting. And dehumanising.
=maggie
|
| 359.18 | | COGMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue Jan 03 1989 17:46 | 18 |
| Re: .16
I was reading one of those fairly innocuous modern romances. She
has a career (university drama professor), he has a career (actor).
Things proceed apace and marriage is resolved. In the thrilling
moments of planning their future, he says something along the lines
of "You can keep working, if you want, until the kids come." Well,
half the fun of reading the silly things is coming up with what
*I* would say in the same situation (not that I'm rehearsing, since
I have no plans in that direction, being entirely too selfish).
"What's the matter?" I said. "Don't you like kids? Are you no
good with them? Are you hopelessly inept around them? Do they
not like you? Maybe you should reconsider this baby stuff if you're
not interested enough to spend much time with them." But she, silly
twit, didn't hear a word of my coaching. If that's what she really
wanted, so be it and my blessings, but even if I agreed with the
'master plan,' I'd still singe him around the edges for planning
our future without consulting me first.
|
| 359.19 | afraid I've seen it to often | NOETIC::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Tue Jan 03 1989 17:51 | 17 |
|
For those who list the individual choices:
Or most likely outcome, the young men who want a family will find
a woman who will stay home and have the kids. She will trade her
career for the family. At the age of 40 the man will look at her
and decide she just hasn't kept up with the world enough to
please him any more. He divorces her, marries a young career
woman and starts a second life leaving the kids with Mom but
feeling he does his part by stopping by and visiting the kids
every other week, after all they are teenagers now and have their
own interests. Mom is struggling to survive in a work world she's
not been prepared to face. Dad and the new wife visit europe for
the honeymoon and he wonders why he wonders why his first wife
isn't as free spirited and active as his new (probably younger)
wife. liesl
|
| 359.20 | And when there are more than one on the "fast track".... | BETHE::LICEA_KANE | | Tue Jan 03 1989 21:17 | 24 |
| I'm sorry, but I've had enough. I can't take it anymore. Argh!
How many times has the premise "family" = "kids" been accepted without
question here?
Lord, we're a family *now*, even though there are no children in
this family.
There are *always* challenges in a family. Just take a small number
of the "career" questions, questions that soon-to-be-graduates are
probably facing:
What do *we* do with *our* careers?
How do *we* support *our* careers?
Where will *our* careers take *us*?
These questions come up children or no children.
Can it be the young men didn't even ask the questions? Or do they
think they know the answers? Or do they only think "I" rather
than "we", do they think "mine" rather than "ours"? Frightening.
-mr. bill
|
| 359.22 | rather, a firm basis for discussion | CIVIC::JOHNSTON | OK, _why_ is it illegal? | Wed Jan 04 1989 10:34 | 41 |
| re.21
first a small point: whether one partner chooses to stay home or
both choose careers, there are significant lifestyle changes brought
about by the addition of children. nothing I said implied that
one partner choosing to stay home was not a valid or valued option.
I find it interesting that you mentioned this option only in the
context of women. My brother-in-law, a police detective, desires
above all things to stay home with his daughter and have a part-time
job in a camera store. His wife, while wishing she had more time
with her daughter, places a high value on her career. Both full-time
incomes are needed at this time, so both have had to make trade-offs.
However, they are working toward their shared goal of Lee staying
home and Kit being able to devote more energy to her career.
& something I apparently left out...
The survey you mentioned polled young men and women's attitudes
just as they were poised on the brink of adulthood, so to speak.
Just graduating from college is pretty just-out-of-the-egg; hence, values
and expectations tend to reflect a world-view based on the experiences
of others more than of self.
I suspect that if the same sampling was polled 5 years down the
line, the attitudes reflected would not differ as much along
gender lines. You would find more men looking at trade-offs and
women not seeing the trade-offs as strongly defined. Many would
define success in a different way. Probably _all_ would have come
to grips with compromises at work, in personal relationships, and
in the allocation of funds.
While I would not go so far as to say that we are in agreement,
I would say that we share a good deal of common ground. Certainly
we are far enough in agreement to generate more exchange of ideas
than heat in any further discussions we might have.
Ann
|
| 359.24 | *tap* *tap* - may I just mention this? | VINO::EVANS | Boring Personal Name | Wed Jan 04 1989 11:52 | 29 |
| I feel like I'm butting in, here, in this exchange among Gregg,
Ann, and Maggie - which I hate to do, since it's probably the
most literate and intelligent one we've had in a long time...
but I do want to mention that there's a pretty solid reason for
the young women to be so much more concerned about the
family/kids/career situation.
It's all well and good for the gal to extract a "promise" from the
guy which says that he's committed to having kids and is willing
to do "his share", etc. etc. HOWEVER: *If* the kids arrive, and
*if* then the guy decides kid-care is not for him, SHE'S LEFT HOLDING
THE BAG. And she's likely to end up in a situation in which she
can do one of 2 things: 1) Do all the work, and nag him about it
or 2) DO all the work, and *not* nag him about it.
Unfortunately, if he decides to reneg, she still has the onus on
her to do it all. I think young women understand this, if only
subconsciously, and that's why they see more "problems" in this
area.
(Please note that I did NOT say that there are no men who want to
take care of kids. Please note that I did NOT say that there are
women who have skipped out and left the guy holding the bag. I am
simply stating the most common scenario.)
Listen you guy/n/s - don't let this de-rail your neat discussion.
--DE
|
| 359.27 | | RAINBO::TARBET | | Wed Jan 04 1989 12:54 | 14 |
| � Well, there are other alternatives. And He is just as likely to
� be in the boat.
� ...
� Again it's an equal probability, and equal onus.
Gregg, I would argue that you're ignoring the greater social pressure
placed on women to "take the hit". If you look through the several
files (wn, mn, hr, parenting, maybe others) I'd be willing to stake a
good lunch at the Chez Thai that you'll find at least a 2:1 (a beer
with the lunch says 10:1) ratio of women:men who are on record as
believing that they themselves own that class of problem. Bet?
=maggie
|
| 359.28 | One disagreement | VINO::EVANS | Boring Personal Name | Wed Jan 04 1989 12:57 | 31 |
| RE: .26
I disagree with one thing you said. He is NOT "just as likely"
to be "in the boat". I believe that the onus is much more on
the woman than the man in this situation, and that if he renegs
on the deal, she is much more "expected" to take over the kid-care
than if *she* reneged on the deal.
Unfortunately, the societal pressure is still more on the woman
than the man to be sure the kids get the necessary care. IF they
*don't*, she will whatever blame is assigned.
Now, I realize from your previous notes, Gregg, that resisting societal
pressure is something you advocate, as do I, but the fact remains
that it exists. And if for some reason, kids need care and don't
get it, that pressure comes to bear on the woman, regardless of
who opted out of the "contract".
Additionally, while couples are making agreements about this stuff
more often than in the past, it's still more important for a woman
to "hold the family together" than it is for the man. "Couldn't
catch/hold a man." is still used to insult women, as if it were
up to them to glue the relationship together.
The answer is to grow independent women who can withstand society's
assaults until society gets its act together, but that's likely
to be a long process.....meanwhile, women *do* have to be more
concerned than men about getting stuck holding the kid-care bag.
--DE
|
| 359.29 | Two points... | AMUN::SMITH | Is Fifty Fun? | Wed Jan 04 1989 13:01 | 23 |
|
Often the woman forgoes the career _advancement_ and takes the major
child care responsibility because the man makes more than she can
make and that extra money is _essential_ to them. In such a case
it isn't because the man went back on the deal, but because the
dual realities of continued pay equity and lack of affordable quality
child care bring it about.
Actually, it seems to me that far more men are interested in, and
eager to participate in, child care than the media admits. I remember
a newspaper article last Mother's Day on 'working mothers' and _their_
child care problems. In that particular situation, the three families
portrayed had all solved their childcare problems in various ways,
and it was obvious in at _least_ 2 of the 3 (if not all 3) that
the father had been _very_ involved! Yet the author wrote it something
like this, "Ironically, these three have managed to solve the childcare
problem," instead of asking herself if her assumption and reality
might not really mesh!
NOTE: I am _not_ saying that women _don't_ really have it harder;
I think they still do! What I _am_ strongly saying, however, is
that in most of the intact families I personally see, the father
is definitely a "working partner!"
|
| 359.31 | Well-meaning, bad doing | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Jan 04 1989 13:19 | 13 |
| Gregg,
Sometimes it isn't a matter of honesty or trust. A man may
indeed be perfectly honest and sincere in his promise to do his
share of childcare. But when it gets down to cases, he will
refuse to change a diaper on the grounds that his stomach won't
let him. And his stomach will demonstrate that he is honest and
sincere about it. <Inser other examples here.>
Of course each of us can fight decades of conditioning. But will
we all win all the time?
Ann B.
|
| 359.32 | | CIVIC::JOHNSTON | OK, _why_ is it illegal? | Wed Jan 04 1989 13:52 | 54 |
| re 359.24
Come now, Dawn. You're not butting in. "...all voices in the chorus"
and all that ;^).
Extracting a promise is, as you say, iffy at best. What amazes me is
given that young women are apparently more concerned/aware of the
issues involved, so many continue to place great faith in these
promises. But that's a separate issue. I trust in the good faith of
promises given and plan on them, but I try not to become dependent upon
them. I am told this makes me a cynic.
I think as more people come of age that are products of a parent
backing out on a commitment of this kind, both sexes will be more
aware of the issues involved. However, early progress could slow
subsequent progress as object lessons became less frequent. Recursion,
...what a powerful concept!
Sadly, I don't really see a way out of women out-numbering men in
being 'caught' in this situation. Education, attitudes, parity
notwithstanding, it makes a twisted kind of sense that they would.
I, of course, do not plan to accept this quietly.
re.359.25
As you point out, I mis-read. I was reponding to something that
'felt' wrong further along. Point taken.
Where I sense we are in agreement is along the lines of basic
principle as stated simply, "All people face the interlocking issues
of career & family trade-offs" and "All should be able to choose
to pursue a life that meets their needs"
We could probably push it to "It is desirable for men and women
to have the same awareness and face the same trade-offs"
I suspect from reading your notes that we do not agree on the means
for effecting change. The sense I get is that you feel that women
need to bone up on their negotiating skills and I feel that men
frequently need massive doses of real life. Perhaps we are in
agreement after all and the basis for our discussion is that nebulous
gender-related difference in approach we keep hearing about.
I can state emphatically that I disagree with your assertion that
the women in the survey were not seeing the options available to
them. I think that they must or they would not have so many concerns.
I truly do not want to sound sexist and patronising, but while I
experience a certain wistful regret that most young women don't
face the future with the same level of optimism, I think they may
have the advantage in avoiding broken dreams.
Ann
|
| 359.33 | That's "sexist and MATronising", Ann ;') | RAINBO::TARBET | | Wed Jan 04 1989 14:13 | 0 |
| 359.34 | Good one, Maggie | VINO::EVANS | Boring Personal Name | Wed Jan 04 1989 15:32 | 19 |
| RE: Comments made by Ann and Gregg crystallized this for me...
If a baby needs a diaper changed, and that baby's father has opted
out of changing the diaper, then that baby's *mother* WILL change
that diaper, rather than allow the baby to be uncomfortable.
(Please let's not slide over into arguments about totally dysfunctional
parents who aren't good care-takers in any case)
The diaper-changing example is only the most basic of examples.
The situation is larger than that, and is why I say that women
have these things to consider as "problems", where men don't,
unless they are *choosing* to consider them.
There has been a global, mental SET DEFAULT KID-CARE /LAST-RESORT:MOM
and we have yet to get the system manager to change it.
--DE
|
| 359.35 | | HYDRA::LARU | Surfin' the Zuvuya | Wed Jan 04 1989 15:39 | 11 |
| re: < Note 359.34 by VINO::EVANS "Boring Personal Name" >
� There has been a global, mental SET DEFAULT KID-CARE /LAST-RESORT:MOM
� and we have yet to get the system manager to change it.
we have met the system manager, and she is us.
/bruce
|
| 359.37 | side question | CADSE::ARMSTRONG | | Wed Jan 04 1989 17:09 | 30 |
|
I try not to interject too often, but i'm puzzled about a head-set
here. A couple of notes back, someone said something like 'if
a diaper needs changing and the man refuses, the woman will do it'.
Is this real experience? Would many women in this conference agree
with this? I could imagine it being equally incovienent for both
of them at some time and they have to decide. I'm sure its not eithers
favorite pastime.
for how many other activities would this hold true? doing the
dishes (a big one in our house). the laundry? How about
mowing the lawn? Changing the oil in the car? Even checking it
when you gas up? Carrying in firewood? emptying the trash?
How about grocery shopping?
When hubby says 'no', do you really just then do it? Do you say
'no' and expect him to do it? whatever it is....
When my 2 year old says no, if I then acquiese (sp?) I'm teaching
a pretty bad lesson. This is what this all sounds like.
My dad never even had to say no....my mom just did it all. he went
to work, she stayed home, the whole bit. I agree its hard to get away
from that.....perhaps impossible or very difficult for the woman to
support the family and the man to stay at home. Or for either of
them to stay at home....a really big change from 30 years ago. But
on the 'little things'....like changing a diaper....do woman really
let men still get away with that?
bob
|
| 359.38 | | RUTLND::SAISI | | Wed Jan 04 1989 17:20 | 8 |
| There is a big difference. In the case of the diaper, a baby is
involved. So yes, if my spouse said no, I would change the diaper.
I would not let a baby endure one second of discomfort more than
it had to, and in addition, I would not (I hope) ever allow a child
to become a pawn in an argument, especially I would not let a child
hear me arguing about who should provide care for it. Imagine how
the kid would feel.
Linda
|
| 359.39 | Thank you, thank you | RAINBO::LARUE | An easy day for a lady. | Thu Jan 05 1989 07:49 | 9 |
| I can tell when the "default" is me when I say 'thank you' for someone
doing a general duty chore. For example, I caught myself saying
'thanks' to my husband last night for doing dishes. That rather
says to me that I think he was doing "for" me instead of for us.
The flip side is that no one thanks me for doing their laundry for
them. These expectations are deeply ingrained and automatic. What
they are has a lot to do with the age one grew up in.
Dondi
|
| 359.42 | | RAINBO::TARBET | | Thu Jan 05 1989 08:59 | 5 |
| "Global" in the sense of "cultural", Gregg. Doesn't apply to every
individual, but is sufficiently pervasive that one can confidently bet
a lunch at a Thai restaurant on it ;-)
=maggie
|
| 359.43 | my penny's worth | CSC32::SPARROW | Oh, I MYTHed again! | Thu Jan 05 1989 11:01 | 18 |
| I think the issue here is that the men who participate in this
particular file and discussion are a very small minority of the
male species. they are generally more educated and open to change
than other men. having lived in places like Turkey, Thialand and
having alot of exposure to people of less then college education,
growing up as an army brat (world wide exposure to different cultures)
and having been in the army myself, my experience has been that
men would rather die, than change a diaper. I know that Gregg (???)
is adament that men are more involved then what has been the experience
of women as to male involvement in many aspects of life. many women
are brought up to believe that the male is master of the home, they
appear to have not had the exposure to what rights they have. alot
are uneducated, unskilled, uninformed as to what century this is.
just because the minority in this file feel that they would want a fair
and even relationship, this doesn't include the millions of uneducated
unenlightened men and women in the world.
vivian
|
| 359.44 | | RAINBO::IANNUZZO | Catherine T. | Thu Jan 05 1989 11:21 | 8 |
| I would like to mention that it is not only unenlightened, non-college-
educated people who have unegalitarian relationships when it comes to
child-rearing. In all my years in Digital (12) I have met exactly ONE
man who seems to be taking equal responsibility with his wife for
raising their child. (e.g. he stays home when the kid is sick, takes him
into work sometimes, adjusts his hours, etc). The joke is sometimes
made that he is a "working mother". There really isn't any similar
concept for a "working father", is there?
|
| 359.47 | NH Thai?? Come on!! | 2EASY::PIKET | | Thu Jan 05 1989 12:25 | 35 |
|
re: .43
I think the reason we (or "they" since I have not participated in
a while) are talking about the supposedly enlightened college educated
is that the survey this note is based on was taken of recent college
graduates.
OF course, a lot a college graduates are sexist and
unenlightened to, so the point is not exactly moot. But I still
agree with Gregg.If a woman wants sacrifices to be shared, it is
up to the woman as individual to marry a man whom she is VERY (as he
put it) sure shares her willingness to compromise. Same goes for the
man. (If I am interpreting you incorrectly, Gregg, just lemme know).
About the diaper changing issue: I am not convinced that this question
is really relevant. The reason I say that is that there are always
some things people hate to do, male or female, and they do not
necessarily hinge on whether they are traditionally male or female
tasks. Personally, I can't kill a bug in the kitchen. I run! I always
ask someone else to do it (although I did once get a dead goldfish
out of a tank for a friend, but I digress). Neither dead bugs nor
dirty diapers are really relevant to the long term question of who
will make the BIG sacrifices. Who gets to remain a couch potato
while the other changes a diaper is not an issue of career sacrifice.
Are the thai places in NH as good as the ones in Boston/Cambridge?
I'd find it hard to believe anything way up there could beat Bangkok
house in the Square!
Roberta
|
| 359.48 | It's pervasive | VINO::EVANS | Boring Personal Name | Thu Jan 05 1989 12:28 | 31 |
| Gregg, I didn't say all men were so callous as to ignore their
baby's needs. I *said* that IF THE FATHER HAS OPTED OUT OF CARING
FOR THAT CHILD - see? it's a fait accompli by the time I've said
it? The old man is out of the picture already. (If the guy were
still *in* the picture, the situation wouldn't exist to begin with)
SO: ASSUMING THE SITUATION EXISTS:
Then who changes the damn diaper?? Not dad. He already opted out.
Not Jeeves, the butler, - there isn't one. Not the baby itself.
Not Spot, the dog. Who's left? Mom. OR the diaper doesn't get changed.
And then Dad says something like, "Can't you get that baby to stop
crying, fer cripes sake?"
The options are: let the baby suffer, argue with hubby, or just
GET IT DONE.
(Apparently, I have to keep saying that I am not talking about ALL
men, or you, or you, or you.....)
Young women have to know that this situation exists, and I believe
that this understanding colors every decision they make.
I have sat in the living room with couples, of whom the male member
was one of the least sexist men I've known, heard the baby cry in
it's room , and heard him say, "Honey, the baby's crying." There
can't be a woman *breathing* over the age of, say, 15, who doesn't
see this kind of stuff all around her.
--DE
|
| 359.50 | Thanks, all | VINO::EVANS | Boring Personal Name | Thu Jan 05 1989 12:38 | 18 |
| Gregg, I just wanted to say that not once in this discussion have
I felt that my experience, or any woman's, has been devalued or
denied. ("No, no, dear, that doesn't happen. You're mistaken.")
Or that you feel that the problem wouldn't exist if women weren't
so dysfunctional or unable to do whatever. I haven't felt put
down, insulted, or devalued because of my gender or my experience,
and this has been one of the most civil discussions, with all of
the disagreements we appear to have, that I've seen in this file
in a long time.
I don't know that it even occurred to you that this is even an issue
with some people, but I just wanted you to know that this STRIDENT,
separtist, radical, feminist, man-hater (tongue in cheek, folks,
tongue in cheek) is enjoying this discussion with you and Ann(s),
and Maggie and Bruce. (Hope I didn't forget anyone...)
--DE
|
| 359.51 | also Bangkok on Mass Ave in Boston near Symphony | 2EASY::PIKET | | Thu Jan 05 1989 12:51 | 19 |
|
re: .48
If you can describe a man who would say, "honey., the baby's crying"
as one of the least sexist you know, then I think you'd better meet
some new men! :^)
I can think of one who is less sexist right off the bat: when my
nephew cries, my brother is as likely to get up (if not more so)
as my sister-in-law.
(Of course, my nephew is the most adorable baby in the world, so
this may be an exceptional case.)
Just out of curiosity, what make you describe this particular man
as "one of the least sexist" yo know?
Roberta
|
| 359.52 | Gimme a break | VINO::EVANS | Boring Personal Name | Thu Jan 05 1989 12:57 | 19 |
| The "diaper issue" is only one example of what would happen if dad
opted out of child-care. (Or *anything*) If someone simply does
*not* do it, it becomes a matter of: Ignore it, Fight about it,
or just DO IT.
Now, with child care it'e a more vital issue, since if the guy
doesn't (FOR EXAMPLE) do laundry (when he said he'd do it) then
*I'd* simply let him run out of underwear. However, if a baby
needs a bottle or a diaper changed, or Little Julius needs to be
driven to Ballet CLass, or Little Griselda to Soccer PRactice,
then the child becomes a pawn in a game, and rather than allow that
to happen, DEFAULT PARENT will simply DO what needs to be done.
In most cases, (No, I didn't say ALL) that'll be Mom. If any young
woman bases her decisions on being prepared to do less than everything,
she's putting herself in jeopardy of getting unpleasantly surprised.
--DE
|
| 359.54 | Least sexist - not non-sexist | VINO::EVANS | Boring Personal Name | Thu Jan 05 1989 13:10 | 28 |
| RE: .51
That's exactly my point - if this relatively non-sexist guy
does stuff like *that*, imagine how bad it really gets!
I say he's nonsexist because he doesn't view women as unable to
do certain jobs because of gender, he doesn't expect his wife to
get his coffee, or his beer, or whatever....he gets it himself and
asks if anyone wants anythign from the kitchen. He serves food to
guests, he expects his daughter to play sports, to do well in Math,
etc. (assuming there's an interest and all that good stuff). He
has female friends, (real friends - not "my wife doesn't understand"
friends).
Granted, he's certainly not non-sexist, but he's willing to learn.
(I believe, the reply to his comment about the baby crying was
something like "No s%|t! Do I look deaf?!" Which was enough to
give him the idea that he really *could* go check on the kid.)
He's one of many men who simply don't *think* about it, because
they've never had to. And as Gregg has implied, if this kind of
guy and a woman who believes child-care (FOR EXAMPLE) should
be shared, then it should work out just fine. *MY* point is that
there is often no way for a young woman to be sure he'll end up
being co-operative.
--DE
|
| 359.56 | Get your own damn beer. ;-) | VINO::EVANS | Boring Personal Name | Thu Jan 05 1989 13:20 | 9 |
| Gree, RE: <I forgot>
Saying, "it happens a lot, an mostly men DO it" is EXACLTY
what I've been saying all along (or trying to say!). Which is
exactly why young women have to take it into account when making
decisions!
--DE
|
| 359.60 | RE: .58 - then get your own damn *lunch*, sweet'ums | VINO::EVANS | Boring Personal Name | Thu Jan 05 1989 13:56 | 1 |
|
|
| 359.61 | doesn't anyone talk anymore? | HYDRA::LARU | Surfin' the Zuvuya | Thu Jan 05 1989 13:59 | 11 |
| re: < Note 359.57 by ISTG::GERMAIN "Down to the Sea in Ships" >
� True, it's tough to gauge whether the person you are thinking
� of marrying has a close enough value structure to yours to make
� the marriage work out.
I don't see why anyone (particularly a participant in this
notefile) would marry someone without being relatively certain that
they shared values.
/bruce
|
| 359.63 | My experience | TUT::SMITH | Is Fifty Fun? | Thu Jan 05 1989 15:06 | 32 |
| Gregg,
Re: "I don't seem to get much in the way of agreement..."
Nearly 30(!) years ago I was looking for a husband but I knew I
wanted a career and that I would have to find a particular kind
of husband. Some guys I dated clearly wanted a traditional wife
(and this was pre-Women's Movement days, so probably _most_ did).
I stuck to what _I_ wanted and, lo and behold, I found a guy who
_didn't_ want a stay-at-home wife, who _did_ share the same values
I did, and who _did_ want a true partner! Through 26 1/2 years
of marriage we have shared as much as was practical. We have alternated
in who took a "back-seat" while the other advanced in career. My
husband has been active in childcare and housework and has taken
time off when kids were sick, etc. We share cooking and alternate
grocery shopping. I still have to make the grocery lists, though,
and he still does or oversees the yard work, snow shoveling, etc.
(In other words, I think he probably does more traditionally-female
tasks than I do traditionally-male tasks!)
Sometimes when I feel guilty because I haven't prepared a meal, or
something, he reminds me, "That's not your job; I can take
care of myself!"
I also wrote the note a few notes back saying that most of the guys
I know are active participants in childcare. But then I realized
that we would not remain friends very long with people who _didn't_
happen to share our values!! So, while my *individual* experience
is evidence of what you say, I _can't_ really generalize from it
to what *will work*!
Nancy
|
| 359.64 | it will always hurt | NOETIC::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Thu Jan 05 1989 16:16 | 18 |
| < <<< Note 359.62 by ISTG::GERMAIN "Down to the Sea in Ships" >>>
< -< YEP >-
<
< Nor can I , but I don't seem to get much in the way of agreement,
< or an indication if people, here, think it's good protection againt
< the problem at hand.
<
< Gregg
<
Well Greg, over 15 years ago my husband and I made a lot of
agreements and promises. I stuck with him through thick and thin.
He told me that once he had his master's degree I could go back
to school and finish my degree. I helped support him through over
6 years of college. He graduated and left me. Where's my promise
now? I was actually told I "wasn't convenient anymore". Now he's
making promises to his girlfriend and I'm getting my degree 3
credits at a time. liesl
|
| 359.65 | Argh | VINO::EVANS | Boring Personal Name | Thu Jan 05 1989 16:22 | 13 |
| Argh. Argh. Argh.
NOBODY denies that one should TALK, TALK, TALK before a marriage,
and neail down whatever agreements you need nailed down.
The POINT here, is that in some circumstances (like FOR EXAMPLE)
child care, IF the guy opts out of his part of the agreement, and
*this is something that guys opt out of more than gyns*, then
she is left holding the bag. ANd all the agreements in the world
won't help, in that case.
--DE
|
| 359.66 | | RAINBO::TARBET | | Thu Jan 05 1989 16:41 | 9 |
| <--(.65, .64)
And as Liesl pointed out, Dawn, even when you DO have the agreements
"nailed down" it may not mean a thing at the end of the day.
It's like driving carefully: it's better than NOT driving carefully,
but wear your seat belt too.
=maggie
|
| 359.67 | | RAINBO::LARUE | An easy day for a lady. | Thu Jan 05 1989 17:01 | 14 |
| Speaking again about default behavior: one of the reasons that
my ex-husband gave for divorcing me was that I had stepped out of
the bounds of womens' work and into mens' work. What I did was
see that the thermostat needed replacing in my car and so I replaced
it. I mean I opened the hood, turned on my screwdriver and fixed
the silly thing. When I discovered that he (the husband not the
car) was hard-wired to believe that he "should by default" fix cars
and I should change diapers I was astonished. One can never be
too cautious about being clear. However one can be boring and
irritating about the process if one chooses. It would never have
occurred to me to ask my fiance how he felt about me handling
automotive repairs.
Dondi
|
| 359.68 | | COGMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu Jan 05 1989 18:28 | 4 |
| Oddly enough, I saw a magazine cover listing an article along the
lines of "Fatherhood and Career -- Can You Handle Both?" just
yesterday. I can't remember the magazine, it wasn't one of the
'big names,' but I'll keep my eyes open for it.
|
| 359.69 | another full time father | WMOIS::B_REINKE | Mirabile dictu | Thu Jan 05 1989 21:42 | 19 |
| This reply harks back to some of the earlier material.
When we had our first child (now age 19), I asked my husband
if he would 'like' to feed the baby one night. He was just
home from work and was tired and reading the paper. He answered
'no'. So I picked our son up and put him in his father's lap
and said "if I don't take care of him, he will die!" Just a bit
on the dramatic side, I will admit. Anyway, my husband who had
already been changing diapers even at that time has been a full
time involved father for all our kids. What my action really did
was to get us to talk about our needs and expectations in re
child care.
For son #2, my husband stayed home two days a week from Jan to
June to care for our son while I was teaching. He takes time off
from work to be home with sick kids, to take kids to the dr, to
pick kids up from work, and has made more night meetings
than I have with teachers.
Bonnie
|
| 359.70 | not really about college grads... | CIVIC::JOHNSTON | OK, _why_ is it illegal? | Fri Jan 06 1989 09:22 | 59 |
| Rick and I have no children, which simplifies matters in the default
behaviour area. If one of us doesn't do it [whatever it is] the
other one does. Most probable person to do a task falls something
along the lines of:
Me: He: Someone:
Cooking dinner Breakfast Dishes
Stacking wood Vacuuming Dusting
Cleaning bathrooms Laundry Minor repairs
Weeding,planting Mowing the yard Mending
Before our daughter died, he showed every indication of being a full
partner. This despite the fact that a child at that juncture had been
no part of either of our plans. I did feed her more frequently than
he, but this was structural rather that whose 'job' it was.
Prior to our wedding we talked and talked and talked about what
we wanted out of life and what our dreams were; but we didn't do
any serious negotiating. It was not necessary as we had a pretty
good idea of the other's values and goals. We were 19 & 20 and in
school at the time.
This was 14 years ago and, believe me, we have done some pretty
serious negotiating since!! He decided he wanted a graduate degree
-- oh thrills! so how many more years do I live with academia and a
piddly college-town job? I decided to leave school and take a job
in a completely unrelated field, travelling a bit and leaving him
with more of the house-stuff than previously. We got pregnant and
had to make adjustments. When our daughter died, I wanted an immediate
replacement [this is typical] and he convinced me to postpone the
decision for at least two years. Five years later we decided to
try again and nothing happened and after tests we agreed on how
to proceed after much discussion. He wanted to take a job in New
England and ended up moving up here four months before I was able
to. Then I wanted to take a job in California, he had several
possibilities lined up, but then my deal turned sour. Now I'm back
in school and we're not going _anywhere_ until I finish this degree.
This does not say that hidden agenda did not crop up over the years,
but if I had $10 for every time one of us said to the other, "Did
I ever _say_ I'd <insert societal stereotype>?" I could pay cash
for a Mercedes.
I'm pretty skeptical of the value of negotiated terms before entering
into a relationship, but I am a big proponent of negotiation and
communication on an on-going basis. Sometimes it _is_ necessary for
one's goals to get temporarily sidelined in the interest of the other.
And I feel that it is the responsibility of the individual to see
that the balance of give and take does not shift to one's detriment.
When relationships end and one gets more grief or benefits I cannot
address effectively. From a career-effect and monetary standpoint
women have traditionally come off the worse, especially where children
are involved. I cannot deny this, but I hope that it is changing. While
there are exceptions, most women I have known would not prefer that the
man say, "I'm leaving and I'm taking the children with me" and many, if
not most, men don't like it either. Negotiating the endings is VITAL.
Ann
|
| 359.72 | Yup. | VINO::EVANS | Boring Personal Name | Fri Jan 06 1989 14:02 | 2 |
| Well said, gregg - especially the last line.
|
| 359.73 | another attempt | CIVIC::JOHNSTON | OK, _why_ is it illegal? | Fri Jan 06 1989 14:17 | 21 |
| re. 359.71
I think, Greg, I finally see where I think we differ.
You seem to be saying that based on the survey, women need to be
aware of choices and be sure to clearly communicate in relationships
what they want, don't want, and what's negotiable. [Maybe this is
oversimplification]
What I'm trying to say is that, based on the survey, women are
_already_ aware of their choices because they are expressing concerns
about them. Further, I contend that men need to be aware of the
choices facing them as women continue to expand into traditionally
male areas of endeavour.
Do you see the difference?
I think what we have is agreement of goals, but rather flip-side
opinions of where things stand.
Ann
|
| 359.74 | nail on the head, Gregg | RAINBO::TARBET | | Fri Jan 06 1989 14:22 | 1 |
| Well said indeed!
|
| 359.76 | Once faced with it, then what? | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | Never dream with a cynic | Fri Jan 06 1989 21:02 | 27 |
| Let me add my $.02 on the diaper example.
Even if the couple had decided to work things out evenly before getting
married, and it worked before becoming parents, once the baby arrives,
now they are Mommy and Daddy. Since both parents have primarily seen
those roles from their own parents, in a different time where women
*did* stay home and take care of everything, they shift into those
roles.
While I agree with Gregg (and who here doesn't?) that the man who opted
out of the diaper change (after it was agreed to be shared
responsibility) is a lout, what does the woman do once faced with this?
If they can work it out, and become the egalitarian couple they wanted
to be, great. If it doesn't work, she can either live with him the way
things are, and do 90% of the childcare, be in continuing battles with
him over it, or throw him out. If she does throw him out, chances are
that she will be the one with custody of the child (I don't like this
either, but it's reality right now), and have to do ALL of the child
care herself, perhaps with financial assistance, perhaps the
hypothetical lout will opt out of that too, so she REALLY gets stuck
with it all.
Granted, women can opt out to this degree too, but I've only seen one
case of the woman opting completely out of childcare responsibilities,
leaving the father with them, and a lot of women in this predicament.
Elizabeth
|
| 359.77 | | SUPER::HENDRICKS | The only way out is through | Sat Jan 07 1989 13:26 | 35 |
| Even if I had read the survey in .0 as a college student, there
are some things I never could have understood well enough to factor
in.
It took me a long time to learn that the way many people present
themselves when they are happy and relaxed and in a philosophical
mood has very little to do with what they might be like when they
had a bad day at work and the house is dirty and they are worried
about money and the baby cries because it is wet and they just sat
down for the first time all day.
Almost everyone I know has all the "right" ideas in theory -- when no
demands are currently being made on them. And many I've met feel like
the rules should change if they are tired, stressed, under pressure,
and feeling overwhelmed. Alternatively, others resign themselves to
being constant givers and expecting nothing for themselves ever.
In addition to that, people have very different levels of tolerance
for dirt, crying of infants, length of grass in the yard, level
of filth in cat litter boxes and so forth, and that has to be factored
in.
One woman I know said that single parenting was easier for her because
she never had to wonder if her spouse would share a task, or negotiate
about who was supposed to do what. She told me she would rather
be physically exhausted from being the sole caretaker of a child
than be emotionally exhausted from the negotiation and manipulation
and tug of wars she experienced in her marriage.
Considering all these factors, I'm actually surprised that as many
couples stay together as long as they do. I guess I'm cynical,
but I've never met anyone I trust enough to consider co-parenting
with. (Including myself!)
I don't envy college students all their decisions.
|
| 359.78 | Work Related Deaths and Women | RUTLND::KUPTON | Thinner in '89 | Mon Jan 09 1989 08:48 | 23 |
| Being a Safety Engineer, I thought that yesterday's Parade Magazine
offered some real food for thought about job safety and women in
the workplace in particular.
I don't have the article in front of me but acouple of thing jumped
out at me and I'll bring in the article and reprint information
that I believe is of interest.
The biggest thing was the fact that of the work related deaths
(accidents and illnesses) for women, 42% of those deaths is MURDER.
That's correct. 347 female deaths in the workplace were murders.
Unprotected women working nights in liquor stores and convience
stores, photomats etc.
60,000 people died from work related causes. As the article stated,
if 243 people died every day in a plane crash the gov't would ground
all planes. But believe it or not, these statistics are pooh,poohed
as unrealistic, not quite correct, or minor compared to other things
that the gov't has to deal with.
By the way. White collar risk of death #7 = Engineers......
Ken
|
| 359.80 | which one are you refering to? | RAVEN1::AAGESEN | where the road and the sky collide | Mon Jan 09 1989 21:02 | 9 |
| re -.1 -mike z
Did you have a particular "lifestyle decision" in mind, or are
you gonna' keep us guessing[ :-)] ? I'm curious........
~robin
|
| 359.82 | | RAVEN1::AAGESEN | where the road and the sky collide | Tue Jan 10 1989 07:40 | 6 |
| re .81
Aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, (from one who *has* chosen that lifestyle
but is considering another choice)
|