Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Whew!  What a topic!
    
    If we could radicalize all women, we'd radicalize the world for sure!
    
    Perhaps I'm an optimist {at the moment} but I believe this could
    happen.  I heard a speaker say once that the majority of Americans had
    their attitudes towards slavery changed by one little book, "Uncle
    Tom's Cabin."  Where is our Harriett Beecher Stowe?
    
    Briana

    
    
    	My *job* is not just a second income. It is my only income.
    	My job is putting a kid through college (she is also working
    	full time simultaneously just to keep a roof over her head).
    	I have worked in predominantly male professions since my first
    	couple jobs (waitress and medical technologist) proved inadequate
    	to support me and my two kids. I had to fight the "second income"
    	and "pin money" attitudes coming at me from the men who were 
    	interviewing me for those jobs. "You're only a *girl*. Why don't
    	you find something *suitable*?  I ended up taking one for less
    	than any guy was getting paid (I checked with some of my more
    	open minded male colleagues) and worked my tail off to demonstrate
    	that *a girl* can crank out quality and quantity just like the
    	rest of them.  I did get a couple good raises and promotions out
    	of it but I gotta say it was an uphill battle. Keep quiet, work
    	hard, keep your nose clean, etc. The guys always seemed to get
    	the raises just because it was time. The annual review, etc. 
    	Things may be changing somewhat but one thing I see as a factor
    	here is that there are still an awful lot of persons in the world
    	who see the female income as the vacation money. Not necessary to
    	live on. There are still females who prefer to keep it that way
    	for themselves.  I have a friend who stays home all the time. She
    	has 8 children, sews all the family clothes, cooks a lot and is
    	perfectly happy that she doesn't even drive. That's her choice
    	but it shouldn't affect my options.  I think though, that it does.
    	Our society has a long way to go before they quit putting persons
    	into categories and assigning value to them by category. Just cause
    	I am female doesn't mean that I will be acting in a prescribed
    	manner. We just need to make people understand that irrespective
    	of what "group" we belong to (I hate that), we are all individuals
    	and will not necessarily fit some predictable model.  Maybe a
    	societal "valuing differences" program is necessary. We can start
    	it here in our company but it shouldn't stop at the edge of company
    	property.  We need to take opportunities presented to us and try
    	to instil some appreciation for these differences in our day to
    	day lives. If you have kids, teach them to appreciate differences.
    	That's a big one. If you hear blanket statements about female
    	income being secondary, try to make the person making the statement
    	understand that not all of us agree with that statement.  Attitudes
    	on both ends need to be changed. Those who do the hiring and those
    	who are being hired.
    								kim
    
    	

    
    I'm not sure how many people have occasion to read Ann Landers column
    but she is one of the biggest proponents (at least I get this
    impression) of the "if the second income is not necessary to the
    household then the woman should not work" philosophy.
    
    Argh!!! I see my job as a career, not just as an "income".  I was born
    with a brain, I worked damn hard on my education to get where I am now,
    and it means a lot to me to work. I also think it is important for
    me to have a career to provide a good role model should I ever have a
    daughter.
    
    It just bothers me that a person such as Ms. Landers, who has, IMO,
    quite a bit of power with the "average" American (practically every
    paper in the US carries either her or her sister) is  promoting such 
    a philosophy.  If I had such power, I think I'd tell people that every
    woman and every situation was different and that people need to
    consider all scenarios.
    
    Hmmmmmmm......maybe I should write a letter.......
    
    Lisa

    I can relate somewhat to the change in the attitude of the woman
    in .0 because until I got divorced 4 1/2 yrs. ago, it never really
    bothered me that secretaries are so underpaid.  When I was married
    to an engineer earning twice my pay, my pay as a secretary seemed
    like a nice little supplement to his pay.  And, before I was married
    I lived with my parents and had no rent, board or utilities to pay
    so, even tho my salary was very low, it was all spending money.
     But, now supporting myself as a single woman, on a secretary's
    pay, is often difficult (and sometimes prevents me from being a
    true feminist - if it weren't for male friends and dates buying
    me many meals over the past couple yrs. I'd probably be starved
    to death by now!!)  (But, my charming company is usually worth the
    money.) smiley face
    
    Re .1, never mind Harriet Beecher Stowe, where's our Emma Goldman?
   
    Lorna
    

    I see this issue as  part of a much larger concern, that of self image.
    The very idea of think of oneself as "just a _____" is demeaning. I
    think those woman may not have had positive role models. From their
    experiences they may think they are deservedly in a secondary role.  
    I notice this when woman say that they are "just a housewife",
    from the onset they have put themselves down.

    I don't see these kind of people at DEC. Hopefully because our internal
    culture discourages such attitudes. 

    How can these attitudes be changes? I don't know, it seems to be such a
    deeply routed societal thing. They are reared in families were the
    woman's role is treated as secondary, they are not encouraged to strive
    to be primary. 
    
    Gail

    Rathole alert:
    
    And if you work at DEC and live here in Maynard, you hear:  "You don't
    have to worry, you're earning plenty!"
    
    ARrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

    Tangent alert:
    
    It upsets me that I still see teenage girls being raised to believe
    that they will not be required to provide anything more than vacation
    income, and planning on the basis of those beliefs.  It makes me wonder
    if we're setting up our collective daughters to fail.  Examples:
    
    Mother of 13-year-old girl, in front of daughter, regarding a friend's
    decision to move with his son to a town with a grossly inferior school
    system: "It's so STUPID.  I mean, he has a SON.  A _boy_ needs the best
    education he can get -- he'll have to support a family some day."  The
    irony is that this woman has been abandoned by men twice and was at
    that time working two jobs to support her kids.
    
    Mother of 15-year-old girl to daughter:  "You need to pass math so
    you can graduate.  You need the diploma to get a good job, and you
    might need to support yourself someday, if your husband gets sick or
    something."  Better preparation, but still...
    
    We have a 50- or 100- year cultural lag here.  It is not only outdated
    to teach girls that they have a right to expect a man to support
    them, it is downright UNSAFE.  
    
    Hypothesis:  Once we raise our girls to believe that they have the
    responsibility to provide their own living -- that being supported
    by *anyone* else is a luxury and not a right -- we will see a
    remarkably rapid disappearance of the "just-a-second-income" attitude.
    
    IMO, 
    Beth

    I am one of 3 sisters.  The others are married, I am not, but we
    are *all* the primary wage-earner in our families!  We certainly
    never planned it that way, nor was it expected, but it is what has
    happened.
    
    My grandmother was widowed at the beginning of the Depression. 
    She supported herself, her mother and my mother (her daughter).
     My mom was the primary breadwinner during a period of some years
    while my dad attempted to start his own business.
    
    I am not convinced that women have *ever* been able to count on
    being supported by others, they have simply been more or less prepared
    to cope when left on their own, and had more or fewer opportunities.
     Right now, we are in one of the 'more' eras.  A job should be worth
    what a job is worth, regardless of whether a man or a woman holds
    it (or a child, teen or Mexican chihuahua for that matter).
    
    Alison

    
    My *first* reaction when I read the base note?  She's getting
    what she so richly deserves....  too bad it took a disaster like
    having her husband losing his job.  Sounds like she *has*, however,
    learned something from this, but I'm still skeptical of her having
    any ability at all to relate to people who have different kinds of
    problems than the kind she has....  she can relate to something
    different now, only because she's in it, as far as I can tell.
    Please pardon my sarcasm, but how *very* understanding and how
    very *enlightened* of her.

re: .10

 friday afternoon compassion...

    re .11:
    
    Why thank you very much, Mr. Compassion himself.
    

   
    re: (.-1) Ellen Gugel

    Now, Ellen, I've heard the Doctah called a lot of things, but
    
 >    Why thank you very much, Mr. Compassion himself.
   
    this *might* be stretching it just a bit.

							nancy b.

{ though he did do a good job of deluding us at the last =wn= party :-}

    I'm single; mine is my first, last, and only income.  When I was
    married, my income was the primary income by a LARGE proportion.
    Yet when I got divorced and I stayed in what had been our apartment,
    the landlord wanted to know if I could afford to stay.  I knew he was
    trying to be kind, but I really got smoked about that. I assurred him
    it would not be a problem.
    
    I was raised to be a housewife like my mother, who did not
    have a job while my father lived. She needed one after he died, and
    still works although she is well past the retirement age because my
    dad's Social Security is insufficient to live on.
    
    In my parent's home, it was my brother who counted for education.  I
    put myself through college and grad school.  All the while listening to
    my grandmother's dire warnings that I'd  "become too smart to attract a
    man."
    
    A few months back I was talking with a neighbor who has a teenaged
    daughter.  Neighbor was bemoaning that daughter was engaged to marry
    right after high school graduation. Daughter and fiance planned that she
    would not work after marriage.  Mother horrified at plans.
    Mother was divorced and raised her kids herself, mostly supporting
    the kids because the child support checks usually did not come.
    The daughter was confident that such a thing could not happen to
    her.  It seems that she just ignored probabilty.
    
    I had two good friends in college, my roommate and the man who became
    her husband.  They both went through the same pre-med program, same med
    school, and went into practice together in the same specialty. 
    People still make appointments with "the lady Dr. G." and are then
    outraged that she charges the same fee as does the "man Dr. G."
    
    Remember the bromide that, "women are just one man away from poverty."
    It's ridiculous to think that our economic lives and our kids lives
    rely on outmoded perceptions of the economic necessity of our paychecks.
    
    Like anyone else, we work to support ourselves and our dependents.
    

>    Remember the bromide that, "women are just one man away from poverty."

Yeah; but it sounds like we have to go farther. I mean, men are just one man
away from poverty: themselves! And no one _expects_ to get divorced (or almost
no one?), or expects early death of a spouse.

The more I think about it, the more that men can take chances and depend on
their SO's income (be that SO female or male), then things will turn. If
married men start their own home businesses, take care of the kids, go back to
school, become artisans, etc.
	Mez

    Re: .15
    
    >The more I think about it, the more that men can take chances and
    >depend on their SO's income (be that SO female or male), then things
    >will turn. If married men start their own home businesses, take care
    >of the kids, go back to school, become artisans, etc.
    
    Oddly enough, I never thought of my home as being "non-traditional"
    until just now.  My mother went back to work when my father started his 
    own business and we depended mostly on her income.  Mom resented it 
    because my little sister was only 3 or 4 and all the other kids grew up 
    with Mom at home.  My brothers and I would pick up Maria from day care
    when we got off the bus.  Two of us were in middle school and the other
    two in grade school, so we were old enough to be at home alone without
    real problems.  My father was the one doing the rides to and from school, 
    daily shopping, errands, etc.  I got stuck making dinner most the time 
    (boy, did that burn me up -- why not any of my brothers?) but he took
    care of the rest during the week.  He also did vacuuming and sweeping. 
    Kids had kitchen duty and we all did laundry whenever we needed to.

    Yes, the perception is there by both sexes...it's so hard when your
    values change due to children and family.
    
    I am a single mom of a 20 month old girl.  I'm 38, have worked always
    since high school, put myself though college and grad school, own
    my condo and investment property.  Yet during this past year I
    approached my management on cutting my hours to a 4-day workweek
    because the stress of commuting, work and doing it basically alone
    were getting to me.  The subject of $ (80% pay for 4 days) came
    up and I said to boss, "well, I could manage on 80% pay".  He
    interpreted this not that I had savings, investments, or that I could
    scale back by basic living expenses, but commented something like "2
    income couples (I get child support) can afford to do that"
    
    So now, because I get child support to help pay for my child's daycare,
    is he assuming that I am being supported by someone? 
    
    On the other hand, I am NOT working just for the paycheck.  I have
    calculated a way that I could at least take a few years off to stay
    home with my child IF I WANTED.  But is the perception there that I
    should earn less because I am not a man supporting a wife and kids?
    Have I helped create this perception by asking for a 4-day workweek?
    
    Another side of this subject that has been bothering me slightly in
    the past year or so is that my married friends with the option to
    stay home with their first child have done that at the earliest
    possible moment.  That is their choice, but they have said by this
    action that they were just working for the paycheck, forget any
    personal or professional contributions.
    
    Another point, my child's father just QUIT his job before getting
    another.  He's considering going out on his own, consulting.  He has
    some savings and feels confident that he'll get something, so I'm
    not worried about child support.  BUT, would he have done this if I
    wasn't working and could take over the medical insurance, etc.
    
    That's all.  I'll certainly give my daughter the message that her work/
    professional/contributions to society are worth lots!
    
    Beth

    re .17, Beth-
    
    > Another side of this subject that has been bothering me slightly in
    > the past year or so is that my married friends with the option to
    > stay home with their first child have done that at the earliest
    > possible moment.  That is their choice, but they have said by this
    > action that they were just working for the paycheck, forget any
    > personal or professional contributions.
    
    Ummm.  I experienced some cognitive dissonance when I read this.
    
    If *you* took this action that's what it would mean *to you*.  But when
    other recent mothers make decisions to stay home to raise their
    children all it says to me is that they deem that the most important
    part of their lives at that time, their opportunity to make their
    greatest "personal contributions"...I'd rather we not project our own
    career/income aspirations against other people who have their own goals.
         
    DougO

From < Note 826.3 >:
    
>>    I'm not sure how many people have occasion to read Ann Landers column
>>    but she is one of the biggest proponents (at least I get this
>>    impression) of the "if the second income is not necessary to the
>>    household then the woman should not work" philosophy.

That's not my impression of Ann Landers, and I read her column every day. I
thought she said that if a woman has *small children*, it's better if she can
stay home with them rather than work outside the home. But if she has to work,
well, she has to work.

But maybe I'm confusing her with her slightly more liberal sister Dear Abby.

Vicki Meagher

    If Anne Landers quoted saying that a woman should stay home
    with small children, why can the father stay home with the small
    children????  My husband stays home with our son and does all
    the domestic stuff and really enjoy's it.  I've always been the
    income maker in the family, and my husband has worked various second
    shift jobs, but he enjoys staying home with our son (2 1/2 yrs old)
    
    If a mother or father choose's to put there career on the back-burner
    to raise there child(ren), I think that's fantastic.  But it should
    be a choice of parents, not just the mommy........