Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Er...uh...when is it?

D!

    
    May 13th.

    re .-1
    
    I believe that May the 13th is the North American date.
    
    If I remember rightly in the UK it is sometime in March.
                            
    Other locations may differ.

    
    Never knew that, thanks.
    
    						Hank

    In Mexico, it's May 10th every year.

re: Mother's Day....

I wnt to send a card to my new step mother, but none of the "canned cards" are
appropriate, because they talk about how grateful one is towards one's mother
for all her work through the years, etc... and I just met Susan less than a
week ago.  So I want to write the message in the card myself; I want to make
it the "perfect" message, so any suggestions (appropriate poems?) are
appreciated.

And why, with so many second marriages in the world, are there so few 
"step-mother" cards??

D!

    How about something like.....
    
    
    Families are made
    By love
    As well as by time
    
    Although we're still short on one of these
    I just thought I'd send some warm thoughts your way
    On mother's day...
    
    -Jody

    re:.6
    
    D!, It's very nice of you to even think of her.
    
    Kate
    P.S. Jody, those little mini-poems are cute.

Not to spoil the fun, but...I believe that if our society really valued 
mothers and what they do, it would at least pay them salaries. To put them 
on a pedestal of flowers and greeting cards one day out of 365 only 
underscores how little it does value them and what they do (though it 
contributes substantially to Madison Avenue's salary!).

Thanks but no thanks,

Dorian

Well, I am not going to pay my mother a salary, nor am I going to pay my father
a salary (and if mothers are payed, shouldn't fathers be?) but I *do* tell and
show them as often as I can that I love them and appreciate all the work, time,
money and heartache they put in to raising me.  For me, Mother's Day is the day
to send Mom flowers or make breakfast in bed for her, to show her I appreciate
her.  The other 364 days a year are for me to hug her or call her up or have
her over for dinner or send her cards to show her I appreciate her.  I don't
forget the rest of the time.

Sure, Mother's Day primarly exists for the card and flower business.  But I
think it also exists for mothers and children, because sometimes it is easy
to forget how much your mother has done for you, to take it for granted, and
some of us need a kick in the pants every now and then to *remind* us how much
we owe our parents.

D!

> Not to spoil the fun, but...I believe that if our society really valued 
> mothers and what they do, it would at least pay them salaries. 
    
    	Maybe if I'd been raised by a mother and not a single parent father
    	I'd understand this comment. But I wasn't and I don't. I've always
    	thought society undervalued the fathers role.
    
    			Alfred

I still say if society really valued motherhood, we'd be getting paid for
it. You know, the way they pay doctors, lawyers, corporation presidents,
baseball stars ... somehow I don't think breakfast in bed once a year and
an occasional hug would satisfy too many of them ... could it be that 
society considers what these people do more important than the bearing and
rearing of new generations? 

For many mothers -- and some fathers -- parenting is a full-time job; it's
certainly "work"; many people (if not society as a whole) consider it
extremely valuable; they may not have any other source of income. Does it
make sense for a mother to go out and get a paying job, and have to put her
kids in a day-care center and then pay the center's staff for what is
essentially a mothering service, rather than for the mother to stay home
and get paid directly? Why do we only pay for mothering when it's set up
as a business and done by people who are not in fact our children's 
mothers?

This last point was brought home to me in Arlington a couple of years ago 
when I saw a bumper sticker for the Arlington Children's Center that said,
"We Hugged Your Child Today."

My understanding is that there was a time when mothers and motherhood were
truly valued by society, but it started to decline around 5000 years ago
and other values gradually replaced it. Some think there was a cost
involved, and that the fact that today virtually none of society's major
institutions (you know, governments, corporations, law-making bodies, where
the power is) are informed by anything resembling maternal types of values
is part of what's wrong with the world today ... 

Dorian
                              

>My understanding is that there was a time when mothers and motherhood were
>truly valued by society, 

How did society recompense parents and nurturers then? Payment? Integration?
	Mez

    
    re .14 -
    
    Hey, I don't know how to work out the details of where the money would
    come from. (Only we don't seem to have that problem when it comes to
    paying people in other walks of life.) Maybe the gummint could supply it? If
    it weren't shelling out so much money on other, non-maternal-related
    projects, like defense against war?
    
    What would they be getting for their money? New individuals, raised
    with love and care and intelligence to be good members of society...I
    realize that's loaded language and of course, not everyone would agree
    on terms...but we do have lawyers who surely, for a fee, could work 
    things out.
    
    By homemakers I presume you mean women who are married to men who draw
    a salary. What you say is true, she is then receiving such things. But
    personally I wouldn't consider them analogous to a salary of her own.
    For one thing, she's completely dependent on the man, financially.
    
    Maybe our valuation of mothers (or devaulation) is parallel to our
    devaluation of children. Certainly the amount of money we spend on
    educating them suggests this. Unless, of course, kids are perceived as
    a market group, capable of spending money on merchandise...then
    suddenly they become quite valuable!
    
    re .13
    
    In those ancient times I'm not sure there was such a thing as
    money...but mothers/motherhood were valued in a religious sense...as
    the divine creators of life. Not too much of that around any more...
    
    Scrooge

    I get this weird feeling that if suddenly men were sitting home, doing
    childcare 99% of the time, they'd be getting either pay or more
    recognition or more support from this society than women currently are.
    
    I think the valuation of mothering is low because they're women.  And
    because it's always been this way.
    
    I think it would be wonderful if there were community centers where
    parents could go and bring their children, or leave their children with
    other parents and children if they had to do shopping or something (on
    an equal time-on time-off basis of course)......
    where educational and developmental tools were readily available and a
    medical staff was present all the time, and these centers would be free
    for everyone's use.
    
    Then again I also think it would be wonderful if this nation's
    educational budge would suddenly double.  I think it's time to stop the
    cold war and the armies and the military intrigue and just pay
    attention to the people of this country and their needs.  I think the
    money is there in abundance, it's just not being handed out the right
    way.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Doc, or anyone..
    
    What do you mean by "mothers ought to be valued more"?
    When did mothers start to be valued less?
    
    							Hank

    I think mothers became less valued when society began taking them for
    granted, and removing their power.  stay-at-home non-working mothers 
    have no power in this society.  They have few if any rights.  They have
    no voice in the monetary running of this country, and no clout when it
    comes to getting their needs met (unless they all band together and
    scream simultaneously with their votes, or their pin-money - which
    results in the soothing "there, there" that patronizing politicians oft
    return).  
    
    I think we can love our mothers to death, but until this society fully
    appreciates exactly how much they give, how much work they do, and how
    goddam necesssary they are for the future, there will BE no peace for
    housewives who take pride in raising children - they will be made to
    feel they out to be career women or they ought to be doing this or
    that, that what they are doing is not ENOUGH in our society's eyes, and
    can never equal the value we put on the godalmighty dollar....
    
    -Jody
    
    

    more thoughts.....
    
    I think another clue to how much we could value motherhood can be found
    in the following:
    
    Someone walks up to you and says:
    
    "I gave 3 hours to public television taking donations over the phone
    	last night"
    
    You think they're charitable, and kind, they feel they've made a
    contribution, you smile and acknowledge that you feel they have too.
    
    "I gave 6 hours to a battered women's shelter comforting women in 
    	pain"
    
    You think they're kind, understanding, giving, and that they're a real
    humanitarian who strives to reduce the plight of human suffering.  And
    they have.
    
    "I gave 20 hours coordinating the Walk for Hunger, and setting up
    waystations along the route, and getting pledges"
    
    Now they're giving time, energy, and coordinational ability towards a
    tremendous city-wide effort to help those in need.  Highly appreciable
    and a good deal of effort - beyond the call of duty in many ways.
    
    "I gave 14 hours of my time to my children today."
    "I do this every day."
    
    How does it sound now?
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Jody,
    
    You put it very well!
    
    Dorian

    Nestled away in _Ethan_of_Athos_ are a few comments about the
    finances of Athos, a planet without women.  (Eh?  Ovarian tissue
    and uterine replicators.  Why do you ask?)  We know from the first
    chapter that it is a very poor planet, but we later learn that it
    is poor because the nurturers *are* paid.
    
    Did you know that the United Nations definition of what constitutes
    "work" for purposes of determining Gross National Product, etc.,
    is carefully designed to exclude all `women's work' from consideration?
    
    							Ann B.

    
    Dorian, I think you raise some excellent points.  Of course if I were a
    mother, I would think it was very sweet if my children gave me a card
    or cooked me breakfast on Mother's day.  But it is sad that in a
    culture where the concept of MOTHER is sacred so many mothers find
    themselves well below the poverty line, unable to get adequate food,
    shelter, health care.  It is something to think about.  I think it's
    quite telling that our present economic system really doesn't allow for
    a practical way to pay mothers for the time, energy, and skill they
    give all of us through their work of caring for children.
    
    I'm sure that as individuals many of us honor and love our mothers, but
    the points that Dorian raises remind me that as a society, we really
    don't seem to value the work of child-rearers, work that is primarily
    done by mothers or other women.
    
    Justine  

re . 16 -

To me, your last statement is logically inconsistent -  "I'll agree that
mothers ought to be valued more than they are, but I don't believe paying
them a salary would be helpful." How else do we value anyone in our
society, if not by paying them money? 

In my view, paying mothers (or fathers, if they're the primary caretakers)
a salary would not only recognize that the job has value, it might also
encourage people to do a better job, since it would be taken more
seriously. Of course, since (as you suggest; this is really the core of the
problem) society pretty much *doesn't* recognize that the job has value,
it's not likely to happen... 

Oh well. At least I have Virginia Woolf on my side (in her book Three Guineas). 
Now if I can just find one of those VW T-shirts...  ;-)

Dorian

    You asked many questions (15 or so I'd guess) in that response, Mark. 
    I don't think any answers will be evident soon.  I think what's going in
    is a delineation of a problem, rather than an actual bona fide ironclad
    operable solution.  I think it's perfectly okay to discuss a problem
    and NOT come up with a fully implementable solution.  I don't think the
    *results* of a discussion that pinpoint a problem without coming up with
    a definite solution are incomplete, although your mileage may vary.
    
> Your contention that mothers ought to be paid (ostensibly by society) raises
> many more questions than it answers.
    
    Yes, including "how did we get here"....I'd love to see that one
    answered.
    
    -Jody
    

If you want to treat motherhood as a job, in terms of salary, you have to
treat it as a job in other respects, which would *totally* change the
way motherhood works.

First off, if you aren't doing a good job, you get fired.  In this case,
I guess that means they take your child away.  It would *have* to become
a lot easier for the goverment to take a child away than it is now.  After
all, if you are getting paid for it, then you don't have a "right" to do
it the way you do now.

Secondly, we would have to be able to limit births.  After all, for any
other job, people have to apply, prove their qualifications, etc.  We can't
have a job where anyone with a working womb is guaranteed and income.
Therefore - enforced birth control.  or at least, if you haven't been 
accepted for the position of Mother, they take your child away at birth
and give him/her to someone who *has* been accepted.

Some standard of "goodness" has to be developped.  You will have to have
periodic reviews of how "good" a mother you are being.  If you aren't being
a good mother, you get demoted, or even fired.  How are we going to develop
this standard?  Seems to me, given knowledge of how the government tends to
work, that ths standard will enforce the status quo, where "good" will be
defined as what always has been.  Dr. Spock never would have cut it.  If
everyone raises their child the same, conformity in children will result.  
Oh yay.

I personally would find it strongly objectionable if Somebody (presumably
the government) were to start thinking of Motherhood as a Job, that has
to be qualified for, applied for, reviewed, etc.  And if it isn't a Job
like other jobs, then why should you get paid for it?  If you want the
salary of  Real Job without the other things, then it really is a matter,
as the Doctah said, of having your cake and eating it too.

When it comes down to it, the real flaw with the motherhood-as-job argument
is that it doesn't make sense to pay someone to do something where the
only skill required is the skill necessary to insert tab A in slot B.
(WHOA!  Stop right there, don't type REPLY to flame me about how hard
work motherhood is - I know it is.  *Good* mothers put a lot of working
in to raising children.  But you don't have to be a *good* mother to be
a mother - all you have to do is have active ovaries and access to some
sperm - I'm not going to pay someone for that.)

D!

I think Dorion hit a nail squarely on the head.

>How else do we value anyone in our society, if not by paying them money? 

 These days, it seems, some people (?a majority?) measure value ONLY in terms
of money.  Perhaps this is why motherhood (well, parenthood, homemaking,...)
is undervalued; not because the task has changed or is any less onerous, but 
because the definition of what is valuable has narrowed tremendously.

 Perhaps, rather than thinking in terms of "How can we pay people a salary for
staying at home", we need to think in terms of "How can we expand our definition
of 'value'?"

					Nigel
				

    
    I guess I'm one of those people who doesn't associate
    value in our society with money. Love, trust, compassion,
    moral values, etc., are some of what I value most. These
    were taught to me by my grandmother and mother. I can't possibly
    assign a monetary value and pay them back accordingly for
    having raised me as they had. Perhaps, for my mothers, the best
    way to pay them (back) is to be the adult they were trying to mold,
    and most of all, love and respect them as they had done for
    me so unconditionally. 
    
    							Hank

    re .30, that sounds very nice, but I hope that in addition to love,
    trust, moral values, compassion, being a good person, etc., that
    my daughter also pays me back by buying me expensive gifts every
    Mother's Day, as soon as she grows up and starts getting a pay check!

    Lorna
    

Maybe the real issue here is not so much whether society should pay mothers 
a salary (though I'm in favor of the idea), which might, after all, at this 
point, be a bit like trying use a bandaid to cure cancer. Maybe the real 
issue is --  if I'm right that their lack of salary is an indication of how 
little they're valued -- *why* they're so little valued. I think Jody 
answered this question: mothering is devalued in our society because, for 
the most part, it's something done by women, and "women's work" is, by 
definition, unimportant.

Adrienne Rich, in her book *Of Woman Born*, gives a profound analysis of 
the experience and institution of motherhood in patriarchal society. She 
talks about males' deep-seated anxiety about their mothers; the Mother
Goddess in ancient times and the gradual devaluation of the feminine
life-giving principle by patriarchal religions; the definition of women as
men's property, as men came to perceive their role in reproduction and
to insist on controlling who their children were; males' fostering of the 
view that women's maternal functions -- menstruation, childbirth -- made 
them unclean; the taking over of the act of childbirth, once wholly the 
province of female midwives, by male physicians; the Judeo-Christian dictum 
that women must suffer the pain of childbirth, that it must not be 
alleviated; the imprisonment of women in unwanted pregnancy and motherhood, 
and the effects of this on women.

On the history of motherhood, Rich quotes Joseph Campbell:

"There can be no doubt that in the very earliest ages of human history the 
magical force and wonder of the female was no less a marvel than the 
universe itself; and this gave to women a prodigious power, which it has 
been one of the chief concerns of the masculine part of the population to 
break, control and employ to its own ends."

Mothers' Day? Can you say "how to add insult to injury"?

Dorian

    re: .32
    
    Those themes are also prevalent in "The Mermaid and the Minotaur -
    Sexual Arrangements and Human Malaise" by Dorothy Dinnerstein.
    
    -Jody
    

    re .34 -
    
    On the other hand, even if bandaids don't cure cancer, they often make
    the patient feel better. So I still like the salary/bandaid idea; it's 
    better than nothing!                                                     
    
    Dorian

    
    
    
    re .34
    >>I didn't expect to see many [answers]; they were hard questions, 
    >>the type that may lead one to question original assumptions. 

    Mark, I think that the questions that have been raised here with regard
    to what it means that mothers are unpaid (and I think undervalued --
    not always sure which one caused the other) require that we challenge
    our original assumptions.  I think that your response to those
    questions really just restates the original assumptions.  That work is
    paid for when it's valued, and the most valuable work is paid the most.
    And that motherhood can't be quantified and then paid for.  I think the
    objections you raise are valid.  In our current system I can't think
    of how we could make this different either.  But I'd like to try and
    imagine something different even if it's impossible to realize it.
    I mean, maybe if I can see something very different in my wildest
    imaginings, I can make something a little different in the here and
    now.  I think if I only let myself think about how I could make
    something different work in the world we have now, I'll never get
    anywhere.  I agree with the point Jody made that it's ok to mull over
    a problem a while before imposing the need for solutions.
    
    >>I think the number of men that look down upon women's
    >>work is rapidly decreasing, as they are exposed to the 
    >>rigors of the things that traditional women do.

    We might disagree about how rapidly that change is happening, but I
    agree that there's been some progress.  But I think that the place
    where we've made the most progress is that women have more choices for work
    outside the home.  There still aren't very many men choosing to work
    inside the home (fulltime), and I think that many women don't feel
    valued when they choose to make caring for children and running a home
    a fulltime career. 
    
    Justine
           

Nit picking on .32:

    It is  not  a  Judeo-Christian  dictum that the pain of childbirth
    must  not  be  alleviated, it is a Christian dictum. In Jewish law
    menstrual   and   childbirth   pains   are  "a  curse  and  not  a
    commandment",  so  one  is  free  to try to avoid or alleviate the
    pain.

--David

re .37 -

I see what you're saying, but isn't the source of the idea that women must
suffer in childbirth -- whether or not that idea was interpreted as an
actual commandment or merely a "curse"  8-{  -- the Book of Genesis in the Old
Testament? 

Dorian

RE: .38

    I think  that  Genesis was stating a fact. Some woman have painful
    menses, and almost all childbirth is painful. Any observant person
    will be aware of that. Having established that fact, one runs into
    the  question  of what to do when (much later) technology makes it
    possible  to alleviate the pain. The Jewish interpretation is that
    the pain is a curse, which one may try to alleviate, rather than a
    commandment  to  suffer,  which  one must obey. That this occus in
    Genesis  merely  speaks  to how old the observation is, and is not
    the  cause of the pain. (This is from my view of the Old Testament
    as a book written by people, I don't know how one would view it if
    one believes that the Old Testament was Divinely written.)

--David

    David,
    
    Among some Christians in the past it was preached that it was
    breaking God's law (as laid down in the old testament) to ease
    the pain of women in child birth.
    
    Bonnie

   .37> It is  not  a  Judeo-Christian  dictum that the pain of childbirth
   .37> must  not  be  alleviated, it is a Christian dictum. In Jewish law
                                           ^^^^^^^^^
   .37> menstrual   and   childbirth   pains   are  "a  curse  and  not  a
   .37> commandment",  so  one  is  free  to try to avoid or alleviate the
   .37> pain.

    
   .40> Among some Christians in the past it was preached that it was
                   ^^^^^^^^^^
   .40> breaking God's law (as laid down in the old testament) to ease
   .40> the pain of women in child birth.
    
    Bonnie, I think that was the distinction David was trying to make.
    
    That it was *Christian* interpretation of the Old Testament that
    led to this practice, not *Jewish* interpretation of the OT.
    
      Alan

    okay
    
    I guess I felt it needed rephrasing..
    
    let me go back and read it again
    
    bj

    What I would like to see is more flexibility in the workforce
    surrounding the needs of families. (flex-hours, near site day care etc)
    That's how DIGITAL could respect us.  
    
    The idea of paying mothers is kind of novel. I think we do that with
    AFDC. Don't we? 
    
    Being a mother certainly isn't anything mysterious. All it takes is a
    a few hormones, a couple of ovaries and one expandable uterous. Most
    of us don't want pay, applause or kudos. We'd just want a fair shake.
    
    Kate
    
    By the way, I meant this note to be a Happy Mother's Day wish.
    
    
    
    
     

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children."  -- Genesis III, 16

New International Version translates it this way:

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give 
birth to children.  Your desire will be for your husband, and he will
rule over you."  - Genesis 3:16

It sounds like before, there was -discomfort- at worst in childbearing and 
an equality between the sexes (in Eden).  Therefore, if I may be allowed 
to interpret it this way (read that "IMO"), the perfect order (Eden) had 
the sexes on equal footing (?).  

...just mind-wandering on this...better stop now.

Mark  

P.S.  I think this has strayed from the topic.

Moderators.

Please move my .-1 topic if you think necessary, and delete this one at will.

    
    Well, I was pointed at this note because I entered a similar thought in
    the HumanRelations conference and summarily got my head chopped off
    [grin].
    
    So, as an "after-the-facter" who has read all 47 replies, I will add my
    2 cents worth.
    
    I think there are two issues about Motherhood being dallied with here.
    
    The first has to with how much society at-large is willing/able to
    *hold in esteem* those members of the society that perform the duties
    of Motherhood. Several notes have brushed against what I think is
    amajor cause for a *lack* of esteem; namely, our new-found [sic]
    ability to not only alleviate the pain of childbirth but also the
    danger of rearing children.
    
    *Technologically* it is just too easy to succeed these days. So, a
    society that has legislated itself away from holding intangibles
    as important...[our whole legal system would collapse...everything is
    based to heavily on tangible evidence]...find itself in conflict over
    addressing intangible service in an appropriate manner.
    
    Mothers are not the only group who suffer from this. The entire
    heterogenous groups of social workers and teachers, for example, also
    suffer from the same malaise.
    
    The previous replies have run the gamut, I think on possible ways to
    and to not address this. My 1/2 cent on this portion of the topic is
    that until and unless our society changes the basis upon which it was
    built, bandaids [aptly put by someone] is all you are going to get.
    
    The second issue is, however, I think more addressable...and to me is
    the more important f the two.
    
    That deals with how much *esteem* mothers are willing to hold
    themselves in. We have contributed to our own demise in that we have
    allowed men and society to denegrate our roles as care-givers and
    nurturers. This is such a simple thing, I know it sounds ridiculous.
    But if *I* do not value my role as a mother; then I am da*n sure noone
    esle is going to value it either.
    
    We can address the lack of self-esteem that women feel. We can teach
    people to think well of themselves and of their chosen paths in life,
    [granted they *have* choices, of course].
    
    Every woman that we reach; that we convince of her own worth, will
    bring that much more esteem to women in general. One less woman will
    allow herself to be treated as chattel. One less woman will allow
    herself to be beaten. One less woman will allow herself to be
    undervalued.
    
    My 2 cents.  FWIW.
    
    Melinda
    

I heard a news snippet on the radio that Barbara Bush will be the commencement
speaker at Wellsley (sp?) college.  The students are protesting because 
Barbara got where she was through her husband, she doesn't represent a true
Wellsleyan role model.  Barbara has countered that being a good mother
and wife is a valid role model.
 

    As the daughter and granddaughter of Wellesley alumnae, neither
    of whom had corporate/business careers per se, and both of
    whom had daughters who did/are, I can see both sides of this little
    tempest.  As it is somewhat unusual for Wellesley's commencement
    speaker to be a woman without significant accomplishments of her
    own (and I question whether Barbara Bush really fits that definition)
    does anyone in the audience know if Barbara has previous ties of
    some sort with the college?  Like is she an alumna?  Or one of her
    daughters?  Are her personal efforts (like the literacy campaign)
    of particular interest to college-educated women?
    
    Alison

There is a note specifically devoted to Barbara and Wellesley College

110.* I believe.

    My Mother's Day wish is that "I wish my daughter would sacrifice her
    horse show and spend the day with me on Mother's Day"
    
    +pat+

    Have you told *her* that, Pat?  :-)

    Yes Maggie I have, but her whole life is horses, horses, horses, every
    thing else in life starts at 3rd or 4th.  She has missed every major
    summer holiday for the past 10 years, her birthday included because of
    horse shows.

    oy, what a bummer, Pat.  Well, at least she'll probably be very
    successful with that kind of dedication!

    Is the rejection of Barbara Bush (topic 106) an example of lack
    of appreciation of the mother's role in America?
    
    			Alfred

    I wish my Mom, wherever she is, a happier life next time with the
    love and acceptance she so desperately desired this lifetime, and
    never seemed to find.
    
    A toast, Mom, to what I hope will be!
    
    Barb

    I found this somewhere on the net and saved it.  It caught my attention...
    I believe it fits this topic quite well.

    
		AND GOD CREATED MOTHERS
		-----------------------

    When the good Lord was creating mothers He was into His sixth day of
    overtime when an angel appeared and said, "You're doing a lot of
    fiddling around on this one."

    And the Lord said, "Have you the specifications on this order?  She has
    to be completely washable, but not the plastic...have 180 movable
    parts, all replaceable...run on black coffee and leftovers...have a lap
    that disappears when she stands up... a kiss that can cure anything
    from a broken leg to disappointed love affairs and six pairs of hands."

    The angel shook her head slowly and said, "Six pairs of hands?  No
    way."

    "It's not the hands that are causing me problems," said the Lord. 
    "It's the three pairs of eyes that mothers have to have."

    "That's on the standard model?", asked the angel.

    The Lord nodded, "One pair that sees through closed doors when she
    asks, "What are the children doing in there?" when she already knows. 
    Another in the back of her head that sees what she shouldn't but what
    she has to know.  And of course, the one in the front that can look at
    a child when he gets himself into trouble and say 'I understand and I
    love you' without so much as muttering a word."

    "Lord", said the angel touching his sleeve gently, "go to bed. 
    Tomorrow is another..."

    "I can't" said the Lord, "I'm so close now.  Already I have one who
    heals herself when she is sick, can feed a family of six on one pound
    of mince and can get a nine year old to take a bath."

    The angel circled the model of the mother slowly.  "It's too soft", she
    sighed.

    "But tough", said the Lord excitedly.  "You cannot imagine what this
    mother can do or endure."

    "Can it think?"

    "Not only think, but it can reason and compromise," said the Lord.

    "Finally the angel bent over and ran her fingers across the cheek. 
    "There's a leak." said the angel.

    "It's a tear."

    "What's it for?"

    "It's for joy, sadness, disappointments, pain, loneliness, and pride."

    "You are a genius," said the angel.

    The Lord looked sombre.  "I didn't put it there."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
	From an English edition of the Mothers' Union Magazine
		of the Church of England.

    

    
    I just wanted to wish all the mothers here a very happy
    Mothers Day. I think you all will always have a most special
    place in the hearts of your children.
    
    
    								Hank

    I'd like also to wish all step-mothers here a wonderful Mother's Day!
    
    grins,
    Marge

    especially to you Marge
    
    bj

    awwr, shucks.  and to you, Bonnie, the happiest...
    
    Grins