In My Home

Maggie, you are one of the only people I know who has never pissed me off and who I almost always agree with.

I agree with you about drug addicts and alcoholics, and I know that A LOT of porn stars and sex workers were abused, but a lot also weren't. Jena wasn't, Asia Carrera wasn't, and that rag Jasmine St Claire wasn't...and that's just to name a few. My cousin has worked in the sex industry for a long time and she wasn't abused. Some people like to work these jobs, in fact more women in the industry than you think are college educated and highly intelligent and are empowered by using their sexuality. I could never do it, but I respect their choice. And what about the ones who were sexually abused? Let's say they get a bunch of therapy and still want to work in the sex industry? Again, that would be their choice.

My only complaint is that safe sex should be practiced more often in pornography.

 

Yes, but her choice isn't harming anyone. Unless the real truth is that some feminists don't really want rights for women, they just want women to do what THEY deem to be right.

 

See, Maggie, you're the type of feminist I would call myself if I used that word. You see no problem with being a wife and mom. We obviously don't agree on the sex industry, but still!

 

i don't think i ever even implied that, and if i did, it was not my point. of course having a mother at home is worth something. so would having the father, and grandma and grandpa and everyone there all the time.

a teenager who is "lonely and scared" when having to stay home sick a day sounds very unprepared for the world in my opinion. i don't mean this as a personal insult, but i think that when a person is 15 years old, they are very capable of spending the day on the couch sleeping by themselves without their mommy there to spoon feed them. now i'm not talking about a serious illness - my mom or dad took off and stayed with me if i or my brother were seriously ill. but that of course wasn't very often.

this is a very snobby and rude assertion. my mom was, is and will ALWAYS be there for me. was she baking cookies while i was at school? no. she was out working, and when she got home, she cooked for us and took us where we needed to go and did everything a mother ever should. it is incredible to me that you would consider working outside the home as not being there for the kids. that is horrible, and horribly wrong.

with both my parents working, they bring home between $40,000 and $50,000 - that's with college educations and the whole thing. if it had just been my dad working, it would have been about half that. for us to not live on the poverty line, and for my parents to afford to send us to college (although in actuality we both received substantial scholarships .. guess mom was there enough to get us that far ), i'd say it was pretty necessary for them to work.

and now that my parents are separated and getting divorced, it's a damn good thing my mom had worked and knew how to earn a living outside the home. her boyfriend's ex-wife was a stay at home mom, and though the kids are all now at least 21, she has no concept of working outside the home and continually sues her ex-husband for alimony. and it is THAT situation that i think feminists generally see a problem with for stay at home moms - if it's all you've ever done, you're pretty dependent on your husband.

i'm not saying stay at home moms are bad maggie. i never was. i asked a simple question of why it was that mothers still felt the need to stay home after their children were older. i see that you think stay at home moms are "there" for their children more than mom's who work. i think this is blatantly wrong and ignorant. but that's the thing about opinions i guess

 

after being out of the worforce for many years its very hard for a sahm to go back to work...sometimes with little education that is up to date and recent job skills (for example) my mom was out of the work force to stay with us while were young much later wanted to go back to school and work but then had NO computer skills at the computer booming age of societe. It was very hard for her to cope with the fact that her skills werent needed in the workplace. But she knew her skills were needed at home.

 

LOL. I understand completely!


Nova, you seemed to have turned this into the idea that I am attacking your mama for chosing to go back to work. My posts were not meant to do that. I was defending my choice and the choice of my fellow SAHMs. (as well as WAHMs.)

No, I have teens,(not to mention a degree in Child Development) and it is VERY normal for a 15 year old to be afraid and lonely when home sick. It has nothing to do with "being prepared for the world." At 15? If 15 year old didn't need moms, kids would be allowed to drive, vote, get married and rent apartments at 14, I feel very strongly (being the parent of THREE teens) that teens NEED mothers, full time if at all finacially possible. Grandmas and dads are OK, but they are NOT mamas. FTR, I do not beleive in "quality time." Kids don't want "quality," needs cannot wait until mama has nothing better to do. Needs need to be taken care of as they arise. Kid need and want QUANITITY time. You can't schedule learning moments, nor intimate ones. They happen when they happen, and the less mom is there, the less opportunity for these moments occur.

Children in our society are not prepared to face the world alone, or for most of the day at 14 or 15, some not even at 18. This isn't about your mama, Nova, it is about children's needs. And they ARE children.

My heart goes out to mamas and children who are in situations where the mother really has no choice. MOST mothers who care want to be there (look at almost any survey done by anyone other than "Working Mother" magazine.) Our society expects the impossible from womyn, and caring for children when you aren't physically present is one of those impossibilities. If our society was truely one of "Family Values" there would be no latch key children.

 

Thats so true. When I was a teen a lot happened at those peoples houses that's parents were not home...

 

i'd just disagree then. i believe fathers can provide the same thing as mothers, it all depends on the person.

i'm not talking about "facing the world alone" by any means. i'm just talking about being home during that two hour gap between when a student gets out of school and parents get home from work.

and i know it's not about my "mama" anymore than it's about anyone in particular. but i can tell very clearly from your statements that you think sahm's are "there" for their children, while working mom are not, and i disagree very, very strongly.

but anyway, we just disagree. i guess the answer to my question was just that then, that you think sahm who stay home until their kids are married and into the beyond permanently are "there" for their kids. i still feel the same way though. oh well hehe

 

i work at home, where i can be near my children. actually, let's tie in the sex industry question with this as well: i sell "sensual aids" for passion parties. i'm the vibtrator lady! my business is just starting, but i enjoy it. so what kind of "feminist" or parent am i? (not that i really care what anyone thinks, just throwing that question out there.)

while we're on the topic of culture or circumstance "forcing" moms to work or not work: what about stay-at-home dads? our society looks at men who stay home as failures and lazy bums. a lot of fathers who want to be nurturing internalize this. my dad would have made an excellent stay-at home dad and homeschooler. but his cultural and religious training had taought him that males should be breadwinners and mothers should be caretakers. my mother had a college degree, intense interest and talent for microbiology, and a higher earning potential - and, unfortunately, the same sort of upbringing. baking bread and telling stories were my dad's greatest joys, and working in the lab made mom truly happy. but both of them had this belief that they were failing somehow - dad by his repeated bouts of unemployment, and mom by not "being there" for her kids. both of them were terribly depressed and guilty for doing what they loved, and this made the whole family miserable.

 

I'm just gonna say...

My mom went back to school for three years after I was born. Part-time, while she also worked part-time, but she made damn sure my babysitter was a great one, and my dad also worked. They split when I was about 2 years old. When I was 10, she felt comfortable leaving me alone for up to an hour, sometimes a little more. I would often come home to an empty house (except for our dog) in the last few years of elementary school. We moved to an acreage when I entered high school, so when I started going to university I decided to move out (at 17 years old) so that I could travel too and from school with a lot more ease (at least a 30min drive from teh acreage).

I truly believe that my mom feeling comfortable leaving me alone when I was younger (and for increasing time increments as I became older) helped me turn into a stronger individual, one who can sustain herself on a mere $7000 in one year (Canadian, if that helps put it into perspective).

I do have a great deal of respect for some stay at home moms. They can be fabulous. I would go crazy without having a job where you earn money, but that's just me (I also don't want kids, so hey, it works out ok for me). Some SAHM's can turn they kids into neurotic little people, but that's only when they're overbearing and make ever decision for them (one of my friends back in gr12 still had his mom purchase all of his clothing without any of his input)

I think it depends a lot on the woman involved and the dynamic between her and her partner. It also depends on the kid(s) involved. Not to sound full of myself, but I've always been a pretty mature person for my age. My mom calls me a crotchety old woman at heart. I would nag her about doing up her seatbelt, not the other way around.

ok, this is enough ranting.

Rah for single parents. Rah for SAHM's and WAHM's. Rah for couples who both work. Whatever turns your crank, so long as no one comes out damaged, it's all good.

 

LOL... You really made me laugh... That was funny. But seriously, my apologies for your misunderstanding. I thought that I had made myself clear, guess not. But, it's all good-came out in the wash. You really did make me laugh, there...

 

I have never seen one lactate. I know FEW men who can provide the "same thing" as a mama. Not that daddy can't be with the child for a while, but dads are NOT mother substitutes. Fathers have their own input to the child, and it is very valuable, but it is NOT the same as what mamas usually provide. Mamas and Papas are NOT interchangable, if they were, we wouldn't have different sex organs and we both would have uteri, ovaries, huge production of prolactin and both have functioning mammary glands. It just isn't so.

In this culture we have so degraded both children and mothering, that we have the attitude that child care is something "anyone" can do. And it just isn't the truth.

 

i'm just wondering, but what are your thoughts on gays and lesbians becoming parents, if dads are not mother substitutes?

if mamas and papas are not interchangable, because of the sex organs and prolactin, then what would that mean (to you) for gay male couples with children?

i know that might seem kind of off topic, but it does pertain to sex and gender roles within relationships.

(i skipped a couple pages of posts :& so if something like this was already brought up, ignore this post).

 

I think your question is really off topic. But, lesbians can and do lactate and make good parents. They are also capable of being birth mothers, so the hormones are there. I know few lesbian moms who do not breastfeed. A good, nurturing gay man could also, but the problems with adoption (the lack of human milk ect) are similar to a straight couple adopting. This is NOT a diss of gay dads (some of whom are great) or of adopting couples, we were talking about MOTHERS in this thread.

Also in many gay men couples, one does stay home. But being gay may change a lot of the hormonal and attitudnal problems with people other than a birth mother raising kids. Of course there are always situations where the birth mother is totally incapable of mothering her child and would be best with someone else doing it, but that is not what this thread is about.

I was responding to a post where someone basically said mothers at home after a certain age are wasting their time. We were talking about MOTHERS, assuming they were birth mothers, too. I was talking about OPTIMAL parenting situations, which often are not those in which birth mothers are not included. That doesn't mean it isn't neccesary some of the time, just in hormonal and many times bonding and attachment, not optimal.

The entire gay dad thing is, IMO, out of the scope of this thread and will only muddy the waters more.

 

I also find it telling that most of those who seem to think that mothers and fathers are interchangable are not parents. Like it or not, actually parenting (baby sitting and claims to have "raised" a younger sibling is still NOT parenting) gives an insight that cannot be gotten any other way.

 

So, once the child is weaned, what exactly is it that the father can not provide?

That just sounds sexist as hell. Especially to one who grew up with the father as the nurturer and the mother as the distant, deadbeat parent (not there emotionally at ALL & no child support)...

 

The ability to lactate, and the hormones it entails goes WAY beyond the weaning age. WOmyn have prolactin and other hormones, which make them more suitable for mothering children. Yeah, some mothers suck. I am not denying this, and some fathers do great as SAHDs. But in a normal situation, womyn are still preferable and more suitable as full time care givers. I am NOT talking individual anecdotes here. One can ALWAYS find an anecdote which contradicts the norm. Anecdotes prove nothing. YOur mom may have sucked, that doesn't mean that in general, womyn aren't more suitable, patient and cut out for MOTHERING. If there was "no difference" nature wouldn't have differenciated between mothers and fathers and it sure DID!

Sexist? Because I beleive men and womyn are NOT interchangable. NO. I am a parent, I see what happens in parenting. It isn't about a political statement, it is about what is BEST for a child.

 

I also have to say that before you are a parent, one looks at parenting from an immature, childlike viewpoint. "Well my mom....." whatever. One CANNOT understand parenting from a child's viewpoint. Until you have to care for that child placed in your arms after the birth it is nearly impossible to see the power and neccesity of mothering.

 

PLEASE read some Attachment Parenting literature. Dr. and Mirs. Sears, Katie Allison Granju The Contiuum Concept, Attachment, Bonding and Loss by Bowbly. Until one understands the actual NEEDS of childhood, one cannot politicize parenting to try to make it "50/50." I have never seen a couple who tries to make parenting 50/50 either parent well, or even survive as a couple. In parenting situations, ideally, gender roles are very important.

 

For the person who bad repped me where a response IN the thread could have sufficed....(which is what one should have done)

Please place your thought IN the thread, with your NAME and then I will address it. Pretty cowardly to address something that could have and should have been POSTED with A NAME attached, as you did it, no response could be given. ANd I won't respond until it is posted in a more courageous manner.

If you have an opinoin about the subject, place it in the thread. Asking an unaswerable question, in a rep is ridiculous.


Jeez.