Good Newsweek article

I actually saw that one this morning, before you posted it.

One thing in the article that jumped out at me that no one else has
mentioned, is the lack of good part-time daycare. That's actually one
of the biggest things that I'd like to see - more availability of
flexible part-time daycare. Of course, there are a lot of reasons why
it doesn't exist - day care providers have maximum numbers of kids they
can watch, and are trying to fill up each space so they don't have to
charge a small fortune. So that if you do get part-time daycare, you
need to have a fixed schedule so some other kid can fill the other
spot. I'm not sure how to legislate around that...

Irene

emilymr wrote:


I know that I could easily fall into the trap of wanting to be the
supermommy if I don't end up getting a job -- that somehow being the
domestic goddess will make up for/replace not 'using' my PhD and following
the expected tenure track academic trajectory. I think it's very easy
especially for highly educated women to feel guilt coming from both
directions: we're not fulfilling our feminist obligations by going into
the workplace and taking advantage of the opportunities we've had, or
we're not being good moms by staying at home with our children. And it
might seem really crazy, but I can definitely see how such a woman would
be tempted to substitute high-powered parenting for a high-powered
career.

Yeah, I call those the "Professional Parents." They come
at parenting the way they'd come at their careers, with everything
by the book and everything having to be perfect and requiring lots
of feedback all the time. I knew a woman who carried around a book
in which she dutifully recorded every diaper change, every scrap of
food or drink (couldn't possibly breastfeed, as how would you know
how much the baby got?), every sleep, every you name it. Egads!
On the other hand, I also get annoyed at folk who think
anyone who wants to throw a party or do something else special
is trying to up the ante somehow. Some folk just like to throw
parties. Other folk like to do other things. You only get into
trouble if you think you have to compete with the Party Planner
on parties and the Sports Fan on sporting activities and the
Super Academic on educational opportunities and so on and so
forth. When you think you have to beat everyone at their
specialities, *then* you get flattened by the SuperMommy thing.
As long as you are willing to excel at your long suits and
accept mere competence at everything else, you're good to go.

Best wishes,
Ericka

emilymr wrote:
I read the article really quickly and liked the policy
recommendations, but
I think that one of the other articles spoke to me mo
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6960127/site/newsweek/

I know that I could easily fall into the trap of wanting to be the
supermommy if I don't end up getting a job -- that somehow being the
domestic goddess will make up for/replace not 'using' my PhD and
following
the expected tenure track academic trajectory. I think it's very
easy
especially for highly educated women to feel guilt coming from both
directions: we're not fulfilling our feminist obligations by going
into
the workplace and taking advantage of the opportunities we've had, or
we're not being good moms by staying at home with our children. And
it
might seem really crazy, but I can definitely see how such a woman
would
be tempted to substitute high-powered parenting for a high-powered
career.

This, I think, is the crux of it for so many women. It's part of why I
decided to have kids straight out of my MA (well, after working a joe
job for a while to get maternity benefits . . . shhhh, don't tell
anyone . . . ), rather than get into a PhD or start down a career path.
I don't see myself staying home once my kids are in full-time school,
and I already do some work from home (about one day a week), but I'm
not too worried about proving much of anything. I've been using the
"education for education's sake" line a lot, lately.

I don't know if I'm in a huge minority here, but I look at my own
mother and MIL, and basically think, "yep, they did exactly the right
thing, that's just precisely what I want to do." Which in Mom's case
was to stay home till we were in full time school, then finish her
education degree, and then become a primary school teacher, and in
MIL's case was to go back to work part-time as a physiotherapist once
her kids were in school, and full time once they were in high school
(and now she's part time again). Both of these choices rely on having a
breadwinner husband, and that's not the case for many people, I know,
but when it is I think a middle ground can be found where a woman is
doing something interesting and hopefully remunerative, and staying
involved in her kids' lives. Without turning it into the quest for
supermom.

Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)

Luckily for me, I'm too lazy (and, I'd like to think, too practical)
to go
in for color-coordinated plates and streamers -- but I do have a lot
of
sympathy for women who are desperately trying to do the best job they
can
for their kids and their husbands/partners, and, often, their
careers. I
know several women in that position; it's HARD to navigate through
all the
expectations constantly bombarding them! And if I get my job (still
waiting to hear, argh), I'll be joining their ranks soon enough.

Wow, that was an incoherent post. :P

Em
mama to Micah, 11/14/04

PS None of this is to say that I fundamentally disagree with Amy -- I
want
to be very careful not to overschedule, be an interfering and
pressuring
mom, do my kids' homework projects for them, etc. But I definitely
see
where the impulse to be supermom comes from, esp. in the cohort of
women
described in the article.

"shinypenny" wrote in message
oups.com...

Melania wrote:

I'm pretty sure the same goes
for parenting - nobody is going to like you better for being
"perfect."


I'm not so sure it's about being perfect, as it is doing a better job
than your own parents did. It's pretty common stage for adults to grow
up and blame their folks for raising them wrong, one way or another. So
with each generation, we've got parents trying to do a better job than
the last generation, and this raises the bar with each successive
generation.

jen


I think this may be what people are *trying* to do. But I do not think that
the result is better outcomes, as raising the bar indicates. I think we just
have a different set of daffy things that we do than our parents did.

I really wonder why I always hear such stories only from a mother's
perspective and never from a dad's. To me that implies that in spite of
what the article claims (we have reached emancipation) we are nowhere near
a state of equality between women and men. Where on earth is the father in
this story? Why is he not getting in his 3h of intensity parenting before
leaving for his job and after coming home? Why is he not at the
playground? Is it not his kid?

The US society is focussed on performance, instead of enjoying the many
luxuries people have. Performance in a job is usually translated in
working 50+ hours with 2 weeks a year of paid leave. Without a job,
performance has to be shown elsewhere, and what better target than raising
perfect kids?

And bahumbug at the sentence "home-grown American solutions". Look at
European countries. They have a whole systmen in place, but women suffer
from the same problems there as they do here. It is not a political change
that is required, but a social change.

People need to realize that they can find happines in life without getting
that raise *every* year, without their kids being straight A students, and
without working like slaves. As long as you don't get any respect for
being a SAHD or part-time job mom, nobody will opt for that possibility,
no matter how much the government subsidises it.

In addition, moms need to realize that they are not the only parent and
force their husbands to get actively involved in raising the kids and
running the household. As long as statistics show that most full-time
working moms still do more than 50% of the house work, even when their
husbands do not work, we are nowhere *near* a real solution.

--
-- I
mommy to DS (July '02)
mommy to four tiny angels (28 Oct'03, 17 Feb'04, 20 May'04 & 28 Oct'04)
preggers with twins EDD August'05
guardian of DH (33)

Melania wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Melania wrote:



I think it's different when it's activities the kids really love,
either from an affinity for the activity itself or because of the
social experience. Some kids are herded into music, dance, sports,

art,

language, and who knows what all else, and don't seem to even be
enjoying it.

Well, it's very different for the kids--but mom (or whomever)
is just as busy regardless of the impetus for the activities ;-)


Oh, for sure - but hopefully the mom is also happier than if she is
constantly fighting her kids into things "for their own good." There
were times with all three of us in music lessons that my parents were
very busy. But I think it made them happy to see us enjoying music, and
to see our abilities developing with the musical education.

True--I can't imagine having enough energy to fight
with the kids to continue activities they don't like ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:24:17 -0800, Circe wrote:

I have to admit, I am well aware that I have many advantages that other
mothers don't: I am able to work at home, I can afford a nanny/housekeeper,
and my husband is very involved in our kids' lives and activities. I'm truly
one of the lucky few who don't *have* to try to do it all.

Ditto. But that is not because I can work at home or afford a nanny, it's
because I have made the very concious choice that whatever happens:
-my job starts not before 8.30am and ends at 5.30pm
-we have breakfast and dinner as a family every day
-in conflict situations, my family always comes first

This was discussed and agreed upon with DH, who takes his share of chores
around the house. We both learned an awful lot from switching roles. Yes,
it implies that we are living on about half the salary we used to have,
but we get around and have all we need. And we are all very happy with it.

--
-- I
mommy to DS (July '02)
mommy to four tiny angels (28 Oct'03, 17 Feb'04, 20 May'04 & 28 Oct'04)
preggers with twins EDD August'05
guardian of DH (33)

wrote in message
What a pessimistic view of motherhood!!

It's definitely not a pessimestic view. It's spot on. You don't have kids
yet, so you will naturally say that moms don't have to do all those things.
They don't, but the pressure to do those things is there whether it is said
or unsaid. But wait until you feel the pressure to have your child reading
by age 2 and the go to the best schools and so on.

When I was a kid I took piano lessons for several years, then switched
to cello. I had after school activities, and I rode the late bus or my
bike home. If I wanted to join something, I was responsible for making
it work - not my mom. One year I wanted to take PE during summer
school (you got to wear your own swim suit instead of the nasty ones
that the school provided during the year). I rode my bike to school,
ran and swam for the entire morning, then rode home. I was in the best
shape of my life that summer.

That's how I was raised. But, that's not how kids are being raised today. In
many parent's eyes today, the bar has been raised to see how many activities
your kid can do and what grade level the child is reading, etc. And you're
considered a bad parent if your child doesn't perform in the "gifted level."
And heaven forbid if don't buy every toy that is educational. There is a
unsurmountable pressure to perform. I don't like it and I certainly am not
raising my kids that way. But, I feel the overwhelming pressure to be that
way.

On another newsgroup, a mom is terrified to give her 3 week old baby a
pacifier because it doesn't fit into the AP parameters. I just find that so
sad that she can't let go and really listen to what the baby needs or wants
and is afraid of not living up to some stupid book.

If women want relief from the stress of parenting, they need to let go
of this ridiculous competitiveness we have with each other. They need
to let go of the idea that there's no such thing as good enough - and
it doesn't start with tax breaks, the government, or "society" - it
starts with the self.

I totally agree with you, but that's not the way it is. Women give other
women crap about working out of the house or formula feeding or
breastfeeding or not breastfeeding, staying home. Women are just really
competitive with their kids and
if you don't live up to some standard that someone has set forth, then you
are shunned and no one is willing to be a friend to you. I hear all the time
on the newsgroups that because some women don't breastfeed or co-sleep that
they really can't associate with them because they don't have the same
parenting ideas. I find it sad.

It's all a matter of choices and priorities, and I don't feel that the
government needs to change anything to make me a better (future)
parent. In fact, the less the government is involved with my home and
my family, the better.

Well I do. I think the government could make child care more easier and
offer things like other countries do so we can raise our children. In
Canada, they offer mothers a year off. In Austrialia (correct me if I am
wrong), they give mothers money to stay home with their kids. Healthcare
should be a priority to families and other people so that they don't have to
work ungodly hours just to have insurance. The government should make sure
there is quality daycares that are licensed and kept up so parents can work
if they choose.

As I said, you need to wait until you have a child to really know and
understand what all of these issues really are. Right now, it's easy to say
that you won't do all those things, and you may not, but I am betting my
money that you will feel the same pressures as many moms do right now.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

In article .com,
says...


Irrational Number wrote:
" wrote:

While I agree with this, there is something
to the fact that college applications look at
things like well-roundedness. For some people,
for whom it's important to go to a "good college",
this kind of stuff is "necessary".

I got a hell of an education from the state university (Purdue), and
I'm pretty sure that they didn't look at whether or not I took soccer
in kindergarten. I also got all four+ years for less than the cost
of a year at Notre Dame or Yale...

Of course, if you have Ivy League aspirations for your kid, that's
another thing. But wouldn't it be better if they're under, oh, 12 or
so to just let them be kids? I was an honors student, and I didn't
start thinking about college until my junior year. Turned out fine...

Whatever
other parents want to have done and were calling her
to do..., THEY can do themselves!

"Why, Mrs. Jones, how nice of you to volunteer to make a homemade
pinata! I simply haven't had the time, myself, but I know the kids
will love it! Thank you!!" Ta da! Who's going to say, "I'm not
volunteering, I think YOU should do it,"?


I say "gee, I'm so bad at that kind of stufff..."



Banty

Irene wrote:
I actually saw that one this morning, before you posted it.

One thing in the article that jumped out at me that no one else has
mentioned, is the lack of good part-time daycare. That's actually
one
of the biggest things that I'd like to see - more availability of
flexible part-time daycare. Of course, there are a lot of reasons
why
it doesn't exist - day care providers have maximum numbers of kids
they
can watch, and are trying to fill up each space so they don't have to
charge a small fortune. So that if you do get part-time daycare, you
need to have a fixed schedule so some other kid can fill the other
spot. I'm not sure how to legislate around that...

From a funding and quality oversight perspective you could run day care
centers more like public schools.