I have been stressing about the child care issue for the fall. If you've been hanging around here, you know that I don't much like to have my babies in child care when they're little. I'm all about working with kids arounds--I've been doing it for as long as I can remember. But I'm also O.K. with having them in preschool programs when they're 3 & up. Two if I'm really pressed, and I did actually enroll my Doodle when she was almost a year, though I only kept her in for a day. Because I'm protective, germ-conscious, and not really very trusting. Go figure. So we decided that the fall would be a good time to start Doodle in preschool, and my son's old Montessori school would take Doodle in the 3-year-old class even though she won't be 3 until October, as long as she's potty trained. Well, that has been going pretty well, but it's a long, slow journey with lots of stops along the way. Most recently, after months of increasing success, she has become scared of flushing toilets--first in public bathrooms, then at home. We uncovered an irritation due to bubble bath that probably made things worse. Meanwhile, I have been getting increasingly frustrated--and the baby who has decided that sleeping is overrated is not helping (turns out there are teeth involved, and she probably needs more solids!). I've been feeling a lot of pressure about the potty training thing, in part because of the success-turned-failure aspect, but also because plans for the fall rest on potty training success. That's a lot of pressure to put on a toddler and her parents. Also, let's face it, I'm super-maniacally ambitious for my children, and what I see as realistic goals are not always realistic. *whew* Glad I got that out!! (Yeah, 'cause you didn't know that, right? Literacy-chic? Overambitious? Naaaaah. . .)
Meanwhile, I had two other issues. First: the summer. Because in July I'll be teaching every day. Then: the fact that the Montessori school wouldn't really accommodate my fall teaching schedule. In fact, it would be afternoons only, so it would actually make things worse, since I would literally have to kick the friend who would be watching the two girls out of the house after I taught so that I could bring Doodle to school. Besides that it would destroy nap time and make for a really weird schedule otherwise. All of this for Doodle-free office hours? Not worth it. Then, I've got the person I'll be working closely with in the fall making cracks about not getting involved in my schedule because it's too complicated (perhaps with a touch of disdain--not sure. . .). Yeah, try it from my end!!
I had considered sending her to my parish child development center, but they're the ones that didn't work out before. Too many things to go into, really, but all made me very uneasy. They have a new director now, and my main reservations had to do with the fact that Doodle, who will be 3 years in October, would be in the 2 year class to keep her in line with public schools. Now, I'm not particularly interested in what public schools do. I went to a private school when I was in K-1 so that I could circumvent those rules and start Kindergarten at 4, and I would not hesitate to do so for my children. In fact, I would love to do so for my children! But I don't know if I have to start just yet.
Doodle is a very intelligent child, which is making the toddler years particularly difficult. She resents all constraints on her activities. She is a good child, but stubborn, and spirited. Sensitive, but strong-minded. I was very different when I was a young child, but I can't help but see her as combining some of the more--umm--troublesome characteristics of myself and my husband! And yet she is empathetic and sweet and smart, kind and loving. She doesn't understand punishment. It hurts her feelings and accomplishes nothing. She has the endurance of the most stubborn of martyrs. It's incredible. She doesn't pitch the same kinds of tantrums that other toddlers pitch, she simply does not yield to anyone else's will. So while I think she would be fine in the 3-year-old class for a number of reasons, I'm not sure if she is ready in other respects.
You know, it goes against every fiber of my being to admit that I need a break from my strong-willed child--the one I worry about the most. I remind myself that my brother, whom I helped raise when he was her age--was much more difficult. But I think the fact is, it would be good for both of us for her to start school relatively soon. So I am going to start her in the parish's child development center in their summer program part time, and continue part-time in the fall. Next summer, I plan to be off (if I can distribute my 9-month salary over 12 months) so I can spend that time with my children full-time.
It's funny how a blog makes you confront your beliefs and practices. I am not wholeheartedly in favor of child care, especially for my young children. I don't like the idea that I need a "break" from my children. I am totally not on board with the idea that school can give them things that I can't. Yet there it is. What can school give her that I can't? Playtime. Not much else, but I just can't stand to watch a child outside. I hated it when I was young and I really have to be in the mood now that I'm a parent and obligated. Playgroups don't work for me because I can't sit back and let the kids play. It's not in my nature. Things happen on playgrounds. Don't those parents know that?? There are bugs and fire poles on playground equipment and other people's kids!! Oh, the humanity! But Doodle needs that. And I really need the girls to take naps at the same time so I can recover my sanity.
So my Doodle will be at school 3 days in July. Now, Chiclette is another matter. She's still small and roly and docile, with limited (but ever-increasing) mobility. So she'll get some mommy-only time, and sister can share germs with her when she gets home! *sigh*
Showing posts with label child care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child care. Show all posts
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Fall Plans Dashed
I realized with glee recently that next fall my toddler would be the right age to start school at the Montessori school that my son attending from pre-K through 3rd grade. (I consider 3 yrs to be a good age to start preschool.) I called the school and spoke to the headmistress. She was very pleased, asked about my son, and said she would send the application. The application arrived in the mail several days later, I opened it, and my jaw nearly dropped. There is a one-time application fee of $250!!! That's on top of the $100 registration fee and the advance payment of the last month's tuition, which in our case would have been $245 for 3 half-days a week. Surely, I thought, this must be a typo!! I remembered a fee of $25. So I wrote an email and asked. She confirmed that there was, indeed, a $250 application fee, and hoped it would not change my plans. This will indeed change my plans. I can only conclude that she must have needed to institute that fee to limit applicants. I understand about the last months' tuition, the supply fees, and the registration fees, but had I had to pay $350 for merely applying and registering in addition to the last month's tuition (which in our current case would have been $245 for 3 half-days), I would never have been able to send my son in the first place, and he would have missed a wonderful experience because of it. I am assuming that we simply don't have the income level of most of the families who currently attend that school. And I told her so. In no uncertain terms. Perhaps that is the point. But this makes me very sad, as I can't imagine an alternative that would be as attractive. Clearly, my selectivity is exceeding my income. :(
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Utopian Child Care at a High School (A Second Hand Report), and Wider Implications
Someone once mentioned to me that a Catholic school in San Antonio that had high incidence of unwed mothers decided to try a radical method of correcting the situation. Instead of expelling the unfortunate mothers and ostracizing them, contributing to their disgrace and difficult financial situation (or providing implicit pressure for the girls to have abortions to avoid being expelled), this school set up a daycare on the campus that was staffed, in part, by the girls themselves, and that this did more than Home Ec and Sex Ed combined to make the girls understand the realities of life with a child and to consider the consequences of their actions more carefully. Now, this did attract negative attention as I understand it, but the results spoke for themselves. This seems to be an example of a positive move towards helping mothers and educating young people. It also represents a bringing of children into unaccustomed spaces where they might be accessed by their own mothers periodically. I'm sure there were those who doubted that the students would get anything accomplished with their babies and others' close by.
This may not actually be too different from the move by some employers (especially schools) to include child care for employees. If a high school teacher could pick up her child from an on-site child development center at 3, that would be infinitely better than 5, and a step in the right direction! If she were able to spend the lunch hour with her own baby, even if only twice a week or so, this would provide valuable bonding time. (The idea has good breastfeeding potential, too!) If the facility also provided credit or work-study for the students and supervised child care experience, so much the better!
Utopian? Maybe. But many times the point of a utopian vision is to illustrate an ideal with the hope that it might influence our vision of what is possible in our own world, and give us ideas of things to implement. Unless you take the definition of utopia that sees the utopia as necessarily ironic, since the utopia is a place that does not and can not possibly exist. I take most utopias as sincere attempts to influence change, though there are exceptions.
The question of whether the facility would be faculty-only, or if faculty children would be kept apart from students' children (if applicable) would be a bit stickier, but this might even be sticky if we were talking about university faculty's or grad students' or undergraduates' children, hierarchies being what they are. Which actually leads me to another point: At the university from which I have my B.A., there was a child care center that was available to faculty, staff and students alike. Rather than requiring the parents to keep their children in the center for fixed hours, parents could, at the beginning of each semester, register for the number of hours and specific hours needed for their particular teaching, work or class schedules. Thus, child care was available when necessary, and no one was forced into predetermined hours to maximize either the child's hours in the facility or the facility's profit. And no one had to pay for more hours than they needed or wanted, which often leads to the feeling that, "Well, if I'm paying for it, s/he might as well stay!" By contrast, the children's center on the university campus where I currently teach has fixed hours, was (at one time--perhaps still is) full-time only, and was at one time for faculty only (or at least preference given to faculty/staff), though I believe this has changed, as some grad students--like my office mate--have their children enrolled in the center.
This may not actually be too different from the move by some employers (especially schools) to include child care for employees. If a high school teacher could pick up her child from an on-site child development center at 3, that would be infinitely better than 5, and a step in the right direction! If she were able to spend the lunch hour with her own baby, even if only twice a week or so, this would provide valuable bonding time. (The idea has good breastfeeding potential, too!) If the facility also provided credit or work-study for the students and supervised child care experience, so much the better!
Utopian? Maybe. But many times the point of a utopian vision is to illustrate an ideal with the hope that it might influence our vision of what is possible in our own world, and give us ideas of things to implement. Unless you take the definition of utopia that sees the utopia as necessarily ironic, since the utopia is a place that does not and can not possibly exist. I take most utopias as sincere attempts to influence change, though there are exceptions.
The question of whether the facility would be faculty-only, or if faculty children would be kept apart from students' children (if applicable) would be a bit stickier, but this might even be sticky if we were talking about university faculty's or grad students' or undergraduates' children, hierarchies being what they are. Which actually leads me to another point: At the university from which I have my B.A., there was a child care center that was available to faculty, staff and students alike. Rather than requiring the parents to keep their children in the center for fixed hours, parents could, at the beginning of each semester, register for the number of hours and specific hours needed for their particular teaching, work or class schedules. Thus, child care was available when necessary, and no one was forced into predetermined hours to maximize either the child's hours in the facility or the facility's profit. And no one had to pay for more hours than they needed or wanted, which often leads to the feeling that, "Well, if I'm paying for it, s/he might as well stay!" By contrast, the children's center on the university campus where I currently teach has fixed hours, was (at one time--perhaps still is) full-time only, and was at one time for faculty only (or at least preference given to faculty/staff), though I believe this has changed, as some grad students--like my office mate--have their children enrolled in the center.
Friday, July 6, 2007
The Best of Both Worlds
After my recent posts and the responses that others have posted, I found, on my wanderings, two posts that seem to address what I will call wanting "the best of both worlds." Because I believe that that's what I'm striving to achieve. I do naturally assume that most mothers want to spend time--some time, all of their time, more time, whatever--with their children. I feel that this can be accomplished more than it is being now by a pervasive change in attitude. And, well, it doesn't seem that I'm alone here.
In her post on Women, Work and the Church, Sarahndipity refers to a blog post by Radical Catholic Mom that raises the issue of women, work and families within Catholic marriages.
The argument is a familiar one (at least to me)--that in a Catholic marriage, we are called to be "open to life," and while this does not necessarily mean that every Catholic family must be a large family, large families are regarded as evidence of the couple's own generosity, and are certainly a blessing and an asset to the Church (and to society more generally!). Here I am using the post as a jumping off point for what I already know about this subject, which is one I have certainly considered. So depending on the couple's situation and their discernment of family size, taking into account any surprises God has in store for them along the way, the couple has to decide at some point which spouse will be primary caregiver for the children, or whether the children will be in daycare, etc. Or the couple may not have to decide, since they may already know that one or another parent prefers to stay home full time. Or they may not decide, since the default stay-at-home parent, if stay-at-home-parenting is deemed necessary, appropriate, or preferable is generally (though not always) the mother. On the other hand, potential career paths or the spouses' earning potential might dictate which parent (if either) stays home.
The point made by Radical Catholic Mom seems to be that if Church teaching is strictly followed, women will continue having babies every couple of years and stay at home, even if they desire to work, thus becoming entirely financially dependent on their husbands. There is some room for disagreement with this representation of Church teaching--at least I hope so, for my sake!!--as Church teaching does allow for the couple's discernment of family size based on any number of serious considerations (this is very briefly mentioned in the post; perhaps she treats it in more detail elsewhere). The nature of "reasons" and what constitutes "serious" are often disputed, and I think the phrasing is left intentionally vague, likely to give Catholic bloggers something to debate on a regular basis. She goes out on a limb by stating that "the Church allows men to have it all," a point Sarahndipity and others dispute.
Sarahndipity extends the argument ways that I find interesting given my own recent posts and the fact that unlike Radical Catholic Mom, she addresses means of correcting the problem and resists the temptation to lay all blame at the feet of the Catholic Church:
. . . .
However, for me at least, working part-time or from home actually sounds much more appealing then a traditional full-time job. Even if I wasn’t a mom, this would still be more appealing! And it’s almost always women who go this route. So from that point of view, women actually have it somewhat “better.” The problem is that fulfilling part-time work is hard to come by, and home business are hard to start. If it were easier, I would say women would have the better deal. But as with all things in life, it’s a trade-off.
. . . .
I think much of the problem lies with the society, which does not value children and forces women to conform to career paths that are easier for men. I think what we need is more family-friendly career options, like part-time work, flex time, work-from-home options, home businesses, etc. (And it’s not just women who deserve family-friendly work – men should not have to work 80-hour weeks and never see their families just to put food on the table. The workplace needs to be more humane for everyone.)
. . . .
Sounds familiar! So when I say that I want to work in a job that I feel allows for time with my family, and that I don't want to leave my children in the care of others, and that this should be O.K., I am echoing the sentiments of others. The interesting thing with my situation is that I don't really have the choice to stay at home full-time, even if I wanted to (which, right now, I don't really want to do, because as much as I complain, I do find what I do fulfilling!) since right now, in spite of my husband's excellent and diverse qualifications and multiple degrees, my career path is more clear-cut. I am our hope right now for a larger income and a move out of this town/state (whichever). I've gotta tell you, if this is what men who are the sole or primary providers face, it's a lot of responsibility and quite a burden! At one point we thought the job market thing would be more mutual, and that whoever got the job with the potential for a spousal hire (and moving expenses! don't forget moving expenses!) would determine & direct our move, but that's not the way things actually worked out in our case. But what she suggests is what I would like--the flexibility to parent my children for the better part of the day/week without having to give up the career path I have chosen (even if that were a real option). Incidently, I feel like, in this case, that "career path" thing is a "serious reason" to postpone pregnancy in our case (even by Church standards), since 1) circumstances have, indeed, permitted me to get this far, 2) mine is the career that has the greatest potential for advancement at this point, and 3) do student loans count? Anyway, I certainly believe that the "best of both worlds" should--and could--be an option.
Anastasia, who has also spilled a lot of virtual ink on this topic, and who opened this can of worms (at least for me), has some thoughts on Women who want too much, which to me, sounds like women who also want "the best of both worlds"--this time, for purely secular reasons (or not necessarily, but not explicitly for religious reasons either).
Incidently, my conversion to Catholicism has nothing at all to do with my preference for not putting my children in daycare--those ideas were well-formed long before I seriously considered converting!
Anastasia addresses "the accusation that mothers just want the whole world to revolve around them and all of society to cater to their every whim" and "the accusation . . . that mothers, by demanding better treatment, can go too far and wander into the mistreatment of others." She "read(s) it as a power play. The one demanding a voice must either pull herself up short or be pulled up short by others in the name of balance." She concludes with two nice paragraphs that need to be quoted in full:
. . . .
A society that would allow me freedom and equality, as a woman with children, is a better society for everyone. A society that respects and supports mothers should be a society that respects and supports human beings as individuals embedded in a web of familial relationships. The goal of feminism, as I see it, is to humanize the culture, not to marginalize the masculine. The focus is on the marginalized (i.e. women and children) but the goal is a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected.
My point being, I think the idea that mothers just want the world to cater to them is a rhetorical ploy, intended to put women who make strong arguments for change in their place. It has the same function in discussions of race relations. It keeps the mistreated at the margins, subject to the will of the mainstream.
. . . .
I like the idea of a movement to "humanize the culture," with a goal of "a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected." I'm not entirely sure that I see that as a goal of feminism per se (it wasn't a goal of humanism, either, and that tag is already claimed), but those feminists who see that as their goal have my blessing. (Which does not mean that I would consider calling myself a feminist--even of their ranks! For me, that would leave me open to the assumption that I believed in things and supported things in which I do not believe, and which I do not support.) If pressed, I probably could think of a movement that promotes that goal, even if it hasn't always worked out that way (there's no accounting for humanity, after all).
Departing from the world of blogs for a moment, one of the web sites to which I was directed by AcadeMama also seems to support the rights of mothers to pursue--and perhaps achieve--the best of both worlds. This is the web site for M.O.T.H.E.R.S.: Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights. It is rare when a search of a site that is considered feminist doesn't turn up any references to abortion (like this one: The Motherhood Project); I am sorry to say that Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights doesn't have a search feature, but there was nothing overt. One of the sites they link to is a project of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, so do with that what you will. Not knowing enough about it, I don't endorse this site in any way, but I did find it interesting that they are, essentially, working for the recognition of the worth of mothers (and other primary caregivers) in economic terms. I would love to dispute the claim that "(m)ost mothers are 'dependents' in marriage, not economic equals. They have no unequivocal right to half the family assets, and are not considered joint recipients of the family's income during or after marriage." Familial experience has shown me that this is easily true, though I would say that any marriage that actually operates according to this principle is an abusive marriage on some level.
We of course hope that when men are the primary--or sole--economic providers, that their priorities lie with their families. Unfortunately, the "my money"/"her money" dynamic does exist, though it shouldn't exist, even when both spouses work. This dynamic existed in my mother's marriage with her second husband, who gave her $50 a week for groceries for 6 kids (her "spending money"), while he also had $50 "spending money" for bowling, fast food, and beer, with exclusive use of the checkbook when he felt like punishing her. So when Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights quotes the statistic that "(m)others' lack of financial equality in marriage deprives children; fathers are statistically less likely to spend their money on childrens' health and education" (sic), it certainly rings true. I know divorce is a separate situation, but let's just say that the children's health care that he was ordered to pay was arranged in such a way that my mother could not access the benefits. We hope that the marriage won't actually end this way or operate this way, but in reality, it happens to too many women--even those in Sacramental marriages.
So far, I have dwelt on the worst of all possible worlds. But I feel that the arguments of a woman who raised 6 children, enduring varying levels of mostly verbal, economic, and emotional abuse, who was finally able to break free of the immediate control, but feels entitled to economic compensation for the work she did as a mother and for the emotional abuse that literally prevented her from working outside of the home and then made her feel like a failure when she had to quit her job(s) to care for her children, who suffered from manipulation, anger & neglect while she was gone, would be regarded as "wanting too much" (using Anastasia's phrase out of context). Though she has worked enough hours in her lifetime to retire (once her 13-year-old is independent), she is nevertheless expected to get a minimum wage or entry-level job or have one imputed to her by the courts.
Sarahndipity notes, separately, that "[w]e also need to realize that for women, the male pattern of graduate, get a job, work for 30 years straight, and retire doesn’t work as well. It would make more sense for women to have their children while they’re young and reenter the workforce later (or enter for the first time.) Unfortunately, there is a lot of ageism that prevents older women from getting entry-level jobs." Yeah, there sure is.
So Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights says that women who have raised children deserve to be economically independent, or at least, to have economic independence equal to those who have earned Social Security benefits. I'm not sure how this would be accomplished, or if there is any way to accomplish this in an equitable, just manner, but it is certainly an interesting idea. The problem is that trying to accomplish this through legislative means does absolutely nothing to help the women who are suffering from this very thing right now. And really, that's a problem. The site asks, in a rhetorical response to an anticipated question, "Why is it we always seem to find the money we need for so many things, but when women ask for themselves or their children, the money is never there?" Why, indeed? Why is there money to accomplish political lobbying, etc., but not to establish a temporary or permanent independent solution? After all, Social Security isn't much of a solution either--it's more of a problem. So why should mothers want to go on board for that one? And on the other hand, it is better than the alternative: nothing. But it is not giving mothers what they truly deserve: the best of both possible worlds--the experience, responsibility, rewards of having mothered and the social and financial independence of having worked a demanding, sometimes heartbreaking, real and socially valuable job.
In her post on Women, Work and the Church, Sarahndipity refers to a blog post by Radical Catholic Mom that raises the issue of women, work and families within Catholic marriages.
The argument is a familiar one (at least to me)--that in a Catholic marriage, we are called to be "open to life," and while this does not necessarily mean that every Catholic family must be a large family, large families are regarded as evidence of the couple's own generosity, and are certainly a blessing and an asset to the Church (and to society more generally!). Here I am using the post as a jumping off point for what I already know about this subject, which is one I have certainly considered. So depending on the couple's situation and their discernment of family size, taking into account any surprises God has in store for them along the way, the couple has to decide at some point which spouse will be primary caregiver for the children, or whether the children will be in daycare, etc. Or the couple may not have to decide, since they may already know that one or another parent prefers to stay home full time. Or they may not decide, since the default stay-at-home parent, if stay-at-home-parenting is deemed necessary, appropriate, or preferable is generally (though not always) the mother. On the other hand, potential career paths or the spouses' earning potential might dictate which parent (if either) stays home.
The point made by Radical Catholic Mom seems to be that if Church teaching is strictly followed, women will continue having babies every couple of years and stay at home, even if they desire to work, thus becoming entirely financially dependent on their husbands. There is some room for disagreement with this representation of Church teaching--at least I hope so, for my sake!!--as Church teaching does allow for the couple's discernment of family size based on any number of serious considerations (this is very briefly mentioned in the post; perhaps she treats it in more detail elsewhere). The nature of "reasons" and what constitutes "serious" are often disputed, and I think the phrasing is left intentionally vague, likely to give Catholic bloggers something to debate on a regular basis. She goes out on a limb by stating that "the Church allows men to have it all," a point Sarahndipity and others dispute.
Sarahndipity extends the argument ways that I find interesting given my own recent posts and the fact that unlike Radical Catholic Mom, she addresses means of correcting the problem and resists the temptation to lay all blame at the feet of the Catholic Church:
. . . .
However, for me at least, working part-time or from home actually sounds much more appealing then a traditional full-time job. Even if I wasn’t a mom, this would still be more appealing! And it’s almost always women who go this route. So from that point of view, women actually have it somewhat “better.” The problem is that fulfilling part-time work is hard to come by, and home business are hard to start. If it were easier, I would say women would have the better deal. But as with all things in life, it’s a trade-off.
. . . .
I think much of the problem lies with the society, which does not value children and forces women to conform to career paths that are easier for men. I think what we need is more family-friendly career options, like part-time work, flex time, work-from-home options, home businesses, etc. (And it’s not just women who deserve family-friendly work – men should not have to work 80-hour weeks and never see their families just to put food on the table. The workplace needs to be more humane for everyone.)
. . . .
Sounds familiar! So when I say that I want to work in a job that I feel allows for time with my family, and that I don't want to leave my children in the care of others, and that this should be O.K., I am echoing the sentiments of others. The interesting thing with my situation is that I don't really have the choice to stay at home full-time, even if I wanted to (which, right now, I don't really want to do, because as much as I complain, I do find what I do fulfilling!) since right now, in spite of my husband's excellent and diverse qualifications and multiple degrees, my career path is more clear-cut. I am our hope right now for a larger income and a move out of this town/state (whichever). I've gotta tell you, if this is what men who are the sole or primary providers face, it's a lot of responsibility and quite a burden! At one point we thought the job market thing would be more mutual, and that whoever got the job with the potential for a spousal hire (and moving expenses! don't forget moving expenses!) would determine & direct our move, but that's not the way things actually worked out in our case. But what she suggests is what I would like--the flexibility to parent my children for the better part of the day/week without having to give up the career path I have chosen (even if that were a real option). Incidently, I feel like, in this case, that "career path" thing is a "serious reason" to postpone pregnancy in our case (even by Church standards), since 1) circumstances have, indeed, permitted me to get this far, 2) mine is the career that has the greatest potential for advancement at this point, and 3) do student loans count? Anyway, I certainly believe that the "best of both worlds" should--and could--be an option.
Anastasia, who has also spilled a lot of virtual ink on this topic, and who opened this can of worms (at least for me), has some thoughts on Women who want too much, which to me, sounds like women who also want "the best of both worlds"--this time, for purely secular reasons (or not necessarily, but not explicitly for religious reasons either).
Incidently, my conversion to Catholicism has nothing at all to do with my preference for not putting my children in daycare--those ideas were well-formed long before I seriously considered converting!
Anastasia addresses "the accusation that mothers just want the whole world to revolve around them and all of society to cater to their every whim" and "the accusation . . . that mothers, by demanding better treatment, can go too far and wander into the mistreatment of others." She "read(s) it as a power play. The one demanding a voice must either pull herself up short or be pulled up short by others in the name of balance." She concludes with two nice paragraphs that need to be quoted in full:
. . . .
A society that would allow me freedom and equality, as a woman with children, is a better society for everyone. A society that respects and supports mothers should be a society that respects and supports human beings as individuals embedded in a web of familial relationships. The goal of feminism, as I see it, is to humanize the culture, not to marginalize the masculine. The focus is on the marginalized (i.e. women and children) but the goal is a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected.
My point being, I think the idea that mothers just want the world to cater to them is a rhetorical ploy, intended to put women who make strong arguments for change in their place. It has the same function in discussions of race relations. It keeps the mistreated at the margins, subject to the will of the mainstream.
. . . .
I like the idea of a movement to "humanize the culture," with a goal of "a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected." I'm not entirely sure that I see that as a goal of feminism per se (it wasn't a goal of humanism, either, and that tag is already claimed), but those feminists who see that as their goal have my blessing. (Which does not mean that I would consider calling myself a feminist--even of their ranks! For me, that would leave me open to the assumption that I believed in things and supported things in which I do not believe, and which I do not support.) If pressed, I probably could think of a movement that promotes that goal, even if it hasn't always worked out that way (there's no accounting for humanity, after all).
Departing from the world of blogs for a moment, one of the web sites to which I was directed by AcadeMama also seems to support the rights of mothers to pursue--and perhaps achieve--the best of both worlds. This is the web site for M.O.T.H.E.R.S.: Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights. It is rare when a search of a site that is considered feminist doesn't turn up any references to abortion (like this one: The Motherhood Project); I am sorry to say that Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights doesn't have a search feature, but there was nothing overt. One of the sites they link to is a project of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, so do with that what you will. Not knowing enough about it, I don't endorse this site in any way, but I did find it interesting that they are, essentially, working for the recognition of the worth of mothers (and other primary caregivers) in economic terms. I would love to dispute the claim that "(m)ost mothers are 'dependents' in marriage, not economic equals. They have no unequivocal right to half the family assets, and are not considered joint recipients of the family's income during or after marriage." Familial experience has shown me that this is easily true, though I would say that any marriage that actually operates according to this principle is an abusive marriage on some level.
We of course hope that when men are the primary--or sole--economic providers, that their priorities lie with their families. Unfortunately, the "my money"/"her money" dynamic does exist, though it shouldn't exist, even when both spouses work. This dynamic existed in my mother's marriage with her second husband, who gave her $50 a week for groceries for 6 kids (her "spending money"), while he also had $50 "spending money" for bowling, fast food, and beer, with exclusive use of the checkbook when he felt like punishing her. So when Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights quotes the statistic that "(m)others' lack of financial equality in marriage deprives children; fathers are statistically less likely to spend their money on childrens' health and education" (sic), it certainly rings true. I know divorce is a separate situation, but let's just say that the children's health care that he was ordered to pay was arranged in such a way that my mother could not access the benefits. We hope that the marriage won't actually end this way or operate this way, but in reality, it happens to too many women--even those in Sacramental marriages.
So far, I have dwelt on the worst of all possible worlds. But I feel that the arguments of a woman who raised 6 children, enduring varying levels of mostly verbal, economic, and emotional abuse, who was finally able to break free of the immediate control, but feels entitled to economic compensation for the work she did as a mother and for the emotional abuse that literally prevented her from working outside of the home and then made her feel like a failure when she had to quit her job(s) to care for her children, who suffered from manipulation, anger & neglect while she was gone, would be regarded as "wanting too much" (using Anastasia's phrase out of context). Though she has worked enough hours in her lifetime to retire (once her 13-year-old is independent), she is nevertheless expected to get a minimum wage or entry-level job or have one imputed to her by the courts.
Sarahndipity notes, separately, that "[w]e also need to realize that for women, the male pattern of graduate, get a job, work for 30 years straight, and retire doesn’t work as well. It would make more sense for women to have their children while they’re young and reenter the workforce later (or enter for the first time.) Unfortunately, there is a lot of ageism that prevents older women from getting entry-level jobs." Yeah, there sure is.
So Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights says that women who have raised children deserve to be economically independent, or at least, to have economic independence equal to those who have earned Social Security benefits. I'm not sure how this would be accomplished, or if there is any way to accomplish this in an equitable, just manner, but it is certainly an interesting idea. The problem is that trying to accomplish this through legislative means does absolutely nothing to help the women who are suffering from this very thing right now. And really, that's a problem. The site asks, in a rhetorical response to an anticipated question, "Why is it we always seem to find the money we need for so many things, but when women ask for themselves or their children, the money is never there?" Why, indeed? Why is there money to accomplish political lobbying, etc., but not to establish a temporary or permanent independent solution? After all, Social Security isn't much of a solution either--it's more of a problem. So why should mothers want to go on board for that one? And on the other hand, it is better than the alternative: nothing. But it is not giving mothers what they truly deserve: the best of both possible worlds--the experience, responsibility, rewards of having mothered and the social and financial independence of having worked a demanding, sometimes heartbreaking, real and socially valuable job.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The Condensed Version of What I've Been Trying to Communicate
Feminism
- Few people who talk about feminism and motherhood (specifically, none of the commentors on the post about child-free woman-only beaches in Italy) consider for one minute that a woman might LIKE to have her kids around, that she might actually arrange her time so that she CAN spend it with them (whether she chooses to work outside of the home or not), and that she doesn't consider them an impediment to her enjoyment of life.
- It may be (as Anastasia notes) that people are afforded too much child-free space, leading to the opinion that children are little obscenities ad should be hidden until they reach an acceptable age.
- Within feminism certain choices are affirmed, but others are not--because they’re driven by so-called "outdated ideologies."
- Not having a child at all--or certainly not having more than one--is considered by many to be the "enlightened" choice.
- Individuals who consider themselves "feminists" very rarely speak out against how the most vocal and most politically active "feminists" wish to portray themselves.
- Feminism is an ideology that is loosely based at best.
- Feminism strongly suggests that certain behaviors are appropriate in certain situations, and it does suggest that the woman look out for #1 without considering much else, really.
- I consider "feminism" to be distinct from "women's rights." The former label does not afford much besides political baggage and free-associations.
- Feminism states: Any woman who is pro-woman is feminist (as long as she is pro-woman in a way we like). That way, feminism makes sure that it can claim to be all encompassing (within limits).
- Feminism is about women's rights to have rights. It doesn't matter what the rights are or whether they're right by any standard--objective or otherwise. Rather, it seems to be looking for something prohibited to claim as a right. Maybe feminism itself is in crisis due to this lack of a unified cause.
- Pro-motherhood feminism always includes the caveat that the motherhood shouldn't really interfere with one's convenience--hence the emphasis on children being "planned."
- In order to subscribe to an ideology--to a belief system of any kind--I have to have a good idea, first of all, of the tenets of that belief system, and second of all, I have to be able to accept those tenets.
- While feminism has certainly afforded us choice, I maintain that it has affirmed one choice (many choices, actually) over its (their) alternative(s).
- It is perfectly acceptable for a feminist to condemn--implicitly or explicitly--the choices of a woman who bases her choices on so-deemed "patriarchal institutions," such as Christianity, for example. Her choices and her intelligence are thus judged in one fell swoop.
- In academia, it is possible to make one's schedule family friendly.
- Children might even accompany the parent to office hours, etc.
- Research can be done in the presence of children.
- The presence of children does not preclude intellectual activity.
- Children don't have to be relegated to the care of others. It all depends on our perception of where they belong, with what they interfere.
- The idea that children need to, can and should make room for women's own goals is something that feminism has fought hard to achieve.
- The assumptions that children are a burden, make life difficult, and should be relegated to a space apart from one's career are assumptions that accompany women's presence in the workplace.
- We need to acknowledge that children can co-exist with parental ambition, and that difficult situations involving children can turn into occasions of triumph.
- Individual choices concerning what to do with children might differ from what they are currently if an atmosphere conducive to children were more pervasive.
- Some of our opinions on this subject are influenced by the fact that children are not well-tolerated in certain situations. I'm not sure why this is so offensive a point. To extend--we might have more options if children were better tolerated.
- It would be infinitely simpler to send my children to daycare, so I must have reasons for what I do, and those reasons are not affirmed by any of the theories or ideologies promoted in academia.
- I advocate the idea that the presence of children need not be regarded as a burden. The idea that children ruin one's life and career goals is unfortunate and pervasive. So if I can, in a small way, make people think about the presence or absence of children from our lives and our spaces in a different way than how they are accustomed to thinking, I am satisfied.
- There is a difference between saying, "this is what's best for me" and saying, "I do things this way because I believe that my method is preferable." My statement that it is my belief that my method is preferable does not preclude logic and reasoning, and my beliefs on this subject are indeed based on logic and reasoning (not prejudice or even-- horrors!--faith.), as are most of the things I believe.
- The expression of the belief that all children benefit from being around their parents while they are young, or of any of the other opinions that I have expressed, does not infringe on anyone’s right to do anything. Rather, the expression of that belief is intended to make people consider possible bases and consequences of such a belief, and perhaps see that I am advocating a change in attitude that might make such choices more frequent and available to more people.
- Saying that my choices are different, not influenced by the prevailing mindset, and that it would be nice if the prevailing mindset were different does not say that my choices are best for everyone, or that I want everyone to choose like me. Hell! If I said that, I’d have to put up with everyone else’s little monsters!! ;)
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
It should come as no surprise. . .
Really. It shouldn't surprise anyone that I feel the way I do about children and daycare. Because it's tough to juggle schedules. It's tougher some days than others, but there are definite challenges involved with bringing children places--especially places that are not child-friendly. Academic departments, for example. It would be infinitely simpler to relegate them to the care of others--sure! So there has to be a reason that I do what I do, no? A reason that I have not seen affirmed by any of the theories or ideologies promoted in academia. So I might as well write about my ideals before I have to compromise them at some point down the line. I dread the semester when I can't make it work. So far, admittedly, I've been lucky. But then, I've had only one baby at a time. Still, I will avoid it for as long as I can, and I will keep them in child care for as few hours a week as I can manage (which academia does allow), when and if the time comes. It's a conscious choice, and like most conscious choices, it does involve judgment of the alternative options (as the homeschooling parents out there know, right? ;) ).
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Housewife, Peasant woman, or Academic mom?
The current generation of working women is still rebelling against the housewife-image perfected by the Donna Reed and June Cleaver generation. I firmly believe this to be true. Feminism was founded on a rejection of the domestic standards upheld by the women who are no longer our mothers, but perhaps now our grandmothers. However, having lost touch with the actual experience of that familial life, are we rebelling against an idea that is hollow--the TV sitcom version of the dutiful wife/mother--or is there any remaining offense to be had?
Consider this. . . The woman of the 40's and 50's was an updated "angel of the house," if you will. She was the ruler of the domestic sphere, until her husband returned from work to find his steak and mashed potatoes on the table. She cooked and cleaned, shopped on a budget, raised children, and perhaps not much else. Who knows anymore? She was the apple of the eye of product developers and advertising agencies. More commercials and products were geared to this woman than to any single consumer today. Well, no. Children are the number one target today, and what does that say about who runs the household? But you take my point. We look at her full skirts and her plastic smile and listen to the Stones' "Mother's Little Helper" to understand all that was wrong with our perfect image of her. Of course, my generation doesn't really have an image of her that is separate from the criticism. She is not my grandmother, though they were contemporaries and share some of the same problems. And so I, also, reject this image, as I have been taught.
During (and perhaps immediately after) my younger child was born in the autumn of 2005, my dissertation adviser (and friend and confidant) had a running joke about me--that I was one of those "peasant women" who give birth in the field, then strap the baby to their backs and keep working. Strictly speaking, this is not true, though it was great for a chuckle. I emphatically did not want to, or, more accurately perhaps, feel that I should have to work in the months immediately after my baby was born. It turns out that I did not merely stay at home and bond with my baby, but that's another tale. . . I have colleagues who were in the classroom within weeks of giving birth. I freely admit that I could not have done this! Instead, I waited through October, November, and December, took on a less-demanding-than-teaching assistantship, and eased back into teaching in the summer and fall. I also took a class on professionalism in the fall.
I have heard and read many discussions recently about childcare, from a friend who is confused & vexed, a blogger whose husband became distressed after she recovered somewhat from first-time daycare blues, from a committed stay-at-home blogger mom lamenting "outsourced motherhood."
[An aside: my 15-month-old just dialed a play phone, help it to her ear, and said "bye bye" before the recorded voice!! Cute!!]
My own experience with childcare is limited. My husband & I did not put our son in any form of child care until he was 3; rather, we "swapped" child care duties literally between graduate classes. Until after kindergarten, which he attended part time, one of us was with him for most of the day. Last August I sincerely tried to place my baby in a church mother's-day-out program one day a week, but after two days of observation/trial, I simply could not. I just do not trust others with my baby--both for emotional and hygienic reasons. We both became very ill after that day of observation, which did nothing for my resolve or self-confidence.
[Just changed a diaper and had my daughter take 3 steps to me!]
Working-woman daycare culture is clearly not for me. However, while I have arranged the past 2 semesters so that I could stay with my daughter during the day and teach in the evenings, when she could be with Daddy, I can not identify myself as a "stay-at-home mom." I criticize both camps, perhaps too freely. That's not my purpose here, however.
It is ingrained in my consciousness that a mother needs to take care of herself while taking care of her children, insofar as it is possible to do both. In spite of extremely difficult situations, including a stretch as a single mother of me and a marriage that was even worse than the first, my mother managed to raise 6 children to believe that taking care of children is valuable, and that one can accomplish a great deal while doing so.
We have a rather unhealthy dichotomy in our contemporary conception of motherhood--a word that good feminists would avoid because it connotes an identity rather than an act--"working mother" is set in opposition to "stay-at-home mom." These terms are interesting in themselves, as "mother" lends more of an air of seriousness to the former situation than the less formal "mom." Hmmmm. . . Of course, working part-time in order to parent also connotes certain personal and financial sacrifices for family. I am aware of a married couple who divorced due to their conflict over whose career was more important. No children without compromise! For me, academia, perhaps grad school in particular! offers a reasonable compromise between these competing versions of motherhood. And dual academic careers are ideal.
But I wanted to think again about the 1940s housewife and the "peasant woman." We base our rejection of "traditional" motherhood on the former, but include the latter in our conceptualization of oppressed women of previous generations who had no choice but to bear children, etc. We differ because we have autonomy, can choose careers, can choose to mother, the possibilities are endless! But are our choices presented fairly? Are we always sacrificing something that the other choice offers? Two roads diverged, and all that. . . I choose to multitask--to work with a baby at my feet (not on my back!). I take care of her; she is mine; I am mine.
Consider this. . . The woman of the 40's and 50's was an updated "angel of the house," if you will. She was the ruler of the domestic sphere, until her husband returned from work to find his steak and mashed potatoes on the table. She cooked and cleaned, shopped on a budget, raised children, and perhaps not much else. Who knows anymore? She was the apple of the eye of product developers and advertising agencies. More commercials and products were geared to this woman than to any single consumer today. Well, no. Children are the number one target today, and what does that say about who runs the household? But you take my point. We look at her full skirts and her plastic smile and listen to the Stones' "Mother's Little Helper" to understand all that was wrong with our perfect image of her. Of course, my generation doesn't really have an image of her that is separate from the criticism. She is not my grandmother, though they were contemporaries and share some of the same problems. And so I, also, reject this image, as I have been taught.
During (and perhaps immediately after) my younger child was born in the autumn of 2005, my dissertation adviser (and friend and confidant) had a running joke about me--that I was one of those "peasant women" who give birth in the field, then strap the baby to their backs and keep working. Strictly speaking, this is not true, though it was great for a chuckle. I emphatically did not want to, or, more accurately perhaps, feel that I should have to work in the months immediately after my baby was born. It turns out that I did not merely stay at home and bond with my baby, but that's another tale. . . I have colleagues who were in the classroom within weeks of giving birth. I freely admit that I could not have done this! Instead, I waited through October, November, and December, took on a less-demanding-than-teaching assistantship, and eased back into teaching in the summer and fall. I also took a class on professionalism in the fall.
I have heard and read many discussions recently about childcare, from a friend who is confused & vexed, a blogger whose husband became distressed after she recovered somewhat from first-time daycare blues, from a committed stay-at-home blogger mom lamenting "outsourced motherhood."
[An aside: my 15-month-old just dialed a play phone, help it to her ear, and said "bye bye" before the recorded voice!! Cute!!]
My own experience with childcare is limited. My husband & I did not put our son in any form of child care until he was 3; rather, we "swapped" child care duties literally between graduate classes. Until after kindergarten, which he attended part time, one of us was with him for most of the day. Last August I sincerely tried to place my baby in a church mother's-day-out program one day a week, but after two days of observation/trial, I simply could not. I just do not trust others with my baby--both for emotional and hygienic reasons. We both became very ill after that day of observation, which did nothing for my resolve or self-confidence.
[Just changed a diaper and had my daughter take 3 steps to me!]
Working-woman daycare culture is clearly not for me. However, while I have arranged the past 2 semesters so that I could stay with my daughter during the day and teach in the evenings, when she could be with Daddy, I can not identify myself as a "stay-at-home mom." I criticize both camps, perhaps too freely. That's not my purpose here, however.
It is ingrained in my consciousness that a mother needs to take care of herself while taking care of her children, insofar as it is possible to do both. In spite of extremely difficult situations, including a stretch as a single mother of me and a marriage that was even worse than the first, my mother managed to raise 6 children to believe that taking care of children is valuable, and that one can accomplish a great deal while doing so.
We have a rather unhealthy dichotomy in our contemporary conception of motherhood--a word that good feminists would avoid because it connotes an identity rather than an act--"working mother" is set in opposition to "stay-at-home mom." These terms are interesting in themselves, as "mother" lends more of an air of seriousness to the former situation than the less formal "mom." Hmmmm. . . Of course, working part-time in order to parent also connotes certain personal and financial sacrifices for family. I am aware of a married couple who divorced due to their conflict over whose career was more important. No children without compromise! For me, academia, perhaps grad school in particular! offers a reasonable compromise between these competing versions of motherhood. And dual academic careers are ideal.
But I wanted to think again about the 1940s housewife and the "peasant woman." We base our rejection of "traditional" motherhood on the former, but include the latter in our conceptualization of oppressed women of previous generations who had no choice but to bear children, etc. We differ because we have autonomy, can choose careers, can choose to mother, the possibilities are endless! But are our choices presented fairly? Are we always sacrificing something that the other choice offers? Two roads diverged, and all that. . . I choose to multitask--to work with a baby at my feet (not on my back!). I take care of her; she is mine; I am mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)