quote: Do you seriously want to argue that boys instinctively know what a gun is?
Certainly not! But they only need to see the concept once and they are in love! (Not all boys mind you, but the ones with this tendancy.)
But it is all about the latent tendancy. The child sees what appeals to them and they *latch on*! They are obsessed! No one told them to be obsessed, they just are. And if the child doesn't have that latent tendancy, then they just don't care.
By the "society only" standard, by all counts I should have played with dolls. I rejected the very idea! I scoffed at my younger sister's girlishness! The tendancy in me to nurture had to be developed. It did not come naturally. I was drawn to the cool boyish stuff my older brothers did. My sister was repelled by that. She tried it out, in order to fit in with her three older siblings, but it just was not *her*.
It is all about these latent tendancies that society brings out in us. They are real, they exist!
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: By the "society only" standard, by all counts I should have played with dolls.
Try this sentence on and see how well it works:
quote: By the "genetics" standard, by all counts I should have played with dolls.
Works either way. I don't think this is making your case.
quote:I rejected the very idea! I scoffed at my younger sister's girlishness! The tendancy in me to nurture had to be developed. It did not come naturally. I was drawn to the cool boyish stuff my older brothers did. My sister was repelled by that. She tried it out, in order to fit in with her three older siblings, but it just was not *her*.
It is all about these latent tendancies that society brings out in us. They are real, they exist!
So, um, you agree with me that these latent tendencies are not neessarily determined by gender?
quote: Works either way. I don't think this is making your case.
If you read my posts carefully I have never *ever* said that I think all girls are born with any genetic behavioral trait or all boys for that matter. Only that they are common.
I was not born with the trait of a tendancy to nurture. My sister was. We both were raised the same way with the same societal pressures. My point is made.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly, the main thing is that you can go hours on TV, on any channel, and never see a fat or old person of either gender.(edit: I am not conceding your point. It's just that it doesn't seem to be one that is provable to either one of us.)
As to women in hollywood, they have to get out of the house, first, to get to hollywood. They have to decide to put family second or juggle family and career or not have family at all if they want to come to hollywood and go up against the men and be producers or directors. Easier just to satisfy one type of sexism and stay home and be mothers. No one will fault you for it and everyone will praise you for it.
quote: As to women in hollywood, they have to get out of the house, first, to get to hollywood. They have to decide to put family second or juggle family and career or not have family at all if they want to come to hollywood and go up against the men and be producers or directors.
Yeah, I agree this is probably true.
quote: Easier just to satisfy one type of sexism and stay home and be mothers. No one will fault you for it and everyone will praise you for it.
Not quite sure what you are saying here. Many people fault stay-at-home-Moms for not having the much gloried career. Many people feel your self worth is attached to how much money you make. That is part of what bugs me about the "over correction" from the past sexism. Even if being a stay-at-home-Mom *is* the best for kids, no one wants to say so. First, it hurts the feelings of working Moms. Secondly, those who choose to be homemakers are still often thought of as "oppressed" into such a path, unambitious, uneducated, or even lazy.
quote: Not quite sure what you are saying here. Many people fault stay-at-home-Moms for not having the much gloried career.
I've heard of it. I've never seen it. Everyone I've ever heard talk about it says it's freaking hard to do at all, let alone 'right', so that neither suffers.
quote:
Many people feel your self worth is attached to how much money you make.
Heard of it. Never seen it. On the other hand, I have heard at least a couple commentators make nasty comments about mothers that choose to work. I've heard people blame working mothers for many of society's ills because their children suffer for their 'selfish' decision.
quote: That is part of what bugs me about the "over correction" from the past sexism. Even if being a stay-at-home-Mom *is* the best for kids, no one wants to say so. First, it hurts the feelings of working Moms.
No one wants to say that it might be a terrible thing for the mother and, thus, bad for the kids who are being raised by that mother, because they don't want to hurt the feelings of stay at home moms.
quote: Secondly, those who choose to be homemakers are still often thought of as "oppressed" into such a path, unambitious, uneducated, or even lazy.
Sometimes they are. I think the (sub)cultural pressure to be a sahm is much greater than it is to be a working mother, if there is any cultural pressure at all in that direction.
The bottom line is that different groups have different expectations of women because they are women. Assuming that someone should be a certain way because of their sex is sexism, is it not? Sometimes the sexism of one group says that you should have children and career. Sometimes it says you should just have children, then career. Sometimes it says you should just have children and not even bother with a career. Sometimes it says you shouldn't have children at all.
quote:But don't you see? This is evidence for my position!
Do you seriously want to argue that boys instinctively know what a gun is? Before guns were invented did little Roman boys point rolls of papyrus at each other and go "PEEW! PEEEW!"? Did little Native American boys do this? Obviously this boy got the idea of guns from somewhere despite his parents' best efforts to prevent it. It's not unreasonable to presume that he also learned who was supposed to play with guns in the same way. All you have shown is how pervasive our culture and our gender definitions are.
No, those little Roman boys rolled up papyrus and hit things with it and went "CLANG! CLANG!" the point is not that he knew what a gun was, it's that he was so fascinated by the concept of a gun that he pretended anything that even looked like a gun was a gun. THAT's where I'm saying there's a difference--that boys are hardwired to be more interested in objects and weapons than girls.
posted
My parents moved to California for a few years. My mother was amazed that even within the relitively odd sub-culture of the LDS Church, there was the expectation that every woman needed to have a career. When people asked my mother what her career is and she said "Mother and housewife", she would just ge dumbfounded stares. Even in such a conservative sub-culture, there was a very negative stigma against somebody who was "just" a mother and housewife.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recall Lalo making an extremely disparaging and bigoted remark about sahm's, but then that may not surprise anyone.
I face it everytime someone asks me "What do you do?" The judgement is there. On both sides. But it is mostly those involved who experience it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, but we've had discussions around this subject in the past and, maybe I misunderstood or wasn't paying attention, but it was my understanding that many LDS women on this board have said that they felt stigmatized by LDS culture because they weren't married and/or with children. Too, most LDS women with children on this board are stay at home moms, as far as I know. edit: which would tend to bear out the idea that pressure within LDS society, at least, goes towards staying at home with the children.
edit some more: I am not making the argument that there isn't pressure from opposing ideologies. I am just telling you what I've observed. I am fully prepared to admit that someone else may have had different experiences with this than I have.
And, Bev, people have made disparaging remarks on this board about women who work while they are raising children, too.
posted
SS -- that may be true. I'm just reporting that it sometimes, even inside Mormon culture, happens the other way.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And, Bev, people have made disparaging remarks on this board about women who work while they are raising children, too.
Absolutely. The judgement comes from both sides. I try not to say what would hurt the feelings of working Moms. But I also try to speak my honest feelings. I wouldn't be a sahm if I didn't believe it were important, ya know? But I also cannot judge someone's motives and must refrain from doing so.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that women wanting children is very much nature. My mother was always telling to do more than JUST havebabies.(don't hit me,she is a highschool drop out) And I always felt strongly that I would work and if Iwas a mother I'd still work but i didn't have a strong incling to be a mother. But you meet someone and suddenly you want nothing more. I'm only 18 and my biological has begun to tick. I would really love to play that role. It almost feels urgent.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, I think sometimes it's impossible not to hurt someone's feelings on some threads. It's understandable and almost unavoidable.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gwan, I totally understand. And this is what I disapprove of: so much of the world's message is that such motives don't exist, or they should be discouraged because they are degrading.
If you don't want to have children, fine. If you want a career, fine. But there are women who desire the sort of life I live right now. I love it! It is more fulfilling than any career I could imagine for myself. I wouldn't want it any other way. Some women feel this way, and I feel sometimes like the world is saying: "No you don't. You're just buying into the oppression of the 50s".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, perhaps. I appreciate someone telling me when I have said something hurtful so that I can re-examine myself. Sometimes I feel I must speak for a greater good even if it hurts others, but those times are in the minority.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I just want to go on the record of saying that I have been personally put down for staying home, and I've witnessed the put-down of my mother-in-law. I was told that my MIL should be working because she's "got such talent and intelligence and shouldn't waste it."
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe she meant "Women Lubbers." You know, those women who refuse to learn the ways of the sea.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elizabeth, whether or not you agree with the idea, there's nothing inherently inconsistent about believing that women have achieved all the rights they really need. I don't know what positions your grandmother holds, exactly, but (to take a controversial one) a lot of feminist opinion-leaders claim abortion rights are critical to feminism and any attack on them is an attack on women. Wouldn't surprise me if your grandmother disagreed--she's just glad she had a good job, and that's as far as she thinks it need go.
quote:You see, I have articulated this out loud to my husband but not to anyone else. In my experience as a mother, I have thought that mother's are very intimately connected with their children, an intimacy that rivals sexual intimacy. Breastfeeding, bathing, diapering, among other things.
Of those items, the only one I did exclusively was breastfeeding. My husband did the diapering, when he was home, and he always gave the kids their evening baths, from infancy on up until the time that they were able to bath themselves.
Just for the record, I agree with Christy's post.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a woman who is trying to decide whether to go back to work or to stay at home right now, I think there are social pressures from both sides.
The bias against staying at home is that you give up your life for your children and stay at home to cater to their needs and stop fulfilling your own or society's.
I don't believe that this has to be so. I think there are more opportunites to serve your community, yourself and your child while you are at home. If you can afford to do so, it can be very rewarding.
Sadly, the cost of living, saving for the future and lifestyle choices are big counters to this approach. Also, there is the mythical beast of the career, that you will lose status, essentially become idle in the eyes of any future employer, and this is a hard thing to combat.
The bias against working mothers is that you are not doing what is best for your child. That you are selfish and unmotherly for wanting a career, a different lifestyle than a stay at home mom. You are an outsider since you can not be at home during the day to go to mom's groups or playdates and meet other moms. Your child must be missing out on personal attention and the daycare is replacing you as mother and corrupting your child.
I don't believe any of this either. I think daycare can be (and often is) a very rewarding experience for your child. They have resources that many sahm's don't have (although there is becoming more available through the community, I find) and the socialization is good for your child. I think it is important to have a life outside of your child for your emotional well being and for some women work is the best way to get that sense of value and purpose.
*laugh* So I feel rather pushed and pulled at the moment from all sides and I appreciate the many factors that influence a woman's decision to stay at home or not.
Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christy- if you haven't done so already, make 4 lists. Pros and cons, of working, or staying home. Of course many parents toss out the lists and go with their heart, but it can help. Also, there are many in between options, and you really CAN change your mind at any time. Best of luck- it's a tough decision. Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"got such talent and intelligence and shouldn't waste it."
I've heard this statement applied to me many times. I've also been told, as if it were a compliment, that I was "Overqualified for being a stay-at-home Mom"
BS. Spending your talents and intelligence on your children is most definitely not wasting it.
And I think you can have both. I certainly plan to. I've been home for the kids early years, I've been home for the older kids when they get home from school, I've had the time in the afternoon to sit down and share homework woes, and read to the little ones, and just be there.
And, I'm planning on going back to school to complete my degree so I can start a new career.
My kids are still my primary concern here however. One, I'm choosing a career that will give me similar hours and off days as my kids by going into education. Two, my mother now lives with us, and when I finish my master's programs, she will be 65 and hopes to retire. So, that even if I'm not home for some things, she will be.
One can raise children and have a career. One may not be able to do both at the same time, or at least not do both to the extent you want to.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
