I am so sick of the New York Times. First there's the article about how Ivy League women who choose to be stay-at-home moms (like me) are setting women back 60 years. I'm also sick of all the articles (and not just from the NYT) about how stay-at-home moms are lonely, depressed, unfulfilled, and stressed-out. Yes, some are and I have my moments, but many of us are extremely happy and contented with the life that we have chosen. I'm just tired of reading about how unhappy I am.
Now it's this article, which I find appalling. Here are some highlights:
quote:Happy-hour play dates are here. Between runs to soccer and ballet classes, fund-raisers and homework projects, some stay-at-home mothers are sipping cocktails at afternoon spa parties, drinking bloody marys at play groups and toting wine and wine coolers to parks and friends’ decks while their children frolic nearby.
These women are not out to get drunk, they say. And they insist they are not drinking out of need. Rather, they are looking for a small break from the conventions of mommy-hood — a way to hold on to a part of their lives that existed before they had children and to bond over a shared disdain for the almost sadistically stressful world of modern parenting.
quote:“Giving up a career (and a piece of my identity) and boredom were the core reasons I drank,” said Jennifer Ramsey of Sacramento, Calif., in an e-mail message, explaining how being a stay-at-home mother contributed to her alcoholism. “I know that this isolation and need to appear like the perfect mom are stressful for many women.”
quote:While many of the mothers who defended cocktail play dates claimed that having children underfoot promoted greater restraint, most probably would not tolerate it from hired caregivers.
posted
Why is that in any way acceptable? Would anyone ever tolerate drinking from a nanny or day care worker? Even just one drink? I can tell you that if I had ever decided to have a drink (even "just one glass of wine") when I was working at the after-school program, I would have been instantly fired. And rightly so.
I'm just shocked that there are people who are so comfortable with behavior that I consider wrong. I think it's is shameful. I guess I'm one of those moms who is "probably are no fun, anyway."
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the difference between a mother doing it and a nanny or day care worker doing it is that drinking on the job is generally against the terms of employment, while drinking after giving birth is not.
I have a friend with a 6 month old. Before she had her baby, we used to go out to a nice dinner about once a month, and usually shared a bottle of wine. While she was pregnant we still went out, but she stopped drinking, of course. Now that she has an infant, it's a lot harder for her to go out, but she misses socializing, since she quit her job as well to be a sahm. So when we get together, I pick up gourmet take-out and bring it to her place. Sometimes we have a glass of wine, too. Neither of us get drunk, or even tipsy. One of us is always holding the baby. She is never ignored.
If I was a hired child-care worker, of course my drinking on the job wouldn't be tolerated. But it wouldn't be if I was a hired house cleaner, either, and it isn't in my current office job. But for a group of women to get together and have a drink or two while their kids play? Color me disinterested. My question would be why is this in the newspaper at all?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are any number of things we do ourselves that we would not tolerate in the same circumstances from someone we are employing for a specific task.
Lots of people talk on the cellphone while driving, but you can bet most of them would report a cab driver who was doing the same thing while they were in the cab.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, KarlEd, but that doesn't make it right.
I just don't feel comfortable mixing any amount of alcohol and childcare. Personally, I will only have a glass of wine if Aerin is down for the night and Andrew isn't drinking at all. I'm not condemning parents who have a glass of wine with supper, but I think that cocktails just don't belong on playdates.
I certainly think that having 3 "momtinis" (and what an obnoxious word that is) and driving your kids home is dangerous.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never drink and drive. Ever. Double worse with kids in the car. I don't believe cocktails belong on playdates.
I DO have wine with dinner (about twice a month), and beer on Saturday night. I occasionally swap sitting with a friend and when they are at my house on Sat night, I do still have my beer. But that's as far as I'd take it.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't drink and drive* with kids, either. I do think it can be done responsibly, however.
*"drink and drive" is a buzzword that has come to inherently include a degree of irresponsibility, therefore I feel I must clarify. I think a person can have a cocktail and still be in sufficient control of their faculties to safely operate an automobile and/or watch kids (given the variables of strength of cocktail, rate of consumption, etc). I wouldn't personally do it with my own (theoretical) kids, and I wouldn't want someone watching my kids to do it, but I also don't feel it's my place to criticize someone who chooses to do otherwise, responsibly.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the article galls me so much because it reminds me of the girls in college who needed alcohol to "relax." By relax, they meant lower their inhibitions so they could blame their poor choices on being wasted. I'm not saying these women are doing that, but it does have the same feel.
Also, I'm just tired of defending my decision to stay home in certain circles (not here, of course). So when articles like this come out, I know I'm going to get flack about it.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't read the whole article, just parts you quoted, but I have strong opinions about stay at home mothers. Seeing as how I am not only a stay at home mom, but also sometimes left for weeks at a time without my husband, I understand very well the stress. I can understand a compulsion to get together with others in the same situation and commiserate. It IS hard. It IS stressful. Sometimes I want to stick my kids in a cryogenic freezer and sit down in a quiet house with a bowl of ice cream.
That said, I have to agree with Mrs.M about how "uncool" being a stay at home mom is being made out to be. Sure it's not really like diaper commercials portray it, but what fails to get addressed is how VITALLY IMPORTANT it is to be a good parent and raise your kids well. It is the MOST important thing a woman could EVER do. Anything that important isn't going to be easy. It's draining, it's constant, the kids don't appreciate anything, at least not yet. I understand the desire to hold on to shreds of single-life, remember how you defined yourself before the kids came. But I would NEVER go back. Women who spend all day with their kids are, in reality, the most fulfilled of all women. Being the one to shape your children is a priceless gift. Anyone who feel like moaning about having to raise their own kids should think about not having any.
I was a full-time, live-in nanny for almost two years. I grieved for what those parents were missing out on. I was usually alone with those kids for 11-13 hours a day. I'm not against women who want to work, nor am I against women having something (like perhaps a part-time job) that helps them get out a bit. But if you have the privilege of having kids, I don't want to hear you complain about having to raise them. That's what it's all about.
What I'm getting at is, I'm not all that concerned about the women getting together and having a drink (as long as it really is just one) while their children play in a safe environment. What really does make me angry, however, is the tone of the article and the way certain media tend to color the life of a stay at home mom. It's being portrayed as secondary, unfulfilling, servitude that is something to be resented and regretted rather than treasured and cherished.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is the MOST important thing a woman could EVER do.
I never would discount the value of a woman raising a child well, but be careful about making these sorts of claims.
If a woman cures Cancer, and happens to not have any children, I'd be very hesitant to say she never did anything as important as what a stay-at-home mom does.
Just as stay-at-home moms are prickly about how others value their contributions to society, so too are those women who choose not to raise children.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hrm...I don't even have to drive (walk/subway), but when I take Gabe out for Adventure Thursday in the Bjorn and we stop by our favorite bar for lunch, I don't even feel comfortable having a single drink.
And I'm 175 pounds.
quote:I'll agree for average weight moms, normal strength martinis and playdates shorter than three hours.
About right (as a NYC bartender, I have to take all sorts of annoying "Responsible Alcohol Sales and Service" courses). It takes the average female body about an hour to metabolize an ounce of 80 proof liquor. A martini is about twice that. Three drinks in an hour is around what it takes to hit a BAL of .08. So after three martinis (6 oz of liquor) in three hours, they're probably right on the cusp of the legal driving limit.
Okay, maybe not "about right". Being on the cusp of a DUI isn't the ideal time to be driving your children around.
But since this is a NYC article, I assume walking is the more poplar mode of transportation. I just hope they're looking both ways about five times before crossing the street.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DaisyMae: It is the MOST important thing a woman could EVER do.
So, I understand that this is an emotional topic for you. But just as you feel marginalized by the media sometimes, please remember that those of us who choose not to have kids also face a lot of critisism and charges that there's something wrong with us for not wanting to have kids. Or that we're not as fulfilled as stay at home moms. That fact is that no one choice is the right choice for everyone, and I can be just as fulfilled by my choices are you are by yours.
And, personally, I would say that finding a cure for cancer, or a sustainable energy source, or a workable middle east peace plan are all things that a woman could do that I would consider more important to the world than raising children. Not that I, personally, am working on any of those, of course. Just that I think your statement is hyperbole.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's being portrayed as secondary, unfulfilling, servitude that is something to be resented and regretted rather than treasured and cherished.
*ring ring* "Hello?" "Yeah. Hey, hon. Going to go out and have a few drinks with the guys after work, then a movie. Might not be home till 11 or so." "No problem! I love being with the kids! It fulfills me in a deep, essential way that spending time with other adults can't. You stay out as long as you want." "Super!"
quote:But since this is a NYC article, I assume walking is the more poplar mode of transportation.
Actually, the article seemed to mention suburban mothers exclusively.
I do agree with Xavier and ElJay that women don't have to have children to have fulfilling, meaningful lives. My best friend doesn't want children and I've seen her take a lot of flack over it. Though I wouldn't presume to speak for DaisyMae, I don't think she meant to imply that having children is the only important thing a woman could do.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly wasn't trying to ruffle feathers with that statement. I say ROCK ON to working women, and would certainly honor and respect someone who, using your example, cured cancer. You would never find me saying to that person, were she a woman, "Well, that's great, but you really should have been home rasing children."
That said, I do not recant. I do not consider a woman who chooses not to have children less of a woman than someone who does. In fact, I think that they are making wiser choices than someone who does have children and then does a crappy job at raising them. But I would consider the woman who raises her children well right there on the same platform as the woman who cured cancer.
As far as my statement that being a good mother is the most important thing a woman can do, I kind of meant it in the context of a woman who has children but feels that she could be doing something else of more importance than being stuck with them all day.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Storm, I think you would realize by my first post that you don't think I would, nor do I think anyone else would respond in that fashion. Don't even get me started on the responsibilties of fathers and the importance of meaningful adult relationships.
'course, your smiley may indicate that you were teasing me just a little bit. Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DaisyMae: I'm not against women who want to work, nor am I against women having something (like perhaps a part-time job) that helps them get out a bit. But if you have the privilege of having kids, I don't want to hear you complain about having to raise them. That's what it's all about.
But you're allowed to complain? (And did, in the very same post.)
So nice that you're ok with me working. I'm ok with you not working.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Daisy, so, those of us who don't choose to have children and then don't cure cancer or some equivalent don't rate that same platform?
Edit: Honestly, I see you being just as condescending to women who choose not to have children as you say the NYT is being to SAHMs.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I would consider the woman who raises her children well right there on the same platform as the woman who cured cancer.
Ridiculous. Any number of women raise their kids well. Nobody has cured cancer yet. Just because it's important, doesn't mean it's difficult or requires genius.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, what about Stay at home dads? Isn't staying at home with your children fulfilling for anyone, man or woman?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods* Why can't we just let women get on with it? If we want to work, we should work. If we don't, we shouldn't (if there's a husband around to support us.) If we decide our husband should stay home (with his participation, of course) then he should do that. We need to be the ones, with our families, to balance the material needs of our family and our social and emotional needs against the nurturing or whatever needs of our kids. Not the NY Times, not a group of people sitting around talking about it, and not an internet forum.
I'm happy that there are so many women out there who care enough about their kids to make the choices they do. I just wish we could stop judging each other for it.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that my post has been hashed and many of you are finding ill-will and condescension when none was intended.
Truly, my post was in reference to stay at home mothers who think they are wasting their time. I said nothing about stay at home fathers, who are also to be commended, I did not say that women who work outside the home are not accomplishing anything worthwhile. In fact, I was trying, though obviously failing, to indicate that I'm NOT trying to pass judgment on those who choose not to have children. My attitude is much closer to KQueens than most of you realize. It feels like people are just trying to be offended.
My point is, again, that I'm disgusted with the job of stay at home mom being slanted as something regrettable and secondary.
And I will not back down on MY OPINION that the importance of being a good mother is on equal grounds with the importance of finding cures for diseases. And obviously this one act is not exclusive. I was merely going along with example provided. I never said that finding the cure for cancer required less genius than raising kids, though I will argue the level of difficulty might be similar.
I really like to participate in this forum. I really respect most of the people here. But I get frustrated with the way people get pounced upon and many of the things they say are taken out of context.
I am actually hurt that those of you who thought I was purposefully being condescending think that of me.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: What's sadder is that it's probably other women who are doing the worst of the judging.
This is completely the truth. My mom was a SAHM for 30 years. My last sibling just left the house and she got a job working with the elderly. Still, she had some friends try to ask her if she "had to" go back to work because my father wasn't earning enough money or something.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Daisy- I'm sorry I jumped on you. Your post seemed to emphasize women as stay at home mothers. Stay at home fathers are a very important issue to me because I feel they're critical to make our society one with gender equality.
There are a lot of people out there who would argue that men should not be stay at home dads, I'm afraid I just assumed you were one of them. I'm sorry.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem is that even in your apologies and explanations, you still use hyperbole.
quote: I never said that finding the cure for cancer required less genius than raising kids, though I will argue the level of difficulty might be similar.
No one on this earth has ever found the cure for Cancer. Many many thousands of people have tried.
The only way I could even consider your quotes statement not hyperbole is if you are talking about raising a child perfectly, as I'm sure many thousands of people have tried that, and I doubt anyone has succeeded.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. It's not a great means of comparison. I'm only trying to emphasize that being a good parent requires more effort, perseverance, patience and learning than I feel it regularly gets credit for.
Critiques on my phrasing is not what concerns me. I truly just want to make sure that no one is accusing me of saying or implying things I haven't or haven't meant to.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never said that finding the cure for cancer required less genius than raising kids, though I will argue the level of difficulty might be similar.
quote: I'm also sick of all the articles (and not just from the NYT) about how stay-at-home moms are lonely, depressed, unfulfilled, and stressed-out.
The thing that strikes me is that plenty of working women feel exactly the same way. And they drink, too.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, the cancer comparison has failed its purpose. More time is being spent arguing the comparison than the idea behind it.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DaisyMae, I didn't think you intended ill-will or condensation towards women who choose to or have to work, children or no. What I was objecting to was that your post was as unintentionally hurtful to many women as these magazine articles are unintentionally hurtful to you. That's why I started my post the way I did:
quote:So, I understand that this is an emotional topic for you. But just as you feel marginalized by the media sometimes, please remember that those of us who choose not to have kids also face a lot of critisism and charges that there's something wrong with us for not wanting to have kids.
I'm just asking that you try to have the same consideration towards others in your posts that you're asking us to have towards you. We're not trying to be offended. Just like you aren't trying to be offended by the articles you object to.
I was actually hurt by your first post. So what was I supposed to do about it, if not let you know why? I don't think I took anything you said out of context.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Daisy, I'm sorry that you were hurt; it's just that many of use who have chosen not to have children are just as routinely criticized by random strangers for our choices as SAHMs are.
In your post above, you say:
quote:That said, I do not recant. I do not consider a woman who chooses not to have children less of a woman than someone who does.
I completely agree with that. However, this:
quote: But I would consider the woman who raises her children well right there on the same platform as the woman who cured cancer.
implies a contradiction with the first quote--that a woman who raises children well is worthy of more praise (inherently better somehow) than a woman who chooses not to have children. It's that contradiction I was responding to, and to which others were as well, I'm guessing. If that contradiction isn't what you intended (and it seems from later posts that perhaps it wasn't), then we're in agreement, and I apologize for any hurt I may have caused.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
I mean, hell, if anything this harkens back to an earlier age - my grandparents have a gin and tonic every day at 5 o'clock without fail.
Every night when I get home from work, I turn on Jamie Cullum or similarly relaxing music, take of my high heels and have a glass of red wine. This does not impair my inhibitions. I don't do it because I'm unhappy or lonely (usually my boyfriend's there and has one with me). It doesn't make me irresponsible, and in my opinion it wouldn't make me irresponsible if I did have a child.
It helps me relax. I could do without it if I needed to, but frankly I'd rather not (especially when I can get wonderful Merlot from Trader Joe's for $3).
I just don't think it's a huge deal. Call me crazy.
posted
My dad and mom used to have one drink with dinner, and I would agree, it did not impair them.
That's different from drinking before you drive your kids home.
But even if some women do that, I fail to see why exactly it is newsworthy. I bet if you looked at some communities (trying hard not to stereotypically choose which ones here), women have been getting together for a beer or two/glass or two of wine/cocktail or two while their kids played for years.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never said that finding the cure for cancer required less genius than raising kids, though I will argue the level of difficulty might be similar.
Raising children well maybe, but you'd be surprised how few people I think do this. Granted, I think that it takes and inordinate amount of study, care, and luck to raise children well as well as curing cancer. The funny thing is that I find the percentages similar. From my view, every cancer breakthrough corresponds with families who do it right at a one-to-one relationship.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the tone of the article is what bothered me more than the content. It's almost like the NYtimes decided to look at the subculture of upper middle class suburban white SAHMs from a sociological/anthropological standpoint:
How does American culture and their ascribed status as "woman" interact with their chosen status as "SAHM", which they may or may not be happy with, combined with their implied position in society bring them to drink in front of their children and what are the implications of this on greater society? What does it mean?
Does it really have to mean anything? Some ladies get together on Friday nights, they bring their kids, and they have a drink or two. OK. Good for them.
Posts: 36 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with everyone who's said "So...?" to the drinking. Fine, so the moms want to have a drink. And? They serve beer at Chuck E. Cheese, for crying out loud. My parents like scotch. They drink it at home. They don't get ridiculously drunk and then drive us around town and come home and knock over the azaleas. But does it really matter if someone wants to have a drink?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
