Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    	I would guess that, in preparation, a good thing would be to
    instill a solid foundation of self esteem, with an icing of self
    reliant behavior. Teach that success trully is in the here and now,
    not in "making it to friday", or up to VP level, or to "retirement".
    
    	Read Jim Baranski's latest note in H_R, for some interesting
    stats faced by all young men growing up to adulthood.
    
    	Joe
     

	
    	The future is starting to look pretty mean.   How likely is
    it that a boy that age will be "asked" to become cannon fodder?
    (in Central America?)  How likely is he to ever be able to retire, 
    or collect social security?  (that was a rhetorical question, please
    don't answer it.)    The rich are getting richer, while the rest of 
    us have a task of heroic proportions to just succeed in even a minimal way.
    Is it worth working to become a part of an adult world where what
    you win is a greater chance at heart disease?   Shall they work
    to please a wife, when the statistics say they will get divorced
    anyway?
    
    	If I had a son, now, I would give him a copy of "The Tracker"
    by Tom Brown, and teach him that alternatives to modern society
    do exist.   I would try to help him find alternatives that
    lead beyond the dead-end dilemmas of our modern society.   I would
    teach him that yuppyism and wealth are dead ends.  I would strongly
    advise all adolescent boys to learn some form of martial art, since
    the world is rough, and getting rougher, and at least that way he
    would have the confidence that comes with being able to defend one's
    self.
    
	I have told some young people that failure and getting "F"s
    doesn't matter, so long as they continue to learn lessons from
    what happens.   In some cases getting an "F" is the right thing
    to do, when the situation really calls for it.   Grading on a
    curve is wrong, since this system mandates that a large percentage
    *will* fail.   It is no shame to fail in such a system.   The
    essential is that they can go on learning, without identifying
    themselves as permanant failures.  (to learn to fail without
    becoming "a failure")

    	There are alternatives, other than learning "to fit in".
    Most boys want *anything but* to become the person who fills
    an employment slot.   They want romance and heroics, not
    boredom and a lack of realistic choices.   They want possibilities,
    wilderness and freedom, not security and certainty.  They want
    time to explore.
    
    	I know some younger men, in their early 20s, and they tell
    me that they see it all falling apart.  They see the national debt,
    and they *know* that they will not have the chances that were
    available in the '60s and '70s.   The myth of armageddon is all
    too believable, and I think a lot of them are just going to wait
    around stoned until it comes.  I don't wonder at all about the 
    suicide statistics.   I *know* why it is happening.    They feel 
    their future has been ripped off.   And it has been.
    
				Alan.

    I am the parent of a 16 year old boy.  My husband died when my son
    was 3 1/2.  Raising my son has had many challenges - that's good.
    I have tried to point out to him that he is capable of many things
    among them cooking, cleaning, laundering, shopping, anything
    mechanical, problem solving, earning money, studying and that he
    has and is still developing good decision making skills.  He has
    been working after school for the past year and just recently bought
    his first car which he maintains entirely by himself.  He is
    maintaining good grades at the school of his choice.  He enjoys
    people a great deal and has a good sense of humor.  I continue to
    tell him that if he has a problem that he can't solve I'd be glad
    to help him or find someone else who can help him solve the problem.
    I guess what I want to say is to raise a liberated boy is to give
    him the idea that he can be self reliant yet enlist the help of
    others when necessary, that he can be very dependable but also flexible
    enough to change directions if that is right for him - that he will
    make his life what he wants it to be - for him.
    
    Hopefully teaching him that his help has always been needed to keep
    our household running smoothly will be a tool that he will be helpful
    to him.  When he brings in the wood I will keep the fire going all
    day and night.  
    

    Bonnie, I'd blame your daughter if she let herself get so dependent.
    (But you know me!)
    
    But other people would blame her too, but for different reasons.
    They'd blame her for not being able to maintain a marriage, for
    being a bad wife, or for poor housekeeping.
    
    It sounds to me like somebody's pushing her friend too hard.
    Everybody raise your hand if you're a failed astronaut like me,
    or you haven't had a one-woman show in a fancy London art gallery,
    or you haven't had your epic published and on the NYT Best Sellers
    list, or you haven't made your first million yet.  If he's having
    trouble with his parents, then it's probably them who've been doing
    the pushing, or at least for some reason he feels he can't talk
    to them.  Worries about failing in life are common to teenagers--do
    adults forget this?  I suspect it's due somewhat to the big changes
    of leaving school, having responsibilities, and making decisions
    (and also due to all those other things adolescence brings);
    school trains you to be a quiet little obediant rat, which isn't
    any help.  I had some horrible failure fears and my parents were
    very understanding.
    
    Bonnie, you'll probably do fine.  But watch it--don't heap on the
    expectations.  Being the youngest in the family is hard enough.

    "Stop the world, I want to get off" That's how a lot of boys (and
    not a few men) often feel. I know I did. I had only one option.
    Work for a living and support a family (even a family of one still
    has to be supported.) I had no role models of men who stayed home
    while a wife supported them. 
    
    Yes I had a role model of a father who raised 4 kids alone (from
    the time I was 10 and the youngest was 4) but he still had to work
    to support us all. All girls grow up 'knowing' that they have a
    second option; housewife. Now I know that the reality is often
    quite different then the perception but count the number of women
    you know who don't work outside the house (but whose husbands do)
    and compare it with the number of men you know (who don't work
    outside the house) whose wife works. Also compare what people say about
    those men with what they say about those women.
    
    I'd rather be a house husband. There was a time when my wife and
    I had to pick one of us to work and the other to take care of our
    son. I lost; she got to stay home. IN hind sight, I have to admit
    that it was better for my son because I lack patience. I think we
    would have made out better financially the other way around but you
    do what's best for the child. It's hard to admit that you're not a
    house husband because you can't do the job well enough but I had
    no preparation for that job. My wife (and most women) did.
    
    My son is good with younger kids. He has more patience then I as
    well. I hope we can teach him the things he needs to raise a family
    as well as we teach him to make it outside the home. Society is
    not helping though. No one tells a boy that that is an option but
    girls are told so (seen TV lately?) regularly. Girls are trained
    for it (if only indirectly). Most boys are kept from it. Cooking,
    cleaning, laundry, shopping are all the easy parts (Even I can
    do them). It's learning to have patience with kids and how to find 
    happiness in the non-competitive world of housekeeping that boys
    are not prepared for. Boys are taught that they can't handle the
    job of house husband. Most of them believe it and the prophesy is
    fulfilled.

    BTW, I know a man who is great with his kids (better then his wife
    as far as I can tell). He's also better with housekeeping. He's
    almost unskilled while his wife is a degreed Registered Nurse. You
    tell me why his wife will not let him stay home while she goes to
    work. Somehow I don't think it's the money. He's making $10k and
    most nurses make twice that.    
    			Alfred

    
    I am 24, and a woman, and I must admit I feel that in some ways
    I do have more options than most men. I am enjoying working, and
    feel that work is very good for giving you self esteem, however
    I would like kids in a few years time, and although I don't think
    I would like to be a full time housewife ( well at least not for
    more than ayear or two perhaps ) I think it would be great to work
    part time, or use the time to start in a different direction, or
    if I really wanted to continue my career I could find a nanny, or...
    
    I do feel that I have so many choices, so maqny ways of doing different
    things. I feel that my criteria for success doesn't have to be success
    in a wordly sense. I feel lucky to be a woman. I guess I am lucky,
    being a woman has never given me any real problems, I've done well
    at school etc, I'm enjoying my job.
    
    I do feel that in some ways (but not all) men do have a rougher
    time, its a combination of whats expected of them, and what they've
    learnt to expect of themselves I suppose. However I do think that
    its a matter of attitude, and some of the suggestions that have
    been made about how to encourage boys to not *only* see 1 route to
    "success" are great.                               
    
    This is probably a rather woffly note I'm afraid, its just that
    I wanted to say what it's like to be a young woman with lots of
    choices, and to sympathize with men if they feel they haven't.
    

    Gee, this is kind of a depressing note. How far have we *really*
    come in the last 20 years?
    
    Raising kids is so tough. (one of the reasons I don't want to
    do it, I guess. tho' there *are* others...) I've seen so many
    of my contemporaries who were very feminist-oriented marry into
    a fairly equal relationship, and yet when the kids come along...
    somehow it seems too difficult to "buck the tide". To raise them
    SO UNCONVENTIONALLY that the boys would include home-making as an
    option. 
    
    This is one of the most insidious outcomes of sexism. IT goes back
    to the old "traditionally" female things,ideas,etc. are valued less
    than traditionally male "Stuff". You can bet any amount you want
    than what's running through the minds of many parents is "God, how
    can I allow Julius to voice the idea that he might like to be a
    home-maker?? Why, people might think he's a <gasp> f*gg*t!"
    
    The leap in logic required to make that statement is lost, of course.
    The big issue here is that boys who have non-traditional ideas can
    be accused of homosexuality. And what's funny is that homosexuality
    per se has nothing to do with it - the ROOT of the whole deal is
    sexism pure and simple. So-called "masculine" behaviours are valued;
    so-called "feminine" behaviours are not.
    
    Until we can raise kids who have the chutzpah to say. "Yep. That's
    what I want to do. So what?" we will fight this battle.
    
    And make matters worse, we have to have TEENAGERS (those peer-pressured
    hormone-ridden wonders) who can do it. I think the trick may be
    that the parents are "true-believers" and can impress the kids with
    that, but it ain't gonna be easy...
    
    --DE
    

re: < Note 721.5 by CVG::THOMPSON "Famous Ex-Noter" >
                     -< GIrls have more options then boys >-

�		All girls grow up 'knowing' that they have a
�    second option; housewife. 

Well, that's not entirely true. Even tho' my mother stayed home while
us kids were in school, it was expected that I would go to college, get
educated, get a good job and support myself the same as my brothers. It
never occured to me that I didn't have to do any of that, and that I could
be a housewife. I always felt (and still do) that it was up to me to make
sure I could get by. Now that we're a two-income family I still have a hard
time adjusting to the fact that the burden of household expenses are not
just my responsibility. If I were to have kids (which I don't want), I would
not want to stay home with them. But if I did have them and they were girls
I would raise them the same as I was raised...that is to be independant.

Jenna

    re: .7 
    
    I think you've put your finger on something here, Dawn.  
    
    I've seen a lot of examples lately of people who seem to value
    "liberated women", but in every single case it was a woman who has
    adopted a certain number of masculine behaviors.  That's the same kind
    of progress Virginia Slims is talking about -- we've come a long way,
    we now have the right to smoke the same as men. But do men have the
    right to drink herbal teas in restaurants without getting funny looks?
    No way.
    
    The definition of 'masculine' has been modified to allow a certain
    amount of expressiveness and consideration on the man's part --
    but only if he and everybody else is certain he could fall back
    onto the old macho model if that were necessary.  If anything, the
    definition of masculinity is more rigid than before.
    
    As you say, feminine behavior is still denigrated, no matter which
    sex displays it.  
    
    I'll be an optimist here, though, and say that having masculine
    behavior in women is a major step forward.   Now we start working
    on getting feminine behavior valued no matter who displays it.
    
    --bonnie 

    I always knew I could never be a house-spouse.  I remember in primary
    school being asked in an assignment to say what I wanted to be...and
    remembering that all the things we'd seen and been told about only
    boys could be and I was supposed to say I wanted to be a mommy (even
    though not once had we been shown how wonderful it was to be a mommy,
    only how wonderful to be a fireman etc)...I got real panicky and
    felt I was trapped into lying.
    
    But anyway, what's all this dumping on homosexuals.
    
    I'm probably overly urban, but I have plenty of friends who have
    long hair or long beards or short hair or are fathers (or some
    combination) and there's never been any problem with ordering herbal
    tea in Boston or Cambridge or San Francisco or Seattle.  At least
    there's been some progress--men can carry their kids around at the
    zoo or the supermarket and not get "hen-pecked" whispered about
    them nowadays, yes?

    re: .10 
    
    I'm glad you've found a more open segment of society that you can
    move in.  Up until we moved to New Hampshire, I shared your optimism
    about openness and changes in sex/gender roles.  I thought that
    seeing men in the park with babies on their backs meant that some
    great social changes were under way.
    
    But then I moved to New Hampshire, where it's still not expected
    that daughters will go to college.
    
    Then I realized that Nashua is one of the more liberal places in New
    Hampshire, and that Nashua has a lot in common with a lot of smaller
    places, non-urban places.  I talk to friends who live all over the
    country, once ambitious friends who were going to change the world, and
    I find that they can't imagine why I wouldn't want to stay home with my
    kids while they're little.  "They're small for such a short time and
    then they're gone.  How can you prefer to work?" 
    
    Sound like something your mother told you?  Or you read in Betty
    Freidan?  I heard it just before Christmas from a ten-year veteran of
    high tech, a technical project leader with a master's degree in
    computer science.  She just left her job with no plans of returning
    for at least six years.   
    
    I realized that a lot of those men with the babies on their backs are
    at work some 60 hours a week (including commuting time) and see their
    kids on weekends, just like a lot of our fathers did 30 years ago. 
    
    Department of Labor statistics for last year said that mothers who work
    outside the home do *more* hours of housework than mothers who stay at
    home.  (These numbers were printed in the papers just before
    Christmas.) 
    
    Things may be cool in Cambridge, but the sticks ain't heard the
    news.
    
    --bonnie    

    
    re .11
    
    Perhaps its so difficult to change things because even the more
    `liberated' people have a tendency to emphasize traditional `masculine'
    values, for example Bonnie, you've just mentioned your friend with
    ajob whose going to quit for 6 years. Presuming she has made that
    decision herself, and has not been pressurized into it, isn't that
    good ? Here is a woman who has the *choice* whether to stay at work
    or to stop if she wants. Surely that's what feminism is all about?
    
    The implication in your note is that you think its a shame that
    she's stopping work, and hence aren't your putting a greater value
    on work than raising kids ? If we can't think that raising kids
    is something to be proud of, then we're not going to be able to
    bring up our boys to think that way are we ?

    Yes, you definitely misunderstood my point.  I don't claim to be fully
    liberated -- I am a child of my society, for better or worse, and I
    expect to be fighting for my own integrity until the day I die. 
    
    But what my friend told me was that that I was *WRONG TO PREFER TO
    WORK* rather than staying home with my preschooler.  Maybe I didn't say
    that clearly enough before. 
    
    She told me in so many words that she couldn't understand how I could
    do it, that raising children was so rewarding she couldn't see how
    anyone could prefer to work rather than spend all day every day with
    the kids. 
    
    If being told by one of your oldest friends, one who was a role
    model to you when you were thinking about giving up the whole quest
    to make something of yourself, that what you have chosen to do makes
    you an unsympathetic person and a bad mother, isn't pressure to
    stay home, then I don't know what is.

    I don't know what forms of pressure Sherry went through, but she
    didn't admit them.  She says things like "As soon as I held my daughter
    in my arms, I knew this was what I was meant to do."  And, "I can't
    imagine how you can leave Steven with a stranger all day, not knowing
    what they're doing to him."  
    
    The idea of individual choice is nice, but had you noticed how dozens
    and then thousands of free choices add up to a whopping trend of
    professional women giving up their careers to have babies?  They're
    giving them up later and after more accomplishments than our mothers
    did, and they talk a lot about choice, but they're doing the same
    thing.
    
    I noticed a very small scale example of this in last Friday's snowstomr
    that closed schools in Nashua.  I had suspected that might happen and
    brought home some work that I could do at home, but Neil had to go in
    for an important meeting, so I stayed home with the kids.  Another day,
    we might have decided the other way. 
    
    Well, of the eight immediate neighbors with kids, every one of them had
    the MOTHER home.  I wasn't able to talk with everybody while we
    were shoveling sidewalks, but the neighbor to the right stayed home
    for the same reason I did -- she had reading she could do at home,
    he had a meeting.  The neighbor across the street stayed home because
    her job offers unlimited weather days while his job makes him take
    a vacation day if the plant isn't officially closed.
    
    All good rational hard-to-argue-with reasons.  But isn't it funny
    that all of us decided that the woman's work was, on this particular
    day, less important?  
    
    --bonnie

    Bonnie, re. your friend who prefers to stay home...
    
    I respect women who choose to stay home, and think that that should be
    a valid, well-respected and economically viable choice for any parent
    (m or f) who wants to do so.  I also find myself hoping that they
    have some career skills and plans for the time when the children
    no longer need them so intensively.
    
    But occasionally I have run across some people (mostly women) who
    are so defensive and self-righteous about staying at home that I
    end up wondering who they are preaching to.  I usually say quietly
    that it sounds like the right choice for *them* and they often counter
    with something to the effect that I don't understand, that all women
    should think as they do.  The last time this happened I ended up
    feeling that it sounded a lot like 'sour grapes' rolled up with
    a major dose of fear.  It must hurt a lot if you love your child
    and choose to/have to work and be given the message that you're
    somehow a 2nd rate parent for that.  
    
    It would not be right for me to stay home if I were a parent, and
    it certainly wouldn't do the child much good to have an irritable,
    frustrated, burned-out mother around hour after hour.   I'm very
    glad I don't have to make the choice.
    
    Holly

RE: .13  Bonnie Randall

"I don't know what forms of pressure Sherry went through, but she didn't admit
them.  She says things like "As soon as I held my daughter in my arms, I knew
this was what I was meant to do."  And, "I can't imagine how you can leave
Steven with a stranger all day, not knowing what they're doing to him.""

Why do you think there is pressure?  I think that both of these statements are
perfectly reasonable, saying that she wants to be with her daughter, and saying
that she does not understand you.  You said earlier that she said that you were
wrong to prefer work.  That may be (I don't know).  But in the same sort of
attitude you seem to say that it is wrong for her to prefer to stay home. How do
you reconcil that apparent contradiction? 

RE: all mother's staying home

You know, it *could* just be that individual unbaised decisions might show a
trend for perfectly good reasons.  It *could* be that a sizable proportion of
women feel best staying home, or being able to stay home. 

RE: what work is important

Here is one point where it may be a matter of tradeoff's rather then
discrimination. The men *choose* jobs where their job depends on them being
there.  The women *choose* jobs which, although lower paying (apparent
discrimination), has more fringe benifits (being able to work at home, snow
days, etc...) 

Now I don't feel discriminated against compared to VMS developers; it's simply a
fact that my job is less demanding, my pay maybe less, but that's my choice not
to be in a demanding job. 

You see the viewpoint that the women's work is not judged as important. I see
the viepoint that the women's work is more flexible, and the men's work is more
demanding.  I see that the men has less choices then the women. 

Jim

    Re: several
    
    Are you guys listening to yourselves?  Are you really listening
    to what you're saying?
    
    If I put in a note that said, "My mother told me yesterday that
    she can't imagine how I can leave Steven with strangers all day
    not knowing what they're doing to him,"  you'd all nod and say yes,
    that's the kind of old-fashioned sexism we have to learn to free
    ourselves from.  (My mother did tell me something remarkably similar,
    by the way.)
    
    If I said, "My boss told me he can't imagine how I can leave Steven
    with strangers all day not knowing what they're doing to him," you'd
    be screaming for his blood for implying that women should be in
    the home.
    
    But let the same thing be said by a woman in high-tech job, and
    you're all insisting that she didn't intend to be critical when
    she says my action is so far out of range of her value system that
    she can't even imagine how I can feel this way.  All of a sudden
    it's advocating free choice instead of maintaining sexism.
    
    --bonnie

    Bonnie,
    .16 looked a lot nastier than I meant.  I'm very sorry to have posted
    it; please except my apologies.  I won't further entangle things
    by trying to explain what I meant, because, well, I'm not quite
    sure.

    Bonnie, I support your choice.  I think the use of the word
    "strangers" is, at least unconsciously, a move to make you feel
    guilty and to imply you haven't thought through your decision--
    and I don't care who says it, that's what I consider it.

RE: .17

"All of a sudden it's advocating free choice instead of maintaining sexism."

*shrug*  It's a fine line between them...  What do you do when free choice
maintains sexism?  Education?

Please Bonnie, no offense intended...

Jim. 

    
    re 12 & 17
    
    Ok Bonnie I understand you now ! Iknow the feeling, I had a friend
    from school who was one of two girls in a boys' school, who went
    there because she wanted to study engineering, she then went on
    to do a degree and is now working as an engineer. But I will never
    forget the time that she ventured the opinion that she thought it
    might be an idea if all married women gave up work as it would solve
    the unemployment problem in the UK. I couldn't believe I was hearing
    right ! (Incidentally, she is married now and still working as far
    as I know - perhaps she's changed her ideas since then !)
    
    But the point I was trying to make was that i got the impression
    (wrongly it seems) that you were saying that her point of view was
    wrong, not that she couldn't see your point of view. Now I understand
    (and if you can understand that last sentence, congratulations.
    The problem with noting rather than talking is its so explain exactly
    what you mean.)
                
    	Sarah.   
              

    re: .18 -- apology accepted, there was no offense taken in the first
    place.  I've been guilty of some overstatement here myself.
    
    When feelings are strong, sometimes the words get strong too.  I think
    that's a legitimate feeling, but sometimes women are afraid to express
    themselves strongly for fear of seeming -- I don't know, unladylike I
    suppose.  I think that as long as our feelings and thoughts are
    honestly and fairly expressed, we can disagree strongly without 
    taking or giving offense. 
     
    If we don't argue our strongly felt beliefs, we'll never see each
    other's point of view. 
    
    re: .19 
    
    I'm certainly willing to admit that I'm reacting so strongly to
    Sherry's pressure because I feel threatened by it.  And I do feel
    guilty that I can't get off on mothering the way she does.  I love my
    kids, but . . . 
    
    But I'm worried by this new return to the home.  Millions of women it
    seems are dashing back to motherhood and homemaking, the same way they
    did in the fifties.  I don't think too many of the women who stayed
    home then were consciously, specifically pushed, either. 

    --bonnie    

    Bless you all (Bonnie, Lisa, Sarah, and who did I miss?) for reserving
    the heat for the topic rather than one another!  
    
    						=maggie

    Why is it that women with careers who choice to stay home with
    their children represent "good mothering" and single parents
    who are forced to leave their children at daycare so they can
    get off of welfare represent "those leaches on society who
    take all our tax money to support their kids and don't bring
    them up right anyway because they (the mothers) aren't there
    when their kids need them."  
    
    This is a thought that has come back to me after reading
    this string of notes - it is not to say that anyone stated
    the above in any of those notes.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |
    			A single mother who would have loved
    			to have had a choice - but didn't.
    

    You're right Peggy (and whoever else said much the same thing, I
    forget).  There is a definite Catch22 around all of this because
    of the *^#$%@^# paradigm change we've been struggling with for the
    last 20-odd years.  For parents ...women and men, but especially
    women... there just is no universally-accepted Correct Solution.
    It's positively crazy-making.
                          
						=maggie    

    Sort of makes a good case for traditional families, where Dad worked,
    Mom stayed home with the kids, everybody knew their roles. But,
    back then, mortgages were at 3-4% and inflation was nil. Today,
    the $100,000 houses and 12% mortgages make two incomes a necessity.
    And if you're a single parent, plan on pissing away money on rent
    for ever and always. 20 % down ? $1000 a month ?!
    
    I was raised in one of those traditional families. It bothers me
    to see women I work with take three months off to have a baby, and
    then back to work. I understand it, but I don't have to like it.

    Gee, Dana won't it be great when Mom can take 3 months off, go back
    to work, and then Dad can take a few months off to be with the baby?
    
    I get absolutely irate when people start dumping on working moms
    and tlaking about how screwed-up "latch-key" kids are (supposed
    to be). *I* was a g*dd*mn latch-key kid, and I'm pretty darn OK.
    The thing is, there was a standard of behaviour I was supposed to
    adhere to, and if I didn't....WATCH OUT!
    
    I'm not so troubled by working moms as I am by the epidemic of parents
    who are abdicating the upbringing of their children, regardless
    of whether they're home or not. IF mom or dad is home, but never
    spends the effort to *raise* the child, the kid is WORSE OFF
    than the "latch-key" kid whose parents spend the time they have
    with the kids actually *raising* them.
    
    --DE
    

    Dawn, my criticism was directed towards the economy, and not to
    the people whose choices are limited thereby. Sorry if that wasn't
    clear.
    
    Dana

    Right, Dana - I understood that. I just wanted to be sure we don't
    limit Dads from staying with the kids, too. Maybe if we don't limit
    our thinking, we can come up with creative ways to have families
    that don't have to adhere to the old patterns, which had their
    limitations as well.  Given the subject of this note, I think we
    need to create situations that allow Dads to be home with the kids
    if they want to. Or if mom wants to work full-time.
    
    --DE
    

	And it should be ok if both Mom and Dad *want* to both work
	whether they need to (financially) or not.  It does *not*
	mean they are bad parents either.

    re .30...
    
    Right! ... just as long as they get in their Minimum Daily Requirements
           of Quality Time!

    I was very disappointed when Reagan decided aid to education was
    out for me.  Being a single parent/widow at age 30 I was interested
    in getting an education in order to go beyond being "just a secretary."
    Until Reagan changed Federal Aid to Education I was going to college 
    nights and had accumulated 60 of the needed 120 credits to graduate!

    RE: .32
    
    Well, he *promised* to get government out of your life!
    
    :-{
    
    --DE
    

    RE .32 What about DEC ? Or are you a contract employee ? Permanent
    employees can get tuition refunded.
    

    Back on the subject of raising liberated boys:
    
    I am not terribly encouraged by what I hear. 
    
    Teach him to cook, help build his self-esteem, teach him that not
    all girls wearing pink are Barbi dolls and not all boys wearing
    pink are unmanly.  All good advice, but not significantly more
    egalitarian than Neil's 80-year-old father.
    
    I hear that society still expects him to be the primary breadwinner,
    though he can at least expect the woman to help out "if necessary." I
    suppose that's better than some of our fathers had, when the wives
    really couldn't help out at all, but it's still not shared
    responsibility. 
    
    I don't hear that a more open definition of masculinity has replaced
    the one we grew up with.  Indeed, it appears that things like being
    a good cook have been added onto the old rigid role, making it even
    harder than before for a boy to live up to.
    
    I hear a lot of statements of the way things "should" be -- things
    I agree with, things that are good.  
    
    Unfortunately things are not the way they should be.  How do we
    get from here to there?
    
    --bonnie

    re .35    Values. 
    
                                                   Russell

    re: .36

    Everybody has values and lives by them, whether they're conscious of
    them or not.  And sometimes people think they're valuing one thing when
    their actions speak otherwise. 

    The values that society values (arrggh, what a phrase :)) are not
    the same as the values that I would like my children to have.  
    
    I try to live my life as an example of what I believe, and I'm sure
    that will be a strong influence on my son's life.  
    
    But there are a lot of other people and forces telling him that
    what I believe in is wrong.  How do I counteract that?  
    
    --bonnie

	RE: .37

        Maybe explaining to him why you think other values are wrong will
        help.  When something happens (in a TV show, in life) that shows
        these other values you could try and point it out. For instance, if
        you see an ad that shows men being incompetant at a traditional
        "female" task, you could point out how ridiculous that is. 

        But bottom line, he'll eventually start deciding his own values and
        there's very little you can do then. 

	..Karen

    Or make sure either he's good at traditionally "female" tasks or
    knows adult men who are.
    
    Or make sure it's not always you who stays home on snow or sick
    days.  (After all, what's more important: work or kid.)
    
    Get in tv shows that show all people can do all things.  I'm not
    home much, but I've had a couple of sick days recently and I think
    
    	--who could be more homey than Mr. Rogers?
    
    	--MathNet (on Square 1 TV) is a riot!
    
    I don't know any kid-appropriate readings, but Garp was a house-dad.

    RE: 721.22  Bonnie, why are you worried by this "new return to
                the home"?
    
                I thought that was a really interesting comment because
                I do feel threatened when people imply that I am not
                a good mother because I work full-time, but have not
                thought much about women that do stay home.
    
                I guess I thought that was a decision that they made
                believing it best for them and their family, and that
                it is nice if you can have choices.  
    
     
                

    re .37   How old is your child?  What has he learned from the
           Family?  Life experiences and books read also.
    
                                                    Russ

    re .34, I'm under the impression that DEC employees can get tuition
    refunded (or advances) only if the course is "job related."  Depending
    on what a person's job is, and what they want to study, they wouldn't
    necessarily be able to get help from DEC.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .42
    
    Digital reimburses tuition for courses that are job required and
    career related.  With job required, they also pay for all books
    and other fees and the reimbursement is non-taxable per the IRS
    rules.  With career related, Digital pays all tuition but only 75%
    of books and I believe starting in 1988 that these reimbursements
    are now taxable income per the IRS rules.  Career related is a very
    broad category and typically any degreed program qualifies as career
    related even though it may not be useful in your present job.  See
    Personnel P&P 4.13 for all the details.
    
    Cathy

    Re .43
    
    There is some hope that congress will go back to allowing
    the tax deduction for tuition reimbursement for courses that aren't
    related to one's current job.  According to a story in this morning's
    paper, there are a jillion sponsers already for a bill to do this.
    

        As many of you will have inferered from my notes I'm not as
        concerned with sexism _per_se_ as with the general class of
        problems that center around the fact that we allow expectations
        and esxternalities run our lives more than the realities of who
        and what we are. Sexism is, it seems to me, just one of a number
        of ways in which people are straight-jacketed by things that
        oughtn't to be important. 
        
        In many ways, I think we're better off on that score today than
        we were a few decades back, but it is really hard to judge. I
        see encouraging signs all around, but I also see the same old BS
        hanging around long after it should have dried up and blown
        away. On the positive side, as I wander around it seems to me
        that there is a lot more variety of appearences amongst the
        populace than there used to be. Likewise there's more variety in
        living and working arrangements. On the other hand, I still get
        "Get a hair cut!" yelled at me from the windows of passing cars,
        and when I tell my boss that I have to do such and so because I
        consider it necessary to being a good parent I still get this "I
        never did that. Are you saying that I was a bad father?" reply.
        
        So how do I teach my boys that they should be whatever it is
        that they are, that they should pick their principles and live
        by them even if they aren't the ones generally accepted? How do
        I at the same time explain to them the weird beliefs that are so
        prevalent in our society--explain them without advocating them?
        It's very hard.
        
        I try to do more of the parenting, but at the same time, my wife
        does stay home with the kids. We do have very much the 1 bread-
        winner, 1 house-wife, 3 children (2.4 was hard to do so we
        rounded up), 2 cars, house in th suburbs household. It's hard
        after a standard workaholic engineer's day to come home and
        really carry your weight as a parent. Selma by being there all
        day and all night is just more obviously the parent. 
        
        I do take off the first day of each month and spend it with the
        kids, even if I have work things that conflict (unless they want
        to do something that can't be done on the day of the week that
        the first falls on). I did care for the first boy on a real
        50/50 basis when sSelma was working. I do buy the boys dolls and
        "girl toys" when they want them. But you do have to explain to
        them that some people think that they are just for girls. If you
        don't, they're taken by surprise when their school-mates start
        teasing them about it. But have you ever tried to tell a 5
        year-old what "some people think" without advocating it? Kids
        don't understand why someone would want to believe something
        that's wrong.
        
        In the end all you can do is be very firm anbout living your
        life with integrety and being who you are, whether that matches
        the "normal" mold or the "liberated" one. You can try to explain
        everything to the kids and be open and honest about what you
        believe in and why and how that differes from other people. You
        can show them and give them love that is really unconditional,
        and make sure that they know that they don't have to match some
        image to be loved, that they can be them, and it's OK. 
        
        I tried in this conference several months back to convince
        people that you could love, respect and support someone whose
        moral decisions you disagreed with or at least didn't fully
        accept. I didn't fare too well. Disgreement is so often taken as
        attack that it is hard to be honest, disagree and supportive all
        at once. I can only hope that over the years, and starting early
        enough I can convince my boys of what I didn't manage to convey
        here.
        
        Anyway, it's very hard. Being a liberated male chauvanist pig, a
        workaholic full-time parent, a conservative hippy, a na�ve
        curmudgeon and all of the other contradictions you can come up
        with if you mix and match, choosing what feels right to you
        rather than just accepting a ready-made role, can drive you
        crazy.
        
        JimB.

    Re: .45
    
    What a nice note to find in this conference.  Three cheers for you.
                                                                      
    

    re: .40
    
    Linda --
    
    I'm worried for two main reasons.
    
    The obvious one is that many of the stay-at-home mothers have made it
    quite plain that they don't consider my decision to work while my
    children are young to be a valid one.  I'm worried that the right to
    work and to take care of myself, which I've fought all my life to
    establish, is disappearing and my daughter is going to have to start
    the fight all over again from scratch, my son is going to grow up
    taking women less seriously even as so many of the boys I went to
    school with took women less seriously. 
    
    The other thing that worries me is that many of these women (by no
    means all of them) don't appear to have chosen to stay home for good
    and healthy reasons, like wanting to enjoy their children, but rather
    to have retreated into motherhood as a way to avoid continuing to face
    the responsibilities of the workaday world. These women are often the
    most virulent about women who work -- they seem to feel that my working
    threatens their right to stay home.
    
    I suppose I tend to feel the reverse: their staying home threatens
    my right to work.
    
    But so many of them are saying things that are straight out of the
    Feminine Mystique -- that a woman's whole worth lies in her work as a
    mother.  Sure, mothering is half of the most important job in the world
    (the other half is fathering, not in the biological sense), but it's
    not the only important job in the world and it doesn't mean that women
    who aren't mothers are inferior!
    
    --bonnie

    
    re .47> Bonnie, I think you've put your finger on something when
    you mentioned women staying at home to escape the working world.
    I've thought for some time that it would be nice, in a few years
    to have kids and work part time, perhaps start on something new,
    using the break. It's only recently ( since I've been reading this
    particular topic which has made me think about all this quite a
    lot) that I've realised that the bit that appeals at the moment
    is the idea of having a break from work, rather than looking after
    the kids ! It's amazing what you can find out about yourself when
    you really start examining your motives!
    
    On another note, I got into a discussion about Nannies with my SO
    last night. He was putting forward the view that if people actually
    worked out how much it would cost them to give up work to look after
    the kids vs the cost of a nanny, perhaps it would put a different
    light on the matter. I'd always thought that by the time youd paid
    a nanny, + her taxes, food etc etc it would be quite expensive.
    It was but not as much as I thought. (We based our calculations
    on a friend that is a fully qualified nanny.)
    
    
    

    whoops. I've hidden my .49
    
    It must be a bad day, or something.
    
    Anyway, I'll keep it hidden till I've read the string of replies and
    decided if it's really appropriate...
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    Fantastic topic!  After listening to many people in this conference
    say that they did not want to hear about men's problems with sexism
    I have hesitated to say anything along these lines myself.  I am
    truly thrilled that so many people find this topic worthy of discussion.
    
    > She said, "If I don't make it as a musician or a pilot, I can always
    > be a housewife.  If he doesn't make it, he doesn't have anything."

    I've never heard it said better.
    
    One of the problems that you will run into when raising liberated
    boys is that he can't escape from the "must succeed" trap unless
    there truly are alternatives.  He not only needs to be able to
    take on the woman's role in terms of skills, he must also see that
    there are woman out there that will be willing to take on the provider
    role.  The WHOLE provider role!  He needs role models for his AND
    her new role.
    
    Women to quit work for a "break" or to raise their children not
    only threaten other women's right to work, they also reinforce the
    idea that the men must provide.  Men see other men's wives dropping
    out and are that much more aware that their wife might choose to
    do the same.  He must strive to succeed that much more to try to be able to
    make the payments, that he thought would be shared, all by himself.
    
    I would not want to grow up in these times.  Men in the past only
    had to compete with other men to support their families.  Even though
    women provide half of the support to many families, many men are
    still required to be the sole support and at the same time compete
    with men and women at work.
    
    But I think I've done enough preaching of this agenda here...I think
    I'll sit back and let the rest of you talk it over...and love
    every minute of it!
    
    					MJC O->
    

    Yeah, me too.  And me too too, especially since when I looked around,
    I saw all these women who'd worked, left school to support families,
    heck, not even getting to complete elementary school because of
    the need to help put food in everybody's mouth.  We aren't talking
    dummies here, either: we're talking hard-working, western women.

    I am interested to read that "women provide half the support to many
    families".  I am now trying to figure who it is who is supposed to have
    been providing the other half of my household's income all these
    years.
    
    Karen
    

    Re: .52
    
    Oops, mea culpa.  I deleted a reply I'd written because I wanted
    to make it more concise, and I deleted it right out from under
    Suzanne's .52.  So, I think she's referring to my muttering about
    knowing from very early times that I wasn't going for a life as
    part of a "nuclear family".  Not until the sun turns into a cinder,
    I said.
    

    Re: .53
    
    That's why the word "many" is used instead of the word "all".

    I hope this isn't a rathole, but I'd like to address this from another
    side. I was struck, in the re-quoting of it, by the statement that
    the young woman made:
    
    	"If I don't make it as a musician or a pilot I can always
    	 be a housewife"
    
    The *demeaning* of the role of housewife in this statement apalls
    me. If young women feel this way about that role, no wonder young
    MEN can't grow up wanting to do it! 
    
    THis is an attitude that is often *WRONGLY* attributed to feminist
    thinking. In reality, I believe it is NON-feminist thinking - it
    SO VERY CONCISELY puts down the role of home maker. And I'm sure
    this young woman was simply stating her feelings.
    
    This is 1988, and young women still see traditional women's roles
    as devalued and DEVALUING. The *focus* has shifted, but the bottom
    line still appears to be: male-centered=good  female-centered=bad.
    
    --DE
    

    RE: .56
    
    Dawn, I'm not sure if I interpret the young woman's comment to
    mean that she feels being a housewife is demeaning.
    
    Perhaps she was trying to verbalize that she, a female, felt she
    had a "safety-net" upon which she could, if need be, rely - a choice
    (full time house-husband) that she did not see available to her
    male friend.
    
      Alan

    
    Ah, Yes, Dawn.  That's it exactly.
    
    Justine

    re: .56
    
    Dawn, if this is a rathole, it's a good one and I'll go down
    it with you.  
    
    <<< generalization warning:  I'm talking about social trends
    from here on, and social trends are by definition generalizations
    that don't apply to everybody.  >>>
    
    You're certainly right about the devaluing of the role of
    'housewife' and the approval accorded to many traditionally
    masculine behaviors.
    
    I'm not sure about your summary, though.  You said, if I read you
    correctly, that society desires and approves that which is
    man-centered while woman-centered is to be avoided.  
    
    It seems that what is being devalued is the whole nurturing
    side of humanity.  Aggression, competition, achievement are
    desirable; warmth, compassion, giving aren't.
    
    Popluar self-help books have a depressingly uniform theme:  don't
    give to anybody else unless you're sure you're getting yours.
    Look out for number one.  And it's true that if you aren't taking
    care of yourself, you can't take care of other people.  But what
    happened to generosity in love?  To forgiving? 
    
    It's not good to be a nurse, a schoolteacher, a daycare worker, a
    secretary, an administrative assistant.  It is good to be a pilot,
    a business executive, anyone on the fast track.
    
    There seems to be a trend to look askance at even ordinary
    jobs that don't involve competition, jobs that are satisfying
    in their own right because of the mastery involved.  Friends
    of Neil's parents have asked when he's going to stop being
    just an engineer and get a promotion to management.  It's not
    enough that he's good at designing software and enjoys doing
    it.  He's got to be advancing.
    
    I don't see this as an issue as simple as sexism.  It may find
    its primary expression in sexism, but I think it goes a lot
    deeper into society than just the roles of men and women.
    
    --bonnie

    Ahhh, Bonnie. What I would say in reply (well, what I AM saying
    in reply, eh? ;-) ) is that the values around "nuturing" are
    very much PERCIEVED by society as "female" and the agression, etc.
    are very much PERCIEVED by society as "male"...traits.
    
    Nuturing jobs are devauled because they've traditionally been done
    by WOMEN!  There have been studies done which showed that assertiveness
    is viewed as a POSITIVE trait. OK. BUt then we get to PART II of
    the study which shows a WOMAN being assertive. Whoops! Now it's
    a NEGATIVE trait!  SOMEONE in this conference has quoted (*much*
    better than I) this study, so perhaps they can clarify...
    
    In a patriarchial (is this term passe'?) society, agressiveness,
    force, etc. are valued because the male traits are more valued.
    And males who do not conform to the mold of those traits are very
    much DE-valued.
    
    Maybe we're in violent agreement here, but I think the root of the
    problem is still sexism.
    
    --DE
    

    Re: many/all
    
    The way the original reply read, all men are faced with the
    possibility of supplying all the financial support for a household,
    and many women supply part of the financial support.  The rest of
    the reply centered on women providing no direct financial support.
    Left unacknowledged are all the women providing total financial
    support for their households.  Any female child who thinks that
    she is not faced with this responsibility is woefully unprepared,
    it seems to me.
    

    RE: .61
    
    That's an excellent point. Isn't the largest of any group below
    the poverty line Female-Head-of-Household? I believe so.
    
    I think if we were to explore all the nooks and crannies and of
    this basenote and its implications [and knowing US, we probably
    will! :-)] we will find sexism and its negative effects (Affects?)
    lurking everywhere.
    
    --DE
    

    Re: .61 and others
    
    > Left unacknowledged are all the women providing total financial support
    > for their households.
    
    The reason that these women were unacknowledged is that I was
    addressing only the relationships in which men are directly involved
    (the ones that the young boys would be looking at).  Although there are
    a large number of households supported by a single woman, very few of
    them include an adult male.  So theses households do not provide a
    role model for a young man to see the option of being supported as a
    house-husband. 
    
    Young boys see only two choices:
    
    1. Support a family
    2. Don't have a family (but still support himself)

    These single-head-of-household families do supply a role model for a
    few women.  This may be part of the reason for multi-generation single
    parent welfare families.  If your chances of success in the world of
    work are denied to you, you may choose to live off the state like your
    mother did.  Perhaps the single-parent families supported by successful
    women will serve as the model of an alternative to welfare.
    
    If men do get an opportunity to be supported, perhaps it will come
    from women who grew up in single parent families.
    
    					MJC O->
                                                      

    re: .63

    I think you have slightly missed my point.  I think no one, male
    or female, can grow up assuming that anyone else will provide any
    of their financial support.  A lot of girls do assume this, I know.
    That's why they're in big trouble vocationally after a divorce or
    whatever.
    
    

    Oh, you'd be surprised at the number of household supported solely
    by a woman which include an adult male, even the ones where he doesn't
    have to vacate the premises when the DSS inspector shows up.
    
    Also, I think it might relieve the pressure, wisely or not, on young
    boys to see that many families are supported by a woman.  For the
    closest thing, it means that if Dad disappears whatever reason,
    they don't have to be the man of the family at 12 or whatever age.
    
    If people believe in the 2-parents-2.3-kids fallacy, they're going
    to get messed up no matter what.  A strong woman doesn't imply that
    her descendents are going to be single parents any more than a strong
    man implies that his descendents are going to be single parents.
    In my family, singleness wasn't by choice any more than kids having
    to quit school to help out feed younger siblings was exactly by
    choice.  Death and illness occur anywhere.  It's best we're all
    prepared for it.  You can't blame single mothers on their mothers.
    I'd like you to reconsider your posting about "living off the state"
    as being offensive and inappropriate to this notesfile.

Re: .64
    I didn't miss your point, I just failed to acknowledge it.  I agree,
    everyone should be able to support themselves.
    
    Re: .66
    
    > Oh, you'd be surprised at the number of household supported solely
    > by a woman which include an adult male,...
    
    Maybe, but the fact that I would be surprised is part of the problem.
    These households are not visible enough to serve as role models
    for young men.
    
    > A strong woman doesn't imply that her descendants are going to be
    > single parents any more than a strong man implies that his descendants
    > are going to be single parents. 
    
    I disagree.  The daughter of a two parent family might not see an
    alternative to being dependent on a man and my stick it out in a
    bad marriage.  The daughter of a single mother *KNOWS* that it is
    possible to raise children without a man around and is more likely
    to be willing dump the bum and go it alone.
    
    > You can't blame single mothers on their mothers.
    
    I'm not trying to.  The mothers only provide an example of an
    alternative way to survive.  It is the society that forces the
    new mother to use that alternative.
    
    > I'd like you to reconsider your posting about "living off the state"
    > as being offensive and inappropriate to this notesfile.
    
    I'm willing to reconsider if you find it offensive.  It is not obvious
    to me why you find it offensive, could you elaborate?

        						MJC O->
                                                         

    <--(.64)
    
    Lisa, I grew up "living off the state" (well, county) and I didn't
    find anything objectionable about Mike's use of the phrase.  I mean,
    it does describe what y'do when all your alternatives are worse
    or absent, right?  (And thank goodness it's an option!)
    
    						=maggie

    
    
    As an ex-welfare mother - the "living off the state" comment hits
    a sore spot.  I personally know so many people who either live in
    female headed households or were brought up in them that I can not
    understand the statement that they are not visiable to the average
    young male.  I think that they are there but that they are considered
    divient (sp?) from the norm and not discussed.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |		Support is more then providing money.
    

    Re: .64
    
    I think you're slightly missing her point.  You're talking about
    "should."  She's talking about "is."
    
    Re: .66
    
    Offensive?  It could be "part of the reason" for multi-generation
    single parent families.  Someone "may" follow the line of reasoning
    she presents.  No accusations, no judgments, no pronouncements,
    and a great deal of willingness to allow for other possibilities.
    I'm not sure there are *less* offensive ways to present an idea. 
    If it's the idea itself that offends you, there's nothing that anyone
    can do about that.  If we all refrained from voicing our thoughts
    for fear of offending someone somewhere, it would be very quiet
    indeed.
    
    Re: .69
    
    >I personally know so many people who either live in female headed
    >households or were brought up in them that I can not understand
    >the statement that they are not visiable to the average young male.
    
    Unfortunately, your perceptions might have little bearing on the
    perceptions of the average young male.  Knowing several young males
    would give a better basis for understanding what they might or might 
    not be able to perceive.

    re .70
    
    Does having a son and 3 nephews and working with youth groups
    qualify as knowing some young males?
    
    _peggy
    

    Re: .71
    
    Qualify?  I'm not sure who's in charge of certifying qualifications
    around here.  It makes more sense to me to evaluate the situation
    based on your knowledge of young males rather than single mother
    families.

    On the contrary, it's highly indicative of how young men are taught
    to ignore women-headed families.
    
    "Living off the state" carries the baggage that this is an easy
    task.  It's not: there's considerable bureaucracy to deal with to
    keep getting AFDC.  Now, here's another endeavor that also means
    that your income derives from the government--the military.  In
    fact, this was the safety net of the young men of my high school
    days: if I can't go to college or get a job in [hometown], I can
    always enlist.  Surely motherhood is as honorable a profession as
    soldiering.  Except that, why then is welfare never enough and why
    does it carry such a stigma.
                                

    Re: .69
    
    > I think that they are there but that they are considered
    > divient (sp?) from the norm and not discussed.
    
    That's one possibility but I think that you are missing the point.
    In order to a boy to choose the role of the nurchuror and be freed
    from the role of provider he must have a role model of a man who
    is a care giver and is supported by a woman.  I have not seen
    many of these in my lifetime.  If I did not it might have been because
    a man who is supported may try to hide that fact because society still
    demands that he be the provider.
    
    Re: .70
    
    > I think you're slightly missing her point.  You're talking about
                                      ^^^
    > "should."  She's talking about "is."
                 ^^^^^
    > ... Someone "may" follow the line of reasoning she presents.
                                                     ^^^
    
    Err... that's "He" not "She"...the "O->" is supposed to be a Greek
    "Male" symbol.
    
    > "Living off the state" carries the baggage that this is an easy
    > task.  It's not: there's considerable bureaucracy to deal with to
    > keep getting AFDC.
    
    I didn't mean to imply that it was easy.  It only has to be easier
    than the alternatives...which are very few.  We will have a welfare
    state until we start to provide some alternatives.
    
    > --the military... this was the safety net of the young men of my high
    > school days: if I can't go to college or get a job in [hometown], I can
    > always enlist.
    
    The military is the safety net that allows a man to survive.  It does
    not free him from the need to provide in order to have a family.
    Marriage almost always frees the wife of part of the responsibility
    to provide for the coming family.  How many men quit their jobs
    as soon as they marry or bare a child?  How many women?
    
    					MJC O-> (aka Mike Carleton)
    

    
    
                                                               
    Imagine hearing this day in and day out for generations:
    
    "I'm supporting Harry while he goes out and works for a salary.
     He seems to need to draw a paycheck in order to feel fullfilled.
     Sometimes I wish we could trade places and I could get paid for 
     working an 8-hour day, but as a man, he'd probably have trouble 
     keeping up with the pressures of child-rearing.  Better he should 
     keep his *Part-Time* job. (i.e., only 8 hours)"   
    
    The way we use phrases like "supported by" is really starting to
    get to me.  Does anyone else feel a value judgement implicit in
    that phrase?  In my view, any man who goes out and puts in a 8 (or
    so) hour day and comes home to hot meals, clean home, and well-behaved,
    happy kids is being "supported" by his partner (usually a woman).
    It strikes me that as long as we equate the phrase "supported by"
    with =not working=, few young men will choose child rearing/home-making
    as a career.
    
    
    I also found the "living off the state" comment to be quite classist,
    but the assumptions behind its use troubled me even more.  Do many
    people really think that the use of welfare continues through multiple
    generations because children see it as a good deal?  I think many
    of us from largely white, middle-class families are so isolated from real
    poverty (and I don't mean eating beans and rice for a couple of
    years while you go to graduate school) that we forget that in many
    communities, good health, enough food, good schools (and time to
    go to school) are advantages that only a few have access to.
    
    Justine
                       

    Perhaps one of the reasons that you don't see too many men being
    supported by women and raising families is that generally women
    still are paid about 62% of what men are paid.
    
    Even though women work as hard and long as men they are not
    rewarded with enough money to make ends meet.
    
    What man would take that kind of a pay cut to stay home for a
    few years.  What man would do that while simultaneously being
    cut off from his peer support and would voluntarily remove
    himself from his career path?
    
    Perhaps some women are offended by the term "living off the state"
    because they do work hard but because of the economic situation
    must supplement their earnings through the government.  Some of
    them may put in forty hours and still not earn enough to feed
    their children.

    Society does indeed frown on men who choose to be "househusbands".
    
    Tom took about two years off from working.  We lived on my salary.
    (which was ok, but we weren't exactly living in the lap of luxury,
    and remember that I'm a "highly paid software engineer".  This option
    is only an option for the few of us that have jobs that provide
    us with a reasonable income!)
    
    I enjoyed the experience greatly.  I never did any housework; I
    got breakfast in bed; my lunch was packed, my checkbook balanced,
    my clothes were always cleaned and pressed, and dinner was always
    ready when I got home from work.  And there was always something
    neat for me at the end of the day.  Perhaps some tidbit from public
    TV that he had seen during the day, or some new thing he had researched
    at the library, or a drawing or painting he had done, or a room
    that was reorganized while I was at work. IT WAS WONDERFUL!  
    
    Socially it was disasterous.  Many people (mostly men who were
    supporting their wives or girlfriends!) said, "What, he isn't working?
    Kick the lazy bum out!"  There were "friends" (again, mostly men)
    who refused to socialize with us, or who were condescending when
    they did socialize with us, because he was somehow a lessor man
    in their eyes.  Our relationship was satisfactory to us, but many
    people just couldn't believe that!  
    
    Incidently, I think he worked harder than I did!  I did feel some
    level of frustration being the sole source of our income.  I felt
    less willing to "rock the boat" at work, because we were totally
    dependent on my income.  I don't expect this is any different for
    anyone who supports a family, male or female.
    
    Tom has been back at work for about nine months now.  The money
    is nice and we have a lifestyle that is certainly more material
    now.  But I really miss being supported the way I was when all I
    had to do was bring home the paycheck.  I had a hard time adjusting
    to doing my share of the chores, and I still don't have nearly his
    level of homemaking skills.  He's patient, and I'm learning, though.
    
    The bottom line:  this can happen, and does happen, but men who
    choose to stay at home take incredible grief for it.  Until this
    attitude changes, until homemaking and other things that have
    traditionally been considered "woman's work" are adequately valued,
    most men will not feel free to stay at home.  Homemakers get little
    respect.
    
    Rita
    
    BTW:  I was a "welfare kid"; and I'm not taking any free rides!
    I don't think it follows that children raised on welfare (often
    the only option and an inadequate one at that!) will "perpetuate
    the cycle".  That is a myth.  Living "on the state" is a lousy
    existence.  I'm not offended by your statement, Mike.  I just don't
    think it is true.
    

    I don't know where people are getting the idea that I am "Classist"
    that living off the state is a good deal.  It almost sounds as though
    people are not reading what I am writing and just put in the knee
    jerk reaction instead.
        
    Re .75  Justine
    
    > It strikes me that as long as we equate the phrase "supported by"
    > with =not working=, few young men will choose child rearing/home-making
    > as a career.
    
    I depends on how actually the young man feels the negative effects
    of the requirements of being the provider.  He usually does not
    get the choice now but if there existed women willing and able
    to provide the financial support, would some choose to escape the
    responsibility?  I hope a few might.  The first might be for well
    paid female CEO's, but after they have broken the ground...who knows?

    > Do many people really think that the use of welfare continues through
    > multiple generations because children see it as a good deal?
    
    I don't think anybody think's living on welfare is a good deal.  I don't
    understand why you think I do.  As I have said, I think the economic
    and social conditions are the main factor.

    Re .76 The 62% factor
    
    On the average woman make less, but there should be a few women who can
    afford to financially support a husband who does not work.  Women's
    wages may have to change before enough of these couples are around
    to influence the young men growing up.
    
						MJC O->

    Re: .78
    
    If I had friends who were condescending to me or mine, or who refused
    to socialize with me, I think I would consider them not friends
    but acquaintances.
    

    Re .79, my "knee jerk" reaction to your notes is that you are jealous
    that you haven't found a rich woman to support you so that you can
    quit work and stay home!  I don't mean to be a wise-ass but that's
    what it sounds like.  It sounds as though you are upset that women
    have had the chance to stay home while a man supports them, and
    that hardly any men have ever had the opportunity.  I would think
    that the ideal of a non-sexist society would be that in the future
    NOBODY expects to have somebody else support them while they stay
    home, but that everybody realize that they have to be responsible
    for themselves.
    
    On the other hand, any agreement between two consenting adults is
    their business.  So, if one person wants to support another one,
    that's their choice.  And, I have no real problem with women who
    do stay home and take care of their kids if they can afford to.
     It's just important to me that kids growing up realize it's not an
    option they can count on - male or female.
    
    I think it's wrong for women to grow up thinking that a man will
    support them.  I grew up that way, and although I worked the whole
    time I was married, I really looked to my husbands higher pay and
    job opportunities to provide me with the lifestyle I wanted.  I've
    been suffering the consequences ever since my divorce.  I wish I
    had been brought up to believe that getting an education and a good
    job was more important than getting a husband, but I wasn't.  I
    learned it the hard way.
    
    There have been problems for both men and women because of the sexist
    society of the past.  Men have had to work and provide for a family
    if they wanted one, but on the other hand it's been a lot harder
    (and still is) for women to achieve economic independence and,
    therefore, freedom to live the way they want.
    
    I still think the ideal situation is two people who both have high
    incomes, 2 kids at most, sending the kids to daycare, and both sharing
    in the household chores.
    
    When I think of raising liberated boys, I think of being able to
    raise boys who don't have to worry about being sissys, who don't
    have to be afraid of admitting they'd rather play the violin than
    baseball.  I remember once when one of my nephews was small, he
    had fallen down and started to cry.  His father said, "Boys don't
    cry."  I told him that was sexist, and he said, "He's a boy!  He
    has to learn to be tough!"  How many world problems has that attitude
    caused us?
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .81
    
    Somehow I get the feeling that we've been reading different notes.
    That's not my impression at all.  Either I've missed something that
    was there or I didn't find something that wasn't.

    Re: .74
    
    It's kind of amusing to be on the other end of that for once (though
    most of the people in Soapbox have clued in by now).

    Re .82, perhaps the world looks so different to each of us (and
    these notesfiles look so different to each of us) that we *have*
    been reading different notes!!!
    
    

   My two cents (and apologies for coming into this discussion so late):
   
   I strongly dislike the terms "househusband" and "housewife."  The
   implication of being married to a house is too much and serves to
   emphasize the already latent sexism.
   
   There's nothing wrong with being a homemaker, assuming that one has
   a partner for financial support.  Whether the homemaker or the financial
   supporter is male or female is hardly relevant.  If children, no matter
   what gender, are encouraged to be themselves, to be individuals in their
   own right, then it doesn't and can't matter what "society" attempts to
   dictate. 
   
   
   						Terza L. Zane
   

    re:.81
    
    I can't speak for MJC, but in one sense, *I* would like nothing
    better than to find a woman who can support me in the lifestyle
    to which I would like to be accustomed. This is true for no other
    reason than that I'm lazy (I know, I know, housework isn't a walk
    in the park, either, but I'd like to pretend it is for my own mental
    well being :-)). If I got married to someone who *could* support the
    both of us on her salary, I would be content to be the homemaker.
    
    I look at it logically. If one person has to stay home for whatever
    reason, it'd be better if it was the one who made the lesser salary.
    That only makes sense from a financial point of view. Of course,
    this makes it unfairly balanced toward the woman being the homemaker.
    If I married a woman who made a better salary than I, then it would
    make sense for her to "work" and me to "stay home".
    
    But this is strictly theoretical. Neither I nor my current SO are
    inclined to want children, which is the most common reason for one
    partner to stay home, so it's likely that we'd both just keep
    working.
    
    But I see nothing stigmatic about being a homemaker. At least, I
    don't think there *should* be anything stigmatic.
    
    --- jerry

    re: .81
    
    Lorna, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
    
    This is *exactly* the situation I was trying to talk about.
    
    Girls in this society are simply not raised to *expect* to be
    financially responsible for themselves.  They feel, as Kat
    mentioned, that they can always give up the struggle to provide
    for themselves.  
    
    They will help out when it's necessary, but when it's not,
    they quit.  Someone said exactly that in an earlier note, and
    thought it was evidence of equality. 
    
    It's not.  It's a measure of how deep the burden on young boys is. 
    
    Most of the recent discussion hasn't been about equality, or
    liberation of either sex.  It's been about role reversal.
    
    I see no reason at all, less than no reason, why a partnership
    should require one wage-earner and one home-maker.
    
    We're both in the relationship together.  Aren't we both jointly
    responsible for determining the economics of that relationship
    as well as the emotional climate?  Can't we take turns nurturing
    when we feel like it?  

    And how do I raise my son to feel good about his nurturing
    side in a society that equates nuturance in men with effeminacy?
    To feel free expressing it when the girls he meets are being
    raised to expect him to take over responsibility for their
    physical comfort?

    --bonnie

    re.88 'the pressure on young boys today' could stem from the mixed
    messages they're getting :
    A. women are your equals
    B. women expect you to support them when they don't work
    C. don't expect them to support *you* if you choose not to work
    
    A conflict between the traditional and the new. Imagine a boy who
    sees his mother go off to work every day and support, or substantially
    contribute to, the family. Then he goes to school and hears a girl
    his own age talk of staying home while the man works. Liberating
    young men cannot be separated from liberating young women. These
    kids need to understand simple concepts like '$100,000 houses',
    and '12% mortgages'. 
    
    Is the high suicide rate among teens so surprising ?

    Re .81
    
    > ... my "knee jerk" reaction to your notes is that you are jealous
    > that you haven't found a rich woman to support you so that you can
    > quit work and stay home!
    
    We are not talking about me, but I do find the idea of being
    financially supported attractive.  Mainly it comes from the weariness
    of the constant burden of supporting myself.  I don't think I could
    adapt to permanent homemaking but it would be nice to have a break
    from the financial burden once in a while.  I also hope that I would be able
    to take a break from work in order to participate in the raising
    of my own children someday.  It would really hurt to see my children
    grow up before I get to know them.  It would also be nice to have
    the time to pursue other interests that I have no time for now and
    that can't be expected to support myself with.

    Re .88
    
    > Girls in this society are simply not raised to *expect* to be
    > financially responsible for themselves. ... They will help out
    > when it's necessary, but when it's not, they quit.  Someone said
    > exactly that in an earlier note, and thought it was evidence of
    > equality.                
    
    > It's not.  It's a measure of how deep the burden on young boys is.
    
    *EXACTLY*

    > I see no reason at all, less than no reason, why a partnership
    > should require one wage-earner and one home-maker.

    The problem I see is that if the roles are only mixed around and
    shared a bit the ultimate responsibility for providing will still be
    given to the man by default.  Also the ultimate responsibility for
    child rearing will go to the woman.  I don't think that you will
    see people *really* preparing themselves for the opposite role until
    there is a real possibility that they will have to play it.  I believe
    that role reversal is a necessary step on the road to true equality.

    						MJC O->

    re: .89 -
    
    Dana, I have no idea what kind of daughter I'm raising.  She's 14,
    she's a beautiful person and the joy of my life, but as to her
    attitudes and beliefs -- well, I've been liberating myself over
    the course of the years, and I've tried to share my changing
    attitudes with her.  But she's growing up and has taken a great
    deal of responsibility for her own life and decisions already.  I
    can't tell her what to think.
    
    I can only hope that what I am turns out to be a good role
    model for her.  I love her, I guess there's not much more I
    can do.
    
    But you're right about the mixed messages.  And as I read your
    statements, I was struck by how easy it is to read that as
    "Women want all the privileges and none of the responsibilities."

    No wonder men are angry if that's the mesasge they're getting
    from a world in the process of change. 

    In the face of these messages, it's easy to see what to do
    for a daughter -- try to make sure she's prepared to take care
    of herself and understands that's her responsibility.
    
    But how do I raise a son to deal with that reality?  
    
    --bonnie

    re "housewife"
    
    This word has a similar derivation to "alewife" or "fishwife" or many other
    early or middle English terms. It suggests a woman whose occupation is
    primarily related to the house: not a woman married to the house. Indeed if
    I remember correctly "wyf" (the early English form) is not even
    specifically female. "Househusband" is a grotesque neologism. 
    
    re "homemaker"
    
    I dislike that for similar reasons to I suspect many contributors here
    dislike "housewife" - it suggests to me that only one partner is engaged
    in making the home.

    /. Ian .\

    re: .92
    
    Ian, you're exactly right about the derivation of 'huswyf' and
    also right that the term 'wyf' didn't used to convey gender. 

    The term 'hus' didn't used to mean strictly a place where people
    live, either.  It had a much broader connotation -- the usage
    of "House of XXXX" to identify a family business is much closer
    to the original. 
    
    Today we'd probably identify the profession of 'huswif' as
    something like a steward or a manager or a foreman.  It was the
    person who was responsible for managing the 'house' -- seeing to
    the planting and the harvest, hiring cooks, arranging meals,
    making sure the roof was repaired, and so on. 
    
    One of its functions was to free up the soldiers to go and make
    war, so it was a job usually held by someone who wasn't going to
    go to war -- an older retainer, a relative who was disabled, the
    spouse or oldest daughter.  (Note that there *are* cases on
    record, mostly in Sweden, in which the *woman* was the head of
    household who went to war. . .) 
    
    --bonnie

    re .91 daughter/son
    
    As a first step to real equality, raise 'em *both* the same way.
    Teach them to value self-responsibility in themselves *and
    in others*. Irresponsibility stinks no matter who's doing it.
    
    Dana
    

    Re: .88
    
    >Girls in this society are simply not raised to *expect* to be
    >financially responsible for themselves.
    
    Careful with those generalizations.  Exceptions have a tendency
    to crop up (like right here).

    RE: .95
    
    True, while it *is* a generalization that girls are not raised
    to expect to be financially responsible for themselves, it's
    probably accurate to say that MOST have the idea somewhere in
    their minds.
    
    My mother raised me to ALWAYS be able to support myself (back
    when that wasn't so common) BUT it was so I'd "have something
    to fall back on in case something happened to my husband".
    
    I think we're going thru a "schizophrenic" phase as we attempt
    to change our thinking, and this is what's causing the mixed messages
    Dana mentioned.
    
    --DE
    

    My mother never told me I should only use my vocations to "fall
    back on".  I went to a vocational high school, fully expecting to
    support myself (and then on to college, same goal in mind).  
    Both of my parents have always held jobs, although
    my mother switched to part time while until my sister and I were
    10 and 8.  Both of my parents encouraged me to seek a worthwhile, 
    satisfying, LUCRATIVE profession.  I never even considered being
    entirely supported by someone else.  After my allowance stopped
    at age 12, I worked part time and summers, so I could save and buy
    the things I wanted, help pay for college, etc...
    
    Perhaps if more jr. high/high school girls were encouraged to learn
    trades and work after school and during the summers, they would
    find that not only were they able to support themselves in life,
    but also there's a certain feeling of freedom and self-respect gained
    from spending money YOU earned, money YOU deserve, on things YOU
    want....also, you tend to take less for granted, and learn just
    how the economics of life work...
    
    -Jody
    

    There are definitely some mixed messages out there for women and men. I
    always grew up with the notion that you are responsible for yourself.
    Too many problems stem from expecting some one else to take care of you
    etc.  My mom was a working mom and always encouraged me to be
    independant and responsible for myself. So what a shock it was when I
    had to teach my mom the same lesson of responsibility. 

    For 9 years my mom had been a teacher.  She had a masters degree in
    mathematics and was making okay money.  Then our family decided to move
    to New Hampshire. My mom received a job teaching in the state of New
    Hampshire but took a third of a cut in pay.  The pay was atrocious (but
    that is another topic). After a year of teaching for peanuts she decided
    to take time off and change her career.  My father thought this was a
    great idea and supported her all the way.  Things were tight though
    with me going to college but we made it.  After two years my mom
    finally decided to go into real estate. 

    She did fantastic.  Her first year she made more money than my father.
    They made some wise investments and they started to plan for early
    retirement.  You see with my mom making such good money my father would
    be able to retire a few years earlier.  So they planned on retiring
    together in 6 or 7 years instead of my dad not being able to retire for
    another 13 years. 

    But then my mom started talking of the hassles of the real estate
    business and she wanted to quit.  My father saw his plans for an early
    retirement go down the tubes. All the pressure and responsiblity for
    their financial well being was being put on him.  She could quit any
    time she wanted to - but he could not. She could stay home without any
    stigma or guilt. 

    I couldn't believe she was talking like this - my mom who always taught
    me to be independant.  I finally sat her down and had a little daughter
    to mother talk about responsibility and how it wasn't fair for her
    husband to take all the financial responsibility.  There were no
    children at home to take care of and they could now afford a house
    keeper. After a while I think she finally understood and I taught her
    a very valuable lesson, the same one that she had taught me.   
    
                                        
    She had two sets of values, one internally for herself and one for
    everyone else.

                  

    re: .91

   "In the face of these [mixed] messages, it's easy to see what to do
    for a daughter -- try to make sure she's prepared to take care
    of herself and understands that's her responsibility.
    
    But how do I raise a son to deal with that reality?"
    
    At the risk of sounding like a wiseguy, I'd hazard a guess that
    if you raise your son the same way you've raised Kat, you'll
    be doing just fine.  From previous replies, it sounds as if you've
    spent a fair amount of time with your children trying to know them
    and trying to have them know you.  From your description of Kat,
    it sounds as if you sowed good seeds in fertile soil; I suspect
    that the same process is already at work with your son.
    
    Steve
    

    A lot of us are showing our class bias here...isn't it only suburbia
    that expects/expected kept-at-home wives?

        Personally, as far as I'm concerned, finding a good wife was far
        more important to me than getting a good education and a job.
        Maybe it's because I'm hopelessly old fashioned, and then again
        perhaps it was because I was a long haired hippy at heart. (Of
        course these days being a long hair hippy IS old-fashioned but
        that's not what I meant.)
        
        On the one hand, family is very important to me. My goals have
        always centered around having kids and raising a family.
        Although that requires resources to support them, those
        resources are not as important to the family as the people who
        make it. Thus the right companion for life and cofounder of my
        family is more important to me than the means by which we manage
        to support ourselves.
        
        On the other hand, to paraphrase a certain set of brothers from
        my past, "Love will get you through times of no money better
        than money will get you through times of no love." (Those of you
        who recognize the quote can all go off and snicker now at the
        analogy.) Being a good old 60's hippy, I've really never been to
        worried about the material stuff. Heck, I like it, but it's
        never been very important in and of itself, and I've always been
        confident that I could get along somehow.
        
        So, given that finding a good mate for life is more important to
        me than getting a good education, and a good job, why shouldn't
        the reverse be true for my wife? With the right partner at our
        sides, it seems like there isn't much that we can't do. I agree
        that it is important that the emphasis should not be on finding
        a spouse because one has little regard for one's own ability to
        get along, but assuming that the intent is for the two of us to
        tackle the world together...
        
        As to the joys of earning MY money to spend on what I want, that
        is on the one hand something that I can identify with and
        something quite alien to me. My assumption (as I said in another
        discussion) is that all of our money is our money, whether
        earned by me or my wife. Given the importance of family to me,
        (and some of that hippy attitude towards materialism) I just
        don't make a big distinction between MINE and OURS when it comes
        to resources. The concept makes sense regarding specific things
        in which we have invested emotion, but not money or the day to
        day things.
        
        JimB.

    Jim, I can almost imagine you and Selma happily raising a family
    during the Depression without an engineer's salary.  Seems like
    you'd find a way to make the challenges fun.
    
    Holly

    RE .100 Farms, factory workers, exec's, hardly all of a class.

    re: .100
    
    No, that's not the only place sex bias crops up.  It would be
    nice to think that all the problems of sexism in this society
    could be blamed on suburbia and the yuppies, but it won't work.
    
    I grew up working class -- mechanic's daughter, living without
    welfare below the poverty level most of my school years, raised in
    farm country.  The attitude toward money and taking care of
    yourself did tend to be different in that you assumed times were
    going to be rough enough that probably you would have to work and
    support the family. 
    
    I definitely got the message that this was an unfair way to run
    the world, that in a properly run society you, too, would be able
    to have a house in the suburbs and visit the hairdresser twice a
    week. 
    
    Now I'm a yuppie.  I have a different set of problems -- life
    doesn't get any easier even if it is more comfortable.  Same old
    sexism. 

    re: .101 -- Jim, just reading your notes restores some of my
    faith in the world and its future . . . thanks for reminding
    me of the good old days.  Keep the faith . . .
    
    --bonnie    

.100�    A lot of us are showing our class bias here...isn't it only suburbia
.100�    that expects/expected kept-at-home wives?

         No.
         
         As  Bonnie  and  I pointed out earlier "huswyf" had litle to do 
         with sex, nor indeed with the modern concept of "home".
         
         I spent much of my formative years on my grandparents farm.  My 
         grandfather indeed fitted much of the classic stearotype of the 
         "bradwinner", going out and working the farm,  but  grandmother 
         indubitably  fitted the role of steward of the estate, planning 
         and managing matters. She hired and fired the farmhands and the 
         domestic  servants,  she talked to the seed merchants and other 
         dealers. She managed the bank accounts etc.
         
         BUT she stayed at home most of the time, and in the terminology 
         of  the  [British] Inland Revenue was "not gainfully employed", 
         ie a "housewife".
         
         My Mother in fact hasn't "worked"  from  the  day  she  married 
         until today, largely the victim of a class stereotype, since in 
         early married life my Father was a career army officer  and  it 
         "wasn't done" for an officer's wife to work. However again this 
         is more a factor of "County Life" than suburbia.
         
         My wife doesn't work - it isn't by choice, the [US] Immigration 
         Service  decrees it.  She manages our home, plans the household 
         budget and manages everything  that  needs  managing.    I like 
         Bonnie's  idea  that  she  is the "steward" of our home, rather 
         than an [enforced] housewife.  More importantly *she* likes the 
         concept.   It much better describes what she contributes to our 
         relationship than a modern stereotype can.
         
         /. Ian .\

RE: Female head of household

Just because a woman files as "Head of Household" does not mean that that woman
provides 100% of the money for that family.  Seperated Fathers pay child support
to provide in many cases over half of the support for the family. 

Just a logical loophole to watch out for.

RE: welfare

It is a myth (statisically) that people on welfare sponge off the state for
long preiods of time.  The average is 4 years, including permenently disabled
people.

RE: female sole support role model for males

I know that I had no such role model.  I had heard of men abandoning their
families, but that was not presented as an allowable role model.  Even if
I had had such a *female* role model, I do not know how much cross over between
sexes role models carry.

RE: motherhood as good as soldiering

I would not be 'mothering' then soldiering.  I would not have considered
soldiering.

RE: Support <> $$$

Certainly a man coming home after working 8 hours, and not having to work the
rest of the day or be bothered by wife and children to do things would be
considered a 'part time job'.  But in real life I don't believe that that is the
case.  I do not know of many men who are allowed to come home and collapse.
Most men in my experience have work waiting at home for them as well as at work.

RE: female pay = 62% of male pay

Is this statistic for comparable work?  If not, it's not any less serious,
but I believe it's barking up the wrong tree to attack it from the "pay"
standpoint.

This is one of the most encouraging notes for me in this conference.  Thank
You!

Jim. 

    I may be unique, but there was a 2-parent, houshusband-working wife
    combination in my family.  I had a great-uncle, who was taught "women's
    work" by his mother as a necessity in a large family.  When he became
    an adult, he didn't do well at "men's work".  He married, had several
    children, and several jobs per year.  His wife had been a registered
    nurse before they married.  She soon tired of his being continally
    fired, and told him "stay home with the kids.  I'll get a job". Her job
    at a hospital paid much more than his jobs did - especially when she
    was able to keep it for a long time. That worked out pretty well for
    them, although various family members viewed him as a "lazy bum", and
    all viewed him as a failure. 
    
    Now, my SO stays home, takes care of the details of running our home.
    It is wonderful to not have to go home and clean house, fix the house,
    arrange to somehow get the car fixed and to work on time, etc.  As long
    as I provide the money, it's all taken care of. Our friends haven't
    been a problem, although my parents think I'm being taken advantage of.
    His parents just said "oh, you don't want to do that."
    
    By reading all of the last replies, I almost feel compelled that
    we should in some way become active in some children's lives - so
    that they can see it's not always "Man goes to work, woman stays
    home", or "Man and woman go to work, share work at home".
    
    Elizabeth