"Being a mother"...the hardest job in the world?

[syracusa]

Originally posted by prettyredhead, Sorry if I sounded offensive Syra.......I just get very protective and passionate about childrens rights. I want for every child under 5 to have a parent home full time, when possible. I am grateful that I live where I live. Many people travel to Joliet or even Chicago to work (88 miles) but not me, that is insane to me. I wish we all had to live simpler lives......... not so driven by the damn old dollar. Too bad people could not use the barter system anymore.... And yes, somtimes children abandon their folks to a "old folks home" and forget about them, except the manditory Christmas. People in America are selfish unless it something like a terrorist attack. That is what it takes for people to stop and think of others, disaster, or death. We are too driven to keep up appearances. It is sick. Can I come live with you???? lol

Don't worry, I understood where you were coming from - and I agree.
I too am quite passionate about children's rights (and the adults they will become) , especially that the more I live, the more I see what an enormous amount of future parents fail to think about their ability to give their kids a good start in life, BEFORE they actually go ahead and conceive them.

This is a biggie to me - because once you have them (without having planned very seriously), it's well...too late..."fait accompli" - and the only thing left to do when people fail to give their kids a good start in life, is getting defensive.

I hear too many self-righteous parents who say "well, I was poor too, I struggled, I didn't have it easy either" (my own mother said this kind of bullshit to me recently) - and almost sound as if it's not a problem if they prepare the same fate for their children.
It's as if they wish hard times to their own child - simply because they went through the same crap themselves. Talk about "revenge of the stupid".
'Cause if they'd really enjoyed the times of poverty and struggle, and think this is good for their kids too, they wouldn't talk so bitterly about it.

In this world, there are two types of parents: those who procreate altruistically and those who procreate selfishly.
Unfortunately, the distribution is very skewed, with very few in the first category and an enormous amount in the latter.

And considering that we live in a society where economics is pretty much everything, it is no wonder that you see more and more adult children "abandoning" their folks to "old folks homes" - as you put it.
Many of them are simply trying to keep up with the life their parents doomed them to, going away for jobs, moving all the time, competing in the rat race with the children of those who procreated altruistically...(not an easy task).

Cannot expect much when you yourself did not have much to offer.

But then again...life is not fair. And when you perpetuate and enable unfairness without flinching, the unfairness will come back to haunt you, sooner or later.

[Lava]

Ya know I really cant buy that last post. People have had children for millions of years. The living standards todays poor americans have are luxuries that we've only know in modern times, but life is still worth it.

So many poor people moan about their lot, but in reality this is the richest time for the human species ever. I've heard it said that someone on welfare today lives better than a King did in the 1600s. All this 'Im so poor' stuff is just not reality. If you have enough to eat, a roof over your head and medical, your doing better than 99% of the entire population has done since humans began. Quit whining!


Lava

[prettyredhead]

This is true Lava. We dont live so badly..... due to the fact that I work full time. ... .and lets not even harp on welfare people today, I just dont have the patience.
I work very hard to raise these boys alone. I dont have Daddy backing me up. I once had a family, and no longer have one with a father heading it. best thing about 2004 is that I do not have to stay with someone who broke his kids heart and then mine too. When one is abusive and shows no respect for his kids he can go and good riddance.
Just because I am "working poor" doesnt mean that I am less of a parent. True, I should have planned better, and yes I guess I should not depend on them to be there for me as an elderly person. But I would hope the values I gave to them will make them want to be there. Until some women tries to take them away from me.
Syra. Yes, alot of kids do not owe their parents anything, and perhaps I should have thought of that before i posted. Some parents are abusive. In these cases, I do understand that they would not see their parent or even care what happens to them.
But I dont buy that they dont have time. Time is more valuable than money. You live simply and you will be much happier and stress free.
No one "needs" to go to Harvard or MIT or somewhere else to be happy and productive. It is not required to be so driven by money that you forget what matters. No one in this world cares more about you (most anyway) than your parent. Not your spouse (who can leave you) no one loves you like your parents (in most cases) and children OWE that much to them.
Since time began, we have honored our parent. Lack of time, money, ect is no excuse to abandon your parent. We should view them as honored, but in America they are a nuisance. This is so sad.......they are not a nuisance and only from THEM can we learn about the past, and real life experiences not found in books.
So, I disagree that children are not responsible for their elderly parents, as in every other nation except the US they are.
Even bad parents are left vulnerable and feeble, and should be honored for merely giving their children life. They could have aborted them.

Parents cannot be replaced. And we do not have to be rich to have kids. Lots of people just get angry at others for having too many, in their eyes.
To be honest, I had a baby at 18 because I wanted attention and someone to love. Really. Stupid? Yes. But it can be very inviting. Everyone fawns over you, you get lots of attention and love. You get presents, medical care, a man to love, or not (he left us 6 months along to pursue a pipe dream) and you get a little baby to take home. I remember thinking in the hospital "I cant belive they are letting me take this tiny little baby home"

[syracusa]

Originally posted by Lava, Ya know I really cant buy that last post. People have had children for millions of years. The living standards todays poor americans have are luxuries that we've only know in modern times, but life is still worth it. So many poor people moan about their lot, but in reality this is the richest time for the human species ever. I've heard it said that someone on welfare today lives better than a King did in the 1600s. All this 'Im so poor' stuff is just not reality. If you have enough to eat, a roof over your head and medical, your doing better than 99% of the entire population has done since humans began. Quit whining! Lava

Lava,

With all due respect, I cannot buy yours either.
Life is not about absolutes - life is always struggle , no matter where you push the "standards of living".
You cannot compare how people lived 1000 years ago with how people live today and then say that just because people on welfare have something that King so and so did not have in the year 1000, that means that they have a so much better life than that Kind had then.

This is complete bull and you know it.

If you want me to actually be thankful that my parents didn't let me starve, or didn't let me in the middle of the street - then you are only glorifying irresponsible F****-ing and irresponsible parenting.

Once you F*** without a condom, you have to think at those kinds of things as ABSOLUTE DUTIES, not as "favors" towards your children.

No, lihe is not "worth it" at any price, under any circumstances.

I don't know about what conditions you think would be "good enough" for your kid to be born into, but I know mine will not be born until I can guarantee a very nice strat in his/her life - from all sorts of standpoints, not just financial, but in many other ways.

If more people thought like this and refrained from breeding when they had little to offer - it would be a better world.

[Leebert]

First of all: great topic and great viewpoints presented. Unfortunately I think you guys are mostly wrong becaue you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. This issue is being discussed from the perspective of a capitalistic consumer-oriented, money-oriented society. I think this is patently wrong because that is not who we are. We are human beings.

Let me also state that my comments will be addressed to the more generalized statement that being a parent is the hardest job in the world which, by definition, includes the topic of the thread...because the issue can't be stated so simply as to single out a mom only.

Now before you turn off your ears because this sounds too ideological or unrealistic, hear me out:

Originally posted by syracusa, Babies are NOT mandatory - they are made for parents' pleasure and personal fulflillment.

I agree that many, many people want to have babies because they essentially want a "living" babydoll. The child is viewed as a possession and not a human being...it is a thing to be used or not used...it is there soley for the benefit of the parent. (I know this from first-hand experience. As I child I often times felt like I was about as valuable as the toaster or the potted plant that sat in the corner of the living room.) They don't see the child as being an individual, but instead an extension of their derams. This is a terrible thing because once the child gets old enough to truly begin asserting their individuality the parent usually ends up driving them to rebellion, giving up on them, etc.
But this is not the case for every parent. There are lots of people who give lots of thought to the idea of being a parent and they carefully consider the pros and cons. There are lots of parents who initially enter into parenthood in the method I described above but quickly realize the error of their ways and make the sacrifice to become a TRUE parent.
But in no way, shape, or form are babies optional. The continuation of humanity depends on babies. And it is for this same reason that being a parent truly is the most difficult job in the world.

If you view the concept of parenthood in economic terms then you might not agree that it is so difficult. And if you do view parenthood in that way then you are looking at it incorrectly. Like I said, we are human beings first and foremost, NOT the paycheck we earn at the end of the week nor the sum of our capacity to consume products.
Think of parenthood in the following terms and you can easily see why it is not only the hardest, but also the most important, job there ever will be:

• By giving life you are taking direct responsiblity in the continuance of the human race.
• You are responsible for the life of and well-being of a living creature.
• You are responsible for for the actions of this individual until they reach a certain age.
• You are responsible for developing their capacity to think and learn, for showing them what is important and not important in this world, etc. (I could go on but you get the point.)
• Your job as a parent never ends until you die. (and it could arguably continue even after that depending on your spiritual beliefs!) That means the job of being a parent lasts 24-7-365-RIP.

In the correct context parenthood is undeniably the most difficult and important job there is. There really isn't any point in measuring parenthood by any other means because without it we would be extinct and there would be no economic means of comparing it or assigning value to it to begin with!

I find it ironic to consider the amount of financial remuneration one recieves in return for what they do in life because it is in inverse to the importance of their vocation almost entirely cross the board. The most crucial job, the job of parenthood, pays nothing...in fact, it costs you money to be a parent. The second most important job in the world, being a teacher, garnishes you a comical amount of financial reward. Now consider an actor who earns $20 million a film, or a baseball player who earns over $100 for a multi-year contract...or even more pathetically, a ceo who gets a multi-million dollar bonus for squeezing out an additional percentage of profit for the shareholders by shipping jobs to other countries where slave labor is practiced. On second thought, maybe I shouldn't wish that parents and teachers get financially rewarded in the way other, more useless, vocations get rewarded since the process obviously involves the loss of scruples and conscience!

Does this denegrate or lessen the importance of other jobs? Not at all. I'm merely trying to put things in perspective. Raising a child is a monumental task to undertake which is why we have people/moms like those mentioned...they aren't prepared for it or they simply can't deal with it. They discover that they aren't willing to sacrifice their time, their very life, to meet the almost constant demands of another human being. So instead they whine and moan and behave like spoiled brats because their "dollie" isn't turning out to be as fun as they dreamed it would be.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by prettyredhead, Even bad parents are left vulnerable and feeble, and should be honored for merely giving their children life. They could have aborted them.

Prettyredhead,

Well...ok, I must confess I cannot agree entirely with the statement above (though I am very much with you on a lot of the stuff you post and I have a special affinity for you on this forum) :)

Should bad parents still be helped and respected by their children? Sure. It's only humane and now that the status quo is the way it is - parents are here, children are here - both should behave as nicely and lovingly towards one other, as they can - despite the past.

But I cannot agree that people should actually feel "grateful" towards their bad parents, for having put them in a miserable life.
This kind of unquestioned authority and "sanctity" of parents only encourages irresponsible breeding. It is exactly what makes many people have children when they shouldn't: it gives them that minuscule dose of unquestioned power, when otherwise they don't have any.
And I KNOW it is inviting. But is it RIGHT? No. At least, not to me.

I know that you say today that you had kids for the wrong reasons (I would definitely not be for "having a kid to get attention"); but now that we have a "fait accompli" and the kids are here - they are welcome and it would be stupid to continue to judge someone and rub the "mistake" in her face.

I even posted somewhere that i do not mind that a little bit of the taxes I paid went towards your welfare when you needed it. It is the right thing to do. Now that your kids are here, they are - UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES - supposed to starve, even when their mother cannot find a job. Period.

Moreover, you ARE now a responsbile parent, trying your best, instilling good values, working to raise them, etc.

Many parents though don't even do that and have no remorses about not putting in the time and energy. They think that "having kids is just normal for everyone" - regardless of financial situation, etc.

Now...finances matter, no matter how you put it. It is painful but true.
They may not have mattered so much in the past, but boy...do they matter in a modern society.

And even if it is...biologically normal for everyone to have kids, morally speaking, I am not so sure; considering the dog-eat-dog world we have come to live in, considering that it is officially proclaimed that society owes absolutely nothing to your children (only YOU do!!)...I am afraid I would be less excited about encouraging a poor family to have kids (or lots of kids) than I would be about encouraging a well-off family to do the same thing.

I am not a big fan of poor people having kids ...let alone "a lot of kids" - because I hate the idea of my child being thrown into the marathon of life yet being positioned in the very last place when the tough race begins.

It only gives the ones in the front even better reasons to whip ours once they have finished the crossing the line and can just rest.
Ours, having started last, may never get there.

And then...we go back to the "compassion-less rich people". Why would they be compassionate towards our kids, when we too were too busy living our lives to be compassionate towards them?

I am of the principle that unless you're prepared to offer conditions for a good quality life, DO NOT create the life.
I know I won't, unless I feel prepared.

[syracusa]

[Does this denegrate or lessen the importance of other jobs? Not at all. I'm merely trying to put things in perspective. Raising a child is a monumental task to undertake which is why we have people/moms like those mentioned...they aren't prepared for it or they simply can't deal with it. They discover that they aren't willing to sacrifice their time, their very life, to meet the almost constant demands of another human being. So instead they whine and moan and behave like spoiled brats because their "dollie" isn't turning out to be as fun as they dreamed it would be.

Leebert,

This is an awsome post, much more eloquent than I managed to make mine sound.

Yes, you pinpointed two aspects that I failed to emphasize, though I mentioned them in passing:

1. The framework for this discussion IS the free-market, capitalist system where pretty much everyone is supposed to be "in" for themselves (meaning they and their immediate families). Not my favorite system and way of looking at life and the world, but this is what we have right now and this is the system we and our kids will have to deal with and survive in.

2. Being a "good parent" IS a monumental task. But then again, this would be in a framework/system where humanity and human beings would be oficially valued by society, not only in words, but also in deeds.
As you said, in economic terms, this is not the case: a stay-at-home parent is paid nothing, a teacher's pay (closest thing to a mom) is mockery.

The reason a stay-at-home mom is paid nothing is the reflection of the fact that the capitalist society defines that kid as "your problem/ your choice/your decision - nothing to pay you for".
Never mind that you create labor for the economic engine later.
Same with the teachers. Never mind that you actually shape labor for the economic engine to work.
If education were not mandatory so that the capitalist engine can function properly, and if it were just a "service" to be bought from private providers (teachers) - such as health fro\m doctors...- then we would see how the wallets of teachers would look like.

So then here comes the working dad. In order to have a monumental mom at home, you better have a monumental dad who puts up with all the bulshitt in the public sphere, where he must earn a living - so that the mom can do that "monumental" task at home.

THAT I cannot forget. Under the current system, with the way values are defined, what dads to is more importsnt to me than what moms do.

I know what you are getting at by saying that we are looking at this from the "wrong perspective"...And I completely agree...but I am afraid that people cannot afford NOT TO look at parenthood from this wrong perspective, given the realities of the market.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by Leebert, But in no way, shape, or form are babies optional. The continuation of humanity depends on babies. And it is for this same reason that being a parent truly is the most difficult job in the world.

Now...this is the only spot where I have to completely disagree.

Babies ARE optional. Today they are. They may not have been in the past because we didn't know how to make them be "optional" - but today they are. It is a reality that goes right up there with the "take responsibility for your life" mantra.

Moreover, when individuals have babies, not ONE does it for the continuation of humanity. NOT as a rational choice.
The continuation of humanity is really the last of my concern and the last of 99,99999% of individuals on this Earth (minus the nuts) when the decide to make a baby.

What most "concerned people" are concerned with (those that are concerned at all, many just want to F***), is their own lives, and at best, their children's and maybe (MAYBE!) grandchildren's lives.
Not what will happen to "humanity" as a whole, centuries or millenia from now, if they stopped screwing.

Because really, even if it came to that, I am sure that the Planet will be just fine once the human race makes its exit from here. Of course, it will never come to this, when we'll make our exit, we will make it by exterminating each other, not from lack of breeding.

But again, the fewer people born into desperation, the better the quality of life for future generations and the lower the chance of exterminating each other like butchers with a death wish.

Like I read somewhere..."if sex is the urge to procreate, then hunger is the urge to defecate".

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by syracusa, And no, there is absolutely no resentment on my part towards the stay-at-home moms. I think it's great to be able to do that and it's also great for the kid...but at the same time, I acknowledge that what the GUY does in the corporate world (so that I, as a woman, can stay at home and raise my mini-me's) is HARDER.

I think that surely someone should be home with the kids until they are about 11. After that, the parents should go back to work. There is no real need at that point for a mother to stay at home while her kid is at school.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by Suburbanite, I think that surely someone should be home with the kids until they are about 11. After that, the parents should go back to work. There is no real need at that point for a mother to stay at home while her kid is at school.

I kind of agree. Though it's really hard after such a long time away from the "public sphere" to get back to it.

[rcne]

News Flash -Being a mother...the hardest job in the world - is inconsequential to Mrs Kerry.

Ya know not like a 'real job' or nothin. Take out gun - shoot yourself in foot.

That comment is a great way to garner women voters. Especially now when women voters are being courted by both party's.

[syracusa]

Teresa Heinz did not say anything untrue, only something politically incorrect. She apologized because she realized this may not be good for the campaign. Other than those few years when, supposedly, Ms. Bush was a "teacher and librarian" (I would love to have more details about her schedule at that time!), she never DID have a real job. She chose to be a stay-at-home and concentrate on her twins. This is great (that's what Teresa said too), but sorry, it is not a real job.

Another questioin would be: what did she do after her twins turned 10-12 yo? As suburbanite was saying earlier (and I agree), there is no reason for a woman not to work after her kids are older and in school. The the stay-at-home mom become just lazy, at best interested in things that DON'T MATTER. Such as how to decorate the house better, etc?

Working an 8-5 job (which most of the times goes beyind 5) IS harder than being a mother and no, being a mother is not "a real job" in this system, no matter how much we insist otherwise.

No matter how much time, attention and energy it takes - you do all that stuff because you CHOSE to do it, because you wanted "mini-me's" and now you want them to turn out better and more succesful than 99% of the other "mini-people".
"Earning a living" does not equate "earning mini-you's."
Again: CAN'T live without earning a living. CAN live without making, having and raising offspring.

As a stay-at-home, you are master of your own domain, you've got power over those little mini-you's, you are not in a position where other adults have power over you, threaten to fire you, or to sanction you if you don't deliver whatever by the deadline, etc.You also do not know what it feels like to bear the pressure that if you get fired, the family won't eat anymore.

Moreover, the mom/housewife "job" is very diverse, it is not monotonous and specialized on one single dumb activity that paralyzes your bones in front of a computer all day; you get to do a lot of things, you can get out of the house whenever you want, you can go shop, run errands, etc, have a sense of freedom. It is a GOOD LIFE.

Yes, kids are hard, they poop, they cry, blah-blah. You knew that before you made them but you STILL wanted "mini-me's". Many times, so you can stay at home. (My friend is such a case).

The man or a working woman (who NEEDS to be working) has no choice. You cannot get to hate your kids but you CAN get to hate your boss, your colleagues, what you do, etc. And still have to put up with it becasue again, YOU and the FAMILY must eat.

Looks like the same people who were being so proud and boastful about having the guts to be politically incorrect, refuse to give them same props to Teresa.

She was right in the first place.

[Lava]

Originally posted by syracusa, You cannot get to hate your kids

Plenty of parents do - should I say too many. And there really are some nightmare kids about, ones that will terrorise you and try to destroy your life if you dont do everything they want. It has been estimated that 1% of the population is psychopathic (see below) - that means 1% of kids are too.

Lava


Dr. Hare has published numerous articles and book chapters on psychopathy, as well as two books: Psychopathy: Theory and Research (1970) and Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us (1993, reissued 1999). He addresses international audiences on every facet of psychopathy, from personality assessment to risk factors to psychopaths among us. While they may appear to be normal members of society, they're anything but. In fact, Hare believes, they are society's most destructive and dangerous type of person. If it's true that psychopaths make up one percent of the population, as he estimates, then we need to pay attention.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/.../2.html?sect=19

[Lava]

Originally posted by syracusa, You cannot compare how people lived 1000 years ago with how people live today and then say that just because people on welfare have something that King so and so did not have in the year 1000, that means that they have a so much better life than that Kind had then. This is complete bull and you know it.

probably why I didnt say that :) The point I was making is that those material standards were sufficient to make life worthwhile. There are more than only material concerns, but having less materials than the average american is clearly no reason to not breed.

If you want me to actually be thankful that my parents didn't let me starve, or didn't let me in the middle of the street - then you are only glorifying irresponsible F****-ing and irresponsible parenting.

Well, we both know I said nothing of the sort.

No, lihe is not "worth it" at any price, under any circumstances. I don't know about what conditions you think would be "good enough" for your kid to be born into, but I know mine will not be born until I can guarantee a very nice strat in his/her life - from all sorts of standpoints, not just financial, but in many other ways.

You have a chance to achieve that. Many milions dont. I still say you dont need to be wealthy to be a parent of a child that has a lfie worth living. I think that notion is just a product of modern America.

If more people thought like this and refrained from breeding when they had little to offer - it would be a better world.

Lets be clear that not being at all wealthy does not mean having little to offer.


Lava

[tivodan1116]

Originally posted by syracusa,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (syracusa,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Another questioin would be: what did she do after her twins turned 10-12 yo? As suburbanite was saying earlier (and I agree), there is no reason for a woman not to work after her kids are older and in school. The the stay-at-home mom become just lazy, at best interested in things that DON'T MATTER. Such as how to decorate the house better, etc? [/b]

You assume that everyone who does not have a job while their children are in school is lazy. What about community service, volunteer work, taking classes, doing things to enrich yourself, being a Big Brother/Big Sister, et cetera? Lack of a job (or having a job) does not inherently make one lazy (or not lazy)

Originally posted by syracusa,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (syracusa,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Working an 8-5 job (which most of the times goes beyind 5) IS harder than being a mother and no, being a mother is not "a real job" in this system, no matter how much we insist otherwise. No matter how much time, attention and energy it takes - you do all that stuff because you CHOSE to do it, because you wanted "mini-me's" and now you want them to turn out better and more succesful than 99% of the other "mini-people". "Earning a living" does not equate "earning mini-you's." Again: CAN'T live without earning a living. CAN live without making, having and raising offspring. [/b]

Again: Wrong. While a particular individual may survive without having offspring, the species will not survive if we stop having offspring. As far as earning a living. You can live just fine without earning a living. What did people do before complex economic systems existed? Our existance proves that somehow they survived long enough to produce offspring without earning a living. I submit that with enough thinking and some careful consideration, I could live the rest of my life without a job. What do I really need that can't be found in nature?

By the way syracusa, you should pull up your arguments... your bias is showing. In this case, the bias is from someone who does not have children and has also been soured on careers by her own (extremely limited) 6-month foray into the world of the working stiff. 6 months of menial work at one job does not represent the sum total of working people. You might be surprised to know that a great many people rather enjoy their jobs. I have what might be considered to be a crappy job: I work retail in wireless phone sales while attending school. But you know what? I actually enjoy my job. I get a sense of accomplishment and I like the people I work with. Would I rather be sipping margaritas on a tall sailing ship in the Caribbean? Of course, but I'd get bored of that, too.


<!--QuoteBegin-syracusa,@
As a stay-at-home, you are master of your own domain, you've got power over those little mini-you's, you are not in a position where other adults have power over you, threaten to fire you, or to sanction you if you don't deliver whatever by the deadline, etc.You also do not know what it feels like to bear the pressure that if you get fired, the family won't eat anymore.

Moreover, the mom/housewife "job" is very diverse, it is not monotonous and specialized on one single dumb activity that paralyzes your bones in front of a computer all day; you get to do a lot of things, you can get out of the house whenever you want, you can go shop, run errands, etc, have a sense of freedom. It is a GOOD LIFE. [/quote]

See my above reference. Also, you may be somewhat free as a stay-at-home mom to do things, but don't forget that whatever you're doing, the baby has to be with you, and not just along with you but really WITH you, i.e. getting your mostly undivided attention whenever you leave home.

Furthermore, both my current "job" and my desired "career" (which I am exposed to through my internship with the Public Defender's Office) are VERY diverse, almost to the point of being confusing. Neither one requires or expects you to perform a single "dumb" activity in front of a computer all day. In my job in sales, I can get out of the store/office almost whenever i want to go visit clients, have lunch, et cetera. I have a tremendous sense of freedom, working for straight commission will give that to you. I truly make my own destiny.

<!--QuoteBegin-syracusa,
The man or a working woman (who NEEDS to be working) has no choice. You cannot get to hate your kids but you CAN get to hate your boss, your colleagues, what you do, etc. And still have to put up with it becasue again, YOU and the FAMILY must eat. [/quote]

Once again, my internship with the Public Defender's Office has allowed me to witness that people certainly can hate their kids. Cases of child abandonment, abuse, murder, and more are all committed against children by their parents. If that doesn't evince at least a de facto hate for your children, I don't know what does.

In regards to eating and money, ask Ted Nugent how much money he spent buying meat last year. None, he hunts and kills everything his family eats.

[syracusa]

I did get your point about "it is possible to hate your kids". Yes, those 1% psychopaths Lava was talking about. Ok.
But ooops - too bad, it's yours, it is your responsibility and you're supposed to love the little monster anyway - because YOU wanted to have one.

However, everything you wrote is yet to address the following FACTS:

1. When you made your kid, you made a choice.

2. When you made your kid, you did not make it for the continuation of the human species - but for YOURSELF. Most people (in developed societies) have them to have "mini-me's". It's called ego.
So don't tell me about the grandiose project of the continuation of humanity. (Waow. Such individualistic - me-me Americans...suddenly thinking in abstract societal terms and worrying about what would happen millenia from now if they stopped screwing without a condom.
I don't buy it).

3. Even if you find everything you need in nature to survive, you still NEED to have "a job": that of picking up whatever there is in nature, so you can eat it. If you go pick up an apple - that will be your salary: the apple. And this is in the case where you have a special gift to detect appletrees growing in no man's land, which is usually not the case.
But maybe weeds work for you. Even so, you worked by picking up the weeds so you can survive.

I repeat: you do not need to have children in order to survive. And this is a FACT. No matter how you twist it, in today's modern society - a child is a luxury and a choice - not "fate".
If you afford to be a stay-at-home mom, that means there is somebody out there who provides you and your child with means of subsistence.

As far as your accusations:

I have held three non-academic jobs so far to put myself through grad school (not only the most recent one that lasted 6 months); they all sucked, although the last one was a very prestigious position, not the "menial" thing you thought it was.
For the rest of the time, I worked in academia which I love, because it really comes closer to the "stay-at-home" mom version in many respects : autonomy, flexibility, authentic human interaction, diversity in what I do, authority, able to avoid rush hour traffic, no nasty bosses and back-stabbing collegues; can also work from home.
I am "master of my domain": I make the curriculum, I give the grades, I choose the teaching style, otherwise I work from home.

Most corporate jobs do not offer all the above and believe me, most people DO crave that. It's very nice to have these goodies. But most give in to the need of a higher salary. So they can PROVIDE!!!!

I don't have children yet but I have close friends right under my eyes who do. I see what they do every day, I also hear it from them - and ...
I AM NOT SHEDDING A TEAR over their "hard fate".

It is a GOOD LIFE and I would like it for myself and my kids too. There's nothing more fulfilling and satisfying than raising your kid, in your cushy private sphere. It is awsome.
In the mean time, the husbands put up with the nastiness of the public sphere and WORK THEIR BUTTS OFF - whether they like their jobs or not. Just because you say you love your job doesn't mean that a huge percentage of people don't hate theirs. There have been very gloomy surveys out there in this respect.

Ask how many stay-at-home mothers HATE what they do?

There is a reason why the expression "Haven in a heartless world" was coined to describe the "home". Being a stay-at-home mom means carrying out your activities from the comfortable environment of your private "haven". Dads (and working moms) work in in a "heartless world" and this is more and more the case today.

It's time to remember that providers deserve the gratitude and respect they used to get. Although I am usually leaning on the left, I am quite conservative when it comes to this issue.

I would feel indebted and grateful to the man who offers me the opportunity to play "perfect mommy" at home so I can raise my "perfect child". This is what my husband is working on now, so we can get to that point.

I consider it a gift and I feel deeply grateful.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by tivodan1116, You assume that everyone who does not have a job while their children are in school is lazy.  What about community service, volunteer work, taking classes, doing things to enrich yourself, being a Big Brother/Big Sister, et cetera?  Lack of a job (or having a job) does not inherently make one lazy (or not lazy)

All these are great occupations but they have nothing to do with "working for a living" or having a "real job"!!!
I was simply getting to the difficulty of earning one's living, not choosing an occupation that might keep you happy, satisfied or entertained.

1. Community service: if you only do "community service" and have no need of working to support yourself and your family - that means you've got it well. Good for you, lucky charitable thing.

2. Volunteer work: Same as above.

3. Taking classes: you are only doing something to fulfill your higher-order needs. In order to take classes, you need to earn a living. Where is that "living" coming from if you are not busy working for it?
Inheritance? Stocks? Money-maker husband? Say "thank you".
You are definitely not struggling.

4. Doing things to "enrich" yourself.

Admirable but again, you are not earning a living. You have it very well if you afford to busy yourself with such lofty things all day.

5. Being a Big Brother/ Big Sister: same as above.

All these beat the heck out of just staying home and NOT doing amy of them.
However, all of the stay-at-home women with children in school or whose children left home that I know - are not even doing THESE....!!!!!!

Now, may I talk about "lazy"?

[bullshitdetector]

Being a father is hard too. Anyone ever think of that? Men have been vilified for decades as being a disconnect from the family because of their careers and limited time with the family and furthermore considered merely a matter of consquence, not a parent. Career women are patted on the back for making the same life choices as men who work outside the home for being "supermoms". Neither is better than the other, one sure gets the short end of the stick, and it isn't women.

[garcia59]

I happen to agree with B.S. detector, men have their work cut out for them two. Have you ever heard the expression "It takes two to tango"?


Men when it comes to family, are like the leader of a lion pack, they are the hunters, they are the gatheres. They are, in times of trouble (a real man mind you) a person that the rest of the family leans on for support. The person on the back of everyone in the family's mind. That simply put, he will always be there. Hardest part about being a man? Accountability!

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by tivodan1116,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tivodan1116,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You assume that everyone who does not have a job while their children are in school is lazy. What about community service, volunteer work, taking classes, doing things to enrich yourself, being a Big Brother/Big Sister, et cetera? Lack of a job (or having a job) does not inherently make one lazy (or not lazy)[/b]

I’ll say on some levels I agree. But for the most part, none of the things you said require fulltime effort. Fulltime effort is 32 hours a week and 18 units. It isn’t spending two hours a week mentoring, which by the way I did last semester amidst my other activities. I think laziness exists for someone who does just one of those above things. I think people who do massive volunteer work are a little different though, that is a non-paying job. People who do Peace Corps are not lazy (soon to be me God willing), but they don’t get paid. It isn’t the money part, it is the effort part. And in MOST homes, a working mom when the child is around the age of 9 or less would be of a lot more benefit than a stay-at-home one.

Originally posted by tivodan1116,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tivodan1116,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Again: Wrong. While a particular individual may survive without having offspring, the species will not survive if we stop having offspring. [/b]

What is this fascination with the species. Don’t worry about it dieing off from not having sex, that is NOT an issue anywhere in the world nor will it be in your life time. I could care less about the species. Your fascination with this type of argument seems less like that of a rugged material-Darwinist and more like someone who has lost touch with all the amazing qualities society brings to the individual, and has lost touch with the individual in general.

Originally posted by tivodan1116, In regards to eating and money, ask Ted Nugent how much money he spent buying meat last year. None, he hunts and kills everything his family eats.

What a fucking badass.

<!--QuoteBegin-bullshitdetector,@
Being a father is hard too. Anyone ever think of that? Men have been vilified for decades as being a disconnect from the family because of their careers and limited time with the family and furthermore considered merely a matter of consquence, not a parent. Career women are patted on the back for making the same life choices as men who work outside the home for being "supermoms". Neither is better than the other, one sure gets the short end of the stick, and it isn't women.[/quote]

Get off your agenda, it is sickening. You’re looking for society to love everything you value and it isn’t going to happen. If you’re content with one thing or another, leave it at that. Being a career father is an easier parenting position that being a stay-at-home mother hands down. Being a stay-at-home father is certainly the same beyond the point of breast feeding.

<!--QuoteBegin-garcia59,
I happen to agree with B.S. detector, men have their work cut out for them two. Have you ever heard the expression "It takes two to tango"?


Men when it comes to family, are like the leader of a lion pack, they are the hunters, they are the gatheres. They are, in times of trouble (a real man mind you) a person that the rest of the family leans on for support. The person on the back of everyone in the family's mind. That simply put, he will always be there. Hardest part about being a man? Accountability![/quote]

It takes two to tango alright, if he is the breadwinner and doesn’t want to go