walking in another's shoes

Is it just me or did this topic stray a little--it didn't start out as a debate over whether or not mom's should stay home did it?

You are very right!

Actually on the reverse side of the coin, I have a friend who decided to stay home after her second child was born and her husband is opposed to it. She did it anyway. This has really caused a lot of stress in the marriage. I think just deciding to stay home without spousal support IS selfish! She certainly isn't doing any favors to her children if it breaks up her marriage is she?

I think you could see it as selfish in both directions. On her part, if it breaks up her marriage as you suggested. On his part, for not being able to respect and work with his spouse's wishes (this applies to both, I think).

And Kris, no worries! Don't delete your post!

[SueC]

That's true Nellie, I guess the husband would be selfish in that case also. Off topic, but how do you do quotes like that with the box around them?[/quote]

You click on "quote" to the upper right of the post you want to quote. You can then delete part of the post to get to the stuff you want to quote. To get two boxes, I cut and paste the "quote code" where I need it. It's not always successful and I'm not sure why.

[Michele]

Kris - don't delete your posts! I actually agree more with everything you've said than anyone else. I think this subject is becoming heated and off the original topic though. I haven't posted anything because I think it's an individual issue, but Kris I like your point of view.

Michele

[Auspicious]

I agree that all the posts are okay as they are. I think in general it's more okay to be intense on the boards than in real life because if people can't handle what you're saying they have the option of skimming or skipping a post or avoiding the thread if they know they won't like it or aren't interested (whereas when I'm talking in person to someone they would either have to interrupt me or be held captive until I decided to get down off my soapbox). Respect and tolerance should be paramount and there's no need for attacks, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to have or post strong opinions.

[mommax3]

I think I should post a sticky that says "Kris, don't delete your posts!" at the top of every forum has been the scene of good conversations/debates. I love your posts and have NEVER been offended by any of them.

I actually think we all are doing pretty well at keeping this "hot topic" civilized.

I have to reiterate that I really believe that we only have a right to feel strongly about our own choices -- kudos to Luanne for what she said about not caring what others think and doing what is right for her family. I can easily (at this point in my life) see how I could have done things differently and made it work, but hindsight, while a wonderful thing, can't change the past.

-Are full-time mothers equivalent to day-care workers in the importance of the job they perform? Do children thrive as well being raised by hired help as they do being raised by their mother?

This is really a hard question because not all child-care workers are equal. It also depends on the age of the child and what they are doing during the time that their parent is away. When I worked as a nanny, I could give a baby a bottle, change its diaper, and put it down for naps as well as anyone -- and for the hours the baby slept, I would have to say that it didn't really matter if it was me in charge, or the baby's mom. I loved the babies I took care of and did the best I could to take care of them like they were my own. I held them when I didn't have to, I sang to them, I talked to them, and I tried to make them laugh. I know that isn't always how it is, but that is my point -- every situation is different.

When I worked in a daycare center with school age kids and spent hours playing kickball, singing songs, coloring, pretending, and reading to the kids, I would say that it was probably a more enriching experience for the kids than they would have had at home, if the way my kids spend their days at home with me is anything like the norm. Whether or not their emotional needs were being met is unknown, but perhaps their parents were working to provide for their physical needs -- who am I to decide what is a need and what is a want? I have my opinions, but I am glad not to have to decide for anyone else but myself. I don't know, at any given time, if my own kids' emotional needs are all being met with me at home, either.

All mothers are full-time mothers. When they aren't with their kids, they are thinking about them and hoping they are happy and well-cared for, whether they are in daycare, with a sitter, with grandma, or with Dad! None of us will know "the rest of the story" about our kids until long after our choices on this one have been made. I think the vast majority of moms on both sides of this one (and those in the middle, too!) are doing the best they can, and I think we would be better off if we would just all support one another.

Sally

[Rapunzel]

Well, interesting answers to my questions. Those ARE difficult questions and it is because they strike at the heart of the ultimate question: What does it mean to be a mother?

In many ways Sally is correct that motherhood means something entirely different from individual to individual. In that sense and in the details it IS up to the individual to decide how to be a good parent.

Here is another thought to ponder: we have to examine that nature has obviously supported among mammals and particularly primates a tendency for intense parental involvement - both from the male and female side with the young constantly in the mother's care and under the father's protection until a certain age and then closely watched by parents and close relatives with a vested personal interest in the development of the youngster until he/she reaches young adulthood. Is this pattern correct for other creatures but incorrect for humans?

Another thought: "If Mama ain't happy, then nobody's happy" is true in so many ways, but how far does Mama's happiness supersede others' needs or desires? In other words, where is the line drawn?


Still other thoughts: If I were a brand-new, just licensed architect and spent 4 or less hours on the job everyday while I pursued a career as a parole officer 40+ hours per week would I be considered a full-time architect? Would I be considered dedicated to my career of architecture? Would my performance as an architect suffer from less use? Yes, this is an analogy.


Finally, what does it mean to be a Mother? If, indeed, what I accomplish everday is seen as nothing more than what a daycare worker can do then is it even necessary for mothers to exist? Proponents of socialization might argue "no" motherhood is not necessary. For instance, Lenin believed that an intrinsic portion of Socialism was to remove small children from the home to be raised by the state in state schools. In our own society we see more and more legislation to require preschool for children as young as three years of age. Do those children need mothers or are they just fine with any adult or even in a group setting with one adult parcelled out to up to a dozen toddlers/preschoolers? Is Motherhood an action or a philosophy? If it is, indeed the actions performed by thousands of hired child care workers every day then does that make those workers the psychological/philosophical "mothers" of those they care for? Is Mother simply a name to call the person who gave birth to a child?

I strongly disagree that we are off topic here. The original post was regarding the grass being greener on the other side. Well, these ideas are very topical to the discussion. They are uncomfortable for many to deal with or think about because they call into question many of Western society's current ideals. Most, I believe, would prefer not to think about these things because it is much easier to go with the flow and much nicer to think that no matter what they do everything "will work out OK". Is that fatalistic philosophy correct?

I'm done for now.

[Rapunzel]

OK, I am done with my philosophical ramblings given above, however, on a personal note my opinion is that I am a full-time mother because I mother full-time. It is an insult to say that a woman who spends two hours a day with her child is mothering that child full time while I spend my days actively BEING a mother. Mother for me, like love, is a verb and requires physical participation in the activity - just thinking about your children does not count. Does this mean that when I go to the gym once a week (up to six times a week before my last child was born) that I am not being a mother? During that time I am not mothering my children - most certainly. However, in the end mothering my children supersedes all other viable activities if need be. If I miss working out, if I miss going on a date with my husband, if I miss doing something that I wold love to do because my child needs his/her mother then that is precisely what it means to be a full-time mother. I could not work full-time and be a full-time mother because I would be unable to put my child's spontaneous and frequent needs for mothering - the verb - over my responsibility to my employer.

I believe those child-care workers who lovingly take care of and mother their young charges for long hours everday are more accurately called "Mother" than those who spend a few moments with their own biological children at the end of the day. There are those part-time mothers who work part-time and share their mothering with those they pay to mother their children while they are away from them. They share the responsibilities of mothering their children with others, but those 'others' should definitely get the honor of being recognized for mothering these children.

My own father demonstrated in his life that the honor of being someone's "mother" is most accurately given to the woman who mothers a child. His mother was a paranoid schizophrenic - unmedicated. His childhood was horribly abusive and he refuses to speak of many of the things done to him. There were, however, adult women who lovingly took care of him during his life - such as the woman I met one Sunday at church who my mother introduced to me as someone who found my dad sleeping in her car one morning in his early teens. This sweet woman took my father in and acted as his mother for quite a while. So, my father has explained in one of the most beautiful Mother's Day addresses I have ever heard that those who are biological mothers are not necessarily mothers, and those without biological children can be mothers because "Mother" is a verb. And, while his biological mother tried very hard to be the best mother she could be in her state, his actual mothers were a small handfull of women who mothered him.

So, those are my emotional views on the subject apart from my philosophical and logical inquiries into the subject matter. The original subject matter regarded "walking in another's shoes". In order to dovetail into that topic I will state I have no desire to walk in the shoes of a woman who spends 40+ hours per week away from her children while they are taken care of, loved, and raised by another. That does not appeal to me and while it is possible that I might be able to pay another person to mother better than I (Mary Poppins?) I feel that having chosen to be a mother I should do my best at learning to "mother" my children well. I make mistakes like every other mother, but I am committed to mothering my children full-time and doing the best job mothering (again a verb) I possibly can.

[mommax3]

Jennifer,

I understand what you mean about the word mother being a verb, but the fact is that it is both a noun and a verb, and for some mothers, finding high quality childcare for their children part time or full time is excellent mothering, depending on their family situation. I worked as a childcare provider for three very different families and although I didn't agree with every choice those mothers made (I was young and knew everything, of course! ) I NEVER doubted that they were the mothers of those children. I loved the kids, but I didn't lose any sleep over them, or care what they ate when I wasn't there, or agonize when I no longer saw them daily. That is what a mother does, no matter whether she is employed or not.

Because of your family experiences, I think you have made the best choice for your family, but women who waited to begin their families and have training and credentials that allow them to contribute significantly to their family's financial bottom line may feel that they are "mothering" their kids better by making different choices. I don't fall into that category, but sometimes I wonder, if I could go back, would I make a different career choice -- one that would give me more autonomy and earning power when I became a mom? I think I might.

As to where mom's need for happiness should make way for the rest of the family, again, I think the only way to answer that is on an individual basis, and even then, the answers will change depending on the ages of the kids and what is going on in the family.

When I worked part-time at a job that I loved, one of my kids was in Kindergarten (all day -- the only choice in the school system) and the other one was either at pre-school (where I would have sent him anyway) or down the hall from my office in childcare at the church where I worked, with kids who were there for MOPS or Bible Study. I was definitely a full-time mom who worked for $$$ part-time.

Moms have a difficult time, especially when their husbands are training for medical careers, and they have to make hard decisions, and are usually their own harshest critics. I have chosen what I think works best for me and for my family, but that doesn't mean that I don't occasionally second guess it. I have my hands full evaluating my situation and have no desire to try to figure out what is best for anyone else.

Sally

[PrincessFiona]

The topic

I don't know..I don't think that it's a bad thing that we got off of the topic...the feedback and debate has been fascinating. It's too bad Kelly has been in South Dakota and has missed all of this! She is going to fall over when she gets home!

Jenn, I hope you realized that I was playing devil's advocate with some of your ideas and thoughts....(imagine me trying to provoke )

Is this pattern correct for other creatures but incorrect for humans?

Well, there are creatures (OK..the ones I can come up with are noteably not mammals..but I'm too lazy to research it right now )...that have a different pattern. There are frogs in the Amazon where the male carries his offspring (eggs) on his back until they hatch, there are birds (Jacana Marsh Bird) where the male is responsible for the parenting...heck there are even cultures in Africa where the women work and the men stay at home. A noticeable difference though in the animal and primate kingdom is that the offspring are cared for while they are dependent....after that point, they are often on their own. We're talking a matter of a few years, not 18. So if we were going to follow other mammals and primates, we might say that the 'herd' has to help out and that the child be allowed to wander off to school when it is weaned and able to walk/fend for itself.?

how far does Mama's happiness supersede others' needs or desires? In other words, where is the line drawn?

I'm going to agree with you here, Jennifer.....As much as I am a proponent of a woman nurturuing her own interests/talents, I also find myself asking what that line is. For me, honestly, I found that I simply can not work full-time and juggle it all well...By full-time, I just mean 35-40 hours a week. I know other women who manage quite well, but they may be more emotionally balanced than I am , have more support from family, or have less children. I personally do well with 10-20 hours..I feel happier and I think in that situation I'm a better mom. Perhaps that line has to be drawn individually for each person. I can't really say what that line is for someone else, but here is the witch coming out in me..I can't imagine how a woman could for example work as a surgery resident 120 hours a week and be a good mom at the same time...but I also won't pretend to know what it is like to be her or to presume that she is a bad mom....but maybe I'm trying to be too PC here?

If I were a brand-new, just licensed architect and spent 4 or less hours on the job everyday while I pursued a career as a parole officer 40+ hours per week would I be considered a full-time architect? Would I be considered dedicated to my career of architecture? Would my performance as an architect suffer from less use?

This is an interesting analogy, and one I'm likely to bend with you on again a little bit. Of course, new moms that work also spend a lot more than 4 hours a day on mothering...even if they work an 8 hour day at the office, they're likely to put in 8 hours at home (a lot of it with the baby) and on weekends...Could you be considered a full-time architect? no. Could you be considered a full-time mom? Not in the context of this particular discussion. Could you still consider yourself an architect? Even a good architect? Is it possible that the 4 hours that you spent each day as an architect were valuable and that you did good work while you were there?

Would your work as an architect suffer? hmmm. If you only work 4 hours a day as an architect could you be doing as good of a job with your concentrated effort as an architect that worked 8-10 hour days but spent a lot of that time waiting for faxes or sitting in office meetings or at lunch?

How do we measure quality time?

It's an interesting question that you raise, Jennifer, because they are going through the same conflict right now at the hospital here. There are several "part-timers" and there is growing resentment towards these women that they should either go full-time or quit working.

Finally, what does it mean to be a Mother? If, indeed, what I accomplish everday is seen as nothing more than what a daycare worker can do then is it even necessary for mothers to exist?

Again, Jennifer..I can't answer that. I think that there are certain things that children do need from their mothers...warmth, love, support..the building of a relationship that can help establish a firm foundation for them..but here is a real honest moment from me....A lot of what I do everyday COULD be done by someone else...a lot of what most of us do could. It doesn't mean that it isn't important...and that there aren't certain facets of mothering that can't be replaced...but I have had the thought more than once while I was sitting at the park for 2 1/2 hours while my children played with their friends and laughed in the pool that a babysitter could be doing the same thing..The interaction that we have boils down for the most part to me sitting there and offering snacks when they emerge...and that's about it. The moms all sit around and talk while the kids play (it's a wading pool, btw..not a deep pool!). Are they being 'productive' stay-at-home moms for the 2-3 hours? That is something each individual has to decide. I enjoy going and watching my children play and being a part of their summer...but it doesn't mean that if I weren't there that they would not be having the same great fun splashing and socializing. If I picked them up a few hours later and listened to them excitedly tell me all about it over pizza and pop and shared in the experience, would that be sufficient? Would they have suffered because I wasn't actually there?

Maybe motherhood is an action and a philosophy and perhaps mothering is something that requires more than just the birth or adoptive mother. Maybe childcare workers in this day and age have replaced the proverbial village of times gone by? In the past, whole families helped to raise children while mothers worked on the farms or in factories. Extended families were available to make the raising of children a family and even community affair. Can we expect mothers in this day and age to go it alone? Do children benefit from being cared for by more than one person or is the mother the only one who can do it 'right'?

Most, I believe, would prefer not to think about these things because it is much easier to go with the flow and much nicer to think that no matter what they do everything "will work out OK". Is that fatalistic philosophy correct?

Actually, I think that most women agonize over their decision and regardless of what they choose and why they choose it they simply do their best to put one foot in front of the next and do the best job they know how. I don't really know many people who don't wonder if they have made the right decision whether they are at home full-time, work from home or work outside of the home.

I believe those child-care workers who lovingly take care of and mother their young charges for long hours everday are more accurately called "Mother" than those who spend a few moments with their own biological children at the end of the day.

Children know the difference between a daycare provider or babysitter and their mothers.....childcare providers may do some of the drudgework during the day of changing diapers and watching children play, etc. They certainly do have an important role in the child's life and I would argue that they are an extension of the mother, but at the end of the day, when a child is sick, hurt or in need of comfort, it is the mom who provides it. It is mom who is up all night when baby is sick, who takes the children to the doctor, who tucks them in at night and reads them stories. The bond between mother and child can not be broken simply be a few hours of separation during the day.

But I'm biased, Jennifer...I have spent time away from my children when I finished my MS. I agree that for me it was so stressful that I was not the best mom that I could have been. At the same time, I'll confess that sitting around here by myself everyday....I'm not the greatest now either. I spend way too much time online, cleaning the kitchen, throwing in laundry, etc....I ask myself a lot if my children would even be better off in a situation where they could play with their friends all day because I just don't think that I'm doing the role of 'mothering' justice. Is it enough that I'm simply 'there' for them in case they need me? I don't know.

I have chosen to be a mother as well, and despite my yearnings for a professional life, I'm not working outside of the home right now. I certainly could be traveling to Minneapolis each day if I was determined enough....but I'm not. If my neighbor was though, I'd say "more power to you..I don't know how you do it!" and wouldn't think twice about her choice. I enjoy sharing these memories with my children, but I'll be the first to say that there are probably a lot of women who could "mother" (verb) better than I. That is just rip-your heart out honesty there. (and something I'm likely to hear again and again when my children become teen-agers )

kris

[PrincessFiona]

Sally

Sally,

Well said...you must have posted while I was writing...

Wow..this thread has had over 300 views...

kris

[Auspicious]

I believe those child-care workers who lovingly take care of and mother their young charges for long hours everday are more accurately called "Mother" than those who spend a few moments with their own biological children at the end of the day.

Wow, this is all really interesting! I never thought so conceptually about motherhood before--this is really beneficial. I'm starting to get how Jennifer's entire concept of and paradigm for family is different from my own, and to see both more clearly than I did before.

As the grown child of a mother who was employed full-time from the time I was two, (and part-time before that) I think what made my mother my mother was not the time she spent with me, but the influence she had over me. Even though I spent as much or more time with other adults, no other relationship in my young life even came remotely close to the ones I had with my parents. Comparing the child-care workers to my mother would be like saying that my officemates are my real family, because I often spend a larger part of my day with them than I do with my boyfriend. It just doesn't work that way.

The paradigm for the parent/child relationship in our family was that everyone has their own individual life from the beginning. And everyone leaves the house in the morning and goes about their own day. And then at night everyone comes home and that's the haven. And we'd talk about our days extensively and my parents would help us interepret everything that happened to us out in the world and sort out what was good and what was bad and why and what we should do about it. Then the next day you would go back out and try again based on what they had said. They were very invested in us and very connected to what was going on in our lives. We valued them for their insights and teachings more than for their time or singular focus on us. Still do. It basically just wasn't considered a job that necessarily took 24 hours a day to do right. We learned all kinds of stuff in daycare, but it was all filtered through the values we got at home. I just don't even hesitate to say that my parents were terrific parents or that I had an excellent upbringing. Did some things go wrong in my childhood? Sure. But I had friends with SAHMs, and stuff went wrong in their childhoods, too. I don't think I would have been much better off if one of my parents had been home full-time. Maybe slightly, but not nearly enough to be worth the cost to my mother, who had tried being a SAHM with my older brother and hated it. It doesn't make sense for her to pay a huge emotional price for us to have a small emotional benefit.

[Auspicious]

Also, it's apparently nearly impossible to write a short post on this topic I actually edited mine way down and it's still a monster.

It seems like all my posts today are long. Except this one. I promise.
Your previous post is very well stated, Julie.

[SueC]

You know, I have to say coming from a family where my mother did work full-time--I really don't think I'm any worse for the wear. I was just trying to think back about my memories from daycare and my memories with my parents and those with my parents by far outnumber those with the babysitter. And as I got older, I really admired my mom. I remember her toiling over her typewriter writing her thesis (she was working on her master's degree when I was 8 or so), but I also remember her making me barbie clothes and taking me to the pool. And she always had my best interests at heart. I was always very proud when people asked me what my mom did. In fact, sometimes I worry that I'll give my own daughters the wrong impression of what they can aspire to. And if I'm not working outside the home when they get older I hope that they look at their friends moms who are working and see that as a possibility for them as well. I wouldn't want them to feel like they had to follow in my footsteps. Hell, maybe they could work and their husbands could stay home with the kids! I'm not sure what the point of my post is. I knew from day one that I didn't want my mom's lifestyle, but it is hard to look at my dear mother (seriously, she and my mother-in-law are about the two sweetest women I know) and to call her choices in life 'selfish'. I think she made a real contribution in life--she educated thousands of nurses, one of whom was a good friend of mine's single mother who desperately needed a career to support her family. My mom was her inspiration and cheerleader and this woman went on to get her bachelor's in nursing! Sure, she could have spent her time contributing solely to the needs of her family, and that would have been great too.

Just out of curiousity is anyone here arguing here that all mother's belong at home with their kids, or are we just repeatedly justifying our own choices???