|
Comments:
claudia - 2006-02-08 15:53:56
The problem is that people want to find the ONE right model of "happily balanced" when, the fact is, it's subjective. What works for me might not work for others. Also, our lives carry many caveats and for me, happily balanced means that given the way my life is structured (I work full-time, my husband works part-time w/ no benefits), it all usually works okay. The arrangement we've cobbled together works most days, there's a backup plan of sorts, bills get paid, kids get fed, nobody's neglected. Some help, some assistance, is appreciated. But, we haven't ended up on the street yet. And, we still can enjoy each others' company and find time to do our own thing - on occasion.
-------------------------------
Smed - 2006-02-08 16:07:35
There is no ideal life that all can ascribe to. We each have different thoughts on what that would be. Liz decided to be a stay at home, her choice, and is much happier now. But she wants to write, and would find a job where she could do that in an instant.
-------------------------------
Harriet - 2006-02-08 16:09:13
Agreed. And neither of us is the first to suggest that feminism seems terribly disconnected from the realities of daily life. I still don't think it hurts us to consider models, though. Even if they are inherently flawed, the process of considering them can be informative. Like you, we have a non-traditional arrangement. We both work at home, me for school, my husband for himself. We buy our own insurance, pay all our own social security, etc. Things are sometimes tight, but we manage. Balance is tricky when working at home, though. It's hard to know when to stop one task and start another. So it's clearly not all about gender bias and workplace models. We also need to know what balance is and to actually want it. I'm not sure everybody really does. Yet another reason multiple models are needed.
-------------------------------
Elgan - 2006-02-08 16:45:27
If I may just hop into this, having been a stay-at-home mom, I didn�t have children so someone else could raise them, I sacrificed the chance at a career (actually, there�s no saying I could have had one in my chosen field, considering the competition) to make sure that they learned what they needed to know at their mother�s knee. But not all parents are cut out for that kind of tedium (it can be very tedious). I still think there should be more flexibility in the workplace itself allowing mothers (and/or fathers) to work hours that let them be parents, not just weekend caregivers.
-------------------------------
Chris - 2006-02-08 18:20:17
It's not even only that what works for one may not work for all -- it's that I think what works for one part of me won't work for all of me. I'd love to be a stay-at-home mom. I'd also love to work full time. It's reconciling all that that's the problem. What to do? You go to school to be a --something -- and you kind of want to be a -- something -- although part of you wants to take 20 years out to raise a family.
I think it may make sense to think in terms of stages of life. When my kids are grown and out of the house, I think I'll rethink all my career decisions. I think if I'd realized when I was younger that that was a reasonable approach, it might have made me worry less.
Anyway.
Life is complicated -- I think there's just no way around that. And it's also true that daily life (as opposed to professional life) is a lot more interesting than it's given credit for. I think, anyway.
-------------------------------
f-i-n - 2006-02-09 10:39:14
I'm never having kids. And a lot of people don't understand that but it's my life!
-------------------------------
claudia - 2006-02-09 12:02:08
If I may, politely, take issue with the idea of "others raising my children"? I am the mother. I and my spouse ARE raising our children. Childcare, outside the home, has to factor into our lives because that's the way it is. One aspect of raising my children is finding the best childcare I can afford - not an easy task. Because my husband only works a couple of days a week outside the home, that has meant each child has been able to spend those days at home with him. When we both work, they go to preschool/daycare. They are not being parented in childcare. A good center actually reinforces my values. I feel it's critical that children have social outlets - unattached to me. They need to learn how to get along with other children with guidance from other adults besides their parents. Preschool has been really good for Dusty - she's learned to be a good friend, she goes on field trips that broaden her world, etc. While I expose her to the world, I should not be the only EXPERT she should have to rely on. There is good in childcare but you have to work at it. That's my job. Making sure she's being properly cared for and nurtured when I'm not there. Children need their parents but they also need a wider world. My kids are smart and caring and creative. Placing them in a care situation that coincides with my values adds to their experience. I know many SAH parents who place their children in preschool because they feel its an important experience for their children. Sometimes, hanging out at home, underfoot, doesn't engage their mind. Television deadens it. BUT - I'm not saying everyone should agree. I'm not saying everyone should run out and put their preschools in outside care. I'm just saying there are good aspects of outside care opportunities and we shouldn't criticize each other's choices but should support them and us, the parents. We have a hard job to do which entails enough worrying already. I'm not going to lose any sleep because someone thinks I'm a bad mother because my children go to a childcare center. Please. I am a good mother. I have few regrets and much, much love for my wonderful children.[end rant]
-------------------------------
add your comment:
back to the entry - Diaryland
|