Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    So let me start...
    
    My mom is now 48 and I'm 27, and I was raised in a two career family.
    Based on my experience of how my brothers and sisters turned out
    and what some of my friends are like, having had their mothers stay
    at home, I would'nt have had it any other way.
    
    I find at my age that I have a friend that I can talked to about
    my career (She's a Systems Analyst). 
    
    Growing up was the big difference. When I grew up, I learned how
    to cook, make my bed, look after myself etc., all things that everyone
    should know about, but it still amazes me the number of male friends
    I have looking for a a partner to do that for them because they
    really don't know how. I also had a Father who shared in the household
    responsibilities (he did and still does the laundry and shopping).
    Pretty incredible for his age group (49), especially when he did
    this in the sixties when he was a cop. (His friends razzed him alot).
    
    I never felt that I lacked for time, because the time given was
    always quality. I notice that in my sister, she is a pleasant
    strong-willed independent woman, who does'nt take any of the
    stereotypical garbage that the men she dates dish out to her 
    (and she says they dish out alot - even in 1987).
    
    I'm not going to take anything away from a woman who choses to stay
    at home and raise her children...if she can, and thats her choice,
    I thinks that is valuable. However, I always question the single
    guys I knew, who had a guideline of having a non-working wife as
    their prerequisite of a happy marriage.
    
    I know Ms. Conlon will have something to say on this...right Suzanne.
    
    Later,

    I concur with .1
        
        
    Mom started working in 1962. Back then there were no buzzwords like
    "two-career familiy" or "latchkey kids," though in retrospect those 
    terms applied to us. She worked because we needed the extra income
    to make ends meet. 
                     
    She worked as a bank teller &, later, as the public relations director
    at a small Catholic college. She never considered herself a career
    woman, at least not to us. There were 5 kids -- 3 older sisters,
    myself, & a younger brother. As each child moved from high school
    to college they were relieved of household duties, and the mantle
    was passed to the next oldest. I held it from 1968 through 1970.
    
    I learned a lot that my fellows did not: cooking, cleaning, laundry,
    and mending for one. I survived college on a pauper's income because
    I knew "minimalist cooking," or what one might call cooking on a
    budget. I mended my own clothes, albeit badly because I lacked
    practice, & to this day keep a pretty clean house.
    
    My friends whose mothers did not work, & that was most of them,
    could barely boil water & lived like slobs. It took them years to
    get their act together, & ironically they married women who take
    care of them as their mother's did, even when these women have careers.
     
    Irene is staying home with our second child because she felt she
    missed a lot working with our first (she has a night job as of this
    week, again to avoid missing the kids), We could use two incomes
    but she feels its important for little ones to have her there.
    Comes the 6th birthday, she plans to return to school & get a degree.
    

re: .0

I guess my Ma followed your friend's advice, in that she waited
til I was 11 years old (with my only sibling (brother) a little
over a year older) to start working again.  So she did the "staying
home 10 years" bit.  My Pa did the working then, but since he
frequently got the task of keeping us (and himself) amused on
weekends, I don't feel like he suffered in his relationship to us,
the kids, due to working.  Ma tended to be more affectionate and
playful with us, while Pa was more inclined toward intellectual
and cultural activities, but I think that was more a reflection of
their respective personalities and upbringings than of the effect
of working or not working.  They had both had to suffer through
sorrows and misfortunes at a lot earlier age than I had to, that's
for sure.

I didn't have any problem coming home to an empty house once she
started working again.  For one thing, my brother was usually
around.  For another, I was a book-addict (my brother was a radio-
addict), so there was no lack of amusement there.

My misgivings about both parents leaving the home shortly after a
child is born are this: the "home" or the "family" is a conceptual
entity, not one you can easily define on quantitative grounds (e.g.,
"a good parent spends X hours a day with his/her children").  There
has to be some minimum requirement for time and effort put into
creating this entity in order for it to take on something like reality
in the minds of both parents and children.  I wonder if you need to
spend more time with a first child than a with a second child, and
likewise more time with a second child than with subsequent children,
given that each child will reinforce whatever the previous collective
definition of family might have been.  Maybe the child only needs to
be able to recognize some stable collection of people in the early
years (be they parents, siblings, other relatives, friends of the family
and their children, or whatever), in order to feel that a "family" exists.

    
    My Mom is the most independent woman I know.  She has a lot of
    traditional values, but she is an eminently practical person and
    doesn't let them stand in the way of survival.
    
    Anyhow, my Mom quit working to have me.  I am her only child.  She
    worked odd jobs (a few hours a day) once I started school.  When I was
    in third or fourth grade she started working full-time again, and
    hasn't been without a job since. 
    
    I don't think it had a negative impact on me.  Indeed, I think it
    had positive effects in that it cultivated skills in me that many
    of my peers found themselves without.  I learned to amuse myself
    without causing havoc and destruction around me, I learned to cook
    for myself, indeed, to get along in general at an early age.
    
    My parents have never been much for beating around the bush, and
    while we didn't need a second income to meet the bills, there's
    no reason to be uncomfortable if you don't have to be.  My mothere
    explained why she wanted to go to work again.  It didn't bother
    me any.  After all, if I picked up the phone and called, she'd come.
    
    I realize it's not that simple for a lot of people today.
    
    DFW

        There's good and bad on both sides.  As for history, my mom did
    not work, she was home, *but* I learnt to support myself, she was
    our mother, not servant.
    
        As for my children now, my wife is home.  Our friends are split
    50-50, 3 stay home, 3 work.  The differences I noticed (all the
    children concerned range 1.5-4.5):
    
    		. at_home_kids seem more in control.  Less bad habits,
    		  more self_contol.
    
    Why?  at_home kids are a model of their parents.  Who else do they
    interface with?  Yea, they go out and spend time with kids but the
    only real authority type is mom.  The working_kids have the daycare
    worker and stronger personalities of other children to influence
    them.
    
    		. working_kids seem better adjusted to other children.
    
    The working mom's kids have played and dealt with other children
    long before and for many more hours then the stay_at_home kids.
    They are better adjusted to other children and can cope with situations
    dealing with others much better.
    
    		. working_kids are more demanding and more selfish
    
    Simple.  If there is 5 toys at the daycare and 20 kids how do you
    survive?  Demand that you get the toy and *keep* it.  Just natural.
    
    Overall.  I see 6 couples with well adjusted kids and they'll all
    grow up to be children that we'll all be proud of!
    
    GOG
    

    My mother didn't work until I was in high school (Eng. ?upper school?,
    grades 10, 11, and 12).  She taught me to cook, sew a little, and
    even to crochet.  Our family is of the vein that if one of us was
    ever put in a situation where there wasn't anyone to take care of
    us, we could take care of ourselves.  I carry this on into my wife.
    
    		>14 lines of explaination deleted here<
    
    I spent most of my evenings away from home anyway, except for meals
    and homework.  I carried this into high school when she started working.
    I knew when she would come home and arranged my schedule accordingly.
    My father was gone 5 days a week, travelling all over Colorado,
    New Mexico, Kansas, Northern Texas, and Southern Wyoming for the
    Rocky Mtn. News.  Mom hauled newspapers to all of the towns from 
    Denver to Trinidad.
    
    One incident that I remember, I was walking up a street with a friend
    when his mother drove up and picked us up.  They lived a block away
    from our house.  She didn't offer much explanation, but as we rounded
    the corner, I saw firetrucks and police cars in front of my house.
    I got out and walked towards a fireman to find out what was going
    on.  A policeman asked if I lived there and I said 'yes'.  He asked
    where my father was and I said "I don't know".  He gave me a funny
    look.  I knew he was somewhere within 1000 miles, but just where,
    I didn't know.  So the cop asked me where my mother was and again,
    he answer was "I don't know".  That really got a funny look.  I
    knew that she was somewhere between Denver and Trinidad.  I then
    found it necessary to explain.  I don't think he was impressed.
    
    BTW, my sister had set the fence on fire with ashes from the fireplace.
    Didn't do much damage.
    
    My wife now works 2nd shift and I pretty much take care of myself.
    I am extremely lazy and usually eat canned or pre-packaged foods.
    Sometimes, she will make something for lunch and I get the leftovers.
    Its hard to cook for 2, let alone 1.  I do make breakfast on Sundays
    though.
    
    I think that I could survive on my own, but I wouldn't want to.
    I need the companionship more than anything else.
    
    Spence
    
    P.S.  I think I got off the subject again.

    My Mother quit work the week before she married Father: in explanation
    I should say that Dad was a professional soldier in the British army,
    and this was a time when officer's wives DIDN'T WORK! She hasn't had
    a paid job since, though I doubt I'd say she doesn't work...
    
    Since I was an only son, I think in some ways I was the daughter she
    never had. She insisted I learn to do all the chores around the house,
    learn to cook, and yes at one time I could knit and crochet, but I never
    really managed to learn to sew (manually, I can operate a sewing machine
    well enough - in fact when Mum got her latest "computerized" machine,
    I learned to use it first and then taught her).
    
    The base note touches on sex education: at about 14 I duly had the usual
    grotesquely embarassing "man to man talk" with Father. I had to admit
    that he seemed very relieved when I explained that I had learned the
    mechanics at school, and we could talk about the other aspects of the
    subject. I went to an all boys school, and they treated the subject
    thoroughly, unemotionally and accurately in the Human Biology course
    in 3rd and 4th form (11 to 12 age group).
    
    Incidentally some years later I worked at a school in England (a coed
    school for 12-18 year olds). I was scheduled to teach some sex ed. modules
    during a general science course, until the school principal remembered
    I wasn't married. Since the law didn't allow batchelors to teach human
    reproduction, I was substituted for those lessons - by a single woman
    (but that's OK spinsters can teach sex ed :-)
    
    However I do think there are limits to what should be in a school sex
    ed curriculum, and if possible I think the parents should review the
    material and the teaching resources with the teacher before the child
    takes the course. I also think it is a subject where homework is essential:
    something along the lines of "Subject x: discuss" to "force" the child
    to open communication channels to the parents. As an example of the
    unacceptable, I bring to mind the case of the London (England) borough
    that wanted to include "lesbian relationships" (not just the concept
    but the mechanical details) in a sex ed curriculum for 8 to 11 year
    olds.
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    PS for the note a few back that queried the British equivalent to "high
    school" - in Britain "High School" is a school, generally, for 11 -
    18 year olds (though you can leave at 16). The nearest British equivalent
    to what is implied by the American "High School" is "6th form college".
    
    In Britain school is mandatory from the day of your 5th birthday until
    the end of the term in which your 16th birthday falls (unless that is
    the Autumn term in which case you must stay at school to Easter).
    
    Another silly piece of trivia: America has seperated state and church
    to the extent of virtually banning religion from state operated schools.
    In Britain the 1944 Education Act established only one compulsory subject:
    yeah - you guessed it Religious Instruction. (though exclusion through
    reason of conscience is allowed for religions other than Church of England).
    

    Redbook magazine this month reported on two studies of children
    of working mothers.
    
    The first was based on interviews with 573 children in 1st, 3rd,
    and 5th grades. About 3/5s of the children had working mothers.
    
    Findings included:
    
    Children of working mothers had higher IQs got better grades,
    had better communicaton skills, and were more self reliant
    than children of non working mothers.
    
    An second study of 130 chidlren from ages 1 to 7 found no difference
    between having a working or a non working mother. There were no
    detrimental effects nor any specific benefits for a child whose mother 
    worked.
    
    Obviously I am not able to retype the entire article here. Any
    one who is further interested should obtain a copy themself. 
    However, I think the important thing to conclude from the two studies
    is that having a working mother can be an advantage to children, and 
    definitely causes no harm.
    
    Bonnie
    
    (a working mother of five)
    

    Statistical surveys have to be considered with a great deal of care.
    
    I spend a lot of time looking at material relating to the development
    of children, having been involved for the last 8 years in "gifted
    children's" programs, either here in America or in Britain (I am state
    gifted children's coordinator for Mensa at the moment - purely a voluntary
    role, but it does give me a lot of access to senior educators and
    legislators on this subject).
    
    I have seen surveys that run the whole range from "working mothers are
    highly beneficial" to "non-working mothers are highly beneficial". Frankly
    I would have to say that at the moment the evidence is far from all
    in.
    
    The argument in favor of working mothers is largely that it promotes
    self reliance.
    
    The argument in favor of non-working mothers is that they can devote
    large amounts of time to 1-on-1 teaching of the children, devoting time
    to providing a stimulating environment and a fund of resources.
    
    On balance I would suggest that a mother following a well planned process
    who stays with the child until it is old enough to enter a preschool
    program, and then goes back to remunerative employment, so providing
    the self reliance, *may* be giving the child the strongest start.
    Incidentally if correct this implies (no flames please) that a couple
    should not have another child whilst they have one in the pre-school
    1-on-1 developmental phase.

    /. Ian .\

    re -.1
    
    I would suggest that the well-planned regimen you suggest be amended
    to state that a 'parent' look after the child for the first n years,
    rather than only the mother.
    
    there are studies that suggest that only-children are higher achievers,
    and studies that suggest that children with siblings are better
    socialized. i don't think you can plan the perfect child.
    
    my gut feeling is that day care is a pretty risky thing. you are
    depending on someone else to provide role models and values. granted,
    some parents do poorly at these tasks, but perhaps they shouldn't
    have children at all. i think the ideal situation would be one in
    which both parents have the option of substantial paid leave during
    a child's formativeyears. if reagan and his crocies are so pro-family,
    why don't they do something about it? i don't think that either
    parent should have to give up an entire career in order to raise
    children, but raising children is a hell of an important task, and
    i'm not sure who i'd want to entrust with my [hypothetical] children.
    
    i also don't think that a parent whos stays home to raise a child
    necessarily has to raise a child who cannot be independent. as has
    been mentioned, being a mom or dad doesn't mean also being a servant.
    
    /bruce

    Yes, it was a little careless of me to say "Mother" when "parent" is
    also valid.
    
    Some friends of mine back in Britain were so commited to the idea of
    spending time with their first child that both changed their short term
    career plans so that they could spend a great deal of time at home (both
    were programmers: they set up a two-person software house writing PC
    software in a spare room so they could both work at home).
    
    /. Ian .\

	DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS -

	In the USA, children of divorced parents were ususally AWARDED
to the father until about 1920.  This occured because of a lanmark case
where a breast fed child was awarded to the mother.  This began the
the american family court systems' concept of the nurturing mother.
Subsequently, mothers have routinely been awarded physical possession
of the children ever since (read that meal tickets!).

	I question where the nurtering is being done when children
of divorced parents are placed in day care or become latch-key kids?

	I am not foolish enough to believe that many divorced women 
must work but, I has todays' financial problems eroded the nurturing
mother concept?  If so, then someone should inform the court system.

	A side effect of the latch-key syndrome is that the oldest(er)
child who takes care of the younger ones after school, while waiting
for mom to come home becomes "PARENTIFIED" (a technical psychology
term I got from my aunt who is a counselor).  THis means that if the
younger kids are frisky after school the one(s) in charge don't get
to do their school homework.  Also, the older(est) is removed from
the parent role when mom (dad) arrives.  This can lead to frustration
on the part of the older(est) child in identifing his role.

	BTW I can remember some awful stunts that the latch-key kids
in my neighborhood pulled.

	In my opinion mom's should be home for the little kids and not
dump the responsibility on the older ones (babysitting can serve as the
training ground for the bigger kids).

						Later,

						$BILFJR
	PS - my mom was at home - still is.!!!


< Note 71.11 by GOJIRA::PHILPOTT "Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott" >



    Yes, it was a little careless of me to say "Mother" when "parent" is
    also valid.
    
    Some friends of mine back in Britain were so commited to the idea of
    spending time with their first child that both changed their short term
    career plans so that they could spend a great deal of time at home (both
    were programmers: they set up a two-person software house writing PC
    software in a spare room so they could both work at home).
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    I grew up with a mother who never worked after the first baby arrived.
    Mom was always at home.  In recollecting the effect upon me, I would
    have to say that the advantage was that home became like a refuge,
    a haven.  No matter how bad the day was, there was always a sympathetic
    ear to sit and listen IMMEDIATELY, when I got home from school.
    I never had to delay/postpone those conversations.
    
    The disadvantage (if you can call it that) was that I was raised
    in an environment where the males were treated like royalty. I never
    made a bed, washed a dish, mopped a floor, sewed a button, etc.
     I had chores, but were mostly "male" ones, i.e. cut grass, shovel
    snow, carry heavy things, etc.
    
    I do not regret not having done these chores, not even knowing how
    to do them.  If I need something sewed/repaired, I go to a tailor.
    As for "housework", I still hate it, but will do it to help out
    my wife (who does not work outside of the home).  My children have
    chores to do which include making beds, cleaning, cutting, shovelling,
    painting, etc.  These chores are assigned to a)keep the house cleaner
    and more orderly; b)divide the labor among many hands; c)teach
    responsibility.    
    
    As for advantages to the children of the non-working wife, it 
    really is moot and dependent upon the people involved.  I have seen
    some families with working wives with mixed up kids and other with
    kids who are just fine. 
    
    My wife and I have chosen for her to be a full time mother and homemaker
     and the benefits are many. Babysitters, daycare expenses, supervision
    worries, etc. never plague us.  Instead my wife is involved in almost
    all aspects of my children's lives, including schools, play groups, music
    lessons, church activities, scouts, etc. My kids see her as a support
    person invited to participate in their lives completely.  I would
    not trade her full-time career as a mother for any paycheck.  But
    perhaps I have an unusual wife in that she views her career as mother
    as the most challenging and rewarding life work she could be engaged
    in.