Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    That's lovely.  And so true, at least for many people.
    
    I heard something the other night on TV that really struck me.  I don't
    think I'll forget it soon.  Someone said "You know, no one ever lies on
    his death bed and says 'Gee, I wish I'd spent more time down at the
    office.'"  The message was to stop and smell the roses. And what is
    more important than enjoying, savouring your children's childhoods.
    They will never come again. 
    
    							Pat

    The poem, it seems to me, is unrealistic, not so much for what it
    says, as for what it doesn't say.  It speaks also to the guilt trip
    the poet was on . . . a trip I decline(d) to take.
    
    . . . and why, after children are grown, should hands not still
    be busy . . . busy with something even more nurturing for the poet?
    
    There is, after all, a life before, during, and after children.

     
    for many of us, much of this is true, but this part touched be especially:
    
    > No goodnight kiss, no prayers to hear,
           The all belongs to yesteryear
    
    
    
    my 14 yr old son, (my baby) doesn't think it's too cool to kiss
    Mom goodnight, - he was an exceptionally affectionate little boy,
    and many was the night I'd have to say "no more kisses, Brian, lights
    out and to sleep"  and many is the night now that I wish for that
    "one more kiss goodnight, Mom?" from that little boy who thinks
    he's all grown up...                                        
                       

    That was a beautiful poem. I haven't yet stopped giving my kids
    a hug good night and before I retire making a pass through their
    rooms sometimes just standing there thinking back when there
    was a crib where there is now a bed, a baby where there is now
    a 13 year old trying to become a woman; a 14 year old on his
    way to man hood. There are times when I'd like to ring their 
    necks. In my office theres a picture of a my daughter holding 
    a fishing rod and the first fish she ever caught. Its not a 
    big one, maybe six inches, but the grin on her face...
    
    There are times now that I wished I had "just helped a little more",
    " spent more time with an activity they were interested in"
    
    
    Sorry I'm getting carried away.
    Time to go back to work.
    
    dave

The poem in the basenote, and some of the replies so far, remind
me of the song "The Cat's In The Cradle" by the late Harry Chapin.

I know that when my kids were young, too often, when I heard
that song play, I'd get a lump in my throat. 

And I'd resolve to spend more time with them, in their childhood-ness.

To my regret, I didn't always stick to my resolution. 

Sure, I was always there for them, when they needed someone to pour out 
their hearts to, to help them with their homework, go with them to
the movies, chauffeur them to their activities....

But the little day-to-day events with them - playing with blocks, 
helping them with their coloring books, crawling around the floor with 
them on my back - many times got forgotten because I had more "important"
things to do. 

I love both my kids dearly - and they, me. And even though they're now
young adults, we still haven't stopped verbalizing our feelings for each other.
Nor are we hesitant about hugging each other (even my son).
 
But, oh, how I wish I could go back to what, I have since learned, are the 
really important things in life. 

  Alan

    Although I believe the sentiment in the poem is one we all share
    to some degree I think it is sad that the poem indicates that the
    relationship is over once the children are grown.
    
    Only death prevents us from enjoying our family - it is never to
    late!

    Cal,
    
    Thank you for printing and sharing it.
    
    Jan

	Although the wish to do more for a child is there, it isn't
	necessarily a bad thing when parents can't.  Would too much of
	it smother a child?  Will the child have trouble dealing in a
	world where she has to stand on her own?  When you tell a
	child that you can't play now, the child learns to entertain
	herself and not depend on you for constant amusement.

	I'd say the key is not to do things in extremes.  Maybe you
	could have done more, but maybe you should have done less.
	Now, how to find that balance?

	...Karen

    Stopping to smell the flowers is all well and good, but the whole
    point of having a child is that this helpless baby, this child
    with the blocks, the picture books, the first boyfriend, WILL grow
    up and WILL become her own person, no matter what you do. In fact,
    the better you've done your job, the more anxious she'll be to try
    her own wings. 
    
    Yes, enjoy her trip, but don't kick yourself because you could
    have done something different, and especially don't kick yourself
    because her needs aren't the same as yours.  
    
    And if you've done your job well, if you've given her the best of
    herself and the faith to use it, you won't have to regret not
    having the blocks because you'll have the new discoveries and the
    new adventures to share -- both her discoveries and yours.
    
    --bonnie

    re: .0
    I enjoyed the poem and I would like to share another one....
    
    A Touch of Love
    
    
    You were six months old and full of fun
    With a blink of my eye, you were suddenly one.
    
    There were so many things we were going to do,
    But I turned my head and you turned two.
    
    At two you were very dependent on me,
    But independence took over when you turned three.
    
    Your third birthday, another year I tried to ignore,
    But when I lit the candles, there weren't three, but four.
    
    Four was the year that you really strived.
    Why, look at you now, you're already five.
    
    Now you are ready for books and for rules.
    This is the year that you go to school.
    
    The big day came, you were anxious to go.
    We walked to the bus, going oh, so slow.
    
    As you climbed aboard and waved goodbye,
    I felt a lump in my throat and tears stung my eyes.
    
    Time goes so fast, it's hard to believe
    That just yesterday yu were home here with me.
    
    And tommorrow when the bus brings you home and you
       jump to the ground,
    You'll be wearing your cap and graduation gown.
    
    So I'm holding to these moments as hard as I can,
    Because the next time I look, I'll be seeing a man.
    
    
    
    by Cindy Zelinski
    

    Re: .11
    
    Mom did something like that when we were young.  She had four kids
    at the time.  Every now and then one of us would get a "day."  Often
    it involved going shopping for stuff, so there was often a practical
    element to it.  But we'd go out for lunch, which was a treat.  And
    I'd have Mom all to myself for all that time.  My recollections
    might be a little skewed, but I remember having more days than any
    of my three brothers.

    That poem really brought a lump to my throat.    And, then, 'click'
    wait a minute!     My mom was someone that poem describes perfectly--
    you know, she worked (just like my dad) since I can remember and
    had less time to spend with me then stay at home moms.
    But, I don't have any regrets about it.    I know I was one of the
    kids who asked my parents to stay home... but that was balanced
    by the fact that I was equally proud that they worked.   I remember.
    
    Given that when I was a child my parents worked and thus probably had
    a limited time to spend with my two brothers and I, I should be
    able to say about that poem, yeah, that's right.   How come I didn't
    get more time from them?   But, the fact is, I'm perfectly satisfied
    with the way I was brought up.                                  
    
    That poem, lovely as it is, is just borrowing guilt.
    
    Tamar
                                                          

    RE: 13
    
    Tamar,  Thank you for saying exactly what I was feeling but was
    too guilt-ridden to express.
    
    
    Jodi-
    a go-to-work, mom.

    
    
    Hummm,
    
    Why are we always trying to read something into everything we come
    across?
    
    I liked this poem so much I wanted to share it. Not cause it to
    be disected, or give someone a guilt trip!
    
    Perhaps someone might think that way, I hope not. 
    
    I have Children from 19 to 5. What this poem made me do was to think.
    
    You can't change the past, but you can do something about the future.
    
    How can you feel guilt ridden about something that must be done,
    supporting your family! 
    
    Cal.
    

    re: .15 
    
    Cal, you've put your finger on the only way a woman can work in
    this culture without at least some guilt -- if she HAS to [help]
    support her family.  There's nothing wrong with working if
    economics forces you away from your kids. 
    
    If there's anything optional about your choice to work, if you
    willingly abdicate the role of combined teacher/confidante/nurse,
    you get it from every side.  You hear it from feminists who tell
    you that you don't want to be a mother because you've been taught
    not to value "women's work" and you hear it from your mother who
    wonders how your job can be more important than taking care of
    your family.  You hear it from TV shows that act like you don't
    exist, never showing happy working mothers with good careers
    unless they're single and have live-in housekeepers and from poems
    like this one that sound like you're crippling your child's life
    if you expect her to play by herself while you do the dishes. 

    Poems are by their very nature ambiguous.  That's the source of
    their power, but it's also the source of mixed messages like this
    one.  Yes, on the surface it's just a plea to enjoy your children
    more while they're children, and on that level you are getting a
    great deal of good from it.  That's good. 
    
    But the ideas this poem assumes -- such as that there won't be any
    life after the child grows up -- and the emotions it uses to make
    its message are not so good.  You may be able to ignore these
    undertones because they aren't relevant to your situation, but
    that doesn't mean that someone who feels those undertones is
    "reading something into" the poem. 
    
    --bonnie

>>
re: .16
    
   > But the ideas this poem assumes -- such as that there won't be any
   > life after the child grows up -- and the emotions it uses to make
   > its message are not so good.  You may be able to ignore these
   > undertones because they aren't relevant to your situation, but
   > that doesn't mean that someone who feels those undertones is
   > "reading something into" the poem. 
    
    bonnie,
    
    Ahhhhh the light comes on! When you put it that way I do see the
    possibility.
    
    I never mean't it to be taken that way, but we all don't think alike,
    thank God.
    
    Both my wife and I work, because we have to in order to survive.
    If only we could win the lottery.... sigh.
    
    Cal.

    	RE: .16
    
    	Bonnie, I think you are "reading something into" the comments
    	that feminists have made about the fact that fulltime home-
    	making is devalued because it has been traditionally done by
    	women.
    
    	The message is *not* that YOU, personally, should go home and
    	stay with your kids instead of working (and that the only reason
    	you are out working is because you think fulltime homemaking
    	is valueless because it is is woman's work.)
    
    	The idea is that a woman should be allowed the CHOICE of working
    	if she wants to or if she *has* to (and that such work should
    	be compensated with fair wages.)
    
    	Not *all* of us have had the choice to stay home with our kids,
    	but not all of us would have CHOSEN to stay home even if the
    	choice had been present.  In my case, I didn't have the choice
    	(but I wouldn't have taken it even if I'd had it.)
    
    	There is nothing inherently immoral about being a Mother and
    	wanting a career at the same time.  It is no more immoral than
    	Fathers who also want careers.  
    
    	In my mind, the idea is that we value the choice that each person
    	makes and not have to feel that we need to justify our OWN choices
    	by demonstrating that OTHER choices are so terribly wrong.
    
    	My own Mother had three children and made the choice to work
    	(even though her income was relatively insignificant compared
    	to my Father's salary.)  After all three of her children grew
    	up and left home, she stopped working and became a fulltime
    	homemaker (and hired a housekeeper.)  It's pretty obvious to
    	me that she worked when we were children because SHE needed
   	to work, and as her child, I don't fault her for a single minute
    	for it.  She was a much better Mother to us when she was home
    	after work than she would have been if she had been home all
    	day.  She did the best thing for all of us.
    
    	We wanted our Mother to do what she wanted/needed to do in the
    	way of a career because we knew that her happiness would reflect
    	back on all of us at home and that we would benefit from it
   	(which we did.)

    	Had my Mother chosen to be a fulltime homemaker while we were
    	growing up, we would have valued her every bit as much as we
    	did -- my Mother was never "just a <anything>" in her whole
    	life.  She does everything with such a professional flair (with
    	nearly endless attention to detail in everything she pursues)
    	that we would have respected her no matter what she had done.

    	Fulltime homemaking and fulltime computering are both fine arts
    	that deserve respect when done well.  Not many of us can fill
    	one narrow little role our whole lives -- (not even the worst
    	Digital workaholics sleep, eat and perform all their bodily
    	functions in their cubicles; or at least I hope they don't ;-))
    	-- we are all multi-faceted persons.  It is possible to do more
    	than one thing well, too.  It's part of being human (whether
    	we are women or men.)

    This is a little off track, but...When we were at my mother's
    house for Mother's Day, she mentioned something she'd heard
    elsewhere, which I'll paraphrase here: 

    "When you're a mother of a small child, there are lots of
    books and other kinds of information on how to raise a child.
    Everyone has advice, words of wisdom, and experiences of
    their own to share.  Then you become the mother of an adult;
    you're the mother of an adult for a *lot* longer than you
    were the mother of a child.  And no one has any help to offer
    about how to be the mother of an adult."

    -- Linda

    re: .18
    
    I'm going to start a new note to answer this:  it isn't relevant
    to the present situation.
    
    Look for "the new cult of motherhood", coming to the end of this
    notesfile as soon as I finish writing it up.  Probably not until
    after the weekend. 
    
    --bonnie 

    	RE: .20
    
    	Bonnie, per usual, I look forward to your contributions and
    	will wait for your new topic.
    
    	As you are writing it, you may want to ask yourself something.
    	If you are finding that some feminists are glorifying Motherhood,
    	and talking about how wrong our culture has been for thousands
    	of years to have denigrated it as "mere" woman's work (and to
    	have considered it "nothing" compared to the real work of the
    	world, i.e. the work that men have traditionally done) -- does
    	that mean that you, personally, are wrong to have chosen to
    	work outside the home every day?  If fulltime homemaking is
    	deeply valued by feminists, does that mean that you, personally,
    	are wrong not to do it fulltime yourself?
    
    	Having women as CEO's (and in other highly-visible managerial
    	positions) is extremely valued by groups who work for women's
    	rights, correct?  Don't we find ourselves getting a feel for
    	how much progress we are making in the women's rights movement
    	by how many women are rising (along with men) to positions of
    	relative power/authority/responsiblity?
    
    	If I believe that it is important for women to join men in
    	these positions, then is it *my* responsibility to try to 
    	become a CEO (or a Senator, or even a middle manager?)
    
    	No!  I support the idea that women who are qualified and interested
    	in these positions should have the opportunity to reach their
    	goals, but if becoming a CEO/Senator/middle_manager is not *MY*
    	choice, then I am not guilty for not pursuing those positions
    	myself.  I am *not* being disloyal to the idea of women's rights
    	by not pursuing those positions, either.
        
    	I am technical (always have been, always will be, and wouldn't
    	have it any other way.)  I will work my way up through Digital
    	by taking the Corporate Engineering Review Boards that follow
    	the Technical Proficiency Review Board that I passed last fall.
    	It's my choice, it's what I want (and I don't feel the least
    	bit guilty for not aspiring to be a CEO instead.)  
    
    	Choosing to be technical, instead of managerial, is me.  I am
    	not capable of being non-me as well I am able to be me, so I've
    	made the right choice.
    
    	Whatever choice you make for yourself, if it what you really
    	want to do (within the limits of your particular situation)
    	then it is to be valued.  Another woman might have made another
    	choice in your situation, and she should be valued for that,
    	too.
    
    	The idea is that we don't NEED to justify our choices by finding
    	reasons why other choices are less valuable than ours.  If we
    	conduct our lives well, then all our choices (about how to spend
    	the meaningful parts of our lives) can be valued.
    
    	The women's movement is about CHOICE.  (I heard that from an
   	old interview with Gloria Steinham not long ago.)  When the
    	interviewer tried to trip her up with questions about women
    	who CHOOSE to stay home (or choose not to), she cut through
    	it all by saying that the whole movement was just about having
    	CHOICES.
    
    	How you *feel* about the choice you've made is a whole different
    	thing, and is (perhaps) deserving of a whole topic of its own.

    Thank you for clarifying the issues for me . . . I do feel that
    there is a strain of the feminist movement (sorry if I implied ALL
    feminists thought this; careless typing on my part) that glorifies
    the traditionally maternal virtues to the extent of denying that
    women share other, less nurturing emotions. 
    
    It's not so much that I feel that my CHOICE is being condemned as
    that I am not feeling the proper emotions about it.  I feel pretty
    much like I did in high school:  "I am me and this is what I am,
    and I can't find anything around me that describes me in terms of
    womanhood.  Other women think differently, feel differently, do
    different things.  But I don't feel like a bad woman." 

    Only lately I feel like I'm being told I'm not a woman at all.
        
    --bonnie

    
    
    A couple of years ago I was seeing a psychologist, I had requested
    that the clinic assign me to a Feminist - well this woman was and
    she wasn't.  In one of the first sessions we got talking about what
    it means to be identified as Feminist.  She asked me what one had
    to do or believe to be one.  I thought for a moment or less and
    reply - CHOICE to be what, who I want to be - To not to have to
    JUSTIFY my choice but to just state it and for that to be accepted.
    To me this is the whole reason for the woman's movement - to give
    all - every single woman no matter what her color, race, religion
    or size - the ability to make choices about her life. (Period)
    
    It is not my place to deny the validity of anyones choice or to
    request that they defend that choice other that to say it is what
    they choose. (period)
    
    In my life I have choosen to not be a "Mother" though I have two
    children - everyday I live with this choice and it means I had to
    give up some things but my son and my daughter and I accept one
    another as we are not as we would like the other to be.  I work
    because I love the work I do - I could never be a full time housekeeper
    it would drive me crazy.  I care too much for myself to give up
    something that I need for someone else.  Because of this I have
    been called selfish, I see it as "If I can't give ME what I need
    how can I give others what they need and still feel good about it?"
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    			It is your choice to believe in the Goddess
    			It is my choice to see her in you.
    
    

    re: .23
    
    Peggy, could I ask you to elaborate on your statement that you
    have chosen not to be a Mother even though you have two children?
    
    I think you're on the verge of saying what I need to hear,
    but I can't quite put my finger on it.
    
    --bonnie

  
    Peggy, is it that that (i.e., as "a mother") is not how you choose 
    to define yourself?                                  
                 

    
    
    It is that I am not a "mother"  and that is my choice. 
    
    Bonnie,  I have been trying to say it/put it into words that really
    descirbe what I mean but I have not found the correct words.  I
    think we may both being living the same feeling and not being able
    to explain it to anyone else because it is not part of the language
    of our society.  We will have to make up a term for it or we need
    to re-define an existing term.  I have been going through this for
    a number of years - trying to explain what I mean and very few ever
    even coming close to understanding.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    			And me "who is so good with words"
    			am left floundering for the right ones.
    
    

    I know women who consider their children more young friends than
    their children.  Is this along the lines of what you're struggling
    toward?

    They might well be trying to verbalize the same feeling I can't
    quite figure out how to express, but I wouldn't use those words. 
    
    Raising a child to be an independent adult is not the same process
    as friendship, though friendship is frequently a byproduct of the
    process. 
    
    I hope my children will regard me as a friend, but it's entirely
    possible that they could both grow up to be healthy, responsible
    adults unafraid to stand up for what they believe and unwilling to
    compromise their standards for temporary advantage -- and have no
    interests in common with me, nothing that would lead us to be more
    than polite acquaintances who used to live together.  I think
    that's fairly unlikely, but it's not impossible.
    
    Parenthood, the raising of the next generation, is a job that if
    done correctly seeks its own end. Its goal is the production
    of fully functioning, autonomous adults.  
    
    --bonnie

    

	Might I add, Parenting should strive to produce happy adults
        as well as functioning and autonomous.
    
        So often we as parents feel that our role is to impose our
        belief systems and goals and objectives.

    Joyce, I was trying to find the most neutral terms I could to
    describe the process of turning children loose to be themselves.
        
    I was trying to say that I want my children to be able to figure
    out their own goals and then have the courage and personal
    integrity to stick to those goals no matter what the cost. Are
    you trying to say that those are not characteristics of a
    functioning adult but only my values?  
    
    I am willing to believe this is the case; I value integrity
    a lot higher than I do happiness.  In fact, I think the only
    true happiness is a byproduct of being true to oneself.
    
    --bonnie

    Bonnie--
    
    I was just trying to expand on your thought.  And it is along the
    way you described your role as parent.
    
    I think that parents often forget happiness in their goal to make
    their children functioning adults.  Pushing a young person through
    college and into high paying careers does not guarantee happiness
    for the child and I suspect the motivation on the parent's part
    is based on a need to prove their success in parenting.
    
    I often tell a story about my son when he was eight or nine.  I
    worked in a hospital close to home and he would often come to meet
    me and we would walk home together.  I was with an acquaintance
    and Nick said to me..."Mom, when I grow up I want to be just like
    Joe".  Joe was a maintenance man who was friendly and Nick enjoyed
    talking to him.  Joe had explained what he did for the hospital
    and how important his job was.  My acquaintance said to Nick.."Nick
    don't you want to be a doctor?  Doctors save lives and make a lot
    of money".  Nick replied that he felt Joe's job was important and
    he liked being with him.
    
    I told the woman that my goal was to bring up children that knew
    the capacity for happiness and I think I have done that.  Happiness
    is everyone's responsibility but we as parents can contribute 
    significantly to our children's happiness by starting from day one
    to teach them independence and allowing them to establish their
    own goals.
    
    So Bonnie I think we have similar philosophies...
    
    Joyce
                           

    Joyce --
    
    Yes, we appear to be using different words to describe the same
    attitude.  
    
    --bonnie

    
    
    I think that there may now be atleast three of us expressing the
    same concept.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    			A parent with no strings attached.
    			A child with no guilt to get over.
    

re: 34

	Make that four.  I haven't contributed to this topic,
	but I have the same philosophy.  I'm not raising my kids
	to be extensions of myself.  The one thing I wanted them 
	to get out of their childhood was faith in their own 
	personhood, a sense that they were valued for themselves
	and not for what I wanted them to be, and a capacity for
	happiness (as a previous note put it).  As for the rest of
	the details, it's up to them.

    But where is the line between encouraging your daughter to be her
    own woman and pressuring her to be something she doesn't want to
    be? 
    
    Kat is a bright, hard-working, personable kid who gets good grades
    and learns rapidly when she's interested.  She reads voraciously
    and knows pop/rock music inside and out.  She's on good terms with
    practically everybody in school and known for setting her own
    fashion trends.  Sometimes she talks about being a marine
    biologist, a mission control specialist, or a choreographer, but
    most of the time she shows little interest in a career. She just
    likes to write poems, songs, and stories. (Maybe I should get her
    into NOTES?) 
    
    In one way I'm not too worried about it; she's only 14 and has
    plenty of time to figure out what she wants to do with her life.
    But on the other hand I see the boys around her trying to get into
    prep schools so they can get into better colleges and worrying
    about their grades, and I worry that her complacency isn't waiting
    to discover herself but lack of confidence stemming from the
    sexism she's exposed to every day in school and the media.
     
    I don't want to pressure her into getting on the fast track to
    money and success that we mentioned in an earlier note. That's no
    guarantee of happiness.  But on the other hand, it doesn't
    guarantee unhappiness, if one is an ambitious person, and I'd hate
    to think that her ambition had been squelched and I had done
    nothing to help her overcome the handicaps and learn the skills
    that these ambitious boys take for granted.

    One of the main ingredients of liberation is one's ability to
    support oneself so one doesn't need to depend on a man for one's
    income and housing.  Yet sometimes it seems like she's bought into
    a belief that boys can take better care of themselves than girls
    can -- and that the example I set for her is an exception that
    proves the rule, that because I've been successful at what I've
    done, she thinks she can't live up to my standard. Indeed, that
    she might be afraid to try.
    
    Could I really believe that she has faith in her own personhood if
    she were to marry a good friend, whose parents have outlined the
    Ivy-League-Law-school-and-political-career path for him, and live
    her life promoting his career and raising his children, modestly
    declining praise?  It's one thing to talk about liberation and
    choice, but if that choice is made from fear of failure and lack
    of skills, is it a free choice? 
    
    --bonnie

    I have to agree with some of the sentiment in bonnie's .36
    
    Anyone see the PBS special called "7-ups".  It tracked the lives
    of about 9 British children from the age of 7 up to age 28 by
    interviewing them every 7 years.  The children they chose were from
    both upper class and working class schools.
    
    With some exceptions the well off children grew to be well off adults
    and the poor children grew up to be poor adults.
    
    The messages that I gleaned from this was that the well off children
    followed in their parents footsteps because their parents knew what
    had to be done to succeed in this world and they made dam sure that
    their children knew it.  The poor children did not have the same
    advantage.  Although the poor children were no less bright, their
    paths to success were had many more false starts and failures.  If
    a child has to invent their own way they are much more likely to
    fail then a child who has a nearly certain path to success laid out
    for them.
    
    It seems to me that the passing on of the learned knowledge of how
    to live well to your children is part of the meaning of life.  What
    is the point of going through the pain of failure if I cannot save
    my child the pain of making the same mistakes?  I would not want
    to be so ridged that I force my child to live my life minus the
    mistakes, after all, I don't know if I chose the best path or even
    if the knowledge I have gained is right.
    
    						MJC O->

    Who's concept of success are you talking about, who's concept of
    failure.  Each of us, including teenages, wear many faces from time
    to time and what is success to us today is failure tomorrow.  I
    do not even attempt to define "success" to my kids.  The closest
    I come to it is to remind them (probably daily) that they have to
    take care of themselves because no one else is going to do it for
    them.
    
    There has been a lot of pain on my part because it is very difficult
    to watch someone you care about make the same mistakes or worse
    then you did - BUT - they do and there is nothing you can do but
    remember that you lived through it.
    
    In order to not OWN your children you have to be willing to let
    them discover life for themselves and that life may not be anything
    you could have ever imagined for yourself.  After all my parents
    have to deal with who and what I am, my kids can't make a much more
    drastic choice of lifestyle.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    			I see traces of myself in their actions
    			and sometimes that is the most painful part
    			of life.
    
    

    re: .38 
    
    Peggy, I wasn't talking about success so much as I was about
    choices.  I want my daughter to be able to choose what will
    make her feel successful.  

    I'm worried that the deep-seated sexism of society and my own
    unwillingness to force her into a mold is going to deprive her --
    has already begun to deprive her -- of the experiences and the
    skills she would need in order to make certain choices. 
    
    Yet it seems that any steps I take to try to give her these skills
    and expose her to those experiences amounts to pressure or to
    trying to live her life for her. 
    
    Isn't there any ground in between?
    
    --bonnie

    re: .39

I understand exactly what you mean.  With my two kids, by daughter is 
the more self-assured and ambitious, and I don't worry excessively about 
her future.  She knows what she wants, and pity anyone who gets in her 
way.  My son is the one who is very bright, but unmotivated: he's an 
erratic student, and would rather spend all his time drawing mutants and 
superheroes.  

I want both of my kids to have as many choices for their lives as 
possible.  I try to emphasize that doing well in school doesn't 
necessarily mean much in and of itself.  Its value is that in our 
society, it gives you more choices.  Sigh.  I don't know if they can 
appreciate that, though.  Too bad youth is wasted on the young.
I don't want to pressure them either.  I'm winging it -- there's no line
down the middle of the road. We'll see in 20 years how it turned out.

    Re .37, I think there's a lot of truth in what that TV show had
    to say.  I think I'm one of those people who grew up in a poor family
    with nobody to teach me how to become a success.  My parents just
    seemed to think that college educations and high paying jobs were
    for other people.  I feel sometimes that nobody told me anything
    about how to get along in life when I was a kid and that by the
    time I found out some things it was too late (for certain things
    anyway).  When I was a kid I accepted a very traditional view of
    life.  I accepted the fact the there were certain jobs that only
    men did (except maybe once in a great while one strange woman would
    become a pilot or doctor or something), most women just grew up
    got married had kids and became housewives and I didn't question that
    they could ever have done anything else.  Now I wind up a divorced
    woman struggling to make it on a secretary's pay.  It makes you
    question a few things.
    
    Anyway, because of this I have always told my daughter that the
    most important thing in life is for her to get good grades, go to
    college and get a good paying job so that she can support herself
    well.  I have always encouraged her to be more independent than
    I was, and to make her own life her priority, not becoming part
    of a man's life.  So far, things look good.  She just got a 98 in
    her Algebra final, and it thrills me to think that "my own flesh
    and blood" can figure that crap out!!  (I got a 63 in my Algebra
    final.)  She also got elected to the student council and was very
    excited about it.  When I was in school I had no interest in that
    type of thing.  It's fascinating to observe the ways that she is
    different from me and to also notice the ways she reminds me of
    myself, too.  I'm trying to encourage her to be successful (in the
    sense of being self-supporting and liking her job and life) by telling
    her things I learned as an adult that nobody told me or impressed
    upon me when I was that age.  But, I'm also trying to accept the
    fact that we are separate people who will not always agree on
    everything.  It's interesting to have a child who is more well adjusted
    than I was!
    
    Lorna
    

    Unremitting pressure is unhealthy to live with, but I don't think
    that means that all pressure is bad.  It's a good thing I had some
    pressure on me in high school -- I was too identified with my emotions
    to care much what I was doing intellectually at the time.  
    
    But if I hadn't gotten through all those courses, I wouldn't be
    here writing this now.
    
    If I were a parent, I think I'd be trying to find the balance between
    putting abusive unremitting pressure on my child, and being too
    laissez-faire so that the child ends up not being able to do anything
    that she doesn't 'feel like' at the time.

    re. 42
    
    Thanks for writing, Holly. Not being a parent, I too have only my
    experiences as a child to draw on. My mom can be very assertive
    in what she wants for me, but she doesn't notice. Right now, she's
    been hinting (along with most of her peers) about when I'm going
    to go back and get that Master's degree. I've been trying to tell
    her that a 2.0 cum is a handicap, but she's more optimistic. :-)
    At any rate, I'm DELIGHTED at what mom has "encouraged/pushed" me to
    do with my life. She put me on a path to be self-supporting very
    early. And the one time that I said something dumb about "oh well,
    if this doesn't work I'll just get married and have babies!" I didn't
    hear the end of it for a while. I think we owe it to our daughters
    to make clear to them that in today's day and age, a career is a
    must. I'm not saying what that career needs to be; I'd be happy
    with an auto mechanic or garbage collector. They have steady incomes!
    But I think a disservice is done to any child who is not taught a
    strong work ethic. And it may really backfire if the child never
    leaves home because he or she isn't able or willing to be self-supporting.
    (You also owe it to a daughter to teach her emotional self-sufficiency.
    Trust me, it cuts down on the phone bill!  :-)  )  
                                         
    The reason why I mentioned daughters is because somewhere in society,
    men/boys are taught that success in life has to do with holding
    down a job. Bums are NOT successful. And last I heard, most of them
    aren't shining examples of happy people either. But it is women
    without career training who are shafted by society. Women who don't
    grow up expecting to get a job, to earn their own incomes, etc.
    at least in some portion of their lives. I must admit that in my
    family we were taught never to count on men for income, never to
    count on marriage for a lifestyle. There wasn't enough of a guarantee.
    Not everyone wants to teach that kind of downer to their daughters.
    But the woman who moves from home to marriage without EVER learning
    to care for herself is possibly the woman most afraid to leave an
    abusive marriage. (Hypothesis - I have no statistics!) There are
    few things that I feel more strongly about not wishing on my worst
    enemy than such a marriage. But until our society stops teaching
    women that any marriage is better than no marriage, it is up to
    the parents to teach their daughters something different.
                                                     
    I must admit that I have totally interjected my values. And clearly,
    I plan to do so when my daughters come along (I'll probably adopt...)
    Since I'm not a parent, I'd like to know if I'm off-base. But please
    break it to me gently.
    
    And anyone who thinks that marriage is far more important/reliable
    in a woman's life than I have stated; please, let us agree to disagree. 
              
    Ren