Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    re .0 Are you assuming that there is only the husbands income 
    to work with ? Or some 'other' source of money to pay the wife
    with ? Honestly, darn few men could *afford* wives/mothers for
    their children. My old man worked long hours to keep mom, me,
    and five other kids in shoes, a roof, and fed. If he'd had to
    pay her a salary ? Impossible. As for government paying it ?
    *He* would have had to pay more taxes. Where's the gain ?
    
    I do believe that if the wife must stay home (raising kids, etc.)
    she should receive part (1/2?) of the disposable income available to
    the family, after the mortgage, food, etc. is paid. Trouble is,
    with only one wage earner, the total disposable income is still
    going to be awful low. 
    
    I don't think a formal 'wage' is practical. 

RE:  .1  Yeah, I can see the bumper sticker now.

MOMS, NOT BOMBS

john

    	After a lot of argument about how and where to spend money my wife
    and I adopted something like .2.  If we don't waste time arguing, then 
    each of us gets $50/week which is our own.  To someone who is single
    that may not sound like much, but it does add up, we each get equal
    compensation, and we get to spend money on the things we want without
    having to worry about what someone else thinks.  For things that we
    agree are common expenses we spend the rest of our money.
    	Now if we could do something similar for time.
    						John
    

Dorian, it is very easy to *say* "spend more on moms and less on bombs"
but it really doesn't mean much.  Even if we agree thta the *source* of
the money should come from decreased defense spending, you have still
never suggested a method of distribution.  In the Mother's Day note, I
gave some objections to making Mothering into a formal job, such as the 
fact that then people must prove their worthiness and competency to be
allowed to choose that profession, which means enforced birth control.
How do you respond to that?

I think, if you *really* feel that homemakers should be paid for their
work, that saying something simple like "moms not bombs" is a cop-out.
It *sounds* so simple that it implies that it is easy to implemement, there-
fore that it *hasn't* been implemented must be due to maliciousness or
sexism or discrimination or some other Bad Thing.  But it isn't that simple,
and I don't think if you can't even discuss details less vague than
"moms not bombs" than it isn't fair to point fingers and say "Obviously
it is sexism why Mom's don't get paid, since the money is there."

i would be genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts on how you think
giving a slaray to home makers might begin to be accomplished. What
standards do you propose for determining who qualifies?  How will paying
mothers to mother be different than welfare?  Does the money go up with
more kids, since the work is harder?  (presumably it doesn't go up just
because you have more mouths to feed - my salary wouldn't go up if I had
a kid.)

D!

I work for fun.  Joy gets all of my paycheck -and- then she pays the bills.
If we ever spend money on ourselves, it is with the knowledge of the other.
It is one pot, one unit; no his and her money.

For *us*, it is a good thing.  When we got married 11 years ago, I would spend
anything that was in my pocket.  She clutched the pennies.  I gave her the 
finances early on.  It has allowed me to become more responsible with money,
although the tendency is still there.  I have also gotten her to spend a 
bit more when we have it.

The point is that *my* homemaker doesn't need compensation because the money
isn't owned separately but collectively.  (In fact, like I said before, she
gats in all, in a sense.  And then so do I.)

Mark Metcalfe

    re .0
    
    Should she then also be responsibile for comming up with her *share*
    of the mortgage, car payment, insruance, food, etc.  I had a friend
    who's wife brought up this subject.  He worked.  She didn't.  Finances
    were tight.  She wanted a salary for taking care of *his* house,
    chilren, etc.  He asked what she wanted for salary.  She gave him
    a figure.  He then stated that if that was the kind of arrangement
    that they were going to have, then she should be responsible for
    her share of the expenses.  She came out in the hole.  The bottom
    line was there was not a lot of money to go around or *either* of
    them after the expenses were paid.  *Both* were able to purchace
    what they needed, but formalizing some sort of *salary* just turned
    a marriage into legalized prostitution.
    
    I think we're talking about the *housewife* here and not the 
    *professional* woman.  I do realize that nearly all contributors
    to this notes file are probably providing their *share* or more.
    
    fred()

    Fred,
    
    You keep speaking over and over of "legalized prostitution".  Since
    prostitution is a victimles "crime", and since the only reason that
    prostitution is illegal is that our current, patriarchal religions
    oppose it, and since the only reason that they oppose it is that it
    was an integral part of the earlier, Goddess-based religions,
    
    Why do you object to prostitution?
    
    							Ann B.

Legalism, yes; prostitution, no, Fred.  At least I have a problem with
this scenario.

I agree that splitting it according to mine/your money lines trivializes
a relationship (IMO), escpecially in the bread-winner/homemaker households
(like my own - excuse my terminology if it offends you).

I don't like the inference that paying money for housework equals paying
for sex from one's wife.  I think even my familial situation can allow
for money allowances without "paying for services."

If one pays for the housework being done, then one also docks pay for
incomplete housework (no matter what excuse).  I think that's the wrong
way to build a relationship, a partnership, and complimentary system
of cohabitation.

I guess what I mean is that sex is *NOT* part of the household chores and
has no bearing on the compensation of the homemaker.  Sex is a privilege
and an expression of passion and emotion and desire.  It is not
something to be done on Thursday's after the laundry is folded.

Mark Metcalfe

P.S. I ask my wife for pin money.  :-)  Why?  'cause it ain't *mine*
to spend.  It goes to nurture the family, whatever that entails.

Regarding .9.

Rathole! Rathole!

But not a bad subject for another discussion:

Is prostitution good/bad/neither/victimless?

    Yes, a rathole it is.
    
    I think it's a good subject, but I'm feeling unpresumptive today.
    
    						Ann B.

re .5 -

>	I think, if you *really* feel that homemakers should be paid for their
>	work, that saying something simple like "moms not bombs" is a cop-out.
>	It *sounds* so simple that it implies that it is easy to implement, 
>	therefore that it *hasn't* been implemented must be due to 
>	maliciousness or sexism or discrimination or some other Bad Thing.  
>	But it isn't that simple, and I don't think if you can't even discuss 
>	details less vague than	"moms not bombs" than it isn't fair to point 
>	fingers and say "Obviously it is sexism why Mom's don't get paid, 
>	since the money is there."


My goodness, was I copping out? I thought I was just waxing poetic. Well I
really do apologize.  :-(

I'm also very sorry that I do not have the answers to your questions. I 
believe, however, that someone in the Mothers' Day string said it was all 
right for us to identify a problem even if we didn't have the solution. Of 
course, if you think it's *not* all right, maybe we could take this to the 
processing topic...

This string brings up more or less what I meant by trying to cure cancer
with a bandaid. We're talking about a society that is totally structured by
men, in which work has long been defined as what men do, and in which what
women do (even if some do call it work; but witness the oft-heard response
to the question, "Do you work?" "Oh no, I'm just a housewife.") not work,
or certainly not work that matters, or *certainly* not work that should get
paid. 

I do indeed believe "homemakers" work, and that, since ours is a society 
that measures value in terms of money, they should get paid. What the best 
mechanism might be for implementing this is beyond my feeble powers to 
figure out, since it would essentially involve *un*doing much of our 
present male-dominated socio/economic structure and starting over. Perhaps, 
if there's a husband or a SO who has a paying job, that person could pay
the homemaker/mother a salary that would be hers to keep. Perhaps the money
could come from the government. I don't know. We'd need highly trained
lawyers, I guess, to provide the best answer...

Also, I don't mean to imply that it's obviously sexism that moms don't get 
paid. I mean to come right out and say just that; that's exactly what it 
is. Sexism. IMHO.

A couple of quotes may be relevant here:

"The maintenance of daily life and the rearing of children are absolutely 
fundamental to any society, but in our own, men have foisted the daunting 
task upon women, have denied that it constitutes work, have made it no part 
of their sciences of sociology or economics to name but a few, and have 
required that women do all this for love. Under the circumstances the fear 
that women might not choose to be wives and mothers, that they might even 
remain independent of men if any other options were available to them, is 
probably justified." -- Dale Spender, Invisible Women, 1982, pp. 25-26

"The housewife does indeed work...and what is the value of her work in 
economic terms? Economists of the Chase Manhattan Bank of New York have 
recently calculated that the thirty million American women, who do not work 
outside the home and who list their occupations as "housewives", are each 
doing unpaid work worth $257.53 a week on the current labor market. [this
was before 1977] The work they do includes twelve different skills categories. 
Each of the services the housewife performs becomes a legitimate paid 
occupation when performed by men in the market place....The aggregate of 
housewives' services amounts to $250 billion a year, which would be a 
sizable portion of the GNP, if it were in it...." Gerda Lerner, quoted in 
Dale Spender, Invisible Women, 1982, p. 25

Dorian
                 

>I'm also very sorry that I do not have the answers to your questions. I 
>believe, however, that someone in the Mothers' Day string said it was all 
>right for us to identify a problem even if we didn't have the solution. Of 
>course, if you think it's *not* all right, maybe we could take this to the 
>processing topic...

It is all right to *point* out a problem.  The problem is that women's work,
and in specific, homemaking, is undervalued.  But you *have* suggested a
solution - that we pay homemakers.  You not only have suggested it, but have
suggested it in a number of different notes, enough that I would even say
you are *advocating* it actively.  Pushing it, even.

It seems to me that you are saying "Cancer is a problem".  Okay.  But you
are also saying "Cancer can be cured by milk."  But you won't say why or
how.  Milk?  Drunken?  Intravenously?  Looked at?  What?  But you don't say,
you just insist that if doctors knew what they were doing, they would use
milk.

I find it very frustrating when someone discusses a solution as if it is
obvious, and furthermore suggests that sexism is the reason that that solution
isn't being implemented, without being willing to discuss the solution even
in the *vaguest* of terms.  Until you convince me that your solution *is* a
solution, how can I accept that it is sexism that prevents it from being
implemented?  Maybe the reason it isn't implemented is because it is
ridiculous and unworkable.  Or maybe it is because people are selfish.  Or
whatever.

I am really not asking you to discuss implementation *details*, like whether
homemakers should pick up their checks at the Welfare Department or they should
be mailed to them.  I am talking about very *fundamental* problems with the
concept itself.  The *biggest* one I see is that if mothering becomes a Job,
then it means only those "qualified" are allowed to be mothers.  Do you or
do you not agree that this is a logical conclusion of making motherhood a Job?
If so, does it *bother* you?  It sure bothers me.

If you suggested that a cure to world hunger is kill 3/4 of the population of
the planet, I would say Maybe that would cure hunger, but the results are
immoral!  I would not be discussing *details*, but fundamental problems with
the *concept* of implementation.  I am opposed, at a fundamental level, of
the idea that someone (anyone!) should determine who is allowed to raise
babies and who isn't.  That appears to me to be logically tied to the idea
of paying mothers a formal salary.  

>What the best 
>mechanism might be for implementing this is beyond my feeble powers to 
>figure out, since it would essentially involve *un*doing much of our 
>present male-dominated socio/economic structure and starting over. 

So you are saying that the *reason* we don't totally revamp society, from
the ground-up, is because we are sexist? I say it is because it is impossible.
We can't just decide, today, that we want the world the be flat, and the
make it so.  But you are suggesting we can, and should, and *pushing* the
idea.

(If the comment about "feeble powers" is an attempt to make me feel guilty
or sorry for you or something, give it up.  You and I both know that you
reasoning powers are far from "feeble" so why do you say that?")

>Perhaps, 
>if there's a husband or a SO who has a paying job, that person could pay
>the homemaker/mother a salary that would be hers to keep. 

Thank you.  At least this is an implementation suggestion. I disagree, and I
cite various personal accounts in this string of why that isn't the best - that
is, the money is already pooled, etc.

>Perhaps the money could come from the government. 

Yes, you suggested that before (Moms not bombs.)  I objected to that to, for
reasons already discussed.

>I don't know. We'd need highly trained
>lawyers, I guess, to provide the best answer...

As I said, I don't want a 150 page propsal to be implemented tomorrow.  I want
to discuss broad implications of what you are saying, but you won't even do
that.  So I can't take the idea seriously.  And I cant take seriously the idea 
that the reason no one else is taking it seriously is because of sexism.

D!

    
In France, in the 50-60ies time-frame, a policy of encouraging large families 
was implemented by the government. Though this was not seen as a "mother's 
salary", a sum of money was paid to the parents increasing proportionally to
the number of children a family had. The theory of it all was very reasonable, 
and corresponded to the government's goal to encourage natality and women 
staying at home to raise their numerous offsprings. The plan was very generous,
money-wise.

Unfortunately, this plan did not take into account... HUMAN NATURE. What 
happened was many poor or near-poor family started deliberately having kids to 
ameliorate their standard of living: with the first kid you could by a new 
kitchen range, with the next one a colour TV, a new car with the 3rd one, etc,
by the time you got to the 10th kid, dad could also give up his job and live on 
the family allowance. But this money did not buy most children a better life:
it bought the PARENTS more material comfort. The French government finally had 
to revise this policy completely, and bring back the "family allowance" to much
lower levels... however it isn't anymore an incentive to have kids or to stay 
at home and raise them.

Christiane Rochefort, a French writer who was the eldest of such a family, 
wrote a book called "Les Petits Enfants du Siecle" (litterally: This Century's
Small Children"). If it has been translated in English, I recommend it as a
very telling example of how to get disastrous results with good intentions.

Note that I am not against paying mothers a salary, but just showing an example
of how such a plan did go wrong...

Joana                                            

    I think Dorian had a firm foundation for her thoughts.  That women are
    undervalued.  Her proposed solution was perhaps one of the only ones
    that society would NOTICE, would HAVE TO NOTICE, because the primary
    way the people who are running this country assign value is with MONEY. 
    Of course it would be nigh-unto-impossible to implement, but only
    because of the way the nation is being run - based on espionage and
    distrust and technological war devices, based on bureaucracy and
    several thousand cogs testing and trying and sampling data and ensuring
    that nobody gets any more or less than their fair share.  Only some
    people AREN'T getting a fair share, particularly of respect.  Few
    awards go out to mothers.  Few honorable mentions are made of the hours
    they spend.  
    
    I suspect in order to enact some sort of valuing system for mothers
    that would work, we would have to restructure society to be more
    focused on valuing warm human attributes, good will, trust, respect,
    strength of character, nurturing.....and if that WERE the case, if we
    were to suddenly value mothers the way they deserve to be valued,
    society itself would have changed completely, and all
    the money that goes to bombs and technological SDI and espionage, and
    counterespionage, and the NSA and the CIA and mistrust would be
    INSTANTLY available for other things - because we would not NEED all
    that stuff.  It would no longer serve its purpose.
    
    I doubt society would change to enable this.  If things are valued and
    shown respect by the current societal psyche, money is the one thing
    that would show mothers mattered.  If the skills mothers have were
    elevated in our eyes to where a different type of society could value
    them (TRULY value them), then money would be readily available.
    
    But perhaps I expect too much of human nature when I anticipate its
    potential fruition....
    
    -Jody
    

Re: .13

>"The maintenance of daily life and the rearing of children are absolutely 
>fundamental to any society, but in our own, men have foisted the daunting 
>task upon women, have denied that it constitutes work, have made it no part 
>of their sciences of sociology or economics to name but a few, and have 
>required that women do all this for love. ..."

I go to work for the love of my family!  My wife, Joy stays home for the love
of our family.  I haven't foisted anything.  Your source makes a sweeping
generalization.

I agree with .14 that the contention of the home-work is undervalued is 
wrong - dead wrong.  While some people might take it for granted, it is
certainly not valueless.

Who's going to pay the home-makers of America?  The Taxpayers?!
Who is going to pay my homemaker?  Me?  I already do!  It's one big
honey pot.

If you are talking about disposable income, I *could* give Joy one half
of my paycheck and I get one half and then argue over who pays what bill.
"I'm sorry honey.  I over-spent mine on a good deal on a bowling ball.
Well, you can't use my half.  Some bill will have to be unpaid."

My wife and I do not believe in the 50-50 relationship.  We believe in the
100-100 realtionship where we give 100% of ourselves to each other.
None of "I've done my share.  I'll go this far and no farther for you."
We go a lot farther because we give to each other; not apportion out
the treasure to hoard.

What happens is one of us gets more than half (that is, the definition of 
fairness?)  We don't know because when she's wanted something that meant
I wait a little while for my trinket, she gets it; the same goes for me.
Friends and lovers don't keep score.  

    It bothers me that for centuries a huge part of the population (almost all 
    of them female) have done lots of hard work for no money.  And that those 
    same people have often been subject to the whims and/or reliability of 
    their bread-winning mates.  That after years and years of hard work, many 
    of them receieve no pension, or it dries up when the bread-winner dies.  
    That many of those same people have been forced to stay in abusive 
    marriages because they could not afford to leave.  That up until quite 
    recently the other part of the population, the bread-winning part (almost 
    all of them male) have been able to hide, squander, or gamble away "their" 
    money while their wives and children went hungry.  Many men throughout the
    centuries have been kind, loving, generous, honest, decent, BUT
    until quite recently in our history, women have had to hope, pray for,
    and then rely on getting one of the good ones.  If they got one of the
    bad ones, they had no recourse, because they had no money.  When I consider
    those things, I can imagine why some women might want to think about the 
    importance of being able to earn money for the work they do.  The fact 
    that it seems almost impossible in our current economic system, might mean 
    that I am a hopeless, impractical idealist who just doesn't understand 
    real economics, or it might be an illustration of the point I'm trying to 
    make: that money has liberated some and enslaved others.  
    
    Justine

    Re .20, beautifully said, and so true.
    
    When I was younger I used to wish that I could afford to be a stay
    at home wife, but for the entire 12 yrs. of my marriage there wasn't
    one week that I didn't bring in a paycheck, although small.  I was
    out of work, and on unemployment, for 8 months in 1974 when my daughter
    was born, and even then I had $57. a week that was mine.  It wasn't
    much but at least some portion of the money was mine.  If I could
    help pay a bill, and then buy a $15. blouse, for example, then I
    could without asking my husband for money.  In recent years I haven't
    been able to imagine being a completely stay-at-home wife, without
    any personal income at all.  I think it would be very frightening
    to have to depend upon the whim of another person for any money
    at all, even $6. to go to a movie, or buy a paperback book.  In
    fact, I think the only way that I could ever be a stay-at-home
    housewife now would be if I was guaranteed an agreed upon salary
    by my husband.  It's very idealistic to say that people who are
    in love don't have to account for money, and just share, but as
    time goes on people can change, and nobody knows what the future
    holds.  It's much safer to have "a purse of one's own" like Justine
    said.
    
    Lorna
    

>    It's very idealistic to say that people who are
>    in love don't have to account for money, and just share, but as
>    time goes on people can change, and nobody knows what the future
>    holds.  It's much safer to have "a purse of one's own" like Justine
>    said.

I never said one doesn't have to account for money.  We'd be inthe poor house
if that were the case.  We just don't account for whose turn it is if turns
are needed (limited extra cash, if any).  By the way, Joy provides child 
care in the home and brings in a little extra herself.  It goes into the pot.

We do *loosely* consider it hers as we consider my check *ours*.  The reality
is that our bills are paid from my check, extras (like finishing the basement,
putting a deck on the pool, buying new clothes - not a budgeted item) come
from her money.

It is ideal to be selfless but not altogether unrealistic.  Yes, there are
those who have kept the wimmin and children in poverty while controlling
the money vigorously.  

As for the purse of one's own, my wife has a credit card that (guess what)
is shared jointly.  We impact each other, we share the money and the debt.
When and if the sharing becomes painfully out of balance, then the matter
needs a strong look see.

    
    The solution is to include all work in the category of work that
    receives money. Even work done by women.

    A number of replies have stated (or implied) that the value system is
    based on money and without pay people are not valued, are not seen to
    have value, by society.
    
    How does this relate to the number of *valued* volunteers in the world:
    the red cross, boy scouts, girl scouts/guides, big sisters/brothers,
    pick you own favourite charity.  I don't believe that society as a
    whole sees these volunteers as valueless.
    
    Maybe there is a problem with our perception of mothers/homemakers, but
    it's not a simple "give them money and they'll have value" issue.
    
    Bob

    re .24
    Dorian, since you've boiled down your solution to one sentence,
    I'll boil down the counter-argument likewise : "Where does the money
    come from ?"
    
    An impractical solution is *no* solution.
    
    

    
re:.23

    The basic problem is that for centuries, women's hard work consisted of 
    raising their offspring, and/or keeping their living quarters in order 
    and *that provides nothing to the economy*. 
    
    >you said a mouthful, doc
    

    
re: .25
        
>    How does this relate to the number of *valued* volunteers in the world:
>    the red cross, boy scouts, girl scouts/guides, big sisters/brothers,
>    pick you own favourite charity.  I don't believe that society as a
>    whole sees these volunteers as valueless.
  
    No, but it seems to see mothering as less valuable than volunteering...
    Try the following exercise...
================================================================================
Note 70.20                     Mothers Day Wishes                       20 of 57
LYRIC::BOBBITT "pools of quiet fire..."              34 lines   1-MAY-1990 14:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    more thoughts.....
    
    I think another clue to how much we could value motherhood can be found
    in the following:
    
    Someone walks up to you and says:
    
    "I gave 3 hours to public television taking donations over the phone
    	last night"
    
    You think they're charitable, and kind, they feel they've made a
    contribution, you smile and acknowledge that you feel they have too.
    
    "I gave 6 hours to a battered women's shelter comforting women in 
    	pain"
    
    You think they're kind, understanding, giving, and that they're a real
    humanitarian who strives to reduce the plight of human suffering.  And
    they have.
    
    "I gave 20 hours coordinating the Walk for Hunger, and setting up
    waystations along the route, and getting pledges"
    
    Now they're giving time, energy, and coordinational ability towards a
    tremendous city-wide effort to help those in need.  Highly appreciable
    and a good deal of effort - beyond the call of duty in many ways.
    
    "I gave 14 hours of my time to my children today."
    "I do this every day."
    
    How does it sound now?
    
    -Jody

 re .23:

    Actually, technically, women's raising their offspring *does* provide
    something to the economy, in the form of a labor pool.  If we viewed
    the labor pool as any other raw material, then mothers would receive
    lump-sum compensation when their child was hired for a "paying" job,
    and the child would not her/himself be paid.  The mother would then
    be responsible in turn for compensating the father for use of his 
    sperm, etc.

    Alternately, since we are accustomed to viewing the labor pool more 
    as a "rented" commodity, we could institute a requirement that all
    or part of the child's paycheck go directly to their mother.  This
    method would also address some of D!'s "quality" concerns, although
    not without opening several other cans of worms.

    For example: if a child comes from a long line of homemakers and 
    only children on the female side, who gets the money?  

    And imagine the pressure on the part of parents for their children to
    work at [well-] paying jobs, to be "marketable commodities".  I can't
    think of a faster way to put full-time homemakers out of business.

	Sharon

>    Of course it would be nigh-unto-impossible to implement, but only
>    because of the way the nation is being run - based on espionage and
>    distrust and technological war devices, based on bureaucracy and
>    several thousand cogs testing and trying and sampling data and ensuring
>    that nobody gets any more or less than their fair share.  

So in other words "Home-makers should be paid" is a rhetorical, kind of
meaningless wish-statement sort of like "People shouldn't fight with
each-other" and "I wish we still had an ozone layer."  That I can accept -
I have no problem with a recogniztion of badness in the world.  What
I was objecting to wasn't a rhetorical wish-statement, but the continual
pushing of it as *if* it were a proposed solution.

So I guess it comes down to: Dorian, do you feel you are making a *suggestion*
(that someone should pay women) or an *observation* (that women deserve to
be paid.)  If it is an observation, no problem (although I might disagree)
but then why do you keep *pushing* it over and over, as if it were a 
suggested solution to some problem.  If it is a *suggestion*, then again,
I can't take it seriously, if you can't defend it against some conceptual
flaws (I feel) that myself and the Doctah have bought up?

 >   I suspect in order to enact some sort of valuing system for mothers
>    that would work, we would have to restructure society [...]
>    the money [...] would be
>    INSTANTLY available for other things - because we would not NEED all
>    that stuff.  It would no longer serve its purpose.
 
So what you are saying is that if *society* were the way it should be,
then homemakers *would* be valued *and* paid, is this right?  This seems
like a reasonable observation (though again, I might disagree), but that
doesn't mean that *paying* homemakers will change society to be the way
it should.  We come back to: is this idea of paying homemakers an observation
("Homemakers do real work, and if society were the way it should be, they
would be payed, and therefore the fact that they aren't paid is an indication
that something is wrong with society") or a suggestions ("Society is wrong,
and one way to go about fixing it would be to pay home-makers.")

D!

    
    I'm saying society is definitely wrong not to pay them. When I also say
    that figuring out how to pay them is difficult (and others agree with
    me here), I'm saying that the reason is that society is structured in a
    totally male-dominated way, which would have to be unstructured and
    re-structured in (at least to some extent) a female-dominated way, or
    perhaps a more sharing way. Look, I didn't create the lopsided system
    we have now. I don't know how to fix it. Paying homemakers a salary
    might be part of a way to fix it - better than nothing. But until we 
    reconstruct the basic values that have led society to be the way it is, 
    that would probably be at best a superficial solution.
    
    Sorry if this sounds confused. I don't know if it answers your
    questions.
    
    Dorian

    
    
    I suspect that there is general agreement here that this problem does
    not have a simple, easy-to-implement solution, but I'm still willing 
    (and maybe others are, too) to complain about what we have and speculate 
    and fantasize about how it could be different or what I'd like to see.  
    
    re .23, Mark, I think the solution you propose is a lot like what we
    have: many women have chosen to do work that pays instead of or in
    addition to the work of raising children.  That way they get to
    be in the economy, and they have more security.  But I imagine that you
    can see how this solution is not without problems.  I think it
    perpetuates the notion that work that pays is real work, and work that
    doesn't pay, i.e., women's work, is not real work.  I know that's not
    what you've said, and that many people truly value the work that
    mothers do.  But I think that if our answer to those women who have
    been doing the unpaid work of raising children is "well, get a paying
    job, then," we run the risk of continuing the devaluing of "women's
    work."
    
    I imagine that the kind of society that would begin to address the true
    value of the work of women would be a socialist, egalitarian society,
    where basic needs like shelter, food, health care, and education were
    guaranteed and where child care and household chores were truly shared
    -- Kind of a Walden II, I guess.  After doing their share of basic
    work, folks could be free to pursue other goals and interests: art,
    music, money making(?).  I don't see the U.S. evolving into that
    kind of society anytime soon, but I suppose that those of us who
    chose to live that way could create a community like that for
    ourselves.
    
    Justine

Re: .32

>    I'm saying that the reason is that society is structured in a
>    totally male-dominated way, which would have to be unstructured and
>    re-structured in (at least to some extent) a female-dominated way, or
>    perhaps a more sharing way.

The reason *is* that society is structured in a totally me-dominated way.
           ^^^^                                         ^^

    re most of the above
    
    Should fathers then also be paid for mowing the lawn, maintence
    on the house, maintenance on the vehicles,  his care of the kids,
    taking the kids camping, etc.
    
    fred();

    sure...proportionally, of course - per hour and per amount of attention
    he pays to what he is doing.  Bet the standard female homemaker would
    still outgross him by a longshot.
    
    -Jody
    
    
    

	And should the homemaker pay the "breadwinner" for food, lodging,
	etc?

			Alfred

    Fred, you're on the mark here.
    
    I don't think that homemakers should be paid. I think that people who
    undertake the job of raising children should be paid. Otherwise, they
    should have a different job. And if they are not working at EITHER job,
    then they should not be paid.
    
    Yes, raising children is a job. Mark, I think you're being foolish in
    saying that when a woman chooses to take on the job of raising
    children, she should accept the fact that she has to do it free of
    charge. We NEED children. Life is pretty bad when you hit your 80's and
    there's no one younger to keep things going. And they've got to come
    from somewhere.
    
    I think I would feel a LOT more comfortable if there was a difference
    between people who work in their home, raising children, and people who
    stay home because their spouse makes enough so that they don't have to
    work.   I don't remember Robin Givens being a homemaker. I don't recall
    that Joanna Carson was. I'll bet both households were run by servants.
    
    When we lump everything together under "homemaker", we take away the
    credit that goes to parents who are at home actively caring for
    children. I'm making a home for myself. I don't expect to get paid for
    it. I don't know many people who are NOT making homes for themselves,
    alone, or with partners. Its something you do for yourself, not a job.
    Housecleaning is something you do because you want a clean home. Mowing
    the lawn is something you do because you want it to look nice.
    (Otherwise get it paved over and IGNORE IT!)
    
    We are no longer in an era in which women can ONLY live from a man's
    earnings. Lumping together the woman who lounges off of a man's income,
    (which he probably inherited and is ALSO lounging off of!) with a woman
    who works at raising children is incorrect.

re .14 -

That you find Dale Spender's "ignorance of economics" so amusing did, of 
course, make my day. On the other hand, your apparent ignorance of
mathematics has had me howling in the aisle here all afternoon. Perhaps it
is beyond your power to comprehend the magnitude of the work done by
mothers/homemakers in the bearing and rearing of children and the
maintenance of daily life. Compared to it, your lightbulb and basement 
project aren't even on the scale. 

Of course, if you start by devaluing the work women do, then you probably 
aren't going to be impressed much by the magnitude of that work. (If you
even consider it work.) That is, if it's not really important -- if
creating and raising the next generation of the human race is more or less
on a par with changing a light bulb -- then why be swayed by how much time
and effort and pain and anguish and danger and opportunity cost it takes to
do it and do it well? Big deal. 

This is a perfect example of how males win by "naming the world." What men 
do is named work. What women do is named non-work. What gets paid is work. 
Maybe, if women do what men do, it will be named work and will be paid. If 
men do what women do, it will also be named work and will be paid, at least 
if it's done in the "marketplace" (read: the political, *not* the 
personal). But if women do what women do? Forget it. They do *that* for
love. 

Gee, maybe you're not so dumb after all!

re .39 -

"Perhaps the value of 'women's work' ought to be measured on something 
other than a salary scale" -  oh, by all means. A salary scale is *most* 
inappropriate. What would you suggest? A celery scale? A fish scale? The 
head of a pin?

Dorian

      

    Doctah, I think you just jumped into my one of my cans o' worms 
    there... by proposing that mothers be paid out of their children's 
    paychecks I was attempting to get past the "warm body" syndrome and 
    into the "raw materials for the economy" mindset.

    One salient problem with this approach is that it credits the mother,
    not the child or the father or the grandparents or the (poorly paid!)
    teachers for making the child economically useful.  If the child 
    becomes successful *in spite of* the mother, it's still to the 
    mother's credit.  This is really a variant of the D! argument... if 
    we pay mothers for raising their children, then we are imposing a 
    value system on what they do and how they do it based on the criteria 
    we use for distributing that money.  (Can you say "Big Brother"?)

    Who taught us, as a society, to equate value with salary anyway?
    If the millions of homemakers challenged that belief in front of 
    their 3- and 4- and 5- year olds, would it be so widely accepted?
    (Facts I find relevant: Babies are not born giving greater authority 
    to males.  Over half our society is female.  Women, historically, 
    have spent more time than men around young, impressionable children.)

    A lot of people don't value corporate raiders, extortionists, or
    lobbyists very highly, either.  But they tend to be fairly well-heeled
    financially.  I don't think money's the problem here.

	Sharon

    Mark,
    
    I'd like to correct a factual error.
    
    For the past 10,000 years (give or take), at least 90% of the
    population has worked in agriculture.  That means women as well
    as men.  As the woman lamented to Dear Abby, "I'm a farmer, not
    a farmer's wife!"  That means most women who have ever lived have
    done as much work, and the same sort of work, as that of most men.
    
    So don't claim they didn't.
    
    And then:
    
    "Doing the housework" meant grinding the grain, as well as baking
    the bread, meant milking the cow and churning the butter, as well as
    buttering the bread, meant feeding the chickens and finding the eggs,
    as well as flipping the omelet.
    
    NEVER lose sight of how most people have lived through most of
    history, just because some of us, in some countries, by the end
    of the twentieth century, have had things set up somewhat differently.
    
    						Ann B.

    After a bit of thought ...
    	I also feel that homemakers should be compensated **with $$$**
    	for their work.  Money is the medium our society currently
    	uses to measure value and ensure survival.  While we give lip
    	service to the "value" of homemakers, it's nothing they can
    	take to the bank, or use to pay the rent, or buy food and
    	clothing with.  Although they work, these homemakers--like
    	children--are *totally* dependent on others for their well
    	being and survival.  I find such a position terribly
    	vulnerable, risky, and totally de-valuing.  (Good thing I'm
    	probably in the minority here, huh? 8*))  As to enlightened
    	spouses who "share" the money ... that's all well and good
    	(as long as they're around), but the bottom line in today's
    	society is the person with earning power, with money has the
    	upper hand, the control, the clout, the respect.
    
    Onward to the issue of how to compensate ...
    	Well, I don't know either--it's one tough problem and unlikely
    	to be easily solved.  My ideal solution follows along the lines
    	of those who suggested a total restructuring of our society and
    	our system of values (admittedly at this point in time not a
    	popular theory and unlikely to be universally accepted and
    	implemented in the forseeable future but, heck, I can at least
    	imagine.
    
    And ending with questions ...
    	My experiences and observations have led me to the following
    	conclusion regarding human nature:  
    		If something is important enough to them,
    		people generally find a way.
    	If we are truly interested in valuing homemakers would we not
    	take the time and effort to find a way?  Does our quickness
    	to challenge/reject the idea of compensating homemakers
    	--and because a workable process is not obvious and easy--
    	perhaps indicate that, after all, we don't really think it's
    	a very important issue?
    
    nla

    I'm fascinated by the notion of compensating homemakers and
    wanted to toss a couple of questions into the hypothetical
    pot:
    
    	What activities qualify as "homemaking"?  Might the
    	general categories be household maintenance and repair
    	and child rearing?
    
    	What if there are no children?  If the definition of 
    	homemaker requires that there be children, would compen-
    	sation be discriminatory against childless couples?
    
    	What if there's no marriage/partnership?  If compensation
    	is only for those in partnerships, is such a compensation
    	discriminatory against single people?
    
    Steve             

    I had assumed we were talking about homemakers in the process of
    child-rearing - that is in my mind the one thing about homemaking that
    would take up enough time and energy to prevent the primary homemaker
    from holding down a full-time job comfortably in addition to the
    full-time job of raising a child or children.  
    
    I don't think it takes that many hours a week to run a household, and
    many couples do share it sans children.  But when children come along,
    one parental unit becomes primary caretaker of those children, often
    the woman by default, and I think that work should be more valued than
    it is now.
    
    -Jody
    

    To my mind, a *truly radical* restructuring of society would not be
    "figuring out a way to compensate childrearing for money so homemakers
    get more respect."
    
    It would be "how to change our society so money is not so important a
    measure of worth."
    
    THAT would be a true restructuring of societal values in a direction I
    could wholeheartedly support.  (It doesn't answer the practical
    questions of how one makes ends meet, of course.)  
    
    There's two things on the agenda:  1) making "staying at home with the
    kids" a more respected choice, 2) giving those (usually women) who stay
    at home real economic power. 
    
    Maybe rather than compensating individual childrearers for their
    individual efforts (D!'s warnings about the dangers of making
    homemaking exactly equivalent to a job are chilling), we could
    concentrate on providing community support.  Society (private or
    public) could put real effort and money into programs that make
    day-to-day childrearing more community-based.  Fund cooperative
    creches, provide basic administrative costs and setup.  Making society
    pay more attention to practical childcare issues in a community-based
    way would give recognition and support to those who choose to stay at
    home with their children, without the nightmarish logistical problems
    of working out methods for individual compensation.
    
    Pam

re: .47
    
> No kidding, you don't know because there is no reasonable way to do it. It's 
>one of those pie in the sky daydreams that keeps poets in business. And
>the bumper sticker/sound bite writers.
    
    Suggested amendment....there is no reasonable way we have yet found to
    do it.  NEVER is a REALLY long time, so absolutes are difficult to
    prove.  
    
    And don't start takin' shots at poets or I'm gonna start replying in
    verse form..... ;)
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Long ago, poets had patrons, and their art was revered and appreciated,
    much as painters' and sculptors.  They were valued not only by being
    payed by their patrons, but they were also appreciated by those who
    were cultured with respect for them, those who appreciated what they
    had to contribute, and valued their individual talents.
    
    Now poets generally can only afford to write in their spare time,
    because although people may generally like poetry, it's not considered
    a true skill, and not paid for in any truly compensatory way that could
    be considered subsistance - because it is not seen as adding value to
    our world.
    
    Perhaps our mothers need patrons?
    
    -Jody
    

    re: .47
    
    Well, no, I *personally* don't feel that money leads to respect,
    but I do think a majority of folks out there think that way.
    (Glad to see you don't.)
    
    Why do you say there is no reasonable way to compensate?  What
    are you, omniscient?  Have you (or any of us) truly spent enough
    time thinking about the situation to say there is absolutely no
    reasonable way?  Just because none of us can think of one off 
    hand ...
    
    A question for you:  do you think homemakers aare adequately
    valued for their contribution to society?
    	If yes, fine, I respect your opinion (though I disagree).
    	If no, what would you suggest be done to better the situation?
    
    nla
    
    		

    re .50, patrons for mothers, imagine applying somewhere for a grant
    in order to have and raise a child?  :-)  (problem is not very many
    people would qualify-not very many people get grants to write books
    either)
    
    re money leading to respect, I, personally, don't think money leads
    to respect either, at least *I* don't respect other people just
    for having money.  But, if someone has enough money they don't need
    to have the respect of others (unless they care about it), they
    can still get other people to do whatever they want them to do whether
    respected by those people or not.
    
    Maybe being valued or respected isn't really the biggest problem?
     Maybe having no power is the biggest problem and nobody can have
    power in this society without having money??
    
    Lorna
    

I discussed this with my wife.  We came up with the following:

How about a tax exemption for homemakers who choose to stay home and
rear a family?  

Working mothers and fathers get a tax break on the cost of daycare. 
Why not give the same or other (greater?) tax incentive in
support of raising the family, the next generation in society?

It doesn't *specifically* put cash in the pocket of the homemaker, but it
would be a step towards valuing the homemaker.

Mark Metcalfe

P.S. I know there is a tax exeption for having children but not for raising 
     them.  Should these be valued separately?

    In the dumb question department:
    
    Is there anything like Child Allowance in the US? 
    
    Ad

"As far as men are concerned it is seen as just that those who work should 
be paid--if they are men. They have even written their economic histories 
to show how we, as a society, are supposed to have moved to a monetary 
economy where work is paid for. But they have completely omitted any 
consideration of women's work, it figures not in all their theories and 
explanation, for 'In a money economy,' states Gerda Lerner, 'it is the only 
job offering no pay, but like *indentured servitude* (a thing of the past in 
male experience) support in exchange for services.' [my stars]

"And what are some of the consequences of denying women's work and thereby 
being able to insist that it goes unpaid? One of the consequences is that 
men are able to amass financial resources--99% of the world's wealth--and 
with less than 1% available to women, it is not surprising to find that for 
women there is not enough to go round. They must turn to men and become 
economically dependent on men. Moreover their finances are often only 
forthcoming while they cultivate the goodwill of men, and accept the 
enhanced image of men projected by many men."

		-- Dale Spender (oh no!), Invisible Women, 1982, p. 28



Well, shoot. No wonder we have so few women leaders. We're too poor. That's
one thing you need *lots* of money for... 

Dorian

Re. 54

The current tax exemption for children (and other family members) is 
currently $2000 per person in the household.

    Mark,
    
    In reply .47, you asked "Where did I say ~most women historically
    have done less work and different work than most men~ ???"
    
    The answer is: In 109.23.  To refresh your memory, you wrote,
    "The basic problem is that for centuries, women's hard work
    consisted of raising their offspring, and/or keeping their living
    quarters in order and that provides nothing to the economy."
    
    This was in reply to the statement, "It bothers me that for centuries
    a huge part of the population (almost all of them female) have done
    lots of hard work for no money."
    
    I hope you find this reminder useful.
    
    							Ann B.

    Re .54, I don't think there is anything like Child Allowance (or
    what *I* *think* Child Allowance *is*) here in the U.S.  It's true
    we can deduct $2000 for each dependent child when filing our income
    tax returns but that doesn't guarantee that we will get any money
    back.  We will only get money back if the tax we wind up owing after
    all deductions is less than what was taken out of our paychecks
    during the year.  The entire time my ex and I were married and deducted
    our one child and the interest on our house payment we never got
    back much more than $200 or $300 a year.  (of course that depends
    on exemptions taken during the year, but the point is we certainly
    never got back $2000)
    
    Isn't there a country in Europe (the Netherlands? Sweden? Denmark???)
    where each citizen gets a guaranteed minimum wage from the government
    regardless of their income from working??   One way that mothers
    or custodial fathers playing the traditional mothering role, might
    be able to be paid for their job, would be for each "mother" to
    recieve an annual minimum wage for being the mother of a child.
     This would be increased when a second child was born, or adopted
    but would *not* be increased with any additional children, beyond
    2.  This would insure that "lazy" people wouldn't take advantage
    of the system by having 10 or 12 children.  (I believe two children
    to be a reasonable family size given the overpopulation of the planet
    and the expense involved in raising a child today.)  A set minimum
    wage would have to be arrived at.  I don't think it would have to
    be enough to necessarily completely support a mother and child.
     I think the mere fact that the pay existed would be enough to show
    society that this country values the role of parenting.  For example,
    given today's cost of living, perhaps $10,000. first child, with
    an additional $5,000. for the second child, not to be increased
    with any additional children.
    
    Now, where would this money come from?  It would come from taxes.
     I admit I would not want my taxes raised in order to provide this.
     However, I think that the defense budget, for example, could be
    greatly reduced, and a lot of the money could come from there. 
    Some of the money could come by way of getting taxes from major
    corporations who now have so many tax breaks they don't wind up
    paying anything.  Maybe some more of the money could come from
    eliminating some of the free perks and privileges that politicians
    get - like free postage and whatnot.  Maybe we could spend less
    on fixing up the President's airplane (or buying him a new one or
    whatever).  Imagine how many mother's could have been paid with
    the money used to create the Stealth bomber, or invading Panama,
    and now fixing up their economoy after we destroyed it?????
    
    Lorna
    

    I think Mark has made some good points.
    
    I'm personally uncomfortable with the value=money standard.
    
    Perhaps we should be looking at other ways to express value.
    
    Bonnie

    This is being posted for a noter who wishes to remain anonymous...
    
    -Jody
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I think we must realize that there is a difference between a protester
    and  a reformer, and in most instances, one cannot be both.  The role
    of a protester is to point out problems in the society while a reformer
    must work within the constraint and structure of the society itself.  A
    protester may  ask why people must eat to survive.  After all, if we
    don't need food, the  hunger problem will go away.  A reform, on the
    other hand, will say now  since people must eat, let's find a way to
    produce more and find a way to distribute it.  I do not mean to
    trivialize the role of a protester, but if one wants to be a reformer
    to change the current situation, arguments like "Let's change the
    structure" or "Let's pay moms" are not sufficient. One must provide a
    mechanism as to how such change can be implemented. Also a reformer
    cannot use arguments like "We are in a bad situation because
    people/society are not perfect." because that situation is given as a 
    constraint and it is the reformer's job to find a solution despite that 
    constraint.  Moreover, one must look at the total impact of such change
    on  the society as a whole.  Many disasters are produced with the best
    intentions.

    Personally, I don't think there is a problem at all.  

    First of all, motherhood is highly valued in this society.  I am sure 
    everyone has heard of the sacred "motherhood and apple pie."  

    Second, looking from a purely financial point of view, raising children
    is  a long term investment.  If one raises a child with love and care,
    one  would expect that the child will take care of you when you grow
    old.   Someone might say what if the kids grow up and never come back
    again.   Well, from a purely financial point of view, there is always
    risk in any  kind of investment.  The folks who decide to work in the
    business world may  find out in their old age that their long term
    investment in social security  may yield zero return when they retire. 
    The fact is whether one chooses to "invest" his/her life in a business
    or in their families, there are always risks

    Third, to most people what we value most is not the kind of things that
    we do to make a living.  In my case, the kind of things I do for a
    living is  probably number five on my "value list".  I consider myself
    to be fortunate  since what I do for living is a close derivative of
    one of the things I  highly value.  But I will bet there are a lot of
    people out there who  work on jobs (rather uninteresting to them) to
    make a living so they can pursue their other hobbies or because they
    have to support their  families.  So to the moms/pops who
    choose/love/value the work of raising  children and have the
    opportunity to do so, congratulations!  You are  among the lucky few
    who get the chance to do what you like in life. To the ones who grow
    tired of that job, welcome to the real world. There are a lot of people
    like that around.  You could do something to change the situation, but
    you might find out that your options are limited (just as a burned out
    musician will have problem finding a job in software  engineering).  To
    the ones whose marriages break up, sorry to hear that,  but tragedies
    happen in life.  Many people give 30+ of their lives to some  X Inc.
    only to find out that their skills have been outgrown by technology and
    have just been laid off...
    

    re .62, so, it sounds to me like you're saying, Nothing is perfect
    in this world, no matter what you do there will always be something
    that can go wrong, so just stop complaining and accept things as
    they are!  But, with that attitude there would have been no
    accomplishments in the last two hundred years.  We'd still have
    child labor, slavery and only white men would have the vote!
    
    Lorna
     

	First off about Poets - If you do not believe that they serve
	a purpose in life don't listen to music, don't read nursey
	rhymes and most of all don't read the bible.  Guess what!!!

	It is my personal belief that good software is like good poetry.
	It uses space efficiently, sometimes can be easily understood
	but most it takes a little bit of background information, but
	most of all it works.

	Back to how to compensate homemakers.  I think that Lorna's
	suggestion is a good starting place.  Everyone should have 
	access to the minimun needs for survival - food, shelter,
	medical service and education.

	Where would the money come from - Well if we did our economics
	correctly we would be able to see where it could come from but
	we don't want to give up our comforts for the "other" now do
	we - Where the %&*(%$ are all the HUMANIST in this file????

	Oh, I understand.  The "other" is not really human and so does
	not deserve attention.  ESAD.


	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			The Earth is able to nuture and reproduce
			life without money - Why can't we humans
			do the same??    

i would agree with jody that it is childcare that is the big issue, since, 
in a household of only adults, one could suppose [however little this
happens in real life] some minimum level of equality and fairness in how 
they choose to distribute the work of maintaining the home. even in a home
with children, who does the non-child-related-tasks is pretty simple to
work out. if the people involved believe that working at the office all
week and changing lightbulbs on weekends is equivalent to staying at home
all day doing laundry and washing dishes and shopping and cooking food,
that's their business. the catch is kids.

what are the expenses of childcare? there are various 'goods' (food, shelter
clothes, etc.) and 'services' (medical, educational, cultural, etc.) i 
believe that *all* of these 'external' expenses should be subsidized such 
that there is a basic minimum level for *all* children. 

what about the 'internal' expenses: babysitting, staying up all night with 
the sick kid, taking the kid to little league or flute lessons, teaching the 
kid to walk, potty training, etc.? this is the labor that is performed by
the parent(s) [usually the female parent, even today] that appears to be 
unrecompensed. some folk here have espoused the rather romantic view that 
this labor *shouldn't* be recompensed; it somehow violates an image of the 
'sanctity' of this work.

but as somebody famous said, 'there is no such thing as a free lunch'. if 
the person doing the 'internal' labor is not duly compensated, spiritually, 
monetarily, emotionally, whatever, they will not do an adequate job. we, as
a society, pay for that in the guise of crime, an over-burdened welfare
system, unemployment, etc.

fortunately for us all, parenting seems to have so many spiritual and
emotional rewards (it eludes me, but it seems to be true) that i believe
that most people, most of the time, would be happy to be parents *for free*,
IF, they knew that their kid wouldn't starve, even if they lost their job;
they knew that their kid would get a great education, whether they lived
in iowa or arkansas; they knew that if their kid got sick they would get
the best medical attention available, no questions asked.

so my answer is a bit of a waffle: institute wide-ranging subsidies as
suggested above and the question becomes trivial. (and yes, i'd be happy
to have my taxes raised as much as necessary to support these programs,
even though i do not have nor intend to have children)

    I'm having a hard time seeing why, but apparently tempers are heating
    up here.  
    
    If you're going to express anger, folks, please remember to avoid
    running afoul of 1.7 & 1.15.  We positively do not enjoy setting
    phazers on Kill, but as sure as fate that's what we'll do.
    
    						=maggie

    The cost of daycare for 1 teeny weeny newborn in Boston is 200.00
    pr/wk! For 2 newborn children, a provider can make $20k.
    Can you imagine! Those house-cleaner folks work for $12.00
    per hour. That's about $25K.
    
    Kate

    re. 58 Lorna.
    
    There is no country in Europe that really has implemented the 'base
    salary' - but it's still a hot issue for the green/left-wing parties
    and is also suggested on European scale (1992). But whether it'd
    ever be implemented anywhere remains to be seen. I'd favour it!
    
    Child Allowance is only implemented here to be a small subsidy for
    people who have children, it's not a sort of 'mother's pay'.
    Personally, I think it's a different question how to value mothers
    financially, than it is how to make them financially independent
    on their husband. I guess the reason why this discussion centers
    around money may have to do more with the wish to make sure mothers
    still have a choice in the relationship to their husband and are
    not financially tied to their marriage.
    
    Child Allowance in Holland (KP3 :-)):
    
    Current base figure is about $360 a year, and it's a tax free allowance
    given by the government, basically to the child. The actual payment
    is done either to the mother in a marriage situation, or to the
    nursing parent in single-parent households. Over 16 years old it
    might be payed to the child. The first child gets a double payment,
    second child a single payment. Children not living with their family
    and not having a salary/income of their own get a triple allowance.
    
    Just to give an idea about the net yearly income situation of a
    non-working mother with two children in Holland (approximately, it's
    rather complex!!): 
    
    - welfare (supplements any other income
      like alimentation)				$  7800
    - child allowance (2x first child, 1x second)	$   540
    - vacation allowance				$   650
    							=======
    			Total				$  8990
    
    There is a government subsidy for housing that reduces housing costs to
    approx. 20-25% of net income provided that housing meets the range of
    what's considered 'reasonable housing' for the family size. This is
    *definitely* not a lot of money but it is somewhat possible to live on
    it in Holland. 
    
    Ad

    re: .59
    
    Thanks much for your comments.  It is as I suspected--we are
    pretty much in agreement.
    
    The dilemma I have trouble accepting is what to do while we're
    working on our new attitudes.  Barring worldwide catastrophe or
    miracle, I think new attitudes will take a long time to develop.  
    Should things simply continue as they are now?  But, I suppose,
    homemakers have been living like this for years--what's another
    50 or 75 or 100, right?  8-(  8-(
    
    nla
    

    The first thing you have to do is make up your mind.  Here in the
    same conference we have "femenists" ragging on Barbara Bush because
    *all* she did was ge married and raise a family and help her husband
    build a financial empire and become president.
    
    Then in this note we have these same "femenists" screaming that 
    mothers/housewives should be paid because they are soooo valuable.
    
    fred();

    Nope.  Not hypocrisy.  See below.
    
    The concern in the Barbara Bush note is that she (a woman who decided
    not to complete college, and get married, and become a mother, and
    spend her life supporting the man in her life to further his goals) was
    chosen as a commencement speaker at a woman's college, where ostensibly
    these women were finishing college to strike out on their own and more
    than likely support themselves and wish to be able to identify with
    their own successes.  The template she presented was one that
    potentially did not represent the one they were following (often
    commencement speakers are successful and inspiring businesspeople - 
    for good reason!  Often college grads are seeking inspiration, and
    looking at the highest aspirations possible for themselves....).
    
    Nobody questions her decisions or her right to make them or their value
    in her life.  People were questioning the choice of Barbara Bush as a
    commencement speaker at that particular college.
    
    -Jody
    

     
    I thought the objections were over, not what type of work she did
    (mother, homemaker), but whose wife she is; in other words, she was
    chosen only because she's the spouse of a famous person. As someone
    said in this or a related string, if they wanted a good homemaker/
    mother type, they could have picked *my* mother. This to imply that her
    chosen occupation wasn't the criterion of her selection - her being G.
    Bush's Missus was.

    Would you (people here who do work (parenting/housework) for which they
    receive no payment) be prepared to stop doing it today until you
    receive some form of (financial) compensation?
    
    If so, why?
    
    If not, why not?

Anyone read Lysistrada (spelling)?  I did in college years ago and all I
can remember about it was that all the women went on strike and wouldn't
provide sex for their mates until they agreed to stop warring.  It brought
society to a halt and war stopped.  The setting was (ancient Greece?).

I'll have to ask my mother for a copy.  (She's an English professor at the
college.)

I don't think we can deny that homemakers/mothers should be paid, by 
arguing that in a given home, the wage-earner might, after hours, also make
some contribution to home maintenance and/or child care - might change a
light bulb or a diaper - and *he* doesn't get paid for such tasks. Because
the reverse situation is also true: many homemakers/mothers contribute
directly to the work that the wage-earner is doing and getting paid for,
and *they* don't get paid. 

My mother, for example, did all the typing for my father, who was a 
teacher. Papers, course materials, book manuscripts. And she never got paid 
a red cent for any of this work. And how many introductions have you read 
to books written by men, in which the author thanked his wife for some 
service or other - critiquing the manuscript, or editing it, or typing it, 
or engaging in discussions from which its main ideas emerged, or providing 
the peace and quiet without which the book would have never seen the light 
of day?

I'm sure the (unpaid) services provided by women that have directly helped 
their men to accomplish their (paid) worldly tasks, are manifold and
multifaceted. But I've never heard anyone suggest that those men shouldn't 
be getting paid because they received some help from women who weren't 
getting paid.
    
Dorian

>  And how many introductions have you read 
>  to books written by men, in which the author thanked his wife for some 
>  service or other - critiquing the manuscript, or editing it, or typing it, 
>  or engaging in discussions from which its main ideas emerged, or providing 
>  the peace and quiet without which the book would have never seen the light 
>  of day?

    And then there's Lev Tolstoy's wife (Sonia, I think?), who hand-copied 
    some 7 drafts of War and Peace...

    But seriously, Dorian, I don't think anyone should be paid for 
    providing peace and quiet.  We surround ourselves in this world with 
    people we like in life, and, if we're fortunate and/or prudent, they 
    turn out to be good for us.  Many things in life wouldn't be possible
    if not for some person who served as an influence... but financial
    renumeration for all of them is impracticable.

    I think you'll find that in most cases the man who wrote the book
    that his wife typed is *not* the same guy who is out squandering the
    money he makes while his wife and kids go hungry.  In a working
    family unit, good things are shared.  And most of those introductions
    speak (to me, at least) of working family units.

    Just because women are "invisible" does not mean they are jailed.
    For many years it was considered optimal for a "lady"'s name to
    appear in the newspaper only three times: when she was born, when
    she got married, and when she died.  Women bought into that, too.

    The social security issue for women homemakers seems more vital to
    me: it ensures that women will not be "docked" for years spent out
    of the workforce after that family unit stops working.

	Sharon

    
    
    .79
    
    Thank you for asking this question. I've been wondering myself, but
    could not manage to consolidate my thoughts into one or two clear
    sentences.
    
    We all make career choices.  Those women who choose to be homemakers
    must weigh the pros and cons.  It is not a salaried position, direct
    medical benefits are not offered, and retirement benefits are iffy.
    This is true for anyone who chooses self-employment.  On the other
    hand, homemakers have the advantages of the self-employed.  They can
    set their own hours, often have more leisure time to pursue outside
    activities, and job duties are self-defined.
    
    I'm a mother.  I guess, since we live in a home which is 'made' and
    maintained, I must be a homemaker also.  I also work.  I would be
    quite resentful if my earnings were taxed to compensate someone who
    chose to stay home and 'homemake' and rear children.  After all, I'm
    doing the same things; I'm just doing them with less available time.
    
    Personally, the idea of compensating stay-at-home mothers implies that
    I am failing as a mom by working outside the home.
    
    Deborah
    

    re .79
    
    Encouraging women to return to the traditional role?
    
    Not all women have the desire to be homemakers.  Is this what you mean
    by "traditional role"?  IMO, this statement obliterates those women who
    have worked their way through the ranks and made significant
    achievements.
    
    I am grateful to those who have fought the battles and opened up
    choices for women beyond the "traditional" nurse/teacher/mother.
    
    Will there come a day when men can freely choose to be the homemaker
    while their partner is the wage earner?
    
    Doctah, would you please expand on your thought of "traditional roles"?
    
    Judi
    

    	RE: .73  Fred
    
    	Thanks for the demonstration of a concept I brought up recently
    	in another topic.
    
    	First, you screamed at us with false accusations of not valuing
    	"homemakers" (because of the issue of Barbara Bush being asked
    	to speak at a commencement because she happens to have married
    	a man who is now President,) and now you scream at us again for
    	showing that many of us *do* value homemaking quite a bit.
    
    	Meanwhile, you are also the one who characterized some/many
    	marriages as "legalized prostitution."
    
    	The hypocrisy in this topic involves damning people for not
    	believing one thing, then damning them even harder when they
    	demonstrate how much they *do* believe it.

    Perhaps the reality is that "homemaking" is no longer a valid option in
    our society. Yes, it provides a convienience for the working spouse,
    someone's always available to meet repairmen and get the shopping done
    during the day when the stores aren't crowded. But with the rate of
    inflation *most* families can't aford it. It has become a luxury and a
    sign of wealth.

    The idea of paying mothers minimum wage makes me wonder what we'd do
    when all those women left the minimum wage jobs they were doing because
    it's just flat cheaper to stay home than work for minimum wage and pay
    for child care. The welfare program proved this. That's why so many
    welfare mothers stay on welfare.

    It's not exactly pertinent but as I read this topic I keep thinking of
    Rumania where women's options were limited to having babies at all
    costs. Did you see the pictures of the infant warehouses where all the
    excess kids were left? Motherhood became a financial burden too great to
    bear and the children were dumped on the state, which forced them to be
    born. liesl
    

re .50:
   
>    Long ago, poets had patrons, and their art was revered and appreciated,
>    much as painters' and sculptors.  They were valued not only by being
>    payed by their patrons, but they were also appreciated by those who
>    were cultured with respect for them, those who appreciated what they
>    had to contribute, and valued their individual talents.
>
>	...
>    
>    Perhaps our mothers need patrons?
    
But surely our culture has always, traditionally, been built around the
idea of patrons for women?  They've been called "husbands".

True, it hasn't been a one-way street -- the "patrons" have gotten something
in return -- but wasn't that generally an element of patronage in the arts,
too?

And is part of the problem today, perhaps, that just as patronage for the
arts has declined, so has patronage for parenting?

	-Neil

Re .87

According to the feeling I sense from some participants here, the A#1 reason
for seeking work outside the home is self-acheivement and the money is simply 
a component of that.

When my wife, a homemaker who stays at home, gets the children off to school,
I will encourage her to do what she wants.  She *may* want to stay home.
In our 11 years of marriage, we have learned to live on one income with
some in-home supplementation.  She may choose to use the time when the kids
are in school to do some things she wants that a job would tie her down and
not make her able to do.

However, if she wants to get a part time job (I don't think she'll be looking
for a career right away) to "get out" or whatever reason.  I'll support that.

In *our* situation, I would not encourage her in getting a career until
the last one is in junior or senior high school.  It may sound wierd to
some of you.   I wouldn't rend the house over it if it was something she
really wanted - our relationship is stronger than that.  But we'd have 
a long discussion about it.  And we would agree in the final outcome -
either way.

Just our alternate lifestyle.

Mark

    re: .89
>   But I hear a recurring theme- money = power.
    
    Yes.  Money is power in this society.  Power to purchase.  Power to
    survive.  Power to force politicians to listen to people they've
    ignored for centuries.  Power because, without money, one can have no
    real affect on the power/operational/political machine, and therefore
    one can be safely ignored.  
    
    -Jody
    

It's a gas to read a string like this all at once (I've been away for a week).
It is _very_ difficult to share achievements, and give credit where credit is
due. I was discussing this with a co-author of our SVS paper that got one of
the two best paper awards at the IEEE conference on security and privacy [sound
of Mez patting herself on the back]. The primary author is excellent at giving
credit where credit is due, _and_ easily and confidently understanding how his
high acheivements fit in. The other co-author and I, of extremely different
temperments, both recognise what a great skill this is, and how difficult it is
for us to do this.

Synthesizing this topic: I think I should make the effort to indicate,
verbally, and in real time, when I make use of a skill or some such due to my
mother. This meshes nicely with another trait I have successfully been trying
to instill in myself: when someone does something well, particularly if it is
the sort of team-work thing that tends to be less valued, I tell there
supervisor, carbon-copying them and myself. I hope it influences their review.
	Mez

re .81    Deborah
    
    >On the other
    >hand, homemakers have the advantages of the self-employed.  They can
    >set their own hours, often have more leisure time to pursue outside
    >activities, and job duties are self-defined.
    
    Mothers can set their own hours, huh?  That one's a *real* laugh, Deborah!!
    
    (And I'm not even a parent.)
    
    
    

    
    I find the idea of talking about paying people to be mothers
    when there are 5 BILLION (!!!) people in this world already,
    totally off-base.  Did you know that there are more *humans* in
    the world than any other species of mammal, reptile, amphibian, or
    bird (with the possible exception of rats - I'm not certain).
    In fact, the only creatures that outnumber us are certain species
    of ants!!  (This from Audubon magazine a few years ago).
    
    

    .93
    
    Really.  And why do you find this statement so humorous?
    
    

    Ellen, are you sure you aren't misremembering that article?  That
    really doesn't sound right to me, I find it *very* hard to believe that
    there are no insect species that outnumber us.  Houseflies, midges,
    gnats, and mosquitos spring to mind with such alacrity they could
    qualify for the olympics.
    
    Which is by no means to argue that the population problem isn't
    horrifying.
    
    						=maggie

    re last few
    
    She didn't mention insects *at all*, just mammals, reptiles, etc.
    
    Pam

    Yeah, there's at least one insect for each of every other living animal on
    earth, us included.
    
    -Jody

    re .100 The Doctah
    
    Oh, whatever!  And you snagged reply .100, too!  
    
    I think the key is indeed how you divvy up the species you're counting. 
    All ladybugs?  Or all "spotted ludoform contemborous Spanish ladybugs"?
    
    Pam

 
 
LABOUR PLAN FOR DIVORCEES TO DIVIDE UP PENSION ASSETS

PROPOSALS under which divorcing couples would divide between them pension 
assets built up during their marriage are to be studied by the Labour 
leadership.

The plan is designed to give a better deal to the thousands of women who lose 
their right to their husband's personal or occupational pensions on divorce.  
The plan would also benefit men in cases where the wife is the pension 
contributor.

(The Times 30/5/90)

    Sorry about that.  It was a mistake, and meant to read,
    "certain species of insects", but that mistake doesn't
    minimize at all what I was trying to say.