Conference moira::parenting_v3

    
    Well, I don't really want to jump into a discussion on this heated
    topic, but I do want to make one observation.
    
    One-on-one relationships would seem to be only possible for first 
    children and/or only children.   So, clearly, the "basic premise" is
    flawed unless she is also advocating one child per family!
    
    Carol

    Moderator caution:
    
    People, please be gentle with each other on this topic; its a hot one
    and we've had some flare-ups about it in the past.
    
    Now, as an individual:
    
    I agree with the previous replies observation of Dr. Leach's flawed
    logic.  If a mother has several children under school age, how is that
    different from family day care where one woman has 1 or 2 infants and
    several pre-schoolers?  (Assuming the daycare provider gives the babies
    lots of love, holding, and individual attention.)
    
    Do we really want to flog this horse again? . . .
    
    Laura

    Amen 1 and 2  
    
    In an ideal world perhaps all the ideals of raising children could be
    carried out.  
    
    I can only say that my four pre-schoolers get love and attention from
    not only me, and my husband, but from one another too.  And this counts
    for a lot.  I think sibling interaction is an area of child study that
    has been neglected.
    

I was hoping not to have to enter more of the article, but here's a quote
that addresses some of the points made so far:

"Maybe [the baby] will be lucky enough to attach himself to one constant
provider.  But day-care providers get paid so little that they change
jobs constantly -- more than 70 percent change jobs at least once a
year.  Plus, without regulations, one provider might be taking care of
eight infants.  It's impossible to feed, let alone have time to play
with, eight babies, to give them the stimulation and love they need.
Babies need a one-to-one relationship and unconditional love, which
is the root base of their self-esteem."

    re .4
    
    This is a generalization-- I don't think anyone would argue that 8
    children cared for by a series of providers is, shall we say, less than
    ideal...
    
    but if that's what you'd like to discuss, why not title your note "The
    tragedy of substandard daycare", or something similar?  Are you trying
    to be deliberately provocative?
    
    I for one, am tired of the media talking about "Mommy Wars" and pitting
    "Stay at Home" vs "Working Mothers"...we are all doing the best we can
    for our families.  Nobody has the answer...there is no "ANSWER"...let's
    let this one die.
    
    Susan

Perhaps there's another flaw here.  The quote implies to me that a baby needs
the one-to-one relationship and unconditional love 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week from *only* the special person.  I don't think so.

A baby needs to attach to someone who will love them unconditionally;  I 
totally agree with that.  We all look for that; lots of us are lucky enough
to marry a person who can do that for us.  But I don't believe that the special 
person is the only person who can care for the baby.

Would Leach have us think that spouses who share child care are endangering
the emotional health of their children?

I entered .7 while .6 was being written.

I agree completely with .6.  The "Mommy wars" is a burden we don't need and
if I provoked anyone with .7 (I hope not, I wasn't trying to), take it as
opinion.  You can agree or disagree - your opinion is as good as mine.

    
    
    I have not seen the article but, from the quotes in earlier replies, I
    would assume that the target of the comments is commercial daycare
    centers not family daycare providers.  The "low pay" is true in term of
    a daycare center.  I would guess that the turnover rate at these places
    is quite high.  I would love someone to explain to me how a family
    daycare provider "changes jobs" frequently.  It would seem to me either
    you do it or you don't.
    
    I also disagree with the assertion that there are too many children in
    the daycare setting.  The article appears to refer to unregulated
    centers.  That is not the case either in Ma or Nh.  It would seem that
    the article over generalized a wee bit.
    
    Dan

From my interpretation of the article, Leach is targeting all daycare.  She 
feels that people such as Spock and Brazelton are spending too much time
making mothers feel "good" about the decision to go back to work and leaving
the child in daycare and should spend more time pushing for legislation, etc.
to allow them to stay home.  She definitely feels that a mother should stay
home with her children for at least the first 18 months if not the first
two years.  

    
    Well, from a novice point of view, I don't think that the US economy
    is in a very good position at this time to even *consider* adding a
    18-month to 2-year paid leave of absense as a required employee 
    benefit.   It's a nice idea and all, but would be very, very expensive
    and seems like a giant step from the existing legislated benefits for
    new mothers (are there any that include pay?).    
    
    Carol 

    	Boy, our baby isn't even here yet and already I am bombarded by
    people telling me "what the experts say". No matter what we choose to
    do with our child in regards to daycare (home or commercial) there is
    *someone* out there who vehemently disagrees and tells us that our
    child will be permanently detrimentally affected as a result.

    	Doesn't each child stand on their own? Don't the parents who care
    for the child ultimately know what is best for *their* particular
    situation?

    	A few notes back someone wrote about how they took their child out
    of homecare and placed her in "commercial" daycare because of behavior
    concerns (Sorry I can't remember the name of the noter). They indicated
    that their child benefited from the more structured and yes,
    disciplined environment. Isn't that a tremendous plus for daycares?

    	Whenever I hear someone start telling me "the experts say..." I
    almost always tune out and don't listen to what they have to say.

    	I don't want to do what the experts say for my child just for the
    sake of being vogue. I want to do what *I* feel is right.

    			Wendy

    In her interview, Leach made a couple of points, some less provocative
    than others.
    
    She pointed out that the U.S. lags behind most of our Western allies in
    the social/economic support provided to parents and children.  In
    Sweden, not only do mothers get 18 months paid leave but parents work 
    30 hours a week until children are of school age.
    
    For me LEach's bottom line wasn't so much that one spouse must be a
    full-time parent, but rather that we -- the U.S. -- needs to do a
    better job ensuring that the childcare our children receive is adequate
    and safe and nuturing.
    
    I think many of us individually put in a lot of effort to ensure
    quality childcare for our children.  IT would be nice if society better
    supported our efforts.
    
    I don't think its sufficient to say that this isn't possible given 
    the current economy.  Even in the "boom" period of the 
    early and mid-1980s, the U.S. economy was such that most families could
    not afford a home on a single salary.  Our economy, as much as
    anything, makes it difficult for one parent to be a full time child
    rearer.  Given this economic, the issue is how committed our society is 
    to its children.
    
    Gene  
    
    
    
    
      
     
    
    
    

Judging from two 2-month periods of stay-at-home parenting (one with each
child) I can safely say that my children would be emotionally harmed by
my staying at home with them.  My self image would be zero, as well as
my motivation to do things at their level all day every day.  Further, my
aptitude for the types of things that stimulate children and help them in
their development, is ZERO.  I just don't have the creativity - or anywhere 
close to it - of those people who choose the profession.

I would feel about as misplaced in that career (full-time child rearing) as
one of them would probably feel system programming!

Kristen (who will stay out of the home vs. daycare war for now!)

    I agree with #13 - the issue is our committment to our children,
    the committment of the business world to children, and the committment
    of govt. to children. There are a bunch of statistics from the 1990
    census bureau. Off the top of my head - in 1960's the median % of
    income tax was 14%, now it's 25%. After inflation and taxes, families
    are better off in the 90's by 0%. Every 36 minutes a  child is hurt
    or killed by a gun (this happens to be one I remember, it's not a
    digression on gun control), 1 of every 4 children is born to poverty,
    every 25 minutes a child dies as a result of neglect or abuse. I 
    could go on if I had the article in front of me. So where is the money
    going in this country? What's being done to support children's
    well-being, their education, their nutrition, medical care, etc.
    What's in place to support families similar to what we see abroad?
    Why is money being taken from my paycheck to get Neil Bush and friends
    off the hook? Why isn't it going to programs for children?
    
    The article in the Globe is just a newspaper article. If you read
    Leach, she says that children must form emotional bonds. They can do
    so with more than one person (mom, dad, primary caretaker) but they
    can't do it with a plethora of people moving in and out of their lives.
    This happens in institutions, this happens in wealthy families who
    hire nannies that leave every year.
    
    I taught for 3 years in the Andover Montessori school. In the same
    building we were in a day care center rented space. What went on there
    was appalling. The women screamed at the babies and children. Lunch
    was hot dogs. The materials were few and ragged. This is in Mass. and
    the place is under the jurisdiction of the Office for Children. Why
    does this go on? 
    
    Instead of taking Penelope Leach personally, apply what she's saying
    to a larger view of the situation for children in this country. As
    Digital employees we are a TINY minority. The median salary for a
    2 parent family is $12,000 in 1990. What about those children?
    
    Alice

    Telling mothers to stay home for 18 months is not going to do
    anything to relieve the deeply entrenched social and economic
    problems of this country.
    
    --bonnie 

    I agree with .16 - it is appalling that there is no national parental
    leave policy. We are lucky in Mass. to live in a state where it is
    mandated that new mothers can have six weeks off *unpaid* (and luckier
    still that Digital chooses to pay us for that time - they don't have
    to). I see no reason why there should not be more government support
    for fathers and mothers to be able to take long leaves to be with
    young children.
    
    My other response to this issue is that it is a *family* issue, not
    just an issue for working mothers. I think Leach, Brazelton and other
    spokespeople/"experts" are beginning to recognize that the fathers have
    as much need for support as mothers. 
    
    My personal feeling is that the more time parents can stay home with
    kids the better, but that we need government (and private sector)
    support to be able to do it. I won't go into more detail; a national
    parental leave bill is a good starting point.
    
    Lucy

    With out reading any of the replies to the base note.. I have to say
    that I am all for the 18 month leave after child birth!! I would like
    nothing better than to be home with Daniel (7.5 months) right now. 

    One consolation is the fact that Daddy is home with him now. Working
    "off shifts" isn't the greatest, either, but if I can go to work
    knowing that Daddy and son are together, then it eases my mind a bit.
    I just wish I was in the picture, too. Call in envy, or what ever you
    want, but I would definitely support any bill that would grant parents
    substantial leave after birth.

    IMHO
    Norma

I was at home on Tuesday (sprained back) and caught the "Good Day" program.
T. Berry Brazelton was the guest for the entire hour.

The show's host asked him about what Penelope Leach had said about daycare.
His response was that the women in this country don't have the same choices
as women in some European countries.  He also said that what might work in
England might not work here in the U.S.

He also mentioned that he's starting a "Parents Action" group to lobby in
Washington for mandatory 3-month leave for parents.


- Terry

    I have to echo what was said in .15 -- I could NOT stay home with my
    kids full time.  I would go insane.  I have neither the temperament,
    nor the patience to do the things with them that their childcare
    instructors do with them.  I can honestly say that my children have
    benifitted enormously from their childcare center.
    
    As for the 18 months paid leave:
    1.  If you played your cards right and got pregnant nine months after
    your first was born, you could be on paid maternity leave for quite
    some time! :-)
    
    2.  What is the rate of taxation in some of these socialist countries
    such as Sweden?  Don't forget, someone has to pay for it.  Relatives of
    mine who live in Canada assert that 60% of their income goes to taxes. 
    That's outrageous.  Are there any Canadians out there who'd care to
    comment?
    
    

    An article in _Business Week_ last month reported that 70-80 per
    cent of U.S.  businesses employing 10-50 people already offer
    _*MORE*_ leave (I didn't save the article but it was something
    like 14.2 weeks), more medical support, and better job guarantees
    than what Congress voted down last year because "business" lobbies
    said it would be too expensive for small businesses to implement. 
    It's really BIG corporations that don't want the expense.
    
    A small company can't afford the hiring training costs of
    replacing a valued employee for simply being out for a few weeks. 
    It's cheaper to carry them for months, even years.  
    
    Sweden's experience, according to the same Business Week article,
    is that almost entirely mothers take the mandatory leave, that
    mothers who don't take the leave take a lot of criticism, and that
    there's a serious mommy-track problem.  They're trying to work a
    program to get fathers to take at least some of their leave, but
    so far haven't had much results. 
    
    As an individual, I agree with Kristen -- .14, I think? -- I'd go
    stir crazy if I had to stay home with a baby for 18 months.  Part
    time for a few months was nice, but hardly necessary.  I do much
    better with older kids and would really rather be able to have
    summers off after the kids are in school.  Maybe I could pro-rate
    my 18 months across 6 years???
    
    --bonnie

    I think the issue is opportunity. I'd like to see it become routine
    for people to take long leaves to stay home with kids. No one should 
    be forced to (and I agree, full-time parenting is not for everyone).
    People need to be able to afford to do this, however, and this is
    where the question of our country's priorities comes in.
    
    The Business Week article sounds interesting. Bonnie, do you remember
    whether the smaller businesses you mentioned were offering 14 weeks
    (or whatever) of *paid* leave? I'm guessing it's more likely to be
    a mix of paid and unpaid, or unpaid altogether.
    
    Lucy

    re: .23
    
    It was whatever the legislation that failed required -- which I
    think was 6 weeks paid and 6 weeks unpaid for a total of 12 weeks,
    but I could be remembering wrong.  Am I recalling correctly that
    the bill passed congress but the president vetoed it?  Or did it
    not pass because of the threat of the veto?
    
    Unfortunately I didn't foresee this conversation would be coming
    up so I didn't save the article :) :)
    
    --bonnie

In Sweden, depending on your income, the tax rate can be as high as 90%.  I
think average is around 60-70%  For that they get A LOT of services.  In 
Switzerland, with very little progression and almost no services, the tax rate
is between 20 and 30%.  But here you pay for EVERYTHING.

Another thing about trying to be a working mother here.  The school system is
designed to keep mothers at home.  In Geneva there is no school on Thursday
but school on Saturday morning.  In the canton of Vaud, there is no school on
Wednesday afternoon.  School hours in Vaud go from between 8:00 and 8:30 to
11:30 or 12:00 and then from 2:00 to around 4:00.  Many (most?) systems don't
have school cafeterias and children may not remain on the grounds over lunch
so Mom has to be there to see they get fed.

And it's not "wealthy" people who have au paires or nanies here.  It is your
normal every day working mother.  It is the only way to cope when there is
little or no alternative day care.

In ten years, I have had 19 au paires.  I bless the good ones, I curse the bad.
Some stayed as little as a week.  A few very good ones stayed over a year.  One
DECworld when both my husband and I had to be there it "cost" us three au
paires!  That's three different women in four weeks!  One had the gall to tell
me that I was a bad mother and should be home to greet my children when they
get out of school.  And my current boss couldn't understand why I didn't want 
to go back for the last DECville.

But some of our experience has been great.  We have tried and been successful 
in many cases to get kindergarten teachers looking for a year abroad.  The 
good ones have a love of children and experience that has been invaluable for
my children.  It also means that they are able to maintain their "father"
tongue, German, since we are then able to speak all three languages at home.

So, enough rambling..  their are tradeoffs to every situation.  If you don't
pay (and I don't just mean $$$) one way you'll pay another.  We make the best
compromises we can.

ccb

    
    FYI: There is an article in this months PARENTING magazine on this
    	topic. (I just got it in the mail yesterday). I think it was called
    	"Do BABIES belong in daycare".  I didn't get the chance to read the 
    	article in detail, but I think it summarized the fact that maybe 
    	BABIES (infants) are better off in "home" daycare, and toddlers
    	benefit well from more structured "learning" school type daycare.
    	(there seems to be alot of notes throughout this file supporting
         this..???)
    
    	As I said...I did note read it in detail yet...but you may like to 
    	check it out.
    
    	Chris
    

    RE: Digital 6 weeks paid leave mentioned a few notes back.
    
    Keep in mind what Digital *pays* is short-term disability: 2 weeks before
    and 6 weeks after a normal delivery; and 2 weeks before and 8 weeks
    after a C-section.  Short-term disability may be extended either up
    front or at the end per order of the doctor, just like on any other
    health related disability.  
    
    Parental Leave is the Digital version of time to be with a new baby. 
    That's 8 weeks and unpaid.
    
    

Gene:

AGAIN! ... I sense that YOU'RE trying to defend you and your spouse's belief
that STAY-AT-HOME CARE IS ALWAYS BEST!  I read MANY of Penelope Leach's
articles - including the one you mentioned - and I did NOT get that distinct
absolute impression from her article!

1)  Jim/I flex'd houred with Juli the first year.  We used HOMECARE ... we
are now using DAYCARE ... "today" DAYCARE is working BEST for JIM/JULI/DOTTIE
... AND I work because I WANT TO WORK (not because I have to!) ... 

2)  Society owes me NOTHING! ... I have choices AND responsibilities: and
one of those choices is to stay at home, get homecare, get daycare, infringe 
on my family, flexi hours, etc. ... Jim/I CHOOSE DAYCARE!

3)  And for every Penelope Leach, I can name a ka-zillion others who will
tell you that children from daycare environments FLOURISH and GROW in
DIFFERENT WAYS than children from homecare - OR stay-at-home care.  Not to
mention that every kid/parent/provider is different and no two kids will ever
turn out the same ANYWAYS!

Jim/I ... AND JULI ... and very happy with our current arrangement - DAYCARE!

I know that Penelope Leach has talked about "newborn needs and necessary
bonding to Mom, etc.", but AGAIN, I do not necessarily interrupt this to
mean that Penelope Leach is an AVID SUPPORTER OF STAY-AT-HOME CARE,
SOO ... my interpretations from MANY of her articles which I HAVE READ
is that she states pros/cons with all types of "care", at all stages ...
and like all of us!, clearly admits that what works very well for one
may or may not work the same for another.

GEEEssssh!
Dottie

re: 27

And if you adopt a newborn ... you do not get any disability (since you
are not recovering from "physical" childbirth) ...

but you can request the standard LOA's, vacation time, etc.

Dottie

    
    
    
    I feel that parents should have the option to choose the childcare
    style that they feel most comfortable with.  Either it is staying
    home or family care or daycare center or whatever.  And currently,
    very few people that I know have the option.  
    
    Luckly, I am one of the few person that have the option.
    Eric (almost 3) stayed home the first year (we hired a live-in nanny).  
    He started at a  daycare center when he was 15 months old.  I feel 
    the arrangement was ideal.  He got the one-to-one attention when he
    was an infant, which personnally, I think is very important for 
    that age.  Now, with Monica (8 months old), we follow the same
    route.  We have a live-in nanny to mainly take care Monica and
    Eric still attends daycare center full-time.
    
    Both times, I was not sure whether or not I should hire a nanny
    or stay home myself.  Both times I decided that it is really
    not my best interests to be a stay home mom. 
    
    Although, I personally will decline the 18 month paid leave,
    if it is offered.  I feel strongly that something should be
    done, so that parents who wish to stay home with their infants
    can do so.
    
    Wendy

    
re. 28

>>Gene
>>
>>AGAIN! ... I sense that YOU'RE trying to defend you and your spouse's belief
>>that STAY-AT-HOME CARE IS ALWAYS BEST!  I read MANY of Penelope Leach's
    
    I did not intend to give that impression, not least of all because my
    wife and I employ (part-time) child care for our daughter.
    
    My chief point -- and one of Leach's -- is that our society does not do
    much to support working parents.  I don't think it's a matter of society
    owing you something.  Rather, its society coming to grips with the 
    consequences of its policies and of protecting the next generation.
     
    Once upon a time, a single middle-class salary could support the 
    average home mortgage.  That ain't true any longer.
    Buying a decent home in a decent community increasingly requires two
    incomes.  So day/home-care isn't a choice for a lot of us; it's an
    economically driven necessity.  That necessity has repercussions for 
    us as parents, for our kids, and for society more broadly. 
    Unfortunately, society -- US society -- doesn't seem too receptive to
    address those reprecussions. 
    
    Gene 
    
       
    
   
    
     
    
    
    
    

    
    Just some more food for thought...
    
    How did society become dependent in the FIRST place for needing
    dual-income families?  Could it be that with people becoming more
    educated and marrying and raising families later that the amount
    of "disposable" income went up, meaning more things become "necessary"
    and that the more money available, the greater the rise in the cost
    of living?  Certainly if most people had 1 income families, the market
    for housing that requires 2 incomes would not be great.  If people 
    can't afford it, the price drops or the product disappears from the
    market.
    
    I guess in essence I am saying we are responsible for the need for 
    two incomes because the market will take whatever it can get.
    
    BTW, this is just an observation, I am not making any judgements on
    whether it would be desirable to go back to the "old" days when there
    was a single income family with typically the woman at home.
    
    One more thing (I just can't resist getting my two cents in on this
    issue),  I believe strongly there is no "ideal" situation.  Each family
    is different and it is important that people be able to work out their
    own solution given the specific goals and priorities that they as a 
    family has set.  I think government, or business, or whoever "they" are
    should be fair in trying to accomodate these differences, not by making
    one option more "desirable" than another, but by people being able to 
    make trade-offs to get the child care situation where they as a family
    think it is best (ie. take a longer unpaid leave but know your job is
    there...give some tax incentives for those that chose to stay home with
    children...make flex hours/part time more "acceptable", etc)
    
    Sue
    

Gene:

Sorry if I came across "harsh" ...

I do agree that many parents don't have choices ... they BOTH HAVE to work.
And I do worry about the parents who have to make concessions -- hiring
sitters based strictly on "cost savings" ... because they can't afford
"quality" care.  And I emphasize with parents who HAVE TO WORK and WANT
to be home fulltime with their kids.  In these kinds of situations, the
kids suffer AND the parents suffer.  But I'm still not convinced that it's
necessarily society's problem  .. there's got to be a better solution to
this dilemma (would be nice if employers could get more involved!).

I feel Jim/I are fortunate that we CAN make choices ... choices we (and Juli)
can enjoy and live with.

I also agree with a previous noter that ultimately we will still bear the
expense of daycare ... whether or not it's coming out of our pockets
directly (every Friday write out your check ...) ... OR by way of a social
benefit (and ultimately tax revenue, etc.).

My feathers are also somewhat ruffled over another matter ... I found out
this week that our Town has pulled up the kindergarten start date to
September 1st.  Juli's birthday is September 2nd.  She's very smart and
gifted and well-adjusted ... Having her START kindergarten on her 6th
BIRTHDAY boggles my mind (to put it very mildly!).  It's still too early
to firm up a plan ... but Jim/I are discussing "private schooling" for
kindergarten and possibly 1st grade (but other noters have warned me that
she may still be held back no matter how much we spend and invest in her
education!).  This situation (delaying kids from STARTING school -- even
when the parents ARE WILLING TO PAY for private education!) has me
MORE TICKED OFF than ANYTHING!  .... As parents, our hands are tied!

Re: Sue's response ...


KIDDO's to my current management (and my previous management) HERE AT DEC
who initially made it possible for me to "flex" hours (and work from home
when necessary) ... and CONTINUE to make this "choice" possible and feasible!

Hip-hip-horray!

Dottie

    re: .32
    
    Good point, but historically inaccurate.  It might perhaps explain
    the most recent housing trends (and why do people insist they have
    to own a house when they can't afford it?  What ever happened to
    renting?) but the social arrangement of a single income and an
    isolated nuclear family is VERY unusual in the history of the
    human race. 
    
    In most of western society for the past several thousand years,
    most people have worked as soon as they were old enough to walk
    and carry something.  On the farm, in the family business (whether
    that was dying purple cloth for kings or building ships or making
    scarab broaches for the pharoah), or providing personal service to
    somebody richer, whatever.  
    
    One person -- usually a relative who was too old or too young to
    work -- would watch the children who weren't old enough to work. 
    
    After the industrial revolution, everyone who could get a job
    worked outside the home for wages.  This is why we have child
    labor laws.  
    
    It wasn't until after WWII that mother home alone with the kids
    became the norm.  It's probably a glitch in social evolution.
    
    --bonnie
    
    

    agree with .30 :
    
    I, too, think a 1-1 relationship is important to an infant and a 
    structured learning day care center is good for a toddler (15+ months)
    and beyound.
    
    Because (1) I "want" to work, (2) a good, reliable, and loving nanny
    is hard to find.  I choosed a day care center which has a low
    caregiver turn-around rate in the infant room.   It worked out
    ok so far.   My daughter, now 9 month, seems happy to "go to school"
    everyday.
    
    Lin
    

ok, ok, I said I wouldn't say anymore.  I lied.

I took a class in college in which the professor (sociology) said
that the stay-at-home mother (as we now know it) was a result of World War II 
ending.  (There were other decades when upper-class women did not work -
literally - they had servants, but lower class women *were* the servants).

During WWII, many women worked in the war industries, both to support the war
effort and because they needed the money to support their families while the
men were away.  As I remember, the industries helped with child care some, and
it wasn't unusual for women to form co-ops to provide help to each other as
temporary (or permanent) single parents.  A surrogate family, so to speak.

Remember that this was right after the Great Depression, when many farm
families lost their land and were forced off.  The war increased the urban
populations, because that's where the jobs were.

When the war ended, the men returned to an economy that was slowing.  Jobs were
harder to find because companies were retooling to produce domestic products
instead of war materials, and women were holding the jobs.

The push for stay-at-home women started when the nation as a whole wanted to 
reward the returning servicemen.  Women were moved to lesser paying jobs or
simply fired so men could have the jobs.  The shift had moved from farms to 
cities, and the only comparable job for urban women was child caring and elder 
caring.  So a job that had been a communal task, that of family members caring 
for each other according to need and ability, became the task of one family 
member.

One of the things that I find most interesting about this shift is how women
were portrayed in the media.  In the 40's, they were portrayed as strong,
independant, and competent. An example: Rosie, the Riveter.  In the 50's, they 
were portrayed as weak, dependant, and incompetent.  My favorite example: 
Doris Day movies.

    
>    In most of western society for the past several thousand years,
>    most people have worked as soon as they were old enough to walk
>    and carry something.  On the farm, in the family business (whether
>    that was dying purple cloth for kings or building ships or making
>    scarab broaches for the pharoah), or providing personal service to
>    somebody richer, whatever.  
>    
>    One person -- usually a relative who was too old or too young to
>    work -- would watch the children who weren't old enough to work. 
 
    
    bonnie,
    
    I have read many of your notes and I'm sure you didn't mean it this way
    but it seems as though your note implies that staying at home is not
    work. I just spent 4 hours cleaning the family room and i know I don't
    have to tell you this but, staying home is dam@ hard work!
    
    Kate ;^)
       
    

    re: .38
    
    Yes, "work" was to be taken in the sense of "effort in exchange of
    renumeration of some sort" rather than "amount of sweat expended."
    Sorry, I forgot that when one's using economic terms, one has to
    remember to define them out of the subjective into the economic...
    
    --bonnei

    To my mind, the major hole in current American child-care is not
    the lack of parental leave at birth, but the fact that the school
    day and year don't fit the work day and year.  If the State is
    going to take your child, the least it can do is not make it
    more inconvenient than it has to be.
    
    Ideally, children would leave for school before their parents left
    for work and return afterwards, so that parents didn't have to come
    up with some kind of transitional child care for the post-school
    pre-return-from-work hours.
    
    Ideally, children would be in school when parents worked, so that
    no summer vacation child-care needed to be arranged.
    
    The current cultural assumption seems to be that there is still a
    Mom at home to give them a snack at 3:30 when they come home, and
    to supervise play during the long summer vacation (and yes, I'm
    aware of the historical reason for these hours and days: it was to
    free children for work on the family farm...).
    
    (As an aside, another example of the assumption that everyone lives
    in a family with a housewife is the fact that most government offices
    and many businesses are only open during "work hours", at precisely
    the times a person with a normal job can't go to them except at
    considerable cost and inconvenience.)
    
    		-John Bishop

    Amen, John . . . 
    
    --bonnie

I've been away for a few days.  It's time to catch up.

re .6:

>    but if that's what you'd like to discuss, why not title your note "The
>    tragedy of substandard daycare", or something similar?  Are you trying
>    to be deliberately provocative?

I certainly have opinions on the subject, but I'm not trying to convince
anyone that I'm right and they're wrong.  I thought Leach's position was
provocative and that it might trigger an interesting discussion.  If you
think my representation of the article was unfair, please cite specifics.

re .12:

>    	Doesn't each child stand on their own? Don't the parents who care
>    for the child ultimately know what is best for *their* particular
>    situation?

Ideally, yes.  In the real world, there are lots of dysfunctional families
in which the parents mean well.

re "the history of stay-at-home mothering":

Middle-class urban married women seldom worked outside the home before WWII.
During the war, women began working outside to replace men in vital industries.
Before the war, there were very few jobs that were open to married women.

re .40:

Young children have a hard time with an 8+ hour workday.  For that matter,
so do most adults, but them's the breaks.

re: .31, Gene

<    Once upon a time, a single middle-class salary could support the 
<    average home mortgage.  That ain't true any longer.
<    Buying a decent home in a decent community increasingly requires two
<    incomes.  So day/home-care isn't a choice for a lot of us; it's an
<    economically driven necessity.  That necessity has repercussions for 
<    us as parents, for our kids, and for society more broadly. 
<    Unfortunately, society -- US society -- doesn't seem too receptive to
<    address those reprecussions. 
   
   While I certainly can't argue this point, I do want to add a
   comment here - there are alternatives to the now wide-spread
   2-income family situation.  Yes, I have 2 kids, and no, I can not
   afford to own a house on my income alone (yes, we rent currently).
   But, there are alternatives to having my wife work outside the home
   - alternatives that we are taking advantage of even now.  
   
   Specifically, I am starting a business that I can manage and run
   outside of work hours, and from my residence.  Yes, its
   inconvenient, and yes, its lots of work, but it is an alternative
   that can be explored by many, many people if they so chose.
   
   The questions that must be answered - as many here already have -
   are:  What do you want for your family?  What will it cost you ($$
   and other)?  Is the return-on-investment worth it?   As so many
   have stated, its an individual question that must be answered by
   each family - if the payback is worth the cost, then we do it.  For
   us, the benefits of starting this business and working on it are
   far greater than anything it will cost us, and so we build.
   
   Peace,

   - Tom

re: .42
    
    >re "the history of stay-at-home mothering":
>
>Middle-class urban married women seldom worked outside the home before WWII.
>During the war, women began working outside to replace men in vital industries.
>Before the war, there were very few jobs that were open to married women.
    
    Yes, but there weren't very many urban middle-class women.  This
    simply wasn't true over most of the country, for most women. Rural
    women and lower-class women, whether married or not, have always
    worked for whatever wages they could get. 
    
    It's true that most decent professional and quasiprofessional jobs
    started closing to married women starting around the 1920's, but
    waiting tables, cleaning floors, cooking institutional food,
    working farm equipment,  and all the rest of that category of jobs
    were full of women, married and unmarried.  Teaching remained open
    to married women, as did nursing.  
    
    My grandmother worked for wages all her life, when she could get a
    job.  She took her pre-WWII baby (my father) with her when she had
    to.  It was my mother raising kids in the fifties and sixties who
    never had to work outside the home.
    
    In addition, very few middle class women who were home all day
    could not afford to hire help.  It depended mostly on the mother's
    temprement and the kind of help she could get whether the help was
    a nanny for the kids, a cook for the kitchen, or a housekeeper for
    the rest of the house.  Even in the 1950's, Neil's mother (both
    his parents were teachers) was able to afford in-house help
    routinely. 
    
    --bonnie

Tom,

I am curious:  where does *your* relationship with your children fit on your
priorities?  From your recent note (about starting a business that will take lots
of time, but you can run out of your home) it appears you will have little or
no quality time with the kids.  To some that would be a bigger sacrifice than
both parents working full-time, but having nights with the kids.

Kristen

>                                                Teaching remained open
>    to married women, as did nursing.  

Before she married, my mother was a teacher in England.  Married women were
not allowed to teach except under unusual circumstances (e.g., husband was ill).

    What years was your mother a teacher? 
    
    My cousin's mother taught in England, in London, from the time she
    was about 20 in 1925 until she retired in 1977, while raising four
    kids.  
    
    --bonnie

re: .45  Kristen,

   Valid question - though personally I would call it the *best* of
   both worlds, not the worst.

   Some nights I am "out", and some nights I am not - that depends on
   how busy I want to be that night, and what's happening with the
   kids.   And some nights I just disappear into the "office" for a
   little while to do a few quick tasks, so I get to do both on those
   nights.  In fact, some might say that I have been spending too much
   time with my kids, at a detriment to the business.  Perhaps that is
   true, but it has been my decision.  

>   ... it appears you will have little or no quality time with the
>   kids.  To some that would be a bigger sacrifice than both parents
>   working full-time, but having nights with the kids.

   It could appear that way, but its not really true - this project I
   am working on is built such that I can set my own schedule, so I
   have control over just how much time I invest.
   
   Yes, I suppose to some it would be a bigger sacrifice.  We (my wife
   and I) have talked it over, and decided that this is something we
   want me to work on.  Short term it may be a bigger sacrifice than
   "just" having a "normal" 2 income situation (though I believe that
   is a subjective call), but long term the payback will be more than
   worth the "cost" - at least to us, anyway.
   
   I guess my main point was that there are alternate (some, I claim,
   much better) ways to supplement your income than having a partner
   that is employed.
   
   Peace,
   
   - Tom

    Re: .-2
    
    I will give Tom in .-1 a little support here.  I too work more than one
    job.  Am I thrilled about it?  Not really, but I look at the long
    term.  I set some goals for myself in terms of providing for my family. 
    With a transfer to Ma from Nh, I lost my shirt (~$50K) due to a "scam"
    with the third party buyout (please don't ask for details).  I now work
    at three jobs to try to not lose my house.  My wife is working in the
    home providing daycare.  We decided that she would remain at home if at
    all possible.  Being a teacher, working full time would yield about $4k
    over the daycare costs (not a viable option).  So we decided to provide
    care rather than use it.  This allows her to stay at home and raise the
    kids along with providing a learning environment for them.
    
    Up until recently (last week), all of our available slots were full. 
    The extra income allowed us to survive the winter.  Now its my turn to
    pull in some extra cash.  I miss seeing my kids grow up as I see them
    for about 1 hour a day, but  really don't have too much choice.  I hope
    to be free of the extra debt within a year.  At that time I'll be able
    to enjoy the kids without worrying about anything else.  I see the
    short term sacrifice well worth the longterm gains.
    
    Dan

    Before the industrial revolution, the vast majority of the worlds men
    and women farmed from the home. While work is certainly not a recent
    phenominon, "going to work" is.
    
    The term "farmers wife" is a contradiction in itself. Women were
    farmers too.
    
    Kate

re .47:

Off the top of my head, about 1936 to 1945.  I imagine the rules were relaxed
during the war.

Tom,

Thanks for the explanation.  From your previous notes it appeared that your
primary goal was having your kids in your wife's care, without any priority
on your time with them.

I too get accused of spending too much time working, leaving little left for
my kids.  But I keep a rule of leaving by 5:45 (to avoid fine at the daycare
if nothing else!), and not logging back onto the system until they are in
bed (between 8:30 and 9:00).  Between the time I pick them up from daycare
and the time they go to bed, I'm all theirs!  And weekends are pretty sacred
too.......  I guess we each have our sacred priorities, and hopefully they
all lead to a similar end (healthy, happy, well-adjusted adult children)!

Kristen

    re: .51
    
    I imagine they were.
    
    I suspect also that a lot of it depended on whether the school
    district could get qualified teachers, married or not.  My
    cousin's mother was definitely teaching in a lower-lower-class
    school.  I remember that after she retired and moved to the US
    some time while I was still in college, she used to go around
    giving seminars to teachers about how to deal with inner-city
    situations -- she had a lot of sympathy for how  difficult it was
    teaching in inner-city US schools because she'd seen a lot worse
    in the part of London she was in.  
    
    In any case, when you're talking about huge social trends, there
    will be areas and individuals to which the trend doesn't apply. 
    And whether or not teaching was open to married women, it doesn't
    change my basic point, that until recently, the majority of
    mothers in this country were not spending their entire time at
    home raising children.  
    
    I suspect that for a lot of people, "work outside the home" isn't
    even a meaningful phrase.  You work at what needs to be done for
    your family unit -- whether your family unit is a nuclear family,
    a clan, an extended family, a tribal unit, a non-traditional
    structure, whether that means generating income, providing
    services so others can generate income (the traditional 
    homemaker/breadwinner distinction), doing work to eventually
    generate income (growing vegetables) or to prevent loss of
    resources (canning vegetables so you don't have to buy them),
    personal satisfaction, generating family prestige, etc. 
    
    Care of the children is a family need, just as shelter, food,
    enrichment are.  Each has a personal and a practical dimension as
    well as the collective need, and the important thing is that each
    family has to find its own balance according to its individual
    needs, economic status and goals, cultural milieu, social
    position, and all the rest.  What's appropriate to a wealthy tribe
    in a rural African nation won't likely be the same thing that's
    appropriate for that same unit moved to the urban US.  
    
    Less obvious is that what's appropriate for a lower middle class
    family with three kids and the wife's aging mother isn't going to
    be the same as what works for a single executive with one child or
    for a two-professional-career couple raising a family a thousand
    miles from their nearest relative.  
    
    Choice is the issue, flexibility is the need, and government
    programs usually limit rather than enlarging one's choices. 
    
    --bonnie

    One thing is clear about this whole matter.  We as a society are in an
    entirely new situation, one that humanity has never faced before. 
    Harkening back to the "good old days" is no answer.  I think we need to
    clearly evaluate what's happening and be flexible about our future.
    
    Why do I say this?  For most of human history, we were hunter/gatherers
    or tribal farmers.  Babies were cared for by their mothers as they
    worked, and care of young children was shared with older children,
    elderly relatives and grandparents, and whoever was available.  People
    lived in small groups their entire lives.  Feudalism did not
    significantly change this for most people.  In cities and towns,
    families practiced trade or crafts, usually out of their homes.  Women
    frequently shared the work responsibilites with men.  With extended
    families living close by, the child care was practiced much as before. 
    Wealthy women had servants and wet nurses, but this was for only a
    small portion of humanity's numbers, and it freed them not to work, but
    to fulfill their social functions and enhance their status.  For those
    men who left home for the military or the sea, their wives remained at
    home with the extended family in the town or farm, frequently
    continuing to work as they always had.  Remember, nearly all goods
    consumed were made at home or within the village, including cloth,
    soap, medicines, foodstuffs, and vehicles.  Most people kept domestic
    animals for meat, milk, and eggs..  NOT working was never an option for 
    women or even for children.  Universal schooling dates back less than
    200 years and is not available in many countries, still.
    
    This picture bring us right up to the very recent past.  It was only
    with the rise of industrialism that people began to work for wages
    outside the family business or farm, earning wages, and sometimes room
    and board, in factories.  At the same time, there was a massive buildup
    of the cities where rural people relocated in search of work.  Men,
    women, AND children worked in factores.  This was before labor laws. 
    Large numbers of women became prostitutes and servants to the growing
    middle class.  For those middle class women, it became a badge of
    status that they were able to remain home with their children.  A
    typical middle class (factory owner/manager's) home employed a staff or
    servants, including a nanny.  The children of factory workers,
    prostitutes, and servants were frequently left without supervision. 
    The extended family was left behind in the country, or dispersed.
    
    In the US and Europe, the rise of labor unions forced higher wages.  It
    became more feasible for families to live on the husband's earnings
    alone.  This dates back only to the 1920's.  It was a major improvement
    in lifestyle for women to be ABLE to stay at home.  Still, many could
    not afford it and many women continued to work for wages, on the farm,
    or in a family business.
    
    The economy in developed countries is moving into a post-industrial
    age.  It INCLUDES factories, of course, many of which (not all) are
    unionized.  But what is truly new are the large numbers of white
    collar, knowledge-based workers.  At DEC, they include office workers,
    engineers, programmers, systems support, tech writers, managers, sales
    people, tech support, and others.  Unlike many factory jobs, these
    require no physical strength.  They can be fulfilled equally by men or
    women.  At the same time, there is a larger pool of literate, educated
    women available to take these jobs.  It is only since the 1950's that
    large numbers of women entered college.  In the 1920's my grandmother
    was proud of having finished high school.  She was the exception.
    
    It is only in the last 20 years that middle class women could earn
    money approaching parity with men.  (And there is STILL a differential,
    even in knowledge-based jobs.)  We entered a purely cash-based
    economy.  It seems like the cost of living (housing, food, medical
    costs, education) have been outstripping the average family's earning
    potential.  (I haven't seen any numbers comparing this to 20, 40, and
    60 years ago, have you?)  A family supported by a female worker is no
    longer automatically in poverty; her earning potential may be adequate
    to maintain a decent lifestyle.  In a 2-worker household, her money is
    usually needed for housing or other necessities.  While some families
    can make it on a husband's earnings, many cannot.  To guarantee the
    next generation's middle-class earning potential, the family must
    provide education by living in a good school district or paying for
    private school, and by saving for higher education.  It is an expensive
    proposition.   Some families can make it on one income; many cannot.
    
    In summary, I am saying that the economy and women's place in it has
    changed.  Women are a permanent part of the
    workforce, for more than subsistence wages.  Providing quality,
    cash-based child care is a very new option.  On a mass basis, it is
    less than 20 years old.  It is a necessity.  The historical child-care
    providers are no longer available.  Older children are in school. 
    Grandparents are working themselves, live far away, or do not want to
    do it.  Aunts are working, too, or live remotely.   
    
    I predict that 50
    years from now, daycare will be an accepted part of life, whether
    provided in-home, in-provider's-home, or in centers, and whether funded
    by tax deductions, direct government subsidy, employers, or out of
    parents' pockets.  I predict that women's presence in the workforce
    will be an accepted fact, and that there will be more flexibility for
    parents of young children.   Fully paid leave of at least 3 months per
    newborn, will be standard, and part-time work will be standard, and
    subsidized, for a number of months after that.  Arrangements will be
    available for sick children, both at hospital day facilities, and by
    paying for one parent to stay home.
    
    We cannot turn back the clock, if we even wanted to.  As a population,
    is is our opportunity to mold the social conditions of the future.
    
    Laura    

This note seems to sinking deeper and deeper into sociology, so I thought I'd
fan the flames a little.

There seem to be some ardent defenders of the idea of infants going to daycare
so both parents can work.  Some noters have said they do this out of choice.
Others have said it's out of necessity.  What's the connection between
attitudes towards daycare and childhood experience?  I'd guess that those
whose mothers worked outside the home feel less guilty about sending their
children to daycare than those who were raised by stay-at-home mothers.

    
    I don't suspect you'll get a very good cross-section of opinions
    on this topic *in this forum*.   
    
    As far as your premise that children rasied by stay-at-home mothers
    feeling more guilty about sending their own children to daycare,
    I'd have to personally disagree.   My mother was home with my siblings(2)
    and myself until we were all in junior high school.  I don't feel
    particularly guilty about leaving my son in home daycare....
    
    Carol

    re .42 and whether or not I think your representation of the article
    was unfair
    
    Yes, I think it was.  My reading of the article was that Leach was
    concerned about the quality of daycare, and government's lack of
    concern about childcare in general.  
    
    The point I was trying to make in my response was that I thought your
    titling the note "Daycare vs..." was being deliberately argumentative,
    and that, I for one, was tired of hearing about the "Mommy Wars".  I'd
    rather focus on finding the "Common Ground"...which I think is how best
    to care for our children.   In general, I think the discussion has
    moved in that direction, i.e. productive and enlightening, rather than
    accusatory and defensive.
    
    I'm not quite sure why you want to "fan the flames" (.55), but I'll
    bite.  My mother raised five children, and was home til I was 14, and
    the youngest was six.  She worked "mother's hours", (9-3), three days a
    week, progressing to full time, when my youngest sister was in high
    school.  I am employed outside the home, and feel no "guilt" about the
    care my children are receiving.  My only other sibling who has children
    is my brother.  He and his wife have an 8 month old, and his wife is
    currently at home.  The home you're raised in does affect the lifestyle
    you'll adopt, but whether your parents were employed or not is only one
    factor.
    
    Susan
    
                                         

    I was raised in quite a non-traditional situation. My mother went
    back to work when I was two and my brother was eight, and gradually
    became the sole support of the family as my father's illness 
    progressed. So I don't remember a time when she didn't work and 
    pay all the bills, etc. However, my own family runs a different way, 
    so far.
    
    Today, my husband and I have made the choice to trade a higher income
    for the advantages of having one of us home as much as possible. We
    rent an apartment and both work part time. Our three-year-old is in a
    combination of day care and nursery school for about 20 hours/week; we
    plan to do the same with our second child (after I take some time off
    to be home full time). 
    
    Tom P. in note .43 raised some interesting questions: "What do you want 
    for your family?  What will it cost you ($$ and other)?  Is the return-
    on-investment worth it?" We have decided that, so far, it's well worth
    having less money and more time at home. It's also important that my
    husband is as responsible, or more, for day-to-day child care and 
    household duties as I am. 
    
    Lucy

re .57:

    The way I read the article, Leach's ideal is stay-at-home parenting
    by means of government-mandated paid leave for 18 months.  She
    recognizes that that's not likely to happen in the U.S., so her
    "second-best" is strict controls on the quality of daycare (training,
    facilities, provider-child ratio).  I'll admit that I haven't read
    anything else about her, so I don't know how well the article
    represents her views.

    After reading the interview, I waited for someone to mention it.
    When no one did, I did a DIR/TITLE=DAY to find an appropriate note
    to mention it in.  Since I couldn't find such a note, I started this
    one.  I intended it to be the "Daycare vs. stay-at-home" note, not
    the "Penelope Leach" note, hence the title.

    If you're tired of hearing about "Mommy Wars" (and consider that that's
    what this topic is about), there's always NEXT UNSEEN.

    re: Gerald's question about background
    
    My mother was a full-time homemaker until after my brother and I
    were grown.  It was a role she chose and that suited her. She was
    excellent at that job and none of us ever felt that because she
    didn't get paid cold hard cash, she was less valuable to the
    family economy. 
    
    I feel no guilt about leaving my children in various forms of
    "hired" care such as family daycare or the public school system. 
    I do my best to ensure that the care they are getting is
    appropriate to their age and level of understanding -- whether
    that's emotionally enriching care for the baby or a stimulating
    challenging academic environment for the teenager. 
    
    Frequently everyone who worked for the family (or clan or tribe or 
    whatever) was considered a member of that family, whether they
    were related by blood, marriage, or payday.  I mention this 
    because there isn't any necessity for paid child care to mean
    impersonal child care, though that certainly happens.
    
    In fact, I think Leach's proposal (which I read the same way
    Gerald did) is likely to encourage impersonal assembly-line care,
    since she emphasizes criteria that have nothing to do with
    kindness, creativity, generosity, understanding, flexibility, or
    any of the traits that go to building a loving relation with a
    child in your care.  
    
    --bonnie

    For 4 years I toted my son to my mothers house so that I could work
    during the day. Into the the 3rd year I had a daughter. Off to
    Grandma's every day. God, does she love the kids. Even now she has
    such a "way" with them, especially my daughter who is a rather de-
    termined 3 year old. But still something wasn't "right".
    
    I work 3rd shift now. 4 ten hour days. I get probably between 4 and
    5 hours of sleep during my 4 "on" days.
    
    For my kids, there's nothing like being able to sleep late if they
    choose. There's nothing more enjoyable than having their own
    neighborhood friends and playing on their own turf. My kids are eating
    better, sleeping better and are generally better spirited. 
    
    There'll be plenty of time for structured activities as my boy will be
    entering full time first grade in September. 
    
    The average American parent spends 40% less time with their children
    than they did 20 years ago. 
    
    I remember when I was a kid reading a National Geographic magazine
    about how Isreali children were raised in kibbutz's (sp). I thought it
    must be terrible not to have Mom or Dad around.
    
    The feminist movement gave us choices but I think it fails to support
    us in those choices that involve family if we choose that route. We can
    not do it all. There's such a delicate balance sometimes it's like
    walking on a tight rope. 
    
    I feel bad for us, the parents of today. The income value has decreased
    20% in the last 20 years. We have to work harder and give up so much. I
    choose to put my career on hold while others choose to miss the most
    formative hours of their child's life. Hard choices for everyone.
    
    Let's try to support each other in our decisions. There's enough
    pressures from "society at large" without burdoning each other.
    
    Kate 

RE .61

>    I remember when I was a kid reading a National Geographic magazine
>    about how Isreali children were raised in kibbutz's (sp). I thought it
>    must be terrible not to have Mom or Dad around.
    
It is not only unfair but misleading to apply one culture's values to another's.
The kibbutz in Israel is nothing more than the modern extension of the "tribe"
with each member contributing as he can.  Nor can you compare this type of
"daycare" to an American daycare center.  Two completely different beasts.  And,
by the way, Mom and Dad are very much around (if they're still alive, that is) 
in the Israeli kibbutz.

I think it is necessary to look at the entire cultural context.

ccb

         I think it's really sad that so many of us just don't have the
    CHOICE anymore to stay home or to even be able to afford to have as
    many children as we would like to have these days.  I am so angry at a
    Society that will allow folks on welfare to have as many children as
    they like and people like me who have to work, not be able to afford
    the number of children that I would like to have and not to be able to
    stay home with them if I did have them.  Why do they get paid to stay
    at home but we don't? 
    
         I'd love to stay at home with my son.  It hurts me to leave him to
    someone else's care all day.  He's MY son and I don't want to miss any
    of his growing up or any of the time that I have to spend with him.  I
    waited so long for him to get here and I just can't get enough of him.
    I hate it when I have to get him up out of a sound sleep in the morning
    and ship him off to a babysitter.  I hate it when he comes home cranky
    at the end of the day.  (He does just fine on the weekends)  I want to
    be the one showing him things, spending time with him, and giving him
    hugs and kisses all day long.
    
         I know that there are a lot of people out there who would rather
    not stay at home with their children for a many variety of reasons and
    that's fine.  I just wish that their was that CHOICE out there and some
    help for those of us who would like to stay at home.  I feel as though
    these days there is a big taboo if you want to stay home.  Folks make
    me feel as though I am less of a person and lazy when I say that's what
    I would like to do.  What is wrong with it?!!  You only live once.  I
    want memories of my children when I am old and gray not my job.  (Sorry
    Digital)
    
         I know that some of you say that there are compromises and I
    suppose that there are some more that we could make but i have been
    doing one heck of a job since he was born making compromises and I just
    can't make enough of them.  It isn't like we take trips to the Bahamas
    either.  We live in a trailer and pay for a vehicle and that's it.  No
    toys and trips.  After paying daycare and the other routine monthly
    expenses there's nothing but a VERY few dollars left.  I'd like 3
    children but I'm going to be struggling if I settle for two.  Daycare
    is so expensive and staying home is something we can't afford for me to
    do.  Sommeone, somewhere really has to start looking at this because
    our children and OURSELVES are very important.
    
         I realize that I may have rambled off the topic a little and I
    apologize but this has really been bugging me for a long time.  It's
    something that really hurts.
    
    
    
                          ---Sue 

re .62 (Cheryl's comments on Kate's comments in .61 about life in a kibbutz):

Cheryl,

I'm quite sure that Kate is not trying to criticize Israeli life or culture,
or even saying that she knows anything about it.  She is simply commenting
on her reaction (as a child) to a description she read of kibbutz child-
rearing practices, and how her own reaction as a child casts light on her
feelings as a parent today.

	-Neil

re: 55

My mother was a GREAT stay-at-home Mom.  Not only did she raise her own
"3" kids (while my Dad worked 2 and 3 jobs), BUT she raised nearly the
entire neighborhood's kids, too!  In other words, I was the product of an
"extended" family (everyone looked out for everyone else's kids ... "most"
(but not all!) mothers were stay-at-home Moms ... now, we're talking the
period between 1950's-1970's).  Since my Mom baked and offered drinks,
was "fair" to all kids and didn't mind getting her hands dirty while 
showing us how to make an AWESOME mud castle, taught ALL kids how to
skate (yes, she put on skates!!!!), ride a bike, swing a baseball bat, fly
a kite, make enough pie dough so ALL KIDS could make apple turnovers on the
outdoor picnic table ... the kids seemed to hang around our yard and house 
much more often than their own  (from toddler age through the difficult 
teen years)!  My Mom is now 72 years old and I still can't get through a
grocery store without some "grown" kid coming up to her with their arms
extended for a big bear hug and reminicing about those good ol' days.

I am a fulltime WORKING career Mom ... and darn proud of it! ... and I
have always and continue to receive 100% support from both my Mom and Dad.
Oh sure, they say my sister and I have made "different" choices
than they did raising us, HOWEVER, they also see it as just that --
choices!  Ruthie/I still have similar parenting styles (which is VERY
similar to my Mom's parenting sytle!).  All our kids seem to be along
a similiar track (development, personality, etc.) as we were as kids.

So I don't think that stay-at-home Moms tend to "produce and raise"
more stay-at-home Moms.  I believe yesterday's children -> today's Moms
are making CHOICES  (choices yesterday's Moms didn't necessarily believe
they had - eg. My Dad "purportedly" didn't ALLOW my Mom to work outside
the home ... although I think my Mom's choice would have been to stay-at-
home anyway!)

So my "dedicated" stay-at-home Mom raised two daughters and one son ...
and both daughters balanced careers while raising their kid(s) ...
the grandson did not have any type of daycare and both granddaughters
DID have daycare ... and I see no differences in the kids (other than age
and personality).

Just my two cents.   Interesting question, though ... Ask me this 
again in 25 years, when Juli's a Mom.

Dottie

    
>re .62 (Cheryl's comments on Kate's comments in .61 about life in a kibbutz):
>
>Cheryl,
>
>I'm quite sure that Kate is not trying to criticize Israeli life or culture,
>or even saying that she knows anything about it.  She is simply commenting
>on her reaction (as a child) to a description she read of kibbutz child-
>rearing practices, and how her own reaction as a child casts light on her
>feelings as a parent today.
>    	-Neil 
    
    Neil,
    
    Thanks. I know very little about Isreal. It's funny how sometimes
    impressions like the one I perceived from that National Geographic
    magazine  one can "set" a child's opinion or belief about something. 
    For example, as a young teen watching the Democratic National Convention 
    in 1972, at the age of 14 knew I was to become a Democrat. Years ago I 
    saw a magazine article about the way veal is treated. I haven't had a 
    bite since.
    
 Kate

    DOTTIE, you LIKE to EMPHASIS words, don't YOU? :')
    
    All I can say Dottie, is that for everything that's gained there is
    something lost (see note .63).
    
    IMHO-It's best (notice I said best and not the only way) for children
    to be brought up in a traditional setting if at all possible.  Of
    course it's ideal for there to be no such thing as sexual abuse, child
    abuse, etc.  I think if it's possible, it should be done.  
    
    RE: Sue-keep your chin up.  Here's hoping that some day you get the
    opportunity you desire.  My wife and I are doing it, and I can tell you
    it isn't easy but it's worth it.  I work more than one job and make the
    best out of the time I have with my children.
    
    Peace,
    
    

    
    >IMHO-It's best (notice I said best and not the only way) for children
>    to be brought up in a traditional setting if at all possible.  Of
>    course it's ideal for there to be no such thing as sexual abuse, child
>    abuse, etc.  I think if it's possible, it should be done.  
    
    Parents can be abusers too you know ... and after seeing many mother
    climbing the walls at the end of a day at home ready to beat the
    tar out of their kids ... it's not fantasy.
    
    Most child abuse comes from FAMILY or people close to the family ...
    not strangers ... and thus in a traditional care arrangement.
    
    Day care provides an option which may well alleviate the stress of
    parenting so the abuse doesn't happen.
    
    Generalizations such as traditional being best are just that ...
    generalizations and as such seem to ignore an awful lot of others
    experiences of what works "best for them".  Traditional works best
    for you ... but it is not fair to suggest best for you is best for
    all.  Traditional care certainly wouldn't be best in the circumstances
    I described above.
    
    Stuart
    
    

I don't suppose that we can say it's a personal decision based on
subjective criteria and trust that each person will make the choice
that's best for their own situation? 

I thought not.

>>>==>PStJTT

    .68 Stuart-I see, you are entitled to your opinion, but I am not
    entitled to mine.  
    
    
    Geesh,
    
    Mike

    re .69
    
    After deciding many years ago that we would be traditional and
    mum would stay home, I can safely say with 20/20 hindsight that
    we did not make the choice that was best.  Moreover, even with
    our first child we began to wonder whether it was right, but
    havaing moved to a new country and my wife having a very specialized
    job, we found we'd painted ourselves into the corner and found
    that to change our choice would be difficult.
    
    Experience has also shown that we should have walked across the
    wet paint!
    
    So, you look for others experiences to help you make the decision.
    To some it is subjective, to others it is purely objective (if
    we want to eat and have a roof, we both must work!) and for most
    it is somewhere in the middle.
    
    I think it is important to weigh up the individual factors, make a
    decision and be prepared to change your decision if you must.  There
    is a lot of pressure put on mothers ... by traditionalists saying
    mother shouldn't work and by career oriented colleagues saying mother
    shouldn't give up her career.  It's a tough call ... but I think, like
    handling statistical info, you tend to reject values that are outside
    of the expected range, it is best to listen to those people who handle
    career and children and see how they manage.  From that you stand a
    better chance to see how you would cope and help make your decision.
    
    Stuart

    Hi Stuart,
    
    Well we've had some of both scenarios.  For the first two years of our
    first child and about 6 months of our second, my wife worked outside 
    the home.  For the next two years of our second and the first three
    months of our third, Lisa has been home.  I do have experience with
    both situations and can make a somewhat educated statement on them. 
    Now, my wife has given up something, and I know that.  The thing is she
    has gotten so much more than she has given up.  We do discuss this
    topic from time to time just to check how things are going.  She or I
    wouldn't have it any other way.  Now, this doesn't mean everything is
    perfect, but it's close enough for us.  
    
    You say the "traditionalists" put pressure on mothers to say home.  Let
    me say that the "professionalists" put just the opposite pressure on
    women who show a desire to stay home, or put family first.  One lady
    (in DEC) after saying goodbye in this conference (I wrote support to
    her in a reply) said she couldn't beleieve the reaction she got from
    other women in the workplace, she thanked me for my support.
    
    Also, there was a point made about how there are home situations which
    are just as bad or worse than the bad daycare situations we see.  Well,
    my solution for that is that maybe we (in the US and internationally)
    better start putting the focus back where it belongs our faith and our
    families.  What I see happening is enough to make me physically ill.  I
    sat and watched that movie where the father burns the kid in the hotel
    room last night and I felt sick to my stomach as the tears gathered in
    my eyes.  How in the hell could anyone do that to their child?  I
    haven't the foggiest idea.  Yeah, there are aspects of this world that
    suck, and sometimes I think it's time for God to clean house and start
    all over again.  Anyway, let me climb off of this soapbox now, sorry
    for being so longwinded.
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike

    
    Mike,
    
    What I hear you describing is that having your wife stay home is
    best of you, her, and your family.   That is fantastic and, on the
    whole, I think that families with children in daycare are very supportive 
    of your decision for your family.
    
    However, in the note that your wrote that Stuart originally responded
    to (.67), you state that it is "best for children to be brought up
    in a traditional setting if at all possible".   Now, nobody is trying
    to make personal decisions for your family, why are you trying to
    make them for other people's families?   I'm quite certain that I 
    won't convince you of this (because others have also failed to do so
    in the past) but it is a FACT that what is best for your family (and
    I am genuinely happy for you that you are able to make this "best" 
    situation work!) is not what is best for my family.
    
    Was it your intention to imply that God should "clean house" of people
    who aren't doing what's best for their children (as defined by you)?
    I sure hope not.
    
    Carol

    re -1 Thank you -- you said it well.
    
    I personally have NEVER put any pressure or attached any stigma to the
    women I know who have chosen to stay home and raise their children. 
    I've simply marvelled at how they could do it!  And, in some instances,
    admired them.
    
    Because I am not cut out that way.  As I sit here at my terminal right
    now, facing the last three days of my employment, I wonder if I have
    made the right decision to take the next two months off to be with my
    children.  I WANT to be with them.  I LOVE them dearly.  But I know
    what I'm like at the end of a day with them sometimes -- a bear!  They
    drive me bonkers at times.
    
    I am a human being with needs.  You, men, out there in the parenting
    community, picture yourself with your chidren twenty four hours a day. 
    Day in day out, month in month out.  Be honest, would that fulfill your
    adult human needs?  Wouldn't you need an adult challenge, the stimulus
    of interaction in the business world? 
    
    Well, I do.  I need it.  I am honest enough with myself to admit that. 
    Perhaps that makes me a less than perfect mother?  Perhaps that makes
    me less a woman?  Deep down I don't think so.  There's no going back
    for me, and years ago I came to realize that somehow I would have to
    combine career with family to be happy.  Just as men have been doing
    for centuries!
    

    re: .74
    
    Applause, applause.
    
    If I heard more than a handful of exceptional men (many of whom
    note in here) saying that it's best for children to be raised at
    home by a loving parent, and if the mother is better qualified to
    be the breadwinner and the father is the more nurturing, then the
    father should stay home and the mother should work, I'd be a lot
    more receptive to the arguments to stay at home.  
    
    So many of the arguments in favor of Mom staying home are very
    noble, and I'm sure very well meant, but in practice they often
    boil down to a decision system that puts the mother's personal
    needs consistently after the children's at the end of the family
    priority list.  And the stuff at the bottom of the priority list
    usually drops below the line, in life as well as in business. 
    
    But good mothers aren't supposed to care.  Good mothers are
    supposed to sacrifice themselves for their children.  I admit to
    being a bad mother.  I'm not into sacrifices.  But I am a happy
    fulfilled mother who enjoys spending time with her children,
    showing them the world and listening to their discoveries.  And my
    kids seem to be growing up happy, healthy, and confident. 
    
    Even if being raised at home by the mother is in fact the best for
    the children -- and I have reservations on that to begin with --
    the children are not the only factor in the decision.  What is
    best for both parents as individuals?  For the family as a unit? 
    For the parents as a married couple who [usually] had a life
    together before the children and will have a life together after
    the children leave?  What's best now versus what will be best five
    years down the road?  If a parent sacrifices his or her career now
    to stay home with a new baby and a toddler, how are they going to
    feel five years down the road when the kids are in school and the
    house is empty half the day?  
    
    We've seen this in action repeatedly in parenting.  For many
    families the  best decision is for the mother to stay home with
    the children. (I did it myself for a while with Steven.)  It's
    what she wants, it's what the kids need, it's what makes the
    family unit run the best.  For many other families, as we have
    seen repeatedly in parenting, the best decision is for both
    parents to work, or for the mother to work and the father to stay
    home, or for everybody to move in with another family and live in
    a commune where one father and both mothers work at regular jobs
    and the other father makes furniture in the barn and takes care of
    the children.  
    
    --bonnie

    I said that my wife had made some sacrifices to stay at home, but even
    though some days are bears, all in all, it works out best.  That's why
    I fell madly in love with my wife, she makes personal sacrifices for
    the good of the family, as do I.  I have stated what I think is best. 
    I have always said that this is what I think.  You are welcome to
    diagree, but please don't insinuate that I am judging others or calling
    others bad mothers, fathers, parents, etc I am not.  
    
    RE: Carol-No I am not saying that God should sweep away the world
    because people don't see things the way I do.  I hope I didn't and
    don't think I insinuated that.  I am saying that sometimes when I 
    see the way we (humanity-me included) have made a mess of things, 
    and how cruel we are that maybe it is time (s)he start over.
    
    
    Mike

    
    My wife *WANTED* to stay home.. She and I *BOTH* feel it has been
    better for our son...   No we don't know what the other side of the
    fence is, we can only see the other side of the fence in the other
    little boy she takes care of who is 3 months older than ours...  
    
    Each family must make their own decision, no one is right or wrong and
    I believe to imply so is wrong...  
    
    Like the base noter (or one of the early replies) said, "I hope this 
    doesn't produce a rathole, but..."...
    
    I think people in this note are getting way to defensive about their
    choices...  I for one hope I am not attacking anyone in my (our)
    statement that we feel our son is better for my wife staying home,
    if I do, then ask yourself why do I offend you...  Don't you think
    you might offend me by saying that we are doing is wrong??  It is
    our choice...
    
    
    John
    
    

    re: .77 
    
    John,
    
    I take zero offense at your response.  What you have said is that
    you feel your son is better for your wife staying home.  What
    (some) others are saying is that children (as in all!) are better
    for their mothers staying home.  Big difference!
    
    Carol

    
    I've wanted to enter this reply string for a while, but didn't really 
    know what to say.  Here's how I feel.
    
    I've been working full-time for 9 years.  I love doing my software
    engineer thing.  For the past four years, I've also been a full-time
    mom.  I LOVE being mom, my kids and husband are the best things in my
    life.  However, I haven't been happy with my job as either one now
    for a few years.  For me, both work and family have suffered from my
    working full-time.  With our financal situation, I don't have the
    option of even working part-time and still live in the Mass/NH area.
    
    Between my husband and I, we've been racking our brains trying to find
    a way to make our family's life better.  Luckily, sometimes opportunity
    knocks when your actually listening.  Thanks to a great job opening
    in Colorado Springs, DEC's relocation benefits that my husband qualifed
    for, and the lower cost of living compared to New England, we've 
    found what works for us.  Move to Colorado Springs (ok, really Woodland
    Park) and I get to stay home and be with my kids.  It won't be easy
    moving away from all our family and life-long friends in New England.
    My kids will really miss my mom who has been watching them all this
    time.  Heck, I'll miss my mom.  I hope they'll be happy, though, to 
    have me home instead.  I know I've always felt I wanted to stay home
    when they were little, but it just wasn't possible for us here.
    
    To keep the adult part of me sane, I'm going back to school for my
    masters degree part-time after a year of residency.  After the kids are
    in school full-time, I hope to teach college level classes arranged
    so that I'm home for them after school gets out. And, hopefully, I'll 
    get into notes once in a while from hubby's terminal and modem at home.  
    
    I don't consider this change in our lives so much as a sacrifice I am
    making, but more of the right thing to do for our family at this time. 
    It's just a different direction from the one I was headed in before.
    
    We tried to make things work in our lives with me working full-time, but
    it didn't work for us.  Luckily, we have the opportunity to change our 
    lives at this point to something that works for us.  For that, I am
    truely grateful.
    
    Well, that's enough from me for now.  I can only do my best to figure
    out what is best for my family, and be flexible if necessary.
    
    Thanks for listening.
    
    Donna 
    
    

    Re .73
    
    Well said.
    
    
    re .-2
    
    There is nothing to take offense at if you say that at-home with
    mother works well in your family.  If you were to tell me that it
    is the only way and I was wrong for considering the alternative,
    then that will get all kinds of people around here very up tight!
    
    
    Mike,
    
    I did mention that there are indeed strong pressures put on
    mothers from both sides of the fence.  Traditionalists say at
    home is best for the child and careerists say day care is best
    for the mother.  But there is more at stake than just the
    child or just the mother.  There are more parameters involved
    than just the individuals involved.  There are a lot of what
    one could call "environmental parameters" that affect the
    decision.
    
    Saying a child should be at home is ideal ("best") assumes
    near ideal environment, ideal parenting skills and so on.  Very
    few can say they can provide that.  So maybe daycare is actually
    better for the child.  Bonding with mother is probably why the
    traditionalist says home is best.  Bonding is a somewhat separate
    issue, and if treated separately and as a parameter in the choice
    rather than as the choice itself, then as long as good bonding can be
    achieved then day-care / home-care becomes less of an issue.
    
    Stuart

    
    re: .78
    
    Donna,  Congratulations and good luck on your new "adventure".
    It's great when stories have a happy ending...
    
    Carol

    Hi Donna,
    
    I wish you good luck in Colorado!  Hope you enjoy it down there!
    
    I think you mentioned one important thing and that is flexibility.
    It recognizes that best can change!
    
    Cheers,
    
    Stuart

    Good luck Donna in your move.  I hope you and your family enjoy
    Colorado.
    
    
    Mike

I started this note with an article in the Boston Globe about Penelope Leach.
In today's Globe, there's another article relevant to this topic.  It's about
a group of five at-home mothers in Newton.  It's pretty much a rehash of the
points that have been made on both sides here, but here are a few things
that I found interesting.  I don't claim that these excerpts are representative
of the tone of the article.

56% of mothers of preschoolers work, 44% don't (no source is given for this).

A woman who used to work three days a week in a "marketing communications job
at Lotus" is surprised "how little the loss of her salary has affected the
family's standard of living."  After paying for child care and the expenses
of working, "Even at my salary, what was left wasn't that much."

Of a woman who worked as an assistant branch manager for a bank: "The family
survives nicely on her husband's salary as a marketing manager for Digital."

    This note is no longer write-locked.
    
    Laura
    Mod

    
    RE: .84  
    
    Why are those excerpts interesting?   What was the point of posting
    them?   I'm curious as it seems to me that you're trying to prove
    to working mothers that they don't really NEED to work from a financial
    standpoint.
    
    Carol

    
    re: .81 Carol,  .82 Stuart,  .83 Mike
    
    Thanks.  I'll be really happy when the end of August comes around and
    I can actually leave work and move.  The stress of having hubby in 
    Colorado since May 1 and me and the kids living at my mom's house, 
    plus everything to do with selling our house (thank you DEC) and buying 
    a new house and the move and still keep up with work and .....  Well you 
    get the picture.  August can't come too soon for me.
    
    Donna
    
    ps - Stuart - have you heard about the changes our group has been thru?
    Call me or send mail for details.

    re: .86
    
    I think in a lot of cases people are more afraid of the economic
    consequences of living on one income than reality justifies.  It
    has seemed to me that there are parents who really long to stay
    home with their children but who are continuing to work because
    they see visions of poverty when it's really only giving up going
    out to fancy restaurants, maybe driving a Dodge instead of a
    Volvo. 
    
    Often, saying "I have to work to make ends meet" is no more than a
    simple fact, especially for a single parent or a family with
    medical bills, or whatever.  
    
    But sometimes it's an excuse rather than a reason.  I've said to
    myself sometimes, "I have to work to pay Kat's upcoming college
    bills."  Well, I don't.  She's bright enough for scholarships, the
    New Hampshire system has some good, reasonably priced colleges --
    she doesn't have to go to Yale -- and her grandparents would help
    out.  But if I say I HAVE to do it, then nobody can blame me,
    right?  I mean, I don't have a choice about it.  It's not my fault
    I have to leave David with a sitter every day.  I didn't choose
    it, so I'm not a bad mother, right? 
    
    Wrong.  I work because I want to.  I enjoy my job, I enjoy the
    challenge, I like grabbing a hard problem and solving it, I like
    the company of adults and the stimulation of conflict and
    resolution.  I go home happy and that side of my life is
    fulfilled.  If that was all I had, it wouldn't be enough.  But the
    love and peace of home and hearth isn't enough for me, either. 
    
    For other parents, both mothers and fathers, the world of home is
    everything, and the outside world is a distraction, an unwelcome
    necessity.  
    
    I think that if a given person feels strongly either way,  they
    should be looking at how they can make what they want happen in a
    way that's fair to the whole family, in a way that meets
    everyone's needs.  If that's to stay home now and then go back to
    school to train for what you really want to do, or work part time
    for a while, or hire a nanny so you can really push your career
    now and enjoy your children when they're old enough to do things
    with you, or stay home forever -- then figure out a way to make it
    happen, and live with the consequences (both positive and
    negative) of that choice.  Don't tell yourself you "have" to do
    the thing you think will generate the least criticism.  
    
    --bonnie

re .85:

When/why was it write locked?

re .86:

I find it strange that I'm asked to justify what interests me in an article,
particularly when I put in a disclaimer that the excerpts weren't necessarily
representative of the article.  As with the base note, I don't have the
time or inclination (or typing skills) to type in the whole thing, and
I didn't think there was much new in it.

But here goes:

The first excerpt: I've never seen statistics on this.  I was surprised
that there were so many stay-at-homes.

The second excerpt: It sort of jibes with my sense that the extra costs of
daycare and work expenses often largely offset the additional income,
particularly since most stay-at-home parents are women and women
typically make less money than men.  Also, she worked in a field that
may be similar to what some noters do.  It'd be interesting to know what
her job/salary were (and what her husband's are), but the article didn't say.

The third excerpt: Her husband works for DEC.

    re .84
    
    Quite honestly, I don't think you hear what women have been saying
    here.  I don't work for the money.  I work for my sanity.
    
    We could survive quite nicely on my husband's income.  My income is a
    nice addition, but most of it goes to daycare and retirement savings. 
    I feel an incredible need to DO things.  When I'm at home with the kids
    it doesn't give me the satisfaction of working.  I don't know how else
    to explain it than that.
    
    It's not a money issue.  It's a life's happiness issue.  I give just as
    much as I can to my children.  Sometimes I've given so much and I can
    give no more.  I don't think most fathers quite understand what I'm
    talking about here, but perhaps a few mothers do.  You have to know I
    have four children, ages 6 to 1 1/2.  It can be very intense at times!
    
    8*}
    

    
    re: .89
    
    I guess that I'm asking you to justify the little snip-its that
    you're extracting from articles because I feel that you are trying
    to snipe at working mothers in doing so.   
    
    ...and I wholeheartedly agree with Rosemary in .90.  It doesn't
    seem that you guys (mostly men, but can be women too) are really
    listening to what people are saying.
    
    Carol

re .90:
    
>    Quite honestly, I don't think you hear what women have been saying
>    here.  I don't work for the money.  I work for my sanity.

Wrong.  I hear, and I have no problem with people working because they
like their jobs, or because they really need the money.  You're lucky
that your job gives you sanity.  That seems to be rare at DEC today.
BTW, don't say "I don't work for the money" too loud -- your boss may
read this.

There are people out there who don't like their jobs, want to stay home
with their kids, but think they can't afford to.  In some cases they're
right.  In some cases they've been brainwashed to think that it's wrong
for them to "throw out their education."  In some cases (the really sad
ones), they think that material possessions are the measure of their worth.

I also don't think of this as a male-female issue.  My mother was a
stay-at-home and my father worked very long hours.  I think I would
have been happier if I'd been able to spend more time with my father,
even if my mother had had to work part-time to swing it.

re .88:

I agree.

Carol --

If you're willing to type in the whole article, I'll be glad to send it to you.

    re: .92
    
    >In some cases (the really sad ones), they think that material
    >possessions are the measure of their worth.
    
    Yes, those are the really sad ones.  I keep seeing it more and
    more often, and sometimes the people who are saying it don't even
    seem to hear their own words.  I feel so bad for them.  
    
>I also don't think of this as a male-female issue.  My mother was a
>stay-at-home and my father worked very long hours.  I think I would
>have been happier if I'd been able to spend more time with my father,
>even if my mother had had to work part-time to swing it.
    
    This is a benefit of my working that I hadn't thought of, but it's
    a real one.  And it's coming out of one of the most difficult
    aspects of two working parents:  figuring out how to care for the
    kids after school.
    
    Right now and for the forseeable future we're working a sort of
    split shift -- we get up early and Neil goes straight in to work. 
    I stay home with the young'uns, get them to school and the sitter,
    and come in a trifle latish.  I then work until 5-5:30.  Neil puts
    in a full day and is ready to leave to pick up the boys after
    school at 3.  They get to spend the afternoon with just him.
    
    There's also less pressure on each of us to perform at work. 
    We're less dependent on any single review cycle or economic
    downturn.
    
    So we both get to share the responsibilities and benefits of both
    sides of our lives, and the kids get to know both parents.  It's a
    little hard on us as a married couple, but we plan time to
    ourselves and that helps.  
    
    The same thing applies to the kind of arrangments you make when
    you want to have one parent stay home and live on only one income. 
    It will be different than living on two incomes, but some of the
    most difficult parts will turn out to be the places where you reap
    the biggest benefits.  For instance, with less money for outside
    recreation, perhaps you'll find other activities that will bring
    the family closer together.
    
    --bonnie

    Thank you Gerald, for clarifying your point.
    
    In the 1980's a lot of women entered the workforce in the USA.  This
    was part of what fueled the real estate boom; their salaries enabled
    the bigger mortgages.  Personal debt ratios increased.  Many people
    were foolish in their commitments, but not all.
    
    There was a lot of press about those selfish women (and men) who only
    cared about money and not about their kids.  There was a lot of press
    about yuppies, on and on, ad nauseum.
    
    Now it's 1991, the country is in a serious recession, and real estate
    is no longer booming.  In New England, it entered the slide down
    several years ago, and it may go down elsewhere soon.  Unemployment has
    grown greatly.  I think most families are hanging on now, just making
    it with whatever income comes in from any source, including the mother.
    
    I applaud the families that are able to rearrange things to their
    greater satisfaction.  Those who can unload big mortgages and scale
    back, while still keeping a decent home, are lucky.  With the stall
    in real estate sales, most cannot, in New England at least.
    
    Undoubtedly more people now are reevaluating their priorities.  Some
    can make a satisfactory transition; many cannot.  I think most employed
    mothers of young children are forced there by circumstance.  And those
    who are happier working are better mothers when doing it on their own
    terms.
    
    As I see it, the issue is not a simple black-and-white, good
    stay-at-home versus bad working, good frugality versus bad profligacy. 
    Peoples situations are too diverse to make such generalizations.
    
    Laura  

    Laura -- 
    
    Of course it's not simple.  I certainly didn't mean to imply that
    it was. 
    
    Saying that a family would have to change their lifestyle in order
    to live on one income does NOT imply that their present lifestyle
    is profligate in any sense.  There is no reason that I can see to
    live your life close to the bone if you don't have to.  I've been
    poor and I've been well-off, and believe me, well-off is better. 
    
    But there are degrees of well-off, and one of the points of the
    article Gerald quoted is that the sacrifice of lifestyle was not
    NEARLY as great as people thought it was going to be.  They were
    for the most part still living comfortably, not just getting by. 
    
    I know there are lots of cases when a family really can't afford
    anything different than what they're doing.  But I think too that
    a lot of people put themselves into that category prematurely,
    without really considering the choices and tradeoffs.  And this
    does not imply any moral shortcoming or selfishness on their part.
    
    When we were deciding that I could afford to work part time for a
    while last year, even with Kat's college bills coming up, we
    anticipated things like reduced daycare expenses.  But we didn't
    count on things like the food bill going down because I had time
    to cook rather than relying on more expensive but quicker to
    prepare ingredients.  My next-door neighbor estimates that last
    year she saved $2000 in expenses related to maintaining a
    professional wardrobe -- shoes, suits, drycleaning, that sort of
    thing, not to mention commuting costs.  
    
    It's easy to get pessimistic when times aren't as easy as they
    used to be.  Yes, making some of these changes would be much more
    difficult now than last year.  Maybe there aren't any fully
    satisfactory arrangments.  All I'm saying is that if you're
    working for financial reasons, and you really hate it (I'm
    thinking of the noter who mentioned feeling sick to her stomach
    all day she was so upset about leaving her toddler at daycare),
    you should look again to see if it's really as necessary as you
    think.
    
    --bonnie

    Bonnie,
    
    We switched our family in the other direction.  Frank has been home
    with Carrie full time for the last two years and managing the household
    while I go to business and manage the finances.  His former company
    closed the plant here, but gave a good enough transitional package that
    we could reduce our dept enough for a one income family.  
    
    I can honestly say that I am not full time at home material.  I love my
    job (and the money), have consistantly been the main breadwinner, even
    when we both worked, and hate doing almost all household tasks, with
    the exception of gardening and cooking.  Frank on the other hand enjoys
    the freedom of setting up his day around the kids, having and keeping a
    neat house, and remodelling the place on days when he trades off with
    another stay at home parent.  
    
    Also an aside for me.  I have been traded in on a cuter thinner more
    submissive model once before.  At that time I had zero job skills for
    anything above clerical.  I ahve clawed my way through school and have
    made my career choices to avoid being left in the lurch a second time. 
    Happily ever after is a nice way to work if it does, but I have no
    intentions of being displaced and having to fend for my self and kids
    at minimum wage again.  
    
    Meg

    re. 97
    
    Your last paragraph is extremely telling.  It hit home for me.  One
    thing that is rarely discussed is the actual career a woman gives up to
    stay home, and the impact that could have years down the road.
    
    I am a realist.  While I'm certainly not hoping or wishing for anything
    bad to happen to my marriage, the facts are that 1 out of 2 marriages
    end in divorce these days.  I've known many women left in the lurch
    with their children, and a non-supportive father.  In another notesfile
    their are men screaming about being taken over the coals by ex's, about
    the child-support they are forced to pay.  While their ex's sit around
    not contributing.  I have no doubt many of these men were the same that
    wanted/encouraged/even insisted their wife stay home to care for the
    kids.  
    
    You can't have it both ways.  When you give up your career YOU GIVE UP
    SOMETHING!  You lose ground.  You fall behind in experience.  You slip
    down the pay scale.  In my mind you give up a lot of independence.
    
    For me, there's a lot more to it than simply staying home to care for
    your children.  I have a couple of friends whose husbands have died
    young, suddenly.  Like in thier early forties.  Luckily for them, they
    were career women with an established record of working.  They were not
    left in an extreme financial situation on top of the emotional grief of
    the loss.  
    
    Just my thoughts.
    

    I am very heartened by the last couple of replies.  I'm glad they
    broadened out the picture.  A family has MANY needs, and the daily care
    of young children is just one of them.  
    
    A family needs financial security, and I'm glad that women today can 
    contribute to this.  If one's husband dies, becomes disabled or unemployed,
    its great that the wife can maintain an even keel financially.  In the
    past, familes went into ruin when the father's income was lost due to
    any number of causes.
    
    A family also needs money for the education of the children.  Today,
    that is extremely expensive.  I include not only college, but also
    preschool, which is so important for subsequent achievement.  It's
    lucky that women today can make a difference in paying for education. 
    Their children are ultimately better off.  And there are other
    educational costs including music or sports lessons, religious
    training, camp, and travel, all of which contribute to the child's full
    development.
    
    Personally, I am very proud that I am a mainstay in my family's
    financial security, and that we are making it possible for our children
    to have an excellent education.
    
    Laura

    Bonnie,  
    
    Thank you for summing up alot of what's on my/our minds:
    
    "I know there are lots of cases when a family really can't afford
    anything different than what they're doing.  But I think too that a lot
    of people put themselves into that category prematurely, without really
    considering the choices and tradeoffs.  And this does not imply any
    moral shortcoming or selfishness on their part."
    
    ...and to all:  I for one really appreciate the dialogue that is going
    on in this conference.  Though I am not a parent, these are the issues
    that are in my heart and on my mind.  Your conversations are stimulat-
    ing, interesting and helpful.  I'm glad that this note is not write
    locked and I'm glad that people are still willing to participate in
    this type of conversation - as spirited as it may get at times.
    
    Rgds,
    marcia
     

We made the decision that Pat would leave Digital and stay home when 
Michael was born.  We did quite a bit of reading, noting, and talking to 
both employed and stay-at-home Moms (I don't like to call them working and 
non-working 'cause my wife works *hard*).  The conclusion we reached was 
that Michael would be fine either way.  Since so many women have entered 
the work force in recent years,  study after study has been done to try and 
determine what effect daycare is having on kids.  And no one has come up 
with any credible evidence that daycare alone has any negative or positive 
effect on children.  What does make a difference is the effect full-time 
employment of Mom has on the family.  If Mom and Dad are happier with Mom 
working, then the children will thrive in daycare.  If Mom and/or Dad are 
miserable because Mom goes out to a job every day, then this will reflect 
in the children.  And vice-versa:  if Mom is miserable staying at home, 
then the children certainly don't benefit from having a stay-at-home Mom. 
Bottom line is, we made the decision for Pat to stay home based almost
solely on OUR desires, not on the effect it would have on Michael. 

Steve

Welcome back, Steve Resende!

You've probably been reading the NOTESfile ... but today is the first time
it was so apparant that you're back WRITING, too.

Hugs to Michael!

Dottie

    I've been thinking a lot about this the last few days, as it pertains
    to my family and to me.
    
    I believe that our baby daughter is definitely better off in daycare
    atk this point.  She is in a home with a woman who loves young kids and
    is very experienced.  She has talked about eventually working with
    developmentally-disabled kids, or in the schools, and will always work
    with children.  My daughter is very happy there, plays well with the
    other kids (which she enjoys a lot and doesn't get at home on
    weekends), and is well bonded to her care provider.
    
    In the meantime, I am providing most of the money we live on, while my
    husband's business grows.  I like my work and am challenged by it.  I
    am continuing to grow professionally and intellectualy.  I would be
    hesitant to stop working for more than a few months, because the
    industry changes so quickly, and I don't want to lose ground to the
    point where I'd have to be retrained if I started working agin.  Also,
    even when my husband's business grows, we will value the financial
    security I provide, as well as the money for our child's education.
    
    When she is 3 or 4, she will transition to a daycare program.  Here
    things get a bit stickier.  By age 5, I would like to have her in a
    program that's quite diverse, with swimming in the summer, and many
    other activities.  Hopefully we will find a suitable place.
    
    When she is 6 and older, I will put a premium on flexibility in my
    job's hours so that I can take her to various activities (if my husband
    can't do it).  At that point, I may want to work part time.  I will
    want her to go to daycamp in the summer, but will need a home for her
    to stay at before and after, since my work day will probably be longer
    than hers at camp.
    
    In summary, her youngest months are actually the best time for me to
    work full time, because she is doing so well at daycare, and she
    doesn't need anything more.  If we are going to make a financial
    sacrifice of less working hours, it will be when she is older and 
    needs more diversity.  This would have to be balanced against the need
    for financial security, including retirement and educational planning.
    What would be the benefit to her of having more activities in childhood,
    if we couldn't afford college, and became a financial burden on her
    when we were aged?
    
    Laura            
    

re: 103

Laura,

Not sure how old your daughter is, but we found that when Juli turned ONE YEAR
of age she needed more activity and involvement  (which can be STILL be provided
through a good homecare environment).

Your child will make it VERY CLEAR to you when s/he is "bored".  Just thought
you might want to rethink the "when s/he is 3-4 years old" timeframe.

Dottie

    Whew! What a topic. I usually don't write here anymore because I find
    so much talk aboit pablum and diapers and breastfeeding and I don't
    have anymore babies. )^8. My youngest is 3.
    
    I have to say that this group is certainly not representitive of Am-
    erican parents. Especially the women in here. First of all we are all
    employed. That kind of skews the sample a tad.
    
    The majority of women in Anytownville USA aren't engineers. Most make
    under 20K. Most can not afford daycare. If you live in Metrowest Mass
    as many of us do, and have 2 kids you'll be paying about $150.00 per
    week in daycare. You'll be paying aother $15.00 in gas. $15.00 per week
    in car repairs/maintainence etc. Because you are so busy you may
    choose to grab coffee and lunch. Tobins isn't cheap. Add a conservative
    $25 per week. Geez, they're always collecting for a birthday or someone
    is always getting married. Add $5.00 per week. Wow, what a beautiful
    pair of pumps...wardrobe expense...add $10.00 per week. For my area
    these are all conservative estimates.
    
    calculator says......$220 per week 
    
    
    Amazing!
    Kate