I heard 2 girls talking today

[Vermilion]

One of my best friends just got a pamphlet from her MP about this: she's bringing up two on her own and working from home as a consultant until she thinks they're (and she's) ready for her to be less available. She has an accounting degree, an MBA, and her former employers are forming a disorderly queue for her carefully-rationed services. She's wondering exactly what one-size-fits-all training is going to serve both her and someone who left with O-levels, since there doesn't appear to be any alternative to accepting the training...

Best,
H

Wait - seriously? This training is going to be compulsory for all women with children of a certain age, whether or not they need or want to go back to work or already work part time from home? That is absurd.

You know, there was a point just after the second world war where it looked like the government was actually going to support families and motherhood, giving women who stayed at home to care for their families some kind of 'wage'. That fell through and ever since then the family has seemed to have less and less value in the eyes of the government. By family I don't mean husband, wife and 2.4 kids necessarily, although as a family unit that traditional nuclear unit seems to be suffering more than some, more splintered families (although I may be reading this wrongly, my understanding of this area is limited and I admit that).

Anyhoo... An educated mother is not necessarily going to be a better mother, but a mother who knows what she wants, has the determination and drive to go after it - whatever it may be - and teaches her kids to do the same thing, well, she'll be fantastic.

A mother who chooses motherhood as a 'opt out of life free' card (see my clever Monopoly reference there?), as those girls seem to think, is gonna be a pretty rotten mother probably... what will she teach her kids, but that taking control of your own life isn't your responsibility and you should rely on others to take care of you?

x
V

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CEALY

True. Parenting isnt for sissies or the weak. Moms pretty much shape the people who inhabit our society. My point reinforces your's: Virginal kiddies have no business instructing and directing experienced mothers.

 

[SensualCealy]

CEALY

True. Parenting isnt for sissies or the weak. Moms pretty much shape the people who inhabit our society. My point reinforces your's: Virginal kiddies have no business instructing and directing experienced mothers.

This may be the one and only time I ever agree with you James!
I was also going to add, just like nurses who have never gone through child birth should not be in the delivery room!

C

 

[OhMissScarlett]

I think we have lost touch with what this thread is about:

Two young ladies thinking they rather take the easy route and go have babies instead of get an education and contribute to their success.

The misconception that 'going and having babies' is the easy way out of having to work outside of the home for a living is the part I want to clarify for them.

I loved being a stay at home mom, but you can only do that if your spouse can carry an income to cover all the expenses- many don't anymore.
And frankly, in this day and age, who wants to be married to a girl without an education? You need a basic college course to be considered for any job worth going to, and that isn't enough some times.

Being a mom is one of the hardest jobs one could take on, it shouldn't be taken lightly.

C

Word. Sometimes I think the biggest mistake a lot of us stay-at-home moms make, is making our job look easy to our children. This may be where these young girls get the misconception that staying home with babies is the easy life. A lot of girls of that generation have moms who do everything for them, so they're totally unprepared for life in general.

Honestly, I didn't love being a stay-at-home mom, but my earning potential compared to my SO's left me no choice but to stay home. I thought I had a stressful job, but it was nothing compared to staying home with my child. I grew to love staying home, but I had to work at it. The bottom line for me is, if something happened to my SO, I'd be right back where I started, working for little in a stressful environment, only with a child to support on my own this time around.

 

[WRJames]

I think we have lost touch with what this thread is about:

Two young ladies thinking they rather take the easy route and go have babies instead of get an education and contribute to their success.

The misconception that 'going and having babies' is the easy way out of having to work outside of the home for a living is the part I want to clarify for them.

I loved being a stay at home mom, but you can only do that if your spouse can carry an income to cover all the expenses- many don't anymore.
And frankly, in this day and age, who wants to be married to a girl without an education? You need a basic college course to be considered for any job worth going to, and that isn't enough some times.

Being a mom is one of the hardest jobs one could take on, it shouldn't be taken lightly.

C

An educated mother is important for the education of the children. For two reasons -- first, to be able to help with homework, provide tutoring, etc. Second, to be able to stand up to the school system for the benefit of the child.

However, if both parents are too tied up in their own work, that is NOT good for the children.

 

[Katyusha]

And frankly, in this day and age, who wants to be married to a girl without an education? You need a basic college course to be considered for any job worth going to, and that isn't enough some times.

There's a problem though, and that's that a lot of degrees/programs are a dime a dozen these days. I have a BSBA and finding a full-time job that utilizes my degree, or that at least would pay me halfway decently has been a nightmare...so much so in fact that I gave up and decided to go to bartending school, get that certification, and become a bartender instead.

What I've been told is that the bachelor's degree is no longer quite enough, and neither is an internship to accompany that, I need more experience (as in, summer/seasonal jobs in these fields as well), but an MBA makes me too valuable and I wouldn't be able to find a job then either because nobody would want to pay me for that master's degree.

You're starting to see that with engineering and the sciences as well. Because these two fields deal with math and science, you have to be really, really good in order to get a good job with a degree. If you're middle-of-the-road, you'll likely find something in quality control instead of R&D or design. Quality control is quickly becoming saturated with these graduates because all the firms want ONLY the most brilliant. And again, if you get that graduate degree immediately, you'll never find work.

A lot of this makes sense from a business standpoint but it's killing college graduates; our advisers don't know what to tell us at all. People from my generation and later are wondering what the hell the point of all that work was to begin with; I graduated Summa cum Laude and I often sit here and think, "Why did I work so hard? I could've blown off half my studies and graduated with a far lower GPA, and I'd be in the exact same place."

It contributes to the kids, particularly the girls, who won't decide what they want to do with their lives. At some point, they learned that what happened with the baby-boomers will not happen to us. A college education isn't what it once was. In a lot of cases, it just makes us feel more worthless than the work world obviously already considers us to be.

 

[WRJames]

It contributes to the kids, particularly the girls, who won't decide what they want to do with their lives. At some point, they learned that what happened with the baby-boomers will not happen to us. A college education isn't what it once was. In a lot of cases, it just makes us feel more worthless than the work world obviously already considers us to be.

As a now retired baby-boomer, let me assure that although you make look at us now and think that everything was smooth going, things didn't look so good for us either in the 70's. That was an era of inflation and recessions (the term, now thankfully forgotten, was "stagflation" which has nothing to do with pumping helium up the butts of male deer). By the mid-seventies I had a summa cum laude degree from an Ivy League school, a PhD in mathematics, two years of post doc at MIT -- and absolutely no job prospects. The academic job market had completely collapsed. And I was, as you suggest, over qualified for anything else. Well, I thought, maybe I could make a living writing science fiction -- but writers were bailing out of that also because that market had collapsed. My future at that point seemed at least as bleak as what you are describing.

And mine is not an unusual story -- a lot of people my age didn't really settle down into careers until they were in their thirties. It was the whole hippie to yuppy thing.

 

[CharleyH]

in one of my classes. They're probably both around 19. They were talking about how they both hated school, didn't know what they wanted to do, and thought they might just become stay-home moms and "start popping out kids."

I hope they were joking, but fear they weren't.

I wanted to ask them what they might do if their husbands left them for another woman, hit them, or died and left them with the kids, but I kept my mouth shut.

What are people teaching these kids nowadays?

Interesting. I am in a Uni language course right now in Europe and can't believe the statement. I used to be in Uni in NA and in recollection I cannot believe your statement unless you are discussing social studies or a general psyche course?

 

[SensualCealy]

There's a problem though, and that's that a lot of degrees/programs are a dime a dozen these days. I have a BSBA and finding a full-time job that utilizes my degree, or that at least would pay me halfway decently has been a nightmare...so much so in fact that I gave up and decided to go to bartending school, get that certification, and become a bartender instead.

What I've been told is that the bachelor's degree is no longer quite enough, and neither is an internship to accompany that, I need more experience (as in, summer/seasonal jobs in these fields as well), but an MBA makes me too valuable and I wouldn't be able to find a job then either because nobody would want to pay me for that master's degree.

You're starting to see that with engineering and the sciences as well. Because these two fields deal with math and science, you have to be really, really good in order to get a good job with a degree. If you're middle-of-the-road, you'll likely find something in quality control instead of R&D or design. Quality control is quickly becoming saturated with these graduates because all the firms want ONLY the most brilliant. And again, if you get that graduate degree immediately, you'll never find work.

A lot of this makes sense from a business standpoint but it's killing college graduates; our advisers don't know what to tell us at all. People from my generation and later are wondering what the hell the point of all that work was to begin with; I graduated Summa cum Laude and I often sit here and think, "Why did I work so hard? I could've blown off half my studies and graduated with a far lower GPA, and I'd be in the exact same place."

It contributes to the kids, particularly the girls, who won't decide what they want to do with their lives. At some point, they learned that what happened with the baby-boomers will not happen to us. A college education isn't what it once was. In a lot of cases, it just makes us feel more worthless than the work world obviously already considers us to be.

Im living that dream as we speak! In April it will be one year since I have graduated. So far working two part time jobs and still not making ends meet.
C

 

[SensualCealy]

Interesting. I am in a Uni language course right now in Europe and can't believe the statement. I used to be in Uni in NA and in recollection I cannot believe your statement unless you are discussing social studies or a general psyche course?

Could they not have just been chatting amongst themselves? Don't think it was a class discussion, but it could have been.
C

 

[amicus]

in one of my classes. They're probably both around 19. They were talking about how they both hated school, didn't know what they wanted to do, and thought they might just become stay-home moms and "start popping out kids."

I hope they were joking, but fear they weren't.

I wanted to ask them what they might do if their husbands left them for another woman, hit them, or died and left them with the kids, but I kept my mouth shut.

What are people teaching these kids nowadays?

~~~

Good thread here Carson, looks like you touched on a subject that interests many.

I don't know if I can manage to express my thoughts without raising the ire of the usual crowd and even in general, but, let's give it a shot.

As someone pointed out, there have been vast changes in western society over the past century plus and it is difficult to rise above ones' own personal experiences and involvements in living sometimes to attempt a clear perspective on the overall wide view of things.

Without dipping into political issues such as class structure, rich versus poor, and or women's liberation, where women compete in the job markets, or even the pressure for greater education as a social obligation, or higher taxes in general as both parties in a relationship are taxed effectively reducing the overall income of both. Trying to avoid all the social issues and attempting to formulate objective questions rather than complaints, I ask:

Were it possible for there to be a single breadwinner in a relationship to earn sufficiently to easily support a family unit, would both parents still seek outside employment?

In other words, if there were no economic factors to consider in terms of achieving a comfortable secure existence for a family would there still be a pressure for mothers to seek employment?

The demographics involved also as over the years the size of the average family, number of children born as steadily decreased and the extended nuclear family, with the presence in the unit of grandparents and other caregivers has drastically decreased.

I have a dreaded suspicion that people feel trapped in circumstances beyond their control and the daycare and rushing about and hectic schedules so many have are inescapable.

Just a little bit of a different take on things...


Amicus...

 

[WRJames]

~~~

Good thread here Carson, looks like you touched on a subject that interests many.

I don't know if I can manage to express my thoughts without raising the ire of the usual crowd and even in general, but, let's give it a shot.

As someone pointed out, there have been vast changes in western society over the past century plus and it is difficult to rise above ones' own personal experiences and involvements in living sometimes to attempt a clear perspective on the overall wide view of things.

Without dipping into political issues such as class structure, rich versus poor, and or women's liberation, where women compete in the job markets, or even the pressure for greater education as a social obligation, or higher taxes in general as both parties in a relationship are taxed effectively reducing the overall income of both. Trying to avoid all the social issues and attempting to formulate objective questions rather than complaints, I ask:

Were it possible for there to be a single breadwinner in a relationship to earn sufficiently to easily support a family unit, would both parents still seek outside employment?

In other words, if there were no economic factors to consider in terms of achieving a comfortable secure existence for a family would there still be a pressure for mothers to seek employment?

The demographics involved also as over the years the size of the average family, number of children born as steadily decreased and the extended nuclear family, with the presence in the unit of grandparents and other caregivers has drastically decreased.

I have a dreaded suspicion that people feel trapped in circumstances beyond their control and the daycare and rushing about and hectic schedules so many have are inescapable.

Just a little bit of a different take on things...


Amicus...

A very touchy point -- but one worth bringing up. Have two incomes used to mean that you lived very well, but the price of things like housing and college education just soared to absorb the difference. And you can see why -- people compete for the available houses and spots in good schools, so if they have more money to pay for those things, the prices are going to go up. What that means, in the end, is that two incomes becomes just enough to "survive" as a middle class family. Are women working for the joy of it, or out of desperation to keep ahead of the mortgage, the credit card bills, the cost of college, the big wedding reception?

In my case, we were fortunate enough to be able to get by with one income -- and my wife did not go back to work after she had our first child. And yes, she does have very mixed feelings about it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Here's a prediction. The South Asians are already draining away our high tech jobs, and within 10 years they'll have many of the MD jobs, too. Medical technology is gonna kill the American medical profession. Some insurance companies are already flying patients out of the US for surgery, etc. You cant sue everyone in Lower Slobovia, like you can here in the USA.

 

[amicus]

Interesting, JBJ. My last primary care physicians name was Fujimajari, my current one is Parveen, a girls name from the Indian sub continent.

As 95 percent of the physicians in this area are not accepting new patients and the earliest appt I could secure is three months down the road, I asked a harried physician why the shortage of medical personnel and he gave me a long run down, part of which is that new doctors will not accept positions in hospitals in high risk inner city urban areas and have gone so far as to prefer research and will not see patients at all.

Of course, when Hillary imposes socialized medicine, they will simply draft the doctors and nurses and force them to work where the government wants them to.

Thas really gone solve all the problems.

NOT!

Amicus....

 

[Handprints]

Wait - seriously? This training is going to be compulsory for all women with children of a certain age, whether or not they need or want to go back to work or already work part time from home? That is absurd.
V

It appears - it's still at the draft stage - that it will be compulsory for anyone who uses government-subsidised childcare services and the like.

H

 

[CrimsonMaiden]

I was a stay at home mom for eight years until financial situation forced me back to work. My husband has since started a new job that will pay twice as much as his old one as soon as his training is over, so I'm hoping I can go back to being a stay at home mom in the near future. I just don't get to spend as much time with my kids now. I can't go to any of their school functions, and am usually not even home in time to help them with their homework. As a mom whose heart is at home with her children... that truly sucks.

Our only saving grace these last couple of months has been that all children are in school and my mother keeps them from the time they get out until I get home. Otherwise, even with me now working, we wouldn't have enough money to survive because we wouldn't be able to afford the childcare costs for all of our children.

 

[Katyusha]

And mine is not an unusual story -- a lot of people my age didn't really settle down into careers until they were in their thirties. It was the whole hippie to yuppy thing.

Okay...so, then, what's the point of getting that education? Of working your tail off then?

 

[WRJames]

Okay...so, then, what's the point of getting that education? Of working your tail off then?

Good question. I know when I was in college I wasn't doing it for the sake of getting a job -- I was doing it because I enjoyed it. If you do start working, you will probably find that the only thing your education provided you was the ability to learn and to work with intensity. I spent my working life as a programmer, and in that field the half life of what you needed to know was about six months, certainly no longer than a year. That may be a little unusual, but I think doctors, for example, need to keep up with an ever changing body of knowledge. Technical advances in fields like engineering and architecture have completely changed the way design is done -- and that is still changing.

Which does not mean that I am in any way making light of your current struggles. I have children in their mid twenties so I know how difficult it is. My only point is that it looked pretty bad for the boomers for a while (at least this boomer) -- so maybe there is hope.

We live in a society that is changing so quickly that the experience of one generation is not of too much assistance to the next. My father was an architect, specializing in building schools -- and he built a lot of schools -- maybe a dozen high schools alone within a five or six year span. Then, there was no need for any more schools. Within ten years or so, some of the schools that he had built were empty.

I made my career as a programmer, at a time when that skill was in very high demand. Five years ago, the demand for computer science majors was extreme, now the degree is almost worthless. The skills that were once very specialized are almost common knowledge now, and most actual programming has been moved offshore.

I don't know what field you studied, but you certainly would not be the first to find that you need to do something else. You will probably reach that dead end a few times.

 

[amicus]

Okay...so, then, what's the point of getting that education? Of working your tail off then?

~~~

Not on topic, but I downloaded the Russian Folk Song Katyusha, but I think it was the russian army singing group or sumpin, looking for another version, do you have a suggestion?

amicus...

 

[SensualCealy]

Okay...so, then, what's the point of getting that education? Of working your tail off then?

So when people say "What do you do for a living?" you can say, Im a ________ but right now I have decided to stay home and rear my children the best way I know how and give them a sense of security in knowing I am always there for them.

Amicus: I don't feel trapped, I feel fucked over by the government.

In Canada, if you make under a certain amount you get the GST rebate, you get ChildTax Credit for making under another amount.
"WE" make too much to get the GST and right now, I get a whole $66 to buy extras for my kids with the Child Tax Credit. At 14 and almost 17, what can you buy for them other than school supplies for $66 a month?

At the time I wanted/ forced to go back to work, when my daughter was about two, I looked into substadised (sp) day care. It was over $1000 a month for two kids in diapers! WTF, once again we didn't qualify for the reduced rate, hubby made too much.
My sister-in-law who was in the process of becoming my brothers ex-wife got the substidy (sp). She in fact made more money than my husband per year, but because she was a single mom, she got more taken off. She paid a bit more than $200 a month for the daycare!

Personally, if the government would allow income splitting, say hubby made $50,000 a year, you would each say you made $25,000 per year, you would get alot more tax relief come tax time and you would each get the GST credit.

Women that stay at home to raise their own children are demoralized by society. Thats why when women or men are asked what do you do for a living, alot hang their heads and say "Im just a stay at home mom! ( or dad)"

We need to get the "JUST" part out of there and be proud of what we are doing.
In Sweden, the mom's are paid to stay home until a child turns 5, why cant more countries do this? You would have alot less government paid daycare, you would have kids who know from the beginning who mom and dad are and what is expected from them.

I hate to say it, but I have broad shoulders, many kids when brought up in daycare arent sure of restrictions and boundaries because the ones at daycare are different than those at home. In my personal experience, I have seen too many families rely on the daycare to instill good manners and proper living skills. In my opinion, this is to be taught at home, not in daycare.

Back in the 'old days' it was the "JOB" of the mom to tend to the kids, but then they also had at least 10 kids, by the time the oldest was almost to the child rearing years she was raising the youngins so Mom could tend to work on the farm. If you had boys, they did the work on the farm and left mom to tend to the youngins. Oh and if you were a professional- teacher in most cases, you NEVER got married or if you did, as soon as you got pregnant you were asked to leave.

How times have changed...
C

 

[amicus]

SensualCealy....sighs...this is difficult for me, I hope you understand, I don't often reveal personal experiences to make a point on this forum, it is usually taken advantage of, but I wish to convey to you and not in theoretical terms, my understand of what you have said.

I had two wives, actually three, but one doesn't count. None of my wives worked outside the home. There was only one child with the first, but seven with the last, two step children and five that I fathered, well, inasmuch as a man ever knows, smiles.

There were difficult times of course, but I was born with an agile mind and I found ways to support us all, not always in the style I preferred, but always in a comfortable fashion.

I was fortunate, I suppose, none of the children nor wives, needed special medical attention, all were bright and bushy tailed, vigorous and thriving. That is not to say there were not moments of concern with difficult childbirth, a miscarriage, childhood illnesses, things I am sure you know all about.

And yes, it took me two jobs, sixteen hours a day and not much time at home and it wasn't easy, but we managed and we did so without government support, no housing subsidies, no food stamps, no dependence on anyone save ourselves.

So when I address these issues, I do not do so from an academic or theoretical point of view, been there, done that.

I can tell you are angry with government and taxation, so am I, but from a different direction.

I grew up in a generation previous to yours that was self sufficient. We depended upon ourselves, our family, our friends, we never turned to government for help of any kind.

When the government intervened on the part of women and children it destroyed a man's place as breadwinner in the family and he was left without purpose or pride. That is the price one pays for security and comfort if one does not earn it the old fashioned way.

Was it a natural chain of events that came about with the liberation of women beginning about a half century ago? I think so, most do not.

Is there blame to place? I don't know, and if so, then I do not know where to place it. That women should be equal in society is a natural progression of events to me, but the circumstances that followed, did anyone know or predict those?

Half of all marriage fail, half of all children will never know their natural father; is that how things are intended to be, should be, ought to be? I cannot answer that either.

I am a product of my generation as you are, yours. I did not expect my first marriage to fail, ever, I saw a life happy everafter when I made that first committment and took those vows of fidelity and til death do us part.

It didn't work out that way for me and I did not understand why as things changed beyond my understanding.

But we cannot just roll over and die, as you well know, we must continue, as best we can and hope to keep what few dreams we have left alive, for ourselves and for our children.

My youngest is now in his 20's and all of my children are facing or have faced the trials and tribulations of a new society just like you are. It is very difficult for them, as it is for you and many others and I have no answers and no solutions.

We do the best we can with the cards we are dealt in life, I am sure you do the same.

regards...




amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Government absorbs about 50% of your income. In effect, one paycheck goes to the government, and one pays the bills. Women work to support the government. The government gives the money to special interests who keep the politicians elected.

People have a huge appetite for pretentious wealth. They demand a 500K home, 40K SUV, and two 20K Harleys in the garage.

Years ago I was an architect. I tried my best to get people interested in smaller homes with luxury stuff...better baths and kitchens, better carpeting, etc. Nope! They wanted expensive sprawl.

 

[amicus]

I know that, JBJ, I full well know that. I was trying to be nice and show a human side to my usually alligator hide, gimme a break.

Although the greed you see in people, I think that is an attempt to replace, substitute for what big brother takes away, to regain a sense of self esteem in spite of the oppressive nature of the beast that rules.

Were the tax code, the rules, restrictions and regulations not a factor, I think fewer would expend their wealth on status.

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

But women arent liberated. The government liberated no one. Women are dependent on government for the medicaid, the childcare, foodstamps, etc.

A single, professional female gets fucked because so much of her income goes to pay the freight for her sisters on welfare.

I worked with a family last night. Mom is young. Has 5 kids. Collects all the benefits. And her live-in is in jail. One kid is in the local psychiatric hospital for threatening to shoot his classmates, and another was on his way to jail when I arrived.

She contributes nuthin to the commonwealth except 5 severely dysfunctional kids. And she provides a residence for a criminal.

 

[amicus]

And each of the five children probably have a different father, yes, JBJ, I know the problems...what are the solutions?

geez...


ami