Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: MachuPicchu on May 21, 2007, 12:16:37 PM

Title: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: MachuPicchu on May 21, 2007, 12:16:37 PM
But, what I find most alarming is that the girls have seemed to regressed in their attitudes about motherhood and working.  So many are saying they will not work once they have babies...  Now, so many of my female classmates want to just blow off their expensive educations and become full time mothers. 

This was in the Props to Non-Trad thread, but I didn't want to highjack it, so I started this one.

Linda Hirschman (J.D., University of Chicago--now a PhD teaching philosophy at Brandeis) has written a lot on this topic and stirred up a good amount of "mommy wars" type controversy. I understand the positions of the two most polarized ends of this debate (Hirshman at one end saying women must continue working full-time or risk undoing decades of struggle for equality in the West; stay-at-home (highly educated) mothers on the other end saying the raising of kids with care and attention is not only their most important personal goal, but a benefit to society and an endeavor improved by mothers' graduate and professional educations, to boot).

Unfortunately, I think for mothers the issues are probably never this clear (polarized). The two things I can say as an observer are that (1) this is indeed a "high-class problem," limited to the educated (those women who paid and worked so much for their multiple degrees) and the solvent (those households in which finances permit one adult to stay at home) and (2) the all-or-nothing attitude of both sides in probably not very helpful.

Working part-time (difficult in big firms) is not the kiss of death for your kids--they'll survive and probably even do better for having you as a role model. Neither is working part time or taking two years off after birth the kiss of death for (much-needed) improvements in American attitudes towards women in the workforce; if anything, it may force Americans to realize that motherhood is a natural state that can co-exist with the words "professional" and "corporate."
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: just call me elle on May 21, 2007, 04:11:35 PM
my mother worked full-time as a doctor and went back pretty quickly after i was born (maybe 8 weeks?). i never disliked that decision - i loved visiting her office and it certainly helped my independence level. also, it made me appreciate the time when she was home because it wasn't always the case. she tells me now that she regrets it, but i certainly don't (and yes, we still have a quite positive relationship).
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 06:02:04 PM
my mother worked full-time as a doctor and went back pretty quickly after i was born (maybe 8 weeks?). i never disliked that decision - i loved visiting her office and it certainly helped my independence level. also, it made me appreciate the time when she was home because it wasn't always the case. she tells me now that she regrets it, but i certainly don't (and yes, we still have a quite positive relationship).

This was my mom, but it was closer to 4 days.  Although, she doesn't regret it in the least. 

This poll is flawed.

Yeah, a little.

My take on it is that if you are able to be a highly contributing member of society, you should probably be one.  Raising a few kids doesn't really qualify (but a look into a cost/benefit analysis is worth it as well.)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 06:39:47 PM
Oh.

<---thinks they should.
<---thinks feminism isn't really about choice
<---thinks it's more about equality
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 06:46:33 PM
Oh.

<---thinks they should.
<---thinks feminism isn't really about choice
<---thinks it's more about equality

Yeah. I've noticed. You and I disagree about this.

And cost/benefit analysis for whom, exactly?

The couple (or family unit.)  Is it reasonable to have both parents work considering the increased child care costs?

Oh.

<---thinks they should.
<---thinks feminism isn't really about choice
<---thinks it's more about equality

:: is crushed ::

Sorry.

Do you want to tell me why I'm wrong in SFLSD or here?

And who determines what constitutes a highly contributing member of society? What if I say that making a bunch of money is not okay if you could be using those skills to raise money for charity? Where's your cost/benefit analysis on that one? Benefit to whom, exactly?

Why couldn't you use those skills to make a lot of money and then give it to charity?

I think this really revolves around the following:  If you are so kind hearted as to put aside a career for your family, you probably deserve the money that the career gives you more than the person who doesn't set aside their career.  Therefore, you might be a better person and should out compete them for the resources (to do with as you wish.)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 06:49:46 PM
Maybe, but you can't do anything without money (from yourself or others.)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 06:52:44 PM
Maybe, but you can't do anything without money (from yourself or others.)

You don't need an infinite amount. You seem to be saying that people have a duty to capitalize their earnings potential as much as they possibly can.

Oh, no.

I thought we were talking about the difference between "staying home with the kids" or "working."  If we start to get into gray areas the discussion gets more complicated (from my side) and more interesting (for all parties.)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 07:03:32 PM
Maybe, but you can't do anything without money (from yourself or others.)

You don't need an infinite amount. You seem to be saying that people have a duty to capitalize their earnings potential as much as they possibly can.

Oh, no.

I thought we were talking about the difference between "staying home with the kids" or "working."  If we start to get into gray areas the discussion gets more complicated (from my side) and more interesting (for all parties.)

I still disagree strongly with your take on the black and white question. The cost/benefit argument is absolutely silly. If you can afford to stay home, then why are you obligated to work and bring in still more money? If you say that the cost/benefit analysis is limited to the couple, or whatever the family unit is, rather than any broader effects on society, then why is the equation all about maximizing the amount of money brought in? You don't see any other factors that matter?

Like I said, it puts a hypothetically better person in charge of the money to do with as they wish. 

The money brought it in just a benefit.  There are many costs and benefits to consider.  Furthermore, a benefit (non-monetary) of going to work may so outweigh the extra costs of child care that work should be required.  I.e., personally curing poverty in Africa, or something (a ridiculous example, but along the right lines.)

What factors do you think matter?
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 07:19:06 PM
so what are we arguing about?

Mu thinks that women shouldn't quit working to take care of their families, because it's bad for equality.

I don't have a problem with it if there was a chance of either partner quitting their job.

That will not be my world, and so I will never subject anyone to it (nor can I comfortably condone it if my partner wished it.)

---

I apologize.  I'm using the term "couple" to indicate the couple as a unit, as well as person 1 and person 2. 

So if something personally benefits person 1 it benefits everything.

ETA: and if person 1 is benefiting society,  they're really benefiting themselves, because we never do anything selflessly.  They're making themselves feel good or whatever.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 07:26:20 PM
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society.  (Neglecting kids, however, is a detriment.) 
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 07:30:39 PM
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society. 

well it could be.

Not unless you are singularly able to provide some service that some other person (or group of people) is not.  Anyone can nurture.  Not anyone can treat diseases, bring a class action on behalf of injured people or take a company public.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: just call me elle on May 21, 2007, 07:31:56 PM
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society.  (Neglecting kids, however, is a detriment.) 

agreed.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 07:43:30 PM
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society. 

well it could be.

Not unless you are singularly able to provide some service that some other person (or group of people) is not.  Anyone can nurture.  Not anyone can treat diseases, bring a class action on behalf of injured people or take a company public.

YOU SAID IT WASN'T ABOUT BENEFITING SOCIETY.

This is inconsistent, dude. Do you fault everyone for not living up to their potential? Do you put value judgments on people who don't work as hard as they could at their jobs in order to improve their quality of life in other ways?

Or benefit the person.  Could you clarify what you meant by "except...strive for equality?"  I think I misunderstood.

In any case, yes and yes.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 07:47:38 PM
You are correct.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 07:56:45 PM
You are correct.

Well, I think that's too bad, but I guess I know where you're coming from.



The principles aren't far flung or very numerous, but they are important (to me.)

I'm not sure where you're coming from.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: jimfoolery on May 21, 2007, 09:10:39 PM
*swears off sleep and recreation for the sake of society*
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: road on May 21, 2007, 10:45:20 PM
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society. 

well it could be.

Not unless you are singularly able to provide some service that some other person (or group of people) is not.  Anyone can nurture.  Not anyone can treat diseases, bring a class action on behalf of injured people or take a company public.

This comment rubs me the wrong way for two reasons. First, the idea that anyone can nurture is just plain wrong. When a loved one dies would you want me to send you rent-a-buddy(tm) to take you on a walk and tell you everything will be ok? Infants develop attachments to their parents from day 1 and a child's relationship to his parent can have long term psychological repercussions. I'm not saying this to argue that mothers shouldn't work or that a child who spends time in day care is ruined--I don't believe that--but I work damn hard as a father and anyone who claims that my work has no value is going to get a prominent spot on my shove-it list.

Second, you seem to be arguing that, unless one can provide a service that others cannot, one's work is not valuable. Again this is plain wrong. The basic infrastructure of a society has more value and plays a larger role in the society's long-term stability than the "high-value" services you praise. For example, our plumbers and garbage men and women play a greater role in keeping us free from disease than our doctors do.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 11:03:23 PM
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society. 

well it could be.

Not unless you are singularly able to provide some service that some other person (or group of people) is not.  Anyone can nurture.  Not anyone can treat diseases, bring a class action on behalf of injured people or take a company public.

This comment rubs me the wrong way for two reasons. First, the idea that anyone can nurture is just plain wrong. When a loved one dies would you want me to send you rent-a-buddy(tm) to take you on a walk and tell you everything will be ok? Infants develop attachments to their parents from day 1 and a child's relationship to his parent can have long term psychological repercussions. I'm not saying this to argue that mothers shouldn't work or that a child who spends time in day care is ruined--I don't believe that--but I work damn hard as a father and anyone who claims that my work has no value is going to get a prominent spot on my shove-it list.

In the context of this discussion, nurturing indicates the ability to rear children.  With small exceptions, most people are able to make sure that children don't die in their day-to-day activities.  The "buddy" example is not quite on point.  That has more to do with relationship and comfort rather than nurturing and development.  Furthermore, no one has advocated a lack of involvement in one's children's lives.  Your final statement leads into the next paragraph.

Quote
Second, you seem to be arguing that, unless one can provide a service that others cannot, one's work is not valuable. Again this is plain wrong. The basic infrastructure of a society has more value and plays a larger role in the society's long-term stability than the "high-value" services you praise. For example, our plumbers and garbage men and women play a greater role in keeping us free from disease than our doctors do.

I haven't said that at all.  I've made the case that if work you could do is more valuable than other work, you should choose to do the former.  I've also indicated that if the other work you could do is not more valuable then it may be a good idea to stay home and rear children.  I've expressly attached value to the service.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 21, 2007, 11:21:40 PM
Maybe, but you can't do anything without money (from yourself or others.)

You don't need an infinite amount. You seem to be saying that people have a duty to capitalize their earnings potential as much as they possibly can.

Oh, no.

I thought we were talking about the difference between "staying home with the kids" or "working."  If we start to get into gray areas the discussion gets more complicated (from my side) and more interesting (for all parties.)


I want to stay at home with the kids, dude.  What do you make of that?
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 21, 2007, 11:23:01 PM
Oh.

<---thinks they should.
<---thinks feminism isn't really about choice
<---thinks it's more about equality

:: is crushed ::

Sorry.

Do you want to tell me why I'm wrong in SFLSD or here?

Well, Netflix came today.  Can I channel the feminist overlords another time?


 :D :D :D

I thought I was the only lazy one around here.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 21, 2007, 11:24:51 PM
Maybe, but you can't do anything without money (from yourself or others.)

You don't need an infinite amount. You seem to be saying that people have a duty to capitalize their earnings potential as much as they possibly can.

Oh, no.

I thought we were talking about the difference between "staying home with the kids" or "working."  If we start to get into gray areas the discussion gets more complicated (from my side) and more interesting (for all parties.)

I still disagree strongly with your take on the black and white question. The cost/benefit argument is absolutely silly. If you can afford to stay home, then why are you obligated to work and bring in still more money? If you say that the cost/benefit analysis is limited to the couple, or whatever the family unit is, rather than any broader effects on society, then why is the equation all about maximizing the amount of money brought in? You don't see any other factors that matter?

Like I said, it puts a hypothetically better person in charge of the money to do with as they wish. 

The money brought it in just a benefit.  There are many costs and benefits to consider.  Furthermore, a benefit (non-monetary) of going to work may so outweigh the extra costs of child care that work should be required.  I.e., personally curing poverty in Africa, or something (a ridiculous example, but along the right lines.)

What factors do you think matter?


I don't know if this is going to pop up as I read the last thread of the page, but you realize that your argument is heavily dependent on a particular set of values, right?  It almost seems to me that goalie's getting upset about the wrong thing (even though she'd probably be upset about the other part of this, anyway).

Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 21, 2007, 11:25:57 PM
Maybe, but you can't do anything without money (from yourself or others.)

You don't need an infinite amount. You seem to be saying that people have a duty to capitalize their earnings potential as much as they possibly can.

Oh, no.

I thought we were talking about the difference between "staying home with the kids" or "working."  If we start to get into gray areas the discussion gets more complicated (from my side) and more interesting (for all parties.)

I still disagree strongly with your take on the black and white question. The cost/benefit argument is absolutely silly. If you can afford to stay home, then why are you obligated to work and bring in still more money? If you say that the cost/benefit analysis is limited to the couple, or whatever the family unit is, rather than any broader effects on society, then why is the equation all about maximizing the amount of money brought in? You don't see any other factors that matter?

Like I said, it puts a hypothetically better person in charge of the money to do with as they wish. 

The money brought it in just a benefit.  There are many costs and benefits to consider.  Furthermore, a benefit (non-monetary) of going to work may so outweigh the extra costs of child care that work should be required.  I.e., personally curing poverty in Africa, or something (a ridiculous example, but along the right lines.)

What factors do you think matter?

That is muddled. Are you talking about benefits to the world or benefits to the couple? If you're talking about benefits to the couple, people make the decision to prioritize time over money/work all the time because it makes them happier. Why is doing that in order to spend time with kids any more wrong? How is that different than someone who doesn't do BigLaw and takes a lower-paying job in order to have more time to travel and exercise? What if they pass up a job curing AIDs in order to do those things? I feel like you're making a special case for kids and family, and women, and that bugs me.

If you're saying that the effect that a person's work will have on the world is what matters, then we're not talking about the couple anymore. And then it goes back to my question; what determines whether a person is beneficial to society? Just any work? Work that makes money? Work that does good? That is a bigger question, that seems to require some sort of objective definition of benefit, or worth.


To mu:  Nevermind, she's getting upset about both things at the same time. 

So far, I agree.

Commenting after everyone's cooled down is fun!
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: jimfoolery on May 21, 2007, 11:26:46 PM
Maybe, but you can't do anything without money (from yourself or others.)

You don't need an infinite amount. You seem to be saying that people have a duty to capitalize their earnings potential as much as they possibly can.

Oh, no.

I thought we were talking about the difference between "staying home with the kids" or "working."  If we start to get into gray areas the discussion gets more complicated (from my side) and more interesting (for all parties.)


I want to stay at home with the kids, dude.  What do you make of that?


I think he thinks you could be doing something better with your time, which is therefore what you ought to be doing, unless I've entirely misunderstood.

Yeah.  Your kids may need you, but we in society need you more.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 21, 2007, 11:27:01 PM
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society.  (Neglecting kids, however, is a detriment.) 


I strongly disagree with this statement.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 11:29:05 PM
F*cking hell.

But how does one determine the relative value of acts that don't have the far-ranging effect of curing AIDS or some such?  Essentially, how does this principle apply in the mundane?  And at what point is a job less valuable than staying at home?  Is it based on money? Sector?  Status?  Degree?

Everything should be taken into consideration.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 11:30:05 PM
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society.  (Neglecting kids, however, is a detriment.) 


I strongly disagree with this statement.


Why?
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Ralphie Sweetheart on May 21, 2007, 11:37:54 PM
Can you open my milk, mommy?
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 21, 2007, 11:41:43 PM
Maybe, but you can't do anything without money (from yourself or others.)

You don't need an infinite amount. You seem to be saying that people have a duty to capitalize their earnings potential as much as they possibly can.

Oh, no.

I thought we were talking about the difference between "staying home with the kids" or "working."  If we start to get into gray areas the discussion gets more complicated (from my side) and more interesting (for all parties.)


I want to stay at home with the kids, dude.  What do you make of that?


I think he thinks you could be doing something better with your time, which is therefore what you ought to be doing, unless I've entirely misunderstood.


I don't.  And that's essentially what this argument boils down to.  Personal values. 

Except for the part where one can read an implied misogyny in mu's argument.  I don't know if he meant it to be there, but I do agree that it's there.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: road on May 21, 2007, 11:43:01 PM
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society. 

well it could be.

Not unless you are singularly able to provide some service that some other person (or group of people) is not.  Anyone can nurture.  Not anyone can treat diseases, bring a class action on behalf of injured people or take a company public.

This comment rubs me the wrong way for two reasons. First, the idea that anyone can nurture is just plain wrong. When a loved one dies would you want me to send you rent-a-buddy(tm) to take you on a walk and tell you everything will be ok? Infants develop attachments to their parents from day 1 and a child's relationship to his parent can have long term psychological repercussions. I'm not saying this to argue that mothers shouldn't work or that a child who spends time in day care is ruined--I don't believe that--but I work damn hard as a father and anyone who claims that my work has no value is going to get a prominent spot on my shove-it list.

In the context of this discussion, nurturing indicates the ability to rear children.  With small exceptions, most people are able to make sure that children don't die in their day-to-day activities.  The "buddy" example is not quite on point.  That has more to do with relationship and comfort rather than nurturing and development.  Furthermore, no one has advocated a lack of involvement in one's children's lives.  Your final statement leads into the next paragraph.
I don't think you can reasonably expect someone to interpret the word nurture as to "make sure that children don't die in their day-to-day activities." Again, I find it hard to try to follow your chain of reasoning without getting the impression that you are belittling the role of parent.
Quote
Quote
Second, you seem to be arguing that, unless one can provide a service that others cannot, one's work is not valuable. Again this is plain wrong. The basic infrastructure of a society has more value and plays a larger role in the society's long-term stability than the "high-value" services you praise. For example, our plumbers and garbage men and women play a greater role in keeping us free from disease than our doctors do.

I haven't said that at all.  I've made the case that if work you could do is more valuable than other work, you should choose to do the former.  I've also indicated that if the other work you could do is not more valuable then it may be a good idea to stay home and rear children.  I've expressly attached value to the service.
You're right, I think I did read too much into your statement here. I also think your rule of thumb is difficult to put into practice. The trouble is assessing value. Of course you can let the market do the valuation and compare your potential earnings against the cost of hiring a nanny. But most parents will value their own parenting time as more valuable (and less quantifiable) than the $10 an hour or so it costs to hire a nanny, and rightly so. And of course there is unquantifiable value in the career. So now the value comparison becomes very individual and we can have the strange case of a parent with the potential to earn $100 an hour choosing to stay home while another parent chooses to make $7 at a retail outlet while hiring then nanny at $10. And both parents may feel perfectly justified in their decision.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 11:44:17 PM
Maybe, but you can't do anything without money (from yourself or others.)

You don't need an infinite amount. You seem to be saying that people have a duty to capitalize their earnings potential as much as they possibly can.

Oh, no.

I thought we were talking about the difference between "staying home with the kids" or "working."  If we start to get into gray areas the discussion gets more complicated (from my side) and more interesting (for all parties.)


I want to stay at home with the kids, dude.  What do you make of that?


I think he thinks you could be doing something better with your time, which is therefore what you ought to be doing, unless I've entirely misunderstood.


I don't.  And that's essentially what this argument boils down to.  Personal values. 

Except for the part where one can read an implied misogyny in mu's argument.  I don't know if he meant it to be there, but I do agree that it's there.


Yeah, I mentioned the paternalistic aspects in SFLSD.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WOMEN!
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 21, 2007, 11:44:36 PM
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society.  (Neglecting kids, however, is a detriment.) 


I strongly disagree with this statement.


Why?


Because, very simply, you and I differ on the importance and value of personal attention to one's offspring.  We probably also differ on the importance of the role of "nurture" (as in, "nature versus nurture") in the development of a human being.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 11:45:23 PM
F*cking hell.

But how does one determine the relative value of acts that don't have the far-ranging effect of curing AIDS or some such?  Essentially, how does this principle apply in the mundane?  And at what point is a job less valuable than staying at home?  Is it based on money? Sector?  Status?  Degree?

Everything should be taken into consideration.

Everything except for personal preference?

If it's truly personal preference, then no.  If it's personal preference placed by societal rules, then yes.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 11:46:27 PM
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society.  (Neglecting kids, however, is a detriment.) 


I strongly disagree with this statement.


Why?


Because, very simply, you and I differ on the importance and value of personal attention to one's offspring.  We probably also differ on the importance of the role of "nurture" (as in, "nature versus nurture") in the development of a human being.


Yes, but why is that your personal value?
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: t... on May 21, 2007, 11:50:03 PM
Just tagging to try to get a clue as to what the @#!* the argument is here.

It just seems odd thus far.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: sillyberry on May 21, 2007, 11:50:51 PM
F*cking hell.

But how does one determine the relative value of acts that don't have the far-ranging effect of curing AIDS or some such?  Essentially, how does this principle apply in the mundane?  And at what point is a job less valuable than staying at home?  Is it based on money? Sector?  Status?  Degree?

Everything should be taken into consideration.

Everything except for personal preference?

Women shouldn't get to have preferences.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 21, 2007, 11:51:04 PM
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society. 

well it could be.

Not unless you are singularly able to provide some service that some other person (or group of people) is not.  Anyone can nurture.  Not anyone can treat diseases, bring a class action on behalf of injured people or take a company public.

This comment rubs me the wrong way for two reasons. First, the idea that anyone can nurture is just plain wrong. When a loved one dies would you want me to send you rent-a-buddy(tm) to take you on a walk and tell you everything will be ok? Infants develop attachments to their parents from day 1 and a child's relationship to his parent can have long term psychological repercussions. I'm not saying this to argue that mothers shouldn't work or that a child who spends time in day care is ruined--I don't believe that--but I work damn hard as a father and anyone who claims that my work has no value is going to get a prominent spot on my shove-it list.

In the context of this discussion, nurturing indicates the ability to rear children.  With small exceptions, most people are able to make sure that children don't die in their day-to-day activities.  The "buddy" example is not quite on point.  That has more to do with relationship and comfort rather than nurturing and development.  Furthermore, no one has advocated a lack of involvement in one's children's lives.  Your final statement leads into the next paragraph.
I don't think you can reasonably expect someone to interpret the word nurture as to "make sure that children don't die in their day-to-day activities." Again, I find it hard to try to follow your chain of reasoning without getting the impression that you are belittling the role of parent.

The day to day activity of a parent is little more than that, though.  On a grander scale, parenting becomes far more important as a parent notes lessons to be taught and morals to be learned.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Second, you seem to be arguing that, unless one can provide a service that others cannot, one's work is not valuable. Again this is plain wrong. The basic infrastructure of a society has more value and plays a larger role in the society's long-term stability than the "high-value" services you praise. For example, our plumbers and garbage men and women play a greater role in keeping us free from disease than our doctors do.

I haven't said that at all.  I've made the case that if work you could do is more valuable than other work, you should choose to do the former.  I've also indicated that if the other work you could do is not more valuable then it may be a good idea to stay home and rear children.  I've expressly attached value to the service.
You're right, I think I did read too much into your statement here. I also think your rule of thumb is difficult to put into practice. The trouble is assessing value. Of course you can let the market do the valuation and compare your potential earnings against the cost of hiring a nanny. But most parents will value their own parenting time as more valuable (and less quantifiable) than the $10 an hour or so it costs to hire a nanny, and rightly so. And of course there is unquantifiable value in the career. So now the value comparison becomes very individual and we can have the strange case of a parent with the potential to earn $100 an hour choosing to stay home while another parent chooses to make $7 at a retail outlet while hiring then nanny at $10. And both parents may feel perfectly justified in their decision.

Perhaps, but only if the decisions are made emotionally.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 21, 2007, 11:56:19 PM
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society.  (Neglecting kids, however, is a detriment.) 


I strongly disagree with this statement.


Why?


Because, very simply, you and I differ on the importance and value of personal attention to one's offspring.  We probably also differ on the importance of the role of "nurture" (as in, "nature versus nurture") in the development of a human being.


Yes, but why is that your personal value?


"Nurture" plays as important of a role in the development of a human being as "nature" (the latter provides the frame, while the former fills it in).  As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility not only to raise a child (in the physical sense), but also to place it in society in an informed state.  This state includes everything from knowing basic taboos (and why or why not one should pay attention to them) to avoiding pejorative ignorance.

If I can raise an informed child, I can curb ignorance.  If I can curb ignorance, I can affect a number of societal ills.  It is key to note that these ills cannot be eliminated before such forms of pejorative ignorance are not also eliminated.  As such, spending a large amount of time with my children is a benefit to society.  Maybe not a gazillion hours, but enough to play a central role in their lives. 

Yes, I am assuming my values are correct.  Yes, I may be wrong.  That still doesn't relinquish me from the weight of that responsibility.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: sillyberry on May 21, 2007, 11:59:48 PM
F*cking hell.

But how does one determine the relative value of acts that don't have the far-ranging effect of curing AIDS or some such?  Essentially, how does this principle apply in the mundane?  And at what point is a job less valuable than staying at home?  Is it based on money? Sector?  Status?  Degree?

Everything should be taken into consideration.

Everything except for personal preference?

Women shouldn't get to have preferences.

This sounds sneakily like a preference. ;)

My father/brother/husband/pimp told me to say that.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 22, 2007, 12:03:27 AM

"Nurture" plays as important of a role in the development of a human being as "nature" (the latter provides the frame, while the former fills it in).  As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility not only to raise a child (in the physical sense), but also to place it in society in an informed state.  This state includes everything from knowing basic taboos (and why or why not one should pay attention to them) to avoiding pejorative ignorance.

If I can raise an informed child, I can curb ignorance.  If I can curb ignorance, I can affect a number of societal ills.  It is key to note that these ills cannot be eliminated before such forms of pejorative ignorance are not also eliminated.  As such, spending a large amount of time with my children is a benefit to society.  Maybe not a gazillion hours, but enough to play a central role in their lives. 

Yes, I am assuming my values are correct.  Yes, I may be wrong.  That still doesn't relinquish me from the weight of that responsibility.


Are those things really day-to-day activities?  Really?

F*cking hell.

But how does one determine the relative value of acts that don't have the far-ranging effect of curing AIDS or some such?  Essentially, how does this principle apply in the mundane?  And at what point is a job less valuable than staying at home?  Is it based on money? Sector?  Status?  Degree?

Everything should be taken into consideration.

Everything except for personal preference?

If it's truly personal preference, then no.  If it's personal preference placed by societal rules, then yes.

I want to make sure I'm absolutely clear on this - if it's truly a personal preference than it should NOT be a factor in the decision but if's a preference that's been ingrained due to societal forces, it SHOULD be a factor in one's decision?

1) Could you articulate the differences between these preferences, and how one might go about identifying/classifying them?

2)Really?

3)Why?

No, it's the opposite.  I attempted to respond directly to your post.  If those personal preferences are NOT societal pressures in nature, then they may be considered.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 22, 2007, 12:06:27 AM

"Nurture" plays as important of a role in the development of a human being as "nature" (the latter provides the frame, while the former fills it in).  As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility not only to raise a child (in the physical sense), but also to place it in society in an informed state.  This state includes everything from knowing basic taboos (and why or why not one should pay attention to them) to avoiding pejorative ignorance.

If I can raise an informed child, I can curb ignorance.  If I can curb ignorance, I can affect a number of societal ills.  It is key to note that these ills cannot be eliminated before such forms of pejorative ignorance are not also eliminated.  As such, spending a large amount of time with my children is a benefit to society.  Maybe not a gazillion hours, but enough to play a central role in their lives. 

Yes, I am assuming my values are correct.  Yes, I may be wrong.  That still doesn't relinquish me from the weight of that responsibility.


Are those things really day-to-day activities?  Really?



Yes.  Although that wasn't part of my argument.  I'm just showing why there's a societal benefit to personally raising your children.

You didn't grow up with any younger siblings, did you?

Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: t... on May 22, 2007, 12:07:32 AM

"Nurture" plays as important of a role in the development of a human being as "nature" (the latter provides the frame, while the former fills it in).  As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility not only to raise a child (in the physical sense), but also to place it in society in an informed state.  This state includes everything from knowing basic taboos (and why or why not one should pay attention to them) to avoiding pejorative ignorance.

If I can raise an informed child, I can curb ignorance.  If I can curb ignorance, I can affect a number of societal ills.  It is key to note that these ills cannot be eliminated before such forms of pejorative ignorance are not also eliminated.  As such, spending a large amount of time with my children is a benefit to society.  Maybe not a gazillion hours, but enough to play a central role in their lives. 

Yes, I am assuming my values are correct.  Yes, I may be wrong.  That still doesn't relinquish me from the weight of that responsibility.


Once again I agree, and this is a very eloquent, thought out response.

I might actually copy it and give it to a few people I know ;)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 22, 2007, 12:13:09 AM

"Nurture" plays as important of a role in the development of a human being as "nature" (the latter provides the frame, while the former fills it in).  As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility not only to raise a child (in the physical sense), but also to place it in society in an informed state.  This state includes everything from knowing basic taboos (and why or why not one should pay attention to them) to avoiding pejorative ignorance.

If I can raise an informed child, I can curb ignorance.  If I can curb ignorance, I can affect a number of societal ills.  It is key to note that these ills cannot be eliminated before such forms of pejorative ignorance are not also eliminated.  As such, spending a large amount of time with my children is a benefit to society.  Maybe not a gazillion hours, but enough to play a central role in their lives. 

Yes, I am assuming my values are correct.  Yes, I may be wrong.  That still doesn't relinquish me from the weight of that responsibility.


Are those things really day-to-day activities?  Really?



Yes.  Although that wasn't part of my argument.  I'm just showing why there's a societal benefit to personally raising your children.

You didn't grow up with any younger siblings, did you?



I did not, no.  Why?

I agree that all of those things are important, but I don't think I learned things from my parents on a day-to-day basis, and (contrary to current opinion, perhaps) learned right and wrong, customs, work ethic (the law review paper would laugh at that, since I'm still on the first paragraph, though), etc.

I also had a very nice "nanny" (read: closer to permanent babysitter) who helped as well.  I'm sure I picked things up from her as well as my parents, but that's because my parents picked someone who had good values.  This is the same as hanging out with my own parents.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: road on May 22, 2007, 12:16:51 AM

I don't think you can reasonably expect someone to interpret the word nurture as to "make sure that children don't die in their day-to-day activities." Again, I find it hard to try to follow your chain of reasoning without getting the impression that you are belittling the role of parent.

The day to day activity of a parent is little more than that, though.  On a grander scale, parenting becomes far more important as a parent notes lessons to be taught and morals to be learned.

BS keeping a child alive is pretty easy. Keeping that child physically healthy is just a little trickier. The hard part of parenting is developing trust between parent and child. It is creating an environment that fosters an optimistic worldview. It is making sure the child's innate creativity is not snuffed out. It is instilling ethics and charity. I know it sounds maybe a bit too romantic but honestly THAT is 90% of the day to day activity of any committed parent. Those kinds of positive attributes are developed bit by bit over years and not in some grand lecture when the kid turns 16.

Mugatu are you, or have you ever been, a parent? Or are you just making this stuff up?

Quote
Quote
You're right, I think I did read too much into your statement here. I also think your rule of thumb is difficult to put into practice. The trouble is assessing value. Of course you can let the market do the valuation and compare your potential earnings against the cost of hiring a nanny. But most parents will value their own parenting time as more valuable (and less quantifiable) than the $10 an hour or so it costs to hire a nanny, and rightly so. And of course there is unquantifiable value in the career. So now the value comparison becomes very individual and we can have the strange case of a parent with the potential to earn $100 an hour choosing to stay home while another parent chooses to make $7 at a retail outlet while hiring then nanny at $10. And both parents may feel perfectly justified in their decision.

Perhaps, but only if the decisions are made emotionally.

Oh, the horror! ::)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: jimfoolery on May 22, 2007, 12:17:17 AM

No, it's the opposite.  I attempted to respond directly to your post.  If those personal preferences are NOT societal pressures in nature, then they may be considered.

Oh good, that's somewhat better then.  How much weight to they have?  Assuming the family can afford it with relative ease, at what point does a desire, a simple desire to stay home with one's kids, trump everything else? 

Wouldn't you be obligated to donate all of your money to cancer research and get a damn job in this scenario?
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 22, 2007, 12:18:43 AM

No, it's the opposite.  I attempted to respond directly to your post.  If those personal preferences are NOT societal pressures in nature, then they may be considered.

Oh good, that's somewhat better then.  How much weight to they have?  Assuming the family can afford it with relative ease, at what point does a desire, a simple desire to stay home with one's kids, trump everything else? 

It would trump career (and the hypo trumps money) so it would have to trump societal benefit.  You could do this pretty easily as well.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 22, 2007, 12:19:52 AM

"Nurture" plays as important of a role in the development of a human being as "nature" (the latter provides the frame, while the former fills it in).  As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility not only to raise a child (in the physical sense), but also to place it in society in an informed state.  This state includes everything from knowing basic taboos (and why or why not one should pay attention to them) to avoiding pejorative ignorance.

If I can raise an informed child, I can curb ignorance.  If I can curb ignorance, I can affect a number of societal ills.  It is key to note that these ills cannot be eliminated before such forms of pejorative ignorance are not also eliminated.  As such, spending a large amount of time with my children is a benefit to society.  Maybe not a gazillion hours, but enough to play a central role in their lives. 

Yes, I am assuming my values are correct.  Yes, I may be wrong.  That still doesn't relinquish me from the weight of that responsibility.


Are those things really day-to-day activities?  Really?



Yes.  Although that wasn't part of my argument.  I'm just showing why there's a societal benefit to personally raising your children.

You didn't grow up with any younger siblings, did you?



I did not, no.  Why?

I agree that all of those things are important, but I don't think I learned things from my parents on a day-to-day basis, and (contrary to current opinion, perhaps) learned right and wrong, customs, work ethic (the law review paper would laugh at that, since I'm still on the first paragraph, though), etc.

I also had a very nice "nanny" (read: closer to permanent babysitter) who helped as well.  I'm sure I picked things up from her as well as my parents, but that's because my parents picked someone who had good values.  This is the same as hanging out with my own parents.


Not the same, necessarily, but approximates it.  Either way, it's up to the individual to determine how much of a risk it is to trust a stranger's values.  For some, it's not an issue at all.  Other are control freaks, like me.

I asked about siblings because if you'd helped raise a sibling in any way, the whole day-to-day thing would seem a little more obvious.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 22, 2007, 12:23:15 AM

I don't think you can reasonably expect someone to interpret the word nurture as to "make sure that children don't die in their day-to-day activities." Again, I find it hard to try to follow your chain of reasoning without getting the impression that you are belittling the role of parent.

The day to day activity of a parent is little more than that, though.  On a grander scale, parenting becomes far more important as a parent notes lessons to be taught and morals to be learned.

BS keeping a child alive is pretty easy. Keeping that child physically healthy is just a little trickier. The hard part of parenting is developing trust between parent and child. It is creating an environment that fosters an optimistic worldview. It is making sure the child's innate creativity is not snuffed out. It is instilling ethics and charity. I know it sounds maybe a bit too romantic but honestly THAT is 90% of the day to day activity of any committed parent. Those kinds of positive attributes are developed bit by bit over years and not in some grand lecture when the kid turns 16.

Mugatu are you, or have you ever been, a parent? Or are you just making this stuff up?

I have parents,and have witnessed different parenting styles, but I have not been a parent.  You have misinterpreted my statement.  I did not say that all education occurs at one lecture.  I said that education occurs on a grander scale than day-to-day activity.  Week-to-week, if you will.  Perhaps month-to-month.  Even maybe evening-to-evening. 

Quote
Quote
Quote
You're right, I think I did read too much into your statement here. I also think your rule of thumb is difficult to put into practice. The trouble is assessing value. Of course you can let the market do the valuation and compare your potential earnings against the cost of hiring a nanny. But most parents will value their own parenting time as more valuable (and less quantifiable) than the $10 an hour or so it costs to hire a nanny, and rightly so. And of course there is unquantifiable value in the career. So now the value comparison becomes very individual and we can have the strange case of a parent with the potential to earn $100 an hour choosing to stay home while another parent chooses to make $7 at a retail outlet while hiring then nanny at $10. And both parents may feel perfectly justified in their decision.

Perhaps, but only if the decisions are made emotionally.

Oh, the horror! ::)

It's wasteful.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 22, 2007, 12:24:52 AM

No, it's the opposite.  I attempted to respond directly to your post.  If those personal preferences are NOT societal pressures in nature, then they may be considered.

Oh good, that's somewhat better then.  How much weight to they have?  Assuming the family can afford it with relative ease, at what point does a desire, a simple desire to stay home with one's kids, trump everything else? 

It would trump career (and the hypo trumps money) so it would have to trump societal benefit.  You could do this pretty easily as well.

So you aren't really a hardliner at all, you were just making a point?

Yes, but I would still consider that person incredibly lazy if they aren't doing something else.  So...
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 22, 2007, 12:25:39 AM

I don't think you can reasonably expect someone to interpret the word nurture as to "make sure that children don't die in their day-to-day activities." Again, I find it hard to try to follow your chain of reasoning without getting the impression that you are belittling the role of parent.

The day to day activity of a parent is little more than that, though.  On a grander scale, parenting becomes far more important as a parent notes lessons to be taught and morals to be learned.

BS keeping a child alive is pretty easy. Keeping that child physically healthy is just a little trickier. The hard part of parenting is developing trust between parent and child. It is creating an environment that fosters an optimistic worldview. It is making sure the child's innate creativity is not snuffed out. It is instilling ethics and charity. I know it sounds maybe a bit too romantic but honestly THAT is 90% of the day to day activity of any committed parent. Those kinds of positive attributes are developed bit by bit over years and not in some grand lecture when the kid turns 16.

Mugatu are you, or have you ever been, a parent? Or are you just making this stuff up?

I have parents,and have witnessed different parenting styles, but I have not been a parent.  You have misinterpreted my statement.  I did not say that all education occurs at one lecture.  I said that education occurs on a grander scale than day-to-day activity.  Week-to-week, if you will.  Perhaps month-to-month.  Even maybe evening-to-evening. 


You're missing his (and my) point.  That type of education occurs at a day-to-day level when your child is not yet capable of reasoning for itself.  In other words, those first few years I'd like to take off to be with my kids.

Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: sillyberry on May 22, 2007, 12:27:04 AM
I need to buy a ballcock.

This has nothing to do with The Mommy Wars (at least not these Mommy Wars), but you're the group of people who seems to be awake and I thought you would want to know.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 22, 2007, 12:27:52 AM

"Nurture" plays as important of a role in the development of a human being as "nature" (the latter provides the frame, while the former fills it in).  As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility not only to raise a child (in the physical sense), but also to place it in society in an informed state.  This state includes everything from knowing basic taboos (and why or why not one should pay attention to them) to avoiding pejorative ignorance.

If I can raise an informed child, I can curb ignorance.  If I can curb ignorance, I can affect a number of societal ills.  It is key to note that these ills cannot be eliminated before such forms of pejorative ignorance are not also eliminated.  As such, spending a large amount of time with my children is a benefit to society.  Maybe not a gazillion hours, but enough to play a central role in their lives. 

Yes, I am assuming my values are correct.  Yes, I may be wrong.  That still doesn't relinquish me from the weight of that responsibility.


Are those things really day-to-day activities?  Really?



Yes.  Although that wasn't part of my argument.  I'm just showing why there's a societal benefit to personally raising your children.

You didn't grow up with any younger siblings, did you?



I did not, no.  Why?

I agree that all of those things are important, but I don't think I learned things from my parents on a day-to-day basis, and (contrary to current opinion, perhaps) learned right and wrong, customs, work ethic (the law review paper would laugh at that, since I'm still on the first paragraph, though), etc.

I also had a very nice "nanny" (read: closer to permanent babysitter) who helped as well.  I'm sure I picked things up from her as well as my parents, but that's because my parents picked someone who had good values.  This is the same as hanging out with my own parents.


Not the same, necessarily, but approximates it.  Either way, it's up to the individual to determine how much of a risk it is to trust a stranger's values.  For some, it's not an issue at all.  Other are control freaks, like me.

I asked about siblings because if you'd helped raise a sibling in any way, the whole day-to-day thing would seem a little more obvious.


I guess so, but I still happened.  (And others too, with less attention paid to them.)  And, I share many of my parent's viewpoints.  Not all, but some.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: sillyberry on May 22, 2007, 12:31:37 AM
I need to buy a ballcock.

This has nothing to do with The Mommy Wars (at least not these Mommy Wars), but you're the group of people who seems to be awake and I thought you would want to know.

Your toilet's broken?

Yep, and no man to fix it.  Le sigh.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 22, 2007, 12:37:39 AM

No, it's the opposite.  I attempted to respond directly to your post.  If those personal preferences are NOT societal pressures in nature, then they may be considered.

Oh good, that's somewhat better then.  How much weight to they have?  Assuming the family can afford it with relative ease, at what point does a desire, a simple desire to stay home with one's kids, trump everything else? 

It would trump career (and the hypo trumps money) so it would have to trump societal benefit.  You could do this pretty easily as well.

So you aren't really a hardliner at all, you were just making a point?

Yes, but I would still consider that person incredibly lazy if they aren't doing something else.  So...

But if they explained to you the meaningless drudgery of their job as a . . . copywriter, or something, how little it contributed to the family coffers compared to their spouse, and the extent to which they wanted to spend the first couple of years with their child after it was born, you'd be fine with it?

(I still don't get why you feel the need to judge the decisions of others in this particular regard, but I'm ignoring that for the moment.)

People only work bad jobs out of necessity, not desire.  (This is the flaw in the hypo, maybe.)  I mean, they wouldn't be leaving a crappy job.  They'd be leaving...gallery director or some other job that you can buy.  (Which they enjoy, because you only purchase jobs you like.)  They can leave, fine.  They should then try to do something.

Note...if you really, really raise money for charities, and don't just talk about it or donate it yourself, it's pretty much a full time job, so they could do that...

(I don't feel the need to judge, it just happens.  Maybe it's jealousy.   :o  I think it's closer to the desire of people to take advantages of the gifts given them.)

I need to buy a ballcock.

This has nothing to do with The Mommy Wars (at least not these Mommy Wars), but you're the group of people who seems to be awake and I thought you would want to know.

Your toilet's broken?

Yep, and no man to fix it.  Le sigh.

Perhaps you should find yourself a man who's willing, to the detriment of society, to stay home and fix your plumbing.

 ::)  It's not like you have to stay home to do that.  Fixing a toilet takes an hour, maybe.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: sillyberry on May 22, 2007, 12:38:08 AM
I need to buy a ballcock.

This has nothing to do with The Mommy Wars (at least not these Mommy Wars), but you're the group of people who seems to be awake and I thought you would want to know.

Your toilet's broken?

Yep, and no man to fix it.  Le sigh.

Perhaps you should find yourself a man who's willing, to the detriment of society, to stay home and fix your plumbing.

I feel fairly confident that society would greatly benefit if there was a man whose sole purpose was to stay home and fix my plumbing.  At least the people who have to interact with me on a regular basis would appreciate that.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: jimfoolery on May 22, 2007, 12:39:34 AM
I need to buy a ballcock.

This has nothing to do with The Mommy Wars (at least not these Mommy Wars), but you're the group of people who seems to be awake and I thought you would want to know.

Your toilet's broken?

Yep, and no man to fix it.  Le sigh.

*knock knock knock*

"Hi, I got a call about some pipes that need cleaning?"
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 22, 2007, 12:56:10 AM

People only work bad jobs out of necessity, not desire.  (This is the flaw in the hypo, maybe.)  I mean, they wouldn't be leaving a crappy job.  They'd be leaving...gallery director or some other job that you can buy.  (Which they enjoy, because you only purchase jobs you like.)  They can leave, fine.  They should then try to do something.

Note...if you really, really raise money for charities, and don't just talk about it or donate it yourself, it's pretty much a full time job, so they could do that...

(I don't feel the need to judge, it just happens.  Maybe it's jealousy.   :o  I think it's closer to the desire of people to take advantages of the gifts given them.)

What if they did something artistic, like painting?  Cooked a lot?  What's a worthwhile hobby, in this instance?

I don't know.  I'm about to concede anyway, because I'm tired of the argument.

Quote
Quote
I need to buy a ballcock.

This has nothing to do with The Mommy Wars (at least not these Mommy Wars), but you're the group of people who seems to be awake and I thought you would want to know.

Your toilet's broken?

Yep, and no man to fix it.  Le sigh.

Perhaps you should find yourself a man who's willing, to the detriment of society, to stay home and fix your plumbing.

 ::)  It's not like you have to stay home to do that.  Fixing a toilet takes an hour, maybe.

Missed the joke entirely. :D

Psst.  I got it.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 22, 2007, 01:02:36 AM
OK.  Everyone else wins.  Do whatever.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 22, 2007, 01:07:13 AM
I'm glad you're giving in to life, mu.  I wish I could've taught you this lesson when you were two, though.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 22, 2007, 01:09:30 AM
I'm glad you're giving in to life, mu.  I wish I could've taught you this lesson when you were two, though.


::sigh::
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 22, 2007, 01:10:17 AM
I'm glad you're giving in to life, mu.  I wish I could've taught you this lesson when you were two, though.


Maybe if you hadn't been working so much.


Damn nanny.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 22, 2007, 12:30:20 PM
hmmm...
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 22, 2007, 12:53:57 PM
Commenting after everyone's cooled down is fun!

Yes.

No mention of one of Lily's favorite chestnuts: parents really play only a small role in what J called "nurturing," instead, it's peer groups that really shape people.  Judith Harris and others have written about this.  Some of my local homeschool enthusiast acquaintances are sort of using idea as one of the reasons they want to keep kids out of schools - 'cause kids are not fit to teach other kids to be good, moral people.  (Note please: I'm not personally on the homeschool bandwagon.)

http://www.amazon.com/Nurture-Assumption-Children-Turn-They/dp/0684857073



I remember this.  I think it strengthens my argument.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 22, 2007, 01:56:46 PM
No mention of one of Lily's favorite chestnuts: parents really play only a small role in what J called "nurturing," instead, it's peer groups that really shape people.  Judith Harris and others have written about this.  Some of my local homeschool enthusiast acquaintances are sort of using idea as one of the reasons they want to keep kids out of schools - 'cause kids are not fit to teach other kids to be good, moral people.  (Note please: I'm not personally on the homeschool bandwagon.)

http://www.amazon.com/Nurture-Assumption-Children-Turn-They/dp/0684857073


I remember this.  I think it strengthens my argument.

Were you arguing that 'rents ought to be staying at home?  At least for a while?


Not ought to, necessarily, but that it benefits the children (and, as a result, society).



ETA:  I don't like the word "ought" at all.  Both in sound and in meaning.

Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: LegalMatters on May 24, 2007, 10:41:53 AM
I see that there's a lot of societal pressure on women to be perfect moms and perfect workers. Mothers and fathers probably feel they miss out on a lot of things by not being around for their children 24-7 but society continues with the notion that if a mother can, she should stay home with her children and the father should go out and support the family.

A woman is in a catch-22 position. If she decides to continue to conform to that notion of society, marry and not go to college, have children and never work, she's considered lazy. If she has a college degree and doesn't work, she's considered lazy or a social status seeker. If she works full-time, she's considered a bad mother because she can't be immediately available to her children. The happy medium seems to be part-time, work-from-home mothers. Then there's the problem of the "old maid", which still exists in some form or other. Older family members putting pressure on women (and men too) to settle down, get married, and start a family once they reach the ripe old age of 25 or so. Although that may be for people who are not in a graduate or professional school program.

But that thinking largely relegates a woman to filling a predetermined biological function: Your purpose in life is to bear children and raise them. It reduces them to a somewhat less than human status. If we're still human, it's ok to want to do more than fulfill a stereotypical role. Maybe we do have a responsibility to work. If I have a daughter, I don't want to give her the idea she has to depend on a husband, nor my sons the idea that it's ok to disrespect women in the work place because they're "supposed" to be at home.

It may sound fairly feminazi to say this. I am hearing more women my age complaining they really need to find a rich man so they can stop working.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on May 24, 2007, 10:45:10 AM
::checks agenda::
::sees Soc101 is scheduled for 2 PM::
::scratches head::
::wonders what the lecture was all about, then::
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on May 24, 2007, 11:17:23 AM
::checks agenda::
::sees Soc101 is scheduled for 2 PM::
::scratches head::
::wonders what the lecture was all about, then::


:D

It's surprising the rest of the thread didn't suffice...
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: naturallybeyoutiful on May 27, 2007, 05:15:41 PM
A woman is in a catch-22 position. If she decides to continue to conform to that notion of society, marry and not go to college, have children and never work, she's considered lazy.
Maybe this is regional/cultural because I know a plenty of girls from my high school (and the larger surrounding area) who planned to and are doing this right now.  Many of the people in my town not only do not bat an eye, but also don't expect otherwise.  I think it just depends on where you're coming from (literally  :D).


If she has a college degree and doesn't work, she's considered lazy or a social status seeker.
Perhaps, though I still think it depends.  I know another substantial portion of my high school graduating class (and my town, in general) who did get 4-year degrees acquired their MRS "degree" in the process!   :D  If they got pregnant right away, they didn't spend one day in any professional setting.  Interestingly enough, it seems that no one thinks less of them because of it either.  Though I realize that my anecdotal experience doesn't disprove your points, I do think it goes back to the issue of regional/cultural differences and norms.

If she works full-time, she's considered a bad mother because she can't be immediately available to her children.
Again, it depends.  I'd daresay that the majority of black children in two-parent homes, for example, would still have a working mother.  (There are also historical patterns and trends at play here, but I digress...)  I know I and almost everyone I knew certainly did, and no one thought less of our mothers because of it!  Again, I could see this being subject to cultural or socioeconomic influences though.


The happy medium seems to be part-time, work-from-home mothers. Then there's the problem of the "old maid", which still exists in some form or other. Older family members putting pressure on women (and men too) to settle down, get married, and start a family once they reach the ripe old age of 25 or so. Although that may be for people who are not in a graduate or professional school program.
On these points, I agree!  Your first point was of particular interest to me because if I could find a way to be at home with my kids and still earn my own income with limited hours, I'd be all for it!  Best of both worlds, in my opinion.  For other women, the choice might be different though.


But that thinking largely relegates a woman to filling a predetermined biological function: Your purpose in life is to bear children and raise them. It reduces them to a somewhat less than human status.  If we're still human, it's ok to want to do more than fulfill a stereotypical role.
This kind of thinking does, unfortunately, underpin some people's views of womanhood.  I like to think that it is a woman's awesome privilege to bear children, and yet the responsibility of both a mother and father to raise them.  I don't see bearing and helping raise children to be some kind of burden that makes you less human, but rather an opportunity to become more of who we so desperately need to be -- loving, selfless, giving, etc.  Done right, raising children can help you become even more "human", or perhaps "humane."  That's why the idea of raising children should (and on this point I suppose we may agree) not be "pushed off" onto women alone.  It was never intended to be this way, irrespective of the sheer biology of reproduction.

Anywho, just my thoughts...
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: boo! on June 04, 2007, 08:48:44 PM
Once the children are in school full-time, there is NO reason for a woman to sit home.  I've been a full-time employed mother for all of my son's life.  I quit my full-time, high pressured job to attend law school and now he's in school full-time. 

There's VERY little to do during the day when he is at school and my husband is at work.  I'm so sick of hearing homemakers complain about how hard it is to be a homemaker.  I've done both and I can assure you, IT IS MUCH EASIER to be A STAY AT HOME MOTHER, then it is to be a working mother!!!  Cleaning the house takes no more than 5-7 hours per week (my house is not small), laundry takes maybe 3-4 hours (including folding/hanging it and putting it away), shopping takes an hour, preparing meals- maybe 7 hours a week.  All of those things are done when no one is around.  Perhaps if women spent less time sitting on their butts in front of the TV watching soap opera's, oprah, the View and gossiping about their neighbors, they'd realize how SIMPLE their stay at home jobs really are!

Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: darlinalexi on June 05, 2007, 07:16:27 AM
My mother went to ug and grad school when I was a little kid.  I know she worked her ass off to be a student and a mother, and it was hard to leave her two elementary school kids at home.

Then she was in a car accident when I was in 4th grade, took time off work for injuries, and then she never went back.  I'm the youngest.  Honestly, I've always been sad for my mother for doing this.  I can't understand why an extremely intelligent and well-educated woman would chose not to use the education she had earned.  She got it into her head, though, that the household couldn't survive if she went back to work... this was not the case.  I think I would have respected her more growing up if I knew that she had an existence outside of my brother and I, and that, while we were important, we were not her only priority.  I think that this attitude is one reason that my 25 year old brother still lives at home (and no, he never once moved out).  Also many times I saw that she was unhappy with my father, but she couldn't leave the marriage because she had no money on her own.  Now, my brother and I both have college degrees, she is bored, but she has been out of the work force for too long (in her opinion) to go back. 

I think working part-time, at least, gives a woman options. If her marriage ever falls through, she can control her own destiny.  She can also be a role model for her daughters--- teaching them that they can have a career and a family.  Also, when I was a teen and my mom was lecturing me on getting an after-school job and earning a living, I barely listened to what she said because she did not work...



Maybe this was just my situation though.  I think there are definitely different options for different women.  Also, if a woman has many small children, I can understand taking a few years off until they are older.  But what does she do when her children are older and don't need her as much?
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: darlinalexi on June 05, 2007, 07:31:59 AM
Then again, I can't understand why many women feel that they MUST have children.  I am a woman, and I never want to be a mother.  I feel that many women selfishly have children because they want the experience of being a parent.  If you are going to be a work-aholic, don't have kids. If you can't afford to have children and you have the option, don't have kids.  I know that there are some surprise circumstances, but if you CHOOSE to be a mother, you should have the resources to support a family.  That means, some money and some time.  Really, society doesn't need more children.  We are an overpopulated nation.  It isn't like  women have kids for the purpose of benefiting society. 

I don't know if this really has anything to do with this thread, but it is something to think about...

(Mind you, I am not saying that mothers can't be attorneys.  I'm just saying, if you are working 60 hours a week to make partner, you might want to reconsider having kids just to fulfill a societal expectation that women should be mothers... that's all.)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: iscoredawaitlist on June 08, 2007, 08:58:01 AM
My mother worked full time as an attorney up until I was 16 (when she retired), and I don't think I suffered much.

I think it's especially doable if you're willing to change your schedule up a bit. My mom went to work at about 7:00 or so every morning, so she was usually back home by about 5 or 6 in the evening even when she was making partner.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: darlinalexi on June 08, 2007, 09:29:22 AM
I'm not saying that women who have children are irresponsible.  I'm saying that people should be responsible in having children. If their primary goal in life is to make chief surgeon or partner in a law firm or be similarly engaged in a high stress, extremely time consuming career, they may wish to rethink having children.  It just seems that if you choose to bring life into the world, you have to make time for that life, even if there is another parent etc. I am just tired of women who feel like they must have children because they have a biological capacity to. By all means, I'm not saying that parents can't be parents and work at the same time. 

I wouldn't get a dog if I didn't have time to spend time  with it, even if I had a roommate to feed and walk it. 
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: pikey on June 08, 2007, 10:17:17 AM
I'm not saying that women who have children are irresponsible.  I'm saying that people should be responsible in having children. If their primary goal in life is to make chief surgeon or partner in a law firm or be similarly engaged in a high stress, extremely time consuming career, they may wish to rethink having children.   It just seems that if you choose to bring life into the world, you have to make time for that life, even if there is another parent etc. I am just tired of women who feel like they must have children because they have a biological capacity to. By all means, I'm not saying that parents can't be parents and work at the same time. 

I wouldn't get a dog if I didn't have time to spend time  with it, even if I had a roommate to feed and walk it. 

But it's ok for men to be in these positions and have kids, because then the good little wife can stay home and take care of them.  Whatever.  Just because a woman wants a career, even a high powered one, doesn't mean she's having kids just because of a "biological capacity" (which is hugely insulting).  Just come out and admit that you're promoting a double standard.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on June 08, 2007, 10:19:58 AM
You guys are completely (and intentionally) misreading her argument.

Come on.  You're better than that.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: pikey on June 08, 2007, 10:22:22 AM
You guys are completely (and intentionally) misreading her argument.

Come on.  You're better than that.


eh, I disagree on many levels.  I just chose to comment on one. 
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: darlinalexi on June 08, 2007, 10:27:27 AM
I'm not promoting a double standard.  I think men should think about these things too. But I'm talking as a woman.  But yeah, I think both parents should think about these things... the topic was just specifically on mothers.


And I'm not saying all mothers are mothers just because they can be.  I am saying that many women are raised from a small age with the expectation that they will be mothers because they can be.  Some feel like if they don't perform this function, then they are not good women.  I'm just saying that those who want to be mothers and have the resources to be a parent, should be... But people shouldn't be parents out of some sort of sense of biological obligation.


Damn, future lawyers like to argue about everything.


(A note about my background: I was born and raised in Salt Lake City, Utah. Almost every woman had multiple children. The religion of my region taught many women that their primary function in life was to be a mommy and create a big family.  I'm not saying anything is wrong with women that do that, I'm just saying that women should think about if they want to be mothers or if they are just following societal expectations.)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: darlinalexi on June 08, 2007, 10:29:08 AM
You guys are completely (and intentionally) misreading her argument.

Come on.  You're better than that.


Thank you.  I'm not saying that everyone should agree with me, but I appreciate that you seem to be considering my argument as a valid viewpoint.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on June 08, 2007, 10:33:47 AM
You guys are completely (and intentionally) misreading her argument.

Come on.  You're better than that.


Thank you.  I'm not saying that everyone should agree with me, but I appreciate that you seem to be considering my argument as a valid viewpoint.


It is valid.  The comments criticizing you have taken bits out of context, both in terms of the spirit of your post and of its intended meaning.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: pikey on June 08, 2007, 12:34:06 PM
You guys are completely (and intentionally) misreading her argument.

Come on.  You're better than that.


Thank you.  I'm not saying that everyone should agree with me, but I appreciate that you seem to be considering my argument as a valid viewpoint.


It is valid.  The comments criticizing you have taken bits out of context, both in terms of the spirit of your post and of its intended meaning.


 I have nothing against darlinalexi and happen to think shes a grteat person from her postings but the argument is confusing.  Its like Pat Robertson meets Gloria Stinem.

It comes off as feminist yet also misogynist and certainly elitist with the whole resources to have children bit.
"If you can't afford children, don't have kids."  huh?  only the wealthy should reproduce.  Anyway, I'm coming off more antagonistic than Im trying to be, sorrrrrrry.




I think the tone of the argument is the problem.  She seems to be disdaining both stay at home moms (I think I would have respected her more growing up if I knew that she had an existence outside of my brother and I) and working mothers (I am just tired of women who feel like they must have children because they have a biological capacity to).  That probably wasn't her intention, but that's the way it comes across.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on June 08, 2007, 12:43:00 PM
That's what I mean by the spirit of the post.

It wasn't a point for point argument.  It was rambling. 

I think what bothers me is your tendency to make the unwarranted jumps to the polar opposite of her views.  "If you can't afford children, don't reproduce" DOES NOT EQUAL "only reproduce if you're wealthy". 

Would you argue that it is not in everyone's best interest (the mother and/or the father, certainly the child, and perhaps even society) that, if they have the option, those people raising the child should be able to provide for that child as well?

Too many children end up destitute and/or abandoned precisely because their parents did NOT take this into consideration before having them.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect those who want to have children to be able to provide for them. 

FWIW, your other complaints re: women working were based on a misreading of her second post.  Her two posts together covered your points more than adequately.  Certainly, she did not "cast off women who do want children as irresponsible."  Quite the contrary.  She simply demands those who are having children should be responsible.  Again, not really an unreasonable demand.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: pikey on June 08, 2007, 12:45:32 PM
That's what I mean by the spirit of the post.

It wasn't a point for point argument.  It was rambling. 

I think what bothers me is your tendency to make the unwarranted jumps to the polar opposite of her views.  "If you can't afford children, don't reproduce" DOES NOT EQUAL "only reproduce if you're wealthy". 

Would you argue that it is not in everyone's best interest (the mother and/or the father, certainly the child, and perhaps even society) that, if they have the option, those people raising the child should be able to provide for that child as well?

Too many children end up destitute and/or abandoned precisely because their parents did NOT take this into consideration before having them.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect those who want to have children to be able to provide for them. 

FWIW, your other complaints re: women working were based on a misreading of her second post.  Her two posts together covered your points more than adequately.  Certainly, she did not "cast off women who do want children as irresponsible."  Quite the contrary.  She simply demands those who are having children should be responsible.  Again, not really an unreasonable demand.


Are you referring to me or bouzie?  ???
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on June 08, 2007, 12:50:16 PM
That's what I mean by the spirit of the post.

It wasn't a point for point argument.  It was rambling. 

I think what bothers me is your tendency to make the unwarranted jumps to the polar opposite of her views.  "If you can't afford children, don't reproduce" DOES NOT EQUAL "only reproduce if you're wealthy". 

Would you argue that it is not in everyone's best interest (the mother and/or the father, certainly the child, and perhaps even society) that, if they have the option, those people raising the child should be able to provide for that child as well?

Too many children end up destitute and/or abandoned precisely because their parents did NOT take this into consideration before having them.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect those who want to have children to be able to provide for them. 

FWIW, your other complaints re: women working were based on a misreading of her second post.  Her two posts together covered your points more than adequately.  Certainly, she did not "cast off women who do want children as irresponsible."  Quite the contrary.  She simply demands those who are having children should be responsible.  Again, not really an unreasonable demand.


Are you referring to me or bouzie?  ???


Bouzie.

You jumped to totally different conclusions.   :D
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: pikey on June 08, 2007, 12:53:10 PM
That's what I mean by the spirit of the post.

It wasn't a point for point argument.  It was rambling. 

I think what bothers me is your tendency to make the unwarranted jumps to the polar opposite of her views.  "If you can't afford children, don't reproduce" DOES NOT EQUAL "only reproduce if you're wealthy". 

Would you argue that it is not in everyone's best interest (the mother and/or the father, certainly the child, and perhaps even society) that, if they have the option, those people raising the child should be able to provide for that child as well?

Too many children end up destitute and/or abandoned precisely because their parents did NOT take this into consideration before having them.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect those who want to have children to be able to provide for them. 

FWIW, your other complaints re: women working were based on a misreading of her second post.  Her two posts together covered your points more than adequately.  Certainly, she did not "cast off women who do want children as irresponsible."  Quite the contrary.  She simply demands those who are having children should be responsible.  Again, not really an unreasonable demand.


Are you referring to me or bouzie?  ???


Bouzie.

You jumped to totally different conclusions.   :D


 :P I stand by my assertion that the tone of the posts is offputting. It practically encourages people to jump to conclusions!
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on June 08, 2007, 01:01:05 PM
FWIW, I agree more with you than with Bouzie.  The tone, particularly in the first post, leaves a lot to be desired.

I still don't think this makes for misogynist rhetoric, though.  I thought the actual points laid out in the second post were quite reasonable, if not properly fleshed out.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: darlinalexi on June 08, 2007, 03:48:46 PM
Sorry if my tone is a little off-putting.

I've had a really awful week at work, and I think I was just putting my frustration into the board... I didn't mean to sound like a female dog, and certainly not like the Christian right. (I'm a former mormon turned atheist).  just one of those weeks.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: boo! on June 11, 2007, 02:23:18 PM
If you're not yet a parent, then anything you say is merely blabbering anyhow  :D

HTH ;)

Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on June 11, 2007, 05:17:55 PM
If you're not yet a parent, then anything you say is merely blabbering anyhow

Right.  'Cause it's the parents (no wait, mothers! no wait, single mothers!) who control maternity and leave and flex-time policies.

 :D
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: boo! on June 11, 2007, 08:25:04 PM
If you're not yet a parent, then anything you say is merely blabbering anyhow 

Right.  'Cause it's the parents (no wait, mothers! no wait, single mothers!) who control maternity and leave and flex-time policies.

Exactly!  :D
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: mugatu on June 11, 2007, 08:28:29 PM
If you're not yet a parent, then anything you say is merely blabbering anyhow

Right.  'Cause it's the parents (no wait, mothers! no wait, single mothers!) who control maternity and leave and flex-time policies.

Exactly!  :D

You may want to think about the implications of archival's post.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: boo! on June 12, 2007, 06:48:34 PM
If you're not yet a parent, then anything you say is merely blabbering anyhow

Right.  'Cause it's the parents (no wait, mothers! no wait, single mothers!) who control maternity and leave and flex-time policies.

Exactly!  :D

You may want to think about the implications of archival's post.

What makes you think I didn't?  I am not a single mother- But I had a wonderful maternity leave package and I was the person controlling such things. :)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: pikey on June 13, 2007, 06:10:07 AM
If you're not yet a parent, then anything you say is merely blabbering anyhow

Right.  'Cause it's the parents (no wait, mothers! no wait, single mothers!) who control maternity and leave and flex-time policies.

Exactly!  :D

You may want to think about the implications of archival's post.

What makes you think I didn't?  I am not a single mother- But I had a wonderful maternity leave package and I was the person controlling such things. :)

 ::)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: boo! on June 13, 2007, 10:26:28 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Ellis on June 13, 2007, 03:27:32 PM
As a highly educated stay at home mother, let me explain from an interested party's perspective.  I have a BS in Accounting, MA in Human Resource Development.  I started off in the Army, got out to raise my daughters, while my husband still serves, and each tax season, I work for 3 1/2 months just to have super summer vacations.  My daughters are 5 and 2 years old, and they both are smarter, more developed, and more mannerable than most kids they come in contact with.  I attribute this to my ability to be at home with them and teach them necessary life skills, instead of waiting on a daycare provider or kindergarten teacher to do it.  My 5 year old is reading and adding, and doesn't start kindergarten until August.  I have battled in my own mind for the past few years about my useless existance, because I knew I wanted to be working, or at least in law school fulfilling my dreams. But until reading this topic, I didn't really appreciate the great job I have done along with the other ladies in the elite group of stay at home moms.  We are not highly paid, but we are highly rewarded!! 
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: jillibean on June 13, 2007, 06:24:33 PM
So let me start by saying that I haven't read the first 9 pages of this thread.
My opinion is that women who have degrees and don't use them are a waste- just like men who dont use theirs are a waste. I would hope that they see it as something to fall back on or use it to help their children. I plan on having a large clan of my own. I have only one right now but I couldn't be a stay at home mom for one minute. I admire any mother who can do that. To me, working outside the home is less work than working in it.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: boo! on June 18, 2007, 05:19:19 PM
As a highly educated stay at home mother, let me explain from an interested party's perspective.  I have a BS in Accounting, MA in Human Resource Development.  I started off in the Army, got out to raise my daughters, while my husband still serves, and each tax season, I work for 3 1/2 months just to have super summer vacations.  My daughters are 5 and 2 years old, and they both are smarter, more developed, and more mannerable than most kids they come in contact with.  I attribute this to my ability to be at home with them and teach them necessary life skills, instead of waiting on a daycare provider or kindergarten teacher to do it.  My 5 year old is reading and adding, and doesn't start kindergarten until August.  I have battled in my own mind for the past few years about my useless existance, because I knew I wanted to be working, or at least in law school fulfilling my dreams. But until reading this topic, I didn't really appreciate the great job I have done along with the other ladies in the elite group of stay at home moms.  We are not highly paid, but we are highly rewarded!! 
Kudo's to you!  When both of your daughter's are in full-time school, you will likely work, correct?
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: naturallybeyoutiful on June 18, 2007, 07:57:39 PM
As a highly educated stay at home mother, let me explain from an interested party's perspective.  I have a BS in Accounting, MA in Human Resource Development.  I started off in the Army, got out to raise my daughters, while my husband still serves, and each tax season, I work for 3 1/2 months just to have super summer vacations.  My daughters are 5 and 2 years old, and they both are smarter, more developed, and more mannerable than most kids they come in contact with.  I attribute this to my ability to be at home with them and teach them necessary life skills, instead of waiting on a daycare provider or kindergarten teacher to do it.  My 5 year old is reading and adding, and doesn't start kindergarten until August.  I have battled in my own mind for the past few years about my useless existance, because I knew I wanted to be working, or at least in law school fulfilling my dreams. But until reading this topic, I didn't really appreciate the great job I have done along with the other ladies in the elite group of stay at home moms.  We are not highly paid, but we are highly rewarded!! 
Kudo's to you!  When both of your daughter's are in full-time school, you will likely work, correct?

And if she doesn't?  ;)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: TwinkyBean on June 18, 2007, 08:05:11 PM
So let me start by saying that I haven't read the first 9 pages of this thread.
My opinion is that women who have degrees and don't use them are a waste- just like men who dont use theirs are a waste. I would hope that they see it as something to fall back on or use it to help their children. I plan on having a large clan of my own. I have only one right now but I couldn't be a stay at home mom for one minute. I admire any mother who can do that. To me, working outside the home is less work than working in it.

I've been a stay at home mom for the past three years (and going to school) and I'm ready to get a degree and a job. I dont plan on having any more children anytime soon, so I think it's definitely time to start thinking about a career... I have worked in the past and I know that working at home is definitely tougher than a "real" job!... And much more stressful too!.. There's no 9-5ing it for stay at moms!..
But, when I get my degree, I fully intend on using it, and maybe in a few years I'll take a break from it all and go back to being a mommy!... Its the definitely the most rewarding job I've ever done!...Even though at times it seems like I'm the only one who knows I'm doing it!

(My lil girl just came over and kissed my arm... SO sweet!.. I think that means I need to get off here and put her to bed!:)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Ellis on June 19, 2007, 05:51:05 AM
Thanks.  I plan on working after law school.  Both of my children will be in school by then.  What makes it all worthwhile is when my child overhears me tell my sister that when my kid gets in the third grade and has to write about why she is proud of her mom, and she can't think of anything, I will be upset.  So my daughter comes to me and says, "I will write about how proud I am that you taught me how to read."  You gotta love it.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: boo! on June 19, 2007, 06:35:31 AM
As a highly educated stay at home mother, let me explain from an interested party's perspective.  I have a BS in Accounting, MA in Human Resource Development.  I started off in the Army, got out to raise my daughters, while my husband still serves, and each tax season, I work for 3 1/2 months just to have super summer vacations.  My daughters are 5 and 2 years old, and they both are smarter, more developed, and more mannerable than most kids they come in contact with.  I attribute this to my ability to be at home with them and teach them necessary life skills, instead of waiting on a daycare provider or kindergarten teacher to do it.  My 5 year old is reading and adding, and doesn't start kindergarten until August.  I have battled in my own mind for the past few years about my useless existance, because I knew I wanted to be working, or at least in law school fulfilling my dreams. But until reading this topic, I didn't really appreciate the great job I have done along with the other ladies in the elite group of stay at home moms.  We are not highly paid, but we are highly rewarded!! 
Kudo's to you!  When both of your daughter's are in full-time school, you will likely work, correct?

And if she doesn't?  ;)

I already stated what I thought about those that don't- see here http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,88524.105.html (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,88524.105.html) 2nd post down :)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Ellis on June 19, 2007, 11:56:15 AM
I went back and read your OPINION, and it left out the most important aspects of being a stay at home mom.  You focused on being a homemaker, which is vastly different by any definition than a stay at home mom.  What in your schedule focused on the children-the main reason for staying at home?  Have you ever tried fixing a meal without burning it while your baby wants to be held?  Have you tried mopping a floor while two kids run through the house?  Or maybe sitting on your butt to play or color with your kids?  Watching a soap opera, Oprah, The View are only DVR options when your kids want to watch Nickelodeon, or the Disney channel.  But of course I could send them in another room to be unattended, while I watch what I want, but then am I parenting or babysitting?  Get a grip.  Working outside of the home is a freaking break from life in my household.  Maybe you haven't been away from yours kids for weeks or months at the time while you serve your country in the military.  I have!  SO, while I respect and appreciate you wonderful experience as a homemaker, I found being a stay at home mom very challenging and rewarding.  If I decide never to use my degrees, so that I can raise beautiful, responsible, well rounded, mannerable, and intelligent children in a world that is so mean and places tons of pressure on children, then I am totally okay with that. ;)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: naturallybeyoutiful on June 19, 2007, 05:01:09 PM
As a highly educated stay at home mother, let me explain from an interested party's perspective.  I have a BS in Accounting, MA in Human Resource Development.  I started off in the Army, got out to raise my daughters, while my husband still serves, and each tax season, I work for 3 1/2 months just to have super summer vacations.  My daughters are 5 and 2 years old, and they both are smarter, more developed, and more mannerable than most kids they come in contact with.  I attribute this to my ability to be at home with them and teach them necessary life skills, instead of waiting on a daycare provider or kindergarten teacher to do it.  My 5 year old is reading and adding, and doesn't start kindergarten until August.  I have battled in my own mind for the past few years about my useless existance, because I knew I wanted to be working, or at least in law school fulfilling my dreams. But until reading this topic, I didn't really appreciate the great job I have done along with the other ladies in the elite group of stay at home moms.  We are not highly paid, but we are highly rewarded!! 
Kudo's to you!  When both of your daughter's are in full-time school, you will likely work, correct?

And if she doesn't?  ;)

I already stated what I thought about those that don't- see here http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,88524.105.html (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,88524.105.html) 2nd post down :)

Thanks for the link, boo.  That's helpful, as I'm really not following this thread as closely as some others. I know where you stand now; hopefully Ellis will reply as well. 

ETA Oh, she did!  I see.  Interesting.  Now, for the sake of the argument, Boo -- what if she did not plan to work, but would spend her time volunteering (in her children's school and in the community) and the like?  I know parents of students right now who do just this.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: boo! on June 19, 2007, 07:25:19 PM
Ellis- if you truly read my opinion, you would have seen that my very first sentence says "Once the children are in school full-time, there is NO reason for a woman to sit home."   So, no, my opinion has NOTHING to do with babies or cleaning WITH babies at home.  I think you should read something in its entirety before commenting next time. ::)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: boo! on June 19, 2007, 07:30:10 PM
As a highly educated stay at home mother, let me explain from an interested party's perspective.  I have a BS in Accounting, MA in Human Resource Development.  I started off in the Army, got out to raise my daughters, while my husband still serves, and each tax season, I work for 3 1/2 months just to have super summer vacations.  My daughters are 5 and 2 years old, and they both are smarter, more developed, and more mannerable than most kids they come in contact with.  I attribute this to my ability to be at home with them and teach them necessary life skills, instead of waiting on a daycare provider or kindergarten teacher to do it.  My 5 year old is reading and adding, and doesn't start kindergarten until August.  I have battled in my own mind for the past few years about my useless existance, because I knew I wanted to be working, or at least in law school fulfilling my dreams. But until reading this topic, I didn't really appreciate the great job I have done along with the other ladies in the elite group of stay at home moms.  We are not highly paid, but we are highly rewarded!! 
Kudo's to you!  When both of your daughter's are in full-time school, you will likely work, correct?

And if she doesn't?  ;)

I already stated what I thought about those that don't- see here http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,88524.105.html (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,88524.105.html) 2nd post down :)

Thanks for the link, boo.  That's helpful, as I'm really not following this thread as closely as some others. I know where you stand now; hopefully Ellis will reply as well. 

ETA Oh, she did!  I see.  Interesting.  Now, for the sake of the argument, Boo -- what if she did not plan to work, but would spend her time volunteering (in her children's school and in the community) and the like?  I know parents of students right now who do just this.

Volunteering is a wonderful thing to do!   ;)
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Ellis on June 19, 2007, 09:07:52 PM
I did read your statement, but again the difference is being a stay at home mother, which is what the topic suggests vs being a homemaker. As Naturally suggests, there are things that can be done.  Last year my oldest went to Pre K, and I put the baby in hourly daycare while I ran errands, went to meetings for organizations I belong to, and volunteered.  I have been in situations where I would go to work part time, and get caught up at work late, or what have you, and this interfered with picking the kids up on time, or cut into my family time.  The whole point of it all was whether or not the degree is being wasted, and in my opinion, no.  Education is useful if only to bring yourself to a higher level, and to pass on knowledge to your children.  If my path paved by my Creator is for me to stay at home and raise my children, should I pass on furthering my education, because I don't have a future in the workforce.  I don't think so.  It is taboo to work as the spouse of a military officer, although some do, and I will.  We have a tough enough job keeping our families together when there is usually distance between partners quite often.  We have a tough enough job keeping our children stable when we move every two years.  As a single parent it must be super difficult, because they too often have to work to support the kids, but they miss out on the special moments shared by daycare providers and school teachers.  So, I don't feel it is a waste, if being at home is the woman's choice, but I think it is also necessary for women to be educated and work in order to make a difference in equality.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: boo! on June 19, 2007, 09:13:53 PM
I did read your statement, but again the difference is being a stay at home mother, which is what the topic suggests vs being a homemaker. As Naturally suggests, there are things that can be done.  Last year my oldest went to Pre K, and I put the baby in hourly daycare while I ran errands, went to meetings for organizations I belong to, and volunteered.  I have been in situations where I would go to work part time, and get caught up at work late, or what have you, and this interfered with picking the kids up on time, or cut into my family time.  The whole point of it all was whether or not the degree is being wasted, and in my opinion, no.  Education is useful if only to bring yourself to a higher level, and to pass on knowledge to your children.  If my path paved by my Creator is for me to stay at home and raise my children, should I pass on furthering my education, because I don't have a future in the workforce.  I don't think so.  It is taboo to work as the spouse of a military officer, although some do, and I will.  We have a tough enough job keeping our families together when there is usually distance between partners quite often.  We have a tough enough job keeping our children stable when we move every two years.  As a single parent it must be super difficult, because they too often have to work to support the kids, but they miss out on the special moments shared by daycare providers and school teachers.  So, I don't feel it is a waste, if being at home is the woman's choice, but I think it is also necessary for women to be educated and work in order to make a difference in equality.

Whether one is labeled a homemaker or not- the topic is being a mother.  My point was directed at those mother's who stay at home AFTER their kids are in school full-time, hence my label of homemaker.  That's who I was referring to- those that stay home AFTER their kids are in school full-time...those I think are sitting on their butts doing nothing.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: pikey on June 20, 2007, 06:17:12 AM
I did read your statement, but again the difference is being a stay at home mother, which is what the topic suggests vs being a homemaker. As Naturally suggests, there are things that can be done.  Last year my oldest went to Pre K, and I put the baby in hourly daycare while I ran errands, went to meetings for organizations I belong to, and volunteered.  I have been in situations where I would go to work part time, and get caught up at work late, or what have you, and this interfered with picking the kids up on time, or cut into my family time.  The whole point of it all was whether or not the degree is being wasted, and in my opinion, no.  Education is useful if only to bring yourself to a higher level, and to pass on knowledge to your children.  If my path paved by my Creator is for me to stay at home and raise my children, should I pass on furthering my education, because I don't have a future in the workforce.  I don't think so.  It is taboo to work as the spouse of a military officer, although some do, and I will.  We have a tough enough job keeping our families together when there is usually distance between partners quite often.  We have a tough enough job keeping our children stable when we move every two years.  As a single parent it must be super difficult, because they too often have to work to support the kids, but they miss out on the special moments shared by daycare providers and school teachers.  So, I don't feel it is a waste, if being at home is the woman's choice, but I think it is also necessary for women to be educated and work in order to make a difference in equality.

Whether one is labeled a homemaker or not- the topic is being a mother.  My point was directed at those mother's who stay at home AFTER their kids are in school full-time, hence my label of homemaker.  That's who I was referring to- those that stay home AFTER their kids are in school full-time...those I think are sitting on their butts doing nothing.

That's a pretty ignorant statement if you really think about it.  If being a housekeeper is a full time job, which doesn't have nearly as much responsibilities as the actual homeowner/mother would have, then why would a mother be sitting on her butt all day doing nothing?  Think about it...
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Ellis on June 20, 2007, 10:33:33 AM
Maybe you are speaking from your own experience as a lazy homemaker, otherwise, I don't feel that you have any merits for making such statements because you are not in the homes of these people.  Or maybe when you sat at home on your butt watching tv, this is what they did on the soaps.  I don't know, and frankly a topic that should have been a simple matter of differences of opinion has turned into trying to convince one another who is right.  It is all opinionated and none of the opinions can be formed based on every homemaker or stay at home mom.  Each one has different responsibilities and circumstances.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Randy Savage on June 20, 2007, 10:57:12 AM
Any desparate housewives up in here? 
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Astro on June 20, 2007, 11:31:46 AM
Any desparate housewives up in here? 


NYU!
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: TwinkyBean on June 20, 2007, 11:41:08 AM
Any desparate housewives up in here? 

I will be if I don't get into law school.. haha
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: boo! on June 20, 2007, 04:13:40 PM
Maybe you are speaking from your own experience as a lazy homemaker, otherwise, I don't feel that you have any merits for making such statements because you are not in the homes of these people.  Or maybe when you sat at home on your butt watching tv, this is what they did on the soaps.  I don't know, and frankly a topic that should have been a simple matter of differences of opinion has turned into trying to convince one another who is right.  It is all opinionated and none of the opinions can be formed based on every homemaker or stay at home mom.  Each one has different responsibilities and circumstances.

No Ellis. I'm not trying to convince you of who is right and who is wrong. You took parts of my comment and commented upon them without reading my very first statement.  I will not respond to your insults as they do not pertain to me in any way.  I worked full-time since my son was 8 weeks old- I worked full-time and attended law school up until last December.  I know the pressures of working and being a mother and get very frustrated by the mother's who literally sit on their butts all day while their children are in school full-time.  That was my only point.  As I said in my initial post on the topic, housecleaning, cooking, laundry, etc. (you know the things that one has to do whether or not they have children or not) take very little time if one does not have a job outside of the home.  I was commenting that their complaining that they have it rough is ridiculous.  I'm not sure why you cannot understand what I was saying.  Of course when there are little one's at home it's not an easy job- I never said it wasn't.  Been there, done that- while working full-time and attending law school.
I'm not arguing with you- I was responding to someone else's question- of which my prior post answered.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: Ellis on June 20, 2007, 07:39:55 PM
I was not insulting you, unless it applied to you.  I did not know on what you based your opinions.  I apologize for only replying to part of your statement, because the point you were trying to make did not apply to me either.  I can't speak for those women, because I still have a toddler at home.  I get it!.  My bad!  I became defensive because I know how hard I work at home, and now that I think about it, I have a friend of teenagers who doesnt work, and I fuss at her for not going to school, or doing something productive with herself.  So I agree that some form of productivity is necessary no matter what.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: ->Soon on August 08, 2007, 12:25:12 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20121799/site/newsweek/?gt1=10252

 :D :D
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: annita on August 14, 2007, 07:42:27 PM
Here's a thought experiment that, for me, makes the answer to this question clear:

Let's say a highly educated woman decides to be a stay-at-home mom. She justifies the decision noting that being a mother and spending time helping her children (including daughters) become educated, responsible citizens is itself a contribution to society.  Her education has prepared her to be a role model of intelligence and intellectual accomplishment for her daughters especially, and as a stay-at-home mom, she can use her education and intelligence to cultivate theirs.

But I ask this: does she want her daughters to have the same professional options as her sons? Does she want her daughters to have professional female role models?

If so, does she just expect other women (mothers or non-mothers) to be those role models?

Would the highly educated, stay-at-home moms be happy with a world where women attended elite universities and graduate schools, only to stop working when they got married and/or had children, raising their daughters to attend elite universities and graduate schools... only to stop working when they get married and/or have children? Etc.

To me, it would defeat the ideal of an equal opportunity society for women to be offered half the slots in the freshman class at Harvard or Yale or Berkeley or name-your-prestigious-institution, only for those women to become homemakers. Or to be given financial aid to attend law school, or a fellowship to attend grad school.

I'm sorry, but I think it is a privilege to attend selective universities and professional or graduate programs -- for any of these schools, there are more qualified applicants than spots. I think there's a certain amount of civic/social/entrepreneurial responsibility that comes with the privilege of admission to selective institutions of higher ed.... OK, off my soap box now.



Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: MachuPicchu on August 14, 2007, 09:57:28 PM
Annita, you almost had me until the last bit about admission to elite schools or grad programs as a "privilege" that women shouldn't squander by staying home. I think it's all well and good for society to, through extended pregnancy and parental leave, flexible part-time programs, free daycare, etc., provide outlets for women to remain in the workplace while helping raise a family. In fact, this should be essential, in my opinion. And I can even concede Linda Hirshman's point that the educated women you describe who stay home in droves are removing professional women role models from the spotlight, where they need to be--not only to inspire future generations but to deploy their particular expert knowledge or skills.   

But society cannot demand that individual women who rise high in academia or professions be forced to remain in the workplace; that is each person's education, her student loans or sacrifices, her choice. From Hirshman's writings, it appears she is not very tolerant of such choices (she's from the old-school liberal-feminist slant of the 60's-70's).

Here's a post I made on another part of the site regarding a potential solution:

[It] reminds me of what some feminist scholars have argued: Women entering high-powered, long-hour or highly visible professions might consider marrying "down" (academic, outside-the-home ambition level, etc.) instead of "equal." They cite stats that show highly educated and/or professional women with similar husbands are almost always the partners to give up their full-time jobs or high salaries and to either stay at home or take time cuts/hiatuses that derail their career trajectories  (and from what I've read, private law work is still mostly unaccomodating to parental leave and people who try "come back" to the practice after a few years' leave).

In this schema, the male partner would work part-time or 9 to 5, shouldering the majority of during- or after-work childcare, preparing meals many days of the week, etc.

Marrying a man with either less formal ed or with a less demanding job helps on two fronts: (a) it helps each individual woman realize her academic/career potential in a society often hostile to this, and (b)it creates and helps sustain a core mass of women role models for the next generation.

*Note that less demanding job or less education =/= less intelligent, less conversant in politics or literature, etc. or anything else two people like to talk about.

This is the way some female and male feminists/humanists think the U.S. can take steps towards gender and human equality. I am intrigued by this, and wonder what high-powered and/OR educated women feel about this.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: annita on August 15, 2007, 05:37:15 AM
 

But society cannot demand that individual women who rise high in academia or professions be forced to remain in the workplace; that is each person's education, her student loans or sacrifices, her choice. From Hirshman's writings, it appears she is not very tolerant of such choices (she's from the old-school liberal-feminist slant of the 60's-70's).

No, of course schools can't force them to stay in the workplace. And of course people cannot always predict where their lives will go: I can understand if some married women *and* men eventually make the decision that it makes sense for one of the members of the couple to take time off from work to raise children. But I guess what I find problematic is that some women might enter college/graduate school with the *plan* not to to work once they are married and/or have children (I'm thinking here of a controversial survey of female Yale undergraduates that appeared in the NY Times a while back). And I don't like the idea that the eventual decision about whether to work or not is only "HER choice." If women deserve to have a choice in this, shouldn't men? 
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: queencruella on August 15, 2007, 06:20:37 AM


But society cannot demand that individual women who rise high in academia or professions be forced to remain in the workplace; that is each person's education, her student loans or sacrifices, her choice. From Hirshman's writings, it appears she is not very tolerant of such choices (she's from the old-school liberal-feminist slant of the 60's-70's).

No, of course schools can't force them to stay in the workplace. And of course people cannot always predict where their lives will go: I can understand if some married women *and* men eventually make the decision that it makes sense for one of the members of the couple to take time off from work to raise children. But I guess what I find problematic is that some women might enter college/graduate school with the *plan* not to to work once they are married and/or have children (I'm thinking here of a controversial survey of female Yale undergraduates that appeared in the NY Times a while back). And I don't like the idea that the eventual decision about whether to work or not is only "HER choice." If women deserve to have a choice in this, shouldn't men? 

I, too, really have a problem with people entering grad school with the specific goal of getting married and staying at home. My law school has quite a few students like this and I just think it's unfair to other students who didn't get in and actually want to do more than just find a rich husband.

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with it at the undergrad level. Kids are applying at 16-17 and at that age you really have no idea what you want from life. Hopefully entering college will increase their desire to do something more than just snag husband, but there certainly are some schools that are infamous for women wanting to do just that.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: MachuPicchu on August 15, 2007, 08:32:30 AM
I, too, really have a problem with people entering grad school with the specific goal of getting married and staying at home. My law school has quite a few students like this and I just think it's unfair to other students who didn't get in and actually want to do more than just find a rich husband.

Perhaps, although it might actually help other law grads by having less recent grads flooding the market competing for the same jobs.

It would be interesting to find out how your classmates (presumably female since you said "husband") articulate this. I can't imagine their decision would be a popular one around campus--or maybe it is at yours. How do they make their revelations about the purpose of their presence at LS?  Also, I'm not the first to have said this, but maybe someone could tell them there has to be an easier way to meet a spouse!
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: queencruella on August 15, 2007, 08:47:41 AM
I, too, really have a problem with people entering grad school with the specific goal of getting married and staying at home. My law school has quite a few students like this and I just think it's unfair to other students who didn't get in and actually want to do more than just find a rich husband.

Perhaps, although it might actually help other law grads by having less recent grads flooding the market competing for the same jobs.

It would be interesting to find out how your classmates (presumably female since you said "husband") articulate this. I can't imagine their decision would be a popular one around campus--or maybe it is at yours. How do they make their revelations about the purpose of their presence at LS?  Also, I'm not the first to have said this, but maybe someone could tell them there has to be an easier way to meet a spouse!


It's very popular at my (Catholic) school. It's not something that the women try to hide or make secret in any way. They just flat out say they want to find a nice husband and become a housewife. They're still competing for the same jobs because it's not like they have their husbands lined up by the end of 1L, so that theory doesn't fly at all.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: MachuPicchu on August 15, 2007, 09:00:20 AM
They just flat out say they want to find a nice husband and become a housewife. They're still competing for the same jobs because it's not like they have their husbands lined up by the end of 1L, so that theory doesn't fly at all.

Wanting to stay home eventually is different from going to law/grad school with the sole purpose of meeting a spouse, though. I've met women who want to marry, work for five or so years after their grad schooling, then have kids, and then decide either to stay home permanently or go back to work when any kids are in school. I think that's a little different than straight up committing to an expensive series of degrees with domesticity only in mind.

Your classmates may be the latter, though, in which case I still find it a puzzling choice based on the amount of debt and/or payment, time, intellectual & physical stress, etc. Wish one of them would post, although I don't know if any such person would "come out" on LSD.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: queencruella on August 15, 2007, 09:16:49 AM
They just flat out say they want to find a nice husband and become a housewife. They're still competing for the same jobs because it's not like they have their husbands lined up by the end of 1L, so that theory doesn't fly at all.

Wanting to stay home eventually is different from going to law/grad school with the sole purpose of meeting a spouse, though. I've met women who want to marry, work for five or so years after their grad schooling, then have kids, and then decide either to stay home permanently or go back to work when any kids are in school. I think that's a little different than straight up committing to an expensive series of degrees with domesticity only in mind.

Your classmates may be the latter, though, in which case I still find it a puzzling choice based on the amount of debt and/or payment, time, intellectual & physical stress, etc. Wish one of them would post, although I don't know if any such person would "come out" on LSD.

There are both types at my school. I don't mind the former at all but there are lots of women who seem to have no desire whatsoever to practice law. It's possible that they came to the conclusion after starting law school, but I don't know why you'd go through the full three years if you realized it really wasn't what you wanted after the first semester. They may have a lot of financial support from their parents as well.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: MachuPicchu on August 15, 2007, 09:20:05 AM
No, of course schools can't force them to stay in the workplace.

I was talking about society, but we can include schools in that, too.


(I'm thinking here of a controversial survey of female Yale undergraduates that appeared in the NY Times a while back).

I remember that survey. This goes back, I think, to my italicized point about the very foundations of society needing to shift in order for women to not feel like such a choice is necessary. I don't know what each Yale undergrad was thinking, but I can imagine that the current climate in many U.S. places of employment--severely limited maternal and often non-existent paternal leave; over-reliance on the same full-time workers instead of a variety of part-timers, high-priced child-care, etc.--in part fuels the drive for one to leave the workplace in favor of offspring.

Major changes on both the social program/employer level and on the level of each individual couple (more couples choosing for the husband to take on childcare duties) will be needed to get us to the point where all or many young female grads no longer feel compelled to stay home to do right by their kids. Then women staying home will become just what it is: a choice as little charged as whether to have lima beans or bok choy for dinner.

On a happier note, I saw a Pampers ad the other day in which the caregiver was male and in jeans. On a sadder note, this was so rare as to make me happy.

And I don't like the idea that the eventual decision about whether to work or not is only "HER choice." If women deserve to have a choice in this, shouldn't men? 

I used "her" as a proxy for she and her male partner. Hopefully, both will have agreed on the subject.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: saradsun on August 15, 2007, 12:59:14 PM
I really like what you've said MachuPicchu.

I'm betting I have a much different life experience than most or all of the other participants in this thread. I am the mother of 5 kids. And I've been a stay at home mother most of my post-college life. And my decision to stay home both times (I have 2 "shifts" of kids, my first three are teens, my last two toddlers) has been exactly what you've said above, I really didn't feel I had much choice. When I had my first three too close together, well I couldn't afford daycare to three. How could I work? I quit my job after my 4th because I'm one of those militant breastfeeders, and working 9 hours a day plus an hour each way commute just wasn't going to work. If I could've taken 9 or 12 months off, I would've chosen that instead. Now I'm back in the "can't afford" to work category. So I figured, wtf, I'll take the lsat.  :-X

I'll tell you, I'm really really ready to not be at home anymore.

eta: This was not how I expected  my life would go. I probably would've been voted least likely to have kids in high school. I used to say that my (first) husband would be a better mother than I. I was completely blindsided by my own reaction after having my first child.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: MachuPicchu on August 15, 2007, 03:01:13 PM
saradsun, thanks for sharing your experiences. And good luck on LSAT if you've not already taken it.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: MachuPicchu on August 15, 2007, 03:02:32 PM
Even when I was purportedly "just a SAHM," I was using my education for my benefit, not just my kids (in my case, I've edited a relatively successful blog on politics, autism and Indian issues for the last five years.)  Plus I ran for office, worked on a number of campaigns, sat on a state-level panel on reducing childhood lead poisoning, created and maintained a large organic garden, counseled local environmental organizations on mercury contamination, personally renovated my 1913 house (including plumbing, wiring, framing,) etc., etc.

This is why I like the Non-Trad forum.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: saradsun on August 15, 2007, 03:36:24 PM
MBW, good to know I'm not alone. I have also thought that I'm going to be more ready at 40 than I would have previously. I visit a mothers' forum where there is a small contingent of lawyer moms and they are just starting having kids after or during law school and they seem so conflicted. I don't think I'm going to feel that way now, though I definitely would've if I'd tried to do this any sooner.

I didn't do anything near as illustrious during my years at home. I kept some foster kids, did some quilting, got a computer certification, took some trips, took some classes in a master's program I didn't care for (public administration), learned to flame people on the internet, then learned to refrain from doing so.    ;)

Thanks Maccu, I'm taking it in September.
Title: Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
Post by: andy1990 on October 05, 2007, 04:57:45 AM
MBW,

Your a total hoot. Your right about the JD mom's not sitting home,if we are for the time being,it's probably temporary and our minds are still going a mile a minute-lol