I don't normally watch Oprah. She usually annoys me because she too chatty. When she has a celebrity guest on, she does more talking than they do. I know it's her show and she can do what she wants with it, but it's like, ask the question and let the guest do the talking, will you?
I taped Oprah Tuesday and I also had taped Liz Vargas' first 20/20 Show which aired back on November 9 on the working mother dilemma.
Apparently, as evidenced in this new Oprah show, the debate is still on, so apparently Ms. Carol Evans was wrong. :)
Whatever decision is made, it affects the whole family, including fathers living in the home. I am getting weary of the media attention being focused solely on the the women. Not only is it a decision that should be made as a family, but the fathers can offer a great deal of support and have something to offer to the discussion, but they seem to be overlooked in these types of news stories and shows. Apparently, it's all about the women.
On Oprah, Ms. Vargas mentioned that she had received a letter from N.O.W. in protest of her decision to pull back from her career position as ABC News anchor to devote more time to her family, and I thought that she made a very good point about it. Feminism should be about CHOICES (after all, isn't that what the abortion debate is all about?) but radical feminism is about ONE choice that is deemed the only right one. If you make the "wrong" choice, then you are betraying the sisterhood. I applaud Oprah for showing respect to Ms. Vargas for her decision.
The one thing that feminism will never be able to stop is the driving nature of motherhood. Ms. Vargas said that she feels guilt every day that her children will not be as well off as those with mothers who don't work. However, after going through all the talk about guilt, she then says, "I know I've made the right decision for my family." How can she be so confident and still be so wracked with guilt? She can't have it both ways.
Having BTDT I can only say that she should listen to her conscience. Although feminism would dictate that we ignore it, it's there for a reason.
She also says that she is aware that she misses 98% of her childrens' day because she has been at work. Then the next thing I know she says, "I think the time I spend with my children is what makes me a good mother." So, the remaining 2% sliver of her time that she manages to squeeze out of her busy life to spend with her kids --- makes her a good mother??? I honestly just don't understand it. If her situation were reversed could she say that about her job with ABC?
In 20 years, her son will look back on his childhood. What will he say? Will he say, "I'm glad mommy had a fulfilling career"? Or will he say, "My mom loves me so much that she gave up her career just to be there for me and raise me herself. I love her so much."
She can decide what he will say.
In fact, it seemed to me that Oprah was more concerned about what Ms. Vargas had to give up careerwise and how difficult the decision was to make. Oprah asked, "Was part of the difficulty in making the decision because, if you are a newsperson, if you are "in the business" of media (and the network anchor job for the 6PM news is the most coveted job in television) was there a part of you thinking what you were giving up and how long and how hard you had to work to get to that position?"
Perhaps she was trying to make an example of her, as if to say, "If she can make this unbelievably huge sacrifice to spend more time with her family, so can you." Although she never made that point, I hope that was what she meant to illustrate.
The topic of government funded quality child care assistance came up and Oprah played the 20/20 interview with Senator Chrstopher Dodd. Although Ms. Vargas balanced the argument well in her conversation with Oprah, they didn't show Ms. Vargas' 20/20 interview with Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor Karen M. Czarnecki who had the gall to suggest that individuals take steps to be financially responsible for their plans to have a family.
The women in the show were interesting. Jallon, the principal, has more patience with 120 other (possibly unruly) kids than she does with her own 2 toddlers. Lisa would sell her house before she would go back to work. Christian didn't get enough satisfaction from being a mother. Whitney encouraged working parents to find a way to bring either parent home for the children.
And Barbara (oh, boy) said that you have to separate yourself from your kids. In an effort to argue that the teen years are more important than the young years, she said, "Anybody can read a book to your kid or cuddle with your kid, but not anybody can ask your kid how the soccer game went, or be there to cheer them on at the game."
Ugh. Lisa referred to the foundation that is laid when they are young and it is best formed with their own mother. I feel that it is that foundation which forms the bond that the child carries into the teen years. In fact Oprah validated that point later in the show. She said that it's really about the level of commitment you have to your children. "I have been doing these shows for years, and when the kids go astray it's because of the lack of connection, and the lack of connection doesn't start with teenagers... It's not a teenage thing...it's when they're 3 or 2."
Dr. Robin Smith said, "The other issue for me is what tapes we have playing in our heads from parents, grandparents, mothers. 'My mother never accomplished what she wanted, so I'm going to make sure that doesn't happen to me,' or 'My mother stayed home and rocked me and read to me.' That's fine, but you don't want that to be the defining statement that writes your own script. This is your life.
I agree to a certain extent. I think that what Dr. Robin is probably saying is that we shouldn't feel that we are required to base our decisions on those of our parents or grandparents. You have the right to take control of your life and make it what you want it to be.
However, isn't it the job of the parents and grandparents to teach and pass down what they have learned and what they feel is best? Don't we mostly learn by our parent's example and then make our own decisions anyway? I stay at home because that's what my mom did. I chose to follow her example because I think it is a good one. I liked having her there every day and I felt secure knowing that she would be there, and I honestly believe that it is what is best for a child.
Then Dr. Robin said something that I totally agree with. "Having it all is an illusion, a fantasy" and Oprah followed up with, "You can have it all, you just can't have it all at the same time."
Dr. Robin also made a good point that, whether you are a stay at home mom or a working mom, the goal is to be in tune with yourself. I would like to adjust that and say that you should be in tune with your family. You could be a stay at home mom and be totally checked out as a mom, or you could be a working mom and your mind could be constantly on your work. Whichever choice you made, if you are not attentive to your family, you are doing them a disservice.
As the ladies were sitting in a room talking, Whitney asked, "If you are going to invest all of this time in having a child, why not invest a couple of years in being there for them?" And she said something very profound, which many women have actually succeeded in doing.
Motherhood as a Profession.
"It is thinking, 'What do I hope to achieve?' You have goals, deadlines, objectives, a purpose when you are at work. Can you not bring that same skill set, that same drive, to your child for a few years and make that a profession?"
wow.
While the point was made that it's not just a few years, it's for life, I think that what Whitney was simply trying to say was that it's okay to give up the career for a while and go back to it later, but we'll never be able to go back to the years our children are young.
The judgement aspect of working mothers vs. stay at home mothers was also adressed. Working mothers are mad about being judged as though they don't love their kids as much as they should because they chose to work, or their kids won't turn out as well because their mom wasn't home all the time. Then came the popular defensive argument, the one that says, "You don't have the right judge me because you haven't been in my situation."
But with reguard to any decision that needs to be made in life, I have a set of values and I use them to guide me in my life and in my decisions. My values are my guard rails, and without them, then it's anybody's guess what I would do in a situation where I had to make a decision. We use our values to make judgements about actions that we feel are right or wrong. That's what we are supposed to do. Otherwise, what good are our values to us?
The last part dealt with regrets and guilt. Peggy, who worked, regrets not being there and being a part of the important events in her children's development, while her daughter said she felt very loved and secure as a child. Dr. Robin said that's because she was engaged with her children. Robin profoundly said that the guilt is to teach, not torture, and that it is important not to project those feelings onto our children.
Lynne, who stayed at home, says she regrets not doing more for herself. I think it's sad that Oprah didn't deal with her at all on the show (tho she probably did after the taping- Oprah After the Show only airs on Saturdays now at 2 PM on Oxygen) but I personally do not feel that just because a mother stays at home that she can't take time out fer herself and do things she enjoys, and when the kids are grown, it is perfectly okay to want that time for you to fulfill your goals. In fact, once the kids are in school full time, a mom can do whatever she wants between 8AM and 4PM.
So that's my take on the show. Many good points were made, and Oprah led a great discussion. But one thing I noticed is that the working moms were still so defensive. Just because this subject comes up repeatedly doesn't mean that working moms must feel that they should defend themselves for the choices that they make, just as stay at home moms shouldn't. Many moms have chosen to stay at home because we know that if we tried to work and take care of a family we would suck at both. The reality is that many moms all over the country are coming to the same realization and are taking another look at their choices.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
Right or Wrong?
So my friends and I were sitting around the table having coffee and one asked a very intriguing question. She had just received a new laptop computer with wireless capability. When she opens it, it auotmatically searches for an open wireless Internet connection, and it has found one- the neighbor two houses down. And it even gives their name. So her questions were regarding general information about wireless Internet connections, how to secure them, how easy it would be to hack into one's unprotected wireless connection, what kind of damage could be done, etc.
After exchanging some general information, I said, "Obviously you don't want to tap into your neighbor's connection without his knowledge or consent."
To which one gal said, "Oh, it's no big deal. I do it all the time if mine goes down."
I said, "You know, they are the ones paying for the internet service, and if one were to use their connection without their knowledge or consent, that seems to me to be wrong, like stealing."
To which a second gal replied, "Well, it's no different than going to Starbucks to use their free WiFi or for that matter it's no different than turning on the TV and getting a signal over the airwaves."
To which I said, "I think I understand what you are saying, but there is a difference. A radio or TV transmission is paid for by sponsorships with the intention of making it available for free to the public. At Starbucks or other places where there are public WiFi connections, the person or people (possible sponsors as well) who pay for that service do so with the intention of offering it for free to the public.
"However, her neighbor is paying for his own internet connection and I highly doubt that he has any intention of offering internet service up for free to his other neighbors, nor should he be expected to, and it would be immoral and unfair to take advantage of the available connection without their knowledge or consent. It would amount to freeloading.
"Stealing utilities such as cable and phone connections are against the law too."
To which a third friend said, "Well, if they don't have the intention of offering it free to the neighborhood, then they should lock it down."
At this point my chin is sitting squarely on my chest, I can't believe how cavalier these gals are. I said, "Just because someone doesn't protect their connection doesn't make it okay to use it without their knowledge or consent. Am I the only one who think this is a big deal?"
Thankfully, another older and more respected member of our group backed me up. "If I leave my purse in my car, does that make it okay for someone to take it? If I leave my back gate unlocked, does that make it okay for just anyone to enter my backyard and lounge by the pool?"
Then the third gal said, "Well, right, leaving your purse in your car or your gate unlocked doesn't give anyone the right to take your purse or lounge by the pool. That's stealing and trespassing. But everyone should know that if they aren't going to take precautions, they leave themselves open to theft, infact inviting it"
Then she gave us an anaolgy. "If I take my kid to the park with his toys and he leaves his toys to go play on the slide and another child plays with them, is that stealing or tresspassing? I don't think so. If we didn't want someone else to play with them, then we shouldn't have left them there unattended.
"A car with it's doors unlocked doesn't sit there and say, 'Hey, my door's unlocked, come on in.' And a backyard gate doesn't scream, 'Hey, I'm not secure, come on in.' But a wireless Internet connection advertises itself and says, 'I'm over here!' It becomes the primary responsibility of the owner to protect himself."
Then I said, "So, what you are saying is that anyone who doesn't lock down their WiFi deserves to get hacked into? As though it was their fault? It still doesn't change the fact that the thief is the bad guy, not the person who failed to protect himself against the thief. And if I take my son's toys to the park and leave them unattended, I would not be surprised if another kid started playing with them. But that doesn't change the fact that it is wrong-- the kid or the kid's parents should have come to me or my son and asked permission first."
"Besides, you are comparing apples to apples and calling them oranges. You are saying it's not okay to take an unprotected purse or walk into the unsecured backyard, but it's okay to play with someone else's toys without asking just because they are there, unprotected and unsecured."
I had a conversation with my son last year about cheating. He was having trouble keeping up with his assignments in class. He had asked the girl next to him to help him. Her "help" was giving him answers to questions on an assignment. I told him that it was wrong of him to accept that type of help. 1) it meant that he was not learning the material himself and 2) the girl was doing the work for the both of them, which isn't fair to her. She is only responsible for doing her own work and my son is responsible for doing his. (I alerted the teacher and she said that she would talk to the girl about this, that she probably didn't know it was wrong to help him in that way.)
The same applies to using someone else's wireless internet connection without their knowledge or consent. It isn't fair to the person paying for the connection to supply the connection to anyone who happens to find it without having given his/her consent.
It may even be against the law. There was a case in Florida where a man was arrested for using an unprotected WiFi connection from his car outside someone's house. And there is a discussion on ZDnet about this case as well.
So, anyone have any ideas? What do you think- is it okay to "borrow" a neighbor's unprotected WiFi connection? Or is it morally wrong, and should there be a law against it?
After exchanging some general information, I said, "Obviously you don't want to tap into your neighbor's connection without his knowledge or consent."
To which one gal said, "Oh, it's no big deal. I do it all the time if mine goes down."
I said, "You know, they are the ones paying for the internet service, and if one were to use their connection without their knowledge or consent, that seems to me to be wrong, like stealing."
To which a second gal replied, "Well, it's no different than going to Starbucks to use their free WiFi or for that matter it's no different than turning on the TV and getting a signal over the airwaves."
To which I said, "I think I understand what you are saying, but there is a difference. A radio or TV transmission is paid for by sponsorships with the intention of making it available for free to the public. At Starbucks or other places where there are public WiFi connections, the person or people (possible sponsors as well) who pay for that service do so with the intention of offering it for free to the public.
"However, her neighbor is paying for his own internet connection and I highly doubt that he has any intention of offering internet service up for free to his other neighbors, nor should he be expected to, and it would be immoral and unfair to take advantage of the available connection without their knowledge or consent. It would amount to freeloading.
"Stealing utilities such as cable and phone connections are against the law too."
To which a third friend said, "Well, if they don't have the intention of offering it free to the neighborhood, then they should lock it down."
At this point my chin is sitting squarely on my chest, I can't believe how cavalier these gals are. I said, "Just because someone doesn't protect their connection doesn't make it okay to use it without their knowledge or consent. Am I the only one who think this is a big deal?"
Thankfully, another older and more respected member of our group backed me up. "If I leave my purse in my car, does that make it okay for someone to take it? If I leave my back gate unlocked, does that make it okay for just anyone to enter my backyard and lounge by the pool?"
Then the third gal said, "Well, right, leaving your purse in your car or your gate unlocked doesn't give anyone the right to take your purse or lounge by the pool. That's stealing and trespassing. But everyone should know that if they aren't going to take precautions, they leave themselves open to theft, infact inviting it"
Then she gave us an anaolgy. "If I take my kid to the park with his toys and he leaves his toys to go play on the slide and another child plays with them, is that stealing or tresspassing? I don't think so. If we didn't want someone else to play with them, then we shouldn't have left them there unattended.
"A car with it's doors unlocked doesn't sit there and say, 'Hey, my door's unlocked, come on in.' And a backyard gate doesn't scream, 'Hey, I'm not secure, come on in.' But a wireless Internet connection advertises itself and says, 'I'm over here!' It becomes the primary responsibility of the owner to protect himself."
Then I said, "So, what you are saying is that anyone who doesn't lock down their WiFi deserves to get hacked into? As though it was their fault? It still doesn't change the fact that the thief is the bad guy, not the person who failed to protect himself against the thief. And if I take my son's toys to the park and leave them unattended, I would not be surprised if another kid started playing with them. But that doesn't change the fact that it is wrong-- the kid or the kid's parents should have come to me or my son and asked permission first."
"Besides, you are comparing apples to apples and calling them oranges. You are saying it's not okay to take an unprotected purse or walk into the unsecured backyard, but it's okay to play with someone else's toys without asking just because they are there, unprotected and unsecured."
I had a conversation with my son last year about cheating. He was having trouble keeping up with his assignments in class. He had asked the girl next to him to help him. Her "help" was giving him answers to questions on an assignment. I told him that it was wrong of him to accept that type of help. 1) it meant that he was not learning the material himself and 2) the girl was doing the work for the both of them, which isn't fair to her. She is only responsible for doing her own work and my son is responsible for doing his. (I alerted the teacher and she said that she would talk to the girl about this, that she probably didn't know it was wrong to help him in that way.)
The same applies to using someone else's wireless internet connection without their knowledge or consent. It isn't fair to the person paying for the connection to supply the connection to anyone who happens to find it without having given his/her consent.
It may even be against the law. There was a case in Florida where a man was arrested for using an unprotected WiFi connection from his car outside someone's house. And there is a discussion on ZDnet about this case as well.
So, anyone have any ideas? What do you think- is it okay to "borrow" a neighbor's unprotected WiFi connection? Or is it morally wrong, and should there be a law against it?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
The Working Moms' Dilemma: How feminism has failed
ABC's 20/20 did an interesting piece on working moms on Friday November 10. Elizabeth Vargas has just returned to work from maternity leave. Prior to her maternity leave she revealed that she was stepping down as co anchor of ABC's World News Tonight and would return as a co anchor of 20/20, for which, despite the fact that freedom of choice is celebrated in this country and that Ms. Vargas made the choice that she felt was right for her family, she received much flak from die-hard working moms
Though I am currently a stay at home mom, I was a working mom once, too. I worked at work and I came home and worked. I was stressed at work and I was stressed at home. I was tired at work and I was tired at home. I felt like a bank which had been totally robbed during the day, but people kept coming through the door and demanding withdrawals from me.
The 20/20 piece focused on how heavily burdened working moms are and the solution to this dilemma which was presented was paid maternity leave.
When I watched the show, I was amazed by a few things.
1) Though the working moms interviewed are miserable in their daily life, they honestly feel that they are stuck and have no options, that they are now working out of necessity rather than by choice. They also said they felt unable to ask for help because of the competitiveness with men.
The fact that women are in competition with men is part and parcel of the feminist movement of the 1960's. Total gender equality is a dream that feminists have been chasing for 40 years, and they are still chasing it. The sad reality for the 60's feminists is that women will never achieve that goal.
"Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans." The fact is that women are by design nurturers and nesters. If it weren't true, then why is it that when mom leaves work, she runs by the store for a few groceries? Why is it that when mom comes home from work, she sets about cooking dinner? Why is it that when mom comes home, she feels the need to pick up the house and get the laundry together? Why is it that when mom is home she checks the homework? Why do working moms still fall naturally into the role of caretaker and household task-doer? Why is it that new moms feel incredibly guilty when they leave the newborn with the sitter and go to work? Because women will always be plagued by the animal instinct that comes from bearing a child. It is as natural as bees and honey, as birds going South to winter.
Working mothers all across the nation are finally saying, "We need help. We can't do it alone." Ms. Vargas admits freely that for decades we have been telling working mothers that they should be able to do it all and have it all. Therefore, there should never have been any reason for working mothers to receive any type of support that would make life easier for them. What Ms. Vargas didn't admit was that this empty promise is just one more way feminism has failed women.
2) The simple suggestion that women actually take responsibility for their finances and plan financially to be off work during maternity leave was nothing less than stunning to Elizabeth Vargas. She equated unexpectedness of Peter Jennings' death and Bob Woodruff's injury in Iraq to her her pregnancy. This is an unfair comparison. Nobody planned for Peter Jennings' illness and Bob Woodruff's injury, but the fact is that pregnancy and childcare can in fact be anticipated and prepared for.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor Karen M. Czarnecki said, "We need to do more to encourage Americans to save more for the time that they do need to be out of the workforce," to which Ms. Vargas was astounded and responded with an incredulous and confused question. "It's up to a person to save enough money before they have a baby to be able to stay home for a few weeks and recover and spend some time with that new baby?"
Ms.Czarnecki confirmed, "Yes, I think people have to take responsibilty for themselves and they shouldn't always look to government to have an answer for them." I could not have said it better myself. What a novel idea- individual responsibility. One could also refer to it as "family planning." For a society which is so in tune to the idea of individual choice, one would think that natural progression would be the acceptance of the consequences of our choices. If we, as individual women, choose to have a baby, why is it then that the consequences of our decisions become the responsibility of our employers or our government?
Furthermore I find it appalling that Ms. Vargas and Senator Dodd compare the U.S. to countries such as Iran and North Korea while referring to their social programs with respect to paid maternity leave as though we should be more like those countries. The next point here is obvious: If women want the U.S. to be more like those socialist countries, they should move to one for a year and see how what they offer their residents compares to what the U.S. offers in terms of not only social programs but also freedoms and rights. Perhaps they would find that North Korea's politics and human rights practices are not worth staying to receive paid maternity leave.
Besides, what makes them think that other countries have all the right answers? If other countries are so much better at providing for their populations' needs, then why are so many people trying to enter the United States to live and work? And what makes them think that we have to be like other countries? Didn't the Founding Fathers come to the New World to be different and unique?
Again in an effort to direct accountability toward government, Ms. Vargas and Senator Dodd took the opportunity to slam the Bush Administration for being opposed to giving money for childcare or paid matternity leave. The one obvious point that was not made about government taking on this burden was that it would most definitely result in higher taxes for the American people.
3) Initially the focus of the interviews with working moms seemed to rely on the difficult predicament that working moms face in balancing the home and work environments, but the only solution that was focused on was paid maternity leave. But what about after maternity leave? The most difficult part of having children for working moms comes after the children are born and families must endure day to day responsibilities. What good does paid maternity leave do then? This report left a few loose ends.
However, we already know what the answer would have been. Government.
"Government, pay for improved childcare. Oh, and make it more affordable, too."
"Government, pay for working moms to stay at home for 12 weeks with the newborn."
"Government, make my workload more flexible."
4) Apparently, it is out of vogue to debate staying at home versus working. That question has been deemed "no longer relevant" and serves as a distraction, according to Ms. Vargas, and has hindered the progress that could be made towards making life easier for working moms. Carol Evans, CEO of Working Mother Magazine says that "We are way beyond that argument" because 71 percent of all mothers in the U.S. work. However, data supports the trend of more and more mothers making the choice to stay at home. Census bureau statistics show a 15 percent increase in the number of stay-at-home moms in less than 10 years. Why was this not mentioned in Ms. Vargas' story?
Kate Cronin, the executive at a public relations firm and one of the working mothers interviewed for the story, said she sees stories about unsupervised kids getting into trouble and says, "What is going on with the youth of America is the parents of America are out working." That statement itself is a perfect argument for staying at home to be the parents of America who are at home supervising their kids, although it was intended to be an argument for more flexible work schedules.
The truth is that there are many many moms who have traded in their work badges for mommy badges and have made it work on 50% less income, and they have a story to tell!
Just read about Joni McCoy who wrote a book called Miserly Moms. "I believe this can be done because it happened to us. I was a successful business woman with a career in Silicon Valley. After my son was born, I wanted to be at home full-time with my children. I didn't believe that I could afford to quit, because we were living in the expensive San Francisco Bay Area, and I was bringing home 50% of our income. But I did it anyway because my family was my priority. I realized that being a stay-at-home mom was the best for my children."
There are many resources out there for moms who want to take control of their own lives and make a change for the betterment of themselves and for their families. Just Google phrases like "Frugal moms" or "moms at home." A working mom who feels she is stuck really does have options, she just hasn't looked for them.
5) Furthermore, Ms. Evans asserts, in not so many words, that the economy would collapse if all the working mothers suddently stayed at home. "There isn't a governmental agency, there's not a hospital, or a school that could survive more than a day or two without their working mothers fully employed." This is a very short sighted conclusion, given that it has taken more than 20 years for the workforce to grow to include this enormous number of working mothers. If the trend is to be reversed, it certainly would not take place overnight, or in a day or two. It would take at least another 20 years. In addition, because there are plenty of healthy capable men in the nation who are in need of a job and who also feel the need to be useful, the economy would hardly collapse.
Though I am currently a stay at home mom, I was a working mom once, too. I worked at work and I came home and worked. I was stressed at work and I was stressed at home. I was tired at work and I was tired at home. I felt like a bank which had been totally robbed during the day, but people kept coming through the door and demanding withdrawals from me.
The 20/20 piece focused on how heavily burdened working moms are and the solution to this dilemma which was presented was paid maternity leave.
When I watched the show, I was amazed by a few things.
1) Though the working moms interviewed are miserable in their daily life, they honestly feel that they are stuck and have no options, that they are now working out of necessity rather than by choice. They also said they felt unable to ask for help because of the competitiveness with men.
The fact that women are in competition with men is part and parcel of the feminist movement of the 1960's. Total gender equality is a dream that feminists have been chasing for 40 years, and they are still chasing it. The sad reality for the 60's feminists is that women will never achieve that goal.
"Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans." The fact is that women are by design nurturers and nesters. If it weren't true, then why is it that when mom leaves work, she runs by the store for a few groceries? Why is it that when mom comes home from work, she sets about cooking dinner? Why is it that when mom comes home, she feels the need to pick up the house and get the laundry together? Why is it that when mom is home she checks the homework? Why do working moms still fall naturally into the role of caretaker and household task-doer? Why is it that new moms feel incredibly guilty when they leave the newborn with the sitter and go to work? Because women will always be plagued by the animal instinct that comes from bearing a child. It is as natural as bees and honey, as birds going South to winter.
Working mothers all across the nation are finally saying, "We need help. We can't do it alone." Ms. Vargas admits freely that for decades we have been telling working mothers that they should be able to do it all and have it all. Therefore, there should never have been any reason for working mothers to receive any type of support that would make life easier for them. What Ms. Vargas didn't admit was that this empty promise is just one more way feminism has failed women.
2) The simple suggestion that women actually take responsibility for their finances and plan financially to be off work during maternity leave was nothing less than stunning to Elizabeth Vargas. She equated unexpectedness of Peter Jennings' death and Bob Woodruff's injury in Iraq to her her pregnancy. This is an unfair comparison. Nobody planned for Peter Jennings' illness and Bob Woodruff's injury, but the fact is that pregnancy and childcare can in fact be anticipated and prepared for.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor Karen M. Czarnecki said, "We need to do more to encourage Americans to save more for the time that they do need to be out of the workforce," to which Ms. Vargas was astounded and responded with an incredulous and confused question. "It's up to a person to save enough money before they have a baby to be able to stay home for a few weeks and recover and spend some time with that new baby?"
Ms.Czarnecki confirmed, "Yes, I think people have to take responsibilty for themselves and they shouldn't always look to government to have an answer for them." I could not have said it better myself. What a novel idea- individual responsibility. One could also refer to it as "family planning." For a society which is so in tune to the idea of individual choice, one would think that natural progression would be the acceptance of the consequences of our choices. If we, as individual women, choose to have a baby, why is it then that the consequences of our decisions become the responsibility of our employers or our government?
Furthermore I find it appalling that Ms. Vargas and Senator Dodd compare the U.S. to countries such as Iran and North Korea while referring to their social programs with respect to paid maternity leave as though we should be more like those countries. The next point here is obvious: If women want the U.S. to be more like those socialist countries, they should move to one for a year and see how what they offer their residents compares to what the U.S. offers in terms of not only social programs but also freedoms and rights. Perhaps they would find that North Korea's politics and human rights practices are not worth staying to receive paid maternity leave.
Besides, what makes them think that other countries have all the right answers? If other countries are so much better at providing for their populations' needs, then why are so many people trying to enter the United States to live and work? And what makes them think that we have to be like other countries? Didn't the Founding Fathers come to the New World to be different and unique?
Again in an effort to direct accountability toward government, Ms. Vargas and Senator Dodd took the opportunity to slam the Bush Administration for being opposed to giving money for childcare or paid matternity leave. The one obvious point that was not made about government taking on this burden was that it would most definitely result in higher taxes for the American people.
3) Initially the focus of the interviews with working moms seemed to rely on the difficult predicament that working moms face in balancing the home and work environments, but the only solution that was focused on was paid maternity leave. But what about after maternity leave? The most difficult part of having children for working moms comes after the children are born and families must endure day to day responsibilities. What good does paid maternity leave do then? This report left a few loose ends.
However, we already know what the answer would have been. Government.
"Government, pay for improved childcare. Oh, and make it more affordable, too."
"Government, pay for working moms to stay at home for 12 weeks with the newborn."
"Government, make my workload more flexible."
4) Apparently, it is out of vogue to debate staying at home versus working. That question has been deemed "no longer relevant" and serves as a distraction, according to Ms. Vargas, and has hindered the progress that could be made towards making life easier for working moms. Carol Evans, CEO of Working Mother Magazine says that "We are way beyond that argument" because 71 percent of all mothers in the U.S. work. However, data supports the trend of more and more mothers making the choice to stay at home. Census bureau statistics show a 15 percent increase in the number of stay-at-home moms in less than 10 years. Why was this not mentioned in Ms. Vargas' story?
Kate Cronin, the executive at a public relations firm and one of the working mothers interviewed for the story, said she sees stories about unsupervised kids getting into trouble and says, "What is going on with the youth of America is the parents of America are out working." That statement itself is a perfect argument for staying at home to be the parents of America who are at home supervising their kids, although it was intended to be an argument for more flexible work schedules.
The truth is that there are many many moms who have traded in their work badges for mommy badges and have made it work on 50% less income, and they have a story to tell!
Just read about Joni McCoy who wrote a book called Miserly Moms. "I believe this can be done because it happened to us. I was a successful business woman with a career in Silicon Valley. After my son was born, I wanted to be at home full-time with my children. I didn't believe that I could afford to quit, because we were living in the expensive San Francisco Bay Area, and I was bringing home 50% of our income. But I did it anyway because my family was my priority. I realized that being a stay-at-home mom was the best for my children."
There are many resources out there for moms who want to take control of their own lives and make a change for the betterment of themselves and for their families. Just Google phrases like "Frugal moms" or "moms at home." A working mom who feels she is stuck really does have options, she just hasn't looked for them.
5) Furthermore, Ms. Evans asserts, in not so many words, that the economy would collapse if all the working mothers suddently stayed at home. "There isn't a governmental agency, there's not a hospital, or a school that could survive more than a day or two without their working mothers fully employed." This is a very short sighted conclusion, given that it has taken more than 20 years for the workforce to grow to include this enormous number of working mothers. If the trend is to be reversed, it certainly would not take place overnight, or in a day or two. It would take at least another 20 years. In addition, because there are plenty of healthy capable men in the nation who are in need of a job and who also feel the need to be useful, the economy would hardly collapse.
Now, On to real life...
Our son had a birthday last weekend. For his 10th birthday, we threw him a party with all of his friends. We invited 12 boys, all between the ages of 7 and 12, fed them pizza and pop and cake and ice cream. They played video games and football (the weather was fabulous!) It's amazing the amount of testosterone that young boys have! They held a free-for-all (tackling and wrestling each other to the ground) in the front yard, and I had to break it up because they were getting serious! Once, everyone got on top of my son because he was the birthday boy, and he didn't like it at all. When he finally got out of it, he took a break, and the rest of them all got into a big pile, and I stepped in and told them they needed to chill. No one got hurt, but even if they did, they wouldn't have cared.
I was exhausted. I had spent the previous 2 days shopping and cleaning, and in 2 hours, the house was turned upside down. It took me another 2 days to turn it right side up again. sheesh. Then I raked all the leaves in the front yard, since the weather was so nice. The back yard is still full of leaves, but now it is in the 30's and 40's, they are going to stay there a while.
I was exhausted. I had spent the previous 2 days shopping and cleaning, and in 2 hours, the house was turned upside down. It took me another 2 days to turn it right side up again. sheesh. Then I raked all the leaves in the front yard, since the weather was so nice. The back yard is still full of leaves, but now it is in the 30's and 40's, they are going to stay there a while.
Well, now what?
The 2006 elections are over. Either the voters have all become liberal or the Democratic candidates had more to offer for conservatives than the Republican candidates. The latter appears to be the case. Either way, I am glad it is over, even tho I don't like the results.
I believe that the nation is still primarily conservative. The last 3 elections have displayed that notion. Voters have more than likely not changed their views all that much. Rather, they were not satisfied with the results (or lack thereof) from the people they had previously elected. The voters are trying to find someone who will represent their beliefs regardless of party affiliation. (It couldn't possibly be that the nation has swerved to the Left!)
The media would have us believe that the war in Iraq was the main focus of the election for the voters, but it was really the main focus for the Democrat leadership. I am disgusted with the progress (or lack thereof) in Iraq as well. But I think we should go over there and kick some serious terrorist ass. That's not going to happen now, since the Democrat leadership will get their way. They aren't interested in working on anything collectively. They want Bush and company to hang for what they call lying to the American people. (Rumsfeld was only the first one to be sacrificed.) They aren't interested in moving forward- just with moving out. Don't let their rhetoric fool you. They have been hammering on our presence in Iraq for the past 3 years. Now that they have the muscle to put into that hammer, they are going to use it.
Democrat Jennifer Granholm got re-elected to be governor of Michigan. I thought the media coverage was so stupid, but it worked. The polls closed at 8PM, and by 8:15, the media called the election- based on EXIT POLLS IN DETROIT. duh. It would have been SOOOOooo funny if the Republican challenger Dick DeVos would have won when the actual poll results were reported.
On to 2008. It appears that Rudy Giuliani and John McCain will throw their hats in the ring for president. Hillary? Is she going to throw her bonnet in, too? We should be in for a great time over the next 2 years.... I would study up on these folks starting NOW. You know, when the campaigns start, you will only see what they want you to see, and their opponents will be more than willing to fill you in on all the negative stuff. So do your homework now and don't get all caught up in all the mudslinging and misrepresentation.
I believe that the nation is still primarily conservative. The last 3 elections have displayed that notion. Voters have more than likely not changed their views all that much. Rather, they were not satisfied with the results (or lack thereof) from the people they had previously elected. The voters are trying to find someone who will represent their beliefs regardless of party affiliation. (It couldn't possibly be that the nation has swerved to the Left!)
The media would have us believe that the war in Iraq was the main focus of the election for the voters, but it was really the main focus for the Democrat leadership. I am disgusted with the progress (or lack thereof) in Iraq as well. But I think we should go over there and kick some serious terrorist ass. That's not going to happen now, since the Democrat leadership will get their way. They aren't interested in working on anything collectively. They want Bush and company to hang for what they call lying to the American people. (Rumsfeld was only the first one to be sacrificed.) They aren't interested in moving forward- just with moving out. Don't let their rhetoric fool you. They have been hammering on our presence in Iraq for the past 3 years. Now that they have the muscle to put into that hammer, they are going to use it.
Democrat Jennifer Granholm got re-elected to be governor of Michigan. I thought the media coverage was so stupid, but it worked. The polls closed at 8PM, and by 8:15, the media called the election- based on EXIT POLLS IN DETROIT. duh. It would have been SOOOOooo funny if the Republican challenger Dick DeVos would have won when the actual poll results were reported.
On to 2008. It appears that Rudy Giuliani and John McCain will throw their hats in the ring for president. Hillary? Is she going to throw her bonnet in, too? We should be in for a great time over the next 2 years.... I would study up on these folks starting NOW. You know, when the campaigns start, you will only see what they want you to see, and their opponents will be more than willing to fill you in on all the negative stuff. So do your homework now and don't get all caught up in all the mudslinging and misrepresentation.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Welcome!
Hello!
This is my very first post to my very first blog. I am very new to this blogging thing, but I am not very new to having an opinion on various issues or news stories. So each day may bring something new. This blog is called "Nothing in Particular" because I do not plan to focus on any one topic in particular, but on anything that happens to spin my wheels or rev my engine.
As it happens, today is a day where I am not feeling too excited about anything but the weather. It's perfect today. It's not too hot and not too cool. If the whole summer were like this I would be happy. :)
Have a great day!
This is my very first post to my very first blog. I am very new to this blogging thing, but I am not very new to having an opinion on various issues or news stories. So each day may bring something new. This blog is called "Nothing in Particular" because I do not plan to focus on any one topic in particular, but on anything that happens to spin my wheels or rev my engine.
As it happens, today is a day where I am not feeling too excited about anything but the weather. It's perfect today. It's not too hot and not too cool. If the whole summer were like this I would be happy. :)
Have a great day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)