|
|
|
April 7, 2006 Mom & Pop 
Last June, my husband and I both signed up for compressed work weeks at our respective work places, where we would work an extra fifty minutes per day and take an extra day off every two weeks. We arranged it so that we had our days off in alternate weeks, and agreed that most of the time Frances would stay home with us, thus reducing her time in daycare (from 40 hours a week to 36 hours a week--not a great difference, but something). Only it didn't work out that way. Frances almost always ended up in daycare on Erik's days off, and usually for the whole day--I had to cajole him into dropping her off even an hour or two later than the normal 7:00 am time, and then I picked her up myself at 4:20. I treasured picking her up, but it really bothered me that a scheme which was to reduce the time she spends in daycare became one in which instead she spent considerably more time in care overall. Every two weeks, the day before Erik's day off, we would discuss it. I would remind him that she was supposed to stay home at least sometimes. I would remind him of the last time she had done so on his day off (usually months in the past). I would ask him what his plans were. He'd say he was going to bring her in. I'd ask if he could at least bring her in a few hours later. He'd say that if he waited much past 8 the traffic would be too bad. I'd point out that if he waited until 11 the traffic would be great. He'd bring her in for 8. We ended up needing to have a fight about it. I had to yell and scream and cry before he actually began to hold to our agreement. "You have a week of annual leave left unused. Take one of those days for yourself and let Frances stay home with you. The point of compressed days was NOT for her to pay the price for your time off!" Before we had Frances, I could not have envisioned this conversation. I personally believe that men and women are so much more alike than different that it does not make much sense to talk about the differences. That there are differences apparent today seems obvious; but how much of them are the result of socialization vs. biology is an open question. Motherhood has knocked some of that out of me. . The difficulty with talking about differences between the sexes is that too many people seem to imagine it so:
And so as soon as you start talking about differences between the sexes, it is too easy to descend into Mars and Venus and imagine the Other as an incomprehensible entity. Most studies of sex differences find something more like this:
Or even this:
The centre of the circle, or the average, is clearly different for each; but both centres are within the vast overlap area of "average," and for any trait there will be more difference within the sexes than between them. So, for instance, the average scores of women on math tests are far more similar to the average scores of men on math tests, than are the lowest and highest female math scores. Or that, while men tend to finish sprints faster and women tend to finish ultra-marathons faster, the fastest female sprinter is still a hell of a lot faster than the average male, and there is a lot more difference between the slowest and fastest male ultra-marathoners than there is between the average male and female ultra-marathoner. In this context it truly does not make much sense to talk about the differences between the sexes, because it doesn't tell you anything worthwhile: the averages are slightly different but you can't make any claims or assumptions about any individual person based on those averages, and you can't base public policy on them. Say, sports funding: you couldn't decide who deserves more money based on that venn diagram. Before I had Frances, I frequently assumed that men and women could be equally nurturing and equal participants in parenting. I assumed that, in an ideal world, both parents would scale back their careers more or less equally and take on more or less equal shares of parenting, childcare and housework, on average--that different families would have different patterns but if you examined the whole you would see equality. I assumed that the reasons this didn't happen were almost entirely social and could be resolved through intelligent policy and a more equitable society. I still believe that men and women can be equally nurturing and equal participants in parenting: I believe that we can make a lot more progress towards that than we have so far; but I'm not sure that I believe any more that quantitative equality is likely. I miss Frances more than Erik does. Tremendously more. I resent every hour above the forty I've committed that I occasionally need to spend at work. I no longer want promotions or increased responsibility because it would take time away from Frances. It would never have occurred to me to bring Frances into daycare for a full day on every one of my days off, which was most of our problem: I kept thinking that if only I explained to Erik how much he was missing and how he could so easily just take her in even at 11 and get a block of hours for himself while also spending more time with her, that he would find it as attractive as I do. But he doesn't. He also doesn't want part-time work or a scaled-back career, not even a little bit. He enjoys his work. He has never spent hours at the computer doing and redoing the family budget looking for a way to reduce his hours so he can spend more time with her. It doesn't bother him when he has to go out of town on business overnight; he misses us, but not as much as I miss them when I have to go away. He loves Frances. He's a wonderful, hands-on father who has a great bond with his little girl and who enjoys many of the daily repetitive tasks of parenting, and he does half the diaper changes and most of the endless loads of laundry. But he simply doesn't need or want as much time with her as I do. At least in the case of our relationship, it is not just socialization. In Mother Nature by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (yes, again! I know, but it's the only book I know of on the subject which is based on science and not speculation or wishful thinking), she too concludes that it is possible for men to be as nurturing as women--but that it takes a lot more work. That a man's biological threshold for involvement with children is set higher, on average. For instance, in one experiment, men and women sat and listened to two recordings of infant cries--one of a hungry infant, one of a male infant being circumcized. While both male and female subjects showed a strong response to the second recording (measured in terms of the release of stress hormones), only female subjects showed a strong response to the first. (p. 212) She also showed how the hormones of pregnancy and breastfeeding, and the intimacy created by nursing through the first year, further lowered that threshold for women so that they are predisposed to taking on a greater share of the nurturing and parenting work. She hypothesized that this makes perfect sense in an evolutionary context where men were never entirely sure which children were theirs, but women were. "Just because the mother is more readily galvanized to respond to infant demands does not mean that fathers are not able to do so, or that they cannot become adequate caretakers, 'good enough' caretakers, or that baby primates cannot form primary attachments to a male. Rather, a seemingly inignificant difference in thresholds for responding to infant cues gradually, insidiously, step by step, without invoking a single other cause, produces a marked division of labor by sex." (212-213) The danger in talking about this is that people will envision right away that first venn diagram of two separate and parallel circles, which puts us right back in the 1950s (if we're lucky) where women have sole and total childrearing responsibilities and men have none. When we presuppose that women want more work and men want more family (that is, when we envision one of the other two diagrams) I think we are very likely right; but when I read articles on policies designed to level the playing field it seems as though the authors are arguing for congruity, for a single purple circle, and I don't think we are ever going to get that; I don't think women or men on average want it. When I was pregnant with Frances, I convinced Erik to take one month of the 12 for parental leave. I argued for two, but one was all I could get from him; I believed strongly enough in the concept of equality in parenting that this seemed the best thing to do. I wouldn't do it again. Erik enjoyed his month with Frances, but not as much as I missed it, not to mention the inconvenience of the pumping involved in maintaining the breastfeeding relationship to the magical 12 month mark. Next time, I would take the whole 12--maybe even a month or two more, if I could manage the money--I would find another way for Erik to get the time with the kids by himself he would need--and if I could manage the money, I would go back part-time. I found three days a week ideal when I was working on my Masters. It was enough time away from Frances working on my own thing that I enjoyed every moment I was with her. If Erik and I had pursued the single purple circle, he would have taken six months off. I would have been pumping, then, for six months: I would have been exhausted and miserable and he would have missed work. We would both be planning to work part-time. Say, four days per week. Erik would bring Frances in to daycare on his weekday off, and I would still miss Frances. Neither of us would be happy. Hrdy argues that it is possible to make men into mothers--make them as nurturing of their children as women are--by making sure they have lots of time around their children and responsibility for caring for them. Proximity and opportunity are the keys. This is true. But if a baby is being breastfed--not breastmilkfed, but breastfed--for the first 12 months of the baby's life, this is simply not likely to happen. When I read (largely from certain American feminists) that congruency, mathematical equality, is the only valid standard of an equitable world--I cringe, because I think it is precisely wrong and more likely to make women unhappy than happy. So what if we live in a world where 70% of elementary teachers are women and 70% of mechanics are men, as long as no one is penalized for being in the minority in either case and both professionals are adequately paid? (Note that I'm not saying that we live in that world yet: only that if we ended up in that world, it would not strike me as a failure of feminism.) So what if women are more interested in staying home with their kids either full- or part-time, as long as they are not financially penalized for doing so? Do we need to break the domestic glass ceiling and convince men that they want to spend more time at home than perhaps they really do so that women can spend more time at work than perhaps they have an inclination to? It's a truism that men, too, want to spend less time at work and more time with their families, and I believe that: but if for the average man that translates to a 40 hr/week job that is really 40 hr/week and for the average woman that means 25 hr/week, than pretending that we all really want the same thing seems disengenuous and possibly dangerous. Because it will only create a new set of expectations that people will feel chained to. It also seems from reading many of these articles that people believe our world or social structure is unique in its ability to disrupt father-child attachments. I would argue rather that it is the opposite: historically, in what evolutionary biologists and psychologsts refer to as the EEA (era of evolutionary adaptation or adaptedness), fathers are likely to have had much less idea of which children were theirs and therefore much less inclination to be what we would consider today a "good father." Hrdy discusses this in the context of "hero fathering"--someone who descends once in a while, performs some feat of nurturing, and then reascends to a more distant place, a kind of fathering that is easy and relatively risk-free when you're not exactly sure if the kid is yours or not. Indeed, many such societies that still exist (as well as those we still have records for) show a disturbing pattern of infanticide--men killing infants they knew were not theirs in order to cause the mother to stop lactating, resume ovulating, and then impregnating her so they could get a kid by her that might be theirs (in fact, she argues that this is the reason that so many infants go through a developmental stage where they fear strange men). It was certainly not a world of good fathers, the world we evolved in. Hrdy hypothesizes that this environment probably favoured female promiscuity, since then many men would think they might be the father, and so both reluctant to kill her children and predisposed to make the occasional gesture towards provision. This model makes a lot more sense to me than the Prehistoric Nuclear Family, and it has more evidence, too. If this is the case, we may be almost as close as we can get to good fathering, involved fathering, already, since so many of the environmental cues making bad fatherhood possible have already been addressed: modern men can know with certainty whether or not a child is theirs, and they can live in intimacy with the child's mother, giving them many opportunities to spend more time with the child, which is what would trigger the nurturing tendencies (apparently in hunter gatherer societies fathers spend about 2% of their time holding their newborns--a figure today that surely even relatively career-oriented fathers surpass). Hrdy argues that we could level the playing field completely by ensuring that men spend exactly as much time with their infants as the mothers do, when the mothers aren't around to interfere (and my limited experience with families where men spend a bulk of each week caring directly for their children while the mother works leads me to believe that this is indeed the case); but in order to make this a societal goal, we would need public policies to encourage or enforce women to get out of the house away from their kids while the father is home for twenty hours each week or so. Is this a good idea? Natural variation will already make this a desirable goal for many families; but should we force families to do that who don't want to? If we don't, then the lower threshold for response of women and the greater opportunity they have for proximity to infants (on average) will continue to mean that mothers want to spend more time with their kids on average than fathers do. Breaking the domestic glass ceiling will only partially address this. Did you know that studies have shown that money given to women in third world countries is more effective than to men? You have to give $7 to a man for every $1 given to a woman for the same social impact, because men will choose to spend such a low proportion of that money on their kids and families. And maybe the equivalent scenario in first-world countries is the number of women who choose to sacrifice their career prospects and future financial security to spend more time with their kids. It's insulting to say that those women simply are unaware of how difficult it will be to reenter the workforce and how much more likely they are to be poor. Maybe they are not perfectly aware. Maybe they are, and still choose to do so, because they have performed a personal cost-benefit analysis and decided that those future risks are less costly than the pain or unhappiness they will experience at separation from their children. Maybe it has nothing to do with what's better for the kids. Maybe that's a justification for what's better for them. Daphne de Marneffe spends most of her book, Maternal Desire, discussing exactly this issue: "When the discussion of child care fails to recognize what it means to mothers to care for their own children and to relinquish that care, it misses the impact of maternal desire on the process of finding day care solutions. For the psychologist and day care advocate Sandra Scarr, for example, anything that interferes with women's equal participation in the workforce operates to the detriment of gender equality and women's interests. [ed: sound like another article you've read recently?] She rejects the advantages of family-friendly policies such as those in Sweden that 'help mothers to balance work and family life....' because they 'support maternal absences from the labor force' and thus have negative effects on women's careers. Scarr implies that such arrangements are put in place by outside forces that have nothing to do with women's own desires. 'Unequal child-care responsibiliites lead mothers to be less invested in career development and less motivated to maintain continuous, full-time employment,' she writes. These innocently declarative phrases, 'lead mothers to be less invested in career development' and 'less motivated to maintain continuous, full-time employment,' treat the mother as a completely pasive actor, somehow 'led' to certain courses of action by her 'unequal' time caring for children. Her own desire is entirely erased. There is no place to introduce into the equation the evidently less palatable possiblity that the mother may want to shoulder greater responsibility for her children's care." It's hard to write about this without sounding like you're trying to draw universal conclusions. While I currently do believe that in an ideal world where everyone is free to follow their personal inclinations without economic or social penalty more women would still choose to spend more time with their kids, on average, this does not mean that all families would follow a husband-40hrs/wife-20hrs model, even if nuclear heterosexual families were universal (which they clearly are not). Even among heterosexual married couples, there would be tremendous variation, including a sizeable number of families with female breadwinners and male full-time parents or two parents working more than 40-hrs/week on jobs they love. But this is where I think the danger lies: If we tell ourselves--as certain American feminists have lately done--that our goal is congruency, is for men and women to spend identical numbers of hours in identical tasks, then we are off the hook for validating at-home work because the risk is supposedly shared. If everyone has paid work and no one is solely responsible for unpaid work at home, then there's no reason to remove the economic and social penalties for doing unpaid work at home. Which has the effect of reducing women's (and men's) choices rather than expanding them. This is in fact exactly what some of them have argued for, most recently in that Newsweek article where the authors concluded that because there were fewer women in upper management positions in Europe, Europe's family friendly policies must be to blame and therefore they must be anti-feminist. A humane policy would require an acknowledgement that some people prefer to do unpaid work in the home, that not all of us are equal in our desires, and so the economic and social penalties of unpaid work at home need to be eliminated. Why did we decide that gender parity is the goal, anyway? Why is 50% across the board representation in everything the holy grail? Does it make sense? If we eliminate socialization will such a world result? I'm inclined now to believe that there will always be more women than men who want to spend as much time as they can afford with their children, and who are willing to make a larger personal and financial sacrifice to do so. Maybe that's ok. And maybe family-friendly policies are the most feminist thing to do because they enable a woman to make that choice without making such a sacrifice. If I had lived in a country where there were only six weeks of maternity leave (not naming any names) when Frances was born almost 5 weeks early, I would have quit. How could I have returned to work when she was developmentally only one week old? What daycare would have taken her, with the prematurity and the refusal to eat from a bottle and the reflux? Impossible. I would have quit. The lack of a humane maternity leave policy would have absolutely torpedoed my career. Why me, why not Erik? Assuming there was no financial consideration, and assuming that it would have been remotedly possible considering her nine-month boob fixation, because it would have hurt me more to be away from her. He did, after all, go back to work within a few weeks of her birth; and it did not seem to tear him apart. ~~~~~ I use myself as an example a lot, so it would only be fair for a reader to wonder if I'm not misinterpreting my impulses: perhaps the things I want so badly are actually socialized expectations. Maybe. But I don't think so. For one thing, it was too unexpected: I really believed that a bit of planning would make Erik and I equal parents, equally invested in all aspects of parenting, and this has simply not proved to be the case. I expected to want to return to work full-time; I expected to want to go out of the house by myself every week for a few hours. That this did not materialize was a shock. That Erik is not equally affected, that he can spend much less time with her than I do with far less distress, was also a shock. I looked forward to going back to work--until I got there. The difficulty of missing so much time with her has not really lessened in the 14 months I have been back--half of her life now. Also, I would think that if it were socialized, there would be some ambivalence. I might feel as if I ought to want to be home. I might feel guilty about being here, or guilty about daycare. But I don't, and I'm not. If someone is so unwise as to suggest to me that a home is a woman's place, they have the privilege of witnessing a human being bristle like a porcupine. I'm terrible at housework, and I hate it. I have no standards for it, either, and will happily tolerate a mess that would drive Erik to distraction. I expected to enjoy being a full-time working mom, until I became one. I don't feel any guilt about daycare. Frances loves it there and is thriving; they love her and care for her very well. I think it's decidedly better for her to be there 40 hours a week than with me all the time, since I get impatient and ornery at home full-time and that's not good for either of us. It's better to have multiple patient and loving caregivers than one distracted and frustrated one. I'm just sad. I miss her. I also run the danger of generalizing from my experience to everyone else--but again, I don't think so. I mean, women do spend more time with their kids. This is undoubtedly partially due to socialization, but perhaps not entirely. Of the nine months of leave available to both parents in Canada, men take very little--in 2001 only 10% of eligible fathers took leave. The vast majority of persons working part-time to meet family responsibilities in Canada are women. Once again, how much is socialization vs. biology is an open question. Undoubtedly, socialization plays a role. But when does it become insulting to use that as the answer? When does it become code for, "You only THINK you want that; if you were educated and enlightened, you would want this instead." ~~~~~ Our new Canadian government keeps talking about Choice in Childcare, as if $100 of taxable income every month for a child under six is going to do anything of the kind. But what would choice--real choice--look like to you? If you could structure your family's work & leisure lives in any way you wanted, how would you do it? How many hours would you spend at work, how many would your partner, how much time would you spend with your kids, how much time would they spend in care? Be imaginative. What is your dream? Posted by Andrea at April 7, 2006 8:54 AM under Mothers and Anti-Mothers EMAIL this entry (comments fields are below this section) Trackback Pings TrackBack URL for this entry: Comments Oooohh - GREAT post. I'm going to read it again later b/c there's a lot there. From reading your blog, I think Erik sounds like an excellent dad - more involved than a LOT of other dads out there. Having said, that I think it is not OK that your plan of you both working longer days hasn't done what you hoped - kept Frances out of daycare for a few hours a week. And it's Erik who's making it that way. Good for you for getting angry about it. Did he get it? Will he be keeping her home on his days off? My daughter's in daycare too, so I can relate to many of your feelings on this. Posted by: Katie at April 7, 2006 9:13 AM
Excellent post. Nothing I ever had to think about for myself, since it was me and only me, but very thought-provoking. The Attorney and I both talk all the time about how if we had adopted again after she joined the family, our child would have had double the time at home with a parent because we both would have taken the maximum. And yeah, I'd be PISSED if my child were brought to day care on the day off, too...but sorry you have to fight. Posted by: yankee transplant at April 7, 2006 12:14 PM
Great stuff. My dream? To be able to stay home with my kids while they're babies. To not feel that I'm somehow "betraying the sisterhood" by doing do. To find some way of getting some me time, too. To not feel that, because I'm staying home, raising children, this automatically means the only things I can discuss are poopy diapers, laundry catastrophes and what little Suzie ate for lunch today. Posted by: julia at April 7, 2006 12:33 PM
Katie--yes, he's kept her home since we had the fight. Which is good, though I seriously wish it hadn't come to that. YT--I would love to know what you would have done if you'd had the choice--if money were no object and the daycares were fabulous and you could have done whatever you wanted to, stay home or work or whatever. Would you have changed anything? Julia: Well let's not go crazy here .... I mean mothers can be CEOs but that doesn't mean they can think! ;) Posted by: Andrea at April 7, 2006 12:57 PM
oh, tough question. at this point in time, i'd stay home full time in a heartbeat. but that's prolly because i'm going back to a less than stimulating job. if i was going back to something i enjoyed, it wouldn't bother me so much. at the very least, i'd love to work maybe 3 days a week and stay home with the kids for ht eother 2 days. thing is, if i DID stay home full time, i'd have to send the kids out at least part time so i could do something for me. i love my kids, but i need that time away. like you, i get cranky if i have to deal with both for any length of time. not to mention that i think being out is good for them socially, since there are no playgroups or anything around here for us to go to. but the homecare cael currently goes to (and iain will be going to) doesn't do part time. so even tho i love her to death and i know its an excellent place for the kids to be, i'd have to find another place that would accept part time. and i'd really hate to lose such an awesome caregiver. so at this time, staying home isn't an option. :( Posted by: Tanya at April 7, 2006 1:23 PM
ahhh, I can relate to so much of what you have written...and D is a wonderfully involved parent who invests so much in his relationship with Coop, and yet, I know he doesn't have the LONGING that I feel when I'm not with Coop. As I am now on bedrest (currently week 2, but possibly with another 4 if I go to term) I am doing a lot of wondering re: "my dream" and time off, etc. Initially, I was going to take off 3 months with the baby, 9 weeks paid (6 weeks full pay disability, 3 weeks vacation time) and the remainder unpaid. I am nervous about these extra 2 - 6 weeks, not knowing if my employer will LET me take them (which to me is non-negotiable, but I don't want to engage in that battle until we see really what the time table is) and about how much unpaid time I will really be taking (looks like it may be 2 months worth) when I bring in half the family's income. My dream is to live in a country that is more accomodating to working parents taking extended leave. Where my benefits won't be affected, and we can still afford to exist with our basic rent, utilities, groceries on one salary. To not have to work full-time (or at all) until my youngest child is enrolled in full-day schooling. My other dream is for men to be more understanding of other men's desires to be family guys. D gets 3 weeks paid paternity leave, which is considered "progressive" here in the States. He is opting to take one week a month for three months, including the week that I first return to work to help with the transition. His co-workers look at him (and make flippant comments about) like he is crazy to be making the choice of family above career, and tell him they don't know any other fathers who actually take the company up on that benefit. My quesiton is, why aren't ALL men taking the company up on that benefit? arrrgghhh, obviously this is a big issue for me these days.... Posted by: carolyn at April 7, 2006 3:54 PM
wonderful, thoughtful post. We managed this for one semester, before Annika's health took such a dramatic turn. But even excluding the health issues, I found that Joerg somehow considered my time working as "me" time, and I was the one getting up all through the night (she nursed every two hours until well past her first birthday), and I was certainly not happy about the whole set-up. I have this sneaking suspicion that there is, perhaps, no such thing as a completely ideal division of work when it comes to raising the young-uns. Somehow, every parent feels some vague unhappiness with the amount of time spent with kids/work/alone/as a couple/getting sleep. Raising children is such a momentous task, and there's pressure from all sides to not only do right by your children, but to be sure that you've maintained your identity and nurtured your relationship. It's a lot to ask. Is all I'm saying. Posted by: moreena at April 7, 2006 7:07 PM
Car, you have my sympathies. I know how much this has bothere you already; it's got to be so much harder now on bedrest, not knowing how this will affect your leave. Moreena--absolutely. I agree. But what's bugging me is that we have two national parties making claims for "what women want" re: childcare, who haven't actually bothered to ask them. They have all these theories of what we want, what the kids need, what our husbands prefer, what we are supposed to want, who's a real woman, who's a real feminist, who's really contributing to the economy--and no one has actually stopped and said, "Hey! Maybe we should ask the mothers." It seems like it should be so obvious. Posted by: Andrea at April 8, 2006 8:53 AM
I agree, it seems the obvious answer -- ask the people who will be most affected by the decision. Politicians. Feh. The other part that bothers about the "what women want" question is that it is still based on an outdated heterosexist model. The politicians seem to conveniently forget that there are single dad homes with the same daycare needs, as well as gay couples who struggle with all the same issues as the 50s model of family (mom, dad, boy, girl and half a dog). There is something in the way that both parties have presented this issue that smacks of "There, there, don't worry your pretty little head about it." It's paternalistic nonsense. Posted by: Sue at April 8, 2006 11:00 AM
Thanks so much for writing a post that acknowledges that men and women are mostly the SAME. This debate, whenever it acknowledges that there may be SOME statistical difference in the choices men and women make, always seems to make out that men and women generally have vastly different values and life strategies. And overall, really, I don't think they do, except to the degree your last Venn diagram illustrates. Among my social circle, most of the men are about as interested in their children as are the women. In most of my friends' families, the father has had near-total responsibility for the kid(s) for significant periods of time, either as the mother worked a different shift from the father or as she took a break after Dad came home from work. The one-on-one time makes a huge difference in parent-kid relationships, as you've said, and while I don't think it should be "enforced," I think a lot of fathers miss out on it without KNOWING what they're missing. (The mothers, as the de facto early caregivers based on pregnancy and nursing, rarely lose this opportunity.) In the case of my own family, frankly, my husband makes a better caregiver than me. When I had overnight business trips, I truthfully enjoyed the break, while my husband missed the kids terribly on his. Our ideal is fairly equal employment and homemaking responsibilities, something which is, unfortunately, not possible in our area. (We both want to work half-time.) So for now, we're living below the poverty line and hoping that someday I'll find part-tiem work that's worth doing and that provides health insurance- but knowing that if I don't, we can still do okay. Posted by: Sarah at April 8, 2006 1:52 PM
Great post, I have lots of responses! First, my husband is very similar. When he comes home from work -- the very first time he will see the kids all day, since he leaves before they wake -- he says "hi" and then disappears for 1/2 hour of alone time. I spent about a year mad at him for that. I mean, why can't he take his alone time after they're asleep? Why does he have to cut his time with Sasha -- who goes to sleep w/in 2 hours or less of his return home? But finally, I think, I have come to accept that he just doesn't need that much time with the kids. And I also realized that the kids are fine with it. I was the only one who was mad... OK. Next point. You are talking primarily about infants and toddlers. When my son turned 3 and could suddenly ride a bike (w/ training wheels) and walk long distances etc etc., my husband began spending lots more time with him. Easily double the amt he'd spent before. Personally I think the average man bonds with his children later -- when kids become less dependent on their moms & in other ways easier to manage. Posted by: Jennifer at April 9, 2006 12:19 AM
My dream? We're living it. Pretty close. For now. Older son in daycare 3 days, daughter in daycare 2 days, other days with me. I work at a comparatively interesting job but one which doesn't tax me on the days I'm with the kids. Husband working 40-50 hours a week at a job he mostly likes. He has weekends completely off. I'd change is his travel schedule. He travels one week in six. I'd rather he traveled only one week every quarter. (It's nice for all of us that he get *some* change of scenery.) Oh... if we're really dreaming here... I'd like him to work four days a week. He could take one day to himself, to ski or whatever, and sometimes take a kid or sometimes not. Then the other two days he and I would totally share the childcare responsibilities -- the two of us home together. I don't need a day to myself. Just a few hours once a week is fine. I get that now, since the kids are in daycare 16 hours but I only work 10-12. Lastly I would like all this and an additional $20,000 a year. That would set us up nicely : ) Posted by: Jennifer at April 9, 2006 12:35 AM
My dream world would include government support for families who choose ALL manner of work/home situations. I am currently a SAHM (former marketing/communications professional with two degrees...yes, I CHOSE this life!) and have been for 5 years. I'm not sure I knew I would be off for this long, but then I also couldn't imagine having gone back to full-time work before now either. I chose to be here, but I also HAVE to be here because someone has to take my son to his speech therapy appointments. Not a job for a day care provider, considering the amount of home-work required by us as parents in our son's situation. In Canada, my husband and I are penalized financially for the decision we've made. My husband is taxed at the highest possible rate , and we can't claim any child care expenses because they can only be claimed against the lowest income earner. Since that's me, and I can claim no income, we have to come up with the whole cost of any child care we use (both sons go to preschool that is classified as daycare for tax purposes, but doesn't help us!). And I don't think it's "fair" that because I'm at home, I'm not considered "deserving" by this tax system of a break, now and then. I'm trying to find time to start my own business from home. The only way I can do that is to find part-time child care for my boys. But we are not entitled to any tax breaks for doing that. Also, as a single income family, we can only make one RESP contribution for each child. If I was earning income, we could make one for each parent. So our children are at a "disadvantage" because their MOTHER is looking after them, rather than a stranger. Our society/government has decided (by way of the tax system, which DOES influence citizens'decisions) that it is preferrable to have both parents working and children away from their families, at least during the day. The system we support is the society we get. Like it or not. I don't want to take choice away from dual-income families, but I do want more choice as a single-income family. I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding which form of family living is "preferable". And right now, they are. I also don't think we have enough information to decide which way is better...the National Day Care program (what does that even look like? At best it was only ever a signed agreement btwn. feds and provinces for money to be spent how??) or money in parents' pockets? Posted by: Janet at April 9, 2006 10:48 AM
Wow! Lots of thought provoking comments! Great post Andrea. My dream? I'm pretty much living it, (although more money and health care benefits would be great!!) I'm a SAHM,(although I do work one evening shift a week at a job I love while hubby is home with the kids) and Hubby works full time during the week, weekends off, but no benefits. It was my choice to be a SAHM, we have 3 kids, two in school, and a 3 year old. (I can totally relate to Sarah!) I could work full time if I absolutely had to, but truth be told, with the amount of money that would be coming in, minus the amount of money that would be spent on childcare and taxes taken off my wages, it's not worth it to me to spend that much time away from my kids just to bring home maybe an extra hundred bucks a week. I agree with Janet too, I do feel that single income families are being penalized financially (RESP's, etc.) for the ways we choose to raise our families. I agree wholeheardedly with her when she says that the "government shouldn't be in the business of deciding which form of family living is preferable." Our children, like hers, are at a financial disadvantage because they are being cared for by their mother rather than a stranger. Hubby and I are pretty much on the same page when it comes to personal time though, which is great. He enjoys his time with the kids, but doesn't crave it like I do. We both get our time away from them, but I find it harder to be away from them, even though I spend the majority of my time with them. Him, not so much. Money is tight,we realized this when we decided that I would stay at home, but the children are happy regardless. To me, that's all that really matters. Posted by: Amy at April 9, 2006 12:21 PM
Sue--good point. As much as it doesn't respect women in traditional partnerships, it really is a lot worse for either women or men who are not in partnerships or who are in non-traditional families. Sarah: You're welcome! Jennier--I've heard that a lot about dads and older kids. But--I'm not sure it's the same thing. I mean, did he start talking about scaling back hours so he could spend more time with them? Or did he just enjoy more the time he had already? And $20g/yr sounds good to me too. Janet: I'm not sure that there is much choice for anyone right now, actually--unfortunately--regardless of family configuration, though the daycare tax credit does help. But you can't claim anywhere near as much as you have to spend, so it really only reduces the cost of child care for us by, maybe, $200/month. When you're spending near a thousand, it still isn't cheap. You're right, of course, that single-income families are not treated all that fairly right now. And it's not right. But I'm going to pick a very small bone with both you and Amy: Frances's caregivers are not strangers. When I hear or read something like "Because s/he's being looked after by his/her mother instead of by a stranger...." it makes it sound, to me, as if any child who is not being looked after by a family member must then be cared for by a stranger. And I'm sure for the vast majority of families with children in that situation, the family does not consider the caregivers to be strangers. I mean, if you and your husband/partner went out for an evening and hired a babysitter, you wouldn't consider that to be leaving him with a stranger, would you? And Amy--welcome! I don't think you've commented here before, but I've seen your blog linked all over the place. Posted by: Andrea at April 9, 2006 12:49 PM
Andrea, You're right, there is no right way. We all just have to do the best we can. Posted by: Janet at April 10, 2006 7:37 AM
Janet: I agree. I didn't mean to say that single-income families deserve what they get--they definitely don't. There need to be supports. I just think that all families of all configurations are being inadequately supported right now, though some more than others. Also, I knew what you meant w/ "strangers." But the connotations are icky, and there are lots of other words that could be used that would avoid those connotations, like "caregiver" or "someone else" or "daycare worker." That's all. Posted by: Andrea at April 10, 2006 11:46 AM
One more comment as food for thought, and then I'm done. I'm glad to hear your daycare providers aren't strangers to you, nor should they be. I just think in the rush to be P.C. about this, I've turned my back on what I believe a bit, and want to clarify. I do believe that for MY kids (not talking about anyone else here), I as their mother(or another member of our family) am the best person to care for my kids. Full stop. That doesn't mean I don't leave them in someone else's care once in a while, but it does mean that for the majority of the time (before they're in school full-time), I believe they are better off with me. That doesn't work for everyone, and I get that. But in the rush to be P.C. and not refer to daycare providers as anything other than substitute parents, somehow we're belittling the job of the stay-at-home-parent. My kids' preschool teachers are wonderful, and on some level, I believe they love the kids they teach. But they don't love them like I do. Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2006 10:51 AM
I'm way late reading this wonderful post. My dream would have been to have actual paid maternity/paternity leave, for a start. Ten years into parenting, here's what my husband and I wish for: a 2/3 time work schedule for both of us, so that we have time for our jobs, time for our 3 kids, time for buying the gallons of milk and loaves of bread they seem to go through in a day, and time for ourselves. When the kids were babies, we had the same fights about things like holidays he had off work--he saw those, at least at first, as days to hang out with friends, run personal errands without kids, etc. I saw them, particularly when I was home full days with kids and teaching at night, as days he could be the one to attend the playgroup or take the kids to the park. Looking back, I think I could have learned a little from his attitude. He knows his limits, while I had to learn mine the hard way. And now that the kids are older, he's the one who thrives on playing games, riding bikes, and doing fun stuff I'm just not that into with them. Posted by: Another Amy at April 12, 2006 8:01 AM
My dream is for my husband to want to spend as much time with the kids as I do. Realistically, he can't; he works to support us and I don't. And he's a great dad and husband. But I'm here at home all day with 7 kids (older ones in school for several hours) and by the time he gets home in the evenings, I'm ready for him to share the work. Often he does, often he's got more work to do in the evenings. I'm learning to not take that as rejecting me or the kids personally, but it often feels that way. You know, "he's been gone all day, how could he not want to be with us now?" Posted by: Adria at April 16, 2006 11:27 PM
Sorry to come so late to the discussion, but it's fascinating to read everyone's posts. Fantasy world -- both of us working 1/2 to 3/4 time, with flexible child care available for both socialization and so that we weren't constantly scrambling to make it home for the hand-off. But our real world is pretty good -- me working F/T in a job that is family-friendly (sane hours, no one bats an eye when I take leave for family-related reasons), T. home with the boys, but with enough projects going on (self-publishing his role playing game, teaching jujitsu) to keep him feeling like he's part of the larger world. I went back to work F/T when the boys were about 3 1/2 months each. And yes, pumping stunk. But I managed to breastfeed both boys until about 11 months. And pumping didn't stink as much as making T stay in a job he hated. The interesting thing about a "MAWDAH" or reverse traditional arrangement (mom at work, dad at home), is that it separates all the issues about daycare quality from the issue of missing the kids. I know my boys are in great hands, with someone who adores them, and who will always be there for them. And I don't feel guilty about not being home more (I used to, but I really don't now). But I do miss them. I wouldn't want to be with them 24/7, but I'd love more time than I get now. Posted by: Elizabeth at April 21, 2006 2:32 PM
I think very little is as bad as staying in a job you hate. That's exactly the way I feel, too--I don't want to be home 24/7. I'd go crazy. I just want more time with her than I have now. Adria--that would drive me nuts! I'd be thinking the same thing. Fairly or not, I would. Posted by: Andrea at April 22, 2006 6:23 PM
I'm on a compressed week too! I work from 6:15a-4:00p so that I can have Fridays off. I have to drop her (Sophie) off for a few hours on Fridays so that I can get anything done, but we have the same thing going on at our home as far as husband would leave her there all day without batting an eye. First, just a reminder: she is absolutely fine! I am certain that you chose your day care wisely. Second, just let it roll off you. They call it the "maternal" instinct for a reason. It's not their fault that we are genentically superior to men. Posted by: arline at June 7, 2006 2:43 PM
Go Berserk |
Change is God (Octavia Butler, Parable Series) "What is more mortifying than to feel you've missed the Plum for want of courage to shake the Tree?" Logan Pearsall Smith Email Frances! frances AT athenadreaming DOT org You can email her mother too (that's me):
The Best of Beanie Baby
Recent Entries
Categories Monthly Archives Annika Info
Earn Your Karmic Brownie Points The WHOYCBE Not So Secret Spoilers These links open in a new browser window. Random Writer's Quote It is a good deal easier for most people to state an abstract idea than to describe and thus re-create some object they actually see. ~ Flannery O'Connor
My Burgeoning Media Empire (that's a joke)
Dwarfism Resources: Frances's Big List of Misdiagnoses and False Positives Prenatally:
Postnatally:
Blogs I'm Reading
Other Mom Sites: Green Family Library
The title of this blog was taken from the short story "The Language of Nna Mmoy" by Ursula le Guin in her collection, Changing Planes. I won't tell you why or how, because I want you to read the story and figure it out for yourself.
|
