teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,039
Member is Online
|
Post by teen persuasion on Aug 7, 2022 11:34:56 GMT -5
That's exactly what you said. Life was better when one parent stayed home. You KNOW that's going to be the woman. Screw her hopes and dreams of being a doctor or an environmental lawyer. She should be elbow-deep in dirty diapers, popping Valium and drinking because she's so bored and miserarable. They were drugged up to the gills. www.goretro.com/2014/08/mothers-little-helper-vintage-drug-ads.htmlThat is just it I, you or anyone else doesn't know it will be the woman. I also mentioned that women are considered equals. I know a few families where the woman is the bread winner and the husband is stay at home dad. It just made sense to them. I don't want to have it for women like it was back then. Families were better off when one person stayed home one worked and they could afford to do so. I've been thinking about your previous post on it being better when one person stayed home. I thought back to my childhood, when mom was a SAHP, and again when I was a SAHP for my kids until my youngest entered school. Then I thought about the shift I've lived thru in my job at the public library. When I started, the library was severely underfunded, and relied on a big fundraising campaign every year, plus a large grant from a trust fund we knew was dwindling, and a lot of volunteer labor from Friends of the library and the Board of Trustees. None of the staff had a library degree. Pay was part time, no benefits, no PTO, etc. We could see the handwriting on the wall (state budget cuts and unfunded mandates putting pressure on our towns meant they would soon be forced to cut the non-mandated stipends to the library), so we took the plunge to getting a perpetual budget on a school district line. Soon after, the director passed away unexpectedly, and new regulations meant our next director must have an MLIS, which meant the board had to find more money to pay them. The idea of offering other benefits like a retirement plan was rejected. I remember one board member (retired previous director) scoffed at the idea of even interviewing the lone male applicant. Her reasoning? He'll want too much, we can't afford him. It was suddenly crystal clear that the library depended on low paid part time women as staff, because they presumably were married, and their husband had a "good job" that provided the benefits. Even a woman with the MLIS, apparently, deserved less pay and no benefits than her male counterpart, in M's eyes - and she had been the director, too! You know what, the next two directors have both been single women. Pay got bumped up a chunk for the salaried director position, but still not great. Second one eventually got her promised retirement plan (SIMPLE IRA, but something), but they still have to buy their own health insurance on the state exchange. And staffing is much slimmer than when I started, just 3 of us, vs up to 6 in previous years. But there's much fewer things getting done by volunteer labor - now it gets farmed out to independent contractors. One board member used to handle the investments and taxes and computer stuff, until he left the board. Others would tackle maintenance on the building like small repairs, staining the ramp or replacing loose boards, etc. Now it's hired out. An elderly gentleman who lived nearby did all the yard work and snow removal for years, completely volunteer, until his knees got too bad. Now we pay someone to do it. Circling back to my childhood - all those SAHP were free and available to be room mothers and help in the school classroom. My mom used to volunteer a day each week in the school library - if there were no volunteers, the library was closed to students. Neighbors would watch each other's children on occasion; I remember staying with a neighbor family while my mother was in the hospital for the birth of a sibling, back when you spent 5 days in the hospital. Now that most families have no SAHP, they can't do these types of things. They can't volunteer in the school, because they are at work during school hours. They can't watch children, because they are at work - now they need someone to watch their children. Ooh, grandma could! Nope, grandma is busy working, too (I used to run preschool story hour at the library - lots of grandmas instead of moms bringing the little ones, then, but now *all* the little ones are in daycare - no more story hour, no one comes). A friend was desperately looking for volunteers to help her clean the church - everyone she thought of was either working, or if retired they were in such poor health they couldn't manage. She talked my DH into helping. Back to my childhood, again - at my Catholic ES, the majority of teachers were nuns (then). They didn't have teaching degrees, and they weren't paid much but were housed and fed and cared for in return for their work. I remember several families that had lots of kids in the school, families of 10 or 12. These were middle class families, not high income. Obviously private school cost was much lower back then, I know it was sliding scale for multiple students, but the school's costs were lower with few lay teachers and volunteer aides and library clerks, etc. I'm rambling, I know, but it comes back to the part I bolded - IF THEY COULD AFFORD TO DO SO. Those single breadwinner salaries are not so common anymore, and the necessity of two breadwinners adds new costs at the same time it limits time to volunteer (which increases costs elsewhere).
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,692
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 7, 2022 11:59:36 GMT -5
This is the employment rate over the years this article covers. Given that the stats do no go below 50%, it seems obvious to me some women have been working all this time. tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rateI wish this went further back into the past, but look at the changes in FT employed.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,692
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 7, 2022 12:03:16 GMT -5
I like your post teen persuasion and I think many also don't think about people working but not being paid. Historically most family members worked on the farm even if they did not get paid. Making meals for farmhands and other farm duties isn't the kind of romantic stay at home life envisioned in TV shows like Leave it to Beaver.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 7, 2022 12:21:34 GMT -5
It's just a kids' recreational sport, for fun, not a G8 summit. So, one hockey team for Down Syndrome kids, another for deaf kids, another for autistic kids, another for kids in wheelchairs? No, that won't make them 'different" at all. Oh noes! What if it's an autistic kid in a wheelchair? Which team does that child play on? Don't be ridiculous. Let them all play and let them all have fun. It's not tryouts for the NHL. I get it and the kids with special needs there are special olympics and teams. Special Olympics in elementary school? Don't make me laugh.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 7, 2022 12:37:06 GMT -5
That's exactly what you said. Life was better when one parent stayed home. You KNOW that's going to be the woman. Screw her hopes and dreams of being a doctor or an environmental lawyer. She should be elbow-deep in dirty diapers, popping Valium and drinking because she's so bored and miserarable. They were drugged up to the gills. www.goretro.com/2014/08/mothers-little-helper-vintage-drug-ads.htmlThat is just it I, you or anyone else doesn't know it will be the woman. I also mentioned that women are considered equals. I know a few families where the woman is the bread winner and the husband is stay at home dad. It just made sense to them. I don't want to have it for women like it was back then. Families were better off when one person stayed home one worked and they could afford to do so. Of course it will be the women. Many men still refuse to do 'womens work." It's seen as being less masculine. You know a "few" families. Whoop de do. I know a few families, too. That being said, the vast majority of stay at home parents is female. Now many companies are refusing to hire more women due to possible sexual harrassment claims and because they might have to pay maternity leave, or set up a breastfeeding room. Easier to just hire men.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,417
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 7, 2022 12:38:43 GMT -5
Thoughts and prayers. 20 dead 1st and second graders up here didn't move them. Alex Jones called it a hoax and them all crisis actors. Maybe that was what went on in Texas. A hoax with crisis actors! When we finally love our children more than we love our guns something will be done. We apparently haven't sacrificed enough children yet.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,104
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Aug 7, 2022 12:59:05 GMT -5
"Thoughts and prayers don't save lives." Well said.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,039
Member is Online
|
Post by teen persuasion on Aug 7, 2022 13:11:40 GMT -5
I like your post teen persuasion and I think many also don't think about people working but not being paid. Historically most family members worked on the farm even if they did not get paid. Making meals for farmhands and other farm duties isn't the kind of romantic stay at home life envisioned in TV shows like Leave it to Beaver. Yes, lots of work was unpaid, for the family. The little bit I remember of my maternal grandmother was before I was five. She lived at that time with her sister (who never married), and two of her brothers, all elderly - one had been a farmer and was widowed, the other had a head injury as a child and had the intelligence of a young child (he did manual labor as a young man in the family dairy business). The women looked after their brothers; eventually only my great aunt was left. The extended family continued to check in on Aunt G and take care of the house (it had been a joint purchase between my grandparents and Aunt G who originally lived upstairs - later there were tenants in the upper) for a long time. She went to live with another spinster friend as they aged more, until eventually neither could live independently. Aunt G lived for years in a nursing home, we continued to visit, but at that point the house could finally be sold and Grandma's portion distributed to all her heirs (some of the spouses of heirs were not happy with the wait or continued responsibility, to put it mildly). People looked out for one another. My maternal grandparents had 9 children. They adopted 2 more - a brother and sister who lost their parents. They were in their teens, I believe. Thinking about it now (clueless to expenses/income as a child) how did my grandfather support a wife and 11 children on his salary, whatever it was? He died at age 60; how did grandma support herself after his death? Well, I guess that's how the sibling sharing a house eventually came about, but don't know details. Mom would have been in college when her dad died, and her youngest sister in HS (did she attend the same private school that her sisters and I did?) - I never did the math before, or considered budgets for them. I'm sure my grandfather did not have a pension, and would never have collected SS. He must have invested somewhat, but don't know how different it was then vs now. Grandma never worked, but her unmarried sister did - she definitely saved for herself. Auntie lived to 102, she would have been a young working woman in the roaring twenties!
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,366
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Aug 7, 2022 13:13:55 GMT -5
Thoughts and prayers. 20 dead 1st and second graders up here didn't move them. Alex Jones called it a hoax and them all crisis actors. Maybe that was what went on in Texas. A hoax with crisis actors! When we finally love our children more than we love our guns something will be done. We apparently haven't sacrificed enough children yet. Sadly, it’s all true. So sad that it really isn’t funny. Manages to hit all the right wing talking points
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,286
|
Post by scgal on Aug 8, 2022 4:29:25 GMT -5
That is just it I, you or anyone else doesn't know it will be the woman. I also mentioned that women are considered equals. I know a few families where the woman is the bread winner and the husband is stay at home dad. It just made sense to them. I don't want to have it for women like it was back then. Families were better off when one person stayed home one worked and they could afford to do so. I've been thinking about your previous post on it being better when one person stayed home. I thought back to my childhood, when mom was a SAHP, and again when I was a SAHP for my kids until my youngest entered school. Then I thought about the shift I've lived thru in my job at the public library. When I started, the library was severely underfunded, and relied on a big fundraising campaign every year, plus a large grant from a trust fund we knew was dwindling, and a lot of volunteer labor from Friends of the library and the Board of Trustees. None of the staff had a library degree. Pay was part time, no benefits, no PTO, etc. We could see the handwriting on the wall (state budget cuts and unfunded mandates putting pressure on our towns meant they would soon be forced to cut the non-mandated stipends to the library), so we took the plunge to getting a perpetual budget on a school district line. Soon after, the director passed away unexpectedly, and new regulations meant our next director must have an MLIS, which meant the board had to find more money to pay them. The idea of offering other benefits like a retirement plan was rejected. I remember one board member (retired previous director) scoffed at the idea of even interviewing the lone male applicant. Her reasoning? He'll want too much, we can't afford him. It was suddenly crystal clear that the library depended on low paid part time women as staff, because they presumably were married, and their husband had a "good job" that provided the benefits. Even a woman with the MLIS, apparently, deserved less pay and no benefits than her male counterpart, in M's eyes - and she had been the director, too! You know what, the next two directors have both been single women. Pay got bumped up a chunk for the salaried director position, but still not great. Second one eventually got her promised retirement plan (SIMPLE IRA, but something), but they still have to buy their own health insurance on the state exchange. And staffing is much slimmer than when I started, just 3 of us, vs up to 6 in previous years. But there's much fewer things getting done by volunteer labor - now it gets farmed out to independent contractors. One board member used to handle the investments and taxes and computer stuff, until he left the board. Others would tackle maintenance on the building like small repairs, staining the ramp or replacing loose boards, etc. Now it's hired out. An elderly gentleman who lived nearby did all the yard work and snow removal for years, completely volunteer, until his knees got too bad. Now we pay someone to do it. Circling back to my childhood - all those SAHP were free and available to be room mothers and help in the school classroom. My mom used to volunteer a day each week in the school library - if there were no volunteers, the library was closed to students. Neighbors would watch each other's children on occasion; I remember staying with a neighbor family while my mother was in the hospital for the birth of a sibling, back when you spent 5 days in the hospital. Now that most families have no SAHP, they can't do these types of things. They can't volunteer in the school, because they are at work during school hours. They can't watch children, because they are at work - now they need someone to watch their children. Ooh, grandma could! Nope, grandma is busy working, too (I used to run preschool story hour at the library - lots of grandmas instead of moms bringing the little ones, then, but now *all* the little ones are in daycare - no more story hour, no one comes). A friend was desperately looking for volunteers to help her clean the church - everyone she thought of was either working, or if retired they were in such poor health they couldn't manage. She talked my DH into helping. Back to my childhood, again - at my Catholic ES, the majority of teachers were nuns (then). They didn't have teaching degrees, and they weren't paid much but were housed and fed and cared for in return for their work. I remember several families that had lots of kids in the school, families of 10 or 12. These were middle class families, not high income. Obviously private school cost was much lower back then, I know it was sliding scale for multiple students, but the school's costs were lower with few lay teachers and volunteer aides and library clerks, etc. I'm rambling, I know, but it comes back to the part I bolded - IF THEY COULD AFFORD TO DO SO. Those single breadwinner salaries are not so common anymore, and the necessity of two breadwinners adds new costs at the same time it limits time to volunteer (which increases costs elsewhere). Exactly, great post. BTW I worked in a library while in school I can relate to the understaffed underpaid you ought to be happy to work here attitude. Regarding the sahm part I was one for a good stretch after having my first. Told my husband I didn't want to go back to work. We were poor to say the least but managed. He was overworked but we managed. Being a sahm did not mean no work it ment no paid work, I worked my ass off with the kids and volunteering at school. I eventually went back to work and finished college. I thank my husband all the time for agreeing to me being a sahm. We made the conscious decision to sacrafice new cars, expensive trips, and money in general so we can have the peace of mind not having to shuffle the kids from sitter to sitter and give them a healthy home life. I know its not for everyone but like I said in an earlier post life was simpler back then In todays world and how far women has come I don't think it would be like it was years ago. I think there would be more men staying home, but still on the majority of the women side.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,286
|
Post by scgal on Aug 8, 2022 4:31:58 GMT -5
That is just it I, you or anyone else doesn't know it will be the woman. I also mentioned that women are considered equals. I know a few families where the woman is the bread winner and the husband is stay at home dad. It just made sense to them. I don't want to have it for women like it was back then. Families were better off when one person stayed home one worked and they could afford to do so. Of course it will be the women. Many men still refuse to do 'womens work." It's seen as being less masculine. You know a "few" families. Whoop de do. I know a few families, too. That being said, the vast majority of stay at home parents is female. Now many companies are refusing to hire more women due to possible sexual harrassment claims and because they might have to pay maternity leave, or set up a breastfeeding room. Easier to just hire men. What in Canada? I thought you lived in a virtual eutopia
|
|
azucena
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 13:23:14 GMT -5
Posts: 5,198
Member is Online
|
Post by azucena on Aug 8, 2022 8:13:06 GMT -5
I've been thinking about your previous post on it being better when one person stayed home. I thought back to my childhood, when mom was a SAHP, and again when I was a SAHP for my kids until my youngest entered school. Then I thought about the shift I've lived thru in my job at the public library. When I started, the library was severely underfunded, and relied on a big fundraising campaign every year, plus a large grant from a trust fund we knew was dwindling, and a lot of volunteer labor from Friends of the library and the Board of Trustees. None of the staff had a library degree. Pay was part time, no benefits, no PTO, etc. We could see the handwriting on the wall (state budget cuts and unfunded mandates putting pressure on our towns meant they would soon be forced to cut the non-mandated stipends to the library), so we took the plunge to getting a perpetual budget on a school district line. Soon after, the director passed away unexpectedly, and new regulations meant our next director must have an MLIS, which meant the board had to find more money to pay them. The idea of offering other benefits like a retirement plan was rejected. I remember one board member (retired previous director) scoffed at the idea of even interviewing the lone male applicant. Her reasoning? He'll want too much, we can't afford him. It was suddenly crystal clear that the library depended on low paid part time women as staff, because they presumably were married, and their husband had a "good job" that provided the benefits. Even a woman with the MLIS, apparently, deserved less pay and no benefits than her male counterpart, in M's eyes - and she had been the director, too! You know what, the next two directors have both been single women. Pay got bumped up a chunk for the salaried director position, but still not great. Second one eventually got her promised retirement plan (SIMPLE IRA, but something), but they still have to buy their own health insurance on the state exchange. And staffing is much slimmer than when I started, just 3 of us, vs up to 6 in previous years. But there's much fewer things getting done by volunteer labor - now it gets farmed out to independent contractors. One board member used to handle the investments and taxes and computer stuff, until he left the board. Others would tackle maintenance on the building like small repairs, staining the ramp or replacing loose boards, etc. Now it's hired out. An elderly gentleman who lived nearby did all the yard work and snow removal for years, completely volunteer, until his knees got too bad. Now we pay someone to do it. Circling back to my childhood - all those SAHP were free and available to be room mothers and help in the school classroom. My mom used to volunteer a day each week in the school library - if there were no volunteers, the library was closed to students. Neighbors would watch each other's children on occasion; I remember staying with a neighbor family while my mother was in the hospital for the birth of a sibling, back when you spent 5 days in the hospital. Now that most families have no SAHP, they can't do these types of things. They can't volunteer in the school, because they are at work during school hours. They can't watch children, because they are at work - now they need someone to watch their children. Ooh, grandma could! Nope, grandma is busy working, too (I used to run preschool story hour at the library - lots of grandmas instead of moms bringing the little ones, then, but now *all* the little ones are in daycare - no more story hour, no one comes). A friend was desperately looking for volunteers to help her clean the church - everyone she thought of was either working, or if retired they were in such poor health they couldn't manage. She talked my DH into helping. Back to my childhood, again - at my Catholic ES, the majority of teachers were nuns (then). They didn't have teaching degrees, and they weren't paid much but were housed and fed and cared for in return for their work. I remember several families that had lots of kids in the school, families of 10 or 12. These were middle class families, not high income. Obviously private school cost was much lower back then, I know it was sliding scale for multiple students, but the school's costs were lower with few lay teachers and volunteer aides and library clerks, etc. I'm rambling, I know, but it comes back to the part I bolded - IF THEY COULD AFFORD TO DO SO. Those single breadwinner salaries are not so common anymore, and the necessity of two breadwinners adds new costs at the same time it limits time to volunteer (which increases costs elsewhere). Exactly, great post. BTW I worked in a library while in school I can relate to the understaffed underpaid you ought to be happy to work here attitude. Regarding the sahm part I was one for a good stretch after having my first. Told my husband I didn't want to go back to work. We were poor to say the least but managed. He was overworked but we managed. Being a sahm did not mean no work it ment no paid work, I worked my ass off with the kids and volunteering at school. I eventually went back to work and finished college. I thank my husband all the time for agreeing to me being a sahm. We made the conscious decision to sacrafice new cars, expensive trips, and money in general so we can have the peace of mind not having to shuffle the kids from sitter to sitter and give them a healthy home life. I know its not for everyone but like I said in an earlier post life was simpler back then In todays world and how far women has come I don't think it would be like it was years ago. I think there would be more men staying home, but still on the majority of the women side. You're missing the point that many families don't have two working parents so they can buy new cars, take trips, and sit on a pile of cash. They have two working parents to pay the mortgage, buy groceries, and attempt to provide basics for their children.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,506
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 8, 2022 8:15:16 GMT -5
Of course it will be the women. Many men still refuse to do 'womens work." It's seen as being less masculine. You know a "few" families. Whoop de do. I know a few families, too. That being said, the vast majority of stay at home parents is female. Now many companies are refusing to hire more women due to possible sexual harrassment claims and because they might have to pay maternity leave, or set up a breastfeeding room. Easier to just hire men. What in Canada? I thought you lived in a virtual eutopia you know, for someone who views having her own words thrown back at her as a personal attack...you come across rather offensive yourself.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,366
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Aug 8, 2022 8:30:45 GMT -5
Exactly, great post. BTW I worked in a library while in school I can relate to the understaffed underpaid you ought to be happy to work here attitude. Regarding the sahm part I was one for a good stretch after having my first. Told my husband I didn't want to go back to work. We were poor to say the least but managed. He was overworked but we managed. Being a sahm did not mean no work it ment no paid work, I worked my ass off with the kids and volunteering at school. I eventually went back to work and finished college. I thank my husband all the time for agreeing to me being a sahm. We made the conscious decision to sacrafice new cars, expensive trips, and money in general so we can have the peace of mind not having to shuffle the kids from sitter to sitter and give them a healthy home life. I know its not for everyone but like I said in an earlier post life was simpler back then In todays world and how far women has come I don't think it would be like it was years ago. I think there would be more men staying home, but still on the majority of the women side. You're missing the point that many families don't have two working parents so they can buy new cars, take trips, and sit on a pile of cash. They have two working parents to pay the mortgage, buy groceries, and attempt to provide basics for their children. Minor detail. Doesn’t fit her world view, so it doesn’t exist. When confronted with it, she will spout something along the lines of personal responsibility. Won’t acknowledge that sh•• happens in life, not everything can be planned for, and that some people do not have the talent and abilities to overcome them. Just more compassionate conservatism at work
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,450
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 8, 2022 8:47:13 GMT -5
I've been thinking about your previous post on it being better when one person stayed home. I thought back to my childhood, when mom was a SAHP, and again when I was a SAHP for my kids until my youngest entered school. Then I thought about the shift I've lived thru in my job at the public library. When I started, the library was severely underfunded, and relied on a big fundraising campaign every year, plus a large grant from a trust fund we knew was dwindling, and a lot of volunteer labor from Friends of the library and the Board of Trustees. None of the staff had a library degree. Pay was part time, no benefits, no PTO, etc. We could see the handwriting on the wall (state budget cuts and unfunded mandates putting pressure on our towns meant they would soon be forced to cut the non-mandated stipends to the library), so we took the plunge to getting a perpetual budget on a school district line. Soon after, the director passed away unexpectedly, and new regulations meant our next director must have an MLIS, which meant the board had to find more money to pay them. The idea of offering other benefits like a retirement plan was rejected. I remember one board member (retired previous director) scoffed at the idea of even interviewing the lone male applicant. Her reasoning? He'll want too much, we can't afford him. It was suddenly crystal clear that the library depended on low paid part time women as staff, because they presumably were married, and their husband had a "good job" that provided the benefits. Even a woman with the MLIS, apparently, deserved less pay and no benefits than her male counterpart, in M's eyes - and she had been the director, too! You know what, the next two directors have both been single women. Pay got bumped up a chunk for the salaried director position, but still not great. Second one eventually got her promised retirement plan (SIMPLE IRA, but something), but they still have to buy their own health insurance on the state exchange. And staffing is much slimmer than when I started, just 3 of us, vs up to 6 in previous years. But there's much fewer things getting done by volunteer labor - now it gets farmed out to independent contractors. One board member used to handle the investments and taxes and computer stuff, until he left the board. Others would tackle maintenance on the building like small repairs, staining the ramp or replacing loose boards, etc. Now it's hired out. An elderly gentleman who lived nearby did all the yard work and snow removal for years, completely volunteer, until his knees got too bad. Now we pay someone to do it. Circling back to my childhood - all those SAHP were free and available to be room mothers and help in the school classroom. My mom used to volunteer a day each week in the school library - if there were no volunteers, the library was closed to students. Neighbors would watch each other's children on occasion; I remember staying with a neighbor family while my mother was in the hospital for the birth of a sibling, back when you spent 5 days in the hospital. Now that most families have no SAHP, they can't do these types of things. They can't volunteer in the school, because they are at work during school hours. They can't watch children, because they are at work - now they need someone to watch their children. Ooh, grandma could! Nope, grandma is busy working, too (I used to run preschool story hour at the library - lots of grandmas instead of moms bringing the little ones, then, but now *all* the little ones are in daycare - no more story hour, no one comes). A friend was desperately looking for volunteers to help her clean the church - everyone she thought of was either working, or if retired they were in such poor health they couldn't manage. She talked my DH into helping. Back to my childhood, again - at my Catholic ES, the majority of teachers were nuns (then). They didn't have teaching degrees, and they weren't paid much but were housed and fed and cared for in return for their work. I remember several families that had lots of kids in the school, families of 10 or 12. These were middle class families, not high income. Obviously private school cost was much lower back then, I know it was sliding scale for multiple students, but the school's costs were lower with few lay teachers and volunteer aides and library clerks, etc. I'm rambling, I know, but it comes back to the part I bolded - IF THEY COULD AFFORD TO DO SO. Those single breadwinner salaries are not so common anymore, and the necessity of two breadwinners adds new costs at the same time it limits time to volunteer (which increases costs elsewhere). Exactly, great post. BTW I worked in a library while in school I can relate to the understaffed underpaid you ought to be happy to work here attitude. Regarding the sahm part I was one for a good stretch after having my first. Told my husband I didn't want to go back to work. We were poor to say the least but managed. He was overworked but we managed. Being a sahm did not mean no work it ment no paid work, I worked my ass off with the kids and volunteering at school. I eventually went back to work and finished college. I thank my husband all the time for agreeing to me being a sahm. We made the conscious decision to sacrafice new cars, expensive trips, and money in general so we can have the peace of mind not having to shuffle the kids from sitter to sitter and give them a healthy home life. I know its not for everyone but like I said in an earlier post life was simpler back then In todays world and how far women has come I don't think it would be like it was years ago. I think there would be more men staying home, but still on the majority of the women side. Did he really have a choice? What impact did him being overworked have on "a healthy home life"? My working father and I don't have a close relationship and he isn't a very open person but he has made a few comments over the years about what his life, from his perspective, was like in those years. They weren't positive.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,039
Member is Online
|
Post by teen persuasion on Aug 8, 2022 9:12:20 GMT -5
Exactly, great post. BTW I worked in a library while in school I can relate to the understaffed underpaid you ought to be happy to work here attitude. Regarding the sahm part I was one for a good stretch after having my first. Told my husband I didn't want to go back to work. We were poor to say the least but managed. He was overworked but we managed. Being a sahm did not mean no work it ment no paid work, I worked my ass off with the kids and volunteering at school. I eventually went back to work and finished college. I thank my husband all the time for agreeing to me being a sahm. We made the conscious decision to sacrafice new cars, expensive trips, and money in general so we can have the peace of mind not having to shuffle the kids from sitter to sitter and give them a healthy home life. I know its not for everyone but like I said in an earlier post life was simpler back then In todays world and how far women has come I don't think it would be like it was years ago. I think there would be more men staying home, but still on the majority of the women side. You're missing the point that many families don't have two working parents so they can buy new cars, take trips, and sit on a pile of cash. They have two working parents to pay the mortgage, buy groceries, and attempt to provide basics for their children. Exactly! My rambling post never got around to the extra costs this generation have that previous ones did not, like student loans. My parents didn't have student loans - dad used his GI bill to pay for college, so that he didn't have to work in the steel mill like his immigrant dad. DH and I had small student loans, paid off in standard 10 years easily. Students now are starting their adult lives with much more debt - which inflates how much money they need to earn. Everyone now needs a car, public transportation has declined and is snubbed, plus employers now want more flexibility, so... With both partners working, or single parents, you need to pay for childcare - which has increased in cost as it changed from a SAHM taking in a few extra kids to professional childcare businesses, and as demand increased. And, of course, there aren't the good paying manufacturing jobs (that don't require a college degree) that used to be ubiquitous. Nearly everyone needs to get a college degree to make themselves marketable for a "good" job.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Aug 8, 2022 10:34:51 GMT -5
It's just a kids' recreational sport, for fun, not a G8 summit. So, one hockey team for Down Syndrome kids, another for deaf kids, another for autistic kids, another for kids in wheelchairs? No, that won't make them 'different" at all. Oh noes! What if it's an autistic kid in a wheelchair? Which team does that child play on? Don't be ridiculous. Let them all play and let them all have fun. It's not tryouts for the NHL. I get it and the kids with special needs there are special olympics and teams. So "normal" kids that aren't great athletes can just go pound sand? BTW: I'm not some namby pamby unathletic schlub. I swam in college, and was state ranked on in the 200 yd. fly and 400 yd. IM. I had a sectional record in HS. There is still room for not so athletic kids at the HS level.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,364
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 8, 2022 11:58:52 GMT -5
I like your post teen persuasion and I think many also don't think about people working but not being paid. Historically most family members worked on the farm even if they did not get paid. Making meals for farmhands and other farm duties isn't the kind of romantic stay at home life envisioned in TV shows like Leave it to Beaver. Yes, lots of work was unpaid, for the family. The little bit I remember of my maternal grandmother was before I was five. She lived at that time with her sister (who never married), and two of her brothers, all elderly - one had been a farmer and was widowed, the other had a head injury as a child and had the intelligence of a young child (he did manual labor as a young man in the family dairy business). The women looked after their brothers; eventually only my great aunt was left. The extended family continued to check in on Aunt G and take care of the house (it had been a joint purchase between my grandparents and Aunt G who originally lived upstairs - later there were tenants in the upper) for a long time. She went to live with another spinster friend as they aged more, until eventually neither could live independently. Aunt G lived for years in a nursing home, we continued to visit, but at that point the house could finally be sold and Grandma's portion distributed to all her heirs (some of the spouses of heirs were not happy with the wait or continued responsibility, to put it mildly). People looked out for one another. My maternal grandparents had 9 children. They adopted 2 more - a brother and sister who lost their parents. They were in their teens, I believe. Thinking about it now (clueless to expenses/income as a child) how did my grandfather support a wife and 11 children on his salary, whatever it was? He died at age 60; how did grandma support herself after his death? Well, I guess that's how the sibling sharing a house eventually came about, but don't know details. Mom would have been in college when her dad died, and her youngest sister in HS (did she attend the same private school that her sisters and I did?) - I never did the math before, or considered budgets for them. I'm sure my grandfather did not have a pension, and would never have collected SS. He must have invested somewhat, but don't know how different it was then vs now. Grandma never worked, but her unmarried sister did - she definitely saved for herself. Auntie lived to 102, she would have been a young working woman in the roaring twenties! Just a comment to the two points above --- on what did SAHM's do... well my urban SAHM had kids in the late 50's - my mom did all sorts of unpaid work at school, church and local community center. It usually centered around kids (helped make costumes for a school plan - not just my siblings costumes... or made food/deserts for some school or church gathering - it wasn't always "pot luck", etc...ran summer program (crafts with kids)) OR it centered around the adults (having a night out without the kids) so running some "party" at the Lodge or the Church Hall - card nights or bunco nights. They didn't HIRE a band or singer or DJ for entertianment - it was done by volunteers. They didn't HIRE a company to provide dealers or game runners - it was done by volunteers. they didn't HIRE a caterer -if was provided by volunteers. And those volunteers were primarily women. I was born too late (I was a late in life baby) all of my mom's peers were past dealing with kids in diapers or gradeschool by the time I got to grade school so my mom was no longer as active (she was also so much older than the other moms). so I only hear about the stuff she did from my siblings or when my 2nd cousins reminisce. A heck of a lot of American day to day life (weather rural or urban) was done by the unpaid labor of women. Men didn't want to do "women's work" because it was UNPAID. And having to pay for that labor - well, it's a lot like the debate about today's minimum wage - if you have to pay workers more - then the price of the service/product might go up... Men do women's work - when there aren't any women around to do it OR they can't find some "less manly man" they can bully or force to do it for free. The men doing "women's work" are on the lowest rung of the ladder if they get paid for it. Back then - if the people (women) providing the free services had to be paid - there'd be a lot less of those services offered (so the school, library, church, community center, lodge would have to PAY to provide more services or wouldn't be able to offer them at all. )
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 8, 2022 12:24:44 GMT -5
Of course it will be the women. Many men still refuse to do 'womens work." It's seen as being less masculine. You know a "few" families. Whoop de do. I know a few families, too. That being said, the vast majority of stay at home parents is female. Now many companies are refusing to hire more women due to possible sexual harrassment claims and because they might have to pay maternity leave, or set up a breastfeeding room. Easier to just hire men. What in Canada? I thought you lived in a virtual eutopia You thought wrong. In any case, it's not employers paying maternity leave in Canada.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 8, 2022 12:38:02 GMT -5
I thank my husband all the time for agreeing to me being a sahm. We made the conscious decision to sacrafice new cars, expensive trips, and money in general so we can have the peace of mind not having to shuffle the kids from sitter to sitter and give them a healthy home life. I know its not for everyone but like I said in an earlier post life was simpler back then.
Both my parents worked. It was hard work. My father worked in a factory and my mother cleaned toilets for rich people. We NEVER had new cars or expensive trips. We never went out to eat. We never went to the movies. We never travelled. I remember when McDonald's first came on the scene and there was quite the hubbub. My father took the girls to split a hamburger and he didn't eat at all. We couldn't afford it. The made just enough money to pay the rent and put food on the table. They were always both exhausted and certainly didn't have the energy for volunteering. Those were the good old days.
You said you stayed home. That's exactly it. It's the women who stayed home, not the men. Never the men.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Aug 8, 2022 12:54:44 GMT -5
I thank my husband all the time for agreeing to me being a sahm. We made the conscious decision to sacrafice new cars, expensive trips, and money in general so we can have the peace of mind not having to shuffle the kids from sitter to sitter and give them a healthy home life. I know its not for everyone but like I said in an earlier post life was simpler back then.Both my parents worked. It was hard work. My father worked in a factory and my mother cleaned toilets for rich people. We NEVER had new cars or expensive trips. We never went out to eat. We never went to the movies. We never travelled. I remember when McDonald's first came on the scene and there was quite the hubbub. My father took the girls to split a hamburger and he didn't eat at all. We couldn't afford it. The made just enough money to pay the rent and put food on the table. They were always both exhausted and certainly didn't have the energy for volunteering. Those were the good old days. You said you stayed home. That's exactly it. It's the women who stayed home, not the men. Never the men. My brother did stay home with his children for a few years. They had 1 child, and then twins 15 months later. My SIL made more than he did, and with the cost of daycare for 3 kids, it didn't make sense for him to work. People treated him like a pariah.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 8, 2022 12:57:01 GMT -5
I thank my husband all the time for agreeing to me being a sahm. We made the conscious decision to sacrafice new cars, expensive trips, and money in general so we can have the peace of mind not having to shuffle the kids from sitter to sitter and give them a healthy home life. I know its not for everyone but like I said in an earlier post life was simpler back then.Both my parents worked. It was hard work. My father worked in a factory and my mother cleaned toilets for rich people. We NEVER had new cars or expensive trips. We never went out to eat. We never went to the movies. We never travelled. I remember when McDonald's first came on the scene and there was quite the hubbub. My father took the girls to split a hamburger and he didn't eat at all. We couldn't afford it. The made just enough money to pay the rent and put food on the table. They were always both exhausted and certainly didn't have the energy for volunteering. Those were the good old days. You said you stayed home. That's exactly it. It's the women who stayed home, not the men. Never the men. My brother did stay home with his children for a few years. They had 1 child, and then twins 15 months later. My SIL made more than he did, and with the cost of daycare for 3 kids, it didn't make sense for him to work. People treated him like a pariah. Well, of course they did! It still happens. Many stay at home dads are looked down on.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,450
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 8, 2022 13:14:58 GMT -5
My brother did stay home with his children for a few years. They had 1 child, and then twins 15 months later. My SIL made more than he did, and with the cost of daycare for 3 kids, it didn't make sense for him to work. People treated him like a pariah. Well, of course they did! It still happens. Many stay at home dads are looked down on. You can easily find references to stay at home moms. You can easily find references to stay at home dads. You can easily find references to working moms. But you will be hard pressed to find references to working dads. It is assumed that unless it specifically states the dad is a stay at home dad, he is working. No need to identify him as such.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,076
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 8, 2022 15:00:06 GMT -5
Of course it will be the women. Many men still refuse to do 'womens work." It's seen as being less masculine. You know a "few" families. Whoop de do. I know a few families, too. That being said, the vast majority of stay at home parents is female. Now many companies are refusing to hire more women due to possible sexual harrassment claims and because they might have to pay maternity leave, or set up a breastfeeding room. Easier to just hire men. What in Canada? I thought you lived in a virtual eutopia it's a pretty good place. lots of resources, open space, freedom, security.... it routinely ranks in the top 10. and it is ideally situated for global warming. so, yeah- not exactly a utopia, but it outranks the US in almost every way.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 8, 2022 15:10:16 GMT -5
What in Canada? I thought you lived in a virtual eutopia it's a pretty good place. lots of resources, open space, freedom, security.... it routinely ranks in the top 10. and it is ideally situated for global warming. so, yeah- not exactly a utopia, but it outranks the US in almost every way. It routinely ranks in the top five, and often it's number one. That being said, it's hardly a utopia. Gun violence is increasing and the guns are coming from the US. Canadians want even stricter gun control. Many Americans accuse our government of 'taking away our guns'. It's what we WANT. Our government works for us, not the other way around.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,076
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 8, 2022 19:53:10 GMT -5
it's a pretty good place. lots of resources, open space, freedom, security.... it routinely ranks in the top 10. and it is ideally situated for global warming. so, yeah- not exactly a utopia, but it outranks the US in almost every way. It routinely ranks in the top five, and often it's number one. That being said, it's hardly a utopia. Gun violence is increasing and the guns are coming from the US. Canadians want even stricter gun control. Many Americans accuse our government of 'taking away our guns'. It's what we WANT. Our government works for us, not the other way around. faith in institutions leads to lower violence. the US is caught in a vicious cycle. i think we end up like South Africa.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,286
|
Post by scgal on Aug 9, 2022 7:42:11 GMT -5
Exactly, great post. BTW I worked in a library while in school I can relate to the understaffed underpaid you ought to be happy to work here attitude. Regarding the sahm part I was one for a good stretch after having my first. Told my husband I didn't want to go back to work. We were poor to say the least but managed. He was overworked but we managed. Being a sahm did not mean no work it ment no paid work, I worked my ass off with the kids and volunteering at school. I eventually went back to work and finished college. I thank my husband all the time for agreeing to me being a sahm. We made the conscious decision to sacrafice new cars, expensive trips, and money in general so we can have the peace of mind not having to shuffle the kids from sitter to sitter and give them a healthy home life. I know its not for everyone but like I said in an earlier post life was simpler back then In todays world and how far women has come I don't think it would be like it was years ago. I think there would be more men staying home, but still on the majority of the women side. You're missing the point that many families don't have two working parents so they can buy new cars, take trips, and sit on a pile of cash. They have two working parents to pay the mortgage, buy groceries, and attempt to provide basics for their children. I didn't miss it at all. My original point was one person should be a stay at home parent. By that I ment afford to. We had it tough but was able to do it not everyone can I understand that but that is my point. If they can and are willing it would make out for a better situation all around.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,286
|
Post by scgal on Aug 9, 2022 7:43:54 GMT -5
I get it and the kids with special needs there are special olympics and teams. So "normal" kids that aren't great athletes can just go pound sand? BTW: I'm not some namby pamby unathletic schlub. I swam in college, and was state ranked on in the 200 yd. fly and 400 yd. IM. I had a sectional record in HS. There is still room for not so athletic kids at the HS level. No that is not what i'm saying. But there should be a minimum of fitness to be able to play little league.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,286
|
Post by scgal on Aug 9, 2022 7:52:25 GMT -5
Exactly, great post. BTW I worked in a library while in school I can relate to the understaffed underpaid you ought to be happy to work here attitude. Regarding the sahm part I was one for a good stretch after having my first. Told my husband I didn't want to go back to work. We were poor to say the least but managed. He was overworked but we managed. Being a sahm did not mean no work it ment no paid work, I worked my ass off with the kids and volunteering at school. I eventually went back to work and finished college. I thank my husband all the time for agreeing to me being a sahm. We made the conscious decision to sacrafice new cars, expensive trips, and money in general so we can have the peace of mind not having to shuffle the kids from sitter to sitter and give them a healthy home life. I know its not for everyone but like I said in an earlier post life was simpler back then In todays world and how far women has come I don't think it would be like it was years ago. I think there would be more men staying home, but still on the majority of the women side. Did he really have a choice? What impact did him being overworked have on "a healthy home life"? My working father and I don't have a close relationship and he isn't a very open person but he has made a few comments over the years about what his life, from his perspective, was like in those years. They weren't positive. Sure he did. I didn't think I made a very convincing statment but he also knew that the benefit of me working was to very little financial gain. Childcare is the main one at the time living in NY it was expensive. The home life was good also he worked 5 ten hour days 6 on Sat. Eventually I went back to school and we did opposite shifts for childcare that was a little tougher on the family but it did go by quick. I then stayed home again until the girls were in HS. It is not for everyone but I feel the home life and eventually society benefits from kids having a parent around. We could go on and on with single moms and dads, low paying jobs, high cost of living etc. That is what I was saying that if we could be like older times it would be better.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,450
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 9, 2022 8:03:56 GMT -5
You're missing the point that many families don't have two working parents so they can buy new cars, take trips, and sit on a pile of cash. They have two working parents to pay the mortgage, buy groceries, and attempt to provide basics for their children. I didn't miss it at all. My original point was one person should be a stay at home parent. By that I ment afford to. We had it tough but was able to do it not everyone can I understand that but that is my point. If they can and are willing it would make out for a better situation all around. Let me make sure I have this straight. Having a couple live a lifestyle that they are willing and able to live makes a better situation all around than them living a lifestyle they are forced to live either by social dictates or financial necessity? Hmmm. Who'd a thunk it.
|
|