Where do you stand on feminism?

[poetgrl]

<p>@Vladenschlutte I linked this earlier. You might find it interesting. It’s not about impoverished women. It’s about women and childcare. <a href=“http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/economic-impact-of-child-care/”>http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/economic-impact-of-child-care/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

At the heart of the issue, adds MIT’s Bailyn, is that in other countries, children are viewed as a social good. “But children in this country are seen as an individual choice,” she notes. “If you choose to have them, you’ve got to take care of them.”</p>

<p>Galinsky, who co-directs a study called When Work Works, a project on workplace flexibility and effectiveness, concurs. “Other countries such as Denmark, France and Finland see it as part of their national self interest to support families as they transition to parenthood,” she says. “Child care is viewed as the general responsibility of the country. Here, child care is seen as an individual responsibility.”</p>

<p>

</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>also from the link:</p>

<p>

The difficulties and cost associated with child care may also be having an impact on whether or not some people decide to have kids in the first place. Consider, for instance, the work of Friedman, who is the founding director of the Wharton Work/Life Integration Project. He does in-depth research and longitudinal surveys into the lives, careers and families of Wharton students and alumni.</p>

<p>In 1992, he surveyed more than 450 Wharton undergraduate students as they graduated about whether or not they planned to have or adopt children. In 2012, he asked the same question of the latest crop of Wharton undergraduates. In 1992, 79% said that children were in their future. But in 2012, only 42% said so.</p>

<p>“That is a huge drop-off,” says Friedman, whose most recent book, based on this research, is Baby Bust: New Choices for Men and Women in Work and Family. “One of the things I kept hearing again and again [about why people weren’t planning to have kids] was the cost of child care. Young people would say to me, ‘I can’t figure out how I will be able to afford it.’”

</p>

[hayden]

<p>Expecting that only people who can afford children should have them is not even possible, even aside from the obvious questions of morality. Many of the moms with children weren’t on their own when they had the children. Women get divorces, they’re abandoned, become widows, or they are still with the dad, but he lost his job, etc etc. What are they supposed to do - return their children as if they were library books? </p>

[sally305]

<p>

Where I went to elementary school I remember there was after school care. I thought it was free but it might have been some slight fee. But it was basically just like recess until 6. I thought Kindergarten was full day, so make it first grade instead.

</p>

<p>A “full day” of school in my district goes till 1 pm on Mondays and 2:30 the rest of the week. Most reasonable parents don’t feel comfortable leaving their kids home alone after school until fourth grade, minimum. They have to pay for years and years of after-school care, and some have before-school care as well if they have to be at work before the first bell rings. There are also in-service days and additional early-release days every month, plus extended holiday breaks that use up far more days than most parents have in available PTO through their employers. It all adds up.</p>

<p>I will say it’s kind of cute that you would put up your childhood recollections of whatever “slight fee” your afterschool care cost X years ago against the actual experiences of the many actual parents on this thread in the Parent Cafe. :)</p>

[alh]

<p>re. child costs. There’s also the cost of someone having to take off work to stay home with sick children. Because that is a fact of life. It will impact a parent who works for an hourly wage in a different way than a salaried individual, but it will probably have a long term negative impact on both, compared to a childless individual.</p>

<p>Much less an issue for those with live in help. In the high cost of living areas, it will be expensive to afford the space for the live in help. This is what I hear young couples discussing as they try to figure out how to make it work.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>Ah yes, access to birth control.
Aye, there’s the rub.</p>

<p>Not only have I had birth control fail before I was married, but I’ve been 3 months along before I even suspected it because I was having periods.</p>

<p>But child care expenses should not be weighed against the mothers career, but shared by both.
Although I know this is a radical idea.</p>

[Cardinal_Fang]

<p>I think it’s hilarious that someone who has no children but vaguely remembers his own early childhood is going up against parents who had children in childcare, some of whom now have grandchildren in childcare. Hmm. Who do I think knows more about what it’s like to have your children in childcare?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Vladenschutte, come on, think for a moment!</p>

<p>A) Kindergarten is often half day and is predicated upon the belief that there is someone home all day long to meet the bus.
B) Elementary school schedules do not cover the full time that parents are at work. Not every district offers before and after-care, many people have schedules that are not typical 9 - 5, and the entire summer is uncovered. And what workplace, OTHER than school, gets 2 weeks of vacation at Christmas, 1 week spring break and 3 months off in the summer? </p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Vladenschutte, also stop thinking about itsy-bitsy towns in Michigan where the commute is 5 minutes, and think about big cities, where it might take someone a good 45 minutes - 1 hour to commute to their workplace. I couldn’t possibly have walked my kids to a bus stop, THEN commuted to a job downtown, then gotten back home in time to meet the bus without giving myself, oh, maybe only a 6 hour workday. </p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>“But child care expenses should not be weighed against the mothers career, but shared by both.
Although I know this is a radical idea.”</p>

<p>Not radical at all. Our household help / child care came out of OUR budget, and replaced the things that WE would be doing to care for our kids and house if we hadn’t been working. It wasn’t a “me” replacement, it was an “us” replacement. </p>

[soccerguy315]

<p>

I really don’t think anyone mainstream is trying to hinder male children. Perhaps there is more competition because half of the population was precluded from participation for generations, and people have not adjusted their attitudes. This also goes for the minorities who were excluded for generations. Now they are in the pool and people complain that they are “taking” spots that they shouldn’t - which I do not subscribe to.

</p>

<p>I’m not referring to competition… this is the stuff I am referring to:</p>

<p>

The researchers analyzed data from 5,800 elementary school students and found that boys performed better on standardized exams in math, reading and science than their course grades reflected. The authors suggest that girls are truly only outperforming boys in “non-cognitive approaches to learning” – defined as attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility and organization – leading to better grades from teachers. The study is published in the latest issue of The Journal of Human Resources.

</p>

<p><a href=“Elementary School Bias Against Boys Sets Them Up For Failure: Study | HuffPost Latest News”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;

[poetgrl]

<p>@soccerguy315 I have to say that that stuff drives me crazy about the way they “do” school, now. Things that used to get you extra credit in case you couldn’t master the test is now mandatory and it has got nothing at all to do with learning. It drives me crazy when I see it, even though I have no sons. </p>

<p>I’m surprised there’s not more of a movement to get that changed. </p>

[saintfan]

<p>I have a girl who perfectly fits that “girl model” and a bright, squirrely boy who fits that “boy model”. My boy had a lot of trouble in elementary school with focus expectations and the lack of kinesthetic opportunities. He had a male Spanish teacher in MS who incorporated all kinds of active learning drills and games that made a big difference. He did have 3 male teachers in his elementary years and while they were more temperamentally understanding the fault is really in the curriculum not the teacher for the most part. The curriculum is dictated from above and has gotten even more boy hostile as activity times have been reduced in favor of measuring hard instruction minutes where butts are in seats. Also, as was pointed out above. When education is more highly valued and better paid maybe more males will see it as their primary career goal. Many of my son’s male teachers were career changers who did something else first then went back for a certification.</p>

<p>At any rate, In my experience it has been the “no child left behind” style curriculum more that teachers that served to “bias” my son’s elementary experience. Our district superintendent at the time was a man for what it’s worth.</p>

[guidedbywire]

<p>

So many responses come to mind. If a mother is more than just a mother, what is that more?

Every aspect of their lives that does not pertain specifically to being a mother.

</p>

<p>I find it pretty hilarious to read this posted in a forum where it seems that half the posters consider motherhood so fundamental to their identity that they have some variation of “mom” in their username.</p>

[busdriver11]

<p>" I find it pretty hilarious to read this posted in a forum where it seems that half the posters consider motherhood so fundamental to their identity that they have some variation of “mom” in their username."</p>

<p>Maybe so. But then again for many of us, our children are now grown, and so we actually have an opportunity to do whatever we want with our free time, and even do things for ourselves, now. Though I’m not completely adjusted yet, and am still looking for ideas, besides annoying my grown children with my concerns. </p>

[saintfan]

<p>Well, if you join this forum in your role as mother to an aspiring college student it doesn’t seem curious as all.</p>

[Cardinal_Fang]

<p>

The authors suggest that girls are truly only outperforming boys in “non-cognitive approaches to learning” – defined as attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility and organization – leading to better grades from teachers.

</p>

<p>Y’know, speaking as someone who is really good on standardized tests and not so strong on attentiveness, task persistence and organization, and who has a son who is even more that way: those “non-cognitive” skills are really really important and valuable in life and ought to be encouraged and rewarded in school. I’d rather have an employee who wasn’t as smart, but who was persistent and attentive, than an employee who was smart but disorganized and not persistent.</p>

[saintfan]

<p>That is but one of many hats for most women, though, and one that I’d just as soon be done with if the truth were known. ;)</p>

[sally305]

<p>soccerguy, in terms of this conversation, what’s the issue? Men seem to be doing just fine versus women even with lesser grades. In fact, they’re still doing better.</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>

I find it pretty hilarious to read this posted in a forum where it seems that half the posters consider motherhood so fundamental to their identity that they have some variation of “mom” in their username.

</p>

<p>Why would parents come to this site if not for their children? Not too many non-traditional students. As usernames often are used to convey something about yourself, I don’t find this unusual at all. </p>

<p>IRL, if my mom is introducing herself to my friends or to people associated with my education (teachers, etc), she’d introduce herself as “Romani’s mom”. It makes sense in that context. Just like here, “mom” in username makes perfect sense. </p>