tweaver at imbolc.ucc.ie
Tue Aug 29 21:25:24 EDT 2000
Melissa has just about closed this matter: most of our differences come down
to personal interpretation of societial imperatives and these are beginning
to pull away from an author who wasn't on-topic in the first place.
So thanks to those of you who are putting up with all this |-)
This is basically My Little Conclusion.
I agree with Melissa that if you consider your career more important than
kids, then you are probably going to make a bad parent - I just happen to
think that both are possible. I know some of the arguments from career mothers
are self-justifying: they have to be! And, yes, 24/7 mothering is not the
antonym of career (but then "career" doesn't mean 18-hour coke-fuelled days
on the trading floor either).
I'll happily tell your thesis advisor that you haven't digested your own
brain for domestic comfort, Melissa.
+ Seriously--I am tense on this subject because I have only just begun to
+ realize how much sentiment in the US is against the idea that women can have
+ marriage and parenthood as a "career" so to speak.
Many protests in the 60s included data showing that to source "housewife"
services from the private sector would cost more than the husband's salary (on
average)... so we've known that for over 30 years. Women choosing to be
housewives are still undervalued, and women choosing careers still earn 65c to
the man's $ on average (I don't have UK statistics on this). So both the
"careerists" and the "stay-at-homes" are fighting for recognition.
And, yes, Heinlein's women make mothering look much easier than it is!
Are we done, Melissa, or have I sparked the next round?
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj