In a message dated 3/14/1999 11:54:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I do not mean to compare fantasy to reality, but as much as I think men
would make great stay at home parents, I think many of them feel that their
role is to support their families. >>
Kimberly,
I do also think that many men feel that this is a responsibility for them,
part of their manhood to financially support the family. Even when such men
are fine with their wives pursuing their careers and appreciate/need their
financial contribution to the household such men still feel that their support
is the foundation - not necessarily better or more valuable - but just the
support that does not have the option to stop. (i.e. be a house husband/dad).
I did see the Steve Martin movie, and I believe the female lead was Terri
Garr. Her character did not like the idea that her husband "got" to stay home
with the children, while she had to go out to work. She began to envy the time
he had away from outside pressures, the time he had with the children, and she
began to see him as lazy, putting all the burden on her. I believe she also
became quite demanding and cranky with him - even asserting dominance over him
on issues because she was the "breadwinner". It was obvious that this
dominance came from her need to control at home, where she could not at work
and because she angrily envied his being home.
This is an interesting view on the potential issues of men behaving as Terri
Garr did. Don't some men potentially envy their wives for "only" being home?
Wouldn't some men find the pressures of supporting a family - perhaps even
with a wife who took the option to work when she wanted to, stop working when
she wanted to, do volunteer work on issues of her chosing, stay home with the
babies, pursue education, not necessarily be as concerned with a high salary
in her job - more able to do what she likes, etc. - because she could depend
upon him to be consistent in his support responsibilities. Might some men
resent not being able to spend enough time with their children, but accept
that they most importantly must financially provide - and instead show their
love in gifts? Tokens of love? Symbols?
Certainly for much of society, women have to work - it isn't a feminist choice
or advancement they have always had to work. I think much of mainstream
feminism ignores that fact. And ignores that many of those women who have
children, hire other women to take care of their children while they are
working and living the feminist "independent woman's" lifestyle.
Not all of those women are in social positions and may not earn such high
salaries that they can save and plan for improved educational and professional
goals. Many of these women are immigrant women, who come to this country
perhaps with language barriers, adjustment stresses and they go to the first
jobs they can find - jobs that "obviously" women can do - care for children.
Interestingly this positions are open because the "independent women" exist -
and there are spaces to fill - large ones, live in ones, long hour ones - to
care for their children and households. These women may not even be legally
able to work in this country, but they always find willing couples to pay them
despite that lack, to take care of their child/ren. The sad fact is that many
of these women are underpaid for their efforts to maintain the family life of
other people - talk about undervaluing the contribution of women - and they
don't receive proper security financial, health insurance, etc. for their
future.
They also don't make enough money to pay someone else to care for their
children. So those children don't receive the superior home attention that
these "privilieged" children do. However then the statistics analyze the
(sometime) greater achievements - future academic and professional/economic,
social behavior, childhood/teenage behavior of the privileged children -
attributing them to the race, educational level of the family, area of
residence, cultural values, of the family. Conversely blaming the lacks of the
other children on the same things.
However perhaps in many cases the only "lack" is that one child's parents
could afford to pay another person to be "there" for their children and the
other child's parents/mother could only afford to take care of her children
financially by having a job taking care of someone else's children?
The situation was also extensively discussed in South Africa, and many years
ago I remember seeing a play called "Sheila's Day" about South African women
called "sheila's" who did work for white women, caring for household and
children, while the husband's were required - as they had little option of
jobs under apartheid to work in the diamond and other mines. Both mother and
father would often have to spend the week at their places of work, the women
living at the homes of the whites and the men living in dormitories for
workers on site, only coming home - at best - on the weekends. Meanwhile,
their children are left to fend for themselves during the week, even harsher
to fend for themselves during an apartheid system. Interesting to note, it was
often this children - indeed these children both in their youth AND when they
grew up, who became the most militant against the apartheid system, who formed
both the ANC - African National Congress and the more militant Pan Africanist
Congress. Many of these people have not even settled today with second class
status in their country with an understanding of the damage, mentally,
culturally, drawn from their experiences.
In the play "Sheila's Day" the women sang about the extreme guilt of leaving
their children and one song focused on how when the other child hurt itself
falling, this woman was there to soothe the wound, but when her child fell, no
one was there to soothe their wound. They sang of resentment for a political
system, for males and females which used them that way for the betterment of
its own, to the detriment of their own.
Working was not seen as some independent woman's choice, it was seen more in
terms of oppression - by other males and females - which impeded their ability
to care for their children, families and communities. An interesting study
would be on the impact on the lives of this children of "sheila's".
Nicole
