Being a stay-at-home mother (autistic, tutor, psychological, average)

[Aconite]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

I was relating back to having asked my grandmother what the greatest modern convenience was. She said "indoor plumbing". I said that my choice would be that women, today, are no longer considered their husband's property as they were years ago.
There was a time a man could do what he wanted with his wife and no one would stand in his way. I'm glad we don't live in those times. I find it very convenient to be a person in my own right instead of my husband's property as I would have been only 100 years ago.

I don't know that I'd categorize that as a "modern convenience". For women and more emancipated men, I'd call it a civil right; for the more neanderthal amongst us-- like, in the illustration you offered, your father-- I would imagine it's quite inconvenient.

[Aconite]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

I'm not interested in self disclosure. Odds have it, if you crunch the numbers, you'll find your somewhere within two standard deviations....It is human nature to see yourself as unusual, however, if we really look at our situations, we'll find that we are very likely somewhere near average.

I only did the calculation out of curiosity as to where I fit. You're correct that the calculation isn't necessary. Once you have enough time, you have enough time. More than you need won't make things better because you have what you need. THAT is one of the points I'm trying to make here.

I understand the point you're trying to make. However, "enough" is a subjective term, as is "better"-- so the point you're making is not the least bit quantifiable or justifiable, no matter how many self-created statistics you try to hang on it.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

So what difference does it make? When you stand your adult children side by side, what will be different about the kids you stayed home with compared to the ones you worked with? In what ways will the ones you stayed home with be better than the ones you worked with? (Do keep in mind that 40 years of research has failed to find significant differences between the children of working moms and the children of SAHM's other than a self esteem boost to the daughters of working moms and sons of working moms viewing women as more equal to men. For all the hoopla, that seems to be it.)

Again, I would prefer not to indulge in excessive self-disclosure. YMMV, and clearly does.

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by Woof

I'm sure you're a smart person ordinarily, lkb, but your thinking is driven by ideology rather than careful consideration of the facts.

Actually my thinking on genetics is driven by a masters degree in biology.

For you to deny that the sex drive is genetic in nature is ..... well, rather disturbing.

Now you are just fabricating things. I NEVER said the sex drive of HUMANS (notice I do not separate males and females) is not biological. It is. ALL living beings that reproduce sexually are driven to biologically. What I take exception to is the ridiculous idea that the sex drive of humans is sexual dimorphic on a GENETIC level. i.e. you stated males are driven to have sex and females are driven to have babies. That is just not true, they are both driven to reproduce. HOW those drives manifest themselves is inherently a function of BOTH genetics and social mores. Additionally, it is not possible to assign certain gender roles to genetics alone.

I can't even conceive of how an educated adult would come to believe that sexual behaviors have nothing to do with a sexual drive that is genetically programmed. I guess it must come from having been indoctrinated in some sort of weird feminist ideology (NOT that all feminist beliefs are weird or untrue, but in this case it seems like this might come from some of the less thoughtful feminists - that's just a guess based on what I've read from feminists of the past who had no scientific training).

Wow talk about YOUR knee jerk reaction.

1. I am a scientist. A researcher as well. Genetics are not my primary focus but I am well versed in them none the less, especially at the ecological level. Which makes me question how you can assign sociological roles to genes alone, are you actually a scientist as well?

2. It has nothing to do with feminism, and everything to do with reality. It is not possible for a wide range of human functions (including the smile) to determine what portion of it genetic and what portion is cultural. With smiles, the action itself evolved from primates, where the baring of closed teeth was also used to indicate submission but whose actual meaning does vary significantly with cultural influence, i.e. in Korea its is held that "honest men" do not smile often.

I've always been fascinated by that aspect of human nature, how people can come to hold obviously false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence against them, usually in religion but also in various ideologies, or simply because a trusted person has told them so.

You are having your own autonomous reaction based on your MISUNDERSTANDING (possibly deliberate on your part) of what I stated. Should I blame it on feminism? Or your genetics?

It is way too easy to make blanket statements like you have made and assign things to "genetics" without really understanding how complicated it is to separate genetic influences (hormonal at best) from social mores.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by lkb0714

........What I take exception to is the ridiculous idea that the sex drive of humans is sexual dimorphic on a GENETIC level. i.e. you stated males are driven to have sex and females are driven to have babies. That is just not true, they are both driven to reproduce. HOW those drives manifest themselves is inherently a function of BOTH genetics and social mores.

Yes, BOTH ..... that's what I said, right? And yes, simple observation shows that sexual drive is dimorphic to SOME extent. "Honey, not now, I have a headache" is generally true around the world and in all historical times. Men have a stronger sex drive ON AVERAGE than women, and that is NOT because we've been told in our culture to be like that. A stronger drive in one sex than the other, on average in every culture across time, is evidence of dimorphism arising from the gene level.

1. I am a scientist. A researcher as well. Genetics are not my primary focus but I am well versed in them none the less, especially at the ecological level. Which makes me question how you can assign sociological roles to genes alone, are you actually a scientist as well?

That's not what I said. I said that women ON AVERAGE have a stronger drive to have children and raise them, which is what the OP was asking. I didn't "assign roles".

2. It has nothing to do with feminism, and everything to do with reality. It is not possible for a wide range of human functions (including the smile) to determine what portion of it genetic and what portion is cultural. With smiles, the action itself evolved from primates, where the baring of closed teeth was also used to indicate submission but whose actual meaning does vary significantly with cultural influence, i.e. in Korea its is held that "honest men" do not smile often.

That's what I said, right? People in some cultures can suppress their natural desire to smile at something that is pleasant or funny. But if not suppressed, smiles are natural and not cultivated. Again, people don't signal happiness or humor with some other universal behavior, right? We don't universally squat down and rise up, or shift our eyes from left to right and back again many times. We smile. It's a genetically based behavior displayed in different ways according to environment and culture.

You are having your own autonomous reaction based on your MISUNDERSTANDING (possibly deliberate on your part) of what I stated. Should I blame it on feminism? Or your genetics?

We've misunderstood each other. It happens. Get over it.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Aconite

I don't know that I'd categorize that as a "modern convenience". For women and more emancipated men, I'd call it a civil right; for the more neanderthal amongst us-- like, in the illustration you offered, your father-- I would imagine it's quite inconvenient.

It's a modern idea that has greatly improved the lot of women. This one hits home with me because I was almost killed by my father when I was six weeks old and the police would have stood by and done nothing if my father had not attacked one of the officers who came to the house. It's always amazed me that beating my mother and holding me at gunpoint were not reason enough to arrest him but slugging a cop was. It's like we had no value. And that was in 1959!!

The point is we are people in our own right now. That was not always the case.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Aconite

I understand the point you're trying to make. However, "enough" is a subjective term, as is "better"-- so the point you're making is not the least bit quantifiable or justifiable, no matter how many self-created statistics you try to hang on it.



Again, I would prefer not to indulge in excessive self-disclosure. YMMV, and clearly does.

It's not just my mileage. 40+ years of reasearch has uncovered only two differences in our children and those favor the working mom. It's the norm for maternal working status to be irrelevent discounting the financial impact, which does matter.

I'm not going to debate this with you as it's your experience but I'd really like to know in what way you think the children you raised as a SAHM are better than the children you raised as a WM and how your working status resulted in that difference. You're the first mother I've met to claim that her working status made one set of children turn out better than the other set. I've only raised one set one way but I fail to see how they would have turned out better had I not worked. In fact, given that I was the primary bread winner for most of my children's lives, I think they might have turned out worse. Lord knows there would have been a lot more stress in this household if we were trying to live on dh's income alone.

Even subjectively defined, "better" should be quantifiable. Either you see a difference or you don't. Either that difference is attributable to your working status or it isn't. I suspect that many SAHM's who claim it's "better" to SAH really just prefer to SAH and, for some reason, think they need to justify the choice.

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by Woof

We've misunderstood each other. It happens. Get over it.

You place over generalization on top of over generalization to the point of having no meaning. My issue is with your contention that those genetic characteristics are separated by gender. Sex drive is a function of testosterone level, which is surely genetic but the variation between individuals is going to be as large or larger than the variety between genders.

Additionally, the fact there are societies were female sex drive is typically accepted to be the same as a man's (Tahiti springs to mind) shows that it is by no means universal across every culture, therefore it is not inherently a genetic trait found in men vs. women.

Extrapolation is one thing but in science it is highly dangerous to overgeneralize to the degree with which you are doing it in this thread.

[Zimbochick]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

I'm not going to debate this with you as it's your experience but I'd really like to know in what way you think the children you raised as a SAHM are better than the children you raised as a WM and how your working status resulted in that difference. You're the first mother I've met to claim that her working status made one set of children turn out better than the other set. I've only raised one set one way but I fail to see how they would have turned out better had I not worked. In fact, given that I was the primary bread winner for most of my children's lives, I think they might have turned out worse. Lord knows there would have been a lot more stress in this household if we were trying to live on dh's income alone.

Even subjectively defined, "better" should be quantifiable. Either you see a difference or you don't. Either that difference is attributable to your working status or it isn't. I suspect that many SAHM's who claim it's "better" to SAH really just prefer to SAH and, for some reason, think they need to justify the choice.

You are the only person on this thread insisting that one method of parenting is "better" than the other. No one else. Other discussions have revolved about time. Why the obsession with this topic if you had no option but to work? It would seem a moot point. Posters have repeatedly stated here that women should choose what best suits their particular family situation. That's really all one can say about this topic.

[jojo61397]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Even subjectively defined, "better" should be quantifiable. Either you see a difference or you don't. Either that difference is attributable to your working status or it isn't. I suspect that many SAHM's who claim it's "better" to SAH really just prefer to SAH and, for some reason, think they need to justify the choice.

The same could be said for working mothers. There is no quantifiable evidence that working is better. I honestly think many working mom's say that it's better to justify their choice (or non-choice, if mother's have to work).

IMHO, I don't think either one is better than the other, I think it really depends on the quality of time you spend on your children rather than the quantity. If you are a SAHM and spending the vast majority of your child's waking hours on the internet, can you say with the utmost confidence that you are spending "quality" time with your child? If you are a WOHM and are leaving them in daycare on days off, so that you can get things done, are you truly taking advantage of all the time you may have to spend quality time with your kids? Is running your child from activity to activity really quality time, or is sitting on a Saturday night and watching a movie from Blockbuster quality time? I think for the most part a parent who is checked in for their child's life is the best quality parent, and it doesn't matter if a parent works or doesn't work.

I think the primary reason people look down at mothers who are doing the opposite of what they are doing is pure and simple jealousy-- it may not be acknowledged jealousy, but it's jealousy none the less. My kids are at school now, but I can honestly say that I'm a little bit jealous of working parents, who get to socialize with other real life human beings (not the wide variety of characters on the internet). And I know several of my working friends, who seem to make cracks about "wasting my degree," or "wasting my talent." I figure as long as you are happy with yourself and the job you are doing, no skin off my nose.

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by jojo61397

The same could be said for working mothers. There is no quantifiable evidence that working is better. I honestly think many working mom's say that it's better to justify their choice (or non-choice, if mother's have to work).

IMHO, I don't think either one is better than the other, I think it really depends on the quality of time you spend on your children rather than the quantity. If you are a SAHM and spending the vast majority of your child's waking hours on the internet, can you say with the utmost confidence that you are spending "quality" time with your child? If you are a WOHM and are leaving them in daycare on days off, so that you can get things done, are you truly taking advantage of all the time you may have to spend quality time with your kids? Is running your child from activity to activity really quality time, or is sitting on a Saturday night and watching a movie from Blockbuster quality time? I think for the most part a parent who is checked in for their child's life is the best quality parent, and it doesn't matter if a parent works or doesn't work.

I think the primary reason people look down at mothers who are doing the opposite of what they are doing is pure and simple jealousy-- it may not be acknowledged jealousy, but it's jealousy none the less. My kids are at school now, but I can honestly say that I'm a little bit jealous of working parents, who get to socialize with other real life human beings (not the wide variety of characters on the internet). And I know several of my working friends, who seem to make cracks about "wasting my degree," or "wasting my talent." I figure as long as you are happy with yourself and the job you are doing, no skin off my nose.

I think the "better" Ivory is referring to quantitatively is from

Maternal employment and perception of sex roles among college students.
Vogel, Susan R.; Broverman, Inge K.; Broverman, Donald M.; Clarkson, Frank E.; Rosenkrantz, Paul S.
Developmental Psychology, Vol 3(3, Pt.1), Nov 1970, 384-391.

Where it was found that children on working mothers had a higher sense of innate equality of men and women and their roles.

Additionally, a summary by the APA of 50 years worth of research showed that there were no detrimental effects of mothers working on their children.

Maternal Work Early in the Lives of Children and Its Distal Associations With Achievement and Behavior Problems: A Meta-Analysis," Rachel G. Lucas-Thompson, PhD, Macalester College; Wendy A. Goldberg, PhD and JoAnn Prause, PhD, University of California, Irvine. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 6.

A nice summary of that article can be found here:

Working Moms’ Kids Turn Out Fine, 50 Years of Research Says – TIME Healthland

So quantitatively there is no difference in achievement or behavior and there are slight but statistically significant difference where the children of WMs are more likely to find women and men to be more equal.