On SAHMs

A recent posting at Orthonomics once again brought up the subject of SAHMs--stay at home mothers--in reference to a posting at imamother.  And once again I'm scratching my head and wondering just where some of the people commenting on the imamother posting have been living for the last decades.

Let's get something on the table right from the beginning--even where and when being a SAHM was considered a societal norm, it never was so.  That's right, it never was an across the board item.  There have always been working women in society, and working mothers.  And yes, there have also been those who closed their eyes to this fact and continued to preach the "a woman's place is in the home" party line.

Go back to biblical times and read the Aishis Chayil word for word.  Yes, it talks about all the things a woman does in her home for her husband and children.  And yes, it also clearly and with no fuzziness delineates all the areas of commerce that the woman is involved in--that's commerce such as in working.

When mass producing factories came into being there were women working in those factories.  Many a small business, such as a grocery store, took both the husband and the wife to keep the business afloat.  The servant class was mostly populated by women, and yes, many were married with families they were helping to support with their wages.

Let's move into the more recent past and guess what--we still find lots of women in the workplace.  During WWI and WWII women in droves replaced the men in the general workplace who were called up to fight.  And when the men came back home, many of those women remained in the workplace.  As this country continued to make manufacturing a primary concern, women worked in those factories.

Yes, many of the jobs that women worked at were not considered as "elegant" or "highly desired."  This was as much a result of society's restricting women from being educated as it was from society's attitude that a woman's place was in the home.

You want to see the working mothers of Klal?  You have only to look at the immigrant generation that arrived after WWII.  Go ahead and ask your grandparents how many working women they knew of.  If they're being honest they'll tell you "tons of them."  My mom worked outside of the home, as did my mother in law, as did my parents and in law's cousins.  Some worked together with their husbands in small businesses they eventually were able to begin.  Others worked in a variety of factories.  Food on the table and money to pay the rent beat out any societal grumbling about a woman's place.

And today?  A woman's place is anywhere she needs it to be or wants it to be.  The stark reality is that Klal has engendered a "required" lifestyle that makes it impossible for a whole lot of  single earner families to comply with.  Unless a husband is making uber megabucks, it is going to take two salaries to cover expenses, maybe.  And perhaps this is time to mention that for a lot of the frummer families in Klal, where husbands are sitting and learning, it is the woman who is the sole wage earner.  And yes, even where both husband and wife are working, there are enough cases where it is the wife that makes more money than the husband.  And by the way, this isn't limited to just Klal either.

So please, let us once and for all retire the idea that SAHMism is the societal norm and the best thing for a mother to be doing.  Instead, let's get practical for a change.  What we need to do is make sure our women--and yes, our men too-- are well prepared and well educated, so that when they do go out to work they will qualify for jobs of a higher caliber that will pay more and have better benefits available.

And just slightly off the topic, but definitely related to it, why is it that when those ubiquitous researchers do studies about the children of SAHMs versus working mothers, they fail to include fathers in the equation?  Yup, two parents are working to support the family, but if something disturbs the children it is always blamed on the mother's working.  So fathers are nothing but sperm donors?  Talk about an out of whack and out of date attitude that needs adjusting.

On Being "Half"

Rabbi T here http://rechovot.blogspot.com/2011/09/half-jews.html had up an interesting posting about "half Jews." A comment at the time didn't seem to want to form itself, but I've been thinking about points that were raised. So, better late than never, my thoughts follow.

I'm not disagreeing with the basic premise, that children observe the adults around them, and if they see them only "half-heartedly" following the rules--or outright breaking them--then they, too, may adopt a "half" lifestyle.

However, there needs to be a clear distinction made that children are not adults, and that some of adult behavior is not necessarily wrong--being practiced by an adult with full reasoning powers and maturity to see--but would not be appropriate for a child, whose knowledge and reasoning power are not yet fully developed.

Criticising something or someone, when done by an adult, is not necessarily being "half-observant," nor is it being only "half-respectful." (What is tochechah after all?) Sometimes that public voicing is necessary to point out that "the Emperor is naked." Human beings, no matter their training or studying, are still human beings, making them imperfect and not 100% right 100% of the time. We are taught to respect our leaders, not worship them--"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."

Just what picture do you think children get when leaders of different groups within Klal disagree with each other, criticize each other, declare the "other" to be wrong? When the language gets heated among rabbanim and between such groupings? When Rabbi A paskens X, Rabbi B paskens Y and Rabbi C paskens Z, all referring to the same exact thing, based on the same holy writings? When groups A to Z within frum Klal feel free to criticize and publicly denigrate each other and claim that only their way of practicing and believing is the correct way and all the others are only "half-frum"?

It is not only those who are wilfully going against our laws who are bad examples for our children, who show them that "half-observance" is okay to do. When sinah and chinah are rampant among the various frum groups of Klal, when Jews of one stripe feel free to stone and attack Jews of another stripe and rabbinic leadership does nothing, then what do you suppose our kids are being taught by example?

In short, yes, we adults need to be cognizant of the examples we are setting for our children, but that includes all adults in Klal, regardless of group belonged to, and regardless of where in the hierarchy of Klal we fall.

On School Supplies

Stores all over our area have been busy touting the sale of school supplies already beginning in July. It matters not what type of store--they all get on the school supply bandwagon. Of course, what many of them think of as "incredible sales" and what I think of that way have no relationship. School supply selling is just one more item in the calendar of seasonal sales, and it's big business at that.

But with all the hoopla about this season's must have back pack or rollaway, with all the stress on having just the right pen or notebook or folder, we've lost sight of the most important item that needs to be "purchased" and "packed" for school--attitude.

It's not what shiny new items you bring with you to class that will determine your success in school; it's how you mentally and emotionally view school. View school as something that you have to do and if you just take a deep breath and plog on you will persevere until you can be freed again in June and you're going to have a self-fulfilling prophecy of a year--you'll be miserable for 9 months but then freedom will beckon. If that's the attitude then all the fancy crayons, all the multi-hued markers in the world are just thrown out money.

Where can you "buy" the right attitude? Sorry, it's not sold in the stores but is strictly home-made. For younger students and yes, even some older students, that attitude is a family project. When a family is planning a trip to somewhere, excited talk permeates the house. There is wondering about what will be seen/done on the trip. There is anticipation that the trip will be a great experience. Smiles break out at the thought of the treats to come. Now mention that school is starting in a few weeks and watch the faces fall all around the table. The same sense of excitement that a trip to Orlando and elsewhere generates is obviously absent.

For many, there is the attitude that school is a type of forced work. All that is required is to keep remembering that this, too, shall pass. Many a parent that has commiserated with his or her children about the onset of school. Many a parent who's approach is to say that school is something we have to do, are forced to do, so just go and try and find something good there. Something good there? As if school is some great garbage pile in which there might, just might be a buried treasure somewhere?

I seem to be an oddity--I love being in a classroom. Taking courses for me is all about possibility and delight. Even with the strangest of teachers and the most esoteric of subject matter, I always manage to find items that delight me, that catch my imagination, that get me thinking. Yes, even in the most boring of lectures I always manage to find at least one nugget of gold. But that may be because I expect that those nuggets will be there, and I go in like a prospector with a pick axe and determination. And yes, like a prospector, I dream that I might stumble upon a vein of exposed gold laying open before me, or a cache of diamonds strewn on the ground where I can easily pick them up. And like that same prospector I understand that those exposed veins and those diamonds just laying there are not the norm but the exception. Prospecting for gold or for rare gems takes work, a whole lot of sweat equity. And it also takes time.

I've tried to instill in my own children a love for the process of learning. School is not a prison--serve your time, slog through and they'll give you freedom at the end. School is that pristine mountain range just ripe for exploration and discovery. Those peaks are filled with treasures to discover. But I've also tried to teach the practical: it takes work and effort to bring those treasures to light. You know that old saw: Rome wasn't built in a day. Well, obtaining an education doesn't happen in one day either. It's a long process, sometimes hard, but the end results are more than worth it.

So please, while you are being busy with buying school supplies, take some time, a lot of time, in laying the foundation for success in school for your kids. Work on establishing the right attitude towards school. Sparkle and smile and wax poetic if need be about the possibilities that await your children in the new school year. Remind them, and yourself as well, that anything worth having is worth working/fighting for. And an education is definitely something worth having.

This year make sure that a positive attitude gets packed before you fill up your child's backpack with what are really non-essentials. It's not which pen goes into that pack that will determine how good a school year your child will have--it's all about the right attitude.

Children and Money

Many parents have debated the idea of allowances for their children.

First, they question the whole idea of giving children money that is unearned or not for a special occasion such as a birthday. The key argument parents use against allowances in this instance is that the children will get used to having all their needs met without any input of their own, of relying on handouts rather than their own efforts.

Second, there are parents who tie the giving of an allowance to the doing of household chores. In short, the kids are being paid to do these chores. Those who are against allowances based this way point out that children are just as much a part of a family as parents are, and that all parts of a family have to work--without payment--for the benefit of the whole family. Nobody pays dad to mow the lawn or pays mom to cook dinner so why should dad pay junior to mow the lawn or mom pay him to cook dinner? Those who do believe in tying allowances to the doing of chores believe that it is good practice for when the children are grown up; they will understand that money comes to them only when they make an effort, only when they earn it.

Some parents recognize that there are expenses, albeit small ones, that even small children could incur. Those expenses might occur weekly or only occasionally. It may be more convenient for all concerned to have that money given on a regular basis so that both parents and children can plan for it.

I'm one of those parents who is in favor of allowances, and we gave them to our children until they reached the point of being able to provide some/most/all of the money needed on their own. We considered it as chinuch for the kids of a positive sort. They received X amount of money and they needed to cover Y with that money. It was a perfect time to discuss budgeting, savings, delayed gratification and planning for the future. (See my previous posting on home checking accounts.)

And yes, the kids "earned" their allowances. Not for making their beds--that was a requirement. Not for clearing off their individual dishes after a meal--again a requirement. We had a list up on the fridge of "extra" jobs that could earn stars, which translated into "earning" their allowances. What kinds of jobs were they? Jobs that benefited the entire family. Setting the table and bringing all food items to it. Clearing off all dishes and food items from a family meal. Loading all dishes into the dishwasher or unloading and putting away the clean dishes.Gathering together the whole family's dirty laundry and taking it down to the laundry room. Folding everyone's socks. Vacuuming the living/dining room. Watering the plants in the living room. For somewhat older children, mowing the lawn or raking leaves. Yes, even polishing certain pieces of silver. And yes, even a five year old can use a scrub brush and clean out the toilet.

What any individual set of parents might be willing to pay an allowance for is up to them. For those who are inclined to give children an allowance, based on whatever they choose to base it, that allowance allows for an early discussion on finances and how money can/should be apportioned. It takes some of the "magic" out of the appearance of money in their hands. The discussion of money--how to use it/save it wisely--should start young if we want good habits to take hold.

Starting Early in Teaching Financial Responsibility

In a recent discussion on Lion's blog about children and money I made a suggestion based on something we did with our own kids. Lion suggested it would make a good post here, so here goes.

When they are young children often receive money from others, be it for birthdays or Chanukah, or losing a tooth or what have you. In addition, some families give their children allowances--a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly sum, sometimes based on their completing certain household chores, sometimes not. And what do the children do with that money? If they are typical, they think of things they want to buy with that money. And they want whatever those items are NOW. And then tomorrow comes and they just may not have any money left to buy what they want tomorrow, or the tomorrows that follow.

We took a different tack with our kids. We set up home checking and savings accounts for this type of money. Yes, we made them formal. We got blank checks from the bank and each child got a check book. They also got a computerized savings passbook. If the children wanted to buy something, they first had to look at their checking balance/savings balance and see if they could afford the item. If they couldn't, they didn't get to buy the item at that minute. Our home bank was not in the business of giving out loans nor of covering overdrafts.

My husband taught each of the kids how to write out a check, how to enter it in the check registry and how to balance that check book. Each month they got a statement of deposits and withdrawals. They could see in black and white what they received and what they spent on. Yes, and they also learned to check that the bank had not made any errors on their statements.

Items that cost more than they had in the bank? They had to save up for those items. And yes, we discussed with them the idea of spending everything on one item versus having the money for smaller, less costly items.

Lion asked me what we did if the kids wanted to buy an item, one they might have had money for, that we didn't want them to have. We used two approaches. The first was the "age appropriate" approach. We pointed out that in the "real" world there were age requirements in place in some areas. You couldn't vote when you were 12, you couldn't drink at 13, you couldn't be under 16 in our local mall and be in the mall on a school day unless accompanied by an adult. You couldn't get into certain movies unless you were a certain age, or go to a movie by yourself if you were under a certain age. Certain items they wanted to buy we, the parents, put into "your not old enough to buy that" categories.

The second approach was an economic one. We introduced the kids to the idea of service charges and taxes. Just because an item says on the price tag that it costs X amount doesn't mean that is what it really costs. There are taxes to be added in. There may be shipping and handling costs. Sometimes there really were these charges on items that we were letting the kids buy and they learned early that what is on the price tag may not be the bottom line. We also used these extra charges and taxes when we didn't want them buying something, as a way to discourage the purchase. By the time we added on luxury taxes, sin taxes, sales taxes, shipping/delivery charges, reservation charges and the like, the price of the item usually at least doubled. And the kids lost interest in the item in a fairly short amount of time--spending $10 was one thing; spending $20 was quite another.

Yes, on occasion, a child would hit the middle of the month and have nothing left to spend until the next "pay day." This was the point where we could point out that planning ahead was important, that budgeting was necessary. They could have $5 worth of ice cream one week, or they could have $1 worth of ice cream each week of the month with a little left over in savings. One upshot of this system was that the kids also learned to parcel out what they purchased. Buy a pack of gum for a nickle (yes, that's what it cost back then) and chew all five slices today and you had nothing else to chew for the rest of the week until you had that nickle to spend again. Parcel out that gum across five days and you could have enjoyment over a longer period of time.

Eventually all the kids got the skills and got the idea that money is not fungible, and that budgeting is a necessity, not a parental evil. We believed then and still believe now that economic/budgeting skills need to be developed young and worked on until the child becomes older and independent. To leave any financial education until the point that a person is engaged to be married is a real disaster in the making. Learning to budget money, to spend wisely, to conserve funds, to delay gratification is something that CAN be taught to even young children, and the sooner you begin, the better off both you and the kids are.

On Letting Go

I say this as a parent--it's not easy letting children go. We spend years worrying about every aspect of these children's lives, being intimately involved with them and then BOOM! Suddenly those children are adults. They do adult things like get married and start raising families. And some parents can't seem to see that their role in their children's lives has changed. They can't let go.

Many of our friends and family have children who don't live in the same communities where they were brought up. In point of fact many have children living across the country, the continent and the world. No, it's not easy for them as parents and grandparents. They'd love to see the kids more often, but every get together requires a trip, not just a scooting around the corner. But the kids made the decisions to live where they do, and the parents stepped back.

The kids are living in these far flung corners for a lot of reasons. For some, the school they are attending or the yeshiva they are learning in is there. For others, the in laws may live in this place. For still others a job opportunity may have presented itself. There are some who are drawn to a particular community because it appeals to something they value, even if not necessarily what their parents value. And for yet others there has been the realization that they cannot afford to live where their parents live. There are things they would like to do and to own and they won't be able to have their own dreams come true if they stay in their parents' community.

Is there a parent reading this who does not hope that his/her child will someday be able to own a house of their own? Call home ownership a luxury if you must but it's a luxury that virtually all of us want, and which our parents want for us as well. It's an attainable luxury for lots of people, but sometimes you have to shift your focus to attain it. Sometimes you are going to have to look at the size and scale of the house you want and reduce that size. Sometimes you are going to have to look at what things cost in a particular neighborhood and honestly recognize that you can't afford that neighborhood, so you are going to have to relocate that dream house to someplace other than where you'd love it to be.

On my husband's side we have 6 married nieces and nephews. Their parents live in Midwood/Flatbush. Only one of the 6 lives in Brooklyn altogether, and he is first in the midst of buying a house now (and no, not right in the middle of all the action either) after many years of marriage. The others are spread out across NY and NJ, and no, not in Bergen County either. One niece married a Jersey boy and he didn't want to leave Jersey so there they are. But not in BC, where his parents resided. They looked at their finances, they looked at the neighborhoods available and they bought where they could afford to buy. I'm not saying this was easy on the parents, but they recognized something that other parents need to also recognize: money makes the world go round. Wanting something is not the same as getting it.
Someone over yom tov marvelled that another friend would "allow" her kids to move half way across the country. It's really more than time to remove that word "allow" from a parent's vocabulary as applied to married children. In a perfect world nothing would cost more than we could afford, and we could afford everything we want. We don't have that perfect world. Instead of encouraging our children to beggar themselves because they have to live where we live and live the lifestyle we live, we ought to be looking at reality and saying "It hurts, but my kids have to go where they can afford to live BY THEIR OWN EFFORTS." In short parents, it's time we were part of the solution, not the problem.

Just a thought: and if communities are worried about their future viability, they might give some thought to just what community practices are pricing young couples out of that community, things like yeshiva tuition and lifestyle expectations.

On Being Grandparents, not Cash Cows

On an Orthonomics posting on school tuition woes the comments thread ran over 250 responses. And what raised its head yet again were the words "grandparents" and "trips." Pretty much a whole bunch of people said that grandparents have no business paying for luxury trips to go away for Pesach when their children aren't paying full tuition in yeshiva; that money should go directly to the yeshivas to pay the deficit in tuition. Having had some time to calm down a bit, let me give you my two cents worth.

It is time, long past time, that everyone, EVERYONE in Klal takes grandparents out of the school tuition payment equation. Those grandparents are, for the most part, seniors heading into the retirement years, if not already there. They no longer have children in yeshiva. Their children are married, parents and on their own. What these seniors do with their money is absolutely no one's business but their own. If they CHOOSE to help out their kids with tuition it is just that--a choice, not an obligation. If they are able to and want to be with their children, all their children for a yom tov, and going to a hotel is the best way to achieve this, and THEY can manage the money, then just why is this anybody else's business? Those who insist that this money must be given to their grandchildren's yeshivas are being just that bit ignorant, not to mention downright nasty at times. They look at an outlay of $10K and see that as reducing the burden on the yeshivas by quite a bit. Wrong.

Fingers walking through my address book, I take a count of grandchildren. One first cousin has B"H 5 children and 26 grandchildren and his youngest kids are just beginning their families. Let's see how that Pesach money would play out for these people, should this cousin decide to go to a hotel. My cousin has his children living in four different physical locations, none of them where my cousin lives; none of their children all attend the same yeshiva. In point of fact, there are 11 different yeshivas involved, with a twelfth to be added next year. So let's take that $10K Pesach expenditure; in fact, let's even double it. Should my cousin decide not to get the whole family together for Pesach he would have $20K to give to a yeshiva--wrong. That's 12 yeshivas that would have to split that $20K. One yeshiva might only be getting $1K; another might be getting $3K, but no single yeshiva would be getting $20K. Now go back to $10K as the figure and one yeshiva would be getting only $500, while another might be getting $1500. Only that is wrong too. Because if they don't go to a hotel for Pesach there is still Pesach to be made.

That cousin wants to be with his family for Pesach. Because they are all so spread out it is hard to find a way to see them all at the same time. He wants his children to remain close to each other, and he wants the first cousins to get to know each other. And yes, he wants his family around him. He worked hard his whole life, paid full tuition for his children in yeshiva, gave tzedaka generously and now, in his older years, he wants this for himself. He's not getting any younger, and who knows how much longer any of us have on earth. So, let's say that he doesn't go to a hotel. Let's say that he manages to figure out how to house 10 adults and 26 children, in addition to his wife and himself. You think that feeding 38 people for an entire Pesach can be done for $2.99?! And with that many people coming and all the cooking and other work that is going to be necessary, do you suppose his wife "deserves" to have some cleaning/preparation help? She, too, isn't getting any younger. Do you suppose that Pesach just might cost him a bundle even if he stays at home? And please, no snide comments from the peanut gallery here, but the minhag in his house is for hand shmura matza only. And yes, as far as I am concerned he is entitled to spend the money he earned and worked hard for on something that makes him happy right now.

So my cousin stays home and making Pesach and all the sundry items for an olam the size he will have, in addition to in town guests, will run him about $4K if not more. And then, because he is not going to a hotel with the added expenses, he's going to help out the kids in buying their air tickets, because he wants them to come. And you can add to his $4k anywhere from $3-14K. Hmmm, seems like he is going to be spending about $20K for Pesach. And under crowded circumstances that may not be comfortable for anyone. But here's the irony. None of those whose noses are so often poked into everyone else's plates will say one word--that's right, not one word, because those scholarship people aren't going to a hotel for Pesach; they're going home to their family, a trip being paid for by their parents. And not even these people can be so silly and stupid as to make complaints about going home to parents for a yom tov re yeshiva tuition, or about a grandparent paying for an airline ticket so that a child can come home l'kovod kibud av v'aim. Or at least I hope that they won't comment.

Let's also add this in: my cousin is still a staunch supporter of the yeshivas in the town where he lives. If his community is to remain a solid one then there is no excuse for saying "my kids no longer go there so I no longer have any reason to give money there." If the people living in a community do not continue to support the yeshivas, just who do we expect will do so?

Just a note for clarification: my cousin's children all pay full tuition for their children in school. I used him as an example only because many others just like him, with large families and large numbers of grandchildren, have children who cannot pay the full tuition.

So, to sum up I have a very simple "suggestion" for a whole lot of people out there: keep your eyes and hands out of the pockets of grandparents everywhere. You have NO idea of what they can and cannot afford, what they have to spend, where they have committed their tzedaka dollars, and what money is being used to fund a Pesach trip, or anything else for that matter. They don't live in your community; their children do. Don't expect them to bail out your yeshivas just because they have grandchildren going to them. Maybe they can, and just maybe they can't. Maybe they will want to and just maybe they won't. And when you go searching through their pockets don't be surprised if they want to go searching through yours as well. And they will posit that they would find things that you are spending on that they don't approve of. Only they will be mentchlich and not look in your plate and pockets and comment. It would be nice if you would return the favor. And if I'm going to be blunt then let's tell it like it is--for the most part that is not concern about what tuition scholarship parents are doing that they shouldn't be doing--it's kinah, plain and simple.

And to the commenter who ranted "And these people [scholarship recipients] just better not be putting any meat into their Shabbos cholents," well words just fail me--fodder for a different posting.

Entertaining the little ones

Some of you may be hosting get togethers over Chanukah for family and/or friends. If those get togethers include young children you may be heading to toy boxes or toy stores to get something to keep those kiddies entertained so that the adults can actually get in a word or two of conversation. Let me offer the following as one way to keep them happy and busy.

Whenever my youngish great nieces and nephews are expected as guests I put together arts and crafts folders to keep them occupied. I use brightly colored 2-pocket folders. The Internet is full of sites that have all kinds of pictures to be colored that are Chanukah themed. I found some pencil mazes appropriate for younger kids. I also found some pages with cut outs of dreidles and menorahs that can be made into rings or bracelets or hair ornaments. In addition, I got some really nice Chanukah stickers that they can use to decorate those pictures and the folders with. Party City also had dreidle shaped crayons and Chanukah decorated pencils and erasers.

For just a few dollars and a little time researching on the Net the little ones are going to be happy, and so will their parents be. I download way more pictures and activities then they will be able to do in just one sitting and then send the folders home with them so they can continue the fun in their own homes. Lots of artistic creations going to be possible to hang on refrigerators so parents and grandparents can kvell.

Gifts, Covers, Boxes and Ribbons

Ever watch a little child when they've been given a wrapped gift? They turn it upside down and examine all the parts of the wrapping. They shake it and listen to the sounds made. They ooh and aah about how big the box is, how heavy it is. They play with the bows. They seem to do everything but open the gift. For a little child the wrapping IS the gift, or so it seems. They eventually do get around to opening the gift. And then they go back to playing with the wrapping paper, finding a lot of fun in ripping the paper into tiny shreds.

A whole lot of those Chanukah gifts that are being given to children are going to find themselves tucked up somewhere on a shelf in fairly short time. Too many of these gifts lack that something that will keep a child interested over the long haul, will keep them coming back again and again. With many of these gifts, parents and other givers might have done as well to simply wrap up a box with attractive paper and leave it empty.

I remember two occasions when the "wrapping" saved my sanity. Bad weather, no way to go out and two grumpy little girls who really needed something to do other than cheppe at their mother. So I handed them a roll of toilet paper. It was fascinating to watch them carefully take apart that roll, sheet by sheet. Two hours of perfect contentment on their part. On another occasion I gave them a supersized box of tissues and again, happiness for the cost of a few sheets of paper.

We might want to remember that it isn't the cost of a gift that is the most important quality. It's time to stop worrying that we spent too little.

On Babysitting

Is there any parent reading here who can state that they have never, ever left their child with a babysitter? Qualifying under the term babysitter is anyone--including family members-- who has ever been left with sole responsibility for your children. We view babysitters as an acceptable part of modern life. Yes, there are occasions when a parent or parents will be absent from the home, and someone must take care of the children. But who? I've heard of babysitters as young as 9 and as old as 90.

Is there a minimum age for someone to qualify as a babysitter? Should there be? The following is what The Children's Legal Centre has to say:

"How old does a babysitter have to be?
There is no minimum federal legal age a person has to be before they can babysit.
Parents should carefully assess a babysitter under the age of 16.
Guidance from the NSPCC suggests a parent should choose a babysitter who is over the age of 16.
Under some circumstances, parents can be prosecuted if any harm comes to their child whilst a babysitter under the age of 16 is supervising.
If a parent decides to leave their child with a babysitter who is under 16, the parent must be prepared to take responsibility for anything that should go wrong in their absence. The parent is still responsible for the care and safety of their child."



Note: Some states/cities have set minimum age requirements--check your own municipality.

Years back a number of places were offering "official" baby sitter training courses for young people. Included in the courses were some basic health and safety instructions. Also stressed was what to do in an emergency. There are any number of full adults who panic when something goes wrong, who don't know what they should be doing first. Imagine being 14 or 16 and in charge of 1-4 little ones, and then imagine something going wrong. Will they know what to do and when?

Being part of a large family does not automatically confer upon a teenager specialized knowledge about handling out of the ordinary situations. My feeling is that those babysitter training courses need to be re-instituted. Shuls could give the courses or schools could as an extra curricular activity. Who gives them is not as important as having them given. At any given moment there are thousands upon thousands of young children being watched over by baby sitters. We owe our children--and yes, ourselves as well--peace of mind that these babysitters are sufficiently trained to take care of what might need taking care of.

Note: While I am focusing on teenaged baby sitters, you might also want to ask yourself if some of your older baby sitters really know what to do in an emergency.

On Being a Couple

Bad4Shidduchim had a post up entitled "You Know Your Parents are old When...They go on their own chol hamoed trip." http://badforshidduchim.wordpress.com/ Now granted, bad4 tends to write tongue in cheek rather often but this little gem caught my eye: "I mean, there are stages in life. You get married, and you go on trips like they’re dates. Very cute. Then you have little kids, and you take them places that are fun and educational. Then you have big kids, and they inform you where you’re taking them. Then you have teens, and they’re planning the trips, often leaving you behind. Then your kids are all out of the nest, and you get to sit at home sipping green tea and reading the Jewish Press Chol Hamoed Trip supplement, very happily enjoying not being at any of the places listed. And then when you’re really old you get nostalgic and bored and decide to go on a trip together. Like old times. Very cute."
I'm not sure whether to laugh first or to howl. Amazing just how different the perspective is depending on how old you are and where you are holding in life. "Like old times"? Nope, more like new times and a new stage in life. "Bored and nostalgic"? Hardly. Try finally having some time together as a couple with no one else around. Try having conversations with each other without having lots of other ears that could be listening in. Try two adults who have spent years in a mediated togetherness, never truly being alone, suddenly redescovering why they married each other to begin with. We frum people spend so much time emphasizing that the purpose of marriage is to have children so klal may continue that we've lost track of the fact that child raising and day to day involvement with children on a basic level comes to an end. We are living longer and longer today and there is going to be a time period where marriage is NOT going to be about having and raising children. It's going to be about building the somewhat interrupted relationship of two people, not seven. It's about preparing for the future, not staring bemusedly and wistfully at the past.

My husband and I have been going away together on vacation about twice a year for some time now. When we first went away someone asked me in all seriousness what we had to talk about for a week. Didn't we find ourselves getting bored without others around us? Honestly, boredom never enters the picture. What we did discover on that first trip, and on the others since then, is that we do pretty well as just the two of us. We have time to talk about whatever we want to. We can go and see any place we want to, without anyone voting but the two of us. We have time to figure out where we are going to go from here. What we've both discovered is that we still have dreams of things to do and places to go: life didn't end for us when our kids hit adulthood. And yes, one very important thing we discovered: absent children we function perfectly fine.

Not to say that we still aren't involved with our kids and our extended families--we are. But the years that are coming up for us aren't about raising children any longer, and they very much are about us. Whatever spark drew us together many years ago is still burning bright. Far from being something to joke about kinderlach, those "little excursions" that parents go on by themselves are something to file away for when you get to our position in life.

Hands Off My Kids!

A blog posting on Sunday disturbed me greatly (what else is new). I've posted before on the topic of "Whose children are they?" Yeshivas seem to be in direct competition with parents for who will influence the children, who will decide what derech they will take, who will decide what is right and wrong. Well, camps have, for some time, been part of that equation. But the action by an employee of a day camp that Super Raizy wrote about goes beyond the pale. To see the whole posting "Big Sister is Watching Us" go to http://superraizy.blogspot.com/

The line that makes my blood boil is this one: "It turns out that one of the girls invited their former counselor to join, and this counselor called the director of the day camp and told her that the girls had started a blog. The director then asked the counselor for the URL and password, and deleted the entire blog without warning. "

Camp was over. A group of CITs began a blog, not mentioning the name of the camp in the blog title. They were chatting and basically saying "camp was so much fun." The director, their FORMER employer, clearly had problems with this. Did she call the parents of the children involved? Did she present to the parents her concerns? Did she ASK that the blog be taken down? Nope. She unilaterally deleted the blog. What's more, she was not given the password and url for the blog by those who put it up. They asked their FORMER counselor if she would like to post and gave that counselor the password for the purpose of posting. Instead, the counselor went straight to the camp director.

First, I am concerned that any camp director would behave in such a fashion. It is not the director's right nor responsibility to monitor what the children do outside of her tiny domain, and certainly not when they are no longer in camp. She placed her judgment above that of the parents of the children involved by never even contacting these parents. She took it upon herself to act as judge and jury.

But what truly worries me is the reaction of one of the children. She asked her mom not to say anything or do anything about the situation. Now, why do you suppose she would do so? Take away a favored toy from a child and you are going to hear complaining right and left. You're going to hear "Ma, do something! ____ took my toy!" But this is a blog, and by extention the Internet, that you are talking about. There are those whose religious viewpoint is decidedly anti-blog. They don't allow blogs for their children nor for themselves. They view the Internet as the Great Evil Empire. They are hardly quiet about making their views known. Maybe the child who didn't want mom making a fuss has got a grasp of there being something "off" about blogging that some people are going to react to negatively. Maybe this child got the idea that if she wants to work at this camp again next summer she had better keep quiet and keep her mom quiet now. I can't tell you if this is what went through the child's mind, but it's a plausible scenario. Maybe she didn't want to rock the boat. But here's the thing: she should never have been placed in this position to begin with. And oh what a lesson she may have learned.

Nonetheless, that this happened at all goes beyond disturbing. If you don't like what one of my minor children is doing, you come to ME and tell me. And if I tell you to go fly a kite, then grab that kite and go fly. This is MY child you are talking about. She is MY responsibility. You want to share parenting duties with me? Really, truly? Let's start with the basic parental responsibilities then. Hand me over a check for her tuition for next year. Pay for her braces and her glasses and her shoes. You be here to welcome her home from school and you cook supper for her. You do the laundry. She's not feeling well? You take her to the doctor and pick up the prescriptions and pay for them. You talk to her when she's in the dumps. You be the one to cheer her up. You be the one to stay up nights doing homework with her. You be the one to give her chizuk that life is going to be fine. Because if you don't do these things and all the others of millions of things that a REAL parent does for their child, you haven't the right to have a say in what she does in MY home. You surely have no right to second guess ME. If I say it is okay for my child to be doing X, how dare you say no!

There are different ways that this situation could be handled, and not every parent would choose the same way. I am not (in case you haven't noticed) the type to let something like this go. When you allow bullies (and yes, this director qualifies for the definition of bully--someone bigger/older who beats up on you) to commit such an act then they believe that no one will stop them or can stop them and they will not only continue but escalate their acts of terrorism.

It's a truism that parents say they would take a bullet for their child. They would place their life in danger to save the life of their child. No, the loss of the blog was not physically life threatening. But it was a poisoned arrow aimed directly at parental authority and control. I have gone beyond sick and tired when it comes to this type of unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into family life. When YOU, out there, no matter what position you may have in a camp or school, tell my child that she is wrong for doing something that I have allowed that child to do, you are clearly telling that child that her parent is wrong, is faulty, is not a good parent. What sniveling cowards! This camp director didn't have the guts--and maybe not the brains--to go to the parents and present her case.

I know one thing: none of mine are ever going to go to a camp that she is a director of. She clearly has an agenda that doesn't mesh with mine. And she clearly lacks mentchlichkeit.

Enough said--your turn.

On Being Overscheduled

Modern life has brought many benefits with it, too numerous to list here. But along with the benefits have come a few glitches that many of us are suffering from. Perhaps one of the worst of these glitches is the over scheduling that most of us are living with. Rationally we know that there are only 24 hours in one day and only 7 days in one week. Rationally we know that sleep is required. Yet, despite our knowing this, we still try to pack into that 24 hours about 36 hours worth of activities. We sometimes take upon ourselves more than it is physically possible to do. Other times we don't seem to choose but have things thrust upon us.

Right about now some parents are facing or about to face a different aspect of the scheduling nightmare. Among our friends, three children got married this summer. Soon enough it is going to be yom tov time. And that's where the war begins. Who will get the kids for which yom tom? Some people have a minhag that the first year belongs to the kallah's side. Nice in theory but it doesn't always work out in practice. Things get more complicated because there are other married siblings and other muchatonim to have to work things out with. And those other muchatonim themselves also have other muchatonim, who also have muchatonim. Make a change anywhere along the line and a whole lot of people are not going to be happy.

Add in that some of our friends are already in the position where they are going to their married children for yom tov. What do you do with the newly married couple then? In theory it should be that the new younger couple gets invited to the married sibling as well. That's the theory. But sometimes that sibling just doesn't have the room to house another couple. Sometimes siblings get along better in absentia than crowded together in a small space for a few days.

One of these friends is facing the possibility that no children will be coming home for yom tov. They truly aren't happy about that. But trying to reschedule even one of their kids would require a world conference just to get all the "players" into one room to try to renegotiate.

A different friend thought to solve her problem by inviting the muchatonim for yom tov as well as the newly married couple. And it might have worked, only the muchatonim were on the schedule to have two other of their married kids for yom tov this time.

Once upon a time, when parents and married children mostly lived near each other, it was far easier to figure out meals to be eaten together over a yom tov. But today, when people live so spread out, where there are more children, requiring more scheduling, just getting together for a few days can be seemingly impossible.

At a time when we should all be joyful and full of yom tov spirit, some families are going to be nursing hurt feelings. I don't know that there is any easy answer to this scheduling dilemma, or even any answer at all. I do know that resentment and hurt make for very poor spices for yom tov meals. Anyone out there with any practical suggestions that might help?

Just What is Off the Derech

I'm a realist in most things. I recognize that even with the best of intentions, even with the best of education and chizuk to keep our kids "on the derech," things can go wrong. Sometimes you can pinpoint why a particular person decides that being frum is no longer for them; many times you cannot. But just what is it that we mean when we talk about going off the derech?

Let me illustrate why I'm not sure what that means when others use the term. An acquaintance and I found ourselves together recently. For a few moments we did the "polite" thing and caught up generally on our families. She decided to unload and I guess I was handy. One of her daughters went off the derech, her term. She is bitter, to say the least. She is taking the whole thing very personally. She is upset by what this is doing to her other children. She cannot stand the looks she knows she is getting from others in her community. People cannot seem to look her straight in the face. Not just bitter, but angry too. And then she gets weepy. How will she ever have this couple in her home for a Shabbos or Yom Tov or for a simcha? She will never be able to go to her daughter on these occasions either. Fortunately, as she put it, the daughter is living in California now so at least she isn't flaunting herself here in NY.

I excused myself as soon as was humanly possible because the negative vibes were really making me uncomfortable. While leaving the room I ran into another acquaintance who told me that she noticed I was talking to person X. Then she told me to take anything she told me with a grain of salt. Yup, I was puzzled. And even though I really, really didn't want or need to know any of this I got cornered and told the "real" story. Yes, the daughter went off the derech, if by derech is meant the road her parents were traveling on. That road was the black hat road, the college only if it's Touro and even better would be one of the diploma mills road. That road was the no Internet road, no secular books road. That road was the stockings/tights at all times and black skirt road. We've seen that road before; some of you may even travel on it at times.

So which road did the daughter move onto? She is traveling what some would identify as the MO Turnpike. She has ditched the uniform, although she doesn't wear pants or sleeveless. She goes to movies now or watches them on cable. She has the Internet. She's attending a college in California for a graduate degree as a Physician's Assistant. Her hubby doesn't wear the black hat lavush. He wears jeans. He wears a srugie. His tzitzit are tucked inside his pants. He davens nusach ashkenaz. He went to a day school, not a yeshiva.



Driving home I think to myself that things have really gotten screwed up in Klal if this is what is considered going off the derech, if this is what has some parents wailing and almost to the point of tearing kriah. No, I imagine it might not be comfortable for family members of wide diversity to find a neutral ground for some occasions. But just how is any of this going off the derech? We really must find another term to use if our children are different in their religious observance than we are. If we don't, I can see how telling a child who is different religiously over and over that he/she is off the derech just might actually push them off that derech on to a derech we might like even less.

An Uncommon Occurence...I hope

I had a doctor's appointment off Island and had to wait a bit to get in and see the doctor. That was okay since the doctor's wife runs the office, and we've been friends with this couple for decades. She and I were talking, catching up on what was going on with our respective families. It was also a chance to catch up on what was going on with some mutual friends that we have whom she sees more often than we do. When I asked about a particular couple I got a real shock. I was told that they got divorced last month.

Now we are talking here about a couple married almost 44 years. They are already great grand parents. As I received the news I quickly ran through my mind my knowledge of this couple. There was nothing that stood out and yelled "divorce coming." In point of fact, they seemed just like the rest of us. And then I asked what could have happened that would break asunder a relationship that had run this long.

Well, welcome to the modern age, the one where the younger generations have a different viewpoint about what older people should and should not be doing. In a nutshell, this couple had a whole bunch of kids, grand kids and even great grand kids who were counting on this couple to keep on plugging away, keep on working, keep on providing services. The wife, who happens to be the one who made the higher salary all along, wanted to get herself unentangled from responsibilities she was not in favor of any longer. She wanted to cut down and then cut out her working. She wanted to use her older years "indulging" herself a little bit. She wanted her life back. Not only were her children panicking at the thought, but her husband was not in favor either. He didn't mind actively parenting 4 generations up until the grave; she did. Obviously they couldn't work out their differences and divorce was the result.

I sat there with my mouth hanging open. Yeah, I could see where a real life style change on the part of one partner could cause problems with the other partner, bad problems. But how did it come to this? My friend's take was that the social pressure to conform to what "everyone" else was doing finally got to be too much. Sadder still, only one of her four kids is talking to her right now. Accident that this child is the only one totally independent, who has never asked for nor needed financial help from her parents?

I'd like to believe that this divorce is a one-off occurrence, an anomaly for older couples. I'd like to believe that there were underlying causes that we none of us knew about already many decades back. I'd like to, but I can't. One occurrence does not a trend make, and I'm not saying that this is the wave of the future, but even one ripple should be looked at as instructive. It's not the first time that I've said that the relationship between the various generations now living needs serious tweaking. I hope that tweaking comes before there are more casualties in my generation.

Then and Now----The Holocaust Generation

The separations between the generations all living side by side today are more than ones of age. The Holocaust was a defining moment for my parents' generation and for some of us in my generation as well. It plays almost no role but a historical one for the generations after mine. And in a way the Holocaust is responsible for the widely divergent parenting approaches between my parents' generation and mine, and between some of my generation and the generations that follow. Let's call my parents' generation the Holocaust Generation. My generation is known as the Baby Boomers. Following my generation is Generation X, fondly also known as the "Me" Generation. And then there is Generation Y or the Millenials. How do they differ?

The Holocaust Generation literally came back from the dead. And the world they found after the war had no relationship to any world they had ever known. Families were destroyed, and those members who remained were dispersed to the literal four corners of the earth. Immigrants who arrived to the US, regardless of what kind of home they had come from in Europe, arrived with nothing more than could be carried in a few valises. Everything in this country was strange to them and yet here they were, expected to rebuild their lives.

One hallmark of this generation was a fear of absence, of people and things. Money was not all that easy to come by for most of the immigrants and they saved diligently, against some time when maybe they would need to take the money and run. They wasted nothing, ever. Throwing away leftovers? Didn't happen. They wrote notes on the backs of old envelopes and reused and reused the bags that came from the grocery. Clothing? If you weren't naked then you had enough clothing. And when children outgrew something it was diligently passed along because why would someone want to spend precious money on new things when the old things still had plenty of use to them? They watched over their children with an eagle eye; they knew exactly where they were at every given moment.

This generation also wanted better for their children, a lot better. And they looked at education as the tool that would make things better. There was a great respect on the part of this generation for education and for educators. Being a teacher was an honored calling. And this generation was mostly unanimous in one aspect: the school was always right. Heaven help a student who came home and complained that the teacher yelled at him for doing X,Y or Z. If a student brought home poor marks it was the student who ended up in the doghouse, not the teacher. Homework was assigned and homework was done--in this the teachers and parents were united partners.

And yes, for the Holocaust Generation new technology and new innovations came along slowly and were accepted cautiously. And no, the Holocaust Generation did not run en mass after every new doodad that came on the market. Old is what was precious to them. They bought things to last for years, if not for a lifetime. They moved out of tenement and project housing, much of which had no private bathrooms or that had shared kitchens, into roomier quarters, more spacious apartments and homes they purchased with hard earned money. They put plastic covers on chairs and couches so that the furniture would last "forever." Going into debt was rarely heard of; you bought what you could pay for, and you saved up so you could buy. Wildly expensive bar mitzvahs and weddings? No way. Birthday parties for children with entertainment and catered food? No way.

This generation did fairly well for itself here in the US. Most of the immigrants made enough money to give them a sense of security; some did extraordinarily well for themselves. Yet, even those who did that well economically were usually careful to avoid real public ostentation. Many gave tzedaka generously and also became movers and shakers in the Jewish communities, but few made public "spectacles" of themselves, throwing their wealth into others' faces. There was both the European idea of its being vulgar to flaunt money and possessions and its being dangerous for Jews to call too much attention to themselves. These Jews did not live in 1/4 acre palaces. They may have had "nice" homes but not the kind that would raise kinah in other Jews, certainly not in goyim. What they wanted was to blend in, because standing out could be dangerous.

Family life was central. Cousins, no matter how far down the family tree, were kept in touch with. Privacy was valued, and family matters stayed in the family. No, not all marriages for that generation were happy ones, and some should have been dissolved but weren't. Divorce was considered a busha, both among the frum and in the general society at large, and people suffered, for the most part silently.

What did this generation do when it came to getting their kids married? With the exception of the Williamsburger chassidim, they pretty much did nothing more then tell their family and friends that Yankele or Sarale was looking to get married. And the single children had friends from the neighborhood and from school who they asked about a possible fix up. The Boro Park of today that is so restrictive would not be recognized by the Holocaust Generation. In the old Boro Park Friday night was shpatzeer (stroll) night and groups of boys and groups of girls would stroll up and down 13th Avenue to see and be seen. Sometimes groups stopped to talk to each other. And if they didn't stop to talk, they sure stopped to look. Shabbos afternoon the process repeated itself on 14th Avenue. And there were hundreds of shidduchim that came about because a boy and a girl met at Brooklyn College or at Queens or at City Uptown. Sometimes you had already met the person who asked you out and other times it was a blind date. If I had a quarter for every boy I went out with who I passed on to a friend if it wasn't for me, I'd be retired in comfort by now.

For most of the immigrant Holocaust Generation their major criteria for a possible shidduch for their children was that the person come from a heimishe home. By this they meant of European extraction also with an immigrant background, and from the same general geographic area of Europe--either Eastern or Western. But even here heimishe was not carved in stone. Many a child of the Holocaust Generation married an Amerikaner or someone from out of their geographic area. One of our closest friends is a couple where he is a born and bred Breuer Yeki and she is a Hungarian. Caused just a little bit of a stir when they got married but the marriage is at over 40 years and still going strong.

Add as a second criteria that the person had to be frum. And everyone understood what that meant without needing to read 4,895 pages of info on the person. How close together a couple was in their frumkeit was something that generally they found out about while dating.

What kind of investigation did the parents do before a couple went out? You have to be kidding. Investigating? Usually investigating was limited to asking someone who might know the family if it was a "nice" family. So what kind of information did you get about someone who was a blind date? If you were lucky the person doing the fix up actually got the name correct. And maybe if you were really lucky they got the age and height correct. Sometimes you even found out what city the person lived in. They might tell you the person was in college and what they were majoring in, or they might tell you what job the person had. If a guy or girl had already dated the person they might tell you a little bit about his/her personality. And that was it. All the other personal information was considered dating fodder.

Dating was a new experience for the parents of the Holocaust Generation. They mostly had nothing to compare it to in Europe, a Europe where shadchanim were a "treasured" part of each community. As they said "Siz ah niyah velt."--it's a new world. But here is the funny thing: these parents let their kids date because they knew they had raised them right and that they weren't going to do something crazy while on a date. Okay, honesty compels me to admit that there were some "wild things" in the frum community who took full advantage of the 60s attitude prevalent while they were dating. But they really were the exception rather than the rule. Did my mom and countless other moms ask how a date went? Sure, but that was basically the extent of it. Only at the point where a relationship was really getting serious did some parents ask for more information on the family. When I decided that my hubby was "it" my parents did not question my judgement nor ask me to prove to their satisfaction that I knew what I was doing. I do believe they asked if he was making a living. Yeah, he was, at least enough for us to get married on, certainly if you counted in my graduate fellowship as well. The Holocaust Generation, knowing how they had raised us, let us be the adults they knew us to be.

For the Holocaust Generation there was a sometimes role reversal, although always with the greatest kovod going to parents. The children, born, schooled and raised here, were sometimes better at navigating this strange new world. Their English was more proficient. They were out and about sometimes more than the parents were. There were parents who depended on their children to translate for them when dealing with financial matters and government matters. These were adult concerns and they came early to many of the children of this generation. While the children of this generation were protected in many ways, they nonetheless knew a great deal about "adult" requirements and concerns.

There were many, many working wives and mothers in the Holocaust Generation. When the immigrants arrived here most qualified only for minimally paying jobs, and two people working was a necessity for survival. Many of these women had to leave their homes to work; some were "lucky" and got piece work to do at home. Either way, children were involved in helping out at home, offering whatever service they were capable of. The children of the Holocaust Generation very early on learned that if they wanted spending money they were going to have to earn it. And if you were looking to buy narishkeit with that earned money your parents were going to sit you down and explain the facts of economic life to you.

So, was this generation perfect? No, in the way that no generation is a perfect one. And quite inadvertently they planted the seeds for some of the problems that are seen in the generations following them. While what I have written above applies to the children of this generation in general, it applies most specifically to the oldest of the children more than the youngest. By the time the youngest children were born their parents were already established here and life was far easier than it was when the oldest children were born. The parents had "Americanized" a bit and were less likely to frown at things that the children wanted. They took it as a matter of pride that they could provide these things, although still with a shiur. While these families were "child concerned" they weren't "child centered."

A recent comment on a different blog referred to the children of the Holocaust Generation as "fragile," that the Holocaust Generation babied their children and overprotected them. Sorry, the wrong generations are being referred to. The Holocaust Generation raised a generation of "survivors," and fragile hardly describes them. It is the children of the Holocaust survivors, the Boomers, who became the activists of their time period. Unlike our parents, we Boomers were not afraid of getting up and being counted. We marched, we bussed, we sat in, we protested, we wrote petitions and we signed them, we let our voices be heard--and we were part of the groups that changed a whole lot of practices that were prejudicial to anyone who was not a white, Protestant male. Are you a Sabbath observer who can apply for virtually any job you want and not be told "Sorry, if you don't come in on Friday night/Shabbos, don't bother to apply here"? Thank the boomers for that. Are you female with a wealth of opportunities available to you, both in education and in the general world? Thank the boomers for that. Ever hear of the quota system that was used in universities and in the corporate world? It's mostly disappeared, and you can thank the boomers for that.

And yes, fairness also requires me to admit that the Boomers raised the next generation, the "Me" generation. And somehow, in getting rid of all the old iniquities that were present during our younger years, we also got rid of some of the child rearing practices that were used on us. And the result, in many cases, is a generation that thinks of itself as entitled to get anything and everything that it wants, without counting the cost. Some of us toed the line and raised our children mostly along the lines of how we, ourselves, were raised (mostly those who fall in the older portion of the Boomers). Yes, we had more money available to us, thanks to the insistence for getting an education that our parents had, but we passed on the idea that with money comes responsibility. The idea took with some of the next generation, but, unfortunately, it didn't take with a whole lot of the rest.

Let me end with this. A friend, a few years older than I am and the child of Holocaust survivors, finds herself in an awkward situation, one she never dreamed she would find herself in. She and her husband, both college educated and both professionals, raised three children. She saw to it that all of her children would get a college education and become professionals themselves. And then there are her grandchildren. She has 19 of them. And the oldest one is getting married soon. Ask her male grandchildren what they are going to do/be "when they grow up" and the answer is "We're going to sit and learn." Ask them who will take care of the mundane matters of providing food and shelter and even the youngest will tell you "Mom and Dad will take care of it." Sometimes they'll substitute "the in-laws" for mom and dad. And worse, they tack on "Bubi and Zayde will pitch in, just like they are doing now." My friend's mother hears all of this and shakes her head often. She has no idea how this situation came about. SHE didn't raise children who were takers, who were dependent long past the age of dependency. She's fairly certain that her children didn't inculcate these ideas into their own children. So where did all this come from? As to my friend, she and her husband are at an age now when they would love to slow down, to cut back, to relax a lot more. And they find that they can't.

At Shabbos lunch a few weeks ago someone at the table asked if I was still working. Yes, I am. Her comment? "The kids still need supporting?" No, but the fact that she could ask that tells me a whole lot about what is going on with the following generations. My generation, the children of the Holocaust survivors is fragile? Try frazzled and you'll be getting it more like it is.

Looking for Chizuk?

I'm providing a link to an article that may bring tears to your eyes but that can also bring strength for your undertakings. Can there be a bigger tragedy for a parent then to lose a child? See how a few parents reacted to this tragedy. A lesson in this for all of us.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0209/simantov_live.php3

Navigating the In-law Shoals

Everyone who has ever lived has heard the in-law stories. Some are truly funny and some are truly frightening. While some are undoubtedly exagerrations, others are fully true. Having heard the stories we all frantically attempt to not only find our zivug but also make sure that his/her family is exactly to our liking. Therein is where the trouble begins.

Here is what I believe, come to over many years of observing others and yes, of being a daughter-in-law. Unless there is a major issue in someone else's family--one side is all awaiting execution on Federal charges, for example--forget about the family when making your decision on getting married. Yes, forget about the family.

Here are the facts about families. You will both have one. They will not be identical to each other, even if they are fairly similar. Even if they are your choson's or kallah's nearest and dearest they will be strangers to you and it takes a long time to develop a relationship. Sometimes that relationship may be a very close one; other times the relationship is only cordial or even "business-like." And sometimes that relationship may never get beyond bare minimum tolerance. You cannot legislate liking or love for strangers no matter how you might like to; it either comes or it doesn't.

Unless you have no parents of your own, making a shidduch is NOT about finding a new set of parents. Families will take sides in any disagreement, the line usually drawn with their being on the side of the child that is biologically theirs. When a husband and wife have a disagreement it is NOT an us versus them problem, families included as combatants--it should only be a he versus she problem. Families experience "loss" when a child marries, and they attempt to put off that loss by holding on when they should be letting go. What others may see as meddling they see as being "close."

Here are some other facts. Newly married couples are not some possession to be squabbled over. In fact, they no longer "belong" to their birth families. They are now a completely new family of their own. Our sages tell us that a man should leave his home and cleave to his wife. In short, the new unit takes precedence over the old unit. No, you are not "divorcing" your family, but their precedence in your life has been changed. Despite our all knowing this, putting it into practice may not always be easy.

In short, we give "family"--his and hers--too much emphasis when looking at a possible shidduch. So what if you don't "like" his family? So what if you can't stand his sister? Is absolutely every member of your family and extended family so perfect, so absolutely loveable? Come on, a little honesty. You know, your aunt/uncle/cousin that you wish would emigrate anywhere as long as it is really far from you?

What should be primary in seeking a shidduch is the family that you hope to build, not the families already in existence. I am not, repeat not saying that family cannot be of importance to a newly married couple. But unless we are equating marriage with a governmentally run animal breeding program where an element of "eugenics" is part of the program, then could we please stop giving family so much emphasis in the shidduch process? Even with all the in-depth questions that get asked and all the investigating that gets done about the families, a couple gets married and there are still hostilities that develop, problems that arise, and people you are just plain never going to adore. That, too, is part of married life.

They're Your Children You Say?

A reader who wishes to stay anonymous has been having an ongoing email conversation with Sefardi Lady at Orthonomics and with me. The topic of the conversation is that soon to be parent's fear as to who will be more influential with his as yet unborn child: himself, and his wife, or the schools the child will go to. In particular this gentleman has no desire to see his child fall into what he sees as the "I'll sit and learn and you will support me and my family" trap. He wants his child to see work as both necessary and as worthwhile. He fears that he will not be able to overcome the influence of the schools, and yes, parts of the community as well. He asks if it is even possible to be foremost in one's child's life today. Basically, his fears hinge on the question of whose hashkafah shall be dominant in a child's life: a school's hashkafah or the family's hashkafah.

I only wish that there were some easy answer to give this reader. He is first going to be facing a problem that some of us have been wrestling with for a while. It boils down to one simple question: whose children are they? Common sense would require that we say that children "belong" to their parents. Our government concurs with this answer for the most part. Children are the responsibility of their parents, and only parents can make decisions for their minor children--unless you cross certain lines. If you choose to abuse your children, if you choose to starve your children, if you refuse to provide any kind of education for your children, then the government can and will step in. Those areas where the government can choose to act in are those that protect the physical/mental welfare of the child when that welfare falls below minimally acceptable social guidelines.

But it is not any kind of governmental meddling that worries my reader; it is meddling of a different kind. Schools somehow come to develop a particular hashkafah, a modus operendi if you will. The worldview represented by this hashkafah organizes and colors every act of the school. There are rebbaim who guide the school in establishing the hashkafah, who are the halachic advisors that help shape the hashkafah. For the most part, every act of the yeshiva, every decision, hinges on how well that action or decision supports the school's hashkafah.

And then there are parents. Parents also work under a particular hashkafah. A family hashkafah comes into existence under many influences. Parents may be continuing the hashkafah they themselves were raised under by their parents. They may bring into their family elements of the hashkafot of the schools they attended. They may bring in elements of their shul and its rabbi's hashkafah. They may read and study and bring in elements from the things they have studied. They may observe others and adopt/adapt elements of the hashkafahs these people live under.

Now what happens when a child, raised in a family with hashkafah X, enters into a school with hashkafah Y? In a very few schools there is not much of a clash. What the school says is while the student is physically in the school building that child needs to follow the rules set down by the school, but out of school is not the school's concern; that concern belongs to the parents. Of course, these schools teach according to hashkafah Y, but they don't make a fetish out of telling the student that only hashkafah Y has merit. Would they prefer that a student adopt the school's hashkafah as their own? Sure they would, but they don't make a major issue out of it.

And then there are the other schools. These schools do not consider themselves successful unless they have not only presented the school hashkafah to the students, but that the students have adopted the school's hashkafah as their own, with no exceptions. They consider it as part of their duty to introduce the students to the "true" hashkafah. Are they aware that students come from a wide variety of homes with varying hashkafahs in those homes? Sure, and for the most part they don't care. These schools take the attitude that hashkafah setting is not the purview of parents; hashkafah setting falls under the rubric of school responsibility. Not only do they expect students to toe the hashkafah line while in school, but they expect the students to toe that same hashkafah line when outside of school. They expect that students will observe school hashkafah when at home. And they expect that parents will fall in line with the school's hashkafah as well. Note: some schools get around the hashkafah conflict by not admitting any students who do not already follow all or most of the school's hashkafah.

So what is a parent supposed to do? Abdicate all parental responsibility and hand it over to the schools? The schools wouldn't mind, except, of course, for those "minor" issues of paying tuition, feeding and clothing the student, taking care of any medical issues, paying for the required school activities, paying for weddings and then supporting couples where the husband is sitting and learning. They magnanimously "allow" parents to be a part of these things, as long as how these things are done follow the school hashkafah.

Let's look at a couple of areas of conflict where school and parental haskafahs may differ. Parents may feel that knowing about the Internet and being able to navigate it are in line with their hashkafah. They are aware of the pitfalls and have in place house rules that keep their children from going online to places not acceptable to the parents. The school where the parents send their children has a different hashkafah; the Internet is treif, full stop. The parents feel that what goes on in the house is their business to decide; the school feels that what goes on in the house is its business to decide. The child is caught in the middle between two warring parties. Substitute television for the Internet and you have another common war ground. Substitute secular reading material and you have yet another conflict. Substitute going to college and the war continues.

And then there is my reader's concern: work. What are parents to do when a school's hashkafah allows it to denigrate those who work, where the hashkafah says that only sitting and learning for as long as possible is acceptable? Working parents will try and instill in their children the idea that work is both honorable and necessary. They will point out to their children that it is working that allows the money to come in that pays for all necessities, including schooling. They will point out that no school could survive if there were no working parents. They will point to the numerous tzedaka organizations that could not function if there were not working people with the money to support the organizations. They will point to themselves as examples of people who are committed to Yiddishkeit, who are frum but who work as part of their hashkafah. And maybe they will be successful with their children---and maybe they won't be. Because the schools will counter with yes, there are working parents, and it is the responsibility of these parents to see to it that their children don't have to work, so that they can sit and learn. It is the responsibility of parents to support children ki l'olam chasdoh.

And then parents will have to patiently explain to their children that there is a flaw in the school's reasoning. If parent's have the responsibility to support their grown and married children, then whose responsibility is it to support those children's children? Following the school's logic would say that it is the parents of those children who need to support them. But those parents are not working, so how will they support them? So now the original parents are supposed to be supporting three generations. (Co-tangentially, the same schools that argue that grandparents can and should be supporting three generations also argue that retirement is not a "frum" concept. These are the same schools that are not concerned in any way, shape or form with the very real concerns of what services our communities are going to have to provide for an aging older generation.) At this point any "logic" on the part of the schools' argument falls apart. Unless you are Baron von Rothschild, you aren't going to be able to support two generations on one generation's income, never mind three generations.

If parents patiently explain this to their children they just might be successful in having the children see that parental hashkafah is the better choice in this case. But I wouldn't count on it. The schools have our children for more hours during the day than we do. There is more opportunity for them to present "their side." Then there is peer pressure, which the schools count on. Children have a need to fit in with their peers. If their peers are pressuring them to follow the school's mission, to head off to Israel, to sit and learn while their parents support them, then the parents are fighting the battle on two fronts.

So what can parents do? Any or all of the following:
1. They can look at their hashkafah and decide on which points they do not want to compromise, and then pick a school that fits in with those points. It may mean picking a school that is more to the left than their basic hashkafah. It may mean heading more towards Modern Orthodoxy rather than to the right.

2. They can pick communities to live in that are more in line with their own hashkafah, or communities that have many hashkafahs represented and where the community members live in harmony, accepting that there are many hashkafahs.

3. They can choose as personal friends those whose hashkafahs are the same or similar to their own. In this way their children will see that it is not only their parents who hold a particular view but others as well.

4. They can be fully involved parents, spending as much time as is possible with their children, and representing themselves as the model they want their children to follow. They are going to need to start when the children are still young and be consistent in their message as the children grow older. They cannot throw up their hands and say "There is nothing I can do to counteract the school's message."

5. This point can be hard for parents: sometimes, no matter what you do or say, your children are going to be different from you. It then becomes the parents' responsibility to say: "Fine, you have chosen the derech you want to go on. Just understand that it is YOUR derech, not ours, and that you will have to support yourself if you choose this route."

I am not being facetious when I say that I am very thankful that my children are grown up and that I do not have this to contend with now. And I wish my reader hatzlachah as he begins his parenting life. Any other pointers that readers can give as to how they balance the war of the hashkafahs would be appreciated.