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.
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Friday, June 8, 2012
No, You Can't
At least in theory we can all recognize when two items are mutually exclusive. Either you are sleeping or you are awake, but you can't be both at the same time. However, the asifa that took place re the Internet brought up a situation where this basic rule need not apply.
Let me backtrack a moment. There is always much discussion about SAHMs--stay at home moms. For many, perhaps most, in klal this is the "only" correct place for the mother of children. I'm not arguing about the correctness of this but would point out that it is the "ideal," and is not possible for many, many mothers due to other requirements that klal has. You want parents to have large families? You want all the children in yeshivot? You want them in summer camp? You want families living in certain communities and places as opposed to others? Okay, but just how is all this going to be paid for when you also want young men sitting and learning as opposed to working? Even when--begrudgingly--you say that a man can go out to work, just how much money on average is this quite possibly under-educated and under-experienced young man going to be making?
Ah yes, silly me, I forgot about that other requirement--the one where a woman's parents are supposed to be kicking in megabucks in support. Hmmm, let me see, those parents have a SAHM in the house and they have 5 kids who between them have 31 children, all in yeshiva. And the father's name doesn't happen to be Warren Buffet. Support for their children may be a tiny drop in the bucket for what is actually needed to live the lifestyle some groups in klal insist on.
Now to get back on topic. The Internet represents a way that the mothers in situations as described above can, indeed, be in two places at once. They can be at home and they can be at work. I'm not saying it's easy to do this, but it is possible, and yes, I know women who are doing this. But that also brings up a different issue that would need to be addressed. Many of our young women are being channeled into the therapy fields or into teaching. Here's the thing--you can't do physical therapy over the Internet and you can't teach a school class that way either. (Obviously there are online classes available, but those are given by teachers employed by schools, not by SAHMs.)
So, some in klal would need to change their views about the Internet if they want SAHMs to be the rule, not the exception. Those same people would also need to change their minds about what is "suitable" employment for the SAHMs. And if they want their future SAHMs prepared to be able to work from home, they are going to have to give good instruction in computer use while these future SAHMs are in high school, or even college. And they are going to need to do some thorough and objective research about what types of jobs can be conducted over the Internet.
Those in klal who are so opposed to the Internet--and no, it's not only because of possible access to pornography--need to heed the old saying "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." The circumstances under which they would be "joining them" could be theirs to decide, but only if they first take off their blinders and look at just what century we are living in and under what circumstances.
Let me backtrack a moment. There is always much discussion about SAHMs--stay at home moms. For many, perhaps most, in klal this is the "only" correct place for the mother of children. I'm not arguing about the correctness of this but would point out that it is the "ideal," and is not possible for many, many mothers due to other requirements that klal has. You want parents to have large families? You want all the children in yeshivot? You want them in summer camp? You want families living in certain communities and places as opposed to others? Okay, but just how is all this going to be paid for when you also want young men sitting and learning as opposed to working? Even when--begrudgingly--you say that a man can go out to work, just how much money on average is this quite possibly under-educated and under-experienced young man going to be making?
Ah yes, silly me, I forgot about that other requirement--the one where a woman's parents are supposed to be kicking in megabucks in support. Hmmm, let me see, those parents have a SAHM in the house and they have 5 kids who between them have 31 children, all in yeshiva. And the father's name doesn't happen to be Warren Buffet. Support for their children may be a tiny drop in the bucket for what is actually needed to live the lifestyle some groups in klal insist on.
Now to get back on topic. The Internet represents a way that the mothers in situations as described above can, indeed, be in two places at once. They can be at home and they can be at work. I'm not saying it's easy to do this, but it is possible, and yes, I know women who are doing this. But that also brings up a different issue that would need to be addressed. Many of our young women are being channeled into the therapy fields or into teaching. Here's the thing--you can't do physical therapy over the Internet and you can't teach a school class that way either. (Obviously there are online classes available, but those are given by teachers employed by schools, not by SAHMs.)
So, some in klal would need to change their views about the Internet if they want SAHMs to be the rule, not the exception. Those same people would also need to change their minds about what is "suitable" employment for the SAHMs. And if they want their future SAHMs prepared to be able to work from home, they are going to have to give good instruction in computer use while these future SAHMs are in high school, or even college. And they are going to need to do some thorough and objective research about what types of jobs can be conducted over the Internet.
Those in klal who are so opposed to the Internet--and no, it's not only because of possible access to pornography--need to heed the old saying "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." The circumstances under which they would be "joining them" could be theirs to decide, but only if they first take off their blinders and look at just what century we are living in and under what circumstances.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
No, Letting Go is not Easy
It has ever been thus, that mothers do not find it easy to let go of their children and let them spread their wings and fly free. But yes, eventually all those little "birdies" find their wings and off they go. And yes, those mothers end up facing their empty nests, with sighs for what once was and deep hopes for what will be
As children my mother and my aunt sang the old lullaby to us, "Ofyn veg steyt a boym." (Ever notice how a whole lot of those Yiddish songs and lullabies for children have some seriously depressing and/or sad elements in them?) For all moms who wonder what will be I offer the following (Hebrew subtitles).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq6LMaFu2OI
For the Yiddish lyrics and English translation, go to
http://www.hebrewsongs.com/?song=oyfnvegshteytaboym
As children my mother and my aunt sang the old lullaby to us, "Ofyn veg steyt a boym." (Ever notice how a whole lot of those Yiddish songs and lullabies for children have some seriously depressing and/or sad elements in them?) For all moms who wonder what will be I offer the following (Hebrew subtitles).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq6LMaFu2OI
For the Yiddish lyrics and English translation, go to
http://www.hebrewsongs.com/?song=oyfnvegshteytaboym
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
On Yerusha
The idea of inheriting wealth from parents is not a new one, nor is it limited in any way to the frum community. At one time it was land ownership that was what was being looked at by children. Owning your own piece of property, particularly if that property were also income producing, gave you stability and status. Land remained in the hands of a single family down through the generations.
That is not now the case in the same way. Yes, people still own land, but for most people what is being talked about is a house and the property it sits on. And that house is seen as a source of cash rather than something to be passed on from generation to generation. When parents die their homes are mostly sold to get the money out.
Sometimes inheriting wealth can mean getting money, not just land. Parents with savings obviously can't take those savings with them when they die. In addition to land and money there are items of worth that may be left when parents die, items like jewelry and silver and other valuable items.
An awful lot of people aren't just anticipating that they will get a yerusha from their parents when those parents die--they are counting on it. Frankly I find that more than a little macabre.
Yes, as a parent I want to leave something to my children. But my priorities may be a bit different than others. The first and most important thing I want to leave them with is a passel of great memories, memories of time spent together as a family. I want to leave them with a clear idea of where they came from and how they got here.
Next on my list are the sentimental items that spell family time to me and to them. Yes, I want to leave them my mother's first lachter, purchased in Europe when she first got married. And I want to leave them the various other "precious" items that are tied in to our holiday and Shabbos and family observances. And yes, there is jewelry that I want to pass on. I wear my grandmother's engagement ring on my right hand, a grandmother I never was privileged to meet. It is my hope that one of my kids will, after I'm gone, also wear that ring as a connection to the past and in honor of that grandmother of long ago.
Leave them a house? Well, maybe. Maybe, unless I sell it and move elsewhere. Maybe, unless I'm no longer able to live in it and need to sell it to meet my own needs at some point in the future. And money? Hmmm, maybe. It certainly is a nice dream to think that I could leave my kids much better off by leaving them a pile of money. It's a nice dream to think that I could be guaranteeing them a secure retirement through my efforts. But it's a dream, not necessarily a reality, because here is what I know in the here and now: I do not, while living, want to become a financial burden on my children. Given spending my own money to provide for myself while I'm living and leaving over money when I'm not, spending while living wins.
And then there is this. What constitutes living? There is an attitude that is far too prevalent that once you've passed your 60s you've done and seen and bought all that you really need to sustain you or make you happy. 70-year-olds are supposed to live a sedate lifestyle. Certainly 80-year-olds should be doing so. What is there left for people in their 70s and 80s to "need" to spend on, other than a bit of food, a few pieces of clothing and plenty of gifts to the kids and grand kids and great grand kids?
The widowed mother of a friend here in the neighborhood answered that question in her own way. All the years of raising her children she was frugal while still providing everything she could for her family. Yes, she and her husband indulged occasionally in something just for themselves, but mostly after the kids were married and not too often. A few years ago she talked to her accountant, they went over what she had available in funds, and she went on a buying spree. She furnished her home with all the things she didn't "fargin" herself when she was younger. She bought an incredibly beautiful (and yes, expensive) Persian carpet for her living room, and every morning walked barefoot over that carpet for the lovely feeling it gave her. She bought pictures for her walls based on how beautiful she thought they were, not on how cheaply she could get them for. She treated herself to a magnificent set of expensive china dishes, and how thrilled she was when family came over and she could serve them on those pieces of fine china. And yes, she exchanged her 40-year-old dining room set that she had hated from day one for one she loved. Her feet had always given her trouble and she indulged herself in pairs of handmade, custom made shoes. She liked to do needlework, and she indulged herself in buying pure cashmere to knit with. Yes, in about two years she seriously spent down a lot of money. And she only had those two years to enjoy the rewards of her spending. So? Who was better entitled to enjoy that money than she was?
One of her kids was not awfully happy with the mother's indulgences (and yes, a few others in the neighborhood thought she was "going batty"). She thought of those purchases as being squandered money and was seriously doubting that her mother had all her mental faculties working. Her other children applauded their mom's actions. Who better deserved to reap the fruit of decades of labor than their mother? If this made her happy then who were they to be nay sayers? And yes, money--expectations of inheriting money--caused a sibling divide.
I like to think of that old saying as applying here: "It ain't over 'til it's over." This woman clearly understood that.
For children to not only assume that a windfall yerusha is coming down the road but to expect that it will be there is not being realistic, and certainly not altruistic. Assuming that parental largess will be forthcoming, thereby obviating the need for these children to prepare themselves, by themselves, for their own expenses, is a recipe for disaster.
And yes, I'm being cynical enough today to wonder just how this idea of "mandatory" yerusha effects decisions that some children will need to make about medical care for an elderly, sick parent.
NOTE: I am not forgetting that parents may have special needs children who, even as adults, may require special facilities and services that the children may not be able to provide for themselves because their situation prevents them from working and supporting themselves. Obviously such a situation requires long-term planning on the part of parents and yes, on the part of siblings as well. Such a situation, however, is outside of the norm and does not usually enter into the discussion of parental yerusha.
That is not now the case in the same way. Yes, people still own land, but for most people what is being talked about is a house and the property it sits on. And that house is seen as a source of cash rather than something to be passed on from generation to generation. When parents die their homes are mostly sold to get the money out.
Sometimes inheriting wealth can mean getting money, not just land. Parents with savings obviously can't take those savings with them when they die. In addition to land and money there are items of worth that may be left when parents die, items like jewelry and silver and other valuable items.
An awful lot of people aren't just anticipating that they will get a yerusha from their parents when those parents die--they are counting on it. Frankly I find that more than a little macabre.
Yes, as a parent I want to leave something to my children. But my priorities may be a bit different than others. The first and most important thing I want to leave them with is a passel of great memories, memories of time spent together as a family. I want to leave them with a clear idea of where they came from and how they got here.
Next on my list are the sentimental items that spell family time to me and to them. Yes, I want to leave them my mother's first lachter, purchased in Europe when she first got married. And I want to leave them the various other "precious" items that are tied in to our holiday and Shabbos and family observances. And yes, there is jewelry that I want to pass on. I wear my grandmother's engagement ring on my right hand, a grandmother I never was privileged to meet. It is my hope that one of my kids will, after I'm gone, also wear that ring as a connection to the past and in honor of that grandmother of long ago.
Leave them a house? Well, maybe. Maybe, unless I sell it and move elsewhere. Maybe, unless I'm no longer able to live in it and need to sell it to meet my own needs at some point in the future. And money? Hmmm, maybe. It certainly is a nice dream to think that I could leave my kids much better off by leaving them a pile of money. It's a nice dream to think that I could be guaranteeing them a secure retirement through my efforts. But it's a dream, not necessarily a reality, because here is what I know in the here and now: I do not, while living, want to become a financial burden on my children. Given spending my own money to provide for myself while I'm living and leaving over money when I'm not, spending while living wins.
And then there is this. What constitutes living? There is an attitude that is far too prevalent that once you've passed your 60s you've done and seen and bought all that you really need to sustain you or make you happy. 70-year-olds are supposed to live a sedate lifestyle. Certainly 80-year-olds should be doing so. What is there left for people in their 70s and 80s to "need" to spend on, other than a bit of food, a few pieces of clothing and plenty of gifts to the kids and grand kids and great grand kids?
The widowed mother of a friend here in the neighborhood answered that question in her own way. All the years of raising her children she was frugal while still providing everything she could for her family. Yes, she and her husband indulged occasionally in something just for themselves, but mostly after the kids were married and not too often. A few years ago she talked to her accountant, they went over what she had available in funds, and she went on a buying spree. She furnished her home with all the things she didn't "fargin" herself when she was younger. She bought an incredibly beautiful (and yes, expensive) Persian carpet for her living room, and every morning walked barefoot over that carpet for the lovely feeling it gave her. She bought pictures for her walls based on how beautiful she thought they were, not on how cheaply she could get them for. She treated herself to a magnificent set of expensive china dishes, and how thrilled she was when family came over and she could serve them on those pieces of fine china. And yes, she exchanged her 40-year-old dining room set that she had hated from day one for one she loved. Her feet had always given her trouble and she indulged herself in pairs of handmade, custom made shoes. She liked to do needlework, and she indulged herself in buying pure cashmere to knit with. Yes, in about two years she seriously spent down a lot of money. And she only had those two years to enjoy the rewards of her spending. So? Who was better entitled to enjoy that money than she was?
One of her kids was not awfully happy with the mother's indulgences (and yes, a few others in the neighborhood thought she was "going batty"). She thought of those purchases as being squandered money and was seriously doubting that her mother had all her mental faculties working. Her other children applauded their mom's actions. Who better deserved to reap the fruit of decades of labor than their mother? If this made her happy then who were they to be nay sayers? And yes, money--expectations of inheriting money--caused a sibling divide.
I like to think of that old saying as applying here: "It ain't over 'til it's over." This woman clearly understood that.
For children to not only assume that a windfall yerusha is coming down the road but to expect that it will be there is not being realistic, and certainly not altruistic. Assuming that parental largess will be forthcoming, thereby obviating the need for these children to prepare themselves, by themselves, for their own expenses, is a recipe for disaster.
And yes, I'm being cynical enough today to wonder just how this idea of "mandatory" yerusha effects decisions that some children will need to make about medical care for an elderly, sick parent.
NOTE: I am not forgetting that parents may have special needs children who, even as adults, may require special facilities and services that the children may not be able to provide for themselves because their situation prevents them from working and supporting themselves. Obviously such a situation requires long-term planning on the part of parents and yes, on the part of siblings as well. Such a situation, however, is outside of the norm and does not usually enter into the discussion of parental yerusha.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
When Families Grow
In the distant past times of celebration were a shared occurence--my side of the family and my hubby's side all together in one place. Relatively speaking we were a fairly small group, requiring space for "only" 15-30 people to gather together. This group would include all the siblings, aunts and uncles, and also whichever first cousins were in town (and yes, sometimes a second cousin or two with whom we were very close). Not only did we each get to see our nearest and dearest, but we also got to know the extended family on both sides.
Well, things have changed, and that type of a gathering is just simply not possible any longer, at least not at one time in one person's home. B"H the family has grown even as, sadly, members of my parents' generation are no longer here. And as the family has grown it has also dispersed, some living far from NY. Last night we gathered together "only" 19 people from my side for a Chanukah celebration--and that was short 4 people who were out of town, my brother's family, also out of town, and only included one first cousin and her family. Today is the gathering for my husband's side--"only" 44 people, and no cousins included.
Yes, I enjoy each and every one of the times we get together, while still missing the chance for all the sides to mix together. At other times during the year we make the time to connect to all the cousins, to let our children know the rest of the family. Still, it becomes a question of time and space. And it explains, at least in part, why the invitation lists for "major" simchas, such as brisim and bar mitzvahs and weddings are as long as they are. None of us want to lose that special connection to our family members, want to lose being able to celebrate together, even as practical considerations say it's just not going to happen on a regular basis.
So yes, families growing is something to be joyful about, while still recognizing that as each individual family grows, the ability to gather everyone together at the same time decreases. Whomever you are celebrating Chanukah with this year, I hope that you are making wonderful memories together, memories that form the tapestry that is family life, with all its various threads and colors.
Well, things have changed, and that type of a gathering is just simply not possible any longer, at least not at one time in one person's home. B"H the family has grown even as, sadly, members of my parents' generation are no longer here. And as the family has grown it has also dispersed, some living far from NY. Last night we gathered together "only" 19 people from my side for a Chanukah celebration--and that was short 4 people who were out of town, my brother's family, also out of town, and only included one first cousin and her family. Today is the gathering for my husband's side--"only" 44 people, and no cousins included.
Yes, I enjoy each and every one of the times we get together, while still missing the chance for all the sides to mix together. At other times during the year we make the time to connect to all the cousins, to let our children know the rest of the family. Still, it becomes a question of time and space. And it explains, at least in part, why the invitation lists for "major" simchas, such as brisim and bar mitzvahs and weddings are as long as they are. None of us want to lose that special connection to our family members, want to lose being able to celebrate together, even as practical considerations say it's just not going to happen on a regular basis.
So yes, families growing is something to be joyful about, while still recognizing that as each individual family grows, the ability to gather everyone together at the same time decreases. Whomever you are celebrating Chanukah with this year, I hope that you are making wonderful memories together, memories that form the tapestry that is family life, with all its various threads and colors.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
On Giving Thanks
For observant Jews, every day could be called Thanksgiving. We are adjoined to thank Hashem each day for the blessings he has given us. But yes, it is nice that our secular tradition sets aside a day each year just for the purpose of giving thanks and remembering the past.
It's so nice that most of the family does not have to work today and so we can get together to see each other and share a meal. As the family has grown, with children and grandchildren and great grandchildren added, it is harder for everyone to be together over a chag. Contact is limited to what is still the impersonal method of phones or computers. So here we have a day when we can travel by car and all meet in person. A time to ooh and aah about how the little ones have grown. A time to see where the bigger ones are heading to. A time to look at the generations present and marvel that this is possible. Four generations present at the same table--yes, something to truly give thanks for.
I hope you enjoy your day today, however you are choosing to give thanks. And yes, dear sister, I am truly thankful that it's you who will be cooking instead of me.
It's so nice that most of the family does not have to work today and so we can get together to see each other and share a meal. As the family has grown, with children and grandchildren and great grandchildren added, it is harder for everyone to be together over a chag. Contact is limited to what is still the impersonal method of phones or computers. So here we have a day when we can travel by car and all meet in person. A time to ooh and aah about how the little ones have grown. A time to see where the bigger ones are heading to. A time to look at the generations present and marvel that this is possible. Four generations present at the same table--yes, something to truly give thanks for.
I hope you enjoy your day today, however you are choosing to give thanks. And yes, dear sister, I am truly thankful that it's you who will be cooking instead of me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)