Piano Forum

Child rearing is not a career, don't be silly. It's something you do for - what? 18 years? - cos you have to.

A career spans a lifetime, and I'm not talking the corporate ladder. A career is what you do with your life and your skill and talents; it's how you contribute to society and make a mark. Having kids is something us "modern" chicks integrate with our career.

I didn't say that it was - to everyone. What I do believe, however, is that its status has been elevated in the minds of some people, most likely in defence of the very kind of relegated status that was once so widely ascribed to it. Of course some women manage to juggle career and child-rearing and this is indeed a more recent development. I just don't like to see those who, by their own choice (i.e. unenforced by others) regard child-rearing as a major priority for them, thought of somehow as inferior citizens. Being a successful MD or CEO of a corporation is often a major challenge; so's rearing children.

And children and career are not mutually exclusive. That's what us "modern" gals do, we juggle.

Women who feel they have to be "stay at home moms" are just throwbacks to the fifties who need to get a life

I take that back. That was unnecessarily inflammatory but you get my point.

I do indeed. But it's the "have to be" that is the crucial phrase here; I deprecate the situation where women are - or are made to feel - coerced into motherhood and domesticity.

But - if you think child rearing "was and is" a career why don't more men do it? Huh? Do men have dilemmas about giving up their careers to raise kids? I think not.

Some do nowadays; they're well in the mionority, I agree, but they do exist. "Whether they have "dilemmas" about it is, however, something that can only realistically be answered on a case-by-case basis. Men just draw the line at having them, that's all (so far, at any rate - who knows what the research biologists will come up with next?)...

Haha us "modern women" are masters of multitasking.

Not "mistresses", I note(!)...

Best,

Alistair

Logged

Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

ahinton

PS Silver Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 12149

Re: did the tv show 'sex and the city' accurately portray 'the modern woman'

Reply #25 on: June 21, 2006, 08:11:53 AM

Quote from: alwaystheangel on June 21, 2006, 02:23:57 PM

Child rearing is not a career, don't be silly. It's something you do for - what? 18 years? - cos you have to.

Just a brief P.S. Some women do it for considerably longer than this. A friend of mine has done it for 42 (that's to say a period of 42 years elapsed between the birth of her first child and the 18th birthday of her last). That's fairly unusual, I admit, but child-rearing periods of well in excess of 18 years are not uncommon today, especially when more women are prepared to give birth well into their 40s.

Best,

Alistair

Logged

Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

alwaystheangel

PS Silver Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 587

Re: did the tv show 'sex and the city' accurately portray 'the modern woman'

Reply #26 on: June 21, 2006, 02:23:57 PM

In my area, more an more men are the stay-at-home parent instead of the mother. It's certainly not equal, but it's evening out. I think it also has to do with that motherly instinct, that I don't think ada has experience (nor have I, but I know it exists). my mother has told me that Children are not just a side dish in life, they are the main course, she chose to have children and work only part-time because she wanted to be the one there for all the firsts (step, word etc). I think you have the concept of children all backwards, they are not something you integrate into your careers, you intergrate you career into child-rearing. Also a note, you're a mother/father forever, even after the kids have left home, you're only the boss until you retire. I think one of the greatest contributions that an ordinary person can give to society in their "careers" is raising, good, law-abiding, charitable people.
I'm not sure if what I'm saying makes sense but basically, you should give stay-at-home moms a bit more credit, I certainly wouldn't want to do what they do every day, in fact, I know I couldn't do what they do, it's too selfless and just plain too hard!

Logged

"True friends stab you in the front." -Oscar Wilde

zheer

PS Silver Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 2794

Re: did the tv show 'sex and the city' accurately portray 'the modern woman'

Reply #27 on: June 21, 2006, 03:01:30 PM

Hmmmmmmm, modern women, as far as i know its usually a good idea to look but not touch, sometimes its ok to touch but not taste, infact its aslo ok to taste some women , but must remember not to swallwo. ( only kidding )

Logged

" Nothing ends nicely, that's why it ends" - Tom Cruise -

ahinton

PS Silver Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 12149

Re: did the tv show 'sex and the city' accurately portray 'the modern woman'

Reply #28 on: June 21, 2006, 04:41:45 PM

In my area, more an more men are the stay-at-home parent instead of the mother. It's certainly not equal, but it's evening out. I think it also has to do with that motherly instinct, that I don't think ada has experience (nor have I, but I know it exists). my mother has told me that Children are not just a side dish in life, they are the main course, she chose to have children and work only part-time because she wanted to be the one there for all the firsts (step, word etc). I think you have the concept of children all backwards, they are not something you integrate into your careers, you intergrate you career into child-rearing. Also a note, you're a mother/father forever, even after the kids have left home, you're only the boss until you retire. I think one of the greatest contributions that an ordinary person can give to society in their "careers" is raising, good, law-abiding, charitable people.
I'm not sure if what I'm saying makes sense but basically, you should give stay-at-home moms a bit more credit, I certainly wouldn't want to do what they do every day, in fact, I know I couldn't do what they do, it's too selfless and just plain too hard!

I think (and I hope I've suggested this already, at least by implication if not directly) that the problem appears to be one where what you call "stay-at-home moms" - by which I take you to mean those who do so out of personal choice rather than as a consequence of external coercion - are regarded by some as somehow inferior, either as women or as mothers or both. If the ideal is that of the maximum "lifestyle choice" (horrible phrase but I think its meaning is generally clear). then one would presume that women should as far as possible be left to themselves to decide whether to have a career and no children, children and no other career or mix both as and when they see fit. Whether or to what extent any woman who chooses the last of these three options sees herself - or is seen by others - as integrating responsibilities for her children with her career or vice versa is more a matter of semantics and individual interpretation in most cases. It's true that, once one becomes a parent, once remains one for life, unless one suffers the grave misfortune of one's child or children predeceasing one, but increasing numbers of people are now also finding that retirement from their professional work is less of an option than the take-it-for-granted thing that once it was, so the idea that one is only the boss until retirement is one that is itself gradually being retired.

The other issue - which has not really been touched on here yet - is that of suitability and motivation. We all accept that not every one of us is suited to being a president (of a country or a corporation), or a teacher, or a car mechanic - or even a pianist - but not everyone seems as willing to accept - or has even necessarily thought about - the idea that not everyone is cut out to be a parent; there has been far too widespread an assumption, I think, that just because parenthood is a physical possibility, it is also therefore something to which all physically capable people have a natural aptitude. This notion is fortunately on the wane now, but it has quite a way to go before it dies altogether, I fear. Of course we all know that the first argument put up against this is that if one hasn't tried one will never know - which is all very well as far as it goes, perhaps, but it's a bit late to do anything about it after the event - one can find oneself in the wrong job and change it to do something else, but that's not such an easy option open to the dissatisfied and incompetent parent. Like that of being a virtuoso pianist, the ability to be a virtuoso parent is not open to us all.

Best,

Alistair

Logged

Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

alwaystheangel

PS Silver Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 587

Re: did the tv show 'sex and the city' accurately portray 'the modern woman'

Reply #29 on: June 21, 2006, 07:41:55 PM

I agree, alistair

Logged

"True friends stab you in the front." -Oscar Wilde

ada

PS Silver Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 761

Re: did the tv show 'sex and the city' accurately portray 'the modern woman'

Reply #30 on: June 22, 2006, 02:58:50 AM

Good points everyone but I stand by my view that being a mother is only a small part of a woman's life and a woman should never have to define herself by her reproductive or parental status alone.

ie, should a concert pianist who has a child describe herself as a "working mother" or a pianist with a child? Or a pianist, regardless of children? Do men describe themselves as "working fathers"?

ahinton will say this is somantics but somantics construct our reality, if you want to ascribe to the post-modernists.

We also need to remember that there are are fashions when it comes to thinking about women and their roles and at the moment we are seeing something of a post feminist backlash (look at at Naomi Wolfe, talk about a sell out) where women are wanting to get back into the kitchen.

There was once a time when, if you were of a monied class, child rearing was outsourced to nannies and biological mothers had minimal contact with their children. The kids turned out fine and no one thought twice about it.

Now women are put on a guilt trip and cast as "bad mothers" if they don't want to stay at home to look after babies and put their lives on hold for their children.

And now it's the women with money who are the first to demand their right to stay at home while their partner brings home the money. The middle classes meanwhile can't exist without two incomes.

But this isn't about money really. It's about how women construct themselves and the sort of dialogues that are being fed into the construction of the "modern woman".

Logged

Bach almost persuades me to be a Christian.
- Roger Fry, quoted in Virginia Woolf

anekdote

PS Silver Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 86

Re: did the tv show 'sex and the city' accurately portray 'the modern woman'

Reply #31 on: June 22, 2006, 06:26:41 AM

Please excuse me, but why would a woman with an adequately-providing husband even want to pursue her own career? She could pursue hobbies, socializing and activities, and perhaps even child-raising if she so wished (which would not disclude the former). But why a career?

I have often considered the feminist ideal of a career and "sexual liberation" to simply be rebellion. Rebellion against tradition and so-called "sexual-repression." Rebellion against that "most malevolent patriarchy." Feminists want careers not because they really really want them but have been repressed in the past. They want careers because deep down they want to make a statement and fly in the face of the ideals of their parent's generation.

The cultural revolution of the '60s was the pursuit of materialism, in all its forms. Nothing more. The ideologies and the politics were only meant to fundamentally serve in this pursuit of indulgence.

Nowadays the feminist ideals of the '60s have left both women and men confused. At least half of men feel inadequate and directionless, and many women growing up these days lose themselves to hedonism because they too lack direction. Marriages have fallen apart and divorce rates have skyrocketed. Hence the backlash.

But what has been gained?

I will probably be called a sexist for this post, but I really don't see why. What is so controversial or problematic about gender roles? Tradition has proved solid for thousands of years, hasn't it? But only now when our civilization has reached the peak of its indulgence do we decide we are not happy with this tradition?

Tell me: What is so wrong about men working to provide for their families, and women staying at home to be with and raise children? And if I said it the other way around, would it make a difference (and why)? Are traditional gender roles fundamentally inequal, or are they mutually dualist (which is the view I hold)?

Logged

ahinton

PS Silver Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 12149

Re: did the tv show 'sex and the city' accurately portray 'the modern woman'

Reply #32 on: June 22, 2006, 10:33:26 AM

Good points everyone but I stand by my view that being a mother is only a small part of a woman's life and a woman should never have to define herself by her reproductive or parental status alone.

Of course she shouldn't; I could hardly agree with you more.

ie, should a concert pianist who has a child describe herself as a "working mother" or a pianist with a child? Or a pianist, regardless of children? Do men describe themselves as "working fathers"?

She should describe herself just as, when and to whom she wishes; however, not only may this description vary from time to time and from woman to woman, but there is also the question of to whom she describes herself. At a conference for women in music in the early 1990s, the composer Elizabeth Maconchy (who died a few years later and whose daughter, Nicola LeFanu, is also a composer) was reported as having said of the predicament of the woman composer that, to her listeners, she is a composer whereas to her family, she is a woman (mother, sister, wife, whatever) - to which she added a sardonic comment about the sometime difficulty of crossing the border there! To a woman's son or daughter, she will principally be mother, even if she is a professional pianist, so it rather depends upon who's asking and who's being addressed at any given moment, I think.

ahinton will say this is somantics but somantics construct our reality, if you want to ascribe to the post-modernists.

No, my concern about the use of semantics does not apply in this particular instance; the above is more a matter of who chooses to describe themselves as what, in front of whom and when. But in any case I don't want to "ascribe to the post-modernists"! There's an awful lot of confusion spread by many of those of post-modernist leanings, especially in the world of academia. Just for a moment's diverting amusement (assuming that it may provide such), have a look at the following random-generated pieces at
<https://www.elsewhere.org/pomo>;
(just press F5 or Refresh to have another sample until you get bored with this).

We also need to remember that there are are fashions when it comes to thinking about women and their roles and at the moment we are seeing something of a post feminist backlash (look at at Naomi Wolfe, talk about a sell out) where women are wanting to get back into the kitchen.

This is very true - and is, I think, where much of the danger lies. Feminist, post-feminist, modernist, post-modernist, complexicist, minimalist - the "l-ist" goes on - and tiresomely on. The desire to compartmentalise, classify and pigeon-hole as many people as possible is an ever-burgeoning one, a principal and invidious motive of which is to seek successfully to dictate to people how they should think, consider themselves and conduct their lives. All too many of those women of whom you write above as "wanting to get back into the kitchen" are doing so because they are being urged that this is the currently fashionable thing to do, rather than as a direct consequence of their own personal decision-making processes and aspirations. I've absolutely nothing in principle against women wanting to do this, as long as it is not the coercion of partners or others - or the vagaries and diktats of contemporary fashion - that persuades them to do so.

There was once a time when, if you were of a monied class, child rearing was outsourced to nannies and biological mothers had minimal contact with their children. The kids turned out fine and no one thought twice about it.

Now women are put on a guilt trip and cast as "bad mothers" if they don't want to stay at home to look after babies and put their lives on hold for their children.

And now it's the women with money who are the first to demand their right to stay at home while their partner brings home the money. The middle classes meanwhile can't exist without two incomes.

But this isn't about money really. It's about how women construct themselves and the sort of dialogues that are being fed into the construction of the "modern woman".

This is all very true. Putting women on such "guilt trips" is rather disgusting, it seems to me; apart from any other considerations, their "children" are people themselves - people in the making who, if they are female, may well come to find themselves subjected to the same kind of "guilt trip" deals later in life if the fashions of the day haven't changed by then.

Increasingly these days it is not only the "middle classes" that can't survive without two incomes. Consider the case of a single person in his/her mid-20s in UK who has emerged from university with a first-class honours degree, a master's degree, a PhD and £40,000 of student debt who lands a job with an annual gross salary of £50,000 (leaving him/her with a net disposable income of, say, a little over half of that) who then has to try to find a deposit equivalent to a year's gross salary in order to finance the purchase of his/her first home on a 90% mortgage, repayments on which will cost more or less the same amount as his/her net disposable income, leaving nothing on which to live and no spare cash with which to start repaying the student debt. Our government wonders why more people don't "save". What with? It wonders why personal borrowing is so devastatingly high? Why? Add to all this the statistics (insofar as any statistics can be believed) that would nowadays seek to inform us that the average cost to the parent/s of raising just one child for 18 years (allowing for current lowish rates of inflation during that period) will be in excess of a quarter of a million pounds and the sheer impossibility of the scenario becomes even more glaringly apparent. It is therefore no small wonder that many people's expectations exclude the experience of retirement, as this would be a luxury known to their forebeas but which they'll simply be unable to afford for themselves. It's not just the "middle classes" - only the very wealthiest can hope to overcome all of these hurdles and, in order to preserve the wealth necessary to ensure that they do so, their fight against the ever-increasing greediness of the taxman becomes ever greater, more elaborately sophisticated and - of course - more expensive.

To return to the subject of women, motherhood and careers, however, I'm not at all suggesting that this is an easy matter for women, in terms either of their conduct of careers and motherhood themselves or of their decision-making processes that lead to the balance or otherwise between these. It's an even greater problem for the woman who becomes a single mother when she already has a career to begin with and wishes to give up neither her parental rôle nor her career. One particular case that I know personally has been even more difficult than for most single mothers, since she is a professional singer who years ago was left with young children when her partner decided to absent himself from the family home for life without providing any future support or contact of any kind; being a "working mother" whose work takes her all over the world rather than allowing her to work near home and raise her children by means of the more frequent one-to-one contact with them that she would have liked made juggling career and motherhood even harder. Nevertheless, her career continued, her voice continued to develop and her children have each been through a prestigious university and have since landed good jobs. I'm not, of course, advocating this kind of situation, even though, in this instance, the end results have been remarkably successful against all odds - nor, of course, am I in any way defending the partner's behaviour.

I think that we are largely in agreement over most of these matters - apart, that is, from the "post-modernist" bit, of which I am as wary in its social manifestations as I am in its musical ones!

Best,

Alistair

Logged

Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

ahinton

PS Silver Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 12149

Re: did the tv show 'sex and the city' accurately portray 'the modern woman'

Reply #33 on: June 22, 2006, 10:57:37 AM

Please excuse me, but why would a woman with an adequately-providing husband even want to pursue her own career? She could pursue hobbies, socializing and activities, and perhaps even child-raising if she so wished (which would not disclude the former). But why a career?

The first and simplest answer is because she wants to - if and when she does, that is. But not all women, regardless of whether or not they wish to pursue careers, necessarily have "adequately-providing husbands" in any case; most people can't manage on less than two salaries these days (certainly not in UK).

I have often considered the feminist ideal of a career and "sexual liberation" to simply be rebellion. Rebellion against tradition and so-called "sexual-repression." Rebellion against that "most malevolent patriarchy." Feminists want careers not because they really really want them but have been repressed in the past. They want careers because deep down they want to make a statement and fly in the face of the ideals of their parent's generation.

When the feminist movement really took wing, the kinds of rebellion that you refer to were likely a part of what happened, but by no means the whole of it. I think that the rise of this movement represented just another social pendulum swing that, like the more recent so-called "post-feminist" movement, was simply waiting for an opportunity to happen. It's the same thing in party politics in general, except that, in UK at least, the recent trend has been towards the blurring of distinctions betwen each of the parties so that the kinds of party-political pendulum swings to which past generations had become accustomed really have little room left to occur any more. The trouble with the argument here about the desires of feminists is that women have been categorised by others as "feminists", "non-feminists" "apathetic to the feminist movement" or whatever else, whereas every woman is in reality different to every other and her needs and aspirations will therefore vary accordingly. If the rise of the feminist movement did anything that was to have any lasting good, it seems to me that it was in the much-needed bringing into focus of this individuality of the female, yet at the same time it tried to group women together as though they were not so different from one another after all - such were (some of) the contradictions of feminism. There was a time when many women were misunderstood, undervalued and mistreated mainly by men; more recently, quite a few women have gotten onto the same bandwagon and the misunderstanding, undervaluing and mistreatment abounds still.

The cultural revolution of the '60s was the pursuit of materialism, in all its forms. Nothing more. The ideologies and the politics were only meant to fundamentally serve in this pursuit of indulgence.

Nowadays the feminist ideals of the '60s have left both women and men confused. At least half of men feel inadequate and directionless, and many women growing up these days lose themselves to hedonism because they too lack direction. Marriages have fallen apart and divorce rates have skyrocketed. Hence the backlash.

I think that the changes in the Western world during the 1960s were rather more complex than that. Some might also say that the changes in Reagan's America and Thatcher's Britain were far more driven by such considerations than anything that occurred in the 1960s - and this was in the 1980s. Yes, I think that the 1960s feminist ideals have indeed left at least noticeable numbers of both women and men confused, but I think that the confusion that you describe is by no means ONLY due to feminist ideals - there were far more economic and social pressures on women and men at that time and these have hardly abated since, any more than have the expectations of those who face them. What perhaps lies behind all of this is a much more fundamental issue - that of the sheer speed with which social, political, ecomonic and other events and changes occur and the concomitant amounts of information with which every woman and man in the Western (and increasinly also the Eastern) world is obliged to absorb and deal. I am convinced that there is far more confusion spread by the mere existence of so many products and services - not least the sheer amount of "classical" music available to be heard (and let's not entiely forget that this is a forum devoted to a musical subject!) - that can be laid at the door of feminism.

But what has been gained?

I will probably be called a sexist for this post, but I really don't see why. What is so controversial or problematic about gender roles? Tradition has proved solid for thousands of years, hasn't it? But only now when our civilization has reached the peak of its indulgence do we decide we are not happy with this tradition?

Tell me: What is so wrong about men working to provide for their families, and women staying at home to be with and raise children? And if I said it the other way around, would it make a difference (and why)? Are traditional gender roles fundamentally inequal, or are they mutually dualist (which is the view I hold)?

I have no problem with "gender rôles" as such; I just do not want to see them being forced on people; it's up to each individual to decide what he/she wants to do with his/her life, at least insofar as economic pressures permit and within the scope of the law of the land. The problem I have is with too many people being told that the current way to do things is the only one, as though it's a "one-size-fits-all" issue, which it patently isn't. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with the scenario that you posit above, in cases where each partner involved wants to apply and live by it, except that it's increasingly difficult to sustain it successfully in practice because of the widespread economic pressures as exemplified in more detail in my last post here.

Best,

Alistair

Logged

Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

ada

PS Silver Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 761

Re: did the tv show 'sex and the city' accurately portray 'the modern woman'

Reply #34 on: June 22, 2006, 11:16:41 PM