Valuing stay at home parents of older kids

[lizlea]

I am finding that with my youngest going off to school next year I am having sooooo many people ask me if I am going back to work then or "what are you going to do with yourself" type questions. I am know I am not the only sahm of school age kids but all these comments are starting to make me feel guilty and like I "should" get out there and do something else?

I wouldn't mind some part time work actually but it is really important to us that I am able (and fortunately we are financially able) to be here for before/after school and school holidays. I love being able to go to assemblies, excursions, help out in the classroom etc.

Does our society only value parenting if the children are under 5?

How do we see worth in ourselves and help others see the value of being there for school age kids?

[Rinelle]

I don't think our society even values parenting under fives. I find it really sad actually. I think the value of having a parent at home becomes possibly more important when a child is at school. Hw great is it to be able to get a lot of the mundane things out of the way while the kids aren't there so that when they are home, you're able to really spend time with them? And how about being able to pick them up if they're sick?

I think there is such a government push for everyone to be in work. The problems with our kids and youth are only going to get worse with this sort of attitude.

[jodiemiller]

Hmm, I am torn on this one because I don't see my role solely as homemaker and I resent the idea that it is my job to 'get a lot of the mundane things out of the way while the kids aren't there." I see it, now they are older, as their job to pitch in and help with the household, which I believe enhances our time to be together as a family.

Liz, savour this time you have with Miss Kate. I am confident that once you find yourself a 'lady of leisure' (yeah, I hate that expression) something will just *arrive* that excites your passions and fits in with your life and that offers you an opportunity to do something - paid or unpaid - that is really important to you and that gives you a sense of achievement. For me, staying home without a child to care for got old within a couple of weeks.

[Pinky]

I have so many projects that I can't even begin to start because thing 2 just turned 2. It'll be 2 years before I can even think about scrap booking baby books...

The first two years he's in school I'm going to be making scrapbooks (some of pre -kid days that need to be done) I'm going to learn to sew and make my baby clothes quilts. I'm going to take some classes too...

IF I go back to work.. great.. but I'm taking a few years off for me before I worry.

meh... if people are pestering you about whether you are going to go back to work when your youngest hits school... let them worry about it. not you. I think I might say something like "yes I'm going to go to med school" just to see their expression..

I dunno I agree with Rinelle - I'm not sure our socitey values stay at home parents at all.. under 5 or not.

and I agree with Jodie in theory.. that all members need to participate in the mundane.. after all they are part of the family and it really is a good teaching opportunity.. lately I've been in a ... "if I can just get it clean and organized... and get out of my way so I can do it" mode.. I know.. not particularly useful for kids.

anyway good luck in your search.

[kateking]

I think you know you're needed and I think you are bloody wonderful!
I think older kids really benefit from having that available consistency and your involvement with their school, knowledge of their peers and vacation time (not in care) is a priceless gift, they are so so lucky. If you're happy to do it, go for it and be proud.
It is hard , it is work, it isn't appreciated by society and it should be! When I was going through puberty the fact that my Mum was around when needed (as the emotions surfaced) saved me from making some silly mistakes and set me on the right path. I will be forever grateful she made us a priority. I think Jodie is spot on too that you must still have something of your own that interests you. You need relief from the daily grind just as much as anyone that works outside the home.
I back you 100%.

[Rinelle]

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that a mum should be solely a homemaker. Only that if that is what she chooses, it should be valued! In this day and age, I think we should be able to make that decision based on our own situation and family, not judged by outsiders. As Kate said, my mum was home while I was growing up, and it meant a lot to me. It means a lot to me to be able to do that for my kids. Since I homeschool, it isn't questioned, but I'd be doing the same thing regardless. (And my comment about the mundane things was purely about my wish to have time to get some of them done right now! LOL.)

[jodiemiller]

No worries, T. It was a kneejerk post, but I still kinda feel strongly that we all need to have a *something* outside of family that gets our juices flowing.

[Rinelle]

I agree with you one one level. Obviously making family the focus of your life is not healthy. But the something doesn't have to be a job, and it doesn't have to be outside the home. It could be scrapbooking, it could be reading a good book or enjoying a certain genre of TV shows/movies, it could be going for walks or hiking or something. A job is just one area in which a person can use their outside interests.

[jodiemiller]

Hmm, still torn. I will ponder and come back to this.

The whole 'seeing of worth' in keeping house while the kids are at school actually does challenge me.

[michelle_j_r]

i think it's often that people just project their own experiences or feelings onto a situation. but yeah, definitely there is not a whole lot of value put on parents that choose to stay home long term with their kids. i think the knee-jerk reaction is often that it is outside of people's experiences. The vast majority of families do things a bit tough with one parent at home while the kids are young, or at least they think that they will have more "quality" things in their life with two incomes. So there is always a huge incentive to get back to the workforce once all the kids are in school. And on the other end of things i think a lot of women would just feel bored beyond belief if they were not working (or volunteering or had some other strong interest) once their kids were in school. But both those differing people would probably see the value of having a parent at home and a parent that had the energy at the end of the day to nurture their kids. It's just that their initial assumption would be that someone would choose to go back to work
:shrug

[kateking]

See I think creating and maintaining a loving place for your family is full of worth. If you choose to do that fulltime bravo if you choose to do that part-time bravo. Some people need more time to dedicate themselves to a task, others less.
Giving of yourself and loving without condition (yourself included) is never time wasted.
All the things that two incomes will buy won't matter a damm in the end. Things just things. Possessions, houses, cars, clothes, are fun distractions (and we're supposed to have fun) but what really matters is connection. When someone I love dies I don't think of the clothes they wore, the car they drove, the trips they took, or the number of investment properties they owned. I think of their smile, the way they hugged a child, the way they comforted someone who was sad, the way they snorted when they laughed. I think Lizlea's life could be rich beyond all measure and yes very very worthy.

[emd]

I would rather boil my head than make home-making my primary occupation while the kids are at school. What I think is more important than what I enjoy doing though, is what do you enjoy doing? Apparently there are women who would rather boil their head than spend hours reading the fine print in legislation and organizing workshops on tax law. In a free society, people should be able to choose what they spend their time on based on their financial needs and personal interests, unrestricted by what other people think is a good way for a woman to spend her time.

Personally, I am grateful for the women at school whose financial situation enables them to do what they really want, which is to help out at school and be there when the kids get home. I know at least some of them look down their nose at me for abandoning my kids to the school system, but those who think that are just being arrogant in thinking there is only one way to be a woman. Children are individuals too, what we're doing meets their needs quite well without over stretching their capacity.

So. Do what works for you and your family, I reckon.

[Joey]

It's like everything else I think where it's completely based on your own circumstances. Like others have said my Mum was mostly at home, she went to work for a short while and then became a foster carer so she was always at home and I feel very grateful for that.

I feel a massive amount of mother guilt much of the time for being the 'dump and run' Mum. This term alone I've missed both kids sports day, both cross country, Finn's district football (2 days) and then another all day school football competition. we have two days of district athletics coming up and I'll most likely miss those too. I'd love to be able to go to all those (well maybe not all but most!). However I'd also go a little nuts if I didn't have something to do outside the home, (I wouldn't have a home either but that's another issue). I'm lucky in that their Dad is fairly free most of the time and he often attends these events so the kids don't miss out and aren't the only ones without a parent present, it's more me.
I'm grateful for passionate stay at home Mums they are the ones who got our school hall built and then renovated, ditto the library, who organise the fete and make the school community what it is. I certainly don't look down on those women who pretty much run the school that's for sure, they are amazing if anything I look at them with little but of envy. But at the same time I know that would never be my thing. Even if I didn't work I don't think I'd find my passion there.

I'd hate to have to have my kids in after school care all the time, for me personally it's something I felt strongly about for my children, I wanted them to be in school school hours and at home the rest of the time. I believe there is a reason whys school only goes for 6 hours. I tried it at one point and both my kids hated it. I'm lucky enough to have a job where I don't have to use it and I can be there to collect them everyday. Evenings are crazy with afterschool sport and dinner to be cooked etc but at least I'm with them.

I'm sure it will all work out for you I don't think anyone should judge another's choices with this or anything else. What feels right for you is what's important. In those early years being a part of the school community is great, reading etc you can spend almost as much time at school as the child sometimes I know I did when my older two were there and I wasn't working.

[cherish]

maybe people are just asking..

[cherish]

and I'm with Jodie on the kids helping in the house.. when they're not here I'm certainly not running around doing housework- I've got two boys, and I do not want them to grow up feeling that Mumma/women's role is to keep things clean and cook for them:) I spend my time when they are away (with their Dad) mostly catching up on me time... you'll enjoy having some time for yourself!!

[jodiemiller]

Obviously making family the focus of your life is not healthy. But the something doesn't have to be a job, and it doesn't have to be outside the home. It could be scrapbooking, it could be reading a good book or enjoying a certain genre of TV shows/movies, it could be going for walks or hiking or something. A job is just one area in which a person can use their outside interests.

Of course that something doesn't have to be a job - paid or unpaid, is what I said and I do highly value unpaid work outside the family. No, I don't value scrapbooking or reading or watching movies and TV shows unless it is turned into something bigger than time spent alone at home. I mean, if it becomes a passion for blogging what you scrapbook, read or watch, well and good. It is then something *other* that gives purpose to life.

Don't get me wrong - we all aspire to clean out our cupboards and get our domestic lives in order when the kids are all at school. That is something we all NEED to do. But if that is someone's sole occupation, even with the helping out at school and stuff, I have to wonder where the balance is in that. A lot of the mothers who are dedicated homemakers and who help out at school have progressed to become paid Teacher Aides. See, I think these things happen naturally, and are to be welcomed and encouraged.

As for the kneejerk response, yes, it did come from somewhere: my mother was a career mother. She did take in ironing and do domestic cleaning to bring in extra $$ but it all fit in around us kids and taxi-ing us around. My mum had no major hobbies (yup, crosswords, TV shows, movies) and still doesn't. After we kids left home she suffered dreadfully from the empty nest syndrome and had a nervous breakdown. She was never the same after that. There is a lot of stuff I'm not reporting of course - and I am in no way suggesting that your own life would mirror my mother's Liz - but the message, to me, is that we all need opportunities to explore the bigger picture and to contribute something back to society somehow. Otherwise, it's not a 'high value' life, is it? It's a kind of stagnation - a bit like living a life on the dole, imho.

[Rinelle]

Otherwise, it's not a 'high value' life, is it? It's a kind of stagnation - a bit like living a life on the dole, imho.

I think that last line is really harsh! It's nothing at all like living life on the dole. If a family can afford for one person to stay home and keep house and be there to help the kids when they are home, then I think that is just as valuable as any work (paid or otherwise), outside the home.

I think the idea that we have to do something 'valuable' with our lives (and what, raising kids isn't valuable enough? That seems to be what you're saying?) is fine for some, but to be honest, it doesn't work for me. Being home here with E, helping her learn (and yes, we're homeschooling, but I think even parents who's kids go to school still spend a lot of time helping their kids learn), seeing her enjoyment in each day, being able to take some of the boring tasks away from her, and finding time to do things for myself too, those are more fulfilling for me than any kind of work outside the home (paid or unpaid).

I also think that there are many many people who work outside the home while their kids are at school who are NOT getting any kind of satisfaction out of it. They're doing it because they have to, but that doesn't mean it is better for them (aside from the money obviously, but I'm talking fulfillment type better for them). For some people, work is just a job, a means to an end, and doesn't achieve anything more than that. In fact, in some cases it creates a lot more stress than anything it solves, between rushing everyone out of the house early, getting home and trying to get everything done before the next day etc.

Some people actually enjoy being home. I enjoy the organisation, the planning, the getting things done around home. It gives me the same sense of satisfaction of completing something useful that I would get from work. It is important stuff. And devaluing it by saying it doesn't have balance, just because it is not right for you, seems wrong to me. For some people, it is the right choice. And for other's it's not. We need all types in the world.

And while working might appear to alleviate the empty nest syndrome, it in reality just puts it off until retirement, when we can call it something else. At some point, people have to realise what they value in life besides making money, and find out who they are without the label of a job title. I already know that for me. I have a lot of interests outside of home, although since they aren't working in the community, perhaps that makes them useless? I don't really care. I'm quite happy with who I am.

[kateking]

I found this interesting Jodie when you wrote "No, I don't value scrapbooking or reading or watching movies and TV shows unless it is turned into something bigger than time spent alone at home. I mean, if it becomes a passion for blogging what you scrapbook, read or watch, well and good. It is then something *other* that gives purpose to life."

I see where you are coming from and this is a little off topic...
Sometimes though enjoying something is enough?
If something gives you joy that is as "big" as It needs to be. Get what I mean?
It doesn't have to turn into anything bigger to validate the activity.

Also in other posts I must say that there is a lot of "assumption" out there that if you don't work outside the home you will automatically do all the school stuff, and are somehow more obligated? That doesn't necessarily follow. You don't have to do the school stuff Lizlea just because you don't work!! You have no more or less responsibility than any other parent in the school community.

[Rinelle]

I also wanted to come back and say that my experiences growing up are the complete opposite. My mum was a SAHM our whole lives pretty much. She didn't have anything outside of the home until we were much older (when she was a member of the garden club etc for a while). We were always busy at home though, she was into a lot of craft/quilting, gardening, sustainablity etc. Then when my sister and I had left home, she went back to uni and got her degree (again, she had a teaching degree before we were born, then when registration changed it became invalid, long story), and taught for a couple of years. She left basically because she didn't like the politics, not the teaching. She's gone through a string of other interests since then, and at the moment she's learning photography and selling her photos.

MIL on the other hand, worked outside the home her whole life, has now retired, and has NOTHING she wants to do with her life. No interests at all besides watching TV.

So yeah, not convinced on the working outside the home gives meaning to your life.

[Pinky]

I have to agree with Rinelle and Kateking. Why does blogging about an activity give it more value than just doing and valuing the activity itself? (I'm not being flippant I really don't understand where you are coming from on that one).

This discussion reminds me of a story.. maybe it was a fable about a guy in prison who builds a wall and is happy.. and someone ( I don't remember maybe a guard ) asks him why he is so happy? after all he is building the wall that is keeping him from his freedom. His response is something like "building the was IS his freedom" or something.. I dunno.. I'm sure it would be very poignant if I remembered the story right. but you get the idea.

I kinda feel that way about scrapbooking and organizing.

[kateking]

And to take the point a little further...
Nothing you "do" validates your life.
"Doing" is pleasurable action that can help you evolve and learn but validation or worth comes from within, the activity is irrelevant.
You can work at a job, you can help at the school, you can work and help at the school, you can stand on your head and make daisy chains with your feet, doesn't matter.

I found Rinelle's examples really interesting. I don't think what the two woman "did" had a bearing on their present position in life. It seems to me that Rinelle's Mum would manage to find joy, love and interest and a way to explore no matter what career path she chose and her MIL would be dissatisfied and bored working outside the home (as she chose to do) or not working outside the home because what she is comes from within and no external action or "job" alters that, it just distracts for a while :)

[lizlea]

Wow, thank you everyone for the thoughts and comments. It is obviously a complex topic with no right or wrong.

I have kind of done things differently, I have not always been a stay at home mum. And our kids are so far spaced in ages so that is part of why. (see my sig for ages).
So, when Ash was 15 months I went back to work and worked 3 days/week, sometimes 4 until she was 6.5 and Ben was born. When he was 15 months I went back 1 day a week until Katie was born. After her we made the decision to resign mainly cos I really didn't like where I was working and didn't want the stress.
Now I find myself with time to do more but not really any idea of what to do. I am an early childhood teacher (preschool) but find that I have little interest in going back into that. I do a lot of volunteer stuff at my kids dance school - organising costumes/ stuff for concerts/exams/competitions etc. I enjoy that and will keep going with it.
I also do enjoy being at home, having things organised, being the one to ferry my kids and others to various things. But, my oldest is 15, I can see her needing me less and less and that will continue. My kids won't always be at home.
We are lucky that I have choices, my dh earns plenty to keep us. Even if sometimes it seems all we do is pay bills...

Anyway, your responses have certainly given me food for thought. I will keep pondering.

[jodiemiller]

I'm so glad my comments have not offended you, Liz. It's never a good idea to reply during morning rush time.

I'm not saying there's absolutely no value in 'hobbies'. What I'm saying is I place a higher value on hobbies that benefit others, or that somehow create a network of activity around them. Eg, jigsaw puzzles and soap operas vs gardening and painting. I place a higher value on food gardening than ornamental gardening (personal preference) but I think BOTH are awesome hobbies - particularly if shared with family and others. I place a higher value on taking art classes than simply painting for self-satisfaction at home. I place a higher value on learning music or joining a band, than simply listening to music. I suppose I value the engagement in an activity - particularly if it benefits others as well as self.

I'm also not dictating *when* we all should consider making some sort of contribution to society, but what I *am* saying is that I place a higher value on the activities of those who do so at some point in their lives. This is just my personal stance. We were asked to share it, afterall.

And I suppose I am assuming that when the kids go to school, it's a good time to consider those options.

Liz, I think your involvement in your kids' dance school is very high-value, possibly even your 'art' if that is a better way to put it. The fact that you enjoy it and want to keep going is confirmation of its value. Often, we don't find great satisfaction in such activities unless they are shared with a wider community, yk?

Anyhow, this was never intended to be a criticism of anyone. Just wanted to address the question of why society does/doesn't value SAH parents of older kids.

[Rinelle]

I'm not saying there's absolutely no value in 'hobbies'. What I'm saying is I place a higher value on hobbies that benefit others, or that somehow create a network of activity around them. Eg, jigsaw puzzles and soap operas vs gardening and painting. I place a higher value on food gardening than ornamental gardening (personal preference) but I think BOTH are awesome hobbies - particularly if shared with family and others. I place a higher value on taking art classes than simply painting for self-satisfaction at home. I place a higher value on learning music or joining a band, than simply listening to music. I suppose I value the engagement in an activity - particularly if it benefits others as well as self.

I'm curious as to why you think that social engagement makes an activity more valuable? Is it because you enjoy something more when sharing it with others, or is it because you believe everyone owes society something?

Many people do get something more out of their activities when they share them with others. Others don't. I think it's largely personality based (introvert v's extrovert probably).

[kateking]

I don't think anybody's taken offense at anything you've offered Jodie? I think the points you raise are SO interesting. You might be a little sick of this discussion now and I don't want to harp so ignore this post if you want to...

When you said "I'm not saying there's absolutely no value in 'hobbies'. What I'm saying is I place a higher value on hobbies that benefit others, or that somehow create a network of activity around them. Eg, jigsaw puzzles and soap operas vs gardening and painting. I place a higher value on food gardening than ornamental gardening (personal preference) but I think BOTH are awesome hobbies - particularly if shared with family and others. I place a higher value on taking art classes than simply painting for self-satisfaction at home. I place a higher value on learning music or joining a band, than simply listening to music. I suppose I value the engagement in an activity - particularly if it benefits others as well as self."

It still sounds like you feel you have justify activities by allocating a "value" to them?
There seems to be some sort of external justification needed for you?
Ie: It's alright to do something as long as it benefits others? There is nothing wrong with what you are saying I'm not implying that, please don't think I am, but I'm trying to get you to understand something and I'm probably not explaining it very well, LOL. "Simply painting for self satisfaction at home" is how artists are born, developed and discovered, it is that undisturbed , uninfluenced time that allows them to express themselves without constaint. When you observed that learning music or joining a band is higher value for you than listening to music? I want to respond by saying that one is an "action" a pleasurable activity that yes you can share and the other "listening to music" is a pleasurable activity that is a pathway to your creative self, one of the most powerful learning experiences you can have. Do you understand what I'm getting at?
Sharing with others is a beautiful thing I agree. We can all come together and share our activities but you have so much more to give if you are in touch with your creative self and realise the value of following your bliss without needing to justify it.
You see Liz enjoying helping at the dance school doesn't need to have a "value" or need to be her "art" it can just be something she likes to do, something she enjoys, reason enough.

[Madi]

I think some people find contentment in whatever they are doing, and others are always striving for something else. That's ok, the world has room for both.

For myself, when I was at school I enjoyed it, when I was doing paid work I enjoyed that, I've enjoyed being home with both kids, and now I'm enjoying another phase which involves being a part of a school community. Once both my kids are at school, who knows what I'll enjoy!

There's no end goal in sight, except to live a life of things that are meaningful to me. I think it is an important skill to enjoy the moment, to find the zen in the mundane tasks which ebb and flow. And if I choose to find my bliss in creating and caring for a home for myself and the person I've chosen to spend my life with (and my children while they are growing) then that is my choice. Which is just as valid and as worthy a choice as any other I might make.

[Pinky]

I'm curious as to why you think that social engagement makes an activity more valuable? yeah I have the same question... (ie why does blogging about an event make it more valuable to you than just doing the activity?)

I'm really interested because I think I've always strived for the opposite. I have often done things with other or for others and I've always thought I should do things for ME and not others... if that makes sense..

Like I'll go to Karate class if there are others there, but training on my own is SOO hard.. but that's where the real progress is. I'd love to be in a band.. but the hours of practicing on my own before I'd be good enough would do me in. If I'm cooking for the family I'll make salad and veggies and healthy stuff.. if I just have to eat.. I'll just nuke some pizza pockets.. making a big meal for me alone - I just couldn't be bothered.

I've always admired those people who do things for themselves. People who take time to create a meal and enjoy it.. just for them.. those people who sit down and play the guitar because they love it and don't care that others are listening or not.. I dunno. I always looked at it as a weakness that I only do stuff with others/for others and have a hard time doing stuff just for me...

[kateking]

Great insights Pinky!
I don't think it's a weakness I just think it requires a shift of focus.
I would listen to that feeling though, not for things you think you "should" do but doing things that interest you and bring you joy and peace.

[kateking]

I think it is an important skill to enjoy the moment, to find the zen in the mundane tasks which ebb and flow. And if I choose to find my bliss in creating and caring for a home for myself and the person I've chosen to spend my life with (and my children while they are growing) then that is my choice. Which is just as valid and as worthy a choice as any other I might make.

Beautifully said too, wow there are some amazing woman in this forum! :)

[cherish]

interesting.. while I do work, I do see that being at home can (not always) be very beneficial for family, children and community- I think having the time to invest in your children is extremely valuable.

I do think it's important that we all contribute positively to society- though I see that we can do this in a variety of ways- loving our children is one way that we do continually invest in our community- as the health of a society improves when children are loved and provided for. Paying taxes is another way we contribute, as it helps build and pay for the pleasures, luxuries and in some cases the basics for some families in our community.

I don't agree with you Jodie on the point that things are more valuable when done in a group (don't disagree with you much, so maybe I've just misunderstood what you meant.) time for self, and time doing stuff alone for some people (myself included) can lead to profound social impacts.. think how some great art works, that would have been painted in solitude have impacted that man in Zimbabwe recently, and the amount of media that his works have now had, provoking lots of thoughts around the massacres in his country..

Though I do feel that being with others, living, working (not paid work necessarily) and learning together builds stronger relationships, which in turn leads, (hopefully) to a more healthy community/family/country.

[jodiemiller]

If 'value' is a sliding scale, then it is inevitable that some things will be considered to have a higher value than others. Simple. I'm not declaring that there is such a thing as 'valueless activity' - only that some activities, in my opinion, rate more highly on that scale than others.

I did not say things are more valuable when done in a group, though I dare to assume that even those people who engage in solitary activities might wish they could do it at a level where they could share it - eg performing music rather than just playing for your own amusement at home. (And yes, I would estimate that performing has a higher value than just playing music).

I did not say there is no skill or value in 'enjoying the moment' only that another person's moments don't really hold value for me. Does that make sense? I am talking from a society level here. If you pray - fine. But acts of charity hold a higher value (for society). Does anyone disagree?

If the question was 'why don't we (society) value stay at home parents of older kids?' then my answer is because there are so many other activities on the sliding scale that outweigh it. I never said domestic work, or any other solitary activity holds zero value. Please re-read my previous comments if you believe those were my words.

I think we are all drawn to (or aspire to) activities of 'higher social worth'. Whether we act on those ambitions is another matter.

[Astra]

This is a fascinating thread, I think different personality types are really shining through here. I agree with your point Kateking. I think there is value in both social and introspective activities but not necessarily for all people. There have always been people who prefer to live on the outskirts of society or go it alone completely. My husbands hero is a writer who wrote one very successful book, bought a shot gun and moved into the middle of the bush, he would then shoot at anybody who came near. He contributed to society in his own way but never did a single thing that was social.

I also feel a little dismayed by the comparison of people not contributing back to society to people on the dole but for a different reason. Growing up my father was always on the dole because he is an artist who just cannot hold down a job (he is a little left of centre, sometimes a lot, sometimes homeless). My father has spent most of his life trying to contribute to society, starting landcare groups and campaigning for issues that he feels strongly about. I don't feel that his life has been stagnant, even if it hasn't been overly valued by society in general. Some people just don't fit in to mainstream society for many reasons and the dole is the safety net for them but they are by no means living stagnant lives. I think I have spent so much time at uni around middle class people who don't know what poor looks like and have never met someone on the dole before talking about how people should be forced to work, that I am a little sensitive.

I think it is fantastic that you have the choice Liz, so few really do these days. It saddens me that with greater economic freedom for women (fantastic in so many ways for both men and women) the cost of living has increased to envelope two incomes instead of one so for many the choice has been lost if they have to live in a city or want to buy a house. The children appreciate it even if society doesn't :)

[jodiemiller]

Yeah, I wrote that in a hurry and regret it now but there it is. I'm sorry Astra and anyone else who took offense. I was alluding to the life of someone who milks the dole, not someone who has done various unpaid activities with obvious benefits to society. I won't edit it because it seems dishonest and it would alter people's ability to understand this thread.

[Astra]

Don't worry, I wasn't seriously offended Jodie and I have enjoyed reading all of the responses, i think it is good to look at both sides of the argument and wouldn't want it edited. Your probably going to hate this but ...

Do many people really milk the dole? Coming from Tasmania where there is high unemployment and from a poor family all I have seen are people with mental illnesses, people who can't find work becuase there is no work to be found and people who are born into poverty and just can't seem to find or even imagine a way out. Sometimes I still can't believe that I have ended up where I am, it is so hard for people to overcome the social stigma of going to university instead of trying to find a job straight out of high school and then to pay your own way through university is very difficult under the current system if you come from a family with parents on very low incomes or on the dole. It is really set up around middle to high income families where the children live at home and are supported by their parents while they study. If you have a difficult home life and can't or don't want to live at home it is almost not an option. I once had a centrelink assistant suggest I fall pregnant if I wanted to move out of home as it was the easiest way. I think it was a joke but it was true.

[jodiemiller]

Do many people milk the dole? I don't know about that and won't comment but I know it does happen (or used to happen when it was easier to do, I suppose). It was just an expression used to draw a comparison, not a value judgement in and of itself.

Anyhow, I stand by my comments. Liz asked about how/whether society values SAH parents of older kids and I shared my perceptions and opinions on the matter. Perhaps it shines an unflattering light on me? I think only in a superficial reading of my comments. Read deeper, and know my own life and experiences, and I think you'll find grains of truth in them.

[lucylu]

woah! My head is spinning!

Liz, I do think there is an expectation from society that Mums will do something once their youngest is at school. I also think there is an implication that although you were doing something valuable before (more of a PC comment than a true reflection of broader attitudes IMO), now you have time to really do something. Actually, I don't feel like I have any more time than I did before!

Weirdly, Jodie is exemplifying these judgements (sorry, Jodie, but I find it really, really weird that you think this way. I just would never have expected you to feel this way based on all the other philosophies you have. It is hurting my brain! :2lol).

It's all about judgement and value of different activities, jobs, hobbies... basically how we choose to spend our time. And I guess the majority value doing something, whatever it may be, more highly than just being at home.

My advice would be to take the time the think about how you want to spend your time, and endeavour to do just that. I firmly believe that the mother/caregiver is the core of the family and when s/he is peaceful, happy and fulfilled, it radiates out to the rest of the family.

I don't agree that any one activity has a higher value than another in general. For individuals, sure. One person values scrapbooking on their own really highly, another values volunteering for the local bushland group really highly. If both of these individuals feel contentment as a result, surely it's a good thing. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that being content is so important. I think it leads to lower consumption (Eileen, you must be really content!), greater compassion, greater acceptance, generosity of spirit and all the good things we want for our world.

I don't plan on doing something different to what i currently do for some time. I know that society doesn't value my contribution that highly, but I also know that I do, and so does my family.

[jodiemiller]

How can some activities NOT have a higher social value than others? Eg, teaching vs doing crosswords?? That's not to say there aren't teachers who enjoy doing crosswords more than their day job - there may be! But I understood the question to be regarding social value, not individual value. Perhaps I'm overly focussed on the last line of Liz's post ....

Correction: the second-last line ... geez, sorry about the diatribe. I'm obviously on the wrong bus here.

[cherish]

I see Jodie- I agree that for each of us, we value things in different ways.. and yes- I agree that some activities have higher social values than others..

as for the dole- it's very complex..it's not just about not working..

interesting to see some rich conversations!! was thinking the other day how tame it's been in here! going to have to go and read back properly over comments as I've had kids all over me this arvo and think maybe I've misunderstood or glossed over everyones contributions!

[lucylu]

Well, that makes much more sense! Think my brain has stopped hurting now :2lol

A higher social value is still completely subjective. I mean doing a crossword everyday helps reduce the risk of alzheimers dramatically. Surely there is social value in that? And what if it just makes you happy? Like I said, I think there is tremendous social value in being happy!

What has more social value - a teacher who does not enjoy teaching and is not being very happy or the same teacher who is not teaching, but immensely enjoying doing crosswords and being very happy?

I think there may be general consensus that the value to society of teachers is 'higher' than crossword doers, but for some individuals at a given point in time, doing crosswords may be the biggest contribution they can make to society.

I find it quite sad that society doesn't value staying at home once children are in full time school. At the beginning of full time school in Australia, children are still very young. How many chores are they going to do? If we could afford a book keeper, i'd get one in a flash! Actually, we can afford one, but then we couldn't afford organic food, solar panels, donations, overseas trips :)

[Rinelle]

I can understand that some things are seen as having a higher social value, but I'm not convinced that that is why society doesn't value staying at home. There seems to be a perception that it is boring, and almost like you're letting down the feminist movement if you choose to stay home.

As LucyLu said also, for some people, being out in the world doesn't make them happy. I mean, I work, because, you know, got to pay the bills somehow. But luckily I can work here at home, and for the most part, I don't have to have anything to do with anyone to get my job done. Suits me down to the ground. Sure, there are plenty of options for interacting if I choose to, but those options don't work for me. I'm quite happy just interacting online for the most part.

I'm not totally sure that it's everyone's responsibility to contribute to society either, to be honest. I admire the people who do, and I value their contributions to be sure. If no one did it, we'd be in a sorry state. But I think there is plenty of people who have a more background role, being the one who provides a safe and comfortable home for those who are out there contributing to the betterment of society, or raising tomorrow's citizens to be considerate and responsible people. I think it's sad that those contributions are valued less than the more obvious ones.

[lucylu]

yup! exactly :)

[Pinky]

okay maybe I'm over thinking this... I understand the difference between social value and individual value. I understand that certain activities have different values for different people (the sliding scale and all that) and that the majority of society has a similar view and values different activities on a similar scale... Okay I get what has been asked and answered on the question originally posted.

But I've read Jodie's posts a few times now and I still don't understand the why. Am I over thinking it? is it as simple as "praying is good.. but acts of charity is better" is that the reason why group activities are higher on the value scale than solitary ones? or was there more to it? I feel like I'm missed something important and I can't put my finger on what it is.

And I'm not convinced that group activities or sharing with a group give things more value. (perhaps people perceive it that way) but I don't believe it to be true.

I think about Twitter.. people out there tweeting what they had for breakfast! seriously it has gotten out of hand. The bloggs the tweets - its all about connecting.. but does sharing mundane activities increase their value? (even if their value was very small to begin with) I would say no, the opposite. Sharing them, lessens them. Did you know the number one reason people get de-friended on facebook is frequent, unimportant posts. "The 100th post about your favourite band is no longer interesting," (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-10-07/news/27631545_1_unfriended-christopher-sibona-friend-requests)

I dunno.. I know Jodie, you made a distinction between social value and personal value, a distinction I was not making earlier.. I guess maybe that's where my confusion lies. I personally have always valued private things.. probably because I'm such an unprivate person.. so private things have bigger meaning for me.

but for society.. I dunno.. I guess I don't make the distinction because society is made of us... so I never separated the two.

[Astra]

I think it really comes down to an individuals personal opinion as to what they see as valuable. As you say Pinky society is made up of us. The majority of what society thinks makes up what is important to society, this changes over time and is heavily influenced by the media, government policy and social trends. The most valued thing for women to do used to be stay at home and look after children, maintain the house and assist their husbands in their careers. Over time there has been a dramatic shift and we are now stuck somewhere in between with no real consensus and a lot of confusion.

For the government it makes sense to have everybody working as it is better for the economy, so their is a push to get as many people into the work force as possible as soon as possible. This doesn't make work a more valuable input to society than staying home, just better for the economy. Economists may argue that individual wealth and a strong economy makes everyone in society happier and they will be right to a certain extent but it overlooks so many other things and it is a short sighted view.

Consumerism (aided by women working) benefits the economy but it is at the expense of the environment and it doesn't look at the type of society we would like to create. Do we really want to be working the long hours we currently do, is it good for society to have everyone working and increasing consumption while reducing time for other social persuits such as nurturing our families and ourselves, I don't know.

[kateking]

I can't see how any activity can have a distinctive "value" and then be labelled "individual" or "social". This really confronts me and no matter how hard I try it just seems narrow. Why do activities have to be given a value? It is completely subjective. It is also misleading because it is really talking about activities that are "seen" to be contributing to society whereas the ripple effect of a solitary "unseen" activity could change the world.
Jodie when I read

If the question was 'why don't we (society) value stay at home parents of older kids?' then my answer is because there are so many other activities on the sliding scale that outweigh it. "

I was gob smacked :)
Who invented this scale?
Who can judge that there are any activities that "outweigh" it?
and if society really suscribes to this narrow outlook what hope do we have?

If I follow that way of thinking I imagine a life where I say to my children, "no darling don't paint that picture go out and plant a tree at the local community centre because on the sliding value scale of activities (stuck on the fridge) that is deemed to be a higher value contribution".
or
All Mothers need to do ativities that are "seen" to contribute higher on the sliding scale of values (distributed at the last federal election). Be warned that staying home after your children begin school is to be approached with caution "as there are so many other activities on the sliding scale that outweigh it".

As a musician who performed for audiences for over 15 years singing other peoples songs and has since composed and played original material everyday at home, I do not attach a higher value to performing at all! My legacy, the work I am most proud of, my true voice, was created alone at home. According to the "sliding scale value" theory this time has been wasted as no-one would place a higher "value" on this activity because It does not seem to directly benefit society? I know however that the joy I find by doing this allows me to then go out and inpact on society in a much more lasting, giving and positive way.

No matter how much you write justification for this stance I refuse to believe in your heart of hearts that you believe any of it, LOL.
Lucylu You made me think AGAIN!!! xx
(& Astra and Rinelle, Pinky, great discussion!)

[lucylu]

ooh, I did? what about??

yes! yes! yes! Pinky, Astra & KK. Agree wholeheartedly with all you have said.

As to whose sliding scale? I think it is well and truly Jodie's, but that Jodie's ideas are for the most part a reflection of the broader community. I really don't agree with her scale at all, because as KK said, you can never know what the ripple affect of a solitary action will be (I try to smile and be friendly to strangers for this very reason). And I also value highly individual activities. I think there is huge value in solitude and meditation (which what scrapbooking or gardening or cooking alone allows me to do)

But you know, it's just we have different opinions that's all. I do find it a bit weird 'cos I normally agree with everything you say Jodie :2lol It's actually nice to have a different idea! I feel liberated! :rofl

[Madi]

My take on it is this…… The only true imperatives we have are biological ones, and our most vital is to reproduce, and nurture our offspring until they are old enough to reproduce, ensuring the continuation of our genetic material. The rest of the things we do are just social constructs, just busywork. Think about these things in an evolutionary timescale, and the true value of things emerges. Crosswords or classic music are just enjoyable, wonderful distractions.

Why doesn’t our society value SAHPs? Because it is constructed in a way that likes to assign value to things which are unquantifiable; and is one which values the visible over the private, the short term result over long term growth. It is one which encourages us to forget our basic needs and the needs of our children in order to turn a profit.

[jodiemiller]

Wow, I feel like no one has even tried to get it.

Madi comes closest in that she identifies that survival and reproduction are about the most important things to us humans (at both an individual and a social level). She is wrong about other things not impacting on survival and reproduction however. EVERYTHING we do, private or public, individual or group, has the potential to impact on our ability to survive or reproduce - think about how you met your current partners, or what led you to the job you do, or what other activities you are involved in outside family and how they benefit you and your family (eg, it puts you into a supportive community, it generates income, it keeps you healthier, it enables learning, it confirms status, etc). And I would never limit that only to profitable or paid activities.

Kate, I believe ALL of it and I can't believe you're interpreting my comments in such a black and white fashion. I never said that any activity is a 'waste of time' (though the word 'stagnation' did slip in there somewhere ;) ). Nor did I ever say it's about being 'seen' to be doing X or Y. I've just spent two years studying something that is a very solitary activity - writing - which is probably a good example of what I'm trying to define, something like your song-writing activities. If I write a journal that is never to be shared with anyone, that I'll burn on my deathbed, but that has been a great mental-health exercise, then it has high individual value and low social value. If I write a journal that I will archive for my family, then it has a higher individual and social value than the secret journal. If I publish it as a memoir or a blog is read beyond my family and friends, then it has (potentially) a higher value still. If I write about issues that affect a wider segment of society, or if I put my writing to some purpose that enables good work to happen, eg, grant writing - social value is higher still. If I write a best-seller, or a classic novel, then that's pretty much a dream come true and I can know for sure that society values my work highly. These things are at least measurable in a social sense. Each of these activities has the potential to earn me income, or introduce me to other people who might assist in my ability to 'survive' (even in a social sense - we all need friends) and potentially, for my children to survive too. These are principles of evolutionary psychology.

I've tried to define some grey areas by expressing my own opinions and of course different people will value different activities more or less than I do - but average it out and we have some kind of dual axis (individual vs social) 'sliding scale' of value that is measurable in a group sense. THAT is what I'm trying to define.

So long story short - why doesn't our society value SAHPs? Because they would appear to be doing the same work that other people are doing IN ADDITION to their dayjobs, and/or voluntary activities, which bear a higher status or 'social value' than straight domestic work. You might not like to hear it worded like this, but it really is how we humans function in a crowded world.

[Innate Nurturer]

Well this is certainly an interesting an intense thread, and I've been reading it in snippets, and to be honest I haven't quite fully comprehended everyone's opinion and points here, and I think it's all so subjective that I'm not sure if I re-read everything I would be able to comprehend it all anyway lol.

But in regards to the original post, I just wanted to say that no, I don't think society values SAHMs of school-aged children. I don't think society even values SAHMs of newborns/infants either. The only reason we choose to be SAHMs is because we personally value such a role/time.... and that's all that really matters.

"How do we see worth in ourselves and help others see the value of being there for school age kids?"

I think we can choose to see worth in ourselves, if we are doing what we want with our life and living a life that fulfills our individual needs, and the needs of our family. As for helping others to see the value, I think the easiest and most direct way to encourage others to see the value in SAHMs is to demonstrate the value we see in ourselves as SAHMs.

Don't worry what other people think or say, don't be offended by their questions - most people aren't trying to be personal with their questions, and those that are trying to offend you are simply displaying their own issues/insecurities/experiences.

The society that I am involved in, as in the society I personally feel surrounded by, definitely doesn't think along the same lines that I do :-) I often feel 'different' to 'society', and I feel very little motivation to personally do anything for the benefit of 'society' or to involve anything in my life that is 'valued' by society. I've followed the flow for most of my life, and to be honest all it's done is confuse me, stress me, and upset me. I don't mean that I now deliberately rebel against society... I'm (gradually) just learning not to personally care about living up to any perceived expectations of what society has in mind for me, because really that's all I think it is - a personal perception of what you think society is wanting from you or valuing in you.

If you are able to be a SAHM for your children, and you are choosing to, and you want to, and you enjoy yourself in the present moment by doing so, then good on you! As in, well done for doing what serves you and your family in the best possible way. Live your life in such a happy way and 'others' around you may learn from your example. Even if they don't, at least you will be happy and so will your family :-)

[Rinelle]

The society that I am involved in, as in the society I personally feel surrounded by, definitely doesn't think along the same lines that I do :-) I often feel 'different' to 'society', and I feel very little motivation to personally do anything for the benefit of 'society' or to involve anything in my life that is 'valued' by society. I've followed the flow for most of my life, and to be honest all it's done is confuse me, stress me, and upset me. I don't mean that I now deliberately rebel against society... I'm (gradually) just learning not to personally care about living up to any perceived expectations of what society has in mind for me, because really that's all I think it is - a personal perception of what you think society is wanting from you or valuing in you.

I agree with this. Perhaps it's why I don't value 'social' activities, I don't feel any real tie to the world around me. Most days it just seems gone mad! From what I can see, the only thing society values is money, or the potential to make money.

I get that Jodie is talking about value to society whereas many of the rest of us are talking about individual value. Yes, working for charity helps society more than praying does. I get that. However, early in the thread the comment was that people need to do more with their lives than just stay home. (I'd go back and get the quote, but I'm posting on my iPad and it's too hard.) that is different to just saying that society values social activity more than individual activity.

And what it completely fails to take into account is that caring for children of any age (and by extension the home) does have value for society. We are seeing an increasing number of children with severe social and learning problems, and I really don't see how this can't be linked to parents having less involvement in their children's lives. The more pressure we put on having both parents in the workforce, the less energy and time they have for doing THE most important activity for the continuation of society - raising the next generation.

[Jamie]

Reading through this thread there are so many things I have wanted to say! And, of course, now so many have slipped my mind!

One point I wanted to make was what I think I see in Innate Nurturer's post above-don't worry about what value other people attach to your choices. It is what you believe their value to be that matters. Do what makes you happy and don't be brought down by what others think.

I feel that 60 years ago society felt the most valued place for a women to be was working within the home. A lot of work has been done to change this belief over the years, but I believe that now society feels there is no value in someone working solely within the home. This is a real shame. How did this happen? How did a fight for women to be able to do whatever they wanted ended up with women being belittled for choosing to stay at home and care for their family?

I disagree with Jodie's argument that homemakers aren't valued by society because the role they perform is the same role workers perform while also working full time. I believe there is a lot more that a homemaker provides. I see this when I take our kids to school and see children wearing ill-fitting, worn out uniforms when I know the family has the means to replace these items as needed. And these are families with very high standards. I can only think these children have left the house in this condition because there wasn't someone at home to give them a 'once over' before they walked out the door. That the washing was tossed in the washing machine and dryer over the weekend and no one had the time to look over the clothes and check that a button didn't need to be re-affixed.

I believe my work as a homemaker gives my husband the time and energy to contribute greatly to our local community. Are his efforts more important than mine because he is out in the community? I don't believe this to be the case. I think that we contribute equal effort. It is just that he is the one who gets the thanks and praise from those in the community. It seems only other homemakers acknowledge the work I put in behind the scenes to enable these events to get off the ground.

I believe my work allows my children to be well fed, well rested and prepared so they can go to school in the best condition to learn. I am here in the afternoon to make sure they have a healthy afternoon tea, that their homework is complete and to assist them with this as needed. I am here to ensure they practice their instruments, to take them to their music lessons, dance classes and football training. I believe all of this is a contribution to the future of our society.

I am here at lunch time when my husband comes home for his lunch break. This gives us some time with each other, to share a quieter meal. I am able to listen and allow him to debrief about his day, and he mine. I believe this is of benefit to our marriage, which in turn benefits our children and there is a follow on benefit to wider society from this.

Being home I am available to help run the school canteen to give parents another option. I have time to tend fruit trees in our yard so our family can benefit and so I can take freshly picked, organic options to give away for free at the school canteen. I am available to assist in the classroom. Only yesterday I did an extra shift so a working mum could go to work that day. Next week I am going to drive three school children on a 250km trip so they can compete in a public speaking competition. Sure, a bus could be paid for if all parents were working parents, but I think the kids would prefer to have some known adults present to listen to them and encourage them rather than an unknown bus driver.

Above all, I enjoy this work. I also enjoy the planning, organisation and management aspects of the homemaker role which someone mentioned earlier. I believe that things are what you make of them. If someone was employed as a housekeeper and was working hard at running a household well does that make their job more valued than mine? Perhaps by society, but I believe the same value should be given for each role, paid or unpaid.

I don't write this to argue that what I do has value. I write this to boost up other homemakers who might question their choice and the worth of what they are doing.

[kateking]

WOW doesn't this thread blow your mind!!
Jodie I love ya, I really do (Think we might have to face not getting each other on this) I loved getting in depth with you on this topic though :)
Jamie I found your post very moving and Innate Nurturer you had some powerful things to say...
I think I might bow out of this thread because I just KNOW I'm going to repeat myself LOL.
Love to all, amazing, insightful women xx

[Innate Nurturer]

Beautifully said Jamie!

[Pinky]

Wow, I feel like no one has even tried to get it.

sorry you feel that way. I've been trying and trying and I've even asked direct questions that were left unanswered. So sorry my brain doesn't work like yours.. I was trying.

[jodiemiller]

I'll go back and answer by PM if you really want me to Pinky but I think I've run my race. Your point about Twitter and Facebook expresses the exact idea I'm trying to communicate. Quality of output and how outsiders might value that output.

Of course I agree with Jamie that there is value in having someone at home to take care of the domestic details, particularly when one partner in the couple has a more consuming job (it's my exact situation too). But don't you have other roles, Jamie? You do stuff for your kids' school, or you do the book keeping for your husband's business, or something like that, don't you? I suppose I am trying to point out that mothers having purposeful (pre-)occupations outside of home and family is not a negative thing (there are so many assumptions about working mothers in this thread it would take me too much time to go back and address them all). Working families achieve quality time too, let's not forget. It is wrong to assume that working mothers can't attend to details, or that they are responsible for their child's learning or social disorder! Everyone's situation is different and finances definitely drive most women's decisions about whether to work, or what kind of work to do (if working outside the home is a necessary stimulation, for example). Balance is the main thing.

I'll give Liz about six weeks before she increases her commitment to the dance school, or takes on a role in the school P&C, or decides to go back to uni and study, or turns a hobby into a business. ;)

[Pinky]

I'll go back and answer by PM if you really want me to Pinky but I think I've run my race. Your point about Twitter and Facebook expresses the exact idea I'm trying to communicate. Quality of output and how outsiders might value that output.

please.. 'cause that just did my head in. If that was your exact idea.. then I completely didn't get it.

[lucylu]

Sorry this got personal if it did?? I think it may be the use of the term 'value' and it being attached to activities we do and the notion that the activities some of us do are of 'low value'...

Jodie, I am also disappointed that you felt we weren't trying to get it... my questions to you were an attempt, however feeble, to 'get it'. The questions were not rhetorical, they were real. I would also like to know the answers if you are willing.

I enjoy the discussion of ideas that are different to mine and trying to see things from another's POV... but I just couldn't really. There are still lots of things I want to ask you, but seems you are tired of the questions? Wary that there is no point answering them? I don't get that either really... doesn't seem like the way you normally react.

I think it's shame if we can't continue a discussion where we disagree :(

[cherish]

thanks Jodie for putting that in about working Mums.. I work, I guess I don't 'have' to cause the finances work out about the same whether I do or don't, however being a single Mumma I see it as an investment in my and my children's future financial situation.. there may come a time when their Dad doesn't/can't pay child support, or the government changes the way it funds single families (or families in general) so I work to build my knowledge and skills..

and for us- I feel that it generally works- we don't have an ordered house always (or perhaps usually!) but it wasn't any different when I didn't work. I make time for my children.. we have a close relationship and I feel I am a better Mumma for working outside the home and all the benefits it brings me..

At the same time, it hurts to miss their stuff at school when I can't make it, and it hurts to drop my darling little one at childcare (only the long day care for 2 days.. he's with me in my work day care the other two days).

I think this discussion has raised some interesting points- I recall my MIL telling me how undervalued people make her feel about staying at home (she has had 8 children, homeschooled them etc etc).. I question whether others can 'make you feel'..

[Jamie]

I don't have any other roles that have value 'out in the world', Jodie. I read for personal enjoyment. I used to do some voluntary work, but after a few years was left with the feeling that it wasn't worth the time it took me and my attention away from my family. I do volunteer at school, but I feel that is all part of my role as a homemaker and parent.

One day, once all the kids are at FT school, I might study again, part time. Only because I think it is worthwhile to have some skills which would allow me to get a job if we ended up in a situation where I needed to. But then I wonder at the point of that if after 5 years it is not used and is then no longer valued by an employer??

I stand by my comments about living your own life and not living your life a particular was in the hope of stopping others making comments on your life. You will never make everyone happy, so don't bother! Just do what works for you and your family in the situation you are in.

[Madi]

I'll give Liz about six weeks before she increases her commitment to the dance school, or takes on a role in the school P&C, or decides to go back to uni and study, or turns a hobby into a business. ;)

That's a pretty big assumption. That may or may not be the case for Liz, but I think some of the confusion in this thread stems from a lack of understanding that not everyone is driven, not everyone needs to be 'busy' or occupied, or feel like their contributions have social value to be ok with themselves. I don't define myself by any of the roles or activities I choose to do, and I don't need to be *doing* to have a rich inner life.

[lucylu]

Madi, I aspire to that :) A human being, rather than a human doing ;) Have to remind myself all the time

[Madi]

A human being, rather than a human doing ;)

Oooh I like that. That's going on my fridge.

[michelle_j_r]

i'm all for living your own life and doing what suits your family and what you individually find rewarding, but truely, i feel that there is a greater value in doing something with your time beyond being a homemaker. i don't want to quote things in case it looks like i am replying personally! LOL! so take my comments as general comments but i think there really is less value in doing a crossword or tending to your rose bushes or catching up on some tv or cooking from scratch each day than there is in volunteering at the local community garden, helping out at the school, making costumes and sets for the local theatre group etc which all spread the love a bit more. and beyond that i think there is more value still in volunteering for meals on wheels, or the local SES, or at the RSPCA etc where you are helping people in need. But i don't necessarily think that there is more value in paid work. But like Jodie's point (i think) the more you spread the love with an act then the more value that act has. Not to your family perhaps but to society in general. Which is not to say that you need to do anything for anyone else if you feel valued and fulfilled in your current activities. But i know for myself that if my kids were out of the house all day and i had that time to myself to do whatever the heck i felt like then after a few weeks of loving doing sweet fuck all i would go crazy. And i would need to do something constructive (beyond the crossword and cooking dinner) in order to feel that my life had meaning.

The only place where my own logic fails me is that fact that i would probably pass that attitude off on to others. While i might say that everyone should do whatever suits them i do admit that if someone told me that they had two kids that were both in school full time and their partner worked and all they did all week was play tennis, do yoga, and the housework then i would think "well, that must be nice for you". Maybe some of my attitude would be jealousy :shrug but if they were not out there helping at the school, or doing something for the community i would, i'm sorry, think they were not contributing. I don't know why, seeing as i'm not the community-effort-police, but i would still think that. Maybe that's societal conditioning. Or maybe it is just part of that whole survival instict that wants to see every member of the group pulling their own weight.... ?? i'm not sure.

[kateking]

Just had a thought could Jodie be talking about balance not value?
If we replaced one word with the other would her viewpoint be easier to understand ?
Still trying to nut it out!
I too felt I asked searching questions, I really wanted to get it, and I'm still open. :)
I have no assumptions about working Mums, I'm one!
But I don't feel I am contributing any more or less than my best friend that doesn't work outside the home, we just live our lives a little differently, with what fulfills us.
I think everyones journey is best spent joyfully that is how it is meant to be and any activity is of value if the person taking part
feels centered, fulfilled and joyful.

[michelle_j_r]

i suspect some people are talking/thinking about personal value (balance) and reward. And others are talking about the net value to society. The things that we individually place value on could be very different to the things that ultimately are of benefit (ie value) to the community or society as a whole.

[Madi]

And my point is that value is entirely subjective and unquantifiable. Jodie and others might imagine a sliding scale, but that is entirely a product and construct of their own beliefs, values, and upbringing.

[kateking]

But Michelle how can any activity be assigned a value? You would never be able to determine the benefit to society from many actions as their benefit may not be immediately apparent. As I said earlier: ( I can't believe I'm about to quote myself!!! LOL I really must get out of this thread.)

Anyway indulge me... I said:
"I can't see how any activity or life choice can have a distinctive "value" and then be labelled "individual" or "social". This really confronts me and no matter how hard I try it just seems narrow. Why do activities have to be given a value? It is completely subjective. It is also misleading because it is really talking about activities that are "seen" to be contributing to society whereas the ripple effect of a solitary "unseen" activity could change the world."
Jodie misunderstood me when I said about actions being "seen" to have value. I know she didn't say that in her posts that was a new idea I was presenting! I was bringing up that point that when you start assigning value to people's actions or the way they are living their life, you risk crediting value to actions that are "seen" to be contributing to society whereas the ripple effect of a solitary "unseen" activity could change the world."

I posted earlier tonight offering the word "balance" because I thought it could bring me to a halfway point of understanding this viewpoint but if I were to be completely honest (which it looks like I'm about to be) I have to say that this all reeks of judgemental, middleclass, ego driven , repressed BS!
It is not about HOW people choose to live there lives, it is the realisation that the path you choose is your own and it's value can only be determined by the person who is following it.

So in closing (knowing that I would have offended many) In answer to Liz's original question that I never answered.

Why don't people value stay at home parents of older children?
If you meet someone that has that air of judgement Liz, it is all about them. It is all about their own battles, their own disatisfaction with their lives. If they were fulfilled and following their true paths they would not need to judge yours or make assumptions about the value of that path.

So I say follow your calling, (it doesn't matter WHAT that is) be proud and do it well.

[lucylu]

*deep breath*

:heart hugs everyone.

This is a VERY emotional topic obviously.

Yes KK, I think the reason 'people' don't value SAHM's of school aged children is because they judge and determine their contribution to have 'less value'. But why??

I think as some smart mumma said, there is a lot of propaganda and policy direction from government to get us all in the workforce. There is also a great deal of mass media brainwashing us that without the latest & greatest, our lives our not worth living. It's just part of the whole consumption merry go round.

Plus, most of us with school aged children do work, so maybe it's a little confronting when someone says 'I'm going to use my time to nurture myself and my family instead of going to work/doing charity work'. I know it is for me. Makes me think, 'maybe I should be doing that', you know?

Michelle, I hear you, I really do. Our kids go to a community school where parent involvement is quite essential to the learning program. There are quite a few mums who don't work... and they are often the ones who rarely help out. If I'm honest, it really bugs me. Their children benefit from the wonderful efforts of the rest of us. But if another Mum was having a whinge, I'd probably say 'everyone does the best they can with the resources they have', and these Mums are no different. I just forget to tell myself sometimes ;)

[cherish]

you know what.. perhaps its just that society (or maybe just government and business) don't value children and therefore parenting..

I heard Eva Cox speak the other night.. and she made a poignant comment that has stayed with me.. 'we don't live in an economy, we live in a society!'

[Jamie]

Some great points in this discussion.

I actually like the introduction of the idea of balance in this thread. I know that my community work got to the point it was too heavily weighted and I wasn't putting in the time and attention my family needed. I guess I am coming from a point where I have reset to almost zero and I am very wary about what I introduce to the equation. I heavily question myself about the value and commitment of anything I am introducing in to my life these days and am extremely wary of upsetting the balance and taking on something that (by my standards) isn't worth taking me away from my family.

And I am probably also coming from a point where I am still trying to catch up on things which have been neglected over the last few years and am finding myself quite busy. The days fly between taking the kids to school, doing some jobs around the house (ouch! I have blisters from chopping the wood this morning!), my husband coming from for lunch each day from 12.30-1.30pm. Then there is only an hour and a half before I am looking at picking the kids up and keeping their afternoons ticking along.

Now my camera is finished what it was doing and I must get back to what I came online to do (upload some pics of our kids for the grandparents).

[Rinelle]

I think there are two different points to this discussion, one being that staying home once the kids are in school is boring and unfulfilling to the adult, and the other being that we have an obligation to give something back to society.

[Ethereal]

Wow, what a thread: really this is where we are at now that the roles are no longer clearly defined. We as both individuals & society need to go through this process now to find out our roles. I think it's exciting - and over-due :). Women from my mother's era have in my experience a fairly negative attitude overall to their roles. They were at that exciting time where a woman could choose to be a 'homemaker' or not, yet still strongly influenced from their upbringing to continue that stereotypical role. We are several generations in from that big turning point and now there's shuffling, to-ing & fro-ing trying to work out whether there are fixed roles still or if it's 'ok' to be more flexible. Now, of course, this so far applies mostly to women's roles, but there are plenty of dads that want to stay at home or have a stronger role in the parenting, I am by no means saying this is exclusively about sahms, just to me, the whole 'choice' has opened up issues that leave people feeling confused.

We all can have a play with the different scenarios to see what fits at any given stage in our lives.

That all being said, maybe it is my personal experiences, but when I look at the life of a sahp (friend) that does the minimum at home let alone anywhere else, then I look at another who works parttime, both have wonderful, warm, caring families that I count it as an honour to know. Looking at the polar-opposite families, what does it come down to imo? How much the family looks at the world both at home, their town, down the road, across the country & beyond. If they are involved in something outside the four walls and this can be in the form of active discussions about politics to volunteering at the school P&C then the roles of sahp (both full-time & parttime) enriches the family unit: it's not about money.

No idea if I am making sense ... I guess I just wanted to say (a) we are still sorting ourselves out in a world that has less clearly defined roles and (b) we need to be aware of more than our 4 walls & actively pursue an interest in some direction outside (from discussions over the dinner table to volunteering at the bush fire brigade) otherwise, and this is my personal opinion, you are in danger of being too self involved and living in a society (which we do, otherwise we wouldn't manage this discussion over the 'net ;)) we all need to contribute in some way.

I need to add, I am exhausted by the baby process of 5 kids. I am actually, for the first time, enjoying the chance to rest between my house jobs. However, for me I know it will only be for so long then I'll be ready to get out and have a go at following some dreams. Admittedly, I enjoy a spring clean but honestly, being the house drudge doesn't fulfill me personally. But, as has been well established, we are all different and that's great: it helps us all contribute to a society we both give and take from :).

Previous posts who have said they are sahp's all do something along with raise their kids. They are involved in work (from home) or school activities (which all schools rely on) or spending time connecting with others. Maybe the definition of a sahp isn't clear?

Can't help but feel that wasn't the most coherent of my posts, but I'll give it a whirl ;).

[Rinelle]

Why isn't raising children seen as contributing to society?

Why are we suddenly 'self absorbed' if we choose to live within our family, and not have an outside 'social' or 'community' interest?

Yes, I work from home. From necessity, not choice. If I didn't need the money, I wouldn't be doing it! And in our case, it is so that DH can also stay home and we can have time to focus on our family unit. I find it very frustrating that work takes so much time that I would rather be spending on my family (who, to be honest, very much need it), and I'm definately not as good a parent when my attention is split that way.

I just don't know why we can't all be 'valued', or at least accepted, for what we choose to do. I'm not, and never will be, a community type of person. I get highly nervous when put in a situation where something is expected of me, so yep, I avoid those like the plague. Yet I get the feeling that I'm being judged for that.

[kateking]

I think defining what is right for you Rinelle is wonderful. If you can create a life that enriches you, and gives you joy you are on the right track. No judgement here, to know yourself is to be admired. xx

A, your post was interesting, good thought about history playing a part and the redefinition of roles. etc

Lucylu I get what your saying but having experienced "not working" and being a school Mum and "working" being a school Mum I have to say the expectation and pressure I got to do more than my share when I wasn't working made me reluctant to put my hand up in the end! I firmly believe that all parents regardless of what they choose to do with their day (working or not) have equal responsibilty to contribute and help.

Interesting that when we discuss staying at home there is an assumption that all the drudgy housework will fall to that person!
When I was home fulltime ALL the family did the drudgy stuff in serveral "hour" blitz's throughout the week and I would do the things with my extra time that really enhanced our way of life ie: growing vegetables, expanding our tastes by cooking varied meals, prowling the library for intersting books for all. Thinking up experiences and setting them up!
Since I have been working I know we are missing a lot of wonderful learning, sharing experiences as a family because I just don't have the time to dedicate to create these moments. I miss it and so does everyone else. Having time to create a richer family life is a blessing and unmatched for me.

[jodiemiller]

Nice to see the discussion continuing. A lot of people are touching on points I made earlier (perhaps more tactfully than I did) so I do think some other people see what I'm saying - I was just the one who put it in brutal social terms.

OK, for those who want me to further justify my stance, I'll go back and do the quotey thing.

Back on page 1, post #16 I said:
Of course that something doesn't have to be a job - paid or unpaid, is what I said and I do highly value unpaid work outside the family. No, I don't value scrapbooking or reading or watching movies and TV shows unless it is turned into something bigger than time spent alone at home. I mean, if it becomes a passion for blogging what you scrapbook, read or watch, well and good. It is then something *other* that gives purpose to life.

This was contrued as absolute approval for public displays of activity, or social/shared activities over quiet or private activities - which is not what I was saying at all. Blogging was just an example I thought people here would relate to. I was trying to demonstrate taking an action from the private domain to another level where it becomes something that might be of interest or benefit to others and that might also increase satisfaction for the individual (a sense of achievement, for example, or a pleasure in sharing knowledge and receiving feedback on your work). Yes, I do assume such activities to have a higher purpose or social value than the private activity alone. I feel quite certain this is how our society 'values' most activities.

Please know that I'm not referring to the actual domestic work that we all need to do to care for our families. I'm referring to the extra activities someone might take on to fill the time not spent caring for children (because they are at school). Homeschoolers and homesteaders have made a career within the home doing what they do with excellence. I do believe those activities have a high social value too.

Kateking wrote:
Sometimes though enjoying something is enough? If something gives you joy that is as "big" as It needs to be. Get what I mean? It doesn't have to turn into anything bigger to validate the activity.

I get what you mean, but that's not what I'm talking about. A hobby is a hobby, and you can do anything with your time that you like. If we're talking about society valuing parents daytime activities (hobbies? domestic work?) when their kids are at school, this is the point that I'm trying to make - how do outsiders perceive value in an activity you undertake while your kids are at school? I'm talking in generalities here. I can take years to write a novel, for example, but if it's a good one, and someone is likely to publish it when it is finished, the action of writing has obvious social worth.

Yes, I meant 'value' where I wrote 'value' and I meant 'balance' where I wrote 'balance' and they aren't necessarily interchangeable. I did also try to make that point in post #16 when I said that I questioned where the balance lies solely in the role of homemaker (without external activities) when there are no longer children home during the day to care for. Yes, I can totally accept that some people love and are well suited to organising and domestic work. Still, I wonder where the balance lies in that, and whether it can be taken to another level (of value for family, community or society).

Doing vs Being

Well, there is no value in just 'being' for society. So society doesn't value it as highly because your 'being' anything without action simply doesn't affect anyone else (though maybe the calm is good for family - I'll accept that. ;) ).

In fact, in light of psychology and how we humans function, there really is no 'be', only 'do'. I sound a bit like Yoda, when you 'be' you still 'do' so how do you separate the two? I think this is getting off the topic though.

Rinelle wrote:
I'm not totally sure that it's everyone's responsibility to contribute to society either, to be honest. I admire the people who do, and I value their contributions to be sure. If no one did it, we'd be in a sorry state. But I think there is plenty of people who have a more background role, being the one who provides a safe and comfortable home for those who are out there contributing to the betterment of society, or raising tomorrow's citizens to be considerate and responsible people. I think it's sad that those contributions are valued less than the more obvious ones.

'If no one did, we'd be in a sorry state.' I do strongly feel that we are all obliged to live a life that gives something back. I never specified how, or when, or in what capacity, but I was glad to see others agree with me on this one - that it's not just me who's the freak who thinks so.

Kateking wrote:
Who invented this scale? Who can judge that there are any activities that "outweigh" it? and if society really suscribes to this narrow outlook what hope do we have?

LucyLu wrote:
A higher social value is still completely subjective. I mean doing a crossword everyday helps reduce the risk of alzheimers dramatically. Surely there is social value in that? And what if it just makes you happy? Like I said, I think there is tremendous social value in being happy!

'The scale' was a shorthand for expressing an idea. I would still argue that it's not completely subjective. I will concede that it is complicated by lots of other factors, but I do think that some activities will obviously have a higher social value than others. I think it is totally measurable. For example, government keeps track of volunteer community groups because they are considered to be 'social capital'. This means they are a measure of the richness of a culture and society. Suburb by suburb, you can measure people's charitable or beneficial interactions with each other by the number of clubs and societies they contain. It's what makes some suburbs very liveable, and others no-go zones. Govt taps into community groups a lot, to poll unmet needs, or to address social trends, or to understand group demographics.

Yes, 'being' happy is valuable in terms of prevention. It is a fleeting condition however, and impossible to measure in real terms, unlike social capital.

Pinky wrote:
Am I over thinking it? is it as simple as "praying is good.. but acts of charity is better" is that the reason why group activities are higher on the value scale than solitary ones? or was there more to it? I feel like I'm missed something important and I can't put my finger on what it is.

Hopefully the paragraph above will shine a light on the point I'm making. When you commented about the value of Twitter and Facebook I said it's about 'output' and the quality and quantity of it and whether it serves purpose to others (has intrinsic social value). Does that fill the gaps?

Astra wrote:
The majority of what society thinks makes up what is important to society, this changes over time and is heavily influenced by the media, government policy and social trends. The most valued thing for women to do used to be stay at home and look after children, maintain the house and assist their husbands in their careers. Over time there has been a dramatic shift and we are now stuck somewhere in between with no real consensus and a lot of confusion.

For the government it makes sense to have everybody working as it is better for the economy, so their is a push to get as many people into the work force as possible as soon as possible. This doesn't make work a more valuable input to society than staying home, just better for the economy. Economists may argue that individual wealth and a strong economy makes everyone in society happier and they will be right to a certain extent but it overlooks so many other things and it is a short sighted view.

Consumerism (aided by women working) benefits the economy but it is at the expense of the environment and it doesn't look at the type of society we would like to create. Do we really want to be working the long hours we currently do, is it good for society to have everyone working and increasing consumption while reducing time for other social persuits such as nurturing our families and ourselves, I don't know.

Agree completely! Just wanted to add that taking on activity outside the home doesn't necessarily lead to increased consumerism. I mean, it can, but it doesn't have to. Much of the work that mothers do outside the home is unpaid anyhow (which is not to say it has low social value!).

LucyLu said:
I really don't agree with her scale at all, because as KK said, you can never know what the ripple affect of a solitary action will be (I try to smile and be friendly to strangers for this very reason).

I totally get your point Lu, I was sticking to generalities, because getting down to specifics is waaaay too complicated.

Cherish wrote:
I question whether others can 'make you feel'..

Right on!

Madi wrote:
I don't define myself by any of the roles or activities I choose to do, and I don't need to be *doing* to have a rich inner life.

Ah, well maybe we differ on this veiwpoint because I would argue that you must 'do' in order to have a rich inner life (eg, read, discuss, stay abreast of news, interact with family, etc - are all 'doing' which feed the rich inner life?).

[jodiemiller]

Did I miss anyone's question?

[cherish]

Jodie- you are a good woman.. I think we actually agree, (yet again) I think I was probably internalising (sp?) the question, where as you have answered it..

thank you for your insights..

[lucylu]

Did I miss anyone's question?

:2lol thanks Jodie :)

[jodiemiller]

Oh, and I just realised that the allocation of grant monies is almost exclusively decided on the social value of the object the grant is being requested for. Yet another example of measuring social value!

Ooh, thanks guys. Couldn't get to the computer yesterday and actually felt guilty for not rounding off my last post more politely. I love yous all!

[kateking]

Thankyou for that effort Jodie it was great to be able to get direct responses to some of the questions raised.
We are so different you see I think "being" is always more powerful than "doing"! Anyway like you said whole other topic.
I think I would have agreed with you about 3 years ago!
I'm still surprised, still don't really understand to be honest but I respect your opinion and your intelligent way of expressing it :)
I'm going to explore all this more, (Just not here, LOL) ,so thanks for starting me off!

[lucylu]

having experienced "not working" and being a school Mum and "working" being a school Mum I have to say the expectation and pressure I got to do more than my share when I wasn't working made me reluctant to put my hand up in the end! I firmly believe that all parents regardless of what they choose to do with their day (working or not) have equal responsibilty to contribute and help.

Your 'not working' time sounds awesome KK. I have always worked in some capacity, so don't have that perspective, although many people assume I don't as my work is very flexible.

I was specifically thinking of about 4 Mums at our school who all have kids in full time school but don't contribute much very much at all, let along their 'share' at school. But, I know there are reasons for this and that is their choice or need (well, most of the time I know this ;) )

[lucylu]

Jodie thanks for responding.

I think I did read your posts correctly, so I understand them in that sense, but I don't really understand how you can feel that way (because I don't).

Will you indulge me with some more answers? Are these your views? Or are you saying that society as a whole has a sliding scale of social value?

[jodiemiller]

I'm saying that society has a whole sliding scale of value. Here, number these social needs according to your own value system:

Access to quality childcare
Access to quality healthcare
Access to quality education
Access to a place of worship
Access to quality food and water

Get a cross section of your community to grade them on the same scale, average it out and you have a crude scale of value for your community.

Elections are won and lost on the basis of this principle. Yes, however crudely I described it earlier, a sliding scale of social value does really exist. I wouldn't dare make something like this up.

[Madi]

Wait, are you saying there is a sliding scale of value or values? Two different things.

[Rinelle]

And is all this really what the average person thinks when they say "so are you going back to work now the kids are in school?"

[kateking]

Jodie that makes sense to me, you are talking about a communitys average PERCEPTION of value. It makes sense that government needs to provide infrastructure and services for the community in accordance with need. I don't have a problem with that at all.
But to extend that premise to the original question is where I have difficulty.
We're not talking about buldings or services we're talking about parenting as a stay at home parent as LIzlea is proposing and the value of that IS indefinable.
I will try to explain it this way...
When you gave the example of writing a book for two years and then feeling that the time spent creating that had a higher value and meaning (to you) if it was published and enjoyed by a wider audience. I thought that therfore external validation or approval was needed in order for you to think the time spent was more valuable. The book does not change, it is the same book whether it gets published or not,
Hitlers Mein Kampf was published and read by an enormous amount of people who considered it a valuable book, a call to arms for genocide. Value is entirely subjective it is determined by the fads of the time & the beliefs of the community that assign it.
Just because everybody thinks something it does not assign a quantative value to anything. It is just a belief in value that sits comfortably with the people that suscribe to it.

[michelle_j_r]

When you gave the example of writing a book for two years and then feeling that the time spent creating that had a higher value and meaning (to you) if it was published and enjoyed by a wider audience. I thought that therfore external validation or approval was needed in order for you to think the time spent was more valuable
bolding by me.
That's the difference with what everyone is talking about. Value to who?? If you are talking personal value than that is up to the individual to judge. But if we are talking value to society, or any other kind of value that can be judged by your community then the book has very little value to society if noone else sees it. How happy you are and whatever sense of personal acheivement you might feel at having written the book is irrelevant. Kudos to you for doing it but it still means very little to society. That is not to say that you should not have spent the time writing it, it's just saying that you've done nothing of EXTERNAL value.

[kateking]

Sorry chelle you missed the point of my post entirely!
Sharing anything does not make it more valuable! The work itself doesn't change by sharing it. You are simply "sharing it" which is great and to be applauded and nice BUT it does not increase the value of the work. If some people find it valuable to read it that is subjective and purely a personal reaction. You cannot say that anything is valuable for society you can only say that a society viewed something as valuable it doesn't mean that it is. Like I said in the early 1900's many viewed Hitlers views expressed in his book as valuable but few would suscribe to that theory now (thank goodness) Because many read it, it did not make the work more valuable it just meant it was read by many and adopted by many but the sharing of it did not make it more valuable.
Umm does ANYONE get what I am saying? PLEASE Lucylu, Pinky You must get what I'm saying don't you?!!!!!

[Madi]

I get it KK! Totally. The act is an act. Society views that act through a lense of cultural mores, and judges it's value based on that. It's completely subjective.

[kateking]

Thankyou Madi xx

[lucylu]

yep, I get it...and agree KK. I kind of feel like we are mostly saying versions of the same thing :2lol

I still can't work out if Jodie is saying 'this is societies values' or if her posts are expressing her personal views (like that a journal has more 'value' if it is shared with her family).

[jodiemiller]

The journal example was to elucidate a 'sliding scale of value'. The novel example was to elucidate 'value' at the level of society. Chelle rebutted Kate's post as I would have. Yes, what society values goes in trends. Isn't that how this thread got so spirited regarding the role and value of mothers once kids go to school?

Lu, I'm sure that last line was not intended to stir me. Go back and read my previous long post and if you have a specific question, I'll try to address it.

Can I point out that one person's view alone is 'subjective' but when several shsre that view it gains social value. The more who shsre it the greater its social value.

[Madi]

Can I point out that one person's view alone is 'subjective' but when several shsre that view it gains social value. The more who shsre it the greater its social value.

Yes, but it's still subjective! If I say, "that cloud looks like a butterfly", and you say, "no it looks like a unicorn", it doesn't matter how many people I can find who agree with me that it looks like a butterfly (or how many you can find to agree it looks like a unicorn) it's still subjective.

When you say social value, do you mean value (ie worth) to society? Or do you mean something which society considers valuable (important)?

[jodiemiller]

When you say social value, do you mean value (ie worth) to society? Or do you mean something which society considers valuable (important)?

Can you explain the difference to me, Madi?

[Madi]

Can you explain the difference to me, Madi?

I'm just trying to nut out whether you're talking about value in terms of worth (as in a tangible asset such as an established school), or values as a widely held opinion (as in a belief that education should be available to all children).

In terms of the OP, I could frame it like this : Are you talking about the comparative worth or lack of worth in having a community member out of the workforce to care for children, or the view that many people have that someone caring for children does not add significantly to society?

(Both, I still maintain, are a fluid concept.)

[lucylu]

Lu, I'm sure that last line was not intended to stir me. Go back and read my previous long post and if you have a specific question, I'll try to address it.

:2lol of course it wasn't! In fact, I spend a long time working out what to type so that I am not stirring or offending. Wasted time, clearly ;)

I think it is this comment that is clouding any others:
The whole 'seeing of worth' in keeping house while the kids are at school actually does challenge me.

I have asked a specific question, which I still feel is unanswered... and that is, are these your views or are you simply saying this is what you think societies views are? Do you actually think there is more value in scrapbooking if you blog about it? I'm not asking to argue with you, I genuinely am interested in clarifying which of these comments are your views. If you don't feel like answering, that's fine - no hard feelings. I feel like it's one of those times were there's no substitute for a face to face conversation :)

Am very much enjoying the discussion... although I still do feel like we are kind of saying the same thing.

[Madi]

I'm really enjoying this discussion too. :yes

[Ethereal]

Sharing anything does not make it more valuable! The work itself doesn't change by sharing it.

Now I could be missing something entirely and struggling to see if we are all still on topic to the original question: but isn't this comparing apples with oranges? I don't read Jodie's posts as saying that societies value is higher than personal value: they are different scales altogether.

So, in regards to the op question: are we not discussing how others (society) perceive the value of staying at home with older children whereas (as I am interpreting) KK you are saying societies scale of value isn't as relevant as your own scale? Which, is of course important (very important) but not relevant in the other scale: society's scale. Apples & oranges.

Of course, society is made up of individuals & it takes a few strong ones to start the ball rolling on a new way of thinking (hey, let's reply when asked what we will do when they are all at school that what I am doing is valuing myself & maybe you as the person judging me can try that, take your mind off judging others ;)). However, this is my opinion, we all count on people to fulfill roles in society from checkout operators to police to doctors to shire gardeners & many volunteers. Yes, raising kids is massively important, but we all need to pull a little weight by playing some sort of role within society from small to medium to big - whatever suits our abilities & conditions.

I have always been perplexed that there is a drive that parents HAVE to work once all kids are in school. Are you mad? Who picks them up after netball practice? Who volunteers to help with classroom reading? Who is there to talk to principles & teachers when there's classroom issues/learning issues? Who's there to supervise play dates? These are all massively valuable both now & in the future: a well-rounded childhood will have a better chance to lead to a healthier adult life & therefore less strain on society (also during their childhood & adolescence). BUT, that, imo, still needs to be balanced with contributing in some way whether it be writing a novel read by thousands, a photograph cherished by a family, volunteering at the school canteen, joining the bush fire brigade or working - whatever suits our myriad of talents & interests. Whether society says that book is more valuable than that photograph is irrelevant: both are contributions. Whether you do one day of volunteering at school or it is weekly is irrelevant: both are contributions. Society may say one act is less or more valuable (then from there it is up to you to perceive how much society's opinion is relevant to your personal scale), but what you have done is acted on your own scale of values and added to the whole. Sliced up the apple & the orange and made a fruit salad :).

Wellll, that's my interpretation anyway.

[jodiemiller]

Bingo Aleza! I could kiss you!

Lu, that snippet you quoted was my own personal opinion, if I can qualify it by inserting the word 'only' before the 'keeping house'. Elsewhere, I tried to expand on the idea that Aleza just hit in the bulleye. So to address your second question: yes, I believe society values your scrapbooking hobby more if you blog about it. Do you disagree?

Madi asked: "Are you talking about the comparative worth or lack of worth in having a community member out of the workforce to care for children, or the view that many people have that someone caring for children does not add significantly to society?"

I'm talking about neither. The topic addressed valuing what mothers do while their children are at school.

[cherish]

Yes Aleza.. I totally agree.. when you think about collective societies, if you don't contribute, you don't survive.. in some sense I feel that when people don't contribute (not talking about work here) then society and that person/family miss out.. we all need each other and when roles are shared and communities work together, then we all benefit.. imo-

[Rinelle]

But in reality, we are all contributing. We spend money on items that supports someone's livlihood, pay rates (or rent) that support community facilities, pay tax etc. Living in society it's impossible not to participate in it. (And if you could manage to be completely self sufficient, do you really need to contribute?) I don't know, perhaps it's because of the way I was raised, but I've never been the 'volunteer' type. We do help out in our immediate community, with helping mow elderly neighbours lawns, keeping an eye on neighbours places if they're not around etc, something that we would NOT have time for if we were both working.

To be honest though, as I stated before, I don't think this is really what the initial question was about. The people who ask at the school gate why you're not working now aren't thinking all this. They're not seeing society's value of things, they're seeing an individual value, or what they would do nor need to do if they were in your shoes.

[kateking]

Madi we are on the same page completely and that feels like a blessing.

There have been so many wonderful things said by everybody but I just can't seem to really nail a way to really explain where I'm coming from with this. I am still getting the question whether I am talking about social value or individual value and that is what I have been trying to get across! Nothing can be assigned a value! There can be a "trend of approval" from society for something but that does not allocate a value to it.

I illustrated with the extreme example of Hitler thing trying to indicate that when "society" values something it is just popular opinion or group approval for something but the approval does not assign a real value to it even though it was considered valuable at the time.

In Madi's words it is just "something society considers valuable."

Therefore in relation to the original question posed by Lizlea...
I think there is real danger when people start talking as if "value" is real and tangible and can be assigned as Chelle and Jodie did early in this thread, even with a sliding scale to measure it no less!
I honestly feel I have illustrated clearly it is always just subjective opinion, social or individual.
Ie: Lizlea feels stay at home parents are "undervalued" and therefore concludes that other activities are more "valued" If she was to base her decision on that she would be doing herslf a disservice because it isn't "value" at all it is just subjective opinion trending a certain way. An opinion she can agree with or disagree with, but that is all it is.

I am stepping back now because I just can't find anymore ways to explain what I can see so clearly and as Lucylu said we are all just repeating ourselves now!
Love you all heaps and thankyou.
xxxxxxxx

[jodiemiller]

I'm sorry, but does 'approval' not indicate a value? I honestly think you cannot avoid valuing one thing over another in life. Human beings function by measuring one thing against another and then deciding between them (to put it simply) from moment to moment. Nothing exists in a void. Everything - EVERYTHING - is measurable (in social value) according to what it sits beside in public perception. So volunteering at scouts might be of equal value to volunteering at school. Writing grants would be valued according to your success in obtaining the grant (and perhaps the experience you gain in the process). Working in public health might be perceived as more credible, or more valuable, than selling mobile phones for a living. If there is a social value to staying at home and doing the housework while the kids are at school, then I dare to say it is as low as staying at home and doing the housework on unemployment benefits. It would certainly be lower on the social value scale than doing it for someone else as a domestic cleaner, for example, and I dare say that doing it in the capacity of carer (paid or unpaid) for someone who can't do it themselves, would be even higher on the social value scale.


I illustrated with the extreme example of Hitler thing trying to indicate that when "society" values something it is just popular opinion or group approval for something but the approval does not assign a real value to it even though it was considered valuable at the time.

We are making the same point here - only there is no such thing as a 'real' value for anything. Even the price of milk is allocated according to one condition or another - and it doesn't even have to be sold for its inherent value (as in, what it cost to bottle it and send it to market) as Woolworths have demonstrated this year. Once you understand there is no 'real' anything, only perception, we are making the same argument.

So if society considers something valuable right now, then it IS valuable. It might not have the same value tomorrow when the next big idea comes along, but it still has some value (and few things have a value of zero, or less than zero - but this is a new concept that is actually becoming more common in the retail and service sectors).

So how you value your time is completely subjective. How society values your time is abstract, and mobile, but it can be measured by $$, or time, or outcomes, or output, or some other quantifier.

[cherish]

Rinelle- they may not be thinking that per say.. but society has constructed value in their minds.. which is made up of all that has been discussed (media, gov, societal values blah blah)..

I think it's fab that you help out with your elderly neighbours yards... I live next to elderly people, and often feel that I don't/can't/won't do things to help them out as I'm busy with kids/work/life etc.. though we do make the time to talk etc etc.. if I wasn't working I would like to think that I would assist them more (must add that they have lots of support.. family coming at least once daily, a gardener that does their lawn etc..) anyway- I think that is a fab contribution!

I agree also that we participate even when we don't necessarily do 'valuable' actions.. however doing those extra things (like looking after our neighbours, volunteering, helping at school etc etc etc) really add to community..

[Rinelle]

I'm not sure though that they're 'valued' by the people you meet in the street either though. In that, if they ask the question 'what are you going to do now?', they mean work. If you say that you're going to find time to help at the school and volunteer, I bet you'd get a similar reaction as if you said you were going to stay home and keep house.

[Ethereal]

I wrote a whole heap then realised I was repeating Jodie :).

KK, to your example on the book. Do you value yourself as a woman? Only 100 years ago women had almost no value in society. (I said 100 as a round figure, you get the idea :)). Does society value you as a woman? Yes, it does. A concrete example is getting the right to vote. Or the right to contraception. Or the right to single parenting payments so we aren't tied in a bad relationship by the need to feed our children. Society has changed it's opinion on the worth, the value, of women. There are as many variations on personal value of woman as there are individuals - but that is the tangible value.

Do you value your children? Are they worthy of respect and love and time and money? Again, society is changing it's value as a whole when it comes to children. By no means overnight but we as a whole are getting there.

Those are broad, huge value examples. But, they ALL have a value that can be translated into time & money which is how we all value anything.

So, was it a "trend" when women won the right to vote?

Ok, how about FB? Plenty of us spend A LOT of time there (I'm quietly whistling & not looking at myself btw ;)) - is it a trend? Or a value? I'd say it's a trend that I value enough to spend my time on. Ok, I may need to look at my value scale one of these days :2lol.

Now I am re-reading your post because I know you are frustrated at not getting your point across ... don't we all make decisions on a daily basis on what we consider to be valuable? So doesn't it follow society will do the same, being made up of people?

Also: I think there is real danger when people start talking as if "value" is real and tangible and can be assigned as Chelle and Jodie did early in this thread, even with a sliding scale to measure it no less!
I honestly feel I have illustrated clearly it is always just subjective opinion, social or individual.
Ie: Lizlea feels stay at home parents are "undervalued" and therefore concludes that other activities are more "valued" If she was to base her decision on that she would be doing herslf a disservice because it isn't "value" at all it is just subjective opinion trending a certain way. An opinion she can agree with or disagree with, but that is all it is.

I think this is another way of saying value. I agree (high value) with that opinion or I disagree (low value) for that opinion. Society will assign a value whether we like it or not, agree with the value or not.

The kitchen only needs one chef, but the chef needs many hands. The chef wouldn't be a chef without everyone playing their part. ALL of it is valuable. Society says the chef is "more" valuable because he's trained longer, gained more skills, had more experience. His increased value is measured in (for this example) a dollar value and recognition.

I think I'm repeating myself if I go on. I honestly think we are discussing the same thing, just giving it different terms. By saying society has a sliding scale of value doesn't mean we personally agree with that exact scale, just acknowledging it exists. How can it not? Otherwise why does money exist? Taxes? Wages? In the barter system a chicken is worth more than oranges or I dunno, whatever lol. To exist in society, everything has a value measured in varying currencies (as Jodie said: time, money, recognition etc).

[Ethereal]

I'm not sure though that they're 'valued' by the people you meet in the street either though. In that, if they ask the question 'what are you going to do now?', they mean work. If you say that you're going to find time to help at the school and volunteer, I bet you'd get a similar reaction as if you said you were going to stay home and keep house.

Then that is society's scale: as an individual do you value that scale or your own? My friend's mum (mum!) said what do I do? I homeschool 5 kids (this was when I was) and she said? No, I meant work. I looked at her gobsmacked and politely said that IS work, you wanna try it and see what "work" means? So my value and hers differed. That's ok, I can choose to share my value or leave them to their ignorance :p. However, society has decided (despite my bravado & personal value scale), has a low value of a stay at home parent of home schooled kids. I know this, because if you choose to do it, you do it for no pay, minimal help, lots of backlash & reliance on other volunteers (ie other hs-ers).

I value HS above school system (many, many would disagree) but I also value my children's well-being more because I couldn't go it alone any more. My value system & society's clashed so I had to make a choice. Do I like it? No. But it exists whether I like it or not.

[michelle_j_r]

Loving this thread! On the iPhone so not going to ramble. Sorry you are getting frustrated KK but I'm pretty sure I do get your point, I just don't have the same opinion.

Loved Ethereal's post several posts up (too lazy to quote).

And I believe finding a balance between what we value personally and what we perceive society as a whole values is something we all struggle with at some point.

[kateking]

:yield:Ok, ok, ok

I see what you are saying now about society's value "judgements".
(but I don't have to like it ;))
Your right Ethereal sometimes society got it right.
So enough of this
:protest:soapbox::no:
and more of this :bubblebath
(But you have to admit I put up one hell of a fight :2lol)
Love me
xxxxx
PS:
Jodie, damm I'll getcha next time ;) xxx

[Rinelle]

I still think that taking time out of 'contributing' to society while you're having kids should be seen as acceptable. Most people are contributing both before and after kids, so in reality, the time that they're home is only a portion of their lives. It's all very well to say 'society doesn't value it because it doesn't contribute', but I think instead of just looking at how things ARE, we need to look at how they should be. And caring for the future generation should be valued.

And if we're only looking at what society as a whole values, right now, in this time, then the reality is that from what I see, the only thing valued is money, and if an occupaion doesn't make money, it isn't valued, regardless of how it contributes to society. Which is why we don't see staying at home with kids being valued. I don't think most volunteer postions would be seen as valuable to a large proportion of society, and that's apparently what we're talking about here, not what should be valued.

[Pinky]

Some people value it. The other day I was at the doctor's office, the drop in just 2 hours before my daughter's ballet recital, so I was dressed up. After the doctor examined my swollen lymph nodes in my neck and prescribed some anti-biotics. She asked me what I did for a living. It was sunday and I guess I looked "worky" all dressed up. I told her I was a domestic goddess.. she looked puzzled, I said "I stay home and look after my kids" and she took my face in both hands, looked me straight in the eye and with a jiggle of her hands she said "the most important job in the world. THE most important". She was a funny wrinkly brown woman of about 70 - and I dunno.. it felt nice to be validated. Side note. She didn't ask the age of my children.

anyway - maybe we'll never know WHY sahm of school aged children aren't valued in our society... but maybe we will be? I dunno.. if children and women can go from chattle to valued.. anything is possible right?

[lucylu]

Pinky that is fantastic!! :great Go your doctor!


yes, I believe society values your scrapbooking hobby more if you blog about it. Do you disagree?Hmm... not sure in this context (I am emotionally scarred about scrapbooking :2lol), I think it depends though... what if the designs are bad and 99% of people who looked at the blog felt frustrated and wished they'd clicked on a different link. That person would be making a more 'valuable' contribution to society if they enjoyed their bad designs in the comfort of their own home and kept them to themselves. And that is what (I think) KK is trying to say... that it is all so subjective and individual.

But I can see your point and I certainly agree that society in general does have a sliding scale on which it values activities.


Madi asked: "Are you talking about the comparative worth or lack of worth in having a community member out of the workforce to care for children, or the view that many people have that someone caring for children does not add significantly to society?"

I'm talking about neither. The topic addressed valuing what mothers do while their children are at school.
Yes but I and others are saying that what mothers do while their children are at school can still include caring for children (even though the children are not there). Doing all the crap jobs at home; setting up totally cool experiences; spending time scrapbooking/painting/sewing/writing so that they feel renewed, energetic & present when the kids come home; these are activities that have 'caring for children' at their core. They're just different ways of going about it. They do involve a contribution to society - nurturing children (which I think we all agree is a very valuable contribution)


I'm not sure though that they're 'valued' by the people you meet in the street either though. In that, if they ask the question 'what are you going to do now?', they mean work. If you say that you're going to find time to help at the school and volunteer, I bet you'd get a similar reaction as if you said you were going to stay home and keep house.
:yes Happens to me all the time! And gives me the absolute shits. I work 20 hrs a week but from home and it's very flexible...therefore people seem to have this idea that my work takes 2hrs a week, and ask all the time what else I do. When I say I spend a lot of time helping at school the reaction is the same as if I'd said I paint my toenails.

I find it really interesting that so many people who have contributed to this thread feel so passionately about contribution, as well as that their notion of contribution does not include activities that nurture your children while they are at school. I get it that contribution is important to many of us, just like gardening, wholefood, natural remedies and living sustainably are important. But I don't understand the judgement that comes with it :confused1 The assertion that you must contribute to be whole. The idea that only looking after your family is unhealthy. I find it judgemental. Most of us choose to contribute because we want to and need to, but that doesn't mean it's right for everyone.

Oh god, I am rambling! :2lol sorry!

Aleza, great posts. You managed to say so well what so many of us struggled to say. I don't agree with some of what you've written, but the bits if it about the notion of value.

[Ethereal]

I guess, Lucylu, I figure if I am going to access the bush fire brigade, the RFDS, the school canteen, the vet that helped my goat, the roads I drive on, the new pipes going in in our street for water .... I figure that I need to give back not only lovingly raised kids that have eyes open to the world around them, but maybe also donate a photo shoot for a fundraiser, work at the local pub, car pool for netball practice, pay my school fees and so on. Most stay at home parents don't sit around twiddling thumbs after doing the basic load of washing & dropping the kids off. It's a whole life that includes a whole heap of different things. I don't feel like I'm judging, I could be wrong & I apologize if anyone felt that way because it's not what I intended at all :heart. I guess I feel that as our school age children who attend school are leaving me (I still have a 2yr old at home but thats easy peasy nowadays :2lol) with more time than before & therefore in a position to give back a little, but not so much I take away from being there for our kids. It's a tricky balance, one I anticipate I'll always be balancing, but one I do feel on my value scale is important. Everyone's scale is different and that's not only ok, but what makes the whole thing tick :).

When (cos it's when, not if ;)) someone says "what will you do when Squishy is at school" I will happily rattle it all off for them. Just because I'm not paid a dollar value for housework or school drop offs or picnics or the zoo that we have here (madness!) doesn't leave me feeling less valued. I was talking to M about this thread and he said you want to know the currency you are being paid in? Well next time you go out I'll take a photo of the kid's faces when they find out you are gone & print off several copies THEN you can see what your true value is. I tell ya, some days I'm happy to keep him around ;). :heart :heart

[Madi]

I find it really interesting that so many people who have contributed to this thread feel so passionately about contribution, as well as that their notion of contribution does not include activities that nurture your children while they are at school. I get it that contribution is important to many of us, just like gardening, wholefood, natural remedies and living sustainably are important. But I don't understand the judgement that comes with it :confused1 The assertion that you must contribute to be whole. The idea that only looking after your family is unhealthy. I find it judgemental. Most of us choose to contribute because we want to and need to, but that doesn't mean it's right for everyone.



I agree LucyLu.

Maybe my ideas will change when I have both kids as school, but I look forward to having time to do more things that enhance our lives. And finding part time work that fits into school hours, rushing to get the kids to before and after school care, taking time from my family in exchange for money or recognition is not something I need to do just to satisfy some nosy person who has no idea about what it really means to take care of your family.

My personal opinion is that I have no obligation to contribute. That doesn't stop me from doing so, but I don't believe that you are born with some kind of cosmic debt you have to work off. :shrug Or that having money or time obligates me in some way. Some people get a rush from skydiving, others get a rush from being giving. Being generous or hardworking enhances their sense of self, and confirms how they (or their community) see themselves (as a good person, as a kind person, as an achieving person). There is always a payoff; no act is truly altruistic.

You know, since I've starting posting in this thread I've realised something. I think a large proportion of society does value sahp's of children of all ages. It's just not a vocal portion. It's not the nosy lady at the BBQ saying '"no really, don't you get bored darling?". It's everyday people who know that your worth is not your paycheck, it's not your resume, it's not your qualifications, it's your quality of life and the joy you take in it.

[Donna]

I haven't read the replies yet. So my apologies if this reply is out of whack lol

I'm in that position atm. Benji [youngest] started school this year. What I do now is a full time job. Just because he started school doesn't mean my day is now 'clear' to go out 4 to 6 hours a day working out of the home. The kids go off to school, but my work doesn't stop because they are there. I start at 5.30am, and don't get to bed until around 10.30-11pm. My days are full doing what it takes to keep the house running, and all the rest of what goes into raising he kids. I'm exhausted now, I am dreading next year when I will have to go out to work as well.

Afew weeks ago I invited the PM to come stay with us [via the John Laws show] for a week so she could see howa typical Australian family lives/survives. I really REALLY wish she would take me up on my offer, I want her to see what that would do to my family.

[kateking]

I find it really interesting that so many people who have contributed to this thread feel so passionately about contribution, as well as that their notion of contribution does not include activities that nurture your children while they are at school. I get it that contribution is important to many of us, just like gardening, wholefood, natural remedies and living sustainably are important. But I don't understand the judgement that comes with it :confused1 The assertion that you must contribute to be whole. The idea that only looking after your family is unhealthy. I find it judgemental. Most of us choose to contribute because we want to and need to, but that doesn't mean it's right for everyone.



Lucylu, I gave up in exhaustion and I wish now I hadn't. You have managed to express my feeling of disappointment in what I read here. I found it judgemental and narrow, mainstream and I gotta say very ego based. At a bit of a loss really, sorta feel like I don't fit anymore, doesn't feel like the haven I thought it was! Might be PMT or maybe it is what it is?
Anyway I appreciate your posts, well done xx

[cherish]

I'm feeling a bit tired... I'm sorry that people misunderstood that I don't personally value SAHP... I do!! And all that goes with it, however I do feel that there is room in all of our lives to contribute to the whole of society in other ways.. I guess I feel disappointed when people believe the opposite..

[jodiemiller]

I never said I don't personally value SAHPs either. This was just a discussion people! It is good for us to flip the coin and examine the other side sometimes. Some of us found it more challenging than others - it's all OK. We all still love each other, don't we?

The point was that judgement is simply a part of being human. We use our judgement from moment to moment to ensure our survival (in a very broad sense). Every single thing we do, everything we encounter in this world of our demands our JUDGEMENT to overcome. This was the original, unavoidable point of this discussion. I'm not tired of it because I find I have nothing to defend. Judgment does not equal 'judgemental' - it is a necessary part of the weighing up of options and values that we do from moment to moment to get through our days. Good to be aware that it exists - but you don't have to wear it on your person. No one here is asking anyone in this thread to do anything differently to what they already do because we all value each other - obviously - or we wouldn't keep coming here.

[jodiemiller]

I just wanted to ask - are there actually any SAHPs of school children on this forum who DON'T do other activities as well (homeschool? food growing? community groups?).

[kateking]

I'm feeling a bit tired... I'm sorry that people misunderstood that I don't personally value SAHP... I do!! And all that goes with it, however I do feel that there is room in all of our lives to contribute to the whole of society in other ways.. I guess I feel disappointed when people believe the opposite..

Cherish I don't think anybody here ever expressed a belief that their wasn't room to contribute. The discussion was about attributing "value" to different contributions and the assumption that "just" caring for your own family is somehow less.

[kateking]

I just wanted to ask - are there actually any SAHPs of school children on this forum who DON'T do other activities as well (homeschool? food growing? community groups?).

Why ask that question Jodie?
Would that make the way they choose to live their lives more acceptable, higher value?

[Rinelle]

I think Jodie is trying to make a point that nobody does just stay home with their kids and not do something else.

I think that the things that SAHP's contribute often aren't something 'measureable' like a job or even a volunteer position (at the school or otherwise). They're often things like making an extra meal for a mum with a new baby, mowing a neighbours lawn, helping someone at the store who's struggling with their kids/shopping. They're not the sort of thing that it even occurs to you to mention when someone else asks what you do, so they don't get 'valued' either, but they are still contributing.

And when it comes down to that, how is homeschooling contributing to society anymore than sending your kids to school? Yet you're considering it in the valued, or at least doing something, category.

[Pinky]

I don't. I used to... but felt that I wasn't getting enough back in return.. so now I JUST stay home with my kids. Maybe I should do more to give me perspective or balance to be a better mom.. I'm not doing as good a job at is as I hoped I would. But not to add value to society.. my kids are an addition to society. If I can keep 'em out of jail I'll have done well.

[cherish]

I'm not tired cause I feel like I have to defend my personal actions.... I'm tired cause I think we're all talking about different things.. and I don't know how to use language enough to understand or be understoood

[Ethereal]

I think I need to pause & consider a response & whether to verbalize it or not. I seriously doubt anyone was setting out either way to belittle or leave others feeling inferior. Quite frankly, I could say I feel judged that it is assumed I don't respect sahp's. Of course I do - I am one! I don't think there's a cosmic totting up either and found that tough to swallow so didn't respond. If that was the interpretation I obviously worded it in a way that I was misunderstood. I don't believe there were any personal attacks and it was about having an active discussion. It's a safe place to discuss these trickier issues because we do all respect one another.

[jodiemiller]

Kateking wrote:
Would that make the way they choose to live their lives more acceptable, higher value?

I'm kinda offended that you think that's my motivation for asking. I ask, because *I* am a SAHP of school age children, and I didn't know of any others on this forum. I find it interesting that the people taking most offense at my comments about the value of *my* lifestyle are those who still have kids at home. What is it that you find so challenging here, Kate?



I think Jodie is trying to make a point that nobody does just stay home with their kids and not do something else.

I suspect there are NO SAHPs on this forum who have kids at school and only dedicate themselves to home making. I think they are very rare.


I think that the things that SAHP's contribute often aren't something 'measureable' like a job or even a volunteer position (at the school or otherwise). They're often things like making an extra meal for a mum with a new baby, mowing a neighbours lawn, helping someone at the store who's struggling with their kids/shopping.

I actually think those SAHPs are rather rare too. In fact, I feel I should point out that working people do those things too. I would hazard a guess that 80% of the people in our school P&C are working part time or full time jobs and not SAHPs at all. Those who are still have littlies at home.


And when it comes down to that, how is homeschooling contributing to society anymore than sending your kids to school? Yet you're considering it in the valued, or at least doing something, category.

I'm saying it doesn't count in terms of this discussion because by-and-large, it means they still have kids at home during the day.

[Rinelle]

I actually think those SAHPs are rather rare too. In fact, I feel I should point out that working people do those things too. I would hazard a guess that 80% of the people in our school P&C are working part time or full time jobs and not SAHPs at all. Those who are still have littlies at home.

Reading back over the thread both Pinky and Donna have said that they stay home even though their kids are at school. I'm sure there are other's who haven't posted, and yet others who are only working out of financial necessity.

I'm curious as to why you think they're rare Jodie?

[jodiemiller]

I said it at the very start that I think there is a transition that naturally comes when your kids all get to school age. That's why they're rare. I never intended to upset anyone or get overly caught up in a debate about it. When Liz first posted, I assumed that she would naturally find something 'else' when the time comes. I never meant to put a value on anything.

Liz, I'm sorry this thread turned into a battle of wills. I've been using the forums for stress relief and that's no way to treat my friends. Kate, Lu, Rinelle and everyone - Truce?

[Rinelle]

I'm not upset by the conversation, in fact, I'm finding it quite interesting.

Basically, it sounds to me like you're saying that once your kids are at school, and you have nothing else to do, you get bored and look for something else to find your time. This is what I think most people think, and I'm sure it's true for some of the population. My whole point I've been trying to make is that it isn't true for everyone. I think the transition you talk about does happen for some people, and for others it doesn't. Or at least, not until the kids are much older (high school, finished school, left home or whatever).

[lucylu]

I've had lots of time to think about this thread while the site was down. Often time allows me to soften and see another point of view, but in this case, I still feel the same way.

I don't feel like there was a battle, so no need for a truce. You have to actually say words to the affect of 'you are an idiot' to offend me :rofl and even then I might not get offended ;) As I've said before, I enjoy debating ideas and having prolonged discussions about stuff - I find it stimulating (especially when I am meant to be working :2lol). My only worry is that I might offend someone, which is never my intention.


I'm not upset by the conversation, in fact, I'm finding it quite interesting. :yes me too


Basically, it sounds to me like you're saying that once your kids are at school, and you have nothing else to do, you get bored and look for something else to find your time. This is what I think most people think, and I'm sure it's true for some of the population. My whole point I've been trying to make is that it isn't true for everyone. I think the transition you talk about does happen for some people, and for others it doesn't. Or at least, not until the kids are much older (high school, finished school, left home or whatever). Yes. And the point I have been trying to make is that there is nothing wrong with that. It is not less valuable.

Oh, and FWIW, I work for our business in my home office. Have done so ever since my eldest was born. But I do know several Mums from our school whose children are all at school, who don't work (or participate in community group/volunteer etc.).

I'd say you're right Jodie, most caregivers go back to work or do something else once their children are at school full time, and I suppose that is essentially why others ask the question 'what are you going to do now?' It's expected because it is fairly 'normal'. Doesn't make it more valuable though ;)

[kateking]

Dear darling Jodie,
I think I have been using this thread for stress relief too!
Don't really know why I felt so challenged by your comments maybe that is something I need to delve into ;)
As for a "truce" no need, I love ya :2lol
(sorry for my last bitchy comment, hope you still love me ?)
I would love to have a yarn with you all IRL (over a bottle or three!!!!)
Anyway we are all goddam intelligent, interesting, fiery and amazing,
Doncha think?
Big kisses and hugs to everybody,
xxxxxxxxxxx
PS: Lucylu I'm back ;)

[mummabare]

well I don't feel I have anything worthwhile to contribute to the thread, but it's been an interesting read.

[boy wrangler]

well I don't feel I have anything worthwhile to contribute to the thread, but it's been an interesting read.

Same here!

[lucylu]

PS: Lucylu I'm back ;) :hyper

[Emily33]

I've been wanting to read through this thread since it started and have only had a squiz at the first page and the last page or so. Lovely to see you all kiss and hug at the end of it! I love these passionate discussions.

From the OP:


Does our society only value parenting if the children are under 5?

How do we see worth in ourselves and help others see the value of being there for school age kids?

Slightly OT but related... here is some of my story:

Six months before we conceived our first baby in January 2007 I stopped working and was faced with a lot of questions and blank looks. At the time my grandmother had fallen and we were told she might have minutes, hours, weeks or months to live. (BTW she's still alive.) DH was happy for me to stop working so I could help Mum care for her. But as the weeks rolled on and Mum swore she didn't need my help (nor wanted to feel responsible for me stopping work) DH and I had a good chat and I decided, with his support, that I really wanted to stay home.

It was really confronting though. So many questions and pressure from others. People digging for info and answers. Why would I want to stay home? Was I pregnant? What on earth was I doing with my time? Wouldn't I get bored?

At first I felt the need to say that I'd turn the house into a project - paint it, do the garden, etc. But as time went on I realised that I had made myself the project. I delved into depths I could never go if I was busy or doing something else. I discovered things about my childhood that I didn't know. Mum (who had also stopped working full time and lives around the corner) and I had time to have deep heartfelt discussions and screaming matches. It was a time of tremendous growth and transformation.

Six months after stopping work I fell pregnant. But I didn't stop work with the intention of it helping me to fall pregnant. I just did it because I felt that it's what I needed to do. I took that time for me. I did what I wanted to do with that time. I nurtured myself. I also nurtured my home. But mostly I went places that I couldn't have gone if I was 'doing' something else.

Since DD's birth I have enjoyed home life and I have discovered more of my passions in greater detail. Passions that paid work didn't fulfil. Passions that I have called unpaid work. I don't have time for that unpaid work right now. But I will again. During my time at home I've planted many seeds. And I want to feel alive like I do when I'm 'working' on something I love.

I didn't know, when I stopped working what I'd discover about myself and my passions. It happens that my passions can work in with home life sometimes and other times it doesn't.

I think this is where society fails us... it wants to 'know'. We expect answers of ourselves and each other. There's got to be a plan. There's got to be a passion. Something from the outset. A reason. At least for me there wasn't. I found it. But I wasn't consciously aware that I was looking for it when I stopped working to stay at home to care for myself.

Gotta run...

[Emily33]

BTW I'd also love to stay at home for the long term (whether or not I create paid or unpaid work from home). I don't know yet how this will look of course...

[lucylu]

It's a paradox - you find what you're looking for when you stop looking.

[kateking]

:yes Lucylu
I think it's because when you stop looking and stop trying to control, you also let go of resistance? It is difficult to move in the direction of your true path when you are holding onto resistant thoughts.

[cherish]

you know what.. I've thought about this while the site was down.. and to be honest.. perhaps it's more the men in society don't value Mums that don't work.. we do live in a patriachal society.. there are not many women I know, actually no women that I know that thinks staying at home is about sitting around having lattes, we (as in mothers) know how hard and busy life is with children.

just my thoughts

[Rinelle]

And yet, a man has never asked me when I'm planning on going back to work, or told me I'd be bored if I didn't. It's always been a woman. (And it's happened several times.)

[cherish]

I just think it's men that mostly create the ideals, the budgets, the talk on tv... and it infiltrates.. that's all.. not that men are going around saying this to other women.. more that the expectations are created by men in white collar jobs that have never spent a day at home with their children and have no idea around these matters.

[lucylu]

Well... not wanting to stir this up again, but...

I quit my job!!! :hyper

Will take a while for me to actually finish, as DH will need to get organised and I will need to train the new book keeper.

I will still have family management stuff to do (we manage our super and have a couple of investment properties and stuff that i theoretically manage but they are presently sorely neglected).

It has been 11 years since i worked as a Biologist... gave that up so that DH could attend the AIS and continue in professional sport... then we had the kids and I started doing his admin/boring shit work :2lol

I have quite many times before, but DH has always managed to talk me/emotionally blackmail me out of it :2lol Not this time!! :hyper

He works 50-70hrs a week and is away about 8 weeks of the year. I think that is enough work for the adults of a family. I could certainly fit work in when he is 'only' working 50 hrs a week, and I'd love to have something of my own that I actually enjoy, but when he is away or working 6-7 days a week, it is really hard to fit work in and look after my family. Plus I don't enjoy it. Plus I don't feel there is an equality - I am working for DH and have very little say over what happens in the business, and I'm totally reliant on him being organised with paperwork for my work to run smoothly, and he's not organised.

So Liz, I'll be fielding 'what are you going to do now' questions too! I hope the answer is 'breathe'!!

And now I'll be able to comment first hand about whether I am bored out of my mind or not.

YAY!!!!!!!!

[Rinelle]

Go Lucylu! Hope you have a wonderful time!

[cherish]

very cool LL.. enjoy breathing.. I need to do that at the moment.. been doing too much overtime.. and am exhausted.. but it's just for a season..

[emd]

Wow, big news! And totally get the reasons for it. Hope you enjoy the relief of not having to do the impossible balancing act anymore.

[boy wrangler]

:heart

I hope it is everything you dream and need it to be! xx

[lucylu]

Well, thought I'd pop back and update 'cos maybe you were right Jodie! ;)

My being at home hasn't lasted long :2lol I'm starting my own business and super excited about it :hyper

It ticks all the boxes - sustainable, contributing to the community, flexible, working on my own but with other people as well.

My contributions at school will have to drop off, but they've definitely gotten their pound of flesh! it will leave some space for someone else to step into :)

I haven't been this excited about work in AGES!! Like before the kids!! I think 9 years of giving to DH and the kids was enough for me. And my energy is so much better now so too (as in, I am nicer to be around).

[jodiemiller]

Pfft! Of course I was right. ;)

[lucylu]

:rofl Oh, how I love you Jodie :heart

[kateking]

Ah but is your contribution more "valuable" now lucylu?

I'm KIDDING, really I am, just couldn't resist :rofl
Retiring for the night giggling my head off.
xxx

[lucylu]

:rofl Love you too S :heart

[boy wrangler]

:2lol KK!

[mama_bel]

LOL. Great to hear LL.

I can't imagine raising six kids on a hobby farm without one adult being home most of the time... I've been reflecting on it lately. DH is working a different role, and much longer hours, call-ins, meetings, blah, blah. Over it already!

[lucylu]

:yes don't think I will ever get used to long hours... let alone like it!