Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site timeinc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!timeinc!greenber From: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Who's watching the kids? Message-ID: <316@timeinc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 13:32:16 EDT Article-I.D.: timeinc.316 Posted: Tue Jul 16 13:32:16 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 04:43:54 EDT References: <593@mtung.UUCP> <219@ihlpl.UUCP> Reply-To: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Organization: Time, Inc. - New York Lines: 72 Summary: In article <219@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: >> >> Unfortunately, MOST OF US can't take a year or two off and not >> risk spending another year obtaining another job. (Women too!) So what!? >> -- >> Julia Harper > >Today none of us men or women can afford to take a year or two off >either for economic or profesional reasons. Is it me, or does no one else realize that most states and employers *allow* a women time off for "maternity leave" and are *forbidden* to discriminate against these women when they return to their place of employment? Men, of course, don't have the same rights. So if a man takes time off to raise, or to help raise, his child, it hurts him more professionally than the women. Sad to say, but something that must also be realized is that the *supposed* wage discrimination we have heard about that *may* indicate women making less money also encourages the women to be child-raiser. >Any man who can use this kind of arguement or who allows this reasoning to >shrug off a responsibility he voluntarily created is guilty of working to >maintain the very discrimination which has kept women ** in the kitchen ** >for so many years (generations). Hogwash! So if *we* decide that *we* wish for *our* family to have the highest possible standard of living and (for whatever reason) I make more than my spouse, then by *our* deciding who quits the job to raise *our* kid, then *I* am guilt of some foul deed? >Julia goes on in her posting to urge women to throw off the burden >imposed on them to put the child before themselves. She forgot one >other thing which is to urge men to assume it. But what about the child? Anyone who would assume such beliefs as you and Julia seem to encourage would (in my opinion) make a horrendous mother! You seem to look at the child , once out of your womb, as no longer is your responsibility. And pretending that the man out there --- working from nine-to-five --- to bring home the bacon isn't sharing in the responsibility of the child is just plain blind! >I belive that if more men were to act on the belief that they had a >part inthe childs birth and so also have a responsibiltyto see to the childs >up-bringing the societal pressures to leave it all to women would begin to >diminish. C'mon! Now you are telling me that the guy figures that once the women is impregnated, his "job" is done? Just what the heck kind of men do you know? They don't even sound human to me! >I know several men who would jump at the chance to be house-husbands >the only reason they have not is because peer pressure and pressure from >the work place have made it extremely difficult. As well as the above mentioned bacon bringing! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I was riding a wombat this morning, 'till it broke its leg. I had to shoot it" -- Ranger on Camel