I want to stop blogging. So stop, right?
Like one or two people read this, aside from the random times I might post a link in a comment to something else on the web.
I find that so much of what I read online is hate-reading. I know I am going to disagree or get riled about something and I read it and I do. Is this a valuable use of my time? Am I wasting precious moments of my life on foolish things?
When I first made the decision to stay home with my kid for a few years I told a friend I would have so much fun...on the side, you know...learn Portuguese, learn to play guitar...while caring for my child and working part-time, of course. She sneered, "Good luck with that!" Knowing, I guess, because her sister had kids that it might have been a bit of an ambitious hope. I also wanted to learn to code (that very generic phrase people use about getting more technical: maybe Javascript, Ajax, JQuery, Ruby, Python—but so far, it has not been something I've enjoyed after trying and I have to admit, I'm not feeling motivated toward that). Thing is, it would NOT have been all that ambitious if I didn't waste so much goddamn time reading and arguing about "parenting" (and related feminist, political, etc....) issues online!
There are just so many annoying things out there that stick in my craw and I feel compelled to respond to. But why? The people putting out that stuff surely don't care what I say. And there is a whole, huge, big nation of people in middle America...Kansas, Indiana, Minnesota...small towns in my home state of Illinois, even blue-collar background types like myself in the city of Chicago...who think all this political/feminist/parenting philosophy stuff is hogwash, bullshit, waste of time, nobody's business and they are just going along with their lives, working their low-paying retail jobs part time, or even staying home in their crappy fixer-upper houses with their 2.5 kids and having wonderfully happy lives. So, I need to stop getting stuck in the idea that everyone's a NYT-reading socialist feminist that I have to argue with.
The places I land on the web tell me different, of course. The latest annoyances being: feminists who actually think griping to Lego about their cute "Friends" line is important, worthwhile work; another article that devolves into highlighting the Lego Friends gripe as an example of modern feminism at work; and a discussion on the NYT Motherlode about the Badinter book on Conflict, bemoaning the "Depressing Lot of the Conflicted American Mother."
On the last point, a discussant caries on about how it's not an ideology that is causing the conflict for American mothers, but rather, economics. (In her post she also notes how Hanan Rosin's breastfeeding article had freed her from the notion that breastfeeding was very important, and so I can make the judgment that she's not very bright—beside the point, but worth noting.) She writes:
I suppose my parting thought about this would be that for most women who don’t have incredibly high paying jobs or wealthy spouses, these “choices,” about work and family aren’t actually choices. We weigh our particular circumstances and attempt to figure out the best course of action. The notion that scads of women are chucking fulfilling jobs to be handmaidens to idealized, natural motherhood just doesn’t ring true to me.
And my thought was that, what on earth are people spending all their money on that they can't afford either staying home, or child care, without thinking that the government should kick in to help them manage their personal affairs? Aside from any value judgment on what is better, both options seem reasonably affordable for normal middle-class working people who don't expect the world for nothing, right? Data shows that 30-40% of mothers with children under 6 do stay home, so it's not unheard of or impossible. I had neither an "incredibly high paying job" nor a "wealthy spouse" and I don't think our family is all that unique. Maybe we are? I don't know. On one hand, I am not completely closed to the idea that some government help might be, overall, in the long run, valuable to society and might help elevate everyone. But on the other hand, I don't see philosophically why these sorts of things should be the government's business and I would worry about abuse of benefits and huge waste, as well as the danger of giving the government a foothold into our personal lives...
In any case, I am so over all this. So, for my own well being I am going to take a break from the sphere of parenting "news" and instead of reading and commenting on stupid articles slamming Lego Friends blocks, I am going to play with my kid with her Lego Friends blocks...and maybe learn some Portuguese and guitar in my spare time, too! I may not have much longer in this at-home-mom gig and I don't want to waste my time!
6 comments:
I totally get what you're saying, but I don't think it's ever a waste to spend time on things you enjoy doing. If we are reading this stuff and thinking about it, it must be rewarding to us in some way, right? Certainly, these are first world problems. But there is no wrong answer! I will miss hearing your perspective, for sure.
Thanks for reading and commenting! You know it's funny, my mom, though I don't think she reads this, said the same sort of thing when I brought up similar feelings in a conversation before...I don't know, it just feels like I don't "get anywhere" with my thoughts and it just fosters unproductive anger...not good for my spirit...
“What on earth are people spending their money on that they can’t afford staying home”? You are joking, right? No, seriously, please tell me you are joking.
Who are you, Marie Antoinette, ensconced in your little palatial bubble? Food, shelter, clothing, and the college fund, that’s what we’re spending our money on. In this age of rising costs and stagnant salaries, two incomes are needed unless hubby makes a good salary. And if he is making more than the average for your particular city, than he is making a good salary and you should consider yourself blessed instead of attacking others who can’t make ends meet on one income even while living frugally.
Anon, that's not even what I wrote...I wrote staying home OR child care, first of all. The venues wherein I see the constant calls for subsidized--of "free" childcare--seem to be populated by middle-class feminists. I certainly am not adverse to helping people in need, but have my doubts about the true universality of the need. I think a lot of people just don't plan/budget and they live beyond their means. Your comparison of me to Marie Antoinette is laughable. I get it, though, someone else is always rich compared to another. I don't go around begrudging people richer than me what they have though...those are the breaks! Anyway, I am starting to come around to the idea that maybe its in everyone's best interest to pay a little for those who can't seem to deal—because picking up the pieces of the broken lives (when they resort to criminal activity, drugs, or get preventable illnesses and are otherwise unproductive members of society) costs more...I'm going to have to formulate a post on that at some point. Guess I have not retired from blogging just yet...
I wish I lived near you and we were in the same Mom group. I have a feeling I would still be *in* a Mom group if I had someone who thought like you to talk to!
I found you through the Amazon SM Confessions review. I totally agree with you that mothers who love that book are incredibly insecure about their own mediocrity--so they embrace it with fellow "bad moms" online and brag about how much wine they drink or how hard it all is. I call them the Wine-O bloggers. It's wine o'clock, and they'll be drinking and witching on Twitter until midnight because it's SO HARD.
On this blog's topic: I think economics does make the "choice" for many women, but I look at it in the lower classes. If I'm a cashier or even a entry-level secretary, I'm probably going to become a SAHM rather than blow most of my paycheck on daycare. If I have a secure marriage and an employed husband, we'd just suck it up for a few years until the kids grew to a more affordable rate.
A married woman earning over $30,000 has a choice to make. In that case, she and her husband probably bought a McMansion and 2 new cars on their dual income. So even then, she could be trapped in her job because they foolishly planned their bills with her income instead of considering a possible SAHM break.
There are plenty of women who feel very strongly about being SAHMs and they sit down with their husbands and figure out a way to downgrade and live on his income, but I pessimistically think they aren't the norm. I think a lot of SAHMs aren't what we typically think of (Middle class mommy bloggers) but are instead working class/poor woman who can't afford to work right now.
BUT--I am not on board with this whole "blame society" movement that seems to be going on. It's not America's fault that more and more women can't "choose" to be a SAHM (or work, for that matter). No one *needs* 2 incomes for survival. People *want* 2 incomes to live the upper middle class lifestyle--and I'm sorry, but I can't find "Life, liberty, and guaranteed Middle Class luxury" anywhere in my history books.
We all made the original choice to *have* children. What that ends up looking like in our lives is completely dependent on all of the other life choices we made leading up to parenthood. Not society/inflation/whatever.
Thank you for reading and posting, Jaci! I look forward to learning more about what you have to say via your blog...
Post a Comment