Initially, this wasn't about tzedaka, per se. It was about whining when life's reality (gee, where did all those kids come from? is it summer AGAIN? our checking account balance isn't looking to great) hits you in the face, and what you do about it.
Wow are you for real!?! I am stupefied. I was under the impression that imamother was a place for women to come and well, whine. I was under the impression that what we aim to do is to listen when someone has a hardship (even if we dont get it) and commiserate so the person can feel better. Whether or not its on imamother when another human being expresses pain isnt the appropriate thing to do to offer sympathy and a listening ear.
If someone ants to help the other person move past his/her hurt isnt the most constructive approach to start with listening and trying to understand the person? Arent we supposed to be compassionate?
Well, is it more helpful to give a woman having trouble coping, ideas for coping as many mothers younger than myself did (and it wasn't that long ago that *I* was the SAHM entertaining up to 4 kids at a time for the summer, so I haven't forgotten), or is it better to wipe away her tears and say "there, there, you SHOULD be getting tzedaka for this". I believe the former is the way to go.
I am pretty sure that saying she is whining wont help her in any way shape or form unless by helping you mean push her towards feeling like a complete failure. Sympathy will go a long way. Having someone who listened to you even if they werent able to solve your problems can actually help ppl cope, read men are from mars women are from venus to get an idea. Sometimes it will help some one to have a listening ear.
I am pretty sure that saying she is whining wont help her in any way shape or form unless by helping you mean push her towards feeling like a complete failure. Sympathy will go a long way. Having someone who listened to you even if they werent able to solve your problems can actually help ppl cope, read men are from mars women are from venus to get an idea. Sometimes it will help some one to have a listening ear.
I guess, if you are from the "tsk tsk" school of thought. But looking around at all the many young people, particularly in the Jewish community, who are just not coping, one might think that "tsk tsk" and sweeping the problems aside aren't having the desired affect. Perhaps it's time to not only renew the application of "common sense" but to begin it in childhood.
We're talking about financial management, parenting, getting an education, having grown men stop behaving like teenagers etc.
Tamiri, this discussion has longn since veered away from the original premise. We're now into these 2 conversations:
1. SAHMs should be able to manage their kids without their entire life/home falling apart, no matter how difficult their kids/living situation / mother's level of tolerance is.
No, no one said that. Find me one quote that said that - see if you can reread the whole thread by Shabbos. Everyone mentioned several times that there are families who need camp. This thread is about mothers who want camp.
Quote:
2. Why is today's genreation unable to cope.
Forget the whole "should I pay for your kids to go to camp" argument. I'm having this discussion with Friedasima about the ability of today's young moms to cope.
Turns out, her definition of coping vs mine (and most of the american posters) definition of coping are completely different.
A man coming home after a day of work to find his house a warzone, no warm dinner, no clothes to wear, the wife a worn out hag crying on the couch = sorry, not coping. Even if Frieda thinks this is fine.
Ok, we'll skip the worn out hag bit as I understand you are exaggerating and/or this is because of the mother's mindset that she is a nebach. Let's focus on the rest - the man comes home after a day of work and finds there is no warm dinner (he will have to eat bread and cheese and salad and/or make it himself), no clothes to wear (I somehow think even the most harried housewife can find three minutes to throw in the laundry), the house a warzone (so he can help pick up). So now we've moved to the husband's/ father's wants - so it is exactly the same reasoning:
If you do not have enough money whether or not it is your fault, whether or not you made choices to get this way, you should not be asking the community to give you tzedaka so your wife has time to cook you dinner. Zehu. Right, if you were wealthy you would be able to afford cleaning help, disposable dishes so they didn't pile up, take out if your wife didn't have time to cook, and camp for your kids. But you do not have the money. It is not blame, it is a fact.
Quote:
You propose this woman stop having kids. Why??? Why limit the perpetuity of klal yisroel if the simple, simple fact of having five of those six kids out of the house from 9:30 - 3:30 will make all the difference in the world for this woman's ability to 'cope' and be an akeres habayis/mom? Rather she should go on b.c. than send her kids out during the day and resume her normal role as a wife and mother? Sorry, you will never make me agree with you.
No one said this. OK, maybe FS did. What people were saying was - IF a mother cannot cope with all her children at home for the day (on a permanent basis, we are not talking here a mother sick or on bed rest or two weeks postpartum) THEN there is something wrong on a deeper basis - she needs to examine if she can cope with more children in Cheshvan and on Chanukah, on Purim and erev Pesach, on a weekday in Iyyar too.
BTW, MB, I would definitely say it is easier to cope with a houseful of children of different ages who help/ occupy/ play with each other, than two young children.
Sympathy and empathy are important but to some of us it seems that when we offer concrete solutions and show that for many it is possible to cope, all our suggestions and solutions are thrown out the window with whatever reason:
1) you are old, you come from a different generation and you people are always telling us what to do and don't understand zilch about today's world.
2) Those suggestions won't work for our culture
3) Those suggestions won't work for our standards and requirements
4) we aren't as strong as you or previous generations and so we can't adopt your suggestions because they arent for our generation
5) you don't understand that we want sympathy and lots of it and not to be told that there are solutions which can come from us and not from someone else paying for what we want
6) You aren't being sympathetic and we come here for sympathy and more sympathy and more sympathy and not for suggestions.
Well here's something. When someone complains about something, there are many who will just read and offer suggestions. Some of the suggestions may be off the wall, others may be on the spot, the majority might be something from which one can take a point or two and apply it to their lives.
But as on many issues, there are some posters (Mamabear I do NOT mean you!) who just want to gripe and get sympathy over and over but don't realize that in much of the world when one complains about something they will first and foremost get suggestions to solve the problem they have raised. It's just the nature of the world.
And don't kid yourselves. By nature women do NOT give sympathy and warmth and a good heart. Just the opposite. They are the first to tell someone to toughen up. Davka men give sympathy under the premise that they, being men, can't understand what women go through. But other women? They won't buy what they might see as BS, exaggerations and the like - and I mean that in general, not specifically regarding anything that anyone wrote on this thread. Which is why most women prefer a male boss to a female one and women have always been harder on their female employees than male bosses.
As a former girls sleep away amp employee, I'm finding what most of you are saying wrong. For mothers who can afford camp, camp is a luxury for their girls. Let's admit it, a family that is well off, what is the child missing? For her, camp is pure fun and enjoymeny.
For a family who cannot afford camp, camp is actually a necessity! For some girls, camp is the only reason they hold on for the rest of the 1o months of the year. In camp, they are LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. They get the same food, sleep in the same kind of beds, and share camp mothers and counselors with rich and poor alike.
Here's a little story. The day camp was going home, a girl approached her camp mother and confided to her that she has no where to go home to. Her mother is psychotic, her father is narcotic. She lived in a boarding school that closed over the summer and now has no where to go. The camp mother took her home to her house in the city, and 2 months later this girl was engaged to a different camp employee's son!
The girls who come from less than wealthy homes, learn in camp lots of social skills, that empower them long after the summer season is over and helps them grow between the "better off kids" during the school year.
I don't beleive all this stuff about people being stronger 2 generations ago. Most normal people will cope with almost any situation. Of course, people have their strengths - I am terrible at cleaning but ask me to cook a meal for 30 people at 2 hours notice and I would have no problem whatsoever. I also enjoy taking my kids to places and don't find it as stressful as other people seem to.
So I need cleanng help but might manage fine without camp. (I would probably manage without cleaning help too if other circumstances in my life woulf be different, but my house would be messier)
As a former girls sleep away amp employee, I'm finding what most of you are saying wrong. For mothers who can afford camp, camp is a luxury for their girls. Let's admit it, a family that is well off, what is the child missing? For her, camp is pure fun and enjoymeny.
For a family who cannot afford camp, camp is actually a necessity! For some girls, camp is the only reason they hold on for the rest of the 1o months of the year. In camp, they are LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. They get the same food, sleep in the same kind of beds, and share camp mothers and counselors with rich and poor alike.
Here's a little story. The day camp was going home, a girl approached her camp mother and confided to her that she has no where to go home to. Her mother is psychotic, her father is narcotic. She lived in a boarding school that closed over the summer and now has no where to go. The camp mother took her home to her house in the city, and 2 months later this girl was engaged to a different camp employee's son!
The girls who come from less than wealthy homes, learn in camp lots of social skills, that empower them long after the summer season is over and helps them grow between the "better off kids" during the school year.
Don't believe me? Ask around.
This thread is long and all topics have been covered
You can find this discussion about 10 pages back if you care to look.
I don't beleive all this stuff about people being stronger 2 generations ago. Most normal people will cope with almost any situation. Of course, people have their strengths - I am terrible at cleaning but ask me to cook a meal for 30 people at 2 hours notice and I would have no problem whatsoever. I also enjoy taking my kids to places and don't find it as stressful as other people seem to.
So I need cleanng help but might manage fine without camp. (I would probably manage without cleaning help too if other circumstances in my life woulf be different, but my house would be messier)
If you were not in the position you are in and your DH was not in the position he is in (which puts you where you are), COULD YOU COPE if you did not have enough money for cleaning help? I betcha you could. Because you come across as.... a coper!
Now, you also may be one to fargin a by-choice non-coper the cleaning lady she can't afford. Would you pay for it because she chooses NOT to cope, while you chose TO cope?
Like all things in life, for a healthy person, coping/not coping is a choice. Anyone is entitled to a break-down now and then; no one (?) is strong enough to, well, ALWAYS be strong.
But what about those who are just not coping at the beginning of life? Should society make it easier for them not to cope? How did they get to be non-copers in the first place? It used to be that non-copers were labeled pariahs. Now, it's been elevated to kadosh levels. I'm missing something, I know. Please, enlighten me.
I don't beleive all this stuff about people being stronger 2 generations ago. Most normal people will cope with almost any situation. Of course, people have their strengths - I am terrible at cleaning but ask me to cook a meal for 30 people at 2 hours notice and I would have no problem whatsoever. I also enjoy taking my kids to places and don't find it as stressful as other people seem to.
So I need cleanng help but might manage fine without camp. (I would probably manage without cleaning help too if other circumstances in my life woulf be different, but my house would be messier)
If you were not in the position you are in and your DH was not in the position he is in (which puts you where you are), COULD YOU COPE if you did not have enough money for cleaning help? I betcha you could. Because you come across as.... a coper!
Now, you also may be one to fargin a by-choice non-coper the cleaning lady she can't afford. Would you pay for it because she chooses NOT to cope, while you chose TO cope?
Like all things in life, for a healthy person, coping/not coping is a choice. Anyone is entitled to a break-down now and then; no one (?) is strong enough to, well, ALWAYS be strong.
But what about those who are just not coping at the beginning of life? Should society make it easier for them not to cope? How did they get to be non-copers in the first place? It used to be that non-copers were labeled pariahs. Now, it's been elevated to kadosh levels. I'm missing something, I know. Please, enlighten me.
Well, when we go on vacation the (vacation) house gets pretty messy. But dh has more time to help clean. And I have less to do. So it's swings and roundabouts.
But I know sometimes I make choices - to do other things rather then clean. But that is my choice. But then I have to live with the mess.
Amother who worked in a sleep away camp...you are usually talking about an age group that doesn't have much to do with what some of the mothers are talking about here. They were primarily speaking about camp for young kids, from functional homes whose mothers want to function on a level which they can only keep up if the kids aren't at home. Or so it now seems to me.
You seem to be talking about much older kids, teenagers, and those who are at risk for various reasons. Anyone with a psychotic mother and a druggie father...I don't think too many of us would not be willing to give zedoko to get that kid away from that home...and not only during the summer but permanently. If that, however is the example, it isn't what most of the mothers and some of the other amothers were talking about here...
At least as I understand it.
Tamiri back to you...I'm interested to hear the answers to your questions.
As a former girls sleep away amp employee, I'm finding what most of you are saying wrong. For mothers who can afford camp, camp is a luxury for their girls. Let's admit it, a family that is well off, what is the child missing? For her, camp is pure fun and enjoymeny.
For a family who cannot afford camp, camp is actually a necessity! For some girls, camp is the only reason they hold on for the rest of the 1o months of the year. In camp, they are LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. They get the same food, sleep in the same kind of beds, and share camp mothers and counselors with rich and poor alike.
Here's a little story. The day camp was going home, a girl approached her camp mother and confided to her that she has no where to go home to. Her mother is psychotic, her father is narcotic. She lived in a boarding school that closed over the summer and now has no where to go. The camp mother took her home to her house in the city, and 2 months later this girl was engaged to a different camp employee's son!
The girls who come from less than wealthy homes, learn in camp lots of social skills, that empower them long after the summer season is over and helps them grow between the "better off kids" during the school year.
Don't believe me? Ask around.
Its rather insulting to suggest that all, most, or even anything other than the tiniest, tiniest portion of families that cannot afford camp are dysfunctional in the way that you described. (And in any case, the family that you describe probably could afford camp, and boarding school!) Most families that cannot afford camp are wonderful. loving and functional families where the children are loved and feel loved.
More broadly, that's one of the more interesting points of this debate. One group of women is saying that mothers, as a whole, are strong and resourceful. Barring unusual issues, they are capable of looking after their kids and providing them with enjoyable and enriching summer experiences. Looking at the world, we know that statistically speaking, *most* stay at home mothers in fact DO this.
Another group says no. While there is a small minority of women who can do that, the vast majority cannot. Indeed, they say that the vast majority of stay at home mothers *need* (not want) to have all children beyond infancy out of the home for most of the day, or they will be unable to cope. Camp, therefore, is the type of necessity that can and should be paid for out of limited tzedaka funds. As I was told, anyone who disagrees lacks ahavat Yisrael.
And somehow, in an Alice in Wonderland world, stating that stay at home mothers are generally strong and provide their kids with good care and experiences is considered a deep insult to stay at home mothers. (Are these the same women who tell me that I am a terrible parent, and have chosen not to raise my own child, because I have to work outside the home? I certainly HOPE not.)
In my mother's day, there was a term that is now considered pejorative, "housewife." And at times, I have thought that the problem is that while I am thinking of the capabilities of women whose primary goal is to take care of the kids -- a stay at home mother -- some posters consider their primary goal to be to ensure that the home is clean and orderly, and that meals are cooked -- a housewife. If caring for children interferes with caring for the home -- IOW, if caring for the kids means the house is messy and dinner is grilled cheese sandwich and canned tomato soup -- that's a problem for the housewife-style woman. While, for the stay at home mom style woman, it would be a problem if the house were orderly and the laundry done, but at the cost of not being with the kids.
As to the BC issue, which is clearly a straw man here, let me make myself clear. I know families with a lot of kids who cope wonderfully. Each child is given individual attention and the type of parenting s/he needs. I am in awe of these parents. And there's lots of them. But, if to the contrary, if a woman feels that she is not able to cope with the children that she has, feels that she is thrown into a tizzy by the very thought of them being around more than a minimal number of hours each week, feels that she is unable to cope, then yes, for the sake of her mental health, for the sake of the children that she already has, she should at the very least consider limiting her family size. Not because she needs tzedaka, or because I don't like large families. But for her own mental health, and for the children who already exist, who need her.
More broadly, that's one of the more interesting points of this debate. One group of women is saying that mothers, as a whole, are strong and resourceful. Barring unusual issues, they are capable of looking after their kids and providing them with enjoyable and enriching summer experiences. Looking at the world, we know that statistically speaking, *most* stay at home mothers in fact DO this.
Another group says no. While there is a small minority of women who can do that, the vast majority cannot. Indeed, they say that the vast majority of stay at home mothers *need* (not want) to have all children beyond infancy out of the home for most of the day, or they will be unable to cope. Camp, therefore, is the type of necessity that can and should be paid for out of limited tzedaka funds. As I was told, anyone who disagrees lacks ahavat Yisrael.
.
Barbara. Thank you. From the bottom of my heart. For a VERY good laugh. And for the clarity this post offered. I now understand it all. Bravo!
But yes, there really is a cultural difference here. Tamiri is Israeli born in America and came here young. So did I. And all of you who are so upset by my "toughlove" methods, understand that I work in Eretz Yisroel, aka ISRAEL and it works very well with Israelis who by nature and upbringing are often much more tough than their american counterparts of the same age, particularly after army age.
Please understand that not all of us consider Israeli "toughness" to be something desirable. Some of us consider it the horrendous outcome of living in a state of war for 60+ years and fervently daven for a time when Israelis will not have to cover themselves with such tough shells.
freidasima wrote:
"Because what Tamiri is saying and what I have been saying and a few others who have left the thread already were saying is that by anyone saying "yes" to such a situation it means that they are supporting, and perpetuating creating a community of people who expect to have their cake, eat it and have someone else pay for it over and over.
And that creates, to our mind, an unsustainable form of religious Jewish life. As frum Jews who care about the Jewish people this unsustainable form of Jewish life affects us all, and not only those in that community. Why? Because it's not just "camp" but so many other things which certain communities are projecting as a necessity. It's a certain type of hachnosas kallo that has nothing to do with what the original meaning of the mitzvo was, it's a certain type of "keeping up traditions" (hence my mention of traditions) that those in that community can't afford because of creating standards that "everyone" there has to keep to, which they CANT keep to on their own, at least financially.
And over and over we - people like Tamiri, myself and other frum Jews - are being bombarded by requests from people and organizations supporting people, from such communities. That's the problem. Sure, you can say "no" over and over and over, but how many yidden are wiling to let other yidden starve? Which once again leads us to something said over and over. People having kids they can't afford to raise, sometimes even to feed.
And...for the third time in a row as a first word...THAT concerns us very much because WE - those religious Jews who are working and sacrificing so that we can support our children - are the ones getting hit with requests and as I said, how many of us are going to turn down supporting starving Jewish children?
But it starts somewhere and "camp for all" in these communities because of various cultural standards is just one aspect of a bigger problem that ultimately affects all of us.
So what I hear you saying is that this is a societal problem. There are many of us, including myself, who would agree -- though certain examples might resonate more than others.
There are two reasons that I think people have responded so vehemently and passionately:
First, it is unfair to criticize individual women for the standards of their communities. In a general sense, I believe that all of us should be more responsible for promoting more realistic standards. Though I've noticed that I don't get a lot of support when I mention that people are, in fact, not permitted by the Torah to spend their own money however they want. But you glided right past the fact that many gedolim and educators have asserted that "camp is a necessity." It's not as if this mentality developed two days ago when everyone decided to go get manicures rather than taking care of their children.
Truthfully, I think we should discuss whether the standard of "camp is a necessity" is still valid. Are the circumstances that prompted gedolim to say these things the same? Are they more financially responsible alternatives? But suggesting that it is only the weakness of women that has led to this situation, however, is not only historically inaccurate but also choosing a scapegoat who can't fight back too effectively.
Second, I see much of what you and others have said as an outgrowth of problems in Israeli society between various groups within the Torah-observant world. I understand the background and reasons for the strong feelings, but I have no desire to get dragged into this particular fracas.
Most people I know in the U.S. fall into one of the following categories:
(a) They are wealthy enough to pay for whatever summer entertainment they deem appropriate -- about 2 percent of my camp-sending acquaintances.
(b) They pay for some sort of camp -- generally 3-4 weeks -- and their kids are required to contribute anywhere from canteen money to 50 percent. This is about 30 percent of my camp-sending acquaintances.
(c) They send one or two children to camp each year, and any others who wish to go are required to raise the money themselves. This is about 20 percent of my camp-sending chevra.
(d) They send to local day camps that are more inexpensive and are purposely designed to be low-cost, non-profit alternatives. In the case of young children, they are generally backyard camps run by teenage girls. This is about 48 percent of my camp-sending community.
(e) They have been advised to send a particular child to camp by a therapist, principal, etc. If they don't have the money, they apply for "financial aid" from the camp; if that still doesn't cover it, they seek help confidentially from local chessed funds which are administered by a rav who determines the amount of assistance based on the individual circumstances.
None of us in the U.S. have hordes of people coming to our doors begging for money for camp. Of course, we get glossy mailers from camps asking us to donate, but we get glossy mailers from everyone who has non-profit status and would like more money.
Camp, in fact, seems like one of the least pressing "sustainability" issues in the U.S. Jewish community.
So who, exactly, are these armies of freeloaders who constantly expect something for nothing? I can think of almost no one I know who would not be considered "self-supporting" -- and this is from a woman whose DH spent nine years in kollel! Every single one of my DH's chevra from kollel is employed. Some have been financially very successful; others, less so. But most of our lives resemble yours pretty closely in terms of advanced education, work, responsibility, and living within one's means as much as possible.
Sure, I've met my share of princesses, but they were mainly a burden on their parents and husbands -- not the community. And their numbers certainly pale in comparison to the numbers of people going to work every day, paying their bills, and finding something constructive for their kids to do in the summer at a reasonable price -- just like you!
Fox then where do you place the american charedi organizations which are schnorring among the MO and DL's here to provide various things for members of the various charedi kehilos...including camp? And what about the poster here who told of being asked to contact a wealthy friend to pay for camp for another acquaintance of hers who couldn't afford to send?
Fox also remember that what you think of as Israeli toughness is no different really than what America was like 50 years ago. We consider it normal here and not because of a state of war but rather because that is what people need in order to survive life anywhere. Which is the same as the Americans thought fifty years ago...since then Americans have gotten soft. But there are lots of other countries which haven't and Israel is far from being the hardest...and the people in those countries are rapidly surpassing americans in skills, education, and becoming economically powerful....so, maybe the softness that the Americans have adopted over the past few decades isn't really the best thing for them or for their country long term and I'm not even talking Jewish, not to speak of not talking frum here.
I also think we also have a clash here not only between Israelis and Americans but between different types of Frum. Different standards. Different lifestyles. When I look at my DL friends and neighbors I don't see anyone who can't "afford" camp if they wanted to send. But they aren't willing in some cases to use that money for something that they can well live with - their children being home for a few weeks during the summer and yes, eight or ten weeks is "a few weeks" for some.
As for gedolim saying that "camp is a necessity" well in the MO world I never heard anyone say that. Ever. For any reason. I have however seen educators push camp tremendously...mostly because they are involved in running and making tremendous profits in summer camps.
It's a different world.
And as for Jewish princesses. they ultimately become a burden on society when they insist on various things which their husbands can't afford and end up turning to zedoko societies for them.
Please understand that not all of us consider Israeli "toughness" to be something desirable. Some of us consider it the horrendous outcome of living in a state of war for 60+ years and fervently daven for a time when Israelis will not have to cover themselves with such tough shells.
That.
I also think extreme frugal (anywhere) is what needs to be done sometimes, not an ideal.
And yes I have seen harder countries/mentalities. Who says it is better that way? As soon as they have a bit of money they are delighted to relax a bit.
Sure, I've met my share of princesses, but they were mainly a burden on their parents and husbands -- not the community. And their numbers certainly pale in comparison to the numbers of people going to work every day, paying their bills, and finding something constructive for their kids to do in the summer at a reasonable price -- just like you!
Parental involvement may be diminishing in many families due to the recent financial upheavals. Just saying.... (we read plenty of those posts here as well).
Question: How many of the "non-copers" are what I'd refer to as "hopeless-copeless", meaning that the demands of being an SAHM with multiple tiny tots are simply too much for their delicate natures, or is it a question of expectations of job performance? If the latter, I know I can't focus on parts of my job (I.e., statistics) if there is a stream of people in my office. Sending little Huey, Dewey and Louis to camp would be the equivalent of my closing my office door and letting my calls go to voice mail.
So the next question is, what are the standards of performance, and should they be revised to reflect the reality of the situation? That may be easier than raising funds for a universal camp program. Just a thought...
and, may I add to the therapist: Not coping isn't an option in most cases. We are sent out into the world and told to cope. So we do. At least most of us. Unless there is mental distress going on, an adult is expected to cope, even if life is hard. That's what builds character. Or am I dating myself?
So much character, Tamiri. You must have shoveled a lot of snow as a child .
and, may I add to the therapist: Not coping isn't an option in most cases. We are sent out into the world and told to cope. So we do. At least most of us. Unless there is mental distress going on, an adult is expected to cope, even if life is hard. That's what builds character. Or am I dating myself?
So much character, Tamiri. You must have shoveled a lot of snow as a child .
Uphill, both ways. Actually, I shoveled a lot of snow as a wife and mother. Even pg. Had to when DH was out of town and I needed to move the car. And ya know what? ALL the ladies on my block in NJ shoveled. Even the wife of the pediatric urologist voted top 1 or 100 or something like that in NJ. He couldn't do it cause of his hands being needed for surgery.Us women alll had lots of character. The Dr's wife has since gotten herself a plow and she does the neighbor's walkways and driveways too. That's giving in to the weakness of age.
.
