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.
If youre already going with an office analogy here is my take:
if youre an amazing multitasker then you can do statistics *and* phone calls/meet people at the same time, then wow, youre a wonderful worker. Keep doing what youre doing.
But if youre terrible at multitasking and have a short attention span, and your customers are incredibly draining & demanding and the phone calls just dont stop streaming in, and at the same time your boss expects you to do all the bookkeeping and filing every single day, after a month of accomplishing nothing and yelling at the callers, sobbing at the end of the workday because you have to leave all office work for past 5 pm when the voicemail finally kicks in, and are getting annoyed looks from your boss.... you would probably ask a willing coworker to please take over the phone calls for four hours of your workday so you can do the rest of your expected duties during that time.
especially if your boss (aka dh) is willing to pay that coworker and actually asks you to please not take calls all day but let someone else take them, because the rest of the office work isnt getting done... whats teh problem???
Ignoring the problematic boss/dh analogy, I will say that if your PARTNER, dh, is willing to pay the co-worker to help out, then wonderful - whether that co-worker be camp, a live-in nanny, a maid, it doesn't matter. If you are paying, then it's your perogative to take every single bit of help you can. Why not? Life isn't a contest to see who has it hardest.
BUT - if your boss/partner/aka dh isn't willing to pay, or can't pay that co-worker - well, we hit a snag. Because as I said in my previous post, no fantasy co-worker exists who really wants to field your phone calls for you. Find another job where you can actually manage all the duties, or renegotiate your terms with your boss/partner/dh so you can actually fulfill them without ending each day 'sobbing'.
some older generation people think that they know it all, they have been there done that and can impose their old world views and parenting methods on the younger generation. and they are *surprised* that the younger generation does not take their advice.
get with it, this is a new generation, with new and revised parenting methods, different outlook, coping skills, different circumstances, so while things may have worked for your generation, good for you.
go read a book, say Tehillim or volunteer somewhere and while you may kindly offer well meaning advice, don't be surprised if its not welcome
I agree with previous posters that it's bizarre that those who say SAHMs are usually capable of caring for their children are being accused of seeing women as weak and spoiled, while those who say that the average SAHM cannot care for her own children without being driven to a breakdown are saying... what? How is that second one not more insulting to women? and to SAHMs in particular?
I also think that nobody is saying women are weak for not coping. More like, something is wrong in the system as a whole if women can't cope.
Maybe they are being pushed to do too much - eg. to have dinner on the table every night when dh comes home even if they have 6 young children and no household help. Maybe communities are not taking care to provide a child-friendly area that would allow children to stay with their mothers during the summer if necessary (forget scholarships and the like, what if the kid just hates camp? there should be some sort of play area, community center, something). Maybe the problem is with men who don't understand how difficult it is to care for children effectively, and so expect more than what most women can give.
And since the problem seems in the whole set-up and not in individual women's characters, it makes more sense for individual women to try to find ways to change the set-up than to decide that they need to take tzedaka in order to make a broken set-up keep working for them.
Well no, a husband isnt a 'boss' per se. let's say a husbnd and wife own a business... and the wife's part of the job is such and such... so when she realizes she cant do phones AND web development, and both are equally important ot the business, she hires a part time worker five hours a day to take over phones. let's do it that way.
anyway, this thread is just tiring me out already.
Well no, a husband isnt a 'boss' per se. let's say a husbnd and wife own a business... and the wife's part of the job is such and such... so when she realizes she cant do phones AND web development, and both are equally important ot the business, she hires a part time worker five hours a day to take over phones. let's do it that way.
anyway, this thread is just tiring me out already.
Key word: hires. Yes, very logical to hire someone.
Not logical to expect someone to do it for free or to ask someone for tzeddeka to cover the costs of hiring someone. What business asks for volunteers? They don't have that luxury. No, they cut costs, change job descriptions, move locale, change market - whatever they have to do to 'cope'.
AGAIN EVERYONE: I am *not*, I repeat, I AM NOT!!! discussing the 'tzedakah' issue. That is not shayach for me and not in my scope of anything. My part of the discussion here, is that there exists such a reality, that many SAHMs have extenuating circumstances which make it almost impossible to keep all of her chidlren home every day all summer. The armchair psychologists here are having trouble understanding how such a thing is possible. So we were doing an analogy of why that would be so difficult. It has nothing to do with money here; I'm discussing the circumstances of the woman and home. yes, she can afford day camp. Still the ppl here cant understand why she cant run mommy camp. So there was the analogy. That's all.
Of course, if the business cannot afford to hire a 2nd coworker, they msut make a decision what their priorities are. the customer base or the office work? They cant lose their customer base. They also must get the office work done. So that is their discussion on where and how to cut corners; which office work can wait 10 weeks until the assistant is back from maternity leave. and so forth.
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.[/quote]
On the one hand you're right. I remember the male OBs gently telling me to lay off the salt, be careful, and the female OB I saw bluntly telling me, you're gonna be a blimp by the time this over.
OTOH, the nature of this site is that we do turn to each for some sympathy and warmth and good-heartedness. At least sometimes.
If we don't get it here, where else are we supposed to go?
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,
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.
For some women by the time they get that realization it's a bit too late. They're not going to make it without some support. How and why they got to that point is another thread[
Gosh, I never realized snow removal was something to be so proud of!
Your parents never informed you that shoveling snow builds character? I thought all parents knew that one.
Doing dishes builds character too.
If you inform your parents that they shoveled plenty of snow in their childhoods and it didn't seem to help them any, it means you still have too little character and had better shovel the walkway as well.
(My dad really did tell us that snow builds character, but he also always shoveled with us and shoveled the most even with a bad back. So I'm not complaining about a childhood of drudgery here, just laughing at Tamiri's old-school references to "character" which I think of as in the same category of "well when I was your age I had to walk to school five miles in weather like this").
Doing chores can influence character, it doesn't build it. One's character is constantly being built. I did chores as a kid too. My kids do chores. This isn't about shoveling snow, raking leaves, washing dishes, going to the makolet, cleaning the salon...various chores I or my family has done.
It is whether a person might need tzeddakah for sending their kids to camp. The answer is, from a person who went to a day camp at the JCC and whose kids rarely went to camp because we couldn't afford it.
YES.
Depending.
Life is about DEPENDING.
Are there any other children about? Here on the Yishuv, yes, so it isn't such a problem. This year we have my niece with us, so even less of a problem in one way. Where we were in Passaic? It created a problem.
A special needs child in the house and one of the kids is handling it badly? Maybe THEY need a break. Or maybe they can send the special needs child to a camp and the other kids can have Ima and Aba for a change.
Mom is overwhelmed. It really doesn't make a bit of difference if any of the rest of us claim "We can/did it so can you"; during the holocaust people lived on potato skins and flour mixed with water (not even heated mind you.) So nu, to make ends meet are you going to dig in the trash for your food?
The past is too often manipulated for whatever purpose is being spoken about. There are no absolutes in the past either. WHO one was, where one lived, when (even a few years difference), etc. etc. made a difference.
At certain periods of time women who were widows (and not wealthy) coped by farming their kids out to other relatives homes. OR an orphanage.
Women whose husbands didn't bring home enough funds might find themselves along with the family, in a poor house.
Or dead of starvation.
The past wasn't full of strong people, those who were weak died. It doesn't mean they didn't exist. Just as those with weak hearts died early.
I agree with previous posters that it's bizarre that those who say SAHMs are usually capable of caring for their children are being accused of seeing women as weak and spoiled, while those who say that the average SAHM cannot care for her own children without being driven to a breakdown are saying... what? How is that second one not more insulting to women? and to SAHMs in particular?
I think the difference is there are those of us who are looking at the issue globally, and those of us who are looking at the issue individualistically. ie, I see certain women, whether SAHM, or WAHM, or WOTH mothers as being unique people, some of whom might require, because of their lives, tzeddakah to pay for their kids to go to camp.
Quote:
I also think that nobody is saying women are weak for not coping. More like, something is wrong in the system as a whole if women can't cope.
Some women are weak. That's a fact. They can't cope. Just like some people have weak hearts. This is life. But yes, something is wrong with the system (cont)
Quote:
Maybe they are being pushed to do too much - eg. to have dinner on the table every night when dh comes home even if they have 6 young children and no household help. Maybe communities are not taking care to provide a child-friendly area that would allow children to stay with their mothers during the summer if necessary (forget scholarships and the like, what if the kid just hates camp? there should be some sort of play area, community center, something). Maybe the problem is with men who don't understand how difficult it is to care for children effectively, and so expect more than what most women can give.
Could be. I definitely think there needs to be more safe areas that a child can access easily from a very young age (3+) that doesn't require mom to tag along or be there. It use to be streets, parking lots, backyards, etc. Read the Dollmaker btw on the difference between a shack in the woods and a "modern" house in the city. Interesting read.
Quote:
And since the problem seems in the whole set-up and not in individual women's characters, it makes more sense for individual women to try to find ways to change the set-up than to decide that they need to take tzedaka in order to make a broken set-up keep working for them.
Just my take.
I agree, I think it makes sense for women and men to try and find solutions that are good for their area and for the women in their area. But that means not only the ones who might need tzeddaka, but those who give tzedakka and those who refuse to give under the circumstances. Men and women. 'Cause part of the problem is the Abas/Tattys etc.
1) Fox, hate to say it but as someone knowing and seeing first hand what has happened to America's standing abroad, America and the American way of life HAS lost its edge. Unfortunately.
I have nothing against America, I was born there and grew up there. But I also know that because of its size Americans tend to be rather insular and not to realize what is happened to America's values and image abroad. And yes, it counts because one of the reasons it is happening is because of what has gone on in America for the past few years. Bad economics, bad leadership when it comes to foreign affairs, and a type of cockiness that might work when one thinks one is "the best" (just see how many americans act when abroad) but no longer has anything to back it up with. Not financially, not democratically, and not in terms of values, morals or leadership. Again, unfortunately.
That having been said, many countries look at Americans as being very spoiled in many things, at least today, and I'm not talking about third world countries or the African bush where people still draw water from the stream etc. It's like American or at least some of them, are living in a virtual world and one day it will come crashing down on their heads and they won't have any coping skills for "real life". That's what I am expressing here in miniature. To understand see "toughness and coping" below.
2) Holocaust mentality. Everyone is the product of where they come from. I'm a member of the second generation. I was brought up by Holocaust survivors and the country in which I live is very influenced in its culture by knowing what happened during the Holocaust and internalizing it in terms of various values of general society, whether we are talking of Europeans or Jews from other lands. But it doesn't have to be "Holocaust" and "Nazis". It can be any type of serious hardship. Those of you who are rolling your eyes, maybe just stop reading now because you live in a different world and can't imagine what I am writing and I daven for you that you will never know from it. But those of us here, and in other places in the world who have seen hardship of different kinds caused by war and its aftermath, have also seen that the tough or at least those knowing how to live "tough" when necessary, actually get through such situations much better than those who dont.
As I wrote in a previous post, that's why the army pushes soldiers to their limits, making them walk tremendous distances with heavy packs on their back. Living off field rations. Sleeping in tents or in the open. To show them that if it happens they can and will survive it. The bullet may kill them but there is little to do about that. The harsh conditions won't. That's physical. Here we are talking mental and situational. I, along with a large part of the world, think that being tough is something very positive. And understand, "tough" doesn't mean being MEAN, it doesn't mean having leathery skin, it doesn't mean "taking food out of garbage pails" as someone here wrote. It means not being spoiled or if you can afford to be spoiled at least knowing how to live if something happens and you can't afford it. It means being a responsible human being and paying the price for your choices and not expecting someone else or some institution or organization to bail you out. It means having survival skills and knowing how to use them if necessary. It means teaching your children those same skills, again, not meaning that they shoudln't enjoy life, but that they should know how to survive and cope (think - toughness means coping) if they don't have the financial resources or situational resources to live as they would like to.
You don't see being "tough" as something positive? How easy to just associate it with the "hated Israeli mentality" that some of you have come out against. Well I guess you also hate the Bulgarian mentality, the Greek mentality, the Austrian mentality, the Russian mentality, the Chinese mentality, etc.
Some of you see the kind of toughness and coping I suggest as being "psychotic" as one poster wrote? Fine. I pray for you that you won't need to "cope" like that ever and that for those who can't afford help, there will always be charity and alms to pay for your needs.
3) Generational - I'm getting a bit sick of being bashed for my age here. So for those of you who think that what I am writing only represents the mentality of an old lady, I showed my posts to my daughter this morning who is home for the day. She is in her late 20s. And her comment was: "Mom, that's exactly what I would have written, word for word."
So it's not generational. It's upbringing and situational.
Second generation here too.
My father believes life is or can be hard enough without spoiling it with toughness. Enjoy as much as possible. Do not add difficulties to yourself or others. Take help when offered, give help when relevant. Dont judge, not everyone copes.
I remember reading a study on the Holocaust. Those who were less scarred came from loving homes, not kids used to tough.
Of course their loving was tougher than ours due to life circumstances, but it was interesting...
I agree with previous posters that it's bizarre that those who say SAHMs are usually capable of caring for their children are being accused of seeing women as weak and spoiled, while those who say that the average SAHM cannot care for her own children without being driven to a breakdown are saying... what? How is that second one not more insulting to women? and to SAHMs in particular?
I have never said that I dont think the average sahm mother cant cope, most can and do but some dont.
Personally I dont think that the average mother feels that she cant cope. According to some standards I might not be coping as my house is usually messy and the floor seems to collect dirt for Britain(despite the fact that I hoover pretty much every day and sometimes several times a day). Anyways, the house is generally messy, clothing rarely gets folded and put away. Dh has to help out a lot even if it means that he misses shul. He irons and does the laundry dishes, bread and many time the cooking at night so a warm meal is almost never ready for him when he comes home. I see how some would feel that this isnt coping. To me it is. It doesnt personally bother me that the house is messy and I'd rather have my dh do work with me then a cleaner (its cheaper and we feel that its all our responsibility). Anyways there are days when I am about ready to kill someone at the end of the day so when dh comes home, I go upstairs and have a bath or go out. As I said, I dont feel like I am not coping. This is what I want and I am happy with it, it doesnt stress me nor dh.
For many ppl here it would be unthinkable to have heir dh do what I expect my dh to do and they'd rather not cope or hope for tzedokoh. If it would be unthinkable in their community and there is a tzedokoh fund or program to help such mothers then thats great I think.
From my friends this doesnt seem unusual so I wouldnt go as far as to say that most sahm's dont cope, it depends on what they consider coping. My friends who have the same situation as me feel like they are coping in general.
Some ppl dont cope though. Not because they are spoiled or have higher standards (although it might be a factor) but because they are different to me and to you who dont get it.
the difference between coping and not coping is the mental stress of whatever situation you are in. If another mother were to live in my shoes for the day she might by the end of the day/week/month feel like killing herself. If I were to step into her shoes I might feel like killing myself. I chose this way of life but some ppl dont get a choice and cant cope with their reality. I also only have 2 kids if I had more I might feel different. Some ppl are actually on b/c and it fails them and some ppl dont get heterim (different discussion). Ppl are different some ppl would love doing what I do and for others it would be horrible and they wouldnt cope and they might not be able to change their situation for a variety of reasons. I do NOT think that them not being able to cope with what I cope with makes them weak or spoiled, it just makes them different.
I hope this makes sense I am awfully tired today and dont know how much sense I am making.
I think the difference is there are those of us who are looking at the issue globally, and those of us who are looking at the issue individualistically. ie, I see certain women, whether SAHM, or WAHM, or WOTH mothers as being unique people, some of whom might require, because of their lives, tzeddakah to pay for their kids to go to camp.
I'm really surprised you can say this on page whatever-we're-on-already. Maybe on page 3. But since then every single person has agreed, multiple times, that when it comes to the individual level some people do require tzedaka for camp due to unique circumstances.
Quote:
Some women are weak. That's a fact. They can't cope. Just like some people have weak hearts. This is life. But yes, something is wrong with the system (cont)
Then the question is also what a person who knows she can't cope should do. Should the priority be coping without help, having as many children as possible, something in between, etc.
I think the difference is there are those of us who are looking at the issue globally, and those of us who are looking at the issue individualistically. ie, I see certain women, whether SAHM, or WAHM, or WOTH mothers as being unique people, some of whom might require, because of their lives, tzeddakah to pay for their kids to go to camp.
I'm really surprised you can say this on page whatever-we're-on-already. Maybe on page 3. But since then every single person has agreed, multiple times, that when it comes to the individual level some people do require tzedaka for camp due to unique circumstances.
Quote:
Some women are weak. That's a fact. They can't cope. Just like some people have weak hearts. This is life. But yes, something is wrong with the system (cont)
Then the question is also what a person who knows she can't cope should do. Should the priority be coping without help, having as many children as possible, something in between, etc.
I agree with the rest of what you said.
Then why do people keep arguing. FWIW. I don't think any of us have said that all women who want to have their children subsidized for camp should be subsidized.
As far as your question; it depends. I guess that's my mantra. There is no SPECIFIC answer. In some cases it is "די" enough kids already! Birth control is muttar. Better a healthy mom who is secure and satisfied with life than one who is always on edge. In some cases the husband has to be told; guess what? Days of wife does it all are kaput. Get in there and wash dishes, floors, take out the trash, shop, clean the toilet. In other cases maybe it is "sorry dh but you need to work or get a second job." In some cases it is "mom, you'd do better OUT of the house. Have sitter will smile."
LOTS of different choices, but really it isn't a klal. It isn't telling women they must get tough, they must or should do this or that. It is, what is the case.
I agree that different people can handle different circumstances. But I also agree with friedasima that people have a certain degree of responsibility to choose their own circumstances. Of course things can go wrong, but many of the examples people were giving much earlier in the thread as a camp-is-necessary argument didn't involve anything going wrong.
I think people are mostly arguing different things at this point. It's hard to come to a conclusion when talking about different things. Like arguing "not all rectangles are squares" vs. "penguins are awesome" - two true statements that could keep being repeated over and over if the former group thinks praise of penguins is a declaration that all rectangles are squares, and the latter thinks that talk of rectangles is meant as a snub to penguins.
Quote:
FWIW. I don't think any of us have said that all women who want to have their children subsidized for camp should be subsidized.
A few people (and I thought you were one of them?) were saying that people shouldn't question someone's request for tzedaka, they should just give or not give, but let the person making the request decide for themselves if the request is reasonable.
Which could be taken as support for the idea that if anyone wants camp subsidized we should assume they must really need it - and if they do, it's just as legitimate as any other cause...
