Gender Mainstreaming

[CountrySinger]

Honestly though…Some women intend…but they can’t have children.

Some women intend…but their husband loses his job.

Some women intend…but their husband dies.

Some women intend…but their husband isn’t the man she thought he was and runs out/is abusive.

Some women intend…but they end up not marrying till late 30’s/early forties. What’s she to do in the mean time?

As for law or medical school, if a woman knows she’s going to stay at home, she doesn’t usually pick those. Friends of mine who want to be SAHM’s but are interested in health care chose nursing degrees, so that they can work nights and be with their kids during the day. Likewise, friends who want to stay at home with kids but want to do something law related will usually choose work as a paralegal.

Women absolutely should be educated beyond secondary school. It doesn’t have to be college, it could be a trade…but still. A) Education is a worthy cause, especially if you’re called to educate your children. B) If something happens to her husband or to the economy, she needs at least that piece of paper showing that she can learn things and finish something.

I agree with chev, who put it more succinctly than I ever could

I agree!
I would have loved to get married and be a SAHM, but I didn’t. So I’m going to get my master’s in Special Education. the loans will stink, bu the field is so desperate, I’ll pretty much be guaranteed a job. If I never get married, it’s nice to have a job that doesn’t involve flipping and burgers.
And if I do get married, I would be perfectly qualified to home school, (in my home state, you have to have a master’s degree within a certain numbers of years in order to teach). That would be my ideal situation, but at least with this degree, I’d be able to support myself. and the field of education is a lot easier to take breaks for parenting as well.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I agree!
I would have loved to get married and be a SAHM, but I didn’t. So I’m going to get my master’s in Special Education. the loans will stink, bu the field is so desperate, I’ll pretty much be guaranteed a job. If I never get married, it’s nice to have a job that doesn’t involve flipping and burgers.
And if I do get married, I would be perfectly qualified to home school, (in my home state, you have to have a master’s degree within a certain numbers of years in order to teach). That would be my ideal situation, but at least with this degree, I’d be able to support myself. and the field of education is a lot easier to take breaks for parenting as well.

May I give you an anecdote? I knew a woman who has a Graduate Degree in Special Ed. When she had children, she was able to change her job. Instead of workig in a school, she tutored children with special needs, giving her more time with her kids, less time at her job. Her salary stayed the same, because higly qualified tutors can earn a very good hourly rate.

 

[CountrySinger]

May I give you an anecdote? I knew a woman who has a Graduate Degree in Special Ed. When she had children, she was able to change her job. Instead of workig in a school, she tutored children with special needs, giving her more time with her kids, less time at her job. Her salary stayed the same, because higly qualified tutors can earn a very good hourly rate.

That’s so cool! That is the main reason I’m going into education (other than the fact I love teaching), is that the field is very flexible for parenting. If I get married, my first proirity would be my husband and kids (after God of course).

 

[dakotagirl]

Honestly though…Some women intend…but they can’t have children.

Some women intend…but their husband loses his job.

Some women intend…but their husband dies.

Some women intend…but their husband isn’t the man she thought he was and runs out/is abusive.

Some women intend…but they end up not marrying till late 30’s/early forties. What’s she to do in the mean time?

Yes.

 

[dakotagirl]

I don’t think there’s a problem getting that education in that case. Maybe, say, some practical interships that are strictly meant for providing personnel for some critical jobs (e.g. get employer-paid MBA and resign right away because a commitment hadn’t been signed so there’s no bar). Obviously, it would be bad to lie to get it anyway. However, education is not just commodity, it’s a matter of personal growth as well. It lifts a person up and a stay at home mother is also entitled to that growth. It’s not true she won’t use that degree, either, just maybe not in the direct work in the field kind of way. Think her social involvements, children, even her support of the husband, children and other family members, friends… other people.

Yes, “personal growth” was the words I was looking for. Good point re: using one’s education in an undirectly related way. However, my point is that many, many things can lead to personal growth. (And also help one to help others in an undirectly related way.) I realize it’s terribly gauche, however, to talk about (gasp) money, but FAR too many people buy into the lie that just “an” education is worth it. Is slaving away at 2 or 3 jobs you may actually end up hating worth it, because you have ridiculous loans to pay off? Not everybody can get a sweet company-paid-for deal.
And for the record, I view education as more of a “commodity” than anything else. I am the opposite of an “elitist liberal bigot”.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

“Gender mainstreaming is the public policy concept of assessing the different implications for women and men of any planned policy action, including legislation and programs in all areas and levels.” (from Wikipedia)

This sounds quite innocent, but it is part of the feminist scheme to mandate elimination of all distinctions between men and women. This is done in the name of gender equality. The underlying values, though, are the dismantling of traditional roles for men and women, and the destruction of traditional family life.

Gender mainstreaming is favored by the United Nations, feminist organizations, and women’s rights groups. They wish to ban the “Patriarchal family model” and to remove gender roles from kindergardens and elementary schools.

The term, “Gender mainstreaming,” was new to me. Why haven’t we heard more about this scheme?

You probably will. Right alongside the ‘abortion pride movement.’ Alas.

 

[flyingfish]

You just made my point -raising children is not important to you.

Children grow up well enough with working mothers. I would imagine plenty of women on this very forum are working mothers who are at the same time good mothers to their children.

Sure I think raising children is important, but it’s not the only thing that’s important.

 

[flyingfish]

You YOURSELF are NOT respecting an educated woman’s choice to stay at home with her children.

I’m not saying women shouldn’t have this choice or anything like that.

I do find it difficult to respect such a choice however, just as I would find it difficult to respect any individual’s (male or female) choice not to rise to their potential.

If a woman is very intelligent or a great artist, or whatever, I could not respect her choice to give up pursuing that to cook, do laundry, drive her kids to extracurriculars and so on. Kids grow up well enough without these things anyway.

Just like I couldn’t respect the choice of someone with the potential to be a talented writer or scientist to be a store manager, say. I would think it was a bad choice, and I would not look up to an individual who made it.

 

[rayne89]

I’m not saying women shouldn’t have this choice or anything like that.

I do find it difficult to respect such a choice however, just as I would find it difficult to respect any individual’s (male or female) choice not to rise to their potential.

If a woman is very intelligent or a great artist, or whatever, I could not respect her choice to give up pursuing that to cook, do laundry, drive her kids to extracurriculars and so on. Kids grow up well enough without these things anyway.

Just like I couldn’t respect the choice of someone with the potential to be a talented writer or scientist to be a store manager, say. I would think it was a bad choice, and I would not look up to an individual who made it.

You know sometimes your posts just make me sad. Your views are so secular so materially focused. When I was in college I had a professor tell me “You’d better do something with that brain of yours.” I did, I homeschooled my daughter.

While I cook, do laundry, drive my daughter around -we talk, we laugh, share stories, make memories. Nothing worldly, no honor or career achievement could ever compare to the laughter and tears I share with my daughter. I’m sure career mothers feel the same. I do work part time -ironically as a “lowly” cashier. There seems to be a human disconnect in the way you view life. You don’t see human beings, you see potential, material worth, what people can accomplish instead of the people themselves. Are they good people? Are they kind? Selfless? Honest? Humble? Generous? Compassionate? Whether they have a PHD or a GED that is what truly matters.

Do you think at the end of our lives we think Gee I wish I spent more time on my career instead with the people I love? Degrees on a wall don’t surround you with love.

I have a female manager at work who works more than she’s obligated, comes in on her days off, stays longer than she is scheduled to, goes on trips whenever the company asks someone to volunteer to help open another store. We all know she is looking to be a district manager. She has a young daughter at home. (And no she is not a single mother.) I asked her how her daughter was doing after she got back from her second 10 day trip in two months. She laughed and said, “My daughter told me I wasn’t allowed to go away anymore. I told her if we want to have all our nice things and live in this big house, mommy has to go.” And then she laughed again. I felt sick inside and so sad for daughter. She just told her daughter material things are more important than you. And no I don’t respect for my manager.

My cardiologist is a female, head of cardiology -she has two children. We talk about our families sometimes. I asked her once how she does it with her kids working such long hours. She said in the beginning her mother watched them when they were very small while her and her husband were working. But it bothered them that they weren’t raising their own children. Her husband was a high up executive for one of the big three. Since his wife loved her career and felt it really was a calling for her, he left his job to stay home with the kids. They felt a parent needed to be home. Obviously the man is well educated but felt his children were more important. It was an unconventional choice but a an awesome choice in my opinion.

 

[sanctamaria17]

Depends on the kids. Some kids, especially if they’re a lot younger, need a mom in the home.

Especially if she’s had more than 3 or 4. It may be more effective to stay at home with them.

And, as I keep pointing out, just because a woman is a stay at home mother does NOT mean she’s not rising to her potential. That does NOT mean she couldn’t share her art or her intelligence with her kids or the people she encounters. I pointed out several times about volunteer work, homeschooling (especially if she wants to HS through high school and teach advanced sciences), “staying at home during the day but working at night”…It’s a HUGE job! Maybe Canada doesn’t have a culture like that, but you will find several pockets within the U.S.

Also, many moms who embrace such a lifestyle don’t want an expensive home. They find ways to live off one income. For them, it’s a simplicity question. It may not be necessary to have two cars (and use so much gasoline, polluting our atmosphere), to have all the trappings of what some people define as a successful lifestyle. And for them, maybe their greatest success is their children, who will outlive any talent that they possess.

Not the same as a scientist becoming a store manager.

Just because she’s not making money off of it doesn’t mean she’s contributing. She’s ensuring that another generation will take place after this one.

 

[sanctamaria17]

Yeah, I love the culture that says, if we don’t give our kids things and show them the way of prestige, we don’t love them enough.

Freedom consists of fulfilling human potential (read, not material) and choosing the path we know is our vocation. Some people, yes, that means working in a high up position. God knows we can use more ethical CEO’s, politicians, etc. Others, that means simple lives, even if we have potential to do “great things” (as defined by the world). It’s because we know we’re called to something greater.

You know, those were the lifestyles advocated by some of the greatest heroes, none of whom were looking for glory. Mother Teresa gave up life as a teacher and principle to help the poorest. Gandhi was a lawyer who gave up his career to fight for Indian independence while simultaneously drawing closer to God. Dr. King gave his life, HIS LIFE, so that our society may see that human is human, regardless of skin color. Oscar Romero is one of those who used his prestige as a Vatican official to promote justice in El Salvador, yet he, too, gave his life. His status couldn’t shield his true goodness, something so powerful it frightened dictators and soldiers.

The things of the world mean nothing if you lose your soul. It doesn’t matter if I ever go for an advanced degree. It means nothing if I’ve treated the people I claim to care about like garbage and act like the people who supported me were secondary to my unquenchable ambition.

 

[flyingfish]

Do you think at the end of our lives we think Gee I wish I spent more time on my career instead with the people I love? Degrees on a wall don’t surround you with love.

My point is that you don’t have to choose. You can have a career and a family, men have always done this. Do you ever question whether a man is a good father because he works? Do you think your husband is a bad father to his daughter or has a very bad/distant relationship with her because he works?

I personally know professional women with children who are good mothers. You don’t need to be a stay at home mother to raise your children well or to have a good relationship with them.

I don’t know to be honest why you are so hostile to me to the point of finding things I said in other thread and quoting them as evidence of what a terrible person I must be.

 

[flyingfish]

You know, those were the lifestyles advocated by some of the greatest heroes, none of whom were looking for glory. Mother Teresa gave up life as a teacher and principle to help the poorest. Gandhi was a lawyer who gave up his career to fight for Indian independence while simultaneously drawing closer to God. Dr. King gave his life, HIS LIFE, so that our society may see that human is human, regardless of skin color. Oscar Romero is one of those who used his prestige as a Vatican official to promote justice in El Salvador, yet he, too, gave his life. His status couldn’t shield his true goodness, something so powerful it frightened dictators and soldiers.

The things of the world mean nothing if you lose your soul. It doesn’t matter if I ever go for an advanced degree. It means nothing if I’ve treated the people I claim to care about like garbage and act like the people who supported me were secondary to my unquenchable ambition.

If all the heroes you listed had been stay at home parents, none of the things they achieved would have been achieved. That is my point. Imagine if Gandhi, instead of fighting for independence, was a stay at home dad all his life? His potential to do good would have been largely wasted.

Maybe he would have made life for his kids more comfortable, maybe they would have had to do fewer chores and would have had a parent around to watch them. But society would have lost.

This is the point I am making. If a woman is talented, if she has God given talents if you will, she should use them to their full potential. It’s not about some ambition to be the richest executive, it’s about becoming who you were meant to be.

 

[flyingfish]

And, as I keep pointing out, just because a woman is a stay at home mother does NOT mean she’s not rising to her potential. That does NOT mean she couldn’t share her art or her intelligence with her kids or the people she encounters. I pointed out several times about volunteer work, homeschooling (especially if she wants to HS through high school and teach advanced sciences), “staying at home during the day but working at night”…It’s a HUGE job! Maybe Canada doesn’t have a culture like that, but you will find several pockets within the U.S.

It depends on what her potential is. Progress in fields, take for example the effort to find the cure for AIDS requires many dedicated people, who spend a lot of time working. Collectively a lot of hard work by many individuals over a long period of time might lead to results that would benefit society. It’s not something you can meaningfully contribute to as an occasional volunteer.

 

[sanctamaria17]

It’s because you’re presuming you know everything about a woman who chooses, yes chooses, to stay at home with children.

Even women I know who work while raising a family say they miss their very small children. There is a strong bond with motherhood, especially if a woman is nursing but even if she’s not, that to be separated too early is a bit jarring.

But it’s not even that. Rayne has seen posts where you’ve said you can’t imagine why kids need too much love, why they shouldn’t just be provided for. You’ve said you’d abort a baby if it was a boy because you have absolutely no interest in raising one. You’ve said that people shouldn’t be parents if they can’t pay for college. You’ve said the environment couldn’t sustain if everyone lived your lifestyle but that you’d rather people just had less kids than you personally giving up your possessions. Flyingfish, I’m not judging but it sounds like you care more about convenience and materialism than kids.

I would agree with you. But some people choose, from their own educated minds and concerned hearts, to have one parent at home. Some people would rather live on less money and have a simpler life to invest in their children. Sometimes, it makes sense if it is the mother, who will be most likely breastfeeding and dealing with pregnancy exhaustion. Since children will outlast pretty much any career, I’d give a lot of those people respect.

For the record, if a man gives more to his career to his family, I’d also find that problematic. Especially if it involves too many business trips. Little ones miss their daddy just like they miss their mommy. But sometimes, it makes sense to make sure someone is home. I personally couldn’t care less if it’s mom or dad. But kids are more important than career and love involves sacrifice. Let me put it this way. In our faith, love requires you to die. Giving up worldly things doesn’t sound so hard compared to that.

 

[sanctamaria17]

If all the heroes you listed had been stay at home parents, none of the things they achieved would have been achieved. That is my point. Imagine if Gandhi, instead of fighting for independence, was a stay at home dad all his life? His potential to do good would have been largely wasted.

Maybe he would have made life for his kids more comfortable, maybe they would have had to do fewer chores and would have had a parent around to watch them. But society would have lost.

This is the point I am making. If a woman is talented, if she has God given talents if you will, she should use them to their full potential. It’s not about some ambition to be the richest executive, it’s about becoming who you were meant to be.

For some women, that means stay at home moms.

Even so, I meant to point out that a mother’s sacrifice is like that.

Look, I’ve said I agree with you that it’s not something women should have to do if they are not called to it. But you can’t see how some women actually find fulfillment, find their calling, and are willing to give lives to it.

I personally hope to work, to make a world better for my kids. But I’m in a different place and I could also change my mind once I have them.

The people who have that potential will find a way to do so. And others will do other things. It just doesn’t happen to jive with what you think women should do.

 

[flyingfish]

But it’s not even that. Rayne has seen posts where you’ve said you can’t imagine why kids need too much love, why they shouldn’t just be provided for. You’ve said you’d abort a baby if it was a boy because you have absolutely no interest in raising one. You’ve said that people shouldn’t be parents if they can’t pay for college. You’ve said the environment couldn’t sustain if everyone lived your lifestyle but that you’d rather people just had less kids than you personally giving up your possessions.

The bolded part is not true. I think kids need love, I just don’t think parents need to spend 100% of their time with them to meet that need. There are plenty of working parents on this very forum, who I am sure love their children and are able to meet their need for love and attention despite having full time jobs.

I don’t remember what I said about college and when, but I can tell you what I think. If it’s between having more kids or putting your existing kids through college, I think people should choose to have less kids and give them better lives. I never said people who can’t afford college shouldn’t have kids, I have never believed this and I have to conclude you must have misunderstood what I said.

 

[flyingfish]

But you can’t see how some women actually find fulfillment, find their calling, and are willing to give lives to it.

I see what you’re saying. I’m not going to be one to tell women that they have to do something other than what makes them happy. But I can’t help but feel disappointed when talented women quit work to take care of babies full time. I’m glad if it makes them happy, but it still saddens me that they make that choice.

 

[sanctamaria17]

Well, I’m sorry for misquoting, but that’s how it comes off.

As for college, you said exactly that. May I remind you that college does not guarantee a better life? I’ve had so many friends graduate yet still struggle with finding jobs. I know people who went to law school, LAW SCHOOL and can’t find a job in this recession, so they’re waiting tables with me. On the opposite spectrum, neither of my parents finished school, but they live very intelligent, happy, fulfilled lives. Granted, they’ll have all their kids out of the house before 50!

My parents couldn’t support a ton of college for me. Oh, I have such a terrible life because I had to GET A JOB and PAY FOR IT! I have to apply for SCHOLARSHIPS! And I took out GOVERNMENT LOANS!

The kids whose parents pay for everything tend to be a bit spoiled. Never had to work a day in their lives because Mommy and Daddy thought making Little Tyke earn something was “too hard”. They’re the ones getting drunk with frat parties and almost failing out, negating any potential they have. Granted, not all students are like this, but I’m still stunned.

In contrast, my friends and I worked our butts off. Even though I get to travel, that’s conditional on me raising money because my mom and dad can’t help me. We weren’t owed college, we earned it. We earned it by excelling in high school and by maintaining grades in college. Even more, we earned it by our labor. We’ve all had jobs, we’ve all worked our fingers to the bone to afford school.

I think my life was better because I can appreciate things more. My parents didn’t just hand me things. I worked for them. I raised money to pay for my trip to Europe when I was eighteen. I worked throughout school to pay for my books, my fun things, my rent, my utilities, and my food. I’m working even harder so I can spend a summer in Mexico and a semester in Kenya, so I can fulfill my own dreams.

So, do you think my parents should not have had my little sister and my baby brother (yes, I use terms like that, terms of endearment no matter how old they are) because they couldn’t pay for my school? Because it wouldn’t have mattered, my life would have been empty without my family.

 

[flyingfish]

So, do you think my parents should not have had my little sister and my baby brother (yes, I use terms like that, terms of endearment no matter how old they are) because they couldn’t pay for my school? Because it wouldn’t have mattered, my life would have been empty without my family.

If I were you, I would rather have been the only child and have a higher quality of life. I don’t know what the rules are in some places about loans, if you can get loans for an education it’s fine and it wouldn’t matter how many kids the parents have. I don’t really think it’s reasonable to expect people to completely work their way through school, as it would require working full time as well as studying full time. I don’t see how that’s conducive to actually studying and succeeding academically.

Wherever I said what I did about college, was probably in the context of parents who would rather beef up their retirement fund than pay for their kids educations. In such cases loans may not be given, because it will be decided that the parents are rich and loans are meant for people whose families genuinely cannot afford an education for their children.

But since you think differently, I’m not going to tell you how you should think.