Question:
>I’m not sure why you would compared today’s parents with those of 100 >years >ago
because that is where this thread started…questioning whether SAH was a modern concept Unfortunately, the thread seems to be taking on a life of its own with the same old arguments cropping up. It was not my intention to begin another SAH/WOH who’s the best thread. Perhaps it is inevitable, but is a shame that the whole thing can’t be explored without digressing into the same old war. >We expected far less from parents back then. Now that we have a >century’s worth >of child psychology behind us,
for better or worse >we know how important those first years >are, so >we don’t just leave the baby lying in a bassinet while we tend to the >garden.
From parents maybe less was expected in times past but not from caregivers. I cannot imagine a Victorian family hiring a nanny who did nothing but leave the baby in the crib. As for your supposition that we keep children more by our side now than before, I’m not sure that is true either. Children would have been constantly at the side of a working class parent (unless the child worked) and would likely have been expected to be learning/helping in whatever project was going on. >Yes, today’s parents may have more "leisure" time, but there’s >more at stake nowadays with regard to childrearing.
There always has been and always will be a lot at stake with childrearing. << The SAH mom of today is generally at home for >the primary purpose of rearing children.>> >Who would argue with that? SAHs certainly aren’t home so they can >make dinner >and do the laundry.
I wasn’t looking for an argument. 
<< Certainly the cooking and cleaning are done, but they are done in WOH families too.>> >Many, though of course not all, WOH families do this a little differently.
I simply do not have enough expertise to make a generalization. The working families I know don’t have or do the extras you mentioned. They are working to make ends meet not for luxuries. But here again, this is not the point. What I have been questioning all along is when did the idea of having one parent home *for the sole purpose of childrearing* come into being? Mary
Response:
> > We hold the same kind of > jobs as other women. And as for who cares what happens to the kids–*I* > do. My child is *my* responsibility, not yours or anyone else’s. > Not sure why you are getting mad at me for expressing concern about the > well-being of women and children in tough economic circumstances. And > your child IS everyone’s responsibility. How he or she turns out effects > us all. If you are doing a good job, you deserve our support and > affirmation. If you are having trouble, then you need people to help you > to do better.
Amen. Sorry, Linda, but I have to agree with Bill here. It takes a village, and there’s nothing wrong with asking the villagers for help. > Who exactly, just out of curiosity, is going to foot the bill for paying > moms to stay at home? > Everyone. It is in society’s best interest to do so. We already foot the > bill to pay for other people who do work that is for the good of society.
Again, amen. How do we pay for it? We figure out a way, that’s how, just the way you figure out a way to support your family at all costs. It’s also very practical – we reap the benefits as a nation – and eventually as a world – in making sure our children grow up in the best possible way, with compassion, respect and intelligence. Mike — From Seattle, WA – Seahawks, cinema, science and more at http://kohary.simplenet.com Seahawks: http://kohary.simplenet.com/hawks.htm Cinema: http://kohary.simplenet.com/movies.htm Science: http://kohary.simplenet.com/science.htm
Response:
>The SAH mom of today, no matter how much she does, does >not do nearly as much as was required of the woman of 100 years ago. Washing
clothes, cooking and so on were MUCH bigger jobs then than they are now because of our modern conveniences.>> I’m not sure why you would compared today’s parents with those of 100 years ago, but I’d like to add my .02. We expected far less from parents back then. Now that we have a century’s worth of child psychology behind us, we know how important those first years are, so we don’t just leave the baby lying in a bassinet while we tend to the garden. We try to do things with the baby or toddler alongside us and take her to the zoo and the playground and set up play dates. Also, the extended family lived together communally, in a way: everyone worked together, minimizing the work burden of each member of the family. Maybe Grandma did the wash while the mother made the bread. Babies were probably ignored most of the time. Older kids just ran around and played together. Children went to school for only a short period of time in their lives and came home to help out. Now in the case of SAH parents, it’s usually Mom or Dad alone, with the responsibility for the child’s psyche. Yes, today’s parents may have more "leisure" time, but there’s more at stake nowadays with regard to childrearing. << The SAH mom of today is generally at home for >the primary purpose of rearing children.>>
Who would argue with that? SAHs certainly aren’t home so they can make dinner and do the laundry. << Certainly the cooking and cleaning are done, but they are done in WOH families too.>> Many, though of course not all, WOH families do this a little differently. They tend to eat out more, use more convenience foods, eat fewer meals at home, have more clothes that get dry cleaned rather than machine washed, have the money to pay someone to mow the lawn or, sometimes, clean the house, etc. (I’m not talking about single working moms or the working poor here, of course.) And there’s a difference in how much work *needs* to be done around the house when you’re home all day. You’re there to mess it up, to make and clean up meals. Anne, who has the best–and worst–of both worlds, because she’s a work-at-home mom
Response:
> I foot the bill for My staying at home. I wwould rather foot the bill for a > single mom who is single (because her husbnd beat her or dumped her) so that > she could get a good job or get the training she needs to get a good job and > not worry about what kind of situation her child is in, Thn py for bombs to > destroy the world. > I was a welfare mom. I didn’t want to stay on the system and I got off it > as soon as possible. Belive it or not most moms on the system want off it. I > hope that you never need the help. I hope tht you have family that will > assist you if you ever need it. > It is not automatically assumed tht all moms not on welfare are in poor > paying jobs but some women on welfare don’t have the education to get the > job.
I *do* need the help. I’ve needed it since I had a premature baby and all the responsibility that came with her. I’ve never received any help. I pay my own way, without family or government support. We live frugally and we survive. I just get tired of the suggestion that single mothers are either on welfare or incapable of holding a real job–and yes, it *was* implied by the previous poster. If a woman doesn’t have the education she needs, then she needs to get off her dead behind and get it, and quit using her kids as an excuse. It’s not anyone else’s responsibility to get her education for her. It might do those kids some good to see their mothers working hard toward a goal. It may have taken me 19 years to do it, but I paid off those #!!! student loans. And I’m beholden to no one. This, IMO, shouldn’t be unusual. This should be the norm. And I’ll be darned if I’m going to shell out for any more mothers to stay at home while I’m working my butt off to raise mine, alone. >Why is it automatically assumed that all single mothers who are not on >welfare are taking "crummy slave-labor jobs?" We hold the same kind of >jobs as other women. And as for who cares what happens to the kids–*I* >do. My child is *my* responsibility, not yours or anyone else’s. >Who exactly, just out of curiosity, is going to foot the bill for paying >moms to stay at home?
– Linda I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Of course, if this society of ours, and the "pro-family" forces out there > REALLY valued mothers (and fathers!) who decide to devote themselves to > full-time care of children, we’d make it a paid job and actually reward > parents for the valuable service they provide to society. The notion that > single mothers shouldn’t be on public assistance but should have to go out > and get a job (and who cares what happens to the kids!) is ANTI-FAMILY and > ANTI-CHILD. It is ironic that the people who go on and on about "family > values" are also the ones who want to cut welfare and force single Mom’s > into crummy slave-labor jobs, and who are willing to spend millions on > bombs, but can’t find a few dollars to support quality, affordable > day-care so kids can get proper stimulation and opportunities to play with > other kids, and parents can get some time away from being with their kids > around the clock. > Why is it automatically assumed that all single mothers who are not on > welfare are taking "crummy slave-labor jobs?"
I DIDN’T assume that. My point is that "Workfare" schemes that force single mothers on welfare to work usually put them in "crummy slave-labor jobs". Single Moms who are not on welfare (for whatever reason) often have good jobs. However, the reality is that most single mothers do find it hard to manage economically, especially since affordable, quality day-care is so hard to find. > We hold the same kind of > jobs as other women. And as for who cares what happens to the kids–*I* > do. My child is *my* responsibility, not yours or anyone else’s.
Not sure why you are getting mad at me for expressing concern about the well-being of women and children in tough economic circumstances. And your child IS everyone’s responsibility. How he or she turns out effects us all. If you are doing a good job, you deserve our support and affirmation. If you are having trouble, then you need people to help you to do better. > Who exactly, just out of curiosity, is going to foot the bill for paying > moms to stay at home?
Everyone. It is in society’s best interest to do so. We already foot the bill to pay for other people who do work that is for the good of society. I know, I know! You don’t want to pay higher taxse, etc. I’m not about to get into a debate about social expenditures and social pay-back. It just isn’t worth the effort. Bill
Response:
> Well, the "jobs" of today are much easier than the "jobs" of 100 years > ago as well. > My great-grandfather worked 14 hours a day in a steel mill around the > turn of the century. His "job" was pretty typical for his day. So, yes, > the "job" of taking care of the house has gotten easier, but so has the > "job" of bringing home the money… .
I just finished a 13 hour shift in the intensive care unit. It never gets easier. <sigh> We don’t all work 9 to 5 behind a desk. — Linda I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.
Response:
I foot the bill for My staying at home. I wwould rather foot the bill for a single mom who is single (because her husbnd beat her or dumped her) so that she could get a good job or get the training she needs to get a good job and not worry about what kind of situation her child is in, Thn py for bombs to destroy the world. I was a welfare mom. I didn’t want to stay on the system and I got off it as soon as possible. Belive it or not most moms on the system want off it. I hope that you never need the help. I hope tht you have family that will assist you if you ever need it. It is not automatically assumed tht all moms not on welfare are in poor paying jobs but some women on welfare don’t have the education to get the job. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Why is it automatically assumed that all single mothers who are not on >welfare are taking "crummy slave-labor jobs?" We hold the same kind of >jobs as other women. And as for who cares what happens to the kids–*I* >do. My child is *my* responsibility, not yours or anyone else’s. >Who exactly, just out of curiosity, is going to foot the bill for paying >moms to stay at home? >– >Linda >I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.
Response:
> Of course, if this society of ours, and the "pro-family" forces out there > REALLY valued mothers (and fathers!) who decide to devote themselves to > full-time care of children, we’d make it a paid job and actually reward > parents for the valuable service they provide to society. The notion that > single mothers shouldn’t be on public assistance but should have to go out > and get a job (and who cares what happens to the kids!) is ANTI-FAMILY and > ANTI-CHILD. It is ironic that the people who go on and on about "family > values" are also the ones who want to cut welfare and force single Mom’s > into crummy slave-labor jobs, and who are willing to spend millions on > bombs, but can’t find a few dollars to support quality, affordable > day-care so kids can get proper stimulation and opportunities to play with > other kids, and parents can get some time away from being with their kids > around the clock.
Why is it automatically assumed that all single mothers who are not on welfare are taking "crummy slave-labor jobs?" We hold the same kind of jobs as other women. And as for who cares what happens to the kids–*I* do. My child is *my* responsibility, not yours or anyone else’s. Who exactly, just out of curiosity, is going to foot the bill for paying moms to stay at home? — Linda I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.
Response:
The SAH mom of today is generally at home for the > primary purpose of rearing children. Certainly the cooking and cleaning are > done, but they are done in WOH families too. > Mary
Last Sunday when we were at Taco Bell, we met up with another family we know. They both work full-time (not that there’s anything wrong with that…) and have 2 small children. After they ate, they were deciding who would take one child to the grocery store and who would take the other one home to do the laundry. I thought to myself, "this is why I went to part-time work" I get the "housework" done during the day-hours, and evenings and weekends are familytime. Yes, the housework gets done in all homes, but the question is–when? and how much stress does it cost? This couple we knew had stress written all over their faces. I’m sure that other people don’t mind living that way–but I hated living that way and am so much more relaxed now. My thoughts….Sue
Response:
> >Ok , please don’t take offense to this message. But since when did SAHM >not >do anything?(that is the idea i’m getting) > This is not the point. The SAH mom of today, no matter how much she does, does > not do nearly as much as was required of the woman of 100 years ago. Washing > clothes, cooking and so on were MUCH bigger jobs then than they are now because > of our modern conveniences. The SAH mom of today is generally at home for the > primary purpose of rearing children. Certainly the cooking and cleaning are > done, but they are done in WOH families too. > Mary
Well, the "jobs" of today are much easier than the "jobs" of 100 years ago as well. My great-grandfather worked 14 hours a day in a steel mill around the turn of the century. His "job" was pretty typical for his day. So, yes, the "job" of taking care of the house has gotten easier, but so has the "job" of bringing home the money… . (Note: I put job in quotes because a "job" that pays is equal to the "job" of being a SAHM. At least in my book!) Jeff
Response:
>Ok , please don’t take offense to this message. But since when did SAHM >not >do anything?(that is the idea i’m getting)
This is not the point. The SAH mom of today, no matter how much she does, does not do nearly as much as was required of the woman of 100 years ago. Washing clothes, cooking and so on were MUCH bigger jobs then than they are now because of our modern conveniences. The SAH mom of today is generally at home for the primary purpose of rearing children. Certainly the cooking and cleaning are done, but they are done in WOH families too. Mary
Response:
> >Ok , please don’t take offense to this message. But since when did SAHM >not >do anything?(that is the idea i’m getting) > This is not the point. The SAH mom of today, no matter how much she does, does > not do nearly as much as was required of the woman of 100 years ago. Washing > clothes, cooking and so on were MUCH bigger jobs then than they are now because > of our modern conveniences. The SAH mom of today is generally at home for the > primary purpose of rearing children. Certainly the cooking and cleaning are > done, but they are done in WOH families too. > Mary
Of course, if this society of ours, and the "pro-family" forces out there REALLY valued mothers (and fathers!) who decide to devote themselves to full-time care of children, we’d make it a paid job and actually reward parents for the valuable service they provide to society. The notion that single mothers shouldn’t be on public assistance but should have to go out and get a job (and who cares what happens to the kids!) is ANTI-FAMILY and ANTI-CHILD. It is ironic that the people who go on and on about "family values" are also the ones who want to cut welfare and force single Mom’s into crummy slave-labor jobs, and who are willing to spend millions on bombs, but can’t find a few dollars to support quality, affordable day-care so kids can get proper stimulation and opportunities to play with other kids, and parents can get some time away from being with their kids around the clock. Rant over! Bill
Response:
BTW when did it become sah against woh? It is a choice. Both have their adavntages. Angie (again) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Ok , please don’t take offense to this message. But since when did SAHM not >do anything?(that is the idea i’m getting) I work my tail off cleaning >cooking and doing any thing that needs to be done in and out of my home. >Taking care of three children is full time job. I am on "call" 24/7 I get >no sick days, no vactions, no luch breaks. I have nothing against mothers >who chose to or have to work outside the home. I don’t critize WOH. At times >I envy them.But it was my and DH’s choice for me to stay home with our >children. SAHM’s work thier butts off. My DH works 12hr shifts four to five >days a week. I have no help except from the kids and I only get about 4hours >sleep a nite. Sorry for ranting. But I am tired of being thought of as a >bon-bon eating, soap opera watching, lazy person. >Angie (nick 11 Sarhea 6 & Kaitlynn 7mths)
Response:
I am very interested in family history and have explored my genealogy back, in some lines, to the 1600’s, in New England, New York, and the Mid-Atlantic states. Except for my mother, who worked very briefly in my childhood, I have yet to find an instance in my own family where any of my female ancestors worked outside of the family household or farm after bearing children nor did they hire governesses or nannies to care for their children. They did sometimes obtain hired girls for a few weeks after childbirth to help out with the housework and chores, but that was about all. These were all middle class, small town or rural American families. Margaret, Hiya…I think it is great that you have researched your family tree…But, you have to remember that, although you found no instance of your ancestors working per se, outside of the home, most people did not live in cities as this was pre-industrial time and agriculture was the ONLY way to make a living…So, I am sure that their existence was not the ones of SAH moms that exist nowadays!!LOL! FAr, far from it..THe women always did at least half hte owrk on the farm, (usually more due to certain roles) and what you may not have found is that most women did piecework for the upper classes..This would probably not have been documented (especially as early as the 1600’s!) but I would bet that your ancestor women did alot of work in terms of endless hours of lace-making or sewing…also domestics were popular with the younger girls as occupation..And don’t forget the amount of time just to do anything back then..They may have gone out to markets and old their wares sort of thing..But even if they didn’t take part in this (which is usually unlikely) extra effort, they WOULD have been away all day, away from the house, working the farm…WHat I find horrible is that the "common" women are not recognized on "the books"…THese were the women who did the MOST work..WE only have very few written accounts of upper class women as it is, but for 90% of the female population of the past, there is relatively NOTHING!! Very sad…Cheers, Cindy "Of one who possessed Beauty Without Vanity, Strength Without Insolence, Courage Without Ferocity, And All the Virtues of Man Without his Vices…."(Byron)
Response:
Ok , please don’t take offense to this message. But since when did SAHM not do anything?(that is the idea i’m getting) I work my tail off cleaning cooking and doing any thing that needs to be done in and out of my home. Taking care of three children is full time job. I am on "call" 24/7 I get no sick days, no vactions, no luch breaks. I have nothing against mothers who chose to or have to work outside the home. I don’t critize WOH. At times I envy them.But it was my and DH’s choice for me to stay home with our children. SAHM’s work thier butts off. My DH works 12hr shifts four to five days a week. I have no help except from the kids and I only get about 4hours sleep a nite. Sorry for ranting. But I am tired of being thought of as a bon-bon eating, soap opera watching, lazy person. Angie (nick 11 Sarhea 6 & Kaitlynn 7mths)
Response:
Mary, I am also interested in the facets of this discussion..My two cents: I think the concept of a SAH mom as we know it is relatively modern (as in 50′ -present)..The reasons for this being >>Yes, the employment of a wetnurse, and governess or nanny was a sign of social standing in Victorian times and before..But these women DID NOT work..THey entertained in their parlours, were involved in charities (another sign of social standing) and generally spent time with their hobbies (not to mention the three hours it took them to get dressed–and even this they didn’t do by themselves–just imagine!).. The lower classes pre-industrialization (and a teensy bit after that) women ALWAYS worked..In MOST instances, the women did MORE work than the men (like today but a 100x!!) but could not afford nannies hence the children were either working themselves (at horrrible jobs for no pay) and often it was the older sibs who would take on the responsibility of the youngers. You are definitely right about the abuse of "mother’s little helpers" in the 50’s and 60’s..But this was also going on with the majority of upper class women in Victorian times as well with their "vapours" (usually from the corsets being too tight!!), and their fainting and anxieties..(ANd what were they so worried about with the kids away and only having the burden fo relaxing as much as possible?LOL!)..We have to remember that the first coca-cola syrup was mixed with cocaine and other opiates were used in several types of elixirs (for woman’s ailments)..THese were used heartily by the upper echelons..In the 50’s and 60’s, I think it was the result of both the stresses of post-war, of feeling powerless onm the part of women and the OVERDIAGNOSIS by doctors to shut these women up (the doctors did not want to hear how stressed these women were by the pressures of society or how depressed they were, so load em up with Valium)..So just my two cents on the issue..I fiind it all so very interesting!!Cheers, Cindy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I was thinking about all these SAH/WOH threads that constantly pop up. Looking > back over time, it would seem that a SAH parent is a fairly modern idea, for in > times past (at least in western Europe and the USA) for the middle and upper > classes is was the norm to employ a nurse or governess. Indeed anyone who > could afford to do so would employ a caregiver as it was, I believe, a mark of > social standing. Lower classes might indeed have a SAH parent, but child labor > was not unheard of so the reason for a SAH parent would not have much to do > with parenting philosophy or even the presence of the children in the home > during the day. > In watching a series on the fifties, it was put forth that the notion of the > SAH mother was an outgrowth of the baby boom and the need to provide jobs for > returning servicemen. The show went on to discuss the massive use of > prescription anti-anxiety drugs by SAH moms during this era, supposedly because > the acceptable role of a woman in society had become so narrow that many women > just went over the edge. > Anyway, I thought this all was very interesting and was wondering what the rest > of you thought. I am NOT trying to beat the dead horse of who is the best > Mommy and who is happy with their choice, I am interested in a more general > discussion, if possible, of just when did the notion of a SAH parent for the > sole purpose of raising children come into being for people at all levels of > society. > Mary > a mom who has WOH, SAH and WOH-PT
Response:
> >I have yet to find an instance in my own family where any of my >female ancestors worked outside of the family household or farm after >bearing children nor did they hire governesses or nannies to care for >their >children. > Were your ancestors well-to-do middle or upper class members? I believe it has > probably always been the norm for rural people and the working class to have a > mother at home, but as I stated, this was not so much due philosophy as > necessity. Had there been money to have a caregiver, who knows? What I am > interested in knowing is when did the idea of having mom at home *solely for > the purpose of child rearing* catch on among the upper classes? > Mary
This is a good distinction — the upper classes had little to do with child rearing traditionally. But lower class families had a mom in the home — it was just that she was heavily engaged in actual productive labor — with little time for child rearing — except when children were ill — which they often were for weeks at a time. Of course, having a mom around to touch base with is different from not having one 10 hours a day while one is in day care. The concept of quality time as endless hours to play with a child is a modern concept — which has little evidence for it’s desirability — but the availablility of mom off and on all day is probably a pretty good thing — even if she is milking the cows, weeding the garden, and baking the bread. k
Response:
> The concept of quality time as endless hours to play >with a child is a modern concept — which has little evidence for >it’s desirability — but the availablility of mom off and on all >day is probably a pretty good thing — even if she is milking >the cows, weeding the garden, and baking the bread.
Things change, but not by much. I’m available even if I’m loading the dishes into the dishwasher, checking my e-mail, and paying some bills. I work part-time out of my home, but I’m basically here. I wonder whether any mother ever just sits around all day and plays. ARW
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I have yet to find an instance in my own family where any of my >female ancestors worked outside of the family household or farm after >bearing children nor did they hire governesses or nannies to care for >their >children. > Were your ancestors well-to-do middle or upper class members? I > believe it has > probably always been the norm for rural people and the working class > to have a > mother at home, but as I stated, this was not so much due philosophy > as > necessity. Had there been money to have a caregiver, who knows? What > I am > interested in knowing is when did the idea of having mom at home > *solely for > the purpose of child rearing* catch on among the upper classes?
It still hasn’t caught on for the most part. The "upper classes" still have maids, governesses, nannies etc. But I think you need to ask your question a little differently. Until the Industrial Revolution the family was basically the unit of production AND REproduction. The home and place of business were often the same place. Both parents generally worked in a family enterprise and the children began to work in this enterprise as soon as they were old enough. Child care and work were done in the same place so that it was essentially a working at home situation – just as we are now returning to that – there really is nothing new under the sun. By the mid eighteenth century with the Industrial Revolution beginning in earnest the home became the unit of reproduction while the factory became the unit of production. At this point child care became a separate issue and mothers (actually women in general) began to be confined to the domestic sphere. I’m not sure it really matters who took physical care of the child – nanny, maid, nurse, governess, the mother was at home in any case. Rememeber too that domestic chores were considerably more onerous in those times – no washing machines, no sewing machines, no running water, no electricity, make your own bread, make your own soap, make your own candles, make your own cloth, make your own yarn. The hired help frequently did some of the chores while the mother took care of the children. Childhood itself, as a separate time of life did not even exist. Childcare was not the obsessional "quality time" type of thing we now view as childcare. The "deification" of the child did not begin until Victorian times about mid-nineteenth century, when it became, according to some historians, a way of keeping women from joining the work force which was finally beginning to open to single women. The role of "mother" became a sacred calling and one which no one else could do as well. Until the advent of labor-saving devices this was merely a theoretical concept. Only in the 1950’s and later when household chores became much lighter and sah women had time on their hands, did childcare become the obsessional every second of every day devoted to looking at/after the child. Now it is assumed that this kind of care is necessary to a child’s well-being. I think it is a dubious notion. marcie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Mary
Response:
>I have yet to find an instance in my own family where any of my >female ancestors worked outside of the family household or farm after >bearing children nor did they hire governesses or nannies to care for >their >children.
Were your ancestors well-to-do middle or upper class members? I believe it has probably always been the norm for rural people and the working class to have a mother at home, but as I stated, this was not so much due philosophy as necessity. Had there been money to have a caregiver, who knows? What I am interested in knowing is when did the idea of having mom at home *solely for the purpose of child rearing* catch on among the upper classes? Mary
Response:
> >I was thinking about all these SAH/WOH threads that constantly pop up. Looking >back over time, it would seem that a SAH parent is a fairly modern idea > In western culture, the notion of children is also a modern idea. > Until fairly recently, they were simply miniature adults – although it > was generally recognized that they needed moral discipline. > roy
Well if 200 years or so is ‘fairly recent’ But the obsessively SAH mom notion — where Mom’s job is to play with a child all day is a sort of 50s post WWII notion — designed to get Mom out of the workforce when the soldiers came home. all the sentimental family claptrap is very 50s — a generation earlier Mom was often not in the office — but she was often in the fields, and doing heavy home labor like hand washing tons of laundry, baking the bread etcetc — not much time for spending the morning with legos and ‘quality time’ — kids were reared by whoever was around — and little focused time was spent on them. k
Response:
Thank God for Maytag and Wonderbread, eh? Caryn
all the sentimental >family claptrap is very 50s — a generation earlier Mom was often >not in the office — but she was often in the fields, and doing >heavy home labor like hand washing tons of laundry, baking the >bread etcetc — not much time for spending the morning with legos >and ‘quality >
k
Response:
>I was thinking about all these SAH/WOH threads that constantly pop up. Looking >back over time, it would seem that a SAH parent is a fairly modern idea
In western culture, the notion of children is also a modern idea. Until fairly recently, they were simply miniature adults – although it was generally recognized that they needed moral discipline. roy
Response:
I am very interested in family history and have explored my genealogy back, in some lines, to the 1600’s, in New England, New York, and the Mid-Atlantic states. Except for my mother, who worked very briefly in my childhood, I have yet to find an instance in my own family where any of my female ancestors worked outside of the family household or farm after bearing children nor did they hire governesses or nannies to care for their children. They did sometimes obtain hired girls for a few weeks after childbirth to help out with the housework and chores, but that was about all. These were all middle class, small town or rural American families. In my family, there was no instance of child labor, but sometimes when a boy became 13 or 14 he either served an apprenticeship which occasionally required moving out of the home or worked as a hired hand at a neighboring farm if his own father could spare him. More often, he would remain on the family farm, though, working alongside his father until he married, at which time the father gave him a portion of land for his own homestead. Teenage girls sometimes served as hired girls for a few weeks for a neighbor lady who might be recuperating from childbirth or an ill aunt or grandmother, that is if her own mother did not need her in the household to help care for her little brothers and sisters. Families in those days were a lot closer. Boys worked alongside their fathers and girls alongside their mothers. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins were often nearby. That’s just how it was in my family. I understand that in other parts of the world, in the upper classes, and especially among the poor in urban, industrialized areas, things were much different. Margaret – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I was thinking about all these SAH/WOH threads that constantly pop up. Looking > back over time, it would seem that a SAH parent is a fairly modern idea, for in > times past (at least in western Europe and the USA) for the middle and upper > classes is was the norm to employ a nurse or governess. Indeed anyone who > could afford to do so would employ a caregiver as it was, I believe, a mark of > social standing. Lower classes might indeed have a SAH parent, but child labor > was not unheard of so the reason for a SAH parent would not have much to do > with parenting philosophy or even the presence of the children in the home > during the day. > In watching a series on the fifties, it was put forth that the notion of the > SAH mother was an outgrowth of the baby boom and the need to provide jobs for > returning servicemen. The show went on to discuss the massive use of > prescription anti-anxiety drugs by SAH moms during this era, supposedly because > the acceptable role of a woman in society had become so narrow that many women > just went over the edge. > Anyway, I thought this all was very interesting and was wondering what the rest > of you thought. I am NOT trying to beat the dead horse of who is the best > Mommy and who is happy with their choice, I am interested in a more general > discussion, if possible, of just when did the notion of a SAH parent for the > sole purpose of raising children come into being for people at all levels of > society. > Mary > a mom who has WOH, SAH and WOH-PT
Response:
I was thinking about all these SAH/WOH threads that constantly pop up. Looking back over time, it would seem that a SAH parent is a fairly modern idea, for in times past (at least in western Europe and the USA) for the middle and upper classes is was the norm to employ a nurse or governess. Indeed anyone who could afford to do so would employ a caregiver as it was, I believe, a mark of social standing. Lower classes might indeed have a SAH parent, but child labor was not unheard of so the reason for a SAH parent would not have much to do with parenting philosophy or even the presence of the children in the home during the day. In watching a series on the fifties, it was put forth that the notion of the SAH mother was an outgrowth of the baby boom and the need to provide jobs for returning servicemen. The show went on to discuss the massive use of prescription anti-anxiety drugs by SAH moms during this era, supposedly because the acceptable role of a woman in society had become so narrow that many women just went over the edge. Anyway, I thought this all was very interesting and was wondering what the rest of you thought. I am NOT trying to beat the dead horse of who is the best Mommy and who is happy with their choice, I am interested in a more general discussion, if possible, of just when did the notion of a SAH parent for the sole purpose of raising children come into being for people at all levels of society. Mary a mom who has WOH, SAH and WOH-PT
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.