so sick of hearing....
Find a Conversation
so sick of hearing....
| Mon, 08-06-2007 - 1:34pm |
hello everyone!! i just read the cnn article on how burnt out and guilty the working mom is...and how hard it is to incorparate "quality" time...and all i can say is WILL YOU COME OFF IT PLEASE!! i work-40 hours a week; sometimes 6 days a week to get all my hours...and i have 2 children-7 and 3...and you know what-every day during the school year, i walk my dd to school...i volunteer at my dds school-in her classroom and on field trips-i have the last 2 years and plan to do more of the same this coming year...i keep the house clean-do the dishes and laundry, go grocery shopping, etc. and you know what-neither of my kids feel slighted. we just took a week long vacation where we went to an amusement park and then to visit my sil for a few days...they have a lil shallow pool-and i go "swimming" with them often-usually before i go off to the adult world of work...we go on shopping trips with my mom and visit a cousin who has a huge pool and the adults play cards outside on the deck when the kids swim...we play games, we take walks, we go to parks...it just boggles my mind. yes i get tired-and yes there are days i wish i didnt have to go in to work...but then theres days that i cant wait until i go in-some women are meant to stay at home and theyre happy doing it...and some women are meant to work outside the home-i need that adult stimulation-i need my friends and my friends are all behind that deli counter with me...again i dont feel my kids are slighted in the least-my own mom was a stay at homer and she didnt volunteer at school and we never took the kinds of trips and outings my kids are lucky enough to have on a regular basis...i dont feel guilty when im at work-i dont think being a working mom hurts my kids...im getting sick and tired of hearing how unhappy working moms are, or how guilty i should feel cuz im not with my kids 24/7...maybe im the exception...or maybe the media focuses too much on the exceptions and a lot of working mommies feel like me...??? take care!!
joanne
maman2goons@yahoo.com
joanne
maman2goons@yahoo.com

Pages
So ironically I woke up this morning, got our Sunday paper and was greeted by a front page story that the schools in my city have been turned over to the state Dept. of Education for management b/c only TWO of them (out of all the elementary schools, 3 middle schools and 3 high schools) met standards for adequate yearly progress (or something like that). Only TWO and those two barely. So yeah, this morning I am THRILLED I made the decision I made four years ago to send Liza to parochial school, b/c I'm not sure where she'd be in one of the city elementary schools right now. NH has been in a funding crisis around education since 1990 and the infamous suit against the state by three property poor towns thatled to a supreme court ruling that NH"s method of funding education via property taxes (our only tax - no income or sales tax here) was unconstitutional. That was in 1990 -- the legislature still hasn't come up with a solution, the supreme court has given it deadline after deadline that it has failed to meet. it's a mess. During my leadership NH program my class spent a day in one of the poorest communities in the state, the town that led the lawsuit, and sat in all four of the schools (elementary, middle, high school and vocational) and the experience was eye opening indeed. I always naively felt that at least the schools around me would still be ok...but to read how bad the situation really is was a shocker.
I do feel that Liza will probably go to public middle and high schools (b/c the catholi cmiddle school is a disaster, literally falling down on the kids heads) and I have decided that when that time comes I am seriously going to consider running for the school board so I can make some kind of small difference.
Yes. We. Did.
go find a parent whose kid is doing well there,whose kid did pass standards and i'll bet you'll hear a different story. maybe a snapshot of where i'm coming from wrt NOT BLAMING schools for my child's worth and potential,too. adding the media to the fire isn't always a good thing,either.
fwiw,i don't remember if you were here when i used to go on about my dd's condition when we lived in the midwst. i was so,so disappointed about how dd1's condition was being addressed in the schools. nobody cared,nobody understood. the newspaper ran a front page story on her. it was remarkable. long story short,one of our neighbors worked for the state board of education (we lived in the capitol city) and listened to our testimony,about our concerns for children,in general who fall short because their conditions aren't acknwoledgd. i swear if we were still living there,we would be making a change,a difference because we would have fought for change in those schools.
IMHO,if you want change you don't escape a school system,you fight for what's right there.....last night i was watching post stories about new orleans children and school. those kids are in sour public shcools but they have dreams and ambitions just like kids in other schools do. you'd make a fantastic school board member,mkat.
education is one of my most passionate debates here. but i've spoken way too much.
Edited 9/2/2007 11:24 am ET by egd3blessed
yes you're right we should work to make a change but at the time Liza was entering school it was 3 months post divorce and I wanted her in a small school with a nurturing community that wasn't dependent on her address at her dads house or my house (we're actually in different school 'district's even though we're only a few miles apart). At the time it was the rght choice for HER and continues to be so. That may change later on. I made the best choice I could given the information I had about our schools and what I knew my daughter's needs were. I remember once you telling me I was 'lucky' to have gotten her into the local catholic school and that you had tried to do the same but hadn't been able to. I wouldn't accuse you of 'escaping' or running -- but making the best choice you needed to for your child.
NH schools are a mess and a nearly 18 year battle to fix them is still not even close to being resolved. When Liza's a bit older I will try to do what I can to be more involved on a local and statewide leve (that's what Leadership NH is all about after all) but for now I'm happy that she's where she is.
Yes. We. Did.
<>
It's definitely crossed my mind. I managed the pr and advertising for the recent campaign of a friend and learned a lot in that process. It's something I'll consider someday.
<>
I agree. But sometimes, you move your child not because the public system is bad, not because the public system needs changed ... but because it simply isn't right for YOUR child.
hypothetical scenario -- My children are in the public school. The school, in general, is very good. Good teachers. Good facilities. Good curriculum. Safe, secure. Modern. Good test scores. Good diversity etc. My daughter is thriving in the school. Learning, growing, etc. My son, however, is not. He's not challenged. He's not thriving. He feels confined by the rigid structure. The same rigid structure that is good for my daughter.
What should I do in this scenario?
Fight to change the school? -- No, because 1) there's nothing wrong with the school and 2) that would then put my daughter in a situation she might not thrive in and 3) how can I have the right to change a school for MY kid only, when it works for most of the others?
Leave my ds in the school to fail? -- No. Not just no, but hell no.
Leave my ds in the school but find ways to supplement his eduation? -- Maybe. That would address his not being challenged, but it wouldn't address the other issues.
Or, the option I would choose; Find a new school for ds.
The financial ramifications of divorce are often much worse than a bad marriage. Kids want their parents together. They may, later, as adults look back and say differently but when young, they just want a stable and predictable home.
Unless there is abuse, staying together for the kids can be better than divorcing.
As a child of divorce, I can day the divorce part wasn't that bad BUT the remarriage of my parents was. Once they remarried and had kids with their spouses, my brother and I becamse visitors in THEIR family's homes. We didn't belong. At either my mother's or my father's you could remove us from the situation and you'd still have an intact family. The only ones who didn't have an intact family were my brother and I. We had no family.
Before my parents remarried, it was ok. Probably better than them being married as they weren't fighting (I'm actually to young to remember them together but there was abuse). Life was best for me before my parents remarried. I think remarriage makes divorce worse than it has to be for the kids. It's one thing to share time with your parents but quite another to have to compete for the time you have with their new family.
Oh, goodie. More of your resume.
The more you continue, the more you reinforce the "depth" of your experience with employment discrimination and constitutional law. Your renewed efforts above to introduce your experience with "fair employment practices" confirms that you are a labor and employment attorney - which is a wonderful thing, isn't it? You practice at the administrative level, obviously before various FEPAs and Admin. Law Judges, without any of those pesky rules of evidence and with judges who are...well... retired and are now arbitrators and mediators. But not in the federal courts before federal judges, with actual rules of evidence, with actual juries and trying actual (not pretend) employment discrimination law.
So it continues to be clear you're mistaken that discrimination against women was somehow "legal" until 1964. Way before 1964, a document known as the US Constitution existed. The document known as the Constitution made it unlawful to discriminate against women. And over 2 centuries before Title VII, imagine that.
N.B.: What Section 1983 did was to allow women to finally sue individually in a court of law (federal or state) for such unlawful, unconstitutional discrimination under certain circumstances. BUT ever since the Constitution, it has been absolutely illegal to discriminate against women. I'm hoping you can see the difference.
Oh, and you're probably right about Ms. Lilly. I haven't read the Ledbetter decision because, well, I just don't have to read decisions anymore! But the only named defendant I heard about on tv - Goodyear - could not have acted under color of state law, and thus there couldn't have been a Section 1983 claim. But I disagree unions can't sue under Section 1981. No citations obviously - I somehow failed to renew my subscription to Westlaw. ;)
Pages