This thread is intended for a serious discussion of the changes that were perhaps birthed in the feminist movement and perhaps even exacerbated by players such as Madonna [referencing both Unk and Debra's prior threads, although attempting to incorporate societal changes as well.]

If we go back to the 1950's, we saw the American family portrayed on TV in such shows as Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver, and Ozzie and Harriet. These shows were established as role models of a family unit, right down to the twin beds in which the parents slept. Were they successful role models? I know that MY childhood didn't look like those portrayed. Did anybody's? I doubt it. However, compared to the years that followed, more mothers DID stay home during the 1950's.

If there was a time when ALL mothers stayed home, it was before MY time. Even as a child, my best friend's mom worked outside the home. Her dad worked as well, and they could afford a house and Catholic school tuition, while my folks could only rent and send us to public schools. A few other moms worked outside the home in the neighborhood, but most of the moms stayed home. This didn't mean these moms didn't work. In addition to the traditional baking, cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc., many of the moms who stayed home worked to increase family income. The mother down the street got a deal on rent above a Masonic hall if she handled the care of the hall. The woman across the street helped her husband with the books for the neighborhood tavern he owned. My own mom sewed drapes, made and sold flower arrangements, etc. for neighbors who didn't have those skills. It was a poor neighborhood, and folks did what they could to make ends meet.

The families portrayed on T.V. were outside our realm NOT because our moms worked outside the home, but because our family income level wouldn't allow our family the luxuries provided the T.V. families. SOME of our moms weren't happy with their roles. My mom would have much preferred working at a florist shop over trying to sell her arrangements without a market. She might even have preferred working as a designer. She had a good feel for fabrics, patterns, fit, etc. and could as easily make clothing as drapes. She did both. My dad, however, wouldn't allow her to work outside the home. He felt that the role of breadwinner was designated to the male gender. I'll never know if she even told him how she worked at home to make money. I only know that she wasn't there with cookies and milk like the moms on T.V., nor did she have any time or interest to help us if we had problems.

Sometime during the 60's and 70's, the feminist movement changed all this. Why SHOULD women stay at home? Why SHOULD women not get better paying jobs in the workforce if their skills were equal? The ball of the movement got rolling, and men didn't know WHAT to do about it. For some, their manly role of provider was threatened. Others feared that women would take THEIR jobs. Some men STILL feel threatened by these fears. Many men my father's age didn't have these fears. They had daughters who were now old enough to start working, and wanted their daughters to have every opportunity. Although they knew how they wanted THEIR homes, they ALSO knew that some other men didn't honor their wives. They wanted their daughters to have OPTIONS.

Of course during the same period as the women's movement, other movements were taking place in America [if not the West in general.] Improved birth control methods meant that women were no longer reproductive slaves. The age of free love and flowing drugs encouraged a freedom from the bonds that kept women in a submissive role sexually. Like any newfound freedom, some abuse occurred, but for the most, society adapted and men and women found a sense of comfort in mutually respectful relationships where both partners worked outside the home and enjoyed sex to the fullest.

Eventually, children resulted from these newfound relationships. Most couples decided that they could continue to work outside the home and raise children in addition. SOME couples decided that parenting was a full-time position and one of the two would sacrifice a period of their career to stay home with the children.

SOME men in these relationships hadn't adjusted to the changing roles...either the role of women in general, or the role of parent for himself. Memories of his mother being at home when he returned from school, or memories of his father insisting that his mother not work outside the home led him to question whether this new method was desirable. SOME women in these relationships had the same thoughts. These thoughts in both questioning men and women grew further strength when reports came out regarding abuse in childcare facilities, and increasing trends of delinquency in children.

Communities, which once had women at home watching the neighborhood, were now empty [for the most] during the day. The children of mothers who DID stay at home found no one to play with during the day because the OTHER children were off at daycare. The mothers of these children found themselves devoid of companionship. Working mothers who were either not willing or incapable financially of arranging after-school care allowed children to go home alone after school, thereby establishing a generation of lock-key children. Since the communities were empty of adults, these children oftentimes established patterns of getting into trouble.

Kids ALWAYS got into trouble, but when women stayed home [working from the home or NOT], SOMEONE was looking out their window and would report the indiscretion to the parents. Here's where Hillary's term "It takes a village" comes to mind. Left unsupervised, some children developed an attitude of "I can do whatever I want", and some never lost that attitude.

So, in one sense, the women's movement is indeed responsible for a certain segment of the population developing an "I can do whatever I want" attitude. Of course responsible parents in a position have been able to foresee this possibility and make arrangements that kept their children supervised, while fulfilling their career goals. Indeed, these parents have been able to raise children much happier with their homelife and their lives in general because the parents are much happier than the parents who felt uncomfortable in the roles that society demanded.

Just as so many homes were unbalanced BEFORE the women's movement, some homes were unbalanced AFTER the women's movement. It's up to each parental unit to determine the joy one will assume in the parenting role, as well as life in general. After the initial experiment with women in the work-place after children, a backlash occurred for those who felt left unattended by their parents. Men and women alike decided that once children entered the picture, the female would most likely be the one to terminate the career [at least temporarily], while attending to the needs of the children. Of course this decision on which parent was made based on both earning power and enjoyment of work outside the home. It made absolutely no sense for a mother to quite a job she thoroughly enjoyed while a father continued in one that he found depressing. So, many families decided that one parent would now stay home, resulting in communities that have adults of both genders available to meet the needs of both their children and those of surrounding neighbors who didn't make this decision. Since these decisions were made by choice, the parents staying home are happier than their predecessors.

The Madonna Femininism influence is substantial in that not only can men/women decide for themselves the roles they play, but a sense of joy can [without guilt] be applied to that role. Children are silly. Adults tend to lack the silliness they once had. Madonna is less a role model in her sexual portrayals as a role model in the joy sense. If parents feel that their role is to always be one of serious authority, children lack a sense of association with the parent. If parents feel free to do the outlandish on occasion, the child sees them as a human being, as children feel free to do the outlandish on occasion as well.

One needn't be "stuffy" to be a parent, and one needn't be "stuffy" to be a mate. WHO is harmed by a child with pink hair? WHO is harmed by a tongue piercing? WHO is harmed by a nose-piercing? WHO is harmed by a boy who has an earring in his ear? NO ONE. Madonna's influence [and even that of Dennis Rodman] has encouraged youth and parents alike to look beyond what society considers acceptable to a home that accepts change as FUN. We want our kids to be responsible, yet we want them to have joy of life as well.

-end-of-rant--

Let the discussion unfold.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000

Answers

There was a story on the news last evening about a 15-year-old boy who had been sent home from school for having green spiked hair. I live on the beach in SoCal so trust me when I tell you that this kid wouldnt garner a glance out here (well maybe one or two). If I understood the facts, this boy had been told to correct his appearance, as it did not meet the standards of the schools guidelines. Something to do with disrupting the educational process. I have this mental picture of this kid showing up at my high school in the 50s. Why are we all so opposed to discipline? Take a close look at what is happening in our public schools today and tell me the kids need more freedom to express themselves. Most parents today are afraid of their kids. Afraid to set firm guidelines for fear that they wont be a buddy to their kids. There was an incident last year where a Mom in NorCal hired a male stripper for her 15-year- old Daughters birthday party. Of course the girls friends from school were fighting over invitations and the party took a turn for the worse and both the Mom and the stripper were arrested and charged with lewd activities with minors. You can bet that old Mom was a big hero with her Daughter and her friends. That is the current attitude that needs to be corrected. It takes a lot of work and skill to be a good parent and friend at the same time.

End of rant.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 02, 2000.

Ra:

If the boy had been told by the school "rules" to correct his behavior, he deserves the punishment doled if he didn't conform to the rules.

Regarding the mother of the 15-year old girl with the stripper, I would suggest that some folks never should have taken up parenting.

I certainly hope you're not suggesting that I'm condoning a lack of discipline with children. I don't know who the folks are that are the "MOST parents" that you see afraid of their children. I've certainly never feared my three, and only know of one woman who is afraid of her daughter. This woman didn't know what to do since the beginning of her daughter's life.

My experience with youths may be different than your own, but I've seen a good cross-section of society [rich, poor, black, white] cross the threshold of my home, and they all seemed quite level-headed. They realize that oddities like pink hair [never saw green spiked] are temporary in nature and can be enjoyed for a jaunt to a club on a weekend and washed out by the time College classes resume on Monday morning.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

There was an incident last year where a Mom in NorCal hired a male stripper for her 15-year- old Daughters birthday party

Why is this worse than the father that takes his son to a prostitute? (I don't condone either, by the way.)

-- Carol Carter (Carol_Carter@net.care), June 02, 2000.

Anita,

My mom was a career mom -- she worked for my dad (who had his own business) as his office manager. While not affluent, we were pretty much upper-middle class, and my folks had enough for them to hire a full-time housekeeper/babysitter, who I was basically raised by. Our housekeeper/babysitter was very strict, humorless -- you know, almost one-dimensional; at times I was even swatted about my legs (when I was "naughty") by her with a large, long twig (the kind you roast marshmallows with) that she called her "switch." I believe my parents were aware of this, although I don't recall ever discussing it with them. My parents were, in general, very good to me, though. I was raised in a secular Jewish home; no emphasis on God, but strong morals.

How I got from that kind of upbringing to my current outlook would take a book, although I'd love to talk about it sometime -- but I will say that I'm sure my mom influenced me to where I'd felt it was pretty natural for a woman to work outside the home.

Anyway, outside from a little time off during my kids' very early years, I've been a career-oriented person. And my ex was rarely at home for long periods in a demanding career of his own, although he was a good father. In spite of this, though, (brag coming, so get ready) my boys (now 14 and almost 17) -- who have seen many years of being dropped off at child care facilities, have been and are among the most well-adjusted, happiest children that I know.

Since my boys have had many influences, there's no way I could take full credit for this. But, although I missed time with them, I've tried to make many of our moments together really count -- aside from emphasizing the crucial importance of a strong moral foundation, which could be the subject for another thread.

Regarding discipline and work: As much as I could anticipate possible mischief or other problems, the rules were clear so that they knew ahead of time what the penalties would be. And they have plenty of chores to do -- sometimes lots of extra stuff, too -- with no special payment for them (outside of their regular allowance) -- just a loving mother and a home with warm beds. And I think they see this.

And I've tried to build our relationships with the time we did have together, as well as emphasize the opportunities for joy and creativity that life has to offer. So, for example, I would read to them in bed in all sorts of animated ways. I used to try to read "Fox In Socks" (that incredible Dr. Seuss tongue-twister) to them starting from an extremely slow pace (with my lowest voice -- like playing an old '78 on '33) to as fast as I could, with all of us ending up on the floor in hysterics before I was halfway through. I've played basketball and soccer with them, as did their dad, and through the years I would spend time at their bedside before they went to sleep, asking them things about their day, encouraging them to talk of any problems, and general joking around.

Then there are our spontaneous acts, like mudfights, chasing each other around the house and across the yard with piles of mud in our hands (as I talked about with you a little on another thread), which left us almost unrecognizable and not being able to catch our breath from laughing so hard. And wars with those huge, super squirtguns all over the grounds, that almost got us kicked out of a cottage we rented in northern Michigan. In fact, when I tried to get the same cottage the next year, I was told that they didn't want us back! (I smiled when I'd heard that.)

You know, it may be a tired old cliche, but with us...the quality, not the quantity, was the emphasis. And I really think it worked.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.

Eve:

It worked for mine as well. I was extremely dilligent in my investigations of appropriate child-care facilities, opting for well- screened family units when the children were quite young, and moving along to facilities that I considered age-appropriate as the years progressed. I had the added benefit of my parents being in a position to pick up the children and care for them after school for a number of years until my dad took ill. Even then, I found a loving family to provide after-school care.

I didn't try to do it all. The mundane tasks were handled by either a housekeeper or a mother's helper when the children were in the impressionable years. When I returned from work, my children and I spent time together until they slept that night....every NIGHT. The emphasis was not on THINGS, but TIME together, and they were a joy to me. They still ARE a joy to me. I oftentimes wish my mother had been in a position to spend the time that I spent with my kids.

Looking back at it all now, we have so many memories that I didn't have with my own stay-at-home mother. When we get together, we relive the moments. "Remember the blue guy in Paris?" We all laugh. "Remember the purple guy in Brussels?" We all laugh. Remember the day we walked to the store? Remember the day we made scarecrows out of leaves and old clothing? Remember the day we all threw ourselves into the heaps of leaves and started a leaf fight? So many memories, yet our lives are not yet over. We continue to build on those memories each time we are together.

I'm actually saddened when I listen to my mom. She's struggling so hard to now define some meaning in her life. She says, "I knew how to do everything." "Yes...you did." "I sewed, I made flowers...I did everything I could to help." "Yes...you did." There's no mention of what we did together, because we never did anything together.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

i am glad for some of the ideas the "women's movement" has brought forth (i wouldn't attribute all this to the 60s and 70s feminists however). i just plain hate most of the things the 60s and 70s feminists brought forth though. for the most part, the feminists in the forefront of this particular part of the movement come from dysfunctional families and/or parental relationships and spewed forth alot of anger.

i think madonna (although she is later) happens to be one of these angry, disillusioned women who was rebelling against the church and against, i think her father. i don't see anything FUN about madonna. she brought alot of unhealthy ideas about sexuality out that we now consider the "norm" and anyone who maintains a sense of modesty or any old fashioned ideas about sexuality is considered a prude. this woman may be a mother but she is still desperately searching for truth and identity in her life.

if you want a good role model on

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), June 02, 2000.

Anita, I normally enjoy and agree with your input but I worry about anyone who points to Madonna as a role model. She is a very unique individual with a unique lifestyle, not one to necessarily pattern your childrens lives after. Just my opinion. BTW, Madonnas last name is Cirillo or some such Italian name and she grew up in a suburb of Detroit. Her family were extremely strict Catholics and her father was a stern taskmaster. The Gibsons lived next door and they have a son named Kirk who you may have heard of. Just some inside tidbits.

I absolutely love the movie League of Their Own and Madonna was the best among a star-studded cast. If you have not yet seen this flick do so.

-- Ra (from@old.Philly), June 02, 2000.

Ra:

League Of Their Own was the movie about the women's baseball team, right? If so, I enjoyed it as well. Geena Davis did a great job in that one, as well.

I used Madonna as an example more because Debra mentioned her in another thread on feminism. I can't say she's been a role model FOR ME, but she does represent one "character" in life that suggests that there's nothing wrong with letting down one's hair. Why is this important? Well, perhaps I feel it important because my mom was so "boxed in." She was overly worried about what others may think. It wasn't until she grew old that she felt free to be herself. At 87, clinging to a walker, my mom hears music at her facility and stands up and dances. She's always loved to dance. My dad had no interest in dancing. She doesn't care if the others stare at her now. Actually, some do, and some admire her gumption. My kids have come home with friends unexpectedly on several occasions to find SO and I dancing wildly in the frontroom to music we enjoy. We simply yell our "Hi" over the music and continue doing what we were doing. You'd be amazed at how many young people have never seen their parental figures simply having fun. We get "caught" having fun all the time. While still in Illinois, I was "caught" outside making a snowman. Yes...I was by myself. The snow was there, and it beckoned to me.

Some kids have NEVER seen their folks engage in spontaneous behavior of this sort. In the beginning, my kids were a little embarrassed that I wasn't like other mothers. I'd hear them explaining to their friends that sometimes their mom did "goofy" things like that. Why is making a snowman "goofy?"

Somebody, somewhere, established guidelines that grown-ups should lose their inner child. I would agree that we should behave as adults when the situation warrants, but I wouldn't agree that we should present an image to our children that childhood fancies are lost simply with age. Balance is important...not stuffiness.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

Interesting discussion Anita. I'm older than most of you--I was a teenager in the l950's--sock hops, Elvis, poodle skirts, etc. but my home life was nothing like the shows on TV. I read a very interesting book on this called "The Way We Never Were" which really shed the spotlight on this fictitious time. In fact it was very critical of the shows as most young people had nothing close to this type of life.

Luckily, I come from a long line of feminist women. We lived in K.C. during WWII when I was a preschooler and my mother and dad both worked at defense plants. I stayed with a sitter. We moved back to our rural home when I started school, but my mother worked out most of the time. My dad thought women should do anything they thought they were big enough to do, and encouraged this in me, and my mother didn't need any encouragement. Except for shoving religion on me, she was a very free spirit.

In the 60's I was a young, married woman living in West Texas, working in a bank, but my heart was with the 60s rebels. The most radical thing I did though was protest separate drinking fountains in Sears. I certainly didin't see any reason why a person's skin color had anything to do with where they got a drink. I was asked to leave.

In the 70s I embraced the women's movement because I'd always felt out of tune with other women. I loved my child, but certainly didin't want more than one. I worked out from necessity.

tt, I don't know why you think most women in the forefront of the women's movement came from dysfunctional families, although lots of people come from dysfunctional families in one way or another, and most didn't get involved in the women's movement.

I got involved for one reason only. I was divorced when my child was three. I didn't make near as much money as the guys where I worked and the women did most of the work. I struggled to make ends meet. I rode to work with another person because I couldn't afford a car for ages. I lived in a really crappy house because it was all I could afford. And yet I had a job where I was supposed to look nice every day and always be pleasant no matter what. Jobs were very hard to get, and I needed the one I had. I sometimes cleaned cabins at resorts on Sunday to make extra money. I had one boss who made a fortune and couldn't do shit. We did his work for him.

Then one day three of us who worked in the same bank got to talking about how unfair salaries were, and dress codes for women, (not allowed to wear slacks to the office and freezing your ass off in winter) and we joined NOW. I even later attended a national conference in Houston. It was great! The hosts of the Houston chapters of Now wore T-shirts that said, "Houston Shit Workers," for women almost always get to do all the shit work.

And yes I rebelled against religion as you know, for most religions seems to relegate women to the same shit worker role. Who always brings the food and cleans up the church kitchen??? Who is supposed to submit to your husband and be silent in the church. No way. The Dark Ages are over.

Anita, I too have never lost my inner child. I enjoyed rock and role with my son and allowed him to have a Playboy Playmate tacked to the ceiling above his bed. He also had to be respectful to adults, kind to animals, good to his friends and do lots of chores. He was a great kid and is a good father to his kids.

I think that making sex out to be something dirty, because it's more open nowadays, is being a hypocrit, for sex is natural and people should not have to us a rule book in order to indulge. As long as what people do doesn't hurt anyone else, then whose to say what's bad and what isn't. Live and let live.

Here's the lines from a great song we sang in Houston.

It used to be a woman's place to do what other told her.

Mama, Papa, husband, boss, all in an endless line.

I hate to break with precedent, but I hear a voice inside me.

And if they have to rule some life, Hell No it won't be mine.

I have a wonderful husband who likes strong, self-reliant women. I am grateful everyday to the women's movement for helping us to be what we want to be, to make more money, so we can better care for our children--to get better educations, wear what we please to work, (Ellen Brockavich, hee hee) and also run our own businesses, and also have the same opportunities to get to be the boss.

Anita, one of the things I regret about raising my son, was when I had a fit about him getting an earring. It seems so silly now. What the hell was wrong with me??? Just one of those hangovers from my Southern Baptist religion that preached that it was a sin to dance. Boy did I love to dance.

-- gilda (jess@llistbot.com), June 02, 2000.

Also, a good subject for todays women is "Reinventing Womanhood by Carolyn G. Heilbrun. Here's one little question from the book that I think is quite thought provoking: "If I imagine myself (woman has always asked) whole, active, a self, will I not cease, in some profound way, to be a woman? The answer must be: imagine, and the old idea of womanhood be damned."

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 02, 2000.

Gilda:

You're a woman who was born before her time. If we all get together in Las Vegas in the fall, I sure hope you'll drop your prejudices about the place so we can spend a night talking until dawn. I'm confident that I'm not the only poster on this forum who feels this way about you. So little time...so much to share.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

Anita, I feel the same way. I would like to know you better too. You're a much more diplomatic person than I am, and I admire that. My mother was also very diplomatic. think I took after my grandmother whose tongue was rather caustic.

If we can get a sitter for all our animals, I would love to come to the get-together and meet everyone, even if Vegas is a hedonistic, waster of natural resources. :) We will talk 'till the sun comes up.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 02, 2000.

I'm going to throw this to the top until I've heard from females such as Y, Helen, Patricia, Cin, etc., and males such as Unk, Bingo, Flash, Frank, Flint, etc. Carlos will never take the time to read such a long starting post, so I don't expect any interest from him.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

I'll weigh in on this Anita. Basically, your choices of role models - Madonna, Rodman, suck. lol.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 02, 2000.

David:

Your response was what I expected from you. Thanks for your input.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.

Ok, Now I'll try a little more serious feedback.

WHO is harmed by a tongue piercing? WHO is harmed by a nose- piercing?

Sometimes, the ONE who has a body part pierced. Infections, sometimes serious ones, occur on occassion with these types of piercings.

And Rodman? Madonna? Examples of what we unfortunately see in our society - disrespect for anyone but OURSELVES. The me, me, me generation.

Ever watch Rodman's behaviour on the basketball court? Nuff said.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 03, 2000.

David:

Now that we've heard your thoughts on the role models mentioned in passing as the climax to the originating post, might we hear your thoughts on the entirety? You honed in on the small portion of an admittedly LONG post on parenting. You obviously have hang-ups on piercings. I had an ear-piercing that became infected myself. I simply took out the earring, kept the area clean, and the infection healed itself with no help. My kids have never held either Madonna or Dennis as role models. Had you read further, you would have realized that these folks were simply mentioned in an attempt to encourage parents to behave in a less-stuffy manner and bring out the joy of life in their children by example.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.

Anita,

This is a tough thread, not to criticize, but it would be easier to answer if it was two or three threads. I'll try though:

On stuffiness, I feel I have the obligation TO be stuffy to some degree, as as a parent you are an authority figure, and not just another friend for your child. (Let me post this in the first person :-) ) My reason for saying this is I believe it's my responsibility to teach my children right from wrong *and enforce this behavior*, not just to have a good time with them.

That being said, I agree completely that being stuffy *all the time* is a VERY bad thing. Although you may find it hard to believe from the moralizing in many of my posts, my wife criticizes me for playing silly games with the kids TOO MUCH, often leaving her the task of going over the homework. Or maybe it's just male laziness.

Also, I agree with you to the point of saying parents should do there best for their children. But as examples of role models Rodman and Madonna? I got sort of hung up on this too. Rodman self-destructed. A young woman/man imitating Madonna's example could get in a lot of trouble, REAL trouble. As far as the piercings, no, there's nothing technically wrong, but if due to society's prejudices your pierced child doesn't get accepted to a good grad school or hired for a job, have you really done them a favor by not saying no to it?

Don't know if I missed the boat here,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 03, 2000.

Edit #2:

do their best for their children. But, as examples of role models, Rodman and Madonna?

Should reread these more closely before posting,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 03, 2000.

Thanks, Frank. I was really more interested in a discussion of whether one sees the feminist movement changing society. I think it did, but I don't see it as a negative change except for the areas I mentioned.

Regarding piercings, rings are simply removed in situations where one considers them unacceptable. I wear different clothes when I'm home than I wear to the office or to a club. As I mentioned previously, Madonna and Dennis were mentioned simply to suggest that one needn't limit oneself to "what others will think." Certainly, we must restrain ourselves from presenting an unacceptable image to an employer, yet I've seen parents reject fun changes simply because THEY wouldn't do it, or feel that their parental authority is threatened if they allow such things. One father I met still selected the clothes his 17 year old daughter wore. I don't call this discipline. I call it need for total control.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.

I find it interesting that so many focus on Rodman and Madonna. From everything I've read, Madonna adores her child and is a good mother. Some of the most interesting and brightest people I've met in my time have been the odd balls, those who colored outside the lines, those who were interested in issues not conformity.

If one gets turned down for grad school or employment because of an earring, even though their credentials are very good, then there's something wrong with that school or job in my opinion.

Would Cliff Stoll's personality and hair be criticized by IBM? Maybe; even though he did find who was hacking the Pentagon's computer ages ago. Would Einstein's hair or Bradley's earring (60 Minuets) or Spences's attire be against the dress code of corporate america? If so, it would be their loss.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 03, 2000.

gilda,

We have an old friend who has his own system for weeding out grad school applicants. His red flags are science fair winners & eagle scouts, he says those things really tell him more about the parents.

-- flora (***@__._), June 03, 2000.

??? Just one of those hangovers from my Southern Baptist religion that preached that it was a sin to dance. Boy did I love to dance.

-- gilda (jess@llistbot.com), June 02, 2000.

Gilda: I totally agree. I was brought up very strict religion, same with the dancing. And like you, I loved to dance.

But I've came to terms with it, I DO dance on occasion and even King David danced till his clothes came off....(in the bible)

Nice to read this thread. Sorry I dont have more to imput.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), June 03, 2000.

Anita, there are certain threads I dont participate in because I dont have much of consequence to add. This is one of those threads. Since you asked for input Ill do my best.

I havent reproduced, nor do I intend on doing so. This leaves me decidedly ignorant as to child-rearing. Granted I was a child once, for about fifteen minutes. I dont know how I should have been parented. I was pretty much allowed to dictate, or rather, manipulate most situations. At a very early age I dominated most adults around me. I found it extremely difficult to communicate with others directly because what I experienced as stimuli others did not. This made for a disjointed reality. And frequent shaking of heads!

I think working towards enabling a kid to achieve some semblance of its potentials is a full-time job. Or a parent must work very intelligently. This is a reason why I have no intent on participating in bringing a child into this world. Im not up to the enormous responsibility parenthood entails.

As to women, I look upon each person as an individual first & foremost. The shell (as we both like to call it) is just one piece of the puzzle we call a person. I love to look at the shells of women. NOT as sexual fantasy toys, but as snowflakes  no two the same. The myriad shapes are beautiful works of art.

The greeting most often used in India, Namaste, translates as I honor God within you. This is how I wish to address each woman, in my mind, in my actions  with respect.

In my mind I often refer back to the sitcom All In The Family when considering people broken down into subsets. Was it Jean Stapleton who played Edith Bunker? Although an obvious caricature, Edith grew as a person, from a slave in body & mind into a whole person capable of having a life outside of Archies domination. Indeed she thrived outside of Archies oppression.

Each of us has characteristics of man & woman within. I suppose Ive always sought to marry the two, thereby achieving wholeness.

Thanks for asking.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 03, 2000.

flora, LOL, your friend used a great criteria.

consumer, keep on dancing. How can anything that feels so good and is so much fun be a sin? Whoops, answered my own question.

Ahh Bingo, you sound like such a nice guy.

Great thread Anita.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 03, 2000.

Methinks Bingo is a nice guy.

Bingo are you gay?

-- (Serious @ question. cause I am 2), June 03, 2000.

This question is inappropriate to the tenor of the thread. Please e- mail me if you are really interested.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 03, 2000.

Gilda,

I hear you, but :-)

To work in most fields you have to be part of a team on some level. If someone shows up (two real examples) such as a young woman wearing a thick wool (conservative) sportjacket and a micro-microskirt, or a young man shows up with a long braided lock of hair on the front of his head but shaved everywhere else, to me they are saying two things:

1) I am different (fine with me)

2) I am going to make sure you KNOW that I am different (sounds like someone who doesn't want to be a part of the team at this institution)

I don't think this is a conservative-only issue, every field and workplace have their cultures -- a black suit-wearing, bible carrying, conservative Christian might be "discriminated" against when applying for a job in a left-wing organization that prides itself on its non-conformity.

It's sort of a copout to say "that's just how it is", but then the point of Work is to Work, not to appease everyones social preferences.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 04, 2000.

>SOME men in these relationships hadn't adjusted to the changing roles...either the role of women in general, or the role of parent for himself. Memories of his mother being at home when he returned from school,

Just a semi-quick comment since I'm working this morning. I was born in the mid-60s and caught in the 'tween generation. When my mother returned to working part-time outside the home in the 1970s, I was upset that she wasn't home after school. Worse, twice a week, I had to start dinner (my brother and sister and I rotated chores.

At the time, I thought that women's lib was hooey. No mom: more work for us. Today, I realize how selfish an attitude that was! We kids needed to learn how to run a household and how to for ourselves. My father changed his attidtude as well: with mom working, he was able to leave the corporate rat race a lot sooner than retirement and start a business with my uncle.

I won't say these were easy times for our family, but we all learned a lesson about the actual costs of pursuing our dreams. Everything really is a trade-off in a relationship.

As for me today, I can't stand dating a woman who doesn't hold down a career that she enjoys most of the time. The woman I'm dating now is a high school math teacher. Not a high-salaried career, but she still puts in 50+ hours a week with the grading and such. If we were to marry (don't tell her I wrote that! heh-heh), I know that during midterms and finals, I would be doing more than a 50-50 split of the housework (too frugal to hire help).

So be it. I'm housebroken. Thanks, Mom. 8-)

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), June 04, 2000.

Kb8:

Thank you for being one of few male respondents who didn't hone in on Dennis and Madonna.

Bingo:

I understand and appreciate your comments. Funny how the nice guys are seen as gay, dontcha think? Funny how when one suggests children grow up to have a joy of life some think one is suggesting an anything-goes upbringing. We're all still communicating right past each other.

Gilda:

I agree with Frank to an extent on the job opportunity thing. There's a time and a place for everything. Unfortunately, some folks put an onus on individuality even if it's for the appropriate place. My oldest daughter is fond of Phish. I hope I spelled that correctly. They're a band similar to the Grateful Dead of days past, and Phish fans follow the concerts just like the Dead Heads did. She has hair down to her waist, and for a weekend of concerts, she'll put her hair in hundreds of long beaded braids, nose-ring, tongue ring, at least 8 earrings, don a short cool-weather top, a skirt down to her ankles, sandals, and hauling a guitar, bongo drum, and other things out to the car, leave for a weekend of what might be considered "tribal" fun. While at the concerts, she's almost coerced into continuing with the circuit, but always says, "My mom pays good money for my college education, and I have school again on Monday." By Sunday night, she returns a dirty mess, removes the braids, showers, etc., and on Monday morning she's ready for school. When she goes to work, she removes all rings except for [I think] three earrings in her ears. Once/month there are bongo sessions in Fort Worth. Again, she does the braids, etc. I remember when I was young my mom would try to convince me to wear a dress instead of jeans. I think as parents we must face the fact that our kids are NOT us, no matter how much we'd like them to be.

Like your son, my kids grew up to be strong, loving, reliable people, who don't judge others by appearance but who they are inside, how they treat others, and how they treat the world. Forgive my bragging, but I can't think of one thing I'd now change about them.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.

You're right Anita, I did hone in on a couple of things in passing, for they were what caught my interest! Still, not a fair response, sorry.

Now about my "hangups" about body piercing, that's your opinion. Ojecting to body mutilation and penetration by metal objects for decorative or other trendy purposes is flat out stupid. I also have hangups about suicide and other things potentially harmful, lol.

-- David (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 04, 2000.

That shoulda been "body mutilation and penetration by metal objects for decorative or other trendy purposes is flat out stupid" and I object to it. That's hardly a hang up. Mothers and fathers who think it's just fine probably aren't very good at setting healthy and necessary limits on their childrens behavoir. That could show up as a problem, sooner or later....

-- David (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 04, 2000.

David:

"Mothers and fathers who think it's just fine probably aren't very good at setting healthy and necessary limits on their childrens behavoir. That could show up as a problem, sooner or later...."

Would you like to define your later, David? Age 50, 60, 70, 80, 90? At what age would you admit that an "allowed" piercing had no effect whatsoever on a person's life?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.

Anita, Have read your thread further (at your prompting), I must admit I certianly don't see it as a feminist diatribe at all. I do see it as history threw "skewed" glasses though, i.e., a bit distorted. Probably one of the biggest factors on women working outside the home was WWII, when many men left, and many women got jobs in factories, etc. Then, we had a lot of kids raised by grandmother while mom was working. Today, we have the "day care kids", ie, corporate kids raised by corporate entities. The good old days weren't really good old days, but today is just a little worse IMHO.

Women working? Doesn't bother me, been working with them since I was a teenager, kind of like them. In the military? No problem. The problem is when the standards are lowered for women compared to men....and they often are. On submarines? Stupid idea, according to my friends who HAVE ACTUALLY SERVED ON THEM, and according to their wives! Now an all female crew might be ok:)

-- David (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 04, 2000.

David,

My then 17 year old daughter wanted her belly button pierced, her tongue pierced and a tatoo. At that age she needed my permission to have them done. We talked. I agreed to give my written permission for the belly button piercing and she agreed to wait until she was 18 for the tongue piercing and tatoo.

When we went out to have the belly button pierced we had a wonderful afternoon. She was so excited. I was able to make sure the place was okay and I was able to meet the person doing the piercing. I helped her pick out her belly button ring. She was one happy young woman.

When we returned home daughter #2 told me my parents had called. I returned the call. They asked to speak to daughter #1. I put her on the phone. It seems daughter #2 had told them #1 was out getting the piercing. While on the phone that beautiful, happy face looked like it had been struck, she started to cry. Turns out my parents told her they didn't want to speak to her anymore because of what she had done.

When she turned 18 she had her tongue pierced and got a tatoo (a small butterfly on the back of her shoulder). She had plenty of time to think if she really wanted them. I knew where she was getting them done. It was her decision. It is her body.

According to your statement I probably wasn't very good at setting healthy and necessary limits on her behavior and that it could show up as a problem, sooner or later....

The above mention of my parents should tell you about the limits set on my behavior while growing up. But you know what? My daughter is down at the shore right now for prom week-end. She just called to say hello and let me know everything is ok. It is 11 PM. She was happy and sober. OTOH, when I was her age I didn't call home and I can tell you in all certainty that I would not have been sober at 11 PM.

I've always saved the "limits" for the big ones and body piercings are not those in my book.

Anita,

I grew up in what many would call the perfect family. A house in the suburbs, 3 children, a dad who worked and a mom who stayed home. We had the station wagon, the dog and the pool in the back yard.

You didn't talk about the "issues" in the family. You didn't want the neighbors to think anything was wrong. Only so and so's son did drugs, only so and so's daughter got pregnant without being married. Our family? We were fine.

I'd like to share my experiences and how they relate to the kind of woman, mother and human being I've become. I'd like to share my most vivid memories of a stay at home mom who spent hours sitting at the kitchen table, drinking coffe, smoking cigs and biting her nails. I'd like to share my upbringing in the home of an Italian, Roman Catholic father. All of this set against the backdrop of feminism in the 60's and 70's.

Tomorrow I'll start. I'm going to tell you the story of "Madonna, My Mother and My Daughter."

-- Debra (...@....), June 04, 2000.

Debra:

"I've always saved the "limits" for the big ones and body piercings are not those in my book."

My mom took me to a doctor for my first ear-piercing when I was 13 or so. They didn't have the little shops at the time. My grandmother had her ears pierced in infancy. I accompanied my girls when they got their piercings, even though 16 was the age requirement and they were older. Tattoos are another interesting phenomenon. My girls both have one as well, well-hidden by clothing. One even designed her own.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 05, 2000.

I'll put my 2 cents in FWIW. Anita I think you're mixing a few movements, the women's movement and the sexual revolution. They happened during the same time when the pill freed women to become sexually active but they have different (extremely) causes. The body piercing and Madonna role models (fun stuff) was part of the "if it feels good, do it" chant. The more serious movement concerned itself with equal pay for equal work, women's independence from a male dominanted society. Of course the women's movement changed society but so did the sexual revolution. Hard to separate the two to determine which influenced society more.

I agree with Frank, children need to restrain from "going with the trends" as much as possible. When they do look for opportunities, they will have the door slamed on them if not a part of the "norm". Having fun doesn't come from only green hair and pierced nipples. Fun comes in many forms that won't make you necessarily stand out.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 05, 2000.

Debra:

I'm waiting for your story:

David:

The war influence was before my time, but the research I've done indicates that the women who worked outside the home during the war pretty much lost those jobs after the war. The exception seemed to be in some factories where the turnover to an all-female workforce showed such improved production that the manufacturers decided to keep these factories all female.

Maria:

I don't see any disagreement. In fact, my original post to this thread mentioned the sexual revolution that occurred at the same time. As I mentioned previously, I also don't think parents should encourage following trends if those trends have long-lasting effects. When my daughter thought about having a huge tattoo of a spider in a web placed on her upper back, I asked how comfortable she would feel when she was perhaps 23 and invited to a formal dinner party wherein she may want to wear a backless dress. Would she feel comfortable living with a tattoo that she'd decided on when she was much younger? She decided against it, but as I said previously, the age of consent was already past, so had she made the decision, SHE would be the one to live with it.

It seems to me that the real basis of objection lies with the notions of the parent. David sees a piercing as bodily mutilation, and uses suicide in the same sentence. I see a piercing as a small hole through which a ring is inserted if desired. My definition of bodily mutilation would go way beyond a thin needle hole which closes over when not in use. Actually, I consider circumcision mutilation, yet many parents insist on this stating that health issues are at stake.

Certainly, previous generations had their own notions of appropriate, and the next will have different notions than mine. My mother never wore slacks. She felt they were uncomfortable. In the same vein, she would never wear a dress above the knee. Need I mention that I don't agree with my mother on this one and never have? If I were to accept HER taste in music, I'd be listening to Guy Lombardo. Need I mention that our tastes differ here again? Trends come and trends go. I wouldn't wear the same clothes today that I wore in the 70's, but I sure enjoyed wearing them then, and strongly doubt that the way I looked affected my outcome, except to suggest that had I been forced to dress like my mother, I could have turned out a whole lot stranger.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 06, 2000.

Anita,

Just my .02, I don't particularly approve of piercings, think they can lead to infection, if rarely, and don't really believe them more flattering than what God gave us. Think it's dangerous to put earrings on a baby.

I object to tattoos much more though, for two reasons: First, they are permanent, and it's very difficult to get rid of them 10 years later when the kid doesn't like it anymore, and second, these days, your risk of contracting a disease is higher if the tattooist decides to save some $ and reuse his needles.

OTOH to each their own.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 06, 2000.