Yuku free message boards

Perisseuo wrote:

---

Apparently, you have not held many jobs. They may pay good but glamorous they are not.

I am not denigrating motherhood or elevating office or other types of jobs, though some are more "glamorous" (or at least enjoyable) than others. I am looking for others' theological, cultural, and personal opinions on the motherhood. Why should someone pursue stay-at-home motherhood rather than a job providing economic income? What good is it?

On her first day back to work after a four-month maternity leave, Amy Vachon woke at dawn to nurse her daughter, Maia. Then she fixed herself a healthful breakfast, pumped a bottle of breast milk for the baby to drink later in the day, kissed the little girl goodbye and headed for the door.

But before she left, there was one more thing. She reached over to her husband, Marc, who would not be going to work that day in order to be home with Maia, and handed him the List. That's what they call it now, when they revisit this moment, which they do fairly often. The List. It was nothing extraordinary - in fact it would be familiar to many new moms. A large yellow Post-it on which she had scribbled the "how much," "how long" and "when" of Maia's napping and eating.

"I knew her routines and was sharing that with Marc," Amy recalls.

She also remembers what he did next. Gently but deliberately, he ripped the paper square in half and crumbled the pieces into a ball.

"I got the message," Amy says.

That message was one the Vachons had agreed on from the evening they met, though they were clearly still tinkering with the details. They would not be the kind of parents their parents had been - the mother-knows-best mold. Nor the kind their friends were - the "involved" dad married to the stressed-out working mom. Nor even, as Marc put it, "the stay-at-home dad, who is cooed at for his sensitivity but who is as isolated and financially vulnerable as the stay-at-home-mom."

Instead, they would create their own model, one in which they were parenting partners. Equals and peers. They would work equal hours, spend equal time with their children, take equal responsibility for their home. Neither would be the keeper of the mental to-do lists; neither of their careers would take precedence. Both would be equally likely to plan a birthday party or know that the car needs oil or miss work for a sick child or remember (without prompting) to stop at the store for diapers and milk. They understood that this would mean recalibrating their career ambitions, and probably their income, but what they gained, they believed, would be more valuable than what they lost.

There are Marcs and Amys scattered throughout the country, and the most interesting thing about them is that they are so very interesting. What they suggest, after all, is simple. Gender should not determine the division of labor at home. It's a message consistent with nearly every major social trend of the past three decades - women entering the work force, equality between the sexes, the need for two incomes to pay the bills, even courts that favor shared custody after divorce. And it is what many would agree is fair, even ideal. Yet it is anything but the norm.

And again, that all depends on the premise that doing laundry or taking care of a sick child or making sure somebody gets to a soccer game is somehow more demeaning and "drudgeful" and whatever than slamming plastic parts together, or doing exactly the the same job at someone else's home or restaurant or clinic, or whatever, and in fact that it's such horrible work at all. A single warrant for the premise, please?