"better than you"

First off:

Ken, I think the cheezburger cat stuff (aka lolcats) is something you either think is funny, or don't, just because of differences in sense of humor. I'm not sure that there's much to "get" - I think the idea is that some of the allusions (particularly the bad English) are to the gaming community or to the Japanese-love-of-many-things-American. (For example: there's a site out there called Engrish that posts examples of attempts to write things in English by non-English speakers. Kind of like the American guy who goes out and gets a tattoo of Chinese characters because he thinks it looks badass, but he doesn't know what the characters mean - for all he knows, it could be off a menu, and say, "Large Chicken Soup $3.")

I just think it's funny because there are a lot of stupid things I think are funny.

****
On to the real post.

One thing I've noticed about the culture (and something that bugs me about it) is the tendency of us to set ourselves off into little groups, and then snipe at people who don't belong to the group.

And frequently the group-membership, or, at the very least, the sniping, is petty and trivial and seems to me to be "you're making an issue out of THIS? Isn't life difficult enough without making people into enemies that shouldn't be your enemies?"

In my experience, women seem to be particularly good at doing this. I will give two examples.

First: the stay-at-home mom vs. the working mom.

I will start off by openly stating my prejudices in the matter: I believe that having a parent (and it could be either parent; in some families the dad might be better suited as a stay-at-home parent) stay home with the children - at least when they are very small - is preferable to sending them to day care.

This is because, in part, day care generally just isn't that good. (I've sort of seen the underbelly of it: there is a day care that uses my church building and they have terrible problems getting and keeping qualified people. Part of it is they pay like $6 an hour, which is currently less than what the McDonald's pays, so unless you are a mom with kids who might go to the day care and you want to make a few (very few) bucks, it's not going to be an appealing job).

Anyway. I didn't mean for this to be a rant about day care - but at least now you know where my prejudices lie. (That said: there is good day care out there but it's usually expensive and has a long waiting list).

But: the whole working-mom vs. stay-at-home mom thing has been a fight, since the 1980s at least (and probably earlier, but I wasn't conscious of it).

It swings back and forth - for years the attitude was that working moms tended to be these cold beings who didn't love their children, and that was why they worked. (And that was the snottiness on the part of stay-at-home moms: taking that attitude). Now, the attitude, at least in some quarters is: if you're a stay at home mom, you're wasting your life and very likely setting yourself up for extreme poverty when your husband leaves you.

There was some woman talking about this this weekend on Book tv. I could only stomach a few moments. Her attitudes were this - that if you, as a mother, "couldn't find a few hours a day to do something to contribute financially to your family" while the kids were at school, you were squandering your potential and hurting your family. She also implied that when - and it seemed to be "when" in her mind, more than "if" - your husband "traded you in" for a younger model, if you hadn't been in the workforce, you'd be screwed and your only hope would be to get a minimum-wage job greeting at the Wal-mart.

And you know, that seemed like such a narrow and pessimistic view.

My parents have been married very nearly 50 years now (it will be 50 years in 2009.) There was never, ever a thought of ANYONE trading ANYONE in for a "younger model" - it was clear to me, even as a self-absorbed teenager, that the only woman for my dad was my mom, and the only man for my mom was my dad.

Now, granted: having some work skills is important. Stuff happens. Both of my mom's sisters buried their husbands young, and one wound up having to work as a cocktail waitress for a few years because that was all that was open at the time (Later on, she wound up managing a grocery store, after the owner realized how good and how fast she was at doing mathematics - like adding up people's bills - in her head).

But I think insisting upon working because of "what if he leaves me?" is kind of cold and kind of self-defeating.

I also think the "But you're not making a contribution to the family" argument isn't so good. My mom stayed home almost my entire childhood (she taught a semester or two here or there, once both my brother and I were in school, as sabbatical replacements for people: those were the days before the glut of grad students had eager new Ph.D.'s willing to work for a one-year stint in some new school). She contributed A LOT. We never had a cleaning lady, or a lawn service. We had good, home-cooked food nearly every day (My mom likes to cook and she is good at it). There was someone home to meet my brother and me at the door when we got home from school. (And that - in terms of our psychological health growing up - I think is priceless).

Of course, that was in the days when it was possible to do such things (I suppose it probably still is. But I'm guessing, particularly in high-tax states or communities, it might be more difficult, as I remember reading that part of the reason there are so many two-career families now is because of the rise in taxes and "user fees" over the years).

My mom was given a choice - she was teaching college when she and my dad found out they were expecting (well, it was more or less planned, but you know what I mean). My dad told her that he would be willing to hire a nanny or pay for day care (and this was in a day when that was far less common than it is now) if she wished to continue working.

And my mom says that she said no. She said that she felt she would enjoy raising their children more, and find it more fulfilling, than she would find continuing to teach college and "always be worrying about who was looking after my kids."

So she quit her job after having me, and, as I said, only went back to working off-and-on after both my brother and I were in school. I don't think she regrets her choice (I hope she does not); I know I am very grateful to her for making the choice she did.

And you know? Were I in her position - married to a guy making decent money, planning my first child - I'd make the same choice. I'd rather have the fun (yes, and the work, and the nasty diapers and vomit, and the worry) of staying home with the kid than farm him or her out to someone else and always be wondering in the back of my mind what was going on.

But - all that said - I know some women who would have quite literally gone mental if they had stayed home all day with their children. And for those women, it's probably better for them to work.

And so, it seems kind of stupid to me. Working moms aren't better than stay at home moms; stay at home moms aren't necessarily better than working moms. It depends on the family circumstances and the particular woman. I'm sure for one of those "go mental" women, it would be preferable for her children to be in day care for part of the day than to have a weepy/angry mom at home with them.

It just seems petty for women to fight over this. We have bigger concerns.

Another one that I'm beginning to see is the children/no children thing.

Couples who do not have children are not "worse," not "less of a couple," not "less of a family" than couples who do. That attitude makes me very angry because I know a few couples who have dealt with infertility and it is VERY painful for people to imply that it's your bad if you don't have kids.

Likewise, couples who, for whatever reason, choose not to have kids - that's their choice. It doesn't make them less. It doesn't make them selfish or bad. They may have very good ethical reasons: genetic disease in the family, or shaky finances, or something else. Or they may feel they'd be poor parents. Or they may just not want children.

I don't have kids, partly by choice, but mainly by circumstance. I'm not married, for one thing, and I tend to believe that it is best for a child to have two parents in the home. (There are a host of reasons other than that, as well). But I also just don't really care to raise a child - I don't deal well with sleep deprivation, I don't deal well with someone tugging at my sleeve and going, "Hey? hey? hey? hey? hey? hey?....." until I want to scream.

I have a feeling I'd probably be one of those "mental" mothers. (And no, I'm not making slams at postpartum depression, which is a real and tragic condition. I mean to say - I'm unsuited, personality-wise, to be a good mother. I do not have sufficient patience with small, pre-verbal beings.)

And I saw a t-shirt the other day that made my head want to explode.

It was on someone's craftblog website - it was one of those people who designs silk screens. And I guess she was expecting, because the t-shirt had a modification of the old Rosie the Riveter design (altered so she looked pregnant) and the phrase,

"I'm so crafty, I make PEOPLE."

Yeah, great. I'm so happy for you. Yeah, you're SO much more creative than me because you managed to have one of your eggs link up with some guy's sperm.

So I guess those quilts, some of which I've put years into (years are longer than nine months) are chopped liver, then? I guess we all should just hang up our knitting needles and embroidery floss because you have won in the making-stuff sweepstakes?

(I'm also reminded - on the other side of things - of an interview with a Peruvian weaver - she had never married and had children yet lived in a very remote and traditional village. The interviewer asked her some question about whether people thought her life choice was odd, and she kind of shrugged and said, "Well, anybody can make babies." So I guess some people think that having children is for the "little people." Whatever. I don't care for either attitude: if you want children, God bless you and be with you. If you don't, that's fine too. Again, it's about finding what you are specifically being called to do)

See, that's what I'm saying: why do people need to somehow set themselves up as superior over something that shouldn't be seen as a source of superiority? Is it because some people have such a shaky image of themselves that they can only feel good by making a claim that they're better than others who haven't attained whatever exalted state they happen to find themselves in?

I will say, on the positive end - last spring I attended a Catholic wedding (the first one I'd ever been to). The priest was talking about people and relationships as part of the homily and in his blessings for families and couples, he also included one for people who were single, "By vocation, choice, or circumstance" was how I think he said it. And yeah - you can roll your eyes and say that's all touchy-feely and politically correct and all that, but you know? It made me feel included. It made me feel like I wasn't some aberration. And I think there's some good in that, touchy-feely as it may be. (And I would suppose that of all people, a Catholic priest would be conscious of the fact that not everyone is going to be paired up, two-by-two, like Noah's Ark.) And in this society - especially where I live right now - it's really easy to feel like an aberration if you're not part of a couple.

(And again: yes, I know, statistically I AM an aberration. The vast majority of women my age are either married or in a "serious" relationship. But being an "aberration" is not something I care to think about every moment of my life. And I also know the old saying attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt about people not being able to make you feel inferior without your permission. But I don't have quite the same self-confidence Mrs. Roosevelt had, I guess, and it's really not a feeling of inferiority so much as it is a feeling of annoyance - like with that t-shirt I mentioned above - what right does the person have to think they're better than me just because of that one thing?)