The End of Men~Mamas Don't let Your Baby Girls Grow Up to Be Housewives~

[emubird]

The first random article I came across referencing birth control pills in the water was this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/21/toxic-stew-chemicals-fish-eggs

 

I'm guessing that birth control pills could be banned tomorrow and there'd never be any noticeable difference if the other chemicals mentioned are causing problems.

 

 

"The Potomac Conservancy, which focuses on Washington DC's river, called for new research to determine what was causing male smallmouth bass to carry immature eggs in their testes. "We have not been able to identify one particular chemical or one particular source," said Vicki Blazer, a fish biologist with the US geological survey. "We are still trying to get a handle on what chemicals are important."

But she said early evidence pointed to a mix of chemicals – commonly used at home as well as those used in large-scale farming operations – causing the deformities. The suspect chemicals mimic natural hormones and disrupt the endocrine system, with young fish being particularly susceptible.

The chemicals could include birth control pills and other drugs, toiletries especially those with fragrances, products such as tissues treated with antibacterial agents, or goods treated with flame retardants that find their way into waste water. However, Blazer also pointed to runoff from fertilisers and pesticides from agricultural areas.

 

 

"

[emubird]

I'm a bit distrustful of the comment that parents are now preferring to have girls over boys. If prospective parents (in the US) are deciding to choose a sex, my guess is that many of them are doing so to avoid certain genetic disorders. More of these occur in boys than girls (given that they only have the one X chromosome), so a couple that knew they carried a bad gene that only showed up in boys would probably opt to have a girl.

 

If there was actual research showing that this factor alone wasn't all that was skewing the results, I haven't seen it.

[FaithManor]

Emubird,

 

Our adoption agency told us there absolutely is a widespread cultural trend towards the preference of girls over boys. The wait for a girl under 2 was four times as long as for a boy. In 2008, Vietnam had a moritorium on adoptions of girls until more people were willing to take a boy...only the girls with extreme medical problems were put through the adoption system that year. The caseworker told her that baby and toddler boys are languishing in orphanages around the world but baby girls are practically spoken for two years in advance of their birth. She said that despite the number of infant boys waiting for families, she is rarely ever able to get a couple to change their minds. This is especially true if adoptee will be an only child. She showed us the adoption statistics compiled for 2006 and it was startling. For domestic adoptions, once a biological mother has an ultrasound that determines she is carrying a boy, the number of families she has to choose from dwindles exponentially because most adoptive parents want girls. After all of the hoopla, we were rejected only because of DH's age. Most countries consider 45 the cut-off for adopting a child under the age of 3.

 

If anyone is curious, our information came through Bethany Christian and through the consulate in Nicaragua (a country we were considering doing a private adoption through a consulate attorney - because adoptions agencies were not allowed to work in the country at the time), and Christian Cradle adoption services.

 

Faith

[stripe]

I was really struck by the comment that Americans are starting to prefer to have girls over boys. I wonder if it is because so many boys these days are having learning disabilities and other disorders. Something is happening to our boys and I don't believe for a second it's ust a higher diagnosis or labelling rate. It's almost rare to come across a "normal" boy.

I think people find boys to be too much trouble. Too energetic, too rambunctious, too loud, too wild, and simply too much. People may put up with them, but few find them charming. And that's not to say that all boys or men are rough and tough and not intellects, but unless a boy is very very cerebral (almost Sherlock Holmes like), most are also fairly energetic/physical as well. (In fact, I remember)

 

In fact, this may be one of the reasons I homeschool. I am terrified that my wiggly boy will be labeled a "troublemaker" and will never escape that label, when, to me, being energetic at a young age is...normal!

 

Perhaps relatedly, I've also noticed a serious lack of proportionality in the boys' and girls' sections of clothing stores. In my local Macy's, I don't even think the boys under age 8 have a section! It's very hard to find. But there is an enormous area for girls. I once went looking for socks for my son (in a different store). There were maybe four pairs. But there were three rows of socks for girls in the same store!

[Kimber]

I didn't read the article because I have my own ideas about boys in our society.

 

I spent most of my early adult life thinking how the world was so hard on little girls and young women, especially in the church, and I believe it was true, and in some respects, still is.

 

But fast forward to today, 1 daughter and 3 sons later, and I think the world is out for revenge against little boys. In the city in which I live, the top 3 schools in this area sent out fliers listing their top 5 students. 12 of the 15 were females. At one school, the number 4 and 5 students were boys. None of the boys were black.

 

I find it disheartening that the pendulum has swung so far to the other extreme so that now little boys are the ones being overlooked by main stream society. I wish that both genders could just be accepted as they are and treated with equal worth rather than penalizing one for the benefit of the other.

 

At first, I thought I home schooled for the benefit of my daughter. Now I realize it's just as much a necessity for my sons' futures that I teach them at home.

[6packofun]

My dh is a pediatrician, one striking thing I've noticed over the past yr is that the father brings in the child for the office visits at least 60% of the time.

 

To me this meant that the mom was working and the husband wasn't.

 

Hm. At our house it means that dh has worked out a way to give me a break from this particular duty that I really can't stand. LOL He works full-time and yet has almost always taken our kids to the dr. or even ER.

[Renee in NC]

Hm. At our house it means that dh has worked out a way to give me a break from this particular duty that I really can't stand. LOL He works full-time and yet has almost always taken our kids to the dr. or even ER.

 

How does he do that? Does he take off work to take them? Doesn't that mean you lose income for him to do that for you?

[Nicole M]

I think people find boys to be too much trouble. Too energetic, too rambunctious, too loud, too wild, and simply too much. People may put up with them, but few find them charming. And that's not to say that all boys or men are rough and tough and not intellects, but unless a boy is very very cerebral (almost Sherlock Holmes like), most are also fairly energetic/physical as well. (In fact, I remember)

 

Are you responding to the adoption issue? I imagine that part of what motivates families to look to adopt girls is the widespread perception that they are at risk in countries like China, and that they are "easier" to get. I was surprised to hear from Faith that the wait is longer for girls. You make a good point, that girls are perceived to be "easier."

 

In fact, this may be one of the reasons I homeschool. I am terrified that my wiggly boy will be labeled a "troublemaker" and will never escape that label, when, to me, being energetic at a young age is...normal!

 

Perhaps relatedly, I've also noticed a serious lack of proportionality in the boys' and girls' sections of clothing stores. In my local Macy's, I don't even think the boys under age 8 have a section! It's very hard to find. But there is an enormous area for girls. I once went looking for socks for my son (in a different store). There were maybe four pairs. But there were three rows of socks for girls in the same store!

 

I thought that the disparity between girls and boys' clothing selections had as much to do with the fact that girls are "thingified," dolls to dress up. There's money to be made in the girls' clothing industry, but not so much with boys. When I've shopped for school clothes with my friend who has daughters, I'm shocked at how hard it is for her to find affordable, practical clothes that are not totally skankified, hoochie momma. I can procure a wardrobe for my boys in a fraction of the time it takes my friend to find clothes for her girls.

[Murphy101]

How does he do that? Does he take off work to take them? Doesn't that mean you lose income for him to do that for you?

 

It depends. Some are salary so they just have to make up the hours. Or they use sick/vac time. Or they trade covering with a coworker. Or they even get really gutsy and claim discrimination if refused. Bc the truth is if a female employee said she had to take her kid the dr, I doubt her employer would tell her to make her husband do it instead. :)

[Nicole M]

A son is your son till he takes a wife, a daughter is yours for the rest of her life.

 

Or however it is that goes. It defines how we think of adult children, and in our cultural, certainly not every culture, we think that boys will grow away from us in a profound way, but daughters will remain their mothers' "best friends." Wives in our culture rule the roost. If a woman doesn't like her inlaws ,she manages not to spend time with them and often convinces her husband that he never liked them anyway. That's how it goes in America.

 

So I think many people would rather have daughters because they believe that they will have a life long relationship with a daughter and will see more of her grandchildren. With a son, there is a general feeling that you will be lucky to see him once a year and having a passing familiarity with his children.

 

I never would have thought of this, but it makes sense. I have somewhat regular contact with my step-mother, and do love her, but we're definitely not bffs. I have no contact with my biological family. I have only sons, and it's never occurred to me that we would not have a lifelong, close relationship. But now that you mention it, over the years I've known some folks who do have this attitude, and it's always struck me as a little odd, the close-to-the-point-of-being-fused with their daughters, and women with sons who fear "losing" them. I thought they were flukes. I guess not.

 

Interesting discussion.

 

Martha, I have to take my son dumpster diving for more cardboard for a massive grass-killing gardening project we have going, but I wanted to mention that I appreciate your comments here, though I haven't directly responded to them.

[stripe]

But fast forward to today, 1 daughter and 3 sons later, and I think the world is out for revenge against little boys. In the city in which I live, the top 3 schools in this area sent out fliers listing their top 5 students. 12 of the 15 were females. At one school, the number 4 and 5 students were boys. None of the boys were black.

....At first, I thought I home schooled for the benefit of my daughter. Now I realize it's just as much a necessity for my sons' futures that I teach them at home.

The book Morning by Morning: How We Home-Schooled Our African-American Sons to the Ivy League by Paula Penn-Nabrit discusses how basically the author and her husband were disgusted by the attitude of their sons' (private) school towards them, leading them to homeschooling. She says something in the book along the lines of, at least I am not afraid of my sons.

[Mom0012]

I think people find boys to be too much trouble. Too energetic, too rambunctious, too loud, too wild, and simply too much. People may put up with them, but few find them charming. And that's not to say that all boys or men are rough and tough and not intellects, but unless a boy is very very cerebral (almost Sherlock Holmes like), most are also fairly energetic/physical as well. (In fact, I remember)

 

 

 

I agree with this and before I had my own dear little boy, I hate to admit I kind of thought of boys as unpleasant. But, I have met enough "normal" boys to know when I am dealing one that has got a neurological condition and there are many, many boys that seem to fit that description these days.

 

I also agree with what another poster said about a daughter being a daughter for life and a son being a son until he meets his wife. I do think that can be very true.

 

Lisa

[Audrey]

 

I think the only thing that article got right was saying that men are being reduced to nothing more than a paycheck.

 

 

That's the "traditional" stereotype, isn't it? Man = spend 10+ hours away from family everyday, bring home paycheque, read paper in the evenings, mow lawn on weekends. Total interaction time with wife and kids = inconsequential. Woman = home all day with kids, cleaning, cooking, tending man when he's home.

 

Personally, I call bullsh-t on that stereotype. Men are more than a paycheque, and men who want to engage with their families, or *gasp* even spend hands-on time actually raising their own chidlren, are far more valuable to the health and welfare of a family than "that guy who's hardly around and whom we call Dad."

 

My own dh spends a LOT of time raising his son. Granted, our lifestyle just makes this easier. However, I STILL get people asking me "who watches your son while you work?" And, when I say "my husband" they will invariably say something along the lines of how nice it is that my dh "babysits." Babysits??? Nothing chaps my a$$ more than that stupid comment. Well, no, actually, it is called PARENTING, and men can do it just as well as (and sometimes better than) women.

 

I think when more men start speaking up and demanding equal family time people might be shocked, but it would be a very good thing to rattle them out of their narrow-sightedness.

[Murphy101]

:iagree: hear hear. Where's the clapping?

 

This is very much how we are too and let me tell you it does not go over well with very many people sometimes. We get annoyed by that comment too! What a stupid thing to say.

 

My dh rarely talks about his wife and kids at work for this reason.

He says there is absolutely a double standard. No one ever asks the single mom or moms in general to stay overtime or come in on Saturday or question that she has to go do whatever for the kids. But with dh they absolutely do. Every single time they've asked why can't his wife do it or whatever and they simple do not do that with women. ("they" being every boss he has ever had since we had the first baby)

 

I have had more than one person claim I am holding him back but neither of us feel that way. I just remind him to keep priorities. We work for a living. We do not work to live.

 

Yet the other side of the coin is that if he mentions he has a wife and 9 kids at home, they feel they can ask anything bc they know he doesn't want to loose his job and our only income. :glare:

 

Really it's rough being a man providing for his family these days.

 

That's the "traditional" stereotype, isn't it? Man = spend 10+ hours away from family everyday, bring home paycheque, read paper in the evenings, mow lawn on weekends. Total interaction time with wife and kids = inconsequential. Woman = home all day with kids, cleaning, cooking, tending man when he's home.

 

Personally, I call bullsh-t on that stereotype. Men are more than a paycheque, and men who want to engage with their families, or *gasp* even spend hands-on time actually raising their own chidlren, are far more valuable to the health and welfare of a family than "that guy who's hardly around and whom we call Dad."

 

My own dh spends a LOT of time raising his son. Granted, our lifestyle just makes this easier. However, I STILL get people asking me "who watches your son while you work?" And, when I say "my husband" they will invariably say something along the lines of how nice it is that my dh "babysits." Babysits??? Nothing chaps my a$$ more than that stupid comment. Well, no, actually, it is called PARENTING, and men can do it just as well as (and sometimes better than) women.

 

I think when more men start speaking up and demanding equal family time people might be shocked, but it would be a very good thing to rattle them out of their narrow-sightedness.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Martha

[Nicole M]

The book Morning by Morning: How We Home-Schooled Our African-American Sons to the Ivy League by Paula Penn-Nabrit discusses how basically the author and her husband were disgusted by the attitude of their sons' (private) school towards them, leading them to homeschooling. She says something in the book along the lines of, at least I am not afraid of my sons.

 

I heard Dr. Michele Foster speak at an Achievement Gap Summit; she is an African American academic who has researched education. She told the story of her own tall, handsome very black son coming home from school one day, surprised and amazed, and slowly the story unfolded. He rode the city bus to school every day, and watching the way that the other passengers responded to him, he realized that "white folks" were afraid of him. She was funny and engaging when she spoke, far and away the best speaker. But that story was heartbreaking, and has stayed with me for years.

[Laurie4b]

I'm old enough to have been in college when the studies came out (Association of University College Women or something like that?) saying that women were underrepresented in universities because the set up of the educational system discriminated against girls. There was subsequently a huge movement to change educational practices in directions that favored girls. (e.g. Classes that award signficant percentage points for discussion would tend to favor girls over boys, for instance. I never got a "discussion point" in my educational life.)

 

About 10 years ago when we were on the first legs of our homeschooling journey, a homeschooler found out that the public schools had to throw out old textbooks and she scavanged them for fellow homeschoolers for free. I got several science and math books. In one of the science texts, with one exception, every single person portrayed working was a female. The forklift drivers were women, the doctors were women, etc. Only a guy waving in an airplane was a guy. I tossed the book and heaved a sigh of relief that I was homeschooling. Had my ds been going to public school, I would have thought he was learning science and he would have been learning that there is no place for him in this world.

 

Are there any popular TV shows or children's books that make mom the dufus and dad the common sense hero? i can't think of any, but the reverse: Dad is a dufus and mom really has the sense is a common theme in books such as the Berenstine Bears. Likewise, as Disney heroines have become less likely to lie around awaiting a magic kiss, the Disney princes have become "men needing to be trained by the woman" before there is a happy ending. (Beauty and the Beast, Frog Princess, etc.) There is clearly a conscious effort to create better role models for little girls, but what about little boys?

 

Add to this zero tolerance (aka zero common sense) policies on things like pointing your finger at someone and "shooting", on preschool settings in which the school couldn't get the highest rating if it had any "army" type figures, etc. and you "criminalize" a whole side of little boy behavior.

 

My ds's are in their teens now and I see the difference between their approach to studies and my own. In a world dominated by who takes the most AP classes, etc., I would have been willing to jump through whatever hoops someone held up for me. My ds's have taken some AP stuff, but they do. not. like. jumping. through. hoops and having classes dominate their lives. And they are not afraid to resist it. This frustrates me at times, but resisting the rat race that high school education has become is something I can admire as well. My guess is that more boys blow it off than girls. (Totally a generalization and a guess.)

 

I think that discrimination against boys is rampant. Rather than take the strengths of both genders, celebrate them, and provide educational outlets for them, we've taken to denigrating boys and the way their brains are wired.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Laurie4b

[Oak Knoll Mom]

Are there any popular TV shows or children's books that make mom the dufus and dad the common sense hero? i can't think of any, but the reverse: Dad is a dufus and mom really has the sense is a common theme in books such as the Berenstine Bears.

 

:iagree: I refuse to let my boys have Berenstain Bears books for this very reason. The few times I have read them to my boys, I significantly edit them as I'm reading. I hope my boys grow up to be husbands and fathers someday and I want them to be more like my husband and less like pop culture dads.

[HappyCrazyMama]

Originally Posted by 6packofun

Hm. At our house it means that dh has worked out a way to give me a break from this particular duty that I really can't stand. LOL He works full-time and yet has almost always taken our kids to the dr. or even ER.

How does he do that? Does he take off work to take them? Doesn't that mean you lose income for him to do that for you? __________________

 

My dh is salary and also works 4, 10's, having every Friday off. I try to make the appointments on Friday but if I can't he can sometimes get the afternoon off to take the kids to an appointment. I don't like dragging everyone out and it interrupts my entire day.(which irritates me to no end :tongue_smilie:) His boss is very understanding and places a high value on family. :)

[mcconnellboys]

Or it could be that our educational system has catered to women pretty much exclusively, for about the past 35 years, so that they are much better equipped to handle jobs by the time they get into the work force.

 

Also, we have become a nation which makes virtually nothing any more and boys tend to be more hands-on doers. If we don't "do" anything any longer - if we don't make anything - but just manage, shuffle, and sell things others have made, then where is there a place for boys?

 

My husband has been raising the hue and cry of the demise of the American male for about the past 8 years now, so this is nothing new to me. Various authors of books about raising boys have also been attempting to raise concerns about the future of our sons.

 

It's a very troubling thing for the mothers of sons.....

[dragons in the flower bed]

My husband takes off work to take the boys in for me whenever possible.

 

We have another doctor-going dad in this household, for all the same reasons.

[5kidsforME]

Another family where dad takes the kids to the Dr. ....and ER when needed. :001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

50 years ago there was a place for these boys. 50 years ago I wouldn't have had to worry as much about the futures of my sons. "Manual labor" jobs still provided an acceptable standard of living. There were tons of options - agriculture and manufacturing being the biggies. Neither of these things are readily available in our current economy.

:iagree:

 

Renee- I wouldn't worry. I think the next 10-20 yrs you will see a resurgence in manual labor. Our economy will absolutely require it. I'm already urging my 4 yr old son to be an organic farmer.

:iagree:

 

I'm also really concerned with how the lower grades have gotten more academic. Boys are being labelled as failures and given medication at the very beginning of their school careers, and somehow we expect them to overcome that in an environment where they are not valued.

:iagree:

I think when more men start speaking up and demanding equal family time people might be shocked, but it would be a very good thing to rattle them out of their narrow-sightedness.

 

:iagree: hear hear. Where's the clapping?

I have had more than one person claim I am holding him back but neither of us feel that way. I just remind him to keep priorities. We work for a living. We do not work to live.

 

Really it's rough being a man providing for his family these days.

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

The book Morning by Morning: How We Home-Schooled Our African-American Sons to the Ivy League by Paula Penn-Nabrit discusses how basically the author and her husband were disgusted by the attitude of their sons' (private) school towards them, leading them to homeschooling. She says something in the book along the lines of, at least I am not afraid of my sons.

 

Where can I get more information about the school system being unfair for African American boys? I have family members who are undecided about homeschooling. Thanks.

[Rosie_0801]

At first, I thought I home schooled for the benefit of my daughter. Now I realize it's just as much a necessity for my sons' futures that I teach them at home.

 

:D When I found out I was pregnant with #2, a boy, I shook my fist in dh's face and told him we were DEFINITELY homeschooling now because I don't know what the school would do to him! Good old dh patted me on the shoulder and told me to chill because he'd already agreed to that two years ago.

 

 

I have only sons, and it's never occurred to me that we would not have a lifelong, close relationship. But now that you mention it, over the years I've known some folks who do have this attitude, and it's always struck me as a little odd, the close-to-the-point-of-being-fused with their daughters, and women with sons who fear "losing" them. I thought they were flukes. I guess not.

 

You probably won't have a problem. If you expect your sons to have a life long, close relationship with you and you're nice to your daughter in laws, you'll probably have a life long, close relationship with them both. If you expect your daughter in law to take your boy away from you, you'll not be so nice to her because you're punishing her for something she is going to do to you. Funnily enough, after a few years of being treated like a bad guy, which she'll especially resent if she has been encouraging your son to maintain his relationship with you, she'll stop reminding him to call you on your birthday and he won't remember either, because you haven't been nice to his wife so he doesn't like you so much any more. That age old pearl of wisdom became a self fulfilling prophecy for my MIL. She pushed her son away and is thoroughly convinced it was me dragging him away. I intend to go by the idea that I won't lose a son but gain a daughter and hope if I act that way, that's what will happen.

 

Oh yeah, and I'l GRRR at fathers babysitting their own children too. Stupid, stupid, stupid. And doofus dads, even more stupid, stupid, stupid.

 

Rosie

Edited July 5, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[Renee in NC]

Another family where dad takes the kids to the Dr. ....and ER when needed. :001_smile:

 

I am going to guess that this is a salary/hourly thing. If my dh doesn't work, he doesn't get paid. It might take 2-3 hours for him to take a child to the doctor and then get to work (or come home early to do it or in the middle of the day.) We can't afford that.

 

My aunt, OTOH, works for the same general company and could take a few hours off, no problem, with pay. She is salaried and in a position of responsibility, so she is good unless she were to take advantage of it.

 

My Dad's employer allows him to use sick days to care for sick family members, my dh's does not.

[KathyBC]

 

My boys are not likely to sit still at a table and do your paint with water craft, without throwing it at one another. Nor are they likely to leave alone the glass frame/doo-dad you've left on the table at eye-level when they are 2, even though your girls never touch it. They are just far more active in general!!

 

I have a friend who lost several breakable family heirlooms because she was going to parent well enough and have high enough expectations that her 2yo daughter would leave things alone. I tried to convince her to move them, and to explain the nature of the average 2yo to no avail. (Okay, not all 2yo, but definitely hers and mine.) Oh well, she probably had too much stuff anyway, lol. :lol:

[Barb_]

:iagree: hear hear. Where's the clapping?

 

This is very much how we are too and let me tell you it does not go over well with very many people sometimes. We get annoyed by that comment too! What a stupid thing to say.

 

My dh rarely talks about his wife and kids at work for this reason.

He says there is absolutely a double standard. No one ever asks the single mom or moms in general to stay overtime or come in on Saturday or question that she has to go do whatever for the kids. But with dh they absolutely do. Every single time they've asked why can't his wife do it or whatever and they simple do not do that with women. ("they" being every boss he has ever had since we had the first baby)

 

I have had more than one person claim I am holding him back but neither of us feel that way. I just remind him to keep priorities. We work for a living. We do not work to live.

 

Yet the other side of the coin is that if he mentions he has a wife and 9 kids at home, they feel they can ask anything bc they know he doesn't want to loose his job and our only income. :glare:

 

Really it's rough being a man providing for his family these days.

 

:iagree: My husband's last boss was a nutjob about this sort of thing. He has never had children. He showed up at dawn and worked until after dark. He scheduled staff meetings at 3am. He made snarky comments when my husband picked up our 15yo from school on sports days (at 5pm!) and let her do her homework in the conference room until he was finished working. He scheduled mandatory crap on the weekends. He screamed and carried on whenever Rich scheduled vacation days he was entitled to. Rich stood up to him and refused to back down. Then in May he was fired because he's "Not a team player." I'm sick over it.

 

Barb

[Lovedtodeath]

Rich stood up to him and refused to back down.

Good for him! Not standing up is miserable for everyone. DH did that for years. He resented it and I resented him for it. I am so sorry that he lost his job.:grouphug:

[Barb_]

Good for him! Not standing up is miserable for everyone. DH did that for years. He resented it and I resented him for it. I am so sorry that he lost his job.:grouphug:

 

Thanks, me too. :001_unsure:

[jazzyfizzle]

50 years ago there was a place for these boys. 50 years ago I wouldn't have had to worry as much about the futures of my sons. "Manual labor" jobs still provided an acceptable standard of living. There were tons of options - agriculture and manufacturing being the biggies. Neither of these things are readily available in our current economy. Two of my boys aren't likely to *ever* go to college because they just won't be able to. They may never be able to learn one of the better paying trades.

 

So, the intervention isn't because what was normal 50 years ago isn't anymore - it's because there isn't a place for them in society as an adult who can support a family. They would make great factory workers. One of them is strong as an ox - there were lots of opportunities for him 50 years ago. Now? Search the job listings and see where they could make more than $8-10 an hour.

 

 

We have the same situation here Renee. For quite awhile I have stressed over it. At first I found it somewhat tough to accept, with the cultural push for all to attend college, but we are already looking into what options there could be for our boy- and hopefully will be able to gently guide him into something that will work for him, and yet make a fair living for this upcoming generation. We have a couple ideas in mind, hoping it will pan out.

[cathmom]

I am going to guess that this is a salary/hourly thing. If my dh doesn't work, he doesn't get paid. It might take 2-3 hours for him to take a child to the doctor and then get to work (or come home early to do it or in the middle of the day.) We can't afford that.

 

My aunt, OTOH, works for the same general company and could take a few hours off, no problem, with pay. She is salaried and in a position of responsibility, so she is good unless she were to take advantage of it.

 

My Dad's employer allows him to use sick days to care for sick family members, my dh's does not.

 

Even when my dh had oodles of vacation time he could have used to take a dc to the doctor, we NEVER would have even thought of it! I can just see his face now if I said, "Honey, why don't you request that afternoon off and drive a half hour home to get darling child and then drive half an hour back to the doctor's, attend the appointment, tell me all about it when you get back, and I'll stay here and keep working with the other children." It wouldn't even make sense, because he wouldn't be able to answer the dr's questions about what happens regularly, since he's not here during the day. If it were a situation with a sick child, we'd do whatever we had to do. I seem to recall him taking our baby who had chicken pox to the dr., but that was because I also had chicken pox!

 

Plus, my dh has always been worried about losing his job and the impression he's making, so he wouldn't do this just for that reason.

[gpsings]

I haven't read all of the comments here on this thread, but I found the article to be disturbing, and I hope it's just bias and speculation. I don't think there's anything wrong with letting my man be the man, and raising my son to be the head of his household as well.

[Renee in NC]

Even when my dh had oodles of vacation time he could have used to take a dc to the doctor, we NEVER would have even thought of it! I can just see his face now if I said, "Honey, why don't you request that afternoon off and drive a half hour home to get darling child and then drive half an hour back to the doctor's, attend the appointment, tell me all about it when you get back, and I'll stay here and keep working with the other children." It wouldn't even make sense, because he wouldn't be able to answer the dr's questions about what happens regularly, since he's not here during the day. If it were a situation with a sick child, we'd do whatever we had to do. I seem to recall him taking our baby who had chicken pox to the dr., but that was because I also had chicken pox!

 

Plus, my dh has always been worried about losing his job and the impression he's making, so he wouldn't do this just for that reason.

 

:lol: It isn't like we ever go to the doctor anyway, unless it is related to the two boys issues. 12yo went for his physical, but I don't think the other 3 have been to the doctor for more than an occasional well-child *ever*!:tongue_smilie:

 

Dh's job isn't one where he could do that anyway. We need to save those vacation days for things that are more important than giving me a break.:D

[stripe]

Where can I get more information about the school system being unfair for African American boys? I have family members who are undecided about homeschooling. Thanks.

For the family in the book I referenced, it was actually a private school and some of the issues had nothing to do with public schools. However, I think issues like graduation/drop-out rates, safety, and "achievement" on standardized tests are all issues worth considering. From what I gather, many big-city urban school districts have very high drop out rates, exceeding 50%. Here's an "Achievement Gaps" report by the National Center for Education Statistics (US Dept of Education).

 

There are also some African American homeschooling groups:

National Black Home Educators

Black Home Educators

Black Homeschoolers' Network

 

(a lot of the websites for the other groups seem to be non-existent)

 

A book that may be a bit old (1996) but still is in print (unlike the other I discussed) is Freedom Challenge.

 

Hope that helps a bit.

[justamouse]

 

I never thought I would say it, but it is a luxury that I can be a stay-at-home mother and homeschooling mother. My own mother didn't think staying home was a luxury. She couldn't wait to get out into the workforce. I do not think my two daughters will have the luxury to stay home and raise their children. Like their husbands/partners, my daughters will need to work so they can afford to live.

 

I totally, totally agree. And it's a luxury that I can have my hobbies, too.

[FaithManor]

Justamouse,

 

I agree about the luxury thing - I feel very blessed to be in a position to do this. But, I do wonder if after this recession/depression runs its course, if there will be a realigning of finances in this country. I do think we may see a return to a more agricultural and manufacturing based society because the people will demand it. The only country that buys "stuff made in China" is really America and they are beginning to see that this has been bad for our long term financial health. Yes, it's cheap, but cheap isn't everything when you can't find work because all of the jobs are gone. I haven't found any huge market amongst Europeans or Asians for this stuff because these cultures are lest "consumeristic" than ours. The return of these jobs to America along with the housing bubble bursting and long term housing prices likely dropping to more sustainable levels, may make it possible for some mums and dads to choose to be a one income household.

 

It's just a theory and it will be interesting to see how it pans out. But, my dh did make quite the comment to me the other day. He wondered if I'd be willing to be a homeschooling grandma if our children had to be dual income but really wanted their children to have more of the lifestyle and education that they had. My initial reaction was, "WHAT ARE YOU NUTS! I'LL FINALLY HAVE A MOMENT TO MYSELF AND MAYBE I CAN GET MY JOB BACK AT THE PAROCHIAL SCHOOL - MY DREAM JOB!!!!!!" He calmly made the valid point that would I really be fulfilled if I saw my own grandchildren relegated to a school system in which they were bullied, taught to the test, and their natural creativity and drive drummed out of them if I could possibly prevent that from happening? So, I thought about it....about holding another little one on my lap and teaching them to read, about the light that flicks on in their eyes when they suddenly "get" borrowing, or that first look in the microscope, reading SOTW outloud and discussing those crazy bull jumping Minoans, and I realized that if my grandchildren did not have a good school situation and my dd and future dil's had to work, I'd probably feel guilty if I didn't do it if that was something they desperately wanted. Would I really be able to watch them struggle and not throw myself into education again?

 

Of course, I said to dh, "YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO RETIRE BUDDY! NOPE, BECAUSE IF I HAVE TO DO THIS UNTIL THE UNDERTAKER COMES TO GET ME, YOU BETTER PROVIDE ME WITH THE BIG BUDGET TO DO IT WITH!!"

 

Maybe that will be my hobby...educating the grandkids!

 

Besides that, I do think that this generation of young couples have less help getting launched into life than our generation or previous ones. I've watched family after family spend $10,000-20,000 even 30,000.00 on a wedding but never give their kids a dime to help get into a house or pay for college or anything else. I'm not certain why the big wedding thing and then the cut-off but it seems to be the norm around here. I've watched 18 year olds kicked out on their birthdays unless they could pay rent and they never ended up getting any additional vocational or educational training because they had to survive instead, thus setting them up for future financial woes. I've watched parents buy porsches and corvettes while their children struggled to pay medical bills for their grandchildren. I have to say....I'm a bit cynical because I don't think our responsibilities end when the child turns 18 and yet I see that as a growing trend in our society with disasterous outcomes. It doesn't bode well for the sons and daughters of the future having too many financial choices. I'm not certain when 18 year olds became "burdens" but this is widespread in Michigan and many of these kids are flopping from couch to couch hoping to bum a meal from friends because their parents have already turned their bedrooms into hobby rooms and unless they've got rent money and a job, well forget it! Of course, in Michigan a teenager can't get a job because of the gazillions of trained adults who are out of work and competing for any work available. It's ridiculous but I don't see a bright financial future for these children.

 

Faith

[Joanne]

Even when my dh had oodles of vacation time he could have used to take a dc to the doctor, we NEVER would have even thought of it! I can just see his face now if I said, "Honey, why don't you request that afternoon off and drive a half hour home to get darling child and then drive half an hour back to the doctor's, attend the appointment, tell me all about it when you get back, and I'll stay here and keep working with the other children." It wouldn't even make sense, because he wouldn't be able to answer the dr's questions about what happens regularly, since he's not here during the day. If it were a situation with a sick child, we'd do whatever we had to do. I seem to recall him taking our baby who had chicken pox to the dr., but that was because I also had chicken pox!

 

Plus, my dh has always been worried about losing his job and the impression he's making, so he wouldn't do this just for that reason.

 

 

In my daycares (one in AZ and one in TX), I had both single moms and married moms. Total, I probably had about 2 dozen clients over the years. Of the married clients or the single clients where Dad was in the picture - NONE of the Dads were the ones to take off work when the child was sick and/or needed to go to the Doctor. None.

[Nestof3]

Or perhaps he can take time off from work more easily than she can.

 

My dh is a pediatrician, one striking thing I've noticed over the past yr is that the father brings in the child for the office visits at least 60% of the time.

 

To me this meant that the mom was working and the husband wasn't.

[Murphy101]

I am going to guess that this is a salary/hourly thing. If my dh doesn't work, he doesn't get paid. It might take 2-3 hours for him to take a child to the doctor and then get to work (or come home early to do it or in the middle of the day.) We can't afford that.

 

My aunt, OTOH, works for the same general company and could take a few hours off, no problem, with pay. She is salaried and in a position of responsibility, so she is good unless she were to take advantage of it.

 

My Dad's employer allows him to use sick days to care for sick family members, my dh's does not.

 

Or they are hourly and just make up the time later. My dh worked very close to home/dr office, so that wasn't an issue. Also it didn't happen often. I have kids who haven't been to a dr in years bc there's nothing wrong with them. He always tried to store up time as much as possible for when the next baby was born so he could be here fir a couple weeks then.

 

 

I totally, totally agree. And it's a luxury that I can have my hobbies, too.

 

:001_huh: I would categorize the raising and educating of my children on par with the luxury of a hobby?

 

In my daycares (one in AZ and one in TX), I had both single moms and married moms. Total, I probably had about 2 dozen clients over the years. Of the married clients or the single clients where Dad was in the picture - NONE of the Dads were the ones to take off work when

the child was sick and/or needed to go to the Doctor. None.

 

Pathetic. Really pathetic. My dh has since day one been just as involved with the kids as myself. I might need to clue him in occasionally on stuff, but for the most part he knows our daily routine and what's going on with each kid. If the dr has a question dh doesn't know, then he just calls and asks. No big deal at all. Although dh says he knows he will be a master sin say when he can identify our children by their scat like I can. LOL seriously if a toilet isn't flushed I know exactly which kid it was. This both leaves my dh feeling both in awe and horror.:lol:

[laughing lioness]

Long and rambling...

I skimmed the article, it is similar to one I read last week on Crosswalk. Our experience is that if you are a white male, you will be discriminated against. That has been our experience on several occaisions. My dh has excellent qualifications but has been told at one interview that he wasn't a woman, he wouldn't be getting hired. At another, where he adjuncted for 3 years he was passed over for f.t. because a women interviewed (no prior teaching experience). In his grad program (which we paid over $100,000 dollars for) the hispanic and black students went FOR FREE. I'm sure if a woman was told that she wouldn't be hired due to her gender there would be some sort of lawsuit thing.

 

Yes, the economy is shifting (the Post American World, New Rules for the New Economy, etc). and everyone is going to have to change, adapt and overcome (I think that's how it goes, it's an A.F. saying my dh is constantly quoting).

 

I also think that the traditional school system disregards/devalues the large motor skills, later maturational development of most males. My ds 15 is exceptionally bright but can't sit still to save his life. If he had been in school I'm SURE (like professionally sure) that there would have been demands to have him on drugs to keep him still, and the reasearch on long term affects is spotty at best. My second ds 10 is a late bloomer maturationally, and very sensative. In a p.s. system I have no doubt that he would have been bullyed/ encouraged in non-healthy ways to exploit that (because it's happened in controlled homeschooling arenas already). Allowing our boys lots of "green therapy" and personal direction/coaching they are able to manage their challenges rather than have them control/define them.

 

I do think that we are in a great societal shift and roles/ jobs are being redefined. Just with our house build we are seeing that a lot of the "menial" tasks are being done by hispanics (believe me, we live in an area that is predominatly white). Perhaps it is because they are willing to do jobs considered "grunt work" and work for less?

 

We've always encouraged our girls to look at jobs that they could do p.t. as well as f.t. We haven't done the same for our boys. I doubt we will.

 

And the other thing I've noticed is that when a "real man" does show up, one who is competent, kind, sensitive, strong, grounded, faithful, hardworking, physically strong, etc. there are lots of women who flock to him, regardless of his marital status/looks.

[emubird]

Emubird,

 

Our adoption agency told us there absolutely is a widespread cultural trend towards the preference of girls over boys. The wait for a girl under 2 was four times as long as for a boy. In 2008, Vietnam had a moritorium on adoptions of girls until more people were willing to take a boy...only the girls with extreme medical problems were put through the adoption system that year. The caseworker told her that baby and toddler boys are languishing in orphanages around the world but baby girls are practically spoken for two years in advance of their birth. She said that despite the number of infant boys waiting for families, she is rarely ever able to get a couple to change their minds. This is especially true if adoptee will be an only child. She showed us the adoption statistics compiled for 2006 and it was startling. For domestic adoptions, once a biological mother has an ultrasound that determines she is carrying a boy, the number of families she has to choose from dwindles exponentially because most adoptive parents want girls. After all of the hoopla, we were rejected only because of DH's age. Most countries consider 45 the cut-off for adopting a child under the age of 3.

 

Faith

 

But that's a preference for adoptions of girls. I've been told that there's a strong perception that adopted boys seem to have more trouble than adopted girls solely because they are adopted. I don't know if there's any truth to that, but the perception is there.

 

This is different from having a preference for giving birth to girls or boys.

[phathui5]

I'm torn between thinking it's a combination of over labeling and a general attitude that simply being male is defective in and of itself.

 

I agree. A lot of the boys that hung out at our old house after school were what I considered normal boys. They were generally polite to me, ran around the yard, got in scrapes, had lots of energy. The great majority of them were having trouble in school or were having to take medication because the school said they had ADD or ADHD.

[Rosie_0801]

I don't know.

 

I'm torn between thinking it's a combination of over labeling and a general attitude that simply being male is defective in and of itself. There's a heck of a lot that was absolutely normal for boys/ men 50 years ago that is viewed has needing some kind of intervention these days.

 

The saddest thing I find is when it is men treating boys this way. Shouldn't men like boys? They *were* boys! The usual blurb about how we need more men in schools and whatnot isn't going to help any if they don't like boys either.

 

Rosie

[kalanamak]

:001_huh:

 

Why do you assume that?

 

 

My guess is she thought that because is it was a REcent change. 60% is a lot of fellars to be bringing kiddo to the doc.

[stripe]

This is different from having a preference for giving birth to girls or boys.

When I made a comment about a preference for girls, I wasn't referring to adoption. I have read about women who abort boys because of perceived trouble from them, and there's also various forms of sex selection (from the high tech, relatively effective, to the lower tech varieties).

 

When I was a kid, I had a young (distant) relative who seemed to me to be normal, albeit very energetic. Unfortunately no one could really stand him and he ended up in a fair amount of trouble. It struck me as pretty awful, and it still does.

[FaithManor]

Yes Stripe, I should have added in my post above that a recent expose of our Mid-Michgan abortion clinic listed showed that married women were deliberately aborting babies due to not wanting a male. Now, I doubt that is common...but it must be pretty bad in our area because my OBGYN - who does not perform abortions, just d&c's on already deceased pregnancies - has a sign up in his waiting room that "Even Baby Boys are a wonderful Blessing" and will no longer allow women to ask to know the sex of the baby without first signing a waiver form that states they will not terminate the pregnancy just because of the baby's gender. So obviously he is witnessing a frightening trend!

 

I wish I could remember the full poem on the sign...it was an absolutely lovely piece of poetry about how one should just be so thankful to even take part in the miracle of life and it doesn't matter whether or not a mother gets the gender she wants. I'll have to see if I can find a copy and post it.

 

 

Faith

[mom31257]

I've skimmed over the article, but I don't have time to read the thread. My dh teaches public high school. He said one problem with boys today is that many are not being raised with a dad in the home. Another is that books and learning are seen as "sissy".

 

I think education in America is contributing to this problem. Teachers are predominantly female, many of whom are feminists. I feel there is a prevailing disdain for males in feminists circles. Perhaps that is spilling over in the classroom and society, causing boys to feel bad about themselves.

 

Every commercial on TV has the woman being smart and the male stupid, with her having to help him out. That really disgusts me. It's brainwashing America to believe it, too, and I guess the guys have started living up to the expectation.

[Rosie_0801]

I think education in America is contributing to this problem. Teachers are predominantly female, many of whom are feminists. I feel there is a prevailing disdain for males in feminists circles. Perhaps that is spilling over in the classroom and society, causing boys to feel bad about themselves.

 

 

I'm not sure it is fair to blame a teacher's feminist beliefs. Maybe you know different kinds of feminists to the ones I know, but I don't know any who aren't just as concerned by the plight of boys as they are by the plight of girls. We have fathers, brothers, husbands and sons, and we care about them. I don't think it is a disdain for males so much as a frustration. Really, what can you do with them in a classroom if they won't sit down and be quiet? Even a teacher who believes wholeheartedly that wiggly boys are normal still has to keep them quiet and make them produce written work, because we all know that's the only learning that counts. :glare:

 

Of course, being raised predominantly by females, where are they going to learn about boys and how you are supposed to interact with them? From watching their fathers with their brothers? Maybe, if they have a father, if they have a brother, and if the two of them actually get along...

 

Rosie

[5kidsforME]

I am going to guess that this is a salary/hourly thing. If my dh doesn't work, he doesn't get paid. It might take 2-3 hours for him to take a child to the doctor and then get to work (or come home early to do it or in the middle of the day.) We can't afford that.

 

My aunt, OTOH, works for the same general company and could take a few hours off, no problem, with pay. She is salaried and in a position of responsibility, so she is good unless she were to take advantage of it.

 

My Dad's employer allows him to use sick days to care for sick family members, my dh's does not.

 

Not salary or hourly here. Dh works for himself. He doesn't work, he doesn't get paid. He is the one that usually takes the boys because that is what works best for our family. :001_smile:

[Peela]

I'm not sure it is fair to blame a teacher's feminist beliefs. Maybe you know different kinds of feminists to the ones I know, but I don't know any who aren't just as concerned by the plight of boys as they are by the plight of girls. We have fathers, brothers, husbands and sons, and we care about them. I don't think it is a disdain for males so much as a frustration. Really, what can you do with them in a classroom if they won't sit down and be quiet? Even a teacher who believes wholeheartedly that wiggly boys are normal still has to keep them quiet and make them produce written work, because we all know that's the only learning that counts. :glare:

 

Of course, being raised predominantly by females, where are they going to learn about boys and how you are supposed to interact with them? From watching their fathers with their brothers? Maybe, if they have a father, if they have a brother, and if the two of them actually get along...

 

Rosie

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

Dh's work largely involves helping young men learn what it actually means to be a young man....they dont seem to have a clue.

 

And yes, what is a female teacher to do when they are tied to a system that wants output in the form of written work, especially?

 

My grandmother was a teacher for years, then a child psychlogist. She always told me how important it was to get boys doing things with their hands. She encouraged me to play games where you sing.chant and throw things (like a beanbag or ball) and get them to jump on the trampoline reciting their times tables...rather than sit quietly to learn these things. Now if she, a woman just turned 90, knows these things, why are not our schools implementing them? SHe told me 10 years ago she was so disheartened that the school system seems to not act on the informati, andon that is there-and for many teachers that she worked with, this was new information- just to play games and have boys move their bodies. It doesnt work for the current teaching system, so what, they medicate the boys instead of changing the system?

 

But I wouldnt blame the teachers. Many try very hard.