Nonviolent Revolution for a Family Friendly US

Redstocking Grandma

Redstocking Grandma
Location
Baldwin, New York,
Birthday
July 17
Bio
My name is Mary Joan Koch. The Redstockings were a NYC radical feminist group in the late 60s and early 70s. I have five grandchildren, 5, 3 1/2, 3 1/2, 2, and 1. Becoming a grandma has rekindled my radical feminism. I speak for the children.

MY RECENT POSTS

Redstocking Grandma's Links

Contact me
Editor’s Pick
JANUARY 8, 2010 9:31AM

Join the Revolution for a Family-Friendly America

Rate: 7 Flag
Are children, elders, families in general, the poor better off than they were in 1968, at the start of the Second Wave of Feminism?  Are you outraged  with a society where 2 month olds are cared for by strangers for 10 hours a day  because there is no genuine paternity and maternity leave? Are you outraged that  childhood bipolar disorder has only been discovered in the United States?Are you outraged that 2 year olds and 3 years olds are pushed into early academics, that 5 year olds are perceived as backward if they can't read before leaving kindergarten? Do you outraged that teaching for the standardized tests is replacing art, music, recess and gym? Are you  outraged that our four year olds are taking  dangerous anti-psychotics not proven safe for chronic schizophrenics? Are you outraged  that poor immigration women are exploited as nannies and home health aides? A nonviolent revolution as sweeping as the civil rights movement is required to make the US a child-friendly, family-friendly, elder-friendly, human -friendly society. Join me.
 
When I was an active young feminist in the late 60s and early 70s, the upper middle class nature of New  York feminism was profoundly disturbing. Only a tiny minority of women could afford to become doctors, lawyers, college professors, corporate executives. The needs of  women of color  were ignored.
African American women had always worked and taken care of their children. They were more dubious about abortion, since the babies were more welcomed and taken care of by family members.
 
Unlike many women with my intellect and education, I stayed home with my four children full-time for 15 years and part-time until the youngest was in high school. I also care for my mother in my home 24/7  during the last four years of my life.  Both my husbands made career and financial sacrifices to make that possible.
 
I involved myself in nonsexist childrearing, childbirth education, breastfeeding counseling, parent education, toddler playgroups, babysitting cooperatives, cooperative nursery schools, school libraries, a campaign to save the local public library, the nuclear freeze movement, mental illness support and advocacy, parent advocacy for playground upkeep and a preschool playroom, the War Resisters League, Pax Christi (Catholic anti-war group)--the list is endless. When I made the mistake of attending library school and social work school, I naively assumed my qualifications would be obvious and no one would dare to treat me like a beginner. Instead, I was given the  the salary, benefits, authority, and respect of a beginner and the responsibilities of a long-term employee. Several bosses seemed threatened I wanted their jobs.

I recall one infuriating incident during my first social work placement; my childless 29--year-old supervisor earnestly instructed me, the oldest of 6, the mother of 4, how to interview a client with her two year old present. I had frequently run La Leche Meetings with 20 moms and 30 babies and toddlers. Women social workers who had taken very short maternity leaves and worked full-time during their children's childhood too often acted like all my knowledge and wisdom had been attained by cheating. I got more respect from male professors.
 
The situation has worsened; women are terrified of taking only a few years off from work. And yet the men who fought World War II left their jobs for several years and did not suffer economic consequences. The government even paid for their college and grad school education.

When my mom went back to college in 1963 and work in 1968, after having raised 6 children, she was accorded more respect and her experience was more honored than mine was 20 years later Full-time childrearing is frequently belittled as beneath the time and attention of intelligent, well-educated parents, who presumably should have exploited immigrant women of color to love and understand their children while they pursued their more important jobs.

In the 70s parents were going to have flexible work schedules so both could raise their children. Instead , in New York City both  child care and elder care are lovingly performed by women of color, mostly immigrants, some with irregular  immigation status..  When I take care of my grandson in the  same New York City playgrounds where his mother frolicked,. my companions are mostly nannies from all over the world. An older white woman with a toddler is assumed to be his grandma, not his nanny. I am often appalled how little highly successful two-career couples pay their nannies; many fail to provide the caregivers with any benefits, Social Security, least of all health care. They think nothing of calling the nanny on Sunday and telling her they don't need her that week or forever..  As one dedicated women from the Dominican Republic told me, "the more I love the children, the more it hurts my heart." Imagine loving a child as your own for three or four years and then never seeing them again when they go to school full-time or the family finds a cheaper nanny.
 
The aides who helped us take care of my mother during the last years of her life had tragic stories. We paid the agencies about $18 an hour (2001-04); the aides got less than half of that. Most did not  have cars and might have to take two buses and a subway to reach their client's homes.  Many had left their children in the Caribbean with their families.

I agree that most women with college degrees, graduate, or professional degrees have made enormous strides in most major professions and in the workplace generally. It is only when women have children or have to care for aging parents that they fully realize that women have mostly gained the right to follow the traditional male life style, emphasizing work over relationships, caregiving, community activism.. As women chose to have children at an older  age, the realization is late in coming. At that point their lives tend too become too frenzied and exhausting to leave any time for political activism.  Nothing has changed to make full-time or even part-time child care by fathers more financially possible.
 
My four well-educated, successful daughters are only having their consciousness raised as they begin to have children. Before they became mothers, they believed feminism had won its battles. You might make over $100,000 a year, but you might still have to pump breastmilk for your infant in the toilet  One daughter was told she could not store her pumped milk in a company refrigerator  for a day because it was a biohazard. If you work at Walmart's or a department store,  you won't be able to nurse at all, no matter how vehemently your doctor argues that breastfeeding is best for your babies.
 
How do we make a revolution that will benefit all of the American people? 
 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I'm not qualified to speak for any of those groups in general, but I will say that I believe my own family is indeed better off. Most of my children are grown (although there are still little fosters around), and I believe they have a fuller range of options available to them. My daughters will not have to choose "between" children and fulfilling careers; they have more ways to combine the two. My sons are able to see their partners' choices as reflections on them; they will understand that there are many more ways to assemble families than either the traditional or what was, a generation ago, a rebellious alternative. All of them have seen the examples of a generation of parents who managed both healthy families and fulfilling careers. I would like to think that they appreciate having caring, deeply involved parents who were active in careers and communities. I have not seen the psychological problems that you attribute to the evolution of caregiving and parenting.

That's not to say that I believe their economic opportunities will be as good as ours were, but that's a different (albeit related) problem than the one I think you're raising.

We have the care of both sets of parents, and I believe they, too, are better off. Their care will not fall solely to daughters (which my husband's parents do not have) and daughters-in-law; their male relatives participate far more actively than their brothers did in the care of our grandparents. They have far more options to help them retain their independence as long as possible and then transition into many different configurations of care.

As for the poor, that's harder for me to calculate. I grew up in the era of poor farms (which are the next step up from debtor's prison), and I see more programs designed to alleviate poverty and address its causes. I do not think many of them are effective, but I see value in the attempts. Again, our economic situation is far from ideal, and I am horrified by some of the actions our governments have taken. All told, though, I think that some families, at least, are adjusting well and we're better off for having the breadth of choices that our parents did not have.
High Lonesome, given that my mom stayed home with us for 18 years and gave us each 5 sibs and I stayed home with my girls for 15 years and gave them 3 sibs, and my r daughters returned to work before their babies were six months, I don't think my grandchildren are better off. Of course, it is worth my life to think it, never mind say it, because judgmental grandmas don't get to see their grandchildren as often. I pray they are too busy to read the blog.
High Lonesome, you write "My daughters will not have to choose "between" children and fulfilling careers." I had the same opportunities as my daughters. Because I was emotionally split between children and fulfilling careers, I dropped out of an all-expenses paid Ph. D program at Stanford and out of Columbia Law School, never went to Columbia School of Journalism, and later settled for the family-friendl but disastrous choices of librarianship and social work.

My husband expected me to combine full-time work and child care. It was a shock to both of us that I fell in love with raising and educating children and we were poor. But he absolutely supported my choice. He very well might have stayed home if there wasn't such a disparity between our earning capacity.

I was confident I could resume my editororial career. I so regret those two master's degrees. One aunt had gone to law school at 40 and had a superlative career.

Now that they are mothers (mostly far more affluent than we ever were), my daughters, my sons-in-law, and their peers don't feel they have the option to take time off for child care. They have been brainwashed that they would be destroying their careers. That bullshit becomes reality as the educated elite comes to believe it and not work for political reform. None of them have time to join the revolution.
d
As the question is posed it would have to be a moot answer. Serious time warp aside. Society has evolved, technology has evolved. When you and I were in 1968, I was fighting a war, you were protesting it. In 2008 you have grandchildren, I have teenage daughters. You and I are considered older people now. Where we are now is what were taught by our parents, what we give OUR own children is taught by us. Societal change in mass to our view of how it should be will not happen, my grandfather told me that. Remember the future, it will always be there. o/e
older/exasperated, I have spent most of the last two and one half years caring for my grandson and hanging out with babies and toddlers in NYC playgrounds and playrooms. Babies and toddlers haven't evolved. It is not surprising that the children raised by full-time working parents would not choose to stay home with their young children. What bothers me is that children raised by stay-at-home parents go back to work just as quickly. Do either truly have a choice as wages have stagnated since the 70s and two jobs can't support a caregiver parent when one job often did then?
Redstocking Grandma- Unfortunately I wasn't around in 1968, but I understand about the problems that you are referring to. My wife and I purposely don't plan on having a second child until our daughter goes off to kindergarten. Why ? So we only have to pay one full time daycare and later only one college at one time. To have two kids in daycare full time would make one of our salaries worth a measly one hundred dollars a week. It would not be worth $100 a week to have someone else raise our child. So this way we can manage, but our children ages are going to be farther apart than we would like.
As a woman without children, I'm sometimes surprised at how resentful other childless people are towards the needs of parents e.g. the perception that parents who leave on time to pick up their kids aren't pulling their weight, or resentment against parents who stay home to look after sick children.

One thing I've learnt from being in Europe is that maternity leave alone isn't necessarily the answer - where I live, which has three years of maternity leave, women of childbearing years face great workplace discrimination. In France and Scandinavia, on the other hand, where children are seen as a social good, there is tremendous help for parents. In Scandinavia, a father who didn't use his paternity leave to bond with his newborn kids would be looked at askance.

If we honestly believed that children were valuable, the policies and practices would evolve to work for their benefit. But we don't, so women are left making these awful career/parent choices, as though the rest of society had no stake in it.
I don't have children, so perhaps I have better not put in my two cents. However, I strongly feel that today CAREER is so much more important than Family. Todays parents seem to forget what the word parent means. If it's a career you want, then choose it. Just don't have kids, and then set them aside because it's inconvenient!
Kenny1948, I agree it is unrealistic to combine two long-hour, highly competitive jobs with raising children. Professional women, for example, should consider marrying less ambitious men, even men who haven't gone to college and have more flexible jobs.
Wanderer, I don't know anyone who feels they can afford day care for two children. What my second daughter, admittedly affluent, pays for her fifteen-month-old daughter's excellent day care is half my husband's take home pay. Only the rich can afford excellent day care without government subsidy. But once nannies are given a living wage, Social Security, unemployment insurance, health benefits, they will be far too expensive as well. The best solution might be family day care. A mom or dad who want to stay home with their kids take care of a few other kids as well in a family atmosphere. However, that is now so absurdly regulated by states like NY, most people could do meet the regulations.
Besides societal and governmental support, we are also lacking what is crucial in many other countries-- extensive, extended-family networks that allow kids to be raised by their family, even when it isn't their mother or father at all times.
Wanderer, don't worry too much about two kids in college at the same time. We got double the financial aid each time two were in college, because another college tuition is one of the few family expenses college financial aid offices recognize as legitimate. I warn you colleges expect you if take out a home equity loan if your house has any equity. State universities are an excellent alternative. So is starting in a community college, then transferring to a senior college. The diploma doesn't say only two years here.
Linda, the loss of the extended family seems catasrophic. I and my kids were very fortunate to live close to our grandparents. We went to two Christmases and two Thanksgivings. All but 3 of my 45 first cousins lived close by; we went to countless baptisms, First Communions, grade school, high school, and college graduation parties, family picnics, 25th and 50th anniversaries. Now we mostly see each other at funerals. All my dad's siblings are dead.

My grandma, my single aunts, and my young uncles were available for babysitting, went with us on vacations. Things were not so different when my girls are young. Now 3 daughters and 2 grandkids are in Boston. One daughter and granddaughter will be moving to DC and won't see her cousin three months older all the time. Grandparents live in Maine, Long Island, Brooklyn, and Florida (2 divorces). Two brothers are about a 90 minute drive; the others are in upstate NY, Maine, and NorthCarolina.

I see so much more of my grandkids in NYC than the other two. Working parents need to spend weekends with their family, not visiting NY or having visitors.
I am rather disappointed that an editor's pick on such a vital topic gets 6 ratings. It didn't do any better on Daily Kos or MyDD. I will try BlogHer.
we could re-define a full-time work week for all wage slaves as 30 hours, instead of 40. Of course, to avoid insurance they would knock em back to 28 hours, but at least it would be a start. We'll always have high-achievers ready to work 70 hour weeks, but oh well...