Mothers' work

A friend's blog post "Post Feminist Musing" http://chretienfamilyblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/post-feminist-musings.html got me thinking on the topic of mothers, their work--paid and unpaid, and the way we still find no value in the kinds of work that sustain life--what by some is considered unproductive labor since it does nothing to further material wealth.

Here is an overview from Wikipedia (not the best resource but an ok place to start):
The classical political economists, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo raised the economic question of which kinds of labour contributed to increasing society's wealth, as against activities which do not produce a vendible commodity which can be resold at a profit. They regarded human labour as the mainspring of wealth, and therefore they regarded the economical use of labour as highly important.
Within an enterprise, for example, there were many tasks which had to be performed, such as cleaning, record and bookkeeping or repairs, which did not directly contribute to producing and increasing wealth in the sense of making a net addition to it - in other words, such tasks represented a net cost to the enterprise which had to be minimized.

From this 18th/19th century spouting about an industrial economny, we can begin to understand how it is that "women's work" was denigraded and classified as less important.   The work that was less important wasn't even necessarily women's work, but it seems that as that work was classified as less important, men gravitated to the important and left the women with the place "they deserved" and the work that they "deserved".  I'm quoting because I think these attitudes are old fashioned and I don't believe that we have the same attitudes toward women today, yet we do have these same attitudes towards that type of work--no matter who is performing it.

If we truly looked at the human costs of not doing this work--then the work of raising children, keeping house, home cooking high quality food, record/bookkeeping becomes much more valuable.  If these things didn't get done, how would any of the people doing the "productive" work accomplish anything?   How would we even have anyone who was willing and able to do the "productive" work if mothers/fathers and teachers weren't raising thinking, caring human beings?

My suspicion is that if the Smith and other economists had valued the "unproductive" human work instead of the "productive" work, then the 19th and 20th century men would have been scrambling to find a way to get paid for staying home with their kids and would have sent their wives off to the factories.  Of course all of this discussion of choice about who does which work completely ignores the poor and/or ethnic minorities who did and still do both productive and "non-productive" work just to keep themselves afloat because of their status in the U.S.

Still shouldn't we value the human contributions more?  Probably not in our society--contributing to material wealth is always more important than the human wealth or costs of not valuing humans, animals, or not valuing anything beyond our own material needs.

Climate Change, Global Warming or not...isn't the point to protect the earth?

Individuals and political parties in some western cultures (mainly the U.S.) spend so much time debating whether the theories of climate changes as human induced are accurate or not, or whether the science is well thought out. What this debate sets up is an out for all the people who want to put their blinders back on.

I mean afterall, I would be thrilled to find out that the scientists were wrong and we really aren't going to burn up or cause species to die because of our thoughtless exploitation of the earth's natural resources. But this doesn't really address the bigger issue--Americans have, for years, exploited our own natural environment and our corporations have gone to developing countries to do the same. We waste, destroy, and create havoc. The point is not whether this wastefulness is driving catastrophic environmental change, but whether it is impacting someone, and whether we couldn't find a better way to handle things to minimize the impacts.

I think the people who profess that human induced climate change is "junk science" are purposefully taking the focus off human environmental impacts, so that the average person can feel off the hook and the average person can then consume more (without worrying about reducing his or her impact or even making efforts to recycle)--this return to consumption then benefits these proponents who are likely corporation owners.

I don't really care whether climate change is real or not. Sometimes Americans with blinders need something more to dig themselves out of the rut they are in and find a better way to treat our natural resources and this earth that sustains our lives, the lives of plants, and animals. Maybe the theory that we are driving the earth toward catastrophic change is enough to get people off their couches, out of their cars, and out of the stores. Maybe it will get them thinking about new ways to protect our planet.

Messy Roadways

As we walked and rode home from a mom and kids bike ride the other day with cars speeding past us, I wondered how different the roadways would be if more people walked or rode bikes. There was trash all along our route, and the safety of walking or riding was questionable with all the speeding cars.

As walkers/riders, we were going slow enough for me to notice what was around us. Broken plastic toys, fast food wrappings, pieces of paper all littered the roadside. The sidewalks and bike lanes near our house are totally inadequate. We often end up walking the bikes through the dirt and weeds to be safe. I always pick my bike routes based on a drive in the car. Once we get going, I realize how inadequate my review from the car is. The route is never as easy or safe as I think it looks when speeding by in a car. The small stretch of no sidewalk turns out to be a quarter mile of dirt, thorny thistles, and toddler treasure--dangerous trash.

If people would just get out of their cars and walk, they would probably care about all the trash they saw. They would probably slow down so they didn't hit a human being or animal. But, we all just speed by without a care, on to the next destination, because of course our society forces the destination rather than embracing the journey.

I just can't feel sorry for these people Why isn't the news upset about the poor?

An article online in the Wall Street Journal titled "From Ordering Steak and Losbster to Serving it" details the life after wall street for one man and his family. I just don't know if these stories are trying to get our sympathy or what. I don't feel anything except disgust when I read and hear these on the news over and over. I mean now they are living like the rest of us instead of living a life of excess...so what exactly is the problem here?

"Mr. Araya's wife, Dennise, has gone back to work as an administrative assistant for a construction company and leaves home at 6 a.m. Mr. Araya often works until one or two in the morning and on weekends, leaving little time for the family to be together. He calls his daughters every night during his break at the restaurant on his cellphone to say good night. (I work at night and my husband puts the kids to bed two nights a week. My husband gets up at 4:30 am every day for work.)
Mr. Araya now is the one who gets his children ready for school. He's learned to tie pony tails, inadvertently shrunk sweaters in the wash and knows which grocery store has the best price on milk. (My husband helps with the laundry, gets the kids ready for bed, etc.)
The Arayas stopped dining out, pulled their daughters out of ballet and tumbling classes, and dropped cable television -- even though the flat screen he bought when they first moved in still sits in the living room. (We scrape to put our kids in karate lessons. And believe it or not you can get 15 or more channels with just a TV antenna)"

I just can't feel sorry for these people. What really gets me confused is why the news isn't reporting on things like the poor and people who don't have any health coverage, or report on someone who is using adversity to help others?

Community Service

My students are writing about whether Community Service should be part of the requirements to graduate from college. A good majority feel that college students don't have time, or find in unappealing based on their definition that serving the community means cleaning up trash, working with the homeless or working in a nursing home. As an teacher, I have used Service Learning in the past (connecting practical hands on learning about the subject to service in the community) and would like to use it again.
I was amazed and impressed by one student who talked about how she is already involving her children in community service. She has her children pick a "cause" each year and then they decide how they will help. She then went on to describe what her kids did for a local organization last year by having a lemonade stand.
I think that if we could find more creative and non-traditional ways for college students to serve their communities, such a requirement would not present a problem for students and would benefit both students and the communities. Making such requirements easier for students, might mean more work for counselors, teachers, and colleges. For me, the real question is can we get the faculty and staff on board to do the work?

Lack of Sympathy

As I watch 20/20 and they are chronicaling stories about struggling families. I watch the story of the man who is now delivering pizza, his family moves to an apartment and sells their home and all the stuff in it, they are still able to keep their daughter in softball, and an "anonymous" donor is paying the $30,000 per year to keep their children in the same private school that they have gone to since starting school. I can't feel any sympathy for this man.
I imagine they are the people who have in the past turned a skeptical eye toward others. They at one time looked down on others who have less and felt they were less because of it. We are who we are with or without our stuff. I can't have sympathy for this man and his family who have gone from excess to the world the rest of us live in.
Maybe 20/20 isn't asking me to have sympathy. Maybe they have published this to show all those others who live in this guy's neighborhood or one of the other cookie cutter neighborhoods like it, that this could happen to them too. They aren't immune--they are not better than anyone else.
President Obama has it right when he promotes service. We need to stop turning away from those in need and finding a way to make a difference.

Taxes and protesting

This story is just too good! If you find it ironic that middle class republicans support all the tax breaks for the rich....read on...

http://www.alternet.org/story/132440/the_hilarious_hypocrisy_of_the_gop%27s_so-called_%27tea_bag_revolution%27/?page=1