Girlpower
A brief conversation this afternoon got me thinking again about the whole studying-for-fun thing, and about that question I love so much: what happens after this? There's not much call for philosophy majors in the job market; a friend of mine who majored in philosophy several years ago got quite a decent job as floor manager at the toilet duck factory, but that might have been a one-off lucky-for-some kind of thing; I may not be so fortunate.
Also I am seriously lacking in personal ambition. I have never been able to get enthused about any 'career', despite the indoctrination we all received going to a girls' high school (anyone ever heard before that girls can do anything?). Also my conscience tends to run up against a lingering suspicion of western capitalism that I haven't really addressed properly yet, whenever I turn my mind to the usual easy options (retail etc.). [hopefully no one will pick me up on that comment too much though coz I'm not really qualified to defend any particular position; as I say, it's just a lingering uneasiness]
What I always envisaged for myself was being a housewife and mother. Again, girlpower indoctrination at high school wore down my sense of pride and security about this to some degree, but there has never been anything else I'd rather do. And it's not just a default option; it excites me. Yep. I should like very much to have a little house and my own little kitchen and do menial tasks all day, whilst minding the children, interspersed with the occasional embroidery and reading theology and classic literature in my spare time, and to be sitting smiling when my husband gets home tired and finds his dinner ready on the table for him. I should like very much to have been born in Victorian England (apart from the child labour and the smoggy industrial mess; though I wouldn't have minded being a servant girl). More than that, I should like to be a little farmer's wife (that's me that's the little one, not the farmer), and have the two of us pull together for a living. Of course I don't know the first thing about farming, but I should like to know. And I am only partly kidding about all this.
For obvious reasons, I generally keep my little romantic fantasy to myself (until I go publishing it on the internet), because it's so easily shot down. I often wonder though, do other chicks secretly want this too, or is it just me? And do blokes secretly want stay-at-home wives rather than a second income, but they just aren't allowed to admit it these days? And is it actually still a feasible option in the modern world, to be a housewife? Obviously not quite in the soppy style described above, but to be a modern woman whilst taking care of your own kids?
This reminds me, when I was studying Jane Eyre earlier this year, I was reading some criticism by Adrienne Riche, who made some comments about Jane's uncertainty over whether or not to marry St John, when doing so would basically mean the loss of her own identity and the taking on of his, along with all his ambitions and plans for life. After a difficult life, there was something attractive about this situation for Jane. "This can sometimes be a woman's most confusing temptation," said Riche (I'm paraphrasing; can't find where I wrote this down), "to lose herself entirely in a man." I was interested to hear this described as a temptation - the implication being that it would be wrong to give in to it.
The thing is, I have to say I'm 'tempted' by this thought myself. To me it seems like it would be a liberating thing, to surrender myself to a man whom I trusted and loved, and to allow him to guide me through life. Or is this just my own laziness talking, because I haven't the energy or courage to pursue ambitions of my own, and want to latch onto someone else's? Surely it's okay for some people to see themselves as servants, as followers rather than leaders, and to find their worth in supporting others who do have visions and dreams? I don't mean I want to be passive all my life, just tagging along; I would fervently pursue my husband's calling, with all I had, taking it as my own. And I would still be me, and serve God in my own right as well.
In Jane Eyre's case, she eventually turns St John down, which Riche I think takes to mean she holds onto her own identity; but in fact her eventual marriage to Rochester puts her in virtually the same position - she lives entirely for him in his infirmity, probably forfeiting many pleasures, though the book doesn't explore this really. The only difference is that she loves Rochester, so serving him is joy to her, while serving St John would have been a duty (albeit a righteous one).
Could it be that I am attracted to this kind of life because that really is the one God intended for women? Am I right to suspect that this is how I will find the most fulfilment?
And if so, what happens to single women?
Thus, with lots of questions, I end. [True apothecary, thy drugs are quick...?]
Also I am seriously lacking in personal ambition. I have never been able to get enthused about any 'career', despite the indoctrination we all received going to a girls' high school (anyone ever heard before that girls can do anything?). Also my conscience tends to run up against a lingering suspicion of western capitalism that I haven't really addressed properly yet, whenever I turn my mind to the usual easy options (retail etc.). [hopefully no one will pick me up on that comment too much though coz I'm not really qualified to defend any particular position; as I say, it's just a lingering uneasiness]
What I always envisaged for myself was being a housewife and mother. Again, girlpower indoctrination at high school wore down my sense of pride and security about this to some degree, but there has never been anything else I'd rather do. And it's not just a default option; it excites me. Yep. I should like very much to have a little house and my own little kitchen and do menial tasks all day, whilst minding the children, interspersed with the occasional embroidery and reading theology and classic literature in my spare time, and to be sitting smiling when my husband gets home tired and finds his dinner ready on the table for him. I should like very much to have been born in Victorian England (apart from the child labour and the smoggy industrial mess; though I wouldn't have minded being a servant girl). More than that, I should like to be a little farmer's wife (that's me that's the little one, not the farmer), and have the two of us pull together for a living. Of course I don't know the first thing about farming, but I should like to know. And I am only partly kidding about all this.
For obvious reasons, I generally keep my little romantic fantasy to myself (until I go publishing it on the internet), because it's so easily shot down. I often wonder though, do other chicks secretly want this too, or is it just me? And do blokes secretly want stay-at-home wives rather than a second income, but they just aren't allowed to admit it these days? And is it actually still a feasible option in the modern world, to be a housewife? Obviously not quite in the soppy style described above, but to be a modern woman whilst taking care of your own kids?
This reminds me, when I was studying Jane Eyre earlier this year, I was reading some criticism by Adrienne Riche, who made some comments about Jane's uncertainty over whether or not to marry St John, when doing so would basically mean the loss of her own identity and the taking on of his, along with all his ambitions and plans for life. After a difficult life, there was something attractive about this situation for Jane. "This can sometimes be a woman's most confusing temptation," said Riche (I'm paraphrasing; can't find where I wrote this down), "to lose herself entirely in a man." I was interested to hear this described as a temptation - the implication being that it would be wrong to give in to it.
The thing is, I have to say I'm 'tempted' by this thought myself. To me it seems like it would be a liberating thing, to surrender myself to a man whom I trusted and loved, and to allow him to guide me through life. Or is this just my own laziness talking, because I haven't the energy or courage to pursue ambitions of my own, and want to latch onto someone else's? Surely it's okay for some people to see themselves as servants, as followers rather than leaders, and to find their worth in supporting others who do have visions and dreams? I don't mean I want to be passive all my life, just tagging along; I would fervently pursue my husband's calling, with all I had, taking it as my own. And I would still be me, and serve God in my own right as well.
In Jane Eyre's case, she eventually turns St John down, which Riche I think takes to mean she holds onto her own identity; but in fact her eventual marriage to Rochester puts her in virtually the same position - she lives entirely for him in his infirmity, probably forfeiting many pleasures, though the book doesn't explore this really. The only difference is that she loves Rochester, so serving him is joy to her, while serving St John would have been a duty (albeit a righteous one).
Could it be that I am attracted to this kind of life because that really is the one God intended for women? Am I right to suspect that this is how I will find the most fulfilment?
And if so, what happens to single women?
Thus, with lots of questions, I end. [True apothecary, thy drugs are quick...?]
posted by Kat | 9/13/2004 05:50:00 pm
33 Comments:
Just with regard to your questions, perhaps its a case of some women being cut out for that type of role. So you may find fulfilment in doing this because you are cut out for it.
Interesting that this may come out in two weeks on monday night.
"And do blokes secretly want stay-at-home wives rather than a second income, but they just aren't allowed to admit it these days?"
I would like to say, in the most politically correct way possible....... no comment.....
*looks furtively left and right for cries of "Chauvinist Pig!"*
In all seriousness, I think that women are naturally better at raising and caring for children than men. In these days of equality for all, I am not allowed to say that, but I think it is true.
If raising kids is something that you feel God is calling you to do, I think going out and getting a job as well just so you can fit some social trend of "empowerment" is just wrong.
Children need their parents when they are little and growing up. If women are naturally better at nurturing and caring for them, then why shouldn't they want to stay at home? Obviously income has to come from somewhere, which is why traditionally the husband goes out and works. I don't believe that he does this because he enjoys "oppressing" women, rather he sucks at raising kids, and feels his abilities are better used providing for his family.
*Looks over shoulder and sees feminists....... starts running*
I'd love to stay at home and play guitar all day!
But somehow, I don't think I would be allowed.
I think the problem with a stay at home husband would be that they would do that... Play guitar and computer games all day. A stay at home wife however will be much more likely to do cleaning and housekeeping stuff.
haha, I'm laughing at all the boys (as usual?)
It's funny, when I was little, my Mum stayed at home with me & my sister and I remember being absolutely disgusted when I found out that she worked until she had kids. I always thought that girls left school, got married at about 20, sprouted kids and never had an actual 'job'. When I was about 10 she started working, and now I can't imagine being a stay-at-home wife. What did your Mum do?
Yeah, I think that Mummy's should ideally be at home with their kids, then maybe work school hours while brats are at school, just so long as you're at home before they get home (of course,there are millions of reasons this doesn't always work in the real world). As for not working at all and being a stay-at-homer, I can't imagine doing that, but if that's what appeals to you then more power to ya for following it. As my Auntie said to me once, she was a stay-at-home wife and she home made jam and biscuits and sewed and grew her own veges and all sorts, so they saved money from buying the ready-made versions, plus the work she did wasn't taxed, so it really added up to being worth a bit.
"Could it be that I am attracted to this kind of life because that really is the one God intended for women?"
Argh! Oh help! Ugh gah ick!
I have stuggled with what exactly is a women's role in... everything since I first became a Christian, I am only just starting to get my head around it and I still don't have any proper answers. I think I'll just write a post on it some time and see if I get any intelligent input from you guys :P
So while the lack of ambition thing and wanting to be incorporated into some guy's ideas & plans for life makes me shudder to the point of moving closer toward the celibacy end of my options, if that's what appeals to you, then go for it. Don't let anyone look down on you for it or get a job because of peer pressure, this is the new feminism, you rebel, "I can stay at home and be a housewife if I choose to, it's my right as a woman!" Haha.
[just for everyone's info, Brett is not some random sifter, he's a good friend of mine]
Also, yay, a girl commented! Kelly gets 10 points.
With regard to what Esther said about getting a degree
If I am to marry a girl who wants to be a housewife (I'm attempting to be neutral here, not giving away what I would prefer with regards to joby, housewifey stuff) I think I would want a girl who has done some study. I am a bit of an intellectual I guess, so it would be nice to have some common ground, and I would want the mother of my children to be relatively knowledgable and skilled. Yeah.
Well all I'll say is there seems to be a rather large number of guy's commenting on a post thats intitled "Girlpower" and not many gals.
Apart from that you've the freedom of choice.
My mum taught until I was born then stayed home looking after me and my younger brothers till we were all at high school at which point she got bored having spent the last 16 or so years at home and took up teaching again.
The point of that? To remind people that there are positions other than the extremes and that 16 or so years looking after the kids and house can get boring :-). And that while you may be happy to go one way at one stage of your life theres a decent chance that you'll want ago at the other side some time later, So don't cut down/off your options.
just because Chad has challenged me i think im gonna have to comment. I think everyone else has already said most of what i was going to say
some points and things that stood out
-Nathan, i do agree *sigh* that intellectualness is another compatibility area that people should consider. I realised sometime last year that someone who i cant debate politics or capitalism or er intellectual stuff with would be off the list, he he.
-Kelly - youre such a bloke, tee hee! *hug*
-Katherine, the thing i really dislike is that because the feminists of the past have fought with such fervour to bring us this new 'liberation' and some of us turn round and say we dont want it, that we are inherently frowned upon. "HAVE WE FOUGHT FOR NOTHING??" i hear them cry...
i quite like the idea of being an intellectual but stay at home wifey. And *grins* have received quite a lot of flack for this, some people see it as a cop out, or others see it as too much submission to your husband.
anyway, i guess there are some reasons why wifeys would need to work, in that a) if you have a student loan, you cant just add it to your husbands and expect him to pay it all off. and also b) some women get a bit of post-natal depression and need a bit of a break from their kids every now and then. I mean im not advocating that you stick your kids in a creche for your own sake. But not everyone's lucky enough to have friends/family who will take the kids for a few hours each week.
Yeah. thats about all i can be bothered saying about that. the less i think about marriage and being a wifey/mother, the more i can concentrate on being content now :)
hee hee, my turn to comment
Estie-you can't learn language by osmosis. osmosis is only referring to water but your supreme language skills would definitley be due in part to your mum reading to you. In fact, I'm writing an essay partly about this at the mo.
Back on topic: I want to be a stay at home mum. I can't wait! I'm looking forward to working before then though- yay for having a motherlyish job and playing with kids all day anyway :)
I personally am a chauvanistic pig and would definately prefer a stay at home wife (though not a complete bimbo airhead). I think that children benefit more from having their own mother at home than some stranger taking care of them. Maybe I'm just excessively old-school but maybe God designed the genders to be better at different roles and to compliment each other in their weaknesses. Maybe a mother is good at picking a child up and telling them it will be alright and a father good at clipping them around the ear and telling them to get over it. My mother gave up her job to look after me and my siblings and now we are old enough to fend for ourselves she is back in the work force. However, if my wife chose to work I would fully support her.
'You've got every right to be alive or dead, just as long as you choose' Reaper Man, Terry Pratchett, pg 257 [this is regarding being a zombie as opposed to suicide]
I think we're all on similar wavelengths with the wanting mum to be home with the kids (even I agree, wow), but what are people's thoughts on stay-at-home wives pre-kids and once the kids are older?
Jared, you're awesome! Nothing like a bit of good old unapologetic un-PCness. But your comment wasn't even offensive, you can do better than that.
[glows with pride at having wrought a comment out of Brehaut - and several other non-regulars :)]
Right, I see I'm in good company. Pretty much no one has disagreed with me so far!
Just to clarify, yep, I definitely agree with all of you who said things like 'sure but it's not for everyone'. Yep.
Also, despite having put my name to this point of view now, I generally try to take a 'never say never' approach to these questions. So if I end up being a corporate whatever-the-heck, or (help us all!) a politican or something, y'all don't laugh at me too much, okay! No, on second thoughts, I should imagine I would be laughing at myself rather a lot in that circumstance, so yeah, go ahead. Or do it now, to save time later.
Also, as I was saying to Nato last night, I would agree that there's potential for working once the season of full-time motherhood is over. It would be a decision I would want to make very much in conjunction (right word?) with my husband and family, depending on where we felt God was leading us as a family. Like most of you probably, in my own case my mum (previously a high school teacher) stopped working while we were young, but is now working again, from home, in a completely different field, and enjoying it a lot.
And yay for people making me feel good about studying for fun! (Which I do anyway coz it's fun, and coz I believe in the value of education for its own sake.)
Finally I would also agree with Michelle, that it's time for me to carry on concentrating on being me and single, now that I've got that out of my system :)
With regard to feminisits having worked for something in vain, a thought occured to me other other day. Modern feminists are not the same as the original feminisits. The original feminists fought for equality, while modern feminists seem to be advocating female superiority and thus inequality.
So we should be happy for the gender equality (to use the term), but we don't need to listen to any tomelena dickole and harretta (sorry, I aren't very good with names...) who claim to be following in the steps of earlier feminists.
*a figure draped in black, with a long flowing cape suddenly appears at the back of the room, looking around quickly to ensure no one is watching*
Greetings! I speak to you from the heart of feminist territory so I must be guarded in what I say!
I think that there should be no standard to live up to (except God's of course! :P). If you feel that you would like to have a career, then do it! :D if you feel you should stay at home, then do that! :D I really wouldnt mind either way for my future partner, only that as long as they were feeling happy and fulfilled by what they were doing!
Being a teacher (or counseller! :D) I would work by the school holidays. heh heh 10 weeks a year. and this would i guess, take some pressure off my partner if she decided to pursue a career. i could stay at home and look after the kids! :) as long as she was happy!
In summary, do what you feel you want to. dont let society persuade you one way or the other.
But alas. I hear the feminists outside out in force. I must away! Ha-HAH!
*leaps off into the night*
Isn't it interesting how many people have actually sat down and considered these things?
I blame the spring. It's spring fever I tell you! Man it is funny to watch people get clucky and become obsessed with babies and families.
(this is just a social commentary on the general content of posts recently). It might be interesting to go through everyone's blogs and compile some content v.s month data.... (Way to find new ways to procratinate!)
Oh, and while I remember - in response to Paul...
Playcenter isn't all bad. I reckon I had heaps of fun at various kindys and playcenters when I was a kid. Ah the memories. Why does playdough never taste as nice as you remember it?
Social interaction is very important for little kids. I reckon that that is what moulds them when they are little. My theroy is if you send them to kindy or playcenter when they are little they learn to think for themselves a lot earler than they normally would.
Sure, quality time at home with Mummy and Daddy are all good, but kids need other kids their own age to help their development. If they don't have brothers or sisters, then I think sending them to playcenter is a great idea, as well as giving Mum some much earned personal time. 2-3 years is a long time to be looking after one thing non-stop. :)
@ Paul - I agree completely :)
In the semi immortal words of MXPX..
My Mum Still Cleans My Room!!!!Well, she's still is at home, but I'm not. She does do part time work from home though.
Ah homeschooling..... I have some pretty definite views on that, as you will find out shortly.
I think you should consider homeschooling only if you literally have no other option. (i.e. you are in a weird country that has no education system, or if you travel a lot with your missionary parents)
Getting back to the whole social interaction thing - school is important, not just for learning school stuff, but learning how to relate with other people. It is a well established fact that homeschooled kids have more difficulty in social situations and making friends than those that went to school.
Also, look at what else you are missing out on.... sporting trips, social clubs, musicals, big-band.
Home schooling does have a purpose, but I would prefer that my kids went to a school - any school - than stayed at home all day. Kids should experience as much as possible during their formative years.
As well as this, going to an actual school must surely help prepare them for moving out into the real world. I don't have any evidence for this, but perhaps someone else might?
Another tangent if someone wishes to express their views on it: Boarding school - good or bad?
Hm, homeschooling. Well once again I must force myself to put my 'romantic' old-fashioned notions through the grid of the 'realities' [heh, what is real?] of modern life.
Alongside my little dreams of subsistence farming and such (did I mention that being a desert nomad also appeals?), I must acknowledge that it wouldn't really work without the support of a whole community living the same way, pulling together on a broader scale.
And I think the homeschooling thing works in a similar way. The theory, to me, is pretty good, but it would be a whole heap better in the context of lots of other families doing the same thing. That way, jobs could be shared around amongst the whole community.
Meh, blah blah blah. Is anyone still reading this anyway? Maybe I should turn communist. Or go live in a kibbutz. Who's with me? If I'd been born thirty years earlier I could've been a hippy perhaps, and lived in one of those commune things. Heh. Anyone else got parents who became Christians in the '70s and still have lots of really happy clappy Christian LPs lying around the house? I could've been one of those people. [giggles] Ach, tangent, sorry.
This hardly even counts as a comment in the great bid for Most Comments (I believe there's an Oscar up for grabs or something). I'm just in a rambly mood. As you were, everyone.
Wow, LOTS of comments. Some thoughts:
1) Intelligence is the most highly rated characteristics of a partner by most people (I can't remember where I learned that, but I'm pretty sure that was about right).
2) Yes, kids need as much input as possible when growing up. I think the quality of that input is crucial. Furthermore, I think the quality of input afforded at school is average at best, though there may be more resources. Personally I think kids should be cared for primarily by a parent (rather than random kindergarden people) for at least the first 4 years.
3) The specific occupational roles of the husband and wife and not nearly as important as their roles in their relationship. I will post on this shortly as I learned much from the NAVS mens camp.
hmm home schooling.. what do i think about that? Well i first met homeschooled people my age when i was 16, and they were wierd. They hung out with homeschool kids, they weren't so socially aware, they were appalled at the horrors of society...
It took them a few years of meeting us heathen-schoolers to turn vaguely normal...
I quite like the idea of homeschooling with a group of other families...
In fact, i'd like to live on a commune... with shared veggie gardens, and solar power, and wind turbines, and un-GE food... *lost in dream* oops... tangent...
its funny how we all have our own ideas about everything, isnt it... im sure it will all change when we're actually faced with it!!
by the way, i forgot to ad,... Nathan, youre definately on to something about the new feminists. Its SO all about female SUPERIORITY rather than EQUALITY. which is really dumb....
the old feminists were on to a good thing - making sure that people had equal opportunities, but somewhere it all got twisted up and challenged female status quo and roles as given by God, and i think its gone way overboard...
I dunno what happens to single women though Katherine! i am definately a chick who likes the idea of this lifestyle... so i can't think of what life for someone who wasnt interested would be like!
Did I hear someone say solar power and wind turbines?
This commune idea sounds cool. I'd be keen. If there was a decent river I could build a hydro-plant.... I've always wanted to do that :) The tailrace could be used for irrigation for the fruits and veggies... A pity that communes have such a stigmata attached to them.
Group schooling sounds neat.... But then I grew up in the wops, so that's pretty much what I had for primary school.
Ahhhh primary school - the best 15 years of my life :P Seriously though, it is cool when you come from a very small town and all the parents know each other.
he he!! i sense some hostility towards Homeschoolers, Breo? What about people that do correspondence... theres a difference....
Homeschoolers often do stuff together, group learning-like, and have way more social contact, usually with a group of other home schoolers.
Correspondence students are usually working alone
SOUNDS BORING!!
(he he - coming from someone who did correspondence Bursary FRENCH for petes sake.... those that lack motivation are not good on correspondence!!)
Anyway, the homeschoolers/correspondence pupils i know may be a little naiive, but the thing ive noticed is that they are generally lovely people, friendly and fun, and usually quite dedicated to God :)
Breo: "Christian sanitized, sheltered, homeschooled kids are freaks. totally messed in the head."
Yeah...
All generalizations are false.
If this has been your experience with homeschooled kids, then possibly you've only met the ones that haven't been well done (and there are weird messed up kids in schools as well). I've met homeschooled kids who are fine.
Brehaut: I really like your point 1, especially "the juxtaposition of christian values with the world's values would be more beneficial to a child than total saturation". Yeah, you've pretty much convinced me with that. And very neatly phrased :)
As someone who's been about as sheltered as it's possible to be without being homeschooled, I know that my faith has definitely gained a huge proportion of its validity from being contrasted with those around me, ie. at school. And it continues to become more my own as I study secular philosophies and things at uni and my faith has to learn to face up to them.
Also: "wholly holy"? - well that's beautiful!
Brehaut, I totally agree with both your points. My years at high school helped make me into who I am today - and gave me some valuable social experience.
However, I think before you're 5 years old, I think these two things aren't so important. At that age, I think it can be best for a kid to get lots of input to help them learn. Also, being around positive role-models might be important at that age, because kids that age don't have much strength of character to not imitate what they see others doing.
For this reason, I said what I said in my earlier post.
Well with regards to home schooling It has it's uses howevery I really think the parent needs to have done some education training before hand. For example my mum took my younger brother out of school for a year when we moved house and he simply didn't fit into the local school and wasn't doing too well in a couple of areas of study. She then concentrated on those areas and managed to help him alot. However She is a trained Teacher with extra training for dealing with Dyslexic Children, which is hardly normal for your average home schooler. Also she took him out at primary level and sent him straight back when he was to start intermediate. That helped him quite a bit.
However in my 7th year at high school a kid (and I delibrately use that word) entered 7th form after ~10 years of home schooling, and I think he represents the absolute worst result of home schooling. He'd been pulled out of a small country school by his parents (about which who's eduacation levels I know nothing!) as he'd had problems getting on with the predominately Maori pop for the school (Northen Hawkes bay).
He turned up in 7th form thinking he was a genius (very quickly became obvious that he wasn't) wanting to be a turma surgeon and having planed every thing out to listen to him, he had obesive interests in certain subjects and NO social skills! And I mean no social skills. He imediately attatched him self to the "popular group"(Nice lot of people really, lol I was part of the more geeky/nerdy group) or at least tried hanging around and generally making a fool of him self. Very clear that he didn't fit but he couldn't tell even after what I'd consider to be fairly pointed remarks pointing this out. By the end of the year he was no closer to being part of the group his socially skills were so low that most of the Teachers appeared to considered him a real pain and had tried to let him know that with no luck. Any way the end result was that it all ended in a rather nasty incident at a party were he got assulted in a rather unpleasent manner (got in the newspapers nation wide) at a party after quite a few drinks (As I said before the popular crowd for the most part were a nice enough bunch, possibly to nice as they weren't prepared to tell him to get lost even though he quite annoyed a number of them) the end result being a number of short jail sentences for most of the people involved which was a real pitty seeing most of them were generally nice people and that really stuffed them over as far as Uni and Jobs once they got out.
Any way the point of that was home schooling has it's place but really I think it's only good for the short term. Better to go to school and face a few problems than enter Society for the first time at an age of 17 or 18 with absolutely no clue or social skills. Also I think that those who intend to home school should be required to do some teaching courses first and that social interaction with peers should be a required element!
Now I have no idea how much sence I've made in this comment it's late and I'm tired and Rambling rather incoherently I think! None the less I hope you can dredge some sence from that mass of words and get some Idea of what I'm saying.
God bless.
interesting story, Chad... *pauses to reflect*
Yeah... i can definately see where there could be problems with home schooling, but i know a family of three kids, 2 were correspondence school, and 1 was home schooled. The correspondence ones were a little naiive when i first met them, and still get shocked if i mention something like having friends who are druggies, BUT... at the end of their schooling they adjusted really well to 'normal' life, and you can hardly tell they're not. ;)
Although, there is one noticeable difference between the three of them and other people - they are way more confident, and less worried about what society thinks of them. I guess this is because they've never had a pressure to conform all their lives...
There are a lot of families in our church that homeschooled their children... and here are some things ive noticed
- they're less likely to stray from God. Out of all the families i know, only 2 kids are not into Jesus.
- they're nice and polite
- they can be a bit weird - theres this homeschool group called ATI which is all about like girls should have long hair and wear skirts, and you must have no dating, only courting and stuff... so thats weird... lotsa intermarriages between families. (not inbreeding, i say, just brothers marrying sisters and stuff) (not their own sisters) (other peoples)
aaaaaaanyway....
i guess its best for each parent to decide, and its definately a better idea, in my opinion, if the mother has had some teaching experience...
"if the Mother has teaching experience"Excuse me, but what's with that? Who says that the Father can't stay at home and homeschool the kids?
As it was so aptly-put in Masjor Payne last night, little kids (especially boys) need good male role models.
If they are homeschooled by Mum till they are 17, and Dad is out working 9-5, it could well be that they miss out on the role-models generally supplied by Male Sports Coaches, Drama Teachers, Chemistry or Physics Teachers, whatever.
Homeschooling does have its place, but needs to be VERY carefully considered. If you want your kids to be homeschooled, PLEASE, get them involved in some extra-curricular clubs, like scouts, guides, rugby clubs, nippers, just so they don't grow up completely messed in the head :)
Nah, Mike, i dont have a problem with fathers having an active role in the upbringing of their kids, but mothers have been gifted in different areas to fathers, and so there are always going to be some areas that they should do and fathers should not. (this is also true vice versa) But, obviously the reason you don't get more stay-at-home dads is not always cos they're too busy working, but Dad's simply aren't made to stay at home all day and house clean and look after kids. Im not saying that they can shirk off this role, but women are definately better at this stuff than men.
As James Dobson says, we don't have to conform to the world and say that men and women are the same, and capable of exactly the same things, it is okay for us to acknowledge that God made women as more nurturing and caring and emotional and guys as less emotional and other stuff which i cant think of!!
Argh! tangent! anyway, what i mean is that sure, guys could be the home school teacher, but if its the father home all day, and the wife out 9-5 working, then thats not the ideal situation. Studies show that mothers and fathers have influences on their kids in different areas, and i dont know if guys are made to take on the role of the mother are they?
anyway Mike, what i meant when i said "it is better if the mother has had some teaching experience" was not really in relation to the gender debate, but in reference to whether it is better to have 'someone' teaching home schoolers who has never taught before, or 'someone' who has had a little teaching experience. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home