( Or choose a shorter, indexed version, focussed on: "Should One Work Hard?" )

{Extra at the bottom: lightbulb items: incandescent vs. Compact Fluorescent }

Work and Family; David's selection from Positive Futures list

Includes: '... Marilyn Waring, formerly an M.P. in New Zealand and author of a book about
work and women--I forget the name of the book, but the video is called "Who's Counting?".

From ???@??? Thu Mar 26 11:44:28 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA18313
	for ; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:39:03 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 14:39:48 -0500
From: "Byrnes, Patricia J." 
Message-ID: 
Subject: FW: One income household
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org'" 

>----------
From: 	Byrnes, Patricia J.
Sent: 	Wednesday, March 25, 1998 2:19 PM
To: 	positive futures@igc.org
Subject: 	RE: One income household

I have been thinking a lot about this lately. I am single and do not have direct experience in raising a family. I have, though, witnessed the lifestyles of my siblings and people I work with who seem to think that two salaries are absolutely necessary and have never taken the time to consider living or getting by any other way. I hear working mothers at the office complain all the time about how tough it is to have a family and work. These same women have houses, beautiful clothes, two cars, expensive vacations, cleaning ladies, eat lunch out and on and on. I think that many people in our country have accepted the two income family as the norm. Many say that they work so that they can give their children more than what they had. More what? Stuff? I can't think of anything more valuable to a child than having a parent at home. One woman I know brought her child to daycare when he was three months old! I seriously wonder what has happened in our society to bring about such a change in the way our families operate. I am not judging anybody. This topic genuinely concerns me because it seems like everyone is working themselves to death and not have no time to enjoy the people they are "working so hard for". I am working now to pay off my debts and develop a lifestyle that will allow me or a potential husband to raise the children at home rather than dropping them off at daycare where some teacher will see them take their first steps or pronounce pronounce a new word for the first time. I hope I don't sound critical. This really bugs me. Any input would be appreciated.

  Thanks.   Patricia
----------
>From: 	Kailua9[SMTP:Kailua9@aol.com]
>Sent: 	Wednesday, March 25, 1998 1:59 PM
>To: 	frugal-ed@listproc.wsu.edu
>Subject: 	Re: One income household
>
>My apologies to everyone for sending what was supposed to be a personal
>e-mail to Ellen to the whole list -- I tend to just punch that reply 
>button without thinking!  Sorry!
>

>
>Paula 
>
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Thu Mar 26 13:52:47 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA19474
	for ; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 16:32:10 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 17:23:08 -0500
From: "Susan O'Doherty" 
Message-ID: <351983CC.6D69@idt.net>
Subject: One income household
To: positive-futures@igc.org

Byrnes, Patricia J. wrote:
> >		          I think that many people in our country have accepted
> >the two income family as the norm.  Many say that they work so that
> >they can give their children more than what they had. More what?

In my case, a better education. We live in Brooklyn, NY, and are zoned for a public school that is worse than dreadful. Problems include violence, overcrowding, many children who aspire to gangs and practice by bullying others, and burned-out teachers who disrespect students. My son is temperamentally unsuited for large classes under the best of circumstances. We live very simply -- small apartment, no car, home-cooked vegetarian meals, few vacations, and only free or cheap entertainment. Our one "luxury" -- and I really don't count it as such -- is the Quaker school our son attends. Not only is he getting a much better education than my husband and I received in the public schools, but the values we try to teach him at home are reinforced and expanded there, rather than undermined.

I have a Ph.D. in clinical psychology but work at a job for which I am overqualified -- in a school similar to the one I am protecting my son from -- so I can be home as much as possible, even though he needs afterschool programs and "camps" due to commuting time and the disparity between public and private school schedules. However, at $1,500 a month for his tuition, no, that's not a typo, I don't know how much longer I will be able to afford to work at what is essentially a part-time job.

I have heard about parents who choose to work long hours just for luxuries, but I don't know any. Most are paying off debts, saving for a home, supporting an aging or ill parent, or have children with special needs. Also, as a child therapist, I must say that I've seen children of employed and unemployed parents, and I don't believe that it's possible to dichotomize that way (employed mom = maladjusted kid, unemployed mom = healthy child). What is important is that the child is well cared for, that the family is aware of and supportive of the child's needs, and that the child feels loved and nurtured. I've worked with single mothers who held down two jobs and were able to provide their children with these emotional necessities, and with families in which the mother stayed home and terrorized the kids because she should have been achieving something on her own. All of us on this list are looking for ways to live more simply and responsibly, but we can't all go about it the same way. I'm going to climb off my soapbox now.

Sue
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 05:49:45 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA17802
	for ; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 21:30:16 -0800 (PST)
CC: positive-futures@igc.org
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 21:33:53 -0800
From: Sallee Ebbett 
Message-ID: <3519E8C1.971@roanoke.infi.net>
References: <351983CC.6D69@idt.net>
Subject: Re: One income household
To: susan322@idt.net

Susan O'Doherty wrote:
> 
> I don't believe that it's
> possible to dichotomize that way (employed mom = maladjusted kid,
> unemployed mom = healthy child).  What is important is that the child is
> well cared for, that the family is aware of and supportive of the
> child's needs, and that the child feels loved and nurtured.  I've worked
> with single mothers who held down two jobs and were able to provide
> their children with these emotional necessities, and with families in
> which the mother stayed home and terrorized the kids because she should
> have been achieving something on her own.  All of us on this list are
> looking for ways to live more simply and responsibly, but we can't all
> go about it the same way.  I'm going to climb off my soapbox now.
> 
> Sue
> _

Thank you for getting on your soapbox, Sue! As a former single mom (my daughter's grown and on her own now) there were occasions when "well-meaning" friends gave me a hard time about working two and sometimes three jobs just to make ends meet - I also didn't get child support. I've never been sure just how they thought I was supposed to stay home and not work at all, tho' several suggested I should. Most of the frugal skills I still use today were begun back then. Even with three part-time jobs I couldn't always make ends meet. I suppose the answer might have been welfare, and I did that for a year, but was determined to get off "the dole" and be responsible for myself. Those same friends who stayed home with their kids are having much the same "teenager" troubles I had, so I can't see much difference. We all love our kids and try to do our best.

And you're right, what's right for me isn't necessarily right for you, or you, or you.....we make our own choices and live with the consequences. If we don't like the consequences, we change the choices next time around!

And with your insight into kids, Sue, you can get on your soapbox anytime! I'll be happy to read it!

Sallee in Virginia
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 05:51:25 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA10751
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 07:19:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 00:56:51 EST
From: Hotmom32 
Message-ID: <45a8c36d.3519ee25@aol.com>
Subject: Fwd: One income household
To: 

We are a one income family, and our child attends a private school. We are committed to this choice, no matter how much the tuition may go up every year, because we feel it is an excellent education and a worthwhile sacrifice. We are like susan.........simple meals, few luxuries. What kills me is that there are many parents like us at the school who feel the same way---we'll scrimp on ourselves so our kids can keep attending---but we notice that the parents that DO complain about the tuition and wonder if they can continue to afford it are the ones who have the top of the line luxury cars, expensive clothes, Hawaiian vacations, etc, etc. I do NOT want to tell my child I can't send him to his school anymore because I'd rather buy a Lexus.........yet I know many parents have made that very choice.

Erin
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 05:51:32 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA17187
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 07:51:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:08:44 GMT
From: gypsy@insync.net (Lindy M)
Message-ID: <3525601d.3499001@smtp.insync.net>
References: <351983CC.6D69@idt.net>
Subject: Re: One income household
To: positive-futures@igc.org

> I have a Ph.D. in clinical psychology but work at a job for which I am
>overqualified -- in a school similar to the one I am protecting my son
>from -- so I can be home as much as possible, even though he needs
>afterschool programs and "camps" due to commuting time and the disparity
>between public and private school schedules.  However, at $1,500 a month
>for his tuition, no, that's not a typo, I don't know how much longer I
>will be able to afford to work at what is essentially a part-time job.

My sister and her husband, who is a public middle school teacher, decided to take their two children out of public school for basically the same reasons as you. Their solution was for my sister to quit her job and homeschool the children. They don't have a lot of money of course, but have found it to be worth it to them.

Lindy Mendell
gypsy@insync.net

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 05:51:41 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA14464
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:27:32 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum 
Message-ID: <351A73E4.3462@polaristel.net>
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
References: <359c14ad.3519e2f4@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Diet and Death
To: positive-futures@igc.apc.org

DRGUS wrote:
> As a psychotherapist (and as a VS'er) I am interested in any references you
> have to these studies correlating touch, diet, and health.  Would you please
> post the references to the list.

The Pennsylvania Italians were discussed by Andrew Weil in his book, Spontaneous Healing. His cites are

C. Stout et al, "Unusually Low Incidence of Death from Myocardial Infarction: Study of an Italian American Community in Pennsylvania," Journal of the American Medical Association 188 (1964):845-49

A. Keys, "Arteriosclerotic Heart Disease in Roseto, Pennsylvania," Journal of the AMA 195 (1966)137-39.

He adds that the conclusions of these papers are quetions in a more recent article by S. Wolf et al, "Roseto Revisited: Further Data on the Incidence of Myocardial Infarction in Roseto and Neighboring Pennsylvania Communities," Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association 85 (1973):100-08.

The other two studies I mentioned, about couples touching while they sat in a restaurant and rabbits who didn't get sick if they were touched and held, even with a high-cholesterol diet, were reported on NPR recently, I'd say within the past two weeks, but I didn't hear the details about who did them or where they were written up.

Betsy
-- 
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@polaristel.net
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624

**************************************
There are those who are trying to set fire to the world.
We are in danger.
There is time only to work slowly,
There is no time not to love.

--Deena Metzger

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 08:04:36 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA14938
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:39:43 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:13:57 -0500
From: "Byrnes, Patricia J." 
Message-ID: 
Subject: RE: One income household
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org'" 

With regard to why some people have to send their kids to day care or have a second income in the home:

>"I have heard about parents who choose to work long hours just for
>luxuries, but I don't know any.  Most are paying off debts, saving for
>a home, supporting an aging or ill parent, or have children with special
needs"

She brings up some valid reasons for a second income. The part about "paying off debts" is what troubles me. Is it possible, in some instances, that the children are "paying" for an earlier period of easy spending? What I am trying to get at is what has changed in our society that put people in the position of having to work to "pay off debts" instead of staying home with the kids. How did all of the generations before us manage to have a parent at home most of the time? Is it because the people of this country have gotten away from living within their means and use credit cards like they are cash? Or they go through a period of credit card spending and then decide to have a child and can't stay home with her because they have to have a second income to pay off debts or keep up with the Jone's? (conspicuous consumption?) Is it due to a total shift in values?? Patricia

>----------
>From: 	Susan O'Doherty[SMTP:susan322@idt.net]
>Sent: 	Wednesday, March 25, 1998 5:23 PM
> ...
>  What is important is that the child is
>well cared for, that the family is aware of and supportive of the
>child's needs, and that the child feels loved and nurtured.  I've worked
>with single mothers who held down two jobs and were able to provide
>their children with these emotional necessities, and with families in
>which the mother stayed home and terrorized the kids because she should
>have been achieving something on her own.  All of us on this list are
>looking for ways to live more simply and responsibly, but we can't all
>go about it the same way.  I'm going to climb off my soapbox now.
>
>Sue
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 08:04:53 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA14047
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:01:40 -0500
From: "Byrnes, Patricia J." 
Message-ID: 
Subject: RE: One income household
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org'" 

There are definitely situations where the parent must take the child to daycare. Single mothers and fathers may have no other option. I think what some of us are questioning is why it has become the norm to drop them off at day care when to work barely covers daycare (take the cost of work and deduct takehome salary including transportation, gas or train, clothing, coffee, snacks, lunches et al)? We are exploring the "myth of the double income" household and how many people buy into it without really doing the math (see YMOYL) or thinking about the children. It seems like this is a given in our society and many parents are not willing to make the sacrifices (material things, status symbols?) that are necessary to having a parent at home. This discussion does not really apply to single-parent homes. Many people on this list have made the sacrifices necessary to have one parent stay home and get the benefit of seeing their children grow. This is not to say that People who must take their children to daycare are bad parents. Why has the double income household become so prevalent in our society? Is it because the standard of living for Americans has gotten so high that it is more important than the children? Thanks for your time and input. Patricia

>----------
>From: 	Sallee Ebbett[SMTP:srebbett@roanoke.infi.net]
>Sent: 	Thursday, March 26, 1998 12:33 AM
>To: 	susan322@idt.net
> ...
>Sallee in Virginia
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 09:54:54 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA03376
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:12:24 EST
From: TMW1968 
Message-ID: <679b3326.351a9a8b@aol.com>
Subject: Re: One income household
To: positive-futures@igc.org

Hi everyone!
I'm new to this list but would like some help/ suggestions. We have been a 2 income family until this week my husband's disability was denied. He will be going through vocational rehab for schooling/ training but that will take quite a long time. In the meantime I work as a nurse 36 hr per week. We have 11 and 14 yo. and very, very little in savings. Suggestions or any URL's w/ money saving tips etc? Thanks in advance.

    Terry
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 10:32:29 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA23501
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:28:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:03:21 +1200
From: David MacClement 
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980327080321.00729b94@mail.oocities.com>
Subject: Should one work hard?
To: positive-futures 

At 14:39 25/03/98 -0500, you wrote:
>From: Byrnes, Patricia J.
>Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 2:35 PM
>To: 	'positive futures@igc.org'
>Subject: 	One income household
>

... This topic genuinely concerns me because it seems like everyone is working themselves to death and not having time to enjoy the people they are "working so hard for". I am working now to pay off my debts and develop a lifestyle that will allow me or a potential husband to raise the children at home ... This really bugs me. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.

  Patricia
----------
>From: Kailua9
>Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 1:59 PM
>To: 	frugal-ed@listproc.wsu.edu
>Subject: 	Re: One income household
>
>On the "one-income" subject, I would like to bring up a point that I've
>never heard mentioned about it -- when figuring out whether they can afford
>to live on just one income, people don't realize that the added pressure on
the one wage-earner tends to motivate him/her to achieve more than they might
>have otherwise.  This is purely anecdotal, of course, but in my husband's
>case, he started out as a carpenter when our first son was born.  Now,
>sixteen years ... later, he is a project manager for a construction company
> ...
>My brother is also a good example.  He started out in construction as a
>laborer with no skills whatsoever, just a willing attitude.  When his first
>daughter was born, and they opted to have his wife stay home with her, he was
>worried sick about how they could afford to lose that second salary.  Now,
>five years later, he is a superintendent and brings in an ample salary ...
>Paula 
>

** I'm sorry to say that, once again I don't agree that this is a 'good thing': "the added pressure on the one wage-earner tends to motivate him/her to achieve more". Though I'm having _some_ doubts about my decisions over the last 20 years.

I have three children, all at university or already with degrees (the oldest is a mechanical engineer: 26, though not in that kind of job now), and I've been influencing them to only work if they really like the job, the rest of the time living on less than $2,800 p.a. I've also let them know that I'm not looking forward to grandchildren, though of course leaving the actual decision to them individually. (I have to say my wife differs from me on this. The "not looking forward" part!)

The 2 younger ones seem quite happy to live under the same roof with me. At least for now. They have guaranteed food (the same as I eat, supplemented with more fruit & veg. that my wife buys, partly for herself), a roof over their heads, peace and quiet when they want it, no assigned chores and ~$70/wk for expenses during term-time (40 weeks), which my wife pays from her Physics lecturing salary. Easy to see why they stay? It's not the whole story: they have made it clear (though it's really only been true for the last year) that they value highly, being able to talk to me about anything and everything. They're also remarkably pleasant and able young people (though the youngest, who left to catch the bus a few minutes ago, has my trait of quick irritability!); a friend, who's a Member of Parliament and one of the co-leaders of the N.Z. Greens, also values our children highly, as does her partner (who in the past studied social Anthropology like our youngest).

Part of the reason I've been pointing this out is the various comments about not putting young children into daycare. We did, from only a few months old, and not only have we seen no evidence of harm or lack of benefit, but believe the kids actually are much better at most things now, than my wife and I are or were. It's true we took a lot of care in choosing and monitoring the day-care centres (in Ottawa for the oldest, then here in N.Z. when we moved). Also, neither of us is good at being around young children, so getting someone else who wants to and is good at it, like our daughter is now, is the obvious (and we think, successful) answer.

Anyway: basically I think a job should be optional, now there are so many people on earth, with those who are "making" huge amounts of money from the $trillions sloshing daily around the world (electronically) being required to pay sufficient tax to supply between $500 and $2000 p.a. to every adult on earth. If that slows down the economic growth-rate, so much the better. There is no need for growth in use of resources, though there could be growth in services. Governments and their corporate henchmen have got away too long with promoting the un-truth that everyone benefits from growth.

!Enough! (not just for now, for all time!)

**    http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Delphi/3142/index.html#top
David MacClement  and 
      http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/6783/index.html#top

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 16:13:48 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA08584
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:43:38 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum 
Message-ID: <351AF63A.25DD@polaristel.net>
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
References: 
Subject: Re: One income household
To: positive-futures@igc.org

Byrnes, Patricia J. wrote:
 
> What I am trying to get at is what has changed in our society
> that put people in the position of having to work to "pay off debts"
> instead of staying home with the kids.  How did all of the generations
> before us manage to have a parent at home most of the time?

Here's one reason, from Rachel's Environment Weekly a month or two back:

In the U.S., between 1972 and 1995, real wages for a full-time worker declined 19% in inflation-adjusted dollars. In 1996, income for men with full-time jobs fell another 0.9%.

It's a very different economy today than it was when people in their 30s and 40s and 50s--even those in their 20s--were growing up. In the 1950s, when I was a child, a single income was plenty to support a family. Not only is that not necessarily true now, but more and more jobs pay less than they used to, in real dollars, so that even a person holding down one and a half jobs of this sort can't bring in enough to support a family. This is not the only reason for two parents to work, but it is a significant one, contrary to the popular description of the "yuppie" couples who want more and more luxuries (they exist, too, but I think the working poor who are in this situation, and have little choice about whether to work or not, are often ignored). Another post: how VS applies/doesn't apply to people who have little choice in the economy.

> Is it
> because the people of this country have gotten away from living within
> their means and use credit cards like they are cash?  Or they go through
> a period of credit card spending and then decide to have a child and
> can't stay home with her because they have to have a second income to
> pay off debts or keep up with the Jone's? (conspicuous consumption?)  Is
> it due to a total shift in values?? 

I doubt if most people who are in a comfortable place economically would identify their motivation for needing two incomes as "keeping up with the Joneses." The truth is, as you said in another post, they just haven't ever thought to question the American Dream, especially as it has evolved in the past few decades. They are lulled into *not* thinking about it by all the techniques that consumer culture and the global economy can muster--propaganda about consumerism from TV, movies, ads in every conceivable location and medium; distraction by the demands of getting, operating and maintaining all the labor-saving devices we have come to accept as standard; indoctrination by an education system that rewards passivity and discourages critical thinking; scare tactics about scarcity, the spectre of illness and old age, crime and other things people need to defend against by having more money and stuff; and out-and-out deception, the big lies about "progress" and "growth" and "rising standard of living" and "technology" and so on and so on.

It's my opinion that a lot of people are asleep; I also perceive that a lot of them are starting to wake up (viz. the Yearning for Balance study done by the Merck Family Foundation a couple years ago). For folks who have been passive receptacles for consumer culture's messages all their lives, waking up to the falseness and destructiveness of those messages can be pretty scary and difficult to do without support, and, of course, our society offers zero support for this kind of rising awareness. I think it's important to be non-judgmental of other people's values if possible, by recognizing that they have probably accepted those values blindly, without even asking themselves if these are values they want to hold.

>From another angle, though, I don't think it's all about money. For women who saw their mothers' talents, yearnings and individuality stifled into the limited role of "homemaker" in the 50s and 60s, being able to seek a career both for self-expression and to be valued for "what they are" is the most obvious way to avoid that trap. I won't go into a history or a critique of feminism in this regard, but I think working *can* satisfy a legitimate desire for mothers who want to define themselves as human beings with skills and contributions to make in the world aside from their biological role as mothers. Such women are probably better mothers for being out in the work world than they would be staying at home.

Related to that, again due to the way Western culture especially in the U.S. has evolved, caring for children alone in the nuclear family is very difficult and, some would say, unnatural. Even the strongest personalities sometimes crumble, or come close, from the relentless day-in, day-out responsibility for young children and a home, sometimes not seeing another adult all day until the spouse returns from work too tired to engage in any kind of conversation. I don't think it should be at all surprising that women who have a choice, economically, would want to escape from this often dreary existence. This is not the way "nature" intended child-rearing to take place, IMHO. As Hillary said, "it takes a village." That's just not how child-rearing is set up in this culture.

I chose to stay home with my sons in their early years, and I felt some days that I barely survived. When my husband decided he didn't enjoy his job anymore, we switched roles, and he became a "house-husband" or "stay-at-home dad" while I went out and got a full-time job. We did this for about four years, until we had to have an emergency roof job on our house for $12,000, and had to take out a second mortgage to pay for it (it wasn't just a new roof--it was new trusses, beams, the whole structure). My job, as a community newspaper editor, paid nowhere near enough to cover the additional several hundred dollars a month for this loan payment, so Dennis went to work again at a job he hated. (We also didn't have insurance because my employer's program was ludicrously expensive, and my salary was increasingly inadequate even aside from the cost of the roof.)

As I see it, the reasons for the two-income family are complex, and it is important not to blame the people making this choice for somehow having wrong values. Believe me, as both a stay-at-home mom and a working professional who had to leave young children at home and in day care, I have been on both sides of this sometimes emotional issue, and I think it's important that neither side think they have command of the higher moral ground.

The key is a transformation of people's attitudes toward money and toward the Earth. Somehow, they need to see the hollowness of the messages they've been accepting, and to connect their own unhappiness to those very messages, those false pictures theu've had in their heads of what it means to be a human being and live on this jewel-like planet. Whatever each of us is doing--living as centered a life as we can and thereby generating positive energy for change and a model for others to see, talking to friends and neighbors, writing letters to the editor or calling on talk shows, working in *any way* to spread the message of slowing down and thinking about what we're doing--is helping to move the change. I think, as I said, a lot of folks are starting to make these connections, and as more and more do so, the cultural transformation that is already under way will grow stronger and more visible.

My two cents.

Betsy

-- 
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@polaristel.net
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624

**************************************
There are those who are trying to set fire to the world.
We are in danger.
There is time only to work slowly,
There is no time not to love.

--Deena Metzger
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 16:57:42 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA10476
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:52:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:10:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Gray 
Message-Id: <199803270410.UAA15762@igc4.igc.org>
Subject: one income household
To: positive-futures@igc.org

From: "Michele D. Hirt" 
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:16:45 -0500

Susan O'Doherty wrote:
What is important is that the child is
well cared for, that the family is aware of and supportive of the
child's needs, and that the child feels loved and nurtured. 

from Michele:
Susan, I can't agree more.  I am an only child.  My mom was a "stay at 
home" mom, mostly, until I was 11 & my dad suffered his first heart 
attack.  Even though she stayed home, I have to say that after 3 years 
of full-time motherhood, she got bored.  My parents spent their time in 
bars.  I usually went with them just to be with them & was surprised 
that EVERYONE didn't spend every evening in bars.  I learned to make 
dinner for myself when I was 12 (my parents wouldn't come home to make 
dinner for me) & routinely spent weekends completely alone throughout 
high school.  The first time they left me alone for a few hours, I was 4 
years old.

My point here is NOT to make you pity me, but to say that just because the mother (or father) doesn't engage in full-time paid employment, doesn't mean that they're being good parents.

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 19:20:17 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA28342
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:46:47 -0800 (PST)
CC: "'positive-futures@igc.org'" 
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:00:34 -0800
From: Sallee Ebbett 
Message-ID: <351B4082.39B7@roanoke.infi.net>
References: 
Subject: Re: FEMINISM - was One income household
To: "Byrnes, Patricia J." 

Well, I'm going to try to send this topic in a different, but related (I think) direction and see what everyone's ideas might be:

Patricia, since you bring up YMOYL, something that has troubled me since I first read the book (and I'm reading it again for about the fifth time - it's still troubling me) is this:

How does FEMINISM figure into this? I really have had trouble getting my head around this one.

Women's issues relate to the topic of the one-income household. After all, who is most likely to earn the higher income in a two-income household? GENERALLY SPEAKING it's the male. So who is most likely to stay home with the children? Probably it will be the female.

And if we're trying to get to FI to do the things we love - and raising children is certainly up there on the list for many folks - what if one of the things we love (as women) is making a contribution to an organization? (as well as to our families?)

What do we do with the kids if we have reached FI and want to volunteer our time to an organization? Do we forego the opportunity to devote ourselves to our causes so the kids don't spend time in daycare?

Now is there any difference if we've not yet reached FI, but want to work for an organization and receive pay for that work - AND WE LOVE WHAT WE'RE DOING?

I realize that many of us don't particularly like the work we do, and are struggling to get to the place where we don't have to do it (FI). But if we're doing it to achieve other goals that are important to us (such as Susan's public school employment to pay private school tuition for her kids), is that violating our Financial Integrity? IMHO, I don't think so.

Patricia, I really wasn't and am not challenging what you've said. You've made good points. And for many people raising children is the most important work they'll ever do. But you got me to thinking yet again about how Voluntary Simplicity relates to feminism, if indeed it does.

And I suspect I'll hear from many of you that it doesn't relate at all!

I'm listening...
Sallee in Virginia

Byrnes, Patricia J. wrote:
>   We are exploring the
> "myth of the double income" household and how many people buy into it
> without really doing the math (see YMOYL) or thinking about the
> children.  It seems like this is a given in our society and many parents
> are not willing to make the sacrifices (material things, status
> symbols?) that are necessary to having a parent at home.  This
> discussion does not really apply to single-parent homes.  Many people on
> this list have made the sacrifices necessary to have one parent stay
> home and get the benefit of seeing their children grow. ...
> Is it because the standard of living for Americans has gotten so high
> that it is more important than the children? Thanks for your time and
> input.     Patricia
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 06:09:27 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA10439
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:27:29 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:32:35 EST
From: PRichter1 
Message-ID: 
Subject: Re: Work, child-raising, choice, and Feminism
To: srebbett@roanoke.infi.net, positive-futures@igc.org

Sallee and Betsy have raised some very important issues in the discussion on one income families. Nothing is as simple as it seems.

First, there are economic factors involved in two income families. Jobs that are female-dominant are lower paid jobs, period. This has been true since the first part of this century when the first typists (secretaries) were male and were extremely well paid positions. When they turned female-dominant, they became poorly paid. Same for teachers, for social workers, for corporate public relations -- many fields that become female - dominant. And if you look at the annual salary survey in Working Woman magazine (not one of my regular reads, but someone gave me their last salary survey issue), women in any profession averages from around $.58 to around $.68 on the dollar for what males earn. Yes, we do see more couples where the male chooses to stay at home and the female is the major bread winner, but as a rule, the economics favor women having to make the choices between staying at home and working at jobs that are often marginal. And the farther down the economic ladder one goes, the more the economics of this come into play (women with low education coming off of welfare typically earn far less than their male counterparts).

Second: the recent rise in choice to stay at home to raise children is difficult for some to do. Betsy pointed out how difficult this is for some people. And Tom's story about his mother staying home yet not providing nurturing love is another example. Truth is, our society has rewarded those in the workforce with much greater status from practically the very beginning of this country (read about Puritan family life for further insight). As Sallee pointed out, the rise of feminism in my lifetime has contributed to this big-time. I was in high school and college when Betty Friedan and others came on the scene. Many of us realized that the big status was "out there'" in the workforce and not at home. So we invested heavily in career development and spent major effort on our professional lives. When kids came along, we bought into the day care game -- it was atrocious (still is), but when the kids became school age, we tired of *that* particular battle and left it to others. The point of this is, women within the last thirty years have taken advantage of having a much greater freedom of choice.

As with anything else, sometimes we find that we are drowning in our own freedom. I did choose to stay home for the first couple of years of my son's life. It was incredibly difficult, especially since we relocated to another city because of a job transfer when my son was 7 months old. I will never forget the gnawing aloneness that I felt each and every day as I took care of the house and Ryan. My husband was not a social person, so we never went out when he came home from work. I did not feel "fulfilled" or anything else. I couldn't wait to get back into the work force, so I went back to school for a masters in social work. Divorced midway through that program. And after that, I felt that I had no choice as to work or not to work. I have been focused on career ever since.

But now as an empty nester, I have been finding that I have neglected my relationship to myself and intimate relationships with others in those years of career focus and single parenting. I love what I do, there's just too much of it and I don't know how to forge close personal relationships much anymore. And as a minister, I hear similar stories all the time. People don't have time for friendships yet yearn for them. There's too much pressure on the nuclear family for many of those to be the nurturing sanctuaries that many people wish they could be. Many of us have chosen to be players in the economic marketplace or professional world for a variety of reasons, but find an emptiness at the core of our beings. And others who have chosen to stay home raising children find a similar emptiness because there are pressures there, too. There was a fairly recent study that found that, though many complain of working 60 to 80 hour weeks, they actually prefer staying at work than coming home to the "second shift" with their families. Tragic!

I think that the strong negative (and I must say irrational) reaction to feminism is rooted in this dual reality. It is easy to blame a movement for producing radical change in our lives (we no longer live in the June Cleaver world that many idealize) when the real problem is our failure, for many, many decades, to look at the concept of sustainable communities (without the power trips and competition) and the ramifications that these can have ecologically, economically, spiritually, sociologically, and psychologically. Betsy said it beautifully:

>> The key is a transformation of people's attitudes toward money and toward the Earth. Somehow, they need to see the hollowness of the messages they've been accepting, and to connect their own unhappiness to those very messages, those false pictures theu've had in their heads of what it means to be a human being and live on this jewel-like planet. <<

Instead, we have been market-driven as rugged individuals and we are collapsing in many ways under this weight. The blessing is that some of us are beginning, in this movement called VS, to look at the ramifications not only for our lives but for the quality of life that is so lacking around us.

Can you tell it's sermon writing day? I'm procrastinating on the "real" sermon-- lucky you ;-) But I'm preaching this evening to a regional gathering -- now I really know what I'll be preaching about!

Out of the pulpit now,
Priscilla Richter

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 06:09:58 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA08194
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 06:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:18:09 -0500
From: "Susan O'Doherty" 
Message-ID: <351B9900.60BE@idt.net>
References: <199803270411.UAA15788@igc4.igc.org> <351B5552.423C@bc.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: accumulation of debt
To: positive-futures@igc.org

suzan badgley wrote:
> 
> Tom Gray wrote:
> > The NEXT time I went to school, I did the "Community College" thing & have
> > discovered that it REALLY does make a difference.  I saved a tremendous amount of money by going to a cc as opposed to a "regular" university.
> 
> Hi all, this has been my path for the last two years.  I also went to a
> private college - Canadian International College with all Japanese
> students -  to get my TESL Certificate.  I worked with the Provincial
> Accreditation Institute to recieve university credit in a  private
> "non-univercity" institute.  This has taken a long time, but success
> came and in the end I have saved myself one full year of post graduate
> school.  The university I am now attending is a university/college which
> assesses and credits prior learning.  I will have my degree in three
> semesters!!
> 
> Just my two cents worth for this evening - a break from the term
> papers!!
> Suzan

I wish there were more "community"-style graduate schools. This was my introduction to debt -- I went to a very inexpensive state-sponsored undergraduate school, but when I decided to go on for my Ph.D. when I was in my 30s, there were few options. I had never owed a cent in my life before this venture. Financial aid, outside of loans, was sparse because competition for these schools was so fierce that the schools just didn't have to accept people who weren't willing to pay it all themselves. Even so, psychology training was considered a good "investment," since job opportunities were plentiful. However, the field changed rapidly due to managed care, and many of us were left with huge debts that we will spend many years paying back. I know that by YMOYL standards, we should have waited until we had saved the $60,000+, but realistically, for people with a specific vocation, that does not seem like a good option. I don't know what the answer is.

Sue
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 06:10:07 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA20552
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: 27 Mar 1998 09:53 EST
From: "Marco Santarelli" 
Message-Id: <199803271511.HAA06915@igcb.igc.org>
Subject: re: Should one work hard?
To: positive-futures@igc.org

....I would like to add that I agree that we work entirely too much in this country. In my position 50 hours a week is the norm rather than 40. I would like to see the work week shortened to 32 hours instead of the standard 40. Economists talk about economic growth and increased productivity that will in turn increase the amount of opportunities for the unemployed. However its seems to me that large companies increase the workload per employee rather hire more people. I think that increased productivity is leading to the destruction of our planet's habitats. I wish we could all work less, buy less, and live more.

Marco

>Subject: 	One income household
> >
> 			  ... This topic genuinely concerns me because it
> seems like everyone is working themselves to death and not having time
> to enjoy the people they are "working so hard for".  I am working now
> to pay off my debts and develop a lifestyle that will allow me or a
> potential husband to raise the children at home ...
> This really bugs me. Any input would be appreciated.  Thanks.
>   Patricia
> ----------
> >From: Kailua9
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 1:59 PM
> >To: 	frugal-ed@listproc.wsu.edu
> >Subject: 	Re: One income household
> >
> >On the "one-income" subject, I would like to bring up a point that I've
> >never heard mentioned about it -- when figuring out whether they can afford
> >to live on just one income, people don't realize that the added pressure on
> the one wage-earner tends to motivate him/her to achieve more than they might
> >have otherwise.  This is purely anecdotal, of course, but in my husband's
> >case, he started out as a carpenter when our first son was born.  Now,
> >sixteen years ... later, he is a project manager for a construction company
> > ...
> >Paula 
> >
>[ David MacClement wrote:]
> **  I'm sorry to say that, once again I don't agree that this is a 'good
> thing': "the added pressure on the one wage-earner tends to motivate
> him/her to achieve more". 
> ...
> 	The 2 younger ones seem quite happy to live under the same roof with me.
> At least for now.  They have guaranteed food (the same as I eat, ...
> 
> 	Part of the reason I've been pointing this out is the various comments
> about not putting young children into daycare.  We did, from only a few
> months old, and not only have we seen no evidence of harm or lack of
> benefit, but believe the kids actually are much better ...
>						     Also, neither of us is good at being
> around young children, so getting someone else who wants to and is good at
> it, like our daughter is now, is the obvious ... answer.
> 
> 	Anyway: basically I think a job should be optional, now there are so many
> people on earth, ...
> sufficient tax to supply between $500 and $2000 p.a. to every adult
> ...
> **   http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Delphi/3142/index.html#top
>David MacClement  and 
>      http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/6783/index.html#top
> _________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 10:01:53 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA13155
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:12:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:32:52 -0600
From: "Mark Burch" 
Message-Id: <199803271533.JAA03071@smtp1.mts.net>
Subject: Working Hard
To: 

I'm not sure now who it was that posted the message about how having five or six kids to support can really make a man focus and "make something of himself". Similarly, being sole bread winner for the household.

This highlights for me the relation between work and simple living. One reason I choose to live simply is so that work can find a _proportionate_ place among the other occupations that comprise my life. My partner works for wages half time as a laboratory technologist. Half time work is very healthy for her. It leaves her substantial time for her own studies in homeopathy and art, for spirtiual reading and meditation, for gardening, exercise and prayer. I "work" full-time, but at a pace which more resembles part-time and I'm doing things I absolutely love---writing, speaking, facilitating workshops. I take days off when I wish because I'm self-employed. My work finds its place within a life which also includes reading, martial arts, gardening with Charlotte, meditation practice, friendships, children, homecare. We are not financially independent.

I have no quarrel with the assertion that working full-time at wage labour when one is the sole economic support for one's family "makes something" out of a person. The question is, what? As Betsy Barnum has already pointed out, a generation ago mostly male bread winners worked hard so their families could keep up with the "Joneses". Today, both men and women are working half again as hard just to "keep up"---forget the Joneses. Is this progress? Is this good for people? By this point in human history, shouldn't we have found ways to provide what everyone really needs on two or three hours of labour per day and apply the rest of our energies to more important things than continually re-arranging our pillows? By comparison, the Bushmen in the Kalahari Desert are more "civilized". Ask any Bushman and he/she will tell you outright---they live to dance. Gathering food is just what they need to do to get ready for the next dance. We live to work. "Gathering" food is just what we do to get ready for our next shift at work. What's wrong with this picture?

Mark Burch
mburch@mb.sympatico.ca
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 10:02:17 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA19064
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:10:19 -0500
From: Carol Bruce 
In-Reply-To: <199803271511.HAA06915@igcb.igc.org>
Message-Id: <199803271718.JAA02533@m3.sprynet.com>
Subject: re: Should one work hard?
To: positive-futures@igc.org

Marco wrote: 
>....I would like to add that I agree that we work entirely too much
>in this country. In my position 50 hours a week is the norm rather than
>40. I would like to see the work week shortened to 32 hours instead of the
>standard 40.  Economist talk about economic growth and increased 
>productivity that will in turn increase the amount of opportunities for the
>unemployed. However its seems to me that large companies increase the
>workload per employee rather hire more people. I think that increased
>productivity is leading to the destruction of our planets habitats. I wish 
>we could all work less, buy less, and live more.

This made me come out of lurking. I wonder why so many people "work" so many hours--actually it seems like "putting in time" would be more to the point. When I worked at conventional jobs, I marvelled at how many hours people spent wasting time chatting and in useless meetings. Since I became a freelance contractor, my productivity has increased tremendously--since I don't sit in an office all day--I work at home or am in the classroom teaching computer classes. I have an incentive to get work done so I can have time to do more important things. And, in all the conventional jobs I had before I went freelance, I never had an employer threaten to fire me for working only 40 hours--because when I was there, I got things done. If the employer gave me too much for one person, I told them so, and asked which things they wanted done first or at all. We are not slaves unless we choose to be. Of course, your mileage may vary.

Like several people on the list, I've read and been influenced by Ishmael (author: Daniel Quinn). When people read that book, or YMOYL, and ask "What should I do now?" my answer is always "Less." Find a way to work less. I don't know what led Marco to feel that the norm is working 50 hours a week. My husband works that much sometimes because he feels he "has to." I ask him "who is making you?" The reality is that he expects himself to work that much. He is slowly changing his attitude, though, after reading Ishmael and part of YMOYL.

Comments?

Carol

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 10:02:34 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA18738
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:03:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:33:27 -0500
From: "Byrnes, Patricia J." 
Message-ID: 
Subject: RE: One income household
To: "'Betsy Barnum'" ,	 

Dear Betsy: Thank you for you well thought out and well written response to my query regarding the double income home. I have been talking to people about this and you are the first person that really shed some light on it for me. I understand that in many cases two incomes are a necessity and I can also understand your point about women wanting to be in the work force. But I think that too many people (not everyone) want the kids and the job and the vacations and the stuff. Your point about being judgmental is well taken. I am not passing judgment on those folks who decide to try to have it all. And you make a good point about it taking more than a parent or a family to raise a child.

Herein lies my true question.

For those people whose circumstances would allow them to raise children at home rather than in daycare centers, why is this done. It seems like parents are putting themselves before their children (not everyone). All I ever hear at work is women complaining about being away from their babies (I am not addressing single mothers or fathers here). I think this is sad and reflects a change in our society away from putting importance an spending valuable time with the children. "Quality" time just isn't enough. It looks to me like the parents and the children suffer. As you pointed out, many people will not or never think to take the time to re-examine their lifestyles and adapt them so that they are conducive toward rearing children in a healthy way.

I see a lot of young couples starting families before they are economically ready, get the mortgage, finance the car and the brand new nursery and baby clothes. I disagree with you in that know allot of people who do try to keep up with the Jones' wearing designer clothing and driving the best cars and the complaining that they work so hard and have no money. These people would never even think of stepping into a thrift store or going through the paper for used items that are perfectly good. My family and some of my acquaintances would top the list. This is disturbing to me. betsy, thanks so much for helping me to understand this better. As you can see I am still try to figure it out but you have helped me a great deal. I will stop ranting about his now. Patricia :-)

>From: 	Betsy Barnum[SMTP:bbarnum@polaristel.net]
>Sent: 	Thursday, March 26, 1998 7:43 PM
>To: 	positive-futures@igc.org
> 	Re: One income household
>
>Byrnes, Patricia J. wrote:
>> What I am trying to get at is what has changed in our society
>> that put people in the position of having to work to "pay off debts"
>> instead of staying home with the kids.  How did all of the generations
>> before us manage to have a parent at home most of the time?
>
>Here's one reason, from Rachel's Environment Weekly a month or two
>back:
>
>In the U.S., between 1972 and 1995, real wages for a full-time
>worker declined 19% in inflation-adjusted dollars.  In 1996,
>income for men with full-time jobs fell another 0.9%.
>
>It's a very different economy today than it was when people in their
>30s
>and 40s and 50s--even those in their 20s--were growing up. In the
>1950s,
>when I was a child, a single income was plenty to support a family. Not
>only is that not necessarily true now, but more and more jobs pay less
> ...
>-- 
>Betsy Barnum
>bbarnum@polaristel.net
>http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 10:03:20 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA02318
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:09:00 -0800 (PST)
From: "Fingerson, Linda" 
Message-id: <351BEE52@msm.cgnet.com>
Subject: Re: Work, child-raising, choice, and Feminism
To: positive-futures 

I think the study is Arlie Russell Hochschild's recent book, which got a lot of attention in the press.

Best,
Linda
l.fingerson@fordfound.org

 ----------
From: PRichter1
To: srebbett@roanoke.infi.net; positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: Re: Work, child-raising, choice, and Feminism
Date: Friday, March 27, 1998 5:32AM

>Sallee and Betsy have raised some very important issues in the discussion on one income families. Nothing is as simple as it seems.

>There was a fairly recent study that found that, though many complain of working 60 to 80 hour weeks, they actually prefer staying at work than coming home to the "second shift" with their families. Tragic!

>Out of the pulpit now,
>Priscilla Richter
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 10:03:30 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04526
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:28:16 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:31:12 -0600 (CST)
From: CK Valois/B Brummitt 
Message-Id: <199803271831.MAA23001@perham.eot.com>
Subject: re: Should one work hard?
To: "Marco Santarelli" , positive- futures list 

I've mentioned this book before...but this is a good time to do so again. An excellent treatise on this subject that I picked up on the Ferry from Vancouver to Victoria...about 3 years ago.

Working Harder Isn't Working; How we can save the environment, the economy and our sanity by working less and enjoying life more By Bruce O'Hara, published by New Star Books in Vancouver, 1993

Bruce

  Cheryl Valois and Bruce Brummitt
            
             46N56' 95W20'
   Visit the Natural Building Gallery
   


----------
From: "Marco Santarelli" 
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: re:Should one work hard?
Date: 27 Mar 1998 09:53 EST

....I would like to add that I agree that we work entirely too much in this country. In my position 50 hours a week is the norm rather than 40. I would like to see the work week shortened to 32 hours instead of the standard 40. Economist talk about economic growth and increased productivity that will in turn increase the amount of opportunities for the unemployed. However its seems to me that large companies increase the workload per employee rather hire more people. I think that increased productivity is leading to the destruction of our planets habitats. I wish we could all work less, buy less, and live more.

Marco

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 10:03:54 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA11480
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:22:30 -0400
From: "Vicki Madden" 
Message-ID: <19980327152959.AAA2764@[206.42.131.42]>
Subject: work, money, gender stuff
To: positive-futures@igc.org

Priscilla wrote:

I think that the strong negative (and I must say irrational) reaction to
feminism is rooted in this dual reality.  It is easy to blame a movement for
producing radical change in our lives (we no longer live in the June Cleaver
world that many idealize) when the real problem is our failure, for many, many
decades, to look at the concept of sustainable communities

Now Vicki is writing:

This is very true. People are suckered into blaming feminism, when it is really, *as usual*, advertising and corporations needing to create "needs" in us. The essay written by Carol Flinders in the first edition "Laurel's Kitchen" was an eye-opener to me. It is called Keeper of the Keys and it is about women's roles in a family. And how advertisers need to divide us as individuals and as families in order to keep us wanting, needing that elusive I-know-not-what so that we keep buying. When we focus on wholeness within ourselves as individuals and us as families, we don't need so much status stuff.

Capitalizing and coopting feminism, ads (and ad-mediums like women's mags) have constantly fed us two simultaneous messages: you must have a spotless home, elaborate meals, be a sex symbol to your husband, lose 20 pounds this weekend, etc; and also you are much too good to be stuck at home as a housewife, you ought to be working. And then when we work, we spend a lot of the disposible income we are making on stuff to try to create that first illusion.

Vicki
...proud to be a feminist and proud to sacrifice my ability to make money
to spending more time with my son
...day-care mom and single breadwinner and now remarried and still needing
to balance making a living and making a home for my family
...not seeing any contradictions in this at all: it's human life

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 13:11:27 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA19019
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:06:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:05:43 -0600
From: "Jones, Jane" 
Message-ID: 
Subject: Working hard
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org>'" 

Working hard, working smart, and working well are all sources of great satisfaction in my life, as is life balance. Most people get a tremendous amount of satisfaction and meaning from work; in fact if the author of Flow, Mihalyi Csikczentmihalyi, is to be believed, people who are asked to report moments of optimal experiences are most often reporting that these occur at work.

I think we want to tease out the issues of work as exchange for money and work as a way of creating meaning in life; not that they are separate necessarily. I feel very fortunate that what I do for money is also what I do because I love it. And most fortunate that I am on an academic calendar, so I have less time demands from this work I love. I also manage to minimize commuting time by living 1/2 mile from campus and walking or biking to work, this last step has been a very intentional choice.

I don't think we can work too hard when we love our work and the rest of our life is in balance. My opinion.

Jane Jones
Professor, Health Promotion, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point
Jane Jones

Be Well
Have Fun
Work Smart
Stay in Touch

Health Promotion and Human Development
101 College of Professional Studies
University of Wisconsin Stevens Point WI 54481

715 346 4414
fax  346 3751

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 13:11:36 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA11474
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:19:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:09:22 -0600
From: "Rutledge Research: Carol Fabos-Gruba" 
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980327150922.007566e8@itis.com>
Subject: parental sacrifice
To: positive-futures@igc.org

For those people whose circumstances would allow them
to raise children at home rather than in daycare centers, why is this
done.  It seems like parents are putting themselves before their
children (not everyone). 

--------------

Yeah.

I will come out of "lurk mode" now to add a note.  

I am a homeschool mom of one and working only 6 hours/week.  But I have
been a very bad parent, a little better than bad, then ok, then good, then...

First I was a young single parent who hated the thought of being called
"mother".  Somewhere in there I made a commitment to parenthood.  That I
would not do a half-ass job as I thought I had been doing.  

I struggled to accomplish this while working full-time and paying high
daycare.  After coupling up with my now husband, I felt I could do a better
job, but still felt like our two jobs were draining us and that school was
making my son bored and ignored.  

To get to the point of homeschooling I first had to do the following 3 things:

*  fully commit to putting out the best parenting skills I could every day
   including reading about how to parent, observing healthy families, even to
   the point of asking other parents about how they "do it"

*  struggle to ignore material wealth

*  give myself respect as a PARENT and demand that respect from others. 

The 3rd point is very tough if you're raised to have a CAREER.  "So what do
you do?" someone asks.
 "I parent.  I homeschool." 

I do feel good about where i am now as a parent but feel like i must have
made all the mistakes a parent could make.

carol 
rutledge@itis.com
madison, wi

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:26:41 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA20561
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:42:42 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:33:17 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum 
Message-ID: <351C373D.7ABF@polaristel.net>
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
References: <3.0.3.32.19980327150922.007566e8@itis.com>
Subject: Re: parental sacrifice
To: positive-futures@igc.org

Rutledge Research: Carol Fabos-Gruba wrote:

> The 3rd point is very tough if you're raised to have a CAREER.  "So what do
> you do?" someone asks.
>  "I parent.  I homeschool."

I have found this one of the most difficult things in going against the
cultural current: To make a statement like this, and not feel ashamed. I
have heard retired people say the same. I know a very active and
involved retired man in my community who, when asked what he "does,"
responds that he is retired. "Oh, you don't do anything!" is what he
often hears. *Very* frustrating.

I recently saw a video about Marilyn Waring, formerly an M.P. in New
Zealland and author of a book about work and women--I forget the name of
the book, but the video is called "Who's Counting?" In it she talks
about the U.N. rules for measuring economies, rules which all countries
must follow if they are to be members of the UN and benefit from its
programs. These "rules" specifically state that anyone who is not being
paid in money for the work they do is "unoccupied." This of course
includes mothers who take care of children and homes (fathers, too),
subsistence farmers, volunteers, people who get what they need by
trading in kind--the list goes on.

Her point was to show how little of what what women do, worldwide, in
almost every country and community, is valued because they are not paid
for much of their economic activity. This, rightly or wrongly,
translates into the idea that women *themselves* are not valued, when
"value" can only be expressed in monetary terms.

Betsy

-- 
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@polaristel.net
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624

**************************************
We have stories to tell, stories that provide wisdom about the journey
of life. What more have we to give one another than our "truth" about
our human adventure as honestly and as openly as we know how?

--Rabbi Saul Rubin
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:26:50 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA27179
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:55:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:44:24 -0700
From: Jane Madison 
Message-ID: <351C39D8.7A49@wcec.com>
Organization: West Central Environmental Consultants
References: 
Subject: Re: Working hard
To: Positive Futures Mailing List 

Jane Jones writes:
	I don't think we can work too hard when we love our work 
	and the rest of our life is in balance.  


I think the problem is putting the rest of our life in balance.  To many
employers (and employees) "working hard" means putting in a 50 or 60
hour week.  I really think most people who work 50 or 60 hours a week
could accomplish the same amount in 35 hours if they applied themselves
and stopped yacking on the phone.  I work for a company where we bill
the clients by the hour, not the job.  So of course, by boss wants me to
work 80 hrs/wk (no, I'm not kidding).  I have a lot of friends in the
same boat.  Somehow, we need to convince corperate America that a well
rested employee who is happy because they have time to spend with
friends and family is by far more creative and more productive than an
employee who is constantly expected to work overtime.
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:26:58 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA29315
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:00:57 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:21:54 EST
From: Hotmom32 
Message-ID: <5eaaba3c.351c3494@aol.com>
Subject: Fwd: parental sacrifice
To: positive-futures@igc.org

Believe me Carol........I know just where you are coming from.

It is a daily committment on my part to put my kids before myself....and I
love them more than anything!  Nothing brings me more satisfaction than
raising my kiddos, yet it is also the most draining job I have ever had!  I
have moments when I LONG for my old job, and I must review AGAIN the long-term
benefits of my staying home with my kids.  I feel so fortunate that I can stay
home........when my first was a baby, I had to work 2 jobs in addition to my
husband working, and that was awful.  We have made many sacrifices, but they
are worth it.

Erin
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:27:03 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA16469
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:02:26 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:25:45 EST
From: PRichter1 
Message-ID: 
Subject: Re: Should one work hard?
To: positive-futures@igc.org

Carol Bruce writes:

> Like several people on the list, I've read and been influenced by Ishmael
>  (author: Daniel Quinn). When people read that book, or YMOYL, and ask "What
>  should I do now?" my answer is always "Less."  Find a way to work less. I
>  don't know what led Marco to feel that the norm is working 50 hours a week.
>  My husband works that much sometimes because he feels he "has to." I ask
>  him "who is making you?"  The reality is that he expects himself  to work
>  that much. He is slowly changing his attitude, though, after reading
>  Ishmael and part of YMOYL.
>  
 Me again. Yes, it's still sermon writing day. I'll try to be briefer this go-
round.

This is a dilemma for some of us who actually get a lot of good stuff from our
jobs. Today I spent the morning with an 87 year old woman whose son is in
jail. Her story was so sad. But she is such a beautiful woman who is well
loved in her retirement community. It took time to hear her stories. I felt
honored.

And this afternoon I went to Children's Hospital where I sat with a family who
has a ten year old adopted daughter born with spina bifida. She was getting
delicate spinal cord surgery (probably about her 5th).  They have a grown
adopted son (adopted at age 5) who was not loved as an infant. He will always
have an attachment disorder. He will allow no one close, no one to love him,
even this wonderful family. They suffered much with him. What prompted them to
pick themselves up and adopt again, knowing this girl will need love and care
for the rest of her life?  I was honored by their story, too. But I digress.

My point is, I love what I do. Even writing the sermons that I procrastinate
on. (Maybe especially that). Yet I work far too hard, and at the cost of my
personal life. This is truly a dilemma for me. I wouldn't give up what I did
today for anything. And I have to go off and lead a worship service tonight.
I know that this is not a balanced life. And it doesn't even pay well (I still
have much to go on my student debt to get my ministerial education).   I live
in fear of coming down with some dread disease like chronic fatigue syndrome.
I know that work is addictive to me and many others. I want to jump off the
merry go round but I don't know how.  Yet I do cook all my meals from scratch
and live as simply as I can (and, yes, I drive too much).

Any suggestions will be gratefully accepted!
Faithfully,
Priscilla Richter in Pittsburgh, where it is in the 80's today and spring
fever abounds!

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:27:07 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA04105
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:43:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Gray 
Message-Id: <199803280243.SAA00208@igc4.igc.org>
Subject: Work, child-raising, choice, and Feminism
To: positive-futures@igc.org

From: "Michele D. Hirt" 
Subject: Re: Work, child-raising, choice, and Feminism
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:49:34 -0500

> And "Tom"'s story about his mother staying home yet not providing
>nurturing love is another example


Sorry, guys, but those were my posts - both the alcoholic parents & the
community college ones.

I accidently sent them only to Tom instead of the whole list & he was kind
enough to forward them on to y'all.

(sorry, Tom, but thanks!)

Michele D. Hirt
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:27:10 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA03107
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:39:06 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:57:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Gray 
Message-Id: <199803280257.SAA00803@igc4.igc.org>
Subject: one income families
To: positive-futures@igc.org

From: "Michele D. Hirt" 
Subject: RE:  one income families
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:32:38 -0500

It seems to me that a part of the problem with the stay-at-home-parent 
feeling unfulfilled or lonely stems from our lack of community.

After WWII, our families became "nuclear."  We lost the "neighborhood."  

When our grandparents were children, not only was there (usually) a 
parent home all day, but every OTHER house on the block had a parent 
home all day, too!  Their parents spoke to their neighbors, they socialized
with their neighbors, they engaged in COMMUNITY with their neighbors!

Nowadays, we don't even know our neighbors' names....  Is it any wonder 
that the stay-at-home-parent feels lonely?

Child-rearing is the most important activity that humans have ever 
engaged in, but we weren't meant to do it alone.  We are a tribal 
people; designed to help one another in all things.

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:27:19 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA03322
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:30:30 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 98 20:52:46 -0800
From: jacque greenleaf 
Message-Id: <199803280430.UAA28499@opengovt.open.org>
Subject: Re: One income household
To: "Betsy Barnum" , 
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1

>(lots of great stuff snipped)
>My two cents.
>
>Betsy

and worth a great deal more!

I've been staying out of this thread, since I've never had to raise a 
family, on either one income or two, but I have to admit I was a little 
dismayed by the tone of some of these posts.

it may be true that too many people are too motivated by stuff and 
outward appearances, but I for one can't forget the stifled emotional and 
intellectual lives of way too many women not so long ago. my mother is a 
worthy woman in many ways, and no one ever worked harder at being a 
stay-at-home mom, but believe me, she should have gone back to a paying 
job much sooner! I was in daycare (we called it nursery school then) or 
at a babysitter's from about age 3 to 5, when my dad was finally earning 
enough for my mom to stay home, and I remember both the school and my 
babysitter with great affection. I loved going to school because it was 
what big kids did and I could learn to read, and my babysitter was as 
kind and goodnatured a person as I've ever known. some years later, it 
was a huge relief when my mother went back to work, where her attention 
to detail and energetic management style could be exercised on someone 
else!!

*NO ONE* should ever be made to feel like a bad parent merely because 
they choose to stay home on the one hand or go to work on the other. 
mothers and fathers differ, children differ, economic situations differ, 
and family goals differ. if you simply must have an opinion about someone 
else's choices in this regard, the only question worth asking is whether 
the family members are generally satisfied with their lives.

jacque greenleaf
salem, oregon

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:27:23 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA06836
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 17:31:58 +0000
From: Peter Bacon 
Message-Id: <199803280629.QAA00618@mail.webtime.com.au>
Subject: Re: Working Hard
To: positive-futures@igc.org

Mark Burch makes a tantalizing point, I think, when he compares our
work-driven lifestyle with that of the Bushmen of the Kalahari: "... Ask any
Bushman and he/she will tell you outright---they live to dance.  Gathering
food is just what they need to do to get ready for the next dance.  We live
to work.  'Gathering' food is just what we do to get ready for our next
shift at work.  What's wrong with this picture?"

In part, perhaps what's wrong here is that we work in order to get money,
which we then use to buy food. It's a perversion of the hunter-gatherer
paradigm: we "hunt" for a parking space so we can "gather" our food at the
local Safeway or Vons--rather than raising most of our own food, either
individually or collectively (as in ecovillages, for example), and calling
*that* "work."  Well, of course, it *is* work, but somehow it hasn't
achieved the status or legitimacy in our society that "real work" has.

There's a sad irony here: On the one hand, food and the means of producing
it have become more remote, more cut off from any tangible life that *we*
know first-hand, more subject to manipulation (genetic and otherwise) as a
mere product, an abstract *thing*. On the other hand,  money--by its very
nature an
abstraction--has assumed a "reality" that is realer than real for most
people.

I don't have any illusions about "noble savages"; nor do I have any
immediate plans to don a loincloth and head off for the Kalihari. But I do
think the Bushmen are on the right track, as Mark suggests: less cerebration
(worship of an abstraction) and more celebration (the dance) may be at least
part of the cure for what ails us.

Peter Bacon (whose beets and cauliflowers and lettuce are coming along quite
nicely, thank you)

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:27:27 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA16504
	for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 00:03:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 02:25:05 EST
From: WrtngZone 
Message-ID: <3cb43d8b.351ca5d4@aol.com>
Subject: Re: re: Should one work hard?
To: carolmb@sprynet.com, positive-futures@igc.org



At the heart of the VS movement as I see it is to listen to what is ENOUGH...
this assumes that one is not addicted to perpetual DOING. When one has ENOUGH
one then has the TIME for passionate undertakings, SERVICE in the community,
SPIRITUAL work and the myriad of other things that make living on this planet
such a mystery and challenge. If one's WORK is already his or her passionate
LOVE then work as long as you want. I won't complain. We need to remember that
right livelihood assumes that "no harm" is being undertaken while working. And
as Ernest Callenbach reminds us in his Preface to  MINDFULNESS AND MEANINGFUL
WORK (Explorations in Right Livelihood): "... it is questionable whether any
livelihood except on the fringes of society can offer much in the way of
rightness..."

bob banner
for hopedance magazine
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:28:58 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA27525
	for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 07:01:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:32:29 -0600 (CST)
From: CK Valois/B Brummitt 
Message-Id: <199803281432.IAA03614@perham.eot.com>
Subject: Re: One income household
To: jacque greenleaf , "Betsy Barnum" ,
 

I envision a society where the "workplace", the community and the home are
not separate places.  Where everyone regardless of their ages are learning
(and becoming fulfilled) through the living of their daily lives.  Where
important aspects of "us" are not compartmentalised and kept away from daily
existence;  Art is not in museums, spirituality is not in churches, animals
are not in zoos, Mommy's and Daddy's are not in factories, children are not
in schools.  A society where competition is shunned and cooperation is the
standard.  A society that exists as an extension of family.

Bruce

  Cheryl Valois and Bruce Brummitt
            
             46N56' 95W20'
   Visit the Natural Building Gallery
   
 

----------
From: jacque greenleaf 

it may be true that too many people are too motivated by stuff and 
outward appearances, but I for one can't forget the stifled emotional and 
intellectual lives of way too many women not so long ago...


...*NO ONE* should ever be made to feel like a bad parent merely because 
they choose to stay home on the one hand or go to work on the other. 
mothers and fathers differ, children differ, economic situations differ, 
and family goals differ. if you simply must have an opinion about someone 
else's choices in this regard, the only question worth asking is whether 
the family members are generally satisfied with their lives.


jacque greenleaf
salem, oregon

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:29:05 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA21847
	for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:45:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:02:44 -0500
From: "Byrnes, Patricia J." 
Message-ID: 
Subject: RE: One income household
To: "Betsy Barnum" , ,
 "jacque greenleaf" 

Dear Jacque:  Thanks for your thoughts on this thread.  I think that we
are trying to explore, as you put it, not only "whether the family
members are generally satisfied with their lives" but how the change in
our social structure has affected the family as well as how the trend
toward dual income families came about.  I was sincerely wondering about
this. I put his question out because I wanted some help in understanding
all of this. When I look around I see many unhappy mothers at work who
are not shy about voicing how hard they work and how they hated to leave
their child at daycare at 3 months of age and yet at the same time
strive to have material wealth.  This is not a criticism, only an
>observation.  You wrote " *NO ONE* should ever be made to feel like a
>bad parent merely because they choose to stay home on the one hand or
>go to work on the other. mothers and fathers differ, children differ,
economic situations differ,and family goals differ". You are right.  But
I do not feel that anyone on this thread was trying to make anyone feel
like a bad parent.  If you read the responses carefully you will see
many little disclaimers.  Many people writing in this thread have made
an effort not to offend single Mothers or Dads or folks whose economic
situation warrants a dual income household.  Most people on this list
are sharing information and a great deal of the people who post are very
careful of other peoples feelings.  Thanks for your time and your thoughts.
   Patricia

>----------
>From: 	jacque greenleaf[SMTP:jacqueg@open.org]
>Sent: 	Friday, March 27, 1998 11:52 PM
>To: 	Betsy Barnum; positive-futures@igc.org
>Subject: 	Re: One income household
>
>>(lots of great stuff snipped)
>>My two cents.
>>Betsy
>
>and worth a great deal more!
>
>I've been staying out of this thread, since I've never had to raise a 
>family, on either one income or two, but I have to admit I was a little
>
>dismayed by the tone of some of these posts.
>
>it may be true that too many people are too motivated by stuff and 
>outward appearances, but I for one can't forget the stifled emotional and 
>intellectual lives of way too many women not so long ago. my mother is
>a worthy woman in many ways, and no one ever worked harder at being a 
>stay-at-home mom, but believe me, she should have gone back to a paying
>job much sooner! I was in daycare (we called it nursery school then) or
>at a babysitter's from about age 3 to 5, when my dad was finally
>earning enough for my mom to stay home, and I remember both the school and my 
>babysitter with great affection. I loved going to school because it was
>what big kids did and I could learn to read, and my babysitter was as 
>kind and goodnatured a person as I've ever known. some years later, it 
>was a huge relief when my mother went back to work, where her attention
>to detail and energetic management style could be exercised on someone else!!
>
>*NO ONE* should ever be made to feel like a bad parent merely because 
>they choose to stay home on the one hand or go to work on the other. 
>mothers and fathers differ, children differ, economic situations
>differ, and family goals differ. if you simply must have an opinion about
>someone else's choices in this regard, the only question worth asking is
>whether the family members are generally satisfied with their lives.
>
>jacque greenleaf
>salem, oregon
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:29:10 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA10830
	for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:59:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:37:00 EST
From: BGCSFUN 
Message-ID: 
Subject: Re: One income household
To: positive-futures@igc.org

  Jacque your letter is well stated.  My mother was a working mom.  Not
because she had to but because she needed to.  I was taken care of at home,
surrounded by family living near by.  I have chosen to be a stay at home mom.
Enjoying what I do an hoping that I do it well.  The point is we must find
what we are well suited to do.  Not at the expense of the people around us but
with all considered.  My friends families are of all different configurations
and those that work best, are those where all are considered and allowed to do
what it is they perform best.  
  My husband and I have chosen traditional roles only because it is what is
most natural for us.  My children hopefully have benefited from that choice.
Had my mother stayed home she would have drove us nuts :-)  If our choices
include ourselves and our families with best of intentions, I think that is
all we can provide.   When we can love our children with no regret or guilt
attached that is all we can offer them.  There is no perfect way, only giving
of your heart and soul.  They will know that you gave them that.

  Gwen F. 
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:29:13 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA28879
	for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:37:11 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:44:07 -0500
From: "Byrnes, Patricia J." 
Message-ID: 
Subject: parental sacrifice/WORK
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org'" ,
 "Betsy Barnum" 

Betsy: You are opening my eyes this week!  Your contributions to the
thread on two income households were great. You helped me to see that
there are many factors in our society contributing to this. This morning
I was thinking about the effect that women entering the work force (out
of desire or necessity) may have had on the structure of the family
today. I am in no way saying feminism has had a negative effect on the
family!  Thank God our daughters are not raised to embrace a single
career path anymore! (though we still have a way to go in this area).  I
think that our society has to adapt to the fact that women are in the
work place but we must also be mindful of the fact that children are
involved in this transition as well.  maybe one day our work weeks will
be structured to allow more time with the children for Moms and Dads. 

Secondly Betsy, your point today about the fact that some women's work
is often under-valued because a monetary value cannot be placed on it.
(i.e.., raising the children, providing a nurturing and beautiful home
for the family, volunteer work et al).  It does seem that society places
a great deal of value on working.  
						Many times when I meet someone new
they often say off the bat, "What do you do?' as if this is the best way
to get to know me and I can be more easily categorized or defined by the
work I do.  I think a "tell me about yourself" would be better.  I am
much more than my job.  YMOYL touches upon this subject very nicely. 
That book opened my eyes too.  Anyway thanks for your input!    
Patricia

>----------
>From: 	Betsy Barnum[SMTP:bbarnum@polaristel.net]
>Sent: 	Friday, March 27, 1998 6:33 PM
>To: 	positive-futures@igc.org
>Subject: 	Re: parental sacrifice
>
>Carol Fabos-Gruba wrote:
>> The 3rd point is very tough if you're raised to have a CAREER.  "So what do
>> you do?" someone asks.
>>  "I parent.  I homeschool."
>
>I have found this one of the most difficult things in going against the
>cultural current: To make a statement like this, and not feel ashamed.
>I have heard retired people say the same. I know a very active and
>involved retired man in my community who, when asked what he "does,"
>responds that he is retired. "Oh, you don't do anything!" is what he
>often hears. *Very* frustrating.
>
>I recently saw a video about Marilyn Waring, formerly an M.P. in New
>Zealland and author of a book about work and women--I forget the name
>of the book, but the video is called "Who's Counting?" In it she talks
>about the U.N. rules for measuring economies, rules which all countries
>must follow if they are to be members of the UN and benefit from its
>programs. These "rules" specifically state that anyone who is not being
>paid in money for the work they do is "unoccupied." This of course
>includes mothers who take care of children and homes (fathers, too),
>subsistence farmers, volunteers, people who get what they need by
>trading in kind--the list goes on.
>
>Her point was to show how little of what what women do, worldwide, in
>almost every country and community, is valued because they are not paid
>for much of their economic activity. This, rightly or wrongly,
>translates into the idea that women *themselves* are not valued, when
>"value" can only be expressed in monetary terms.
>
>Betsy
>
>-- 
>Betsy Barnum
>bbarnum@polaristel.net
>http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624
>
>**************************************
>We have stories to tell, stories that provide wisdom about the journey
>of life. ...

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:29:19 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA00779
	for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:41:42 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:46:01 -0500
From: "Byrnes, Patricia J." 
Message-ID: 
Subject: RE: One income household
To: "jacque greenleaf" , "Betsy Barnum" ,
 "positive-futures@igc.org" , "CK Valois/B Brummitt" 


That would be wonderful but how can we achieve this?    Patricia

>----------
>From: 	CK Valois/B Brummitt[SMTP:lilacmn@eot.com]
>Sent: 	Saturday, March 28, 1998 9:32 AM
>To: 	jacque greenleaf; Betsy Barnum; positive-futures@igc.org
>Subject: 	Re: One income household
>
>I envision a society where the "workplace", the community and the home
>are not separate places.  Where everyone regardless of their ages are
>learning (and becoming fulfilled) through the living of their daily lives. 
>Where important aspects of "us" are not compartmentalised and kept away from
>daily existence;  Art is not in museums, spirituality is not in churches,
>animals are not in zoos, Mommy's and Daddy's are not in factories, children are
>not in schools.  A society where competition is shunned and cooperation is
>the standard.  A society that exists as an extension of family.
>
>Bruce
>
>  Cheryl Valois and Bruce Brummitt   
>
_________________________________________________________________________



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 05:51:20 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA10073
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 07:17:55 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 07:32:57 EST
From: Renewpwr 
Message-ID: <62e7c418.351a4afb@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Energy Use & Forever Light Bulbs
To: positive-futures@igc.org

[In a message dated 98-03-26 07:14:29 EST, you write:]

Subj:	Re: Energy Use & Forever Light Bulbs
Date:	03/25/98
To:	davd@oocities.com
In a message dated 98-03-24 21:23:57 EST, David  writes:

>  **  Here's where I disagree.  Too many people think only of the initial
>  cost, in considering whether to buy something.  The lifetime, mine-to-dump
>  cost is the only real comparison, at least for cars, light-bulbs, solar
>  collectors and the like.
>  	The great improvement in light output for compact fluorescent bulbs over
>  incandescent (ordinary) bulbs is because of the above really bad efficiency
>  of the latter.  So I'd say a (calculable) large amount of electric energy
>  has gone to waste (except in a "super-insulated" house, where the light
>  bulbs are a significant part of the winter heating), over the decades of
>  use of any incandescent bulb.
>  

I totally agree. Incandescent bulbs that last forever are doing you no good no
matter how long they last. A compact fluorescent lamp will return $40 - $60 to
you over its 10,000 hour lifetime compared to using incabdescent bulbs (ABOVE
and BEYOND the cost of the compact fluorescent). It's very true that
tradtional incandescent lights last only 700 - 900 hours a piece, but ALL OF
THEM use FOUR times more power than the equivalent compact fluorescent for the
same lumens. The modern compact fluorescent's are color corrected, have styles
to fit most any lamp and come in AC or DC for people both on or off the
utility grid and running on solar power. I have 32 compact fluorescents in my
home. I do have a dozen or so incandescents in closets, etc., but combined
with putting switched outlets on appliances that also steal power like tv's,
vcr's, etc., when they are off; you can lower your utility bill power
consumption 50% - 75%. It doesn't have to happen overnight either. I bought
one compact fluorescent each month for several years and used our gradually
reducing utility bill to pay for the additional power reduction buy buying
compact fluorescents. In turn I am relying on LESS nuclear and fossil fuel
produced power and more on CLEAN solar energy from my house system. I'd be
happy to produce the savings calculations for those people who are still
skeptical about saving power with compact fluorescent's. Sure you may get the
incandescent bulbs cheap, but you will buy them over and over and over again
buy using 4 times + the energy use.

This is a good idea to add to the Earth Day "things to do List" .... go out
and buy your first compact fluorescent!

For any one wanting to know more info, you can read our "How to Save
electrical energy" article on our web site :-)

Take Care,

Dave Knapp

David, Sheila, and Patrick Knapp
"straw bale earthshippers and homesteaders to be"
New Mexico Bound ... ?
currently @ Winnebago, Illinois
e-mail: Renewpwr@aol.com
URL: http://members.aol.com/renewpwr/index.htm
The Knapp's Sustainability Journey

"The Earth was not given to us by our parents, it is loaned to us by our
children."

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 05:51:29 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA19952
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 07:33:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:24:58 EST
From: Renewpwr 
Message-ID: <5f917aa0.351a572d@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Details on Light Bulb Longevity
To: positive-futures@igc.org

In a message dated 98-03-25 21:20:36 EST, Bruce writes:

> We light our entire kitchen/dining room with one 18 watt CF with a 12 volt
> ballast (admittedly the room is  small... but y'know, that's the beauty of it).
>
>  Bruce
>..who is seeking light, not heat..(close to 60 degrees F here today..yee haw!!!)

Our solar PV system is set up to be an emergency power/lighting system for
when the grid goes down during storms.

We have about 32 AC CF lights in our house. Yes that is a lot, but we have a
rule in our house ... one light per person. So we never have more than three
light on in the house (unless we have visitors ... and then we follow them
around to shut off the lights that they forgot to shut off!).

We also have several 12 volt DC CF's lights consisting of a 13 watt in the
utility room (for running the washing machine if needed), an 18 watt in the
family room, and a 22 watt circular light in the office / power room. On just
lighting alone, we could survive for days without grid power and a generator
would allow us to recharge the battery bank to run some of the other "yuppie"
standards like refrigeration. When you are on "grid" power, a watt saved is a
watt earned for another day. On solar, you are wasting power if your batteries
are full and the incoming power is shunted off :-) Happiness is a nice bright
light in your house when the rest of the neighborhood is dark from the power
outage. It sure is a way to bring curious visitors over to inspect!

Dave Knapp
____________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 05:51:36 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA15391
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:12:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Gray 
Message-Id: <199803261612.IAA27677@igc6.igc.org>
Subject: Re: Energy Use & Forever Light Bulbs
To: positive-futures@igc.org

I'm pretty big on CF bulbs as well.  We use them and have seen
a noticeable reduction in our electric bills as a result.

A comment on an issue on which I'm definitely not an expert: my
impression is that the energy used to manufacture a bulb is
negligible compared to the savings that a CF would provide, so I
would tend to favor CFs over however-long-lasting inefficient
incandescents.   I'm pretty sure this is the case with autos 
(i.e., you can save a lot more energy by buying a fuel-efficient 
auto than is required to manufacture an auto), so I assume the 
same principle would apply to bulbs.

Tom
http://www.econet.org/frugal

"Calvin:  'Another thing to remember about popular culture is 
that today's TV-reared audience is hip and sophisticated.  This 
stuff doesn't affect us. . . . We can separate fact from 
fiction.  We understand satire and irony.  We're detached and 
jaded viewers who aren't influenced by what we watch.'

"Hobbes:  'I think I hear advertisers laughing.'

"Calvin:  'Hold on.  I need to inflate my basketball shoes.'"

--IT'S A MAGICAL WORLD, Bill Watterson

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 19:20:37 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA14803
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:57:17 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:44:41 +1200
From: David MacClement 
In-Reply-To: <199803261612.IAA27677@igc6.igc.org>
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980327134441.006ff044@mail.oocities.com>
Subject: Re: Energy Use & Forever Light Bulbs (& cars); sustainability
To: positive-futures 

At 08:12 26/03/98 -0800, Tom Gray wrote:
> ....
>My impression is that the energy used to manufacture a bulb is
>negligible compared to the savings that a CF would provide, so I
>would tend to favor CFs over however-long-lasting inefficient
>incandescents.   I'm pretty sure this is the case with autos 
>(i.e., you can save a lot more energy by buying a fuel-efficient 
>auto than is required to manufacture an auto), so I assume the 
>same principle would apply to bulbs.
>
>Tom    http://www.econet.org/frugal
>
**  About incandescent light bulbs, "the energy used to manufacture a bulb
is negligible compared to the savings that a CF would provide" is certainly
true, though I'm less sure about the lifetime energy use of a CF relative
to its energy cost to manufacture, mainly because it uses such a small
amount of electricity.  I'd still go with the compact fluorescent, in spite
of the real concern (mentioned by Mark Murray: "... watch all that material
and all those resources ... get thrown into the environment ...") about
disposal;
"there is no 'away'", in my view.  I believe there still is a small
amount of mercury and rare-earth oxides in fluorescent light bulbs.
	Like most questions of sustainability, it's complicated, there's often no
obviously "right" way or choice.  The best you can do is choose on the
knowledge (including the numbers/sizes) you have available at the time.
It's a matter of weighing up the pluses and minuses, being always aware of
your own framework for judging relative importances or priorities.
	An example from my own life, tiny compared with most but at least
"real-world", which is why an ethics lecturer at the University of Waikato
wanted to use it as an example in his course, to balance the more common
"great tragedy" examples that generally come to mind.  I was torn between
two breakfast foods (!) of the same type: wheat-flake biscuits:-
  "Weet-bix" made in N.Z. and therefore with minimal transport use (energy
use and CO2 production), and employing Pacific Islanders who've immigrated
to N.Z. for a better life but who find it difficult to get a living wage in
the present "restructured" N.Z., _but_ using ordinary chemical-agriculture
wheat.  And:
  "Uncle Toby's Wheat Biscuits" made in Australia and shipped nearly 2000
km to get here, but made of organic (i.e. sustainably-grown, "clean")
wheat.  They also cost more.  I chose Uncle Toby's, for an unlisted reason:
organic farming is something I want to encourage, so I wanted to help
provide a market.
                       (_I_ wasn't enough: they've gone off the shelves, now.)


**  About autos: I don't know the numbers (I've only heard the energy costs
of manufacture and life-time-running are about equal for the smaller sizes
of cars we have here in N.Z.), but I'm sure the energy cost of
manufacturing a mid-sized or larger north american car, including mining
the metals and producing the plastic parts etc., is greater than the energy
in the fuel used by a subcompact.
	(See:  http://www.aceee.org/greenguide/tab-temp.htm  , which includes:

	                   Specifications    Emission      Fuel Use 
	                                     Standard     City   HWY
	Chevrolet Metro    1.0L 3, manual     LEV         44     49 MPG   )


**	Of course, eventually the energy-cost in manufacturing dominates again
as fuel use decreases towards the zero of an electric car recharged from
solar panels.
	David.

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 06:09:41 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA28754
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 05:10:11 -0800 (PST)
CC: Betsy Barnum , positive-futures@igc.org
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:02:43 -0500
From: Gwen Bruington 
Message-ID: <351B9563.27FD28C3@freedomnet.com>
References: <98Mar25.095128mst.41225@lmcf.exempla.org> <3519B0CF.3A9E@polaristel.net> <3519EE01.2BFD@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Light Bulbs to Grid
To: Mark Murray 

> Only under the most unusual circumstances --
> say for example when alternative energy sources are known to be
> constantly in excess of demand -- would I consider using inefficient
> incandescent bulbs, in any fashion, and then only for the reasons
> outlined in previous messages.

I was telling my husband last night about the light bulb discussion that's
been going on here. Not only did he understand the discussion, he also tried
drawing a picture to help me understand it! He's bought 130 volt bulbs for
our household in the past and they last significantly longer than the typical
110 volt bulbs.

I asked him about the energy use of the higher voltage bulbs. He has a
device, some sort of a  meter, called a variac? (I'm not sure how it's
spelled). But he said that we could try different voltage bulbs in a lamp,
plug it into the variac and be able to tell how much electricity each bulb
consumes. We thought this might be a great science project for our
electronically-inclined son.

Gwen Bruington
Richmond, Va

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 06:09:55 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA05983
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 06:34:00 -0800 (PST)
Cc: harveyl@exempla.org
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:25:43 EST
From: Renewpwr 
Message-ID: <80707db9.351b9ac9@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Details on Light Bulb Longevity -Reply
To: positive-futures@igc.org

Laurie,

There are a lot of ways to start saving energy, but tiny steps are the only
way to go. Seven years ago I was very frustrated as I looked at my utility
bill and knew there had to be a better way. Month by month I worked on the
problem until I got to where I am today. To shrink a $125 utility bill down to
about $30 really was a worth while goal to achieve. While you can't do it over
night, you can do it in such a way that the savings helps pay for the intial
cost of some of the improvements.

Please check out my article on How to Cut Your Electricity Bill on our web
site. When you have digested it and have additional questions, I'd be glad to
be of assistance. The article was originally intended for folks interested in
alternative constructed homes called "Earthships." Earthships are solar
powered homes that are make from recycled materials, have no utility bills,
and have a built in greenhouse. Someday this technology may come to urban
neighborhoods.

http://members.aol.com/renewpwr/save.htm

Take Care,

dave knapp

------------
In a message dated 98-03-26 13:55:14 EST, Laurie (? harveyl@exempla.org ?) writes:
> Okay guys,
>  Get me started from the very, very basics of this.  I would like to learn
>  more about how this works.  Remember, I know absolutely NOTHING about 
>  electricity.  I plug it in, I turn it on.  That is my vast knowledge.
> I am eager to learn how to save, because my power bills are ridiculous!  If I
>  can just take baby steps with your adult supervision, I could grow into a
>  power saver too!!!!!
>  
>  Please don't laugh, this is pathetic!
>  
>  Laurie in    BEE_YOO_TE_FULL Colorado!  It's 70 degrees today!!!!

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 06:10:03 1998
	by oocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA26314
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:52:43 -0400
From: "M&D " 
Message-Id: <199803271353.IAA20333@smtp11.bellglobal.com>
Subject: CF/incandescent quandary
To: 

Dave Knapp wrote -
"I'd be happy to produce the savings calculations for those people who are still
skeptical about saving power with compact fluorescent's. Sure you may get
the incandescent bulbs cheap, but you will buy them over and over and over
again buy using 4 times + the energy use.

This is a good idea to add to the Earth Day "things to do List" .... go out
and buy your first compact fluorescent! "

Then, just as I'm preparing an Earth Day list and adding this to it, 

David MacClement wrote:
"I'm less sure about the lifetime energy use of a CF relative
to its energy cost to manufacture, mainly because it uses such a small
amount of electricity.  I'd still go with the compact fluorescent, in spite
of the real concern (mentioned by Mark Murray: "... watch all that material
and all those resources ... get thrown into the environment ...") about
disposal;
"there is no 'away'", in my view.  I believe there still is a small
amount of mercury and rare-earth oxides in fluorescent light bulbs."

So, in changing to the more expensive CF bulbs which are much more
expensive than the incandescents to purchase, although hopefully will last
longer, and hopefully enough longer to make the purchase worthwhile, I am
also putting mercury and so on into the environment when I dispose of them
(what about the process of making them - how is that compared to making the
incandescents or am I completely getting off track here?) - how do you
weigh these two factors?    I find that we are continually in a quandary
over which good is better, (or which evil is less). 

- on our property is a softwood woods needing silviculture.  We can use the
chippings on garden paths, but to do so we must buy a gas powered
chipper/shredder with its obvious drawbacks or else burn the wood which is
a complete waste (it's not good for heating)........

- we have an oil furnace and a wood stove.  New regulations make it
necessary to put these in separate, stainless steel lined chimneys. 
Expensive!  The wood stove will not heat the house so we need the furnace,
but can't afford  two new chimneys.....

Getting off-topic here - 

I guess I can at least thank you for making me think (but now how about the
answers???)

Darby 


****************************************************************************

Live each day as if it were your last - someday you'll be right -  (Unknown)
______________________________________________________________________
This message was from the positive-futures discussion list.
To subscribe to this list, send mail to  with
the command  subscribe positive-futures  in the body of the message.
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to  with
the command  unsubscribe positive-futures  in the body of the message.

EcoNet is a private, non-profit online network which seeks to serve
the environmental community.  Put your online spending to work
for the environment through EcoNet.  For information, send a message
to 
______________________________________________________________________

Return to Athens/Delphi: David's Pi_ge

Return  to  RainForest:  David's  Page

This is:   http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/6783/WorkFaml.html#top