Women should be MOTHERS NOT CEO's Graduation Speech

[Conservative Hippie]

As a SAHM, I don't ever want to go back to the way things were in the 40's/50's/60's. I am so glad things have changed and I am thrilled that woman have so many options today. I absolutely support woman in the workplace.

But........you knew there would be a but....I think the lifestyle that *many* have now is out of control. The ridiculous amount of hours *some* families spend apart troubles me. Kids are in so many activities away from the family, electronic gadgets replace family time, and the family dinner has gone out the window. I believe we need to leave the 60's behind us, but I think we need to work on where we are now and where we want to be. I do believe the idea of family has changed significantly over time and I don't necessarily agree with the new definition. For many people I know, that means seeing their kid in passing most days and I don't believe that is a good thing.

I agree. Aside from the very earliest years after my parents got divorced, we always ate dinner together, even though my mom worked full-time and was single. Sometimes that dinner was take-out pizza, but family dinner was important. We have the same rule in my family. Few things get in the way of family dinner.

 

[Planogirl]

I wouldn't be bothered by his message if he had been more neutral in his approach. Fathers can also be caregivers while mothers are CEO's or both can have careers while striving for a good balance. This guy's ideas are archaic and sexist IMO.

 

[AddictedtoDoleWhip]

As a SAHM, I don't ever want to go back to the way things were in the 40's/50's/60's. I am so glad things have changed and I am thrilled that woman have so many options today. I absolutely support woman in the workplace.

But........you knew there would be a but....I think the lifestyle that *many* have now is out of control. The ridiculous amount of hours *some* families spend apart troubles me. Kids are in so many activities away from the family, electronic gadgets replace family time, and the family dinner has gone out the window. I believe we need to leave the 60's behind us, but I think we need to work on where we are now and where we want to be. I do believe the idea of family has changed significantly over time and I don't necessarily agree with the new definition. For many people I know, that means seeing their kid in passing most days and I don't believe that is a good thing.

Now that isn't always possible, especially when there is a single parent household happening and the other parent is out of the picture and is not helping financially. So, there is more time spent at work compared to at home due to needing to be able to take care of the child and make sure that they can still have somewhere to live.

That's great that you can be a SAHM, but that's not always the case.

 

[Kogo Shuko]

I guess I'm seeing this from a different perspective than most people in this thread.

I'm offended by his speech for two reasons: he's telling the women that they shouldn't be considering a career because they can't possibly achieve a successful career while starting a family, instead of offering the opportunity for both parents to nurture their children equally.

I'm more offended because he is telling women that their main goal in life should be having children. What about women who do not wantchildren? Is there something wrong with them? Why did those women who think they are not cut out to be parents, or simply do not want to be parents have to hear this same message.

This is a high school, for crying out loud. They shouldn't be discussing starting a family so young. Let these children live a little bit before telling them they need to start a family.

Heck, don't tell them at all. It is no one's place to tell someone they should focus more on starting a family rather than pursue their own goals as an individual.

I say this not because I hate children. I say this because I realize I myself am not cut out for being a mother. This does not make me any less of a person. In fact, judging by how many people are on this earth, my lack of children won't affect our population at all. Is it wrong of me that I'd rather spend my life making other people feel better about themselves rather than bearing and raising children?

Why must his message insist that a woman's role in life is to produce children, not better the world in any other way?

 

[JRawkSteady]

Kids are in so many activities away from the family

I don't perceive this as such a bad thing...Social life is very very important!

electronic gadgets replace family time, and the family dinner has gone out the window.

Well, said simply - - if the kids can't responsibly handle their gadgets (video games and such) and still have time for their family, they shouldn't have them at all. It's the responsibility of the parents to make sure they understand this.

 

[usd2bmd]

Maybe he said it completely wrong. I don't agree with women having to make a choice between working outside the home and raising their family. But he specifically women CEOs. I think there is a big difference ( please don't flame me) between most women working and female CEOs. The job of a CEO, I would imagine - as I am not one, is drone consuming and not 9-5.

I work but am lucky in that when I leave work I leave work. Nothing goes with me. When my daughter was small, my mother was with her before an after school when we couldn't be. We were very lucky.

That being said I have a female Big Boss.... Who expects the same drive and determination that she has from everyone that works under her. We all don't want to be CEOs and it's ok for us to come into work ad leave it on our desks when we go home.

 

[Colleen27]

I mostly agree. Seems the USA was a better place when that was the norm. I don't have the stats nor do I care to look them up. But I'll bet crime, teen pregnancies, reading and math scores and so forth were much favorable then.

You'd be wrong. Teen pregnancy wasn't the same sort of issue back then - the rates were higher but many occurred within or were the catalyst for early marriages so the social effects were different. Crime rates are hard to compare because so many things that are an issue now (DUI, domestic abuse, date rape, etc) either went unreported or were handled outside of the court system. And educational benchmarks can't be compared for the same reason comparisons to many foreign nations fall short today - because of course the scores look better when developmentally disabled children are excluded from the school system. And that's only looking at the specific statistics you mentioned... It doesn't even touch on segregation, separate but equal, institutionalized discrimination against women, etc.

 

[skatalite]

If a couple decides to have children, I'd expect their number one priority to be to their child and family... regardless of their working situation.

That goes without saying. But a woman doesn't require a relationship to get pregnant. I personally know two women who were artificially inseminated, because they wanted children but preferred to be single.

This train of thought could also be applied to singles who adopt.

 

[Deb in IA]

Eastern High School should invite Sheryl Sandberg or Marissa Mayer to be their commencement speaker next year.

 

[mhsjax]

I waited to post until I got first-hand info. I know this teacher and the class/school choose him for a reason: he is a beloved teacher with strong morals and they know his beliefs. My 3rd cousin was in the graduating class and several of my relatives were in the audience. I regret not being able to be there in person.

I asked my cousin for her first-hand summary and here it is. Yes, he has a "Christian" message but, no, he is not anti-female. He spoke to the guys, too. He is against anything that destroys families and people. In that graduating class, many will not have a "career" (due to demographics) but will work minimum-wage jobs or be a SAHM. He was lifting up those who will not be highly educated and giving every student a moral goal.

"Hi, Claudia! This is ridiculous. The gist of his message is that the rebels of the 60s changed the world by encouraging free love and unproductive lives and that has now become the norm...that people like Sheryl Crowe who sings, "If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad" and Lady Gaga who says, "I was born this way" promote ridiculous messages. His example was that his kids were born to poop in the tub, but at some point, you have to grow up. They aren't saying that he also stressedt that the world doesn't need more millionaire male entrepreneurs...it needs fathers who put family first. His speech was to encourage them to be "rebels" and do the right thing, not get wrapped up in the ways of the world and do whatever makes YOU happy with no regard for others. He even mentioned "the carpenter who changed the world." I'm surprised that wasn't the point of controversy they fixated on since he dared to bring religion into a school setting. It was an awesome message, and the first person to stand up and clap was a female Senior. He received a several minute standing ovation from the whole audience. "

OK, you can agree or disagree with his "Christian" message but the whole slant was personal responsibility for your actions and the family you create. I personally believe that is missing in our society today and needs to be re-introduced at many levels.

Flame suit is ON.

deleted

 

[LisaR]

I don't perceive this as such a bad thing...Social life is very very important!



Well, said simply - - if the kids can't responsibly handle their gadgets (video games and such) and still have time for their family, they shouldn't have them at all. It's the responsibility of the parents to make sure they understand this.

I never said activities were a bad thing. As a matter of fact, I think not having any activities outside of school would be a bad thing. However, there is a difference between having an activity or two and being so over-scheduled that the kid is never home.

As for electronics, yes, it is the responsibility of the parent to make sure their children understand how much is too much. My point was that in many cases, the entire family is so into their electronics that it interferes with actual communication and family time. I know a mom who loves to post on FB about her family time with her daughters. "The girls and I are watching X movie, eating popcorn, laughing, and making great memories." Sounds special until you know that one of the girls has spent that entire "bonding" time texting my DD and the mom is playing Candy Crush on FB. But in the eyes of the mom, it is just as Leave it to Beaver as she makes it sound on FB. This is truly her definition of family time. Me? Not so much.

 

[LisaR]

Now that isn't always possible, especially when there is a single parent household happening and the other parent is out of the picture and is not helping financially. So, there is more time spent at work compared to at home due to needing to be able to take care of the child and make sure that they can still have somewhere to live.

That's great that you can be a SAHM, but that's not always the case.

I never said everyone could or even should be a SAHM. I am simply saying that the time that families do have together has changed from my day. While I am not a proponent of going back to the 50's or 60's, I do think some of the things that made family time special back in the day have been lost today. Personally, I don't think that is a good thing.

 

[JRawkSteady]

I never said activities were a bad thing. As a matter of fact, I think not having any activities outside of school would be a bad thing. However, there is a difference between having an activity or two and being so over-scheduled that the kid is never home.

As for electronics, yes, it is the responsibility of the parent to make sure their children understand how much is too much. My point was that in many cases, the entire family is so into their electronics that it interferes with actual communication and family time. I know a mom who loves to post on FB about her family time with her daughters. "The girls and I are watching X movie, eating popcorn, laughing, and making great memories." Sounds special until you know that one of the girls has spent that entire "bonding" time texting my DD and the mom is playing Candy Crush on FB. But in the eyes of the mom, it is just as Leave it to Beaver as she makes it sound on FB. This is truly her definition of family time. Me? Not so much.

I completely agree with all of this.

 

[disykat]

I've read what has been quoted from the speech and it seems to me that, although I wouldn't have worded it as he did, he pretty much said the same thing to both male and females. He just addressed them one at a time. He didn't say women shouldn't work.

 

[Robinrs]

I mostly agree. Seems the USA was a better place when that was the norm. I don't have the stats nor do I care to look them up. But I'll bet crime, teen pregnancies, reading and math scores and so forth were much favorable then.

Yep, and it was REALLY great when my people had no rights and couldn't vote. DAMN progress.



It was a better place for what looks back at YOU in the mirror, no doubt.

FWIW I am what I choose to be, not what some idiot thinks we should be. That's the great thing about choice, it's what you want not what society says it should be.

 

[scoutie]

While I am not a proponent of going back to the 50's or 60's, I do think some of the things that made family time special back in the day have been lost today. Personally, I don't think that is a good thing.

Actually, research shows that mothers spend more time with their children now than they did in the 60's. Fourteen hours, versus ten in 1965. Perhaps you meant something else, but I know that my husband and I spend WAY more time with our kids than our parents did with us. We do lots of family outings, play games together, ride bikes, etc. From what I've seen, this seems pretty typical of families in my area.

There are many sources to support how moms now spend more time with their kids compared to "the good old days". Here's one: http://www.livescience.com/29521-5-ways-motherhood-has-changed.html

 

[MrsDuck]

That goes without saying. But a woman doesn't require a relationship to get pregnant. I personally know two women who were artificial inseminated, because they wanted children but preferred to be single.

This train of thought could also be applied to singles who adopt.

Apples and oranges in this case but yes, I see what you're saying.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Here's the econometric problem with his remarks: if his underlying premise is to be applied, i.e. that the most essential role of women is to raise good children and that the most essential role of men is to protect their wives and children, and therefore the role of those children when they grow up is, once again to create and raise good children, he is essentially creating an unsustainable pyramid scheme whereby none of the "good children" ever feed into the economy. The more efficient economic model is for parents to contribute to the overall economic model while simultaneously raising children who are able to contribute to the world in multiple ways, thereby increasing the nation's total economic and sociological outputs.

He also sounds like a right-wing misogynist who shouldn't be teaching social studies in a public school, given his lack of understanding of history, economics and sociology, since his underlying premise of the "good old days" seems to draw from fictionalized sitcoms rather than actual statistical data.

 

[LukenDC]

I get so tired of hearing this kind of argument. Life was great in the 40s and 50s, blah, blah, blah. Sure it was, if your cultural narrative was an American-born, white, middle-class, Christian male. Try talking to immigrants, women, poor people, non-Christians and other historically marginalized people. Ask them how great is was growing up in the 40s and 50s when they were disenfranchised, unable to receive medical treatment, segregated, etc. When physical and sexual abuse was swept under the rug by everyone, including the legal system, clergy and families. When unmarried women who became pregnant were shipped off to have the baby and then forced to give it away, or underwent extremely dangerous "medical" procedures to end an unwanted pregnancy. When children with disabilities were send to "mental asylums" for their entire lives. When men could run off with a mistress and not be held accountable to the family they left behind.

I know you don't care to look at stats to back up your flawed argument, but maybe you should try talking to some people who are non-white, non-male, non-Christian, etc. to see if their experience is different than you assume.

I agree with this 100%

 

[JRawkSteady]

He also sounds like a right-wing misogynist who shouldn't be teaching social studies in a public school, given his lack of understanding of history, economics and sociology, since his underlying premise of the "good old days" seems to draw from fictionalized sitcoms rather than actual statistical data.