Dear all: First, I want to say that I know of NO posting on Lactnet from anyone who rides a subway that takes a pump on the subway. I personally posted the OPPOSITE. That is was EASY for me to feel virtuous because I would NEVER take the pump on the subway. I know of NO lactation consultant that carries pumps on the subway. Those of us who use the subway (most) carry enough in our bags already. Most of us do NOT sell products and those of us who do only sell devices to feed from the breast --- and do NOT rent pumps. Many of us DO carry our own scale, but we do NOT rent the scales. So, I think there was a misinterpretation of renting pumps. Just like it is EASY for me to feel virtuous about taking public transportation. However, in Manhattan, the average speed of an above ground vehicle is about 6 miles per hour. Only one in twenty cab drivers assist you to put luggage into the trunk. So, the subway is faster and more convenient than any other means of transportation. This is an infrastructure issue that others do not have in areas of more dispersed population. When I moved to Atlanta from upstate New York, I was bound and determined to continue to only use my bicycle or public transportation. The design of the roads and the structure of the city made it impossible. There was good public transportation, but not from areas where people actually lived. That may have changed. Ditto for the income base being predominantly from services. I think it is easier in Manhattan to develop an income base without selling products because of the high population density. Culture plays a role because we are in an area where "personal trainers" are held in high regard. We are seen as "personal trainers" by some segments of the population. Second, I want to say that volunteerism is all well and good when you live in circumstances where you can afford to have a one income earner family. I would still argue that for many of us, this is simply not possible. Often, the claim is made that you can "give up some of your luxuries" to be able to have a one income earner family. Yet, many families now have several members that are working two or more jobs just to be able to put food on the table. Health insurance costs in the United States are sky rocketing through the roof for those who are employed in a salary position, and it is even worse for those who are self employed. Here in Manhattan for a family of three --- it is $21,000 per year. Then there is the rationale that the reason why families need two income generators is that they are merely spending money on luxuries that were unavailable to previous generations. Guess what, some of us do not own cars, do not own wide screen TVs, do NOT own dishwashers or washer dryers, etc. Not all of the population is spending money on "luxury" goods. In fact, if you look back historically, there has been a class of women who have ALWAYS had to work for an income. In agricultural economies, many women worked side by side from dawn to dusk in gender-designated, yet still vitally crucial for the economic survival of the family. During the industrial revolution, many women did work in factories and had to figure out strategies for their infant's survival that were less than optimal. What changed in child rearing is that children used to be present during these income generating activities and often took part in them. Now children are separated from these income generating activities in "schools". The one income earner if you look closely at the actual productive activities that go into earning an income really has been a historical blip when it drifted down into the middle class from the Upper and Upper Middle classes. The premise that we should provide our expertise for free has great potential for perpetuating the undervaluing of our profession in the same way that the rationale behind which so called "women's work" has been undervalued by many so-called modern societies. When I watch the amount of time that is spent on school funding activities, the one thing that is never counted is the opportunity costs of those who are diligently working on those committees. I am sure that if an economic analysis of the time investment for so called "volunteer" activities would show far less net gain than is readily apparent. In some ways, I see these "volunteer" activities as a subsidy from those who have the luxury of not having to spend as much time generating income to those who must spend far more time generating income. Unfortunately, the false interpretation of these activities is that they are free. Just like there is a false interpretation that promotional samples of drugs or formula are free. Volunteer activities are not free, it is merely that the costs are "hidden". By the way, I heard something on the radio (can't remember when) about how the true economic value of a mother whose primary productive activity is to care for her children is about $130,000 per year in the United States. Best, Susan Burger *********************************************** Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html To reach list owners: [log in to unmask] Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask] COMMANDS: 1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail 2. To start it again: set lactnet mail 3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet 4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome