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
|