Question for ALL DUers -- why is it my job?

I am reading this article on AOL News (http://parenting.aol.com/parenting/onlyonaol/article/0,19840,1160229_1,00.html?) about parenting.

The article touts itself as a "balanced" look, but it is so clearly not balanced, I can't even believe my eyes.

I want to know what DUers think of the stay-at-home v. working thing, and also what you all think about mom v. dad staying home with the kids.

Personally, I think it is great if a parent can be at home all the time, especially with very young children, but I think it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that that parent MUST be the mother, and not the father.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I also think that our government could encourage people to have happy, healthy families by granting some type of wage to any parent who chooses to stay home and help raise a child (only one parent per family though, and the wage should be adjusted according to the salary of the "working" spouse--those whose spouses make more, get a little less, and those whose spouses make less, get a little more, to even the playing field and make it fair--millionaires shouldn't necessarily be getting a gov't subsidy for childcare)

(EDIT: I want to clarify something--I am just passing this idea of mine along for your consideration--I am not saying it is a great idea, or even a plausible one--it's just an idea. What I really want to hear are YOUR ideas, not your thoughts on mine, although those are of course welcome as well. Thanks.)

I've been a house-husband, and, truth to tell, I enjoyed the hell out of it.

After you spend an hour or two straightening up, doing laundry, and getting the kids off to school, the rest of the day is yours.

Beats the hell out of working, which I have to do now, and do the other stuff.

Sucks to be me, right now, it does.

:P

having children is a better investment. :shrug:

child rearing. I think that we are all responsible for the healthy, happy upbringing of our society's children.

http://www.globalwomenstrike.net/English2006/StrikeCallEng2006.htm

The world is beginning to recognise and value women’s hidden contribution to society but Venezuela goes further.  On 3 February President Hugo Chávez announced that, in recognition for their work in the home the poorest housewives would receive a monthly income equivalent that is 80% of the minimum wage – 372,000 bls or about $180.  He also announced a 15% increase in the minimum wage (which with the ticket employees get for meals and other essentials would bring its value to 835,350 bls or about $400 a month), along with increases in pensions and other low wages.  The first hundred thousand housewives will benefit from June, and another 100,000 from July.  Chávez said that he aims for up to 500,000 women eventually to get this money.

This is not the implementation of the revolutionary Article 88 of the constitution which recognises the economic and social contribution of women’s unwaged work in the home and on that basis grants housewives a pension.  Article 88 still needs legislation to put it into practice.

Rather than wait for this, Chávez has put together the recognition Article 88 gives to housewives’ work, with the recent legislation aimed at lifting the poorest out of poverty, and redirected some of the oil revenue to women –Chávez has repeatedly said, women are the poorest, work hardest and are most committed to the revolution.

This is finally a wage for housework, something we have demanded since 1972!  It is bound to raise women’s wages in Venezuela.  We heard about it first from people phoning to congratulate us on this victory which they assumed was directly associated with our work.

I spend my days doing laundry, washing dishes, cleaning the kitchen and the bathroom, feeding and cleaning and entertaining and teaching a 2 year old, making sure that my home is in order and comfortable and it is not easy work.

I think that this work is just as valid and necessary as any other work done in this society--probably more so than some other lines of work--why should I not be remunerated for that work?

Until that changes, I wouldn't hold my breath. Not that I don't agree with the validity of the work.

I abhor capitalism, the way it has been carried out. We live in a corporate-welfare state under the clever guise of capitalism.

The principle reward of doing housework is having a clean house; I don't think the state should be compensating you for it. If you're housework for other people then *they* should be compensating you, but that's between you and them, not a matter for the state.

The compensation for childrearing is a) child benefit, and b) not having to pay someone else to rear your child for you. There's a strong case to be made that child benefit should be higher, but those who raise their own children and those who don't should receive the same amount of it.

It is about telling stay-at-home parents that their contributions to society are just as meaningful and necessary and important as their "working" spouse's contribution.

to pass a battery of tests to see if you have the right genes so that your children have a reasonable probability of contributing to society?

If you demand subsidies for parenting, then you should be willing to let government determine who should be allowed to have children.

Listen, all I am saying is that parents who once worked and are now staying at home to keep house and care for children are making a valuable contribution to society and should be treated as such.

with high IQs. When researchers discover a combination of genes that produce high IQs and also low IQs, which group of parents should taxpayers subsidize given that funds are always limited?

It's unpopular to talk about such topics today but that will undoubtedly change in future generations.

You are giving 100% of the credit to genetic inheritance, and 0% credit to environment. In truth, both genetics (nature) and environment (nurture) contribute to a child's development.

Also, you failed to mention pre-natal environment, such as drinking alcohol or taking drugs while pregnant, environmental toxins, prenatal injuries,...none of which are caused by the baby's genes.

Normal childhood development is IMMENSELY dependent upon a stimulating, nurturing environment. Birth to age 3 is the most crucial period. Neglect or abuse, malnutrition, and other environmental dangers can all delay intellectual development.

There is more to IQ than genes.

significant role whether it's 40 or 80 percent.

My point is if society is expected to subsidize child rearing, then society has a role to play in determining what type children are permitted if such capability becomes available.

Will the government say "sorry, these genes don't meet our criteria for subsidized child rearing" to one expecting couple, but to a different couple say "yes, these genes meet our criteria", your offspring qualify for government assistance"...? So the baby with "undesirable" genes would get shortchanged from the start, effectively labeled a 2nd class citizen, and given lower priority in the government's eyes. The baby with "desirable" genes would get preferential treatment from the beginning, and would get extra help from the government. Eventually we would end up with a Brave New World society, with distinct classes of Alphas, Betas, and Deltas. The "Delta" families' child rearing environments would likely worsen, with more prenatal alcohol abuse and drugs and violence, which would be a downward spiral. This sounds like a horrible outcome.

Or, do you propose forced sterilization? Then the question is, who gets to choose which genes are desirable? Obviously, the people already in power will decide for everyone.

For example, let's say a legislator in charge of deciding appropriate genes is: a tall, obese man who hates redheads and Asians, an uncreative thinker, but talented in organization. He will likely encourage these genes: tall, with good organization skills. He won't give creativity genes any special merit. He will discourage redhead and Asian genes, but obesity genes would be just fine.
How could this ever be fair?

This concept is just so out-there.
I went a little overboard, but think about what you're proposing. It sounds like Brave New World to me.

will implement some type of program favorable to people with promising genes and unfavorable to people with genes that are not promising.

The first step is breakthroughs in genetic research that identify combinations of genes that increase the probability a child will have desirable qualities.

We already test for genes that increase the probability a child will have serious abnormalities and discourage couples from having children. That's a step already taken so other steps await research findings.

Society couldn't function if all of a sudden no one had any more children. We all benefit from the people who do have children. I don't want kids but I am more than willing to pay taxes to help support those who do.

What about raised by a SAHM or SAHD who grow up to be not so great? Not all children grow up to be an asset to society. If you want children, fine, but why should I subsidize it? Oh wait....I already do.........with school taxes which makes up most of what I pay in property taxes.......and then theres that portion of my taxes that pay for the welfare benefits of those children where their parents can't or won't work to support them. Now you want to get a subsidy for middle class parents as well?

I am a far left liberal....but I turn conservative when people start asking for handouts for every aspect of their lives.

And, to come clean, I'm an anarchist, and I don't like taxes. But, if we could have a line-item veto on the taxes we didn't want to pay, for me, there'd be a whole lot of weapons manufacturers out of work, and I bet, if you take the wingnuts into account, a whole lot of social services would dry up. I don't see why supporting stay-at-home parents is any more a poor use of dollars than paying for food stamps, a horde of inefficient government agencies, pet pork, the military industrial complex, or anything else.

Honestly, like I just said in another reply, I am just floating an idea, trying to see what others are thinking.

I am gonna try to add that to the OP lol.

subsidize dairy farms, cotton farms, etc. but no longer.

IMO, when you talk about government subsidies you have to determine albeit subjectively the return society receives relative to the investment recognizing that subsidizing parenting is just one of many competing demands, e.g. should we reduce health care programs to subsidize parenting?

I think a much better solution would be to work towards a society where one parent can stay home and keep house. I personally don't care if the stay-at-home parent the father or mother.

This is why both parents end up working--so they can afford to have children.

I don't think that we can mandate that "you made it, you pay for it" mentality--it's definitely reminiscent of eugenics, which I am willing to guess pretty much everyone here thinks is bad.

genes that produce desirable social traits. That's why so many science fiction writers describe future societies in which state permission is needed to have a child.

China already practices population control by limiting couples to one child. It's not inconceivable that the U.S. might be forced to limit populations in the future.

I don't really know what to say. Eugenics = bad.

That pretty much says it all for me.

of groups like the Nazis, KKK, etc.

In like fashion, abortion = bad was once the social norm but that has changed.

I'm sorry, but I just do not agree with you here. I think that it is intrinsically wrong to tell people whether or not they are allowed to procreate.

Also, the next step would be telling certain people that they MUST procreate, which is reproductive slavery, and that is pretty f*ing terrifying.

someday.

If we have the scientific skills to predict whether a couple could have a child that could make major contributions to society, then it is highly probable we will use those skills.

Please step back and consider the 22nd, 23rd, and future centuries.

...involuntary sterilization, concentration camps, and gassing "undesirables" was popular in Nazi Germany.

And until just recently, China believed female babies should be put to death.

But hey, you're in good company! Such notables as Henry Ford and Prescott Bush also believed the pseudo-science of eugenics was great stuff!

I find it very disturbing that anyone who considers him/herself progressive would advocate eugenics.

(And yes, I have thought at length about this issue.)

may implement guidelines on who can have children.

As regards subsidizing parenting, please read history and you'll find that the Nazis paid mothers to have children and raise them.

and your replies seemed extremely sympathetic to the eugenics movement.

I am not advocating paying people to reproduce--all I am saying is that we pay people to take care of our kids for us--why not cut out the middleman?

type of controls on who can have children eventually.

are raised in loving environments, where, as the OP suggests, rather than be farmed out to strangers so that both parents can work, they are raised in an environment where they feel secure, in the care of a parent and therefore have a better chance of growing up with principles that would preclude what you are predicting.

There is NO proof of what you say ~ although I admit it is possible, anything is possible. What will prevent it will be a society that values what we supposedly value today.

Both parents working has put enormous stress on families and especially children who are dropped off as infants in daycare, or to babysitters, leaving the 'nest' in which they should feel the most secure.

In today's culture, they often have to become emotionally detached in order to accustom themselves to the constant changing of adults to whom they often become attached only to have to get to know someone new and form a whole new relationship.

I think what the OP suggests is not at all outrageous and is done in other countries ~

I think it's ludicrous, eg, that a mother leaves her own children in the care of strangers, doesn't often have time to take care of her own home, and may have a job as a housecleaner or in child care for someone else, in order to make money. Why not simply pay her (or the father) to stay home and help society in general by raising more happy and adjusted human beings? And maybe such a society might be more likely to reject what you are suggesting.

It's definitely worth thinking about, imo.

I fully agree that the state telling people that they must or must not have children is not morally ambiguous, but that's only a narrow subsection of the things that come under "Eugenic"; there are a lot of them that I would support.

I support allowing couples to have children from clones, to provide transplants to existing children with otherwise fatal diseases.

I support giving couples who could have children but whose children would have a higher than average chance of disabilities priority in adoption, and advising them about doing so (although I oppose anything that steps over the line from advise to coercal).

I support using medical technology to reduce the chance that a child will be prone to specific diseases.

I support allowing high chance of disability to be a grounds for abortion, and screening for and telling the parents about the more common ones.

I think there is a case to be made for introducing a culture of smaller families - reducing child benefit for subsequent children, making abortion and contraception easily available etc. I think this *is* morally ambiguous at best, though, especially the means as opposed to the end, and I think it's probably not a good idea in America at present, and that again it's vital that anything in this area stay on the right side of the line from encouragement to coercal.

All of those are forms of eugenics, but I think that except for the last one they're clearly justifiable.

WHAT are you talking about?

would be paying a regressive tax on everyone else's children - especially since stay at home parents could in theory now have EVEN MORE children, and everything that means.

It's a nice gesture, but in practice it would be unfair.

How about, if you plan on having a stay at home spouse with zero second income you can opt in to a tax free before tax high interest savings account. It would encourage people to work longer and build up resources before committing to one parent staying at home, which would contribute to success. When the money ran out or ran low, the second parent would have to consider employment again rather than just squeezing out three more kids.

It's just an idea I decided to float out there -- I know it is far from comprehensive and further from fool-proof. Just trying to get people thinking.

I think that your suggestions are very good and worth consideration.

The biggest reason that both parents work is financial--two incomes are needed, and the child's needs are set aside in order to put a roof over his/her head and food in his/her tummy.

I also think that stable homes with plenty of income to pay the bills and a parent who is there to truly tend to children, we would see decreases over the next generation in crime, depression/anxiety disorders, ADD/ADHD, and that these decreases would make the initial payout more than worth it, for all of society.

Unless you believe in no taxes at all, I can't figure why creating a program to help families keep one parent at home is any worse than any other kind of social service or pet government project.

it would be a much more useful and productive program than most of those our gov't currently operates.

someone else does something is not sufficient for me to do that thing.

Choice is extremely important. That's all I dare say, so as not to make myself look pro-abortion.

The biggest reason both parents work today is they want stuff for which parents of several decades ago would say, "We can't afford it." A two-car family was unheard of mostly. So was a house with more than one bathroom.

ADD/ADHD will go away when we let kids be kids and have recess and more PE again. Amazing that we didn't have any kids like that when I was in school.

too many Americans are struggling without even thinking about trying for all the extra "goodies" many of us have come to view as necessary.

"come to view as necessary" part that I have trouble with. I have yet to find anyone happier because of "stuff." We bought the capitalist/corporate bs hook, line, and sinker, and we have no one but ourselves to blame.

Rant on. I mean, they just took down 20 acres of trees next to my house to build a storage unit business to store things people do not have room for in their homes. How do those people make it day to day without all that stuff in storage?

If we would move back toward minimalism, we could have the position to not support capitalism any more than necessary, not have to work so hard to put a roof over our heads, and have more time for the important stuff like family and community.

Okay, rant off now.

:toast:

the children?

Never said I didn't.

I am a stay-at-home mom. I have a 2-yr old daughter, and I spend the vast majority of my time caring for her and our home.

I love being able to spend this time with my daughter--but I also find it offensive that my contribution to society is not valued as highly as my husband's because my work is done inside the home, and his outside.

I know your children have very proud grandparents.

God bless you and yours. :hi:

Re >>ADD/ADHD will go away when we let kids be kids and have recess and more PE again. Amazing that we didn't have any kids like that when I was in school.<<

Just because ADD didn't have a name then doesn't mean it didn't exist. I just turned 60, and didn't even know I had it until three years ago. Recess and PE didn't help one bit...I was terrible at sports and I hated PE--just one more thing for the other kids to taunt me about.

Did you bounce off the walls? Did you not stay focused? I have a son who is like that and one of his early teachers wanted him tested. I said no, because no matter the test results, I was not about to put my child on Ritalin. It was very interesting that once he started early morning workouts, all of his "undesirable behavior" went away, he made A's and B's, and became a favorite of teachers. I have never though that athletics or being good at PE had anything to do with it. Just playing hard and working out.

I really have a problem with a school district where 37% of the students are on Ritalin (Fort Bend County - Tom DeLay's district). I think it has much more to do with lazy teachers and administrators who are not creative enough to find the strengths of a busy child or a dreamy child and with a nationwide system of schools completely out of touch.

We just can't all fit in the same box.

I know couples who could afford to have one parent stay home, but they choose to both work because that's how they prefer to do it.

Do you have empirical evidence that working parents cause your laundry list of disorders? Or is that an assumption too?

In fact, I think it's a non-issue being brought up by the righties who want subserviant wives. Another bullshit culture issue...

I understand if the issue doesn't effect you directly, but how is it a non-issue?

He's a hell of a man and is not lessened by caring for the kids or doing what some consider 'wifely' duties. Hell, the guy got on his hands and knees one time to scrub the floors. We were moving and I was very pregnant at the time.

We've been married almost 18 years and have switched roles more than once. It's always great to see men who don't feel emasculated by being the stay-at-home parent.

And to be honest, while I would love to get paid for raising my kids, I don't need it. Hubby makes enough money that we're fortunate enough to not need it. We're very lucky that to have a choice in whether I work or not. Many couples are not so fortunate.

In fact, I think I'd probably like it.

But I do think at least one parent needs to do it, regardless of who it is. I don't think they should be paid by the government to do so, however.

He's a helluva cook, too!

Whatever works for people, works for them. Who CARES how people structure their lives, so long as the rugrats are well tended?

As for paying people to stay home, though--I vote NO. The money for this will fall on the single people who choose not to have kids at all. Pay people a decent wage, so they can support a family.

The military is actually moving AWAY from housing and benefits that are tied to marriage and family. It's a two-tiered system, and if you are single, you get crapped on. You do the same work, and you receive less benefits.

who wants to get back into the workforce some day. It's loss of accumulated work experience, loss of perception that one is on the cutting edge of their profession, loss of name recognition, etc.

While I agree that a parent staying at home with young children is the best for both parent and child, I don't think employers realize nor care about the personal professional sacrifice for the parent. OK, I had to get that out.

You've got a great idea going for the grant for once-working, now-nurturing parents. At least one problem is solved. I would say a salary "ceiling" should be developed per child, but basing this ceiling on the previous salary of the now un-working parent.

But that's a liberal point of view, and it won't fly.

I certainly agree with you about the professional sacrifice issues--trying to get back into the workforce after leaving it is difficult at best, and discouraged more often than not.

I think that would be an easier sell than a government wage for stay-at-home parents. Talk about expanding the foodstamps and rent subsidies for mothers who have trouble making ends meet, and maybe we've got something to work with.

I am talking about couples who have a child or children in which one parent would like to be able to stay home and care directly for that child/those children.

This is not about welfare--it's about how much we value the work of parents--the most important work there is as far as I am concerned.

Adequate welfare for parents and children should be available to any mother (or father) who needs it, single or not.

that you were referring to single mothers, as I do not consider mothers the only half of a two-person parental unit capable of caring for children.

Of course, very telling in light of what the thread was about in the first place.

You, of your own freewill, chose to make an assumption.

Most studies I've seen seem to be suggesting that the biggest factor in raising a "healthy" (physically, mentally, and emotionally) child is a matter of quality time spent on the child-- gender of the rearing parent doesn't have much of an impact.
Most other developed counties have paternal AND maternal leave, which allows more flexibility and bonding time with the new child. I think this is important to push here in the US.
There is still a lot of stigma attatched for a stay at home dad, which is unfortunate, because I know many men who would make excellent primary care takers; they're just a bit shy to do it because there's a stigma of it not being "manly".

We, as a society, are completely closed off to the idea of stay-at-home dads and male primary caregivers.

It's a damn shame.

My boyfriend is the sweetest thing around kids and is delighted at the idea of him staying home-- am I lucky or what!

But many men aren't receptive to it because society isn't as well.

I do think that this is but a small piece of the larger problem of child care, because as I mentioned before, spending quality time is the biggest factor and is also the very hardest; many people work 2 jobs to simply make ends meet, and many families cannot afford to have one parent stay at home.

This is very wrong and is hurting our children and our human relationships. We need to spend more time with each other--less time working to buy stuff.

it makes me angry to see so many great fathers feel that they can't do the stay-at-home thing simply bc they are male...

I'm pretty sick and tired of this idea that women are the only ones who should have to sacrifice their "outside" lives to have children. We might have to give birth to them, but we are not solely responsible for their care.

I'd much rather see us push to get the wages up for the lower 80% of the workforce that hasn't seen an increase in real spending since the mid 70's. Invest in healthcare, affordable housing and public transport. These are things that will benefit EVERY American, single, married, divorced, widowed. - not that society doesn't benefit from a well raised child of course. - it's just if we invest broadly in our social infrastructure I think we can get back to where with a little education most people could raise a family on one income.

This is, of course JMO.

A living wage, healthcare, affordable housing, and public transportation would be better uses for the money.

to stay home and take care of the children could do so. however, in this day and age most families need both incomes. i do wonder sometimes though if after taxes, after paying for child care and transportation to and from work and clothes and lunches out how much money actually comes in.

some of the professional women i knew (lawyers, etc.) had housekeepers who took care of the children, and did the housework. that's expensive -- one has to be making a good salary to do that or in some cases they just rather not be around the housework or the kids. BTW i would fall into that category. housework and child rearing was not my cup of tea.

on edit: i was very fortunate to have a member of my family take care of my child while i worked. never cost me a dime and i didn't have to worry.

but if stay-at-home parents were granted a wage, some women would be having babies for this purpose.

As for the pros/cons of the article, they didn't go far enough. I've been a stay-at-home mom who has had a couple of jobs as my sons were growing up. In my own experience, I wish I had continued to work in the job I had when I met my then to-be-husband, particularly after I had my sons.

My sons would have been forced to do things for themselves & they would have been happier knowing that their mom worked like their classmates' moms did.

I've also learned through experience that being a stay-at-home parent doesn't necessarily prevent the son/daughter from getting into trouble. Good child raising doesn't necessarily override peer pressure, which is a heavy determining factor in the choices made in their lives.

The righties do have a legitimate concern here, I know of a woman who got preganant with her 5th child and wanted to give it up for adoption because Welfare wouldn't cover him.... I think there is a cap on welfare babies if I understand it correctly.

I think that a subsidy can be abused and perhaps a similar allowance such as a a better tax credit, improved health care, could make a difference. I would like a system that allows families to make that choice, I really think that we really need to address improvements in labor for the working parent.

I think it woudl be valuable for the father to have a "stay at home time" to be a good male role model to boys and girls alike. Unfortunately I can't see alot of them doing it for the sake of careers, etc.

in tax relief as this administration gives to the wealthiest who use their tax cuts to buy more vacation homes & yachts. The cost of raising the next generation is troubling, especially for those who have to work several jobs just to minimally survive until their next payday.

Anything beyond that is unfair to those who do not want children.

If you choose to have children all the issues of care etc.. should be considered before you do so. Expecting anything extra because you choose to have children and want to stay home and raise them is not the masses responsiblity.

not comparable to what I am talking about in the OP.

It isn't unfair--consider that we were all raised by our parents, the next generation needs to be raised as well as possible too, and we have an obligation as a society to make sure we raise the best possible successors.

There's still going to be disparity from the one income family with the working person being a software programmer vs the household provided for by a guy who works at the local warehouse. Do we pay a warehouse worker 60K? Why should anyone go to school? Should a warehouse worker make a living wage - absolutely, but there are differences in salary based on knowledge of the job etc that belong in place also.


Of course we all want this perfect 50s world where only one parent would have to work - but it's not realistic to reward the perfect family while single parents are hurting. It's not fair to those who choose not to have children to have to balance salaries out for those who do.

I was raised by just my mom after my parents divorced. I raised my son by myself. Why the hell should the couple next door with 3 kids get some kind of compensation so one of them can stay home when so many others don't fall into a category where this is possible? I'm sorry but having children carries many responsibilities and sacrifices - all of which need to be considered before decided to bring them into th world.


By the way.. .My mom did a hell of a job on her own. There were six of us - 5 have college degrees and teh other was in Vietnam and has worked for Texaco for over 30 years.

It's not the number of parents - it's the quality of those parents. Allowing one of them to stay home does not guarantee the nurturing kids need.

If the world was perfect, this would be a great idea. It's not and it's unfair to those who are not in 2 parent households or not with kids at all to compensate those who choose to have kids.

child-rearing costs if they need the help. I also believe that single parents should have the option of being stay-at-home parents, at least until their children are school-age, and that this should be part of the kind of program I was talking about in the OP.

a stay at home father. he is the nurturer. she did not have the character for it. i have met women that just do not want to or have the interest to be stay at home. i also think it does more harm to a child to have a parent stay home when they dont want to. i dont think there should be a gender role.

i think it is good for a parent to stay at home. i didnt think i would. i did. best decision for our family. i wont judge other families. works for some, doesnt for others. i do see consequences for families though with two working parents. i also know there is higher in all things, so this too will work for the best, if priorities are there.

also as a stay at home, we tend to pick up the slack in schools for the parents that are too busy at work. again, a reality, but i am ok with that.

and no, as a stay at home i dont think the govt should pay me.

just value what i do, and dont think i sit around eating bon bons, doing nothing, waiting for all to come home, "resting" all day is what one working mom says.

in my house we have worked it to where i do about all things for kids, hubby, errands, chores, so both hubby and i have lots of free time when work is done. when kids were babies, i had higher expectation out of hubby and needed help. slowly i have been able to take over a lot of his chores so he doesnt have a lot ot do when he comes home.

i am happy with the enviroment we have created for our family.

... than the current commoditization of labor. I suppose it's an inevitable 'leakage' of the horrendously (increasingly) inequitable treatment of human labor both in compensation and in the tax policies that penalize the income one earns from one's own labor as opposed to the income one gains from the labors of others.

Just imagine how much more equitable it'd be if we really thought in terms of labor 'compensation' - compensation for the time that person can't be with their family (including children) or time that person can't be serving as a community service volunteer? The assumption that 'compensation' is somehow only validly determined by the degree to which some employer can exploit the products of that labor seems somehow perverted to me. It sure doesn;t have much relationship to what we claim is the most important part of life - love, family, community, education, and improving the quality of all our lives.

It's not an entirely alien concept. After all, civil suits for wrongful deaths include an appreciation for "loss of consortium" and all manner of (so-called) intangible 'compensations.' Isn't employment, to some degree, a "loss of consortium"??

That is, on one hand, we're told that mothers are the nurturing facet of the family. Children should not stay at home with fathers because mothers best fulfill that role. (I've even heard the argument about why mostly women are childcare workers... next best thing to the mom's breasts are another set... yup, the 'gentleman' was serious when he told me that)

Then, in the next breath, we're told that children cannot develop appropriately without a strong male figure in their lives.

The really, truly interesting thing is that study after study has shown that the sex of the person providing for a child doesn't matter. What does matter is that the child feel safe, secure, loved and wanted. Of course, such information can't be shouted from the roof tops. If it was, people might start to understand why homosexual couples or single parents can (and do) raise perfectly healthy and happy children.

These studies also seem to miss a large portion of the population: Those of us who are work-from-home-parents. With technology (and unlimited, flat-rate long distance phone service) it is easy for a talented and skilled individual to start building a business which can be run from home. As evidence, I've been doing it since 1998.

As for my two cents? I think if American workers were paid a living wage, you'd see more moms and dads opting to stay at home with junior and missy. Each and every day more American families wake up to the fact that they've been sold a bill of goods by corporations and materialism.

had the effect of LOWERING the working wage?

When women entered the workforce in large numbers and in more tradditionally male roles, the workforce grew a lot larger and employers could set lower wages.

After all, when is the last time one salary could comfortably support many families?

Now PLEASE do not misconstrue this to mean I object to women working or I think it's the fault of women - I certainly don't think either thing. It's just a matter of numbers, and gender has nothing to do with it.

with support from the village. I support having a parent stay at home to raise kids. I think the village can help with community social groups and activities and with some sort of financial help to allow one parent to give up or postpone a career, including a safety net for those that give up careers and then find themselves single parents with no profession when the spouse's midlife crisis leaves them on their own.

I don't know what kind of financial help would work best. Whatever it is, I'd make it a blanket, uniform thing whether the family has one or ten children, rather than a "per child" thing.

but it doesn't matter if it's the father or the mother. And some families are better off if both parents are working, and a kindly person is taking care of the children -- if a career-oriented woman is staying with her baby and is depressed, it's a much worse situation than having the kid in a good daycare.

I stayed home with my kids, and loved it. But I don't think there's anything wrong *necessarily* wrong with a babysitter or a nanny or a grandma -- some of those people are more patient, loving, and smart than the child's natural parents.

As for paying women to stay home -- our society can't even guarantee that people have health care, so I think we're far from being able to do that. On the other hand, I do believe in giving single mothers welfare if necessary.

apart from when children are very young, but once their in school why do you need to stay home? My folks raised 4 kids who are now all productive adults with no major hangups, we're also much closer to our parents than any of our (similar aged) friends whose parents stayed home.

As to the costs, put the money into housing, education, child care & health thereby reducing those costs and alleviating the need for two incomes, beyond that if people NEED to have two cars or a plasma screen TV well it's up to them which is more important, kiddie time or consumer goods.

Seriously though to anyone feeling guilty about working, don't, it's irrelevant to how your kids turn out or how good your relationship will be.

The article was geared towards women, so that's why they were the context. It didn't say anywhere though that men couldn't be the ones staying home, they were just simply writing to their audience. As far as the stay at home dad issue goes, Absolutely Hell Yeah. I'd love to stay home with my kids while my wife worked, but it is my wife who says "bullshit, you're the one who's supposed to be working and making enough money so that I don't have to". But if we were able to get by on one salary, I'd love to be a stay at home dad. I think either parent has the same ability and potential to stay home with the kids and there is nothing taboo about either. As far as the government program goes, I really don't agree whatsoever that the government should do that at all just on the basis of a parent choosing to stay home.

All in all though, there are definitely pros and cons against each case of staying at home vs working, but in many cases I'm sure it isn't so much a choice as it is a forced outcome to not being able to afford a family in today's economy on one salary alone.

If you want to have kids, have them. If you want to have a stay at home parent, work it out. Whether both parents work or not is a personal choice.

Government has no place in endorsing or supporting such personal choices.

Mom or Dad either one, whoever is better at it. A person can be a great worker but a lousy parent, or vice versa. One parent should work and one should stay home, if it's possible.

I recognize with many divorces and such that the ideal is not always a possibility.

I believe parents should sacrifice on what they buy as young parents to make more time for kids. Two parents working while a nanny keeps the kid is not my idea of parenting. Two parents working to keep up with peers' acquistions of assets is not an excuse, either.

At least in the early years, and it can be either mom or dad.

Of course, I wouldn't assume this is right for all families, and I don't judge those who do it differently, but for my family it was not debatable.

I'm speaking for myself and my experience. When our kids were young, my wife did not work outside the home, although we had livestock and their care, which is work. But it's at home.

I was in a position to run my business from an office I built at my home, so I was there most of the time, too.

That allowed us to tag team the kids in terms of watching them, and we still had them go to little guy school 4 hours a day from age 2-5, because that is also good for them. I wouldn't take anything in the world for the joy of those days of parenting. They're hard on you, but every day is a bonanza of qualified love and joy from the little ones. When they have a lot of your time, when they don't have to separate for 8-10 hours a day, they do better.

I can't wait to have grandkids!

Wages should be such that one full-time or two part-time jobs can provide for a family, as wages were a few decades ago. National wealth has increased since but for some reason we now have to work longer hours for lower wages. Maybe it's got something to do with distribution of wealth.

That's always your caveat. (Quite revealing. You do know I have black friends?)

But tell me honestly, why do you hate men so much?

Do you have two cars? How many TVs do you have? Computers? How much is you house worth? Do you go on vacations? How do you know it's best for a woman to stay home and raise a child? My mom worked off and on while I was growing up and I didn't turn out to be a scrouge of society....How long do you want to stay home to raise this child? Would you go back to work once they are in school? Or do you want to be there when they get home from school until they graduate?

Now before you jump down my throat........parenting is about making sacrifices. Want to stay home? Dump the 2nd car, get rid of that tv in the bedroom, nix Jr's gameboy, go on a camping trip for vacation instead of DisneyWorld.......go work part time while little Mary is in school and then be there with cookies when she gets home. No one ever said it would be easy..........but you chose to have children.........I chose not to so I could lead a different lifestyle. Already I pay to help support your child with School taxes......that's a necessary give back to society IMHO.......paying you to stay home and maintain your 2 car, 3 or 4 BR ranch in the suburbs with yearly vacations while Mary & Jr grow up is not a necessary part of the equation.

who chooses to have child(ren), and chooses to stay home to raise them?

While I continue to work two full-time jobs just to get by and get no special benefits by virtue of the fact that I'm childless?


Sorry, I can't see that as really fair.

dichotomies and choices - like "stay-at-home" vs. "working" mom, or mom vs dad as caretaker, or parent vs non-parent in the workplace, tax roles, and benefit line.

Many here promote a "stay at home" parent in the early years, with lots of "shoulds" thrown about. Yet home is the most dangerous place for children in terms of incidence of abuse and neglect. On the other hand, working full-time with small children is a nightmare of exhaustion (I know, having done it , albeit with only one child - how mothers/fathers manage with two or more under five is a mystery to me).

Forcing an infant, toddler, or pre-schooler to function on a "work" schedule instead of his/her internal rythms is often a recipie for an unhappy and difficult child. On the other hand, children of "stay-at-homes" are subject to the dangers and stresses of the isolated nuclear family, and miss the social and cognitive benefits of interacting with other children and adults.

It does indeed take a village to raise a child, and the entire village needs children to exist (the whiners about parental "benefits" and school taxes would soon sing a different tune if there were not enough educated replacement doctors and scientists, or even laborers to build their roads) so why do we insist on one or two adults doing it? And how on earth do we justify the class division of chilren by their parents' socio-economic status - a reality of our current system, where the children of the poor are routinely deprived of even a decent education?

I do not claim to have an easy answer, but I do believe that as long as we frame this "debate" only in terms of the nuclear family we will be debating the same tired dichotomies forever without resolution. My own view is that:

Gender has nothing to do with capacity to nurture or suitablility for spending extended time providing teaching, stimulation, and socialization for small children.

Wanting/needing to work for intellectual and/or social stimulation/interaction does not mean that one does not love children or want them in one's life - whether as biological parents or simply as an essential aspect of being human. However, it may preclude one being the "best" person to be a full-time caregiver.

Spending long stretches of time isolated in caring for small children is stressful for the adult, stressful for the child(ren), and stressful for the relationship between them, as well as frequently dangerous for the children, who are subjected by chance to whatever craziness s/he happens to encounter in said adults.

No child should be deprived of the early childhood stimulation, education, or cultural exposure that is necessary to become a functioning adult (a deprivation routine in our class-ridden society).

Children benefit the entire community, and are the responsibility of the entire community. Their safety and welfare should be the communities' first priority.

If it is a job, should the jobholder be classified as labor, management, or neither?

and their family is the right thing to do, but I'm not so sure about paying a person to stay at home.

You can work and have the money or you can be at home with your kids and have those priceless experiences but not both. Why do you feel entitled to money to support your choice? There are programs if you qualify for assistance already and tax credits and community support of schools. Yes children are the future and will be compensated for their contributions in the future. I also have all of the housework to do and stress of my bills but I don't expect compensation beyond a clean house. Life is about choices and sacrifices you can't have everything.

really, in the sense that we do it. From the Stone Age women have worked at something with a commercial value whether gathering in the forest, growing food or in the courtyard spinning and weaving. They kept their kids with them while they did their jobs or they were able to leave them with the elders for child care.

Fast forward to our technological workplace and then the imbalance becomes visible. Parents need day care near or at the job. This way they can look in on them during the day, have lunch with them and drive home with them. It doesn't matter which parent they go to work with.

Kids like it too. They like the play atmosphere and being there with other kids. Older kids can go to schools near a parents place of work for the same reasons. Many schools are now instituting after school programs for working parents.

Also, if one is lucky to have willing grandparents, that can work too.

It's been a struggle financially, but well worth the sacrifice. I agree with those who said kids with ADD/ADHD and other behavior problems would be greatly helped by a parent being home. The anxiety that children have because of absent parents is definitely overlooked by our society.

So...How about a nice sized tax deduction for stay at home parents?! O8)

zero income LOL

Just teasing I guess. I wish we could afford my wife (or myself) staying home, but we can't. But I don't think tax deductions should be handed out to those who can.

as a choice that any regular family can make is obviously very out of touch with normal American life.


Naturally, it would be better for the kids if a parent could stay home with them all day. Hell, it would be even better if both parents could be home all day and all evening and all night with the kids.


But, in most middle-class families, its just impossible. For many families, one income just isn't enough to get by on anymore.

And she basically owns my paycheck, hell with the govt giving her money, I need some!