Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since the Covid-19 lockdown, I've heard a number of parents express they like being home with their children. Isn't that nice? Parents actually wanting to parent! Stop the presses! Call the media!
How did we get to the point that it takes two incomes to run a family? Why has it not only become acceptable but in many ways the norm to farm out ones children to the lowest priced stranger to raise our nation's children? Because we'd rather serve our corporate overlords than raise our children?
It seems this has only been the way since the '60's. Is it a coincidence that families have never been as strained -- or estranged -- from one another.
My husband and I don't have children. That's mostly because we decided we couldn't do both a career and parenting and do them both well.
Someone said Dan Quayle was right and Murphy Brown was wrong. Now there's something I never thought I'd say, but can we agree that all things being equal... A two-parent household is better for the child. Saying this doesn't demonize the one parent household.
The workplace could change to accommodate this. Whether the father or the mother (or Spouse A or Spouse B) stays home is a family decision. Whichever spouse stays home would receive some level of Universal income. They are after all, caring for our nation's future and that's at least a national security issue.
Children deserve it... Parents deserve it... Our nation deserves it. Well-balanced families and near zero unemployment. Happy, smiling faces! What could possibly go wrong? It is time to return to family obligations and stop farming out responsibilities to strangers?
No one is forced to stay home or give up a career. Life is full of choices. And I choose to avoid being antagonistic so I hope we can have a friendly discourse. What say you?
A lot of people are still under the erroneous impression, that the reason both spouses work these days, is mostly by choice. I was one of those people, that believed, that when middle-class women went into the work force whenever that first started, it was by choice.
Economists point out, though, that wage stagnation began in the 80's, while COL indicators continued to rises: rents/RE, groceries, etc. By the 90's, women had to work, in order to make up for the growing gap between what their husbands were making, and basic monthly expenses. This is also when CEO pay took off like a rocket, so the profit from ever-improving productivity was no longer going into rewarding employees for that productivity, by raising their wages. It was going toward inflated CEO pay.These days, the only people who can afford to have a SAHP, are those, whose income far exceeds the COL in their area. Or the SAHM/SAHD has to have some kind of home-based part-time gig, in addition to looking after the kids and home.
I'd like to point out the positive side of having both parents work. Kids seeing mom go off to work every day, along with dad, get some very positive and powerful role modeling about women's potential (important for girls), and about women and men contributing equally or significantly, to the family budget and to the running of the household and family. Decisions in such coupes tends be made on a shared basis. This is important role modeling for boys as well as girls.
I've watched girls grow up with such modeling by their parents, and they simply assume they'll go to college, and get a professional degree of some sort, for a career. That didn't used to happen. It wasn't unusual for girls to want to grow up to be a "housewife", like their mothers.
Thanks for those of you that offered the interesting comments and some good points all around. I wouldn't expect anyone to take the issue personally. Of course there are good parents. What could you expect in a country with 1/3 of a BILLION PEOPLE! Some parents will move heaven and earth to provide for their children and to love them and guide them.
So it's not about the choices you made or I made. IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE FUTURE. Are you really going to defend this culture that believes societal issues and the foundation of Family are doing just fine? Everything is peachy keen? 40% of children are now born to single mothers with no additional spouse playing a role. And a majority of single mothers will live in poverty with their child, dreams will be deferred and opportunities lost. You REALLY believe that sort of standard is GOOD ENOUGH? Hundreds of thousands of children in foster care and I probably don't have to tell you what a total nightmare that is. On their 18th birthday, these kids are tossed to the street, with virtually no one to turn to! Do you really think the government is doing everything it can and should do to support and nurture healthy family units?
Can you just TRY to imagine that there is a better way to support families and children than what is happening today?
Clearly, if you think everything is just fine because "you" raised upstanding citizens, then we have little in common.
I see a public school system that has failed. If you don't believe me, take a look at the global rankings. Part of the problem is because parents aren't involved (except for "you" of course.) Ask a teacher in any inner city school and ask them how many of the parents of their students show up for Parent-Teacher Night. The answer is between 5 and 10% show up. That means 90% DON'T. But typical for America, it's always, always someone else's fault.
The bottom line is we get the government we deserve. Millions don't even bother to vote. We get the public education we deserve. And what becomes of the youth in the upcoming generation is exactly what you made of it. For some who can least afford it, buying the newest sneakers is the newest definition of Family Values. Sorry, I don't get it.
What I am getting is the impression that Americans don't value the proposition that allows one parent to stay home and actively raise their children instead of paying someone else to look after them. To my way of thinking a monthly Universal Stipend to that parent would be an investment in this country that would be well worth it. Oh well, as a woman who is apparently standing alone in this thinking, at least we're all entitled to our own opinions.
Last edited by ReadyForWhatsNext; 08-01-2020 at 10:10 PM..
Reason: argh... typo
Um ... ok, but you said you chose not to have them because you both knew you couldn't do a good job of both. You didn't even try; you just opted out.
But what if you really did want to be a parent AND work in your career? And you're optimistic about your abilities? So you did try both?
It's hard to even approach your topic because you've thrown in so many glib generalities. But based on your proposed solutions, it sounds like this is a social issues question rather than a parenting question.
Hi Birdie,
It IS a Societal issue more so than Parenting. It's so much bigger than any one family or one child who eats dinner alone and spends only mere minutes with a parent daily. It's an American issue, a national issue. That's why I didn't put it in the Parenting category - the Moderator moved it to Parenting.
Thanks for writing.
Last edited by ReadyForWhatsNext; 08-01-2020 at 10:28 PM..
It sounds like you made the right choice for you. I don't think you are qualified to tell others how they should raise their children or what it means as an "American issue."
Thank you for your post. I appreciate your words. Since time immemorial, one parent or another took an active daily role in raising their children. Only since the '60's have we decided to farm out the mundane roles to others.
Well, that's a super broad generalization.
People have been "farming out" their kids to others for as long as we've had farms. Grandparents, neighbors, nannies, wetnurses, the older children of the family, boarding schools, governesses, etc., depending on the time period and the position of the parents. Lower class women have always had to work, and upper class women have always had servants.
My thought is that for those who have children raising them safely to be responsible adults should be the number one priority. If you're going to add more people to the community I believe you have that responsibility.
That's the ideal. Most all of us, depending on circumstances, had to fall somewhere along the spectrum.
I personally suspect many put material things too high on their list of wants which require them to work outside of the home and if they were willing to do with less for a decade or so they would be able to manage care of their child from home.
No matter how technologically advanced a society is or how many conveniences it can provide people is a moot point if the people who form it are dysfunctional.
After six years my husband wanted children. I had finished my education and wanted to use it. I agreed to have children with the caveat that I stay at home with them for the first six crucial years and that any time the family or any member of the family was in crisis I come home from working and provide stability.
That's how we did it. DH and I went without a lot of our wants in those early years but we've caught up. And our kids always had a parent available at home for them during the most important times.
It appears the question is that some people don't value the care of a parent or in-home care as high as others do. That's the real crux of the matter, it seems.
Did it matter to society or my children? Who knows what the difference would have been another way? But I can feel comfortable in knowing that I lived up to what I thought was right for me.
Thanks for those of you that offered the interesting comments and some good points all around. I wouldn't expect anyone to take the issue personally. Of course there are good parents. What could you expect in a country with 1/3 of a BILLION PEOPLE! Some parents will move heaven and earth to provide for their children and to love them and guide them.
So it's not about the choices you made or I made. IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE FUTURE. Are you really going to defend this culture that believes societal issues and the foundation of Family are doing just fine? Everything is peachy keen? 40% of children are now born to single mothers with no additional spouse playing a role. And a majority of single mothers will live in poverty with their child, dreams will be deferred and opportunities lost. You REALLY believe that sort of standard is GOOD ENOUGH? Hundreds of thousands of children in foster care and I probably don't have to tell you what a total nightmare that is. On their 18th birthday, these kids are tossed to the street, with virtually no one to turn to! Do you really think the government is doing everything it can and should do to support and nurture healthy family units?
Can you just TRY to imagine that there is a better way to support families and children than what is happening today?
Clearly, if you think everything is just fine because "you" raised upstanding citizens, then we have little in common.
I see a public school system that has failed. If you don't believe me, take a look at the global rankings. Part of the problem is because parents aren't involved (except for "you" of course.) Ask a teacher in any inner city school and ask them how many of the parents of their students show up for Parent-Teacher Night. The answer is between 5 and 10% show up. That means 90% DON'T. But typical for America, it's always, always someone else's fault.
The bottom line is we get the government we deserve. Millions don't even bother to vote. We get the public education we deserve. And what becomes of the youth in the upcoming generation is exactly what you made of it. For some who can least afford it, buying the newest sneakers is the newest definition of Family Values. Sorry, I don't get it.
What I am getting is the impression that Americans don't value the proposition that allows one parent to stay home and actively raise their children instead of paying someone else to look after them. To my way of thinking a monthly Universal Stipend to that parent would be an investment in this country that would be well worth it. Oh well, as a woman who is apparently standing alone in this thinking, at least we're all entitled to our own opinions.
You’re shifting goalposts. The original post is about 2 working parents “farming out” childcare (as parents have done since time immemorial)... but now you’re talking about single parents, foster care, and the state of public education.
I’m oldish and can only get fired-up about one issue at a time. To the original topic: I’d say most parents are just doing the best they can for their family. Whether it’s the result of poor planning, unrealistic expectations, or life just dealing you a bad hand, once the kids are already here, the horse is out of the barn. They need to be supported and cared for, and having less money to do so doesn’t help. Thankfully, the workforce is gradually becoming more family-friendly, because so many working parents make their work-life balance a priority.
As a father of 2 boys who co-parents, I find the whole “women should be a SAHM” argument insulting to both women and men. The days of the Boomer “men bring home the bacon while women fry it up in a pan” are over.
Perhaps a working mother can’t balance child rearing as well as working in a professional career without a partner, but if it’s split it’s manageable. We did leverage daycare for the first few years but now juggle everything as equally as we can - including cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc.
I see no reason why having children and 2 careers is an impossibility. But OP, if you didn’t feel it would work for you it’s good that you didn’t have kids.
As a father of 2 boys who co-parents, I find the whole “women should be a SAHM” argument insulting to both women and men. The days of the Boomer “men bring home the bacon while women fry it up in a pan” are over.
Perhaps a working mother can’t balance child rearing as well as working in a professional career without a partner, but if it’s split it’s manageable. We did leverage daycare for the first few years but now juggle everything as equally as we can - including cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc.
I see no reason why having children and 2 careers is an impossibility. But OP, if you didn’t feel it would work for you it’s good that you didn’t have kids.
While I applaud your ideals, realistically I think you are off the mark.
I would love to be a stay at home dad...love it more than anything. But realistically I bring home the paycheck, she stays at home because she can't earn as much as I do. That's the reality.
It's harder for the mother to breast feed when forced to return to the work force quickly after birth. The mother has to carry the baby for 9 months and in some jobs they just can't travel (pre-covid) like men can.
While women absolutely should make as much money as men, if not more, the cold hard rules of the business world being ruthlessly financially motivated means it's much less convenient to have key employees who need to take significant time off from work / major projects to have kids.
It's just biology, and how nature works.
Factor that most women are not as aggressive as men going up the corporate ladder, they are just not going to make as much money as men.
Given how expensive child care can be, we decided that she would stay at home and I would bring home the paycheck. It worked best for us, and I suspect for most people. Is it old school? Perhaps. Is it practical and realistic? I would say yes, for most parents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
