One of the measures of a civilization is how its children are raised. I believe that America has greatly devolved with regards to childcare. Shelter, heat, and food are essentials that are becoming harder and harder to afford, especially with the drasctic and excessive raise in gas and food prices. Two adults in most households must work just to make ends meet, and children are slipping through the cracks. They are spending more time in daycare and less time with their families. We tend to ignore this when we look at American culture, and specifically our young people.
I love being home with my son. I would love to do it until he's ready for school, but we just can't afford it. We discussed not having children until we could afford for one of use to be at home with them, but decided that I would probably be in menopause by then, so it would be best to start now. I've worked in the childcare industry and have not been impressed at all by what I've seen. I would advocate small, home-run daycares over an institution any day. For women who can afford it, I believe that they should stay home with their kids.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
United, I agree with you, although in some families the man is better suited to child rearing and the women to the business world.
I remember in the 1960s, when I supported women's rights, along with other activist causes, how surprised I was that the women's movement was getting considerable financial support from some old line conservative foundations. I passed it off as altruism, but now I think I understand. In the 1960s it was easy for someone with a high school education to get a job in which he could advance sufficiently to buy a home, feed a wife and family, own two cars, educate his children, go away for annual vacations, and save for retirement. To accomplish the same today requires the work of two parents with college degrees, and one better have an advanced degree or work in a trade where unions dominate. While the liberation of women was a good and necessary thing from a personal liberty standpoint, it has been hijacked by Big Business and turned against the family.
Tomcat,
I agree totally, and I didn't mean to leave that part out. My husband stays home with my son 2 days a week and would do it more if it were possible.
Amen, UWL. Bet your shocked from someone you typically agree with and whose comments you either ignore or delete.
I'm not so sure that we can lay this on Big Business taking advantage of the women's movement, though it looks that way. Makes it sound chauvenistic and retaliatory. What is missed is now, there are more women involved in Big Business' decision making and wage levels than ever before.
I think a more simpler thing occurred: the market place became flooded with personnel. The more workers that fill the job scene, the easier it is to find workers. This means the need to use monetary incentives to land people is less necessary and it becomes pragmatic to keep costs down.
This is the down-side of Capitalism, impersonal market forces left unchecked injure people. This irritates me enormously. Passive/aggressive leaders point to the market with the idea that they are powerless. I'm not buying it.
People need a voice of moral clarity to business and political leaders who are movers in the Capitalistic system to account. If those who are called to this role, such as church leaders and the religious, are sleeping on the job, or worse, are as hedonistic as the capitalist leaders, then nothing changes and the little man or woman gets hurt.
Good post!
I agree in part, however, I do wonder where the "family values" voters voices are on these issues. They seem to fall silent when we bring up topics like safe, decent, and affordable child care options. In some EU countries, stay at home parents get a government stipend to supplement their incomes, allowing one parent (either parent) to stay home for up to three years. They can even switch off - mom stays home the first two and dad stays home the next year, or whatever.
That's decried as "socialist" (oooo-weeee-ooooo scary) in most American circles, and we can't have that. Honestly, more than women's liberation, I think liberalism (in the traditional political sense, not left-of-center sense) is the real cause. We value individual rights over collective rights, and so no one wants to pay in to a system of social welfare that would help the community. That might eat into their Cancun vacation fund...
Tomcat's right, it doesnt have to be the woman. I raised our two daughters, at least up until they went to school. Of course, because my wife, the teacher, is our big bread-winner, I still had to work, which I did at night. So it's been 10 years of seeing my wife and grown-up family mainly on weekends and surviving most days on less than 6 (non-consecutive)hours of sleep a night/day while raising a baby. It's been worth it, but it was hard.
I'd be curious how much of the two jobs problem is simply one of housing. At an average of a quarter million dollars now for a common ranch house, what kind of job(s) do you need to afford that? Let's not even discuss the way whole suburbs are popping up where houses average twice that or more. How many people work to afford those huge houses?
Of course, it's really a circular problem. Houses are expensive because people work two jobs to buy them because houses are expensive because people work two jobs to buy them because houses are expensive...
UWL, you might also be interested to read this "duh"-inducing article about studies linking levels of ill-health and violent crime with economic inequality.
"This is the down-side of Capitalism, impersonal market forces left unchecked injure people. This irritates me enormously. Passive/aggressive leaders point to the market with the idea that they are powerless. I'm not buying it. "
As long as a society tries to make one system, and one system only, the basis for anything, it will never achieve its full potential.
Daveaway:
I don't understand. Making one system the basis of anything...? Are you proposing multiple economic systems, or are you going after the passiveness that allows one system, i.e., Capitalism, to be our system, or do you suggest a different system?
I'm curious.
Dave,
That's a good point. One of the reasons I'm able to stay home right now is becuase we don't have a morgage.
Housing is part of it, but a larger part is distribution of the wealth. The inequality in income between the super rich and the rest of us is greater than at any time since 1929, and growing worse. As for socialism, we already have it, but for the rich only. The poor are stuck with free enterprise.
As always, I find myself in agreement with TomCat.
On a related issue, perhaps, I wonder how assembled company feel on this issue as to whether the U.S. System Trips Up Women Seeking Presidency
Post a Comment