Yes, parenthood and the families deserve their rightful place of honor back in society. Take care of the family and you will resolve a lot of society's problems. Motherhood and fatherhood have become almost derogatory terms these days. I left a career as a software engineer to raise my two kids, but people would say things like "Oh, so you don't work any more." Really?!! Really?!! I never worked so hard in my life, and was never so challenged and beautifully rewarded, as when I was raising my kids. And honestly, raising them was THE most meaningful work I have ever, ever done... Ever. When I say "work" I no longer mean "It's gotta be done so I'm going to do it", I mean "oh man, I love what I am doing".
Yes, women can enter the workforce now and have economic opportunities but the WORK of motherhood inside a home is STILL not valued by our society. When will we learn that not all valuable work earns money? When will be value raising children by both mothers and fathers? When we will value raising children?
When people start using their heads for something besides a hat rack. Anyone with a brain could see that two-parent households produce much better child-raising results than single-parent ones. Unfortunately, all our welfare programs for the last 60 years have been going in the other direction, basically saying "sure, go ahead and have kids out of wedlock, maybe by multiple fathers, and we'll give you just enough money to keep doing that, but not enough money or support to STOP doing that".
That's just the reality - the cold hard facts. We can ignore them at our nation's peril, but they won't go away.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Until our government disincentivized marriage and made fatherhood obsolete the two parent family was the norm. Across all races and socioeconomic strata. And no it was not unintentional, LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. He was creating a dependent class. That voted for those who "took care" of them.
No, the trend has NOT been to provide more aid to low income single mothers.
Cash benefits for women with children have been severely limited since 1997, when Congress instituted the TANF program. TANF is an acronym for "Temporary Assistance to Needy Families" and limits a mother or a father or both to just five years of aid in their LIFETIMES, no matter how many chldren they have or when the children are born.
"The TANF grant has a five-year lifetime limit and requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within three years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week (35 for two-parent families). Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits. TANF funds may be used for the following reasons: to provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for at home; to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families
All one has to do is look at any objective measure of poverty and offspring success to see that despite all the money poured into the various direct/indirect transfer programs over the last 50 years, minorities, especially blacks, are worse off than they were before. Just look at any large democrat-owned city like Baltimore, Chicago or Detroit. Education successes are non-existent, crime, especially by and against blacks is way up.
I'm an engineer, and I do experiments all the time. You set expectations for success or failure BEFORE you run the experiment, run the experiment, and then compare expectations to results. Would any sane person say that the 50-year experiment at a cost of some 22 TRILLION dollars has been a success?
Just to put that in perspective, $22T is $22,000 BILLION, or 22,000,000 MILLION. Given that the population of the US in 1965 was around 200 million, that means that we have thrown away something on the order of $100,000 for every man, woman, and child alive in the U.S. in 1965 - for NOTHING! Actually it's much worse than that - because as a race, the blacks in this country have LOST that 50 years that they could have utilized to continue a monotonically increasing wealth, health, and educational success curve - right up until the point where the government started giving them 'free money'.
I often add to my comments - I am an engineer, to point out we think in logic and outcomes. What I also say is look at the results of leftist policies - they don't work and often hurt the people they are supposed to help. 2 other comments - people have to stop thinking about what about people think. Isn't that what we tell our kids? I was working for a software company in the 90s and decided to stay home with my kids. That was only possible because I am married. I didn't care what people thought, and believe that they told me. If others don't value or respect my decison, that's their problem. And we have to stop hiding the truth so we don't hurt people feelings. My parents divorced and I turned out fine, but it was tough. I have divorced friends and their lives are more difficult. We are all good people, but it's OK to say we may have been better off with married parents or if we found a better partner. We can handle the truth.
You’re only addressing cash assistance, which you’re right, is very limited. But that doesn’t address things like Medicaid, food stamps, child care assistance, housing assistance (super expensive), etc. All of these are very hard to qualify for if the parents are married or living together with the children. TANF is small potatoes compared to these far more widely used programs.
During a discussion about poverty with colleagues, several of whom I considered friends, I once said that welfare should be tied to an assiduous and successful use of birth control.
"That's genocide!" I was told.
That was in the mid-1980s.
I often wonder what they think nowadays, or whether conditions on the ground make them double down even more on diversity, equity, and intimidation (What *does* that 'I' stand for?) despite the movement's lunacy.
Sounds about right. Just like Planned Parenthood denounced its founder, Margaret Sanger, on the accusation that she was committing genocide by going into poor urban neighborhoods (which are nearly always predominantly black) and providing birth control. Anyone who has had babies should be able to appreciate the gift of reproductive choice. Seems like the people who cry genocide when we promote birth control for poor mothers have never had babies, never had to support them financially or arrange for their care WHILE earning the money to provide for them. When you’re poor, a baby is the last nail in the coffin of your hopes and dreams for a stable life. I’ll never understand why we aren’t pushing birth control harder than any other social program. Most of society’s problems would be solved or greatly improved if babies weren’t born to parents who either don’t want them or can’t provide for them (financially or emotionally). It’s a relatively inexpensive solution to poverty, crime, disciplinary problems at school, low academic achievement, etc.
This would be illegal -- there is no legal or ethical way to ensure that women use birth control, especially as its use is forbidden by some religions. There are other ways to accomplish the same goal. The problem here is that we have already given incentives to women to have children without being married, and getting rid of those would not only get rid of the incentive, it would create worse conditions for children who would continue to be born. Before these incentives were created, there were plenty of incentives NOT to have children, and those incentives helped both men and women either use birth control or not have sex in the first place. Now that those negative incentives don't exist, many people refuse to acknowledge any incentives against sexual license. Many institutions actually treat people as incapable of self control and (if you've never worked with public health agencies, you might be shocked at the casual contempt they have for the sexual mores of their clients, which they seem to think they should encourage because "you can't expect better from people like that").
Of course government grants don't provide enough money for single mothers - but then we have to think about the incentives and disincentives that any government program create. The point of the discussion was that many government programs have actively reduced incentives for family creation - and that trend is disrupting important societal structures.
It goes both ways. Women and men need to stop acting this way, which means that families, schools, institutions, and media have to stop encouraging them to do so and teach what really happens before they realize that all those things people said never went wrong actually go wrong often, and they've messed up their lives.
I am. But I'm not a fanatic about it:) My wife worked before we had sons and stayed at home for a dozen years or so until the youngest entered middle school. We certainly had a social life but made spending time with our sons a priority. Got involved in their activities like tennis and debate. Doing these things doesn't guarantee success but both sons, now in their mid to late forties are great people who are contributing members of society. And good parents themselves. Which is more satisfying than my career successes.
What a great reply. My bride was a very talented realtor when we met. When we were expecting our first she decided her future vocation will be her family. INITIALLY I was overwhelmed by the idea because she closed on at least one property monthly. That requires tremendous effort but provided a tidy income. I didn't argue and manned up. We struggled but I like to believe we've been greatly blessed.
Amen, K.B. , Amen. I agree. Whether a person works outside the home or not, ... and whether a person enjoys their outside work or not .... it should never take away from the incredible importance of raising our kids. There are few things more valuable than raising good humans. I actually DID enjoy my job in Comp Sci, I just enjoyed raising my kids even more. When I look back on what I did at my outside job I feel good about what I achieved but none of it holds a candle to how I feel about my sons.
It has been devalued by the radfems certainly but I can assure you that we Patriarchs still value it. Indeed, we consider ourselves to be mere earners of money, which we then hand over to our wives who we trust to spend it wisely.
Why are you singling out "radfems" (radical feminists) as supposedly devaluing two parent households for children? I am a radical feminist activist. Many radical feminists are happily married to men and enjoy raising children with their husbands. What we radfems are concerned about is how women/mothers are treated when they live with men/fathers. Many males who abuse their wives or girlfriends begin or greatly escalate that abuse when women become pregnant. Many women are first physically assaulted by the fathers of their children when they become pregnant. The men are of course taking advantage of women's increased physical and emotional vulnerability when pregnant. Abusive men also use the threat of women possibly losing custody of children to coerce women into remaining in the marriage or continuing to cohabit. Once a woman becomes pregnant, she may be less able to leave an abusive relationship.
> happily married to men and enjoy raising children with their husbands
Then you're not what I'd call a radfem. The issues you raise are of course real, but I can assure you that decent men abhor the abuse of women and detest the sort of men who behave that way. And radfems tend to paint abuse narratives as only working one way. Many a good man has had his life ruined by a calculating woman. All things said and done, men lead far tougher lives than women. As a non-feminist I say that we should not make war on each other but be partners.
I was going to say the same thing, I wouldn’t consider you a radfem, Holly, and everything you state there about your concerns isn’t radical at all, they are things all decent moral humans would care about.
And I agree with Ray, the one way abuse narrative is a hallmark of the radfem. In fact, I believe that along with the empowerment of women, we have probably seen a rise in men abused by women. I’m not saying classic feminism has caused that though, but add to (the positive gains in) women’s empowerment our massive negative cultural shifts with social media driven shallowness and selfishness, increase in narcissism, etc, all of which is wide open to everyone with complete equality.
Why is it that men can’t do two things at the same time? We women wanted the career opportunities our mothers didn’t have AND we wanted marriage and children. Instead we got responsibility for everything while the men slacked off. I’m still with my husband who hasn’t worked in 20 years , but it’s only because I prioritized having an intact family. I have many friends who said it’s not worth it.
> Why is it that men can’t do two things at the same time?
The same reason they are much better at doing one thing when it has their focus -- they are not designed for multi-tasking, but for excellence in some specialization.
> AND we wanted
Yes. Like children, women (or radfems, anyway) WANT, WANT WANT. As the saying goes, women have rights, men have responsibilities. Nobody gives a shit what men want -- if they can achieve -- in open competition with other men -- what they want, that's fine, otherwise they fail and nobody gives a shit when men fail, do they? Women have the instinctive understanding that they must be looked after, failed men are just thrown away.
> Instead we got responsibility for everything while the men slacked off.
It's you who wanted to have your cake and eat it too. It's the radfems who changed the rules. Yup, you're still likely to do most of the housework because that's 'natural' for you, and -- not so much anymore -- it's still likely to be your husband who fixes the leak in the roof because that's natural for him.
Much of the 'liberation' 2nd gen. feminists achieved is doubtless good. Tho I believe in 'traditional roles', that was far too rigid back in the day. If you can compete, and be the best at what you do, then your gender shouldn't be an obstacle. But instead, like Blacks, radfems demand 'Equity' that they have not earned. Tell your husband to get a job.
First, it is worth it. A stable family is vital to kids.
Second, I'm sorry your husband hasn't worked in 20 years, but that is definitely a "your family" problem. Many men work extremely long hours, sometimes under dangerous conditions, for their families. Some have two jobs. It's just as wrong to characterize men by whatever unfortunate thing is going on with your husband (and I know all kinds of things can go on in any person's life, I'm not judging) as it it would be to say that no women should work outside the home.
Third, through most of history, both men and women worked. The difference was the "outside the home" norm brought on by the Industrial Revolution. Before then, most people worked in a family business or on a family farm. Families worked together, or women worked at home in cottage industries. When we decided we wanted both mean and women to work outside the home, we also decided that we still wanted the things that a person at home full time would do--but without help (until recently, all but the poorest people often had help with housework, cooking, or laundry, because those things were much more labor-intensive and took much longer than today).
It's a problem that I think is reaching an end point -- something has to give.
When mothers who stay home with children earn Social Security benefits, then we will know we respect their work. I spent 16 years homeschooling my children, when I "should" have been working and earning benefits. I just started collecting SS, and I'm here to tell you, it won't cover groceries. It was absolutely worth it, and I would do it again. but if SS is meant to prevent poverty in the elderly, we need to rethink it completely.
This. Absolutely. Congratulations for homeschooling. We did as well. We had a brilliant accountant who suggested my wife be on our payroll in an administrator capacity. It was an inspired move.
I’m not sure I agree that stay-at-home mothers should receive SS benefits. However I hear your point about the flaws of SS and how that could be one way of valuing motherhood. I would like to see more people valuing raising children such that any financial sacrifice is seen as totally worth it, and not a burden. There are probably more things we could do policy-wise to support families, but there are also many things communities can do to support each other that don’t require the government to get involved. I am for some pro-family government policies (for example, I think paternity leave needs to be vastly extended), but I also think societal change is better when it does not happen too-down from the government. Just my 2 cents.
That’s kind of like saying teachers shouldn’t do it for the money, they should teach for the love of teaching. It’s nonsense. I mean, of course we should care for our children because we believe it’s worth it (I also homeschool my children, year 12). But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be some sort of financial safety net for us, just like every paid employee has.
I don’t need to be paid for raising my children. I just want the same respect that a career woman has. I just don’t want anyone to lament that I “wasted potential” by choosing to be a stay-at-home mom rather than furthering my career. I just want people to think my choice is a good one rather than a regrettable one.
Plus, if we did start paying parents to stay home to raise their children, then any respect that comes with the job is now coming explicitly tied to the money. But as much as parenting is work, it’s not like any other job (and shouldn’t be). I want the respect from the recognition of the fact that parenting IS different than a job, not from any monetary compensation for it. In addition, the danger of offering monetary compensation for what is a role, not a job, is that it teaches parents to view their role towards their children as a transaction. IMO, that’s a damaging way to view your own child.
I just don’t see how that would work. Is a tax that everyone pays and stay-at-home parents then collect? So now I have to pay for other parents to raise their children? People with no children have to pay for other kids to be raised? Then, there are so many things that could go wrong with that— what if a government entity decides that you are not parenting your child they way they want you to, and decide to withhold your tax payout? No, that sounds disastrous— so many ways for it to go wrong, especially in a govermnet with any totalitarian impulse, which we have seen recently that ours in US indeed has.
I'm definitely not suggesting we be paid for our work. I don't want that, nor do I think I deserve it, for all the reasons you said. When I say financial safety net, I just mean a piece of Social Security when I'm of retirement age. And actually, SAHMs are entitled to collect Social Security on their spouse's (or ex spouse's) earnings, which is fair.
KB can you tell me more on how society doesn't value work inside the home?
My wife and I are in our late 50's and reared 3 children. We seemed to be on the cusp of women having to "have it all" with the expectations of career and motherhood. Her older sister (3yrs) was a mother with a career. We made our decision by what we valued and NOT what society valued. I became the money maker and she walked away from corporate American to be a stay-at-home mom. Yes it was a financial sacrifice, but one we gladly made.
I’m in my mid 30s, and for my generation, I and many women I know feel much pressure to work rather than stay at home with our children. I see so many messages on social media that push women towards careers and away from raising children. Lately, in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, I have seen many social media messages that talk about how much more successful a woman could be if she gets an abortion. The message is clear: money and career success >> raising children. Or rather, the implication is that having children hinders you from career and financial success. Enough people are believing this and not having children such that our country is on the cusp of not replacing our current population.
I do agree that more people need to do what you did: make a decision based on your own values and not what society values. But for many, the societal pressure is strong, and for others, they come up with their value system based on what culture tells them.
I feel the same way. And maybe it depends on location? I’ve been a stay-at-home more for 16 years, in the DC area and in NYC, and let me tell you, raising children is not valued or respected in cultures that attract high-achieving careerists. I’ve had to really believe in what I’m doing, and the honest truth is that sometimes I have felt kind of inadequate at cocktail parties and my husband’s professional gatherings, where all the other moms are MDs at banks or partners at law firms or surgeons or television producers. I come from a culture (Utah) where staying home with kids is immensely valued, so this is really different for me.
I hear ya. My hope would be that one day, when you go to those cocktail parties, you’d be full respected as a stay-at-home mom, because everyone realizes both the sacrifice required and the value provided. I have also felt inadequate at times, saying “well I’m just a mom,” to when people ask me what do I do. But my good husband reminds me that I have no need to add in the word “just.” I can say confidently, “I am a mom. And I love being a mom.” On my better days when I believe in what I am doing I can say this. And other times, that pressure from the outside adds in the word “just” back into that statement.
I'm not surprised by the way they treat you, but I feel sad for all those children who will be raised by nannies , will find a "family," of friends at school with "bad habits," and then ...
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I am hopeful that things are shifting. My children are little younger than you late 20,s and early 30's Their friend groups are split with some getting married and having children, while others have yet to find a mate.
Just one small niggle to your comment, K.B. You said that the work of moms raising kids is still not valued by our society. I'd like to propose that it isn't as valued as it probably should be, but it is valued in some quarters, such as mine.
My wife was not at all convinced she wanted to stay home with kids after we had them, even though she wasn't exactly pursuing a career when we married. She had various jobs of the kind that young ex-Theater majors who don't go into theater took.
Conversely, I had worked since my sophomore year in high school with the sole objective of pursuing a career that would enable me to found a family of which my wife would be the matriarch with utterly no financial responsibilities.
My wife changed her mind about making a home for our kids after the OB/GYN handed me our first born to cut the cord that bound her to her mother, immediately after which I laid her across her mother's chest. I could see right there that my chances of prying these two women apart were less than nil.
My wife stayed home with both of our daughters and devoted herself to them. I am not going to define "devotion" because however you define it in a positive light she did.
I took each girl to Daddy/daughter dinner at a local restaurant each week (her choice), and was the chief of two YMCA Indian Princess tribes. I went to Christmas and Spring concerts (private schools), I was there for every Father's Day event at their schools. I read a story to each one before lights out. I could go on. I washed the dishes at night, so mom could sit down. I worked 6.5 days a week, making sure I was home for family dinner as often as I could (I travelled a lot on business). If necessary, I went back to work (in my home office) after all my ladies were peacefully slumbering.
And every few months (never more than three),I would take my wife out to a nice dinner and thank her for the selflessness and love she showed to our daughters and me every day. I told her that I was killing myself because our daughters and what she was doing with them were THAT important to me. I also told her that I would have it no other way, I valued what she was doing so much. I'd like to tell you that I came up with all of this on my own, but I didn't. My mom stayed at home with my sister and me. When I got old enough to appreciate what he had to say, my Dad told me that a man with a stay-at-home mom/wife had all sorts of places from which to get positive reinforcement. Among these sources were co-workers. bosses, clients, professional peers, people involved with him in charitable activities, among many others. His wife, the mother of his children, had only one. ME. What's more, that wife had behaved with a level of trust in her husband that the husband was never even asked (much less expected) to achieve, when she bet her life on the husband - ME - to take care of her for her entire life, even if I passed away before she did.
I was truly and profoundly humbled by what my Dad told me. I also recognized that he was 100% right. I have lived my life from that day to this trying my best to live in a manner consistent with my Dad's words regarding my wife. I have added to his bit of wisdom something I did come up with myself, which goes like this. Every day I try my best to persuade my wife in her sole and absolute discretion that: (i) I will keep her safe and secure; (ii) that my word is my bond; I am trustworthy; and (iii) I love her more than words can say. Have I screwed up over the years? Absolutely, but never seriously (e.g., no infidelity). Usually at least daily. Sometimes hourly. Even more frequently than hourly on a few occasions. We've worked through these, because I tried really hard to live up to my Dad' wisdom and my words (it's up to you whether or not they are wise). We celebrate our 40th anniversary in 2024.
It sounds like you don't perceive that you got treatment like I gave my wife. For that I am sad. I just want you to know that there are at least some of us out there who worked hard to treat our wives right as they dedicated themselves to our families. In fact, if you still have an old high school yearbook, look at your senior class and note the names of the male dorks and dweebs you recall from those days, long ago in the case of my life. My experience says that those are the guys who lived their lives like I did.
I am touched by your story of your devotion to your wife and family. I am sorry if I came across as having an unsupportive husband, because I really don’t. But I did forget to consider that he and other husbands/fathers like you are a small subset of the world that appreciates mothers very much. You were right to call out my glaring omission.
Perhaps the devotion of one doesn’t feel like enough sometime, I’m not sure. All I know is that when I wrote my comment I was primarily thinking of the larger society in general. I teach a class in our church for new moms, helping them connect with other first-time moms, and i’ve notice that some of them seem to go back to work after maternity leave without a second thought— not even considering “what’s best for me and my family” but almost a foregone conclusion of “well this is just what you do.” I’m not against working moms at all, but it concerns me that the message most of these younger new moms are getting seem to cut out any consideration of staying at home at all.
In addition, as I keep tabs on the abortion issue, I see a lot of messaging that devalue children and motherhood. The idea is that a woman will be more successful if she doesn’t have that kid at the wrong time. It breaks my heart. I see the societal “keeping up with jones” kinda of pressure influencing some of my friends and neighbors. They feel the mom has to work for “financial reasons,” and yet fail to see that their financial burden is being put on themselves by their lifestyle choices including things like private French immersion school. On the flip side, I have been encouraged to meet some more stay-at-home fathers. But they are still rare and few. So I guess thinking about all this gave me the sense that most of society still doesn’t value motherhood.
But, I appreciate your point about good husbands, because it reminds me not to look only at the negative but to see the positive as well. When I think about it, most women I know that are stay-at-home moms or even part-time-working-from-home moms like me have very supportive husbands. Most marriages are not like how the portray the 1950s marriage- there is equally division of labor for home chores, husbands take a role doing things with their children, etc.
Parenthood (both mothers and fathers) will always be a mostly-thankless job, but it’s good to be reminded that that’s not why we do it. If I really wanted praise, I could easily go out and get a highly-seen professional position. But I don’t want to. I value the time I have with my children, and even if they will never appreciate it or see it, I would choose it again in a heartbeat. All that to say, very good point Bill, thank you for sharing your beautiful story and reminding me of what truly matters. If I have a supportive husband, why should I care what the rest of society thinks? I shouldn’t.
"When will we learn that not all valuable work earns money? When will be value raising children by both mothers and fathers? When we will value raising children?" - K. B. Newcomer
A Kauffman accidently replied to the 1st person to reply to K.B. Easily done here.
Annie, I agree with you! I left my job as a pediatrician for 11 years to raise my children at home, and now have slowly worked my way back to working. It was such a privilege/honor/blessing...all of the above, to be able to have a parent at home.
I agree; I'm 29 and did the same. Coming from a poor family with a single mom who worked all the time and a grandmother who had to act as our primary caregiver, I always looked at being a stay-at-home mom as the epitome of success, considering no other women in my family had the opportunity to do so.
Me too, I stopped work as an anaesthetist for 9 years to stay at home with my son. It was difficult to get back on the medical register after that but I don’t care, it was bliss being a stay-at-home wife and mother.
Kudos. My experience as well. I had a come to Jesus talk with myself when mine were 5 and 1. At the end of my days would I regret not being a high-powered lawyer or a good Mom (because I could not be both). It was a really good decision.
You must mean "come to Jesus", not "cime to Jesus". (Sometimes poeple actually pay more attention to what someone has written because there is a typo and they have to think more about what is intended!"
Very nice and true Annie. I remember talking with my father-in-law in the 80s about the biggest problem (I saw) facing the country was babies born out of wedlock. At the time I think the stats were 70% of black babies and 25% of white babies. It has not improved.
Senator Moynihan realized that subsidizing single motherhood would be the ruination of the Black family, and sixty years later we see what happens to cities when unparented children grow up, generation after generation, to repeat the errors of their parents and grandparents (and great-grandparents).
It hasn't been great for rural whites either.
It's one thing when a parent falls ill, or loses a job, or dies. Then the remaining parent has a real struggle on his or her hands.
But enabling 16-year-olds -- undereducated, uneducated, and possibly uneducable -- to have babies, too often with sundry men, is a recipe for disaster.
How often did my cousin, a public school teacher and speech therapist, attempt to dissuade her students from getting pregnant: "But if I do, I can get my own apartment!" was the typical reply.
Birth control: the road to economic security -- and equity.
Depends on the birthcontrol. It is coming out now the Pill does a number on a woman's head and body. Surprise, surprise - Pharma lies. As for equity; fuck that.
Annie, I am right there with you. I left my job as an executive in advertising a week before our first was born and spent two decades devoted to full time motherhood. I am eternally grateful that my husband's career made it possible for me to stay home with them. As I was leaving my job several women I worked with questioned my decision: how could I as an empowered career woman "give it all up?". I was better for it, my marriage was better for it and my children were certainly better for it. And it was HARD work!
I met a woman in a bookstore buying a children's book and when I asked.her what she did she said, "oh, I'm JUST a mother.". I said, don't say JUST, motherhood is the most important, most difficult job with the most long term consequences! I've had to say that to more than one person! Totally agree with Annie..."raising children is THE most meaningful work I've ever done!"
Exactly. When I was raising my kids there was that "oh, you're JUST a mom" condescending mentality to motherhood. It should've been instead "Oh wow! You're a mom? How cool! How wonderful!"
There in is the difference between men and women. Not that one is greater than the other, just different drives and perspectives. For the first 4 yrs. of my 2 chidren's lives I stayed home during the day and looked after them. Sometimes I enjoyed it and other times it was a chore and wished I was doing something else. Playing with children was/is not something I'm good at.
"Sometimes I enjoyed it , and other times it was a chore " - I think EVERY stay-at-home parent can say this. They all fall on different spots on the continuum.
Your kids won't remember much in their 1st few years but they WILL carry with them a strong sense of security & well-being, having had you there with them.
They both went off the deep end. My son became a Christian and straightened himself out, married and has 4 children. My daughter, at 58 is still unmarried, angry and, in general, is a mess. Most people don't want to be around her and she has few friends.
I'm saddened to read that. All three of ours were raised more or less the same. They're all so different. One avoids close long term personal relationships and distrusts women. The two girls are both great Moms but both are entrepreneurial. One has a Mr. MOM husband. The other relies on us for caregiving/parenting which we're please to oblige with.
Once the children start school and begin interacting with the world, our influence wanes. I think it may be different in rural settings and it's certainly different in other countries, where families are still valued and their is greater continuity from generation to generation. Or at least there was in Thailand until about 10 yrs. ago and more Western ideas entered the mainstream of thought and influenced/coerced the late teens and 20 yr. olds.
Dear Herr Forkenspoon, totally agree with Karena...every parent can say that "Sometimes I enjoyed it, and other times it was a chore" but you still did it!!! And therein lies the gift! You did it.
I left a law career to raise my children while hubby supported us. Both of my children had challenges. Both of them overcame those challenges to become independent adults with successful careers, but I can honestly say they likely would not have without the attention of a stay-at-home parent. If I were a single mother, they would be all kinds of messed up, and that's just a statement of fact.
I, too, was often left aghast at how many times people said, "You don't work so I was wondering if you could just . . ." Like I was just sitting by the pool eating bon bons and checking out the pool boy. Not only that, the men I knew in law respected my choice FAR more than the women did. The women treated me like some kind of gender traitor. Then on top of it, the leftists cancelled me by erasing the word "mother" and replacing it with "birthing person," as if I were nothing but a vessel and children raise themselves.
Children need nurturing and guidance to grow strong and productive, and when two parents are dedicated to that goal, children are far more likely to learn to stand on their own. I know some awesome single moms who have done a great job with their kids, but every one of them would say they and their kids would have been better off with another parent present to share the load. It's kind of a no-brainer.
For myself, I definitely had a personal crisis when my kids struck out on their own. They were my career, and when they left, I got my pink slip. I spent many an hour wondering if I made the wrong choice. Wondering where that other road would have taken me and truly knowing for the first time that the choices we make in our thirties do close some doors forever.
Then I also realized to the core of my being that I would make the same choice again, and that brought me peace. Now, my son is engaged to a scientist who plans to leave her career to raise their children, and my daughter intends to leave her own science career to raise her children when she has them. They say it's because hubby and I showed them the value of investing our lives in family.
Don't be so defensive and act so surprised.. You know very well what they mean when they say "oh, you don't work anymore." They weren't demeaning the work of raising kids, you know that.
Very few meant it as a complimentary statement, A Kauffmann. It also implies that motherhood or fatherhood is not considered one of the worthy vocations that should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with being a doctor, lawyer or whatever else. Many of them said things additionally, like "well, I think it's better for kids to see their parents working" or "Kids have to see that you have to do your part in the work force", or "well, I just wouldn't feel right not bringing some money in", or "Oh, I would be so bored!", etc... I would explain that I had worked in comp sci for 9 years, that I enjoyed it, but that I absolutely loved staying home and raising my kids, and I felt that it was a very good VOCATION. I also felt that I was doing A LOT for society by raising good humans. I could have worked part time, and I did do volunteer work part time, but I never should have felt like I had to apologize for raising my kids. It is EXTREMELY VALUABLE AND IMPORTANT WORK... I truly feel there are few things more important than doing that.
Oddly, many of the people who said "oh, so you don't work anymore" would get defensive actually, and I had to sooth ruffled feathers, eg. that it is all just a choice we make, etc, etc... Odd that they would get on the defensive. Maybe it was indeed just envy and guilt?? as Charles has suggested.
I didn't say that. Or imply it ... or intent to imply it. I mean that when others say "oh you don't work" I don't think it's meant as an insult. My sense is, they simply view "work in the classical sense. I suspect very pew sentient beings think that raising children is easy.
If only. I worked with a bunch of sentient beings at a major financial services firm years ago - this was in the late 80’s and 90’s - who over a company dinner and drinks thing one night straight up called women who choose to stay at home and raise their kids “selfish and lazy” and “those are the dumb ones that can’t cut it actually working.” Then one of my colleagues, a lesbian who was a senior vp at the time, chimed in and called them “worthless breeders, part of the problem.”
So yeah, I’m going to have to say there’s basis for Annie’s comments. Had my colleagues not been drunk, I suspect they would have said something less telling of their condescension. Like what Annie heard.
You can't stop people from thinking what they think. What you can do is ignore it. If someone makes a decision to stay home and work with their children, then be secure that its the right decision for you and don't angst over what others think.
I don't think that you understand the female mind and emotions. I don't claim to understand them either, but I have observed them and know that they are valuable.
I disagree Mr. Kauffman. I lived through the sniping my wife experienced at parties from what I convinced her were petty envious women who didn't understand the process of selecting a proper mate as well as she did.
I laughed out loud at this. I left my job to raise (and homeschool) our daughter. Whenever I was the target of the "you’re just a mom" crowd, I would just say, "You girls should’ve made better choices."
I'm not sure what you disagree with. Insults of every imaginable sort are part of nearly everyone's life. If you and your spouse make that decision, who cares what others think? My wife and I did the same. She stopped working (yes, it usually means outside of the home) until our 3 kids were all at least 12. We didn't care about the economic or professional hit. And the last thing we cared about were the feelings of women who did otherwise.
Most American women, meaning a majority, still think they should keep working and they think their kdis are all the better for it. Who knows? What I do know is that being all out of joint because people are condescending is not a good way to live. That was, I thought, my point.
Mr. Kauffman you clarified neatly in an above reply. I do think some criticism of woman's right to choose to be a full time mother is intentionally biting even in a passive-aggressive manner. That typed I also agree that its not always the case.
If you think long-term though, raising children, who become productive members of society is earning money. It’s not you earning the money in the moment, but it’s those children eventually earning money because they’ve been raised well.
Bari - Really great interview. I hope she returns. I have one comment and one request.
The comment - While we are saying the unsaid, it seems to me the only people who are lambasting the book are progressives as it calls into question much of their foundational views on modern society. I don't see centrist democrats or conservatives. I suspect there is a lot of overlap between the pro Hamas/anti Israel crowd and the people who want community parenthood.
The request - I have sent this request to your staff and I will mention it here for public consumption. I really think the Honestly audience would benefit from a long interview with Thomas Sowell. Like Ms. Kearney, he is an economist and for 50+ years he has been writing about the impact of the Great Society programs on black America. At 94 years of age, he wont be around much longer.
He has also been ignored by the mainstream academics and media. He has been saying the same things for 50+ years, all ignored until recently. I first heard of him only a few years ago.
Tom Sowell is America's greatest living intellectual. It would be a great coup to get an interview with him. And I believe he is currently promoting a new book..
The black American family provides a stark example. From 1890 to 1950, black women had a higher marriage rate than white women. And in 1950, just 9% of black children lived without their father. By 1960, the black marriage rate had declined but remained close to the white marriage rate. In other words, despite open racism and widespread poverty, strong black families used to be the norm.
But by the mid-1980s, black fatherlessness skyrocketed.
Thomas Sowell thoroughly investigated and explained this phenomenon as a negative consequence of welfare programs that, in effect, reward women to have babies out of wedlock.
Rewarding women for having babies out of wedlock is OBVIOUSLY going to lead to more women having babies out of wedlock. I no longer believe that this was an accidental outcome of LBJ's "Great Society"; I think it was absolutely an intentional way of taking power from black people.
I wouldnt go that far. But liberals/democrats do specialize in seemingly “helpful” policies with horrible outcomes and unintended consequences. Welfare policy is one of them. It was meant to buy votes of course.
LBJ was a lifelong racist. His policies were intentionally designed to give black people enough "stuff" to buy their votes and "keep them quiet." Anyone could have predicted (Moynihan did!) that making black women dependent on the government would have horrible effects on generations of black people.
You see, Celia, I disagree. In fact, LBJ began life as a teacher to "brown" kids, was appalled at the poverty in their communities, and really tried to help. As a politico, his bringing electricity to that part of Texas was a game changer for a lot of people.
I think he really wanted to help Blacks. But his good intentions went badly wrong.
Behaving like a lout, which he did, and saying crass things, which he did, count little in comparison with his Great Society programs.
Of which, welfare and even affirmative action were badly thought out -- indeed, disastrous.
I would like to, but there are a few things I need to figure out first. I would rather write under my pen name, and I've got to sort out how to manage that on Substack. Then there's the pile of real-life demands on my plate. Hoping to get a lot of those things out of the way by the end of the year.
I'm not sure if the consequences were unintended. The more people on welfare, the more they are under the control of the govt., and that is always the goal.
Being a reformed Democrat and looking back, I think this was intentional at the leadership level. It was obvious to me at the time these were bad policies but they were “compassionate” and that took precedence. Intent was more important than outcome.
As MM says nearby, you can blame the Great Society and related welfare programs for the destruction of marriage rates, particularly in the AA community. Now they are dependent on the government to a much greater degree. From plantation to plantation in a few generations, both courtesy of Democrats. I wonder which plantation is worse?
Please explain how access to abortions, which reduces the number of babies born, results in more children being fatherless. I really do not understand.
I understand how it doesn’t sound logical. But it has to do with the effects on beliefs and social mores within many AA communities. The inculcation of abortion as a normal part of sexual relationships led to the belief that men are entitled to unprotected sex and that they are not and should not be responsible for their offspring, unless they choose to be. In other words, when abortion, and especially free abortion, is widely available and there is a very low barrier to entry, men expect any resulting pregnancies will be taken care of. If they’re not aborted, then the single mother knows she isn’t going to get help from the father of her child. It is a complete breakdown of social mores that hold fathers responsible for their offspring.
EXACTLY! I cannot tell you how many women I know who have been forced into an abortion by a man saying things like "why do you want to give this baby a terrible life? I'm not going to stay with you, so you are going to make a child grow up with a single mom." blah blah blah. It's pathetic
Yes, men, now more than ever, pressure women into having unprotected sex. And some women do not think they have the right to say NO because they have grown up thinking that women are "supposed to" do whatever men want. Some men "promise" to use condoms and then take those condoms off right before penetrating a woman. The availability of abortion did make women feel less able to say NO and also made some women think that it was not such a big deal if they did get pregnant because they could get abortions.
Abortion puts all the onus on the decision to raise the child or kill the child on the woman. Men don’t have a say, and then become less likely to stick around and actually be a father to a child. (And no wonder, if you tell men that it’s not their decision to make about birthing a child, how then will you turn around and tell them to stick around to raise a child that they had no say in if that child lived or died?) Abortion acceptability in society reduced the number of shot-gun marriages— which in some cases might be ok, but as the studies show, cohabitation is still less than ideal than marriage for children. Abortion is often used as a kind of birth control, which further separates the physical reality of sex from childbearing, and this has lead to the decline of both marriage and families.
One additional insight, with tangential relationship to abortion and single parenthood. This was a real eye opener for me about social mores within the AA community - at least in the large metro area in which I live. I learned this firsthand during my work with pregnant women, most of them young (16-21) and most of them AA. As part of this, I shadowed and interviewed the social workers who spend their days immersed in helping single mothers.
In this AA community, once a girl has had at least one abortion, there is social and peer pressure to get pregnant and keep a baby, and there is zero expectation of either marriage with or contribution from the father. The social workers I interviewed said that for some in the community, a girl who does not have a baby before she graduates high school is considered undesirable by boys (or men) or ostracized for - in their words - “trying to be white.” I was shocked and saddened by this. In other words, what they told me is that having a baby both provides tangible proof of the perceived desirability of the girl and signals a commitment to the community’s culture.
I know it doesn’t describe every AA community, and I know it’s dangerous to paint with a broad brush. But this was a reality in my metro area that directly relates to the causes of single parenthood here.
And it told me at the time (2014) how little I understood about the cultural realities of that community.
My state, until the legislature discontinued it in the last legislative session, kept detailed records annually on more than 100 metrics and demographics related to induced abortion since the 1990’s. Submission of data to the Department of Health was required of all abortion providers -large providers like Planned Parenthood and individual practitioners.
For at least the last decade, on average, 40% of all induced abortions recorded in a calendar year were at least the 2nd abortion. In other words, 40% of the women who procured an abortion had had at least one previous abortion. When cross hatching this data with race, it bears out the prevalence of multiple abortions among AA women, and young AA women, at that. Each year, there would be 80-100+ women -usually in their 20’s or 30’s - who reported having had 11 or more previous abortions (there were also categories for 6-10 previous abortions and 1-5 previous abortions).
Every year I would study the data - released every year on July 1 - and enter it into a large database tracking these metrics and demographics longitudinally. And every year I would have to step away and take a deep breath. It is a hard reality to process.
I'm an Indian lesbian. In India, many adult married as well as most unmarried children, both straight and gay, continue to live with their parents. This benefits both parents and children. And the ultimate privilege for a child is to have a functioning extended family with grandparents either living in the house or meeting frequently, at least once a week. Most Indians have that experience
I hadn't thought about it before, but you've just made me realize that growing up with constant visits to extended family was a hugely beneficial experience for me. It gave me many more closely-related adults to observe and (if appropriate) look up. My grandma (my mom's mom was only living grandparent) taught me to embroider. One of my aunts taught me to crochet and do a number of other crafts. She also provided a wider variety of reading material than was available at home.
I'm realizing now that our oldest son was greatly benefited by spending a lot of time helping his grandfather. But it makes me sad to realize that my kids were otherwise deprived of the privilege of time with extended family, since all their aunts and uncles have always lived so far away.
I often think that if young women had the benefit of living amongst older women relatives, the divorce rate would be a fraction of what it is. A marriage is a marathon not a sprint. And an older, wiser woman would explain to an impetuous younger one that a momentary unhappiness or longing is no reason to destroy a perfectly good union. Thoughts?
Either older women relatives or other older women mentors in a community, such as a faith community. I don’t live close to my parents, but as a 30-something with two young child, I have benefited greatly by older mothers in my church. They mentor me, are available for help and for questions, and I learn a lot from them! I can’t imagine surviving without them!
All that to say, YES, when we lose relationships to older women (or men to older men) by either being away from family or not being part of a community (such as a faith-based one) we lose so much.
My Thai wife was raised with 2 parents and grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. She is the most normal person I've ever known. Her 2 daughters didn't have those benefits and their father died when the youngest was 15. The eldest married too young to a near-do-well whom she supports and the youngest just found her way out of lesbianism into a normal female with male relationship. Big difference when someone is raised in a normal extended family, (my wife) and when they aren't, (my two stepdaughters)
It's not just Indians....it's much of the world except liberal white Western countries. In many Hispanic countried, multi-generational families live together and it's not just an issue of economics.
Yes, having had a kid with my family now on different coasts, but having grown up constantly seeing my dozen aunts and uncles, it really hits the difference home
I think the essay would have been more instructive had she analyzed the broken homes by race. There is evidence that paying welfare moms not to marry broadens the problem.
Well except when discussing other people who questioned the wisdom.of these policies with their "unintentional" consequences. This lady has plowed someone else's field and takes credit for the yield.
The fact that people on the Left are attacking this woman for daring to "call for a return to marriage" is another example of how the Left is becoming actively evil. I didn't used to use that word much, but in the last few months, the evidence is piling up that the Left is supporting positions that are *objectively* evil. Rejecting a social norm that prevents poverty for children is objectively evil, no matter how you slice it.
Writ large now for all to see when they extol the butchers of October 7, who carried out acts so vile that few, if any, can even watch the videos. Talk about pure, unadulterated evil.......
And some of the Hamas men who committed those atrocities in Israel are now shooting at civilians in Gaza as they try to evacuate the areas where Hamas is hunkered down in its network of tunnels and in structures like schools, hospitals, mosques and apartment bldgs, to try to force those civilians to continue to serve as human shields for Hamas. The IDF has had to provide force-of-arms protection for civilians trying to move along the evacuation routes.
I disagree with the title of this article. Growing up in a two parent married household are not "privilege". Kids can't choose their birth parents. It is not the same as being born into a very wealthy household. Traditionally, the WASP value in America was if you were born into a very wealthy household (like the Kennedy's or Bush's) you had an unspoken responsibility to help people less well off than you.
The nuclear family unit for centuries has been the best way to raise children, and create great outcomes for next generations. Unfortunately, government policy and social morals do everything to undermine the nuclear family unit. The oft cited stat is that in the early 1960s, Blacks had a 25% rate of single parenthood (children out of wedlock). Today, it's almost 80%.
Encourage marriage. Get married. Stay married. Marriage isn't easy and oh by the way, 50% do not end in divorce. If two people graduate from college and get married, the divorce rate is down to 10%. Kids today want everything perfect and their ducks in a row before they take the marriage leap. My generation didn't do that.
Having a good marriage and raising children in a stable home requires self sacrifice. Our society is so engrossed in "I want it now." or being selfish and keeping score that they forget that to make things work they might have to sacrifice.
This is not hard. What's hard is changing the conversation. What's hard is telling people the way they are thinking, and doing, is wrong.
I think the title is meant to convey what has been lost over the past three-quarters of a century, to which this piece draws attention. What was the norm before, a solid family foundation, has been lost. Bari makes it clear in her intro that she doesn't mean that privilege infers some type of stain or guilt, but I do think that she could have clarified this term. By privilege, I just took Bari to mean an advantage, an important one with considerable social value, since too few kids today grow up with both parents.
In this context, "privilege" simply means having some advantage over those who are not so "privileged". In a famine, someone who manages to have sufficient food, for whatever reason, has a "privilege" not possessed by those who do not have food. Since growing up in a household with two parents statistically results in better outcomes for children than not growing up in such a household, even controlling for family income, children can be considered to be "privileged" compared to children who do not grow up with the presence of both parents.
Most children in human history were not born into "nuclear families". They were born into extended families in which children were cared for not only by their biological parents, but by other relatives, and in small communities where children were also looked after by the other adults in the community. That's what "it take a village" reflects. Also, it used to be far more common for one or both of a child's biological parents to die before the child was an adult and no longer dependent on adults for care. Even now, there are many places and cultures in which the norm is for children to be raised in extended family households, not in nuclear families.
I see with this article, an example of Westerners reinventing the wheel. Or rather convincing themselves that the wheel is a good thing.
I'm starting to get what is wrong with Western culture. The most obvious things first become out of use, then controversial and then reinvented, maybe readapted to be in use again.
Maybe this shows great intellectual flexibility and is good in some ways. But it puzzles me.
This also shows up in the use of words. Like privilege. I have used it to mean "honor", something you aspire to as you say here. Now it is a dirty word.
I know right. It’s like, turns out the idea of family that God had in the beginning actually works! Funny, it’s like He knows what’s best for us, or something…
Privilege refers to a special advantage or right possessed by an individual or group. A privilege is a right or advantage gained by birth, social position, effort, or concession. It can have either legal or personal sanction: the privilege of paying half fare; the privilege of calling whenever one wishes. Sometimes someone is awarded a "privilege" because they are being honored for something they did, in which case being awarded a privilege could be something someone aspires to.
Yes, that is a recent use of the word, as far as I know.
I used it another way earlier. If I said "It is a privilege to serve them.", I'd mean "I feel special and fortunate to be able to serve them." Not exactly "It is an honor", but close.
This is the meaning we need to get back to. Things that are now called “privilege” like it’s a dirty word are things people used to be thankful for. Instead of cultivating gratitude for an advantage whether earned or not, we are now villainizing people for having anything that actually helps them thrive in life. I think this is such a wrong approach. I can recognize that not everyone has the advantage of having married parents, like I did. But I do not need to be made to feel bad about this. I can be grateful for the advantage that this gave me, and in my gratitude, be aware that not everyone has the same advantage or circumstances. Gratitude will help me show compassion to others who may have not had the same advantage. But if you start trying to bully people into helping others by making them feel bad for things they received, that’s just gonna backfire on you. Course, I wouldn’t put it past the Lefties to have realized this and perhaps be using this to sow division in our country.
I was raised by a single mother. My father left my mother with two young boys. He has pretty much been a non entity in our lives ever since. It was very hard on all of us but especially my mother. She had to be a young single mother in the small town South in the 1980's. She was a young school teacher. We had no money and limited support. I would be lying to you if I told you that getting where I am was not a struggle and I know there are people who did with a lot less. I am now a successfull professional and so is my wife. We have been together 25 years. Marriages aren't easy but I have never ever thought about leaving or cheating. I hope my wife feels the same way. Our children have good grades, go to church and participate in school activities. I have taught them to be kind, respectful and grateful. Are they children of privilege? Yes, and I could give a s***t less.
The stuff that life throws at us, including divorce, disease, and death, makes child-rearing harder, but the idiotic decision to have a baby at 16-years-old with a guy whose primary occupation is hanging out on street corners makes child-rearing almost impossible.
There were divorces in my family, and the kids turned out all right: Their parents weren't feckless from the start.
Decades ago, people ridiculed Dan Quayle for criticizing the "Murphy Brown" TV show, because it suggested that single parenthood was a viable option that a woman could casually embark on because that's what works for her. How dare he suggest otherwise?
While I'm a real fan of two-parent families (and grandparents and lots of aunts and uncles to fill in the gaps -- I myself grew up in a sort of Greek village smack in the middle of Windsor Terrace, Brooklyn), there's a big difference between older, well-established women's having or adopting children, and the having of babies by undereducated, jobless teenagers who'll go on to have more.
And I don't care what color skin these women sport. Rural whites who go in for irresponsible procreation are also contributing to our nation's dysfunction.
This reminds me of Kamala Harris’s claim that we don’t all start from the same place so we don’t really have equality yet. Obviously, the solution for this is a type of totalitarianism that is frankly kinda hilarious.
Kamala doesn't really make claims, which would require some logic, she makes uninformed idiotic statements. Really? We don't all start from the same place? This is her mindless definition of equality? So pathetic.
If it werent so sad it would be funny. But she is so bad. Talk about a decline in american culture, look at our politicians and leaders. Ugh. Kamala is beyond difficult to listen to. And Joe cant complete a sentence.
Here is a case in point... For a long time I wasn't sure I would be able to have children. I looked at parents with their kids and felt left out, even envious sometimes, but I never felt that they should all have their children taken away so that we "all started from the same place". How stupid and ludicrous.
By Harris' statement, SHE, in her infinite wisdom, would make decisions for ALL of us about what we all want or feel we need?
As if we could ever, or SHOULD ever, want to all start from the same place! I look at what other people do, career-wise, for example, and I would never choose that career... or I look at things that they have... and I would never choose to have those things. It's no surprise that there are as many paths to success and happiness as there are people. The last thing that will make me happy is to have Kamala Harris tell me what my path should be. Ugh!
Thank God the world is is full of people all pursuing happiness in the way they enjoy most.
My parents both came from abject poverty, but both pulled themselves out of that poverty by the sweat of their brow. I have more pride in that than if someone handed over the keys to mediocre pre-determined allotment. No thanks.
I'm one of the critics, because the title gets it wrong, implying that a two-parent household is something that randomly happens--just falls from the sky on people.
The two-parent household is NOT a privilege. It is a choice.
At an individual level, it is a choice that people make out of love, commitment, and a willingness to sacrifice. At a societal level, it is also a choice: society needs to foster the sort of mores that discourage casually "hooking up" and impregnating women and then abandoning them. It also needs public policies that encourage couples to stay together, rather then to separate so they can collect more benefits.
Too little of it in today’s world. Those who sacrifice a bit of their pursuit of happiness for others or sacrifice career earnings for the sake of family time or sacrifice hard work for greater rewards...
They are in short supply.
Everyone wants a “Life hack” or other some such shortcut. They don’t exist for every single thing. Sometimes you actually have to put in the time and effort.
The casual hooking up culture is unhealthy and dangerous for both sexes and for society. Teaching children that sex is the most intimate act between two people who love each other is the first step.
I absolutely agree, and the language is important. The word "privilege" implies that the normal baseline is the unwed mother, and that the children with two parents just got lucky above the norm and, therefore, owe the world and the "underpriviliged" a debt.
Having two parents should not be considered a privilege. For the good of the children and society, two parents should be considered normal--the baseline--and children with only one parent "disadvantaged."
It is for those from "normal" families to be compassionate and help the disadvantaged to close the gap upward that they, too, might form a two-parent family for their children some day, thus strengthening their own lives and society.
Free condoms and birth control pills for everyone. They should be handed out at the first sex ed class in elementary school. It's never too early to indoctrinate. 😈
It’s actually the least feminist position there is. As a woman, we will punish you if you choose to raise your own kids and we don’t recognize that unpaid work as worthy and useful so we will tax the crap out of your family unit. Your worthy role to society is to head out into the world to become a tax slave like everyone else and subcontract your family life to the lowest bidders. Conversely poor women are incentivized to stay single and be an economic prisoner of the state. The feminist revolution has a misogyny problem.
The most disturbing information in the article was not the state of marriage/family/child rearing. It's the difficulty she had in getting the book published and reviewed.
I think both are equally disturbing. The mainstream media has WAY too much power in this day and age to say WHATEVER they want, whether it is the truth, partial truth, or a boldfaced lie. They also appear to have the power to censor and take away the voice of those who ARE telling the WHOLE truth, or who present another point of view.
Partial truths are insidious lies because the twist the truth and give false impressions. They are only a hair more truthful than a boldfaced lie, but can actually be MORE DAMAGING because people hear that one part that is true and assume the rest is true as well without verifying anything.
Yes, parenthood and the families deserve their rightful place of honor back in society. Take care of the family and you will resolve a lot of society's problems. Motherhood and fatherhood have become almost derogatory terms these days. I left a career as a software engineer to raise my two kids, but people would say things like "Oh, so you don't work any more." Really?!! Really?!! I never worked so hard in my life, and was never so challenged and beautifully rewarded, as when I was raising my kids. And honestly, raising them was THE most meaningful work I have ever, ever done... Ever. When I say "work" I no longer mean "It's gotta be done so I'm going to do it", I mean "oh man, I love what I am doing".
Yes, women can enter the workforce now and have economic opportunities but the WORK of motherhood inside a home is STILL not valued by our society. When will we learn that not all valuable work earns money? When will be value raising children by both mothers and fathers? When we will value raising children?
When people start using their heads for something besides a hat rack. Anyone with a brain could see that two-parent households produce much better child-raising results than single-parent ones. Unfortunately, all our welfare programs for the last 60 years have been going in the other direction, basically saying "sure, go ahead and have kids out of wedlock, maybe by multiple fathers, and we'll give you just enough money to keep doing that, but not enough money or support to STOP doing that".
That's just the reality - the cold hard facts. We can ignore them at our nation's peril, but they won't go away.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Until our government disincentivized marriage and made fatherhood obsolete the two parent family was the norm. Across all races and socioeconomic strata. And no it was not unintentional, LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. He was creating a dependent class. That voted for those who "took care" of them.
A leftist traitor. Leftists are toxic.
No, the trend has NOT been to provide more aid to low income single mothers.
Cash benefits for women with children have been severely limited since 1997, when Congress instituted the TANF program. TANF is an acronym for "Temporary Assistance to Needy Families" and limits a mother or a father or both to just five years of aid in their LIFETIMES, no matter how many chldren they have or when the children are born.
"The TANF grant has a five-year lifetime limit and requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within three years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week (35 for two-parent families). Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits. TANF funds may be used for the following reasons: to provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for at home; to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families
All one has to do is look at any objective measure of poverty and offspring success to see that despite all the money poured into the various direct/indirect transfer programs over the last 50 years, minorities, especially blacks, are worse off than they were before. Just look at any large democrat-owned city like Baltimore, Chicago or Detroit. Education successes are non-existent, crime, especially by and against blacks is way up.
I'm an engineer, and I do experiments all the time. You set expectations for success or failure BEFORE you run the experiment, run the experiment, and then compare expectations to results. Would any sane person say that the 50-year experiment at a cost of some 22 TRILLION dollars has been a success?
Just to put that in perspective, $22T is $22,000 BILLION, or 22,000,000 MILLION. Given that the population of the US in 1965 was around 200 million, that means that we have thrown away something on the order of $100,000 for every man, woman, and child alive in the U.S. in 1965 - for NOTHING! Actually it's much worse than that - because as a race, the blacks in this country have LOST that 50 years that they could have utilized to continue a monotonically increasing wealth, health, and educational success curve - right up until the point where the government started giving them 'free money'.
Dear Frank, Posting the truth is offensive and will get you placed on some extraconstitutional rogue agency's watch list.
Yeah, you are probably right, but that's one of the few advantages of being a septuagenarian - I'm too old to care ;)
I often add to my comments - I am an engineer, to point out we think in logic and outcomes. What I also say is look at the results of leftist policies - they don't work and often hurt the people they are supposed to help. 2 other comments - people have to stop thinking about what about people think. Isn't that what we tell our kids? I was working for a software company in the 90s and decided to stay home with my kids. That was only possible because I am married. I didn't care what people thought, and believe that they told me. If others don't value or respect my decison, that's their problem. And we have to stop hiding the truth so we don't hurt people feelings. My parents divorced and I turned out fine, but it was tough. I have divorced friends and their lives are more difficult. We are all good people, but it's OK to say we may have been better off with married parents or if we found a better partner. We can handle the truth.
You’re only addressing cash assistance, which you’re right, is very limited. But that doesn’t address things like Medicaid, food stamps, child care assistance, housing assistance (super expensive), etc. All of these are very hard to qualify for if the parents are married or living together with the children. TANF is small potatoes compared to these far more widely used programs.
During a discussion about poverty with colleagues, several of whom I considered friends, I once said that welfare should be tied to an assiduous and successful use of birth control.
"That's genocide!" I was told.
That was in the mid-1980s.
I often wonder what they think nowadays, or whether conditions on the ground make them double down even more on diversity, equity, and intimidation (What *does* that 'I' stand for?) despite the movement's lunacy.
Sounds about right. Just like Planned Parenthood denounced its founder, Margaret Sanger, on the accusation that she was committing genocide by going into poor urban neighborhoods (which are nearly always predominantly black) and providing birth control. Anyone who has had babies should be able to appreciate the gift of reproductive choice. Seems like the people who cry genocide when we promote birth control for poor mothers have never had babies, never had to support them financially or arrange for their care WHILE earning the money to provide for them. When you’re poor, a baby is the last nail in the coffin of your hopes and dreams for a stable life. I’ll never understand why we aren’t pushing birth control harder than any other social program. Most of society’s problems would be solved or greatly improved if babies weren’t born to parents who either don’t want them or can’t provide for them (financially or emotionally). It’s a relatively inexpensive solution to poverty, crime, disciplinary problems at school, low academic achievement, etc.
This would be illegal -- there is no legal or ethical way to ensure that women use birth control, especially as its use is forbidden by some religions. There are other ways to accomplish the same goal. The problem here is that we have already given incentives to women to have children without being married, and getting rid of those would not only get rid of the incentive, it would create worse conditions for children who would continue to be born. Before these incentives were created, there were plenty of incentives NOT to have children, and those incentives helped both men and women either use birth control or not have sex in the first place. Now that those negative incentives don't exist, many people refuse to acknowledge any incentives against sexual license. Many institutions actually treat people as incapable of self control and (if you've never worked with public health agencies, you might be shocked at the casual contempt they have for the sexual mores of their clients, which they seem to think they should encourage because "you can't expect better from people like that").
Of course government grants don't provide enough money for single mothers - but then we have to think about the incentives and disincentives that any government program create. The point of the discussion was that many government programs have actively reduced incentives for family creation - and that trend is disrupting important societal structures.
It goes both ways. Women and men need to stop acting this way, which means that families, schools, institutions, and media have to stop encouraging them to do so and teach what really happens before they realize that all those things people said never went wrong actually go wrong often, and they've messed up their lives.
Good point. People whose heads are on straight, who think beyond the cliches, do value the WORK of Motherhood.
Sounds like you are one of them. Thank you.
I am. But I'm not a fanatic about it:) My wife worked before we had sons and stayed at home for a dozen years or so until the youngest entered middle school. We certainly had a social life but made spending time with our sons a priority. Got involved in their activities like tennis and debate. Doing these things doesn't guarantee success but both sons, now in their mid to late forties are great people who are contributing members of society. And good parents themselves. Which is more satisfying than my career successes.
I think your last line says it best: raising decent children is more satisfying than career success. What the world needs to learn!
It is the ultimate paying it forward I think.
What a great reply. My bride was a very talented realtor when we met. When we were expecting our first she decided her future vocation will be her family. INITIALLY I was overwhelmed by the idea because she closed on at least one property monthly. That requires tremendous effort but provided a tidy income. I didn't argue and manned up. We struggled but I like to believe we've been greatly blessed.
Good for you!
Amen, K.B. , Amen. I agree. Whether a person works outside the home or not, ... and whether a person enjoys their outside work or not .... it should never take away from the incredible importance of raising our kids. There are few things more valuable than raising good humans. I actually DID enjoy my job in Comp Sci, I just enjoyed raising my kids even more. When I look back on what I did at my outside job I feel good about what I achieved but none of it holds a candle to how I feel about my sons.
It has been devalued by the radfems certainly but I can assure you that we Patriarchs still value it. Indeed, we consider ourselves to be mere earners of money, which we then hand over to our wives who we trust to spend it wisely.
Why are you singling out "radfems" (radical feminists) as supposedly devaluing two parent households for children? I am a radical feminist activist. Many radical feminists are happily married to men and enjoy raising children with their husbands. What we radfems are concerned about is how women/mothers are treated when they live with men/fathers. Many males who abuse their wives or girlfriends begin or greatly escalate that abuse when women become pregnant. Many women are first physically assaulted by the fathers of their children when they become pregnant. The men are of course taking advantage of women's increased physical and emotional vulnerability when pregnant. Abusive men also use the threat of women possibly losing custody of children to coerce women into remaining in the marriage or continuing to cohabit. Once a woman becomes pregnant, she may be less able to leave an abusive relationship.
> happily married to men and enjoy raising children with their husbands
Then you're not what I'd call a radfem. The issues you raise are of course real, but I can assure you that decent men abhor the abuse of women and detest the sort of men who behave that way. And radfems tend to paint abuse narratives as only working one way. Many a good man has had his life ruined by a calculating woman. All things said and done, men lead far tougher lives than women. As a non-feminist I say that we should not make war on each other but be partners.
I was going to say the same thing, I wouldn’t consider you a radfem, Holly, and everything you state there about your concerns isn’t radical at all, they are things all decent moral humans would care about.
And I agree with Ray, the one way abuse narrative is a hallmark of the radfem. In fact, I believe that along with the empowerment of women, we have probably seen a rise in men abused by women. I’m not saying classic feminism has caused that though, but add to (the positive gains in) women’s empowerment our massive negative cultural shifts with social media driven shallowness and selfishness, increase in narcissism, etc, all of which is wide open to everyone with complete equality.
Yep you're part of the problem.
Why is it that men can’t do two things at the same time? We women wanted the career opportunities our mothers didn’t have AND we wanted marriage and children. Instead we got responsibility for everything while the men slacked off. I’m still with my husband who hasn’t worked in 20 years , but it’s only because I prioritized having an intact family. I have many friends who said it’s not worth it.
> Why is it that men can’t do two things at the same time?
The same reason they are much better at doing one thing when it has their focus -- they are not designed for multi-tasking, but for excellence in some specialization.
> AND we wanted
Yes. Like children, women (or radfems, anyway) WANT, WANT WANT. As the saying goes, women have rights, men have responsibilities. Nobody gives a shit what men want -- if they can achieve -- in open competition with other men -- what they want, that's fine, otherwise they fail and nobody gives a shit when men fail, do they? Women have the instinctive understanding that they must be looked after, failed men are just thrown away.
> Instead we got responsibility for everything while the men slacked off.
It's you who wanted to have your cake and eat it too. It's the radfems who changed the rules. Yup, you're still likely to do most of the housework because that's 'natural' for you, and -- not so much anymore -- it's still likely to be your husband who fixes the leak in the roof because that's natural for him.
Much of the 'liberation' 2nd gen. feminists achieved is doubtless good. Tho I believe in 'traditional roles', that was far too rigid back in the day. If you can compete, and be the best at what you do, then your gender shouldn't be an obstacle. But instead, like Blacks, radfems demand 'Equity' that they have not earned. Tell your husband to get a job.
First, it is worth it. A stable family is vital to kids.
Second, I'm sorry your husband hasn't worked in 20 years, but that is definitely a "your family" problem. Many men work extremely long hours, sometimes under dangerous conditions, for their families. Some have two jobs. It's just as wrong to characterize men by whatever unfortunate thing is going on with your husband (and I know all kinds of things can go on in any person's life, I'm not judging) as it it would be to say that no women should work outside the home.
Third, through most of history, both men and women worked. The difference was the "outside the home" norm brought on by the Industrial Revolution. Before then, most people worked in a family business or on a family farm. Families worked together, or women worked at home in cottage industries. When we decided we wanted both mean and women to work outside the home, we also decided that we still wanted the things that a person at home full time would do--but without help (until recently, all but the poorest people often had help with housework, cooking, or laundry, because those things were much more labor-intensive and took much longer than today).
It's a problem that I think is reaching an end point -- something has to give.
When mothers who stay home with children earn Social Security benefits, then we will know we respect their work. I spent 16 years homeschooling my children, when I "should" have been working and earning benefits. I just started collecting SS, and I'm here to tell you, it won't cover groceries. It was absolutely worth it, and I would do it again. but if SS is meant to prevent poverty in the elderly, we need to rethink it completely.
This. Absolutely. Congratulations for homeschooling. We did as well. We had a brilliant accountant who suggested my wife be on our payroll in an administrator capacity. It was an inspired move.
I’m not sure I agree that stay-at-home mothers should receive SS benefits. However I hear your point about the flaws of SS and how that could be one way of valuing motherhood. I would like to see more people valuing raising children such that any financial sacrifice is seen as totally worth it, and not a burden. There are probably more things we could do policy-wise to support families, but there are also many things communities can do to support each other that don’t require the government to get involved. I am for some pro-family government policies (for example, I think paternity leave needs to be vastly extended), but I also think societal change is better when it does not happen too-down from the government. Just my 2 cents.
That’s kind of like saying teachers shouldn’t do it for the money, they should teach for the love of teaching. It’s nonsense. I mean, of course we should care for our children because we believe it’s worth it (I also homeschool my children, year 12). But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be some sort of financial safety net for us, just like every paid employee has.
I don’t need to be paid for raising my children. I just want the same respect that a career woman has. I just don’t want anyone to lament that I “wasted potential” by choosing to be a stay-at-home mom rather than furthering my career. I just want people to think my choice is a good one rather than a regrettable one.
Plus, if we did start paying parents to stay home to raise their children, then any respect that comes with the job is now coming explicitly tied to the money. But as much as parenting is work, it’s not like any other job (and shouldn’t be). I want the respect from the recognition of the fact that parenting IS different than a job, not from any monetary compensation for it. In addition, the danger of offering monetary compensation for what is a role, not a job, is that it teaches parents to view their role towards their children as a transaction. IMO, that’s a damaging way to view your own child.
I just don’t see how that would work. Is a tax that everyone pays and stay-at-home parents then collect? So now I have to pay for other parents to raise their children? People with no children have to pay for other kids to be raised? Then, there are so many things that could go wrong with that— what if a government entity decides that you are not parenting your child they way they want you to, and decide to withhold your tax payout? No, that sounds disastrous— so many ways for it to go wrong, especially in a govermnet with any totalitarian impulse, which we have seen recently that ours in US indeed has.
I'm definitely not suggesting we be paid for our work. I don't want that, nor do I think I deserve it, for all the reasons you said. When I say financial safety net, I just mean a piece of Social Security when I'm of retirement age. And actually, SAHMs are entitled to collect Social Security on their spouse's (or ex spouse's) earnings, which is fair.
And who doesn’t value it? Feminists.
Spot on.
I agree
KB can you tell me more on how society doesn't value work inside the home?
My wife and I are in our late 50's and reared 3 children. We seemed to be on the cusp of women having to "have it all" with the expectations of career and motherhood. Her older sister (3yrs) was a mother with a career. We made our decision by what we valued and NOT what society valued. I became the money maker and she walked away from corporate American to be a stay-at-home mom. Yes it was a financial sacrifice, but one we gladly made.
I’m in my mid 30s, and for my generation, I and many women I know feel much pressure to work rather than stay at home with our children. I see so many messages on social media that push women towards careers and away from raising children. Lately, in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, I have seen many social media messages that talk about how much more successful a woman could be if she gets an abortion. The message is clear: money and career success >> raising children. Or rather, the implication is that having children hinders you from career and financial success. Enough people are believing this and not having children such that our country is on the cusp of not replacing our current population.
I do agree that more people need to do what you did: make a decision based on your own values and not what society values. But for many, the societal pressure is strong, and for others, they come up with their value system based on what culture tells them.
I feel the same way. And maybe it depends on location? I’ve been a stay-at-home more for 16 years, in the DC area and in NYC, and let me tell you, raising children is not valued or respected in cultures that attract high-achieving careerists. I’ve had to really believe in what I’m doing, and the honest truth is that sometimes I have felt kind of inadequate at cocktail parties and my husband’s professional gatherings, where all the other moms are MDs at banks or partners at law firms or surgeons or television producers. I come from a culture (Utah) where staying home with kids is immensely valued, so this is really different for me.
I hear ya. My hope would be that one day, when you go to those cocktail parties, you’d be full respected as a stay-at-home mom, because everyone realizes both the sacrifice required and the value provided. I have also felt inadequate at times, saying “well I’m just a mom,” to when people ask me what do I do. But my good husband reminds me that I have no need to add in the word “just.” I can say confidently, “I am a mom. And I love being a mom.” On my better days when I believe in what I am doing I can say this. And other times, that pressure from the outside adds in the word “just” back into that statement.
I'm not surprised by the way they treat you, but I feel sad for all those children who will be raised by nannies , will find a "family," of friends at school with "bad habits," and then ...
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I am hopeful that things are shifting. My children are little younger than you late 20,s and early 30's Their friend groups are split with some getting married and having children, while others have yet to find a mate.
I hope things are shifting too.
Just one small niggle to your comment, K.B. You said that the work of moms raising kids is still not valued by our society. I'd like to propose that it isn't as valued as it probably should be, but it is valued in some quarters, such as mine.
My wife was not at all convinced she wanted to stay home with kids after we had them, even though she wasn't exactly pursuing a career when we married. She had various jobs of the kind that young ex-Theater majors who don't go into theater took.
Conversely, I had worked since my sophomore year in high school with the sole objective of pursuing a career that would enable me to found a family of which my wife would be the matriarch with utterly no financial responsibilities.
My wife changed her mind about making a home for our kids after the OB/GYN handed me our first born to cut the cord that bound her to her mother, immediately after which I laid her across her mother's chest. I could see right there that my chances of prying these two women apart were less than nil.
My wife stayed home with both of our daughters and devoted herself to them. I am not going to define "devotion" because however you define it in a positive light she did.
I took each girl to Daddy/daughter dinner at a local restaurant each week (her choice), and was the chief of two YMCA Indian Princess tribes. I went to Christmas and Spring concerts (private schools), I was there for every Father's Day event at their schools. I read a story to each one before lights out. I could go on. I washed the dishes at night, so mom could sit down. I worked 6.5 days a week, making sure I was home for family dinner as often as I could (I travelled a lot on business). If necessary, I went back to work (in my home office) after all my ladies were peacefully slumbering.
And every few months (never more than three),I would take my wife out to a nice dinner and thank her for the selflessness and love she showed to our daughters and me every day. I told her that I was killing myself because our daughters and what she was doing with them were THAT important to me. I also told her that I would have it no other way, I valued what she was doing so much. I'd like to tell you that I came up with all of this on my own, but I didn't. My mom stayed at home with my sister and me. When I got old enough to appreciate what he had to say, my Dad told me that a man with a stay-at-home mom/wife had all sorts of places from which to get positive reinforcement. Among these sources were co-workers. bosses, clients, professional peers, people involved with him in charitable activities, among many others. His wife, the mother of his children, had only one. ME. What's more, that wife had behaved with a level of trust in her husband that the husband was never even asked (much less expected) to achieve, when she bet her life on the husband - ME - to take care of her for her entire life, even if I passed away before she did.
I was truly and profoundly humbled by what my Dad told me. I also recognized that he was 100% right. I have lived my life from that day to this trying my best to live in a manner consistent with my Dad's words regarding my wife. I have added to his bit of wisdom something I did come up with myself, which goes like this. Every day I try my best to persuade my wife in her sole and absolute discretion that: (i) I will keep her safe and secure; (ii) that my word is my bond; I am trustworthy; and (iii) I love her more than words can say. Have I screwed up over the years? Absolutely, but never seriously (e.g., no infidelity). Usually at least daily. Sometimes hourly. Even more frequently than hourly on a few occasions. We've worked through these, because I tried really hard to live up to my Dad' wisdom and my words (it's up to you whether or not they are wise). We celebrate our 40th anniversary in 2024.
It sounds like you don't perceive that you got treatment like I gave my wife. For that I am sad. I just want you to know that there are at least some of us out there who worked hard to treat our wives right as they dedicated themselves to our families. In fact, if you still have an old high school yearbook, look at your senior class and note the names of the male dorks and dweebs you recall from those days, long ago in the case of my life. My experience says that those are the guys who lived their lives like I did.
God Bless.
Bill—
I am touched by your story of your devotion to your wife and family. I am sorry if I came across as having an unsupportive husband, because I really don’t. But I did forget to consider that he and other husbands/fathers like you are a small subset of the world that appreciates mothers very much. You were right to call out my glaring omission.
Perhaps the devotion of one doesn’t feel like enough sometime, I’m not sure. All I know is that when I wrote my comment I was primarily thinking of the larger society in general. I teach a class in our church for new moms, helping them connect with other first-time moms, and i’ve notice that some of them seem to go back to work after maternity leave without a second thought— not even considering “what’s best for me and my family” but almost a foregone conclusion of “well this is just what you do.” I’m not against working moms at all, but it concerns me that the message most of these younger new moms are getting seem to cut out any consideration of staying at home at all.
In addition, as I keep tabs on the abortion issue, I see a lot of messaging that devalue children and motherhood. The idea is that a woman will be more successful if she doesn’t have that kid at the wrong time. It breaks my heart. I see the societal “keeping up with jones” kinda of pressure influencing some of my friends and neighbors. They feel the mom has to work for “financial reasons,” and yet fail to see that their financial burden is being put on themselves by their lifestyle choices including things like private French immersion school. On the flip side, I have been encouraged to meet some more stay-at-home fathers. But they are still rare and few. So I guess thinking about all this gave me the sense that most of society still doesn’t value motherhood.
But, I appreciate your point about good husbands, because it reminds me not to look only at the negative but to see the positive as well. When I think about it, most women I know that are stay-at-home moms or even part-time-working-from-home moms like me have very supportive husbands. Most marriages are not like how the portray the 1950s marriage- there is equally division of labor for home chores, husbands take a role doing things with their children, etc.
Parenthood (both mothers and fathers) will always be a mostly-thankless job, but it’s good to be reminded that that’s not why we do it. If I really wanted praise, I could easily go out and get a highly-seen professional position. But I don’t want to. I value the time I have with my children, and even if they will never appreciate it or see it, I would choose it again in a heartbeat. All that to say, very good point Bill, thank you for sharing your beautiful story and reminding me of what truly matters. If I have a supportive husband, why should I care what the rest of society thinks? I shouldn’t.
To answer all of your questions but the last: never.
What question would those be?
"When will we learn that not all valuable work earns money? When will be value raising children by both mothers and fathers? When we will value raising children?" - K. B. Newcomer
A Kauffman accidently replied to the 1st person to reply to K.B. Easily done here.
When? Maybe when we learn to value ourselves and others. More to the point, is how will we learn to value ourselves and others?
Annie, I agree with you! I left my job as a pediatrician for 11 years to raise my children at home, and now have slowly worked my way back to working. It was such a privilege/honor/blessing...all of the above, to be able to have a parent at home.
I agree; I'm 29 and did the same. Coming from a poor family with a single mom who worked all the time and a grandmother who had to act as our primary caregiver, I always looked at being a stay-at-home mom as the epitome of success, considering no other women in my family had the opportunity to do so.
Me too, I stopped work as an anaesthetist for 9 years to stay at home with my son. It was difficult to get back on the medical register after that but I don’t care, it was bliss being a stay-at-home wife and mother.
Kudos. My experience as well. I had a come to Jesus talk with myself when mine were 5 and 1. At the end of my days would I regret not being a high-powered lawyer or a good Mom (because I could not be both). It was a really good decision.
You must mean "come to Jesus", not "cime to Jesus". (Sometimes poeple actually pay more attention to what someone has written because there is a typo and they have to think more about what is intended!"
LoL meanwhile on Holly's device she pecks out poeple.
Thanks for the catch. That was was full of typos.
Which made people have to read carefully and actually THINK about what you intended to say!
I love those can you read this challenges with no vowels or jumbled sentences. But mine was unintentional.
Very nice and true Annie. I remember talking with my father-in-law in the 80s about the biggest problem (I saw) facing the country was babies born out of wedlock. At the time I think the stats were 70% of black babies and 25% of white babies. It has not improved.
Senator Moynihan called it "defining deviancy down." And he was spot on.
Senator Moynihan realized that subsidizing single motherhood would be the ruination of the Black family, and sixty years later we see what happens to cities when unparented children grow up, generation after generation, to repeat the errors of their parents and grandparents (and great-grandparents).
It hasn't been great for rural whites either.
It's one thing when a parent falls ill, or loses a job, or dies. Then the remaining parent has a real struggle on his or her hands.
But enabling 16-year-olds -- undereducated, uneducated, and possibly uneducable -- to have babies, too often with sundry men, is a recipe for disaster.
How often did my cousin, a public school teacher and speech therapist, attempt to dissuade her students from getting pregnant: "But if I do, I can get my own apartment!" was the typical reply.
Birth control: the road to economic security -- and equity.
Depends on the birthcontrol. It is coming out now the Pill does a number on a woman's head and body. Surprise, surprise - Pharma lies. As for equity; fuck that.
But, but, but Bruce did you not read or listen to this latest piece of enlightenment ? Senator Moynihan was a RACIST!!!
Duh. Silly me.
LoL. Bizarro world. Thanks LBJ. Thanks Leftists.
Evidence shows that if you have two parents, outcomes improve dramatically.
Annie, I am right there with you. I left my job as an executive in advertising a week before our first was born and spent two decades devoted to full time motherhood. I am eternally grateful that my husband's career made it possible for me to stay home with them. As I was leaving my job several women I worked with questioned my decision: how could I as an empowered career woman "give it all up?". I was better for it, my marriage was better for it and my children were certainly better for it. And it was HARD work!
I met a woman in a bookstore buying a children's book and when I asked.her what she did she said, "oh, I'm JUST a mother.". I said, don't say JUST, motherhood is the most important, most difficult job with the most long term consequences! I've had to say that to more than one person! Totally agree with Annie..."raising children is THE most meaningful work I've ever done!"
Exactly. When I was raising my kids there was that "oh, you're JUST a mom" condescending mentality to motherhood. It should've been instead "Oh wow! You're a mom? How cool! How wonderful!"
There in is the difference between men and women. Not that one is greater than the other, just different drives and perspectives. For the first 4 yrs. of my 2 chidren's lives I stayed home during the day and looked after them. Sometimes I enjoyed it and other times it was a chore and wished I was doing something else. Playing with children was/is not something I'm good at.
"Sometimes I enjoyed it , and other times it was a chore " - I think EVERY stay-at-home parent can say this. They all fall on different spots on the continuum.
Your kids won't remember much in their 1st few years but they WILL carry with them a strong sense of security & well-being, having had you there with them.
They both went off the deep end. My son became a Christian and straightened himself out, married and has 4 children. My daughter, at 58 is still unmarried, angry and, in general, is a mess. Most people don't want to be around her and she has few friends.
There are no guarantees in life, and our children are not robots. We do the best we can. It is far better than NOT having done the best we could.
I'm saddened to read that. All three of ours were raised more or less the same. They're all so different. One avoids close long term personal relationships and distrusts women. The two girls are both great Moms but both are entrepreneurial. One has a Mr. MOM husband. The other relies on us for caregiving/parenting which we're please to oblige with.
Once the children start school and begin interacting with the world, our influence wanes. I think it may be different in rural settings and it's certainly different in other countries, where families are still valued and their is greater continuity from generation to generation. Or at least there was in Thailand until about 10 yrs. ago and more Western ideas entered the mainstream of thought and influenced/coerced the late teens and 20 yr. olds.
And you blame yourself and spending the 1st few years with them?
There's many many facets to their "story" .
Dear Herr Forkenspoon, totally agree with Karena...every parent can say that "Sometimes I enjoyed it, and other times it was a chore" but you still did it!!! And therein lies the gift! You did it.
I left a law career to raise my children while hubby supported us. Both of my children had challenges. Both of them overcame those challenges to become independent adults with successful careers, but I can honestly say they likely would not have without the attention of a stay-at-home parent. If I were a single mother, they would be all kinds of messed up, and that's just a statement of fact.
I, too, was often left aghast at how many times people said, "You don't work so I was wondering if you could just . . ." Like I was just sitting by the pool eating bon bons and checking out the pool boy. Not only that, the men I knew in law respected my choice FAR more than the women did. The women treated me like some kind of gender traitor. Then on top of it, the leftists cancelled me by erasing the word "mother" and replacing it with "birthing person," as if I were nothing but a vessel and children raise themselves.
Children need nurturing and guidance to grow strong and productive, and when two parents are dedicated to that goal, children are far more likely to learn to stand on their own. I know some awesome single moms who have done a great job with their kids, but every one of them would say they and their kids would have been better off with another parent present to share the load. It's kind of a no-brainer.
For myself, I definitely had a personal crisis when my kids struck out on their own. They were my career, and when they left, I got my pink slip. I spent many an hour wondering if I made the wrong choice. Wondering where that other road would have taken me and truly knowing for the first time that the choices we make in our thirties do close some doors forever.
Then I also realized to the core of my being that I would make the same choice again, and that brought me peace. Now, my son is engaged to a scientist who plans to leave her career to raise their children, and my daughter intends to leave her own science career to raise her children when she has them. They say it's because hubby and I showed them the value of investing our lives in family.
Family. It's what we do, not what we have.
Don't be so defensive and act so surprised.. You know very well what they mean when they say "oh, you don't work anymore." They weren't demeaning the work of raising kids, you know that.
Very few meant it as a complimentary statement, A Kauffmann. It also implies that motherhood or fatherhood is not considered one of the worthy vocations that should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with being a doctor, lawyer or whatever else. Many of them said things additionally, like "well, I think it's better for kids to see their parents working" or "Kids have to see that you have to do your part in the work force", or "well, I just wouldn't feel right not bringing some money in", or "Oh, I would be so bored!", etc... I would explain that I had worked in comp sci for 9 years, that I enjoyed it, but that I absolutely loved staying home and raising my kids, and I felt that it was a very good VOCATION. I also felt that I was doing A LOT for society by raising good humans. I could have worked part time, and I did do volunteer work part time, but I never should have felt like I had to apologize for raising my kids. It is EXTREMELY VALUABLE AND IMPORTANT WORK... I truly feel there are few things more important than doing that.
Oddly, many of the people who said "oh, so you don't work anymore" would get defensive actually, and I had to sooth ruffled feathers, eg. that it is all just a choice we make, etc, etc... Odd that they would get on the defensive. Maybe it was indeed just envy and guilt?? as Charles has suggested.
I didn't say that. Or imply it ... or intent to imply it. I mean that when others say "oh you don't work" I don't think it's meant as an insult. My sense is, they simply view "work in the classical sense. I suspect very pew sentient beings think that raising children is easy.
If only. I worked with a bunch of sentient beings at a major financial services firm years ago - this was in the late 80’s and 90’s - who over a company dinner and drinks thing one night straight up called women who choose to stay at home and raise their kids “selfish and lazy” and “those are the dumb ones that can’t cut it actually working.” Then one of my colleagues, a lesbian who was a senior vp at the time, chimed in and called them “worthless breeders, part of the problem.”
So yeah, I’m going to have to say there’s basis for Annie’s comments. Had my colleagues not been drunk, I suspect they would have said something less telling of their condescension. Like what Annie heard.
You can't stop people from thinking what they think. What you can do is ignore it. If someone makes a decision to stay home and work with their children, then be secure that its the right decision for you and don't angst over what others think.
It is BECAUSE we ignore it and don't say anything that the Left has gotten as far as it has. IT IS TIME FOR CONSERVATIVES TO SPEAK UP.
I don't think that you understand the female mind and emotions. I don't claim to understand them either, but I have observed them and know that they are valuable.
Mr. Kauffman, as my father would say "other people's opinion of you are non of your business".
I think it’s envy and guilt in a lot of cases
I disagree Mr. Kauffman. I lived through the sniping my wife experienced at parties from what I convinced her were petty envious women who didn't understand the process of selecting a proper mate as well as she did.
I laughed out loud at this. I left my job to raise (and homeschool) our daughter. Whenever I was the target of the "you’re just a mom" crowd, I would just say, "You girls should’ve made better choices."
I'm not sure what you disagree with. Insults of every imaginable sort are part of nearly everyone's life. If you and your spouse make that decision, who cares what others think? My wife and I did the same. She stopped working (yes, it usually means outside of the home) until our 3 kids were all at least 12. We didn't care about the economic or professional hit. And the last thing we cared about were the feelings of women who did otherwise.
Most American women, meaning a majority, still think they should keep working and they think their kdis are all the better for it. Who knows? What I do know is that being all out of joint because people are condescending is not a good way to live. That was, I thought, my point.
Mr. Kauffman you clarified neatly in an above reply. I do think some criticism of woman's right to choose to be a full time mother is intentionally biting even in a passive-aggressive manner. That typed I also agree that its not always the case.
If you think long-term though, raising children, who become productive members of society is earning money. It’s not you earning the money in the moment, but it’s those children eventually earning money because they’ve been raised well.
Thank you for your post. May God continue to bless you and yours.
Bari - Really great interview. I hope she returns. I have one comment and one request.
The comment - While we are saying the unsaid, it seems to me the only people who are lambasting the book are progressives as it calls into question much of their foundational views on modern society. I don't see centrist democrats or conservatives. I suspect there is a lot of overlap between the pro Hamas/anti Israel crowd and the people who want community parenthood.
The request - I have sent this request to your staff and I will mention it here for public consumption. I really think the Honestly audience would benefit from a long interview with Thomas Sowell. Like Ms. Kearney, he is an economist and for 50+ years he has been writing about the impact of the Great Society programs on black America. At 94 years of age, he wont be around much longer.
Thanks again for a great episode!
Yes!!!! Sowell is peerless.
He has also been ignored by the mainstream academics and media. He has been saying the same things for 50+ years, all ignored until recently. I first heard of him only a few years ago.
Yes, please an interview with Sowell!!
Agree, would absolutely love to see this
Agree! Bring on Sowell!!
Tom Sowell is America's greatest living intellectual. It would be a great coup to get an interview with him. And I believe he is currently promoting a new book..
Yes, an interview with Sowell would be awesome!
I second the Sowell interview request!
Future historians, if there are any, are going to look at how much we KNEW, but ignored.
At this point, telling the captain of the Titanic to avoid the icenerg would get you labelled ice-phobic.
That is an awesome metaphor!
This is BRILLIANT.
The black American family provides a stark example. From 1890 to 1950, black women had a higher marriage rate than white women. And in 1950, just 9% of black children lived without their father. By 1960, the black marriage rate had declined but remained close to the white marriage rate. In other words, despite open racism and widespread poverty, strong black families used to be the norm.
But by the mid-1980s, black fatherlessness skyrocketed.
Thomas Sowell thoroughly investigated and explained this phenomenon as a negative consequence of welfare programs that, in effect, reward women to have babies out of wedlock.
Rewarding women for having babies out of wedlock is OBVIOUSLY going to lead to more women having babies out of wedlock. I no longer believe that this was an accidental outcome of LBJ's "Great Society"; I think it was absolutely an intentional way of taking power from black people.
I wouldnt go that far. But liberals/democrats do specialize in seemingly “helpful” policies with horrible outcomes and unintended consequences. Welfare policy is one of them. It was meant to buy votes of course.
LBJ was a lifelong racist. His policies were intentionally designed to give black people enough "stuff" to buy their votes and "keep them quiet." Anyone could have predicted (Moynihan did!) that making black women dependent on the government would have horrible effects on generations of black people.
You see, Celia, I disagree. In fact, LBJ began life as a teacher to "brown" kids, was appalled at the poverty in their communities, and really tried to help. As a politico, his bringing electricity to that part of Texas was a game changer for a lot of people.
I think he really wanted to help Blacks. But his good intentions went badly wrong.
Behaving like a lout, which he did, and saying crass things, which he did, count little in comparison with his Great Society programs.
Of which, welfare and even affirmative action were badly thought out -- indeed, disastrous.
I enjoy your posts, do you plan to publish anything on Jotting In Purple?
I would like to, but there are a few things I need to figure out first. I would rather write under my pen name, and I've got to sort out how to manage that on Substack. Then there's the pile of real-life demands on my plate. Hoping to get a lot of those things out of the way by the end of the year.
I'm not sure if the consequences were unintended. The more people on welfare, the more they are under the control of the govt., and that is always the goal.
Being a reformed Democrat and looking back, I think this was intentional at the leadership level. It was obvious to me at the time these were bad policies but they were “compassionate” and that took precedence. Intent was more important than outcome.
Which book is this by Sowell? Have you read much of his work? What would you recommend as a starting point?
Book title: Wealth, Poverty and Politics
Here's a link to a webpage in Hoover Institute with a video where he discusses this phenomenon.
https://www.hoover.org/research/wealth-poverty-and-politics-0#:~:text=The%20real%20problem%20for%20the,were%20introduced%20in%20the%201960s.
thank you......i just ordered the Sowell Reader, which contains at least excerpts from this book as well as many others. And letters, etc.
Good to hear. YouTube has many interviews featuring TS on a wide range of topics. Because he's very data driven, his arguments are quite convincing.
Another must read is Black Rednecks and White Liberals
As MM says nearby, you can blame the Great Society and related welfare programs for the destruction of marriage rates, particularly in the AA community. Now they are dependent on the government to a much greater degree. From plantation to plantation in a few generations, both courtesy of Democrats. I wonder which plantation is worse?
Also a factor to this black fatherlessness was the push of abortion onto black communities.
No one wants to talk about this, but abortion clinics targeted black communities and this is what happened.
Certainly not the only factor contributed to the decline of black families, but a MAJOR one nonetheless.
Please explain how access to abortions, which reduces the number of babies born, results in more children being fatherless. I really do not understand.
I understand how it doesn’t sound logical. But it has to do with the effects on beliefs and social mores within many AA communities. The inculcation of abortion as a normal part of sexual relationships led to the belief that men are entitled to unprotected sex and that they are not and should not be responsible for their offspring, unless they choose to be. In other words, when abortion, and especially free abortion, is widely available and there is a very low barrier to entry, men expect any resulting pregnancies will be taken care of. If they’re not aborted, then the single mother knows she isn’t going to get help from the father of her child. It is a complete breakdown of social mores that hold fathers responsible for their offspring.
EXACTLY! I cannot tell you how many women I know who have been forced into an abortion by a man saying things like "why do you want to give this baby a terrible life? I'm not going to stay with you, so you are going to make a child grow up with a single mom." blah blah blah. It's pathetic
Yes, men, now more than ever, pressure women into having unprotected sex. And some women do not think they have the right to say NO because they have grown up thinking that women are "supposed to" do whatever men want. Some men "promise" to use condoms and then take those condoms off right before penetrating a woman. The availability of abortion did make women feel less able to say NO and also made some women think that it was not such a big deal if they did get pregnant because they could get abortions.
Abortion puts all the onus on the decision to raise the child or kill the child on the woman. Men don’t have a say, and then become less likely to stick around and actually be a father to a child. (And no wonder, if you tell men that it’s not their decision to make about birthing a child, how then will you turn around and tell them to stick around to raise a child that they had no say in if that child lived or died?) Abortion acceptability in society reduced the number of shot-gun marriages— which in some cases might be ok, but as the studies show, cohabitation is still less than ideal than marriage for children. Abortion is often used as a kind of birth control, which further separates the physical reality of sex from childbearing, and this has lead to the decline of both marriage and families.
One additional insight, with tangential relationship to abortion and single parenthood. This was a real eye opener for me about social mores within the AA community - at least in the large metro area in which I live. I learned this firsthand during my work with pregnant women, most of them young (16-21) and most of them AA. As part of this, I shadowed and interviewed the social workers who spend their days immersed in helping single mothers.
In this AA community, once a girl has had at least one abortion, there is social and peer pressure to get pregnant and keep a baby, and there is zero expectation of either marriage with or contribution from the father. The social workers I interviewed said that for some in the community, a girl who does not have a baby before she graduates high school is considered undesirable by boys (or men) or ostracized for - in their words - “trying to be white.” I was shocked and saddened by this. In other words, what they told me is that having a baby both provides tangible proof of the perceived desirability of the girl and signals a commitment to the community’s culture.
I know it doesn’t describe every AA community, and I know it’s dangerous to paint with a broad brush. But this was a reality in my metro area that directly relates to the causes of single parenthood here.
And it told me at the time (2014) how little I understood about the cultural realities of that community.
Wow...I did not know that it was that bad.
My state, until the legislature discontinued it in the last legislative session, kept detailed records annually on more than 100 metrics and demographics related to induced abortion since the 1990’s. Submission of data to the Department of Health was required of all abortion providers -large providers like Planned Parenthood and individual practitioners.
For at least the last decade, on average, 40% of all induced abortions recorded in a calendar year were at least the 2nd abortion. In other words, 40% of the women who procured an abortion had had at least one previous abortion. When cross hatching this data with race, it bears out the prevalence of multiple abortions among AA women, and young AA women, at that. Each year, there would be 80-100+ women -usually in their 20’s or 30’s - who reported having had 11 or more previous abortions (there were also categories for 6-10 previous abortions and 1-5 previous abortions).
Every year I would study the data - released every year on July 1 - and enter it into a large database tracking these metrics and demographics longitudinally. And every year I would have to step away and take a deep breath. It is a hard reality to process.
Name one thing that progressives haven't destroyed? They have a weird Midas touch; turning everything they touch to merde.
^^^ this
Are you kidding me?
And I agree w/ Lynne and Sarah. Open your mind and think about it!
Nope.
I'm an Indian lesbian. In India, many adult married as well as most unmarried children, both straight and gay, continue to live with their parents. This benefits both parents and children. And the ultimate privilege for a child is to have a functioning extended family with grandparents either living in the house or meeting frequently, at least once a week. Most Indians have that experience
I hadn't thought about it before, but you've just made me realize that growing up with constant visits to extended family was a hugely beneficial experience for me. It gave me many more closely-related adults to observe and (if appropriate) look up. My grandma (my mom's mom was only living grandparent) taught me to embroider. One of my aunts taught me to crochet and do a number of other crafts. She also provided a wider variety of reading material than was available at home.
I'm realizing now that our oldest son was greatly benefited by spending a lot of time helping his grandfather. But it makes me sad to realize that my kids were otherwise deprived of the privilege of time with extended family, since all their aunts and uncles have always lived so far away.
I often think that if young women had the benefit of living amongst older women relatives, the divorce rate would be a fraction of what it is. A marriage is a marathon not a sprint. And an older, wiser woman would explain to an impetuous younger one that a momentary unhappiness or longing is no reason to destroy a perfectly good union. Thoughts?
Either older women relatives or other older women mentors in a community, such as a faith community. I don’t live close to my parents, but as a 30-something with two young child, I have benefited greatly by older mothers in my church. They mentor me, are available for help and for questions, and I learn a lot from them! I can’t imagine surviving without them!
All that to say, YES, when we lose relationships to older women (or men to older men) by either being away from family or not being part of a community (such as a faith-based one) we lose so much.
My Thai wife was raised with 2 parents and grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. She is the most normal person I've ever known. Her 2 daughters didn't have those benefits and their father died when the youngest was 15. The eldest married too young to a near-do-well whom she supports and the youngest just found her way out of lesbianism into a normal female with male relationship. Big difference when someone is raised in a normal extended family, (my wife) and when they aren't, (my two stepdaughters)
It's not just Indians....it's much of the world except liberal white Western countries. In many Hispanic countried, multi-generational families live together and it's not just an issue of economics.
Yes, having had a kid with my family now on different coasts, but having grown up constantly seeing my dozen aunts and uncles, it really hits the difference home
This one was superb. You provided a comprehensive review of the topic with barely a mention of race or sexual orientation.
I think the essay would have been more instructive had she analyzed the broken homes by race. There is evidence that paying welfare moms not to marry broadens the problem.
I do not think that is li.ited to any race though. At first maybe but not now.
The racial disparities matter, but we aren't allowed to talk about them. Not sure that is a good thing.
Well except when discussing other people who questioned the wisdom.of these policies with their "unintentional" consequences. This lady has plowed someone else's field and takes credit for the yield.
The fact that people on the Left are attacking this woman for daring to "call for a return to marriage" is another example of how the Left is becoming actively evil. I didn't used to use that word much, but in the last few months, the evidence is piling up that the Left is supporting positions that are *objectively* evil. Rejecting a social norm that prevents poverty for children is objectively evil, no matter how you slice it.
Writ large now for all to see when they extol the butchers of October 7, who carried out acts so vile that few, if any, can even watch the videos. Talk about pure, unadulterated evil.......
And some of the Hamas men who committed those atrocities in Israel are now shooting at civilians in Gaza as they try to evacuate the areas where Hamas is hunkered down in its network of tunnels and in structures like schools, hospitals, mosques and apartment bldgs, to try to force those civilians to continue to serve as human shields for Hamas. The IDF has had to provide force-of-arms protection for civilians trying to move along the evacuation routes.
I disagree with the title of this article. Growing up in a two parent married household are not "privilege". Kids can't choose their birth parents. It is not the same as being born into a very wealthy household. Traditionally, the WASP value in America was if you were born into a very wealthy household (like the Kennedy's or Bush's) you had an unspoken responsibility to help people less well off than you.
The nuclear family unit for centuries has been the best way to raise children, and create great outcomes for next generations. Unfortunately, government policy and social morals do everything to undermine the nuclear family unit. The oft cited stat is that in the early 1960s, Blacks had a 25% rate of single parenthood (children out of wedlock). Today, it's almost 80%.
Encourage marriage. Get married. Stay married. Marriage isn't easy and oh by the way, 50% do not end in divorce. If two people graduate from college and get married, the divorce rate is down to 10%. Kids today want everything perfect and their ducks in a row before they take the marriage leap. My generation didn't do that.
Having a good marriage and raising children in a stable home requires self sacrifice. Our society is so engrossed in "I want it now." or being selfish and keeping score that they forget that to make things work they might have to sacrifice.
This is not hard. What's hard is changing the conversation. What's hard is telling people the way they are thinking, and doing, is wrong.
I think the title is meant to convey what has been lost over the past three-quarters of a century, to which this piece draws attention. What was the norm before, a solid family foundation, has been lost. Bari makes it clear in her intro that she doesn't mean that privilege infers some type of stain or guilt, but I do think that she could have clarified this term. By privilege, I just took Bari to mean an advantage, an important one with considerable social value, since too few kids today grow up with both parents.
The rate of divorce was about half. The prevalence of divorce was never that high, meaning that the majority of married people never got divorced.
That makes mathematical sense, many people had multiple divorces.
Centuries? Try millennia!
In this context, "privilege" simply means having some advantage over those who are not so "privileged". In a famine, someone who manages to have sufficient food, for whatever reason, has a "privilege" not possessed by those who do not have food. Since growing up in a household with two parents statistically results in better outcomes for children than not growing up in such a household, even controlling for family income, children can be considered to be "privileged" compared to children who do not grow up with the presence of both parents.
Most children in human history were not born into "nuclear families". They were born into extended families in which children were cared for not only by their biological parents, but by other relatives, and in small communities where children were also looked after by the other adults in the community. That's what "it take a village" reflects. Also, it used to be far more common for one or both of a child's biological parents to die before the child was an adult and no longer dependent on adults for care. Even now, there are many places and cultures in which the norm is for children to be raised in extended family households, not in nuclear families.
“Privilege” is used in its historical meaning as in “blessed,” “fortunate.”
I see with this article, an example of Westerners reinventing the wheel. Or rather convincing themselves that the wheel is a good thing.
I'm starting to get what is wrong with Western culture. The most obvious things first become out of use, then controversial and then reinvented, maybe readapted to be in use again.
Maybe this shows great intellectual flexibility and is good in some ways. But it puzzles me.
This also shows up in the use of words. Like privilege. I have used it to mean "honor", something you aspire to as you say here. Now it is a dirty word.
What about this thing called obviousness?!
I know right. It’s like, turns out the idea of family that God had in the beginning actually works! Funny, it’s like He knows what’s best for us, or something…
The problem is we are addicted to "revolution" and act like the disciplines required in the past don't apply to us.
I think of it as blessings.
Privilege refers to a special advantage or right possessed by an individual or group. A privilege is a right or advantage gained by birth, social position, effort, or concession. It can have either legal or personal sanction: the privilege of paying half fare; the privilege of calling whenever one wishes. Sometimes someone is awarded a "privilege" because they are being honored for something they did, in which case being awarded a privilege could be something someone aspires to.
Yes, that is a recent use of the word, as far as I know.
I used it another way earlier. If I said "It is a privilege to serve them.", I'd mean "I feel special and fortunate to be able to serve them." Not exactly "It is an honor", but close.
This is the meaning we need to get back to. Things that are now called “privilege” like it’s a dirty word are things people used to be thankful for. Instead of cultivating gratitude for an advantage whether earned or not, we are now villainizing people for having anything that actually helps them thrive in life. I think this is such a wrong approach. I can recognize that not everyone has the advantage of having married parents, like I did. But I do not need to be made to feel bad about this. I can be grateful for the advantage that this gave me, and in my gratitude, be aware that not everyone has the same advantage or circumstances. Gratitude will help me show compassion to others who may have not had the same advantage. But if you start trying to bully people into helping others by making them feel bad for things they received, that’s just gonna backfire on you. Course, I wouldn’t put it past the Lefties to have realized this and perhaps be using this to sow division in our country.
I was raised by a single mother. My father left my mother with two young boys. He has pretty much been a non entity in our lives ever since. It was very hard on all of us but especially my mother. She had to be a young single mother in the small town South in the 1980's. She was a young school teacher. We had no money and limited support. I would be lying to you if I told you that getting where I am was not a struggle and I know there are people who did with a lot less. I am now a successfull professional and so is my wife. We have been together 25 years. Marriages aren't easy but I have never ever thought about leaving or cheating. I hope my wife feels the same way. Our children have good grades, go to church and participate in school activities. I have taught them to be kind, respectful and grateful. Are they children of privilege? Yes, and I could give a s***t less.
But your mother started off on the right foot.
The stuff that life throws at us, including divorce, disease, and death, makes child-rearing harder, but the idiotic decision to have a baby at 16-years-old with a guy whose primary occupation is hanging out on street corners makes child-rearing almost impossible.
There were divorces in my family, and the kids turned out all right: Their parents weren't feckless from the start.
Decades ago, people ridiculed Dan Quayle for criticizing the "Murphy Brown" TV show, because it suggested that single parenthood was a viable option that a woman could casually embark on because that's what works for her. How dare he suggest otherwise?
Who's going to apologize to Dan?
He may have been right on this one but he was still an idiot
I think people forget that smart people are often stupid and stupid ones can be right sometimes.
my vote goes to Mr Potatoe Head
The "potatoe" spelling, by the way, did not come from Quayle. It came from a cue card prepared by one of our public school NEA union teachers:
https://publicapologycentral.com/apologia-archive/political-2/dan-quayle-potato-incident/
I am not a Quayle fan at all. But let's not fault him for the shortcomings of NEA teachers.
So he’s Ron Burgundy?
I’m Ron Burgundy?
"When everything is done and said, there's always Mr. Potato Head."
While I'm a real fan of two-parent families (and grandparents and lots of aunts and uncles to fill in the gaps -- I myself grew up in a sort of Greek village smack in the middle of Windsor Terrace, Brooklyn), there's a big difference between older, well-established women's having or adopting children, and the having of babies by undereducated, jobless teenagers who'll go on to have more.
And I don't care what color skin these women sport. Rural whites who go in for irresponsible procreation are also contributing to our nation's dysfunction.
This reminds me of Kamala Harris’s claim that we don’t all start from the same place so we don’t really have equality yet. Obviously, the solution for this is a type of totalitarianism that is frankly kinda hilarious.
Kamala doesn't really make claims, which would require some logic, she makes uninformed idiotic statements. Really? We don't all start from the same place? This is her mindless definition of equality? So pathetic.
If it werent so sad it would be funny. But she is so bad. Talk about a decline in american culture, look at our politicians and leaders. Ugh. Kamala is beyond difficult to listen to. And Joe cant complete a sentence.
Here is a case in point... For a long time I wasn't sure I would be able to have children. I looked at parents with their kids and felt left out, even envious sometimes, but I never felt that they should all have their children taken away so that we "all started from the same place". How stupid and ludicrous.
By Harris' statement, SHE, in her infinite wisdom, would make decisions for ALL of us about what we all want or feel we need?
As if we could ever, or SHOULD ever, want to all start from the same place! I look at what other people do, career-wise, for example, and I would never choose that career... or I look at things that they have... and I would never choose to have those things. It's no surprise that there are as many paths to success and happiness as there are people. The last thing that will make me happy is to have Kamala Harris tell me what my path should be. Ugh!
Thank God the world is is full of people all pursuing happiness in the way they enjoy most.
My parents both came from abject poverty, but both pulled themselves out of that poverty by the sweat of their brow. I have more pride in that than if someone handed over the keys to mediocre pre-determined allotment. No thanks.
Excellent point. “Privilege” is the politically charged replacement for my preferred word, “blessed”.
We really have to reject the hijacking of language in our everyday lives, don’t you think?
I'm one of the critics, because the title gets it wrong, implying that a two-parent household is something that randomly happens--just falls from the sky on people.
The two-parent household is NOT a privilege. It is a choice.
At an individual level, it is a choice that people make out of love, commitment, and a willingness to sacrifice. At a societal level, it is also a choice: society needs to foster the sort of mores that discourage casually "hooking up" and impregnating women and then abandoning them. It also needs public policies that encourage couples to stay together, rather then to separate so they can collect more benefits.
I think you hit on the key word. Sacrifice.
Too little of it in today’s world. Those who sacrifice a bit of their pursuit of happiness for others or sacrifice career earnings for the sake of family time or sacrifice hard work for greater rewards...
They are in short supply.
Everyone wants a “Life hack” or other some such shortcut. They don’t exist for every single thing. Sometimes you actually have to put in the time and effort.
The casual hooking up culture is unhealthy and dangerous for both sexes and for society. Teaching children that sex is the most intimate act between two people who love each other is the first step.
I would add that teaching our children that casual sex diminishes the soul
It is a choice for the parents, but it results in a privilege for the children, compared to children not raised in a two parent household.
Sure, but let’s teach the children raised by two parents to be grateful for it, not be made to feel bad for having “privilege.”
I absolutely agree, and the language is important. The word "privilege" implies that the normal baseline is the unwed mother, and that the children with two parents just got lucky above the norm and, therefore, owe the world and the "underpriviliged" a debt.
Having two parents should not be considered a privilege. For the good of the children and society, two parents should be considered normal--the baseline--and children with only one parent "disadvantaged."
It is for those from "normal" families to be compassionate and help the disadvantaged to close the gap upward that they, too, might form a two-parent family for their children some day, thus strengthening their own lives and society.
Well said. I agree.
Free condoms and birth control pills for everyone. They should be handed out at the first sex ed class in elementary school. It's never too early to indoctrinate. 😈
Tax policy discourages marriage. A married couple making $100,000 a year each pay much more income tax than two single people making $100,000 each.
It’s actually the least feminist position there is. As a woman, we will punish you if you choose to raise your own kids and we don’t recognize that unpaid work as worthy and useful so we will tax the crap out of your family unit. Your worthy role to society is to head out into the world to become a tax slave like everyone else and subcontract your family life to the lowest bidders. Conversely poor women are incentivized to stay single and be an economic prisoner of the state. The feminist revolution has a misogyny problem.
It doesn’t make sense.
If you look at it as a control issue, it makes sense. Dependency = control.
Yip you 💯 correct Herr.
The most disturbing information in the article was not the state of marriage/family/child rearing. It's the difficulty she had in getting the book published and reviewed.
I think both are equally disturbing. The mainstream media has WAY too much power in this day and age to say WHATEVER they want, whether it is the truth, partial truth, or a boldfaced lie. They also appear to have the power to censor and take away the voice of those who ARE telling the WHOLE truth, or who present another point of view.
Partial truths are insidious lies because the twist the truth and give false impressions. They are only a hair more truthful than a boldfaced lie, but can actually be MORE DAMAGING because people hear that one part that is true and assume the rest is true as well without verifying anything.