So, kids join gangs because their moms work? Really? I thought kids joined gangs because their deadbeat absentee fathers left their familes dead broke with no way out of poverty, thus depriving their sons of positive male role models and imbuing them with the dog-eat-dog lesson of taking care of your own needs first, screw your responsibilities, screw the family.

Ridiculous, yes, but no more so than Ms. Klett's bizarre pop psychology view that all they lack the love and attention of a stay at home mom. Race, poverty and social and political disenfranchisement don't even rate a mention. Huh.

And what about this idea that all attention is good attention, and that any mother who stays at home full time is by defintion practically a saint giving her children the best possible childhood? Is there no one, no one in this world, that was raised by a stay-at-home mom who was pissed off, depressed, and maybe just generally not too thrilled with the whole situation? Am I the only one in the world raised by an imperfect mom?

My mom wanted to stay home with us. I guess it just didn't sit as well with her as she thought it would. Wanting, it seems, is not automatically equated with "doing it really well, or better than someone else you pay."

I love my mom, and I have no doubt that she loved us. But staying at home with us was not the best thing for her, or her children...that much is pretty clear to all of us. I'm wondering - if Ms. Klett's kids grow up to be anything other than private school-going, top college attending, highly paid white collar executives, is she prepared to take responsibility? She seems to think that moms who stay at home are somehow guaranteeing some future nirvana for her kids. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way for two reasons: 1)kids have their own nature, and 2) not all nurturing is guaranteed to have the desired effect.

Staying at home to parent is a valid choice for men and women. It may or may not help your kids succeed later in life - like every other career choice, it's not the job itself but how well you do it.

One LW asks, "So, what's so special about drinking alcohol that it shouldn't be done in the presense of children?"

That's pretty simple - alcohol lowers inhibitions. People with lowered inhibitions standing around drinking with other people with lowered inhibitions often say things they otherwise wouldn't - bon mots like "motherfucker", "tits", and "holy fucking shit" to name just a few. Does this guy really want his daughter perched on a bar stool next to someone talking like that? Does he really think 'nice' people don't ever swear or talk about sex or make crude jokes or rude comments when they're relaxing over drinks in a bar? Does he think he has the right to tap the guy or girl on the shoulder and say "Excuse me, but I think you need to move your conversation elsewhere, my child is here, see, and I really don't think she should be exposed to this sort of language."

When a child is present, most of us alter our behavior: we don't swear, don't talk about sex, don't laugh too loudly, don't talk about upsetting stories in the news such as torture, priestly pedophilia, homophobic murder, or women being sentenced to community rape in far off countries. I should be able to go to a bar, enjoy a beer, tell a dirty joke if I feel like it, and discuss current events without having to be afraid some little pitcher with big ears will overhear me.

It's a clear choice for parents - put your kids in an avoidable situation where they grow up too fast, or grow up, yourself - and leave the kid at home.