Letters to the Editor
-
It's not scary, really.
Actually, I found this interview to be horrifying. Is this what has become of the social revolution of the 60's? Jerky, distant dads, and dutiful, homemaker moms?
My wife and I (just married) plan on having kids pretty soon. We both both work. No, we don't "need to work" for economic or for psycological reasons. We just work, because thats what people do. We share responsibilities around our home, and plan to both raise our kids.
I refuse to conceed that the ideal way to raise a child is to stay at home. Does going to daycare, or grandma's a few days a week mean that they aren't loved? What exactly are children losing by growing up with their mom and dad both working? Wouldn't it be better if we all were active participants in society? Not just the society of our immediate family and neighbors, but all of society?
We feel our children will benefit from our both working: spending time and with their relatives, other kids at day care, learning some self-reliance, etc. Perhaps some of the "crazy" things going on in society are more about average American families being isolated from the rest of the world. "I raise MY kids, we have OUR own jungle gym in our back yard, we have OUR enormous car with DVDs playing in the headrest. We can't be bothered with OTHER people's problems"
Sorry, I don't find choosing to be a stay at home mom the "right thing to do," rather I veiw it as sort of selfish. Trust me your kids will be fine.
-
The pay stinks.
It may be the hardest job, well anyway the most important, but the pay stinks.
As the creator of the magazine 180 knows very well, a woman with schoolage children needs someway to spend her time, and some more cash would be handy, too. The days of having a dozen kids, making candles and sewing clothes are over, so there is no reason any woman has to really "opt out" for more than a few years, and with a little flexibility from her husband, both can make some dough and have a good family life even when the babies are small. People do it all the time, and it protects the interests of all the members of the family- mom and dad have jobs, and kids get to know BOTH parents. I did it. If I really thought my choices were never see my baby awake or become my slobby husband's servant I'd have killed myself. But it was never like that- my husband and I were poor for a little while until I found a flexible job and now we both are self employed and life is great.
And as a daughter I can say that I wish like hell my mother had spent the last few decades of her life working, because I think she would be a happier woman now.
-
The women behind Total 180 have it all wrong!
In reading this article, the first thing I wonder, as a woman, is "where's the personal responsibility?" I think the basic premise behind these womens' thinking is all wrong. They think that because they have children, they're automatically entitled to have those around them accomodate. The only person that should be expected to accomodate is the father of the child. The fact is, they chose to have the family.
"...workplaces should have on-site day care and let you work flexible hours. Can you imagine? We need this reinvention. Look what's happened by not putting the family first."
If I employ a woman who chose to have a child, why should I be burdened with the responsibility of working out their care? A business owner is not responsible for putting your family first. You made an agreement with that employer to do your job. If you don't like the terms of the agreement then change it or find a different job.
I don't feel bad because these women chose to sacrifice their wants and needs to those of their families and I sure as hell don't accept their doctrine that the rest of us need to bend over backwards.
"And if I'm on the phone for business and my kids need me then I can say, "I've got to call you back." It's not really opting back into the workforce, it's reinventing a way to stay involved and hoping society will play along"
I sincerly doubt that the person on the other end of that phone call would agree that you're not opting back into business. What about those of us that don't want to play along with you? I didn't ask to join your game of simultaneously shortsiding your kids and your job.
"When you get into different economic levels of society there is no option to make a choice and my heart goes out to those women, because maybe they do want to be staying home and they just can't."
Quite frankly, if these women looked at the state of their lives, before kids and said "I want to stay home, but we can't afford to not have me work," perhaps they should have caught the hint that they obviously aren't ready to have those kids. Or at least not ready to raise the kids in the way they would prefer.
Too often our society lets people off the hook for the decisions they make. What it comes down to is this, parents aren't serving a great biologically vital service. If we had a desperate population shortage, then perhaps the current treatment of parents would change. But that's not the case. Parents chose to bring lives into this world. The people who they interact with had no part in that decision and we should not suffer the consequences when that decision is poorly made.
I know parenting isn't easy and it's great that there's a place these parents can look for support. This magazine seems to have great potential for stay-at-home parents, but only if the contributors recognize that they don't earn special treatment for following through on the responsibilities they've chosen for their lives.