A Paradigm Shift in Parenting

National Review Online ^ | 30 November 2004 | Stanley Kurtz

[valkyrieanne]

A real feminist movement would be agitating for more flextime, telecommuting, and job-sharing for women, and for all-day schooling for kids.

I'm certainly not going to support a school district offering all-day schooling. Our kids are in school long enough as it is. Nor do I want to pay the tax increases necessary to fund it.

How is "all day schooling" any different from state-funded daycare, only this time for older children as well?

[valkyrieanne]

The cost of living forces families to work multiple jobs to handle all the bills.

It's the taxes. Meanwhile, we *pay* an Earned Income Tax credit to families with less income.

[StarCMC]

parenting ping

[GeoPie]

I agree that the mother should get out a couple of hours per day for her sanity. My wife goes to the gym 3 nights per week and volunteers one night per week as an ESL instructor. HOWEVER, we have a lot of neighbors that have both parents working, driving their one year old to Day Care in a $50,000.00 car- All because the mom can't stand the kids or they want the two vacations to Disney every year.

If you are going to have kids, than you should raise them -Not the Day Care Centers. If that is to tough for you, than don't have kids. Period.

So, I would say neither extreme is good. Parents should work together to raise their own kids and both parents need to work together to accomplish this goal(yes it is very tough at times, but we sacrifice and make it work).

[Knitting A Conundrum]

I married late, a man with two troubled children. Their birthmother and eldest sibling, a sister had been killed in a car accident that the two boys were in with them. Before that, the mother had divorced the father. All three of them when I married into this family were walking wounded.

There was absolutely no way I was going to go to work with this much trauma to deal with.

And it has paid off.

I don't regret it. It was the right thing to do. I may never be a tenured professor, but I will pass on to the world two people who are much less scarred and wounded than they would be. And who knows what will happen next?

Our future depends on how we treat our youth. And honestly, America has been doing a semi-to-very-shabby job of it the last twenty years or so.

[GeoPie]

A real feminist movement would be agitating for more flextime, telecommuting, and job-sharing for women, and for all-day schooling for kids. And for more restrictions on divorce.

Many of these things are already happening. Many businesses are willing to do these things (i.e job sharing) for smart women...its the only way they can keep them. That being said, ALL DAY SCHOOLING really chaps my hide. If you can't take the first 5 years to raise your kids, than do not have them. Nothing bugs me more than parents that both work to sustain their lifestyle. I see $50,000.00 SUV's dropping one year old off all the time at Day Care. Get your priorities straight (Not saying this is you, but most people can find a way to have one parent raise the kids the first 5 years).

[nickcarraway]

BUMP

[LibertarianInExile]

"Men simply got women into the workforce on their terms, and got to pay for abortions and write checks for child support instead of taking real responsibility for the children they produce. It's a great deal for men, but it still stinks for women. We have "choice," but if we decide to have the children, we only have lousy choices - quit working and give up our rewarding careers, or have our kids raised by strangers."

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on, there, Ms. Steinem. You make it sound like feminism was some victory for men. Most men pre-feminism, I know, would have PREFERRED their kids to be raised by a parent--the wife--at home. And most men TODAY would probably prefer a parent stay home, if we could get them to admit it for fear of being strung up by hordes of hairy-legged NOW hags. Seventy-five percent of married men say that, in choosing a wife, they specifically look for someone who would be a good mother.

The divorce rate tends to be higher in those countries where women are most apt to work at paid jobs. You think this is because MEN want women to work and women don't? But...but I thought feminism was about WOMEN wanting to be able to have a career! You already admit that you hate the idea you might have to "quit working and give up [y]our rewarding career..."

So, if you feel that way, why is your husband about to get a job? Because you want more income as a family. You CHOOSE that over having a stay-at-home parent there. Most women I know would be furious about their husband staying at home, because they're the ones that should 'get to,' and I would bet money that you have agitated for him getting that job.

No, it is WOMEN who perpetuate the current system by preferring freedom and income over commitment and childcare! Now, career women just want someone else to pay for it, so y'all can make that choice without any repercussions--because flextime and telecommuting, and job-sharing and all-day schooling for kids COST MONEY. Money you don't want to spend YOURSELF, but ON yourself.

Screw that. Pay your own freight. I shouldn't have to subsidize your industry OR your fecundity.

[LibertarianInExile]

BUMP to reality.

[buccaneer81]

Amen, Brother!!

[wouldntbprudent]

God bless you, Knitting, for your compassion and for changing the downward spiral of two young people to an upward spiral of hope and possibility.

You have a reward now, but a greater one in heaven. You, go!

[SweetCaroline]

The media at the time was full of horror stories about Bettys and Janets who after divorce and community property split were now expected to support themselves at age 50 without any marketable job skills.....so we taught our daughters to protect themselves, get a education, find a job where there was a chance for advancement and build a nest egg to protect themselves. Of course, zealots and men haters jumped in and turned it into an agenda which we now know as NOW.

[neverdem]

Essentially, says Eberstadt, the feminist position amounts to: “If it doesn’t lead to Columbine, bring it on.”

But maybe all the new pediatric, psychiatric diagnosing and psychotropic medications in kids does contribute to school shootings.

Columbine shooter was prescribed anti-depressant

School Shootings Linked to Psychotropic Drugs Such as Prozac, Ritalin, Luvox, and Paxil

The Antidepressant Connection

From the above link:

Some have looked to use of these substances as the possible common thread to the school shootings. Here are the facts. 18 year-old Jeremy Strohmeyer, who murdered a 7 year-old girl in Las Vegas, Nevada; 16 year-old Luke Woodham, who killed two teenage girls and wounded seven in Pearl, Mississippi; 14 year-old Michael Carneal, who killed three teens and wounded five in West Paducah, Kentucky; 11 year-old Andrew Golden and 14 year-old Mitchell Johnson, who killed four students and wounded ten in Jonesboro, Arkansas; and 15 year-old Kip Kinkle of Springfield, Oregon, who after murdering his parents, killed two students and wounded twenty-two, all took antidepressant psychiatric drugs.

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

[Nyboe]

First: most of the extra income from a second earner will go towards taxes because all the extra income will be taxed at the highest income bracket.

Second: the cost of "quality" daycare is astronomical.

Third: add in the extras like a quality car needed for many jobs, insurance on that car, a constantly updated work wardrobe, cost of eating out for lunch each day, extra gas driving back and forth to work and to pick up the kids from daycare, increased medical costs from your children getting sick more often, ect... and you'll see my point.

Income level doesn't matter, a higher income earner will only buy a more expense car, with higher insurance, a better work wardrobe, and send their child to a more expensive day care.

[genefromjersey]

Remember the old slogan: "Better things for better living through Chemistry " ??

[Calpernia]

You implying that I sit here lavished in fancy clothes? Come here, let me hit you. I keep up with no one. Nor is that the point of all the jobs. We have real bills, not frills.

[Calpernia]

>>>It's the taxes. Meanwhile, we *pay* an Earned Income Tax credit to families with less income.

Yup. We got money reallocated to others in our state that weren't earning enough this year too :(

[MHGinTN]

"Most would realize they are working for nearly nothing, and are cheating their children and themselves of the most important moments in life." Your wisdom never ceases to bring a grin to my face, m'Lady!

[Nyboe]

The REAL problem stems from too many people living above their means.

Most people who live in a two earner family will simply buy a more expensive house and car... and in the end money will be just a tight as it was with one income.

The fundamental fact of money that most people never get... is that it doesn't matter how much you make... it matters how much of what you make you save...

If you never get that ... you'll never get rich.

here, I'll put it another way... if you don't understand that someone who earns 50 thousand a year but saves 10 of it... is wealthier that the person who earns 100 thousand but spends 110... you'll never be rich, and you'll always feel the pressure to take a second job or to have your spouse work also ... only to realize in the end you still cant pay the bills.

[buccaneer81]

The REAL problem stems from too many people living above their means.

Nope. The real problem is no fault divorce and man-hating domestic courts.