Is there a population shortage; Or is sex just not fun anymore?
('a mother drive-by' to 'a singleton')
Me & my favourite baby - my cousin, whose parents I greatly admire - as parents, and as people Happy 1½ Madison!
I want to give a special thanks to my mother for raising me to be independent, determined to be self-sufficient, knowing I have choices in life.
That I have the freedom to choose a romantic partner based on love, and know that if I want to be stay at home mother, or a career mother, I have that freedom of choice, that would be negotiated between me and an equal partner with whom I would have children. And that I better choose wisely, and be sure I'm ready for it, because a child is a big, big responsibility, and marriage is a always a risk.
At least that's how I was raised. And I think it was logical and sensible.
Because after all, anything can happen: divorce, single parenthood, becoming a widow.
And I'm confident that no matter what life throws at me, I can find a way to take care of myself, and hopefully, jointly, whatever offspring I bring into the world.
Because I was never raised to believe that another person or other people would be responsible for my life & survival, or the children I choose to produce, so long as I am physically capable of doing so myself.
In a discussion on another blog, I said that I think it's unreasonable, in this day & age, to raise girls to believe they'll never ever have to have a job outside their home, and that they can rely solely on a husband for support while being a stay at home mom, and for the rest of their lives...
Someone retorted to me that they believed, because I am childless, and therefore not contributing to "the pool of future citizens" at present, I should have to pay extra taxes that should go toward mothers whose goal in life is to be a stay at home mother.
This person also declared that my contributions in the scope of the community, are less important, because without children, unless I discovered the cure for cancer or saved the planet from an alien invasion, I am merely selfish in my pursuit to support myself financially.
I guess she told me, eh?
But if I were to be financially penalized, and made to feel "less than" for not being married, for being self-sufficient, and for not having children I can't afford... It would seem to be that I would be encouraged to have babies, marry a man and submit my life to him... And well, basically, it sounds like this person hopes to keep women barefoot & pregnant to prove their worth to society. Unless, of course, the woman is quite sure she will stop a war with extra-terrestrials or cure cancer, by choosing to have a career.
Is there really any evidence to suggest that most children raised by a stay at home parent turn out the picture of emotional and psychological health, very successful in life, and most importantly happy?
Is there really any evidence to suggest that most children raised by parents who both worked outside the home are emotionally & psychologically harmed, unsuccessful in life, and most importantly unhappy?
Should people be coerced, forced, or encouraged by others, or the government, on how they should raise their children or what they should do with their own lives while raising children?
Is our modern society based on a 2-income household good for our culture? Is a patriarchal society where women are subordinates any better?
Perhaps some people think my life is worthless, and that I contribute nothing of value to the world around me because I'm not currently makin' babies... and I'm (gasp) a singleton.
But I happen to think differently. My self-worth isn't based on my marital status or my entering motherhood. I hope that if I do get married and/or become a mother, it will add to my life greatly, but not subtract wildly from it... or be my sole value as a human being either!
And I believe marriage and especially parenthood, requires great sacrifices in life, but does not require sacraficing my whole life and my whole self. My mother would've done me no good if she sacrificed her own well being & personhood... I believe she has done well for me by being a great role model, in fact. Indeed, my mother's life continues to remind me that so much is possible, and gender or age need not limit one!
(Despite her mistakes, and her human fallibility, I'm my mother's biggest fan, can you tell?)
I bet a lot of married stay at home parents, as well as married career parents, would agree with me, that they should have the freedom of equality, the free choice, in their family, to arrange their child care as they see fit, without the government telling them that as married parents, they must both work, or that one of them must stay home.
And I think a lot of singletons, single parents, and childless parents, think their lives are worthwhile too.
And I hardly think we're in a crisis, and the human race is in danger of dying out.
Because the studies I've read seem to suggest the world is overpopulated.
And because dog gone it, sex feels so good, and people want it so bad, and anybody can have sex (it's not brain surgery, after all). And damn, it's a hell of a lot more effort to insert that VCF or don the Trojan, than it is to just go hog wild and let loose between the sheets engaging in unprotected sex.
No, I doubt the human race is in danger of extinction due to a lack of sexually active careerless kept women.
You left a comment on my site a while back and I happened to follow the link back here today. Hi. Coupla-four ideas. First, the world would be a much better place if people who weren't totally psyched to take care of kids didn't have them. Second, it's none of the government's business. Third, if you let someone else raise your kids, don't be surprised if they don't turn out the way you'd like. And fourth, my sister, a 25 year veteran elementary school teacher, says she can tell with pretty good accuracy after the first day of school which kids have at least one stay at home parent. She thinks they have longer attention spans, better self-control, and relate better to adults. Does that make them happier or more successful in the long run? No idea. That's just one data point.
Posted by Chris | Wednesday 09 March 2005 11:56AM
First, being at a capable responsible day care for, let's just say, 6 hours a day 3 times a week would hardly qualify as "letting someone else raise one's kids". I don't even think 40 hours a week at a day care qualifies as "letting someone else raise your kids". By those standards, your sister has been raising other people's kids for 25 years. And anyone who doesn't homeschool, and god forbid allows their kids in any activities (such as scouts or sports) could qualify as "letting someone else raise your kids".
Second, the kids from stay at home parent households might actually be from the wealthier households (who can afford one parent staying home), and lack of economic stress in the family might contribute more than the stay at home parent angle, to the well-adjustedness of those children.
Third, sometimes kids who seem "so grown up" in relating to adults, have actually been the victims of triangulation in dysfunctional and/or abusive families (which hurts them in later life)... so if that's the case, we can't be sure of psychological health, no.
Fourth, no disrespect to the sister... but it is anecdotal, not scientific evidence.
Posted by Chloe | Wednesday 09 March 2005 12:54PM
I don't disagree about 6 hours, three days a week at a daycare. My kids did something similar. My point was directed more at the "10 or 12 hours a day, 5 days a week folks," and the "nanny raises the kids" folks. Also, I wouldn't say that the outcome of outsourcing your parenting is necessarily bad...it's just largely out of your control.
Your point about economic stress is spot on, but I wouldn't restrict it to the not-wealthy. People want to live in towns with good schools. The cost to live in those towns skyrockets, over the course of years. The only way to move in, for most people, is to take on huge mortgages and have both parents work. On paper these might be wealthy people, but they are slaves to the cost of the choices they made.
I wasn't pretending my sister's take was a study. Doesn't mean she's wrong, though.
Posted by Chris | Wednesday 09 March 2005 2:58PM
There are probably about as many anecdotes as there are people. Fer instance:
Through a set of fortunate circumstances I've been able to be a stay at home mom while raising my son. It's the most fun I've ever had and, career-wise, the most fulfilling. And I think my son has grown up pretty well adjusted.When he flies the nest, I'll begin my third career.
I know a woman who depended on a nanny to be there while she worked and jet-setted. Yet she still managed to be a committed parent and her children, now in their teens are two of the sweetest, most well-adjusted kids I've met. They happen to be my son's step-sibs.
Then there was the stay a home mom up the street when my lad was a young one. Her kids would show up at my door at 8:00 in the morning and they'd still be there at 4:30 in the afternoon. I fed them and basically, took care of them. Free day care. She never called, she never came around to see what they were doing. I have *no* idea what she was doing. Her kids were *not* well adjusted or happy.
And there is a neighborhood in back of mine where two income couples live with their kids and nannies. We have an excellent school system in this town and the people do like to move here. And I've heard more than one complain about having no time or extreme stress levels owing to commutes and no family time. And yet, I'm sure no one forced them to buy a three quarter of a million dollar house which has assured them, for a long time into the future,of a need for two incomes and a long slog into Boston where the incomes are much higher.
I dislike the argument over which is better..stay at home or working mom. Either can be just as good as the other or, conversely, just as bad as the other. It all depends on the people involved.
One of my great disappointments in the feminist movement were the divisions and accusations that seemed to develop between working women (married or single) and stay at home moms (married or single). I always thought it was about the equality of all women to make the choices that they needed or wanted to make.
Posted by Kate | Wednesday 09 March 2005 7:17PM
Sorry, I should've clarified further about the 25 years as a teacher experience being anecdotal. I wasn't questioning the veracity of it. I was merely pointing out that even 50 years of experience by one person, in certain schools in certain neighborhoods, can be isolated experience, and therefore it's impossible to know if it's particularly relevant in 'the big picture'.
I also should've been more clear that by "wealthier", I didn't mean "higher income" necessarily, I meant, someone who can comfortably live within their means in their situation, and still afford one parent not to work.
And yeah, I have a lot more sympathy for those hard working poor parents who live in poverty anyway, and both parents must work, and still are under economic stress... than I have sympathy for parents that are struggling with financial stress at a high level, when really, more frugal choices could easily lift the stress off their family.
Posted by Chloe | Thursday 10 March 2005 3:44AM
Yeah, what Kate said: "One of my great disappointments in the feminist movement were the divisions and accusations that seemed to develop between working women (married or single) and stay at home moms (married or single). I always thought it was about the equality of all women to make the choices that they needed or wanted to make."
Exactamundo! Thank you! That's exactly how I feel, and what I wished to express here. I hope that was communicated clearly. Though I've been saying this for years, one way or another, but it always seems to fall on mostly deaf ears.
Posted by Chloe | Thursday 10 March 2005 3:47AM
Good post. It's sad that these things still need saying though, ya know?
For some reason, I struck by the idea that being a successful parent (let alone being a successful person) is defined by producing children who are "happy." As much as I dislike being unhappy, I don't know, really, if that is the best yardstick. If the kids (or parents) are fed and clothed, reasonably satisfied in their lives, and able to function well in society at large -- isn't that good enough? When did being content and satisfied stop being sufficient?
Maybe if this standard shifted back, there'd be less pressure on parents -- and on non-parents.
Eh... I'm just rambling today.
Posted by Rana | Thursday 10 March 2005 6:24PM
First, I think content and satisfied EQUALS happiness. I'm not sure what you think happiness is. Sounds like you're talking about slap-happy - like being euphoric on drugs or something. haha!!!
No, I don't think a parent has been truly successful if they've simply clothed & fed their kids. Kids who are beaten and emotionally abused are often clothed & fed well. But I wouldn't call their parents particularly successful!
So no, I don't think it's enough to just do the basics of food, clothing, & shelter. And no, I don't believe we should go back to the Patriarchal Pedagogy, where women & children are treated as property & subordinates.
And that was my point - that a lot of children getting the basics of food, clothing, shelter, and even a parent at home, might still be in a dysfunctional family.
I suppose I should've specified - when I say "happy", I mean, reasonably comfortable and able to function in life.
Posted by Chloe | Thursday 10 March 2005 6:59PM
I don't know what it means to be a happy person. Clearly, just about everybody is happy sometimes, but I've always felt that happiness was a condition that you feel for a while, and it doesn't go on forever anymore than sadness or hunger or orgasm go on forever. Happiness is a fine thing and certainly something to strive for, but leading your kids (or yourself) to expect to have a "happy life" seems disingenuous and cruel.
And I always have to wonder what someone is talking about whenever they speak of a person's worth to society, as if not staying at home producing the next generation of consumers is a bad thing. Claiming that a woman who doesn't stay at home is wrecking society implies that all the men that go out and win the bread are saving society. Well, obviously some do and some don't, and likewise, some women who stay at home benefit society and some women would be wasting their lives by staying at home. I sincerely doubt that these one-size-fits-all gender roles help society, and they obviously don't sit well with a lot of individual women.
Posted by Ryland | Thursday 10 March 2005 8:11PM
I'm willing to say that I hope my kids have happy lives. What I mean by that is that they are content to be who they are in the present, strive to improve themselves in the future, and look back with some satisfaction and ahead with eagerness. The other side of the coin, though, is that they not seek happiness at others' expense. Happy kids who aren't jerks. That's my hope.
Posted by Chris | Thursday 10 March 2005 8:35PM
I like Chris's comment about generally happy people who aren't jerks. hehe. That's exactly my thinking too.
Yes, yes, I didn't mean 'happy' as an emotion, I meant 'happy' as a state of being.
After all, even domestic violence victims will say that their husbands don't beat them every single day, and they have "honeymoon periods", where they're actually "happy". But that doesn't mean that they're "finding happiness" in their relationship & in life. Whereas "good relationships", a couple will have arguments, and things will happen that are sad at times... but overall the relationship is functional & generally satisfying.
That's what I mean when I say happy. And that's why I said I didn't mean like "slap-happy - like being euphoric on drugs or something". haha. I don't think you have to be feeling like you're riding the ferris wheel at the fair every single day, to have general happiness. hehe.
And that was my point too... That I think it's sometimes specious to talk about a person being "worthwhile to society" or whatever. Like I don't think you have to invent the light bulb, or dive into a lake & rescue someone from drowning to be worthwhile to society. Obviously those things are easy to point out as contributions. But sometimes doing nothing special, and just obeying the traffic laws is a worthwhile contribution to the community. haha. But not everybody who speeds on the highway, especially if the highway is deserted, is a scourge to society. haha. But if they're recycling, rescuing drowning people, driving at the speed limit, and inventing lightbulbs - that's great, sure! heehee.
Posted by Chloe | Thursday 10 March 2005 11:17PM
It's so weird to be a feminist and pregnant. And in a situation where my husband basically makes enough money that if I wanted to, I probably could stay home with the kids forever. (I don't want to-- I want to teach; it would drive me and therefore my children crazy for me to be home all the time.) All of my life I've been quite certain of my right to choose certain things, and what is interesting is that now that I'm pregnant, people treat me differently. I've been a self-sufficient contributing member of society for 20 years (by that I mean having a job.. but I guess I could have defined it as being in school and added many years to it). But suddenly, because egg & sperm met successfully (boy didn't they) I am treated like a celebrity of sorts. It's bizarre. I haven't quite figured out what I think or feel about it. I wonder, though, how (and if) it will change when I have the babies.
It's just funny how many people really do determine their self-worth by their children's, rather than by their own lives.
We live way under our means, in a nice neighborhood but a modest house. We could live in a much much more expensive, bigger place, but it would be very stressful. There would be no time for playing. We like to play. And our house is significantly larger than our grandparents' places.
I guess, all in all, it's not so much for a lot of people about their families being happy and well-adjusted but by keeping up with the neighbors, having the right car, the right bumper stickers, the right shoes, etc. And I'll bet one variable in those kids who come to school with a stay at home parent and are well-adjusted and have longer attention spans is NO TV. Reading & playing instead. Not to blame TV for the evils of the world, but it's pretty significant how different the world feels when you mostly turn it off.
Posted by Kim Wells | Sunday 13 March 2005 10:36AM
I can imagine how differently someone is treated when they're pregnant. I imagine it can be almost like being treated like a damsel in distress constantly for 9 months straight. haha. I buy into it myself to an extent... I always feel the need to be more careful around pregnant woman - you know, as if they might have an accident. I mean, not like crapping in their pants accident - I mean, like falling down & hurting themselves or the fetus because of the belly putting them off balance or something. (Perhaps this is because I'm clumsy myself without a big belly, so I can't imagine what I'd be like with that kind of shift in the center of balance on me.)
I've never understood the "keeping up with the Jones" thing. I too rather look after my own happiness, and live with as little stress as possible, rather than having lots of "things", especially not to impress people with. And yeah, I think that's what it's about with some people. They really don't care about a lot of the things they buy, but they think they should.
And around here, it's okay to diss television. I almost never watch television. I mean, there have been times I've gone a month at a time without even switching the thing on. I don't have cable tv, and I have very poor reception as well.
Now that I have Netflix, I watch a few movies per week. And yeah, I accidentally got hooked on watching CSI on dvd. But other than Frontline on PBS, I really don't watch much on tv, ever. I don't remember watching very much television when I was a little kid. But I think I watched way too much between the ages of 12-16. And then again when I lived with a tv junkie for 2 years. haha.
But I daresay that stay at home mothers aren't necessarily less likely to let their children watch television. In fact, I bet children in daycare are probably watching less television on average, than children who stay at home with a stay at home parent.
I could be wrong, because I don't know much about daycare. But I would think at daycare the kids are playing with other kids. And I just think it's probably all to tempting for a stay at home parent to leave the tv on for hours just so they can have time to themselves and get housework done, etc. I'm not saying that's wrong. But I hardly think it's any better than daycare when people use the argument "letting other people raise your kids"... Like if you're letting the television raise your kids, is that better than the kids socializing at daycare?
Posted by Chloe | Sunday 13 March 2005 12:09PM
Comment Avatar icons by Gravatar.
E-mail addresses are required, but not displayed nor shared.
Please post comments relevant to this page only. For off-topic comments, questions, and discussion, please use this site's Message Board Forum. All comments posted that are spam, abusive, use phoney e-mail, or that do not relate directly to the page, will be removed.
Thank you for respecting this site, author & readers, and for helping stem the flow of ridiculously inaccurate hits from search engines.
superficiality >>If the facade is what's important to you, all you wind up with is an illusion. Disillusionment is the gift of substance.
-- Chloe<<
(more)
You left a comment on my site a while back and I happened to follow the link back here today. Hi. Coupla-four ideas. First, the world would be a much better place if people who weren't totally psyched to take care of kids didn't have them. Second, it's none of the government's business. Third, if you let someone else raise your kids, don't be surprised if they don't turn out the way you'd like. And fourth, my sister, a 25 year veteran elementary school teacher, says she can tell with pretty good accuracy after the first day of school which kids have at least one stay at home parent. She thinks they have longer attention spans, better self-control, and relate better to adults. Does that make them happier or more successful in the long run? No idea. That's just one data point.
First, being at a capable responsible day care for, let's just say, 6 hours a day 3 times a week would hardly qualify as "letting someone else raise one's kids". I don't even think 40 hours a week at a day care qualifies as "letting someone else raise your kids". By those standards, your sister has been raising other people's kids for 25 years. And anyone who doesn't homeschool, and god forbid allows their kids in any activities (such as scouts or sports) could qualify as "letting someone else raise your kids".
There are probably about as many anecdotes as there are people. Fer instance:
Good post. It's sad that these things still need saying though, ya know?
I don't know what it means to be a happy person. Clearly, just about everybody is happy sometimes, but I've always felt that happiness was a condition that you feel for a while, and it doesn't go on forever anymore than sadness or hunger or orgasm go on forever. Happiness is a fine thing and certainly something to strive for, but leading your kids (or yourself) to expect to have a "happy life" seems disingenuous and cruel.
And I always have to wonder what someone is talking about whenever they speak of a person's worth to society, as if not staying at home producing the next generation of consumers is a bad thing. Claiming that a woman who doesn't stay at home is wrecking society implies that all the men that go out and win the bread are saving society. Well, obviously some do and some don't, and likewise, some women who stay at home benefit society and some women would be wasting their lives by staying at home. I sincerely doubt that these one-size-fits-all gender roles help society, and they obviously don't sit well with a lot of individual women.
I'm willing to say that I hope my kids have happy lives. What I mean by that is that they are content to be who they are in the present, strive to improve themselves in the future, and look back with some satisfaction and ahead with eagerness. The other side of the coin, though, is that they not seek happiness at others' expense. Happy kids who aren't jerks. That's my hope.
Yo chol'e ...
I was surfing around today, found this page and thought you may like it.
It's so weird to be a feminist and pregnant. And in a situation where my husband basically makes enough money that if I wanted to, I probably could stay home with the kids forever. (I don't want to-- I want to teach; it would drive me and therefore my children crazy for me to be home all the time.) All of my life I've been quite certain of my right to choose certain things, and what is interesting is that now that I'm pregnant, people treat me differently. I've been a self-sufficient contributing member of society for 20 years (by that I mean having a job.. but I guess I could have defined it as being in school and added many years to it). But suddenly, because egg & sperm met successfully (boy didn't they) I am treated like a celebrity of sorts. It's bizarre. I haven't quite figured out what I think or feel about it. I wonder, though, how (and if) it will change when I have the babies.
It's just funny how many people really do determine their self-worth by their children's, rather than by their own lives.
We live way under our means, in a nice neighborhood but a modest house. We could live in a much much more expensive, bigger place, but it would be very stressful. There would be no time for playing. We like to play. And our house is significantly larger than our grandparents' places.
I guess, all in all, it's not so much for a lot of people about their families being happy and well-adjusted but by keeping up with the neighbors, having the right car, the right bumper stickers, the right shoes, etc. And I'll bet one variable in those kids who come to school with a stay at home parent and are well-adjusted and have longer attention spans is NO TV. Reading & playing instead. Not to blame TV for the evils of the world, but it's pretty significant how different the world feels when you mostly turn it off.
