Mitt Romney thinks so.
Yet almost 64% of moms with young kids work.
What's the solution here?
Romney said in Tuesday’s interview that he thinks it’s preferable for one parent to stay home when children are young. The comment came during a discussion of early-childhood education and preparing for kindergarten. “It’s an advantage to have two parents, but to have one parent to stay closely connected and at home during those early years of education can be very, very important,” he said.
Romney’s wife, Ann, was a stay-at-home mother to the couple’s five sons.
In 2011, 63.9 percent of mothers with children younger than 6 held jobs outside the home, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Women do work and if available, there are relatives that can take care of the children. There are also excellent day care and preschools. The premise that mothers must stay home is quite atavistic in its premise. It does not have to be always the mother, there are also stay-at-home fathers! This is the 21st century, not the 1950s! Even in the 1950s, women did work! My mom did and my father took care of me until she came home and then he worked! I turned out fine!
If at all possible, I believe with all my heart that ONE parent should remain at home with young children. Whether that's Mom or Dad is irrelevant. If one parent can draw an income sufficient to maintain the household, the other should be home with the children. More often than not, the excuse that we can't afford to live on one parent's income is just that: an excuse. The fact is that if we were to scale back our standard of living a bit, things would be different.
But given that every household in America today needs cable television, multiple gaming systems with broadband online access, a cell phone in the hand of everyone over five, a brand new wardrobe for every natural season of the year, a brand new automobile for every licensed driver, and the best of the best of everything, it's necessary for just about every parent in America to work.
At the risk of sounding unpopular and old-fashioned (and I don't give a flying fig about either), children deserve to have full time parents. Unless a two parent family simply cannot exist without an income from both parents, one of those parents should stay home with the kids.
I find it interesting that my response to this thread has been completely ignored. The bulk of people who have responded have largely ignored the 'can the home be sustained by one income' argument except to say that it's impossible. No one has addressed the fact that a simplified home life could indeed allow the home to be sustained by one income, hence the argument becomes moot.
I know how you feel. Your answer is a great one. It is funny how easily the truth is ignored. I have no argument with what you said and applaud you for your persistence!
Mom can always work when the child is in kindergarten.
( *Society should not penalize women for dropping out of the work force to raise a child. Unfortunately, however, it does... and this is a problem.)
*smiles* I didn't ignore it... I thought that we agreed a long time ago that typing *yeah what she said* over and over got tiresome.
I know better than to think that YOU ignored me...lol How's the baby? How's Mama? Missed you round these parts.
Aiden is great. We found out that he has significant hearing loss but honestly in this house that might be a blessing. Momma is fine and enjoying the spoils of the breastfeeding diet. I am officially thinner than I've been since I was in my early twenties.
Other than that everyone around here is motoring on.
How goes things with you sexy nun?
Quite well, thanks, and sexier than usual...lol Motherhood makes one glow, you know. We've recently inherited an adopted 14 year old daughter. Long story, but she was going to have to move and was desperate to stay in one place, and we'd already come to love her like our own...so, here she is with us now.
Our puppy adores her and followed her around constantly last night (her first night with us) with her rope bone...then her ball...then her squeaky toy. Laid at her bedroom door and cried till she let her in. Puppy love is strong indeed.
I'm so glad Aiden's well! Give him plenty of kisses from me - germ him up real good! Thinner is good, as long as you're both healthy! Take good care of you both (all)! Can't wait to see you back more frequently.
I am 100% in agreement with you. So many times, I have said the exact same things about being able to live on one income. I know you can--we did it. I wrote a hub on this a few years ago, and it is one of my most commented on hubs, lol.
My husband did not have a high-paying job, either. He painted houses for a living, when our kids were small. We didn't have cable for many years, and we survived. Our kids just spent that much more time outside playing, swimming, or even doing chores. And I was with them everyday.
We didn't go on vacations, we didn't have new cars, but we went on lots of day trips with our kids in our old cars that still ran well. We bought a house on land contract, but our kids would've been just as happy if we had lived in a rental.
We didn't have new wardrobes every year, but my kids each got a few sets of new clothes each year when school started. We didn't eat out all the time--maybe about twice a month.
But we raised three wonderful kids whom my husband and I are very proud of. Our daughter is a stay at home mom, and most of her friends are, too. For awhile--at least where I'm from--more mothers worked than didn't, but the pendulum seems to be swinging the other direction now.
I am not for Romney, but I am not against him, either. But I do agree with what he said that having a parent at home during the early years is very important.
Not always an option due to financial considerations for many. And since if bringing up the subject of government legislated parental leave with financial support will bring the wrath of many on my head I can only say I think it is great if a either parent, mother or father chooses to stay home with their children and Anne Romney was lucky to be able to do that but not everyone is in the same boat.
I am a great fan of on-site daycare having worked for an organization that offered it in the past. It is a great and affordable in between that more employers should consider.
"The first, best, and most suitable place for women is in the family, and her most glorious duty is to give children to her people and nation.....the woman is the teacher of the youth and therefore the builder of the foundation of the future" by Joseph Goebbles 1933 http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb55.htm
Is this a trick? It is a mean rotten trick. How dare you. She takes us to Nazi literature. Thanks for nothing.
This takes you to Nazi Literature. I believe it is a trick! Very low indeed.
What's wrong with that?
Why no mention of stay-at-home dads? I know a few of those, too. If you choose to work, that's fine, but it doesn't change how beneficial it can be. If you're not at home with your kids, someone has to be. Whether that's a babysitter, daycare, your mom, or yourself is up to you. I admire those that make enough money to support a family, spouse included. I'd rather have myself or my husband raising my kids than a nanny, personally. At least until they reach school age.
The decision belongs to women. If they prefer working or can't afford not working while having youngs kids, women have to be the only judges. Mitt Romney's feudal model of society where women belong to the house is outdated.
Women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, don't you know?
Romney's ideal society definitively could be a Rockwell's painting or as you illustrated it rightly, the wife with her apron. A shame! It reminds me of those petromonarchies like Saudi Arabia!
Or men... he said parent, not the mother.
So, rail on him for saying that men belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen...
Why do you post this stuff MM?
MM, do you think there is no benefit to having a parent stay home with the kids?
Most mother's that I know would love to have the choice of staying home with the kids if they could afford it.
This is probably one of those situations where people will end up criticizing Romney even though they agree with him... they'll just exaggerate what he said(barefoot and pregnant, for example)...
I stand behind what I said about barefoot and pregnant.
Romney did not say that.
But his policies speak volumes.
The pregnancy part is self-evident. No abortions means women who get pregnant have to carry to term.
The barefoot part is somewhat (but not completely) metaphorical. I do not believe that Romney's tax policies will create jobs or that wealth will trickle down going forward any more than it ever has.
I do not believe that his policies will in any way help or benefit lower or even middle class women or their children.
To survive most couples find that they both have to work... maybe there is a correlation between kids lacking a parent at home and the poor behavior that we see from many kids!!
My personal opinion is that bringing up kids is a full time job in itself and there should be someone there to do it! Whether it is the mother, father or grandparent! But someone in my mind should be there to bring up little Johnny or Juliet!
I now work from home through the internet so both my wife and I are able to take care of our little one! Although I do find I get disturbed a lot more than I want to be when I am trying to work!
Barefoot and pregnant aside; I really do think it is in the children's best interest to have mum (or dad) home with them. I think it would be better for society as a whole also!
Sometimes day care is so expensive you have to ask yourself if you are just working to pay for day care?
I agree a parent should be home with a child. Times are hard but if a 2 parent home just made cut backs and lived within their means it is almost always possible to have one parent at home. I see no positive in having a daycare raise my children. Strangers vs Mom I pick no strangers raising my children!
Here's an interesting perspective on what women are staying home today vs who we think is staying home and why.
Times have changed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brycecovert … al-option/
Jaxson, as to your question why I post these things.
1. To stimulate debate, as working parents vs. stay-at-home parents is NOT a black and white (not meaning race) issue. Multidimensional and people do have strong feelings.
2. Specific to why I posted the Romney comment verbatim, because it is yet another example of a missed opportunity to include more people and piss off fewer people by being a bit broader and adding a caveat or two in his comment. But he just doesn't do that. I keep wondering when he will wake up and "get it." Maybe November 7.
Do you think there is no advantage to having a parent stay home MM?
I believe there are huge advantages -- as long as the parent who is staying home with the kids is present and available and the children are nurtured and SAFE at home with them.
That is not universally the case.
Like every other personal decision, it is a PRIVATE CHOICE that is entirely up to the couple.
I believe no mother should be made to feel guilty if she chooses to stay home with young kids.
No mother should be made to feel guilty if she works,either.
Same goes for fathers.
I intensely dislike when either "side" looks down on the other as inferior.
There is no cookie cutter approach to life that fits all Americans. That includes parenting decisions.
I am a stay at home mom, I have never worked outside our home in the 18 years that my husband and I have been married. I did provide child care in my home before I had my own children to make a bit of money but we always lived off my husbands income (mine was flexible/fun/pay off credit card money). I can't imagine letting someone else care for my children. I DO know how blessed we are that I have been able to stay home.
I have friends who couldn't stay home, they had to work whether it was for the income or the insurance. Yes, many who sit down and figure out the costs and advantages could make it if work if they want to. It is not my place to say what others should do. I don't judge my friends because they work. Interestingly, I now feel in the minority in my circle of friends. I feel criticized for staying home.
I have also worked in day care centers, you think they people are so nice and loving and they just love your sweet little bundle of joy but the truth is that not many of them are like that. Some are, but I have seen for myself how some of the workers treat the kids and talk about them. I never want that for my children. I have seen day care groups at our local Chuck e Cheese and they are awful, the kids and the adults. I have seen workers curl up in a corner and sleep while the kids run around and play. I saw the workers take all the tickets from the children and spend them on one toy for the day care. If I was a parent of those kids I'd very upset.
I do think it is best to have one parent stay home, at least while the kids are little (before school) but that is my opinion and I don't look down on others who can't or choose not to do that. I strongly encourage anyone who asks my opinion to find trusted private child care (friend or family or another stay at home mom who needs a bit of income). I know some stay at home dads too, kudos to them!
Well, I stayed home with the kids while my wife worked outside the home for money.
Some days, I didn't need to go anywhere, so I wouldn't bother putting on shoes. But I never did get pregnant.
Seriously, I'm very grateful for my time at home with my sons, and wouldn't trade it for the world. In fact, I turned down a really great job offer because it was so far away from home that I would have barely gotten to see my son. Luckily, my wife's job was able to keep us afloat for the years I spent at home with the boys. We had to make a lot of sacrifices, but it was worth it.
I think there are advantages and disadvantages with both situations for both parents and children, however, I do believe that it is a decision which should be made by the parents and politicians have no business imposing their values about parenting onto the public. I think ultimately parents make decisions about this which are correct for them, and it's nobody else's business.
Sure it's great if a parent can stay home with the kids, but it's just not always an option. Better that the kids have a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. I think Mitt Romney and his ilk live in this fantasyland where the fifties are this idealized era in which everyone was happy and healthy and had 2.5 kids playing blissfully in the picket-fenced yard with the family dog. It's just not true. It wasn't the truth then and it's not the truth now.
Thank you UW. I just get tired of this longing for a time that included the oppression of women, unmitigated racism and communist witch trials. I know it's human nature to think things were better in the past, but as thinking people, we have to look at facts baldly, not through the haze of nostalgia.
Well, it's convenient to have a stay at home parent in the household, but, in the real world that's not always feasible. Thing is, if Romney says stay home to take care of your own babies, and you're not making enough money to make ends meet, you're supposed to go to work. But now someone else takes care of your child, so, you should stay home to ensure the children don't become monsters...
I just think what should be done is what is needed and such of the household. There is nothing wrong with working part time while your child is in school.
There is a school of thought that says daycare can be beneficial to a child.
The child gets to play and interact with other children at an early age. This can also help to develop language skills as well.
And why does it have to be a parent that stays home? What couldn't a grandmother, aunt, uncle, cousin, older sibling also take some role in being a part of the life of the child? Is the mother and father the only two people alive who can teach morals and societal values to a child?
The issue isn't whether or not a parent staying home with a child is beneficial or not. The real issue is Romney assuming that is a viable option for everyone in the country. Its another way he shows how out of touch he is with how reality works.
Actually, yes that is the issue. You're trying to put words in Romney's mouth.
If you think it is better(assuming it is viable) for one parent to stay home, you agree with Romney. If you don't, then you don't agree. He wasn't talking about viability, he was talking about whether or not it is beneficial.
Politics are really starting to upset me, I can't stand the dishonesty.
There really seems to be an element of evil percolating.
The child loves his parents more than any one else in the whole world. Why have children...just to shluff them off to some one else or some place else... A some one else who can not possibly love the child as much as You the mother or father. Yes, preschool is fine and the child does learn... but he wants to learn and be with his own mother and father! We should not have children if we can't be with them. What is the point????
Interesting, I have known a lot of devoted and caring parents that worked and had careers. Why are we all concerned about how others raise their kids anyway.
Because some of those kids grow up without a real upbringing, or values, or character, and end up hurting a lot of other people.
It actually seems there are a lot of stories in the news about people who grow-up with so-called family values, yet who end making bad choices. Adults often make bad decisions that detract from their wonderful upbringing. Generalizations are not a good thing, and judging how people should raise their kids usually will lead to some abysmal falsehoods about people.
Truth is a simple thing. The children who had been produced in a lab in Nazi Germany under Hitler were featured on a documentary I saw. I never saw such deeply sad, empty people.
How could any one argue with what Romney said?
It is human nature we are discussing! He did not say, "Do not put your children in daycare!"
He did not say that.
It is a free country. He knows everything you all have been talking about. Why try to make a villain out of a perfectly fine God-believing person? What harm could a person like him do?
No one is making a villain out of anyone. I find it a bit scary you think people who are not Christians or Romney supporters are somehow inferior parents. Oh well, political propaganda is on overdrive this election cycle. Look you know ultimately parenting is a personal family choice, and in a free society you really have no business saying whether parents stay home with their kids or not.
I asked, what harm could a perfectly fine God-believing man do? Why was this forum created?
(BTW What you said, "I find it a bit scary you think people who are not Christians or Romney supporters are somehow inferior parents," is exceedingly ridiculous! You are putting words in others mouths. Words they did not say! Why do you think you can get away with that? You can try, but it won't work. Give it a rest.)
Ok... I give. WTH does being a Christian have to do with whether you stay at home with your kids or not?
Some people enjoy being obnoxious for the sake of it. I guess we just have to be understanding.
We also have to hope that all the preschool teachers have the love and patience in their hearts for all the children of all the working mothers.
The period from 0-6 is when the most important physical and psychic developments occur. Preschool teachers should have a Bachelors degree in Early Childhood Education from a University and State Teaching Credentials, in my opinion.
They are only required to have 24ECE units from a Jr. College.-Here in CA, anyway. I hear they do in Canada.)
We have entered the age of the scary mixing of religion with politics, and want to get up in your business about how we raise our kids. I never thought being a busy body would become so advocated, but it is looking that way. Some of the comments on this thread are beginning to sound a bit culty, and I do not think Mitt Romney would want to be associated with these.
Huh? I'm sorry this is all over your head. Just never mind.
Cody, It all depends on the day care or preschool. It also depends on the amount of time the child spends there and who with.
If it's feasible, sure, many would LOVE to be able to afford to do this. But, in this day and age when the basics cost so much, who can afford to have a stay at home parent? and relationships take work too, they don't just work out because we wish them to. So you need time for each other, also.
Then again, being a stay at home parent isn't always a good fit with everyone.
Well, what he said was true. If one cannot find a really good child care situation, (a Montessori school would be the ideal) then it would be better for one of the parents to be with the child. This comment does not make Romney a bad evil man. Instead, it makes him a concerned individual who has love and concern in his heart for the welfare of children. I, for one, appreciate his comments.
BTW One should keep in mind that the child must bond with at least one parent or else he/she could become an angry individual, in general. When a single mom must work too many hours, the bonding of both mother and child could be affected. Think carefully before you get pregnant, women!
If possible, yes. But with taxes rising, gas prices, and food it may not be an option for most families. And the parent who stays at home will jeopardize their career by staying out of the workforce. With competition from other applicants it may not be a wise move.
Just for the record as a cookie-baking, largely barefoot and often pregnant, house-cleaning, dinner-cooking, home-schooling, coupon-clipping, craft-doing stay-at-home mom I've never felt particularly oppressed. Except, of course, by ultra-liberal radical feminists who believe I am being yoked like an oxen by some evil patriarchal conspiracy and as a willing participant I am somehow setting the progress of women-as a whole-back a century.
And I AM a ultra-liberal.
I just never got the whole feminist thing.
You must hate women even more than Mitt Romney!
There is nothing wrong with staying home with the kids, as long as one of the parents open to that is a man. I actually wrote a blog post awhile back that is getting a bit of search engine traffic on the topic. If conservative types think having a parent stay home is a good thing, I think they should be promoting stay at home dads more. Besides, I was reading an article awhile back in Redbook about how stay at home dads organize activities that are way more fun than a group of over protective moms would.
Single women that chose never to get married or have kids are definitely the lowest members of society then . I wonder what some here about think about women who choose to be single mothers, and I can guess it is probably not very nice stuff.
I really think you should forget about all this and not trouble yourself over it!
Actually, your condescending tone is a bit amusing. The bottom line is anyone who equates working women to being akin to Hitler loves generalizations. I know that speak down tone jives with some people, but I do not buy it. I actually have a mind and do not agree with much of what you are bringing up. I think stay at home parents are fine by the way, but think men should be willing to do it too. At the end of the day I am so glad I did not have kids anyway, and when I do have kids, I will be a single mother. Oh, I am so horrible.
I am not being condescending. I am just feeling empathy for a young woman who has not had adequate real life experience to back up her opinions. In other words, get back to us after you have given birth.
I do not need you empathy as I am an intelligent woman in my mid-thirties who foregone marriage so I could write, do art, and enjoy my life. You see my life has not revolved about getting married, and I plan on having a child around 38 or 39. I have a life plan and will have children, and that might or might not include a husband. If the right man comes along, so be it, but I happen to know several really good mothers who are raising their kids on their own. So whatever you just said really does not apply to me. Anyway, empathy is way off the mark here.
Wow, what an arrogant, dismissive, and disrespectful thing to say.
No surprise, considering all the other arrogant, dismissive, and disrespectful things you've posted in this thread so far.
I'm torn between pitying you for your attitude, and wondering if you're actually a troll snickering behind your screen all alone in a darkened basement.
If you say that someone must have life experience on a subject before they study it, form an opinion on it or talk about it, you are sadly misguided. And I can tell you that from experience! There go thousands of history books, academic studies and journal publications, to say the very least.
As a mother I agree with the thought that you can never fully understand mothering until you have done it. You can hear all day long how you are suppose to parent but until you have 2 kids beating the crap out of each other while a third child is crapping or throwing up all over you with a 102 degree temp, you just don't get what being a parent is about. NO book, NO studying, NOTHING prepares someone to be a parent fully. So for anyone to have ideas of what they will do after becoming a parent is simply a waste of time because those ideas go out the window once you get there. To each their own but I love being a mother and could never imagine telling my children I wasn't going to have a dad around for them because I wanted to be a single mom. I'll take having my husband there to provide a proper male role for my children.
I've given birth and I'm a single parent. Strange how Sweetiepie who has not yet had children, seems to be better able to imagine, not only her life in the future, but the life of others also, without judging them. Pity that some *mothers* with *life experiences* arnt capable of doing the same.
Not to sound critical of anyone else's lifestyle, but your kids will probably be more self-sufficient as well. Some of the nicest and well mannered men I have met were raised by single mothers. They actually knew how to cook and clean, which I thought was cool .
My son makes a mean vegetarian lasagne and my daughter excels in subjects which are so often dominated by her male counterparts; namely maths and science. There's no such thing as gender roles in our house.
By the way my aunt was 68 when she passed away and never got married, or had kids. She was an amazing caretaker of nieces and nephews, and traveled the world and had a career. Even if I do not have kids, my life is amazing, and my life experiences are just as valid as anyone else. This is an open forum not reserved only for women that had kids.
Women lacking husband may have discovered that their partner was not a good male role model, or that he was mortal. I see no basis for going from what works for oneself, to judging others for ending up somewhere different.
A lot of kids grow up with their mom and dad, and the proper male role model thing is not there. The dad could be verbally abusive, or way too controlling. Also, I find the definition of proper male role model very limiting as a child could have an uncle or a brother. There are many types of families in the world. Some women know how they want to raise their kids, and you will have to just accept that. My main point earlier was it does seem that single mothers are looked down upon, but it makes no sense at all. I actually admire them, and a lot of kids I know raised in single mother households are self-sufficient, and the boys do more cooking and cleaning when they are adults.
I admire a single mother who keeps her child's father in their life (so long as he is not a threat to the children) and I admire single mothers who were in bad situations and did what was best for her children. I do not admire mothers who get pregnant then push the father away. Children should have both parents in their lives. This day and age I hear far to many women talking about not letting their children see their fathers just because they don't like them, it's sad for the children and yes I do look down on moms who can't look out for their children's best interest.
Some women get artificially inseminated, some women choose to have a surrogate carry their baby, and some women adopt. I personally admire any type of mother who is good, and the idea of pushing a the father away might be different for some people. There are women out there who decide they want a child, and a friend helps them with that. You might not understand this, but perhaps what they want is to have a child, not a husband. There are same sex couples who also raise kids, so many different types of families out there. I have seen a lot of married parents argue to the hilt in front of their kids scarring them for years, so two parents being married and together is not always good. I think we need to stop judging how others choose to raise their kids.
Oh I understand, maybe you didn't understand what I was getting at. As a child who sat in foster care I saw tons of children who came from 2 parent homes who had been abused (me included), and plenty raised by single parents as well. The mother's I was talking about before were the mother's who get pregnant then try to force a fit father (who wants contact with his children) away. If a parent wants to see their children, as long as fit, they should be able to. Anytime a mother (or father for that matter) on purpose denys a child a parent who wants to see their own child it is wrong. Outside of that I couldn't care less. I know what works for me doesn't work for everyone and I would never expect it to.
Well you do not get what I am pointing out either. This thread is judgy judgy with a very: I art better than thou for my life choices. Maybe not you personally, but a lot of comments on here come off that way. Oh well, probably the smartest and happiest people never venture into the forums, as people always proclaim their way of thinking is misunderstood, while choosing not the see the other side of the equation.
As I said before I see (mostly because I have been) most sides, I simply don't understand forcing a parent away from their own child. Of course the comments come of that way, this is the internet. That's what I expect to see the second I log on.
I don't think *anyone* is advocating deliberately forcing parents not to be with their young child during the day if they want to do that.
People should follow their best judgement, under the constraints of their situation. Whether than means having a parent at home during the day or not.
Keep the nickle between your knees until you can truly consider the needs and true nature of the child. It is about the child, not the lifestyle of the adult.
"Should one parent stay home with young kids?"
Absolutely YES! And all of human history tells us it should be the female.
Well of course it should. Men generally cant tell their butt from a hole in the ground. Women have been caring for men who literally would die without women to protect and teach them. Why on earth would a man think he was even remotely capable of caring for a child?
*Some* men know that they are not remotely capable of caring for a child. So they hover around in forums preaching about how women should take care of children. I think this is a positive contribution, they clearly accept that they are inferior and should *never* be put in positions where intelligence AND aptitude are key.
How you, Melissa, and baby?
*Grins* Me and baby are fine. He's kinda cute... I think I'll keep him.
Melissa, I agree with EVERYTHING you wrote ...except "protecting". Males create societies ... and within that structure they are required to protect their females and their family. The child tho naturally will bond with the mother. It always has, it always will. I wonder if the DEMS think some written law can change that?
I am not a "dem" advocating some "written law" but I have seen men that are more than capable of bonding with their children. As I have said, I know many men who are stay-at-home dads, and also know many who are single dads. It is natural to bond with the person whose tits you're sucking, but it's also natural to bond with a person whom you're around a lot, too. Also, it's becoming more popular that women don't even breastfeed. So that kinda evens the playing feild out as far as physical contact goes, which is the main argument towards the woman-child bonding thing being greater than bonding with the father.
In all seriousness I agree with you. Granted my children were all closer with me when they were little ones (the tits thing) but my hubby is better at the toddler stage than I am. He's more into the romp and wrestle than I am and the kids need that at that age. On the other hand I have infinitely more patience for teenagers than him. I'm also better at the teaching thing.
Other than the whole killing one of my children thing... the ex-husband is actually a pretty good father and his personality works way better with the 13 year old than mine. It should since he acts just like him. Parents-regardless of their sex-bring different skills to the table and who does what should rely on judging those skills rather than who has a penis or not. Other than breastfeeding and birth my anatomy has not brought any special skill sets to the table when it comes to child-rearing.
LMAO... your average male couldn't create fire with a match and dry tinder let alone a society. You are completely right about the children being best off with their mothers. The race would die out in a generation if men were trusted to do anything as complicated as caring for a child. I'm glad you realize that. It's nice to see a man who knows his place.
The multi-tasking, soft hearted, patient, very capable female. Some men can also be this way especially after they have witnessed the birth. But evolution has given women special sensitivities and thought processes. I really do not know if the father can love the baby as much as the mother who felt the energy and joy of her child within her very being. I am sure it is close... but not the same.
I agree with some of what you say, but I don't agree with the idea that a father can't love a baby as much as the mother. Some mothers aren't given those "special sensitivities", either, but if there is a father in the picture that has those, then it can make all the difference in a child's life. That's what my own childhood was like.
My husband, like my father, has been more than what I ever hoped for as a father to my children, even when the oldest two came into our marriage with me. His compassion and love with all three of "our" kids has helped me to become a better mother...and now a grandmother.
I may have been the one to stay home, but my husband was there 100% of the time, too, in all the lessons of life he'd taught our kids that they have lived by, every day of their lives.
(This is supposed to show that it is in reply to this post, but it's not showing up:
[Kathryn L Hill]The multi-tasking, soft hearted, patient, very capable female. Some men can also be this way especially after they have witnessed the birth. But evolution has given women special sensitivities and thought processes. I really do not know if the father can love the baby as much as the mother who felt the energy and joy of her child within her very being. I am sure it is close... but not the same. )
For those keeping score at home, the following are lesser beings of limited moral value:
1) All men
2) Single mothers
3) Working mothers
With honorary mention to childless females who should just shut the hell up.
Did I miss anyone?
People who buy four-cylinder cars and then run straight-pipes and add glass-packs. Especially when they are driving the things up and down my road at 2 in the morning... oh and the Dutch.
Wow, a bit over the top. Everyone can speak their minds on Hubpages forum, so enough said.
Not the users banned from the forums for 'speaking their minds'
In all seriousness...Everyone just needs to learn to be nicer when we have differences of opinions. Or you end up looking as psycheskinner's post
i love it when you do that,... it always makes me gigle like vincent price
i'm a single working mother of a 15 yr old,.. so i just dont have the energy to read the whole string at 8pm on a tuesday, lol!................ that said,...... the greatest thing i have to offer up to the conversation is this,............
if stay at home mothers are soooooo valued by the ultra conservative, vagina police right wing bible thumpers (you like that string? i'm kinda proud of it, hee hee).............. then why dont they put thier money where there wealthy mouths are and encentivise the stay at home mom,....
** provide a tax credit for a parent in a two parent household staying home with children still in school (k-12, lets dream big)
** honor the work of stay at home parents by not penilizing them in thier Social Security records,... just because we arent slaving away at an office or over a grill doesnt mean were not contributing to the big picture,.... in fact, i would argue that the stay at home parent raises a well adjusted child that grows up to be a productive citizen,... rather than the malladjusted angry youth that clogs up our aledged justice system................ the stay at home parent of a two parent household should get a social security credit for each year they are home with children in school.
i say this because after 14 years of mariage,... and 9 of them as a stay at home mom, suporting not only my son, but also packing my husbands lunches,..... i found myself not only raising a son alone to a great degree,... but very angry because i have no points in the soc sec system,.... if i'm injured and break my neck becoming a quadreplegic,.... i dont have enough points to draw dissability,.... i am worthless,..... my nine years of staying home to raise a good son has no value.
yes,.. my spelling is awfull when i'm tired
With all respect to you, how do you suggest we provide a tax credit to someone who doesn't work, and therefor doesn't bring in any income which can be taxed?
Also, we already provide these credits. They just go to the husband (or whomever supports). Each working individual is entitled to a tax write off for every dependent they have. This includes children, and wives, and anyone else whom they are paying to support.
with all respect to you,.... i double dog dare you to tell a stay at home mom and full time wife sporting her husband in his carrer that she does not work!
you just proved my point.
Interesting! (The part about no social security benefits for stay at home mothers! ) A good reason to marry a man who is on top of this! Otherwise, if you want Social Security benefits, Get a job, find a career. There are enough people stomping on the earth already, anyway! it is not a requirement to get pregnant and raise children... just because we have the body parts to bring it about. I wish other single mothers would enter in and tell it like it is.
i am not a single mother by choice my dear,... i am a single mother because my husband of 14 years left me for a married pole dancer with fake tits (i cant make that up,... realy,.. its true,... i laugh myself when typing it)and as to social security benifits,... i'm not so deluded as to think that they will even exist should i be so unlucky as to reach the age of 109, which is undoubtedly the retirement age they will asign my generation should social security even still exist then.
my greater point is.... if the right wing bibble thumping flag waving tea baggers want to champion the stay at home parent (i'm trying very hard to keep this gender nutral)..then they should assigne a numeric monetary value to the act of raising children,..... because without a numeric monetary value,..... society values nothing.
I don't even. Your comment reads like you assume that #1 People choose to become single parents #2 People always choose to have children in the first place.
Sorry to burst your bubble but you are.... WAY off.
About half of all pregnancies and a third of all children are unintended.
Where was the nickel...On the floor? So, put it back. How about a T Shirt that says: Marry Me First! (And married couples should be prepared for the inevitable.)
Is this too complicated for you?
#1) Married/steady couple get pregnant then one parent dies= single parent.
#2) Married/Steady couple have child, one runs off= single Parent.
#3) Rape resulting in Pregnancy, tens of thousands occur each year, about 5% of rapes result in pregnancy.
There are plenty of instances where the parent bears no fault.
Oh my gosh... bible thumping? Tea bagging? Romney just said that the child will benefit from being with his mother or father! Who can argue this??? Crazy mixed up people! If the parent must put him in day care or chooses to for the child's benefit that is also good! As long as the parent-child bond remains intact!
Of course, single parent-hood is fine, whether it is a choice or not.
But, It becomes an issue when one expects Social Security credits. Since, Social Security is a system that we pay into, what you are suggesting would be robbery. You are earning, by paying into the system, social security benefits now, so that is good, right? ( if indeed, it is still there upon retirement, as you mentioned!!)
your just enjoying this entirely too much now arent you.... ;-)
its called being logical. And yes, I was born year of the horse. I can't help it.
Nope nothing logical about it, a huge proportion of single parents find themselves in that situation due to no fault of their own (as I laid out on the last page). Not only is it arrogantly self righteous it's also just wrong.
Not that it's any of your business but I was a single parent due to being a widower. Additionally it's just simple math, what you are saying is factually and provably incorrect.
That single parents got themselves in that situation due to their own irresponsibility, often this is not the case.
W H Y? So I, a random tax payer, should help Ms. Hulcananny with her problem? She got herself into it and she should get herself out of it... after all, it was her three seconds of bliss that produced whatever situation she now finds herself in!
We taxpayers have to pay for the results of everyone's sexual escapades?
The logical answer is this: One should take responsibility for ones own actions!
You certainly can't call me impatient! I am being very patient with you.
I hope this makes sense to you, now. (But I looked at yer hubs and I know it won't.)
At least I tried.
I am interested in your response. Probably that I am an insensitive uncaring member of the buorgeois class who hates proletarians. Well, I am a humble artist so do not go there!
This was precisely the point, many single parents have no responsibility for that fact, you already agreed with this above thus we should help them.
They have the responsibility to take care of the results- whatever in the world they are-due to the romantic encounter which produced them...originally at the very start - at precisely the moment when the nickel... o o o p s... dropped from the woman's knees! Somebody either made or let that happen!!!
Not us taxpayers... (who, BTW, actually want our money to go for more important things, like roads, bridges, parks and dog parks!)
So, if I go to Las Vegas and loose some money, that money should be replaced with a tax credit or whatever? Cause gee, I didn't expect to loose money!
Sorry, sex is a gamble. A deck of cards. Sometimes you pull a full house. Sometimes a Joker.
So someone who was raped or whose partner died is somehow responsible for that?
There is NOTHING more important the than the well being of the children of this country, how they are raised will have massive impacts on the future. Not to mention their parents.
It's false economy not to help them because we produce children from poverty (who statistically usually end up staying in poverty) and the difficulty of raising a child alone without aid drives women to abortion or fostering (I grew up in an orphanage and that is TERRIBLE).
So in many cases the person is not responsible and needs help, therefore we should help the and their child and thus help society.
I am not arguing against the great programs already in place! Why would I? I am arguing against "social security credits" (as mentioned by St.Clair Jack) for those who stay home to raise children! There is already Welfare and Child Protective Services, WIC , Food Stamps and a really cool program called Five Acres, etc! The list goes on and on for private and public funding and help! What is your real problem?
If one parent has the absolute best interest of their child in mind and wants to stay home to instill their morals and values in the child while also teaching them life lessons and teaching them how to respect and love themselves and others, then that parent should stay home with their child. In fact, they should be willing to live with the bare minimal to survive on, if need be. If they have to, they should reduce their phone bill to the very basic of all plans or get rid of it all together. They should cut out all junk food and unnecessary items except for on special occasions to provide a sense of normalcy; and, they should grow a garden, if possible. If they can earn money from home to help with expenses, that great. But, If they have to live on government assistance to do this then they still should do it. I think, that when a person has a child, that child becomes the number one priority. It is no longer about you. It is all about forming this child into the best possible human being they can become by giving them the tools they need to thrive in this world. I knowing showing your child a strong work ethic is important; and, if you're lucky or made good choices in your past, there's another parent in the household who can share the outside home work ethic with the child but regardless, the work you are doing with your child will be recognized and they will get pretty much the same message.
I would personally rather raise my own child (or have my husband do so, or maybe my mom) then pay a nanny. Just my $0.02.
Read my hub regarding women...this question and the answers posted here put me back in another time...a time when my mother felt forced to carry out her duty in the home, raising children and giving up her life! I love my children and they love me but I was a working outside the home mom. Today, they are beautiful, productive adults. Our childcare was always a loving adult. That's what mattered most. If you want to stay home with your children and can afford to do that, then you are carrying out our life desire. If you feel forced to stay home because someone believes it's "your place", that's a whole different thing!
<link snipped - no promotional links>
So figure it out before you get "stuck". Only you can prevent forest fires!
At least one parent should stay at home. Very young children need to feel support and presence of the parent which is really important in their growth and future. Anyway parent who is home based cant give an excuse of cant get a job. There are many online jobs, freelance jobs giving you the opportunity to work from home.
ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY tells us - the intelligent & rational thinking ones - that men create societies - NOT FEMALES. Female's role is to perpetuate the society that the male group created. Again, all of human history dictates this fact. Females are not - repeat , NOT - supposed to have male titles. They destroy the status environment for the males. Females bullying their way into male titles is NOT a sign of females "advancing". Liberalism has truly gone amok. Without the compulsory integration laws (forced on America by the DEMS in 1964)...females bullying their way into male titles could never have happened. This system WILL break down. Just a question of when. Females produce the babies...ergo, they MUST stay home and provide for them - as nature intended.
I don't think so........
No it isn't satire. It is not jest. He is sincere in his statement.
The belief system of the Nazis and the Japanese had to be defeated. The problem, the almost impossible to overcome problem, are the visual images that are training people's brains about the 'new' female manhood. AGAIN, this thoroughly ridiculous compulsory integration system will break down.
Yes but that one parent doesn't need to be the same parent. I'm proud of couples who balance out responsibilities and alternate staying at home.
by janesix2 years ago
Should moms stay home with their kids? I think they should . It's better for the family in my opinion. At least until they are in school full time. The American family is falling apart, and mothers working and dumping...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
Hilary Rosen (Dem strategist)raps Ann Romney as unqualified to serve as Mitt's economic adviser, stating she's never worked a day in her life.Ann Romney opens a Twitter account to tweet back about her choice to stay...
by Victoria Stephens7 years ago
Is it so wrong to always want to be the homemaker?I loved my life as a homemaker and a full time mum? due to finances, I've started back at work but miss it all so much.
by Habby7 years ago
I am currently a SAHM and really value this role and the opportunity to invest in my children. My three children are all 5 and under, so I thought this was THE most important time to stay home with them. ...
by Dear_hubs6 years ago
It has been a gray area for a long time that in the UK, sex below the age of 16 is illegal and many frown on it. I'll be honest, I lost my virginity at 15, however I am not a criminal, I have lead a community driven...
by rfranklin098 years ago
Should I stay at home with my girls and give up my career? I don't know...please advise. Where are you sigle moms? I need your help with this question.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.