I have no idea what this “marriage week” is, but you’d think that strengthening marriage would mean supporting both partners’ goals and easing the stress of childrearing, not throwing working parents under the bus.

I read that to mean “I never relied on anyone besides my wife to educate my kids.” But admittedly, that might not be at all what he meant and my interpretation could be overly generous.

“Strengthening the family” = “strengthening my hold over my human property”.

Never has it been so clear.

Also, defunding bootstraps and then demanding to know why more people don’t pull themselves up by them = classic Republican.

A broadly similar dynamic is visible in the anti-public-union bill in Wisconsin.  It exempts unions of police officers and firemen and targets unions of teachers.  That’s because Republicans hate teachers.  They hate teachers because they’re largely Democrats. But they also hate them because teaching is a female-associated profession in which one is paid for teaching and caring for children, when women ought by rights be forced to do that work for free.

A broadly similar dynamic is visible in the anti-public-union bill in Wisconsin.  It exempts unions of police officers and firemen and targets unions of teachers.  That’s because Republicans hate teachers.  They hate teachers because they’re largely Democrats. But they also hate them because teaching is a female-associated profession in which one is paid for teaching and caring for children, when women ought by rights be forced to do that work for free.

I believe it’s a political calculation - the police officers and firemen supported the winning Republican candidate, and the teachers the Democrat.

However, now that the shape of wingnuttism has become clear…

Yesterday the police were present and amiable, but mostly seemed concerned with doing their duty of maintaining public safety. Today they joined with the firemen–who you may recall are also spared the draconian measures in store for nearly all other public employees under Scott Walker’s budget repair bill–and actively protested against the measure.
Police solidarity

Police officers in solidarity with the protesters.

But what I found even more impressive is that the officers in uniform–the ones on active duty–were also chanting and waving their fists right along with the rest of us! Upon witnessing that, I felt like we had turned a corner. The bill may yet pass (with an outside chance that it will not), but if all the unions that Scott Walker threw bones to were turning against him, too…. Well, I can’t help believing that whatever it is that Walker and his ilk hope to gain from passage of this bill cannot last for long.

If we keep the pressure up and don’t relent–and we’ve got the support of the state’s protective services squarely in our corner now, too–I think we can break it. Heady–and hard–days are ahead of us, that’s for sure.
[...]
As with yesterday, the firefighters proudly showed their solidarity by continually marching through the crowds. And just like yesterday, we saluted them with our cheers.

But today, right at the end of the rally, one of them took the stand to speak. (I believe it was the president of IAFF Madison local 311, Joe Conway, but might be mistaken. If you can confirm who it was, post a comment!) “We didn’t intend to speak today,” he said, but this was “an emergency”. And who shows up in emergencies? “You do!” we bellowed back.

Right, the police and fire departments. The house behind him (the Capitol, of course) was burning down. And what do firefighters do at a burning house? “You go in!” we hollered.

“That’s right!” he agreed. “We go in! We go in first. So we’re going in now! We’ll lead you in there!”

Yeah, “let’s you and him fight” only works as long as you and him don’t see themselves as a potential we.

I read that to mean “I never relied on anyone besides my wife to educate my kids.” But admittedly, that might not be at all what he meant and my interpretation could be overly generous.

That’s how I read it as well, like a guy just talking and not actually thinking that his wife had nothing to do with the education of the children.  After all, it gets much harder to justify something like “women should stay home” if you don’t give your own wife any credit at all.  Just give her enough to make yourself sound like something less than a complete assclown.

As I was reading this, though, I wondered… how much different would this argument be if you kept everything the same except the focus on women being the ones to sacrifice all those years to child-rearing?  Ie., “someone” should do it, but not necessarily the female half of the equation?  I’m sure that general hypothetical has been considered before, but I mean specifically now that the curtains are coming down and the agenda is becoming more and more overt.  How many of these guys would be willing to say, bluntly, “I had a lot of kids, and my wife stayed home, at significant sacrifice, during those early years, because she knew someone had to be with those kids at that critical age.  And one of the parents should do that whenever possible now.”  It’s not even targeted at men specifically staying home, but could we even get 10% of Republicans on board?

I particularly like how Delauter characterizes his wife as being literally no one.  To say “I never relied on anyone else”, when in fact you relied on your wife, i.e. the woman who gave birth to those children?

That’s my favorite part.  Not to mention that the entire county public school system that he put every one of his children through.  The audacity is so unsurprising, I can’t even be bothered to end this sentence with a creative guttural sound or excited punctuation.

I don’t think this is really aimed at dual-income families who can’t afford to have the mom stay home nearly as much as it’s about single mothers. That’s what Head Start has to do with “strengthening marriage.” It’s a way of saying to non-rich single moms, “Screw you bitches, I got mine.”

The conservative definition of “sacrifice” is the one used by the ancient Aztecs, not the sacrifice for the common good that liberals use.  Their emphasis is on sacrificing others, and using their own “self-sacrifice” (or their wives’) as a show of false empathy.

This represents a paradigm shift for stingy Republicans, who heretofore wanted rich women to stay home while poor women went to work. Absent early childhood ed programs, I guess they’re just going to have to remove all those welfare time limits so that single moms can stay home with their kids, even though the Republican taxpayers may find themselves making a “significant sacrifice.”

This is a little OT, but could someone dig around in the Web and find out how many budget-bashing Republicans in Congress are motivated by a belief in the End Times?

At a psychological level, the emphasis on balancing the budget seems suspiciously like an attempt (on a national scale) to clear all one’s bills and settle one’s accounts before checking out of the picture. They are not investing in the future, and they are indifferent to people’s suffering and the nation’s future (innovation has always depended on government investment). They except most people to be swept away, unsaved, in the Rapture. It is a basically suicidal mentality.

Of course, many of the budget-bashers may just be more future-oriented (though delusional) free-market fundamentalists.

In the 1970s, the Mississippi state legislature was debating whether to institute free and mandatory kindergarten. One of the statesmen down there declared that he was damned if he would spend tax dollars to babysit African-American children.

Only he didn’t call them “African-American.”

Most of today’s conservatives are too sophisticated to use the kind of language he did, but I think the sentiment is the same.

I agree that this is a bash on single mothers. Eligibility varies by state, but when I was a single mom with two children, I did not qualify and I made approx. 30K. Most two income families are not going to qualify for head start. Ironically, a one income family might, but then mom is staying home so they don’t necessarily need it. (Tho, there is a lot evidence that many children are helped significantly by preschool programs and so these moms staying home are still losing out if head start is cut if they can’t afford private preschool because they are staying home.

I get dizzy with the logic.

To me, if this is based on any one of them actually knowing what the hell they are talking about, it isnt’ so much about moms staying home as it is about single moms needing to go get themselves a husband already so they don’t have to pay for their bastard children.

Did he seriously literally say “I know everybody isn’t able to survive doing that” but we should force the silly bitches to do it anyway?

Is he being more honest than usual for a Republican or is he just so fucking dumb he doesn’t realize he’s not being hyperbolic?

Also, defunding bootstraps and then demanding to know why more people don’t pull themselves up by them = classic Republican.

Yeah. Beyond the creepy-as-hell misogyny, the whole thing also reeks of a grotesque “morality” dogwhistle to me. The one where all the problems in the world are caused by the fact that not everyone is a wealthy, white, Christian, single-income Republican nuclear family.

So if “some people” can’t figure out how to be wealthy white christians? Well, “tut tut, it’s a real pity, and I know some will say I’m callous, but we have to wean ourselves off taxes and government to solve problems. Those people will just have to learn to make do until they learn how to be more moral. The churches will have to pick up the slack.”

It’s all very logical: Success is morality and morality is success. THEREFORE, if you’re not already rich, you must be a sinner. And why should the government use good tax money to help sinners? Just stop sinning already, you lazy sinner.

(The fact that this is Head Start, so they’re also punishing children for the perceived sins of their parents, is a bonus. I mean, how else are the sinners supposed to learn?)

@ 2 and 7 - The point is that even if he was “just talking” or meant to imply that he never relied on anyone “besides his wife” to educate his children, the fact that he equates (even just rhetorically) relying on his wife’s labor with “not relying on anyone” signals that he expects his wife to perform this free labor because it’s her duty as a mother, and that he doesn’t value her work. If he’d said “WE never relied on anyone else” that would send a different message.

And the problem with “someone needs to stay home” is that it usually ends up being the wife anyway. Even if you apply a seemingly objective standard like deciding that whoever makes less money should stay home, that usually means the mother - since women make less money on average. Add that to the cultural expectation that if one parent stays home it’s the mother, and you get a lot of pressure on women to uphold traditional gender roles even if you’re trying not to be gendered about it. And the downside is, the longer you stay out of the work force the harder it is to get back in, so even if it was a free choice initially it may feel like a trap later… It’s not really necessary to stay at home until your kids are 18, and there’s nothing wrong with going to an after-school program, daycare, or even being home alone for a couple hours if the kid is old enough and responsible enough.

That’s not to say it’s totally wrong to be a stay-at-home parent. My mom really enjoyed it and felt like it was the right thing for her to do, as did several other moms on our street that she was friends with. One of my friends had a stay-at-home dad (the only one I’ve ever met) and it was great for both of them. However I know other cases where it didn’t work out like that - the mother of one of my best friends was a PhD who quit her research job to raise her children, and the lack of intellectual stimulation turned her into a control-freak who to this day tries to micro-manage the lives of her adult children. I’m certain I would fall in that latter category, and my SO would too. So I think it’s important not to coerce people into staying home or judge parents who send their kids to daycare - but if it’s what people truly want it can be a good thing, if their labor is actually valued.

Reverie beat me to it, but when you say “somebody” should stay home, as many conservatives and dude-liberals I know do, it just so happens that it is always the woman. I will add that women make less anyway, but also tend to be the younger partner and therefore have spent less time working and make less. Additionally, stay at home dad’s face huge stigmas regardging their masculinity, etc.

I had a stay at home mother until I was in middle school. My mom has a graduate degree in a STEM feild and hated staying at home (although she is very adamant that all women should quit working when they have kids). My stay at home, depressed, lonely, and thus emotionally abusive mother is a hell I would never ever wish on another child.

“As many of you know, I had a lot of kids, and my wife stayed home, at significant sacrifice, during those early years, because she knew she had to be with those kids at that critical age.”

Talk about erasing women’s contributions! This asshat actually said “I had a lot of kids.” Not “WE had a lot of kids.” His wife stayed home. Which is really nice of her, considering they were HIS kids.

Just proves what Amanda was saying with the sperm cake thread. These neanderthals actually think they are responsible for the formation of these children.

What century is this again? I swear we are going backwards in time.

I’m from Maryland and it’s a great state in a lot of ways, but growing up we always called that town & county “Fredneck”.  When I was little they still had KKK rallies in Thurmont, just west of Frederick.  It’s now getting wired in to the outer edge of the DC suburbs, but Frederick is still a pretty Dixie kind of place.  But on a more encouraging note, it seems like they’ve got enough votes in the State legislature to pass same-sex marriage - most of the state is moving into the 21st Century…

@5: JasonB

But they also hate [teachers] because teaching is a female-associated profession in which one is paid for teaching and caring for children, when women ought by rights be forced to do that work for free.

They’re trying to starve the public education system so mothers who can’t afford private school will have to stay home to educate their kids, which would necessitate them having husbands to support them, especially as the social safety net is diminished. It’s a perfect way to put women back in their place, nice and isolated and dependent upon men, as god intended.

I’m hearing what you’re saying about the expectations of these Neanderthal reTHUGLlicans, but where I’m geographically, I’m meeting more and more families, from laid off trade/construction/bluecollar types to academics and corporates, where the man has been laid off, or in a bluecollar/white collar couple, the woman makes more $ anyway, so he stays home with the kids, or gets the type of job where he can work around the kids schedule to be home while she does the 60 hour work and commute. 

- and where I meet a lot of them is at the gym which is located with our local sports facility - kids in a class/sport - parents workout - so alysia, I’d dare anyone to questions these guys masculinity to their face - quite a few of us at this gym are competitive lifters and hockey players-men and women.

Phylo—i think full-time dad-dom is on the rise and I definitely think it is an excellent trend. I mostly meant to point out that the relative scarcity of sahd relative to sahms isn’t 100% discrimination against women, but also stigma against men. It is fading, especially in liberal social circles, but it still exists in a lot of places.

“She gave that up for 18 years so she could stay home with our kids, we had to give up a lot to do that.”

what’s this “we”? you got a turd in your pocket?

Phylo—i think full-time dad-dom is on the rise and I definitely think it is an excellent trend.

You sure that’s not “unemployment”?

I agree only women in the sah club is fading - but since it’s mainly out of necessity,  I don’t think it (or its stigma or lack of) has all that much to do with equality ideologies, but rather practicality.  The area I’m in is by no means liberal, here it’s simply they are out of work - many union guys who don’t want to risk their union membership by getting on outside/non-union job, so the spouse goes to work or works more, etc.  And I think there are many other reasons for any stigma to fade - at a distance, how do you tell the business owner/sales person/telecommuter who is able to work from home/ball field/rink/coffee shop from the sah parent?

The local news just showed a candlelight vigil by Frederick County women (and some men) to protest these idiots. They showed one woman who pointed out that she’s a single mom who raised two sons who are now in Special Forces. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, mother-fuckers.

It was also funny when they showed one of the counter-demonstrators, this dude who told us about how he doesn’t want money taken from “responsible” people and given to people who “might not be productive.” (I am paraphrasing liberally, but that’s the thread of complaint.) So…first they want women to quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, and then it’s about people who apparently don’t have jobs?

“Screw you bitches, I got mine.”

PIATor, that was acknowledged earlier.  But some of the default sahds I’ve spoken with are now embracing it - as in, “you know, I wanted to get back to work as fast as I could, but you know I did x with the kids(s) the other day and it was fun/cool, and now I think I wouldn’t have a problem if this lasts for a few years.”  So yes, it starts as un/underemployment.  Then they also find they have the time for all those home improvement projects, hanging with the also unemployed buds, etc.

Yeah I guess the “he-cession” is part of the trend, but fwiw there was a SAHD club started where i grew up while i was in high school, pre recession.

And on a somewhat brighter note, those families would be totally fucked if they could only the man had the ability to work. At least people have a little more flexibility to deal with the recession.

This makes me want to scream…

Kids benefit a LOT from preschool, headstart, and early learning programs. even if I LOVED staying at home(I don’t, but rant for another time) I still want to send my daughter to preschool because she flourishes in the learning and social environment(with other children around) so well.

But I guess only those children with rich parents with extra money for preschool deserve those opportunities.

alysia, I was raised by a default sahd (minor but progressive, and eventually terminal disability).  He was the only one in the neighborhood at the time, but as he had been a minor, local, sports figure, he managed to make it work well.  All the neighborhood kids - by happenstance on our street overwhelmingly boys, would come by to talk with him - he was a great raconteur.  The sahms of the day appreciated it, as he became a defacto babysitter for kids over the age of 6 or so, and even teens hung out.    His former factory buddies also stopped by - yet he would either shoo them out or set them to helping get dinner before “the wife” got home.  Often while they carried on a pretty intense poker game - it was an atypical childhood for those times.  And much earlier, by a couple decades, I think, than what you’re referring to. 

But yes, IIRC, the “MisterMom” film seemed to coincide with what you’re describing, along with male looking diaper bags, etc.  I think they’re two different phenomena. 

And then there’s the academia setting, too, where parenting is pretty much equally shared, IME, esp. if both spouses are in the academy. Often very, very publicly- I’ve seen one set of parents pull out a written “scorecard” of who last changed the child and thus decide whose turn it was this time.  And the “who has to stay home” (while the other goes to a conference) is often more about how much it will matter to tenure.  Which means the (usually) older, but already tenured spouse will usually be the sahp (no pun intended) in those instances.

Arachnesable, why do you insist school is the only venue fro a learning and social environment? Some kids do flourish, liek your daughter, some don’t.  Some kids flourish in certain types of schools and find others torture.  Some preschools are good, some not.  So in some cases and for some kids, home is better.

IIRC, there is also some question about how long those benefits endure.  In many cases, all preschool does is condition kids at an ever earlier age to endure boredom well, and to sit still - a quite unnatural state for most kids, and one which, long term, kills any intellectual curiosity the kid ever had.  We went through 3 before we found a good fit, but still preferred a lot of at home and in the yard and at the zoo and the museum with a parent, not full time preschool/daycare.

My nutbar state declined to regulate whether sex criminals can work in a day care center in hopes of scaring moms into staying at home with their kids.

The whole sexist “women must stay home to take care of the kids and not have a job” mentality basically says that slightly more than half of the population shouldn’t be allowed to take part in the workforce if you really think about it.  And because half the children are female too, the mother who stays home to teach the daughters (assuming they are also homeschooled) passes on the duty to the next generation and it continues forever.  This mentality is extremely sad.

phylosopher:
  I will repeat- because she flourishes in the learning and social environment(with other children around) so well. I know this because she is my child.

  I am a stay at home mom. I do not find it stimulating or fulfilling or wonderful to do the same thing every day no matter how much I love my kids. Lack of peer conversation or intellectual stimulation or hell, just having ME time makes me irritable, impatient, short-tempered and not in the mood to play ABC games, explain things or pop out a cool new hands on learning experience.

  Some children will flourish more at home than in a preschool, they probably have parents that may be more conducive to a teaching profession, and love staying at home. But their are many parents that do not wish to stay at home and I believe the children of these parents might be much more likely to develop socially and with a love of learning in a preschool environment.

  Some people will never be teachers. If you force them to be teachers they may not do it well, or at all. Some people love to teach their preschool children, some are not suited for it.

@reverie and alysia: If anyone’s going to argue that one parent should always or almost always stay home to raise the kids, it won’t be me.  I was just contemplating these commissioners making that argument, and how unlikely that seems despite the fact it’s only an inch or two closer to reality when they have several yards to go.

Yeah there are more stay-at-home-dads now, but that’s not what these legislators have in mind.

I was reacting to the “learning and social environment” of pre-school. I read that to mean that you didn’t consider home to be able to be a learning or a social environment.

Let me try to state my point a bit more clearly. And FTR, I’m not a good very young child playmate, either:-(  The older they have gotten, the more I enjoy my kids.

But the all or nothingness of a program, particularly once it is in the public funding domain (and yes, many private pre-schools go this route) is something I find particularly odious.  Whether it is a few hours per day or a few days per week, there should be some choices - for parents and kids.  And in that choice, the daycare/preschool issues get separated.  I would argue for the type of support/basic wage that many European countries provide, where a parent can choose to stay at home and still eat. If the parent chooses instead to go to work - then daycare should be provided on a sliding $scale.  But it should be individualized and never on an “all or nothing” model, as it is here.  Yes, that would require employers to offer much more flextime and options, too.

phylosopher @ 22 and 28
The questioning of masculinity comes from within as well.  It’s what I think is behind the phenomenon of men’s domestic contribution dropping once the woman’s income exceeds his, or she becomes the sole provider.*  It might also account for why SAHDads “find they have the time for all those home improvement projects, hanging with the also unemployed buds, etc.”, and why I’ve never heard a SAHM say something similar.  We don’t all of a sudden slough off all the patriarchal baggage just because Dad is staying home with the kids.  All of those gender role expectations can persist in an arrangement that is superficially non-traditional.

*Exchange theory about halfway down the page
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2007/03/11/the_job_without_benefits/

Reverie beat me to it, but when you say “somebody” should stay home, as many conservatives and dude-liberals I know do, it just so happens that it is always the woman.

Yeah, it’s really insidious how there are so many things that “aren’t about gender, they just happen” that end up affecting the question. Hell, I have a friend who should have the trifecta: She is older than her husband, she has had a career longer than him, and she made more than he did at the time that their kid came along. And right now, he’s staying home with the baby while she brings in the paychecks, but he’s making things so difficult with his general selfcentered privileged dudeness (and he’s basically a nice guy and loves/respects my friend, don’t get me wrong, it’s just that base level of man-in-a-patriarchal-society obliviousness) that I wouldn’t be surprised at all if she gave up and decided to stay home. And the fuck it isn’t about gender, he feels like he can take it easy and slide by on 90% while she has to give 110% to make ends meet for their family.

I hear you, rain, but I think that it becomes much easier to get rid of even that baggage when
1) it’s a practical not an ideological decision and
2) you’re not going it alone

My stay at home, depressed, lonely, and thus emotionally abusive mother is a hell I would never ever wish on another child.

Y’see, this is why my daughter still goes to daycare even though I am currently unemployed.  Because I suck at “staying-at-home” and don’t want to end up taking it out on my child.

Sorry, personal moment there.  Just wanted to remind myself that my constant guilt over this is not logical.

Notice how “Marriage Week” is fine, and it’s a good and laudable thing for government to encourage people to get married… but Michelle Obama saying out loud that vegetables are good for you is nanny-state fascism?

Another aspect of Who Gets to Stay Home is with breastfeeding, especially if you want to do so exclusively and on-demand you’re essentially looking at women as the only group here. (Yes, I know about pumping and bottles, however the most recent research I looked at it is not considered “The Best” and this pushes families who want to do “The Best” for their babies towards exclusivity) So if you’re taking 6 months or whatever off work for this, in additional a few days to weeks before the baby is born, it adds to the likelihood that it will not be a dad staying home “during those critical first years” or “making that great sacrifice.”
The ending-funds for Head Start here is clearly designed to punish women for not having had children with partners they were either married to or remained married to and/or doing so if they weren’t rich enough.
Ironic how it is frequently MRAs complaining about feminists/liberals trying to trap them into the roles of sole breadwinner for their children, when you have Republicans instead actually trying to regulate this.

On top everything else, this is fiscally irresponsible.  Conservatives try to pretend that they are soooo good with managing money, but they completely ignore the long-term.  They’ll cut some money now, and end up paying twice as much in a generation.  Money spent on education is an investment.  I don’t remember the exact statistics, but for every dollar that is spend on early childhood education, especially for poor families and minorities, significantly more than that dollar will be saved in 15-20 years because of reduced law enforcement costs.  Fiscally responsible, my ass.  They want to bankrupt the nation just to get the women back in the kitchen.

But more than that, it’s clear that they’re saying women choosing to work somehow weakens the family.  Like divorce is generally a matter of men saying, “That’s it!  I can’t stand that you have a job and our family is better off financially than if I was the sole source of support.  I’d rather eat dirt than have a wife who works every day.”

I don’t think this is what they are really saying.  IIMO, they are saying that no woman who can support herself and her child will put up with what they consider proper manly behavior and so increases divorces thus weakening the family (narrowly defined as FM&Ks;)

Phylosopher @ 32 clearly misreading someone who isn’t pro-parent all the time.  Go back and read para 2 of comment 30 without that chip on your shouler, dude.  Seriously.

These guys are think of themselves and their wives as a unti (I hope) more than disappearing them or discounting their work.  I disagree with how they are doing that - parents as a cohesive unit does not require everything being a join “we”, particularly if only one of them is participating.  e.g. “We” are not pregnant, she is.  They are still assholes, just a different flavor.

“Fiscal conservatism” means about as much as “family values.” We’re projected to end up spending trillions of dollars on wars, but oh no, don’t expand health coverage for civilians! No, no, don’t put taxes on junk food! Don’t provide preschool for low-income kids! Let’s build more prisons instead. So much more of a contribution to society.

These guys are probably also cutting welfare. So poor, single women stay home with their kids and they’re slutty lazy bums probably doing drugs and having babies to wrack up the welfare payments.

But if poor, single women get a job and need childcare, well, women should stay home!

Talk about caught in a no-win situation. I guess they should go starve on the street corner.

Because I suck at “staying-at-home” and don’t want to end up taking it out on my child.

No kidding.  This is what scares me most about having kids (aside from childbirth itself).  I’ve been fighting for a while to get out of my husband’s shadow and have my own identity—I don’t want to wind up a sahm and find my identity tied to yet another person.  (Plus, I’m just not the homemaker type.  I can handle alone time, but doing chores and spending time with young kids is just not my thing).  Hopefully, I’ll be able to get my husband on board enough to prevent that—his mother was a sahm, and it was kinda sad watching her when she got divorced and the kids moved out, she seemed kind of lost—but I do worry that somehow the patriarchy will somehow thwart that.

I live in Frederick County, and it’s so frustrating to be represented by these bufoons.  They won by a landslide… Am I truly living in a Blue State?

Thankfully, the Frederick County Commission for Women held a candlelight vigil to protest and celebrate women’s roles in society.  Some of the commissioners have tried to backpedal/rephrase their statements, but the underlying message remains clear. 

Lots of areas of this county are rural & poor, and a lot of families depend on Head Start to educate their children at fundamental early stages.  It’s a sad day when programs like this are slashed.

Tanya - where did you see this research about breast milk not being as good if bottle fed?  Exactly “WHAT” was being tested? Nutritional content?

“scratches head”

I can handle alone time, but doing chores and spending time with young kids is just not my thing).  Hopefully, I’ll be able to get my husband on board enough to prevent that—his mother was a sahm, and it was kinda sad watching her when she got divorced and the kids moved out, she seemed kind of lost—but I do worry that somehow the patriarchy will somehow thwart that.
Comment #49: Jayn Newell on 02/18 at 11:15 AM

Perhaps I’m misreading something here, but why would you then have children?  Especially when the rest of you comment suggested you are not in a happy marriage?

phylosopher @41.
No, I don’t think you hear me.  I’m saying they’re not getting rid of that baggage.

Helen - no chip on shoulder - like I said, I utilized some preschool services, too.  But I’m a real pro-choice in all aspects advocate, who thinks that the institutionalization of something like learning is not good, along with the institutionalization of a number of other life events and processes, as it takes live options off the table for many, many families. SO, yes, ArachneSable’s comment about THE, not A learning/social environment like school is one that I point out.  My questioning it is the starting point for a conversation, and I think ArachneSable clarified quite well as I hope I did.

phylosopher: You are misreading a bit.  My marriage is fine, and my husband is very supportive of me getting out and having a life that isn’t centered on him.  But he wants kids (he absolutely adores our nieces—if anything he’d be the better sahp, but he has a secure job that pays decently, so I don’t see it happening, and I’m fine with that), and I’m, well, at worst ambivalent about it.  It’ll be a while yet before we do regardless, because I’m still trying to create my own identity.

These jackasses have clearly never heard about Italy or Japan. It seems that, in a highly patriarchal culture where women often must choose career OR family but not both, they are quite likely to pick “career.” Now Italy and Japan have a couple of the lowest birthrates in the world. Let’s all venture a guess at what the Republican party would do and say if the US birthrate dropped to Japanese levels.

@phylosopher #51:

The research was undoubtedly on, not the nutritional content of human milk in itself, but the differences in process between breastfeeding and bottle-feeding. The breast requires different facial movements on the baby’s part, it develops different eating habits (frequent small amounts vs. few large amounts per day), it has different hygienic requirements (no need to sterilize a boob like a bottle), and babies find it emotionally comforting.

The milk itself is pretty much the same stuff either way, unless it has excess lipase and needs to be heated after pumping.

where the man has been laid off, or in a bluecollar/white collar couple, the woman makes more $ anyway, so he stays home with the kids, or gets the type of job where he can work around the kids schedule to be home while she does the 60 hour work and commute.

You also see it in areas with seasonal employment. My father is a fisherman, and during the winter (before my mother retired), he’d be the one at home most of the time and doing the laundry and cooking dinner, and making sure the kids were ready for school, similar to many of the farmers in the area when the workload dropped appreciably for them at that time of year.

Okay Phylosopher

Kids benefit a LOT from preschool, headstart, and early learning programs. - snip long sentance - I still want to send my daughter to preschool because she flourishes in the learning and social environment(with other children around) so well.

lead you to comment

why do you insist school is the only venue fro a learning and social environment?

Which is not at all what was said or even really implied because of the combination “preschool, headstart, and early learning programs”.
As for the chip, every time - EVERY time - there is a comment on Pandagon about home schooling/public schooling/parenting, you try to turn it all into how your choices of homeschooling are best (often, though not always, degenerating to best for everyone), how anyone who disagrees with your choice just shouldn’t have kids, and on.  That chip.

Let’s all venture a guess at what the Republican party would do and say if the US birthrate dropped to Japanese levels.

I really wish the answer were “seppuku,” but instead I think it’s “Gilead.”

To say “I never relied on anyone else”,

Ah, it’s the “I did it all by myself with no help” wingnut myth.

Look, jackass. Unless you’ve been living in the wilderness, off the grid, growing and hunting for your own food, etc., you did not do it on your own.  The situation that allowed you to achieve some measure of success, comes courtesy of a myriad of public infrastructures and safeguards.  Everything from the roads, schools and fire department to regulations that protect consumers, make it possible for you to live a safe and comfortable life.

In a modern, first world society, no one “makes it on their own.”

phylosopher - this was at my work as part of a breast-feeding education computer module, essentially that breastmilk expressed into a bottle should not be done until after breastfeeding is established, usually at least 6 weeks so as not to result in nipple confusion, that maternal antibodies may not be as effective if delivered via bottles with milk that may or may not have been frozen, that bonding may be lessened by the lack of skin-to-skin contact that occurs with bottle rather than breastfeeding directly, and that the hormonal benefits to the breastfeeding mom are decreased with women expressing milk rather than directly breastfeeding. Along with how exclusive breastfeeding should occur until 6 months old at least, and preferably longer. All of this combined gave me the impression that the current mode of thinking is “The Best” way is on-demand, directly from the mother for 6 months or longer.

The problem with things like that is while some of these items may turn out to be unproven or the benefits negligible, and may be qualified with “but maybe your life can’t accommodate this, New Mom, so don’t fret, if you can do any breastfeeding at all or expressing that is really good, and even if you can’t infant formula is not bad” the takeaway frequently is “if I don’t do The Best I’m failing my kid” and like I said, this puts a lot of the burden on families to nudge Mom towards that ‘crucial early years’ stay-at-home parent role.

In a modern, first world society, no one “makes it on their own.”

I would go even farther to say that in any society, no one makes it on their own.  In those rugged hunter-gatherer groups that conservatives idealize, there is very much cooperation and sharing in the groups, because that makes it easier for everyone to decide.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that our success as a species is due to our incredible ability for inter-dependence, made possible by the development of language.

“phylosopher - this was at my work as part of a breast-feeding education computer module, essentially that breastmilk expressed into a bottle should not be done until after breastfeeding is established, usually at least 6 weeks so as not to result in nipple confusion, that maternal antibodies may not be as effective if delivered via bottles with milk that may or may not have been frozen, that bonding may be lessened by the lack of skin-to-skin contact that occurs with bottle rather than breastfeeding directly, and that the hormonal benefits to the breastfeeding mom are decreased with women expressing milk rather than directly breastfeeding. Along with how exclusive breastfeeding should occur until 6 months old at least, and preferably longer. All of this combined gave me the impression that the current mode of thinking is “The Best” way is on-demand, directly from the mother for 6 months or longer.”

I’ve exclusively breastfed my kids for at least a year each, and because of a variety of circumstances I also stay at home with them full time.  Of course the choice to breastfeed v. formula feeding is a personal and fraught one, and what bothers me with the issues that Tenya raised is that the it doesn’t have to be a zero sum game to guilt mothers or discourage them from working outside the home.  It really comes down to the negative view our society takes of women in general and it’s total unwillingness to support us in our efforts to balance parenting and working outside the home.  Women are generally given little flexibility in the workplace to accomodate their efforts to breastfeed their kids, not to mention their efforts to parent their kids (and so do men, but that’s something of a different issue) and that shouldn’t be the case. 

I quit my job when I had my kids (in high stakes litigation that required crazy work hours and extensive travel) because there was absolutely no give on the part of my employer or my profession for that matter to allow me to be the parent I wanted to be.  My husband supported me in that decision, and I’m fortunate in that regard.

I would go even farther to say that in any society, no one makes it on their own.  In those rugged hunter-gatherer groups that conservatives idealize, there is very much cooperation and sharing in the groups, because that makes it easier for everyone to decide.

You can go even further. The whole American West One Man and His Gun (and His Firearm) Against the World Rugged Individualist Mythos demonstrates it too. The rugged individual depended on a company back East who made his revolver and his rifle and his ammunition, who depended on other people to farm and such to feed the workers who made the weapons and the ammo, other people who moved that stuff West and sold it, someone else who probably made his clothing (and the people who fed them), and the mechanics who built and kept the mills running and so on and so on…

I would go even farther to say that in any society, no one makes it on their own.

Agreed.  The thing that bugs me about free-market, fend-for-yourself types is that society is fundamentally about being able to rely on others to ensure certain needs are met.  If you know a baker, you don’t need to make your own bread, or if you know a cobbler you don’t need to make your own shoes.  Interdependence isn’t optional, and independence really just means ‘the system is working for me’.  Most of the problems people have with making their own way through life aren’t about them not trying hard enough or being unable, but with society functioning in a way that acts against them.  The capitalist mindset doesn’t help in a society our size, because it benefits people (in the short run, anyways) to rig the system in their favour, so guess what they do?  One of the funniest things I ever read was from an Ayn Rand essay, where she says something to the effect that we need “a laissez-faire capitalist system under which no party can gain an advantage”.  I had to put the book down because I was laughing too hard—history has shown us time and time again that unregulated capitalism leads to people creating their own advantages, to the detriment of others.

“The Myth Of The Self-Made Man” comes to mind here…

Tenya @ 62: all milk begins to degrade as soon as it is expressed.  This is true whether the milk came from a whale, goat or human. 
“Best” is a loaded term. 
The idea that fresh, direct breast milk might be the most nutricious may well be true.  It may even develop facial muscles differently, which should lead to developing a better nipple not making mom the sole provider [some women can’t breast feed, others don’t produce enough milk and still more do not want to do so while they will want their child to have those same advantages of proper facial development (really?!?)].
I strongly disagree that a slight difference in nutricianal value makes this method “best.” 
It is not best for the baby if brest-direct on-demand leaves the mother depressed and feeling trapped, does not allow for the father to take as active a role in parenting, and exhausts the mother due to her being the one up every time the baby might be hungry.  If only the mother can feed the kid, she may as well be the one getting up and available 24/7 concentrating on the kid - this would become the default (where we’ve been before and escaped).  It does not help the baby in bonding with both parents, as only mom will be bonding.

Which is not to say that if someone wants to stay with their kids and has the temperment to do so, they shouldn’t be able to do that (like LolaGirl) without people giving them shit. 
“Best” is not a word that should be used as an absolute in any discussion of parenthood, especially not by liberal progressives.  “Best” implies absolutes, static states, no possible variation of circumstances.  Not reality, in other words.

Agree with Helen H.  “Best” should mean best for the whole family, which includes the Mom and Dad and other siblings, not just the absolute best nutrition etc.. for the one particular child.  If Mom is depressed, constantly overtired, in pain, etc.. due to living out some idealized 24/7 breastfeeding role, then that is not in the best interest of the child either.  Some people have the personality and stamina to do that 100% lactation thing, some do not.

I don’t think any woman should feel like she has to direct-breastfeed 100% full-time, either, for any length of time, and Tenya didn’t say anything to that effect, either. Her comments were on why families may feel that pressure—-not that the pressure is correct (do I have that about right?)—-and I chimed in to answer phylosopher’s question on the difference between breast and bottle. How any family approaches infant-feeding is their business, IMO. Most nursing moms, whether going back to work or staying home, make use of breast pumps and bottles at least part of the time.

His wife stayed out of the workforce for 18 years, but she “could go out and get a very good job”? I kind of doubt that, college-educated or not.

If only the mother can feed the kid, she may as well be the one getting up and available 24/7 concentrating on the kid - this would become the default (where we’ve been before and escaped).  It does not help the baby in bonding with both parents, as only mom will be bonding.

The fact that only the mother can feed the kid does not have to mean that she ends up doing everything.  There are plenty of other jobs to be done after all.  The fact that frequently the mother does end up doing everything is due to the current structure of society (isolated nuclear families) and economics (amongst many other things, lots of people can’t afford to take whatever parental leave is available, parental leave is skewed towards the mother - which means to my mind that paternity leave should be drastically expanded), not the biological fact that the female produces milk for the infant.

Frankly, any socio-economic system that cannot deal with basic biological differences between the male and the female of the species without automatically disadvantaging one sex, is not a socio-economic system that I want any part of.

Which is not me saying that mothers who do not breastfeed should be taken as doing the “wrong” thing, by the way, merely that doing so as part of the perfectly natural process of pregnancy and birth should not create a basic structural disadvantage for women who choose to become mothers.

And frankly, many mothers end up doing most of the heavy lifting anyway, regardless of whether they breastfeed or formula feed, because of the same social and economic factors.

I agree with Katherine that breastfeeding a baby does not automatically translate into the father not getting sufficient hands-on time to also bond with and parent her.  There are plenty of other things that the dad can do to facilitate bonding with his child, but of course the onus is on him to step up and make that happen.  The real issue is that too often our society treats parenting as a primarily maternal task, and by the time many men reach adulthood they have internalized that message to such a degree that they take that assumption to be some sort of gospel truth.  I even had to spell it out for my husband that there was a whole lot of things he could do with the kids that didn’t involve feeding them, he just had to get out of his little comfort zone and make it happen.

To get back to my point about work-life balance (because I’m afraid I didn’t do a very good job of articulating myself in my earlier comment) I think that too often the real life challenges that are part and parcel of parenting (including the challenges that come with breastfeeding when a women goes back to work) are used against women to either guilt them into not returning to work if they want to or to make it often functionally impossible for her to both parent and do her work well.  The prevailing attitude that I’ve encountered in the work world is that it has absolutely no compunction with refusing to make it easier for women to balance these two areas of her life.  Women are generally left to fight it out with their employers to get even basic accomodations to pump if they want to, never mind if they need time away from work for doctor’s appointments, school events or whatever.  Never mind giving women or men any decent post-natal parental leave time, if you’re lucky the FMLA protects your job for 3 months, but of course that’s almost always at zero pay. 

That’s what I meant by this whole thing not having to be a zero sum game where the women has to either choose work or parenting, the system should better accomodate them in making both areas function optimally.

His wife got a good job after 18 years because he’s a corrupt politician with a lot of connections. Sucks to be anyone else.

Money spent on education is an investment.  I don’t remember the exact statistics, but for every dollar that is spend on early childhood education, especially for poor families and minorities, significantly more than that dollar will be saved in 15-20 years because of reduced law enforcement costs. 
Comment #45: catgirl

United Way of King County (WA) figured it was close to $7 saved for every $1 spent on Health & Wellfare for children.

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

I am endlessly fascinated by the coincidence of Ms. DeLauter staying out of the paying workforce for the exact same time that it takes a single child to grow from birth to adulthood - all in order to take both carry to term and care for, apparently, several children.

One almost begins to wonder if Mr. DeLauter has any fucking clue how much time Ms. DeLauter actually spent not getting paid for her work.

phylo—@31

I went to high school in the mid naughts, just for a time context for my comments. I think mister mom was when I was a baby, if you are referring to the movie.

that bonding may be lessened by the lack of skin-to-skin contact that occurs with bottle rather than breastfeeding directly

This is the portion of Tenya’s comment that talked about bonding.  This clearly insinuates that the bonding that occurs between mother and child during breast feeding is part of that “best” (which I still contend has not place in parenting discussions).  It lead to my responses.

Most of the head start funded kids that went to my son’s mixed preschool were children of non-English fluent immigrants.  They HAD mothers who were usually at home ... these mothers just didn’t speak English and several were completely illiterate in ANY language.

I can’t help but think that this is an attempt to prevent the children of such immigrants from competing with their cracker brats.

Jayn Newell @ 49 and 55
I was sort of in the same place, in that my partner had the better paying job, and was the one who wanted kids, and I was very afraid of becoming my mother, a SAHM with, to put it bluntly, no life outside her husband and kids.  (Even when opportunity knocked later in life, by then she was so intimidated by, well, everything, that she was too afraid to make a move.  As an example, calling a restaurant to ask their hours of operation or make a reservation was a stressful event for her.)

My kids are now 10, 12, and 14, and I was a SAHM, while still trying to maintain my work (artist, so flexible time-wise).  There might enough differences between our situations, since I never felt I was in my spouse’s shadow, that my experience is not relevant to you, but that’s where I’m coming from.

First off, I’ve seen the scenario where the guy would make the better SAHParent often enough that I think there’s an element of male privilege to it.  Sure, you’re going to see individual differences in liking to be around kids, since maternal instinct is a construct, but look at how you’ve described it.  Having kids for you is “doing chores and spending time with young kids”, and for your husband it’s just the spending time.  It’s much easier to like kids and be the fun parent when you think of it in terms of popping in when you’re in the mood and playing with them a bit.  Your whole approach will be different when, in the back of your mind is the knowledge that if you sign on, it means a lot of mindnumbingly boring chores “alleviated” by activities stimulating to a toddler mind.

In hindsight, I think I relied too much on my partner’s good intentions and (no doubt) genuine desire to be fair.  It’s just not enough.  Until you do the job (the whole thing, like a SAHM, not like those SAHDads who crow about what an easy job it is and all the extra time they have), you have no idea what it entails.  And being the one with the paying job allows you to make unilateral decisions not available to the SAHParent, such as when you’ve done your share of domestic responsibilities, or that you’re too sick and your partner will pick up the slack, or that you have something important to do so your partner will just have to be there for the kids.  When you have this situation, where the person who doesn’t know what the job truly entails is the one with the ability to assert their perception of what’s fair, and in the context of a sexist society that views men doing their share as not fair, but totally awesome and extraordinary, it’s a recipe for inequity.  Good intentions or no.

If I had a do-over, I would arm myself with things like The Second Shift:
http://www.enotes.com/second-shift-salem/second-shift
I would also seek out online discussions on housework wars, because there’s so much that was unanticipated, where I was left holding the bag as the woman/ default parent.  And those online discussions are a treasure trove of info, showing how couples fall, or are pushed, into stereotypical roles, especially when they have kids, and how men rationalize their privilege, even as they profess to be egalitarian, and what the counter-arguments are. 

My partner would be explaining, in much greater detail, his intentions with regard to domestic responsibilities.  He would also be talking about whether my non-housewifey work was work or a hobby (ie leisure time) if it was only marginally income-producing.  And we would be so carving out a space for my work.  It would not be “in your spare time after you’re finished everything else”.  I can’t stress the importance of this enough if you’re worried about maintaining your own identity.  It really does have to be articulated and defined, that you will get X number of hours to do your thing, whether it’s work or some other personal development activity, and regardless of whether you are a SAHM or doing paid work, and that it’s a joint responsibility to arrange for this to happen.

Actually, to chime in on what Rain just said - this is doubly important if you have paid work,especially if that is not within your chosen profession. 
Our society frames that time away from your kids as deserting them and burdening your partner.  He will get both kudos and slams (look what a great father he is vs. parenting isn’t manly - even my lumberjack looking/dairy farmer raised/mechanical engineer spouse got the second when he was the primary care-giver); which may also make you feel conflicted or guilty.  There will be forces pushing at you to think of that work time as leisure when, even if you enjoy it, it really is not.