Cross posted at my blog MoralMeaning.com
Every child should have at least one parent at home.
I believe that our goal as liberals should be to make it possible for every child to be raised by at least one parent at home. I believe that a parent raising a child at home is better for the child than a child being raised through institutional child care or by barely older siblings. It is in the interest of both parents and children for at least one parent to be at home. That’s because the quality of life is most often improved for both the parent at home and the child.
Let me be clear, I am not advocating forced home parenting. And I am not blaming those who want to parent at home but who can’t. Additionally, I am not advocating that at least one parent be at home for every child in a literal sense. I expect that for many families there are other best ways of raising their children – such as a grandparent, uncle or close friend at home. My intent is simply to illustrate the goal – which is to make is possible for every family to have at least one parent at home.
When I say one parent, I mean one parent. This includes families with only one parent. And it includes fathers and mothers. I believe that fathers (men) are obligated to ensure that mothers (women) have the same opportunity to choose between being a parent at home or at work.
I believe that because it is in the best interest of children, because it improves family life generally and because it is something we can do, we should commit to doing what it takes to achieve the goal of at least one parent at home for every child. But how can we do this?
- End poverty through a guaranteed minimum income paid through progressive taxes, and through high quality education and job training programs accessible to all, affordable housing and rent-control programs, and universal health care
- Pay the parent who stays at home by providing social security credits, unemployment benefits, workers compensation to stay at home
- Provide tax incentives to parents who stay at home caring for children
- Reduce unplanned births (especially for young parents) through extensive sex education, birth control distribution and greater access to higher education and other opportunities
If liberals are to stand for something, it makes sense that we stand for getting kids out of institutional care, bringing back the one-wage family and ending poverty. The end of poverty implies prosperity for all. And how better to live richly than for all parents to have the choice of raising their children at home?
This was heartwarming to read. I get shit on in a continual basis because due to economic and geographical constraints as well as my oldest requires me to be home (even during school time – which is when I “work” to keep him safe and educated at school)
We could not afford the gas now nor the afterschool care if I were to leave and commute the 1.5 hours each way to work at a modest $8 an hour job.
I went from the frenzied marketing world to motherhood, motherhood of a child who requires full-time and special attention.
But.. you know what…. I think all kids deserve such attention. I drive kids home and to the bus during rainy days or when their parent is in a meeting or whatever. All the time. Yet those same parents who call me for the “knick of time” help – are the same ones who consider me a mush head mommy. They can’t believe I don’t watch day time tv. ACK.
Circumstances have made it so I’m at home. Damn, we could use the money… and at one time we hadn’t any health coverage… but I’m probably one of the few parents who are kinda bummed my kids have to return to school.
I just wish we all had a CHOICE. Most I know would love to stay home. Moms and Dads. But most are working overtime just to make ends meet.
I don’t have a BMW, but I have a table covered in glue and glitter and I eat all meals with the kids.
I’m rich! Not with money but with luck.
Great diary.
BS, and arrogant to boot. Next you will say we need to quit work and stay at home with aging parents…just like the Rev. Al Mohler types do.
That is living in a dream world of piety and righteous thoughts, and it in no way mirrors reality.
You know what? I have noticed something lately. I have been stunned by it. The gay community, which was treated in such an ugly manner and so terribly used by the right….are advocating now for nearly the same things as the right wing does.
Friends of ours stood up for rights of the gay community by standing with them in front of a church which wants to ban them. They are not gay, but they are the right kind of Christians. One time we even stood with them, being confronted by a motorcycle gang. We did it, though.
Do you know why we don’t anymore? Because we learned that many in that community do not stand for the right of women. I learned that at Democratic Underground, and I was stunned. I saw it at Kos, even more stunned.
So I find myself offended that one community wants their rights, but will not stand with us as women. This stay at home stuff is right wing religious talk, and I can not go for it.
I lost my first husband when my children were small, and I had to work. Many women do. This is overboard stuff.
A steaming pile of bs.
I think it would be nice for parents to have a choice. I didn’t read the diary as saying that if one parent doesn’t stay that that family is wrong or bad. I read it as about being about choice and help to families.
The reality is that the economy is hurting us all. We all know and feel that daily. Many working parents don’t have coverage for their families. This is reality, but it isn’t right. So many single moms have to work 2 jobs if not more and are still within one paycheck from the streets.
The reality is also showing that our children are missing out on a childhood. They are lonely. Their education isn’t supplemented. Heck, what works for one family doesn’t for another.
I am truly sorry if anything I may have shared here was offensive to you. I would love for all people to have a choice. May not always be a reality.. but it’s something to strive for maybe.
I don’t mean to be offensive either, but I just had an awful experience with an old friend on this issue that is being pushed by religious groups.
Her church, like mine used to be, is Southern Baptist. Many in this group have instilled into their members that it is almost a sin for a woman to work outside of the home.
In an email to me, she said she was highly disappointed in her daughter going back to work. However her daughter’s husband is temporarily disabled.. They have two small children.
I wrote her back and asked her why she was being critical of her daughter when she was doing the best she could. She said the Lord would judge her, and that the Lord had said he would provide.
This is a touchy subject with those of us who left our churches recently. The Southern Baptists along with the Catholics are trying to redefine our culture on the backs of gays and women.
Well, hubby and I learned that we will fight for women’s rights…though we used to do both.
Many in the gay community even agree that birth control should be limited. It all ties together, all of it, women’s right, gay rights, abortion, birth control, women staying at home. It is redefinition of our culture by the church, and I don’t want them doing this.
And another thing, all of us being scapegoated best hang together or we hang alone.
Sorry to be grouchy, but this subject hurts. I grew up in that church and saw it hijacked by the Falwell types. Many are waking up, but a lot of damage has been done in the name of the Lord.
so glad to hear more from you. I truly understand and from both sides š Sorry to hear about the open wounds. I get hammered because I don’t have a “career” anymore. It’s a whompfest. I’ve had to learn to surround myself with people who are supportive rather than critical. Not mean they kiss my ass š But that they offer ideas rather than floggings.
What works for my family would NOT work for another š
Choice. We need to be able to have that. In so many areas.
We just have to remember to support one another. Instead of insisting we are all alike.
Santorum’s book urges more moms stay home
This sounds familiar…
how about paying the medicare bill they are supposed to be paying? How about not raising the cost we pay for it?
We at this time are messing up the elderly of this country to the point many are stressed beyond belief. Yet you are more worried about moms that work.
Sorry but I am not buying it. We can not afford it on the backs of the elderly. Those who are so righteous about working mothers should take time to find out that Medicare is cutting back payments seriously, and it is hurting.
caring for the elderly, it’s about creating families that can raise their kids at home.
If it was about caring for the elderly, I’d say we should make social security pay for a middle class living, that we should make sure that no person is left without a choice when it comes to living in home setting or a nursing home and that all persons should have health care.
I am just curious, are you a liberal or conservative?
I am very cautious about inroads being made by religion into the world of politics. I don’t wear labels well. I am a Christian, but I don’t want Christian values determining our government policy.
I don’t like it when others say that a woman can not have an abortion if she chooses.
I don’t like it when a mother demeans her own daughter for working outside the home even when her husband is disabled…because it displeases the Lord.
I am seeing groups trying to infiltrate the party with own religious agenda, and I don’t like it.
Just FYI, I recently had a long conversation via email with one of the Southern Baptist Seminary leaders ….an old friend. The topics were mothers working outside of the home, and the church wanting to control birth control and abortion. It was decent conversation, but this old friend of my family thinks I am bound for hell.
How sad.
And thanks for the reply. I understand your reaction better.
A “parent” is not the nearest biological relative; it’s anyone whose capable of consistent, stable nurturing, relative or not.
If you agree to that definition, then every child needs — not merely “deserves” a parent. However, “in the home” is debatable. Whose “home”? The structure the biological parental units (thanks SNL!) occupy; the one Aunt Bessie, the Babysitter occupies; the one that is provided by the foster care givers, or the licensed child care center?
What every child needs is love and care from whatever kind soul it can get them from. Too bad that in too many cases that person is neither parent.
institutions are ideal, and I think that choice who and where a child should be raised should be based solely on what is best for the child and family. I said that in the diary, and I am saying it now.
Then prove it. You assert based on things like “best” and “should”, yet produce no facts to back up your blatantly inflammatory “reasoning”. If it is “best”, show us the numbers. Prove that this is the best of all possible alternatives.
If you can’t do that, kindly pack in your moralizing “this is what you should do. I don’t want to force you, but it’s best for your children” clap and move on, because these fish aren’t biting..
becuase I am talking about values. These reflect my own value judgements. You will have your own. And so will others. I am simply sharing my values with those who choose to read my diary.
In making a value judgment, you are obligated to provide evidence to support your characterizations. You don’t get to escape by saying, “I am talking about my values.”
Anyone can have “values” (what does that mean?), which are no better or less good than the next person’s. Saying so doesn’t entitle you to believe that you occupy some moral high ground that you’re not required to defend.
In order to make judgments you must have facts, you must be able to make comparisons and evaluations, and you must have the ability to discern.
Posting opinions is not the same thing as posting informed opinions; they are not rigorous enough to withstand critical scrutiny, and that is what’s required when formulating any judgmental remarks.
And when asked to defend judmental remarks, saying “I’m simply sharing. . .” doesn’t hack it.
I can simply say to you: I think that in general it is better for a child to experience life at home than in an institutional setting. And then I can act on that.
Now if I say this: Children raised at home read more, are talked to more, start to read at an earlier age and will have fewer reading difficulties than children raised in child care settings, then I will have to back this claim with relevent facts. I will need to define the terms, conduct controlled experiments and rule of corelational inferences from causal ones. I will need to verify my results, submit my conclusion to peer review and see if my claim is true or not.
But since I am only asserting my values, what I believe to be important, there are no facts to back those values up. They are simply what I think, what believe matters.
In other words, you have a vague belief about how other people should raise their children, and you’re unable or unwilling to provide any factual support.
So why should we pay any attention at all to anything you say?
You left something out of this supposed best case scenario…of it automatically being better for a child to be raised at home..you’re assuming that parent is a decent, caring and loving parent and that simply isn’t the case in way way way to many instances so a lot of kids are much better off not being raised at home by a parent or even two parents.
Wow.
You blow almost every point you try to make with the way in which you go about trying to make it.
It’s almost amusing. Almost.
To be fair, I should elaborate. Many of the things you mention are good and worthwhile goals. However, saying that they’re worthwhile just so one parent can stay at home smacks of conservativism and regressive thinking. They’re worth pursuing on their own; why do we have to chain our race car to the mule of the “traditional family”?
“traditional families” —- I think families with two (three) mothers, one father, an uncle and aunt, a great grandfather and a cousin all are families and all can provide loving and caring places for children. All of these families, I thinik, deserve societal support so that at least one parent (which can be any of the above) can care for the kids at home. I am simply saying that I believe that a home is a good place for a child to be raised in, to experience life in, and that a parent is the best person to be providing most of that child’s care.
I hope that pot smoking, tattoo wearing, hippie loving, peace making, punk rock dancing families will benefit from having at least one parent be able to care for the kids at home.
It can be done. In the olden days my mother went to work when her children went to school. She negotiated her hours to be home by 4pm and took two months off in the summer. Yeah, I know times have changed.
Once I asked a friend why her son was such a good boy, her answer was “you gotta be there.”
Thanks for the diary, I think you’re right to be thinking about what children need. Mostly it’s parents who care. How can society help them to do that?
We can make this possible again. But first we need to say its a worthwhile goal.
There are many positive ways to raise a child.
Why do you want all of society to work towards your goals? Why is your way better than anyone else’s?
You made an argument; it led to the conclusion made by the three bullet points in your original post.
You didn’t just express a “this is what I believe and it makes me who I am” personal diary. You made a diary containing an implied thesis that there is no better, richer life than for all parents (not just you as parent) than to be able to make the (affordable) choice of raising their children at home.
You did not hesitate to make an invalid (BTW) value judgment that liberals should “stand for something” (as if they didn’t!?!) and that something is
You are telling other people what’s best for them; you are not confining your musings to apply to yourself alone.
What you said is not a matter of personal taste, that is, anything which one likes or dislikes. Tastes need never be defended. Opinions must always be defended with evidence.
Where is your evidence that a parent at home is the ideal person/method for/of child rearing? It just ain’t good enough to say that’s the way I feel about it and that’s that.
He’s what the DLC wants to lure over here. Say high to your new party mate.
I don’t have to. I’m a registered Independent. :>}
far from the truth that it is laughable.
I am not a Republican. I am not lured over to the Democrats by the Democrats abandoning the issues of social, racial and economic justice. I am not being lured over to the Democratic Party by their weak response to the illegal and immoral war against Iraq, to the lies of the Bush administration. I am a radical liberal. Perhaps you are not, so you cannot understand how we come to differnt conclusions than do our allies in the center (from our perspective) of the Democratic Party.
I have voted for Nader twice. I support higher taxes. I oppose church-state integration. I support welfare and education and affirmative action.
So please, save your Republican name calling for someone else.
Perhaps this will give you more insight into my thinking.
The Moral Left…
Believes in Universal Truths
In order to advance a morally driven political vision there must be universal truths. For the liberal (especially the secular liberal) this is a sticky point. Most universal truths stem from religion, and as such may not make sense when applied to civic life. That said, there are moral beliefs that transcend most religious sects – such as the belief that murder is wrong, caring for one’s child is right and being trustworthy is good.
For the Moral Leftist universal truths serve to provide a moral grounding for each person’s outlook on civic priorities. These truths provide the motivation for the individual to participate in the political arena. But, unlike the Moral Right, the Moral Left does not seek a moral code from the state. Rather than asking government to define what is and is not universally true, the Moral Leftist applies his or her truth when seeking to influence civic priorities.
The belief in, and motivation by, universal truths separates the Moral Leftist from other kinds of liberals. Indeed or those whose outlook is influenced more by moral relativism than by universalism, appeals to moral codes are troublesome.
It should be noted that while the Moral Leftist believes and acts upon universal truths, there are many issues and priorities with no basis in such truths. Additionally (for me, at least), the belief in universal truths does not mean that one knows for certain what these truths are. The best we can do is approximate such truths, and to apply the one’s we are most certain about (such as prohibitions to murder and wars of aggression).
De-emphasizes tolerance
As much as we’d like to, we can’t have it all. While tolerance is a core value for many liberals, for the Moral Leftist it is not. That’s because we have little tolerance for what we believe is immoral. Moral activism is based not on tolerance, but instead on making and acting upon one’s moral judgments.
While tolerance is not emphasized, it is not outright rejected. There are many instances in which tolerance is generally called for. The point is not that tolerance is disregarded in whole, but rather that it is not accepted in whole.
as far as public domain information goes, and must say that I’m impressed by the scope of your interests, projects, and grassroots commitment.
They are all admirable. What you disclose in you personal web page is also enlightening.
Perhaps why we are opposite on many intellectual points is because we are also opposite geographically, as I live in Miami? 9Not to be read as a too serious comment.)
thanks for looking into me a bit. I am a radical leftist, and that puts me outside of the mainstream left. I am fine with that, but I don’t like being called a right winger because I am so opposed to their political agenda. While I may fault the mainstream liberals for letting us down on many things, I have much more in common with them than I do with the right that I must say we are stuck with each other.
I’m all for parents having more options, and frankly, I think our economic constructs are disadvantageous for children. However, you are starting from a flawed premise. It’s better for children to stay home? Says who? You? The data on this are conflicting. I know there was one study that said that children need to be home with mommy until 2, ideally, but that is one study. A lot of these studies are tainted by bias. There was another study recently that got a lot of coverage. It concluded that day-care made children more angry and violent, at least that was what was widely reported. But, I noticed something interesting. In some of the more complete reports on the study, I learned that it was only bad, over-crowded day-care that was creating that result, and that in higher quality programs with a higher adult to child ratio, the kids did great and actually had better language development than kids who weren’t in day-care. I read later that some of the researchers had come out publicly against the head researcher, saying that he had left out certain data and skewed the results to make day-care look bad, because he had an agenda. A lot of us assume it’s better for kids to be home with a parent and out of day-care, but sometimes you need to challenge conventional wisdom and assumptions. A lot of kids do great in day-care and thrive on the social interaction. I’m all for ending poverty and giving everyone, including parents and children more options, but can we please stay away from one size fits all pronouncements on parenting?
profession has led me to the conclusion that parents having time to raise children at home is a socially desirable goal.
Well, your experience means nothing to me. You are entitled to your opinion. I just wish you’d stop stating your opinions as if they are established facts.
I guess I really missed something HUGE in the diary.
I would never condone telling anyone they MUST stay home or anything remotely like that. Or even what constitutes a family… As I stated early on, what works for me and my little ones would not be the best for anyone else.
Children need love and nurturing, they need compassion and attention… sometimes that can come from a teacher, an aunt, a coach, – as long as it’s coming from another person who cares.
Oddly, my family growing up… was not the best spot for me and my brother. Two parents, one stay at home… and it was hell. Because it was abusive.
I have always felt that people who wanted to adopt should be allowed to. Sadly they’re marital status, hell their gender, career, education… shouldn’t matter. Just love should matter.
I guess what I read was the celebrating of being able to choose to stay home or not. For many there is no choice either way. A disabled child or a loss of income… Thank you for pointing out the errors. š
but as a father raising a daughter in a foreign country with a with a wife of a different culture I can tell you bringing up kids aint easy. What works for some doesnt for others. I know I like to spend as much time as possible with my daughter, and also my wife actually. To give love in a stable family environment to me seems to be the way ahead for us, and I personally work my life around this by making sure I have as much time free as possible from work, which means a lower income, but there are more important things than money. As for my wife she has her responsibilities and work, but we try. It also seems important to know what our daughter thinks as well. You know sometimes she enjoys not having her parents around! But not always! What I am trying to say is that everyone has their own ideals of how parenting should be, even the kids, but working to those ideals, which even in a tight family don’t seem to always agree is so hard and compromise is inevitably the answer.
Anyway, let’s avoid the sweeping statements on ideals relating to parenting.