# A woman's place is in the home



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 20, 2005)

Bill Muehlenberg, National Vice-President of the Australian Family Association (yes, we have one too) reviews--albeit uncritically--a book that critiques the idea that women can be good working mothers.



> The thesis of this book is simple: women can have it all, but not necessarily at the same time. That is, a woman can choose to excel at motherhood, or she can choose to excel at a career, but she cannot do both simultaneously.
> 
> As such, this book attempts to burst the bubble of the super-mom myth, the idea that one can juggle both tasks, and succeed at both. Indeed, according to Venker, a working mother comes close to being a contradiction in terms.
> 
> ...



My favourite: "This may all smack of chauvinistic doubletalk. But recall that our author is a woman."


----------



## Gothmog (May 20, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> My favourite: "This may all smack of chauvinistic doubletalk. But recall that our author is a woman."


And as the author is a woman her views should be given equal weight to those of the women arguing the other side. My views on the subject of working mothers should (along with those of other men) be given almost no weight at all either for or against. We are the wrong shape!!


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 20, 2005)

Unless your tongue is planted in your cheek . . . I hardly think a person's _anatomy_ is relevant to the merits of their argument.


----------



## Gothmog (May 20, 2005)

A woman's place can only be decided by a woman.

In fact it can only be decided by a woman for herself alone.



> Unless your tongue is planted in your cheek . . . I hardly think a person's anatomy is relevant to the merits of their argument.


Since the subject is in itself entirely Gender-Based (A Woman's Place), then gender is relevant to all aspects of the discussion.

While men may well have good points to bring up for women to consider in their decision, they certainly do not have any right to attempt to sway them either way.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 20, 2005)

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. You appear to believe that my remark was directed at Venker, whose book is the subject of the review; when it was actually directed at the reviewer, Bill Muehlenberg, and his patronising assumption that since the author of the book he is reviewing happened to be born with two X chromosomes, her arguments carry more weight by default. That's a fallacious appeal to authority: surely Venker has the right to have her arguments subjected to as much scrutiny as they would be if she happened to be born with a Y chromosome instead. 

I realise now, of course, that the confusion is a consequence of my own error: I neglected to mention Bill Muehlenberg as the author of the review in the opening post. I'll edit it accordingly.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 20, 2005)

"Working Women." Each woman who works is a unique case. Each woman who works has her own reasons to do so, whether by choice or by necessity. Any judgment calls about it — especially by male chauvinist pigs (or even female chauvinist sows) — are out of order.

Barley


----------



## Varda35 (May 20, 2005)

The idea that a mother will automatically be more nuturing than a father is BS, my father for one was always more nuturing and I have experienced that many of my friend's mothers are anything but nuturing. A good parent is a good parent period. Secondly, I agree that at the very early stages of life it may be beneicial for one parent to either not work or work part time. However, at least in New York, by the time the child is 4 they should be in pre-school and at this point I don't see how having a parent work is detrimental to the child whatsoever. On the notion that you can't replace the quantity of time with quality time I also disagree. Spending hours doing nothing with your child really isn't parenting, yet spending a few good hours reading and playing music or playing in the park will go a long way. 

Maybe I am just biased because I grew up being "raised by strangers" (strangers who happened to be trusting loving neighbors) and I turned out just fine, while 75% of the people I know who had stay at home moms are either on drugs or completely dependant on their mommy to do everything for them in life. If you have good parents then they will make any situation work. The problem is that most people are not good parents because we live in an age where parents think that buying their kids video games and dropping them in front of the TV is good parenting.

I also find it amusing that this so called "full-time" mom spent all that time writing a book and doing publicity for it...correct me if I'm wrong, but being a writer is actually a JOB.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 21, 2005)

In seeking to knock down myths about working mothers, Muehlenberg replaces them with myths and nonsequitirs of his own:

*_Equality between the sexes means "androgyny"/sameness._ (It doesn't.)

*_The roles of mother and father are not fully interchangeable, because of the inherent biological differences between men and women._ (Really? So _biology_ determines that daddy goes to work and mummy stays home?)

*_Women seem hard-wired by nature to have more of a nurturing, caring and, well, maternal, disposition._ ("Hard-wired" is a popular catchphrase in these conservative times, suggesting that e.g. gender stereotypes are supported by scientific evidence. If so, where is it?)

*_Mothers can work part-time, and some may have no choice but to work full-time--but the term "working mother" is misleading._ 

*_By leaving our children in day-care centres we "abandon them in droves to strangers."_ (What about when we send them to school?)

*_Women seek paid work because "feminists have convinced them it will fulfill and liberate them," when they ought to be working on "the most important job of their lives"_ (i.e. making babies).


----------



## Uminya (May 22, 2005)

For all of the political correctness, you can't deny that a child who is raised by a mother who is there for them turns out much better than one raised by babysitters and a daycare (i.e. with a working mother). I myself saw both sides of this, and as a child I can assure you that I was much happier with mom at home.

As for where a mother _belongs_, I think that that is up to her and her alone to decide.


----------



## Zale (May 22, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> *_The roles of mother and father are not fully interchangeable, because of the inherent biological differences between men and women._ (Really? So _biology_ determines that daddy goes to work and mummy stays home?)



Maybe. Who had to go through the trauma of giving birth? So who's more likely to want to look after the child? Why do you think it developed this way around over thousands of years? It's very easy for the father to run off before the child is born, leaving the mother with no choice. In other times, it was much safer for the woman to bring the child up: much less possibility of being abandoned.



> *_Mothers can work part-time, and some may have no choice but to work full-time--but the term "working mother" is misleading._



My mother never referred to herself as a housewife, but as a "domestic manager", which is much closer to the truth. Bringing up children is incredibly hard work, if you do it right.



> *_By leaving our children in day-care centres we "abandon them in droves to strangers."_ (What about when we send them to school?)



Children are generally much older when they start school, and already reasonably well-developed, compared to children put in care. Some bloke once said "Give me a child for its first seven years, and it is mine for life", and he was absolutely right.



> *_Women seek paid work because "feminists have convinced them it will fulfill and liberate them," when they ought to be working on "the most important job of their lives"_ (i.e. making babies).



Actually, what's more important than the continuation of the human race? It's clearly not the case that women are being discriminated against when they're bringing up children; they're doing it _instead_.

I would expound further, but I have work to do  Maybe later tonight.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 23, 2005)

Ciryaher said:


> For all of the political correctness, you can't deny that a child who is raised by a mother who is there for them turns out much better than one raised by babysitters and a daycare (i.e. with a working mother). I myself saw both sides of this, and as a child I can assure you that I was much happier with mom at home.



It all depends on the individual mother. But we can't appeal to anecdotes.



Zale said:


> Maybe. Who had to go through the trauma of giving birth? So who's more likely to want to look after the child?



Why not the father? There seems to be a perception here that if the mother goes to work, she's abandoning her child--but the same logic doesn't seem to apply to the father. Why not?



> In other times, it was much safer for the woman to bring the child up: much less possibility of being abandoned.



I don't follow. And I'm not arguing that women _shouldn't_ stay home and bring up children if they so choose. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be automatically expected of them that they will, or ought to stay home and bring up children, simply by virtue of their being female.

If that's "politically correct," so be it (or--who cares?). The notion that women ought not to be working mothers is another kind of political correctness.



> My mother never referred to herself as a housewife, but as a "domestic manager", which is much closer to the truth. Bringing up children is incredibly hard work, if you do it right.



Nobody's denying that.



> Children are generally much older when they start school, and already reasonably well-developed, compared to children put in care.



Five or six years of age is still pretty young.



> Actually, what's more important than the continuation of the human race?



How does the expectation that women not seek paid work and instead stay home to raise children contribute to the continuation of the human race?


----------



## Zale (May 23, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Why not the father? There seems to be a perception here that if the mother goes to work, she's abandoning her child--but the same logic doesn't seem to apply to the father. Why not?



No. If you get rid of social expectations, there's no reason why a harsh man shouldn't walk out of the family unit, either before the child is born or while it's still young. It's still abandoning - can't argue that - but seeing as the man didn't have to go through the pain of labour he has much less incentive to see the child as something he should nurture and protect. His leaving halfway through bringing the child up wouldn't do it any good at all. Therefore...




> I don't follow. And I'm not arguing that women _shouldn't_ stay home and bring up children if they so choose. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be automatically expected of them that they will, or ought to stay home and bring up children, simply by virtue of their being female.
> 
> If that's "politically correct," so be it (or--who cares?). The notion that women ought not to be working mothers is another kind of political correctness.



I think what I'm getting at is that women who are trying to bring up children shouldn't be doing financial work at the same time. They should devote their time to bringing the child up properly. The choice to have children in the first place or start a career earlier is completely up to the woman in question, but once she's made the choice, she should do it properly.

It's probably worth my while saying here that there's nothing wrong with the man staying at home to bring the child up while the mother has a career and earns the money. It just seems to be rarer, maybe for the reason given above.



> Five or six years of age is still pretty young.



Not as impressionable as two or three, though.





> How does the expectation that women not seek paid work and instead stay home to raise children contribute to the continuation of the human race?



OK, I should have said "a parent". I don't care which one, but one of them has to stay at home to devote their attention to raising the child.

I interpreted the quote as "Feminists are telling women to get a job, whereas they should in fact be raising children, which would be the most important job of their lives". You seemed to disagree. But raising a child is the most important job of a parent's life (in most cases). If it is a choice between having a career or raising children: which one contributes to the continuation of the species?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 23, 2005)

Ciryaher said:


> ...as a child I can assure you that I was much happier with mom at home.
> 
> As for where a mother _belongs_, I think that that is up to her and her alone to decide.



You're one of the lucky ones, m'friend. As an ex-family therapist, I can testify to the fact that there are children who are far better off being raised by almost anyone _but_ their mothers. And we agree: mothers should be where they believe they belong.

Barley


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 23, 2005)

Two arguments seem to be emerging in this thread which need to be kept separate:

1. Children need to be raised by at least one stay-at-home parent or guardian: someone responsible who is going to be there 24-7.

2. That person should be the child's (biological) mother.


----------



## HLGStrider (May 24, 2005)

> The idea that a mother will automatically be more nuturing than a father is BS, my father for one was always more nuturing and I have experienced that many of my friend's mothers are anything but nuturing.


 
Let me ask you this then. Why do courts traditionally grant custody to mothers?
I have noted that family relationships tend to differ. In some families the kids have a natural leaning towards the mother. In other towards the father. I don't think a natural leaning, however, is what nurturing is about. A good mother is often hated by her children because she is the one who tells them what not to do. A GOOD mother will have her children say (or think) "I hate you, you don't understand me" at least once. If they don't, she isn't doing her job.



> I also find it amusing that this so called "full-time" mom spent all that time writing a book and doing publicity for it...correct me if I'm wrong, but being a writer is actually a JOB.


 
I think before you judge, you might ask her about it or research it. Writing is actually something that I plan to do around my children, and I think it can be done very well. The touring is different, but it is very possible her children are grown by now. We don't know, and I don't think it makes sense to personally attack the author of the book. Let's just discuss her points. For one thing it saves me the trouble of having to look her up.



> *The roles of mother and father are not fully interchangeable, because of the inherent biological differences between men and women. (Really? So biology determines that daddy goes to work and mummy stays home?)


 
Biology determines the mother is better at it. Biology determines the mother is more likely to want to do it. Both have, I believe, been statistically backed, though I don't think anything can be statistically proven. 



> *By leaving our children in day-care centres we "abandon them in droves to strangers." (What about when we send them to school?)


 
Actually, a full time working mother would still be required to use day care after the children attend school. My school aged cousins spend their time with grandma after school for at least two hours until their parents return. I used to watch children in the summer for another full time mother. 

Also, there is a great difference between a three-year-old and a seven-year-old. A toddler can't make a peanut butter sandwich. A toddler has a lack of ability to play alone. I babysat one family starting when the kids were 4 and 6 and went up to 10 and 12. It is remarkable the change. About age eight the older daughter didn't need me anymore. It was a point of pride that she did everything herself and I was just there in case something caught on fire. Often I would be left reading the younger story books while she disappeared into the next room to catch up on Harry Potter. 



> *Women seek paid work because "feminists have convinced them it will fulfill and liberate them," when they ought to be working on "the most important job of their lives" (i.e. making babies).


 
What is more important? I honestly believe that it should be the parents responsibilty to not only make the babies but to care for them until they hit maturity. What you do in work is going to last maybe ten years. With the way things change, perhaps not even that long. A kid is going to survive you by probably twenty years. I'd say that if anything men should be yelling about themselves not getting the right to do our job.



> My mother never referred to herself as a housewife, but as a "domestic manager", which is much closer to the truth. Bringing up children is incredibly hard work, if you do it right.


 
It's harder work. I work with one lady who is doing part time, working three days, taking four with the child. She says that her days off are much more tiring than her days on and fill up so much faster. And it is true. It has been years since my mother sat through a movie. It isn't that we won't let her. She won't let herself because she has an undeniable urge to get ahead, to keep ahead, and things get behind very quickly.



> Why not the father? There seems to be a perception here that if the mother goes to work, she's abandoning her child--but the same logic doesn't seem to apply to the father. Why not?


 
He isn't as good at it. He isn't as likely to want to do it. He can't breast feed. He can't carry a child. Also, if a husband wants to be a house dad and the parents agree that he can, I think the child probably will do OK. I know of only one family that actually has had this arrangement and I only know of two males who have ever expressed interest in it (one of them was joking because he followed it up with, "But I don't want kids. I guess I'll just be a stay at home dad for my dog.'). I honestly would not let my husband do it because I WANT TO!



> How does the expectation that women not seek paid work and instead stay home to raise children contribute to the continuation of the human race?


 
Career women are not just statistically less likely to stay home with their kids. They are statistically less likely to HAVE kids. Studies find that women with a certain amount of earning potential have fewer children whereas men with the same earning potential are actually more likely to have children then men with a lesser earning potential.

It has a lot to do with fertility rates, I think. A woman reaches her peak fertility around 26 (I don't remember the exact age). After that it begins to decline. A woman who wants a career will probably delay marriage and children til after 26 and therefore be simply less likely to get pregnant. The bigger the career, the further the wait, and the less likely she will be able to squeeze in that infant before her biological clock strikes. This is just my theory, however. When I researched the project, the statistics seemed to be saying that it had more to do with time and desire. Women with careers know they have less time for children and take it into account before having them. Women with careers are less likely to be the type to desire children.



> You're one of the lucky ones, m'friend. As an ex-family therapist, I can testify to the fact that there are children who are far better off being raised by almost anyone but their mothers. And we agree: mothers should be where they believe they belong.


 
Which I am very certain and very glad you are wrong about. What percentage of families goes to a family therapist? What percentage of healthy families go to one? Only families with problems (or perceived problems) need help. I mean, it's like a person who works at a home for battered wives saying women are better off not married because all the women they deal with are beat up in their marriage. Yes, the women they deal with are, but most women aren't (I assume a high amount are and more are than go to a shelter, but I assume more are then aren't.). 

My experience is, the more time a child has with both parents, the better the kid. And yes, I think quality time is overrated compared to quantity time. A kid really doesn't learn much during qualitity time. It's staged. It's not the normal element. Kids need to see their parents in action, in normal situations, as much as possible.

And we will agree that no one knows where the mother belongs. ..though you will probably disagree with this one: NOT EVEN THE MOTHER!

No one has the opportunity to live two lives. You just have to guess where you're best off. 

But in this case, let's say we are trying another general issue: is marriage good or bad for people? 

We can bring up ancedotal evidence, and yet it all depends on a personal level whether marriage is right for you or not. . .all the same, I would be prepared to swear by my life that marriage is good more than it is bad.

A mother staying at home is the better choice the majority of the time. Yes, there will be exceptions. No, it is not my job to decide who those exceptions are, but if I had to play god (thank god I don't have to), I'd pick stay-at-home mother hood more than not because I'd be right more times that way.


----------



## HLGStrider (May 24, 2005)

Not being good at Google, I usually don't have back up, but I did last years research report on a very similar topic, so I already have some things. Unfortunately as I don't use google well, I got most of them from paper sources, so I won't be able to give links, just names. Most of them were from journals I got off an academic search engine at my community college, but there is probably a way to access them if you want to.

Claim Number One: *Career women have fewer children because they wait longer.*



> Women who achieve a relatively high level of education are also more likely to enter the labor force before they marry and begin childbearing, and ultimately to have smaller families than women who marry in their teens. . . Generally, the age at which a woman first marries is directly related to the number of children she will bear because it affects the length of time she will be at risk of becoming pregnant.


Source: 
Population Reference Bureau: Women's Education and Family Size in Selected 

Countries, 1990's 24 Jun 2004 <http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu /PBR/Educators/Human_Population/women/...

Claim Two: Women are more likely to choose this if they have a choice:




> The number of mothers caring for their children at home went up about 13% in ten years according to the U.S. Census, while the number of new mothers returning to the work force went down four percentage points (59% to 55%) in 2000 (Belkin 44).


 


> Belkin searched out the women of the Stanford Class of ’81. Only 38% of these graduates were working full time. Twenty-five percent of these chose to stay home at least three years after the birth of their children. (Belkin 44).


The phrasing is mine. 

Source:
Belkin, Lisa. "The Opt-Out Revolution." New York Times Magazine Nov. 2003: 42+

Claim Three: Men with careers are more likely to have children then women with careers.



> Statistically, the child/career gap seems to apply to women but not to men. According to a CQ Researcher piece on the work of Sylvia Ann Hewlett, “79 percent of high-achieving men wanted children; 75 percent have children . . . by contrast, between one-third and one-half of all high achieving women (in the top 10 percent income bracket for their age group) are childless, according to the national survey Hewlett fielded . . . At salaries over $100,000 half of the women are childless.”


 
Source: 
"Are Career Women Childless By Choice?" The CQ Researcher April 2004: 305.


And women know about it:


> Women seem to know that this will be the case, according to Michele Hoffnung. Women who pursue careers considered non-traditional or male-controlled “expect to delay marriage and have fewer children than those who desired the traditional careers.” (Hoffnung 713)


 


> If they don’t reject career totally, family orientated women plan to take “long maternity leaves” and begin part time rather than full time work. (Hoffnung 712)


 
Source: Hoffnung, Michele. "Wanting It All: Career, Marriage, and Motherhood During College-Educated Women's 20's." Sex Roles May 2004: 711-723.

Claim Four: It is nearly impossible to balance both sucessfully because the CAREER will suffer.



> “Although combining family and career has many benefits, it continues to have a negative impact on women’s career progress.” The more children a woman has the less likely she is to be promoted (Hoffnung 711).


 
Claim Five: Women are more likely than men to gain fulfillment from family.



> 40% of the women (in the study) placed equal emphasis on work and family, 44% more emphasis on family, and 16% more emphasis on work. Men were as likely as women to place equal emphasis on work and family (34%), significantly less likely to place more emphasis on family (32%), and significantly more likely to place more emphasis on work (33%). (712)


 
That's Hoffnung as well.

Women are also more likely to be attracted to mates who are career orientated.



> Hoffnung also states that while men who tend to put career first marry women who tend to put family first, women who want to put career first tend to seek out equally ambitious men. Therefore when the career driven couple has children, one has to sacrifice in order to give the children more attention. In most cases, it is the female half of the couple. (Hoffnung 712)


 
IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT HOWEVER!



> “Because women are willing to leave, men are more willing to leave too—the number of married men who are full time caregivers to their children has increased 18 percent.” (Belkin 86)


 
So men can and will do it. They are just slow catching up.

Claim Six: Both men and women think the woman should do it.



> Michele Hoffnung points out that both men and women still see the woman as the proper care giver. She states that “the majority of both genders (67% of women, 84% of men) believed that mothers should stay home and provide primary care for at least the first few months of a baby’s life.” (Hoffnung 712)


 





There, I just statistically gutted last summer's paper. It wasn't the best written paper I have ever penned. I kind of got caught up in the information and in the end the paper had very little point, just a bunch of statistics tied together roughly about mother hood which is much too big a topic for one paper.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 24, 2005)

Elgee, it's been a long time since you posted in this neck of the woods. Welcome back!

I'm not certain what the claims above have to do with the initial post--and in any case--_who_ is making them?



> Claim Number One: Career women have fewer children because they wait longer.



Yes. So?



> Claim Two: Women are more likely to choose this if they have a choice:



I'm sorry: choose _what_?

The other claims you have listed make appeals to popularity (x% of men and women think that women should stay home, therefore women should stay home), and where you cite statistical data, it is unclear how reliable it is (is it representative? is the sample size adequate?, etc.).



> Biology determines the mother is better at it.



How so? 



> Biology determines the mother is more likely to want to do it.



How so?



> Also, there is a great difference between a three-year-old and a seven-year-old.



I think, then, that another distinction should be made in this discussion:

(a) Whether a parent--be it a mother or a father, or someone else--should stay at home for the first few months or year's of a child's life.

(b) Whether a parent--be it a mother or a father, or someone else--should stay at home until a child reaches _maturity_.

The second of these is more pertinent to the question of whether a woman should *either* pursue a career *or* be a stay-at-home mother.



> It has a lot to do with fertility rates, I think. A woman reaches her peak fertility around 26 (I don't remember the exact age). After that it begins to decline. A woman who wants a career will probably delay marriage and children til after 26 and therefore be simply less likely to get pregnant.



Yes, but, technically a woman _ceteris paribus_ is able to conceive and give birth to live young, regardless of whether she's a practising lawyer or a practising housewife. Do career women really pose such a threat to the species?



> Which I am very certain and very glad you are wrong about. What percentage of families goes to a family therapist? . . . My experience is, the more time a child has with both parents, the better the kid.



Why should your anecdotal evidence carry any more weight than Barley's?



> is marriage good or bad for people?
> 
> We can bring up ancedotal evidence, and yet it all depends on a personal level whether marriage is right for you or not. . .all the same, *I would be prepared to swear by my life that marriage is good more than it is bad*. (Emphasis added)



Fine. That doesn't make it so.


----------



## Beorn (May 24, 2005)

(Would anyone mind if I changed the name of this thread to "Debate on whether a woman's place is in the home?" It looks a bit strange and as if the decision has already been made from the TTF home page, or in the Forsaken Inn forum.)


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 24, 2005)

That's fine with me, Beorn.


----------



## Zale (May 24, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Two arguments seem to be emerging in this thread which need to be kept separate:
> 
> 1. Children need to be raised by at least one stay-at-home parent or guardian: someone responsible who is going to be there 24-7.



Exactly.



> 2. That person should be the child's (biological) mother.



Not by my reckoning, if both parents agree it should be the father, then why not?

Otherwise I believe HLGStrider just won this thread


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 24, 2005)

Zale said:


> Otherwise I believe HLGStrider just won this thread



Everybody wins in here, Zale.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 24, 2005)

Zale said:


> ...I believe HLGStrider just won this thread



I don't believe that the object of posting is to "win" an argument, or I surely hope not! Hopefully we are all here to have a free exchange of ideas and put forth viewpoints. The ensuing dialogues may get lively, but "winning" implies "right over wrong" and someone "losing," and I hope that none of us is here trying to be "right" and therefore leaving everyone else "wrong." That makes for unnecessary heartburn!

Barley


----------



## Zale (May 24, 2005)

I'm sorry, I was being slightly facetious (sp?).

I meant that LG has posted by far the most backed-up argument so far, and so her position at the moment stands strongest.

For everyone's info, I'll only defend a point of view while I see it as the correct one. If someone manages to change my mind then I have no problem with having "lost". When I debate, the idea is to present my thoughts in a nice, clear fashion. The overall aim is to find out which is the correct train of thought, not to persuade people specifically to my side.

I'll leave my facetiousness outside next time


----------



## HLGStrider (May 24, 2005)

> I'm not certain what the claims above have to do with the initial post--and in any case--who is making them?


 
If I don't quote, the claim is MINE! All mine! Mu ha ha ha.



> I'm sorry: choose what?


 
To stay at home rather than work and mother simultaneously.



> The other claims you have listed make appeals to popularity (x% of men and women think that women should stay home, therefore women should stay home), and where you cite statistical data, it is unclear how reliable it is (is it representative? is the sample size adequate?, etc.).


 
Actually, I was wondering about that data on my drive to work today, not whether it was acurate, but I was trying to remember if it specified American families or if it took other countries into it, because I thought that might come up. I know, for instance, that Americans have statistically larger families than Europeans and are more likely to have a stay-at-home parent. With my experience with Eastern Europeans (noticeably limited), many of them actually believe it is a dishonor for a woman to stay at home. My favorite quote from one was "Only the gypsies have more than two children." The fewer children you have the less need there is to stay home. I would dare any woman with six kids to try a career too and still stay sane. A lady with one or two children would have a much easier balance time.

Anyway, the most I can do is refer you to the journal in question. I think the one you are questioning was from the Sex Roles piece, which my teacher who is very hard to please and didn't want me to include the Population Report one at first because it was a website she couldn't track, thought was a great source. 

Anyway, as Zale says the point is most men and women agree that the woman should stay home more than the man. Most men and women think that someone should stay home, therefore logically men and women will decide that the woman stays home without much of a fight. 

If we want more ancedotal evidence, most of the pre-children-women I talk to want to stay home with kids, several of them saying the reason they are putting off having kids is they want to be able to afford staying home. 

I think there are some women who actually shouldn't have kids, but again, I'm not here to decide who they are. 



> Yes, but, technically a woman ceteris paribus is able to conceive and give birth to live young, regardless of whether she's a practising lawyer or a practising housewife. Do career women really pose such a threat to the species?


 
You missed the point. It isn't that she is less able. She is less likely, statistically, by far. 

The replacement population took a down turn in the 80's and 90's in most developed countries, partly, I think, because people panicked about over population, partly because people grew a bit more materialistic, partly because more women were in the work force. There were actually not enough people being born to replace those who were dying, and the first time in centuries the population of the earth was set to decrease. This trend is now correcting itself (by the time we notice trends, they correct themselves, it seems), but there was some sort of UN study about it a few years ago, about population replacement problems. I read about it in an FEE journal I no longer have. It could probably be dragged up, if you want to see it. 

Now, I in no way think that the human race is going to die out. Neither do I think that women should be compelled to do one thing or another to meet a population model, but I do think children are a good thing, and the more the merrier.

"How can you say there are too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers!"

Name that quote.



> Why should your anecdotal evidence carry any more weight than Barley's?


 
Honestly, it doesn't, and I don't believe I said it did. I might have said he is wrong but that is because I firmly believe he is wrong based on more things than my evidence. I just gave me evidence because he gave his, and I see them as equal in logical weight so therefore they negate each other, and even if something is useless it still needs to be countered. I have never in my life been able to simply roll my eyes at something and back away. A fault I know, but it makes these things more interesting. 

However, anecdotal evidence has a place in arguements because it adds personality to statistics, and it is much easier for people to understand a story than a statistic, and easier for them to remember it.

Never rely on stories, but know them by heart.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 24, 2005)

> *Barley:*You're one of the lucky ones, m'friend. As an ex-family therapist, I can testify to the fact that there are children who are far better off being raised by almost anyone but their mothers.
> 
> *HLG:*Which I am very certain and very glad you are wrong about.



Being certain doesn't make you right. You say I am wrong? It's been a while since I've done therapy, but I still have wrenchingly clear memories of battering mothers and battered children and the attendant court trials. I remember the bruises on bodies and the medical reports about children who were mistreated by mothers I wouldn't wish on my enemies. 

It's so very easy for you to say I'm wrong, as if that somehow _makes_ me "wrong" and you therefore "right" as if this were some sort of debate. Well I'm _not_ wrong: some mothers shouldn't be mothers, and their children should be taken away and raised with love and respect, safe from the physical and spiritual damage done to them by their dysfunctional mothers. So you can tell me I'm "wrong" to your heart's content; I know better. And if you insist on it, that still doesn't make you right — it just makes your assertion weak.



> My experience is, the more time a child has with both parents, the better the kid.



That may be your personal experience, but that doesn't mean your experience is sufficient for making the unqualified statement you did. There's a wider world out there — the world of calamitously dysfunctional parents, of familial violence and cruelty — which you seem fortunately never to have experienced nor possibly even heard of. Be glad. 

I will grant you that your statement may be _mostly_ true (one would certainly hope!) but there are a _great_ many very unfortunate exceptions. I know, _I was there_ — too many times.

Barley


----------



## HLGStrider (May 24, 2005)

I apologize, Barley. I was tired and I misread your statement dramtically. 

I took you to be meaning the MAJORITY of children are better off not raised by their parents. Looking back I see you meant that only SOME were, which is a non-commital amount. I would agree that you are right. I said in my last post "Some women shouldn't be mothers." However, it seems strange to contradict Cir's talk about his normal family with "Oh yeah! Well, some mothers are abusive." 

It's like contradicting someone who is saying a teacher is an honorable job with, "Some teachers sexually abuse their students."

Certainly some do, but why bother telling that? We don't have to qualify everything we say with "But some are bad?"
I am saying the majority of mothers are good or at the very least better than the option of no mother. Do you protest that statement?

I am glad I looked back to see what you were getting mad about, because I thought you had made an unqualified blanket statement, and by not carefully reading your statement I unwittingly made one.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 24, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> I apologize, Barley. I was tired and I misread your statement dramatically.


 
Don't give it another thought! 

Barley


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 24, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> To stay at home rather than work and mother simultaneously.



Whether a majority or minority of women would choose this option if they had a choice is not the point: the point is whether society should castigate those women who choose otherwise.



> Anyway, the most I can do is refer you to the journal in question. I think the one you are questioning was from the Sex Roles piece, which my teacher who is very hard to please and didn't want me to include the Population Report one at first because it was a website she couldn't track, thought was a great source.
> 
> Anyway, as Zale says the point is most men and women agree that the woman should stay home more than the man. Most men and women think that someone should stay home, therefore logically men and women will decide that the woman stays home without much of a fight.



Well, however representative the study was--whether it canvassed a decent cross-section of ages, classes, ethnicities, religions, political persuasions, and so on, and whether it encompassed the views of Americans, or Americans and Europeans, or Americans and Europeans and Africans and Asians and Australasians &c. &c.--is, again, not really important. 

If you're arguing that most men and women agree that women should stay home (whether or not that is actually so), THEREFORE most men and women agree that women should stay home: well, that's fine, but I can't see its relevance

On the other hand, if you're arguing that most men and women agree that women should stay home, THEREFORE women should stay home, you're making a fallacious appeal to popularity (the bandwagon fallacy). Let's look at an (extreme) hypothetical: suppose it was found that most men and women agreed that women should not be allowed to own property. Would it be right to conclude, therefore (i.e. on the strength of majority opinion), that women should indeed not be allowed to own property? Therein lies the problem with appeals to popularity: the popularity (or unpopularity) of something is no indication of whether it is the right or wrong thing to do. 



> If we want more ancedotal evidence, most of the pre-children-women I talk to want to stay home with kids, several of them saying the reason they are putting off having kids is they want to be able to afford staying home.



Fine. But, unless you're claiming that because some acquaintances of yours have made decision x, all women should therefore make decision x, it's not relevant.



> You missed the point. It isn't that she is less able. She is less likely, statistically, by far.



Well, I wasn't disputing those statistics: but this thread isn't really a debate about statistics, however reliable or otherwise they may be.



> Now, I in no way think that the human race is going to die out. Neither do I think that women should be compelled to do one thing or another to meet a population model,



Splendid!



> "How can you say there are too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers!"



A lovely sentiment, in a fridge-magnet sort-of-way. It doesn't demolish concerns about overpopulation, though.



> However, anecdotal evidence has a place in arguements because it adds personality to statistics, and it is much easier for people to understand a story than a statistic, and easier for them to remember it.


 
But at the end of the day, anecdotal evidence is unrepresentative. You can't build an argument on such shaky foundations.


----------



## HLGStrider (May 25, 2005)

> Whether a majority or minority of women would choose this option if they had a choice is not the point: the point is whether society should castigate those women who choose otherwise.



Actually, the report I did involved mainly how society's castigation drove mothers away from the home in the 80's and 90's. Society can castigate what it wants. It will no matter how we try to stop it. In the last decade, motherhood wasn't seen as a "real job." You will now find that the side of "Mother isn't a real job" and "Mothers should be in the home" are quite equal in number and battle it out daily in women's magazines. I have already endured plenty of societal castigation in my life. You can't be human if you can't take it. 



> On the other hand, if you're arguing that most men and women agree that women should stay home, THEREFORE women should stay home, you're making a fallacious appeal to popularity


 
I am saying that since most men and women agree, most women will. Therefore whether one woman writes a book or not saying they should is totally irrelevant to those women. They think they should do it, they are going to do it (if they can), so why have a thread about it at all? The women are happy. They can buy a book that explains why they did what they did. Women who disagree can not buy the book and in fact can write their own books if they so desire. Life goes on.

Meanwhile, we "experts" can argue what is better for children, for mothers, for society, but I don't think real experts can find anything conclusive in this. There are too many factors, too many "exceptions." 



> A lovely sentiment, in a fridge-magnet sort-of-way. It doesn't demolish concerns about overpopulation, though.


 
I still want to know if anyone knows who said it. Not that it is important, but it makes things more fun.

Over population is not a concern for first world countries any longer. Of course, those statistics change every so often.

So, if I am correctly deducing from what you consider relevant or not this is not a conversation about:
A. Whether women in general want to be in the home or not.
B. Whether women are in the home or not.

but rather
C. Whether society looks down on women for not being in the home or not.

The answer: it depends on the particular society you are in, doesn't it? Why do we care anyway? No one is forcing anyone to do anything, and people are free to have opinions. So. . .what?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 25, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> Actually, the report I did involved mainly how society's castigation drove mothers away from the home in the 80's and 90's. Society can castigate what it wants. It will no matter how we try to stop it. In the last decade, motherhood wasn't seen as a "real job." You will now find that the side of "Mother isn't a real job" and "Mothers should be in the home" are quite equal in number and battle it out daily in women's magazines. I have already endured plenty of societal castigation in my life. You can't be human if you can't take it.



That's not what I meant. Let me clarify. Whether a majority or minority of women would choose to _stay home_ if they had a choice is not the point: the point is whether society _should_--ought to--castigate those women who choose otherwise. Should it?



> I am saying that since most men and women agree, most women will. Therefore whether one woman writes a book or not saying they should is totally irrelevant to those women. They think they should do it, they are going to do it (if they can), so why have a thread about it at all?



Indeed. Why _post_ to such a thread at all?



> Meanwhile, we "experts" can argue what is better for children, for mothers, for society, but I don't think real experts can find anything conclusive in this. There are too many factors, too many "exceptions."


 
Nobody has claimed to be an "expert." I certainly haven't. 


> So, if I am correctly deducing from what you consider relevant or not this is not a conversation about:
> A. Whether women in general want to be in the home or not.
> B. Whether women are in the home or not.
> 
> ...



None of the above. Try
D. Whether society _should_--i.e. whether it _ought_ to--look down on working mothers.

My answer: no. It _shouldn't_.


----------



## HLGStrider (May 26, 2005)

> Whether a majority or minority of women would choose to stay home if they had a choice is not the point: the point is whether society should--ought to--castigate those women who choose otherwise. Should it?


 
Define castigate? I mean, if you mean, should they be held up to scrutiny (not they rather, but the trend of mothers in the work place), then I say, Why not?

If you mean ridiculed, I personally don't like to see anything except the blatantly ridiculous ridiculed, but I know society enjoys seeing things ridiculed and will ridicule just about anything. 

OK, going with dictionary English there are two meanings:
"To critisize."
and
"To punish."

I'll get the second meaning out of the way quickly and say no.

As for the first, I don't think any lifestyle should be immune from critisism, even harsh critisism. If we hold things up for inspection and find them in some way wanting, then critisize away. I don't think we should be critisized for the sake of critisism.

And actually, there are enough books "castigating" staying at home with your children if you look at it this way. It's a debate that needs to happen. If it doesn't happen, women will have a hard time making an informed decision on whether they stay at home or not. They need to know that having kids will have a bad effect on their career. They need to know that having a career may have a bad effect on their kids. 

Though I don't think most people research before having kids. Most people instead have sex before having kids which is how they have kids in the first place. . .



> Indeed. Why post to such a thread at all?


 
Because I have done research on similar topics, and I know there are a lot of fun directions this could go in. 

I am a great believer in going against just about whatever society wants me to do, so I really don't care what it says, but I do like to debate social issues.



> Nobody has claimed to be an "expert." I certainly haven't


 
I was jokingly refering to everyone who posts an opinion, including me, because I accidently almost used some very "expert" sounding phrases like "I have concluded." and I realized how ridiculous I was sounding.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 26, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> ... I accidently almost used some very "expert" sounding phrases like "I have concluded." and I realized how ridiculous I was sounding.



Just one small point: I think it's perfectly fine to use that phrase. After all, when we mull something over, we eventually come to a conclusion about it. I say that frequently, meaning "I have come to a conclusion, which doesn't mean I'm right. It's just my conclusion, and a conclusion is subject to change as more facts come in, and I rethink the matter in the light of new information."

I say "conclusion" rather than imply "fact," because I too do not want to sound like an expert in an area where I'm not. But if I've come to a conclusion about something, what else is there to say? 

Barley


----------



## Alatar (May 26, 2005)

My mum works full time, at a bank, working out Tax. A week ago she had to go to a meeting for 2 days in a five star hotel.
And every sunday she makes a home roast, sandiwchs for the week(Made from leftover chicken from saturdays roast), Home made bolenase and pasta sause aswell as home made pizza, AND she and my sister make cookies and brownies for the week ahead.
She has to leave home at 7:30 every day aswell.
THAT is a super mum.


----------

