Daycare is Almost Always Voluntary and is Generally a Bad Choice

One of the most repeated sentiments in parenting conversations these days is parents claiming that they "had no choice" but to put their kid(s) into daycare or that it is a GOOD thing for the kids.

In almost every case, this is a big, stinking pile of dung.


Putting a child in daycare comes at the end of a series of CHOICES that the parent(s) made. By the way, day care is anything before the kid is 5, whatever it is called... nursery school, pre-K, transitional K, pre-school... it's all daycare.

If you aren't "able" to raise your own child, don't have one!

Having a Family Doesn't Guarantee Happiness

Matt Walsh, who I agree with some on some really big things, is back [this entry is being bumped up] to beating the drum to marry and pop out kids. He starts off his column at The Daily Wire citing comments by former First Lady Michelle Obama. [This entry bumped up from January 2021.]

The former First Lady was interviewed by "Blackish" star Tracee Ellis Ross and the women together lamented the fact that girls "still dream of weddings" and "Prince Charming." The two agreed that some women (Tracee Ellis Ross included) can sacrifice family for the sake of a career and be "happy as a clam." In fact, it would seem that Mrs. Obama — who is married with two kids — thinks this path is preferable, given that she considers it a problem when girls aspire to marriage. Ross provided compelling evidence to prove that her decision to forgo family life was the right call: "Look where I'm sitting," she declared. Yes, the summit of all happiness is to sit on a stage with a former First Lady. Truly, this is the eternal bliss for which we were designed.

Maybe Ross is happy? I'm not aware of Walsh having psychic abilities.

Not All SAHMs Are Made Equal

I do generally believe that married parenting should involve a division of labor in the sense that someone should raising the kids and someone should be considered the breadwinner.

When Dr. Laura paints a portrait of a "stay-at-home" mother, she actually doesn't want them to stay home. It's more like they are "stay-with-kids" mothers. She describes them taking their kids to parks, taking the kids along as they walk, run, or bike, and constantly playing with the kids.

And she tells women who have husbands who aren't convinced those women should quit their jobs to stay with the kids to tell the husbands that they'll be able to prepare more homecooked meals and there will be a lot more sex.

But how many of these women really live up to these things? I applaud those who do, but what about the rest?

[This entry was bumped up from late 2015. We no longer have the other two adults living with us - they were here for a couple of years or so. Most of what they did has reverted to me.]

My wife has been a SAHM since before our first child, who was planned, was conceived.

Today, the kids are in school. My wife is still a SAHM.

When Dr. Laura Tells Moms to Announce Their Switch to SAHM

Children being raised with attention, affection, a sense of security, and morality is one of Dr. Laura's top goals, which is why she condemns the use of day care and insists parents should raise their own children right up until Kindergarten, which is entered into at age 5 or 6 (boys should especially be started later, according to her). She's also big on homeschooling, but any form of daycare (including "preschool") from ages 0-4 is a no-no.

While she doesn't rule out "stay at home fathers", she says mothers are preferable from ages 0-3, and she notes that the "psychobiology" is that women prefer a man be a provider and they tend to lose respect for their husband if they earn more than him or he's home with the kids earning no income at all. Men also tend to like to provide.

So, she gets calls from employed women who are pregnant or have just given birth (again) or even have infants or toddlers who want to switch to being SAHMs, but have husbands who are opposed to that change or are at least reluctant to agree.

This is when Dr. Laura, who usually says big decisions, even getting a dog, have to have mutual agreement and if either spouse is a "no" then the change doesn't happen, leaves that principle aside. It is overruled by the importance of a mother's love. She tells the women to quit their jobs, come up with a one-income budget, to announce to their husband they will be staying home, and tell him that it will mean home-cooked meals, lots of great sex, and a more pleasant home.

That's all good, but only if the caller follows through. And only if the husband accepts the announcement. Will it be better if the family splits up than if they stay together with both parents working outside the home? Dr. Laura says men who aren't eager to be sole support for a wife and kids aren't real men, but would her opinion stop one man who is thinking along these lines from engaging in what he sees as self defense?

Don't Make Promises You're Not Going to Keep

I'm convinced the most ideal family situation is a breadwinning father married to a homemmaker mother, who is a stay-with-kids mom, at least until the kids are all in school (Kindergarten or later), at which point she can work part-time. Having the father stay home instead is the next best thing.

This is what one of my favorite audio talk show hosts, Dr. Laura also preaches and teaches, much to the irritation of plenty of people, who talk as though daycare isn't almost always voluntary.

Dr. Laura claims that "in the day" men would rather die than see their wives working full time outside of the home and she talks as though men are ignoring their blaring natural inner voice when they pressure their wives to work. But how many of these men were "raised" by working mothers? How many of those mothers were divorced or never-married? A LOT! Furthermore, a lot of these men know that if their wife doesn't work, the courts are going so screw them (the husbands) over even more when there's a divorce, because the courts will say that the woman has greatly reduced earning potential and has been accustomed to being taken care of financially.

"But you shouldn't expect a divorce," say so many people.

Your Child, Your Choice, Your Responsibility

The mommy wars never end. Michael Medved, as I type, has Erica Komisar on his show, who has a book out about the importance of mothers being with their children from birth to age three. Of course there are women calling up complaining about the fact that children benefit from actually being with their mother. They'd rather not hear the truth, apparently. And others are complaining that their employer doesn't facilitate this.

There are thee issues here.

1) It is YOUR responsibility to plan things so that if you have children, they will have their mother* with them. Your choice, remember? With choice comes responsibility. Daycare is almost always voluntary and a bad choice. If you're not cut out to be a mother, don't become one. If you don't have a marriage that allows for you to mother your own children, don't have them.

2) It is not a legitimate role of government to compel employers to provide daycare or maternity leave or any other of these accommodations parents want.

3) Employers should be free to run their businesses as they want. If they want to give mothers paid time off to raise their children, fine, but expecting all employers to offer it is an attitude of entitlement.

Are You Surprised That Homemakers Are Valuable?

[This was originally posted in January 2012, but I'm bumping it up.]

Porcshe Moran has done that report that makes the news at least once a year, "How Much Is A Homemaker Worth?"

I say a good homemaker is priceless, especially if they make the home pleasant for the income earner and provide ever-present love and guidance to the next generation of citizens. But lets look at what is being said this time around.

We examined some of the tasks that a homemaker might do to find out how much his or her services would net as individual professional careers. We only take into consideration tasks which have monetary values and use the lowest value for each calculation.

Private Chef
Meal preparation is one of the major tasks of most homemakers. From breakfast to dinner, there is plenty of meal planning and cooking to be done. The American Personal Chef Association reports that its personal chefs make $200 to $500 a day. Grocery shopping is another chore that needs to be factored in. A homemaker must drive to the supermarket, purchase the food and deliver it to the home. Grocery delivery services charge a delivery fee of $5 to $10.

Total cost for services: $1,005 per five day work week x 52 weeks = $52,260 per year.

The article does similar calculations for:

House Cleaner
Child Care
Driver
Laundry Service
Lawn Maintenance

I'm surprised they left out prostitution, but maybe they take the approach that women actually like lovemaking, too. Then then the conclusion is:

Total for a year of all services is: $52,260 + $6,137 + $31,200 + $4,168 + $936 + $1,560 = $96,261 per year.

Uh huh.

The daily work of a homemaker can sometimes be taken for granted by his or her family members.

Unfortunately, that's true, and it is also true that some feminists denigrate women for being homemakers, as do political types who want more income to tax, employers who want more labor supply to lower labor costs, and businesses who want people to have more "disposable" income to spend on crap they don't really need.

I've already addressed reports like this in this previous entry.

I do want you to know that in general, if you don't like your chef, cleaner, daycare provider, driver, laundry service, or gardener you can fire them either immediately or with very short notice, and paying your latest bill will settle the matter. You generally do not sign lifetime contracts with them. However, if you marry someone who promises to be a homemaker and it turns out that person does next to nothing or does a horrible job, in states like the one I live in the default, standard contract is that "firing" them means giving them half of everything you earned while they were in the contract with you, and continuing to pay them one day for every two days you had the contract, or for life if they were under contract with you for ten years. There is NO penalty for failing to perform any of the tasks adequately.

I Can't Unscramble the Eggs

These days, it seems more and more like I made a mistake in getting married and having children. This, in turn, has led to mistakes like buying the wrong house and a bunch of other mistakes.

As it stands now:

1) I do not think I am being a good enough husband.

2) I do not think I am being a good enough father.

3) We are not taking care of our future like we should.

Pertaining to #3: From a secular perspective, what is a man’s primary responsibility in life? It is, over his lifetime, producing more value than he consumes, so as to contribute to society rather than being a burden on it. There are times someone is going to be dependent, such as childhood at one end of life and elderly decline at the other end, and maybe some times of severe illness or injury in between. However, these times are supposed to be offset by the productive times. Ultimately, it is taking sunlight and other natural resources, our imagination, and the knowledge of those who came before us, and producing.

Raising children can be productive. Obviously, without the raising of children, society ceases to exist as the human race disappears. However, it is only if those children are raised to also be net producers does raising children help. Otherwise, they can be a severe burden.

A man should only take on raising children if he can not only be productive enough for himself, but for raising his children, and that includes being productive, and equipped enough, for marriage and has found the right woman to be his wife.

Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger – 5

Read the introduction to this series here.

15) How should the division of labor be delineated between husband and wife when the husband works full time (and perhaps plus) as the sole income earner and the wife is a full-time ”stay-at-home” mom?

Just shy of 18 minutes into the first hour of the January 22 show/podcast, Dr. Laura took a call from a woman who is married with five children. The wife was calling to say that her husband, the sole income earner, doesn’t do enough of the domestic chores. Dr. Laura indicated that this husband was a terrible guy for not doing some of the domestic chores.

Okay, I understand Dr. Laura’s opinion on that. I do some of the domestic chores at home despite being the sole income earner.

Except… I’ve heard (recently, mind you) Dr. Laura respond to another SAHM complaining that her income-earner hubby wasn’t doing domestic chores by asking if the caller was ready to go into the office and do some of her husband’s work for him. Dr. Laura made it clear that the domestic chores were the responsibility of the SAHM.

Why the difference in answers?

Is there a magic number of children that make domestic chores part of the husband’s role? I think whenever Dr. Laura hears “five children” it triggers thoughts of Andrea Yates. She’s even brought Yates up with other calls. Dr. Laura readily admits one child was enough work for her. So, if it is a matter of the number of children, does it matter who pushed to have that many children? And what if a SAHM caller sounds overwhelmed with one or two children? Surely it is possible for a woman to pull an Andrea Yates even if she only has one or two children. Many have.

He Changed the Rules

I continue to listen to Dr. Laura as a Family Plus Member, which allows me to download podcasts of all three hours of her show (which runs Monday-Friday). It is the only paid podcast subscription I have. On Thursday, May 26th, her third hour pretty much began with "Jennifer". Jennifer said she and her husband agreed when they married that she would be a "stay at home mom" to their children. But now that she's out on maternity leave and has told him she still wants to be a SAHM more than she wants to return to her job, he has responded by saying he "didn't marry a housewife" and asking why she bothered to get a degree.

Before calling, she had even already done what Dr. Laura usually suggests in this situation, which is for her to come up with a workable budget and present it to him to prove that it is possible for them to live on his income. He rejected it, because he wants a more expensive lifestyle.

It is an incredibly sad situation.

Jennifer's husband is and example of someone Dr. Laura will say is not a "real man". Chastity "Chaz" Bono is not a real man. Just about anyone with an "XY" chromosomal makeup is a real man. They can be lousy men, or evil men, but they are still men. Notice we never hear the phrase "real woman". But Dr. Laura is allowed to talk like this in my book because she doesn't insist on radical egalitarianism. I often write about "guys" when I want to distinguish some men from more mature men. But I've digressed.

Anyway, this is one reason that I, unlike Dr. Laura and so many others, favor prenuptial agreements even in first marriages, even when neither person has much in terms of personal wealth. I'd like to see each couple getting married have to swear under penalty of perjury that they have discussed this issue and what their agreement is, and I'd like to see the laws and courts back it up. If Jennifer's husband truly stated that he agreed that she should be a SAHM, she should have been able to get that in writing, and if he refuses now, he should be required to pay her enough in child support and alimony that she can be a SAHM with or without him. Likewise, if a woman agreed she was going to be a SAHM and then refuses, the husband should be allowed to be a SAHF and to get enough from her that he can. Or, switch the sexes. That should all be enforceable via prenup.

Perhaps Jennifer's husband wouldn't have married her in the first place if he had to sit down and sign a legally binding agreement about all of this. Or, maybe he would have married her and bitten the bullet now, instead of trying to change the rules.

When the woman who is now my wife brought up the subject early on in our dating, I firmly said that strangers would not be raising my children. I also added that how that works out is open to discussion. All she ever wanted was to work in her chosen career field (which she was doing at the time), be a wife, and then be a SAHM. So neither of us had a problem with me being the income earner and her being the primary caretaker. She now says she has the life she's always wanted, and I'm glad for that.

Would it be nice to have more money? Yes, it would. And I'm sure Uncle Sam and the State of California would both love the extra income tax. But I'd rather my children have their mother as much as possible.

I guess that would make me a real man in Dr. Laura's vocabulary. But I care more about the respect and thanks I get from my wife.

Budgeting Can Save Your Kids

When my wife and I were dating before engagement, one of the issues we discussed (and one of the issues every person dating for marriage should discuss) was who would be earning the income and how. I was open to discussing any arrangement that would not have my kids raised by strangers. My wife strongly desired to "stay home" with our kids once we had them, and I would be the one who was busy earning the income. That was fine by me.

I dare say that most married couples who stick their kids in day orphanages (daycare) don't have to. There are those who want to (including some where one of the spouses does not work outside the home), but many more who say they don't have a choice. They do have a choice - almost all of them. It just requires them to do things differently, and they don't want to make those changes or don't have the imagination to see the possibilities. There's working different shifts, working at home, and there's having one spouse be the sole income earner.

Is it harder for one person to support the family than it used to be? Probably. Ironically, more women being in the workforce means more labor supply; more people are competing for jobs. This allows employers to offer lower pay.

It is possible, though, especially when one considers the ways to cut back on expenses, from frivolous things or extravagances to finding bargains. How much income is being netted by that second earner once the costs of taxes, commuting, wardrobe, daycare, etc. are removed?

In a recent blog entry, Dr. Laura writes about some of the problems associated with having both spouses work outside the home. Then she goes on to give some tips for stretching and income.

1.Ride a bicycle to most places close to home. That gives you needed exercise that two jobs doesn't permit and it saves money on gas.

Walking can be good, too. The cost of driving also includes maintenance and other costs. This is yet another reason to live in a neighborhood where people aren't routinely robbed or assaulted walking down the sidewalk.

2.Rent from Netflix instead of spending ridiculous amounts going to local movie theaters and wasting money on sodas and popcorn.

There have never been more options for low or no-cost entertainment. I'm pretty sure I, and most husbands, would be plenty entertained if all we did with our free time was play with the wife.

3.Shop discount stores for clothes, and don't buy new wardrobes each season.

Paying a lot of money for clothes can massage the ego, but how often does the most expensive clothing make enough of a real difference? I also recommend getting certain kinds of furniture from a Salvation Army store and yard sales. I can understand not wanting someone's used furniture that is covered in cloth, but other than that, it is good.

4.Take vacations close to home that are filled with togetherness rather than filled with expenses.

Again, there have never been more options.

5.Plan meals and plan your grocery shopping so you aren't paying extra for last-minute purchases.

My wife does this, and clips coupons, and does everything else she can to bring down our grocery bill. It's like game to her, and she's very good at it.

6.Don't buy sugary, fatty, unhealthy foods. That saves a LOT of money!

Some are cheap, though. Yes, it can be less expensive to buy whole fruits and vegetables and to buy staples rather than buying junk food and fast food, and it is better for you. But you have to actually eat the food, not let it rot. Surely you can find enough of such foods that you like.

7.Sit down with your checkbook for a month and see where the money is going.

Yes. Your checkbook and your credit cards.

I'll add a few:

Pay your bills on time. Who needs late and interest charges?

Are you paying for Internet, phone, and TV? Have you called up your providers and asked for a deal in exchange for signing up for a certain length of time? Or how about telling them you are thinking about going to a competitor or discontinuing the service? They usually offer deals.

Are you paying for magazines or memberships that you don't regularly read/use? Let it lapse.

Are there any you want to add?

Kids grow up fast. You don't want to miss it. Kids need parental guidance and bonding, too. It is possible to make it work.

And for those of you who are marriage-minded but not yet married or parenting, think about these things. Save up and choose your spouse and where you'll be living wisely so that your kids will not be raised by strangers.

Stay At Home Doesn't Mean Do Nothing

The Orange County Register has a feature called "Ask the Teacher". This edition was of interest to me. The "question" this time is really a statement:

I'll have you know my child loves going to preschool, and I send her from 8 to 530 all summer long, even though I am home.

This first sentence alone brings several things to mind.

Children like all sorts of things that we either keep them from, or limit.

There is a possibility that the child knows that her mother wants to hear her say she likes it.

Maybe the child just wants to get out of the house and play with other kids. But she can do so with her mother. There's nothing positive going on at this day orphanage that can't be provided by the mother.

Why bother having and retaining custody of kids if you're going to have other people raise them?
Would she be happy if she was able to say, "My husband loves paying to hang out with the guys nine and a half hours a day when he could be spending that time with me."?

I think she will benefit from it, and I do enjoy the time to myself. I still think my child is a 'gift' and I do not think I am escaping my responsibilities by finding somewhere for her to go that she likes.

This can all be distilled down to "I enjoy the time to myself." The rest is fluff, meant to bury any feelings of guilt. This woman is not sending her girl to be in someone else's care for what is likely more than half of that girl's waking hours because she "has to".

Which brings me to the fact that it must be nice for her husband to go out and earn the income and take on an enormous financial risk - the risk that she will divorce him, and he will be obligated to pay her more because she didn't work – while she has every day to herself. When a husband agrees to be the breadwinner, it generally isn't so his wife and indulge herself day in and day out. It is so that she can take care of things like… raising the children. Imagine if the sexes were reversed and she was going out to work all day while her husband dumped the kid on others every day so he could have ten hours to himself?

Looks like the columnist, Carol Veravanich, wasn't happy with the woman's actions, but didn't want to be too strong about it.

I would not send a child to preschool all day every day for this long if I were home, although if I were working then I would work to find somewhere my child enjoyed to spend his time.
...
But, if you are home and not watching your child, then I think that is sad. The program you found may be best since they will welcome her in each day. You will not get this time back, however, and just because there is somewhere for her to go, that does not mean she should leave.

Poor kid.

In-Law Situation - What Is Your Take?

Someone (a wife and mother of more than one child) who shall remain anonymous left me this comment:

Let me get your opinion here: My husband's sister got knocked up and gave the baby up about 2.5 years ago. Six months later, she got married to a fellow (not the baby daddy) and is now pregnant again.

These in-laws would like to [move] to my state to be close to my husband and I so that they can "utilize" me as daycare while they finish their degrees and work beyond full time. I was very clear that I think a child should be raised by its parents. My husband, however, stepped in to say "we" (which is to say ME) would do whatever we could to help them out.

Sure sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, but, I gave up college and worked around my husbands college and work when we had our first.

It's not like either one is close to graduation, we're taking years. My husband and I are thinking about having one more child ourselves.

...I'm not wrong here, am I? You put your wife and kids and their needs before others, even relatives, don't you? You encourage people to make the necessary sacrifices, you don't make it easy to abandon their kids, right? Or am I just being stingy and persnickety? I've been changing diapers for about 7 years straight now - I can barely muster up the love to wipe my own kids bums ... and I'm pretty sure I'll be expected to be cheap if not free labor. My time isn't valued. I feel whiny. Sorry...they haven't moved yet and probably can't afford to (unless they were to move in with us for a while), so it's all hypothetical.

What do you think?

I wrote back privately, but I'll share some of my thoughts here...

Ultimately I defer to how these things are settled in your family. I'll give you MY opinion though, even though my opinion should mean squat within the walls of your home.

These in-laws would like to my state to be close to my husband and I so that they can "utilize" me as daycare while they finish their degrees and work beyond full time.

This MIGHT be okay... IF... you had the time (reading your blog, I think you have enough on your plate) AND they would PAY you for it. So, essentially, it would be a home-based business.

I was very clear that I think a child should be raised by its parents. My husband, however, stepped in to say "we" (which is to say ME) would do whatever we could to help them out.

Sounds to me that he is putting his sister and his charitable feelings - as well as intentioned as they may be - over the needs of his family. "Leave and cleave". His wife and kids should take the higher priority.

Sure sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, but, I gave up college and worked around my husbands college and work when we had our first.

EXACTLY. You have made good choices and should be further burdened by the choices of others. Now, of course family helps each other out and in cases like this family babysits from time to time, but not regularly.

I'm not wrong here, am I?

No, you are not.

You put your wife and kids and their needs before others, even relatives, don't you? You encourage people to make the necessary sacrifices, you don't make it easy to abandon their kids, right?

Yes. Yes. Have I mentioned before that my MIL keeps pressuring my wife to leave our child with her overnight? Have I mentioned my wife has refused to cater to her mother's wishes, even to let her babysit for a few hours during the day, because MIL is an active alcoholic? MIL would stop bitching if my wife simply said, "okay!" But we just can't take the risk.

Tell your husband that you feel for them, but you need to put taking care of him and your children over making it easier for his sister. They have made their choices... and you two have made yours. Aren't there grandparents who could get involved? Childless relatives/friends who would like to have the fun of looking after kids without the ultimate responsibility?

The bottom line for your husband should be that you are his wife. You are the one in his bed. Tell him that you were hoping to have more time and energy to focus on practicing the art of lovemaking, and it will be difficult to do that if you have to take on this unecessary burden.

Family should step in when something unplanned happens... some sort of accident or illness or something that someone did not bring upon themselves. Your SIL's situation in entirely her own doing.

She wrote back, explaining that the other options (other relatives) I mentioned are a no-go and why.

You know how I feel about this. Any more advice???

Parenthood by Proxy

I attended a baby shower over the weekend. These things should NOT be co-ed, but I might have had to go anyway, because it was for my sister-in-law and her husband as they anticipate the arrival of their first child. One couple in attendance brought their two-month-old adorable child. Absolutely precious.

What made me even happier to see this child was that her parents tried so hard for so long to get pregnant this time around, and that was AFTER trying hard to get pregnant, carrying a child to term, and then discovering upon birth that the child had a problem that prevented the baby from living more than a couple of weeks. Very sad.

So seeing them with this healthy baby was great.

Then my heart sank as the mother explained to my MIL that she's going back to work very soon and has found a day orphanage for her two-month-old.

Her husband is a good earner. I'm sure they could make it with her staying at home. Or with him staying at home.

Why try so hard to make a kid and carry that child around for nine moths so that you can see the child essentially only weekends? Grade school will come soon enough. Why not enjoy your child during the infant and toddler years?

I feel like I am missing out when I am away from my child. I'm thankful my wife gets to spend as much time with her as she does, and thankful my wife was willing to have this arrangement.

Why do people allow themselves to believe that hired help is better for their child than they are? Clearly, some new parents choose daycare when they have other realistic options. And most everyone else using daycare who "must" choose it "must" choose it becausae a series of previous choices in which they could have chosen differently.

To all you SAHMs and SAMDs - GOOD FOR YOU!!!

Yes, Even More Dr. Laura SAHM Reaction

Time for another survey of what is being written online about Dr. Laura, in reaction to her new book and her publicizing of it.

Anne Hart disagrees with the notion, which she falsely attributes to Dr. Laura, that "ALL moms should stay home for the first five years of their children’s lives."

How can you declare unilaterally that each and every mother and child are better off at home?

She didn't. Next!

Instead, I uphold a mom's ability to choose the right work-life balance and child care arrangement for her family.

What does that mean, really? Of course they can choose – but does that make everything they choose right? What if a woman worked three jobs and was never home, and neither was dad? If that is what she chose to do, would that still be right?

Yes, Dr. Laura, some moms can be breadwinners and breadmakers. And be good at both.

Sure. But almost no women can work full-time AND be fully there as a mother AND wife. I'm willing to admit that my role as a father is not as prominent to my child as my wife's role as mother, because I am not there as much as she is. How can you do something without being there to do it???

However, oodles of work-outside-the-home moms make incredible use of the time they do have with their children, proving there is such a thing as quality over quantity.

I highly doubt this woman would accept that statement from a lover. "Hey, it was good five minutes. See you next week for our next quality time session!" Well, maybe she would if she had a really low libido and no need for foreplay or romance.

Children I know who are in day care or in the care of a nanny or baby sitter are independent, outgoing and have the advantage of seeing their mom have a rewarding professional life.

Maybe they are detached, aggressive, and do not see the point of having children you don't raise yourself?

While I'm thankful for the ability to stay-at-home with my children, there are emotional and financial frustrations that come with that decision.

Yes, and thank goodness there are none of those at the office.

Would my kids be better off if I had the fulfillment, adult interaction, alone time and paycheck that comes with a job outside the home? I don't know.

You don't interact with adults? The only place you can interact with adults is at the office?

However, not every mom has the choice to stay home.

Yes, actually, they do. Maybe not after they buy a house and car and timeshare that they can't afford and become mothers, but the choice was there.

Work-outside-the-home moms already feel guilty enough without you accusing them of parenting by proxy.

Apparently, they don't. Because they are still doing it and still saying it is the right thing to do.

Just one in five working mothers say full-time work is the ideal situation for them, Pew reports. Most want part-time work or more flexible hours.

Many want more time with their children.

And I can see where that is going... they’re going to ask Big Daddy Government to pay them so they can work only when they want to. Hey, I want more time with my kids, too. How about paying me not to work?

Why not write a book that advocates for more mom-friendly changes in the office?

I'm sure she'll get right on that right after she writes about how to find a more gentle abortionist.

Why not push for paid maternity leave; part-time jobs with insurance benefits; and a national minimum standard for paid sick days so moms can stay home with their ill kids?

You see where this is going? We're all supposed to rearrange everything because people want to "have" kids and have stuff and have a professional ego. We're all supposed to pay even more to support other people we don't even know so that they aren't "restrained" by the concepts of picking the right spouse and then making children with them, only if and when they are prepared to be a parent.

Savannah Red responded to Hart in this blog posting, which is pretty good.

"scripto" commented on that entry accusing Dr. Laura of not being their for her own son, which of course is bunk. Scripto thinks reading blogs is "research" into a famous person.

Over at Deep South Moms Blog, we get this:

I am wondering why there is no such thing as the Daddy Wars. It seems that fathers have been omitted from the equation of parenting. Dr. Laura, whom I consider to be a class A nut job anyway, seems to think dads are but a blip in our children's lives.

I guess it is impossible to praise someone these days. If you do, you must be insulting all of the people you are not praising with that moment of praise?

The media, including parenting magazines of every ilk, focus solely on women.

You're right. SAHFs get short shrift. Women make most consumer choices, so the magazines focus on them in general – but when it comes to parenting, there are many more SAHMs than SAHFs. That's a fact. And you know what? A lot of women give SAHFs short shrift, too – including some wives of SAHFs.

Is the onus of raising healthy, happy, productive, aware, confident, giving, empathetic children on mothers alone?

Nobody, save for some single-motherhood or lesbian advocates, has said it is.

Fathers are infinitely important to the fabric of a family. To ignore that fact is detrimental to our children in countless ways.

Agreed! But, the fact is, men are still expected to be breadwinners by most women, and most women choose to marry a man who earns more than they do.

Over at this blog, "Kristi" writes against Dr. Laura, defending her status as a mother working away from her kids. She, like so many others, falsely accuses Dr. Laura of being hypocritical for working and having a son (I should number these memes and simply refer to them by those numbers).

Then she looks down on Dr. Laura being happy that nannies are out of work as people save money in the face of layoffs by raising their own kids, citing the lack of work for the nanny. Would Kristi be upset if oncologists were losing their jobs because breast cancer rates plummeted?

The implication that a mother who works outside the home is not a full-time mom, is no more present in her child's life than the UPS man, and is being selfish by working either a.) because she has to in order to make ends meet, or b.) because she loves her career and finds it fulfilling, is nauseating to me.

Okay, well you try telling your boss that you are working full time, and give your boss the same waking hours most women working away from their kids give their kids (or their husbands!), and see if your boss agrees that you are working "full time".

Do we really need another book that pits mothers against each other? I think not.

The book is simply in praise of SAHMs. How does that pit mothers against each other? Don't confuse a publicity interview with a book.

Over at "Hip Moms Who Work", "Where cool working moms come together", "Andrea", who admits not having checked out the book, again notes that Dr. Laura worked while having a young son.

She also claims she has respect for SAHMs. My question is... why? If children do not need their mothers (or, as I have said, their fathers if their mother is the breadwinner) with them and are just as well off with others, then aren't SAHMs slackers, who should be contributing income to the home and contributing to the workforce?

It seems to me this position is inconsistent. I do respect SAHMs because they are doing what is best for their children. That is not inconsistent.

Over at Deep South Moms Blog, again, we get this:

However, when my son was born, I had a really amazing job. I was paid well and the job was providing security for our future. To leave that job would have been financial suicide so my husband and I made a decision. One of us needed to stay home and the most logical choice at that point was him.

If you had ever bothered to listen to Dr. Laura, you'd know she supports that, too, as long as the wife can still respect her husband. Some women don't.

Instead, she pulls a quote from a WSJ interview.

WSJ: Where do stay-at-home dads fit into the picture?

Dr. Schlessinger: I recommend that during the first three years, the mom should be at home because all of the research shows that the person whose body you come out of and whose breast you suck at, at that stage, really needs to be the mom -- unless she's incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. After that, flip a coin.

Women and men are different, and those differences more often make mothers the better choice than fathers to stay with the kids. But yes, there are exceptions. If the woman is in a position that provides better security, enough to outweigh the difference between men and women, then sure. Especially if the husband's personality is good for this role. But in general, mothers are better equipped than fathers for this role.

The bottom line to me is this, we are all in this together...this bringing up of the next generation and we all need to support each others choices.

Nope. There are choices I make you wouldn't support. Let's not pretend otherwse for the sake of comfort.

A lot of these bloggers note that Dr. Laura has a high income, and had flexible work hours, and that isn't how it is for everyone. As if Dr. Laura got to that point by pure luck, through no choices of her own. Some also will put "Dr." in quotes, which makes me wonder if they do that with other Ph.Ds? She's not calling herself "Laura, M.D.", you bitter shrews and scummy guys.

And as if this installment wasn't long enough, I note that over at "Randomness from the Right Side of the Bed", calling itself "ramblings from a working mom of 2-year-old baby boy godzilla, 1-year-old princess, and the newborn diva born August 2008 - swimming through the depths of sleep deprivation, stress, and dealing with a demanding Daddy", someone known as "darkfairymomma" bitches about Dr. Laura, but doesn't say why Dr. Laura is wrong.

I wonder what qualifies as a "demanding Daddy"? A husband who wants sex?

There are positive reactions out there, too, thankfully. Click on the Dr. Laura tag below to read more posts like this one, and to see that I don’t always agree with Dr. Laura, though I usually do.

Still More Reactions to Dr. Laura’s Latest Book

I came across a couple of blog entries of note. Over at Out of the Boondocks, we get more of the same stuff I analyzed here and here.

First, she tries to discount Dr. Laura by playing the "hypocrite" card, telling is to find in all by googling it. Then she moves on to previous work by Dr. Laura.

One of her books "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands" pretty much compares men to house pets...So to say that he has simple needs, and if I should meet them I will make him completely happy and faithful to me is a tad condescending to both of us, no?

What she is apparently saying is that her husband's needs are not simple. Notice this gives her an excuse not to meet them. And, why bother – even if she does meet her husband's needs, he'll still be unhappy and unfaithful. Sounds like great marriage material.

She touts a woman who greets her man with a kiss, tends to the kids without complaint, and does not challenge his ideas.

Does she really say that mothers should never complain to their husbands about tending to the kids nor challenge his ideas? I never got that impression, and I listen much more than this blogger.

On to her newest book, titled "In Praise of Stay at Home Moms". I think it's a little misleading. It should read, "Outright Bashing Working Moms and their Life Choices". Now, I will not claim to have read the book.

But you do know how it should be titled, eh?

But from the quotes, I can see that she's still touting her 1950's agenda.

Yes, you see, parents rasing their own kids and having roles is something that should be relegated to the past and only took place in the 1950s.

She goes on to criticize comments made by "SAHMs" on the blog entry on which she is basing her reaction.

Some of these ladies bring God into it (which I don't find relevant in a society where we all have a different idea of God.

What if we do? So what? We all have a different idea of lots of things – right and wrong, law, fairness, etc. - doesn't mean we can't invoke them.

Really, now, if you want to make an argument, you'll need to come to the table with more than that).

What is more than God? And what if they are only appealing to other theists? Very few people claim to be atheists. So appealing to God is actually a very good idea.

Others bring in the economy (which not everyone seems to have a grip on how it really works).

You mean – like living within your means, including planning, saving, and insuring – will allow a family to get by on one income while the kids are too young for school?

And a few just bring in their own personal preference (good for them for sticking up for their ideals).

I see – so it is good for them if it is something they personally prefer... unless their person preference involves devotion to God.

Oh, and please don't feel sorry for my son for going to daycare (a quote from the good Dr, "My heart hurts for what these women miss and what their children miss from them."). He's a happy little kid.

When I was a kid, my best friend was killed in an accident. I'm a happy guy. Does that mean it was a good thing that my friend was killed in an accident? Your kid is probably very aware of your feelings, and doesn't want to upset you. However, he probably would have preferred his mother's care over that of a stranger.

Then there's this blog entry, where the writer is "outraged" at Dr. Laura. As it turns out, though, it seems to be a lot of strawmen that are upsetting her. Notice her use of "no" and "all", when Dr. Laura does not say things that way. And, there's the usual "what about dads staying home" question, and the charge that Dr. Laura didn't stay home for her son.

Sheesh. Is there anyone blogging out there challenging Dr. Laura on things she has actually said or written? Why do so many bash her for NOT saying something, when in actuality, she has said it but they just haven't heard her say it? And if praising SAHMs is an automatic trashing of other women, then I guess we can't ever offer praise for just about anything, but someone will always be left out.

More Reaction to Dr. Laura's Book Publicity

Wow. I am so blessed to have the wife that I do, who is my girlfriend and who is my daughter's mom and the Queen of our home. I am reminded of that simply by looking around for more reaction to Dr. Laura's media appearances promoting her latest book. My previous post on this is here. But now there's more.

http://becki325.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/this-can-not-be-real/
Prompted by a posting on WSJ's "The Juggle" "becki" checks in.

She finds some of Dr. Laura's comments "disturbing", even after waiting a week to post about she was so "riled up":

"When your husband comes home, wrap your body around him at the door and look at his eyes. What people need to learn is that it's not about the drudgery of housework — it's about being at home for all of those incredible moments that make your life more valuable than the person who replaced you at work."

This is not even worth a comment, but COME ON. If you are home all day with the kids, I am sure your disposition will not be ammenable to the above statement.

I don’t get it. When I come home, my wife cheers, wraps her body around me at the door, and looks into my eyes, tells me how much she missed me, and kisses me. So, is the housework at our place magically easier, taking care of our child magically easier, am I some sort of supernaturally hunky dude, or is my wife Supermom? Which is it?

"For everything in life, you have to make a priority list. This must be done. If we truly believe in something and cherish it, we find a way to make it happen. Women go from making seven-figure salaries to staying at home, and things just start to be less important."

Right, so I guess paying the mortgage becomes "less important".

Yes, that's what Dr. Laura says. Don't pay your mortgage.

No, actually, she advises people not buy things (or take out loans) that they can't afford. Or do downsize. You can't afford it if it keeps you from raising your own kids, because it costs you a lot more than money.

And hey, what about those of us who WANT to work because we LIKE OUR JOBS? What would Dr. Laura say to that?

From what I know from listening to/reading her, it would be that you should go ahead and work, if you enjoy that more than raising kids. But don't have kids if you're not going to raise them or have a husband who can raise them. You can't raise them if you aren't with them.

Yes, you have choices to make. Choices mean picking some things and not others. I can want both "A" and "non-A", but I can't have both at the same time in the same way.

Over at second blog from someone else who is also "riled up", we get this:

"I recommend that during the first three years, the mom should be at home because all of the research shows that the person whose body you come out of and whose breast you suck at, at that stage, really needs to be the mom - unless she's incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. After that, flip a coin."

First of all, let me say that I am so so so thankful that I have wonderful family and friends who are generous, kind, loving, good examples and caretakers for my daughter.

That shouldn't be their responsibility. They should take care of any kids they have. Once their kids are grown, they have done their part in that area.

I do not worry about her care because I know she is in a loving environment.

Better than a day orphanage, to be sure.

I really hope you are not calling me incompetent, irrelevant or immaterial since I'm not home with my child right now.

Read again. She's saying that your daughter is better off with you unless you are incompetent. She didn't say you are incompetent.

You think that all mommies should stay home

Not true. She thinks mothers should raise their own kids (or have a husband who does it) and make her husband and child(ren) her priority. If a mom can work and still 1) make sure that her child is with her or her husband; 2) see to it that the home is taken care of – either by her husband or hired help if not herself; and 3) be a good wife to her husband, then that works. Use some imagination.

and from what I get of the story (could be wrong), I'm missing out?

Yes, you are. I know I'm missing out when I'm away from my child.

Guess I should have gone on to get my PhD (and gone into debt for more schooling, but I digress) to fully let myself know what I was missing.

If this is a reference to what Dr. Laura did – she raised her own son.

You think I don't know I'm missing out? You think I take this lightly? You think I don't cry at work, in the car, and at home sometimes?

She doesn't say that. You might have mistakenly believed you haven't had a choice in the matter – that is what she's been telling women. And her book is about praising mothers who raise their own children. That's it.

In apparent agony, the blogger goes on to credit God with having her away from her kid - twice. It's very sad. She also goes on to call on Dr. Laura to do something about the mythical "pay inequality" and housing prices.

"Tina" chimed in on her blog.

She praised "SAHMs" but then goes on to write...

Seriously, I know that I could not do it. I can BARELY survive the weekend with my children. Poor Dr. Laura would probably shake her head at the selfishness of me. But honestly, it's not that I can't stay home with my kids. I don't want to. I truly don't believe that I would offer my kids the best version of me if I was at home all the time.

Sad. What if your husband were to say the same thing about spending every night with you? Nevertheless, if it is true, then how about having your husband home raising the kids?

Honestly, I know a SAHM who seriously barely smiles. She never has ANYTHING good to say about being at home. I never knew her to be a working woman necessarily but she pretty much seems miserable. She complains about all the things that are supposedly so fulfilling about being a SAHM.

I could say the same thing about some husbands I know being with their wives. Does that mean that marriage can't be happy?

Is she so happy because she is a SAHM?

Sounds like a miserable person who shouldn't have had kids to begin with. Still, she can choose to be happy.

There is incredible value offered to children who have Moms who stay at home to be their Moms full time. However, there is incredible value for these kids whose Moms choose to work.

Hmmm, I wonder if husbands could try that on their wives? "Honey, there's value in me consistently doing something other than being around you, so you can find someone else to talk with or to take out the trash." If you married a jerk, maybe you'd be happy with that. But if your husband is a decent person, you want him there. Your kids want their parents.

Over at "Mama Candy! For single mama overachieving chicks!", touting itself as "A place to go when you want to talk about everything FABULOUS from smashing open the corporate glass ceiling,to single parenting and life after ex.", we get more fodder.

So first of all, Dr. Laura can SUCK IT!

Great way to start analysis. The language gets worse. Maybe her kids are better off with strangers.

She's been pretty much anti-single mother as long as I've know of her existence, and she has now released a new book strongly urging all mothers to stay at home.

Wrong. It simply praises "SAHMs" and gives tips on being or becoming one. She doesn't say ALL mothers should stay at home. I've never heard her say she is against single mothers. She's against making babies out of wedlock with the wrong man, or driving the right man away after making babies with him, or deliberately conceiving a child who will not have a father raising him. She encourages pregnant women who will not have a husband in the picture to give the baby up for adoption.

Um, hate to break it to ya, I DON'T HAVE A HUSBAND!

And who chose to make a baby with the wrong man?

The blogger then goes on to reprint a news item from two years ago saying Dr. Laura's adult son was being investigated by his employer. Not sure what that has to do with Dr. Laura praising SAHMs. But the blogger tries to make a connection...

Gee, guess staying at home didn't help your kid after all, now did it?

Where does she say that people raised by SAHMs will never ever make mistakes? She doesn't. But study after study does show that children raised without a father are more likely to cause trouble and get into trouble. And, last I checked, her son is still with that employer. Regardless, what Dr. Laura is teaching in this area is true, regardless of any mistakes she or any other member of her family has or hasn't made.

Finally, she goes on to mock Dr. Laura's doctorate. So predictable.

I noticed something in surveying the anti-Dr. Laura bloggers (I have not linked to all of them). Some of them stated that they praise their own mothers for having been SAHMs and think SAHMs are great. That's exactly what Dr. Laura’s book is about. Yet the bloggers go on to either defend their choices not to give their own children that gift, or claim they don't have a choice.

In general, much of the criticism I found out there about Dr. Laura or her advice to women is made as though they are unaware that Dr. Laura also advises men to be dedicated husbands and fathers, to live up to their obligations, to put their family first, etc. For example, she does tell male callers that there are some hobbies or some jobs or some dreams of theirs that they have to either abandon to set aside for now, because they have a wife and kids.

Clearly, her advice is first and foremost concerned with the well being of children. That's a good thing, even when it means adults have to set aside some of the things they want.

SAHMs, Dr. Laura, and the Today Show

As was entirely predictable, Dr. Laura's appearance on the Today Show this morning has already prompted fits in the blogosphere. She's promoting her new book, which simply praises "stay at home" moms. But of course, she's not a perfect person, so other imperfect people can automatically ignore the merits of her statements as they blog away by citing some past mess-up on her part. There are some people out there who actually deal with the substance of her statements. You can find one here, and I left a comment.

Over at the Pursuit of Harpyness, there is an extensive analysis (and some vicious reader comments), but I wanted to deal with a few statements here. My analysis is based on what I have heard and read from Dr. Laura – I can’t actually speak for her, of course.

There it is again, the old trope that working mother = neglectful mother. Obviously if you worked and did not neglect your child, then logic dictates that other women can do the same thing.

Yes, that's true. Dr. Laura does say it is possible for women to earn income in some way and still give their child the attention they need. This is not in conflict with her ideal, however, that a husband earn the income, a mother tend to the young'uns as the pimary caretaker, and that through that division of labor, the children will get time with both parents and the husband and wife will have enough time and energy for each other.

You can't do something if you are not there. In Dr. Laura's case, she worked in a capacity where she could have her son with her.

Part of a marriage! I see! So single moms need not apply to your hallowed world filled with SAHMs? Because it’s kind of hard to leave the workplace if you don’t have a partner with their own income.

And who chose to make a baby without a committed and capable man? You see, Dr. Laura's encouraging of mothering does not come in a vacuum. She also advises that women save babymaking for marriage, that they choose their husband wisely, and that men not propose marriage until they are financially able to take care of a wife and any kids they want to have. That includes earning enough to save, invest, and insure – in case the husband gets killed by a robber (who are more likely to be guys raised without their own father). Choosing wisely and treating kindly, as Dr. Laura advises, greatly reduces the chances of divorce. Even so, there is something called... alimony and child support. And I strongly recommend pre-nups to make sure that the person who puts a career on hold will be provided for in the event the other person leaves.

And those gay folk? They can get married in a few places, but my guess is Schlessinger wouldn’t be in favor of any lesbian SAHMs.

Whether two women or two men can get a marriage license or not, she advises that children should have both a mother and a father (you know, the kind of coupling it takes to conceive a child in the first place), living together in a peaceful, stable marriage. A homosexual man can be a great person, but he can't be a mother, even with another homosexual man.

Underpinning all of this is this assumption that men are always the principal breadwinner,

Most women marry men who earn more than they do, and want him to continue to do so. Many of these women do not respect a husband who doesn't.

and that he has enough of an income that the wife doesn't need to take a job,

Yes, you see getting married and conceiving children are almost always voluntary actions, and Dr. Laura advises men to only marry and make babies if they are capable of providing financially.

never mind whether or not she wants one.

We all have choices to make. A man who wants a career that will keep him on the move from city to city and working 6-7 days a week, 14 hours a day, should not get married and have kids. If a woman wants a career and children, unless it is the kind of career where she can have her kids with her and interacting with her, she should be willing to let her husband stay home and still be able to respect him.

Why bother having kids if you are going to have strangers raise them? It's not like we are living in the days where you had them so you could have help on your farm. It's not like we don't have many contraceptive options, including tubal ligation.

From what I can tell, Dr. Laura esteems the ability of women to mother and the importance of her doing so more than a lot of other women in media today. It is a shame so many women think they are easily replaceable as caregivers to their own children.