<p>
Good point. He is MINE, MINE, MINE.</p>
<p>I was just agreeing with you, alh.</p>
<p>Romani, good to hear from you on this. thanks for your thoughts.</p>
<p>well - parenting is full-time even if it isn’t full-time hands on. I need to remember that, especially with my DIL’s mother.</p>
<p>Gah. I didn’t mean to delete half of my post. Editing on my phone is impossible. I’ll repost later lol.</p>
<p>When you have time, please tell us what your class thought about the Slaughter article.</p>
<p>Basically, I could only have children if I had a SAH partner. I don’t have any interest in being a primary caregiver. I’m not worried as much about finances as my children feeling neglected. Luckily, I’ve found a partner who wants nothing more than to be a stay at home father. </p>
<p>I don’t find babies cute or enjoyable. I’m too impatient.</p>
<p>yes, please do. I’d be interested to hear, Romani. Also, if the guys had any opinions.</p>
<p>Alh, will do! There are only six of us, including the prof, so we had a good discussion. No guys in the class though :(</p>
<p>What are some examples of societies that “value motherhood?” I recall that prior to and during WWII, Italy made motherhood a national asset–women who had huge families received medals. Russia and Germany also “prized” motherhood.</p>
<p>What are the indicia of a society that values motherhood? Is it strict laws discouraging abortion? Is it laws providing free pre amd post natal care? Is it government mandated/subsidized child care? Do these efforts work in raising the birth rate per female?</p>
<p>[Family</a> Policy in the US, Japan, Germany, Italy and France: Parental Leave, Child Benefits/Family Allowances, Child Care, Marriage/Cohabitation, and Divorce | Work-Family](<a href=“http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/work-family/fampolicy.html]Family”>http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/work-family/fampolicy.html)</p>
<p>here’s an interesting study 07.</p>
<p>I don’t think there has ever been a society that “valued motherhood” in the way we are discussing here. For that to happen I think we’d have to have a matriarchy rather than a patriarchy. I don’t think that ever existed, though some have tried to prove it. When women control their reproduction and have access to education and law making, I think a matriarchy becomes a possibility.</p>
<p>Maybe all those ivy educated women will create us a matriarchy:)</p>
<p>Or maybe just equality? I’m not sure how “equal” we can ever get when one sex probably is going to have to bear the children. We could, however, talk science fiction which may be getting kind of close to reality.</p>
<p>This quote from the article struck me hard:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here on CC, of course this hits hard, because the question of “is it worth it?” is what most gets our collective dander up. The author wasn’t referring to college, or not “just” to college. This was about being able to afford the very best of everything. Clothing, housing, entertainment, environment. And that’s never ever been something that the spouse and I worried or obsessed about. </p>
<p>In some cases my kids have had “the very best”, or close enough. There have been some medical and educational issues where we could afford to pull out all stops. If they wanted to learn an instrument, go to synagogue youth group activities, go to summer camp, they got those opportunities. There were certainly other things that we skimped on. </p>
<p>I wonder if the writer was raised in those same kind of comfortable circumstances. The spouse and I both grew up in households where money was tighter. Maybe my kids will feel like the writer does, that they have to be able to afford to give their kids “everything”. I should ask them what they think, though I already know that D1 has said she wants to be able to afford to give any hypothetical children a great education (meaning private school all the way through).</p>
<p>poetgrl–thanks</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2010/mar/10032405[/url]”>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2010/mar/10032405</a></p>
<p>I still wonder how much an impact family policy has on the opt-in or opt-out decision.</p>
<p>I don’t think we will reach a point where stay-home parenthood is considered a valued profession so long as societies expect and encourage both parents to work. Subsidizing child-care and parental leave is nice, but it operates on the assumption that both parents will continue to work. As long as working is valued over staying at home, “motherhood” itself will be seen as an inconvenience.</p>
<p>I personally would like to see every family that includes children have one parent stay at home, and believe me, I didn’t always think this way - I was just like TatinG and romani in my younger days. I think this would solve a lot of societal issues, including a lack of jobs, but I don’t want this to turn into a political discussion. I also acknowledge that my vision is utopian and impossible because so many families nowadays consist of only one parent.</p>
<p>Bay… I want a SAH partner.</p>
<p>Bay - Do you mean it should be possible for one parent to stay home? Or do you mean it should be expected? Because I think there are lots of excellent parents who both want to work outside the home, and there are lots of excellent childcare workers making that choice possible. This is all so much easier when you have money to pay for the excellent childcare.</p>
<p>I think we need to rethink careers in general. I don’t think it’s healthy for anyone to be working 60 hour weeks. My dh isn’t even that well paid (University professor) and since his salary depends on grants (currently one grant away from the fiscal cliff) he basically works all the time. He goes to the gym 3 times a week, he does the NYT crossword puzzle 3 times a week, he watches at most 4 hours of TV a week. Except for Saturday night he is always reading grants, writing grants, reading papers, or writing papers. Even at the gym he reads scientific papers on the elliptical. I drag him away on vacation if I am lucky for about 3 weeks spread out during the year. Most 3 day weekends he goes to the lab on Monday. It shouldn’t be so hard to be a scientist. The only reason our household works is that I mostly worked part time and for a large part of the kids’ childhood also worked at home.</p>
<p>I was never that fond of babies though I’ve always liked toddlers. I woke up one day at 32 and I was ready for a baby. I adored my babies and liked them even better when they started talking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[As</a> bad economy lingers, prospects of an echo baby boom weaken ? USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-25/low-US-birthrate-economy/56488980/1]As”>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-25/low-US-birthrate-economy/56488980/1)</p>
<p>romani,
Yes, sorry, I understood that. I meant I used to be like you in the sense that I thought there was no way I could be a stay-home parent.</p>
<p>That is fascinating to think about, 07DAD, in conjunction with your link that says generous social policies don’t increase birth rates. Worldwide, are women just not that into it any more? Are only affluent women going to reproduce?</p>
<p>Are you against these social policies? Merely see them as useless? Have no particular view?</p>
<p>I feel fairly certain in this country there are young women who feel they can’t afford a baby.</p>