ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, April 13, 2012

"Never worked a day in her life"

James Taranto correctly excoriates the feminist philosophy that served as the foundation for Hilary Rosen's epically stupid attack on Ann Romney:
In truth, anti-momism was the very heart of "The Feminine Mystique." Friedan's argument was that motherhood and homemaking were soul-deadening occupations and that pursuing a professional career was the way for a woman to "become complete." She agreed with the midcentury misogynists that a stay-at-home mother was, in Friedan's words, "castrative to her husband and sons." But she emphasized that women were "fellow victims."

The book might as well have been titled "Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?" Today, of course, she can, and because feminism has entailed a diminution of male responsibility, she often has no choice. As we've noted, an increasing number of women are choosing domestic life, finding it a liberating alternative to working for a boss. But to do so requires a husband with considerable means.

Fifty years ago, Ann Romney's life would have made her just a regular woman. Today, she is a countercultural figure--someone who lives in a way that the dominant culture regards with a hostile disdain. And she has chosen to live that way, which is why Hilary Rosen, as an intellectual heiress to Betty Friedan, regards her as a villain rather than a victim.
Taranto also points out something that I consider vital. He effectively draws the distinction between Romney's accomplishments and Rosen's: "Raising children is a lot of work, and we'd venture to say it's more valuable work than, say, lobbying for the music industry or helping BP with its crisis communications, to name two of the highlights of Rosen's career."

I'll go even farther. Bearing and raising children is far more important than anything any working woman has ever done in her professional career in the entire history of Mankind. The silly, short-sighted, white trash teen mothers on MTV are contributing more to the human race than the most intelligent, highly educated, and accomplished women have ever done for it.

If a woman wants to devote sixteen or more years of her life to "education", then follow it up by sitting in a cubicle and transferring information from point A to point B, that's her legal right. But it's not doing anything for the human race, and indeed, considering the economically negative effects of the government agencies and human resources departments where women are inordinately employed, economic irrelevance is probably the best case scenario.

Linda Hirschman once claimed: "“The tasks of housekeeping and child-rearing are not worthy of the full time and talents of intelligent and educated human beings.”

But she had it wrong. She had it completely backwards, because there is absolutely nothing a woman, however educated and intelligent, can do that is more important or more vital than raising children. And while home-making not the physical equivalent of working in a coal mine, it is at least as laborious as most white collar employment. I have no affection for Captain Underoos and if he wins in November I think he will probably be even worse than Obama has been. But it is as evil as it is stupid to attack his wife for doing the one thing that the human race absolutely requires for its survival.

Labels: ,

120 Comments:

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler April 13, 2012 9:42 AM  

What do Hirchman, Rosen and Friedan all have in common?

It is Marxist ideology to empower and free women from Patriarchy. As was stated over at VFR by Lawerence Auster:
“What possible basis in fact and law is there for a charge of second degree murder against George Zimmerman? And since there is none, how can this prosecution go forward?” Then I answered my own question: “There doesn’t have to be any factual basis for the charge, because this case has nothing to do with facts. It is a raw act of power by a Communist-style ideological regime isolating and punishing an ideological enemy—or rather an innocent unfortunate whom the regime for its own purposes has cast as an ideological enemy. That is what America has now become. We have become a leftist, ideological state, and there is no serious force in the society to oppose the ruling leftism.”

America has become a Leftist Ideological State. This was pointed out by Fr. Hardon, S.J. back in the 1970s and by the John Birch Society. With the total disregard for the rule of law in the eligibility requirements for President, he is not natural born, America has ceased to be a place with the Rule of Law. It is now Rule by Ideology; an ideology of Marxism because what has been noted, all our political departments, law departments, political establishments, media are all controled by a foreign hostile race.

Anonymous stg58 April 13, 2012 9:43 AM  

My mom homeschooled four boys. I wonder if Hilary Rosen would consider that to be work. It sure seems like my wife is working raising two pint size tasmanian devils. I can barely nap through the screaming! (Jim Gaffigan bump)

Anonymous Cryan Ryan April 13, 2012 9:45 AM  

Amen, Vox.

When my first grandaughter (S) finished high school, she started dating a nice young fella who had a good work ethic and good potential.

S heard from several female family members that she should pursue education etc etc...

I was the only one in her world who told her your place in this world is to be a good mother and see to it that your children have a safe place to grow up.

She worked for a year or two wiping asses at a nursing home and decided maybe I was right. She's now married to the fella and they are having their first baby in a couple weeks.

Speak up, men. Sometimes you will be the only one speaking up.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 9:58 AM  

The choice is there for women to be either mothers or workers in a work force and that is what they wanted, the choice.
Anyone the chooses to stay home and is able to without being a drain on a society that can't afford it, is exercising her choice, period.
The world economy has made it so that very few families can do with just one salary and we are all the more poor for it but we must do the best we can under the conditions we live in and the real issue is to PRIORITIZE our children, NOT our "careers" or some misguided sense of "identity" or "self-worth" based on what SOMEONE else things it should be.
That goes for FATHERS AND MOTHERS.

Anonymous raggededge April 13, 2012 10:03 AM  

As we've noted, an increasing number of women are choosing domestic life, finding it a liberating alternative to working for a boss. But to do so requires a husband with considerable means

Bullcrap. You need the ability to live within your means whatever those means might be.

Anonymous Luke April 13, 2012 10:50 AM  

Paul S. is wrong and raggededge is correct.

Quoting Paul S. from above:

"The world economy has made it so that very few families can do with just one salary..."

Fah. With all the money that goes out for tobacco, beverage ethanol, cable/satellite TV, spectator sports, movie theater tickets, pointless pets, collections, romance novels, worthless magazines, restaurant meals, driving short distances in good weather, second cars, ATVS, snowmobiles, restaurant meals, vending machines, contributions to "causes", housing/vehicles more expensive than otherwise plausibly available, etc., I believe that for most people, it's just a matter of priorities. I have a job that only a B.S. is required to do at even the higher-end companies that do what I do, and I earn 3x what my wife makes in a fairly decent (relative to such work) pink-collar job. And, our tax person told us tha the effect of her working is mainly to put us into the next higher tax bracket, largely wiping out her job's take-home. She's quitting her job to homeschool our kids (first one arriving soon). We'll eat more healthily then, too.

Anonymous Orlock April 13, 2012 10:54 AM  

Luke- a very astute rebuttal sir, well said.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 13, 2012 10:54 AM  

Does this chick honestly think a career mother could have raised the 20 kids the Romney's had? This is why populations are on the decline: there is no time for more than 2 kids in homes with working parents.

Stay-at-home moms ensure a larger population, which has become a serious problem for the West these days. It also motivates men to strive to succeed more at their own careers and do better things with their own lives.

Well, that's the theory anyway. I could be wrong, given sufficient evidence. And unlike scientists, if my theory is wrong, I'll admit it.

Anonymous The other skeptic April 13, 2012 10:56 AM  

And it seems that there are fewer of us in the workforce providing for people these days.

The end seems closer and closer ...

Anonymous Peter April 13, 2012 11:07 AM  

We've got a huge number of children from infancy onwards growing up basically being raised by hired strangers since both parents are too busy working. It's a large scale social experiment being carried out at present right in front of us. I wonder what the results of all this will be further down the road? I see the groups of pre-schoolers all being lead around, holding onto a rope and wearing the same color vests, looking to me like little chain-gangs.

Anonymous dB April 13, 2012 11:13 AM  

In today's world, a SAHM raising children is just not honorable. But apparently, paying a daycare worker $9-10 per hour is honorable. Thanks to this d-bag that is Hilary Rosen, she highlights a person that has not grasped that actions have consequences. Because after all, working the corporate ladder is just so much more important than raising the next generation of children.

Blogger Professor Hale April 13, 2012 11:17 AM  

Staying home to raise your own children isn't a career. But getting a degree in child development or education and raising someone else's kids is. Amazing.

Anonymous BillB April 13, 2012 11:17 AM  

Yes! Yes! Yes! Vox!!!!

Nothing exists for us BUT our children. Everything we might do, everything we might accomplish pales in comparison to continuing the human race and ourselves.

But then I feel blessed when I look at many of my professor peers who have no children, knowing that their attitudes and genes have been safely removed from the gene pool. Thank you God for allowing their selfishness to eliminate them.

Anonymous Redneck Joe April 13, 2012 11:26 AM  

A few years ago I was vaguely annoyed by career women (of the powerpoint/shoulder pad variety - not nurses and such) and thought they were just a bit misguided and short sighted. The more I see, the more it has become a searing hatred that would make it impossible to have anything to do with one of them. I don't understand men who date and marry them. Shunning could easily end this problem. It is amazing how quick and effective the propaganda has been in breaking men down to mindlessly and obediently cooperate in this march to destruction, at least in the metropolitan areas.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 11:26 AM  

Luke said:
QUOTE:
Paul S. is wrong and raggededge is correct.

Quoting Paul S. from above:

"The world economy has made it so that very few families can do with just one salary..."

Fah. With all the money that goes out for tobacco, beverage ethanol, cable/satellite TV, spectator sports, movie theater tickets, pointless pets, collections, romance novels, worthless magazines, restaurant meals, driving short distances in good weather, second cars, ATVS, snowmobiles, restaurant meals, vending machines, contributions to "causes", housing/vehicles more expensive than otherwise plausibly available, etc., I believe that for most people, it's just a matter of priorities. I have a job that only a B.S. is required to do at even the higher-end companies that do what I do, and I earn 3x what my wife makes in a fairly decent (relative to such work) pink-collar job. And, our tax person told us tha the effect of her working is mainly to put us into the next higher tax bracket, largely wiping out her job's take-home. She's quitting her job to homeschool our kids (first one arriving soon). We'll eat more healthily then, too."

You have a valid point.
Of course YOUR mileage may vary from mine and so many others make your point incorrect, but still a valid one.

The home we have for us and our two children could quite POSSIBLY be maintained by my income alone, of course that would me certain sacrifices in our children's future and ours and also my ability to take care of those that need me also ( family responsibilities).
In short, what may work for one, may not work for another.
Walking in an others shoes and all that...

Like I said Luke you have a valid point, just not one that can apply to ALL people/couples/families.

Anonymous Donna Reed April 13, 2012 11:28 AM  

What doesn't make sense is that today, women/girls want to "be somebody" when they grow up. What do many girls pick up from the first few years of their lives? A dolly. A dolly that can be fed and cleaned up after, a dolly that can talk and be taught to walk. Then, when the modern world gets a hold of her, she decides that she needs to work for a boss, meaning, work under someone by being told what to do, when to do it. What happens then? She becomes upset and angry because she wants to be free to make her own decisions. She wants to spread her wings, travel and make enough money to do what she wants. Maybe, just maybe, she will want children "one day." But while she is at school and/or work, she is looking for her future husband. So, to me, naturally a female wants to be at home, take care of her family and raise children. In that world, it becomes her world, it becomes completely a world she can control. The only complaints would come from a man that would rather sit around all day. These Hillaries don't stand a chance. What do they have to look back on? Not much and that was my problem with working. I can work for 60 years in a lit up office, breathing in gasoline every morning, noon and evening when I step outside to go to work, to lunch and home and wonder where all my years went or I can listen to my kids talk to their children about how much laughter we had when they were growing up, I can share stories and remember when they started walking, what their first word was instead of saying, "I don't know. They were raised by someone else while I worked."

I often wish there were more stories from ancestors, perhaps a diary telling of days gone by in a life we don't know any longer. What we do have are stories passed on from one another about my great grandmother or great aunt staying home with her kids with my mom visiting and how much fun it was. I have yet to hear a story that started with, "My great so-and-so worked all the time so we never really knew her." Actually, the only two that I can say would have these stories are from a great aunt that was in the military for many years and another great aunt that lost her husband in WWII and raised two kids on her own either working or used whatever funds that were given to her due to her husband's death.

Anonymous raggededge April 13, 2012 11:33 AM  

Paul Sacramento: Like I said Luke you have a valid point, just not one that can apply to ALL people/couples/families.

Again, bullcrap. You are choosing not to live within the means necessary to have your wife stay at home with your children. You could chose to do so, instead you don't.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza April 13, 2012 11:41 AM  

Being a good wife and mother is our calling, its our life work. It is an honor and a joy.

Desk jockeying is a complete joke...

(I wish I were back to work though seeing that I'm single and my family needs the help. Without children to care for, the usual cooking and cleaning after 5 to 7 people is doable, it just depends.)

Anonymous debbs April 13, 2012 11:43 AM  

Luke said "....We'll eat more healthily then, too."

You certainly can and probably at less expense. I was surprised to learn that I feed my family for below the 'Thrifty Plan' according to the USDA. And, the more my family focuses on nutrition, the less we spend!

Recent USDA Food Plans

Anonymous Outlaw X April 13, 2012 11:46 AM  

Bah! We need more people to to take in the homeless cats. No one ever thinks about the cats.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 11:47 AM  

raggededge said:
Again, bullcrap. You are choosing not to live within the means necessary to have your wife stay at home with your children. You could chose to do so, instead you don't.

True, it would involve not being able to take care of my mom or dad that has ALS, but it could be done.
Buts since I have a responsibility to ALL my family, I have to make the right choice for ALL.
Yet, both my wife and I make sure that we spend as much time as possible with our kids.
They are our number 1 priority and have been from the moment they came into our lives.
My wife has been a godsent in going above and beyond for our family.

To make a comment like you made, though I am sure it was with the best intentions, goes to show how we MUST NOT decide what others should/can do base don what we THINK and not what we KNOW.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza April 13, 2012 11:47 AM  

I have long said we need a return to the patriarchy for the survival of society. Children need their mothers - at home, hopefully homeschooling. The further the family is away from the state, the healthier the family will be.

Blogger The Aardvark April 13, 2012 11:56 AM  

At least one person suggests a link between autism and not being raised by Mommy.

http://cogprints.org/3747/1/Autism-Statistical.html

This has likely been roundly ignored because it gives a hint of a possibility that maybe some women could have culpability because of their choices.

I know. Crazy, right?

Anonymous Suomynona April 13, 2012 11:58 AM  

Leftists are viciously, shamelessly anti-family: Student mural at Pilgrim High School was deemed inappropriate and painted over because it depicted a man holding the hand of a woman and child.

Anonymous raggededge April 13, 2012 12:00 PM  

Paul Sacramento: To make a comment like you made, though I am sure it was with the best intentions, goes to show how we MUST NOT decide what others should/can do base don what we THINK and not what we KNOW.

I'm not deciding anything for you, I could honestly give a crap what you do. I'm just pointing out that it is your CHOSE that your wife is not a SAHM. You bleating on about your other responsibilities doesn't change that in any way shape or form.

OpenID Kevin April 13, 2012 12:01 PM  

Peter said: "I see the groups of pre-schoolers all being lead around, holding onto a rope and wearing the same color vests, looking to me like little chain-gangs."

Dude, I had that same experience. I came round the corner at work to see a little group of day-care kids (we have one in house) all chained...um, roped together, and my heart absolutely broke. I quickly fired off a text to my wife about how proud I was that she stayed home with our kids. Almost 20 years of marriage later, I'm not sorry in the least for that.

Blogger Nate April 13, 2012 12:08 PM  

bah. Kids are better off with BOTH parents around a lot. Organize your life in such a fashion that both of you are home and with them most of the day.

Anonymous SouthTX April 13, 2012 12:08 PM  

I may not care for Mitt for pres. I have voted for Ron Paul since 88. But my hat off for her staying at home. Five boys? I bet cleaning up was a nightmare.

Anonymous raggededge April 13, 2012 12:10 PM  

Nate: bah. Kids are better off with BOTH parents around a lot. Organize your life in such a fashion that both of you are home and with them most of the day.

Number 1 reason to own a family business.

Blogger Spacebunny April 13, 2012 12:14 PM  

Paul Sacremento says

The home we have for us...

Yes, the home you have chosen to live in - it is a choice you made and want to pretend that it isn't. There are homeschoolers with 8+ kids who can afford for their wives to stay home (and some of them have special needs children so you're nattering on about your father's health is irrelevant), the fact that your wife doesn't is because of choices you have made, not society at larges fault, so stop pretending it is.

Anonymous rycamor April 13, 2012 12:15 PM  

debbs April 13, 2012 11:43 AM

Luke said "....We'll eat more healthily then, too."

You certainly can and probably at less expense. I was surprised to learn that I feed my family for below the 'Thrifty Plan' according to the USDA. And, the more my family focuses on nutrition, the less we spend!

Recent USDA Food Plans


I find the USDA somewhat suspect regarding health and nutrition. While prepackaged factory food is still fairly cheap, lots of the most nutritious produce is getting more expensive. Living in central Florida, an avocado can cost me as much as $4! Ditto for a single red pepper. Nuts are also ridiculously expensive these days.

I recommend anyone serious about nutrition to start learning about gardening, especially small-footprint bio-intensive gardening. It's amazing how much produce you can make with just a few square feet. Lots of herbs and leafy greens can grow in as little as 3-4" of soil.

If you have enough space for a few chickens to scratch around your yard, that's another great thing to consider. My family has not bought an egg from the supermarket in almost 3 years. Free-range chicken eggs are much better for you than the typical mass-produced ones in the store. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a lot you can do to maximize nutrition. Just don't leave it to the government "experts".

Anonymous rycamor April 13, 2012 12:16 PM  

Nate April 13, 2012 12:08 PM

bah. Kids are better off with BOTH parents around a lot. Organize your life in such a fashion that both of you are home and with them most of the day.


That's how Casa Rycamor rolls. It really is the better (and more historical) way to do things, if possible.

Blogger Baloo April 13, 2012 12:20 PM  

This is the best post on the net on the subject. I've linked to it and commented on it here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/04/feminism-makes-you-stupid.html

Anonymous debbs April 13, 2012 12:26 PM  

Paul S is correct in that there are circumstances where mom needs to work away from the home all day, though I see too many cases where that need is more associated with materialism than with survival. Given that in today's culture, mom working out of the home is viewed as the more desirable option, often times 'survival' is used as an excuse to allay the guilt. In reality, most families can be happy and healthy with less stuff.

With that in mind, ideally dad is home as much as possible with the children too so that they can learn alongside him also. Maybe figuring out balance of outside and at home work for both parents is just as important as who works outside the home and who doesn't?

Anonymous willneverpostagain April 13, 2012 12:29 PM  

I came from a family of ten children, and grew up in the 60s and 70s, when families of that size, particularly of Catholic background, were not uncommon. I shared a bedroom with 4 brothers. My Mom stayed at home, while Dad worked two jobs, and had a business on the side, which I helped quite a bit. Dad paid me to help, and I always had money. The memories from my childhood are something I wouldn't trade for any amount of money. In hindsight, they were great times. Mizz Rosen wants to take that away from children. Why does she hate them so?

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 12:37 PM  

SPacebunny said:

Yes, the home you have chosen to live in - it is a choice you made and want to pretend that it isn't. There are homeschoolers with 8+ kids who can afford for their wives to stay home (and some of them have special needs children so you're nattering on about your father's health is irrelevant), the fact that your wife doesn't is because of choices you have made, not society at larges fault, so stop pretending it is.

Where did I say it was societies fault?
I said the the economy of the world is such that it is not always possible for a one income family ( or something to that effect).
I know quite a few stay-at home moms and the amount of work the dads have to do to keep it so ( and the lack of father being home because of it) and that is their choice and I know a few that have quite a few kids ( and the support from our canadian government that helps them) and that is their choice.
I am simply saying that not all people do have the option to have the mothers stay at home and all the rude and condescending replies to that fact won't change it from being so.

Blogger harry12 April 13, 2012 12:40 PM  

As a FORMER Chicagoan, I effortlessly recognized the typical OT attack.

Also, I would like to point out that Illinois license plates are being made by two former governors.

Anonymous The Krispy Kreme April 13, 2012 12:42 PM  

What do Hirchman, Rosen and Friedan all have in common?

They are Jews who hate European-American Christian culture?

Anonymous rienzi April 13, 2012 12:42 PM  

What has to be heartening for Capt. Underoos and the stupid party is that the other guys seem to be afflicted with an almost unbelievable degree of suicidal hubris.

This was one of Zero's top communications advisers? One of their "experts" produced this George Armstrong Custer moment? How many more gaffes like this do they have in their quiver?

If this sort of thing continues, the elephants might be able to pull out a victory even if they run one of their normal, content-free, lurching, pointless campaigns

Anonymous HH April 13, 2012 12:50 PM  

When people here comment about the +/- of raising kids in a 1/2 income family I wish they would give some background on their person experiences ... that way we can judge what they say in a proper context.

for example -- this is a subject I have lots of experience with ... when my wife and I decided to have kids 25 years ago we decided she would stay home and I would work. We done that for last 25 years (4 kids) and I think it was the right decision. But I can say with 1000% certainty that it required lifestyle choices to make it work. It is not easy to raise a family on 1 salary .. it can be done, but I have never owned a new car (and I fix my old ones), I heat with wood, have a garden and vacation in a tent. I wouldn't trade my life for anyones but it hasn't always been easy financially.. but no one promises you an easy life... you make your choices and you deal -- thats what being a Man and a Father means...

Anonymous D2A April 13, 2012 12:56 PM  

Vox: "if he wins in November I think he will probably be even worse than Obama has been."


This is likely the dumbest thing you have ever declared.

You either have a insufficient view of how terrible Obama has been, and will be in a 2nd term (given lack of constraint), or a overly dramatic view of how terrible Romney will be.
I am not saying that Romney will be the 2nd coming of Reagan, but he will be considerably better than Obama!

Blogger Spacebunny April 13, 2012 12:58 PM  

Where did I say it was societies fault?

and then you follow it up with this?

I said the the economy of the world is such that it is not always possible for a one income family ( or something to that effect).

you answer your own question.

Anonymous raggededge April 13, 2012 12:59 PM  

HH: Ding, Ding, we have a winner...

Hey Paul S, your comment that, "I am simply saying that not all people do have the option to have the mothers stay at home and all the rude and condescending replies to that fact won't change it from being so." just got blown to hell. Everyone has the option to have Momma home with the kids, it just takes sacrifices in order to do it. I don't care if Daddy makes 40k a year, or 250k a year, choices need to be made.

Blogger Spacebunny April 13, 2012 1:02 PM  

I am simply saying that not all people do have the option to have the mothers stay at home and all the rude and condescending replies to that fact won't change it from being so.

This is true to a very limited extent. There are millions of families that claim they don't have the option, they do- they just choose, as you have done, not to exercise that option for generally selfish reasons and they deserve the condescension.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 1:15 PM  

Where did I say it was societies fault?

and then you follow it up with this?

I said the the economy of the world is such that it is not always possible for a one income family ( or something to that effect).

you answer your own question.

You confuse stating a fact with finding a fault.

Now are you saying that EVERY family in the WORLD can choose to have a stay at home mother and that this will work for them? they will be able to do this ?
Are you truly stating that you KNOW this to be an options for every family in the world?

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 1:16 PM  

Hey Paul S, your comment that, "I am simply saying that not all people do have the option to have the mothers stay at home and all the rude and condescending replies to that fact won't change it from being so." just got blown to hell. Everyone has the option to have Momma home with the kids, it just takes sacrifices in order to do it. I don't care if Daddy makes 40k a year, or 250k a year, choices need to be made.

EVERYONE in the world has that option? and its a viable one?
You know this to be a FACT how exactly?

Blogger Spacebunny April 13, 2012 1:22 PM  

Now are you saying that EVERY family in the WORLD can choose to have a stay at home mother and that this will work for them? they will be able to do this ?

I would ask you not to put words in my mouth (or anyone else's), dear. You don't seem smart enough to be able to infer anything correctly given your comments here.

Anonymous RINO April 13, 2012 1:22 PM  

This is likely the dumbest thing you have ever declared.

You either have a insufficient view of how terrible Obama has been, and will be in a 2nd term (given lack of constraint), or a overly dramatic view of how terrible Romney will be.
I am not saying that Romney will be the 2nd coming of Reagan, but he will be considerably better than Obama!


You must be new here. A lot of people are eagerly awaiting THE GREAT LIBERTARIAN SURVIVALIST WET DREAM like some sort of doomsday cult, and as Romney has actually proven he is competent at at least certain things he is likely to delay that event, if it is to happen at all.

Anonymous raggededge April 13, 2012 1:24 PM  

Paul Sacrament: EVERYONE in the world has that option? and its a viable one?
You know this to be a FACT how exactly?


Who gives a shit about EVERYONE in the world? We're talking about you and your choice of having your wife work. Our assistant pastor makes 42K a year. Him and his wife have 6 kids and she is a SAHM. Do they have to make choices so that she doesn't have to work? Of course. Just like you have made choices so that your wife cannot stay at home.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 1:27 PM  

Yes, it's a choice, but you are making it seem to be a selfish choice when that is not the case.
Unless I am reading you wrong but it seems to me that i s what you and others are implying.
Yes?

Anonymous raggededge April 13, 2012 1:30 PM  

From all of the excuses you have been spouting off in this thread, you know it's a selfish choice too.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 1:32 PM  

Hmmm, who's selfish choice?
Mine or my wives?

Anonymous raggededge April 13, 2012 1:36 PM  

Does it matter?

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 1:38 PM  

I don;'t think its fair for me to have you answer that question because you really don't know the background and as such, it is an unfair question to ask.
I used to work for IBM, good money too.
I quit to help my dad with is business, half the pay but my dad needed the help.
My wife and mom were SAHM's at the time ( my mom has always been).
My dad;s health got worse, recession caused them their house and they moved in with us and I incurred their debts.
My wife said she would go back to work to help take care of them and the bills and the debt.

What part of all this is selfish to you?

Anonymous raggededge April 13, 2012 1:41 PM  

What part of all this is selfish to you?

The part where your kids are getting the shaft because Momma is now spending less time with them. Harsh? Sure, but, dude, seriously, your troubles are nothing compared to others.

Anonymous JartStar April 13, 2012 1:42 PM  

A lot of people are eagerly awaiting THE GREAT LIBERTARIAN SURVIVALIST WET DREAM like some sort of doomsday cult, and as Romney has actually proven he is competent at at least certain things he is likely to delay that event, if it is to happen at all.

Actually the narrative is that Romney is so efficient that he will bring about TGLSWD all the faster as Obama is too lazy to become Supreme Dictator while setting off the EMP device in his second term.

Blogger Spacebunny April 13, 2012 1:43 PM  

Actually, I'd say the part where you sacrificed your family for your dad's failing business. You did it to make yourself feel good that you were helping out your dad - selfish, understandable, but still selfish.

Blogger SarahsDaughter April 13, 2012 1:43 PM  

“And then there’s the woman who once me advised me at the law firm in Chicago where we met. Once, uh, she gave me very good advice. That’s why I decided to marry her. And once Michelle and I had our girls, she gave it her all to balance raising a family and pursuing a career. And something that, could be very difficult on her, because I was gone a lot. Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling. And we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work. And I know when she was with the girls she’d feel guilty that she wasn’t giving enough time to her work, and when she was at work, she was feeling guilty she wasn’t giving enough time for the girls. And like many of you, we both wish there were machines that could let us be in two places at once.” - Obama

I have never had the luxury to not work on the income they had in the time frame he's talking about here. I've had the luxury of staying at home with a fraction of that amount. And I honestly have never felt guilty for not working outside my home. Who are these idiots?

Anonymous HH April 13, 2012 1:44 PM  

Paul S says "All the rude and condescending replies"

If anything I said was rude and/or condescending I apologize as it never was my intent.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 1:48 PM  

It is true that even in our most unselfish act there is always a hint of being selfish, that is the nature of our fallen state and why I thank God for His Grace.
Of course if that is the case then even being a SAHM is a selfish act.
I mean, one can't actually make a totally unselfish act can we?

Blogger Spacebunny April 13, 2012 1:49 PM  

Paul's rationalization hamster is going at full tilt.

Blogger Bob April 13, 2012 1:53 PM  

Vox sez:

"Bearing and raising children is far more important than anything any working woman has ever done in her professional career in the entire history of Mankind."

Hilary Rosen just announced she is not going to be on some big deal TV show this weekend. Instead she is going to spend the weekend being a "stay-at-home" Mom.

Two things:

The kids she is playing Mommy to are not hers, she has borne no kids of her own. No "bearing and rasing children" here.

She is a lesbian and has a lesbian partner, Elizabeth Birch, the stay-at-home Mom in this relationship. They are raising two adopted kids.

So, is Hilary actually going to spend the weekend being a doesn't-stay-at-home Daddy surrogate?

Messy.

Anonymous Tom B April 13, 2012 1:54 PM  

"Where did I say it was societies fault?
I said the the economy of the world is such that it is not always possible for a one income family ( or something to that effect)."

At the risk of intruding on a private war, there are valid points on both sides of this battle, but both may be missing the bigger picture.

Society (as in the Feminist/Socialism/Communism/Progressivism that currently runs our social conventions) WANTS it to be the case that two incomes are a necessity. They are actively engaging in social engineering to make this so; that is what Betty Friedan, the welfare state, etc. all have in common - they are attempts to manufacture the "ideal" society.

The fact that some, such as Paul S (and I'm NOT intending this as an insult), have succumbed to that idea is not surprizing. I won't go into details but I and my wife could have very easily fallen into that trap; it is a panic decision at its core and when the vageries of life (such as a sick parent, or in my case, two children with AS and a daughter who makes a mistake and gives me a grandchild who also is autistic) panic easily sets in. My wife knows I am overloaded working at a job beneath my abilities and training while she stays at home being the caretaker, but it took sitting down and looking at what was best for the kids in the long term that prevented us from taking the Progressive "two income family" blue pill.

It is still possible to walk the less trodden path however, and that is the path people SHOULD choose, for the sake of societies' survival. It is the one that my wife and I decided to take, and it has meant the near finaincial and health ruin of us. (I posted the full details on the "One way or another" thread back in November, but, long story short and all, my family has been homeless for over eight months. I found a job but it doesn't pay enough to change that situation, even working as much overtime as the employer will let me.) My wife STILL doesn't work, by choice. The kids need her more than we need the income, and we REALLY need the income, since there seems to be no colleges hiring religious studies instructors right now.

The pressure is on my wife to go out and work; when we have spoken to Churches and charities for help, they look down on her for not working. One CHURCH told her she was lazy and selfish for putting the entire burden on my shoulders. Think that's not peer pressure? These were supposedly "family values" Christians in the heart of rural South Carolina! Society has succumb to the notion of a woman's place is anywhere but home, no matter if she has special needs children or not.

So the fact Paul S. thinks he "needs" to have his wife work is more a reflection of the pressure being placed on all of us. Spacebunny is right about it being a choice, but that choice was made in a crisis (his parents' ill health) with damn near the whole world screaming in his ear what the "correct" choice should be. Any of us could have succumb to that; it was only by the Grace of God that I didn't.

Anyways, that is my two cents. Keep the change.

Anonymous raggededge April 13, 2012 1:56 PM  

Spacebunny: Paul's rationalization hamster is going at full tilt.

Word.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 2:12 PM  

Tom B,
I respect your view and yes, you may indeed be 100% correct.
Certainly I felt that all that was done was the "right" thing to do.
Hindsight may grant that it wasn't, but the alternative was, at least to me seemed to be at the time, not an option.
Am I rationalizing my choices?
Of course, as we all do.

Anonymous RC April 13, 2012 2:15 PM  

Poor Paul - say one stupid thing, have it duly if not delicately noted, then dig in for the full-on "dear" BBQ. Ouch.

Anonymous Azimus April 13, 2012 2:24 PM  

Redneck Joe April 13, 2012 11:26 AM

few years ago I was vaguely annoyed by career women ... and thought they were ... misguided and short sighted. The more I see...it has become a searing hatred... Shunning could easily end this problem.


IDEA: Demand social justice and living wage for daycare employees (most I know make about $7-$9/hr). Demand massive and prohibitive regulations "for the children." Costs of daycare will skyrocket, supply will diminish, marginal advantage of working mothers' salaries would disappear, nuclear family would be restored.

It's all for the children, and social justice. Can I get an AMEN?

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 2:26 PM  

I wonder how much of this is cultural too?

Anonymous Azimus April 13, 2012 2:29 PM  

Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 11:47 AM

They are our number 1 priority and have been from the moment they came into our lives.


I smell something rotten, Paul Sacramento. You can make your choices on your family, of course, but I highly doubt you and your wife spend as much time with your children as you do at your jobs - there's just not enough time in the week [if you both have FT+ jobs]. Call a spade a spade: you have chosen mammon first, children second. If you're thinking objectively you would agree. It's OK to do that, just don't lie to yourself.

Blogger Spacebunny April 13, 2012 2:29 PM  

So the fact Paul S. thinks he "needs" to have his wife work is more a reflection of the pressure being placed on all of us. Spacebunny is right about it being a choice, but that choice was made in a crisis (his parents' ill health) with damn near the whole world screaming in his ear what the "correct" choice should be. Any of us could have succumb to that; it was only by the Grace of God that I didn't.

Paul is missing the point in his initial rationalizations here. He was putting it forth as if he didn't have any other choice, and he did and still does. It is the entire point and it seems, by and large, to have flown over his head. We all make choices, he wanted us to validate his and say, it's okay, because you had to do it, when the truth is he didn't have to do it. He had a choice, he made it and he needs to stop pretending to himself and everyone else, that he was somehow forced into it. We all make choices, good and bad, but it is important to acknowledge that it is a conscience choice that we have made and what the ramifications are without our rationalization hamster telling us "it's okay and it's for the best" because guess what- it's not always for the best or even the best option, it's the one that makes us feel good or the easy one. Tom, you made the hard choices, and some would argue not the best ones, but you own those choices, Paul is rationalizing his and that is the key difference. I've known people in similar financial situations to yours where the wife did go to work for a short time to get them out of debt and this was a good choice for their family in the long term, it's not for everyone. I also know of myriad homeschooling moms who work from home - heck, many of the curriculum out there were put together and are sold by homeschooling moms to help out homeschoolers as well as supplement their income. Women can and do work from home while taking care of their children.

Anonymous JMH April 13, 2012 2:33 PM  

Look, to be fair to Rosen, you have to look at her comment in context. She rather inarticulately (she is an officially trained communications specialist after all) was making the point that Ann Romney has no business commenting on the economy because Mrs. Romney has never been a part of the formal workforce. So when you look at her quote in context, you realize it was even more idiotic than it was when taken out of context. A SAHM is generally the person responsible for implementing the family budget and making it work, especially in the realm of buying groceries. Since - thanks to the parasite class - wages have not kept pace with inflation and food prices are starting to skyrocket, a SAHM is quite likely to be on the leading edge of regular folks noticing something going wrong.

If Rosen was smart, she would've commented that Mrs. Romney has no business commenting on the everyday economy not because she's a SAHM, but because she's an extremely wealthy person.

Rosen isn't smart. When you look at her comment in context, it's even dumber than before. Like I said, you have to be fair to her. Sometimes "fair" isn't "nice."

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 2:34 PM  

Hmmm, interesting comments.
I know that I certainly FELT that there was no other choice.
Looking back I wonder, like Tom stated, how much of that was "conditioned" into me...
Food for thought...

Anonymous DonReynolds April 13, 2012 2:42 PM  

Watched the movie Iron Lady last night (about Margaret Thatcher), which was very good, in my opinion. So it is very possible for an intelligent and educated woman to have children and remain married.

My question for Ms Rossen would be simple.....What job would make any sense for Ann Romney? Being married to a man (or woman) with tens or hundreds of millions in assets, would seem to be busy enough, without the benefit of children. So what job could Ann Romney possibly do that would make any sense at all? Could she be a social worker at CPS, or reporter for the local newspaper, or work as a flight attendant? I am sure she could do any of these things if she so desired, but why would she want to?

Anonymous RINO April 13, 2012 2:58 PM  

Actually the narrative is that Romney is so efficient that he will bring about TGLSWD all the faster as Obama is too lazy to become Supreme Dictator while setting off the EMP device in his second term.

That hasn't tended to be the commentary offered here when discussing Romney v Obama. Even if Obama is perceived as lazy that doesn't mean the ADMINISTRATION is lazy. Fast & Furious happened and Obama had to do basically nothing.

Also, I believe the proper initializing is TGLSWD(p)EC, The Great Libertarian Survivalist Wet Dream by (Probably) Economic Collapse.

Anonymous stg58 April 13, 2012 3:00 PM  

Yep, this is like asking someone who makes 150k a year why he isn't driving a Ford Fiesta. Isn't the point of women marrying well, every Jane Austen book and chick flick to marry a man who makes enough money so your life isn't hard and poor?

Anonymous stg58 April 13, 2012 3:01 PM  

Don Reynolds,

The right job for Ann Romney would be hosting a Martha Stewart/Lifestyle/Cooking show, or a spot on Fox News.

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 13, 2012 3:18 PM  

WLW: America has become a Leftist Ideological State. This was pointed out by Fr. Hardon, S.J. back in the 1970s and by the John Birch Society. With the total disregard for the rule of law in the eligibility requirements for President, he is not natural born, America has ceased to be a place with the Rule of Law. It is now Rule by Ideology; an ideology of Marxism because what has been noted, all our political departments, law departments, political establishments, media are all controled by a foreign hostile race.

Interesting to see Auster finally starting to 'get it', no? It's actually been this way since at least 1964. There is no actual political opposition, nor are there any actual free markets, nor is there any free and independent judiciary. There is no rule of law - only law of rule.

Anonymous Tom B April 13, 2012 3:25 PM  

I think the key SB, is we have a choice how we react to those things we have no choice over.

Paul had no choice but to take care of his parents, but the manner in which he did was his choice. Granted, I think Paul is seeing the "conditioning" that influenced that choice, and perhaps seeing that part of that conditioning is where taking responsibility for your choices is "conditioned" away. Call it having the blinders removed, if you will, but we must remember the very people telling him he had no choice are also absolving him for making the choice he did. They are feeding the hamster as he runs the rationalization wheel. THIS is how you enslave men's souls.

In my case I didn't have a choice in having an employer who let me come back to work through the Christmas season following my heart attack only to fire me for missing the 5 days I was in the hospital after the holidays were over. I certainly didn't have a choice when I reported to unemployment that I had earned my M.A. that they suspended payments to "investigate" whether my status as a student would have interfered with me getting a job, thus making me unable to pay my rent.

But my reactions to those events are mine, right or wrong.

I understand that there are other work options for my wife; we've explored those you've listed and if we had a home instead of living at a campground would probably try them. Right now they aren't feasable given the kids' issues and the limited income we have - we just don't have the money to start up a home business. But... once I can get us out of this situation we HAVE decided to seriously explore a couple of prospects.

So for the time being I work about 80 hours a week and continue to put in apps to any college with a RS department (fortunately I have some of my professors at both Clemson and USF are helping me in that department, but they also think the problem is that there is a glut of Ph.D's on the market and that I may have to push on for mine to level the playing field. I'm thinking about that.) Your hubby offered some advice when I first said something about our situation that has proven to be good advice. (Normally my employer will only allow someone to work 60 hours a week max. I got them to let me work more thanks to something Vox said.)

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 3:29 PM  

Tom, if I may ask:
How are you handling your time away from your children?

Blogger Spacebunny April 13, 2012 3:32 PM  

Paul had no choice but to take care of his parents

Don't be ridiculous, of course he had a choice.

I understand that there are other work options for my wife; we've explored those you've listed and if we had a home instead of living at a campground would probably try them. Right now they aren't feasable given the kids' issues and the limited income we have - we just don't have the money to start up a home business. But... once I can get us out of this situation we HAVE decided to seriously explore a couple of prospects.

My comments on what other women do working from home were not aimed at you (sorry if it came across that way) but rather at those who seem to think that working outside of the home is the only way for women to earn money and help her family financially. The point is that there are always options even though they are not always easy or obvious. Further, I think it is extremely important to acknowledge that our choices have consequences and not always the obvious ones and to admit that maybe our choices were not optimal and not to let the rationalization hamster get the better of us. If we don't, we teach our children to make the same mistakes and call it good decision making.

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 13, 2012 3:33 PM  

D2A: This is likely the dumbest thing you have ever declared. You either have a insufficient view of how terrible Obama has been, and will be in a 2nd term (given lack of constraint), or a overly dramatic view of how terrible Romney will be.
I am not saying that Romney will be the 2nd coming of Reagan, but he will be considerably better than Obama!


I see the Gay Old Pedophiles are out in force today in full Pink Velvet frock coats. Please do inform us poor yokels of the profound differences betwixt D'Won Mocha Messiah and Mittens Underoos, Capt. of the Big-Gov Luvboat. Inquiring minds really want to know of the profound differences between a leftist banksta from the Tea-Party Conservative Bastion of Massachusetts who implemented a prototype of Obamacare, did everything he could to advance the sodomite agenda, supports the abortion industry, TARP banksterism, gun-control, endless imperial wars to make the Ummah safe for sodomy and feminism, appointed doctrinaire Marxists to the judiciary, etc., etc., etc. and the Marxist Black-supremacist who presently reads the teleprompter for his masters. Inquiring minds eagerly await your pointing and spluttering.

Anonymous Tom B April 13, 2012 3:35 PM  

Paul S Wrote:

"Tom, if I may ask:
How are you handling your time away from your children?"

It isn't easy. My son's 14th birthday is tomorrow and I'll be at work most of the day. I just try to make the most of the little time I get to spend with him, and teach him that sometimes a man has to do these things, even if he doesn't want to.

Anonymous RINO April 13, 2012 3:40 PM  

Gen Kong,
I'm pretty sure Romney isn't a bankster unless you define that as anyone who has ever worked in big business.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento April 13, 2012 3:47 PM  

Tom,
We must make the most of what time we do have, that's for sure.

Anonymous Vidad April 13, 2012 3:50 PM  

We've gone without air conditioning, lived with one vehicle, stacked kids into rooms, almost never eat out, don't go to the movies and spend a lot of time growing our own food. But my wife is home with our kids and so am I. It took almost ten years, but we're debt-free, own the house we live in and the children are being homeschooled. And I run my own business. The amount I make in a year is probably in the bottom fraction of posters here - but my children aren't in the hands of strangers, not dealing with rough kids from evil backgrounds, can tell you more about history than most adults and my wife is contented... and we have at least a year's worth of income set aside for emergencies. It can be done. And on less than $40k a year. You just have to stop the monetary bleeding and put the children at the absolute peak. Our jobs are to leave our parents, cleave to our wives and raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. If a nutty screw-up like me can do it, others can too. It's totally, totally worth it.

And yeah... we eat a lot better than most, as my friend rycamor can testify.

Anonymous Vidad April 13, 2012 3:51 PM  

Romney not a banksta? He's at least one of their whores. Look at his donors.

Blogger GAHCindy April 13, 2012 3:54 PM  

Leftists want every human being to be measurable in dollars in/out. A housewife is largely untaxable. If she keeps her kids at home, too, her kids are no use to them, either! She's a completely private entity, and they resent it. Leftism can't allow privacy, and they certainly can't allow a human being to exist without paying some sort of tribute (not that we don't pay taxes of some sort, but it's not a direct cut of any check we draw), so they try to shame women for the ultimate expression of their femininity: motherhood. As I tweeted to somebody when this whole thing blew up a couple of days ago: If they can't tax whatever it is you're doing, you're not really doing anything.

Anonymous stg58 April 13, 2012 4:04 PM  

RINO,

Vidad is correct. Romney is heavily funded by the banksters, and they are also funding the Obama campaign. What's the difference?

Also, just read the John Holdren was formerly a Romney advisor. No difference between Romney and Obama.

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 13, 2012 4:11 PM  

@RINO: You think Baine Capital didn't get its backing from the usual suspects in the completely rigged "free economy"? Mittens is owned by the bankstas every bit as much as D'Won is.

When even a deeply stupid typical Repuke liberal like Jim Robinson understands there is nothing even remotely conservative about Mittens, it's a pretty clear indicator that nobody is fooled by the executive hair and plastic smile. Capt. Underoos might just as well start campaigning for D'Won's re-incoronation now as it's obvious to anyone but the hopelessly stupid that the Repuke establishment had no intention of contesting the office of teleprompter-reader this cycle. Betcha that old JimRob (along with official "pro-lifers", "Tea-Party" and assorted "conservatives") will eventually "reconcile" himself to "holding his nose" to sniff those magic underoos - 'cause it's the mostest important erection evvvaaahhh!

Anonymous D2A April 13, 2012 4:16 PM  

Gen Kong,

I am not here to defend Romney, but only to point out the wide gulf that separates him and Obama.
Consider that Romney cut spending in the deep blue state of Massacussetts, when he was governor. This is opposed to greatly increased spending that Obama has implimented.
Further, Romney does not appear to have a knee jerk reaction favoring any and everything that anti-capitalist, anti-American and anti-white.
I seriously doubt that a President Romney would appoint people to the Supreme Court, such as Sotomayor or Kagen. You give Obama four more years, and see how the SCOTUS looks; scary.
I look forward to you showing us the evidence of Romney's continued support of abortion, gun control or imperialism.

Anonymous RINO April 13, 2012 4:20 PM  

Gen. Kong, your statement that Romney is a banker is wrong, as he never worked at a bank, who donates to him is irrelevant to that.

Secondly, your criticisms stem from demanding the impossible. If you know a way to turn Massachusetts into a conservative utopia in four years then please do so. Even when he vetoed the stem cell bill it was overturned by the 80% Dem legislature. Oh yeah, and judicial nominees have to get through them too.

Anonymous stg58 April 13, 2012 4:22 PM  

Your defense of Romney will be an exercise in futility here.

Blogger Joshua_D April 13, 2012 4:23 PM  

Vidad; April 13, 2012 3:50 PM
You just have to stop the monetary bleeding and put the children at the absolute peak. Our jobs are to leave our parents, cleave to our wives and raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. If a nutty screw-up like me can do it, others can too. It's totally, totally worth it.


Yep. It can be done. It's simply about making choices and making sacrifices. Even the poorest Americans are ridiculously well-off compared to other countries and compared to wealthy people of the past.

And Paul S., I commend that you will take time and think about the comments here and your choices. No one is attacking your choice, only your denial of responsibility for your choice. We all make choices; we are all accountable for our choices; and we almost always make the wrong choice first, almost.

Blogger Joshua_D April 13, 2012 4:25 PM  

stg58 April 13, 2012 4:22 PM
Your defense of Romney will be an exercise in futility here.


Of course, arguing that water isn't actually wet is also and exercise in futility. ;)

Anonymous mjb April 13, 2012 4:33 PM  

My wife and I were trying desperately to maintain society's standard. We had a two year old girl, and a newborn son. We bought a house a year ago, living in a very expensive region of the USA. We thought, well, maybe my wife can switch from full time to part time while I maintained my full time job. This way we can better arrange the daycare drop off and pick ups.

It sucked. It was expensive. And we were exhausted from the extra carting around. Besides that, my wife had a ton of guilt about leaving her babies with complete strangers, even if for only a few days a week.

We prayerfully decided to cut back big time on expenses and she quit her job. Actually, with the costs of daycare, we almost balanced out. We can only afford one car right now. We don't live like most NJers. She homeschools the oldest child, and we've got our fourth kid on the way.

God has always provided. And we really believe that we made the Godly choice by her staying home. I'm usually home before 6. I'm not exactly killing myself working. Life is full of ups and downs, bills, emergency room visits, broken cars, but somehow, the Lord provides. That's despite my poor decisions.

Budget. Someone should be home with their children. If I can do it in Northern NJ, practically no one else has an excuse. If you believe that God is your provider, and you also believe He calls you to raise them in the ways of the Lord, then you need to take a deep look in the mirror, and consider whether or not you are obeying his command.

Anonymous mjb April 13, 2012 4:34 PM  

(Should read, "We bought a house a year before...this was about 4 years ago).

Anonymous PC Geek April 13, 2012 4:36 PM  

Regarding work options...one thing that I see bandied about here is a claim about the alleged economic necessity of the wife to work to make $$ since wages have fallen quite a bit in real $'s over the past 50 years.

While that is true, don't forget that instead of choosing to have either you or a family member work more hours at a job, maybe you can do something on the side at home, or simply do things that you currently outsource to others. When you factor in daycare, the health benefits of home-cooked meals, the cost of buying food that you could simply have grown in a garden on your own (<--lots of $$ savings there) and so on, the opportunity cost of working a job starts to overwhelm all but the highest of salaries after a certain point. The main benefit of a job in a corporate environment is (sometimes) stable baseline income and health benefits. Your wife could generate more economic value outside of the workplace than in it unless she is a high-paid trial lawyer, doctor, or executive. Most people don't realize how little they get paid for the amount of value they generate for their employers - often pennies on the dollar. Is it better to work overtime for $40/hour or use that fix that problem on your car that you would have had to pay the mechanic 5 times what your employer just paid you for your work to fix?

By all means have a job as a baseline for $ and benefits, but if you need more money, perhaps do/make stuff for yourself or learn how to work with others to maybe make do with less. I am always surprised at what people consider as necessities - many things are more lifestyle choices than anything else. Even with crazy inflation and globalization, very few people truly *need* a 2nd income.

There is nothing worse than outsourcing the raising of your own children so you can work for some corporate tool. My boss is quite a reasonable man (who understands work-life balance, amazingly enough, and no, I am not posting this at work and saying that in case he read this) but most bosses are not like that, and even so, if I were married, I would not want my wife to work full-time for him or anyone else. Raising the next generation is vastly more important than what I, or just about anyone else, does. You can put a price on any job but never on God or family.

To top it all off, as others have observed on this very blog, economically, it often does not even pay off to work more than a certain baseline amount (summed up over the whole of your family.) In most cases your wife is working to pay for daycare so your kids can be raised by someone else into ADHD-ridden, ritalin-addled, maleducated little animals. Not the fate I want for my children, if by God's Grace I have any.

Paul S - my heart and my prayers go to you for your family situation - especially for your father. However, as much as you must care for the previous generation, even more you cannot neglect the one to come!

Anonymous Luke April 13, 2012 5:57 PM  

Azimus said at April 13, 2012 2:24 PM:

"IDEA: Demand social justice and living wage for daycare employees (most I know make about $7-$9/hr). Demand massive and prohibitive regulations "for the children." Costs of daycare will skyrocket, supply will diminish, marginal advantage of working mothers' salaries would disappear, nuclear family would be restored."

I have what I consider a better idea. By either very widespread custom or law, have women (above working-class, at least) routinely quit their outside jobs upon marriage, or at least once a few months pregnant with their first child. Add in higher wages (beyond the market) for married men, especially married men with children at home, and you'll get the same result as or more reliably.

Ending affirmative action, expelling a bunch of immigrants and their descendants, cutting out rent-seeking unionist laws such as the Jones Act and Davis-Bacon, ending tenure, ending anti-discrimination laws, ending minimum wage laws, etc., would all help as well, of course.

Eating healthily? It seems almost half of it is NOT eating certain things; SPAM, purified sucrose, HFCS, bacon, potted meat, hot dogs, brains, Vienna sausage, white flour anything, soy anything, Mexican food, fried anything, candy, honey, ice cream and other frozen desserts, lettuce/celery/other nutrient-free "vegetables", anything sold by a fast-food place whose name isn't "Subway", any institutional food, anything sold at a convenience store (besides skim milk, PURE fruit juices -- no "cocktail" fruit trash cans, and actual fruit such as bananas), etc.

Anonymous FP April 13, 2012 6:03 PM  

Azimus, not a bad idea but the unions beat you to it. They're going after home care providers who get a gov. welfare support check in some states. They'll just try to unionize stay at home moms after they've gotten all the daycare providers and folks getting gov support to care for loved ones.

What I found most amusing about the Rosen slap fight was you have a so called working mom who used to represent the RIAA bashing a stay at home mom. Iowahawk had a great line on twitter, "Ann Romney was only a lowly housewife. Hilary worked tirelessly to throw your kids in prison for downloading Justin Bieber CDs."

Anonymous Oregon Mouse April 13, 2012 6:21 PM  

Ms. Rosen and other feminists wouldn't know crap about the labor demands of raising a family. They pay someone else to do it. Which makes me wonder, how it it that I would be acceptable to them if I ran a daycare but not as a daycare provider (and maid, cook, secretary, etc)to my own brood 24/7? That being said, Romney is still a coporate owned puppet.

Anonymous Jimmy April 13, 2012 6:29 PM  

There are cheaper alternatives to day care. They are pre-school type classes that are privately runned for profit or non-profits. Some allow drop-off, but some require parent volunteers. While they offer a break to parents, it doesn't mean the parent can disappear. The parent should still be around in case they call the parent when the kid misbehaves or get sick. Such as they are, it might be better for the parent to take some time off until the kids reaches kindergarten.

My experience with this tells me mothers should not work with young kids. It is more sensible to stay home for a while.

Anonymous tinlaw April 13, 2012 6:38 PM  

It isn't only mothers that need to be at home, it's all women and married women in particular. Making healthy, real food, managing a household, etc. is a full-time endeavor. Being married is more than being a roommate who returns to the same domicile as her husband after spending all of her productive day and her energy serving some other master. It would make no more sense for Ann Romney to join the workforce after her children are grown than it would for her to do it while they were young and in need of her care and guidance. It would seem like prostitution for me to be selling my skills and intellect outside of the home when my family, my marriage and, I believe society as a whole, benefit from me using them at home.

Anonymous Oregon Mouse April 13, 2012 6:57 PM  

Debbs: "With that in mind, ideally dad is home as much as possible with the children too so that they can learn alongside him also. Maybe figuring out balance of outside and at home work for both parents is just as important as who works outside the home and who doesn't?"

May/December romance has its advantages. By the time our oldest is 7 my husband will be on early retirement. Two parents at home full time, homeschooling and teaching character, work ethic, a little traveling, etc.

Anonymous PC Geek April 13, 2012 7:35 PM  

@Luke

It seems almost half of it is NOT eating certain things; SPAM, purified sucrose, HFCS, bacon, potted meat, hot dogs, brains, Vienna sausage, white flour anything, soy anything, Mexican food, fried anything, candy, honey, ice cream and other frozen desserts, lettuce/celery/other nutrient-free "vegetables",

What is so bad about honey (a little bit on some toast in the morning) or lettuce (is it really that poor in nutrients?) or potted meat(<--what is potted meat anyway)? Plus I don't think fresh soy is bad for you - the processed soy on the other hand...

Who the f*** is eating brains anyway?

Why is subway such a good place to eat, relatively speaking? (I have heard some good things about it from others so I suspect you are likely right on that point.)

Your list is basically sound but needs to be a bit more nuanced, imho - although I am not a nutrition expert...is there any among the Ilk who are?

Oh - and asking people not to eat bacon...now that is going too far!

Anonymous tinlaw April 13, 2012 7:44 PM  

Advocating the consumption of commercially prepared and packaged skim milk and fruit juice is a sure sign that a person has no clue about what constitutes real food and should not be giving advice on nutrition.

Anonymous PC Geek April 13, 2012 7:54 PM  

@Tom B.

I will keep you and your family in my prayers - you really are having a rough time of it.

Hopefully you can find something that uses your skillset. What are you training to do while working your current job? I am not sure what type of training has the best income/job potential in this economy.

Anonymous RC April 13, 2012 8:02 PM  

"Advocating the consumption of commercially prepared and packaged skim milk and fruit juice is a sure sign that a person has no clue about what constitutes real food and should not be giving advice on nutrition." - tinlaw

A bit strident, no? Luke has a pretty good start and each person has to land where he thinks best. I had a conversation with a woman who'd just stopped buying animal cookies for her kids snacks, replacing them with animal crackers to avoid the frosting. Not much difference in my mind, poison A or poison B, but at least she's caring what her family's eating and is starting to learn. Who knows, she may be an all-organic nut like my bride in a few years - putting in gardens, asparagus patches, fruit trees, buying fresh milk, the works. Nice.

@PC Geek - I've read that soy in any form, in high quantities, may alter the estrogen/testosterone balance.

Anonymous Luke April 13, 2012 8:13 PM  

PC Geek said:

"Plus I don't think fresh soy is bad for you - the processed soy on the other hand.."

Actually, you've got it backwards. The undesirable phytic acid/phytases (whatever they're properly called), sometimes referred to as "antinutrients" for the vitamins and minerals they block, are deactivated by the violence inherent in full processing, that a week of ordinary stovetop cooking won't defeat. OTOH, the estrogen-analogs and often the soy oils if not defatted) are commonly still there in processed soy. 6-YO girls with breast buds and menses, getting cancer of the feminine parts in later years? A downside IMO. Degraded potence and infertility for not a few males isn't much of a selling point for soy products either in my book. Soy oils? Go rancid quickly if not hydrogenated (unlike olive oil, say), or hydrogenate them so they turn into artery glue with abyssal EFA content? When confronted by a choice between two evils, choose neither, I say; so, say NO to soy.

Tinlaw, agreed even the best juices for sale at your local Stop-And-Rob aren't great on an absolute basis. They just look good compared to almost everything else commonly sold there.

PC Geek, Subway has lots of low-sat-fat fare, and actually offers fresh spinach as a sandwich topping.

Anonymous PC Geek April 13, 2012 9:11 PM  

@RC

I've read that soy in any form, in high quantities, may alter the estrogen/testosterone balance.

I am definitely a noob at this stuff so I won't disagree with you but it seems like at least some people are of a different mind on soy, such as the article below. Of course, they could just be full of it...what do you think?

http://www.muscleandbodymag.com/article.php?ArticleID=4998

Anonymous Passinthrough April 13, 2012 9:31 PM  

"The hand the rocks the cradle rules the world". If you want your children to grow up to be men and women of character, raising children is a do it yourself project.

Anonymous Znort April 13, 2012 9:39 PM  

Like so many of Vox's blog postings, this one just got my heart rate up and I'm thinking what an articulatician.

Anonymous Kyle In Japan April 13, 2012 10:50 PM  

On a related note to this post, the commenters on this Japan Times article display a raging ignorance (as usual) of the hard realities of reproduction and SMV. People are so deludedd by feminist bullshit that they're blind to the raw deal they got by exchanging families for paper-pushing self-indulgent "careers."

http://www.japantoday.com/category/kuchikomi/view/if-you-want-a-child-do-it-before-youre-30-says-leading-obstetrician

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 14, 2012 12:09 AM  

D2A: Capt. Underoos supported abortion, sodomy, and gun-control all while governor of MA. He announced his support of TARP when it took place. He appointed leftists to MA courts. You can believe the Etch-a-Sketch all you like. There is no substantive difference between Mittens and the John Doe known as Barack Hussein Obama. As I mentioned above, even someone as profoundly stupid as Jim Robinson (FreeRepublic) can figure this out. What does that say about your cognitive abilities?

Anonymous The other skeptic April 14, 2012 12:35 AM  


D2A: Capt. Underoos supported abortion, sodomy, and gun-control all while governor of MA. He announced his support of TARP when it took place. He appointed leftists to MA courts. You can believe the Etch-a-Sketch all you like. There is no substantive difference between Mittens and the John Doe known as Barack Hussein Obama.


But, but, but. Cap'n Underoos says that that big bad Obummer is going to come after our guns next year.

Why does everyone call him Underoos?

Anonymous Wendy April 14, 2012 8:47 AM  

"http://www.japantoday.com/category/kuchikomi/view/if-you-want-a-child-do-it-before-youre-30-says-leading-obstetrician"

Because having a child before 30 lowers the chance of breast cancer? That's what I was told by my OB.

It's ironic to push a "successful career" regardless of women's health all the while sporting the pink ribbon.

Regarding soy, I think the only ok (non estrogen mimic) verion is fermented - soy sauce.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza April 14, 2012 9:04 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza April 14, 2012 9:08 AM  

Gen Kong caught a live fish!

D2A,

Can you explain why in 2007 Mitt appeared on Meet the Press and said he wasn't a fan of the NRA/gun ownership? Keep in mind, he recently (and other guests) addressed the NRA for their votes.

Do you believe the NRA is but false opposition?

What is the extent of your knowledge in fractional reserve banking, monetary policy and comparative economics?

I don't expect answers to these rhetorical questions as these issues are close to voters of a different stripe, these policies clarify who supports outrageous bailouts, absurd anti-business banking practices and other acts of theft.

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews April 14, 2012 2:12 PM  

Paul, not sure if it was covered, but taking on your dad's debt was certainly a dumb choice on your part. Your dad probably should have gone bankrupt and let that clear it away. They had no worries for where to live if they were living with you, so why not get the "clean slate" bankruptcy is supposed to provide?

You were not any kind of moral compunction at all to pay for his debt. If you had placed yourself in an obligation system, owning up to it and filing your own bankruptcy would be better than keeping your wife out of the home.

====

A note on the roped children. I was never bothered as much by it, but my wife hated the idea at first but it became more appealing after we raised 4 ADHD children. Keeping them in line was harder than it seems to some, even with a firmly controlled house. (At least until the teen years when society conspires against families.)

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews April 14, 2012 2:13 PM  

"Why does everyone call him Underoos?"

It has to do with the "holy under garments" devout Mormons are supposed to wear.

Anonymous JMac April 14, 2012 8:25 PM  

Linda Hirschman once claimed: "“The tasks of housekeeping and child-rearing are not worthy of the full time and talents of intelligent and educated human beings.”

Doesn't it seem that the current cultural situation should be proof that this is idiocy?

I've noticed that the Tanak (Old Testament) shows God using nature and foreign powers to destroy nations who have degraded themselves too much. It's interesting that the ones who got destroyed had become incapable of realizing why. They never saw the destruction coming and even though they were told, they remained oblivious to the reasons for their demise. I think the same thing will happen to the US and in the not-to-distant future, the world.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts