To put it yet another way, how would we structure workplaces, schools, and society if *families* really mattered?

I say this because a number of men commented on my post that they were grateful to see these issues framed as family issues, rather than women's issues. Why should children be considered a woman's issue? We've all been children. We will all, eventually, rely on today's children, whether they are our own offspring or someone else's.

We do have to take back the language of family values, as Joan Williams has noted, and insist that it includes enabling workers to take care of their families--not just financially but in all sorts of ways.

Doesn't this reflect class divides among women and a lack of certainty what the goals for women should be? Doesn't it also reflect a view of human nature that might not be realistic?

The early feminist movement called on giving women a chance to realize their full potential and paid work allowed for that. Thanks in someways to Republican economics women, or many women, were driven into the workplace to maintain a middle class life or just to make ends meet.

Given the above, however, my wife worked, and since I could I took my infant daughter to work with me. However, my wife, and most of her friends, all with graduate degrees, did not want to continue to work once they had children. They wanted to be fulltime mothers so they gave up their legal and other careers and quit working. I was admittedly shocked.

The flipside of the above was a male attorney, I know, who is a fulltime associate at a large NYC firm. He was very resentful of these sorts of proposals, including the family leave act. To him all it did was dump more work on those who did not go on leave and kept open the jobs for those who were not carrying their share of the work.

I raise this because it always seems too simplistic the way the issues are presented. It likes to pretend that for whatever reason lots of women don't want children and that lots of men want to stay home instead of having a career. Short of massive cost shifting to employers or the government is there an easy solution to this?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

The reactions of this couple sound pretty much like every set of parents I know, except for those who have found a way to both work less than full time.  When you have a little kid, the truth is that it's hard to find as much meaning in work as you once did, but by the same token, when you are home full-time, as mean as it sounds, your life can be a bit circumscribed (I say this as someone who has tried all three arrangements).

Not sure the Declaration is close enough on this, other than a vague assurance of leisure time or a healthy childhood. On the other hand, the document is a resounding criticism of the Bush legacy of torture and of detention without trial. 

I'm cool on phrasing the issue as parental, so as to accommodate less gendered assumptions.  I did notice in the previous thread that quite a few replies preferred instead to think in strict economics terms, of class and need. Those are important terms to me as a liberal, too, but as a feminist I'm suspicious that they're enough. Think of what gets disguised when a conservative shifts debates so as to remove race as a problematic category. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I no longer believe the myth that infers that if women controlled.... whatever you want to fill the blank in with that all would be sunshine and lollipops. Women are no less given to greed, selfishness and ego. Some women perpetuate the glass ceiling, just as some men do.

I do believe the MSM neglects to cover crucial issues, but so does the blogosphere. It is as selective and indifferent to the wider realities and issues. Sorry, but it's as much of a problem as the MSM.. so I can't take EJ's complaints against the MSM seriously either. Perhaps it's a good thing for the women's movement to deconstruct online and via other media over this issue. At least it provides a laugh (and with all the real problems we face, we deserve something to laugh about) to those of us who've known for more than a decade that the movement is irrelevant because of it's elitism. Don't get mad at me because more of us recognize the fact that's it's allowed itself to morph into the stereotype too many of us, considered an attack against the movement and defended it against in the '70s and '80s.

I do believe it is true that the only reason this subject is being discussed is that affluent women are now bumping into the same malarkey that less affluent women had to deal with for decades in the women's movement. The attacks directed at those who wanted to or stated that they would prefer to stay home to raise their children, until they reached a certain age.

I wasn't the only woman who felt offended, for example when Eric Jong appeared on Bill Maher's "Real Time" in '06, when she castigated American women as not valuing the raising of children.. and made bemoaned the fact that she had to hire a woman from South America to do this for her. Anyone who remembers Jong's writings and statements made decades ago, that any expectation of women raising children was akin to enslavement, should, if they are being honest with themselves be holding Jong accountable for her moral relativism on the subject.

I'm sorry, but the "care" problem as I and many, many American women perceive it, is that too many in the women's movement, do not care, about the very real problems the majority of women are facing. They find inconvenient that the majority of American women are more concerned about the human rights problems that impact their husbands, sons, brothers and fathers, as well as themselves, and their daughters, mothers and sisters. Frankly, the scant few "issues" that the movement chooses to "care" about are not those that are life or death to far too many. For us, they are a waste of our precious time and energy when we consider that we are living through a time when we don't have much time left to waste on more frivolous concerns.

I couldn't disagree more. What's more important than raising a decent kid?

I'm male, but I'm in this same odd position that my wife and I would be barely getting by if either of us had to stop working. It's a catch 22.

The thesis of this post: that these questions MUST be reframed as public policy rather than 'lifestyle choices' is practically inarguable. I support a sane system that allows flexibile hours to allow both partners to remain employed 1000%.

I agree that national health insurance would be the best first step, and it would make less-than-full-time employment (not to mention freelancing, entrepreneurship, etc.) a more viable option for both men and women. I'd like to see a workforce that would allow both parents to cut their hours somewhat when kids are young, instead of our current gender-based all/nothing model. I think we could also use some sort of tax-credit program that would make up for losses in employers' retirement contributions when parents fall below the 32-hour full-time standard, but one things at a time.

people sort of stare at me, with a blank look on their face, when I talk like this...

to think that the world will be more or less the same regardless if women, men, young, old, whites, blacks, etc... are in power is something that people don't want to believe.

Your wife had a choice and the wisdom to make a choice. To me that is really what feminists should expect, the freedom to make life choices. And yes, I said choices. You choose something. You give something else up. Having it all is something else entirely. For that, try the lottery.

John,

You've always called me out, pretty smartly, on making this issue too economic.

I do think it's kind of suspect, though, that when both parents started working, the standard of living for families didn't double, as it should have. Maybe it's a supply/demand issue (double the workers, halve the need for them) or maybe there are outside factors at work, but it's damned frustrating.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

when both parents started working, the standard of living for families didn't double...

there are lots of reasons why:

1) the work performed outside of the house was less important than the work performed inside the home;

2) the need to outsource the tasks which were previously done by the stay at home spouse;

3) the need for quicker and more immediate solutions;

4) less time to plan domestic life;

5) sometimes the need for two cars;

6) more clothes;

7) higher taxes since child care subsidized;

8) etc...

part of the reason for NCLB, in my mind, is because children don't have "in home" tutors anymore...

Not sure I buy all of that...

1) the work performed outside of the house was less important than the work performed inside the home;

How do you know? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

2) the need to outsource the tasks which were previously done by the stay at home spouse;

True enough.

3) the need for quicker and more immediate solutions;

Which are sometimes cheaper.

4) less time to plan domestic life;

Probably true, but I don't think that bad planning by workers has held wages down.

5) sometimes the need for two cars;

Okay, that's an expense, for sure. But, if one member working can afford one car, then two working should be able to afford two with no loss.

6) more clothes;

Same as above. If one member working can buy professional clothes, then so can two with no net loss.

7) higher taxes since child care subsidized;

Doubtful... federal tax rates are lower now than they were and state tax rates may have crept up, but it darned sure wasn't to provide child care. If it was, and that care were provided, then it would mitigate having less time to plan domestic life and having to outsource home functions.

8) etc...

???

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I think that the most obvious example of 'naming' involved in this problem is that unlike a couple of decades ago it is no longer seen as just a women's problem. That has been the real victory of feminists in this matter. It was unrealistic to think that having to juggle work/family priorities would go away but it was more realistic to have it no longer be just considered the woman's dilemma.

Men now are also expected to have to make tough choices between work and family and that a father who always put his career ahead of his children (presumed the norm a short while ago) is now portrayed (yes by the media) as selfish and cruel.

==============
D Raymond
Host of Spin Cycle Radio and Now You Know on KSAK

right. the standard is: "get the job done." if you can get it done in 40 hours, great.

in a "competitive" system, your output is judged against the output of your competitors and if someone else has higher output, then your employer needs to adjust or becomes uncompetitive.

if employees feel "overworked" and "underpaid," then they'll go someplace else and, if the remaining people aren't getting business done, then your position will cease to exist.

I agree with you that if the second spouse works, then you'll have more money to spend on clothes, cars, and whatever else it takes to work, but the question is, "do these things add up to a higher qualify of life" and "debt statistics" often suggest they don't.

in my life, I only work because "of the money." at times, I've done things "pro bono," but that doesn't pay the bills and I'm far from certain that my "pro bono" work was less beneficial to society than my "paid work."

for example, a "weapons designer" makes a lot of money but his/her impact on society, in my opinion, is negative and I think that the "majority of jobs" actually have a negative impact. for the most part, people seem to ignore the actual impact of their jobs as long as they preceive they're making moeny.

and, I claim that "profits" are simply a "private tax." I recently read that "the profit" on new homes averaged 40%! So, on a $300,000 house, you'd pay $120,000 in profits. additionally, health care is about twice as expensive in the US as other countries, so are we really saving money through less "public taxes?" I would argue: "no, we're not since the private taxes are going through the roof!"

I can buy the idea that 'minorities' might not be any better than rich white males in governance - Jesus, look at Robert Mugabe - but I disagreed with the notion that child rearing isn't 'life or death' - if you are forced to not have a child because of an economic system - that's literally 'life or death.'

...but I think most people would agree that if raises, recognition, and early advancement are available in exchange for furthering the organization's larger goals, an employee's incentive to work longer or smarter would naturally increase.

I give this statement a doubtful maybe, unless I don't understand what you mean.

I just don't see people in Coca-Cola or Joe's Garage working in order to advance the firm's goals. Most people work and want raises and advancement for (1) because they have to and (2) for more money. Recognition would come in way behind a host of other wishes.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

About half of this I like.  Schumacher and Bellah are heroes of mine, but I don't think either of them felt it necessary to reject the Enlightenment.  I don't think the Luddites were stupid either, but I think they were wrong.  Don't attack the machine:  attack the misuse of the machine.  There's nothing particularly noble about sweat.  There's also nothing particularly noble about using the machine to boost consumption rather than to provide leisure for humane activities--introspection, creativity, social interaction, friendship, the good things in life.  (Including the dialog across who knows how much  space and time we're having now).

I don't much like Mumford.  His ideas have ruined more cities than they've helped, and his understanding of the city in history is the is based on the kind of Enlightenment rationalist planning which you seem not to like very much.  Jane Jacobs understands cities with all their flaws and glories far better than Mumford does.  And for a better history of cities, I recommend Mark Girouard's Cities and People, or Donald Olsen's City as a Work of Art.  Both of these focus on Western Cities, but Eastern thought is not inimical to the creation of Cities as testimonies to humane ideals. 

aMike

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

I suspect Viviane will forgive me eventually.  She's a kind sort.   :-D 

aMike