Political Compass #48: A mother's first duty is to be a homemaker.

Great Debates
1

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were.

It would also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked. I might suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation, but seeing for yourself what kind of answers are given by those with a certain score might be more useful than second-guessing the test’s scoring system.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? [size=2]Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them. (And for heaven’s sake, please don’t quote this entire Opening Post when replying like this sufferer of bandwidth diarrhea.)

The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. Finally, I advise you to read the full proposition below, not just the thread title (which is necessarily abbreviated), and request that you debate my entire OP rather than simply respond, “IMHO”-like, to the proposition itself.

To date, the threads are:

Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
#6: Justifying illegal military action.
#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.
#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)
#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.
#10: Corporate respect of the environment.
#11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.
#12: Sad reflections in branded drinking water.
#13: Land should not be bought and sold.
#14: Many personal fortunes contribute nothing to society.
#15: Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
#16: Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility.
#17: The rich are too highly taxed.
#18: Better healthcare for those who can pay for it.
#19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.
#20: The freer the market, the freer the people.
#21: Abortion should be illegal.
#22: All authority must be questioned.
#23: An eye for an eye.
#24: Taxpayers should not prop up theatres or museums.
#25: Schools shouldn’t make attendance compulsory.
#26: Different kinds of people should keep to their own.
#27: Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
#28: It’s natural for children to keep secrets.
#29: Marijuana should be legalised.
#30: School’s prime function is equipping kids to find jobs.
#31: Seriously disabled people should not reproduce.
#32: Learning discipline is the most important thing.
#33: ‘Savage peoples’ vs. ‘different culture’
#34: Society should not support those who refuse to work.
#35: Keep cheerfully busy when troubled.
#36: First generation immigrants can never be fully integrated.
#37: What’s good for corporations is always good for everyone.
#38: No broadcasting institution should receive public funding.
#39: Our civil rights are being excessively curbed re. terrorism.
#40: One party states avoid delays to progress.
#41: Only wrongdoers need worry about official surveillance.
#42: The death penalty should be an option for serious crimes.
#43: Society must have people above to be obeyed.
#44: Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything isn’t art at all.
#45: Punishment is more important than rehabilitation.
#46: It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.
#47: Businessmen are more important than writers and artists.
[/size]
**Proposition #48: Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.

SentientMeat** (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Strongly Disagree.
Oh, please. I might have had some appreciation of the sentiment that parents should balance career and home life, regardless of their sex, but this absurd identification of mothers in this proposition is simple, outright discrimination solely on the basis of gender. I would suggest that anyone Agreeing with #48 but ignoring the gender-specific first word is in some seriously backwards company.

For the first few months after birth, the mother clearly does have a biologically important role, which is why most companies and institutions enact a maternity period (with any paternity leave tending to be much shorter). But thereafter, either parent can forego their career in the interests of their child: that the male must be the default breadwinner is old-fashioned dogma harking back to our prehistoric past (when, incidentally, children would be left with trusted strangers in the tribe just as often as parents pay trusted strangers these days).

It might perhaps be (though it is not what #48 proposes) in the interests of the child that a parent assumes the role of homemaker instead of a trusted, paid stranger or other family member (although there would also be abuse-related cases in which the child was better off with these people - I guess we’re discussing “all other things being equal” here and so this is rather a diversion). But #48 specifies that it is in the interests of the child that the female parent assumes that role, not the male parent. I cannot but disagree with this proposition, and strongly, for it forms perhaps the last bastion of male chauvinist philosophy in Western society.

2

I agree with it is better for the parents to raise their child compaired to paying off someone to do it. But I sort of also agree with the statement, well I would like to change the word ‘homemaker’ into ‘primary care giver’. I do feel there are natural gender roles and men and women are fundementally different. I feel that women are the ones who naturally would take care of their child. That’s not to say that every family has to follow this, as they can choose for themselves.

Perhaps duty is too strong of a word, I would reword the statement as A mothers 1st responsibility is to make sure that their is a primary care giver of her child.

As for your use of the word discrimination, if you think about that word, is it a bad thing. No, you discriminate all the time, who you chose to do business with at the local store to buy a paper, who you choose for a mate. So yes the statment does discriminate, but there is nothing wrong with that.

3

On what basis?

I spoke of discrimination solely on the basis of gender. In your examples, it would be like buying my newspaper solely from men, not my nearest, cheapest or otherwise rational choice of newsagent. I would ask you to justify your discrimination.

4

Homemaking is the responsibility of both of the parents. They may decide who does it primarily, but at the very least men have a good part of the burden. Children who grow up without strong figures - father or mother - tend to be more at risk for various behavior.

Probably genetics. We aren’t that far removed from animals that we are immune to animal behavior. In human behavior, the mother cares for the child in exchange for the father protecting and providing for the mother (though it is speculated that the mother’s “gathering” fed more than the father’s “hunting”). The reverse trend in women not being homemakers is a recent social development. That isn’t to say anything is right or wrong, but that is the natural tendancy shown from our ancestors and related animals.

5

Disagree, but not strongly. I agree with what Sentient Meat had to say. Both parents are equally important in my view. The first responsibility of both parents is the welfare of their children.

6

In that case, I’d suggest that this is a non-sequitur. Fathers “naturally” kill and eat the young born of another male and a mother with whom they wish to mate. We are talking about 21st Century humans here, for whom I argue that a father is just as appropriate a homemaker as a mother. On what basis does anyone here claim otherwise, given that “natural” animals don’t have politics as such at all?

7

This strikes me as a strange and deliberatively combative way to characterize the decision to NOT be a homemaker. When I think of a parent “not raising” their child, I think of the child being placed outside of the home, say in foster care or in an institution, or I think of it as a charge of total neglect.

Do you also believe that children who attend school are being raised by their teachers?

“Paying off” is also a little weird, frankly.

8

I hold a very weird view with regard to this assertion, that doesn’t seem to be covered by any of the various positions advanced.

My key focus is upon the children: that it is essential that they have a primary caregiver with whom they can bond in familial love and who feels the same towards them.

This person need not be either parent, or even genetically or legally related to the child, but it must be one where a stable emotional bond is present between child and caregiver, not merely a daycare program, good as some of them are. (The problem there is that there is no individuality, no “specialness” allowed, by terms of equitable treatment of all the young patrons of the daycare.) Such a role is necessary to the child’s emotional health and ability to mature emotionally at normal rates.

If a mother, following the initial maternity leave, finds it appropriate to be that primary caregiver, there need to be social means available whereby she can do so. In the event that the father, or a grandparent or collateral relative, or a close family friend, undertakes that role, that is fine, so long as there is a stable, permanent, daily person in that role. Even situations whereby several persons who love the child share the role work, so long as the child understands and accepts the idea that both persons X and Y love him/her all the time but are unable to be there all the time, so person X and person Y split being there for the child timewise.

I speak as one who filled that role for the children of two of my “boys” but with no legal or genetic relationship to them when both parents needed to work.

To me, the needs of the child are primary, and the rights and wishes of the parents must come second to those needs. But human nature, in both adults and children, is such that flexibility is possible – a career woman can be an effective mother while working full time provided that there is someone else who can function in the primary-caregiver role. “Mommy loves me but she has to work, and so does Daddy, but Grandma is there when I need somebody” will work for a kid just as well as “Mommy’s there for me whenever I need her.” What has to be avoided is “Mommy and Daddy have to work, so they leave me with Mrs. X and Miss Y, who take care of lots of kids like me. They like me OK but they don’t love me.”

9

I’ve heard this position advanced by one of the major parenting/child development wonks out there. He believes the important thing is a deep emotional bond between the caregiver and the child. IIRC, he promoted grandparents as an ideal caregiver, but said such bonds were also possible with non-family members. The child should feel treasured, secure, and loved.

10

Nice! I’d love a link to read what the referenced wonk has to say, as and when you re-find the position and have opportunity to post or e-mail it. TIA! :slight_smile:

11

+7/-3. Agree.

I think some folks are reading too much into this. It does not say ANYTHING about fathers either way. One might agree with this proposition and also agree with one that said exactly the same thing about fathers. The point being that once one is a parent (either a mother or a father) your number one priority should be the child.

Now, I’ll admit there is a bit of a false dichotomy here, in that providing materially for the child is an important part of rasiing the child. One might also argue about the meaning of “homemaker” since it carries the baggage of doing housework (ie, that housework is women’s work).

But a knee-jerk reaction that this is a sexist statement really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

12

I agree with your reasoning, but my answer to the question was “Strongly Disagree”

It would have been “Agree” or “Strongly agree” to the statement “They may have careers, but parents’ first duty is to their children,” which for me does not necessarily mean that the parent(s) is/are the primary caregiver(s). More, it means that the welfare of their child is at the forefront of the parent’s mind.

13

You would agree that the first word is undeniably gender-specific? Does ignoring not skew its meaning irretrievably? Like I’ve said before, I’m very interested in how different people interpret the propositions, but we must respond to them as they are, not as we would like them to be, since we might as well simply choose our own score in that case.

14

Of course it’s gender specific. But it says nothing about fathers. You said you could understand agreeing if the proposition said “parent” instead of 'mother", but I think YOU are the one assuming more than what is written. The second paragraph in your OP raises objections to the proposition that simply aren’t there.

What you seem to be objecting to is that there is a proposition about mothers, but not about fathers. So what? If there was a proposition that said “Fathers must set a good example for their children” would you object because there wasn’t one saying the same thing about mothers?

15

Well, first of all I would Agree, because that is my immediate response to the proposition as it stands. I would then ask myself why someone specified “fathers” rather than “parents” when they said that: what are the politics behind such a statement?

I would argue that the politics in #48 are far more clear than your notional statement, purely and simply because of its first word. This, I suggest, is not some ivory-towered musing on whether it is detrimental for a child to be left in the care of a grandparent or paid childminder in the daytime: it is at the heart of society’s attitude towards working women, the reality of which is simply not the egalitarian ideal we might wish for. However unconscious or mild the bias in a decision to hire, promote or reward a person who happens to be a father over a person who happens to be a mother might be, it strengthens the glass ceiling rather than weakens it. I argue that Agreement with #48 is one of the glass celing’s most important structural supports, since it provides a justification for treating working mothers differently to working fathers.

16

Fathers haven’t been forced into, defined by, limited to–since the beginning of time–“being postive role models” or whatever the example given was. Women, on the other hand, are still struggling to emerge from the old stereotypes, myths and expectations.

17

SM: But the “politics behind the statement” as you define them are simply not part of the proposition. Taking your approach, someone in a country like Saudi Arabia might strongly disagree (to counter the political climate there) vs someone in the US who might simply disagree. Since the test is desinged to determine a person’s placement on a single, culturally neutral scale, it would seem that you are defeating the purpose by intentionally introducing cultural bias into the interpretation of the proposition.

And for all we know, the test designers might have put this question there to trick people into jumping on the politically correct answer and to see how easily swayed toward that answer the respondent is.

18

-2, -2. Strongly disagree. It would be a different story if the phrase were “their first duty is to take care of their children.” Homemakers. Doesn’t have to do with childcare at all necessarily. As a matter of fact, if you had a large enough household, say 10 kids, you could hire someone to take care of the kids, you would still spend all your time cleaning and cooking etc., and you could still claim you were a homemaker even though you spent no quality time with your children!

I agree that for the first few months of an infant’s life they have a biological need for mother, but after that its the parent’s choice as to which parent, or neither, is the primary caregiver during working hours.

19

True in a way, so far as it goes – though I think you underestimate what society expects of men in the way of balancing career and fatherhood, too.

But there’s an unconscious cross-role-expectation thing which you, inadvertently, reversed: You compared fathers and women; society as a whole compares men and wives/mothers.

A woman qua woman has every right to equal treatment with the other human beings with XY chromosome makeup, under law, in the job market, and so on. A member of either sex who has decided to take on the role of being a parent has additional responsibilities and must meet additional expectations beyond those attached to being an adult human being living in a society.

I would never say that of Mary, Joyce, and Janice, all three are obliged to stay home and make a home for their family. I do feel it’s an honorable role that gets short shrift in our business-and-income-oriented society. But it is not anything that can or should be mandated on them. However, Mary, single, has not undertaken any additional expectations, and can make a career howsoever she chooses. Joyce, married and childless, has made certain commitments to Frank her husband, who has made like commitments to her – and they (not society) need to determine how best to carry out those commitments to each other. Janice, who has given birth to three, has the same rights as do Mary and Joyce, but has undertaken additional responsibilities (as has her husband George) to minor children who are unable to fend for themselves, who need someone’s nurturing to grow into healthy, sane adults.

Is it Janice’s responsibility to ensure that they have the nurture they need? No more than it is George, her husband’s. But no less either. Janice, George, and perhaps any extended family they have must determine between/among them what is best for the children’s nurture, and then commit themselves to providing it. It may be that Janice needs to take on the stayathome mom/homemaker role. It may be that George, with fewer marketable skills than Janice, needs to be a stayathome dad while Janice becomes the breadwinner. It may be that Esther, George’s mother, a widow with no other commitments, needs to be the primary caregiver while both George and Janice work, providing the six of them (Esther, George, Janice, and three kids) with the wherewithal to improve their quality of life. All these are in my mind acceptable solutions to the question of how to ensure the kids are properly nurtured.

Notice that Janice need not fall into that role simply by virtue of being a woman. It’s a choice she has to make to undertake biological motherhood, and a separate choice to be the primary caregiver who remains at home – and George or Esther can equally well undertake that role.

Society does well to free women from the expectation and demand that they be homemakers, without a choice in the matter. It fails when it, in counter-reaction to the old stereotype, insists that they cannot decide to undertake that role. Because the homemaker/primary caregiver role is an important one, which did not grow there because of patriarchal paternalism, but because it’s important to child development. Making it a sexist demand that women must take on that role is wrong, but so is insistence that they must not – because the role is important. What is key is choice, and willing undertaking of responsibility freely chosen.

20

Polycarp, well said and ITA. My husband and I have a child and while I “stay at home” (i.e., do not have a FT job that we depend on), we do split the duties down the middle. My husband leaves for work well before the birds are up and can make it home before afterschool cartoons, at which point, I either take off for one of my classes (persuing my M.A.), work one of my part-time shifts, or simply have a night to myself or with my girlfriends. Once I’m done with my education, I will be the designated breadwinner and we will switch roles.