Gas mask and tongs: Who stays home?

[system]

*Originally posted by andros *
**

Our nature is just that–our nature.

But you realize that can be used as a copout, though, right?

“I couldn’t help it, it was in my nature.”

Again, I’d like to think that there are some aspects of our nature that we are mature enough as a species to overcome. **

Well, it can be used as a copout. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t true. Remember, I’m not saying that this is a universal truth, just one explanation for many things.

And yes, there are some aspects of our nature that we are mature enough as a species to overcome. Does that mean that we should overcome all of them? I’ll concede, war, domestic violence, and things like that should be overcome, and (though I doubt they will) I would like to see them eradicated in my lifetime. But what about being carnivores? It’s our nature, would you be glad to see meat made illegal?

Why do you make the assumption that the negative parts of our nature are things we are obligated to overcome? Who knows? Maybe they will, in the future, have some use that our modern eyes cannot see. If we get rid of them, we may be–in some sci-fi/post-apocalyptic way–dooming our species to extinction.

[Polycarp]

I confess that, contrary to my usual practice, I haven’t read everyone’s posts before commenting myself.

My observation would be that the child needs a person with specific love for him/her present in the early years. This should, ideally, be one or the other of the parents – and American society is such that it’s still a bit more advantageous for that parent to be the mother, in most circumstances. (There are exceptions; most old-timers can think of a couple who were formerly very involved with this board where the father was the primary care-giver after infancy for exceptionally good reasons involving the parents’ professions.) I know of a case where a young couple lived very close to his mother, who was mildly disabled, and took care of her grandchildren (whom she loved very much) while both parents worked.

Regarding the need for adult role models of both sexes for kids, this question has been dealt with on earlier threads, and IIRC it was mentioned on the gay marriage thread that most gay and lesbian couples who adopt ensure that a close friend of the opposite sex plays a close aunt/uncle role to the child for precisely that reason. Single parents with sense normally do likewise – though far too often the “role model’s” primary qualifications are the ability to turn on the single parent.

That about covers it, except that it occurs to me that it may be high time that somebody weaned Tracer!

[andros]

But what about being carnivores? It’s our nature, would you be glad to see meat made illegal?

Oh, puhleeze. I never said a thing about law. But to address the question: Firstly, we are NOT by nature carnivores. We’re omnivores. (Yes, that’s nitpicky. Cope.) But secondly, a persona can very well choose NOT to eat meat. Lots of people do. There ya go, they’ve overcome that aspect of their “nature.” It’s not an aspect that I would personally like everyone to overcome (talk to Phil Dennison about that one).

Why do you make the assumption that the negative parts of our nature are things we are obligated to overcome?

Because I believe that some aspects of our “nature” (and I defy you to quantify that) have long been used to justify violence and subjugation. They’re negative, by your definition. I think you realize that the idea of “let’s keep all the women at home and the men big and hairy just in case of alien invasion that somehow needs fragile women and testosterone-laden men in order to be defeated” is specious in the extreme. This isn’t like wiping out a species. Behavioral traits don’t work that way.
Polycarp, my thanks, as usual. One question, though. You said:

American society is such that it’s still a bit more advantageous for that parent to be the mother, in most circumstances.

I guess the question is, how advantageous? Is the converse disadvantageous enough to keep the mom in the home and dad at work?

[cher3]

Quote:

“Relax, Cher3…step back and reread my post. Can you honestly say that people raising their own children isn’t the best scenario? How did you get the impression that this is what I meant?”
That is exactly what I’m honestly saying. There is not one “best” scenario, there are many. The idea that people who choose to work and have children are by definition settling for some sort of inferior life for their children is deeply ignorant.

[system]

*Originally posted by cher3 *
That is exactly what I’m honestly saying. There is not one “best” scenario, there are many. The idea that people who choose to work and have children are by definition settling for some sort of inferior life for their children is deeply ignorant.
**

Huh. Guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree then. I can’t help but think that, if it is economically feasible, one parent (doesn’t matter which) should stay at home to give a child round-the-clock care.

If a couple’s financial situation is prohibitive, by all means, work! “Latchkey” kids are, IMHO, the ones who are the most cheated.

[Badtz_Maru]

This one kinda hits close to home. I recently got married, and plan on having children soon. My wife has a 5 year old daughter from a previous relationship, and as a working mother relied on friends, relatives, and daycare to raise her to school age. Now the daughter has school and after-school activities to occupy her while we work. With the next kid I would prefer not to take the former route because of some personality issues with the child that I have not seen in the children of my family - all my siblings and other relations had traditional families where the mother stayed at home. Armchair psychology leads me to believe these difficulties are due to spending a good portion of her formative years in environments with little personal interaction with authority figures and no discipline - but whether I am right about that or not, I know I would prefer for my children to be raised with a parent at home.

The question is which should quit their job. My wife makes about 20% more a year than me if you don’t count my stock options, which I will only get for two more years if I continue at my current job and don’t get a new deal. Her line of work is going to have more traditional hours than mine, she is always going to be working 9-5 or something like that, I have enough seniority that I could choose about any shift I liked, so I might be able to be home during most of the day and then go to work around the time my wife got home. Breast feeding is unfortunately not an option to be considered in this case.

I am currently leaning towards the idea of me staying home during the day, though maybe continuing to work. For one thing, I would like to have a big hand in training and teaching my offspring, and my wife also has a tendency to give in to whining and I do not want my kids spoiled. But I wonder what long-term effects it might have on my kids to have a man in the role usually taken by the mother.

[zen101]

*Originally posted by andros *
**I guess, Zen, that I still don’t understand why it requires a man to raise a boy and a woman to raise a girl. I mean, you said:

my definition of a man is pretty much a general description of any good person. He just happens to be a “he”.

Which indicates to me that it shouldn’t matter much–all it takes to turn kids into good people is the example of other good people, regardless of sex. But then, as you say, there are differences between men and women. I contend that the bulk of those differences are biological, and the rest are taught.

Being different isn’t bad. Really. Personally, I would much prefer my child understand that than learn how to “fit in.” But I understand your point–it’s hard to be different in a culture that so highly values conformity.

I’m sorry if I have you the impression that I’m opposed to all tradition simply on principle. That was not in any way my intention. But I am opposed to the traditions that define roles based on sex. Women are still real women if they don’t wear makeup, buy shoes, or have babies. Men are still real men if they don’t run their household, drive the car, or hammer things. Women are still real women if they don’t wear bras or skirts. Men are still real men if they’re gay or don’t watch football.

Those are the sex-based “traditions” I wish to eliminate.

There are all sorts of ways to be a man. None of them are wrong.

YMMV. **

Andros, you have me at a disadvantage. Either I am unable to explain myself to your satisfaction or you did not read the entirety of my post because you do have me out of context.

I can only try to recap and adress yor specific statement with a scenario.

Two parents, one male and one female. Both equally adept at generating income and both good stable and caring. So aside from gender they are equal as parents. Well then it pretty much comes down to gender doesn’t it?

You said you would rather have an individual than someone who knows how to “fit in”. But you completely ignored my statement regarding “Ken and Barbie” and made me out to be in support of conformity.

An individual who is a functioning member of society is still an individual. He or she simply has the ability to make friends and relate to others.

The Unabomber was a true individual but lacked the tools to relate to the rest of society. Do you consider him one of humanities success stories? Of course I have you out of context or at least I have intentionally misenterpeted your intent. Tit for tat?

Why is a mother better able to be the primary childgiver to a daughter and a father to a son? Because of the ability to set an example. Again, this all has to stipulate that the rolemodel is a good example. I was certainly better off being raised by my mother than by my father but it left me handicapped in certain areas because I was unable to learn to bond easily with males, nor did i learn at a young age how to identify with anyone other than women and girls.

Is that a bad thing? It has been for me a source of irritation at least and has caused me other difficulties that are real.

Maybe in some special land we could all be unique and special snowflakes, but do you live in this world? If so can you send along the postal code as i would like to search for a job and home in the area. But in the world I live in you need to at least know how to get along and communicate to get any measure of success. It is much more difficult to learn this as an adult than it is as a child and the communication between a child and parent is the foundation for this. Learning empathy is a function of this and polar genders are a hinderance as you get older, thus a male raised by his mother will be likely to have problems with women as he gets older that other males also have but will lack the communicative tools that those other males have with one another. Thus he ends up with little to no real advantage. He is handicapped with both genders.

What I interpet this OP to be about is the practical application of our opinions and the justifications for said opinions.

As for “defning roles based on sex”. Maybe you do, but isn’t the very thought of a father being the primary caregiver to a child pretty much a non-stereotypical gender role for the Western male and also the premise of my entire argument. I think you are working too hard to read things into my statements which are not there.

Let me put it to you like this. ** Are men and women the same?**

** Do you think men and women should be the same?

Are the majority of important differences genetic or societal?

Do you Wish to be rid of all but genetic differences?

If you agree that some “societal” differences between the sexes are good, then who teaches the child these things and how early does such teaching begin?**
If you really are of a mind that men and women should be identical in all but genetic manners then I suppose I can’t fault consistency with the exception that it would somewhat conflict with your comments on individuality. On the other hand if you believe in* “vive’ le difference”* then it would seem to me at least that your main issue is that your are just trying to be contradictory.

[cher3]

Yes, I’m sure that many, probably most people will continue to disagree with me. Clearly, the whole thing pisses me off. We have been, IMO, brainwashed into the idea that some sort of Leave it to Beaver scenario is fundamentally the right way to raise kids, and even parents who choose to work fall into that way of thinking, beating themselves up with guilt, even though they can see their children are happy and flourishing.

I’ve seen people cling to the idea, even when it is actually harming their family life. We know people who are working themselves to death, and who hardly see their kids because they “have” to have a big house and yard. So they spend four hours on the road a day because the only house they can afford is way out in the boondocks.

It also leads to people like Badz Maru having to ask whether he is going to inflict some dire psychological harm on his own babies if he takes care of them himself.

I decided a while back that I wasn’t going to fall into that trap anymore. I think this is essentially a religious debate, in that people believe what they choose to believe, and no evidence to the contrary or witnessing from the other side is going to convince them.

The general response working parents are given is “sympathy”–Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if you could stay home. The idea that we work because it makes us better people and thus parents is never even considered as a possibility. As far as my personal feelings go, this is as offensive as telling a Jewish person, “Wouldn’t it be nice if you could accept Christ.”

Okay, I’ll quit now.

[Kimstu]

zen101: *I was certainly better off being raised by my mother than by my father but it left me handicapped in certain areas because I was unable to learn to bond easily with males, nor did i learn at a young age how to identify with anyone other than women and girls.

Is that a bad thing? It has been for me a source of irritation at least and has caused me other difficulties that are real. *

zen, while I sympathize with the frustration you feel about your own experience, I have to question your general conclusions about the cause-and-effect relationship. I know quite a few guys who were also cared for mostly by their mothers in infancy and childhood—more than about 70% of the interaction was with the mother, as you said was the case for you—and they haven’t had these issues in adolescence and adulthood. They bond and identify fine with males, form friendships with other males easily, etc.

I’m not saying that it would have made no difference in your case to have had more interaction with your father; I’m just questioning whether we can extrapolate from your particular experience to general conclusions about the desirability of everyone’s being raised primarily by the same-gender parent. Certainly there are lots of counterexamples.

[Fillet]

Badtz Maru and andros, let me tell you about my nephew.

My sister stayed him with him the first four months of his life (the maximum amount of time she was allowed to take off from work for maternity leave). For about a year after that, my nephew spent three days a week in day care, with my parents looking after him (at my sister’s home) the other two days of the week. My sister and brother-in-law were practically glued to him whenever they were home.

When he was about two years old, my brother-in-law accepted a buyout offer from his company and decided to be Mr. Mom for a few months before starting a new job. He liked it so much that his staying at home has evolved into a longer-term plan of action, and he’ll probably stay at home at least until my nephew starts school. They are fortunate in that my sister’s career in the meantime has really taken off, so they can live comfortably on just her income.

How is my nephew handling this? Well, he just loves his daddy to pieces, but mommy has a special place in his heart too. He is a bright, articulate 3.5 year old who is just a joy to be around because he is so good-natured. He clearly didn’t suffer any ills for having been in day care when he was younger, nor has he been damaged in any way by my brother-in-law being his caretaker. IMHO, kids know who loves them, and they respond to that love. If your kids know you love them, I think some of the other stuff that people fret about so much becomes insignificant.

If there has been any adverse effect of this arrangement, it’s that my sister continues to feel that she is somehow failing as a “good mother” by not being home - and that feeling is NOT being reinforced by my brother-in-law, but by her own friends and female co-workers who followed the more “traditional” route of staying home while their husbands worked. No, it shouldn’t matter really who stays with the kids, but it’ll take a while longer before society as a whole is accepting of “alternative” arrangements.

[zen101]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
**zen101: *I was certainly better off being raised by my mother than by my father but it left me handicapped in certain areas because I was unable to learn to bond easily with males, nor did i learn at a young age how to identify with anyone other than women and girls.

Is that a bad thing? It has been for me a source of irritation at least and has caused me other difficulties that are real. *

zen, while I sympathize with the frustration you feel about your own experience, I have to question your general conclusions about the cause-and-effect relationship. I know quite a few guys who were also cared for mostly by their mothers in infancy and childhood—more than about 70% of the interaction was with the mother, as you said was the case for you—and they haven’t had these issues in adolescence and adulthood. They bond and identify fine with males, form friendships with other males easily, etc.

I’m not saying that it would have made no difference in your case to have had more interaction with your father; I’m just questioning whether we can extrapolate from your particular experience to general conclusions about the desirability of everyone’s being raised primarily by the same-gender parent. Certainly there are lots of counterexamples. **

Of course as with evedryone here who posts an opinion it must be based on firsthand experience. My observations do come primarily from my own life. However, I have observed this same kind of social malaise in other men and have noted that the men who I have seen with it all had either abusive or absent fathers or like myself “buddy dads”. I am honestly hard pressed to think of any of the men whom I have encountered with the same or similar issues to myself who had a father as the main influence in their lives. To some lesse extent i have noticed with women that I have known to have emotional issues (I have know quite a few, my personality seems to atract them) that there were mother-daughter issues in early childhood as well. My ex-fiancee is a drastic example, while a stirling human being she had problems relating to women and had few female friends. Her mother, a severe depressive, lived in the basement of their home for over two years and had very limited interaction with her. She is, and consideres herself to be, a “daddy’s girl” in every way. This is, of course, an extreme example but then extreme examples tond to draw one’s attention to causative relationships. After all, when testing chemichals, the rat must die for the diagnostic process to begin.

[andros]

Zen:

made me out to be in support of conformity.

I’m sorry you interpreted my statements that way. It was not my intention to do so, or to take your words out of context.

An individual who is a functioning member of society is still an individual. He or she simply has the ability to make friends and relate to others.

Here, I think, is our fundamental point of disconnect/disagreement.

I do not believe that “the ability to make friends and relate to others” is related to the sex of the parent who spends more time with the child. It appears that you do believe this.

I’ve known plenty of boys raised primarily by women, and girls by men, who were socially well-adapted, empathic, and well-adjusted. I’ve known plenty of kids raised primarily by a parent of the same sex who were none of those things.

the world I live in you need to at least know how to get along and communicate to get any measure of success. It is much more difficult to learn this as an adult than it is as a child and the communication between a child and parent is the foundation for this.

Granted, of course. But this says nothing about the sex of parent or child. Again, I simply do not understand why it’s important, if it is.

thus a male raised by his mother will be likely to have problems with women as he gets older that other males also have but will lack the communicative tools that those other males have with one another. Thus he ends up with little to no real advantage. He is handicapped with both genders.

Another one. Maybe there are studies that bear this out, and if there are I will be very interested in seeing them. Otherwise, I will assume it’s your opinion, and will continue to respectfully disagree.

As for “defning roles based on sex”. Maybe you do, but isn’t the very thought of a father being the primary caregiver to a child pretty much a non-stereotypical gender role for the Western male and also the premise of my entire argument.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand. Yes, it’s nontraditional. I’d like every child to grow up thinking that daddy and mommy are both caring parents, and that neither is the one “supposed” to be at home. But I don’t understand why this is the crux of your argument.

Are men and women the same?

No. No one is that same. I don’t happen to feel that sex is the most important of the differences between people. Or gender.

Do you think men and women should be the same?

Nope, never said I did. But I also don’t think that people should have to be defined by what society and tradition say men and women “should” be.

Are the majority of important differences genetic or societal?

I asked you that one already, IIRC. Societal. Breasts or penis alone do not define a person. And I think I’ve stated my opinion on “biological imperatives” already.

Do you Wish to be rid of all but genetic differences?

Of course not. Never said I did, not once. But again, one’s biological sex is only one of the vast number of differences between any two people.

If you agree that some “societal” differences between the sexes are good, then who teaches the child these things and how early does such teaching begin?

What societal differences between sexes, based on sex, have I advocated? I don’t think they should all be eliminated, not overnight at any rate, but we’re all human, regardless of our biology, and should treat one another as humans first, and only second as man and woman (if at all).

So I’m a romantic. So sue.

[andros]

Thanks, Fillet. I appreciate your comments.

As I mnetioned about women unable to breastfeed, and as Cher pointed out about parents unable to stay home, we keep having these societal pressures that make people feel like failures.

That’s one of the things I’d like to see change. And if I can do that in the way I raise my child, I’m going to.

I assure you, if my SO ever, ever, feels like less of a woman or a “bad mother,” we’ll address it immediately, if not sooner. I’m blessed with a friend and companion who can discuss those things with me. And if she ever wants to spend more time at home and less at work, she has my blessings as well.

[Felice]

zen -

I’m not sure that it is possible to extrapolate from your own personal bad experiences to a general rule of human behavior. After all, for the vast majority of human existence, the mother has been the primary caretaker of children, whether male or female. If your example were the rule, then virtually all men would have the same problems relating to other men that you describe. Which simply does not seem to be the case. So I think I will just have to disagree with your case-study.

Felice

[zen101]

*Originally posted by Felice *
**zen -

I’m not sure that it is possible to extrapolate from your own personal bad experiences to a general rule of human behavior. After all, for the vast majority of human existence, the mother has been the primary caretaker of children, whether male or female. If your example were the rule, then virtually all men would have the same problems relating to other men that you describe. Which simply does not seem to be the case. So I think I will just have to disagree with your case-study.

Felice
**

Actually, from a historical viewpoint making the mother the primary caretaker of children beyond early adolescence is a relatively new and primarily western practice.

Most tribal cultures and more primative cultures have regarded seperate roles in the education of children pretty standard practice. As an example I point to hunting cultures where the boys go off on the hunts with the adult men at a very early age while they girls work with the women within the community.

The main reason for this recent change is the advent of education outside the home becoming the standard and parents working away from the home. It just isn’t as feasable today in modern society for this practice to continue.

As to weather all men or even most have these issues you have to contend with the reality that an open line of communication between men and women is even more recent than the aforementioned transition. Put quite simply, no one knows that much about how well men and women have communicated with one another in the past because it wasn’t viewed as all that important. Also communication between men was not as complex in the past as it is today because of a more formal code of conduct that people in general followed. For a more detailed look at this specific topic I refer to you the book by Gabriel Garcia Marquez entitled* Love In The Time Of Cholera. * While this book is a novel it is in essence historically accurate (as much as it can be when dealing with a historical timeframe) and mates with accepted views on the times it depicts.

With the looser standards and lessening of imposed roles that we have today I view it as even more important that we know ourselves and are at ease with our identities. A point that I keep restating but is being ignored. You begin to learn about yourself at an early age and part of who you are has to do with your gender and how that affects your interactions with others. I am of a mind, locically I think, that if you wish to learn how to live with yourself as a man or woman which you will grom in to then it is important that your primary influences are people who are well adjusted examples of either gender. As my daughter will grow to be a woman and as I MUST choose in this scenario and in r/l a primary influence for her then my best option is the well adjusted woman who happens to be her mother.

People have their children learning to swim at infancy today and no one, not even myself, questions the logic of it, yet state that learning about your own identity at an early age is also paramount and you get confusion.

Again, this whole thread is based on having to choose one ore the other. The mother or the father. I wonder, would all of you be picking this apart so much if I had stated arbitrarily that “it should be the mother no matter what.” or “It should always be the father.”. I just don’t get it. I also must have missed anyone else answering the question because I don’t recall much in the way of real answers other than my own. Most of what I have read had to deal with daycare and breastfeeding which I didn’t really see as germaine to the question. According to most of the information I have on the subject breastfeeding has no irreplaceable value for the child past six months (Also know that my daughter breastfed for longer and drank breastmilk for longer still but I didn’t have the information then that I have now regarding nutrition and health).

[andros]

Zen:

With the looser standards and lessening of imposed roles that we have today I view it as even more important that we know ourselves and are at ease with our identities. A point that I keep restating but is being ignored.

Sigh. No, I’m not ignoring you. I disagree with you. There’s a difference. I do not believe that one’s identity is as deeply based on one’s sex as you do. I know I haven’t been explaining myself as well as I might. Is there another way I can say it that will help you understand my point better?

People have their children learning to swim at infancy today and no one, not even myself, questions the logic of it, yet state that learning about your own identity at an early age is also paramount and you get confusion.

Once more, with feeling: This statement still holds if you do not believe that sex is the prime mover of identity. I am not saying you’re wrong! I’m merely saying that “learning about one’s identity” does not need to include learning preestablished sex roles!

Again, this whole thread is based on having to choose one ore the other. The mother or the father.

Well, it might be now, but I believe the OP dealt with childcare and a homemaker must be a woman. I’m sorry if that was not adequately communicated in the OP.

I wonder, would all of you be picking this apart so much if I had stated arbitrarily that “it should be the mother no matter what.” or “It should always be the father.”

You see it as picking it apart, I see it as trying to understand what you’re saying. And yes, I would be just as interested had you taken another viewpoint.

Most of what I have read had to deal with daycare and breastfeeding which I didn’t really see as germaine to the question.

Well, the folks who gave those responses did, and I did. Daycare and breastfeeding are entirely germane. From the OP:

They are faced with the decision of whether one parent will quit working to stay at home for the next few years or the child will spend the days in a daycare facility. If the former, they must then decide which of the two will stay home. [bolding added]

[andros]

Well, it might be now, but I believe the OP dealt with childcare and a homemaker must be a woman. I’m sorry if that was not adequately communicated in the OP.

Sheesh, it wasn’t even adequately communicated in that post!

Of course, that should read, " . . . with childcare and whether a homemaker must be a woman."

[Felice]

*Originally posted by zen101 *

Actually, from a historical viewpoint making the mother the primary caretaker of children beyond early adolescence is a relatively new and primarily western practice.
Most tribal cultures and more primative cultures have regarded seperate roles in the education of children pretty standard practice. As an example I point to hunting cultures where the boys go off on the hunts with the adult men at a very early age while they girls work with the women within the community.

So what? The OP is talking about INFANCY!!! Please. Let’s focus on whether it matters which parent stays home with children under the age of FIVE. Okay? That’s what the OP is about.

As to weather all men or even most have these issues you have to contend with the reality that an open line of
communication between men and women is even more recent than the aforementioned transition. Put quite simply, no one
knows that much about how well men and women have communicated with one another in the past because it wasn’t viewed as all that important. Also communication between men was not as complex in the past as it is today because of a more formal code of conduct that people in general followed. For a more detailed look at this specific topic I refer to you the book by Gabriel Garcia Marquez entitled Love In The Time Of Cholera. While this book is a novel it is in essence historically accurate (as much as it can be when dealing with a historical timeframe) and mates with accepted views on the times it depicts.
…

With the looser standards and lessening of imposed roles that we have today I view it as even more important that we know ourselves and are at ease with our identities.

Not being a historian, I am always exceptionally leery of drawing conclusions about historical situations based on ** novels** which are by their very nature fictitious. Haven’t read this one, can’t comment on it.

But that brings up an interesting point. You say that in the past how men and women communicat with each other wasn’t viewed as all that important, because the gender roles were well-defined and there was relatively little interaction between them. You also say that nowadays that’s changing. So… couldn’t that mean that it is more important for children to have increased interactions with the opposite gender, to gain a better understanding and appreciation of that?

The main reason for this recent change is the advent of education outside the home becoming the standard and parents working away from the home. It just isn’t as feasable today in modern society for this practice to continue.

Okay, I think I see what you’re getting at here. And…um…I think that’s my point.

People have their children learning to swim at infancy today and no one, not even myself, questions the logic of it, yet state that learning about your own identity at an early age is also paramount and you get confusion.

Like andros, I’m not going to disagree with this one. What I do disagree with is that learning about your own identity is best communicated by the same-sex parent.

Again, this whole thread is based on having to choose one ore the other. The mother or the father.

I disagree. This thread is not saying that a child should (or should not, for that matter) be raised exclusively by either parent. The OP specified a two-parent household. This thread is discussing whether or not it matters which parent is the primary caretaker of infants.

Most of what I have read had to deal with daycare and breastfeeding which I didn’t really see as germaine to the question. According to most of the information I have on the subject breastfeeding has no irreplaceable value for the child past six months (Also know that my daughter breastfed for longer and drank breastmilk for longer still but I didn’t have the information then that I have now regarding nutrition and health). **

I think that material is definitely germane. I just don’t think the breastfeeding issue should be considered a reason for the mother to stay home.

Felice

[zen101]

I stayed up late last night and formulated a detailed answer to every question that my postings have brought up. I am certain that my answers would have cleared up any confusion in regards to my opinons on this subject. I even spell-checked.

Then I went to post it, and for some reason I got a message stating that i needed to post a subject for my new thread. I must have hit the wrong button. I am so frustrated by this that I am bowing out and choosing to get a vasectomy tomorrow afternoon so that I can state that I “have no longer any reason to even have an opinion on this subject.”.

I swear, you all would have agreed with me and sworn alleigence to my master brain. Really, you would have. Honest. I’m not kidding. No, really.

[andros]

I am bowing out and choosing to get a vasectomy tomorrow afternoon so that I can state that I “have no longer any reason to even have an opinion on this subject.”

I wonder if that will work on Mrs. andros?