# Political Compass #48: A mother's first duty is to be a homemaker. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 24, 2005, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392 "2005-01-24T09:36:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392/41 "2005-01-26T13:16:30Z")
Yes, thanks **Poly** - I would not _argue_ with any of that reasoned and responsible commitment, I was just seeking to clarify that her interpretation of #48 effectively _ignores_ the gender-specific first word. Like I’ve said, if someone were to utter the words to #48 in my company, I wouldn’t immediate think they were talking about parents vs. childcare (or else they’d use the word “parents” in place of “mothers”, surely?) ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392/42 "2005-01-26T14:01:12Z")
Here I go again, but **Lissa** ’s post really compels me to respond. Your beliefs about being there 100% for your theoretical kids are idealistic, but it doesn’t quite work that way. 100% of your time? 100% of your energy? 100% of your mental space? A newborn takes all of that. And then after a few weeks you really begin to lose your mind. But it’s okay. You start to pull back a little, the baby starts to realize it’s an independent being, and the dance begins. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392/43 "2005-01-26T15:04:22Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > It’s my opinion that one cannot trust a stranger, a daycare worker who has a dozen other children to watch, to impart these skills. On the contrary, without proper supervision and intervention, negative behavior traits can be picked up from the child’s peers. It appears that our cross-section of parents we know is far different. In my part of the country, and among my circle of acquaintance, paying a “stranger” to take care of a small child is virtually unheard of. Similarly, any daycare worker who is splitting their time between a dozen small children is violating state laws, and parents who choose that setting are being negligent indeed. Even if you were exaggerating for dramatic effect, this picture is still not an accurate picture of the daycare situation for all young children. Some families employ different means such as nannies, au pairs, grandparents, or a home-based daycare, for example. > [@Lissa](#): > > They may love them, hell, they may even think of themselves as good parents because they provide the material necessities and don’t hit them, but they never sat down to read to their kids, or to have real, deep and meaningful conversations with them. When I recall that we are talking about young children here, this simply doesn’t fit. It is not possible to have a “casual” relationship with an infant or toddler when you are responsible for feeding him, breastfeeding him, putting him to bed each night, taking him to his well-child visits, getting up in the middle of the night with him, and so forth. You are painting a cavalier attitude towards child care which I simply do not believe is possible for most parents of young children to maintain, even if they are working parents. Also, if the correlation between working and “not having conversations” with your children is so high, if parents who work cannot in your opinion “know” their children, then that suggests that a family with ANY working parent is compromising a parent-child relationship. That’s pretty awful. Perhaps you’re overstating things? Otherwise, it seems you’d also have to face the fact if your husband continues to teach sociology, he will not know your children. > [@Lissa](#): > > It’s not a matter of believing different research for these parents-- it’s indifference. They figure their kids will “turn out all right” in the end, and perhaps they’re right. But had they taken the time to properly socialize and teach their child, who knows how far they could have gone in life? I’m troubled by your seeming assertion that when YOU read your husband’s books, it’s because you care. When working parents read books on child development, they’re anxious and troubled and guilty about what they secretly know is true: they are failing their children. And the ones who aren’t reading it? They’re simply indifferent. I understand how easy it is to judge people that you think are making decisions which run contrary to your values. But you’re assigning a lot of motivations here that I think are awfully speculative–and doing a lot of guessing about what it means to be a parent caring for a child outside of those daycare hours . ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392/44 "2005-01-26T21:05:56Z")
**Polycarp** said it better than I could when it comes to the gender issue. Stay-at-home dads can and do parent just as well as the mother, but a lot of times, the mother is the one who takes that role for a variety of reasons. In my family, it would be my husband who continued to work, because he makes about twenty times what I do, and his job has medical benefits. > [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](#): > > It appears that our cross-section of parents we know is far different. In my part of the country, and among my circle of acquaintance, paying a “stranger” to take care of a small child is virtually unheard of. Similarly, any daycare worker who is splitting their time between a dozen small children is violating state laws, and parents who choose that setting are being negligent indeed. Even if you were exaggerating for dramatic effect, this picture is still not an accurate picture of the daycare situation for all young children. A “dozen” children was simply a turn of phrase. My point was that a daycare provider cannot possibly provide intensive one-on-one care of a child when she has multiple children who have different needs. A toddler seemingly defies the laws of physics: anyone who’s ever been around one of them can state that it sometimes feels like they’re in three places at once. > [@](#): > > Some families employ different means such as nannies, au pairs, grandparents, or a home-based daycare, for example. Most of my working acquaintances are fellow employees of my husband at his main job. (He’s also a deputy warden at a prison.) These are state employees, whose salaries would never allow for a nanny or au pair. They would be able to afford to have a teenage babysitter come into the home, but in some ways that would be worse. (A daycare worker is more experienced, even if his/her attention is spilt between a handful of children.) In this world, many grandparents also work, so they cannot care for the children. > [@](#): > > When I recall that we are talking about young children here, this simply doesn’t fit. It is not possible to have a “casual” relationship with an infant or toddler when you are responsible for feeding him, breastfeeding him, putting him to bed each night, taking him to his well-child visits, getting up in the middle of the night with him, and so forth. Most people I know do not breastfeed. In this area, for some unknown reason, there is almost an aversion to the idea. Many women I know have complained that they either don’t have the time to spend with their kids, or by the end of the day, they’re so exhausted they don’t want to. > [@](#): > > You are painting a cavalier attitude towards child care which I simply do not believe is possible for most parents of young children to maintain, even if they are working parents. All I am saying is that many parents I know find that they don’t have the time to try to work with their young children as they need to do. They’re away from home for nine hours a day, sometimes more, and older children have needs which take up a lot of time as well. When does the baby get the intensive attention it needs? There’s more to raising an infant than changing a diaper, or feeding them. Some parents I know complain that this is all they really have time to do. > [@](#): > > Also, if the correlation between working and “not having conversations” with your children is so high, if parents who work cannot in your opinion “know” their children, then that suggests that a family with ANY working parent is compromising a parent-child relationship. That’s pretty awful. Perhaps you’re overstating things? Otherwise, it seems you’d also have to face the fact if your husband continues to teach sociology, he will not know your children. Well, that’s one reason why we’re not having any. He works two full-time jobs, teaching and running a prison. I don’t get to see him enough, let alone if we had a child. Nor am I saying that having any working parent harms the child. I have said that one parent needs to be home with the child during its formative years. > [@](#): > > I’m troubled by your seeming assertion that when YOU read your husband’s books, it’s because you care. No, it’s not because I care. It’s because I’m curious. I read books on lots of subjects not because I have an emotional involvement, but because I like to learn stuff. > [@](#): > > When working parents read books on child development, they’re anxious and troubled and guilty about what they secretly know is true: they are failing their children. Some authors have suggested this, yes. > [@](#): > > And the ones who aren’t reading it? They’re simply indifferent. I understand how easy it is to judge people that you think are making decisions which run contrary to your values. But you’re assigning a lot of motivations here that I think are awfully speculative–and doing a lot of guessing about what it means to be a parent caring for a child outside of those daycare hours . Perhaps. All I’m doing is reporting what I see, and unfortunately, I see a lot of parents who don’t spend much time with their kids. Some parents I know spend more time out drinking with their co-workers than they do with their children. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392/45 "2005-01-26T21:46:48Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > A “dozen” children was simply a turn of phrase. My point was that a daycare provider cannot possibly provide intensive one-on-one care of a child when she has multiple children who have different needs. A toddler seemingly defies the laws of physics: anyone who’s ever been around one of them can state that it sometimes feels like they’re in three places at once. Isn’t the same thing true of a father who is at home with a baby, a toddler, and a preschooler? They’ll still have multiple children with different needs. Their attention would still be split. Should people who want more than one kid have them a couple of decades apart so that they won’t run into that problem? ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392/46 "2005-01-26T22:07:00Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > A “dozen” children was simply a turn of phrase. My point was that a daycare provider cannot possibly provide intensive one-on-one care of a child when she has multiple children who have different needs. A toddler seemingly defies the laws of physics: anyone who’s ever been around one of them can state that it sometimes feels like they’re in three places at once. Well, that also calls into question the sort of care a loving stay-at-home mother (or father) can offer a child if she bears more than one. I understand your point, but it’s not true that all SAH parents can offer this one-on-one care standard you’re talking about. > [@Lissa](#): > > They would be able to afford to have a teenage babysitter come into the home, but in some ways that would be worse. (A daycare worker is more experienced, even if his/her attention is spilt between a handful of children.) In this world, many grandparents also work, so they cannot care for the children. The point is, some working families do have those options. I’m saying it is possible for some women to elect to not be homemakers, but still arrange intimate loving (and even family) care for their child or children. You are also overlooking home daycares, in which a trained licensed professional cares for a small number of children in his or her own home. There are still some of the drawbacks associated with daycare, but it also mitigates some of the other concerns rightly raised by child advocates and folks like yourself. > [@Lissa](#): > > Many women I know have complained that they either don’t have the time to spend with their kids, or by the end of the day, they’re so exhausted they don’t want to. . . There’s more to raising an infant than changing a diaper, or feeding them. Some parents I know complain that this is all they really have time to do. I understand the sentiment, but it’s simply not an option with small children. it’s not like refusing to play catch with your 8-yr-old. Their needs have to be met, and parents must meet them. Perhaps non-working parents meet them better than working parents, but this model you have held up of detached working parents simply doesn’t mesh with the reality of life with a wee one. I also think some stay-at-home parents might take exception to the suggestion that it’s only “working” parents who feel tired at the end of the day. I can’t speak for the parents you know who have confided that l they do nothing more than change a diaper and stick a bottle in the baby’s mouth, but as a parent I find that so hard to imagine I will have to optimistically assume they’re unusual cases > [@Lissa](#): > > Nor am I saying that having any working parent harms the child. I have said that one parent needs to be home with the child during its formative years. Frankly, I think there are many strong arguments for a parent choosing to stay home during those early years. But you made special mention (in your post made a 12:04) of your belief that working parents are but casual acquaintances with their children. “Harmful” or not, that sounds to me like a pretty unfortunate relationship for a parent to have with a child. I question whether you really meant to say it, because barring the rare family situation where both parents stay home, that would be the case in nearly every family in America–at least one parent is a mere “casual acquaintance”. Including in your own future family. > [@Lissa](#): > > Some parents I know spend more time out drinking with their co-workers than they do with their children. Yeah, you might know my former brother-in-law. Heh. But that’s a different situation there; that’s a parent choosing to spend time away from their child ina social situation, a choice separate from choosing to work. Many working parents hold jobs that don’t include going to happy hour. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392/47 "2005-01-26T23:17:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Perhaps it’s a matter of degree. If we were to attempt to nail down some number of hours of separation per day at which parents are “no longer raising” their own child, we would clearly draw that line in different places. There’s our disagreement. I don’t really buy into the ‘quality’ time line and think there is no subsitute to quantity time, but can accept your view may be different. > [@](#): > > As for paying off, the most common usage (in the U.S; I’m not sure where you’re writing from) is that “paying off” means either working down a debt, paying someone wages owed upon termination, or bribing someone. It has a different connotations than hiring or employing a caregiver. I am using paying off in the way that a person has taken on a responsibility that really only can be filled by that particular person, or their mate, IMHO, but has decided not to go through with this and justify it’s OK by hiring someone else to do it. My BIG problem with this line is characterized by a friend of a very successful business when he told me that employees are the paid enemy. I don’t feel that people can be paid to sucessfully raise someone else’s child. (my H.O.) ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392/48 "2005-01-26T23:40:00Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I said that there is such a thing as a _rational_ discrimination, in this case correlated with certain cytochrome levels my sexual dimorphic nucleus. I was asking what reason you give for discriminating between fathers and mothers in terms of who should be the homemaker. Some of the reasons have been stated (bio & the sacafice the woman must make to birth the child). In general, I think we agree that someone who has actually gone through months of major discomfort and some of the worst pain known to human kind to be more willing to make sure the product of that pain (child) to be raised in a proper way. I am a bit taken back by the term homemaker, and now openly disagree with it, this is about primary care giver. I don’t care if they hire a fleet of full time maids, butlers and cooks to take care of the home, but it is her primary responsibility to make sure that child is raised properly (as she sees fit). I do realise that this means for most of us this means that she will be home and by default take care of the house as well, again this goes into another issue, as most womens’ tollerence of ‘dirt’ is usually lower then mens, in my experence, leading to the woman wanting things cleaner then the man, leading to her acting on it - again this is another issue. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392/49 "2005-01-27T03:11:12Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I don’t really buy into the ‘quality’ time line and think there is no subsitute to quantity time, but can accept your view may be different. You mistake my meaning. I’m sorry for not being clearer. I am not talking about the concept of quality time. I am merely pointing out that I believe that a parent who is responsible for the care and well-being of their young child 16 hours of a weekday (as an example assuming 8 hours with a caregiver) is still, essentially, “raising” their own child. You have stated here that you do not. Therefore, you must have some other point, between 0 and 40 hours a week, at which the parent is no longer raising a child. I don’t know what that is, and I doubt it would even be possible or useful to pinpoint what our different levels are, but theoretically our difference seems to lie in **how much time** a parent can entrust their child to another’s care and still be considered a parent. ---
**Author:** ![hildea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ebca7d/32.png) [@hildea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hildea)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392/50 "2005-01-27T07:25:14Z")
_Economic Left/Right: -6.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97 Strongly disagree._ I’d have gone “strongly agree” to **amarinth’s** statement: > [@amarinth](#): > > “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. To single out the mother is, to me, absurd. Both parents (or all parents, in non-traditional family configurations) have full responsibility for their children’s wellbeing. Sure, a lot of families choose to place a bigger part of the day-to-day tasks on the mother. That’s fine if it works for them (and very far from fine if it means that the father barely gets to know his children), but I see no reason to treat this as better or more right than families where fathers take an equal or greater share of the tasks. So, on to the “primary care giver” part of the debate. I strongly disagree that a full time stay-at-home caregiver is essential for children older than a year or so. Sure, it’s important that parents have time for their children, that they spend time to raise them, read for them, have time for both meaningful and trivial conversations with them. But some hours each day in a good day care – and by “good”, I mean a sensible ratio of grown ups to children, decent facilities, and employees with relevant education – is an advantage to both children and parents, not a second-best alternative for those who can’t afford to quit their jobs. > [@lissa](#): > > Studies and research have shown what a crucial time early childhood is when it comes to socialization and mental development. Children learn crucial concepts such as empathy, patience and how to share. They learn their communication skills from interractions with their parents, and negative behaviors such as selfishness and aggression are tempered. The very building blocks of a person are laid during this time. > > It’s my opinion that one cannot trust a stranger, a daycare worker who has a dozen other children to watch, to impart these skills. On the contrary, without proper supervision and intervention, negative behavior traits can be picked up from the child’s peers. A day care is place for additional socialisation and learning. Some aspects of patience and sharing, as well as (perhaps even more important) how to handle conflicts, are easier to learn in a bigger group than at home with one or two grown ups and one or two siblings, or none. Sure, children will also learn things the parents aren’t happy about. As a feminist, I was pretty dismayed when my then-three-year-old son came home from day care and told me that he didn’t want any more female pirates in the stories I told him. It was a long and hard struggle to get across the idea that some girls like swords, that mom is a girl and mom likes swords, and that girls can _too_ be good at swordfighting and hunting for treasure 🙂 But I see that as another valuable learning instance, teaching him that different people have different ideas and ideals, and preparing him for developing the ability to be critical about what he hears. That will, of course, sometimes lead him to the conclusion that mom and dad are wrong, and he’s right. And that’s good too. We’re not raising children to become copies of ourselves. They don’t belong to us, they belong to themselves. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392/51 "2005-01-27T07:43:33Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > 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** ). Not as rare as one might think for a child to be better served being brought up by a non-parent. German psychoanalyst Alice Miller in her book _The Drama of the Gifted Child: The Search for the True Self_ makes this point very powerfully in the case of children who must ignore their own needs in order to make good those of their parent(s). For the record, I disagree with #48. I would disagree completely but for the fact that women are typically much more committed to homemaking than men, and more dedicated to their family. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392/52 "2005-01-27T22:33:48Z")
> [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](#): > > Therefore, you must have some other point, between 0 and 40 hours a week, at which the parent is no longer raising a child. > > I don’t know what that is, and I doubt it would even be possible or useful to pinpoint what our different levels are, but theoretically our difference seems to lie in **how much time** a parent can entrust their child to another’s care and still be considered a parent. I agree to disagree on this point, I don’t feel I can put an percent of time to this, To me it’s a question of responsibility. A parent does what they can, anything less is not being responsible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-48-a-mothers-first-duty-is-to-be-a-homemaker/286392.md?page=2)