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

Great Debates
21

-5.62, -5.49

I somewhat agreed with the statement. Some may call my views when it comes to children as rather conservative, but I firmly believe that having children is an enormous, life-changing decision that most don’t take with the seriousness it deserves.

Firstly, either parent can function as primary care-giver with equal competency, but that duty generally falls to the woman because of economic disparity between the sexes-- it just makes sense that the person making the most, or having the best benefits continue to work while the other partner stays home. Again, however, this usually ends up being the woman. Whether that’s “fair” or not is immaterial-- that’s just the way it is.

That said, I feel that a woman who wants to have a baby and also continue to work is being somewhat selfish. While I understand that circumstances force some women to do so, a great many work because they enjoy it, or because they want to have extra money for nicer things. It’s my personal opinion that chosing to have a child means chosing to utterly devote yourself to that child’s needs, which you can’t really do while holding down a job. If a person cannot afford to have a baby unless both partners work, perhaps it’s best to delay childbearing until the family is in a more stable financial condition-- it’s only fair for the child.

My generation has been encouraged to think we can have it all-- a fulfilling career and children, but it’s my opinion that having children is a full-time career which can’t be scheduled around work requirements. At least until the child is in school, the mother should be home with the child, and if she gets a job after he/she’s in school, it should be one which allows her to be home by the time the child gets out of school.

This is one of the reasons why I don’t have children. I don’t feel that I am ready, willing or able to completely devote my life to a child. I don’t think parenting is something that can be done properly by a part- time mother.

22

OK Lets go just with gender, and I ask you do you discriminate on the basis of gender when it comes to selection of a mate, I sure do, and I justify it as my God given right of freedom of will (do you still deny you discrimiate?).

As for your other Q about what basis I say that women are the ones responsible for primary care (which is not worded as I would like it to be), Demorian touched on a major part. Some other factors is that she has more invested in the child, she has a limited number of eggs, she has sacrificed herself physically to bear her child, it seems only natural that she would be the one who is more likely to ensure her child is raised properly.

Cranky It’s not really the decision of a woman not to be a homemaker (read primary care giver), it’s more that it’s the womans primary duty to ensure that there is a parental primary care giver (she sets the standard). I do see the school system evolving into a state run child raising system, which is another problem, and another issue. And I am not against the parents getting help, such as babysitters, their parents help, also getting hired nanny help if things are going totally out of control. But I support the statement “don’t have them if you don’t want to raise them” meaning if you are planning no parental primary care giver (meaning both parents plan to work full time) then you are neglecting your duty as parents and really should not try to concieve a child.

Perhaps weird but not inaccurate.

23

It isn’t the word “mothers” alone - it’s the combination of the word “mothers” and “homemakers.” When I hear “homemaker,” I assume the “homemaker” is the one person primarily responsible for doing (not merely managing) the housework, cooking, and childcare. I think of it as an exclusive term - to me, there is at most one homemaker per household.

When I read the proposition, it comes across, to me, as directed solely to mothers saying “Now that you have a kid, I suppose you can have a job, so long as it doesn’t get in the way of your doing the vacuuming, cleaning the kitchen, washing the clothes, while taking care of the kid. Making sure that it gets done isn’t enough - you’ve got to do it.”

Parents (of both genders) need to make sure the child is cared for (and the home, too). But no, mothers do not need to do it.

24

Before I had children, before I was married, before I’d met hundreds of men and women in various work settings, I would’ve disagreed strongly with the statement. Now I agree strongly - with the caveat that most but certainly not all men just don’t get it where (early) childcare is concerned, while most but certainly not all women do.

I think that the gifts that fathers bring to the family add tremendous depth and breadth to their children’s lives - and that these gifts are significantly undervalued. Same is true for mothers. But to me, they are (in most cases) distinctly different gifts. “Homemaker” is (usually) a woman’s terrain.

25

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.

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.

26

I find the disparity between the wording of this question, and the number of different interpretations possible to be somewhat daunting.

On the surface, I agree, assuming homemaker means taking care of the kids, not the house (they said “mother”, not wife), and the father accepts the same.

But the question is not just what it appears. It is loaded with a history of sexism and institutionalized pidgeon-holing of women. Not talking about the father’s responsibility is no minor omission, but a blatant slap in the face with the bias of the question.

Can we debate something a little more concrete, and avoid a debate about the semantics of the question, or the intents of the question-askers?

27

The test is not culturally neutral: it is intended only for “Western” repondents. From the [url=]FAQ:

I would suggest that the initial gut reaction to #48 in a western democracy is overwhelmingly one of “the woman’s place is in the home” rather than “children should not be left with grandparents or paid childcare in the daytime”. Like I said, I’m interested in different interpretations, but that one stretches #48 past breaking point IMO.

Again, from the FAQ:

The test solely seeks to place one on a notional grid. I would be extremely surprised if Agreement with #48 did not give one a northwards nudge.

I argue that Agreement with #48 is part of the cause of the income disparity, which need not be the “way it is”.

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.

But you are proposing an explanation for something that has not yet been established: that women are the more appropriate homemaker. Why do you say this in the first place, given that I might come up with similarly arbitrary reasons why fathers would make better homemakers? Your argument appears to be that women are better homemakers because “it seems only natural”. You must provide evidence for your assertion.

28

Easy answer for why - babies and small children are pre-logical. Dealing with them requires massive amounts of intuition. They don’t respond to reason; in fact, people who work with abused children have told me that some in some cases, it’s the fact that the toddler won’t behave logically that starts the abuse spiral. Because a parent who is trying to reason with them grows increasingly frustrated and finally lashes out.

Men are (generally) much more logical, where women are (generally) intuitive. We’ve had xyz threads here discussing that. Being spiritual is also (IMHO) helpful when raising babies; it takes a lot of faith to put massive amounts of energy into little creatures who aren’t giving many clues.

I’ve also seen references to studies that show women can handle sleep interruptions and sleeplessness better than men - just biologically. Not a matter of character.

It’s interesting that you folks are assuming that being labeled a homemaker is an insult; perhaps your belief that earning a salary is more respectable is part of the problem. I think more women would be better mothers if they didn’t feel so much pressure to rejoin the workforce. We simply can’t “do it all”. Small children need the constant presence of a primary caretaker.

I really don’t mean to disrespect men, however; women may (usually) be better at handling the baby and toddler years, but men (usually) shine when it comes to teenagers. Moms cuddle and draw them close, dads help them stand on their own and break free. It’s not written in stone or anything, and yes we should define ourselves, but DUH, there’s a good reason why this scenario has been played out over and over in literature. It’s not a philosophical debate, it’s reality.

29

The threads pertain to spatial ability and verbal ability in certain specific tests - I don’t think your summary is particularly accurate.

Which would surely make them the more appropriate breadwinner, not homemaker, since they can handle getting up and going to work after a sleepless night better?

I can’t see where this straw sprouted - who labelled it an insult? I agree with you that more men would be better fathers if they didn’t feel so much pressure to join the workforce, since they “can’t do it all” with children who need a constant caregiver. (Unless, of course, this isn’t what you’re saying. If not, why not?)

Do you have any kind of citation for this?

Perhaps because that literature was written in centuries when women were barely treated with any more equality than a slave or an animal? That philosophy caused that reality. An egalitarian philosophy can cause an egalitarian reality, eventually. We’re not there yet.

30

So are you a SAHD? Do you know any?

31

A Stay-At-Home-Dad? Me, no, but I know two, and know several couples who each work part-time such that grandparents/childcare are only relied upon one day per week. What relevance has your question?

32

You don’t think that men are more logical and women more intuitive (in general)? Haven’t you read any popular literature in, oh, the past 50 years or so? Any self-help books, a la Mars, Venus? How 'bout Erma Bombeck?

We weren’t spawned in petri dishes. We’re not floating intellects. Men and women have numerous inherent differences based on our physical realities. It’s up to each of us to find instances where we’re “true to type” and where “typical” doesn’t apply to us – but there’s a reason why those stereotypes exist.

33

No. Have you any results like those for spatial awareness and verbal ability which demostrate so?

I suspect I’ve read similar things to you, and just been extremely careful in what conclusions can ultimately be drawn.

Just as there may be physical reasons why black people became slaves to whites rather than the other way around. Stereotypes must be justified if they are not to reinforce historical prejudice, and must be discarded if tehy cannot be justified. What is the justification for the stereotype of mother as homemaker rather than father?

34

I’m sorry, I’m going to have to bow out of this for today. My 12-month-old twins (boy & girl) are sick & I just can’t give this discussion the attention it deserves; reading the OP got me fired up, but I should’ve held off. It’s a compelling topic.

35

Thanks for your input, fessie, and I hope you don’t feel that anything I’ve said impugns your Herculean efforts to care for your twins!

36

What’s curious to me is how several people in this thread have attributed certain parental decisions to a lack of thought.

Example:

The professional working families I know seem to have put considerable thought into the decision to have children, and the decisions about child care, maternity and paternity leave, and so forth. The overall consumption of information, workshops, books, and so forth on children, parenting, and families bears out my anecdotal perceptions. Surely it’s not just families with one parent at home who care about healthy childrearing.

It seems to me much more likely that many parents simply have different beliefs than you. They believe (however wrong you think they are) that they can successfully parent even when they rely on a caregiver for some of their child’s wellbeing.

Having different beliefs, consulting different experts, and believing different research is a far different situation than being thoughtless, cavalier, ignorant, selfish, or whatever. I find it peculiar and I must say condescending to reframe their decisions as having “not thought seriously about it” or “not taking parenthood seriously.” Frankly I think that sort of dismissiveness probably hinders good discussion.

37

I’m surprised by the number of people who seem to assume that just because traditionally the SAH parent has been female, that it has anything to do with nature. Perhaps women generally are more nurturing and patient and whatnot, and these traits make them better SAH parents, but it seems to me that if the father is willing to stay home with the kids and the mother wants to work, then their genders are irrelevant to the choice they should make. The desire of both parents should be to raise a family together. It shouldn’t all fall on the woman to be the “selfless” one. When we keep demanding women to “think of the children” but do not send the same message to men–out of the assumption that men just aren’t naturally equipped to handle that kind of responsibility–the perceived shortage of parental childcare will persist. And only because one half of the equation–the father–is ignored.

Call me crazy, but I think it is a better thing for the child if both parents work decent hours and are able to spend quality time at home as opposed to one parent raising the kid single-handedly while the other parent works double-shifts day after day.

38

That’s wonderful to hear. I wish everyone had the same dedication. However, I have had the misfortune to know dozens of families who treat their children as an afterthought-- almost as if they were produced out of some vague notion that having children is simply what one is supposed to do.

Some might argue that the consumption of these items might indicate that some parents have a fear, or latent guilt, perhaps, that they’re not rearing their children correctly, and thus are in need of advice.

I don’t necessarily see it as a difference in beliefs, but as a difference in priorities.

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.

I’ve read quite a bit about this subject-- my husband is a sociology teacher-- and what I have learned about early childhood development has convinced me that unless we are willing to devote our lives 100% to a child, we should not have one. Not 75% or 50%-- or what time I could get off of work, but 100%. The child would have to be my top priority, not my career or monetary concerns.

Perhaps it does. However, in many cases, I feel it is apt.

I know a lot of families, and unfortunately, the good parents are far, far outnumbered by those who are but casual acquaintances with their own children. 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.

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 see childrearing as a sacred trust. If I bring a human being into this world, it is my solemn duty to ensure that I do everything possible to maximize the child’s potential, and to see that he/she has the social skills needed to be successful. I cannot pass that responsibility on to another person who really has no vested interest in ensuring my child acquires the knowledge and skills that he/she needs. Nor can I approach this monumental task with only part-time devotion. Until I can give a child the environment that it deserves, I will refrain from having one.

39

Just to clarify, I assume you really mean “our” top priority, such that your husband could just as easily be the one at home in the daytime? I appreciate your commitment to “one-on-one, parent-only” child-rearing, but all these 'I’s suggest that it is a foregone conclusion that he teaches sociology while you, the woman, remain with the child 100% of the time. Of course it may well be the decision many or most couples come to ultimately, but it is that assumption with which I disagree so strongly, since I consider that it effects how mothers are treated by employers in comparison with fathers: that if a child doesn’t get enough “parent time”, it’s primarily the woman’s fault.

40

I ain’t Lissa, and don’t presume to speak for her, but how I read those I’s was as a sense of personal responsibility. It might equally well have been her husband making that post – with a few details switched – but a sense that I, the individual, am responsible for the environment in which a child will grow, is what was being conveyed. If I understand the sense of it right, it has nothing to do with outmoded sexist stereotypes, and everything to do with the one-on-one relationship with the child which Lissa will forego until she feels herself in a position to give her full commitment to.

Again supposing I’m reading her correctly, it has nothing to do with who will be the primary caregiver to the child – the women’s rights concern – and everything to do with, will the child get 100% attention from a loving adult (i.e., Lissa)? – the parenting values concern.

That her husband comprises another adult equally committed to the hypothetical child in question does not, in Lissa’s mind, relieve her as an individual of that sense of 100% resposibility to ensure that the child gets the proper nurture and environment. (Again IIUHC)