Folks-
Hey there!
Wow, lots of posts all of a sudden. This is an edit of something I sent to
Mary privately yesterday...I thought it the best place to start this
afternoon. I won't post much more than this, I promise...
Before my reply to Mary, let me state that I'm not really for "welfare" for
parents in and of itself. We should stop taxing married people more than
single people of course, but parents do not need handouts. They need
support from society to do what is actually best for society: raise new
members of the society. Right now, they are in effect penalized for that
both financially and socially unless they keep up with the Joneses.
If a parent decides to stay home for a year or more, they tend to lose
their jobs (of minor importance to me) and they are discriminated against
for making the "right" choices (of more importance to me). They are looked
down on for not having "more stuff," the "skills to have a real job," and
the like.
Good parenting is important to all societies and my goal in writing, other
than righting a certain sexist stereotype, was to agree that American
society (at least) has decided to value individual materialism over
preservation of society and that shows a moral failure in our society.
This moral problem can be, in my opinion supported by quotations, traced to
the fact that the "Hippies" failed as a movement and according to Pirsig,
"nothing better has been introduced to replace them." Lila (where that one
is from), pp 348-349, seem to support this view and briefly discusses
falling SAT scores, etc.
It's not so much that the Hippies failed though, it's really that nothing
else has filled the void. I'm rambling a little. I agreed with Mary about
the problem, I'm not sure I completely agree with her about the solution.
On 6/4/99 at 7:15 AM -0500, Mary Wittler wrote:
> When I proposed the idea of equating child-rearing with military
> service it was just an off-the-cuff idea. But now that I've thought
> about it for a couple of days it just keeps growing and growing in my
> mind. Giving the next generation a good start has got to be equal if
> not more important to a nation than its own defense.
They are both necessary, certainly. The importance of children for society
is pretty much neglected in the United States (and other societies as
well), though. I think that before society realizes the importance of
parenting, they must realize the importance of children. Right now,
children get in the way in society or else there would never be such a
thing as daycare. If society didn't believe children to be less important
than individual material satisfaction, daycare would never exist.
So, I think a big part in gaining acceptance for a "back to parenting
movement" is proving that a) raising children to be competent, moral
contributing members of society is more important to society than
individual members' materialism and that b) daycare is a low quality
solution compared to direct parenting in most situations involving two
parents since it favors materialism over raising children to be competent,
moral contributing members of society.
Carmen pointed out that money is pretty important in America. No one denies
that raising children is important, it's just where they rate it comparing
to the striving for an unattainable materialistic bliss that is in question.
> For some people, this will no doubt equate with "welfare Mothers", whom
> we are at this moment busily trying to eliminate in this country. But
> it's not the same thing at all. You could structure the system, give it
> parameters such as time limits or limits on the number of children per
> woman (yes, per woman since it is a woman after all who actually bears
> the child!)
Bearing the child doesn't mean keeping and raising the child. I think any
attempts at encouraging members of society to value parenting need to be
geared towards the people who stay home to care for their kids, not the
people who get pregnant.
In terms of government subsidies (which should only be necessary as a latch
to help change a mistaken societal value - they are not "permanent"
solutions), I'm more concerned with *not penalizing* people who decide to
actively raise children. If this involved compensation, I wouldn't expect
to be compensated more or less if we had a second child *through this
mechanism*. It should be geared towards the act rather than the number of
kids at any given time. There are other tax deductions for that.
(Yes, Bob, I'll talk taxes in a moment...while I'm at it, Carmen, I did
read your posts and will reply if necessary shortly.)
Preferably, we'd be talking more about not being fired while taking time
off to raise children and the ability to work a flexible schedule to ensure
that parents have the opportunity to raise their own children. My wife and
I get by right now only because I can work when she does not and one of us
is always available for our son.
This compensation doesn't necessarily need to include monetary compensation
from business (paid time off) or government (tax breaks, etc), except as a
temporary latch as mentioned above.
> In fact, you could follow many of the patterns already in use for
> military service to shape a system that gives everyone an equal
> opportunity at parenting.
Oh, this begs some questions:
Should everyone be given an equal opportunity in parenting? Are some
"better" suited for it?
Would Lila have made a good parent?
Cheers,
Mark
________________________________________________________________________
Mark Brooks <mark@epiphanous.org> <http://www.epiphanous.org/>
How do you know who wrote this? <http://www.epiphanous.org/mark/pgp/>
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:04 BST