5 ms·

A lot of really good discussion in this article. I just wanted to add a couple of things: It is a true blessing if a mother or father can stay at home to raise

A lot of really good discussion in this article. I just wanted to add a couple of things: It is a true blessing if a mother or father can stay at home to raise their children. However, over time being a stay at home parent is incredibly isolating. Men are suseptible to depression, but women especially so post-partum. Also, many parents do eventually want to work either part time or full time. The longer one stays out of the work force the bigger the gap on the resume and the harder it is to find work as children grow up. I agree the lowest paying jobs should not be subsidized, but I think the benefits of taxpayer subsidized childcare would be overwhelmingly positive. The quality of childcare makes a big difference in the equation, but parents, especially mothers, should be encouraged to re-enter the workforce if they so choose. Every policy creates incentives and I have no qualms with the ones created by subsidized childcare.

Dove 7y ago
I am convinced the isolated stay at home parent model is not normal human behavior, but a pathology of our particular society which represents an unreasonable expectation derived from an excessive commitment to individualism and independence. It is not psychologically reasonable to expect one person to care for children all day every day. It is not historically or broadly culturally normal. It is not healthy for either the parent or the children to isolate them together like this. It is normal for children to be cared for by many adults throughout the day, from birth - be they older relatives or simply members of the community. It is abnormal for one person to have to deal with all of their energy and issues. It is normal for children to wander and play and experience a wide and varied world. It is abnormal for them to be kept in a small, unchanging indoor space. It is normal for new parents, especially new mothers, to be intensely supported by their community. It is abnormal for them to be left alone unsupported. It is normal for homemakers to accomplish their daily tasks communally and to be active in their communities. It is abnormal for them to endure years of social isolation, primarily spending time with their children. I am not sure what a healthy pattern for family support and child rearing looks like in this society, but I think public support for young child care, better connections with older relatives and neighbors for light child care, and light or part time but potentially meaningful work and social connections for parents is a lot closer to normalcy than the current locked together in isolation suffering silently pretending to be happy wondering why you're the only one struggling model we have now. The current model is insane and it is a testament to our toughness as human beings that we all try so hard to make it work and survive as well as we do.
- xsmasher 7y ago
  It may be a side effect of suburbanization and the mass migration to single-family homes.
  - vkou 7y ago
    While we can blame the suburbs on a lot of social problems, this is not one of them. Families who raise their children in cities have all the same problems.
    - dr_dshiv 7y ago
      I personally think it is much easier in a city than a suburb, or at least very different.
- finder83 7y ago
  I believe it to actually be a result of industrialization, and I think that the old "model" could actually be more healthy for children (barring advances in society, medicine, etc). Industrialization centralized jobs to factories, offices, etc. Previous to that, most operated their business as an attachment of their home, whether operating in trades or in aggriculture. So the children, the family, etc, were all together all of the time. Our family actually works that way as I have a job as a remote developer and my wife is a stay at home mom. It's a great balance as I get to see my kids all day, and my wife is able to get breaks.
- kodablah 7y ago
  > It is not psychologically reasonable to expect one person to care for children all day every day [...] It is normal for children to be cared for by many adults throughout the day I'd argue having the child away from parents so often is harmful as well. Financials aside, that middle ground somewhat exists: stay at home parents that still leverage social environments for their kids. I too don't know how we can get everyone there, but the first step should be recognizing that a non-working parent doesn't have to be an isolated parent.
  - 7y ago
paulddraper 7y ago
> I agree the lowest paying jobs should not be subsidized, but I think the benefits of taxpayer subsidized childcare would be overwhelmingly positive. I don't understand. What's the difference? You are using taxes revenues to subsidize uneconomical labor to be economical. What is so different about subsidizing a entry worker's pay or their child care bills? --- FWIW, the article makes no mention of it, but child care is tax subsidized in the U.S. via the Child Care Credit [1]. [1] https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc602 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc602
- GordonS 7y ago
  I have to agree - we are a society, not a corporation; should such decisions really be made on prospective income tax revenues?
neap24 7y ago
It really is much more isolating today than it would have been years ago. Back when it was the norm for a parent (usually mother) to stay home with the kids, so did every other mother on the block. My wife stays home with our kids and, within the neighborhood, she is pretty much limited to hanging out with retirees. Fortunately, she's found that there is actually quite a large number of other stay-at-home mothers/fathers if you expand your search radius beyond the neighborhood. As such, she schedules meetups, play dates, and homeschool co-ops at least two days a week. It's possible to not be lonely and depressed, but as with anything takes some effort and creativity. I disagree that the benefits of subsidized childcare would be overwhelmingly positive. They would be positive only for those who wish to work. For those who wish to stay home (and I believe the number is higher than most people estimate), it makes it an even more expensive opportunity cost and adds even more cultural pressure to conform. And, when it comes to raising kids, I think diversity of upbringing, rather than conformity is the real answer.
GordonS 7y ago
> Men are suseptible to depression, but women especially so post-partum Depression is actually much more prevalent in women, in general, need t just post-partum[0]. I've linked a single reference, but there really is a lot of evidence here (although I think men probably hide it more frequently than women, but that's just my unscientific opinion!). [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478054/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478054/
hadlock 7y ago
Growing up, about 10 families all had kids within 18 months of each other, within a 3 mile radius. The parents all got together and worked out a time share agreement where all 10 kids would get dropped off from roughly 9-5 at one parent's house, then a different parent's house the next day, etc so that one house had 10 kids for an entire day, every two weeks. This happened from about age 0-3 pretty religiously. It worked out partly because all the parents were in the same age/ethnic/religious/income group, but it might work across wider groups. It didn't cost anything. We called it the "babysitting group" and 30+ years later I'm still pretty good friends with most of the kids in our group. I think "modern" parents take their kids to the park to try and socialize with other parents/kids but the unstructured method doesn't seem as effective.
greggman2 7y ago
my sister solved this joining her local moms club. No idea what support exists for dads

Dove 7y ago

I am convinced the isolated stay at home parent model is not normal human behavior, but a pathology of our particular society which represents an unreasonable expectation derived from an excessive commitment to individualism and independence. It is not psychologically reasonable to expect one person to care for children all day every day. It is not historically or broadly culturally normal. It is not healthy for either the parent or the children to isolate them together like this. It is normal for children to be cared for by many adults throughout the day, from birth - be they older relatives or simply members of the community. It is abnormal for one person to have to deal with all of their energy and issues. It is normal for children to wander and play and experience a wide and varied world. It is abnormal for them to be kept in a small, unchanging indoor space. It is normal for new parents, especially new mothers, to be intensely supported by their community. It is abnormal for them to be left alone unsupported. It is normal for homemakers to accomplish their daily tasks communally and to be active in their communities. It is abnormal for them to endure years of social isolation, primarily spending time with their children. I am not sure what a healthy pattern for family support and child rearing looks like in this society, but I think public support for young child care, better connections with older relatives and neighbors for light child care, and light or part time but potentially meaningful work and social connections for parents is a lot closer to normalcy than the current locked together in isolation suffering silently pretending to be happy wondering why you're the only one struggling model we have now. The current model is insane and it is a testament to our toughness as human beings that we all try so hard to make it work and survive as well as we do.

xsmasher 7y ago
It may be a side effect of suburbanization and the mass migration to single-family homes.
- vkou 7y ago
  While we can blame the suburbs on a lot of social problems, this is not one of them. Families who raise their children in cities have all the same problems.
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    I personally think it is much easier in a city than a suburb, or at least very different.
finder83 7y ago
I believe it to actually be a result of industrialization, and I think that the old "model" could actually be more healthy for children (barring advances in society, medicine, etc). Industrialization centralized jobs to factories, offices, etc. Previous to that, most operated their business as an attachment of their home, whether operating in trades or in aggriculture. So the children, the family, etc, were all together all of the time. Our family actually works that way as I have a job as a remote developer and my wife is a stay at home mom. It's a great balance as I get to see my kids all day, and my wife is able to get breaks.
kodablah 7y ago
> It is not psychologically reasonable to expect one person to care for children all day every day [...] It is normal for children to be cared for by many adults throughout the day I'd argue having the child away from parents so often is harmful as well. Financials aside, that middle ground somewhat exists: stay at home parents that still leverage social environments for their kids. I too don't know how we can get everyone there, but the first step should be recognizing that a non-working parent doesn't have to be an isolated parent.
- 7y ago

paulddraper 7y ago

> I agree the lowest paying jobs should not be subsidized, but I think the benefits of taxpayer subsidized childcare would be overwhelmingly positive. I don't understand. What's the difference? You are using taxes revenues to subsidize uneconomical labor to be economical. What is so different about subsidizing a entry worker's pay or their child care bills? --- FWIW, the article makes no mention of it, but child care is tax subsidized in the U.S. via the Child Care Credit [1]. [1] https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc602 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc602

GordonS 7y ago
I have to agree - we are a society, not a corporation; should such decisions really be made on prospective income tax revenues?

neap24 7y ago

It really is much more isolating today than it would have been years ago. Back when it was the norm for a parent (usually mother) to stay home with the kids, so did every other mother on the block. My wife stays home with our kids and, within the neighborhood, she is pretty much limited to hanging out with retirees. Fortunately, she's found that there is actually quite a large number of other stay-at-home mothers/fathers if you expand your search radius beyond the neighborhood. As such, she schedules meetups, play dates, and homeschool co-ops at least two days a week. It's possible to not be lonely and depressed, but as with anything takes some effort and creativity. I disagree that the benefits of subsidized childcare would be overwhelmingly positive. They would be positive only for those who wish to work. For those who wish to stay home (and I believe the number is higher than most people estimate), it makes it an even more expensive opportunity cost and adds even more cultural pressure to conform. And, when it comes to raising kids, I think diversity of upbringing, rather than conformity is the real answer.

GordonS 7y ago

> Men are suseptible to depression, but women especially so post-partum Depression is actually much more prevalent in women, in general, need t just post-partum[0]. I've linked a single reference, but there really is a lot of evidence here (although I think men probably hide it more frequently than women, but that's just my unscientific opinion!). [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478054/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478054/

hadlock 7y ago

Growing up, about 10 families all had kids within 18 months of each other, within a 3 mile radius. The parents all got together and worked out a time share agreement where all 10 kids would get dropped off from roughly 9-5 at one parent's house, then a different parent's house the next day, etc so that one house had 10 kids for an entire day, every two weeks. This happened from about age 0-3 pretty religiously. It worked out partly because all the parents were in the same age/ethnic/religious/income group, but it might work across wider groups. It didn't cost anything. We called it the "babysitting group" and 30+ years later I'm still pretty good friends with most of the kids in our group. I think "modern" parents take their kids to the park to try and socialize with other parents/kids but the unstructured method doesn't seem as effective.

greggman2 7y ago

my sister solved this joining her local moms club. No idea what support exists for dads