4 ms·

Even on moral grounds I don't get the argument other than simplistic outrage for the sake of outrage. It's more efficient but also better for everyone if kids

• meheleventyone 3y ago
  That’s because you’re still engaging with an argument about collective vs individual childcare not the one being advanced by the OP which is about the failure to measure some economically advantageous work just because of the circumstances in which it is performed. As I said in my post that you replied to even if collective work is more efficient that doesn’t mean the value of the same work in the home is zero which is what it’s currently measured as.
• cafard 3y ago
  My mother did not work outside the home for the roughly ten-year span between my birth and my brother reaching school age. The communal setting, school apart, was called the neighborhood. This was the boom, so a given block could have quite a few kids on it.
  • steve1977 3y ago
    Same here. Sometimes my mother would look after me and the neighbor kids, sometimes my neighbors mom would look after me and her kids and so on, for example.
    • johnnyanmac 3y ago
      It takes a village. But the village has lately eroded to "every family for themselves"
      • steve1977 3y ago
        I guess I'm happy to be still living in a rural area, this is not the case here.
• watwut 3y ago
  Yep. Also, the parent staying at home is in a very vulnerable position - completely dependent and having really hard time to become dependent when needed. And when society demands one parent at home, independence can become effectively impossible.
  • willcipriano 3y ago
    The divorce laws take care of that imbalance. From child support, alimony and a presumed equal division of the marital assets the risk is quite low for the stay at home parent. Since no fault divorce was brought in they don't even have to behave like they are married, go out and have dozens of affairs, lie, neglect the kids and the home and you still get half plus most of you living expenses covered until the kids are supporting themselves. To put it clearer: The law makes no distinction between a housewife and a unemployed woman, both get half even if the actions that resulted in the divorce were her fault and she engaged in them continously. Keep that in mind if you are unmarried.
    • xnyan 3y ago
      > The divorce laws take care of that imbalance. They do not. 90% of US households have a total household net worth of less than $300,000. Even if you got all of that, it's not enough to make up for the lack of marketable skills. Similarly, a judge can award all the alimony and childcare in the world, but that does not help you if it does not get paid.
      • willcipriano 3y ago
        Then you'd be as poor as when you were married. At a certain point we need some level of accountability for the partner staying home, if you had a kid with someone who doesn't earn much money and you don't work yourself why would you expect to be middle class once you get divorced? You'll get your money, many men have most of their paycheck forcibly taken from them each week. You can't even get a driver's license in many states if you are behind on child support. These insane expectations are part of the reason why marriage is a bad deal for the provider.
• steve1977 3y ago
  Being at stay-at-home parent does not mean your kids won't socialize with other kids. Also one could argue insofar this is actually "better for everyone". It will result in kids that are "more socialized" in some way maybe, but not necessarily socialized better. And it also doesn't take into account other developmental aspects. If I look at young adults here (Europe) that have been more or less raised in daycare vs young adults that have been raised at home, I certainly don't see an advantage for the former (which might have many confounding factors of course).