I Agree With Stephen Colbert

[pt_tangles]

I love his show. I giggle along at every parody and shot, but tonight he had Linda Hirshman on his show, promoting her new book. I have to say, that I agree with Stephen. What is so wrong about women choosing to stay at home and raise their children? When did that become something that a woman should be ashamed of? Why should she have to maintain a job she may hate if she doesn't have to?

I grew up right in the midst of the push for 'Women must have a career', I remember how the girls who just wanted to be moms were made to feel. By teachers, guidance councellors, etc ... if you didn't have a 'high profile/high power' career in mind, then there was something wrong with you. And while the luxury for a woman to be a SAHM is a lot rarer now than it was when I was growing up, I have to say that I am glad that it is again something that girls can strive for if they want it.

My mom was one of those women who really only wanted to be a mom. That was what she wanted to do with her life, and she was damned good at it. It took me a long time to realise that that was a beautiful goal for one's life. The point of the feminist movement was to make an equal playing feild. Not to demonize the image of the Mother.

I am a firm believer that when you choose to have kids, you need to make sacrifices in other areas of your life. If you can't take time away from your career for your kids and need to hire someone else to raise them, then you really shouldn't have had them in the first place.

There is no shame in choosing one over the other. Some women will choose to work, and be successful and powerful in the working world. Others will choose to leave the working world and be successful at helping to mold a new generation of human beings. If it is your choice, how can you be 'unfeminist' or 'wrong' for making it?

Priorities are a personal thing. Are women any more liberated if another woman is making your choices for you?

--Phae

Comments

[pjvj.livejournal.com]

>>>If you can't take time away from your career for your kids and need to hire someone else to raise them, then you really shouldn't have had them in the first place.<<<

This seems to conflcit with the rest of your essay that promotes choice for all women. Are women who want to do both - be a working mom - the only ones you feel who should not get that choice?

[pt_tangles]

I think it depends. People who have kids because that's the 'thing to do' and hire a nanny to raise them and never see them ... those are the people who I think should not have had kids in the first place.

I think that the reason to have children is because you want them. Because you want a hand in molding the future. If all you want is a fashion accessory, then I think that is irresponsible.

I think it is wrong to promote the idea that women should be superheros. That they should want to have a job that keeps them away for more than 8 hrs a day and try to raise kids who never get to see them too.

I think a line needs to be drawn between what a parent 'wants' and what a kid 'needs'. For me, being a mom is about not always getting what you want. If you don't want to have to make any sacrifices or changes in your life for your kids, then it is better to not have them. The world isn't desperate for more people. There is nothing wrong with not having any kids.

Now, if you are going to go the whole stay at home dad route, then things are different. But if neither parent is there to raise their kids, then they should have thought about that before.

I don't think it is contradictory to believe that people need to act like grown ups, in reguards to their kids.

Now, I am not saying that everyone who has a kid should stay home to raise them. I know that that isn't possible for a lot of families.

And it isn't just women. Men need to make sacrifices when they have kids too. Kids should have the opportunity to know both their parents. They shouldn't have to come second to their parents' journey for power in the corperate world (which was the position of the woman on the show).

--Phae

[pjvj.livejournal.com]

There is a big difference between choice being open to all women, not just those who choose to be a SAHM, and the few who have "fashion accessory" children. Women who work jobs that are no more 8 hours a day still have to pay someone to care for them while they're at work if the dad is not available.

I think it is just as wrong to deny the choice of working as it is to deny the choice of staying home. Telling women they *must* choose is one of the main things that created the women's movement for equality in the first place.

[pt_tangles]

I believe that neglect is more than just a physical thing. If you *choose* to have kids, then you should *choose* to have a hand in their raising. How is it being a responsible parent to have kids and then leave them to be raised by strangers? What was the point in having them in the first place?

I think that the idea that women *must* have kids is more of a problem than the idea than the idea that they must choose whether or not to raise them. I believe that feminism is about making responsible choices, not just having the right to do whatever you want all the time.

I work with the public, the amount of people who have kids because it was cool or because all their friends were doing it or so that they would look better are not 'the few' that you suggest that they are. They are everywhere, and their kids are the little monsters that I (and the rest of the staff) have to watch and babysit because their parents figure that they have every right to have kids and then dump them on the rest of us. If that makes me unfeminist, then fine. But I still maintain that just because you *can* do something is not reason enough that you *should*.

--Phae

[pjvj.livejournal.com]

You know, I think your post has strayed far from the original of choice for SAHMs.

>>>I work with the public, the amount of people who have kids because it was cool or because all their friends were doing it or so that they would look better are not 'the few' that you suggest that they are. They are everywhere, and their kids are the little monsters that I (and the rest of the staff) have to watch and babysit because their parents figure that they have every right to have kids and then dump them on the rest of us.<<<

People who do it to be cool or because their friends did are not the people who's high-powered career allows them to afford a nanny and be away for much of the kids lives. In fact, the people in your paragraph above are parents ignoring their children in your store - not nannies, so those parents are spending time with their kids. It isn't only about quantity of time.

>>>But I still maintain that just because you *can* do something is not reason enough that you *should*.<<<

And I maintain that just because you *do* have children is not reason enough to have no choice but be a SAHM or be called an irresponsible parent.

[pt_tangles]

People who do it to be cool or because their friends did are not the people who's high-powered career allows them to afford a nanny and be away for much of the kids lives.

It's a similar problem. The only difference is the income bracket. Both are ignoring their kids and leaving them for someone else to deal with. And I think that both are being irresponsible.

And I maintain that just because you *do* have children is not reason enough to have no choice but be a SAHM or be called an irresponsible parent.

I never said that. I said that if you have kids, then you need to have a hand in raising them. If you want to work and have the dad stay home and raise the kids, then go for it. But if you want to have kids and pawn them off on either a nanny or society or whoever else to deal with so that you don't have to be bothered with them (general you), then hell yeah, you get to be called an irresponsible parent.

Children shouldn't be a show of status. They aren't an expensive car that you have to show off that you can 'have it all'. Kids need time and care and attention, and if you can't provide that, then you should think twice before having them.

I am not talking out of my ass here, this is one of the reasons that I don't have any kids. I don't think that at this time I could do a good job in raising them, and I refuse to add to a problem that is way too prevalent already.

--Phae

[pjvj.livejournal.com]

I think I'll just have to strongly disagree here and be done with it. I don't see it as either/or. I know many parents that worked full-time and didn't raise monsters and didn't rely on everyone else to raise them even they utilized some sort of childcare.

[pt_tangles]

Fair enough. I admit that I might not be being terribly clear in what I mean to say (it makes sense to me when I read it, but when I read your responses, it is like you are reading something completely different). That is my own failing. I am not trying to start a fight.

--Phae

[pjvj.livejournal.com]

I know you aren't trying to start a fight, nor am I, though if this heat wave doesn't break tonight like they said it will I may kill someone. ;-)