Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Family Values Begin at Home, but Who's Home?

By Heather Boushey, The American Prospect. Posted March 21, 2007.


In the struggle to balance work and family, work is winning. Democrats need to take back the values issue and promote economic policies that recognize that workers have families.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Heather Boushey

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This article is reprinted from the American Prospect.

Family is the center of everyday American life. Our parents are our first protectors, first teachers, first role models, and first friends. Parents know that America's great reward is the quiet but incomparable satisfaction that comes from building their families a better life. Strong families, blessed with opportunity, guided by faith, and filled with dreams are the heart of a strong America. -- 2004 Democratic platform

Americans are said to be deeply concerned about family values. One of those values, surely, is the need to reconcile the ability to be a responsible parent, a loving partner in a relationship, and a successful worker. What is the economy for, if not to enable families to live and thrive? We work to live, not live to work.

Yet, despite the symbolic genuflecting to values, these issues have been appallingly absent from the political conversation. While the right has won the rhetoric wars by emphasizing the traditional values, liberals in electoral politics have not seriously address paid leave, or child care, or the other policy challenges that might make it less arduous to reconcile work and family. The Democrats' 2004 presidential platform vacuously talked about "valuing parenting," but nowhere did it say that parents have the right to time off when their children are ill, a right guaranteed by every nearly every other democracy.

Compared to a generation ago, families have lost 539 hours per year to the U.S. economy -- 13.5 weeks of full-time work. Where did the hours go? Intuitively, we all know the answer: Mom got a job (see figure on next page). But while families put in more hours at work than their parents did, their inflation-adjusted incomes are only a tad higher (see figure on next page). And, when you adjust for the additional hours worked, median living standards are actually lower. Because Mom works, families have been able to keep their incomes from falling -- but, this doesn't mean that the economy is working for families.

Families are angry, frustrated, and confused about this time grab. According to the Families and Work Institute in New York, two-thirds of parents say that they don't have enough time with their children and nearly two-thirds of married workers say that they don't have enough time with their spouse. Nearly half of all employees with families report conflicts between their job and their family lives, more so than a generation ago.

With some political leadership, this anger could translate into profound policy changes.

Where's Mom?

When we measure the economy by how well it works for families, we see that the most important trend affecting family well-being has been the movement of mothers out of the home and into the workplace. With each uptick of women's labor force participation, families lost another unpaid domestic worker who cooked, cleaned, and cared for her family. Back in the Ozzie and Harriet days, Mom was at home (where she worked for free). She made a home-cooked dinner most every night. She helped Uncle Joe when he came home from the hospital. She kept an eye on the children -- hers and the neighbors' -- and she felt that her neighborhood was safe since every other mother on the block was doing the same thing.

What's remarkable, however, is that even though mothers work more today, they also spend more time parenting. Time diaries show that over the past decade and a half, mothers spent an average of four more hours per week at a paid job and five more hours parenting. Mothers now spend less time on housework, yet they have less time for themselves. This underscores how important family is to us. It also underscores that mothers may feel guilt about being at work rather than at home and that they are doing all they can to make up for the stolen time.

Fathers also are spending more time with their children. By 2000, fathers spent two more hours per week at their job and four more hours parenting than they did in 1985. [See Scott Coltrane, "What About Fathers?"] But, fathers are not doing more chores around the house. At first, when mothers moved into employment, men did more household chores, but during the 1990s, men stopped helping around the house as much. By the end of the 1990s, men's hours of housework had fallen below their 1970 level.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: work, family, mothers

Heather Boushey is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and coauthor of The State of Working America 2002-2003 and Hardships in America: The Real Story of Working Families. © 2007 by The American Prospect, Inc.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Equality for the Childfree
Posted by: spencerh on Mar 21, 2007 3:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Policies that continue to favor those that reproduce at the expense of the childfree are unacceptable. Where's our "leave"? Where's our extra pay for picking up the slack for parents that leave early? Don't leave us out; we matter too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah Posted by: kepstein7777
» Nah... Posted by: mjabele
» Although actually... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Nah... Posted by: MAD
» RE: Nah... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Nah... Posted by: JP-1
» RE: Nah... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: quality for the Childfree Posted by: MamaPantz
» RE: quality for the Childfree Posted by: spencerh
» RE: quality for the Childfree Posted by: Michael in CA
» RE: quality for the Childfree Posted by: sunflwrmoonbeam
» RE: quality for the Childfree Posted by: sunflwrmoonbeam
» Daycare in St John? Posted by: edith
What about the rest of us?
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Mar 21, 2007 3:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not a bad article. Some interesting stats.

Kids are ill all the time, so their parents will be taking a lot of time off under your policy. How are you going to explain that to the other workers without kids? Do they get time off to take care of their boyfriend/girlfriend/cat/dog, or take care of things that are important to them, but don't involve kids? Will they have to answer Mrs. Soccer Mom's phone while she's out tending to Johnny's sniffles?

My concern is that family-friendly comes at the expense of everyone else, and that family-centric policies are biased against people who aren't into the family thing. How would you address that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent point... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: What about the rest of us? Posted by: spencerh
» RE: What about the rest of us? Posted by: xgroverx
what happened to the family values that the repugs used to talk about?
Posted by: mobile68 on Mar 21, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Studies has shown time and time again how western european countries that are less religous tend to take better care of their population as far as in dealing with work and family issues than than very religous countries, such as the u.s. And religion was the center theme for bush run for president. And look where it has gotten us.

This administration has screwed everybody childless or not. We as taxpayers are getting very shortchanged on social services for the taxes that we pay. It is our responsibilty to make those politicians on the local, state, and federal levels do the jobs that we as taxpayers are paying them to do.

Check out this article to supplement what the author of this article is saying:
U.S. economy leaving record numbers in severe poverty

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16760690.htm

Like the politician said to the pastor, "you keep them dumb, and I'll keep them poor."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No real help from the Democrats either
Posted by: zooeyhall on Mar 21, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree fully with this article. Sadly, I don't think that having the Democrats in power is going to make much of a difference: particularly in addressing the growing economic hammering of the middle-class. Reason? To many Democrats are feeding at the same corporate hog-trough as the Republicans. And they benefit as the Republicans do from the out-sourcing of jobs, importing of cheap illegal immigrant labor, corporate policies that reward the CEO while squeezing more work out of the middle-class professional, etc. etc.

The American two-party system is totally corrupt and bankrupt of ideas. We really could use a good third-party alternative, or at the very least a fundamentally reformed Democratic party. Alas, I don't see how this is going to happen. But hope spring eternal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyone wins!
Posted by: MamaPantz on Mar 21, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This does not just effect those who have their own children! If you are part of a family (which is everyone) it will benefit you. This is not about mothers trying to get special treatment. How dare you be so bitter toward working mothers and sick children and elderly! This is about respecting people and all they have to be responsible for. Our society already favors the childless because they fit easily into the business model. We need to change the business model to reflect how life has changed. If children are not valued as important members of society, then what's the point of building them a future that does not include them? We are so behind the herd on this one. It's unacceptable that our society makes it impossible for us to raise our children securely and care for the aging population that enabled us to even be here! If you care more about people than money, then you need to support this. If it's the other way around, then you're part of the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: veryone wins! Posted by: Calybos
where's DAD?
Posted by: wagadog on Mar 21, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that all of these articles, even in the progressive press, blame mothers working? Employment and childcare arrangements in this country are based on the presumption and promotion of negligent fatherhood and a complete abdication of collective responsibility for child care. The childless can therefore continue to be pitted against the fertile at work, the boys vs the girls. Again. How about mentioning that the childless might in fact be childless due to the complete lack of support in our society for childcare?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: where's DAD? Posted by: cbcb
» RE: where's DAD? Posted by: H_H
» RE: where's DAD? Posted by: fork
» RE: where's DAD? Posted by: MAD
» RE: where's DAD? Posted by: xgroverx
» two different questions Posted by: MartianBachelor
HOW MUCH CAN YOU CRAM INTO ONE DAY?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 21, 2007 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A typical day in anyone's life in 1960 compared with today answers alot of questions. Women working is a big item but not the only thing. People are over scheduled and give in to unecessary demands. When the mothers learn to say NO to darting around endlesssly for no real purpose your lives will improve. I know how important kids are, I raised 3. But you're unhappy with things as they are and only you can change them. Be realistic. Be happy. Thanks,Anna

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrats will do nothing: here are some real solutions
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 21, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- move: stop commuting and get a job within short distance of where you live
- downshift and take on a job that gives you more time for the kids
- learn how to save: the more you have in the bank more choices you wil have in life
- live in a different way: stop listening to everything the marketing people tell you
- get rid of the TV: it is a big time waster
- move into a smaller place: less time needed to clean it. Also more money saved and goes into the bank
- stop believing in the Democrats: they do not represent your interests. Support other parties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Child care system a joke
Posted by: Trazom on Mar 21, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our national child care system is a joke. That is but one problem responsible for the current work/life imbalance plaguing us today. Let me give you a real example.

My wife worked as a medical receptionist full-time a few years back to help pay the bills. At the time our two young children had to be put in child care because we didn't have any family in the area. I worked 30 miles from home 5 days a week and couldn't watch the children, and since my salary was approx. 80% of our combined income I couldn't "opt-out". Anyway, at the end of the year we counted up our receipts and found that the child care costs alone ate 75% of my wife's take-home pay. That's right, almost 80%. And she was even making $3-$4 above the federal minimum wage.

Once you threw in all the ancillary costs associated with her employment such as lunches, gas, clothes, etc. then we didn't have much left to show at all. After agonizing for several months what we should do, we finally decided it just wasn't worth it for her to continue working. She also struggled every day with the guilt of being away from her children for so many hours, and having someone else feed and play with them. So she opted out and we took the hit to our balance sheet. We chose happiness and a stay-at-home mom over finances, and we don't regret it.

The harsh reality we had to learn is that the system does not support working mothers who need full-time affordable child care, unless of course they are making at least $40,000/year. There was also the double whammy of her having to stay at home to take care of a sick kid several days throughout the year, losing pay for not reporting to work and simultanesouly still paying tuition at the child care facility even though the child was at home sick (since you really pay for a slot, not to have your child attend).

It is also very difficult for many families just to find a reputable child-care facility in their area. It is not uncommon to have waiting lists over a year or more. Luckily our wait was not that long, but it's not like we had our pick of providers either.

This is the system and it sucks. A lot needs to change to make affordable child care a reality for working parents, and especially single moms/dads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NO WORLDY SUCCESS CAN COMPENSATE FOR FAILURE IN THE HOME
Posted by: poppop_schell on Mar 21, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title is a saying by the late Mormon Prophet David O. McKay and guides much of what Mormon parents and children do on a daily basis. It clearly states that a man's FIRST and most important duty is to his wife and children.

Families are especially important to Mormons who have been married in a Mormon Temple. Why? Because we are married NOT only for time but for ALL ETERNITY. That is, if we live Christlike lives of servive to others, we will be together in Heaven as a family unit.

Another deceased Mormon Prophet Harold B. Lee said" There is NO more important job in the world for any women then that which is done within the walls of her home."

Lastly, every Monday night, families gather together throughout the world to have aFamily Home Evening. BTW, ths includes Mormon CEOs and top excetives and Mitt Romney, a GOP candidate for President. We have a wonderful manual to guide us in strengthening our families spiritually and through fun games and events. You can obtain a copy of this manual at mormon.org.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Most of us here are not Mormons Posted by: poppop_schell
» OH GIVE ME A BREAK Posted by: Mewsician
» RE: OH GIVE ME A BREAK Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: OH GIVE ME A BREAK:PART TWO Posted by: poppop_schell
» YOUR MAGIC UNDERWEAR IS TOO TIGHT, ISN'T IT? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Country Boys......
Posted by: picket on Mar 21, 2007 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a PBS Frontline by David Sutherland was a series that I will never forget, especially when discussing the hard time families face trying to survive. I often wonder about Chris Johnson the memorable young man whose father was a terminally ill, army vet, dying from alcoholism, and a mother working 60 hours a week.
Our "so called" leaders who will spend, I've heard, up to a billion dollars on the 2008 campaigns should be forced to watch this film and come up with some REAL solutions.

The talented filmmaker also did the series "The Farmers' Wife" which I plan to purchase which looks like it would be a good learning tool for those selfish politicians that think they know ALL the answers to life[or really do not care].

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Family Values Begin at Home, but Who's Home?
Posted by: pfm on Mar 21, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent question as the Christian Right has usurped the notion of nuclear family and fostered the proposition that any form other than male father and female mother in a church sanctioned marriage is not a family. Tragically, “we” – that’s you and me – play ostrich and hope it changes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women in the workplace
Posted by: Durka Durkastani on Mar 21, 2007 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it were up to me I wouldn't need my wife to work and right now she is not but we struggle financially. I believe that a big contributer to this is illegall immigrants depressing the amount businesses are willing to pay for entry level/no education required jobs. Another factor would be the exporting of our jobs to countries that exploit their workers. We have been railing against sweatshops for years so what does the government do about it? Well they offer tax incentives for businesses to export jobs. The fact that these companies can pay workers a fraction of the American minimum wage means that the American worker has to settle for a lower paying job in order to complete. As Americans we should be morally against exploited workers!!!!! How about that for a value. Of course it doesn't help that the people in this country are packing into Wal-Mart to buy all of the low quality junk that has replaced domestic goods. They don't understand why companies would want to get cheaper labor/products when we are willing to buy junk if it costs less.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Family values as a catch phrase
Posted by: xenacat on Mar 21, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Family values is a useless phrase that has been coined by the religious right to support their very narrow view of how society is supposed to looked. In buying into this view and using this "family values" catch phrase progressives unfortunately validate the bigotry and lack of tolerance that goes with it. The article focuses mainly on a certian segment of society and leaves out the sizable single segment, the childless, the seniors. It leaves out gays, it leaves out any number of human beings that contribute just as much to the collective good as those who have a few small children to raise. We won't make any progress as liberals as long as we buy into the antiquated thinking about nuclear families as the only valid model for society. Fresh thought about how to solve our problems is required and that won't happen by continuously buying into the concept sold to us by corporate American and the religious right about a June Cleaver kind of family life that very few possess or even want to possess. "Family Values" doesn't even begin to adequately describe the complexity of our culture. I wish progressive sites such as Alternet would not buy into what are essentially recycled right wing nut concepts and ideals. A breakthrough in solutions to our faltering economy and how it fails us will not come about by rehashing the "poor mommie has to work" cant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Family values as a catch phrase Posted by: MartianBachelor
The author(s) should quit joining the Mom vs Dad divide and try genuine unity for a change.
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 21, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democratic women have to get over their belief that careers are superior to child rearing. This has nothing to do with religious extremism, but the Democratic party acts as if it does. It’s okay, you can accept – even embrace – the idea of a man being a man, in the traditional sense, and a woman being a housewife and it is not the same as condoning wife-beating or mistreatment of women in the workplace. The party stands up for women to be respected, but only if they go to work. It needs to become just as strong advocates for housewives and stay-at-home mothers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women in the work place was the final solution by big corporations
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Mar 21, 2007 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to ruin the American middle and working classes and to destroy the family. Remember the goal of the government is to force people into complacency, dependence, and ensure cheap labour for the large corporations. When women entered the workforce it was presented/marketed as "women rights". Really all it did was allow wages to be depressed because the supply of labour was, essentially, doubled. But there weren't 'more demand'. So wages go down. Then, due to working, mothers need to find someone else to take care of their children. Now even those who don't wish to work out of the home must do so since its hard for a single-earner to afford a half-way pleasant lifestyle. Who can take care of teh children now? Hey, about about government schools, corporatised daycare centers, and other places of indoctrination (and often sexual abuse.) Breaking the bond between family members is always the goal of governments. Some, like Pol Pot and Stalin, like to use more aggressive measures but at the end of the day all governments wish to break the family bond. Make people bond to the "state". This gives them more control and a population who won't question state policy and the added benefit of cheap labour for big companies to exploit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ozzie and Harriet
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Mar 21, 2007 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Back in the Ozzie and Harriet days, Mom was at home (where she worked for free)."

This is flatly wrong.

She got room, board, a family, and much more (i.e., social respect) out of the deal -- to such an extent that many considered her a parasite, that she got the better end of the deal. In fact, Betty Friedan's chief complaint back then was that society asked so little of women, and that they should get out there in the public sphere and do some real work rather than sponging off their hubbies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ozzie and Harriet Posted by: fork
» Oh, hogwash Posted by: Beck
» The Honeymooners Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: The Honeymooners Posted by: morticia
» RE: Ozzie and Harriet Posted by: av8rdave
Life is long...
Posted by: Rabecca on Mar 21, 2007 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Childless, child-free, child-rearing, we all matter. We have a responsibility to each other as family members, employees, and citizens of the world. My small children won't be that way forever. Before they came along, I took up the "slack" of the working parents in my office. Now that they're here, I'm taking up the "slack" by volunteering *extensively* at school, helping out with emergency childcare for friends, and doing other things that my working friends are unable to do. It's what makes us a community instead of a bunch of savages clawing each other's eyes out in the scramble for the American Dream.
Why should you care if your coworkers have adequate leave time? For starters, so they can stay home with their sick kids, who need them more than you do, and keep the germs from wiping out the rest of your workforce. We owe it to each other as human beings to support each other when we are able to. Today it's someone else, tomorrow it could be you. Life is long and takes many complicated turns. Try to look at the big picture.
I've felt the burning resentment of having to fill in for a coworker who was home on bedrest and still collecting a paycheck while I did her job. I get that. But I also know that my husband is able to be so reliable at his job because I am here to cover ALL the bases at home. It's endlessly demanding, and the pay is crap, but what a great job. I am profoundly grateful that we can do this instead of having to balance the demands that come with two paychecks.
We should all be fighting like crazy for the rights of families, whatever form they take.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Life is long... Posted by: Trazom
Priorities
Posted by: sunflwrmoonbeam on Mar 21, 2007 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a lot wrong with this situation. Women need to work to support their families, but childcare is insanely overpriced. Add to that the rising cost of healthcare, and the fact that working conditions are getting worse, and you have a veritable family crisis.

The thing is, it is possible to live happily on a lower income, and people should really learn how to do that. You have to make a choice: do you want new gadgets every year, fancy clothes, vacations every year or so, a bigger house, two cars, etc.; or do you want to stay home with your family?

I realize not everyone can make that choice (single mothers, people with lower incomes) but many can. Unfortunately, many people are stuck believing that they NEED satellite t.v., that new 52'' HD television, two luxury cars, and a McMansion in the burbs. People don't want to live simply, and so they work.

I'm lucky enough that my husband makes enough money that we can afford for me to stay home and homeschool our future children. But we don't have t.v., we have on used car, our house is relatively modest though new and very energy efficient, we don't go on vacation, and we will very soon have absolutely no credit card debt. Part of this is because we're lucky, but part of it is because we're smart and where we place our priorities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Teachpeace
Posted by: teachpeace on Mar 21, 2007 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peace is a family value.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Respect and tolerance (not to mention compassion)
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Mar 21, 2007 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aren't those the qualities that we need more and more of? Where did we all get the idea that we need 2 bathrooms and a mega-garage to be happy? What happened to community? Why on earth do religious fundamentalists of all stripes try to force their beliefs that after we're DEAD we get the true rewards? (think about it and the more you do, the sillier it becomes). Why does the separation of churches and state beget a better, more tolerant society? Why is the rampant, oxymoronic hypocrisy of our governments so entrenched in the dumbed down, TV addicted members of our society? Family values, no child left behind, just say no to sex, drugs and rock and roll. Why is consumerism (just go shopping) the definition of our 'freedoms'? Why are the weakest and most fragile of our society the ones truly left behind, single mothers, gays, blacks, immigrants, legal or otherwise? Why are the illiteracy, infant mortality, percentage of population behind bars, more children killed by 'accidental' gunshots, etc., citizens without healthcare the highest in the WORLD?
And this is all interconnected. Fix one and the domino effect will percolate through the rest. Honour children first, educate them, give them free health care, free day care. Use even a fraction of the inexcusable trillion of the war chest to start bettering the lives of children and miracles will happen. Simplistic, yes. But the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Off topic-
Posted by: Swan on Mar 21, 2007 4:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have some new stuff up on my blog here and here as of today and yesterday.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why argue?
Posted by: sunflwrmoonbeam on Mar 21, 2007 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it disturbing how often discussions about the work/family/free time balance turn into an argument between parents and childfree people; specifically, an argument about "value" to the society and economy.

Why isn't this a discussion about how people should be able to work 35 to 40 hours a week in a schedule that fits their life, and with that make enough money to live comfortably, have healthcare, own a home, retire at a reasonable age, etc. Bad labor policies suck for everyone, and fighting amongst ourselves isn't going to change them.

Childfree people, stop blaming the parents, whom you seem so quick to hate, and blame the government that set up these crap-ass policies that make your lives, and all of our lives, hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Part of the solution: Buy less stuff
Posted by: pgj1949 on Mar 21, 2007 6:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A great deal of what we spend our money on is either junk, or of only passing value. In return for it, we trade time with our families, time devoted to our friends and community--and generate a lot of waste and carbon dioxide. Everything we buy will either end up going down the toilet, into the air, or into a landfill.
Buy wiser, buy less, and save the world (if only just a little)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Work and Life
Posted by: xgroverx on Mar 21, 2007 7:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The modern western conception of work has been slowly draining the life out of humanity. We are slaves to 40-60 hour work weeks and have lost touch with those things that are truly important, values such as friendship, community, family, and the simple act of enjoying life.

If you look at most indiginous cultures, you find that work constitutes a small portion of their lives compared to socializing, interacting with nature, and participating in community activities, and the work they do perform is undertook to fulfill immediate needs; that is, it is not wage labor.

If we truly want to improve the quality of life for people, it is important that we work towards lessening the importance of work in our society. That being said, policies that work to require employers to give employees more time off are a step in the right direction. However, if we want substantial change in our society, we will have to begin to reconsider the modern notion of work and rethink its role in our lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Life was simpler
Posted by: Maryanne on Mar 22, 2007 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This comment does not necessarily include women who choose to have a career; it is primarily for one income families, or a situation where both parents work in order to survive financially. My sympathies.

There was a time in the memory of many posting here when life was much simpler. It was not necessary for women to work because although wages were minimal ($5,000. a year provided a comfortable standard of living) not only was the cost of living very reasonable, but there were not such great demands on what income we had.

I know this from my own personal experience. When I began my career in the 1960s, earning less than $4,000 per year (with a graduate degree no less), I was able to support a household, take a two month vacation throughout Europe, eat dinner out, go to the theater, etc. quite often.

When I married, I gave up my career. Although I was earning more than my husband, once the expenses of going to work- clothing, gasoline and parking, lunches, but mostly the increase in income tax, my nice income had shrunk to minimum wage. It was not worth putting in so many hours of stressful work for so little reward.

Now with a lack of public transport where we live, a car is a big expense (original cost, maintenance and repairs, gasoline, insurance, parking fees, etc.). Utilities are sky high even when the temperature is turned down and lights are on only in rooms being used. Cost of food is rising dramatically. Property taxes have gone up as well. Then there is medical insurance which is definitely out of control; life insurance and other insurances to pick up costs in case of illness or some other crisis seem necesary. Resources, such as museums, swimming classes, etc that once were free add up when one has a number of children wanting to use these, etc. etc. etc. It was possible to pay bills locally, now all must be mailed (add in cost of postage for each- this adds up!) or paid locally for a fee of at least $1.00 per bill. Additionally we are bombarded with requests from literally hundreds of legitimate organizations for donations to provide services, as well as fund raisers for the needy, the hungry, the ill, political parties and candidates, etc. Expenses began to go out of control in the late 1970s, then a lull, and rose again dramatically starting with the mid 1990s.

It takes hours every week to pay the bills, weed out the requests for donations since one cannot give to all. The time all this takes is time taken away from more constructive activity.

Americans can't return to that simpler life. Our family still lives as simply as we can under the routine demands on our income. We do not shop and watch for sales on food. We hear that inflation is down- but when once the middle class enjoyed a good life style on $5,000 a year but cannot do so now on $50,000 something is out of whack. If someone has an answer to this.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Heather Boushy is a great source in general and her other stuff is
Posted by: yellow on Mar 23, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
certainly worth reading. She has published great pieces on income inequality in the US today. Family values is an issue that has been hijacked by the far right most as a way of distracting attemtion from the economic problems of today's working families. Almost all households in the bottom 80% of the society are based at least two incomes. Many in the upper quintile are as well. The concentrating economic system whose agenda the Christian right exists to support is at the very core of the stress on the nuclear family whose virtues the far right extolls. Boushy sees the contradiction. It's time the rest of us did as well..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]