J. Beck's CES Fireside

[Levin]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

What I don't understand is when a couple CHOOSES to both work full time, instead of having one person home with the kids. I see this as essentially letting someone else raise your kids, because the kids are spending the vast majority of their waking hours with a non-parent. This is not raising a family, but out-sourcing it to someone else. If one of the parents is not willing to stay home with the kids, then don't bother having any.

Do you think that there are some women out there who make better mothers when they are able to work than if they stayed at home full time, resulting in a net benefit to the children? I do. Maybe that's why in some families both parents work.

But then, you ask, why doesn't the father stay at home? Well, because he too is a better parent when he's able to work (the self-confidence that comes with providing for the fam, the adult interaction, the creative productivity at work, etc.).

But I also believe that children build up huge emotional reserves when they have a parent raise them full time, even if that parent gets cranky, irritable, and at times depressed from the isolation and frustrations that can come with staying at home.

Which situation is better for children: (1) both parents work, both parents happy; (2) one parent works, stay-at-home parent unhappy.

Perhaps you think the stay-at-home parent should just suck it up and things will get better. Let's say that parent perseveres and comes to tolerate/like being at home. What about when that parent is 60 and they get the huge ache that comes with wasted talent and unfulfilled dreams? The ache will come.

Because it's so complicated is one reason why we should just support parents in their thoughtful decisions, whatever they may be.

For each family, we can't know what's best. For society as a whole, we do know what's best. We teach the latter while offending the former; hence the need for extra sensitivity, kindness, and enthusiastic support at the ground level.