Comment Of The Day: “Sunday Ethics Warm-Up, 3/8/2010: Daylight Savings Time Edition”

When Still Spartan is in a substantive commenting mood here attention must be paid, since you never know she will grace us with her perspective again. This Comment of the Day was really a comment on a comment, in this case mine.

I wrote, admittedly hyperbolically, “I will note that the Sanders-Warren-Klobuchar call for free child care for all is meant to ensure that as many kids as possible are raised by non-parents and illegal aliens. And no, I do not think that is a good thing.” While acknowledging that the statement was designed to explode heads, I won’t retract it, as breaking up the close family unit and having children raised beyond the influence of parents is a long-standing tool of leftward conversion, and we have a movement afoot to allow illegal aliens work and frolic here without interference, and the same ideological source places workplace competition with men above parenting as a priority for all women.

However, Still Spartan’s retort was, as usual, well-reasoned and properly sharp. Here is her Comment of the Day on the post, “Sunday Ethics Warm-Up, 3/8/2010: Daylight Savings Time Edition.”

I, incidentally, am half-Spartan. Still.

Comments like this is why I don’t participate fully in this blog anymore. It first assumes that both parents want to work. Even with “free childcare,” the reality is that most households need both parents working to meet bills — let alone trying to save for retirement and their kids’ college. I personally would have loved it if I could have taken a few years off. If we had, we wouldn’t even have been able to make the mortgage payment. Second, it assumes that there is something wrong with both parents working. I am a really good mom, I mean … really good. Yes, that is is conceited to say, but damn if I don’t have healthy, smart, capable, talented, loving, and well-rounded kids. And, as much as I love my mom, I am superior to her in all areas, even though she was a “stay at home” parent. I also can give my children far more than my parents ever could. If my kids are passionate about something (right now it is music and (ugh) ice skating), I get to say, “Yes, we can do that!” I was never able to do any activities or go to camps growing up. And I got to graduate with a ton of debt (which is now paid off thank goodness) because my mom stayed at home?

Now for your “non-parents” and terrible “illegal aliens” point. No one has “raised” my kids except me and my husband. We had child care when they were young for about 6 hours every day, the other 18 hours they were with us. Similarly, the public school they go to for 8 hours Monday through Friday is not raising them either — they go there to learn, but we are the ones running point on their social, educational, and emotional needs. I don’t know where your illegal aliens comment is coming from — but a caregiver is a caregiver. My daughters attended a daycare until pre-K that was almost fully staffed by African American women. Were my daughters somehow scarred because they had people changing their diapers for 6 hours a day who didn’t look like mommy?

13 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “Sunday Ethics Warm-Up, 3/8/2010: Daylight Savings Time Edition”

  1. Further to our discussion in the original post, you’re welcome, Sparty.

    Honestly, I’m a little dubious about homosexual couples raising kids or single mothers getting inseminated and raising a child or children. I think it’s just too soon to know how those children are going to turn out. Call me unenthused. I had an aunt who I’m pretty sure was lesbian. My brother and I had no surviving grandparents. That aunt was all our grandparents rolled into one. I think that’s a great option for homosexual adults in a family.

    I also think divorce takes a major toll on children, regardless of their age. People your age are the first generation of kids raised in the no-default divorce era. Should all couples stay together at any and all costs? No. Is a little unhappiness in a marriage reason to split and visit that on the kids? I’m not sure. The mantra of “Divorce is healthier than staying in an unhappy marriage” just seems a little too facile. It’s right up there with “Diversity is the greatest thing since canned milk.”

    But again, I really think knowing both your parents and growing up around both of them is really, really beneficial. Life is very difficult to negotiate and it sure helps if you know both your parents.

    And by the way, the lesbian couple I know who got married and raise a daughter were hand down one of the most dysfunctional families I’ve encountered. The parents are now divorced. Actually, almost all the homosexual couples I know are now divorced, save one couple who are truly admirable.

    You remind me of both my forty-something kids. You share there unbridled enthusiasm for all kinds of unconventional family configurations. Me, I’m just not so darned sure.

    Cheers.

    And by the way, it seems like a long road now, but your girls will be out the door and gone in the blink of an eye. Enjoy it while it lasts.

  2. There is no such thing as “free child care!” Somebody has to pay for it through an increase in their taxes. If a woman doesn’t to be a stay at home mom, perhaps she and hopefully her husband can pay for a nanny illegal or not. Also, if she’s burdened with five kids, it seems to me that she could have considered birth control. We are enabling people to be irresponsible by these lame brained socialist policies.

    • Wayne — look at what you wrote and ponder your misogyny for a moment. “If a woman doesn’t want to be a stay at home mom …” The woman? Women are in the work force in equal numbers now. Most of my female friends make more than their husbands, myself included. I believe that I am (or if not, certainly near the top) the highest paid female employee at my company. Staying at home is not just for moms anymore, and I know several stay at home dads. “[I]f she’s burdened with five kids, it seems to me that she should have considered birth control.” Again, the focus on the woman. To date, a woman cannot get pregnant without the benefit of a man. In any relationship, the responsibility of birth control falls to both the man and the woman.

      As for “lame-brained socialist policies,” we already live in a partially socialized system. Right now, the State watches and teaches children during normal working hours between the ages of 5 and 18. We have already determined that this is best for society. Now, the question is whether or not education should start earlier. All of the research is showing that early education matters a lot — assuming of course that it is quality early education. Perhaps we should start this in small chunks, and start State-provided education at the Pre-K level. I don’t think that is such a lame-brained idea.

      • The issue, this issue, fits into a much larger group of issues. You could delineate ‘the culture wars’ as the general area to grasp it in the American context. Or you could expand the entire issue to cover a 100 year, or a 500 year span.

        One has to start with a statement. That statement is that the US, right now, is on the verge of what is seen by some as a ‘drastic change’ but one welcome by others as a ‘positive change’. What does this have to do with, in essence, at the most basic and essential point? It has to do with how life is defined and what in life is valued.

        Surrounding these questions — they are giant existential questions — are the *structures* that surround us and define us, and these seen in the sense of ‘molding powers’. So, if one follows E Michael Jones (an historian who traces ‘social engineering’ from a critical position) our present System is a constellation of powers & forces that mold us. You may not accept this analysis, you may not even consider it related or relevant and that is your choice, but others do. We notice that the surrounding society, in the hands of and guided by powerful interests that are distinct from us and over which we have no control, mold us; mold our social reality; mold how we perceive and thinks and *see*.

        Those who are critical of this, though they come from varied background and ideology, seek to define what these *powers* are and what, exactly, they seem to want. This is a critical posture and you might be closed to hear about it. But you shouldn’t because *we* — many many millions of us — are here, just as you are here, and we have our own thoughts and views. We will not be dismissed.

        If the family has been or is been engineered by ‘Marxian interests’, as the link Jack posted above indicates, this is a valid are for concern. If generally the culture has been engineered, over time, by specific interests to have subtracted from it some essential components because those components do not serve the processes and outcomes of *powerful interests*, we have a right to question this.

        If an economic reality has been *manufactured* in which both parents must work outside the home in order not to fall into home-loss or impoverishment, we have a right to examine the causal chain that led to this, and question or challenge the powerful interests that have brought this about (for their own interest, not necessarily ours).

        If a society, at some point, and for various reasons, chooses to create dramatically different social arrangements, which may include modifications to the ‘traditional family’ as it has existed (as the conservatives are fond of saying ‘for millennia’), it is entirely proper, legitimate, and indeed necessary that these changes can be examined and critiqued.

        If the economic pressures, within a system designed, overall, to suck wealth from one class up and away into the hands of another, powerful, technological class, this too can be examined. It is fair, decent and proper that these relationships be examined. It is unfair, indecent and improper that *open questioning* be suppressed.

        I suggest — and here I agree with Bannon — that many Americans have been made into serfs. That is, powerful players have created a system where benefits flow, in the large vein, to them. These are *consciously created* systems and consciousness can be applied to examining them. It is the proper role of genuine conservatism to do this. Not to avoid the task. To engage with the task.

        The issue, in the end (and at the beginning!) is What sort of culture and society we want to live in, and what is the philosophy and ideology that supports that understanding? How does one define *social value* and also *family* and then the reason that people live, and what they value, and what they set themselves to create, and why.

        In the American Postwar society was reengineered. According to certain business models. According to the needs and vision of big players. But not necessarily as a result of choice or of ‘democratic choice’. If one really were to broach the topic of ‘democratic choice’ one would have a complex and difficult conversation on one’s hands.

        And at a certain point the solidity of families was no longer held to be a supreme value. In fact — it is fair to say — private interests began to get, and take, all the power to make decisions which affected people at all levels, and not necessarily for the better. My understanding is that the Sixties and the Seventies were the eras in which major shifts in *structure of society* took effect.

        There you see is the ‘critique’.

        What families are, and what their importance is (or isn’t) is the stuff of Culture Wars, true, but also of larger civilizational shifts. These are being examined. On one side, perhaps, there is *nostalgia* for what once was but no longer is. And on the other a will or a desire to break apart all constraining structures. And then there are those who consider, philosophically, what is best and what is necessary for human society, for the strength of society and family in the West generally.

      • …and ponder your misogyny

        How a culture, how a civilization, related to woman and indeed how it defines woman, is the question here. The Occident has done more than any other culture, ever, in molding and allowing woman to appear as she does today. By today I do not necessarily mean *at this moment* but more the general Occidental picture.

        If one really want to ask what one mean by ‘misogyny’, and really define what misogyny is, that is an involved conversation. My position (as I have stated so many times) is that a Porn Culture, as this culture now is, is completely misogynistic. The root of it is there, in obsessive sexual excess that knows no limits.

        But if I have another definition of woman, and another definition of myself, what is that? Where does it come from? How did it come to be? (Therefore I say: “The Occident has done more than any other culture, ever, in molding and allowing woman to appear as she does today” and I can explain all this in detail).

        The proper definition of woman, in the Occident, is a definition thickly intertwined in religious categories. What woman is, is arrived at through the solidities of metaphysical understanding. I guess what I have just said is unintelligible? (certainly to you). That is, of course, my opinion but one I can support.

        If one is going to broach the topic of what misogyny is — what woman-hating is and what it means — that is a complex conversation. It is an historical conversation certainly.

        I am not sure that our modern world can truly be said to love woman. But then, what do I mean by *love* and what is meant by *love*? I could make a case that in many ways our modernity despises woman even though it purports to *lift them up*.

        What then is *love of woman*?

        • You may find this video as interesting as I did. It is fascinating to observe men and women from closed, anti-liberal societies, that have real problems with the woman-question, be forced to consider and deal on such essential Occidental categories! This does show the relevance of ‘Logos’ in a Greco-Christian sense.

          May God bless them . . . and then return them to their own lands! 😉

  3. My mom stayed home and we got along on a public school teachers salary. I didn’t go to camps either. We went to Florida one time, my kids go every year. Music camps, sports camps, science camps, yiu name it, my kids have done it. I started working young so I could pay for college by writing checks out of my personal checking account. My kids won’t have to do that.

    Am I a better dad than my dad? Am I a better man than my dad? Not even close. To me, he’s still Superman, George washington, mr. Rogers, and michael Jordan, all rolled into one. My kids have everything they want. They’re missing out.

    • Your dad set a great model for you. I myself started working at 14 during the summer and nobody sent me to a music camp, science camp, sports camp, etc. I was set to a YMCA camp once which was fun but mostly the kids in our family had to make their own fun. Riding our bikes all over town and fishing without much success in the local resevoir. Do I feel I had a deprived childhood? Absolutely not!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.