Are you saying that materialistic values are more important than nurturing in the development of children?
Well, Christine... I think that this was perhaps your interpretation of a follow-on soundbyte from JLA to my denouncement of Bennett and his "moral code". So theres a little more to it than meets the eye, but I surely don't profess materialistic values over much of anything, really.
However, I believe for men and women to have a sense of purpose is mighty important and for some reason historically, stay at home moms have had problems with their role and how it weighs in vs. the traditional breadwinner. Where this comes from, I don't know. But it seems like there is a lot of reinforcement in the media etc. that full-time parenting is indeed "work"... the talk show hosts have a new lingo where they will say "do you work outside the home", etc. which is a sort of pandering to this group that needs reassurance. Sort of peripherally related to this are teenage girls and self-esteem issues.... it seems to me that if some 13 yr old girl has a mother that constantly needs to remind everyone that she is a "contributor" then perhaps the self-esteem problems begin at home.... just a guess.
Now in my case regarding this issue of stay at home moms, I am completely in the dark, because I had working parents who worked for the joy of work (and my mother wouldn't have it any other way) and I am the same animal. I don't have children, but if I do, I will most certainly work fulltime, not because I have to, but because I will want to.
I guess you could say that I am experiencing a backlash of sorts with the constant drill from people like Bennett and Quayle that seem to make an entire career of defining these roles for women, what is important, what is not important, blah blah - as if they would know. |
