R
Ryan Case
Guest
Jason Earl wrote:
> Ryan Case <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I would never even suggest that women are more lazy than men.
>>>Women have always been obliged to work, and feminism didn't change
>>>that one bit. However, feminism has done a disservice to society
>>>in that it has created a perception that a woman that works outside
>>>of the home is more "successful" than a woman that focuses on being
>>>a mother first and a "worker" second. Jason
>>
>>A-men. But of course we now have "a village" to help take care of
>>the kids in the now empty home.
>
>
> I grew up in a small town and I now live in an area where I know all
> of my neighbors. Having a large support group is definitely a good
> thing, even if you have the traditional nuclear family with a
> stay-at-home mother. For one thing my wife needs the social
> interaction with adults, and it has been very handy on any number of
> occasions to be able to rely on friends and neighbors when your little
> boy has wandered off or you need someone to watch the older kids while
> you take the little one to the doctor. I know in my own case that a
> lot of the positive socialization that I received came from friends
> and relatives.
>
> I would argue that "a village" is pretty darn useful in the raising of
> children, but nothing can possibly replace a mother. I would also
> argue that society has yet to come up with an alternative that is as
> successful on average at parenting as the traditional nuclear family.
> Sure, there are plenty of cases where single mothers, single fathers,
> grandparents, etc. etc. have been able to raise outstanding children.
> Likewise, there are all sorts of examples of traditional families that
> have done a horrible job of raising children. The reality is,
> however, that the further that you stray from the traditional family
> the more likely you are to have serious problems with your children.
>
> Jason
My folks are both graduates of Pasco High Jason, and I am from that
little High School out in Moxee. I hesitate to say it, but I came up and
worked the annual ram show at the Moses Lake fairgrounds as a handler
every year in High School.
I understand the positive effects of a close knit community and having
family and neighbors that can and do help out in various ways. I grew up
that way.
I don't, however, think that was the intention of the "it takes a
village" idea from a few years back, and believe that you stated exactly
what I was trying to. There is no substitute for a parent in the home
during a child's younger years. The ability to be involved in the school
and den mother/father cub scouts and be there when the children get home
from school etc. etc. can not be replaced by a village. Augmented and
strenghtened yes, but not replaced.
Now if all things were created equal, I wouldn't care less if it is the
father or mother at home. But, since men are at a serious disadvantage
for breast feeding, and pregnancy prolly made hunting and farming a
little difficult earlier, society seemed to develope in a manner where
it was the mother staying home. Just seems to make sense to me, but then
again I am just some dumb hick Eastern Washingtoner, so what do I know. ;~)
> Ryan Case <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I would never even suggest that women are more lazy than men.
>>>Women have always been obliged to work, and feminism didn't change
>>>that one bit. However, feminism has done a disservice to society
>>>in that it has created a perception that a woman that works outside
>>>of the home is more "successful" than a woman that focuses on being
>>>a mother first and a "worker" second. Jason
>>
>>A-men. But of course we now have "a village" to help take care of
>>the kids in the now empty home.
>
>
> I grew up in a small town and I now live in an area where I know all
> of my neighbors. Having a large support group is definitely a good
> thing, even if you have the traditional nuclear family with a
> stay-at-home mother. For one thing my wife needs the social
> interaction with adults, and it has been very handy on any number of
> occasions to be able to rely on friends and neighbors when your little
> boy has wandered off or you need someone to watch the older kids while
> you take the little one to the doctor. I know in my own case that a
> lot of the positive socialization that I received came from friends
> and relatives.
>
> I would argue that "a village" is pretty darn useful in the raising of
> children, but nothing can possibly replace a mother. I would also
> argue that society has yet to come up with an alternative that is as
> successful on average at parenting as the traditional nuclear family.
> Sure, there are plenty of cases where single mothers, single fathers,
> grandparents, etc. etc. have been able to raise outstanding children.
> Likewise, there are all sorts of examples of traditional families that
> have done a horrible job of raising children. The reality is,
> however, that the further that you stray from the traditional family
> the more likely you are to have serious problems with your children.
>
> Jason
My folks are both graduates of Pasco High Jason, and I am from that
little High School out in Moxee. I hesitate to say it, but I came up and
worked the annual ram show at the Moses Lake fairgrounds as a handler
every year in High School.
I understand the positive effects of a close knit community and having
family and neighbors that can and do help out in various ways. I grew up
that way.
I don't, however, think that was the intention of the "it takes a
village" idea from a few years back, and believe that you stated exactly
what I was trying to. There is no substitute for a parent in the home
during a child's younger years. The ability to be involved in the school
and den mother/father cub scouts and be there when the children get home
from school etc. etc. can not be replaced by a village. Augmented and
strenghtened yes, but not replaced.
Now if all things were created equal, I wouldn't care less if it is the
father or mother at home. But, since men are at a serious disadvantage
for breast feeding, and pregnancy prolly made hunting and farming a
little difficult earlier, society seemed to develope in a manner where
it was the mother staying home. Just seems to make sense to me, but then
again I am just some dumb hick Eastern Washingtoner, so what do I know. ;~)