This part of this post got wiped out and I am sure it will make more sense with the following:
The book I read that Prompted these ideas is called: The Mommy Myth by S. Douglas and M. Michaels
These were my thoughts on it:
I thought the book had some good points and some bad points.
Obviously the authors do not found any of their arguments on the premise that marrriage is sacred and that unless one has serious difficulties that cause infertility or warrant NFP usage that sex will often result in children. They seem to want to separate sex from children and becoming mothers which is unatural.
One good point
The book seems to indicate that the “war” between SAHM and working moms was created and perpetuated by the media. I wonder if this is not true. I am sure mothers have always worked or not worked depending on their circumstances and that society paced pressures on them one way or another to work or not work depending on if there was a war on or not or whether or not women’s rights movements pushed for women to throw off the “burden” of taking care of their children and families.
The way the media portrayed mothers has been extreme. either a super working mother who woks and takes care of her children and keeps her house clean and has her kids in nurturing day cares or employs wonder nannies or a slavish SAHM who had no brains, or didn’t use them and was frumpy and watched soaps all day and let her kids wreck the and slaloms to her husband all day.
Or you have the cruel working mom who dumps her kids off at a day care where they learn to be aggressive and pick up all kinds of diseases and even though they may learn a few numbers and letters they will be emotionally scarred but never ever bonding to their neglectful parents vs the SAHM mom who is virtue herself home-schooling her 13 children who are all well educated and she grinds her own grain and makes her own cloth diapers out of home woven organic cotton in a home that rivals Martha Stewart’s creations.
These are both extremes and they don’t lend to mothers able to support each other in their own decisions and difficulties.
There are certain truths of course like the fact that a higher percentage of people consider themselves as “have nots” at the same relative income level that people about 30 to 20 years ago considered themselves well off. The basics of today are often the luxuries of yesterday etc.
Another good point:
Advertising tries to make us insecure in our parenting so that we will buy more stuff.
One bad point.
There seems to be no understanding for others who decide to grind their own grain, homeschool and use cloth diapers. If we decide to do it without being selfrighteous, but grateful that we can do it why should it bother the authors of the book?
Another bad point:
The authors seem to expect the government to provide day care. I am not sure if that is necessarily a good thing. The book sites a few socialist countries that do have more and/or better daycare, but the issue is not as simple as that. The bigger the government is the more the inefficiencies associated with it. It seems to me the authors are just yelling we want day care from the government and they do no realize that there are implications that go along with that. I think if there is a demand for daycare then a supply for daycare will come about. Maybe daycare can be regulated by a government body or even a NGO, but there is more to the problem than just demanding more daycare.
The book also critiques how the results of a study were reported that studies the effects of daycare on children, but never actually refers to the study itself only to secondary or tertiary sources and the study itself is not sited in the notes. I will eventually search for the study and check it out, but I think it is shoddy reporting to not go to the source of the data one is talking about. There are a few other instances where I will check out the data they report and the studies they supposedly come from.