Would the family unit fare better if the husband/father be the one responsible for the income of the family, while the wife/mother be at home with the children? It appears the two income family has become prevelant in today’s society. Is this true due to people wanting more material things or an abject necessity in this present economy?
While I don’t think the rules need to be determined along strict gender lines, I do think a family fairs better if one of the parents (or at least someone an aunt/uncle, grandparent, even neighbor works too) can act as the primary provider for the welfare of the children and the household and the other can act as the primary provider of income. That isn’t to say that a strict one-income household is necessary, I think a part-time job while the kids are at school makes a great deal of sense, or a job with flexible enough hours to ensure that they can tend to the children. As for why it has come to the two-income model, I think it really depends on which class the family in question belongs. In the case of upper-class families, I do think it is purely a materialistic drive, but for some middle-class families and certainly most lower-class families it is a necessity, which I think is unfortunate because it can lead to a rather vicious cycle.
I suppose it’s not hard to guess with all of my prior postings here in ILP, it’s not har figure out I’m more of what could be considered traditional family man. Although alternative guardian type measures would be acceptable from another relative. I wonder though in trying to hard to provide for our family if we sometimes go overboard in things we purchase. Parents too are hit with ‘societal peer pressure’ to keep up with the Jones as it were. Buying TV’s for each child along with their own computers. I would say most parents fall prey to these situations. Hopefully, loving guidance will offset parental over indulgence by trying to teach what is important in life. It seems living by example doesn’t fall along those lines for most parents.
This thread must not be considered important deliberating material here in ILP due to the lack of responses. C’est la vie.
Well, the capitalist/consumerist society that we live in operates on the drive of people purchasing more than they need. That is what advertising is all about: convincing people that they need a new product. I mean, everyone in the household having their own computer, MP3 player, TV, whatever-gadget is clearly indicative of that. Likewise with multiple car households. If you look around there is a lot of junk that we don’t need and, even more shockingly, a lot of this junk is redundant! I do think drives like that lead to overindulgence and obscure what is ultimately important and of value for things that are of much less ultimate value but are shinier. And who doesn’t like shiny things?
My view is that this inequity exists mostly because the private sphere activity is still deemed to be of lesser value than the public sphere activity. Therefore, regardless of whether it’s a male parent or a female parent that might choose to do the ‘home and hearth’ work, s/he will not receive compensation for it. Ironically, should s/he decide to enter into the public sphere or work, the family will have to pay someone else to do their private sphere work (like childcare or cleaning). What should’ve happened when women enterered the public sphere (e.g, the world of outside work) is that there should’ve been a corresponding analysis of how the work that makes it possible for one parent to do that is valued and compensated. We have always valued that which is done in the public sphere to transform the world versus that which is done in the private sphere (raising healthy, whole children) to transform the world. Even in the public sphere, childcare workers and teachers are traditionally lower-paid jobs.
It’s partly because there has been no real change in the view of our private sphere activities that the average worker makes less in real dollars than 30 years ago and so why, when two people in the family work full-time, it’s not the same as it would’ve been had they both done that in 1975 (not that this was really possible, since women were way behind in entry into the public sphere then, anyway). Not that I think this public/private argument is the only consideration, by any means. There’s also been the right-wing’s political power which resulted in the targeted demolition of unions over the 80’s, the vast increase in media (as a powerful marketing tool) intrusion in our lives and the relaxation of regulations in banking and credit. Greed used to be consider something to guard against, now it’s just the way it works.
It’s a product of supply and demand that wages are less now than they were. With women’s lib, the workforce was effectively doubled. Twice the supply + the same demand = roughly half the price. At this point, I don’t know that there’s any going back, but if you look at the european model, which has a shorter work week and more time off in general, that’s a possible solution.
I have no problem with having a dedicated care-giver in the family, and ideally it should be a parent. It provides a kind of support for child-rearing that daycare and even nannies can’t offer. But I do have a problem with genderizing that role. At the very least, having women and men in approximately equal proportions in the workplace better represents society in terms of the goods and services they provide. In capitalism, controlling corporations is as big a part of governance as voting or holding office. To truly represent the interests of society, the make-up of the controlling class needs to reflect the make-up of society generally.
I agree the ratio changes in the GNP has mitigated the initiation of the two income family in conjunction of the feminist movement. I also cite the inundation of credit card companies aiding the instant gratification phenomenon. Our mailbox gets at least one or two solicitations a week from Capital One trying to seduce my wife and I into getting cards from them. What is bad is they also target young couples which gets them into insurmoutable debt which cripples them for years.
In regard to the genderizing aspect, that may have to be determined from cultural and possibly religious points of view. When two people of a like nature agree to have a family, those two factors could have a bearing in how their income is made. With the different facets of lifestyles, it is getting more apparent the paradigm will stay in flux.
Children will obviously do better if they have an adult at home the majority of the time (assuming the adult is a responsible adult.).
I think we should disban the entire concept of the family unit. Why do kids have to live with mom and dad? By average circumstance they’re probably deadbeat drug addicts, no matter who’s at home.
Well . . . I suppose that doesn’t contribute a lot to your concerns . . .
I personally prefer women staying home in raising the children.
Of course in our liberated era of equality and utopian morality, we musn’t have that! 
It is heresy to speak of motherhood from men to women.
Right, this was Plato’s thinking as well. The family unit is dirty and animal. It is emotional and irrational. It gets in the way of the republic.
My thinking too. You might have heard it said “Children are not just little people;” and wondered, what does that mean? Well, they are little, that is not in dispute, so what then? they aren’t people?
But I agree with you, “kids” are people too, and they deserve the same liberties that any other human is entitled to. Just like the Moslems say, submit only to God, not to any earthly power, not to man or state or parent. (I worry that “kid” is maybe a bit of a dehumanizing term, something like “nigger”; what do you think?)
Check out ASFAR’s ideas, you’ll like them.
I agree actually, but it depends on the couple involved. Some women don’t have that family gene in them.
How each family unit exists is up to them - I am not a dictator, and would never impose my will or ideals on others…
Meh. I don’t really care too much one way or the other…for myself I would rather stay at home with kids than have my husband do it.
Looks like NAMBLA got a new name.
I want to stay home and take care of grandchildren.
Universal Enfranchisement would increase the viable choices for family unit structure.