I missed the boat in missing this Rich Lowry column from last week, which intends to be about how the huge drawbacks of day care (compared with parental care) are swept under the rug (he reviews Day Care Deception). I'll get back to that idea as soon as I deal with some silliness that crept into the op-ed.
Lowry decides that discussing (and dissing) day care isn't enough -- he wants solutions to the problem. Some of them (fix the tax system to reward parents) make sense (see this week's New Yorker for another take on the service parents provide ... at great expense), but his parting argument is just nutty: "The biggest, most important change would be for the culture to stop showering praise and adulation on working moms ... "
I have no problem whatsoever with making sure that at-home mothers get more credit. That's not a controversial political view. I believe it. Lowry believes it. Some of the nation's highest-profile women's advocates believe it. The problem arises when we lay the blame squarely and solely at the feet of working women. You want to blame America's wealth-and-work obsessed culture for the number of kids in day care? Go ahead. But don't say that it's mom's fault. Dad can certainly do the job at home. Trust me on this one.
Two letter writers to the Portland Oregonian, which ran Lowry's piece, were published today, and it's worth checking out the that feeback here and here.
Finally, let me touch on the central tenet of Lowry's piece -- the argument about day care he makes before claiming that feminism is sending the nation's youth to hell in a handbasket. The line of thinking that day care's dangers are covered up seems to be getting more and more attention, and I'm increasingly convinced that there's something to it. For many families, there is no other choice (let's face it, staying at home is not economically in the cards for everyone), and I can understand the desire to soften the impact of negative findings about day care. But I have to wonder about the extent to which that incomplete information clouds the calculation about whether to a parent should stay home ...
Lowry decides that discussing (and dissing) day care isn't enough -- he wants solutions to the problem. Some of them (fix the tax system to reward parents) make sense (see this week's New Yorker for another take on the service parents provide ... at great expense), but his parting argument is just nutty: "The biggest, most important change would be for the culture to stop showering praise and adulation on working moms ... "
I have no problem whatsoever with making sure that at-home mothers get more credit. That's not a controversial political view. I believe it. Lowry believes it. Some of the nation's highest-profile women's advocates believe it. The problem arises when we lay the blame squarely and solely at the feet of working women. You want to blame America's wealth-and-work obsessed culture for the number of kids in day care? Go ahead. But don't say that it's mom's fault. Dad can certainly do the job at home. Trust me on this one.
Two letter writers to the Portland Oregonian, which ran Lowry's piece, were published today, and it's worth checking out the that feeback here and here.
Finally, let me touch on the central tenet of Lowry's piece -- the argument about day care he makes before claiming that feminism is sending the nation's youth to hell in a handbasket. The line of thinking that day care's dangers are covered up seems to be getting more and more attention, and I'm increasingly convinced that there's something to it. For many families, there is no other choice (let's face it, staying at home is not economically in the cards for everyone), and I can understand the desire to soften the impact of negative findings about day care. But I have to wonder about the extent to which that incomplete information clouds the calculation about whether to a parent should stay home ...
posted by Rebel Dad at
9:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home