no apparent reason

then again, what am I qualified to talk about?

Lileks discussed this article yesterday (you have to skip past all that stuff about his daughter). I feel that I am equally qualified to comment on the article as him--although I am not a parent, and he is; I am female, and even have been known to lie awake replaying the odd conversation in my head, though I'm trying to cut back on that sort of thing.

In any case, I feel there is a fundamental problem with the author's argument. This is that the problem which is described is a different one from the problem for which a solution is offered. Both of these are real problems, but because of this disjunction, one of them goes undescribed and the other goes unsolved.

p.s. You will find a more well-thought-out commentary by a better-qualified author here. If you've grown accustomed to the sort of uninformed rambling that goes on around my blog, though, read on.

Before I talk about this more, I would like to say that the thing that ticks me off most about this article and every other article about mothers, is that the father is apparently not considered or expected to have any role in any of this. This annoys me in discussions of single mothers, in which the financial and parenting role of the father is often completely ignored. Now it is quite true that the father (or mother, when the dad has custody) more often than not uses every possible subterfuge to avoid paying his fair share. But being a jerk doesn't earn him a free pass, in my opinion. We need to talk about how to get him to do his part before we start discussing how people who are not related to the family, and who certainly would have advised the mother against getting together with this jerk to begin with, had they been consulted, are expected to help out.

In this article, however, the dad who actually lives in the same house as his kids is apparently not expected to take any part in raising them, or helping with the housework, or doing anything at all, as far as I can tell. The only reference to a father in the article seems to be a fleeting mention of some mom being disappointed that her husband didn’t help more. Look, if both parents are working, and either of them won’t do his or her fair share of the house or kid work, that’s a problem. Like a go-find-a-marriage-counselor problem. Even if the mother is staying home full time, the father still needs to take part in the housework, because it’s their house, and she isn’t a servant and he isn’t a guest. And the child needs both parents, not mom and that guy who’s around here when he has nothing better to do. No government program or tax cut can take the place of a parent.

To return from my digression. The problem which is described in this article is that faced by the mothers interviewed in the article: the problem of trying to pursue a demanding career, maintain an upper-class lifestyle, and adequately care for their kids. They all seem to be surprised that taking on what used to be considered at least two more than full-time jobs is, in fact, extremely difficult and exhausting. The things that these women are getting frantic over--matching felt, toting kids to every activity under the sun--are all choices, not necessities. They have to do with a lifestyle in which everything around them is perfect, and their kids are extensions of themselves in some highly competitive world which they've created.

The solutions proposed are, however, aimed at a different problem: that faced by single mothers, or families who struggle to get by on two incomes, for whom cutting down to one is out of the question. It is reasonable to suggest that tax dollars go toward tax cuts or other programs to help with the second problem; it is not reasonable to ask taxpayers, many of whose incomes are a third of one of these upper-class families’ incomes to subsidize daycare so that these moms can get a few hours off. Why can't upper class moms do what the rest of us do in this case: leave the kids with Dad (remember him?), the grandparents, the cousins, the neighbors, or a babysitter?

The solution to the first problem is simply to give up this lifestyle that is so exhausting and unhealthy. It might not be easy to give up this self-image--who doesn't want to see themselves as cultured and successful, and I suspect they imagine that all this frenetic activity is necessary to being so. Furthermore this lifestyle goes along with the kinds of professions they have. I imagine that they would be looked at askance by their colleagues if they walked around in the wardrobe I can afford, or lived in a place that looks like, well, mine. But I must say I have little sympathy with this; living your life to keep up with the Joneses or with some imaginary ideal you've created for yourself is not, and has never been, a fulfilling or worthwhile way to live. If they want to keep running this race with no finish line, this is the price they will have to pay; it is their choice, and it is not reasonable to expect the government to subsidize or facilitate such a choice.

Government intervention may be needed to help struggling parents find the time (through subsidized daycare) or freedom from immediate needs (through tax cuts, welfare programs, or free health care) to take care of their families or to get the education they need to make a better life. Therefore, the article's suggestion that the government has a role in alleviating financial pressures on families makes sense, but not in the context of the problems it has outlined. The moms interviewed in this article are not in need of government intervention. On the contrary, they have all the power to make a difference in their own lives, and to help other struggling families. Whereas the article’s author apparently thinks that the there is little hope of finding part-time work or other flexibility to better combine work and parenting, I think this is the wave of the future. We’ve already seen the concept of work become much more flexible over the last decade or so, what with flex hours, telecommuting, and so forth (at least for professionals, which is what these moms are); and I think this is only going to increase.

These women don’t need the government to do this for them, any more than they needed the government to build successful careers for them. They are, as briefly noted but quickly passed over in the article, the most privileged group in the history of the world. They are intelligent, highly educated, healthy, and for the most part seem to have the financial freedom to work part-time or not work at all, for that matter. They have everything they need to negotiate the work hours and environment that they want. And by doing this, they can lead the way for less privileged mothers—and fathers—who want more time to spend with their kids. So instead of complaining that the government isn’t doing this for you, do what everyone in this country has always done when change is needed—something.

Posted by michele at February 18, 2005 2:25 PM