Alberta finance minister Iris Evans has stirred up a bit of controversy with her a speech at the Economic Club of Canada in Toronto a few days ago. She said that in order to properly raise a family one parent needs to stay at home while the other parent earns a living. Alberta Liberal leader David Swann was quick to seize this opportunity and stated that Iris must apologize or be fired!
Are Iris’s comments really that offensive? Isn’t it logical that the more time you spend with your kids, the better the chances of succesfully raising them? Iris didn’t state which parent she believed should stay home so she can’t be called sexist.
And yes, I am sure there are families out there where both parents work full time jobs and they are doing a great job raising their family. But is that the exception, or the rule? Of course you can do it but that don’t mean it’s to be done. You can drive a bus with your feet, that doesn’t make it a good idea (who knows who I’m paraphrasing).
It surely makes sense that if you are home with your children you are better able to impart your values and wisdom upon them. Or you can compete with the values of your babysitter and/or daycare provider.
Why do two parents need to work anyways? If it’s absolutely necessary for financial reasons that’s a different story but if it’s not, then why? Do you both love your jobs that much to sacrifice time with your family? Do you really need that second LCD TV?
I grew up in a generation where most families had one parent staying at home and looking back I definitely see the value of my mom being there all the time. Of course she did go to work as a teacher when times were tight but that wasn’t the norm. She was there to make breakfast, lunch & supper. She kept the house running like clockwork.
Now I don’t want to come of as an Iris supporter because she did go on to say some things about mental illness that showed a rather ignorant side of her. But a stay at home parent just makes sense to me. At least for the first 5 years.
What do you think?
(You had to know this would get me, besides I’m procrastinating!)
Murdoch is free to have an opinion – which, if you read up on her personal history is a direct contradiction of the choices she made – but as a government official her job is to make things better for individual families who live as they believe to be best. Over-simplification of the issue – for example the comment about LCD tvs, which assumes consumerism as a motive, and driving a bus with one’s feet (which is quite possibly offensive to physically challenged people whose vehicles are necessarily modified for them) – do not really foster discussion nor negotiation between people of varying perspectives; these side bars encourage polemical thinking. Working is also about fulfillment, about expanding a circle of social contacts, about contributing and community building. There are varying degrees of work: part-time; job-sharing; one day a week; night shifts and so on. Where does the line get drawn and who gets to make that decision? Moralizing from the government is out of line. Thinking that she is free to impose her own values affects not only which support programs are created (including tax breaks for families, government subsidized day care, etc.) but who qualifies for those programs. Close-minded politicians are unwelcome, IMHO.
So there. Back to the thesis!
I don’t know if I agree with you here. Each family is different, and I don’t think there can be a generic ideal on this, whether it being one parent stay at home or two parents work.
Both my parents always worked while growing up, and I turned out fine.
I believe consumerism is a huge motivating factor, especially with the extent that our southern neighbours have spent beyond their means. Many seem to want much more than they can have and everything else suffers. Fulfillment, extending your social circle and community building are great reasons for having a career but if it takes away from time with your family it’s just a matter of determining what’s most important to you. I guess everyone’s family requires different amounts of attention so it is up to the individuals to decide that. However, if the starting point is having a career and being gone 8 hours a day, your family is starting off behind the 8 ball. And when does expressing an opinion become imposing values? Don’t we want our politicians values front and center so we can be informed when electing them? Or electing the people that appoint them as the case may be…
Who’s Murdoch??
Iris Murdoch is an author – thought processes clearly cloudy. Meant Evans.
People are multi-faceted. As with the poll, where there are only two choices possible, I think you have set the question up in a very limited way. An either / or scenario, which oversimplifies the issue not to mention people.
I think that politicians are responsible for representing the people, to serve them. Her opinion clearly indicates her support for some constituents, and not for others. This is judgmental – absolutely not her job – and divisive.
There is no complexity in these perspectives and arguments and as we all know human lives are complicated and rarely, if ever, fit into the slots that bureaucracies make for them. That’s what makes the conversation so important, and judgments, the idea of a permanent solution, that a truth about how to raise families exists, so harmful. There are always exceptions, and successful ones, to whatever one imagines the majority, the mainstream, the people who are doing it ‘right’, to be.
We could look at other communities in which children spend time with both of their parents, taking part and learning from them. Maybe we should try an argument for both parents staying home, or taking their children with them wherever they go, in order to raise them properly. But that’s just not practical, is it?
Obviously, though, great topic!