|
Kathryn Cramer has an interesting point about Conventions and childcare (link via Electrolite), but I think she makes the main point in a comment to the original post:
Also, there is a political choice here: One of the significant obstacle to professional women in America is the assumption that professionals never have their children in tow, that to do so is unprofessional. This causes no end of trouble for academic women with small children. If I felt I couldn't take my kids with me to cons because it was unprofessional, mostly I wouldn't go.
When you get right down to it, this country is not terribly friendly to parents in the workplace. There is an assumption that childcare is somehow a secondary aspect of employer/employee relationships. it is as if the employers do not realize that employees have lives and concerns outside of work, and that the better those lives and concerns are dealt with, the more focused the employee will be. In this country, that translates into an assumption that childcare will be taken care of by someone else.
For practical purposes, that means either the burden falls largely on the mother, or that employees are made to scramble to meet work expectations when the child comes down unexpectedly sick, or school is unexpectedly closed, or the babysitter has the mumps. Most couples require two jobs to be able to afford to get by (and I am not talking about jetting off the Riviera - I am talking about putting food on the table), and yet we have a business and governmental structure that looks at children and childcare almost as an imposition.
I realize that there are significant problems with helping parents with childcare. But I also realize that this country and this country's employers have not been, by and large, terribly dedicated to solving those problems. This cannot be good for present productivity or our next generation. Politicians love to talk about family values, but it seems to be the first step in promoting family values should be making sure the family, as a unit, is the first priority.
This is an issue with which I've always struggled. I'll say up front that I am a non-parent and that this undeniably colors my perspective, but I still feel that there are a lot of places (such as business conventions) where it is wholly inappropriate to bring along your children, especially small children.
This is one of the areas where I remain fairly conservative. I'm not saying that everyone who wants to be a parent needs to put their career on hold, at least temporarily; but I am saying that doing so would be our course of action, if we were to have kids. As much as I wouldn't want Laura to sacrifice the career for the sake of the kid, I would even less want her to sacrifice the kid for the sake of the career. I would rather err on the side of benefiting the kid.
That said, I think we ought to be making more affordable day care a higher priority than it has traditionally been, so that those parents who do choose to focus on the career may do so. I also see a benefit to day care, within reason, because it's been my anecdotal experience that children who go to day care from time to time socialize with other children much better than stay-at-home kids with stay-at-home parents.
But the idea of having a kid in tow, however well-behaved, at a professional convention or event still strikes me as wildly inappropriate. Perhaps I'm still too old-fashioned that way.
Posted by: tgirsch"I also see a benefit to day care, within reason, because it's been my anecdotal experience that children who go to day care from time to time socialize with other children much better than stay-at-home kids with stay-at-home parents."
yes, but the plural of anecdote is not data :) its pretty well established that the benfits of stay at home parenting in the early years is better in most respects - including socilaization - than day care. Where you run into socialization issues is when they get into school age territory and are kept from other kids.
"But the idea of having a kid in tow, however well-behaved, at a professional convention or event still strikes me as wildly inappropriate. Perhaps I'm still too old-fashioned that way."
Yep, you are. Seriously, there is no child care infrastrucutre in this country to speak of. Even the highest priced daycare in this country is bad compared to most other industrialized nations. we aren't talking about tkaing a kid into work on a reulalr basis, we are talkign about long trips required of proffessionals with no real way for primary care givers to participate. it is not good for the kid to have a parent stuck in a position, becasue they cannot participate in all of the proffessional aspects of their job. We are creatign a society where caring for kids is an impediment to success, and even to just holding onto your job in many cases. Thats not good for society or children.
I will doubtless sound even more old-fashioned, then, when I submit that the problem isn't the lack of availability of day care, but rather the fact that it's so much more difficult to raise a child on only one income today. That, coupled with the unfortunate increase in single-parent households.
Having grown up in a two-parent household, I'll never understand what the single-parent deal is like. Both of my parents worked, but my Dad worked days and my Mom worked nights, so one of them was always around. And when they weren't we were still with family, usually grandparents. I understand that this is not always feasible.
But what rubbed me wrong about her post, and I'm probably taking it wrong, is that it came across as a mix between being "unduly inconvenienced" by having a child and not wanting to make the sacrifices that necessarily come with parenthood.
You're a parent now, you can't go to every Sci-Fi con around any more like you used to. Deal with it.
Should more viable day care options be made available? Absolutely. Should I accept that absolutely every environment ought to be made kid-friendly and accessible to people with kids? Absolutely not.
Posted by: tgirsch"You're a parent now, you can't go to every Sci-Fi con around any more like you used to. Deal with it."
Umm, shes and editor. That's her job. Going to cons is required.
Look, its real simple. Almost no one can afford to have a kid on one income any more. Dawn and I are lucky exceptions. The problem is that businesses have not caught up to that fact, and becasue they have not caught up to that fact, parents suffer, kids suffer, and society as whole suffers.
Posted by: kevin"One of the significant obstacle to professional women in America is the assumption that professionals never have their children in tow, that to do so is unprofessional."
Frankly, it is unprofessional. This isn't to say that professional women shouldn't have children -- nothing could be farther from how I feel. But there are necessarily going to be additional challenges to someone who wants to be professional AND a parent.
Perhaps it's day care, perhaps it's a stay-at-home dad or a stay-at-home mom, or perhaps there are alternatives that need to be explored. But the answer isn't bringing the kids along everywhere. That makes things uncomfortable for everyone involved, including the kids.
Posted by: tgirschUmm, shes and editor. That's her job. Going to cons is required.
My initial reaction is to say that she ought to seek more traditional employment that doesn't require all the travel, which can't be good for such young kids anyway. But given where the economy is right now, I can see how that's not an option.
Almost no one can afford to have a kid on one income any more.
Probably true. But generally speaking, one of the two incomes then winds up being a "job," rather than a "career." It's extremely difficult for both parents to maintain a career while raising a child, without one or the other suffering.
I understand that my views here are very dated, and this is one of the myriad reasons why I've made a conscious decision not to be a parent.
The problem is that businesses have not caught up to that fact, and becasue they have not caught up to that fact, parents suffer, kids suffer, and society as whole suffers.
No quarrel with you there. My quarrel was mainly with the idea that she should be taking the kid with her to these things. She should have a viable alternative so that she doesn't have to.
Posted by: tgirsch"Frankly, it is unprofessional. This isn't to say that professional women shouldn't have children -- nothing could be farther from how I feel. But there are necessarily going to be additional challenges to someone who wants to be professional AND a parent."
Except that without a day care infrastrucuture, there is no way to do what you want. We aren't talking about kids in the coferences, we are talking about the fact that businesses require certain behavior out of their employees and there is nothing avaialbe to allow their employees with kids to adhere to those requirements without huritng their kids. Most people cannot afford to have one parent stay at home, and I mean cannot afford in terms of putting food on the table, and most cannot afford 24/7 day care. it is really, really expensive, and ,most day care in this country is crap.
We have created a system that is based upon the idea that one parent is always at home to take care of the kids. Thats i not the case, and, frnakly, it is almost not possible in this country any more.
Posted by: kevin"Probably true. But generally speaking, one of the two incomes then winds up being a "job," rather than a "career." It's extremely difficult for both parents to maintain a career while raising a child, without one or the other suffering."
But doesnt work like that. If you constantly cannot do the things that your coworkers can, then your job will disappear. Its very difficult to just have a job.
"My initial reaction is to say that she ought to seek more traditional employment that doesn't require all the travel, which can't be good for such young kids anyway. But given where the economy is right now, I can see how that's not an option."
Well, at any time its a problem. Jobs that are worth having require specialized skills, and its hard to transfer those skills form time to time. Also, when you leave a compnmay, you lose vacation, sick time and senority, all of which can cut down on the time you have with your kids. its a catch-22.
"She should have a viable alternative so that she doesn't have to."
But she doesn't, and the conrunners know she doesn't, so I don't think she outta line in wanting some recognition that her family is as important as her work. Yeas, the long term solutions would fix this, but her kids are here and now.
Posted by: kevinKevin: "so I don't think she outta line in wanting some recognition that her family is as important as her work."
Exactly. I speak from experience (3 children 25, 16, and 2) as a double income parent, stay-at home dad, single parent, and double income parent again. By making it difficult to balance family life and professional life many companies have either lost or slowed the advancement of some of their best employees.
Why? Because of a frankly outdated notion that children don't belong in the workplace. That's an Industrial Revolutionary idea that should be junked. Children have always been a part of the workplace. For example, they participated in the growing, gathering, and preparing of food.
Give a good employee a flexible schedule, on-site child care, and some empathy and you'll develop a loyal, energetic, motivated, hard-working employee.
(Note: I know not all careers can allow children. Editor certainly can.)
Circumstances dictate that single parents have very limited options and need help for daycare etc... For other families with a working Mom and Dad, perhaps some thought should be given to actually valuing the childs future and development more than the second BMW in the garage. Perhaps
instead of giving your childs future to the teachers unions and minimum wage daycare providers a mother may consider nurturing her children. Just a wild thought, especially for liberals....
"For other families with a working Mom and Dad, perhaps some thought should be given to actually valuing the childs future and development more than the second BMW in the garage. Perhaps
instead of giving your childs future to the teachers unions and minimum wage daycare providers a mother may consider nurturing her children. Just a wild thought, especially for liberals...."
Except, of course, if you had bothered to pay attention to the last fifty years, you would realize that the average two worker household has approximately the same buying power as the average one worker houselhold form the 1950's, or the the early 1970's, for that matter. People work because they have to, not becasue they want to.
Posted by: kevinAt one point in my marriage, we were raising 6 kids on a single salary of just under $30K. We made sacrifices, drove an older car, rarely going out to dinner, shopping at thrift stores, etc, but the point is that it can be done.
For too long now, there's been an unquestioned assumption that it takes two incomes to support a family, and that assumption is used to drive the whole child care debate. The simple fact is that you can raise a family on a single income. Earlier in my marriage, when I was still in the Navy, I would get jealous at times, because my shipmates would go out on liberty and blow hundreds of dollars, while I had to conserve my cash, because of my responsibilities to my family. But my lack of spending money was a consequence of choices which I made, and I lived with that.
I don't regret those choices by the way. I'd much rather be watching my son play football today than have an extra $20 to spend in the PI.
It seems too many people want to have their cake and eat it too. Parents want two careers, and a family, and think it's unfair when society won't accomodate them.
tgirsch, if you're old-fashioned, than I'm paleolithic, because I believe the first duty of a family is to care for and protect the children. I don't care which parent is the breadwinner, and which is the primary caregiver, but do believe adamantly that one parent should have as their primary role the care and nurturing of the children. If you don't have one partner willing to make that sacrifice, if you believe that it is fitting for strangers to spend more time raising your child than you do, then you have no business being a parent.
Having said that, there are situations where it isn't possible to have a full time parent at home. I think it would be good business for corporations to have on-site daycare, subsidized by the company. It would certainly boost productivity, reduce absenteeism, and in general make it easier to retain good employees.
But expecting a SF Con to make sure that your infant is taken care of to your specifications to meet your schedule? That's just plain spoiled, selfish behavior.
Posted by: richExcept, as I contiuosly point out and no one addresses is the fact that employee buying power has not kept up over the last thrity years or so. Rich, most people cannot do what you did. The median income in this country is less than 30,000 a year - and in place slike New york or Boston or Atlanta, the only housing you can afford is slum or one step above slum. How is that good for children?
" when I was still in the Navy"
You were subsidized by the government. You did not pay what others paid for housing, for food, or for medical care. I know - I grew up in a military family.
As for the con, people seem to miss the fact that she is an editor. Her job requires her to go to these things, and the cons and her employer know it. Its not matter of want to, its a matter of have to.
For thrity years, we have a set of public policies that has kept wages low, shipped low skill jobs overseas, and raised the cost of getting the education required to get a non-subsistance job much faster than the rate of inflation. All of that has combined to slowly force people into becoming two parent households. But we still have a business environment and a set of child care assumptions that do not take into account the changes of the last thirty years.
Posted by: kevinKevin:
If you don't mind, I'd like to see documentation of those statistics re: buying power. I'd be surprised if today's two-income family really was somehow worse off than the one-income family of 30 years ago. Because while I'll admit there are a lot of families that can't raise their kids on a single income, I'd bet that's not true of "most" families.
Understand that I'm not talking about single-parent households here, of which there are now a lot more than there used to be, for a myriad of reasons.
I think lifestyle changes have played a major role in the equation as well. No, not a second BMW, as Rich overstates. I'm talking about how my parents lived.
Two adults, three children, living in a modest, 1,400 sq. ft. three bedroom house in the city. My brother and I shared a 100-sq-ft. bedroom. Many parents today view each kid having their own room as a "necessity" but it's not.
Meals were almost always home made; occasionally, there would be carry-out (usually chicken), but it was always on the cheap. My parents went out twice a month, to go bowling, and were able to do this only because as we got older my mother started working part-time.
We didn't have cable TV or HBO or any such thing. A rooftop antenna was it. And for most of my childhood, there was one TV in the house.
Go back a generation further, and my grandparents shared a house with their parents to save costs. This is unheard of today, but that's what people used to be willing to do (and no longer seem to be) to make ends meet.
No, this isn't intended to be a sob story about my rough upbringing, because actually I had a very good one, and I had friends who had a lot less than I did. My point, rather, is that New York or Boston notwithstanding, it can be done, even today.
I'll be the first to admit that I personally waste more money than a lot of people earn. I probably pay more in taxes than a lot of people earn (and no, I'm not complaining about my share of the tax burden). If I had to, I could make dramatic lifestyle changes and raise children on a single income.
And never mind me. I work in high-tech, and am pretty well compensated. My brother and his wife are right now raising three children on a single income, and he's a management trainee for McDonald's; I doubt he makes $30,000 per year.
Off the top of my head I can think of three people in our office (you included) who are running single-income households with children. For a good many families, it's possible to do this. It's a simple question of whether or not you're willing to make the sacrifices that you need to make to do it.
Posted by: tgirschHi:
Thanks for the support Kevin.
Regarding Rich's comments: really, I am about as close to a pure stay-at-home mom as one can get and still have an income.
It really is interesting how my relatively modest requests provoke such strong feelings. I knew that trying to discuss this publically wasn't going to be fun, but I've provoked a much stronger you've made your bed; now lie in it than I would ever have anticipated. Fascinating. Perhaps tgrisch and rich to some issues of their own about parenting that need to be worked out.
Posted by: Kathryn CramerKathryn:
you've made your bed; now lie in it
That's not really what I'm trying to say either. I've already conceded that day care needs to be improved, and made more accessible.
My quarrel may not even be with anything you actually said, but rather with how I interpreted what you said. It simply is NOT professional to drag your kids along to work, unless work happens to be a day care center. I'm sorry, but it's not. There should be alternatives available so that you don't HAVE to, but don't ask me to believe that it should be perfectly acceptable for you to bring them.
My other quarrel is that I don't really believe it's "impossible" for "most" families to raise kids on a single income, as has been argued here. Yeah, a lot of sacrifices have to be made, but they can be made, and it can be done.
I'm unwilling to make those sacrifices, so for that reason (and a number of others), I choose to remain childless.
If I've misunderstood what you're arguing for, I apologize. But I really don't think my arguments are all that unreasonable.
(And I don't doubt that if I had kids of my own, my attitudes would be wildly different.)
Posted by: tgirschI never raised the issue of single vs. double incomes, so it's not me you're quarreling with there.
Also, science fiction conventions are a very different kind of work environment than you are envisioning, I think.
Nonetheless, this household recives 100% of its income from sf-related work, so when I attend, I am working.
Posted by: Kathryn Cramer"My other quarrel is that I don't really believe it's "impossible" for "most" families to raise kids on a single income, as has been argued here. Yeah, a lot of sacrifices have to be made, but they can be made, and it can be done."
Except that the numbers don't bear you out. To have the same purchasing power as a fimaly did in the 1950's and 1960's, increasingly, especially towards the bottom 60%, two people must work.
Posted by: kevin"And never mind me. I work in high-tech, and am pretty well compensated. My brother and his wife are right now raising three children on a single income, and he's a management trainee for McDonald's; I doubt he makes $30,000 per year.
Off the top of my head I can think of three people in our office (you included) who are running single-income households with children. For a good many families, it's possible to do this. It's a simple question of whether or not you're willing to make the sacrifices that you need to make to do it."
And your brother better hope is school doesn't need him to chip for school supplies, and he bette rhoep that his insurance deductables are never above what he can afford, and he bette rhope that his rent doesn't go up and drive him further from work so that his transportation costs don't go up, and your brother better hope that none of kids ever need special tutoring, and your brother bette rhope that he is never out of work for a long time. Thats the choice you are setting up for most people. Yes, some of them can do it, but the sacrafices are not things like fancy cars and eating out. They are things like living in a good school district and saving for college and retiring and making sure his kids have good health care , etc, etc, etc.
People in this thread have been fond of pointing out that they know people who have done it. Great, so do I. But I can give you dozens of stories from where I grew up that say the exact opposite. Its not a mtter of "gee, I want a fancy car" for most people. its a matter of I want a good school, I want my kid to have a college education, to have good health care, to live in a safe neighborhood. The trade offs are not simple.
Posted by: kevinThey are things like living in a good school district and saving for college and retiring and making sure his kids have good health care , etc, etc, etc.
Now you're onto entirely different problems where we can be wholly on the same page. Improve the public schools, and provide health care for children, and these are non-issues.
By the way, I'm not saying it should be this way, but I don't think my parents ever had health insurance the way we think of it today. If we got sick, they paid to take us to the doctor. There was no "deductible" involved. I'm sure they had emergency coverage, but that was probably about it. Routine doctor visits weren't covered.
I actually think I'm probably arguing a point that nobody has made. If you want me to find it acceptable for you to bring your kid with you wherever you go, work or otherwise, it's not going to happen.
If you want me to support systemic changes that make it possible for you to work without needing to drag your kid along everywhere, well then I'm all ears.
Posted by: tgirschTgirsh
Fine, as long as recognize that day care at work (or conventions) is no different than daycare away from work. In others words, taking kids to an onsite daycare is not the same as taking them to work.
And health costs have skyrocketed since we were kids. It is not possible to have that kind of system now.
Posted by: kevinKevin:
Agreed, on both counts. You've talked about extending free public education forward through at least the first undergraduate degree. I'd submit that we should talk about extending free public education backward, to preschool.
On-site day care at work should be encouraged, but not mandated, at least not for small businesses. It would be too large a burden for them to bear.
This gives me an idea. The city of Milwaukee, where I grew up, was planned in such a way that there was a county park within easy walking distance of every residential neighborhood. If you did the same thing with day care centers (or, indeed, combined the functions), that could go a long way.
Posted by: tgirschKevin: best evidence is that good quality outside the home care is, in general, better for children over a year old than staying at home. (Or, to be precise, that it's broadly neutral, but the benefit of the extra income to the home is positive). That's an average -- and of course, the poorer the home environment the greater the benefit from external care. So if you can provide a high-quality home environment then it might not apply in an individual case.
For kids under 12 months the picture is mixed.
But the oft-repeated maxim that care outside the home is detrimental to kids is simply wrong.
Posted by: Alison ScottRegarding the one vs. two income issue I ducked earlier, ours is a very different situation. In principle, we could live off David's income. However, I married someone 21 years older than me. Our son is a first grader and our daugther is a baby. Because David is 62, at some random point in the future, I will become the primary support of the family. It could happen tomorrow. It could happen in 20 years. But it will happen.
Posted by: Kathryn CramerKathryn:
Hopefully, with the current state of child care in this country, it will be at least two years from now (assuming you don't have any more children).
Posted by: tgirschI'm not saying that everyone who wants to be a parent needs to put their career on hold, at least temporarily; but I am saying that doing so would be our course of action, if we were to have kids. As much as I wouldn't want Laura to sacrifice the career for the sake of the kid, I would even less want her to sacrifice the kid for the sake of the career. I would rather err on the side of benefiting the kid.
Notice how it's always Laura sacrificing, and never Tom...
Notice how it's always Laura sacrificing, and never Tom...
Nice sweeping assumption, but wrong again. In our particular case, I've got considerably more earning potential than she does, so the financial necessity would be that if only one of us worked, it would be me. This is by mutual agreement.
If the situation were reversed, where she could make more than I could, I would have no qualms at all about playing the role of stay-at-home Dad.
Come back when you have something intelligent to add to the debate.
Posted by: tgirsch"Notice how it's always Laura sacrificing, and never Tom..."
Anonymous: There was an excellent paper written by Michelle Budig and Paula England (U of Penn) on the wage penalties paid by women who choose to be mothers. You can view the .pdf version of the paper at:
http://www.pop.upenn.edu/programs/ggd/colloquium/2000sprg/england.pdf
I would be happy to review any research that shows the same wage penalties being paid by men for choosing to be fathers, but I doubt you'll find any.
Posted by: Sheila Kelly> It simply is NOT professional to drag your kids along to work, unless work happens to be a day care center.
It depends on your profession, doesn't it?
Every working parent I know has had a daycare crisis of one sort or another. This leaves most of us two choices: take the day off, or take the child to work. Children in the workplace are pretty much a fact of life. Perhaps not in corporate law offices, but certainly in the computer industry.
It is increasingly rare, in the middle class, for a family to be able to afford a mortgage in a safe neighborhood with adequate schools on only one income. The world has changed since the 1950s. My mother's income was a luxury; mine is a necessity.
Posted by: JonquilDUBYA'S PRAYER, a bio-snoop.com theater presentation. Laura sat on the side of the bed, adjusting her leather teddy for the night. Dubya knelt on the other side, his hands clasped tightly in prayer. First a word from our sponsor, bio-snoop.com. Does your boss know you're here, reading this, right now? Do you want your boss, your parents, or your wife or husband to find out about everything you do online?At bio-snoop.com, we have the leading products for protecting your privacy, permanently and safely purging your electronic trail, and detecting and removing spyware.
We even sell "panic button," software to hide - whatever you're doing - instantly.
To protect yourself from being snooped on, visit us at bio-snoop.com.
Now, back to our story, Dubya's prayer. Dubya spoke, almost silently. "Dread Lord, I have given tons of money to the wealthy, but America's economy is still in the shitter. What should I do? Should I give the rich more money?"
Laura's body stiffened like a limp balloon becoming fully inflated. Her head slowly turned 180 degrees, to face her husband. Her vacant eyes became glowing embers. Tiny flashes of light, as from a distant violent thunderstorm, shown from her mouth, which was open slightly. From this storm, a voice hissed out.
You have nothing to fear, My pet. What is, matters not. Only what is perceived. Do you remember, after Afghanistan, when you announced your plans to attack Iraq?Dubya's stern frowny-face grew an impish grin. "Master, would you stay inside Laura for another couple of minutes? We can do some of your work right here and now. "Tune in again for another episode of bio-snoop.com theater. Posted by: bio-snoop
America, with one united voice replied, "Huh?". For 6 months, you beat the war drum, until slowly, they took their places, in line behind you. Do you remember that, My precious?
The time has come to beat the drum again. Not for Iraq, which I promised unto you so many years ago, but for the economy. Tell your people to heed not the wailing of the unemployed factory worker or computer programmer. Their jobs are desperately needed by the starving masses in Mexico, India, China, and so many other deserving nations. Beat the drum for the new, exciting opportunities created by smaller, entreprenerial companies in the janitorial and trash collection fields. Ask your people how there can be a "job shortage" when Americans work longer hours than in any industrialized nation in the world!
And fear not, my Best Beloved. We will not fail. You have served Me well and We have much work yet to do.
