Interesting "New Republic" Article on the Topic of Waiting to Start a Family

[annandatje]

.... Our society which has made birth control pretty much a requirement ...

 

I do not understand. If anything, recent legislation has limited women's access to birth control. Are there public or private assistance programs that require a recipient use birth control?

 

Birth control gives us choices that our female ancestors did not have. Is it that you are disappointed with the choices women make?

[annandatje]

I don't know what is inherently admirable either way about the number of children a woman has. The number of childrent does not necessarily correlate to the quality of family life.

[I.Dup.]

How has our society made birth control a "requirement?" Who comes to your house and forces you to take the pill?? Where do you live that that is even a FEAR???

 

Aren't you the one who said society should start dictating which families can have children, or how many they can have?

 

This attitude of birth control being the solution to everything contributes to this mindset, and the prejudice against large families.

 

With the modern medicine being what it is, and with longer lifespans, I do not see populations becoming extinct due to low birth rate anytime soon.

 

I would suggest doing more research on this. There are countries that offer stimulus benefits to get people to have more children because their birth rates are so low. Even if it takes 100 years, what then?

 

Basically, I see our society -- where we want to have sex and have no consequences and no responsibilities associated with it-- as unnatural.

 

I agree.

 

I think so much of this boils down to world view that it's pretty much pointless even debating with people who don't share the same world view. It's like we're on different planets. :blink:

[mhaddon]

This all comes back to too many medical interventions accross the board. Women of all ages have historically have had children when no means of birth control was available. So why is it suddenly a problem? I'm going to assume part of it is all the poisons we put on/in our body and by the time we have gotten older it is crossing over? But not all people are waiting just because of a career. I'm sure some women would have loved to have babies earlier. I have mom friends of all ages and I think it is neat to gleam information from all ages of motherhood :)

[I.Dup.]

This is indeed the heart of the debate because I do think that smaller families are better for children's health and well being, for women's health, for women's careers and therefore for societies at large. Smaller families are better for the earth and the environment as well. And this is not just an empty belief that I hold on to contrary to evidence. I think I can search for scientific data to backup this claim. I can link them later.

 

 

And I'm sure we could find many studies proving the opposite. I wonder what would happen if someone made the same blanket statement from the opposite view- that larger families were better for women because it forced them to be less self-absorbed, better for the environment because they are not as wasteful with their resources, better for children because it teaches them vital life lessons early in life, and better for the family structure in general because of the support everyone receives versus being alone or having a smaller family? I think many would be greatly offended and in an absolute lather.

 

When large families even speak up on this issue we get mocked and ridiculed.

[minuway]

If you actually read the article in its entirety, it is not at all judgmental of anyone having children older. It is simply a fact that it is a worldwide trend and that there is solid evidence that it is producing children with more issues overall. If approached as a simple medical issue, steps can be taken as a society to encourage and make it more appealing for couples to have children earlier (if possible, of course couples who meet later don't have this option). 

[Wheres Toto]

 

I would suggest doing more research on this. There are countries that offer stimulus benefits to get people to have more children because their birth rates are so low. Even if it takes 100 years, what then?

 

 

Any links that show this? I've not heard of any countries offering incentives for people to have more children.

 

 

Still haven't seen any links to the civilizations that were destroyed due to low birth rates either.

[I.Dup.]

 

Any links that show this? I've not heard of any countries offering incentives for people to have more children.

 

 

Still haven't seen any links to the civilizations that were destroyed due to low birth rates either.

 

 

Quickly...

 

"Russian President Vladimir Putin directed Parliament to adopt a 10-year program to stop the sharp decline in Russia's population, principally by offering financial incentives and subsidies to encourage women to have children. Australia currently offers a $5,000 bonus for every baby plus additional fortnightly payments, a free immunisation scheme and recently proposed to pay all child care costs for women who want to work. Many European countries, including France, Italy, Germany and Poland, have offered some combination of bonuses and monthly payments to families. Some Japanese localities, facing significant population loss, are offering economic incentives. Yamatsuri, a town of 7,000 just north of Tokyo, offers parents $4,600 for the birth of a child and $460 a year for 10 years. The Republic of Singapore has similar plans: $3,000 for the first child, $9,000 in cash and savings for the second; and up to $18,000 each for the third and fourth.^[36] The effectiveness of these policies is currently the subject of debate."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

 

My friend in Canada receives a stimulus package for her family size. I do not know if that is the norm throughout Canada, or only in her province or what, but I know she makes over $1,000 per month.

[Jennifer3141]

Aren't you the one who said society should start dictating which families can have children, or how many they can have?

 

This attitude of birth control being the solution to everything contributes to this mindset, and the prejudice against large families.

 

Nope. I'm the one who said that I wasn't comfortable deciding how governments should decide how many children people should have. I do think that if you are popping out child after child and subsisting on governmental assistance to care for ALL of them, then yes I think the government should have the ability to kick you off welfare systems. I can see one "accident" happening. Maybe even two. But I know two homeschooling "quiverful" families who are on their fourth and fifth children respectively and they RELY upon that welfare check and bridge card. Where I get uncomfortable is knowing that kicking those families off assistance is going to hurt those children and any future children those families may continue to breed. Both families are also fairly vocal about those "urban Detroit" mothers being the ones draining Michigan dry. :glare:

[Audrey]

Any links that show this? I've not heard of any countries offering incentives for people to have more children.

 

 

Still haven't seen any links to the civilizations that were destroyed due to low birth rates either.

 

 

 

Canada offers a Child Tax Benefit. It is based on a formula of your income, plus number of children. However, there is an income component where the amount (up to $500/mo) is reduced by $50 (overall) for every $1000 of income over $55K (this is for married couples filing separately) So to call it a "stimulus package" or use it as an example of providing an "incentive to have more children" is erroneous. It is a subsidy to assist medium and lower income families in raising their children. Not the same thing.

 

 

ETA: prior to 2011, the maximum per child was $1000, but that was reduced in 2011 and for 2012 as well, so I hardly think a reduction in benefits signals a government encouraging much of anything.

[Stacy in NJ]

I alway think of Idiocracy when this topic is addressed. The sad thing is I'm not sure who's dumber in this clip Clevon or Trevor and Carol.

 

 

[I.Dup.]

Nope. I'm the one who said that I wasn't comfortable deciding how governments should decide how many children people should have. I do think that if you are popping out child after child and subsisting on governmental assistance to care for ALL of them, then yes I think the government should have the ability to kick you off welfare systems. I can see one "accident" happening. Maybe even two. But I know two homeschooling "quiverful" families who are on their fourth and fifth children respectively and they RELY upon that welfare check and bridge card. Where I get uncomfortable is knowing that kicking those families off assistance is going to hurt those children and any future children those families may continue to breed. Both families are also fairly vocal about those "urban Detroit" mothers being the ones draining Michigan dry. :glare:

 

 

Okay, well I'd agree with you on the frustrating aspect there.

[I.Dup.]

Canada offers a Child Tax Benefit. It is based on a formula of your income, plus number of children. However, there is an income component where the amount (up to $500/mo) is reduced by $50 (overall) for every $1000 of income over $55K (this is for married couples filing separately) So to call it a "stimulus package" or use it as an example of providing an "incentive to have more children" is erroneous. It is a subsidy to assist medium and lower income families in raising their children. Not the same thing.

 

 

ETA: prior to 2011, the maximum per child was $1000, but that was reduced in 2011 and for 2012 as well, so I hardly think a reduction in benefits signals a government encouraging much of anything.

 

 

From what my friend has stated, Canada's birth rate has increased to the point they aren't as worried about it. But she definitely still gets more for each child, call it what you will.

[Audrey]

From what my friend has stated, Canada's birth rate has increased to the point they aren't as worried about it. But she definitely still gets more for each child, call it what you will.

 

 

 

No. Your friend is getting less per child. And, you can't just go calling it what you will. It has a name and a purpose.

 

The Canada child tax benefit is a tax-free monthly payment made to eligible families to help them with the cost of raising children under age 18.

 

Just because you *want* to believe it is an incentive or stimulus program, doesn't mean it's true.

[I.Dup.]

No. Your friend is getting less per child. And, you can't just go calling it what you will. It has a name and a purpose.

 

The Canada child tax benefit is a tax-free monthly payment made to eligible families to help them with the cost of raising children under age 18.

 

Just because you *want* to believe it is an incentive or stimulus program, doesn't mean it's true.

 

 

I mean she gets more for each child she has, maybe not compared to what they used to get, but she gets more for 5 or 6 children than she would for 3 or 4.

 

And I don't care either way what it is called, I am not Canadian so it doesn't affect me at all. Although this was more temptation for me to want to move to Australia. :tongue_smilie:

[Audrey]

 

I mean she gets more for each child she has, maybe not compared to what they used to get, but she gets more for 5 or 6 children than she would for 3 or 4.

 

And I don't care either way what it is called, I am not Canadian so it doesn't affect me at all. Although this was more temptation for me to want to move to Australia. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

Good luck with that! Theirs is called a Family Tax Benefit -- another program to help with the cost of raising children.

[VeganCupcake]

As an "older mother"--not by choice, but by circumstance--I am constantly being bombarded with the idea that I'm of Advanced Maternal Age and it's just unbelievable that anyone of my age would consider having a baby. And then there are the comments of other women, like my mother, telling me to stop helping my sister with her children and have my own (when I was single and had no marriage prospects at all). While I'm sure the "don't have a baby young" message is all over the place and I just don't see it, the "you are too old to have a baby" or "you're the old mom/I don't want to be the old mom" message is all over the place in our culture, too.

 

I live in Utah, and Mormons are very family-centric and pro-children, so maybe my perspective is different, because I don't see men and women putting off marriage and children. I have a lot of single female friends in their mid to late 30s (I was one of them not so long ago) who would love to marry and have children and would have loved to do it 10 or 15 years ago, but the opportunity has not presented itself. These are women who have careers, get PhDs, travel, and buy their own homes not because they are their own prerequisites to settling down, but because they need to have a life, independent of a partner who has not materialized.

 

ETA: I do recall that when I was single, some of my friends speculated that as a single woman, getting "too much education", buying a house, or having an interesting career while you were looking for a partner could be off-putting and intimidating to a man, so I sometimes think there is this pressure to stay in a kind of limbo so as to still appear marriageable.

[Free]

And I'm sure we could find many studies proving the opposite. I wonder what would happen if someone made the same blanket statement from the opposite view.

 

I responded the way I did because a blanket statement was being made about how "larger families are better for society". Here is the context:

 

But, from the perspective of what I hold to be the truth I do think that in general larger families are better for both families and societies.

This is indeed the heart of the debate because I do think that smaller families are better for children's health and well being, for women's health, for women's careers and therefore for societies at large. Smaller families are better for the earth and the environment as well. And this is not just an empty belief that I hold on to contrary to evidence. I think I can search for scientific data to backup this claim. I can link them later.

 

 

 

that larger families were better for women because it forced them to be less self-absorbed, better for the environment because they are not as wasteful with their resources, better for children because it teaches them vital life lessons early in life, and better for the family structure in general because of the support everyone receives versus being alone or having a smaller family? I think many would be greatly offended and in an absolute lather.

 

 

To say that smaller families lead to better health for children and women, and greater freedom for women to pursue careers is an objective stand that can be supported with actual data.

 

To say that larger families "forces women to be less self absorbed", "teaches children vital lessons in life" and that "they are not as wasteful with their resources" is a subjective stand based on value judgements that you choose to make because they conform with your beliefs.

 

When large families even speak up on this issue we get mocked and ridiculed.

 

 

So let me get this straight, it is AOK for people to say people who choose smaller families are selfish, wasteful of resources, self absorbed, do not think of children as 'intrinsically good', are sexually depraved and want to have sex with no consequences. But when people point out that it has been shown that smaller families lead to better overall health, education and well being for women and children it is "mocking and ridicule"? Alright then.

[annandatje]

I do not understand why there is concern about "fertility collapse" in the U.S. which has an all time high population of 311 million.

[kalanamak]

I do not understand why there is concern about "fertility collapse" in the U.S. which has an all time high population of 311 million.

 

Ah, but *what kind* are those who are reproducing?

 

I have met people for whom that is the elephant sitting in the corner. Not said aloud, but complaints about 3 blocks in an aging part of town filling up with Korean stores, whose owners buy or lease building from businesses whose time has past, like an 80 year old saddle shop which is no longer within miles of a horse.

 

"They're taking over!"

 

If that is said aloud, imagine what is held back.

[Wheres Toto]

Canada offers a Child Tax Benefit. It is based on a formula of your income, plus number of children. However, there is an income component where the amount (up to $500/mo) is reduced by $50 (overall) for every $1000 of income over $55K (this is for married couples filing separately) So to call it a "stimulus package" or use it as an example of providing an "incentive to have more children" is erroneous. It is a subsidy to assist medium and lower income families in raising their children. Not the same thing.

 

 

ETA: prior to 2011, the maximum per child was $1000, but that was reduced in 2011 and for 2012 as well, so I hardly think a reduction in benefits signals a government encouraging much of anything.

 

 

That was going to be my next question - are these all INCENTIVES to encourage people to have more children or are they tax breaks or assistance to help with taking care of children or to encourage parents to stay home with their children (which I know is what Sweden does).

 

We get a $1,000 per child tax credit here in the US too but I've never heard anyone describe it as an incentive to have more children.

[Wheres Toto]

I'm not accusing anyone here of this, but I certainly expect many people in the US have concern for a "white fertility collapse". Is there any data showing caucasian births are in decline while minority births are rising?

 

I've seen this discussed with an idea similar to the one earlier in this thread about cultures dying out. That (especially in the US) the increase in "mixed" births will bring on a decline of some sort.

 

Isn't that part of the quiverful idea? That you aren't just raising children, but children who will serve as "arrows of God" and make a certain breed of Christians a majority?

[Snow]

and the prejudice against large families.

 

You will encounter people who disagree with you in this world, but thats no reason to claim prejudice. I know people disagree with my choice to be a working mom, but I don't claim prejudice against me because of it. Its an overly defensive mentality that shuts down any chance for common ground.

 

This reminds me of "the war on Christmas" stuff. Gotta love the daily show. :-)

[Meriwether]

 

Any links that show this? I've not heard of any countries offering incentives for people to have more children.

 

 

Still haven't seen any links to the civilizations that were destroyed due to low birth rates either.

 

 

My sister got money for having children when she lived in Spain.

[Snow]

 

 

That was going to be my next question - are these all INCENTIVES to encourage people to have more children or are they tax breaks or assistance to help with taking care of children or to encourage parents to stay home with their children (which I know is what Sweden does).

 

We get a $1,000 per child tax credit here in the US too but I've never heard anyone describe it as an incentive to have more children.

 

Exactly...big difference between assistance vs incentives.

[VeritasMama]

I'm talking 20something girls in general, not any specific individual. Most girls these days don't even have a college boyfriend with whom they could settle down because the "hook-up" culture predominates. And many continue to live a party lifestyle well past college graduation. I've witnessed so many women I know waste years chasing after "bad boys" and ignoring the less-exciting but better husband material nice guys. Eventually, most of them do grow up, but that growing up should be taking place closer to 20 than 30. As a society we've gone from "a woman is an old maid at 29" to "real life doesn't begin until you're 29". Where's the happy medium?

 

I agree completely, so many people I know spent college trying to "find themselves." By 20, you should know who you are and then spend your 20's trying to become the best version of that you can.

 

I'm 32, and what you described as the "hook up culture" is the trend I saw with my generation and with my younger sisters and their friends. I was married at 21 and had two children by the time my dh finished grad school. We worked hard and took care of our family ourselves, with a little help from family. I got knocked up at 19, so I had to grow up fast. Would I have waited if I hadn't had an accident? Of course. But, I am thankful that I was forced to grow up because I don't know when I would have otherwise. I watched many of my friends simply continue the party until they were 25-26. When you are married with kids, the problems of single 26 year olds whose only real worry in life is that the guy who they slept with last week won't call them back seem really petty and selfish.

 

I also had a friend who graduated from college and moved to a new state, and his girlfriend followed him. She knew he was the one, but he wasn't ready to get married yet. So, they lived together for 4 more years, just like they had the last two years of college, pretty much acting exactly like a married couple. They even spent holidays together at their families homes, just like a married couple. I kept trying to figure out what the point of that situation was, they were living together and acting like a married couple, they weren't free to "party," for 5 years before they actually got married. They were obviously ready to be married, they acted like they were, the reason they waited was because of the stigma attached to getting married at 22. It is more socially acceptable to get married at 27, so that is what this guy wanted to do. They didn't start having kids until they were 30, because they wanted to be married for a few years first. Why? Because that is the "responsible" and "socially acceptable" thing to do. They had essentially been married for 7 years!

 

I'm not knocking people who do want to wait to get married and have kids, I'm questioning why people who want to live the married lifestyle and have kids let society talk them out of it.

 

I also had a best friend who did want to settle down and have a family right away, but didn't find Mr. Right until she was 29. She just had her first baby at age 31. I personally felt like she had met about 5 Mr. Right's before she finally settled down, but she is a picky one. I think our culture's obsession with romance has led people to discount things like compatibility, stability, and responsibility in our partners, factors which can lead to deeper and stronger happiness than whether or not they give us butterflies.

 

I also have a friend who is 33 and desperate to have kids, but the only guys she dates are playboys who treat her like dirt, they are the only guys that make her feel "excited," and she just can't imagine marriage without that kind of feeling. I can't seem to convince her that those types of guys don't want to get married and have kids.

 

My own sister ended up marrying her high school sweetheart 6 years after high school. They broke up in college because of long distance, and because no one is supposed to marry their high school sweetheart, right? Society tells us that marital bliss is dependant on playing the field as much as possible, so how can you marry someone you meet in such a small pool as high school? Six years and several relationships later, they finally gave in to the idea that you really can meet your soul mate when you are 17, and so they finally got back together.

 

I'm not saying there aren't people who really don't find a suitable partner until they are older, or that it isn't good to wait for a stable situation to get married and have kids. A lot of people are in this boat, my own parents had me later. I'm saying our modern definition of what a good relationship and stable financial situation look like have changed dramatically, and so a lot of people in their 20's who are in a good enough position to have a family and actually want to will delay it in order to fit in, and that is detrimental to society.

[regentrude]

 

That was going to be my next question - are these all INCENTIVES to encourage people to have more children or are they tax breaks or assistance to help with taking care of children or to encourage parents to stay home with their children (which I know is what Sweden does).

 

We get a $1,000 per child tax credit here in the US too but I've never heard anyone describe it as an incentive to have more children.

 

 

 

In Germany, the incentives are definitely intended to cause people to have more children. They just reformed the financial incentive for parents (called "parent money") to stay home for the first year and made it related to the loss of income of the stay-at-home -parent, because one concern was that the largest birth rate decline happens in educated families (which end up earning higher incomes); for them, the previous flat rate sum was no financial incentive to give up an income. The jury is still out whether it helped. Overall fertility has gone up slightly, fertility among women with advanced education a bit more than the average, but experts are arguing whether the financial incentives helped or whether this is due to the economic developments.

The fixed sum payments of "children's money" for each child, independent of income, are intended to help offset the cost of raising children. But the "parent money" is explicitly designed to encourage more births.

[I.Dup.]

But when people point out that it has been shown that smaller families lead to better overall health, education and well being for women and children it is "mocking and ridicule"? Alright then.

 

Of course not.

[I.Dup.]

You will encounter people who disagree with you in this world, but thats no reason to claim prejudice. I know people disagree with my choice to be a working mom, but I don't claim prejudice against me because of it. Its an overly defensive mentality that shuts down any chance for common ground.

 

This reminds me of "the war on Christmas" stuff. Gotta love the daily show. :-)

 

 

 

prej·u·dice /ˈprejÉ™dÉ™s/ Noun Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.

[elegantlion]

I agree completely, so many people I know spent college trying to "find themselves." By 20, you should know who you are and then spend your 20's trying to become the best version of that you can. .

 

I'm quoting you because you bring up something I've been thinking about. I agree, by 20 you should have some idea of what you want out of life, but I know a lot of people my age (mid 40s) who didn't. Part of it was parenting, part of it was lack of opportunity. We weren't given the tools to walk out of the house at 18 and act adult or anything of the sort. Part of it was the game was changing. My dad worked hard stayed with one company for over 30 years, worked his way up without a degree. I hoped to do the same, yet rent prices were soaring, my hard work would bottom out at most jobs, consumer credit was a new thing (at least in the abundance of the 80s). I had credit cards companies mail me credit cards with thousands of dollar limits when I was making barely more than minimum wage (which was 3.35/hour). My parents didn't know how to counsel me about good credit. The world at my 18 looked very different than their world at 18, and they hadn't been paying a lot of attention to all the changes either.

 

I grew up in the suburban sprawl, lots of moms going to work when their kids became teens. Some of them moved to the suburbs from the country and were really living a life better than their parents. But a lot of parents weren't actively involved in helping their children make adult decisions. The friends I had that were prepared for adult life at 18 were the ones that had parents involved in their schooling, giving them adult responsibilities before they left the house.

 

This experience has colored how I parent. I treat ds differently than I was parented. He's way more mature and has a realistic view of what it takes to live in the world, I hope.

[annandatje]

I'm not accusing anyone here of this, but I certainly expect many people in the US have concern for a "white fertility collapse". Is there any data showing caucasian births are in decline while minority births are rising?

..

 

Sadly, I see.

[annandatje]

..... So, I would not look upon history as such an idyllic time where everybody had lots of children just because they loved them for their intrinsic good. And besides: those people did not have a choice. I am sure many mothers would have preferred to limit their family size and stay alive to raise their children rather than dying in childbirth with yet another baby.

 

:iagree: Also, I get a little nervous when there is talk of government intervening in family size control (either direction) beyond assistance to offset costs of raising children and access to affordable family planning methods. It NEVER bodes well for women.

 

Perhaps this thread boils down to people have more choices than ever before, and some people disagree with other people's choices.

[FaithManor]

I'm well aware of the population density in Europe. But, I see a couple of problems with using that as a reason for why population is dropping. When I was in Hamburg, I was staying with an elderly woman who had been in the same apartment since she was married sometime before or during WWII. It was a tiny two bedroom with an even tinier kitchen than mine. She raised her 6 children in that apartment. Just one anecdote, I realize, but I wonder if they're a similar mindset there as here that there's an expectation of a higher standard of living and one is willing to sacrifice having children for that standard? There were 6 of us living in a 1 bedroom apartment when I was little and although it wasn't ideal, I'd say the issue was really with the urbanization of modern life rather than anything else.

 

I'm not saying that "lifestyle choices" should not be taken into consideration when having children, but I would think that the "higher standard of living" would then be the real issue and not population density if people actually valued having bigger families.

 

 

 

Well, I think this notion needs to be addressed. Raising 6 children in a tiny apartment in the 1940's was a completely different ball of wax than today.

 

It is also highly probable that at least one of the older children, if not more than that, did not receive a high school education. It was common in large families for the 13 year olds to drop out at 8th grade and work to support the family or at least be home to help momma with the youngers. I dare you to try calling the school district today and say, "My 13 year old needs to leave school to help me at home." CPS and the police will come knocking on your door.

 

Don't assume that the happy family crowded into the tiny flat can be replicated today without mega problems. People have had to do a lot of things in the past in order to survive. I wouldn't go around romanticizing all of them. But, no matter what, that family from 1940 would be unable to find rental housing in most western countries today and with many markets priced out in relation to wages making home ownership more of a stretch than it was 30 years ago. Population density in relation to affordable housing is a very real concern for many couples and one good reason why family sizes must be limited. The one bedroom apartment in the okay area with not so okay schools that my nephew and his wife reside in costs well over $1000.00 per month. They would be allowed one child in there. Add another, and they would be evicted. They can't afford to move to a better area or get a bigger apartment and especially not with prices in the good school district. They also can't find jobs in an area with a lower COL...such is the current job market.

 

In our area, a family with more than three children can wait up to three years to find a landlord willing to take a risk on them. With the tightening of credit and mortgages due to the banking fiasco and mortgage scams, we see families this size, regularly, living in the basement of mom and dad's while hoping something will shake out soon.

 

On a personal note, dd and fiance would love to have four children. They are likely to not have more than two and they say that with a sigh. The reality is that his job/field is found mostly in high COL places in which it will be nearly impossible for them to buy a home. So, they have to keep the number of children down so they can find a rental. Three or more and landlords start to act skittish. How many times have we heard on this board from families with three or more children who need to rent and struggle to find someone with a decent place and willing to rent to a family of that size???? Often, actually...that type of thread has gone around fairly frequently.

 

Don't discount population density and available housing in this discussion.

 

Faith

[Jane in NC]

Don't assume that the happy family crowded into the tiny flat can be replicated today without mega problems. People have had to do a lot of things in the past in order to survive.

According to the documentary Riding the Rails, there were 250,000 teenaged hobos during the Great Depression. One man interviewed for the film cried when he explained that his parents could no longer feed him when he reached his adolescent growth spurts. He had to leave his family to find his way in the world.

 

Indeed there is a great deal of romanticism when we think of the past.

[Jane in NC]

Jane, you might enjoy reading Louis L'amour's autobiography where he describes his life as a teenage hobo.

 

 

The despondency in Riding the Rails may have sufficed for me. But thanks for the recommendation.

[justamouse]

 

I cannot see how a child can be considered intrinsically good when the child becomes an optional consequence that can either be avoided or exterminated based on the 'choice' of the mother. To me, that is more in line with the Deweyian “relative†intrinsic value based on the situation than the classical notion of intrinsic value regardless of the circumstances.

 

 

__________________________________________

 

III. I believe that it is not that women necessarily have more choices today than in previous times, it is just easier for women to make the sort of choices that are valued by the majority of modern women than the sort of choices that would be made by the minority today. In the past the same choices that women make today such as sex out of wedlock, etc. were indeed options, but society was oriented in such a way as to discourage those choices. Our society is designed to discourage having lots of children and living on a single income.

 

It's great that there are those of you who have fulfilling careers that you'd do for free (that was the situation I was in before my DH and I made the decision that it would better for me to be home). But, are the majority of women who are working with children doing something they find fulfilling or is just a form of wage slavery because of the way our economy is structured? Can you honestly say that women have any real choice in whether or not they work while having children? I'm sure many moms who work purely because one income is often not enough to support even the smallest family would say they have a real choice in the matter and find their 'careers' fulfilling.

 

I'd like to quote Wendell Berry because if anyone knows anything about him they realize that he is not some sort of fundamentalist, but an anti-organized religion, Obama-voting liberal who only has one child. His views, I would imagine would be less insulting coming from him than from an orthodox Catholic:

 

 

“Why would any woman who would refuse, properly, to take the marital vow of obedience (on the ground, presumably, that subservience to a mere human being is beneath human dignity) then regard as “liberating†a job that puts her under the authority of a boss (man or woman) whose authority specifically requires and expects obedience? …. How, I am asking, can women improve themselves by submitting to the same specialization, degradation, trivialization, and tyrannization of work that men have submitted to? And that question is made legitimate by another: How have men improved themselves by submitting to it? The answer is that men have not, and women cannot, improve themselves by submitting to it.†(

Feminism, the Body and the Machine

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agreed with all of it, but these were my big juicy heart loves.

[chiguirre]

 

“Why would any woman who would refuse, properly, to take the marital vow of obedience (on the ground, presumably, that subservience to a mere human being is beneath human dignity) then regard as “liberating†a job that puts her under the authority of a boss (man or woman) whose authority specifically requires and expects obedience?

An independent income is very liberating. Not having to depend on another person's earning power frees you from a lot of worries. It's what I most miss as a sahm. It's the elephant in the room every time the subject of staying home with kids versus working comes up here. Not getting a pay check every 2 weeks leaves us vulnerable to the sense of responsibility and good will of our spouses, there's no getting around that cold, hard fact.

[Free]

Women's health, the environment, etc are good, they are not the highest good. Contraception interferes with the natural connection between sex and procreation.

On what objective basis can one say that preserving the “natural connection between sex and procreation†is a higher good than women’s health or environment?

 

Contraception interferes with the natural connection between sex and procreation. That is not to say that sex is always for procreation, it is also most certainly for the union of spouses, but a child has always been a potential natural consequence. This is not so today.

I cannot see how a child can be considered intrinsically good when the child becomes an optional consequence that can either be avoided or exterminated based on the 'choice' of the mother.

I am sorry I do not buy this argument. By this logic, any sexual activity outside of a woman’s fertile period is sex without the consequence of a child and therefore should be avoided. And NFP practices are in direct contradiction with this because a child can be avoided based on the choice of the mother.

 

To me a child is precious and invaluable. I would never want to fritter away the life of a single child to abuse, neglect, malnutrition or preventable disease if I could. And that is why I would never wish a child upon a woman who does not desire to have one, or on parents who do not feel prepared to raise one. I would rather see far fewer children who are wanted and cared for rather than the millions that are subjected to inhuman conditions.

 

My ultimate concern is with human flourishing. I think pretty much everyone can agree that human flourishing occurs when it is oriented towards the Good, it's just our notions of the Good are different.

It is alright to hold on to some philosophical ideas as being the “highest goodâ€. But have they resulted in any actual good either in the past or in the present? Or have these very same ideas been used to subjugate women’s bodies, intellect and spirit?

 

I think we all can agree that we want to see humans flourishing, and that which causes humans to flourish is good. But what objective standard can we set for what flourishing means? Is it better access to nutrition, health and education? Is it greater freedom for individuals to pursue their passions? Is it an environment which allows humans to express themselves creatively and produce works which add value to the rest of the world? And should all of this apply to all individuals irrespective of gender, color or orientation? At least to me all this would indeed be a sign of flourishing.

 

And I would go on to say that what leads to greatest human flourishing are the ideals of liberty, equality and democracy.

 

I believe that it is not that women necessarily have more choices today than in previous times,

There can be no choice without the freedom to make the choice in the first place. Women have never enjoyed the kind of freedom anytime previously in history as they enjoy now, so to say modern women have as many choices as women in the past is disingenuous.

 

…it is just easier for women to make the sort of choices that are valued by the majority of modern women than the sort of choices that would be made by the minority today. In the past the same choices that women make today such as sex out of wedlock, etc. were indeed options, but society was oriented in such a way as to discourage those choices. Our society is designed to discourage having lots of children and living on a single income.

a) Should we encourage people to make choices based on what society deems as correct? Or should people make examined choices based on their inner compass?

b ) There is no comparison between how difficult it was for women to pursue careers in the past (which was nay impossible) and how difficult it is for women to stay at home today (which is not that much at all).

 

The key difference being that living in a free society gives women the power to make choices which they as individuals see fit for themselves and their families.

 

But, are the majority of women who are working with children doing something they find fulfilling or is just a form of wage slavery because of the way our economy is structured? Can you honestly say that women have any real choice in whether or not they work while having children?

To which I say: Are the majority of men who are working with children doing something they find fulfilling or is it just a form of wage slavery? Can you honestly say that men have any real choice in whether or not they work while having children? Why limit the discussion to women, why not include men?

 

And as chiguirre mentioned, another important reason for women to work is financial independence, at least in my case it is my number one reason to work.

[Free]

Frankly, I'm a little sickened by the thought of the governments of China and India having such control over their citizens that they can tell them how many children they can have.

 

I just want to clarify that the Govt of India does not control, nor does it have a say in family size of citizens.

[ChristineW]

I didn't meet DH until I was 29. I was definitely not into parties or hooking up; I just hadn't met many good marriageable men, and wasn't compatible with the few I had met. We've been together almost 10 years and I'm pregnant with #4.

 

My little sister married when she was 22, and has struggled with infertility ever since. Its been six years and they've given up. Life isn't fair. I would never tell someone to "settle down" early just to have a baby b/c there are no guarantees. The risks do increase with waiting, but not enough to have it be the primary consideration.

[delaney]

I was very well aware that fertility lessens after 35. It's why dh and I started TTC the moment we were married even though no one but our witnesses and my oldest knew we were married. We were planning a "big" wedding months later, we had a small ceremony to make it legal since dd and I were moving in with dh. Since I had heard all the time that after 30 it takes on average a year of trying to conceive, with the time going up after that, we just went right to it. And ds was conceived 2 weeks after the wedding that no one knew about. We ended up telling our families about the pregnancy and that we were married already at the same time.

 

Same with dd. Even though I was 37 when we started trying for her, I was pregnant within 2 months. At my ultrasound, I was told I had the ovaries of a much younger woman. :tongue_smilie:

 

Old age ups the risks but doesn't guarantee difficulty conceiving.

 

Yes- I had kids at 26, 29, 30, 35, 37, 39. I tried one time for all but the 3rd, 5th, and 6th who were happy surprises, In my case age had no effect. Also married at 22.

[FaithManor]

 

To me a child is precious and invaluable. I would never want to fritter away the life of a single child to abuse, neglect, malnutrition or preventable disease if I could. And that is why I would never wish a child upon a woman who does not desire to have one, or on parents who do not feel prepared to raise one. I would rather see far fewer children who are wanted and cared for rather than the millions that are subjected to inhuman conditions.

 

 

To which I say: Are the majority of men who are working with children doing something they find fulfilling or is it just a form of wage slavery? Can you honestly say that men have any real choice in whether or not they work while having children? Why limit the discussion to women, why not include men?

 

I would like to address these two very astute points.

 

Russia, as of the 2010 statistics, had over 700,000 children living in orphanages and by "orphanage" I do not mean a nice facility, well staffed, nurturing individuals having been put through a proper vetting process before being hired, with lots of food, clean water, heat, toys, books, educational opportunities, and appropriate healthcare. I work with an agency that tries to provide for these children. Let me tell you about their lives - since 1993 we've worked in more than 800 of these facilities and this is what we see - mass malnutrition, the average ten year old consuming 800 or less calories per day of grain based simple carbs and only rarely getting a vegetable or protein. Children who are deaf from chronic ear infections that went untreated, rickets, scurvy, deaths from relatively minor ailments because the children are in such poor condition, not enough clothing or blankets in the winter, NO HEAT...think on that one...Russian winters and NO HEAT, no toys, no books, and only sporadic days of regular schooling per year. Some children stay in bed pretty much the entire winter for lack of shoes in these cement block buildings. Some areas containing hundreds of square feet will have only a single light bulb hanging from the ceiling. Live wires running up the walls is also common. Babies lay in cribs until their heads become flattened. It would make you sick to know the half of it.

 

At Christmas time, we manage through donations to send about 50,000 care packages. So less than 10% of the children will receive the following items - a toothbrush, toothpaste, a washcloth, a bar of soap, a comb or brush, a pair of socks, and a small toy. We send a large box of at least 250 hats, mittens, and scarves to be distributed for as many facilities as we can. The children have to be trained not to eat the toothpaste. It's the sweetest thing they've ever tasted and view it as candy. The first year, there were issues with fluoride consumption! We also have to provide large care packages for each orphanage worker because they are paid so little, it's hard for them to afford personal care items for their own families so often, they would take these items away from the children. We now give very generous personal bags to each worker and have very little theft as a result.

 

Once or twice per year, we send several pallets of good, used clothes and winter coats, new undies, and used or new socks. In a good year, we can manage 250,000 items which is not enough for every orphan to receove ONE item.

 

Except for the mattresses, there is virtually no furniture in these facilities. Every orphanage we attempt to work with also receives several hundred backpacks or homemade drawstring bags which they distribute. We've been doing this for 19 years and it is now to the place that most orphans in the country have one change of underwear each week and one change of clothes plus their annual care package. The workers distribute those backpacks and bags and that is where the children store "their things". Some years, when donations are really big, we can send a summer pallet that will contain maybe 20,000 more care packages plus more boxes of used clothes. We also supply money for the orphanages to purchase peanut butter and dry beans to help with protein issues. We've never, ever been able to come up with enough to address the lack of calcium and I doubt we'll ever make a dent in the rickets problem. It doesn't help that there aren't enough workers to adequately supervise the children outdoors so they get very little time in the sunlight and it's even worse in the winter. Since most orphanages have at most 25 coats for 250 children, the kids must rotate through the coats. They average ten minutes per day outdoors. Even in the summer, at that latitude, they need to consume foods high in calcium and vitamin d due to low UV rays not causing their bodies to produce enough D. Unfortunately, we don't have the funds to provide milk, cheese, spinach, and broccoli to these children.

 

At 13, they "age out". By this I mean that since Russia's problem with FAS (vodka consumption during pregnancy) and child abandonment has not improved, so there are always new little ones needing a bed. So at 13 they no longer qualify for orphanage assistance and are thrown to the curb so their bed can be given to a new, younger child. A staggering number of girls are captured and sold into s&x slavery. The boys do not do better. They are also trafficked for hard labor and medical experimentation. At the present time, our agency as only managed to afford to run one dormitory in the country for teens living on the streets. We can manage to save 100 at a time and we provide money for them to attend high school and then university or vocational training. We also help the girls run a bridal store. We've sent 400 used, but in pristine shape, wedding gowns plus evening dresses, some small silk bouquets, and veils to them and rented a small store front. Women rent their dresses since they can't afford to buy bridal gowns and this provides enough income for a number of the "graduate girls" to afford to share small apartments as adults. That's it. That is all the money we have to pay to run a facility, supply it, and hire dorm parents. Our current plan is to look for donations to offer families within Russia the chance to take a kid off the street by paying a "foster care per diem". We've identified families who would like to help, but literally cannot afford one more mouth to feed. We will try to help them feed and clothe that child and have something left over for their other children too. No matter what we do, with nearly 750,000 children abandoned and another estimated 250,000 homeless teens, it will be nothing more than a drop in the bucket. My only comfort is that every child saved is still a life saved and even one person is worth the effort. We'll manage to save a few more than that anyway.

 

So, I'm going to be judgmental here. I normally try very hard not to, but I'm going to indulge myself and be really, nasty, and judgmental. Russia, as far as I am concerned, has absolutely no business funding "incentives" for families to have MORE kids. They ought to do something about the heinous situtation of the HUGE number of children they already have who are languishing in conditions most of us cannot imagine.

 

Now, the other point...I have had FAR more opportunities to work for fulfillment in my life than Dh ever has. I've had music performance jobs, music therapy jobs, teaching jobs, etc. that I worked because I loved those positions, not because the money was even remotely decent. Dh, on the other hand, has worked a number of jobs in which his employers have treated him like a medieval serf, and he's done so to provide for this family. He is just now, as of February 28th, leaving such a job and moving on to one in which the management will treat him decently and he'll be able to actually have a little fulfillment in his work. Most of the men I have known worked for wages and benefits to support families, to give money to aging parents with medical bills, to fund stay at home wives, to......you fill in the blank but the one thing it wasn't for was because it made them happy! I'd guess the percentage of people currently in America working a job that really satisfies their inner sense of self-worth is very small. Some will be quite fortunate and manage to work within their passion AND be able to make a reasonable living with health benefits while doing so. A larger percentage will settle for whatever is offered that pays the bills.

 

I work at a quilt store three - five days per month in order to help out the owners who needed someone they could trust to run it while they are vendoring or attending quilt shows, or going to fabric market. It's fun work. The pay is awful. I do it because I enjoy it, though when I originally picked up the position, it was just for the few extra bucks to pay off a medical bill faster since dh had been injured. That bill is paid off and I'm still working. I enjoy it. I adore my dh and wish he had the same privilege. However, I do have some plans and when these kids are gone, you can bet he'll be able to take a big pay cut and go do the thing he really wants to do which is work for 4-H through MSU or National Council promoting their science initiatives amd I'll work to make up the difference. I have every intention of going back to music full time or back to the classroom so that he can do something fulfilling for a change before he gets old.

 

That said, this is the first time in history that people have even hashed out the concept of "fulfillment" in work. Previous generations worked because it meant survival, period. I'm pretty sure ole Pa Ingalls didn't get any great sense of purpose, other than providing for his family, from breaking sod on a homestead, or Ralph Moody working every single odd job he could find at the age of 9 after his father died so his siblings could have food on the table, or the hours people worked in sweatshops at the height of the industrial revolution. My parents work nearly 110 hrs. per week in their business for a combined income of now only $29,000 after the businesses' expenses. They aren't doing that because they enjoy it. They are trying to keep the doors open so they don't have to fire employees. Not fun and certainly not fulfilling.

 

So, back to the original concept being discussed. The host of issues that every single person of childbearing age must sift through to decide if and when it's time to have a baby or two or ten is very large. You or I or anyone else cannot profess to understand what each person must consider. Sure, it's so nice and convenient to decide that you think everyone should have a bunch of kids, that kids are good for everyone, that the culture should be promoting big families, etc. or the opposite of all of that and be against big families and it's SOOOOOOOOOO easy from the outside looking in to judge everyone else's decisions or assume wanton s8xual promiscuity and partying is the problem and point fingers at an entire generation and paint them all as narcicisstic twerps, or whatever. But, the reality is, you need to look at yourself. YOU made your choices. YOU made the best choice for you and your family that you could make. YOU did it. For better or worse, you chose this or you chose that and YOU did it because YOU were given the privilege of having a choice and I guarantee you that given the number of threads we've had on this board about negative comments concerning family size, or only children, or "when are you going to have another" or "somebody said to me 'I hope you don't have another'" or blah, blah, blah....the collective YOU doesn't like being judged by others for the choice you've made.

 

So, don't judge others. Follow that, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's not just a Christian concept. Many worldviews contain such a sentiment. If you don't want to be judged for having one, three, five, or twelve children, then don't get your tail in a twist because of population decline, or population density, or that small families indicate a culture that is anti-family, or, ......it doesn't indicate ANYTHING. It indicates people making the choices that you were given the privilege of making. So, population ebbs and wanes...it falls off in bad economic times, it increases in boons...that's pretty normal in human history. Super powers come, super powers go, cultures survive, cultures don't...don't bring kids into the world for political or social gain.

 

The one thing that is certain is that kids aren't statistics. They aren't numbers. They aren't polictical machines to be manipulated. They are human beings and they deserve enough consideration to not be brought into the world to people who do not want them. I hate to think that they are only seen as the future potential workforce and tax payers. That is the ultimate selfishness of this generation...to want people to breed simply for the sake of providing more individuals to pay into social security and medicaid in the future. I'm pretty pragmatic about history. Plenty of kids born just to grow them into field hands, or whatever. I prefer NOT to go back to the "good ole days". GACK!

 

Faith

[Free]

 

The one thing that is certain is that kids aren't statistics. They aren't numbers. They aren't polictical machines to be manipulated. They are human beings and they deserve enough consideration to not be brought into the world to people who do not want them. I hate to think that they are only seen as the future potential workforce and tax payers. That is the ultimate selfishness of this generation...to want people to breed simply for the sake of providing more individuals to pay into social security and medicaid in the future. I'm pretty pragmatic about history. Plenty of kids born just to grow them into field hands, or whatever. I prefer NOT to go back to the "good ole days". GACK!

 

Faith

 

 

Faith, this is the most moving and uplifting post I have read in a long time. You passion is inspiring. Thank you all that you do and thank you for sharing your wisdom.

[Elinor Everywhere]

Faith, fantastic post. Thank you!

[Jennifer3141]

You rock, Faith!

 

One other little point I'd like to make to the confused poster.

 

There are HUGE swaths of professional jobs now that fall under the purview of women. Take veterinary medicine. The vast majority of small animal vets are now women. Take them out of the equation because they are "selfish" for not having children in their early 20s and everyone here who has a sick pet will rapidly have a dead pet. Basically your argument comes down to reverse classism. You obviously resent women who chose education. That's too bad because you could use some exposure to them.

[redheadmom]

I do not understand why there is concern about "fertility collapse" in the U.S. which has an all time high population of 311 million.

The US birth rate is the lowest ever recorded. Meaning births per 1000 women not total number born per year. It has fallen for US born women and even more so for immigrants.

 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-record-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/

[FaithManor]

Faith, I don't see where you got anywhere that people advocate breeding simply for the sake of providing more individuals to pay into social security and medicaid in the future or for social and political ends. I'm not quiverfull in the least, but the folks I know who are doing it because of the Bible verse “Be fruitful and multiply.†At least in most cases people bring children into the world because supposedly they love them. But, man is a social animal and our choices do affect the world at large. I know you take classical education seriously, you are well aware that these questions have been asked and discussed for thousands of years. This has nothing to do with judging individual people.

 

I don't see how one can live in the sort of system we live in, which supposedly democratic and encourages input from everybody without discussion of the very

fundamentals

of what is good for society.

 

I wasn't speaking to you directly. Not at all! I was speaking to the general concept behind most, certainly not all, concerns about population declines generated by group think such as centralized governments, think tanks that exercise influence over public policy, etc. The vast majority of the concerns in this regard do not have anything to do with individuals or families, or the health and well being of children. When addressed by world governments, it's not about being "pro-family" it is about how many tax payers per retired person there will be and who is paying into the system, how much revenue that will generate, and such.

 

You do really care about children and families and I get that completely. I was addressing the accepted reasons for political and social concerns about declining birthrates...these concerns are never about preserving a culture and they aren't about the children. It is literally, "Please breed because in 20 XX there won't be enough people to continue our monster government, or program X, or have a military the size of Y, or ...." you get my drift.

 

Pro-family arguments from a political, anthropological, cultural, perspective rarely address the actual well-being of the family or the needs of the children. That's my concern and it just seemed as though this was kind of being lost at times in the discussion as if having children just for the sake of being able to procreate was somehow more virtuous than knowing your limits and doing what is best for yourself, your spouse, your significant other, the children you already have, etc. I'm pro-family. I'm pro-family of all shapes and sizes so long as those are healthy shapes and sizes. I'm pro-NOT procreating too. I applaud those who make conscientious choices and do not have children after careful consideration.

 

I hope my post about Russia didn't hurt you too much. I wouldn't want to hurt anyone for the world. I only used my volunteer work for that agency as a method of highlighting why I'm against government intervention in family planning such as that. I brought that up since some discussion of governments who did or did not provide financial incentives to increase birthrates. Furthermore, there isn't anything inherently virtuous in having a large family, a small family, or no family and wanted to make a case for those that see it as a more athropological or political concern, to see if more intimately...from the child's viewpoint. It's so easy to let these things digress to nothing more than a mere discussion of numbers and lose sight of the fact that those numbers are real people. Again, I hope I didn't hurt you because that was most certainly not my intention.

 

The one thing that is certain, is there is a real diversity of worldviews represented on the board.

 

Faith

[JumpyTheFrog]

In fact, the very things you say here that something ought to be done about the situation is the point that I and others have been trying to make in the other thread on the board. All too often, the solution to poverty, abuse, etc seems to be

birth control

, well guess what: Russians have had birth control for decades in the form of state funded abortions for any reason.

 

 

Nobody is saying that contraception should be the only solution. However, a particular Russian family that can't afford another child at that time can't do much about all the causes of their poor economy and system. What they can do is prevent the conception of a child until their financial situation improves. If every Russian couple used reliable contraception (or even better, two methods) every time, the number of kids dumped into the awful orphanages Faith described would decrease. Since there would be fewer orphans, the orphanages could spend more money per child and they'd receive better care. Then maybe they'd be healthy enough (both physically and mentally) to go on and receive and education and lead a productive life, and then, in turn, use some of their money to help orphans out.

 

I don't see how things would improve if Russians suddenly stopped using contraception (and most people don't consider abortion as contraception. Contra-ception = prevents conception). If they all just "took their chances" the number of orphans would quickly rise. If, as a culture, the people are generally unwilling to use contraception correctly, every time, there is no way they'd properly use NFP (or be celibate). Hence, the number of unplanned pregnancies would skyrocket.

[chiguirre]

No, I espouse them in part because of the very real evil I have seen and experienced. I espouse them because I do not see any fundamental difference between the poverty of the East and the material prosperity of the West.

 

Do you really not see a difference between not having enough to eat versus having enough to eat? That's such a fundamental necessity that I can't get around it. Unfortunately, that's not even a third world vs. first world issue, that's a problem for some people even in my relatively comfortable corner of Houston. Every additional child is an extra mouth to feed. That may seem Malthusian, but it's also the very harsh reality of life. Maybe in some perfect universe, every child would get a stipend that covered all their basic needs till they turn 18, but's that not the world we live in. In this world, you don't get extra money when you have another child, you have to divide your resources. At a certain point, you are adversely affecting your other children when you have another. Each person gets to weigh the pros and cons of less material resources per child versus more children and then they and their children have to live with those choices. Limiting couples' access to birth control would force more people to live in conditions they haven't chosen for themselves. What would be the "good" in that?

[Heather in Neverland]

I'd like to quote Wendell Berry because if anyone knows anything about him they realize that he is not some sort of fundamentalist, but an anti-organized religion, Obama-voting liberal who only has one child. His views, I would imagine would be less insulting coming from him than from an orthodox Catholic:

 

“Why would any woman who would refuse, properly, to take the marital vow of obedience (on the ground, presumably, that subservience to a mere human being is beneath human dignity) then regard as “liberating†a job that puts her under the authority of a boss (man or woman) whose authority specifically requires and expects obedience? …. How, I am asking, can women improve themselves by submitting to the same specialization, degradation, trivialization, and tyrannization of work that men have submitted to? And that question is made legitimate by another: How have men improved themselves by submitting to it? The answer is that men have not, and women cannot, improve themselves by submitting to it.†(

Feminism, the Body and the Machine

)

 

_____________________________________

 

 

Oh give me a break. I am MORE subservient because I have a career? Hardly. Because I have an extensive education and a professional career I have OPTIONS. I don't have to be subservient to ANYONE. If my boss is being a jerk, I will quit and get a new job. If my dh is mistreating me, I can leave him and be able to support myself and my kids. I have choices.

 

A boss doesn't automatically equal angry tyrant-dictator. I should know. I am a boss. And employees don't automatically become slaves crouching in fear of the boss. This quote is a sweeping generalization that does nothing more than suggest taking options away from women under the guise of making us more "free". Blech.