Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

Are stay-at-home mothers with  graduate degrees conscientious caretakers or the downfall of equality in the workforce?

Educated stay-at-home mothers raise educated kids, benefiting society
 28 (35.4%)
Mothers should work part-time if possible
 10 (12.7%)
Mothers should be full-time 3-6 months after birth
 6 (7.6%)
Anything less than full-time is a detriment to all women and society
 5 (6.3%)
Doesn't affect society or equality either way
 30 (38%)

Total Members Voted: 79

Author Topic: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s  (Read 15619 times)

Astro

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 10016
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2007, 01:44:36 AM »
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society.  (Neglecting kids, however, is a detriment.) 


I strongly disagree with this statement.


Why?


Because, very simply, you and I differ on the importance and value of personal attention to one's offspring.  We probably also differ on the importance of the role of "nurture" (as in, "nature versus nurture") in the development of a human being.
J, if you didn't bring enough penis for everyone, you shouldn't have brought any penis at all. 

mugatu

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 22183
  • I'll show YOU pacifist.
    • View Profile
Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2007, 01:45:23 AM »
F*cking hell.

But how does one determine the relative value of acts that don't have the far-ranging effect of curing AIDS or some such?  Essentially, how does this principle apply in the mundane?  And at what point is a job less valuable than staying at home?  Is it based on money? Sector?  Status?  Degree?

Everything should be taken into consideration.

Everything except for personal preference?

If it's truly personal preference, then no.  If it's personal preference placed by societal rules, then yes.
Let me show you Derelicte. It is a fashion, a way of life inspired by the very homeless, the vagrants, the crack whores that make this wonderful city so unique.

They're break-dance fighting.

mugatu

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 22183
  • I'll show YOU pacifist.
    • View Profile
Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2007, 01:46:27 AM »
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society.  (Neglecting kids, however, is a detriment.) 


I strongly disagree with this statement.


Why?


Because, very simply, you and I differ on the importance and value of personal attention to one's offspring.  We probably also differ on the importance of the role of "nurture" (as in, "nature versus nurture") in the development of a human being.


Yes, but why is that your personal value?
Let me show you Derelicte. It is a fashion, a way of life inspired by the very homeless, the vagrants, the crack whores that make this wonderful city so unique.

They're break-dance fighting.

t...

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
    • View Profile
Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2007, 01:50:03 AM »
Just tagging to try to get a clue as to what the @#!* the argument is here.

It just seems odd thus far.
Quote
Cady on October 16, 2007, 10:41:52 PM

i rhink tyi'm inejying my fudgcicle too much

Quote
Huey on February 07, 2007, 11:15:32 PM

I went to a party in an apartment in a silo once.

sillyberry

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3191
    • View Profile
Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2007, 01:50:51 AM »
F*cking hell.

But how does one determine the relative value of acts that don't have the far-ranging effect of curing AIDS or some such?  Essentially, how does this principle apply in the mundane?  And at what point is a job less valuable than staying at home?  Is it based on money? Sector?  Status?  Degree?

Everything should be taken into consideration.

Everything except for personal preference?

Women shouldn't get to have preferences.
Juicy: UChicago

It sounds so reasonable when you say it.

mugatu

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 22183
  • I'll show YOU pacifist.
    • View Profile
Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2007, 01:51:04 AM »
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society. 

well it could be.

Not unless you are singularly able to provide some service that some other person (or group of people) is not.  Anyone can nurture.  Not anyone can treat diseases, bring a class action on behalf of injured people or take a company public.

This comment rubs me the wrong way for two reasons. First, the idea that anyone can nurture is just plain wrong. When a loved one dies would you want me to send you rent-a-buddy(tm) to take you on a walk and tell you everything will be ok? Infants develop attachments to their parents from day 1 and a child's relationship to his parent can have long term psychological repercussions. I'm not saying this to argue that mothers shouldn't work or that a child who spends time in day care is ruined--I don't believe that--but I work damn hard as a father and anyone who claims that my work has no value is going to get a prominent spot on my shove-it list.

In the context of this discussion, nurturing indicates the ability to rear children.  With small exceptions, most people are able to make sure that children don't die in their day-to-day activities.  The "buddy" example is not quite on point.  That has more to do with relationship and comfort rather than nurturing and development.  Furthermore, no one has advocated a lack of involvement in one's children's lives.  Your final statement leads into the next paragraph.
I don't think you can reasonably expect someone to interpret the word nurture as to "make sure that children don't die in their day-to-day activities." Again, I find it hard to try to follow your chain of reasoning without getting the impression that you are belittling the role of parent.

The day to day activity of a parent is little more than that, though.  On a grander scale, parenting becomes far more important as a parent notes lessons to be taught and morals to be learned.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Second, you seem to be arguing that, unless one can provide a service that others cannot, one's work is not valuable. Again this is plain wrong. The basic infrastructure of a society has more value and plays a larger role in the society's long-term stability than the "high-value" services you praise. For example, our plumbers and garbage men and women play a greater role in keeping us free from disease than our doctors do.

I haven't said that at all.  I've made the case that if work you could do is more valuable than other work, you should choose to do the former.  I've also indicated that if the other work you could do is not more valuable then it may be a good idea to stay home and rear children.  I've expressly attached value to the service.
You're right, I think I did read too much into your statement here. I also think your rule of thumb is difficult to put into practice. The trouble is assessing value. Of course you can let the market do the valuation and compare your potential earnings against the cost of hiring a nanny. But most parents will value their own parenting time as more valuable (and less quantifiable) than the $10 an hour or so it costs to hire a nanny, and rightly so. And of course there is unquantifiable value in the career. So now the value comparison becomes very individual and we can have the strange case of a parent with the potential to earn $100 an hour choosing to stay home while another parent chooses to make $7 at a retail outlet while hiring then nanny at $10. And both parents may feel perfectly justified in their decision.

Perhaps, but only if the decisions are made emotionally.
Let me show you Derelicte. It is a fashion, a way of life inspired by the very homeless, the vagrants, the crack whores that make this wonderful city so unique.

They're break-dance fighting.

Astro

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 10016
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2007, 01:56:19 AM »
Spending a gazillion hours a day with the kids is not benefiting society.  (Neglecting kids, however, is a detriment.) 


I strongly disagree with this statement.


Why?


Because, very simply, you and I differ on the importance and value of personal attention to one's offspring.  We probably also differ on the importance of the role of "nurture" (as in, "nature versus nurture") in the development of a human being.


Yes, but why is that your personal value?


"Nurture" plays as important of a role in the development of a human being as "nature" (the latter provides the frame, while the former fills it in).  As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility not only to raise a child (in the physical sense), but also to place it in society in an informed state.  This state includes everything from knowing basic taboos (and why or why not one should pay attention to them) to avoiding pejorative ignorance.

If I can raise an informed child, I can curb ignorance.  If I can curb ignorance, I can affect a number of societal ills.  It is key to note that these ills cannot be eliminated before such forms of pejorative ignorance are not also eliminated.  As such, spending a large amount of time with my children is a benefit to society.  Maybe not a gazillion hours, but enough to play a central role in their lives. 

Yes, I am assuming my values are correct.  Yes, I may be wrong.  That still doesn't relinquish me from the weight of that responsibility.
J, if you didn't bring enough penis for everyone, you shouldn't have brought any penis at all. 

sillyberry

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3191
    • View Profile
Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
« Reply #37 on: May 22, 2007, 01:59:48 AM »
F*cking hell.

But how does one determine the relative value of acts that don't have the far-ranging effect of curing AIDS or some such?  Essentially, how does this principle apply in the mundane?  And at what point is a job less valuable than staying at home?  Is it based on money? Sector?  Status?  Degree?

Everything should be taken into consideration.

Everything except for personal preference?

Women shouldn't get to have preferences.

This sounds sneakily like a preference. ;)

My father/brother/husband/pimp told me to say that.
Juicy: UChicago

It sounds so reasonable when you say it.

mugatu

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 22183
  • I'll show YOU pacifist.
    • View Profile
Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2007, 02:03:27 AM »

"Nurture" plays as important of a role in the development of a human being as "nature" (the latter provides the frame, while the former fills it in).  As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility not only to raise a child (in the physical sense), but also to place it in society in an informed state.  This state includes everything from knowing basic taboos (and why or why not one should pay attention to them) to avoiding pejorative ignorance.

If I can raise an informed child, I can curb ignorance.  If I can curb ignorance, I can affect a number of societal ills.  It is key to note that these ills cannot be eliminated before such forms of pejorative ignorance are not also eliminated.  As such, spending a large amount of time with my children is a benefit to society.  Maybe not a gazillion hours, but enough to play a central role in their lives. 

Yes, I am assuming my values are correct.  Yes, I may be wrong.  That still doesn't relinquish me from the weight of that responsibility.


Are those things really day-to-day activities?  Really?

F*cking hell.

But how does one determine the relative value of acts that don't have the far-ranging effect of curing AIDS or some such?  Essentially, how does this principle apply in the mundane?  And at what point is a job less valuable than staying at home?  Is it based on money? Sector?  Status?  Degree?

Everything should be taken into consideration.

Everything except for personal preference?

If it's truly personal preference, then no.  If it's personal preference placed by societal rules, then yes.

I want to make sure I'm absolutely clear on this - if it's truly a personal preference than it should NOT be a factor in the decision but if's a preference that's been ingrained due to societal forces, it SHOULD be a factor in one's decision?

1) Could you articulate the differences between these preferences, and how one might go about identifying/classifying them?

2)Really?

3)Why?

No, it's the opposite.  I attempted to respond directly to your post.  If those personal preferences are NOT societal pressures in nature, then they may be considered.
Let me show you Derelicte. It is a fashion, a way of life inspired by the very homeless, the vagrants, the crack whores that make this wonderful city so unique.

They're break-dance fighting.

Astro

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 10016
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The Mommy Wars for J.D.s
« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2007, 02:06:27 AM »

"Nurture" plays as important of a role in the development of a human being as "nature" (the latter provides the frame, while the former fills it in).  As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility not only to raise a child (in the physical sense), but also to place it in society in an informed state.  This state includes everything from knowing basic taboos (and why or why not one should pay attention to them) to avoiding pejorative ignorance.

If I can raise an informed child, I can curb ignorance.  If I can curb ignorance, I can affect a number of societal ills.  It is key to note that these ills cannot be eliminated before such forms of pejorative ignorance are not also eliminated.  As such, spending a large amount of time with my children is a benefit to society.  Maybe not a gazillion hours, but enough to play a central role in their lives. 

Yes, I am assuming my values are correct.  Yes, I may be wrong.  That still doesn't relinquish me from the weight of that responsibility.


Are those things really day-to-day activities?  Really?



Yes.  Although that wasn't part of my argument.  I'm just showing why there's a societal benefit to personally raising your children.

You didn't grow up with any younger siblings, did you?

J, if you didn't bring enough penis for everyone, you shouldn't have brought any penis at all.