Roles/Mothers/

[Guest guest]

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

>> I'm not sure your point here. Since when were you assigned a " role "

>> to keep the economy going?

>

> I was talking about how people view me, not how I view

> myself. From a corporate point of view, and from many views

> in the gov't, I am a " consumer " because I " consume " . The more

> I consume, the better the economy.

If this is your view of economics, I can understand your distaste for

it. I assure you that there are schools of economic thought--in

particular the Austrian school--which do not involve such absurdities as

the ability of an economy to consume its way to prosperity. In any case,

the notion that you have been assigned a role is just silly. You're free

to do as you choose, within reasonable limits. If you find it exciting

to be a renegade, though, I'd be happy to oblige in being scandalized at

the next Rotary club meeting (Ooooh! I got off work early yesterday, and

you'll never guess what I saw! Heidi Schuppenhauer was at the bus stop

waiting to pick up her kids! Can you believe it? She used to be such a

nice girl until she married that Promise-Keeper...).

> As for being a cook and mother, who cares if your role is not

> recognized

>> politically?

>

> It matter because the political decisions affect me. Particulary it

> affects all of us because a mother staying home with her kids might

> be supported by the gov't so she doesn't have to leave them

> to go to work ... and as such she has been defined (even on this

> list " as a " leech " . I do NOT think a woman who cares for her kids

> is a leech, nor do I think of myself that way.

Nor do I. I think of someone who takes more from the government than he

pays in taxes as a leech, regardless of what his day job may be. Whether

that applies to you, I have no idea.

> But, in the Inuit culture, for instance, a woman with no man

> had to rely on the tribe for help. It isn't much different now ...

> it is very, very difficult to raise kids AND work unless you have

> a high-paying job so can afford daycare.

Again, my position is that someone who cannot afford or is not willing

to make the sacrifices necessary to raise children properly should not

have them. To subsidize irresponsible childbearing is to encourage it

and create a vicious cycle.

> Our culture does not have an " acceptable " way to help

> such women, really.

Sure it does. and I have mentioned several.

> They are denigrated and and lumped into

> categories like " unwed mother " (even though many of them

> started OUT wed).

I admit that I am by no means an expert on the topic, but I question the

notion that most women who whose husbands run off, leave them with the

kids, and don't pay child support are in a " there but for the grace of

God " situation. There are, of course, exceptions, but by and large, I

find it hard to believe that men just revert from rock-steady provider

to irresponsible lout. Someone who marries a bum shouldn't be surprised

to find five or ten years later that her husband is a bum. I haven't

quite worked out the details, but I think that there's some sort of

causal relation going on there. Of course, widows are a different (and

much rarer) story altogether. That still doesn't mean I think that

anyone should be forced to support them. If I don't support robbing

to pay ine because is dead, I'm certainly not going to

support it because ran off with a or because ine doesn't

even know his name is .

> They are " useless " because they are not

> performing their job that people THINK they should have (working

> and consuming) and are instead " merely " raising the next

> generation.

You have a truly fine collection of strawmen. Are you thinking of

starting a farm?