Be a quitter! Rebecca Hagelin urges mommy's to reconsider their life's mission

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, March 19, 2002 | Rebecca Hagelin

[Harrison Bergeron]

"It would be immoral for the couple not to support the family by any means sufficient, or to go on welfare simply so the mother could be at home with the children."

Funny how you started out accusing me of being "moralistic" and end up using morality to support your argument. The entire point of the subject article was that there are more types of support structures in a family than financial, and sometimes those other things can - must - supercede finances for the good of the children. Go on welfare? That's a heart tugging emotional supposition. How about sacrificing the second car, or eating macaroni and cheese four times a week. That's what some stay at home moms are doing so they can be there for their kids. You claim to be for self support and responsibility, but the only alterbnative you present to dual income parents is welfare. That's not just intellectually dishonest, it's intellectually lazy.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"Yes, and thus it [individuals who have not achieved their full income potential] would be a class of people.

OK, if you insist on seeing it that way, whatever. Lumping individuals with all of their diverse strengths and weaknesses into a class for the purpose of "helping" them is the very definition of socialism. And by its nature, socialism is intellectually dishonest - so there's a pattern here at least.

[Sweet Hour of Prayer]

I'm a quitter. And my kids and my husband have never been happier. I'm still adjusting and learning to be a good stay at home Mom. I liked my 32nd floor window office (that I struggled for), eating out, having time to go to the gym and money to spend. It was definitely hard to leave. Yet, I knew that I needed to be more focused on my kids. (I don't believe the 90's superwoman myth anymore, if you juggle too many things you usually don't do any of them well). My colleagues were shocked when I announced my plans. But the most amazing thing is, my husband's career has soared since I quit work. I feel so blessed!

[grellis]

Actually, no. I have been with the company (retail) for years. I have passed up promotions but still do the work of a supervisor, for entry level pay. My human resources executive knows I am not coming back and considers this a going away gift. The only thing I actually get out of it is the continued (for four months) use of my employee discount--10%. I am not insured through my employer and I am ineligible for any kind of disability pay. And who knows? Down the road, I may want to pick up another evening or two--if not for the money, just to get out of the house and see some fresh faces.

[grellis]

I can have pretty things later.

Sounds to me like you have beautiful things now.

[The Green Goblin]

You claim to be for self support and responsibility, but the only alterbnative you present to dual income parents is welfare. That's not just intellectually dishonest, it's intellectually lazy.

That's not what I said at all. My point is that both parents working is moral and better than going on welfare. Furthermore, if a couple decides that both spouses should work in order to support the family, that is their decision, and it is none of your or anyone else's business to suggest otherwise. Don't be an intrusive busybody like the author of the article.

[The Green Goblin]

Lumping individuals with all of their diverse strengths and weaknesses into a class for the purpose of "helping" them is the very definition of socialism. And by its nature, socialism is intellectually dishonest - so there's a pattern here at least.

I'm not advocating "helping them"--I'm merely advocating that intrusive busybodies mind their own damned business and keep their gulit-tripping attempts to themselves. If a couple decides that both spouses must work to support the family, that's nobody's business but their own.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"I'm not advocating "helping them"--I'm merely advocating that intrusive busybodies mind their own damned business and keep their gulit-tripping attempts to themselves. "

You are obviously not a parent. The "guilt tripping" nowadays is more often practiced by the daycare advocates who portray child rearing as a disposable chore that deprives women of their "fulfillment as productive members of the workforce." Home-parenting is becoming as reviled by the left as home-schooling.

And regardless of your opinion or mine, the daycare industry would become extinct overnight and home-parenting would again become the norm if government subsidies and tax credits (stealth welfare) were to dry up.

[The Green Goblin]

You are obviously not a parent.

I'm sure my two kids will beg to differ on that count...

[Harrison Bergeron]

My bad.

[The Green Goblin]

S'allright ;)

[riley1992]

If all a mother's children are in school, there is absolutely nothing wrong with her working while they are in school.

What happens during summer vacation then?