Replies

This makes no sense. She first mentions "young children," and then refers to "a child of 8." Children are in school usually after age 5 or so. If all a mother's children are in school, there is absolutely nothing wrong with her working while they are in school. In a time of layoffs, recession, and economic uncertainty, it's sometimes necessary for women to work for more than "luxuries."

Another point this writer fails to examine is that buying even a smaller house in a good school district is *expensive.* Not only that, the property taxes can be 2-3X those of houses in bad school districts.

People who send their children to private schools are going to have even greater expenses.

Nor is it reasonable to take the "let them eat cake" position of "let them all homeschool." Private education is about 9% of all education; homeschooling is probably done for no more than 1-2% of all school-age children. Clearly, homeschooling is not a "universal solution." With almost 90% (or more) of children in public school, this means that parents who are concerned about their kids are going to have a far greater financial burden through the costs of their home.

Throughout the years I've noticed a depressing similarity to these exhortations to "young mothers." They're essentially unrealistic, idealistic guilt trips which offer very little concrete suggestions for people who don't choose the "alternative" lifestyle of homeschooling.

The essential argument here is that parents should place the welfard of their children above everything else. You call that part of an unrealistic and idealistice guilt trip. Maybe Americans need to feel a bit more guilt. If one is guilty of neglect and indifference to the needs of one's children, guilt is altogether proper.

Second, you are assuming that as long as a child is enrolled in a government school the mother does not need to be at home. When a child is let out of the government school at 3:30 in the afternoon, a child could be unattended by a parent for a considerable amount of time until one parent arrives at home sometime in the evening. Would you say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that situation.

As far as your other arguments are concerned, it is vital to realize that if your children are your top priority you will make any sacrifice necessary for their welfare. You will not make the decision base on taxes or how difficult it may be homeschool. It is called sacrifice. From what I can tell, very few parents wish to sacrifice on behalf of their children.

As far as this lifestyle being a throwback to the 50's, it might be important to point out that one does make decisions based on what is easy or practical. One makes decisions because they are right.

They're essentially unrealistic, idealistic guilt trips which offer very little concrete suggestions for people who don't choose the "alternative" lifestyle of homeschooling.

Funny, these ideals worked for families all the way up until the 1970s, early 80s. What could possibly be so important that families for centuries were able to live without that within the last twenty years has changed so much that we supposedly can't live without? This is an excellent article that gets to the root of the matter not only in family but quite a few social issues that have arisen since the 1960s