Quote:
Originally Posted by GoNative
But this implies does it not that there is something wrong with not wanting to give up a caeer if you have children? That somehow the children will be worse off if at least one of the parents doesn't give up their career? It also implies you can't raise a family effectively unless at least one of parents gives up their careers. Is this what you are implying?
|
I am not implying anything, I am saying it outright.
This is what people need to talk about before they get married and decide to have children.
Yes, I think there is something wrong with two career-driven individuals deciding to have children, but not taking any more time off of work than they have to. I think at least one parent should be at home to raise the children.
You talk about maternity leave, but how long is that? a couple months maybe? That's nothing. A parent should take six years off, until their child is in school before going back to work full-time. Maybe that is isn't feasible for some families, but that certainly is ideal... would you disagree?
Yes, the children will be worse off if one parent isn't at home to raise them until they go to school. You can name success stories, but who knows if they wouldn't have been even BETTER off if their mom or dad was at home to raise them, instead of babysitters, day-care or other strangers that AREN'T the parents.
Define "effectively". What I am talking about is what is best for the children. If you can explain a system where children are better off raised by people OTHER than their parents, I am all ears.