CAR, my kids played outside with other kids where they (and their parent(s)) were home. I just didn’t own a stroller because I didn’t have time to use one. My kids weren’t “latchkey kids” until they were at least in 5th or 6th grade. That’s what afterschool care is for.
My kids were highly socialized from as young an age as possible.
I don’t want to get into “mommy wars” with internet posters, either. There are plenty of other forums for that.
I don’t know how old you are, CAR, so not saying the following is about you, but I do feel that the younger Gen X cohort of parents and the older Gen Y crowd (the ones that have kids) are, for the most part, very well educated (many are still paying on student loans), yet they choose not to work and stay home with their kid(s). That is folly, IMO, while the interest racks up on their (often enormous) student debt due to deferments, partial payments and non-payment for periods of time.
Why even go to college if what you really want to be is a SAHP? Why not go later (or attend a training program) when your kids are in school FT if you later decide to want to work in a skilled job? How much is a college degree worth that has never been used and is now 10, 12, 15 or 20+ years old?
My generation didn’t waste money on college if what they really wanted was to be a SAHP. They simply married during or right out of HS and got on with their adult lives.
I don’t opine that most men require women (their spouses) to stay home when they previously were working and bringing in a good salary. I hear from them that things went downhill in their relationships when their spouses decided unilaterally that they were going to quit work and stay home with kids but refuse to curtail their spending below what it was when they were bringing home a paycheck. Often that unilateral decision to be a SAHP by one parent turns out to be the beginning of the end of the relationship.
If the higher earning parent makes at least $200K, I could see them agreeing that the other parent (their partner) could quit their FT jobs and stay home with kid(s). But even then, it is very difficult for a former career person to alter their lifestyle far below what it was when they were bringing home a decent salary.
The WWII Gen and the boomers (+ some early Gen-Xers) paved the way for equality for women in the workplace and did make a lot of headway in being instrumental in getting family friendly labor laws enacted only to result in LESS women of childbearing age in the FT workforce today.
I haven’t investigated the stats on this but based upon recent articles I read, I strongly suspect that the bulk of women in the FT workforce in the US today either do not have children or all their child(ren) are over the age of 16. The rest of the mostly overeducated crowd of mommies are home with their children. The poor women without higher education and with or without spouses and minor kids at home are working in all the service jobs (essentially grunt work)… PT, FT or both part and FT … anything they can get.
After all their sister predecessors have been through, why did the values of the younger generation of parents (mostly moms) change over the last decade-plus? They prefer modern conveniences and technology much more than their older brethren (many of whom retired with their own pensions) and all this stuff costs money (and many are indebted for their educations) but it seems a good portion of them would rather opt out of the workforce, ignore their debts and attempt to live on less.
