Many people think there's a lot of controversy around being a stay-at-home parent. I think that's overblown. People have different opinions, but I don't think the issue is as heated as some over-hyping rag-peddlers would try to sell it.
That said, it's my opinion that it's good for families to have a stay-at-home parent while the children are young. Usually, the stay-at-home parent is the mother, thus the title of this post. But this post isn't about whether or not it's good to have a stay-at-home parent. This post is about whether or not someone who already thinks it's good should be a stay-at-home parent herself.
To narrow the focus of this post, I will only address having a full time career versus staying at home. I will not address hybrid options, such as those where parents arrange their schedules to share duties or one parent works at home while also acting as a stay-at-home parent.
I know people who are of the opinion that staying at home is fine for regular people but a bad idea for the highly educated, driven, or capable. The "elite," they argue, have more to offer the world and shouldn't be limited by parenting duties. I disagree with that. Here are a few of my reasons:
- If your children don't have a stay-at-home parent, who is staying home with them? Family or, more likely, someone you hired? Is that person a good stand-in for you? If you think you are a particularly gifted person, couldn't you be a particularly gifted stay-at-home parent? Is the person watching your children as intellectually curious as you are? Does that person care about your children as much as you do? The person you choose to be with your child instead of you will have a profound effect on him. That person will affect your child's habits, outlook, speech, areas of interest, exposure to the world, etc. That person is extraordinarily important. That person could be you. Is that a position you want to outsource to someone who you, by your own reasoning not to stay home, deem less exceptional than yourself?
- If you live in the United States and are of average health, you have a life expectancy of about eighty years. Children do not stay very young for very long. Could you pursue your interests as hobbies for a time and pursue outside achievements after your children move out or at least enter school? If so, what's the hurry? The world will still be around when your kids are not.
- It's a common elitist attitude to think that if you're extremely intelligent or successful or creative or wealthy or beautiful or something else, the common rules don't apply to you. Societal strictures are for the little men. But does the world actually work that way? No trait confers harmony, emotional health, or fulfillment of potential on members of a family. Those things require work, and they are often overlooked. Perhaps family work is important enough to merit a sort of family CEO. That can be the role of the stay-at-home parent.
- If you already think that stay-at-home parents are a societal good, and this post is only answering these questions from the perspective of someone who does, what sort of society are you creating if you say that the most promising people should not be stay-at-home parents? If you contribute to the idea that the best and brightest are above the stay-at-home role, are you not creating a society wherein that role is not valued? Who is going to want to stay at home with their children if doing so is viewed by the culture as an admission of mediocrity? You can't help but shape the culture you're in. If you have a vision for the culture, a good place to start molding it is in your own house.
UPDATE: I just received this in my email. Maybe I should forward my blog post to Mary Elizabeth Williams.
