I think this says it all
"educating men on how much women are struggling. 20/20 did not interview a single dad about balancing work and family, which perpetuates the idea that this issue only impacts moms."

It is an issue impacting all families...not just women. As long as it is successfully marginalized as being a 'woman' issue, we will not have progress.

I'm all in favor of govt help for middle-class working moms. I am morally opposed to giving six-figure income moms paid maternity leave because they do not need that financial help. I'm hoping that Pelosi and the dems will not offer any tax help for the rich.

I forgot...as long as people qualify the issue by dividing rich vs. poor, middle vs. poor or whatever...we will not have progress. If progress (i.e., a cultural change) is what we want, then it should be for everyone.

Here we go again.

Why do we need to subsidize the CHOICE of someone to have a child? How about subsidizing the CHOICE of someone not to have a child?

One of the reasons my husband quit the corporate world is because he had a series of female bosses that didn't understand his need to be with his family. My husband took 4 weeks of paid paternity leave and then worked part-time for 4 months after the birth of both our children. After the first child, he over heard his female boss loudly complaining about his request to someone else -- "I never had it this good!" When our children were young they went through the typical childhood illnesses. When I had exhausted my leave and begged my husband to help, all he got was grief -- "Why can't your wife take the day off?" He finally gave up and quit.

I don't necessarily think that the answer is more female bosses. We need more compassionate people in authority.

Yep, seek your fun elsewhere. In case you didn't realize it, you're posting on the blog that deals with work-life balance issues for people who. have. children.

"educating men on how much women are struggling".

I would think that the 58million working moms are married to over 50million dads. Believe me, these men are fully educated on how much their working wives are struggling. The folks that might need educating are those who do not have working wives, and that includes some women too!

"Elizabeth Vargas, the co-host of ABC's World News Tonight who stepped down shortly before the birth of her second child this past summer, returned to work with a 20/20 segment last Friday called Mother's Work."

"20/20 did not interview a single dad about balancing work and family, which perpetuates the idea that this issue only impacts moms. This country can't -- or won't -- bring about positive changes until our husbands, male bosses, colleagues and politicians understand that making working motherhood so challenging challenges everyone."

Laying the blame with a pathetic guantlet toss squarely in front of the Y-chromosome sect seems a bit much for a closer when supermom Vargas I would assume had some resposibility for content of this news item.

We dont have universal healthcare either.

btw, I am all in favor of flexibility and productivity. Face time is a waste.

I'll weep my crocodile tears for power mom Vargas today. Poor thing having to "struggle" with the same issues the common folk have.

Mr. Honda,
I have to say my husband is educated, but I know quite a few husbands who don't do or understand that 'second job.' You know the job: the one where socks magically arrive clean and in pairs in your bedroom (ha ha). However, as long as this issue is seen as a women's issue, no progress will be made and progress is what this column is about.

Fun? More like hoping to educate people that childfree couples are impacted by financial perks given to those who have children.

While I'll agree that Ms. Vargas certainly has it easier than other women in the ways that count, I don't see why we have to pick on her and Leslie and other "six-figure" earners.
Would you prefer the wealthy (who are still human, by the way) just assume that because they have it easy, that they should ignore the poor and middle class troubles?
Maybe she realizes that even though she has it all and she's still tired at the end of the day that it must really be hard for those who don't have access to her luxuries?
Maybe since she's in a position to try to call media attention to working motherhood she's trying to do what she can to help elevate the national dialogue?
And finally, when people throw around this "six figure" b*tchiness, they ought to remember that in many areas of the country 2 people earning $50k equal a six figure income. Once you factor in taxes, mortgage/rent, car payment, daycare, student loans, food and other expenses those so-called six-figure people, while not in the poor house, may not have much left over at the end of the month.
It does no good for the national dialogue to complain bitterly that you'll take your ball and go home if a comprehensive childcare / parental leave plan helps everyone and not just the so-called working poor.

It goes back to what I said last week, that attitudes at work need to change. Oftentimes, both women and men are guilty of being the tireless trooper or the tireless jockey for position. They feel the need to be in the office and in the boss' face as much as possible to score those brownie points and get ahead. I remember at my old job, this trooper had a baby, and when the baby was a week old, she came in to work for a few hours and brought the newborn with her. Hooo-kay! In an office where often more than one woman was pregnant at the time, and leaves of three months were expected, was that even necessary?

Really, in the office, the support and lack thereof for working moms is on a case-by-case basis. If you're liked as an employee (read: "valued") then you can either be a trooper and not take much maternity leave or take three-plus months and be okay with the boss. If you're not liked, you can be a trooper and go unappreciated or take the time and be considered a slacker. That is what I have observed. That's unfair, and while I support laws to provide paid maternity leave, the attitude adjustment needs to accompany that legislative adjustment.

Oh, and since when does making six figures mean you can afford to take three or more months off work with no pay? I don't make six figures myself, but please stop hating on the six-figure earners. Like they say, don't hate the playas, hate the game!

This says it all to me: "Only 4 out of 168 countries do not have national maternity leave programs: Papua New Guinea, LeSotho, Swaziland and the United States. North Korea and Iran offer more support to working moms than America."

We can spend time arguing about rich, poor, middle, male, female, childless, whatever, but the bottom line is Americans are laps and laps behind the rest of the world on this issue. Thank you Leslie for initiating a discussion I wish would catch the attention of SOMEBODY in Washington!

We like to think America is so innovative and progressive and a world leader, but a report card like this is just plain shocking.

. . . and we are all connected to each other, in a circle, in a hoop that never ends. (My kids were watching Pocahantos yesterday.)

We are all impacted by the decisions of others.

to to unreal:
Flexibility doesn't have to have be a financial perk. Flexibility allows for choices to be accommodated: choices to have kids or not, support parents, participate in Katrina cleanup or other good works...

I see a lot of opposition to govt or businesses paying for maternity leave coming from two groups:
1) the childless
2) the "your choice, your responsibility" camp.

As for the childless, some will never be happy with any solution. It is very hard to pursuade them to "pay" to help someone else raise a child. This goes in the "too hard" bucket.

As for 2), any program will go down easier if you put some income limit on it. People in general are willing to help another if truly in need. No one's going to bear the burden for Ms. Power Mom to hire a $500/wk nanny so she can rake in her six-figure income to match her husband's. IHowever, if I give you a middle-class couple with 3 kids, a 10yr old car, living in a rental house for 10yrs, both parents HAVE to work to make ends meet, wouldn't you be willing to vote for some govt or employer paid maternity leave for her? There is some room for compassion, yes?

Help for the middle class, not for the upper crust.

The CHOICE to NOT have a child doesn't help society, not if everyone follows your logic.

Did you not take intro to philosophy, (or ethics, or polisci) and learn the categorical imperative? Do we want to encourage all people, in all places, to NOT reproduce? How will that improve humanity?

(Or are you perhaps suggesting that only the very wealthy should have children?

Or only those who pass an intelligence test at a certain level? Beauty pageants, perhaps?)

If you're seriously advocating rewards for the childless, you're advocating the death of humanity. Yes, really. By attempting to make parenthood easier on the parents, we're ensuring the survival of our species, and giving that next generation the best chance we can.

I don't even have kids, and I am utterly sick of this idiotic suggestion that having children is some kind of "you say potato, I say potahto" choice. It's what we DO. If we don't do it, we die out. Period.

Frankly, if I don't end up ever having kids, I'd like to see those who do a little better subsidized, to make up for the fact that they're shouldering my share of the next generation.

Men are not stupid! How can we expect men to invest more in housework and childcare if we focus on how "challenging" it is. The sales pitch might be more effective if we focus on relieving the men of the sole responsibility of breadwinning and the possibility of a more intimate relationship with their kids. I believe the goal should be equal investment in careers, equal time for recreation, and equal time with the kids. Once parents commit to equality in all domains the entire workforce will be unified in their desire for change on a political level.

yep (to Unreal):
I am trying to figure out where the perks are for those of us who have children? I get to use all of my sick leave to tend to other's illnesses, when my sick leave is exhausted, then I "get" to use my vacation time to cover any days I have to take off due to my own illnesses. Oh I can also work long hours to make up the deficit.
Gee, somehow the child tax credits just don't seem to have me feeling like I exactly rolling in the dough. After I factor in child care costs, preschool tuition, medical expenses (including private OT for my son, which is not covered by my insurance), I gladly put out approximately $12,000 a year for my two wonderful sons. (Note this does not even cover food, clothing, supplies or extracurricular activities.) So how am I reaping benefits from all of these expenditures? OH yes, I get unlimited hugs. Yep, as the Mastercard commercial says: "Priceless."

I missed the discussion Friday, but I don't understand the frustration about tax breaks for child care (besides the nutty "raise your own kids" argument - lost cause, pass this post by if you're one of those...). People (and companies!) get subsidized for all sorts of things - home ownership, college attendance, MOVING!, etc. Why aren't we more concerned that last year, fully 8% of our federal budget went to paying off the interest we owe other countries (Japan, China, etc.). That's 8% of the ENTIRE budget. Between that and the Iraq fiasco, a bridge to nowhere, pork, pork, pork - we should certainly be able to come together to support a break for parents who pay for child care (or elder care, I think I could be convinced we should get a break for that, too).

Re: the Vargas interview - the problem I have with this is something I've articulated before - she should definetely have included interviews with some men (perhaps, even her OWN husband about how HE copes with balancing...what has HE given up since he had kids).

I've been thinking about the whole 'mommy wars' issue (if there is one) and the way in which people divided into camps and attacked each other in the blog on Friday, and I think that the whole working parent issue in America is actually just a symptom of a much larger problem -- a lack of commitment to a common good, a lack of community.

Ideally, your national government would provide lots of services that you (thankfully) would never have to use -- VA rehabilitation for people who are wounded in a war, Social security payments for children who are orphaned, Medicaid for little children who are born with severe birth defects, tax relief for people who lose their homes in floods. As a society, most of us hope never ot have to claim those benefits, but presumably don't resent the poeple who do. We understand that as a community we all benefit from providing these things.

I recently realized that I feel the same way about daycare. I haven't chosen to use it much with my kids but feel that we benefit as a society by providing kids with high quality daycare. My childrens' schools are better when everyone comes in relatively healthy, fed and ready to learn. My children's teachers are probably better teachers for taking time out when they give birth and not coming back before they're ready. It makes me sad that the school busdrivers and cafeteria workers don't get benefits, because I worry that it affects their perceptions of their jobs and maybe even their ability to do them.

I think the keeping score that people do with regards to who got more and who picked up the slack and who did less in the mommy/daycare issue is perhaps not really even about that, as much as the perception that life in America is precarious without much of a safety net and so everyone spends a lot of time jealously guarding what's theirs rather than thinking about the community. I know the one elementary school where my kids attended that divided neatly into two camps (working vs. SAHM moms) was poorly run and lacking in leadership and I think the rancor among the parents was just a symptom of that discontent, rather than the actual problem.

The point is not six-figures as a magic cutoff. If it makes you feel better, let's raise the threshold to $200K/yr. My point is still valid - no help for those making $200K/yr. Help only those making less than that amount.

The point is - help those who really need it, not those who want it.

"Help for the middle class, not for the upper crust." But where do you draw the line? What if you end up being just over that line? I say no line at all! Do we really think there are that many $500K/yr women having babies or with small kids at home? I think we should offer this help to all.

When you chat with the working moms from other countries who take the paid leave, you realize that they will still stay in touch with the office. TELECOMMUTING!!! These women enjoy their jobs, but they also want to be at home for all of the firsts. Being a mom is exhausting, but being able to telecommute and at least work for a few hours seems like a pretty good compromise.

It just boggles my mind that people are so against tax breaks for childcare! Wake up! This does benefit everyone, yes even us "heartless child-free". I know it has been said before, but I would much rather see working families receive benefits like this than the already filthy rich corporation receiving tax breaks.
I would also be interested in seeing proposals that did grant flexibility to all...I would like to take a week off and volunteer for Habitat for Humanity.

I couldn't agree more with armchair mom. If everyone could stop worrying about what they get out of it and worrying more about making it a better place for everyone we would solve more of the problems all families face; fair wages, health care costs, childcare, etc.

"It's what we DO. If we don't do it, we die out. Period."

Um, we're not dying out. Indeed, families with 3+ kids are more than making up for those who don't procreate. There's a balance that needs to be struck there too. Could you imagine if EVERYONE had kids what the state of the world would be?

Whether it's conscious choice not to have kids, or those who biologically can't, there's a reason for it.

I have a strong feeling that Jokester is Father of 4.

Carol Evans from Working Mother said it all when she noted that 71% of moms work outside the home. This has created an economy in which most families are dependent on a two person income. Our government needs to recognize this. The fact that many parents do not have even 6 weeks of paid maternity/paternity leave is sad. This just shows where the priorities of the so-called family values initiative put forth by the "leaders" in government has gone. If families were truly valued, Senator Dodd's efforts to improve family leave would have been acted on years ago.

I'm sorry but since when are the lower middle class the only owns who have to pay for

Childcare
Mortgages
Health insurance
Food
Transportation
Student loans
Health insurance, etc

People who worked hard shouldn't be penalized for other people's bad choices. FYI-200,000 isn't a lot in DC.

Speaking of Father of 4 and the other regulars, what's happened to them lately?

Did you all run them off (again)? Huh, huh, did you, did you???

LOL!

Jokester is growing on me.

How about a sliding scale paid maternity leave? Pay for 12wks parental leave (fathers eligible too) at 70% for income <$40K/yr, 60% for $50K, 40% for $60K. Nothing after that. These figures aren't set in stone, just a rough guide.

Another point is that many employers offer voluntary short and long-term disability that pays for maternity leave up to 12wks at 70% salary. Employees pay the premium. So there already are plans to give paid maternity leave. Maybe the govt can pick up the premium? or mandate that every employee has this coverage? I'm sure the insurance companies would love that.

Kudos to Armchair Mom!

You should re-post that every hour on the hour today, so no one will miss reading it. You hit the nail on the head.

Did anyone else think her story was lame?

We know the issues--it's done to death. Why not look at solutions? And talking to fathers would have been useful and interesting, I agree with the other posters.

And I agree with others who say stop the rich vs middle class vs. poor. We're all in this together. Just because someone makes a "good" living, doesn't mean that they do not have the same issues. Yes it's easier to afford good childcare, but the lack of flexibility issues in the workplace are the same. I believe we should subsidize childcare--either directly as tax breaks to families, to business, etc. Also to subsidize excellent childcare facilities for poorer and middle class families. This is good for business AND families.

The problem is society's attitude toward women and work. I can see this anti work for women in a few of the responses above. Why can't a woman want to earn $500,000 and have children? Men do it. Be careful how you phrase your responses if you really don't mean to say that it's not ok for women to be ambitious. These attitudes lead to disparities in pay and promotion opportunities I believe.

I believe that we need to strongly encourage business to give families (and others) flexibility to take care of their families (within reason). Paid maternity leave, telecommuting when possible, flexible work start and end times, etc. can help. But this should be available to all who need it/want it (fathers, the childless caring for elders, etc). For a lot of businesses, it would make sense and make for a more happy and therefore productive workforce.

Doesn't everyone here realize that having kids and not having kids is a choice? If you have three kids and are paying more than the mortgage in child care, well, that is a choice that woman and her husband made - they need to deal with it instead of complain about it. If it is a problem, perhaps they should have stopped at one or two. Get a better paying job! If you don't have a job that can support three kids in day care, don't have three!
I know people who have had to cancel their cable TV and change to very cheap cat litter that the cats hate and turn off their land line phone in order to afford having one. In my opinion, if a couple if operating on margins that are that close, they might want to reconsider whether or not the timing is right to have a baby. They are awfully expensive.
Yes - I think that the workplace should be more flexible, but it should be that way for everyone, not just for parents.
There should be better child care choices, but it is easy to clamor for it, but very difficult to define it. I haven't seen anyone here define what excellent child care is. I suspect that there would be wildly differing standards. And what about the cost of such care - how many complaints would that elicit?
And it is not obligatory to reproduce. It is not doing humanity a disservice to remain childless. It is a choice, just as it is to have 3, or 7, or 12.
What I see in this column more than anything else is people complaining about a choice that they have made and how it makes their lives pretty difficult. I am not passing a judgment - I am just saying that there are going to be compromises. And yes, your ability to move ahead at work might suffer, but that, again, is a part of the choice you made.
I do not mean this as a tirade on people who have chosen to have kids - but I think that we have an entitlement issue here and the sooner those people who have had kids realizes they made a choice to do so and that they aren't entitled to any more than anyone else in the workplace, the better off we will all be.
I will admit that this comes from personal experience as someone who does not want kids but is tired of all the accommodations that everyone makes for my brother, his wife and three kids while not realizing that my husband and I have our own needs. We are not attending the family Thanksgiving precisely because of this - and we won't ever again until people figure it out.

In the DC area, $60,000 per year barely makes a family middle class. I can't begin to see how someone can make a mortgage on a house here AND excellent childcare. Stop pitting "rich" vs. "poor". Smart businesses would be interested in paid maternity leave for all.

koko,

I'd like to know why you think that if someone makes over 60,000 dollars that their kids are any less important than someone who makes under 60,000? What does money have to do with bonding with your child?

If there is going to be paid maternity leave, which their isn't, it should be for everyone who lives in the country, not just people of a certain tax bracket.

Your sliding scale still doesn't work for me. What if the woman is the major breadwinner? I have a good friend who makes $75K per year. Her husband is a teacher and he makes $30K per year. Under your scenario, she would get no paid leave and they would struggle to make ends meet. It should be 6 weeks paid maternity leave for everyone, across the board. To do otherwise is ridiculously complicated and unfair.

:) :) :)
OK, I'll raise it to $300K for the poor DC folks who have such high expenses. BTW, what is your net worth? :)

the point... again.... is, this assistance ought to be need-based. folks here want to pick at my rough numbers, but ignore the elephant in the room - NEED BASED. Just like the govt determines your tax rate, when to phase out your deductions, when to hit you with the death tax,.... all depends on how much you make.
So this govt paid maternity leave should be dependent on your income, need, net worth, whatever. I'm just saying the middle class ought to get it, but not the upper crust. That's the principle. I'm no govt whiz at determining what that cutoff is, just putting out some rough numbers to try to make the point.

that koko doesn't run the government.

Having children is a choice like choosing lifesaving medical care is a choice. Sure you can choose not to get medical care you need to live, but then you die.

And it's stupid to say "get a better paying job". People either work where they are happy or at the best paying job they can get.

And if most people are discussing these issues of affordability of childcare and parental leave, then it is a problem that we as a society should be addressing.

Sure having children is a "choice". But 90% of people is society get married and want families. It's an expectation and the norm. It used to be that families could be brought up with all that they need on one salary and that is not the case anymore. We should be discussing these issues and our government and business should be addressing them.

So, you are staying home from Thanksgiving and pouting because you think your family isn't fair?? Doubt they will miss you...

ok.... I guess folks here think that paid maternity leave should be available to both parents regardless of income.....

and all taxpayers should shoulder the burden to pay for this......

ok... you win.... i must have been bananas.

koko

Did the upper crust stop paying taxes or being US citizens?

"As for the childless, some will never be happy with any solution. It is very hard to pursuade them to "pay" to help someone else raise a child."

Koko --

You don't have to persuade them They already do pay to raise your kids. It's called "taxes."

Wow, not to be judgmental, but you sound really bitter that your brother had 3 kids. What a shame that those children won't know their Aunt since you refuse to attend thanksgiving ever again until your family puts "your needs" over everyone elses. That sounds extremely selfish. I wonder if you could put yourself in your nieces and nephews shoes. How would you feel as a child if your Aunt wanted her needs put above yours?

Yes, having children is a choice, but without them, society cannot go on. If you want to be a contributing member of society and give back as much as you take, I think you should reexamine your outlook on life. You sound very unhappy.

Weallmakechoices, thank you! I knew I wasn't the only one out there that had this mindset. I posed that question on Friday's blog, and no one really answered. If one child is more practical than three or more, than what's wrong with stopping at one?

I think it's because we're ingrained to want more in this society. More kids, too! But, as you said, if people are having to shave things that close, priorities need to be re-evaluated.

And, for what it's worth, I just want to say that I have no issue with my taxes going to maintain schools, etc. I know that would be petty and would impact everyone negatively in the longrun.

But I do believe the childcare issue remains the responsibility of the parents. And, if you're struggling with one child to make it all work, the logic is absent when you bring in more kids to the picture. Adding financial worry, stress and whining to an unbearable level.

Test

My previous post didn't come across exactly the way I meant it - it was a tad bit harsh in the 'entitlement' part. What I am trying to say is that neither the government nor employers owe anyone anything for having a child. It is a big bonus if the company you work for will give you some time off after having a child - I think it is a great thing (if we had a kid, my husband would get 12 weeks paid leave, which is pretty awesome - he wouldn't be able to use it, because of what he does, but it is there), but what people don't realize is that companies are organized around the principle of making money - it is not very productive to pay people if they aren't working.
Everyone points to the European countries as examples of countries that are pro-child - they are also pro-adult by requiring at least 5 weeks vacation (maybe not across the board, but a lot of them do) - and the employees actually use it. These countries have somewhat different philosophies as far as their economic models go, too.
There IS a long way to go here in the States as far as leave goes, but I don't really see it happening as long as our current economic model remains. Child care is different - there is a lot that can be done, but it will be very, very expensive.

koko,

okay, I'll buy into your plan, but people who make under 60,000 dollars can only have one child. That way they will have enough money to take care of them and the upper crust won't have to support them.

sorry to everyone ... sorry... i must have been bananas.

Having a child is a "choice?" Not for everyone! My husband and I went through 5 years of infertility and all the horrible medical treatments that entails. I became horribly depressed. My life came to a standstill. Having a child for me was a biological necessity that I would have never have imagined until we found ourselves unable to have one. We ended up conceiving a child on our own while waiting for our third and final IVF (but clearly other medical interventions helped along the way). I cannot tell you how basic/important having a child was/is for me. I suspect for that most people, they need children not just want them.

I agree with what some others have said, there should be no income limit. People automatically equate "six figures" as "filthy, stinking rich", which is not the case. Six figures -while I admit is nice and makes life easier than making minimum wage- does not go very far in many areas of the US. This includes Washington, DC. Those that make "six figures" still struggle with healthcare, insurance, college funds, caring for children and finding life/work balance. It may not be on the same level as those at lower incomes, but I assure you it is there.

Further, if (some) people continue to make it an us vs. them choice, rich vs. poor, etc., you are going to lose the consensus needed to effect change. Most people are not going to unite for change with people who want to deprive them of a benefit solely b/c of how much they make. Just the way it is. Like it or not, a certain amount of self-interest is basic to human nature.

Everybody ready?

Hey W A M C -

What exactly are your needs?

To all readers:

Koko got on my laptop and started typing. Sorry for his postings. We have implemented the appropriate safeguards and it will not happen again.

The Gorilla Foundation.

"I will admit that this comes from personal experience as someone who does not want kids but is tired of all the accommodations that everyone makes for my brother, his wife and three kids while not realizing that my husband and I have our own needs. We are not attending the family Thanksgiving precisely because of this - and we won't ever again until people figure it out."

With your ugly attitude, I'm guessing no one will miss you.

If you do not want kids, why read and post on this blog? "RaiseYourOwnKids" and "weallmakechoices" are offensive and only serve to add to the divide between people with and without children.
None of us would say we want someone else too raise our kids. We can all do a fine job, regardless of our individual situation. Unless you have kids of your own, you will never understand the love a parent has for their child. Why don't you stop being so judgemental and either start contributing positive solutions or get off the blog.

"Gee, somehow the child tax credits just don't seem to have me feeling like I exactly rolling in the dough."

That's not what they're meant for.

jhtdtf hgjf k

h e l p

lknkbjnbm

To weallmakechoices and raiseyourownkids, or whatever those usernames are:

The CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE works something like this. When you're deciding on a choice of action, you can determine if it a correct choice by applying it to everyone, everywhere, under all circumstances. It is not a rule per se, it's an analytical tool.

So let's say I want some earrings. I don't have the money for the earrings, so I need to decide either to steal them, or to live without earrings. Should everyone steal the accessories they can't afford? How about food? If I wanted/needed food, how should I get it if I don't have any money? Should everyone who can't afford food steal it?

You can get some great discussions going with 18 year olds about this. There's no right answer, usually, except in the simplest cases, like whether or not we should all steal earrings.

Ok, so kids: You're saying that no one should get any help from their society in raising kids. If you can't afford to pay twice your mortgage amount on day care, (or whatever the norm/standard is where you live) no kids for you. So here's where the categorical imperative comes in. Do you really say that everyone should err on the side of no kids if they can't afford to raise them with no help from society? OR do we prefer an imperative to society: everyone who wants kids should have them and society will help support them?

One imperative leaves us with too few people to carry on the workings of society, and eventually, humanity. The other could leave us with too many people to feed. We don't have the second problem, so we should probably be thinking about the first one.

So please, PLEASE stop saying that having children is a choice. On a societal level, it's not. It's an imperative. The alternative to an environment which supports and celebrates children and families is too awful to comtemplate. If you haven't ever lived in a negative-population-growth country, you can't know how truly terrifying it is to watch your society circle the drain like that. Please don't wish that on the U.S.

To:

To weallmakechoices 10:45:

I am perfectly happy, thank you. I am just tired of people excusing my brother's behavior on 'he has three kids and he is a doctor' - well - I have two dogs, one of who is ill, and we have our needs, too - and no one has asked us what it would take to make us comfortable when we are all around for Thanksgiving.
If I don't know my nieces, well, that is my brother's fault, not my own, because I certainly have made more effort than anyone else would given the situation.
There are times where it is perfectly reasonable to put one's wants above those of a child's - there are times when the child's wants NEED to be put first, but always doing so only teaches that child that the world revolves around them. That is not the issue here.
For too many people, having a child is not thought of in rational terms - there is that 'ooh - they are so cute and fun' thing - not the 'is it a good time financially, emotionally, situationally? Would it be better to wait until we are more secure in above ways?' There is too much irrationality and not enough common sense involved.

"I know people who have had to cancel their cable TV and change to very cheap cat litter that the cats hate and turn off their land line phone in order to afford having one"

I am laughing really loud about the koko remark, but this is also funny! They are cats people, if they don't like the kitty litter to bad!

Ah, what would the holidays be without a good boycott?

WAMC, your Thanksgiving drama really emodies the spirit of the season. ;> If that's your choice, fine. Just don't be bitter about it. Life is too short.

Drmom-

I'd like to know exactly what I said that was offensive?

Perhaps making suggestions that people not have more kids beyond their means?

Sorry if that's just too much common sense and logic!

The part I think is lost on the childless camp is this: These children are our future, they are needed to run the country, buy things, fix things, help people, pay taxes, defend our country etc etc. They are the future society, a country that has no children has no future. That is why we should "subsidize" parents. The real drain is on those who just want to live and die enjoying the fruits of what others sacrificed for.

When you compare kids to animals you lose all credibilty.

My biggest exhaustion is that I simply do not have time for it all. Invariably, I have dirty dishes in the sink, laundry that needs folding, floors that need mopping. I have a five your old boy and a 30-year old boy, so don't get me started on the condition of the bathroom ;) I wish I could have a house that looked as neat and tidy as all those sitcom moms, but then I remember, that is fantasy; those aren't even real families! Real working moms constantly face a deficit, in my experience, the housework suffers first and most frequently.

The biggest compromise I have had to make is tied closely to my role as mother AND wife. I simply don't have the time to devote to my interests (painting, drawing) and my career choices have been sharply curtailed by the shared goals my husband and I have for our family. It isn't so much that I regret not being able to pursue employment in a field that stimulates me, but I feel that I have no choice because fininacially helping my husband so we can have our 1300 sq ft home, food for our children, is more important than my dreams or personal satisfaction. I guess what I am trying to say, is that the well-being of my family (emotionally and financially) is more important than my personal well-being. And, like all the movies that suppose alternative lives if we had only made different choices, I wouldn't have my life any different than it is now.

Still, it does seem to me that there would be greater opportunity for me as a woman and a person to focus more on my interests and my goals if I could have a more flexible schedule and less financial stress. Now, there are some who would say, "Oh, you are so selfish, wanting to focus on your desires. You CHOSE to marry, you CHOSE to have kids, shut up and be happy with the CHOICES, you have made." TO that I would have this response. I am THRILLED to be married to the most wonderful man in the world (yes, ladies, I married him) and I love my children and consider my role as a mother to be the most important thing I will ever do. But I did not CHOOSE to lose my own identity in the process. Economic reality made that choice for me. ANd to those who complain that "paying" for these family friendly ideas penalize the childless and benefit families with children, I would point out that my children will be paying for your golden years by working to sustain our economy and "paying" for the government funded or sponsored programs and projects that make your life a little easier.

SLP:

I am sorry about your struggles with infertility - but if you had a NEED to have a child, that is fine. I just hope it was a good time for you financially and otherwise. That is all I am saying. There is a time for everything.
The difference between NEED and WANT is an interesting one - one that might be discussed sometime here. There are issues, too.
Listen, I don't mean to sound like I am anti-child or anti-anything - I just want people to accept responsibility for their choices and to approach things rationally. I also want people to realize that people without children have needs and desires just as much as those with children do - but we are overlooked in the debate.
I may have a kid (adoption only), but it will be at a time that is good for us, not because I NEED one.

Oh - and yes - my mother is very unhappy that we won't be there for Thanksgiving, as our other family members who have called and asked us to reconsider. The situation is far more complicated than anyone here could realize and there is an awful lot of pain on many sides involved, so please don't condemn me for sticking up for myself in this situation.

To LM in WI - well put. Thanks for the insight into a "real" family's life.
And..thanks for having kids! ;-)

OK, completely off-topic, but I just read this in the NYT Metropolitan Diary (admittedly, I live in Cleveland, but still enjoy it):

Dear Diary:

Walking along Fifth Avenue early on a Monday morning, I overheard an intense, animated conversation between two suit-and-tie Masters-of-the-Universe Wall Street types:

Master of the Universe No. 1: "So you wrapped it up on Friday night?"

M.O.T.U. No. 2: "Yep, it's all done."

M.O.T.U. 1: "Well, that's great. Congratulations. I know it was a lot of work."

M.O.T.U. 2: "Yeah, thanks. We put everything we had into it."

M.O.T.U. 1: "I'm sure you did!" (Long pause). "Bottle or breast?"

M.O.T.U. 2: "Breast."

M.O.T.U. 1: "Excellent!"

Why, why, why do some people get so much pleasure out of the notion that others deserve to suffer because they made stupid choices? I am the first to admit that my child was not brought into this world as a result of any "rational, common sense, logic" and raising him was certainly beyond my financial means at the time. (I believe I've posted before that I was a teenage mother.) It is easy for people to shake their head in disgust at my situation. But how does it help anyone for the two of us to live in poverty because I might have made a poor choice?

Rebecca, thanks! Very cute.

One of the things that's especially cute is that the MOTU assumes that once the birth is complete, it's "all done". Hee!

"the point... again.... is, this assistance ought to be need-based"

Koko --

You're so right about this. Childcare -- like college loan money -- should be allocated based on the circumstances and obligations of a given family's life.

While I don't think the gov't could extend paid maternity leave only to people who need it, childcare subsidy absolutely should be rationed based on family income, expenses, etc.

"But 90% of people is society get married and want families."

And 50% of them get divorced.

WAMC --
Thank you for your kind words. Believe me, I fully support people that do not want to have children (although I personally don't understand it). Nothing makes me sadder than to think about children born to parents that don't want them. While we were struggling to have children, it seemed that there were several stories on the news about teenagers that gave birth and tossed the newborn. What a cruel world at times, no?

tO:

to weallmakechoices:

If my having a pet that needs my attention makes me lose credibility with you, that is fine. I am not looking for it from you.

Listen - there are not any easy answers for any of this. I just wish that people with kids would realize that those without have needs, too, that often are not realized. I do think that having a kid needs to be approached rationally, and if child care is too expensive, well, then either don't or wait or figure out help from somewhere, but it is not fair for me to subsidize your child care or for me to not have the same flexibility that you demand in the workplace.

Let's all just take responsibility for our choices.

Now I have to go do something productive so I am not disappearing because any of you intimidated me - not the case.

WEMC's post is reminding me of a little situation that happened when my sister and parents were staying over. My sister (who lives two time zones away) was extremely frustrated when at 8:30 a.m., she stormed downstairs and yelled at my two children (who'd been trying so hard to be quiet) because "YOU PEOPLE DON"T UNDERSTAND THAT I REALLY NEED MY SLEEP!!" My parents and my husband and I were at the table and we all just looked at each other after she slammed the door and went back upstairs. All was quiet for a minute, and then my father came out with one of his best lines ever:

"Some days I wake up crabby, and some days I just let her sleep."

Having kids is not always a choice for people. Just ask the right-wing.
You're points are nicely put, WDC.
At the risk of sounding trite, children are the future of the world and we owe all of them the brightest future possible. That may be through helping parents out with childcare subsidies, improving education, or simply improving our attitudes towards children and those who chose to have them.
As a society, we owe it to ourselves to ensure our children are well-taken care of. Those who do not have children are part of society and would benefit from taking part of this.
Let's face the practical point that, our economy is such that it would not function without working moms and dads. What are we going to do to improve the quality life of everyone?

No - why not have all subsidies rationed by family income? How on earth would you do that - let's ration mortgage subsidies rationed by family income. Will we do that by the price of a house in NYC or upstate New York? Iowa or Miami? Sometimes the reason why people make a lot of money is because they pulled their acts together in high school, worked hard, got into a good college, got a good job, etc. You can't withold a public good from them because they work hard....how about police force workers who are on salary for X amount (which would permit them to qualify for a childcare subsidy), but working overtime puts them over but just enough to disqualify them?

Actually it shouldn't. If I can only afford one kid and that's all I have, but my friend has five and can really afford none, why should I be punished?

WAMC

Don't expect us to be able to read your mind into your family situation but you can't throw a story out there like that and expect everyone to know and sympathize with you. Don't bring your baggage (of which we know nothing) and apply it to the conversation topic and expect people to feel for you.

My husband and I are discussing children (we've been married 5 years) and I can definitely say that the fridged words in this blog are not encouraging - it sounds like we're going to have to go it alone out in the cold dark word.. very scary

I never once suggested that everyone stop having kids. That obviously won't be happening...

I just question why some feel it's necessary that EVERYONE have kids? I assure you, my contribution to the gene pool will not missed.

And if I am going to be attacked or considered as less of a person for doing so, because "that's what we're here to do." Then so be it. I guess my taxes, volunteering, advocating worthy causes have nothing to do with how it will impact the future at all.

There are other ways of fulfilling one's life and leaving a legacy than by having kids.

We kind of visited this a couple of weeks/months ago by comparing the US to France and other European countries with respect to free child care, paid maternity leave. I still think that we (American women) most likely have less access to those but have more access and opportunities for advancement in the workplace and are treated more (not completely) as equals with men. I doubt we can get both - which do we want since we have to choose?

KB, that reminds me -- We watched 20/20 the other night, and my husband was wondering if women in the countries who provide such wonderful maternity leaves and subsidized childcare and so forth attain the kind of professional success that women can (or at least are starting to) in this country. Does anyone know where I might find this information?

KB silver spring:
good point....

Myself, if there is such a choice, I choose to be treated equally.

However, if there isn't a choice, I choose to work for a company with equal benefits.

The decision to have (or not to have) children often cannot be articulated very well. I certainly cannot explain why, within the last few years, I have this overwhelming desire to be a father. I'm just fortunate that my wife has agreed to help me out in this endeavor!

IOW, having children is not always a rational decision that can be explained or understood. For some it is after a lot of thought and planning; for others it just happened, but I hope that in either case the children that are produced are equally wanted and loved by their parents.

As for the subject of the discussion today, just because someone has a six figure salary doesn't mean they still don't have high mortgage costs, etc. Everyone doesn't live in homes that cost the same, after all.

What does "why should I be punished?" mean? Who is punishing you? How? Taxes on one's payroll/income are taking something you earned. The government allowing you to take pretax dollars for something just permits you to keep more of what you own. If you have a problem with how much the gov't. takes broadly, take it up with the government, not in a "why should I be punished" manner. Let's stop agriculture subsidies! Why should I be punished for not farming? Let's stop mortgage deductions! Why should I be punished for owning a home (or two, or three). Let's stop Lifetime Learning Credits - why should I be punished for choosing not to go to college? Let's stop funding the VA hospitals - why should I be punished for not signing up to join and serve in the army?

'My husband and I are discussing children (we've been married 5 years) and I can definitely say that the fridged words in this blog are not encouraging - it sounds like we're going to have to go it alone out in the cold dark word.. very scary'

I don't think this is necessarily true. You won't be going it alone - I am not sure about what point you are trying to make but I hope you make the right decision for you and that you are very happy.

Back on topic, I do think childcare subsidies are a good idea - and yes, they are already available to the poorest people (I speak from experience). I don't know where the line should be drawn in terms of income (if at all). I think people are inclined to give too much credit to those who "get a good job". It seems common to hear "why should I be punished because I worked hard to become a fill in the blank?" but it can also be looked at as "why should you be rewarded because you chose a career that the market might put a higher dollar value on?"

I meant for NOT owning a home.

To weallmakechoices,
Yes, choosing to have children is a choice. Does that matter? The big picture is why is there no structured maternal/paternal leave program in this country. Lets actually start supporting each other instead of bringing each other down. Why aren't people here questioning how North Korea and Iran can have better programs to support families than the United States.

What in the world is wrong with people? We are all in this together! The children of today, whether from poor families or rich families (or that more frequently elusive middle class) are all going to be in control of our country in a few decades. Bad-mouthing "rich" people and saying they and their childen don't deserve help or tax cuts or that their lives are "oh, so easy" misses the entire point of this blog! Parenting is hard work - worth it - but really hard work. Having money MAY make portions of it easier, but the trade off of having "extra" money because both parents work is not an easy choice for anyone. And money is not the cure for all that ails families. My gosh, some of the most disfunctional and least happy families out there have the most money. The working poor have it the worst, no doubt, and single parenthood, WOW, I can not even imgaine how tough that is. Regardless of where you fall in the social-economic spectrum, we should all have compassion for our fellow parents. Being angry and nasty because you perceive someone as "better off" than you, does not give one leave to denigrate others. Also, you never know what kind of family commitments other people have or where they may give their money. This country does need to do more for families, for ALL families. Our children are our MOST PRECIOUS COMMODITY and we should do much much more to make sure that all our children, regardless of the economic status of the parents, receive excellent daycare, excellent schooling, and that their parents receive the support and help that we ALL need. Bbad mouthing each other will definetly not help us get any closer to a solution for all of us.

Careful what you ask for: Just a quick thought that occured to me. If the government mandates paid maternity leave, would corporations be less inclined to promote and advance child-bearing age women to higher positions and higher salaries for fear of paying more if/when they take maternity leave?

Also IMHO:
My colleague is on maternity leave until end of January - I am 100% picking up her work. I don't mind too much. However, I don't have kids, nor can I have kids without serious health risks. I am very happy for her and her family, however...I get to work without any days off this entire holiday season, with double work load during the busiest time of the year. Maybe a little bump in my salary in the interim would be nice, but the theory is I can have the maternity leave if I need it so no raise, since she would cover my work while I am out.

You just sound dumb. The point is that people shouldn't have more kids than they can take care of. I am being punished when I have to pay full price for day care so someone else can have as many kids as they want and pay next to nothing.

The country will always face some budgetary constraints. My personal point of view is that the deficit we are raking up for the next generation is also cruel. When we talk about increasing programs we need to think about the costs.

I don't think that many of us without kids resent paying for public schools, etc. What I do have some trouble with is the lack of realization here that we are not a limitless resource. I am an academic who lives in a 1-bedroom, without cable, luxury vacations, etc. I pay 1/6 of my income to the feds - a coworker with a stay-at-home wife, mortgage, and a few kids pays nothing. This is fair - but there is still a limit to how far this logic can be pushed. While I don't have obligations to offspring, I also don't have the help/backup of spouse. The idea that I (and others in my boat) should pay for the next generation so that upper income earners are "not punished" seems a trifle harsh. Most of my dual-income friends have more than I do in the material-luxury department even with their childcare expenses.

I think one of the reasons people get riled up about the cost of things is the difference in quality between so many child care programs. The subsidies as they exist now pay a rate that's dependent on the area's cost of living. If the subsidies were offered to all, poorer people could continue to choose programs where the subsidy pays the full cost of daycare, and wealthier folks could choose (if they wished) more expensive programs and pay the offset out-of-pocket. I personally think this is still a solution that would help everybody (disproportionately, as everything does), but it would be nice to also address the "quality" part. But I can be patient - it takes baby steps in this country where so many are paranoid about socialism :)

Sorry for coming late to the discussion -- but I wanted to second Leslie's point about the stunning lack of mention of men.

I wasn't bothered by the lack of single dads, but I was bothered by the fact that not only were the spouses of the working women not interviewed, they never appeared on camera (Vargas profile three moms -- two of whom apparently had husbands -- and showed a montage of what they did all day, from waking up to making lunches to serving dinner. In not one montage did a father even appear in the frame).

If we're serious about changing the conversation on balance, we have to start asking (or showing) where the husbands are. But though Vargas gave a shout-out to her hubby, that was it for the idea that fathers have a huge part to play in the work-family dynamics that their wives face.

Just wondering why the Vargas piece was not more balanced (show the dads too). Bad journalism to show only one side of the story, but that's what she needed to get her point across.

"We can all do a fine job, regardless of our individual situation."

That is a ridiculous generalization.

It sounds like the mothers Vargas interviewed either did all the child rearing and housekeeping themselves, or the father was told to deliberately stay out of the camera because this was a focus on women's issues. If the second reason was correct, then someone dropped the ball in production. My wife and I work equally around the house and will continue to do so when we have a child. It just seems fair to me...

Brian,

I agree and I think that most husbands know that it is hard to be a working mom; I mean most of them are working dads too. My husband is great, he cleans, supports my efforts to go to school, is great with our daughter, etc. I know that some women don't have this, but I hate the generalization that most men are oblivious to working mothers.

Oh, and to those of you who believe that you, by choosing not to have children, should not have to contribute to this issue, or have no stake in the problem of affordable child care - uuhhmmm... just WHOM do you think is going to be contributing to your social security and deciding how medicade/medicare and taxes will be applied to the elderly? and be your doctors and nurses? your pharmaceutical CEOs? your elderly aids and those running your hospitals? your Congressional Representatives and Senators? WHO will be running your WORLD when you are old and gray? ANSWER: the children of today who YOU don't care to ensure have adequate and high quality care (whether parental or other). Maybe they will not care that you have adequate and high quality elderly care.

... --- ...

... --- ...

... --- ...

to Cameron: read my post above - if I did not know so many wonderful parents offline this blog would give me a hideous impression of the general selfishness of parents. I never married & had kids - and consequently I am able to spend many extra devoted to students, helping family & friends, etc. than I could if I was also tending children. My contributions to the next generation are different - but they are not nonexistent. I also think it is possible for parents to get in a trap of what worrying about what is best for their kids rather than globally the next generation. The gas-guzzling SUV, mcmansion owners, are not generally single women :)

You're right about that, however, I am concerned because as a whole, we are also quite far behind other countries in revering and caring for our elderly.

Children are the future, and the elders are our past. It would benefit us all to learn a few things from them--particularly in regards to the cycle of history.

Anyone else as worried as I am about getting old and dependent on others?

another boring rehash of the same beaten to death topics. the same fools complaining. only fresh air is Jokester and Koko the gorilla.

"Having a child for me was a biological necessity that I would have never have imagined until we found ourselves unable to have one."

SLP --

So, you're saying that having a kid wan't all that important until you found you couldn't have one. Then you wanted one. Then it became a life-or-death issue.

Do you have any idea how many people have coped with childlessness through acceptance and adoption?

All those folks (like you and your husband, I guess) who are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to MAYBE conceive their OWN child could have spent the money instead on adopting an existing child who needs a home.

Sure, it's a disappointment not to be able to have a kid if you want one. But life is like that -- you don't always get what you want. Why not turn that disappointment into something useful?

Sounds like maybe you needed some counseling to deal with your extreme mental anguish.

To all raise your own kids out there-
The reason the government gives incentives to families to rear kids, is because they are the future of this country. Immigration only makes up 40% of the US growth. The other 60% comes from children born of US mothers. It is in the best interest of society, to provide an atmosphere that is condusive to child rearing. If children were negative to society, the government would be giving incentives against having children. Children are a multi billion dollar year industry. Not only are they the future tax payers, military personnel, civillian job market, they are also the consumers of today. Also it is stated the most financially lucrative hhld situation is a DINK( dual income no kids). So they are already financially properous on average. What more do you people want? Will you not be statisfied till you hold all the money in the country? As for the question of one child, actually I think that is a good one. I don't know what circles you are running around in but most of my highly educated two income professional couples that I know do limit their family to no more then 2 children. Most choose 2 children due to the benefit of providing a sibling to their child. But lots of people (approx 20%) are choosing to have one child. So I don't know where you get off thinking everyone is popping out 3+ children. The average family size is only 2.05. So clearly lots of people are having one or two children. For the extreme end of the income distribution, a significant portion is choosing one based purely on a time issue. They have the financial resources to raise more then one child. But they desire more time with the child, more alone time, more couple time, more professional time, and a higher standard of living. DH and I are in that boat. We thought long and hard to go from one child to two. In the end we decided, that it was worth the time to go to two kids. The dependency stage is very short and truly an enjoyable time for parents. The money was the least of the problem. On the last note, regardless of money, some larger families have a lot to offer our society. Having one or two truly indulged children is not always the perfect model.

"Maybe a little bump in my salary in the interim would be nice, but the theory is I can have the maternity leave if I need it so no raise, since she would cover my work while I am out."

Prior to your colleague going out, when it was clear that you would be expected to do her work too, you needed to talk to your supervisor and ask for compensation. It may not be too late. You should not be asked to shoulder the burden without compensation or at least some consideration for temporary help with the work. Don't be a martyr.

"Maybe a little bump in my salary in the interim would be nice, but the theory is I can have the maternity leave if I need it so no raise, since she would cover my work while I am out."

Prior to your colleague going out, when it was clear that you would be expected to do her work too, you needed to talk to your supervisor and ask for compensation. It may not be too late. You should not be asked to shoulder the burden without compensation or at least some consideration for temporary help with the work. Don't be a martyr.

"Maybe a little bump in my salary in the interim would be nice, but the theory is I can have the maternity leave if I need it so no raise, since she would cover my work while I am out."

Prior to your colleague going out, when it was clear that you would be expected to do her work too, you needed to talk to your supervisor and ask for compensation. It may not be too late. You should not be asked to shoulder the burden without compensation or at least some consideration for temporary help with the work. Don't be a martyr.

oops, sorry that my post showed up 3x

This is like De Ja Vu all over again. Like Leslie pointed out - we just had this discussion - but now that ELIZABETH VARGAS has done a "special" on 3 working mothers we need to discuss this again. Does anybody give any men any credit? The mere fact that she interviewed 0 men in itself shows how biased her peice was. Are only mother's raising and caring for children? The premise of the discussion is faulty - so the ensuing discussion is also faulty.

I am standing by my personal responsibility rant from the last discussion. You bring a kid into this world - you should be able to take care of it. People make sacrifices all the time for their kids - but I don't ever see them highlighted in Leslie's forums. Day after day it is "Warton school panel," "Wall Street Moms," "Elizabeth Vargas says (wa-wa-wa)" GEEZ! Do Leslie's examples represent the overwhelming majority of the working women in this country who are are NOT posting on this forum, or the small minority who "want it all" despite the costs associated with having a family?

"It is easy for people to shake their head in disgust at my situation. But how does it help anyone for the two of us to live in poverty because I might have made a poor choice?"

Takoma Mom --

I hope that most posters on this blog would agree that you are precisely the kind of parent who should enjoy access to subsidized chldcare and other financial assistance from the government.

Many posters here have made the point that they don't like the idea of subsidizing people who make enough money that they can jolly well afford their own childcare. I hope that means that they are willing to help -- not denigrate -- people who have real need.

In any case, you're the kind of person I'm happy to see my tax dollars helping. I think your child(ren) will grow up to be compassionate humans.

Parents do make sacrifices all of the time. As some have said above, it is our hobbies and personal time that suffers. I have little "me" time and that is one of the sacrifices I make for family and career and I suspect most parents do as well.

Also, my and my husband's careers have taken many turns based on the needs of our families. My husband didn't take a job in another city b/c our family was happy where we are. These are sacrifices and families make them all of the time. These sacrifices don't necessarily mean that we can't "have it all"--a career and family. It just means that we make career and life decisions with our families as our first consideration.

With regard to childcare issues--it is still a valid and important discussion. The quality and cost of care affects everyone who is a parent. I make good money, but I still am anxious about the quality, the cost,etc. I can only imagine the anxiety it causes less affluent families. I believe businesses and government need to create policies that make work and home life better for families. It doesn't seem that our lawmakers even think about this issue and not enough has been done.

"At the risk of sounding trite, children are the future of the world and we owe all of them the brightest future possible."

Dr Mom --

That is trite. And "we" don't "owe" anyone a "bright" future. Where do you get the idea that children -- yours or anyone else's -- are entitled to a particular kind of future?

You have your kids, you raise them, and then hopefully you let them go to make whatever future they make. If, while raising them, you help to make the world a better place, great. But either way, their future is ultimately going to be in their own hands.

You can't guarantee a "bright" future, and you shouldn't. Don't deny them the right to shape their own.

to foamgnome:

Immigration may only account for 40% of growth, but it could account for more, there has been a decision to limit immigration.

I agree that a next generation is a vital thing, but your view of the childless as selfish is simple-minded. Some childless people are selfish and some parents are selfish. I have never found a particularly strong correlation on that factor.
Saying we need another generation is a bit of a canard since there is no global population crisis. I understand wanting an upper-middle class American lifestyle for your children - but I don't agree with saying someone who thinks (**by definition limited**) government funds should be spent on things like the AIDS crisis in Africa, combatting malaria, rather than on upper-middle class childcare subsidies is automatically a heartless wretch. Maybe we needed to spend more time thinking about how to help the children of the larger world - rather than getting your kicks treating Americans who happen to be childless as some sort of a lower caste of human being.

TO SLP- Please do not confuse need with wants. I can relate to wanting a child very badly. Society needs children to insure a future of a country or ultimately the future of the human race. But individuals do not NEED children. Orphans NEED families and parents. I think there is nothing wrong with choosing the path you took (fertility treatments). It is is your right to do so. But please, remember the person with real needs are the orphans. Not the childless couples. Childless couples have options to create families within their own control (adoption). Orphans are at the mercy of others.

to another childless : Sorry, if categorized all childless in the same bank. Clearly some are very giving. It just seems that a number of childless on this board keep complainng about incentives to be child free. So I was addressing them. As far as help abroad, I have nothing wrong with helping others abroad. I am not sure we couldn't afford to do both. The US has a lot of money. It is just a matter of priortizing the distribution of funds.

Jokester, you are the best! Are you Warren Jeffs?

"Having one or two truly indulged children is not always the perfect model."

This is true. And obviously what works for one, doesn't for the other. That compliments my comment from Friday that "one size does not fit all."

My whole thing is simply this: if you can afford them, and not complain about the costs involved with them, have as many as you want. It's the overextended ones who whine that I can't feel sorry for.

And maybe it's just the area in which I live, but I observe that most families I see have at least three kids. It's rare to see an only child in these parts.

We need the next generation of US citizens. It is irrelevant if people live in different countries. Unless, there is a mass migration from the over populated countries to the under populated countries, each country will have to implement measures to ensure population replacement.

To RaiseYourOwnKids: To be honest, most of my friends would prefer if childcare were slightly cheaper. But none of my professional two income couples, I know are advocating subsidies. Most of us know, we can afford it and are happy to provide child care to our children. Only on this board do I hear people advocating for higher subsidies (mainly tax breaks). One reason people have more then one child, is there is a lot of cultural pressure to have more then one. I was surprised how strongly people feel against a one child family. That is not the reason we finally decided to have another child. But it was really awkward explaining to people that we wanted one child, even though we could probably support 3 or 4 kids.

raiseyourownkids - what part of the country do you live in? I am in Alexandria, VA, and most of the couples that I know that actually have kids only have 1 - if they have two, they stop there.

I currently live in a suburb of Baltimore County--about 20 minutes from Baltimore. There's an interesting dynamic in regards to the widening gap between the classes. Right now, I live right on the edge of the more "upscale" area, where apartments go for $1500 a month or more.

I don't pay that for rent, but with the housing out here booming, it's well over going to be $1100 a month for a 2 bedroom apt when the increase takes affect in January. We simply can't afford that, so we have to look elsewhere.

And for the other side of the gap, not just 2.5 miles up the road, the housing is considerably cheaper, but in a rather seedy area. Sure, you can get an apartment for $600-700 a month (or sometimes, even less), and you just may well end up on the evening news.

It's scary how there's less and less of a middle ground anymore.

it's inteligent, kind, practical people like foamgnome that I encourage to have more kids.

R Y O K - $1,100 for a two bedroom?? Funny how different things are in our area...that would be considered quite a bargain here!

I'm in the childless camp and I really don't understand the antagonism toward dependent tax credit. Why NOT help people pay for expenses out of pre-tax money? If the amount hasn't been raised since the 80s it would seem more than fair to at least double it. I'm with armchair mom -- the government spends a lot of money on programs I hope to never need. One other thought about the dependent care accounts -- when they revisit the amounts (if they do) it would be nice if they included taking care of our parents in their old age. There are certainly childfree people who will end up with a reversal of the parent child relationship. Care for the aging doesn't come cheap either...

I admit to being curious as to why this decision devolved into subsidies for day care. I believe the real solution is flexible schedules...something for everyone that isn't tax related or income related...

And I agree with you about the middle ground....very scary. Some of the older folks who bought their townhouses in Old Town Alexandria many years ago and have paid them off, now cannot afford the taxes! Just doesn't seem fair.

It's people like F04 that should be discouraged from having any more, if any at all.

"One reason people have more then one child, is there is a lot of cultural pressure to have more then one."

I agree--but I don't understand why people feel they have to buy into the pressure--most especially if finances don't allow. I see a direct link to this "needing more" lifestyle with bigger houses, cars, and other material things.

Or is it because of the assumption that only children are spoiled? Some are, yes...but on the flip side, I've seen sets of siblings that were spoiled much, much more.

I was really quite surprised by the meaness of a couple of postings in response to my statement about my "need to have children." I stand by my opinion that I truly had a biological need to reproduce. And to the person who posted, "Sounds like maybe you needed some counseling to deal with your extreme mental anguish." Actually, I did say that I was depressed in my posting. I did ask my doctor for a referral to a mental health professional. Before I could make my first appointment, I found out that I was pregnant.

I have rarely posted in the past because I felt most of the posters were a little too intense and mean on occasion. I'll definitely think twice before posting my thoughts in the future.

Speaking of spoiled kids, did anyone see the article in the post on Sat about the types of cars Loudoun teens are driving these days? Its' enough to make your hair curl.

Elizabeth!?! I was hoping for Alberto... Never mind

RaiseYourOwnKids - you live in an apartment? how awful for you.

"R Y O K - $1,100 for a two bedroom?? Funny how different things are in our area...that would be considered quite a bargain here!"

Yeah, well it's beginning to look that way for here too. And it's even scarier when you have two salaries, very minimal debt (student loans and one car payment--NO credit cards!), and it's still tight!

"We need more compassionate people in authority."

Couldn't agree more, whether that means women or men of the "new" generation, let's get them into office!

Part of me (the optimistic part!) likes to think that it is a generational thing, and once the "boomer echo" has to deal with this in a big way, real changes WILL be made.

My boss is a 62 year old man whose wife was a Stay-at-home mom (SAHM) to their one daughter her entire life. When he wants to take jabs at me for taking off a few hours to chaperone my child's preschool field trip, he tells me I'm not somebody who is "resilent". The President of the company is the same age, his wife was also a SAHM to his two sons, he obviously has NO clue what it takes for a working parent to raise their kids. The Vice President of the company is the step-mother to two grown kids - hmm, yep - clueless! The HR Director gave up her "career" mid-way through to be a SAHM - her husband is a very successful 6 figure business man - doesn't get what today's parents are up against. She just can not understand why breastfeeding mothers would not want to pump in the bathroom and thinks the company would be setting a bad "precedent" if they made one of the empty closets into a pumping room. My gosh - the entire leadership of the company is from a 1950s "leave it to beaver" scene!

And shame on Vargas for leaving men out of the equation- I do truly believe that this issue will not continue to be stonewalled if men's voices DO start to be heard.

To Raise your own kids: I guess that is just the daily struggle. I guess it wasn't meant to be easy. $1,100 for a two bedroom would be a good deal in suburban VA too. But it is all relative. Good luck managing.

Somebody asked - Do women in foreign countries with long maternity leaves achieve high levels of career success?

Have you not heard of the predominatly female parliament in Sweden? Or the many examples of female Prime Ministers? Puh-lease - yes, a society that wants to support families is successful at doing so at all levels.

Where is our female president?

My wife bought short-term and long-term disability insurance from her employer benefit plan. It paid for 12wks of maternity leave at 60% salary. Though we could have survived w/o it, it was nice to have that pay.

Perhaps the first step would be for the govt to make this a voluntary benefit for all employees. At least then everyone (women) can get the 12wks paid maternity leave. Note, dads don't qualify.

The next step could be getting the govt (which really means "you" collectively) or employers to pay this insurance premium. But as we have seen, that is a point of contentious debate, which I don't intend to be a part of.

Mr. Honda, I have the short term disability insurance myself. We do offer it at my place of employment - we have to pay the premium ourselves, but it really isn't that much (of course, that is relative too..). It does help that my health insu