Hot on HuffPost Parents:
Teen Shoots Self In Face In School Cafeteria
Dallas Schools Excluding Girls From Movie Screening 'Not Out Of The…
The richer the country the worse off the kid
Filed under: Activities: Babies, Media
No doubt you've heard all about the UNICEF report by now. The one that ranks Britain and the U.S. as the worst places for children out of more than 20 developed nations. As always, these kinds of studies generate a lot of press, even though the methodology is a little suspect, and, as always, the findings too generalized to be of any real use.
But the one aspect I did find interesting: Richer countries weren't necessarily the best places for children. Why not? Because in general more money means more time spent in pursuit of money and less time spent with the kids. In other words, buying your kids all the latest stuff is not a substitute for simply hanging out with them.
We all know this old chestnut, right? But do we? Take a look at our affluent culture. Here in the United States, anyway, our ambitious, materialistic, every-man-for-himself thinking almost guarantees that spending time with the children will be undervalued.
This is why stay-at-home moms get such a dismissive rap. How dare we waste our education and stay at home doing "nothing" when we should be out in the workforce making money and buying bigger and better stuff. Why, it's downright UnAmerican.
I hate this thinking. I can't see anything more important than raising two happy, well-adjusted, productive future citizens, so I do it for free, thank you. And none of us need any more stuff. Ever see that bumper sticker that reads: "The best things in life aren't things?"
Any report that comes along to further make this point has my blessings.
But the one aspect I did find interesting: Richer countries weren't necessarily the best places for children. Why not? Because in general more money means more time spent in pursuit of money and less time spent with the kids. In other words, buying your kids all the latest stuff is not a substitute for simply hanging out with them.
We all know this old chestnut, right? But do we? Take a look at our affluent culture. Here in the United States, anyway, our ambitious, materialistic, every-man-for-himself thinking almost guarantees that spending time with the children will be undervalued.
This is why stay-at-home moms get such a dismissive rap. How dare we waste our education and stay at home doing "nothing" when we should be out in the workforce making money and buying bigger and better stuff. Why, it's downright UnAmerican.
I hate this thinking. I can't see anything more important than raising two happy, well-adjusted, productive future citizens, so I do it for free, thank you. And none of us need any more stuff. Ever see that bumper sticker that reads: "The best things in life aren't things?"
Any report that comes along to further make this point has my blessings.
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
RelatedVideos
-
Raising Your Girl's Self Esteem in a Princess-Free Zone
From the royal wedding to Disney, everybody loves a princess…right? No! Not all little girls want to wear dresses and play with Barbie. Now there's a place where they can go—no princesses allowed!
-
Reduce Homework Stress with Your Child
Education expert Ann Dolin discusses how to work with an easily frustrated child during complicated homework assignments.
-
How to Switch Baby Formula Brands Safely
Is it safe to constantly switch brands of baby formula? Dr. Jim Sears answers your question.
-
How to Find Balance as a Mother
Founder of Inspiring Moms, Amy Hilbrich offers a solution to the very common question: how to find balance in the life of a mother? She talks about ways to prioritize and to create your own "balance map".
SitesWeLove
- Site Map
- |
- Staff
- |
- Terms of Service
- |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Trademarks
- |
- Advertise With Us
- |
- About Our Ads
- |
- AOL Downloads
- |
- Contact Us
- |
© Copyright 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Aol Family
ReaderComments (Page 1 of 1)
2-15-2007 @ 8:22PM
Sadaft said...Ok, I read the summary of the report you provided in the link to your post. And I'm not really sure why you are leaping to the conclusions that you reach based on the limited imformation given. Taking the results of the study and framing it as a validation of stay-at-home motherhood is just trying to be provocative. And yes, I am a stay at home mom too.
I wouldn't be as quick to applaud this report. Their criterion are highly subjective, including their negative associations placed on single family households as a proxy for poverty and high-risk for children. Is that really a fair generalization? I think that's borderline offensive.
Also, some of the highest ranking countries were ranked as such because of their "more equitable distribution of wealth." To me, that translates into a more highly taxed, socialistic system that I doubt the majority of Americans would favor.
Thought provoking post, nonetheless.
Reply
2-15-2007 @ 8:40PM
SKL said...I think a key attitude motivating the UNICEF study is a belief that socialism is best for kids. Hence, take it with a grain of salt.
Reply
2-16-2007 @ 3:16AM
Julie said...Wow, you sound REALLY defensive about being a SAHM. Congratulations, you really ARE superior! Feel better now snookums?
Reply
2-16-2007 @ 8:49AM
Diane said...Just look around you at our kids today. Quite frankly it's scary. WE use to live in an upscale neighborhood and we're glad we're now in the country and downsized. We have little contact with the "keeping up with the Jones'" kids/parents anymore and it's great! The kids I saw being raised by "latch key" parents were a nightmare. Rude, diluted with themselves and their possessions, out of touch with the real world! Boy talk about disappointing and the saddest part, the parents think their children can do no wrong.
Thanks for the information as it only confirms more of what my husband and I know: MORE IS NOT BETTER.
P.S. I love being a SAHM ~ Wouldn't trade it for anything.
Reply
2-17-2007 @ 6:57AM
Jeanette said...3. Wow, you sound REALLY defensive about being a SAHM. Congratulations, you really ARE superior! Feel better now snookums?
Posted at 3:16AM on Feb 16th 2007 by Julie
Wow Julie you are so off-base and BITTER. Ms. Tilsner simply stated that raising your own kids is not a waste of time and resources, as many would have us believe. She is not even a SAHM - she writes extensively - and so I doubt she was trying to fish for some praise about staying home.
Not once did Ms. Tilsner suggest that it was wrong for mothers to work if they choose.
Julie, I think it is you who sounds sadly defensive and unsatisfied.
Reply
2-17-2007 @ 1:39PM
SKL said...I really don't think the post was about the virtues of SAHM. There is absolutely no evidence that being a SAHM leads to healthier, happier kids or productive adults. If anything, I've seen the trend go the other way, though I'm not knocking SAHMs either - just acknowledging that being a SAHM isn't necessarily correllated with being a wise parent.
I think the point of the blogger's post was to note that in rich countries, many people are more concerned about getting richer than about spending time with their kids. However, I will say that most of "comfortably" well-off parents I know have stay-at-home spouses. Moreover, I think the blogger's argument has limited scope, because it doesn't take into account the diversity of our country. Though we have a high per-capita income overall, we still have many people who struggle to make ends meet even with two incomes. In addition, we have many single parents - they have little choice but to work. And furthermore, I think we have a higher fertility rate than some of the countries (many of them also rich, by the way) that ended up toward the top of the rating list. Thus, many US parents have to work harder to provide the basics to their children.
I think UNICEF is really criticizing us for not charging higher taxes in order to pay for more social programs that they think are better for kids (i.e., we should be more socialist in their opinion). Our philosophy is that socialistic policies are not better for the society in the long run. So as I said before, I take these criticisms with a grain of salt.
Reply