Moms at home

Apparently there is a lot of hubbub about a recent Michael Coren column, which is no surprise. Coren likes to be an SD and that is what makes an interesting column.

I have no problem with much of his thought - there are benefits for some children (some children actually have better outcomes in child care than similar children who are at home) and the role of a parent should be more revered in our society.It's the "should" that gets me. Should implies that one decision is right for all people. Should ignores the subtle differences between situations that can lead to various decisions.

Lip service is, as is usual for these types of columns, given to the necessity of some mothers to be in the work force.And then the usual argument that other people are just too materialistic and they could afford to have mom home if they just gave up some luxuries.

Yes, moms used to do this all the time. And Dads used to be able to get adequate wages with just high school diplomas. Income has dropped for most Canadians relative to inflation. I don't know that mom at home is as realistic as many proponents make it out to be. I honestly don't think a 2nd SUV is the motivation for most people.

But even Mom as full time mom is not really the norm that it is made out to be. Women have always worked to support their families. Our image of the full time mom is more a product of 50s and 60s TV shows than what has been reality throught the ages.The other reality is our economy as a whole. If tomorrow, all moms decided to stay at home with their children our society could not function. Consider just one area: health care. The shortage of nurses could only be worsened if all the nurses who are also moms dropped out.

Discussion of pros and cons is appropriate. Applying a should delivers a rhetoric that doesn't gel with real situations.