The governor of Mississippi said recently that America’s educational troubles started when women joined the workforce. Please, somebody, send him a copy of my new book when it comes out in September. He will be surprised to learn that test scores of federal exams have never been higher and dropout rates have never been lower. Or send me his address and I will send him an autographed copy myself.

Categories Corporate Reformers

61 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

Ang says:

June 9, 2013 at 2:50 pm

Lets do track him down and send him a book. However, I somehow get the impression that he isn’t going to let facts get in the way of scoring political points with his base.

Reply
Elin Hansen says:

June 9, 2013 at 2:58 pm

I raised my daughter on my own as a teacher. My parents were in her life actively until they died, she was 8 and 16 on those two occasions. I wish they had lived longer to see her successes. She graduated with honors from UC Berkeley in Architecture and is a practicing Architect today in San Francisco, CA

Reply
- neanderthal100 says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 4:14 pm
  
  No women have to defend themselves to this backwards politician!
  It would be like spraying a hose against the wind.
  
  Reply
- Linda Johnson says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 4:46 pm
  
  Almost all of my teacher friends, single or married, have very well-educated children.
  
  Reply
twinkie1cat says:

June 9, 2013 at 3:02 pm

501 North West Street, Suite 1201 A, Jackson, MS 39201 Gov. Phil Bryant

He knew he was in trouble when he came on the news and said it. He said he would be getting e-mails in the morning. Turned out they did not wait that long.

Mississippi, the state that strives to keep Louisiana off the top of the bad lists (along with Alabama).

Reply
Ken Mortland says:

June 9, 2013 at 3:03 pm

As Walt Gardner said, “Correlation is not causation.”

Reply
- Andrew King says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 4:34 pm
  
  Post Hoc Propter Ergo Hoc — one of my favorite West Wing episodes 🙂
  
  Reply
  - Ken Mortland says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 6:08 pm
    
    Glad you agree.
Michael Paul Goldenberg says:

June 9, 2013 at 3:09 pm

A governor of Mississippi who can read?

Reply
Laura Gonzalez says:

June 9, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Mississippi has had a few winners in the governor’s seat. Remember Haley Barbour and his little brouhaha over race? “Barbour appeared to minimize the oppressiveness of racial intolerance in Mississippi when he characterized the White Citizens’ Council in his hometown of Yazoo City as merely ‘an organization of town leaders’ that kept more radical anti-integrationist elements (like the Ku Klux Klan) at bay.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haley_Barbour#Social_issues) Yeah, right, Haley.

Reply
Yvonne Siu-Runyan says:

June 9, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Can this guy think? Bet he mouths sound bytes.

Reply
Andrew King says:

June 9, 2013 at 3:23 pm

I listened to the whole exchange. That’s not what he said. He makes a very real point. When both parents have to work, when one of them (mom or dad, doesn’t matter) is not able to stay at home with the child(ren) during those formative pre-school years, that child is more likely, perhaps, to miss out on some valuable nurturing and learning experiences and developmental input.

Michale Smerconish did an extended segment on this comment on POTUS last week. Predictably, many callers reduced the governor’s words to some version of “Women should be in the home,” etc… But he correctly pointed out that the Governor’s thesis did not *appear* to be such a socially backward statement, just an unfortunate sequencing of words. It’s telling that, as I Googled it to try to find a word-for-word full transcript, the first 100 or so search results all quoted only as far as “I think both parents started working. The mom got in the work place,” and went no further. Context is everything.

Seriously, does anyone really believe that kids are better off NOT having one parent in the home at all times in the years leading up to kindergarten? Mom or dad, who cares. Same deal.

To me, it sounded rather like the Governor was blaming the state of the economy that forces parents to work, sometimes both parents, sometimes multiple jobs, and takes the parents out of the kids’ early everyday lives and therefore out of the critical developmental window to an unacceptable degree.

People are also getting entirely too much glee out of this statement.

One has to wonder, if a governor from a non-Red, non-Southern state, without a southern accent, had said something similar, would there have been this much of an outcry?

I ask: is there a way for him to word what he wanted to say (as I have described it above) that would not have driven people so utterly bananas?

Reply
- Deb says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 3:34 pm
  
  You make very good points, Andrew. I think the word that is lost in all of this is “nurturing”. Kids need that feeling of security, of parental guidance, of trust, as well as of academic preparation. That cannot be achieved as well at a day care center, no matter how great it might be. And, there are some who use the grandparents as the nurturers, which is better than day care, but sometimes a burden on the grandparents. The point is that someone has to sacrifice something in order to give the kids what they need to be a fully functioning participant in society. I think this is across “class” and economic strata. If, for whatever reason, the parents are too busy to take care of the kids themselves, the kids lose something. They may gain something, too. They may become independent too early and they may do fantastic things with their lives. Either way, much is possible. However, one can’t replace love, no matter how the teacher tries. That love is different than familial love and security. But, then, we all define everything to suit our own perceptions. All I hear from people is “I can say what I want” because this is America … no matter if what they say or want is completely misguided. Everyone can talk. Not everyone can think.
  
  Reply
- Ms D says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 3:48 pm
  
  …and he is entitled to his opinion. Remember, he was asked HIS thoughts.
  
  Reply
- beverly mass says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 4:52 pm
  
  totally agree with you Andrew. ( you knew I would come around..)
  you articulate my sentiments on this one. and arne duncan wants at em in daycare with cradle to grave government servitude. Naturally the MSM would be salivating over this.
  
  Reply
- Stern Advice says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 5:36 pm
  
  I believe that you have an excellent point. We keep forgetting that Bronfenbrenner made this exact point years ago, and it remains true: the key to a successful child is the nucleus that is the family. Everything else is either one or two more levels away. So sad that reformers and traditionalists alike forget that student don’t do what teachers do, they do what they’re PARENTS do.
  
  Reply
- Stern Advice says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 5:37 pm
  
  Ugh. What their parents do 🙂
  
  Reply
- Joe Nathan says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 6:45 pm
  
  Before making a judgement, I’d encourage to listen to the video that was included. The Gov said considerably more than the 1 sentence for which he is being criticized.
  
  He also said that the importance of family nurturing was one of several factors. Unfortunately the tape cuts out there so we don’t know what else he listed as a factor.
  
  Also, there are some parents who don’t have all the skills and knowledge to nuture youngsters, so high quality early childhood ed can be a valuable part of the overall develop of young people.
  
  I don’t know if he mentioned that, but Robert Tellman also makes points with which I agree, and for which I think there is research support.
  
  Reply
  - Andrew King says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 7:03 pm
    
    Yes, but the fact that there are some bad parents is not sufficient to conclude that in general, children should be with a parent from ages 0-4. Think of all the other areas where one can get in trouble by taking a few sinister exemplars and generalizing about a class based on those…
    
    I wholeheartedly agree that extended family members, some facilities and programs, etc.. can often provide a good, nurturing option, and I’ll even go so far as to say, as Mr. Tellman points out, that some adult guardians do not act in the best interests of their children, some spectacularly so.
    
    And you are correct that “high quality early childhood ed can be a valuable part of the overall develop[ment] of young people,” but that cannot be forced upon a family, and certainly not at a cost to them. It kills me that full-day K and universal pre-K programs are being defunded all over the place (upstate NY is where I hail). To me, that’s just going backwards.
    
    But the default should be the parent unless shown otherwise, and, whether Mr. Tellman likes it or not, it’s not the job of the government or the school system or Social Services, nor should it be, for an outside entity to step in and make that decision, except perhaps in the extremest cases, and only then pursuant to rules, laws or resolutions that have been passed with community buy-in.
    
    I was a teacher for 20 years, and I saw parenting (or not parenting) that made me cry, but there’s NOTHING I can.could do about it, and nothing legally that could be done about it unless it is true abuse. this is by design — it prevents people (possibly like Mr. Tellman) from reporting parents whose child-rearing “style” seems unpalatable to them.
    
    is there a better solution? maybe.
  - Andrew King says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 7:04 pm
    
    “Yes, but the fact that there are some bad parents is not sufficient to conclude that in general, children should be with a parent from ages 0-4. ”
    
    Oops.. I meant “should NOT” Obviously… 🙂
  - Andrew King says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 7:06 pm
    
    I also think that part of the governor’s point was that the economic situation has stripped families of the ability to even make that choice.
- Robert Tellman says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 7:45 pm
  
  I can’t believe I called you the most vile of words- Ed reformer. I’ll go wash my mouth out with soap.
  
  Reply
  - Andrew King says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 7:51 pm
    
    Through confession you are cleansed. No need for the cilice. LOL
schoolgal says:

June 9, 2013 at 4:20 pm

My niece is a stay-at-home mom, but she has to keep an watchful eye on the budget and does a great job couponing. She has a knack for spending over $100 at the supermarket but paying less than $10 on that bill. And because she lives so far away, she can’t visit us as often as she used to before her daughter was born. My other niece starts work at 6am and is home before her kids come home from school. Her mother-in-law watches her youngest child and watched the others as well before they started school.
My nephew lost his job on Wall Street after the latest financial crisis, and his wife works while he watches the baby.

Politicians might think about ways to help parents who need to work to pay the bills. Raise the minimum wage. They might think about what caused our economy to almost collapse. They might consider why many Republicans aren’t supporting banking and Wall Street deregulation, and they should also stop giving tax breaks to charter operators and the well-funded TFA, and let the 1% pay their fair share of taxes.

Maybe he didn’t mean to point the finger at “moms”, but many employers won’t allow parents the time off to meet with teachers or attend a school function especially if they work on an hourly basis. No one wants to lose their job. And the schools can’t be moms, nurses, psychologists, babysitters and teachers. Wouldn’t it be nice if he developed a public school system that worked to help out the community instead of just testing kids to death.

Reply
Robert Tellman says:

June 9, 2013 at 4:45 pm

“Seriously, does anyone really believe that kids are better off NOT having one parent in the home at all times in the years leading up to kindergarten? Mom or dad, who cares.”

The more I read what you write, Andrew, the more I know you DON’T know. I seriously believe some kids ARE better off not being at home with a parent in the preschool years. Let me explain- have you not witnessed some horrible parenting? Have you not seen young children ignored while the parent is constantly on the cell phone, slapped around and called names and told to shut up when they are not even doing anything wrong? Do you not realize that some babies are at home and exposed to heaven knows what- things no one should witness, especially innocent children? Have you read the Hart and Risley study? I have seen “parenting” that makes me want to cry.

Somewhere in there you said the word “nurturing” but in your haste to defend the governor of Mississippi, you did not stop to think. Maybe there is a daycare worker somewhere who actually provides a more nurturing day than a child would get at home. You know, one of those lazy, incompetent teacher types who make a fortune and are part of the problem that you reformers are trying to fix.

For the record, I quit my job and stayed home with my kids until both were in school because I believe kids should be home in the preschool years with a nurturing parent. I distain parents who should never even be parents- whether rich or poor. Whether they be the ones who “have to work” to keep up a lavish lifestyle or ones who treat their kids like dirt, probably because that’s how they were treated.

In your rush to defend, please take a moment to think through and qualify your statements.

Reply
- Andrew King says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 6:43 pm
  
  I get that in loco parentis is better when the parent is loco (chiasmus rocks), but that is certainly not the default state. And would you rather the government come up with some Common Core standards for parents? And then enforced those? Sounds like it. You write “I’m all for all children being in the loving arms of a parent all day, but some just aren’t.” So what would you do about it? Search all families’ homes for evidence of insufficient love? Who’s gonna write that rubric? (Pearson! LOL) By extension, you’re all for the creation of an arm of the government that would assess whether or not a parent loves a child “enough.”
  
  And I did not rush to defend the governor of Mississippi. I rushed to point out a severe rhetorical flaw in the arguments against him. I don’t know him or his politics. He could be a total monster for all I know. I don’t have the time or the energy to point out all of the rhetorical flaws in your posting.
  
  Except to say this: “You know, one of those lazy, incompetent teacher types who make a fortune and are part of the problem that you reformers are trying to fix.” How dare you. You don’t know me. I was a teacher for 20 years. I’ve been fighting these fights since the early 90s. Schools need reform, hell yes, but don’t lump me in with the privatization wackos, the TFA crowd, and the militaristic libertarian/Objectivist “ban government schools” movementeers. You hurl personal insults instead of discuss issues. I can feel the anger in your tone; it does not serve you well.
  
  As for me, no post has ever made me angrier. Maybe some other poster can more eloquently and dispassionately engage your post on the level it needs to be engaged.
  
  Reply
  - Dienne says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 6:54 pm
    
    “By extension, you’re all for the creation of an arm of the government that would assess whether or not a parent loves a child “enough.” ”
    
    You should take up hurdle jumping with leaps of logic like that.
  - Robert Tellman says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 7:00 pm
    
    I apologize. I do wish we could weed out bad parents. I’ve just seen too much.
  - Robert Tellman says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 7:07 pm
    
    I too was a teacher for over 20 years. I don’t know what to do about people who bring children into this world that should not, but sterilization comes to mind.
  - Andrew King says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 7:13 pm
    
    Robert:
    
    No need to apologize! These are our kids, and passions run deep. I get it. No hard feelings. I get kicked around on this other blogs a bit myself, as I refuse to categorize myself as one thing politically or another. I read Ayn Rand, but I’m not an Objectivist, I voted for Gary Johnson, but I’m not a pure Libertarian. I despise the Tea Party overall, but I actually am sympathetic to about half of their platforms. I am an avowed social liberal, but I tend to despise most things that label themselves as “progressive.” It’s easier to deal with convenient caricatures than complex personalities and platforms, so I get conveniently categorized a lot. I try to take it in stride. I fail miserably sometimes. No biggie, no shame.
    
    You actually had some points buried in there; I was offended at your tone (and your insinuations, which still kind of sting, to be honest) more than anything. It’s okay… my grudges only last as long as it takes for my next set of lives to regenerate in Candy Crush 🙂
  - Andrew King says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 7:15 pm
    
    @Dienne: That was stylistic hyperbole for effect, not an assertion for argument’s sake. A careful reader can tell the difference. or will at least have the courtesy to ask first 😉
  - Robert Tellman says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 7:19 pm
    
    I guess I’m just in a bad mood because I live in Louisiana. I can’t say where I work but I am at the epicenter of teacher vilification. Again, I apologize.
  - Andrew King says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 7:23 pm
    
    Dude, I let my crankiness cloud my words from time to time. Don’t beat yourself up over it. But there are many, MANY epicenters of teacher vilification, let me tell you!
Gary Valiant says:

June 9, 2013 at 4:49 pm

After WWII, capital decided that it wanted two laborers for each middle class American household instead of one. Eliminate the middle class, and you don’t need the extra labor.

Reply
beverly mass says:

June 9, 2013 at 5:05 pm

i agree with andrew. people are in charge of their own lives, most young children are not better off in day care. the MSM loves to pile on something like this.

Reply
Robert Tellman says:

June 9, 2013 at 5:29 pm

I have always said I believed preschool children should be in the home and not in daycare. And I practiced what I preached. But that was before I saw what I have seen and realized some children are living in horrible situations at home in their preschool years (and beyond). Would not it be better if they had an 8-hour reprieve, only if the preschool or daycare were a better situation?

I just think we should qualify the statement and not be naive enough to think home is better. Yes, people are in charge of their own lives, but innocent children are not.

I’m all for all children being in the loving arms of a parent all day, but some just aren’t.

Reply
- Elin Hansen says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 7:11 pm
  
  And it’s not getting any better Robert. Too much war and the trickle down of that emotion into the home through TV, video games, but most importantly through a lack of parenting skills. When I was in high school we took Home Economics. When was the last time they offered this as a subject? If not this, then just good health care in general, and not everything can be fixed with a magic pill.
  
  Reply
  - Andrew King says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 7:28 pm
    
    I agree with everything you said, Elin, but attempting to legislate some of these things into a status that we might prefer (except for war!) gets into some very discomfiting territory in the Land of the Free.
    
    But at least let’s bring back Home Ec!
- bernie klein says:
  
  June 10, 2013 at 4:38 pm
  
  so “some just aren’t”.
  
  do you suggest kinderstransport? house searches? who decides who gets to keep their children? children belong to the community?
  
  some of you are surfing the razon here.
  
  Reply
Suzanne says:

June 9, 2013 at 7:02 pm

I’m beginning to think I don’t live in the U.S.A. anymore. I thought we prided ourselves on being a progressive society?

Reply
- Andrew King says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 7:20 pm
  
  I think “progressive” has become too loaded a word to be effective or meaningful. Also, like “liberal,” I think its meanings, or at least its associations, have changed somewhat over the last 100 years.
  
  The funny thing is, Suzanne, most Conservatives I know would also say “I’m beginning to think I don’t live in the U.S.A. anymore.”
  
  I know what you’re saying, though.
  
  Reply
Elin Hansen says:

June 9, 2013 at 7:06 pm

Diane, I’d like there to be a way to “Like” a comment.

Reply
phillipmarlowe2terry says:

June 9, 2013 at 7:55 pm

The big problem is the question leading upto the Governor’s response, The supposedly well informed Washington Post reporter based her question upon a false premise-that schools in America have gotten worse over the past few decades.
Things are not where they should be, but all kids can get a better education that what was given 30 years ago. The NAEP shows continual improvement, especially for minority and poor children. People like Michelle Rhee , Eli Broad, Ben Austin would like you to think otherwise.

Reply
2old2tch says:

June 9, 2013 at 8:02 pm

I was lucky enough to be able to stay home to raise my kids when they were little. I subbed in the local schools so that our schedules would be the same when all four were in school. I worked as a parapro before reentering teaching to get myself “up to speed.” Fortunately, we got all four kids launched into the world complete with college educations before we discovered that if you lose a job after fifty, you are not on anyone’s top ten list. While I would not want to give up that time with my kids, today I would have to think long and hard about not working outside the home. Having both parents work is a necessity for most people, not an indulgence.

Reply
Chris says:

June 9, 2013 at 8:46 pm

According the US Census Bureau, the number of single parent families has doubled since 1960. One third of all families are now headed by a single parent. There are many different types of families today, far more than the extended family/two-parent family idealized in the recent past.

To make statements like this is to denigrate the existence of these families and the people who make these choices or are forced by circumstance to live this way. Defending the governor by saying that the “ideal” family is two parents where one stays home tells 33% of America that their families are “less than” ideal and that they are at fault for the problems that plague our society. How is this helpful? How is it defensible?

During the same period real wages have stagnated and dropped, prices have increased exponentially, the rich have gotten far richer while the middle class has begun to disappear and the safety net has taken hit after hit. It may serve those who are defending the past that never was to remember that those halcyon days were anything but if your were a person of color, had a different sexual orientation, were poor or single, or a woman.

Reply
- Harlan Underhill says:
  
  June 9, 2013 at 9:06 pm
  
  It is defensible because it’s true. It’s helpful because truth is always helpful. The safety net has not taken hit after hit, but has been expanded. Prices have not increased “exponentially.” Careful with your language. You ARE however, completely right about Jim Crow in the south and social segregation in the north, homophobia everywhere, limited opportunities for women in the work place and the stigma of unwed motherhood. That those discriminations existed, does not, however, change the realities of what children need to develop happily and healthily. You seem to assume, Chris, that the state can supply the absence of parental responsibility. It can’t, but no one wants to go back to the “good old days.” The new freedoms of women and blacks are built into society now. But what has not been recognized by the politically correct crowd, that underlying the two parent family were principles of individual responsibility that alone can make productive citizens. As long as the child care person is a good role model, the changes shouldn’t produce bad children automatically. Those in alternate families really have tremendous odds to overcome, not just because they are alternative, but because raising children is really, really hard and takes people partnering. Anyone of good character can raise a good kid, whether single, gay or lesbian, or heterosexual families. It has to be an act of personal will and self-sacrifice.
  
  Reply
  - Chris says:
    
    June 9, 2013 at 9:36 pm
    
    Harlan, your post is so full of wrong I can’t take on the challenge of dealing with it tonight. I’ll just say that no, I did not assume the state could or should do anything other than recognize the reality of today and speak and act accordingly. I also pointed out that there are lots of reasons for the appearance of educational “failure” that are not directly attributable to single parents.
    
    You speak as if the problems of women, blacks, and gays have been solved. They haven’t. And they play a part in educational outcomes. Harlan you oppose all government programs yet expect somehow that society will radically change to allow mothers to stay home and care for children all without any interventions at all. How, exactly, will that happen, aside from your belief that a libertarian/tea party/republican government will dream it into being?
    
    Price increases:
    
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/17/not-just-gas-check-out-the-drastic-price-increases-on-these-21-everyday-items/
    
    http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/70yearsofpricechange.html
    
    Safety Net hits:
    
    “Poverty declined for all age groups in the 1960s when economic growth was rapid. Yet, between 1969 and 1999, there was little additional progress against poverty for children and adults. The poverty rate for adults was 10.1 percent in 1969 and 9.1 percent in 1999; for children, the rates were 17.3 percent in 1969 and 13.9 percent in 1999. The period from the early 1970s to the early 1990s was characterized by slow economic growth, declining real wages for less-educated workers, falling inflation-adjusted cash welfare payments for families with children, declines in the percentage of the unemployed receiving unemployment insurance, and a declining real minimum wage.”
    
    Click to access Mexico-Danzigers-Jul05.pdf
    
    TANFF Weakening as a Safety Net For Poor Families
    
    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3700
    
    Women’s Wages:
    
    Click to access The-Simple-Truth-2013.pdf
    
    In 2011, median annual earnings in the United States for women and men working full time, year round were $37,118 and $48,202, respectively.
    
    Effects of Sexism and Racism:
    
    http://www.salon.com/2013/03/01/how_racism_and_sexism_are_net_drains_on_the_u_s_economy_partner/
    
    Racism and Sexism are Killing the US Economy
  - teachingeconomist says:
    
    June 10, 2013 at 6:17 pm
    
    Chris,
    
    Price increase are hard to measure. Take the beer example in the blaze article. You might want to think about how the composition of beer consumption has changed in the last ten years. Craft beer consumption is much higher now, most would say because of higher quality. How much of the 25% price increase is due to increaed consumption of higher quality beer and how much is due to a pure price increase?
  - Gary Valiant says:
    
    June 10, 2013 at 6:31 pm
    
    Teachingeconomist:
    
    Oh, geez – hedonic adjustments. There’s never any inflation, ‘cuz we’re just getting more for our money. “And for my next trick, watch me pull a rabbit outta this hat!”
    
    Who ever called economics the “dismal science?” It’s clearly not a science at all, and it’s wildly entertaining.
  - teachingeconomist says:
    
    June 10, 2013 at 6:37 pm
    
    It is incorrect to say there is never inflation. It is correct to try to differentiate between a higher price for the same product and a higher price for a different and more capable product. This is an easier problem, however. What we need to do is look at the price of natural light beer in 2002 and the price of natural light beer in 2012.
  - 2old2tch says:
    
    June 10, 2013 at 6:40 pm
    
    Did I wander onto a new blog on beer?
  - teachingeconomist says:
    
    June 11, 2013 at 7:15 pm
    
    I should add that I appreciate the use of the term hedonic, though it was misapplied here.
- Andrew King says:
  
  June 10, 2013 at 7:37 am
  
  Chris, you should not criticize Harlan’s rhetoric… it is more sound than yours. An example:
  
  “Defending the governor by saying that the “ideal” family is two parents where one stays home tells 33% of America that their families are “less than” ideal and that they are at fault for the problems that plague our society”
  
  Non sequitur. Plus the perfectionist fallacy. That is the equivalent to saying that if an “ideal” meal is one serving of lean meat or fish, two servings of vegetables and one serving of fruit, that any otehr kind of meal is “not ideal” and therefore dangerous to one’s health. You commit the same gravitating-towards-extremes hyperbolic fallacy that I so often rail against. Just because there may exist an “x” as a general “ideal” (and I’m not saying there is one, I’m just looking that the rhetorical structure of your statement) does not mean that all “not x”-es are abject failures.
  
  Harlan is correct about your incorrect use of “exponentially.” That is simple mathematical error on your part. You spoke imprecisely and he called you on it. (I get that the term is used colloquially to mean “in a big way” but technically, he’s not incorrect.) But mostly, I just don’t see where Harlan’s post is “so full of wrong.” You tell him “you oppose all government programs yet expect somehow that society will radically change to allow mothers to stay home and care for children all without any interventions at all,” which is not even close to what he said.
  
  Your quote for safety net “hits” has nothing to do with the “safety net” of which to speak. Your M/W wage statistic is utterly meaningless, and does not support any argument you make, about sexism or anything else. And you accuse him of being a Tea Party shill, but then you cite The Blaze in your defense? LOL
  
  You don’t even recognize that he agrees with some of what you say. You, hover, make no such concession, and take an extreme opposite position, trying so desperately to distance yourself from him rhetorically that you trip over yourself trying to do so.
  
  Don’t assume that i agree with you or with him based on this, because I have given you no indication of either. I’m just saying that your rhetoric is sloppy, your evidence insufficient, your defense inaccurate, and his argument is more soundly constructed.
  
  And do you really disagree with “Those in alternate families really have tremendous odds to overcome, not just because they are alternative, but because raising children is really, really hard and [ideally – there’s that word again!] takes people partnering. Anyone of good character can raise a good kid, whether single, gay or lesbian, or heterosexual families. It has to be an act of personal will and self-sacrifice.” ??
  
  Reply
  - Chris says:
    
    June 10, 2013 at 5:08 pm
    
    Andrew, I find that discussing issues with you is pointless. I understand your fascination with rhetoric and nuance. I disagree with your conclusions. It isn’t fruitful dialog so I opt out. Thanks.
Sheery says:

June 9, 2013 at 9:17 pm

As a teacher, I had the opportunity to spend much time with my children outside the school day and during the summer. Thank goodness my husband had a job in public service and could take legitimate time off and work from home when my kids were sick during their elementary school years. y principal frownednupon ANY typemofnabsence. We chose this life in public service, because while it did not yield great salaries, we were always available for our kids. That is one of the greatest losses in the attack on public sector employees. Both of our children are grateful that we could attend their musical, sporting, and extracurricular events. While I was a working mom, my kids never felt neglected. Maybe reformers could learn something from this. Success in life is not a VAM score.

Reply
Robert Rendo says:

June 10, 2013 at 7:00 am

Chris, Harlan, and Sheery, women in the workforce who want to have a baby is a contentitious issue.

There was a group of pregnant women in managerial positions who worked for who Michael Bloomberg and sued him because they were all severly demoted after either returning from maternity leave ot even getting pregnant. This is one such example.

If women stay out on maternity leave too long, they get demoted or are have lost their “marketability”. This is worse if you work in the information technology field.

If they return to work too soon after having a baby, they are unduly stressed out by having to leave the child in a day care center at a cost of sometimes 6 to 10 hours a day and more than a thousand dollars per month. Many woman do not have parents or in-laws nearby or able and willing to help out with child care to reduce such costs. Add this to their healthcare costs, stagnating wages, and housing costs. If they don’t stay out too long on maternity leave, they run the risk of not being home long enough to bond with their new baby. If they opt not to have a baby, they lose out on having a family. If they have a baby too late in life and defer it to protect their jobs, then there are consequences for being an older parent.

Women also run the risk of not getting paid the same as men when they are doing the same exact job as a man.

You cannot have it all, but the way our society is set up and has evolved, working women are essentially punished for wanting to have a baby . . . as is the “couplehood” that woman is involved in.

The United States is not so pro-family in this regard.

Making it this difficult for women, has or should, in my mind, become a feminist issue:

http://thetruthoneducationreform.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-feminist-issue_13.html?view=snapshot

We should have a creche system like they do on France and most of Europe. Most of the problem is solved right there and then.

Reply
- bernie klein says:
  
  June 10, 2013 at 4:56 pm
  
  personal choices responsibility and sacrifice are a bitch.
  smells like victim spirit.
  The United States is pro family at least the majority, is what you mean to say that the EU and France’s socialist entitlement systems are more pro family in that their governments are more inclined to provide financial entitlements to female workers. nothing like 70% taxes to help out with maternity leave from the factory.
  
  Reply
  - Robert Rendo says:
    
    June 10, 2013 at 9:27 pm
    
    Have tou lived, worked, and voted in Europe, before you give your very American view of “socialism”?
southside teacher says:

June 10, 2013 at 9:42 am

You can’t fix stupid!

Reply
Gary Valiant says:

June 11, 2013 at 11:25 pm

teachingeconomist : an economist *and* a pedant. Charming combination.

Reply
- teachingeconomist says:
  
  June 11, 2013 at 11:28 pm
  
  About what? Could you be more specific?
  
  Reply