Phyllis Schlafly, ed. Who Will Rock the Cradle?: The Battle for Control of Child Care in America. Thomas Nelson, 1990.
Phyllis Schlafly and Suzanne Venker. The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know—-and Men Can’t Say. WND Books, 2011.
Who Will Rock the Cradle? (hereafter abbreviated as WWRC) is a transcript of presentations delivered at a 1990 conference on child care policy. The subject was whether the federal government should subsidize day care institutions, which would then offer day care to families at a sliding scale, or if it instead should offer families a $1000 tax credit that they could spend on whatever child care they chose. The conference was hosted by Eagle Forum, a conservative organization led by Phyllis Schlafly. Its presenters were academics, activists, child care professionals, and policymakers. Although one of the presenters endorsed paid family leave, the perspective of this book is largely conservative. The presenters support the $1000 tax credit rather than government-subsidized day care centers, primarily because they believe that young children should be raised by their families rather than the federal government.
The Flipside of Feminism (hereafter abbreviated as Flipside) was written by Schlafly and her niece, Suzanne Venker. The book, not surprisingly, is a critique of feminism. Its critique comes from a variety of angles, but its essential argument is that feminism contradicts how men and women are. Women naturally want children. If they postpone childbearing to pursue a career, the natural time for childbearing may pass them by. If they have young children and are spending hours at a paying job, that compromises their ability to be attentive and effective parents to their children, who especially need them at a young age. Consequently, they can benefit from a man who is the breadwinner of the family. Many women desire intimacy with a committed male rather than the “liberated” hook-up culture that feminism promotes. Marriage as an institution benefits not only women but also men, as it channels the male sex drive into a responsible direction, as men work long hours to be providers of their families. The book also criticizes the war on boys: boys like to be active, but schools treat that as a discipline problem. That is part of feminism’s overt and explicit denigration of males, as feminists lambaste men in ways that men would never be allowed to lambaste women. Moreover, Schlafly and Venker lament that Title IX has been used to undermine male sports, such as wrestling. Schlafly and Venker also critique the feminist notion that American society discriminates against women. Women went to college and were working outside the home long before the modern feminist movement came along, and increasing technology gave them the leisure to pursue such activities. Men and single women make roughly the same salary from the same work, and any “pay gap” between men and women is due to married women’s desires to raise their children rather than spend lots of time at the office. The content of this book will not be surprising to those who are familiar with Schlafly’s work. What Venker seems to add to the book is a down-to-earth, empathetic quality.
Here are some thoughts, observations, and impressions about these books:
A. Economically-speaking, is the U.S. able to return to the days when women stayed at home and men went to work? If one were to synthesize the different ideas in WWRC and Flipside into a coherent whole, it would look something like this: Women can stay at home with their children, but it would require financial sacrifice. Families would have to give up a lot of the luxuries to which they are accustomed. A tax cut or a tax credit can help them, for even lower-income families pay the payroll tax and can use relief from that. While a $1000 tax credit may not look like much, it can go a long way in a society in which day care costs $3000 a year; meanwhile, lower-income families can supplement that $1000 with other programs that the government offers. For the contributors to WWRC, the tax code should return to the days when it prioritized families with children rather than stigmatizing them, for families that raise children are performing an essential service to the nation in that they are raising up the next generation.
B. According to these books, should women stay at home with their children to the exclusion to working outside of the home? The contributors obviously prefer that women stay at home with their children up to a certain age, probably when they enter school. One of the contributors actually argues that children should first enter school in the third grade! Infants and young children need their mother’s nurture, attention, and love to gain a sense of self and security. WWRC is rather negative about day care centers, presenting them as places where children are alienated from their parents and where diseases are easily spread. At the same time, WWRC backs away from suggesting that mothers should be the only ones who watch their children. Grandparents and neighbors can do so, as can religious day care. A problem that the contributors have with the Democratic-proposed legislation at the time was that it undermined alternative forms of day care. It would impose regulations and lots of paperwork on informal child care facilities and even grandmothers, while stigmatizing religious day care, which would fail to meet the secularist licensing requirements. Regulations are also counterproductive in that they drive up the cost of day care.
C. Another tension in WWRC is over whether there is a great deal of demand for institutionalized day care centers. On the one hand, contributors argue “no.” It is primarily the upper-income who benefit from institutionalized day care, while about half of America’s women either stay at home with their children or make use of extended family or informal child care facilities for their child care needs. On the other hand, contributors answer “yes.” They fear that subsidizing day care centers could drive religious day care out of business, as families flock to the low-cost facilities that the government recognizes, and which thereby provide them with a sliding scale fee. A related tension is whether families, in this day and age, live close enough to relatives who can look after their children when the parents are busy. Some in WWRC say that this is a problem that primarily affects upper-class professionals, who move away from their families in pursuit of employment. Others note, however, that, yes, in this day and age, families and neighbors are not as close to each other as they were in the 1950’s.
Phyllis Schlafly and Suzanne Venker. The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know—-and Men Can’t Say. WND Books, 2011.
Who Will Rock the Cradle? (hereafter abbreviated as WWRC) is a transcript of presentations delivered at a 1990 conference on child care policy. The subject was whether the federal government should subsidize day care institutions, which would then offer day care to families at a sliding scale, or if it instead should offer families a $1000 tax credit that they could spend on whatever child care they chose. The conference was hosted by Eagle Forum, a conservative organization led by Phyllis Schlafly. Its presenters were academics, activists, child care professionals, and policymakers. Although one of the presenters endorsed paid family leave, the perspective of this book is largely conservative. The presenters support the $1000 tax credit rather than government-subsidized day care centers, primarily because they believe that young children should be raised by their families rather than the federal government.
The Flipside of Feminism (hereafter abbreviated as Flipside) was written by Schlafly and her niece, Suzanne Venker. The book, not surprisingly, is a critique of feminism. Its critique comes from a variety of angles, but its essential argument is that feminism contradicts how men and women are. Women naturally want children. If they postpone childbearing to pursue a career, the natural time for childbearing may pass them by. If they have young children and are spending hours at a paying job, that compromises their ability to be attentive and effective parents to their children, who especially need them at a young age. Consequently, they can benefit from a man who is the breadwinner of the family. Many women desire intimacy with a committed male rather than the “liberated” hook-up culture that feminism promotes. Marriage as an institution benefits not only women but also men, as it channels the male sex drive into a responsible direction, as men work long hours to be providers of their families. The book also criticizes the war on boys: boys like to be active, but schools treat that as a discipline problem. That is part of feminism’s overt and explicit denigration of males, as feminists lambaste men in ways that men would never be allowed to lambaste women. Moreover, Schlafly and Venker lament that Title IX has been used to undermine male sports, such as wrestling. Schlafly and Venker also critique the feminist notion that American society discriminates against women. Women went to college and were working outside the home long before the modern feminist movement came along, and increasing technology gave them the leisure to pursue such activities. Men and single women make roughly the same salary from the same work, and any “pay gap” between men and women is due to married women’s desires to raise their children rather than spend lots of time at the office. The content of this book will not be surprising to those who are familiar with Schlafly’s work. What Venker seems to add to the book is a down-to-earth, empathetic quality.
Here are some thoughts, observations, and impressions about these books:
A. Economically-speaking, is the U.S. able to return to the days when women stayed at home and men went to work? If one were to synthesize the different ideas in WWRC and Flipside into a coherent whole, it would look something like this: Women can stay at home with their children, but it would require financial sacrifice. Families would have to give up a lot of the luxuries to which they are accustomed. A tax cut or a tax credit can help them, for even lower-income families pay the payroll tax and can use relief from that. While a $1000 tax credit may not look like much, it can go a long way in a society in which day care costs $3000 a year; meanwhile, lower-income families can supplement that $1000 with other programs that the government offers. For the contributors to WWRC, the tax code should return to the days when it prioritized families with children rather than stigmatizing them, for families that raise children are performing an essential service to the nation in that they are raising up the next generation.
B. According to these books, should women stay at home with their children to the exclusion to working outside of the home? The contributors obviously prefer that women stay at home with their children up to a certain age, probably when they enter school. One of the contributors actually argues that children should first enter school in the third grade! Infants and young children need their mother’s nurture, attention, and love to gain a sense of self and security. WWRC is rather negative about day care centers, presenting them as places where children are alienated from their parents and where diseases are easily spread. At the same time, WWRC backs away from suggesting that mothers should be the only ones who watch their children. Grandparents and neighbors can do so, as can religious day care. A problem that the contributors have with the Democratic-proposed legislation at the time was that it undermined alternative forms of day care. It would impose regulations and lots of paperwork on informal child care facilities and even grandmothers, while stigmatizing religious day care, which would fail to meet the secularist licensing requirements. Regulations are also counterproductive in that they drive up the cost of day care.
C. Another tension in WWRC is over whether there is a great deal of demand for institutionalized day care centers. On the one hand, contributors argue “no.” It is primarily the upper-income who benefit from institutionalized day care, while about half of America’s women either stay at home with their children or make use of extended family or informal child care facilities for their child care needs. On the other hand, contributors answer “yes.” They fear that subsidizing day care centers could drive religious day care out of business, as families flock to the low-cost facilities that the government recognizes, and which thereby provide them with a sliding scale fee. A related tension is whether families, in this day and age, live close enough to relatives who can look after their children when the parents are busy. Some in WWRC say that this is a problem that primarily affects upper-class professionals, who move away from their families in pursuit of employment. Others note, however, that, yes, in this day and age, families and neighbors are not as close to each other as they were in the 1950’s.