The Politics of Children
My son, unthinking tool of patriarchal oppression.
Since I’ve become a parent I’ve come face-to-face with a lot of the political and social issues that I never understood before — or noticed. Elf and I noticed early on in her pregnancy that pregnancy and parenting were often used as a means to rob us of our adulthood and our agency. Besides being spoken to like children again, there were a lot of things we weren’t supposed to do, or had to “start taking seriously,” or “had” to do.
Sometime in the second trimester, I think, someone asked if we had baby-proofed the house yet. I said there wasn’t much point. I was informed that there wouldn’t be much time after the child was born… as though they’re born, and then five minutes later they’re sticking forks into the electrical outlets.
I realize that some people are bothered by the special consideration parents get in the workplace. I used to be bothered by that as well. Now I see the good reason for it. There’s very little support for parents beyond church and other family members.
Just a for-instance: Ask around about early childcare. Discover the waiting lists and the high cost that eats up most of one salary-earner’s income. Consider the penalties they have for being late (aka “stuck in traffic.”) And I’m not talking about luxury child care, I’m talking about “won’t leave your child tethered to the door-knob” child care. Special considerations are made in the workplace because, culturally, parents have very little other support.
Just stacks and stacks and stacks of people telling you what to do. And deciding you’re irresponsible for doing it some other way.
So yes, child-rearing and family life is used as a means of manipulating people into behaving certain ways. It has its oppressive and political elements. But I have to think there’s a better way to address the issue than just saying “fine, no one gets to have any families any more.”
If you read that last link, you may also be interested in Maha’s response.
Thanks for the link. <span class=“caps”>BTW, </span>it used to make me crazy when people I didn’t know lectured me in public about my pregnancy, or how I was dressing my baby, or whatever. I came to appreciate that this urge to "parent" young parents is a hold-over from our very early days as a species, when guiding young parents and raising children was a collective responsibility of the tribe. Also, any experience that touches on sexuality and reproduction tends to resonate very deeply within us and leave lots of residue, so the "parenting" thing is often, I suspect, an acting out of old unresolved issues. After I saw it that way it didn’t bother me as much.
I hadn’t thought of it quite that way, but that’s a good point. I’d rather it didn’t manifest in pearl-clutching or reactionary legislation, tho.
I think our society provides support for people who make certain life choices. For example, our tax code rewards people who are legally married, with children and a stay at home spouse. If you aren’t married or don’t have children, there are many benefits you aren’t entitled to. Many businesses won’t even give your partner health care benefits. And if they do, you are taxed on them (unless your partner is a dependent, but don’t count on HR to know about this or be receptive to learning about it).
People with children get tax deductions and credits. Health insurance policies (if people are fortunate enough to have them) must cover any and all children. People who care for their elderly parents or relatives do not, to my knowledge, enjoy any of these benefits. And long-term care is far more expensive than child care. Why should we only have sympathy for some people in certain life stages and choices, but not others?
Some of the policies you mention were established because we felt there was an interest in promoting heterosexual marriage. As you know, I’m opposed to the Government providing incentives for people to have sex under contract. And health care is a human right; our current health care structure is a travesty in more ways than tax deductions because of family status, and I back reform there as well.
However, having children is not merely a "life choice" like, say, being Baptist or Republican. The resources available to children and parents have a direct impact on everyone’s quality of life — not just in the future, when those kids are adults, but now — when they affect the lives of the adults around them. Whether or not you choose to have kids, the health and well-being of kids other people have are of significant economic and social importance.
I don’t agree that the decision to have children is not a life choice. In this day and age, it is. And frankly, I don’t think people should have kids if they aren’t fully prepared and able to support them and bear the related costs. However, that does not mean that I don’t support the idea that we should promote children’s health and welfare (nor did I say so previously). And we do, through tax incentives for parents and school taxes that we all pay, regardless of whether we have children in the public school system or not. And based on reading the papers, it sure seems that more resources need to be allocated to things like child protective services and abuse prevention. However, I do not believe that children and parents are more important to our society than any other citizens. What about our elders? Don’t we owe them something for their hard work and contributions to our society? Sure, they get social security and medicare, but they earn that for having supported <span class=“caps”>THEIR </span>elders by paying into the system. Again, long-term and nursing home care is far more expensive than child care, and I don’t recall seeing people argue that it should be subsidized by tax credits and dollars. It’s also far easier to support your children through workplace benefits (that I realize are not guaranteed, but still) than your elderly relatives. And I think that’s wrong. I think people at all life stages are important.
Look, I think we agree that the current system is unfair to many people in many ways. But I just get tired of hearing parents say things that sound like they feel they should be privileged above other segments of our society, especially when, in many ways, they already are.
"Life choice" suggests a personal decision about how to live one’s life that doesn’t have serious ramifications on others. It is far more optional to have children than it used to be, but it’s still a major determining factor in people’s economic well-being.
I don’t think I am making that claim. I did say I understand the accommodations people make for parents in the workplace. And I do think there are other areas where we need to focus resources: early child care is atrocious, and what we do to a spouse (male or female) who chooses to stay home and care for a child rather than return immediately to work is also pretty bad.
Certainly. I don’t see why the two need to be exclusive; we need to care for people at all stages of life. Child health care, elder health care, and everything in between would be aided significantly by genuine National health care as well.
Just a cursory five-minute review of Google turned up Clinton’s 1999 proposal (http://tinyurl.com/7mdqoc),a 2004 bill introduced by Larry Craig (http://tinyurl.com/97c6mg),a 2008 bill which would have provided tax breaks like you suggest (http://tinyurl.com/7d5429).
Overall, of course, I’m arguing for more comprehensive reform: tax breaks aren’t sufficient. And I don’t know what the hold up on these is. Perhaps it’s because people think the quality of life of older people should be related to the quality of the life choices they made? Maybe they should have saved more or worked harder? That’s generally the argument against helping people out, anyway.
Actually, I do think the decision to have children impacts others. But no one other than the parents involved get a say. And I’m not saying they should. But population growth, school taxes, etc. does have an impact beyond just parents and their children. But parents are the ones who get to choose when and how many children to have. Again, I’m not saying anyone else should have a say; it’s one of the most personal decisions there is. But it is still a decision.
I kind of do feel that you are claiming parents and children are more important than other people. I’m not opposed to flexible workplaces (in fact, I favor them), but I think they should be available to everyone, and not just parents of young children. I think you might agree with me there, but that’s not the way you presented it, and that’s often not the way it happens. As for treating stay at home parents poorly, I don’t really see what you are talking about, but then I don’t have that perspective. Perhaps you can fill me in?
I also don’t think that child care and elder care need to be mutually exclusive. But the thing is, there are tax credits and deductions currently available for child care (not that I am saying they cover anywhere near the full cost; I know they don’t come close, just like the proposals you linked to wouldn’t.) I can’t tell if any of the bills you cited actually passed (the last link is broken). And no one seems to be arguing that elderly relatives should be eligible for health insurance on an employee’s plan. Perhaps I’m not correct on this (I’m not a policy or tax code expert). Personally, I see the inability to insure an employee’s parent or other dependent on his/her health plan as a violation of the principal of equal pay for equal work. I know that you favor changes to the way we structure our health and benefits systems, so I don’t think we disagree here; I’m simply pointing out a way that the current system favors parents of younger children above others.
Yes, older people do need to save for retirement and long-term care, and make smart choices. And many (most?) people do look at their financial situation to decide when and if they can retire. Some jobs have mandatory retirement, and many people then start new jobs. In that way, retirement is a life choice, same as having kids. You need to plan for it, along with health care needs you may someday have. And sometimes, just like having kids, you think you’ve planned for it, and then something beyond your control happens, and you need some help. I’m not opposed to any of that, for parents, kids, seniors, young adults, whoever. So I don’t think it’s fair to insinuate that I’m opposed to "helping people out" based on "the quality of the life choices they made." I have never argued against a social safety net, for anyone. I am simply saying that we already do help parents out. Obviously not as much as you think we should. But you said "there’s very little support for parents beyond church and other family members." And I personally think there is more support out there for parents than for other members of our society.
People with children get tax deductions and credits. Health insurance policies (if people are fortunate enough to have them) must cover any and all children. People who care for their elderly parents or relatives do not, to my knowledge, enjoy any of these benefits
Elderly relatives <span class=“caps”>CAN </span>be counted as dependants for tax deductions. The rules for dependents are exactly the same, whether it’s your child or elderly mother.
Eldercare for someone who is not capable of taking care of themselves can also be counted as daycare expenses. Same tax forms as childcare expense.
I don’t agree that the decision to have children is not a life choice. In this day and age, it is. And frankly, I don’t think people should have kids if they aren’t fully prepared and able to support them and bear the related costs. However, that does not mean that I don’t support the idea that we should promote children’s health and welfare (nor did I say so previously). And we do, through tax incentives for parents and school taxes that we all pay, regardless of whether we have children in the public school system or not. And based on reading the papers, it sure seems that more resources need to be allocated to things like child protective services and abuse prevention. However, I do not believe that children and parents are more important to our society than any other citizens. What about our elders? Don’t we owe them something for their hard work and contributions to our society? Sure, they get social security and medicare, but they earn that for having supported <span class=“caps”>THEIR </span>elders by paying into the system. Again, long-term and nursing home care is far more expensive than child care, and I don’t recall seeing people argue that it should be subsidized by tax credits and dollars. It’s also far easier to support your children through workplace benefits (that I realize are not guaranteed, but still) than your elderly relatives. And I think that’s wrong. I think people at all life stages are important.
But, to my knowledge, you can’t count non-children as dependents unless they live with you. But I think children can still be counted when they go away to college, as long as you are providing at least half their support (I’m a little fuzzy on this). Plus, there are extra tax credits for children under 17 that other dependents don’t get. Plus, if you are a single parent with young children, you can qualify to file as head of household (which gives you a larger standard deduction). Not true if your dependent (s) are not children under a certain age.
I don’t know how to do formatting, either, so sorry if this comes out looking weird.
Um, I somehow managed to repost an earlier comment. Sorry about that! Can that be deleted?
Just as an aside here, you can use <blockquote> and </blockquote> around text you want to quote. Basic <span class=“caps”>HTML </span>should be working, I’ll doublecheck on that. I will also see if ID has a rich text editor to help…
Just as an aside here, you can use basic <span class=“caps”>HTML.</span> I’ll doublecheck on that. I will also see if ID has a rich text editor to help…
Children attending college often have as their address-of-record the address of the parent, even if they are spending nine months out of every year in a dorm or in off-campus housing.
Also, adult dependent parents (as well as grandparents and siblings) are qualifying dependents under head-of-household filing rules: http://tinyurl.com/88aoou
I think I was confused because your initial response was "why don’t we do more for other people!" But I think you have more of a point here, and it’s because I misspoke — my perspective is a little narrow at the moment because I’m the parent of a very young child who does not yet qualify for most of the support children get, which is generally focused on education. Yes, there are a lot of resources for children once they are in school; before then, however, there isn’t much beyond tax deductions for parents of young children.
That said, there are more opportunities for adults acting as primary caregivers for older adults than I think you’re aware of. Again, not nearly the kind of support that’s needed. But it is there.
I guess I wasn’t as clear as I wanted to be. I’m not trying to say that kids and parents don’t deserve anything, I’m just trying to point out that they aren’t they only ones who deserve consideration, and that they do, in fact, already get some things other people don’t. And you’re probably right that seniors and caregivers get more benefits than I’m aware of, which is a good thing. My perspective is colored by the fact that I don’t get a lot of the benefits that I think married heterosexual parents take for granted.
Again, I think you and I agree more than we disagree.
Ah, okay. Well, that’s good, but it still leaves out same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners, friends, etc. It’s all based on qualifying relationships, which I think is unfair. Again, this is my perspective as an un-qualifying dependent.
My father and "stepmother" decided <span class=“caps”>NOT </span>got get married because it made more sense for them tax-wise. I don’t understand all the details (something to do with their ages and plans for retirement), but marriage doesn’t automatically improve everyone’s tax situation. Other factors can change things.
Yes, that’s true. I don’t think marriage should count against you, but I don’t think it should count for you, either. Personally, I’d like to see a tax system that is not based on marital or family status. I don’t think that will ever happen in this country.