Santorum is out of touch with the truth about tort reform, social security, and a myriad of other issues….

But on this, I think he has a point. Children growing up need their parents, but our culture is so focused on money and getting ahead that we forget about our families and our children for the sake of overtime.

Granted, many families do need two incomes, but that we take for granted and not evaluate our family’s financial resources and how much we really need to spend.

We would do ourselves good to become a little more escetic and stop buying from the Wal Marts and the other juggernaut transnationals that have created these material wants that take away from the family – and of course there is the radical feminism, which has demeaned homemakers and the nuclear family.

I’ve only read the excerpted portions of Rick’s New Bible, but it creeps me out…and makes me angry.

His suggestion that public schools create “weird socialization” is just absolutely off-the-wall. It was public education that helped this nation grow and prosper, and here is a highly-placed elected official sniffing at it like he knows better. My guess is that “weird socialization” means “being forced to send my kids to school where they’ll intermingle with heathens, Jews, Blacks and anyone else I don’t like.” In Ricks’ case, that’s a long list; basically anyone who doesn’t agree with radical dominionist view of the world.

And what is his alternative plan? Let moron parents keep the kiddies home so they can each teach them a different version of reality? Teaching isn’t a hobby. It takes skill and knowledge and instinct and more knowledge. Most parents, I would argue, are not up to the task. Most of them can’t even get their kids to clean their rooms, much less do their homework.

Does he have a point about consumerism? Sure. American’s do buy too much worthless crap. But overspending on trinkets and GameBoys didn’t happen because Mom went to work. His attempt to link the two is crazy.

Santorum is a classic; he wants to turn the clock back to that magical time that never existed. That glowing 1950’s era when all was supposed to be good. But it wasn’t. While we now fear terror attacks on our shores, those of us who lived through the Cold War were worried that we’d be annihilated. I doubt Rick’s kids have ever heard an air-raid siren or been brought to the basement of their school and shown the piles of rations stowed there…just in case “the big one” fell.

And plenty of mothers, like mine, worked for a living. It didn’t turn me into a serial killer nor somehow rupture the family unit.
Indeed, it gave us safety and security we wouldn’t have otherwise had and it gave her a greater hand is deciding how the money in the family was spent.

Rick’s chances of becoming President are getting slimmer by the day. If “ManDog” didn’t do it, then maybe trashing working women (“radical feminists”) and public schools will do it. I mean, he’s quickly running out of people to piss off.

Piltdownman

Ah Ricky. I need to say to you, that if both of my parents didn’t work, my family would never have owned a house. With a combined household income of less than 40k for most of my life (it changed when I went to college… my parents somehow got money… go fig… kids are expensive), my parents would never have been able to afford a house! We’re not talking cool cars or trinkets (our computer was always 4 yrs old, our cars were run into the ground and actually my dad drove a company truck so we only had one car… that almost excludes cool trinkets). I’m talking about a decent house (3 bedrooms, livingroom/dining room, kitchen) that won’t colapse or spring leaks. Rick is saying that my family needed to reevaluate its priorities. How dare he say we didn’t prioritize. Shame on us for wanting a house! His arrogance is amazing.

As far as the weird socialization goes, Ricky must never have been socialized period. If he did he would have learned that public comments such as “man on dog” would be inappropriate.

Every time he speaks, he gives me another reason to volunteer more hours than I have to Casey’s campaign in 2006.

LV Dem

Well, this stuff about stay-at-home moms is pretty amusing coming from Santorum since his mother worked. In fact to this day, as he told the NYT mag he still accepts financial help from his parents because he can’t afford to live in his 750k house and support his six kids on his senatorial salary. And Santorum hired one of those Patrick Henry college grads to help his wife homeschool their kids.
Maybe he should take his own advice, sell his estate move to a home he can afford on his salary and stop leaching off his parents.

BTW, my mom worked (teacher) and I turned out okay.

pd

In addition, maybe they should have learned about birth control and not created a situation where they are “living outside their means” ‘cause they have too damn many children! If they’d been careful, not given into their basest carnal instincts, practiced the rhythm method with accuracy, they wouldn’t have the “problem” they have today!

What a complete clown. His mere presumption that he knows what’s best for the rest of the WORLD is insane.

As regards Rick’s mother working, maybe he’s right; if she hadn’t worked and had stayed home with little Ricky, maybe he wouldn’t have developed into such a freak!

Pilt

It is not radical feminism that has demeaned the profession of homemaker(provider of a smooth-running household and reaer of well-behaved, intelligent off-spring). It was the refusal of the society to give status to homemakers by refusing to recognize what they do as meaningful work. In Western culture this recognition comes in a combination of three factors: 1) cost of the services provided, 2) making it a male profession, and 3) recognition that a person must obtain special training in order to do the work.

There is no significant monetary compensation connected to homemaking for most homemakers. Homemaking is supposed to be performed for no cost to the family members to whom the services are provided except for regular sex for the spouse and an occassional gift.

It is definitely considered a female profession. The skills required to be a homemaker are considered regulated by genes carried on the X chromosome and the genes are inhibited by the presence of circulating testosterone.

Since homemaking skills are inherited and require no engagement of the cerebral cortex, they do not require, nor do they respond to training or education.

It was radical patriarchy and its insistence that homemaking was the genetically-determined fate of females and thus unworthy of significant monetary compensation that demeaned the profession. Radical feminism merely articulated the obvious.

If the preservation of the homemaker is so important to conservatives, then why don’t they support policies that would reflect its importance such as allowing a tax deduction for a spouse who stays at home to care for children and/or other dependents; or allowing for a pre-tax contribution to social security from the working spouse for the homemaker; or family leave policies that encourage men and women to take time off to raise children without fear of losing their job.

Conservatives want to return to the golden age of the family in the 1950’s when women had no financial option but to marry a man; children grew up in suburbs with minimal contact with their fathers; domestic violence was viewed as an appropriate response to mouthy wives and children; and wives survived it all in a fog of tranquilizers and amphetamines. Wow, for the good old days.

For the first 12 years of my life, my parents were foster parents. We regularly had 6 children in the house. It was literally the only way that my mom could afford to be a homemaker b/c the agency paid a nominal fee to my parents for their hospitality. If my mom didn’t take up that challenge, she would have had to work and my brother and I tucked into a day care. My point is that the only way to be compensated as a homemaker is to take on more than your family as a responsibility.

I have always like the idea of tax credits for homemakers and their family. How much money is spent on Title XX for low income families and childcare? Could some of that be funneled toward homemakers? Granted, a single parent throws that idea into the air, but if choice is the goal, then shouldn’t all choices be given the same risk/reward. Since, as a progressive I would never want to lessen TXX, I would rather see both potentials given the same reward.

Just some thoughts.

Thank you for acknowledging Mr. Santorum’s “out-of-touch-ness.”

I essentially agree with all of your comments, except I must disagree that Mr. Santorum “has a point.” Mr. Santorum does not simply espouse “traditionalist” ideals – he believes in legislating these ideals in the most narrow of ways. He speaks in generalizations, then promotes legislation that is extreme and regressive. He routinely disregards millions of Americans by his vote, often his own constituents. His concept of “the public good” is consistently bewildering, and his personal hypocrisy is extraordinary.

Also, please note that he does not urge more dads to stay at home.