We were reading an abridged version of The Christmas Carol. The Orclette asked me, "Momma what did the kids do for fun?" and it occurred to me: our children are so very blessed to live now. In Dickens' day children from impoverished families had to work, had to go into dangerous situations in order to survive. The rich were slightly better off but I do wonder how much time they actually spent with their parents. It was, according to popular belief, the era of "seen but not heard".
So why is the debate stupid? It's stupid because, in most cases (I'm assuming here that if you can afford the internet and the time to peruse it you have some sort of cash flow), the people who argue for either side are able to take care of their children. The children aren't going hungry, they're able to go to school and they're reasonably safe. They have a shot at a successful life. In most cases their parents really do want what's best for them. And instead of utilizing their energy trying to figure out a solution for the many mothers who can't feed their kids, who are watching them slowly starve and who live in fear for their lives, the proponents of the debate snipe at each other. Very smart. Good use of time.
It is my opinion that you need to do what's best for your family, and no one is able to tell you how to do that (contrary to the "it takes a village" belief, although extended family is quite nice). Every situation is unique. Our situation is unique. I subscribe to the SAHM (stay-at-home-mother) side of things yet I'm currently working full-time. It's what we have to do.
Anyway, that was a thought and I felt like sharing. And saying something was stupid. It was cathartic.