I'm not sure why there should anxiety over working from home with children (unless maybe this is ginned up by CEOs who hate employees working from home). For untold centuries work life and home life were not separate; only with the industrial revolution did that become significant, and not general until most population became urban not rural.
When I was growing up (the 70s) very few people worked at home, but there were still boundaries between the Adult Sphere and the Child Sphere-- though with overlap of course. If my parents had friends over and were enjoying adult time it was clear that I was not to interrupt that except in an emergency. Otherwise I would be told to go play somewhere and let the adults be. Why did we lose that separation? Sometime after I became an adult I was visiting friends who had children-- and the kids kept interrupting us for no serious reason-- and the parents indulged them which left me quite startled. Maybe working from home can help restore the salutary boundaries between childhood and adulthood.
Fathers working from home at times should be a positive thing like you say.
Mothers need to be mindful though, it is very hard for a child to not be the top priority of their mother if she is physically present. Historically, "women's work" was often what could be put down to attend to a child and then return to the task. Today, routines probably help. Things like, get the children feeling loved and settled or directed and then close the door. Children need to feel secure and fathers should help mothers do this rather than assume it's all the same.
I'm going to push back on this because for centuries women worked alongside their husbands whether in the fields (the majority of people farmed or tended livestock) or else in home-based businesses. It was only noblewomen who did not labor-- and they often passed their children off to servants, sometimes not even living full time under the same roof.
And as a one-time "Free range" kid I think kids beyond a certain tender age should be told to go off and play-- maybe bring back the old "Come home when I call or the street lights come on". I think we'd have more independent kids, maybe they'd leave home sooner than age 30 , and maybe marriages would be less stressed with more adult space in them. I do not think the post-80s practice of parents haunting their children whenever they are home together is healthy for anyone. An important part of child-rearing is preparing them to be independent and self-sufficient (insofar as any of us can be).
I am thinking of interruptions as the historical factor of what was women's work or not. Women were prioritized for tasks that let them meet their children's needs even if the children did not get much time. Being in the fields, collecting eggs from hens, and most famously weaving are all things were being interrupted doesn't ruin the work.
Harried mothers today need to be honest about what periods of time interruption is okay or not, and to plan to buffer some attention at other times so that firmness is not felt as neglect.
I don't know what to say about Evangelicals and governance. Mike Pence is a remarkable example of what you seem to think we aren't able to be or do.
His AAF (Advancing American Freedom) think tank, (his only because of the intellectual leadership he is providing) has completely hollowed out Trump's sycophantic Heritage Foundation.
His principled defense of the constitution on 6 January may have saved the republic from ruin. It certainly culminated a world-class run at delicately balancing principle as Trump's Vice-president. If the Republican voters are not impressed with Pence, it's not because Pence is not impressive.
Pence, like Ben Sasse, has a problem with voters, not because the don't offer a principled, evangelical, vision of governance. It's because the Republican voters like the rather unprincipled, reactionary and undisciplined approach of a Catholic like JD Vance. And Republican voters, by and large, share the religious scruples of Donald J Trump, which are as flexible as their own.
Re: t's because the Republican voters like the rather unprincipled, reactionary and undisciplined approach of a Catholic like JD Vance.
If Vance is unprincipled and reactionary I don't think it's because he's a Catholic. That church has its own political and social precepts which Vance seems rather detached from.
I'm not sure why there should anxiety over working from home with children (unless maybe this is ginned up by CEOs who hate employees working from home). For untold centuries work life and home life were not separate; only with the industrial revolution did that become significant, and not general until most population became urban not rural.
When I was growing up (the 70s) very few people worked at home, but there were still boundaries between the Adult Sphere and the Child Sphere-- though with overlap of course. If my parents had friends over and were enjoying adult time it was clear that I was not to interrupt that except in an emergency. Otherwise I would be told to go play somewhere and let the adults be. Why did we lose that separation? Sometime after I became an adult I was visiting friends who had children-- and the kids kept interrupting us for no serious reason-- and the parents indulged them which left me quite startled. Maybe working from home can help restore the salutary boundaries between childhood and adulthood.
Fathers working from home at times should be a positive thing like you say.
Mothers need to be mindful though, it is very hard for a child to not be the top priority of their mother if she is physically present. Historically, "women's work" was often what could be put down to attend to a child and then return to the task. Today, routines probably help. Things like, get the children feeling loved and settled or directed and then close the door. Children need to feel secure and fathers should help mothers do this rather than assume it's all the same.
I'm going to push back on this because for centuries women worked alongside their husbands whether in the fields (the majority of people farmed or tended livestock) or else in home-based businesses. It was only noblewomen who did not labor-- and they often passed their children off to servants, sometimes not even living full time under the same roof.
And as a one-time "Free range" kid I think kids beyond a certain tender age should be told to go off and play-- maybe bring back the old "Come home when I call or the street lights come on". I think we'd have more independent kids, maybe they'd leave home sooner than age 30 , and maybe marriages would be less stressed with more adult space in them. I do not think the post-80s practice of parents haunting their children whenever they are home together is healthy for anyone. An important part of child-rearing is preparing them to be independent and self-sufficient (insofar as any of us can be).
I am thinking of interruptions as the historical factor of what was women's work or not. Women were prioritized for tasks that let them meet their children's needs even if the children did not get much time. Being in the fields, collecting eggs from hens, and most famously weaving are all things were being interrupted doesn't ruin the work.
Harried mothers today need to be honest about what periods of time interruption is okay or not, and to plan to buffer some attention at other times so that firmness is not felt as neglect.
Just want to give credit: this is an especially good roundup. Dense with insights.
Thanks!
I don't know what to say about Evangelicals and governance. Mike Pence is a remarkable example of what you seem to think we aren't able to be or do.
His AAF (Advancing American Freedom) think tank, (his only because of the intellectual leadership he is providing) has completely hollowed out Trump's sycophantic Heritage Foundation.
His principled defense of the constitution on 6 January may have saved the republic from ruin. It certainly culminated a world-class run at delicately balancing principle as Trump's Vice-president. If the Republican voters are not impressed with Pence, it's not because Pence is not impressive.
Pence, like Ben Sasse, has a problem with voters, not because the don't offer a principled, evangelical, vision of governance. It's because the Republican voters like the rather unprincipled, reactionary and undisciplined approach of a Catholic like JD Vance. And Republican voters, by and large, share the religious scruples of Donald J Trump, which are as flexible as their own.
Re: t's because the Republican voters like the rather unprincipled, reactionary and undisciplined approach of a Catholic like JD Vance.
If Vance is unprincipled and reactionary I don't think it's because he's a Catholic. That church has its own political and social precepts which Vance seems rather detached from.