Better To Be Loving Than Simply Lucky
Upon this gifted age, in its dark hour,
Falls from the sky a meteoric shower
Of facts … they lie unquestioned, uncombined.
Wisdom enough to leech us of our ill
Is daily spun; but there exists no loom
To weave it into fabric …”
- Edna St. Vincent Millay “Huntsman, What Quarry?”
Dear Jennifer: I wanted to write my appreciation for your views on the chosen family. I think it’s vital that those of us who didn’t grow up in a “Donna Reed/Father Knows Best” environment know that it’s acceptable to do the best we can. I feel lucky to have good relationships with all of my extended family, Mom, Stepdad, grown children, and a couple of ex-husbands.
Many people aren’t as lucky and must deal with the frustration of always having to live their lives up to the expectations of others. - June
Dear June: It sometimes seems to me that people choose either exclusive or inclusive lives. The exclusives get rid of everyone who doesn’t meet their expectations or who might represent competition for attention or love whether they are family or not. The inclusives invite everyone in and believe that love expands infinitely.
The exclusives lead tight and often mean lives because of the tension of judging everyone. The inclusives lead open and generous lives. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle, but I know what I want to try to be.
I think you are loving, not lucky, and that’s the best way for those of us creating our own families out of fate and experience. - Jennifer
Dear Jennifer: Is full-time motherhood and/or homemaking included in calculating the GNP? If not, why not? Does it seem immoral for two or more to share one income? Is only the one working directly for money contributing to the economy? Is it immoral not to contribute?
I’m trying not to be a boiled frog about social change, but is motherhood becoming part-time work? Can the full-time nurturing of a family (even of two adults) be positive? - Nina
Dear Nina: The October Atlantic magazine considers just your question and points out that we cannot continue to measure well-being only by wealth. I’ll mail the article to you. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) measures gross market activity, money changing hands. It does not measure well-being even in terms of more work and lower wages. We need new measures of progress.
Motherhood and homemaking are only measured in terms of the buying and selling of goods. If you are a producer or a consumer, you contribute to the economy. It does not matter which adult in your family works, or if neither do, if you still consume goods.
Your questions of immorality puzzle me. Any number can morally share an income if all agree to it. Earning money at a job is not more or less moral than cleaning house without direct compensation. The only immorality I can imagine is if a reasonably healthy adult does not contribute at all and expects others to support them.
If you can support yourself and your children staying home, it sounds wonderful for you and the children. If you cannot, you do become a part-time parent, hopefully sharing with the other parent. The moral problem, again, is adults who produce children they are unwilling to work to support.
What I really think you are asking is, “can you be a full-time homemaker, without children, in 1995, and be a good citizen?” Yes. If you are still uncomfortable, find ways to give to your community. We need you and, someday when the GDP measures well-being, your hours will add up to a better world. - Jennifer
xxxx
The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Jennifer James The Spokesman-Review