Rating: 
Summary: Destroying our country in the name of motherhood?
Review: I was disturbed by this book, to put it mildly. I am a stay-at-home mom myself, and I was curious about the tenets of a book that appeared to be defending mothers. Instead, in the name of motherhood, the author attacks our wonderful Constitutional government by blatantly extolling and calling for greater Socialism in our country. Has our freedom become so cheap in the last 200 years that we would lose it, not to an outside enemy, but from within by our own countrymen? I recommend that anyone thinking of reading this anti-American propaganda think again.
Rating:
Summary: Destroying our country in the name of motherhood?
Review: I was disturbed by this book, to put it mildly. I am a stay-at-home mom myself, and I was curious about the tenets of a book that appeared to be defending mothers. Instead, in the name of motherhood, the author attacks our wonderful Constitutional government by blatantly extolling and calling for greater Socialism in our country. Has our freedom become so cheap in the last 200 years that we would lose it, not to an outside enemy, but from within by our own countrymen? I recommend that anyone thinking of reading this anti-American propaganda think again.
Rating:
Summary: A cop out, one sided analysis.
Review: I was somewhat dissapointed by this book. It should either be read along with 'Women Cant Hear What Dont Say' by Warren Farrell Ph.D, or not be read at all. The author treated marriage as if it were a sentence to uncertainty and insecurity, divorce as the inevitable outcome, and the government as the end all and save all. While saying that divorce is leaves mothers poorer,-which is only one side of the story-nowhere in the book does the author say that 70% of divorces are initiated by women. Hmm, makes me wonder why 85% of the homeless are men. I think its a cop out because the book doesnt really get to the preventitive measures or the 'nitty-gritty' of the issues-relationship issues, helping men and women to understand each other, how to communicate, how to give and recieve criticism etc. With the divorce rate today, its quite obvious all the 'pop psychology' isnt helping. Every thing starts at home. Crime, abuse, suicide, you name it. Once relationships are in order, families will be in order, and divorce wont be an issue to the extent it is today. I also sensed a disdain for the traditional, male headed nuclear family.
There is a lack of research concerning issues such as male housework,-inside and around-economic conditions of husband, wife and children after divorce, issues leading up to divorce, work habits of men and women etc. All of these things tie in with motherhood-and fatherhood. I agree that motherhood-and fatherhood-are the most important jobs in the world, but this book doesnt give the whole, precise picture. Alot of crucial information is missing.
Rating:
Summary: A cop out, one sided analysis.
Review: I was somewhat dissapointed by this book. It should either be read along with 'Women Cant Hear What Dont Say' by Warren Farrell Ph.D, or not be read at all. The author treated marriage as if it were a sentence to uncertainty and insecurity, divorce as the inevitable outcome, and the government as the end all and save all. While saying that divorce is leaves mothers poorer,-which is only one side of the story-nowhere in the book does the author say that 70% of divorces are initiated by women. Hmm, makes me wonder why 85% of the homeless are men. I think its a cop out because the book doesnt really get to the preventitive measures or the 'nitty-gritty' of the issues-relationship issues, helping men and women to understand each other, how to communicate, how to give and recieve criticism etc. With the divorce rate today, its quite obvious all the 'pop psychology' isnt helping. Every thing starts at home. Crime, abuse, suicide, you name it. Once relationships are in order, families will be in order, and divorce wont be an issue to the extent it is today. I also sensed a disdain for the traditional, male headed nuclear family.
There is a lack of research concerning issues such as male housework,-inside and around-economic conditions of husband, wife and children after divorce, issues leading up to divorce, work habits of men and women etc. All of these things tie in with motherhood-and fatherhood. I agree that motherhood-and fatherhood-are the most important jobs in the world, but this book doesnt give the whole, precise picture. Alot of crucial information is missing.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting and important
Review: I'm glad I read this book ... and it's certainly full of facts and figures that are important for every woman to know about motherhood, gender equality and divorce ... but I really anticipated more real-life situations and examples than what the author provided. At times, the book was very dry. Still, very important for all women to read ... even before marriage and children.
Rating:
Summary: How to get the divorce rate from 50% to 90%
Review: In short, Ann Crittenden's new book encourages divorce by arguing for more gov't action and programs to support single female parents. She makes the very old fashioned socialist argument that since women do such important unpaid work,i.e, raise society's children, then society should recognize the value of that work and support women for doing it. But, the divorce rate has shot up from near 0 in 1960 to 50% today, not by bad luck or pure chance, but precisely because we have already supported divorce too much. We have insured that most kids in America now come from confusingly tragic broken homes wherein the mother (the plaintiff in most divorce cases) decides she no longer loves the father she chose for her children and then attempts to marginalize him through divorce. It is rare indeed for a women to feel, "I now hate him as a husband but love him as a father". If kids suffer from divorce; if nearly 100% of men in jail were raised in broken homes by single mothers, why on earth would we want to further encourage even more single motherhood? Since 1960 we have had male bashing feminism, welfare, Medicaid, WIC, section 8, child support, alimony, no fault divorce, and exclusive female child custody, all of which have encouraged women toward our 50% divorce rate. We have encouraged hate, rather than love, as an environment for our children and quite simply we should stop. The best book I know about how to encourage familial love in today's complex environment is: The 91% Factor. The Mars/Venus books are also excellent in that they encourage us to recognise that men and women are diferent and that there are ways,as nature intended, to make the difference work for us and our children rather than against us and our children.
Rating: 
Summary: "A massive shift of income" indeed
Review: In the very last paragraph of this book, the author acknowledges that the result of her various proposals would be "a massive shift of income to women". Well it seems logical that there are ony two sources where that money can come from: the private sector (i.e. employers) and the public sector (i.e. government). I feel that both of these possibilities are fraught with problems, and further, that the author is much better at identifying the problem rather than the solution.The premise of the book is that, for too long, motherhood has been underappreciated and undervalued in American society and that women should not be "penalized" for staying at home to raise their kids. For the sake of discussion, let's accept that her premise is accurate. Where do we go from there? Her ultimate answer is that mothers should be "paid", directly or indirectly, for raising their children. Her first proposed payor of these obligations is American employers. These "payments" would take the form of, for example, a year's paid leave (presumably at the employer's expense), a shortened workweek (possibly with no drop in pay), and far greater freedom in setting their own flexible work schedules. And of course, the employer can forget about overtime. Well, I don't know where are these funds are suddenly going to materialize from, but it's obvious that Ms. Crittenden has never run a business. These substantially higher costs will almost necessarily result in greater costs to the consumer or a shrunken bottom line. These possibilities seem not to concern the author at all. Moreover, if I was an employer considering hiring two equally qualified candidates, one a man and one a woman, and if all of her income-shifting prposals were encated, guess which one I'm going to choose? And don't even start to tell me about discrimination--not under those circumstances. Her second proposed payor is the government. Indeed for page after page, she waxes rhapsodically about European countries and their "enlightened" systems, and most particularly, her true favorite, Sweden. Indeed Sweden does seem like quite the paradise for women, where the government seems to pay for everything for everyone for eternity. Ms, Crittenden also advocates numerous other freebies, including universal free preschool (why not free education right through graduate school?) and of course free health care coverage for children and their caregivers. Indeed, it is a small wonder that Ms. Crittenden did not decide to move to Sweden. It is unfortunate that America is simply not set up as a quassi-socialist economy like Sweden, Canada, Denmark and other countries where the government takes care of virtually everything, cradle to grave. And how do they afford all those goodies? Can you say crushing tax burden? (Gee, I wonder whether Ms. Crittenden is a Republican or Democrat? Now there's a tough question.) Another problem with her argument is that it has no aplicability to all those mothers who have children and who desire to raise them full-time whether they were previously working or not. Admittedly, many women can't afford that, but for those who can, the notion of Ms. Crittenden's "massive income shifting" seems absurd, particularly as embodied in the "two-tier marriage". Indeed, for those women who are volunatrily not in the workplace, her proposals make no sense whatsoever. All of her notions about "free labor" and the unfairness of it all simply have no applicability to the voluntary homemaker. And yet, the income would be shifted their way anyway. I gave the book 4 stars not so much because I agree with her proposals but because the book is thought-prvoking and that counts for something.
Rating:
Summary: "A massive shift of income" indeed
Review: In the very last paragraph of this book, the author acknowledges that the result of her various proposals would be "a massive shift of income to women". Well it seems logical that there are ony two sources where that money can come from: the private sector (i.e. employers) and the public sector (i.e. government). I feel that both of these possibilities are fraught with problems, and further, that the author is much better at identifying the problem rather than the solution. The premise of the book is that, for too long, motherhood has been underappreciated and undervalued in American society and that women should not be "penalized" for staying at home to raise their kids. For the sake of discussion, let's accept that her premise is accurate. Where do we go from there? Her ultimate answer is that mothers should be "paid", directly or indirectly, for raising their children. Her first proposed payor of these obligations is American employers. These "payments" would take the form of, for example, a year's paid leave (presumably at the employer's expense), a shortened workweek (possibly with no drop in pay), and far greater freedom in setting their own flexible work schedules. And of course, the employer can forget about overtime. Well, I don't know where are these funds are suddenly going to materialize from, but it's obvious that Ms. Crittenden has never run a business. These substantially higher costs will almost necessarily result in greater costs to the consumer or a shrunken bottom line. These possibilities seem not to concern the author at all. Moreover, if I was an employer considering hiring two equally qualified candidates, one a man and one a woman, and if all of her income-shifting prposals were encated, guess which one I'm going to choose? And don't even start to tell me about discrimination--not under those circumstances. Her second proposed payor is the government. Indeed for page after page, she waxes rhapsodically about European countries and their "enlightened" systems, and most particularly, her true favorite, Sweden. Indeed Sweden does seem like quite the paradise for women, where the government seems to pay for everything for everyone for eternity. Ms, Crittenden also advocates numerous other freebies, including universal free preschool (why not free education right through graduate school?) and of course free health care coverage for children and their caregivers. Indeed, it is a small wonder that Ms. Crittenden did not decide to move to Sweden. It is unfortunate that America is simply not set up as a quassi-socialist economy like Sweden, Canada, Denmark and other countries where the government takes care of virtually everything, cradle to grave. And how do they afford all those goodies? Can you say crushing tax burden? (Gee, I wonder whether Ms. Crittenden is a Republican or Democrat? Now there's a tough question.) Another problem with her argument is that it has no aplicability to all those mothers who have children and who desire to raise them full-time whether they were previously working or not. Admittedly, many women can't afford that, but for those who can, the notion of Ms. Crittenden's "massive income shifting" seems absurd, particularly as embodied in the "two-tier marriage". Indeed, for those women who are volunatrily not in the workplace, her proposals make no sense whatsoever. All of her notions about "free labor" and the unfairness of it all simply have no applicability to the voluntary homemaker. And yet, the income would be shifted their way anyway. I gave the book 4 stars not so much because I agree with her proposals but because the book is thought-prvoking and that counts for something.
Rating: 
Summary: Time to change things for American moms (and dads)
Review: In this well-written, passionate, and fascinating book, Ann Crittenden challenges us all to look at the subtle and not-so-subtle ways in which we make life harder than it should be for parents (especially moms). So many of us care enormously about both our families and our work, and too many of us are forced to choose between the two, to either drop out of the workforce when we have kids or to work ridiculous hours that don't allow us to be there for our families. As Crittenden points out, with paid parental leave, a fairer income tax structure that doesn't penalize spouses who work, more high-quality and affordable child care options, and a richer array of flexible and part-time work options, many more women would choose to and would be able to combine work and family, which would be better for women, for families, and for society as a whole. Crittenden notes that feminism largely succeeded in opening up many previously male fields to women, but only if women will play by the male rules (with the result that the gap between mothers' and childless women's wages is now larger than the gap between childless women's and men's wages). Shouldn't the next task be to transform the workplace so that it works better for everyone, including parents? So many other countries have done this -- why not the US? Crittenden is sure to be criticized by some as another rich whiner who chose to have a child, can afford not to work full-time, and yet isn't happy with the results of her choices. This, I believe, is a superficial and short-sighted criticism. Crittenden counters that choosing to have a child is not like choosing to have a pet. Today's children will be supporting these nay-sayers in their old age. We all have a stake in making sure that families are supported and that children get the best start in life that they possibly can. Crittenden's book is a must-read.
Rating:
Summary: Have money, will whine
Review: It certainly does not take long to start rolling your eyes while reading this book. I could have cried peanut butter for Ms. Crittenden...and I am a stay at home mom. It may surprise Ms. Crittenden that as a matter of fact child raising is not the most important job in the world. Certainly to those who are single it is not. My child is important to me and I make those decisions without expecting society to support me. Child raising is not a sacrifice and it's not a job...it's down right fun. I expected to read a much more personal account of someone who made decsions between career and child raising. I was sadly dissapointed. This author seems to think that society should pay her to stay home and pay for nursery school for her child. If your going to stay home you can teach your own child and won't need a nursery school. It's a complete seminar on the comfortably well off whinning for more. Scary!
|
