In the WSJ, James Taranto has an incisive analysis of a new study (done by a moderate-to-left-leaning think tank and published in that bastion of conservatism—the NY Times) which shows that when a home is run by a single mom, boys suffer more—educationally and economically—than girls. Taranto makes a number of salient points, but what caught my attention was this thought experiment:
But of course it isn’t. To illuminate why, try a thought experiment: Think about the family as a “business” partnership whose “product” is the next generation.
One reason a business has hierarchies of authority and responsibility is to make the best use of the time of the most vital employees. The CEO may type faster or more accurately than his secretary, but he still delegates the typing because it isn’t the highest use of his time. By contrast, the lone entrepreneur may of necessity do his own clerical work, but at some point he won’t be able to expand further without hiring support staff.
Think of the single mother as the lone entrepreneur. Of necessity she takes on every responsibility of the household: bearing and nurturing the children, providing food, maintaining the physical plant—and, by the way, working outside the home in order to raise operating funds.
Now think of the traditional 1950s household with an employed father and a stay-at-home mother. The mother is able to devote her full efforts to the children and the home. The father may have some secondary household duties—taking out the trash and playing ball with Junior—but most of his time is spent away from home, doing a boss’s bidding, in order to raise money to meet the family’s needs.
Let’s stipulate that in the latter scenario, the mother could do the father’s job just as well as he can. Would that be the highest use of her time? Only if one thinks that office work is intrinsically superior to the development of the next generation. [Emphasis mine.]
I, for one, believe the latter is far more important, and deserves the full attention of a parent.