I am careful to pick who I engage with--choosing to respond to those who seem like they have legitimate questions, concerns, or thoughts. ...And occasionally the wildly ignorant person who needs a quick slap of education.
However, one refrain I see in response to tweets related to the topic of universal childcare runs along the lines of, "if you can't afford to raise children, then don't have them."
This statement irks me to no end, but 280 characters does not even scratch the surface to respond appropriately. I've learned that for some, "raise children" means not putting them into child care at all. These individuals don't seem to understand that child care is not just glorified babysitting; early learning and child care centres are rich learning environments, and educators deserve way more respect from society than they often get. ...But that is a different post, for a different time.
However, I think most are simply implying that parents who are raising children should include the cost of child care in their budget if both parents choose or are required to work.
If you are one of the misinformed (or ignorant) who have made such statements as outlined above, then this post is for you.
First, let me come clean and admit that I have been guilty of making such statements. I acknowledge that I was young and naive, though those are explanations--not excuses--for such narrow-minded thinking.
I soon landed on a career path that involves working closely with families, and my eyes were quickly opened to the nearly infinite definitions and functions of family. We are long past living in the world of "mom and dad and 2.5 kids." Perhaps that's why the statement irks me so much. In addition to lacking empathy, such a statement fails to understand the complexity of families and life in general.
"Parents who can't afford to raise children shouldn't have them," you say?
- What about the family that decides they can afford to raise one child, then ends up with twins?
- What about the family whose child is born with an unforeseen disability? (Hint: it is often more expensive to raise children with disabilities)
- What about the family who thought they were done having children, then accidentally gets pregnant?
- What about the young woman who gets raped, and instead of aborting, chooses to keep and raise the child?
- What about the two-parent family who endures the death of a parent, and now lives off one income?
- What about the family who is required to relocate for work, to an area where the cost of living is higher than expected?
- What about the refugee family that had children in their home country before knowing they'd need to ask asylum out-of-continent?
- What about the family who ends up dealing with a chronic illness and its associated medical bills?
- What about the family who loses everything to fire or flood? (that never happens in Alberta)
- What about the parent in a family who unexpectedly loses their job?
...I could go on.
Perhaps you're feeling defensive now, thinking, "but that's different--those are exceptions." No. They're not. Each one individually, maybe. However, many of those hypothetical situations are not rare, and collectively, they make up a sizeable amount of the families that live and grow in Alberta.
Some families are able to easily make the decision for one parent to stay home, or to have other family members help out with child care. If that's your family, and you have that luxury, go for it. I advocate for healthy families as much as I advocate for quality education.
However, for the parents that choose to, or are required to, put their children in child care, it should be quality and affordable--regardless of financial state.*
Knowing that life can change in an instant, can any family truly afford to raise a child outside of the present moment?
I'm not so sure.
*For further reading on why universal childcare might be beneficial to society, click here.
