...but, in this case, Angelo Codevilla is completely right.
I've been reading American Conservative more, lately. Why? Well, a lot of other Non-Leftist essays are moving to paid status. That may be good for the individuals who can - finally - bring in some money.
But, it is NOT good, generally, for awareness of how Leftism is killing our country.
In this case, although it might seem anti-capitalism to say it, I think that those whose writing is intended to change the world might have to forego the income, to reach more people.
Now, the standard ways are not generally available to use NLDs. Publishing has put a vindictive chokehold on those hoping to get a book deal, should they not pass their thorough examination for PC thinking.
Likewise, other media outlets - talk shows, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter - have clamped down on those not passing the Leftier-Than-Thou checklist.
Even the independent work-arounds have experienced deliberate attempts to shut them down, and thereby deprive writings and other creatives a chance to gain an audience.
Only a small handful of alternative media outlets survive. Many of them are financially struggling.
So, financial support is key.
The few money men supportive of non-Leftists have not, so far, stepped up to the plate with cash infusions. So, I get the need to set up paywalls.
It's just that the paywall keeps out the very people who need to hear Left-alternative thinking.
A compromise can be: part free, each month, Premium content available only to subscribers. That has worked for some - Townhall and Instapundit operate under that mechanism. For those who have some pull to bring in subscribers, that works.
The rest of us may have to get a day job.
Many have done that -Larry Correia of Monster Hunters books worked as an accountant and financial auditor for years, before recent successes made it possible to devote his time solely to writing.
Which brings me to the American Conservative essay that sparked this train of thought.
Rebeccah L.Heinreichs makes a counter-cultural case for women to put other ambitions on hold for their family. She doesn't say that they CAN'T have other interests; she simply says that putting off a family, or putting any children in day care to work, is not in the best interests of either the family, or the mother.
Full Disclosure: I did have my children 'early' - the first when I was 25. For around 7 years, I was home nearly full-time (short times when I could work part-time, mostly because my income was needed when my husband was finishing school, or was temporarily injured). Most of that time, we opted for sharing the load with each other.
The youngest was 3 when I returned to college to finish. By the time I finished, and started working, they were all in school.
The thing is, BRIEF periods of child care - 2-3 hours a day - are probably OK for most kids, past early infancy -say, 2 years old or so. For those will few or no brothers/sisters, or who have large age gaps between them, this may be a better solution than not having much exposure to other children. In some neighborhoods, the streets are nearly deserted during working hours.
I have a cousin who put her first child in all-day care as soon as she could - 18 months (she toilet-trained as soon as she could). But, in her case, her husband was in a very demanding college program, they needed the money from her working, and they were in housing right on the edge of Harlem - not a neighborhood that she felt safe in walking around with a child. So, rather than confine an active toddler to a small 2 BR apartment, she made her choice - one that most would agree was reasonable.
But, home care with family is optimal.
And, with the Internet, virtual classes, and work at home options, many women can function in the adult world with greater flexibility than ever before. Detaching from the Commuter Treadmill can be one of the best choices women make in their adult lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment