ON THE DOMESTIC FRONT. (Warning: omnibus post.)

First, some unusual incidences of spouse abuse, and some commentary on the changing nature of the conversation about such things.

Second, some anticipation of wacky statements to come.

Third, some ongoing wackiness. Laura at Apartment 11-D wants everyone else to be comfortable with her prejudices:

Just as we shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals and feel that it is right to accommodate people with disabilities, society has to accommodate parents. That means changes in the workplace. And it means sacrifices from the childless.

Catch the howling non-sequitur in there? The Americans with Disabilities Act and the continuing attempts to determine positive or negative rights for homosexuals are two fronts in the Culture Wars. And there is more than one change in the workplace by which "society" can accommodate parents. I was under the impression that the old accommodation, with Dad working and Mom minding the kids, had to be changed precisely because it meant Dad was away from the kids too much and Mom was with the kids too much. Perhaps that was just another Silent Generation experiment against reality, to go with no-fault divorce and tax-supported day care. And Dr. Laura loses any sympathy for her demand that "the childless" sacrifice on behalf of her leaving work early with this:

Couples who work full time without the expense of childcare or diapers are much better off than we are. They have houses, while we live in a dumpy apartment. They take vacations and only pay for two plane seats. They have two full time salaries with benefits. Children are the leading indicator of poverty.

Um, this is somebody who lives in New York City, making a classic argumentum ad misericordiam. Further, it is somebody who still has failed to read and understand the Say Aggregation Principle. Furthermore, it is a bit disingenuous to demand further changes in working life, when it is precisely the end of the old sex roles that made it possible for two-income power couples to outbid one income, or income-and-a-half couples for the good houses and the good cars. (Although, as there is a large premium for good houses in good school districts, there must be some bidding by power couples WITH CHILDREN going on in such neighborhoods.)

Harry at Crooked Timber has chimed in with some observations of his own, which are worth a look, but ought to be read in light of two realities that are difficult to change. First, high achievers might be childless by choice (and quite willing to pick up some of the slack the early-leaving moms and dads create, for an eminently sensible price: the promotions and the prestige.) In that light there might not have to be any additional sacrifices. Second, women have babies, which makes de-sexing the division of labor in child rearing a bit more cumbersome in practice than in principle.