There has been an evolution in the American family. You know-- and I think what we have to be as a society is accepting of what couples decide to do for themselves. There are some people who want to lean in, there are some people who want to lean back and be on a rocking chair drinking a mint julep. Whatever works for every couple is what we should respect…So right off, Navarro is portraying the home-based partner as lazy! The old image was lying on the sofa eating bonbons. She's got the sofa replaced by a rocking chair and an alcoholic beverage in place of the box of chocolates. Gregory breaks in with a wisecrack — "Enough about your Sunday afternoon" — and this prompts Navarro — the Republican — to double down on her idea that the stay-at-home spouse is a sponge:
When I say in my house that I want to be a kept woman, the answer I get back is well, I want to be a kept man. So, you know, that’s not working-- it’s not working in my house.Kept woman! This isn't as bad as Rush Limbaugh's notorious equation of free birth control and prostitution. It's actually kind of worse. Limbaugh intended to malign the demand for free birth control. He meant to say that the general public shouldn't have to pay for a particular person's sexual activities. He found a notoriously crude way to say I don't want to pay for you to have sex (i.e., if someone pays you to have sex, you're a prostitute). But aside from the crudeness, the opinion that the group shouldn't pay for the individual to have sex isn't offensive. It's just economics and ideology.
Navarro claimed "Whatever works for every couple is what we should respect," but she said — twice, quite clearly — that the stay-at-home partner isn't contributing. The first image was of someone loafing and drinking alcohol during the day. The second image was of a "kept woman" — that is, a woman who doesn't take care of the house and the children or do anything helpful other than to provide sex! If that "works for" you, that that's something that deserves respect — she asserts — but it wouldn't work at her house, and if she were to suggest that for herself, her husband would say that's what he wants. Obviously, the idea is that the nonbreadwinner spouse is goofing off. So where's the respect? At most, she says, if some other couple finds that this "works," then we should accept that they make their own decisions. Navarro goes on to say:
But I think, you know-- I think, we-- women that work need to be not judgmental of women who don’t.But your judgment leaked out all over the place!
I think men who are mister moms need to be accepted by those who are the alpha male breadwinners. So, I think it’s got to be whatever works-- different folks…Mr. Mom... alpha male... the disrespect is plain, even as you keep insisting you are tolerant.
Posts
74 comments:
And now we get to the heart of Althouse...
That is strange. I thought Republican strategists are all about respecting stay at home moms. Wasn't that the famous blowup during last election when a Dem strategist dinged Ann Romney?
Freud was right.
Maybe she's a feminist first.
We should all be out working, she thinks.
Maybe it's a subtle shot at the Food Stamp President.
I feel a ripple in the force.
There are some people who want to lean in, there are some people who want to lean back and be on a rocking chair drinking a mint julep
Couldn't this also be construed as a swipe against Southerners, you know, the bedrock region of support for the Republican Party?
I think this woman will be looking for opportunities elsewhere soon....
Is that 40% stat legit?
Because if it also counts households where there is only one adult person (overwhelmingly that person will be female)then this is not at all about women becoming the primary earner over the man in the house.
So which is it?
Wow. Bitter.
The stay-at-homes (SAHs) really don't work as hard as the go-to-works (GTWs). I used to be a GTW, and now I'm a SAH, so I think I have personal knowledge on the subject.
So anyway, SAHs are a lazy bunch of bon-bon eaters.
So many women are driven into the workplace -- in search of self-respect -- because of this kind of propaganda. There is so little practical reasoning about family economics -- including the effect of taxes and the cost of going to work -- and the division of labor -- including how hard it is to keep house and care for children. If the work done by the non-wage-earning partner were given its proper valuation, then it would be a lot harder to go off to work imagining that you'll get that stuff done in your left-over time.
"Long-Term Male Unemployment Rises. Women, Children Hardest Hit."
"If the work done by the non-wage-earning partner were given its proper valuation, then it would be a lot harder to go off to work imagining that you'll get that stuff done in your left-over time."
Oh, please. Give us your Moms Do More Work Than Any Man Ever Did argument. That's just stupid and tired.
Is she a Republican, or a Republican, or a "Republican"?
If both partners are of equal earning capacity, the joint income is beneficial. If the would be stay at home spouse doesn't have much earning oomph, he/ she may as well stay home. IMO it's finances that drives women out of the home to work.
I am a stay at home and have been for 15 years. We have no children, but we took in my father who could not care for himself anymore until he died. I bathed him, and helped him on the toilet. My husband then got a great job, but we had to move away from all of our family. Now, it is like we have a bed and breakfast. We live near the Jersey Shore, so we get a lot of company. Almost every weekend is booked. I do everything, so my husband can relax when he is not working. I resent that people think I sit on my butt. I work harder now, then when I actually had a job. It isn't as easy and fun as everyone thinks it is. I AM grateful that we can do this, and wish people would stop judging.
Yes, Ann, one of the main techniques life insurance agents use to sell husbands on the need to insure their wives is by breaking out the
"human life replacement value"
in terms of what it would take to hire a chauffeur, seamstress, maid, babysitter, etc., to replace her over the period until children are no longer in the home..
This article in the Tampa Bay Times says Navarro "lacks much of a filter".
Oh, and "she's tight" with with Jeb and Marco. And "pals" with Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile.
Inga said...
I feel a ripple in the force.
She's thinking about WOTI again.
Oh crap Ann. You're trying to make something out of nothing. Is this ratings sweep Sunday for blogs?
Lots of people are "Republicans" or "Democrats" because their families are, but have never bothered to find out what it's all about.
The lady needs to have explained to her that she is not promoting the party's interests by out-Democrating the Democrats.
The 40% includes single moms who doesn't have a stay at home/part working dad in the home.
If the work done by the non-wage-earning partner were given its proper valuation
That's the labor theory of value.
The correct theory is that you get more out of it than you put into it, namely dignity.
It depends on the number of kids and cost of daycare/commuting.
Seems like a good time to break out the old profile photo.
Ann's right.
And I don't mind being ridiculed by the working society because I am very appreciated by my spouse. In fact, most of my spouse's co-workers are quite jealous of him because there isn't as much juggling in his life that is present in theirs.
Women are always the most vicious when it comes to these things. So I'm not surprised, even if she's a Republican.
"If both partners are of equal earning capacity, the joint income is beneficial. If the would be stay at home spouse doesn't have much earning oomph, he/ she may as well stay home. IMO it's finances that drives women out of the home to work."
This is the argument I am fighting against. You have to do the math. The second earner's income is taxed at a higher rate (assuming the couple is married). And everything that must be bought to replace work that the home-based spouse would do -- food prep, childcare, etc. -- must be bought with after-tax income. The in-kind labor the non-wage-earner spouse does has economic value that the govt doesn't get to tax. So if X does childcare that would cost $20 an hour to buy, it must be bought with something closer to $40 in wages. How much simpler to do that work yourself and to avoid the need for all that income (with all that taxation)!
And don't forget all extra money that spent going to work -- transportation costs, work clothing, etc. -- all paid for with after-tax money.
Plus, the stay-at-home partner can put effort into economizing and managing the household money.
I really don't think you are doing the math in a complete way. I don't think you are seeing the value of division of labor and the impact of taxation.
And then there is the immense issue of good care for children and the value produced by monitor what is happening to them over time. That is treated as almost nothing by people who think it's important to go to work to boost pretax income by 80 or 90 percent.
This is collossal foolishness.
Originally, it was thought that it was important so that women could have fulfillment through work, but that argument is largely ignored today.
Now, it's just the whiny neediness for a higher income number, which -- if you'd do the math competently -- amounts to nothing, close to nothing, or less than nothing.
"I am a stay at home and have been for 15 years. We have no children, but we took in my father who could not care for himself anymore until he died. I bathed him, and helped him on the toilet. My husband then got a great job, but we had to move away from all of our family. Now, it is like we have a bed and breakfast. We live near the Jersey Shore, so we get a lot of company. Almost every weekend is booked. I do everything, so my husband can relax when he is not working. I resent that people think I sit on my butt. I work harder now, then when I actually had a job. It isn't as easy and fun as everyone thinks it is. I AM grateful that we can do this, and wish people would stop judging."
It's not just the judging, it's the resistance to thinking it through and seeing the sense this all makes.
Many would say that you're just fortunate because your husband's income is SO good, but the same reasoning carries over to smaller incomes.
People should learn to economize for the purpose of claiming more of their OWN time.
I agree that this makes sense even without childcare.
You did a great kindness for your father and for many others in your family. There is also potential -- among the childless -- to do good works in the community. Those who seek to justify a life of working in jobs don't want to see this and they stoop to disparagement. It's sad, because not only are they resorting to contemptuousness but they are blinding themselves to information that they could use.
The govt would prefer that you not go through this reasoning. And it is not taught in schools -- which are run by the govt. Your income is the stuff of taxation. Everything that you do for yourself is a tax dodge.
How dare you!
Ann, perhaps your math is more accurate than mine. IMO and experience, if one spouse stayed home, with one child, the cost of daycare, meal prep, transportation, etc. wouldn't equal the wage, especially in a higher wage earner situation. Also the price that the stay at home spouse pays in future earning capacity is affected by being out of the workforce, especially for professionals.
Renee was on the right track when she said it depended on the number of children. I don think its neediness or greediness. I think it's necessity in this economy, in many families' situation.
I was wondering about that, Renee. It sounds like she had a softball question lobbed, could have made a great case about the war on men in society, the breakdown, and she blew it to smithereens.
Sorry forgot taxation, you may be right.
re: Ana Navarro
Just another "Republican" who is not anywhere near being a Conservative.
It makes little economic sense for both parents to work full-time when there is one or more youngsters in the house.
Especially pre-schoolers.
But hey, The State would LOVE LOVE LOVE you to send them to Universal [Fed] preschool to get a head-start on indoctrination into how to be the best Life of Julia serf yet!
"I do everything, so my husband can relax when he is not working. I resent that people think I sit on my butt. I work harder now, then when I actually had a job. It isn't as easy and fun as everyone thinks it is."
I think it would be perfectly fine if you utterly enjoyed all the time you spent making the home beautiful and serene for you and your husband. It's not wrong to enjoy life! It's not wrong to love the pleasure you give to your husband.
This gets back to the topic in the post of being a "kept woman," the term Ana Navarro used. That implies a mistress, with a man cheating on his wife.
But in a real marriage, with no adultery, a husband and wife truly loving each other and giving, with pleasure, to the life they share, making more for each other... that's ideal!
You don't have to prove to other people that you suffer. You are free to make the most love and pleasure that you can for each other. They might not want to hear about it, because envy hurts. But they could use the information to construct a good life for themselves. It's sad that this good news is withheld. It's become arcana.
There is also potential -- among the childless -- to do good works in the community.
Oh you can't mean doing something VOLUNTARY and for [shudder] Charity?
There are unions to consider! How dare you! Next thing you'll do will say it might be a good thing to have kids help pick-up after themselves at school ...
raaaaacist
"Ann, perhaps your math is more accurate than mine. IMO and experience, if one spouse stayed home, with one child, the cost of daycare, meal prep, transportation, etc. wouldn't equal the wage, especially in a higher wage earner situation."
Figure in the tax and the cost of working. Quite aside from that, the things you are buying are not as good as the things you'd do for yourself. That daycare, those fast-food meals -- that's not worth as much as what you'd do for your own family.
"Also the price that the stay at home spouse pays in future earning capacity is affected by being out of the workforce, especially for professionals."
In my ideal scenario, the home-based partner stays at home all along. If building a big career is what you want and both partners want it, go ahead. But that's not the argument you made.
Once the kids are out of the house, what will the home-based spouse do? It doesn't have to be go back to work! You could do nonearning activities of value. You could enjoy life and do everything you can to make life beautiful for your spouse.
Why do we think so little of the good we can do for our husband/wife? It's so much more than a extra money, half of which you must hand over to the govt.
Why are people so eager to do that?
"Sorry forgot taxation, you may be right."
Thanks.
Forgetting taxation... that's what they want you to do.
There is just very little respect for the kind of work a stay-at-home person does. It's more than politics or gender it's contempt for the work that goes into making a home.
I spent 16 years as a SAHM ... some of the busiest times of my life. I've been back in the workforce fulltime for almost as long now.
Am I behind my more professional peers who never took more than a few months maternity leave?
Depends, but I've never been one to gawk at the neighbors and covet their stuff. I wouldn't trade those years of being there for my girls for anything.
And I'm looking at retiring out of the workforce in 5 years so I can be there for my grandkids (just got a new one 1 week ago). I'm just going to transition into self-employment.
A lot of people my age are already in their 2nd career preparing for a 3rd.
Stop living to work, and work to live, people. You never see "CEO of XXX corp" on tombstones.
Do what's important.
My husband would like to be a kept man, too.
But that's different from having a stay-at-home Mom or a stay-at-home Dad. But not everyone has children at home.
If all the kids are in school, it *might* be handy to have one person free an available all day every day for whatever chores come up but I don't really see it.
One of my married daughters has a bachelors in art history, sort of a useless degree at this point, she stays at home with my three grandchildren. My son in laws earnings are more than adequate.
My youngest daughter is the attorney, still has student debt, her husband works at one of those Madison startups, his wage not matching hers. They just purchased a house, no kids yet, but my daughter and son in law have determined that both will need to work, even when after they have a child. Plus she can't risk losing her job, which is quite secure, as compared to friends she took the bar with in WI, who lost their jobs in private firms. Circumstances are different for every young couple, more power to the ones who can make it on one income. My daughter and son in law feel they won't be able to.
With the rise of our robot overlords, Walter Russell Mead wrote about what he was hearing with all this free time coming for us. Either we're gonna do good works for our fellow humans or it's gonna get worse.
We will see what happens.
If all the kids are in school, it *might* be handy to have one person free an available all day every day for whatever chores come up but I don't really see it.
School is 6-7 hrs. Full time employment is going to be a 9 hr day (8 paid + 1 hr lunch) plus commute time. Just who is going to get the kids up and ready, fix lunches, make sure homework is done and in backpacks then drop'em off and pick them up - drive them to after school sports/dance/music/scouts/study-sessions?
I can see part-time work or self-employment where one has the flexibility to take care of the kids' needs. But the SAHP is not hanging around "just in case".
Sheesh
If you read the article at NRO, you will see that 75% of the "40% of breadwinners" are single moms, living on poverty wages or welfare. So, this is not a story about the empowerment of single women by feminism. This is a story about the ongoing destruction of the American family by a soulless ideology invented by wealthy academic navel-gazers who never worked a day in their lives.
This is only true when people are young, but somewhere post 34ish, it becomes a matter of health. My sister is an indulged yoga soccer mom because she can afford to be.
Yeah, she's a sponge from a certain point of view but guess who doesn't have heart problems and takes care of the workaholics (not by choice) providers who do?
Too much work can kill. Enjoy your family and kids and keep your health.
"Stop living to work, and work to live, people. You never see "CEO of XXX corp" on tombstones."
But most live their lives like it does.
Some stay at home spouses are sponges. Perhaps she was just reflecting her own experience. Or her secret ambition.
I was the money bringing spouse. It felt spongeish more than once. End of the month, just wring me dry.
Darleen: Just another "Republican" who is not anywhere near being a Conservative.
A SAH spouse doesn't raise GDP. I'm pretty sure that's what Republicans mean by "conservative" these days - the only question that matters is "does it juice The Economy?" (Which, unlike the lower-case economy, is an end it itself, not a means to other desired ends.)
It makes little economic sense for both parents to work full-time when there is one or more youngsters in the house.
Correct math or not, if you allow these guys to "frame" (sorry) the debate strictly in terms of the cash value of the SAH spouse's work, you've already conceded the game. (Not that Althouse is doing that here.) Life includes economic necessity, but life is more than what "makes economic sense".
Funny how this economic reductionist view of family life reigns at a time of high unemployment/underemployment, especially for young people, for whom it used to be much easier to join the work force, learn skills, and contribute in the preferred quantifiable manner to Teh Economy.
I don't know about other men, but I keep my women, pregnant, well-shod and out in workplace, earning a paycheck.
Six weeks maternity leave, and its back to work.
They love it, its so feminist.
"Stop living to work, and work to live, people."
Unless you have divorced and through divorce become obligated to maintain the pre-divorce standard of living for your former spouse.
I think we need more immigrants to do the jobs these lazy, home-bodies won't do.
"Republican strategist" or "Democratic strategist" usually means some second rater with a modicum of camera presence who does not have a job of any authority in the party.
I'd often tell Mrs. RC, when she got up to take care of the baby, before going to work at 7 AM, that she was "sticking it to the male patriarchy".
Then, I'd go back to sleep.
I'm a real feminist.
Also it depends on how much the second wage earner makes. If it's a very large amount, there's still a lot left over after taxes and child care/home management expense. If you can bring yourself to invest that money rather than spend it, you are achieving a lot of future flexibility.
One size does not fit all in this discussion.
David, that is exactly the situation with my younger daughter. I do however understand Althouse's argument that in many cases the taxes eat up the benefit of working, for lower/ moderate wage earners.
Okay, Darleen... with kids old enough to get themselves on the bus and be home alone after school?
The brother of a friend of mine was definitely of the opinion that his wife wouldn't laze around, she'd work by golly... I don't know if he ever got married. That same friend's husband's first wife quit her job to stay home and have kids, never got pregnant, and bought a horse. I think he did mostly divorce her because he felt taken advantage of.
I was a stay-at-home Mom for more than 15 years. My kids that are in school are in high school and get themselves up and fed and dressed and on the school bus before the sun comes up. I get up to say "good morning" and "does anyone need lunch money", go back to bed and then my husband gets up to hug them on the way out the door.
I went back to school because I couldn't find a job but if I were home, what would I be doing? Granted, school for me isn't a 9 hour day either so I still do the errands and running around and taking kids to appointments.
It's not as though we live on a farm... which is, after all, a business and being self-employed.
but if I were home, what would I be doing?
When my two oldest were in high school, I was a Band Booster member - treasurer one year, president another - I ended up at the high school (or the jr high or the grade school, that my other two were at) doing what volunteer work needed to be done.
Some SAHP's volunteer for their church's charities -- feeding the hungry, conducting clothing drives, etc.
Some SAHP's run free-lance consulting or businesses from their homes during the time kids are NOT there.
There is so much to be done, that your lament makes as much sense as a kid during summer vacation saying "I'm bored."
Another thing important to consider, is that more parents now are turning to home-schooling
Great way to discourage it (besides the usual demonizing of it) is to "nudge" both parents into the workplace.
Stay at home work is not respected, but it's the work that makes it possible for others to be more productive at work or school outside of the home.
People who really get it are working lower income people with no support structure. When my husband and I were working and going to school and had 4 kids from age 4 to 12 we would have loved the luxury of having someone at home doing the small but essential things that make life easier. Only a low wage earner can understand the stress of having a sick child and not being able to stay home with them because your menial factory job will fire your ass if you don't show up and you need that itty bitty money so much that your child has to suffer alone while you work for peanuts.
It changes your attitude.
Ana Navarro must either not have experienced it or has forgotten it.
To continue Darlene's thoughts:
This SAHP got in involved in state politics by running a 527, a PAC and bundling money to candidates.
Not everyone has the same ability to be a self-starter, and that's not a male/female thing. Many people are more demanding of their own productivity than a boss would ever be... many other people are not, even if they're a super hard worker at a job.
If someone is *working at home* then they are *working*. And what difference does it make, then, if they're working at home or driving to a job?
If my lament sounds as whiny as a kid saying "I'm bored" in the summer time, the notion that anyone ought to be able to conjure a part-time out-of-your-home consulting business out of thin air sounds smug.
I Love You Synova.
I think Ann's math is right. There is also the hidden cost for children that have no parents at home during the day. Child care does not provide emotionally what a mother or a father provides.
Oooh I hate the "just work from home around your kids' schedule" bit, but I don't think it's really been pushed here. Darlene was saying that it's one thing sahms do while their kids are at school, and it has value. Okay, fair enough, but I honestly think most sahm "freelancing" is just a hobby (like Etsy-type crafting or writing) paying for itself, breaking even or a little better. Otherwise, if it's an actual job, it's a job, whether at home or work. Work-from-home jobs that are actual jobs (like home call-centers) are just as limiting when it comes to things like picking up a sick kid from school or going to a first grade awards ceremony at 1 pm or having someone to deal with the kids all summer (yeah, kids are never just in school; even when they're old enough to stay home alone for an hour before or after school, they're usually better off not being completely unsupervised 9 hours a day all summer).
Interpreting that figure as meaning that women have taken on a much larger breadwinning role would be exceedingly careless, the kind of thing you could only do if stupid or ideologically driven.
Reason #1 being, the bulk of that 40% (63% if I recall the survey breakdown correctly) are "single mothers," and these were assumed to be the sold breadwinners of the family. In other words, there was zero consideration of whether the "single" mother was receiving child support and alimony from a father, or cohabiting with a boyfriend who provided support (even most of the support) -- or both.
Reason #2, they didn't include public support either. Let's say "single mom" brings home $800 a month from working, while receiving $200 a month in CS/SS, $1,200 a month from the government in various ways, and living with a boyfriend who effectively splits his $1,500 a month income with her. This study calls her the "sole breadwinner." Noble and hardworking mother! Would any person less ideologically-driven than Pew call her the breadwinner? Ha ha.
There certainly is news here, in the slowly increasing tendency of married mothers to out-earn their partners (this data is much less polluted by gamesmanship with unexamined income streams). It was 4% in 1960, now it's 23%.
This being Pew, there's a bunch of BS in there about the effect of education and opportunity for women, which is meant to have us believe it's all women becoming lawyers and doctors and supporting their grocery store assistant manager husbands, which of course has zero empirical support from their data, not to mention common sense (most female doctors marry male doctors, of course).
I vaguely recall a more serious study of the issue some years ago that pointed more plausibly to the collapse since the 1970s of the kind of blue-collar jobs paying high wages but requiring only a high-school education that were, and still are, preferentially occupied by men -- stuff like mechanic, machinist or machinery operator, heavy industry foreman or floor manager, fishing captain, lumberjack, et cetera. Computer-driven machinery and robotics, not to mention international competition, have slaughtered these jobs by the millions, as the unions will tell you angrily. (They're right about the facts, even if they're 100% wrong on the solutions.)
The equivalent for women with a meager touch of education -- RNs, office managers, teachers, government office drones, customer service -- haven't been hit nearly as hard. This shouldn't be surprising: women have always gravitated to jobs where "caring" (or to be less snarky "the human touch") is more important, while men have gravitated to jobs that are more dangerous, rigidly defined, and put a premium on speed and skill acquisition. But it is of course precisely the latter jobs that lend themselves to mechanization and computerization better, and the former that resist it. We can all imagine a computerized robot lumberjack or mine supervisor, but a computerized robot nurse or kindergarten teacher would be an abomination.
I don't doubt that "changing social attidues" have some modest influence on the changing demographics of income. But an honest account would have to disentangle the profoundly confounding influences of bogus accounting of income streams and the changing fortunes of the types of jobs preferred by men and women. A tall order, and certainly exceeding Pew's competence, such as it is.
Seriously, it's easy to find things to do with yourself if you are a smart, loving spouse. You don't need to have a job to make you intersting or keep you active.
We've lived a completely different life than I thought we would, and it wouldn't have been possible if I'd tied my worth to a job, or if my husband had tied my worth to a job.
"...a meager touch of education..." is how Carl describes the training needed to be an RN??? How incredibly ignorant. As ignorant, in fact, as Navarro's statements.
Strikes me more as a female thing than a republican thing. Hell hath no fury like a woman that would prefer to stay home and raise kids.
Strikes me more as a female thing than a republican thing. Hell hath no fury like a woman that would prefer to stay home and raise kids.
Are you sure that that statistic applies to only families that include an adult male, an adult and children female and that it excludes families where there is only an adult female and children?
Are you sure that that statistic applies to only families that include an adult male, an adult and children female and that it excludes families where there is only an adult female and children?
@Althouse
"People should learn to economize for the purpose of claiming more of their OWN time."
Amen sister. I work and my SO stays at home with our one child. I love what I do (most days) and I'm just happy one of us doesn't have to do the 8-6 thing all week. I see it as a huge step up in quality of life. If he were able to make more money than me, he'd be in my shoes and I would be in his.
""Republican strategist" Ana Navarro:"
I've noticed that a lot Republican strategists don't seem to me to be real Republicans but people who are more or mainly concerned with their careers and I know the same can be said about some Republican politicians and I and others say it all the time. RINOs.
Raising babies, toddlers, schoolchildren and students -- even if you home school -- is not that much of an intellectual challenge.
Many women, and most men, want to use their talents, gifts and skills -- especially if they are intelligent -- in working with other adults in pursuing a specialized field of knowledge.
And if that specialized knowledge is child development ...?
Is teaching in a classroom setting more or less intellectually challenging than home schooling?
I don't know.
I most heartily agree.
Post a Comment