The atypical mom...

[Michie]

I've been following the "never worked a day in her life" story with a sense of dread -- not because I think that Hilary Rosen's opinion is especially significant, but because I knew I was going to end up writing about it. How dreary, how tedious, to have to say one more time: no, stay-at-home moms aren't all lazy, or parasites, or fabulously wealthy.

Continued- The atypical mom...

 

[Fantine]

I can identify with stay-at-home moms more readily than I can full-time working moms, because I never worked full-time when my kids were little.

And yes, I know that motherhood can be hard work.

I did a lot of volunteering in the community, too, when I was a SAHM. And that was hard work.

But when I look at today's young moms who are back at work when their babies are only a few weeks old, I am IN AWE.

I cannot imagine how they do it--and some of them are doing it without husbands. Wow! My hats are off to them! I am astonished!

I worked hard......but when I look at them I realize I had no idea how easy I had it.

About the only thing I can say that makes a SAHM's job harder is that she often has a husband who does whatever it takes to allow her to stay home. In my husband's case, I have never known him to work less than 60 hours a week. Ever. He traveled a little...maybe two days a month...

Then there were the job changes due to the behind the scenes finagling of companies like Bain Capital...when he would move to another state 6 months before I did.

And so we had a less egalitarian relationship. He brought home the bacon--and everything else was "my job." That was the price I paid to be married to someone who brought home a lot of bacon (nowhere near Romney-style, of course--it wasn't laced with caviar). But even that wasn't that high a price...he didn't mow the lawn or fix things...but he paid other people to do it. And I did have household help here and there, and probably could have had it even more if I'd wanted it.

 

[AMDG]

But when I look at today's young moms who are back at work when their babies are only a few weeks old, I am IN AWE.

I cannot imagine how they do it

Since you say that you can't imagine how its done, I thought I'd tell you. You see another military mother (who was grateful to see her grandchildren so often) and I were wondering what *we* did way back "in the day" and realized that the mothers' of today are able to work or go to school because of the insurance policy of their mothers, something we didn't have. IOW the mothers of today are able to do so much more because they have the insurance policy of their own mothers (or families) basically raising their children. We had to do it all alone--we didn't have daycare (heck babes weren't even taken at day cares until they were six *months* old--now it's like sex *weeks* if that. Plus we actually had cloth diapers that had to be laundered regularly (boiled and double rinsed so baby wouldn't get diaper rash)--there wasn't such a thing as store-bought paper diapers. Children in Kindnegarten had to at least be potty trained. Now? Not so much. They have paper diapers for that size child. Then there wasn't any after-school programs or "latch key" programs for children in school back "in the day". Mothers were expected to be there for their children or the social workers would get involved. The schools weren't expected to raise children for the parents and the children were not expected to drag themselves up, doing whatever they wanted (sometimes getting in trouble it with the law and hiding any notes from the court so parents don't see.)

Sadly there is a "trade off", instead of mom being able to see babies milestones (first walking, first word, first whatever) babysitter, grandma or the childcare center gets to view it. And instead of the parent being actively involved in his child's schoolwork and upbringing--he has to work. And instead of the teen having supervision so as to keep him "out of trouble" if necessary, there isn't any--mom and dad's time is at the company.

 

[Fantine]

And the saddest thing about the scenario you just presented, AMDG, is that Republican policies that decimated the middle class has made it necessary for families to have two incomes.

Tell me--if there's no healthcare, less food stamps, less unemployment insurance, fewer Pell grants or student loans---how is that going to help allow mothers to stay home with their children if they choose?

Few can make that choice today.

I have known a number of young families who work different shifts--wife 7 to 3, hubby 3 to 11 (for example.) They never see one another. No wonder why they have small families.

Then again, how could couples ever practice NFP when they have to make appointments to have a cup of coffee together?

 

[AMDG]

Tell me--if there's no healthcare, less food stamps, less unemployment insurance, fewer Pell grants or student loans---how is that going to help allow mothers to stay home with their children if they choose?

That's why, women are concerned with the economy (jobs, gas prices, inflation) instead of free birth control and "gimmees".

Making men irrelevant to the family does not help society. It's the fathers with an income that allow the mothers to be at home with their children to raise them to be contributing citizens. (Sometimes it's the father who stays home to raise the children, but employment is a plus and inflation is not.) And it's a thriving economy that allows people to purchase their healthcare--making them pay for worthless insurance under Obamacare (worthless because there will not be enough doctors to provide needed healthcare of folks.)

 

[Fantine]

You can't have a thriving economy without a thriving middle class.

Middle class and poorer people spend their tax cuts. The wealthy save them--or invest them overseas.

If you want to see a dollar go back into the economy, give it to a family of four with a $50K income.

The economy as a whole was much more prosperous when there was less disparity between rich and poor, and when tax rates were higher. Even the rich prospered more, although their tax rates were higher.

Exactly what does union busting and civil service busting have to do with helping families have jobs that pay living wages?

 

[AMDG]

Exactly what does union busting and civil service busting have to do with helping families have jobs that pay living wages?

Are you talking about free work states vs union only states? Are you talking about allowing folks to have a job instead of forcing them to pay or make it so they can't work at all?