Considering that so many people support a traditional stay at home role for women?

Question

Should women who take traditional roles such as homemaker, housekeeping, child care, child rearing, wife, mother, grandmother etc get paid or some sort of guaranteed support? If this was a proposed law you could vote for, how would you vote and why? What details would make you lean another direction? Would you vote in favor of a law that guaranteed even single mothers support in being stay at home mothers?

Answer 1

I believe that all low and middle income children should have a small "pension" from the state, particularly before school age. How the attached parents choose to use this pension is up to them. It would encourage employment or college for women who choose this route, and it would help other women to stay home.

It would save millions in foster care and court costs, since the majority of kids are "pulled" due to neglect - i.e., poverty of the parents. It would save money as women wouldn't be punished for marriage by losing the state aids that they have now. We could wipe out the dependant care credit that goes solely to working moms using center-based daycare, and mostly goes to upper-middle class families. It would also save money as it might help some women ease into employment after having a baby, leaving room for job training or college classes. This would benefit the economy in multiple ways. Women would not be as dependant on abusive partners, and it was recommended as one possible measure to save money in future prison costs by a psychiatrist studying the link between early parenting and later crime. More resources for mom mean better outcomes, and everyone saves money.

I also propose a pension system for every parent who raises a child that does not end up in prison. Once you hit age 65, if you were a parent, you get a small bonus for your very real help to our economy. After all, half of the social security system "equation" is the availability of a future workforce, and we owe something to the (mainly women) who raised that workforce. My friend Shari raised four military men and a teacher.... and gets a big fat ZERO for her efforts.

Motherhood is the #1 risk factor for poverty in this country... over age, education level, race, and childhood socioeconomic status. This is reaching crisis-level proportions. As bankruptcy rates among mothers skyrocket, perhaps we could all decide to do something a little more pro-active than a card on Mother's Day. Our entire society rests on their unpaid labor, and then we allow them to face dire poverty as they contribute to our economy.

Answer 2

Hmmm well being a stay at home mum living in Australia, I receive parenting payment from the government. It is not a great amount and what I receive is based on how much my husband earns in his job. All mothers here in Australia receive parenting payment unless their or their husbands earnings are over a certain limit.
I stay at home and have decided not to return to work as yet because the childcare costs for my youngest child are horrendous and I would lose most of my wage and then I would lose most of the parenting payment. Have done my sums and financially I am better off at home until my youngest reaches school age. My husband pays alot of tax, and with parenting payment I see it that way we are getting some of it back.
In the mean time I am looking to do a course to gain some works skills which would be helpful once I do return to work, so it's not all wasted time.

Answer 3

That has been proposed several times. I'm not sure if I'd support such a law. Housewives would no longer be financially dependent on their husbands, but they would be on the government. A monthly stipend of a thousand dollars or so might be a good choice. But no matter what happens with this concept, I'm never staying at home.

Answer 4

No, I would not be in support of a massive extension of the welfare state, thank you.

But I would be in support of companies actually paying their employees enough to support their family. I'd like that much better. I hate this "new economy" where both parents are expected to work. They do realize the whole reason kids have parents is so they can be taken care of, right? I don't care if it's the man or the women but one of the parents should be able to spend most of their time with their children, which is hard to reconcile with needing to work a 9-5 five days a week. I agree that parenting is undervalued in our culture. Our culture often seems to think of it as being like a hobby that you should do in your spare time, it is NOT.

I don't think the financial independence of the housewife is an issue, she CHOSE to give that up by becoming a housewife.

What I MIGHT support was a similar program, but only for low-income households, to allow one of the parents (man or woman) to devote more of their time to the children.

Answer 5

Our economy is dependent upon the free labor that housewives and mothers provide. If these people were paid by the government, our economy would suffer greatly. I think that in theory, it's a nice idea, but it would be disastrous in practice.

A better alternative to this idea would be paid maternity leave, so that these women wouldn't have to choose between a family and a career. However, I'm afraid that the roll of wife and mother will always be a thankless job. Sadly, the entertainment and advertising industries are the only ones that can change public opinion.

Answer 6

I think the key is that child rearing, which is seen primarily as a woman's role, is undervalued period in western culture. Children are our future, and I know that is a cliche, but given their importance for this world, shouldn't we rate parenting a lot more than we do, rather than an inconvenience, an add on to life?

I don't think the answer is a salary, but more support and a whole lot more recognition would go a long way.

And for those who choose to work (as I do part time), more support from employers and colleagues would be nice too. Parents are damned if they do work and damned if they don't. That's the other thing...everyone is an expert on kids and parenting...apparently.

Answer 7

I certainly would like stay at home moms to get paid but you bring up a really interesting point. Will that encourage-as if they need it-girls to get pregnant and stay at home without benefit of clergy and a husband? Obviously there would be some criteria for getting the salary. Maybe women would have to fill out forms to prove they are in fact stay at home moms. I'd be willing to put it up for a vote.

Answer 8

I would not vote for it because it would mean I would be paying for mothers who don't want to work outside the home. As a person with no children, I already pay more taxes than those with children eventhough most of that money either goes to the children or the military when the children grow up.

The husband who does work can pay his own wife. There is no reason for people outside the family to pay for the wife to stay home. That is a personal decision these days.

I would support lowering my taxes that go to children even though I don't have any. Why am I paying for your children. Now with the voucher system, Christians want me to pay to send their children to religious schools so they can grow up and oppose me.

Answer 9

Thats a fab idea! If we did that just think of the results. Better adjusted, educated mannered people in the world. Socialists and communists have both tried this. Had our evolution taken another turn, it may have been possible. Though we did form groups and eventually civilization, we remain primarily individuals concerned with our individual survival and pro-creation on a primal level. Maybe, someday.....

Answer 10

The federal government already supports stay at homes (men or women) by giving tax breaks to married couples, and more tax breaks on a per-child basis. Bear in mind that for every "exemption" parents claim on their taxes, reducing their tax obligation, somebody else who has no little "exemptions" makes up the difference. What parents choose to do with their tax savings is up to them.

Having children is a choice, and staying home with them is a choice. Personally, I do not think either choice should draw a salary from everyone else.

By the way - I am a feminist , a parent, and a full time worker.

Answer 11

I support "Private" corporations and don't want the government to take over and make us "Communist".

The family unit is like a "Private Corporation." Like all corporations it has the opportunities to succeed or fail. I don't believe that the "Government" should take away this right by making "Laws." Life doesn't offer gurantee's. The Government isn't "God." When people start overly depending on the government, they find themselves disapointed like during the Katrina Crisis.

Life is tough. Those lucky enough to be stay at home Mom's --- Cherish every moment! For life can change with an eye's blink. Husbands who have wives who stay at home ... Cherish it for she may be in an accident, leaving the burdon on you.

However, I don't believe we as a society should turn blind eyes at the failing families and this is where "Charity" like Woman's Shelters, Churches, Food Banks, and Education Scholarships should be DONATED by the public. Woe's to you who don't support the needy.