Supports for working moms?

Question

So, based on the general consensus that most two-income couples with children "must" work to "survive", one could assume that there is are a large number of people in the US who would rather be at-home parents. So, what can we do to help people to make freer choices?

If there really are lots of women who would rather not be working full-time, then taxpayer-funded daycare doesn't seem very supportive of their free choice. This would make it even harder for one-income families to compete with two-income families. So what could we do so that women don't feel that they must work?

Ms. Friedan started quite a revolution by telling the world that a large number of housewives felt forced into it and would rather be at work. Shouldn't feminists now fight for women who would rather be at home, along with fighting for working women?

Ember makes a great point - most gov't policies only help a few women, such as single women rather than all poor women. So if a woman gets married, she loses her assistance! That seems crazy to me.

Sigy - doesn't taxpayer funded daycare give a preference to non-parental care? Why should my taxes go to support only families who make that choice? Don't polices that favor dual-income familes just make it harder for women to really choose?

Answer 1

I'm sure if you polled working men, many of them would love to not have to work. The reality of the matter is many people do have to work, and what they want to do is irrelevent. You don't have the right to stay home. Unless you were born into a rich family, or you married rich, most people have to work to be able to stay home. That means, for instance, both spouses getting an education so one spouse can make enough money for one to stay home, or both spouses saving enough money before childbearing so one can stay home, and keeping yourselves out of debt. It sounds to me you just want things handed to you.

Answer 2

So, what can we do to help people to make freer choices?

I love this part of your question!
I have always been told that having money does not make you happy, but it DOES provide you with more choices. IF this is true, then we are living in a classist society, where the economically privileged have choices and the economically challenged have no (or fewer) choices. Of course, this in not new to anyone unless they have had their heads in the sand.

Social programs are limited in scope and create dependency. I wouldn't suggest eliminating them, but I don't think that is the direction to go in this question. What we need to do is re-evaluate and re-define the economic value (ie. wages paid) for specific jobs. That's essentially what labor unions did. They negotiated with management to ensure their members were paid a living wage.

We also need to look at how much time is wasted by employees , on average, during the course of a work week. My guess is that most companies could reduce their staffing by 10% or more and still get the same amount of work done.
Fewer employees, but pay them a little more. Unfortunately, there will not be a one-to-one match between the people who would choose to leave to become SAH parents, and the time wasters that management would be happy to let go.

More part-time professional positions, job sharing and flexible work-at-home arrangements would also help create choices to meet the demand for balancing work and family.

Health/medical insurance is a separate can of worms, but it really must be addressed in order to discuss stay at home options. I would be remiss if I failed to mention it.

So, yes, feminists should be working on making these employment choices viable for all women, not just those who already have money, education and networking connections.

Answer 3

I realize that I am going to be mighty unpopular after posting this, but I would like to throw in an opinion from another point of view....

I realize that it is every woman's right to have a child. And I also realize that most women feel that maternal urge and truly want to have children. But how reasonable is it for a woman (or a couple) who can barely make ends meet with just themselves, to have a child? We see it all the time...women or couples having children when they really can't afford them. And then it is expected that the government and the taxpayers help out.

As a childless person, I would like to see people taking a little more responsibility. If you can't afford to have children, then having them anyway just seems a little irresponsible to me. And how many of those people who are barely getting by are using disposable diapers, instead of the more economical cloth diapers? And how many are breastfeeding - a more economical, but not as convenient feeding method?

Answer 4

Well Juniper for what it's worth I Do support your right to be a stay at home mom. My mom was at home when I was little.

But the fact is that women in the 1st world don't just work because they have to they work because they Want to. Many women want to be at home to raise small children but not do it forever. The truth is that most women want to have careers and professions.

Betty Friedan didn't just say that a large number of housewives felt forced into it that was for real. Back in the day there were a lot of things that adult women had in their way. And this was in AMERICA .. you know .. the most powerful country in the world and is supposed to be all about liberty and justise for all! (Well I'm old enough to know to not to believe everything that I read...)

Do yes I support your right to be a stay at home mom if that's what you want. I support a man's right to be a stay at home dad if that's what he wants.

But I don't want to be forced to pay for your decision with my taxes. I'm sorry but you seem to be going there when you talk about "taxpayer-funded daycare". Daycare cost is a legitimate expense and it should be alowed from income taxes.

When you and your husband decided to be a 1 income family that was your call to make as adults. If you feel that it is worth it to you to than ok that is your decision and your trade off.

But don't try to f--- with my freedom or my money.

Answer 5

Whatever happened to people taking responsibility for their own actions? If you want to be a stay at home parent, then plan appropriately, don't wait for the government to help you out? This suggestion just seem ludicrous. It's equally as silly that many single parents remain single just to get the government help instead of (GASP)...taking responsibility for the life that they have created. Most people MAKE the choice to have unprotected sex and then act surprised when babies pop out, and then want to know who the heck is going to help them raise the child that mysteriously appeared.

Sure, making babies is a right, but it's also a decision and a responsibility. We are almost acting as if it's OUR RIGHT to make babies whenever we want, regardless of if we can afford it. What has happened to common sense?

It is a societal problem/issue....as a society we need to start teaching the youth to take more responsibility for their actions, to use common sense, to try to plan etc.

To have the government HAND OUT MORE to make it fair to all women just seems backwards. Pretty soon, nobody will have any incentive to do anything because it will all be handed to them by the government.

The question should not be how can we help people to make freer choices, the question should be, how as a society can we make better choices from the beginning so that we aren't running around slapping bandaids on boo boo's and throwing money at problems as a solution.

Answer 6

I don't know how many women feel that way, truly. I would also say that in most two-income families, both people don't have to work to "survive". I would say that both of them may have to work to live the lifestyle they want or are accustomed to.

Personally, when I was married with an infant son, I didn't have to work. We were surviving just fine. I wanted to work because we wanted nicer things and because I didn't feel that I was able to give my son the kind of social interaction and learning that he was given at daycare.

Now that I am divorced, I have to work. However, if I got remarried tomorrow to the world's richest man, I would continue to work. I might cut back on the hours a little, but I have no desire to be a stay-at-home parent.

Still, I don't think feminists should have to fight for women who would rather be at home. For the most part, these women can be at home if they and their partners are willing to make material sacrifices to allow it.

Answer 7

:) good question!!

there should be some help for one of the parents to stay home with the children (be it the father or the mother) until they are old enough for school, at least! perhaps tax incentives... or the gov't could support the stay at home parent the same way they would the daycare! (if the gov't is going to subsidise child care by a stranger--which they already DO, why not the actual PARENT?)

also, welfare / food stamps / WIC needs changed a bit, imo. perhaps into a tier system, so more people get assistance, but those in upper tiers get less. we're scraping by just above the limit for any assistance at all, and my friend that makes about 2/3 what we do is doing BETTER than i am financially, because she gets hundreds of dollars a month from the government. it just seems off! she still has to work, mind you, but her daycare is paid for & she get the max amount of food stamps (my budget for food is half what she gets) and every other kind of assistance there is.

another thing to address may be insurance--i'm running into some issues with mine not covering *cheaper* birthing options (birthing center, midwives, etc), only hospitalized births. which doesn't make sense to me! i could pay for 100% of a home birth myself, and be paying the same amount out of pocket than i would be with a hopsital birth which the insurance covers 80% of. if they'd cover a birthing center or less expensive options it would be better all around! (this would not put the burden on anyone else, and would actually REDUCE costs for everyone involved)

edit in response to addt'l details:
the policies of government assistance *discourages* people from getting married!! my friend that i speak of lives with her boyfriend & they've put off getting married because she will lose assistance. if i hadn't gone the route of marriage before children, *i* could also get assistance right now.

Answer 8

Q: "Shouldn't feminists now fight for women who would rather be at home, along with fighting for working women?"

Feminists fight for the rights of poor women, and oppressed women. Wealthy women have fewer immediate concerns like 'roof-over-head' or 'food-on-table.' Women are more likely than men to be poor.

It's a matter of prioritising things: resources ($$$) are limited. Government can't be all things to all people and the poorest are the ones who require immediate attention. Once there are no more poor people to worry about then society can make it's way up the food chain and hopefully to address less pressing issues.

Answer 9

Absolutely. The women's movement was supposed to be about CHOICE. What needs to happen is wages need to go up and living expenses need to go down so we as a society can once again make it on one income. Those who wish to work, men and women, do so. SOMEONE has to raise the kids. Daycare is okay, but do we want an entire generation raised in day care? Do we want to sentence our children to this same lifestyle when they are grown?

Answer 10

I totally disagree with giving people assistance to stay home- such as tax credit (which is just another form of welfare). A tax credit means that I would have to pay more in taxes. I am sick of single women lazing at home, I'm not going to pay for married women too. Its what people call personal responsibility.

If you want to have children DONT expect me to pay for you to stay home. Thats the choice YOU and your spouse need to make. Don't make ME responsible for your decisions.