Is there ANYONE looking out for homemakers/ stay at home moms?

[Anonymous]

Its not a competition, gender or money. Its something society needs considering increasing mental health issues and learning disabilities.

[Anonymous]

They are the ones who substituted in our school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any party, lobby or an individual politician advocating for people who work without titles and compensations? Its been a traditional role serving nation’s most important units known as families, nation’s most important asset known as minor citizens and nation’s most important buildings known as homes. They fill so many voids in the society but get no recognition, no compensation or no one protecting this endangered species. Isn’t it about time for them to stand up for their rights and for others to acknowledge and support it?

There should be more opportunities for SAHP to come back to paid work if they need to. Just like there are preferential paths for URMs, SAHP need help with reintegration into work force.

[Anonymous]

SAHPs are not a monolith. I have no interest in further supplementing the SAHPs who are UMC or wealthy.

If you want to talk to me about helping families that are struggling financially in this country, fine.

Discussions should be about helping the poor in our country, not particularly sahps.

[Anonymous]

Childcare, eldercare and healthcare are huge industries benefitting from making staying at home financially impossible. I guess work from home trends would change some patterns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t understand what the policy “ask” is for SAH parents.

Universal basic income for SAH parents? Subsidized maternity costs and early child education? An additional tax credit?

What exactly do you want politicians to do?

Yes, the things that you listed would be a good start. SAHM are doing work that would need to be covered by a nanny or daycare if they weren’t doing it. They should at least get UBI and SSI credit for this work.

That’s good and all. But you’ll never get white, religious conservatives to agree to that - even those that have a SAHM. They are too worried who else will avail themselves of those benefits and wealthy elite conservatives don’t want the tax increase.

Instead of blaming feminism, SAHMs should instead look at the white conservatives men who keep the boot on their necks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SAHPs are not a monolith. I have no interest in further supplementing the SAHPs who are UMC or wealthy.

If you want to talk to me about helping families that are struggling financially in this country, fine.

Discussions should be about helping the poor in our country, not particularly sahps.

Every topic needs discussion and open mind. Its not always about $$$$. Its almost like saying, “all lives matter” so stop mentioning “black lives matter”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAHPs are not a monolith. I have no interest in further supplementing the SAHPs who are UMC or wealthy.

If you want to talk to me about helping families that are struggling financially in this country, fine.

Discussions should be about helping the poor in our country, not particularly sahps.

Every topic needs discussion and open mind. Its not always about $$$$. Its almost like saying, “all lives matter” so stop mentioning “black lives matter”. [/quote


What is it about then?!? Nobody has articulated any way in which sahps are oppressed or otherwise lacking "rights."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any party, lobby or an individual politician advocating for people who work without titles and compensations? Its been a traditional role serving nation’s most important units known as families, nation’s most important asset known as minor citizens and nation’s most important buildings known as homes. They fill so many voids in the society but get no recognition, no compensation or no one protecting this endangered species. Isn’t it about time for them to stand up for their rights and for others to acknowledge and support it?

In short, no. Remember when Hillary bragged that she decided not to stay home and bake cookies?

When I see threads going this way, I wonder how old the PPs are. You have to consider history and context. Hillary Clinton was part of a generation in which women were discouraged from pursuing careers. When they did forge ahead, they faced discrimination and barriers that prevented them from equal pay etc. For them, staying at home amounted to defeat, giving up. They are proud of their grit and perseverance.

We are now working toward more encompassing views of roles for women, and, I hope, parents. The pendulum is swinging back, so to speak, so that being a SAHP is viewed more as a choice for your family rather than bowing to the patriarchy. But we aren't all the way there. This discussion really needs to encompass men, as well, and we need to stop the focus of childcare always being about only mothers. We can work to persuade older women to soften their views about roles for women, but to just dismiss them ignores their experiences, their contributions and their toughness.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only person that should be looking out for SAHMs is their husband/wife. The tax payer should not be on the hook for an able bodied person who has decided they would prefer to stay home.

As wohm I have to agree. Let’s eliminate the marriage tax penalty before doing anything else to support sahm. It’s hard to see my .70/dollar be taxed higher when I don’t have the privilege to sahm. All our carpools and committees are with other wohm.

But you expect taxpayers and other employees to support you when you take off for maternity leave, right? Selfish. Listen, spite and envy make for bad policy. We all need others’ support. You’re what’s wrong with America.

I ask this seriously. How would this work? SAHMs don't generate any revenue. They don't have any income to tax. The only thing they do that working mothers don't do is childcare during working hours. Otherwise, all families have the same basic stuff getting done around the house, with the cars, etc. What are they not getting for that childcare that you believe they should be getting.

Rick Scott has the whole Senate GOP running on a plan to tax people who don’t generate any revenue. OP is that what you’re looking for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve had a career and later stayed home. Being done both, I can see the value in both but found happiness at home. I genuinely think full time work is a sham and only reason I would go back is if I’m bored. I’ve skills to work online for a couple of hours a week to cover necessities and I’m happier at home.

I totally get extrovert and driven who want attention and praise and luxury but that’s not my thing. I can make a difference by volunteering and never feel bored if I have books, music and beach. This may change and I may get into cars and designer goods and luxury but for now, I don’t need more money. Simple is good.

You do realize that nothing would ever be accomplished if everyone chose not to work, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only person that should be looking out for SAHMs is their husband/wife. The tax payer should not be on the hook for an able bodied person who has decided they would prefer to stay home.

As wohm I have to agree. Let’s eliminate the marriage tax penalty before doing anything else to support sahm. It’s hard to see my .70/dollar be taxed higher when I don’t have the privilege to sahm. All our carpools and committees are with other wohm.

But you expect taxpayers and other employees to support you when you take off for maternity leave, right? Selfish. Listen, spite and envy make for bad policy. We all need others’ support. You’re what’s wrong with America.

I ask this seriously. How would this work? SAHMs don't generate any revenue. They don't have any income to tax. The only thing they do that working mothers don't do is childcare during working hours. Otherwise, all families have the same basic stuff getting done around the house, with the cars, etc. What are they not getting for that childcare that you believe they should be getting.

Rick Scott has the whole Senate GOP running on a plan to tax people who don’t generate any revenue. OP is that what you’re looking for?

Add you suggesting raising children and managing homes isn’t work? These draconian laws take freedom of choice away. Women can’t have abortion but they’ll be taxed if tried to raise the baby themselves. Drop him at govt run daycare at 6.08 AM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve had a career and later stayed home. Being done both, I can see the value in both but found happiness at home. I genuinely think full time work is a sham and only reason I would go back is if I’m bored. I’ve skills to work online for a couple of hours a week to cover necessities and I’m happier at home.

I totally get extrovert and driven who want attention and praise and luxury but that’s not my thing. I can make a difference by volunteering and never feel bored if I have books, music and beach. This may change and I may get into cars and designer goods and luxury but for now, I don’t need more money. Simple is good.

You do realize that nothing would ever be accomplished if everyone chose not to work, right?

How do you see a person providing daycare/eldercare, managing home, volunteering as not working? How many people actually want to do it? Its a dying trade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any party, lobby or an individual politician advocating for people who work without titles and compensations? Its been a traditional role serving nation’s most important units known as families, nation’s most important asset known as minor citizens and nation’s most important buildings known as homes. They fill so many voids in the society but get no recognition, no compensation or no one protecting this endangered species. Isn’t it about time for them to stand up for their rights and for others to acknowledge and support it?

You want some cheese with that?

[Anonymous]

Rick Scott doesn’t want to tax billionaires but want $3 bucks from cancer patients so they have skin in the game. Brilliant!