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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. I think most people want to step in and out of work, as the needs of their family dictate. They want flexible hours, shorter hours or opportunities to take off for several years to care for young children or other family members. As a society we need to prioritize children, families, communities, mental and physical health. Most people want to work and be productive, it’s inherent in our nature, but the current system is extremely taxing for the vast majority of people. They live to work, at the detriment of everything else.

I support this. And it is one of the only concrete "policies" proposed on this strange thread.

But what is being proposed here is not about SAHP. In fact, OP and the people she is talking about who currently SAH would not be the beneficiaries of these policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I never suggested that raising children and managing homes isn’t work. I suggested it doesn’t generate and revenue, and it does not.

[Anonymous]

Well for a long time we have had a shortage of quality, affordable day care. Instead of pumping hundreds of millions of dollars to have day care centers care for children, why not subsidize families who have a parent who would like to care for their own children. Ensures a higher quality of care in most cases, also shores up the family stability which is good for everyone.

[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?

You won’t get support for this. It’s assumed all SAH moms are rich and privileged.

My wife is a SAHM, despite being a Smith grad with a law degree. Wow, I feel great about myself now.

I'm a SAHM. I did it because my child was very sick, and now I'm unemployable (20 years out of the work force will do that to you).

DCUM is very nasty to SAHMs. Very.

I wish we had an organization. We work hard for no pay. My DH is great, but I know a few men who are controlling, ie "I make the money, so I decide...."

The only reason WOMEN (mostly) have to SAH is because the work structure is set up for the separation of home and workplace, e.g. we still have the Industrial Revolution model. We have not come very far in terms of equity for women and men in terms of childcare and work in more than 150 years. It's pretty appalling. Women who are successful succeed within the existing male-dominated and male-created structure. But women have not demanded that the structure change. I hope that's one good thing that comes out of the pandemic. When jobs are remote, men and women can share child care equally. The man doesn't have to run off to the workplace, nor does the woman, leaving the nanny or childcare to take care of the kids. And part-time careers are rare. Why can't men and women share jobs? The idea that if you work only part-time you are less productive is an artificial construct, as is the 40 hour work week. There's an easy way to measure productivity while everyone's on their computer, but this calculation has not been made. And now, there's this antique push to send all those Federal workers back to the office, as if commuting and sitting in front of your computer dressed in work clothes is better than sitting in front of your computer at home, going to Zoom meetings in pajama bottoms and dress shirts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I never suggested that raising children and managing homes isn’t work. I suggested it doesn’t generate and revenue, and it does not.

It doesn't generate revenue directly because the women who do it are volunteers. They are not paid for their labor. But that labor does generate revenue indirectly by allowing others to work who would not be able to if they had to watch children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I never suggested that raising children and managing homes isn’t work. I suggested it doesn’t generate and revenue, and it does not.

We only need revenue to take care of the society, it doesn’t matter how people contribute. Healthy kids, happy individuals, productive spouse is what they are adding to community’s revenue box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well for a long time we have had a shortage of quality, affordable day care. Instead of pumping hundreds of millions of dollars to have day care centers care for children, why not subsidize families who have a parent who would like to care for their own children. Ensures a higher quality of care in most cases, also shores up the family stability which is good for everyone.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I never suggested that raising children and managing homes isn’t work. I suggested it doesn’t generate and revenue, and it does not.

It doesn't generate revenue directly because the women who do it are volunteers. They are not paid for their labor. But that labor does generate revenue indirectly by allowing others to work who would not be able to if they had to watch children.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You won’t get support for this. It’s assumed all SAH moms are rich and privileged.

My wife is a SAHM, despite being a Smith grad with a law degree. Wow, I feel great about myself now.

I'm a SAHM. I did it because my child was very sick, and now I'm unemployable (20 years out of the work force will do that to you).

DCUM is very nasty to SAHMs. Very.

I wish we had an organization. We work hard for no pay. My DH is great, but I know a few men who are controlling, ie "I make the money, so I decide...."

The only reason WOMEN (mostly) have to SAH is because the work structure is set up for the separation of home and workplace, e.g. we still have the Industrial Revolution model. We have not come very far in terms of equity for women and men in terms of childcare and work in more than 150 years. It's pretty appalling. Women who are successful succeed within the existing male-dominated and male-created structure. But women have not demanded that the structure change. I hope that's one good thing that comes out of the pandemic. When jobs are remote, men and women can share child care equally. The man doesn't have to run off to the workplace, nor does the woman, leaving the nanny or childcare to take care of the kids. And part-time careers are rare. Why can't men and women share jobs? The idea that if you work only part-time you are less productive is an artificial construct, as is the 40 hour work week. There's an easy way to measure productivity while everyone's on their computer, but this calculation has not been made. And now, there's this antique push to send all those Federal workers back to the office, as if commuting and sitting in front of your computer dressed in work clothes is better than sitting in front of your computer at home, going to Zoom meetings in pajama bottoms and dress shirts.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP wants national acknoweldgment, respect and honor for staying at home. I don't know about UBI, universal healthcare, family leave, etc. Maybe he/she want SAHP History Month? A day to recognize a SAHP that contributed to society? Maybe OP has some suggestions? Or maybe instead of exploring career choices in HS, OP wants them to explore a future in SAHP? But I would think Home Ec and Child Development classes would fall under that category. OP can you clarify your ideas more?

Not the OP, but I'm replying anyway.

It's a structural problem. Women and men (not many) who stay at home full-time to care for children are unpaid. Nannies, OTOH, are paid. Why are SAHPs not paid? Why is that not mandatory?

And let's face it, most SAHPs are SAHMs, not SAHDs. I've known only ONE SAHD in 25 years.

Yes, I want part-time employment to be required for all jobs, with benefits commensurate with hours. There may be jobs where you must work in an office for 8-10 hours every day, but there are always exceptions. Most professional jobs can be done from home, unless you're a chef or a doctor, etc.

Universal health care and family leave are only part of the issue. Working at home for everyone who can is another issue. Jobs requiring sitting in an office to do the exact same job you could do from home are wasteful. With climate change, we need to end the ridiculous and pointless commute for many people.

With structural change will come social change, and more respect for SAHPs.

[Anonymous]

^ couldn't agree more with increasing WFH flexibility. I'm back in the office and looking for telework, myself. It's nice to have more time with DD. But that's still working. I don't know if that is what OP is advocating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You won’t get support for this. It’s assumed all SAH moms are rich and privileged.

My wife is a SAHM, despite being a Smith grad with a law degree. Wow, I feel great about myself now.

I'm a SAHM. I did it because my child was very sick, and now I'm unemployable (20 years out of the work force will do that to you).

DCUM is very nasty to SAHMs. Very.

I wish we had an organization. We work hard for no pay. My DH is great, but I know a few men who are controlling, ie "I make the money, so I decide...."

The only reason WOMEN (mostly) have to SAH is because the work structure is set up for the separation of home and workplace, e.g. we still have the Industrial Revolution model. We have not come very far in terms of equity for women and men in terms of childcare and work in more than 150 years. It's pretty appalling. Women who are successful succeed within the existing male-dominated and male-created structure. But women have not demanded that the structure change. I hope that's one good thing that comes out of the pandemic. When jobs are remote, men and women can share child care equally. The man doesn't have to run off to the workplace, nor does the woman, leaving the nanny or childcare to take care of the kids. And part-time careers are rare. Why can't men and women share jobs? The idea that if you work only part-time you are less productive is an artificial construct, as is the 40 hour work week. There's an easy way to measure productivity while everyone's on their computer, but this calculation has not been made. And now, there's this antique push to send all those Federal workers back to the office, as if commuting and sitting in front of your computer dressed in work clothes is better than sitting in front of your computer at home, going to Zoom meetings in pajama bottoms and dress shirts.

What about the current structure is not equitable toward women in relation to childcare? Sincerely, I don't understand why women are disadvantaged here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP wants national acknoweldgment, respect and honor for staying at home. I don't know about UBI, universal healthcare, family leave, etc. Maybe he/she want SAHP History Month? A day to recognize a SAHP that contributed to society? Maybe OP has some suggestions? Or maybe instead of exploring career choices in HS, OP wants them to explore a future in SAHP? But I would think Home Ec and Child Development classes would fall under that category. OP can you clarify your ideas more?

Not the OP, but I'm replying anyway.

It's a structural problem. Women and men (not many) who stay at home full-time to care for children are unpaid. Nannies, OTOH, are paid. Why are SAHPs not paid? Why is that not mandatory?

And let's face it, most SAHPs are SAHMs, not SAHDs. I've known only ONE SAHD in 25 years.

Yes, I want part-time employment to be required for all jobs, with benefits commensurate with hours. There may be jobs where you must work in an office for 8-10 hours every day, but there are always exceptions. Most professional jobs can be done from home, unless you're a chef or a doctor, etc.

Universal health care and family leave are only part of the issue. Working at home for everyone who can is another issue. Jobs requiring sitting in an office to do the exact same job you could do from home are wasteful. With climate change, we need to end the ridiculous and pointless commute for many people.

With structural change will come social change, and more respect for SAHPs.

You seem to really be mixing two things here. Remote work has little to do with whether SAHPs should be compensated.

And the nanny analogy is off. People pay for services rendered. Who exactly do you think should be paying the SAHPs?
I could pay a plumber to fix my sink, or I could do it myself. Should somebody pay me for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP wants national acknoweldgment, respect and honor for staying at home. I don't know about UBI, universal healthcare, family leave, etc. Maybe he/she want SAHP History Month? A day to recognize a SAHP that contributed to society? Maybe OP has some suggestions? Or maybe instead of exploring career choices in HS, OP wants them to explore a future in SAHP? But I would think Home Ec and Child Development classes would fall under that category. OP can you clarify your ideas more?

Not the OP, but I'm replying anyway.

It's a structural problem. Women and men (not many) who stay at home full-time to care for children are unpaid. Nannies, OTOH, are paid. Why are SAHPs not paid? Why is that not mandatory?

And let's face it, most SAHPs are SAHMs, not SAHDs. I've known only ONE SAHD in 25 years.

Yes, I want part-time employment to be required for all jobs, with benefits commensurate with hours. There may be jobs where you must work in an office for 8-10 hours every day, but there are always exceptions. Most professional jobs can be done from home, unless you're a chef or a doctor, etc.

Universal health care and family leave are only part of the issue. Working at home for everyone who can is another issue. Jobs requiring sitting in an office to do the exact same job you could do from home are wasteful. With climate change, we need to end the ridiculous and pointless commute for many people.

With structural change will come social change, and more respect for SAHPs.

You seem to really be mixing two things here. Remote work has little to do with whether SAHPs should be compensated.

And the nanny analogy is off. People pay for services rendered. Who exactly do you think should be paying the SAHPs?
I could pay a plumber to fix my sink, or I could do it myself. Should somebody pay me for it?

Do you want to pay the day care worker or the parent? The day care worker who is also paying to ironically have their child cared for while they work. it makes little sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP wants national acknoweldgment, respect and honor for staying at home. I don't know about UBI, universal healthcare, family leave, etc. Maybe he/she want SAHP History Month? A day to recognize a SAHP that contributed to society? Maybe OP has some suggestions? Or maybe instead of exploring career choices in HS, OP wants them to explore a future in SAHP? But I would think Home Ec and Child Development classes would fall under that category. OP can you clarify your ideas more?

Not the OP, but I'm replying anyway.

It's a structural problem. Women and men (not many) who stay at home full-time to care for children are unpaid. Nannies, OTOH, are paid. Why are SAHPs not paid? Why is that not mandatory?

And let's face it, most SAHPs are SAHMs, not SAHDs. I've known only ONE SAHD in 25 years.

Yes, I want part-time employment to be required for all jobs, with benefits commensurate with hours. There may be jobs where you must work in an office for 8-10 hours every day, but there are always exceptions. Most professional jobs can be done from home, unless you're a chef or a doctor, etc.

Universal health care and family leave are only part of the issue. Working at home for everyone who can is another issue. Jobs requiring sitting in an office to do the exact same job you could do from home are wasteful. With climate change, we need to end the ridiculous and pointless commute for many people.

With structural change will come social change, and more respect for SAHPs.

You seem to really be mixing two things here. Remote work has little to do with whether SAHPs should be compensated.

And the nanny analogy is off. People pay for services rendered. Who exactly do you think should be paying the SAHPs?
I could pay a plumber to fix my sink, or I could do it myself. Should somebody pay me for it?

Do you want to pay the day care worker or the parent? The day care worker who is also paying to ironically have their child cared for while they work. it makes little sense.

I don't understand what you are asking. Who would be the person paying the parent?