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

[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?

Exactly! This whole thread is so ridiculous and dripping with entitlement! UBI for SAHP?? Waaaah, I quit my job by choice because I wanted to raise my DC myself, but I want to be paid the $$ I saved by not paying a nanny because I am doing all the work myself that the nanny that I am not paying would have done. Phew! SMH

[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?

Exactly! This whole thread is so ridiculous and dripping with entitlement! UBI for SAHP?? Waaaah, I quit my job by choice because I wanted to raise my DC myself, but I want to be paid the $$ I saved by not paying a nanny because I am doing all the work myself that the nanny that I am not paying would have done. Phew! SMH

Calling these types of critiques entitled should be the center square on the evil capitalist bingo card.

[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?

That’s just dismissing, minimizing and disrespecting their role in society. Btw what’s wrong with warm and delicious home made cookies?

Nothing. A reporter was criticizing her choice to work while Bill was governor rather than stay home. Context is everything.

[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 sound like a person who actually can be a good voice for this cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most politicians have stay at home wive. As a former SAHM, what exactly are SAHM missing that require lobbyists?

I am not a SAHM but here are a few things. Guaranteed medical care, SSI benefits, path to reemployment at jobs that match their education and skills, paid time off or childcare relief so they can take the occasional day off.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Exactly! This whole thread is so ridiculous and dripping with entitlement! UBI for SAHP?? Waaaah, I quit my job by choice because I wanted to raise my DC myself, but I want to be paid the $$ I saved by not paying a nanny because I am doing all the work myself that the nanny that I am not paying would have done. Phew! SMH

Calling these types of critiques entitled should be the center square on the evil capitalist bingo card.

Exactly and it’s not like lack of empathy and defensive dismissal isn’t a sign of entitlement.

[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?

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

That’s just dismissing, minimizing and disrespecting their role in society. Btw what’s wrong with warm and delicious home made cookies?

Nothing. A reporter was criticizing her choice to work while Bill was governor rather than stay home. Context is everything.

Do that to another marginalized minority and you’ll have to redefine context.

[Anonymous]

When and how it became acceptable to mock mothers like this. Is Trump rubbing off on everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Exactly! This whole thread is so ridiculous and dripping with entitlement! UBI for SAHP?? Waaaah, I quit my job by choice because I wanted to raise my DC myself, but I want to be paid the $$ I saved by not paying a nanny because I am doing all the work myself that the nanny that I am not paying would have done. Phew! SMH

Calling these types of critiques entitled should be the center square on the evil capitalist bingo card.

+1

[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?

Doesn’t state pay for unemployed moms? If not paying SAHM, at lease acknowledge their contribution to the society and give them more opportunities to come back to part time work and to get social security for the period they were laboring to raise future labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When and how it became acceptable to mock mothers like this. Is Trump rubbing off on everyone.

That’s how civilizations fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When and how it became acceptable to mock mothers like this. Is Trump rubbing off on everyone.

?

I’m a mother of a handful of kids. Despite having an advanced degree and a nice six figure salary, I must work in order to have the lifestyle I want for my family. I have a husband with a nice six figure salary and Cadillac benefits btw. Nonetheless, we both must work.

I’m just as much of a mother as a SAHM. Nobody pays me for my parenting, cooking, cleaning, etc.

SAHMs are either privileged enough to stay home, or they do the math and realize their salary would mostly be eaten up by childcare. And, some sahms are very low income and opt for public assistance.

The US has a safety net for very low income mothers (who are mostly single) and their kids. I’m glad we have that for families in need. But I don’t support funding privileged women to SAHM…like the op’s smith grad wife with a jd. She’s already won the lottery: a DH who earns enough for a smith grad with a jd to drop out of the workforce without worrying about maintaining her lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

I'm thinking this through. What exactly is the labor/contribution we are talking about here?

It can't really be any "homemaking" activity outside of childcare, right? Because those activities are done by working parents.
So we are talking about the hours of time that the child would otherwise be in daycare, correct?
So do the number of hours go down when a kid hits school age?
What about when a kid hits middle school? high school?

[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?

Doesn’t state pay for unemployed moms? If not paying SAHM, at lease acknowledge their contribution to the society and give them more opportunities to come back to part time work and to get social security for the period they were laboring to raise future labor.

A criteria for unemployment in every state is that you are not unemployed by choice, are ready and willing to accept employment without delay, and are actively seeking to do so. Not really on point at all.
What would "more opportunities" for part-time work look like?

[Anonymous]

Treating parenting like something that belongs in the traditional labor economy is a recipe for disaster. It's funny that people in this thread want their labor to be treated as such and are also screeching calling everyone else uber capitalists. Yikes...