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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some jobs literally cannot be completed from home, many of them, in fact. But for those that could successfully during the pandemic, many workplaces are considering hybrid models, which is great. A silver lining outcome of the pandemic could be greater flexibility with regard to schedules and telework for some workplaces. But that doesn't solve the problems SAHPs getting back into the work place. This would require a huge culture shift.

Say more about this culture shift. What would it entail? Lowering of standards in the workplace? Shift from "workaholic" culture?

[Anonymous]

I do not support paying someone to take care of their own kids. This makes absolutely zero sense to me on any level and there isn't a single argument on this thread that is convincing.

You *volunteer* to raise your kid when you decide to have one. No one owes you any salary to do it. Nanny's and daycares get paid for their labor because it's not their kid(s). The parents need care for a limited number of hours per week and they pay for it. A SAHP is not paying anyone else to do the care, therefore, they are keeping that money they would otherwise pay. They don't get double.

As a few PPs have pointed out, the only thing SAHPs do that other parents don't do is a limited amount of childcare during the week. Everything else working parents do also (childcare when not at work, cooking, cleaning, etc.). Families with SAHPs and dual-income families both can outsource other things as well. Since I don't have a cleaning woman, are you going to pay me to clean my house? Absurd.

[Anonymous]

Society needs workers so in a way, parents contribute by having children, raising them, spending money on them and then letting them go in the world to work, marry, volunteer, donate blood, invent, treat, build, help, procreate and so on. Single and childless people also benefit in many ways. Its not like parents are the only one benefiting from them, many doesn’t benefit at all.

[Anonymous]

Unless workers are volunteering, they get paid so I don’t see why someone working at home or at a office is contributing to my welfare, they are doing their own thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some jobs literally cannot be completed from home, many of them, in fact. But for those that could successfully during the pandemic, many workplaces are considering hybrid models, which is great. A silver lining outcome of the pandemic could be greater flexibility with regard to schedules and telework for some workplaces. But that doesn't solve the problems SAHPs getting back into the work place. This would require a huge culture shift.

Say more about this culture shift. What would it entail? Lowering of standards in the workplace? Shift from "workaholic" culture?

Absolutely. We would have to shift from the worship of capitalism and all that comes with it. In capitalism, if you snooze, you lose. Capitalism is cold and unfeeling. If you aren't actively working and helping to make a profit, why would they want to pay you. If you are on maternity leave, why would they want to pay you and pay someone else to cover your work? It's a loss for them. Or they have to overburden other workers. All the benefits and "rights" we have as workers used to be unheard of. They evolved over centuries and require a government to enforce them. Companies on their own are about the bottom line. They reward those who work the hardest/longest or smartest and bring in the profits. They don't care if you are a good dad or mom. They care what you do for them. There is also rigid thinking about schedules (8-5, 9-5) for many work places that may not make sense in our current world, but they persist.

If you want work places to take a chance on a mom who's been out of the work force for 20 years, you'd need a shift in thinking. Why would a company hire an older worker, not up to date, when they can cheaply hire a new young one? (I'm not saying I support this thinking). If you want companies to buy in to more parental benefits, they have to be convinced that it benefits them somehow -or- they have to buy into it as a good of society type of thing -or you have to have the government provide funding. What if you are a small business and you can't afford to cover an employee's extended leave. Again, to make this work across the board, you'd probably have to administer many of these things through the government.

Good luck with any of that as long as today's GOP has any influence whatsoever.

[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?

What do you want a gold medal OP? You sound entitled + white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of support? Like UBI? Universal healthcare? Tax breaks?

Just similar rights as others? For starters long due respect and acknowledgment of their historic contributions to this country.

Honey, this is not how the world works. No one just gives you respect on a platter because you do a good job.

If anyone wants acknowledgement they need to fight for it. And have leverage. If SAHMs organized and went on strike they could get recognition for their labor. Hint: it’s given in money, not Hallmark cards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Treating childcare and housework as free labor is what’s wrong but today’s society can’t see that. Its not any different than racists not seeing themselves as racists.

It’s not about seeing it. Name one social struggle that was won when people suddenly woke up and saw what was right.

Everything in reality is a battle. SAHMs volunteer their labor and then feel shafted. That’s just what happens when you don’t stand up for yourself. There’s no big conspiracy. Now women are educated, they vote, and they need to get a clue that without putting up an actual fight for it no one is going to just give them what they deserve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support universal health care, public education, pad parental leave, and a robust social safety net so that even poor single parents can stay home if they choose. OP do you?

This, this, 1000X this!

[Anonymous]

Woman/mom here, I don't think it's about SAHM.

SAH parents should be able to SAH.

What enables a SAH parent? A living wage, health insurance, economic security - knowing my kids and I will have a basic standard of living no matter whether my husband gets laid off. Housing, food, medical care. And by God, reproductive choice. The last thing my kids need is an unexpected pregnancy on my part.

Which party does that sound like to you???

[Anonymous]

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?

What do you want a gold medal OP? You sound entitled + white.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support universal health care, public education, pad parental leave, and a robust social safety net so that even poor single parents can stay home if they choose. OP do you?

This, this, 1000X this!

until the CPI is 8%+, then no

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are a SAHM, then all your basic needs are met. Otherwise, you would be at a paying job. So what exactly do you want to advocate for? Even in case of divorce, divorce settlements for SAHM usually include alimony and medical insurance to continue for a period of time.

Employees get “benefits” SAHMs don’t get because their work is for someone else. If you choose to stay home, your own family keeps all the benefits from your work. That is the upside of staying home.

This is what I was wondering. The first half of the 20th century there were a number of programs that came from the Ag Dept focusing on rural women, e.g. programs to teach them "scientific" methods of things like food preservation but also women were pointed to in the push to bring electricity and phone services to rural families, pointing out how the drudgery of domestic work could be eased with electrical power and isolation eased when telephone lines reached farmhouses. And movements like the settlement houses also worked to help women--but these were programs based on the presumption that when had the responsibility to care for home and family.

Not sure about now, but as divorce rates rose in the 70s and subsequent years I know there were programs with job services to help women re-entering the workforce (the impetus being, I think, women who found themselves divorced without job skills). BUt I don't know what, specifically, OP has in mind in terms of supporting SAHM women. Programs for low income women focus on getting them out of the house and into the workplace (e.g. requirements to work or look for work in order to qualify for food assistance or, for the few who even get it now, TANF).

I do think there should be provisions to somehow credit Social Security for people (women or men) who are out of the workforce because they are caring for a family member. That happened to me, and it turned into 10 years. Because my spouse died and then I went back to work (lived on savings and SS disability benefits for several years, so savings were depleted and of course his ability to earn ended at a relatively young age)--the benefits I will get are more than spousal benefits but considerably less than if I had been contributing during those years, and the hit to savings also means an ultimate hit to other retirement assets.So definitely there should be some kind of tangible benefit to adults who provide unpaid care to an ill or disabled family member when household earnings are affected. I don't pay much attention to child tax credits these days or for that matter to expanded pre-K, but I can see some kind of support for the children where one parent is SAHM to participate in preschool. (not sure where Headstart is at, but under Trump I had heard something about Headstart transportation being cut or even gone, which was appalling--but Headstart is geared to low income families .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a SAHM, then all your basic needs are met. Otherwise, you would be at a paying job. So what exactly do you want to advocate for? Even in case of divorce, divorce settlements for SAHM usually include alimony and medical insurance to continue for a period of time.

Employees get “benefits” SAHMs don’t get because their work is for someone else. If you choose to stay home, your own family keeps all the benefits from your work. That is the upside of staying home.

This is what I was wondering. The first half of the 20th century there were a number of programs that came from the Ag Dept focusing on rural women, e.g. programs to teach them "scientific" methods of things like food preservation but also women were pointed to in the push to bring electricity and phone services to rural families, pointing out how the drudgery of domestic work could be eased with electrical power and isolation eased when telephone lines reached farmhouses. And movements like the settlement houses also worked to help women--but these were programs based on the presumption that when had the responsibility to care for home and family.

Not sure about now, but as divorce rates rose in the 70s and subsequent years I know there were programs with job services to help women re-entering the workforce (the impetus being, I think, women who found themselves divorced without job skills). BUt I don't know what, specifically, OP has in mind in terms of supporting SAHM women. Programs for low income women focus on getting them out of the house and into the workplace (e.g. requirements to work or look for work in order to qualify for food assistance or, for the few who even get it now, TANF).

I do think there should be provisions to somehow credit Social Security for people (women or men) who are out of the workforce because they are caring for a family member. That happened to me, and it turned into 10 years. Because my spouse died and then I went back to work (lived on savings and SS disability benefits for several years, so savings were depleted and of course his ability to earn ended at a relatively young age)--the benefits I will get are more than spousal benefits but considerably less than if I had been contributing during those years, and the hit to savings also means an ultimate hit to other retirement assets.So definitely there should be some kind of tangible benefit to adults who provide unpaid care to an ill or disabled family member when household earnings are affected. I don't pay much attention to child tax credits these days or for that matter to expanded pre-K, but I can see some kind of support for the children where one parent is SAHM to participate in preschool. (not sure where Headstart is at, but under Trump I had heard something about Headstart transportation being cut or even gone, which was appalling--but Headstart is geared to low income families .

Great idea! What about inflation?

[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.

Plus they have had to have had sufficient earnings from paid work over a period of time.

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?