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

[Anonymous]

What is this homemaker?
Throughout history women have worked, as have children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This^.

Feminists and corporate careerist women are often the ones denigrating SAHM's and shaming other women for their choices.

Nice way to pit women against women but sorry many feminists and corporate women have been SAHM for a time in their lives. I know because I am a feminist with a corporate career that took 7 years off due to a lack of child care options. Our childcare was a disaster before Covid too.

[Anonymous]

I am for UBI for a SAHP as a way to alleviate the child care crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This^.

Feminists and corporate careerist women are often the ones denigrating SAHM's and shaming other women for their choices.

Nice way to pit women against women but sorry many feminists and corporate women have been SAHM for a time in their lives. I know because I am a feminist with a corporate career that took 7 years off due to a lack of child care options. Our childcare was a disaster before Covid too.

I said often, not always. And it's competitive, judgmental women pitting themselves against each other. Your little story was cute though. What else ya got?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This^.

Feminists and corporate careerist women are often the ones denigrating SAHM's and shaming other women for their choices.

Nice way to pit women against women but sorry many feminists and corporate women have been SAHM for a time in their lives. I know because I am a feminist with a corporate career that took 7 years off due to a lack of child care options. Our childcare was a disaster before Covid too.

I have come across some SAHM's who look down on working moms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is this homemaker?
Throughout history women have worked, as have children

But they worked at home and not for a wage, but for survival. The IR separated work from home.

[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.

I am troubled by this comment. What rights do SAHM's not have. Long due respect and acknowledgement of their historic contributions to this country is not a right. It is a thought which is true and true of men that work, women that work, every ethnic and racial group.

[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?

Almost all jobs require in the office. As we will see in the next few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What a stupid response.

But :

approximately $470 billion
Unpaid family caregiving is on the rise in the U.S., with 41 million caregivers providing the equivalent of approximately $470 billion in unpaid assistance, according to a new report from the AARP Public Policy Institute that suggests high-population, relatively high-wage states such as California, Texas, New York and ...Nov 18, 2019

Family Caregivers in US Provide $470 Billion of Unpaid Care

Which works out to $3821 per household per year.
https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2019/11/new-data-updates-the-economic-value-of-family-caregiving/

And $11,463 per household where someone is providing that care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What a stupid response.

But :

approximately $470 billion
Unpaid family caregiving is on the rise in the U.S., with 41 million caregivers providing the equivalent of approximately $470 billion in unpaid assistance, according to a new report from the AARP Public Policy Institute that suggests high-population, relatively high-wage states such as California, Texas, New York and ...Nov 18, 2019

Family Caregivers in US Provide $470 Billion of Unpaid Care

Which works out to $3821 per household per year.
https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2019/11/new-data-updates-the-economic-value-of-family-caregiving/

And $11,463 per household where someone is providing that care.

Again, great idea! How much will the CPI increase from this transfer of wealth? What's the downside?

[Anonymous]

I wonder if all the “entitled moms LOL “posters would at least support stepped up age discrimination enforcement in the workplace? That way women could raise children, and then start a career at like 45 or 50. But somehow I doubt it they can fill in their “private market knows best“ bingo Square.

So your “choices “in our wonderful system are to: 1) stay at home, raise your kids and face poverty as an elderly person, (unless your husband is in the 1-10%) or 2) work two full-time jobs for 20 years.

But I should just shut up because Ukraine or something.

Children will continue to become a luxury good unless women are stopped from using birth control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if all the “entitled moms LOL “posters would at least support stepped up age discrimination enforcement in the workplace? That way women could raise children, and then start a career at like 45 or 50. But somehow I doubt it they can fill in their “private market knows best“ bingo Square.

So your “choices “in our wonderful system are to: 1) stay at home, raise your kids and face poverty as an elderly person, (unless your husband is in the 1-10%) or 2) work two full-time jobs for 20 years.

But I should just shut up because Ukraine or something.

Children will continue to become a luxury good unless women are stopped from using birth control.

I think that's a reasonable proposal. And, I would even support a child tax credit for those making below the median HHI. I do not, however, support direct cash transfers to SHAM in HH's making $100k+ where both parents have advanced degrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if all the “entitled moms LOL “posters would at least support stepped up age discrimination enforcement in the workplace? That way women could raise children, and then start a career at like 45 or 50. But somehow I doubt it they can fill in their “private market knows best“ bingo Square.

So your “choices “in our wonderful system are to: 1) stay at home, raise your kids and face poverty as an elderly person, (unless your husband is in the 1-10%) or 2) work two full-time jobs for 20 years.

But I should just shut up because Ukraine or something.

Children will continue to become a luxury good unless women are stopped from using birth control.

What does "stepped up age discrimination enforcement" look like to you?

(And there are PLENTY of families in this country with one-incomer earner who do not face poverty in early age and who are also not in the top 10%)

[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?

Or, what if you’re wrong? What if your version of what’s the “most important “ is simply, and perhaps selfishly just flat out wrong? Whose recognition do you feel is lacking? Who should provide “compensation “? At what point did SAHMs become an “endangered species “? What are you getting out of this?

Many politicians have fought for a multitude of family-friendly policies. Most of us pay taxes that support schools and health supports that overwhelmingly benefit families and children. Most people who opt to “ work without titles” for the benefit of their families do so because they garner recognition, compensation, and protection from these families that they have freely chosen to prioritize.
What rights do you feel SAHMs lack? Do you genuinely have any goals beyond stirring up discord?

[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?

Or, what if you’re wrong? What if your version of what’s the “most important “ is simply, and perhaps selfishly just flat out wrong? Whose recognition do you feel is lacking? Who should provide “compensation “? At what point did SAHMs become an “endangered species “? What are you getting out of this?

Many politicians have fought for a multitude of family-friendly policies. Most of us pay taxes that support schools and health supports that overwhelmingly benefit families and children. Most people who opt to “ work without titles” for the benefit of their families do so because they garner recognition, compensation, and protection from these families that they have freely chosen to prioritize.
What rights do you feel SAHMs lack? Do you genuinely have any goals beyond stirring up discord?

There's decades of research showing the mothers are discriminated against. It's called the motherhood penalty in the labor market. Turns out, fathers get a benefit in this same market.