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

[Anonymous]

I'm in favor of affordable childcare. I wonder how many SAHMs are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then don’t work for free…? Go out in the workforce and get paid for your work. Make your partner step up his game at home and with the kids.

Except the motherhood penalty hinders them from doing that. See how that works?

DP. 16 pages into this thread, I still don't get what you are trying to say.

- wohm who did not let the "motherhood penalty" hinder her from being in the work force.

Disagree. Others are saying "don't work for free" and "go out in the workforce and get paid." It's not that easy and, ideally, SAHMs really want the flexibility to enter and leave the labor market when they would like.

That's not how the labor market works. Now if they have highly desirable, specialized skills that they kept somewhat up to date, that's a completely different thing. But they cannot expect much flexibility to "enter and leave the labor market when they would like" with outdated skills and experience.

Leaving the labor market is a choice they made that affects their family only. I don't understand why they think they are owed something for what is basically a personal decision.

[Anonymous]

Stay at home Moms —and Dads — can get social security benefits based on their spouse’s work history. Many benefits were originally set up for non-working spouses — health insurance, for example, or being a life insurance beneficiary. Someone equally focused on caring for their family members would not have access to these benefits.

Funny, though, OP hasn’t come back to clarify any of this. So, more trolling, aimed at pitting people who made different life choices against each other.

[Anonymous]

I think 1st year should be paid maternity leave 6 months for recovery and 6 months for bonding, dads/partner get 6 months. That can add up to 12-18 months however parents choose to use it.
No infant should be put into childcare unwillingly. This should only be an allowable for the first two pregnancies that result in live births and paternal benefits are limited as well. It's too important a developmental period. FMLA should protect through 2 years.
This is a good balance. No one should be out of the workforce and be subsidized for it for 5-20 years. Get a legal agreement for benefits from your spouse related to missed pay or retirement beyond those 1-2 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think 1st year should be paid maternity leave 6 months for recovery and 6 months for bonding, dads/partner get 6 months. That can add up to 12-18 months however parents choose to use it.
No infant should be put into childcare unwillingly. This should only be an allowable for the first two pregnancies that result in live births and paternal benefits are limited as well. It's too important a developmental period. FMLA should protect through 2 years.
This is a good balance. No one should be out of the workforce and be subsidized for it for 5-20 years. Get a legal agreement for benefits from your spouse related to missed pay or retirement beyond those 1-2 years.

If they’re SAHPs they often weren’t even in the workforce in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

While I agree in part, you are missing the general point that there are millions of small businesses that employ Americans. These small businesses are stretched on a good day and after Covid, struggling. They simply cannot provide gold level benefits for every mom who wants to work 12 hrs a week or give paid time off at rates that exceed the average.
The govt does not reward small business. The states do not reward small businesses. It just doesn’t happen.
Signed -
Small business owner and mom

You did not read carefully. Look again. I gave the example of a small business owner being unable to cover extended leave and gave that as an example of why this kind of thing has to be run by or supplemented by the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are. They appreciate a traditional family structure and do not believe you are a failure for embracing a historically typical maternal role.

Ha ha ha. Don't make me laugh. The only thing they "appreciate" about the "traditional" family structure is keeping men in power. They are not interested in actually doing anything to help families, traditional or otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think 1st year should be paid maternity leave 6 months for recovery and 6 months for bonding, dads/partner get 6 months. That can add up to 12-18 months however parents choose to use it.
No infant should be put into childcare unwillingly. This should only be an allowable for the first two pregnancies that result in live births and paternal benefits are limited as well. It's too important a developmental period. FMLA should protect through 2 years.
This is a good balance. No one should be out of the workforce and be subsidized for it for 5-20 years. Get a legal agreement for benefits from your spouse related to missed pay or retirement beyond those 1-2 years.

If they’re SAHPs they often weren’t even in the workforce in the first place. [/quote

Show me some stats on that considering most women aren't having children until mid to late 20s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think 1st year should be paid maternity leave 6 months for recovery and 6 months for bonding, dads/partner get 6 months. That can add up to 12-18 months however parents choose to use it.
No infant should be put into childcare unwillingly. This should only be an allowable for the first two pregnancies that result in live births and paternal benefits are limited as well. It's too important a developmental period. FMLA should protect through 2 years.
This is a good balance. No one should be out of the workforce and be subsidized for it for 5-20 years. Get a legal agreement for benefits from your spouse related to missed pay or retirement beyond those 1-2 years.

If they’re SAHPs they often weren’t even in the workforce in the first place.

Show me some stats on that considering most women aren't having children until mid to late 20s

You realize mid to late 20s is just out of BA/MA/Law school. I know plenty who never touched an actual job. And no - 9 hours a week as a pilates instructor does not count. They went straight from dad's house to boyfriend's apartment to married and not working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are. They appreciate a traditional family structure and do not believe you are a failure for embracing a historically typical maternal role.

LOL no. Republicans don’t think I’m fully human. They don’t look out for me in any way.

They don’t even think I should have bodily autonomy. I’m just a walking uterus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think 1st year should be paid maternity leave 6 months for recovery and 6 months for bonding, dads/partner get 6 months. That can add up to 12-18 months however parents choose to use it.
No infant should be put into childcare unwillingly. This should only be an allowable for the first two pregnancies that result in live births and paternal benefits are limited as well. It's too important a developmental period. FMLA should protect through 2 years.
This is a good balance. No one should be out of the workforce and be subsidized for it for 5-20 years. Get a legal agreement for benefits from your spouse related to missed pay or retirement beyond those 1-2 years.

If they’re SAHPs they often weren’t even in the workforce in the first place.

Show me some stats on that considering most women aren't having children until mid to late 20s

You realize mid to late 20s is just out of BA/MA/Law school. I know plenty who never touched an actual job. And no - 9 hours a week as a pilates instructor does not count. They went straight from dad's house to boyfriend's apartment to married and not working.

Where is this? I can’t think of a single woman I know who did this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are. They appreciate a traditional family structure and do not believe you are a failure for embracing a historically typical maternal role.

LOL no. Republicans don’t think I’m fully human. They don’t look out for me in any way.

They don’t even think I should have bodily autonomy. I’m just a walking uterus.

Not true.They do support traditional family unit and maternal role. In their twisted logic, abortion is somehow helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stay at home Moms —and Dads — can get social security benefits based on their spouse’s work history. Many benefits were originally set up for non-working spouses — health insurance, for example, or being a life insurance beneficiary. Someone equally focused on caring for their family members would not have access to these benefits.

Funny, though, OP hasn’t come back to clarify any of this. So, more trolling, aimed at pitting people who made different life choices against each other.

Just because someone started a topic, doesn’t mean they’ll keep following it until their demise. Its a thought provoking topic and many posters are making good arguments. These discussions add value and open up closed minds by highlighting other ways then personal highways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then don’t work for free…? Go out in the workforce and get paid for your work. Make your partner step up his game at home and with the kids.

Except the motherhood penalty hinders them from doing that. See how that works?

DP. 16 pages into this thread, I still don't get what you are trying to say.

- wohm who did not let the "motherhood penalty" hinder her from being in the work force.

Disagree. Others are saying "don't work for free" and "go out in the workforce and get paid." It's not that easy and, ideally, SAHMs really want the flexibility to enter and leave the labor market when they would like.

That's not how the labor market works. Now if they have highly desirable, specialized skills that they kept somewhat up to date, that's a completely different thing. But they cannot expect much flexibility to "enter and leave the labor market when they would like" with outdated skills and experience.

Leaving the labor market is a choice they made that affects their family only. I don't understand why they think they are owed something for what is basically a personal decision.

We do supports people and families for consequences of their other personal decisions. Isn’t that the whole reason for social programs? For example, why do we give college financial aid to families not earning more and saving more?

[Anonymous]

Why there are different tax brackets for different income levels? Aren’t we supporting personal decisions there? Why aren’t we advocating for flat tax rate?