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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 But they cannot expect much flexibility to "enter and leave the labor market when they would like" with outdated skills and experience.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?

What? For most people, poverty is not by choice. And thank you for pointing out that college financial aid disproportionately benefits single income families more that it benefits dual (woh) donut hole families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminist and conservatives should be the first one standing up with them.

Conservatives do for sure. Feminists. Nope

I disagree. I can promise you that if a bill went to Congress, Dems would support and Rs would not.

[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.

And I dont know a single person who has never had a "serious" job by 25. See how this works. Show me data. There would be income limits to the above btw. No SAHP with a spouse making 500-800k per year needs government assistance to figure out their situation. They already have a pre-nup and will get X amount in a divorce or separation and likely X amount of retirement. I recently saw a reddit where the boyfriend was pissed because his gf wanted costs paid for having their child. They were in a LTR not married and they both make 175. She wanted her remaining salary that wasnt covered by disability or parent leave split between her and her bf and he was pissed and thought it was weird.

People graduate from bachelors at 21/22. By 32, when we had our first, my DH had been working for the government for 10 years. My BF has a 4 year old and has been teaching since 21 and is 35- 14 years. She is almost eligible for a full pension in a few years.

[Anonymous]

The only benefit I felt I was missing out on when I was a SAHM was being able to find retirement. SAHM’s should be able to find a sep-ira up to a 401k amount. Traditional ira’s are too low, and have a deductible cap based on hhi.

[Anonymous]

Fund! Damn autocorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only benefit I felt I was missing out on when I was a SAHM was being able to find retirement. SAHM’s should be able to find a sep-ira up to a 401k amount. Traditional ira’s are too low, and have a deductible cap based on hhi.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100% true.

Republicans don't think I should have bodily autonomy. They hate women.

[Anonymous]

At best, Republicans offer a rehash of the “cult of domesticity” while relying on women like ACB to overturn long established rights. Serena Joy was a character in The Handmaids Tale because Margaret Atwood gets it. Women enforce the patriarchy in many cases. They always have.

There are a few Republicans, like Romney, who have supported a universal child allowance, but I no longer think it’s possible. We’re swinging back towards austerity. As conditions deteriorate, women will be pushed out of jobs with increasing frequency.

I’m a history teacher, so I can view all this with fatalism and equanimity. But it sucks all the same.

[Anonymous]

What’s a sep-IRA?

[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?

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

Yeah...and remember...the village is suppose to take care of everything.

[Anonymous]

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.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

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.

Exactly!

But you miss the point. Any man or woman serving as a full-time caregiver of very young children, is in fact working and quite hard at that. Any man or woman who cares for a disabled or terminally ill family member is working really really hard.

The posters here only conjure up the image of the SAHM with a rich husband, but the truth is many women make this decision due to lack of choices and support. They are fully dependent on their husbands and for all intents and purposes unemployable or relegated to low wage jobs.

I think we need to recognize the significant value their labor adds, that they are critical workers, that this is critical work. The current system is terrible for women; their choices are to not have children or do two jobs (out and in home) while still spending little quality time with kids or SAH and be marginalized.

We need to recognize the essential work of raising children, care for the sick, disabled and elderly. This can no longer be viewed as volunteer work, it is essential work.

[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?

You need to get off your behind and get a job like everyone else OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s a sep-IRA?

An individual retirement account for the self-employed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEP-IRA

[Anonymous]

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.

Exactly!

But you miss the point. Any man or woman serving as a full-time caregiver of very young children, is in fact working and quite hard at that. Any man or woman who cares for a disabled or terminally ill family member is working really really hard.

The posters here only conjure up the image of the SAHM with a rich husband, but the truth is many women make this decision due to lack of choices and support. They are fully dependent on their husbands and for all intents and purposes unemployable or relegated to low wage jobs.

I think we need to recognize the significant value their labor adds, that they are critical workers, that this is critical work. The current system is terrible for women; their choices are to not have children or do two jobs (out and in home) while still spending little quality time with kids or SAH and be marginalized.

We need to recognize the essential work of raising children, care for the sick, disabled and elderly. This can no longer be viewed as volunteer work, it is essential work.

Nobody thinks it’s easy. We realize it’s hard.

But it isn’t something meant to draw a paycheck.

And, perhaps more people should opt not to have kids or fewer kids?

NPR had some expert on a million years ago talking about how Americans go about this all wrong. In short: they suggested families would be better off (and women, specifically) if they married and has babies much younger and back to back, and then reentered the workforce once their kid or second of two kids went off to preschool. That way, they would still have time to invest in a career.

They also included higher earners, explaining how you could still go back to school and catch up if you had a baby in your early/mid 20s.

The expert pointed to all kinds of data. It makes sense.