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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, but i think it is time for couples to revert back to single income families. That will put enough pressure on business and governments.

Its not about this or that but choice and opportunities. We need a society where there is a basic support system for all individuals and families regardless of which phase of life they are in. From infants to elderly, sick to healthy, young family to empty nesters, disabled, single parents,orphans, everyone should be taken care of and given opportunities to contribute in different ways.

[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.

If you’re an employee, then all your basic needs are met and your employer is wonderful, otherwise you would find another employer to work for and stay home. I guess we don’t need the body of employment law that was created to protect you from exploitative employers. If you’re staying at your job, then all must be well!

[Anonymous]

Dissatisfaction from work, stress, burn out, depression, parents overstretching themselves is not making society strong. There has to be better ways to live.

[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.

If you’re an employee, then all your basic needs are met and your employer is wonderful, otherwise you would find another employer to work for and stay home. I guess we don’t need the body of employment law that was created to protect you from exploitative employers. If you’re staying at your job, then all must be well!

This is a sad and simplistic view to see life.

[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.

As wohm I have to agree. Let’s eliminate the marriage tax penalty before doing anything else to support sahm. It’s hard to see my .70/dollar be taxed higher when I don’t have the privilege to sahm. All our carpools and committees are with other wohm.

But you expect taxpayers and other employees to support you when you take off for maternity leave, right? Selfish. Listen, spite and envy make for bad policy. We all need others’ support. You’re what’s wrong with America.

No, I support public schools and universal healthcare and working towards improving the social safety net and community fabric. But I don’t think we should adopt measures to further support parents who choose not to work (at least in a two parent household) without considering the balancing effects it will have on two parent working households. It is truly unprecedented pressure for two parent working households right now. Let’s instead focus on options that lift all or as part of a larger reform. I do think the marriage penalty should be eliminated.

[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.

This^.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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^.

This is absurd. You already get this from your family and community. If not, they are jerks.

[Anonymous]

Until we acknowledge role of stay at home mom, men wouldn’t want to volunteer to become stay at home dads. Its as simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, but i think it is time for couples to revert back to single income families. That will put enough pressure on business and governments.

Its not about this or that but choice and opportunities. We need a society where there is a basic support system for all individuals and families regardless of which phase of life they are in. From infants to elderly, sick to healthy, young family to empty nesters, disabled, single parents,orphans, everyone should be taken care of and given opportunities to contribute in different ways.

Nothing is achieved without leverage or pressure. I am very hopeful though when i see the increasingly large number of men prioritizing their families, many willing to stay at home, more taking long paternity leaves and increasingly more cutting back on the insane work hours.

[Anonymous]

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

If you have to ask then you need to take some time to think about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, but i think it is time for couples to revert back to single income families. That will put enough pressure on business and governments.

Its not about this or that but choice and opportunities. We need a society where there is a basic support system for all individuals and families regardless of which phase of life they are in. From infants to elderly, sick to healthy, young family to empty nesters, disabled, single parents,orphans, everyone should be taken care of and given opportunities to contribute in different ways.

Nothing is achieved without leverage or pressure. I am very hopeful though when i see the increasingly large number of men prioritizing their families, many willing to stay at home, more taking long paternity leaves and increasingly more cutting back on the insane work hours.

If stay at home moms get their due, more men will see the value.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

The US tax code is currently built on the premise that advantages where the household is composed of a SAH parent and a breadwinner spouse. Huge tax breaks for that combo.

[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.

If you’re an employee, then all your basic needs are met and your employer is wonderful, otherwise you would find another employer to work for and stay home. I guess we don’t need the body of employment law that was created to protect you from exploitative employers. If you’re staying at your job, then all must be well!

This is a sad and simplistic view to see life.

DUH. That was my exact point, silly. The post about SAHMs that I was responding to was sad and simplistic. Funny how that became obvious to you only when I applied the same logic to employees.