NYT: Forget Pancakes. Pay Mothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am conflicted about a payment specifically for housework and child care to women. It’s great as an idea but implementing it is not easy. Some countries provide monetary support per child, other countries subsidize maternity leaves for parents. Economists are toying with the idea of universal income. To me these would be more palatable than paying women for housework. On one hand it returns housework back squarely to women as a duty and responsibility: “You get paid to cook and wipe butts”, on the other, how amounts be decided for women who stay at home vs those who work and still do a big chunk of housework and childcare, and 2 parent households who both work, what about grandparents and others? What about stay at home childless spouses? Do they also get paid something? I think it’s more straightforward to either provide support per child or just go for the universal income.

But when one woman decides to work out of the home, some other woman IS paid to "cook and wipes butts" in her home. So why not she herself? The worst line in that article was the author saying she worked out of the house and paid others to work in her house "out of a need to feel like a full human being." In other words, she viewed the women who worked in her house as less than full human beings. What a terrible person!

People say this alll the time on this website, with the same implication, and no one ever says boo about it in those wohm vs. sahm threads.

Y'all are a bunch of hypocrites.

+ 1

ALL the time. It's considered socially acceptable for UMC white women to say these things out loud, which is really disgusting. And I say that as a white UMC woman with a graduate degree and a professional job. I think it stems from how dismissive Second Wave Feminists were to WOC and housewives back in the 70s-90s.

Perhaps that should change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nannies should learn from this and start charging a minimum of $25/hr for one child and $10/hr for each additional child. If you can't afford this, don't have kids.

Then there will be fewer nanny gigs.

[Anonymous]

Raising kids is not work and if your kids lives revolve around babysitters, nannies and housekeepers I feel bad for your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Divorce lawyer here. Post nups are not enforceable in many states. NY being notorious for throwing them out.

NY is notorious for not following all kinds of rules and ethics in the courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.

SAHMs can already get up to half of their spouse’s benefit without having worked the requisite 40 quarters.

You want your children to have to work longer to support you staying at home? The whole idea is quite ironic.

half is not enough to live on

You do realize that this puts the burden of working to support you from having to get a job on the backs of poorer working mothers who have no choice?

Why does that matter unless you disagree that raising kids is not work?

+ 1

If being a SAHM is valuable work, then they should get social security too.

One does get social security through your spouse or your own earnings. I had all my credits in before I had mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am conflicted about a payment specifically for housework and child care to women. It’s great as an idea but implementing it is not easy. Some countries provide monetary support per child, other countries subsidize maternity leaves for parents. Economists are toying with the idea of universal income. To me these would be more palatable than paying women for housework. On one hand it returns housework back squarely to women as a duty and responsibility: “You get paid to cook and wipe butts”, on the other, how amounts be decided for women who stay at home vs those who work and still do a big chunk of housework and childcare, and 2 parent households who both work, what about grandparents and others? What about stay at home childless spouses? Do they also get paid something? I think it’s more straightforward to either provide support per child or just go for the universal income.

But when one woman decides to work out of the home, some other woman IS paid to "cook and wipes butts" in her home. So why not she herself? The worst line in that article was the author saying she worked out of the house and paid others to work in her house "out of a need to feel like a full human being." In other words, she viewed the women who worked in her house as less than full human beings. What a terrible person!

And why not her husband or partner? This is what I meant that attaching it to women rather than to the child, would pin women back into the housework and child rearing responsibility. If both dh and I receive a supplement per child, we’ll decide whether he or I or both at 50% would stay home care for the child. If the payment comes conditional only if I, the woman, take care of the child, then you are disincentivizing women’s participation in the workforce and then my DH would view this more as a job I am doing rather than a shared responsibility. I am all for universal income and for supporting families through extra payment, but not making it conditional that the work is done by women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am conflicted about a payment specifically for housework and child care to women. It’s great as an idea but implementing it is not easy. Some countries provide monetary support per child, other countries subsidize maternity leaves for parents. Economists are toying with the idea of universal income. To me these would be more palatable than paying women for housework. On one hand it returns housework back squarely to women as a duty and responsibility: “You get paid to cook and wipe butts”, on the other, how amounts be decided for women who stay at home vs those who work and still do a big chunk of housework and childcare, and 2 parent households who both work, what about grandparents and others? What about stay at home childless spouses? Do they also get paid something? I think it’s more straightforward to either provide support per child or just go for the universal income.

But when one woman decides to work out of the home, some other woman IS paid to "cook and wipes butts" in her home. So why not she herself? The worst line in that article was the author saying she worked out of the house and paid others to work in her house "out of a need to feel like a full human being." In other words, she viewed the women who worked in her house as less than full human beings. What a terrible person!

People say this alll the time on this website, with the same implication, and no one ever says boo about it in those wohm vs. sahm threads.

Y'all are a bunch of hypocrites.

+ 1

ALL the time. It's considered socially acceptable for UMC white women to say these things out loud, which is really disgusting. And I say that as a white UMC woman with a graduate degree and a professional job. I think it stems from how dismissive Second Wave Feminists were to WOC and housewives back in the 70s-90s.

Perhaps that should change.

PP who cleaned houses here. I don't have a problem with a sentiment that work outside the house can be rewarding, and that's what I see most often in the stupid DCUM mommy wars fight threads. I have a massive problem with the author's implication that her maids and nannies were not capable of a similar feeling. That is incredibly awful.

I think the author comes across as someone throwing a temper tantrum because she is facing actual hard work for the first time. Cry me a river.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am conflicted about a payment specifically for housework and child care to women. It’s great as an idea but implementing it is not easy. Some countries provide monetary support per child, other countries subsidize maternity leaves for parents. Economists are toying with the idea of universal income. To me these would be more palatable than paying women for housework. On one hand it returns housework back squarely to women as a duty and responsibility: “You get paid to cook and wipe butts”, on the other, how amounts be decided for women who stay at home vs those who work and still do a big chunk of housework and childcare, and 2 parent households who both work, what about grandparents and others? What about stay at home childless spouses? Do they also get paid something? I think it’s more straightforward to either provide support per child or just go for the universal income.

But when one woman decides to work out of the home, some other woman IS paid to "cook and wipes butts" in her home. So why not she herself? The worst line in that article was the author saying she worked out of the house and paid others to work in her house "out of a need to feel like a full human being." In other words, she viewed the women who worked in her house as less than full human beings. What a terrible person!

People say this alll the time on this website, with the same implication, and no one ever says boo about it in those wohm vs. sahm threads.

Y'all are a bunch of hypocrites.

+ 1

ALL the time. It's considered socially acceptable for UMC white women to say these things out loud, which is really disgusting. And I say that as a white UMC woman with a graduate degree and a professional job. I think it stems from how dismissive Second Wave Feminists were to WOC and housewives back in the 70s-90s.

Perhaps that should change.

PP who cleaned houses here. I don't have a problem with a sentiment that work outside the house can be rewarding, and that's what I see most often in the stupid DCUM mommy wars fight threads. I have a massive problem with the author's implication that her maids and nannies were not capable of a similar feeling. That is incredibly awful.

I think the author comes across as someone throwing a temper tantrum because she is facing actual hard work for the first time. Cry me a river.

Yeah but when I say I work outside the home as a lawyer, I say I do it because I like being a lawyer (and I both like and need the paycheck). I don't say I do it because "I want to feel like I am using my brain" or "I want to feel like a human being" or "I like being challenged" or "I don't want to be a leech" like the idiots on DCUM typically do.

Because the implication is, do you think being with your children is not rewarding or hard? Or that the women taking care of your children aren't using their brains?

[Anonymous]

I'm a SAHM (3 yo and 1 yo). I don't need to be paid. It bothers me that some people look down on me for being a SAHM, but oh well.... Money from the government wouldn't solve that.

I do feel like every woman should have the option have one child and be able to stay home with that child til age 3. It's an essential human joy that should be open to all of us. It breaks my heart that there are women out there who have to return to work and put young children in childcare because they are too poor to stay home. I would be devastated if I had to return to work and leave my babies with someone else, and I don't think any person should have to face that if it's not their own choice. So, in a sense, I guess those people should get "paid" for staying home with children. OR I think 1) housing should be affordable and 2) their partners should be able to make a living wage that supports a family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am conflicted about a payment specifically for housework and child care to women. It’s great as an idea but implementing it is not easy. Some countries provide monetary support per child, other countries subsidize maternity leaves for parents. Economists are toying with the idea of universal income. To me these would be more palatable than paying women for housework. On one hand it returns housework back squarely to women as a duty and responsibility: “You get paid to cook and wipe butts”, on the other, how amounts be decided for women who stay at home vs those who work and still do a big chunk of housework and childcare, and 2 parent households who both work, what about grandparents and others? What about stay at home childless spouses? Do they also get paid something? I think it’s more straightforward to either provide support per child or just go for the universal income.

But when one woman decides to work out of the home, some other woman IS paid to "cook and wipes butts" in her home. So why not she herself? The worst line in that article was the author saying she worked out of the house and paid others to work in her house "out of a need to feel like a full human being." In other words, she viewed the women who worked in her house as less than full human beings. What a terrible person!

People say this alll the time on this website, with the same implication, and no one ever says boo about it in those wohm vs. sahm threads.

Y'all are a bunch of hypocrites.

+ 1

ALL the time. It's considered socially acceptable for UMC white women to say these things out loud, which is really disgusting. And I say that as a white UMC woman with a graduate degree and a professional job. I think it stems from how dismissive Second Wave Feminists were to WOC and housewives back in the 70s-90s.

Perhaps that should change.

PP who cleaned houses here. I don't have a problem with a sentiment that work outside the house can be rewarding, and that's what I see most often in the stupid DCUM mommy wars fight threads. I have a massive problem with the author's implication that her maids and nannies were not capable of a similar feeling. That is incredibly awful.

I think the author comes across as someone throwing a temper tantrum because she is facing actual hard work for the first time. Cry me a river.

Yeah but when I say I work outside the home as a lawyer, I say I do it because I like being a lawyer (and I both like and need the paycheck). I don't say I do it because "I want to feel like I am using my brain" or "I want to feel like a human being" or "I like being challenged" or "I don't want to be a leech" like the idiots on DCUM typically do.

Because the implication is, do you think being with your children is not rewarding or hard? Or that the women taking care of your children aren't using their brains?

PP here. I absolutely agree with you that phrases that you used are obnoxious. They are similar in construction to "I want to raise my children myself" or "I couldn't possibly leave my child with strangers" which I also see. Basically yes, there are a lot of narcissistic idiots on DCUM, I certainly agree with you there. This author is also awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a better route would be paid maternity leaves and jobs that are easier to get back if you take a year or two off. Universal 3 year old program and pre-k. And then work hours that match daycare and school hours. Reduce work day to 7 hours and increase schooling. 8-3:30. A lot of us would willingly take a salary reduction even for hours that match our schools.

This is what I thought the thread was about when I saw the title. These are the things professional women want.

I am a WOHM and I view my housekeeper and nanny as specialized workers. Yes, I could clean my house, but it wouldn’t be as fast or good as my cleaning lady. Yes, I could quit and stay home, but I don’t think I have the temperament to do it 24/7/365 like my nanny does. Could I do it if I had to? Yes. Could my boss do my six-figure-earning job if he had to? Yes. But we chose to hire out for a reason, and it’s not because we devalue the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a better route would be paid maternity leaves and jobs that are easier to get back if you take a year or two off. Universal 3 year old program and pre-k. And then work hours that match daycare and school hours. Reduce work day to 7 hours and increase schooling. 8-3:30. A lot of us would willingly take a salary reduction even for hours that match our schools.

This is what I thought the thread was about when I saw the title. These are the things professional women want.

I am a WOHM and I view my housekeeper and nanny as specialized workers. Yes, I could clean my house, but it wouldn’t be as fast or good as my cleaning lady. Yes, I could quit and stay home, but I don’t think I have the temperament to do it 24/7/365 like my nanny does. Could I do it if I had to? Yes. Could my boss do my six-figure-earning job if he had to? Yes. But we chose to hire out for a reason, and it’s not because we devalue the work.

It would be entirely rational to assume this would be a thread about universal Pre-K, flexible work schedules, and family leave, but unfortunately the NYT author wrote a myopic whining article rather than writing about things that would help the vast majority of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am conflicted about a payment specifically for housework and child care to women. It’s great as an idea but implementing it is not easy. Some countries provide monetary support per child, other countries subsidize maternity leaves for parents. Economists are toying with the idea of universal income. To me these would be more palatable than paying women for housework. On one hand it returns housework back squarely to women as a duty and responsibility: “You get paid to cook and wipe butts”, on the other, how amounts be decided for women who stay at home vs those who work and still do a big chunk of housework and childcare, and 2 parent households who both work, what about grandparents and others? What about stay at home childless spouses? Do they also get paid something? I think it’s more straightforward to either provide support per child or just go for the universal income.

But when one woman decides to work out of the home, some other woman IS paid to "cook and wipes butts" in her home. So why not she herself? The worst line in that article was the author saying she worked out of the house and paid others to work in her house "out of a need to feel like a full human being." In other words, she viewed the women who worked in her house as less than full human beings. What a terrible person!

People say this alll the time on this website, with the same implication, and no one ever says boo about it in those wohm vs. sahm threads.

Y'all are a bunch of hypocrites.

+ 1

ALL the time. It's considered socially acceptable for UMC white women to say these things out loud, which is really disgusting. And I say that as a white UMC woman with a graduate degree and a professional job. I think it stems from how dismissive Second Wave Feminists were to WOC and housewives back in the 70s-90s.

Perhaps that should change.

I don’t use these terms, but the sentiments are in line with how I felt as a SAHM. Prior to kids, I had worked to build a career for myself. When I quit to stay home (due to numerous circumstances that I won’t go into here), my entire world became incredibly narrow. I did the same job for 14 hours a day 7 days a week on repeat. I did this mostly in isolation which is not how humans were ever meant to live. No, taking care of children isn’t intellectually stimulating in the same way as was earning my PhD and doing research were to me. I also don’t think I have the right qualities (patience, creativity) to work with children all day, and I admire those who do.

[Anonymous]

The feminists who largely wrote the New Deal believed that raising children was a service to the country that should be compensated like soliders were. That led to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children provision in the New Deal, which lasted in various forms until the 1990s, when it was targeted as welfare that allowed people to shirk work, and it was dismantled during the Clinton administration.

[Anonymous]

Kindergelt - child money. Germans are ahead of us (again). State money goes to the child. Parent’s job is ‘leave without pay’ up to two years. Mom gets two years with child. Dad gets two years. Child at four then goes to kindergarten. Everyone wins. We are toddlers compared to the rest of Western Europe.