TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

20

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

“One of the areas of greatest untapped potential in the Australian labour force is inactive and/or part-time working women, especially those with children,’’ concluded the landmark study. “There are potentially large losses to the economy when women stay at home or work short part-time hours.’’

This is just another example of failing to appreciate the advantages and benefits that go hand in hand with SAHMs and wives. They are free to tend the home, invest in the community, be involved with their children etc. It's insulting when people pretend that the only 'good' kind of work is paid work. Women that stay at home enable their husbands to focus on their given career.

I dislike that the author skips over the reasons why stay at home women are valuable and says:

So it’s not as simple as suggesting that the OECD’s rallying call to utilise the potential of stay-at-home mums is an insult to mothers — on the contrary, it is the desperately needed voice of reason that Australians cannot afford to ignore.

Really. Is it the opinion of the families that have a stay at home wife/mother that they (as a family) 'cannot afford' to have her at home? If that were the case, then my guess is that those women would be doing side work, and bringing in actual money. Which means the purpose is to 'guilt trip' citizens into being productive little workers and consumers.

Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed.

....Really? So indentured slavery, forced labor, being a prisoner to your country is the next form of 'patriotism' and success? This is both insulting and precisely the opposite of freedom.

Prisoners serving a sentence for breaking the law can be made to work (and for severely limited wages)...and now the author wants to treat every woman, by virtue of her being a mother...into the same corner? Women can no longer be 'trusted' to make these decisions for themselves, presumably with the input of their husbands?

I'm no stranger to having some fairly radical ideas when it comes to conduct, punishment, and trying to alleviate certain problems within society - but this is ridiculous.

While young people face strict criteria when seeking to access the dole, those aged over 50 can still receive it despite not looking for a job by citing 15 hours volunteer work a week.

Gee...maybe that has something to do with the fact that young people are young and therefore should have more energy, and be forced to meet higher requirements. I see this as a way to get young people away from needing welfare (make them work harder for it, hopefully that gains traction and they have success moving forward). Compare that to someone that's rapidly approaching the age of retirement. I doubt all of the 50+ people that need financial aid have never held a job or worked. How many need help due to injury, disease, losing their ability to work, being fired for younger adults? How many retired, only to find later on that they had not saved enough?

Only when the female half of the population is expected to hold down a job and earn money to pay the bills in the same way that men are routinely expected to do will we see things change for the better for either gender.

No. How does flooding the market with even more workers 'help' both genders? Why do men and women have to fulfill the same roles? This just looks like another example of the war on men and women as distinct sexes with specific strengths and tradition in general.

It’s not good enough — and only when we evenly divide the responsibility for workplace participation between the two genders will we truly see a more equitable division between men and women in all parts of Australian life.

The author seems only very vaguely concerned with the idea of fostering nuclear families, community, and the most annoying of all Western ideals: freedom.

Thanks for sharing this article. I'm left with a slightly nauseous feeling after reading, and I can easily see similar ideas being pushed in the US (unfortunately).

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Thanks for sharing this article. I'm left with a slightly nauseous feeling after reading, and I can easily see similar ideas being pushed in the US (unfortunately).

You're welcome. I have a lot of the same thoughts you did, just haven't had time to put them into a comment yet. Hopefully tonight.

My biggest beef boils down to -- A person's worth is completely dependent on how much they are being paid by a boss man. Which is sad. Money is NOT everything. And like you mentioned she skips over how valuable SAHMs can be.

This whole thing must be a push from the Day Care lobbyists ;)

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hahaha I wouldn't be surprised!

I agree, I think it's really depressing that value=salary, as though nothing else in life really matters. I love that Occam has a steady job, and I'm thankful that I can make money with my business - but work is not something either of us considers to be the thing that gives us the most value as people.

[–]proprioceptorlate 20s, married 3 years7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

"How does flooding the market with even more workers 'help' both genders? Why do men and women have to fulfill the same roles? This just looks like another example of the war on men and women as distinct sexes with specific strengths and tradition in general."

Yep - exactly. This would push a lot of people out of the job force who need to work to support their families.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, and who's to say these people have the skills that align with open jobs, or what the market needs? Who will employ these women, who will train them should their skills not match the job market? Additionally, what if you CANT find employment because there is always a % of unemployed.

[–]proprioceptorlate 20s, married 3 years4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Definitely! One reason that I'm doing the SAHM/WFHM thing right now is because the field that I had been trained in is completly saturated. I have a PhD in Biology, and the number of full-time employment opportunities are significantly lower than the number of graduates coming out each year. If I got a full time job in my field, chances are it wouldn't be in the same location as my husband's, so it wouldn't work for our family at all.

[–]Auspica21 | new relationship2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Knowing what you know now, would you have done anything differently or not gotten the PhD?

I'm in my last year of undergrad in biology and have several PhD program offers for next fall, and everyone seems optimistic about the job market. I'm kind of worried though that getting a PhD will put my life on hold without the promise of steady employment, especially with the two-body problem in play. Thoughts?

[–]proprioceptorlate 20s, married 3 years2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes and no. I'm glad I got my PhD, because the work that I'm currently doing part time/from home is actually really rewarding, and I'm not sure that I would be able to do that if I hadn't gotten my PhD. I also learned a lot, which was really satisfying. I also wouldn't have met my husband if I hadn't pursued this career path.

However, had I known what the state of the field was before I got my degree, I probably would have utilized my time in graduate school differently. I would have focused more on getting teaching experience and taking advantage of those workshops and training resources. Being able to teach has made the two-body problem a little easier for us, because adjunct teaching positions are easier to come by then research positions. I've been able to move with my husband's postdoc and subsequent job really easily because of that.

Also it depends on what branch of bio you're interested in. There is a lot of variation between cell bio/genetics/evolution/ecology job opportunities that could influence your decision. If you want you can PM me - I'd be happy to pass on what I've learned from my experience, and what I've heard from my friends who have graduated recently about their job searches :)

[–]MemoirsofaWife26 | Married 5 years4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, and I may sound a bit crazy but I think it comes down is you can't tax a stay at home parent. In the eyes of a state loving "individual", it's wasted labor.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Would it be such a bad thing if a SAHM/W were explicitly paid a salary by the husband to perform that work? Or alternatively use his salary to pay a more qualified person to perform those duties more efficiently and at a better price?

To me it clarifies the lost earning potential angle of alimony for SAHM/W much more clear to me. It seems much more fair that a highly-educated woman who chooses to engage in low-skill labor by selecting to SAHM/W should shoulder the economic consequences of that personal decision. Any of these actual added benefits/efficiencies of nuclear family would be reflected in salary negotiation with the husband.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Would it be such a bad thing if a SAHM were explicitly paid a salary by the husband to perform that work?

This is not what the article talked about, and anyway, SAHWs and mothers are technically already paid by their husbands. The women tend home etc, the man looks after financial needs. They are paying each other in different types of currency (the husband with money, the woman with care, attention etc).

Or alternatively use his salary to pay a more qualified person to perform those duties more efficiently and at a better price?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying "the man should use his money to pay for other people to: look after the kid(s), cook, clean, run errands" ? If so, then what you're talking about is a lifestyle that was popular in many forms historically. Wealthy houses in England were run by and saturated with servants....and a lot of people really didn't like it. Today, most people do outsource certain jobs (clothing, cooking, cleaning, hair etc). Jobs traditionally fulfilled by servants are now businesses that anyone can hire. Many of these tasks can be (and are) simply fulfilled by women that stay at home....so I'm not really sure what your point is. Does a person have to have a degree or be x (a maid for example) in order to fulfill that task adequately?

To me it clarifies the lost earning potential angle of alimony for SAHM/SAHW much more clear to me.

If you are referring to the process of divorce and awarding childcare money etc - that is how women are (in many cases) able to continue looking after the kid(s) and maintain something similar to the lifestyle they had grown accustomed to. I'm not overly familiar with the legal process or the reasoning behind these things however.

It seems much more fair that a highly-educated woman who chooses to engage in low-skill labor by selecting to SAHW/SAHM should shoulder the economic consequences of that decision.

Are you saying that women should not receive childcare etc from the (ex) husband in the case of a divorce?

I think your reasoning once again exemplifies a one-sided, narrow appreciation of 'work' and 'worth' (ie only work that is paid by a salary is useful, and the work of stay at home wives/mothers are not as 'good' as male paid work). I, and many others, would argue that having a woman working at home and looking after the kids, and doing side jobs is no less 'useful' than going to an office (and fulfilling many of the same duties and giving energy to a stranger that happens to be a boss/part of the company). Furthermore, many would point out that having a woman hold down the fort allows men to achieve more in their professional careers.

I think it's outrageous to suggest in any way, that individual families should not have the freedom to make these decisions based on their personal morals, priorities, and life goals.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Alimony is not child support and it's only "untapped labor" if SAHM/W are underemployed in their SAHing. Without underemployment the SAH salary would be a wash--the work doesn't disappear and still has to be done. Also not sure why you assume men couldn't be hired for aspects of these roles.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Alimony is not child support and it's only 'untapped labor' if SAHM/W are underemployed in their SAHing.

This would only apply to educated women then. Uneducated women would not be as likely to earn more, and would have their life improved by simply being able to stay at home and be provided for. I'm not sure why:

  1. You want to forcibly punish anyone that makes a personal family decision about how their life should look

  2. Specifically set out to punish women that go through the trouble of getting an education...which could eventually convince women to skip out on school all together and just focus on 'gold digging'

Part of me wonders if your "avoid lost wages" stance is a precursor to the following argument - "If women always have to earn, then they won't be able to 'divorce rape' men if the marriage ends."

'Divorce rape' hysteria is almost as annoying (and common) as the 'rape culture' allegations from SJWs/feminists. It's weird how (sometimes) RP males/MRAs/MGTOW etc can so closely mirror the very groups they despise (feminists/SJWs).

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Partly I think you misunderstood my initial question and my poor phrasing probably contributed to that. What I meant was would it be bad to make SAHM/W "illegal" (in the sense of the article) if the labors of a SAHM/W were simultaneously formalized as a job? i.e. changing SAHM/W as non-economic participant status to "self-employed as SAHM/W". I think we agree that SAHM provide unappreciated labor. Why shouldn't we formally recognize that as gainful employment?

  1. You want to forcibly punish anyone that makes a personal family decision about how their life should look

  2. Specifically set out to punish women that go through the trouble of getting an education...which could eventually convince women to skip out on school all together and just focus on 'gold digging'

Part of this is what constitutes "illegal" in the article and what constitutes "punishment". The title of the article is clickbait of course but the penalties actually discussed are changes to entitlement/walefare access to discourage lazybonesing and changes to tax policy to stop penalizing married working mothers. I think that if SAHing were formally recognized as labor at skill-appropriate compensation levels then we can easily separate the lazybones from laborers. Once SAHing is formally recognized as labor I think it washes out. We really do have to consider to what extent a highly-skilled woman who chooses to SAH is being indulgent. I also fundamentally disagree with the premise that the value of a SAH's economic output is determined by the spouses's economic output rather than the actual labor performed.

IMHO actually placing an economic value on SAHing would ultimately discourage 'gold digging' for women who are capable of higher economic output, rather than encouraging it.

No. How does flooding the market with even more workers 'help' both genders?

It's not flooding the market with workers if you simultaneously add SAH as new jobs.

I think your reasoning once again exemplifies a one-sided, narrow appreciation of 'work' and 'worth' (ie only work that is paid by a salary is useful, and the work of stay at home wives/mothers are not as 'good' as male paid work). I, and many others, would argue that having a woman working at home and looking after the kids, and doing side jobs is no less 'useful' than going to an office (and fulfilling many of the same duties and giving energy to a stranger that happens to be a boss/part of the company). Furthermore, many would point out that having a woman hold down the fort allows men to achieve more in their professional careers.

I disagree with your fundamental premise that a man's 'worth' to a family is capable of being perfectly captured by an employment contract but a woman's cannot be.


The alimony thing is different (but related). Alimony is separate from child support and is about one ex-spouse maintaining the other ex-spouse's standard of living after a divorce (child support is separate and about providing for the children). Where it gets sticky is that allowing a spouse to SAH is an act of generosity that can bite the other spouse in the ass in the event of no-fault divorce.

My wife chose to SAHM and I support her in that decision. I also would have supported her if she made a different decision. But the way the law and society sees it is that I forced her to stay out of the workplace to care for my kids and therefor I am personally responsible for making her whole for her lost wages and earning potential. So while I as husband and father do indeed see the benefits of having a mother care for my children, and my wife and I both see it as a her choice, the law sees it as my choice.

The annoying part is that in many respects my wife acts entirely as if she's retired from her trained profession. I must constantly be on top of her continuing education and certification renewals to ensure she keeps her license because she just doesn't give a shit anymore. I think her attitude and perspective might be a bit more realistic if she explicitly understood that she chose to take a paycut because she preferred a particular lifestyle.


Presumably you are going to answer the other questions I asked, and clarify as needed.

Some of the things you wrote I agree with but a lot seems to stem from misunderstandings or assumptions. I tried to clarify what I understand you were asking. If I missed something let me know!

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Part 1 of 2

Partly I think you misunderstood my initial question and my poor phrasing probably contributed to that.

Thanks for taking the time to reply and clarify!

What I meant was would it be bad to make SAHM/W "illegal" (in the sense of the article) if the labors of a SAHM/W were simultaneously formalized as a job? i.e. changing SAHM/W as non-economic participant status to "self-employed as SAHM/W". I think we agree that SAHM provide unappreciated labor. Why shouldn't we formally recognize that as gainful employment?

Okay, this explanation completely changes what I thought you were trying to say initially, so I’m really glad you explained things more thoroughly. Based on your first reply, it seemed as though you were in agreement with the author’s point that women should be forced to work. This is obviously very different from making changes so that SAHM/Ws are given a change of ‘employment status’ and recognized as contributing members of the economy etc.

I agree that SAHM/Ws are under appreciated and often marginalized today, and that’s really unfortunate. Obviously I do not agree that SAHM/Ws should be in any way forced into paid employment as it currently exists (going to an office, having a salary etc). As I mentioned earlier, in many ways I think SAHM/Ws are paid (by husbands). There’s a transaction taking place (financial provisions for home care etc) - but you’re right in that the role of women that stay home often goes unrecognized.

This is an interesting idea, but it also makes me slightly uneasy. The women would either have to be classified as employees or small business owners. I’m also not a huge fan of the government taking wages (for various reasons) from people that do work - so my concern would be how taxing etc is handled. This seems like a great opportunity for the government to create more taxes and paperwork. Also, if the women are recognized as ‘employed’ then would the salary be considered whatever the husband brings in? Or would there be ‘minimum wage’ requirements? What if women wanted to form a union, or someone decided to file a suit because of discrimination or sexual harassment (this would be against the husband). I’m not saying any of those things is likely - but I’m not really a fan of trying to fix things that aren’t broken, or [potentially] involving the government more than necessary. I’m not sure how SAHM/Ws would be audited, if they have to work a certain number of hours, how they get paid for overtime etc. I don’t know whether I like the idea or not, but I do think it’s an interesting one.

but the penalties actually discussed are changes to entitlement access to discourage lazyboning and changes to tax policy to stop penalizing married working mothers. I think that if SAHing were formally recognized as labor at skill-appropriate compensation levels then we can easily separate the lazybones from laborers. Once SAHing is formally recognized as labor I think it washes out.

Are you saying that it’s unfair that working mothers have to pay taxes that SAHM/Ws do not? Again, the problem I see is that in the cases where both people work - they are bringing in two fully independent wages. A couple where the husband works and the wife stays at home is still only bringing in one wage. When a woman works part time, she pays taxes based on that part time work. So you either have to set things up so SAHM/Ws are given a wage independently of what the husband makes, or you classify the husband’s earnings as his wages and her salary. If you go with the latter choice, then really you’re just taxing the same pay twice, which doesn’t seem right at all. I guess I need to hear more about how you would create, monitor, and implement this system before I make up my mind - but right now it seems to penalize families with SAHM/Ws.

I think we really do have to consider to what extent a highly-skilled woman who chooses to SAH is being indulgent.

It’s no one’s business what any person decides to do (or not do) with their life. There are so many people that are wasting talents and abilities by getting hooked on drugs, becoming alcoholic, and living on the streets. There are lots of people that could be doing more and making more money - but instead they prioritize living simply. It seems as though you want to force people to “live in a way that matches their working talent and intelligence.” When you follow this line of thinking and apply it across the population - suddenly you have to come up with tests and regulations about which people can hold which jobs. It’s like affirmative action on steroids in a way, and such a fundamental shift in how people are allowed to work would necessitate a complete overhaul of the educational system. How do you determine these things? Based on raw intelligence? If a person could potentially be a fantastic classical musician or an engineer - would they be allowed to pick either field - or would they be forced to enter one over the other because it’s more practical? You can’t weigh every field and career against each other with the same values and criteria. What makes someone a wonderful elementary school teacher won’t be compatible with what makes an excellent stock broker. Both jobs earn different incomes - but I don't think that a stock broker is objectively 'better' than an elementary school teacher. Yes the stock broker will make more money (it's a very demanding and competitive field), and I would not want a teacher to make the same money as a stock broker, or to drastically slash the money that stock brokers make. Instead, I recognize that people understand the demands, appeal, and drawbacks of various careers. They have different priorities and values, and that's fine.

It seems that this line of thinking really encourages the government to expand its power...and leaves it up to institutions to evaluate, control, and decide the fate of people in a way that’s really concerning.

I also fundamentally disagree with the premise that the value of a SAH's economic output is determined by the spouses' economic output rather than the actual labor performed.

I agree that women that stay at home have a lot more to show for their efforts than the number on their husband’s paycheck. My point is mostly that men are enabled to succeed because of the support they receive at home. I also don’t think there’s an objective way to evaluate all the ways women influence things. If a woman is literally the world’s best mom in every way - but her child is dumb, or disabled, or ends up being a sh-tty human - then her efforts and care won’t translate into future earnings and accomplishment via that child. However, I don’t think the failings of a child mean that the woman either ‘didn’t work’ or ‘did bad work.’ When it comes to community involvement, volunteering etc - that’s a bit easier to see, but again, she’s just one part of a group that works for free. Does the worth of a community garden only mean something if its presence drastically decreases the money others have to spend at the store for shopping? Or if the food grown there can be sold? I don’t think that ‘economic presence’ or ‘earning power’ are the only ways to evaluate whether or not something is worthwhile or valuable.

IMHO actually placing an economic value on SAHing would actually discourage 'gold digging' for women who are capable of higher economic output, rather than encouraging it.

Again, this would depend on how the woman is paid. If she’s given an independent salary then the questions are:

  • Who determines what her salary should be?

  • Who pays her salary?

  • How is she evaluated and held accountable for her work?

Normal employees and business owners can easily see if things are going well by how much money they make. Everyone is buying and selling services and goods...but in the case of women that stay home - how does mopping the floor or washing the dishes translate into a profit? Will family members be obligated to pay for their meals? In restaurants, you have to pay someone to wash the dishes and cook, and wait on people - so if you’re going to translate that into homes - do women suddenly deserve the salaries of all those positions? Will women earn money based on the tasks they do? If so, this would encourage women to focus on the more ‘profitable’ work and potentially neglect the less profitable (but extremely important) things.

It's not flooding the market with workers if you simultaneously add SAH as new jobs.

Jobs are supposed to serve a purpose though, mainly to make money. Being a SAHM/W does not ‘make money’ directly. I can sweep the floor and cook - but that doesn’t directly translate into economic profit/value - unless I’m selling those services to paying customers. I’m not on board with either (a) forcing family members to ‘pay’ for the services of a wife/mother, or (b) telling women that stay at home that they suddenly have to branch out and offer their services for profit to other people that are interested. Women stay home to invest in their home and community - so telling them they cannot do that is wrong.

Where it gets sticky is that allowing a spouse to SAH is an act of generosity that can bite the other spouse in the ass in the event of no-fault divorce.

This sounds like a fundamental issue between the couple. Women should stay at home because it’s something both people agree on and want. I’m not familiar with anyone that considered or pursued having the woman stay at home because the man was simply being ‘generous.’ Staying at home serves a function (I think we both agree on that).

Link to part 2 of 2

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Part 2 of 2

But the way the law and society sees it is that I forced her to stay out of the workplace to care for my kids and therefor I am personally responsible for making her whole for her lost wages and earning potential.

I think what the law is saying is that you are financially expressing and putting value to work that throughout the marriage - was free. I agree the system isn’t perfect, and there are a lot of problems. I also think people get married (and divorced) far too easily and quickly. I don’t have all the answers obviously, but I do think that a return to more conservative (western) ideals would be a great start. Valuing nuclear families, marriage for life, retreating from the insane sexual free-for-all that counts as ‘dating’ today etc.

I also think men need more of a presence (and choices) when it comes to issues like abortion and being a parent. About a month ago, there was a discussion about abortion on the sub. If you are interested and have some time, here are my comments. Discussions about children, abortion etc are part of the larger conversation (especially when it comes to divorce) but I know it’s not necessarily directly relevant to what you are talking about.

So while I as husband and father do indeed see the benefits of having a mother care for my children, and my wife and I both see it as a her choice, the law sees it as my choice.

I agree that it is a choice, and not one that has a great solution (in the event of a divorce). At the same time, there are lots of professions that are valuable, rewarding, and mean something to the people directly involved (or the consumers) but don’t really pay well. Struggling artist, welfare worker, child services etc...the list could go on and on. Some people pick a career because they love what they do, others because it pays well, and some people are lucky enough to accomplish both. I don’t say that to dismiss your point, only to highlight that life is about risk and reward. You know the risks, and pursued that life anyway, which I personally think is great! But valuing something and thinking it’s wonderful doesn’t erase the potential drawbacks and consequences.

Some of the things you wrote I agree with but a lot seems to stem from misunderstandings or assumptions. I tried to clarify what I understand you were asking. If I missed something let me know!

Yep, thanks again for expanding your thoughts. I think you have some interesting ideas, even if I don’t (currently) agree with them.

[–]TempestTcup points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Would it be such a bad thing if a SAHM/W were explicitly paid a salary by the husband to perform that work?

Well, if he hireded her or a more qualified person to do the job, there are all kinds of taxes involved. Basically, his salary would be taxed and then the employee is taxed on the money the husband pays them (that he already paid taxes on). Or instead of being taxed twice on household income, he could open a joint account and the household could live on the amount he earns.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't think that's something that couldn't be worked out in tax policy. For example child care expenses that enable you to work can already be handled as pretax deductions so it's not a huge stretch that as part of the change the support a wife provides in terms of child care and homemaking to enable the husband's work could be given similar tax benefits. It could reduce his taxable income and shift into different tax brackets. Anyway details would need to be worked out. Taxes in marriage are already a mess and in need of a fix.

[–]TempestTcup points points [recovered] | Copy Link

You are over-complicating a very simple tradition. Why have the couple go to all of this trouble when it is so easy to just live on one income? Instead of figuring out what is his, and what is hers, and tit-for-tat keeping score, they could live harmoniously working together under one salary towards their future.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

To me it's more complicated to have two different and competing tax systems designed to support women who labor at home vs women who labor outside the home. The dual systems put all sorts of weird interactions into effect (see all the heat maps at the link I provided).

It would actually be a lot less complicated to unify the two tax systems by reclassifying labor at home as equivalent to labor outside the home and apply a single unified tax policy.

[–]TempestTcup points points [recovered] | Copy Link

There aren't two different systems in the US. Household income is household income no matter who works.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's true but taxes are different depending on whether the couple is married or cohabiting. Sometimes you get a tax benefit for being married. Sometimes you get a tax penalty for being married. The link I provided explains this well.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Would it be such a bad thing if a SAHM/W were explicitly paid a salary by the husband to perform that work?

I'm paid with a roof over my head, food in my belly, and in exchange, I care for home/house/children. It's actually a bartering of sorts.

Or alternatively use his salary to pay a more qualified person to perform those duties more efficiently and at a better price?

Then what the fuck would I do? a better price??? I do it for FREEEEEE

[–]StingrayVC10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It should be noted that this is NOT a new third/fourth (wherever we are now) wave idea. This idea has been around for a long time:

  • "A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism…the [housewife’s] labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable…. [W]oman’s work within the home [is] not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a ‘career’ for woman.” ~ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949.

  • "No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” – “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Simone de Beauvoir Saturday Review, June 14, 1975.

And tangential, how feminist feel about women who make this choice:

  • "[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.” ~ Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 1963.

  • "[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” ~ Gloria Steinem, “What It Would Be Like If Women Win,” Time, August 31, 1970

  • "[The] housewife is a nobody, and [housework] is a dead-end job. It may actually have a deteriorating effect on her mind…rendering her incapable of prolonged concentration on any single task. [She] comes to seem dumb as well as dull. [B]eing a housewife makes women sick.” ~ Sociologist Jessie Bernard in The Future of Marriage, 1982.

  • “Feminism was profoundly opposed to traditional conceptions of how families should be organized, [since] the very existence of full-time homemakers was incompatible with the women’s movement…. [I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are very young…. If women disproportionately take time off from their careers to have children, or if they work less hard than men at their careers while their children are young, this will put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis men, particularly men whose wives do all the homemaking and child care…. This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole had reasons to discourage full-time homemaking.” ~ Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, 1986.

Vis-a-vis men. There it is. How do we compare to men. How can we be like men, because feminists believe men are the better sex. If you don't believe this, then you are an anti-feminist and hate women. Makes sense, right?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed -- there have been lots of people who have pushed this idea of taking kids from the family structure and giving them over to the nanny state. This idea that children from intact families are the "privileged" ones instead of saying children from un-intact families are actually disprivileged.

[–]blushinglillyMarried 5 ys, Early 30s8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I've seen this argument made before. This author and other people making it never seem to explain who will actually look after the children and where all these new child care workers are going to come from.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I find it fascinating that a woman taking care of her own child is more or less worthless, yet if you're paid - a daycare provider - you are now worth something. Because paycheck.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I was attacked on another sub for talking about being a SAHM. My argument was that I stay busy and find plenty to do to improve my home and raise my kid. The woman was basically saying that on her days off she does my job, including all the chores after her kids are in bed. Our society just doesn't value or understand what a SAHM does. They believe my job is to do laundry, seeep the floors, and cook dinner. And of course that's part of it, but my main job is to RAISE my child. And just like you don't pay daycare workers to cook and clean all day but to actually supervise and play with your child, this is what I do with my own! I mean honestly, you can't do my job in your "spare time" (she actually said that), because caring for a young child is a 24/7 job!

[–]astrared24, single2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I've worked as a kindergarten teacher and we were constantly under strain from short staff. I don't know a single daycare centre that isn't. Not enough people want to go into the field as it is long hours and notoriously low pay. If we take SAHM's out of the equation there simply will not be enough daycare providers to go around.

[–]Risen_valkyrie2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We'll make the new working mothers all work in childcare, then they'll have a job and there will be more childcare workers to watch the children of the mothers now working watching other women's' children. Brilliant!

And by brilliant I mean asinine.

[–]teaandtalk29, married 6 years, together 84 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It should be illegal to impose your views on everyone else. Yet here we are.

[–]Littleknownfacts5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's my view that murder is bad, and I'm sure as hell glad that thats imposed on others (for the most part).

[–]teaandtalk29, married 6 years, together 82 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Fair point ;) It should be illegal to impose your views (that aren't well accepted/based in fundamental human morality) on everyone else :D

[–]Littleknownfacts4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

based in fundamental human morality

No such thing, but I'm just being argumentative.

[–]teaandtalk29, married 6 years, together 83 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hahahaha I see that! I do take your point though, even the most libertarian of people will generally agree that 'laws against murder' are pretty good.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

First off, hi everyone. It's been a crazy, crazy time in our lives lately. Miss y'all.

Alright, down to business. This is a sanctimonious piece of garbage. I'll commentate as I go through.

“One of the areas of greatest untapped potential in the Australian labour force is inactive and/or part-time working women, especially those with children,’’ concluded the landmark study. “There are potentially large losses to the economy when women stay at home or work short part-time hours.’’

Oh? Well, I hope the money that they spend on childcare makes up for all the time they will miss with their children - missing all of their first words, first steps, first day of school, and sporting events while they're busy making money to pay the nanny to experience those things for them. I know that's why I want children, to pay someone else to enjoy all the milestones!

For days you couldn’t walk past a television, radio or computer screen without encountering a defensive rant about how the most valuable work a woman can do involves nappies, play-doh, and a strict adherence to only leaving the family home during the hours of 9am to 5pm to attend playgroup or a similar non-work sanctioned activity.

I'm sorry, we're all a little on edge given feminism's constant berating of those of us who want to dedicate our time to having a happy, healthy family.

Anyone who has a child — and this goes for both mothers and fathers — knows that everything else in life becomes a distant second to that child’s welfare, happiness and wellbeing. So this is not a discussion about the importance of parenting — that is beyond dispute.

So ...the article clearly goes on past this point, and I'm not sure why - sure, let's just keep going and find out how you want to contradict yourself, dear author.

Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed.

Oh good, I love it when people make decisions for me as to how I should live my life and raise my children. I also love being forced into indentured slavery while I neglect my children!

Only when the female half of the population is expected to hold down a job and earn money to pay the bills in the same way that men are routinely expected to do will we see things change for the better for either gender.

Yay, equality! It's such a great thing! Except ...who will raise our children? Once again, why would you have children just to have them raised by others!? This is such a stupid concept.

Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.

So ...your definition of equality is to strip women of choice? That sounds like a thing that I think any human would not want. I think I'll continue not being a feminist.

This is ridiculous.

[–]StingrayVC4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried

There it is in all it's slimy glory.

I'm so tired of women coming here and telling us feminism is about choice.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is only about "choice" when they are fighting that any repercussions due to that choice shouldn't matter. Life is full of choices - lots and lots - and some are good and some are bad - and some aren't quantifiable as good/bad just simply different paths one could take with goods and bads on both paths.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a horrible article. Ugh, the idea that we all have an economic duty to our country to work work work...it sounds like a parody of Maoism.

Anyway I think the author is going after a straw man. I don't, personally, know ANY women who are staying at home and not earning any money once the kids are in school. Except for women who are homeschooling, and I'm sure we all agree that teaching is working?

Most of the women I know who stay at home with kids ALSO work, but they have found a way to do it from home. They telecommute, or they sell their crafts online, or they take care of other people's kids -- or maybe they work on the weekends -- most do something to earn money. I think the women with school-age kids who do absolutely no "work" are a convenient target -- and I don't think they should be targeted! but also I think they are rare.

[–]est-la-lune24 | Nun Mode6 points7 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

"Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history."

The exact reason I don't respect modern feminism. Ms. Marquand is essentially in favor of removing a woman's personal agency to confirm her bias about feminism and women's empowerment.

Being a working mom sounds exhausting, and quite frankly, I think there are enough people competing for jobs without mandating that STAHMs enter the workforce.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Do you respect first or second wave feminism? It's the same thing - first wave - the desire to vote. MOST women had no desire to vote, it was pushed by a very small group of people.

[–]pandasphere2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I've said this elsewhere: I think the rise of the nanny state has been so poisonous to our culture and morals that I'd give up my ability to vote if it meant we could begin dismantling it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

haha, right? Sometimes I agree.

[–]pandasphere2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It tends to pop in my head when I spend too munch time over at r/tumblrinaction lol.

[–]est-la-lune24 | Nun Mode0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

Aside from racism and violent protest tactics used by suffragettes, how is women's suffrage negative? Anyone can simply choose not to vote.

My comment is based on skepticism that a larger labor force is good for the economy. A doctor pays more taxes than most two-income households earn every year and still brings home enough money that his wife doesn't have to work. Jobs are limited. Someone who is equally qualified deserves it more than she does, and forcing her to work is ridiculous.

And yes, I respect those waves of feminism. Even in the context of traditional gender roles, women should have the right to vote, the right to an education, and access to family planning. Edit: Just to be clear, that respect doesn't extend to women who think they're being oppressed by being asked to shave.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

You should read /u/stingrayVC 's comment on this thread other waves of feminism were just as eager to throw away the family model.

[–]est-la-lune24 | Nun Mode1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Found the comment. Funny how a group of women who pride themselves on being pro-women and anti-men are so eager to bring other women down for disagreeing with them! I'm embarrassed by my last comment now...

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

We're all here to learn. We were all fed this idea that feminism is pro-women. But it's just not - even at the turn of the century it wasn't. It's hard to see that when we didn't experiance it. It's simply how it was taught to us.

[–]est-la-lune24 | Nun Mode0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm certainly "recovering" from feminism. I'm grateful someone fought for my right to get an education, but it's hard to accept that the choices I enjoy are the actions of selfish, angry people who think they are always right.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

But even before 1st wave feminism women had the right to an education. What makes you think they did not?

[–]est-la-lune24 | Nun Mode0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Simply because it hasn't always been that way!

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

How so? There were quite a few women's colleges that came along before women had the right to vote.

/u/TempestTcup and I were actually talking about this earlier today and she might have some really interesting points.

[–]TempestTcup points points [recovered] | Copy Link

What 3rd world country are you from?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My husband works with a lady whose monthly salary almost all goes to covering the childcare costs of her 3 kids. And at that point, I can only think what is the purpose of her working? Why would you pay so much to have no real financial benefits and have someone raise your kids.

I probably will return to work at some point after I have this baby (easier since I can work from home) but I (and other women) shouldn't be guilted into it or feel bad because they want to be with their children - you only get one chance to experience their childhood.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I make an okay amount, but once you take out childcare it's not worth it. It's not worth the drive, our disposable income is gone. But if I'm at home my car expenses go down, I can be more frugal in other ways - it's so much more economic for me to stay home and not pay for daycare.

[–]gabilromariz1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think people tend to forget the value of the labour of a stay-at-home-mom, even in cash-value terms. Make a list of all the things a sahm does, and wouldn't be able to do if she were at work, and then tally it up considering what you'd have to pay someone else to do it.

I distinctively remember a friend of my mom's quitting work and I was confused (nearly all women I knew worked outside the home). And my mom explained that with the salary cuts her friend has, said salary no longer even covered the cost of a maid and nanny, so she quit. And now she's the maid, and nanny, and makes everyone's lunches and drives them to after-school activities and so on.

[–]cynicalhousewife points points [recovered] | Copy Link

I think a lot of this is jealousy/bitterness based. Most women would love to stay at home with their children and many are resentful that they have to work. Many also cannot handle the stigma that comes with being a sahm and feel that they have to work to feel worth something and they are bitter about it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Everyone's life is better then mine" - women today

[–]ThatStepfordGalEarly 20s, LTR2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for reminding us that feminism only cares about $$$. Materialistic and shallow as always. Trying to control women and restrict their freedom, oh the irony.

[–]pandasphere1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Arbeit macht frei, then? Charming.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter