Stay-at-home moms — DISCOVERED!

NROnline ^ | 3/19/04 | Rich Lowry

[Right_Mom]

The cause of women's liberation just took a huge step forward. The mainstream media, in the form of Time magazine, has finally recognized as legitimate the choices of those women who decide to stay home with their young children.

In a cover story headlined "The Case for Staying Home," the magazine reports, without sneering or condescension, the trend toward more new mothers leaving the work force. This is an important cultural benchmark, because until now, the media, feminist leaders and other opinion-makers have tended to portray stay-at-home moms as a regrettable throwback to what should be a long-gone era of child-rearing. Now, perhaps, we are ready to honor the full range of choices made by women struggling with how to balance career and family.

[Graymatter]

>>My take: ONE parent has to be there for the kid.

As a parent (some 23 years now) I can vouch for that! Aside from the rare exceptions, nobody else brings enough love to the endeavor.

[r9etb]

My wife stays at home too, as do many of our friends. I have never had occasion to belittle stay-at-home moms, as I find that pretty much all of them are very well-educated (most have college degrees), quite intelligent and sensible, and possessed of an uncommon ability to get a hell of a lot done.

Not to mention it's much better for the kids.

[Guillermo]

The Left will say that these women would much rather work (because a career is more of a natural inclination than raising kids, even in this opporessive Patriarchal society), but cannot due to the Bush Economy.

[brewcrew]

They must have looked in a lot of diapers before they figured that one out!

...in an expensive study paid for by your hard-earned tax dollars.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

Wonderful News!

[mtbopfuyn]

Ok, I was a believer until the article turned from honoring SAHMs to singling out those families making enough to pay high taxes. Hogwash! It's priorities and not striving to keep up the with the Jones' and distinguishing between wants and needs. We're at the low end of the scale and it's a struggle, but we made the decision that one parent would be a "parent" and raise the kids. BTW, they are kids until they're 18 and need a parent not during diaper changes but perhaps even more so during hormonal changes.

[Guillermo]

LOL Great post!

[Guillermo]

Gen X - Born 1965-1980.

[Marie]

(waving) Hey! I exist, too! I'm NOT "just another breeder," as one family member put it.

[Marie]

The "Lost" generation may not be so lost after all. We remember how it felt to come home to an empty house. We remember how it felt to have to stand alone in all situations. And many of us will NOT do that to our kids.

[nickcarraway]

bump

[Kieri]

I'm a 1965, so this could make me a first year GenX'er, according to some lists.

Oh, and I'm a stay-home mother of two. Our son will be 14 this year and our daughter turns 11. Once our house construction is complete and this particular period of growth is over, I'm feeling the urge to go back to my writing, an urge that can co-exist with motherhood :-)

Time and other studies have this knack of forgetting to market towards stay-home moms. Have you noticed? We don't like office-wear, hate high heels, and like a little sophistication in our home cooking now and then (once the kids are past the hot-dog-and-maccaroni-and-cheese stage). I think the one store that "gets it" might just be Home Depot!

[EllaMinnow]

BTW, they are kids until they're 18 and need a parent not during diaper changes but perhaps even more so during hormonal changes.

My son mentioned recently that it meant a lot to him that I was still a SAHM during his teen years. I hadn't realized how important it had been to him, so it was good to hear.

[ConservativeStLouisGuy]

Time, At Last: Stay-at-home moms -- DISCOVERED!

The cause of women's liberation just took a huge step forward. The mainstream media, in the form of Time magazine, has finally recognized as legitimate the choices of those women who decide to stay home with their young children.

In a cover story headlined "The Case for Staying Home," the magazine reports, without sneering or condescension, the trend toward more new mothers leaving the work force. This is an important cultural benchmark, because until now, the media, feminist leaders and other opinion-makers have tended to portray stay-at-home moms as a regrettable throwback to what should be a long-gone era of child-rearing. Now, perhaps, we are ready to honor the full range of choices made by women struggling with how to balance career and family.

The workplace participation of married mothers with a child less than 1 year old has dropped for the first time ever, reversing a 30-year trend. It fell from 59 percent in 1997 to 53 percent in 2000. Women have realized that "having it all" - i.e., leaving their young kids with someone else all day long - is not as wondrously fulfilling as they were led to expect. "Common sense is winning out over the ideologies of the 1960s and 1970s," says family expert Allan Carlson.

According to Time, it has mostly been well-educated white women over 30 who have accounted for the drop in working moms. Twenty-two percent of women with graduate or professional degrees are at home with their kids. One in three women with M.B.A.s is not working full time, in contrast with just one in 20 men. These women have the resources to eschew a paycheck. A generational shift has also taken place, as young women are less interested in taking orders from the feminist "sisterhood." According to one survey, 51 percent of Gen X moms were home full time, compared with 33 percent of boomer moms.

Many of the new stay-at-home moms have realized that day care might not be an adequate substitute for the attention of a mother. Time quotes one woman who left her consultant job to stay home explaining her experience exploring day care: "I had one woman look at me honestly and say she can promise my son would get undivided attention eight times each day - four bottles and four diaper changes. I appreciated her honesty, but I knew I couldn't leave him."

The option to stay at home shouldn't be a privilege of the well-credentialed few. Public policy needs to make it easier for families to choose whether to have mom, or dad, stay home, rather than forcing both parents into the work force. High taxes do just that. About half of married couples with children in the mid-1950s paid no federal income tax, thanks to a generous $3,000 personal exemption. If this exemption had kept up with inflation, it would be $10,000 today.

Although the steadily increasing child tax credit (now $1,000 per child) has eased the burden on families, more tax relief will make it still easier for them. Meanwhile, the tax code's dependent-care tax credit, which is only available for parents who go to licensed day-care providers, could be broadened to include parents who provide their own child care. The tax code could make it easier for moms and dads to maintain home offices as they search for creative ways to spend more time with their children while still working.

But no one should underestimate the importance of the signals sent by our culture. Stay-at-home moms have been bombarded for years with messages disparaging their choice. Now they should hear something else: that staying at home is a great and admirable act of self-sacrifice; that a career is not the only venue for important and meaningful work; that it is not unambitious to want to give your young children the full measure of your energy and attention.

Then, women facing difficult trade-offs will feel truly liberated to make the choices their hearts and consciences desire.

______________________________

A GREAT article....thank you for posting it!! Hope you don't mind my posting it in full (for posterity)....

"Thou Shalt Not Unnecessarily Excerpt" -- 11th FReeper Commandment

FReegards,

- ConservativeStLouisGuy