Wattree's picture

    Motherhood: The Most Valuable Profession in Our Society

    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

     

    Motherhood: The Most Valuable Profession in Our Society
    .

    The primary reason that our society is falling apart is because we’ve devalued the most important profession in our society - motherhood. A stay-at-home mother and housewife is a sociologist, a psychologist, a medic, a financial planner, a teacher, an interior decorator, a chef, a chauffeur, an escort, and a lover, all balled up into one sweet bundle. Yet, society treats them like they’re of little or no value. As a result, women flooded into the job market, and society’s children have been deprived of the most important socialization experience of their lives. This, in turn, has led to crime, rampant drug abuse, the breakdown of our educational and political system, and the general disruption of our society, because the American family is the foundation upon which everything else in our society is built upon. Congress has clearly demonstrating that we can do without them in a pinch - they haven’t done a thing in over two years. But we cannot survive without the American family.
    .
    Yet, during the fifties and sixties, we began to chip away at this important institution. Due to our chauvinistic attitude towards women, many mothers and housewives tore off their aprons and began to demand equality with men. They demanded that they too be afforded the opportunity to go into the more "prestigious professions" of medicine, law, science, and business, that, until that time, had been considered the all but exclusive bastion of men.
    .
    That created a severe problem for the nation, because, in terms of their relative value to society, they were already MORE than equal to men, because these mothers and housewives were responsible for the very lifeblood of society - our future. These women were charged with a responsibility that was more important to our society than any doctor, any supreme court judge, or any CEO. Thus, our narrow-minded insistence on relegating motherhood to second-class status in our society is directly responsible for, literally, throwing our babies - and our future - out with the bath water.
    .
    We’re currently paying a severe price for our bigoted attitude towards women - as we will eventually pay for all areas of institutional bigotry - because the most obvious solution to some of our most tenacious problems - our dysfunctional educational system, the breakdown of the family unit, and the proper socialization of our children - is for a large number of women to temporarily leave the job market and return to the home and reassume the essential function of nurturing and guiding society’s future - at least until their children reach an age where they are relatively self-sufficient. But that’s not going to be easy. In fact, I expect to be attacked by some for even suggesting it, because our society has made the word "housewife" - the most important profession in our country - a bad word. To many women it’s like asking Black people to go back into slavery for the best interest of the country.
    .
    So in order to convince women to return to the home en masse, society is going to have to bestow upon motherhood the kind of stature, prestige, and compensation that’s commensurate with their value to society - and we owe them that, because the fact is, the business community has essentially been working women for free for the past fifty years now.
    .
    Prior to women coming into the workforce in large numbers, a family of five could be supported on one income. But after women came into the workforce, the cost of living began to gradually rise until it consumed the woman’s entire income. So now whether or not a woman decides to enter the workforce is no longer a family option. The woman MUST work just to maintain a standard of living that could previously be sustained by her husband’s income alone.
    .
    So while business has indeed accommodated a woman’s ability to enter the workforce, it’s the business community itself that derives all of the benefits, not the woman and her family. The business community benefits in many ways off the toil of working women. First, working women have enabled business to nearly double the cost of everything in our economy; secondly, business is obtaining what is essentially free labor from women; and finally, it’s using that free labor to either layoff or lower the wages of the working woman’s husband. And where is all of that extra money going? It’s going into the pockets of grossly overpaid CEOs and executives, even as our children suffer, and society is rendered dysfunctional by a destabilized family structure.
    .
    So we’ve got to turn this trend around, both through social pressure, and legislation. First, mothers and housewives have to be made equal partners with their husbands. If a woman defers her career or education to raise the family’s children while the husband pursues a medical degree, that medical degree, and all of the income derived from it, should be considered community property, and half hers - for life. And the reverse should also be true for stay-at-home dads. 
    .
    In addition, the same principle should apply for employment. When a company hires an employee, it should be understood that they are hiring a partnership, so any and all compensation derived from that employment should be issued to both the husband, and the wife - and if one partner so chooses, the compensation should be divided between the two of them. That way, should the stay-at-home partner decide to further their education after the children become self-sufficient, they’ll have their own source of income to pursue that goal.
    .
    In case of divorce, the partner who deferred his or her career to raise the children should continue to be compensated by the employer of the working partner until such time as the child-rearing parent has achieved financial parity with the working partner. If the child-rearing parent never achieves parity, the employer of the worker should pro rate the second partner’s compensation to make up the difference in income.
    .
    And finally, in order to get corporations to cooperate with these policies, the people are going to have to place pressure on congress to pass a "Worker’s Bill of Rights." And included in that legislation, there should be a provision that would require any company or corporation who wants to do business in the United States to pay it’s employees a living wage, provide affordable healthcare, and maintain a given level of employment based on the amount of profit that they generate within our borders. If they decide to thumb their noses at such legislation and take their business elsewhere, that’ll open up the market to domestic entrepreneurs.
    .
    But in order for such policies to be put into place, the American people are going to have to come to the conclusion that they’re tired of being manipulated by multinational corporations that have a vested interest in lowering the standard of living of the American middle class to conform to that of third-world countries. We’re also going to have to stop allowing bought-and-paid-for politicians to keep us divided. In that regard, a good rule of thumb will be to always remember that the bigger a politician’s war chess, the less likely he or she is to be working in the interest of the people. If we remember that, money in politics will become a liability rather than an asset.
    .
    What I’m suggesting may seem far-fetched at this point, but so did the New Deal at one point in our history. So even if it seems far-fetched now, as the corporatists continue to drag American workers under the bus, I guarantee you, it won’t be long before we see the light - and that light will reveal that saving our women and children is the key to our survival, not protecting multinational corporations that’s sending their money to Dubai.
    .
    Eric L. Wattree
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    I met a nice woman the other day, doing breakthrough stem cell research, and she became a legislator because she'd "be society's doctor as well". I'll have to check with her to see why she abandoned the better home career, see what it takes for her to return home.

    Angelina Jolie seems to be a successful film star, occasional producer - but managed to adopt & raise 6 kids. Though I guess we still need women in movies - maybe we could shut down those other career paths so Marissa Mayer & others will have a better chance at home. Perhaps we can get some government correction to replace her $6 million a year salary.

    Howard Dean's wife is a doctor who wouldn't even go on the campaign trail for her husband - who knows how badly she neglected her children to pursue her career.

    I guess with a divorce we can just attach half earnings forever & ever to equalize the situation, no matter whose fault or amicable.

    Ah well, the times they are a changin'

     


    Peracles,

    You’ve become a bore, because you’re predictable, you have a very narrow view of the world, and you go out of your way to distort ANYTHING, to your way to distort the vires of anyone who doesn’t conform to your closed-minded ideology.

    Did you read anywhere in my post where I said that EVERY woman must return to the home in order to save society? I was speaking in terms of trends, and I also mentioned in passing the probability that some families would opt for stay-at-home dads. Did you draw from that that I was suggesting that EVERY man should quit their job and stay at home with the children. The fact is, that probably would have been the case in my family. Because even though I had more education, my late wife made $30,000 a year more than I did - and throughout our entire marriage, she always made more money than I did - and I made pretty good money. But she was a very intelligent woman who was EXCEPTIONAL at what she did.

    Thus, your deliberate distortion of my meaning is not only boring and predictable, but it’s childish. I took a moment to research you, and it seems that, that’s all you do. Instead of contributing any kind of thought-provoking input to any discussion, you seem to be content to play in the sandbox all day long trying to engage everyone you come in virtual contact with in spitball fights. I can’t even imagine the tremendous toll that it must take on the people who are unfortunate enough to have to spend any amount of time in your physical presence. It must truly be both an exhausting, and horrific, experience.


    Weird, you seem unable to understand your own posts.

    Due to our chauvinistic attitude towards women, many mothers and housewives tore off their aprons and began to demand equality with men. They demanded that they too be afforded the opportunity to go into the more "prestigious professions" of medicine, law, science, and business, that, until that time, had been considered the all but exclusive bastion of men...

    That created a severe problem for the nation... because these mothers and housewives were responsible for the very lifeblood of society - our future...

    So in order to convince women to return to the home en masse, society is going to have to bestow upon motherhood the kind of stature, prestige, and compensation that’s commensurate with their value to society...

    So, not "every woman" but "women ...en masse". You parse the particular difference. Me, I'm going back to my sandbox - I feel an arduous and none-too-pleasant conversation coming on. Would rather argue with a pile of sand.


    Peracles,

    I’m discussing a general trend. So again, you’re going out of your way to distort reality. I started to say unpleasant about that, then I remembered an incident that took place many years ago when I went to pick my daughter up from school when she was in the kindergarten. When I walked up, this little girl came up to me and said, "You’re ugly." I later found out that she had recently loss her father so she was just trying to get my attention. So I’ve chosen to be compassionate, and to rise above this tremendous urge I have to be petty with you, because you’re obviously crying out for attention that you probably can’t find in any other way. You see, my educational background is in psychology, so I should know better than to engage in a spitball fight with you.

    And besides, I just finished watching an episode of "Gunsmoke." I enjoy watching those old westerns, because while the storylines are often simplistic, they tended to promote values that were not only wise, but placed life in perspective. In the episode I was just watching, in the very last of the script Marshal Dillion was talking to Chester. He said,  "Chester, that man is lying in the street because he was a coward. Nothing justifies a gunslinger drawing on an unarmed man." That is so true, and it also applies to spitball fights. Thus, since you’re obviously unarmed and ill-equipped to confront me, I’m gonna to be compassionate, and give you a pass.


    No, you're not talking about general trends. You're taking your own personal anecdotes and extrapolating them to some big statement on society.

    Yeah, when people get older they long for the good ole days when morals and values were... like they remember and felt comfortable with.

    But one thing strikes me as odd, is that the single parent raising kids trend in black communities continues to rise, and that parent is typically the mother. It kinda makes me think that maybe many black women didn't choose to work to fulfill themselves, but to fill the pantry as a single mother & single bread-winner. Over a quarter of all children are raised by 1 parent; 72% of black children are raised by 1 parent.

    So there's something wrong here, but it's not that black women are working - if they're raising kids alone they pretty much need to. As someone noted, people should celebrate Beyoncé & Jay-Z's unusual choice - pregnant while married. (Presumably better will be "still married with children"). Sure someone can manage kids on their own, but there's a lot more resources & attention in a dual-headed family.


    Really?

    I'm just going to respond to you this way, because surprisingly Megyn Kelly said it  best:

     

    You don't have to stay at home to be a good mother nor a good parent or to raise healthy happy children. 

    Also, you wrote this and it's weird, but also has not one chance of ever being considered let alone implemented:

    In case of divorce, the partner who deferred his or her career to raise the children should continue to be compensated by the employer of the working partner until such time as the child-rearing parent has achieved financial parity with the working partner. If the child-rearing parent never achieves parity, the employer of the worker should pro rate the second partner’s compensation to make up the difference in income.

    So here is what we as women really need: We need equal pay,  we need basic infrastructure investments,  we need more investment in our k-16 educational systems, we need national standards for day care centers, we need national standards for maternity leave, those are the things that help support families, real policies that can help families. 


    TM,

    There’s a huge difference between saying that a mother MUST stay at home to be a good parent, and saying that children would benefit greatly from having a stay-at- home parent. The advantages of the latter are not even worth debating. So any argument against my position in this matter is purely ideological rather than factual. Anyone who would argue that children are better off by NOT having a stay-at-home parent, would have to be a fool. Period.


    Polly Toynbee @ The Guardian, June 12:

    At last, working mothers can ditch the guilt – their children do not suffer
    New research shows that babies born since the millennium suffer no ill effects from their mothers going out to work

    CBS News, June 11:

    Working moms' kids fare just as well as stay-at-home counterparts, study says

    Stephanie Coontz Guest Op-Ed, New York Times, June 1/2:

    The Triumph of the Working Mother
    Those who stay at home report more sadness, anger and depression....

    Excerpts from the last link:

    ....the benefits of employment mount over a lifetime. A recent multiyear study by the sociologists Adrianne Frech and Sarah Damaske found that women who worked full time following the birth of their first child had better mental and physical health at age 40 than women who had not worked for pay. Low-wage jobs with urgent and inflexible time demands do raise the risk of depression, especially among new mothers. But in less stressful low-wage jobs, mothers who work relatively long hours during the first year following childbirth experience less depression than those who cut back to fewer hours.

    Back in the 1960s and ’70s, a wife taking a job raised the risk of divorce. Today, however, a wife’s employment lowers the couple’s risk of divorce. Among middle-class Americans, dual-earner couples report the highest marital quality. Things are less rosy for wives who do not want to work but are forced to by economic necessity, especially if their husbands don’t pitch in at home. Such women have the least happy marriages in America.

    Yet staying home doesn’t necessarily help, because financial distress is an even more potent source of marital unhappiness and conflict than it used to be. In a 2012 Gallup poll, stay-at-home mothers in low-income families were less likely than employed moms at the same income level to report that they had smiled, laughed, or enjoyed themselves “yesterday.”

    .....since 1985, both mothers and fathers have increased their time with children. Employed moms spend fewer hours per week with their children than stay-at-home mothers, but they spend more time with their children than homemakers did in 1965!....

    And fathers nearly tripled their amount of time with children. A review of nearly 70 studies in the United States finds no significant negative effects of maternal employment on the intellectual achievement of young children. And in low-income families, children whose mothers had stable jobs had fewer behavior problems than children whose mothers experienced job instability or who did not work at all, according to another study. In Britain....


    Artappraiser,

    We don’t need any studies to see that we're on the wrong track as a society. Look around you. Look at the degradation of society and the diminished capacity of children who’s been watered like plants and left to languish in bedrooms across America to be raised by MTV, BET, and ESPN. Many of these "children" are now 35 years old, and they’re still at home living with their parents. We routinely see 40 year-olds walking around in sideways tilted baseball caps and tennis shoes like their they’re still teenagers.

    In contrast, my late wife and I got married when I was 21 and she was 19 years of age. We had two kids of our own by the time I was 23 - and I was what was considered a dysfunctional child at the time. I was a high school dropout who went in and out of juvenile institutions repeatedly between the ages of 12 and 19 years of age. Yet, due to the social mores of the time, in spite of my dysfunction, a basic foundation of social values, a sense of responsibility, and a basic educational foundation had been ingrained in me that allowed me to suck it up, become a responsible parent and member of society, and continue my education when I was called upon to do so.

    What allowed me to do that was, back then, society made sure that by the time a child graduated from the 6th grade to go into junior high school he or she had a basic education, at least to the extent that he or she could read, write, do basic math, and had a basic understanding of what it meant to be a responsible citizen. So your so-called "study" notwithstanding, I submit that the simple reality of the current condition of society says it all.

    The problem is, we’ve become a hedonistic society, so the tail is now wagging the dog. We’ve lost sight of the fact that once we have children, the future of this nation depends on our recognition of the fact that our primary responsibility in life is to raise those children effectively, not to try to find a convenient way to get them out of the way so we can pursue our selfish and hedonistic interests. The OBJECT of working and establishing careers is to provide us with the necessary resources to raise our children, not to impress our society with our wealth and success.

    Therefore, if you take two families, and one has accumulated a billion dollars, but they’ve produced children that are bratty, self-absorbed, and irresponsible, and the second family that is lower middle-class, but their children are well-adjusted and responsible members of society, in terms of society’s best interest, the latter family is the more successful. Thus, our society is currently in decline due to our failure to recognize that very basic and fundamental fact. In short, we’ve become hedonist. We’ve come to view the "American Dream" as the unfettered right to accumulate "things," when Americans should be dreaming of a better and more just America.


    Latest Comments