I took a lot a lot of shit in the in eighties for being a stay-at-home mom. See, my husband decided he liked to party more than parent and he left. I had a high school diploma, two toddlers, and no job skills beyond minimum wage.
I had choices:
- Give my kids up. Send them to live with relatives in the small, bigoted town where I'd had a miserable childhood.
- Give them up to the state where who knows what would happen to them.
- Work two or three jobs and never see the kids, leaving them to babysitters to raise.
- Go on Welfare and raise my kids.
I took a lot of shit because I chose to stay home with my kids. I enrolled them in HeadStart and I volunteered for the center. I took them to the library two or three times a week for story time activities. We participated in city-sponsored recreation center classes in music, art, gymnastics, and theater. We adopted a stray dog and she became a loved member of the family and a great protector. The other kids in the neighborhood came over to play in our backyard because we had an old swing set. We ate meals together.We made cookies and had backyard birthday parties. We went to AlAnon and Alatot programs to try to make sense of what had happened to us and to move on.
I took a lot of shit because I did not work outside the home and I lived on the "taxpayer dime." It did not matter that we all wore hand-me-downs or went without a phone or a car or both at various times. It didn't matter that we lived in a part of the city that was right under at the end of an airport runway and that windows rattled every time a plane flew over. It didn't matter that gunfire and crackheads were part of everyday life.
I took a lot of shit as a stay at home mom who bought birthday cakes with food stamps twice a year. Yes, I knew the storyline of an afternoon soap opera and I was a lazy housekeeper preferring to read a novel rather than do the dishes or cut the grass. A friend and I swapped babysitting so we could do adult things like go to GED classes or go on a date.
It didn't matter that my kids worked through the hurt of having a parent abandon them. It didn't matter that they became top students at schools that were outside our neighborhood and had high expectations of the students. Maybe because my kids had a stay at home mom, they were able to read and write when they went to kindergarten and they didn't have behavior issues to block their abilities to learn or disrupt class.
The single stay at home mom was labeled the biggest detriment to American society and success. We were raising thugs and the next generation of Welfare recipients- not future academics, workers, or leaders. Fuck you, America of the Eighties because both my kids work and pay taxes today as do I.
So while you're busy defending the stay at home moms, don't just defend the wealthy ones. Defend the ones who were faced with far tougher choices than to work outside the home or not. The myth of the Welfare Mom whose career plan is to have a baby every few years so she can stay home and get fat on a government check is just bullshit. Sure, I know everyone knows SOMEONE who is an irresponsible baby factory, but really, it was never an industry. If it were, the Duggars and other religious groups cornered the market years ago and don't shy from government assistance in raising their litters. And when you're disparaging those few, remember the fathers who walked out on their responsibilities and the government that doesn't go after them for restitution.
While you're busy defending stay at home moms, don't forget the ones who are one of two mommies. The women who stay at home to raise children because their same sex partners are able to earn enough to support them all. Even the stay at home moms who are dads should be recognized for getting off the career path to provide family stability. Wealth is wealth, correct? Or is it only good when a male is bringing home the money?
And keep in mind the differences in experiences between the stay at home parents who have resources and those who don't. If you can hire a babysitter and go out with friends during the day, you're much better off than the mom who has two kids in a grocery cart and has to take the city bus back home. Raising kids is not so different from working for an employer, but it can be as different as working for a Fortune 500 company and working the counter at Subway. We all know which job has nicer working conditions.
If you can't praise every parent who made the choice to stay home, then shut the fuck up about one who got all pissy because someone misspoke and said she'd never worked a day in her life. By her own husband's definition, she hasn't experienced that "dignity of work" he believes poor women should have to experience. His wife and his campaign should really be upset with him for that, but I think they've all figured out what an asshole he is.
(When I was writing this, my attention was directed to an article in the Huffington Post which quotes Mitt the Shit Romney as saying in January that poor women should, "have the dignity of work" and leave their kids to others to raise. He was even willing to spend more government money on childcare so these women would get out of the house and find that "dignity." Apparently, moms who have the cash get to make a choice. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/15/mitt-romney-mothers-welfare-moms_n_1426113.html?ref=mostpopular)
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 49
I made two lists.
I've essayed on this, playing off something Frothy said about "Protecting our money from the Blah people," coupled with Newt's saying say poor (his code for black) children should be given jobs so they can understand the connection between work and getting paid (because they have no adult role models around them who work)
These are two myths, and I'm fuck-me-in-the-eye shocked to hear this from men who've actually been in government. I expect to hear shit like this from the fuck-heads slamming down beers and watching their hockey games, but people in government?
We're fucked. We really are.
Um, who posed for your icon? LOL If I had to title it, I'd say "bitch butt."
I always have furry dogs so we can pretend they're all Lassie no matter what gender.
This colours my views about 'Moms on Welfare'. We have a different, more generous system than the USA.
Good for you, EmJay - you show that the system (sometimes) works!
Clinton's plan to move people off Welfare was a disaster. No consideration to who should raise the tots.
I'll check it out and get back to you. The sytem is under review at the present time, and the rules are changing to try to force those who are on 'national assistance' to get back into the workforce.
Please let me know what you find out. I'd be interested in hearing what your secretary experienced and if national attitudes are very different.
http://www.confessionsofasinglemum.co.uk/single-mum-benefits/
In the UK, the 'baby-popping welfare smoocher' is more often a young woman of local ethnicity, badly-educated, often with more than 1 child to more than one father, living in a council flat (rent paid by benefits) - I think immigrants come WAAAAY down the list of moochers here!
The immigrants? Many of them work. I'd rather them than the CHAVS!
We dwell under the belief that Europe is a kinder, gentler place when it comes to the unemployed, the single parent, the elderly, and disabled. But in reality, no one has much tolerance for those who abuse the safety nets.
I don't think anyone is tolerant for those who ABUSE the safety nets provided for those in genuine need. I certainly don't!
Actually, if the income gap doesn't narrow, people will take whatever they need from whomever they can wrestle it from if it means survival. Not that they don't do that anyway.
Or at least get the idea I think the Romneys are assholes.
Your essay was right on.
"This is a great read Kasey. It changed my perception of the single mother household. There is a good quality and bad quality single parenting, and unfortunately we seem to only hear about the bad. This artle sheds light on a lot of stereotypes about single mothers and single parents in poverty."
It is indecent to make a parallel between Romney, and "stay at home moms"...
When the husband has troubles of disclosing his tax records, because the income is questionable not only ethically, but maybe also legally, it is not difficult to be at "stay at home mom".
The person who made the comment about Mrs. Romney was absolutely right. She never had a job outside of the house. She never got up at six or even earlier, to get ready to go to a job when she could not be late, and where she was making less for the same job done by a male counter part. She did not know what it means to go to an office where there are some bosses who take liberty with their female subordinates without any fear of getting in trouble. Who would believe a hysterical woman with "serious problems once a month"?
Mrs. Romney is not trying to get a "mom of the year award" she is trying to convince real "stay at home moms" who go to Hell and back daily to make ends meet.
I wonder how much help had Mrs. Romney taking care of her children, and I am also wondering how much of that help was been legal!!!
Some of us forgot it already, but I can remember the "stay at home mom" in the Oval Office, Barbara Bush... She was a decent person, like millions, and she was good at her job, as good as Mrs. Romney is, however the picture with her on the political arena was not very pretty...
To say that "stay at home moms" don't work is untrue and indecent. However, what kind of experience in government running can a "stay at home Mrs. Romney" can bring.
It is as unfair to say that a hand laborer does not bring a big contribution to the society compared with a PhD working in research, but no one can say that the laborer does not work...
Unfortunately, Logic is not one of the favorite disciplines of America today, and a lot of people have either lack of skills expressing themselves, or take advantage of the high degree of literacy in this country.
A corrected statement as "Mrs Romney who did not ever had a job outside of the house", would have presented the situation with less liability.
But I guess that politics without smoke screens are not real politics...
When it comes to a man who has made his fortune at the expense of others' livelihoods, well...
When our daughter was in fourth and fifth grades I went back to school and was a househusband. I did the housecleaning, the laundry (except for my wife's clothes, she didn't trust anyone else to do them,) cooking, and, the fun part, took care of our daughter. The fifth grade teacher spent a long time thinking I had sole custody of our daughter because I picked her up every day.
Seems to me that the real problem is that the people who denigrate either group are small minded jerks. In a Robert Heinlein book I read in junior high, one of his YA series, the teenaged boy's mentor tells him that housework and cooking are survival skills. I'd put child rearing in that category too. The book made a big impression on me. Running a household isn't trivial. It's also something everyone of any gender you can name ought to know how to do.
I took a very part time job at a PAL center when my daughter went to kindergarten and went back to college not long after. Looking back, I'm not sure how I did all that. I can't even remember how the laundry got done.
Since housework and raising kids is not valued as work, a woman has to work to be valued in society. Those who do it without a staff and sometimes without social contact have a legit complaint against Mrs. Romney getting her knickers in a twist. She'd probably be in league with those women who were upset to discover I was my son's mother and not his babysitter.
I'll admit these days I have issues with a mother I know who chose to have a kid. (Actually HAD to have one before she was 35 or her whole timetable of life would be screwed up.) She married to breed. Often spends more than 40 hours a week working. Doesn't even go across the street to the daycare to have lunch with her daughter. Daddy often picks the kid up on his way home from work so Mommy can stay at work or go out after work with her friends. The kid is not pleasant to be around. Why have a kid and not want to spend time corrupting her? My kids might be messed up, but I did it myself.
Your husband thrashed and trashed the family and you picked up the pieces without painting yourself and your kids into a corner. I salute you, EMJay, for truly protecting and defending your family.
There are people who would want to blame the feminist movement, but it's not necessarily woman picking at each other's choices. Many women join the work force, leave to raise kids, and then try to return. If the feminist movement did anything, it tried to assure that the choice to do so was there.
But goodness me, where is that dignity of work that I keep hearing so much about?
I hope you find time to write about your experiences dealing with raising kids and trying to maintain health and home. And sanity.
Well written and well said ("F-bombs" and all). People need to understand... poor don't mean lazy. Poor means hungry.
You are so correct about poor meaning hungry. When did that become a crime? We need to decriminalize poverty.
(Sidenote: I wrote a piece about Ted Nugent with far less swearing than this and it was flagged as offensive. Lesson learned. If you're going to swear, swear about motherhood and no one cares, just don't call Ted fucked up.)