In response to my Huffington Post blog yesterday, “Stay-At-Home Mom is a Political Misnomer,” the response below was posted. It’s among the more reasoned responses I’ve read and so I thought I’d share it. There are too many false and ludicrous assumptions being made about women who work for pay outside the home and those who work at home. Men don’t have to go through this every five or so years. A useful comeback to any put-down about whether we work outside the home for pay or not should be that most of us are doing the best we can with what life presents. Choices with regard to raising children are often difficult.
From Huffington Post, April 16, blogger sierraseven:
One of the most frustrating and truly offensive lines of commentary that this issue has stirred up (again) is the smug assertion from both men and women that “we decided to forego luxuries so that we didn’t need a two-paycheck income”.
The assumption that the only reason to have both parents working is in order to afford a second car, a vacation home, a boat, or other luxuries is an insult to the millions of two-paycheck families who are barely making it even WITH two paychecks.
Not to mention the myriad of reasons why both must work: maybe one parent runs a small business or is self-employed, and the family needs the medical insurance provided by the other parent’s job. If they have a child who needs extra medical care, this could be a huge reason not to be able to quit working outside the home.
And of course single parents – but the conservatives just don’t like that idea in the first place, do they?
If you and your family have found a way to live on one paycheck, good for you. But stop implying that those who can’t are in it for “luxuries”.
And it’s also ridiculous to assume that women who decide not to work outside their homes are necessarily wealthy. Life is complex. There is room for many ways of living it. And there are no guarantees that one way is superior to all the others.
