Cutting working mothers some slack

After spending some time in red state America, I've learned that it's fashionable for rich people to blame working mothers for the declining academic abilities of today's kids. Apparently, if all these mothers would just stay home with their kids, schools would be turning out success stories just like they did back in the day. For some reason, it's highly controversial in America to invoke anything other than personal responsibility to explain societal problems. I thought I'd dig up some numbers, using my own line of work as an example. I'm married and working on a Ph.D. in astronomy, which is hardly typical, but it does emphasize that a good education is hardly a ticket to economic stability in Bush's America.

For a family of four, the federal government defines low income as less than $38,700 annually. In astronomy, after completing your Ph.D. at an average age of 27, you spend three to six (or more) years doing postdocs, temporary research positions completed under the supervision of an experienced researcher. These positions offer no job security, few benefits, and a typical salary in the mid 30K's. So for scientists, this is the best it gets during any reasonable definition of "child-bearing" age.

So my question is, Which of these three options should my wife and I take to be most acceptable to rich conservatives?

• Don't have kids.
  
• Have kids, but each of us keeps working so we can be financially stable.
  
• Have kids, and try to get by on low-income status, taking advantage of taxpayer-supported programs when we have to.
  

Keep in mind, this is the situation for people with decent educations and reasonably good health and credit. Not everyone is as lucky. I think people need to cut working mothers a little slack.

Whenever I see this kind of stupidity (the blamers, not you), I just ask myself whether these judgmental fools believe that a stay-at-home dad and a working mom would be equally effective. I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

self indulgent women.

Women just can't win. If they look at their finances and don't have kids, they're selfish bitches who want to party through life. If they are poor and have kids, well, they should have thought things through more clearly and certainly don't deserve any support. If they go out to work, they're abandoning the kids. If they stay at home, they're risking financial disaster if the man leaves.

Honestly, the way these fools talk about putting welfare mothers to work (as though the average welfare mom isn't already working her ass off to keep her kids alive on less than starvation income), they seem to think mothers can shove the kids into a bureau drawer during the day and take them out to play with when they get home from work!

This country, along with much of the world, has never come to terms with the essential unpaid labor that is performed every day, mostly by women but increasingly by men, in preparing the next generation of workers and citizens. This is where the most radical change in thinking is needed, and this is the area that will be most resistant to it.

who used to bitch a lot about the single mothers he had working for him and their problems with child care, sick kids, etc.

Then he got custody of one of his kids and found out just what it was like even with stable, reliable child care (me). I could have gone to the parent/teacher conferences but I wouldn't because I thought my son needed to know what was happening with his child. I also couldn't do anything about a child sick at school because he forgot to fill out permission for me to do so.

In less than 6 months my son stopped bitching about single mothers and started trying to find ways to help them earn a living AND take care of their families. It didn't agree well with corporate but I was quite proud of him for actually learning something and trying to right an age-old wrong.

to help her more, but she'd just take credit for having done it on her own while continuing to put down people who didn't have family to help them. I have another niece who isn't like that, and I'll help her. If the first niece ever says anything about it, I look forward to telling her why -- she still has some lessons that she needs to learn on her own.

I'm not doing it to be vindictive. However, she'll never learn that she's just been lucky up to this point (rather than taking credit for the good things that she has received in this life from other people) until she's not so lucky. She has family who watches her child, she works for her father, etc. She constantly puts down people who have less than her. The really sad thing is that she works in Social Services and puts down her clients. Oh, and yes, she's a Republican who thinks that B* takes care of families. :eyes:

That is the part that astounds me. There is an unhealthy obsession with viewing women as the only proper parent to stay home and raise children. If it were viewed as men's work too maybe the conservatives would shut up about working women. Other than breastfeeding there is no reason why it shouldn't be an equal issue for fathers.

who was a single parent back in the '50s. Funny, neither one of her kids got in trouble with the law; one graduated from university with high honors (while on scholarship), the other became a career military officer, winning the Silver Star during Viet Nam. No drugs, no alcohol abuse, etc, etc. It doesn't matter if you work or not- it's the quality time you spend with your kids that matters, I think. After all, look how my contemporary G.W. Bush turned out. He came from a two parent household and I don't think his mother worked outside the home.

That leaves about 74% of the families, with children under 18 years old, headed by single fathers or two parents. I find it hard to believe that only a quarter of the population is responsible for 100% of the problem. Maybe these rich people need to take some personal responsibility. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabFM-2.pdf