Active Now

Spunky
Discussion » Questions » Life and Society » Should it be illegal to be a stay at home Mom of school age children?
my2cents

Should it be illegal to be a stay at home Mom of school age children?

According to a writer for the Daily Telegraph it should be because it help balance the work place and the overall economy.

"Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/sarrah-le-marquand-it-should-be-illegal-to-be-a-stayathome-mum/news-story/fbd6fe7b79e8b4136d49d991b6a1f41c

Posted - March 23, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 2219
    Depends on there being employment prepared to accommodate the relatively short school day, and reasonable and affordable arrangements for when children are sick or the school closed.

    The taxation arrangements at present effectively fine mothers (or fathers) for staying at home anyway. 

     This post was edited by Malizz at March 23, 2017 9:03 AM MDT
      March 23, 2017 6:33 AM MDT
    1

  • 34417
    So, it should be illegal to be a stay at home Mom/Dad? Are you saying they must be at least looking for a job that will accommodate the school hours only? No choice in the matter? This post was edited by my2cents at March 23, 2017 6:38 AM MDT
      March 23, 2017 6:36 AM MDT
    0

  • 2219
    I suspect you have misconstrued my point.

    My intention was to point out the prerequisites for such a draconian law, it being implicit that such circumstances were unlikely.

    My own mum would have preferred to stay at home, but it was not on as my father had passed away when I was 2, and grandad's pension was insufficient to support us all. 
      March 23, 2017 7:12 AM MDT
    2

  • 6477
    I think, and I could be wrong, that partly Malizz was saying that even if a woman chooses to work, it's very difficult to find a job that fits in with school hours - there are real limitations that face women with children even if they do work.
      March 23, 2017 9:04 AM MDT
    0

  • Isn't that just as sexist to say that a woman must work as it is to say that a woman belongs in the kitchen? What if a woman decides she likes being a stay at home mom/wife, or as my mother says, a Domestic Engineer. What if that couple decides that the man makes more than enough to cover all expenses and the woman doesn't want to be employed? As long as the couple are in full agreement, they should be able to do whatever they decide on. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 23, 2017 11:09 AM MDT
      March 23, 2017 6:37 AM MDT
    5

  • 34417
    I agree it should be up to the couple, if they can afford it. I do believe there should be a work requirement if welfare is received.
      March 23, 2017 6:40 AM MDT
    2

  • I agree on welfare. There does need to be a minimum amount of hours a person must work if they receive welfare.
      March 23, 2017 6:43 AM MDT
    2

  • 6124
    While I don't completely disagree with you, if someone has a special needs child that requires 24 hour, or exceptional, hands on care and requires welfare assistance, there shouldn't be a work requirement.  We need to do a better job of managing and evaluating individual cases and, we need to completely weed out the ones who are able-bodied but refuse to work and prefer to just live off the system.
      March 23, 2017 10:18 AM MDT
    2

  • Well, of course, there are always exceptions to the rules. I'm talking about someone who is fully capable of working. In the case of the special needs child, that could be considered an exception and would have to be addressed as it came up. But, yes, we need a better way to manage our welfare system so that we get the help to those that actually need it.
      March 23, 2017 11:02 AM MDT
    2

  • 34417
    In my state there are exceptions for situations like you mention where a child needs special care and for a single Mother with children under 5
    If married one parent is required to work.. 
      March 23, 2017 6:24 PM MDT
    0

  • Doesn't a work requirement kinda just lock them into government dependence though?  
      March 23, 2017 10:33 AM MDT
    1

  • Not necessarily. Welfare should be used to help someone get back on their feet. Someone who is able to work needs to be out actively looking for a job and working or going to school. Allowing people to live off of a fixed income without work requirements does create government dependancy. There are always exceptions to the rules, of course. Those should be dealt with as they come up.
      March 23, 2017 11:00 AM MDT
    1

  • I mostly agree.   What I'm saying is if the person on a help program is being forced to work it off while collecting.   Then how are they to find a job to remove them from it?  Plus they now already have one so why look for one.  It brings us to communism in a way.
    It's an overly simplified solution to just say there should be a work requirement and don't see how making people have to work for the state while collecting really solves any issues we have right now.


    Personally I think people who cannot afford food but are able bodied should be given actual food stuffs based on the current food surplus and what whole foods are at lowest market price.   I think we  should make it based on economy, not choices.
      March 23, 2017 12:05 PM MDT
    0

  • 34417
    It is not "working it off", they are not working for the government. They are required to work at regular job. The government does not take a cut or anything like that.
    The goal is that they will find a job they are good at and excel in eventually working up to a wage where they don't need any government assistance.
      March 23, 2017 6:33 PM MDT
    0

  • 6477
    Or indeed, as is increasingly the case, if the couple choose for the father to be a stay at home dad.
      March 23, 2017 9:02 AM MDT
    2

  • If that's how the couple decides that's how they want to do it, absolutely!
      March 23, 2017 10:57 AM MDT
    2

  • 34417
    Yep, my brother was a stay at home Dad for a while while their kids were not in school. It just made more sense because his wife made like $35/hr in healthcare. 
      March 23, 2017 6:28 PM MDT
    0

  • 184
    I have always seen a mother or wife as being fully employed. Look at the all the work they do at home, even if the kids are older. According to a survey (http://www.salary.com/mom-paycheck/) I read the results of the stay-at-home mom's salary worth was set at $143,121. The idea of making it mandatory they work if they have school age children is ludicrous. 
      March 23, 2017 7:01 AM MDT
    7

  • 34417
    I agree 100%
      March 23, 2017 7:11 AM MDT
    0

  • 6477
    No it shouldn't be illegal, that undervalues the place parents play in socialising and educating children not to mention raising them; however you will see many different opinions, they are just that - opinions and likelihood is tomorrow you will see someone with an opposing view write an article
      March 23, 2017 9:00 AM MDT
    1

  • 34417
    I agree. I did find it interesting that this writer claims to be a feminist. 
      March 23, 2017 6:41 PM MDT
    0

  • Ones desire for "balance" isn't justification for tyranny.   The strive should be for equal options, not equal outcomes.  This author is out of her mind.

    Le Marquand wrote that feminism is “not about choice, it’s about equality.”

    O_o WTF?  Clearly no idea what equality and freedom really means.
      March 23, 2017 9:57 AM MDT
    2

  • 34417
    Exactly.  Anymore "feminism" only applies to those who agree with certain views. 
    This was one I had not seen before though.
      March 23, 2017 6:45 PM MDT
    1

  • Hi My2¢,
    The idea of making employment mandatory for both parents, for the sake of the economy, to me seems extremely government-intrusive...too much Big Brother.
      March 23, 2017 11:36 AM MDT
    2