• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama on Moms Who Stay Home to Raise Kids: 'That's Not a Choice We Want Americans to

Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

And if employers thought that would help your value to the company, people with those experiences would have a premium. They typically don't - at least in most jobs. So, maybe the value you place on that does not match the value brought to an employer.

Yes "Educated, intelligent, and capable of learning just about anything" means nothing. Must be male for this to mean something. [Sarcasm - btw. I don't actually believe that]
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

We've been over this before. You know what "natural" means in Thomist philosophy.

Yes, the idea that women should be subservient to men and perform no other function but the raising of children, right? That women are of inferior intellect and reason? That philosophy?
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Employers actually do like to hear about volunteering and so forth - that does have value, especially if skills needed for said work would be an asset. Why is it that you think they don't?

Interestingly enough - people hear "I've been a stay at home mother" and assume I do all sorts of stuff like volunteer for the PTA and do random child-related things.

Want to hear what I have done?

I run a publishing business - manufactured jewelry - am a freelance writer and copy-editor - I renovated a home and increased its value by 33% - I attended college fulltime and maintained a near perfect GPA. In the last year I wrote and published 2 novels.

Stay at home does not equal 'being a nobody'. I've done more in my life in the last 10 years than most people will accomplish in their lifetime.

But . . . standing in a checkout lane at the Piggly Wiggly somehow equates to being 'more important than all that'. Hell - if I could I'd volunteer to do that to just to have a 'real job' to put on my resume.

If an employer values your time siiting at home watching soap operas while pumping your milk, then that is great for you. America needs more dairy workers. If an employer does not, the employer should not be required to pay you for the time you spent that they do not value. Public policy should be oriented toward maximizing opportunity, not wasting resources compensating people for the unwanted results of their own decision.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Yes, the idea that women should be subservient to men and perform no other function but the raising of children, right? That women are of inferior intellect and reason? That philosophy?

No that's not what the word "natural" means.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

No that's not what the word "natural" means.

Thomistic philosophy views women this way. Pick your heroes better.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Thomistic philosophy views women this way. Pick your heroes better.

No it doesn't.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Yes "Educated, intelligent, and capable of learning just about anything" means nothing. Must be male for this to mean something. [Sarcasm - btw. I don't actually believe that]

I'm sure many businesses should look at doing "random child-related things" as a big asset to many businesses and shows how dedicated you will be to a job outside the house. BTW, some of the biggest PITA I know volunteer at the PTA. It would actually be a negative for me to have to work with them. I'm sure there are many capable people on the PTA, but not the ones I am familiar with.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

If an employer values your time siiting at home watching soap operas while pumping your milk, then that is great for you. America needs more dairy workers. If an employer does not, the employer should not be required to pay you for the time you spent that they do not value. Public policy should be oriented toward maximizing opportunity, not wasting resources compensating people for the unwanted results of their own decision.

That's the 2nd time you've referred to getting a job/working as 'an employer paying you for time spent that they do not value'.

When you work for someone that is them paying for time that they do value. Yes? It's not a matter of 'retroactive back-pay' and 'compensation' here so I don't know why you keep falling back on that idea you've churned.

And in all of this you're not proving your point - you're simply supporting my own point.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

That's the 2nd time you've referred to getting a job/working as 'an employer paying you for time spent that they do not value'.

When you work for someone that is them paying for time that they do value. Yes? It's not a matter of 'retroactive back-pay' and 'compensation' here so I don't know why you keep falling back on that idea you've churned.

And in all of this you're not proving your point - you're simply supporting my own point.

Because the whole concept is that if you took ten years off to raise your kids you should be given ten years seniority that you did not earn which in turn gives you ten years of pay raises you did not merit which in turn equally punishes the single person who has worked 6 years while you sat at home writing, watching the View or whatever the hell the person did. If a company values that, they already pay you for that. If they don't, they don't. This is nothing more than a "oh women are to put upon" thread. They made the choice to carry their children to term, then they should live with the consequences. We have a surplus of unemployed workers. Rewarding people who don't work is insane.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Because the whole concept is that if you took ten years off to raise your kids you should be given ten years seniority that you did not earn which in turn gives you ten years of pay raises you did not merit which in turn equally punishes the single person who has worked 6 years while you sat at home writing, watching the View or whatever the hell the person did. If a company values that, they already pay you for that. If they don't, they don't. This is nothing more than a "oh women are to put upon" thread. They made the choice to carry their children to term, then they should live with the consequences. We have a surplus of unemployed workers. Rewarding people who don't work is insane.

None of this connects to anything I have stated in this thread.

I've talked about society's views and attitudes toward women and mothers [which your attitude and remarks fully display and support]

And in turn you're talking about - I'm not sure - something someone else might have said at some point, I guess.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Exactly right. Which is why I said that way above, when you decided to stick your nose in.

Yes, you spoke about two parent families above....and I didn't correct you about that

Then you spoke about single parent families....so I corrected you because he didn't limit his comments to single parent families
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

I am going to say this, I know its probably going to really piss some people off but here goes anyway. I am married, my wife and I have been married for nearly 15 years now and we have 3 kids. We both work full time (many weeks I work far more than just 40 hours). We have both always worked full time. Income wise I guess we are upper middle class, however we don't live extravagantly. We live in a 1,200 square foot house and neither of us drive expensive vehicles. The reason why my wife never stayed home with the kids (other than FMLA time), is that we can't afford it because we would have lost her income by her doing so. We have some friends of course that are stay at home moms, thats great if they can do that and families should always be able to make such decisions themselves. Where I get really annoyed is when I hear the following:

1. "Being a parent is the hardest job you can do."
-Parenting is not a job, its a responsibility. It is a responsibility you have regardless of whether you have a full time job or not.

2. "I stayed home because I did not want other people raising my kids."
-Parents that work full time are not letting other people raise their kids by sending them to day school. Making such an argument is as stupid as saying that sending them to elementary school is letting someone else raise their kids.

3. "Being a stay at home parent is the hardest job you could ever have."
-The only people that say this are those people that have never held a hard job. Yes, raising kids is hard. You know how you make it harder? Work full time then come home and do all the crap you do on top of it. Its not like we have some maid coming in and cleaning our house and picking up after our kids. We don't have a cook making our meals. We don't have a tutor helping our kids with their homework. We don't have a nanny taking them to all their practices, games, and all the activities they have after school.

Its a rare day that I so much as sit down before 9 PM. I hardly watch any TV shows anymore because I never have to the time to do so. Every night I get home and either my wife or me does the dishes, laundry, cleans, helps the kids with their home work, cooks, does the dishes, cleans the kitchen, takes the kids to their various practices and so on. Then at those games and practices I get to listen to stay at home mom's with 2 kids (we have 3) talk about how tired they are (and then talk about various tv shows they are watching and so on). The whole time I am thinking you should follow me or my wife around because we have done everything you have done today plus work full time.

Let's take my Monday for example:

Tomorrow morning I will get up a little before 6 AM so I can make my breakfast, coffee, and feed the dogs. I will then wake our kids up and make their breakfast. My wife then gets up and makes their lunch and takes them to school (our youngest has to be there before our other 2 kids). I will then go in early to work because I need to get some stuff done before everyone gets in, work all day, then when I get home take one of our daughters for a run, take our son to the gym and work out with him, come home and cook dinner, eat, do the dishes and clean the kitchen up, and then maybe read a little while before I go to sleep only to get up the next day where we have far more going on tomorrow.

So you know what, I don't want to hear about the "sacrifices" a stay at home parent is making. We all make sacrifices as parents, its part of being a parent.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

None of this connects to anything I have stated in this thread.

I've talked about society's views and attitudes toward women and mothers [which your attitude and remarks fully display and support]

And in turn you're talking about - I'm not sure - something someone else might have said at some point, I guess.

What you are talking about is women's attitude toward society not the other way around. You feel that women should have their cake and eat it too. If you are opposed to abortion, then your position has merit and is consistent. If you support abortion and do not believe that women should live with the consequences of their decision not to abort, then your positions toward women lack a principled core. That you think this issue is confined to women who stay home indicates it is likely the latter.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

It is a simple fact: Someone leaving the workforce and not having that experience on their resume, will hurt earnings potential in most cases and there is nothing, to me, wrong with that.

But they do have experience on their resume. Employers just choose to treat that experience as though it's worthless.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Yes. Fallacious nonsense.

Pretended ignorance won't help you.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Men do it too, but I see you not defending them.

My first post in this thread was in encouragement of more men choosing to do it, rather than making it a primarily female sacrifice.

Either way, it is not a penalty. It is a choice. She could abort the child but chooses not to so she or he has to deal with the consequences of her choice.

Of course it's a choice. The whole thread is predicated on the fact that it is a choice we do not want people to make. Do you think reiterating the fact that it's a choice accomplishes anything other than mental masturbation?
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Pretended ignorance won't help you.

I'm sorry that you do not like that it is fallacious nonsense, but your dislike of reality has no effect on reality.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Good for you. You were able to get around the lack of good jobs by starting your own business.

But, for those moms who are trying to get back into the workforce, it's a hard road. When there are multiple applications for every job, it's easy to simply discard the resumes of people who have a gap in employment. It is necessary to winnow down the applicants, after all, and that's one easy way to do it.

And, not everyone who is raising kids alone chose to be a single parent. Sometimes, the choice of mate turned out to be a bad one. Sometimes, people die young and leave little kids for someone else to raise.

And having a good education isn't enough for the job seeker any more. You have to have an education in some field that is in demand. If the job seeker has a nursing certificate, then a job is likely to be available. A masters degree in psychology isn't likely to be of as much help.

The choice of day care/stay at home mom (or dad, why not?) should lie with the individual. Sometimes, the choice is made for them by necessity.

And the idea that the government is somehow involved in a plot to make sure all kids are in state run daycares based on one sentence spoken by the POTUS is about as absurd of a conspiracy theory as I've heard, and there have been some pretty absurd ones promoted on this forum.

You have misunderstood my post. I did not start my own business because I found it hard to get back into the workforce. I started my own business out of my home to afford me the opportunity to be a stay at home mom while my kids were small. Still working out of my home required a lot of support from my spouse. It was during the evening hours when I would decorate the cakes to be picked up the following day. Often that afternoon, I would create the decorations for the cakes when the kids went down for their naps. When Hubby was home in the evenings he tended to the children so I could complete the decorating. I've never found it difficult to get back into the workforce once my children became school age.

Regardless of what has been said in this thread, my personal views are the very policies of government have created more poverty because they weaken the institution of marriage. Marriage is our number one defense against poverty. When the government provides so many programs and benefits for single mothers it takes away the personal responsibility (male and female) and adds to the number of out of wedlock births. They also add to the increase in divorces as the safety net has become so large that when couples run into difficulties, one just walks away leaving the parent with the children struggling financially and often seeking government assistance. If the safety net wasn't so large, more couples would strive to stay together at least till their children were raised. Also for those struggling to find a job, that too is the direct result of government policies that have thwarted economic growth. From over-regulations to healthcare. Adding pre-k classes to public schooling is just another way of providing free daycare and the result will be an increase in out of wedlock births and divorces. More fatherless homes that seem to produce troubled youth. Anyone who reads/watches the news knows that is the last thing society needs more of.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

What you are talking about is women's attitude toward society not the other way around. You feel that women should have their cake and eat it too. If you are opposed to abortion, then your position has merit and is consistent. If you support abortion and do not believe that women should live with the consequences of their decision not to abort, then your positions toward women lack a principled core. That you think this issue is confined to women who stay home indicates it is likely the latter.

What does my view on abortion hold in regard to my views on the present state of things for parents? I think it's clear at this point that you don't have a clue what's being discussed here - I'm addressing reality and you're just randomly spitting things out.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

But they do have experience on their resume. Employers just choose to treat that experience as though it's worthless.

I don't buy it. In the case of most stay at home mothers and in the case of most jobs, the experience at one has barely anything to do with the experience at the other. A stay at home mother can be a lot of work, but it is (rarely) relatable to industry or job experience.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

You have misunderstood my post. I did not start my own business because I found it hard to get back into the workforce. I started my own business out of my home to afford me the opportunity to be a stay at home mom while my kids were small. Still working out of my home required a lot of support from my spouse. It was during the evening hours when I would decorate the cakes to be picked up the following day. Often that afternoon, I would create the decorations for the cakes when the kids went down for their naps. When Hubby was home in the evenings he tended to the children so I could complete the decorating. I've never found it difficult to get back into the workforce once my children became school age.

Regardless of what has been said in this thread, my personal views are the very policies of government have created more poverty because they weaken the institution of marriage. Marriage is our number one defense against poverty. When the government provides so many programs and benefits for single mothers it takes away the personal responsibility (male and female) and adds to the number of out of wedlock births. They also add to the increase in divorces as the safety net has become so large that when couples run into difficulties, one just walks away leaving the parent with the children struggling financially and often seeking government assistance. If the safety net wasn't so large, more couples would strive to stay together at least till their children were raised. Also for those struggling to find a job, that too is the direct result of government policies that have thwarted economic growth. From over-regulations to healthcare. Adding pre-k classes to public schooling is just another way of providing free daycare and the result will be an increase in out of wedlock births and divorces. More fatherless homes that seem to produce troubled youth. Anyone who reads/watches the news knows that is the last thing society needs more of.

Yes, I did misunderstand. I thought you meant you started a business after the children were in school. Anyway, I still say good for you for finding a way to be at home with your children while they were small.

And I agree with what you said about marriage being the number one defense against poverty. Well, marriage and education anyway.

As for pre school, it has been shown that children of poverty are more likely to succeed in school if they do have a pre school experience. Children of educated parents may not benefit, but still, the choice needs to be with the parents.

Would such a program for small children result in more out of wedlock births, more divorces? On that, I'm not sure.


Even with the government safety net in place, being a single parent is no picnic. I can't imagine having had to raise my two alone. I am familiar with two women who have had that task, my daughter and my sister. The one was due to a rat who left her with two little kids, the other due to the death of a spouse at an early age. Neither one chose single parenthood.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Don't forget... It takes a village.

View attachment 67175286

"It takes a village". Now there is a quote that grated on my nerves when she said it, and after bringing up 3 kids into their teens (where they all are now), I know damn well that no village has raised my kids. My husband & I did.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

? You think it's just a matter of women not wanting to work?

Between my husband's demanding job in the military which often left me as the only parent around here; all the kids and their many ailments, injuries, and issues; and my own illnesses when I was pregnant as well as a lack of reliable childcare in the past when I was working - it was a painful decision for me to make.

It wasn't that I didn't want to work.

All too often women who choose to stay-at-home DO want to work. Instead, they end up having to be a family coupon instead.

And once you're out of work for a while you're pretty much dead to the employment world. I'm not longer a sahm - My youngest has been in school for years. However, I've yet to find adequate employment. People see a job-gap and though I haven't been a laze-about-bum this entire time that means very little.

And for some reason, now, even my husband doesn't seem to understand this. A lot of people just seem to not understand everything that goes into the decision and reason - not only in the beginning but later on when you make hard choices, again.

Every time I talk about job-hunting my husband actually makes a joke about it or asks some silly thing like "you sure you want to do that" [Right - because almost going bankrupt because he's medically retired from the military and unable to work himself is so much better than me working]

yep there are women out there that enjoying being a mom. i see nothing wrong with that and it is a perfectly fine for those that want to do it. in fact i commend women that do it.
there are women out there that would rather be a stay at home mom instead of a mom and a worker.

obama's speech should be considered offensive to women and those women that choose to dedicate themselves to their families as it is also a noble goal.
i don't see why you think a women that wants to take care of her family is a bad thing. has the liberal corruption spread this far? i would certain hope not.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

You have misunderstood my post. I did not start my own business because I found it hard to get back into the workforce. I started my own business out of my home to afford me the opportunity to be a stay at home mom while my kids were small. Still working out of my home required a lot of support from my spouse. It was during the evening hours when I would decorate the cakes to be picked up the following day. Often that afternoon, I would create the decorations for the cakes when the kids went down for their naps. When Hubby was home in the evenings he tended to the children so I could complete the decorating. I've never found it difficult to get back into the workforce once my children became school age.

Regardless of what has been said in this thread, my personal views are the very policies of government have created more poverty because they weaken the institution of marriage. Marriage is our number one defense against poverty. When the government provides so many programs and benefits for single mothers it takes away the personal responsibility (male and female) and adds to the number of out of wedlock births. They also add to the increase in divorces as the safety net has become so large that when couples run into difficulties, one just walks away leaving the parent with the children struggling financially and often seeking government assistance. If the safety net wasn't so large, more couples would strive to stay together at least till their children were raised. Also for those struggling to find a job, that too is the direct result of government policies that have thwarted economic growth. From over-regulations to healthcare. Adding pre-k classes to public schooling is just another way of providing free daycare and the result will be an increase in out of wedlock births and divorces. More fatherless homes that seem to produce troubled youth. Anyone who reads/watches the news knows that is the last thing society needs more of.

This is so far beyond wrong I don't know where you get these ideas.

Government programs did not cause the problems of unwed mothers. Unwed mothers led to us needing the programs more and more because societal changes in what people are taught at home caused the issues. Part of it is the fact that we look for love instead of stability and a stable reliable person when it comes to a mate and are taught this more than actually being taught what a good, positive intimate relationship is about. It all starts in what people are taught at home and by others if the home just isn't enough. Many unwed mothers are searching for someone that they can be with, to be a good father or parent for their children, and ways to better themselves, to make their career opportunities better, so they can care for their children rather than rely on the government assistance. No, it may not be all unwed mothers, but it still is many.

So you want to get people off of those programs, work on programs that give a hand up rather than a hand out, including job training that is accepted by work places that pay more than minimum wage or just barely above because parents cannot raise children on minimum wage. And when it comes to those on assistance programs, we should be working on setting up job share situations where if a mother/father is not working full time or going to school full time, then they should be first looking for a full time job or schooling or they need to be helping to take care of other people's children or helping them run errands or with rides to work or school in order to help take some of that societal burden away. And they need to get classes on relationships, budgeting, and other "life skills" classes. In fact, we should have these in high school. And these should include definitely a class on healthy, intimate, committed relationships.
 
Back
Top Bottom