The left has shown its blatant disrespect for stay-at-home moms in recent days. One woman who had never naturally given birth to a child, ridiculed another who had given birth to five as, "never having worked a day in her life." What followed was massive amounts of posterior covering, but alas Hilary Rosen had let slip off her lips what the left--and militant feminists everywhere--have believed for the better part of my life time.
Yet underneath all the back-and-forth of what women truly deserve--to be respected versus who someone who isn't--another issue began to evolve.
Chris Hayes, editor at large for The Nation, author, and host on MSNBC made this utterly dismaying observation about this week's discussion of women, work, motherhood, and respect:
"There’s something fascinating at the core of this. There’s a huge amount of uncompensated labor in the country by men and women, mostly women, who stay home and take care of their kids. And there are countries where that labor is compensated by the state. So I would love to have that conversation, if they actually think it is work and they feel it’s work, why isn’t there any wage for that kind of work? Why is that uncompensated?"
So in the economic climate we already find ourselves in... In this climate where one in ten workers is looking for work, and one in five families has as many people in the household--working as much as they can--yet are unable to pay for their basic living needs, in this climate, Hayes believes we should subsidize the labor of mothers raising their children, or cleaning the home, or preparing dinner.
As a leftist Hayes cited "other countries" where this is being practiced. Try as this correspondent did to research such places, all we could come up with were countries that offered extended paid "leave" seasons for mothers and fathers. These also happened to correspond with either very tiny nations, or nations that are in the midst of their own cataclysmic financial doubts for their futures.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that Hayes knows of such a country, where "the state" pays the mother to stay home and raise the child. How would the United States take on that responsibility?
One of two options come to mind. Tax the citizens, or tax companies (which then in turn pass on their tax to the citizens.) Either way citizens get taxed. (Companies never do.)
And what would the criteria be? Would moms of only one child, get the same form of state compensation as the mother of two? Could welfare moms have a dozen and never have to return to work a day in their natural lives?
And when does mothering end? When the child is of age? When the child moves out? What if the child leaves at 16, or stays until 30?
And would there be health coverage for the mother as a compensated state worker?
Honestly how on earth does Hayes, or Rosen, or any of the rest of the left anticipate such an idea?
Fortunately for the left, they are never required to think before speaking, and it often shows. But especially so in this case.
Now what I'm about to relay may seem like new information to many, but it's not. It may appear to be offensive to some, but that is completely unintended. It must however be considered.
You see when God designed the family unit. He saw to it that it was necessary for a male to come together with a female, before any "others" (male or female) could come along.
In doing so He also provided some other important realities.
He provided a father, who larger in bone and muscle mass would be able to plow crops, kill animals, skin meat, lift heavy things, and even fight both animals and humans that threatened the welfare of this family. Likewise he provided a mother, who though (most times) is smaller in bone and muscle mass, has a biology that can physically feed her young, and emotionally sustain and support them through very rough patches of early growth in the offspring's life.
Modern day stay-at-home moms are merely an extension of that reality.
Unlike Hilary Rosen, I will make the assumption that mothers choose to do so, because they genuinely care about the welfare of their children. For no matter how much a mother may like a nanny, a sitter, a grandparent etc., few of them would ever argue that for permanent care of their child they believed that any of those substitutes would ever have more genuine concern for their child than themselves.
There is a reason they feel that way... Because it's usually true.
This isn't a screed against women who work, families who feel they "have" to have two incomes, or single parents. Those options may be realities, but they are seldom the optimum for the development of children. On this the data is pretty clear.
Given that God created the mother with such strong instincts, drives, and emotive solutions to parenting, who can make a credible argument against her good for the child.
But having the state or the government compensate them for their efforts is morally wrong. Almost always...
Because God already created a preferred tax-payer funded compensation plan for the family.
We call them, Fathers!
Clinton Foundation: Oh, We Made Additional $12-26 Million From Speeches Given By the Former First Family | Matt Vespa
Friday Document Dump: State Department Releases First Round of Clinton Emails (All 298 Of Them) | Katie Pavlich