Unique contributions to society
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 10-19-2006 - 4:12pm |
In another thread, the "unique" contributions of SAHM's were alluded to but it wasn't stated what they are. Let's play a game and find out what they are. First, pretend that as of tomorrow, all moms SAH and detail what will be missing from society then pretend that all moms go to work and detail what will be missing from society. I'm really curious as to what people think a world without SAHM's orWOHM's would look like.
If all the moms who SAH went to work then the library would move story hour to the evening and summer vacation bible school would be held in the evenings so that all kids can attend and not just the kids of SAHM's. Banks would likely shift their hours to later in the day and you'd see more 24 hour stores. I think there would be more home cooking style restaurants too. I think day care centers would improve because of increased demand.
If all moms who WOH suddenly SAH, you'd see fewer service industries around because moms could do things themselves instead of paying for them. The nursing shortage would be more of a shortage. We'd probably have a shortage of teachers too. There'd be fewer government services because there'd be less tax dollars to pay for them. I can't think of anything else right now.

Pages
Um no, that isn't what I said. What I did say was the marriage you described sounded abnormal and dysfunctional.
There probably isn't such a thing as an ideal relationship, however, the relationship you described where the husband pulled financial rank on his wife would either need intense counseling or it would end in divorce for me.
That's a drop in the bucket compared to things other husbands have said to their wives.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
It must be because I know so many two-lawyer couples.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The old model (1950's and prior) was that there was a "head of the household" and there was everybody else. This always defaulted to the male, and not just because of earning power. But because of an entrenched idea that men were the natural head. The modern variation of that- which you and kbam are living- is to strip away the sexist idea that it must be the male who is the head but to keep the old idea that there is a head. And, in the absence of a sexist default to male, this head is whoever earns the most.
The new model, which a lot of other people are living, is that there is no "head of the household". There is a partnership between the two spouses with neither one being "the head". This far more flexible arrangement allows for equilibrium "in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer". Meaning that there is no terrible imbalance and reversal of power if one spouse loses a job (as is bound to happen at some point) or if one spouse becomes disabled or ill.
Unemployed people pay taxes all the time. Some that come to mind are property taxes, sales taxes, and excise taxes on things like car registrations. The taxes thing is a red herring to begin with, because payroll taxes are only one small part of the picture.
Also, unempoyed people often commute less, so they make much lighter use of publicly funded amenities such as highways and rail systems, which also results in reduced pollution and the associated costs.
It would be more correct to say that working often provides the *opportunity* to benefit society, but that's not necessarily true of all employment. Today Jeffrey Skilling drew a prison term of over twenty years because of his antics at work; I don't think he'd have received that sentence if his work had been seen as a benefit to society.
And of course SAHP's can benefit society in many different ways, as can WOHPs and both the employed and the unemployed who don't happen to have kids at home.
Sabina
Sabina
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
Pages