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
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I don't see the word "unique" in your post anywhere.
So you think you weren't making a value judgment when you said the trashman provides a "contribution" to society, but the sahm doesn't?
Even if the kids are in school ft, she's taking care of them for part of the day.
I suppose the parents who have ft night shift jobs *and* take care of their kids during the day would be an exception. The only one I know of gets some help during the day so she can sleep. I think the number of parents who can work the night shift and still be full-time caregivers during the day is pretty small.
Sabina
Sabina
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
i'll have to let my neighbor know that she isn't taking care of her kids during the day—since she is a wohm, after all. albeit, one who works second shift—opposite her dh, who apparently also isn't taking care of his kids when he isn't woh.
the question isn't whether caring for kids has social value. it does. the question is whether sah has a *unique* social value—and it doesn't. whether a child is cared for almost exclusively by parents or by others in addition to parents doesn't change the social value of childcare (comparisons between daycare generally and romanian orphanages aside). every parent who sees to it that his or her children are well cared for is providing the same social value whether he or she provides it herself or engages the help of others. in theory there are a few transactions where a childcare arrangement would not have social value—say, where a grandparent cares for children free of charge so their mother can shoot horse (though even this presumes that the only reason the parent is injecting heroin is because her mother is willing to watch the kids while she does, lest there is the social value of the grandparent saving the children from not being cared for while their mother nods), but for the most part childcare transactions outside the household benefit the household of the childcare provider, or at least the household of the childcare user, and possibly more people helped through the user's woh.
having a sahp can be extremely valuable to a given family unit, but it does not automatically translate into any particular value to anyone outside the family unit—any unique social value. a sahp has to do something other than care for her children to contribute something to the larger society that the wohp does not. and many do. as do many wohps—many through their jobs, some through activities outside their jobs, some through both, and some through neither.
the question is not whether sah has potential value (to a given family), nor whether caring for children has a social value, but whether sahps can claim to be providing society something that wohps are not. since both optimally and generally provide care for their children—whether by their own hand or another’s—the sahp’s contribution isn’t *unique*. either could neglect their children’s care, and either could contribute something more to society, but the social value of childcare isn’t higher when it is provided by a sahp than when it is engaged (or provided) by a wohp.
Pages