Unique contributions to society

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Unique contributions to society
1504
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 9:31am
How would your BIL even know?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 9:40am
I'm not worried about anyone who's SAH for 5 years or more being able to take my job.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 9:51am

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?

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 9:54am

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-14-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 10:00am
but again, unemployment is not unique to sahps. and, for that matter, factors such as an aging population, a large illegal workforce, a massive trade deficit, and inflated workweeks in a number of sectors leave a whole lotta room for increasing the workforce without suppressing wages.
Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 10:02am
What is the unique contribution your dcp provides that a sahm does not?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-30-2006
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 10:03am
It's not that you're too predictable, it's just that the response to the aforementioned line of thinking is pretty much a no-brainer.

Sabina


Sabina

Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-14-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 10:03am

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-14-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 10:14am
aren't i an "exception" too? i walk my kids to school in the a.m. and home in the p.m., and dh or i are given or take every single day they have off school off work. lots of parents woh without being less available to their children than a sahp--maybe not a *majority* but certainly many more than merely the population of second-shift workers.
Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 10:51am
Boah, blah, blah. I never said a sahm's contribution was "unique." In fact, I said several times in this thread that it wasn't--so you're preaching to the choir. My point was that a wohm's contribution isn't unique either. She says wohms are contributing something more than sahms, something "unique," because they do something sahms don't do-- they work. My point was that each does something the other doesn't do--the wohm woh, and the sahm takes care of her kids during the time the wohm is working. That you can find an exception to that rule isn't the point, but feel free to belabor it.

Pages