Non-working mother? Ain’t no such thing.
The only way we can define any mother (or parent) as non-working is to limit the definition of work to a capitalist one: that work really means paid work. No salary, no work. Screw that with a rusty, pointy fishhook.
So here’s my plan. I’m going to hire myself as a full-time live-in nanny. I am now getting paid a very reasonable $55,000 a year to work six days a week, twenty hours a day. I do have to work like a mo-fo to afford myself and when I’m done I don’t have a dime left over, but I’m worth it. How many people can expect to have a nanny who can order wine in six languages, who has an MA in Medieval Women, who has an employment history which includes a stint teaching English and Drama at Lady Diana’s old boarding school in England, and who agreeably does laundry, the grocery shopping, the sweeping and cooking, as well as minding the children. I find myself quite reliable, if a little hot-tempered sometimes, but I’m quite happy with my performance so far and think it’s likely that I will have a long and happy working relationship with myself.
Sorted.
This emerged from a sudden rush of irritation towards Linda Hirshman but frankly, there’s just no arguing with such divisive, elitist crap and I don’t have time for a truly comprehensive, vitriolic yet witty rant. Karrie and Alimum are also writing about it. Go read them.
Make sure to give yourself a nice signing bonus and plenty of paid leave.
And the kids adore you!
yes, yes, yes and yes
me too
living in the Uk with an MA in some such equivalent and nannying (as you are)
I love it, I love it…you are right on. Oh, the vacation time, don’t forget to give yourself some of that too. Love the blog. Sorry, just lurking. Again (see me 8 shades of red)
Hey, Hirschman makes some good points. The workplace is defintely not suited to crafting a fair balance between work and other obligaitons. Well, actually, I have no idea as to the hourly paid workforce — I only know the elite, professional work force. And the bottom line is that it takes a hell of a lot to stick it out in a two career couple when you’ve got kids. The reason I do it is that my lawyer-career pays for our lifestyle. My husband’s high school teaching career can’t. Usually, though in our society the man makes more, so it winds up beign the women who “choose” to stay home. Hischman is calling bullshit on all those articles that tell us how empowering it is that women are “choosing” not to work and how this a trend that says a lot about returning to “old fashioned” values and the importance of raising your kids yourself.
Momsrising says it in a more politcally correct way, making sure to incorporate all socio-economic classes. But the fact in our society is that the wealthy are the trendsetters, so Hirschman’s attention on this issue at that level makes sense to me.
Having pontificated, I’ll sign off.
your worth is more than rubies (whoever she is)
salary.com did a calculation and determined that a SAHM would make (in the job market)
http://www.salary.com/careers/layouthtmls/crel_display_Cat10_Ser253_Par358.html
And they have a calculator (where you can put in your specs and zip code and they can tell you what you are worth)
http://swz.salary.com/momsalarywizard/layoutscripts/mswl_newsearch.asp
OHMYGOSH I am worth $146,048 accordinh to this. My oh my, I don’t know what to say.
I did it…Worked full-time and raised two daughters. That might be why I’m so crazy now!
C’mon… face it. Women become Moms because they want to be Moms… and all the money in the world–or none at all–could possibly change that.
Sure, but in a capitalist system that equates someone’s value with how much someone earns, there’s an implicit jugment that women who don’t generate wealth because they’re bringing up children are deficient. It’s well worth making the point that this is a skewed value system, and that doing things that don’t create wealth is also of value. Like mopping up baby poo and sick.
I am just mind-boggled by the Hirschman post. Besides the obvious self-ridiculing question of what is a non-working stay-at-home Mom (huh?) the whole position is just plain short-sighted. Because an educated woman stays home with her children while they are very young, does this mean she will forevermore stay at home, happily blogging and merrily scrapbooking while letting her expensive law training (or whatever) fade away forever? No.
To everything there is a season.
Richard, moms do generate wealth. They produce consumers and workers, directly. Without moms, there is no wealth for anyone, because there is no anyone.
Stuntmother, this was awesome. I loved it.
Thanks Andrea. But the point is surely there are more important things than creating wealth. Like producing people. A system which thinks that mothers are valuable because they produce consumers is barking mad.
That of course, is part of my point. To point out how ridiculous it is that we need to have a monetary value, a capitalist value, in order to be valuable overall.
Oh, this is brilliant!! Stick it to da’ man!