A short video clip of President Obama has recently gone viral. In it, he states, “And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”
Those sharing this video, many of whom are members of the LDS church, have used it to claim that President Obama is “attacking” stay-at-home mothers. As a stay-at-home mother myself, I decided that I should investigate. After all, the choice to stay home and care for my children is a significant part of my identity, and I truly believe it is the best thing for my family at this time. Furthermore, we’ve been counseled by our church leaders that “The most important of the Lord’s work you and I will ever do will be within the walls of our own homes” (Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974, p. 255). And that “Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, Salt Lake City, 1995).
I’d like to share with you what I found.
I began my investigation by reading the full text of the speech in question. It can be found here if you’re interested: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/10/31/remarks-president-women-and-economy-providence-ri.
In case you don’t have time to read that speech, let me summarize and clarify some points for you. While the words in the video do come from the mouth of our President, they come at the end of this paragraph: “And too often, parents have no choice but to put their kids in cheaper daycare that maybe doesn’t have the kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child’s development. And sometimes there may just not be any slots, or the best programs may be too far away. And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”
What our President is saying is that he does not want American families to be forced to choose to have a stay-at-home parent because they have no other options. This is a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree!
Not all women want to or are able to be stay-at-home mothers, which, incidentally, is acknowledged and respected by the LDS Church.
Here’s Elder M. Russell Ballard on the subject:
"There is no one perfect way to be a good mother. Each situation is unique. Each mother has different challenges, different skills and abilities, and certainly different children. The choice is different and unique for each mother and each family. Many are able to be “full-time moms,” at least during the most formative years of their children’s lives, and many others would like to be. Some may have to work part-or full-time; some may work at home; some may divide their lives into periods of home and family and work. What matters is that a mother loves her children deeply and, in keeping with the devotion she has for God and her husband, prioritizes them above all else." (“Daughters of God,” Ensign, May 2008, 108–10)
Personally, I have been a mom who works full-time outside of the home, a mom who works from home, a mom who works part-time outside of the home, and, most recently, a full-time stay-at-home mom. I’m blessed and grateful that I have had the option to make all of these choices about balancing my family and my career based on my circumstances. Not all Americans are able to make these choices.
President Obama would like to help parents living in every part of the country go to work if they so choose by improving policies on family leave, maternity leave, quality early childhood education, and pay for women. All of these were points that he made in the same speech where he supposedly attacked stay-at-home parents. That alleged attack was not the point of the speech, and it should not be the take-away.
In order to better understand President Obama’s perspective on this issue, let’s look at some information about stay-at-home moms. As of 2012, 68% of stay-at-home mothers fit into the “traditional” picture of a married woman with a working husband. 20% of stay-at-home mothers are single parents, 5% are cohabiting, and 7% are married to husbands who are also not working. It stands to reason that some of these mothers are not actively choosing to stay at home, rather than working outside the home. In fact, while 85% of married stay-at-home mothers with working husbands say that caring for their family is their primary reason for not working outside the home, only 41% of single stay-at-home mothers and 64% of cohabiting stay-at-home mothers said the same. [1] Perhaps they would be working outside the home if they had access to quality childcare or could be paid for time off to care for a newborn or sick child.
Additionally, our President is correct when he states that a woman’s wages are affected by the choice to take time off to stay home. According to research, mothers are subject to a “motherhood penalty” in the form of earning lower salaries than their childless counterparts, especially if their employment is interrupted by time off caring for their families, leading to fewer years of experience. [2] If paid leave was offered and quality childcare was available, women who choose to work outside the home may not need to take this time off, so they may not face as large a decrease in pay.
As members of the LDS church, many of us choose to stay home and care for our families. President Obama does not want to take this away from us, but we who make this choice are in the minority. 80% of American children are being raised by parents who work outside the home, and President Obama would like to use policy to strengthen our communities by alleviating parents of the choice between working and doing what’s best for their children. For that, I commend him.
[1] all this information comes from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/04/08/after-decades-of-decline-a-rise-in-stay-at-home-mothers/
[2] http://www.asanet.org/images/members/docs/pdf/featured/motherwage.pdf
Showing 18 reactions
Sign in with
He implies that women who have no choice but to stay at home hurt the economy. If you read what he says you can draw conclusions from it that were obviously inferred. Women who stay at home hurt the economy. Women who have to stay at home are to be pitied. He did not acknowledge that the women who choose to stay at home contribute positively to society, instead everything about stay at home moms was derogatory. When you read the quotes from our wonderful church leaders in this article you see that they show love and respect for mothers both SAHM’s and working moms. The pres. Did no such thing. He is off his rocker if you ask me because he is wanting to raise funds for daycare to get moms out working to raise the economy. It’s sad how the president truly thinks a big problem with the economy steams from crappy daycares which are forcing moms to stay at home. I think much more good comes when a mom stays at home and does the rearing than the daycares and the fact that the president inferred the very opposite is why I am still upset with his entire speech.
Family structure (and ffunction) are determined by how the larger economy works. A century ago in urban America the socialised means of survival worked this way: each household labored to provide for its own survival by forming a unit that could provide a worker for the industrial or commercial economy at large. It required a full-time worker and manager (usually the wife) to organise home life in such a way that another family member (husband, then children more as the family matured) could be supported to enter the wage economy of factory or other work place. The cash earned by father was used by mother and helpers (children) to house, feed, and care for the entire family. That has changed. It is no longer the norm, nor is it easy, for a family to live on that single income, especially with the consumer ‘needs’ that exist today. A hundred years ago children didn’t need all the gear they need now – brand name clothes to display their identity, electronic gear to consume the products of mass entertainment, and so forth. Mom and Dad also have far more extensive need/desire to consume. Managing the household has also become far more expensive in cash terms, and much less expensive in direct labor terms, that it used to be, thanks to things like electricity, plumbing, refrigeration, cleaning products and machinery, ease of transportation, etc, etc. As a result we now have fewer children (they are economic liabilities, not contributors as they were formerly), later age of marriage and having children, and so on. The economy always determines the forms that families will take and how survival tasks will be distributed in them; the economy is the field in which, and the means by which, groups of humans distribute and share survival tasks among members. That is the basic reason why, John Pack, families can’t get by on one income any more. Consumer economies that depend on mass market consumerism work differently than industrial economies that depend on capital deployment for infrastructure and manufacturing. When economies change the social structures they produce change. As simple as that. It’s related to Marxian ideas about ownership of the means of production. Material circumstances determine the parameters within which societies build their means of survival.
By the way, the soundbite isn’t taken out of context — it’s only that Obama not only disapproves of stay-at-home mothers but that he disapproves of those who use any daycare service that could be called “cheaper” or doesn’t have elite programming. Disapproval of three things does not mean that disapproval of one of those three is taken out-of-context.
It’s interesting that people want to debate in the comments about policy, when this post is focused on showing that the President was never attacking stay at home mom’s in the first place. By looking at the full context and siting the full sources, you’ve clearly shown that others were being fed misinformation and ever worse, sharing it with others.
I hope this gets shared with more people to help them learn to look at the facts a little closer before jumping to conclusions the next time.
Bryce
Could it be that it’s because of government spending? Studies show that between all of the various taxes, inflation caused by government, and higher prices due to regulation that the average person pays 52% of their income to government. In a two-earner household, that’s one person who is now a slave to the government.
Is that why it takes two earners now when one was enough in the 60’s?
Do we need another government program and more spending, as Obama says? Or should we cut the government back to the spending level of 2000 (less than one-quarter of what it is today)?
@elduro Tuco — while it’s clear that you dislike the President, it’s not clear where you’re getting any backing for your rather insulting claims about his motivations. Could you help me understand what makes you think that “Obama would rather have moms in the workforce than at home”? Could it be that President Obama would rather give moms the choice, and to not punish them financially for a decision to stay at home with children?
@john Pack — The whole blog post debunks your claim that this is simply about “making choices our president doesn’t approve of.” The President, as Alice so clearly explained above, doesn’t want families to be forced into a situation where they have to choose between caring for children and providing financially for themselves. If you could explain your position more specifically then maybe we could have a meaningful discussion.
His comment is a little vague, maybe it means that, maybe it doesn’t.