I've been both a working mother and a stay at home mom. I couldn't afford to not work when my kids were babies, but I wanted to have my kids when I was young. My kids were in a very loving home day care until I was financially able to leave my 60,000 per year job. (Say what you want about sacrafices, but in California, that wasn't a ridiculously high salary) In hindsight, I think it was better that I was at home full time when my kids started kindergarten. Volunteering at school and being able to get them to baseball, soccer, hockey, etc. would've been impossible when I worked and they didn't have those activities when they were babies/toddlers. Sure, it would've been nice to be home with them their entire life, but I don't think its selfish or a character flaw to have kids knowing that both parents will still need to work. Now that my kids are older (middle school) I went back to work part time. I drop them off at school, go to work and leave work in time to pick them up at school. This way I'm earning a little money, doing something besides housework and shopping, yet they still have a parent at home after school. I'm lucky my husband has been able to financially support our family on one income so I have the luxury of finding a job that meets my availability and it doesn't need to be as high paying as what I left. But not everyone is so lucky, and with it becoming more and more expensive to live, its very unfair to claim a working mother is selfish for not staying home with her kids. Unfortunately, the woman referenced in this article is not representative of most working mothers out there. Most mothers would probably quit and stay home if the financial implications were minimal and all it took was a few sacrafices to pull it off.
Why does this woman need anything subsidized? Aren't daycare payments tax deductible anyway?
|