For a variety of reasons, many women choose to be stay-at-home mothers. Many of these mom’s often wear multiple hats at the same time. They are the cooks, chauffeurs, tutors, maids, nurses, educators, activities coordinators, doctors, psychologists, etc. of the family, many times 24-7-365, with no little to no pay and certainly no accrued vacation time.
Being a stay-at-home mother can be a valuable asset to families across the board; however, Australian columnist Sarrah Le Marquand published an op-ed article in The Daily Telegraph, stating that maybe being a stay-at-home mother should actually be “illegal” once a child reaches school-age.
“Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children school-age or older are gainfully employed,” Le Marquand wrote in the article.
Although she acknowledged that “the role played by parents in the early months and years following the birth of a child is vital and irreplaceable,” the opting out of work once a child goes to school, should not be an option.
“Only when it becomes the norm for all families to have both parents in paid employment and sharing the stress of the work-home juggle, will we finally have a serious conversation about how to achieve a more balanced modern workplace,” Le Marquand states. “[feminism] is not about choice, it’s about equality.”
Although Le Marquand was writing the article in response to a Bloomberg report that stated that there are consequences for the Australian economy because many women of child-bearing age are choosing to stay at home or work part-time, does the same hold true for women in the United States?
What do you think? Sound-off and let us know if you too feel that being a stay-at-home mother should be illegal or does Le Marquand have it all wrong? We want to hear from you!
