In the never-ending mommy wars, the latest shot has been over whether being a stay-at-home mom is a “luxury.”
A piece by Allison B. Carter in the Motherlode column at The New York Times last week restarted the old battle.
Carter writes: “ ‘Luxury’ is a loaded word. Yes, it is absolutely true that my husband and I are lucky that he has been able to secure and keep a job that can pay for us all to live.
“I am aware that there are many families who require a dual income to successfully sustain their children’s basic needs. Raising children is expensive and on the rise and, for many families, the financial equation is hard.
“So in some ways, yes, we are lucky that I can stay home. But a luxury is a nonessential item. An indulgence. What I do is essential and certainly not self-indulgent.”
This kind of defensiveness is unfortunate. Of course what a stay-at-home mom does is essential.
Sure, there are many who may not realize that, most often because they have not been in her shoes.
She has likely heard “what do you do all day” and bristled because she hasn’t had time to shower in two days yet can’t quite articulate what it is that she does.
She has to constantly fight off the idea that what she does is not a job but, as Liz Pardue Schultz on Time.com says, a hobby — despite the fact that there are no nanny-hobbyists.
Misconceptions, however, do not change the reality that the ability to stay home is, indeed, a luxury. Not in the sense of being some “nonessential” merchandise, but in the sense of having a choice.
A Chanel bag may be thought of as a luxury, but really it’s the ability to buy the Chanel bag in the first place — or an iPhone, a TV, a fancy car — without forgoing, say, food or shelter that is the true luxury. The luxury is in having the choice.
Why have we gotten to a point in our culture where we can’t accept that? We’ve become envious, annoyed that other people have more than us so our luxury doesn’t count.
Carter asks: “So why am I a luxury while the bigger houses, nicer ZIP codes, vacations and other things we’ve chosen to do without are suddenly ‘necessities’ that demand a second income?”
Excuse the phrasing, but that’s very much First World thinking. Yes, all of those things are luxuries.
But for the great majority of two-income-family households, having one parent stay at home just isn’t an option — and it’s not just to afford vacations.
Study after study has found that it’s either the very poor or the fairly affluent who are stay-at-home moms. The poor find that their low-paying job doesn’t cover their child-care costs and so don’t have much of a choice.
The rich have the luxury of choosing their own child-rearing adventure. They can continue in their jobs and hire a nanny. They can step off their career ladders and think about if they ever want to return.
These are options just not available to everyone. The concept of moving to less-expensive ZIP codes often isn’t a real solution, either.
People choose where to live based on their jobs or the location of their aging parents or any number of other factors. To be able to pick up and move your family is, well, another luxury.
And it isn’t just the stay-at-homer and her kids who benefit. After all, the go-to-work dad may face more financial expectations, but he also has fewer home-care burdens.
As Chaunie Brusie noted in a piece that went viral last fall: “Well, of course, it would be a luxury to the spouse who works out of the home . . . Someone who is always there to take care of the inevitable days of sickness . . . make sure the cupboards are stocked . . . save you the worry of sending your kids into the world, someone to always be there to kiss a scraped knee.”
All moms want appreciation, and the idea that being able to stay at home is a matter of “luck” doesn’t sit well with those who work hard at a job that doesn’t even pay much.
Few moms have it easy. But having options in life is indeed a luxury — even if those who have them don’t fully appreciate it.