A Labored Argument

In the ’80s and ’90s, as a stay at home mom with two kids, it was a politically incorrect thing not to have a job.

Feminists had told us that women could do it all. We were supposed to get up early and get the kids off to school, get ourselves ready, have a passionate relationship with our husbands, be killer executives at work, manage the board room, break the glass ceiling, get the kids at daycare, help with their homework, fix dinner and find quality time with our family members as well as personal growth in the two and a half minutes that remained in such a day.

As someone who didn’t adhere to that plan, I felt myself to be a tier below a welfare mom. After all, they couldn’t work. I wouldn’t work. We were shoving our kids off to school so that we could stay home, watch soap operas and eat bonbons. Or, we were busy shopping for designer clothes for ourselves. We were throwing our college degrees away and thwarting the valiant effort of feminists to raise women from squalor. Once the kid was in school, what need did a 7, 10, 12, 14 or 17-year-old have of a mom anyhow?

As a consequence of all this “free time” it meant that it fell to me and my fellow “slackers” to help pick other kids up from school, bring baked goods to school on occasions, look for nits in kindergarteners’ hair, help the teacher and drive students to the numerous field trips kids get nowadays.

It was OK. The good of raising kids who grew up in a secure environment outweighed the ugly. I could go get them without trouble on the rare occasions they got sick and provide a shoulder to lean on after a tough day. They never had to worry that I wasn’t there. Snow days weren’t a problem nor was summertime. I enjoyed those times almost as much as they did.

But now it seems I and others were ahead of our time. The liberal hypocrisy has come full circle. Obama, the Democrats, the New York Times and Washington Post – which means 95% of the media – is telling us it isn’t necessary to work anymore. That’s right. It’s no longer fulfilling to have a job. It’s no longer a bad thing to stay home and watch TV all day. Being an unproductive member of society may just mean that you get to enjoy life and not waste it like your fellow drudges.

Here’s what some of them said on the Sunday talk shows:

“ObamaCare will give more of us more time away from work. This is a good thing.”
It “will enable more than 2 million workers to escape ‘job lock.'”
It “gives workers more choices, including the option to work less.”
Because ObamaCare will make people less willing to work, companies will “have to pay more per hour to get those workers in the door.”
One lawmaker even boasted ObamaCare will give parents more time to “tuck their children in at night.”

The American Thinker observes:

Jason Furman, Obama’s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, also tried to spin these projected job losses into good news by saying ObamaCare would allow workers greater “choice.” Furman said, “This is not businesses cutting back on jobs. This is people having new choices.” If taxpayer-funded health insurance encourages some people to work less, “that, in their case, might be a better choice and a better option that what they had before.”

Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi unwittingly revealed this goal years ago in a comment that unsurprisingly got little airplay in the mainstream media when she toasted the fact that the health care reform that she and her fellow Democrats forced down America’s throat would be a godsend for the “creative class”:

Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.

How about that? In less than a decade Obama has taken me from slacker to role model!

Now who’s going to be available to educate our children, provide medical care and grow our food while the rest of us are enjoying life? That might be a problem.

... Leave a Reply