THIS is what is wrong with our lawmakers!

This article, which I came across as I was perusing Echidene of the Snakes' blog, is an excellent example of lawmakers trying to impose their societal and familial ideals on the general populace, without concern for individual circumstances.

Idaho Rep. Steven Thayn is currently the chairman of the Idaho House of Representatives' Family Task Force, and "he and others are considering controversial solutions such as repealing no-fault divorce laws and finding ways to encourage mothers to stay home with their children." The article goes on to state the Thayn argues that more two-parent homes and fewer working mothers could be "both a societal and economic boon. The Emmett Republican sees the breakdown of the traditional family structure as the root of societal ills such as drug abuse, crime and domestic violence."

Let's see. Where do I even begin to state the many problems apparent in his proposal? Well, let's take it one by one.

1. The assumption that it is the mother who should (ahem, must) stay home. Let me be the first one to say that for my personal life, I cannot wait to have children and be a stay at home mother to them. I most assuredly think that staying home to raise one's children is as worthwhile and fulfilling as any paying career. However, what I object to is the blanket statement that all women will be (and should be) fulfilled by staying at home. Hasn't this guy heard of a little thing called "individual personalities?" Some women are more fulfilled by working, and therefore are better mothers to their children than if they stayed home all day at the expense of their personal happiness.
   
2. And, going off that first point, why does he ignore the very real fact that many men (maybe not as many as women, but still a substantial amount--my husband included!) would be incredibly fulfilled by staying home with their children. I wish Rep. Thayn would tell me exactly what he thinks a "traditional" family, anyway. If the family has two parents (of the opposite gender, I'm sure), but the mother is a breadwinner and the father stays home, do they still get the gold star for being the traditional pillar of society? Or is the fact that the mother is supporting them while the father stays home mark them as one of those families that leads society into decline by thwarting "god-ordained" gender roles?
3. What about homosexual couples? (Oh, I understand they are leading society into demise, right, Rep. Thayn?) What if one of the partners wants to stay home with the couple's children, but is not allowed to do so, since under current law, many companies deny health insurance coverage and benefits to domestic partners? A woman or man who may desire to stay home and raise his or her children may not be able to, and may be forced into the workplace in order to obtain health benefits for them, and perhaps, their children. What would you rather have, Mr. Thayn? A homosexual parent (oh, excuse me, a mother) that stays home with her children, because the updated laws allow her to be covered under her partner's health benefits? Or would you rather preserve the "traditional" heterosexual family at all costs, even though there may be a spike of kids in daycare because gay couples may have to put their children (perhaps unwillingly) into child care because the laws don't support gay couples? You can't have it both ways, Mr. Thayn.
4. I honestly have no idea how having fewer women in the workforce is supposed to be an economic and societal boon. Women comprise roughly half of the workforce; who is going to take over these jobs when women retreat to the private sphere of the home? Many professions (such as teaching--especially at the elementary school level--nursing, and child care providers) are arenas dominated by women. If even 10% of the women in these professions left the workforce, Idaho would be left with a gaping hole in many necessary occupations. How do they plan to fill that hole?
   
5. As Echidne says in her blog (and this really sums it up for me, as well): Will all mothers be paid the salaries they forfeit? Will all of them get health insurance for themselves and their children? Will their retirement funds be taken care of? When their children are viewed as acceptably mature, will their retraining costs for the labor market be covered? And when the re-enter the labor market, will their fair treatment and promotion chances be guaranteed?
   
   I suspect not. And this is an important feminist point: The problems this Task Force sees with Idaho families are to be fixed by the mothers, essentially for free. Even a non-feminist reader of the proposals might spot the difficulty in expecting women to stop working when their families depend on that money. But a feminist interpretation gives the woman some rights over and above those of the eternally self-sacrificing mother. It also casts light on all the different costs that the mothers are supposed to bear (in silent submission, I guess).

I fully understand that as a parent, one must make sacrifices for their children, and indeed, they should do so willingly. What I take issue with is the fact that it is solely the mothers who are expected to make these sacrifices, at the expense of their personal happiness, which will ultimately have an adverse effect on their families.

When, oh when, will lawmakers stop trying to wedge their way in to our personal lives? If Rep. Thayn wants to make it easier to have a parent stay at home, perhaps he should advocate raising the living wage (which would make it easier--not easy, but easier--to raise a family on one income), issuing more educational grants to college students so they can complete an education and begin their family with a higher starting salary (minus the massive college debt), and continuing to ensure safe, legal access to birth control so that families who so desire can limit their family size, thereby making it easier to get by on one income, if they so choose. This makes much more sense to me than an inane task force that has vague objectives of "encouraging women to stay home" while ignoring the very real economic and personal factors that drive women into the workplace in the first place.