In June, I gave birth to a beautiful baby boy. While I’ve been learning many lessons in being a mother to this precious little life, I’ve also gained a whole new perspective on the pro-life, pro-family work that we do at PRI. And now I have some personal insight on one of the big questions:
How can we better support mothers, especially stay-at-home moms?
To answer this, we have to look at two of the biggest issues mothers face. 1) We live in a culture that values careers over motherhood and 2) our society forces mothers back into the workforce.
In order to better support mothers, these two things have to change. But it won’t be easy.
First, there is the cultural change.
You’ve often heard us say, following the great Saint Pope John Paul II, that we need to build a “Culture of Life.” This sweeping phrase encompasses all the ways that we must change the culture in order to make it more accepting and supportive of preborn babies, mothers, and fathers.
One basic building block of this Culture of Life is providing cultural and social support for women becoming mothers. This means encouraging girls to become mothers and praising their choice, rather than dismissing a girl’s natural inclination to motherhood by deeming it a lesser path. We need to especially support women who not only want to become mothers, but wish to be stay-at-home moms. It’s also time to end the idea that being a stay-at-home mom is somehow a luxury. It’s not a luxury, it’s a necessity.
In her book, Being There, Erica Komisar, LCSW, lays out the evidence that a mother’s presence during the first three years of a child’s life is absolutely essential. Her presence–or absence– affects a child’s attachment, brain development, and mental health for the rest of his or her life. Komisar confirms the commonsense truth that, “A mother’s role is specific and not interchangeable with the roles of other caregivers–no matter how loving, valuable, or necessary.”
Given how critical the motherly role is, women shouldn’t feel guilty for wanting to stay at home, but many do. I personally know many young mothers who feel guilty about leaving their jobs because they’re made to feel that they’re inconveniencing others. Some have been shamed by friends or relatives for not wanting to do both.
It’s time to stop making new mothers feel this way: they simply want to put their children first, over a career outside of the home. Instead we need to start commending women who are willing to put their career on hold for their little ones.
Forty years ago, Pope John Paul II summarized what society must do to support mothers in his encyclical Laborem Exercens:
Experience confirms that there must be a social re-evaluation of the mother’s role, of the toil connected with it, and of the need that children have for care, love and affection in order that they may develop into responsible, morally and religiously mature and psychologically stable persons. It will redound to the credit of society to make it possible for a mother-without inhibiting her freedom, without psychological or practical discrimination, and without penalizing her as compared with other women-to devote herself to taking care of her children and educating them in accordance with their needs, which vary with age. [emphasis added]
Forty years later, we are still fighting the same battle. Why? Because we are still dealing with the same corrupt ideology known as Feminism. Feminism in our culture has devalued motherhood and exalted careers. It has convinced women that, if they do become mothers, then they still have to “do it all” by clinging to these careers. If women stumble in either area—motherhood or career—Feminism has them convinced they are failures for being unable to do both perfectly.
Cultural feminism has also convinced many women that mothers who stay at home aren’t really “working.” Nothing could be more untrue. All mothers are working mothers, whether they have a job outside the home or not.
The work that a mother does in the home actually saves a family tens of thousands of dollars per year that would otherwise go to childcare, prepared food, house cleaning, and other expenses. One estimate found that the work of a stay-at-home mother would be worth almost $180,000 a year–if it were a salaried position. But of course it’s not and, as a practical matter, some families cannot afford to have the mother stay home.
This brings us to the second issue we have to tackle: an economy that currently, for many, virtually requires mothers to return to work outside of the home. It’s one thing for the culture to accept stay-at-home mothers again, but quite another to make this a financial reality for the many families who want to have mom stay home.
According to the Catholic Church, it is an unjust society that forces a mother out of the home into paid work, as it harms both the society and the family. In the words of Pope John Paul II, “Having to abandon these tasks in order to take up paid work outside the home is wrong from the point of view of the good of society and of the family when it contradicts or hinders these primary goals of the mission of a mother.”
Just as women shouldn’t be forced to stay in the workplace out of misplaced obligation or guilt, they also shouldn’t be forced to stay out of financial need.
When we think of material support for mothers, we often think about the unwed mother who faces an unplanned pregnancy. Many pro-life resources are dedicated to women who find themselves in such a situation. But what about the married mother who wants to be with her children, but is unable? Not only do her children lack her presence, but the mother herself may feel unable to have the number of children she wants because the family finances force her to stay in the workforce.
How do we remedy this situation? Pope John Paul II again gives us the answer:
“Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such remuneration can be given either through what is called a family wage-that is, a single salary given to the head of the family for his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home-or through other social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families. These grants should correspond to the actual needs, that is, to the number of dependents for as long as they are not in a position to assume proper responsibility for their own lives.” [emphasis added]
In other words, the head of the family (i.e. the husband) should be paid a sufficient salary to be able to take care of his family and allow his wife to stay home. Thus workplaces should take into account how many children a man has when determining his salary. The government can support this endeavour by sheltering couples with children from taxes, ensuring they are able to keep as much of the husband’s living wage as possible.
Just as a husband’s living wage should be based on the number of children, so would this exception from taxes. For one child, the couple should have a one-third reduction in taxes. For two children, a two-thirds reduction. With three children, a couple should be completely sheltered from taxes, having more than replaced themselves, securing not only their future but the nation’s as well. This should be a no-brainer for the nation, given that a nation’s government should have a vested interest in supporting families, as parents are the ones building a country’s future with each and every child they bring into the world.
While bringing about this type of change will be difficult, it’s not impossible. I believe we can create a Culture of Life that once again glorifies motherhood and allows women to embrace their natural calling.
And now it’s time for me to nurse my baby.
