I am Woman Hear Me Roar

Hold onto your hats, kiddies. Mean Mommy is pissed.

Last night my husband and I went to the car dealership to finalize the deal on our new van. The van we were turning in was in hubby's name since I had just had #2 and was nursing so often I basically couldn't leave the house. So for the new lease I wanted it to be in mine to add to my credit score. We brokered the deal, filled out the papers and were lead to the managers office to do the final singing. We sat down and I could tell already that, Rich, the manager was not happy. He's all red in the face and nervous looking. Then he started to explain that Tony had to be put down as the primary on the lease because I am not employed. He went on to explain that the bank that finances the lease can't lend money to someone without income, blah, blah, blah. And while he was very nice about it, readers, I have never been so humiliated in all my life. We finished signing, or should I say my husband, finished signing the papers and Rich congratulated us on being the lessees of a new van. To which I quipped, "Well one of us is." Childish, I know, but I was pissed. Poor guy. Now readers, I completely understand why the bank would not want to give a loan to someone with no income. In a vacuum, it makes perfect sense if Joe Schmo walks in and says, "Lend me twenty grand, but I have no job.", but when you put this situation in context of being a stay at home parent it makes me feel, even more than usual, that what I am doing with my life is looked down upon by society at large.

From my understanding, New Jersey in not a communal property state - a term which many of us are familiar with when it comes to divorce, but apparently when applied during a marriage it means one spouse can claim the other's income when applying for loans, etc. This seems a fair solution for a family with one breadwinner and why isn't it the case in all states? This got me thinking about the sharing of assets in general. My husband and I pool everything because, frankly, we didn't have pot to piss in when we got married so what was there to divvy up? And now that I'm not earning any money the money is still "ours" because we are a unit and we work symbiotically to make our family function. Unfortunately, the US government doesn't see it that way. For the past five years I have not been earning anything toward my Social Security benefits. While both of us have been slaving away only my hubby has increased his earnings. This makes me ask, why isn't there an option on a form somewhere that allows my husband to allot half of his earnings to me since we are sharing the work of our family? Am I not doing the same work of a day care staffer caring for my children and therefore shouldn't I receive some benefit?

It is not only fiscally that a stay at home parent - notice the gender neutral term since my brothers-in-arms count too - is devalued. Across the board the working world frowns upon the concept. I spent the better part of twenty years getting my education and working - a Bachelor's in Chemistry, a Master's in Education, years of teaching - and the thing that will jump off the page when some prospective employer reads my resume somewhere down the road is that I spent a significant number of years "not working" to raise my kids. If I went back to teaching tomorrow, I'd be forced to take a lower position because of my absence when, really, did I lose IQ points while I was home or forget how to teach division? No. Parents everywhere are afraid to get off the track at work when they have a child for fear of losing any ground they have gained. But why does that have to be? If you keep up to date with licenses and the latest information, why should a person automatically be penalized for being raising a family?

All of this, I feel, is a symptom of the basic devaluing of parenting. Being a stay at home mother was something I myself, never, ever thought I would do. In fact, the twenty year old Mary would probably be embarrassed by what I am doing with my life since my plan for myself included having a child and returning to work six weeks later. It wasn't until I was actually pregnant that I changed my mind. This whole issue is a question of what we value as a society. We pay great lip service to the American family, but what are we really dong to support it? Does caring for a child count as a valuable commodity in our world? Or is it something we relegate to underpaid young women so we can get on with what's really important, i.e., making money? What is our ideal scenario? In my utopian world, families would be able to make the choice between having both parents work or one stay at home without negative financial or professional repercussions. Because isn't that what the women's movement was all about? Choice? I am so grateful to my sisters out there who go back to work because they keep that a viable option for everyone. Even if it's not the one I chose, perhaps it will be what my daughters need or want to do. I just hope it comes at less of a cost for them.

Unfortunately, the people who are most affected by this problem and would be most positively affected by this change are too busy with the minutiae of raising children to have time to lobby Capitol Hill. You can't worry about what direction you're drifting in when bailing out a sinking boat - you're just trying to stay afloat. But maybe someday, as we come out of the fog of sleep deprivation and the kids get older and are sent off to school and we have more than two minutes to put a cohesive thought together we can remember how pissed we were at the car dealership or bank that day and do something about it - not just go back to work and pity those still fighting in the trenches earning nothing for themselves. They need financial security and respect. If they are raising the future of our world then that is the least they deserve and maybe if you've been there you'll care enough to fight for them.