War on women.

I have blog posts running through my head most hours of the day, none of which ever materialize because, by the time I have a moment to sit at my computer, all of my writing material has either dissipated into thin air, or I've come to the conclusion that I might offend someone by spewing forth the uncensored opinions that remain. Tonight, however, in recognizing that my blog has not seen activity for over two weeks, I figured, what the heck?  So here's what I really think.

I'm not going to open up the entire can of worms regarding the war on women thing.  It primarily refers to Republican policies that are seen as restricting women's rights, particularly "reproductive rights" (a loaded term, if you ask me).   But let's start with that.  Why must women demand that employers pay for contraception and sterilization benefits but not infertility treatments?  Isn't pregnancy a condition that is either A. fully preventable through abstinence (unthinkable!) or B. reasonably preventable through relatively inexpensive means(barrier methods, oral contraceptives) which individuals can certainly be responsible for obtaining themselves?  I'm just not understanding why an employer should be responsible for ensuring that a female employee doesn't get pregnant.  And if we're going to fight for the right to have contraception covered, why then, are we not making a big fuss about the fact that infertility treatments (way more expensive than pregnancy-prevention techniques, but necessary for any infertile couple hoping to have children of their own) are barely covered at all?  This is kind of a rhetorical question, one that speaks volumes about our society (or at least about the most vocal people in our society) and what we value.  Preventing children (without regard to personal responsibility) versus assisting those who (through no fault of their own) cannot have children.

For the record, I'm not saying that I believe infertility should be covered on employee benefit plans, only making a statement about what our country values.  Okay I'm done with that.

On to the better part of my rant.  I'm tired of people suggesting that women who solely stay at home and raise children are subservient, or "setting women back 100 years".  I resent the fact that a traditional role of husband working outside the home to provide a living and the wife staying home to raise the children is viewed by so many with disdain, that somehow I'm oppressed because I chose this lifestyle.  Where do people get off suggesting that one role is superior to another?  Why would I have to work outside the home to "prove" that my husband respects me?  Do I have to get paid doing what I love for it to be valuable?

Apparently, I do.  Ann Romney got a lot of flack throughout the campaign for staying home and raising her five boys.  Critics suggested that it wasn't a "real" job; others considered it a "luxury" that only the rich can afford.  I beg to differ.  How many of those critics have raised five sons?  Do they have any idea what kind of stamina that takes? 

I think the most difficult aspect of staying home and raising children is the lack of respect the world seems to give those who do so.  I personally don't let it get to me, but I have found myself defending my position more often than I would like, which indicates that the pervasive opinion is that I'm wasting my intellect, my college degree and my talent by staying home with my children.  So here I am, on paper, defending my decision.

Just because my man is the hunter-gatherer of the family does not make him superior.  Just ask him how submissive I am.  It's preposterous for people to suggest that the fact that he gets paid for his work and I don't means that we are not equally-yoked, or that I kowtow to his authority in the home.  Guess what?

Changing diapers is important.  Sacrificing a to-do list to sit down and assemble puzzles with a preschooler is infinitely rewarding.  Laundry matters (it is painful for me to admit that one).  Getting dinner on the table every night is a great sacrifice that reaps immeasurable benefits.  A clean and organized house is an unattainable but worthy goal.  Volunteering in the schools takes a lot of time, but is worth it.  Helping my nine-year old master math feels great.  Teaching my children piano is a painstaking process, but it's free!  Creating chore charts and schedules and reward systems works wonders.  Serving in my church blesses me and my family.  Eating bonbons while watching soap operas is... haha, just kidding!

I could list and list and list the most mundane tasks I complete every day.  They would seem, just that, mundane.  I don't get paid for any of them.  Heck, I don't even get credit for them most of the time.  But I gain tremendous satisfaction from them.  I love what I do.  So stop suggesting that women in so-called "traditional roles" are oppressed, or that because their work can't be measured in dollars (or even on checklists) that it isn't relevant.  I'm not out to please the world.  I want to please God.  And he says what I'm doing is " near to divinity". 

P.S.  I am not suggesting anything about women in non-traditional roles and their value, nor do I feel that women who earn lots of money or serve in high-profile positions in the world are irrelevant.  I think they're great.  Just making the case for those in my situation.