The best way to raise a child is within a committed marriage. Every marriage is different, but one of the best and most time-tested models is the one associated with the mid-20th century in America: a breadwinner and a homemaker. Typically, that means an employed dad and a stay-at-home mom.
Some people denigrate this old-fashioned model as oppressive. Some just say it’s unrealistic. Some don’t like to praise this model for fear of implying some slight at those who choose, or are forced into, another model.
But it’s good when a family can get by on a single income. It’s good when Mom (and in some cases, Dad) stays at home with the kids — whether full-time, or by working a part-time job from home.
It’s good for the couple, good for the kids, and good for the community.
I wrote about this in my 2024 book, Family Unfriendly: “One parent staying home is good for everyone in the family, because having two parents with varying schedules helps avoid burnout, increases mutual support, and encourages the sort of habits that make life better for the whole family, like cooking at home.”
Also, having a breadwinner and a homemaker allows for specialization and division of labor within marriage, which can create efficiencies and enhance marital peace.
Children thrive when they spend time with their parents, and it’s easier to get more time when one parent’s job is taking care of the household. Many studies suggest that kids fare better, emotionally, academically, and behaviorally, when they have a stay-at-home mom.
And communities benefit from having stay-at-home moms around. They function as an unofficial police force and support system, making it easier for all working parents to let their children roam free. Also, a community’s volunteers are typically made up largely of stay-at-home moms. Emma Green in the Atlantic wrote about this:
“Women have long formed collective organizations intended to improve American society. They volunteered their time, waged political campaigns, and advocated for the poor and elderly. They organized voters, patronized the arts, and protested the government. In the years since women’s liberation, this kind of civic engagement has dropped precipitously. The kind of community involvement that has replaced it, where it has been replaced at all, is a weak substitute: When women advocate, it’s often on behalf of their own kids or families. And when they get involved in causes, they tend to cut checks rather than gather in protest. The most vulnerable members of society have lost their best allies—women—partly because those women are too busy working.”
As Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians debate amongst themselves whether federal childcare benefits should be made available to stay-at-home moms, it’s important to recognize that stay-at-home moms are good.
Also, they are undersupplied today. Here are numbers I reported last year:
“Gallup this Spring found that 22% of women would prefer to be at home full time, while another 38% said they ideally would have a part-time job, giving the rest of their time to the homefront. That means only a minority of U.S. women prefer full-time paid employment.”
“Two-thirds of mothers with minor children say that the best child care arrangement before children are in kindergarten involves one or both parents working less so as to care for their children themselves.”
FORGET UNIVERSAL DAYCARE. JUST GIVE NEW PARENTS CASH.
“A 2015 poll by Gallup found that most mothers, 56%, would ideally stay at home, including 54% of currently employed mothers.”
Does this mean we should subsidize stay-at-home moms? Maybe not. But surely it means we should question whether our policies and rhetoric should privilege getting moms into the labor force.