Cutting working mothers some slack [View All]

[Bill McBlueState]

After spending some time in red state America, I've learned that it's fashionable for rich people to blame working mothers for the declining academic abilities of today's kids. Apparently, if all these mothers would just stay home with their kids, schools would be turning out success stories just like they did back in the day. For some reason, it's highly controversial in America to invoke anything other than personal responsibility to explain societal problems. I thought I'd dig up some numbers, using my own line of work as an example. I'm married and working on a Ph.D. in astronomy, which is hardly typical, but it does emphasize that a good education is hardly a ticket to economic stability in Bush's America.

For a family of four, the federal government defines low income as less than $38,700 annually. In astronomy, after completing your Ph.D. at an average age of 27, you spend three to six (or more) years doing postdocs, temporary research positions completed under the supervision of an experienced researcher. These positions offer no job security, few benefits, and a typical salary in the mid 30K's. So for scientists, this is the best it gets during any reasonable definition of "child-bearing" age.

So my question is, Which of these three options should my wife and I take to be most acceptable to rich conservatives?

• Don't have kids.
  
• Have kids, but each of us keeps working so we can be financially stable.
  
• Have kids, and try to get by on low-income status, taking advantage of taxpayer-supported programs when we have to.
  

Keep in mind, this is the situation for people with decent educations and reasonably good health and credit. Not everyone is as lucky. I think people need to cut working mothers a little slack.