Stay-at-home-dads take offense to scholarship just for moms
Davis
JEFFERSON CITY –I’ve gotten two e-mails regarding a story about a bill that would give a scholarship for stay-at-home moms but not dads.
The bill is HB498 sponsored by Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O’Fallon.
Here are excerpts from each of the e-mails.
I recently became aware of Cynthia Davis’s house bill 498 which Establishes the Full-time Mother Scholarship Bonus Program to provide an education scholarship for tuition and books for any mother who has chosen to stay home to raise a child 15 years of age or younger”.
Since mentioning this in the at-home dad newsletter, the response has been strong from at-home dads who are not included in the bill. I have urged the dads in my network across the country to write to write her regarding their opinion.
From an open letter from Peter Baylies of The At-Home Dad Network to Davis
It seems that Ms. Davis has sponsored a bill that will provide a yearly tax credit for stay at home mothers. While I applaud her recognition that parents who stay at home deserve compensation, she has left out what I feel is a key component of this bill. It has come to my attention that she specifically wants to exclude stay at home fathers because we are “not good nurturers” and we are unequipped to give birth or breastfeed. Those are her sole arguments for the exclusion. I feel this deserves to be brought to the attention of the St. Louis area, as I have received lots of encouragement from friends and family to not only e-mail members of State Government but to make the local press aware of this as well. While I don’t know many personally, I believe there are many stay at home fathers in this area, and I think they need to be made aware of this legislation. Such discriminatory legislation needs to be brought to the attention of the community as well.
From Joe Akers of Oakville
What a jerk. A friend of mine is a stay-at-home dad, and he nurtures just fine.
This legislation is blatantly discriminatory. Rep. Davis is so completely out of touch. I still cannot understand how constituents elect this clown.
Ladies and Gentlemen…
The face of what’s left of the Republican Party. aka Nutty right-wing flat earthers who are not real bright. see also, Sarah Palin
As to the wisdom of this bill - consider its author…
Well, at least she is not (apparently) limiting it to “Christian” stay-at-home Moms…
So this is the biggest issues facing our state and the St.Charles County area? I have met Rep. Davis, very nice person but kind of out there. You can’t complain too much, the people keep voting for her.
You people complain too much. Stay-at-home dads, while not considered as prevalent, can ALWAYS be written into the legislation.
I would challenge those of you complaining to show me some pieces of legislation that are perfect from the moment they’re filed. (other than right-to-work, hehehe)
In all honesty, I think it’s a stupid, far-reaching bill, and it probably has an unaffordable fiscal note, to boot.
Personnally I think the bill is stupid and does not even deserve a hearing. Paying people to be parents is just a dumb idea. Isn’t being a parent your responsibility, you chose to have the kid and now because you want to stay home I as a taxpayer have to pay for you to be able to do that. I am sorry but this is blatant socialism and complete irresponsibility on the part of parents and legislators. As for dads who want to stay home you are contributing to the “wussification” of America. Be a man and get a job, bring home some meat ($) and provide for your wife and kids. The idea of a stay at home dad goes against what the traditional family has been for centuries. Absurd and completely rediculous. I respect women who stay at home but it is a choice to do so not a right. Don’t expect me the taxpayer to pay you to take care of your own kid.
I’ll buy into the premise that women are more nurturing (emotional) if Davis will buy into the premise that men are more pragmatic (logical). With some exceptions men usually seek solutions, while women seek comfort.
As evidence, just look at the growth of social programs in the USA since women were given the vote nearly a century ago. Of course, several generations of absentee fathers and of mothers putting sons in touch with their “feminine” side have bolstered that emotion driven voting bloc. The natural balance in homes and in society was tipped to the emotional side of the scale. Reality and logic stood in the way of “caring.”
Problems that once required sound solutions now require only blame shifting or wasted efforts with good intentions. Personal actions that once resulted in consequences and learning now result in excuses and sympathy.
Of course many will emotionally label this opinion Chauvinist just as they label some ideas racist, homophobic, or any other label that justifies denial.
Not only is the bill discriminatory it is also assuming that SAHMs are uneducated. The ones I know all have Master’s degrees. I hardly think we should be funding their PhDs or second Masters.
How about a bill funding education for those who want and need it now?
This is a waste of legislative time and should not be even given a hearing.
Peter Bayliss: “While I applaud her recognition that parents who stay at home deserve compensation”
Why do SAHM or SAHDs “deserve” compensation?