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?
Hey Jim-
You are totally missing the point. Just because dads can be added into this legislation down the road does not make the fact that Davis intentionally left them out because “they are not nurturers”, then lied that she said it in the first place. Davis is a whack-a-do who needs to desperately be voted out the next time she’s up for re-election. This legislation is extremely unfair and she needs to be laughed out of JC.
sick2death,
The one solace is that she will eventually be term limited.
The difference between a chauvinistic pig and Rep. Davis — is lipstick. Does she truly understand it is the year 2009? I think not. Using her ignorant logic, let’s take a stroll down history lane, shall we? We wouldn’t have to listen to her, because she wouldn’t speak until spoken to. We wouldn’t have to look at her, because she would be at home, barefoot, and pregnant. Unless of course, you catch a glimpse of her in the car waiting for me to vote.
She wouldn’t be able to own property even if her husband dies.
She should take off those pants, because she’s only allowed to wear dresses.
Dinner better be ready when I get home.
Now, get me a beer, Woman!
{sigh}
There is absolutely no room in ANY elected office in ANY state for this type of ignorant stupidity.
Craig Brewer
Stay At Home Dad
Domestic Engineer
Mr. Mom
Full Time Dad
Father Of Two
Husband
Veteran
To suzyjax………she is term limited the next election cycle I believe…thank goodness.
Now, it just seems to me……and call me simple minded….if we strengthen pell and other grants and scholarships and straighten out the student loan system to better meet the needs of those seeking a higher education……why would we need such legislation?
I am strongly opposed to the opinion offered by poster “2012″. That is the view most liberals take of Republicans. Because in this day and age it is just not stylish to retain inflexible convictions. I am a stay-at-home Dad myself, and this kind of legislation irks me not because Dads are excluded, but because I am not a liberal with my hand out. I don’t expect the government to pay to raise my children. This money could be better used elsewhere, but just like the useless and soon to be “misplaced” $417 billion that our esteemed President is so hot for, this will only cause more debt to taxpayers. Save your money, live within your means, pay your own bills, end of story.
Cynthia Davis is the poorest excuse of a politician I have ever heard of.
She recently said this to a class of 8th Graders: “I come from Massachusetts where they are pro-choice and tolerant of gays. Thank God I moved to Missouri!”
They should make up a scholarship just for her to stay at home and shut up.
When is the state going to purge itself of such biased, dangerously stupid politicians as Cynthia Davis?