Comments about ‘Valuing the role of homemaker’

Typical liberal blather, Mr. Florez.

The program is an abject failure and a waste of tax dollars. But committed liberals feel impelled to exalt its vacuous symbolism and mourn its demise as a partisan accusation of those actually acting in the public interest.

With such fuzzy thinking as its primary dogma, its no wonder the "progressive" movement has brought us to the brink of economic ruin.

The behavior or the legislature is evidence of the contradictory view of homemaking by the Utah culture (and to a lesser slightly lesser degree by the rest of the country). First, homemaking is grossly undervalued. It's undervalued in large part because it does not produce an overt price. In a price system unless something carries a price tag, it is deemed to have no value. This is of course nonsense. Homemaking is one of the most valuable of human pursuits - it is the glue which holds families together. We Marxists understand the undervaluing of domestic labor. Homemakers are among the most exploited of American labor. They should at least accrue social security rights.

But just as interesting is the view of these legislators, most of whom are of the dominant faith and who presumeably put homemakers on a pedestal. It's not true. The local culture hates women and most of what they do, including childbirth. I'm afraid the local culture in this case showed what it is really about - the exploitation of women, especially homemakers.

It was a liberal program. Exactly what the modern republican party opposes in thier law of the jungle mantra. But if that's what you want Utah then you have it.

I'm sure the LDS in Utah will take care of thier own in fast offerings and the bishop's store houses because the church expects us too. Not sure what the difference is except it's more Christlike to take care of everyone, not just your buddies.

Mr Florez's criticism of DWS is spot on. Maybe if they had a better product, it would have been easier to defend. But the program was still worth saving, inferior as it is. Did lawmakers ask how it might be improved, or did they have it in their crosshairs because of our low opinion of homemakers? I suspect the latter. The entire system of labor exploitation in this country is built on top of the exploitation of homemakers.

I have been a homemaker for many years. It is not the government that makes me feel needed. It is my family and my faith. SERVICE. Actually the LDS faith turns down no-one! If you come to the bishop of the ward you live in, IN DIRE NEED, he will send you to the transient bishop. This bishop will help you, yes it is temporary, but the help is still there. Church welfare is not intended to be perminent and everyone is expected to do some work. Whether at the DI or in another capacity for members who have need of help. Church welfare is never for some dudes buddies, unless they are in need! I have assisted families with many different needs from meals and clothes to funeral arrangements, yes, there have been those who were not members of our faith. Not every grieving family can afford to pay for the rental of their own Christian Church and the remarks from their own Priest or Minister.

Typical government. Good idea, bad process, poor and inefficient results.
Displaced homeworkers have a real need. We need to think out of the box.
I agree with Mr. Florez. Excellent article once again.

You can't really value marriage without valuing the work that a spouce does in the home instead of working. People want the GOVERNMENT to value marriage... How does the government value something? It makes legal contracts that make homemaking valuable. You can't have big government and small government at the same time. In the home out of the home, in the bedroom out of the bedroom. make up your minds.