Christine Rose

I am going to get sooooo sunburned, I already know it. 

“One foot forward, will you be catching my fall? What is expected to have you in my arms?”

“And all I need is to feel you…reach out and touch me.”

In the latest unfortunate news at the intersection of motherhood and politics, stay-at-home moms are doing worse emotionally than their working counterparts. According to a Gallup poll released last week, mothers who don’t work outside the home were far more likely to be depressed, with 28 percent reporting depression, compared with 17 percent of working mothers, and also 17 percent of working women who don’t have children. In fact, stay-at-home moms fare worse than these two groups by every emotional measure in the survey, reporting more anger, sadness, stress, and worry. They were more likely to describe themselves as struggling and suffering and less likely to see themselves as “thriving.”

I don’t completely agree with this article, but I believe it has some very valid points and is worth a read. Feeling under appreciated may not be the biggest problem, but I believe the financial strain for stay-at-home moms is. We live in a two-income-family world these days, and unless their husband is able to pull the figures to cover both, it can be extremely stressful.

However, I think society’s views on stay-at-home moms also plays a part. In social situations, many people look down on you if you mention you’re a stay-at-home mom. I don’t know the exact story to be honest, but I can understand why people were so angry when Hilary Rosen stated that Ann Romney hadn’t “worked a day in her life”, and the fact that it came from another woman, a supposed ally from your own gender, hurts even more. You end up feeling like a less-valued member of society, like you’re a failure as a woman because all you do is stay at home when in reality, like the article says (and everyone knows), raising kids is fucking hard work. 

So really, it’s a multifaceted issue, just like many other things. 

“Oh, this feeling is wonderful — don’t you ever turn it off.”

“You wish you could fly, but you’re staying where you are; there’s nothin’ you can do if you’re too scared to try.”

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed a bill yesterday that will allow pharmacists in the state to refuse to fill a prescription they think could be used to induce abortion. But since the “conscience” measure says they cannot be required to provide a drug or devise that they think “may result in the termination of a pregnancy” — but does not define which drug in particular — the law’s opponents say it could allow a pharmacist to interfere with a woman’s health care by refusing to distribute birth control or emergency contraception.

Sigh. I just…come on man. 

This goes hand-in-hand with the health insurance covering contraceptives thing that employers and colleges were pissed about. I don’t see how hard it is for people to see that this is not what freedom of religion means. 

In the case of pharmacists: you’re employed by someone to offer a service. Your personal views should not affect me. If a woman comes to you for Plan B, or even just for contraceptives, that is none of your business. The same goes for your boss — it is none of their business what goes on between a doctor and a patient. None. 

Stop trying to make this about freedom of religion. You are not the one being forced to take the drug. You cannot control other’s decisions, just as they would not do the same to you. Employees, customers — these are people who are not connected to you and, if you want to think about it religiously, will be judged all on their own when the time comes. Stop making this about you. It isn’t. 

Why it took me a year to notice, I’ll never know.

Fffffuuuuu—