Dr Laura’s latest book, In Praise of Stay At Home Moms, is a tribute to mothers who stay at home with their children.

You can read an excerpt of the book at MSNBC.com. It starts pleasantly enough with a the story of how she wanted to become a mother, and then anecdotes of her life as a stay-at-home mother. She worked in the evenings when her son was asleep, or when he was at school, and took him on the road with her when she traveled for work.

Then it takes a turn and Dr. Laura attacks writers who support working moms, and asserting that supporters of working moms actually feel guilty for leaving their children with daycare providers. And that working moms don’t have “having deep meaning in one’s life”.

I admire Dr. Laura’s commitment to spending all of her son’s waking hours with him. But I intensely dislike her comparing her privileged life to the average mother and average family and suggesting that we can all do as she did.

Not all of us are TV personalities, radio show hosts or authors. Not all of us have a supportive husband or partner. Many of us simply do not have the option to cherry-pick a job that is flexible enough and pays well enough to let us do a couple of hours work when our children are sleeping. For many of us, just having a job, any job, is the difference between surviving financially, versus ending up in the breadline.

And the moms who have the choice to work or stay at home, no mother makes that  decision lightly. And the choice can only be made by that mother, and I know that every mother makes that choice with her children and families’ best interests at heart.

Stay-at-home-moms are wonderful women and thoroughly deserving of praise. Working moms are also wonderful women and equally deserving of praise.

So if Dr. Laura wants to write a book praising stay-at-home moms, why  can’t Dr. Laura simply praise stay-at-home-moms? It’s bitter praise if it’s made by attacking working, and work-at-home moms.

In the Australian state of New south Wales, family affairs ministers are drawing up plans that may pay moms to stay home with their babies for the first two years. It’s aimed at moms who want to stay at home, but have to return to work for financial reasons.

The Commissioner for Children and Young People, Gillian Calvert, says that “we have evidence that maternal employment during an infant’s first year of life can have a detrimental effect on their cognitive development.” and that the mother-baby interaction is vital for building social and communication skills.

Wouldn’t that be nice, to be paid to stay at home? I’d be happy to accept the check if I lived in Australia!

What I don’t like is the implied criticism of working mothers. While many moms would be delighted as me to not have to go out to work, the decision to stay at home, or go back to work, is a personal one based on many factors. While finances play a large part, it’s also about mom wanting to go back. Many women love their jobs and would feel a huge loss if they had to quit, or were guilted into it by government, or society.

A mom who works in a fulfilling job, who leaves her baby with a loving, nurturing caregiver, is surely just as good as a mom that stays at home with her baby? Especially if working mom gains immense personal satisfaction from her career and comes home happy, rather than a sad mom who’s had her arm twisted into quitting something she loves to do?

What do you think? Is the Australian government right to criticize working moms? It would be fabulous to not have to work if you don’t want to, but is it right to lump all working moms together and tell them that their babies brain development will suffer?

Do you ever feel frustrated with society’s attitude towards moms and babies?

The world seems to be pushing babies to be mini adults. (Why can’t we let babies be babies?) and moms are expected to be 14 different things at once.

I am very happy it’s 2008 and not 1958 where the only “correct” type of mother has 3.8 kids, cleans the house, cooks a three-course dinner for her husband every night, and does it all in lipstick, immaculate hair and high heels.

It is great that we’ve progressed from only one type of mom. Modern mothers can be working moms, stay at home moms, work at home moms, then there’s stay at home dads, and everything in between.

Working moms are (deservedly) praised for managing work and home and motherhood – and much respect to you if that’s what you do.

But now it’s the stay-at-home moms (SAHMs) who are getting the flak. I’ve been asked a couple of times lately why I didn’t want to have a job. Or what interests do I have apart from my son? Like being a stay-at-home mom is somehow second-rate to moms who go to work, or jetset around the world like Madonna.

Clearly being a stay-at-home mom is a job, and much more work than many jobs that require you to get dressed and go to an office every day. It’s also the best and only job I want to have. And it’s the most interesting thing I do. Watching my son grow up, and learn new things is fascinating, rewarding, and fills me with joy every second of every day. (Let me correct that. He’s in the deliberatly-throwing-milk-on-the-carpet stage at the moment. So everything apart from that.)

There’s nothing second-rate about being a stay-at-home mom. Moms of all types – working, work at home, stay-at-home, whatever you do – are all equally loving, wonderful mothers doing the very best for their children.

Stay-at-home moms deserve just as much praise as any other type of mom, and if you’ve decided to devote this time of your life to your children and your family, you’ve made a great decision. Children are only small for such a short time, and I don’t want to waste this precious time working (even though money is tight) or doing things for me at the expense of spending time with my son (although I did give him to Daddy and spent an hour in the bath reading a book last Saturday).

I’ve found the right balance for me and my family. I hope that you have too, and perhaps if you are reading this and have been feeling pressured to do more than be a stay at home mom, take a deep breath, and think about it – what makes you happiest in all the world? Being with your children? Then ignore the pressure, and
carrying on giving your whole heart to being a stay-at-home mom.

Some woman have a fool-proof life plan that goes something like: healthy happy childhood, happy healthy teen hood with just the right amount of mischief and mayhem while getting straight A’s and joining the Glee club, apply for several Ivy Leagues but promise yourself you’ll be satisfied with a halfway decent school, rinse and repeat mantra from high school, kiss a load of boys but fall in love once, move out together after college both working at high end jobs making decent money. Travel. Own a dog (telling yourself it’s practice for a baby) wait until you are both successful enough to afford a house, or two bedroom apartment and you convince yourself that you don’t care about cellulite and stretch marks before you start to try and get pregnant. Get pregnant. Spend nine months worrying how you’re going to never fit back into your old jeans while simultaneously eating cake. Good smooth labor. Six weeks of maternity leave, spent dieting, attempting to breast feed, taking thousands of pictures of baby and catching up on novels. Purchase breast pump. Hire responsible nanny (slightly chubby, and nonthreatening, note: nanny cannot be sexy). Cry the first day back to work, but secretly are pleased you will have adult conversation and a latte. Maybe repeat ?get pregnant? in a few years…

Yeah, nice plan.

Here was mine:

Crappy childhood (see alcoholic father, emotional neglect and bankruptcy), teen hood with an abundance of mischief but certainly more mayhem in the form of pot smoking, class skipping, lying and staying out all night, and therapy. Some normalcy (in bits and pieces), college eventually (county college), class skipping and pot smoking, divorce, moving around to several apartments, one or two emotional breakdowns, a crappy boyfriend, several hundred passionate short lived friendships, and finally moving out on my own for approximately two weeks before deciding to move in with my best friend, and love. Yes, I had one through eight years of crap.

On paper, I seem (to be frank) like an irresponsible moron. I might have been, but squashed into the paragraph of my seemingly horrible life thus far there was a wrong diagnosis of bipolar disorder, unfair medication pushed upon me for five years, and a father who bounced from sober to dead drunk in the blink of an eye. I’m not really a crappy person; I love to read, I worked at a nursing home for two years making arts and crafts with old ladies, I write essays, and short stories, told my brother and mom I loved them more than everything almost every night, I’m in love with a wonderful caring man who understands me, and now I’m a mom.

But what makes a good mother? Is it the girl who had the textbook perfect childhood? The well balanced up-bringing, and warm confident smile? Is it the girl who screwed around for a few years before learning she was capable of being a loving wife, and an even more loving mom? Is it the single mom who finally left her abusive husband and works three jobs so her little girl can have new sneakers? Is it the working mom, or the stay at home mom?

I think it’s the mother who wants the best for her child. The mom who listens well, and offers a shoulder to cry on, the mother that formula feeds, or breast feeds, uses cloth diapers to protect the environment or gets excited for value packs of Pampers. No mom is perfect, but we can damn near try…

According to USA Today and the National Center for Health Statistics, fertility rates are on the rise across the country. This is stark contrast to other developed countries where the rate is dropping. Rising rates not only mean more babies are coming into the world, as a country we will be able to support the elderly population and replace the workforce openings they leave behind.

An interesting point in the article is how babies are considered luxury goods and that more stay-at-home mothers are having more kids.

Kids as luxury goods. Is that what inspires celebrities to have babies – the ultimate in luxury items? Does that in turn inspire fashion followers to pursue the latest in accessories? So to be in with the crowd you need an oversized designer handbag, skinny jeans and a mini-me?

That explains Paris Hilton making a plan to have a baby this year. But really, would pampered accessories do a good job of taking care of the elderly and how likely are they to contribute to the workforce?

As a mom of two under four; we are fashionable only when no one has been allowed to have food or drink until we get to our destination and when clothing is not placed on the child or mommy until right before we walk out the door.

Are the girls luxury goods? Well if you look at them economically – you spend so much to raise them, to increase their value as people and contributors to society in the hopes that they will take care of you if you need them.