One of Glen Campbell’s famous songs celebrates an American icon and an ideal way of life from the 20th century.

The “Dreams of an Everyday Housewife” is not his greatest hit of all time. That honor should probably go to “Rhinestone Cowboy.” Honorable mentions should definitely be given to “Galveston” and “Wichita Lineman.”

Even so, the housewife song is meaningful because it presents a viewpoint that’s different from the idealistic image of homemakers from the time period.

A woman’s place was at home with the children. Women worked only if they absolutely needed to for money reasons. Many of them would have preferred to be at home to greet the kids after school and make a full home cooked meal.

Campbell’s song shows what was sometimes a different side to homemaking. It talks about wrinkles and a plain house dress. It mentions a photo album with pictures of younger days. The refrain ends with a comment about how the housewife “gave up the good life.”

I don’t think my mom ever felt that way. She did give something up to become a 1970s homemaker. Women were starting to break into well-paying academic jobs.

With graduate school experience at Southern Illinois University, she could have become employed at almost any college in the country. She could even have gone on to earn a doctorate degree.

Instead, she came home, ending up only 12 miles from her hometown of Minneota. She came to be with my dad and to raise two children on Marguerite Avenue. She went back to full-time teaching in 1979 when I was almost a teenager. She switched to junior high counseling in 1985.

I’m thankful to mom for being a homemaker in the 1970s. Like most elementary school kids, I had many good school days but an occasional bad one. Either way it was good in the afternoon to tell mom about my day.

More than 40 years later, I still enjoy telling her about my day. In the late fall, winter and early spring I sometimes wear one of my Marshall Tiger jackets because it reminds her of our school days.

In the 1980s women became more inclined to work. At first families saw it as an opportunity. Before long, however, it took two incomes to have the lifestyle that one income used to provide. It was because of inflation and a trend toward low non-union pay scales.

In the 21st century people often call homemakers stay at home parents. I don’t especially care for that phrase because of how it has a negative premise.

It implies that they’re lazy people who just sit around the house all day. It suggests that there’s something wrong with them for not wanting to balance a career with family obligations.

In reality they can contribute greatly to their family’s well-being. They believe in putting kids first. They believe in being there for them round the clock, even if it means giving up some potential career advancement options.

We should have a federal program that gives 21st century parents, either female or male, the opportunity to be homemakers. It should at least be available to anyone with one or more children 12 and under.

I don’t know how much the government could pay them. I doubt if it could involve as much money as Social Security. A payment of $5,000 annually would be a good goal.

In many ways it’s a question of fairness. Working parents have received child care tax credits. Families with homemakers should get something as well.

It’s a challenge to raise children in the 21st century. A main reason I never had children was that I didn’t think the modern world was a very good place to raise them. Even in our small towns it hasn’t seemed that kids have it as good as I had it growing up.

Neighborhoods were close knit. Almost everyone was a friend. Only the real oddballs kept to themselves. Now many people go to work in the morning, come home at night, and either vegetate or rush out to a youth activity.

If a government program can encourage more homemaking, we should spend the tax dollars. There’s nothing more important than kids. They’re the future. They’ll be taking care of us when we’re old and feeble.

It comes down to what we consider the ideal life. The definition has changed for some people, but others wish they had more time for family. If working class people feel that way, they should be given as much opportunity as the wealthy to spend that quality time.

— Jim Muchlinski is a longtime reporter in southwest Minnesota