Krystal Tebbetts
Dr. Sarah Swofford
Writing 1310
12 October 2015

The Rhetorical Analysis of Heather Boushey’s
“Values Begin at Home, but Who’s Home?"
(In the Struggle to Balance Work and Family, Work is Winning)

In Heather Boushey’s article on The American Prospect 2007 is a special report titled “Values Begin at Home, but Who’s Home?” This article reflects America’s current family values. This is an older, but effective report. Heather Boushey was formerly a Senior Economist with the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee and before that, with the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the Economic Policy Institute. She has testified before the U.S. Congress and authored numerous reports and commentaries on issues affecting working families. “Heather Boushey.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 13 July 2015. Web. 29 September 2015.” In this article Boushey argues that work has been winning the work/life battle- beginning with Mothers working outside of the home. Boushey also uses her skills as a former Senior Economist, to hone in on statistical data to prove the decline in family values, since Mother’s began working outside of the home. Heather Boushey article serves a dual purpose- or kairos. Boushey wrote this article stating her negative opinion toward today’s economy and how it affects family values. First, Boushey believes that mothers leaving the home to join the workforce has a negative effect on the well-being of our families and our family values, and secondly persuading us to measure how well our current American economy works for our families. Towards the end of the article Boushey tries to convince us, as voters to take action, by starting at home and telling our leaders that we will pay attention to work/life issues. The author starts out building her character, an appeal to ethos, by beginning the article with a summary of the U.S. 2004 Democratic Platform, which states that family is the center of American life. In the summary she states “Family is the center of everyday American life. Our Parents are our first protectors, first teachers, first role models, and first friends. Parents know that America’s great reward is the quiet but incomparable satisfaction that comes from building their families a better life. Strong families, blessed with opportunity, guided by faith, and filled with dreams are the heart of a strong America.” By referring to the 2004 Democratic Platform, Boushey is acknowledging her need for additional counsel. Later, she uses another example of ethos. In an appeal to ethos, Boushey states that "According to the Families and Work Institute in New York, two-thirds of parents say that they don’t have enough time with their children and nearly two-thirds of married workers say that they don’t have enough time with their spouse. Nearly half of all employees with families report conflicts between their job and their family lives, more so than a generation ago.” By referencing a well known, non-profit organization, Boushey shows she has a similar opinion, thus giving her the authority to write her article.
Boushey makes several appeals to logos- or an appeal to logic to the American people, but I have listed a few that I believe that work effectively for her article. Boushey states that while politicians emphasize traditional family values, they have neglected the issues of paid leave, or child-care, or the other policy challenges that may make it less difficult to re-establish work and family. Boushey wants us to take her comparisons and consider how in the struggle of work and family, in today’s economy, work is winning. In another appeal to logos, she uses a statistical data to show the correlation between working mother’s and the standard of living. Her data states that, “families have lost 539 hours per year to the U.S. Economy--13.5 weeks of full-time work,” meaning moms have gone to work. This does not mean that the standard of living has increased, in fact the article claims that families put in more hours at work, than their parents did, but that after calculation of inflation- the median living standards are subsequently lower." She uses the data to show us that the economy is not working for us. This data shows us that generally speaking we are working to live, rather than living to work, which is a negative example of how the economy does not work for family principalities. Again, Boushey makes another logical appeal by saying that “women now outnumber men on college campuses. And women must expect to make use of those college degrees by getting a job after graduation or they wouldn’t be taking out so many loans.” And once women get a job, their earnings play a crucial role in her family’s well-being, which usually places dual income families in the middle class bracket. Data now shows that the employment rates between single mothers and married mothers are fairly equal. However, Boushey points out in the article that typical, unwed mothers are close to the poverty line. Again, this is another example that the economy is failing our family. Boushey gives us another appeal to logos, by stating that “working is not just about the present, but about securing an economic future. She shows us the logic by giving us the data that shows that when women leave employment, even for just a couple of years, a woman’s earnings can fall by about 10 percent. This is considered a “mommy penalty” in terms of income, for taking needed time off. Mothers can not afford to take needed time off to tend to our sick children or helpless elderly without their families suffering. Dual income families are stuck between choosing quality care for their loved ones, or paying their bills. Single mothers ultimately pay the price in compromising their family values. Today's economy does not allow for a single mother to be at home to take care of her children. Even while working most single moms will never live above the poverty line, according to Boushey’s data.
There are references to our emotions- or pathos, beginning with the title Throughout “Values Begin at Home, but Who’s Home?” By Boushey choosing to use pathos she appeals to most Americans and fits very well in this article. I believe by Boushey chose her areas of pathos with intent, for the use of the readers emotions, and that she used logic to strategically place pathos. Boushey also logically knew most Americans could relate to the struggle of choosing family principalities or living comfortably. Boushey states “most workers have someone in their life who needs care, very few jobs make it easy to balance work with family needs.” Mothers and their families have little to no control over their weekly schedules. And with varying schedule fluctuations it causes families to have issues finding, and keeping, quality child care to virtually impossible.” She also chose to use the 2006 elections to show an overlap of pathos and logos. The logos being the statistical data and the the pathos being that the data shows American voters are concerned want an economy that can balance our work life with our family lives, without having to compromise one or the other. The appeal to pathos stirs up our passion for our desire in keeping our natural family values. According to Boushey economic values clash with family values in our current type of economy. However, Boushey appeals to our emotions again by suggesting that the economy affects how families are able to deal with the problem of child-care. Boushey states that being at home with our families now, is now considered a luxury. A luxury that most families cannot afford. She states that in the new family economics, families are required to pay for care, rather than having Mom at home, to do it for free. Leaving many lower-income families to resort to a “tag-team” approach, to parenting, where one spouse watches the children while the other one works.” This is an example that our family values are being affected. Families are rarely under the same roof at the same time. Our values should not be considered a luxury. She goes on to also say that “this can save on childcare costs, but it’s hard on marriages.” In reality we’re losing the work/life battle to work. We see another example of pathos being given to us, by the statement, “For life to win, we need policies that directly challenge employers to work with their employees to provide the with usable flexibility.” Along with this statement, Boushey suggests we need a government that provides safe, reliable, affordable, and high-quality care for our loved ones while we are at work. In another pull on our emotional heartstrings, Boushey references Ozzie and Harriet. She states that they spoiled us, by giving us something nearly priceless (having a mom cook every night, cleaning everything, and raising our children), for free, and now we are left to budget for this extremely expensive care.
The article “Values begin at home, but who’s at home? (In the struggle to balance work and family, work is winning),” is a well thought out article, with few flaws, but by the end effectively explains her argument, that mothers joining the workforce has a negative impact on our family values, and secondly that the economy is largely to blame, by failing to have laws that protect these values. She clearly is biased that having family values include the mother being at home, but I believe she fails at describing what her idea of family values means, beyond that. However, she does a great job at defining how working mothers affect our family lives, our children, and our marriages. She also includes how our government is flawed by not providing laws that protect our family life. The problem is, with a citizenship and meeting the required age anyone can vote, but most people don’t care, or lack the knowledge. By informing yourself, with articles like this, I believe you can start to gain the knowledge needed to vote according to your beliefs in the family principles.
Overall, Boushey makes a good argument against the economy and how it fails Americans by not having economic policies that protect workers and their family life. She clearly uses rhetorical tools to help make her case, and, overall, she is effective as a writer. This article can relate to most Americans and I believe the choices Boushey made for rhetoric is purposeful and precise throughout her article. I would have liked to have seen more ethos added to the beginning of the article, to give the reader a better understanding for her topic. She could have done this by adding more detail about herself, to build up to how she feels the American economy does not do our families justice, and how this became important to her. Adding a background could have help Boushey and the reader understand why family values are so important to her, and why it is important to cherish these values. I believe Heather Boushey wrote an effective, informative, and persuading argument that encourages all who read it to pay more attention to our economic policies.

Krystal Tebbetts
Dr. Sarah Swofford
Writing 1310
12 October 2015
The Rhetorical Analysis of Heather Boushey’s
“Values Begin at Home, but Who’s Home? (In the Struggle to Balance Work and Family, Work is Winning)”
In Heather Boushey’s article on The American Prospect 2007 is a special report titled “Values Begin at Home, but Who’s Home?” This article reflects America’s current family values. This is an older, but effective report. Heather Boushey was formerly a Senior Economist with the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee and before that, with the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the Economic Policy Institute. She has testified before the U.S. Congress and authored numerous reports and commentaries on issues affecting working families. “Heather Boushey.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 13 July 2015. Web. 29 September 2015.” In this article Boushey argues that work has been winning the work/life battle- beginning with Mothers working outside of the home. Boushey also uses her skills as a former Senior Economist, to hone in on statistical data to prove the decline in family values, since Mother’s began working outside of the home. Heather Boushey article serves a dual purpose- or kairos. Boushey wrote this article stating her negative opinion toward today’s economy and how it affects family values. First, Boushey believes that mothers leaving the home to join the workforce has a negative effect on the well-being of our families and our family values, and secondly persuading us to measure how well our current American economy works for our families. Towards the end of the article Boushey tries to convince us, as voters to take action, by starting at home and telling our leaders that we will pay attention to work/life issues. The author starts out building her character, an appeal to ethos, by beginning the article with a summary of the U.S. 2004 Democratic Platform, which states that family is the center of American life. In the summary she states “Family is the center of everyday American life. Our Parents are our first protectors, first teachers, first role models, and first friends. Parents know that America’s great reward is the quiet but incomparable satisfaction that comes from building their families a better life. Strong families, blessed with opportunity, guided by faith, and filled with dreams are the heart of a strong America.” By referring to the 2004 Democratic Platform, Boushey is acknowledging her need for additional counsel. Later, she uses another example of ethos. In an appeal to ethos, Boushey states that "According to the Families and Work Institute in New York, two-thirds of parents say that they don’t have enough time with their children and nearly two-thirds of married workers say that they don’t have enough time with their spouse. Nearly half of all employees with families report conflicts between their job and their family lives, more so than a generation ago.” By referencing a well known, non-profit organization, Boushey shows she has a similar opinion, thus giving her the authority to write her article.
Boushey makes several appeals to logos- or an appeal to logic to the American people, but I have listed a few that I believe that work effectively for her article. Boushey states that while politicians emphasize traditional family values, they have neglected the issues of paid leave, or child-care, or the other policy challenges that may make it less difficult to re-establish work and family. Boushey wants us to take her comparisons and consider how in the struggle of work and family, in today’s economy, work is winning. In another appeal to logos, she uses a statistical data to show the correlation between working mother’s and the standard of living. Her data states that, “families have lost 539 hours per year to the U.S. Economy--13.5 weeks of full-time work,” meaning moms have gone to work. This does not mean that the standard of living has increased, in fact the article claims that families put in more hours at work, than their parents did, but that after calculation of inflation- the median living standards are subsequently lower." She uses the data to show us that the economy is not working for us. This data shows us that generally speaking we are working to live, rather than living to work, which is a negative example of how the economy does not work for family principalities. Again, Boushey makes another logical appeal by saying that “women now outnumber men on college campuses. And women must expect to make use of those college degrees by getting a job after graduation or they wouldn’t be taking out so many loans.” And once women get a job, their earnings play a crucial role in her family’s well-being, which usually places dual income families in the middle class bracket. Data now shows that the employment rates between single mothers and married mothers are fairly equal. However, Boushey points out in the article that typical, unwed mothers are close to the poverty line. Again, this is another example that the economy is failing our family. Boushey gives us another appeal to logos, by stating that “working is not just about the present, but about securing an economic future. She shows us the logic by giving us the data that shows that when women leave employment, even for just a couple of years, a woman’s earnings can fall by about 10 percent. This is considered a “mommy penalty” in terms of income, for taking needed time off. Mothers can not afford to take needed time off to tend to our sick children or helpless elderly without their families suffering. Dual income families are stuck between choosing quality care for their loved ones, or paying their bills. Single mothers ultimately pay the price in compromising their family values. Today's economy does not allow for a single mother to be at home to take care of her children. Even while working most single moms will never live above the poverty line, according to Boushey’s data.
There are references to our emotions- or pathos, beginning with the title Throughout “Values Begin at Home, but Who’s Home?” By Boushey choosing to use pathos she appeals to most Americans and fits very well in this article. I believe by Boushey chose her areas of pathos with intent, for the use of the readers emotions, and that she used logic to strategically place pathos. Boushey also logically knew most Americans could relate to the struggle of choosing family principalities or living comfortably. Boushey states “most workers have someone in their life who needs care, very few jobs make it easy to balance work with family needs.” Mothers and their families have little to no control over their weekly schedules. And with varying schedule fluctuations it causes families to have issues finding, and keeping, quality child care to virtually impossible.” She also chose to use the 2006 elections to show an overlap of pathos and logos. The logos being the statistical data and the the pathos being that the data shows American voters are concerned want an economy that can balance our work life with our family lives, without having to compromise one or the other. The appeal to pathos stirs up our passion for our desire in keeping our natural family values. According to Boushey economic values clash with family values in our current type of economy. However, Boushey appeals to our emotions again by suggesting that the economy affects how families are able to deal with the problem of child-care. Boushey states that being at home with our families now, is now considered a luxury. A luxury that most families cannot afford. She states that in the new family economics, families are required to pay for care, rather than having Mom at home, to do it for free. Leaving many lower-income families to resort to a “tag-team” approach, to parenting, where one spouse watches the children while the other one works.” This is an example that our family values are being affected. Families are rarely under the same roof at the same time. Our values should not be considered a luxury. She goes on to also say that “this can save on childcare costs, but it’s hard on marriages.” In reality we’re losing the work/life battle to work. We see another example of pathos being given to us, by the statement, “For life to win, we need policies that directly challenge employers to work with their employees to provide the with usable flexibility.” Along with this statement, Boushey suggests we need a government that provides safe, reliable, affordable, and high-quality care for our loved ones while we are at work. In another pull on our emotional heartstrings, Boushey references Ozzie and Harriet. She states that they spoiled us, by giving us something nearly priceless (having a mom cook every night, cleaning everything, and raising our children), for free, and now we are left to budget for this extremely expensive care.
The article “Values begin at home, but who’s at home? (In the struggle to balance work and family, work is winning),” is a well thought out article, with few flaws, but by the end effectively explains her argument, that mothers joining the workforce has a negative impact on our family values, and secondly that the economy is largely to blame, by failing to have laws that protect these values. She clearly is biased that having family values include the mother being at home, but I believe she fails at describing what her idea of family values means, beyond that. However, she does a great job at defining how working mothers affect our family lives, our children, and our marriages. She also includes how our government is flawed by not providing laws that protect our family life. The problem is, with a citizenship and meeting the required age anyone can vote, but most people don’t care, or lack the knowledge. By informing yourself, with articles like this, I believe you can start to gain the knowledge needed to vote according to your beliefs in the family principles.
Overall, Boushey makes a good argument against the economy and how it fails Americans by not having economic policies that protect workers and their family life. She clearly uses rhetorical tools to help make her case, and, overall, she is effective as a writer. This article can relate to most Americans and I believe the choices Boushey made for rhetoric is purposeful and precise throughout her article. I would have liked to have seen more ethos added to the beginning of the article, to give the reader a better understanding for her topic. She could have done this by adding more detail about herself, to build up to how she feels the American economy does not do our families justice, and how this became important to her. Adding a background could have help Boushey and the reader understand why family values are so important to her, and why it is important to cherish these values. I believe Heather Boushey wrote an effective, informative, and persuading argument that encourages all who read it to pay more attention to our economic policies.

Krystal Tebbetts
Dr. Sarah Swofford
Writing 1310
12 October 2015
The Rhetorical Analysis of Heather Boushey’s
“Values Begin at Home, but Who’s Home? (In the Struggle to Balance Work and Family, Work is Winning)”
In Heather Boushey’s article on The American Prospect 2007 is a special report titled “Values Begin at Home, but Who’s Home?” This article reflects America’s current family values. This is an older, but effective report. Heather Boushey was formerly a Senior Economist with the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee and before that, with the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the Economic Policy Institute. She has testified before the U.S. Congress and authored numerous reports and commentaries on issues affecting working families. “Heather Boushey.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 13 July 2015. Web. 29 September 2015.” In this article Boushey argues that work has been winning the work/life battle- beginning with Mothers working outside of the home. Boushey also uses her skills as a former Senior Economist, to hone in on statistical data to prove the decline in family values, since Mother’s began working outside of the home. Heather Boushey article serves a dual purpose- or kairos. Boushey wrote this article stating her negative opinion toward today’s economy and how it affects family values. First, Boushey believes that mothers leaving the home to join the workforce has a negative effect on the well-being of our families and our family values, and secondly persuading us to measure how well our current American economy works for our families. Towards the end of the article Boushey tries to convince us, as voters to take action, by starting at home and telling our leaders that we will pay attention to work/life issues. The author starts out building her character, an appeal to ethos, by beginning the article with a summary of the U.S. 2004 Democratic Platform, which states that family is the center of American life. In the summary she states “Family is the center of everyday American life. Our Parents are our first protectors, first teachers, first role models, and first friends. Parents know that America’s great reward is the quiet but incomparable satisfaction that comes from building their families a better life. Strong families, blessed with opportunity, guided by faith, and filled with dreams are the heart of a strong America.” By referring to the 2004 Democratic Platform, Boushey is acknowledging her need for additional counsel. Later, she uses another example of ethos. In an appeal to ethos, Boushey states that "According to the Families and Work Institute in New York, two-thirds of parents say that they don’t have enough time with their children and nearly two-thirds of married workers say that they don’t have enough time with their spouse. Nearly half of all employees with families report conflicts between their job and their family lives, more so than a generation ago.” By referencing a well known, non-profit organization, Boushey shows she has a similar opinion, thus giving her the authority to write her article.
Boushey makes several appeals to logos- or an appeal to logic to the American people, but I have listed a few that I believe that work effectively for her article. Boushey states that while politicians emphasize traditional family values, they have neglected the issues of paid leave, or child-care, or the other policy challenges that may make it less difficult to re-establish work and family. Boushey wants us to take her comparisons and consider how in the struggle of work and family, in today’s economy, work is winning. In another appeal to logos, she uses a statistical data to show the correlation between working mother’s and the standard of living. Her data states that, “families have lost 539 hours per year to the U.S. Economy--13.5 weeks of full-time work,” meaning moms have gone to work. This does not mean that the standard of living has increased, in fact the article claims that families put in more hours at work, than their parents did, but that after calculation of inflation- the median living standards are subsequently lower." She uses the data to show us that the economy is not working for us. This data shows us that generally speaking we are working to live, rather than living to work, which is a negative example of how the economy does not work for family principalities. Again, Boushey makes another logical appeal by saying that “women now outnumber men on college campuses. And women must expect to make use of those college degrees by getting a job after graduation or they wouldn’t be taking out so many loans.” And once women get a job, their earnings play a crucial role in her family’s well-being, which usually places dual income families in the middle class bracket. Data now shows that the employment rates between single mothers and married mothers are fairly equal. However, Boushey points out in the article that typical, unwed mothers are close to the poverty line. Again, this is another example that the economy is failing our family. Boushey gives us another appeal to logos, by stating that “working is not just about the present, but about securing an economic future. She shows us the logic by giving us the data that shows that when women leave employment, even for just a couple of years, a woman’s earnings can fall by about 10 percent. This is considered a “mommy penalty” in terms of income, for taking needed time off. Mothers can not afford to take needed time off to tend to our sick children or helpless elderly without their families suffering. Dual income families are stuck between choosing quality care for their loved ones, or paying their bills. Single mothers ultimately pay the price in compromising their family values. Today's economy does not allow for a single mother to be at home to take care of her children. Even while working most single moms will never live above the poverty line, according to Boushey’s data.
There are references to our emotions- or pathos, beginning with the title Throughout “Values Begin at Home, but Who’s Home?” By Boushey choosing to use pathos she appeals to most Americans and fits very well in this article. I believe by Boushey chose her areas of pathos with intent, for the use of the readers emotions, and that she used logic to strategically place pathos. Boushey also logically knew most Americans could relate to the struggle of choosing family principalities or living comfortably. Boushey states “most workers have someone in their life who needs care, very few jobs make it easy to balance work with family needs.” Mothers and their families have little to no control over their weekly schedules. And with varying schedule fluctuations it causes families to have issues finding, and keeping, quality child care to virtually impossible.” She also chose to use the 2006 elections to show an overlap of pathos and logos. The logos being the statistical data and the the pathos being that the data shows American voters are concerned want an economy that can balance our work life with our family lives, without having to compromise one or the other. The appeal to pathos stirs up our passion for our desire in keeping our natural family values. According to Boushey economic values clash with family values in our current type of economy. However, Boushey appeals to our emotions again by suggesting that the economy affects how families are able to deal with the problem of child-care. Boushey states that being at home with our families now, is now considered a luxury. A luxury that most families cannot afford. She states that in the new family economics, families are required to pay for care, rather than having Mom at home, to do it for free. Leaving many lower-income families to resort to a “tag-team” approach, to parenting, where one spouse watches the children while the other one works.” This is an example that our family values are being affected. Families are rarely under the same roof at the same time. Our values should not be considered a luxury. She goes on to also say that “this can save on childcare costs, but it’s hard on marriages.” In reality we’re losing the work/life battle to work. We see another example of pathos being given to us, by the statement, “For life to win, we need policies that directly challenge employers to work with their employees to provide the with usable flexibility.” Along with this statement, Boushey suggests we need a government that provides safe, reliable, affordable, and high-quality care for our loved ones while we are at work. In another pull on our emotional heartstrings, Boushey references Ozzie and Harriet. She states that they spoiled us, by giving us something nearly priceless (having a mom cook every night, cleaning everything, and raising our children), for free, and now we are left to budget for this extremely expensive care.
The article “Values begin at home, but who’s at home? (In the struggle to balance work and family, work is winning),” is a well thought out article, with few flaws, but by the end effectively explains her argument, that mothers joining the workforce has a negative impact on our family values, and secondly that the economy is largely to blame, by failing to have laws that protect these values. She clearly is biased that having family values include the mother being at home, but I believe she fails at describing what her idea of family values means, beyond that. However, she does a great job at defining how working mothers affect our family lives, our children, and our marriages. She also includes how our government is flawed by not providing laws that protect our family life. The problem is, with a citizenship and meeting the required age anyone can vote, but most people don’t care, or lack the knowledge. By informing yourself, with articles like this, I believe you can start to gain the knowledge needed to vote according to your beliefs in the family principles.
Overall, Boushey makes a good argument against the economy and how it fails Americans by not having economic policies that protect workers and their family life. She clearly uses rhetorical tools to help make her case, and, overall, she is effective as a writer. This article can relate to most Americans and I believe the choices Boushey made for rhetoric is purposeful and precise throughout her article. I would have liked to have seen more ethos added to the beginning of the article, to give the reader a better understanding for her topic. She could have done this by adding more detail about herself, to build up to how she feels the American economy does not do our families justice, and how this became important to her. Adding a background could have help Boushey and the reader understand why family values are so important to her, and why it is important to cherish these values. I believe Heather Boushey wrote an effective, informative, and persuading argument that encourages all who read it to pay more attention to our economic policies.

Krystal Tebbetts
Dr. Sarah Swofford
Writing 1310
12 October 2015

The Rhetorical Analysis of Heather Boushey’s
“Values Begin at Home, but Who’s Home?"
(In the Struggle to Balance Work and Family, Work is Winning)

In Heather Boushey’s article on The American Prospect 2007 is a special report titled “Values Begin at Home, but Who’s Home?” This article reflects America’s current family values. This is an older, but effective report. Heather Boushey was formerly a Senior Economist with the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee and before that, with the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the Economic Policy Institute. She has testified before the U.S. Congress and authored numerous reports and commentaries on issues affecting working families. “Heather Boushey.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 13 July 2015. Web. 29 September 2015.” In this article Boushey argues that work has been winning the work/life battle- beginning with Mothers working outside of the home. Boushey also uses her skills as a former Senior Economist, to hone in on statistical data to prove the decline in family values, since Mother’s began working outside of the home. Heather Boushey article serves a dual purpose- or kairos. Boushey wrote this article stating her negative opinion toward today’s economy and how it affects family values. First, Boushey believes that mothers leaving the home to join the workforce has a negative effect on the well-being of our families and our family values, and secondly persuading us to measure how well our current American economy works for our families. Towards the end of the article Boushey tries to convince us, as voters to take action, by starting at home and telling our leaders that we will pay attention to work/life issues. The author starts out building her character, an appeal to ethos, by beginning the article with a summary of the U.S. 2004 Democratic Platform, which states that family is the center of American life. In the summary she states “Family is the center of everyday American life. Our Parents are our first protectors, first teachers, first role models, and first friends. Parents know that America’s great reward is the quiet but incomparable satisfaction that comes from building their families a better life. Strong families, blessed with opportunity, guided by faith, and filled with dreams are the heart of a strong America.” By referring to the 2004 Democratic Platform, Boushey is acknowledging her need for additional counsel. Later, she uses another example of ethos. In an appeal to ethos, Boushey states that "According to the Families and Work Institute in New York, two-thirds of parents say that they don’t have enough time with their children and nearly two-thirds of married workers say that they don’t have enough time with their spouse. Nearly half of all employees with families report conflicts between their job and their family lives, more so than a generation ago.” By referencing a well known, non-profit organization, Boushey shows she has a similar opinion, thus giving her the authority to write her article.
Boushey makes several appeals to logos- or an appeal to logic to the American people, but I have listed a few that I believe that work effectively for her article. Boushey states that while politicians emphasize traditional family values, they have neglected the issues of paid leave, or child-care, or the other policy challenges that may make it less difficult to re-establish work and family. Boushey wants us to take her comparisons and consider how in the struggle of work and family, in today’s economy, work is winning. In another appeal to logos, she uses a statistical data to show the correlation between working mother’s and the standard of living. Her data states that, “families have lost 539 hours per year to the U.S. Economy--13.5 weeks of full-time work,” meaning moms have gone to work. This does not mean that the standard of living has increased, in fact the article claims that families put in more hours at work, than their parents did, but that after calculation of inflation- the median living standards are subsequently lower." She uses the data to show us that the economy is not working for us. This data shows us that generally speaking we are working to live, rather than living to work, which is a negative example of how the economy does not work for family principalities. Again, Boushey makes another logical appeal by saying that “women now outnumber men on college campuses. And women must expect to make use of those college degrees by getting a job after graduation or they wouldn’t be taking out so many loans.” And once women get a job, their earnings play a crucial role in her family’s well-being, which usually places dual income families in the middle class bracket. Data now shows that the employment rates between single mothers and married mothers are fairly equal. However, Boushey points out in the article that typical, unwed mothers are close to the poverty line. Again, this is another example that the economy is failing our family. Boushey gives us another appeal to logos, by stating that “working is not just about the present, but about securing an economic future. She shows us the logic by giving us the data that shows that when women leave employment, even for just a couple of years, a woman’s earnings can fall by about 10 percent. This is considered a “mommy penalty” in terms of income, for taking needed time off. Mothers can not afford to take needed time off to tend to our sick children or helpless elderly without their families suffering. Dual income families are stuck between choosing quality care for their loved ones, or paying their bills. Single mothers ultimately pay the price in compromising their family values. Today's economy does not allow for a single mother to be at home to take care of her children. Even while working most single moms will never live above the poverty line, according to Boushey’s data.
There are references to our emotions- or pathos, beginning with the title Throughout “Values Begin at Home, but Who’s Home?” By Boushey choosing to use pathos she appeals to most Americans and fits very well in this article. I believe by Boushey chose her areas of pathos with intent, for the use of the readers emotions, and that she used logic to strategically place pathos. Boushey also logically knew most Americans could relate to the struggle of choosing family principalities or living comfortably. Boushey states “most workers have someone in their life who needs care, very few jobs make it easy to balance work with family needs.” Mothers and their families have little to no control over their weekly schedules. And with varying schedule fluctuations it causes families to have issues finding, and keeping, quality child care to virtually impossible.” She also chose to use the 2006 elections to show an overlap of pathos and logos. The logos being the statistical data and the the pathos being that the data shows American voters are concerned want an economy that can balance our work life with our family lives, without having to compromise one or the other. The appeal to pathos stirs up our passion for our desire in keeping our natural family values. According to Boushey economic values clash with family values in our current type of economy. However, Boushey appeals to our emotions again by suggesting that the economy affects how families are able to deal with the problem of child-care. Boushey states that being at home with our families now, is now considered a luxury. A luxury that most families cannot afford. She states that in the new family economics, families are required to pay for care, rather than having Mom at home, to do it for free. Leaving many lower-income families to resort to a “tag-team” approach, to parenting, where one spouse watches the children while the other one works.” This is an example that our family values are being affected. Families are rarely under the same roof at the same time. Our values should not be considered a luxury. She goes on to also say that “this can save on childcare costs, but it’s hard on marriages.” In reality we’re losing the work/life battle to work. We see another example of pathos being given to us, by the statement, “For life to win, we need policies that directly challenge employers to work with their employees to provide the with usable flexibility.” Along with this statement, Boushey suggests we need a government that provides safe, reliable, affordable, and high-quality care for our loved ones while we are at work. In another pull on our emotional heartstrings, Boushey references Ozzie and Harriet. She states that they spoiled us, by giving us something nearly priceless (having a mom cook every night, cleaning everything, and raising our children), for free, and now we are left to budget for this extremely expensive care.
The article “Values begin at home, but who’s at home? (In the struggle to balance work and family, work is winning),” is a well thought out article, with few flaws, but by the end effectively explains her argument, that mothers joining the workforce has a negative impact on our family values, and secondly that the economy is largely to blame, by failing to have laws that protect these values. She clearly is biased that having family values include the mother being at home, but I believe she fails at describing what her idea of family values means, beyond that. However, she does a great job at defining how working mothers affect our family lives, our children, and our marriages. She also includes how our government is flawed by not providing laws that protect our family life. The problem is, with a citizenship and meeting the required age anyone can vote, but most people don’t care, or lack the knowledge. By informing yourself, with articles like this, I believe you can start to gain the knowledge needed to vote according to your beliefs in the family principles.
Overall, Boushey makes a good argument against the economy and how it fails Americans by not having economic policies that protect workers and their family life. She clearly uses rhetorical tools to help make her case, and, overall, she is effective as a writer. This article can relate to most Americans and I believe the choices Boushey made for rhetoric is purposeful and precise throughout her article. I would have liked to have seen more ethos added to the beginning of the article, to give the reader a better understanding for her topic. She could have done this by adding more detail about herself, to build up to how she feels the American economy does not do our families justice, and how this became important to her. Adding a background could have help Boushey and the reader understand why family values are so important to her, and why it is important to cherish these values. I believe Heather Boushey wrote an effective, informative, and persuading argument that encourages all who read it to pay more attention to our economic policies.

Works Cited:

“Heather Boushey.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 13 July 2015. Web. 29 September 2015.

Boushey, Heather. “Values Begin at Home, but Who’s Home?. The American Prospect, 17 February 2007. Web. 12 October 2015.