Using "Iron My Shirt" to Talk About the Issues

Much has been made of the fact that Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton has been taunted by the cry "Iron my shirt." Candidate Clinton herself pointed out that this demonstrates that "the remnants of sexism are alive and well." Chelsea Clinton wrote about how this insult brought home the depth of sexism in this country and the need for activism. Robin Morgan, feminist activist, fiercely objected to the fact that commentators responded with amusement instead of outrage.

I wonder though what would happen, if in addition to responding with anger and outrage, we also saw it as an opportunity to talk about real issues affecting all Americans regardless of gender?

What if the response had been, "you know I am much better at advancing health care policy than I am at ironing shirts. It seems to me that whether the shirt you are wearing is wrinkled or pressed, you will be a lot better off if the body wearing it doesn't have to worry about whether it can afford to see a doctor."

A jeer like "Iron my shirt" is meant to reinforce sexist stereotypes. Women, according to the heckler, should be home doing domestic work, not in the public sphere running for President.

But this taunt also reflects deep and real anxiety about important issues such as: Who is going to take care of the children? Who is going to take care of the homes we live in? Who will be there waiting for us when we come home from school or work?

The truth is that most of the work of child-care and cleaning continues to be done by women, and they do it for free. Increasingly, in this economy they do it in addition to the hours they put in for paid work because their families cannot afford to have either parent stay at home. For many women, paid work outside the home is not a choice -- it is an absolute necessity. For the poorest women, a centerpiece of welfare reform was the mandate that they work outside the home -- whether or not they had the means to ensure safe and loving care for their children. Even women with greater wealth who might be able to afford to stay home, are not necessarily making a "choice" to stay home, since our work place policies and our tax structure virtually always makes it the logical choice for the lower wage worker -- the wife -- to be the one to stay home.

Some economists have estimated that if we had to pay for all of the unpaid labor that women do, caring for children and the aged, cleaning clothes and houses, chauffeuring kids from place to place, shopping and cooking, and preparing children for the world around them -- our country would go bankrupt.

So what do we do about this? How do we address the fact that people, men and women alike should be able to fulfill their aspirations regarding education and work, should have opportunities to learn and contribute outside the home, should be able to develop their talents and dreams -- and at the same time address the fact that children need to be cared for, homes need to be maintained, and someone needs to iron the shirts, or at least do the laundry every now and then? And, how do we take on this issue knowing that for some people, staying at home full-time to raise a family is in fact what would fulfill their greatest aspirations?

We don't have all of the answers, but we have some. We know that providing universal health care coverage would ensure that those moms who do stay at home are not left without a way to pay for their health care. We know that the U.S. is virtually alone in the industrial world in its refusal to provide any paid parental leave -- and that such support, taken for granted elsewhere in the world, would undoubtedly ease some of the burdens on working families. And we know that a failing U.S. economy will only further limit the options individuals and families have.