Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Using "Iron My Shirt" to Talk About the Issues

By Lynn M. Paltrow, AlterNet. Posted April 2, 2008.


Jeers about domestic chores are more than just sexism -- they could be opportunities to address domestic policies.
Advertisement

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.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gender, childcare, healthcare, hillary clinton

Lynn M. Paltrow is executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Halt! Grammar Police!
Posted by: mr. joshua on Apr 2, 2008 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The entire final paragraph is littered with grammatical errors involving a simple homonym. "Lets" is the third person present tense of the verb "to let," whereas "let's" (the word you actually intended) is a contraction of "let us," a first person plural construction used to convey a suggested action to a group of which the speaker is a part. To wit: "Let's see if he lets us get away with using "lets" instead of "let's.""

(Sorry: been reading a bit of Lynne Truss recently, and she brings out my inner stickler something fierce.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well Done
Posted by: Andrew_S on Apr 6, 2008 11:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ignoring the purposefully and strategic negative !!! message by the previous political poster. We should applaud the author in trying to address the issues of modern motherhood. Since 1973 women had legal equality and legally enforceable law. Yet in over 35 years of these laws being passed, females have not progressed one iota. Fundamental institutions affecting public policy are infiltrated by groups whose hands and employment are reflected by the tremendous taxpayer dollars. Influencing not only socialist style public policy and media in favor of third party sexuality not motherhood. The legal profession particularly in family law, is funded by removing the male influence from familial input, this would appear by both design and policy. It is sad that family law is surrounded by secrecy, with no reports, data or methodology other than fiscal state responsibility, which we can view through CAFR reports and federal funding. Social pendulums swing very slowly and over time, reaching it's zenith swings the other way. Real women and mothers should have all things to fear. After all current policy is by a majority to force women to take on the stereotypical role, remove the paternal male and make preferably new sexually neutral bait for a clas of individual who abhors procreation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]