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.

A Good Job Is Hard to Find

By Jessica Valenti, AlterNet. Posted April 5, 2006.


The conservative movement's obsession with gender roles is keeping women poor.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jessica Valenti

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

President Bush is betting $500 million that poor women are better off having a man than holding a job.

American women are 40 percent more likely than men to be poor. In fact, 90 percent of welfare recipients are women. While the Bush administration pours money into ineffective marriage-promotion programs, it ignores what may be the best bet for women to lift themselves out of poverty -- "men's work."

Last month, President Bush committed $100 million a year for the next five years to a "Healthy Marriage Initiative" as part of the welfare reform bill reauthorization. This move diverts funds from programs that have proven successful -- such as education, child care and job training -- and gives money to often religious-based programs that tell women marriage is the best way out of poverty.

The Bush administration swears up and down that the programs are simply common sense. Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services touts marriage promotion as helping "couples who choose marriage for themselves gain greater access, on a voluntary basis, to services where they can develop the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage."

Sounds innocuous enough, but the goal of this initiative isn't about helping people have healthy marriages, it's about ensuring that they have "traditional" marriages. In fact, President Bush cited his Healthy Marriage Initiative in the same breath that he defined marriage as a heterosexual institution in a 2003 statement on the creation of "Marriage Protection Week."

"Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents," he said. "To encourage marriage and promote the well-being of children, I have proposed a healthy marriage initiative to help couples develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages."

But a traditional marriage isn't just one that's between a man and a woman. For this administration, it's one where women don't work.

Looking at the content of the programs reveals the administration's real motives. In 2004, one of the Bush administration's first marriage promotion programs was charged with sex discrimination. The Family Formation and Development Project in Allentown, Penn., a 12-week marriage education course for unmarried couples with children, offered employment services as part of the program -- but only to male participants. Another program, the biblically based Marriage Savers, makes the case for marriage using logic that sounds like it came from a 1950s home ec textbook: "The married man won't go to work hung over, exhausted or tardy because of fewer bachelor habits, and because he eats better and sees the doctor sooner, thanks to his wife. She is also a good adviser on career decisions, and relieves him of chores, so he can do a better job."


Digg!

Jessica Valenti is the executive editor of Feministing.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
It's Time for a REVOLUTION
Posted by: thinkverybig on Apr 5, 2006 1:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What are we all waiting for..... The TIME is NOW..... It's time for a revolution.

I'm in the process of starting a website "WeMustChange.org" I am looking for creative people to assist me in making this a reality.


Email me at david@thinkverybig.com

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

» RE: It's Time for a REVOLUTION Posted by: graham_strouse
galaxy
Posted by: joanne wine on Apr 5, 2006 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a 65 year old woman who was raised with the societal "norms" of the fifties, I was in a bad marriage. I had four children and my then husband was a wife beater, an alcoholic, and after finally divorcing him, found out he had molested two of our daughter. The prevailing paradigm of the time was that a woman "stood by her man" regardless of how he treated her. This "promoting traditional marriage" is wrong. When a woman finds herself in this situation, she needs help to change her life and most of all, the lives of her children. It was up until the 70's that the job want ads for women were at the end of want ads for men and they were for the service industry, not in the lucretive "male" industrys. Lets not go back to that.

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

» RE: galaxy Posted by: redjenny
Premise is important, but there's the larger world
Posted by: anothername on Apr 5, 2006 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, I have to question the author's premise that firefighter is a flexible job. "Chief, I can't go out on the call because I have to pick up my son, who's running a fever, from school." I also question the flexibility of construction workers.

The issue covered by this article is important, but it is far more important when taken in context. For example:

1) Women are coming under attack in all areas of life: economics, healthcare, and politics. This article identifies just one small guerilla attack.

2) Non-traditional jobs pay well because of unions that have achieved good pay for everyone and standards by which to identify who will be paid what. While there was resistance among union members when women first started moving in on the jobs, unions have helped provide training programs for women.

3) Union construction jobs are disappearing. In some places, foreigners are brought in as a large group to work on projects while union workers look on from outside the fence. This means fewer jobs for women, as well as for men.

4) The problem of low-paying pink collar and service jobs is becoming more pressing for the nation as a whole. However, as long as the jobs are perceived as women's and teenager's secondary work, they will continue to be low paying. (I can't believe I still am using this argument, but I still believe it to be true.) As more seniors supplement income with similar jobs, pay could remain low.

5) Computers and past recessions have eliminated many entry- and mid-level office jobs and fewer jobs with more applicants keep wages lower. Plus, the requirement for computer experience helps to prevent many people from finding entry-level jobs that could lead to better jobs.

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

It's an economic struggle, not a gender struggle
Posted by: Moonray on Apr 5, 2006 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author makes some good points, but her focus on the negative effects on women is too narrow. The Bushies are equal-opportunity oppressors. Their policies aim at exploiting and controlling workers of both genders.

The "faith-based" program's emphasis on men as workplace dray-horses is a good example. The Bushies want men to continue submitting to their role in traditional marriage -- that of paycheck-providing stooges who work themselves to death supporting a woman and a gaggle of children. To their credit, many men today are refusing to go down that road.

It's unfortunate that the author and most other female professionals are unable to approach this subject without taking the wounded-fawn approach and wallowing in the wrongs committed against women while largely ignoring the fact that men are being equally exploited, although in different ways.

But that's the era we live in -- and it's one reason the capitalist power structure continues to have both genders under its heel.

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

I believe you, but I wouldn't worry.
Posted by: medstudgeek on Apr 5, 2006 5:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women make up a very large portion of the workforce at this point, and their economic contributions are needed. Bush and Co. may be scheming to kick them out but I don't think Corporate America wants to see women vanish from the workforce. After all, that would decrease the supply of labor, and what happens when supply falls?

I don't think you are ever going to see a major influx of women into 'traditionally male' occupations: too many of them require upper body strength. If anything, it's more advantageous to train men for 'traditionally female' pink-collar jobs, which are one of the few growth areas in our lousy economy. Not that a lot of men have the social skills, but there is little choice (I suspect everybody with Asperger's is going to be on the street soon) with all this outsourcing.

One of the reasons pink-collar jobs have such poor wages is the lack of unionization...but that's another story.

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

Bush's definition also means men have to be the only ones taking all the stress and strain and that
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 5, 2006 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
being abusive and/or drunk due to sucking up to this fascist rightwing crap is somehow "normal". Like I always said, the more women get put out of work or for that matter forced into a lower paying less educated job even if they have the best education under their belts, the more damage this will cause on us guys as well and it's already spilling in ! My wife got a Master's just to close the wage gap at her work place where uneducated men and "special" women despite their lack of even a high school degree get nearly the same salary as she did. I know for a fact that life would be even more stressful in terms of trying to keep up with the rising costs of basic living if either of us weren't employed.

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

A GOOD JOB IS HARD TO FIND
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Apr 5, 2006 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've watched things unfold for a long time now. I'm 68 Yrs. old, retired for a year and a half. Divorced at 40 and I survived. Job opportunities improved in late 80's into the 90's. Discrimination has been replaced by a belief that we should 'Know our Place". I saw this happen. Trouble is, far too many women believe it. Maybe subservience is safety. I doubt it. Many of us worked hard to change things and it was working. What a disappointment. Thanks, Anna

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

A GOOD JOB IS HARD TO FIND
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Apr 5, 2006 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've watched things unfold for a long time now. I'm 68 Yrs. old, retired for a year and a half. Divorced at 40 and I survived. Job opportunities improved in late 80's into the 90's. Discrimination has been replaced by a belief that we should 'Know our Place". I saw this happen. Trouble is, far too many women believe it. Maybe subservience is safety. I doubt it. Many of us worked hard to change things and it was working. What a disappointment. Thanks, Anna

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

the feminization of welfare
Posted by: Luisa on Apr 5, 2006 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
90% of welfare recipients are women because welfare-- Temporary Assistance for Needy Families-- was designed for mothers and children. (It began as an income for widows.) The system doesn't provide a similar safety net (as bad as it is) for poor men. That's why most homeless people living on the street are men. The system is set up with the assumption that women will always be poor, and will always need help, whether from a husband or the government.

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

No wonder I am no longer a Repulican
Posted by: deeannef on Apr 5, 2006 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this and was amazed. Not only is Bush an intellectual weakling, but is also a male chauvinist pig. He really does want to bring back the good old days of the fifties. Impeach the pig!

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

Confusing. Why are tradesmen/women paid more than cashiers, anyway?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Apr 5, 2006 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Legal Momentum, a women's legal rights organization, reports that in 1996 the average weekly earnings for cashiers, waitresses and hairdressers ranged between $200 to $300, while those for women rail workers and women electricians were $700 and $800, respectively.

Here, the bottom line is that skilled tradesmen--electricians and railworkers--make more than people who ring a register? Was that so shocking?

And...?

Why would I want to devalue a skilled trade to produce an artificial equality among the payscales--be the work done by a woman or a man?

Or should a cashier who spends a week being trained to change money and find the right button a register be paid the same amount as someone who attends night classes, enters an apprentice-->journeyman-->master route, and does the (comparatively) risky business of making sure our bulk freight gets moved along steel rails and that our 220V electical wires are properly connected?

People, TRADES are usually more demanding--often in terms of work schedules, training, raw labor, etc. I'm a guy, and I worked a "pink collar" job on a cash register at KFC as a teenager. Did I expect to be paid what my Dad--a railroad communications technician--was paid? Hello? Where is the common sense? Have you all joined GWB in economic la-la land?

My suggestion: whether you are a man or woman (I don't believe in the gender-exclusionary activism of the type in the article above), if you want to earn more than you'd be able to earn punching buttons on a register...then learn to provide a service that is more highly valued, more challenging, more rigorous, or simply in higher demand.

As for the economic policies of GWB...duh; exactly 9,000,000,000,000 duhs, to be exact. Where was the expectation of sound national economic policy to begin with? That went by the way-side when congress and the president started getting along...thus began The Big Experiment In Whatever You Want, Mr. Poobah. As for national spending policies, what I wouldn't give for some fiscally responsible congressmen/women holding the purse strings and a social liberal holding the veto pen again...(sigh)...

But why the hell would anyone want to hinge their personal economic well being on ANY elected official? Have any of you been watching the news lately? Where is the logic? I'm trying to follow these arguments, but it sounds like on one hand:

"OH NO! GWB IS RE-RE-RE-DISTRIBUTING THE MONEY GOVERNMENT TOOK FROM MY COMPANY!!!

Immediately followed by:

"MY *&^% COMPANY WON'T/CAN'T PAY ME MORE!!!"

Good grief. Government--as it is being run--is the monster. GWB is only one of the many heads of the hydra. This monster feeds on this conflicted logic and these conflicted attitudes.

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

Hmmm
Posted by: Blue Heron on Apr 5, 2006 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe we should be less political about all this and as women, refuse to make any more sacrifices for a society that simply has never, and may never truly have our interests at heart. I'm all for refusing to have children myself until this sorry, unbelievably pathetic situation improves. The right wing does indeed make it tough with its stance on abortion, but women can be just as hard and extreme until we get exactly what we want. No more sweet love guys! Bye now! See you if your souls ever evolve. Highly unlikely, but you never know. Maybe we'll have a more egalitarian society 1,000 years from now?!!

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

» Good idea for everyone Posted by: Moonray
» RE: Good idea for everyone Posted by: Shehova
» RE: Good idea for everyone Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Good idea for everyone Posted by: marcinde
» RE: Good idea for everyone Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Good idea for everyone Posted by: Shehova
Separation Anxiety
Posted by: patvic1405 on Apr 8, 2006 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The thing that bothers me most about this is that MY TAXES are being used to support faith-based crap that I do not believe in and in fact abhor. What is it about separation of church and state don't these morons get? Tax the damn churches, then let them feed at the trough. One good way to fix the deficit. Churches have more money than god (to coin a phrase and stick in a little pun, too).

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