Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Motherhood Discrimination

By Joan Blades and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, The Nation. Posted May 31, 2006.


If motherhood is the most important job on the planet, why is discrimination against mothers so deeply rooted -- and so widely accepted?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In the deep quiet of a still-dark morning, Renee reaches her arm out from under her thick flowered comforter and across the bed to hit the snooze button on her alarm clock. For a few blessed (and pre-planned) minutes she avoids the wakeful classic rock blaring into her bedroom from her alarm. Renee hits the snooze button exactly three times before finally casting off her covers. She does this each morning, and each morning she sleepily thinks the same thing: "It's too early. I was just at work two seconds ago, and I don't want to go back already."

Everything about Renee's morning is structured for speed and efficiency. At 5:45, with her young son, Wade, and husband, Alan, still sleeping, Renee drags herself out of bed and sleepwalks to the shower. She brushes her teeth while the shower is warming, making sweeping circles on the mirror with her hand so she can see her reflection. Renee's movements, though she's thoroughly tired, are crisp, hurried and automatic--she's repeated the routine daily for several years.

Renee knows exactly how long each of her morning tasks will take, to the minute. That, for instance, between 6 and 6:12 she needs to put on her makeup, get herself dressed, get her son's clothes out and ready for the day, and get downstairs to the kitchen to start breakfast.

All this is done with an eye on the clock and a subtle, yet constant, worry about time. Her mind loops over the potential delays that could be ahead: "Is there going to be traffic? Am I going to get stuck behind a school bus? Is my son going to act normal when I drop him off or is he going to be stuck to my leg? Am I going to get a parking space in the office garage or am I going to have to run five blocks through the city to get to work on time?" And if there isn't any garage parking, which happens often, then in order to be on time for work Renee has to run up six flights of stairs in heels because she doesn't have extra time to waste waiting for an elevator. She's done this climb more than once.

Why the stress? At her work, if Renee is late more than six times, she's in danger of losing her job. Like many American mothers, Renee needs her income to help provide for her family. In our modern economy, where more often than not two wage earners are needed to support a family, American women now make up 46 percent of the entire paid labor force. In fact, a study released last June found that in order to maintain income levels, parents have to work more hours--two-parent families are spending 16 percent more time at work, or 500 more hours a year, than in 1979. Despite all the media chatter about the so-called Opt-Out Revolution--and all the hand-wringing about whether working moms are good for kids--women, and mothers, are in the workplace to stay. Yet public policy and workplace structures have yet to catch up.

Why not step back and reflect about how we as a country can really help mothers like Renee? For example, the option of flextime would make a world of difference for Renee and her family. "Flextime would make a huge difference in my life because with my job function, there are busy days and late days. As long as I'm there forty hours a week and get my job done, then I don't know why anyone would care. I don't understand why there's such an 8 am to 5 pm 'law' in my workplace."

Seemingly mundane challenges like getting out the door in time for work and the morning commute, Renee tells us, become overwhelming when coupled with the financial anxieties that face so many families in America. Renee and Alan would like to have a second child, but they worry that they simply can't afford one right now. "By no means do we live, or want to live, extravagantly: We just want two cars, two kids and a vacation here and there," says Renee.

She and millions of other parents across the country are seriously struggling to meet the demands of work and parenthood. Vast numbers of women are chronically tired and drained. But the American credo teaches us to be fierce individualists, with the result that most parents toil in isolation and can't envision, or don't expect, help. It's time to recognize that our common problems can be addressed only by working together to bring about broad and meaningful change in our families, communities, workplaces and nation. It's often said that motherhood is perhaps the most important, and most difficult, job on the planet. This cliché hits fairly close to the mark. While we raise our children out of an innate sense of love and nurturing, we also know that raising happy, healthy children who become productive adults is critical to our future well-being as a nation.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
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:
Who said hindsight is always 20-20? Maybe I need some new glasses.
Posted by: Sojourner on May 31, 2006 1:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this article in The Nation because it was promoted as part of a campaign for a Motherhood Manifesto. And I was unhappy that fathers are excluded.

Now I am unhappy because the history of how we got where we are has somehow gotten stuffed down the Memory Hole. That women now must work was not the case when I was a child nor when I was rearing my children. It was an option. Work was something women might do to get ahead, to put some frosting on the cake.

Then I learned from the women’s movement in the 60s that encouraging women to work was going to humanize the workplace. And besides, it was only fair to treat women as equals and offer equal opportunity.

Instead we find ourselves today with a large population of single parent families or those where both parents, as this article describes, must work just to make ends meet. The article tells us that can be fixed by subsidizing the current pattern by some additional benefits to parents. LOL.

One can argue that our economic system is capable of co-opting every attempt to improve the lot of those without power. Also one might argue that single parent families and two income families are, by and large, a bad idea. Neither of those, however, is considered in this article.

Further, it could be that those of us who supported women’s liberation were fools. And a fool and his/her spouse are soon parted?

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

» hear hear! Posted by: sln70
» Yes, yes, and yes again. Posted by: Sojourner
» Exactly!!! Posted by: Loopylafae
» Reality? Posted by: Wish
You can't do everything...
Posted by: Louisa on May 31, 2006 2:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a very independent woman. I am extremely thankful that the fight for women's liberation was significantly over before I came on the scene - there's more to do, but a lot has been done already. I am not a breeder type and that fact suits me very well.

But from an economic standpoint only a crazy person would ignore the fact that women entering the workforce in large numbers was going to cause job security, wages, and satisfaction to plummet. Whereas there had maybe been a couple of people for each good job out there, with women in the workforce there now was four good people competing for the same job. The numbers may be off, but you get the idea.

But despite what you hear, men tend not to stay at home and rear the kids instead of their now fully employed wives. Sure, there are some examples of it - I know of one such couple myself. But it's simply not the most common thing men do.

So let's face it, one day men woke up and discovered the kind of women their father's married were in very short supply. Some men want that back - so do some women.

But the Genie is out of the bottle and I doubt it's going to be easy to stuff it back in again. Couple that with outsourcing and I think there is a really big "Oops!" factor in the fallout from Feminism. As a culture we have economically hamstrung ourselves.

Women wanted a choice. What they got was 9-5 and single parenting.

Now re-read my first paragraph and connect some dots. The smart money is on not breeding.

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

» RE: You can't do everything... Posted by: mokidugway
» RE: Of course the child-free have to pop in Posted by: the_space_cowgirl
» RE: You can't do everything... Posted by: mokidugway
» No, no, no. Posted by: mokidugway
» RE: No, no, no. Posted by: mazel
» RE: No, no, no. Posted by: mokidugway
» RE: No, no, no. Posted by: mazel
Race Gender Divide And Rule
Posted by: cry0fan on May 31, 2006 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
everyone is discriminating against Mothers??!! Looks like a conspiracy theory to me!

Hey, we gotta talk about this sort of Divisive Issue instead of issues that would unite the working class Americans, otherwise the rich folks that fund Alternet would lose money through progressive taxation. Have a heart!

Sing it with me please!

Race Gender Divide And Rule
Race Gender Divide And Rule
Race Gender Divide And Rule
Race Gender Divide And Rule
Race Gender Divide And Rule
Race Gender Divide And Rule
...

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

» I don't buy your theory Posted by: sln70
» RE: ace Gender Divide And Rule Posted by: scryberwitch
Fix schools and we'll fix the problem
Posted by: sln70 on May 31, 2006 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since becoming a mother myself 12 years ago (and having spent seven years of that as a single, working parent) I can tell you firsthand that one of the fundamental problems is this:

from agrarian roots, through nuclear families where only the father was employed, until today the educational system has failed to change - except to reduce services.

The reality today is that jobs demand 8 to four or 9 to five hours (and of course, much shift work for many). The schools we send our children to are vital to their development - and so is our personal work. It follows, in my opinion, that schools, should adapt to include longer hours (say 8 to 6) with health-care providers on staff, lunches and possibly dinners provided (even at a cost to the parents) and before and after school supervision that goes beyond one adult patrolling an entire school yard in the dead of winter.

It would be my dream to make much much larger schools, thereby reducing the number of administrators (and saving money.) This new pool of funds could go to busing and healcare, lunches and upgraded facilities/after school options.

If this were the case, I, as a mother, would have been far better able to excel at work.

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

So Now What?
Posted by: ChristopherLL on May 31, 2006 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article approaches Motherhood as a socioeconomic entity and uses the now fatiguing political rhetoric as "powerful system", "support families", "quality of life", "inheret a world" and "thrive as adults and parents." My belief has always been that raising a healthy human being is the most important responsibility in life; period. And social, economic and political issues are subordinate to the knowledge of how children develop, what they need and providing them with hands on interactions on a daily basis. The first ten years of life will determine in large part the type of adult that child will be. What I have seen in the last thirty years is a paucity of knowledge about childhood and adolescence along with a subsequent abandonment to have children raised by the media and strangers. The results are a growing population that is confused about their identities and purpose in life. The womens liberation effort was aimed at achieving more power, nothing more. Any social or economic considerations were secondary. What they ignored completely was their own natures as women, sexuality, maternal needs, need for male companionship, and more. I see no change in society that has reflected the more feminine qualities of compassion, forgiveness and understanding. It has become more power oriented, competitive, punitive and superficial. Men and women have become adversaries rather than partners with common bonds, goal and values. Women have become more vain (bodies, faces, hair, breasts) and men more macho (sports, war, corporations). So now what?

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

» RE: Was Erzbet Bathory compassionate? Posted by: ChristopherLL
» Oh dear...duality Posted by: Kelly
» RE: Oh dear...duality Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Oedipus? You must be kidding... Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: So Now What? Posted by: fork
» RE: So Now What? Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: So Now What? Posted by: fork
Motherhood on a pedastal
Posted by: Artkansas on May 31, 2006 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What faster way could there be to drive everyone on the planet into poverty than motherhood!

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

» shareholders maybe? Posted by: sln70
» Greed is a constant. Posted by: Artkansas
» well then please... Posted by: sln70
» do you like people on your planet? Posted by: iloveyougalleries
Nothing new....
Posted by: xenacat on May 31, 2006 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of what is said in this article has been said several times before and is essentially the progressive take on the conservative "ideal" family unit. What is needed is a fresh look at why we as a culture push our members to reproduce without adequate supports in place. Dad at a well paying 40 hour office job and Mom happily tending home and hearth was, is and always has been a myth for the majority of people in the world. Feminism is usually made the whipping boy for economic discomfort - again, this is a conservative viewpoint. So why as progressives, do we continue to buy into this crap about motherhood? Quite simply, the family structure as it currently exists needs re-thinking. The class structure of the U.S that favors marginalization of whole groups of people needs to be overhauled. It would be good to focus on a radical new view of human worth and impliementing positive changes as opposed to whining about the difficulties of the system as is.

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

Yes, queer folks breed with each other...
Posted by: rockharper on May 31, 2006 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lots of queer folk are reproducing - with each other. With the current political and legal climate, it's the easiest and safest way for a lot of us to have children.

I'm a queer butch who had two kids with a queer queen.

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

Call me unsympathetic...
Posted by: NYRugby on May 31, 2006 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but as a member of "The Childless", I'm not particularly interested in the plight of tired out mothers over other men and women in the workforce.

The way I see it, having children is a CHOICE (and a major one at that...), if you can't hack it financially or temporally, then don't have a child. Simple...easy...wash your hands and move on. Maybe if we had a demographic crisis in this country, the powers that be may take notice and work to change the situation to make bearing children more favourable. But as it stands, what incentive do they have to change?

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

» Ummm...well Posted by: Kelly
Special Priviledges
Posted by: saramarie on May 31, 2006 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is, you are NOT being discriminated against. What you want is special breeder priviledges.

Everybody has challenges in life, but for the most part, we're all expected to still be on time, etc. If that applies to women with children, too, so be it. She should hit snooze less and get the family to help out more. That, or she could stay home. I feel bad for the poor families that I know, the single moms that have to work (usually at min. wage jobs that never offer the kind of benefits mentioned in this article and never will, probably even if it were made the law!), but I also used to know a lot of families who were well enough off to be single-income and really take care of the kids, but instead, they needed the bigger, fancier house, the more expensive car, the further-flung vacation (always without the kids)... well, y'know. Everything they really didn't need. I'm sorry, but we need more responsibility, not more whining!

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

» RE: Special Priviledges Posted by: scryberwitch
» RE: Special Priviledges Posted by: AmyB
» RE: Special Priviledges Posted by: BlueStateBitch
» RE: Special Priviledges Posted by: AmyB
» RE: Special Priviledges Posted by: cfandlovingit
misogyny in the comments
Posted by: iloveyougalleries on May 31, 2006 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so far, you're saying only rich people should have children. that women should take it upon themselves to look after children, and be penalized for it. women without children are critiquing women who choose to have children. that feminism is responsible for single-parent families headed by women.

this is a liberal website??

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

» I will refrain. :) Posted by: sln70
» RE: I will refrain. :) Posted by: Kym525
» RE: misogyny in the comments Posted by: iloveyougalleries
» RE: misogyny in the comments Posted by: NYRugby
» Lies... Posted by: Kelly
» RE: Lies... Posted by: NYRugby
» RE: misogyny in the comments Posted by: iloveyougalleries
» RE: misogyny in the comments Posted by: NYRugby
Really all about healthcare.
Posted by: artboy on May 31, 2006 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Full disclosure: I have an 8mo old daughter. I'm part owner of a very small company. I'm a liberal independent. I work 60+ hours a week and my wife works as many at home taking care of our daughter while I'm not there.

It would appear that this article is one big argument for at least partial socialization of our healthcare system, which is probably not a bad idea. Rather than blaming big bad businesses and their greedy execs for these policies, rather blame our version of capitalism which places ultimate value on your net worth in dollars.

While I can't see how it's legal to ask a woman or a man if he or she's married during an interview (I know I've been warned by our legal team that we can't ask, not that we would) I can certainly understand the rationale. When hiring, we know what we can afford to pay for an employee. After taking into consideration the physical plant costs, the taxes, accounting, and other benefits, the actual cost of an employee balloons quickly, especially if we offer good healthcare (we do).

If you legislate or otherwise force corporations to pay out of pocket for additional paid leave (either paternal or maternal), provide family healthcare, and/or subsidize childcare, then you're going to depress take home wages for the employees being hired. While I agree that for 1% of the private employers out there this isn't an issue, but for the 99% of the rest of us with less than 50 folks on our payrolls, it just can't happen.

So we need an overhaul of the healthcare system. Without the added cost of subsidizing litigation, red tape, and health plan administration, we might have a fighting chance to provide the rest of the letters in M O T H E R.

I know if that were the case we could easily hire the 1-2 more people for whom we have work, I could spend more time at home with my family, and we could all have a higher quality of life which to me, anyway, is really what's important.

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

» RE: eally all about healthcare. Posted by: Loopylafae
You all sound like big business zombies
Posted by: WitchyNy on May 31, 2006 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If only the rich have kids...when those kids grow up...how do you think they will vote?

The rich want to bring back slavery...and you fools are helping them along.

Is this the meaning of life? To be a good and willing worker...slave?

No children, no families, no family land or homes handed down through the generations? Just big cities full of apartments full of company workers?
Ick.

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

» RE: You all sound like big business zombies Posted by: iloveyougalleries
Why is Alan still sleeping?
Posted by: fork on May 31, 2006 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Renee is contributing to her own circumstances by reinforcing the view that childcare is the sole responsibility of women. Kick Alan's ass outta that bed, Renee.

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

» RE: Why is Alan still sleeping? Posted by: BlueStateBitch
» RE: Why is Alan still sleeping? Posted by: BlueTigress
that would be an ugly world
Posted by: iloveyougalleries on May 31, 2006 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't want to live in a world without children. We have been talking about how much work it takes to raise a child, but you can't put a monetary value on their gifts to society. If parents are paying attention, they become better people so that their kids have good role models. The culture benefits. I could go on and on ...

A shorter work week for everyone would allow EVERYONE to have better lives (or even, "get a life"). Parents could balance their work time, kid time, self time. Non-parents could do all sorts of wonderful things too. We work too much,
and in our fatigue, we end up judging each others' choices and squabbling over little pieces of the pie. Instead, we should stand together (what a huge force it will be, when we figure it out) and change things.

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

So Don't Have Kids
Posted by: dragondreams on May 31, 2006 12:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One chooses to have a baby. One of the primary questions one should be asking BEFORE having a child is "Can I afford it?". If the answer is "No", then you should not have the child.

I don't have kids. I can't afford them. If I can't afford them NOBODY will have a decent life; not me, not their dad, not the kids. Everyone will be miserable trying to eke out enough money to 'get by'. What kind of life is that to bestow on a kid?

I've watched neighbors pop out baby after baby without paying any attention to the ones they already have, so that the current children have turned into hoodlums; their young girl keeps running away from home. What a terrific life THOSE kids are having.

Having kids without having planned out how you intend to pay for them and educate them is irresponsible and just plain selfish. You're having a kid because YOU want to have the kid without thinking about how being inable to adequately care for the kid will affect *them*.

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

» you changed your story Posted by: Kelly
» RE: you changed your story Posted by: dragondreams
» Like Minerva Posted by: Kelly
» RE: So Don't Have Kids Posted by: Shakti
» RE: So Don't Have Kids Posted by: dragondreams
» RE: So Don't Have Kids Posted by: Loopylafae
Child-hating leftists
Posted by: linden on May 31, 2006 1:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most women work. Most women have kids. Want to know why the Democrats are having trouble winning elections? Because there's more to women's issues than abortion.

Women, particularly those who are married with children, are voting Republican because they think Republicans care more about families. The sooner leftists wake up and start finding new ways to talk to women about family issues, the sooner Democrats will start winning elections.

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

» RE: Child-hating leftists Posted by: BlueStateBitch
» RE: Child-hating leftists Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Republican "family values" Posted by: BlueTigress
» You're right. Posted by: janvdb
Some of these comments are disturbing...
Posted by: Shakti on May 31, 2006 3:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm really appalled at the comments (above) that seem to imply that only the rich should have children, and that mothers who are struggling to parent and work have brought this on themselves.

Firstly, having children is hard but it is also beautiful and joyful and a form of selfless service, a spiritual act. I love being a mother and believe that everyone who desires to parent and should be given the opportunity to do so. My life would be greatly diminished without my children.

Secondly, only about 45% of today's babies are the result of planned pregnancies. Neither of my two children were planned, and I would not trade them for anything ... in fact, I would gladly die to save their lives. Blaming women for carrying unplanned pregnancies to term is repugnant to me. I am not anti-choice (I am a pro-choice feminist), but I would not abort a healthy fetus at this stage of my life, no matter how poor I was. It is a spiritual thing for me.

Thirdly, I am an intelligent woman with an advanced degree and have a lot to offer society through my work. Why should I be penalized for bearing children? In fact, I have slowed down my career trajectory (after missing my elder child's toddlerhood because I was at work all the time), opting to work in a less intense (and lower paying) arena so that I can parent well.

A different kind of society could easily afford women the opportunity to be mothers and have careers (e.g., Scandinavia). Governments in other countries have successfully implemented family-friendly policies. What about 30-hour work weeks, for example? It could be done.

We are not a family-friendly nation, unfortunately, because we (collectively) have bought into the idea of social Darwinism: survival of the fittest and devil take the hindmost. This is a perversion of Darwin's theory, and doesn't actually describe what happens in nature. Animals are as likely to cooperate to survive as they are to compete.

Mothers instinctively know that cooperation and compassion are the bedrock of mothering. We could use more of both in our society. Mothers to the rescue!

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

NON-CELEBRITY MOTHERHOOD
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 31, 2006 5:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Listen to yourselves! You can't agree on anything. The only way working women can address wages, working conditions, maternity leave, discrimination of all kinds is to speak out together. One individual is a whiner. A large enough group gets their attention. Too much time is spent bickering over defining class and social strata. All this in-fighting is costing you money. Come together ladies. Nothing else works. You all deserve better. Thanks, ANNA

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

i never got pregnant
Posted by: evosap on May 31, 2006 6:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i gotta say i am sick of mothers whining. did you have to have a child? does the world need more children? i work with mothers who have the greatest excuse to take off early, spend time at work dealing with child issues while i work. get over it. you had sex, you got pregnant. i am eternally grateful to my mother, i dig my existance, but mothers haven't exactly saved the world yet. bush, cheney, laden, and every other screwed up asshole on the planet came out of a mother. use a condom.

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

» RE: i never got pregnant Posted by: Pat Kittle
The choices we want to make are being taken away...
Posted by: rothermelgirl on May 31, 2006 11:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...from us, regardless of whether we are parents or not (or want to be).

From the age of 27, following a personal crisis, I decided I wanted to reorganize my work life to be a part-time worker who could easily transfer to freelance work from home. For me, this was ideal. It excluded me from rising in the typical "hierarchy" and held my wages stagnant for a while, but it paid off. Particularly now that I have a child.

However, this post is not to crow about my groovy situation. I look at my brother and friends in their twenties and I see how part-time and contract work has morphed into crap, underpaid work (see the other lead article today). I talk to friends (moms and others, but yes, mostly moms) who would like meaningful P-T work that pays based on their actual skills set and experience, and they typically cannot find it unless they are already associated with a company that does not want to let them go.

The ability to control your work schedule to some degree, regardless of what you want to do with your life, is becoming harder and harder. Not impossible, of course, especially if you are an off-the-grid type. But what if you *really* want to be a doctor? What if you didn't luck out and don't have a college degree, and so, have limited choices in work? These two hypothetical folks could not be more socioeconomically divergent, but are both perfect examples of people who frequenty face a limited ability to create any sort of meaningful job flexibility.

Or am I just deluding myself, and do all the people on this board arguing that moms should be prepared to "handle it all" believe that 40-60 hour workweeks are the reasonable, even pleasurable, norm? Perhaps we should not be questioning the human motivation to have children here, but rather the socially imposed presumption that we must work, work, work, in the way that the system tells us to. And if we have complaints about it...well...swallow it, because *everyone else* has to endure it.

I don't know about you, but I got tired of that rationale back in grade school. A national discussion on this issue would benefit a lot more people than mothers.

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

let me tell you about my grandmother
Posted by: okcamp on Jun 1, 2006 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hell yes she worked--alongside my grandfather as caretakers for an apartment complex so they'd have a place to live. Then when he died of heart disease in his fifties she was left with 5 children to support. Guess the benefits package with their job wasn't too hot.

She worked in bakeries and cleaned rich people's houses where she wasn't even allowed to drink out of their glasses but made to use a tin cup instead. She was good enough, however, to look after their children.

BTW, my grandmother wasn't a woman of color. She was white, uneducated, and poor.

Two generations later the women in my family are college educated and self-sufficient. Some of us are mothers and we also work outside the home. The last thing that I want for my daughter is to be solely dependent upon another person for financial support.

In my opinion it's probably more important that girls and women be educated and able to support themselves because it's very likely that at some point in their lives they will need to not only take care of themselves but will likely have children to take care of as well.

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

aaaagh!
Posted by: loril on Jun 1, 2006 4:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need some persepective and civility on this because the issues are not going away and they are not going to be solved by the bile that is being spewed.

I've been on both sides of this. I worked almost15 years before my daughter was born, which gave me plenty of experience with being taken advantage of by my colleagues with children. I was always expected to stay on my job until closing, while my co-workers took off at 4:00 for kiddie soccer games. I switched shifts with people often to help them out with their family emergencies. I was expected to stay on task while my colleagues spent 30 minutes at a time talking to their kids in the afternoon (not on break time). This is why you get so much "bad attitude" from the people without kids, parents...Lots of you, intentionally or not, take advantage of these people and too few of you acknowledge it or ever say thank you.

Believe me, some of the child free people on this board sound like they would kick your toddler (and your puppy while they are at it) as well as raging at you. But not all child free people are so militant and full of venom. Many of your child free colleagues do not hate you or your kids...they just hate the way you appear to "get away with" behaviors at work they would be held accountable for.

Until we work together to devise work places that are more flexible for EVERYONE -- Parents, try to remember to THANK your colleagues when they cover for you or stay late or come in early, inconveniencing themselves to help you. Even a $5 gift certificate to the local coffee shop or a batch of cookies (or a hand written thank you note) might help to mend fences at work. Parents and chld free workers might even find that they have some things in common if they would extend the olive branches.

On the other hand, as a former child free person who used to resent parents, I have to remind the "wildly independent" childless that NOBODY on this earth is totally independent regardless of the "rugged individualist" mythology upon which our society precariously perches. You have aging parents, health problems of your own (or eventually will have). You never know when your independent days might end and you find yourself in assisted living (or worse). I know that many of you feel discriminated against because "family friendly" only applies to nuclear families of parents and children. But, we need you to join the fight to make universal health care available, to make the workplace more humane for everyone, to keep the generation that will be caring for you (like it or not) when you are elderly healthy and functional.

I worked 2 jobs for many years. I have worked in factories, food service and other jobs that are considered tiring. I have NEVER worked as hard as I have the past 18 months as a stay-at-home mom. When I was a 20 something child free career woman I would have never believed this. All I can say is that it is true. I don't know how women who cannot afford to "out source" most of the domestic arena (nannies, carry out food, paid after school activiities) manage to stay sane and on their feet. You should have our respect.

FInally, our cranky child free folks do make a point about overextension, whether we want to acknowledge this or not. I know a LOT of people who claim they need 2 incomes and complain about overwork constantly. This money goes to high end automobiles, yearly vacations/air fare, constant eating out and other things that are, frankly, not neccessities. How about used cars, cooking at home more, smaller homes, less pay activities for the kids and more time goofing off for free in the park?? (Parents who need to work for utiliities, college tuition, food etc, please disregard the above...)

And how about all those kids? This IS a valid consideration. We are stopping at 1 and you cannot imagine the third degree we get.

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

» RE: aaaagh! Posted by: Kym525
» RE: aaaagh! Posted by: loril
So much hate!
Posted by: smaestas on Jun 2, 2006 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The anti-parent anti-child hate being spewed forth is pretty sickening. I agree about personal responsibility, but there is a huge difference between some crack mom having more wards for the state and a family on a budget having many children who are clean, loved, and clothed. It is NO WONDER that more married women and married women with children vote Republican! Having children is not about economics or political policy or "affording" them, it is about having a family and a connection to the future, seeing yourself in your grandchild's eyes, creating a support system of people who have a bond nothing could EVER replicate, that is family. If you want to analyze it, children are a terrible economic investment. But no dollar amount can buy you a future, grandchildren, and people who will unconditioinally take care of you when you are old. It is because of this understanding of why people have kids and of the family network that married women with kids tend to vote Republican, not because the government is supposed to do it all for them through policy, but because this family network takes care of things many people without family think the government should do, like take care of our senior citizens and raise kids. Women's issues are about more than abortion. If you want there to be more liberals to vote out the Republicans, you ought to encourage some reproduction. The thinly veiled hate on these boards speaks volumes.

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

Oh puhleeeze....
Posted by: dangranttx on Jun 2, 2006 3:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone who has a job has to follow the rules, and this includes parents and non-parents alike. If this woman is late six times, she has to have the maturity to face the consequences of her inablity to get to work on time. A person without children would be similarly disciplined and/or fired for the same infraction. How can it be considered discrimination if everyone is subject to the same rules?

Having children is a choice, pure and simple. In this day and age of more reliable contraception, those who say, "...it just happened..." are incredibly disingenuous. If you choose to have children, fine, but you have to face the consequences of that choice. Equally, if you don't have them, there are consequences. Life is a matter of choice and consequences, and not the constant cult of victimhood that these women would have you believe.

I have two kids and I have nearly lost a job because one of them was in bad health. I learned from that mistake and did demand special perks from my employer simply because I had kids.

As for someone saying this is all 'hate" rhetoric, that is language you use when you can't win an argument on facts, logic or reason. The straw-man of "hate" does not make up for a lack of reason.

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

» RE: Oh puhleeeze.... Posted by: evosap
Those Pesky Bushes
Posted by: thebeardedlady on Jun 3, 2006 3:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No Maternity Leave
No Childcare
No Abortion...
What about no Bush all together?

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

More on Renee
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jun 3, 2006 10:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also have to ask, if Renee has a job with such a stringent tardiness policy, why does she have to take the kid to the bus? If her income is needed that badly, her lazy-ass husband should bestir himself and take the child.

Or Renee needs to permanently shelve the notion that she can do it all. Because she can't, if she has no margin for error. She needs to sit down privately with hubby and say "Look, I need you to help me." and give him a precise list.

We know nothing about these people, so speculation is useless.

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

Let's Go Apathetic On Their Ass
Posted by: thebeardedlady on Jun 4, 2006 1:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone made a great observation about who should have kids and who shouldn’t. There is absolutely no way of saying who should and who shouldn’t have kids regardless of cash. The lower class is entitled to their pursuit of happiness through the production of offspring as much as any rich person. Instead of being poor and alone or childless, why not have a whole horde of poor with you?
The generalization that the poor should remain childless is fundamentally flawed. This idea dooms the lower class to servitude and indentured life, without the prospect of spawn to carry on their name not to mention their memories, beliefs, and wisdom. If the poor simply die out, who’s to speak for them in the next generation? It is the duty of the poor to reproduce and let the horrors that make them second class be known to the snooty rich, whose children are raised by nannies and childcare providers.
Drug abusers with three kids on welfare are not who we’re talking about. Those people are in a class all by themselves. We’re talking about human beings in this country who work harder and harder for less and less. Everyone deserves the right to family- after all, that’s what life is all about. We’re not just here to make quota. Working in our jobs is not what life is. We weren’t put here to spend our lives isolated, playing hegemonic games with our peers through media.
So instead of being a slave to your employer and complaining about all the kids being produced en mass, why not free yourself from the assembly lines and cubicles and decide for yourself what life is to you? Human beings first invented tools to make their lives easier. Leisure was invented the same day as the first tool. With the billions of dollars we spend on tools, we should work five minutes a day. Where is the incentive to continue? I’d rather work sixteen hours a day growing my own food than eight hours a day for some company that doesn’t contribute to society. At least, I would have the freedom and power to make my own decisions about my life.
We’re all out there working for corporations, restaurant chains, the government, bringing home that dough to make life go for another week. Big companies are supposed to make life easier, that’s the point, that’s why they’re so successful. They function to cut down work for the average American. They produce the microwave ovens, the frozen foods, the washing machines, the orthopedic shoes we never where, the soup in a cup, the grease-cutting soap, the airplanes that fly our food in from Guatemala and our clothes in from Taiwan. If you’re slaving at the feet of the company that’s supposed to make your life easier, why bother? You’re never going to have the money and time to reproduce. Is that all that the lower class can expect from life? A bunch of apathetic adults that wouldn’t notice if their neighbor was raped and murdered until they saw it on the news?





P.S.
>>Condoms are only 86% effective against pregnancy.
>>Most pills cannot be taken by women with a family or personal history of heart conditions or stroke (let’s face it, that’s pretty much everyone).
>>Not everyone feels that abortion is the right choice for them once they’re faced with the decision themselves.
>>Having an abortion can leave a woman sterile (in other words, that one that they weren’t ready for might have been the only one).
>>All those pregnant sixteen-year-olds weren’t ready either. They most likely didn’t have access to informative sex-education much less all the contraception and other options that are available to adults.

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

» RE: Let's Go Apathetic On Their Ass Posted by: Nosila Sevarg
» RE: Let's Go Apathetic On Their Ass Posted by: cfandlovingit
» RE: Let's Go Apathetic On Their Ass Posted by: cfandlovingit
Motherhood penalty in law firms
Posted by: richards1052 on Jun 4, 2006 11:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife was recently unceremoniously fired by a local law firm where she served as Of Counsel. Though the ostensible reason given by the managing partner was that she hadn't billed enough hrs., she noted that she'd billed more hrs. & had higher receivables than several (male) partners. Needless to say, they weren't fired.

This firm paid lawyers a bonus when they exceeded the basic annual billable hr requirement. Since my wife was pregnant last yr. & took a several month maternity leave, she requested that the firm pro rate her billable hrs. to offset the months she didn't work during her maternity leave. If they'd agreed to pro rate her hrs. she would've been entitled to a $20K bonus.

Guess what position the managing partner took: he said no. His argument: just because you took maternity leave didn't mean we didn't have fixed overhead to pay to maintain your office and staff while you were away.

I wish I could've persuaded her to file an EEOC complaint. But the legal world is so tight knit that she didn't want to make a point & damage her career in the process.

But in the meantime, one of her clients at the old firm (& a major firm client at that) took such offense at her treatment that he personally introduced her to several larger firms & told them he'd send her a significant chunk of work if they hired her. The result: she's now at a bigger firm w. the potential to earn much more money. And her new firm seems to be much more friendly to women & mothers. All I can say is Thank God she's out of that place (her old firm).

Moral: there IS a mommy penalty paid by female lawyers.

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

» I don't believe you Posted by: Betty Friedan
THIS IS ALL TRUE AND REAL, FACE IT
Posted by: hannah on Jun 5, 2006 2:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the mother of grown and (by the grace of God) college-educated children, I can identify with the "Kiki" in this article so much so, that I thought I was reading my life story. I cannot begin to count the number of times I was asked those very same questions, thinking "is this legal?" Yes, folks, it's apparently perfectly legal, always has been and still is. And yes, folks, single moms have been and still are paid less than everyone else. This is the most backward nation on the planet socio-economically and the idiots who continue to vote for people like the ones who are running things now, just perpetuate the problems. I'm with Kym525 - get your heads out of your rearends. It's still the Good Old Boy world here in the US of A. And with that mentality prevailing, there's no hope for young families, especially the single parent kind and more so the ones run by a female. Its fact, always has been and continues to be.

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

HvR
Posted by: Heleena on Jun 5, 2006 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the facts of this article but wonder why Reese's husband cannot get up in the morning, help with breakfast, get his child dressed, in short shoulder his share of the burden.

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

All benefits for parents should be available to those with the brains NOT to parent, also
Posted by: janvdb on Jun 5, 2006 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or you are just encouraging irresponsible behavior on the part of those who never should have had that kid to begin with.

Whatever bennies the mothers and fathers get, those without children must also receive.

I think EVERYONE should have flextime, etc.

I've seen too many people who were obviously going to be unable to provide properly for a child -- go ahead, get pregnant, forgo the abortion and then expect the world to come to their rescue.

The government is more likely to mandate programs for parents when so much reproduction is irresponsible. So let's use that birth control and have abortions when necessary. And quit complaining about it.

Such is life when there are over 6 bn humans pushing and shoving at each other on the surface of this delicate planet.

Jan VanDenBerg

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

Single fathers face the same financial woes as working mothers except the benefit of a husband.
Posted by: Betty Friedan on Jun 11, 2006 1:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
single fathers are more intersted in being parents instead of competing with other men, maybe mothers should put their priorities in order before complaining about men who work vertime to get where they are.

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

re:
Posted by: Nosila Sevarg on Jul 27, 2006 4:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About the previous poster's claim that Asian and Hispanic families take care of their elderly mothers and fathers....That may be all very true and good for them! But I've seen nursing homes up close and I can tell you that it stinks getting old no matter who you are. And anyway, this seems like a lousey reason to have kids -- so that someone might POSSIBLY take care of you in your old age? What happens if your kids do nothing for you, as plenty do, you know...
I thank God every day I never had kids! I have more money (at least more than if I had kids), less worry and more options.

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

sd
Posted by: aser on Sep 29, 2006 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
postr
Posted by: usernames on Oct 19, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]