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.

The Mommy Wage Gap

By Terrence McNally, AlterNet. Posted June 12, 2006.


Mothers are half as likely to be offered jobs as non-mothers -- and they get paid less for doing the same work. Joan Blades and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner are out to change that.
Advertisement

There's a lot of talk about family values in this country. Yet in most states women with children can be denied jobs or given less pay, just because they are mothers. The wage gap between mothers and non-mothers is now greater than the wage gap between women and men. In their new book, The Motherhood Manifesto: What America's Moms Want and What to Do About It (Nation Books), Moveon.org co-founder Joan Blades and consultant and author Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner ask: Isn't it about time that we actually started supporting families and mothers?

Terrence McNally Joan, briefly how did you get to this book?

Joan Blades: I only became aware of the huge bias against mothers in the workplace a couple of years ago. I went, "Wait a minute, what's that about? You mean to say mothers are half as likely to be offered a job as non-mothers -- and they get paid less for doing the same work?" All of a sudden I could see why there are so many women and children in poverty, and why there are so few women in the halls of power, be it corporate or legislative.

TM Kristin, what led you to team up with Joan on this project?

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner I'm a mom of two kids, a 9-year-old and a 7-year-old, and I've been juggling work and family for years. I've spent time as a stay-at-home mom, time doing contract work and time as a journalist. These issues are near and dear to my heart.

The book "The Motherhood Manifesto" and the organization momsrising.org came about because Joan and I saw problems shared by so many women in this country not being addressed. We both want to bring these issues into the daylight, so we can talk about them and work on solutions.

TM What are some of the most revealing or important numbers in terms of the raw deal for mothers?

KRF: One study found that women without children make 90 cents to a man's dollar, women with children make 73 cents to a man's dollar, and single mothers, who often bear the burden of supporting their families the most, make 56 to 66 cents to a man's dollar.

Dr. Shelley Correll of Cornell looked for the root of the wage gap between mothers and non-mothers. She compared women with equal resumes and equal job descriptions -- with only one difference. One bio said the woman had children and the other bio did not have that information. Between equally qualified people, women with children were 44 percent less likely to be hired and were offered $11,000 lower starting salaries.

TM Everything else about the person and the resume was the same?

KRF: Identical, absolutely identical. And this is important because right now a quarter of our families with children under 6 live in poverty. Having a baby is a leading cause of poverty in this country. Most families need two working parents in order to stay financially solvent, and wages of mothers are a very important part of the family economy.

TM In some of the personal stories, you show families where both parents work to make ends meet. They parcel out vacations and sick leave very carefully, and it hardly leaves room for the miracle of birth.

JB: Of 168 countries in a global study, 163 have paid maternity leave. The U.S. is one of only five countries that does not. The only other industrialized country that doesn't is Australia, but they have universal health care, a year off unpaid, and some kind of subsidy for kids.

In the book we write about Salina. Pooling all her potential days off, she and her husband figured out that she could take one month off. Now only a month off with a newborn is bad enough, but then she went into labor early and the baby had to be in the hospital for the first couple of weeks. She was not about to spend her month off with the baby in the hospital, so she went back to work days after giving birth.

She took her month off when the baby came home, which was wonderful. But then what does she do? Well she was lucky -- her employer was highly sympathetic. She took her baby to work with her and learned how to breastfeed while working.

TM So she took a one-month-old to work?

JB: Yes. So here we have women learning how to breastfeed and type at the same time.

TM I'm sure there are stories where women have to be in bed the last two weeks of pregnancy. The two weeks off that they were planning to share with the child are now spent waiting for the child. And then they're asking, "Are we going to be able to pay our rent? Are we going to be able to afford our car payment? Or am I going to have to go back to work two weeks after the baby is born?" Correct?

JB: Exactly, and that's where the poverty spells come in, because bottom line: Infants take really close care, and it's a hugely hard thing to leave your infant with anyone but the father or grandmother. Most mothers of new mothers are working too now.

KRF: I think you really hit on a point here with the paid family leave issue, because it radiates out into most of the other points in "The Motherhood Manifesto."

For example, we have somebody like Salina, who isn't in a high wage job, and has now taken all of her sick leave and all of her vacation leave. You can't even do that in all states, but she lives in Washington state and you can do it there. Now, what happens when the baby gets sick or she gets sick? She doesn't have any leave; she's used that up already.


Digg!

Interviewer Terrence McNally hosts Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles (streaming at kpfk.org).

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:
Kathy
Posted by: kmjamies on Jun 12, 2006 4:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I appreciate the focus on women's underpaid labor, but the story creates an unnecessary divide between women with children and women without, as well as one between men and women who would choose to "parent" their children. One of the reasons for the wage gap may indeed be the number of women who have children and can afford to leave the paid labor force. They are mom's, but their "pay" comes from an informal source (family income perhaps). The key issues raised here seem to be parental leave, universal health care, and discriminatory hiring practices - all of which would be better-addressed if workers united, rather than separated based on essential categories of gender and "motherhood" - - thanks - kathy

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

» that's like saying... Posted by: sln70
» No. No it's not. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Now you're just making stuff up Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Kathy Posted by: Yella
Race-N-Gender Identity Politics is how the Overclass Divides and Rules
Posted by: cry0fan on Jun 12, 2006 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The overclass will no doubt send you a nice check for this article. They like it when the American political debate is centered around identity politics--that way the overclass escapes scrutiny.
This is the primary function of the Overclass's PseudoLiberal media infrastructure, which consists of magazines and websites designed for the American pseudoLiberals such as demcrats, greens, etc.

Divide and Rule--same as it ever was.....

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

» 2nd place Posted by: YogiBear
Don't Forget the same thing happens to MEN !
Posted by: NDnative on Jun 12, 2006 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I may have benefitted more as a single than as a married one but because I truly take marriage seriously, my wife and I were both prepared to sacrifice to keep each other's love and to enjoy some time with children which would have otherwise kept each of our childhood memories too seperate. Shame on the GOP and the "moderate" to "conservative" Democrats for misusing/abusing family values and pitting singles against married and vice versa just to satisfy their political expediency !

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

It's NOT "divide and rule" .. no division at all
Posted by: sln70 on Jun 12, 2006 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
whose side are you on?

Like I said to the above poster - saying that women's (or mothers) rights are not debatable by themselves because it divides men from women, mothers from non-mothers, etc is like saying you can't fight racism becuase it divides the races.

Give it up already. Your argument is counter-productive and non-intelligent.

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

Simplest solution
Posted by: peterharrell on Jun 12, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, the simplest thingto do is to have a living minimum wage and universal health care, with price controls for drugs, oil, etc.

But...

How about not having kids at all?

Why should our society, in a world as grossly overpopulated by humans as this one, encourage people to breed like flies?

Why should an employer not have a choice as to who they hire? I wouldn't want people with children working for me because they are forever having to take time off work to deal with their kids' (real and/or feigned) crap...school transport, absent sitters, illness, camp - whatever ad nauseum. They are also more tired, distracted, etc. in general. On the flip side, they are desperate at the moment, thanks to that idiot Bush's economic policies, so they would make good wage-slaves, as your article clearly indicates. How nice for Bush and his "guest worker" cronies.

Still, why should those of us with no kids have to pay so much in taxes and other costs to support the tards out there that cant read the directions on a box of rubbers and end up with 4-5 kids? Why dont you tax THEM to support all these programs of healthcare and education that are continually being whined about? This BS about how people have some sort of "right to reproduce" is silly, considering mankind has no problem "regulating the population" of any other living thing on the planet.

Oh, and we should start a selective breeding program too. Too many humans on this planet are genetically dysfuntional, or simply inferior/sickly (using the same criteria that one would apply to any other animal population). No doubt due in large part to the non box-reading crowd outbreeding people of intellect and quality. Look at any study correlating education and childbirth rates, as an example.

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

» RE: Simplest solution Posted by: repo
» RE: Simplest solution Posted by: Sushi
» you are a freak Posted by: cry0fan
» you make this site suck Posted by: sln70
» RE: Simplest solution Posted by: fork
» RE: Simplest solution Posted by: kc4choice
» this is repulsive Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Simplest solution Posted by: Yella
lionhead
Posted by: lionhead on Jun 12, 2006 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having a baby is a leading cause of poverty in this country. Most families need two working parents in order to stay financially solvent, and wages of mothers are a very important part of the family economy.

Why not think before procreating?
Why not work toward the goal of not working--or at least, not working a job? That way, you can parent and possibly educate your offspring, and still have time to "work" --FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE.

Live simply.
Avoid mortgages and new-car payments.
Avoid procreating if there's even a slight chance you will have to leave your child/children in the care of somebody/something else.

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

» RE: lionhead Posted by: fiskhus
» RE: lionhead Posted by: Yella
» RE: lionhead Posted by: dragondreams
you're right
Posted by: repo on Jun 12, 2006 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we should just allow minorities and women to be discriminated against for the sake of pushing for progressive taxation and other so called true left issues. come on brown people, take one for the team! there are more important issues to think about than if you get beat up by a cop. ladies, by all means know your place! you're not helping when you keep whining about things like how the big men are paying you less. just suck it up and do the work, be happy that you get paid at all, in the name of the Greater Good.

typical democrats. go on and play the politically correct role and talk a good game about racial and gender equality (some actually deluding themselves into believing we have already achieved it) but then when it actually comes down to having to deal with those uncomfortable issues, they'd rather talk about money.

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

» RE: you're right Posted by: lionhead
» I totally followed you Posted by: sln70
» It happens Posted by: YogiBear
no offense but
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jun 12, 2006 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The data shows that single mothers are not very "smart". For a woman, it takes intelligence, hard work, and critical thinking to select a man that wont bug out when the going gets rough. Those women who make poor choices in that regard end up as single mothers. These are important decisions and alot of women make them lightly. So it's no surprise that they make less money. After all, if one cannot show competence in choosing a mate, what are the chances that they will show competence in the workplace? I don't mean to anger any single mothers but it must be said.

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

» LMAO Posted by: sln70
» RE: LMAO Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: LMAO Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: no offense but Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: no offense but Posted by: g9stronach
THIS WORKS BOTH WAYS, TOO
Posted by: fiskhus on Jun 12, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just try being a responsible father, taking care of babies and children.

You get laid off, lowball wages, miserable working conditions.

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

» RE: THIS WORKS BOTH WAYS, TOO Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: THIS WORKS BOTH WAYS, TOO Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: THIS WORKS BOTH WAYS, TOO Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: THIS WORKS BOTH WAYS, TOO Posted by: bornxeyed
It is part of the grand scheme
Posted by: inanaturallight on Jun 12, 2006 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny sometimes to see the vitriol that these articles generate and how it strays from the issue...
From my point of view the problems discussed in the article are no surprise... working mothers don't fit into the image of employability that those in power subscribe to. They won't turn their back on their children and leave them untended while they work the extra mandatory overtime hours that the corporate world demands (yes, mine expects 13% overtime from me for which they do not pay me). They might put the well-being of their children ahead of the well-being of the corporation. And I suppose if a father shows signs that his family is more important than the corporation they'll tie a couple cement blocks to his neck too.
As long as corporations own the country and own the government the continuing movement of workers on all levels from 'valued employee' to slave will continue... how long will it be before employers issue chits good only at the overpriced 'company store'? Did you notice the Personnel departments all changed to the departments of 'Human Resources? Ever notice how corporations treat 'resources', natural and otherwise? Resources are meant to be Exploited, and abandoned when exhausted.
Despite what you've heard, the truth is that corporations do not have a legal personhood, and corporations are granted a license to exist and do business by the government. If the people can wrest control of government from them, then the corporations can be forced to execute their businesses in a manner that benefits America, the America of families, the America of diverse races and religions and belief systems- or their charter can be revoked and they won't be able to do business. They would also begin to carry their fair share of the tax burden of the country, and then maybe the government would have enough income to support things like health care and day care, things that are important to the 95 percent of the people that have 5 percent of the wealth... and the businesses wouldn't be able to force America into wars in order to 'export democracy' which is simply another term for raiding the resources of other countries to the benefit of- who else- corporations.

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

The Gap Is Real
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Jun 12, 2006 12:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That old James Brown song "It's A Man's, Man's World" played in my head as I read this article. Yes, most know that wages are unequal and that women w/o kids have a better change of landing a job than one with children.
I'd like to know why we have this inequality in pay when women seem to bear the brunt of raising children AND holding a job. It is morally wrong.
There has been a proposal to be paid for being a housewife, but would men consider being Mr. Moms? (Man, it got quiet at the bar...LOL)
And yes, life is about making a choice, but if so, then women should get paid if they become a housewife. Having children these days is causing families to sink deeper in debt. But they're our most precious investment.
Women have a lot to do in addition of taking care of themselves as well. I'd like for our society to pay women better. It'll make for a more idealistic country. The USA is nowhere near that. ("It'll be the day when the Pentagon holds a bake sale to buy a bomber") They're not "desperate", they only want their slice of the economic pie, which is made smaller by debt.
The wage gap is real. No bridge long enough has come close to traverse it.

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

I guess
Posted by: owleyes on Jun 12, 2006 2:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I probably won't have that kid after all. Why is this world so goddamned depressing all the time? I just want one lousy kid without giving up my financial independence and personhood. Why is that so much to ask?

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

Question
Posted by: leeturner on Jun 12, 2006 4:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know where the data for this argument came from, but I wonder if one factor in this "wage gap" is that women with children choose to spend more time at home and less time working after they have children (and, if anything, should be referred to as an "income gap". They may keep the same profession, but work less hours and therefore have less salary. Or that they may make other sacrifices for the child (i.e. taking a lower-paying job to be closer to home, not being able to take promotions out of the area, turning down promotions because it would mean more time at the office, etc).

And I don't see much way around that. If a woman (or couple) chooses to have a child, then there will ultimately be sacrifices. My parents told me many times of all the promotions they missed out on because they couldn't uproot and move, or they couldn't put in the overtime that they should have because they had to take care of me, etc.

I think a more interesting project would be to see some sort of comparison of the work output of parents versus non-parents.

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

» RE: Question Posted by: fork
Non starter
Posted by: talkville on Jun 12, 2006 9:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until all these issues are addressed as a class issue, based on equality and solidarity with all working people domestic and global, problems like these will remain. Capital likes it that way, and so it shall remain.

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

If fewer women had kids, the society would be more supportive
Posted by: janvdb on Jun 13, 2006 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If fewer children were born to women in situations which patently are not adequate for raising children (they plan on going on to welfare the second they realize they are pregnant because everyone realizes it is the only way they can make it, probably because they already have one child, no education, no mate, no job experience, mental problems, etc.) the society would be more supportive of those women who do have children.

There is more support from mothers in Europe; mothers in Europe are older, have far fewer children and far more European women have no children at all.

30% of German women age 40-45 have no children. This gets the government's attention.

In reaction to all that non-procreation, most European governments are further sweetening the pot for mothers as we speak.

There is a pattern here.

American women need to refrain from having children until conditions and support improve.

As long as we take all this pressure, discrimination and deprivation onto ourselves and bear the future labor force for the economy anyway, why should they do anything to help us?

STOP!!! Just make a life for yourself without children.

I have no children, I'm 48 and I'd advise ANY WOMAN to take this route. It's great. I have lots of freedom, money, etc. Why weigh yourself down with something no one appreciates anyway? Get past the lizard brain, ladies.

For the good of children!!!

Jan VanDenBerg

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

There is only so much flex allowed
Posted by: Callibrarian on Jun 14, 2006 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We speak of flexible jobs and work schedules without taking into account that the big block of jobs women have cannot be manuevered around. Most women fall into the same job fields---teaching, nursing, child care, secretarial work. We have set hours and sometimes set years. You can't stop in the middle of a lesson to fill up your breast pump. You can't file office papers at home. I'm not going to my dentist's house to get work done. I can't change library hours so the branch closes every three hours so I can breast feed. Do work policies need to change? Yes, but not as much as our social policies in general, our attitudes about work, and our attitudes about child rearing.

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

opinion
Posted by: julio on Dec 1, 2006 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
opinion
Posted by: julio on Dec 1, 2006 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]