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 State of the American Mom

By Celina R. De Leon, Feministing.com. Posted September 14, 2006.


Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, co-author of "The Motherhood Manifesto," explains why even childless people should join the mothers' movement.
41604story

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

More stories by Celina R. De Leon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

  • "A college-educated woman with one child can easily pay a 'mommy tax' (lost lifetime earnings) of $1 million."
  • "Consider that in the Army a family that makes below $28,000 annually pays no more than $43 per week for childcare, or around $2,000 annually. And then compare that to the national average cost of childcare, which can rise to $10,000 per year or more."
  • "In terms of infant mortality rates, the U.S. tied for 38th in the world with Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, and the United Arab Emirates in 2003."
  • These are just some of the harsh realities Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner and Joan Blades researched and discuss in their book, "The Motherhood Manifesto: What America's Moms Want -- And What to Do About It." I spoke with Kristin from her home in Kirkland, Washington. Here's Kristin ...

    What made you want to work on this book?

    [laughs] That's a big one. I wanted to work on this book because with the research and writing I've done over the past several years it's became clear that there are incredibly important issues for mothers and families in this country that aren't getting the attention they deserve, and that the general public isn't getting enough information about what's really going on with American mothers and families. So, I was really excited to work on the book and work on the movement to help share that information with people. Information like the fact that we are one of only four countries, out of 168 countries, that doesn't have some form of paid family leave for new moms. We join Papua New Guinea, Lesotho, and Swaziland as the four countries that don't have paid family leave for new moms.

    Information like the fact that there are 40,000 kindergarteners home alone every day after school because we don't offer enough quality, affordable after-school programs and many parents need to work during those hours. We have a modern economy that requires many families to have two parents in the labor force in order to meet basic needs like paying rent and buying food, but we don't have a country with policies that have caught up to the modern realities of parenthood. And so bringing these common, shared issues to the surface is really exciting.

    The opportunity to work and co-write this book with Joan Blades, co-founder of MoveOn.org and all around brilliant thinker, was high on my list as well.

    How did you go about getting all the great case studies that make up the book? The stories you and Joan capture in "The Motherhood Manifesto" are brutally amazing.

    All the stories are true, and gathering them took a lot of time. It's actually often harder to find people who have time to share what's going on in their lives than it is to find research. [laughs] We knew those stories were out there, and knew people were having issues with the topics covered in the case studies just from looking at trends and demographics. So, the case studies in the book actually represent a lot more women than the individual women discussed on the pages.

    And we had help from many organizations, the lovely internet, as well as friends asking friends if they knew anyone who wanted to share their story. Many people came forward and were delighted to share their stories because one of the things about this issue is that so many people are facing the same problem at the same time but often feel like they're experiencing it alone. And, in fact, we argue that when this many people are experiencing the same problems at the same time, it's a societal issue not a personal failing. So, when people came forward to share their stories I think many of them were empowered by sharing what's going on with them, and also by helping make our country a bit better at the same time.

    I have heard of the term, "the glass ceiling" before. And I've heard of the term "pink-collar jobs" used by many activists in the women's movement and by many of today's feminists. But I've never heard of "the maternal wall."

    I think Joan C. Williams actually coined the term. She's an amazing researcher, author of the award-winning book "Unbending Gender," attorney, and director of the WorkLife Law Center.

    Why do you think this term hasn't been used regularly by many feminists or women's rights activists?

    I think people are increasingly aware of the maternal wall, particularly when you look at the root of many problems women are facing economically. I wrote a book called "The F-word: Feminism in Jeopardy" a couple of years ago in which there is a chapter about motherhood that started me down this road. When you look at what's happening with women in America, you can see the root of the wage gap between men and women in our country really stems from this maternal wall: Women with children make about 73 cents to a man's dollar, single mothers make an average of 56 to 66 cents to a man's dollar, and women without children make about 90 cents to a man's dollar. So, the maternal wall is a big part of the overall women's wage gap -- women make between 76 and 77 cents to a man's dollar. Since 82 percent of women in America have children, the lower wages moms receive pulls down the average for all women.


    Digg!

    Celina R. De Leon is a contributing writer for WireTap and the interviews editor at Feministing.com. She lives in Brooklyn, NY.

    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:
    I bet a thousand dollars...
    Posted by: TT2 on Sep 14, 2006 12:26 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    that in a couple of minutes this "conversation" will turn in to blaming immigrants and globalisation. Who's with my?

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

    heartless
    Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 14, 2006 3:07 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    The Bushies are heartless, mean. stupid, sexist people who are doing more to destroy the future than they are doing to save it.

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

    The time has come . . .
    Posted by: JCR on Sep 14, 2006 8:18 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    "Motherhood issues span all classes. The so-called "opt-out revolution" is incredibly frustrating to me because it's sort of a nonissue in the sense that just as many men would like to opt-out [laughs], and it covers such a small percentage of women who actually have a choice about whether or not to "opt out." The majority of women don't have an opt-out choice since their families need their pay. As an aside, at the same time the dubious opt-out report came out, there was another study that came out showing a huge percentage of men would opt-out to take care of kids if they could -- but that study didn't make the papers. Go figure."

    This whole issue is upsetting on several levels. I am furious that my wife can still not expect to have paid maternity leave nor can she generally count on making the same kind of money as me although she is equally (if not more) intelligent, well-educated and qualified.

    On another level it is upsetting because given what will likely be our gender/wage disparity, I will probably be unable to "opt-out" to care for our children. I would dearly love to take time off to stay home and raise our children but economics will probably dictate that I not take time off even though my wife is the more ambitious and goal-oriented of the two of us. The fact is we will both have to work in the long run but we decided some time ago that it would be better for our children if one of us stayed home, at least for the first few years, even though that would mean having to do with less financially. I personally know many men who would prefer to stay home but it always boils down to the same thing - they generally make more money even though, like me, they aren't any more deserving of that higher salary than their wives. In the end this hurts men, women and children alike but when has government or employers generally given a shit about lower or middle class families?

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

    » RE: The time has come . . . Posted by: sunflwrmoonbeam
    » RE: The time has come . . . Posted by: ezilla
    This is very bad math
    Posted by: widget on Sep 14, 2006 12:55 PM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    "We do know that, again, 82 percent of American women have children by the time they are 44. So, the majority of women in the work force are mothers."

    No, that doesn't follow. More information is needed: how many women in the workforce are under the age of 44? How many women leave the workforce when the become mothers?

    I'm child[less|free], and I'm not signing up to anybody's "motherhood manifesto". While I agree that maternity leave in the US seems inadequate (it's a year up hear in Canada), I also think that having children is a lifestyle choice.
    We could get into a long, drawn-out argument over whether 'tis nobler to have kids than not, but what does it benefit? If you want to have kids, then you take responsibility for your situation as a parent. Find a husband who will stay home. Lobby your elected representatives for more leave. But don't try to rope me into your fight because "children are a resource".

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

    » RE: This is very bad math Posted by: Kuber
    » RE: This is very bad math Posted by: mobile68
    » RE: This is very bad math Posted by: widget
    Don't have kids
    Posted by: Violetflame11 on Sep 14, 2006 1:45 PM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    My Mom raised me on her own in the early 1970's. She worked 2 jobs and we still got food stamps and govt. cheese. I saw firsthand how hard it was to make ends meet. She still managed to put me through private schools and I got a great education and now I have a great job. I know that I'm not making as much as the men, and it's not fair, but it's not going to change overnight. If I try to have a kid, my husband and I will be broke, so we aren't. That's life. We couldn't afford to own a house and have a kid, I'd have to stop work and we'd be really broke. It takes both of us to support out household. The econmics now are alot tougher than in the 1970's when my Mom did it. We could never afford our house payment and kids medical bills and private schooling. So we carefully use birth control.
    No kids. It's sad, but we're not stupid. We don't have alot of money.

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

    » what you are saying is Posted by: sln70
    Problem with motherhood mostly the faults of males
    Posted by: Kuber on Sep 14, 2006 2:31 PM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    As the dominant gender, men have a responsible to set the overall tone as to how the family structure and structure of the society ought to be maintained and perpetuated.
    The men are failing their females.

    All those who are suggesting that women should 'opt out' of reproducing are ignoramuses who are clueless of the power of Mother Nature's inclination to continue the species.

    The truth of the matter is that there is a fundamental principle of nature that ensures that as a last resort, the species WILL inescapably be perpetuated by those who have the least mastery over their destinies.

    So 'opting out' IS NOT an option for those who have the least mastery over their destinies! Reproduction for them is a natural IMPERATIVE, just as going to the bathroom is for everyone!

    As members of a society, we have an OBLIGATION to fellow citizens. We especially have an obligation to those who 'supply members' of the society.

    It cannot be stressed enough the importance of supporting the mothers who are fellow citizens; since their circumstances will determine the kind of members that are 'supplied' to the society and the kind of leaders we produce as a nation.

    Any work outside the home for a mother should be MINIMAL; and this only if, and only if, the children are not inconvenience in anyway.
    The bulk of a mother's time/energies/resources should be in nurturing the young members of the society.

    Today, drugs are becoming the mommies of the children. The wind up is that we have a drug destroyed brain as leader.
    With a drug destroyed brain, we will ensure that our leader is a certified idiot, who make the nation the laughing stock of the world, and will start wars on a whim.

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

    imbalance in our society
    Posted by: Gregor on Sep 14, 2006 7:01 PM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    unfortunately we have a society where the male energy is lauded and exhalted and enhanced and bowed to. The feminine energy is usually ground to dust in a lot of overload and disrespect. So anything that is "traditionally" a female job, like child rearing, nursing, teaching, child support agencies, work, schools and care are generally ignored and pissed on because it is considered "lower class" which most femine based jobs are. They know women are "soft" so they can run right over their rights, their freedoms, their pay, whatever. If women get tough they are equally labeled as bitches, arrogant, feminists and a host of other non attractive labels. But yet, life is more about nurturing and less about aggression. We have to change as a society. We are a cruel, domineering, aggressive society which raises cruel, aggressive, non supportive children. The ones that aren't are easily ground to mincemeat by the other aggressive, cruel, horrible predators. What will change this attitude is when we are bullied by another nation into submission. And then...We will have to learn the ways of peace...By the way, that is a more feminie trait also.

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

    I remember years ago
    Posted by: MEL810 on Sep 14, 2006 7:42 PM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    I remember years ago, in the 1960's, when my mother was my sole support because my dad refused to contribute his share to my support. Back then, courts didn't always enforce child support payments, especially across state lines. My dad moved across the river from Maryland to Virginia, to avoid paying my support. My mother did not ask for alimony.
    My mother was working a fult-time job and a male worker, who joined the company much later than she, got raise. She did not.
    She asked why. She was told: "A man has to support his children, so he needs a bigger salary."
    My divorced mother informed her boss that she and many other divorced and widowed women had to work to support their children, too. (This was long before single mothers were accepted.)
    My mother's boss, a male, didn't take her seriously. She never got the raise.
    My dad used that same argument to HIS employer, got a raise and never sent one penny to me. He used the extra money to buy a power cruiser.
    That was 35+ years ago. It seems that women are still fighting for the same rights now.

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

    Oh no, not again...
    Posted by: MartianBachelor on Sep 15, 2006 8:40 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    > "...women make between 76 and 77 cents to a man's dollar."

    Which explains why women control more than half the capital wealth in this country and control more than 80% of the discretionary spending. The advertisers must be idiots for trying to sell so much STUFF to women who don't have any money, just like the malls are full of poor women spending their non-existent money.

    I submit the simple fact which the simple-minded data overlook, and that feminists will not acknowledge, is the vast informal transfer of money from men to women.
    Men are the earners, women the spenders. It's in the latter category that the power of money resides.

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

    » You have got to be kidding me Posted by: kc4choice
    » RE: You have got to be kidding me Posted by: MartianBachelor
    » RE: You have got to be kidding me Posted by: MartianBachelor
    » RE: You have got to be kidding me Posted by: MartianBachelor