Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Wake Up, Employers: Working Moms Are Giving Up

By Courtney E. Martin, AlterNet. Posted December 20, 2006.


The majority of working moms who leave their jobs do so because of inflexible office policy, not Martha Stewart fantasies.
12202006story
12202006Story

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

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

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Courtney E. Martin

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

New York Times writer Lisa Belkin's controversial October 26, 2003 article about smart, young women leaving the workforce to raise children -- dubbed the "opt out revolution" -- sparked a firestorm of debate centered around one dramatic question:

Is the most well-educated generation of women in history -- the daughters of feminism and Title IX and glass-ceiling smashing pioneers -- really choosing domesticity over career?

Books have been written in response (Get To Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World by Linda R. Hirshman), class curricula have been created (NYU's Stern Business School will offer a course on work/family balance this spring), and studies have been done.

It turns out that Belkin's "opt out revolution" was more like an opt out overreaction. Heather Boushey, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. found that the drop in women's work participation rates between 2001 and 2005 was largely due to a weak labor market, and further, men's labor rates also dropped at this time. Joan Williams, the director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings, recently reported that 86 percent of those women who did leave their jobs did so because of inflexible office policy, not Martha Stewart fantasies.

While old guard feminists have been busy pointing fingers at young, frivolous co-eds, ignorant of the legacy they have inherited, they should be placing the blame where it is most deserved: in the boardrooms where inflexible and sometimes even inhumane work/family policy is established and in the government offices where little legislation is ever written to protect working parents.

The question we should all be asking is not: why aren't more young women enthused about living lives of work rigidity? But, what can we do to change work/family policy in this country so that mothers and fathers, and those who are caring for aging parents, can live their fullest lives?

That's exactly the question that filmmakers Laura Pacheco and John de Graaf explore in their documentary film, The Motherhood Manifesto, a companion project to the book of the same name written by Joan Blades and Kristen Rowe-Finkbeiner. In both, the creators weave personal stories with expert commentary to explore what happens to working mothers and families in a country that doesn't support them.

For example, only 1 in 7 American workers get paid childcare leave -- a policy that has proven to reduce infant mortality, improve children's learning and reduce juvenile delinquency. Selena Allen, a non-profit worker and mother of two in Kent, Washington, is featured in the film and illustrates just how devastating this lack of leave can be. She and her husband both worked full time, but still money was tight.

"We rent a house," Allen explains. "We don't drive fancy new cars. We don't do anything luxurious. We're just trying to make ends meet."

When her second son was born six weeks premature and rushed to intensive care, there was no way that Allen could take time off. Her workplace only offered one month of paid maternity leave, and Allen and her family decided it would be best spent once the baby came home. She gave birth on a Wednesday and went back to work on a Monday. Allen reflects, "I felt like a piece of me got left in that hospital, and I had to pretend like I was okay."

This is not just a touchy-feely topic, but an economic watershed. The average female college graduate who becomes a mother will sacrifice about a million dollars over her lifetime. And it's not just personal financial loss that is caused by rigid work/family policy. A new study by Catalyst, a research and advisory organization on women at work, and The Community, Families & Work Program (CFWP) at Brandeis University, found that of the 1,755 working parents studied in three Fortune 100 organizations, 1 in 20 parents, experience high stress as a result of inflexible work/family policy. A staggering number when you consider that, according to American Psychologist, workplace stress costs companies an estimated $50-$300 billion in lost job productivity each year.

The failure is rooted in the workplace -- particularly, corporate and low wage industries -- and perpetuated at the governmental level. Horrifyingly, only four countries in the world -- Lesotho, Swaziland, Papua New Guinea and the United States -- fail to provide paid maternity leave to all workers. Though President Bush paid lip service to caring about working mothers in speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention -- "Today, two-thirds of all moms also work outside the home ... and government must take your side." -- his administration has done next to nothing to ensure that working parents are protected.

Moms Rising, a grassroots movement advocating for work/family policy reform, started by Blades and Rowe-Finkbeiner this May, already has more than 50,000 citizen members and the support of Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The organization has a six point agenda based on the acronym MOTHER: M-maternity/paternity leave; O-open, flexible work; T-TV we choose and other after school programs; H-healthcare for all kids; E-excellent childcare; R-realistic and fair wages. They also host a series of blogs on these and other issues at their Momsblogging link.

Using the house party model popularized by Moveon.org, they have disbursed Motherhood Manifesto, the film, across the nation this fall and will continue through the winter. They hope that the dialogues that follow screenings among working mothers and fathers will incite even more passion for changing this pathetic state of work/life affairs.

For all of this country's obsession with family -- the supposed sanctity of marriage, abstinence-only sex education, the "family values" touted by the religious right -- we are certainly not supporting ours. And it's not just the conservatives who are missing the boat. Rather than being up in arms about a few elite college grads excited about being stay-at-home moms, liberal feminists should be directing our energies into changing the harmful policies that continue to limit women's and men's choices about where and how to devote their critical time and energy.

As long as this country and its companies so profoundly ignore the needs of families, the quality of all of our lives will be compromised.

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

See more stories tagged with: feminism, workplace, working moms, domesticity, career, belkin

Courtney E. Martin is a writer, teacher and filmmaker living in Brooklyn. She is currently working on a book on her generation's obsession with food and fitness, Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters, which will be published by Free Press in spring of 2007. You can read more about her work at www.courtneyemartin.com.

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:
Blaming old-line feminists??
Posted by: carcinoid112 on Dec 20, 2006 12:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exactly who do you think started TRYING to influence the boardrooms, only to be slapped down (sometimes physically) so that YOU and everybody else out there gets the chance to rag on them in print or out loud? Sorry, but when Suzie _Sorority tells me she doesn't 'believe in' feminism, because she KNOWS she can have it all and do it all in her $200,000 a year job that she'll be getting right out of college, with her similarly employed spouse, and her perfect life, hells yes, i'm going to be annoyed at her.

We tried to make it better for you, little sisters. At least we made some progress. It's rare to find an office building today without enough women's restrooms, but 70 years ago, there weren't that many. Why?? Silly female, women didn't WORK!! They were at home, being wivesandmothers. The few 'old maids' and 'unfortunates' that did were accustomed to going far down the hall or the stairs to where the 'ladies washroom' was.

Ah, hell, you didn't blaze the path, you don't understand the journey. Just don't disrespect the people that helped get you out of the pink collar ghetto, where if you were a girl, you could be a nurse, or a schoolteacher or a Mommy!!

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

» RE: Torches always get dropped Posted by: RosyFingers
» Okay, I'm baffled Posted by: Beck
» RE: Torches always get dropped Posted by: carcinoid112
» "Kids these days..." Posted by: supercrisp
» RE: "Kids these days..." Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: "Kids these days..." Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: "Kids these days..." Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: "calling it humanism" Posted by: dangerouslysane
» Sticks and stones.... Posted by: supercrisp
» BTW, Crispy... Posted by: carcinoid112
Obama
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 20, 2006 12:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is Barack Obama the only male in high office in the USA who really gets the idea that children, women and men all deserve to live a decent and happy and fulfilling life? If so, what a sad commentary this is on the state of USA governance.

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

» RE: Obama Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Obama Posted by: Phenix
NYU' Stern Business School is misguided
Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale on Dec 20, 2006 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author writes, "NYU's Stern Business School will offer a course on work/family balance this spring."
How misguided. The business schools don't need to be lecturing students on work-life "balance" - the government needs to be mandating work-life balance policies to employers.
In the 1980's there were books galore telling women how they could "have it all"- they could raise several kids while simultaneously be CEOs, get dinner on the table every night, have the housework done and prance around in a teddy.
Well those ideas were completely unrealistic and that's why they died.
It's time to shift the burden back to employers. If they do not voluntarily comply, then mandate it. It's time we got out of the slave-labor industrial-age mentality that runs workplace conditions in the US and come up to the standards set by more enlightened societies.

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

» Prance Around in a Teddy! Posted by: bichomau
What's with the "Moms"?
Posted by: colinmeister on Dec 20, 2006 3:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a shame that the writer of the article did not give the women in question the dignity of calling them "Mothers", rather than the greeting-card trashy "Moms".

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

» RE: What's with the "Moms"? Posted by: Phenix
» Semantics. Posted by: Gakl
Quite Frankly
Posted by: nobuko on Dec 20, 2006 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women should re-think when they want to have children. First of all, I would not want to go back to work after 6 weeks and leave my brand new baby with ANYONE! It's UNTHINKABLE leaving a brand new baby for someone else to care for, not KNOWING if this person is legit or not, and I don't care if its a family member, or close friend. In most cases its when these babies and children are ABUSED!

I would not want to leave my child until they were potty trained and TALKING; anything before that, the woman should stay on birth control until she could meet these simple and SAFE guidelines.

Quite honestly, women who have babies and go back to work after 6 weeks, really didn't want the child, or why would she leave it so early and soon. A BABY NEEDS ITS MOM, there is only so much the dad can do, unless the mother dies in childbirth, and there is no other way.

Sorry, children first, job later and if you can't plan for children TODAY, women should not have them until they can stay home with their children until they are TALKING, PREFERABLY, SCHOOL AGE!

Parents who have out of control children need to take a hard, long good look in the mirror, for they are the ONLY reason their children are out of control.

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

» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: laoma
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» Women, women, women Posted by: supercrisp
» RE: Women, women, women Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: eggnog2464
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: bluestatehorses
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: Metesh-ah
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: peter1469
good old fashioned sexism
Posted by: xenacat on Dec 20, 2006 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
combined with a U.S economic policy that actively supports corporate greed is why working parents feel so much stress. Personal choice has been used very effectively to mask the real issue - very limited economic choices for the majority of the American populace. With a surfeit of workers, CEO's are quite able to pursue policies that quite literally drain the life blood from employees. As for the right wing nuts really being pro-family- hogwash. They are merely pro-hatred. Women (not just "moms")and minorities are simply the first to feel the discrimination. The wealthy simply don't want anyone else in their small, exclusive club. Sexism is merely one of the tools used to keep the rest of us out.

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

It's not just working moms that are affected...
Posted by: LizFun on Dec 20, 2006 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've chosen to get my realtor's license because the company I worked for (5 years) wouldn’t hire people full time - instead, they kept us as contract workers. So instead of 2 to 4 weeks of paid vacation each year, we were laid off 2 to 4 weeks a year (longer in slow years and after September 11th). That’s just enough that as soon as I would catch up on my bills I was faced with a period of no income - it often happened during the Christmas holidays. Also, the dress code was strict even though we never came into contact with company clients, and the work hours were very inflexible, even though managers were willing to work flexible hours in order to be there for the workers. I’ve worked jobs (like in restaurants) where it’s important to be at work during certain hours - this was not one of them. Additionally, this employer was located in a suburb where many workers had to commute from the opposite side of the metro area, so flexible hours would have made a huge difference in the workers’ commute time, gas savings, etc. Real estate is tough, but at least I don’t answer to anyone but my clients. I set my own hours and if the money doesn’t come in, it’s all on me - not at the whim of my employer. I couldn’t believe the high number of quality, hard working employees my former company regularly lost because of their inflexibility!

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

Production, Taxes, Profit are more important
Posted by: zarman on Dec 20, 2006 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi Friends,
Production, Taxes, Profit are more important than creating a loving, healthy, safe, living environment for the future leaders of our planet, our kids!
If our kids had a consistent male, female parental presence in their lives it would be great.
Kids spend more time in front of TV(8 hours a day average) and playing Video games than experiencing authentic time with family and people.
A successful corporate career is the most important achievement in our lives!
Lets devote ourselves to our dysfunctional corporate families other than our own!

Happy Holidays to all(If you like)
Zarchian

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

Ask Yourself Why This Is Happening
Posted by: JCR on Dec 20, 2006 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lamentably, working moms and dads are now being forced to choose between their families and their jobs, which in many instances, only tenuously sustain them to begin with. Seemingly inhumane legislation is first promoted, then enacted at the behest of business large and small, further chipping away at the foundations of the oft heralded iconic, American way of life.

Of course the Halcyon days of America's Ozzie and Harriet set were wholly imagined to begin with, and had it not been for the concerted efforts of an all-encompassing propaganda machine, we would have long since realized that this day was coming. We are now witnessing the death throes of a decrepit, capitalistic ogre who's falling victim to a host of nimbler giants beating us at our own game. China, India, South Korea, Brazil, Indonesia, Taiwan et al have no illusions about what kind of struggle we are locked in. The bottom line is all that matters in the minds of our political and corporate leaders.

It's only a matter of time before the US, Canada, Australia and Europe acknowledge the gravity of the situation. The fact of the matter is, China and India alone have lowered the bar and we all better get used to playing limbo. These two countries have enacted paid maternity leave legislation, but it is likely honored sporadically, and even when it is, 80-100% of full wages for 90 days for the average Indian women is peanuts as is hiring a temporary replacement who is easily hired and fired.

So what's the answer? Force China, India and the rest to play by the rules? As Bernanke and the rest of his "mission for mercy" delgation can tell you, they are both in a position to tell us where to stick it. Shall we lower our own expectations and get used to what will inevitably become our fate as a country of fewer and fewer entitlements? Europeans are going to reach this very same conclusion, perhaps sooner than us.

Greedy corporations are clearly looking for the next best place to exploit and it's no longer the US. They have already sucked the marrow from this country and are moving on to greener pastures, so to speak. They don't care that today's women are breaking the glass ceiling and comprise the "most highly educated" group of women the world has ever known. China and India don't either. Here's a little food for thought. The Chinese, Indians, Koreans, etc. are more disciplined, more driven, equally intelligent and willing to work for far less than you. Good luck boys and girls.

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

» one more thing Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: one more thing Posted by: JCR
» RE: one more thing Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: one more thing Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
Anyone care about kids
Posted by: CB in MN on Dec 20, 2006 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe....just maybe....couples have kids and decide that they are important enough to sacrifice for. Any time I see this discussion, I marvel how the children are never discussed. I thought the whole reason for feminism was to allow women to be whatever they wanted to be....articles like this shame parents into thinking that working at home is somehow less important than working. At the end of the day, the basis of the arguement is" "Is it better for children to be raised by their parents?" Those who believe yes, will believe one way. Those that believe no will believe another.

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

» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: nirmalajagannath
» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: abrunvand
» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: lwbaby
Glad I'm in Canada
Posted by: lianne on Dec 20, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mothers can take up to a year on Employment Insurance (which everyone pays an amount into out of their taxes). Or mom and dad can take time that together adds up to a year.

As well, my sister works for the federal government, and they also offer an option that allows you to extend maternity leave up to five years. You don't get paid during that time (which would be an issue for a single parent), but you are *guaranteed* your job back, or an equivalent job, at the end of that time. That way, you can stay home until the kid goes to school, then go back to the workforce without a long job-hunt.

Now, our system isn't perfect by a long shot, but at least there is a recognition that it would be good for children to have a stay-home parent during their formative years.

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

» No kidding... Posted by: MatthewSavage
It's the mindset, stupid!
Posted by: jmooney on Dec 20, 2006 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have a mindset in this country that somehow it is so crucial that children be raised by parents and that childcare is somehow so detrimental that it warrants one parent biting the bullet and staying home with the child, and that's usually the woman.

That's not to say that raising a child isn't a good thing and an noble thing, but I think women are buying into this a little too much, lock, stock and barrel. I submit that it does society more good for smart, educated women to remain viable in the workplace (that means they can't take off several years to raise a child and come stumbling back into the workforce; that's probably the cause of most lost traction by women in workforce, not outright discrimation, although it is all bound up together, I think).

Another key point is that I simply don't believe that fathers are coming home and doing their share of house work. I know a few guys who are married with kids and have working wives and they come home and do very little around the house. Basically, the wife/mother has to work all day and then come home and work all the way until bedtime to make the house work. I am a married man. We don't have kids yet, but we are trying. I struggle to make sure I am doing my share of the housework, but it is a struggle. With me it is not that I don't think a guy should do it, I just get damn lazy. So, if a guy has any inclination that he shouldn't HAVE to do house work, and add laziness to that, then boom, you got a lot of inequity.

I recently read a book called "Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World" by Linda R. Hirshman, and it really opened my eyes and made me think. I had somewhat bought into the idea that women should be free to choose if they stay at home or work when their children are young, and, yes, ultimately, it is their choice, but to suggest it is more important for women to abandon their careers, particularly, though not limited to, highly educated women and raise their children, I just have grave doubts. I know a woman and man where the man is one of those who doesn't like or want to do house work, so the woman, an educated woman, is underemployed in a parttime job and doing the bulk of the housework. What is that telling her young daughter? "Hey, sweetie, you get an education and you can end up like me: doing all the housework, working a puny, unchallenging, part-time job, etc." And what about her young son: "Hey, boy, you don't have do any housework, be like daddy. And when you get married, expect your wife to do all that house stuff and stay at home or abandon her career."

That doesn't seem like a positive thing inside the family nor is it positive for the society. Might we be a better, my humane society if women were fully represented at the highest levels of business and government? Even if that wouldn't make for a more humane world, it would at least make for a more diversified, healthier world.

The Christian right wants women to be barefoot and pregnant. They use arguments about family values, etc., but my values tells me that we won't be the society we can be until women, who constitute more than 50 percent of the population, are fully represented at all levels of societal life. Having highly educated women (or any other women) be basically forced to stay at home, whether because of a lazy husband or some utopian belief that child rearing is her highest calling) is just a brain drain for our society, and it doesn't help men or women, in the long run.

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

» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: justwondering
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: justwondering
» Salary is NOT the issue... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: justwondering
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: justwondering
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: justwondering
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: bornxeyed
Still leaves one more problem...
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Dec 20, 2006 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, child leave for the early years would be great public policy! I'm all for it.

But after the kids are school age, there is still the unofficial policy in most offices of sticking the single people with ALL THE OVERTIME, day after day after day, ad infinitum, while the soccer moms and soccer dads take the little soccer monsters to this, that and the other thing. They're always amazed when you point this out, too.

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

» RE: Still leaves one more problem... Posted by: MatthewSavage
» How about..... Posted by: cerry
» RE: How about..... Posted by: sweetlou
Add divorce and another household to run!@#$%^
Posted by: Landbaron on Dec 20, 2006 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who said life was fair or easy? Pretty soon the majority of the middle class will be the "working poor". The gap keeps widening, gotta keep having babies, babies and more babies!! It's keeps a vibrant economy!!!

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

The more women leave, the more burden on the men. Sigh ... :(
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 20, 2006 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The gender divide is not going to solve anything. Corporate America loves gender divides to death but neither the men or women are losing. All these elitists do is create a race to the bottom to see which gender shall lose first. Wake up people.

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

Don't believe the hype!
Posted by: brad on Dec 20, 2006 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all the hype and reaction over this topic the little fact slipped through the cracks- there are more women going into careers than ever before. All labor and census statistics indicate that the great female flight from the work place is simply not happening. It is a propaganda campaign to construct a myth in the hopes that it will come true. Don't buy it. More women than ever in history are entering the work place and their are no trends otherwise.

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

O.K.; let me see if I have this straight:
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 20, 2006 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America's government and industry does not support working mothers. It also does not support middle- and lower-class working people in general; it does not support college education, and inadequately supports even K-12 schooling; it does not support affordable health care; it does not support fair income distribution, decent jobs, or any kind of social safety net; it does not support its own infrastructure; and it does not support such quaint ideas for human beings as clean air and potable water.

So, for the vast majority of America's population, the question is: just what DOES America support?

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

WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE???
Posted by: WitchyNy on Dec 20, 2006 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are destroying our planet...children are starving to death and dying of AIDS...we have homeless people in the RICHEST counntry in the world...

We are killing our young men (and now young women-some progress)-in an INSANE war...all for more oil to pollute the world...are you are all worried about your CAREERS??? All these maimed and crippled young men coming home...what are they going to do? It will be worse than the Viet-Nam vets.

And this is suppose to be an ALTERNATIVE-PROGRESSIVE site! That really scares me.
Are women really supposed to aspire to being as corrupt as rich white men-and view this as progress?

When we started the women's movement..in the 60's..the idea was to help END THE WAR. To make men be more like women...now it is just the other way around.
Women can fight and kill too...oh yes, there is progress for us all.

Now the goals are not having children, or stuffing them in day care...so we can have jobs and work work work...at what? How to make and sell more useless plastic crap that we don't need and that pollutes the land and air. how to be women lawyers to help the rich better screw the poor and form ever bigger corporations.

I give up. STAY HOME MOTHERS. STAY HOME AND HAVE A GARDEN AND TEACH YOUR KIDS REVOLUTION.
Anything else is a total waste of time and just helping the rich get richer and destory the world.


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

» And who pays the bills? Posted by: janvdb
» RE: And who pays the bills? Posted by: WitchyNy
» Can Fathers also stay home? Posted by: Jason Jordan
» TO mjabele Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: TO WitchNy Posted by: mjabele
» RE: TO WitchNy Posted by: WitchyNy
» TO bornxeyed Posted by: WitchyNy
» TO WitchyNy Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: TO WitchyNy Posted by: WitchyNy
minor correction to some of your info
Posted by: tlannin on Dec 20, 2006 11:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding the quote, "Joan Williams, the director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings..."

It's actually the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law. A mouthful and rather confusing, but I wanted to set the record straight since the author implies that Hastings, like Berkeley or Riverside, is a city campus in and of itself.

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

6 months paid family leave for ALL -- including FATHERS
Posted by: janvdb on Dec 20, 2006 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If all women had 6 months paid family leave mandated (prorated for parttime workers, don't leave them out) women will only be passed over for hires.

To alleviate that, fathers must also get it and it must be MANDATORY for ALL.

This should be funded by the UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE system, not the employer directly. That is, if you are not qualified for unemployment insurance because you haven't worked long enough, you wouldn't get it. So plan your pregnancies accordingly.

If unemployment insurance rates must rise slightly to cover it, fine.

Fathers must be prevented from showing up from work anyway and working for free, also. Else women will be discriminated against.

If the mothers took the first 6 months and the fathers the second, the child would have 12 months of parental care, then into daycare.

It's not that hard. Just make pregnancy an approved reason for leaving work from the point of view of qualifying for the collection of unemployment insurance. If there are types of work on which unemployment insurance payments are not collected, include them in the system. This reduces the cost to the employer and reduces their incentive to discriminate against childbearing-age women.

Same for welfare mothers, too, as far as time allowed out of the work force. 6 months. Then, back to work.

That's as much as the childfree among us are going to sit for but it's a LOT more than we have now.

I think this should become the TOP PRIORITY of all women's rights organizations until we get it.

This guilt-trip of the lazy and the rich-man's-whore-wife against the average working woman -- telling her that she MUST be at home with her kids or the sky will fall -- IS CRAP and must stop.

If daycare were regulated and subsidized to some extent, the quality could be kept high enough that millions of children would be BETTER OFF in daycare than at home slouching on the sofa alone with the lights off and the curtains closed sucking down Pepsi and watching TV all day long while Mom blogs or obsesses about her mental health or decorates the house or whatever some of these narcissistic stay-at-home Moms are actually up to.

Jan VanDenBerg

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

» I agree with that. Posted by: janvdb
» RE: I agree with that. Posted by: mjabele
» A job is paid Posted by: janvdb
We need a national maternity leave policy with quantifiable benefits
Posted by: tlannin on Dec 20, 2006 12:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are several good points to this article, which demonstrates how poor our support system is for many women seeking compensated maternity leave. I work at a bank, where women comprise about 70% of the total workforce. Maternity and paternity benefits are fantastic, as are the work-from-home and telecommuting options. Eligible employees receive a maximum of eight weeks of pay for each pregnancy. The same is true for women (single or married) who want to adopt; full- and part-time employees receive a maximum of eight weeks adoption pay for each adoption AND $8,000 per adopted child to help cover adoption expenses. Although many profitable American companies are building similar benefits to attract and keep professional women, many others are not, and more and more companies are reducing or cutting employee benefits, of which maternity leave is one. This regression is inexcusable for a country as rich as ours, and it’s an international disgrace, although not as disgraceful as our current war with Iraq.

One of the most shocking points was one I doubted--the statistic about the US being one of only four countries that fails to provide paid maternity leave to al workers, and then I found a book review of Paul W. Kingston, Sheila B. Kamerman, and Alfred J. Kahn’s “Maternity Policies & Working Women,” which has the data to support the conclusion that “This study demonstrates how the nature of American national maternity policy leaves most women with far less protection than in any of no less than seventy-five other countries, including all other developed industrializes societies and any among the less developed countries.” We need a national maternity policy that demonstrates the economic costs and benefits while arguing the ethics behind this form of social change. It also needs to provide far less fuzzy figures, however, than the “estimated $50-$300 billion in lost job productivity each year” from worker stress (which is ill-defined as to its root causes).

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

It's Been Going On for Years
Posted by: nylaw13 on Dec 20, 2006 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a 59 year old attorney. When I went to law school, only 10% of my class were women. I have known far too many women, including myself, from my generation, that never had children. Some of us simply didn't want children, but my guess is that many of us would have had children had we not looked out on a country - yes, this country, the US - which said to us all - well, have children if you want, but they are yours, and solely your responsibility...and don't even think about affordable and quality child care, don't even think about affordable health care, don't even think about "flex time."

We got the message loud and clear then and opted out. Many of us were the best and brightest of our generation, but we got the message. I have watched sadly, lo these many years to see that things have not really changed in this regard....not in the US. In France, a country some of us laugh at, they have national day care - taught by their very best....but not here in the US. So, we do know how to really care for our children....it's just that we, as a country have opted out of doing so.

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

» It's a question of priorities. Posted by: MatthewSavage
What do you guys think this is . . . France? Wake Up!!
Posted by: MAD on Dec 20, 2006 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It sure would be nice if we could manage to fund universal healthcare, affordable daycare and convince businesses *big honking, snorting laugh* to cough up for paid parental leave, wouldn't it? While I'm lost in this utopian reverie, permit me just a few more indulgences like . . . a cash-flush Social Security program that has our seniors covered and *dare to dream* a gutted defense budget whose excesses are spilling over into alternative, renewable energy research and its sister program - nationwide mass transit projects.

SCRAATTCCHHHH . . . .

Now, back to reality. Before we get ahead of ourselves in this little socialized flight of fancy, let me remind you that Americans stand to lose trillions of dollars in this mind blowing, hyper destructive, ass reaming real-estate bubble. America's greatest source of personal wealth is being repossessed as we speak and we want more entitlements. The dollar is set to collapse, er, fall to new lows this coming year and we want to authorize 6-month parental leave? Thrifty Americans have a negative savings rate and the net foreign debt is hovering around $9 trillion. Oh, and we're hemorrhaging nearly 2 billion a week in our losing, military gambit.

Let's be perfectly clear on this: the US has not earned the right to any of those sweet, aforementioned entitlements. Yes, we voted out the evil Republicans and handed Democrats the keys - so now what? How are those impeachment proceedings going? Has anyone spoken with mssrs. Baker & Eagleberger lately? Any word on when and how we're pulling out of the desert? How about that national debt? Anyone have any idea how were going to convince China that our already useless funny money is of some value to them? Thought so. The US is washed up and PAID LEAVE IS THE LEAST OF OUR PROBLEMS!! Let's work on trying to keep this tattered economy from collapsing all together before we go debating whether Dick or Jane stays home to raise Junior.

Some of you will notice that our Canadian and European readers are quite happy with their parental leave options. They are granted such frills because they aren't armed to the fucking teeth nor are they meddling in the ME and, on occasion, they have been known to save money rather than spend it. Go figure.

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

» RE: I agree Posted by: Gregor
Real differences require different options
Posted by: anothername on Dec 20, 2006 1:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have not seen in the posts above, at least the primary posts, any comment that we have the mother-worker problem because women must have children (unless they adopt) earlier in life than men. We reward older workers who have been at a job many years more vacation time because they are less productive than younger workers. (They may have more experience, but they also have less energy.) The new grunts in a business, whether they are young or old, are the people expected to be at the office. The point is, we have an economic and social conflict that cannot be solved by telling women not to have children or to hold off having them.

The issue of work/life versus work/family is also valid. Everybody has, or should have, a life. It is only for a subset of the population that the life means family. Thus, we need policies that allow for work/life, whether that means snowboarding with the college frat friends or taking the elderly neighbor grocery shopping.

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

Businesses Always Supported Women In the Workplace
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Dec 20, 2006 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is the main reason that women (at least in Western countries) have entered the work place. Big corporations and governments have supported women working and were the major force behind it.

1) Women in the work force drives down wages for all (excessive supply in labour market.) This corrects itself to some degree however how many people have support their family on one income as in the past? So it hasn't corrected much. Also business pay women less, on average, then men so it saves them money.

2) Women in the work forces families to rely on the government for raising their children. This gives more power to state institutions, allows for excuses for higher taxes, and allows 'molding' at best and 'brainwashing' at worst of the country's youth. All governments like to take control of the children and try to break the family bond. Some (like W.Europe and America) do it relatively innoculuosly others, like PolPot do it in a more violent way.

3) Women in the work force means that frequently families will spend more money frivilously. Last minute shopping for groceries, take-out dinners, pizza orders, etc.

4) Women in the work force allows more consolidation and corporatisation of agriculture. Instead of being able to shop at local markets or visit different stores for different types of food most shopping is done in a hurried manner at one place- a grocery superstore or Walmart most frequently.

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

no paid leave in Australia either
Posted by: Ames on Dec 20, 2006 6:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet another example of Australia and the US being the only industrialised/Western countries to fail in such regards.

In Australia, there is no legislated provision or guarantee of paid maternity leave. Unpaid maternity leave is only guaranteed when a woman has been employed continuously at the same workplace for more than 12 months, otherwise it is at the discretion of the employer.

We also have no legislated or otherwise provisions for paternity leave, meaning it is near impossible for a father to take on the primary care role.

The unenviable choice for women then is to either never have children, or acknowledge that one's career will be irrevocably damaged by becoming a mother.

Or perhaps move.

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

Don't feed the trolls....
Posted by: nazrafel on Dec 20, 2006 6:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least I hope the people who are telling women to suck it up and stay at home are trolls. I'd hate to think that they would actually consider themselves "progressive". And for all those out there who are lucky enough to have the ability to remove themselves from the rat race and live on a farm somewhere...bully for you. But you know what, not all of us are so lucky and have family members who depend on us. (not just kids). Also, guess what, I LIKE work. YEAH, imagine that. I like having a career, solving problems, meeting goals and advancing up the ladder. Holy Unnatural Woman, Batman! I don't want to stop working just because I choose to have a child. (not that that would EVER be an option, in my tax bracket anyhow). God forbid I find fullfillment in something other than changing crappy diapers.

Not only that, but unless you are planning a revolution a la China, 1949- the current system isn't going to change any time soon. So if I, a progressive woman, works for The Evil Corporate World and I try to fight for my rights as a human (and the rights of others affected by coporate policies) perhaps things will evolve. What affect are you going to have on your farm? And DAMN IT> people, kids are NOT just the responsibility of WOMEN. (to the author of the article, I don't know which "old guard" feminists are "berating" women for staying at home, I read the feminist blogs ALL the time and all I see are articles on how the opt out thing is a load of hooey). In fact, most feminists called the original NYTimes article on this LONG before anyone started refuting it. This is just another case of blaming feminists when feminism can't win every battle.

It's crap like 70% of this comment thread that make me not want to have kids EVER. I am sick and tired of women having to prove over and over that we are human, that producing another human is work (that not all of us want/can do) and if you people want the human race to continue and don't want a generation of illiterate criminals, you had better be willing to invest in health care, child care, reproductive care, flexible work policies and financial assitance for single mothers.

Anyone who doesn't agree can suck it up and move to a flippin' farm in the middle of nowhere. (and don't collect the social security that MY generation is going to work to pay). That also goes for the "women" who claim to be perfectly happy staying at home cooing at 2 year olds and mixing cocktails for their husbands (who, unbeknownst to the happy housewives, are screwing the secretary and will leave them broke and penniless with the two kids in a couple of months). whatEVER.

In the meantime, when Alternet does occasionally manage to get a decently feminist article up, can we try not to feed the trolls? I hate having to look for the real, insightful comments from posters with good, well thought out points in the muck of illiterate, misogynistic sludge posted by asshats who are atill bitter at (and probably live with) their mothers.

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

Two slaves for the price of one
Posted by: demo9orgon on Dec 20, 2006 10:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the last 20 years big business has been having a blast.
Not only have they washed their hands of vast numbers of wage-earners (go global!), they've had a party using work-place divisions along gender lines in order to lower the wages for both men and women--effectively netting two employees for the price of one.

The only way to really turn things around is probably too radical for our society right now because it's something that the goddists in power just can't stomach. So I will delight in tormenting them by pitching it anyway. }:->

If more women had their kids early enough in life to have both a family and a career this wouldn't be such a big issue. Of course that's too much like right. The USA is all about stupid, the kind of stupid that drags on for centuries.

Right now we have a society that castigates and rejects young women who have a child before they have a career. How does having a baby make women any less fit to attend college? Because society thinks it isn't proper? Because it's not what nice girls do? Because parents in this country like to kick their daughters out?

Most of high-school is nothing but monkey-games. The core-studies can be taught via computer and correspondence programs. By the time they're ready to attend college these young women would already have most of the study skills necessary to easily handle anything college will throw at them. Most people who transition from High-school to college fail because they don't know how to study. There's an industry which exists to facillitate this kind of distance learning for home-schoolers that could easily pick up the slack.

Younger women also have a greater chance of a healthy parent who can support them. Some women are having children in their late 30's and early 40's and by then their parents are either too spent to want to babysit or they're enjoying life because they invested 100+k in getting their little girl the best education and access to social networks possible.

Being pregnant is something younger women do better than anybody. I hope this isn't news. Older women have more complications and babies with more developmental problems and it's so much harder for women to return to a job after taking time off from having a child that most simply just give up. The more the job pays, the harder it is to re-acclimate and get back up to speed.

This isn't an argument to foster teen pregnancy as much as it's an argument of common sense. Nobody wants a virgin in the boardroom, not even christians--most of them just don't know it. (and IMHO women who haven't had a child yet are still virgins)

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

» TO DEMO9 Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: TO DEMO9 Posted by: demo9orgon
More Bizarre Addled Thinking...
Posted by: faultroy on Dec 21, 2006 12:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love reading feminist articles--it sure beats reading the Comics in a Newspaper.
It seems that Feminists keep pushing the envelope with faulty logic, twisted statistics, hype and misinformation.
Now employers are accused of loosing billions of dollars in lost work productivity because of "inflexible work schedules."
What the hell does that mean? Well, our author never defines this--of course she being a feminist, she doesn't have to because that is her perogative.
And because of this "inflexibility" we are pushed to the
abyss of "inhumane conditions" ???? What conditions at work places are inhumane?...well, our intrepid journalist/teacher
can't really be bothered to define this as well.
And the studies? Well, the one study on work conditions the author mentions is commissioned by an organization that makes its money muscling Fortune 1,000 companies--
you know like the Rev. Jessie Jackson does when he wants info on number of blacks in their respective workforce--or he'll take a hefty contribution to his "Corporation" in lieu of
an analysis: "you know so we can give you some "black sensitivity training feedback.""
Our Feministically bloated author implies that it is government and society that forces poor Moms to slave in a corporation moving paper A to position B, but the reality is more that so many Women are just plain self centered self indulgent and greedy.
Take for example the cosmetics industry--a $22 Billion dollar industry...pretty difficult to cry poverty and "not making ends meet" when you are willing to shell out the kind of money women due for one of the highest if not the highest profit margined products in any industry category--products like eyeliner, lipstick and mascara--please don't hate me because I am beautiful!!!!
Lets not forget the travel industry....the average american woman
is taking travel vacations in record numbers and spending a commensurate amount in vacation dollars. Hows that for poverty and "inhumane treatment?"
Oh and lets look at the housing industry--look at the cost and increase in home sales over a ten year period--pretty difficult to cry poverty when looking l at soaring home prices.
Home and land sales is the best barometer anyone knows of to show just how much true disposable income there is within a society.
Oh and dificulty making ends meet? Well we just got off of
two record years in automotive industry sales and the economy is still booming. Credit Card purchases are at all time highs and this looks like it is going to be another record year for Christmas sales.
Oh perhaps the author meant that people can barely afford to feed themselves--Darn, sorry that can't be it, since according to the American Medical Association, Americans consume more calories today-- somewhere about 50 per cent more-- than at any time in the history of the United States--obesity is rampant, and Diabetes is finding its way even into the ranks of Children--no just diabetes but both forms of Diabetes--Type I and Type II. This is unheard of in the history of medicine.
Again according to the AMA, the cause of this is because parents are too lazy to get off their asses and even too lazy to force their children to do so.
So tell me, if the above is all true then what is the purpose of this bizarre convoluted thinking in this article?
Actually there was none...just another vacuous feminist "writer" whining about issues and situations that women created for themselves.
The sad reality is this is another con game on the American people. Another feminist trying to get the American Public to sympathize with the plight of american women to self aggrandize themselves at the expense of business and government and of course society as a whole because we ultimately have to pay for these excesses.

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

» RE: STFU Posted by: carcinoid112
Feminism
Posted by: Minervah on Dec 23, 2006 5:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember back in the 60's there was a famous poster of Golda Meir the then Prime minister of Israel that with the caption under it "But Can She Type?"

This is what feminism was all about. Equal jobs and equal pay for women. The want-ads in newspapers had "men's job" and "women's job" categories. Guess which ones were the high paying entry level opportunities and which were the dead-end go nowhere positions? I can remember being turned down for a job for which I had a lot of experience because the company I was applying to hired only men for that job. I can also remember seeing smart women training men to move up to jobs they, the women trainers, could never aspire to.
A lot has changed thanks to the feminist movement. Qualified women can now have almost the same opportunities as men but instead of taking advantage of these opportunities they use Feminism to whine about getting taken care of for becoming mothers. Feminism has been turned upside down. Substitute the word "entitlement" for "feminism" and you have a new poster of many young women of today who not so much interested in getting the job for which they are qualified but rather in getting as much as they can out of a potential employer to financially support her lifestyle choice to have children.
When special entitlements are given some others pay the price. Those employees who are constantly in the postition of covering those who choose to reproduce will never get compensated for it either in pay or equal time off. Feminism was all about equality and fairness. Giving time off and continued pay to some workers because of their life-choices to have children is not about equality and certainly not what the early Feminists had in mind.

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

STOP HAVING CHILDREN!!
Posted by: PT Alden on Dec 24, 2006 9:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is one thing people are clearly failing to understand – having children is not a necessity! If you want to work, or if you cannot afford to bring a child into this world on your husband's salary, don't have kids.

Not only is our planet overpopulated, but there are millions of children around the world without parents or homes. Why not adopt one of them? Why not foster a child where you would be paid to parent?

Heterosexuals think they have the right to bring yet another resource-draining life into this world, even if they cannot afford it, then expect society to bend to their willful choice. It's not enough to adopt. They have to have a genetic copy of mommy and daddy.

It's past time someone told these selfish fucks they have no inherent right to procreate. But I guess a brown or yellow baby wouldn't look as good at the mall while they mindlessly consume. I have no sympathy for these people.

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

  • 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