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.

Presidential Candidates Ignore Working Mothers

By Yvonne Bynoe, AlterNet. Posted October 11, 2007.


It's time we had a candidate who articulated a comprehensive plan to help 21st century families better balance work and home.

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

More stories by Yvonne Bynoe

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The 2008 presidential race is historic because Hillary Clinton is in it. Yes, Clinton is a woman, but she is also a woman who worked while raising a child. Surprisingly, she is not using her experience as a working mother to her advantage in this campaign. Like all of the men, Hillary's focused on Iraq. I am interested in when we will get out of Iraq and how we will deal with global terrorism, but I am just as concerned about how the next president will deal with the lack of family leave and affordable childcare. I think that a candidate who articulated a comprehensive plan to help 21st century families to better balance work and home would win by a landslide.

There are approximately 26 million working mothers in the United States. In my own circle, every mother works, even part-time or in a home-based business. The majority of us had mothers who worked, and we tend to see our jobs as a hedge against the uncertainties of marriage and life. One of my friends became a single mother when her husband died of cancer in his early 40s, and another joined the ranks after a divorce. In a few other cases, the wife's income helped keep the family afloat and insured when the husband's corporate job was eliminated.

The stark reality is that the majority of American mothers work out of economic necessity. Even for married mothers, fewer of their husbands' salaries are enough to support their households. According to the Department of Labor, in 2004 nearly 71 percent of mothers with children under 18 were in the work force. This figure includes 62 percent of mothers who had children under 6 years old. Even an informal survey conducted on Oprah.com earlier this year revealed that 91 percent of mothers polled said that they worked out of financial need.

Politicians regularly state that they support children and families, yet the United States and Australia have the distinction of being the only industrialized countries that do not have paid family leave. An American working mother can expect to receive only 12 weeks of unpaid leave, and she only gets that if she works for a company with more than 50 employees. After the birth of a baby, not only do most American families have to cobble together a leave strategy, they also must struggle to pay their bills with one less salary. The same holds true if an older child becomes ill. This means that many single mothers risk unemployment if they cannot immediately find a care provider. Given the cost of childcare, it may be easier to locate it than to pay for it.

Nearly 12 million children under age 5 are in some type of regular childcare each week. According to the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, the childcare cost for one infant is between $3,803 to $13,480 a year, depending on where in the nation the child resides. My husband and I paid nearly $1,000 per month to send our three-year-old to a day-care center, certified by the State of Maryland, for about 15 hours per week. The problem of paying for childcare is most acute for low-income women. While a two-wage household spends about 10 percent of its income each year on childcare, a single mother spends nearly 33 percent of her income on childcare.

Having children is serious business, so people should be both emotionally and financially ready before taking the plunge. However, current public policies seem to be stuck in the 1950s, presuming that most families are comprised of one full-time wage earner and a stay-at-home mother. In truth, working mothers, whether they are married or single, are now integral to our national work force. It is therefore not a handout to update our laws so that working mothers don't have to sacrifice their children in order to stay employed.

The real change candidate will not be determined by race or gender but by new thinking. The person who gets my vote will not relegate topics such as family leave, flexible work schedules and affordable childcare to the political back burner called "women's issues." This candidate will understand that to ignore the needs of half of our citizens weakens our nation's long-term ability to compete in a global economy and improve our standard of living here at home.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: working mothers, working women, election 2008

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:
Long term ability
Posted by: underledge on Oct 11, 2007 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author's closing line - "weakens our nation's long-term ability to compete in a global economy and improve our standard of living here at home." - is a pipe dream. If by competing one means to close manufacturing here to rely upon foreign producers for the majority of products we use, then she is correct. One of our biggest problems is attempting to maintain a standard of living that totally based upon cheap energy.

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

On the contrary
Posted by: Cruella on Oct 11, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The long-term economic viability of the US as a whole is very heavily dependent on having a well-educated, capable work force. The majority of MBA students are now living in India. It's not just manufacturing jobs that will move overseas, so will accountancy, legal work, management consultancy, journalism, etc. And failing to support working mothers will do nothing for educational standards. Even in the UK working mothers seem to be held to ransom for their own problems.

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

Working mothers are nothing new
Posted by: nellie blogger on Oct 11, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think childcare is an important issue, but it's a mistake to think it is somehow a new problem or a problem separate from the other issues created by a mobile society. The truth is, there has only been a very short period in our history when mothers did not work, and for some economic groups, working has always been something women have done.

I would like to see this argument reframed. All the "working mothers" in the author's circle were forced to work because of events occurring in the husband's life. Why not start out with the proposition that women work -- because they want to, because they need to -- for whatever reason, that there is such a thing as a single father, and that families deserve a society where children are protected. Then we can focus on solutions, such as on-site childcare at businesses. It eliminates extra travel time, allows parents -- mothers and fathers -- to see their children during the day, and reduces the chances of abusive environments. I'm not particularly advocating any one solution. I'm just saying a variety of solutions are possible and that's the where the discussion needs to focus. Not on the fact that women work or that children need childcare.

Children used to work in this country until we passed laws against it -- for the good of children and for the good of society. If we are going to continue evolving into a more family-friendly nation, then childcare needs to be seen as a social good. Perhaps then the issue will get more attention from politicians -- and from the public.

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

» RE: Working mothers are nothing new Posted by: Joshua Holland
John de Graaf, president of Take Back Your Time
Posted by: timeday on Oct 11, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an excellent piece and well argued, but the US situation is even more unique than suggested. Australian parents DO get the equivalent of paid family leave. They are allowed up to one year of unpaid leave and then receive a $5,000 payment when they have a child. Broken down this is the equivalent of about three months leave at half of salary, not as good as in most European countries but in reality, still paid family leave, which the US does not have at all. Only Liberia, Lesotho, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea are in the US category. Morever, the European countries with the best policies for working moms--Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc. are all MORE competitive in the global economy than is the US, according to the World Economic Forum. It's time to take this issue seriously. For more information on this topic, see www.timeday.org.

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

Great Great Article Yvonne!
Posted by: wagadog on Oct 11, 2007 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you so much for writing this! My feelings exactly.

It's interesting that you bring these two things up in the same breath:

I am interested in when we will get out of Iraq and how we will deal with global terrorism, but I am just as concerned about how the next president will deal with the lack of family leave and affordable childcare.

because I think these two issues are closely related. Why is it that we have twelve billion dollars a week available to run a crazy war that accomplishes nothing -- but funding of a public good such as health care for children (not to mention day care) is alway "too expensive."

Obviously, the war has to end AND we have to realign our priorities.

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

This author ignores and marginalizes working fathers - and women, too
Posted by: Rune on Oct 11, 2007 10:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite a call for a more enlightened and progressive view of family life, needs, and expectations, this author seems to be viewing the matters at hand from the point of view that women are not and should not be equals in the world of work or in parenting. Quite simply, it is implied that women should be THE parent and, as such, should not be expected to work outside the home to support themselves and their family when there are two (implicitly heterosexual) parents at home, or, if there is only one parent, it is presumed to be a mother (no mention of the role of fathers in divided families, even when the mother is granted primary custody) who deserves some measure of state support and relief (whereas fathers do not?). Despite a sincere attempt to nudge perspectives about the modern realities of raising children and promoting gender equality in America, the unspoken presumptions of this article do much to keep us tied to an unfair and unworkable mythology of gender roles and expectations. The antiquated beliefs being reinforced are of detached fathers contributing little more than a paycheck if they contribute anything at all, and women who are not given an equal choice to be the primary (or equal) bread winner. I think it is important to sound the alarm about how we are short changing our children, to say nothing of how miserable and unreasonable current policies are for those who are trying to raise children (with or without a partner of either gender) and earn a living, but we should not be undercutting the needs and challenges of either gender in the process.

Yes, any candidate who comes through with a plan to address some of these issues will score points with voters trying to raise a family, whether or not they frame the matter as a woman's issue (as above) or a matter of concern to everyone who cares about children and the plight of workers, which is a much broader slice of society. In fact, as John de Graaf (see his comments above) has mentioned elsewhere, in the last presidential election, the number one social issue picked up by Republican pollsters (Democrats missed it) was the lack of time to attend to basic necessities and niceties in day to day life. It wasn't even necessary for candidates to come up with a plan to improve on this worsening condition, all they had to do was empathize and imply that they would do something, somehow, to reverse the trend. We need and deserve better than that. All of us, not just mothers. But until we insist on policies that accommodate our duties as parents, community builders and leaders, workers, caretakers of friends and family, and, hey, active participants in some form of democracy (or at least the remaining brain trust with some inkling of what such civic obligations might be), we can expect things to get worse in all areas of daily life, not just mothering or parenting.

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

More selfish parental entitlement
Posted by: FurryGirl on Oct 11, 2007 2:58 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole issue is just a bunch of baby boomer entitlement fallout. I can't stand how every article ever written (on the right or left) about this subject assumes that having children is a life-or-death necessity, rather than something people choose to do.

Procreation is an expensive hobby that some people choose to engage in, just like travel or collecting art any other interest that takes up time and money. Can't afford to pay for childcare? Rather focus on climbing the corporate ladder? How about not having children in the first place. Children need to stop being treated as a "given", especially in an age when more and more people are childfree by choice.

Why should my tax dollars go to pay for free childcare for people who's hobby is procreating? Why on earth would any rational person think that the government should actually *pay* people to have babies, as they do in Europe? The idea of that just makes me sick. Where is the psuedo-political argument that the government should use tax money to pay me to go on vacation for several months every few years? Travel is my expensive hobby, so where is my free money to pursue it?

Parents have the government and corporate America bent over backwards handing them freebies and tax breaks, and I'm sick of parents whining about how the government doesn't compensate them *enough* to create offspring. Boo to entitlement, and boo to arguing that the governments of the world should prioritize paying people to have children when human overpopulation is the root issue of every single problem in the world today.

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

» furrygirl-awesome post Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» The funny thing is that... Posted by: jparsons
» RE: The funny thing is that... Posted by: FurryGirl
One Candidate Talks about Working Mothers
Posted by: zbeckerd on Oct 11, 2007 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070513-mothers-day/

While I don't know everything about him, much of what I have heard from him is about the poor and working poor. Working poor includes a broad sprectrum of people left behind by the current greed in our world.

John Edwards has also talked about increasing the child care tax credit.
http://johnedwards.com/issues/tax-reform/

On family leave and womens issues he has proposed many changes. The do not all go far enough
http://johnedwards.com/women/

Here in Oregon we will not get to decide who will get the party nomination. But I have to say I would certainly look at Edwards over Clinton on a progressive agenda

The author makes good points as do some of the responses. But outside of Clinton and Obama the media does not cover the other candidates message very well.

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

why does this matter one iota if we're at the end of our water supply?
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Oct 11, 2007 9:36 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
re: Our Drinkable Water Supply Is Vanishing
By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted October 11, 2007.

why does this working mother article matter one iota if we're at the end of our water supply?!?!?!?

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

The Mother took the Fathers job.
Posted by: messedup on Oct 15, 2007 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then kicked him out on the street so she could feminize the children.
We are women, we work out of necessity. These women who watch Oprah are really catching on quick.
Hillary?, she's a flip/flapping politician, and a lawyer. Call that work if you want.

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

Non-sequiter much?!
Posted by: dstele on Oct 15, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your argument has so many holes in it, I am not sure one to lead the pack of elephants through first.

1. You use self-entitlement as an argument against parenting/procreating when in actuality you are espousing self-entitlement in the "why shouldn't the government pay me for my hobbies, too" ideal. In becoming parents and becoming concerned for another living being, the self-entitlement is lost. Self-entitlement is another term for narcissism. If you are concerned about another's well-being more than your own (i.e., a parent's concern for a child), you are not narcissistic. But, a person only wanting to taken care of for the sake of their own gain... that is narcissistic.

2. The act would not be solely for the payment of "procreation." It is to pay for leave that any person would need. Another commentor has addressed that. However, in your case, it COULD pay for your vacation (i.e., your hobby) in some manner. Let's say your hobby of vacationing leads you to some exotic locale. While in the location you catch a rather nasty bug or fall from a elevation (while mountain climbing). Either could require you to take an extended leave which you may not have the explicit time off. This act would allow you to do so, and you would get paid some percentage of your paycheck to do so. Or, say your sibling or life-partner goes along on this trip and is the one to befall the injury/sickness. You would be paid to take the time to help them recuperate.

3. I would bet that in 99.9% of cases of the act of procreation, the people involved did not look at it as a hobby. In many of those cases, I would bet that the pregnancy was an accident/mistake (remember, most forms of birth control are not 100%). Would you have all those accidents become abortions? Or, since you look at the act of procreation as a hobby, and include arguments that the world is over-populated, would you condone government-enacted mandatory sterilization? Maybe families should be required to pay for a license to breed? In that way, only people who can afford to pay for this "hobby" would be allowed to do so. You see where I am going with this argument? If only the economically elite have the ability to engage in this "hobby", do you think that a country full of Paris Hiltons will be looking to go to school and get their M.D.? Who will take care of you when you get older or when you have an unfortunate accident? You are going to have to travel to one of those European countries who have people thinking irrationally and paying for medical leave.

Before all you young, hip people who choose to remain family-free begin arguing against family insurance leave, please take a moment to realize who this benefits. I
am sure you'd realize it is in your best interest to have little Johnny around in twenty or more years when your health isn't as good and, you're looking for the next Curie to help fix what ails you.

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