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
  • 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.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Those Corporate Homewreckers

By Barbara Ehrenreich, The Progressive. Posted March 21, 2006.


It's just not possible to be a responsible parent or spouse if your work leaves you with barely enough time to shower.

I was in the Atlanta airport recently, cruising a bookstore, when this catchy title leaped out at me: Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports.

Since the author is National Review Washington editor and Fox News pundit Kate O'Beirne, I indulged my vanity and looked up my own name in the index. There I was, right up front on page 4, credited with ruining our families. If O'Beirne had done a little more research, she might have found me responsible for wrecking our military and schools, as well. But I can't complain: Destroying the family is a hefty accomplishment all by itself.

This isn't the first time I've gotten rightwing attention as a homewrecker. Back in the mid-'90s, James Dobson's Focus on the Family once described me as a woman who'd dedicated her life to the destruction of the American family, in more or less those words.

Partly this is just the rightwing translation of the word "feminist." Some of you may recall Pat Robertson's attack on feminism during the controversy over the Equal Rights Amendment in the '80s. Feminists, he said, busy themselves becoming lesbians, killing their children, and advancing Marxism -- a formidable agenda to say the least, especially if your children are fast on their feet.

What brought me to the Atlanta airport was not a trip to a convention of lesbian, Marxist, child-killers. I was returning from a holiday spent with my son and his girlfriend and my nephew and his wife, and I was rushing home because I was eager to rejoin my granddaughters (ages 4 and 1), who are the lights of my life.

News of the Dobson attack had hit at a similar moment: I was returning from a visit to my grandmother and an ailing aunt in Iowa. My job may be to "destroy the American family," but I've never managed to destroy a single family member, even one of the more irritating ones. If anyone is "ruining" the American family, it's all the employers who refuse to recognize that their employees have family responsibilities, as well as jobs.

I'm thinking of two categories of employers, which often overlap: 1) Those who don't pay enough for their employees to live on, thus forcing them to work second jobs, and 2) those who abuse their salaried employees with expectations of 10 or more hours of work per day. Apparently there are more and more such anti-family employers, as Americans now surpass even the famously workaholic Japanese in annual hours on the job.

From 1979 to 2000, Japan reduced the average annual hours worked by 305, whereas the United States reduced its annual hours by a whopping total of four, according to The State of Working America, 2004-2005. All variety of things suffer when work expands to fill evenings and weekends -- health, for example, and citizenly participation. How can you frame an opinion on the issues if you never get a chance to read or have long discussions with friends?

But families -- and especially children -- take the worst hit. It's just not possible to be a responsible and responsive parent or spouse if your work leaves you with barely enough time to shower. But to get back to Kate O'Beirne: Will you help me save the family by joining me in a campaign for adequate wages and a return to the concept of the eight-hour day? If not, let's at least fight fair. You get out your photos of your grandkids (if any) and I'll get out mine.

Digg!

Barbara Ehrenreich is a columnist for The Progressive. Her latest book is "Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream."



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:
Progressive commentary
Posted by: Realman on Mar 21, 2006 3:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ehrenreich's message is hugely important. In a world where mainstream media is not just distracting but is distracted itself by the shiny, loud objects it blares about as threatening families and children (such as Time Magazine's cover story this week about "wired" children), the most real threat is that too many people are back to working too many hours for too little money, but to have enough money to "keep up" with media-created fictional joneses.

Sometimes I think "tune in, turn on, drop out" is more the right way to go: Tune in did refer to a spiritual/philosophical kind, turn on never meant TV (but if it did come to mean drugs, I'd promote the music and loving ones), and drop out, most misunderstood, was to drop out mainstream societal expectations for the fast track -- and to become engaged in the world that the mainstream distracts us from.

Bill Stella

Radio host Tuesdays Noon-2 PM ET on WRSU.org

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

Another world is possible
Posted by: Lizmv on Mar 21, 2006 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a single mother, I chose many years ago to be with my children and became self-employed. By doing so, I gave up a lot, mostly a steady cash flow and all the material things that go with it. I have never and will never regret it.
If more people gave up the percieved benefits of the corporate world and turned to lower paying LOCAL employment that enhances their LOCAL economy, the Earth will be a far healthier place.

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

» RE: Another world is possible Posted by: beausoleil
It's about materialism
Posted by: Moonray on Mar 21, 2006 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By all means, let's continue the good fight against oppressive employers, but this battle begins at home. Too many of us have bought into the values that call for keeping up with the Joneses, and we're afraid to drive last year's car, much less buck the system.

That makes it infinitely harder for someone really on the economic edge -- like a single mother with an entry-level job -- to survive. Our craving for the good life, and every gadget and bauble that comes along, creates the strong demand that boosts prices and empowers ruthless corporations.

Want to really rebel against this trend? Cut up your credit cards. Drive a ten-year-old car. Live in a smaller house than you can afford. Save 20 percent of your earnings. And refuse to allow your boss to dictate your home life -- even if it means quitting your job.

I did all those things. Now I'm poorer but a lot happier.

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

» RE: It's about materialism Posted by: jackie
» RE: It's about materialism Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: It's about materialism Posted by: churchofone
» RE: It's about materialism Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: It's about materialism Posted by: scryberwitch
quite right
Posted by: rsaxto on Mar 21, 2006 5:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ehrenreich is quite right: a society run by corporate whipmasters loses sight of the highest features of being human which are socializing and science in the cause of making society better in every facet of human activity instead of just fast and furious addiction to a paper bottom line which may cause more harm to the environment than a more reasoned and happy struggle.

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

MY NUMBERS
Posted by: AlienSlave on Mar 21, 2006 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The percent of throwaway children that find their way into my home seeking aid and shelter are about equally divided between religious homes and nonreligious homes. The reasons they are discarded and rejected range from simple to complex. I will say this repatriating a child back into the religious home or extended family is very hard, in most cases it just isn’t an option.
AlienSlave

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

Keep the Slaves busy so they have less time to think!
Posted by: williameon on Mar 21, 2006 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Three jobs:
In Debt!
No Home!
No Health Care!
No Social Security!
Now that’s Bush’s idea of the:
American Dream.
Here’s a list of Clones up for the Halliburton:
Neocon of the Year Award.
Carle Roves: She loves to butter you up before she Frocks yer!
Tom Too Gay: The Orkin Man Strikes Out!
Rumdumb: Who runs all the way to the Bank!
J. Ton of Bolts: Helps steals elections and loves back stabbing.
Dick the Heartless: CEO of Americo & the World!
With one foot in the grave.
He shoots you in the face and then lies about it!
The Shrub: The evil seed always falls near the trees.
Evil Hatrest: Mirror, Mirror on the wall: Who is the vilest of them all?
All the Re-pub-blow-crates.
This year’s award for the:
Treasonous Media Hypocrite of the year goes to:
Rush The Limburger!
The stinky-er the Sleaze!
The Smelly-er;
The Cheese!
Unhonerable Mention goes to:
Splat Robinson!
When he finally hits the shitter!
Christ will be relieved.
Old robots never die!
They just whine away.

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

Corporate Greed The Root of the Problem
Posted by: rangerjim on Mar 21, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only is corporate greed destroying families, but threatens the security of retirees, by means of legal action to recover portions of the pensions long ago agreed to by workers' Unions. Not only are unions needed now more than ever, but Corporate CEOs need to be held accountable for their actions or inactions, and the practice of awarding golden parachutes to CEOs who screw up big time and screw the workers big time ought to be prohibited, failing that, the American Worker ought to take up arms, band together and storm Washington to take back our government, by force ,if necessary. It would make my day if Enron's Ken Lay's mansion burned to the ground, along with those who looted that company. All many of today's CEOs do is loot the companies they are put in charge of. Maybe it is time to let Theodore Kazinski out of his cage to go back to his work, send corporate America with a very loud and noisy message with a bang.

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

Ehrenreich is so right
Posted by: wonkywriter on Mar 21, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My son is an engineer for Honda in Ohio. He works from nine in the morning until eight at night, five days a week. When he asked for a day off to attend a birthday celebration for himself and me that had been planned for months and for which I had already purchased him a plane ticket, his bosses nearly refused. When someone quits or retires, Honda does not replace them. They just dump their work onto those left behind.

These policies are driven by the profit motive. Unlike management, customers, and stockholders, employees have no bargaining power any more. The result harms not only families, as Ehrenreich points out, but our democracy, as well. People have neither the time nor the energy to keep informed on the issues, let alone participate in the political process.

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

Mm.
Posted by: bettsoff on Mar 21, 2006 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Ehrenreich's books were as forthright and personally honest as this column, I might actually be able to finish one.

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

» RE: Mm. Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Mm. Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Mm. Posted by: redjenny
» RE: Mm. Posted by: bettsoff
» They are! Posted by: J-
» RE: They are! Posted by: bettsoff
Hippies
Posted by: Roverton on Mar 21, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember Hippies?

We made our things as much as bought them. We weren't rich, but accepted by our own for who we were discovering we were.

We had several years of not being ashamed of that before the hypniosis of 70's and 80's materialism kicked in again.

We were better people before.

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

» So, you changed? Posted by: chasaturn
Working Families
Posted by: playitsam on Mar 21, 2006 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I especially love her challenge to Kate O'Beirne. I would love to see the two of them discuss this issue. Why is it that conservative commentators complain so much about the death of the family and yet see no problem with low wages and/or long hours?

Conservatives want to place all the weight of work and family and health care and education on the shoulders of individuals. As they become more and more successful, working people are buckling under that weight.

When a commentator like the conservative Lou Dobbs talk about "corporate supremacists" and decry outsourcing, you know the world is turning upside down. I just wish the Democrats were as concerned about these issues as people like Dobbs.

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

» RE: Working Families Posted by: Doubtom
song of the volga boatmen
Posted by: saywhat? on Mar 21, 2006 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if people here at the alternet post don't get this basic premise that ehrenreich explains, then i suggest all feminists secede from the union along with vermont

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

Income redistribution? Noblesse oblige disappeared along with the frontier.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 21, 2006 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blaming the messenger never worked. Whether it's feminism or fanaticism, it's protected free speech. Tongue lash each other as much as you want. It's not what you say but what you do that matters. Nothing offered by either side promises much improvement.

Reduced work hours is a way of redistributing the wealth. It costs owners when productivity drops. Except during war time with rationing, price and wage controls, and public supervision of private enterprise deciding how much is "enough," it's always survival of the fittest--or in this case, the richest.

I expect we will return to that war time economy as soon as we are forced to face all the issues we now hide from by watching sit coms and anarchist films.

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

» Bravo sojourner! Posted by: HeidiLockwood
Conscientious caring human by name of Laurence
Posted by: peaceyogi on Mar 21, 2006 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone who doesn't like the way this world is going should look at www.uspeacegovernment.org, www.globalcountry.org, www.alltm.org, www.mum.edu, www.mou.org and get involved in changing it. We have to use the existing system to change it from within and that within starts with your state of consciousness. To find out what it means to develop your consciousness, do a search for "yogic flying."

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

As good as this article is....
Posted by: djtyg on Mar 21, 2006 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I think it's a great one (not only does it show some universal truths about corporate greed, but it gives progressives the edge in the "family values" debate), I'm reminded of an article posted on this website a few months ago that said stay at home moms can never be real feminists (forgive me, I forgot the name of the story).

I'm glad for this article, but if Alternet is going to post something like this, it might help if they keep some consistency in the debate. Lest we all become like the right-wingers and change our story whenever we feel it's convenient.

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

» As far as I can tell Posted by: stormchilde1975
As long as...
Posted by: chasaturn on Mar 21, 2006 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...people feel a "need" for all that excess baggage demanded by the American Way Of Life, they'll sell out to their corporate masters - who really don't give a damn, there's more where they came from - and sacrifice family, children, whatever to buy that house in the suburbs and a SUV or two to drive back and forth. Then they all sit in front of their big screen TVs and bemoan the news that some kid, neglected and alienated, has shot up the local school or sliced his parents to pieces in the foyer. Gives them something to gossip about at next month's Republican neighborhood caucus.

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

» RE: As long as... Posted by: loril
Gerry Mander
Posted by: GerryMander on Mar 21, 2006 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barbara makes some excellent points in her article. The right wing spreads ridiculous lies about anyone they consider the "other". I thoroughly enjoy Barbara's writing and look forward to her next book.
I work in the film business part time and the working conditions there are sometimes sub-human. The equipment and some people are hired on a per day basis, so they try to get the most hours out of people so they don't have to pay for so many days of equipment rental. They try to convince you of the "prestige" of working in the film business. It's all about maximizing profits. Witness the plethora of reality shows where they don't have to pay writers and actors. They pay the actors on reality shows very little, but they get the glory of humiliating themselves on tv all in the pursuit of fame.

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

Public sector too
Posted by: mviscid on Mar 21, 2006 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I work at a public research institution and we're getting pinched too! Skyrocketing insurance costs, longer hours, more responsibilities as we try to meet rising needs while the state legislature gives us fewer and fewer dollars. I mouth off to the free-market disciples that there's no profit in caring for people. That one tends to stop them cold.

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

On the other hand...
Posted by: anothername on Mar 21, 2006 11:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, I'm not talking about the opposite hand from the one that holds time with family as a family value. I'm talking about the third hand that demands soccer moms and parents shuttling chidlren to ballet and 3-year-olds' birthday parties.

It is not just the corporate bosses that are taking up our time away from family. It is not just the corporate bosses that keep us working and unable to stay politically active. It is our commitments to sprawling communities, to organizing children's lives as though they are corporate executives, and to greater consumption as a sign of our success in life that are just as responsible.

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

Well said!!!
Posted by: hannah on Mar 22, 2006 1:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a single mother for many years, with no college under my belt, I struggled to find my niche in the working world so that we could at least survive. Somehow we did. In fact, both my kids went to college, thankfully. I was once told (when very young) that I made too much money to qualify for food stamps, even though I was earning barely above minimum wage, and paying for daycare. Back then, the corporate world, or any boss for that matter, could care less if you had a family to care for. They just looked at that as an albatross they (and you) didn't need, if you were a single parent of the female persuasion. I could have found a way to go to college and work full time, as a dear friend was doing at the time. But I saw her one child suffer due to mom's long absences. I decided I wanted to spend my evenings with my kids since that's all I could have. Not a lick of support have I gotten along the way from my bosses through the years. Big surprise.

We are the most civilized, most powerful country in the world, but we are worlds behind other countries when it comes to supporting our families. It's not getting better; if anything, it's getting worse. "Family Friendly" is basically just a lot of hot air. Health insurance premiums and co-pays continue to climb. Utility costs are skyrocketing. Yet the cost-of-living raises we get each year are peanuts. The conservatives are making sure only the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. The working poor are barely scraping by. I heard in the news a few days ago that more and more people are getting behind in their mortgage payments. That's if they can find a house they can afford.

Bless you, Barbara! If more people with a voice would speak up, maybe those who make sense would finally be heard.

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

» RE: Well said!!! Posted by: janakiblum
» RE: Well said!!! Posted by: beausoleil
i think it's everywhere
Posted by: phinnphace on Mar 22, 2006 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My partner and i both work in EMS- that means 12, 16 or 24hr shifts in and ambulance responding to 911 emergency calls and doing transports. We get paid crap for a very dangerous job- my partner has a son that lives with us 4 days a week. this translates to working 60 hrs each in a space of 3 days. But because we need 'extra' money now we have had to incorporate an extra OT shift during the time that he is with us. This means a lot of creative running around, making dinner, shopping and making sure that our son gets to everything he needs to be doing, making time for homework, making dinner every night, and everything else that goes a long with being a parent. we are lucky though. we have made it so far. But this is ruining the family- not the fact that we are queer, or feminists, or political. Ah... to think of making that elusive livable wage. and yes, i can atest to not showering- i cant even tell you how long its been. but at least our son goes to the library every week, and we make him dinner every night. This economic ideal of if you work hard enough youll be wealthy is B.S.- Damn Ben franklin and his rugged individualism, not to mention his
highly fictional autobiography filled with anecdotes that started all this crap

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

» RE: i think it's everywhere Posted by: hannah
corporations exist because of our money
Posted by: beausoleil on Mar 26, 2006 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone out there with money invested in corporations has no right to complain about what those corporations do. I say that what we need is a shopping revolution, not just a work revolution. Buy local, buy home-made, get rid of your stocks and mutual funds that support the giant corporations and invest in a local business. The attack on small home businesses is well underway. Small businesses will soon be a thing of the past. Our government/corporate slavemasters want us to have paychecks, albeit small ones, because deducting taxes out of a paycheck is so easy.

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

Even better - a Guaranteed Livable Income!
Posted by: Geni on Mar 26, 2006 10:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the rightwingers, we can call it "Guaranteed Working Capital" - a no-strings-attached financial sum acknowledging each person's share as the nation's human capital. People would finally be free to choose a more modest standard of living in order to tend to family matters, without fearing that the last years of their life would be spent in poverty as a result. Martin Luther King was calling for a guaranteed income on the day he was shot.

http://www.livableincome.org

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

Traffic congestion saps family time-No more amnesties, please
Posted by: plantland on Apr 6, 2006 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am worried that fellow liberals who approve of the Senate's amnesty bills are not considering what granting driver's licenses to more presently undocumented immigrants will do to air quality and traffic congestion. Once citizenship in five years (as presented in the Senate's Kennedy-McCain bill )kicks in, newly minted citizens can then bring their family members -brothers, sisters from large families back home. We can expect an even greater level of time robbing congestion, amd more concern about schools teaching just the basics and omitting history, geography, music, and art as is now happening in impacted areas.
So its not just that jobs have added hours, it is longer jobs with longer commutes.
The imposition of both longer jobs and commutes then gives rise to professional women hiring nannies. Policy making professionals then strongly espouse the benefits of not enforcing employer sanctions against illegal immigration, for they are , at least in Washington DC, the employers! The professionals in favor of illegal immigration are doing the rest of the women in the US a disservice. Frequently this means NOT having the choice to stay home and breat feed an infant due to the high cost of housing, which has also been a result of too much competition for rentals and home buying, driving the price up so high that at least two incomes are needed to break even.
I agree with Barbara Ehrenreich's position piece, and want to connect with other like thinkers who may be supporting the Senate's proposed immigration bill, misled by the term, "reform".
We need to investigate and fine employers who hire undocumented workers, as the house bill does. The Kennedy bill paves the way to receive more people from Central America and will help the Catholic Church reverse Roe Wade at the ballot box by using North America as a safety valve for the poverty and despair it generated when it quelched Liberation Theology and cause the population to increase to dramatic , unsustainable levels. Allowing unsustainable levels in dry states in the US can only lead to disasters for society and the planet, as we focus on tolerance while the planet is in a precarious state, in part, from the assimilation of others to becoming resource using and burning Americans- already #1 in Consumption in the world.

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