Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

The Care Crisis

By Ruth Rosen, TPMCafe. Posted May 11, 2006.


What women talk about when men are not listening. (Hint: it's not sex.)
Advertisement

If you think its about sexual prowess, you'd be wrong. If you think it's about size, forget it. And if you imagine we follow the various pissing contests going on among male liberals, you're too self-absorbed. It's about what I call the Care Crisis.

During the last week, I've had a series of conversations with intellectual, liberal women who, like most of our male friends, companions and husbands, want to restore American democracy, end the war and free up our nation's wealth to support the health and well being of our nation's citizens.

We care about the common good. We believe in a public good. We agree with those liberal men who are writing about how Democrats will have to be more than a "collection of aggrieved out-groups," to quote David Brooks (New York Times, April 27). We agree with Brooks that "the message voters respond to best is notions of shared sacrifice for the common good...people are ready for an appeal to citizenship."

Multiculturalism and identity politics, gloats Brooks, are dead. Fine by me. Gleefully, Brooks announces that "Democrats are purging the last vestiges of the New Left and returning to the older civic liberalism of the 1950s and early 1960s."

But here's the rub: Notice the years Brooks chooses as the historical moment to which we should return--before American women began demanding the equality that is essential to their citizenship.

In these conversations you men never hear, this is what we discuss: For four decades, working women have poured into the paid labor force. Yet American society has done precious little to restructure the workplace or family life. The result? Working mothers are burdened and exhausted, families are fractured and children are often neglected. The dirty little secret, we repeatedly tell each other, is that it is both profitable and convenient to our government, business and many men, for women to wear themselves out trying to do the unpaid work of caring for children, caring for the elderly and caring about the social networks of our communities.

It's as though Americans are trapped in a time warp, certain that women will still do all this caring, even though they can't, because more than half are outside their homes working in the paid workplace. And so, we have the mounting Care Crisis.

But somehow male progressives and liberals continue to view these problems as those of a special interest group and part of identity politics. Yet it is the core dilemma faced by most middle class and working class American families, all along the political spectrum.

These are some of the war stories we share with each other:

A distinguished op-ed editor rejects an opinion piece that describes the need for high-quality, affordable, accessible child care because "It's been written about thousands of times." He's right. But nothing's changed.

A distinguished editor tells a journalist that he doesn't really want articles about "women's" problems because he's more interested in addressing the public good. Hasn't he heard that women hold up half the sky and then-some?

Fortunately, one person may have found a way around these gatekeepers who are so bored with vital changes that have never been addressed and implemented.

Joan Blades, co-founder of the online activist web movement, Moveon.org, has launched a grassroots virtual campaign dedicated to making working mothers's private choices and dilemmas a central part of our national conversation and political agenda.

She and her co-author Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner have just published The Motherhood Manifesto (Nation Books), a book filled with elegantly accessible stories that reveal the problems faced by working mothers in the early 21st century Without using the F word, they also prescribe such essential changes as paid parental leave, flexible working conditions, after-school programs, universal health care, excellent, affordable and accessible child care and realistic living wages.

Maybe, just maybe, you'll finally hear us. True, it's boring to discuss the vital needs of working mothers and families, when nothing ever changes. But while you're talking about the common good, consider this: There is nothing more vital to the common good of our nation than the well-being of our working mothers and their families. And that, dear gentlemen, is where the votes are.

Digg!

Ruth Rosen is a historian and journalist who teaches public policy at UC Berkeley. She is a senior fellow at the Longview Institute.


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:
Free child care
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 11, 2006 12:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During WWII the US gave free child care to all the women who went out to work because the men were serving in the military.

It's amazing how much money the government can come up with when they want something.

Of course, the moment the war was over, the men came back but a huge percentage of the women wanted to keep their jobs. The government told these women where they could stick their jobs and their future hopes and took the child care funding away and sent the women back to their homes.

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

» Wouldn't surprise me... Posted by: medstudgeek
» Oh it's totally true Posted by: sln70
Raising the next generation IS a public good
Posted by: SBK on May 11, 2006 2:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ahh budgetary scarcity due to a bloated defense fund! What if we had $460bn to devote to a human economy where families came first before defense contracts? It's all about priorities. Does the US want a healthy, happy, intelligent nation as it faces the challenges of the 21st century? Women have been the foundation of our economy since day one. Without the caring labor and informal work that mothers and maids do everyday all day, our country just wouldn’t exist. It's THE biggest scandal in history, our society free rides off women for economic growth. Caring labor is an unpaid subsidy to the economy, this can’t last. It’s not fair to kids or adults. Deal is, men are going to have to pick up the slack. This debate is always focused on women and never mentions lazy husbands who’s mothers brought them up to expect to be taken care of. We will all have to admit it one day, our kids deserve it, and our society deserves it. A family oriented economy recognizes all contributions not just those that are paid. What CEO could do his job if he smelled bad, had no manners, and his suit was wrinkled? It takes the whole village!

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

Catch up with the rest of the developed world!
Posted by: Annarisse on May 11, 2006 3:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
American women need to rise up and demand these changes. America is the only developed nation without a mandatory paid maternity leave. Paid maternity leave directly correlates to the health of children - nations with less of it also have higher infant mortality. America is also the only nation in the West where getting medical care for extended illness depends upon having a job - an incredibly stupid way of organizing care for people who may be too sick to work.

I came across the Motherhood Manifesto a few days ago. This is a book every American should read, should send to their representative, should insist is acted upon by their governments. Canadian and European women have been doing so for years, and the results have borne fruit: a year or more of paid maternity/parental leave and universal health care are just two of the things that make mothers' lives easier in other developed nations.

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

The importance of childcare
Posted by: TechSwede on May 11, 2006 4:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in Sweden we have 480 paid days for maternity leave, of which 60 days must be taken by the other parent. And the other 420 days you can use between the parent as you seem fit. Giving people this support helps us in getting a good care for our children, and as at least the readers of this site knows, they are our future. Plus that we have free hospitals and a right to daycare for them so that you can start working again. This last thing is a great relief for many parents here who can't always count on their own parents.

For myself, I'm going to take every day possible to spend with my children, when they arrive that is :o)

I wish you all the best in fighting for the right care, the proper care and that it should be right now.

/A salutation from the cold sweden ( which is quite warm just now*crossing my fingers*)

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

» go sweden. Posted by: medstudgeek
» THE SOLE AMERICAN VALUE Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: THE SOLE AMERICAN VALUE Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: THE SOLE AMERICAN VALUE Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: THE SOLE AMERICAN VALUE Posted by: Aussie Kim
» Be undocumented in Sweden Posted by: Burton
» No free childcare Posted by: Burton
» RE: No free childcare Posted by: janakiblum
Try Understanding Men
Posted by: ChristopherLL on May 11, 2006 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am still hearing what I heard in San Francisco forty years ago; women lamenting their role as neglected victims while demanding rights and recognitions that fit into thier views of society. An interesting approach that mostly said we want what we have and more. Nature and reality, which is beyond our control, are such that women conceive, bear and are the primary care takers for children. This is their gift and in my view the role of mother is one of the most difficult but fulfilling in life. This society has not structured itself to reward this responsiblity financially, however. The contributions of men/fathers to children's emotional and spiritual development are equally vital but of a different nature than women. This aspect has been neglected by women, in my view. Feminism, unfortunately, espoused a philosophy essentially placed men in the role of adversary. The fact is there are polarities in nature/life; yes/no, day/night, on/off, etc. including male/female. The are two equal forces and it is the balance that promotes health and well being. We are all in this together. Continually looking at this society from one point of view and blaming others for perceived failures to that point of view has and will continue to be frustrating. My suggestion try and instead of expecting to behave in ways women want them to be. As it is the collective feminine movement has driven most of them to take refuge in competition; sports, war and business. They want feminine recognition just as much as you want masculine recognition.

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

» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: Capybara
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: Baranga
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: ChristopherLL
» Just so you know Posted by: sln70
» RE: Just so you know Posted by: Baranga
» RE: Just so you know Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Just so you know Posted by: codingguy
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: macdon1
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: ankhet
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: Baranga
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: codingguy
» RE: Try Understanding Men Posted by: Baranga
» Gender roles Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Gender roles Posted by: Baranga
» RE: Gender roles Posted by: codingguy
The Careless/Care Less Crisis
Posted by: 4equalrights on May 11, 2006 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're right, these are the topics women talk. Talk, talk, talk. You're right, these are the topics women write books about. You're right these are the types of organizations women form and join, year in and year out. Yawn.

But actually most American women couldn't care less about DOING anything proactive and unified about their situation. They complain and then go back to their respective drudgeries. They give their time and money to political parties who ignore their issues, they pay dues to women's organizations who pay Washington lobbyists who then achieve nothing on their behalf, they buy books by so-called feminist grand dames but don't hold these same women accountable for the current state of women's rights, they live vicariously through women in third world countries who come to America to tell us about their own feminist achievements. The penny never seems to drop with American women. They think if they only donate money, join an organization, vote for a particular politician, or buy a book, that someone ELSE will fix their problems.

We have carelessly watched the unity, energy and activism of the 1970s women's movement evaporate. If anything is ever going to change our economic, political, legal and social plight it will be because we step outside the box we put ourselves back into after we failed to gain the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982. Our power to make change is enormous, but it is all potential.

I don’t want to discourage Joan Blades' efforts, but as a full time women's rights activist, I don't believe that yet another "mothers’ rights" organization–especially coming out of Moveon.org-- nor newly published "manifesto" is going to ignite women on the scale that is needed. I would love to be proven wrong, but until we can cause more women to REALLY care-- and care deeply enough to protest on an individual and collective level-- about what happens to ourselves and our daughters AND when we can re-instill real HOPE that the precious time that we divert to this cause will result in REAL change in our society, then nothing significant will happen.

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

» RE: The Careless/Care Less Crisis Posted by: christiane
» RE: The Careless/Care Less Crisis Posted by: scryberwitch
» Take it to the streets Posted by: Burton
Action does speak louder than words.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on May 11, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recently I heard Susan Estrich talk on NPR to a college audience. The theme of her very inspiring talk was that she had never been afraid to be a pain in the a-- to the powers that be, whether local, regional, state, etc. to right a wrong whether it be not enough women's bathrooms at a school or someone being discriminated against, etc. She took it personally, and she did something about it and organized her friends who were basically not necessarily 'political', but had to stick up for her too. She talked about how when she started out, she wasn't anybody famous, just a mom, a student, etc. who got really fed up with being told no. And she found that sometimes people in power were accomodating, or caved easily, or other times fought hard back. But she kept winning victories only because she decided to civilly and smartly make a fuss, get her friends or others in the community interested & organized and never looked back. She shared that now, although she's rich and famous, it means much less to her than the fact that she gets up every morning to see what she can do to make a difference.

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

» thanks for posting this! Posted by: sln70
Timely, relevant, true, essential.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on May 11, 2006 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is just so relevant. Just because those in the media have decided that people's lives don't matter doesn't mean that the problems go away. I'm still upset that we now have 5 Catholic white men on the Supreme Court and just 1 woman; this is ridiculous in 2006.

I take issue with David Brooks, a Neocon writer who has no right to frame the issues of women that he knows nothing about nor cares about but has malicious intents. I don't think the article ought to even cite him, and he certainly is as far from a liberal thinker as we can get. A better source would be someone like Katha Pollitt or Barbara Ehrenreich as far as these issues are concerned in terms of framing the issues. But the author is right to say that Brooks' Neocon nonsense has framed the issue for many in the media.

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

Talking ourselves into Action
Posted by: wawa on May 11, 2006 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a 52 year old female, i have learned much with help from my 'girl'-friends:

Until ACTION flows from our conversations,
"Getting it all out" by talking remains just the first step-
a most crucial step,
but Talk is only the first brick,

Pray without action is hypocricy
Talk without ever taking
Action is just blaa blaa blaa BS.

Talk will clarify your passion:
for what ever it is that is on your mind,
what ever it is that returns and tugs at your heart,

your first thought on awakening,
your last thought of the night

Are the things to talk about;
and wrestle with.

Once your have 'gotten it all out' by talking,
You will be able to successfully search/seek
And find The Way
To the ACTION
That will fulfill
the desire of your heart.

but beware-
once you begin to search and seek,
there is no turning back...

http://www.wearewideawake.org/

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

» RE: Talking ourselves into Action Posted by: constantreader
» RE: Talking ourselves into Action Posted by: scryberwitch
» RE: Talking ourselves into Action Posted by: constantreader
A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 11, 2006 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When will the average American realize that pay equity and other 'women's issues' are legitimate and to the benefit of our entire society?

Whenever anyone is better off, we are all better off. When anyone is held back, we are all less well off. When anyone suffers from discrimination, our society is hurt by not realizing the full value of that person's talent, skill, ability and experience. When a society helps anyone up the ladder by the removal of barriers we all benefit.

Unless you live in the back-country, disconnected from the world, you are an inter-dependent being. Anything that holds people back from the full expression of their genius and talent is to the detriment of all of us.

It's really that simple. It's long past time that we make it a litmus test. If you do not support women's rights you simply will not get our vote. If you do not support civil unions, you are denying people their right of free association. If we cannot respect people's basic human rights, how can we tackle bigger and more complex issues.

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

An overreaction?
Posted by: Markara on May 11, 2006 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Notice the years Brooks chooses as the historical moment to which we should return--before American women began demanding the equality that is essential to their citizenship."

Notice that Brooks also chooses a time before computers and cell phones, and at the birth of the Civil Rights movement. But that doesn't mean he advocates rolling back the clock on every gain of the past 50 years. It means the mature liberal thinking during the last gasps of the New Deal/New Frontier was a better role model than anything the left has come up with since. And I agree.

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

Why are you having children?
Posted by: anniedine on May 11, 2006 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are the meaningful facts of this article:
“For four decades, working women have poured into the paid labor force. Yet American society has done precious little to restructure the workplace or family life. The result? Working mothers are burdened and exhausted, families are fractured and children are often neglected. The dirty little secret, we repeatedly tell each other, is that it is both profitable and convenient to our government, business and many men, for women to wear themselves out trying to do the unpaid work of caring for children, caring for the elderly and caring about the social networks of our communities.”

I’m wondering how, when faced with this reality, women continue believing that it’s a good idea to bring children into the world. The U.S. is faced with huge problems that aren’t being solved – these are the kinds of problems that are going to make every person’s life a living hell if we don’t wake up. Bringing more children into this situation is only making everything worse – not the least of which for the helpless children being born into a time of the massive unraveling of the social fabric.

With very rare exceptions, you simply do not have to have children. It’s the quintessential lifestyle choice and most people do it without carefully considering the world we’re now living in.

Indeed, we are not living in Brooks’ longed-for era of far fewer people, far more resources, and a far better social safety net. We are living in an era of fewer resources, vastly more people fighting for those resources, and the loss of the social support and protections Americans once had. Child care will be the least of our problems when the neocons are done destroying public education, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all the rest.

My question to every woman considering having a child today: Do you have the personal resources to give that child comprehensive health care, complete parental attention, a safe and consistent home, a good education, and good training to be a responsible adult and decent human being? If not, you better realize that this society does not have the resources to do any of that for you and you’ll soon find that you are “burdened and exhausted”, your family will be “fractured” and your “children…neglected.” That’s the harsh reality in Neocon America and there is no end in sight.

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

» Sharing the load Posted by: RobW
» and yet we do have the right Posted by: negrita7
» RE: and yet we do have the right Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Why are you having children? Posted by: dadmoffatt
Two problems (among many)
Posted by: RobW on May 11, 2006 12:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mind if toss my grenade into this fire?

I see this issue as being beyond feminism or any interest group politics. This affects society as a whole, and the problem is twofold.

1. Our economy today is such that a family usually requires two income earners to stay afloat, let alone get ahead. Things like universal health care and paid family leave (not just maternity leave) are necessary to provide the financial stability to raise a family. Despite all the "family values" rhetoric from conservatives, it is the policies of liberal governments in Europe that are truly pro-family.

An economy that requires both parents to work hurts families, but even if a family can afford a single wage-earner and a stay-at-home parent, guess who works and who stays at home? This is due to-

2. Gender roles- as has been demonstrated by some of the posters above, even sympathetic men apparently are stuck to the idea that since only women can become mothers, they should be the ones to do all the caregiving.

Untill we can get over this notion, women will be subjugated to the role of stay-at-home Mom, even if the economic factors permitted a single earner to support a household.

Women are no less bound by this idea then men.

In a political theory course I took a few years ago, in our survey of feminism, we covered Susan Okin's book, "Justice, Gender, and the Family." This book was a real eye-opener for me.

In class discussion, an interesting thing happened. The class was evenly divided between 12 men and 12 women. The professor asked how many men would be willing to delay their own careers and stay at home full-time for a number of years to care for the kids. 9 men raised their hands. Granted, this was a class full of liberal arts majors, but I was surprised by how many men were willing to defy their own gender role.

But the next part was even more surprising-

She then asked the women in the class, how many of them would be interested in such a situation, where they worked full-time and their husbands became stay-at-home Dads... And only 2 raised their hands.

Thus, Ms. Okin's point was well-illustrated. Women are just as responsible for their own gender trap as men.

The women in this class were less willing to permit men to be the primary caretaker of children than the men were willing to give up their role as primary breadwinner.

Anyway, the point is: we can solve the first problem, the necessity for two incomes per household through political means, policies of government. Not easy, but possible. The second problem is far less tractable, and it isn't just that men don't care. Many women don't seem to want men to care...

(By the way, I was one of those men who raised their hands. I've been working my ass off for 20 years with nothing to show for it. That's why I'm back in college now... Peace.)

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

» well... Posted by: sln70
» RE: well... Posted by: RobW
» RE: Two problems (among many) Posted by: BlueTigress
Nothing happens without women
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on May 11, 2006 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A nation's health is judged by affordable and accessible care for women and children, and the United States is failing miserably. I think about all the money spent on war, billions wasted, and on weapons that people can't consume in households.
We don't have any kind of long-range plan for our health and it shows today. Visited an HMO lately? What's an alternative? A free clinic or spend an ENTIRE day at any one of L.A.'s county hospitals and you'll leave feeling blue.
Remember this German expression: Ohne Weibe, geht die Chose nicht-Without women, nothing happens.
We need to spend more money on their health. I know. There's no profit in that.

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

Feminism
Posted by: Jessie on May 11, 2006 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I applaud Joan Blades for writing a book in support of rights for working women (and men) and attempting to change modern american employment and workplace standards to make it easier to care for children. As a feminist, I think these are some of the most important changes we need to work for in our society. But I am distressed by the way this article (and presumably the book?) seems to distance this struggle from feminism and the feminist movement - "Without using the F word, they also prescribe such essential changes as paid parental leave, flexible working conditions, after-school programs, universal health care, excellent, affordable and accessible child care and realistic living wages".

This is the same old problem the left has been having lately of trying to distance itself from it's own supporters and causes, mistakenly believing them to be unpopular (perhaps becasue they ARE unpopular with the big money that supports both parties in this country). People think it's safer to argue for "mother's rights" than "women's rights" but by trying to play it safe they undermine the message. The message is that we want gender equality and workplaces that respect the choices of women and men to have children and be able to take care of them. The feminist movement is the major movement in this country that has advocated for flexible working conditions, paid parental leave, and affordable child care.

The majority of women in this country (I've seen the polls!) identify with the word feminist, and the majority of men say they are supportive of women's rights. Why separate out mothers? Why buy into and play into the right wing propaganda that tells us that feminism is unpopular and doesn't support motherhood, when nothing could be further from the truth? Why change from women's rights to mother's rights as though (a) they weren't connected, or (b) all women are mothers or (c) mothers are more important/sympathetic than "women"?

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

» RE: Feminism Posted by: RobW
» RE: Feminism Posted by: bqtrain
One comment. . .
Posted by: Annarisse on May 11, 2006 5:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gay parents might not qualify for maternity leave, but you don't have to structure a leave so that it's only for mothers. In Canada's system, the first 17 weeks are maternity leave, available only to birth mothers - not even adoptive parents, which I think is dumb. After that, however, the remaining 35 weeks can be taken by either parent, according to the needs of the family, and this leave is open to adoptive parents.

So, while calling for maternity leave, it should be recognized that there are ways to set it up that will respect the fact that it will be mostly, but not entirely, mothers who take advantage of it.

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

In Canada
Posted by: Annarisse on May 11, 2006 6:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paid maternity leave here comes from employment insurance, which every employee pays into. If you're self-employed and don't voluntarily pay into EI, you don't get maternity leave. The only requirement for the company is to give you the time off, and possibly replace you for that time. Any additional funds offered by the company are usually negotiated as part of big contracts, and they're by no means universal.

So, if this were done properly, there'd be no reason to put the burden on small-business owners.

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

Women: Wake-up, Tune-in, Opt-out, Save-OUR-Ship (pt.1)
Posted by: equidave on May 11, 2006 6:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Friends.
Enjoyed reading the variety of both intellectually sophisticated as well as gut-level response this community here offer up for an article raising matters of core importance.

Obviously we all want and need solutions here that look way beyond mere gender for their inspiration and ground-swell, but that having been said, gender is one valid, trans-cultural, global distinction that does provide us a "handle" one potential for leveraging mass change. So, please, indulge me.

Grant me my sincerity even as you must forgive me for being unable to be more “to the point”, but there’s just so many great and easy ones to make here.




Women: when did you give up your power, rights, wisdom, leadership, self-understanding, etc.?
..or is that all just some naive sentimental read/projection onto ancient history: that your gender had a matriarchal golden-age, once ruling peaceful societies with a deeper ethic and to happier ends way back when?

If you would just wake-up
...or wake each other up en masse and opt-out it could be/would be instant and unilateral "game over" to 2000+ years of aimless, dominator-ape driven, scientific materialism worshiping, mercilessly suicidal/matricidal, little-lost-boys in grown-man's-bodies, patriarchal plunge into the nightmare of profane (so-called) "modern" history.

Women, Who if not YOU
...holds the deepest keys?
Who if not YOU (your gender) can be looked to, to break the cycle?
Who to look to for emergent (new and unforeseen) qualities that could do a deep enough re-invention of politics, society, relationships, parenting, economics.... in time to save this sinking ship?

Who?, ...the MEN?!!
Ah yes, let's DO just take a quick survey of how many readers here suspect that perhaps THIS time when those special elites go off and have another round of their "talks" (toga'ed or Brooksbrothered, Versaille or United Nations) they will now finally come up with enough of something new (something that 2000+ years of Grecian Bath or Golf Club membership insidering has not seen them make good on)?

I'm begging you women
... and I am NOT joking here:
- STOP THINKING INSIDE THEIR BOX.
- STOP PLAYING BY THEIR RULES.
- WAKE UP, PLEEEEEASE!

YOU ARE HOLDING ALL THE REAL CARDS THERE ARE:
1. all beings are MADE IN YOU, OF YOU, GESTATED in the womb of your very BODY.
(the nerve to come here and be selling all that old beating down by man/men/male socio-economic agenda crap is more than a shame; its KILLING US ALL. Save that blame game and all its comfy pay offs for those more willing to capitalize on your sell-out and playing small than me. The ones that won't buy your gender’s excuses, no matter how they piss you off, are your YOUR SIDE!)
2. all beings here enter the world THROUGH YOU
3. all beings here are sustained and literally FED by you
4. all beings are psychically and psychologically and emotionally and… and… and… introduced to the world and pattered on what to expect based on how you nurture, care and raise them.
(again, WHO has the control? Don’t accept ANY excuses about the current men and their lost systems fucking up the world... wake UP and notice: your consciously raised little boy today is going to be either bullet fodder some future greedy Bush-like pig or peacefully having the time of his life re-foresting Africa in less than 16 years based on what all women do NOW)

*...tbc

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

Women: SOS (pt.2)
Posted by: equidave on May 11, 2006 6:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women of wisdom
and integrity please tell me please, who ARE these “other” less conscious women and why cant you/don’t you reach them and wake them up? Please tell us all:
1. Why don’t women stop giving their bodies, wombs and lives to unconscious, lost, destructive men?
2. Who are these sisters of yours (OURS) sexing/breeding with (and therefore condoning, rewarding, congratulating) the male idiots in this world: corporate looters, political sleaze-mongers, religious monotheist xenophobes, ecosystem raping commodity peddlers, unrenewable resource pillagers, unrecoverable industrial polluters, soldiers, criminals, liars, cheats, sell-outs, …etc.?
3. Who raised the boys that now won’t give you the social programs you need to raise boys who would never again demonstrate the kind of insanity that we have seen here coming out of their gender corner for the past several thousand years?... you know the ones who are dropping bombs on other mothers?
4. Who raise the girls who would be so disempowered as to think that such men are worthy boyfriends and later husbands and would make valuable fathers?


Gender contribution comparison:
I. Men
Men’s largest gender artifacts (international monetary system, world-wide telecommunication networks, organized religion, lassie faire capitalism) are confidence games build on such flimsy and untenable grounds that they are constantly in need of an estimated 890,000 official company meetings per day world-wide (not to mention billions/month in Madison Ave help) just to keep the shell game afloat….and all the while it’s silly unsustainable promises are not delivering for more than 10% of the entire world population.
II. Women
Women need how many meetings to create, nurture, sustain and assist the compassionate closure of HUMAN LIFE are you gals having?

Please wake-up,
...rise-up, opt-out, re-define, step forward and return (ok, ok forward-escape rather) mankind to balance within nature and harmony with HIMself.

At EVERY stage in the game YOURS is the gender (if only for the sake of this consideration, gender may be said to be an inroad for the initiation of radical and worldwide change) that holds all the cards that really matter, so WHAT WILL YOU DO ABOUT IT?!?!?!?!
a) Argue why I am wrong?
b) Go ask your hubbie of he approves of your owning/demonstrating your higher/prior power?
c) Go ask opra if she agrees or will make it all so fashionable and “in” next month?
d)What?

Suffering humanity is dying (while waiting) to know.


*sigh*

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

» RE: Women: SOS (pt.2) Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Women: SOS (pt.2) Posted by: jrmart66
» Lysistrata had it backwards Posted by: Burton
My experience backs up others: We need action from both sexes, not words
Posted by: davelwhite on May 11, 2006 10:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite being born male, I grew up with feminism. Feminism was the ideology that I knew, when I was nine, was speaking out against things like my dad beating my mom. Later, I worked for 8 years in a battered women's shelter (as the IT person). My action in my personal life consisted of choosing to try to help my friends raise their kids, maybe living together collectively, instead of having my own, so as to relieve some of the work/family burdens and stabilize the population.

My results are not comforting to those who think that everything will be hunky-dory after men start showing an interest in caretaking.

I do live with friends, and we aren't just doing it until one of us finds a partner. But neither of them want to have kids; my friends who did want kids also (despite being liberals all) wanted the conventional nuclear family, and even talking about signficantly sharing the burden of childcare WITHOUT living together frightened them. One exception was a good friend who does live collectively with her sister as well as her husband and kids (she's out of town so I can't help babysit). She points out to me, and I can understand this too, that she really wants to spend as much time as possible with her small sons because they're only young once and, basically, childcare is a "tough job that you love" unlike both of our office jobs. Since we met while building houses for Habitat for Humanity, we both understand this: some jobs are tough, but real-- connected to the basics of life-- and in our abstract society people hold onto those when they get them. So yes, they are offered help with the crisis of care and, to varying degrees, many refuse it. We need to think of why this is and how it can be remedied, not just trot out the same tired assumption that nobody is offering. Few offer, that is true; but part of that is because when people do offer, they are usually rebuffed.

My other friends had more traditional reasons for wanting to keep the childcare to themselves-- ideas about the proper role of spouses and friends, feeling guilty if their friend who takes care of the kids has more time to do enriching activities than they do, etc. I helped a friend who was a single dad with his adorable son from ages 3 to 7, but after he got married that was it-- they made up some excuse about needing "more couple time" and I never heard from them again. Both liberal; bisexual tendencies; wife sang in the local "Feminist Choir." Does she probably end up doing most of the dishes and a fair chunk of the childcare in their newly married home? I'd bet on it, having done some of his dishes myself back in the day, when the pile was too high for me to find one to feed his son with while he was away.

When I worked at a battered women's shelter, my executive director and 75% of the top-level management were women. They did support my efforts to make the workplace more family-friendly through good telecommuting infrastructure, but I took the initiative on that; more importantly, they provided full health premiums for singles but NO employer-paid premiums for dependent children! Yes, a room full of 75% women directors got together and decided "we're going to save on health insurance by not covering kids." I suspect "hey, our employees are mostly women so their husbands' plans will cover them" was close behind as a justification, though, not being a director, I never knew for sure. I do know that as a network admin, I changed a lot of women's names in the computers after they got married. Everybody wants to talk about a new way to raise families. Does anybody want to do it?

The early unionists got shot at. The early feminists got recommended for inpatient mental health treatment (electroshock and drugs became popular later). I got called all kinds of nasty things for what I tried to do. We are not going to change these things by writing more articles.

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

» RE: Insurance decision Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Insurance decision Posted by: davelwhite
PS: Stereotypes of male sexuality, and caretaking
Posted by: davelwhite on May 11, 2006 10:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry for going over 4000 characters but I have another comment. This article starts out all cutesy about how of course we men assume that when we're not around women are talking about sex. Because of course, that is all WE think about, right? An interesting fact is that the national website for people who identify as "asexual" (low to nonexistent sex drive) reports about a 50/50 male/female split. Surprised? Now, most people aren't asexual but the reports of men's irredemable horniness, and need to be "domesticated" by marriage and/or women in order to be fit for caretaking, is probably right up there with the innate desire of women to crochet, on the list of Bestselling Fictions. And yet, LOTS of liberals still believe in it.

Let's consider how the male stereotype, especially the single male stereotype, plays out in terms of caretaking. I'm pretty asexual myself, but people have thought that I must be a perv, a sexual danger to children, because I am single and do not choose to date and I'm over 30 and I like kids. I know, having the ultimate insight into my history, that the greatest danger any child has faced with me is that they will play outside more, spend less time with video games, and improve their swimming and bicycling abiliy. Now, since I am not heterosexual, or indeed very sexual at all, so you could rack some of that fear up to homophobia and/or the dismissal of low sexual interest as a real phenomenon. Let me tell you something, even ONE person thinking of you as a sexual pervert and danger to children for offering to help with care, is a STRONG disincentive to offering again.

But look! If I met society's desire for "men domesticated by marriage," by marrying a woman, I would in all likelyhood have my own kids and be looking for somebody to help ME with childcare. Either way, I am not going to be able to help with the work/family burden: as a single I am not trusted, as a married I would not have time. My choices would be fundamentally the same as my wife's unless I chose to be a patriarchal creep: there wouldn't be much flex-time, bad health insurance coverage, etc. And, of course, I would be much less likely to succeed in my quest for a happy home if I was "weird" in any way, e.g. proposed sharing care with friends, living collectively, not getting married, etc. All those women who changed their names to their husband's at the battered women's shelter, they got something they wanted from those marriages: Grandma didn't disown them. The ideal guy for them is not too traditional, but not too radical either; I know this from personal experience too.

Conclusion: Because society fundamentally coddles irresponsible sexist men to this day, those who do take responsiblity are constantly having to prove that we are not them, and must simultaneously live up to the traditional stereotype of the married provider as well as coming up with new ideas (but not "too weird" of new ideas, of course). Just like the women who are trying to take responsibility for building egalitarian families. Women AND men who actually try to build new ways of raising families get disowned by our friends and families, get called perverts and needy and mentally ill, etc.

It goes without saying that people who want real family-friendly reform in the workplace face similar personal challenges such as the risk that they will get fired for organizing, the fact that most of their coworkers can't afford to strike or take collective action, etc.

So writing articles, instead, has become very popular.

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

Part a similar discussion in Australia
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 11, 2006 11:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thaks Davelwhite
Posted by: equidave on May 12, 2006 1:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read every sentence twice.
Not because your ideas where difficult to understand, but because i had never heard those specific issues so well said before. Thanks for knowing yourself, the issues as you see them and being able to bring that all across in a way really engenders empathy with the dynamics you detailed.

I've lived much of my earlier adult life (15 years or so) in a couple different intentional communities with alternative approaches to co/cooperative parenting and can attest to a few related observations:
1. the health, peace, empowerment and happiness of any given group of kids is a HUGE reflection on the inclusion and balance of non-parental input (teachers, friends, neighbors, "uncles/aunts" then of all kinds) from their greater community.
2. the health of non-parenting adults is so greatly enhanced (measured, tested, grown) by having consistent, caring and active relations with kids ((and older people for that matter, but that's for a whole other article)).
3. the "village" that we (sadly, mostly) aren't yet is sentencing kids to the stressful and limiting fate of that (mostly) failed nuclear-family model who's (sour) fruits are as easily seen in boomer-to-genX neurosis as in the various ways your attempts to help out/connect/contribute where sometimes unappreciated (shunned?).


Thanking you for your comments.
david@equilife.org

PS: you took mild shots at the value of contributing/conversing here: not that you need me to say it most likely, but there are those of us who do both: active service work (i'm both a hospice nurse and a co-director of a young human rights work international ngo) AND occasionally write/read/comment on articles that matter to us here. What's the harm? I get (and try to add) value here.

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

Wisdom, Foolishness, Selfishness, Creativity, Angels, Asses.
Posted by: Longdream on May 12, 2006 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're all here, in force. I could say a thousand things. But I'm not a mother, and never wanted to be one.

However, I do feel rather strongly that when a man says something resembling .....Motherhood is the hardest job in the world and the most fulfilling thing a woman can do..... we should know him for an Apostle of the Obvious, and wonder what he's got up his sleeve.

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

Move On founded by a Woman?
Posted by: jrmart66 on May 14, 2006 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a member of Move-On that much vilified group (by the administration), I confess to ignorance.

I had no idea it was started by a Woman. I shall do some research.

As far as "Womens problems", I don't believe there are any!

The lower pay, glass ceiling, single mother households,lack of a child care program, poor health care, and all the other terrible problems of "women" are not JUST of Women. These are not "womens" problems. These are Human problems.

As an old man, I was raised in the "father knows best--Ozzie and Harriot" tradition. When i see re-runs of these shows I cringe.
Surely my very cringing indicates a vast improvement in the attitudes of all people, not just men or women. And that is a good thing.
I am proud to be a Move On member. Just as i am proud to be a member of Planned Parenthood, even though it is unlikely I shall ever create any more children.
I think it behooves all men to endorse and assist in removing all sexist barriers. And I for one shall do so.

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

» Let's start with the draft Posted by: Burton
Get Over Materialism
Posted by: abqbabe on May 15, 2006 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole problem is materialism.
We have been taught to want - to HAVE - it all. This is nonsense. If a big house, newer cars, stylish clothes and eating out every week at restaurants and taking expensive vacations is more important to you than your kids and having a sane lifestyle this is what you get.

Get over it and get real. Money isn't everything. Change the rules and change your priorities. It is YOUR life, right? Or is it?
I realize (through first hand experience) that sometimes moms have got to work to put bread on the table. However, I also know that if more middle and upper class families got off the consumerism-junkie-bandwagon, pulled in their belts and reined in their credit cards for a while, most mothers could stop moaning and quit working for a while when their children are young, and work part time when they are older.

But you are the one that makes those choices. The new Prius, or being there for your baby's first steps. The new furniture, or knowing that your toddler has a loving, supportive environment. The bigger house, or vacation or designer clothes, or being there to guide and love your kids when they are young and developing the structure that will last their whole life.

For heaven's sake, there are hundreds of ways to save money and have a good lifestyle (especially if you are home to do it) on one salary. Cook from scratch; grow a garden; clip coupons and shop sales (and save 20% on your food bills!); learn to mend clothes, not toss them out. Dress down: jeans and tee shirts are cheap compared to office clothes. Think what you'll save on gas by not commuting, as well as car repairs and insurance; in fact, buy a used car for a second vehicle. Work from home. Pursue a graduate degree on line. Or just slow down and have a slower paced, organized life for a change where you can put your family first instead of the next office deadline.

Get with it ladies. Women have been doing this for centuries. It's nice that we have alternatives now, and can make enough money not to stay in unhappy or abusive marriages, and pursue careers in fields that interest us. But it seems to me (as woman, mother, someone who has had a couple interesting career paths, and taken a sabbatical from it for several years to raise her kids), that we have forgotten where our true responsibilities lie in the rush to "succeed" and "reward ourselves" by putting materialism ahead of all other things in our lives - including the good of our families.

I'm not a conservative Christian; anything but! And, no, it wasn't easy living on my husband's income alone (and believe me, it takes some planning to do without 40% of your combined income for 6-8 years). But it can be done. Just put the energy you used to put into your job into creating and running a clean, sta