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.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

The Cards Are Stacked Against Mothers in America -- Here's How We Can Fix It

By Don Hazen, AlterNet. Posted May 10, 2008.


Joan Blades, founder of MomsRising.org, discusses bias against mothers in the workplace and the "mommy wars." (with video)
Mother's Day Vid
Advertisement

Don Hazen: How did Mom's Rising get started? How have you grown? What is your long-term vision and ambition?

Joan Blades: In 2005, I was shocked to learn that, though there isn't as big wage gap when it comes to women without children, there is a huge wage gap for mothers. Since 82 percent of women become mothers, women still have a long way to go before they achieve pay equity. The fact that single moms make about 60 cents to a man's dollar explains pretty easily why there are so many women and children living in poverty, and the profound bias against moms in hiring and wages also goes a long way to explain why there are so few women in leadership. I don't think many Americans are aware of the deep bias against mothers in the workplace.

MomsRising.org was launched Mother's Day 2006, along with The MotherHood Manifesto, the book Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner and I wrote to tell the story about how the cards are stacked against mothers in this country and how we can fix that. We already have over 130,000 members.

Grass-roots engagement of mothers makes a big difference when speaking out for paid family leave, after-school programs, quality childcare, paid sick days, fair work practices and getting toxics out of our homes. Long term, I want to see MomsRising.org engage millions of citizens to be a grass-roots support system for good leaders, good policies and a family-supporting culture. Parents think long-term. As a society, we need powerful grassroots voices that support policies that are going to be good for the next generation and beyond. Too often, businesses don't think beyond the next quarter, and politicians don't think beyond the next election.

Hazen: I was struck by the concept that was developed by the Mom's Rising team called "maternal profiling." Can you explain?

Blades: Many employers don't want to hire moms, or they don't advance them in their careers. The opening story in the motherhood manifesto was about a single mom who could not get a job, because at interview after interview she was asked, "Are you married?" "Do you have children?" Nobody wanted to hire a single mom.

Admittedly there are 22 states where the employer is not legally supposed to ask about marital status. That said, wedding rings are a common giveaway. The biggest deal is kids, though. A recent study found mothers were 79 percent less likely to be offered a job given equally qualified job applicants. The New York Times reported on maternal profiling as a new term this year, and frankly, that is important. Naming this practice identifies the challenge.

Hazen: What is your take on the well-publicized "mommy wars?" Is there really a lot of conflict between working mothers and nonworking mothers? And if so, what is the solution?

Blades: From personal experience and talking to others, I'd say the "mommy wars" are a trumped-up media conflict. Most mothers help each other. Just the other day I was talking to a mom who described picking up her working friend's kids after school and then being able to drop her kid with that friend on the weekend when her daughter was younger. A mom she heard on NPR talking about a similar arrangement had reminded her of hers. Most of us have worked or will be again if we aren't now. Mothers tend to be understanding about other mothers too. And, yes, there are always exceptions, but it is not the norm.

Hazen: Is there a lot of difference between Clinton and Obama on Mom's Issues? And how do they contrast with McCain? What might change if a Democrat is in the White House in January?

Blades: Happily, both Clinton and Obama have very good policy on family issues. McCain has been less forthcoming on family issues. I was absolutely appalled at his response to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. He didn't show up to vote, and he made a statement saying he would not vote for it because women needed more education and training. He is talking apples and oranges. More women are graduating from college than men. We are talking about equal pay for equal work. This country had an enforceable equal pay law from 1964 to May 2007. The House passed the Fair Pay Act last year to restore the law. The Senate brought it up this year, and 43 senators voted against! We are stalled and working hard to move three senators.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: moms rising, women in leadership, maternal profiling, mommy wars

Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
And yet . . .
Posted by: Moonray on May 10, 2008 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . on any given election day most of these moms typically vote for Republican or conservative Democratic candidates -- the very people most responsible for the deplorable conditions women face in our society. See how easy it is for politicians to fool voters? All the politicians have to do is wave the flag, or evoke the specter of terrorism or illegal immigrants, and voters will cast ballots against their own interests. It almost always works -- and might well work again in November, especially if the Bushies have been busy bombing Iran this fall.

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

» Mother, heal thyself. Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: And yet . . . Posted by: Karina
Pedro
Posted by: elPedro on May 10, 2008 4:22 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, this is true, even though I've seen the reverse, as well.
But I don't have any discourse.

I work in an office where the women get paid more than men in the same job titles and don't have to do any heavy lifting, dirty work, or additional responsibilities of the men workers with the same job description.

Equal pay for equal work. I support that idea. And more pay for men if they have additional (mostly hidden) job responsibilities that the women don't have to do because they might hurt themselves or break a nail.

But what I'd really like to know is why would ANYONE bring a baby into this world of 7 billion with the CERTAIN economic collapse of our fascist rejeeeme (hiccup)and the future of this world in 20 or 30 years. I can't even imagine how it will be in 10 years. (Maybe I read too much Alternet.)

Why don't we think about the children? Maybe it's time to stop manufacturing babies. Maybe feed the 30 percent of the world that are starving first, before our own children have the same fate.

Does anyone realize the cost of raising a child until age 18, before college? And how much worst off we are after 7 years of the rich sucking our blood?

If daddy is still responsible for more than half of the support, he should be getting paid more. Much, much more is expected from men. At one time daddy was expected to provide 100 percent of their (baby and mommy) support. Back in the days of living wages.

I would like to see the details of all these reports that claim that women make so much less than men, as well. In what specific fields are we talking about and where are the actual statistics? I suspect the findings are skewed.

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

» Wow. Posted by: redceres
» RE: Wow. Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Wow. Posted by: joe2171
» RE: Wow. Posted by: elPedro
» RE: Wow. Posted by: elPedro
» RE: Wow. Posted by: Karina
» RE: Pedro Posted by: flaca
» RE: Pedro Posted by: joe2171
» RE: Pedro Posted by: Cathyblj
appreciation
Posted by: justicenow on May 10, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for this article. I was surprised to see it frankly. I am a single mom of two little kids with no financial support from the father. You wouldn't even believe ( if you aren't in the same situation)the amount of effort, time, energy, resources and love that go into raising up these boys against materialism, bad food, bad tv, video games, stereotypes... you name it. I work night and day to instill in them a sense about social justice issues, eat well, respect their own minds and bodies first, and then the minds and bodies of others and I mean all others....

What makes my circumstance bearable is knowing that they will be fighting the good fight when they grow up. Other moms have helped me enormously and I make it a point to do the same for other single moms. Single mom networking is priceless. Appreciation from outside is really nice too, somebody sees our struggle! Thanks.

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

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: appreciation Posted by: tngreen
» but why? Posted by: WhatNow?
» Then you might want to know Posted by: photon's feather
» you're right Posted by: e rice
» RE: the father failed, you moron Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: the father failed, you moron Posted by: photon's feather
» bravo! Posted by: e rice
» Oh! So the lady is a fellow sufferer... Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: appreciation Posted by: arthurford
Joan Blades is also a cofounder of MoveOn.org -
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 10, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Which has clearly shown that it is NOT an anti-war organization, but rather an organization formed to help get Democrats elected - which is legal enough, but their devotion to getting Democrats elected trumps all their other concerns.

I have a deep and growing suspicion of the real agenda of many of the left-wing 501(c) nonprofit corporate news sites - Democracy Now, Alternet, CounterPunch, the Nation, Mother Jones, the Guerilla News Network, and a few others - sites which promote themselves as "liberal" or "left wing" but who are ruled and guided by corporate boards and mysteriously secretive foundations.

The mix is indeed the message - and Alternet works hard to spin down stories that might be harmful to the wealthiest sectors of corporate America, and to move the discussion off into "safe" areas, like race, gender, sexual preference, etc - socially acceptable liberalism that doesn't threaten the American system of autocratic, corporate-sponsored political rule.

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

Tell us a story then
Posted by: GPFrank on May 10, 2008 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To "Thought criminal": Post for us a story then that is "harmful" to wealthy corporates and see if
the present site will let it post.

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

One Thing I know
Posted by: GPFrank on May 10, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing I know: 'Thoughtcriminal' is not a physician who took the Oath, "First of all, do no harm."

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

» Physician, heal thyself! Posted by: photon's feather
» very true, but Posted by: e rice
» certainly very true, but Posted by: photon's feather
» missed it Posted by: e rice
» RE: missed it - No, got it Posted by: photon's feather
A few thoughts on Alternet and the corporate propaganda system:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 10, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no real news coverage at this site, I've decided, and much of what appears here is heavily spun and biased.

What about the bogus claims about weapons of mass destruction? Those were never investigated, and no long-term series of stories was ever published by the left-wing press, or any other American press outlet.

What about the stolen 2000 election? What about the fraudulent and rigged electronic voting systems? Why has that all been forgotten by the lefty press?

What about domestic spying and the illegal use of government agents to track and infiltrate anti-war and anti-globalization groups, even extending to the use of government agent provocateurs dressed as protestors?

What about the bogus 911 Truth Movement, that got sooo much coverage here at Alternet and Democracy Now? - and yet Alternet never ran a single story pointing to the fact that 911 Truth is mostly made up of government agent provocateur and PR types, who use the typical "I'm a nut, and so are all my acquaintances" approach to smearing antiwar activists.

I don't see a daily list of the impeachable crimes of GW Bush here at Alternet.

There's not even any footage of the Iraq war.

This site, my friends, along with much of the rest of the left-wing and right-wing activist press, is in my opinion a fraud. In the late 1990s (and even before) there was an effort made by private foundations to set up a large number of internet web and radio "alternative news sites" that would appear to be liberal, but whose real purpose was to help shape public opinion and keep the public under control.

This is really apparent when you look at the stories that the alternative press refuses to cover - the fall 2001 anthrax attacks, the rise of the public-private government-industry combines linked to nuclear and biological warfare activities (Democracy Now has never even mentioned Battelle Memorial Institute), the larger foreign trade agenda of the United States - oh, it gets covered, but the coverage is similar to that of the New York Times or the Washiington Post - a story gets buried on the back page.

In reality, a story is "covered" when a reporter or team of reporters writes a long series of stories that come out every month for a year or more, and which can then be repackaged in book form.

That's what traditional journalism was really all about - and the problem today is not that people don't care enough to read such exposes, but that the corporate press - left, center, and right - doesn't want to do such investigative work.

Now, wake up and rub those cobwebs out of your eyes. . .

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

» Thanks, 'professor' Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Thanks, 'professor' Posted by: tngreen
» RE: Thanks, 'professor' Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Thanks, 'professor' Posted by: joe2171
Yes, thoughtcriminal,
Posted by: Last Chance on May 10, 2008 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that has been my experience too. The best example I know is the "Left" refusal to even talk about the population explosion as the cause of many global and national conflicts. They advocate equal pay for equal work, yet favor amnesty for illegal aliens whose low-wage labor drives down wages and destabilizes towns and villages across the USA and Europe.

Yet, the "Left" is assumed to favor women's rights even though we hear no demands for every woman's right to decide if and when to birth a child, or criticism of her macho husband demanding she spend her life pregnant in the kitchen. That's because corporations need all the cheap labor they can get and exploding masses of poor people flooding across borders provides plenty, with silent Left wing consent.

But if women were indeed given the legally protected right to decide if and when to birth their children, only a few would choose 5, 6, or 7, a few would choose none at all, but the vast majority would consent to birth no more than 1, 2 or 3 - and thus the global population would decline and stabilize to live in balance with the Earth's ability to feed us, and there would also be plenty of other resources for a smaller and wiser population.

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

CALL YOUR MOTHER!
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 10, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what it's about. Mothers don't expect much, they never did. It's what we sign on to do. There's much to be done since the role of women in general has changed to include 'breadwinner'. Women have worked in the past but demands are greater now than in the past. Equal wages would be a good place to start. 75 cents on the dollar doesn't work. Thanks, ANNA

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

» women as breadwinners Posted by: e rice
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar Posted by: notthatsimple
» RE: well... Posted by: notthatsimple
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar Posted by: Cathyblj
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar Posted by: Moira61
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar Posted by: notthatsimple
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar Posted by: writer7
» RE: i see how it works Posted by: notthatsimple
» RE: CALL YOUR MOTHER! Posted by: mountain19
what women want
Posted by: luzmejor on May 10, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been listening to this reactionary stuff since 1959 and I can almost identify the original writers of it.

I wish everyone would stop fighting each other and realize that we are all being played, for fun and profit, by professional politicians.

What ordinary citizens want is a chance to live without everyone else butting into their private lives.

Would anyone care to estimate the chances of that, in this era of megachurch sex businesses masquerading as promoters of "Christian" beliefs?

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

» absolutely right Posted by: e rice
» beyond politics - Posted by: Last Chance
» ever read any history? Posted by: e rice
some moms may need to earn less
Posted by: stanlca on May 10, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an educated professional and a single (not divorced) mother for 21 years, I'd like to introduce a question worth considering.
Do some mothers earn less than other equally qualified workers in similar or same positions because they actually work and accomplish less?
Yes.
I'm an HR manager and I see this all the time. The women who come in late, go home early and/or call in frequently because of their family/children's needs. Make no mistake, just because they aren't there doesn't mean their work isn't. Someone is doing it and it's usually their co-workers who are also earning more and getting promoted sooner.
I'm all for a flexible work enviornment, but you simply must do the work expected of you. If you are focusing on other obligations, you are not focused on work.
I could go on about the differences between how different mother's (married, divorced and single) approach the work environment, but I have work to do!

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

» RE: America falling behind Posted by: Cathyblj
Coming soon! WeMustChange.org
Posted by: thinkverybig on May 10, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I personally believe that mothers and especially single parents don't get enough support for the work that they do in our society! We need to change our mindsets about this and do it fast.

Coming soon is www.wemustchange.org

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

» RE: Coming soon! WeMustChange.org Posted by: photon's feather
» Ridiculous! Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Coming soon! WeMustChange.org Posted by: andabottleof_rum
how america treats mothers
Posted by: e rice on May 10, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there are 17 other countries in the world with lower rates of mortality for pregnant women.

there are about 15 other countries with lower rates of infant mortality.

twenty years ago, america ranked 13th and 11th in the world.

only three countries in the world do not provide government mandated maternal leave--austratlia provides a year's unpaid maternal leave. only papua-new guinea and america do not have government mandated maternal leave. a few european nations provide for paternal leave.

research day care for yourselves.

a recent study reported that, while some men do a bit more housework than 30 years ago, not much has changed in the amount of housework men do today, even with more women working full time.

about 20 years ago, i read about a study that reported tht 75% of divorced men do not pay court-mandated child support--this isn't alimony, it's child support. the same study reported that 50% of divorced men never see their children again. for some reason, i doubt the current statistics would be much better. although the federal government passed a law that garnished deadbeat dads' wages, because so many women ended up on welfare without child support, one alternet reader says the current federal backlog of deadbeat dad cases 'would choke a goat.'

acording to one study, thanks to the religious right's successful war against birth control clinics, 80% of rural counties do not have birth control clinics.

viagra was covered by insurance companies the day it hit the market. the insurance companies will not cover birth control pills, not even for women with endometriosis.

and what do the men in this country do to improve the situation? to protect their wives, sisters, and daughters?

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

On the other hand...
Posted by: photon's feather on May 10, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the down-side of 'open, flexible work' is that those without children are expected to cover for those with children. Those without families are expected to cover for everyone else.

I've known and seen it first-hand. Oh, get so-and-so to work the holiday/later the day before a holiday/come in on the holiday, etc.: (s)he doesn't have to prepare a meal/doesn't have a family to worry about/doesn't have family out of town, etc. Or, Let so-and-so work the later hours (or overtime): (s)he doesn't have kids to pick up after school, from daycare, etc. That doesn't mean that so-and-so doesn't have a peraonal life and/or wouldn't appreciate being able to conduct personal business at a reasonable hour. Emergencies are worse, as of course there's no being able to anticipate them.

In very small companies (or departments), there's always someone who is burdened with the inconvenience - and it's ususally the same person (or few people).

Some of this also applies to mothers that are not single, as well as to fathers that accept responsibility for a large part of child care.

Do any of these parents ever stop to think that perhaps so-and-so has distant family or very close friends that (s)he would like to invite to dinner or go, (perhaps out of town), to visit? Or that perhaps because so-and-so works the same job, (s)he has earned the same right to a holiday - however (s)he defines it?

It's surprising how many of us choose not to have children, only to discover that those who chose otherwise expect us to share the inconvenience - and here I am not talking about real emergencies. Why? (Working childless couples don't subsidize single childless people's rent, even though it's just as high: a single person needs as many rooms as a couple - plus as much heat, and nearly as much furniture, electricity, etc.)

Personally, I make a distinction between single mothers that never bothered to worry about how they were going to raise their child(ren) without a father, and single mothers who honestly believed that their child(ren)would have a responsible father, i.e., were later widowed or divorced or abandoned. The former were irresponsible; the latter were unfortunate. (Those single mothers who were victims of force also belong in the latter group.)

If a woman's boyfriend is irresponsible or abusive, what makes her think a baby is going to change him? Or that marriage is going to change him, for that matter?

Yes, I know that irresponsible fathers are a problem, and I know that it is unfair that women are saddled with the greater share of the burdensome aspects of parenthood. That is, however, a well-known fact of life. Any woman who doesn't keep it in mind is a fool.

We know what causes children, and it is usually possible to avoid them. There aren't any little ones running around with my genes. That's by choice. If I were a woman, I would certainly be at least as careful. (Sometimes it means 'going without.' Too bad. I guarantee nobody will die of deprivation.)

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

» ahem Posted by: e rice
» RE: ahem Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: ahem Posted by: e rice
» RE: ahem Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: ahem Posted by: photon's feather
Do it for the kids
Posted by: euphobot on May 10, 2008 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Statistics consistently reveal that children are happier, do better in school, and more successful in their careers when raised in single Daddy homes. Maybe Blades and her kids would do better if she sent the kids to Dad and did less whine.

Hazen would serve the future better if he wern't stumped by this gatekeeper.

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

» RE: Do it for the kids Posted by: photon's feather
Motherhood is Seriously Overrated
Posted by: terradea42 on May 10, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women need equal rights, not mothers. We need to bring back the ERA fight, especially since most women under the age of 30 don't even realize that, unlike race & nationality, equal rights for women (aka gender equality) is not protected by the Constitution! ERA FAILED. Let's bring back the fight.

As for protecting mothers in the workplace; this is no time to be having babies. Food shortages, energy shortages, war, global warming ... the world you live in needs your time and effort, not your children. Stop breeding and start fighting for freedom, justice and liberty.

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

flaca
Posted by: flaca on May 10, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
clueless... classic case of maternal profiling. i dont do any heavy lifting... no, i weight 120 lbs and am 5'8. but i do the mental lifting - sorry for the men but i went to college & i deserve to make more. get a clue DUDE.

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

» RE: flaca Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: flaca Posted by: joe2171
Should explain editorial policy
Posted by: GPFrank on May 10, 2008 9:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Thoughtcriminal" complains that Mother Jones and Alternet are publishing articles that favor points of view of some captains of industry, Nuclear for example. Perhaps they should also
mention sources or other articles emphasizing
contrary views.

Mother Jones should state in front of articles, especially controversial ones whether they endorse the particular point of view or state generally that the publishing of and does not necessarily constitute endorsement. The articles such as the one on recycling nuclear fuel and the one on oil contain truth and arguments worth thinking about. For instance
the total carbon emission from the whole nuclear cycle is about 1/3 of that per watt produced by fossil fuel. They are making a positive step. On the other hand every advocate of some kind of energy should always include the reminder that the first priority is conserving rather than running amuck.

The recent brouhaha about Obama's former minister gives rise to the point about being too negative; that the threnody about the rulers having so much power and ability to oppress leaves people in the slough of despondency and dependency rather than encouraging them to act.

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

too true
Posted by: e rice on May 10, 2008 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and these are supposed to be the progressives.

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

We have met our own worst enemy - ourselves.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 10, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enemies can attack you, but only your friends can betray you. This is something that everyone in this country had better start paying attention to - because it was at least partly through the use of such false friends that Bush was able to steal the 2000 election, allow major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil (yes, I said allow, as in "do nothing to stop"), coverup a U.S. biowarfare program-sourced series of anthrax attacks, and then use all that as an excuse to invade Iraq after apparently deliberately botching Afghanistan (since if you catch OBL in Afghanistan, there's no good excuse to go into Iraq).

Let's take Mother's Day, originally started by a woman who worked hard to raise living conditions in the West Virginia coal country, where union members were routinely murdered:

"Ann Reeves Jarvis worked to bring the mothers together and to mothers work groups to help improve sanitary conditions in the community and to reduce infant mortality in the area. Her daughter Anna Jarvis declared when she died that she would create a day to honor all mothers in an effort to honor her own mother. So she came back here in 1907 to hold a memorial service for her mother, and then in 1908 they had the first Mother’s Day service."

So, what is Don Hazen doing here? Why, what he always does - he tries to recast this as a gender issue, not as a basic human rights issue - when the latter is what inspired the actual founder, who, we learn:

"Anna Jarvis wanted mother’s day to be simple but meaningful. She wanted sons and daughters to write letters to their mothers—not to sign their name at the bottom of a greeting card. She wanted mothers to rest on this holiday. So, Jarvis was upset when she saw flowers, greeting cards, and candy become focal points of the holiday"

This should all say something about the general demographic that Alternet targets - younger professional women being a large part of that group, I'm guessing. This is in contrast to sites like Counterpunch, which targets the old stodgy liberal-Marxist types, and Guerrilla News Network, which focuses on the young male MTV generation.

For a far better perspective than Hazen's, I suggest the following:
Mother's Day: Labor's achievements - and promise - cited at tribute to legendary organizer:

Bert Vancauwelaert knows the song well. At the end of the verse, he softly sings the refrain. The lyrics ask a question he answered for himself a long time ago, but it’s one that still bears repeating: “Whose side are you on? Whose side are you on?”

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

cephalis
Posted by: cef on May 10, 2008 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From an employer's prospective, they are sometimes reluctant to hire pregnant women and single mothers because the employee's services are vital to their business and the lost of the mother's work due to time off for family care would be damaging to the enterprise. If there were some kind of program to supply a temp substitute for times when the female employee had to be away from her job the employer would be more apt to hire mothers and mothers-to-be. They do this in schools, why not other businesses?

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

» RE: cephalis Posted by: Cathyblj
American Priorities Again: Everything for War and The Military, Nothing for the People!
Posted by: sofla100 on May 10, 2008 11:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, we are confronted with American priorities. While a foolish and unprovoked war wages on in Iraq, at the cost of $3 billion a week, our own citizens cannot obtain decent child care or medical care. Our education system is in a shambles. Most countries in the developed world today heavily subsidize child day care. Not the USA. All the developed countries in the world have universal medical care. Not the USA. Want to talk about the policies and priorities that are hurting everybody in America, and women especially. This is what it is all about, American priorities, everything for war and the military, nothing for the people.

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

Mothers and Fathers are both ripped off by the current system.
Posted by: maxpayne on May 10, 2008 12:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's put the gender divide away and overcome the divide-and-conquer approach the system is thrusting against us for a change.

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

» i agree Posted by: e rice
In some small-town/rural areas in the USA, mothers are hired instead of single people
Posted by: realmuzik on May 10, 2008 1:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know because I am a single person who lives in a conservative area and it seems whenever I am a candidate for jobs in my area that I am perfectly qualified to do, I am competing with moms who end up getting hired because they have motherhood in common with the people who hire them and their co-workers. These employers favor lively, chatty, conversational office atmospheres where all these workers do is gossip and gab about their families, which seems to be more important than getting work done. Their bosses and human resource departments seem to care more about corporate weekend family events where these families can get together and liven things up even further. No wonder so many companies and branch offices (of Fortune 500s) come and go in my area. Perhaps there are more singles than mothers working in large metropolitan areas, but in small-town and rural America, this is a bit of a different story. Single people who have to live in small towns and rural areas (I am a caregiver for my aging parents who prefer to live in a rural area) are even more stigmatized, marginalized, and discriminated against than mothers of growing minor children. We need to work, whether we are parents or not. There are more to the inequalities of incomes than just mothers "not making enough." Anyone who wants to work for a reasonable, comfortable living where we can contribute to our society with respect and dignity, should be able to, parents and non-parents alike.

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

» Spouting your opinion as fact again? Posted by: JimmyVaughan
Hmm, really? I don't think so
Posted by: carrie bradshaw on May 10, 2008 4:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really doubt the veracity of the subject matter because it is ILLEGAL to ask someone in a job interview about family or marital status so please bleat and whine somewhere else. While you all want the world to stop and revolve around you because you had children the rest of us have to pick up your slack while you run off to pump breast milk, go to school outings and take every holiday off. No sympathy here...

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

» RE: Hmm, really? I don't think so Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» employers' tricks Posted by: e rice
You Kiss your Mother with that Mouth?
Posted by: profedwards on May 10, 2008 5:25 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow.
Between bitter singles whining about "subsidies" (be more worried about multi-billion dollar subs for oil and corn than my "whopping" tax break for my kid); "activists" claiming that we women (sorry - "breeders") who choose to reproduce are ingnoring our duty to fight for a Constitutional amendment that has failed every year for many decades (Using this logic, natural-born Americans would have died out generations ago); and the rest of the crew who want to justify lower pay for mothers, I am nearly at a loss for words.
So I'll just end with this: To the REAL MOTHERS out there - whether by adoption, birth or chance - HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY. This fellow (educated, professional, flex-time-working) mother hopes that you can rise above the cynicism, ignorance and hate found on this post and ENJOY tomorrow - and every moment you spend with your children.
With understanding and appreciation for the gifts you give to the next generation!
Prof Edwards

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

» RE: You Kiss your Mother with that Mouth? Posted by: photon's feather