Is a woman truly capable of being a good mother while also being in the workforce? I cannot answer yes fast enough. Just because a woman has a baby, or numerous children at home, does not mean that her career should be jeopardized. In the world that we live in women are a large part of the workforce.
The National Women’s Law Center provides statistics. 7 percent of American women with children under age 18 take part in the workforce. 77 percent of women with children ages 6 to 17 also participate in the workforce. 64 percent of women with children under age 6 are in the work field, and 56 percent of women with infants (under age 1)—are in the labor force.
Women join the workforce for numerous reasons—because they love their occupation, because they need the money, because they need health insurance, along with many other motives. But no matter the reason a mother wants to work, she should not be discriminated against solely because she has children. In fact, having children will most likely make a woman very tough and hard working. The workforce should be happy to have mothers in the field.
Ann Critenden, author of “The Mommy Tax," writes, “The Independent Women’s forum was comparing young childless women to men and declaring victory for all women, glossing over the real news: that mothers are the most disadvantaged people in the work place. One could even say that motherhood is now the single greatest obstacle left in the path to economic equality for women.”
Just because a woman has a child does not mean that she is not fully capable of having a job and succeeding at it. If a woman has to leave a little bit early to pick up her kid from school, or leave because her kid fell off the jungle gym and has to go to the hospital, she should be allowed to do that. It would be inhumane to not let her, or to punish her for it. Women almost always make up the time; many women are on call for their employers at night and on weekends. So if a woman misses an hour of work here and there, she almost always makes up for it.
Mothers should practically be rewarded for being a mom and a career woman. They have to care for their kids while also maintaining a career. I can’t imagine anything more difficult; being a working mother is a 24-hour job. Men who discriminate against working mothers should take a walk in their shoes. I bet they won’t be discriminating after that, if they can survive it. I say the more mothers in the workforce, the better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ann Critenden writes that “the reduced earnings of mothers are, in effect, a heavy personal tax levied on people who care for children, or for any other dependent family members. “This levy, a “mommy tax,” is easily greater than $1 million in the case of a college-educated woman” (88). The substantial earning gap between men and women, not to mention the gross amount of loss wages that women suffer when they are pushed to leave the workplace in favor of the home, are simply astounding. To those who claim that wage-based equality is reached, I would again quoted Critenden, who explains that “women who earn almost as much as men are a rather narrow group: those who are between the ages of twenty-seven and thirty-three and who have never had children” (87). While women are encouraged by society to fulfill their destiny and become mothers, they are simultaneously punished for doing so. Patriarchy assumes that a woman cannot possibly balance the responsibility she has to her family and to her career.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the working world is unwilling to help mothers (or fathers, as the case may be). Paid maternity leaves are not mandated in the United States, but have been shown to be highly effective in allowing women to keep their careers. Mandatory overtime, however, is permissible, and it slowly drives women back to the “domestic sphere” as they cannot spend the extra time away from their homes and families with such little (or no) notice. Flexible or more compact schedules are difficult to negotiate, even with companies who are supposedly "family friendly."
In truth, in order to reduce the mommy tax, it seems most necessary to expand anti-discrimination laws to cover parents. Our workplaces are currently structured around masculine norms—for a woman to be successful, she must adhere to the “be like a man” strategy. She must unencumbered by other responsibilities and place the company’s priorities first. Thus, those with family responsibilities are seen as unable to perform her job in an acceptable fashion. Interior designer and mother Virginia Daley sued her company when she was terminated, supposedly on the grounds of poor performance but more likely related to her recent complaints waged against the company when her request for a more flexible work schedule was denied. The jury, while sympathetic to Daley, sided with her company, reasoning that Daley had “overextended” herself—it was too much for her to have a successful career and be a good parent. A woman can only choose one. Steele explained, “They believed it was just too hard for a woman to raise little kids and do a good job. The thinking was, how can a woman do all that, not how could a company do that?” ( 92)
Many people in our country complain about the collapse of the "nuclear family," and the fact that a mother, father and their children no longer make it a priority to spend time together as a family. The truth is, these families would probably love to do just that...but situations like the mommy tax make it impossible for family members, especially mothers, to feel comfortable putting their jobs aside for the sake of their family.
ReplyDeleteOther countries have proven that paid maternity leave for up to a year is possible, yet the United States still feels the need to call women back to work shortly after they have given birth. This is just another form of patriarchal control; society makes mother's feel as though they cannot be a hard worker if they must also tend to their children. Yet this does not apply so much to men...because like many other aspects of every day home life, child rearing is considered women's work.
Not only does the mommy tax make it difficult for women to feel comfortable taking time off work, but it also sets a bad example for children and perpetuates the gender inequality gap. Children grow up either having their mother home at all times (stay at home moms), or absent mothers. Rarely do we hear of situations in-between, because it simply isn't an option. This only contributes to the idea that women cannot have both, which is not the case.
Those women who do take jobs outside the home feel a constant need to hide their other responsibilities...leaving early to pick up their children or taking the day off when a child has a fever are grounds for firing or loss of pay...but who else can tend to these children's needs when society constantly is telling us that it is a mother's sole responsibility?
Last week, we discussed the ways in which marriage was problematic—especially in the context of marriage. For the most part, the literature we read focused on the idea that marriage was an inherently straight institution and some of the authors posited that gay activists were presenting a heterosexualized image of gay couples in order to gain access to it. However, marriage presents an even more wide-scale problem because it stratifies society, allowing certain privileges only to those who choose to pair off.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this week’s selections about women and poverty it struck me how strongly society pushes us towards the direction of direction of traditional marriage. Besides the more sentimental reasons—being able to visit one’s significant other in the event of serious injury is often cited—marriage is an institution strongly rooted in financial and political benefits. Married unions are recognized as the most celebrated and committed bond two people can share and that bond is rewarded with tax deductions, inheritance benefits and other financial boons.
However, while many look at the things marriage can give those who choose to take the walk down the aisle, it also devalues those who remain unmarried. Of particular significance to the readings this week is the plight of single mothers and the continuous struggle between motherhood and a career. Because our society is so strongly structured around the institution of a traditional marriage, those who need more or different support because their lifestyle differs from that of a married individual are often allowed to slip through the cracks.
Take, for instance, the issue of maternity leave. Mothers often face difficulty holding on to positions because they are stigmatized as being compromised workers—they have both a family to care for and a career to pursue, and many feel that compromises their ability to complete a job as well as a man or a non-mother could. Maternity leave is just one instance where mothers may take time off of work in order to be with their (newly started) family. While the position that a woman’s priority must inherently be with the family is problematic as well, it’s easy to forget that privileges like maternity leave are only a viable resource if the mother in question can afford to take the time off of work. Without the possibility of paid maternity leave, many single mothers find themselves in a bind: they want (or sometimes need) time to take care of their child—for whom they are the sole guardian—but also need to be able to provide for themselves and their child financially because they don’t have the safety net of a married partner.
A similar dilemma becomes apparent when we consider childcare. Because our society assumes and privileges married couples, the concerns of single parents are often unheard and their needs unmet. Single parents are more likely to struggle financially because they are the sole provider for a growing household. However, they face a secondary financial burden because few workplaces provided childcare services and so they must pay for that out of pocket. Society assumes that couplehood comes before parenthood and so the need for childcare is not seen as particularly compelling—it is assumed there will always be a partner (the mother) who cares for the children and a partner (the father) who is the breadwinner.
Society’s insistence of marriage is upheld not only in benefits strictly relating to the union but also in the assumptions made about couples and parents. Because married couples are privileged, non-married individuals are further marginalized if they do not fit into the de facto mold of a traditional paired-off couple.
Fantastic thoughts about these articles, and particularly the Crittenden, everyone! Cait, I appreciate the connection that you draw between our discussions of marriage and this week's readings about work: you're right when you point out just how closely interdependent these institutions are! Colleen, I also love your comment about the nuclear family: our workforce practices simultaneously assume a nuclear family (with the concept of the "ideal worker"), and make it increasingly difficult to sustain a nuclear family structure!
ReplyDeleteI, too thought that the discussion between Colleen, Cait, Megan and Anna raised several interesting points about women in the workplace and American family values. In particular, Cait's discussion of women in poverty and marriage/child-raising caused me to question my own views on working women and consider where my beliefs may have originated/why they might be skewed. Having been raised in a family of all working women--my mother, my grandmother, my aunts--I have never doubted that I will work and raise my children at the same time. That being said, never once did I feel like I, nor my cousins, were being jipped from being raised by our mothers--as a law professor, my mother had the opportunity to leave/be home when need be, and as real estate agents/writers, my aunts had the liberty of parenting more-or-less on their own schedules. That being said, these women of my family are all white, middle/upper class women, married (or if not married, financially supported) women--they have had the priviledge of working in careers that afford them these possibilities, that allow them to take time off when need be. But what about the other women of our society? The single, working poor women who do not have the privilege of working in careers that afford them such opportunities to be with their children.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, in reading Critendon's work, the blog discussion, and considering my own experiences and beliefs, I have once again realized the deeply divisive nature of the feminist movement and the complexities that arise once the concept of "privilege" is introduced.
While I completely agree with Anna's assertions that mothers should not be penalized in the workplace, I find myself questioning how we can prevent such discrimination. Employers are always on the search for the "unencumbered worker" and with tight bottom lines, how can we prevent them from their efficiency seeking behavior that ultimately leaves women at a jarring disadvantage? Something needs to change in the way we value non-market work and the role of mothering in our society. After all, it is the mothers of society tofay that are producing the tax-paying, potentially "unencumbered" workers of tomorrow.
ReplyDelete