After reading a book that has done a superb job at pointing out all of the country's problems, it's a relief that Ann Crittenden offers some possible solutions. Breastfeeding rates are down as the time limit for maternity gets cut shorter and shorter, along with the fact that maternity leave is unpaid leave is forcing infants as young as six weeks old into group settings, many for as long a ten hours a day. “No other women or children in the industrialized world are forced to live under these conditions, which child development experts agree are deplorable, if not downright harmful, (p. 259).
Those concerned with family values or parental neglect of children could find no better place to attack the problem than by demanding a paid leave, which could be shared by both parents, of at least one year, (p. 259). That way the recommendation sent by the American pediatrics official recommendations of new mothers breastfeeding their infant for at least one year could actually be feasible, and family bonds could grow stronger as the dad's from bonds with their new baby. Studies have shown that the more involved a father is with his new son/daughter early in life, the less likely he will be to leave that child later in life.
A second solution would be a shorter work week. This has been met with much opposition, as the bottom line is top priority. However, overwork-related stress disorders, absenteeism, and turnover would surely be reduced, and productivity in some cases improved, as a number of French companies have already discovered (p. 260).
Thirdly, a “worker” should be defined as anyone who is either employed in the provisions of goods and services or is engaged in the unpaid provisions of care and services to dependent adults and children (p. 263). Also, a mother's taxes could also be reduced considerably by allowing her to deduct child-care expenditures. If business executives can deduct half the cost of meals and entertainment as a legitimate cost of doing business, then surely the primary caregiver should be allowed to deduct the cost of substitute child care as a business expense, which certainly is (p. 266).
If a handful of these proposals were enacted, the most obvious result would be a massive shift of income to women. However, studies have shown that in today's economy women are the dominate indicator in how well the economy does, their spending power holds all the power. If this is the case, why are we met with such resistance? Female caregivers have been the the world's cheap labor for too long. They have been forced to be dependents for too long. “A society that beggars its mothers beggars its own future,” (p. 274). That is something to think and fight about.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
It Was Her Choice, The Price of Motherhood Chapter 13
As I argued before, mothering is not a choice, rather it is a decision that has to be made. A choice involves the option of doing nothing, a decision is something that has to be made—the decisions to become a mother is not a choice. The lack of support from society on a systematic governmental level is detrimental to a democratic society that needs people to flourish in order to even operate. In effect mothers have been told, “If the people who opt to nurture and educate the next generation are systematically handicapped in the labor market, if they find it hard to make a decent living or get ahead without neglecting their child, why should we care? It's their choice.” But if raising children well is more important than running fast, and if female equality is important, the “it's their choice” argument is completely inadequate, (p. 234).
Mother's choices are not made in a vacuum, they are made in a world that women never made, according to rules they didn't write, (235). Consider how many moms cut back to part-time status at work after having a baby. With part-time status comes loss of wages, loss of benefits, loss of status, loss of promotion possibility, and the list goes on. I didn't make that “choice,” I didn't write it, did you?
To most women choice is all about bad options and difficult decisions: your child or your profession; taking on domestic chores or marital strife; a good night's sleep or time with your child; food on the table or your baby's safety; your right or your left. No wonder many mothers talk about “surrendering” to motherhood, as if it were a gigantic defeat that is better to accept than to fight, (237). I personally could not have foreseen the profound ways having my daughter would change me. She gave me such purpose and drive to live life not only for myself, but to model and pave the way for her and her children. How can I be all that I want to be, tell her she can do “whatever she puts her mind to” when it is all true, until she decides to have children. I don't feel comfortable living a lie, yet at the same time I hope to someday be a grandma. It is very clear as grand daughters of the feminist movement, we can't have it all.
Upon the various decisions a mother has to make, it becomes very easy to dichotomize and classify “other mothers” when I assume that those that are in a committed, married relationship, with “planned children” have it easy. “Women's whose sacrifices are mainly their self-esteem and equality in marriage are the “lucky ones.” What about the mothers who have no choice but to entrust their children to untrustworthy caretakers? Is it really their choice, or is it society's choice? (p. 237). No party involved is really all that “lucky,” but it is clear that women's children are given choices based marital status, or in relation to the men involved or not involved. A child cannot help how he/she is conceived, why are they the real victims in all of this? Why should child rearing have to be so undervalued, unappreciated, and punishable in so many ways?
Something needs to change.
Mother's choices are not made in a vacuum, they are made in a world that women never made, according to rules they didn't write, (235). Consider how many moms cut back to part-time status at work after having a baby. With part-time status comes loss of wages, loss of benefits, loss of status, loss of promotion possibility, and the list goes on. I didn't make that “choice,” I didn't write it, did you?
To most women choice is all about bad options and difficult decisions: your child or your profession; taking on domestic chores or marital strife; a good night's sleep or time with your child; food on the table or your baby's safety; your right or your left. No wonder many mothers talk about “surrendering” to motherhood, as if it were a gigantic defeat that is better to accept than to fight, (237). I personally could not have foreseen the profound ways having my daughter would change me. She gave me such purpose and drive to live life not only for myself, but to model and pave the way for her and her children. How can I be all that I want to be, tell her she can do “whatever she puts her mind to” when it is all true, until she decides to have children. I don't feel comfortable living a lie, yet at the same time I hope to someday be a grandma. It is very clear as grand daughters of the feminist movement, we can't have it all.
Upon the various decisions a mother has to make, it becomes very easy to dichotomize and classify “other mothers” when I assume that those that are in a committed, married relationship, with “planned children” have it easy. “Women's whose sacrifices are mainly their self-esteem and equality in marriage are the “lucky ones.” What about the mothers who have no choice but to entrust their children to untrustworthy caretakers? Is it really their choice, or is it society's choice? (p. 237). No party involved is really all that “lucky,” but it is clear that women's children are given choices based marital status, or in relation to the men involved or not involved. A child cannot help how he/she is conceived, why are they the real victims in all of this? Why should child rearing have to be so undervalued, unappreciated, and punishable in so many ways?
Something needs to change.
An Accident Waiting to Happen, The Price of Motherhood Chapter 12
One does not realize the full-impact of what it means to be a stay at home single-mother until she is forced to attend “how to find a job workshops” forced by the government to find menial employment, making less than seven dollars and hour, and having the income break even at zero after the cost of childcare all in the name of having state funded health care. Who decided that single-mothers should not be able to stay at home with their child, and that it is best for everyone to have that mother work? These were some of the choices that I had to make as a single-welfare mom, and one I chose not to take as I took the academic high route. However, the cost of childcare did not go away and neither did its necessity.
Reading “An Accident Waiting to Happen” crystallized the internal feelings I had when I chose to put my two-year-old in daycare, and the failure I had felt as a mother. I quickly realized that failure and guilt that I had felt on the inside, should have been projected to the outside, as it is clear that lack of adequate childcare is not an individual failure, but a systematic failure. Working women face a terrible choice: they either go to work and risk leaving their children in unsafe hands, or stay at home and risk loosing their livelihood and financial independence. The official disregard for child care affects every child's safety and every mother's piece of mind, regardless of income or class (p. 219).
What does this all mean for the working mother and the future of women? We'll never have women leaders. We've reached a peak, and gone as far as we can go...Women are now opting out of the labor force because they can't handle everything. If we want to have women in positions of power, if we don't want men to be the rulers forever, then those women can't be cooking-baking, at home mothers of the myth; someone else is going to have to take over that role (p. 231).
Why are these our only choices? Why can't men step up and share the responsibility of child-rearing and the personal sacrifices that come with the parenting vocation? Is it because then they might loose as much as we have? I argue that they have nothing to loose, but everything to gain as relationships will be strengthened with the child, the mother, and all employers will have to take notice—this is the beginning of a better model. Work should support family, not the other way around.
Reading “An Accident Waiting to Happen” crystallized the internal feelings I had when I chose to put my two-year-old in daycare, and the failure I had felt as a mother. I quickly realized that failure and guilt that I had felt on the inside, should have been projected to the outside, as it is clear that lack of adequate childcare is not an individual failure, but a systematic failure. Working women face a terrible choice: they either go to work and risk leaving their children in unsafe hands, or stay at home and risk loosing their livelihood and financial independence. The official disregard for child care affects every child's safety and every mother's piece of mind, regardless of income or class (p. 219).
What does this all mean for the working mother and the future of women? We'll never have women leaders. We've reached a peak, and gone as far as we can go...Women are now opting out of the labor force because they can't handle everything. If we want to have women in positions of power, if we don't want men to be the rulers forever, then those women can't be cooking-baking, at home mothers of the myth; someone else is going to have to take over that role (p. 231).
Why are these our only choices? Why can't men step up and share the responsibility of child-rearing and the personal sacrifices that come with the parenting vocation? Is it because then they might loose as much as we have? I argue that they have nothing to loose, but everything to gain as relationships will be strengthened with the child, the mother, and all employers will have to take notice—this is the beginning of a better model. Work should support family, not the other way around.
The Toughest Job You'll Ever Love, The Price of Motherhood Chapter 11
The current childcare system is composed of the following formula: Mothers care for their own children for free, and child-care workers increasingly care for other peoples' children for the lowest wage in the economy. These are the twin pillars of a child care system based on the exploitation of women, (p. 209).
One could argue, yes but you made the choice to have children. That may be true, but as a woman the options are not really choices, they are decisions. When I became pregnant at twenty I made a decision to have my daughter. I chose not to live with wondering “what could have been” living a life forever plagued by nightmares and never wanting to look a child square in the eye. I could have given my baby up for adoption, but to carry, fall in love, and nurture a baby for nine months and go through the excruciating pain of child birth made adoption not an option for me. For any mother who has done it, her heart and love is far less selfish than mine. I also had a choice to be on birth control. But as cancer runs rampid in my family, one is wise to give a break to the carcinogens. I also had a choice to use a condom, but the choice was made that it “doesn't feel as good.” These aren't really choices, these are decisions that have to be made. A man has only two choices in life when it comes to family planning: should I stay or should I go?Not fair.
What does this mean for a woman who is in the business of childcare? Most childcare centers are loosing the qualified people they want to hire, why? Because these women can't afford to work there. These women are some of the most educated women in society, and we pay them minimum wage. Research has shown that all predominately female jobs are significantly underpaid, “The greater percentage of women in a job, the lower the pay...and those nurturing skills are typically associated with women,” (p. 205). What people call turnover children experience as loss. From a parent in Eau Claire Wisconsin, “The turnover at my child's day care center has caused emotional upheavals each time it occurs. Our son weeps and acts out after a change of providers, (209).
The stress of constant turnover is hard on the children, that's a no brainer. But it is also hard on the parents. I prided myself on the fact that I had found the best childcare in town, and that I knew everyone my daughter came into contact with. But soon the lead teachers got other job offers, and they trickled away. I had to adjust and readjust to a new stranger at least every three months. I felt victimized as I had felt like I failed as a parent, I felt I put my daughter in harms way.
Although most state governments require licensing for dog handlers, they will let almost anyone loose with a baby. In numerous states there are no courses required of child-care providers, no exams to measure knowledge, no certification of skills, and no experience necessary. In some states, a person can be a provider with only a high school diploma. As advocates of higher standards point out, even manicurists are typically required to have more training, (p. 210).
Women and children become the real victims here. Meanwhile, mothers convince their daughter's that they too will have the same opportunity in life as any man. We are clearly living, breathing, telling, and perpetuating the lie.
One could argue, yes but you made the choice to have children. That may be true, but as a woman the options are not really choices, they are decisions. When I became pregnant at twenty I made a decision to have my daughter. I chose not to live with wondering “what could have been” living a life forever plagued by nightmares and never wanting to look a child square in the eye. I could have given my baby up for adoption, but to carry, fall in love, and nurture a baby for nine months and go through the excruciating pain of child birth made adoption not an option for me. For any mother who has done it, her heart and love is far less selfish than mine. I also had a choice to be on birth control. But as cancer runs rampid in my family, one is wise to give a break to the carcinogens. I also had a choice to use a condom, but the choice was made that it “doesn't feel as good.” These aren't really choices, these are decisions that have to be made. A man has only two choices in life when it comes to family planning: should I stay or should I go?Not fair.
What does this mean for a woman who is in the business of childcare? Most childcare centers are loosing the qualified people they want to hire, why? Because these women can't afford to work there. These women are some of the most educated women in society, and we pay them minimum wage. Research has shown that all predominately female jobs are significantly underpaid, “The greater percentage of women in a job, the lower the pay...and those nurturing skills are typically associated with women,” (p. 205). What people call turnover children experience as loss. From a parent in Eau Claire Wisconsin, “The turnover at my child's day care center has caused emotional upheavals each time it occurs. Our son weeps and acts out after a change of providers, (209).
The stress of constant turnover is hard on the children, that's a no brainer. But it is also hard on the parents. I prided myself on the fact that I had found the best childcare in town, and that I knew everyone my daughter came into contact with. But soon the lead teachers got other job offers, and they trickled away. I had to adjust and readjust to a new stranger at least every three months. I felt victimized as I had felt like I failed as a parent, I felt I put my daughter in harms way.
Although most state governments require licensing for dog handlers, they will let almost anyone loose with a baby. In numerous states there are no courses required of child-care providers, no exams to measure knowledge, no certification of skills, and no experience necessary. In some states, a person can be a provider with only a high school diploma. As advocates of higher standards point out, even manicurists are typically required to have more training, (p. 210).
Women and children become the real victims here. Meanwhile, mothers convince their daughter's that they too will have the same opportunity in life as any man. We are clearly living, breathing, telling, and perpetuating the lie.
The Welfare State Verses the Caring State, The Price of Motherhood Chapter 10
Although unpaid childcare is the ultimate social safety net, caregivers themselves are expected to perform without a net. Unpaid workers, including those who pay for dependent family members are excluded from the welfare system. As Nancy Folbre has written, “While motherhood is idealized as the most fulfilling work a woman can perform, public policy continues to define it as though it were not really work at all.” The welfare state has thus played a major role in the feminization of poverty, or what Folbre calls, “the pauperization of motherhood,” (p. 188).
I found this story the most alarming. A twenty-nine-year old wife of a stockbroker, lived what she would call a “Leave it to Beaver” existence north of San Francisco with three children all under the age of six. She was playing a good role in a perfect script—until her husband became manic-depressive, lost his job, and effectively deserted his family. Overnight, the stay-at-home-mom became a single mother with no college degree and no visible means of support (p. 187).
The web of paper work, mandatory “how to find employment” workshops, and lack of available good childcare are just a few of the problems facing the single-welfare mother. I myself have been lucky in the respect that I am moderately affluent, understand the system, and most importantly—what questions to ask. Trying to imagine a mother who has no education, who is not assertive, and doesn't speak English trying to get assistance is heartbreaking.
The former welfare mother spoken about above, is Lynn Woolsey, now a Democratic member of Congress from Petaluma, California. Every year with Conservative Republican Henry Hyde, she cosponsors legislation that would create a federal system of child support collection. With most child support experts, she believes that is the country had one national collection system, and all Americans had to pay their child support as routinely as they pay their federal income taxes, as many as 800,000 mothers and children would no longer need any public assistance. Every year this proposal is shot down (p. 188).
Women like Lynn Woolsey would have been self-supporting if it wasn't for trying to meet her family obligations. If she had given into the temptation of running away from it all; if she decided to travel light, carry no baggage, and never look back when she heard the sound of broken glass; if she had just behaved, in short, like so many men, she wouldn't have become that dread, demonized figure, the welfare mom (p. 191).
No insurance policy is in place against the loss of a primary parent. The children of a stay-at-home mother who dies or becomes disabled receives no benefits. Even though someone will surely have to spend an enormous amount of money to pay for the services him or herself, care giving is not insured. The loss of the breadwinner on the other hand, initiates social security benefits. The system treats widows and children of the men who die like princes, and the families of the men who divorce or leave them like paupers. Yet as scholars have observed, “nothing distinguishes the two types of women and children except for their prior relationship to men,” (p, 196).
If a man abandons his family, or there is a divorce, his wife and children have no protection under Social Security. If they are desperate they might be able to secure some form of temporary welfare, but the children will be much worse off than if their father were dead (p. 196).
The lessons a woman can learn from this is don't get married, and if you do get married never get divorced, don't have children, and most importantly never, I mean never, put yourself in a position where you depend solely on a man for financial support. What a sad state we live in. We want to value family, and adhere to a “traditional model,” just not bad enough to want to invest in protecting them.
I found this story the most alarming. A twenty-nine-year old wife of a stockbroker, lived what she would call a “Leave it to Beaver” existence north of San Francisco with three children all under the age of six. She was playing a good role in a perfect script—until her husband became manic-depressive, lost his job, and effectively deserted his family. Overnight, the stay-at-home-mom became a single mother with no college degree and no visible means of support (p. 187).
The web of paper work, mandatory “how to find employment” workshops, and lack of available good childcare are just a few of the problems facing the single-welfare mother. I myself have been lucky in the respect that I am moderately affluent, understand the system, and most importantly—what questions to ask. Trying to imagine a mother who has no education, who is not assertive, and doesn't speak English trying to get assistance is heartbreaking.
The former welfare mother spoken about above, is Lynn Woolsey, now a Democratic member of Congress from Petaluma, California. Every year with Conservative Republican Henry Hyde, she cosponsors legislation that would create a federal system of child support collection. With most child support experts, she believes that is the country had one national collection system, and all Americans had to pay their child support as routinely as they pay their federal income taxes, as many as 800,000 mothers and children would no longer need any public assistance. Every year this proposal is shot down (p. 188).
Women like Lynn Woolsey would have been self-supporting if it wasn't for trying to meet her family obligations. If she had given into the temptation of running away from it all; if she decided to travel light, carry no baggage, and never look back when she heard the sound of broken glass; if she had just behaved, in short, like so many men, she wouldn't have become that dread, demonized figure, the welfare mom (p. 191).
No insurance policy is in place against the loss of a primary parent. The children of a stay-at-home mother who dies or becomes disabled receives no benefits. Even though someone will surely have to spend an enormous amount of money to pay for the services him or herself, care giving is not insured. The loss of the breadwinner on the other hand, initiates social security benefits. The system treats widows and children of the men who die like princes, and the families of the men who divorce or leave them like paupers. Yet as scholars have observed, “nothing distinguishes the two types of women and children except for their prior relationship to men,” (p, 196).
If a man abandons his family, or there is a divorce, his wife and children have no protection under Social Security. If they are desperate they might be able to secure some form of temporary welfare, but the children will be much worse off than if their father were dead (p. 196).
The lessons a woman can learn from this is don't get married, and if you do get married never get divorced, don't have children, and most importantly never, I mean never, put yourself in a position where you depend solely on a man for financial support. What a sad state we live in. We want to value family, and adhere to a “traditional model,” just not bad enough to want to invest in protecting them.
Who Pays for the Kids? The Price of Motherhood, Chapter 9
Oh, the child support system...only viewed as monetary, never in terms of time or care of the child. Mother's beware, your in for a scare if divorce should ever occur. “Indeed the working mother who decides to care for her offspring, rather than maximize her income, should expect to see her child punished with lower support from the father if divorce or separation occurs,” (p. 163).
I remember having dance the child support tango. My daughter and I needed medical care, once we had that provided the state needed someone to absorb the cost. It didn't matter the my daughter's dad spent time with her, paid for her diapers, and helped around the house... he still had to pay up because he was assumed to be a dead beat. Things didn't work out romantically for our relationship, but we have always made everything we do about our daughter, and I have never “taken her away” from him.
My daughter's dad is now in another pickle as he met and fell hard for a young woman he worked with. They were off and on for a while, tangled in intensity. She became pregnant with twins last October and miscarried after the first month. They turned around and got pregnant again, immediately after the loss. The new baby was born in September. This woman did not let her baby's father be there for the birth, wouldn't accept help during her pregnancy, and now that the baby is almost six months, the number of times she has let baby's dad see her can be counted on one hand.
The situation has been almost the same for my daughter's dad and his child-rearing experience. However, anger has been largely left out of the picture for our situation, and has been harboring in the second. I know too much to not let my daughter see her dad, and I have no reason to not let her see him. They are close, she loves him, and I love him because of how much he loves her. So now he is stuck paying almost six hundred dollars a month in child support, one for a child he sees, the other he doesn't. Why does the government assume that a father does not want to see his child and that the only way a father knows how to rear a child is through monetary means? If time was valued as much as money, our society would be a little richer and our daughter's would be a lot healthier.
I remember having dance the child support tango. My daughter and I needed medical care, once we had that provided the state needed someone to absorb the cost. It didn't matter the my daughter's dad spent time with her, paid for her diapers, and helped around the house... he still had to pay up because he was assumed to be a dead beat. Things didn't work out romantically for our relationship, but we have always made everything we do about our daughter, and I have never “taken her away” from him.
My daughter's dad is now in another pickle as he met and fell hard for a young woman he worked with. They were off and on for a while, tangled in intensity. She became pregnant with twins last October and miscarried after the first month. They turned around and got pregnant again, immediately after the loss. The new baby was born in September. This woman did not let her baby's father be there for the birth, wouldn't accept help during her pregnancy, and now that the baby is almost six months, the number of times she has let baby's dad see her can be counted on one hand.
The situation has been almost the same for my daughter's dad and his child-rearing experience. However, anger has been largely left out of the picture for our situation, and has been harboring in the second. I know too much to not let my daughter see her dad, and I have no reason to not let her see him. They are close, she loves him, and I love him because of how much he loves her. So now he is stuck paying almost six hundred dollars a month in child support, one for a child he sees, the other he doesn't. Why does the government assume that a father does not want to see his child and that the only way a father knows how to rear a child is through monetary means? If time was valued as much as money, our society would be a little richer and our daughter's would be a lot healthier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
