Working families, the care crisis, and time for change
I’m feeling hopeful. The ongoing crisis in so many American households—a crisis euphemistically referred to as “work-family issues”—is finally hitting the nation’s political agenda. Let me explain why I think so, suggest why it’s important, point to some resources for more information, and ask a couple of questions to kick off this week’s discussion about issues that are critical not just to individual American families but also to the American economy, to a new concept of national security, and to our democracy.
Here’s what I see. “Most of our nation’s children live in homes where all adults are employed,” as Senators Dodd and Specter note in their letter launching a new bipartisan caucus on children, work, and family. Those adults face overwhelming pressures and problems in handling their work and family responsibilities successfully—and working moms usually bear most of the burden. For far too long, the demands facing working families have been framed and understood as personal issues for individual mothers to solve rather than as a reason to make major public policy change for a successful economy. As a result, each family feels it must tackle these issues alone. But now a generation of women and men appear to be fed up with the “mommy wars”—the marketing conceit that posits mothers who work and mothers who stay home as each others’ enemies (as if fathers have no family responsibilities besides bringing in cash). Women of several generations are starting to talk about the fact that, collectively, they’re pinched between the all-or-nothing demands of today’s 24/7 jobs, the need to work to keep a roof overhead, and the very real demands of caring for their families.
I’m seeing signs of this shift in very different places. The Nation, The American Prospect, and the Columbia Journalism Review have all covered the issues involved prominently in the past few weeks. The new Congressional caucus mentioned above is an extremely a hopeful sign for national discussion and policy changes. An intriguing alliance of new and existing organizations has called for a “Ceasefire in the Mommy Wars.” (See more about this here, here, and here, or look at a partial list of relevant organizations here.)
Among the demands of those involved in this alliance: an end to “family responsibilities discrimination,” as the Coffeehouse’s Joan C. Williams brilliantly puts it; paid family leave, including (but not limited to) maternity and paternity leave, that’s in line with that of other developed nations; enough workplace flexibility to enable parents to care for sick kids; fair and living wages for all kinds of work, including part-time; reasonable and realistic options for high-quality childcare for all families, not just the wealthy; and healthcare options that pin one parent to an all-consuming job. And here’s a problem I rarely see discussed: realigning school and work schedules. Why are 21st century schoolchildren still being sent home to milk 19th century cows—leaving millions of working parents scrambling frantically for individual solutions to their shared 3-6 pm problem? Others here at the Coffeehouse will have more suggestions about what should be on the agenda.
Ruth Rosen lays out a brilliant overview of the societal failures in her article The Care Crisis, March 12, 2007, in The Nation, which she posted here last night. I hope this taste sends you to her article:
“A baby is born. A child develops a high fever. A spouse breaks a leg. A parent suffers a stroke. These are the events that throw a working woman's delicate balance between work and family into chaos… For four decades, American women have entered the paid workforce--on men's terms, not their own--yet we have done precious little as a society to restructure the workplace or family life. The consequence of this "stalled revolution," a term coined by sociologist Arlie Hochschild, is a profound "care deficit." A broken healthcare system, which has left 47 million Americans without health coverage, means this care crisis is often a matter of life and death. Today the care crisis has replaced the feminine mystique as women's "problem that has no name." It is the elephant in the room--at home, at work and in national politics--gigantic but ignored…. Conservatives typically blame the care crisis on the women's movement for creating the impossible ideal of "having it all." But it was women's magazines and popular writers, not feminists, who created the myth of the Superwoman. Feminists of the 1960s and '70s knew they couldn't do it alone. In fact, they insisted that men share the housework and child-rearing and that government and business subsidize childcare.”
My own personal pet peeve, the elite media’s insistence on treating this profound societal gap as a private issue—as if real women have no need to bring in money, and just want to go home and take care of their babies—is explored in the Columbia Journalism Review; you can read the article at my Institute’s website, with more information, resources, and links to the background research. (Many thanks to Joan Williams for the meticulously researched report that ought to be on every editor’s desk, which serves as the news peg and springboard for my article.) For decades, The New York Times in particular has been reporting that there’s a “new,” counterintuitive trend among educated women: they’re choosing (gasp!) to leave their careers and stay home with their babies. This weirdly unkillable story stands in direct contradiction to the facts. The truth is, during those same fifty years. more and more women—including mothers—have been steadily joining the workforce. The moms-go-home storyline reinforces cultural stereotypes—and does so through laziness and inaccuracy, actively sweeping aside evidence that does not fit this narrative, and neglecting to report on data that contradicts its implicit and explicit contentions.
The American Prospect has an in-depth exploration of a variety of the underlying issues in its March issue’s special section Mother Load, including a look at the economic and human costs of not fixing the problem, some models for how to run a business with real family values, and a look at family-friendly policies that work in other developed countries.
Others have been writing about the need for fathers to carry their fair share of the household load, instead of relying on mothers to worry about pediatricians’ appointments and summer camp schedules. (I haven’t followed that particular discussion, and I hope someone else will post about it here.) Still elsewhere there’s discussion about other gaps in the Family and Medical Leave Act. What else is needed for the FMLA to be successful—and how likely is that change to happen?
So here are my questions for the Coffeehouse this week:
What should be done first to enable workers to fulfill their responsibilities both at work and at home? Which policies are highest priority?
Are the Democrats poised to take up working family issues, recognizing that this focus encompasses economics, family values, and women's issues—or am I dreaming here? If they’re not, how can we put the care crisis on the national political agenda and force presidential candidates to compete with each other for the votes of working parents?
What should American businesses be doing to support their employees’ family responsibilities without sacrificing profits—and what will it take to get them to do it?
What initiatives aren’t yet (and should be) hitting the media—activism, legislative proposals, and otherwise?
Who’s against supporting working families—and why? If no one, then why isn’t this on the top of the nation’s agenda?
What is the media’s role and responsibility in sidelining working families’ problems, putting them in the style pages rather than up front and center?
What will it take to get us all to see that women are not an “interest group,” that working mothers’ problems are not “identity” politics, and that the problems of working families are the problems of the common good?
What gaps do you see in the media and policy discussions about work, family, and the American economy?
One of the core political problems with the work-life balance issue is that—as Graff suggests in her thoughts here—remediation will require changes in policy across the board, from health to education to workers' rights and beyond.
But the key to success is in the political correlation of forces: The only real constituency "against supporting working families" is the traditionalist fraction of our society that skews rural, religious, and red—the fraction that has responded to the GOP's scare tactics about gays, guns, and god by turning out in droves to vote against modernity itself. But the preponderant urban, suburban, and even exurban constituencies seem ever more likely to fall together and make common cause against our ever more dysfunctional social arrangements. The longer we fail to do this, the higher the cost will be, and the higher the price we already will have paid in human terms. The time really is now.
March 19, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
First: encourage 'workers' not to have kids. My son's two, and he's the joy of my life. Yet raising a kid is a nightmare of sleep deprivation and marital stress and financial desperation and psychological discomfort. This is the taboo in our culture: admitting how incredibly hard raising a kid is, even if one parent -does- stay home. Even in the days when living on one income (for less-than-wealthy-people) was simply -possible-, this was a nightmare that trapped caregivers (see, for example, the 'feminist movement').
The -real- elephant of the 'child care crisis' isn't -just- financial. It's also that taking care of children is both boring and exhausting: doing so full-time is a burden I wouldn't wish one someone I -didn't- love, forget about my spouse. (And insisting that men 'share' childcare is also, btw, insulting and unhelpful, like insisting that women 'share' the production of income.)
Fact is, providing childcare is a good first step toward solving the childcare crisis, but it's no solution.
I think Democrats should address this by saying: "We want a return to the halcyon days of yore, when one income could support a working family in comfort." Now, that's largely bullshit, I imagine, but it's good framing for a discussion of falling (income adjusted) wages. I read somewhere, I think via Kevin Drum, that the average two-income household today makes 5% more than the average one-income family thirty years ago, adjusted for inflation. That's the reality we face; the average household income of an -individual- has halved. Back in the days when women were expected to stay at home (among whatever demographic), and handle all the childcare and household management (and hated it), their husbands made on average twice what husbands make today.
That's what's against working families. The economy.
And of courge gender roles don't help anyone. Women are expected to take the lead in childcare. Many women intensely dislike childcare (though of course they love their children). This they cannot admit: a mother admitting she doesn't -want- to primarily care for her child (as opposed to 'isn't able to') violates a powerful taboo. And the economic reality is that they must make an income and--
Oh, screw it. I'm depressing myself.
How about everyone joining intentional communities? Takes a village to rasie a child, and pooling resources coudln't hurt. That's my plan.
March 19, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure why you feel the need to pose this as a women's issue. It is a family issue, an issue for men and women.
Men too feel the need to leave work to be with mom during the first 1-3 months of a child, and men too volunteer at school, and decide to take jobs that are more family flexible and require less travel.
This is true for married men as well as divorced men. It is true for men that share joint custody of their children and for men that are only able to parent their children a few days each month.
With all due respect, Who’s against supporting working families—and why? I would say that is feminist groups that do what they can to lobby against a rebuttable presumption of joint custody during a divorce.
The California National Organization for Women recently issued a 95-page report called Disorder in the Courts: Mothers and Their Allies Take on the Family Law System, in which they warn “the fathers’ rights movement has been gaining strength and legitimacy. Fatherhood groups are well-funded, well-organized and publicly supported through conservative mouthpieces in the media.” In the report, many prominent figures in the Feminist Family Law Movement (FFLM) call for a “mothers’ rights movement” to block the rising fatherhood movement.
A child has two parents, there is no reason why the workplace should not acknowledge and support that. And no reason for feminists groups to challenge that either.
March 19, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have to object that there is no going back, Steggles; that few of us WANT to go back (see below); and that if you want to see how to go forward, please take a look around the developed world, for starters, at least. One of the most irritating tropes of U.S. policy debate is that we seem to think we invented everything—and perforce must reinvent everything—about our social arrangements sui generis. But lo and behold: Numerous other industrial societies have manifestly more functional and humane health care systems, child care systems, education systems, and work/life policies. Having a child wouldn't be so difficult if we didn't make it so in all our ignorance, anachronism, and indirection. (I got three, BTW....)
March 19, 2007 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
For four decades, American women have entered the paid workforce--on men's terms, not their own--yet we have done precious little as a society to restructure the workplace or family life.
And before that one wage earner could and did support a family. Now two wage earners can barely keep things afloat.
We've regressed economically despite the plethora of shoddy, shiny consumer goods.
That said, why should business be family friendly when they basically have a unlimited number of new workers entering the workforce? Not to mention the ability to off-shore work and reduce their labor costs even more.
Politically and economically big business is holding all the cards. BTW this is why there is almost no debate in D.C. to help the working and middle-class.
In regards to child care parents are going to have to realize - you can't have it all, despite what the feminists go blathering on about. For example, if both parents are high powered white-collars it means 10-12 hour work days and the kids getting raised by daycare and probably a illegal alien nanny since mommy is too tired and involved in her work to care for her children.
And the nanny aspect is the most pathetic thing of all. The professional couple basically out-sources child rearing to a underpaid stranger so they can go on and have "meaningful careers".
IMO these two income wage earners are better off just owning pets, at least that way aren't damaging children in the name of $$$.
March 19, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
If you become so utterly over-whelmed by the problems involved in 'child-rearing' and by your dis-like of the drudgery attendant on that 'blessed' activity, then why in the world would you, even for a moment, contemplate bringing a baby into this world?
This is not meant as personal 'put-down' of your perception of the difficulties developed with 'child-rearing'...just wondering if 'non-production' is maybe the most effective 'cure' for the problems...problems which 'depress you', even to discuss them.
March 19, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, waltc, for expressing exactly the mentality that must be overcome in this debate: that the two-income family is women's fault; that America exists to serve the interests of big business, not its citizens; that big business in fact hates American families; that NONE OF US can "have it all" (that is, families AND jobs)—that "mommy" should stay home "to care for her children" while dad has to be a family-absent workaholic. QED, dude!
March 19, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
jerry, I would never presume to prejudge why you have gotten into this particular intellectual eddy at the outset of a general discussion about women's lives, work, and family policy. The fact is that this is a "women's issue" because (viz. waltc below), work/family balance has always presumptively been a "women's issue," and women in America have for more than a generation now been called upon to square the circle of work/life balance, the Second Shift, etc. etc.
Now, it is to be hoped and applauded that American men are ready to step up to the plate and demand equal rights in the workplace—rights to take family-related leave, to work a schedule that affords them an integral role in the daily life and nurturing of their families, and so on. But it must be stipulated that this very notion signifies a new dawn in American policy debate. A long-awaited one, let it ba added.
March 19, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raise wages. Raise wages a lot. Forget this "suffering middle class"(tm) crap. The upper income classes can take care of themselves a hell of a lot easier than poor working folk. Be Democrats for a change.
Best, Terry
March 19, 2007 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear, terry—but notice that this would not change on iota of the dysfunctional policies that are dragging all of us down. Our children, the more fortunate and the less fortunate alike, all deserve better. This is only the beginning of thought.
March 19, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elle Loco -
what a bunch of drivel. "presumptively" is a pretty weak rationale.
You ignored his points, too. Who is against family friendly policies in the workplace? This is an economic issue, like most every other issue. Not sexist. Men are just as stretched and just as overtaxed these days. And the system is not being anti-woman, it is being anti-human. You only draw out the pain and agony by trying to sexualize this and blame 98% of the males with your woes. Unless your MALE is a CEO...he has nothing to do with your woes. No more than you have to do with His.
Think Regionally. Act Regionally
March 19, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why the heck did you rate his comment a 2? That seems like a personal putdown to me. Meanwhile, his comment was good enough to make you think and respond interestingly. Rating should not be used to express disagreement; rather, it's more about reducing useless or troublesome noise. He commented well enough for you to respond.
March 19, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
elle loco said:
"Our children, the more fortunate and the less fortunate alike, all deserve better. This is only the beginning of thought."
I agree but the concentration on giving millionaires tax breaks while sending working class kids off to foreign battlefields to control somebody else's oil and then leaving the wounded to rot in rat-infested stinkholes is where I think we might start to change things.
A mother asks what can I do when I can't afford health insurance for the kids. It is hard enough to feed, clothe and house them.
Get a better job is always the answer.
Not everybody can.
If all the congresspeople and president and vice president and all the staff all died tomorrow, it would be very sad and all. If all the mechanics and all the sanitation workers and all the cops and all the guards and all the guards died tomorrow, do you think the politicians and corporate executives could be enlisted to do useful work for minimum wage?
Do a little to close the vast chasm separating working and non-working folk and then maybe the tough problems can be addressed.
Thank you for listening to my bellyaching.
Bestk, Terry
March 19, 2007 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
True, true, aappraiser..the post is, indeed, thought provoking...my rating, which, under the circumstances was NOT based only on the idea that I dis-agreed with some of the content, but on the fact that I viewed the "Oh, screw it, I'm depressing myself," as a bit marginal in relationship to the rest of the posting.
I was sincere when I said 'no personal put-down intended'...sorry you saw it otherwise.
March 19, 2007 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, what do I want, paid family leave, or a raise?
I was reluctant to post this as a question because some will say it's not zero sum and, to an extent, I don't think it is but we've had this debate over healthcare and retirement benefits as well, so there is some tradeoff.
As a single worker without kids, I want a raise. At least right now. Maybe I'll change my mind if I have kids.
Or, maybe I'd still want a higher paycheck.
I know I've said this before during a similar discussion but I worry that conversations like this often leave the needs of the single worker completely out of the conversation. The workers with kids need leave and benefits but what expected of the workers without kids? That they'll cover for their colleagues when they're on leave? Okay, maybe that's reasonable. Maybe I should cover for my child-having colleagues and hope that some one will cover for me when I need it.
But all is not rosy for the single worker of either gender. Trying to work, find love and pursue personal ambitions takes a lot of time.
I'm not complaining, mind you. I wouldn't dare as I do think I have life pretty easy. But these discussions can have a divisive effect on workers in general -- we all have needs and could all be treated better.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
March 19, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
EJ - Thanks for the links to the articles.
As a working class father and husband, I want to say, very publicly, thank you for your efforts to frame this as a Family Issue rather than a woman's alone.
I remember my wife's reaction to the NYTime's articles about Ivy League Women who choose to stay home. Anger is the first word that comes to mind. She thought it incredibly unfair that the issue should be portrayed in such a manner. The articles reeked of the notion that these women cared more for their families than those who worked.
It is odd that "mom staying home with the kids" is now some sort of elitist status symbol, when in fact, the reason most mothers of young children enter the work force is out of necessity.
March 19, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
Yes, destor23, you are in a semi-forgotten niche among American workers...
It is a cruel, mean, pitiless, cold, self-centered, compassionless world for single workers...of course there are many who've moved on to the 'other' family stage who yearn, at times, to swap places with you.
And, then, there are other solutions like a reputable (if you can find one) adoption agency, or, who knows, getting married.
March 19, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly.
All is not rosy for workers. Period.
I don't think concentration on children is therefore wrong, my friend. Not so good for small children to work.
One of the saddest moments of my life was shortly before my mother died. For one of the very few times in her life she complained of a very hard life. The hardship would make a strong man cry. Did in fact.
Though my mother held menial jobs when she was paid and worked at least as hard when she was a "housewife" and was paid nothing at all, she was a hell of a lot smarter than our playboy president, who has never done a lick of work in his life as far as I know.
Best, Terry
March 19, 2007 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would never presume to prejudge why you have gotten into this particular intellectual eddy at the outset of a general discussion about women's lives, work, and family policy.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
I got into this at the outset because
a) Uh, I happened to be the second one here. Sorry.
b) I sincerely think this is a family issue and that E.J. Graff would make a stronger point and gain more support if she were to frame it as a family vs. work issue and not just as a women's issue.
Now, it is to be hoped and applauded that American men are ready to step up to the plate and demand equal rights in the workplace—rights to take family-related leave, to work a schedule that affords them an integral role in the daily life and nurturing of their families, and so on. But it must be stipulated that this very notion signifies a new dawn in American policy debate. A long-awaited one, let it ba added.
With all respect due elle, you're ignorant and sexist.
March 19, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a single and childless worker, you will almost always have a leg up on your co-workers with families. Issues that typically lead to advancement at a company, such as long hours and mobility, do not affect you the way that they do a person who depends on two incomes and has child care issues.
While you might see yourself as being discriminated against by family leave policies and such, I would point out that such practices are there for a reason. They are not fringe benefits or perks like longer vacations or use of a company car. They exist for the benefit and welfare of actual human beings.
Unless you are willing to argue from the stance that children and marriage have no value to society, I cannot see how you can argue against minimal policies that allow these things to exist with less danger to the economic well-being of the respective families.
March 19, 2007 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm not willing to argue against them, nor am I necessarily against them. That's why I'm trying not to be strident either way. I just want to broaden the discussion.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
March 19, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... I certainly don't want single mothers to give up their children for adoption, or to get into marriages they don't want or anything like that.
I'm saying something a little subtler about how we talk about workers in this country.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
March 19, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I strongly agree. I'm another man who wants the workplace to become more flexible and family-friendly -- for everyone -- so that the expectations shift and it's no longer the norm for fathers to be "ideal workers" who work all the time and are not real parents, the assumption being that mom is always the one picking up the kids.
Feminism has been staking this claim for many decades. But it takes men who genuinely want to be parents to put pressure on their employers to actually change the old rules. When women are stuck making this argument without men, it reinforces the extremely destructive idea that this is some kind of "women's issue." Thanks to EJ for not framing it that way.
March 19, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's great about this political moment is that finally, for the first time since the 1970s or maybe ever, we're not looking at this as a "women's issue," but as an issue for everyone. (Thanks EJ!)
Men need freedom and flexiblity in our jobs too if we're going to be real parents. And it's just this possiblity -- men being real parents, achieving something like equality at home -- that really scares "traditional family" partisans. The idea that, say, half the time or more, a man could be permitted to leave work at 3, could pick up his kids from day care, change their diapers, and make dinner, while a woman is still at work... this image is as scary to some traditionalists as gay marriage. And for related reasons.
Now is the time to fix the dysfunctional social arrangements and expectations that say you can't be both an authentic worker and an authentic parent. There's no good reason to set things up that way. It only deprives our society of lots of the best parents and workers, and drives everyone lucky enough to be a non-single-parent into traditional gender arrangements with all the dysfunction, bad power dynamics, and unfulfilling lives they entail.
March 19, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice that you assume I'm a woman. Pretty weak presumption.
You also seem to misconstrue my argument--I am all for degenderizing this debate, as men should want work and family life to be compatible and livable every bit as much as women do. It's just that historically, men have been more easily split off and turned into workaholics, and had that become the workplace standard--face time, productivity, being either on the bus or off the bus, etc. And historically, women have been expected to juggle the lion's share of the home and childcare responsibilities, along with whatever kind of work they can muster alongside all that. That's just reality--not drivel.
March 19, 2007 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
jerry, jerry...you assume I'm a lady (or at least some kind of woman I presume). And you then call me names without explaining yourself. Let's call the whole thing off.
March 19, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
jerry, jerry...you assume I'm a lady (or at least some kind of woman I presume). And you then call me names without explaining yourself. Let's call the whole thing off.
March 19, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you named yourself "elle", but if I am mistaken I apologize. You are still ignorant and sexist.
March 19, 2007 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I certainly -hope- there's some going back to an economy wherein--for many people--one income is sufficient to support a family. I'm just not holding my breath, and I'm also not entirely sure how we go from here to there. (Though that doesn't mean it's all that difficult--some days I can't find the mailbox, either.)
I take your point about the 'we invented everything' idea, and I'm certain that many, many things can (and should) be done to help working families with the burden of, well, _being_ families. But mostly, I suppose, I wanted to offer a perspective I don't often hear: that raising kids (and I only have one, did I say that already?) isn't necessarily a wonderful, fulfilling, happy experience. Can be quite the contrary.
Of the couples I know intimately enough to ask, every single one says something between, 'Yeah, it's mostly a nightmare, with sudden moments of breathtaking beauty' to 'Really, really hard.'
Maybe I didn't express myself well. But seems to me this gets lost in all the talk about parental leave and business-sponsored childcare. There's a reason that (some) women weren't loving being forced to stay home to raise the kids, and it's not _just_ the lack of choice and self-determination. It's also the job itself.
That said, I'm aware that some people enjoy raising children. (I imagine you're one of them.) But there's a great and, in my experience, silent majority who really have a tough, tough time. And the taboo about admitting this doesn't much help.
March 19, 2007 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't tell if this is an honest question, but I'll go ahead and answer without snark.
One: hard to tell how you feel about raising a child based on babysitting your sister's kids.
Two: do you think that -every- task one finds overwhelming and difficult should be cast aside?
Three: I love my son with a mindless completeness, and I'd go through all of this again, and doubled, for the change to have him. But that doesn't mean I have to pretend that the drudgery is anything but drudgery, or that minding an infant/baby/toddler is fascinating, or that the whole thing is easy on career and relationship.
Four: I'm a successful professional in a creative field. I'm blessed and honored to be successful in this field--most people aren't. But that doesn't change the fact that--to me, and many of my colleagues--my field is stressful, overwhelming, and often nightmarish. It is. We choose to pay that price; we also acknowledge it. Given than parenthood's even more irreversable than a career, I wish more people could admit how tough it is, if just in the interest of helping others make an informed decisions.
We're in a kinda odd place. Parenthood--particularly motherhood--is necessarily wonderful, yet women shouldn't be stuck with all that pure creamy goodness. Why not? Motherhood's so fulfilling, there's really no reason all those ungrateful women are complaining all the time.
March 19, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back when most women (or at least most middle-class women) stayed home to raise the kids they were not exactly chained to the house nor shackled to their offspring. In many cases alternative child care was easily and freely at hand through older children who could take care of younger ones, or perhaps elderly live-in relatives. And most housewives had outside social lives through a whole assortment of activcities and organizations: neighborhood associations, church groups, the PTA, den-mothering for boy and girl scouts, craft clubs, hobby groups, card circles, even political activism for those so minded. Nowadays of course when so few parents can stay home we've lost that world, but our mothers and grandmothers were not the woeful homebound drudges you suggest they were. I know my mother was glad not to work, and she had a very rich social life during the day while my father was at work.
March 19, 2007 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, as you said, you can love something that's so tough, and you do.
Heck, I know a lot of avid mountain climbers. They don't think it's easy!
We've decided as a society that both work and child-rearing are hard but also lovable and important. Now, we have to make it work.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
March 19, 2007 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, it is to be hoped and applauded that American men are ready to step up to the plate and demand equal rights in the workplace—rights to take family-related leave, to work a schedule that affords them an integral role in the daily life and nurturing of their families, and so on. But it must be stipulated that this very notion signifies a new dawn in American policy debate. A long-awaited one, let it ba added.
You honestly don't understand why this is a sexist and ignorant statement?
March 19, 2007 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would never presume to prejudge why you have gotten into this particular intellectual eddy at the outset of a general discussion about women's lives, work, and family policy.
You tell me that I shouldn't even be commenting in this forum until the women finish, and you don't understand why I call you sexist?
March 19, 2007 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the first things we have to do is to stop allowing every debate to descend into simplistic either-or dichotomies.
Shouldn't the most prosperous country in the world be able to provide productive work for everyone who's ready to work? Blaming the [insert favorite bogeymen here] in the workforce for our economic woes is short-sighted; it can't be any secret that good jobs have been getting shipped out of this country for decades. Let's once and for all put the damned blame for THAT where it belongs.
As for jobs that don't force parents to make Faustian choices (or non-parents, for that matter; most of us have some type of family obligations or life beyond work): as long as the guiding philosophy for prosperity is "maximum profit with minimum investment," family issues like the ones under discussion here will remain background noise. Quality of life - beyond a big house and fancy car and other accoutrements of disposable wealth - is not something we talk about enough.
March 19, 2007 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so gratifying to read! EJ has voiced the nuances of the challenge facing all workers in the US in such an eloquent way. I've been hammering away at some of these points in various blog discussions since I became a mother.
In the next couple of months, I'm going to be blogging for my professional association on this same topic. I've felt for a long time that the community of association management professionals (the people who do the business of running groups like the AMA, the American Bar Association, and the many, many other associations that represent industries and individual professionals) has enormous power for positive social change, and this is one area where I think we can play a key role.
March 19, 2007 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with J R and Greg Roach, and by extension EJ for framing this whole topic as a family issue. I also understand why feminists frame it as a distinctly women's issue--by and large women still take care of the family. I hope that may be changing. Feminists and feminism have shaped my values and I'd like to see a feminist, pro-family political agenda take shape in the coming Obama, Clinton, or Edwards administration. Here's why this stuff matters to me:
I am married, have a preschool-age son, and am a lawyer. I don't work at a corporate firm, but do practice law. I have a boss. I handle most of the morning routine, though my wife gets our son up and started before she goes to work around 6:30 am. I get us both dressed, make breakfast, usually try to clean one smallish thing (clothes or dishes), read the front pages of the good sections of the paper, make his lunch and sometimes my lunch, and then get us out the door by 8:15ish. The last item is by far the hardest. We then have a 30-minute commute downtown where my son's school is located about 8 blocks from my office. I drop him off and go to work.
Our son stays at school from 9 am to 4:30 pm when he is picked up by my wife. She then takes him home and starts dinner. I get home around 6:15 pm and we try to eat together, though that doesn't always happen. We all then hang out together and then my wife and I alternate who gives our son a bath and puts him to bed. This schedule is subject to major shifts when either one of us travels or has a work obligation that requires us to work late or weekends. We are home most nights and weekends.
My wife buys the groceries, does most of the laundry, and pays the bills. I work on the house and cars and yard. My wife also keeps our family running in ways that I can't. She clearly does more in this regard than I do. I handle other intangibles, but without her my son and I would not live anywhere near as well.
Here's some of what we'd like from one of the new presidential candidates: when our son reaches elementary school, one of us wants to be there when he gets home; we need workday flexibility. We'd also like more vacation time as a family. We would have liked to have had hassle-free, guilt-free, legally enforceable, paid family leave when our son was born for at least the first three months. We'd like work flexibility for unscheduled family stuff that isn't "nice-boss" dependent. We'd like to save more for retirement by not having to spend so much on a good preschool. We'd like to think about having kids without having money and time be the first thing that comes to our minds.
What would others like?
John
March 19, 2007 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very glad you guys see it this way. Thank you for these comments. Most of the feminists I know grumble about why the country sees these as women's issues instead of as family issues. That's my gripe with the "opt out" or "mommy wars" articles: those articles are written as if only *women* have family responsibilities. Some of the particular feminists gripes I heard during my reporting: the Census and the Bureau of Labor ask women--but not men!--whether they have children or what their childcare arrangements are! Um, excuse me, perhaps these men also have children who affect their worklives? But if you don't even ask men that question, the "work-family" problem then is framed as a women's problem.
Very glad you guys see it otherwise. Because how to help Americans handle their responsibilities (job AND family) are urgent policy questions and really can't be solved if they're publicly shunted off onto only "moms."
March 20, 2007 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
That world still exists. I am a stay at home Mom, and yes, there are bad days when it totally sucks -- potty training is an example. But I'm not a big "multitasker" and don't want to work (my husband earns enough, so that I can stay home) while my kids are still little. I volunteer at my kindergartener's school, bring her to Daisy Scouts, help her with her homework (yes, Kindergarteners have homework), am waiting at the bus stop when she gets off the bus, and simply am around just to talk and be with her and her younger sister. I have a lot of friends who also stay home, but admittedly, there are less of us now than 30 years ago. So that's where the internet comes in. For me, being part of the netroots is about using my intellect from the comfort of my home, and even getting some positive (and negative) feedback from the world out there. That's enough for me so that I'm not just thought of as somebody's Mom or wife.
I read the article in TAP and think they have a point about women not wanting to be in the rat race while their kids are still little. It seems that in Europe there are more part time jobs and job sharing. When my youngest goes to 1st grade, I would love a part time job, but still want to be home when they get home from school. I understand that this takes a toll on my career (but frankly, I enjoy blogging more than my paying career), but missing those formidable years with my kids would also take a toll on me, too. I have no interest in participating in the Mommy Wars -- each woman needs to make their own choice, and I certainly understand why most women go back to work (either as a necessity or a choice). But for me, I have chosen a different path. I think the fact that some women work while others stay home is another great milestone in feminism -- we control our destiny and aren't going to be forced into doing anything we don't want to do.
March 20, 2007 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
One element, I think, is that "family leave" shouldn't just be reserved for maternity/paternity leave, children's doctors' appointments, or volunteering at schools. What about caring for elderly parents? Or helping a cousin or sibling during a particular crunch?
So destor 23, while you raise some interesting points, I don't see these kind of work/family balance questions as innately discriminating against single workers. It's all about helping us to fulfill both family and employment obligations -- regardless of what one's family looks like.
March 20, 2007 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I did my master's thesis in Urban Planning one of the things I looked at was how people lived before industrialization--which is a very recent phenomenon as compared to how long we've had city building and the advent of agriculture.
The one thing that popped out at me was how much the commercial element had overtopped the civic and spiritual/religious elements that are needed to maintain the coherence and cohesiveness of a community or society. Look at any city skyline and the tallest buildings will tell you what it's values are.
To me, the first thing people must ask themselves is the age old question of why are we here? What is the purpose of life? It is certainly not to just make money, or worse, to have one's livelihood be in the service of making a very few people very very rich.
I am continually reminded of Marley's soliloquy that "Mankind was my business! The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"
What we need is a fundamental redefinition of "success" so that it stops having any reference to money, money-making, profit, or commerce. In fact, I have always liked this ditty That Man (person) is a Success.
The Declaration of Independence states rather boldly that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the rights of all people. Nowhere does it state that profit is a right. And the Preamble of the Constitution lists promoting the general welfare as one of the duties of the government ordained and established by We the People.
In the final analysis, people are currently living at the mercy of business/profit interests and they have been indoctrinated into the notion that profit trumps human life. What must change is to begin thinking that money serves people in the same way that Scrooge became a true benefactor of the people.
Improving human relations and living in harmony with nature is the business of human life. Cultivating our better natures, developing wisdom, living in cooperation with others, and maturing beyond prurience while attending to the basic material needs of life is the only way out of the mess modern western civilization has gotten us into.
See Godfrey Reggio's movies: Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi.
********
- We do not act rightly because we have virture, we have virtue because we act rightly.
Sign the Petition at stopIranWar.com
March 20, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the vision your lay out here--the Marley quote is great and I share your desire for a redefintion of success.
Let's think about success in terms of service rather than money. I find work to be rewarding when I feel that it makes the lives of everyday people better, safer, spiritually richer, happier. My hunch is if we raised the next generation to serve others and our environment first, and to weigh the social costs of getting more stuff before acquiring something new, then we may accomplish some of what you are seeking.
John
March 20, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I notice that you assume I'm a woman. Pretty weak presumption."
This is the second time in this thread you have tried to make points off of what you knew would happen when you chose that screen name.
March 20, 2007 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink