The Mommy War Wages
What I heard from some camps in response to Mommy Wars -- the anthology I published last year presenting 26 different women's views on juggling work and motherhood -- was the criticism that whiny, white, overprivileged moms were too spoiled by all of our "choices" and that the real problems in this country exist only for working class women.
I agree that women of lesser privilege have far greater challenges juggling work and family (as an aside, ever notice how only women and children are deemed "overprivileged" -- apparently a man cannot have too much privilege in this country). But if college educated women are having trouble finding daycare, spouses who do more with their kids than coach an occasional peewee soccer game, and employers who understand that an adult actually needs to stay home with a six year old when she's sick, I have trouble believing that women who earn less than $30,000 a year (precisely the top tier income recommended bythe lovely forbes.com article last summer "Men, Don't Marry Career Women) have an easier time in this country with the very real obstacles to working fulltime and raising children. The problems so-called "privileged" women grapple with are only the tip of a nasty iceberg in our country today.
EJ's article is dead on -- much of the media coverage in our country focuses on twisting the knife into moms, whether we work or not (and for the record, over 70% of women with children under 18 do). On Monday, the day her CJR research was made publicly available, over 400 posters wrote comments in response to my On Balance column "The Opt-Out Myth" (see http://blog.washingtonpost.com/onbalance/2007/03/the_optout_myth_1.html ). Blogs and online columns provide a megaphone for parents of all political stripes and educational and income levels -- and they're well worth listening to in the debate over work and parenthood today, which has long been shaped by too narrow a spectrum of voices.
But if college educated women are having trouble finding ... spouses who do more with their kids than coach an occasional peewee soccer game, ....
(as an aside, ever notice how only women and children are deemed "overprivileged" -- apparently a man cannot have too much privilege in this country)
I don't think you're reading the same things that many of us here read, Atrios, Digby, TPM, FDL, DeLong, .... Maybe you only read the Washington Post.
Can we have a discussion and leave the sexist gender bashing somewhere else? Do you find that gender bashing works for you?
(As an aside, your bio link doesn't work.)
March 26, 2007 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
In your first graf, you tell us you how you've heard from critics that the real problems exist only for working-class women. You begin your next graf with, "I agree that women of lesser privilege have far greater challenges juggling work and family . . . ."
Then, in the very next sentence, you say this:
Who is saying that "women who earn less than $30,000 a year * * * have an easier time in this country with the very real obstacles to working fulltime and raising children"?
March 26, 2007 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jerry, I don't think it's sexist gender-bashing. It's just part of an expressive style to occasionally shore up argument with bon mots such as the ones you reproduced.
March 26, 2007 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think what she is saying is addressed by her "tip of the iceberg" comment.
I guess my understanding is that she apparently faced criticism to her publication that it focused on "white, overprivileged moms". Her reply seems to be that if you can fix the problem for white overprivileged moms, you will inherently fix the problem for the many more underprivileged moms.
This is sort of a reverse pareto optimization strategy. Instead of addressing the needs where the most impact would be felt, address the needs where you can see or hear the problem.
It does make a bit of sense in a world in which "the squeaky wheel gets the grease", and in a terrible metaphor I am truly sorry for (but I can't think of a better one right now), where we get rid of the cockroaches we see and hope that will take care of the 90% of the cockroaches that are hidden.
Her other reply was that there aren't really overprivileged moms, just as how we never hear about overprivileged men. Like the Duke students. Or all the President's men. Or the "Patriarchy".
March 26, 2007 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe if a man said something similar he would be discredited (to say the least.)
IOKIYAW?
March 26, 2007 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . reverse pareto optimization strategy?
And for those of us whose education in economics ran only as far as supply-demand curve graphs?
March 26, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Pareto Principle is basically the 80-20 rule.
80% of the consequences come from 20% of the cause. Or, in business sense, 80% of one's results comes from 20% of the effort sustained.
I think what Jerry metaphorically states, is that in addressing only 20% of the problem ("white, overprivileged moms"), we use 80% of our resources. Which, in simple economic terms, is highly wasteful and inefficient.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
March 26, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Her reply seems to be that if you can fix the problem for white overprivileged moms, you will inherently fix the problem for the many more underprivileged moms."
She couldn't be saying that. That would be too stupid for words.
March 26, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I see. In her first sentence, she agreed working class moms have bigger problems. In her second, she was just ironically stating the negative and then sourly disbelieving it, as if saying it once wasn't enough. I misread her when I understood her to suggest that someone is saying working class women have it easier, as in fact they don't. Working-class women would love to have this problem:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,6121,1000907,00.html
March 26, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
WORKING MOTHERS AND CHILD CARE
In 2004, 70.4 percent of women with children under 18 years of age were in the labor force (either employed or looking for work). Of mothers with preschool-aged children (younger than 6 years), 61.8 percent were in the labor force and over 57 percent were actually employed. Of women with children ages 6 to 17 years, 77.3 percent were in the labor force and almost 74 percent were employed. Employed mothers of children in the older age group were more likely to work full time than mothers of children under 6 years of age (76.7 versus 69.8 percent). Married mothers with a present spouse were less likely than mothers in other marital situations to be in the labor force (67.8 versus 77.1 percent); however, almost all married women in the labor force were employed, while women in other situations were more likely to be looking for work. The unemployment rate among married mothers was 3.7 percent, compared to a rate of 9.7 percent among mothers of other marital statuses.
Among children under age 5 with employed mothers, child care arrangements varied by family income. In 2002, children with family incomes of less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty level (FPL) were most likely to be in relative or parent/other care, while children with family incomes of 200 percent FPL or more were most likely to be in center-based care. Family child care and nanny/babysitter care were the least common types of care among children of both income groups, although each was more common among children with higher family incomes.
http://mchb.hrsa.gov/mchirc/chusa_05/popchar/0206wmcc.htm
http://mchb.hrsa.gov/mchirc/chusa_05/pages/pdf/c05pc.pdf
March 26, 2007 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understood that the "Pareto boundary" is a circle that represents all available resources. If one cannot increase the size of the circle, then it's all a question of how to divvy up those resources. That's a zero-sum game. BUT if one can increase the resources available, then everybody's slice of the pie gets bigger.
March 26, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Steiner's post needs a little editing. Like those before me, I can't figure out what she is trying to say.
All I know is that she is the WaPo's resident MommyBlogger and in her WaPo blog, she really likes EJ Graff's CJR work.
March 26, 2007 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Steiner comes across as part of a supercilious 'overprivileged' set of working women. She whines about her situation while pointing a finger at those who have it worse, as if that will galvanize them to join her advocacy for the 'overprivileged' working female. Oneupmanship does not generate soldarity.
The tone of her writing is that of haughty classist 'compassion' stating the o so obvious... "if 'the working class' help us 'the over privileged', they will benefit as well as you 'the working class' need it more than us; since you the working class are waaaay worse off."
This has the effect of alienating those she seeks to join her cause who more than likely think, we do not need you nor your condescending attitude and confirming lack of interst in the 'overprivileged" whiny set Ms. Steiner seems to belong to.
In addition to being sexist, I suspect this remark misses the point entirely. This is how 'working class' females feel about the whiny overprivileged working women you represent Ms. Steniner. It is not necessarily a male viewpoint, so your gender bashing is off target. That you misattributed these sentiments to the opposite gender of is indicative of the chasm of understanding between your set and the 'working class' female. Take off your overprivileged sunglasses and focus in on how the 'workingclass' female, (the iceberg that your set is merely a tip of,) likely views your whinying.
March 27, 2007 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can never underestimate the power of the opening column in a Sunday Times Magazine to annoy me, with its narrow range of views between Weekly Standard wingnuts and conservative Democrats. The April Fools Day issue was no exception. Peggy Orenstein assaulted feminists for making child-bearing an obligation.
Her actual reference is to rights, so let me clear up the matter for her. I demand my constitutional rights under the first amendment. Freedom of the press helps ensure that I shall have the right to read stupid, anti-feminist columnists who insult my intelligence. That does not make it my duty to read her future columns.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
April 2, 2007 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink