The main issue that I take with the “mommy tax” article is that it address the issue that these women choose to leave the workplace. I don’t think that you can look at this issue from an entirely economic standpoint. I think that these women also gain other aspects of their life that cannot be measured by their potential earning wages. These women who leave the workplace are no longer working there, but that does not mean that they are no longer working. I think it’s more important for women to have the freedom to choose at the junction in their life what they want to do. For the women who do choose to leave the work place, their work is not invaluable. Maybe it cannot be measured in money gained, but I think there is a valid point in saying that these women do save a great deal of money for their family overall in costs such as childcare, laundry, cleaning, or food that would otherwise be more expensive because it could not be done by themselves. I really think this point relates to the point made in the manifesta lecture, where one of the woman’s mother would go on strike from her responsibilties in order to show her family that the work she did was really valuable to the function of the overall family. I think the “maid to order” article really discounts how valuable housework really is, and I think that it is necessary for men, and society in general, to recognize it’s overall function.
Women with children generally cant work the same as women without children- it’s not exactly something they are giving up but I think that its something that is added to their life that prevents them from working at the same pace or for the same hours as younger, single women without children. I don’t think the argument should be that they should just be paid the same, but I think that we should focus more on why they CAN’T work the same. I don’t think their pay should be equal, but I think that they should have the opportunity to work just as hard.
Also, if a mother does work, it also puts a strain on the father’s work situation so that could put a toll on his income and ability to work. If a child gets sick, the stay at home mother can easily fufill the role of taking care of the child, but if both parents work, accommodations have to be made. I know that I have personally seen this in my corporate experience. Those with children had to make accommodations for those children and were unable to make the sacrifices. It’s true that their lives aren’t as free as those that are single, but I think its important to not neglect the fact that this can affect the father as well as the mother, especially if the mother is working.
I was struck by the “Maid to Order” article by Barbara Ehrenreich how women’s issues parallel racism and white privilege, especially exemplified in jobs of low desirability. Women of color are trapped into jobs such as housecleaning because of factors such as “racism, imperfect English skills, immigration status, or lack of education” (Ehrenreich 63). Tonight I heard the speaker Dinesh D’Souza whose lecture was titled “The Obama Era and the End of Racism”, in which he essentially implied that oppressed African-Americans need to basically just work harder to lift themselves up instead of “agitating” against their oppressors. In this case, the poor workers are working as hard as they possibly can. I read Ehrenreich’s book “Nickled and Dimed” in which she lives as a minimum wage worker, cycling through a variety of jobs including one as a housekeeper. Although she puts in over 12 hour shifts of backbreaking physical labor each work day, she can’t make ends meet. It proves the American dream of hard work and determination creating wealth to be a myth. The poor aren’t poor because they aren’t working hard; they suffer from structural, institutional, and social factors that keep them in the cycle of poverty.
ReplyDeleteI also related Ehrenreich’s piece to the idea of white privilege. I can see white privilege in my own life and the “support staff” of people of color. My housecleaner is Hispanic, we have people who work in our yard who are also Hispanic. At my high school, the teachers were predominantly white and the janitorial staff was Hispanic and black. Asian women literally wash my feet when I get a pedicure. I’m not personally an amoral, racist person, but I’m a member of a racist and patriarchal society who receives benefits because of my race and socio-economic status.
I was a little offended by the part in “The Mommy Tax” article which criticized the amount of benefits that veterans receive in comparison to women. While I understand that her point is that women should receive equal benefits as the men in the military, and the government should value them equally, it came off as criticizing the benefits that veterans receive. My father is a veteran who put his life on the line in Vietnam, and I think at the bare minimum he earned our family the right to receive lower cost health insurance. Instead of describing those benefits as “lavish”, Critenden should have clarified that she thinks women should be given equal benefits, not that those should be taken away.
One of the main problems I had with the Mommy Tax article is the comparison of women to the draft. The draft is something that men are forced into. There is no choice in the case of the draft. Childbearing on the other hand is a personal choice. No one is forcing women to have children. I think this comparison really weakened her logic in the article.
ReplyDeleteThat being said though, I think the article raised some really interesting points. The pink collar sector has indeed been heavily dominated by women. And the reward for it has always been much lower. And it made me wonder what sectors and aspects in our culture we value. I am working at a bank this summer in NYC and the financial reward is quite high. However, nurses, teachers, caregivers (people who are taking care of our loved ones) are not reawarded in nearly the same way. There is no way that the US will ever become a socialist state or a true welfare state like the scandinavian countries which would address these issues. However, it is interesting to consider who we consider responsible for children. Obviously, like every other aspect of our society, we deem the parents (private/person) responsible, rather than the state. This seems logical because it was a personal choice to have a child and why should the business or government be responsible and have to support your personal decisions. Why should single women who cannot have kids have to support your choice to have 4 kids and then support your desire to shorten your work week. However, at the same time, the children that women are having will be the next taxpaying generation, the next generation to get involved in the pink collar sector and care for us when we are older. They are the future of America, so don't we all have a part in providing them with the best, whether that be healthcare, education, the ability to grow up with parents at home?
Elizabeth's post made alot of sense to me. Yes there is certain joy's of being a mother that makes these mothers want to leave he workplace, instead of somehow being forced like the "mommy tax" depicts. Some mothers consider being there for their childs first step to be an ultimate goal, not getting that promotion by working 60 hours a week.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately life is not perfect, and yes its true that being a stay at home mom/part time worker can save costs on childcare, but it still doesnt add up to an income. I think if an income from the mother is needed for whatever lifestyle the family, or simply if the mom wants to work she should have the opportunity to. This means having more child/family friendly workplaces, or better access to affordable childcare. The answer lies not in the mothers, but in our society to make things easier in raising our future generations.