The Fourth Wave: Motherhood Feminism
When I spoke at the Counterpoint Conference (Artemis took notes and I hope she does an overview for us), it was the second time I have spoken briefly about my idea of motherhood feminism both times I have been eagerly approached and asked to expound on the subject.
It is an idea whose time has come.
Somewhat problematically however, I feel unprepared to expound on the subject in as through a manner as I think it needs. So here I will give you the gist, and then I am hoping that together, as a community, we can end this exercise with a fully formed forth-wave manifesto. Or something.
At the Conference, Margaret Toscano mentioned that in a class she wrote down “Mr. Mrs. Miss. and Ms.” and then asked her (young adult) students what “Ms.” meant. And not a single one of them knew. This blows my mind, but then another part of me kinda gets it. These young women have in most respects faced a world in which old gender restrictions (as symbolized in Mrs. and Miss) are a part of (ancient) history. They have experienced something all new to history, something almost pretty fairly close to equality (hard earned by the first three waves).
This equality falls utterly apart however, as soon as motherhood is factored in. Statistically speaking childless women have very nearly the same educational and job opportunities as men (regardless of their fatherhood status.) However, as soon as a woman become a mother, there is nothing even remotely resembling parity between the sexes. Motherhood is the number one risk factor for poverty in America. Placed in the terms of cold-hard facts, mothers provide the single most valuable commodity by far of any workers in this country, no other type of labor even comes close in terms of raw economic and social value (no matter how you measure it) and in exchange for this value, we receive loss of income, loss of promotions, loss of retirement, loss of social security, loss of opportunity, even loss of self.
Yippee! Give me a mothers day card and that will make it all better.
This is a rude awakening these young women have yet to face, and was a rude awakening that blindsided me in what I truly thought (pre-child) was a relationship between equals.
The big problem is, that none of the solutions are easy. All the “easy” fixes have already been put in place. It’s fairly straight forward to require companies use gender neutrality in hiring practices (granted much harder implement and to enforce), but a much more tricky one to require companies implement policies that encourage fathers to share equally in child rearing, and punish neither parent (by withholding promotions, raises, opportunities) for investing time in their children. For the long term good of the whole society, rather than the short-term bottom line for the company. Of course both have to be taken into consideration, but as of today, the latter reigns utterly supreme.
One solution proposed by a certain brand of feminist is for women to opt-out of motherhood. While third-wave feminism has addressed this, by asserting that motherhood is a valid choice for women (duh), I know we have to go much much further than that. Most women want to be mothers, we must want to, otherwise why would we choose it given the oh-so-tempting financial and social rewards. We would still chose it when it’s too late, after the rude awakening, when we see our equality has utterly fled, lost forever. Because we love our children. But must choosing motherhood also mean choosing inequality?
The goal of feminism should not be to change what women want, nor is it enough to pat us on the head and tell us what we do is valid. No, indeed. If women are to ever gain anything remotely resembling true equality, then we will have to demand that the whole of society change.
We’re not asking for no stinking hand out, we are demanding that we be fairly compensated for our very real, very valuable labor. I’ll say it again, motherhood is the number one risk factor for poverty in America. That is our reward. A woman can invest a lifetime of labor in raising her five children, all of whom grow up to work, paying into the social security system, and exactly how much of that investment of labor is she then entitled to withdraw from that system, the very system her labor directly supported? The answer is zero. If she didn’t have a “real job” if she didn’t “pay into the system” well then, apparently all that labor of raising children, that was totally without value. All those children (raised with to be responsible citizens) paying into the system, measurably worthless.
So I gotta stop writing now. But that’s the gist. To be clear, this isn’t about the mommy wars, working mothers or stay at home mothers. This is about supporting mothers, period. What changes do we need to see, so that mothers of every variety are not expected to carry the burden of raising children (in poverty, insecurity, vulnerability), while not reaping any of the rewards to society that we have with our labor created.
Lisa, I highly recommend the book called ‘Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women are Worth’ by Marilyn Waring. She is a feminist in New Zealand who theorised about this sort of thing and I’m quite sure that you’d enjoy the read (if you haven’t already read it).
(bit of googling…)
Here’s a documentary about her and her ideas. It’s called ‘Who’s Counting?’ It’s excellent… a bit dated but still very thought provoking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbcWUoIqX6g
Enjoy. ( well… actually it can make you want to blow up the world but that’s a common feeling being a feminist… or is that just me?
)
Comment by barmy stoat — October 29, 2009 @ 11:58 am
I feel…giddy. I heard Angela Davis speak once and while I think most of her political ideas are horse pucky, I loved the feeling of excitement she invoked talking about the early days of 2nd wave feminism. I feel that now,being on the precipice, having something worth feeling proud of when we look back on our lives.
It seems like federal legislation, or maybe even state would be a good beginning. A childcare stipend, to be used by the at home parent or applied to out of home daycare maybe.
Does that sound like a good place to start?
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 29, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
[…] October 29, 2009 by Pinto fmhLisa’s: The Fourth Wave-Motherhood Feminism […]
Pingback by Something to consider: « Pinto’s Beans — October 29, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
Personally, I like “feminism for parents” a little better.
I don’t think there should be such an emphasis on mothers as the primary parent. This emphasis one of the major problems with this whole situation and capitalizing on that very inequality with “motherhood feminism” will not address the underlying disease. In fact, it may serve to reinforce it.
In many families, the mother becomes the at-home parent by default because the father’s earning potential is better. On top of that is the cultural indoctrination that women are better parents and fathers are unreliable, not nurturing and too selfish to be completely devoted to childcare the way women are. These issues aren’t going to improve by perpetuating divided roles.
In my opinion, equally-shared parenting where men and women both work less than full-time (which needn’t translate to less than productive), equally sharing parenthood, partnership and homemaking responsibilities, should be the ideal. Many families are currently demonstrating that this intentional lifestyle, founded upon the principle that a family’s shared life is of paramount importance and that the full burden of a designated role should never rest on a single person, is possible.
I also have a growing sense that something is wrong with such an emphasis on “families” as defined by motherfatherchildrengoldenretriever. Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage has changed a lot of my thinking here - it’s transforming my feminism. But that’s probably a post for another day.
Comment by Chandelle — October 29, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Thanks for posting about this, Lisa. I’m so glad you’ve brought it up!
I like that idea, CWC. Given that if either parent is at home with the kid(s) it’s typically the mother, it seems reasonable to me to direct such a stipend to mothers rather than fathers. And of course in single-parent families it would be easy to decide. Gay couples would present an interesting dilemma with no obvious (to me) default choice.
And I like the idea of making it money so that it can be used however the mother (parent) sees fit to make child care work. (Of course I guess it could be used in theory for other things, but isn’t there research that suggests that money in mothers’ hands is much more likely to benefit kids than money in fathers’ hands?)
Lisa, I also like the idea you mentioned of crediting parents who are out of the paid labor force for their efforts in the form of social security eligibility.
I am hugely ignorant, but I would assume that many of these ideas have already been implemented in Europe, perhaps in Scandinavia? Is that true?
Comment by Ziff — October 29, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
By the way, this book addresses many of the issues mentioned in this post. It’s been a while since I read it but I’m pretty sure it’s very relevant. (Sorry, my internal car alarm is always blaring “booksbooksbooks.”)
Comment by Chandelle — October 29, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
I love it Lisa. When I saw the pictures of the conference I just kept thinking, “Can you imagine how proud Blossom must be of her mama?” You set a mighty example for your little ones.
I think legal access to retirement or pension funds is something that needs to be firmed up. To my knowledge right now it depends on your divorce lawyer and the state you live in, but it’s just wrong that a woman can devote decades to raising a family and making a home and then be dumped while the man gets to keep all his benefits.
And of course universal health care would go MILES towards keeping women with children out of poverty.
Comment by Reese Dixon — October 29, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
This very much encapsulates what I’ve been trying to say for so long, but haven’t had the words. Thank you, Lisa!
Comment by Liz — October 29, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
I don’t think this is necessarily a gender problem. Between my wife and I, I would be the one who takes a detour on the career route when (if) we have children. I fully expect (fairly or unfairly) to be penalized for that. I work for a small law firm, every hour I’m there and billing a client, is money that goes into the business. Every hour I’m not there billing time hurts the business. There’s really no way to get around that basic problem, although my peers and bosses have tried, numerous times.
You said:
It is valuable labor and if it wasn’t provided, the birth rate would slow, the supply of labor would dwindle, and we would find ourselves in a predicament that countries with artificially low birth rates are in.
However, on a micro scale, I have a hard time accepting the argument. Is my choosing to have one child valuable to you? Probably not if you don’t know me. I know when my colleague had a child, it was net negative value to me because I had to step in and provide the extra labor that was missing at my firm. (I don’t resent it - it’s just a fact of life.)
From an economic perspective, we can, and have, avoided the macro problem of a dwindling birth rate despite the labor of raising children being generally undervalued because there are already non-monetary incentives for families to have children. Despite the monetary hit, we’ll take, my wife and I still want to have kids for more intangible reasons.
So, taking the macro and the micro together, I don’t think we’ll be able to provide the proper monetary incentives that will appropriately value child-raising labor on a micro scale until we see a macro problem that needs to be fixed. I wish it was different, because I’d like to start having kids faster.
Comment by Ryan — October 29, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
Sorry - I haven’t figured out the quote function yet.
Comment by Ryan — October 29, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
fMh girl crush confirmed. Thanks, Lisa.
Comment by that1girl — October 29, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
For me it all comes down to the equivocation of value. Lets look at the family unit as a value in it such as a bank account.Money is earned and money is spent. What is left over is saved. The question is are we going to equivocate the value of what is earned and spent? No perhaps for tax purposes.;) But in reality we look at the overall account. I am being simplistic here. The problem is if a woman goes to a job interview after being a stay at home mom for 14 years she is undervalued because she was not in the work force earning money. A true economic value is taking place in the home and society. So it starts first with Husbands, do they recognize the financial value of their wife’s jobs? Cook meals, garden clean house. Ect. (Of coarse I am stereotyping jobs here for the sake of my point.) Until the church and each Husband not only recognizes but also respects that true value then nothing will change. Provider is simplified into the one whom has all the financial value. What is saved is NOT even recognized. But it is recognized in a savings account, yet not by the wife. Value is being equivocated here. What HAS changed is what is happening now, women are going back to work and on top of that they are still doing all of the work in the home. This demonstrates to me that the value of the work in the home is not recognized as a financial value. That can cause any workingwomen unhappiness. If a Husband says go develop that talent and then does not recognize that what their wife was doing before was a financial value, and contributes then she will always be at two places at once.
Women don’t always choose nursing and teaching jobs because that is their dream job. They are jobs they can leave and go back to. Yes there are very specific jobs that are constantly in flux because of the fast changing structure. But lets face it a women’s accomplish is not valued. The home is where it starts because perhaps that husband is a CEO of a company and is choosing between a man with business experience and a stay at home Mom of 14 years. Again value is being equivocated in the family unit.
Comment by CZ — October 29, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Or you can look north.
While not as generous as Sweden et al, Canada’s parental leave is still fairly progressive.
Comment by barmy stoat — October 29, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
fMhLisa,
I fully support in theory the agenda that you put forth here, that there needs to be a different set of systemic factors that makes “motherhood” (I prefer ‘parenthood’) a less risky financial decision. What exactly those would look like, I think is up for discussion, but the status quo isn’t working.
That said, I strongly object to any characterization of this as a “fourth wave.” Such a project cannot be seen to be surpassing the third wave, or even critiquing it as inadequate. Rather, this kind of thinking is very much in the tradition of the second wave in that it is about “equality” for “women,” two notions that are very much critiqued in the third wave. I think that such an approach is on more stable intellectual ground within the discourses of the second wave, rather than trying to brand it as somehow moving beyond the third wave. It is more credible.
Comment by TT — October 29, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
re: 14 “That said, I strongly object to any characterization of this as a “fourth wave.”
huh? What possible difference is there whether you are drowned by
the 2nd, the 3rd or the 4th wave in a series? Or, for that matter,
your board catches and you get up on your feet and go sailing toward
the far shore on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd one?
Where’s Quimby?
It’s economic. When we have universal health care not tied to a
particular employer or spouse’s employer, when we have a
robust family leave law, and don’t demand 70 hour work weeks
from a working spouse, when sahm’s can opt into Social Security
(ok with me if they pay a ’self employment tax’ to do so), then
it will change.
Comment by Betty Jo — October 29, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Universal health care. Universal health care. Universal health care.
We really can’t get around the fact that taking care of your own children is unpaid work. But we can make it so families have health care. And how about a social security check that wasn’t dependent on how much you earned in your lifetime. Extended paid maternity leave would go a huge way towards keeping mothers in the workforce who want/need to be there.
Comment by Emily U — October 29, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
I hadn’t read Betty Jo’s post when I posted, but she said exactly what I wanted to, but better.
Comment by Emily U — October 29, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
The reason mother is the ‘default’ care giver isn’t only that father tend to have higher earning capacity - though that is one reason. The other is that mothers (and only mothers) can give birth. Factoring in healing time and breast feeding, mothers are the logical primary care giver for the first few months. And by that time, couples can and do find themselves on the traditional split of roles.
It would take some kind of conscious intervention in that development process to adjust this. Whether that is a good idea or not, I will leave open to debate and discussion.
Comment by Lon — October 29, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Meant to add that under most circumstances, a father can be back to work almost immediately and bringing money into the family unit. If that is required, that is an additional powerful social incentive for the status quo.
Comment by Lon — October 29, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
Great point.
Comment by annaj — October 29, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Do men don’t get hurt take vacation or adopt chilren? The point is even if women take a break from work to have children her earning potential should not suffer. The entire point of this post is to point out that the world especially the job force does not value the set skills earned during leave. There are many jobs where a man will get hired and get paid more because he was doing volunteer work. So I agree with your point men have more earning potential but that doesn’t mean it’s right. It starts in the family unit there is more to learn by managing a household than just cooking. All people need to recognize this.
Comment by Cz — October 29, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
Posted on accident. Point is men take leave for a year to volunteer and it’s valued womens leave should too be valued.
Comment by Cz — October 29, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
TT I can’t begin to understand how you would classify this as appropriately 2nd wave feminist.
2nd wave feminists were rarely supportive of motherhood. Granted, they had some pretty dang big fish to fry and as far as things went back then motherhood was better protected than the work force (since it at least had intense cultural support), so I don’t say that to be disparaging. More like a, tackle one priority at a time type thing.
If we must define the waves as critiquing what came before it, which I don’t - I define the waves as the next step and new direction towards ultimate equality, then you’ve set up the criteria right there. If the third wave critiques equality for women, and this critiques that critique, then, boom. Fourth wave.
Comment by Reese Dixon — October 29, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
Factoring in healing time and breast feeding, mothers are the logical primary care giver for the first few months.
Which is why we need much better parental leave.
Comment by Chandelle — October 29, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
Sorry, posted too soon. I meant to say, we need better parental leave to allow mothers to give birth, recover and establish breastfeeding and so on, and we need better partner leave so women can be supported during this process. Interference is definitely not necessary.
Comment by Chandelle — October 29, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Here in Germany both women automatically get one year and can renew it for even more time after that. They get paid their full salary the first year, after they extend it reduces to 70 percent. (or something, I may not be getting that exact, but, its close…you get the idea).
Fathers are guaranteed 3 months paid and can extend for an additional 3. Of course, not all jobs are so amicable to you taking the full leave…but if you demand it they cannot stop you as you are permitted it under the law and cannot lose your job for taking it.
Of course, all children are insured. I wouldn’t call it universal healthcare in the way it is in say, the UK (its a combination of public and private) but everyone has healthcare regardless of income or employment.
(I am not an expert in the German system, it is ridiculously bureaucratic and complicated, but this is the basic idea)
All of these things would do a lot to prevent motherhood equaling poverty.
Comment by julie — October 29, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
But, I think I should add….we take a LOT less money home from our paychecks to pay for all of that (not to mention the 19 percent sales tax on every.single.thing) . And it can be somewhat of a strain on companies when key employees take parental leave.
I just can’t imagine a situation in the US where such high taxes on either individuals or corporations would ever be tolerated.
Comment by julie — October 29, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
One trend that I’ve noticed in my area is the a growing number of mothers who have access to good parental leave and choose to return to work almost immediately after. Looking at it from the outside, it seems as though the issue is that they have worked very hard to be treated equally, and feel as though they would not only loose ground but respect for taking time off for a “woman’s issue”. I think that if a greater emphasis were placed on both parents taking leave after the birth of a child, it could help prevent this trend from getting stronger.
Comment by Jesse — October 29, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Hey, I didn’t read all the posts, so maybe a lot of what I have to say has been said, but I wanted to contribute because we just Barely learned about these types of issues in the Women’s Studies class I am taking! First of all great post!
I do think that there should be emphasis on the whole Parenthood deal not just Motherhood, however we are not to that point, I think for now Motherhood is the issue. Childcare primarily falls to the mother and as mentioned Motherhood is the number one factor for being in poverty, not parenthood.
So here’s my thoughts and kind of what we have been discussing in my class…Childcare, not only for stay at home moms but as a job is highly undervalued. And it could be because childcare is a traditionally feminine/woman job. Consider if men were the primary caretakers? I think that companies and corporations would have built their jobs around the family, more flexible hours that accomidate family responsibilites for example.
Sorry this is so all over the place, but another thing is the way men and women who are having a baby are percieved and treated in the workplace. For example men who are married and have children are considered grounded and reliable, while women who are married and have children are considered unstable, as far as committment to their careers and company. And there are so may more things I could say but it would just take forever!
But the point I guess is, good post, definitely somethings need to change in society so that motherhood is not punished financially and otherwise, and I think that a huge part of that is not only recognizing and valuing the work that mothers do but making parenting a priority for both parents!
Comment by nm — October 29, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
The whole “ineligible for social security” thing really bugs me because, as someone who cannot be legally married to her spouse for Federal purposes, this means I will never be eligible to collect her social security. And since I stopped working when I went on bedrest with our twin babies almost 9 years ago, my social security stopped accummulating. I do work for our business now, part time, but I do not draw a salary. If my wife predeceases me, God forbid, I will probably be in a world of hurt, though we do carry a significant amount of life insurance. Of course, having to carry extra life insurance to help compensate for the social security we cannot collect adds its own level of financial burden, as well.
Comment by Lorian — October 29, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Let me correct and say that I have not drawn a salary until very recently. As of the past year or so, I’ve been listed as a contractor to the business, just for this very reason — so that I would again begin to pay in to social security and be protected in the event of emergency. But I still won’t be able to collect my spouse’s social security in the even that she dies first, nor she, mine.
Comment by Lorian — October 29, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
For example men who are married and have children are considered grounded and reliable, while women who are married and have children are considered unstable, as far as commitment to their careers and company.
Excellent point.
Comment by Chandelle — October 29, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
re: 23. Reese:
OK, I understand that academic distinctions and definitions of terms have some value to the discussion. And, I concede that the ebb and flow of social movements in a society might well be likened to wave action.
So, some say “Wave One” encompassed the right to vote. Some say second-wave feminism sought to address legal and defacto
inequalities in treatment of women in the workplace. More, it questioned whether the “ideal” post war family image as
portrayed by mass media was ‘ideal’ for women. It began to raise issues of sexuality, family, the workplace, and, reproductive rights.
Then some say a ‘Third Wave”, arising from the 2nd, challenged prevalent views of ‘empowerment’ as just as limiting as those that came before. “You can have it all” (success in work AND kids) was exposed to be the empty rhetoric our poorer sisters already knew so well it to be. We happy few well-off white girls might, in ‘Wave Two’, have demanded an opportunity to work outside the home, be paid equitably for it and have the ability to generate economic independence for our own and our families futures. But of course it was not really until the Civil Rights Movement that we began to understand that being a SAHM when our children were young was a luxury so very very few of our sisters could even imagine, as they did (and often still must) leave their own kids with a TV babysitter while they work 2 or 3 jobs to pay the rent.
We began to understand that (dare I say it?), it takes a village. Things like FAMILY leave (not just maternity leave), safe
affordable childcare, affordable healthcare, schools that don’t track girl children away from math and science, removing barriers to opportunity for the disabled, public transportation, flexible workways (from flextime to telecommuting), after school and summer activities were all part of the necessary infrastructure for FAMILY VALUES to be expressed.
AND, we finally gave ourselves permission to shout out that FAMILY VALUES mattered. A LOT. We looked to Homemaker roles
with more respect (and wondered why others still did not). We noted on our refrigerator door calendars how BUSY we were supporting, with volunteer efforts, so very many aspects of our community life. We discovered that no sooner had our kids became independent, than our in-laws and parents grew old and needed nurturing.
Now of course, we’ve also gained a broadened awareness and sensitivity to the reality that ‘appropriate’ gender roles as
well as human sexuality are far more varied than we’d understood before. Is that really part of “Wave three” or a new “Wave Four”? Are either “Waves three or four” “post-feminist”? Was there even a “Third Wave”, or just part of “Wave Two”? Heck. I don’t care. To me such is the stuff of dissertations in Ivory Towers by those who come after us.
I see Feminism as a single long continuum. It stretches back to GG Grandma being told by Her mom, that she didn’t have to be whatshisname’s second wife if she didn’t want to, NO MATTER WHAT Brigham Young ’suggested’. (Of Course he said ohhhh and beat a hasty retreat. We so often underestimate the power of a woman.)
It extends forward to Lisa’s excellent question, which, if I understand it correctly, points out that just as all those other things are necessary for a woman to be able to work outside the home for economic equality (if not parity), then what does it take for a woman to be able to work as a Homemaker and Mother without being “expected to carry the burden of raising children (in poverty, insecurity, vulnerability), while not reaping any of the rewards to society that we have with our labor created.”
For starters, it takes 16 quarters of work to qualify for Social Security. Why not give Moms got Social Security credits for the first four years of each child’s life, and work credits for home care of elderly or disabled family members?
And, if we could just break that nut of employer based for profit health care, it would go SO FAR in making it easier for employers to spread the work around - through shorter work weeks, through shared jobs, through family leave.
Comment by Betty Jo — October 29, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
I agree with just about everything you said there Betty Jo. Especially the part about parsing ‘post-feminist’ and each precise wave as being largely academic.
To me the practical value that discussing this in waves brings is the chance to redirect focus. So instead of a long continuum, it’s more like a line graph with peaks and valleys. Some of the second wave rhetoric is extremely harsh towards women who feel called to be mothers and stay home when possible, even going so far as to occasionally say women like me betray the sisterhood. Obviously that line of thinking didn’t get us directly to where we are today. It required a backing up, a new line of thought.
And just like you outlined, the first two waves had specific goals, getting the vote, workplace equality, reproductive choices, that make anything that comes after it difficult to define in relation.
The terms ‘post-feminist’ and ‘third-wave feminist’ are often used interchangeably, and incorrectly when they are. Post-feminist was used to refer to the generation of women who came after 1980 who got to benefit from all the work of the 2nd wavers without being bound by strict dogmatic choices. It started as part of a backlash against the excesses of that movement and hinted that equality had been achieved and the need for feminism was over.
Third-wave feminism then began to be used for those same women once we got old enough and worldly enough to realize that feminism was still very much needed. But of course, without that backlash stigma that “post-feminist” implies. It’s a largely generational signifier because one of the major criticisms of 3rd-wavers is that we aren’t active enough in our activism. So there’s not really a strict agenda. But if you really forced a definition, it would have to include an embracing of individual choices and empowerment over one true way to be a feminist. I think the two main excesses of this movement is 1) the lack of activism and 2)an embracing of female sexual power taken to such an extreme that the pussycat dolls can think they’re role models of girl power.
So, I think 3rd wave has largely run it’s course and it’s time for a new focus. Thanks to a stepping back and new direction from us 3rd wavers, I can be a SAHM and craft designer and still have my feminist card in check, but it’s time to step back from the sexual power and address a new concern - parenthood.
I agree with absolutely everything you suggest on that front.
Comment by Reese Dixon — October 29, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
I guess I see the waves as building on the good of the past and recognizing what was not helpful. In revolution there is always building and breaking down…some of the building isn’t what it should be and some of the breaking down is too extreme
I can see how flex time jobs would work, but I don’t understand how a 1 year leave would feasibly work….how does the company hold that job and really replace that person for a year? How is that practically possible?Do they have other people on the team do the work-without compensation? with compensation? do they hire someone new then fire them if/when the woman comes back? Does that work in the real world? I think Canada has something like that…
It is difficult to heal and nurse and NOT be primary caregiver..pumping is enough of a challenge at home-to pump at work isn’t easy.
does valuing motherhood have to = money?
Comment by britt — October 29, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
Wow when I made these points I was hounded off this site. So glad you’re getting there.
Comment by Ruby — October 29, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
Hmm. maybe it wasn’t these points that led to people being resistant Ruby. Maybe it was that unbelievably condescending attitude.
Comment by Reese Dixon — October 29, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
In a society where money is the unit of measure in bartering for goods and services, value of those services is necessarily measured in monetary terms. Services which are considered of less value are awarded less money. That’s just what it is.
If we valued motherhood as being anywhere near the worth of other jobs adults do in our society, then we would compensate mothers on a similar scale.
There is a series of futuristic novels by the author J.D. Robb (nom de plume for Nora Roberts) in which mothers are paid a “professional mother” stipend by the government if they choose to stay at home and raise their children rather than returning to work and placing the children in daycare. Makes a certain amount of sense, doesn’t it? Yeah, it requires taxation and wealth redistribution, but, after all, who’s doing the important work, here?
Comment by Lorian — October 29, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
#38 would that system apply to men?
Comment by CZ — October 29, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
Yay! This is the post I have been waiting for. Thank you for expounding, Lisa. These three sentences of the OP nail it for me:
Yes, that is what I think. We’ve found equality on men’s terms, in a man’s world, in the marketplace, but we have not found equality overall because the things that women do (and continue to do whether appreciated or not) are not valued. The place I would like to start is by making jobs more flexible so both men and women can work modified schedules, take time off, leave and re-enter the workforce. How? I don’t know exactly. But, I think a lot of our ideas about why careers have to be full-time are just based on preconceived notions and the old model of husband always working. If we can change our attitudes, I think it would be very easy to change jobs. At the same time, making jobs more flexible will help change attitudes. So, let’s start somewhere! Ideas? (Comment 28 is a good example of this)
Ruby, Reese is right.
Comment by Stephanie — October 29, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
Thanks for the input everyone.
Chandelle,
I’m contemplating the idea of “parenthood feminism” but I wonder how this argument is different from the “you shouldn’t call it feminism, you should call it humanism” argument. I agree with the idea totally with the goal of getting fathers to take on an equal burden of the parenting, but just as I think calling it humanism (rather than feminism) misses the point that women are the ones primarily paying the cost of sexism (though I do think both men and women benefit from equality), I also think that since mothers are the people primarily paying the costs of parenthood that it should be called specifically motherhood feminism. But I could probably convinced differently with a sufficiently persuasive argument.
Ryan,
while I agree with you totally that men can be, and are penalized for investing time in their families, and this is something that has to change (otherwise men are almost never going to invest in fatherhood, I mean why would you?), I disagree strongly that this is in fact a “not a gender issue”. Women are by a huge margin the ones carrying the burdens paying the cost of parenting (a generalization that may not be true in your life, but will be true for the great majority of couples).
as to the rest, I’m not sure I followed you totally (I’m easily confused), but in the general direction of the points you were making, I think it is interesting that it is the countries where birthrates have gotten problematically low that the truly innovative supports for motherhood have been implemented.
As to parents taking time being a burden for the “non-parent” workers, it can be true in a short and narrow view. Sure they have to fill in here and there to make up for short term for a relatively small amount of labor lost (sick kids, school plays, soccer games), but the long term benefit to society, and yes directly to them through increased productivity of the society as a whole is a very real benefit they will reap as that non-parental worker cashes his/her social security check each month. (the analogy I like is a garden one: the workers planting the corn might feel like their work is more valuable than the work of those who go off to plant a new orchard, the corn will feed us all right now, the orchard is a huge investment of labor with no immediate benefit. So I guess you can punish the orchard farmers for not growing as much corn, I guess you could call them less productive. And yet, in twelve years, when that orchard starts to bear fruit, it seems the corn growers still think they are entitled to most of the fruit, because after all, they were the ones doing the productive labor all those years. Right? Right?)
Obviously both types of labor are necessary, but I think it’s incredibly short-sighted to presume that the extra work burden put on non-parents is not paid back to them a hundred fold in an influx of productive citizens (raised by the labor of parents) driving the economy and paying taxes and generally making the world a better place.
britt, I too wonder how the logistics of the one year and two year leaves. Clearly there are places where it has been worked out. I know it is done here too, just not for mothers, I have a friend who was given a year leave from her job to serve in the national guard, and her job was waiting for her the day she returned. It wasn’t paid leave, of course, but the position was held for her.
As to the question of waves. I’m with Reese, I think in some ways motherhood feminism could fit into the “third wave” arena, except , I feel passionately (how could you tell) that there needs to be a sharp refocus directly onto motherhood issues, not spread out onto —motherhood, plus a wide variety of other (very real issues). And I think we need that laser focus because while (many/most of) the other third wave issues are real and important, I think the burden of motherhood is the single biggest stumbling block we have to real equality. And i don’t really get the sense that this is a big priority in third wave (current) feminist thought.
Comment by fMhLisa — October 29, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
re: 34. Reese, that was a clear, articulate and helpful explanation of the terminology in current use.. Thanks.
I struggle with an ingrained prejudice against academic parsing. Though it may sound like it, this is not anti-intellectualism, for it readily extends to debates about whether live begins at conception or at viability outside the womb, and to sympathy for but not comprehension of angst over celestial plural marriage. “Angels dancing on the head of a pin” piss me off - maybe because my eyesight is grown so very bad.
re: “Some of the second wave rhetoric is extremely harsh towards women who feel called to be mothers and stay home when possible, even going so far as to occasionally say women like me betray the sisterhood.”
Like those, women (like Phyllis Shafley) and Dr. Whatshername on radio who exploited the gains of the sisters who’d struggled so hard to give them the chance to have a public voice, then used it to seek to deny others the same opportunities to make personal choices are/were true betrayers. Assertions that Mom’s must not work outside the home, they’re bad if they want or need to and being a SAHM is the only way we might be allowed to claim a mantel of family values was/is I think, a betrayal of everything I want feminism
to mean. For, after all, it’s all about respect - respecting individual women as well as men to be the most qualified ‘Deciders’ about things as personal as how they plan their families, who they choose as lifetime companions, how they support their family, how they create a nurturing environment for achievement of human
potential for themselves, their loved ones and their communities.
Your comments though stimulate a line of thought I’ve been pondering on for a while but one that is still I fear, rather inarticulate. What the Hay. I’ll throw it out there anyway. As I age, I recognize how long we actually live these days. Role definitions derived from days past when women might live but 30-50 years and if lucky, die after their kids are self sufficient, are just not good enough anymore. Hence we must, if accepting Lisa’s challenge of a “Motherhood Feminism”, consider the notion of re-entry or “multiple “career”
focus. Irrespective of whether or not we commit years to childbirth and family nurture roles, our kids grow up. Our parents die. What then? Hence whether or not it’s called a “4th wave” or something else, “Motherhood Feminism” must come to grips with the reality that we and our spouses age. What do we do after our ‘traditional roles’ are no longer necessary or relevant to our circumstance?
Hence, I would add to the notions of societal recognition of homemaker/motherhood roles (such as my previous and rather obvious suggestions of Social Security credits for family care roles), I might add a need to facilitate re-entry options for women as well as men. Ageism is a big deal. “Time off” from modern technology related careers have a real cost. I know this to be true from personal experience. Kimberly has previously much better articulated the need for “currency” in such critical roles as health care. And so, I would add to my wish list for “Fourth Wave Feminism” whole hearted support for community college education. We and our spouses MUST be able to retrench, revitalize, refocus and renew our ability to contribute to the modern world.
Comment by Betty Jo — October 29, 2009 @ 11:54 pm
I’m currently on maternity leave in Canada and it basically works like that and it’s done all of the time. Legally, my company has to hold my job for a year and in the interim I’m on EI (employment insurance) and get 40% of my wage (or up to $1600/month). They filled the position as a one year mat leave position and the person who replaced me was well aware that it would only be a year.
Being able to take a year off to adjust to motherhood has been a huge blessing and after reading some of these comments I feel really lucky.
Comment by RoseM — October 30, 2009 @ 12:02 am
Great post. I’ll be thinking about this for a while.
Here’s another nice concrete example of society’s lack of compensation for the work of motherhood: for student families in our area, in order to qualify for a particular financial aid grant for families, you have to turn in documentation of your living expenses. If you hire a babysitter or nanny, or have your children in childcare, you can be reimbursed for those expenses. However, if one spouse stays at home and provides the childcare her/himself, there is no benefit. Essentially, stay-at-home spouses are financially penalized twice: once in losing the outside income they might have earned at a job, and again in losing the grant money that would have covered childcare expenses.
While just a minor example, I think this is representative of the lack of value that our society places on the work that goes into parenting. It’s not documented or quantified, so it can’t really be valuable, right?
And as a note…I’d totally buy a shirt/bumper sticker with a “Motherhood Feminist” slogan, but I don’t see anything like it on Cafe Press or Zazzle. Maybe I’ll have to make my own…
Comment by Satsuki — October 30, 2009 @ 12:11 am
Lon, you bring up something that I have been pondering for weeks - ever since the last big gender discussion. I’ve debated going back and writing a comment on that thread or writing a guest post, but you’ve created a great lead-in, so here are my random thoughts (I will try to put them into a coherent order):
Biologically, only women can give birth and breastfeed babies (yes, I’ve heard that men “can” breastfeed if they let a baby suck long enough, but I know from experience that it hurts like hell to have a baby start sucking even when your boobs are full of milk and ready to burst, so I doubt any man would last that long. I digress). When a woman’s body is working so hard to nurture that baby in the womb, I think she is entitled to be cared for by the father of that baby (hopefully her husband). Pregnant women need to take care of their bodies and get proper rest and nutrition and not strain their bodies for both their health and their baby’s. Some jobs are not too stressful, but some are. When women are breastfeeding, it also puts a lot of strain on their bodies. It is draining. And, babies eat all day long. So, in performing these functions that only women can do, I think women are entitled to be cared for by their husbands (I’m not saying that mothers have to quit work, but I do think that while her body is nurturing another body, she is entitled to be cared for to not risk the health of her or her baby - HE has a responsibility to make sure she can do that). During pregnancy, there is nothing else the father of the baby can do except care for the mother of the baby. During breastfeeding, the father can do other things, but not create the milk. But, he can care for the mother. After the baby is weaned, there is nothing else the mother can biologically do that the father can’t.
So, looking at this small window of time in a mother’s life - when she is pregnant and breastfeeding - I fully agree with the Family Proc. (ignoring the “preside” part - that’s a whole different beast):
When you become pregnant, that becomes your primary responsibility - nurturing that baby until it comes out. Yes, some women can do many other things while pregnant. Some women are on bedrest the whole pregnancy. But, for both, nurturing that baby becomes the primary goal, and everything else is secondary. And, while she is doing that, if she can’t work, the father needs to make sure the family’s needs are met. I almost wonder if the delination of responsibilities by the Lord is primarily directed to fathers to make sure that women and children are cared for during this small but important window of time. Biologically, the Lord already decided that the woman is going to carry the child. Her body is dictating what she is doing. I think he might be spelling it out to the man, “Hey, this is what you need to be doing to take care of your wife and family”.
Before the advent of birth control, women spent many years of their lives in potential childbearing years. From the day a woman got married to the day she hit menopause, she could potentially be pregnant. If she got married at 15 and hit menopause at 50, that’s a good 35 years of potential childbearing. And I bet that if I were in that situation, I would breastfeed my babies for years as a desperate form of birth control. So, it’s not that unreasonable for me to see how the division of labor between husbands and wives became her laboring at home and him laboring outside the home to provide to care for her.
Of course, birth control has changed everything. Women can now choose when they want to start trying to get pregnant and when they want to stop. We have dramatically decreased the window of time that women “have” to spend in childbearing years (if they even want to). Women now have pumps so they can breastfeed their babies without needing to physically be with them. Without birth control, biology essentially dictated that women who were having sex could potentially be pregnant at any moment, so women really were confined (by biology) to primarily being a “nurturer” for most all of their adults lives. But, with birth control and modern conveniences, we are only “nurturers” for a few years of our choosing. We have so many more choices about what to do with the rest of our lives.
So, anyways, my point of this long comment is that I see a very good purpose for the Family Proc in that small window of time. And I don’t think it is as much about the Lord telling women what to do (since he’s already done that through biology) as it is making sure that their husbands take care of them and their baby during that time.
Outside of that window, I like chandelle’s opinion in comment 4 - equally shared parenting with reduced work schedules for both parents. That would be my ideal.
Comment by Stephanie — October 30, 2009 @ 12:24 am
Okay, just have to point out that I did not read Betty Jo’s comment before writing mine. But, interesting that we’ve both been thinking some of the same thoughts!
Comment by Stephanie — October 30, 2009 @ 12:28 am
Betty Jo and Reese,
I just want to clarify a popular misconception of the “third wave” that is being repeated here. The “third wave” is a largely academic, intellectual movement, and has nothing to do with feminist revivalism or generational changes in focus. The second wave is still around and still constitutes the bulk of the theoretical and activist movements, such as this site. Rather than being a generational designation, or a description of activist revivals, the third wave has to do with a profound theoretical critique of the agendas and definitions of traditional feminism as being defined by heterosexuality (like the OP), “equality,” gender essentialism, and bringing to bear Western hegemony in the third world. This turn is largely correlated with the rise of “queer theory” as a response to second-wave feminism, especially in the work of Judith Butler (though she never used the term “third wave”). An excellent recent book that deals with third-wave feminism and religion is Saba Mahmood, _Politics of Piety_, which is about the hajib in Egypt and Western feminist responses.
Sorry to be pedantic about this, but this sort of definitional precision matters to me.
Comment by TT — October 30, 2009 @ 8:56 am
I think this is important, but also one of the problems is that women vary in how much they are affected by the pregnancy and breastfeeding. My daughter was able to work and go to school during her pregnancies, and her babies took a bottle. I am in the worst standard deviation for nausea/vomiting of pregnancy, so I can’t do anything but lie around barfing. And breastfeeding got harder on my body with each one–I needed a registered dietitian to coach me through the last one.
So the amount of help each of us needs, from spouse and society, is different and that makes it hard.
Comment by Naismith — October 30, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Oh uh-uh. That is crazy-talk. Third wave feminism is no more defined by it’s academic arm than any other movement. All that queer theory and profound critiquing of agendas and etc is real, real nice but you are ignoring the cultural shift that swept young women like me into the third wave. In the early 90’s it was riot grrl activism that motivated me and thousands more like me. To relegate third wave feminism to a mere intellectual movement is to trivialize the impact that magazines like (early) Sassy, Bust and Bitch have had on the culture, bands like le Tigre, Hole, Sleater-Kinney and every band that ever played Lillith Faire, the existence of Lillith Faire, Ladyfest and the whole DIY movement that spawned etsy, Rock Camp for girls and the shift in thinking in millions of young women that they could fully engage as a hetero or queer women and Not be somebodys victim.
It’s deeply weird to hear someone cast my experience as a third wave feminist in a light that I don’t even recognize myself in. Your search for precision may have blinded you to a lack of accuracy.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 30, 2009 @ 9:39 am
TT, I’m unfamiliar with your background. You certainly seem knowledgeable, but I have no idea where you’re getting this.
3rd wave feminism isn’t generational? Are you kidding?
THIS site? Is 2nd wave feminist? Seriously? HOUSEWIVES?? Supporting the patriarchy???
Yes, 3rd wave feminism was critical of several aspects of 2nd wave feminism, particularly as it effects race, class, and gender non-essentialism. But to call it strictly academic is just laughable. You’re talking to a bunch of 3rd wavers who have been living it for quite some time.
I also support definitional precision, which is why I just can’t wrap my brain around why you keep trying to insist that this site and our efforts are 2nd wave. Maybe because you just think of 3rd wave of academic, instead of recognizing the very real effect it has had on the lives of women like us who want equality while still having the opportunity to choose a fairly traditional path.
Comment by Reese Dixon — October 30, 2009 @ 9:51 am
Chandelle, I couldn’t agree more.
While I can agree that most women want to be mothers, what that means to them varies. Until we can value parenthood in all of its forms and variations, this wave of feminism will be war. For me, breastfeeding and childbirth recovery did not necessitate that I be the primary full-time caregiver of my children, while I can understand and respect those who feel differently.
Parenthood is not valued for either gender. A man is only considered more grounded at work by having children in that he has more mouths to feed and will be more invested in his work. No one applauds him for choosing to spend less time at work in order to accommodate his wife’s working schedule or his child’s needs.
Comment by mel-odrama — October 30, 2009 @ 10:48 am
Several people on this thread have mentioned a long (one year) maternity leave. I think that is recognizing the same thing I am saying: that mothers should get a break if they need it. For me, this whole line if thinking is what is making me more and more comfortable with calling myself a feminist - I think that improving lives for women and children incorporates ideas from both traditional and modern thinking, from both the right and the left. Women who are bearing children need to be supported both at home during those short years and also by society. It doesn’t mean that all women have to choose to stay home during that time, but to really have a choice about it (and be respected, not have to throw the rest of her future away, not have to return to waiting tables or working as a cashier when she doesn’t want to because she’s broke), but to really have a choice - that’s what I think feminism is about and why I am a #1 fan of “motherhood feminism”.
Comment by Stephanie — October 30, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Great post, Stephanie.
Comment by Lorian — October 30, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
CWC #49 - There is something deeply inspiring about this post in a nebulous “I’ve entered the feminist twilight zone” kind of way. ;^*
Comment by Lorian — October 30, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
CZ #39 - In my book, it would. If mom went back to work and dad stayed home with the children, I’d say he should be equally entitled to “professional fatherhood.”
Comment by Lorian — October 30, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
re: 41 Lisa says: “I feel passionately (how could you tell) that there needs to be a sharp refocus directly onto motherhood issues, not spread out onto —motherhood, plus a wide variety of other (very real issues). And I think we need that laser focus because while (many/most of) the other third wave issues are real and important, I think the burden of motherhood is the single biggest stumbling block we have to real equality. And i don’t really get the sense that this is a big priority in third wave (current) feminist thought.”
There were no “Women’s Studies” departments when I was struggling with work and parenting, Women’s issues were things I lived not things I studied, so I’m obviously ignorant of the ideological underpinnings of the “Movement” and will flaunt my ignorance no more with references to wave theory!
However I think I understand your concern. In 1962 I was active in Civil Rights. I watched as a nascent Woman’s rights focus was drowned out by the young bucks who said yea yea later, race is more important now. In 1972 I was active in the Ecology movement and watched as a focus on sustainability, clean air and clean water were drowned out by Population Control folks. And, of course, all through the 60s and 70s, the Vietnam War took most of the air out of every other balloon.
And, of course, it’s YOUR GAME so it oughta go YOUR WAY. And yet, I’m not quite sure how one goes about lifing that “burden of Motherhood” without all the other pieces. There are no silver bullets when it comes to social change. There are instead, it seems to me, just a whole big bunch of pieces that, when put together, begin to create a reality that works better for us, and begin to create the potential for solutions that weren’t there before.
How do I say this… OK, Motherhood demands some years of focus which materially cost women in lifetime earnings potential. Further, ‘equality’ within a household often changes with reference to earning
capacity. No matter how we try to pretend, it just does. There are only so many hours in a day. When husbands must spend 70 hours a week just to keep their job, it’s pretty hard for them to ‘do their fair
share’ of parenting. Modern well paying careers demand a high degree of current awareness. Technology and business change so fast. So re-entry after a parenting gap is a very tricky thing to achieve (for both sexes). Supporting flexible gender roles seems essential if we are to spread the burden of Parenthood from Moms. So long as health care is Employer based, then Moms and their kids are dependent not only on their spouse/dad, but also his Employer!
Why are employers unwilling to do shared jobs and part time jobs? Because the damn Health Insurance burden doubles for them. Why is re-entry so hard? Because we still think of education and training as something we do before we start working, not as lifetime learning. We can give Moms Social Security credits for childrearing, but, as Loren pointed out, until Civil Union / Marriage problem is fixed, a whole bunch of women can’t even access their spouses Social Security.
So, I don’t know how to fix the Motherhood burden, without working that whole constellation of issues.
Comment by Betty Jo — October 30, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
re: 2 CWC said “It seems like federal legislation, or maybe even state would be a good beginning. A childcare stipend, to be used by the at home parent or applied to out of home daycare maybe.
Does that sound like a good place to start?”
well, ok. The state, recognizing the importance of a labor force, compensates women for raising it.
but… I can hear the outcry already “It’s not MY kid, I didn’t decide to have a passel of them! If they can’t afford them, why have them? Why should we have MORE competition for jobs when there aren’t enough to go around already? What about that DEFICIT? We TRIED THAT ALREADY with AFDC and what did we get? a bunch of Welfare Moms dropping kids every year to up their stipend! We already have
a tax deduction for kids, we already tax for public schools, I don’t have a kid in school, why should I have to pay school taxes! Why shouldn’t Moms have to work for their living, I do! blah blah blah…
So, how DO we deal with the reality that so very much of our society rests on unpaid ‘volunteer’ labor? IS there a way to value labor that is other than monetary? If so, what might it be? As Lisa says, a Mother’s Day card just don’t cut it.
Now days, there’s a huge hue and cry over executive compensation on Wall Street. They say “we can’t get good people if we don’t pay them! We’ll lose all that great staff (you know, the ones that got us into this mess) if we don’t give out multimillion dollar bonuses. And God forbid if the GOVERNMENT sets pay standards! But… The Government tax code allows companies to deduct salaries as business expenses. Our tax code might readily say instead “you can pay as much as you want, but anything over 1 million, can’t be deducted as a business expense, it comes out of your profits instead. Go talk to your share holders, not to us.”
If we did something like that, then we might get single payer healthcare without bankrupting the country. If we did something like that, then we might be able to fully fund state and community colleges to train and retrain our workforce (of all ages) to the jobs we need filled. Without the horrendous burden of student loans, more of the workforce might be able to gravitate to the service careers that build a society. Re-entry after motherhood wouldnt’ be so hard. If we did something like that, then we might could afford to give Mom’s a stipend for the time when their kids are young and need full time attention. If we had a 35 hour work week, then we’d be able to give our entire work force a chance to participate in parenting and a chance to exercise family values. The burden of volunteer labor would not fall so heavily onto females.
If a Government program is aimed soley at one group (such as Moms), then it doesn’t get the support
needed to sustain it.
Comment by Betty Jo — October 30, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
First of all, the search for societal “equality” with men seems to me to be misguided. First of all, what’s sooooooooo awesome about being a man that makes women clamber to be considered as “equal” to them? Because men and women are inherently different they have different responsibilities and talents, but one isn’t inherently better than the other regardless of their role. Thus I believe the quest for “equality” between the sexes is a waste of time. I’m all for any movement to make a woman’s life better but not at a man’s or a child’s expense; indeed anything that makes a woman’s life better in the long run will make a man’s and a child’s life better too. The very quest for equality presupposes an inequality on the part of women, which is just what most feminists deny the existance of in the first place.
Second, of course the perception of equality will fall apart once a woman bears a child since the roles and responsibilities of both the man and the woman will invariably change. When a woman bears a child, of course her life will change forever. I agree that “mothers provide the single most valuable commodity by far of any workers in this country” but to try to define motherhood in terms of “raw economic and social value” is simply impossible because the value of a mother’s life work cannot be reduced to numbers, nor defined by numbers.
I personally would be offended if the government or any other organization were to give me money in return for my work as a mother. If the government gave me money for changing a diaper, for example, it would essentially be the government’s work, not mine. Any payment in money for the work I do as a mother would cheapen my work, not give it value.
This statement may be true for some mothers, but what lens would the speaker be looking through for it to be true for all mothers? A very pessimistic one. The very existence of a father who provides for the mother and child mitigates every loss mentioned above. The fact is there are a lot of happy mothers out there. They all certainly have their challenges to navigate through and their burdens to bear, but instead of focusing on what might be lost or perceived as a loss, think of what they gain when they bring a beautiful innocent baby into the world, into a happy, loving family.
It goes without saying that it takes money to run a household, and, yes, that money has to come from somewhere. What’s so wrong with the traditional family in which the father goes to work and funds the household? Nothing! Is it wrong for mothers to go back to work after having a child? No! What is wrong is to suggest that there are no rules when it comes to the decision to bear a child. A mother and child only become society’s burden when there isn’t a father to provide for that mother and child.
For women to demand “true equality” with men will not change society in a good way, nor is it even possible, or in most cases even desirable. What will really change society for the better is if every man, woman and child do their part to strengthen the traditional family in their own way, which is something no government can or should legislate.
Comment by Catherine — October 30, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
I have only skimmed the comments, but I haven’t seen anyone really talk about the individual woman’s responsibility to take on these issues.
I hear our prophets pointing women toward the importance of both motherhood and preparation through education and training. To me, it seems that relying on the system to back us up could rob women of the opportunity and responsibility to lean into this very real tension and figure out how to balance the divine purposes and responsibility of motherhood and of the process of becoming prepared through education. I don’t see the model we are taught to be women who are reliant wholly on their husbands (even if they choose to stay home, there are many ways to keep a current resume and continuous learning, even w/o work for pay).
I may be a lone voice here, but I actually think that there could be some serious downsides for us as women if we were paid for motherhood. To me, some of the spiritual and personal growth (and difficulty, yes) comes from that sacrifice. Some of the growth, imo, comes from leaning on God to navigate this tension that exists in our doctrine.
In short, I really don’t want to be paid for being a mother. As weird as it sounds, I feel like it could actually cheapen that job for me. And I think it would leave me wanting to care less about the processes of preparation and lifelong learning and education.
Sometimes I actually feel sorry for men who have to work, who have to submit their role as provider to the fallen system of work-for-pay. I actually prefer not being paid for my work — as a mother, and with the other things I am passionate about.
I know there is a practical side to this, and it’s not that I want women struggling below the poverty line. But I think the princples of self-reliance are an important factor to consider as at least part of the solution, rather than just paying women to be moms.
Comment by m&m — October 30, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Catherine
Huh? You’re using equality to mean a whole bunch of different things here that don’t make a ton of sense.
I think when you say equality, you don’t mean what I mean when I say equality. Modern feminists no longer try to argue that men and women are the same. That goes back to all that wave talk I’ve been doing. Thinking that feminists believe that women are the same as men is an outdated and inaccurate theory.
When I talk about equality, it’s about equal access. And that still needs quite a bit of improvement. Many educational programs are too rigid to allow for children. Many career tracks are too rigid to allow for children. And many women who have a great partner to be the provider find themselves in poverty when that partner dies or leaves.
I understand what you and m&m are saying. When you approach motherhood as a spiritual calling, as I do too, it’s hard to think about it in such black and white vulgarities as money. But this is the world we live in, and if we don’t address this part of it, then nothing will change and the only thing keeping a woman out of poverty is the benevolence and support of the men around her.
I don’t think the solution is just to pay women to be moms. That has creepy breedery connotations if nothing else. But there should be resources for women who choose that path that recognize the real societal contributions made through that sacrifice.
Comment by Reese Dixon — October 30, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Can I just say Betty Jo thank you for your comments. Last night I had a bit of a melt down and reading your comments this morning is very calming. Again, just knowing there are people out there who understand makes a world of difference.
I have a 5 and a 7 year old and I am trying to enter the work force. I am a qualified high school teacher but I was pregnant with my first baby when I finished off my studies so I didn’t start any paid work before embarking on motherhood. I have been looking for work all year… and when I am feeling run down and low I just feel absolutely worthless…
and we don’t even seem to have it that bad here in Australia. We have a pretty decent health care system called Medicare where I can visit my GP anytime and it costs me nothing, the govt takes care of that. I had my babies at a wonderful public birthing centre and it cost me nothing. We have a children’s hospital within 10 mins drive that I can take my children to at any time of the day or night at no cost to me. (just the other week I took my 7 year old there instead of trying to get a GP appointment and they treated her for pneumonia, we caught it so early that the treatment was less severe and she recovered fast, much better than waiting up to 2 weeks for a GP appointment) I too can visit an adult hospital emergency room at no cost to me. We have free family ambulance cover through my husbands work.
We have a Family Tax Benefit where I get paid approx. $450 per fortnight, so that helps out. We get rent assistance.
My husbands work is a 45 hour week and he is home by 3:30pm so he has been quite involved in parenting. We feel very lucky.
The changes that would benefit me the most at this stage in my life would be having a more flexible work force where I can balance my working life with my parenting role. I am going to need to be very creative and persistent if I want to make this happen as it would seem that the workforce wants me full-time or not at all.
Comment by Maureen — October 30, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
but to try to define motherhood in terms of “raw economic and social value” is simply impossible because the value of a mother’s life work cannot be reduced to numbers, nor defined by numbers.
I should have looked more closely. This sums up my thoughts as well…probably lots of comments later…on the run again so haven’t had time to read more…will later.
Comment by m&m — October 30, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
Ah, not many comments more after all, and i’m taking a break from cleaning for a post-baptism luncheon tomorrow. Whew.
the only thing keeping a woman out of poverty is the benevolence and support of the men around her
I think this isn’t really true, though. There are many of us who could support ourselves if needed. I don’t really like the idea of clumping us all together as helpless, solely-reliant-on-others (men *or* the government) creatures. I think of us as women as a lot more strong (in reality and in potential) than that.
I see several problems with this notion:
1- To me, if you leave women relying on the government (which is already so overextended it makes me shudder), you only shift the reliance of women onto another entity. It’s still a passive role in a way, imo. And relying on something that really has no guarantees, anymore than a woman has a guarantee that her husband will be faithful and be able to support them her whole life.
2- If women don’t *have* to think about being independent if needed, I think you risk robbing them of the process of preparation, education, and continual learning. That in my view really flies in the face of feminist principles, and, imo, of the divine principles of self-reliance.
3 - I think, too, that if we put a price tag on our mothering, it might end up devaluing it..even if it woudl feel ‘more valued’ somehow ‘out there,; I’m not convinced that it wouldn’t leave women missing the mark about what they were really doing — things that can’t be valued monetarily.
4- If you pay women to have babies, then I think there is the chance that some women will get pregnant for the wrong reasons. In a sense, it feels very potentially exploitative of children as money-making entities. That makes me shudder, too.
5- I think it opens up a Pandora’s box…. Why shouldn’t fathers be able to claim government support for whatever they do at home after work as well? What about nannies or babysitters or family members or friends who might be caretakers along the way? Seems that it would be really hard to figure out where to ultimately draw lines.
When I first heard of this notion of economic reward for motherhood, it was interesting and intriguing, but the more I think about it, the less I like it…I think it would actually end up creating more problems than it would solve.
Nevermind the fact that I keep thinking — where would this money come from anyway? In a sense, we’d have to pay out of our own pockets to then be paid, wouldn’t we?
I dunno…just not gelling with me at so many levels.
Comment by m&m — October 30, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
sorry if i’m being repetitive, btw….
Comment by m&m — October 30, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
It was a great thought when you mentioned it in your talk, Lisa, and it’s a great one now. That is an aspect of feminism I had never consciously thought about. I’m eager to hear more exploration on the topic.
In his book When Corporations Rule the World, David Korten suggests that much of what society takes for granted now in terms of “domestic work”–work overwhelmingly performed by women–might receive some sort of state compensation. If we as a society feel children need more parental management, then we as a society should be willing economically recognize the value of their labors. It is certainly a thorny issue, but deserves to be thoroughly discussed.
(another fascinating book which touches on the implication of gender roles and expectations in the economic sphere is Economics for Humans, by Julie Nelson)
I’ve often thought that single-mothers are put in an impossible catch-22. If they focus on raising their children (which we as a society say should be a mother’s first responsibility) and don’t make physical provisioning, they are derided as “Welfare Queens.” But if they try to provide for their families (which typically takes more effort and longer hours for women who weren’t actively planning on joining the workforce, because the jobs available to them are low-wage), then they are denounced for neglecting their children and not giving them the parental oversight and guidance they need to grow up to be productive members of society. This is an intolerable situation, and it must change.
re: 4
Traditionally, I think this has been the case. But I have heard that this is now changing, and many families are experiencing tension between cultural expectations and new economic realities in which more and more women are qualified for better paying jobs than the men in the family.
In any case, I’m in complete agreement about the need to break down the gender roles and encourage both spouses to participate in both spheres (domestic and “professional”).
re: 59
Julie Nelson’s book addresses this very concept. Traditionally, society has rejected strong financial compensation for vocations associated with women (nursing and elementary teaching, for example). Why? Because the basis of those professions were about caring. People were expected to pursue those vocations out of care and love, not filthy lucre. To highly compensate those professions would cheapen them, make them mercenary, despoil the nurturing and spiritual qualities which make those women feminine. Nelson does a good job of dismissing such concerns regarding those traditionally feminine trades. There may be other questions about compensation for motherhood, but I suspect Nelson’s answers would apply just as well to motherhood as nursing.
Comment by Derek — October 31, 2009 @ 12:07 am
m&m -
if a woman is in a position where she can support herself, it’s because she’s made a choice to either delay motherhood until her education was complete, or because she has stuck to the few specific careers that allow the flexibility needed for parenthood.
If she has a career with the appropriate flexibility, she will make ridiculously less money over the course of her lifetime than someone who had no kids and therefore been free to choose any career they wished.
If she chose to delay motherhood, she’ll still have to deal with the consequences of trying to re-enter the workforce after a large absence, and some careers are absolutely resistant to this.
It’s not all or nothing. Let me quote myself here:
All of your points are either a gross exaggeration or a total mischaracterization. We’re talking about those early years of young childhood. How does that relate to a woman being dependent her entire life? Babysitters already get paid, what would that have to do with anything? We’re specifically not arguing that women should get paid for having babies.
I’m kind of surprised to see resistance. Shouldn’t we be looking for feasible ways to support a mother being in the home if that’s what she chooses?
Comment by Reese Dixon — October 31, 2009 @ 12:17 am
Reese, sorry…in all the rush I didn’t read as closely as I should, so you are right, some of my responses may be a little overboard.
I did feel some of the OP kinda went overboard, too, though — all the talk of rude awakenings and lost equality just doesn’t really capture the big picture to me…especially when women go into it all prepared and aware of the challenges of motherhood and the difference that it makes in their lives compared to what dads experience. That to me really is just part of the deal.
And I still don’t agree with some of your reasoning.
For example:
if a woman is in a position where she can support herself, it’s because she’s made a choice to either delay motherhood until her education was complete, or because she has stuck to the few specific careers that allow the flexibility needed for parenthood.
I disagree that it’s such a bleak scenario, or that it’s as limited as you make it sound. A simple example: I am one of four girls in my family, and we are all SAHMs, and all using our degrees in one way or another. Two of my sisters are making really good money. The other two of us could, but we volunteer instead.
There are also many examples of women who have approached education in stages, and built careers as their children grew. There are lots of scenarios that don’t make this quite the zero-sum game that I feel the OP seemed to present.
I’m probably jumping in too hard, here, and some of that is because my day has been insane, but also it’s because this balancing act is one of the topics that I feel most strongly about. I am working diligently on on many fronts to try to work past this notion that either you choose to be a mother or you choose education. Our leaders are preaching both, and I think we need to talk more often about the different ways women can lean into that tension and find solutions that can work. Some of that may come from ‘the system’ giving women more support, but honestly, I feel that much of it can come from our own creativity and resourcefulness in seeking divine guidance in our individual circumstances, in feeling empowered to tackle these hard things w/o having to wait somehow for ‘the system’ to do something.
That said, I am actively involved specifically right now mentoring young women and working w/ educational leaders to try to help support women more in this process of negotiating these tensions. Truth be told, in our doctrine, education will always be more clear-cut for men, because there is a linear relationship w/ their primary role as provider. For women, the pursuit of education is more complex because it somehow is supposed to be balanced w/ our primary role as nurturers. So my perspective is not to try to equalize those roles necessarily, but to tackle that tension and work with it.
Does that make sense, or do I still sound crazy?
Comment by m&m — October 31, 2009 @ 4:20 am
and, fwiw, I think there are lots of creative solutions that could help women, too…e.g. in the corporate world, etc. My experience has been, though, that it’s women who are active in creative solutions in their own lives who are forces for those kinds of changes ‘out there’ — yet another reason why I take the approach I do.
And maybe it’s not that different from what you are thinking…sorry again for the rushed comments today. Life should calm down after this weekend (she says, confidently).
Comment by m&m — October 31, 2009 @ 4:22 am
I see some of the points that m&m is trying to make, but not this one:
Why is that? And how rude is it for your husband or whoever is providing for you so that you can spend time on volunteer work?
I am not sure it is nobler, just protects you from having to deal with the issues of negotiating a price.
My paid work is my passion. My salary helps compensate my family for the time I am away. It pays for a cleaning person, and towards retirement, and my daughter’s college, etc.
No way is my contribution “cheapened” because I am paid for it. My salary merely makes it possible for me to spend my time that way.
I was at home fulltime when my children were little, but now that they are older, of course I’ve returned to the workplace. Nowadays very few companies offer pensions that would allow a couple to retire comfortably (i.e. serve missions) on one income. Short-term, I loved the years at home and it was the best place for me. Long-term, workplace re-entry is essential.
BYU set a good example on enabling mothers, I thought. I received more than one scholarship for distance learning, and they were supportive about offering summer programs for moms and part-time scholarships.
Comment by Naismith — October 31, 2009 @ 7:24 am
Naismith ~ For all the time we’ve spent disagreeing, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your thoughts on this topic.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — October 31, 2009 @ 8:52 am
m&m 67 - it makes sense. That is great. I am interested in hearing more.
Comment by Stephanie — October 31, 2009 @ 9:58 am
I feel a lot better now m&m, I think we’re a whole lot closer than you realize.
Lisa mentions in her post that all the easy fixes have been implemented and I think she’s totally right. The government is not the only entity an activist could or should engage with. Maybe part of the answer is social security benefits, but the rest of the answer is exactly what you’re doing right now with the girls you’re mentoring.
Yes. Exactly. This is complicated stuff. We can’t exactly pass a law that says “every employer has to hire part time now.” This is where we’re trying to get a discussion going. What can we do for each other, for the women around us, for the women we’re raising, to better prepare them. Like I said before, it’s not all or nothing. It would require some more governmental support, but it would also require change in educational programs and employer expectations. Those would have to happen in other ways.
I think also that we miss something if we don’t look at other people’s experiences. Not everyone has the opportunity to go to college. And that makes an unbeLIEVably big difference. It’s not all just good choices and bootstrap pulling. Sure, there are some lucky and well-prepared women like in your family, but the norm is a different picture. I put myself through college and paid off the loans myself and I can tell you that I never could have done it that way if I had children.
Comment by Reese Dixon — October 31, 2009 @ 10:19 am
re: 65 Derek quotes: “Traditionally, society has rejected strong financial compensation for vocations associated with women (nursing and elementary teaching, for example). Why? Because the basis of those professions were about caring. People were expected to pursue those vocations out of care and love, not filthy lucre. To highly compensate those professions would cheapen them, make them mercenary, .”
Interesting. I do, actually get that. And, it helps explain why I get so riled over Wall Street executive compensation. I keep saying to myself “They do not reap, nor do they sow, so what’s with the
golden parachutes and mega-bonuses?
Clearly, most of us view parenthood and many of our volunteer activities as “Labors of Love”. And, clearly, so much of the “work” that makes society ‘good’ are labors of love. Whether it be Parenthood, RS, Habitat for Humanity projects, or after school programs, or meals on wheels or respite care for families of disabled children, or volunteer fire depts, without these efforts, we would be a poorer country. Sure we get enormous psychic compensation for these activities. Still, as Lisa points out, ya can’t eat psychic gratification. And so, I revisit the question posed in 57. “IS there a way to value labor that is other than monetary? If so, what might it be?”
Makes me think of Americorps and the GI bill - Programs that do not pay for the actually labor, but instead, recognizing the value to society of folks who are willing to take time for national service, they provide tuition assistance. Physicians who commit to work a few years in poorly served areas are forgiven some of the cost of their education.
So, what if, in addition to Social Security credits for Motherhood, we provide tuition free re-entry education or interest free loans too? We aren’t paying for babies, nor cheapening the effort. But we ARE recognizing the importance of that work to society by making it easier for women to choose those labors of love without them having to pay the enormous personal cost in financial insecurity currently associated with them?
Comment by Betty Jo — October 31, 2009 @ 10:55 am
Betty Jo! You are so freakin smart.
I think that job re-entry really is the key. And as you mentioned earlier, it would solve a lot more problems than just women sacrificing those early years of motherhood.
Comment by Reese Dixon — October 31, 2009 @ 11:05 am
m&m
You wrote– I think there are lots of creative solutions that could help women, too…e.g. in the corporate world,
I am a Blue collar flunkie, trying to grab all the overtime I can, so I can eat and pay the mortgage. My co-workers (parents trying to get by) are in the same situation. I find the corporate world is not amenable to creative solutions.
While I may not work in democracy, I live in one. The system does not enact changes on its own, but from ordinary citizens working with legislators on solutions.
The workplace protections I have, the education I have, the water I drink, the safety of the food I buy(and having spent years working in agricultural processing plants, be very, very thankful for food regulations) is thanks to people working for solutions with the government.
Before the Family Leave Act, I saw a guy fired because he had to go pick up his sick daughter from school. People refused time off to go their child’s school graduation. (and please don’t tell me it’s because sweeping a floor is a critical job skill)
The Family Leave Act didn’t somehow come into existence on its own, but from people who needed it in their lives and worked for it.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 31, 2009 @ 11:07 am
One major problem with part time splits is training. If it takes a year before an employee becomes valuable (because of the cost of training), then making an employer now wait two years for that break even point is a fairly big sacrifice. My husband’s work usually takes a year before someone in his position is able to do the job properly, without someone double checking their work all the time, which is why I am thinking along those lines. When I was working, we had many part time employees who never moved to the point where they actually contributed anything.
A problem with paying for motherhood/ fatherhood that I don’t think I saw addressed is what about the crappy parents? If the kid is going to be a more productive member of society if it is in daycare then with its parent then I want to provide for daycare, not parents. If government is paying for motherhood, what rules can it enforce (no tv, eating guidelines, preschool curriculum, spanking, no spanking, etc)? How about a yearly interview to make sure things are going well? If the kid becomes a drugged out pimp, can I get a refund?
Comment by Tami — October 31, 2009 @ 11:31 am
re: 73
I want to stress that those things I listed were society’s rationalizations for not adequately compensating those professions, not what I would consider valid justifications. As Nelson points out in her book, just because we do something meaningful and compassionate does not mean it does not deserve financial remuneration, nor does that remuneration cheapen the deed. I work as a librarian partly because I enjoy the fact that I am providing a service to the community. But I’m still paid. I’d strongly recommend people read Nelson’s book.
(and I’m totally with you on Wall Street compensation. In large part, these people have made piles of money just for shifting money around instead of providing anything meaningful to society)
Great ideas and suggestions, Betty Jo.
Comment by Derek — October 31, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Betty Jo, you’re brilliant! Keep the ideas coming! I also am one not comfortable with the government just paying all moms a stipend. But, I like solutions that create empowerment.
Comment by Stephanie — October 31, 2009 @ 11:50 am
re: 77. Yes Derek, I did get that. Just because work is good and
useful is no justification for not justly compensating it. Indeed, if I were ruler of the world, teachers, nurses, Moms, caregivers, fire fighters, organic farmers etc. would be at the TOP of heap when it came to compensation.
But your post it did lead me to the model of Service. I’ve been struggling to figure out how to get around the ‘paying for babies” thing, and national service support was, I thought, perhaps a useful model to use.
Comment by Betty Jo — October 31, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
For all the commentators who feel financial compensation for parenting somehow cheapens that activity, how do they feel about tithing?
Comment by barmy stoat — October 31, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
LOL @ barmy. You’re such a smart-ass.
Comment by Chandelle — October 31, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
re: 76. “One major problem with part time splits is training. If it takes a year before an employee becomes valuable (because of the cost of training), then making an employer now wait two years for that break even point is a fairly big sacrifice.”
It certainly would be. But it isn’t necessarily true that if it takes one full time employee a year to be fully productive, it would take 2 years for a part time worker to become so.
More to the point, A year of training prior to productivity is a really tough nut for any employer to handle. Back in the old days of Silicon Valley (when most of the valley was still acres of apricot orchards), companies like HP, Tymshare, Philco-Ford Aeronautics were confronted with the reality that they could not find in the labor pool, enough people with the skill sets they needed to grow their businesses. And, they didn’t WANT to be in the business of education. So they got together with the local community college faculties. They worked together to define additional curriculums that would provide them the talent pool they needed, then the companies FUNDED new teaching positions at the colleges. They also assigned some of their own training staff and classrooms to the community colleges for night classes (that’s how I learned FORTRAN).
If shared jobs or part time work are an important thing, then we just need to find creative ways to achieve them.
Comment by Betty Jo — October 31, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Protecting mothers from the burden of raising children, and seeing that each mother reaps the benefit which her labor has created, are two very different goals, Lisa, and probably at odds with each other. Not all mothers do bring a net benefit to society — and whether they do bring benefit to society is not necessarily in their control.
There are situations where society might not want to disuade potential mothers from conceiving or raising the children that they conceived. There are situations where society and the child would be better off it the child were given up for adoption.
On the other hand, I think your position is strong with the reap the rewards argument, particularly in the light of the injustices done to mothers by the Social Security system and by the job market which ignores a mother’s experience. It’s particularly grotesque that a woman actually loses what she did put into the Social Security system, when she stops working to raise children.
As for the job market — it’s kind of hard to get fired from being a mom. What sort of metric could be established to identify responsible stay-at-home moms and dads, i.e. the sort of person whose work is analogous to something that currently fills adequate space on a resume without actually providing skills pertinent to the job being sought?
Comment by Christian — October 31, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Why is that? And how rude is it for your husband or whoever is providing for you so that you can spend time on volunteer work?
Naismith, I didn’t explain myself well enough. That you get paid for your passion is awesome — I’m just pointing out that you don’t have to be paid to love what you do, or to have a current resume, etc. I’m trying to get some ‘non-traditional’ things on the table for discussion, not trying to reject those who may actually get paid for what they do outside of their parenting. (I joke w/ my hubby that maybe someday I will actually get paid for what I do.)
Reese…thanks for the response. I’ll write more later, except to say that I still personally like to brainstorm ideas that don’t depend on govt, because I don’t want women to have to wait for such programs to start being more empowered, more proactive, more educated (not just formally, but about the complexities of life). Not saying that govt options shouldn’t be on the brainstorming table, though.
Sorry again for my hasty earlier response — like I said, crazy weekend.
Comment by m&m — October 31, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
p.s. Naismith, I do nearly all my volunteering on my own time, after kids are in bed or while they are at school, fwiw, so my involvement is not reliant on others to help me. Not that hubby doesn’t here or there, but it’s mostly just me working around my own schedule. My sister does a lot of that too…esp now that kids are older.
Comment by m&m — October 31, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
I agree with Betty Jo, and would point out that accommodating part time workers would actually help employers recoup the costs of training workers by reducing worker turnover.
If my options are full-time work or nothing then I work up until I have my baby and quit. In this scenario that year of training was wasted on me. If I can come back part time, or telecommute then I’ll work full-time up until I have my baby, take a few months off and come back to work part time for a few years then increase my hours as my kids get older. That way the employer has retained an employee that they have already invested in.
In many ways refusing to accommodate willing mothers by providing flexible schedules is overlooking the long term investment in employee training and retention.
Comment by Starfoxy — October 31, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
Great point, Starfoxy.
Comment by Stephanie — October 31, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
In #81, Chandelle wrote:
I can’t deny my penchant for smart-ass-ness but I’m genuinely curious!
From my point of view, it seems weird to financially support one aspect of a community yet feel discomfort about financially support another aspect of the community… especially when one aspect has been traditionally perceived as a female role (mothering) and the other as male role (the Church organization/leadership) yet are both important and vital to the the community.
It makes me wonder if the devaluing of ‘female contribution’ is that internalised in the LDS world as to not see that disparity?
Comment by barmy stoat — November 1, 2009 @ 12:11 am
my computer was fritzing for a few days, so i’m about a zillion miles behind on all things internet and i can’t read all the comments lisa, but when i heard margaret’s comment during your introduction at counterpoint, it made me wonder if i didn’t know what Ms. meant. i started doubting myself, so i looked it up and got a bit of background from my good friend dictionary.com:
also, i am embarrassed to admit this, but here goes.
when i was younger i kind of thought that Ms. was a title that spinster women used to try to disguise the fact that they weren’t married (oh the shame!), but that we all knew meant they weren’t married. i probably got this idea because at school, all the older, single teachers went by Ms., but all the younger single teachers used Miss…so i thought it was a concession-to-spinsterhood title.
ironic, i know.
♥
Comment by blue — November 1, 2009 @ 12:37 am
Sure, there are some lucky and well-prepared women like in your family, but the norm is a different picture. I put myself through college and paid off the loans myself and I can tell you that I never could have done it that way if I had children.
Hm. This didn’t quite sit well with me. Luck? OK, so I understand that there are those born into situations where education isn’t valued, but then, to me, that is where things need to start — we need to help more young people understand why school matters, how the habits they develop at a young age can help them in their lives — help them start to dream and work toward goals so that they can gain confidence and WANT to be successful.
I think that programs will only go so far if the people who use them don’t have their own grit and determination. It takes hard work to survive and to thrive, to be strong and independent and self-sufficient and resourceful. I think for women it takes an amazing amount of vision, flexibility, creativity, and desire to tackle this tension.
That’s one side of my thoughts on this, and something I am deeply concerned about. I think there is a lack of education about education. (The focus on education is something I obviously appreciate about the Church — to me, there is lots to learn about how the Church approaches these things.)
I’ll start another comment on other more practical thoughts.
Comment by m&m — November 1, 2009 @ 1:47 am
I’ll tell you some of the things I’m working on and thinking about in one of my volunteer positions that I think may be relevant to these issues being discussed here.
No, nevermind. The comment got too long. I may just post something on my blog. Gotta go to bed.
I’ll just add one quickie, though…Betty Jo talked of companies teaching classes. Internships are also a great way to push training back, give students experience while they are in school, and give companies opportunity to test the waters on potential employees w/ less cost and little to no risk or commitment. (Anyone work for a company that wants to consider internships? Email me — I’m working on a possible internship fair as we speak.
)
Comment by m&m — November 1, 2009 @ 2:57 am
The thing is, there is an opportunity cost to everything. Someone is paying for you to be fed and housed, and for the computer you are using.
The time you spend on volunteer work is taking away from time that you could be doing work for your family and home–sewing, canning, whatever. So absolutely, whoever is paying for the house, computer, etc. is allowing you to do that.
Perhaps you and your spouse have agreed that you will spend some of your time that way. Surely. But that’s a whole ‘nother issue.
I don’t understand the insistence that thinking about these real economic issues is somehow a nobler, higher approach.
No, we just agree. You were clear that you DON’T want to be paid for your volunteer work. I don’t have a problem with it. We can disagree. Don’t try to sweet-talk your way out of the disagreement. It doesn’t mean any of us are wrong, we just disagree.
Comment by Naismith — November 1, 2009 @ 10:21 am
Wow, I had a negative problem with that above. I meant to say, NOT thinking about the economics, and “we just DISagree.”
Comment by Naismith — November 1, 2009 @ 11:40 am
So, here’s a question. It seems we agree that family values are important, we know that our small children are dependent and need help. We’re grateful for and feel so blessed to have,
and applaud(as well we should), those husbands/fathers/partners who share these beliefs and do their best to take an active part in their families support and their children’s rearing. We agree that gender role flexibility that welcomes stay home Dad’s as well as working Moms is a really good thing. We think facilitating re-entry into the work force is quite critical for all citizens, most especially in these hard times. Perhaps we agree that Social Security Credits for child rearing years would help save elderly women from homelessness as a cost of being a stay home Mom in her youth.
What do we think about Child Support after divorce? Do we find enforcement of such court orders serious in our communities? For it seems to me there are a lot of single Moms struggling even harder
because their former spouse is a scofflaw with respect to child support responsibilities. And, they are,of course, totally unable to afford to visit Family Court about it. What about those divorced Dad’s who were diligent about supporting their kids after divorce, but now get an Unemployment Insurance check if they’re lucky? Do unemployment benefits recognize legal obligations such as child support? And if they do, what about the guys out there who could pay something for the kids while working, but can’t keep gas in his car for lookin for work on Unemployment and can do no more than shake his head about child support?
I don’t know but I’m betting that a lot of county governments are feeling the financial pinch and are setting off their court ordered child support enforcement activities with an “Oh well…”
What’s to be done about this? T’is a challenging quandary, but important it seems to Lisa’s cocern about Poverty and Motherhood.
Comment by Betty Jo — November 1, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
m&m, I stand behind “luck.”
That doesn’t need to denigrate any very real work and sacrifice, but it’s just plain wrong to think that desire and work is enough to achieve education.
Being able to go to college is largely an accident of birth. As I’ve written elsewhere, my family was very much against higher education and I put myself through entirely. I’m absolutely a “self-made woman,” but even in my case I had advantages that I could not have been successful without.
Being LDS and having access to the low tuition of BYU, for example. Speaking English as a first language. Having just enough support as a child to get enough of an education to qualify for academic programs. Having access to a couple people who were knowledgeable enough about the college process to help me navigate admission and financial aid. Lucking into some good job opportunities to support myself along the way. Living close enough to a good community college system that I could participate without having to relocate.
So yeah, luck. Tons of hard work and sacrifice, but also luck. And we have to acknowledge the luck part of it so we can actually make things easier for other people who aren’t so lucky.
Comment by Reese Dixon — November 1, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
haha…I put this comment on the wrong thread last nite.
A few more thoughts as I run off to bed….
I think educational institutions can consider more family-friendly arrangements — more night classes, free or low-cost child care, child-friendly facilities, etc.
I think, too, it’s important to help men understand the importance of helping support the women in their lives and the pursuit of education. My friends who have been able to do children *and* education have been not only extraordinarily driven and creative (like one friend taking Master degree classes during nap times only (she was great w/ schedules) w/ four children…or my sister doing one class at a time while having her first four), but also have had hubbies who have helped while mom goes to class or gets work hours in.
I also still hear too many stories about young men somehow thinking that women don’t belong in non-traditional fields. Let’s help both men and women think outside of that bad box.
I am aiming in my realm to get more info fairs about non-traditional fields and how women can put those on the table — I think sometimes women end up choosing the ‘caring’ careers not because that is what they necessarily *want* to do, but because it seems more womanish, more consistent w/ family roles, etc. There is so much ability and so much opportunity for other things, if women are interested. And I think there is more flexibility than some people might think…again, with some creativity.
As a business person, I’m also big on getting women to consider how their passions could be translated into home business ideas. There is already govt support for women entrepreneurs that exists out there….
Comment by m&m — November 2, 2009 @ 12:44 am
I don’t understand the insistence that thinking about these real economic issues is somehow a nobler, higher approach…. Don’t try to sweet-talk your way out of the disagreement.
Naismith,
You make it sound like I don’t care about the economic issues, which isn’t true. Part of my volunteer work is exactly for the purpose of helping others become economically self-reliant. Just because I don’t need to be paid doesn’t mean that I don’t care about others being paid, or that I somehow think that my volunteer work is more important than what you or others may do for pay. I think I have a bit more flexibility and less expectation w/ what I do, and that’s a plus, but you had better believe that there are some days when I think it would be nice to be paid for what I do.
That said, I DO like not working for pay because it works for my life right now. W/ chronic illness, working for someone, being paid and bound ethically to work a certain amount would not work for me. I also feel some flexibility and ability to get involved in different ways in organizations that perhaps those working for pay cannot. It takes all kinds of people to make the world work.
But still, as I volunteer — and this is a main point I’m trying to make — I keep my business education/background and my network alive and active and used, and that is exciting to me. I don’t see my volunteer work as all altruism; some of it is still about my own well-being in the case I had to work, which could happen to me as much as it could happen to anyone. I believe in being prepared and being enabled to provide if I needed to. And again, I think it’s important for women to realize that there are many ways to have a skill set that is marketable — it doesn’t have to be for pay if that money is not a current need. If a woman loves what she does ‘on the side’ and gets paid, great. That’s, of course, a viable option as well. I realize that in our culture sometimes work for pay by women is looked down upon — that is not what I want to communicate w/ my comments, ok? It wouldn’t work for me, but it’s clear that it works for you and that’s great.
But in a sense, that is all beside the point. Let me just say again that I care deeply about women being able to be prepared and confident and thinking about how they could support themselves if need be.
Comment by m&m — November 2, 2009 @ 1:14 am
OK, Reese, I see what you are saying. But I also see that not just as the luck of the draw, but as a huge responsibility.
As I have thought about this, I have felt that a solution that needs to be considered — which gets back to the PEF kind of model — is for those who have had opportunity, luck, or whatever you want to call it — would be those who could help give back and give opportunity to others. Individuals can sponsor scholarships and/or individual educational pursuits. Corporations could give back to communities where people are less privileged to enable education. Educational institutions could offer reduced-price distance-learning programs for those who aren’t close to a college, or to those who don’t have resources. I would rather see this coming from the community than from the govt — in part because of our huge debt, but also because I think the closer programs get to the people — and are run by the people — the better. Maybe more non-profits, which already encourage and harness tax benefits for donors. ??
Just brainstorming here.
Reese, what do you think would bring more opportunity to those who weren’t born into ‘lucky’ situations?
Comment by m&m — November 2, 2009 @ 1:21 am
I think we’re right on the same page here m&m. I think our only difference is the age old politically philosophical difference of private vs. public sector.
I think both should be engaged to really be productive. Obviously charities aren’t cutting it on their own, but as much as the democrat in me loves government solutions, I don’t think it would be as malleable as it would always need to be either. I think this is a multi-faceted problem that needs a multi-faceted solution.
I think more distance learning is fantastic, I think that specialized programs for job re-entry would be great, I think everything Betty Jo suggested would work,
I think it would also be important to pressure - how I don’t really know - companies or career tracks who are inflexible about hours. I have many issues with Kaiser, but one thing that I love is that a bunch of my doctors work part time. They limit their patient load so I never have trouble getting an appointment, but they make it so I have access to these brilliant, dedicated, invested women who historically would never have been able to practice medicine in this manner. Until extremely recently being a doctor was an all or nothing career that discouraged women from participating. There seem to be new opportunities here, now we need more in law, in education, and even in regular old office work.
Comment by Reese Dixon — November 2, 2009 @ 2:03 am
think this is a multi-faceted problem that needs a multi-faceted solution.
I agree.
I have a friend who does research in this area. I am going to talk to him soon to pick his brain about any new ideas that are working out there. I think there are companies who could lead out and be more vocal about providing more family-friendly policies and approaches. I am not sure all of this is about finding new solutions, but about getting more people excited about and catching the vision of solutions that have already worked.
Will check back in when/if I reach my friend.
Comment by m&m — November 2, 2009 @ 2:14 am
Chandelle- most people cannot support themselves on PT wages (even with both partners working PT), especially since most PT jobs do not offer health insurance or retirement benefits. Its a nice pipe dream, but unfortunately not realistic for most people.
Comment by anon — November 3, 2009 @ 12:04 am
. . . until it IS a possibility because the system changes. Like insurance and retirement benefits not being tied to the job but accessible to individuals.
Comment by Stephanie — November 3, 2009 @ 12:11 am
anon, many ESP families work less than full-time, but that doesn’t necessarily mean part-time - there is a medium. It depends on the job, individual, and family. I wouldn’t consider it a “pipe dream” - more like an ideal that requires lots of little ratcheting changes as well as massive choices. For example, my partner chose to teach grade school in part so he’d be finished with school when our kids are. Though he works less than 40 hours a week, he receives the benefits and coverage of a “full-time” position. Of course, he also gets summers off, so we won’t even need daycare for our kids during those months, which will save money and encourage family closeness. Not everybody gets to make such succinct choices, but still, plenty of families work it out - and I definitely believe that it’s worth the effort, sacrifice, and commitment.
Here are some stories of other families who are making it work.
This lifestyle requires extreme flexibility and LOADS of compromise. I prefer to think of it as a process rather than a goal.
Comment by Chandelle — November 4, 2009 @ 12:28 am