Your (Wo)man in Washington®

White House Reassures Women's Advocates

2011-06-08T15:12:00.007-04:00

Half a dozen senior White House staff met recently with representatives of about a dozen women's advocacy groups, including Your (Wo)Man in Washington on behalf of NAMC/MOTHERS, to discuss the process of crafting the federal budget. We had sent the President and Vice President a letter objecting to the total lack of any visible female participation in these critical negotiations. Our concern is driven by the fact that women, more than men, rely on public services now hanging in the balance, and women, more than men, are unemployed when publc sector jobs are slashed. As we made clear, the face of this recession is a woman's face. The federal response will affect women more deeply. Addressing and solving these challenges cannot be accomplished by consulting only half the team.

Gene Sperling, Tina Tchen, Bruce Reed, Jack Lew, and other senior staff made it clear that, while those speaking to the press and publicly engaging on the issue were men, behind closed doors Stephanie Cutter (Assistant to the President), Nancy Ann De Parle (Deputy White House Chief of Staff), and Valerie Jarrett (Senior Advisor to the President) were deeply involved. Welcome news, certainly, but if they are involved, then they ought to be seen to be involved. Women bring a much needed (and often omitted) perspective to policy discussions, and the performance of team decision-making is improved by the inclusion of women, as a recent study of collective intelligence demonstrates. The contributions of women at all levels of society tend to be invisible. Care should be taken that their participation at the highest levels be readily apparent.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Unemployment Among Husbands and Wives

2011-05-20T10:34:00.005-04:00

Does it make a difference whether it is the husband or the wife who is unemployed?

Most definitely, says Heather Boushey, feminist economist extraordinaire here in Washington DC. It affects how much money comes into the home, and suggests that action is needed to close the gap between men's and women's earnings. Heather's recent report, Not Working; Unemployment Among Married Couples shows why. I hit the highlights below.

Of all dual earner couples in 2010, 64% have managed to keep both partners in the paid labor force. This number has fallen about 6% since the onset of the Great Recession. As women, and especially mothers, entered the labor market, their income has become an increasingly larger share of total household income, topping off at 47% in 2009. In the typical recession, wives lose jobs more often than husbands. However, the Great Recession has pushed more men into unemployment, so wives' wages are more often the only wages coming home. This highlights the damage caused by gender-based pay disparity, as more familes are depending solely on the mother's income, which statistically is only 77% of the father's. Her income just doesn't go as far as his. The recession shows that pay discrimination unjustly deprives all family members,not just the wife and mother.

The Great Recession also has placed older workers in a dire situation. Amongst older couples, aged 55 to 64, husbands are 42% more likely than wives to be unemployed. This age group is the least likely to find re-employment, so years without income may be in store. If they do return to the workforce, many will earn significantly less than they did before. Social Security benefits are based on the amont of earnings over a 35 year time period. If the (typically) higher earner is unemployed,or subsequently under-employed, that benefit available when the age of eligibility is reached will be decreased. Wives' benefits will fall too, because many draw a spousal benefit, calculated on the husbands' earnings, often bigger than their own, considering their lower wages overall and fewer years of employment, usually due to family caregiving obligations. In addtion to a smaller Social Security check, home values and the stock market have both declined, so savings are way off their maximum value. If the budget is balanced and the deficit reduced by slashing Social Security, older couples will find economic security even more precarious.

So, not only do we have a bad situation on our hands, Congressional action could be making it much, much worse now, later, and throughout the "golden years" of many hardworking people.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Missing: The American Middle Class

2011-05-16T13:29:00.004-04:00

Do you understand how come it got so bad for so many households these days? I've been looking at "The American Middle Class Under Stress" report by Sherle R. Schewenninger and Samuel Sherraden of the New America Foundation. It probably won't make you feel any better, or suddenly fill up your bank account, but sometimes understanding a situation can make it a bit more bearable. Here's the skinny, in just three short paragraphs!

Right now, even though the recession is technically over, unemployment remains unusually high. The rate at which jobs are opening up is agonizingly slow. In addition, middle class jobs have disappeared, and most of the new jobs are low wage jobs that don't require advanced training or education. Many who are at work now are more educated than their job requires. While not unemployed, they are viewed as "under-employed" and are earning less than they would if workers' abilities matched job requirements.

Pre-dating the current employment mismatch between supply and demand, workers were in an increasingly precarious position because wages have remained flat for decades. To the extent that household incomes went up, they did so primarily because women entered the workforce and brought home a second paycheck. While wages were static, the cost of health care continued a sharp upward rise, and the cost of living increased, squeezing incomes across the country. Many people simply stopped paying the exorbitant premiums for health insurance, which went up astonishinly fast. About 50 million Americans now have no health insurance coverage.

To top off these two factors, the value of home ownership has fallen right off the cliff, taking trillions of savings dollars with it. Before the bubble burst, Americans would sell their homes and live off the proceeds in retirement. Falling home values mean that source of savings has shrunk, and retirees have far less to support themselves than they anticipated. As a consequence, Social Security benefits make up a greater share of income for more seniors. For decades the most economically efficient government program, and the most successful at keeping millions of people out of poverty, gutting Social Security is now seen by some as the ticket to deficit reduction. Others are understandably alarmed by this approach, as it would push millions of people into poverty.

Okay, maybe you don't feel any better. But at least you know.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

You’re Taking Care of Others, But Who’s Taking Care of You?!

2011-05-09T13:46:00.005-04:00

Lara Hinz, my friend, colleague and Director of Programs at the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER) has penned this guest post. She raises a very important point - while we have our hands full taking care of others, our own future well-being is likely falling by the wayside. WISER aims to change that and Lara has some pointers for you.

Caregiving is a common theme in many women’s lives. As young girls and teenagers we may have helped take care of grandma, or perhaps we were babysitters for our younger siblings or other kids in the neighborhood. Many women become mothers, and then eventually, as family members age, the caregiving role for all women often expands to include parents, grandparents and older relatives. And like it or not, it is still typically women who shoulder the load of these caregiving responsibilities.

When it comes to caring for someone, women often put themselves at the bottom of that list. It is hard to juggle it all, but it is important for women to realize that this comes at a cost. Even beyond their experience as caregivers, women’s needs differ greatly from men at most stages of their lives. This is especially true when it comes to finances. Women on average earn less, spend more years out of the labor market, and live longer than men. While many women are involved in their family’s day-to-day finances, far fewer are engaged in the long-term financial planning; things such as investments, insurance, retirement plans, etc. Yet it is women who will most likely spend more years widowed or single in their later years. Don’t be lulled into a false sense of security either; many women who were not poor during their working years or years spent raising a family have ended up poor and struggling in retirement. It’s not a pleasant thought, but it is a real possibility that we all must face.

The good news is that you don’t have to be a financial genius or spend hours poring over investment books and magazines to get yourself on the right track; a little bit of education and action can go a long way. Once you get started, it is easy to keep building on the steps you take to prepare yourself for a secure financial future. But you have to start…now!

The Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER) is here to help. WISER is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to improve the long-term financial security for all women through education and advocacy. For the past 15 years, WISER has been giving women the information they need at every age and every stage of life so they can take action to protect themselves in retirement. In addition to caregiving, we focus on a variety of financial issues related to saving, investing, Social Security, healthcare, divorce, and widowhood.

WISER’s booklet, Financial Steps for Caregivers takes you step-by-step through understanding the financial risks of caregiving so that you can make informed financial decisions. The guide also includes tools and other resources for managing your money and caring for yourself while caring for others.

Another great resource available at WISER’s website (www.wiserwomen.org) includes What Today’s Woman Needs to Know and Do: The New Retirement Journey. This booklet explains how today’s woman will most likely experience a retirement that is vastly different from that of her mother’s generation. It provides valuable information on everything from Social Security and investment basics, to annuities and life insurance. In addition, there is a retirement planning checklist for every decade of your life.

For most women, there is little room for error, and being financially unprepared for the last nearly third of their lives will have consequences. Women need to know what their risks are and make moderating those risks a priority throughout their lives. So while caring for others, take some time to care for yourself—it’s well worth it, and you deserve it!

If you want to follow up, you can reach Lara at lhinz@wiserwomen.org

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

The 2011 Mothers Index - US Ranks #31

2011-05-09T08:58:00.006-04:00

For the 12th year in a row, international non-profit Save the Children ranks the well-being of mothers and children in over 160 countries around the world. With Mother's Day in the US fresh on our minds, this timely report reveals what women need to raise their children, and the direct link between women's status and the health and welfare of children.

The highest ranking countries have many things in commmon. Men and women earn nearly equal wages. Women are heavily involved in government and public policy. Education is accessible and affordable and mothers have many years of formal schooling. Women's life spans are longer, and when they give birth they are attended by qualified medical personnel. They are unlikely to die in childbirth or from a pregnancy-related condition. The highest ranked countries this year are found in Europe, with Australia and New Zealand also in the top 10. Norways is number 1, followed by Australia, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. The US ranks 31st. The country in last place, where maternal conditions are the most dire, is Afghanistan.

The contrast between mothering in the top tier countries and those on the bottom is vast. Mothers' needs do not vary much, but how these needs are met in different places explains much about the state of the world today. In Norway, every mother giving birth will do so with medical assistance. In Afghanistan, only 14% of women have that help. The average lifespan for a Norwegian woman is 83, and the average number of years of formal education is 18. The use of contraception is widespread and children rarely die under 5 years old. However, an Afghani woman will die before she turns 45, with only 5 years of schooling. Only 16% use modern contraception and 1 child out of 5 dies before five years old.

The disappointing showing of the US is due to many factors. One out of every 2000 US women will die from a pregnancy-related cause. Ireland, Italy, and Greece do a much better job of keeping pregnant women alive. In fact, the maternal mortality rate is 15 times better in Greece, with only 1 woman out of 31,800 dying due to pregnancy or childbirth. Acess to healthcare, obviously, is the primary reason for the discrepancy. Our child mortality rate is higher too, with 8 out of 1,000 children dying before their 5th birthay. Young children in Singapore, Latvia, Slovenia, and Luxembourg and 35 other countries have a better chance than they do here. We have fewer children, percentage-wise, enrolled in pre-school, fewer women in politics, no nationally guaranteed paid maternity leave policy, and a greater gap between men's and women's income. Mothers, and indeed women, are better off in many other countries.

To move up the list, the US could start by focusing on women's economic and political participation. If more women filled state and federal public office, local and federal policies would begin to reflect the needs and desires of other demographic groups besides white men. Political power and economic equality will move hand in hand, minimizing the gender-based pay gap. Mothers must have access to health care at all points in their reproductive lives, and be able to secure it for their children as well. The only indicators where the US currently shines are women's life expectancy (82) and years of formal education (17). That leaves an awful lot of room for improvement. As the single remaining super-power and the most promising modern democracy to date, we cannot hope to fulfill our goals and ambitions by neglecting the very people upon whom our success depends.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Recession Update: Women Left Out of Recovery

2011-05-04T13:39:00.005-04:00

As we limp along in what passes for an economic "recovery", the numbers show that the barely discernible uptick in employment is benefitting only half the workforce. Men's employment has begun to increase in recent months, but women have continued to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in that time. The story of the "mancession" has turned out to be premature and overblown, and is now seriously outdated.

Aside from the interplay between the recession, unemployment and gender, one thing hasn't changed. Women with children consistenly earn less than other women and men who are fathers. Womens Enews compares employment data for men and women in "'Mancession' Focus Masks Women's Real Losses", and reaches a depressing conclusion: "Recession or no, when a woman has children, the difference between male and female wages turns into a chasm."

The article states that in the early days of the current recession, men's levels of unemployment rose sharper and faster than women's because the manufacturing and construction sectors were the first ones hit. After decades of women entering the workforce and a concerted effort in non-traditional job training, these sectors are still mostly male. Employed women seemed somewhat insulated in the early stages of the turndown. Their jobs remain largely in the health, education, and service sectors, which were less affected at first. This discrepancy lay at the foundation of the "mancession" stories that flooded the media. Now, however, the story line has shifted, but the mainstream news outlets seem to have lost interest.

Women will be the long-term losers in the recession. The jobs women held on to were generally lower paid and likely lacking benefits. As the recession dug deeper, women's unemployment rate started climbing as falling tax revenue required state and local governments to cut back on spending. As women make up the majority of those performing public sector jobs, and those depending on state services, many families found the mother out of work just as sources of public support dried up, a double whammy of a setback.

So, the "mancession" stories become obsolete and turn out to be an unusual blip on the economic radar. What remains is gender-based pay inequality, and the unavoidable truth that in this country, the "mommy tax" persists in good times and bad, no matter what job sector is hurt first or recovers fastest.

Happy Mother's Day.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

The Care Crisis: Unpaid Leave is No Leave At All

2011-04-18T08:38:00.003-04:00

Unlike the rest of the world, the US does not guarantee mothers and fathers paid time off from work when a baby is born or child adopted. This comes as a total shock and surprise to many. Some people, especially professionals and those at large companies, will be offered a certain number of weeks with some pay. However, this benefit is entirely at the employer's discretion. The US Congress did pass the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in 1993, but it only applies to certain employees and under certain conditions, and about half the private sector workforce is not eligible. More importantly, even for those workers who do qualify, the leave is not paid. The percentage of workers who need family leave but forego it in favor of a regular paycheck is, by some estimates, as high as 78%.

Low income workers (those in households earning less than $20,000 per year) are the least likely to find their employer offers paid family leave. Increasing the burden, less than 40% of low income workers are eligible for even the unpaid FMLA leave. In comparison, about 70% of families making $20,000 or more could be eligible, if they can afford to miss their paycheck.

The group least likely to afford unpaid leave is single, low-income mothers. After the FMLA was enacted, married women and women with college degrees took family leave in increasing numbers. Single mothers, and those with less education, have not increased the leave they take in the past 20 years. Obviously, it's not because they don't need it. They don't take it because they can't afford to miss a paycheck, and they won't get paid if they don't work. As a result, new parents, or workers recovering from a long-term illness, or looking after a recovering family member, will go to work no matter how badly they may be needed at home.

It's no mystery why we in the US find ourselves drowning in a "crisis of care". Without paid family leave and paid sick days. family members simply can't afford to care for each other when they are sick. With millions lacking health insurance, home health aides and nurses don't visit those who need them. The burden falls on family members, generally women, who already provide billions of dollars worth of unpaid caregiving services to partners, parents, and disabled or dependent family members. Add this to our inadequate child care, or lack of access to any formal care at all, which propels millions of children into substandard environments throughout their most crucial years of brain and emotional development. If we can put a man on the moon, you'd think we could adequately take care of the children, elderly, disabled and chronically ill in this country.

You'd think.

For more about the dismal state of paid leave in the US, here and here are two excellent short papers from the New America Foundation.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Why the GDP Won't Work for Women

2011-04-07T13:44:00.009-04:00

You probably know that GDP stands for gross domestic product and is used as a measure of the value of all goods and services produced in the national economy. Economists and elected officials are happy when GDP is up, and headlines are dire if GDP trends downward or is flat. Generally speaking, the assumption is that a growing economy and rising GDP means plenty of everything for everybody. If you are a woman, a mother or other family caregiver, you should beware of the GDP. It certainly doesn't account for the unpaid carework you are doing, and you may well be struggling in spite of a robust GDP. At long last, social scientists, women's policy advocates and world leaders are starting to take notice. Some are even taking action.

The first thing to remember is that the GDP counts positively any market transaction, even if it is harmful. For example, the sale of cigarettes is reflected in the GDP as a positive transaction. So is the medical care consumed by those suffering from tobacco-related illnesses, such as cancer, respiratory diseases, and perhaps death. Production of goods increases the GDP even if forests are leveled, rivers poisoned, or habitats lost. Remember when the reports of the disaster in Japan included the assertion that the hurricane and tsunami would result in an economic boost in new construction and expenditures in recovery costs? Did it strike you that that was an odd way to look at an event that killed upwards of 25,000 people, wiped out entire villages, towns, businesses, orphaned tens of thousands of children, and caused incalculable heartbreak and suffering? That is the perversity of the GDP.

The second thing to keep in mind is that a rising GDP would only represent more of everything for everybody if everyone shared equally in economic growth. You know that that is not now and never has been true. Income inequality, the gap between the poor and the wealthy, is wider now than at any time after World War II. In fact, graphic representations of income distribution look like a barbell, with lots of people with not much on one end, and fewer people with a great deal on the other. Consider that in 2007 the top 10% of US earners took home nearly 50% of all wages earned. In the past 5 years the top 1% of incomes got fully two thirds of all economic growth. Flipping the perspective, the bottom 90% of US households compete for about 27% of American wealth. So, the GDP can rise, and economic indicators can show a wealthier economy, but most people will see no discernible difference in the family checkbook. In recent decades, the GDP grew nicely, yet middle income earners saw their wages stagnate, and lower income earners actually saw theirs decrease. High wage earners alone reaped the gains.

Around the world and in the U.S., women spend twice as much time as men on unpaid work, in the home, with children or other dependent family members, and making their communities richer and better places. These transactions, which would cost billions on the open market, simply never appear on any public balance sheet. Caring for others, tending our small corners of the natural world, lending our energy to a neighborhood or community project, are the very building blocks in our social structure and economic interaction. Yet these interactions are totally invisible in any economic measure of human activity. What enhances our well-being and promotes the realization of our potential, as individuals and collectively, escapes the GDP calculation. Economic success and the quality of our lives are not the same thing. The GDP is inadequate, incomplete, and unreliable as a gauge of national productivity. It over-represents market activity, and under-represents everything else. It fails to account for the unpaid work of producing functional human beings and sustaining the ill, elderly or disabled. In other words, the GDP fails to account for what women do. As a result, women suffer disproportionate political and economic poverty, and inequitable opportunity.

And that's why the GDP won't work for women.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

P.S. If you want to learn more painlessly about income inequality, here are two articles, one from Mother Jones and another from the Huffington Post.

March in the Rear View Mirror

2011-03-31T13:25:00.009-04:00

Women's History Month is drawing to a close, but there's time to sneak in a few comments before we wake up and find it's April already.

In recent weeks, two notable women have died. Elizabeth Taylor left as her legacy decades of activism and outspoken advocacy, saying what many in politics were too afraid to say about HIV/AIDS. Geraldine Ferraro left a marker for women's political participation. For many, her passing provokes dismay and despair that a woman still has not been elected President. Both of them made us see the world differently, as a better, healthier, more equitable place.

The budget battles on the Hill, alas, are totally lacking in that spirit of promise and possibility. While many are without work, health care, and dignity, banks and corporate interests are once again profitable, some paying employees jaw-dropping bonuses. They are in this position because the American taxpayer, through Congress, helped them through a very rough time. Instead of returning the favor, some in Congress propose a budget in which public funding for nutrition, medical care, education, and child care is gutted. They are coming after Social Security too, targeting retirees, surviving spouses and orphans. It is not much of a stretch to say that political and economic security belongs to a few, and being paid for by many who watch as state services are diminished, state workers laid off, classrooms get more crowded, food and child care subsidies disappear, and community medical clinics are closed. Mothers, especially those mothers parenting alone, have a great deal to worry about, on top of the chronic crises of no sick days, no paid family leave, totally inadquate representation in state and federal government, and a 25% gender pay gap.

Against this bleak picture, is there anything to be cheerful about? I think so. I've noticed a definite uptick in the amount of media attention devoted to work/family and mothering issues. Articles that even 5 years ago editors would have nixed due to "lack of general interest" now are deemed worthy of publication. Look at this piece from the Boston Globe about the havoc created by a sick child home from school when both parents are employed outside the home. It references the recent ground-breaking White House "Women in America" report, and frankly acknowledges the cultural pressure for the mother to stay home, and the accompanying potential damage to her career prospects once she does. The American Prospect, a progressive policy periodical, recently featured "The Student Parent Trap" about how inadequate on-campus child care threatens the success of 25% of undergraduates who are parents of young children. The Wall Street Journal regularly devotes column inches to maternal employment online and in its print edition, where you can find such terms as "mommy track" (which, personally I loathe), how the term "stay at home mother" covers an evolving range of activities, and "tiger moms" and "panda dads". The point here is not whether the view of a particular piece is right or wrong, (whatever that would mean), but now the subject is broached for purposes of public discussion. This did not used to be the case. Now it is, and that is progress.

About 71% of mothers with young children are in the paid workforce. The debate about whether or not they should be there is largely over (except, perhaps, for Phyllis Schlafly, 86, who sounds positively quaint in this recent radio interview.) The debate about how both families and the workplace will change is well underway. And finally, editors and programmers around the country have begun to notice.

What have you found in your paper, read on the web or heard on your radio about mothers this week? Send it to me, I'd really like to know.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

The Mother/Scholar and On-Campus Child Care

2011-03-27T21:34:00.009-04:00

A young mother wrote me some time ago asking if there were any Mothers’ Centers on college campuses. She wanted to connect with students who were also raising children, facing coursework and degree requirements at the same time. I regrettably had to say no, not yet. I had no idea how many student/parents there were, or how much support they needed, until I attended a briefing this week to usher in a new report, Improving Child Care Access to Promote Postsecondary Success Among Low-Income Parents. Produced by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the Student Parent Success Initiative, the report gathers information for the first time ever about the number of undergrads at 2 and 4 year postsecondary schools who have children, and how many of those schools offer on-campus child care. Among the surprising things I learned:

Nearly one-quarter of US undergraduates, or 3.9 million, are parents, half of them raising their children alone.

Student/parents are more likely to be working full-time while enrolled, and the schools they attend have no idea that they are parents because parental status is not tracked.

They disproportionately come from low income or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds, and are the first in their families to pursue education beyond high school.

More student/parents are mothers, whether single or married. Student/parents have a higher dropout rate, at 50%, than the general undergraduate population, at 31%.

The majority of student/parents attend community college or private, for-profit schools, which ironically are the least likely to offer on-site child care.

Four year public universities are the most likely to offer it, however, the recession’s impact on state budgets has made many public universities have reduced their costs accordingly, many closing on-site child care in recent years.

There has been a “crisis of care” in the US for many years now, as access to affordable, quality care is severely limited across all income and educational levels. The situation on campus is even worse. A scant 17% of post-secondary institutions offer child care. Only 5% of children who need on-campus care currently have it, yet access to child care is the most crucial factor when it comes to a student/parent actually graduating. Education continues to be the primary path to economic security, yet a lack of child care can derail even the most committed student. There is no question that the educational status of the mother is closely tied to the welfare of her child. If we want stable and secure families, an optimal workforce, and a strong economy, removing the roadblocks between parents and higher education is what we must do.

Today’s student population is more diverse than ever before, yet the education system hasn’t changed at the same rate. Funds for tuition are harder to come by, as personal savings have withered and public resources dried up. Students commonly work, and those who are parents need child care that allows them to do both. Class schedules may not mesh with business hours for student employment or child care centers. Additionally, grants to both institutions and students often limit their use to education only, or severely restrict the portion that may be dedicated to child care. Harmonizing the need for accessible, high quality child care at academic institutions means more graduates, greater economic security, and a better workforce and stronger national economy. It benefits families and communities. Millions of children are spending millions of hours in the care of adults besides their parents. This could be a tremendous opportunity to prepare them for their own primary education, as well as offer support and resources to their parents.

The Icing or The Cake?

2011-03-22T16:12:00.007-04:00

Opponents of paid family leave object to its expense and its tedious implementation. They may grudgingly agree that yeah, it would be nice, but insist we just can't afford it. This argument has been made so loudly for so long it has lodged into the public consciousness. Paid family leave is seen as a perk, a benefit, something extra that some lucky professionals at the upper reaches of the income scale may get, but nothing that a typical worker has a right to. Surprisingly, this really is a minority view, as most countries around the globe, and certainly all advanced, industrialized countries, provide paid parental leave as a matter of course when a baby is born or adopted.

Human Rights Watch, a global charity protecting and advocating for the exploited and oppressed, recently published a lengthy report laying out the serious consequences for the United States of failing to provide workers with the means to effectively care for family members while earning a living. According to blogger Cali Yost of The Custom Fit Workplace, without paid leave: mothers breastfeed for a shorter time, adversely affecting their own health and that of their infants. They are more likely to experience post-partum depression. Their children either don't get their immunizations, or they get them later than recommended. If parents take leave with no pay, they are more likely to go into debt or seek public assistance. Further, without a paid family leave policy, employers are more likely to discriminate against parents with young children, particularly women, or anyone with a family caregiving obligation, undercutting careers, income potential, and professional achievement.

The larger American society is also impacted. Health care costs increase. Re-training and turnover push up the price of doing business. Productivity is blunted. Considering that women do more family carework, and that women are now better trained and educated than men, the failure to establish a national paid leave policy drags down our global competitiveness at a time when international competition intensifies before our very eyes.

At what point does paid family leave move from being a luxury within the reach of a handful to a universal basic minimum labor requirement, like the 40 hour work week, or a safe and healthy workplace, or a prohibition against child labor? Perhaps at the point when its absence imperils the health of our children. Perhaps at the point when the US struggles to maintain its global economic supremacy. Perhaps when its absence leads straight to economic dependence. Perhaps when it pushes millions of households to lose/lose decisions, like do I hold onto my job or lose my income to ... breastfeed my 10 week old baby?...care for my seriously ill father?...move my partner into an alzheimer's facility? Perhaps, at that point, it becomes a violation of human rights. At least the vast majority of the world's nations have found it so. But not the United States.

To find out more read Cali Yost's piece on the report or the report from Human Rights Watch itself.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Working Mother Guilt

2011-03-14T11:27:00.003-04:00

Work, guilt, stress. Why does this afflict women more than men? One study says it's because women are more likely to be the family caregiver, and they absorb the stress of those around them, and yet feel compelled to respond to every email, phone call, or message from work. The authors of this Canadian study conclude that women worry they will look less committed to work if they don't maintain contact when out of the office.

Why are we so willing to put our peace of mind in the hands of others? The mothers and women I know give it all up at work, then come home and are endlessly available to their families. How can we possibly believe we aren't doing enough? We talk about the "price of motherhood" usually in economic terms, the amount of lifetime earnings we forego by assuming the unpaid but economically essential work of manning (ha!) the homefront. It seems another "price of motherhood" is paid in guilt and stress and harm to our physical and mental health. Enough, already!!

'Til next time,
Your (Wo)Man in Washington

International Women's Day

2011-03-08T10:03:00.008-05:00

March 8 is the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day, when our social, political, and economic progress is celebrated all over the world. Truly, our achievements are significant, and we owe the potential of our lives to many committed and visionary women of the past. And yet...women's lack of full, equal engagement in all aspects of society continues to weigh us down, and limit the realization of hopes for our families, our children, and ourselves.

Last week the White House offered up a stack of data on women in the US, pulling on data from a range of federal agencies. It is the first federal report in 40 years to analyze the social and economic status of women. (You'd think we'd get more attention, being half the population, and the only gender to give birth and all, but no.) It is intended for the general public - you don't have to be an economist, a sociologist, or a lawyer to understand it. Here are a few highights:

US women outnumber US men by 4 million, or 51%. So, congratulations. We've proved that there is nothing we can't do and nothing we can't learn, even while bearing children, running the household, and preparing the next generation of citizens, workers, and parents. The only thing we haven't proved is that we can get paid fairly for it. Happy International Women's Day to you. Now, let's get back to work...
We are waiting longer to marry, have children, and are having fewer children.
More of us are deciding not to marry and not to have children at all.
Teen pregnancy has decreased, going from 1/3 of all births in 1970 to 1/5 now.
We are better educated than men, earning more academic degrees including Ph.D.s.
We are about 1/2 of the work force and earn 1/3 of the total household income.
More than 2/3 of mothers with children under 18 in the home are employed.
We spend more of our time caring for our families and doing housework than men.
Men spend more time engaging in sports and leisure activities than women.
Women do more volunteer work than men.
At all levels of education, full-time female workers earn only 75% of what men do.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Women's Empowerment in an Age of Illness, Part 2

2011-03-01T22:09:00.011-05:00

This is the second of a two part series by guest blogger, Ginger Garner, an educator and expert in medical therapeutic yoga and women's health. Her full bio can be found in the introduction to Part 1.

In the last post, I discussed the health related reasons that cause women to be put at a remarkable disadvantage in the US. Now, it is time to discuss one of the best (and most inexpensive) solutions to give women a sense of empowerment and control over their well being.

Yoga’s Healing Power
One of the ways that women can be empowered to take control of their health (and life) is through the ancient holistic practice of yoga. It prevents and treats injury and illness, looking at health through a preventive and not just pathophysiological lens.

I have been teaching medical yoga (a blending of east and west medicine and therapies) for almost 20 years and have experienced first hand, as a clinician and as a woman, the amazing results that yoga’s power yields.

Medical yoga can(4):

• Reduce risk of CVD, cancers, stroke, and diabetes through introducing safe physical activity into your daily routine.
• Improve your diet, which also reduces the risk of CVD, certain cancers, obesity, and stroke when following an anti-inflammatory regimen.
• Reduce high blood pressure
• Reduce inflammatory processes in the body
• Reduce and manage stress.
• Reduce self-destructive behaviors.
• Help you lose and manage your weight.
• Manage orthopaedic conditions such as low back and neck pain or tendonitis/sprains/strains.
• Reduce stress-related risk factors for disease.
• Stabilize your mood by calming the nervous system (through decreased sympathetic nervous system activity).
• Build body confidence, intelligence, and overall fitness.
• Improve your respiratory/lung health.
• Reduce risk of depression and anxiety disorders and their symptoms.
• In maternal health, reduce labor pains and risk of post-partum depression.
• In women’s health, reduce post-surgical complications such as scar adhesions, pelvic pain, and other chronic pain.
• Manage current chronic pain syndromes and ones related to it such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Finding A Qualified Yoga Practitioner
When yoga is used as medicine, it is practiced by someone with extensive training in medical therapeutic yoga and a license in medicine or other medical therapy. Currently in the US, there is no license or certification that allows you to access medical yoga and have it covered by insurance – except those therapists trained through the education method I developed, Professional Yoga Therapy.

Currently, there are also no standards or licensing for yoga therapists or teachers in the US. There are voluntary standards set by Yoga Alliance, but they do not provide certification or guarantee of a teacher’s proficiency in yoga. Further, they prepare a person to teach basic yoga to people with no existing health issues. However, I look forward to happily promoting other programs like Professional Yoga Therapy when they come into existence. Right now, PYT is the only program in the US which trains licensed medical professionals to use yoga as medicine.

If you have a medical condition or illness, search for a PYT therapist with dual training in medicine and medical yoga – here.

If you are a healthy individual with no pre-existing health conditions, search for a teacher on the voluntary YA registry here.

Why choose a licensed medical yoga therapist?
• The yoga used is evidence based. It is medically and scientifically grounded making it effective and safer for people with all kinds of medical conditions, including the natural state of pregnancy and post-partum.
• They are qualified to evaluate, treat, and refer to other medical specialists while looking at the entire person from both a western medical and holistic standpoint.
• They can use yoga combined with medical technology and methods to treat and prevent injury and illness.
• They are legally qualified and trained to work with people who have everything from minor sports injuries to serious illness and complex medical histories.
• They are trained to differentially diagnose. This means that they are trained to recognize precursors, signs, and symptoms of more serious illnesses that would require more complex medical attention.
• They are bound by law and their medical license – to first do no harm. They live and work by a medical code of ethics and have at least 4-6 years and in most cases 6-10 years of formal medical and medical yoga education

If you do not have medical insurance, I encourage you to still contact these therapists. Many of them will work on a sliding scale and have programs in place that work with women (and men) who cannot afford treatment.

The best news of all is – your yoga treatment, when administered through a licensed medical professional, is usually covered by your insurance. You can find a therapist that is also a licensed medical practitioner here.

Low Cost & Free Yoga Resources

The base philosophy of yoga is that it should be accessible to all – just like health care.
Here are a few free and low cost resources for yoga.

Medical Yoga
• Breathing In This Life – a medical blog for women and mothers - download free breathing and yoga practices
• Ancient Yoga, New You – a medical yoga DVD for anyone suffering from physical or emotional pain. It is based on a three year research study I conducted with a very pleasant middle aged woman suffering from multiple chronic diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, and weight problems.
• Mayo Clinic Wellness Series – a series of yoga DVD’s for different ailments.

General Yoga
• Holistic Online - Yoga – general yoga and Ayurvedic advice
• Yoga Journal – a popular magazine offered online giving general yoga advice

Ginger Garner MPT, ATC, E-RYT500, PYT

Sources
1. American Heart Association.
2. US Dept. of Health and Human Services 2006. Women’s Health USA 2007 report.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Overweight and obesity. June 2004. www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity. Viewed 4/16/07.
4. Over my years of research, teaching, and writing in medical therapeutic yoga, I have compiled hundreds of scientific references which support the plethora of benefits yoga provides. For systemic benefits of yoga, there are 77 preliminary studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals I source.
More research on yoga and CVD

Women’s Empowerment in an Age of Illness

2011-02-25T14:23:00.006-05:00

This is the first in a two part series by Ginger Garner, an educator and expert in medical therapeutic yoga and women's health. As a published author and sought after speaker, Ginger pens the popular blog for mothers, Breathing In This Life (BITL). She is a working mother of three who has learned a thing or two about finding work/life balance through the healing arts, which she shares at www.gingergarner.blogspot.com.

Health care in America needs a mother/woman-centered approach. American mothers and women are in great need of holistic, patient centered care, rather than disease care centered around drugs and diagnostic testing.

Our current approach in women’s health care in the US is not working.

In the US, there are more women living in poverty and suffering from chronic diseases than men. (1,2) In addition "the United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its infant mortality rate is higher than any of those countries," says the annual State of the World's Mothers report. Amnesty International’s executive director Larry Cox in 2010 states "this country's extraordinary record of medical advancement makes its haphazard approach to maternal care all the more scandalous and disgraceful.”

We need change in health care for women in America, and we need it now.

I want to share the latest statistics in women’s health from the US Department of Health and Human Services and the American Heart Association. As a woman, I am saddened, but not surprised. The findings provide us with the objective evidence of what we have felt intuitively for some time - women’s health care, its delivery, and the proactivity of women in America to take responsibility for their health - must improve.

• Women suffer from more chronic disease and pain than men. (1,2)
• Since 1984, more women have been dying from heart disease than men. (1)
• More women die from stroke, heart disease, and stress related illness than men. (1,2)
• Women suffer more from autoimmune diseases than men, at rates from 2:1 to as high as 10:1.2
• More women than men suffer from arthritis. (2)
• Because of the difference in sex-related cancers, women are more apt to get one of the “top 10 cancers” than men. 2
• The leading causes of death in women are (in order): heart disease, cancer, and stroke. More than ½ of all these deaths were attributed to heart disease and cancer. (2)
• Obesity has increased in alarming rates since the 1960’s, with over 61% of both men and women now overweight or obese. (3)
• Stress related disorders and mental health illness like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, attempted suicide, depression, and anxiety disorders, occur most often in women. (2)
• Three times as many women attempt suicide as men. (2)
• Lastly, when polled, more men (who have good reason to) report they are in excellent or very good health. (2)

Why are women in the US less healthy than men?
Could it be because…
• more women live in poverty than men? (2)
• women in families experience higher rates of poverty than men living in families? (2)
• men report higher satisfaction levels with heath care and access to health care than women? (2)
• more money is spent (per average expenditure) on men’s health care than women, despite one of the primary reasons for hospitalization and medical visits being maternity care? (2)
• because women use prescription drugs more frequently than men, and of those drugs, the common ones are taken for depression and mental health? (2)
• more women’s health care is paid for by Medicaid or out of pocket? (2)

Whatever the reason, women need better access to and better health care. They also need and deserve the empowerment that comes with enjoying better health. Part Two in this series will show you how you can self-empower your way to better health through a 5000 year old practice.

Ginger Garner MPT, ATC, E-RYT500, PYT

Sources
1. American Heart Association.
2. US Dept. of Health and Human Services 2006. Women’s Health USA 2007 report.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Overweight and obesity. June 2004. Viewed 4/16/07.
4. Over my years of research, teaching, and writing in medical therapeutic yoga, I have compiled hundreds of scientific references which support the plethora of benefits yoga provides. For systemic benefits of yoga, there are 77 preliminary studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals I source.
More research on yoga and CVD.

Abortion Legislation and the New Congress

2011-02-16T14:19:00.014-05:00

The new Congress has immediately taken up several pieces of legislation which will restrict women's ability to obtain safe abortions in certain circumstances and change the current law in several significant ways. Policy watchers were surprised by the speed with which the Republican majority in the House brought reproductive rights to the fore, because the new GOP leadership had said that jobs and unemployment were to be the first priority.

When to have children, and how many children to have, are decisions with profound impact on a woman's economic security for the rest of her life. Not just her own welfare, but her children's welfare often depends on the mother's ability to provide financial and all other kinds of support for herself and her family.

Some members of the US Congress now seek to control whether any woman can buy health insurance under the new health reform law covering the costs of pregnancy termination even with her own money. (Federal funding has not been available for decades for abortion services because of the Hyde Amendment which removes pregnancy termination from the federally funded healthcare services impoverished women can receive.) Other bills under consideration will prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion at her own discretion, in consultation with her doctor, even in the first trimester, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Women's Policy, Inc., a non-partisan, non-profit source of public policy pertaining to women is tracking the bills' progress. You can find WPI's summary of The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, H.R. 3, here, and it includes the arguments for and against.

WPI presents the Protect Life Act, H.R. 358 here, and summarizes the different viewpoints of the witnesses who testified at the congressional hearing.

The National Women's Law Center has prepared fact sheets you can find here and here.

The budget wrangling is also a battleground for women's reproductive rights, but doesn't directly implicate abortion. Under the interest of cutting the federal deficits, Republican members of Congress are proposing that federal funds supporting women's health centers be cut, and the costs of contraception, family planning services, and other primary care for women no longer be available for those women that qualify. Analysis of this "women only" cost cutting measure is here.

In the US Senate, Senator Johanns of Nevada introduced a bill last week "to ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child" says WPI.

And finally, newly elected Rand Paul has co-sponsored a bill which would declare that life begins at conception, making all fetuses "persons" under the 14th Amendment, negating the current law as established by Roe v. Wade, as Newsweek reports here.

Women & Girls and the President's Budget

2011-02-14T22:21:00.004-05:00

Valentine's Day ushers in the most unromantic topic of the federal budget this year, and President Obama's proposed spending plan has now been unveiled. Much wrangling and intense debate is surely in store, and it's anybody's guess what the final product will be. Your (Wo)Man in Washington flips straight to the summary of expenditures pertaining to women and girls to see what's on the presidential priority list for the current fiscal year. Here's a quick list of some high points for women and girls:

An $11 million increase for family planning, contraception, health information and preventive services, as well as teen pregnancy prevention program funding.
$23 million to a state paid leave fund, to assist states in establishing and implementing a paid leave program to complement the unpaid leave available to some workers under the Family Medical Leave Act.
To support the Caregiver Initiative, $96 million in assistance to family caregivers of the elderly or disabled relatives "because the responsibility for providing informal care..often...falls to women". The funds will keep the care recipient at home and support community programs enabling caregivers to deal with their multiple roles.
New money for the states to use in establishing quality early childhood education programs, as well as Head Start and Early Head Start for 968,000 low income children and child care subsidies for 1.7 million more children whose parents could not pay for child care without it. Military families will benefit from $86 million in new money to operate affordable, high quality child care centers here and abroad.
Continue funding for enforcement of civil rights violations and claims of racial, gender, and other forms of discrimination, including employment discrimination generally and employment discrimination against those with family caregiving responsibilities.
An extra $175 million over 2010 levels of dedicated funding to support victims of, and decrease the occurrence of, domestic violence and sexual assault, process the backlog of rape evidence kits, expand training for law enforcement officers working with DNA evidence, and offer shelter, transitional housing, and other services to battered, abused and assaulted women.
Hunger prevention programs in the amount of $7.9 billion for pregnant or new mothers and infant children (WIC Program)serving 9.6 million participants (personally, I think it is a national scandal that we have 9.6 million women and children without enough to eat in this country) as well as older children.

Of course, there's more than this brief outline, but it's a start. If you want to see the whole fact sheet for women and girls funding, then click here. While the final budget may include few, or none, of these items, it's telling that the White House included them in its initial submission.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Competitive Mothering Takes a Hit

2011-02-02T07:41:00.003-05:00

With an eyebrow firmly raised at all the Tiger Mother brouhaha, I was delighted to find this post from Cameron Mcdonald, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She's written a book, “Shadow Mothers: Nannies, Au Pairs and the Micropolitics of Mothering” which looks as what she calls the "private to public care transfer", meaning childcare moving from the household (and mother) to a paid employee. She is also interested, according to her bio, in "the consequences of healthcare offloading to families, a process which shifts responsibility for a professionalized and often highly technical form of care from public institutions to family members", which interests me very much too. It's the women at home who have to cope when the high cost of healthcare pushes patients out the hospital door. Let's take a break from inside the Beltway and consider what Cameron says about parental overachievement:

But what is the fuss about, really? Who cares if a Chinese-American law professor from Yale drives her daughters like a banshee? We do. The rules of one of our favorite spectator sports, competitive mothering, are at stake. If she is correct, then the legions of “helicopter mothers,” who have carefully organized their children’s lives to reinforce their self-esteem and sense of entitlement, have failed. Instead of encouraging their children’s innate giftedness, they should have berated them to do better. Chua is the Simon Cowell to a nation of mothers who truly thought their children were talented, only to learn too late that they are tone-deaf.

Read the entirety of her post right here, and Cameron, thanks for letting me cross-post.

'Til next Time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Who is in charge of your maternity care?

2011-01-24T12:15:00.003-05:00

Womens Enews reports that maternity wards and obstetric units are closing across the country. Depending on where you live, and whether or not you have health insurance, you could be far away from the medical care you need. The number of babies born in the US has remained stable, at just over 4 million a year. But 1.3 million women joined the number of uninsured between 2008 and 2009. Now 22% of all women of child-bearing age are uninsured. Medicaid covers 15% of them. But the Medicaid reimbursement rate is well below the actual cost. Rather than provide services for nothing or below cost, hospitals simply stop offering maternity care. This pushes more and more uninsured pregnant women into a shrinking number of obstetric wards, where the waiting gets longer and longer and staff and supplies are taxed beyond the breaking point.

Pennsylvania is a case in point. In the past 13 years, over 39 hospitals have shuttered their maternity wards. Now, uninsured women must typically wait 11 1/2 weeks for their first pre-natal visit, the very end of the first trimester. In Alabama, nearly half of all obstetric units have closed in the past 30 years, from 58 in 1980 to a current 32. Comparable situations can be found from coast to coast and north to south, in both rural and urban areas.

In addition to clear limitations on women's access to pre-natal and maternity care, another story surfaced recently which shows a more nuanced way in which women's access to health care is restricted. Where I live in Montgomery County, Maryland, regulators accepted multiple proposals to build a single new hospital. Two organizations were in contention, one a Catholic hospital, and one called Adventist Healthcare. The Catholic hospital was granted authorization to expand. But the new hospital, like all Catholic hospitals, will not provide certain services to women treated there. No hormonal contraception will be offered. No pregnancy termination procedures will be performed, even in the event of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger. No tubal ligations will be available, and the only remedy for an ectopic pregnancy will be one that removes the involved fallopian tube, rather than an alternative procedure which preserves fertility, leaving the fallopian tube intact. In explaining their decision, state regulators cited the fact that there are no state standards which would require a hospital to provide these services. Thus, in order to access any health care at all, uninsured and under-insured women seeking care at this new facility can receive some treatment, but not necessarily what they want, or what the doctor prescribes, or what they need. Some treatment is simply off the table. It would have been available but for the regulators' decision.

Of course, many women can buy their way out of this problem. With the money, the means, and transportation, you can select the physician, hospital, and treatment of your choice. But not evey woman, not all women, have that ability. Women are far more economically vulnerable than men, and rely more on public programs, including Medicaid. So, this is healthcare rationing, with money as the determining factor. It's also gender discrimination. Men don't need tubal ligation, and they can't develop an ectopic pregnancy. Only women are affected by the elimination of obstetric care, or limitations on the kind of reproductive care available. Furthermore, the individuals charged with authority in Catholic hospitals to enforce the directives for permissible care, or settle disputes about them,are the local bishops, uniformly male, unmarried, and unlikely to be parents. Economic pressures are forcing mergers between hospital systems, and Catholic hospitals find an increasing number of medical facilties under their authority. The number of women seeking medical care in a religious hospital is bound to go up. At the same time, all indications point towards an increasingly conservative theology, from the Vatican on down. So where do we end up? More women, less access, restricted options, resulting from state regulatory power. A violation of the separation of church and state? For women, at any rate, perhaps more of an unholy alliance.

Here are the articles that prompted this post, one from Women's Enews and from the Washington Post here and here.

If you really want to wonk out on the issue, the National Women's Law Center has just released a report on this topic and the link is here. Do let me know how you feel about it all.

'til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

A Gender Revolution in Economics

2011-01-20T14:08:00.004-05:00

Last week I saw a column in Market Watch written by Paul Farrell, about impending changes in access to wealth and power. It's a fascinating theory and I've been preoccupied by it for a week. What do you think?

Capitalism is moving closer to a final meltdown,a catastrophe much worse than the shaking of markets and sinking of economies we've just seen around the globe. The "old boys' club" that runs the world (given that business,finance, and government are all disproportionately male) will drive us all into the ground. Trying desperately to hold onto power, and blinded by short-term thinking, competition for resources and profits will escalate to unbearable heights. The planet will be plundered, and unsustaineable risk pursued beyond the breaking point. Rather than find ways to share power and distribute wealth more broadly, the titans will take us all down to disaster.

In the past 50 years, women have caught up and surpassed men in education, training, and experience. With greater long-range vision, women are poised to assume leadership roles in the management and distribution of natural, human, and economic resources. They know how to gather, cope, collaborate, preserve, and protect. With institutions in shambles and the natural world decimated, no enterprise will succeed without women. Collective decision-making will improve, as women meet and then pass the magic 30% benchmark for effective inclusion. Global exponential population growth will exert tremendous pressure on the United States. Men continuing to act alone and hoard assets will run out of time.

Does it all sound too far-fetched? I'm not sure. The men in government did just bail out the men in business, and they have rewarded themselves handsomely. The people who put up the cash are still waiting to see some appreciation, and will be less inclined to be scared into emptying their pockets next time. Read Mr. Farrell's piece, 8 Rules for Our New Gender-Based Economy, and tell me what you think.

'til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Part-Time Work; Still Just for Women?

2011-01-11T12:54:00.008-05:00

One factor limiting women's economic security is the approach to part-time work in the US. It has the reputation of being poorly paid (true), mostly done by students, (false), and performed by those who don't really depend upon the income (also false). Part-time workers do not receive the protections of numerous state and federal laws, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, nor do part-time jobs generally come with benefits like paid leave or vacations, health insurance, or retirement savings programs. Additionally, part-time work is often compensated at a rate lower than that earned by full-time workers performing the same job.

Approximately 2/3 of the part-time workforce is female. This is no coincidence. As women continue to perform most family carework, looking after others may drive down the hours they have available for paid employment. Lacking access to child care, or lacking affordable child care remains a significant problem in many households. The presence or absence of another parent or adult in the house can be a factor, as can the work obligations of that second adult, if present.

It doesn't have to be this way. A recent New York Times article reports that the Netherlands is seeing an important shift in part-time workers, as more fathers settle in to a four day work week. Gender stereotypes are breaking down, as first women, and now men, are supported by both the law and cultural attitudes favoring greater parity between paid work and family time. An accountant interviewed for the article said: “More men want time with the family, but without giving up their careers. And more women want careers, but without giving up too much time with the family.” Consequently, 75% of Dutch women work part-time, and 23% of Dutch men do. Another 9% of Dutch men work a 40 hour week in four days. Promotions and professional success are still realistic goals, and employers attract and retain talent by offering flexibility in work hours and location.

Could it happen here? There's no reason why not. Changing our thinking, our attitudes and expectations is where it starts. Difficult, obviously, but not impossible. It's a question of how badly we want it.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

The 112th Congress - Still an Old Boys' Club

2011-01-06T13:23:00.004-05:00

The ladies and gentlemen of 112th US Congress have been sworn in. Do you know how many of them look like you? How many share your experiences and convictions? Do you trust them to make decisions which will shape and influence your life, and your family's personal and economic security? Would you guess that the new Congress looks, more or less, like the whole of the US?

Well into the 21st century, and our third century as a nation, you might be tempted to assume that's the case. But you'd be wrong. In spite of the passage of nearly 250 years of independence, older white men continue to run the country.

The current Congress is comprised of a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Of 435 House members, only 89 are women, far less than the third necessary to have any legislative sway. A scant 42 are African American. Only 26 are Hispanic, and 11 are Asian. In the Senate, only 18 of the 100 are women. Out of 535 elected seats, 94 occupants are brand new, or "freshmen". That means that more than 4/5 of the House and Senate have been there for at least a few years, and some of them, decades. Between both houses, 200 members are lawyers, 24 are doctors, 118 are military veterans, and 238 have a background in business. However, 28 members have no college degree. Six come to Washington from a farm or ranch. Average age - 57.

And of course, the freshman class must immediately start raising money and thinking about that next election. Will they change Washington?

More likely, Washington will change them.

(I would love to tell you how many are or were primary caregivers in their families. But I can't - no one collects the data. Apparently, while your professional career, training, religious affiliation and education are all considered pertinent to one's performance as a legislator, whether or not you have shouldered the responsibility for the existence and welfare of another human being is not similarly regarded. Yet.)

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

"It’s Her Choice” – Really?

2010-12-20T20:14:00.001-05:00

Your (Wo)Man in Washington is happy to offer this cross-post by MOTHERS founder Ann Crittenden which originally appeared on the MomsRising blog. Ann takes on the argument that mothers "choose" to work less, earn less, have less, or willingly endure discrimination. This classic "blame the victim" strategy is often invoked to beat back efforts to ensure equality in the workplace, such as the Paycheck Fairness Act, which failed to win enough votes in the US Senate a few weeks ago. Is motherhood simply a "lifestyle choice"? Or is there more at stake than mere personal preference? Such as, perhaps....national security and economic sustainability?

Posted on momsrising.org December 10th, 2010 by Ann Crittenden

I was struck recently by the persistence of an old argument used to kill the Fair Pay Act – and every other measure that would make life easier for mothers. You know it by heart: many women “choose” to earn less than men, and if they choose to earn less, then what’s the big deal about a little wage inequality?

This so-called “choice” argument can be superficially persuasive. Most women probably do prefer cleaner, relatively lower-paying jobs. Most women would rather be beauticians than coal miners, art teachers than mechanics. (Although this begs the question why teachers and beauticians earn so much less than mechanics and miners). Women working full-time often work fewer hours (for pay) than full-time working men. And in recent surveys, far more working women than men say they would prefer to work part-time.

Women, in short, are different from men. They’re just not as into dirt, long hours and making money. Maybe they are just …. more French!

But before you buy into this one, remember that those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog. And women are still underdogs in the job market. Women working 40 hours a week still earn 86 cents for every dollar a man earns, a bigger gap than in many developed countries with more family-friendly policies. But if American women accept this willingly, then there’s nothing to worry about. It’s their choice. No one “made them do it.” So no one has to do anything about it.

The only thing wrong with this argument is that it leaves out history:

The history that still dictates lower wages in female-dominated professions;
The history that discourages women from entering better-paying, male-dominated fields like the skilled trades, engineering, and science.
The history that explains why women in almost every occupation still earn less than men in the same occupation.
The history that dictates that women still do the bulk of the work at home, limiting their ability to work for pay.

“It’s their own choice” rhetoric also leaves out power:

The power to dictate the rules of work. Women don’t.
The power to decide who does most of the menial housework.
The power to legislate working conditions that fit women’s lives, like the right to paid sick days and paid maternity leaves, the right to refuse to work overtime, and the right to work part-time. We have none of these rights. Is that women’s choice?

The major point here is that women’s choices are not made in a vacuum. They are made in a world that women did not create, according to rules they didn’t write. For many women with children, choice is all about bad options and difficult decisions: your child or success in your profession; taking on most of the domestic chores or marital strife; food on the table or your baby’s safety; your right arm or your left.

If we have to talk about choice, let’s broaden the conversation. Let’s start talking about employers’ choices and politicians’ choices and husbands’ choices to perpetuate a system that keeps women earning less than men, more economically vulnerable than men, and more susceptible to poverty the minute they have a child.

It’s other people’s choices, not ours, that things are still this way.

Ann Crittenden: Crittenden’s ground-breaking book The Price of Motherhood has just been re-issued in a 10th anniversary edition, with a new preface. She concludes that while mothers’ attitudes have changed, not much else has.

Put "The Price of Motherhood" In Your Stocking

2010-12-01T14:31:00.011-05:00

Seems like only yesterday...

...but it was really 10 years ago that Ann Crittenden wrote The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World Is Still the Least Valued. A special 10th anniversary paperback edition has just hit bookstores, and makes the perfect holiday gift for any and all family caregivers you know, and the people who love them!

What's changed since this study of motherhood's effect on women's status was first published? Not as much as we'd hoped. Unlike mothers in any other modern country, US mothers only get paid maternity leave at the whim of the

employer. Most of us work outside the home for money, but still make less than men in the same occupations, working the same hours. We remain severely underrepresented in state, local, and federal government, in boardrooms, and other policy-making posts. In spite of years of discussion about family caregiver credits, Social Security only rewards paid work, so women's childbearing and child rearing entitle them to nothing in retirement. As a result, women suffer greater poverty in old age, in spite of the fact that all aspects of our common welfare, economic security and national interest are entirely dependent on their willingness to birth and nurture the next generation.

Is Price of Motherhood still relevant? Clearly yes, which is a sobering commentary itself on our lack of real change. But Crittenden’s clear-eyed and compelling analysis has made true believers and committed feminists out of more women than I can count. It will do so with the next generation of mothers as well. These women will know that the difficulty they encounter is not the result of their personal incompetence or some previously unrecognized character flaw. Rather, it is the systemic and institutionalized preference for “the ideal worker” that is pitted against them. So-called "family friendly policies" have failed to take hold in the US to any real extent. Employers expect an "all or nothing" worker with no obligations outside of the job. No way to work and breastfeed your new baby, unless you can afford to quit work and stay home. No paid sick leave, so you can go to the doctor for your flu, or take your child for a strep test. If you are the sole provider for your children, and your mother is sick or lands in the hospital, you can’t be there. Maternity medical care is not covered by your health insurance. You need help paying for child care, but you make too much money to qualify, yet not enough to pay for the care available in your community. If you are home full-time with your children, you don’t get credits towards Social Security. If you pay a nanny to do the job, she will.

If children are so important, and “family values” occupy the center of our national priorities, why do we have such shockingly high rates of maternal and infant death? Why is 1 out of every 5 children living at or below the poverty line? Why is the work of families, who raise, teach, feed, house, and nurture children from birth to productive adulthood, not included in any measure of our national economic output? Because the work of creating human beings, seeing to their physical, mental and emotional needs, is done mostly by women and therefore held in lower regard. Motherhood as it exists in the US, exacts a steep price.

The inequality is stark when comparing income levels of men and childless women. Paycheck parity is more likely until the point that a women becomes a mother. While a man actually sees an uptick in his income upon the arrival of the stork, the woman’s income loses pace at that point, and for most mothers, never recovers. Her lifetime loss of earnings ranges from hundreds of thousands of dollars to over a million. Erroneously cast as a “lifestyle choice”, the issue is actually one of out and out discrimination. If one gender is assigned the bulk of childcare, and if that labor is seen as without value, there’s not a lot of choosing going on. If compensated work and family caregiving were equally valued, and both genders were able to segue in and out of the labor force without materially endangering their economic security, then we’d be talking about choices. Until then, the risks of motherhood are generally borne by the individual mother and have thus been effectively “privatized”. Until then, the assets her child produces in terms of tax revenue, productive work and solid citizenship, are enjoyed by the public. Until then, The Price of Motherhood remains a must-read.

Here's a link to Amazon's page on the 10th anniversary edition.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Guest Post - "It's About Time" by Mindy Fried

2010-11-19T10:33:00.007-05:00

I came across this essay by sociologist Mindy Fried about the lack of paid family leave in the US versus how common it is around the world. Also on my mind is the failure of the Paycheck Fairness Act to pass the US Senate this week. I think the two are related. Opponents of the bill say gender discrimination doesn't exist anymore, and no new laws, like the Paycheck Fairness Act, are needed. They argue that even though men outearn women in general, and mothers in particular, women put themselves in poorer paying jobs as a trade-off for spending more time with children or needing greater flexibiity. Therefore, whatever gap may exist is explained by women's choices.

I disagree. Women do most of the unpaid family carework in this country. Culturally and socially, it is more acceptable for women to do it than men. Is that fair? At the same time, women have to support themselves and their families. They work without the benefit of paid sick days, or family leave, or even the abiltiy to ask for an alternative schedule. Is that fair? Is it even a good idea? Paid leave is a political issue, a gender issue, and as Dr. Fried shows below, a class issue as well. Repeating the mantra that there is no gender discrimination won't make it go away. And refusing paid leave to new mothers and new fathers won't stop them from having babies or being in the workforce. If it did, the consequences would be catastrophic. As Dr. Fried says, "It's about time..."

It's about time...

A sociologist buddy of mine just told me that she may be using my book on parental leave in a new class she's teaching (Taking Time: Parental Leave Policy and Corporate Culture). While I should be overjoyed, I am not. Why? Because the book is 12 years old and it's sadly as relevant today as it was twelve years ago!

Taking Time is based on an ethnographic study. In other words, I went native and hung out for a year in a financial services corporation I called Premium, Inc., studying its corporate culture. I wanted to understand how the culture of the workplace affected employees' attitudes towards the company's generous parental leave policy and ultimately, who used it.

I happened to be doing this study right after the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which was the first bill President Clinton signed in 1993. The bill mandates employers to allow their workers - women and men - to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to parent their newly arrived baby (biological or adoptive). This federal policy provided basic rights to Premium employees, in addition to the company's own parental leave policy.

To my dismay, I found a strange and insidious blend of economics and culture that seriously undercut the use of parental leave policy at Premium. Of the 143 parental leave takers I interviewed, 140 were women and 3 were men! Women in high-level positions barely took leaves. In fact, only two female vice presidents took five weeks; the three senior female managers took five, nine and 10 weeks respectively. As one female senior manager said,

"Old-time management in the company still has an old mind-set about women and work and family...The women who generally get to the higher top are the women who don't have the children. You have to sacrifice something to get there."

Not a single male senior manager took a parenting leave. Instead, new fathers tended to take 2-week vacations after the arrival of their new baby. One male manager I interviewed told me,

"It was simple economics. I was going to work full-time and (my wife) was going to work part-time. We joke about her job being a hobby because she's hardly covering the cost of daycare."

Most men facing new parenthood didn't even consider taking time away from their jobs to parent a newly arrived infant, because they were worried their careers would suffer. For them, the cultural norms of the workplace mitigated against taking time to do what is still considered "women's work". Simply put, for both high-level female and male managers, babies and briefcases didn't go together. This cultural norm trickled down to the organizational culture...

The largest group of workers who used the leave policy were women in non-management positions. Professional non-management women took an average of 10 weeks leave, two weeks less than the 12 weeks allowed by the FMLA! And nonprofessional women - women who earned less than those in professional positions - took an average of 8 weeks, with half taking 7 weeks or less. These women simply couldn't afford to take longer leaves. Unless they had family lining up to care for their babies, much of their time was spent worrying about setting up quality, affordable childcare. This short leave-time falls far short of the six-month leave that T. Berry Brazelton, child development expert, recommends to support parent-child bonding.

In a 2009 study of current leave-taking practices, researchers found a a similar picture. There has been a very small increase in the amount of leave-time taken in the birth month (5.4%) by "highly educated and married mothers" and an increase of 13% in the next two months (Han, Ruhm and Waldfogel, 2009). Single mothers, on the other hand, are less able to afford unpaid leave. And fathers continue to take extremely short leaves or none at all.

This data confirms what I found in my study 12 years ago: that uppaid leave policy discriminates against those at the lower rungs of the income ladder who cannot afford to take longer leaves. With the absence of a mechanism to replace workers' wages during the leave period, non-management female employees shorten their leaves; management employees take short leaves; and men don't take parental leaves at all.

While lower paid workers would be the most obvious beneficiaries of paid leave, in fact, ALL employees would benefit from such a policy. The U.S. is the only wealthy nation in the world that does not offer parental leave, according to political scientist Janet Gornick, who conducted a cross- national study of parental leave policies.

"The United States has the least generous parental leave policies of all 21 economies compared in the study. We pay a high price for our meager policy, because parental leave improves the health and well-being of children and their parents, and paid leaves provide families with crucial economic support at such an important time."

Gornick and her colleagues report that European countries, led by Finland, Norway and Sweden, rank far ahead of the United States in providing guaranteed parental leave, with Sweden ranking highest for gender equality and parental leave practices. Germany also offers a generous paid leave policy, and four countries show high levels of both generosity and gender equality: three Nordic countries (Finland, Norway and Sweden), and Greece.

We have a long way to go in the U.S.! California finally passed paid parental leave legislation in 2002, and the U.S. military even offers paid leave to its members. But a recent effort to extend paid leave to civilian employees got stuck in the Senate. And other initiatives to create paid leave through "baby unemployment insurance" - in which some small portion of the state unemployment insurance fund would go towards a paid leave fund - has hit a wall, given high employment rates.

Nonetheless, the issue will not go away for the thousands of mothers and fathers around this nation who want to spend more time with their babies.

It may seem counterintuitive to push for paid parental leave in this economic crisis, especially as people are being laid off from their jobs. You might argue that laid-off workers have more time to hang out with their kids anyway. And besides, why would employers want to add incentives for their existing labor force to take time away from the job? But those laid-off workers will return to the workforce when the economy improves, and those employers should care about creating humane work environments that don't burn out their workers. And why shouldn't we join the rest of the Western industrialized world in providing social policies that support mothers and fathers in the workplace?

Without a federal policy that provides the foundation of support for leavetaking, I fear that we will continue to see the patterns of leave-taking I found in my study twelve years ago. And that's just not fair.

Meanwhile, my sociologist buddy asked if I could come to her class to talk about my book. I wish it were old news...

Mindy Fried, M.S.W., Ph.D., is a sociologist with over 20 years of experience conducting research, teaching and doing policy analysis on work and family issues (e.g., early care and education policy, parental leave). She is a Co-Principal of Arbor Consulting Partners (www.arborcp.com), where she consults to a diverse range of organizations, designing and conducting evaluation research and policy assessments, as well as providing technical assistance on research design issues and strategic planning/organizational analysis. You can find Mindy's original post on her blog here.

What Did the Election Mean?

2010-11-11T10:32:00.006-05:00

Your ever-vigilant WIW has been schlepping about town talking to lots of people about what exactly we are to make of the results of last week's elections. Here's the expertise of the professional wonks, policy analysts and political scientists, translated into "real people speak".

Republicans made significant gains as state governors, US Senators and members of the House. The primary reason was the public frustration with the poor economy. This brought out more white, older,and conservative-minded voters than had gone to the polls in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Younger, minority, and unmarried women did not show up to the extent they had in the last Presidential election. Also, Democrats had uncharacteristically won many seats in those prior elections, and many of those seats were in "marginal" districts, i.e. districts which usually or always had voted for Republicans in the past. So there were numerous offices where Democrats were very vulnerable under normal circumstances. With serious hard times for everyone, the considerable shift is regarded as all but inevitable.

While Republican politicians claim election results communicated overwhelming support, analysts say the issues actually played a very secondary role. Over and over again I was told that the elections were not a mandate in favor of the conservative agenda. Voters dislike and distrust politicians of all parties. Rather, voters objected to the federal government's help to big business and banks, when the voters themselves feel like they've not been helped at all.

The real story was who voted, not what was at stake in terms of policy proposals. Exit polls showed support for health care reform is evenly divided for and against, and most voters don't want Social Security benefits to be cut to narrow the deficit. However, 23% of all voters were over 65, a "staggering" number by one account. Moderates stayed home and conservatives came out. Younger voters, Hispanic and African Americans still tend to support Democratic candidates, but far fewer of them actually showed up. Women generally support Democrats, but in this election they voted equally for candidates of both parties.

So, that's what happened and why. There is no single message from the American people, in spite of all the talking heads that tell you so. It's much more nuanced and subtle than that. Voters have diverse opinions and want different things from their government. The one thing they agree on is that they are suffering from the recession and want goverment to do something. But what exactly, and how, is still very much up for discussion.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

What I Learned At the Mothers Conference

2010-10-29T16:32:00.010-04:00

I was at Rutgers University on October 19th for the "What Mothers Want" conference and it was a mamapalooza of the first order. It'd be hard to say who was the more interesting - the experts and advocates at the mic or the totally engaged and informed audience. Everybody knew motherwork was hard, vital, and made unnecessarily more difficult by the way work and family life are currently structured. Research presented let us listen to the opinions of thousands of mothers as they considered what mattered most, what helped and what hindered them in their lives. The room was full of passion, pride, frustration and humor. Here is some of what I learned:

From Kathleen Gerson - We live in a time when attachment to the workforce over one's lifetime will be fluid. People who grew up as women entered the workforce aspire to committed relationships where both work and childcare are shared. They believe families where all adults are engaged in earning and caring are better positioned to deal with the inevitable ups and downs of family life. If the functions of supporting the household and caring for the family are divided along gender lines, transitions are harder to navigate. Good mothering includes financially providing for the family.

From Melissa Milkie - About half of married parents experience difficulty in reconciling work and family demands. Those whose children appear to succeed socially and academically are more likely to believe they have balance, while those whose children struggle in school, or exhibit behavioral problems, are less likely to claim a balanced life. This is true without regard to the amount of time the parents actually spend with their children.

From Pamela Stone - Professional women were three times more likely than their male counterparts to interrupt their employment for "family responsibilities." When they return, they frequently turn away from their former fields and enter lower paid, lower prestige sectors of the economy motivated by the desire to "give back" or pursue caring professions or social service. Becoming a mother has a profound impact on a woman's values, priorities, and sense of identity. After a career hiatus, a mother often changes both her behavior and career aspirations. Motherhood exerts a powerful transformational effect.

Clearly the foregoing merely skims the surface. What we have here is a subject poised for extensive, profound study. The conference gathered social scientists and advocates ready to illuminate it with the high beams of their expertise. We hope to continue our discussion next year. Maybe you can join us!

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Sign Up for My Pre-Election Webinar, October 26

2010-10-22T16:08:00.002-04:00

As the polls prepare to open for the mid-term elections, what's the status of women? How are we handling the recession? Are we finally making the same wages as men? Are we educating ourselves for the future? I'm going to give a one hour webinar on Tuesday, October 26, to answer these questions. I'll also gauge the effect of the elections on the number of women in the US Congress, and consider how the post-election world will deal with issues that particularly affect mothers.

October 26, 2010 1PM to 2PM ET: Motherhood, The Election and You, presented by Valerie Young, Your (Wo)man in Washington

Register here.

Respectful Parenting, Transforming the World

2010-10-12T15:51:00.001-04:00

When I became a mother, everything changed. For a while, the center of my world was a warm, soft, remarkable creature that cooed and cried in my arms. The utter wonder of my baby had me totally enthralled. We existed in a velvety world of love, sleep-deprivation, short-term memory loss, and laundry. Then, of course, the baby grew up. The rest of the world emerged from its distant fog and I began the process of guiding my precious child to find his own way. Before long, I knew I was in waaaaay over my head. I needed help.

What I needed is the kind of help contained in The Caring and Connected Parenting Guide. The parent-child connection is really the building block of every other relationship we have in life. What we learn about ourselves and our place in the world when we are very young never stops affecting our experiences with others. How we were raised, for good or ill, comes to bear in a big way when it's our turn to raise our own children. Yet the world our children will encounter is very different than the one we grew up in. And the world in which we act as parents is quite a different place than the one our parents steered us through as we came of age. All this makes the art and science of raising children a daunting proposition, and that is on a very good day!

Yet, parenting in the 21st century does have its advantages. The first is the developing body of neuroscience that allows us to undersand how human brains grow and how children develop physically and mentally over time. The second is the emergence of parenting as a series of intentional behaviors that can be learned, studied and practiced. The goal of both efforts is effective parents, thriving children, loving families and caring communities that allow us to make the very most of every opportunity. But we won't get there by assuming we know best because we are the grown ups, and we won't get there insisting on acceptance of "because I said so, that's why." If we want children who respect us, themselves, and others, we have to show them respect first. If we want children who possess strength and compassion in equal measure, we must show them strength and compassion first. If we want children who act on their concern for the welfare of others, we must act on our concern for the welfare of others first. The practice of parenting becomes, in effect, not so much about disciplining our children, but about understanding ourselves, acting consistently and intentionally in accord with our own beliefs, so that our children may learn to do the same.

It is from this perspective I hold as a parent, and as an advocate for mothers and family caregivers, that I am so pleased to pass on to you The Caring and Connected Parenting Guide. It's helpful in practical ways, and based on what we now know about how children's brains work. Pulling all the books off the bookshelf is not, in fact, an act of flagrant rebellion, as my husband assumed when our son was 2. Screaming in the check-out line at the grocery store is not intended to reflect poorly on you as a mother (unless of course you're the one doing the screaming!) Decoding the behavior of our children and understanding our own is likely to lead to a calmer, happier home and a more fruitful parent/child relationship. Rather than hold us to impossible standards, the guide points out "there is no perfect parent". Advocating a "put on your oxygen mask first" approach, the guide encourages thinking about and understanding the influences of your own childhood on your parenting. It supports the parent by stressing the importance of taking time away from the parenting role. Time and again, it reminds the reader that children are not miniature adults, and they neither think nor act the way we do. However, children do know when they are being treated with respect. If they can rely on their parents for caring, concern, and love, they will be able to express those same qualities towards themselves and others.

The Caring and Connected Parenting Guide is part of a much larger effort, the Caring Economics Campaign. The goal of economic activity is to supply people with the resources they need to reach their maximum human potential. More often than not, our society puts people in the service of the economy, which is really the wrong way round. This approach leads to bizarre results, such as smoking-related diseases and deaths generating profits for the health care industry, or the depletion of natural assets, like fossil fuels or forests full of timber, damaging the earth but being counted as an asset in our gross domestic product. While such things look like a net gain under our current system of economic measures, they actually reflect a net loss to our human potential and the sustainability of our natural world. Protecting our planet and our children means teaching them an accurate system of values and how to behave in a manner consistent with those values. Caring and connected parenting is the essential first step in that direction.

You can find out more about the Caring Economics Campaign here.

You can download the 40 page Caring and Connected Parenting Guide here.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

What Mothers Want Conference Oct. 19 at Rutgers

2010-10-04T16:35:00.007-04:00

Your (Wo)man in Washington joins Rutgers Poli Sci professor Jocelyn Crowley at Rutgers University on October 19, 2010, to present a conference on mothers, paid work and carework. This post explains the origins of the conference and what you can expect.

We see it all around us: mothers are harried, overworked, and encounter endless obstacles as they work and raise their kids. Workplace flexibility initiatives can help, whether initiated by the mother’s employer or promoted by the government. Yet these options remain unavailable to a significant number of mothers. So what can we do about it?

We started out in separate corners on this issue. Jocelyn Crowley, as the academic, began work in 2008 on a large study to understand certain types of mothers' groups in the United States. These are groups that tend to attract mothers into their fold based on whether or not they are currently working for pay. Through a series of surveys and interviews, she asked mothers across five national organizations about their lives, their struggle to combine paid work with family, and how they envision a society which values them as parents as much as it rewards them as workers.

In the course of her research, Jocelyn had the energizing opportunity of studying the membership of the National Association of Mothers' Centers (NAMC), and met its Advocacy Coordinator, Valerie Young. We found in each other the perfect collaborative partner. While Jocelyn loves putting her nose to the research grind, Valerie is on the ground in Washington D.C. influencing public policy discussions and agitating for change. Hence, the idea for this conference was born. We became determined to bring both academics and practitioners together to talk about what mothers want in terms of workplace flexibility policies. It is our belief that the exchange of ideas between these experts and the mothers already cooperating in their own communities offers a potent opportunity to create social change.

The “What Mothers Want” conference will take place at Rutgers University on October 19, 2010. It will showcase the results of Jocelyn’s survey and the findings of others who have studied the intersection of paid work and unpaid family carework.
We’ve seen the work of the panels, and here’s a glimpse of the issues we’ll address:

• Can a balance ever really be struck between work and the pull of family life?

• Which women feel they have balance, and how do they get it?

• What do fathers and male co-workers have to do with work/life satisfaction?

• Do gender and race matter?

• When mothers talk about their common experience, how does their perspective on work/life issues shift?

• If they’ve left paid employment do they plan to return, and under what circumstances?

• What is the connection between mothers in organized mothers’ groups and political activism?

In short, what DO mothers want? We look forward to three hours of fascinating information, conversation, and fun, and we hope you can join us.
Click here to register!

Top Companies for Working Mothers

2010-09-28T09:23:00.007-04:00

Your (Wo)Man in Washington welcomes guest blogger Alisa Gilbert who writes on the topics of bachelors degree. She welcomes your comments at her email Id: alisagilbert599@gmail.com.

Working mothers know how hard it is to juggle both career and parenting duties. But according to Working Mother Magazine, thanks to certain companies like Dell, March of Dimes and American Express, the balancing act might get a little easier. The magazine, founded in 1979, recently released its 25th annual list of the best 100 companies for working moms.

The companies selected provide not only the best family-friendly benefits but also provide programs “that help all employees with their struggles to gain some work-life balance," according to the magazine. Top 10 included IBM, Bank of America, Discovery Communications, KPMG, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, General Mills, PricewaterhouseCoopers, WellStar Health System, and the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics.

To get ranked, companies were required to answer more than 600 questions about the benefits they provide to support working mothers and their families. Working Mother then scored the companies based on a variety of factors, including workforce representation, childcare, flex time programs, and maternity leave policies. All of the winning companies provide private lactation rooms as well as assistance finding elder-care services.

Although many may be skeptical due to the fact that most of the companies featured on the list are also the buyers of advertising pages in the magazine, it’s important to remember that employers who have something to brag about usually do. These can come in all forms: press releases, media coverage, advertisements and lists. Whatever the case, I think lists featuring the best work-life balance programs are a very effective way to promote flexible workplaces.

Here are the only winners from the Washington, D.C. area. Included is a short description ripped straight from Working Mother on why these companies are so special.

National Education Association
Quick Fact: More than 58 percent of NEA’s workforce of roughly 500 employees at its Washington, D.C. headquarters is female.
“Taking five paid days off to spend at a child's school or participate in a school-related activity might seem too good to be true to most moms, but at this labor organization, parents can do it every year. Representing education professionals in all 50 states, it puts a premium on learning, which is why it offers staffers up to $4,000 in annual tuition assistance, plus interest-free loans to cover books and fees. Through a partnership with the University of Maryland, the organization also hosts a PhD program in education policy at headquarters, which complements the 60 on-site career-skills courses taught by its homegrown Leadership Institute. Ever mindful of the school calendar, the organization allows all staffers to compress their weeks and take Fridays off in July and August–a relief to parents with restless kids on summer break. In a pinch, there's in-home and center-based backup care for $2 to $4 per hour.”

Discovery Communications
“Moms cherish this media company's family-friendly atmosphere. If they have a baby, they can take nine fully paid weeks off to bond and enjoy; new fathers and adoptive parents receive three fully paid weeks off. If they need help during maternity leave, they may request the services of an in-home caregiver for $6 per hour. And when they're ready to go back to work, they can reduce their hours for up to four weeks, with no loss in benefits. It's estimated that half of all workers rely on a regular flexible schedule, but the vast majority also employ such arrangements casually. Anyone who works at least 20 hours per week earns health insurance, and there's free primary care at headquarters and in New York City and Miami. For a small fee, a concierge service will tackle parents' to-do lists.”

For years Congress has struggled trying to pass bills that would mandate benefits for working mothers that companies like National Education Association and Discovery Communications now offer. While it doesn’t seem that the federal government is stepping in anytime soon to make permanent changes, if more companies jumped on the bandwagon and mimicked the companies on the list, then perhaps the motherhood penalty could truly be a relic of the past.

Student Loans - Would You Believe, It's A Gender Issue!

2010-09-17T08:00:00.001-04:00

MOTHERS member and guest blogger Kelly Coyle DiNorcia is the author of today's post. She is raising two children, living sustainably, teaching and applying her graduate degrees in education and neuroscience in all aspects of her life. You can follow her at her blog AhimsaMama.

This morning I was listening to a story on NPR discussing the fact that, as of June 2010, college debt has come to surpass credit card debt in the United States. The guest, student financial aid expert and researcher Mark Kantrowitz, recommends that students borrow no more than their anticipated first year salary in order to avoid defaulting on their loans in the future. Students who borrow more than twice their expected first year salary are at very high risk of defaulting - and, FYI, student loans are not excused in the event of bankruptcy.

I began to wonder what the implications of this recommendation might be for women in general and mothers in particular, who are more likely than men, even fathers, to find themselves living in poverty. Given that women are more likely than men to enter low-paying fields of work - say, preschool teacher or social worker - and that even when doing work that is equivalent to that of a man they receive less pay for it, females attend elite private (read: expensive) colleges at their own financial peril. Given that women are more likely than men to take time out of the full-time paid work force to attend to family responsibilities such as a child or an ailing parent, the rising cost of secondary education is likely to disproportionately affect women.

As I was listening to this story I was imagining a family sitting around a formica kitchen table in orange vinyl chairs circa 1960, discussing their bright daughter's prospects for attending college. Why bother, the father would argue, if she is just going to be a housewife and mother anyway? Why not use our limited resources to purchase an education for our son, since he is more likely to put it to good use? Then I fast forwarded fifty years and imagined men sitting in leather office chairs around a board table having a similar discussion. Giving a student loan to a girl is too risky, they argue, because she won't earn as much and might not be able to afford to pay us back. Let's invest our dollars in boys, who will probably work a good solid fifty years and will probably earn more to boot. Now THAT'S a smart investment.

According to the College Board report Trends in College Pricing, "Reductions in revenue from sources other than tuition, particularly state and local appropriations in the public sector, are associated with rapidly rising public college tuition levels in recent years." So here is yet another instance where government spending decisions have a greater negative impact on the economic security of women as compared to men. When are we, as a country, going to step up and show our support for the mothers, sisters, aunts, and daughters who care for us?

Grandparents and Family Carework

2010-09-13T18:07:00.009-04:00

The White House observed Grandparents' Day today with a gathering of advocates and policy analysts focused on the varied roles seniors play in families and communities. Barack Obama was interested in making a splash - he is, after all, currently a part of a multi-generational household, relying on his mother-in-law to help look after his daughters. His own grandparents were a big part of his youth. He knows whereof he speaks.

Topics addressed included keeping our elders safe and healthy in all their pursuits. Many are employed, or want to be employed, for a range of reasons. Like most other workers, grandparents frequently have to balance their paid work with caring for family. The recession has pushed more families to turn to grandparents while adult children look for work, or as an alternative to paid child care now that households have to get by on less income. As a result, grandparents are now at the front lines of keeping the household operating, just at a time when they were looking to retire, cut their expenses, or start taking it easy. Administration officials put seniors into the equation when promoting flexible workplaces, paid and expanded family medical leave, and paid sick days. Many grandparents find themselves without insurance, too young for medicare but no longer working and eligible for employer-sponsored health plan. The recently passed health reform legislation would fill that gap, they claim.

US Asst. Secretary for Aging at the HHS, Kathy Greenlee, complained bitterly of the characterization of the aging boomers as a "silver tsunami" that would strain our resources, consume disproportionate health services, and otherwise put a drag on economic health and vitality. In her eyes, they are a vast asset, having worked, raised children, cared for other family members, and generously given of themselves in a wide array of community and volunteer capacities. Considering the amount of time, money, and talent they have given to all of us, she suggests it is entirely equitable to implement public policies which support their physical and mental health, preserve their economic security, and extend their self-sufficiency as long as possible.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Raising the Retirement Age Is Cutting Benefits by the Back Door

2010-09-10T10:36:00.001-04:00

Everybody in Washington is obsessed with the deficit. It's a serious issue with far reaching implications, to be sure. One of the ideas being batted about is that raising the retirement age will save on "entitlement costs" and decrease our national debts in an equitable and acceptable way. Many feminist economists, social scientists, and women's advocates disagree. Passionately! Here are a few of their main arguments as presented today at a briefing sponsored by the Older Women's Economic Security Task Force (OWES) of the National Council of Women's Organizations. (NCWO)*

Social Security is prohibited from borrowing money and therefore can't get into debt. It has nothing to do with the current budget shortfalls, which are attributable to unfunded wars, lower income tax revenue, and a poorly regulated financial sector. In fact, it is the most successful and efficient program of the federal government. Social Security offers a safety net to millions of children who lose parental income due to death or disability, surviving spouses of deceased workers, as well as retirees. If no changes are made, beneficiaries will receive full benefits for at least the next 30 years. A trust fund was established decades ago to prepare for the aging baby boomer generation, and their needs were foreseen and provided for. So, the looming "crisis" we've been warned about is actually much smaller and more easily resolved it sounds.

Yes, it is true that people are living longer. We've already accounted for that by increasing the age for full retirement benefits from 65 to 67, a process that was decided upon years ago and is underway right now. The effect of this change on employment rates, the solvency of Social Security, and the poverty levels of older Americans is not yet known. Also, simply raising the age at which you can receive benefits doesn't mean necessarily that people will continue working. It's the fortunate few who can decide when to retire - millions of workers have it decided for them by being laid off, facing age discrimination in the workplace, having to respond to their own medical emergency or disability, or needing to care for an ill or elderly family member. For these people, there is no control over when earned income stops. As the vast majority of Americans have saved a mere pittance for later life, they will simply not have enough money to wait out the months and years that must go by before becoming eligible for Social Security benefits.

Finally, increases in longevity are not enjoyed by everyone. Having more healthy and productive years is linked to increases in education and income. In other words, white men are living longer, but longevity has stayed pretty much the same for everyone else. Women are performing much more compensated work now and paying significant amounts in Social Security taxes. Even so, they earn less due to wage discrimination, don't have the same access to pension programs, and work fewer years over their lifetime because they do more of the family carework than men. That's why they are far more likely to be poor in old age than men. Raising the retirement age simply cuts the amount of time they can collect benefits, even though women now work for money, and paying into the system, more than ever before.

So - is there a better way to generate the extra revenue Social Security will need decades in the future, when we, and then our children, hit our prime at 67? I have an idea - but I would really like to hear yours first. Put on your policy wonk hat and tell me the easiest and fairest way to keep the single best federal program doin' its thang for another 70 years in the "Comments" section below.

'Til next time,
Your (Wo)man in Washington

* The National Association of Mothers' Centers, MOTHERS' sponsoring non-profit organization, is a proud member of NCWO and Your (Wo)man in Washington is on the OWES Task Force.

In Memoriam - Dr. Elise Boulding and Waging Peace

2010-09-06T06:04:00.011-04:00

Your (Wo)man in Washington keeps an eye on the obituaries in her daily paper as one way to monitor the status of women in society. Mostly, men receive the "mini biography" treatment with a few paragraphs about their life and work and perhaps an accompanying photo. Photos of women are less common, so the picture of Dr. Elise Boulding caught my attention earlier this summer.

Called "the matriarch of the peace studies movement", Dr. Boulding placed women and families at the center of creating a less violent world. A sociologist by training and a mother of five (five!), her experience raising children convinced her that people could be taught to "wage peace". Building from what she saw around her own dinner table and her children's encounters on school playgrounds, she wrote and taught about conflict resolution and peace as a "daily and dynamic activity" worthy of academic study and essential to human achievement. She earned a doctoral degree and served as Sociology Department Chair at Dartmouth, ultimately developing a peace studies department there. After a lifetime of teaching and writing about how to make peace, she died at age 89, survived by the five children who taught her so much, 16 grandchildren and 9 great-grandchildren.

It is rare to find an obituary feature about a woman, especially a woman with a doctoral degree, and in the radical field of peace-making and conflict resolution to boot. It's practically unheard of for such significant achievements to be attributed to a woman's maternal experience and engagement with her own chidlren. But truly, motherhood is powerful and can be radicalizing and transforming. It will certainly change us and can compel us to change our world. Dr. Boulding's life reminds us all that our most private, personal relationships inspire our public acts and social behavior. As women with children, we are experts in non-violent conflict resolution. We can learn and teach the sacrifice, honor, bravery, and service of waging peace.

'Til next time,
Your (Wo)man in Washington

Gender Discrimination or Lifestyle Choice - You Decide!

2010-08-31T16:51:00.003-04:00

HuffPo has a fascinating article about gender pay disparity and its causes - discrimination against women, or simply differing life style choices? A wonderful piece, but make sure you read all the way to the end. There's a surprise!

You'll find it here: Examining the Defense of Family Values and Unequal Pay for Women

Something to think about over the long Labor Day weekend.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Working for Money Outside the Home, After Working for No Money Inside the Home

2010-08-10T10:15:00.004-04:00

Most women return to paid work at some point after they have children. The need to explain her time at home can trouble a mother when she looks for a job.

"When women talk about their time home with their kids they're apologetic and downplay the time off, rather than highlighting the skills they've learned."

Why is this so? What can we do about it? Do we hold the answer, or does it have to come from the world of work? Here's an approach from New Jersey, a class taught at a community college.

MOTHERS founder Ann Crittenden wrote a whole book on the subject, If You've Raised Kids, You Can Manage Anything.

How does caring for children, or other family members, make you better at the other things you do?

What Should Society Do For Parents?

2010-08-09T13:47:00.003-04:00

Let's face facts: raising children costs money, and lots of it. Parenthood has economic consequences, and they extend far beyond the family home. If women decide having children is too perilous an undertaking, and fewer children are born, our nation will suffer. Public policy, or how the laws of the land hinder or help parents and families fulfill their function, impact us in very direct and personal ways. This recent Washington Post column is sure to get you thinking about how personal politics can be.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

This Video Says It Straight

2010-07-20T07:15:00.005-04:00

When it comes to making our world go 'round, women are doing most of the heavy lifting. We work more US jobs than men, and our income is the sole or significant support in more households than ever. We still do the majority of carework for our children, our parents, and our spouses. As consumers, we direct the spending of billions of household dollars. American women are doing it all - and still face discrimination that lowers their pay, risk losing their jobs to care for a sick child, and have no protected time off when they give birth, adopt, or face a serious illness. On top of it all, women with children are far more likely to be poor in later life, when their lower earnings, smaller savings, non-existent pensions, and shrinking Social Security benefits fail to meet their basic needs. What's wrong with this picture?

Debra Ness, President of the National Partnership for Women & Families, talks about the changing economic and social role of mothers, and how families suffer from policies which don't take into account the reality of daily life. You can watch the 7 minute YouTube video right here.

Helicopter Mothers Take A Hit

2010-07-12T21:53:00.007-04:00

MOTHERS member Jennifer Minear picked up the Sunday paper two weeks ago and received an unexpected jolt from an article on parenting styles and their alleged consequences. She felt a lot better after writing this post as a guest blogger, and we're happy to bring it to you.

On July 4, 2010, The Washington Post ran Margaret K. Nelson’s article “Helicopter moms, Heading for a Crash”, which claims that mothers who hover are setting themselves, their marriages, their friendships and their communities up for disaster.

I find so many problems with this piece. It marginalizes parents, most particularly mothers, of all walks of life, socio-economic backgrounds, styles, and income levels. The author draws unfair conclusions on the negative impact of this parenting style without offering proof. Nelson writes, “When people turn inward to their families, their communities also pay a high price.” This is blanket statement, discriminatory towards involved parents, regardless of whether they hover or not.

In September 2009, David Kerr, of Oregon State University’s psychology department, Deborah Capaldi, Katherine Pears and Lee Owen of the Oregon Social Learning Center, published the results of over 20 years of research on the impact of parenting styles on three generations of families and their communities. “Positive parenting”, defined as “warmth, monitoring (of) children's activities, involvement, and consistency of discipline”, was found to extend benefits to the children, their children, and their communities. Delinquency levels, and drug and alcohol abuse were lower as a result of these practices; self-esteem, close personal relationships, and engagement with society were higher. Although Nelson cites sources and studies, they seemed to point nowhere definitive in the discussion of helicopter parenting. Robin Wilson’s study on the divorce rate of women with higher-level degrees suggests nothing about the effects of helicopter parenting. Absent is any mention of whether or not these women are in fact mothers.

“Erica” is vilified for her decision to monitor the programs her children watch, also for discussing the material with them. I’m still trying to figure out, after reading over this article 10 times, why this is a bad thing. A mother dialoguing with her children about things that they’ve seen and heard is “hovering” - a practice that will carry negative implications for Erica, her marriage, her friendships, and her community, according to Nelson.

Conversations with one’s children are windows of opportunity – to teach, to imprint, to shape their character, to gain insight into their minds, and simply to spend time with them.

Children today are inundated with an onslaught of information, mainly delivered through screens. Is it not the duty of an engaged, involved parent to filter the material and talk it over with their children, rather than leaving them to navigate it on their own?

Nelson writes, “Erica’s TV policy is not just exhaustive; it sounds exhausting.” News flash: parenting is exhausting. Parenting is a full-time, “totally consuming” job, regardless of your parenting style and choices. It just is, and there’s no way around it.

- Jennifer L.G. Minear is a freelance writer living in Rockville, MD. Although NOT a "helicopter parent", she is a very involved mother of 3 children who felt compelled to speak up in defense of all parents implicated in this article.

"The Price of Motherhood" Revisited

2010-07-11T15:32:00.007-04:00

As July 12 is my birthday, I'm turning the keyboard aboard over to our latest MOTHERS member, Laura LaMonica of Stella, North Carolina. She's a freshly minted Ed.D. and recently just happened to be reading The Price of Motherhood by our very own Ann Crittenden. You'll find below her fresh take on this book which fired us up and set us on the path we follow today, with as much passion and purpose as ever. Welcome, Laura!

In The Price of Motherhood, Ann Crittenden writes about a subject near and dear to my heart: mothers and work. This May, I graduated with a Doctor of Education degree from North Carolina State University. In my dissertation, I examined the experiences of mothers as they transitioned away from and back to the paid workforce around the birth of a first child. A mother of young children, I felt isolated and alone in my own struggles to balance paid work and family and remain relevant and effective in either sphere. I wanted to find out if my experiences were unique or reflective of the struggles of other mothers in the paid workforce. I found that I am not as alone as I feel.

Reading Crittenden’s book felt like a further validation of my feelings and of my work. But more than that, she provides insights and a new way of looking at the experience of motherhood that has expanded my own thinking. Crittenden reminded me that the phrase “working mother”—or “worker-mother” as I called my study participants—is redundant. Her brilliant analysis of the economic contributions—and oversight—of mothers’ unpaid labor blew me away. I am all too familiar with the model of “economic man” that drives organizations and the human resource development function within them. Crittenden’s articulate and insightful portrait of “economic woman” adds an entirely new dimension to my understanding of the workplace and the social structure within which we all live and work.

In my own work, I examined the experiences of the mothers in my study through a radical feminist lens. This viewpoint allowed me to focus on the patriarchal social structure that creates the struggles experienced by mothers in the paid workforce. Crittenden’s work helped me understand more deeply how this social structure is sustained and fed by the unpaid work mothers do. The Price of Motherhood’s Chapter 3, which traces the development of this social structure and the economic marginalization of mothers, was nothing short of revolutionary for me. Crittenden’s description of the women’s movement and the growth of our economy is readable, interesting, and written in a way that someone like me, with little knowledge of economics, could grasp.

This ability to provide understandable and accessible explanations of social phenomena is so important and needed and is one of Crittenden’s greatest contributions. I have read and referenced many of the pre-eminent feminist scholars she cites in her work: Joan Williams, Heidi Hartmann, Heather Joshi, Deborah Swiss, Jane Waldfogel, to name just a few. Crittenden is able to take the sometimes dense, scholarly work of these brilliant academics and join and translate it into a highly accessible, thoroughly readable piece of literature. By making the issues facing mothers known, and in a way that anyone can understand, Crittenden opens the topic for discussion in the mainstream – something she rightly points out is sadly missing in our society.

Another aspect of Crittenden’s work that I appreciated on a personal level was that she placed the blame for mothers’ plight where it belongs: off of mothers and onto the social structure in which we mother. I was pointed to The Price of Motherhood by a reviewer of another book on the same topic. I was struggling to get through that book because the author blamed mothers (specifically stay-at-home mothers) for their plight. Even though as a mother in the paid workforce, I was not the target of this author’s wrath, I felt insulted, offended, and off put on behalf of all women who mother. I wondered if others felt the same and ventured online to find out. Reviewer Laura Farrell noted, “For more serious books on this topic, check out Unbending Gender (by Joan Williams, a law professor) and The Price of Motherhood (by Ann Crittenden, a financial journalist and Pulitzer Prize nominee). Neither delivers a harangue against working or at-home mothers; they just deal with the issues.” I knew the blame and guilt that I was feeling as I read somehow wasn’t right – it felt good to know that others felt similarly and that writers like Crittenden are out there, focusing on what’s important, denouncing “choice rhetoric” and “mommy wars,” and doing so without additional detriment to the women they are trying to serve.

This even handedness demonstrated by Crittenden is another characteristic that made the book valuable to me and, I believe, to many others. She addresses the issues without making any of them political; she avoids soap boxing, relying instead of data, facts, and irrefutable economic truths. She advocates only for mothers, working and stay-at-home, young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican. Works like Crittenden’s go a long way toward healing the in-fighting so frightfully common among our own.

The Price of Motherhood evoked a litany of emotions from me. I felt irate, betrayed, unappreciated, incented, helpless. I read the book while my family was on “staycation”; I didn’t get to participate in the rest because I work part time and therefore have no access to paid leave. I couldn’t afford to take time off. Of course, I was also responsible for the extra child care responsibilities, meals, and housework that occurred that week as my family took their leisure, as well. Crittenden suggests plausible, reasonable suggestions for making changes big and small to our social structure and to our workplaces that can alleviate much of the inequality mothers face. I cheered quietly to myself as I read them, but was almost immediately overcome with a feeling of utter hopelessness as I imagined the resistance that such change will undoubtedly face. It seemed too big a mountain to climb.

Still, I ventured to Ms. Crittenden’s web site, interested in what she’s doing since writing the book. Happily, I found MOTHERS and once again, I feel inspired. Equality for all women—including mothers—is an uphill battle, but it is one worth fighting. When I consider the barriers faced and overcome by women like Jane Addams, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Margaret Sanger, Betty Friedan, and Mary McLeod Bethune, or other civil rights activists like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X, I must acknowledge that there is hope, and there must be—must be—action. This is The Price of Motherhood’s most important impact on me—the courage to hope and a will to act. For that, Ms. Crittenden, I am most grateful.

'Til next time,
Your Woman in Washington

Guest Post: "Economic Role of Parents Devalued"

2010-06-10T13:20:00.004-04:00

Your (Wo)Man in Washington welcomes guest blogger Amy Peake, a mother, lawyer, and writer. She has graciously allowed me to crosspost an opinion piece of hers that recently appeared in The Birmingham News.

MY VIEW: Economic role of parents devalued
By Special to The Birmingham News
May 30, 2010, 5:35AM
By AMY PEAKE

Theodore Roosevelt, father of six, once said: "The good mother .¤.¤. is more important to the community than even the ablest man; her career is more worthy of honor and is more useful to the community than the career of any man, no matter how successful."

In the modern economy, two-thirds of all created wealth is created by human skills, what economists call "human capital." What Roosevelt was trying to say is parents who are conscientiously and effectively rearing children are literally, in the words of economist Shirley Burggraf, "the major wealth producers in our economy."

This simple truth was brought home to me by a recent conversation. I am a part-time lawyer and a full-time wife and mother; I don't go to the office every day. I was out running errands in casual clothes one morning, and I stopped at the dry cleaners. The employees there know me and are accustomed to seeing me in work attire. The woman behind the counter immediately asked, "Aren't you working today?" I didn't stop to think and replied that I was not.

When I later reflected on my response, I thought about a typical day. I get up at 6:45 a.m., make the beds, empty the dishwasher, start laundry, shower and dress, then spend my day working at my law practice or writing at home. Later, I do the after-school carpool, return home, finish the laundry and prepare dinner.

While doing these things, I also "manage," with the help of my husband, my 14-year-old daughter's busy life -- monitoring her schoolwork, facilitating her activities as a competitive baton twirler, planning birthday parties, arranging summer activities and just maintaining communication with her about the complexities of growing up in our crazy world. I may not be in a business suit every day, but I know I, along with every other parent I know, am always working.

Normally, I would probably not have picked up on this, but I have been reading an interesting book by reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner Ann Crittenden called "The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued." In it, Crittenden reflects on the changes in the U.S. economy that took place after the Civil War, when more men began earning wages than producing their own livelihood by farming or other trades for the first time in American history. Earlier, entire families contributed to the family business, usually a farm.

The shift in society and its attitudes toward work and mothers is reflected in the change to the U.S. Census form in 1860. When the census first began to measure economic activity in 1810, it had tallied the number of families, not individuals, working in agriculture, commerce and manufacturing. When working for wages became the norm, the census began to inquire into the occupations of individuals.

The 1850 census asked for the "profession, occupation, or trade" of each male person over 15. In 1860, the Census Bureau changed this question to include women, and the majority described their occupation as "housekeeper." The wage-earning jobs held by men became society's definition of "work," and the economic contributions of mothers were marginalized.

This economic reality matters to parents, especially working mothers. Many parents who work as professionals have little time and energy left for their children, and many low-wage-earning parents have to work two jobs just to keep food on the table, and have even less time and resources for their children. Not only is this bad for families, it is bad for our society.

Our children are the human capital that drives the modern economy, instead of the factories and material capital of the old economy. So-called "high-nurturing" parents have been shown through recent studies in the neuroscience of brain development to raise healthier kids who are better able to deal with the stresses of life.

Hopefully, employers will become aware of these new scientific findings that show the significance of the impact of parent-child relationships on the brain development of children and how it shapes their potential as adults and future workers.

Our society needs to appreciate the economic benefits conferred by the parents working to raise the children who will be the future of our nation's work force. When this happens, there will be more respect for parents and, maybe, more flexible work arrangements to benefit not only families but, ultimately, the future employers of the children we are working to raise.

We'd love to hear your comments below. You can also email Amy directly at amyp@peakeinc.net.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

The Part Time Worker Blues

2010-06-03T13:17:00.007-04:00

There are many different reasons women and mothers get the short end of the stick in our social order, but a major factor has to be how part-time work is structured in this country. This is a big part of the reason women's earnings and women's wealth trails that of men so dramatically.

The US Joint Economic Committee recently published "The Earnings Penalty for Part-Time Work: An Obstacle to Equal Pay". The report shows that neary 2/3 of part-time workers are women. In 2009, that was 17 million women in the U.S. It is true that most women do work full-time outside the home, however one fourth of all working women are in the part-time category. (Only 13% of employed men are working part-time.) The food service and personal care industries are predominantly part-time fields, and employ far more women than men. In these and other occupations, part-time workers make less per hour than full time workers in the same field, even though they are doing precisely the same work, though for fewer hours. For example, a part-time worker in sales makes 58 cents for every dollar a full-time salesperson earns. In computer and mathematical occupations, a part-timer is earning only 63 cents for every dollar a full-timer earns. In addition to a lower rate of compensation, part-timers don't see the health benefits, paid time off, or pension plans that many full-timers can take advantage of. So, the hourly difference actually underrepresents the economic discrepancy.

The appeal of part-time work for women is likely the decreased hours, which they need to accommodate their other obligations, like caring for children or other dependent family members. It is no surprise, then, that offers for "work at home" are targeted at women in general and mothers in particular, promising great wages, especially on the internet. Many of these offers are outright scams, preying on the competing interests of mothers to make some money and care for their children. Sharon Lerner, author of The War On Moms: On Life in a Family Unfriendly Nation, wrote an eyebrow-raising article in a recent issue of American Prospect, on multilevel marketing schemes and how women have been taken in and lost thousands of dollars. "For every legitimate work-from-home job advertised on the Web, there are some 57 scams..." she writes. Mothers desperate for ecnomic stability and flexible work are prime victims.

There's no doubt that this situation is the direct result of a public policy failure to align the 21st century workplace with the 21st century workforce. Child care, especially good child care, is hard to find, and when found, invariably expensive. If a mother has even two young children, what she earns can be far too close to what it costs to pay for child care alone. Lacking an accessible, affordable early education/child care policy, the US offers little in the way of flexible and/or part-time work with proportionate pay and benefits. It isn't going too far to say that our national approach (or really, lack of one) creates a huge pool of willing customers for these direct sales marketers. In fact, 88% of people in direct sales are female. The number turning a profit is negligible, less than 1% by some estimates. Ironically, mothers pursuing economic stability in this manner will likely find themselves worse off than ever.

We can continue to think that really, women aren't discriminated against in this country, and there is equal opportunity to all, male and female, parent and non-parent. After all, it's just the way things are. Or we can take a cold hard look at the situation, inform ourselves, and connect the dots. The space between cause and effect gets shorter and shorter, especially where mothers' economic independence and public policy run into each other. The situation we find ourselves in is no accident. Nor is it inevitable. But it most certainly will continue until we say, "Enough".

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Cutting Social Security Hurts Mothers Most

2010-05-24T17:46:00.006-04:00

Our friends at Wider Opportunities for Women are hosting a "Budget Matters" Blogging Day on Wednesday, May 26. They challenged me to blog about two questions: "What can President Obama and Congress do to help Americans be economically secure while balancing the budget? And what do President Obama and Congress need to know about your budget – or that of those you represent?" You'll see my response below. You can go to their site and blog your own answers to these vexing questions, and see what other women have to say. http://www.wowonline.org/budgetmatters

Men and women are treated differently by the Social Security system. When the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform looks for places to cut the fat, they'll look hard at Social Security, and likely attempt to repair our budget woes by cutting back on benefits. That will be bad for retired American workers. It will be catastrophic for women, and devastating for mothers.

Our Social Security system rewards paid employment. The longer you've been employed and the more you've earned, the higher your monthly benefit will be. Of course, the longer you've been employed, the more time you've had to participate in your employer's pension program. The more you've earned, the more you've been able to save in an IRA, or similar retirement savings program. A long work life with steadily increasing pay means a more secure retirement, free from financial worry.

Like many federal programs, Social Security was not designed with women in mind. Women spend less time in the paid workforce; by some estimates, as much as 12 years less. Often, this is because they had children, or turned away from employment to look after a parent, spouse, or other dependent family member. When they do work, they make less money. Women don't have access to employer-sponsored retirement pensions to the same extent men do. If they do, their pensions are about half the size of the typical man's pension. Not surprisingly, that Social Security check makes up a much greater portion of retirement income for an older woman. According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, the typical retired female receives $9872 per year in Social Security payments. For many women, especially those who sacrificed economic independence to raise children or look after others, it is the only retirement income they have. When women reach age 75, 13 out of 100 will live in poverty. For men over 75, that number is only 8 out of a hundred. (IWPR Publication #D487, March 2010)

Because women perform most of the family care work in this country, they are more likely to be poor in later life. Social Security benefits for most women are exceedingly modest. For many, they are simply inadequate. Cutting benefits is no solution to balancing our budget. While it might look good on paper, the reality of a huge increase in the number of poor, elderly women, benefits no one. "Mom and apple pie" deserve far better.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Who Is Giving Birth In the US?

2010-05-15T14:40:00.008-04:00

New data from the Pew Research Center reveal some surprising changes in the decisions women make about marriage and family. Over the past 20 years, non-Hispanic white women had fewer children, and now account for just over half of US births. The birthrate among black teenage girls has fallen by 50%, and there are more births to women over 35 than women under 20. The average age for first-time motherhood is 25. Only 1 out of every 10 births occurs to a teen-aged girl.

It's far easier to calculate changes than to identify the reasons for them. As their labor force participation increases, women may delay giving birth for career advancement and/or financial security. New fertility technology, for those who cannot get pregnant, or waited too long to try, is making parenthood possible later in life for those who can afford it. Mothers today are likely to be better educated, which also may delay motherhood.

Two other pieces of information suggest contradictory trends. More women now choose not to have a child at all, and more mothers are unmarried. About 4 of every 10 US births is to a single woman. Marriage and motherhood are not nearly as connected as they once were, and statistics show that women sometimes choose one or the other without feeling compelled to do both. White and Hispanic births are now much more likely to be to single mothers. Again, the motivations driving these decisions were not the object of study. It seems a safe bet, though, that men's economic role in women's lives has somewhat diminished, and women may now decide it is socially acceptable and economically possible to remain single, or to become a mother while remaining single.

If American motherhood were not so fraught with economic peril, would more women give birth? Impossible to say. Are we better off if the women giving birth are more educated, older, and able to economically sustain themselves and their children? Absolutely. Perhaps the rising age of first-time motherhood, the falling rates of teen pregnancy, and the willingness of women, especially mothers, to participate in the paid labor force, all demonstrate that women can be trusted to make their own wise decisions when given the opportunity and resources to do so.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)man in Washington

Potty Parity in Federal Buildings

2010-05-14T13:08:00.004-04:00

Your (Wo)Man in Washington made a joke in her last column about the first act of female legislators being to double the number of stalls in every public women's restroom by federal statute. Imagine her suprise when a House committee convened a hearing this week on requiring newly constructed or renovated federal buildings to have the same number of stalls for women as the number of toilets and urinals for men. Swiftly nicknamed "The Potty Parity Act", expert testimony was introduced contending that women simply require more time due to biology, clothing styles, and the need for stalls. A long line of ladies waiting for the loo is a form of gender discrimination suggesting male dominance. Having to wait too long can cause abdominal pain, urinary tract infections, and cystitis. In the past, most architects, builders, and building code enforcers would not have taken into account how the presence of women would impact the design of public facilities.

The members of the US House who attended the hearing, and reporters writing about it, could not restrain the urge to indulge in a little bathroom humor. Dana Milbank began his piece in the Washington Post this way: There are times when the legislative plumbing gets clogged, when frustration overflows, when the American people must pull up their collective trousers and reach for the plunger. With luck, the bill will wind its way through the legislative process, but don't hold your breath...it could well be "stalled"!

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Is Mother in the House.....and Senate?

2010-05-07T14:10:00.006-04:00

Mother's Day became my favorite holiday exactly 14 years ago—the first one I observed as a mother in my own right. It followed on the heels of my realization that no amount of education, professional experience, personal achievement, or effort would insulate me from the disadvantages of being an American woman.

Since that time, I've learned that phone calls, cards, and flowers are just the tip of the maternal iceberg. Largely absent from our modern-day celebration is any notion of the real origin of Mother's Day. In her 1870 Mother's Day Proclamation, feminist Julia Ward Howe calls for "a general congress of women...appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient," asserting that women have a duty to influence their societies at the political level.

In truth, we do have such a duty. Sadly, we have yet to fulfill it.

The number of women in elected office in the United States is astonishingly low, and the least of any industrialized nation. Yet women comprise over 50% of the population, a majority of high school graduates, a majority of students earning undergraduate degrees, and receive more master's degrees than men. If "a general congress of women" was convened today, there would certainly be no lack of qualified candidates!

And what would the impact of such an estrogen-fueled congress be? If women (even mothers!) were swept into office, eliminating the gender gap in government, what would be the result? Obviously, the first order of business would be to double the number of stalls in every public women's restroom by federal statute. But what next?

In my mother's mind's eye, this is what I see:

• Women could give birth at home, in the hospital, on their own terms, and in their own time. It would be illegal to send them home until they felt good and ready and could walk—unassisted—out of the hospital.

• Men and women would receive the same pay for the same work. It would be impossible to lose your job because you took your sick child to the doctor, or went to a parent/teacher conference.

• You could be successful at your job even if you worked less than 60 hours a week. Part-time workers could participate in their employer's retirement savings plan and group health insurance plan, and they'd be paid proportionately to full-time workers.

• As many women as men would sit on corporate boards, run banks, and be CEO's of Fortune 500 companies.

• Mothers and fathers could take sufficient time to adjust to life with a newborn or newly adopted child, with pay, before returning to work.

• Stay at home fathers would be just as common as stay at home mothers, and women would be cheered for financially supporting their children.

• You could hold down a job, coach your kid's sports team, be a community leader, and still have time for a pedicure.

• Every community would have a Mother’s Center, a place where mothers could find information about their baby’s healthy development, options for family leave, what post-partum depression feels like, adult conversation, support and friendship.

• When your parents get sick or die, you can be there to hold their hand and not get fired. When you get sick and ready to die, your spouse or son or daughter or grandchild can care for you without making themselves poor.

• No one would be poor in retirement because they took time away from paid work to raise children, care for disabled soldier spouse, or look after a family member suffering from a serious illness.

• We would never have to apologize for loving our family, wanting to work, wanting to be home, wanting to have power and influence and wanting to make a difference.

• We wouldn't have to apologize…for being women.

That's the country that I want for Mother's Day. That's the country I want for myself, for my daughter, and for my son. And when women fill the seats of the U.S. Congress to the same extent they make up the U.S. population, it's the kind of country we will live in.

So what is it, exactly, that we are waiting for?

‘Til next time, and Happy Mother’s Day,
Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Cross posted at the "Women & Politics" blog hosted by the Women's Campaign Forum

Mother is a Verb

2010-04-27T19:35:00.002-04:00

Mother...
care... wash... wipe... love... warn... kiss... hold...
encourage... read... feed... cook... tell... pray... worry...
give... teach... listen... adapt... hug... launder... work...
load... birth... clean... sweep... sing... beam... talk...
unload... drive... nurture... protect... rock... bend...
soothe... coax... calm... cool... push... lift... clasp... yell... walk.

Walk.
Walk a Mile for Mothers

Become a member of my virtual team, and support the National Association of Mothers' Centers. Please give generously. Thank you.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Equal Pay Day and the Marlboro Man

2010-04-13T16:40:00.011-04:00

Equal Pay Day is just around the corner, so it's a good time to take stock once again of how women's earnings compare with those of men. Your (Wo)Man in Washington has buried her nose in so many economic reports, federal statistical surveys, and stacks of mind-numbing data, she feels entitled to confidently assert the following facts. In general ... :

Women earn less than men when they work within the same field or industry.

Women workers are concentrated in the lower paying fields or industries.

Women spend more time out of the paid workforce than men do.

Women with children earn less money than men with children.

Women with children earn less money than women without children.

Poverty rates for women and children are significantly higher than poverty rates for men.

Typically, at this point, those who reject the existence of gender discrimination will invoke the notion of "choice", free will, personal responsibility, and the logical consequences of our actions. Cue the strains of our glorious, rugged individualism which compels the Marlboro man, our ultimate American icon, to unfurl his bedroll and sleep, alone (and uninterrupted by an infant's cry or a toddler's wet bed), under a starry sky. Proponents of the "lifestyle" social theory will relish the personal freedom and see no larger economic or national security implications. Such a view is risky.

Assuming that we agree the United States should continue to thrive, and that the human race is a species worth perpetuating, all the chatter about choice rather misses the point. Our great American story is hardly personified by a chain-smoking single male wandering unfettered around the Wild West. He may have been independent and self-sufficient, but really, what did he actually do? And don't even get me started on the public health costs of all those cigarettes!

No, there's a much better symbol for the growth, expansion and diversity of this great country. She's Lillian Gilbreth, mother of 12, and the heroine of "Cheaper by the Dozen". Either pregnant and/or lactating during much of her adult life, she raised a family the size of Rhode Island, earned a Ph.D. in industrial psychology, advised five US Presidents, authored innumerable articles and essays, picked up 22 honorary degrees, all while caring for her demanding and over-achieving husband (which sounded like a full-time job in itself, according to the book.) This woman raised to adulthood 12 fully functional, tax-paying American citizens, across two World Wars and one Great Depression. She could rightly claim to be a one-woman economic stimulus program, spurring both job creation and a labor force simultaneously. Why her face isn't plastered on billboards across the length and the breadth of America, I'll never know.

As a nation, we should face facts and admit that we desperately need women to have children, and mothers and fathers to raise and provide for them. These children will drive the economy, extend the boundaries of achievement and knowledge, defend and protect us, and run our country. We will become dependent upon them, in ways large and small. Making women poorer than men, and making mothers the poorest of the poor, is hardly a strategy calculated to lead to success. Hiding behind "lifestyle choices" to avoid our collective responsibility to parents and children, regardless of what individual choices we may make, is shortsighted, and carries far-reaching costs.

You can share a smoke with that Marlboro man, but I'll be hanging with Mrs. Gilbreth. Mother mojo beats macho anyday.

You Flex First: Reflections on Workforce Re-Entry by a Mother Who Never Fully Entered in the First Place

2010-04-02T06:38:00.006-04:00

(Your (Wo)Man in Washington has stepped out to enjoy the glorious cherry trees and our capital city in its spring finery. She has turned her keyboard over to new MOTHERS member Jennifer L. G. Minear, for a guest post on workplace flexibility, the subject of a first-ever forum at the White House this week.)

A few months ago, I was on the phone with a recruiter. She came across my resume online and wanted to talk. She’s a mom, I'm a mom. We chatted with ease about our kids and how “crazy” it all was. How they always got sick at the worst times, and wasn’t it so impossible keeping up with them?

I liked her. Seemingly, we had much in common.

When it came time to talk “meat and potatoes”, as my grandpa would say, I learned quickly that our similarities ended with that casual conversation.

After running through a laundry list of questions surrounding my work experience, background, dates of employment, salary history, and technical skills, she listened to my answers, offering little response. I sensed things heading rapidly downhill.

“Well, what do you want? What is most important to you?” she asked me.

I’ve always been a believer in truth in advertising, especially when discussing my professional life (or lack thereof). So after explaining that my biggest priority, regardless of pay, was flexibility, the recruiter paused awkwardly before stating that she didn’t know of any opportunities that might fit. I wasn't surprised in the least. Why?

Because I’ve had this conversation a dozen times before - each time it ends exactly the same. The only difference is the voice on the other end. Allow me to list a few facts about myself:

I am 32 years old.

I hold a degree in Journalism from one of the nation’s top Communications programs.

I have 3 children ranging in age from 9 to 2-years-old.

I had my first child less than a year after graduating from college. I was 23.

I was already pregnant and newly married when I began my post-grad job search.

Educated. Broke. Immature and Overwhelmed. Very, very overwhelmed.

If I had a “To Do” list at the time (which I didn’t), it would probably have looked something like this:

1. Move out of mom and dad’s

2. Set up our household, wherever that might be

3. Figure out how to run said household

4. Get a job to help pay bills until the baby comes

5. Survive my first pregnancy

6. Survive labor and delivery

7. If still alive after aforementioned pregnancy, labor and delivery....raise the child.

Since having my first child, I’ve primarily been a stay at home mother. My work history is choppy at best. A few part time stints here and there, and two short-lived full time jobs in the placement industry.

The voice on the other end of the phone explained that I didn't have much in the way of relevant professional experience. I hadn't worked at all in the 18 months since giving birth to my youngest child. It's pretty tough to get those flex options that you're looking for right out of the gate.

Most employers expect you to put in your time and prove yourself. After much hard work, I might prove myself to be deserving, responsible and intelligent enough to merit telecommuting privileges, or a shortened schedule -- but only if I put in my time.

Time? Now that is something I don't have a whole lot of.

Immersing myself in a full-time corporate job would involve rearranging the schedules of my two school-age daughters, including drop off and pick up from school, not to mention sports practices, extra-curriculars, and playdates. No more volunteering at school either.

Then there’s my 18-month-old, who happens to be glued to my hip, leg, ankle, or hand most hours of the day.

I'm sure he'll understand when I explain to him that it's only temporary. He’ll understand why his mommy is absent for the majority of his waking hours. Mommy has to prove that she is "responsible" (Last time I checked, I was raising 3 kids, and I haven't lost one yet), "intelligent", and a world-class juggler (the gravity-defying, no-dropping-the-ball, make-your-head-spin kind, not to be found in the circus). Of course, all three of them will totally understand.

In order for me to play by the rules of this warped game, I simply need to give our family life a total overhaul. It will just be temporary, however, because after I've proven I'm worth it, I can re-overhaul it back to where it once was. Now that's what I call flexibility!

At this point in our conversation, I was ready to call a spade a spade, and move on.

Before we hung up, I decided to ask her opinion on how my resume read for marketability. “Everything looks great! Just omit the term ‘maternity leave’.”

I asked her to explain the reasoning behind such a discriminatory statement. Admitting to motherhood, she said, would deter scores of potential employers who might otherwise be interested. Such a statement implies that your higher priorities rest with your children and your family life. In turn, your work will inevitably suffer, paling in comparison to that of your childless colleagues. It's one of the dark secrets of the HR world. No hiring manager in corporate America will ever admit to it, but it's true.

At this point, our conversation was over. So, so over. And I was fired up.

Apparently, we are living in the dark ages. In fact, I think I hear a dinosaur roaring outside my front door right now....wait, no, never mind, that's my 2year old son, who just learned that a T-Rex is different from a Stegosaurus, and he’s perfecting his own little roar. How did he learn this?

I taught him.

We just finished reading one of his favorite books on dinosaurs. A book that I bought for him. A book that I read to him, re-read to him, and then read to him again - repeating the name of each dinosaur.

Admittedly, my son is bright, and I am proud of him. His brilliance is not my doing, though I will allow myself a little credit.

I speak to him all day long. We have running dialogues about everything from dinosaurs, to music, to sports, to places we're going and people we've seen. I don't dumb down our conversations. I speak to him as I would to any other adult, and I engage him.

No baby talk. No babble. No Barney. None of that. I ask him questions, and he gives me answers. I read to him - a lot. Sometimes from my own books. Then again, I suppose I can understand why an employer might have doubts about me. I've spent the last 2 years talking to a baby.

This is the age of über-acceptance and Affirmative Action. It is 2010 and we live in a progressive society, yet discrimination against mothers thrives and flourishes. This is a prejudice so deeply entrenched in our society, that half of those marginalized by it don't even realize it. Ann Crittenden, in The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued, states that the people who opt to nurture and educate the next generation are systematically handicapped in the labor market, and are left with an impossible choice. Either enjoy professional success at the expense of one's children, or be pigeonholed into the alienated lower-class of the workplace. In my opinion, that's not much of a choice.

That's a joke.

Benefits would extend to every layer of society if today's mothers were empowered to pursue their professional ambitions without the pressure to ignore the rudimentary qualities which inform the essence of motherhood -- our intrinsic and instinctive need to nurture, teach and protect our own children -- to simply be there for them. Until then, for mothers who would like to work or who need to work, it will always be an "either/or" situation at its core.

Mothers like myself, who stay at home with their children, struggle to re-enter the workforce. Our society trivializes and denigrates the professional, financial and personal sacrifices of the stay-at-home mother. It’s a below-the-belt punch with a far-reaching sting, and it’s time for the gloves to come off.

Jennifer L.G. Minear is a freelance writer and lives in Rockville, MD with her husband, mother, brother, 3 kids and 2 dogs.She's worked here and there as an executive recruiter, but finds herself much happier writing. Jennifer can be reached at jenminear@gmail.com

The True Cost of Paid Leave for Parents of Newborns

2010-03-19T13:11:00.006-04:00

The first objection to a national paid family leave policy in the US is usually about cost. Who would pay for it? Why should the employer pay a worker who isn't there? Given that such a program would, among other things, allow new parents time to care for their children, is it fair to workers without children, who would never use that benefit? If the money is to come from public funds, why should one taxpayer pay for another to deal with bringing home a baby or a newly adopted child? While the questions posed are worthy of serious thought, they are not insurmountable obstacles. In fact, every other modern country has resolved them in one way or another. The bigger question is what we are paying right now for NOT having a paid leave policy available to new parents. A recent analysis of over 150 studies on the impact of family leave on newborns, Newborn Family Leave: Effects on Children, Parents, and Business, documents what it takes to make a difference in the lives of babies and their families.

Young children whose parents have sufficient job-protected paid leave enjoy better health than children whose parents do not. They are less likely to suffer a life-threatening illness or accident. They are more likely to receive the necessary immunizations and receive the considerable benefits of being breastfed. They display better physical and mental development, and are more likely to receive care from their fathers, both upon arrival and throughout their childhood. Longer paid leaves for the mother have been shown to decrease the frequency and extent of depression and anxiety. However, to accomplish all these goals, the parental leave must provide some income, and guarantee a job to return to.

A rational person might think that with so much hanging in the balance, we'd see to it that our own children had the benefit of a common policy proven to do so much good. We do want our children to be as healthy as possible, be protected against common diseases, and get their checkups, especially in that first critical year. We do want mothers to be able to breastfeed, because it is great for both mother and child in numerous, important ways. Having a baby brings overwhelming challenges - putting the family's economic stability at risk ought not to be one of them. Women without paid leave tend to quit their jobs, then attempt to re-enter the workforce later, undercutting their earning power and losing ground. Mothers with paid leave of 8 weeks or more are more likely to return to their employer, preserving their connection to the paid labor force, protecting their earning potential, and continuing to provide for their families. Needless to say, the employer avoids the expense of re-training and re-staffing that accompany constant turnover.

We will all eventually be dependent on today's children. They will be our teachers, doctors, grocers, farmers, and scientists. They will build our houses, design our public spaces, vote for our leaders, run our police departments, and raise our grandchildren. If we want the best for them, then we need to put a common sense policy in place to make it happen. We are already paying a price, in our own and our children's poor health, lost opportunity, sub-optimal child development, and unearned wages, that can never be recovered.

The question isn't how much will paid parental leave cost.

The question really is why are we willing to continue to pay such a high price for not having it?

Mothers Snowed Under

2010-03-12T10:45:00.000-05:00

Would you believe me if I told you that a major snowstorm affects the lives of men and women differently? Could I convince you that there is a gender difference, even in the weather? Let me try.

In February, parts of the East Coast had a humongous snowstorm. Nobody could go anywhere for 5 days to a week. There was no paper delivery, no mail, no traffic, just heaps and heaps of snow. Everywhere. So, child care centers closed early, opened late, or just couldn't operate. Parents couldn't get out of their houses to go to work, so their children stayed home. Many who couldn't make it to work didn't get paid. Some parents resisted paying the usual fees, for care they didn't use, or couldn't get to, or that was offered for fewer hours. If the money didn't come in, it couldn't go out to the staff. Now, child care is not a business that generates significant income. It is regarded as "unskilled labor" and is performed mainly by women, which keep wages absurdly low. Most child care workers don't have savings for a rainy, or a snowy, day. Most child care workers, or indeed most workers of any kind, simply can't miss a couple of days of pay without some anxiety.

The outlines of the perilous state of child care were as clear as tracks in the snow. The cost of care is as high as the cost of the monthly mortgage payment or rent for many families. Providers operate on a shoestring. The fact that almost 50% of child care is done outside the licensing or supervision of any public authority shows that the expense for a child care center is just beyond a huge number of households. These children are with untrained staff in uninspected facilities without any set standards for background checks or safety. Care providers, in or out of a center, are among the poorest paid workers in our economy, earning significantly less per hour than those who fix our cars and unclog our pipes. So there is a total lack of high-quality, reliable child care when and where it is needed. If a mother can't find good care where she is confident her children will be safe and looked after, how can she go to work? How will she feed her children if she doesn't go to work? If she is laid off because of the recession, and pulled her child out of care to spare the expense, how can she look for work and accept a position if she can't, at the same time, find child care again?

Most often, it's mothers who have to sort out the work/child care fix, a daunting task under the best of circumstances. Most often, it's women who are in the business of providing the child care, also a daunting task. As both the provider and consumer, women have much to gain by insisting on better pay for the work we do, better care for our children when we work, and better compensation for child care providers, in keeping with the our common social interest in the welfare of our children, and the realization of their potential.

You can read more about this topic in the Washington Post here

International Women's Day 2010

2010-03-08T18:41:00.003-05:00

March brings us a wealth of data on women and March 8th is International Women's Day. Your (Wo)Man in Washington observed the occasion by attending an economic briefing on the struggle of women of color to achieve financial stability. By noon, she was crossing Memorial Bridge from Arlington National Cemetary to the Lincoln Memorial with other advocates, protesting sexual violence in Congo and other regions of conflict. In 18 other countries, 130 other bridges were crossed by women for the very same reason. As clear as the sharp spring air over the Potomac River today is the truth we all live, that women's issues are human rights issues; women's issues are global issues.

Mothers in the United States are 82.8 million strong. By the age of 44, 80% of women have given birth. Women have more high school dipolomas, more college degrees, and make up more than half of all college students in the US. Yet, men outearn us, by a margin of 20%. If you have children, you (at least statistically speaking) make less money than a man with children, or than a woman with no children. A mommy tax? You bet! Women occupy only 17% of the seats in the US Senate and House of Representatives. Elections in Iraq, where they are still counting the votes, are guaranteed to produce 25% female legislators. At least by the measure of political representation, Iraqi women have more to cheer about today.

A proverb from the Cheyenne Nation goes something like this - A nation is never defeated until the hearts of its women are on the ground. Using rape as a weapon of war is calculated to do just that. But there must be a corollary that is equally true. A nation can never reach its ultimate potential if the hearts of its women cannot beat strongly, loudly, and to their full capacity. International Women's Day reminds us that in the US and elsewhere, women still have a long way to go.

Families of the Recession: Unemployed Parents and Their Children

2010-03-01T10:36:00.005-05:00

The financial crisis has revealed some hidden truths, along with inflicting a lot of economic pain. For example, we know that the paid workforce is more female than male, that fewer women's jobs have benefits, (including health insurance), and that women's wages are essential to the household budget.

While there's lots of worry to go around, children stand to lose the most because of the recession, even more than their parents, who may lose houses, retirement savings, and their good credit scores. The First Focus Campaign for Children has released an analysis of the recession's effect on children. As their families are pushed closer to poverty, more children will become homeless. Diminishing public funds will negatively impact the quality of their education. Fewer will complete high school, and fewer high school graduates will earn college degrees. Because education directly relates to employment and earnings, these children will never achieve the same economic stability they could have had if the recession had never happened. They will likely experience greater abuse and mistreatment as a result of financial stress. While the recession is usually seen as an economic event, for children it affects the full range of their quality of life, and will continue to do so throughout their adulthood.

Since December of 2007, the number of children with an unemployed parent has doubled, to an estimated 10.5 million, or one out of every seven American children. One third of unemployed men, and almost one half of unemployed women, are parents. The number of unemployed youth, ages 16 to 24, has increased 29% in the same period, to a current estimate of 3.3 million. Last summer, the youth unemployment rate reached its highest level ever.

The authors of "Families of the Recession" suggest a vigorous public response to counter these statistics. They offer policies that would lessen the devastating impact on children, and diminish the likelihood of them growing into poor adults. Congress has been working on a jobs bill that could get parents back to work. It should include funds dedicated to youth employment and bolstering state resources for education. The stimulus plan's provision for affordable housing should be increased and extended, including programs that will help children continue attending school even if they become homeless. Finally, there are ways to strengthen and support families so that child abuse does not occur and families remain stable and safe. Congress should provide funding for these programs.

It is quite true that all these suggestions cost taxpayer money. However, it is less expensive to mitigate the life-long effects the recession will have by addressing them now, rather than bearing the heavy costs of an enemployed and uneducated population later.

You can find the brief here:
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/0114_families_recession_isaacs.aspx

Haitian Relief through a Gender Lens

2010-02-22T10:23:00.005-05:00

Your (Wo)man in Washington has been casting her eye beyond the Beltway, to the crisis in Haiti. Gender matters, it would appear, in every country, in every situation. Aid workers find that women are uniquely placed to make relief efforts more effective. Our friends at Global Mama from Girl W/Pen put up the original post, which you can link to right here.

Free Riding on Families - Part Two

2010-02-16T10:45:00.003-05:00

In my last post, I mentioned that there was a detectable change in attitude towards family carework. By way of example, note the regular featuring of economist Nancy Folbre in the New York Times "Economix" blog. The media's increased sensitivity is also evident in the high profile enjoyed by Maria Shriver's "A Woman's Nation" project. The White House Council on Women & Girls represents the Administration's focus on federal policy and functioning as it affects females. Background teleconferences are held regularly giving advocates access to senior policy staff in both the President's and Vice President's offices, most recently addressing the proposed FY2011 budget's impact on women. Books on women, families, and carework continue to hit store shelves, such as This Is Not How I Thought It Would Be: Remodeling Motherhood to Get the Lives We Want Today by Kristin Maschka, Manhood for Amateurs: The Pleasures and Regrets of a Husband, Father, and Son, by Michael Chabon, and a second, soon-to-be-released, updated edition of Ann Crittenden's The Price of Motherhood, (which has a very special place in my heart!)

At long last, we seem to be getting beyond the gauzy image of the ever-patient, all-sacrificing mother, and moving, thankfully, towards a more reality-based understanding. Family carework has been invisible. It is now emerging from the shadows because those who typically provide it, women, now make up half the paid work force, and earn an essential portion of household income. Women's paid labor is moving their unpaid labor into the daylight. It's the well known "second shift", or her "other" full-time job. The household requires her income, but it continues to demand clean clothes, meals, child care, transport to lessons, or doctor's appointments, or parent teacher conferences. The multiplication of tasks forces much more to be done in a finite amount of time, resulting in astonishing rates of work/family conflict reported not only by mothers (90%) but also by fathers (95%).

Phoebe Taubman, author of Free Riding on Families: Why the American Workplace Needs to Change and How to Do It, points out that while family carework may be free to the receiving child, or elderly parent, sick family member, or in a larger sense, to society, it is not free to the family member who provides it. In fact, this free labor, which supports every single monetary transaction, economic event, and the rearing of the next generation of workers and citizens, quite peculiarly benefits almost everyone except the careworker. The woman who decreases or eliminates her working hours to care for young children will never make up the seniority, time, promotions, training, and raises she's missed. The decrease in her earnings and increased time out of the paid labor force will decrease her Social Security benefits, pension, and retirement savings. Because she is a mother, when she does work, she will likely be paid less. When a woman, or a man, redirects time and energy from paid work to taking care of a spouse or elderly parent, he or she is saving that parent a small fortune in medical bills and services. Positive effects also accrue to society at large. Elder care services provided by family members (usually women) would total billions of dollars if paid for by Medicare or other private or public providers of such services. However, the family caregiver will increase his or her stress, re-arrange the work-schedule, cut back on hours, and pay more out of pocket expenses, neglect personal health needs like regular exercise or routine checkups.

As Taubman says, we live in a country hostile to the needs of families who must work and look after each other. How else to explain a system that requires better training and compensation for those who care for our cars than those who care for our children? With no right to paid family leave or sick days, no flexible schedule or right to even request one, no affordable, high quality child care, it's no wonder some parents conclude the system is simply unworkable and stay home until school begins. The household's economic stability suffers, and the ability to withstand a medical emergency, or the layoff of the other working parent, if there is one, is weakened. Hanging on to paid work, though, can mean that your children just don't get the attention they need, or your ailing mother or father dies alone. Such heartbreaking consequences are not so rare. In fact, they are the logical result of treating families as exclusively private, personal concerns, unsuitable for government intervention. Reality requires a different view. The strength we have achieved is impossible without the squeeze put on the unseen, unpaid work of women and families. More women at work, and earning more of the family income, reveal the other essential role of careworker that so many women fill. This role is not valued, and in fact costs family careworkers plenty, and throughout their entire lifetime.

This free ride is over, and it's time to get real.

Free Riding on Women - Part One

2010-02-03T21:44:00.005-05:00

When you've got your finger on the pulse of the whacked-out wonk world which is Washington, you pick up on the wind shifts quickly. The topic of carework, what it costs and who's paying, is popping up more often and in increasingly provocative language these days. Lately I've been looking at "Free Riding on Families: Why the American Workplace Needs to Change and How to Do It". Charging that the American economy rests on the free labor of women, the author picks apart the many ways the US fails to lives up to its promise of "family values". I'm going to lay out a few choice bits here in the next few posts, because you'll probably not come across the brief on your own and you'll want to know.

Most people have heard of the FMLA or Family Medical Leave Act, the only federal law that touches upon carework and paid work. This is what the FMLA offers. If you work for an employer of a certain size, AND if you worked for at least 1,250 hours in the immediately preceding 12 months, AND if you or a family member confront a specified health emergency, AND if you can afford to go without income, you can take up to 12 weeks of leave and come back to your job. This was the best deal legislators could make in 1993, and no one's been able to improve upon it in the intervening 17 years.

In reality, more than half the private sector work force is immediately ineligible because the FMLA only applies to employers with 50 or more employees. Of the eligible employees, a great proportion, perhaps 3/4, don't take FMLA leave because they can't afford to go without a single paycheck. Because of the 1,250 hours requirement, most part-time workers (who are women) aren't eligible for the leave. Some researchers estimate the number of new mothers both covered by the law and fulfilling its requirements is no more than 20% of all new mothers - but they will only benefit from the law if they can survive without their wages.

From time to time, a member of Congress will suggest that some or all of the 12 weeks of leave ought to be paid leave, or the law should apply to employers with only 25 or more employees. None of these efforts has gotten very far, and there are none on the horizon. Some state legislatures have had more success. In Maine, state law extends the FMLA to employers with at least 15 employees, who can take up to 10 weeks of leave every two years if they fulfill a minimum number of hours worked in the preceding 12 months. A few states have devised family leave insurance programs, under which the leave may be partially paid, such as California, New Jersey, and Washington.

So, for a place which proclaims the value of Mom and her apple pie, there's scant practical help in terms of keeping the money coming in when a crisis, or even a "blessed event", occurs. Birth, death, a broken leg, a sick parent - normal events in the course of a life - the American worker is on her own. We provide for the formerly-employed elderly with Social Security and Medicare, the disabled also with Social Securty, the unemloyed with unemployment insurance, the indigent with medical care under Medicaid. Are we taking advantage of a woman's need to generate income at the cost of her role as a family careworker? Does it have a negative impact on her? On her workplace? Her employer? Her baby, or spouse, or dying parent? Does it have a negative impact on the wider community, and society as a whole? Is this the way we want things to be?

You can find the full report here.

I Will Not Apologize for Being a Mother

2010-02-01T20:33:00.004-05:00

Ginger Garner, MOTHERS supporter, has some very strong opinions about the profession of motherhood, how it is regarded in the US, and what some women who practice it expect of themselves. She posts regularly on her blog, Breathing in This Life, and has kindly allowed me to excerpt some of a particularly compelling post here:

"Mothering is a most honorable profession, more important than sending men to the moon or even leading a country. After all, does not the future of our country rest in the hands of our children? So then, mothers should not (have to) apologize for putting the profession of mothering at the top of their priority list.

It is time to stop lavishing superficial praise on mothers for taking time out of (or canceling entirely) their careers to give birth and raise children. Society has pushed its skewed work ethic onto mothers so heavily - that they end up apologizing for mothering or end up being pushed out of the workplace (or from mothering) entirely.
.../...
Is the United States a country which loves its children? Not if the current system remains the way it is.

We must:

Empower mothers to be mothers, not harass them for becoming mothers. For example, instituting 12 month paid maternity leaves like other countries do - which have higher numbers of (happier) mothers working outside the home, ironically.
Invest in America's families by creating resources to allow mothers to stay home or work part time with children of preschool age. We cannot and should not force mothers to fit the "man's mold" of business - which means working without breaks for family. It is physically (and otherwise) impossible for women to work their entire lives without taking breaks for family needs - unless that is, American women stop having children.

.../...

Stop giving "lip service" to women about their great role to humanity as mothers - and start supporting and enabling them to actually do the job.
Kill double standards. Women are expected to put off and cancel careers in order to birth and raise children, while men are never asked or expected to let their careers slow down at all. Men are praised for having a family and a career (& for making it to the occasional PTA meeting or sports event) while women are berated for trying to have both (& if they are not there for every event and meeting). Women are encouraged to get an education and establish a career, but are frowned upon by others (and other mothers) when they put their children in daycare in order to keep their job.

.../...
Love and sacrifice is not lacking. Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that parenting or mothering is not rewarding or wonderful or that mothers should get "paid" to be parents. As mothers, we love our children. Through all of time and history women have made the sacrifice to put everyone first - children, husbands, families, even communities. We do it out of love.

The real Truth, and where the problem lies is - society has long taken advantage of a Mother's Love. It is time for American society and government to love our children enough - to create equitable rights for mothers."

Ginger makes plain the double bind women with children are in. Our social structure, institutions, and cultural values put us there, and we contribute to that, often in spite of ourselves. We can't push against the way things are if we are intimidated by fear of sounding "selfish" or a "whiner".

We must call the present arrangement unfair, and discriminatory, and hypocritical, which it is. We can stop apologizing for whatever decision we make about our motherhood and give ourselves the enormous credit we deserve, We will keep pushing for a country which cherishes us and our children, rather than preventing us from providing them what they need to flourish.

Click here to read the whole of Ginger's post, and her previous entries.

Private Cost, Public Gain

2010-01-25T07:02:00.001-05:00

The US spends very little public money on children, and a great deal of public money on older people. The reason for this has to do with our cultural attitudes towards privacy and the belief that raising children happens almost exclusively within the family. While that was likely true decades ago, most children now spend significant time in the care of other adults besides their parents, because their parents need to support the family. I didn't start school until kindergarten. In contrast, the children in my neighborhood are in full day pre-K, regular pre-school or child care programs, while their parents are engaged in a range of full-time, part-time, telecommuting, or variable shift work.

All this change, however, is not reflected in our public spending, which is why child care costs more than college, and women are paid less and work fewer years than men. The effects of our national spending are felt across our life spans, too. As Nancy Folbre writes recently in the New York Times Economix blog:

"Parents continue to bear most of the costs of rearing the next generation, while the elderly reap significant benefits — whether they have helped raise children or not. Children grow up to become working-age adults paying the taxes that help finance Social Security and Medicare."

There is something out of kilter when public investment in the early stages of life is so meager, and its long-term benefits could be so great. Think about Social Security and Medicare which are absolutely necessary and worthwhile federal programs. Without them, families would be supporting their parents and older relatives in addition to themselves and their children. If we had the foresight to address the issues of aging, why don’t we do the same for the early years of life? The lack of public investment in children and their care is felt by the children, certainly, and by their families. Also, it impacts on women much more than men, as women disproportionately cut their own earning power and future economic security to take care of the immediate needs of their children.

So, we can decide when our sons and daughters are ready for school, and where we want them to be looked after and by whom, and that is a good thing. But if we continue to limit child care to only those who can pirvately pay, and refuse to invest collectively in our children and their potential, we will continue to perpetuate mothers' economic dependency as well. Where is the public gain in that?

Dancing on the Thin End Of the Wedge

2010-01-20T22:43:00.003-05:00

It all started with Madeleine Albright.

As the first female US Secretary of State, her arrival on the world stage in 1997 seems in retrospect to have ushered in a sustained and expanding period of women in diplomacy. Usually "manned" by someone "pale, male, and Yale", three of the last four occupants of this top post have been women (Albright, Powell, Rice, Clinton). The US Foreign Service now recruits as many women as men annually and 30% of its mission chiefs are women. The diplomatic corps is gaining on gender parity with surprising speed, especially considering that not long ago, female Foreign Service officers had to resign their posts upon their marriage. (Males, of course, did not.)

Similarly, more nations are sending women to represent their governments in Washington DC, where 25 female ambassadors now reside - the highest number ever. This trend has been deemed the "Hillary effect" by the Washington Post and includes some nations not particularly known for their inclusive political policies. Colombia, Bahrain, India, Croatia, Kyrgyzstan, and Lichtenstein all currently have female ambassadors, as do 11 African nations. Secretary Clinton's high profile and years on the political stage have spurred a significant and important change around the world. Women's rights and the abuses against them are more likely to appear in policy discussions, as are issues such as poverty, health care, adequate education for girls, and access to clean water.

Now that women have some influence on international discourse, that discourse itself is changing too. Secretary Clinton's remarks to a gathering observing the 15th Anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development dramatically demonstrate how long-standing, entrenched problems are seen from a new perspective. Poverty is largely the result of the prolonged marginalization of half the world population. Lacking access to adequate healthcare during childbirth and after decreases or destroys women's health and that of their children. It compromises a mother's ability to support her family, pursue education, and realize her full potential within her community. Personal insecurity, the lack of food, education, and health care all lead inexorably to conflict. There is a markedly high correlation between the rate of infant mortality and the likelihood of political unrest and upheaval. In other words, it all comes back, ultimately, to the health and well-being of the mother.

Global issues through a gender lens suggest new solutions as well. The objective, as the Secretary states, is to "give women everywhere a chance to take their own lives and their own futures into their own hands." Investing in women and girls through micro-loan initiatives and education have a record of success. Commonly called the "girl effect", small changes can transform the life of a woman, her family, her community, and expand outward like ripples across the water from the point where the stone hits. Confronting international conflict by providing women the tools to sustain themselves has become part of the official foreign policy of the United States. The link between maternal health and personal, national, and international security turns out to be a very short and straight line. Using that connection now appears to be the smartest, most efficient avenue to optimizing the potential for global prosperity and peace.

Of course, many people, in this country and elsewhere, remain to be persuaded that women's status is central to global crises. "Women's issues" (a great misnomer, really) continue to be pushed aside, dismissed, or regarded as simply irrelevant all over the world, and here, too. But there is hope, with Secretary Clinton highlighting the promise women hold, and the number of women engaged in conversation at the highest levels, that the number and volume of women's voices will increase, and be heard across countries, oceans, and continents. Motherhood is a global condition. It may just provide some of the answers men, and women, have sought for centuries.

Click here for the "Hillary Effect".
Click here for Secretary Clinton's speech of January 8, 2010.
Click here for more on the Girl Effect.

Today's Mothers are Tomorrow's Older Women

2010-01-18T22:17:00.001-05:00

Today we are mothers; tomorrow we will be older women. It's inevitable. My colleague, Ashley Carson, fights the good fight against economic discrimination against mothers and other caregivers at the Older Women's League. Her essay on congressional shenanigans with a "fast track commission", bringing their ax down on our future social security benefits in the name of balancing the budget, appeared recently in the Huffington Post. An excerpt:

"OK, so the American government borrows money from the Social Security trust fund because the program runs a surplus. Then the government gives it to banks or other failing financial institutions, among others, to bail them out. Next, the failing institutions do not fail, and subsequently give out billions to their top employees. And then to remedy mistakes caused by the financial sector, resulting in the downturn of the economy in the first place, Senators are trying to cut your Social Security payment? This is double dipping with no accountability - first into your Social Security trust fund, and then into your individual Social Security payment. It is seriously misconstrued logic."

Click here for Ashley's insightful piece.

To better understand how the "fast track commission" works, and why it is such a bad idea, have a look at this You Tube video.

Motherhood...Is The Issue

2010-01-12T08:56:00.002-05:00

The Economist published a cover article in its New Year's edition called "We Did It", touting women's 50% share of the paid labor force and asserting that "women's economic empowerment is arguably the biggest social change of our times." Quite correctly, the editors noted that while women generally have made strides, many barriers remain for women with children:

“Motherhood, not sexism, is the issue: in America, childless women earn almost as much as men, but mothers earn significantly less. And those mothers’ relative poverty also disadvantages their children.”

We agree. In fact, the article prompted me to write a letter to the editor, excerpts of which I share with you here, and invite your own comments:

To the Editor:
Motherhood, and other unpaid family carework, is indeed the reason women find themselves limited in terms of earnings and workforce penetration. Caring for the needs of others merits little esteem in our society, a bitter irony when human capital is the foundation upon which the entire national economy rests. Because of the widely held perception that women with children (or men or women with family carework obligations) cannot be truly "committed" workers, many family careworkers are locked in low wage jobs with their talents and abilities severely underutilized....

Speeding up the change is precisely the role public policy is designed to play. Rather than lengthen the school day and shorten vacations, we should enact policies which promote the practical ability of both men and women to care for family members while preserving attachment to the paid labor force. Modifying minimum workplace standards to include paid family and sick leave, affording flexible practices, and improving the legal status of part-time workers, reflect that the unpaid labor of looking after each other is a critical part of our national wealth, communal welfare, and individual security.

Both men and women function within familial and personal networks, in addition to the paid labor force. Acknowledging these realities with effective, practical labor policy is no threat to our global economic competitiveness. Countries with decent working conditions also possess relatively low unemployment and vigorous national economies, as established by Jody Heymann in her new book “Raising the Global Floor: Dismantling the Myth That We Can't Afford Good Working Conditions for Everyone.”

The ability of markets alone to manifest social justice is limited, as has recently been demonstrated in dramatic fashion. When the market incorporates prejudice and perpetually reproduces unjust outcomes, it is right that market operation be informed by regulation embodying national ideals of equal opportunity, fairness, and sound social policy. Biology assigns women the ability to bear children. Cultural attitudes about gender and carework have disproportionately assigned women the uncompensated labor of looking after others. Knowing that, and perpetuating their exploitation when the means exists to stop it or mitigate its effect, is unconscionable.

Valerie Young
Advocacy Coordinator
National Association of Mothers' Centers

You, Your Mother, Your Daughter

2010-01-08T23:10:00.002-05:00

Why do we women assign ourselves the role of family caregiver? And what do we get for it? Economist Nancy Folbre considers these questions and their possible answers, in the context of looking after ill, elderly or disabled adults. Some women find it satisfying, yet many feel they have no other choice. Frequently, the cost of the needed care would be prohibitively expensive if purchased at market rates. There may be no other capable family member or willing provider available. Rather than walk away, women (more than men) feel "a moral duty central to cultural ideals of womanhood". They will assume the responsibility and the accompanying stress, in spite of the toll on their physical and mental health and the cost to their financial security. As an unintended consequence, they increase the likelihood of their own poverty, especially in retirement, and the need for their own daughters to care for them. So the circle remains unbroken:

"...older women remain dependent on younger women for unpaid care. They have an economic stake in younger women's sense of obligation. The bittersweet result is that the social organization of care reproduces some aspects of gender inequality. And vice versa."

This social dynamic will continue to reinforce itself over and over again, unless some other intervening force is introduced, like a rock against a wheel to keep it from turning. Waiting for a natural evolution to break the link between gender and economic fragility is not a viable solution. Intentional, concentrated effort in personal interactions, social policy, public discourse, and political pressure offer much more potential for practical success. That's what this mothers movement is all about.

Here's Nancy Folbre's post in the NYT Economix blog.

Startling Stats About Motherhood & Poverty from Activistas

2010-01-06T23:47:00.004-05:00

Our friends out west are hip to the same issues we've been struggling with. Start your new year with these thoughts from Activistas -

Not surprisingly, it wasn't until I had my first child that it occurred to me that motherhood in itself might be a serious economic barrier for women. Now, it seems like I'm constantly stumbling over evidence of this. Here's one shocking piece of data I came across recently in Ellen Bravo's book, Taking on the Big Boys:

40% of divorced mothers wind up living in poverty.

How can this be?

Most fundamentally, it's because motherhood turns women into economic dependents:

The wage gap between mothers and childless women is GREATER than the wage gap between men and women.
Discrimination against mothers in the workforce leads to lower hiring rates, lower-level jobs, lower wages, and fewer promotions.
Working mothers often work part-time. Part-time workers earn 20% less per hour than other workers with the same education and experience. Only 17% of them have any access to health insurance through their jobs. They also are legally excluded from unemployment insurance and retirement.
Divorce generally leaves mothers with the economic burdens of providing for children, without the economic support of the man's wage. Alimony is typically low and temporary.

While women overall have come a long way, achieving a great deal of economic independence, mothers have not.

What can we do?

We need to start talking about this. Talking to each other, talking to the fathers of our children, talking to our legislators, talking to people at our workplaces. The economic impact of motherhood on children has been effectively hidden, made invisible by the notion of women's progress overall.

How has motherhood affected you economically?

You can find the post where it originally appeared here.

Sister, Can You Spare a Dime? Women & Unemployment Insurance

2009-12-28T09:15:00.003-05:00

Like peeling away the layers of an onion, the recession has a way of peeling away the protective layers we put up to buffer ourselves from the bumps and jolts of hard times. When our defenses are gone, it's easy to see who the most vulnerable people are. Right now in this country, the most vulnerable people are, no surprise, women alone with children.

Married women currently have an unemployment rate of 5.7%. Unmarried women, in contrast, are facing a 10.3% unemployment rate. While unmarried women are less than half of all employed women, they constitute 6 out of every 10 unemployed women, which means their unemployment is disproportionate to their representation in the paid workforce. Single women who are heads of households have an unemployment rate of an astonishing 12.6%, which is significantly higher than the national average for unemployment. Unmarried African-American women are currently unemployed at a rate of 15%, and the rate for unmarried Hispanic women is 11.1%, both higher than the unemployment rate for the nation as a whole.

There is no doubt how essential unemployment insurance is as a feature of our "social contract". Losing your job, like old age or a disabling illness or injury, are known risks that anyone may suffer. We pool our resources to provide some modicum of protection for all through Social Security and unemployment insurance, all funded by contributions from the worker's paycheck.

Gender matters when it comes to collecting benefits, however. Most states won't let part-time workers receive unemployment benefits, even when they've paid their taxes. Only 14 states will allow a worker unemployment benefits if they quit to follow a spouse's job relocation, or lose their child care. "Compelling family circumstances" which most often befall women, generally prevent eligibility. It's no surprise, then, that women are 32% less likely to receive unemployment insurance as men. The system overall falls short of really achieving its intended purpose. Overall, only about 1/3 of unemployed workers receive any benefits at all.

Sources:
Center for American Progress: Recession brings Higher Unemployment to Unmarried Women
National Employment Law Project: Why Unemployment Insurance Matters to Working Women and Their Families
Women's eNews: It's the Economy

In Washington and Around the World

2009-12-21T06:41:00.002-05:00

As Your (Wo)man in Washington, I focus on how the public policy work done in the nation's capital (or perhaps, more often, left undone) will affect your life wherever you are. From time to time, however, it helps to expand the perspective and listen to women around the world.

The more I hear their voices, the more I reflect that, while cultural and economic distinctions exist, we are strikingly similar in our passion for justice and a desire to control our own lives. What a powerful source this affirmation is. It generates energy to rekindle our own commitment, fuel our desire, and dedicate our voices to the cause of gender equality and maternal dignity. I found women's voices today from the Middle East on the blog Girl W/Pen, and they have me tingling with recognition and empathy.

Our true wealth is in the connections between people, not our national economic output. The marketplace of goods and services is not an end in itself, but ought to be the means by which we are able to look after, tend to, and provide for the well-being and development of each other and ourselves.

Women around the world are also engaged in this effort, and removing the hurdles that restrict women's participation in all manner of public and private life. In some ways, we have made advances compared to other countries. In others, such as paid family leave, we have far to go. But we do better when we are aware of the motherforce's global reach, draw courage from women's activism in other countries, and encourage their efforts while pursuing our own.

Paid Leave for the US

2009-12-18T06:15:00.001-05:00

I've written here before about Jody Heymann's work in Raising the Global Floor: Dismantling the Myth that We Can't Afford Good Working Conditions for Everyone. The only reason we don't have paid leave in this country as a basic minimum standard is because we have not yet insisted upon it. Here is Jody making the case as it appeared in a blog she wrote for the Washington Post.

For author Jody Heymann's radio interview about paid leave and good workplace policy, click here. Listen to it while you wrap presents or stamp holiday cards!

It's Not Sexy - It's Social Security!

2009-12-14T16:39:00.002-05:00

Few women get excited about Social Security, the most successful and efficient effort undertaken by the federal government. I know, I know, I've heard all the excuses - all those numbers, it's something retirees worry about, and anyway, it probably won't even be there when we get old. Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. If you are a woman, or if you have children, you need to be aware.

A storm is brewing over the amount of debt the US government has incurred, and sounds of sabers rattling grows ever louder in Washington. Some powerful members of Congress have painted a big target on the Social Security system, and I expect to hear a lot of misleading, distorting statements in the next week or so. Most Americans just don't know as much as they should about the social safety net that protects us. Here are a few facts to keep in mind as you try to filter through the hue and cry.

There's more to Social Security than retirement benefits. If a worker with a family dies, his surviving spouse and children will receive monthly payments roughly equal to a $450,000 life insurance policy (based on average earnings and two children). This can keep the family together after a devastating loss and soften the economic loss of a parent, spouse, and breadwinner.

Social Security covers Our Troops and Their Families. Troops returning from war who are disabled receive Social Security benefits, as do their dependent family members. Soldiers killed in action make their families eligible for benefits as well. The children who lost a parent, and the spouses who were widowed, in the attacks of September 11, 2001, are receiving benefits now.

Social Security also protects disabled workers and their families. If a worker suffers a physical or mental disability which makes employment impossible, in the course of his or her job or otherwise, that worker can receive disability benefits to partially replace the lost salary or wages. On average, such benefits amount to those provided by a $400,000 disability insurance policy.

A full third of Social Security beneficiaries are not retired at all. They are disabled workers, their families, and surviving spouses and children of deceased workers. In other words, about 15 million non-retired Americans rely on Social Security benefits to stay financially afloat.

More than half of the Social Security checks issued every month are made out to women. More women than men depend on this federal program for a greater share of their monthly income. Women live longer, earn less, save less, and spend more time out of the work force. Women depend more on Social Security than men or children. This is why any cut to benefits, for the purpose of balancing the budget or anything else, will send more women plunging into poverty.

When you hear that the only responsible thing to do is reduce benefits under Social Security, take a minute to think about all the ways this could affect your life and the lives of the people you love. There are other ways to balance the budget without devastating the economic security of millions of Americans, the majority of them women. It might not be so responsible, after all.

For more information: Nancy Altman, noted Social Security expert gives the big picture here.

Click here for a breakdown of beneficiaries into groups by The Institute for Women's Policy Research.

Motherhood is Political

2009-12-07T12:42:00.004-05:00

Women around the world speak different languages, practice different religions, and live in an endless variety of circumstances, yet motherhood is a significant unifier. It is perhaps the greatest common experience in our global human endeavor, and it is women alone who share it.

Motherhood can be a radicalizing event, notwithstanding the pastel colors, teddy bears, and fluffy blankets advertisers surround it with here. Hitting the maternal wall and encountering gender discrimination following motherhood is something I hear about (and talk about!) quite a lot. Becoming a mother can, and should, make political actors of all of us.

Motherhood instantly ups your ante in the human sweepstakes. It gives you a very personal stake in the future, and makes you vulnerable in every way. It can also empower. Women who hesitated to speak for themselves may find their voice and advocate energetically for themselves as mothers and for the welfare of their children. Motherhood, it must be said, has the potential to be the single most common transformational experience in the world.

It has made political activists of several dozen mothers in Iran, who were arrested over the weekend for demonstrating in opposition to the government. Their children were killed in the riots following the disputed June 12 election, made famous by the viral video of the shooting and death of Neda Agha-Soltan. These mothers have gathered to protest in central Tehran every single Saturday since. They have been harassed and attacked by government forces before, but this was the first time they were arrested and jailed.

I know the mother of a seriously handicapped child here in the United States. She is the married mother of three, runs a graphic design business from her home office, and cares for her disabled 10 year old when he is not at school. She never reads the paper, watches "Meet the Press", and can barely squeeze in an exercise class. However, she found herself walking the halls of Congress every day for a week, meeting her legislators to argue that federal education legislation actually undermines the aiblity of her son's school to maximize his functioning and effectively address his needs. So surprised by the rush that came from articulating her personal expertise to policymakers, she subsequently signed up for acting classes and flexes her personal power muscles now on a regular basis.

Motherhood changes you and makes you realize that in this country, in this world, you see things differently than you did before. Greg Mortenson, author of Three Cups of Tea, says women the world over tell him the same thing. "We don't want our babies to die, and we want our children to go to school."

How will you unleash your motherforce today?

I'm Just Sayin'...

2009-12-03T11:06:00.005-05:00

Is there a connection between the fact that women with children earn less, save less, and have less money in later life and the fact that -

Women occupy 3% of all CEO positions in Fortune 500 companies;
Female faculty at US colleges and universities make 82% of what male faculty make, and have for the last 27 years;
Women are 16% of all movie directors, producers, writers, and cinematographers;
Less than 6% of all full-power television stations in the US are owned by women;
Women of color account for less than 17% of female news staff;
All CEO's in the top 15 media corporations are male;
Women comprise 18% of all law partners, 25% of all judges, yet constitute 48% of law school graduates;
Women of color make up less than 2% of partners in major law firms and Fortune 500 general counsels;
Females are 48% of all athletes in Olympic competition, but only 15% of the International Olympic Committee, and none of the officers?

I think so. And I think it has a lot to do with carework.

If women occupied more of the decision-making positions and exercised their leadership in a way that set policy priorities, would these numbers change? How is it that when women entered the paid labor force, they did so in numbers equal to or slightly greater than men, yet, after decades of alleged progress, the still haven't reached any parity in influence, power, and leadership?

I think it has an awful lot to do with carework.

Some people say women aren't ambitious. Some say women would rather have children. Some say women don't want to compete.

But I think..... it has an awful lot to do with carework.

Source for statistical data: "Benchmarking Women's Leadership", The White House Project Report, 2009.

Can the US Afford Paid Leave? YES!

2009-11-25T17:23:00.004-05:00

When the subject of paid leave comes up, someone will say: "Oh, no, we could never pay for that, it would be too expensive!!" It's the Voice of Doom, and I hear it frequently.

So often repeated, I know it by heart. It will destroy small businesses. It would push taxes over the cliff. The government is already too far in the red. So, while everyone agrees in theory that maternity leave, paternity leave, sick leave for yourself or to care for an ill family member, school leave, and breastfeeding breaks at work might possibly be a good thing, the conversation pretty much shuts down when the specter of co$t arises. We've been stuck there for decades.

No more.

Thanks to a fresh look at some hard data, that argument is officially off the table.

Would it surprise you to know that the countries with the most competitive economies and the lowest rate of unemployment are mostly the very same countries that offer paid parental leave, paid sick days, and breastfeeding breaks at work? It's true. Consider the following:

Good workplace policies are not related to higher national unemployment rates.
The most economically competitive nations in the world have good workplace policies.
The United States has a highly competitive economy but, unlike every other top-performing country, no good workplace policies.

That's the take-away from RAISING THE GLOBAL FLOOR: Dismantling the Myth That We Can't Afford Good Working Conditions for Everyone, an 8 year study comparing the labor policies of 190 countries. Labor laws establishing a worker's right to paid sick leave, and maternity or parental leave, improve the quality of jobs and allow workers to deal effectively with family obligations while maintaining their connection to employment. National leave policies and sane work schedules (no "sweat shop" hours) do not put a downward drag on a vigorous, healthy economy. The funding method varies from country to country, and usually includes minimal contributions from both employees and employers with some public sector incentives. Countries with reliable programs for child care, sick leave, and health insurance are actually attractive to companies looking for healthy workers with ample opportunity to deal realistically with the natural occurences in life, like birth, death, and illness.

So, tell the Voice of Doom to go away. The only reason we don't have real world necessities like paid time off for a child with flu, or a spouse with a health crisis, or a brand new baby, is because we have not yet made it a political priority. That's the only reason.

The pithy press release is here.

You can learn more at RaisingTheGlobalFloor.org.

Cleopatra Isn’t the Only Queen of Denial

2009-11-20T14:14:00.003-05:00

While you’re lying there, semi-conscious, a human petri dish of contagion, consider this: There’s nothing like a pandemic to highlight the holes in a nation’s public health policy.

I am committed to getting women, family careworkers, and paid careworkers the credit they deserve. It didn’t happen during the mythic time when women were idolized for their cake decoration or wizardry with the vacuum sweeper (and contentedly economically dependent). It hasn’t happened – yet – in recent decades as women have marched in growing numbers to work. It still hasn’t happened, even though women now make up more than half of all those employed for money. Also unchanged is the role of women as primary caretakers of their children, the home, their parents, spouses, relatives, etc. With schools closing, businesses shuttering, vaccines in scarce supply, the situation is impossible. We have created, through our denial, a desperate problem. So, many of us go to work sick, or leave a sick child unattended at home, because we can’t miss a paycheck. And we did this to ourselves, relentlessly pursuing a national delusion that carework doesn’t matter to society.

Well, when I get sick and go to work, you get sick. When your child gets sick and you have to send her to school, her classmates get sick. When they go home and breathe on their parents, their parents get sick. Then they either go to work sick, and infect their co-workers, or maybe they stay home and don’t get paid. It’s a health problem, and economic problem, a national security problem, and a social problem.

Earlier this month, economist Heather Boushey of the Center for American Progress discussed the gap between how we really live and how work just doesn’t work anymore, at least not the way it used to.

"As a nation, we need to recognize that we aren’t going to go back to a time when most families have a stay-at-home caregiver. That ship has sailed. Mothers are now the primary breadwinner or co-breadwinner in nearly two-thirds of families.

What we need now is to begin addressing the very real challenges facing families with no stay-home-caregiver.

Most workers, including middle-class workers, do not have workplace flexibility or paid parental or family leave. Recently, the Administration recognized that H1N1 is a national emergency. Yet, 4 in 10 private-sector workers must choose between taking care of a child with the flu and losing their pay—or quite possibly their job."

Paid sick days. Now.

To read Ms. Boushey's complete 2 page statement, click here.
‘Til next time….

The Senate, the Swine Flu, and Sick Days

2009-11-10T17:26:00.002-05:00

The President, the Center for Disease Control, your doctor, and your child's teacher are telling you to stay home, or keep your child home, when the body aches, the head pounds, and the fever rages.

Fine. But how can you do that if you don't have any paid sick days? This was the question at the center of a hearing before a U.S Senate subcommittee today, as the impact of the current pandemic was considered, and how a ‘paid sick days’ policy could mitigate the damage of the next one.

So, what can you do with no sick days?

A: You drag yourself to work, keep your job, but infect 10% of your coworkers with the H1N1 virus.

B: You stay home, you miss work and lose your job.

C: Your child stays home, you go to work, and Child Protective Services hauls you into court, you miss work and lose your job.

D: Your child stays home, you stay home too.....and you miss work and lose your job.

E: All of the above.

Without paid sick days, the answer for over 57 million private sector American workers is "E", all of the above. We are in an impossible situation, as H1N1 has now spread to 48 states, and so many of those infected cannot afford to stay home or have no leave to call upon. Advocates in Congress call it an issue of simple fairness, a basic right, and a minimum labor standard, like the 40-hour work week or extra pay for overtime work. Those in jobs with good pay and benefits may be offered paid sick days by their employers voluntarily. But only one out of four workers in low wage jobs, usually the ones with significant public contact, gets a paid sick day. Millions of school bus drivers, food service workers, child care providers, home health aides, and others. Paid leave is provided by statute in 145 other countries, most of them industrialized, and even in some that are not. If we'd had it in this country, the virus would not be so widespread today.

Opponents say that the Healthy Families Act - the bill that requires workplaces of 15 or more employees to offer 7 paid sick days per year - would be fatal to the economy. They say that most employers offer very generous paid sick leave, and that the absence of any federal law lets them tailor-make solutions for the particular characteristics of their workforce. Requiring an inflexible, one-size-fits-all mandate would negatively impact the workplaces, which are already doing such a good job in creatively solving this problem, by implementing practices such as telecommuting, and alternative scheduling. It was not clear how this approach would afford the bus driver, the visiting nurse, the cafeteria worker, the hotel housekeeper, the child care worker, or the part-time special-ed teacher the time to combat and recover from a potentially fatal illness. Their jobs cannot be done from another location, or at another hour of the day.

Watch a video of the hearing yourself, or read the testimony submitted, right here.

Unmarried Women and Predatory Lending

2009-11-05T12:30:00.001-05:00

Remember back when the economy was beginning its head-first pitch over the cliff and everyone was talking about subprime mortgages? As policy makers slowly get their heads around preventing such a devastating re-occurrence, they should keep in mind who got taken the worst. Unmarried women, typically the most economically vulnerable group, were most often the victims of the predatory lending and outright deception which created the credit bubble.

With their lower incomes and higher unemployment, unmarried women more frequently resort to payday loans and carry greater credit card debt. They were disproportionately targeted by brokers and lenders who sold them subprime mortgages even when they qualified for a lower-cost loan. The effect is devastating - single mothers now file for bankruptcy more than any other group. This is true even if they were comfortably middle class, owned their own homes, had good jobs and college educations.

Sometimes gender discrimination means a lower salary or slower advancement. This time it means foreclosure and homelessness for women and children. Doesn't seem fair, does it?

Read what the Center for American Progress has to say in their piece on Protecting Unmarried Women from Unscrupulous Lenders.

Paycheck Feminism

2009-11-03T12:55:00.002-05:00

Karen Kornbluh, long a hero of mine, has written an article for the current issue of Ms. Magazine. She notes the 50% workforce participation rate for women, and hails this moment as a critical opportunity to update our infrastructure, i.e. employment benefits, child care accessibility, income tax policy, and the Social Security system. Just as households and families need the mother's income to survive, so the economy needs women and their labor to thrive. Her thoughtful and practical blueprint, which she terms "Paycheck Feminism", encourages specific policy changes, many of which NAMC and MOTHERS have promoted for a long time. One special paragraph, however, drew me back to it again and again, for its insight into the uneasy relationship between compensated labor and unpaid carework in women's lives.

"The challenge that lies ahead will be to upend Americans' outdated assumptions about what constitutes "important" work. The system of rewarding only paid work with government benefits may seem gender-netural, and even good policy, but it's not. It penalizes women who work, and harms families. We must recognize that unpaid caretaking is equally important, not just on a moral level, but also in terms of investing in our nation's intellectual capital. In addition, we need to stop treating as second-class citizens the women and men who work in lower-paying jobs, who have to change jobs, or who must work flexible hours."

She's sure got that right.

Click here to read the article.

White House Sports a Pink Ribbon

2009-10-27T12:44:00.002-04:00

Photo from Getty Images on NPR

Changing the Conversation

2009-10-26T16:34:00.006-04:00

Contributed by MOTHERS volunteer and guest blogger Rosanne Weston
In an October 24th NY Times op-ed piece by Joanne Lipman, once the deputy managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, she bemoaned the stalling of women’s progress in the workplace. In the Arts and Leisure section a week earlier Katherine Dieckmann, director of the new film “Motherhood,” emphasized that a man could not have made this movie, not really having the inside view of the grit and grime of mothering work that she and the other creators did. And in the October 22nd edition of that same newspaper, an article in the Styles section (why the Styles section I couldn’t tell you) was devoted to the experts’ current view on yelling at children – to whit, don’t do it.

But with all this attention to the so-called truth of women’s lives in the 21st century, what seemed missing in all these articles was an appreciation for the reality of caregiving. Lipman notes the plateauing or decline in the number of board seats and corporate officer posts held by women, and she reports that women earn only 77 cents to a man’s dollar. But outside of revealing that she was able to work from home as an editor when her children were small, Lipman does not give a nod to how caregiving affects a woman’s relationship to the workplace. It takes a lot of hard work and networking to be offered a seat on a corporate or organizational board. Being a corporate officer often requires punishing hours and a devotion that no one, parent or not, should be expected to expend on just one aspect of life.

So how could a woman with children advance in the workplace, should that be her choice or need, without affordable, accessible, quality childcare and absent the flexibility that was offered to Ms. Lipman? She doesn’t say, although she does urge girls and women to have confidence in themselves. She also does not note that when caregiving is factored into the calculation of how much women earn in relation to men, the number drops from 77 cents to 38 cents. No wonder motherhood is considered a great risk for poverty in old age.

Turning to the world of film, I was interested to learn that the gorgeous and sublimely willowy Uma Thurman was starring as the Everymom in “Motherhood,” an expose of the lives of harried housewives. Okay, being beautiful is beside the point (mea culpa for falling into the trap of discussing a woman based on her appearance), and perhaps the movie is good. (Reviews, anyone?) But I was dismayed by the subtle denigration of the work of mothering in the article about the film.

The language used in interviews by the director and the writer of “Motherhood” clearly drew a line between women who spent their days mothering full time and those who “worked.” The director acknowledged that raising kids while pursuing a career is overwhelming, but she stated, too, that women often use this fact as an “excuse” to not find a way to forge ahead. Once again, as in the Lipman piece, the onus of the juggling act falls on the shoulders of the individual. There is no mention in the article of public policy or the cultural and attitudinal supports needed to help a mother trying to find the tricky balance. And the condescension toward full-time mothering is indicated by the filmmaker’s stated concern that, unless women find a way to transcend the stultifying role of stay-at-home mom, they risk losing their own, authentic “voice.”

Which brings me to the last article, the one that warned that yelling “is a risk factor for a family.” Really?

Come on now. Do the researchers who found that parental yelling “was a near-universal occurrence” think that those of us who have been guilty of it get up in the morning pondering ways that we can risk the wellbeing of our families? Of course it is good to find ways of limiting the amount of shouting in the household, to understand the conditions that lead to a loss of control, but the focus on how damaging the practice is will do nothing to enhance tranquility in the home. The only things enhanced will be guilt and a sense of inadequacy. Again, only a glancing mention was made of the economic pressure and unrealistic expectations underlying parental tensions.

My longtime involvement with the Mothers’ Centers movement and MOTHERS has taught me many things, and one of them is that we need to change the conversation when speaking about women, mothers and family life. We need to stop talking about how each woman has to carve out her own destiny as if we function in a political and economic vacuum. We need to emphasize, repeatedly, the need for family-nurturing public policies and cultural attitudes that are respectful and supportive of all the work that women do – inside and outside the home. We need to bring caregiving into the policy conversation in a clear-eyed and pragmatic way and recognize it as one of the most prominent factors that affect a woman’s decision on how to live her life.

Frantically funny movies about raising kids are fine, but caregiving is a fact of life worthy of serious attention. It is not something that is each person’s individual responsibility to be carried out in private. How it is perceived and supported affects all of us. One of the best gifts we can give our children is to place caregiving on an equal level with other worthy endeavors.

And another gift we can give them is to show them that caregivers, including mothers, are human. We cry when sad, laugh when happy, and, yes, even yell when we are angry or frustrated. We can apologize for going over the top from time to time, but we are imperfect. We have learned over the past forty years or so that aiming for perfection is not a roadmap for happiness or serenity.

For brief, shining moments here and there I may have been the perfect wife, the perfect worker, the perfect mother, even the perfect human being, apart from any of these roles. Maybe. But you can bet that I was not all of them at the same time. I look forward to reading articles about life as it is really lived, as it would be recognized by mothers facing the contradictory demands of their own and others’ needs and wants. That would do more to help build the self confidence Ms. Lipman recommends than all the warnings about the dangers of losing my voice or losing my temper.

The 30% Solution

2009-10-19T11:33:00.001-04:00

Author Linda Tarr-Whelan unveiled her new book, "Women Who Lead the Way", at a recent congressional briefing. Under the shadow of the Capitol dome, she explained her "30% solution" to problem-solving and decision-making.

When women occupy 30% of any entity setting policy, they can influence the agenda, affect priorities, and bring their own particular skill set to both the framing of issues and their resolution. This is the tipping point in gender-balanced leadership. Its consequences are evident in politics, business, non-profit management, academia, and other contexts. With 30% female leadership, the political agenda can be transformed. Changes in our national priorities, as well as the allocation of our national resources, would be realized. An entirely different approach would come to bear, not just on the act of problem solving, but on the selection of the problems to be solved.

In the political realm, women's influence is seen in policy shifts pertaining to tax, health care, child welfare, employment law, and domestic violence legislation, to name a few. In the world of business, greater involvement of women in management correlates to highter profits and greater productivity. Additionally, decision-making begins to reflect consensus by partnerships, teams, and more 21st century collaborative management styles.

Congresswoman Rosa de Laura and Senator Mary Landrieu also took the podium, pointing out that a nation cannot succeed if it leaves half its talent pool out in the street. Our competitiveness on a global stage, our national security, and our economic stability all depend on the integration of women into leadersip positions. Women's equitable access to power and influence in all aspects of our national life is a fundamental human rights issue with signifcant ramifactions for American society.

At present, women constitute 17% of the US Congress, about 22% of state legislatures, 14% of corporate boardmembers, and 20% of non-profit directors. In the past 15 years, the US has fallen from 45th place to a current 69th place in terms of female representation in a national legislative body. The nation with the most women in parliamentary office is Rwanda.

You've come a long way, baby. But not nearly far enough!

Women Senators Take Charge

2009-10-16T12:16:00.002-04:00

The estrogen level on the floor of the US Senate skyrocketed last week when female Senators blasted health insurers for their discriminatory practices. In back to back speeches, they vigorously denounced charging women higher premiums and excluding coverage for gender-specific conditions. They were indignant, passionate, and unflinching in their delivery, which made a most welcome change from the typical drone and tedium of political debate.

The session was so unusual that Larry King gave the Senators air time on his show both Thursday and Friday evenings. And apparently interest is still running high - a Senate subcommittee just scheduled a hearing to occur this week entitled "What Women Want: Equal Health Care for Equal Premiums".

Your (Wo)man in Washington will be in the center of the very front row...

Read all about it here.
Click here to watch some YouTube video of the Senators in action.
Click here for The Larry King Live segment.

Results Oriented Work Environment (ROWE) in the US Capitol

2009-10-14T16:54:00.002-04:00

This week on the Hill, members of the Work, Family and Health Network presented their findings at a congressional briefing about the intersection of workplace policy and workers' health and well-being. When employees face conflict between work and family obligations, there is an increase in their stress level, greater risk of heart disease, and a decrease in their sleep duration. But that's not all - when things go badly with colleagues, the worker's family is affected as well. Children of stressed workers report spending less time with their parents, and they produce higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol. The old model of top down authority at work continues to lose ground.

When workers control where and when they do their job, work/family conflict decreased dramatically. The so-called "Results Oriented Work Environment" (ROWE) has 45% less turnover, greater job satisfaction, and healthier workers. The employer also benefits from the ability to maintain operations during widespread illness or some sort of crisis. Managers in this context likely express support for employees' lives outside of work, provide practical help when conflict arises, model flexibility in their own work lives, and are willing to engage in creative problem-solving. Workers in control of their time get more sleep, have greater energy, display symptoms of "burn out" less often and report suffering less psychological stress. While such outcomes clearly benefit workers and their families, they also correlate to greater workplace efficiency, productivity, and positive results on the bottom line.

You can find the materials I received at the briefing here:

Center for Work-Family Stress, Safety and Health

Flexible Work and Well-Being Center

Flexible Work and Well-Being Study

Work, Family & Health Network

Musical Chairs in the US Senate

2009-10-09T16:08:00.000-04:00

In the alphabet soup which is our federal government, the US Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is known as HELP (which some might find an apt description of what is needed in Washington). The powerful committee chairman had been, for many years, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who had promoted many important causes such as early childhood education, paid sick days, paid family leave, and most recently, health care reform. This position will now be taken by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, who is a champion of pay equity and the author of the Fair Pay Act. The (Wo)man in Washington will be watching.....

Work Environments that Work for Families

2009-10-05T13:49:00.003-04:00

Written by MOTHERS volunteer Kelly Coyle DiNorcia (ahimsamama.blogspot.com)

Before I became a mother, I spent long hours in the office. I probably logged sixty or seventy hours a week as an administrator for a non-profit organization on average - during busy times it was more than that and less during the slower months. When I became pregnant with my daughter, I notified my employer right away so we would have time to formulate a plan for my maternity leave and beyond. Generously, I was given sixteen weeks fully paid leave (during which time I continued to perform a few essential tasks, perhaps three or four hours’ worth of work each week) and was set up with a full office at home from which I work almost exclusively.

The truth is, if I had not been given this degree of flexibility and freedom I probably would have left my job. It would have put a financial strain on my family, but I wanted to be home with my children – and still do, almost five years and a son later. My husband also has a flexible work arrangement with the same organization, so although he travels frequently and works strange hours, he is often home during the day to handle meals and naps and transportation so I can continue to be a productive employee from the comfort of my home office, without missing any runny noses or important milestones.

According to Lisa Belkin’s Motherlode blog, Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson, authors of Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It: No Schedules, No Meetings, No Joke--the Simple Change That Can Make Your Job Terrific, have coined a term to describe this work arrangement: ROWE, or Results-Only Work Environment. They successfully instituted ROWE at Best Buy headquarters before leaving to start a company called Culture Rx (I LOVE that name!) with the mission of bringing ROWE to employers everywhere.

Seems like such a simple concept, doesn’t it? In an age of Blackberrys and iPhones, Google Docs and teleconferences, why should it matter where you are as long as you get the work done? Why can corporate executives manage to run huge companies as they travel around the globe, while caregivers are denied the opportunity to work from their homes?

Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that ROWE raises worker productivity, retention and satisfaction. While some might argue that the current economic downturn is all the motivation workers need to show up, work hard, and smile (because they’re happy to have any job at all), Ressler and Thompson argue otherwise. In an environment where people are being asked to do more with less, and employers are not in a position to reward loyalty and productivity with a pay raise, ROWE may be just what the doctor ordered for our ailing economy in addition to being a huge step towards valuing the diverse roles of caregivers in our society.

The Opting Out Myth

2009-10-01T12:08:00.001-04:00

The US Senate decreed in 2003 that October be designated Work and Family Month. This year's observance started off with a BANG this morning with the Washington Post announcing on its front page that the "opt out revolution", i.e. working women leaving the board room for the play room, was a myth.

Based on US Census data, the article reports that 1 out of 4 married mothers stay home with children under 15, while the vast majority work outside the home. In numeric terms, there are 5.6 million stay at home mothers, and about 165,000 stay at home dads.

So, now that the presence of women with children in the workplace is documented, can we please move along with the work of hauling the US into the 21st century? Paid family medical leave, anyone? Flexible workplaces? Paid sick days? Rights for part-time workers?

You can reach the Washington Post article here.

Women & Workplace Violations - Exploiting Us All

2009-09-29T09:58:00.002-04:00

The (Wo)man in Washington is always looking for ways to level the playing field for women. After all, the structure of our society and economy impacts men and women in different ways, and it is not accidental. Women, especially those with children, make up the majority of those in poverty for a reason - the bearing of children and caring for the young, the old, and the disabled is devalued in our culture. Those who do it are exploited.

More evidence of this reality is revealed in the findings of "Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers: Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America's Cities", a survey of over 4,000 low-wage workers in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City. Acknowledging that more women than men are engaged in low wage work, their disproportionate experience of unfair treatment is still staggering.

Women reported the greatest frequency of illegal employer actions in every category. Over 30% of female resondents reported being paid less that the statutory minimum wage. The figure for men was 19.5%. Nearly 79% of women reported being compelled to work overtime, while 74.5% of men did. Almost 72% of women reported being forced to work off the clock, and over 74% reported being denied legally required meal breaks. The comparable figures for men were 67% and 64% respectively.

We'd all like to believe it's true that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will succeed in the United States. But data like that contained in this report suggests otherwise. Workplace violations do not occur with the same frequency throughout the workforce. Women are still paid less, work less, save less, and are subject to more illegal treatment by their employers than men.

In this recession, more women than ever are providing the only household income supporting their families. The effects of unfair work practices - forcing overtime, not getting paid, or being paid less than her due - hurt everyone dependent upon the worker, magnifying their impact. Hardly what you'd expect of this "work hard, play by the rules, and you'll succeed" nation.

The full text of the report is here.

100 Best Companies for Family Friendly Policies - Really?

2009-09-24T15:36:00.000-04:00

Working Mother magazine has just hit the desk, and the cover trumpets the annual listing of 100 Best Companies for working mothers and other caregivers. The implicit message is that American business acknowledges the value of workers with caregiving responsibilities, and is happily adopting workplace practices to enhance their effectiveness at both the work and family roles. Employers who make the grade enhance their reputation by proving that sensitivity to the needs of a diverse workforce makes companies more productive and boosts the bottom line.

The bright side is that placement on this list is coveted by companies and has over the years made being seen as offering workplace flexibility a positive. But could there be a darker side? Wonks wagging in Washington point to the number of advertising pages bought by some of those very companies whose names are on the list. A personnel officer of one of the winners confided that while the policies are on the books, the corporate culture discourages employees actually implementing the "family-friendly" policies. The survey, of companies with thousands of workers, records the percentage who have access to paid maternity and paternity leave, flexible scheduling, childcare, and sick- or back up child care. Obviously this number could be much higher than those who actually utilize such programs. Rather than serving as an inducement to encourage greater workplace responsiveness, could such listings be the result of corporate PR and publishers' need for revenue?

Even worse to contemplate, opponents of paid family medical leave, paid sick days, and part-time worker parity, could use such data to argue that legislation making these "perks" minimum workplace standards is clearly unnecessary. If so many employers, who know the needs of their workers most intimately, are voluntarily providing such sterling services on their own initiative, why would we wish to tie their hands by enacting uniform, across-the-board, basic federal labor policies like paid leave or paid sick days? What a chilling effect that would have, they say.

Ironically, the majority of US workers don't work for corporations, but are employed by small or medium-sized businesses. Most workers don't have access to these policies, let alone actually benefit from them. They would gain the most, in terms of both economic security and the number of households impacted, from paid leave, paid sick days, and the like. Who is actually helped or hindered by Working Mother’s annual list?

Childbirth as a Pre-Existing Condition

2009-09-23T12:32:00.002-04:00

The National Women's Law Center report "Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women" exposes the use of gender ratings and "pre-existing conditions" to make healthcare more costsly for women and deny them necessary services. The report states, in part:

Insurance companies can reject applicants for health coverage for a variety of reasons that are particularly relevant to women. For example, it is still legal in nine states and D.C. for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence. Insurers can also reject women for coverage simply for having previously had a Cesarean section (C-section).

You can find the complete report by clicking here.

Kim Clijsters, Motherhood & Feminism

2009-09-18T16:47:00.005-04:00

From the New York Times about Kim Clijsters winning the Women's Singles US Open Championship after having a baby 18 months ago:

"The Clijsters narrative is not just about an underdog’s comeback, but about the dreamy, irresistible illusion the 1970s wrought: the fantasy that women can be all things, the idealized mother and the brilliant professional at the height of her game."

Oh, please. Puh-leeeze.

I admit I was not politically active in the 1970's, but I was dimly aware of the women's liberation movement. It was hardly dreamy or illusory. The ideal at issue was the ability of women to pursue any field or occupation they desired and not be restricted to a few due to their gender alone. Also under debate was the right to be compensated fairly for the work they did.

Decades later, the range of feminine achievement is vast, thanks to an enormous amount of effort and sacrifice and suffering. While pay equity cases are still being litigated, at least women are earning the same prize money insome professional sporting competitions. It is really no surprise that women can achieve great things both before and after bearing children. Kind of just like.....men.

It's hard to idealize motherhood if you've ever actually so much as dipped your big toe into it. I can't think of any other condition which involves the 24/7 confrontation of bodily functions and fluids to a similar extent. Addressing big issues (education? special needs?) and small (latex or silicone? thumb or pacifier?), motherhood is a full body contact, multi-media interdisciplinary, cross-cultural-lollapalooza of a lifetime career. Upon which the future of civilization as we know it is wholly reliant.

It's also very time-consuming. Not so much the procreating part, but the years afterwards of constant vigilance and attention. What's remarkable about Ms. Clijsters is not that she had a baby and is still an athlete, but that she apparently has the time and opportunity to show up at practice and work out and travel, which professional tennis requires. Doing that and being a mother, I grant you unreservedly, takes a good bit of work, and likely the active participation of a number of other adults.

I don't aspire to being the ideal mother. In fact, I think it's a myth that we use to bash each other over the head with, and it's best to put it away. I don't aspire to being a brilliant professional either. I would happily settle for competently being able to avoid economic dependency and poverty after bearing, and while raising, my children. That alone will take a good bit of work, and will certainly involve the active participation of a number of other adults, even though I will never bring home a big ol' whomping trophy like Kim Clijsters.

The "Clijsters narrative" the NYT extols isn't a fairy tale, and it isn't about a woman who wants "to be all things". It's about a woman with a child who likes her work and pursues as full and fulfilling a life as anybody else. For this she deserves credit. If we made it possible for more women to have children and live their hopes with a full range of possibilities, it wouldn't seem like such a dream. In fact, it shouldn't seem like such a dream.

Women and Healthcare - We've Got More Skin In The Game

2009-09-08T13:18:00.004-04:00

It's tempting to just screen out all the noise and hoopla about healthcare reform. The TV glows with dozens of "experts" nattering on and on. Newspapers are full of charts and graphs. One group yells, another group yells louder. It would be easy to shrug your shoulders, say it's a mess, and look away. It would be so easy.

But you mustn't.

What happens will matter to you terribly because you are a woman. Because women have babies, they receive more medical care than men. We get mammograms, pap smears, pre-natal care. We decide when a child is sick enough to go to the doctor. We make appointments for our parents, our in-laws, our spouses, and our partners.

Women are more likely to delay or go without medical treatment because of the expense. We put others first, at risk to ourselves. Women spend a greater share of household income on health care than men. They may be charged higher premiums, particularly during their childbearing years, or have maternity and pre-natal services excluded from coverage all together.

Most part-time workers are women, and as such have no access to employer-sponsored health insurance programs. Less than half of all working women can get coverage through their own employer. Many depend on their spouses’ employers, or if they can afford it, buy coverage on the individual market. Single women are twice as likely to be uninsured than married women. Our current system is rationed by cost, employment, and marital status, among other factors. As a result, in 2007 more than 21 million women in this country had no health care insurance at all.

So you just can't afford not to care. You could be one of those women. You may be one of those women. The cost of not doing anything, for ourselves, our families, our communities, and our country is far, far more expensive than finding a solution.

Educate yourself. Reflect and determine where you are in the debate. Talk to your friends and family. And talk to the people who represent you in Congress, where these decisions will be made. You have too much skin in the game to sit on the bench for this one.

Click here to learn more about why the current health care system does not work for women.

Making the World a Safer, Better Place

2009-08-31T13:52:00.006-04:00

Contributed by MOTHERS volunteer and guest blogger Rosanne Weston

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a 71-year-old mother and grandmother, is the President of Liberia and the first female head of state elected in Africa. She pledged to “bring motherly sensitivity and emotion to the presidency” and declared in the August 23rd edition of the NY Times Magazine that, if women ran the world, “it would be a better, safer, more productive world,” as women would bring “a sensitivity to humankind” which “comes from being a mother.”

I love that statement, but I also wonder if it is true. After all, Indira Gandhi of India declared war on Pakistan, allegedly to solve a refugee problem, and started India’s nuclear program in response to a threat from The People’s Republic of China. Gold Meir of Israel is reported to have ordered the assassinations of those responsible for killing the Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972. And Margaret Thatcher of England allegedly delighted in her nicknames – The Iron Lady and Attila the Hen – given, presumably, for her decidedly non-nurturing stances on social services and international relations. Women in power have shown themselves capable of doing what they felt necessary to secure the vision they wanted for their respective countries. And Gandhi, Meir and Thatcher all had children.

Also, some of the most sensitive and supportive people I know are women who are not mothers. And even some men.

So, why does President Sirleaf’s statement still feel viscerally true?

We have learned quite a bit about the differences in brain functioning between men and women. As I understand it, women use a broader but shallower swath of the brain when problem solving and performing tasks. Perhaps that’s why we can multitask – handle duties at work, make a mental list of items to be picked up at the store on the way home and keep track of where the kids should be, all at the same time.

Men, I’ve read, use a narrower but deeper portion of the brain when performing similar functions. They have an ability to focus intently on the issue at hand but might forget that they were supposed to call in from work and check on whether everyone has returned home from school by 3:30.

So maybe we women are hardwired to embrace more possibilities at any given moment, allowing us to pay attention to the customer in front of the counter or the law brief on the desk but also to worry about whether everyone in the family is okay. We can tune out less of that inner chatter. And, if women do draw from both sides of the brain more than men do, perhaps we are more prone to bring the thoughts and emotions together.

President Sirleaf felt it necessary to point out that she would bring “emotion” to her work as head of state. But how would that help a poverty-ridden and war-torn country, one with a history of honor killing and a high incidence of rape?

Perhaps what she is pointing to is women’s willingness, or inborn tendency, to be open to vulnerability. Maybe our brains make it impossible for us to avoid it. And once we take in the possibility of loss and pain and grief, really take it in, then perhaps we become more sensitive to what causes pain and increases the risk of loss. When the possibility of suffering becomes more than just an idea, maybe it does become more difficult to cut off the food stamp programs, to choose military action rather than diplomacy as a first response to an international crisis or to turn a blind eye to the abuses perpetrated on the most powerless as well as to the roots of those abuses.

Also, women have not been burdened with role models that stared unsquinting into the sun and made a virtue of hard, square-jawed stoicism, images that taught countless boys to tamp down that natural sensitivity. Yes, women’s models were often presented as weak sisters, all brimming eyes and quivering lips, waiting to be rescued. But life taught another lesson – that the softness of feeling can inform the rigors of thought, perhaps bringing about a more balanced approach to any situation – be it at home, at work or on the world stage.

We have seen this deep feeling unleashed in men. Vice President Biden’s voice cracked when he talked about waiting to see if his surviving kids would recover after the car accident that killed his first wife and daughter. For forty years Senator Edward Kennedy, a child of great privilege, roared out his belief that we will not have matured as a country until everyone in the United States had access to quality healthcare. Both of these men were so seared by tragedy that they could not avoid the sense of vulnerability, for themselves and others.

But maybe it is the intimate and ongoing acts of caring for children – our own, our nieces and nephews, our neighbors – that makes it impossible to turn away from the suffering of others. Women have been caring for children for a long, long time. Perhaps that accounts for how our brains work and for the easier access we have to both the mental and emotional parts of ourselves. And if leaders with a sharp intelligence coupled with a more supple feeling can make the world more like what President Sirleaf would have it, a “safer, better” place, then we certainly need more women in positions of leadership. And more men in positions of caregiving and nurturing children.

Motherhood, Media, Myth...and Margaritas?

2009-08-27T16:45:00.007-04:00

The New York Times published an article entitled “A Heroine of Cocktail Moms Sobers Up” on August 14th, highlighting the recent about-face of mommy-blogger Stefanie Wilder-Taylor when she declared she had had her last drink. After writing two books about mixing cocktails with play dates, her public admission that she was overdoing it caused many of her readers to feel that their own drinking habits had been brought into question. Is it a problem or does it have more to do with what we expect culturally of mothers and women and the ease with which we revert to a type - i.e. soccer mom, cocktail mom, etc. - rather than acknowledging nuances, assumptions, presuppositions, etc.?

Here are some insightful thoughts from NAMC members and volunteers:
-----
I don't like the word "cocktail moms" for one. Like "soccer moms" it characterizes a whole group with a word that avoids complexity. As a one-glass-of-wine drinker much of my adult life, including many days even when the kids were younger, the drinks aren’t the issue.

Addiction is one issue - and loneliness is a terrible thing and would make someone prone to addictions more vulnerable. I see women in my practice addicted with young children addicted to e-bay and other forms of spending money. True addictions. The added problem with drinking is it puts others at risk - especially when you add the car to the mixture.

I see many people whose mothers and/or fathers were alcoholics and the psychological damage is very great. Not to mention the fact those kids are probably at higher risk for trauma because they aren't being watched in the same way.

But I think having a glass of wine when the kids are asleep or a glass in the afternoon is fine unless it’s not fine. I mean to say that if one doesn’t have a problem with alcohol and has a drink of course it’s OK. But when a family is in trouble we don't have a great way of identifying it and then helping.

We, as a nation, encourage certain kinds of addiction. We measure our economic well-being by an indicator of how much people are spending on things they don't need. We don't do much to help families feel less isolated. We don’t offer intense drug and alcohol addiction prevention programs. We don’t teach emotional intelligence in our schools. We don’t teach parenting. This article strikes me as one of those "sexy" topics. It will play for a while but no programs will come about, no funding for treatment, no additional spaces in every community where mothers can break the isolation.

If there is a blog that helps people identify when they have to pay attention to increasing addictive behavior, great. Will there also be a place for people to go once they see they have a problem? No insurance, no treatment. And even if they have insurance, who watches the kids?

Terry

-----
You make a very important point that the isolation moms face can exacerbate the problem. The two recent drinking & driving moms stories in NY [the well publicized tragedy of the wrong-way driver on the Taconic and another from the Hamptons where a woman hit & killed a 15 yr old on his bike while driving drunk with her own 6 yr. old in the car] has made this piece all the more timely.

Rhonda

-----
We know what is needed. How to get it done sooner is the question. A network of places - maybe cyber and virtual - safe places to talk, break the isolation, offer services and referrals, a respite from childcare, work opportunities and skill building, validation and positive regard. A Mothers Movement where the voices and needs of mothers are amplified AND accommodated. A loud and large maternal voice will make changes that benefit humanity.

Lorri

----
There are so many issues involved. Having a glass of wine is not a problem unless, as you say, it is a problem. There are certain people who should not be drinking, period, whether or not they are mothers. I don't want to see this framed as another "problem with mothers" issue.

I worked as a psychotherapist who also was a credentialed alcoholism and substance abuse counselor. Women were always under-identified as problem drinkers. The isolation was one reason. Also, there was a belief that women were not as problematic in this area as were men. For example, if a woman was stopped for drunk driving, she was more often told that, if she were close to her home, to just get there carefully and not drink and drive again. It was a stereotype. (Men, on the other hand, were more often arrested and, for first timers, referred to mandatory treatment.) People did not want to think of women as alcoholics, certainly not the working- and middle-class suburban wives and mothers who I saw in my practice. Substance abuse was a problem for those "other" people, or so the thinking went. Very wrong. I recall being at an early talk by people setting up the Women's Liberation Center on Long Island. They told how they went door to door during the day, when kids were in school and men at work. They came upon an unexpectedly high number of obviously drunk women answering the door. Women drank and sobered up by the time the kids got home from school, thus hiding a problem for a long time.

So it's a lot of things -- societal attitudes toward women, isolation, the ability to hide a problem until it emerges in some disastrous form, and a misunderstanding of the disease of substance abuse. There is also a lack of education. Many people think that if you are not falling under the table then you are pretty much OK. But the first things affected, before you feel tipsy, are judgment and peripheral vision. These are two functions that need to be working full throttle when caring for kids and/or driving. You are right -- we need better tools to identify and intervene and more ways to counter the stress, isolation and loneliness that often accompany being a SAHM and the conflicts and guilt often associated with juggling work inside and outside the home. Both can push people with a predisposition into a full-blown problem of abuse.

I don't want people turning a judgmental eye on the non-problem-drinking women who have a glass or two of wine with family and friends or some beer at a picnic. The occasional fun time with friends is fine. Most of us have enjoyed those. Some of us reading this have enjoyed them with each other, in settings where we would not be behind the wheel or responsible for a child. But I think anyone --male or female, parent or not -- who can always be counted on to be the "life of the party" should be considered at risk, no matter how ordinary they seem in the rest of their lives.

Rosanne
-----

Also, in the follow up Washington Post article - "Rise in Drunk-Driving Arrests of Women Deplored" - - the author says "more women than ever" are being arrested on DUI charges - but men are arrested at FOUR TIMES THE RATE of women. So how much of a "problem" can this be?? It seems alarmist to me - and at the end of the article, the author notes that women in DC, MD and VA have either fewer fatalities while intoxicated or the same as last year - which undercuts the whole premise of the article, as least as it regards these three jurisdictions.

Valerie

Eighty-Nine Years - and Counting

2009-08-18T14:19:00.003-04:00

On this day, 89 years ago, the 19th amendment was ratified.

A moment of pause while we offer a silent prayer of thanks to the sisterhood of suffragettes and the suffragists whose sacrifice, suffering, and dedication made this possible.

And this morning, a headline from today's Washington Post, front page, above the fold:
CLINTON PUTS SPOTLIGHT ON WOMEN'S ISSUES.

While one may certainly wonder at the fact that attention to women is so rare it qualifies as "news", I prefer to exult in the path to power women have forged and apply the positve energy that engenders to pressing forward our objectives.

Book Review – Bad Mother: A Chronicle of Maternal Crimes, Minor Calamities, and Occasional Moments of Grace by Ayelet Waldman

2009-08-06T16:14:00.005-04:00

Written by MOTHERS volunteer Kelly Coyle DiNorcia (ahimsamama.blogspot.com)

As mother to a 4- and 1-year-old, it’s been a long time since I’ve chosen to forego sleep in order to read. But Bad Mother was one of those books that had me up turning the pages when I should have been catching some Z’s. I wondered at one point if locking myself in the bathroom to read a few pages made me a Bad Mother.

If so, it was worth it.

It is not just that Waldman’s memoir about some of her dishonorable mothering moments is smart, funny and poignant that kept me going. Ayelet Waldman is, on some level, EveryMom. We can all relate to the feeling of having someone tsk-tsk disapprovingly at our parenting choices. We have all suffered the disappointment of having the reality of parenthood differ from the fantasy, or the fear that our children will inherit our flaws. We are all familiar with the self-doubt that is part and parcel of being a modern-day mother.

Some elements of Waldman’s story are less universal. She has a husband who is involved and supportive, an equal partner in caregiving and housekeeping. She left a fulfilling professional career to care full-time for her children and was able to re-invent herself as a WAHM. Many mothers do not have the support, flexibility, and financial security that Waldman has. In a book reading that was aired on C-SPAN, Waldman herself acknowledges that women have been sold a bill of goods. As women entered the workplace, she notes, the rules changed so that employees no longer worked 9-5 but were required to be at the office non-stop, effectively making “having it all” an impossible dream.

However, Waldman’s account of her life as a wife and mother surely is more common than unique. Reading this book is like talking to a girlfriend, one who is willing to be brutally honest about some of the most intimate details of her life and who is forgiving of all of your parenting foibles and failures.

We invite you to read Bad Mother this summer, and join our discussion of the book on the MOTHERS Book Bag on Good Reads. And if you have any mothering-related titles you think would interest our readers and members, please feel free to post them on our virtual book club!

Banana Peels and Beach Parties

2009-07-23T14:37:00.002-04:00

Written by MOTHERS volunteer Kelly Coyle DiNorcia (ahimsamama.blogspot.com)

I was recently discussing with my husband the legendary status he has achieved among the members of my moms’ group. When I was away giving a workshop, my beloved partner was home with my four-year-old daughter (I took the baby with me) and he simply cracked under the pressure. When I returned, the house was in a state of disarray, the extent of which I did not immediately appreciate. When looking for something on top of the refrigerator a week after my return, I noticed that there was a not-small amount of garbage up there, including banana peels. That’s right. Banana peels. On. Top. Of. The. Refrigerator. Not pretty, let me assure you.

I realize that I could not expect things to be done to my exacting (compulsive? anal?) standards in my absence, and I’m okay with that. But banana peels on the top of the fridge? Really? Really??? I’m not asking him to put them in the compost bin – I realize that dealing with a heaping barrel of rotting food is beyond him, and I’m even okay with that. But – hello – the garbage can?

His response, upon hearing of his mythological stature among the “Mom Army” (as he calls my friends), was to wonder if I also share with them the good things he does. Well, of course I do – just not as often, because those things are not nearly as funny.

He defended himself by noting that he was referred to as “Dad of the Year” at our family reunion yesterday. He took both kids by himself (ages 1 and 4) because I was home caring for our very ill and very senior dog, and working on my master’s thesis when I wasn’t cleaning up piles of…well, you get the idea. Why “Dad of the Year”, I asked? Because, he told me, apparently not all fathers would be willing to care for two kids alone (did I mention this was a family reunion? I’m not sure that qualifies as caring for kids alone, but whatever), no matter the age. The fact his kids are young and vibrant, and he is willing to care for them for a day without their mother, apparently qualifies him for a Nobel Prize.

Don’t get me wrong – I love my husband. He is a wonderful, involved and loving father and partner. He does most of the housework in our family, and I am much happier, saner, and more productive because of his contributions to our household. I would say that the work is split, maybe not 50/50 but closer to even than most.

But I was reminded of a book reading of Bad Mother by Ayelet Waldman that I watched on CSPAN, where she talked about how ridiculously low expectations are of fathers. When is the last time someone called you “Mom of the Year”, she wonders? Let me see….um…NEVER! If I was doing what my husband was doing yesterday, which simply involved ensuring that his two children were fed and relatively clean and making sure neither one of them floated out to sea, I would be seen as simply doing my job at best – and I probably would have drawn some criticism from someone somewhere for doing something wrong. As Waldman said, in order for someone to comment on what a good mom I am, I would need to be performing a tracheotomy while nursing my baby, teaching my four-year-old trigonometry, and knitting sweaters for refugee children in Afghanistan – all at the same time.

This isn’t really about how low the bar is for fathers, but rather how unreachably high it is for mothers. When I mentioned that I felt guilty not going to the reunion, my husband asked if it was because I was leaving him with both kids for the day. Why should I feel guilty about that? I take care of them both alone (really alone) all the time, and if I’m not mistaken, and I’m pretty sure I’m not, they’re his kids too. The implication that I should feel guilty about relinquishing the care of my two young children to their father for fifteen hours is, well, offensive. (For the record, what I felt guilty about was the fact that I was missing an opportunity to spend time with family members that I rarely get to see.)

Mothers are supposed to do it all, and do it to perfection, without recognition, support, encouragement, or security. All this we do under the scrutinizing eyes of the Good Mother Police. Meanwhile, fathers are showered with accolades for simply being in the same physical space as their offspring. So I say, let’s try something new. Next time you see a mother spending time with her children, pushing them on a swing at the park or picking out books at the library, walk up to her and tell her, “I was just watching you with your child, and I think you’re a great mom.” When you see a mother struggling to carry groceries and a screaming toddler to her car, offer her a hand. When you see that glazed-over look that mothers get after listening to preschooler prattle for hours on end, or the shell-shocked gaze of a mother of teenagers, give her a warm and friendly smile. Our government may not support us with legislation, our employers may not support us with their policies, our families and friends may not even support us. Let’s at least support each other.