Quick Hit: The Anti-Mommy Bias
NY Times blog Economix has post by Nancy Folbre from yesterday on the discrimination that working caregivers experience - especially when they're mothers:
During the 1920s and 1930s, many employers refused to hire married women, or fired them once they married. As my fellow Economix blogger Casey Mulligan points out, such "marriage bars" are not allowed today. But family responsibilities still weigh more heavily on women than on men, accounting for much of the pay gap between the sexes. Some policy analysts argue that mothers make a lifestyle choice, opting for easier, more flexible work over greater responsibility and higher pay. Others, like myself, argue that our economic system imposes unfair penalties on those who care for others.But shouldn't both sides in this debate protest when women (or men) are penalized simply because they are caregivers? Considerable evidence suggests that maternal responsibility intensifies gender stereotyping in harmful -- and often illegal -- ways.
I'm actually a pretty big fan of Folbre and glad to see her voice in the Times; I read her book The Invisible Heart in college - definitely recommend it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: The Anti-Mommy Bias .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12751
"1920s and 1930s"
Try the 1960s.
Hm. I'm only 18, but what was it like for married women or mothers who wanted to work at the time?
My mother (in America) was forced to quit her teaching job when she became pregnant with me in 1962.
I was ineligible to apply for a bank loan (in Australia) because the banks didn't give loans to married women without their husband's consent in 1989.
That's SOOOO messed up!!!
Exactly. My maternal grandmother and several of her sisters, and some of my dad's female cousins, were all turned away from jobs because they were married (most were without children at the time). In the 1960s.
As for the 1920s and 30s, my dad's parents got married by eloping so my grandmother could keep her job as a telephone operator (one of the best-paid jobs women could get at the time). Her employers found out not much later, and still fired her.
That's crazy. Are they solely fired for being married or being mothers? I always thought the 60s were a time of revolution. I find it appalling that women were losing their jobs because they were married or had children. My mind simply can't comprehend that a woman would be discriminated against on that basis. Wow.
It was just for being married. My husband's grandmother kept her first marriage a secret so she could keep working, and when he died, couldn't get benefits and his parents wouldn't acknowledge her. Also, women who got pregnant would bind their bellies to hide them as long as possible so that they wouldn't be fired. That wasn't great for the mother or the pregnancy.
In my maternal grandmother and one of her sister's cases, they weren't hired in the first place, and were actually *told* that it was because they had just been married, and it was therefore a forgone conclusion that they would immediately become pregnant and quit their jobs. Most of the sisters (there were eight in all), btw, bucked cultural expectations and worked when their children were young, out of necessity.
My dad's mother, though, was fired. Luckily my grandfather's law practice had become successful enough by that time that she didn't have to work for them to make a living.
I didn't realize it was still going on in the sixties. However, around 1950, my grandmother, who was a kindergarten teacher until she had my dad, had to choose which school board to teach in based on which ones allowed married women to teach.
Only two years ago my brother was fired from a much-needed job after turning down overtime because he is his son's sole caregiver, and didn't have anyone to babysit. For nearly a year he searched for new employment, only to find that companies were more than a little hesitant to hire someone who had an unchanging family commitment. He has since found another employer who has been (a little bit more) supportive of his role as a single dad, but I still seethe to this day thinking of the first job, and of all the interviewers in between. If single fathers are suffering, I can only imagine the struggles of single mothers.
Wow... makes me wonder if my father had such trouble finding a job when he was looking back in 1998 because he was a single dad, even though I was old enough to babysit my little brother if my dad had to work overtime (though not overnight.)
My mother is a single mom. But when she and my father were married, I know she had problems with her job. She's a nurse and she stayed home with me for awhile, but had to return to work because at the time she was the "breadwinner". I know for some of my other friends who have single mothers, they went immediately back to work and some of them didn't even tell their bosses they were pregnant.
It's sad that we haven't really come that far in regards to that. Here at my university, a Professor told me that she was ridiculed for having children and almost lost her job. And as we all know, it's extremely hard for women to get back into the workforce after they've taken, say, two or three years to care for their young children.
The 60s? No, even the 70s. As an example, the sitcom All in the Family had an episode where Gloria, visibly pregnant, brought home a bonus and a pink slip.
Everyone where she worked who was expecting was fired, so they had a march/sit in, "Power to the Preggos!"
(Sometimes I think it's our own fault the younger generation doesn't know how far we've come. Perhaps we don't complain enough.)
My maternal grandmother was a cleaning woman from the 1930s until the 1970s. She had all the work that she wanted. No one cared if she had kids (or one with a serious heart condition).
Women have been constantly expected to forever be in the position of nurturing, and servitude, and hardly ever leadership, or competition/ acheivment. Not that there is anything wrong with positions of serving, but she should have a choice damnit! And I find it amazing that some MRAs are against someone having the choice to choose what they want to dow ith their lives. Sometimes I have to stop thinking about it, to not be so blinded by anger.
Speaking of working mothers, even today, mothers are made to feel guilty if they choose to continue working, especially if they go back to work "too soon". I've also noticed a trend in reading articles on young female celebrities. The questions are always the same: "So do you want a family some day?" "Plan on having kids?" "Ohhhh, you're pregnant?" "Get out the cameras!"
I live in Sweden right now and I've considered moving here permanently if I ever decide to have children.
The parental leave benefits are great. My American cousin and her Swedish husband have been able to spend so much time with their 3 children and were still paid 85% of what they normally earned when they weren't working. What I really like is that fathers are REQUIRED to take time off to spend with their young children and that parents get additional time with each new child that is born. Unfortunately, there are extra months that can be divided between the parents and overwhelmingly the mother takes the time off, but at least men do have/get to spend time with their children.
I see so many men pushing babies in strollers and escorting their toddlers around that it warms my heart. My dad frequently says he regrets the fact that he wasn't allowed or expected to spend time with my brother and me when we were little.
I'm considering posting about how the parental benefits are wonderful in Sweden, but I've seen it mentioned before so I might not do it.