Some time ago, on another site, in no way affiliated with this one, I got into a scrap over abortion rights. The argument presented was that since women can choose abortion, they are now responsible for all consequences of their decisions. A woman can abort. A man can’t. Therefore, women who choose to have the child, should absorb all financial obligations and exempt unwilling fathers from child support costs. It amazes me how much women are expected to absorb. We really haven’t come very far, have we? No matter what options a woman has, it still comes down to “You play, you pay.” No matter how many rights we acquire, our costs and responsibilities still exceed them.
An article in today’s Chicago Tribune underscores one of the many injustices that still confronts women of child-bearing age. While women, across the board, make less than men, working mothers make less than anyone. And, the more children we have, the worse the pay gap gets.
— some stats below the fold —
The newest term is the “Mommy Wage Gap,” and it addresses the discrepancy between what employed mothers and other women earn.
According to Heather Boushey, an economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, women with children “earn from 3 to 10 percent less per child compared to employed women without children.”
Boushey adds that when the figures are further broken down, “there is a bigger penalty for women with children for their second child than for their first.”
The numbers: For the first child a woman has, the wage differential in comparison to non-mothers is from 2 to 10 percent less.
For the second child, the gap is from 4 to 16 percent less than for women with no children.
I saw a bit of the “Mommy Track” in action when I worked in publishing. I saw one woman demoted while she was on maternity leave. I saw a woman derided as she stepped onto the elevator at 5:00: “Going home at 5:00, I see. That’s what motherhood does for you.” This from a married man, with children, who apparently thought fatherhood had no such downside. Another co-worker was told that things would be “taken off her plate” when she got married, because she now had 2 jobs. This stuff is real, folks.
I hate to post and run, but I’m off to squeeze in a client while my little one is napping. I wouldn’t trade motherhood for anything, but it costs, my friends. It costs.
For an excellent, indepth take on this subject, you might want to read “The Price of Motherhood: Why the most important job in the world is still the least valued” by Ann Crittenden.
And this doesn’t just happen to single mothers. I went after my ex for child support and when I got to court the judge said I couldn’t sue for back support in my county, I had to go after him in his county and threw it out. Here I was, 23 years old, a bartending, no education, single Mom working three jobs trying to make ends meet. That was 30 years ago. It is even worse now.
And, even if you are awarded child support, good luck getting it. A lot of men just blow off the judgement, and get away with it.
Oh don’t I know.
We’ve been getting regular payments for about 8 weeks now…8 years after the divorce was final.
Thankfully, I have a job that allows me to support us all by myself, because we’d have been screwed otherwise.
Not only do mothers get paid less, but it is much more difficult for a mother to get a job than those without children, particularly, young children. I had one potential employer ask my reference if my child ever got in the way of my work. My reference was appalled by the question, as was I. This type of question is illegal, but here was a lawyer asking it. In the legal field, overtime is often mandatory. As a single mom, overtime is impossible for me. Few places offer childcare, or even unpaid time off, in the event of doctor’s appointments or illness or any of a million other aspects of motherhood.
While it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy, it happens all the time and is very hard to prove. Many women do not know their rights and thus, never pursue legal recourse when they have been illegally terminated or demoted.
The situation is only getting worse in these times of “Family Values”.
Grrrrrrrrr…….I could spit venom when I think about this topic.
While it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy, it happens all the time and is very hard to prove. Many women do not know their rights and thus, never pursue legal recourse when they have been illegally terminated or demoted.
Yes, and seeking redress through the courts also costs money. As does fighting for child-support and addressing other custody issues. I’ve watched female friends drain their finances trying to protect their kids from abusive fathers, enforce already decided child support and custody agreements, etc. A lot of these men use their financial advantage to protect their financial advantage, and these women don’t have a chance. Don’t even get me started on women who lose custody of their kids because they’re poor and their ex-husbands have money! Then, there are the women who make enough money, but they can’t be with their kids enough because they’re working, and they lose custody on those grounds.
Women do not have remotely equal rights, in this country. Our wombs are still a battleground. Motherhood is lionized with one breath and used to ghetto-ize us with the next. It always seems to come back to women must be perfect. We must be all things to all people. We can have whatever we want as long pursuing our goals doesn’t inconvenience anyone else… at all… or in any way deprive men of any of the entitlements they’re accustomed to.
I guess this really pushes my buttons, too.
as well. There is the long drawn out process of just putting in the complaints, then the continual checking of the process, then the civil suit, and then, possibly, some offer to settle that may or may not be great but your lawyer gets paid so he/she encourages you to settle.
The interesting thing to analyse here is actually the causes of this behaviour. Are so many mothers earning so little because women actually get demoted (or denied promotion) when they are or become mothers? I don’t doubt that that makes up a large fraction of the disadvantaged population here, but I doubt it’s all of it. Another factor, I think, is that the women who become mothers already aren’t in very good situations financially. Poverty generally carries with it a lack of education which, in the modern world, means a lack of sex education and a lack of access to abortion.
In other words, the people who most need family planning are the least likely to have it, and not by their own choice, either.
Yet one more demonstration of how you can’t sacrifice any aspect of the progressive agenda on the altar of pragmatism. The whole thing ties together.
“Are so many mothers earning so little because women actually get demoted (or denied promotion) when they are or become mothers?”
Just look at the WalMart Class Action suit. Many of the women involved in that suit were mothers who were denied promotions on the basis that management believed they should be home taking care of their families.
“Another factor, I think, is that the women who become mothers already aren’t in very good situations financially. Poverty generally carries with it a lack of education which, in the modern world, means a lack of sex education and a lack of access to abortion.”
Yes, I think you are right. It is also the poorest women whose “partners” take off with no child support. So, a poor single mother with a small child has no choice but to accept part-time and low-paying work because child care is not a viable option. Thus exascerbating an already difficult position. A poor single mother has a much more difficult time finding the means and ability to further her education because not only can she not afford the cost of education, but she cannot afford the cost of the child care that it would entail. While I am all for family planning, legal and affordable options, etc., I think that the reasons why there are so many poor single mothers are multiple and complex.
the problem, but taint so. Hasn’t been so since patriarchy took over the reins. Women are not promoted because of motherhood (I was told I couldn’t have a promotion because I was a mother!) They suffer in education (my scholarship was withdrawn after I married). They suffer age discrimination quicker than men (I was told by a head hunter that a lot of employers did not want people over 40 being presented as candidates for jobs.) They are not put on the “secret fast track promotion” lists nor are they viewed as the people to protect during layoffs.
I’m not saying blame the victim. I’m saying that there are some very complex causes at work here, not just simply the prejudice against women. The lack of education and availability of alternatives isn’t the fault of the women; it’s the fault of society.
I took your meaning with your first post, and I see your point about poor women and pregnancy. However, I don’t think that is a factor in this problem. Remember that this earnings analysis also includes men, at the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Men across the board earn more than women, at every economic level.
Understand, I have seen this with my own eyes, among middle class women and even at the higher end of the economic scale. When you have a child, you are viewed differently. Your job is now seen as motherhood. Employers see you as a liability because your child is now seen as your priority, in a way that it isn’t deemed for men. Men are seen as needing to earn more to support the family, but women are seen as mothers who need to raise their kids. On many levels women and children are viewed as economic drains, because raising children does not contribute directly to the GDP. Married mothers are viewed as working because they want to. Single mothers have it coming and going, because they genuinely do have to do everything and be all things to all people.
I think I need to explain more clearly. What I was specifically talking about was a loss of opportunities due to an unwanted or unplanned child. For example, having to drop out of high school, or being unable to afford college/university education.
I see. I read it a little differently, but, yes poor women are utterly screwed for a number of reasons, and many women are made poor by motherhood, who might not otherwise be. There are other factors, too, which is more what I thought you were referring to. There is actually an inverse relationship between higher education and number of children. Poor, uneducated people breed more, statistically, and, partly, by choice. I’m talking here about married people on the lower socio-economic end, as well. They truly are the proletariat. My husband just stares in dismay at these enlisted Marines with 6 kids they can’t afford. And I do think there is a lot political calculation to exploiting that. We are creating new generations of grunts and WalMart employees, to keep a much smaller affluent class comfortable. I sound cynical don’t I? I’ve also read studies indicating that urban poor breed so exponentially because they live in a kind of war zone, and its a primal reaction to the fear of annihilation. I’ve known a few social workers in my life, and while I’m livid that we aren’t providing decent family planning options to the poor, I also know the harder reality, which is that even when it’s available, many don’t take advantage.
I don’t think you’re being cynical at all. I think it’s a vicious cycle, and I think it’s horrible, and I think that eliminating it should be one of the big goals, if not the big goal, of the progressive movement, beyond simple equality. I’ve suspected for a while that a lot of the conservative message – marry young, have lots of kids – is explicitly intended to preserve and perpetuate this situation. It just seems like too much of a coincidence that marrying and having kids young makes it a lot harder to take one of the better roads out of poverty: a good education.
people on the lower economic front. 1) Maslow’s heirarchy of needs holds – people will think of survival first and believe it or not having children equals survival! At least to the human organism, it does. And I think to the human psyche as well. We create our very own communities in our families. 2) Access to medical/treatment is definitely harder. That includes access to contraceptives. Access to education about our human bodies is included in that as well. 3) Peer pressure, commercialization all combine to intimidate and manipulate and if one doesn’t have a could grounding in self or have a fairly good sense of self esteem those things can cause a great deal of stupid and off centered behavior.
moiv has a good post that’s an example of the class of things I’m trying to explain.
It’s not that motherhood costs…
It’s that fatherhood doesn’t.
My wife runs into the same thing–didn’t get the directorship of a medical clinic because we have a son (who is largely self-sufficient nowadays, as he’s a teenager and is therefore omniscient). Yet I, as a “family man” (in other words, not some suspect old bachelor in a ratty cardigan with loads of cats) have a favourable eye cast upon me. I suppose being able to commit to marriage and being a father makes me a “mature” and “responsible” person–but why doesn’t it work that way for women?
I’m willing to bet that a study would show that married men have an economic advantage over single men.
Parenthood benefits men but disadvantages women? This is not merely a matter for legislation but also for a change in social attitudes.
over single men.
have a health advantage over married women.
Hmmm, go figger. 😉
is that, of course, the right consistently acts to devalue the family. If they really cared about families, we’d have parental leave, affordable child care, a decent minimum wage, and universal health care while the bankruptcy act would have gotten out of committee. Until we get people elected who really care about families, the Mommy Gap and all the other problems that mothers (whether working or SAH) have aren’t going away.
Well, let me trot out the devil’s advocate take on this, from a single non-mother with an office job that’s classified as exempt (from getting overtime pay, primarily). I’m a manager that manages…no one.
At work, it’s assumed by management that I will take on major work assignments that tend to require travel or extended series of meetings, because I don’t have kids (and staff with kids can’t be expected to mess with their daily daycare balancing act). Of course, any nasty end of the day emergency also gets directed to me, because I don’t have kids (so there’s no $50 penalty for late pick-up at daycare, the cat can wait for dinner and he has no homework). Result- complex, PITA assignments to me, assignments that are more predictably scheduled go to working parents. If I complain more about my work load as a result, I might get a small raise more often (if anybody was giving raises, which they’re not).
My health insurance premiums are inflated to help cover gaps in the overall funding pool for family plans, which are priced at about 225% of my rate (covering 2 parents plus any number of kids). None of us are enjoying the changes which are restructuring our health care plan, because the overall cost increases are consistently outstripping both inflation and wage increases.
I’ve managed to purchase my own home (which I don’t really have time to keep up due to unpaid overtime and travel) and I happily pay local property taxes on it, 60% of which go to educate other people’s kids. Me- I like school and think kids need more of it on the public’s dime.
In the end, maybe there’s one big difference between being progressive and conservative in reacting to this issue of pay inequity. This progressive accepts that I may give up some parity in order to help support other people’s families and to benefit the public good. However, what I really would love to see is better SYSTEMIC solutions to eliminate regressive burdens on all workers. You can call me satan, or you can call me commie, or you can call me Al…