In the chapter "the Mommy Tax," Crittenden explores the economic consequences of becoming a mother. Studies have shown that the most disadvantaged people in the workplace are women with children. Mothers earn much less than childless women. This reduction in wages is termed the 'mommy tax' and is typically greater than one million dollars for college-educated women. Crittenden talks of her own personal experience. After her son was born, she took some time off from her job at the New York Times. Because of this break, she did not recieve pension and lost 50-60 thousand dollars per year. She ultimately gave up almost half of her life earnings just because she wanted to spend some time with her newborn son. In middle-class families, the mommy tax will likely be above 600,000 dollars. In lower-income families, having a child can push the family into poverty. Taking care of elderly family members has a similar effect on one's annual salary. Caretakers lose a good deal of money because they take off time to help care for elderly family members.
Crittenden also cites the example of Virigina Daley. Daley was fired from her job as an interior designer after she had a baby and attemped to create a more flexible schedule. She sued her company, Aetna, but lost the case. It seemed that the jury thought Daley had 'overextended' herself and it was too much to ask from her to raise kids and have a professional career.
Furthermore, women still do not earn as much as men. Women earn about 60 cents to every dollar a man makes; a biblical ratio found when God talks to Moses about the Israelites. Many people believe this is no longer true. And its not accurate in the case of single, young, childless white women. But if all women are taken into account, this ratio still holds true.
Mothers do not only earn less than men but they also earn less than childless women. Women without children make 90% of men's wages while mothers only earn 70% of men's wages. This disparity is mind-boggling and research has been undertaken to attempt to discover why mothers earn so much less. Several possible reasons include the fact that American mothers will quit their jobs as they don't get paid maternity leave. Employees are penalized for 'job interruptions' and thus when a mother has to take time off to care for a child, she will be penalized. Mothers also cannot typically work the mandatory overtime hours as they have to be home to care for their children. This can lead to layoffs or decreased wages. Also many mothers work part-time and are consequently paid less than full-time workers as employers believe part-time workers do not work as hard. This is seldomly true. Many mothers also own their own businesses so that they can have flexibility. However, these small businesses don't recieve as much aid or capital as men who start their own businesses.
Fathers who help take care of their children also earn less than men who either have wives who stay at home or are childless. This is called the 'daddy tax.'
Crittenden also cites the example of Cindy DiBiasi. DiBiasi was a reporter who worked extremely hard and was very successful. She became pregnant however she used her pregnancy to help her move forward, allowing the news crew to film her progress and the birth of her child. However, when she got pregnant a second time, she was unable to keep up with her previous schedule and tried to create more flexibility. She was met with hostility from her employers. She was demoted and put into a job that was feasibly impossible with her schedule. She ended up having to quit. This story demonstrated how having two children can be extremely incompatible with women's careers.
Sometimes the mommy tax can be lowered if women have children later in life. Once their careers are established and secure, having children will not be impractible or incompatible with careers. However, the risk with this is waiting too long and then being unable to have children. The government should also give more aid to mothers. Other countries, such as France, have amazing programs and financial aid which allows mothers to not necessarily pay the 'mommy tax.' The USA does not do this however they do something similar for veterans, giving boat loads of aids to veterans even if they only served in peacetime.
In the article "Maid to Order," Ehrenreich talks about maids in the United States. Cleaning jobs such as the ones that maids are employed to do are seen as subservient. Being on one's hands and knees immediately evokes an image of a servant or a lesser being. Earlier in the feminist movements, housework was supposed to be an equalizer. It was supposed to provide more work for women. However, no one considered the fact that men were the 'domestic exploiters' of housework. Wives cleaned up after their husbands. Housework defined bonds between husbands and wives. Soon, in order to avoid fights between spouses, maids were hired. This was seen as a way to provide more work for women. It was seen as a positive. However, housework is degrading. Housework is deeply ingrained in degrading relationships and work to reinforce them. Furthermore, when men are the ones being cleaned up after and women are the ones doing the clearning up, this creates a way to reinforce and continue male domination and power.
Most maids hired are women of color and of the lower-class. Most maids are independent 'free-lancers' instead of working for corporations such as "Merry Maids." Maids are paid well below the poverty line. Furthermore, some maids are treated as slaves as they are not regularly paid and work incredibly long hours.
Recently there has been a rise in corporate cleaning services over independent maids. Instead of having one maid come in everytime, three or four people would come in uniform with one of them being the designated 'boss' who would speak with the employers. However, employees in the corporate cleaning services can be majorly screwed over. They can get paid even less than an independent worker as the corporations will dock their wages on imperfect attendance etc. Furthermore, cleaning the house becomes more of a factory-like process. The same method is employed everytime. The rooms are cleaned in a certain order adn in a certain way. Furthermore, the main necessity is speed and thus the houses are not necessarily being 'cleaned.' Instead they are made to look like they are clean when in reality, germs have been spread and nothing has been actually sanitized. As society continues to build bigger houses and have services for more and more things, the percentage of homes that have a maid will increase. This will perpetuate class hierachies. Servility of colored women or lower-class women will persist as they will be the ones continuing to clean the home while the typically white women who hire them will be off doing 'better thigns' with their time.
In 'Reality Check' by Hakin-Dyce, she talks of her experience as a poor college student fighting to make enough money to survive. Although she had a great education and seemed to be a powerful and active student, she was unable to find a job and had to consider demeaning work as a go-go dancer. Miraculously, she was offered a job as an English tutor the day of her audition for go-go dancing and thus never had to commit such demeaning acts. The article stresses how many poor and working-class people, however, are not miraculously saved. They have to face sexually demeaning and degrading work just to survive. There are no alternatives. Although they are able to make money through these jobs, it costs them something important. These women have to sacrifice somethign daily when they go to their jobs. As Hakin-Dyce says, she came so "close to shutting off a part of who I am, that part of me that is spontaneous, creative, open and empowered" because she almost became a go-go dancer.
In "Knowledge is Power," Maria Cristina Rangel writes of her experience as a beneficiary of welfare, as a mother of two, and as a full-time student. Rangel begins by noting that poverty is not somethign one chooses. It is not something that is one's own fault. No one wants to be in that position. No one wants to be helpless, money-less, dependent on the government. She has tried everything she could. She has thought ahead yet it still is not enough. Getting out of poverty is nearly impossible in this country. Rangel moved to Massachusetts in 1996 and she recieved a TAFDC which allowed her to attend Smith. She recieved some benefits although it was not enough to fully feed her children or provide consistent daycare. She had to continually report to a caseworker to show that she was still tryign to find a job etc. This was particularly demeaning because OF COURSE she was working to find a job and working to make her situation better. But in this country, it is so hard to do and most people are unable to come out of poverty. Rangel ultimately became a member of Welfare, Education, Training and Access Coalition to spread awareness and help others in similar situations. She talks of the inadequacy of government welfare and benefits. These need to be raised. The country cannot continue to ignore the class problems and huge discrepancies.
No comments:
Post a Comment