The New York Times and Fox News. Strange bedfellows when it comes to women’s issues.
Allow me to clarify, as I excuse myself for being late to this party. I’ve been busy trying to earn my keep, as I’m one of “them,” or more specifically, I have been over the past dozen years.
You know. “Them.”
Those 40% female breadwinners that Pew mentions. Or rather, the 14% of single-mother-divorced households that is revealed in a deeper dive into the data.
Now let’s get back to the Times and Fox.
Stephanie Coontz, one of my favorite journalists, serves up an excellent opinion piece on the subject of working mothers. A stickler for data – don’t forget it was she who reminded us of the tyranny of the average – Ms. Coontz consistently pumps insight into statistics on the American family.
In “The Triumph of the Working Mother,” Ms. Coontz reminds us that 50 years ago, at the time Betty Friedan wrote “The Feminine Mystique,”
A wife who pursued a career was considered a maladjusted woman who would damage her marriage and her kids.
Women as Breadwinners (Hardly News)
Further noting that women are the “sole or main breadwinner in 40 percent of households” according to a much discussed Pew study, Ms. Coontz explores the emotional, financial, and marital benefits to women working outside the home. And that includes a growing trend reflecting greater involvement from fathers.
(You will note in a moment, no doubt unsurprised, that this is the opposite view taken by Fox News.)
Ms. Coontz points out when referring to mothers:
At all income levels, stay-at-home mothers report more sadness, anger, and episodes of diagnosed depression than their employed counterparts.
Might I add that they are surely more at risk should a marriage end, a husband be laid off, or an unforeseen illness knock the household on its assets?
Sly Fox or This Dog Don’t Hunt?
Enter Fox News with Lou Dobbs, just as I was perusing the paper, courtesy of my college kid who sent me this link.
How fortunate we are that the all male panel is bemoaning precisely the same Pew research, and is so actively engaged in reminding women of our proper place, not to mention explaining our current social woes as the result of women in the workforce.
Hey Ladies! Let’s stop working for money, okay? Let’s pay more attention to Fox News political analyst Juan Williams, whose take on four out of ten households with women as primary breadwinner suggests this is the cause of
… the disintegration of marriage… men who were hard-hit by the economic recession in ways that women weren’t… something going terribly wrong in American society… hurting our children…
And let’s toss some abortion stats into that mix, shall we? Because we all know that if there were no abortions we’d be better off as a society, right? More mouths to feed so the women must stay home to cook and clean, or dare I suggest more children worse off for lack of money (or infrastructure) to assist them?
Besides, didn’t we know (as Erick Erickson says) that it’s “anti-science” if we don’t believe that men in general should “dominate?” And back on point, “having moms as the primary breadwinner is bad for kids and bad for marriages.”
Effects of Unemployment and Underemployment
Over the years I’ve written of my own plummeting self-worth during periods of unemployment or underemployment. It’s a topic that “successful” adults don’t dare to discuss; we impute lack of character, poor attitude, incompetence or simply “your own fault” to those who admit to any such thing.
Better to assume that “they” will never be “us;” that we won’t be touched by layoff, we won’t be derailed by family or medical issues, we would never be so foolish as to suffer running out of contingency plans.
Shall we all join hands and give thanks for magical thinking?
With some 11.7 million reported as unemployed in May 2013, not to mention the 7.9 million “involuntary part-time workers”* – could all these individuals be at risk because they aren’t “successful?” Or as I interpret Erick Erickson at Fox News, because women don’t know their place?
Opportunity Cost, By Any Other Name?
The effects of unemployment are unsettling when short-lived and devastating when prolonged, not only for the obvious (financial) reasons, but the damage done to self-esteem, lost opportunity to contribute to the economy, not to mention other critical aspects of individual and societal ripple effects – as in our children, and of course, our health.
To blame women in the workforce or any single social dimension is not only to misrepresent the originating data, but to ignore the complexity of cultural, political, and economic issues that include massive mismanagement by our financial institutions, structural problems in our employment environments, lack of social safety net, recidivist (Neanderthal?) attitudes toward reproductive rights and family planning, moving labor offshore to the cheapest possible source, lack of visionary job-generating policy (new energy development? transportation? infrastructure?) – and more.
Yo, Fox News! That dog don’t hunt!
More Views? Good News
In his thoughts on the subject of Breadwinning Moms and misleading headlines, management professor and writer Scott Behson hits on several points made more broadly by Ms. Coontz, namely the lack of social infrastructure to support working families – whatever their configuration.
Mr. Behson’s take includes reference to
Rigid workplaces and careers; “Work-first” and “All-in” workplace cultures; Women in dual-career couples who are reluctant to share childcare tasks and responsibilities (“maternal gatekeeping”)…
and more, which I agree with.
In addition, Mr. Behson explores the specifics of the data, including the 40% figure which has caused so much stir, noting that it is the result of
cobbling together the 11% never-married single mother households, the 14% single-mother-divorced households and the 15% of dual-parent households with female breadwinners.
Mr. Behson addresses both structural and societal issues – the need for more flexible environments and equally, attitudes. Dare I say that Erick Erickson et al might do with spending a week in the Behson dual-career household? Shall I add that I also concur that women must be willing to yield some control of domestic tasks?
“Traditional” Rules, Single and Independent Drools?
In his blog post, Mr. Behson addresses the official employment arena, and the issues in a dual-career couple. One might read into that the presence of some safeguards inherent in the employer-employee relationship.
While I grant that’s an excellent place to begin, millions of us are single parents struggling to support ourselves and fall beyond any hope or scope of sharing childcare tasks, much less the expenditures of raising a family. Moreover, while not explicitly exempting those who are independents – contractors, freelancers (some 16 million of us, according to some sources) – we are likely beyond consideration if proposed change is restricted to those who enjoy an “employment relationship.”
Mr. Behson is not knocking the “non-traditional” family by any means; he’s addressing the realities of two people partnered as a parenting team – emotionally, financially, and logistically.
Our Claim to Shame?
I return to Ms. Coontz who resolutely compares US social policy to that of other countries, and in so doing, she doesn’t exclude those of us who carry the load on solo shoulders. Nor does she indirectly exclude those without protections that may be (temporarily) provided via employers, as she cites maternity leave, day care, and after school programs, concluding:
… while Friedan was right in her counterintuitive claim that maternal employment could be good for women and families, she failed to foresee that the United States… would by the early 21st century have fallen to last place among developed nations in supports for working families.
*Bureau of Labor Statistics / Employment Situation Summary: … persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers)… working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.
You May Also Enjoy
This piece is terrific, as usual.
Thanks for referencing my writing on this topic.
I, too, was appalled by the oldwhitemenonprivledge’s freakout on FoxNews.
The fact is, both men and women work, and workplaces have not caught up to that reality, despite dual-career couples and single-parent families being the norm for about 20 years or so. While I tend to focus on the employer/employee relationship in most of my writing, you are spot-on in your larger analysis.
-Scott
Thanks, Scott. Kudos to you for what you write, what you do “in real life,” and what you model by example. And thanks for the good words on this piece.
These are complicated issues. Obviously I take offense at the women haters/blamers. At the same time, it is worth considering that a lot of the depression women experience when “just staying at home” is a result of the devaluing of their work and roles as mothers and homemakers. My happiest times were when I had the luxury to stay at home and focus solely on raising my kids. The discontent began to creep in as I ventured out into social circles where “do you work?” and “do you JUST stay home?” were asked in such an obviously shaming way.
Most low self-esteem and depression come from not feeling we are enough. Finances also dictated that I needed to generate some money. I found juggling extra work on top of parenting and partnering my husband (I still handled lion-share of housework and child-care) to be utterly overwhelming.
My husband, while dissatisfied with my status as “just a stay at home mom” was more palpably aggravated by my inability to attend to his needs once I was on track to earn some money. We have created an impossible paradigm. I don’t think it is one gender’s fault. I think that everyone is confused and unaware as to how to manage it all. Plus, we no longer have the “choice” of pulling in two incomes, we all have to.
There is no doubt that these role changes have impacted marriage and family life for the worse in some ways. That doesn’t mean we should go back or romanticize the 50s!!! It means it’s a whole new paradigm and I do believe that men and women are now pitted against each other and that competition seeps into our intimate relationships. 1 in 4 women are on anti-depressants. Everyone I know is stressed out and spread too thin no matter what their arrangement. The men feel emasculated and neglected, the women feel overburdened and unsupported. It’s not working.
If I had to point a finger of blame, it would be on the “establishment” (go figure) for always exploiting our collective abilities to the breaking point. Again, so that if two people can work, the cost of living and expectations shift to require that two people work. So, we don’t have a net gain, we have more people working (and in this economy for less money) and kids losing a lot of precious family time in the process. At the end of my life, what I care about is that I was a good mother, I really don’t give a crud about the rest… status, luxuries etc. But now my life, and that of most people I know, is about survival. My marriage is dead as a doornail and I have to do the best I can. I am still eternally grateful that I had the time I did being JUST a mother.
It is complicated, Surviving Girl. And as your name suggests, regardless of the configuration we find ourselves in – by choice or circumstance – for too many, it’s about surviving. And a woman’s shot at surviving is, in my opinion, much lower when she depends entirely on her partner’s income and, dare I say euphemistically, his good graces.
As you clarify, for most of us a single income is no longer enough. For those of us left to carry on (for years) solo, we’d like to imagine there’s a bright future waiting and in some instances there very may well be. For others, not so much. A matter of decades left to “surviving.”
But note Ms. Coontz’s final observation based on (I believe OECD) data – the U.S. has fallen to last place among developed nations “in supports for working families.”
We need a whole new paradigm, yes. It’s complicated, yes.
On the SAHM issue, you may find this discussion of interest. The comments are the best part. I agree, we’ve devalued the work and skills of Stay At Home Parents. All the more reason when possible to spread the load, which doesn’t solve the issue for the single/solo parent of course. But a system of greater supports (child care, school hours, dare I say universal health care) – just might help a little.
It remains to be seen how I manage to survive or thrive in my situation. Indeed, if I had daughters, I would advise them to focus on their careers, not men, not family. But this saddens me. I would not give up the time I had with my children when they were young, not for anything. Having a fully present parent in the home may be a thing of the past very soon, and I find that sad. There’s no daycare, childcare or amount of school time that replaces family. In fact, I can’t wait for my kids to be out of school so I can stop hustling like a mad woman and screaming about getting homework done. I am lucky enough to be freelancing but that could all change on a dime. At least my kids are older so if I have to get a full time job, I was available for their most formative years.
The really sad thing is that I know women whom I’m very close to who sacrificed much of their time with their kids to pursue careers. Now that these women are older and less hirable/desirable, they are alone and out of money anyway. And, when asked, they regret having given up their time with their children.
In a perfect world, we would value mothering/maternity/parenting. I realize that I will soon be a relic but I think the pursuit of “success” misses a fundamental component of balance and family stability. The new paradigm is being invented as we go along, and the tough part is that it is hard to revive values that are lost. I am not religious and I consider myself a feminist in that I believe in choice and equal rights. Still, mothering is our birthright. I look forward to reading the link you provided.
BLW – It’s Fox News. Only a certain segment of Americans and Fox News people take Fox News seriously. For many Americans and outside the US, Fox News is seen in the same light as The Colbert Report, with the difference that the latter is intended as comedy whereas the former is unintentional comedy. Much of the “news” in the US is now entertainment and lacks substance, facts, back ground and analysis. One issue, case, or event can dominate and appeal to the “rubber neck” nature to the point of excluding real issues. For example was OJ or the Peterson case really as important as the air time it received in comparison to other matters, like perhaps the economy? Until Americans demand real news and quit giving such pap attention you can expect more of the same.
I love how whatever jobs women do become the lesser important jobs. Teachers, nurses, stay-at-home moms. I’ve also never understood how we have moved forward culturally but not emotionally. Why more than half of the work force is women, we are still living in the land of “Father Knows Best,” made to feel like work is a luxury that causes our family to suffer. It’s an amazing marketing ploy, and the fact that so many of us accept the guilt for every problem in the universe because of our mothering skills pays tribute to one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.
I hear you, Donna… What you call marketing ploy (and it is) I might call political propaganda.
The fact that I was the primary breadwinner before my divorce is the thing that saved me and my kids during the divorce. I live in a million $ neighborhood (in a not-million-$ condo) and I know more women who are the primary breadwinners than not, while their husbands pursue more flexible jobs like photographer, sports agent, artist, violin maker… My ex did nothing so glamorous but struggled with the stress of a higher-level job, so he chose to be less ambitious. He reminded me of my father in that way, and I learned quickly that my promotions and raises were to be handled matter-of-factly, no big celebration. Neither of them could handle the competition, though there was no competition at all.
That’s over— he’s gone and my Dad passed. While I like what I do for a living, I often wondered how I got here, and now must stay.