MW Voice FEATURE

Letters to the  Editor

War

Mothers news from around the world

Victories

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. Yet 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. That 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?

Today's Mothers are Tomorrow's Older Women

Today we are mothers; tomorrow we will be older women. 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 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."

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.”

Startling Stats About Motherhood & Poverty from Activistas

It wasn't until I had my first child that it occurred to me that motherhood might be a serious economic barrier for women. Now, 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?

•      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.

 •     Divorce generally leaves mothers with the economic burdens of providing for children, without the economic support of the man's wage.

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.

MOTHERS Changing the Conversation -- www.MothersOughtToHaveEqualRights.org

 Valerie Young
National Association of Mothers' Centers