FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Both Parties Ignore Working Parents

by KRISTIN VAN TASSEL

At the conclusion of the third presidential debate, Bob Schieffer mentioned that all three men on stage — Schieffer, George W. Bush and John Kerry — were married to strong women and were the fathers of daughters.

Of course, it was the men, not the strong women, who were asking and answering the questions about U.S. domestic policy. With a few exceptions, men continue to dominate business and politics.

At the heart of this reality is the deep cultural schism between domesticity and professional success. We need policies that make it easier for both men and women to reconcile their domestic and professional lives.

The absence of women with high influence has more to do with practicality than ideology. While fatherhood need not impede high professional advancement, motherhood often does. Evidence overwhelmingly suggests that women remain a minority in positions of power not because men are opposed to their leadership, but because tending children is incompatible with the intense demands of such jobs.

It is not coincidental that one of the most powerful women in America, Condoleezza Rice, is childless.

Despite the rising numbers of men involved in child rearing, far more women remain the primary caregivers of young children. The most recent census reports that among stay-at-home parents there are 5.2 million mothers versus 105,000 fathers.

The number of parents sharing the role is more difficult to tabulate, but the research of Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels, authors of “The Mommy Myth,” as well as Judith Stadtman Tucker, editor of The Mothers Movement Online, suggests that even in these joint arrangements women consistently assume greater child-care responsibilities.

As a result, many of the 81 percent of women who become mothers reduce their work time, or leave or put on hold their careers. This is true even for America’s most successful and well-paid female professionals, as revealed in a recent “60 Minutes.”

The consequences of such decisions can be significant and long lasting.

Two hundred years ago, when approximately 90 percent of Americans were farmers, domesticity was integral to the lives of men as well as women. Because home and work were the same, both parents were with their children throughout the day. Men and women were partners in child rearing. Moreover, the very nature of farming, which requires the care of animals and plants, further encouraged men to develop their skills as nurturers. Domesticity was valued, regardless of sex.

Shared domesticity has gone the way of the family farm. Men are now measured by different standards.

The devaluation of domesticity, a result of the industrial revolution, hurts us all. It reduces the number of smart, capable women moving into positions of social and economic influence, and it discourages men from more fully participating in their children’s upbringing.

A good way to begin rehabilitating domesticity is to legislate paid paternal leave. The United States is one of only two industrial countries that do not guarantee paid leave for at least one parent.

Increased job flexibility as well as pay parity and benefits for part-time work would make creative alternatives economically feasible for both parents. We also need substantial subsidies or tax breaks for businesses that provide day care on location for their employees, which would not only reduce stress for parents and children, but let working parents see their children during the day.

Finally, we must start respecting domestic work as an important national resource, with the kind of monetary value that could be figured into the gross domestic product and, more radically, count toward Social Security.

All of these policies would go a long way in renewing the prestige of child rearing and improving equal access to positions of power.

Unfortunately, such changes remain unlikely as long as the men and women firmly committed to domesticity are absent from the policy-setting arena. As a result, we will continue to have campaigns like our current one — where the issues most challenging to parents are not even being discussed.

KRISTIN VAN TASSEL is a mother and teaches English at Bethany College in Lindsborg, Kansas.

More articles by:
June 29, 2016
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Fearsome: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail