Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day12Fixed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

On the Home Front

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.