Your (Wo)man in Washington®

White House Reassures Women's Advocates

2011-06-08T15:12:00.007-04:00

Half a dozen senior White House staff met recently with representatives of about a dozen women's advocacy groups, including Your (Wo)Man in Washington on behalf of NAMC/MOTHERS, to discuss the process of crafting the federal budget. We had sent the President and Vice President a letter objecting to the total lack of any visible female participation in these critical negotiations. Our concern is driven by the fact that women, more than men, rely on public services now hanging in the balance, and women, more than men, are unemployed when publc sector jobs are slashed. As we made clear, the face of this recession is a woman's face. The federal response will affect women more deeply. Addressing and solving these challenges cannot be accomplished by consulting only half the team.

Gene Sperling, Tina Tchen, Bruce Reed, Jack Lew, and other senior staff made it clear that, while those speaking to the press and publicly engaging on the issue were men, behind closed doors Stephanie Cutter (Assistant to the President), Nancy Ann De Parle (Deputy White House Chief of Staff), and Valerie Jarrett (Senior Advisor to the President) were deeply involved. Welcome news, certainly, but if they are involved, then they ought to be seen to be involved. Women bring a much needed (and often omitted) perspective to policy discussions, and the performance of team decision-making is improved by the inclusion of women, as a recent study of collective intelligence demonstrates. The contributions of women at all levels of society tend to be invisible. Care should be taken that their participation at the highest levels be readily apparent.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Unemployment Among Husbands and Wives

2011-05-20T10:34:00.005-04:00

Does it make a difference whether it is the husband or the wife who is unemployed?

Most definitely, says Heather Boushey, feminist economist extraordinaire here in Washington DC. It affects how much money comes into the home, and suggests that action is needed to close the gap between men's and women's earnings. Heather's recent report, Not Working; Unemployment Among Married Couples shows why. I hit the highlights below.

Of all dual earner couples in 2010, 64% have managed to keep both partners in the paid labor force. This number has fallen about 6% since the onset of the Great Recession. As women, and especially mothers, entered the labor market, their income has become an increasingly larger share of total household income, topping off at 47% in 2009. In the typical recession, wives lose jobs more often than husbands. However, the Great Recession has pushed more men into unemployment, so wives' wages are more often the only wages coming home. This highlights the damage caused by gender-based pay disparity, as more familes are depending solely on the mother's income, which statistically is only 77% of the father's. Her income just doesn't go as far as his. The recession shows that pay discrimination unjustly deprives all family members,not just the wife and mother.

The Great Recession also has placed older workers in a dire situation. Amongst older couples, aged 55 to 64, husbands are 42% more likely than wives to be unemployed. This age group is the least likely to find re-employment, so years without income may be in store. If they do return to the workforce, many will earn significantly less than they did before. Social Security benefits are based on the amont of earnings over a 35 year time period. If the (typically) higher earner is unemployed,or subsequently under-employed, that benefit available when the age of eligibility is reached will be decreased. Wives' benefits will fall too, because many draw a spousal benefit, calculated on the husbands' earnings, often bigger than their own, considering their lower wages overall and fewer years of employment, usually due to family caregiving obligations. In addtion to a smaller Social Security check, home values and the stock market have both declined, so savings are way off their maximum value. If the budget is balanced and the deficit reduced by slashing Social Security, older couples will find economic security even more precarious.

So, not only do we have a bad situation on our hands, Congressional action could be making it much, much worse now, later, and throughout the "golden years" of many hardworking people.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Missing: The American Middle Class

2011-05-16T13:29:00.004-04:00

Do you understand how come it got so bad for so many households these days? I've been looking at "The American Middle Class Under Stress" report by Sherle R. Schewenninger and Samuel Sherraden of the New America Foundation. It probably won't make you feel any better, or suddenly fill up your bank account, but sometimes understanding a situation can make it a bit more bearable. Here's the skinny, in just three short paragraphs!

Right now, even though the recession is technically over, unemployment remains unusually high. The rate at which jobs are opening up is agonizingly slow. In addition, middle class jobs have disappeared, and most of the new jobs are low wage jobs that don't require advanced training or education. Many who are at work now are more educated than their job requires. While not unemployed, they are viewed as "under-employed" and are earning less than they would if workers' abilities matched job requirements.

Pre-dating the current employment mismatch between supply and demand, workers were in an increasingly precarious position because wages have remained flat for decades. To the extent that household incomes went up, they did so primarily because women entered the workforce and brought home a second paycheck. While wages were static, the cost of health care continued a sharp upward rise, and the cost of living increased, squeezing incomes across the country. Many people simply stopped paying the exorbitant premiums for health insurance, which went up astonishinly fast. About 50 million Americans now have no health insurance coverage.

To top off these two factors, the value of home ownership has fallen right off the cliff, taking trillions of savings dollars with it. Before the bubble burst, Americans would sell their homes and live off the proceeds in retirement. Falling home values mean that source of savings has shrunk, and retirees have far less to support themselves than they anticipated. As a consequence, Social Security benefits make up a greater share of income for more seniors. For decades the most economically efficient government program, and the most successful at keeping millions of people out of poverty, gutting Social Security is now seen by some as the ticket to deficit reduction. Others are understandably alarmed by this approach, as it would push millions of people into poverty.

Okay, maybe you don't feel any better. But at least you know.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

You’re Taking Care of Others, But Who’s Taking Care of You?!

2011-05-09T13:46:00.005-04:00

Lara Hinz, my friend, colleague and Director of Programs at the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER) has penned this guest post. She raises a very important point - while we have our hands full taking care of others, our own future well-being is likely falling by the wayside. WISER aims to change that and Lara has some pointers for you.

Caregiving is a common theme in many women’s lives. As young girls and teenagers we may have helped take care of grandma, or perhaps we were babysitters for our younger siblings or other kids in the neighborhood. Many women become mothers, and then eventually, as family members age, the caregiving role for all women often expands to include parents, grandparents and older relatives. And like it or not, it is still typically women who shoulder the load of these caregiving responsibilities.

When it comes to caring for someone, women often put themselves at the bottom of that list. It is hard to juggle it all, but it is important for women to realize that this comes at a cost. Even beyond their experience as caregivers, women’s needs differ greatly from men at most stages of their lives. This is especially true when it comes to finances. Women on average earn less, spend more years out of the labor market, and live longer than men. While many women are involved in their family’s day-to-day finances, far fewer are engaged in the long-term financial planning; things such as investments, insurance, retirement plans, etc. Yet it is women who will most likely spend more years widowed or single in their later years. Don’t be lulled into a false sense of security either; many women who were not poor during their working years or years spent raising a family have ended up poor and struggling in retirement. It’s not a pleasant thought, but it is a real possibility that we all must face.

The good news is that you don’t have to be a financial genius or spend hours poring over investment books and magazines to get yourself on the right track; a little bit of education and action can go a long way. Once you get started, it is easy to keep building on the steps you take to prepare yourself for a secure financial future. But you have to start…now!

The Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER) is here to help. WISER is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to improve the long-term financial security for all women through education and advocacy. For the past 15 years, WISER has been giving women the information they need at every age and every stage of life so they can take action to protect themselves in retirement. In addition to caregiving, we focus on a variety of financial issues related to saving, investing, Social Security, healthcare, divorce, and widowhood.

WISER’s booklet, Financial Steps for Caregivers takes you step-by-step through understanding the financial risks of caregiving so that you can make informed financial decisions. The guide also includes tools and other resources for managing your money and caring for yourself while caring for others.

Another great resource available at WISER’s website (www.wiserwomen.org) includes What Today’s Woman Needs to Know and Do: The New Retirement Journey. This booklet explains how today’s woman will most likely experience a retirement that is vastly different from that of her mother’s generation. It provides valuable information on everything from Social Security and investment basics, to annuities and life insurance. In addition, there is a retirement planning checklist for every decade of your life.

For most women, there is little room for error, and being financially unprepared for the last nearly third of their lives will have consequences. Women need to know what their risks are and make moderating those risks a priority throughout their lives. So while caring for others, take some time to care for yourself—it’s well worth it, and you deserve it!

If you want to follow up, you can reach Lara at lhinz@wiserwomen.org

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

The 2011 Mothers Index - US Ranks #31

2011-05-09T08:58:00.006-04:00

For the 12th year in a row, international non-profit Save the Children ranks the well-being of mothers and children in over 160 countries around the world. With Mother's Day in the US fresh on our minds, this timely report reveals what women need to raise their children, and the direct link between women's status and the health and welfare of children.

The highest ranking countries have many things in commmon. Men and women earn nearly equal wages. Women are heavily involved in government and public policy. Education is accessible and affordable and mothers have many years of formal schooling. Women's life spans are longer, and when they give birth they are attended by qualified medical personnel. They are unlikely to die in childbirth or from a pregnancy-related condition. The highest ranked countries this year are found in Europe, with Australia and New Zealand also in the top 10. Norways is number 1, followed by Australia, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. The US ranks 31st. The country in last place, where maternal conditions are the most dire, is Afghanistan.

The contrast between mothering in the top tier countries and those on the bottom is vast. Mothers' needs do not vary much, but how these needs are met in different places explains much about the state of the world today. In Norway, every mother giving birth will do so with medical assistance. In Afghanistan, only 14% of women have that help. The average lifespan for a Norwegian woman is 83, and the average number of years of formal education is 18. The use of contraception is widespread and children rarely die under 5 years old. However, an Afghani woman will die before she turns 45, with only 5 years of schooling. Only 16% use modern contraception and 1 child out of 5 dies before five years old.

The disappointing showing of the US is due to many factors. One out of every 2000 US women will die from a pregnancy-related cause. Ireland, Italy, and Greece do a much better job of keeping pregnant women alive. In fact, the maternal mortality rate is 15 times better in Greece, with only 1 woman out of 31,800 dying due to pregnancy or childbirth. Acess to healthcare, obviously, is the primary reason for the discrepancy. Our child mortality rate is higher too, with 8 out of 1,000 children dying before their 5th birthay. Young children in Singapore, Latvia, Slovenia, and Luxembourg and 35 other countries have a better chance than they do here. We have fewer children, percentage-wise, enrolled in pre-school, fewer women in politics, no nationally guaranteed paid maternity leave policy, and a greater gap between men's and women's income. Mothers, and indeed women, are better off in many other countries.

To move up the list, the US could start by focusing on women's economic and political participation. If more women filled state and federal public office, local and federal policies would begin to reflect the needs and desires of other demographic groups besides white men. Political power and economic equality will move hand in hand, minimizing the gender-based pay gap. Mothers must have access to health care at all points in their reproductive lives, and be able to secure it for their children as well. The only indicators where the US currently shines are women's life expectancy (82) and years of formal education (17). That leaves an awful lot of room for improvement. As the single remaining super-power and the most promising modern democracy to date, we cannot hope to fulfill our goals and ambitions by neglecting the very people upon whom our success depends.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Recession Update: Women Left Out of Recovery

2011-05-04T13:39:00.005-04:00

As we limp along in what passes for an economic "recovery", the numbers show that the barely discernible uptick in employment is benefitting only half the workforce. Men's employment has begun to increase in recent months, but women have continued to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in that time. The story of the "mancession" has turned out to be premature and overblown, and is now seriously outdated.

Aside from the interplay between the recession, unemployment and gender, one thing hasn't changed. Women with children consistenly earn less than other women and men who are fathers. Womens Enews compares employment data for men and women in "'Mancession' Focus Masks Women's Real Losses", and reaches a depressing conclusion: "Recession or no, when a woman has children, the difference between male and female wages turns into a chasm."

The article states that in the early days of the current recession, men's levels of unemployment rose sharper and faster than women's because the manufacturing and construction sectors were the first ones hit. After decades of women entering the workforce and a concerted effort in non-traditional job training, these sectors are still mostly male. Employed women seemed somewhat insulated in the early stages of the turndown. Their jobs remain largely in the health, education, and service sectors, which were less affected at first. This discrepancy lay at the foundation of the "mancession" stories that flooded the media. Now, however, the story line has shifted, but the mainstream news outlets seem to have lost interest.

Women will be the long-term losers in the recession. The jobs women held on to were generally lower paid and likely lacking benefits. As the recession dug deeper, women's unemployment rate started climbing as falling tax revenue required state and local governments to cut back on spending. As women make up the majority of those performing public sector jobs, and those depending on state services, many families found the mother out of work just as sources of public support dried up, a double whammy of a setback.

So, the "mancession" stories become obsolete and turn out to be an unusual blip on the economic radar. What remains is gender-based pay inequality, and the unavoidable truth that in this country, the "mommy tax" persists in good times and bad, no matter what job sector is hurt first or recovers fastest.

Happy Mother's Day.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

The Care Crisis: Unpaid Leave is No Leave At All

2011-04-18T08:38:00.003-04:00

Unlike the rest of the world, the US does not guarantee mothers and fathers paid time off from work when a baby is born or child adopted. This comes as a total shock and surprise to many. Some people, especially professionals and those at large companies, will be offered a certain number of weeks with some pay. However, this benefit is entirely at the employer's discretion. The US Congress did pass the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in 1993, but it only applies to certain employees and under certain conditions, and about half the private sector workforce is not eligible. More importantly, even for those workers who do qualify, the leave is not paid. The percentage of workers who need family leave but forego it in favor of a regular paycheck is, by some estimates, as high as 78%.

Low income workers (those in households earning less than $20,000 per year) are the least likely to find their employer offers paid family leave. Increasing the burden, less than 40% of low income workers are eligible for even the unpaid FMLA leave. In comparison, about 70% of families making $20,000 or more could be eligible, if they can afford to miss their paycheck.

The group least likely to afford unpaid leave is single, low-income mothers. After the FMLA was enacted, married women and women with college degrees took family leave in increasing numbers. Single mothers, and those with less education, have not increased the leave they take in the past 20 years. Obviously, it's not because they don't need it. They don't take it because they can't afford to miss a paycheck, and they won't get paid if they don't work. As a result, new parents, or workers recovering from a long-term illness, or looking after a recovering family member, will go to work no matter how badly they may be needed at home.

It's no mystery why we in the US find ourselves drowning in a "crisis of care". Without paid family leave and paid sick days. family members simply can't afford to care for each other when they are sick. With millions lacking health insurance, home health aides and nurses don't visit those who need them. The burden falls on family members, generally women, who already provide billions of dollars worth of unpaid caregiving services to partners, parents, and disabled or dependent family members. Add this to our inadequate child care, or lack of access to any formal care at all, which propels millions of children into substandard environments throughout their most crucial years of brain and emotional development. If we can put a man on the moon, you'd think we could adequately take care of the children, elderly, disabled and chronically ill in this country.

You'd think.

For more about the dismal state of paid leave in the US, here and here are two excellent short papers from the New America Foundation.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Why the GDP Won't Work for Women

2011-04-07T13:44:00.009-04:00

You probably know that GDP stands for gross domestic product and is used as a measure of the value of all goods and services produced in the national economy. Economists and elected officials are happy when GDP is up, and headlines are dire if GDP trends downward or is flat. Generally speaking, the assumption is that a growing economy and rising GDP means plenty of everything for everybody. If you are a woman, a mother or other family caregiver, you should beware of the GDP. It certainly doesn't account for the unpaid carework you are doing, and you may well be struggling in spite of a robust GDP. At long last, social scientists, women's policy advocates and world leaders are starting to take notice. Some are even taking action.

The first thing to remember is that the GDP counts positively any market transaction, even if it is harmful. For example, the sale of cigarettes is reflected in the GDP as a positive transaction. So is the medical care consumed by those suffering from tobacco-related illnesses, such as cancer, respiratory diseases, and perhaps death. Production of goods increases the GDP even if forests are leveled, rivers poisoned, or habitats lost. Remember when the reports of the disaster in Japan included the assertion that the hurricane and tsunami would result in an economic boost in new construction and expenditures in recovery costs? Did it strike you that that was an odd way to look at an event that killed upwards of 25,000 people, wiped out entire villages, towns, businesses, orphaned tens of thousands of children, and caused incalculable heartbreak and suffering? That is the perversity of the GDP.

The second thing to keep in mind is that a rising GDP would only represent more of everything for everybody if everyone shared equally in economic growth. You know that that is not now and never has been true. Income inequality, the gap between the poor and the wealthy, is wider now than at any time after World War II. In fact, graphic representations of income distribution look like a barbell, with lots of people with not much on one end, and fewer people with a great deal on the other. Consider that in 2007 the top 10% of US earners took home nearly 50% of all wages earned. In the past 5 years the top 1% of incomes got fully two thirds of all economic growth. Flipping the perspective, the bottom 90% of US households compete for about 27% of American wealth. So, the GDP can rise, and economic indicators can show a wealthier economy, but most people will see no discernible difference in the family checkbook. In recent decades, the GDP grew nicely, yet middle income earners saw their wages stagnate, and lower income earners actually saw theirs decrease. High wage earners alone reaped the gains.

Around the world and in the U.S., women spend twice as much time as men on unpaid work, in the home, with children or other dependent family members, and making their communities richer and better places. These transactions, which would cost billions on the open market, simply never appear on any public balance sheet. Caring for others, tending our small corners of the natural world, lending our energy to a neighborhood or community project, are the very building blocks in our social structure and economic interaction. Yet these interactions are totally invisible in any economic measure of human activity. What enhances our well-being and promotes the realization of our potential, as individuals and collectively, escapes the GDP calculation. Economic success and the quality of our lives are not the same thing. The GDP is inadequate, incomplete, and unreliable as a gauge of national productivity. It over-represents market activity, and under-represents everything else. It fails to account for the unpaid work of producing functional human beings and sustaining the ill, elderly or disabled. In other words, the GDP fails to account for what women do. As a result, women suffer disproportionate political and economic poverty, and inequitable opportunity.

And that's why the GDP won't work for women.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

P.S. If you want to learn more painlessly about income inequality, here are two articles, one from Mother Jones and another from the Huffington Post.

March in the Rear View Mirror

2011-03-31T13:25:00.009-04:00

Women's History Month is drawing to a close, but there's time to sneak in a few comments before we wake up and find it's April already.

In recent weeks, two notable women have died. Elizabeth Taylor left as her legacy decades of activism and outspoken advocacy, saying what many in politics were too afraid to say about HIV/AIDS. Geraldine Ferraro left a marker for women's political participation. For many, her passing provokes dismay and despair that a woman still has not been elected President. Both of them made us see the world differently, as a better, healthier, more equitable place.

The budget battles on the Hill, alas, are totally lacking in that spirit of promise and possibility. While many are without work, health care, and dignity, banks and corporate interests are once again profitable, some paying employees jaw-dropping bonuses. They are in this position because the American taxpayer, through Congress, helped them through a very rough time. Instead of returning the favor, some in Congress propose a budget in which public funding for nutrition, medical care, education, and child care is gutted. They are coming after Social Security too, targeting retirees, surviving spouses and orphans. It is not much of a stretch to say that political and economic security belongs to a few, and being paid for by many who watch as state services are diminished, state workers laid off, classrooms get more crowded, food and child care subsidies disappear, and community medical clinics are closed. Mothers, especially those mothers parenting alone, have a great deal to worry about, on top of the chronic crises of no sick days, no paid family leave, totally inadquate representation in state and federal government, and a 25% gender pay gap.

Against this bleak picture, is there anything to be cheerful about? I think so. I've noticed a definite uptick in the amount of media attention devoted to work/family and mothering issues. Articles that even 5 years ago editors would have nixed due to "lack of general interest" now are deemed worthy of publication. Look at this piece from the Boston Globe about the havoc created by a sick child home from school when both parents are employed outside the home. It references the recent ground-breaking White House "Women in America" report, and frankly acknowledges the cultural pressure for the mother to stay home, and the accompanying potential damage to her career prospects once she does. The American Prospect, a progressive policy periodical, recently featured "The Student Parent Trap" about how inadequate on-campus child care threatens the success of 25% of undergraduates who are parents of young children. The Wall Street Journal regularly devotes column inches to maternal employment online and in its print edition, where you can find such terms as "mommy track" (which, personally I loathe), how the term "stay at home mother" covers an evolving range of activities, and "tiger moms" and "panda dads". The point here is not whether the view of a particular piece is right or wrong, (whatever that would mean), but now the subject is broached for purposes of public discussion. This did not used to be the case. Now it is, and that is progress.

About 71% of mothers with young children are in the paid workforce. The debate about whether or not they should be there is largely over (except, perhaps, for Phyllis Schlafly, 86, who sounds positively quaint in this recent radio interview.) The debate about how both families and the workplace will change is well underway. And finally, editors and programmers around the country have begun to notice.

What have you found in your paper, read on the web or heard on your radio about mothers this week? Send it to me, I'd really like to know.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

The Mother/Scholar and On-Campus Child Care

2011-03-27T21:34:00.009-04:00

A young mother wrote me some time ago asking if there were any Mothers’ Centers on college campuses. She wanted to connect with students who were also raising children, facing coursework and degree requirements at the same time. I regrettably had to say no, not yet. I had no idea how many student/parents there were, or how much support they needed, until I attended a briefing this week to usher in a new report, Improving Child Care Access to Promote Postsecondary Success Among Low-Income Parents. Produced by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the Student Parent Success Initiative, the report gathers information for the first time ever about the number of undergrads at 2 and 4 year postsecondary schools who have children, and how many of those schools offer on-campus child care. Among the surprising things I learned:

Nearly one-quarter of US undergraduates, or 3.9 million, are parents, half of them raising their children alone.

Student/parents are more likely to be working full-time while enrolled, and the schools they attend have no idea that they are parents because parental status is not tracked.

They disproportionately come from low income or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds, and are the first in their families to pursue education beyond high school.

More student/parents are mothers, whether single or married. Student/parents have a higher dropout rate, at 50%, than the general undergraduate population, at 31%.

The majority of student/parents attend community college or private, for-profit schools, which ironically are the least likely to offer on-site child care.

Four year public universities are the most likely to offer it, however, the recession’s impact on state budgets has made many public universities have reduced their costs accordingly, many closing on-site child care in recent years.

There has been a “crisis of care” in the US for many years now, as access to affordable, quality care is severely limited across all income and educational levels. The situation on campus is even worse. A scant 17% of post-secondary institutions offer child care. Only 5% of children who need on-campus care currently have it, yet access to child care is the most crucial factor when it comes to a student/parent actually graduating. Education continues to be the primary path to economic security, yet a lack of child care can derail even the most committed student. There is no question that the educational status of the mother is closely tied to the welfare of her child. If we want stable and secure families, an optimal workforce, and a strong economy, removing the roadblocks between parents and higher education is what we must do.

Today’s student population is more diverse than ever before, yet the education system hasn’t changed at the same rate. Funds for tuition are harder to come by, as personal savings have withered and public resources dried up. Students commonly work, and those who are parents need child care that allows them to do both. Class schedules may not mesh with business hours for student employment or child care centers. Additionally, grants to both institutions and students often limit their use to education only, or severely restrict the portion that may be dedicated to child care. Harmonizing the need for accessible, high quality child care at academic institutions means more graduates, greater economic security, and a better workforce and stronger national economy. It benefits families and communities. Millions of children are spending millions of hours in the care of adults besides their parents. This could be a tremendous opportunity to prepare them for their own primary education, as well as offer support and resources to their parents.

The Icing or The Cake?

2011-03-22T16:12:00.007-04:00

Opponents of paid family leave object to its expense and its tedious implementation. They may grudgingly agree that yeah, it would be nice, but insist we just can't afford it. This argument has been made so loudly for so long it has lodged into the public consciousness. Paid family leave is seen as a perk, a benefit, something extra that some lucky professionals at the upper reaches of the income scale may get, but nothing that a typical worker has a right to. Surprisingly, this really is a minority view, as most countries around the globe, and certainly all advanced, industrialized countries, provide paid parental leave as a matter of course when a baby is born or adopted.

Human Rights Watch, a global charity protecting and advocating for the exploited and oppressed, recently published a lengthy report laying out the serious consequences for the United States of failing to provide workers with the means to effectively care for family members while earning a living. According to blogger Cali Yost of The Custom Fit Workplace, without paid leave: mothers breastfeed for a shorter time, adversely affecting their own health and that of their infants. They are more likely to experience post-partum depression. Their children either don't get their immunizations, or they get them later than recommended. If parents take leave with no pay, they are more likely to go into debt or seek public assistance. Further, without a paid family leave policy, employers are more likely to discriminate against parents with young children, particularly women, or anyone with a family caregiving obligation, undercutting careers, income potential, and professional achievement.

The larger American society is also impacted. Health care costs increase. Re-training and turnover push up the price of doing business. Productivity is blunted. Considering that women do more family carework, and that women are now better trained and educated than men, the failure to establish a national paid leave policy drags down our global competitiveness at a time when international competition intensifies before our very eyes.

At what point does paid family leave move from being a luxury within the reach of a handful to a universal basic minimum labor requirement, like the 40 hour work week, or a safe and healthy workplace, or a prohibition against child labor? Perhaps at the point when its absence imperils the health of our children. Perhaps at the point when the US struggles to maintain its global economic supremacy. Perhaps when its absence leads straight to economic dependence. Perhaps when it pushes millions of households to lose/lose decisions, like do I hold onto my job or lose my income to ... breastfeed my 10 week old baby?...care for my seriously ill father?...move my partner into an alzheimer's facility? Perhaps, at that point, it becomes a violation of human rights. At least the vast majority of the world's nations have found it so. But not the United States.

To find out more read Cali Yost's piece on the report or the report from Human Rights Watch itself.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Working Mother Guilt

2011-03-14T11:27:00.003-04:00

Work, guilt, stress. Why does this afflict women more than men? One study says it's because women are more likely to be the family caregiver, and they absorb the stress of those around them, and yet feel compelled to respond to every email, phone call, or message from work. The authors of this Canadian study conclude that women worry they will look less committed to work if they don't maintain contact when out of the office.

Why are we so willing to put our peace of mind in the hands of others? The mothers and women I know give it all up at work, then come home and are endlessly available to their families. How can we possibly believe we aren't doing enough? We talk about the "price of motherhood" usually in economic terms, the amount of lifetime earnings we forego by assuming the unpaid but economically essential work of manning (ha!) the homefront. It seems another "price of motherhood" is paid in guilt and stress and harm to our physical and mental health. Enough, already!!

'Til next time,
Your (Wo)Man in Washington

International Women's Day

2011-03-08T10:03:00.008-05:00

March 8 is the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day, when our social, political, and economic progress is celebrated all over the world. Truly, our achievements are significant, and we owe the potential of our lives to many committed and visionary women of the past. And yet...women's lack of full, equal engagement in all aspects of society continues to weigh us down, and limit the realization of hopes for our families, our children, and ourselves.

Last week the White House offered up a stack of data on women in the US, pulling on data from a range of federal agencies. It is the first federal report in 40 years to analyze the social and economic status of women. (You'd think we'd get more attention, being half the population, and the only gender to give birth and all, but no.) It is intended for the general public - you don't have to be an economist, a sociologist, or a lawyer to understand it. Here are a few highights:

US women outnumber US men by 4 million, or 51%. So, congratulations. We've proved that there is nothing we can't do and nothing we can't learn, even while bearing children, running the household, and preparing the next generation of citizens, workers, and parents. The only thing we haven't proved is that we can get paid fairly for it. Happy International Women's Day to you. Now, let's get back to work...
We are waiting longer to marry, have children, and are having fewer children.
More of us are deciding not to marry and not to have children at all.
Teen pregnancy has decreased, going from 1/3 of all births in 1970 to 1/5 now.
We are better educated than men, earning more academic degrees including Ph.D.s.
We are about 1/2 of the work force and earn 1/3 of the total household income.
More than 2/3 of mothers with children under 18 in the home are employed.
We spend more of our time caring for our families and doing housework than men.
Men spend more time engaging in sports and leisure activities than women.
Women do more volunteer work than men.
At all levels of education, full-time female workers earn only 75% of what men do.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Women's Empowerment in an Age of Illness, Part 2

2011-03-01T22:09:00.011-05:00

This is the second of a two part series by guest blogger, Ginger Garner, an educator and expert in medical therapeutic yoga and women's health. Her full bio can be found in the introduction to Part 1.

In the last post, I discussed the health related reasons that cause women to be put at a remarkable disadvantage in the US. Now, it is time to discuss one of the best (and most inexpensive) solutions to give women a sense of empowerment and control over their well being.

Yoga’s Healing Power
One of the ways that women can be empowered to take control of their health (and life) is through the ancient holistic practice of yoga. It prevents and treats injury and illness, looking at health through a preventive and not just pathophysiological lens.

I have been teaching medical yoga (a blending of east and west medicine and therapies) for almost 20 years and have experienced first hand, as a clinician and as a woman, the amazing results that yoga’s power yields.

Medical yoga can(4):

• Reduce risk of CVD, cancers, stroke, and diabetes through introducing safe physical activity into your daily routine.
• Improve your diet, which also reduces the risk of CVD, certain cancers, obesity, and stroke when following an anti-inflammatory regimen.
• Reduce high blood pressure
• Reduce inflammatory processes in the body
• Reduce and manage stress.
• Reduce self-destructive behaviors.
• Help you lose and manage your weight.
• Manage orthopaedic conditions such as low back and neck pain or tendonitis/sprains/strains.
• Reduce stress-related risk factors for disease.
• Stabilize your mood by calming the nervous system (through decreased sympathetic nervous system activity).
• Build body confidence, intelligence, and overall fitness.
• Improve your respiratory/lung health.
• Reduce risk of depression and anxiety disorders and their symptoms.
• In maternal health, reduce labor pains and risk of post-partum depression.
• In women’s health, reduce post-surgical complications such as scar adhesions, pelvic pain, and other chronic pain.
• Manage current chronic pain syndromes and ones related to it such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Finding A Qualified Yoga Practitioner
When yoga is used as medicine, it is practiced by someone with extensive training in medical therapeutic yoga and a license in medicine or other medical therapy. Currently in the US, there is no license or certification that allows you to access medical yoga and have it covered by insurance – except those therapists trained through the education method I developed, Professional Yoga Therapy.

Currently, there are also no standards or licensing for yoga therapists or teachers in the US. There are voluntary standards set by Yoga Alliance, but they do not provide certification or guarantee of a teacher’s proficiency in yoga. Further, they prepare a person to teach basic yoga to people with no existing health issues. However, I look forward to happily promoting other programs like Professional Yoga Therapy when they come into existence. Right now, PYT is the only program in the US which trains licensed medical professionals to use yoga as medicine.

If you have a medical condition or illness, search for a PYT therapist with dual training in medicine and medical yoga – here.

If you are a healthy individual with no pre-existing health conditions, search for a teacher on the voluntary YA registry here.

Why choose a licensed medical yoga therapist?
• The yoga used is evidence based. It is medically and scientifically grounded making it effective and safer for people with all kinds of medical conditions, including the natural state of pregnancy and post-partum.
• They are qualified to evaluate, treat, and refer to other medical specialists while looking at the entire person from both a western medical and holistic standpoint.
• They can use yoga combined with medical technology and methods to treat and prevent injury and illness.
• They are legally qualified and trained to work with people who have everything from minor sports injuries to serious illness and complex medical histories.
• They are trained to differentially diagnose. This means that they are trained to recognize precursors, signs, and symptoms of more serious illnesses that would require more complex medical attention.
• They are bound by law and their medical license – to first do no harm. They live and work by a medical code of ethics and have at least 4-6 years and in most cases 6-10 years of formal medical and medical yoga education

If you do not have medical insurance, I encourage you to still contact these therapists. Many of them will work on a sliding scale and have programs in place that work with women (and men) who cannot afford treatment.

The best news of all is – your yoga treatment, when administered through a licensed medical professional, is usually covered by your insurance. You can find a therapist that is also a licensed medical practitioner here.

Low Cost & Free Yoga Resources

The base philosophy of yoga is that it should be accessible to all – just like health care.
Here are a few free and low cost resources for yoga.

Medical Yoga
• Breathing In This Life – a medical blog for women and mothers - download free breathing and yoga practices
• Ancient Yoga, New You – a medical yoga DVD for anyone suffering from physical or emotional pain. It is based on a three year research study I conducted with a very pleasant middle aged woman suffering from multiple chronic diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, and weight problems.
• Mayo Clinic Wellness Series – a series of yoga DVD’s for different ailments.

General Yoga
• Holistic Online - Yoga – general yoga and Ayurvedic advice
• Yoga Journal – a popular magazine offered online giving general yoga advice

Ginger Garner MPT, ATC, E-RYT500, PYT

Sources
1. American Heart Association.
2. US Dept. of Health and Human Services 2006. Women’s Health USA 2007 report.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Overweight and obesity. June 2004. www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity. Viewed 4/16/07.
4. Over my years of research, teaching, and writing in medical therapeutic yoga, I have compiled hundreds of scientific references which support the plethora of benefits yoga provides. For systemic benefits of yoga, there are 77 preliminary studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals I source.
More research on yoga and CVD

Women’s Empowerment in an Age of Illness

2011-02-25T14:23:00.006-05:00

This is the first in a two part series by Ginger Garner, an educator and expert in medical therapeutic yoga and women's health. As a published author and sought after speaker, Ginger pens the popular blog for mothers, Breathing In This Life (BITL). She is a working mother of three who has learned a thing or two about finding work/life balance through the healing arts, which she shares at www.gingergarner.blogspot.com.

Health care in America needs a mother/woman-centered approach. American mothers and women are in great need of holistic, patient centered care, rather than disease care centered around drugs and diagnostic testing.

Our current approach in women’s health care in the US is not working.

In the US, there are more women living in poverty and suffering from chronic diseases than men. (1,2) In addition "the United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its infant mortality rate is higher than any of those countries," says the annual State of the World's Mothers report. Amnesty International’s executive director Larry Cox in 2010 states "this country's extraordinary record of medical advancement makes its haphazard approach to maternal care all the more scandalous and disgraceful.”

We need change in health care for women in America, and we need it now.

I want to share the latest statistics in women’s health from the US Department of Health and Human Services and the American Heart Association. As a woman, I am saddened, but not surprised. The findings provide us with the objective evidence of what we have felt intuitively for some time - women’s health care, its delivery, and the proactivity of women in America to take responsibility for their health - must improve.

• Women suffer from more chronic disease and pain than men. (1,2)
• Since 1984, more women have been dying from heart disease than men. (1)
• More women die from stroke, heart disease, and stress related illness than men. (1,2)
• Women suffer more from autoimmune diseases than men, at rates from 2:1 to as high as 10:1.2
• More women than men suffer from arthritis. (2)
• Because of the difference in sex-related cancers, women are more apt to get one of the “top 10 cancers” than men. 2
• The leading causes of death in women are (in order): heart disease, cancer, and stroke. More than ½ of all these deaths were attributed to heart disease and cancer. (2)
• Obesity has increased in alarming rates since the 1960’s, with over 61% of both men and women now overweight or obese. (3)
• Stress related disorders and mental health illness like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, attempted suicide, depression, and anxiety disorders, occur most often in women. (2)
• Three times as many women attempt suicide as men. (2)
• Lastly, when polled, more men (who have good reason to) report they are in excellent or very good health. (2)

Why are women in the US less healthy than men?
Could it be because…
• more women live in poverty than men? (2)
• women in families experience higher rates of poverty than men living in families? (2)
• men report higher satisfaction levels with heath care and access to health care than women? (2)
• more money is spent (per average expenditure) on men’s health care than women, despite one of the primary reasons for hospitalization and medical visits being maternity care? (2)
• because women use prescription drugs more frequently than men, and of those drugs, the common ones are taken for depression and mental health? (2)
• more women’s health care is paid for by Medicaid or out of pocket? (2)

Whatever the reason, women need better access to and better health care. They also need and deserve the empowerment that comes with enjoying better health. Part Two in this series will show you how you can self-empower your way to better health through a 5000 year old practice.

Ginger Garner MPT, ATC, E-RYT500, PYT

Sources
1. American Heart Association.
2. US Dept. of Health and Human Services 2006. Women’s Health USA 2007 report.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Overweight and obesity. June 2004. Viewed 4/16/07.
4. Over my years of research, teaching, and writing in medical therapeutic yoga, I have compiled hundreds of scientific references which support the plethora of benefits yoga provides. For systemic benefits of yoga, there are 77 preliminary studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals I source.
More research on yoga and CVD.

Abortion Legislation and the New Congress

2011-02-16T14:19:00.014-05:00

The new Congress has immediately taken up several pieces of legislation which will restrict women's ability to obtain safe abortions in certain circumstances and change the current law in several significant ways. Policy watchers were surprised by the speed with which the Republican majority in the House brought reproductive rights to the fore, because the new GOP leadership had said that jobs and unemployment were to be the first priority.

When to have children, and how many children to have, are decisions with profound impact on a woman's economic security for the rest of her life. Not just her own welfare, but her children's welfare often depends on the mother's ability to provide financial and all other kinds of support for herself and her family.

Some members of the US Congress now seek to control whether any woman can buy health insurance under the new health reform law covering the costs of pregnancy termination even with her own money. (Federal funding has not been available for decades for abortion services because of the Hyde Amendment which removes pregnancy termination from the federally funded healthcare services impoverished women can receive.) Other bills under consideration will prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion at her own discretion, in consultation with her doctor, even in the first trimester, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Women's Policy, Inc., a non-partisan, non-profit source of public policy pertaining to women is tracking the bills' progress. You can find WPI's summary of The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, H.R. 3, here, and it includes the arguments for and against.

WPI presents the Protect Life Act, H.R. 358 here, and summarizes the different viewpoints of the witnesses who testified at the congressional hearing.

The National Women's Law Center has prepared fact sheets you can find here and here.

The budget wrangling is also a battleground for women's reproductive rights, but doesn't directly implicate abortion. Under the interest of cutting the federal deficits, Republican members of Congress are proposing that federal funds supporting women's health centers be cut, and the costs of contraception, family planning services, and other primary care for women no longer be available for those women that qualify. Analysis of this "women only" cost cutting measure is here.

In the US Senate, Senator Johanns of Nevada introduced a bill last week "to ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child" says WPI.

And finally, newly elected Rand Paul has co-sponsored a bill which would declare that life begins at conception, making all fetuses "persons" under the 14th Amendment, negating the current law as established by Roe v. Wade, as Newsweek reports here.

Women & Girls and the President's Budget

2011-02-14T22:21:00.004-05:00

Valentine's Day ushers in the most unromantic topic of the federal budget this year, and President Obama's proposed spending plan has now been unveiled. Much wrangling and intense debate is surely in store, and it's anybody's guess what the final product will be. Your (Wo)Man in Washington flips straight to the summary of expenditures pertaining to women and girls to see what's on the presidential priority list for the current fiscal year. Here's a quick list of some high points for women and girls:

An $11 million increase for family planning, contraception, health information and preventive services, as well as teen pregnancy prevention program funding.
$23 million to a state paid leave fund, to assist states in establishing and implementing a paid leave program to complement the unpaid leave available to some workers under the Family Medical Leave Act.
To support the Caregiver Initiative, $96 million in assistance to family caregivers of the elderly or disabled relatives "because the responsibility for providing informal care..often...falls to women". The funds will keep the care recipient at home and support community programs enabling caregivers to deal with their multiple roles.
New money for the states to use in establishing quality early childhood education programs, as well as Head Start and Early Head Start for 968,000 low income children and child care subsidies for 1.7 million more children whose parents could not pay for child care without it. Military families will benefit from $86 million in new money to operate affordable, high quality child care centers here and abroad.
Continue funding for enforcement of civil rights violations and claims of racial, gender, and other forms of discrimination, including employment discrimination generally and employment discrimination against those with family caregiving responsibilities.
An extra $175 million over 2010 levels of dedicated funding to support victims of, and decrease the occurrence of, domestic violence and sexual assault, process the backlog of rape evidence kits, expand training for law enforcement officers working with DNA evidence, and offer shelter, transitional housing, and other services to battered, abused and assaulted women.
Hunger prevention programs in the amount of $7.9 billion for pregnant or new mothers and infant children (WIC Program)serving 9.6 million participants (personally, I think it is a national scandal that we have 9.6 million women and children without enough to eat in this country) as well as older children.

Of course, there's more than this brief outline, but it's a start. If you want to see the whole fact sheet for women and girls funding, then click here. While the final budget may include few, or none, of these items, it's telling that the White House included them in its initial submission.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Competitive Mothering Takes a Hit

2011-02-02T07:41:00.003-05:00

With an eyebrow firmly raised at all the Tiger Mother brouhaha, I was delighted to find this post from Cameron Mcdonald, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She's written a book, “Shadow Mothers: Nannies, Au Pairs and the Micropolitics of Mothering” which looks as what she calls the "private to public care transfer", meaning childcare moving from the household (and mother) to a paid employee. She is also interested, according to her bio, in "the consequences of healthcare offloading to families, a process which shifts responsibility for a professionalized and often highly technical form of care from public institutions to family members", which interests me very much too. It's the women at home who have to cope when the high cost of healthcare pushes patients out the hospital door. Let's take a break from inside the Beltway and consider what Cameron says about parental overachievement:

But what is the fuss about, really? Who cares if a Chinese-American law professor from Yale drives her daughters like a banshee? We do. The rules of one of our favorite spectator sports, competitive mothering, are at stake. If she is correct, then the legions of “helicopter mothers,” who have carefully organized their children’s lives to reinforce their self-esteem and sense of entitlement, have failed. Instead of encouraging their children’s innate giftedness, they should have berated them to do better. Chua is the Simon Cowell to a nation of mothers who truly thought their children were talented, only to learn too late that they are tone-deaf.

Read the entirety of her post right here, and Cameron, thanks for letting me cross-post.

'Til next Time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Who is in charge of your maternity care?

2011-01-24T12:15:00.003-05:00

Womens Enews reports that maternity wards and obstetric units are closing across the country. Depending on where you live, and whether or not you have health insurance, you could be far away from the medical care you need. The number of babies born in the US has remained stable, at just over 4 million a year. But 1.3 million women joined the number of uninsured between 2008 and 2009. Now 22% of all women of child-bearing age are uninsured. Medicaid covers 15% of them. But the Medicaid reimbursement rate is well below the actual cost. Rather than provide services for nothing or below cost, hospitals simply stop offering maternity care. This pushes more and more uninsured pregnant women into a shrinking number of obstetric wards, where the waiting gets longer and longer and staff and supplies are taxed beyond the breaking point.

Pennsylvania is a case in point. In the past 13 years, over 39 hospitals have shuttered their maternity wards. Now, uninsured women must typically wait 11 1/2 weeks for their first pre-natal visit, the very end of the first trimester. In Alabama, nearly half of all obstetric units have closed in the past 30 years, from 58 in 1980 to a current 32. Comparable situations can be found from coast to coast and north to south, in both rural and urban areas.

In addition to clear limitations on women's access to pre-natal and maternity care, another story surfaced recently which shows a more nuanced way in which women's access to health care is restricted. Where I live in Montgomery County, Maryland, regulators accepted multiple proposals to build a single new hospital. Two organizations were in contention, one a Catholic hospital, and one called Adventist Healthcare. The Catholic hospital was granted authorization to expand. But the new hospital, like all Catholic hospitals, will not provide certain services to women treated there. No hormonal contraception will be offered. No pregnancy termination procedures will be performed, even in the event of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger. No tubal ligations will be available, and the only remedy for an ectopic pregnancy will be one that removes the involved fallopian tube, rather than an alternative procedure which preserves fertility, leaving the fallopian tube intact. In explaining their decision, state regulators cited the fact that there are no state standards which would require a hospital to provide these services. Thus, in order to access any health care at all, uninsured and under-insured women seeking care at this new facility can receive some treatment, but not necessarily what they want, or what the doctor prescribes, or what they need. Some treatment is simply off the table. It would have been available but for the regulators' decision.

Of course, many women can buy their way out of this problem. With the money, the means, and transportation, you can select the physician, hospital, and treatment of your choice. But not evey woman, not all women, have that ability. Women are far more economically vulnerable than men, and rely more on public programs, including Medicaid. So, this is healthcare rationing, with money as the determining factor. It's also gender discrimination. Men don't need tubal ligation, and they can't develop an ectopic pregnancy. Only women are affected by the elimination of obstetric care, or limitations on the kind of reproductive care available. Furthermore, the individuals charged with authority in Catholic hospitals to enforce the directives for permissible care, or settle disputes about them,are the local bishops, uniformly male, unmarried, and unlikely to be parents. Economic pressures are forcing mergers between hospital systems, and Catholic hospitals find an increasing number of medical facilties under their authority. The number of women seeking medical care in a religious hospital is bound to go up. At the same time, all indications point towards an increasingly conservative theology, from the Vatican on down. So where do we end up? More women, less access, restricted options, resulting from state regulatory power. A violation of the separation of church and state? For women, at any rate, perhaps more of an unholy alliance.

Here are the articles that prompted this post, one from Women's Enews and from the Washington Post here and here.

If you really want to wonk out on the issue, the National Women's Law Center has just released a report on this topic and the link is here. Do let me know how you feel about it all.

'til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

A Gender Revolution in Economics

2011-01-20T14:08:00.004-05:00

Last week I saw a column in Market Watch written by Paul Farrell, about impending changes in access to wealth and power. It's a fascinating theory and I've been preoccupied by it for a week. What do you think?

Capitalism is moving closer to a final meltdown,a catastrophe much worse than the shaking of markets and sinking of economies we've just seen around the globe. The "old boys' club" that runs the world (given that business,finance, and government are all disproportionately male) will drive us all into the ground. Trying desperately to hold onto power, and blinded by short-term thinking, competition for resources and profits will escalate to unbearable heights. The planet will be plundered, and unsustaineable risk pursued beyond the breaking point. Rather than find ways to share power and distribute wealth more broadly, the titans will take us all down to disaster.

In the past 50 years, women have caught up and surpassed men in education, training, and experience. With greater long-range vision, women are poised to assume leadership roles in the management and distribution of natural, human, and economic resources. They know how to gather, cope, collaborate, preserve, and protect. With institutions in shambles and the natural world decimated, no enterprise will succeed without women. Collective decision-making will improve, as women meet and then pass the magic 30% benchmark for effective inclusion. Global exponential population growth will exert tremendous pressure on the United States. Men continuing to act alone and hoard assets will run out of time.

Does it all sound too far-fetched? I'm not sure. The men in government did just bail out the men in business, and they have rewarded themselves handsomely. The people who put up the cash are still waiting to see some appreciation, and will be less inclined to be scared into emptying their pockets next time. Read Mr. Farrell's piece, 8 Rules for Our New Gender-Based Economy, and tell me what you think.

'til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Part-Time Work; Still Just for Women?

2011-01-11T12:54:00.008-05:00

One factor limiting women's economic security is the approach to part-time work in the US. It has the reputation of being poorly paid (true), mostly done by students, (false), and performed by those who don't really depend upon the income (also false). Part-time workers do not receive the protections of numerous state and federal laws, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, nor do part-time jobs generally come with benefits like paid leave or vacations, health insurance, or retirement savings programs. Additionally, part-time work is often compensated at a rate lower than that earned by full-time workers performing the same job.

Approximately 2/3 of the part-time workforce is female. This is no coincidence. As women continue to perform most family carework, looking after others may drive down the hours they have available for paid employment. Lacking access to child care, or lacking affordable child care remains a significant problem in many households. The presence or absence of another parent or adult in the house can be a factor, as can the work obligations of that second adult, if present.

It doesn't have to be this way. A recent New York Times article reports that the Netherlands is seeing an important shift in part-time workers, as more fathers settle in to a four day work week. Gender stereotypes are breaking down, as first women, and now men, are supported by both the law and cultural attitudes favoring greater parity between paid work and family time. An accountant interviewed for the article said: “More men want time with the family, but without giving up their careers. And more women want careers, but without giving up too much time with the family.” Consequently, 75% of Dutch women work part-time, and 23% of Dutch men do. Another 9% of Dutch men work a 40 hour week in four days. Promotions and professional success are still realistic goals, and employers attract and retain talent by offering flexibility in work hours and location.

Could it happen here? There's no reason why not. Changing our thinking, our attitudes and expectations is where it starts. Difficult, obviously, but not impossible. It's a question of how badly we want it.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

The 112th Congress - Still an Old Boys' Club

2011-01-06T13:23:00.004-05:00

The ladies and gentlemen of 112th US Congress have been sworn in. Do you know how many of them look like you? How many share your experiences and convictions? Do you trust them to make decisions which will shape and influence your life, and your family's personal and economic security? Would you guess that the new Congress looks, more or less, like the whole of the US?

Well into the 21st century, and our third century as a nation, you might be tempted to assume that's the case. But you'd be wrong. In spite of the passage of nearly 250 years of independence, older white men continue to run the country.

The current Congress is comprised of a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Of 435 House members, only 89 are women, far less than the third necessary to have any legislative sway. A scant 42 are African American. Only 26 are Hispanic, and 11 are Asian. In the Senate, only 18 of the 100 are women. Out of 535 elected seats, 94 occupants are brand new, or "freshmen". That means that more than 4/5 of the House and Senate have been there for at least a few years, and some of them, decades. Between both houses, 200 members are lawyers, 24 are doctors, 118 are military veterans, and 238 have a background in business. However, 28 members have no college degree. Six come to Washington from a farm or ranch. Average age - 57.

And of course, the freshman class must immediately start raising money and thinking about that next election. Will they change Washington?

More likely, Washington will change them.

(I would love to tell you how many are or were primary caregivers in their families. But I can't - no one collects the data. Apparently, while your professional career, training, religious affiliation and education are all considered pertinent to one's performance as a legislator, whether or not you have shouldered the responsibility for the existence and welfare of another human being is not similarly regarded. Yet.)

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

"It’s Her Choice” – Really?

2010-12-20T20:14:00.001-05:00

Your (Wo)Man in Washington is happy to offer this cross-post by MOTHERS founder Ann Crittenden which originally appeared on the MomsRising blog. Ann takes on the argument that mothers "choose" to work less, earn less, have less, or willingly endure discrimination. This classic "blame the victim" strategy is often invoked to beat back efforts to ensure equality in the workplace, such as the Paycheck Fairness Act, which failed to win enough votes in the US Senate a few weeks ago. Is motherhood simply a "lifestyle choice"? Or is there more at stake than mere personal preference? Such as, perhaps....national security and economic sustainability?

Posted on momsrising.org December 10th, 2010 by Ann Crittenden

I was struck recently by the persistence of an old argument used to kill the Fair Pay Act – and every other measure that would make life easier for mothers. You know it by heart: many women “choose” to earn less than men, and if they choose to earn less, then what’s the big deal about a little wage inequality?

This so-called “choice” argument can be superficially persuasive. Most women probably do prefer cleaner, relatively lower-paying jobs. Most women would rather be beauticians than coal miners, art teachers than mechanics. (Although this begs the question why teachers and beauticians earn so much less than mechanics and miners). Women working full-time often work fewer hours (for pay) than full-time working men. And in recent surveys, far more working women than men say they would prefer to work part-time.

Women, in short, are different from men. They’re just not as into dirt, long hours and making money. Maybe they are just …. more French!

But before you buy into this one, remember that those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog. And women are still underdogs in the job market. Women working 40 hours a week still earn 86 cents for every dollar a man earns, a bigger gap than in many developed countries with more family-friendly policies. But if American women accept this willingly, then there’s nothing to worry about. It’s their choice. No one “made them do it.” So no one has to do anything about it.

The only thing wrong with this argument is that it leaves out history:

The history that still dictates lower wages in female-dominated professions;
The history that discourages women from entering better-paying, male-dominated fields like the skilled trades, engineering, and science.
The history that explains why women in almost every occupation still earn less than men in the same occupation.
The history that dictates that women still do the bulk of the work at home, limiting their ability to work for pay.

“It’s their own choice” rhetoric also leaves out power:

The power to dictate the rules of work. Women don’t.
The power to decide who does most of the menial housework.
The power to legislate working conditions that fit women’s lives, like the right to paid sick days and paid maternity leaves, the right to refuse to work overtime, and the right to work part-time. We have none of these rights. Is that women’s choice?

The major point here is that women’s choices are not made in a vacuum. They are made in a world that women did not create, according to rules they didn’t write. For many women with children, choice is all about bad options and difficult decisions: your child or success in your profession; taking on most of the domestic chores or marital strife; food on the table or your baby’s safety; your right arm or your left.

If we have to talk about choice, let’s broaden the conversation. Let’s start talking about employers’ choices and politicians’ choices and husbands’ choices to perpetuate a system that keeps women earning less than men, more economically vulnerable than men, and more susceptible to poverty the minute they have a child.

It’s other people’s choices, not ours, that things are still this way.

Ann Crittenden: Crittenden’s ground-breaking book The Price of Motherhood has just been re-issued in a 10th anniversary edition, with a new preface. She concludes that while mothers’ attitudes have changed, not much else has.

Put "The Price of Motherhood" In Your Stocking

2010-12-01T14:31:00.011-05:00

Seems like only yesterday...

...but it was really 10 years ago that Ann Crittenden wrote The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World Is Still the Least Valued. A special 10th anniversary paperback edition has just hit bookstores, and makes the perfect holiday gift for any and all family caregivers you know, and the people who love them!

What's changed since this study of motherhood's effect on women's status was first published? Not as much as we'd hoped. Unlike mothers in any other modern country, US mothers only get paid maternity leave at the whim of the

employer. Most of us work outside the home for money, but still make less than men in the same occupations, working the same hours. We remain severely underrepresented in state, local, and federal government, in boardrooms, and other policy-making posts. In spite of years of discussion about family caregiver credits, Social Security only rewards paid work, so women's childbearing and child rearing entitle them to nothing in retirement. As a result, women suffer greater poverty in old age, in spite of the fact that all aspects of our common welfare, economic security and national interest are entirely dependent on their willingness to birth and nurture the next generation.

Is Price of Motherhood still relevant? Clearly yes, which is a sobering commentary itself on our lack of real change. But Crittenden’s clear-eyed and compelling analysis has made true believers and committed feminists out of more women than I can count. It will do so with the next generation of mothers as well. These women will know that the difficulty they encounter is not the result of their personal incompetence or some previously unrecognized character flaw. Rather, it is the systemic and institutionalized preference for “the ideal worker” that is pitted against them. So-called "family friendly policies" have failed to take hold in the US to any real extent. Employers expect an "all or nothing" worker with no obligations outside of the job. No way to work and breastfeed your new baby, unless you can afford to quit work and stay home. No paid sick leave, so you can go to the doctor for your flu, or take your child for a strep test. If you are the sole provider for your children, and your mother is sick or lands in the hospital, you can’t be there. Maternity medical care is not covered by your health insurance. You need help paying for child care, but you make too much money to qualify, yet not enough to pay for the care available in your community. If you are home full-time with your children, you don’t get credits towards Social Security. If you pay a nanny to do the job, she will.

If children are so important, and “family values” occupy the center of our national priorities, why do we have such shockingly high rates of maternal and infant death? Why is 1 out of every 5 children living at or below the poverty line? Why is the work of families, who raise, teach, feed, house, and nurture children from birth to productive adulthood, not included in any measure of our national economic output? Because the work of creating human beings, seeing to their physical, mental and emotional needs, is done mostly by women and therefore held in lower regard. Motherhood as it exists in the US, exacts a steep price.

The inequality is stark when comparing income levels of men and childless women. Paycheck parity is more likely until the point that a women becomes a mother. While a man actually sees an uptick in his income upon the arrival of the stork, the woman’s income loses pace at that point, and for most mothers, never recovers. Her lifetime loss of earnings ranges from hundreds of thousands of dollars to over a million. Erroneously cast as a “lifestyle choice”, the issue is actually one of out and out discrimination. If one gender is assigned the bulk of childcare, and if that labor is seen as without value, there’s not a lot of choosing going on. If compensated work and family caregiving were equally valued, and both genders were able to segue in and out of the labor force without materially endangering their economic security, then we’d be talking about choices. Until then, the risks of motherhood are generally borne by the individual mother and have thus been effectively “privatized”. Until then, the assets her child produces in terms of tax revenue, productive work and solid citizenship, are enjoyed by the public. Until then, The Price of Motherhood remains a must-read.

Here's a link to Amazon's page on the 10th anniversary edition.

'Til next time,

Your (Wo)Man in Washington

Guest Post - "It's About Time" by Mindy Fried

2010-11-19T10:33:00.007-05:00

I came across this essay by sociologist Mindy Fried about the lack of paid family leave in the US versus how common it is around the world. Also on my mind is the failure of the Paycheck Fairness Act to pass the US Senate this week. I think the two are related. Opponents of the bill say gender discrimination doesn't exist anymore, and no new laws, like the Paycheck Fairness Act, are needed. They argue that even though men outearn women in general, and mothers in particular, women put themselves in poorer paying jobs as a trade-off for spending more time with children or needing greater flexibiity. Therefore, whatever gap may exist is explained by women's choices.

I disagree. Women do most of the unpaid family carework in this country. Culturally and socially, it is more acceptable for women to do it than men. Is that fair? At the same time, women have to support themselves and their families. They work without the benefit of paid sick days, or family leave, or even the abiltiy to ask for an alternative schedule. Is that fair? Is it even a good idea? Paid leave is a political issue, a gender issue, and as Dr. Fried shows below, a class issue as well. Repeating the mantra that there is no gender discrimination won't make it go away. And refusing paid leave to new mothers and new fathers won't stop them from having babies or being in the workforce. If it did, the consequences would be catastrophic. As Dr. Fried says, "It's about time..."

It's about time...

A sociologist buddy of mine just told me that she may be using my book on parental leave in a new class she's teaching (Taking Time: Parental Leave Policy and Corporate Culture). While I should be overjoyed, I am not. Why? Because the book is 12 years old and it's sadly as relevant today as it was twelve years ago!

Taking Time is based on an ethnographic study. In other words, I went native and hung out for a year in a financial services corporation I called Premium, Inc., studying its corporate culture. I wanted to understand how the culture of the workplace affected employees' attitudes towards the company's generous parental leave policy and ultimately, who used it.

I happened to be doing this study right after the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which was the first bill President Clinton signed in 1993. The bill mandates employers to allow their workers - women and men - to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to parent their newly arrived baby (biological or adoptive). This federal policy provided basic rights to Premium employees, in addition to the company's own parental leave policy.

To my dismay, I found a strange and insidious blend of economics and culture that seriously undercut the use of parental leave policy at Premium. Of the 143 parental leave takers I interviewed, 140 were women and 3 were men! Women in high-level positions barely took leaves. In fact, only two female vice presidents took five weeks; the three senior female managers took five, nine and 10 weeks respectively. As one female senior manager said,

"Old-time management in the company still has an old mind-set about women and work and family...The women who generally get to the higher top are the women who don't have the children. You have to sacrifice something to get there."

Not a single male senior manager took a parenting leave. Instead, new fathers tended to take 2-week vacations after the arrival of their new baby. One male manager I interviewed told me,

"It was simple economics. I was going to work full-time and (my wife) was going to work part-time. We joke about her job being a hobby because she's hardly covering the cost of daycare."

Most men facing new parenthood didn't even consider taking time away from their jobs to parent a newly arrived infant, because they were worried their careers would suffer. For them, the cultural norms of the workplace mitigated against taking time to do what is still considered "women's work". Simply put, for both high-level female and male managers, babies and briefcases didn't go together. This cultural norm trickled down to the organizational culture...

The largest group of workers who used the leave policy were women in non-management positions. Professional non-management women took an average of 10 weeks leave, two weeks less than the 12 weeks allowed by the FMLA! And nonprofessional women - women who earned less than those in professional positions - took an average of 8 weeks, with half taking 7 weeks or less. These women simply couldn't afford to take longer leaves. Unless they had family lining up to care for their babies, much of their time was spent worrying about setting up quality, affordable childcare. This short leave-time falls far short of the six-month leave that T. Berry Brazelton, child development expert, recommends to support parent-child bonding.

In a 2009 study of current leave-taking practices, researchers found a a similar picture. There has been a very small increase in the amount of leave-time taken in the birth month (5.4%) by "highly educated and married mothers" and an increase of 13% in the next two months (Han, Ruhm and Waldfogel, 2009). Single mothers, on the other hand, are less able to afford unpaid leave. And fathers continue to take extremely short leaves or none at all.

This data confirms what I found in my study 12 years ago: that uppaid leave policy discriminates against those at the lower rungs of the income ladder who cannot afford to take longer leaves. With the absence of a mechanism to replace workers' wages during the leave period, non-management female employees shorten their leaves; management employees take short leaves; and men don't take parental leaves at all.

While lower paid workers would be the most obvious beneficiaries of paid leave, in fact, ALL employees would benefit from such a policy. The U.S. is the only wealthy nation in the world that does not offer parental leave, according to political scientist Janet Gornick, who conducted a cross- national study of parental leave policies.

"The United States has the least generous parental leave policies of all 21 economies compared in the study. We pay a high price for our meager policy, because parental leave improves the health and well-being of children and their parents, and paid leaves provide families with crucial economic support at such an important time."

Gornick and her colleagues report that European countries, led by Finland, Norway and Sweden, rank far ahead of the United States in providing guaranteed parental leave, with Sweden ranking highest for gender equality and parental leave practices. Germany also offers a generous paid leave policy, and four countries show high levels of both generosity and gender equality: three Nordic countries (Finland, Norway and Sweden), and Greece.

We have a long way to go in the U.S.! California finally passed paid parental leave legislation in 2002, and the U.S. military even offers paid leave to its members. But a recent effort to extend paid leave to civilian employees got stuck in the Senate. And other initiatives to create paid leave through "baby unemployment insurance" - in which some small portion of the state unemployment insurance fund would go towards a paid leave fund - has hit a wall, given high employment rates.

Nonetheless, the issue will not go away for the thousands of mothers and fathers around this nation who want to spend more time with their babies.

It may seem counterintuitive to push for paid parental leave in this economic crisis, especially as people are being laid off from their jobs. You might argue that laid-off workers have more time to hang out with their kids anyway. And besides, why would employers want to add incentives for their existing labor force to take time away from the job? But those laid-off workers will return to the workforce when the economy improves, and those employers should care about creating humane work environments that don't burn out their workers. And why shouldn't we join the rest of the Western industrialized world in providing social policies that support mothers and fathers in the workplace?

Without a federal policy that provides the foundation of support for leavetaking, I fear that we will continue to see the patterns of leave-taking I found in my study twelve years ago. And that's just not fair.

Meanwhile, my sociologist buddy asked if I could come to her class to talk about my book. I wish it were old news...

Mindy Fried, M.S.W., Ph.D., is a sociologist with over 20 years of experience conducting research, teaching and doing policy analysis on work and family issues (e.g., early care and education policy, parental leave). She is a Co-Principal of Arbor Consulting Partners (www.arborcp.com), where she consults to a diverse range of organizations, designing and conducting evaluation research and policy assessments, as well as providing technical assistance on research design issues and strategic planning/organizational analysis. You can find Mindy's original post on her blog here.