While reading the Mommy tax article, I was reminded of the article I wrote my first news flash on. It basically stated, because of the downturn of the economy many stereotypically woman dominated jobs/careers (once considered unimportant) are important and thus becoming to be higher paying. It also said that women will be safer, and more important in the industry as we climb out of this recession.
I guess my thoughts is, has recent events changed the mommy tax? are women still being treated unfairly or thought of as having a "Recreational attitude" to working while raising kids? Has the "Be a man" strategy lessened, and is there room for kick butt mothers/workers in todays work world? Will driven women be able to not have to worry about the time running out because they want that dream job?
The 2 articles in LU also had valid points, but I have to say, I didnt really connect or enjoy Hakim-Dyce's article. I thought there was going to be a scarring story about an altercation at the club, or she turned around and made lots of money and felt liberated by the process. instead, she got saved by that tutor job in the nick of time..... give us something juicy!
I think the point of Critenden's "Mommy Tax" article was to make motherhood seem like a burden; or at least, illustrate that society and employers often paints the picture of motherhood as a burdensome affair that makes women ill-equipped to deal with the responsibilities of having a full-time job and taking care of their children -- who could ever imagine that, right?! I believe that Critenden wanted to show that many employers view motherhood as some cumbersome activity that ultimately hurts a woman's work performance. It's like a math equation: a woman plus a baby equals poor/inferior job performance. The author is trying to show how women are being condemned for following their biological desires -- to bring new life into this world, to be a mother. How come men are not viewed in this light? As far as I know, it takes two people to make a baby, so therefore, fathers should be forced to deal with the same challenges as mothers in the workforce.
ReplyDeleteWe hear about it all the time in the Third World particularly, how women have a "double" or even "triple" burden -- they take care of the home, their children, do manual (often unpaid) labor, take care of their husbands, etc. I think this burden is evident in Critenden's article. She talks about how employers find it unfathomable how a woman could EVER possibly be successful at two things: being a mother and being an employee. Crazy notion, right? Meanwhile, children are supposed to be a joyous gift to humanity, and the most precious thing a man and woman could ever want together. However, so many employers see children, more specifically mothers with children, as a liability in the workforce, and are just talking about children in terms of the almighty dollar.
Ultimately, Critenden wants to make motherhood seem like a burden so that she can get her point across in the end: it need NOT be a burden. Women shouldn't have to choose in the impossible dilemma between family and career. Many women have proved throughout history that yes, it's possible to successfully have both. One doesn't need to suffer at the hands of another; work and motherhood are not mutually exclusive, rather they are both important parts of a full, happy life for men and women alike. Moreover, women should be encouraged to have children, rather than discouraged by employers -- they're only adding to the workforce and bringing potentially brilliant minds into the population. Why discourage that?
The dilemma that women face in "Mommy Tax" is related to Hakim-Dyce's article, entitled "Reality Check." She is forced to choose to sexually objectify herself by dancing exotically at a club in order to make money for survival. She thinks of this option as demoralizing and dehumanizing, and describes the unfair dilemma that many women face each day. Should they sell their bodies to make ends meet? Or, should they wait it out, until they find a "real job?" It's a tough question, almost impossible to answer unless you're put directly in that position. But nevertheless, this dilemma is just another example of women having to make the tough call: children or work, money or self-worth? In the end, it comes back to the question: Can we have both?
I agree with what you're saying about the mommy tax. I think we're moving away from a time when women must choose between a successful career and her children. Parenthood is a partnership, I believe it is most successful when both parties, man and woman, so their equal share. If a woman happens to be a single mom, the fact that she has children doesn't mean that she won't be devoted to her work. In fact, often times, people with more on their plate are better at time management. The stigma surrounding working mothers has been prevalent for some time but I believe working women today are putting at end to this misconception
ReplyDeleteAs everyone has pointed out, I think the common theme between all of the readings is that for so long mothers have been socialized to stay at home, take care of the kids, and manage the house work while the husband is at work; however now a lot of women are balancing careers and motherhood, but still face constant challenges. These challenges come from everywhere -- employers thinking mothers will be ill-equipped to handle both a job and their children as seen in "The Mommy Tax", women who cannot get the best jobs and must resort to house-keeping or even dancing/stripping as seen in "Maid to Order" and "Reality Check" -- and as the Critenden article points out, this is an issue surrounding gender thus we must ask the question: do men, particularly fathers, face these same challenges that women do when balancing careers and parenting.
ReplyDeleteOf course we have to acknowledge the single fathers who also have to work and take care of their kids, yet do employers also question a father's ability because he has kids? I think most people would agree that an employer certainly would not worry about a man's ability because he has a family to take care of, and as people have mentioned, parenting is a job for both the mother and the father. But what about single mothers? Some mothers may not be able to get decent jobs but still have to make money in order to provide for their families so what do they do? Some women may take up housework while others may have to resort to objectifying themselves in order to provide a source of income. While Ehrenreich claims housework, which is usually done by women is often a position of inferiority, which I think has some validity considering the way maids and house cleaners have been portrayed in society, I think dancing or stripping inevitably puts a woman at an inferior status, yet these women may have no other choice.
Like Brittany, I also used an article about gender roles in parenting for my news flash and remember reading quotations from real mothers and fathers about the way the economy has changed their roles in their families. One mother who used to be a stay-at-home mom was forced to work once her husband was unable to get a job, and expressed that she missed taking care of her kids and being around the house. Her husband, who had to now take care of the kids and the house seemed happy to spend more time with his family, yet definitely felt that he was somehow less of a man, or somehow inferior to his wife. I think this is a challenge mothers and wives face as well -- often times a husband or father's ego may be hurt by the success of their wives.
I think the main point we need to take away from the readings is that, like we have been saying with other issues, women need to have the right to choose the lifestyles they want -- whether they want a career and a family or if they do want to be a stay-at-home mom. Obviously these decisions affect her husband and the well-being of the family too, yet if a mother wants to pursue a career, she should not be held back by her gender, which translates to her position as a mother as well.
So far, everyone has raised points that I definitely agree with. All the readings for today share the common thread of certain choices women are forced to make in everyday life that still display marks of inequality. As previous blogs have already stated, Critenden’s piece talks about the inequalities in the work force, and how women are still conflicted between choosing their families and their jobs. This choice is difficult, and it seems unfair that women should even be forced to make such a decision. The concerns Critenden’s piece brings about are not that far removed from our lives either. While reading this article, I remembered a conversation I had with my roommate once. She is planning on becoming a practicing psychologist, and she was talking about how much schooling it actually takes. She realized by the time she would finish school, she’d be in her thirties. She remarked how she can’t even consider having children, because she could not imagine raising a family after spending so much time in school. Although her decision could ultimately change, her thoughts about the future definitely demonstrate this idea that woman are the ones who have to stay home and make the sacrifice of either their family or their jobs.
ReplyDeleteAs for the pieces from Listen Up, I’m on Brittany’s side. I had a difficult time getting into both of the pieces, especially “Reality Check.” Despite the fact that she wanted to talk about her feelings and thoughts about almost being forced to become a dancer, I felt her writing still displayed a sort of disconnect from the situation as a whole. However, I loved how empowering Rangel’s piece was, arguing for knowledge but most importantly in the discovery of the power in “self sufficiency and independence.”
I think there was valuable information to take from Hakim-Dyce's essay. While I too was not overwhelmed with the ending to her essay, her decision over whether to engage in such an exploiting career is one that many poor women face. The stripping industry does promote objectification of women and certainly furthers the raunch culture we live in, it does provide desperate and often uneducated women with a rather high-paying job. Certainly such a career choice is presumably psychologically damaging, but as stripping does provide a short-term option for some women who end developing successful careers elsewhere.
ReplyDelete