The Mommy Tax by Ann Crittenden brings to light of the cost of being a mother in today's society and how mothers are the most disadvantaged in the workforce. She shows the discrimination by calculating estimates that average about $100,000,000 lost total in a lifetime to a woman who has a middle class job and decides to have a child. This one million dollars lost is what Crittenden labels as the "mommy tax", because it is the cost if she chooses to bear a child. She also mentions in her text that for fathers who are the main caregiver to their children do pay a "daddy tax" but because in our society women are still the main caregivers to the home and children, there is more commonly a "mommy tax".
Ann Crittenden had first hand experience with the "mommy tax" after she left her job at New York Times to have her baby. She estimated how much money she would have had if she did not take a break from her job to have her child, and that was about $600,000 to $700,000 not including the pension she would have received is she had stayed working for the company for ten years, (Crittenden, 338). This is a large sum of money that any hard working family could utilize in many necessary ways, but because of choosing to bring another life into the world they are deprived of it, and the sad fact is, is that every mother who works and decides to have a child is burdened with a "mommy tax". "..this seems an unreasonable penalty on the decision that contributes to the general good by adding another productive person to the nation," (Crittenden, 339). After having a child, you no longer have one mouth to feed, and one body to care for, you have two. So you would think it would be common sense that parents need to keep their same income or even have it raised in order to properly care for a third, or fourth human being, but in today's reality you have to pay a penalty that is around one million dollars, or the "mommy tax" in order to have children. And this money is taken out of each woman's income after they have a child. This is a main reason why more and more women are putting off having children and are deciding to have fewer children because the longer you wait to have children and the less children you choose to have, the lower the "mommy tax" is.
After learning how large the "mommy tax" is, most people ask "why are companies doing this to families?", and their logic behind placing mothers as the most disadvantaged in the work place is because they are not "ideal workers". Companies want "ideal workers", and "ideal workers" are people who will dedicate their life to their job. All of their focus and energy is channeled to being the best possible employee, and doing whatever will benefit the company most. When raising a child, not all your time and energy can be focused on a job, but needs to be focused on the child. Women are people who raise children the most which makes them the least likely candidate of the "ideal worker" and this is why women's pay is lower, and why they are denied the best jobs. What it comes down to is that our society discriminates against women because they have children. "One could even say that motherhood is now the single greatest obstacle left in the path to economic equality for women," (Crittenden, 337). And this fact has had pushed many women who wanted to have children to pay the biggest burden of the "mommy tax" and that is to not have any children because they could not afford the one million cost without living in poverty. Acting like a "man" and putting off having children, sometimes even till it is too late, is one strategy more and more women are using to eliminate that pay gap between them and their male counterparts. This strategy however robs women of the joy of childbearing when one wishes to do so, and this is why our society needs to be restructured so having children is not a burden on families. Our country needs to follow Sweden's lead where the government, employers, and husbands help contribute to eliminate the "mommy tax" so having a child does not threat each woman into poverty.
Questions:
Having children is something that is looked as good and what is "right" in society, so why doesn't our society make it easier for families who are raising children? Mothers need money the most because they are caring for not just themselves, but for another human being, so why are companies robbing them of $100,000,000? How can we make this "mommy tax" go away? How can a jury look at Virginia's situation at Aetna and agree with the company? They thought women with children could not do a good job??? What would happen if she were given the hours she could live by instead of them being increased?
Thoughts on Questions:
I think how our society that views childbearing as right, but then discriminating them against pay is just another double standard that our society lives by such as how girls are expected to look "hot"and "sexy" or as one may say "slutty" but they are not supposed to actually behave "slutty" or have sex with whom they wish. This just shows the major flaws in how our society is structured, and how difficult it is to be a women in our country. Making the "mommy tax" go away brings up challenges of change in our country, but it is what needs to be done. We need to follow other countries strategies such as France and Sweden that have a system that is much better structured so having a child is not a burden like it is in the U.S.
Maybe if Virginia was given the hours she liked she would have been able to do a supreme job. I would like to go out on a limb and guess most members of the jury were either men or women without children who maybe did not fully understand how to balance a job and a family.
In Mommy Tax, Ann Crittenden writes about the pressure put on women in the workforce that have children, and how they are discriminated against by getting a lower pay compared to men and childless, young women. In her story there is a cartoon picture with captions with one person is ending a fairytale and the other responds.
Storyteller states: "So then the knight slew the dragon and married the beautiful princess and they both went to work for a major law firn AND in addition to her job she had primary responsibility for the housework, and when the kids were home sick she.."
Listener states: "Does this story have a happy ending?"
(Kirk, Chapter 7 pg. 338)
The pressures of being a mother in the workforce that Crittenden writes about and this cartoon insert in her text both relate to the section on chapter 7 in Women's Lives where the concept of the "second shift" is brought up. The "second shift" is when a woman works during the day at her job, and then comes home to a house that needs cleaning, a family who needs dinner, and children who need attention. The work awaiting her arrival at home needs to be done, and is basically a "second shift" that she needs to fulfill. The "second shift" highlights how a woman who has a job and children has work to do both in and out of the house, but gets paid less than men and childless women who do not have to tend to a "second shift".
In the movie Motherhood Manifesto a family is shown where the mother was fortunate to work for a company who recognized and catered to women with children. She was able to take time off to spend with her child, and when she went back to work she was able to rearrange flexible hours that allowed her to make taking care of her child a first priority. Many families do not have the luxury at their jobs to do so, such as Virginia Daley who Ann Crittenden wrote about in Mommy Tax. Virginia Daley was a loyal employee at Aetna Life & Casualty for almost ten years, but after having a child and trying to arrange more flexible hours at her job, she was denied so she spoke out about her situation, and was fired. What our country needs is more companies that accomodate women who have children like the mother in Motherhood Manifesto who was able to rearrange her hours for her family, not companies like Aetna Life & Casualty that Virginia Daley worked for.
No comments:
Post a Comment