Strollerderby : childless

Are Working Mothers (And Fathers) Discriminated Against?

Kate Tuttle — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:30:00 GMT

We all know the myth of the Superwoman is just that, but where does that leave the normal mom who also needs (and often wants) to work for pay outside the house? In a tragic bind, according to a recent post to the New York Times Economix blog. Women who attempt to balance working with motherhood nearly always pay a significant penalty at the workplace, whether in lost promotions or stagnating pay. Women who don't have kids are often praised for their ability to give their all to work -- but face stigma and gossipy questions about their childless status. Men, you'll be glad to know, tend to be rewarded either way (though I'm guessing that they benefit at least in perceptual terms for having kids).

The blog's author admits it can be hard to guage whether negative effects spring from discriminatory attitudes toward working mothers alone, or whether job performance can indeed suffer across the board for women who have caretaker responsibilities on top of job duties. I'd imagine it's a little of both -- the perception that mothers can't commit fully to their jobs is endemic, though, and is used against even those mothers who can and do overperform at work. In a study cited in the Times piece, both men and women evaluating fake resumes tended to discount those of women with subtle hints that they were mothers (telltale maternity leave gaps, etc.).

So what's to be done, and can the playing field ever be truly even? Or is an anti-mommy (or anti-child) bias just built into our sexist society, never to be overcome? I know that better maternity -- and paternity -- leave would be one solution, if only to help mothers maintain a consistent paycheck and pay history. But even if men and women were treated more equally in this regard (and in dividing their home duties -- I know, this is a pipe dream, and also a presumption of heterosexual couple-dom that I regret but can't seem to shake when thinking about this topic), where would that leave those with children versus those without? Perhaps we need to widen the scope even further, to seek not just gender parity but also some awareness that family responsibilities don't always come in the cute little form of a child. Workers caring for aging parents, or ailing partners, also need protection and respect.

Once we start talking about workers being treated with respect by big corporations, I know I'm in the land of fantasy. Still, the reality is so difficult that at times it can be hard to face. My own salary history is so uneven, what with staying home to care for two children, that I'll probably never again make as much money as my husband (we were on par when we met). I'm not even trying to get back to full-time work yet, but I wonder what limitations I'll face, and how many of them come down to the parenting choices I have made. Do I regret staying home with my kids? Not for a second. But do I wish mothers and fathers had better options? That's a no-brainer.

More by this author:

Late-Term Abortion Provider on Trial in Kansas

Boomer Grandmothers: Out Of Control?

Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

Do Doctors See Young Women as Baby Machines?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:30:00 GMT

The New York Times unwittingly opened up a can of worms when they wrote about a recent report on the health risks of sharing prescription drugs. The warning was targeted mainly at women of child-bearing age, since drugs can pose a risk to a developing fetus. Many women commented on the article, but not because they cared a whit about the health issues discussed.

Rather, they were outraged that the danger of sharing prescription drugs was framed as specifically problematic for women of child-bearing age. “Not all women are “pre-pregnant,” one reader wrote. “We are more than our uteruses!” Another wrote that she was “tired of being thought of only as a breeding machine who should be regarded as ‘pre-pregnant’ at all times.”

While I am completely sympathetic to these sentiments, I don't quite understand the outrage these women felt toward this particular article—if you don’t want have to kids, ignore the warning. Enough women in their twenties and thirties do want to have children that it only makes sense to issue warnings to this age group about how to avoid cause harming to fetuses.

That said, I definitely think that many doctors inappropriately view women as “pre-pregnant.” An OB-GYN once said to a happily childless, 30-year-old friend of mine, “Now go out there and make some babies!” Needless to say, my friend got a new gynecologist.

Image: svmomblog.typepad.com

Child-Free Weddings: Brilliant or Bonkers?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:51:00 GMT

Planning a wedding makes people act insane. The latest proof of this is that, according to the BBC, it's become increasingly acceptable to outlaw little people at weddings. A longtime wedding planner named Barry Long said that including the words, “No Children Allowed” on a wedding invitation was taboo until about 10 years ago—now, he says, about half of weddings ban all children, while some allow only children of close family. (And you think the seat assignments cause rifts….)

Thank heavens for Jezebel’s refreshingly cynical take on this uptight trend. Not even considering the rudeness of forcing one’s wedding guests to pay for long-term childcare, weddings without kids seem to me like glorified bachelor(ette) parties. Even assuming that the bride and groom know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they would never consider bringing a loud, smelly mini human into the world, aren’t weddings supposed to be about community, family, and playing with adorable flower girls after your third glass of peach champagne?

Besides, if you have friends who would not take a crying child outside of a wedding ceremony (or movie theatre) immediately, perhaps you should rethink your friends.

I think Jezebel commenter Emily Anne dove into the real heart of the matter when she wrote: “Also I want to know where this obsession with weddings being so damn perfect came from, I can't help feeling that if you get that pernickity nothing that comes after will ever be quite good enough, for example the boring day to day marriage stuff.”

Yep, hard as it for some childless people to accept, even adult-only events are not perfect.

Photo: Jezebel

Nick Jr. show makes the childless want to conceive

Brett Singer — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:33:00 GMT

Jezebel has a video clip from Nick Jr.'s Yo Gabba Gabba. In it, the not-terribly-bright host of a dance party is upset because no one is dancing. Super Robot Martian Girl shows up and tells the dimwit that no one is dancing because...there is no music. (Really.) So she saves the day at a dance party by beaming in a band, 'Josie and the Pussycats' style, who play a song called "Martian Girl," which is apparently a cover version of "Nice & Wild's freestyle classic Diamond Girl." (I admit publicly that I have never heard the original song, and I also admit that I am not embarrassed to admit this.)

As with so many blog entries, the best stuff is in the comments:

I may be a frigid childfree dyke, but this show makes me want to have babies STAT!

Every time I see a Yo Gabba Gabba clip somewhere on the internet I think to myself "must remember to watch this when high" and "must remember to watch this when have kids". The former will likely come up a few hundred times before the latter is an issue, but still...

So if we see another baby boom, especially among the stoner population, we have DJ Lance and crew to thank. Enjoy

I've never seen Yo Gabba Gabba, but apparently it teaches kids about comic books and features musical interludes by Biz Markie. So I may have to give it a try, with or without the kids.

image: Roberson's Interminable Ramble

Friends Think Depressed Surrogate Mom to 8 is Crazy

Madeline Holler — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:35:00 GMT

There are a couple of things going on in this story of a surrogate mom that are just, nicely put, very interesting. First, she is trying to get pregnant for the eighth time on behalf of someone other than herself. Wow, eight pregnancies is a lot of babies for any woman to bear. (Please don't confuse her with the surrogate mother to 12. Twelve!)

The other thing is that this mom who has made a second career as a baby-haver is 43 years old and things are getting tough and she's starting to get depressed. She wanted to bear a sibling for the little girl, Isobel, whom she gave birth to in 2006, but nine weeks in to that pregnancy -- her egg and the 51-year-old father's sperm -- she miscarried. Her family is starting to worry.

But the most striking thing for me is that this woman is not a mother. She has no children of her own!

Here's what she says about surrogacy:

"I really love being pregnant and my body is very good at it," she said. "I am very proficient at giving birth. But I still don't want children of my own, not in the slightest.

"A lot of people won't understand how I feel - but everyone's different. After seeing how happy Isobel and her parents are, I really wanted to provide them with another child so they can complete their family.

"Her parents have become my friends and I see this pregnancy as helping friends out. But this one is definitely my last. I can't keep on going for ever."

What now?

Photo: Daily Mail

Men Bemoan Barren Wombs More Than Women

Madeline Holler — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:33:00 GMT

We’ve seen the biological clock movies, read the baby lust articles, debated the family friendly vs. child-free café and one thing is usually true: all eyes are focused on the women. So someone needs to alert Lifetime network to the results of a new long-term study on who is bothered more by an empty crib (and perhaps consider launching a man-station that exploits the emotions of guys who had it all, except the one thing they ever really wanted).

The survey shows that while the percent of childless women continues to climb – we’re at 20 percent of 40-year-old women have no children -- childlessness actually bugs men more than it does women. Also, the higher her education, the less the whole never-gonna-be-a-mom thing bugs her. Education, race, socio-economic status didn't appear to have influence the attitudes of the men.

I haven’t read the study, published in the November issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family, but the article about these results succumbs to an annoying weakness in mainstream discussion of science, which is experts being asked to comment on why these results may be true based on little more than guessing.

Still, a summary of what they guessed:

The author of the study said the reason more women are reporting being fine with the decision not to become mothers is the result of changing attitudes – there’s no longer the feeling that having babies is what you do.

Another professor of psychiatry, commenting on the counterintuitive results which showed men more bothered than women, said women know the overall cost of raising children, and the real challenge and near impossibility of “having it all.”

A psychologist agreed, and added that men may be bothered more by childlessness because they have been taught “growing up and having a child is what you do.”

Those are the “experts’” guesses, but you’re the real pros. Why do you think educated women are less bothered about not having children and why are men, overall, are more bugged? Did you grudgingly become a mom or have to beg and plead to become a dad?

More importantly, who should star in the Lifetime/Mantime network drama about the guy who can no longer ignore his biological clock?

Baby Hatahs Unite!

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:01:00 GMT

Things to never, ever to say in life: People with kids deserve special treatment. Or at least, you know, common courtesy.

The Poop blog has a wonderful back-and-forth between people with kids and the people who hate them. The roughly 100 comments focus on everything from stupid parents, stupid haters, overpopulation and peeing on buildings. It keeps getting better and better, and may, eventually, become one of the few parenting discussions to invoke Godwin's Law.

Are babies that bad? Or is it just the parents?

Are the Childless Unfit To Implement Foreign Policy?

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:00:00 GMT

Senator Barbara Boxer is under fire for comments she made during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding proposed troop expansion in Iraq. Boxer pointed out that neither she nor Secretary of State Condolleezza Rice would "pay a price" for increased troop deaths in Iraq - Boxer because her kids and grandkids are the wrong age, and Rice because she's childless and unmarried.

Ironically, it is the political Right that has labeled Boxer's remarks a "low blow," inappropriately correlating Rice's marital/parental status and her inability to make proper policy choices regarding troop size in Iraq.

While I disagree with Boxer's approach, she raises an excellent point. Isn't it absolute nonsense to have those in power (with little or nothing to lose) making policy decisions that will increase the Iraqi and American death toll?

But neither childlessness nor marital status counts here. American military personnel in Iraq continues to be vastly overrepresented by poor and minority populations, only 5 of whom have parents serving in Congress or the Senate (and none with parents in the President's Cabinet). It's rare that anyone in power ever suffers personally because of our country's war mongering.