Strollerderby : gender discrimination

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

Have a Uterus? McCain Wants You to Pay More for Health Insurance

JeanneSager — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:00 GMT

Turns out the biggest difference between men and women in America might not be their "down there parts," but what health insurance companies think those there parts will cost them. A study in yesterday's New York Times states women ages 19 to 55 who are paying for individual health insurance plans are being charged significantly more than male counterparts for the same plans.

The reason? Women are using more insurance, the companies say. But thanks go to the sharp-witted writers at Jezebel, who were quick to point out that research has shown seeking care earlier (they often call it preventative care?) saves people down the line. Saves their lives, and saves them money. Because preventive care, well, it prevents major illness.

Jezebel's report also pointed out something American voters need to keep in mind come Tuesday. Senator John McCain's chief healthcare plans call for "tax credits" that we as Americans would then use to pay for our own health insurance plans - the ones that cost women more. He's against the (currently relatively widespread) practice of employer-based health insurance plans, or group plans, whereby insurance plans are bought in bulk by an employer to wrangle a lower cost for each individual plan. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (you see the little EEO or EOE acronyms in a lot of newspaper classifieds) watches over employer-based health plans and prohibits gender-based discrimination. In other words - our civil rights in the workplace guarantee we can't be charged more for our employer-based health plan than the guy at the next desk. Walk out of the workplace, however, and the game changes.

The Times report even quotes a Humana representative who claims, "Bearing children increases other health risks later in life, such as urinary incontinence, which may require treatment with medication or surgery.” Say what?

A woman who popped out a baby, but has a yearly check-up at the general practitioner plus her annual "foot-in-the-stirrups, let's get this over with doc, I hope you have warm hands this time" visit is apparently going to wet herself down the road. And that's going to cost them. But the guy who hasn't been to a doctor in a decade and sits on his ass eating Cheetos and screaming, red-faced at SportsCenter all day, every day is going to cost them less down the line?

I can invest in Depends, but he's a walking heart attack.

And, apparently, Senator McCain thinks he shouldn't have to pay as much for cardiac catheterization, an eventual quadruple bypass, a lifetime of blood pressure monitoring and heart medications, a twice-yearly stress test . . . should I go on? . . . as long as he doesn't have a uterus.

Image: CrunchGear

Anti-Palin Ad Targets Parents With Teenage Rape Victim's Plea

Hey Sarah Palin, Make Your Kids Go to School

Salvation Army Says: We'll Take Palin's Clothes!

They say: no one with a uterus should vote for McCain

Palin's Kids Traveling on the State's Dime, She's Trying to Claim "State Business"

GOP Shows Obama With Fried Chicken and Watermelon

They say: McCain not thrilled with Palin and she wants to run in 2012

They (Should) Say: 6 is the New 60

Teen Kicked Off Football Team Because She's A Girl

Amy S.F. Lutz — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:35:00 GMT

I understand that, generally speaking, boys are stronger and faster than girls of the same age, and that it's probably not safe to have girls play contact sports with their male peers.

However, if a girl is good enough to compete with the boys, and actually played, for example, a year of football on the boys' team at her old public school, then it seems to me that her new private school acted with prejudice and insensitivity by telling her she can't play just because she's a girl.

Kacy Stuart, a freshman at New Creation Center, a private Christian school, had practiced as a kicker for two months before being told by Hank St. Denis, executive board chairman of the Georgia Football League, that she would not be permitted to play.

Her mother vows to take the League to court.

The Best Way to Educate: Separate the Boys From the Girls?

Jen Chaney — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:04:00 GMT

Do boys and girls learn differently? Some say yes, which is why several public schools -- including a few described in this Washington Post articl e -- are trying same-sex classes.

Some of the teachers quoted in this story report they are seeing positive results for the boys, who seem to benefit from classroom settings that allow them the freedom to move around, as well as the girls, who, in one case, thrive in a dimly lit classroom with lots of flowers on the windowsills.

Of course, there are those who find this segregation-by-sex unhealthy and believe it fosters gender discrimination and a lack of preparedness for a co-ed world.

While I encourage unconventional approaches to educating our kids, it seems like this walks a fine line between playing to our children's strengths and reinforcing stereotypes about what girls and boys are "supposed" to be. If both grades and interest in learning improves, though, it's kind of hard to argue with that.

But what do you think? Would you want your son or daughter to be taught in a same-sex situation?

Photo: Dailymail.com