In a January 2002 speech entitled “Women in the Workforce,” US Labor Secretary Elaine Chao responded to a question about work-life balance:

I have no children. I came from a family of six and I always expected to have children. But we have to make tradeoffs. Both men and women have to make tradeoffs. (CSPAN American Perspectives, Feb. 9, 2002)

What she was really saying was, “I wanted a high-powered career, and in this society, if you are a woman, it is nearly impossible to have that kind of career if you have children.” Chao is supposed to represent workers’ interests at the highest level of government, but she can’t even state the truth that her “choice” is highly influenced by this country’s anti-labor policies. What also went unstated is that it doesn’t have to be this way.

So, why are policies in the United States so schizophrenic? Do we want women in the workforce or not? Do we want cheap, mobile labor or experienced, committed, well-paid labor? Do we want to encourage a stable population of future taxpayers and social security contributors? Can we sustain an economy where it is affordable to have only one person be the breadwinner? Should we encourage a thriving system of daycare and preschool or should we advocate a shift to large, extended family networks?

Anne Crittenden, a former New York Times reporter who felt compelled to quit her prestigious job to spend more time at home with her son, is the author of The Price of Motherhood. Crittenden compiles significant economic evidence to support her argument that childrearing and homemaking should be economically valued in our national accounting system. She complements her statistical citations with a little bit of history and plenty of anecdotes to illustrate the realities that are a result of US public policy.

Crittenden points out that unless raising children and taking care of a home is given economic value, the work of caring for children will continue to be taken for granted, undervalued and seen as an individual’s “choice.” She warns the reader to pay attention to the “overwhelming and systemic evidence that mothers can never achieve economic equality in the labor market as things now stand.”

In this country, many people are under the illusion that every person pulls herself up by her own bootstraps, discounting all evidence to the contrary. Our cultural identity is so wrapped up in the ideals of individualism and freedom that people tend to forget that our choices are frequently dictated by government policies. Since women’s representative voice has been historically limited in the halls of Congress and state governments, their choices are usually determined by the unintended consequences of other policies (i.e.: immigration, labor, economic policies).

The author contrasts that with the examples of France and Sweden, where family-friendly social policies have encouraged women to remain in and contribute to the workforce. In Sweden during the 1970s, policies were enacted that offer women generous maternity benefits and the right to work an 80 percent schedule as long as they have a preschool child at home. Additionally, women and men are taxed individually, which means that a wife who earns less than her husband is taxed at a lower rate, enabling the family to keep more of her earnings. According to studies Crittenden cites, the result of these policies is that the proportion of women quitting their jobs after childbirth fell to less than 10 percent, and among university-educated Swedish men and women, the rates of participation in the labor force are now virtually the same. In France, every mother receives free health care and a cash allowance for each child, a year-long paid maternity leave, and public preschool is available for all three-year-olds. Single mothers are also entitled to additional benefits, including housing subsidies. The most telling statistic: the child poverty rate in France is 6 percent compared to 17 percent in the United States.

According to the Children’s Defense Fund, two out of five children in families headed by single women (39.8 percent) were poor in 2000. One weakness of the book is that Crittenden takes it for granted that the needs of poor women are unassailable – thus she uses little space to explain and defend their issues. Instead, she spends quite a bit of time making the case to provide similar benefits, such as long-term paid leave and subsidized childcare, to middle- and upper-income women. Crittenden provides ample evidence to emphasize her point that whether a woman is poor or rich, having children will negatively impact her income and career. And, once women divorce, the situation worsens. Crittenden cites the fact that “five years after divorce, those who do not remarry have still not regained their former living standard. And divorced men average 130 percent of their predivorce living standard five years later – whether they remarry or not.”

Crittenden attacks conservatives for their empty “family values” rhetoric as well as feminists for avoiding the issues of working mothers in order to further women’s equality in other areas. While her broad brush criticism of feminists is unfair – much of the work she cites has been done by feminist economists – it is unfortunate that in the 21st century, many working women opt to quit their jobs altogether rather than continue working after taking a leave to care for their children. That doesn’t mean they are staying home, either. They are often taking lower-wage work, which allows them the flexibility to fulfill their home and family responsibilities.

A 1999 report by a conservative women’s group stated that the wage gap between women and men had closed to 98%. What they didn’t say was that number only counted women between the ages of 27 and 33 who had never had children. But, the more interesting part of that story, the one that wasn’t reported, was that if all working women and men are counted, the average earnings of all female workers remains 59% of men’s earnings, where it has been for much of the past 50 years.

Crittenden’s most radical statements are reserved for the concluding chapter: a list of changes for employers, government, husbands and the community. Outcomes include a better daycare system and more opportunities for women in the workplace.

After reading this book, women should either be outraged enough to change the system, or at least think twice about having children. If it’s the former, Crittenden offers a challenge to women that gaining recognition for mothers’ work is the “great unfinished business of the women’s movement.” It is a huge step for this country, but the time has come for a new paradigm for America’s workforce: one which acknowledges and values all of the people, families and work that is done to care for those families. And, if it’s the latter, then people should be astute enough to realize that it is really our state and federal policies that affect women’s “choice” whether to have children and whether to drop out of the labor force once they do.

Ahndi Fridell is a writer and stay-at-home mom of two gorgeous little boys. She is a big fan of documentary radio and just started her own production company, Elastic Collision Productions. After reviewing Anne Crittenden’s book for this issue of Sexing the Political, she is convinced that women will never achieve meaningful power in this country as long as the raising of children is not given value.

|  site map  |  about STP  |  write for STP  |  contact us  |  links  |  home  |