There is no question that Hilary Rosen should have chosen her words more carefully when she said that Ann Romney, mother of five sons, "never worked a day in her life." Raising children is work. It's immensely rewarding work, but it's work just the same. Ann Romney is justifiably proud of the work she's done raising her children.
Now that the spotlight is on motherhood, rather than fanning the false flames of a "Mommy War" that doesn't really exist, it's time that we as a nation recognize that regardless of whether or not mothers' work is paid or unpaid, the work of caregiving is important to us all and should be valued.
That's right: Mothers' work should be valued.
But too often it's not.
We see this devaluation happen over and over again. From Rush Limbaugh falsely attributing gender pay gaps to maternity leave, to sensationalized headlines about a mother of five being dismissed as having "never worked a day in her life," to the all too common experience of wage and hiring discrimination against mothers, the devaluation of mothers is at a crisis point in our nation.
Take, for example, the wage cuts that women endure simply for becoming moms: Women without children make 90 cents to a man's dollar, mothers make 73 cents to a man's dollar, and single moms make only about 60 cents to a man's dollar. Women of color experience increased wage cuts. Further, a recent study found that with equal resumes and job experiences, mothers were offered $11,000 lower starting salaries than non-mothers (Fathers, on the other hand, were offered $6,000 more in starting salaries than non-fathers).
Since over 80 percentof women in our nation have children by the time they're 44 years-old, this means the majority of women in our nation are disadvantaged by discrimination at some point in their lives.
Every day, moms around the world are doing the hard work of raising children. This unpaid work involves making sure that children get the nutrition, care, education, and health care they need to grow up to be healthy, thriving adults who are part of our nation's economic success. In fact, an enormous amount of untracked, unpaid labor done by women is fueling our economy. According to a U.N. Human Development Report, "If these unpaid activities were treated as market transactions at the prevailing wages, they would yield huge monetary valuations -- a staggering $16 trillion... Of this $16 trillion, $11 trillion is the non-monetized, 'invisible' contribution of women." The work of moms -- both of moms who are in the labor force and those who are not -- is significant.
It's an understatement to say that this unpaid work is much easier to do when families are economically secure.
That's why it's so important that when the mom rhetoric starts flying, and everyone starts grandstanding about how much they value moms, we also talk about how important it is to advance public policies that allow all families to thrive.
Ann Romney had the financial resources she needed to be able to decide to stay home to raise her children while remaining fiscally solvent. This isn't always possible. In fact, families with a stay-at-home parent are seven times more likely to live in poverty, and millions of moms don't have the option to choose to stay at home because their wages are needed to put food on the table and a roof over the heads of their families. And with the cost of raising a child to age 18 (not including college) these days at over $200,000 per child, mothers' wages are increasingly needed to make ends meet.
Not surprisingly, at a time when the cost of raising children is so high, three-quarters of moms are in the labor force. And many moms go in and out of the labor force at different times in their lives, sequencing their careers, thus making the distinction between moms who are in the labor force, and moms who are outside of the labor force nearly irrelevant. Many moms have been both. The "Mommy Wars" of old no longer describe the reality that most families are living today.
Ultimately, whether mothers' work is paid or unpaid, all moms are concerned about their families' well-being and economic security. That's why we need strong policies that reflect the real composition of our nation's modern labor force, and that reduce discrimination against mothers and women. With women comprising 50 percent of the modern labor force for the first time in history, with a majority of moms now in the labor force, and with many families requiring the wages of moms to stay solvent, it's critical that family economic security policies that most other nations take as a given now move forward quickly:
It's not a "Mommy War" between paid and unpaid moms; it's a War on Moms.
It shouldn't be this way.
Mothers and families should be able to work hard and get what they need -- a good job, food on the table, good health care, and a safe place to call home.
To be frank, children are not only our hearts, they are the economic engine of our nation's future. And when we devalue the paid and unpaid work of moms, we devalue our future.
Let's take this moment when the eyes of our nation are focused on moms to recognize the value of all moms' paid and unpaid work, and to urge our elected leaders to support policies that allow both our families and our economy to thrive.
Let's end the War on Moms and stop adding fuel to fire the fake and divisive "Mommy Wars" between moms who are in the labor force and moms who are not; and instead come together to stop the discrimination against all moms, both paid and unpaid.
After all, the success of our families and our economy are intertwined.
It's past time for the war on moms to stop, for the war on families to stop, and for the war on women to stop. It's time to move forward together. For the good of our children, our economy and our future.
Follow Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rowefinkbeiner
Rep. Jackie Speier: unEqual Pay Day
Kathleen Reardon: "Stay-at-Home Mom" Is a Political Misnomer
Rossen was right.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: you know what's harder than being a mother? Being a WORKING mother!
I was raised by a woman who worked three jobs while raising a kid. How about some appreciation for WORKING mothers instead of lavishing it on lazy rich ladies like Romney who could afford to pay a team of nannies to raise her kids?
Keep taking my money, and I'll simply get on some government aid of any kind, and ride it to the system collapses. There is no point to me working two jobs if programs like this are instituted that discriminate against people that don't have kids. Might as well live off your hardwork to the system crashes. In fact, keep working. I'll be depending on your money in the future. (I'll rally enough people to simply vote myself you're money, senior citizen style.)
Oh and what about stay at home dads? In my crappy town, thats about half of the population that has children. Sexism is supposed to be wrong, or at least thats what you keep drumming into us in the classroom.
Rosen and her ilk are clueless about these real issues, since they love by exploiting the tax serfs.
And they are liars. Jay Carney is Rosen's neighbor, but claimed he did not know her.
It takes less than 10 minutes to walk from Rosen's house to Carney's
youtube.com/watch?v=_91oFlIxfl4&sns=em
Son sad for you that your impoverished upbringing gave you such a poor early education that you spout off without doing any research
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15romney.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Where do these valuations come from anyway? For that part in which the stay-at-home parent is applying a bandaid, are they considered to be doing medical work and paid accordingly for that time? (Although, without a degree, I don't know any doctor who legally is paid anything.) Mind you, when a doctor's fee is calculated, there is the understanding the doctor will pick up his overhead costs. Is that calculated in these seemingly inflated "values" for stay-at-homes? I'm not saying that stay-at-homes do not have tremendous value. I'm wondering at the seemingly ridiculous numbers that get bandied about and accepted without thought.
Mind you, thought is often the enemy of many movements.
ROFL!
People also seem to forget that society wouldn't be warehousing so many criminals if pregnant women received the proper nutrition and were educated with their partners about good parenting. Healthy and emotionally balanced children who feel loved grow up to be productive citizens.
Doesn't it make more sense to pay in the beginning to support parents and children so that you aren't paying later for court cases, prisons, and catastrophic health care?
He's using her for cover, and Hillary Rosen called them out!
Are you just quoting Maddow, now?
Seriously, how do Republican proposals undercut women? By fostering the economy as a whole, everyone benefits.
Sorry that there isn't a separate economic agenda with government handouts for GLBT, hispanics, blacks, women, and other groups. Society as a whole benefits when everyone works from the same pie, not by separating it into racial or tribal groups for electoral gain.
Get with the f&$king program
Oh, I forgot. Romney wants to cut taxes for the rich!
Teachers receive an "average" of $30,000 after 30 years and most cannot retire until their age and experience equal 80. That means many receive less than $30,000...
Poverty is considered to be $40,000 currently...glad you think our children's teachers should live below the poverty level after decades of dedication...yet, congress has made their retirement full after only 5 years. I don't know any teachers making $174,000 per year...
Here is a quote simplifying the law in the 14 states...
That same government pension will offset, and usually eliminate, any Social Security benefits employees may be due on a spouse's Social Security record. The law requiring this reduction is the government pension offset.
Totally unfair and needs to be repealed...one source stated that the govt decided that if a govt employee makes $30,000/year they do not need their spousal ss...yet there is no "means testing" is two adminstrators make over $100,000 per year from their govt pension, etc.
The whole point of this is that we need as a nation to be respecting the women/moms of this nation instead of tearing each other down. We need to be supporting one another and building each other up. When we tear each other down, we divide ourselves and the politicians know it....and then nothing changes for us. Child care doesn't improve, schools don't improve, leave time for working moms doesn't improve and so on.
And while, as a child of that I cannot exactly say I know how it feels (I don't, and I won't cheapen it by saying I can 'relate') I have to look at how my mom went through those stages, how she had to adapt, how she had to continually augment her existence to deal with being 1. broke and 2. constantly depressed.
I think that the point of the Rosen/Romney issue is that I really doubt that a stay at home mom (with 3 homes) with a monstrous bank account has to deal with things. Does she have to change diapers? probably. Does she have to take them to school? hopefully. Does she have to feed them? without a doubt.
But does she have to worry about paying for their public school lunch program? No. Does she have to worry about if there's going to be food to eat until payday? No. Does she have to worry about if that car she's had for the last 10 years is going to make it one more day to the school? Did she have to worry about the saddest part...even paying for those diapers? Getting a college fund going, and desperately trying not to take anything from it when that cast needs to get put on in fourth grade? Keeping the electricity on? Keeping the roof above their heads?
Ever notice that when some Republicans somewhere are going to pass a law that nobody is going to like, they word twist and use something so simple to fix to blow up to cover their bill passing . While all of this was going on, Gov. Brewer passed several laws, she vetoed the Ledbetter law in Arizona, and passed laws on abortion and contraception. And nobody noticed because everybody was watching Ann romney and all that confusion. they've done this before. they take something so innocuous and make a big deal, and while the media is watching this, some Repub somewhere passes bills that nobody wants. Walker in wisconsin is a master at this. He learned that you pass these bills when nobody's looking instead of in front of a big demonstration.
Walker is a hero as he confronted head on Wisconsin's massive debt incurred by democrats with the help of massively gluttonous unions.
And Barrack or Michelle does?
One could make an argument that, based on Obama's presidential track record, HE'S the one that should know economics and apparently this 3.5 years of campaigning (which dems refer to as Obam's Presidency) has been a miserable failure.
I really could care less what Ann Romeny or Rosen have to say. Let's talk about something substancial like what we can do to reverse Obama's economic failures!