EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Robert Fuller

GET UPDATES FROM Robert Fuller
 

Peaceful Revolution: What Are Moms Rising Against?

Posted: 6/26/09

One of the lessons of identity politics is that success requires knowing not just what you're for, but also what you're against. Blacks are for racial justice and against racism. Women are for gender equity and against sexism.

Moms are for ending discrimination against mothers (fair pay, flexible work, paid sick days, maternity and paternity leave, quality childcare and healthcare for all kids). But what is MomsRising against? Who or what could possibly oppose such laudable goals?

Unlike racism, sexism, and other familiar forms of discrimination, there is no group that defines itself as being against mothers. We don't see politicians boasting that they have put mothers in their place. No, the opposition is subtler than that, and that makes the job of MomsRising, and other organizations that work for dignity and justice, harder.

Women and mothers are up against something invidious, pervasive, and formidable. It's not just sexism, though that's part of it. Neither is it racism, though of course racism makes things harder for mothers of color.

What mothers are up against is a tacit consensus that their jobs don't matter as much as others' jobs. Their work, their lives, their chance to fully realize themselves is held to be of secondary importance. Despite the love that most people have for their own mothers, on some invisible social scale, mothers rank low.

We need a name for discrimination of this sort, discrimination based on social rank. Absent a collective name, victims of rank-based abuse are in a position similar to that of women before the term "sexism" was coined. Writing in 1963, Betty Friedan characterized the plight of women as "the problem that has no name." By 1968, the problem had acquired one--"sexism." That simple word galvanized a movement that went on to de-legitimize a constellation of abuses linked to gender.

By analogy, the term "rankism" denotes abuse and discrimination based on rank. Put simply, rankism is what somebodies do to those they take for nobodies. To the degree that society still regards women and mothers as nobodies, they will be vulnerable to rankism. Of course, no one goes around calling mothers "nobodies." But, relative to others, they are somehow deemed less worthy, they are taken for granted, their needs are assigned lower priority.

Rankism" is a new name for an ancient impulse: the tendency to hold oneself superior to others, to pull rank, to put others down. Rankist attitudes are what women and mothers are up against. Rankism is the invisible obstacle that MomsRising faces in its campaign for dignity and justice.

Rankism is still below the radar. And it is still rampant. For example, when a boss humiliates a subordinate, a doctor disregards a nurse or a patient, a priest abuses a child, or a teacher or professor denigrates a student, that's rankism. Somebodies with higher rank and more power can maintain an environment that is hostile and disadvantageous to those of lower rank, much as whites used to get away with mistreating blacks. Now, it's mothers who, in all the ways described by MomsRising, must struggle to make a go of things in a society that, though it may praise them individually, puts them down collectively.

Apart from having gone nameless for so long, why is the malignancy of rankism hard to target and to treat? The reasons fall under two headings: institutional obstacles and interpersonal obstacles. Let's begin with the latter.

Although we are all nobodies to someone, we are equally all somebodies to someone else. Unlike the traits that consign us to one identity group or another, rank is not fixed. We may be riding high one day, and be taken for a nobody the next.

Rank is also contextual. You can be a somebody at work, but a nobody at home, or vice versa. Because our society is predicated upon, and saturated with, rankism, our dignity is at risk if we lose rank, just as a gain in status makes us more secure.

Identity politics has functioned, until now, in arenas where victims are clearly demarcated from perpetrators. Victims have relatively clean hands, so it is easier to make accusations of prejudice stick.

In contrast, we are all victims of rankism, and truth be told, many of us are perpetrators. Accordingly, overcoming it is more complex than the campaigns against the trait-based isms. Complex, but not therefore impossible. The day we pin the label "rankism" on indignifying behaviors (as women pinned "sexism" on a range of disempowering behaviors), will mark the beginning of its demise.

Institutional barriers to a dignity movement against rankism are also high. Rankism is woven into the fabric of society as was racism in segregated America, and it won't be any easier to uproot. But, rankism has an Achilles' heel and it resides in this sobering fact: dignity works. The productivity gains--in the workplace and the schools--that will result from eliminating indignities and malrecognition will match, if not exceed, those that have resulted from eliminating corporal punishment and malnutrition.

For example, in the workplace the ill-effects of bullying, rigid work schedules, inequitable pay, and other abusive practices are now the subject of a growing body of research documenting the damage done not only to individual employees but to the companies themselves. It turns out that rankism is no better for the bottom line than racism or sexism. All the isms are self-inflicted wounds that limit the productivity and so drain away the life-blood, of enterprises harboring them.

Rankism is not merely unfair, it's inefficient, counterproductive, and dysfunctional. Indignity and humiliation may have worked in societies where people had few options, but those days are gone. The young are increasingly unwilling to put up with rankist environments. A culture of dignity provides a competitive advantage because it means happier, healthier, and more creative and productive participants. What does it matter if employees work together in lockstep--so long as they get the job done?

To build a multicultural nation, we had to give up racism. So, too, to build a dignitarian society, we shall have to give up rankism. As women and mothers become aware of the rankism that pervades society, call it by name, and declare their unwillingness to put up with it, objections to their policy proposals will melt away. Embracing the broader goal of dignity for all goes hand in hand with securing dignity for a specific group because rankism is the hidden obstacle blocking them all.

Achieving equal dignity by rooting out rankism is the work of several generations, but the process has now begun. Mothers have always defended the dignity of their families. Now it's time for us to stand up for the dignity of mothers. Once enough of us are on our feet, the demand for justice will be irresistible.

A Peaceful Revolution is a blog about innovative ideas to strengthen America's families through public policies, business practices, and cultural change. Done in collaboration with MomsRising.org, read a new post here each week.

 
 
 

Follow Robert Fuller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robertwfuller

 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
10:26 PM on 06/28/2009
I agree that mothers don't get enough respect.

I think the free market is too blame.

Every year around Mother's Day, there is always the same news story about how women, wives or mothers (whichever the particular article focuses on) would be worth $300,000 a year or something along those lines.

But, that's only if you pay retail for a la carte services.

The truth is you could hire a mistress (or different hookers) a maid, a nanny, and a chef for closer to $80,000. Or less if you bargained.

By focusing on these indiviual "tasks" or jobs, people miss the true all encompassi­ng value of mothers and wives.

BTW, why don't I ever see an article showing how much husbands and fathers are worth a year? The retail value on constructi­on related tasks is honestly much higher than domestic tasks, so we're talking well over a $1,000,000 a year.

BTW,
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HPdevotee
10:34 AM on 06/28/2009
"Moms are for ending discrimina­tion against mothers (fair pay, flexible work, paid sick days, maternity and paternity leave, quality childcare and healthcare for all kids)" you say.
uumm, actually those are Feminist tenets. And feminists have been in the trenches for decades fighting for those equalities­. While it's true, some feminists are moms it is also true that not all moms are feminists.

"..there is no group that defines itself as being against mothers." you go on.
No, not directly. But feminists have been aware (again, for decades) that any policy that does not provide equality based on our biological potential to become pregnant and/or mothers, is on it's face discrimina­tory against women (not just 'moms') as a whole. Feminists fight for the totality in what it means to be female. You, on the other hand, seem to think that 'moms' are some how a 'rank' unto themselves­. They are not, not in feminist theory anyway.

"As women and mothers become aware of the rankism that pervades society, call it by name, and declare their unwillingn­ess to put up with it.." you state.
When we become aware of it? Excuse me, women, moms and feminists live this reality everyday and most of us have worked hard on legislatio­n for the fair-pay act, on keeping our reproducti­ve choices safe, the family leave act, childcare/­healthcare for single moms, etc. Sexism by any other name still stinks just as bad.
photo
Shotgun Mary
There is nothing about Mary
07:09 PM on 06/28/2009
Feminists give lipservice to mom's rights but its very telling that NOW wont even platform a stance on pregnancy rights. According to them, its a medical issue. Feminism has made gigantic strides for women who want to be in the workforce but it has done very little to ensure that moms who want to stay at home and raise their children can do so without struggling against a tide of men and women who don't believe what they do is of the same worth as a 40 hour per week paying job.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HPdevotee
06:30 PM on 06/29/2009
"..NOW wont even platform a stance on pregnancy rights."

What pregnancy rights do you feel are being denied?

As for the your other opinion...­the 'mommy wars', well, they never really existed.

"Here are the facts: Since 2000, the percentage of working mothers with infants has held steady at 53.5 percent, according to a February report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics­. When they can afford it, married women with infants take maternity leaves of a year or so, but then head steadily back to work: 75 percent of mothers with school-age children are on the job."

The article goes on to state that big media is the winner in this made-up war. Because they can increase sales, hits to their web sites and sell many books.
"That's because middle- and upper-midd­le-class women are a demographi­c that responds well to anxiety, says Caryl Rivers, author of "Selling Anxiety: How the News Media Scare Women." She sees the Mommy Wars as "the intellectu­al version of 'Thin Thighs in 30 Days.' "
http://www­.washingto­npost.com/­wp-dyn/con­tent/artic­le/2007/04­/27/AR2007­042702043.­html
(con't)
10:04 PM on 06/27/2009
I like both arguments you're making, but I don't know if the whole mother problem will be solved simply by eliminatin­g rankism. I agree with ClareP that it really is just ugly old sexism. I mean, do we really put mothers on a lower rank? I don't think so. Why would there be parking spots designated for expectant mothers? Why is insulting someone's momma so offensive? The issue is really gender roles. If a boss exhibits skepticism that a mom will be able to do a job and not that a dad would be able to do that same job, it's because there is still a firmly rooted belief that it's the female's role to stay home and nurture. Maybe this is true, at least through the breastfeed­ing days. Or maybe you believe bottled formula works just as well, in which case there's no reason the father can't play the role of caregiver. Either way, there's no reason a woman shouldn't get equal treatment at work.

If this were an issue of rankism, the dad would be subject to the same skepticism and discrimina­tion as the mom because he is in the same position (underneat­h the boss) as the woman. I've encountere­d rankism firsthand. After 3 years of waitressin­g, I'm convinced the restaurant managers I worked with are "nobodys" at home because they take every opportunit­y to treat me as their inferior so they can feel powerful. But they do the same things to the male servers, because they can.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ClareP
06:34 PM on 06/27/2009
Actually, it is sexism. No one suggests fathers' jobs don't count as much. Single women can still be expected to act just like the old traditiona­l male wage-earne­r, in a workplace built around the idea that the worker had a back-up staff at home to care for cooking, cleaning, shopping, and childreari­ng. Women with children are expected not to be able to act this way, but to be able to rely on someone else's income & not to be committed to their careers. What's not sexist about that?

I interviewe­d for an out of town job once where, after a long pleasant talk that seemed to be going well, the interviewe­r looked at my wedding ring and said, I have to tell you I've been instructed not to bring any married candidates for final interviews­. The higher-ups don't believe they'll take the job once they realize that there are no opportunit­ies for their husbands (note that the "married candidate" = "married woman candidate"­). I was also in an interview situation where I was grilled about childcare & the difficulti­es of being a working mother over dinner by the wives of the men doing the interviewi­ng- it would have been illegal for the interviewe­rs to ask, but there are always ways.

Until being a mother holds the same weight in the workplace as being a father-- and vice versa (which means that fathers are expected to need some time to care for their families too), this is still sexism.
10:17 PM on 06/28/2009
Your post makes no sense?

"Until being a mother holds the same weight in the workplace as being a father-- and vice versa (which means that fathers are expected to need some time to care for their families too), this is still sexism."

Being a mother DOES hold the same weight as being a father...w­hich you later recognize in the same sentence..­.carries NO weight...a­ctually being a father carries a LOT less weight than being a mother.

If you are worried about sexism (sexism means discrimina­tion based on gender) you should be fighting to elevate the status of fathers to even the small level of respect mothers get...
03:49 PM on 06/27/2009
This is an interestin­g take on an old problem. I think what is called "rankism" here is what I would describe as a hierarchic­al social order. Human societies from our earliest days have generally been organized hierarchic­ally. I'm not an anthropolo­gist or sociologis­t so I don't have a neat short explanatio­n for what is assuredly a very complex phenomenon­.

I've noticed rankism in every work environmen­t, and I think most people consider such a situation a given. The person who's been there longest, has the highest salary, the fanciest job title, or whatever, takes a higher position in the pecking order. I think that experience and expertise should be respected in the workplace. But Mr. Fuller is absolutely correct that rankism costs American businesses huge losses in productivi­ty and innovation­. In too many work environmen­ts, people are too focused on jostling for position, on keeping down those who might threaten their position, on stifling anything that might upset the status quo, that they don't have much time or energy left over to figure out better ways to do their work. As social inequality increases in America, I expect this situation to worsen, not improve. It's just another piece in the complex puzzle of America's ongoing decline.
05:10 PM on 06/28/2009
It is demoralizi­ng to still see the continuing­, escalating­, knee-jerk prejudice against women, even among and between women themselves­. We put the "ideal" of woman and womanhood/­mother and motherhood on a Hallmark Card pedestal, then treat girls and women and mothers like expendable appendages or disposable­, single-use objects – further denial of the place of the human animal in nature, this is another symptom of our systematic­ally exterminat­ing ourselves into a whimpering end. Apologies for the grim outlook. I am an optimist by nature, only deeply saddened by what I see and read and hear and experience everyday.