To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
It's almost poetic that this year's Equal Pay Day--the one day of the year when Americans are supposed to reflect on the value (and undervaluing) of women's work--coincides with the media firestorm surrounding the American stay-at-home-mom.
It's almost poetic that this year's Equal Pay Day--the one day of the year when Americans are supposed to reflect on the value (and undervaluing) of women's work--coincides with the media firestorm surrounding the American stay-at-home-mom. The "controversy" over Ann Romney's decision to stay home rather than work a "regular" job should highlight some of the continuing struggles of women to be valued and respected for their work, in and out of the home.
But the the partisan proxy war waged over the mommy question only underscores the country's lacking vocabulary when it comes to discussing the totality of social and economic barriers facing women. Pay discrimination, domestic violence, attacks on reproductive rights, overlapping oppressions facing women of color--it's misleading to try to lump all these issues together into a blanket term like "woman problem," but there is one persistent theme: society's fear of women controlling their own lives.
"The question we should be asking is not whether domestic caregiving is more or less important than wage work--they're both crucial, and crucially different. The question is which women have the privilege of choice, because too often, decisions of work and home are made for them, without their consent."
The distorted framing of the debate is captured in Romney's contradictory comments about forcing mothers receiving public assistance into the labor force--in order to instill in them the "dignity of work." This myopic binary between women of poverty and women of privilege reflects the evolution of the federal welfare state throughout the 20th century.
Poor women, who evidently lack dignity, must redeem themselves through work, while the apparently inborn dignity of their affluent counterparts allows them to embody feminine virtue by staying within the domestic sphere. And if they volunteer to climb the career ladder, they're vaunted as supermoms.
Part of this mentality stems from a reactionary, often racialized construction of the "deserving" versus the "undeserving" poor. The argument is also steeped in the corrosive cultural assumption that poor women's social value derives from their labor or reproductive capacity, not their humanity, intellect or relationships.
The counterpoint to Ann Romney's domestic sainthood is the right's fictional "welfare queen," the unwed mother who supposedly leeches off the state with abandon and embodies corrupt, uncontrollable fertility.
And that's where the "dignity of work" comes in, to discipline the unruly woman and keep her in her place, safely below the poverty line. Neoliberals like Newt Gingrich have sought to broaden the attack on poor women by advocating for the use of the child welfare as a punitive tool, sweeping kids into state custody to "rescue" them from disadvantaged mothers and their communities. So much for family values.
Zerlina Maxwell remarks on the racial and class inflection of terms like "stay at home mom" at Feministing:
While a certain level of economic success allows for these women to stay at home with their kids instead of also bringing in money to support their families and put food on the table, I would be very hard pressed to find anyone, particularly on the right, praising a woman of color for being a "stay at home" mom. I hear a lot of "welfare queen" language or that our current president is a "food stamp" president but nothing about how wonderful it is that so many women of color are choosing to stay home and raise their kids. More likely women of color who are "stay at home" moms would be viewed as "lazy" or "poor role models" for their children.
But the extremely poor don't have families--not the way the affluent do. The mother of color raising her kids alone, in a dilapidated public housing complex, won't be sharing the spotlight with mommy-in-chief Ann Romney anytime soon.
Poor mothers don't necessarily want public accolades; they're just trying to survive and earn a meaningful living. But society doesn't recognize the incredible dignity they display every day as they brave economic disenfranchisement, living a reality that's probably not intimately familiar either to Ann Romney or Hilary Rosen.
And some of the hardest-working women don't even get proper recognition under the law, much less the political arena. In sectors like domestic work and home-based health care, women, many of them poor women of color, lack basic protections against labor abuses. These include women who actually serve dual roles of wage work and home work: as they struggle to support their own families, they labor for relatively privileged parents, who can pay for services that "liberate" them to pursue out-of-home careers.
The question we should be asking is not whether domestic caregiving is more or less important than wage work--they're both crucial, and crucially different. The question is which women have the privilege of choice, because too often, decisions of work and home are made for them, without their consent. That gender gap in personal autonomy and freedom may be more detrimental to feminist struggles than economic or employment disparities.
The deficit in opportunities for women isn't so much about who's working and where, as it is about who has the power to be heard--in the kitchen, in the office, on the unemployment line or on Capitol Hill.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
It's almost poetic that this year's Equal Pay Day--the one day of the year when Americans are supposed to reflect on the value (and undervaluing) of women's work--coincides with the media firestorm surrounding the American stay-at-home-mom. The "controversy" over Ann Romney's decision to stay home rather than work a "regular" job should highlight some of the continuing struggles of women to be valued and respected for their work, in and out of the home.
But the the partisan proxy war waged over the mommy question only underscores the country's lacking vocabulary when it comes to discussing the totality of social and economic barriers facing women. Pay discrimination, domestic violence, attacks on reproductive rights, overlapping oppressions facing women of color--it's misleading to try to lump all these issues together into a blanket term like "woman problem," but there is one persistent theme: society's fear of women controlling their own lives.
"The question we should be asking is not whether domestic caregiving is more or less important than wage work--they're both crucial, and crucially different. The question is which women have the privilege of choice, because too often, decisions of work and home are made for them, without their consent."
The distorted framing of the debate is captured in Romney's contradictory comments about forcing mothers receiving public assistance into the labor force--in order to instill in them the "dignity of work." This myopic binary between women of poverty and women of privilege reflects the evolution of the federal welfare state throughout the 20th century.
Poor women, who evidently lack dignity, must redeem themselves through work, while the apparently inborn dignity of their affluent counterparts allows them to embody feminine virtue by staying within the domestic sphere. And if they volunteer to climb the career ladder, they're vaunted as supermoms.
Part of this mentality stems from a reactionary, often racialized construction of the "deserving" versus the "undeserving" poor. The argument is also steeped in the corrosive cultural assumption that poor women's social value derives from their labor or reproductive capacity, not their humanity, intellect or relationships.
The counterpoint to Ann Romney's domestic sainthood is the right's fictional "welfare queen," the unwed mother who supposedly leeches off the state with abandon and embodies corrupt, uncontrollable fertility.
And that's where the "dignity of work" comes in, to discipline the unruly woman and keep her in her place, safely below the poverty line. Neoliberals like Newt Gingrich have sought to broaden the attack on poor women by advocating for the use of the child welfare as a punitive tool, sweeping kids into state custody to "rescue" them from disadvantaged mothers and their communities. So much for family values.
Zerlina Maxwell remarks on the racial and class inflection of terms like "stay at home mom" at Feministing:
While a certain level of economic success allows for these women to stay at home with their kids instead of also bringing in money to support their families and put food on the table, I would be very hard pressed to find anyone, particularly on the right, praising a woman of color for being a "stay at home" mom. I hear a lot of "welfare queen" language or that our current president is a "food stamp" president but nothing about how wonderful it is that so many women of color are choosing to stay home and raise their kids. More likely women of color who are "stay at home" moms would be viewed as "lazy" or "poor role models" for their children.
But the extremely poor don't have families--not the way the affluent do. The mother of color raising her kids alone, in a dilapidated public housing complex, won't be sharing the spotlight with mommy-in-chief Ann Romney anytime soon.
Poor mothers don't necessarily want public accolades; they're just trying to survive and earn a meaningful living. But society doesn't recognize the incredible dignity they display every day as they brave economic disenfranchisement, living a reality that's probably not intimately familiar either to Ann Romney or Hilary Rosen.
And some of the hardest-working women don't even get proper recognition under the law, much less the political arena. In sectors like domestic work and home-based health care, women, many of them poor women of color, lack basic protections against labor abuses. These include women who actually serve dual roles of wage work and home work: as they struggle to support their own families, they labor for relatively privileged parents, who can pay for services that "liberate" them to pursue out-of-home careers.
The question we should be asking is not whether domestic caregiving is more or less important than wage work--they're both crucial, and crucially different. The question is which women have the privilege of choice, because too often, decisions of work and home are made for them, without their consent. That gender gap in personal autonomy and freedom may be more detrimental to feminist struggles than economic or employment disparities.
The deficit in opportunities for women isn't so much about who's working and where, as it is about who has the power to be heard--in the kitchen, in the office, on the unemployment line or on Capitol Hill.
It's almost poetic that this year's Equal Pay Day--the one day of the year when Americans are supposed to reflect on the value (and undervaluing) of women's work--coincides with the media firestorm surrounding the American stay-at-home-mom. The "controversy" over Ann Romney's decision to stay home rather than work a "regular" job should highlight some of the continuing struggles of women to be valued and respected for their work, in and out of the home.
But the the partisan proxy war waged over the mommy question only underscores the country's lacking vocabulary when it comes to discussing the totality of social and economic barriers facing women. Pay discrimination, domestic violence, attacks on reproductive rights, overlapping oppressions facing women of color--it's misleading to try to lump all these issues together into a blanket term like "woman problem," but there is one persistent theme: society's fear of women controlling their own lives.
"The question we should be asking is not whether domestic caregiving is more or less important than wage work--they're both crucial, and crucially different. The question is which women have the privilege of choice, because too often, decisions of work and home are made for them, without their consent."
The distorted framing of the debate is captured in Romney's contradictory comments about forcing mothers receiving public assistance into the labor force--in order to instill in them the "dignity of work." This myopic binary between women of poverty and women of privilege reflects the evolution of the federal welfare state throughout the 20th century.
Poor women, who evidently lack dignity, must redeem themselves through work, while the apparently inborn dignity of their affluent counterparts allows them to embody feminine virtue by staying within the domestic sphere. And if they volunteer to climb the career ladder, they're vaunted as supermoms.
Part of this mentality stems from a reactionary, often racialized construction of the "deserving" versus the "undeserving" poor. The argument is also steeped in the corrosive cultural assumption that poor women's social value derives from their labor or reproductive capacity, not their humanity, intellect or relationships.
The counterpoint to Ann Romney's domestic sainthood is the right's fictional "welfare queen," the unwed mother who supposedly leeches off the state with abandon and embodies corrupt, uncontrollable fertility.
And that's where the "dignity of work" comes in, to discipline the unruly woman and keep her in her place, safely below the poverty line. Neoliberals like Newt Gingrich have sought to broaden the attack on poor women by advocating for the use of the child welfare as a punitive tool, sweeping kids into state custody to "rescue" them from disadvantaged mothers and their communities. So much for family values.
Zerlina Maxwell remarks on the racial and class inflection of terms like "stay at home mom" at Feministing:
While a certain level of economic success allows for these women to stay at home with their kids instead of also bringing in money to support their families and put food on the table, I would be very hard pressed to find anyone, particularly on the right, praising a woman of color for being a "stay at home" mom. I hear a lot of "welfare queen" language or that our current president is a "food stamp" president but nothing about how wonderful it is that so many women of color are choosing to stay home and raise their kids. More likely women of color who are "stay at home" moms would be viewed as "lazy" or "poor role models" for their children.
But the extremely poor don't have families--not the way the affluent do. The mother of color raising her kids alone, in a dilapidated public housing complex, won't be sharing the spotlight with mommy-in-chief Ann Romney anytime soon.
Poor mothers don't necessarily want public accolades; they're just trying to survive and earn a meaningful living. But society doesn't recognize the incredible dignity they display every day as they brave economic disenfranchisement, living a reality that's probably not intimately familiar either to Ann Romney or Hilary Rosen.
And some of the hardest-working women don't even get proper recognition under the law, much less the political arena. In sectors like domestic work and home-based health care, women, many of them poor women of color, lack basic protections against labor abuses. These include women who actually serve dual roles of wage work and home work: as they struggle to support their own families, they labor for relatively privileged parents, who can pay for services that "liberate" them to pursue out-of-home careers.
The question we should be asking is not whether domestic caregiving is more or less important than wage work--they're both crucial, and crucially different. The question is which women have the privilege of choice, because too often, decisions of work and home are made for them, without their consent. That gender gap in personal autonomy and freedom may be more detrimental to feminist struggles than economic or employment disparities.
The deficit in opportunities for women isn't so much about who's working and where, as it is about who has the power to be heard--in the kitchen, in the office, on the unemployment line or on Capitol Hill.
