Over the next several months I will be blogging about my experiences with Family Forward Oregon's "The Economics of Motherhood" discussion/action group. Who am I? A regular mom who tries to find a few minutes of time between work and childcare to create positive change.
I’m reading “The Economist” this week, recommended by someone in our focus group. The January 2nd edition is about Womenomics, how this year American women will make up the majority of our country’s workforce. Like Rosie the Riveter, we can...and did...do it! We have come a long way, baby. But it ain’t all perfect yet...for example, we've been encouraged to climb the occupational ladder, "only to discover that the middle rungs are dominated by men and the upper rungs are out of reach." And we may no longer be tied to the kitchen and economic reliance on a husband, but the economy we’ve created does not reflect the spectrum of abilities and biologies that people possess.
Of course, this can get a bit dangerous when gender stereotypes come into play... “women are better lateral thinkers than men” or they’re “less competitive and more collaborative”...but, regardless of gender, gathering the full spectrum of human strengths and applying them to business models... it’s a great approach to strengthening the American business. In the industrial era, perhaps we needed a linear one-size-fits-all purpose to become the biggest economy on earth.
But today, we’re in a world that is more like an intricate web. We don’t need to build skyscrapers to the stars, we need to step back and look at the overall picture. We need to look at the babies, the future, the society in order to keep our country great. We need to consider what science has taught us, and consider the needs of our all our citizens, from cradle to grave. And then apply that to the business model.
As much as I wish that women received equal pay, had access to affordable, quality childcare and were equally represented in all tiers of business, I still love that being a stay at home mom is an option. I don’t necessarily want women delivering babies then returning to the workforce after a few weeks or even a year or two. There is a beauty to staying home and raising your children.
But sadly, most of that beauty is a myth because of our societal design. Lack of town squares, geographies designed around the automobile, lack of inter-generational support....reasons like these make the stay at home life unnecessarily isolating and frustrating. There’s got to be a way, for ourselves and for the future of our children, to balance society so the sanctity of motherhood is promoted without sacrificing women’s valuable place in the economy.
Our readings for this month for Family Forward included “The Choice Myth,” a New York Times article by Judith Warner. In it she quoted Brandeis University’s E.J. Graff: “If women are happily staying home with their babies, that’s a private decision. But.. [i]t’s a public policy issue if schools, jobs and other American institutions make in frustratingly difficult, and sometimes impossible, for parents to manage both their jobs and responsibilities.”
Which brings me to The Economist's mentioning of a Unicef 2007 report stating that America has some of the lowest scores for “well-being.” Interesting. And what I’ll be looking at for the next blog entry!Want to check out my previous entries? Click below!
Family Forward Oregon's Economics of Motherhood Action Groups build on an understanding of the underlying political and economic issues, and generate commitment to action. The groups will explore topics like work, taxes, and child care. The format will combine short readings with an emphasis on ways parents can take action and make a difference.
Comments