Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, June 7, 1993 TAG: 9306070133
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LEISA K. CIAFFONE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
In his perfect world, women should leave the work force and stay home to have as many children as possible, his suggested number being 10. Barrett blames high unemployment and low wages on the fact that so many women are working. He states that a female exodus from the work force will result in a lower unemployment rate and higher wages as "even semi-qualified men would take the vacated jobs at a higher rate of pay, because employers have to raise wages to attract the best people to fill those positions." This will not be a hardship on American families because husbands and fathers would then earn enough to keep their families "afloat," and expenses would be reduced when mothers and wives would not need day care and second cars.
I found little in Barrett's letter that was supportable in fact, but must give him credit for admitting this in the first line. Statistics aside, his thesis must be damned, just as he damns Joan Beck's May 9 commentary entitled "Mothers must work, so society must adapt."
Barrett's thesis ignores the fact that women, as competent adults, have the right to make choices about their lives, including whether they will have a career or a husband, and how they will raise any children they choose to have. Although many women work because they have to, it is also true that many work because they want to - because they have chosen careers and have supportive employers and families. Barrett ignores the fact that many working mothers are happy with their choice to work. Many begin jobs each morning knowing their children are happy with the family's chosen care-giver and with the father's significant role in their upbringing.
Another major flaw with his thesis is that some men cannot be trusted to keep their end of the deal. How many instances can each of us cite involving a woman who stayed at home to raise her children because she chose to, or because her husband demanded it, only to have the marriage fall apart after the children were reared? No matter whose fault the divorce was, the effect on the woman was the same. She found herself entering middle age with no marketable skills and no financial security. The husband and father who earned enough money to keep this family afloat suddenly became unwilling to keep his ex-wife afloat.
His model also ignores the countless women who raise their children alone. The men who fathered these children, in or out of wedlock, frequently assume none, much less all, of the financial cost of keeping the children and their mother afloat so that the mother can remain at home. Similarly, there is no place in Barrett's model for women who do not marry and/or have children, either by choice or fate. I hope that he will not begrudge them a job, since they may not have husbands to support them or children with whom to stay home.
Barrett's model also ignores the reality that some of society's jobs pay lower than others and there will always be a need for unskilled, low-paying labor. The unskilled laborer's salary will not support his wife so that she can stay home with their 10 children. Although Barrett expects five of them to be boys who will multiply the mother's income potential by a factor of five (I have yet to figure out how that will work), what will this family do while these five boys are still in school? Perhaps they should drop out of school early and give the Department of Labor inspectors more work to do in enforcing our child-labor laws.
Barrett assumes that women who work do so at a financial disadvantage, after paying for day care, a second car, clothes, etc. This is not so for me or other women with whom I work. To assume that we all endure a low post-expense income is an insult to all of us who are quite capable of calculating what we have left over at the end of the month.
Finally, he assumes that mothers who work value their children less than "the dollar" and that children suffer when their mothers work. I suggest that more mothers suffer, often denying their personal needs in an effort to see that their children do not suffer. This is precisely Ms. Beck's point - that women, essential members of the work force, are due more support from corporate America. I also suggest that, if these children suffer, we should consider whether an equal number of fathers, perhaps even those who are now unemployed, should return home to "care for the next generation of citizens."
As I raise my children, I will continue to assume that men and women should share parenting equally, caring for the physical, emotional and financial needs of their children as a team. I will teach my daughter the same lesson that I will teach my son - acquire skills that you will need to be self-sufficient, in the kitchen and the work place, so that you will never have to rely upon anyone but yourself.
Leisa K. Ciaffone of Roanoke is an attorney with a local law firm.
by CNB