I stayed at home and raised my children, and then became a single mother. I went back to school the day I put my youngest child on the school bus, but I was still gambling on a future embedded in gender bias, that potent little author of our past and present dilemma. Women’s work is devalued, and the fact that the body of the woman gives birth to the child devalues all future relations that stem from and/or negotiate with that process. The problem goes light years beyond the economics of childcare, and yet, addressing the economics of childcare is essential to the fulfillment of any woman’s promise.

Taking a closer and far more critical look at the way the United States addresses social security is crucial to the investments women are making in their career choices. For all the years I spent married and at home raising my children, I was given absolutely no credit in social security benefits from the government. All of my benefits were, ostensibly, tied to those of my husband. It is for this reason I am wary of across the board negotiations to benefit “families,” when the definition of family can mean one thing today, and completely another thing tomorrow, particularly when the so called ‘bread winner’ decides to move on to greener pastures. The woman, if she elects childcare duties, stands to lose so much more than our present system of accountability is willing to acknowledge. If the abandoned woman never remarries, then she can redeem whatever stake she may have had in her husband’s social security benefits, the widow’s veil, more or less. She stands with nothing on her own, however, and this, in my mind, is a gross reflection of the gender bias that so devastatingly devalues women’s labor, both in the home and in the marketplace.

We must, whether we elect to stay at home, or develop a career, insist that our government place a value commensurate with the service being rendered on childcare. To shortchange in social security benefits, the woman who stays at home, is completely on par with the current pay scale for those we entrust with our children’s lives. Either way, our future is compromised. Women must not only advocate for social security benefits for the woman who elects to stay home and raise her children, but also for equitable pay for those who provide childcare. There is an identifiable reason why women are quickly becoming the largest group of poor in America, and that reason is, as always, gender bias. Addressing that gender bias means that we must first recognize it, and second, identify its workings not only in our own lives and choices, but in the lives and choices of those women who have, and will continue, to enable us to make choices.

And yes, there are lots of factors not considered- American business gets breaks that are unheard of in the rest of the industrialized world—such as fewer vacation days, other leave and disability policies, though, it also bears health care costs that are usually picked up by the state in… the rest of the industrialized world. Of course, one of the items picked up by the state in our industrialized competitors tends to be… child care. On net, we are far nicer to our busines enterprises than are competitors are—and the spirit of our business culture is shifting more towards across the Pacific (think about those nice working conditions in China and Southeast ASia!) than across the Atlantic (that damned Axis of Weasels and their pussy 6 week vacations)…

Though, to be sure, it has been impossible to make a “family neutral” tax policy. In the United States, there is some serious tax benefit to just one parent working—you get a better rate. Indeed, at the margins, its far better for the already working parent to try to get the last marginal dollar, even at a “higher bracket”, than for the other spouse to work, factoring child care costs, and the most “anti-family” tax policy ever conceived by an industrial nation- our “from dollar one and kicks out at 85K” social security tax.

On net, given all this, I would say that, taking a look at women like Jane/Megan, this DOES become a potentially agonizing choice—WHEN IT IS EVEN A CHOICE. The reality is, with costs of everything going to the moon (and thanks to the insidious social security tax, see above), its often not a choice of whether Mommy stays home (or occasinoally Daddy), but, at best, are of which variety of child care to employ.
To even think you have the choice is a luxury—actually having the choice is a bigger luxury (though yes, we will then economically devalue you if you elect to leave the workforce!).

And yet, discouraging bourgeois people from having children (which is what we are doing, as they have done in Europe for decades longer) means that the population on which OUR OWN SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS DEPEND will consist of the children of non-bourgeois people, who tend not to earn as much. Europe has turned to swarthy people from other parts of the world to do the work of keeping their pensions funded; we are slowly going there. I’m sure that means that as time goes on we will treat our American workers even nicer than the direction in which we are going.

Ah, what a wonderful world.

And yes, there are lots of factors not considered- American business gets breaks that are unheard of in the rest of the industrialized world—such as fewer vacation days, other leave and disability policies, though, it also bears health care costs that are usually picked up by the state in… the rest of the industrialized world. Of course, one of the items picked up by the state in our industrialized competitors tends to be… child care. On net, we are far nicer to our busines enterprises than are competitors are—and the spirit of our business culture is shifting more towards across the Pacific (think about those nice working conditions in China and Southeast ASia!) than across the Atlantic (that damned Axis of Weasels and their pussy 6 week vacations)…

Though, to be sure, it has been impossible to make a “family neutral” tax policy. In the United States, there is some serious tax benefit to just one parent working—you get a better rate. Indeed, at the margins, its far better for the already working parent to try to get the last marginal dollar, even at a “higher bracket”, than for the other spouse to work, factoring child care costs, and the most “anti-family” tax policy ever conceived by an industrial nation- our “from dollar one and kicks out at 85K” social security tax.

On net, given all this, I would say that, taking a look at women like Jane/Megan, this DOES become a potentially agonizing choice—WHEN IT IS EVEN A CHOICE. The reality is, with costs of everything going to the moon (and thanks to the insidious social security tax, see above), its often not a choice of whether Mommy stays home (or occasinoally Daddy), but, at best, are of which variety of child care to employ.
To even think you have the choice is a luxury—actually having the choice is a bigger luxury (though yes, we will then economically devalue you if you elect to leave the workforce!).

And yet, discouraging bourgeois people from having children (which is what we are doing, as they have done in Europe for decades longer) means that the population on which OUR OWN SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS DEPEND will consist of the children of non-bourgeois people, who tend not to earn as much. Europe has turned to swarthy people from other parts of the world to do the work of keeping their pensions funded; we are slowly going there. I’m sure that means that as time goes on we will treat our American workers even nicer than the direction in which we are going.

Ah, what a wonderful world.