A Mother's Work

Needless to say, you should check out the entirety of the Atlantic's July/August issue, now online. Since it probably won't get the attention afforded Nick Carr's Google piece, or Hanna Rosin's "American Murder Mystery", let me particularly recommend Sandra Tsing Loh's review essay on women and work, which tackles books by my least favorite feminist (take a bow, Linda Hirshman) and one of my favorite sociologists, Berkeley's Neil Gilbert. Reihan and I draw on some of his work in Grand New Party, but we finished our book before his book appeared - and frankly, that might be for the best, since our gloss on Gilbert is about one-tenth as entertaining as Tsing Loh's.

But don't take it from me: read the whole thing. (I'm happy to report that it even includes a foray into the Sweden wars.)

Comments

Highly fair foray too, mentioning Sweden's government 'as more than half' without giving a percentage (index of economic freedom puts it at 56.6), let alone comparing that percentage to US (36.6).

Much better to leave both unquoted so people think Sweden is higher than 56 and US is lower than 36. And don't mention things like public debt in relation to GDP.

It's certainly up the standards of the current Atlantic staff.

Posted by James | June 13, 2008 9:28 AM

Funny how when American housewives work outside the home that's just a social norm not economic necessity, but when Swedish housewives work that's economic necessity caused by taxing the husband's income.

Oh, and now it's a goal of state policy to prevent young people from having to empty the bed pans of the elderly. Not sure how eliminating feminism or socialism will mean the elderly will stop urinating, but hey, good luck with that.

Posted by Consumatopia | June 13, 2008 10:34 AM

Based on Tsing Loh, Hirshman and Gilbert seem to be talking past each other.

Hirshman: Society loses when a woman with a graduate degree stays home with her kids.

Gilbert: Women without graduate degrees lose when they work, as do their kids.

Suppose we agree with Gilbert that staying home with the kids sure beats working as a cashier, secretary, public librarian, social worker, et cetera, and that it's better for the kids as well. That doesn't resolve the question of whether women with the potential to make a lot of money or to form public policy short-change themselves and society when THEY stay home.

I firmly believe that working and staying home are equally but differently miserable. Every woman should have the right to choose the one that seems least miserable to her.

Posted by Joe Magarac | June 13, 2008 12:54 PM

Tsing Loh is not the only woman who is working at home while watching her kids. That is a path many mothers choose, and I imagine others would like to choose. (Speaking as one of those mothers -- doing dissertation research during naptime, I should note that it is an incredibly difficult balance.)

There are two issues that have been ignored, though.

First, I cannot understand why fathers are always assumed to be the ones with the full-time jobs. Some fathers might be well-served with a work-at-home or part-time job as well, so that they can enjoy some time with their children. (In fact, I know families where parents juggle their work schedules - at home or at an office - so that they can avoid daycare.) While mothers have a biological advantage when children are younger, there is no reason to exclude fathers from the joys (and challenges) of day-to-day parenting.

Second, all of this part-time work or at-home work would be facilitated by universal health care. Frequently, one family member must work at a full-time job outside the home not just for money but for the benefits. This limits the flexibility of families that would rather raise their own children, but also want to earn money (and have the other benefits of working).

I don't think conservatives have all the answers on helping parents raise the best possible kids.

Posted by Rebecca Sela | June 13, 2008 2:00 PM

The key to understanding Sweden is that, besides a severely progressive tax code, married couples can't file jointly. So, a couple will pay much less in tax if both husband and wife make $40,000 than if the husband makes $80,000 and the wife stays home and watches the kids.

Thus, you get the silly situations in Sweden that Loh describes, where a mom drops her kids off at the taxpayer financed daycare center and then drives to a different taxpayer financed daycare center to watch other people's kids.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 13, 2008 7:13 PM

Your hatred of Linda Hirshman-- who pushes so articulately for gender equality in areas far beyond the reproductive area-- sheds light on the real reason for your opposition to abortion.

In the end, it almost always is about controlling women, not saving alleged "babies".

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 13, 2008 7:43 PM

I can't let this go before i finally get packing:

"In short, as Gilbert points out, because of the 40 percent tax rate on her husband’s job, a new mother may be forced to take that second, highly taxed job to supplement the family’s finances; in other words, she leaves her toddlers behind from eight to five (in that convenient universal day care) so she can go take care of other people’s toddlers or empty the bedpans of elderly strangers."

I haven't read the original work by Gilbert. But given the apparently ubiquity of the situation, it's curious that there is no data in the essay about the actual numbers of these care roles in relation to USA (do Swedish children and elderly require a multiple of the staff American children do?) and secondly,

They are all staffed by women with young children? Many nursing homes I've seen have a lot of young women without children, a lot of older women who's children are in their teens, and not so many between. That's completely and deliberately anecodotal on my part, but

there's not even any anecodotal evidence in the essay - it's widespread, but not a single example of an actual person. I'm not saying they are as rare as welfare duchesses, to use Ross's delightful phrase just before he mentioned how racially balanced he is - but if its so common, why neither real data nor actual people?

Perhaps actually visit a few retirement homes and day care centres? Why bother.

Income apart, is there more dignity in working in an office than caring for other human beings? It's making a point that has no point. Mothers have to work to make ends meet. That applies to US, I believe.

Why is the data only between 1970 and 1990? I would guess most new mothers in 1990 no longer have very young children.

just really sloppy, ignoring the facts when they clash, highlighting them when they match. I can see why you were so keen Ross.

Posted by James | June 13, 2008 8:57 PM

The key to understanding Sweden is that, besides a severely progressive tax code, married couples can't file jointly. So, a couple will pay much less in tax if both husband and wife make $40,000 than if the husband makes $80,000 and the wife stays home and watches the kids.

If there is some kind of trade off between $80K/$0K and $40K/$40K, then that suggests the husband isn't working as many hours. He should be able to spend that time off watching the kids.

Again, there's no valid explanation for why social norms are blamed for Americans using daycare, but financial necessity is blamed for it in Sweden.

(And of course if we're talking about financial necessity you should probably be using smaller numbers than 40K and 80K, even pre-tax.)

Posted by Consumatopia | June 14, 2008 10:09 AM

Sandra Tsing Loh is the best thing about the Atlantic.

Posted by KCN | June 15, 2008 10:07 PM

KCN,

that's damning with faint praise.

Posted by Douthat the Hack | June 16, 2008 12:08 PM