Talking With...
The Price Of Motherhood

by Debra Levy

Outspoken author Ann Crittenden on the high price we all pay when motherhood is undervalued.

As part of our on-going series exploring different voices in women's advocacy, this issue of the Forum looks at what author Ann Crittenden explores to be the high economic price of motherhood. A former New York Times reporter, Crittenden talked with Senior Advocacy Manager Debra Levy about the disparity she sees between the value of the work we do as at-home mothers and the reward we receive for carrying out this most important of jobs.

This disparity is the subject of Crittenden's latest book, The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World Is Still the Least Valued. The book, which has been highly profiled in the media, draws upon Crittenden's own experiences as a mother as well as interviews with hundreds of women from around the country, and the latest research in economics, sociology and child development with respect to motherhood. In it, Crittenden argues that while the concept of motherhood may be sacred in our society, those who actually "mother" are continually uncompensated, undervalued, and may be at the single biggest risk for poverty in old age. She calls changing the status of mothers by gaining recognition of their work the "great unfinished business of the women's movement."

Q What is meant by "the price of motherhood?"

A For the average college-educated woman who leaves the workforce to care for a child, that probably amounts to about a million dollars in lifetime earnings she left behind. Yet American mothers are not only not paid for all the work they do, but are also penalized for it-in terms of lost income if they stay at home, an inflexible job market that makes part-time work scarce or inadequately paid, and in the case of divorce, they're refused family assets by divorce laws that don't count their unpaid work. Unpaid female labor-raising the citizens of tomorrow-is the priceless, invisible heart of the economy. Those in this "unpaid labor force" deserve the same rights and respect as other workers.

Q Who pays the biggest price when motherhood is consistently undervalued?

A Our children. Our society marginalizes our children by marginalizing their mothers, and the children pay the price in terms of economic risk. Children's advocates know that when you reduce resources for women, you reduce the available resources for children. Investments in women-providing resources to women-increases the well-being of children. We do not invest in our [society's] future when we do not invest in our children.

Q Who should be concerned with the price of motherhood? Just at-home mothers?

A I think everyone should be. Mothers, of course, should be concerned for the sake of their children. Those who have had children and are sidelining their careers assume a lot of economic risk in order to raise their children. They pay a big price. But really all mothers are affected-both working and non-working-across all societal groups.

This price can be so big that even motherhood itself becomes a huge risk. Some women are finding the price [of motherhood] so extraordinarily high they are not having children at all; these are educated, talented women, and one fourth are remaining childless-a much higher rate than in other countries. This fact is discouraging.

The truth is, the price of motherhood affects everyone. Our children, for better or worse, become the future capital of our country.

Q Motherhood is seen as above day-to-day commerce of the working world. It has been said that no monetary worth can-or should-be placed on motherhood. How do we reconcile these conflicting images so that the price of motherhood is a fair price?

A There is a price of motherhood now. We live in the most material society, and we already give motherhood a big value of zero. You can't escape that. If the current value we place on motherhood is nothing, then what we are not valuing is caring. I say let's value caring along with money, and enable mothers to have resources so they can do more caregiving. We discourage parents from caregiving. The costs for part-time work are incredibly high. On top of that, we also make it hard for men to spend time with their families.

We are doing children no favors by clinging to the idea that caregiving has no material value and no material worth. When women divorce, no value is placed on their caring labor- is that doing children any favors? Caring labor needs to be recognized in marriage because the strongest example of the way we devalue caregiving is what happens in divorce; we are producing child poverty.

Q You write, "although unpaid caregiving is the ultimate social safety net, caregivers themselves are expected to perform without a net." What would a safety net for caregivers look like?

A First of all, the government would define caregiving as work, and would cover mothers who care for children with basic social programs. I'm not talking about a welfare state, but a caring state where mothers would be able to get social security credits; nannies do. Other programs would include unemployment insurance to cover leaves from work- some states like Georgia and Massachusetts are looking into that now; and Workman's Compensation for mothers who do work inside their homes-so if you are injured on the job, you have coverage.

Q What about the cries to lower the tax burden on Americans? Isn't that what Americans really want?

A Well, the lowest taxes in the world are in places like Mexico and Bangladesh, where the day-to-day struggles are immense. We need to think in terms of our taxes as paying for national investments and our children are investments, or human capital. We've had a history in this country of life before a social safety net. It did not work well and many people suffered.

Q What would change if we did view children as "public goods;" as an investment for the good of all?

A Thinking in these terms requires a change in consciousness. That's our biggest challenge. What we need to realize is that in this high-tech economy, children are more important than any natural resource-oil, land, financial capital. Human capital, well-raised, well-trained and more prosperous-that would make a significant contribution to our national well-being. Right now, we spend billions of dollars on bad outcomes. By properly caring for our young, we'd save a great deal. If we make a public investment in caring, we might eliminate the high percentage of the poor outcomes that occur when we raise generations of children badly.

Q How can we expect United States companies to be profitable and family-friendly? How can we ask our businesses to assure fairness in part-time work and include alternative work structures and benefits? There's been so much backlash against flexible work arrangements for parents lately.

A It's a tough question. I think what we have to do is widen the talk beyond the role of business; it is hard for business when there is no government policy to level the playing field for all businesses, and small businesses may never be able to offer as much flexibility as larger companies. So we should begin looking at policies like family leave, tax issues, social security and unemployment insurance. We can look at initiatives that are financed by personal, business and government contributions, but we have to raise other places where we can make headway, not just in the business world.

Q You highlight extensive research in your book that links the prosperity of women to the betterment of children. What is the link between mothering and the greater social prosperity and advancement of children?

A Studies across various countries and cultures are finding links between the success of women and the betterment of children. The historic trend is that the freedom of women in the last century and the increase in women's capabilities, health and education has created options in life for their children.

Over 30 years of research supports this conclusion. In every country, continent and culture, resources in the hands of mothers increased the welfare of children. Men may be more likely to spend money on themselves- whether it is cultural or biological-for whatever reasons.

Q Sweden and France are always held up as the pinnacle of public, family-centered policies. Isn't there a commensurate high tax and decrease in standard of living associated with these policies?

A These countries-and the Dutch too-saw that more women were not in the labor force after having children, and that there was an increase in unemployment. They really wanted to change unemployment, and so they created flexible work and proportionality for part-time work in the 1990s. In some of these countries, 1/3 of jobs are part time and more women are working. Unemployment has been cut in half. There's more job flexibility. This has not destroyed Dutch capitalism, and to say otherwise is an effort to brainwash. If everyone had entitlements to flexible arrangements and family benefits, men would step forward-the field would be fair. We're enforcing the past.

Q Don't such policies make families, and women, dependent on government?

A Well, in this case, the interests of the public are being served by any such dependence. Women are dependent in marriage, whether it is a good marriage or a bad marriage. The focus of these policies is the public good, the well being of children within a society, and a mother's ability to remain in the workforce or be at home with her children, regardless of marital status.

Q Are you saying that a social safety net for mothers can actually prevent welfare?

A There seems to be a tie to incentives to work and help with childcare, and the prevention of additions to the welfare rolls. Sweden's system gives women an incentive to work before having children so they will have an established work history. In our country, mothers who return to work after being on welfare need childcare.

Q In spite of all this, isn't motherhood really a private calling?

A We have an ideology that says this is a private realm. We also know that parenthood is a public service because we pay for the mistakes of poor parenting down the line in school shootings and [overcrowded] prisons. We know good parenting is vitally important. A good result, a good future rests on good children. We have to integrate the concept of caring and nurturing into our public priorities. We support farming and the military because they are vitally important to our nation's good. Along the same line, children's needs are not private-they need to be recognized as a public or group problem. It has to become a norm for us to give caregiving its due, and some of it has to become law. Women need to build alliances, and need to change the standards, change the norm.

Q How do we, as mothers, somewhat aware that public policies and society's mode of operating need change, begin?

A Many, many organizations out there are beginning to do work on caregiving issues, and the opportunity to build coalitions is there. We need to drop the labels: conservative, liberal. We need to do what other nations do: give women something that goes to all women; let individuals decide how to use the incentive, be it childcare or support for being at home. All women are doing a job and all women are being disregarded.

Q Can you list some of your solutions for reducing the "price of motherhood?"

A

• More opportunity to have serious part-time jobs. We have more choices in breakfast cereal than we do part-time work options. I agree with the work Joan Williams [author of The Unbending Gender] is doing to promote proportionality in part-time work options.
• We need divorce reform badly. We need to realize the risk carried by the primary caregiver. We need compensation for the primary caregiver on top of child support. Mothers take the big brunt of caregiving, and must have protection with such a high divorce rate.
• We need an entitlement to paid maternity leave. Mothers could be with infants for months; this would help millions of women and children. Infants should not be in childcare. A civil society does not force this on its members. You should not have to choose between being employed and being separated from your kids and losing ground all together.
• Social security reform is a practical solution. It reduces the price of motherhood as we approach old age, and mothers would have a better pension.

Q I read a review of your book recently that ended with a quote from another economist, saying basically, "We don't want to monetarize motherhood. How can we be sure of a good output?" What is your response to that way of thinking? Are you trying to monetarize motherhood?

A Caregiving is not intangible; it creates enormous material value. It is the greatest wealth-producing activity. To characterize my book as trying to "monetarize" motherhood is a gross distortion. As we are set up now, people are discouraged from spending time with their children. Mothers do not have the resources they need. There is a 17% child poverty rate. If mothers' focus on children was rewarded, we would not be paying such a huge penalty.

Bio-Senior Advocacy Manager Debra Levy lives with her son, Zeke, and husband, Jeff Fritts, in Dallas, TX.