 |
 Book Review | |
The Women's Freedom Network Newsletter March/April & May/June 2003, Vol. 10, Nos. 2 & 3. The Price of Motherhood (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2001) Reviewed by Bruce Kanter |
Ann Crittenden's recent book, The Price of Motherhood has gotten considerable attention from the media. For instance, the Los Angeles Times nominated it for a book award. However, one shouldn't judge prematurely. While Crittenden's book does discuss some legitimate issues, unlike paranoid tracts such as The Beauty Myth and Backlash!, I found her book to be rather slanted with numerous distortions.
The main theme of the book presented in the subtitle is that motherhood-- "the most important job in the world"-- is unpaid. Of course the reason wives, such as Crittenden, have been able to survive with little or no income is hardly acknowledged. Crittenden fails to mention that husbands finance these mothers.
Crittenden is not just extolling the importance of female parenting. She claims that a mothers' services of "middle manager, plus the additional occasional services of a psychologist, a financial planner, a chauffer, and so on... could easily add up to $ 100,000 a year -- or $100,000 a year more than a mother is paid" (p. 8). Here she makes some very interesting assumptions. For example, in reality, people pay for psychologists and financial planners because they are supposed to have expertise. Crittenden is assuming that all mothers have these skills and presumably fathers do not. As for chauffeuring, men drive more miles, and in more dangerous situations than women. Crittenden also seems to be assuming that all mothering is equally valuable. One can infer that mothers with one child, a handicapped child, infants, older children; mothers with great financial resources; or mothers getting aid from relatives all have the same economic value.
All these beliefs about the financial worth of mothers are very familiar. The fact that such notions have pretty much been unchallenged, bespeaks to the dishonesty and gullibility of the mainstream media. How long have they been unchallenged? Crittenden herself wrote an article extolling the "economic value" of the housewife in the first issue of "Ms." in 1972.
The theme of households compensating for the loss of the father and not of the mother as anti-women is recurrent.
| "While she makes much of the value of the importance of women's child care, the value of the male wage is virtually ignored --even that of her own husband, whose salary allowed her to experience the great joy she found in motherhood." |
Crittenden proposes that mothers like "men who postpone or interrupt civilian employment for military service" should be financially compensated. In order to support her thesis that this is anti-female she implies that only men are in the military and that only men can benefit from things such as, "he can enjoy subsidized child care (p. 106)." However, later in the book she does find a place where women can get adequate childcare-- the military. On page 216, she observes almost all the caregivers on the military base are married to enlisted men. On page 217, she bemoans the situation that a mother "has to join the military to get good child care." One can't minimize the difficulty women have had to serve in the milltary-- it took over 100 pages.
It is hard not to notice the contradictions in the book. On page 204, she points out that many in the childcare industry exhibit lackluster "qualifications and training may be nonexistent. Even a knowledge of the English language -- the language of 911 -- is optional." Two paragraphs later she points out that day care workers are underpaid. After all they are almost twice as likely to have "some college" education than the rest of the labor force. The most startling contradictions in the book occur on page 213. She cites an expert who says, "there is not a shred of evidence that the traditional nuclear family creates more human capital than any other arrangement."
Also on page 213, she observes that children from a disadvantaged background (she specifically cites a study of black children) "had better outcomes than children who stayed at home with their mothers." Yet on page 195, she extolled a single black mother who raised five highly financially successful children, pointing out that they will contribute about 1.5 million into social security. Of course, Crittenden fails to mention the mother pays no social security for herself. Crittenden is advocating that stay at home mothers should receive money from our already financially troubled social security system. If some children do better with government caregivers, by Crittenden's logic shouldn't their mothers pay into social security rather than receive it?
One of the impressive aspects of the book is the wide range of knowledge she draws on. She even uses the field of evolutionary biology, a field often scorned by feminists. However, she employs the same intellectual dishonesty to the subject exhibited elsewhere. On page 128, she discusses the 'Dogon Society,' a polygamous society where almost half of all children die before age five. While she puts the onus on the negligence of fathers, she ignores a theory offered by the author of the source for this data, the book Mother Nature by Sarah Blaffer Hardy. Hardy points out that the anthropologist who studied the society is unsure why so many children die so young. However, Hardy points out the mothers "are unequivocal," they claim their sons are poisoned by co-wives (p. 256). Thus, not only does leaving out this information unfairly depicting men, it also contradicts her thesis on the abilities of non-biological caregivers.
However, there are positive aspects of the book the reader should be aware of. For example, Crittenden cites a study of students from Williams College about work and family life (p. 238). Based on the study, she observes that, "young men are more likely to get what they want out of life than young women." In reality as Crittenden is well aware, most people do not graduate from college. It is also true that more women graduate than men, and a top college like Williams is far from typical. Furthermore, to assume such a poll can predict who will get more out of life is obviously simplistic. However, it does illustrate a valid theme in the book, that it is much harder for female elite employees than male ones to also have a spouse and children (one shouldn't assume all these men want children).
The disadvantages of women compared to men are generally in the upper classes. With journalists being focused on the problems of women, the ironic result,
| "Obviously, if one is concerned about the financial well being of women, or the disparity between the rich and the poor, marriages between high and low paid workers should not be stigmatized." |
One of the ways to solve the problems of mothers is to address the problems of fathers-- something Crittenden is loath to do. While father custody would solve many of the problems of women after divorce, she dismisses it with a few sentences (p. 26).
While she makes much of the value of the importance of women's child care, the value of the male wage is virtually ignored --even that of her own husband, whose salary allowed her to experience the great joy she found in motherhood. She complains about "a below the belt" comment from a single childless woman who said to Crittenden's husband, "I wish some man would support me while I write a book." However, I can't remember a word of gratitude for her husband's contribution in the book, not even in the book's dedication. On page 89, she observed that she wrongly thought her husband's salary would be enough to support the family when she stayed home to take care of her child. However, on the same page she points out that she (not the family) lost conservatively between $600,000 and $700,000 as a result of her decision.
Addressing the disadvantages of men helps solve the problems of women. Women's aversion to getting involved with a man with a lesser job means men pretty much have to have a good income to get married or have economic stability. Feminist's depiction of exploited housewives and low paid women has certainly lowered the incentive of both sexes to marry someone with low or no income. Obviously, if one is concerned about the financial well being of women, or the disparity between the rich and the poor, marriages between high and low paid workers should not be stigmatized.
Crittenden and other feminists complain that the highest earning workers work more hours than women are able to work. Certainly reducing the hours of high-earning workers when many are surely among the most productive is impractical. However, it may be true that society could benefit by reducing hours or improving safety in some physical labor jobs. For example, a government employee such as a garbage man working fewer hours with comparable pay might improve safety for the worker and the public, thus lowering costs plus creating additional jobs. With the media focusing almost exclusively on women, such ideas do not even make it to the radar screen.