Ruth Marcus has a
good column in the Post today about Betty Friedan. In a time when the word "feminist" is so often construed to mean "ugly man-hater who rejects marriage and children," it's nice to be reminded of what Friedan actually advocated. Marcus notes that Friedan's "prescription for these women is remarkably un-strident, even balanced. 'Marriage and motherhood are an essential part of life, but not the whole of it,' [Friedan] writes. Women 'need to create a new life plan, fitting in the love and children and home that have defined femininity in the past with the work toward a greater purpose that shapes the future.' Friedan understood, as many of her more radical successors did not, that work without family could feel as empty as the converse."
Women have definitely come a long way in the last few decades, and yet it's disappointing that our society still struggles over the role of women in the workplace and the balance between work life and home life. I am glad to have flex time and adequate family leave time, and I rest easier knowing that the
Family and Medical Leave Act is there if I need it. But how about some innovative, practical solutions to allow more women to devote their time to their small children, without crippling families financially? How about provisions to suspend student loan payments for a period of time (at least a year) while a new mother cares for a child? How about mortgage programs that are structured around a financial plan that allows for several years of significantly reduced payments while a family's children are small?
And while workplaces have implemented many family-friendly policies, our society still does not recognize the value of having very young children cared for by a parent. If we did recognize how valuable that is, we would develop meaningful maternity/paternity leave programs.
Three months of unpaid leave is pathetic. Among first world nations, only the U.S. and Australia fail to provide paid leave for new mothers. USA Today observed that "to put it another way, out of 168 nations in a Harvard University study last year, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave, leaving the United States in the company of Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland."
And what's interesting to me is that people who object to more generous parental leave policies often resent that they provide some kind of special benefit or luxury for women (or for parents). Anyone who has spent all day at home with an infant knows that maternity leave is hardly a vacation. More importantly, the intent of extended, paid maternity leave would be for the benefit of the child, not the mother. The
American Academy of Pediatrics recommends
breastfeeding for at least a year, but working mothers who buy expensive breastpumps, struggle to find a place to pump, and then leave bottles of milk for their baby know how difficult this is. Some daycare providers won't even allow pumped breastmilk on their premises. And other women have jobs that are simply incompatible with pumping breastmilk. Many women work hard to find a way, but there's no reason it should be that difficult.
And it's not just about breastfeeding. The first two years of life are a key time for brain development and social and psychological growth. While a safe, nurturing daycare provider may help children thrive, there is no substitute for a parent, especially when the child is under two years old. Women have made great strides in changing the social and legal forces that limited their choices, but the economic forces are still very powerful. But who has time to advocate those kinds of changes? The people who care the most about the issue are too busy working full time jobs and then caring for their home and families to push for change.