FemChat

I believe that it is a woman’s choice whether to have a professional career or to devote her time and energy to motherhood; it is her right to decide. Yet I doubt that, in lieu of the slumping U.S. economy and the many financial barriers that women face, all of these women left work completely out of their own preference. Many factors most likely affected their decisions. Research shows that women leave the workforce for many reasons, including child care costs, lack of workplace flexibility, and earnings disparity.

A large number of women in the United States cannot afford to balance both childrearing and their careers. Child care is increasingly more expensive, and if hiring a baby-sitter costs literally as much as a woman’s salary, then she may feel compelled to simply raise the children herself, abandoning her own career aspirations.

In light of the current economic downturn, rising child care costs only worsen families’ financial situations. Child care fees at licensed centers reach as high as nearly $15,000 a year for infant care, according to the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. All-day care for older children can cost as much as $11,000 a year, more than most U.S. families spend in a year on food or public college tuition.

Employers often do not improve this situation. Many offer an insufficient amount of maternity leave time to female employees, who frequently can be subjected to employee discrimination for both their gender and parental status. In her June 6 Congressional testimony, Dr. Hartmann cited single mothers as having a particularly high unemployment rate, experiencing difficulties finding work that can accommodate their available child care options. Many women who would like to return to work face many barriers in doing so—they are victims of a still unequal society.

IWPR’s recent report Statutory Routes to Workplace Flexibility in Cross-National Perspective details how many women stop paid work altogether when faced with little workplace flexibility or affordable childcare. The report’s findings indicate that statutory employment rights should be modified to grant employees the right to request flexible working hours and arrangements, to make it possible to balance work and family.

We need to equalize the family care burden between men and women in the United States. Only after women receive equal rights and considerations as employees and workplaces embrace work flexibility standards already set by other leading nations will women be able to make truly free decisions for their own lives.

Furthermore, women still do not earn equal salaries to men, pressuring their economic decision-making. According to IWPR’s The Best and Worst State Economies for Women, in no state does the typical full-time woman worker earn as much as the typical man. At the present rate of progress it will take 50 years for women to achieve earnings parity with men nationwide. Additionally, IWPR’s report Still A Man’s Labor Market: The Long-Term Earnings Gap shows that over a 15-year-period women earned 62 percent less than men, or 38 cents for every dollar that men earned.

Naturally, if a couple must choose who will stay home with the children and who will continue to work, generally the spouse with a higher income – usually the male – will stay at work. If the wage gap did not exist, and the disparity in salary levels between men and women were to dissipate, then many women would have more freedom in their choices and would not necessarily be pressured into staying at home.

As I watched Dr. Hartmann present a compelling argument refuting Ms. Furchgott-Roth’s claims during the Congressional hearing, she reminded us of the many barriers that women still face. The current economic downturn only worsens the situation for American women, furthering burdening the decisions they must make. It is crucial for women to ask themselves: am I staying home with my children because it is truly what I want, or because it is more economically feasible? If you are doing as you please, more power to you. But if you answer is the latter, then we still need some real change.

By: Elizabeth Mattey
IWPR Communications Intern

I remember going to a concert with my sister in the Palacio de los Deportes (Sports Palace, an indoor arena) in the eastern part of Mexico City. On our way, we were both packed like sardines on the bus, when she whispered in my ear someone pinched my hips, and I couldn’t do anything but burst into laughter. And I thought how unfair…women still have a long way to go.

Many other women living in crowded Mexico City have experienced these unpleasant trips in public transportation during rush hours. Physical contact is impossible to avoid and for years this situation has made pick-pocketing, and finding uninvited groping hands all over you, a problem for many riders, especially women, like my sister and me.

Only last year, according to statistics from the Office of Justice of the Federal District, 14 percent of stalkings and rapes against women in Mexico City took place in public buses and those figures don’t fully reflect the whole problem.

Taking care of women’s needs is an important goal of the RTP line of buses director Ariadna Montiel, who in response to multiple complaints about sexual harassment on public transportation started a program that runs buses only for women. These buses can be identified with a pink placard on their side and are intended to cover as many as 15 of the major routes in the city. On the program’s first day, each one of the “pink buses” transported 90 women and by the end of that week they were transporting 200. Many women endorse the idea, and many men do, too, since they feel their daughters, mothers, and wives will be safer.

As sad as it is, could this be a stepping stone for sound long-term solutions? Is this really the best way to deal with the problem? Or instead should we pursue campaigns to make society aware of this problem and develop strategies to stop the behavior?

Claudia Williams, Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellow

The other day I found myself walking down the street peacefully enjoying the music on my iPod and my time to myself when I had a revelation. As I walked past yet another group of men who insisted upon showering me with inappropriate comments, it occurred to me that as a woman, I owe Steve Jobs and the creative geniuses at Apple a thank you.

Not long ago women walking down the street had no mechanism that allowed them to avoid hearing and dealing with the harassing, inappropriate, and distracting comments frequently yelled in our direction by men for whatever inexplicable reason. But now, with the advent of the iPod and other portable music-playing products, women like me are happily shielded in a world of our own, listening to music that we chose, and effectively drowning out the constant drone of the patriarchal society in which we live. It’s such a relief to not have to hear such annoying comments.

I do not mean to suggest that such comments should be completely ignored or forgotten. Women are constantly faced with the sad burden that we are still unsafe in this world. After technological advancements that allow us to carry our entire music collection around in our pockets and with women in such prestigious positions as the Speaker of the House and the President of Harvard, you’d think women would be a little better off in society. But rape and domestic violence statistics nationwide along with the wage gap and other social inequities prove that women still have a long way to go.

I keep all of this in my mind as I walk the streets of DC, but I am very grateful that my iPod provides a break, that for once in my life I truly do have a choice of what I want to hear, what sort of language and opinions I want to listen to. It’s so nice to not have to hear those men, to not allow them to get in the way of my good day. And maybe one day, when men realize women are ignoring the exclamations of disrespect, they’ll finally stop. For now, I simply choose not to listen, and I enjoy my walks a great deal more because of my choice.

Elisabeth Crum

Nearly half of all workers (59 million) in the United States are without any paid sick leave. A majority of these workers work at low-wage private-sector jobs and, when they fall ill, they often must decide whether their health or that of their family members is more important than a day’s wages or being punished, even fired, for missing work.

IWPR has been conducting research on paid sick days since 2000. In November 2006, San Francisco was the first city to pass legislation requiring employers to provide paid leave. Dr. Vicky Lovell’s analysis, Valuing Good Health in San Francisco: The Costs and Benefits of a Proposed Paid Sick Days Policy helped to inform voters and legislators on the costs and benefits of the proposed nine paid sick days (five days for smaller firms).

Since then, eight states have introduced similar legislation and Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT) also reintroduced the proposed federal standard, the Healthy Families Act, in March 2007. Now, Washington, DC’s City Council is one of the latest legislative bodies considering a change in their sick leave policy.

On July 9, the DC City Council Committee on Workforce Development and Government Operations held a hearing on The Paid Sick and Safe Days Act. Currently, at least 210,000 workers in Washington, DC, are without any paid sick leave. Under the proposed act, introduced in May 2007, workers would be given a minimum standard of ten paid sick days, to use when they are sick or a member of their family is sick.

At the hearing, a total of 34 witnesses appeared in panels of four before City Council members and the Chair of the Committee, Carol Schwartz. IWPR’s own Dr. Vicky Lovell testified and used her time aptly expressing the need for the proposed bill. IWPR has been assessing the cost and benefits of paid sick days in the District of Columbia since 2004 and, similarly to San Francisco, the benefits outweigh the costs.

According to Lovell’s testimony, in 2005, using methodology developed by IWPR, the DC Fiscal Policy Institute conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed sick day legislation and found that, per worker per week, the costs would amount to $10.35 while the benefits total $11.69. These numbers amount to average net savings of $1.34 per week for each worker due to savings from lower turnover, improved productivity, reduced family health-care spending, and reduction in the spread of influenza in the work place.

Aside from numbers, many of the witnesses testified with personal stories relaying the need for paid sick days. Councilman Jim Graham, a co-introducer of the act in May, made a short appearance to make his statement, saying the issue of paid sick leave is a “matter of simple humanity.” Councilwoman Schwartz agreed with that statement, but admitted, in her opinion, changes would have to be made to the bill for it to be passed.

The vast majority of witnesses testified in favor of The Paid Sick and Safe Days Act. In the crowd of supporters, many showed their silent support by holding signs or wearing stickers advocating paid sick leave and safe days. For the most part, the Committee and Council members were receptive and eager to start a conversation about the bill in order to process it further.

To read Dr. Vicky Lovell’s testimony click here.

Lovell also recently presented IWPR’s research on paid sick days at a congressional briefing entitled, “Get Well Soon: Paid Sick Days for All Working Families” on July 17 at the Capitol Building. The briefing was hosted by the National Council of Women’s Organizations and the National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF). Rachna Choudhry of NPWF moderated the event and speakers included: Linda Meric, Executive Director of 9to5; Thomas Shellabarger, Policy Advisor of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Sonya Mehta, Co-Director of Young Workers United; Greg Asay, Senior Analyst of the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement; Karen Minatelli, Director of Policy at the DC Employment Justice Center; Jen Kern, Director of the Living Wage Resource Center at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

To read more of IWPR’s research on paid sick days click here.

Jill Hindenach

On May 29, 2007 the Supreme Court ruled to uphold a time limitation in which an employee can sue their employer over wage discrimination. As if women need more discouragement from reporting wage discrimination, the court voted 5 to 4 against Lily Ledbetter, a female supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama, and her claims that she had been paid substantially less than male supervisors over her 19 year career with Goodyear. Since Ledbetter did not sue for discrimination within 180 days of the first occurrence of an alleged injustice, she was unable to collect on the $3.5 million she had initially been awarded by a jury in her favor.
The 180 day period stipulation comes from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Undoubtedly at that time in history, regardless of the limitation, it was a step forward in narrowing the wage gap and discouraging discrimination. However, in 2007, the 180 day period given to employees is a step backwards in terms of basic human rights and equality.
In 1998, Ledbetter first brought her suit to court when, on the verge of retirement, she was tipped off by an anonymous letter that detailed the salaries of workers at her plant. Though Ledbetter’s salary had started off the same as her male counterparts, she received smaller raises and over time the wage gap grew. Despite filing a complaint well within the 180 day period after finding out, that was nearly two decades too late in the eyes of the Court.
In December 2006, IWPR released a briefing paper entitled The Best and Worst State Economies for Women. The Institute found that in no state does the typical full-time woman worker earn as much as the typical full-time man worker. The paper also projected that at the present rate of progress it will take 50 years for women to achieve earnings parity with men nationwide.
Considering IWPR’s findings that women still earn substantially less than men on average, perhaps it is ultimately in the best interest of all women to file a claim of wage discrimination within the first 180 days of time at their job. As seen through IWPR’s research, statistically, the odds of a wage discrimination suit would be in women’s favor. Apparently, waiting until one has evidence of such claims is taking action too late.
In all seriousness, the 180 day period is a restriction that makes little sense. In her case, Ledbetter made a valid claim that every paycheck should mark the start of a new 180 day period. This claim is legitimate, especially since wage gaps tend to widen over time with salary raises, as hers did. Also, realistically, if an employer doesn’t want an employee to know they’re being discriminated against, are we really that naïve to think they don’t have ways of hiding it? In fact, many employers have employees sign confidentiality agreements that prevent them from discussing their salaries with coworkers. Thus, it can take years for this sort of injustice to be revealed like it was for Ledbetter.
Decreasing the wage gap in the United States has been a slow, tedious process thus far. This ruling only adds to the silencing of women and their rights within the workforce. Enduring setbacks like this comes at a cost women in this country can’t afford.
To find out what you can do to help narrow the wage gap and support pay equity in the United States, visit the National Committee on Pay Equity’s website for more information. You can also go to The Wage Project’s website to determine if you are a victim pay inequity and if so, what to do about it.
For more information on the case of Ledbetter vs. the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., go to the Supreme Court website or to read the transcript in pdf format.

Jill Hindenach

The keynote speaker, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, challenged the audience to think boldly about solutions to the multi-faceted problems facing the American workforce. While DeLauro was realistic in her thinking about these issues, she remained optimistic and was not hesitant to hope for the possibility of dramatic, positive change in the near future. She emphasized that the U.S. is far behind its peers in accommodating labor laws; the U.S. does not require employers to guarantee paid sick leave or paid parental leave for employees. As she discussed her participation in the recent Children’s Summit and convincingly pledged to continue fighting for reform, she urged listeners to join her efforts.

Dr. Heidi Hartmann, President of IWPR, followed DeLauro’s rousing speech with startling statistics and a hopeful outlook. She outlined the three components of her policy program: subsidized child and elder care, paid care giving leave, and greater flexibility on the job. The program calls for both income replacement and job security. What we found most astounding was her finding (from IWPR’s research) that if women (and minority men) were paid equally half of poverty would be reduced.

Although Dr. Hartmann agreed that the U.S. is far behind other countries in their labor policies and that “what we need is everything,” she acknowledged the important contribution of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to the international labor policy conversation. The FMLA is a very important workplace benefit for families, and is a step toward making the work/life balance easier. However, it is of limited value to workers who cannot afford to go without a paycheck. While the FMLA is in need of reform and extension, it does bring ideas of universality and equality to the forefront by applying to women and men alike. Despite its lack of pay, it does help workers significantly by requiring employers to provide one thing that only they can provide, a guaranteed job to come back to after a period away from work on family leave.

Janet C. Gornick, director of the Luxembourg Income Study, concluded the panel with comparisons of U.S. labor policies to those of other countries. According to Gornick, America’s public policy is failing working parents and their families. For example, the United States is one of only five countries in the entire world that does not have federally guaranteed paid maternity leave; the other four are Australia, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and Lesotho (and Australia has recently added a lump sum payment of about $5,000 to each family who has a child, which some observers consider a form of maternity leave). Gornick ended her presentation by reaffirming the other speakers’ assertions that gender equality is at the heart of the employment policy reform we need today.

The event painted a clear picture of where U.S. work-family policies stand and what must be done to reform them. The combination of research and enthusiastic advocates for change present at this forum reaffirmed our commitment to continued work for reform.

Krystal Lechner and Karen Spitzfaden

A couple of weeks ago radio show host Don Imus, who’s show aired on MSNBC, made some derogatory remarks about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. Amid a discussion of the team, he called the women “nappy-headed ho’s.” This slanderous statement is a knock both to the ethnicity and the gender of these players, and it has no place in professional journalism or sports casting. After a plethora of complaints were filed, Imus finally offered up an apology and the show was suspended for two weeks as punishment. CBS radio fired Imus last Thursday following a strong public outcry against him and dwindling support from many of the show's sponsors.

As a young woman and sports fan, it’s very disappointing to be reminded once again that the world of sports is still dominated by men who seem to think that they can make such remarks without repercussions. Many in my generation reacted only with a sigh of resignation at the fact that this is the world we live in and comments like these are commonplace, especially in sports. I do not sigh with resignation, rather I get angry and frustrated by the lack of outrage.

But as I was taking out my frustration on the elliptical machine at the gym recently, I tuned into the ESPN sports show “Pardon the Interruption” (PTI). Mike Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser were discussing the comments Imus made when I started listening. I have to report that Mike Wilbon is one of my new gender heroes after the comments he made on the show. Wilbon came out in support of women in the sports world when Augusta Golf Club refused to admit female members several years ago, so this is not his first foray into the world of gender issues.

On the show last week, he very appropriately acknowledged that the comments were not only racist in nature but sexist as well. Wilbon acknowledged that as a man, he and other men were less likely to think of the implications such a comment can have for women as a group. I heard him use the word gender and almost fell off the machine because I was so excited. Wilbon continued by stating that the word “ho” was such a standard part of the cultural lexicon that most people don’t think twice before using it when referring to women. But he said that when he watched the press conference where the players commented on the insults they’d received, he realized that nothing could be further from the truth as these women were clearly eloquent, well-educated, and upstanding people. Wilbon frowned on society’s use of derogatory language and urged viewers to think about the gender implications of such disrespectful comments.

I want to personally thank PTI for addressing Imus’ remarks in a fair and balanced manner and for bringing gender issues to the floor in the world of sports. Women have made tremendous gains in the fight for equality in the world of sports, but we still have a long way to go. I’m very excited to know that we have allies in sports broadcasting, and I would like to encourage other sports journalists to follow suit. With the help of journalists and commentators, women and other advocacy groups can bring discrimination to public view and someday eradicate it from the wonderful world of sports. I look forward to that day and I thank Mike Wilbon for taking an important step in the process.

Elisabeth Crum

For the past several years, IWPR has explored the values that women from diverse backgrounds bring to public life. We have interviewed and conducted focus groups with a broad range of progressive women activists from different movements for change. These women are religious and not, feminist and not. They are white, African American, Latina, Asian American, Native American, and Arab American. They come from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Unitarianism, indigenous spiritualities, and many other religious identities. They are young and old, national leaders and grassroots activists, and come from all different income levels.

What do you think of the ideas articulated here? What are the implications of women’s values for both policy and practice? We’d love to hear your comments.

Women’s Vision and Values for Public Life

Our Vision:

Women’s full integration into public life is essential to building a truly democratic society, creating a more caring culture, and improving the lives of women, their families, and all communities. We call on leaders in politics, the economy, society, and religion to promote practices that empower women of all backgrounds and advance their equality and well-being in public and family life. We call for policies that embody the values of caring and consideration for humanity and support practices that encourage cooperative models of public life.

What We Value:

Equality and Individual Worth: We respect the dignity of all individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity, class, culture, religion, or age. We ask individuals to recognize the ways in which differences lead to both their privilege and their subordination. We call for polices that promote social welfare and provide equal and just use of resources in politics, the economy, and society. We call for practices that value individual expression and humanity and decommodify women’s bodies.

Balanced Power: We seek to include all voices in public life. We promote innovative and responsive strategies for building power together, validating the experiences of different people, and inspiring activism and engagement. We call for practices that give both women and men the tools to claim and wield power. We ask those with power to return it to their communities, and those without power to take the risk of claiming it.

Family: We call for stronger supports for building healthy families of all types and all generations. We recognize the importance of family and acknowledge the impact of our private relationships on our lives at work and in our communities. We promote family values of caring and compassion as beneficial to public life, and we call for ending gender subordination in families. We ask that public policies help families pursue these values in conditions of safety and security.

Community: We recognize the importance of treating each other with compassion and of building connections across lines of difference. We support opportunities for individuals to work, live, and organize collectively with people of diverse backgrounds to better their lives and communities.

Amy Caiazza, Ph.D.
Director, Democracy and Society Programs

At the event, Ellen will tell stories from decades of frontline 9to5 campaigns for income equity, family leave, and an end to sexual harassment and insecure temp work. In debunking myths from the Big Boys, she combines outrage with humor, and facts with personal narratives. Bravo goes beyond smashing the glass ceiling to redesigning the building from the bottom up.

Tuesday April 10, 7 pm
Women’s National
Democratic Club
1526 New Hampshire Ave. NW, D.C.

Free and open to the public

Co-sponsored by Politics and Prose, National Coalition of Women’s Organizations,
The Feminist Press at CUNY, and the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

A new playground being built by volunteers in New Orleans (Photo by Casey Clevenger)

While my current work at IWPR and graduate studies in Public Policy and Women’s Studies at George Washington University are focused on improving the status of women, minorities, and low-income populations in the United States, research and academic engagement in these issues are not always enough to make me feel truly connected and actively engaged in problems of poverty, racism, and systematic injustices in the U.S. Taking time out of my regular schedule to step away from books, policies, and computers, and contribute to “hands-on” reconstruction efforts was invaluable.

Our group had the chance to spend time with residents, listen to their stories, and show our concern to those lives disrupted by the destruction of Katrina. As we talked to long-term volunteers, cleared storm drains, helped gut houses and sort clothing with Common Ground, and assisted Fanny Mae employees build a school playground with KaBOOM, it was clear that relief to the most vulnerable communities of New Orleans is being provided by volunteers and nonprofit organizations.

As I have learned in various volunteer positions, including the year I spent as a Jesuit Volunteer (2004-2005), the work of social justice is not complete without community, solidarity, individual commitment, and an awareness of the important policy issues at stake. However, as volunteers and as citizens, we must also question the role of our government in providing leadership and executing policies that take into account all populations of our country. We must hold our government accountable for its decisions. Rebuilding our own communities and inner cities, addressing injustices within our own fifty states, must be a national responsibility and priority if the U.S. is to legitimately support democracy building in other nations.

This is why IWPR’s work on the effects of Hurricane Katrina is so important. Returning from New Orleans, I am grateful to be working for an organization actively involved in the dissemination of research on gender, race, and poverty in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. IWPR’s reports on the women of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast were the first reports to look at the impact of Hurricane Katrina and specifically address its effects on impoverished women in the area. In addition to its two-part briefing paper, The Women of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast: Multiple Disadvantages and Key Assets for Recovery, IWPR is interviewing people impacted by Katrina in order to make policy recommendations that will take into account their realities and better inform the recovery process.

It has been over a year and a half since Hurricane Katrina struck and there is an enormous amount of work left to be done, but I am glad to know that in advocating for policies that promote economic justice, IWPR continues to give voice to those still suffering from the devastating effects of the storm.

- Casey Clevenger, IWPR Development Intern