Follow Up: Responding to Hilary

In Barbara Ehrenreich’s essay "Maid to Order," she analyzes the growing trend of outsourcing domestic work. She discusses how more and more people, no matter what social status, are seeking domestic help. I liked her comparison of the differences between independent versus corporate cleaning services and the fact that she herself worked for one of these cleaning companies; this serves to add to the genuineness of the essay. However, I do acknowledge some of her faults that Hilary points out.

I found it interesting how she tied in issues of class and gender inequality. I almost think her essay is more about class than gender inequality. Her conclusions discuss the impact on society of hiring maids in general and talks about their backgrounds and educational attainment, which made me believe that gender inequality was a more trivial issue (she even writes the cleaning ladies can often be men as well). Another point I found intriguing was when she concludes that the wealthier individuals are responsible for perpetuating the need for a “servant class” and the children in these wealthy households grow up believing that the people who clean are of lower status and that they are “supposed” to clean after them. While she states, “Children learn from maids that some people are less worthy than others, that the employer has "something better" to do with her time, (69)" I wonder if this really holds true for the majority of children and how this differs among difference ethnicities as well as cross-culturally.

In terms of gender inequality, after reading her essay, I thought of the importance of gender-neutralizing the term "maid." In order to accomplish this, we must employ more male maids. While this may be easier said than done, if this term is gender-neutralized, the subordination of women by men will no longer be as big of an issue because domestic workers will no longer be mostly female. I think we can reach this goal by providing more incentives to work in this type of job, create a retirement program, and provide bonuses for these workers. This will ultimately help make household work visible because the occupation of a domestic worker will be treated the same as other jobs.

Ann Crittenden’s piece, “The Mommy Tax” opened my eyes to the state of motherhood in the United States. Like Hilary, I thought she did a great job illuminating her point. While changes have occurred throughout many years, women are continually penalized. This harsh and uncompromising reality of mothering today needs to be addressed. I agree with Crittenden that there needs to be better parent education and community support.

I came across an interesting article by Glenn Sacks that relates directly to Crittenden’s chapter. (http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0521a.html). His article was a response to the idea of the “mommy tax” and its implications. While he acknowledged that the “mommy tax” exists, he advocated a new platform of what he dubs: the “daddy tax.” He writes, “If there is a woman paying the "mommy tax" by sacrificing her earning power to be at home full-time or part-time, there has to be a man in the household supporting the family and, by so doing, paying the "daddy tax." Crittenden does touch on this, but he make his point much more succinct. He argues that as a society we cannot only focus on the disadvantages for mothers, but rather look at the disadvantages to fathers as well. This brings up two very interesting points that Sacks outlines:

What is the price of fatherhood?
Which is better, paying the mommy tax or paying the daddy tax?

Furthermore, he provides some interesting statistics to support his claim of the “daddy tax”:

The average American father works 51 hours a week.
The most hazardous and demanding jobs are performed by men, in large part because the higher pay allows them to better provide for their families.
Men work 90% of the overtime hours in the US, and are more likely to work nights and weekends, to travel for work, and to have long commutes.

He claims all of these deprive fathers of precious time with their children. He adds, “less time with their children, long work days and work weeks, job hazards and job stress—all of these are the daddy tax.” He discusses how many fathers may feel a “hollow, joyless fatherhood” which is a “burden of supporting children drained of the pleasure of actually being with them.” I definitely see where he is coming from in the sense that the burden of children does not fall only on mothers. I think we must as a society see that there is another side to this debate by further studying the implications of the “daddy tax.” The question then becomes how will society try to alleviate both the mommy and daddy tax? There is enough issues going on with fighting the “mommy tax,” so I am curious if the “daddy tax” will become a major issue at the forefront in society.