The Motherhood Penalty

Society has always placed men in charge of the work force. They are the bosses, decision makers, and in control of how their employees are treated. “Women [are] not inherently weaker than men, but they were segregated into the least-skilled, lowest-paid sectors of the workforce” (Orleck, Common Sense and A Little Fire, 125).Why are men automatically seen as more successful, more powerful, and more competent in the work place? What makes women perceived as so fundamentally different from men that they have to fight for their respect as workers and rights in the work place over and over again throughout history?  

Throughout A Common Sense and a Little Fire by Annelise Orleck it becomes clear the most notable difference that propels men to dominate the work place is women’s biological ability to bear children. This was seen as something that would hinder a women’s work ethic, commitment, competence, and overall ability to produce work as high quality as a man’s. Women, like Schneiderman, therefore had to organize and fight for equal pay and the same rights as men because it wasn’t obvious to the higher powers of the work place that they deserved the same treatment. “[The League] knew from first-hand experience that women workers had different needs then men, but they felt that working-class women were distinguished by their political and economic disadvantages, not by their biological functions” (Orleck, Common Sense and A Little Fire, 125). The League as a whole therefore focused on wage, hour, and safety standards not because women were weaker than men, but because “working woman had a right to equal opportunity with working men” (Orleck, Common Sense and A Little Fire, 125).

While the League did not want to focus on the biological difference between men and women, it became a necessity for women’s reproductive safety to do so. Women therefore had to fight for different work place rights than men to protect themselves from potential threats to their ability to bear children as well as their potential children’s future health. For example, it was not uncommon for garment factories to use harmful chemicals that could cause birth defects. “Schneiderman and the League asserted not all women workers would or should become mothers but that work should not preclude motherhood” (Orleck, Common Sense and A Little Fire, 125). A work place with no gender bias has been fought for constantly but it is not just the predispositions of a women's place in society that holds back progress.

While this was an important fight for women, the League “…argued, women’s potential motherhood should not be used as an excuse for not giving them equal economic opportunity with men” (Orleck, Common Sense and A Little Fire, 125). So yes, for nine months women have another human growing inside of them. For nine months their bodies are put through an incredible test of endurance and strength that men will never know, but can nonetheless punish women for. It seems as if the men in power are forgetting that, they too, have a role in the creation of these children women are birthing. The oppression of women in the work place created the “Motherhood Penalty,” or the gap between women who are potential mothers and men.

                While it may seem the “Motherhood Penalty” is no longer visible because labor laws protect women while they are physically working, a gap is still existent between children free women, and women who have children. Women with families are seen as less committed to their jobs because they choose to take a maternity leave to raise their children. Employers may become biased against mothers or potential mothers because they may take time off to raise a family when hiring, deciding on wages or promotions, etc. This creates a paradox for working women against their typical gender roles that is impossible to escape; stay at home and raise their children while not receiving any pay and risk being seen as uncommitted, or rush back to the work place to earn money to feed, clothe, house their children and be seen as a poor mother in the eyes of society? It becomes a lose-lose situation. Women in the United States are not guaranteed any pay during their maternity leave and only twelve weeks before they may lose their jobs. The map below, as well as the accompanying article found on the Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/22/maternity-leaves-around-the-world_n_1536120.html, depicts other countries maternity leave policies.  The United States is the only first world nation shown without paid maternity leave. What does this say about how we view our working class women? I think this map illustrates the societal stereotype that still pushes for women to remain in their homes even though for most families, this is an unrealistic set up due to finances.

                 Is the “Motherhood Penalty” part of the reason many women are choosing to delay starting their families, if they begin one at all? The shift of women back into the work place forces women to make a decision between advancing their career or families due to outdated gender roles. Women can either choose to advance their career in the work place, or be penalized for starting a family, whereas there is no penalty for a man starting a family while holding a job. Should men not be penalized as well for starting a family? Their focus is not drawn into question when their wife becomes pregnant and so no “Fatherhood Penalty” exists, although, it only makes logical sense that one should be given the reasoning behind the “Motherhood Penalty.”

The “Motherhood Penalty” may be the reasoning of why three of the four women followed in Orleck’s book decided to break free from the conventional lifestyle of the time and not raise large families. While their personal letters depict the loneliness of the career-focused women, they still chose to remain childless to further their success within their organizations; perhaps to protect their credibility as being dedicated and committed to the fight? Or maybe they just did not want to face the scrutiny of the male dominated work place and have their efforts to protect other working women set back. Regardless of why they chose to not raise families, these women were still expected to have families because of their biological differences, which was, and remains, the main drive behind the unequal treatment of women in the work place.