The woes of the working mother  by Randall Hillebrand

   "Few would debate the almost mystical significance of the
mother-infant bond. Research from many fields, including psychiatry,
child psychology, and studies of other animal species, has confirmed
our intuitive respect of the mother-infant bond. Studies have indicated
that the first two years of a baby's life are when that bond forms."
(White 27)

   Does the mother's staying home with the child(ren) versus having a
full-time job help, hurt or have a neutral effect on the family? This
is the question that will be addressed in the following pages. First
though, a brief history of why women went into the job force will be
discussed as background to this paper.

   Why Women Entered The Work Force

   During World War II, the men went overseas to fight, and the women
were called upon to work in the factories to keep America going. Many
mothers left the home to come to the call of their country to serve.
These mothers were applauded by our culture and became the symbol of
patriotism of the highest order. During this time the government set up
child care programs with federal funds and many companies set up stores
and hair-cutting salons right in the industrial plants for the women's
convenience. But then the war ended. After the war was over, the
government and the private sector banded together in an enormous
propaganda campaign to get women to leave the work place and return to
the home. The mother-child relationship and the support of the husband
and his career were stressed (Levine 65). Up until World War II, few
women worked outside of the home, the great majority of those being
single. The big boom of women (including married women) joining the
labor force was after World War II, starting in 1947. "Between 1947 and
1978, married women's rate increased from 20 percent to 48
percent. "(Smith 4). (Note: these percentages are of the total amount of
women joining the work force).

   As previously stated, the initial reason for mothers joining the
labor force was due to the war effort, which was very commendable. This
was a time in history when people needed to pull together and do their
part. But then after the war, for whatever the reason, the government
and the private sector had a campaign to bring women, in general, back
to the home. The majority of the women rebelled at this as can be seen
by the union grievances filed. One study showed that 75 percent of the
women wanted to continue working (Levine 66). Why was this the case?
Two main reasons are usually given. First is that of economics. As
Smith says in his book, The Subtle Revolution, economists feel "that
the perceived benefits of being in the labor force have been
increasing, the benefits of not participating have been decreasing, or
both. "(Smith 3-4). Therefore, "the 'opportunity cost' of staying at
home all day has become too great for an increasing proportion of
women." So a choice needs to be made, "unpaid" labor in the home versus
paid labor outside (Smith 3-4). The second reason given for women going
into the labor force is given by Barbara Deckard when she said that
women are "trapped in a situation that provides little opportunity for
intellectual growth or the satisfactions of achievement."
(Finsterbush/McKenna 127). By this she was saying that a woman cannot
find these things if she is a housewife who has to watch after
children, so she leaves the home to find that fulfillment. This second
reason is probably more of a recent thing (late 60's, early 70's till
present), but could have its roots in the post World War II era.

   World War II was a special time in history that called for the
mothers of this nation to give a helping hand, but in the postwar
times, the mother was called back to a much more important task, that
of raising our nation's children. But the questions that need to be
asked are: (1) are economics really a reason for mothers to work
outside of the home, and (2) can a mother not find intellectual growth
or satisfaction of achievement by being a homemaker? We will see.

   ECONOMICS AND PERSONAL GROWTH

   "Working women are stung and enraged by the guilt-provoking
suggestion that their careers are more important to them than their
children; that if they loved their babies more they'd be willing to put
their work aside. And full-time mothers are angered and shaken by the
low esteem with which many career women regard them." (Levine 64)

   On the economical side of things, a comparison needs to be made
between the homemaker and working-wife families. If the two families
have the same amount of income per month, the homemaker's family total
income will be higher than the working-wife's family income. This is
due to the fact that the working-wife spends at least 15 percent of her
paycheck, excluding income tax, on her work-related expenses. This 15
percent is mainly spread across such things as transportation, social
security and clothing (Smith 161). Not only does this 15 percent not
cover income tax, but it also does not cover child care, which can run
between $40.00 to $120.00 or more per child per week. If we take it a
step further, her income should also be reduced according to the amount
of time that is taken away from the domestic duties that the wife no
longer has time to do, which are either sent out for someone else to do
or are not done at all. It has also been shown that in the homemaker's
family they spend as much as 50 percent less on clothing,
transportation, recreation, and retirement over that of the
working-wife's family; and their basic food and shelter expenditures
are also slightly lower. So there is at least a 30 percent difference
in income between the two families, the homemaker's family having the
higher savings (Smith 161). In many cases, the mother is going back to
work so that the family will have more income for specific bills, for
future purchases, or usually just for a better standard of living. But
is it worth it? We will be looking at that a little later.

   The other reason that mothers have left the home is for personal
growth and fulfillment. They feel, according to Barbara Deckard, that
they have little opportunity for intellectual growth or the
satisfaction of achievement as stated earlier. Her view says, "Why
should I be tied down to my family? What if I have dreams or plans for
doing something more with my life? Don't you know that childbearing is
another link in the chain of men's oppression over women? If I am with
my children too much, I could damage them and scar them for life.
Housework is no fun, it's not creative nor interesting, it's boring and
never-ending, so why should I stay home doing these kinds of things,
and those diapers !!?" Well, she has a point, they can be boring and
tedious, but Phyllis Schlafly's rebuttal to this is that "Marriage and
motherhood, of course, have their trials and tribulations. But what
lifestyle doesn't? If you look upon your home as a cage, you will find
yourself just as imprisoned in an office or a factory. The flight from
the home is a flight from yourself, from responsibility, from the
nature of woman, in pursuit of false hopes and fading illusions."
(Finsterbush/McKenna 115,120,124,125,127). Why can't a woman feel
fulfilled as a mother? She can! Then why do these other women say that
they are not fulfilled unless they are out of the home and in the labor
force? Good question. It could be for a number of reasons. Maybe at
home the husband or children or both do not appreciate the mother as
much as she needs, so she looks elsewhere for it. But if this is the
case, she had better beware, because she may end up working somewhere
where they don't treat her any better, maybe even worse. Possibly she
has low self-esteem and just does not feel important. If this is the
case, as in the first example, she needs to sit down with her family
and work it out, instead of trying to find relief somewhere else. Maybe
she just wants a change of pace. This too can be accomplished through
part-time volunteer work, a home business, etc. What am I trying to
say? That if she has unmet needs at home that are driving her to look
for a job through which she thinks she will find fulfillment, she is
barking up the wrong tree. She needs to get those needs met at home
through her husband and children. Phyllis Schlafly makes this point in
a more specific example when she says, "If you complain about servitude
to a husband, servitude to a boss will be more
intolerable. "(Finsterbush/Mckenna 120). She goes on to say that
"Everyone in the world has a boss of some kind. It is easier for most
women to achieve a harmonious working relationship with a husband than
with a foreman, supervisor, or office manager. "(Finsterbush/McKenna
120). If the base problem is not dealt with, the problem will reoccur
somewhere else. But can the home provide opportunity for intellectual
growth and the satisfaction of achievement? Yes, if you truly desire
it. It may take a little work, but it can be achieved. Also, raising a
healthy, productive and happy family that adds to society is one of the
greatest achievements a woman can obtain.

   Then what about the effects of a working mother on the children and
family as a whole?

   THE EFFECTS OF A WORKING MOTHER

   "The past twenty years have brought dramatic changes in the typical
American family. During this period the overall female employment rate
rose by more than 50 percent (for married women with children living
with their spouses, the rate doubled). Birth rates dropped by 40
percent, and divorce rates doubled." (Kamerman/Hayes 93)

   No wonder that we see the divorce rate double in the working-wife
families, when there is an approximate increase of 16 percent in women
having affairs in this group over the homemaker families (Norris/Miller
254). This not only affects the home of the working mother, but that of
the homemaker whose husband participated in the affair with her. It can
and usually does have long-reaching negative effects. It's not a pretty
picture!

   What about the children of the working mother? If they are not taken
care of by relatives of the family, more than likely they go to a day
care. Day care centers can have a ratio of adults to infants and
toddlers anywhere from one to two in the better places, or as many as
ten or more infants to each staff member. The common ratio is about
four to one. One of the problems that arise is that the day care
industry is not a healthy one. "The work is difficult, and in most
cases the pay is very low, and the training of the providers leaves
much to be desired."(White 28). What is most likely, is that the child
in the first two or three years will be exposed to numerous primary
caretakers. Also infectious diseases, especially those involving
hearing ability and middle ear infections are three to four times as
prevalent than in the home (White 28). Some would say that it is good
for the child to be in an environment like that because an "increased
sense of independence, well-being, and greater appreciation for their
parents have been found to be the attributes of many of the offspring
of two-career marriages." (Swann-Rogak 6). But I disagree. During these
first years a very important process is taking place in the child's
life, that of socialization. For children this is called primary
socialization in which the child develops language, individual
identity, the learning of self-control and cognitive skills. Also, the
child learns the internalization of moral standards, appropriate
attitudes, motivations and a basic understanding of social roles
(Hagedorn 87). During the most important time in a child's life, when
the foundation of his personality, morals and attitudes are laid that
he will build off of for the rest of his life, we cannot just give him
to a complete stranger to mold. These are the years that can either
make or break the child for the rest of his life. Can we leave this up
to someone else, even a relative?

   What about the working mother and the family in general. As seen
above, adultery and divorces have risen due to women in the work force,
but what about other problems. As I page through books for the working
mother I see chapter titles like these: "Succeeding with Your
Children," "Getting Organized on the Home Front," "Feeding the Family,"
"New ways to Be Together," "Having a Baby," "Keeping Your Marriage
Strong" (Norris/Miller v); "How Do You Manage It All," "I Can't Keep Up
with It All," "This House Is a Mess," "Where Has Our Togetherness
Gone?," "What if Something Happens When I'm Not There?," "I'm Tired All
The Time," "Where Does All My Money Go?," "I Feel So Guilty" (Skelsey);
etc., etc., etc.!! As can be seen from the titles, it is not easy on
the family for the mother to go to work. Many adjustments must be made,
and even then it cannot be done successfully. The only real superwomen
are in the comics, not in real life. This is the feeling of many
professional women and can be seen in the book Mothers Who Work by
Jeanne Bodin and Bonnie Mitelman on pages 52 through 58. Many
trade-offs had to be made. Is it worth it? From all of the negative
effects on the children and family that have been shown in this paper,
it is very easy to see that it is not. But of course I cannot make that
decision for you. You need to decide!!

   BIBLIOGRAPHY

   Bodin, Jeanne and Bonnie Mitelman. Mothers Who Work. New York:
Ballantine, 1983.

   Finsterbusch, Kurt and George McKenna, eds. Taking Sides. Guilford:
The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc., l984.

   Hagedorn, Robert, et al., eds. Sociology. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown
Company Publishers, l983.

   Kamerman, Sheila B. and Cheryl D. Hayes, eds. Families That Work:
Children in a Changing World. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press,
l982.

   Levine, Karen. "Mother vs. Mother." Parents (June, l985): 63-67.

   Norris, Gloria and Jo Ann Miller. The Working Mother's Complete
Handbook. New York: Plume, l984.

   Skelsey, Alice. The Working Mother's Guide to Her Home, Her Family
and Herself. New York: Random House, l970.

   Smith, Ralph E., ed. The Subtle Revolution, Women at Work.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, l979.

   Swann-Rogak, Lisa. "Careers." Baby Talk (April, l985): 6.

   White, Burton L. "Should You Stay Home With Your Baby?" American
Baby (October, l985): 27-28, 30.

   Copyright 1989 by Randy Hillebrand You are allowed to reproduce this
article only in its entirety and without additions or deletions.