What did Obama say in Rhode Island that made so many angry? Well after listening
to his speech and reading the transcript to make sure I didn’t miss something,
I am at a loss. Many of the women that I
personally know who seem to be taking issue with this speech are linking an
article by Mollie Hemingway, Senior Editor of the Federalist which can be found at the following link:
Here is a link to the President's speech transcript and video This is the transcript which I followed along
with while watching the actual speech.
The transcript writer did a tremendous job
The transcript:
The video:
I am specifically going to address some arguments about this
particular speech made by a journalist “Mollie Hemingway” and published on the website ‘The Federalist”. I will use another post to discuss Federalism
and the history of the movement that lends that publication its name, but for
this post, I am going to focus on three points that Ms. Hemingway outlined in
her extremely eloquent post.
She referred in particular to a comment the President made during his speech, when he stated “Sometimes, someone, usually Mom, leaves the workplace to
stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the
rest of her life as a result,” he said.
“That’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”
Somehow, she managed to paint this statement as the
President stating that we don’t want American women to choose to be stay at
home mothers or that choice is somehow a negative one. She soon states that she
knows that isn’t what he meant but spends the remainder of her article
referring to it as if it was what he meant. At no time during
the 26 minutes he was at the podium did he say anything to allude to or
directly address being anything but supportive of stay at home mothers.
His speech deals specifically with equal pay for equal
work. Maybe he should have spent more
time speaking of stay at home parents, but he may be saving it for another
speech…on that topic. This speech was
specifically about the challenges that parents (specifically mothers) face when
working outside the home. And in his
only mention of those who choose to leave the paid workforce to care for their
families, he was referring to those who do so for a short time, and then return to
their careers or professions to find they face a penalty for having done so.
Ms Hemingway then launched into three reasons why President Obama
is wrong about stay at home mothers.
Frankly, if you listened to his speech, or read the transcript, which I
have linked for you above, there is a good reason why you might be confused about why
this article by Ms. Hemingway was written at all. Even so, I feel the need to
address her comments since I’ve seen links to her article from several
friends on my Facebook feed.
Her first point was that the idea that women shouldn’t be
penalized for taking time off of work to care for children is stated as “It
exists in a fantasy realm.”
I must say that in principle, I agree with her to a
degree. If you look at how businesses in
the US place such stock in ‘attendance’ and having workplaces to go to, then
her point does make some sense that time away from work doesn't hold as much value to American businesses as does continuous employment. But more
and more companies realize that in this post-industrial economy in which we
live and work, jobs can be more flexible.
The boundaries between home and work are relatively amorphous, or can be
(I wonder if she wrote that article in the Federalist at a desk in her office,
or while working from home as more and more companies are allowing workers to
do.) By making how we conduct business
more conducive to family life, more women can ‘choose’ to remain active in
their career, while spending valuable time with their families.
Her 2nd ‘reason’ why President Obama got it wrong
is entitled ‘Too Much Focus on Market-Based Metrics of Success”.
Well, yes, President Obama did focus on equal pay for equal
work being a measure of success. And
that those parents who take time out of the paid workforce to care for families
will earn less upon their return. To me
this isn’t a market-based metric of success…in today’s economy; it is a
market-based metric of survival. I
believe most parents, even those who work with a market-based metric of success
in mind, see their children as Hays (1996) described who “exist outside of
market valuation, and are sacred, innocent and pure, their price immeasurable.” Most parents I have spoken with report
feeling this way about their children, whether they acknowledge that ‘income’
is necessary for helping them parent…or not.
Any discussion about fair wages for women, even those returning to a
career after a time away to take care of their family, shouldn’t be reduced to
an argument about whether or not they can be successful in the business world
as well as being successful as a parent (which is not a market-based assessment
at all).
His speech wasn’t addressing the good or bad parenting, it
wasn’t a foray into the “Mommy Wars” that still seem to be an issue in this day
and time. What happened to celebrating
choice? And it just so happened that
most of this speech of President Obama’s was focusing on making the workplace
as equitable and parent friendly as possible for those who choose (either out
of necessity or desire) to work.
According to the Gallop organization in 2012, 37% percent of
American women with at least one child under the age of 18 living in their home
aren’t formally employed (14% of all women) and those numbers decrease as a
woman’s socioeconomic status and educational level increase. The majority of women with children in their
home ARE formally employed and his speech was addressing issues that those
parents face. Again, maybe in the future
the president will give a speech about the other 37% of mothers who aren’t
formally employed.
Her 3rd point related to daycare, which was the
topic of the early part of his speech. “Daycare
vs. Subsidized Daycare vs. Time spent with parents.”
Ms. Hemingway
states “But I reject out of hand the idea that parents staying home with their children
— a choice that by definition means a change in labor force participation —
should be viewed as a negative choice.” As I read and reread, and then listened to
President Obama’s speech again, I was literally stymied as how she could take
his comments about childcare, making it affordable and accessible for those who
need it, and somehow see that as making a negative judgment about those who
stay home with their children rather than placing them in centers while they work.
At best, Ms. Hemingway and those other outraged women may
have seen the one comment and decided at that point that everything in that
speech was an indictment against parents who choose to leave the paid workforce
to care for their families. But frankly,
if you actually listen to the speech, or read the transcript, you will see that
the focus of it was making things more equitable in the workplace for those who
either choose paid work while raising children, or who choose to return to paid
work after taking time off. Other than
those, this speech wasn’t about stay at home parents at all.
Works cited:
Hays, Sharon. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven; Yale University Press.
Hemingway, Mollie. Oct. 31, 2014. 3 Reasons President Obama is Wrong About Stay-at-Home Mothers. The Federalist
