The War on Moms: An Interview with Sharon Lerner -- Part II of II

Sharon Lerner is an American journalist who specializes in writing about women and politics. The War on Moms: On Life in a Family-Unfriendly Nation (Wiley, 2002) -- a meticulously researched book that should be considered required reading for every mother or mother-to-be on either side of the border -- is her first book. I had the opportunity to interview Lerner via Skype earlier today. What follows is the second part of our interview.

Sharon Lerner's book is filled with stories about the fallout of what she calls "life in a family-unfriendly nation." During our interview, I asked her which of those stories would be most likely to stay with her over the long run. She told me about her visit to a childcare center in Florida.

I asked Lerner whether moms need to become more political in order to make change and, if so, what that might mean, given our crazy/busy lives. (I told her that I had multi-year-long blank spots in my political memory, corresponding with the years when my children were very young.) She pointed out all the various ways in which people can be political.

While Lerner devotes a large chunk of her book to documenting the need for more family-friendly policies, she continues to believe that change is possible. "Sometimes people think my outlook is bleak," Lerner says. "But it's not. I think there are great possibilities for improvement." That's one of the reasons she wrote her book, after all: to hint at the possible in an effort to inspire mothers and lawmakers to action.

In the Epilogue of her book, she stresses that "this rare political moment" provides reason for optimism:

"While families across the country carry on with their own shifts and struggles, the most important change that's taken place nationwide is a political one. With a swing-set behind it and dozens of parents of young children working within, the White House is now more receptive to family issues than it's been in years."

At the same time, Lerner is all-too-aware that, in the wake of the global economic crash, families could be asked to put their needs on hold once again:

"Even as the floundering economy has made some of the problems facing families worse, some lawmakers have worried about spending our much-depleted public funds to "bail out" American families. As we wait to see whether this potential turning point will be squandered like previous ones, the gap between us and the rest of the developed world should remind us that, even if it's hard to scrape up the money to move forward, we can't afford not to do it."

* * *

It would be easy for those of us in Canada to act a little smug: to assume that, because we have universal health care coverage and that $100-a-month payment that has been sold to us as a "universal childcare plan," that Canadian families will never experience the same dire poverty as American families who lose their jobs or experience a health crisis.

To some extent, that may be true (we may not bottom out to the same degree or quite as often); but what about the Canadian families who end up selling their homes - or couch-surfing - because a particular drug or therapy that their child needs isn't covered (or isn't fully covered) by the provincial health plan? And what about those families who can't afford to work, because their childcare costs are so high; but who can't afford not to work, because their rent and living expenses necessitate that they hold down a job or two? 

The War on Moms isn't just a US phenomenon. It's happening here, too. It's simply much more under the radar right now. Consider this your wake-up call - unless, of course, you're already wide-awake and on mother-alert, like many moms and dads have been for quite some time. In that case, we're happy to have you join us. It's going to take some time to turn this situation around and create a Canada that works for all families.

Related Reading:

Elizabeth May. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics, and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy: See this  book review penned by Tom Graff of the Vancouver Observer for an overview of what the book is all about.

Marci McDonald: The Armageddon Factor: An expanded and up-to-date version of this October 2006 article that McDonald wrote for The Walrus. If you're wondering what this has to do with your life as a mother, read Antonia Zerbisias' no-holds-barred analysis from earlier this month.

Comments

[Bob Villa]

Horse pucky,
The countries have never been more child and family friendly in history as they are right now.
What's lacking is personal responsibility.
People these days go to the poor house with 2 cars and cable tv, back in the depression they had dirt floors and no food.

[katherine]

Horse pucky, I've got something to tell you:

You are wrong. Back in the day, there were less toxins and more land. People had real skills. The depression was hard, but people did get food. Food was growing in more places than it is now, better food. If you could buy something, it was of good quality, made of less toxic materials. I'd trade these stupid plastic floors we have now for plain dirt any day. I'm not kidding. There weren't drug dealer patroling our schools. We didn't have quick-kill heroin.

Times were bad then, but they are worse now. And, I know many with personal responsibility. It doesn't prevent the possibility of bankruptcy. In the wrong neighborhoods, too much 'personal responsibility' can actually get you killed.

Food for thought.

[Andy H]

If you can't afford daycare, don't have a child. Condoms are cheap and free in many cases. It isn't societies responsibility to pay for your child. In Canada having a child is like winning the welfare lottery. You get more money from welfare, you get priority on subsidised housing lists. You will get a bigger subsidised house. Welfare will pay for your child's prescriptions and OHIP will pay for your child's health costs.

Since Sharon seems to be advocating that the state is responsible for paying for children, perhaps all children born to poor parents, should be immediately taken and given to more affluent homes. Instead of rewarding poor people for having a child, we can look out for the child's best interest and give them to a family that is able to support that child better. We know waiting lists for adoptions are huge. My solution ensures the best possible future for the child, at a very low cost to the taxpayer.

[Ann Douglas]

Andy H: Are you suggesting that only the wealthy should have children? Or that the less affluent should become breeders for the wealthy? Surely I must have misunderstood what you are proposing.

Katherine and Bob Villa: I'm having a bit of difficulty following your arguments, but I appreciate your comments.

[D matheson]

Ick. My husband and I have two children, 7 and 12. We knew what we were getting into when we planned for and then had them. We knew it was going to be a lot of hard work raising two children to become thinking, contributing citizens in a world that panders to children. I adore my children, but I am not deluded into thinking that everyone else enjoys them as much as I do. Nor do I think that I am owed something just because I gave birth. In addition to being a parent, I am also a teacher, and I am continually frustrated by people who think that we need to tip-toe around children, cater to their every need, and reward them for every milestone moment, and often, even those they fail to reach. Here's reality: nobody thinks your child is as cute as you do, and nobody owes you anything because you decided, or not, to become a parent. Get over yourself, pull up your bootstraps and start setting an example for those children of yours who are going to need an incredible amount of backbone, brains, and ingenuity to deal with a society plagued with insurmountable problems that reach far beyond what we are dealing with today. You are wasting your time whining when you could be raising great citizens of the future.

[Rich]

Ann Douglas: Andy has a point. If you are not wealthy enough to be able to provide for a child, don't have one. It is not society's responsibility to provide for your child just because you feel that you must reproduce. This may sound harsh, but at this point the people who can least afford to have children are having the most.

There is also the fact that the world population is increasing at a rate that cannot be sustained long term. It seems that having people bear the full cost of raising a child would be a good incentive to not have more children than absolutely necessary or at least seriously consider the implications of having the child.

My wife and I waited until we were financially stable to have our daughter. We were confident that we could adequately provide for her both emotionally and financially (including approx. $17,000 a year daycare tuition) now and in the future. Why should I pay to subsidize a person or family that did not properly plan? Won't this mask the fact that these people are incurring expenses well beyond their ability to pay? Won't this make them more comfortable making a decision to have even more kids?

[Richard Lerner]

Actually, the one that is really scary is the war against fathers.

It seems that for the sake of political correctness we now assume that all men are incompetent parents.

[MC in Toronto]

I will refrain from saying as much as I would love to, but I am in the too exhausted to think category. I do feel as though society punishes me for having the two kids I do. I waited until past 35, thinking it was financially 'safe' to do so. Thing happen. Jobs vanish, new ones dont take their place. Moms with a young child are a liability. Little kids miss school and daycare a lot with colds, right? They go to a lot of doctor's appointments, right? etc. etc. Older moms, now over 40 are an even bigger risk and just 'old' in today's marketplace.

I work hard. I started my first business at 11. I cannot for the life of me make enough money with all the challenges of finding daycare for both kids and then having a son who turned out to have some special needs. I make anywhere from 3 to 5/6 trips a day, just getting kids to school and daycare. Who would hire me? Schools wont accept kids until 8:56 in Kindergarten and the ever cushy 8:45 for 1-6. Who will hire me to start at 10 and leave early? Full cost childcare is one full income. So what do we eat?

Don't get me started.
I work at all hours of the day, from home, for next to nothing because I can't seem to get a job outside the home with the insufficient, full of holes daycare system we have. And I am hardly the exception.

For the record, I was always in advanced enriched classes, did get a degree and yes, had a good work history before giving birth. And no, I did not get Mat leave for my second because I was by then, self employed. And finally, I had to work from home and pay babysitters more than I earned, for my daughter's care, while getting deep into debt at the daycare where my son was. I had to work to get qualified for subsidy, but had to go into debt to do so. Where is the logic? Why is finding infant care so impossible? Because the costs are so insane for providers and for parents. Last time I checked Infant care was $90/day of after tax dollars.

Dont kid yourselves, all you Blue blooded types who think we are scavengers. We just want to have time to enjoy and nurture our kids. But maybe we aren't able to earn the $150K+ per household you do.

There are generations of kids growing up without proper nurturing and we as a society are paying for it in crime, lack of productivity, self esteem issues etc. etc. Meanwhile we are importing people to do jobs our kids should be training to do, but our kids are too stressed out. Many are unmotivated and cynical, most have spent years missing their oft' absent parents running like hamsters on wheels to pay the bills.

Like the article says, "what about those families who can't afford to work, because their childcare costs are so high; but who can't afford not to work, because their rent and living expenses necessitate that they hold down a job or two?"

I like to work, I love my kids. It shouldn't be so hard to manage both. But it is. It is exhausting and most days, feels entirely self defeating.

[Child-FREE]

The war isn't on moms.
The war is on EVERYONE who doesn't happily or willingly hand over resources to support breeders.
As pointed out, not everyone is as enthused that you've spawned. So long as it's socially acceptable to let your ilk to run amok, I will do everything in my power to create spaces where I will be from from experiencing them.
Stay in the suburbs, shop at Walmart, I've learned how to avoid your kind.

But don't push your breeding agenda on me. They're YOUR kids...
YOU raise 'em.

[JoeJason]

Wow, a great deal of hostility here!! Really show the need for good parenting and the general lack thereof for all the hostile self-absorbed anti-family people here. Those who think earning a high income to support kids they never see should take a closer look at the damage done by not finding a happy medium solution. some parts of this country have it figured out others still have something to learn. Our neighbors to the east in Quebec charge $8 a day for day care giving parents a chance to go out earn a living and still enjoy life with their kids. Get to caught up in the rat race you simply become another rat!!

[Lindsay]

There is definitely hostility here, but I think given the fact that we are discussing a book whose title insinuates that there is a "War" on parents in the affluent West, it's perhaps fair to state that the dissenters didn't set the tone here.

I agree that it is very difficult for poor people in North America to raise children. It's very expensive in terms of both money and time. Anyone who doubts that is a fool.

I do have to take exception to working parents on the rat race, 3-bedroom home, 2-car treadmill claiming that the system is stacked against them. Children ARE expensive. But so are all the domestic trappings that married partners surround themselves with when they have two incomes and no children. To expect to maintain an affluent quality of life once children enter the picture is not realistic for many people.

When people without kids see parents who don't seem willing to scale back on lifestyle in order to rearrange spending priorities, it naturally creates a resentment. When those of us without children find ourselves in a position of not being able to afford our lifestyles, we get cheaper apartments with fewer amenities, we sell our cars and take public transit.

Children don't care whether their home has one bathroom or two. They care that they are raised in a loving and supportive environment. Parents can offer them that regardless of your accommodations and lifestyle, if they are willing to downsize.

That said, there ARE people who need the government's help to raise their kids and those people should be treated with compassion and respect. But when I hear these same arguments coming from someone who could clearly afford to raise great kids if only the parents could swallow their egos and make a few sacrifices, it becomes a lot more difficult to stomach.

[AHS]

Children are expensive and the one point that seems to be missing is that they are needed. Who do all these anti-breeder types expect will be paying taxes for their CPP and OHIP bills when they retire. We need children to have a strong economy. I don't expect you to sit and watch our home videos of ballet and soccer games but I do expect some respect for the massive commitment of time and money I have happily undertaken. You will afterall benefit from it in the long run.

[Ann Douglas]

Investing in programs that benefit children has also been proven to be a terrific investment in society: the dollars that are invested in early childhood education, for example, are returned seven times over.

It really is a win-win.

[getagrip]

What does Marci McDonald's paranoid conspiracy theories remotely have to do with parenting? Absolutely nothing.

[Sawndra]

I only have one thing to say and that's what generation do you think is going to pay your old age pension? Who do you think is going to pay into you health care? Who is going to take care of you when you become old and crippled and refined to diapers and a bedpan? Oh wait that's right the younger generations, the children of the parents that you are all so against helping now. Well I hope there's no one to help you when you need it. It takes a community to raise a child. Yes, there needs to be more personal responsibility, and yes often more parenting. But as it was already pointed out, who can afford to work when childcare is often one income and who can afford to be out of work for over a year when a child can sit on a waiting list for childcare for 18 months or more?

[A Brannigan]

@ D Matheson

Why would you bring a child into the world just to put it into day care? Surely parents (or at least one, wherever possible) should raise their kids at home rather than deliver them daily into the hands of a professional? Did you raise him or did you just spend his childhood giving him breakfast, picking him up from daycare and putting him to bed/spend weekends together (maybe).

This is not directed at parents, both of whom have to work to make ends meet. It's for those people who make enough money on one wage to support the family and BOTH still work because they think their career is more important than making a few sacrifices and parenting their own kids.

...I could never figure this one out.