Ann Crittenden's popular The Price of
Motherhood: Why Motherhood is the Most Important--And Least
Valued--Job in America, recently released in paperback, has
become the first feminist classic of the new millennium. Crittenden's
"mothers' manifesto" is an exposé of the so-called
"mommy tax," which can include reduced job opportunities and
salary for mothers, as well as a lack of appreciation, often
from working women themselves.
However, 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, by defining "privilege" and "sacrifice" only in
terms of pay and career status, sees disadvantages only for
mothers and not for fathers. But what about the price of
fatherhood?
The average American father works 51 hours a
week. While nearly half of American mothers with children under
the age of six do not work full time, even those who do average
only a 41 hour work week. American men work the longest hours of
any workers (male or female) in the industrialized world. 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. All of these deprive fathers of valuable time with
their children.
In addition, men do our society's most
hazardous and demanding jobs, in large part because the higher
pay allows them to better provide for their families. Nearly
100,000 American workers died from job-related injuries over the
past decade and a half, 95% of them men. There were over 100
million workplace injuries in the US between 1976 and 1999,
again the overwhelming majority of them suffered by men.
Men dominate in all stress-related diseases,
including a two to one lead in heart disease. In fact, Gloria
Steinem once cited this in advising men to support women's
careers, saying, "Men--support feminism! You have nothing to
lose but your coronaries!"
Less time with their children, long work days
and work weeks, job hazards and job stress--all of these are the
daddy tax. I know, because I've paid it. As the main provider
for my family, I worked 60 hour, six day weeks far from home,
sometimes at hazardous construction jobs. I missed my young son
so badly that many times, arriving home from work late at night,
I would carry him around the house on my shoulder, even though
he was asleep. My fatherhood was the hollow, joyless fatherhood
many men endure--all the burdens of supporting children drained
of the pleasure of actually being with them. At times it seemed
the only interaction I had with my son was disciplining him, the
one parenting job which has not so generously always been
reserved for fathers.
One day I was so disheartened over the
situation that I walked off my job, pulled my son out of his
kindergarten class, took him to the toy store, bought him a race
car set, and spent the rest of the day playing with him.
Fortunately, it didn't cost me my job.
Even more fortunate is that, unlike many men
and fathers, I haven't been financially trapped in a hazardous
job--what men's advocate Warren Farrell calls the "glass cellar
of male disposability." A construction job I worked at when I
was young illustrates well the untold cost of fatherhood which
many men pay.
I worked at a nuclear power plant in the
South. Every morning we strapped on our tool belts and hard
hats, and made the long climb up the rebar skeletal frame of the
building. Once we were 50 feet up, we hooked our hook belts
around the rebar and then leaned back to work, with most of our
weight on that hook belt. Leaving aside the blistering heat, the
difficult reaches, and the danger of someone else's tools
falling on you, the reality was that your life--minute by
minute, hour after hour, day after day--was dependent upon that
hook belt.
One day a journeyman electrician called to me
to climb down and help him. He had a rope in one hand and his
tool box in the other. We walked over to a large room filled
with immense electrical panels. He told me to stand 10 feet
behind him and hold the rope. I had no idea why, but I did as I
was told. He then made the other part of the rope into a
harness, put it on, and said "I'm gonna work on these wires, and
some of them are live. If I hit the wrong one and start to fry,
you pull me out."
I thought he was joking.
He wasn't.
He began to work and every once in a while he
would take a tool he was done with and throw it at my feet,
saying "hey--you awake? I got three kids to feed and they ain't
gonna go barefoot ‘cause you aren't payin' attention."
"No, no, I'm here," I protested. "Why don't
they turn off the power so you can do this without being in
danger?"
"Company won't do it. Too expensive."
"More expensive than your life?"
"To them."
"How come you don't just tell them ‘no?' "
"Can't. Got kids to feed."
"You could do something else. Go to college."
"No money for it--got kids, a wife, a
mortgage. Wait ‘till you get married and have kids--you'll see."
Lunch time was often the time for "scare the
new guy" on workplace injuries and safety. Every man had a
horror story to tell, either about what happened to him or what
happened to his buddy. The guy who shot his nailgun into a knot
in wood and the nail glanced off and nailed his hand to the
wall--just before his ladder came out from under him. The guy
who sliced his fingers off with a saw and stepped on one as he
tried to pick them up one by one. The guy who repaired power
lines and hit a live wire while working 20 feet up and is only
alive today because his buddy kicked him off the pole.
Fortunately for me, with the exception of
bangs and bruises and falling off of a ladder a couple times,
the closest I've come to a serious injury was when I shot myself
in the hand with a nailgun--fortunately for me, a thin finishing
nail. Later I did carpentry jobs as a side business, but luckily
I no longer have to hang off the side of buildings or do other
hazardous jobs. Most of my carpentry skills now are applied
toward building my kids a bunk bed or a lemonade stand. But
whenever I hear middle-class feminists like Crittenden tell us
of her woes as a woman (and Crittenden, who uses herself as an
example of motherly victimhood, tells us plenty of her personal
woes), I think of those men and of the sacrifices they make to
provide for their families and to give them safety and
security--safety and security that they themselves will probably
never have.
My life changed dramatically when my second
child was born--I switched from the traditional father role to
the traditional mother role. Now my wife enthusiastically
pursues her new career and I've cut my work schedule back to
care for our daughter during the day. I do all the cooking (and
we never eat out or take in), the dishes, the shopping, the
chauffeuring, the laundry, and the errands. Exactly as
Crittenden did, I pursue my freelance writing career at home, in
between my household duties. Crittenden is deeply bitter about
this "sacrifice," but I consider myself to be quite lucky.
Which is better, paying the mommy tax or
paying the daddy tax? There are advantages and disadvantages to
both. It depends upon the jobs and personalities of those
involved. For me, being at home with my young daughter has been
the greatest, most fulfilling experience of my life, and I'll
always be grateful to my wife for allowing me the opportunity.
All of the "firsts" that I missed with my son--the first words,
the first steps--I've been able to enjoy with my daughter, as
well as countless other magical, irreplaceable moments. And
there's nothing better in the world than when my little daughter
walks up to me, puts her hand on my shoulder and says "every
night I go sleepies right here." I have no desire to return to a
demanding work schedule and be away from my kids. Given a
choice, I'd rather pay the mommy tax.
Crittenden has several worthwhile suggestions
on how to reduce the mommy tax, including universal preschool, a
year's paid leave after the birth of each child, and full
benefits for part-time work. I'm not sure how practical these
ideas are, but I'm certainly interested, since they could help
mothers as well as fathers and children. But how dare she, and
other feminists, claim that the burden of children falls only on
mothers? Yes, Ms. Crittenden, there is a mommy tax, but the
daddy tax is just as large.
Glenn Sacks' columns have appeared in
the Los Angeles Times,
the Houston Chronicle,
the San Francisco Chronicle,
the Philadelphia Inquirer,
the San Diego Union-Tribune,
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
the Los Angeles Daily News,
the Salt Lake City Tribune,
the Memphis Commercial-Appeal,
and the Washington Times.
He invites readers to visit his
website at www.GlennJSacks.com.