Caitlyn Collins: Take Your Child to Work Day

MotherhoodFor my mom, Take Your Child to Work Day happened a lot more than once a year. And they weren’t planned as part of a national “holiday” sponsored by the likes of Goldman Sachs, MetLife, and Chevron. They usually weren’t planned at all, and they weren’t a celebration.

Babysitters called in sick and daycare closed early. Schools had snow days, teacher planning days, holidays, and what seemed to be closed-for-no-clear-reason days. We ran a fever or caught a cold and needed to be picked up early. Or we were too sick to attend daycare or school at all.

So like mothers throughout the country, she hauled us to her office. I realize now, only decades later, the many ways she paid a price. Trying to keep us happy and quiet while she rushed to finish her work wasn’t Alyson’s idea of a quality learning experience for her kids or an ideal workday for her. These times filled her with dread, not joy.

And they weren’t always fun for us either. A child sick with the flu would rather be home than napping in an office during a conference call (not to mention that the flu is a health risk at work as well as at school). And a snow day spent cooped up at a parent’s workplace is a special kind of hell for kids.

This isn’t what the creators of Take Your Child to Work Day envisioned.

My mom would rarely have had to bear these panicked days if our system was set up differently. Work and family are largely incompatible in the United States. Women still to do most of the work involved in raising kids today. And benefits to support this caring labor are few and far between. U.S. society thinks of kids and families as private responsibilities. For instance, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation with no minimum standard for sick days and vacation days. The country stands alone as the only nation with no federal paid maternity leave (well, the U.S. and Papua New Guinea). The word “family” appears in nearly every country’s Constitution except the U.S.’ National childcare is the norm in other western market economies, but it’s not even a glimmer on the horizon here.

What does life look like for mothers elsewhere? Do all moms struggle like mine to schlep their children to work when plans go awry? Or are there other ways to organize work and care (that still involve donuts and snow days)?

My book, Making Motherhood Work (forthcoming 2019), explores the daily lives of working moms in four countries that offer very different policy solutions to work-family conflict and gender inequality. Using interviews with 135 women in Sweden, Germany, Italy, and the U.S., I consider how women perceive motherhood and employment in light of the available policies.

After five years of conversations, I realized that work-family conflict like my mom’s is not an unfortunate certainty for women everywhere. Life for all women and their families—regardless of income, race, region, faith, or migration background—can look different, and better.

The tradition of taking one’s children to work each April began 25 years ago with Gloria Steinem and the Ms. Foundation for Women. Then it was called “Take Our Daughters to Work Day.” Ten years later, it expanded to include boys and is now “Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day.” I see two big reasons to celebrate this day.

First, the original intent was to introduce girls to a wide variety of occupations. Encouraging girls and young women to dream big about their career aspirations remains a laudable goal. Our work organizations and labor market remain deeply unequal. Women still lag behind men in hiring, earnings, and promotions in the workplace—especially women of color. Many women remain clustered in female-typed jobs that are less prestigious with lower pay, which sociologists Maria Charles and David Grusky call “occupational ghettos.” And a woman has yet to hold the highest office in the country.

You can’t be what you can’t see. It’s important that girls meet women role models in all lines and at all levels of work. I witnessed my mother achieve her career goals, but others don’t get this privilege. Not all jobs are good jobs. The lessons a child learns visiting a parent who works as a bus driver are wildly different than those gleaned from a day at a parent’s law firm. Upgrading working conditions across the labor market would give children of all backgrounds more to aspire to, and better odds of achieving these goals with the resources necessary to survive and thrive.

Second, employers come face to face with the reality that workers have responsibilities outside of their jobs, and these commitments are very often to children. Recognizing employees’ childrearing responsibilities shouldn’t mean that these workers are seen as less capable and committed on the job as a result. Helping parents is good not only for families, but also for business.

I would like us to set our sets much higher than Take Your Child to Work Day. Let’s think more ambitiously and brightly about what it means to work and care and dream about one’s future in the United States.

Rather than asking girls to set their sights higher or for workplaces to accommodate families one day a year, what changes can be made on a national level to make the lives of all families better and happier? And what role can organizations play in making this vision a reality? Making Motherhood Work demonstrates that we need to overhaul our social policies and cultural attitudes about work and family if we really want to improve conditions for families.

So take your child to work today, or even someone else’s. Encourage kids to think expansively about their interests, especially those who too often aren’t encouraged to dream at all. Remind employers that you’re a better worker because of your family, not in spite of it.

But let’s also hold ourselves to a higher standard as a nation.

Moms like mine deserve better, and so do the country’s kids. And not just 1/365th of the time.

Caitlyn Collins is assistant professor of sociology at Washington University. Her new book, Making Motherhood Work: How Women Manage Careers and Caregiving, is forthcoming in January 2019. 

Paula S. Fass: Young Americans need required national service

Election_Blog_Series_Banner2[1]

Hillary Clinton has advertised her concerns for children and has a long track record of supporting policies on their behalf, and almost all Democratic candidates as well as President Obama have urged that college be made more affordable. But no candidate has addressed a critical question: What do young Americans between 18 and 21 need? Indeed, the absence of the problems of youth from the campaign is notable. But youth’s increasing frustration with business as usual has emerged in this long campaign season in a variety of ways, not least in their unhappiness with establishment candidates. Candidates who are even semi-conscious of the problems faced by America’s youth have all put their emphasis on more schooling (President Obama), free tuition at public colleges (Bernie Sanders) or more generous Pell Grants (Hillary Clinton). I want to propose that this presidential election cycle is missing the point and seriously out of touch with the problems of youth.

Schooling is not the solution and while the current proposals may create slightly more opportunity, it is still the same game – a schooling game that is in many ways the basis of the problem. Most young people today see schooling as rigged; something to be manipulated by them or against them; something that often leads nowhere. Schooling goes on forever and makes them dependent on their parents for a long time. It does not necessarily lead to jobs they value.

Young people – let’s call them young adults—are eager for meaning, for something to help define them as mature. They are eager for work. Yes, work. Only in the last one hundred years have we assumed that work is bad for young people. And certainly for seven or eight year olds or even fourteen year olds, to work in factories or sweat shops is very bad. But work that brings a sense of personal reward, camaraderie, and a means to cut through what many young people see as the boredom of school-based abstraction, is just what most American young people need.

Of course, it has to be the right kind of work that will result in more equality, not less, the kind that gives its participants a sense of genuine achievement. So I am proposing that our presidential candidates consider two years of required national service for all young Americans between 18 and 21 years of age. Some of these youth will elect to go into the armed forces, some could help to preserve and enrich the natural environment (as they did during the New Deal); others could serve as tutors in schools and community centers. Some might even feel that their time and energy might best be served by building houses for the poor or good water pipes in communities whose infrastructure is crumbling (think Flint). Others could help old people learn how to use the web. We know that we as a society need these services. I would argue that young Americans would be given a sense of maturity and competence by providing them. Instead of sending high school students out to do community service to pad their resumes, or juvenile prisoners out to clean the highways, let’s give young people a sense of common purpose.

This service should, of course, be paid. Young people like to earn money and this would provide them with a means to gain a certain measure of independence from their parents. They could then use the money to pay for tuition, invest in a business, save for a down payment on a house or apartment – all things that will give them independence. But the monetary benefit is only one of its many results. Young people would meet others from very different class, racial and ethnic backgrounds. National service would help to level the field (away from advantages provided by parents) and make the young much more aware of what they share with those who are not privileged. This was one of the objectives behind the development of common schools. Today’s young inherit too much from their parents – both advantages and disadvantages. National service would serve as a leveler of parental advantages and a liberator from dependence on parents.

There is another type of equality that national service would provide too often overlooked: It would allow non-academically inclined students to shine in ways that today’s emphasis on schooled skills has completely obscured. Many young people have real talents though they are not good at sitting still. No amount of Ritalin can deal with the differences of temperament and inclination that are common to youth. Active work in which building a house is seen as quite as valuable as tutoring math or writing would allow for talents of all kinds to be acknowledged as a social good, and rewarded at a point in life when this can be an extraordinary boost to personal growth.

I know that many people will contend that there are all kinds of obstacles to this plan, but I think it is so important to address the many serious problems of today’s young people – some of them the result of the way we have organized schooling—that these can be overcome with enough imagination and skill. National service will benefit young people, our society, and our future.

FassPaula S. Fass is professor of the Graduate School and the Margaret Byrne Professor of History Emerita at the University of California, Berkeley. The author of Kidnapped and Children of a New World, she recently edited The Routledge History of Childhood in the Western World. Her most recent book is The End of American Childhood: A History of Parenting from Life on the Frontier to the Managed Child. Fass lives in Berkeley, California.