Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Why is a Prominent Democrat En... | The Big Man Will Sit »

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Pay For Lifework

posted by on September 13 at 12:26 PM

The weakness of maternity leave as a social issue (as one that is not taken seriously enough) has its source in the initial (the ground—or even gravid) fact that woman are not paid hard cash for the labor of producing a new person (or persons). As to why they are not paid for what is clearly hard (backbreaking) work, clearly productive, clearly necessary for the survival of the whole (“species being”), this has much to do with the way men as a whole value organic production far below inorganic production.

The woman must give birth because a woman is a woman—that is the circle of her curse. A pregnant woman, then, is much like a busy bee: it must makes honey because that’s the circle of its curse. But even more than that: The bee makes honey without thinking about it. In this way, the woman makes a child without a thought. The man in the factory or the man building a house, however, has an idea (a thought) before he makes something. Having this idea is what separates him from the busy bees and pregnant women.

From Marx:

A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.

In “Truth and Illusion,” Nietzsche also makes a similar point:

One may here well admire man who succeeded in piling up an infinitely complex dome of ideas on a movable foundation, and as it were on running water, as a powerful genius of architecture…In this way man as an architectural genius rises high above the bee. She builds with wax which she brings together out of nature; he with the much more delicate material of ideas which he must first manufacture within his self.

The substance and result of this dominant way of thinking: Because it is natural, it is not work; because it is not work, it doesn’t deserve a wage. Only at the last moment of the pregnancy do we see a woman’s situation as labor—and even then we still pay her nothing (we still do not give her her check as we give her her child). But production is production; it’s not a matter of how something is made, but a matter of making something, bringing something new into the world. This is what pregnancy does, and so it must receive payment for all the work that it does.

RSS icon Comments

1

I'm not sure if we're meant to read this literally or not. It is coming from the mouth of Mudede, after all. But my first thought was that if women were paid for giving birth, more poor, uneducated, unprepared mothers would rush to have children just to collect their check. Not a good direction for society, I don't think.

Posted by thankshappy | September 13, 2007 12:42 PM
2

i demand pay for my poop.

Posted by chops | September 13, 2007 12:45 PM
3

And.....back to getting terrifyingly, irretrievably, monumentally lost before the first sentence is through. Sigh.

Posted by Jaime-Leigh | September 13, 2007 12:45 PM
4

Interesting theoretical argument -- of course some countries give incentives for having children, but they obviously do not do so to compensate the mother for bearing the child.

But, one thought stood out to me: "the woman makes a child without thought". I would disagree with that one for sure, at least from my perspective. I do quite alot of thinking along the lines of "should I have a child, should I not have a child", etc. If I have one, it will certainly be the results of a significant amount of thought and planning -- it will not be instinctual, as the bee making honey.

Posted by Julie | September 13, 2007 12:48 PM
5

i'm very serious about this. in fact, my position is drawn from the awareness that the singapore government used to (and might still) pay the poor to surgically shutdown their reproductive systems and pay the rich (in tax breaks) to reproduce.

Posted by charles mudede | September 13, 2007 12:49 PM
6

Agreed. Contrary to the misguided views of some, bearing a child does not merely induce costs on society; it produces benefits as well - we consume, but generally produce to do so. Surely the creator of a child should reap some of that benefit, but in modern, developed societies, parents mostly absorb the cost of a child without receiving much in return. That doesn't seem to add up.

Posted by tsm | September 13, 2007 12:50 PM
7

@ Julie, I think the reason the analogy works, is yes, you think, should I have a child, should I not have a child. But once you decide to have a child ... that's kinda it. You don't have to decide or get to decide, where do I put my child's spleen? Or what color is my child's hair. Nature does that for you. Thus, creating a child is not like creating a building. A building needs blue prints and thought. Your body instinctually knows how to create a child.

Posted by arduous | September 13, 2007 12:53 PM
8

Poor people do get paid to have kids (through tax credits). Haven't any of you ever known any poor people?

Posted by jamier | September 13, 2007 12:54 PM
9

But Charles, @5, in that example of Singapore, the government does not offering those incentives to reward for the "work" of child-bearing (otherwise they would do it for both rich and poor). They do so as an attempt to shape their society/economy (same with countries with low birth rates; it's not that inherently they think child-bearing should be rewarded because it is "work", but that they want a certain economic outcome).

Posted by Julie | September 13, 2007 12:56 PM
10

@7 - perhaps, but if you consider the actual rearing of the child to be part of the creation process as well, one might view that differently. That most certainly does involve thought and conscious action.

Posted by tsm | September 13, 2007 12:56 PM
11

Charles, why is it that every time you start talking about women I just want to kick the shit out of you?

Posted by Judah | September 13, 2007 12:57 PM
12

Yes, but what is the real societal benefit to the production of a child, especially when compared to what else the mother might do with that time and effort? And is this a constant per child or are there diminishing returns? These are key questions that must be answered.

Posted by F | September 13, 2007 12:58 PM
13

To make my point more clear: People making model airplanes in their basement are also doing work; it's just not work that is useful to society, so they don't get paid for it.

Posted by F | September 13, 2007 12:59 PM
14

@7 and 10. Both good points. If physical body of child = honeycomb, them you're right, women don't plan/think about making a child. But, if you think about the whole person (mind, behavior, etc.), then a lot of thinking is involved.

Posted by Julie | September 13, 2007 1:00 PM
15

@12
a woman,unlike a man, has the choice to do organic work or inorganic work.

Posted by charles mudede | September 13, 2007 1:00 PM
16

I'm actually unconvinced that we should be giving incentives to people to reproduce. The world population is still growing at an unsustainable rate. We probably already give more incentives (through tax policy) than we really should be.

Posted by Orv | September 13, 2007 1:03 PM
17

@16 - I think that's an overly simplistic analysis. In developed nations, the fertility rates range from very low to equilibrium rate. Part of this would appear to be attributed to the fact that kids are generally beneficial in poor nations (you've got another kid to work the farm), but much more costly if you're in an industrialized society. The unsustainable rate of population growth isn't happening here.

Furthermore, independent of this, I'd argue that regardless of the optimal fertility rate, the costs of the kids that are born aren't distributed fairly when compared to the benefits.

Posted by tsm | September 13, 2007 1:09 PM
18

honey bucket just doesnt get women, again.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 13, 2007 1:14 PM
19

Paying people to have children? Back in the day, people had many children so they'd have more hand to harvest or weave or what have you. Kids paid for themselves, eventually.
Children aren't a product. They're more humans. They both contribute to and take from Humanity, just like any human does. The creation of another human is a personal/familial endeavour. Sure, there are always financial considerations when making the decision, but that's not the function of child bearing/rearing. Notice that women aren't paid for pregnancy, and yet they continue to do it. They do it not because of money, they do it because they are human. There's no reason to replace the humanity of reproduction with monetary (dis)/incentives.

I can't believe I'm wasting time responding to another one of Charle's posts.

Posted by steve | September 13, 2007 1:19 PM
20

I think we're missing the obvious here. Not everything is a job. You do a job because, hopefully you like it, but mostly because you have to earn a living in order to do other stuff you don't get paid to do, like live in a house, eat regular meals and buy clothes. Most people have kids, not because they feel some obligation to reproduce but, because they love each other and they want to have a family!

In other words, there are things we do because we have to [work] and there are things we do because we need to [eat, sleep, shit] and there are things we do because we want to [travel,shop,fuck]. So, all human activity is not the same.

Of course, this only applies to the average person. If you're Tony Bourdain you actually do get paid to eat and travel and if you're Peter North, you actually do get paid to fuck. But hey, most of us aren't that lucky!

Posted by Secret Squirrel | September 13, 2007 1:23 PM
21

By that logic we should pay anyone who calls themselves an artist, or any kind of creator, as well. I guess that’s socialism. Are mothers-to-be doing the world any great favors by having children? Seems to me overpopulation is a part of our biggest current problems. And we already subsidize kids in many ways. I could support universal healthcare for sure, but paying women to have babies is not really fair to those who make other choices.

Posted by worla | September 13, 2007 1:24 PM
22

As someone who just had a baby, I will say the easiest parts were: 1-) conception and 2-) having the baby. Growing the baby is not mindless (maybe for some) or easy. Not sure where this fits into the entire discussion, but I wanted to expand on what Julie was saying -- in our modern society, with so many choices and information, being pregnant requires a lot of thought.

Perhaps at its core, birth happens, but the one who nurtures and grows the baby gives it a lot of thought.

Posted by babymaker | September 13, 2007 1:30 PM
23

I know without a doubt I'm getting in way over my head by commenting here, but I'm certain I recall a Marx reading from University that theorized that the institution of marriage was actually created so that women didn't have to be compensated for childbirth/rearing which is, aruguably, not just a job, but a fucking brutal job. Anyway, I'm pretty sure it was Marx, and I'm certain he was saying marriage is, in that way, an economic institution. I think he had some ideas about the manufacture of the concept of love to facilitate said institution, but that's really reaching for me. More sighing.

Posted by Jaime-Leigh | September 13, 2007 1:30 PM
24

well this is a lot more sensible than the pea brained Kubrick hates humanity argument. Nice to see your thinking again Charles.

Posted by Rotten666 | September 13, 2007 1:30 PM
25

I guess if you think about the "rewards" for any activity being both financial and non-financial, everything works itself out. Mothers aren't paid to have children (and model airplane hobbyists aren't paid to make model airplanes), but they surely get some kind of non-financial reward out of it, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Jobs, on the other hand, usually aren't inherently non-financially rewarding, so we have to be paid. The jobs that are inherently non-financially rewarding (e.g., artist, non-profit, teacher) usually don't pay as much.

Posted by Julie | September 13, 2007 1:33 PM
26

@23, whether it was Marx or not, it makes a lot of sense to me. I think there's been some modern feminist thought and writing on the subject as well.

Posted by babymaker | September 13, 2007 1:37 PM
27

By the way, for the funniest 10 minutes on the topic of "does making a child require thought", watch the opening scenes of Idiocracy. Hi-larious.

Posted by Julie | September 13, 2007 1:39 PM
28
paying women to have babies is not really fair to those who make other choices.

Also, much of the payment for children is given to men. Men in the USA usually control family finances including money from the IRS. Most large corporations (at least around here) provide paternity leave. It's similar to the way parents reap the benefits of children's work.

Posted by jamier | September 13, 2007 1:43 PM
29

I'm all for it, but like paying artists, the sticky issue is how much to pay each person. Does everyone get the same paycheck for making a baby or are you paid more for smart babies, or pretty babies?

If you pay everyone the same, you get the same results as if you paid everyone the same in any profession: mediocre at best.

Posted by mason | September 13, 2007 1:43 PM
30

Babies are payment enough, am I right?

Posted by PdxRitchie | September 13, 2007 1:44 PM
31

#23
it was actually engels (marx's partner in revolution and freedom!) in Origen of the Family... a good read, even if you aren't socialist...

marriage follows patriarchy since it was the only way men could pass their property to their sons... in the 90% of human history before capitalism, only the mother knew whose kid was whose.

however, capitalist marriage is characterized by bourgesoise monagamy- monogamy for the wife while men accumulate women (through affairs, the dating scene, etc.). This is opposed to proletarian marriage where both the man and woman are genuinely committed to monogamy (no cultural idea of "accumulating" sexual partners but a genuine and social committment).

just my two cents

Posted by justice for jose maria sison! | September 13, 2007 1:44 PM
32

@31

Thanks for the correction. I had a sneaking feeling I was wrong about the source...it was a few years ago!

At any rate, it made perfect sense to me, too. I think I need to re-read it--at the very least it was a fascinating possibility.

Posted by Jaime-Leigh | September 13, 2007 1:49 PM
33

@25 - but with skyrocketing health care, education, and real estate costs, it would seem that the emotional payoff may be less and less able to balance out the burden. That could be a problem in time.

@28 - "Men in the USA usually control family finances including money from the IRS. Most large corporations (at least around here) provide paternity leave."

Even if a man manages the family finances, however, that doesn't mean his wife wouldn't benefit. And re: paternity leave, are you seriously suggesting here that we should do less to encourage men from taking an active role in child-rearing?

Posted by tsm | September 13, 2007 1:50 PM
34

A woman has a choice NOT TO GET PREGNANT IF SHE DOESN'T WANT TO BIRTH A CHILD.

So, sorry it hurts and all (thanks mom) but I'm not paying you for something YOU signed on for in the first place.

Posted by monkey | September 13, 2007 1:51 PM
35

I thought the point of this was that women who give birth should have more acess to paid maternity leave from their jobs, not just to hand them a big check for having a baby.

Posted by tara | September 13, 2007 2:10 PM
36

@34

Monkey, I'm not going to say I think a woman should get paid to have children, but I think your logic is sort of faulty. People CHOOSE to enter the work force. They could, likewise, choose not to. Does the fact that they've made a conscious choice about it mean they shouldn't be compensated? No, of course not. There are better arguments out there, is all I'm saying. Maybe I misunderstood your point?

Posted by Jaime-Leigh | September 13, 2007 2:15 PM
37

Sorry, but uh, at what point over the past thirty or forty years has introducing a new human(producer/consumer) unto the earth been considered a productive activity? For those who chose to do so, enjoy the personal benefits, but please acknowledge the consequences. Let's just hope that your particular spawn can come up with the key to survival for the surfeit of spawn from your fellows!

Posted by Kent | September 13, 2007 2:26 PM
38

This is why they still award spousal support to stay-at-home moms (and enforce old judgements that granted it), archaic as that likely seems to many Stranger readers.

Posted by Mr. X | September 13, 2007 3:48 PM
39

Women make children without thinking ????
Only men think when they make things???
Seems to me deciding to have a child is a thought process and making all the right decisions for 9 months so that the child will be healthy is a thought process. Women are not dumb factories that just sit and produce Charles. Yes it is hard work and takes lots of thought to get through every day and make sure you are looking after yourself.
The decision for some people is to have children which would also include the thought process of a man in the 9 months of a partner carrying the child. But then there is another process that excludes the man all together "artificial insemination". That is where the woman "thinks" who needs a man I can do this myself and work in the factory or build a house. See she gets to do all the thinking and make all the decisions. There is lots of frozen sperm out there and some women just do not need men. Think about it!

Posted by -B- | September 13, 2007 3:52 PM
40

Women do get paid to make their honey, in the elevated social status associated with being a mother. Mothers are honoured for making their significant contribution to society, and this social currency is what women have historically (evolutionarily) dealt in, non?

Posted by ams | September 13, 2007 5:55 PM
41

Too bad you can't buy independence with social currency...

Posted by jamier | September 13, 2007 6:25 PM
42

There is a classic Marxist-inspired anthropological work on just this topic--Emily Martin's The Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction.

"Contrasting the views of medical science with those of ordinary women from diverse social and economic backgrounds, Emily Martin...uncovers the metaphors of economy and alienation that pervade women's imaging of themselves and their bodies." Has chapters on birth as "production."

You might also want to read Rayna Rapp on amniocentesis, and the book The Tentative Pregnancy, about how pregnancy is considered to be not quite real until you know you're not going to abort it because of birth defects. (because we only want perfect products?)

Charles, I'd like to hear what you think about the medicalization of pregnancy in the past 50 years, which has been getting a lot worse recently. Some feminists argue that the scenario you're describing is just a pastoral fantasy anymore, since now practically every day of a mainstream pregnancy is somehow monitored and measured and analyzed with technology; more than 30% of births are now c-sections (5 times as high as in the 1970s, and more than double Europe's current rate) and anyone giving birth in a hospital has to use a fetal monitor (even though they have never been shown to prove outcomes; in fact they probably only increase the c-section rate), is often drugged with pitocin, & is still usually made to lie on her back which is the stupidest position to give birth in (do you take a shit lying on your back?); this position is only to make it easier for the OB to get instruments etc in there. Many OBs still episiotomies too, even though this obviously just makes you tear more--it's all about the idea that women CANNOT be pregnant or labor properly on their own, but require tons of intervention and technology and cutting and procedures.

You might say that pregnancy and birth have never been more manipulated and altered by technology and drugs than it is today in the U.S.; it is about as far from "natural" and autonomous now than it has ever been. How does that fit into your little imaginings?

Posted by toadmommy | September 13, 2007 8:32 PM
43

toadmommy, maternal death rates in 1900 were 1 in 100. Maternal death rates now are 1 in 10,000. Which odds do you prefer?

Let me tell you two little stories: my friend at work JUST (like three months ago) had the life of his baby saved by a fetal monitor- his daughter had the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck during labor. Same thing happened to my uncle 50 years ago, only they didn't have fetal monitors. He got cerebral palsy from the experience.

So take your "never been shown to prove outcomes" marxist obstetric theory and stuff it up your ass sideways.

Posted by Big Sven | September 14, 2007 1:22 AM
44

#43
You said it just right. I have found that those who cast aspersions on modern technology, especially when it comes to childbirth, are usually people who have never experienced any crisis while pregnant or giving birth. It's easy when it's theory.

Posted by babymaker | September 14, 2007 8:30 AM
45

Number 43 & 44 --you are silly and wrong. Maternal deaths were not 1 in 100 in 1900 (where did you get that statistic?). There *is* an increase in maternal death in the mid-late 19th century when women started to be attended by physicians, caused mostly by the doctors spreading puerperal fever germs, and there is certainly a higher birth injury rate associated with use of forceps etc.--which are also associated with late 19th century medicine and 'male midwives.'

The U.S. has the one of the highest maternal morbidity & death rates in the industrialized world, and also one of the highest infant mortality rates. No, it's not some impoverished African country's rates at all--but this is another case where we don't do very well compared to our peers.

NO ONE says that even in an ideal situation some c-sections aren't warranted--but if you do a little research you will find that places with lower c-section rates, and where most pregnancy and birth care is done by midwives, there is definitely a better outcome for both moms and babies. At least half of the current c-sections done here would not have been necessary if the labor hadn't been induced, if Pitocin wasn't given, if the mom wasn't made to lie down, if a fetal monitor wasn't used. But all of these things are normal now in American birth--and they CAUSE problems in labor more than they solve them.

Posted by toadmommy | September 14, 2007 11:21 AM
46

@45 - sorry, but you're nuts. It may feel good to pretend that childbirth was somehow safer in the Good Old Days before those evil doctors got involved, but it's deeply, deeply wrong. Maternal death has drastically decreased (99%) over the last century in the developed world, as the CDC notes. .

Posted by tsm | September 14, 2007 11:50 AM
47

re @45: well, OK, it's decreased that far in the US, not the general "developed world", to be precise. Anyways.

Posted by tsm | September 14, 2007 11:54 AM
48

@41- who has a baby in an attempt to gain independence?

Posted by ams | September 14, 2007 12:38 PM
49

#44

I don't think I'm being silly by taking advantage of advances in medical technology to make childbirth less grueling. Lots of things that occur in nature can be improved upon.

To address another post -- I'm trying to find how the status of mother is elevated in society. I believe it's paid a bunch of lipservice, but hardly truly valued.

Posted by babymaker | September 14, 2007 1:11 PM
50

Keep in mind that you named yourself "babymaker" for this discussion- cashing in, I assume, on your status as a mother.

Posted by ams | September 14, 2007 11:09 PM
51

toadmommy-

The 100x decline in maternal death this century:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03_033.pdf

There are many other sources, and I tried to list some more of them, but it set off the slog spam filter. Look up "historical maternal mortality" and you will find a boatload of corroboration.

Looking at the world...

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/maternal_mortality_2000/mme.pdf

...the US has a MMR (maternal mortality ratio, maternal deaths / 100,000 live births) or 17, where the industrialized countries as a whole are at 13. Higher, yes, but hardly a ringing indictment of c-sections and fetal monitors. How much of this difference is accounted for by our economically stratified society? How much by unaffordability of good healthcare? For example, according to the CDC, Minnesota and Washington (good health care, affluent) have MMRs a third that of Alabama and Mississippi (bad health care, poor.) That's an argument for universal health care, not for throwing away intensive obstetric procedures.

Can you post some actual evidence to support your "at least half of the current c-sections done here would not have been necessary" claim?

Here's one more story, at the risk of "cashing in" as a parent (sorry in advance, gay-guys-who-want-nothing-to-do-with-vaginas): the birth of my daughter, our first child, was going along fine, dilation= 10cm, when just before pushing the sixth or seventh nurse to perform a vaginal exam finally realized that what she was feeling at the cervix was *not* my daughter's head but rather the remnants of the amniotic sac covering the cervix. My daughter was in fact breach! By this point my wife's stomach with hard as a board, and she was *ready* to go. The stats said that at this point, a c-section would be more likely to lead to a successful outcome for mother and daughter, so that's what we did. Could they have turned the baby at this point? Maybe. Who the fuck cares? Why risk it? Three years later, my son was born vaginally, so it's not like my wife's body was wrecked by the procedure (though it was a much longer recovery than the second time.)

So advanced medical options increased the likelihood of a healthy mother and child. The solution is to figure out how to offer those kinds of options to *all* parents, rather than deny the application of science to childbirth.

Posted by Big Sven | September 15, 2007 12:46 AM
52

Hi!

Here in Austria, Europe, there are actually governmental payments so called "Kinderbetreuungsgeld" for children which amount to 14.53 Euro per day for 30 months after giving birth.

Also there is the "Familienbeihilfe" (family benefit) which is paid until the child is 18 (or if it continues its education at university until 26) and is depending on which country in the EU one lives in, but in Austria amounts to ca. 100 € per month raising with the number and age of the child(ren).

Posted by René Monet | September 25, 2007 7:20 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).