Still A Man’s World Asks The Shriver Report

Caregiving responsibilities are often cited as the number one barrier to workplace gender equality and rightly so. The United States is the only industrialized country with no employer mandate for paid family leave, with no nationwide government-backed paid family leave, and with no federal subsidy for those employers who do provide family and medical leave. While laws such as Title VII offer some protection from discrimination for workers who are denied access to employment benefits due to gender stereotypes associated with caregiving, its reach is limited to simply ensuring that employers equally offer benefits to employees on the same terms, regardless if those benefits are suitable or address the needs of employees facing caregiving situations at home. To suggest that the United States lags the rest of the industrialized world in policies that support and promote caregiving is an understatement at best.

With that backdrop comes the release of “The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changing Everything”. Launched in partnership with the Center for American Progress, the report applauds the advancement women have made in the workplace and examines the impact of those achievements on our social institutions–jobs, governing structures, and institutions of faith.

To be sure, as the report illustrates, there is plenty to applaud. In a briefing call with bloggers that I and other Care2 bloggers participated in, Shriver and CAP CEO John Podesta highlighted the hard-earned successes of women in the workplace. “For the first time in our nation’s history women will make up over half of employed adults, and three-quarters of the American public thinks this is a good trend”, said Shriver.

Other positives highlighted in the report include the fact that women are twice as likely as men now to become small business owners and, also for the first-time ever, four out of five women are either primary or co-breadwinners. Continuing with this tone of optimism the report concludes that it is institutional inertia–rather than cultural inertia–contributing most to persistent and pervasive discrimination. According to Shriver “We are at a watershed moment in our history. The moment is right to strike. It’s clear that the consensus is women have a positive impact in these institutions. Now we just need to figure out why our institutions are seeming to lag behind.”

If this is the watershed moment that Shriver and CAP claim, it begs the question of what to do with the laws and policies designed during a time when gender equity was not at our doorstep, and indeed, if gender equity is really possible given the existence of current social policy. Because, it is not just our employment policies currently failing to accommodate the changing American workplace–all of our social policies seem to share this shortcoming.

Take Social Security for example. A social safety net originally designed to financially support widows and their dependents it has been modified only slightly to recognize the emergence of women as economic heads of households. Spousal benefits (now available for both wives and husbands) allow dependent spouses to collect 50 percent of retirement benefits earned by the breadwinning spouse on top of any additional private retirement benefit that spouse may have so long as certain eligibility requirements are met including uninterrupted job status and lenght of marriage requirements.

The current regime fails to consider, and thus provide for, those families where both workers combine work and caregiving (thus coming in and out of the job market and failing to meet the 10 yr/40 credit of eligibility) and families headed by single parents–most often single mothers who cannot always qualify for spousal benefits because of marriages lasting less than 10 years or the absence of any spouse at all. Most glaringly, for same-sex couples, Social Security provides no benefit at all.

The problem is not just with the Social Security Act. Title VII applies only to employers of a certain size. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act doesn’t require an employer to accommodate pregnancy-related health restrictions, thus leaving many pregnant workers vulnerable to employment termination if they find themselves with lifting restrictions or are told to stay off their feet for long periods of time. The Family Medical Leave Act, also available only to some employees, does not require employers offer paid leave, thus leaving many in the position of facing mounting medical bills with a suspended income.

My point is, that while Title VII, the Social Security Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the entire universe of employment and labor laws have helped women make the gains celebrated in Shriver’s report, can they help us get over the hump? Women still face rape at work, pay approximately 48% more for health insurance than men in the private market, and, despite all these legal protections, earn approximately .78 cents for every dollar as men for equal work. Have we come to the point where what is needed is a new legislative regime to match the cultural shift outlined by Shriver and CAP? And if so, what would those laws and those policies look like? Is the current patchwork of legislation a sufficient foundation and merely in need of tweeking, through amendment and tougher enforcement? Until we have those answers I’m afraid our institutional bias will far outlive any cultural progress captured by The Shriver Report, guaranteeing that “a woman’s nation” looks nothing different than a man’s world.

photo courtesy of procomkelly via Flickr

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Past Member .

2:57PM PST on Dec 3, 2009

This isn't only a woman needed thing. It should be completely equal. I used to work for a woman owned company and I saw the women there, with less experience and schooling than I, get paid more, have more vacation and more benefits. Sexism works both ways. I know it is never heard but it does work both ways.

Secondly, as the man of the house, I also am the one that does ALL of the housework. I also do most of the child rearing. Does this entitle me to more of anything outside of home? No. You shouldn't complain about it.

As for Social Security, the one thing that Bush said that I agree on is that we should have private accounts that the SS money we earn goes into. My wife's aunt isf from Germany. She came over when she was married at about age 40 or so. She never worked a day in her life and as such, she started to claim SS when she moved here and became a citizen. Why she is getting money when she never put any in annoys me. Just as the illegal immegrants who come into this country and then don't work and collect social security. When I chose to retire, I will not get any SS money, they say, because it will be empty.

send a green star

Jmuhj A.

4:53PM PDT on Oct 23, 2009

Indeed, Ms. Shriver. Women too often have to wear at least 3 hats in this society, those of mother, domestic engineer, AND career person. This is just plain ludicrous. Men, on the other hand, put in their hours at work, come home, and generally, that's that. I'm no misogynist! but it is plain that most women here do far more work than most men, for a fraction of the pay men command.

Kudos to those posters who realize, also, that those of us who work at home, maintaining the home, often doing the bookkeeping, managing the budget, planning the menus, etc., are doing a more-than-full time job at no pay, disrespected and uncompensated. This, too, is ludicrous. If people hired others to do those jobs, they would pay dearly -- just ask someone who does. It is high time we, too, are given our rightful respect, and compensated for the hard, no-vacation-time, no-benefits work we do, 365 days a year. And the benefits and perks should reflect this.

cecily w.

6:10AM PDT on Oct 21, 2009

Ms Cooper has pointed out one current problem with Social Security Old Age benefits. The system also discriminates against single people, and against married couples who have two employed members.

The Social Security Administration itself uses the terms "working spouse" and "non-working spouse". It doesn't say "employed" or "not employed". If you have problems with those terms, you should contact the Social Security Administration.

Here are some of the ways it discriminates.
Single non-worker--zilch.
Married non-worker--(married for at least 10 years)--up to 50%
of the working spouse's benefits. 100% on death of worker.
Married worker--must choose own benefits or 50% of working
spouse's benefits.

Weavre C.

5:09AM PDT on Oct 21, 2009

I worked and paid into Social Security for more than 10 years. My partner worked and paid into Social Security for more than 10 years.
Because we're both women, statistically we probably earned less than men with similar employment histories.
Social Security payments are based on prior earnings, so statistically, we're both due less than men with similar employment histories.
Because same-sex marriages are not recognized by the federal government, neither of us will ever be eligible for spousal benefits.
We each paid the same amount into the system as we would have if we were in heterosexual marriages, or no marriages at all, but the benefits due to us out of that are tremendously less than benefits for which heterosexually married couples are eligible.
The current system, then, reduces our benefits because we are women, and again because we married women. Neither has anything directly to do with the work we did.
I suggest that this is not an equitable system.

Bob E.

2:50AM PDT on Oct 21, 2009

Stay-at-home Moms, of course, work and work hard. They probably have the most important jobs in society - to bring up children for our future. However, stay-at-home Moms do not contribute money into Social Security. There is a limit to everything in this world including money for Social Security. And as Jennifer said... non-working spouses receive benefits in Social Security after the working spouse dies. It is a fair system...

Mary B.

9:25PM PDT on Oct 20, 2009

Cecily, how come you don't have a profile? And where did this stinkin' thinkin' notion come from that 'if you dont contribute, you shouldn't get anything back' ? I know you claim to be talking about social security, but EVERYBODY contributes something whether it is given financial value or not. Would you rather have people hungry and homeless, ill and demented from lack of basic necessities? Are you so bitter and hateful as that? Nature supplies all of the Earths creatures with plenty. Who are you to think that you know so much more than a system of co-operative,simbiotic intelligence that's been evolving for billions of years.

James A.

7:55PM PDT on Oct 20, 2009

124 LINE RD

7:21PM PDT on Oct 20, 2009

OK Jennifer--This quote is from page 13 of the SSA booklet,
"What Every Woman Sould Know:

"If you are age 65 or older, or blind or disabled, and your income and the value of your resources is limited, you may be eligible to receive monthly payments under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Generally, to receive SSI you must be living in the United States or the Northern Mariana Islands and be a U.S. citizen. Certain noncitizens also may be eligible to receive SSI."

If I'm wrong, apparently the Social Security Administration is also wrong.

Jennifer B.

6:56PM PDT on Oct 20, 2009

OMG I think we have too many Jennifer's LOL

6:52PM PDT on Oct 20, 2009

cecily - your statement
"You are talking about SSI disability, and I'm sorry you had problems with it, but please check the facts before you comment"

Again please educate yourself before speaking as someone might take what you say as fact when it isn't. Before becoming disabled I was a paralegal in a law firm that specialized in workers comp and social security so I think I have a little more experience and knowledge.

I AM NOT GETTING SSI DISABILITY !!!!!! I paid into the system for over 30 years I received Social Security Disability. HUGE difference. I went to my hearing only to have the judge rule in my favor based on the medical reports without even having a hearing. The same medical reports they had when I was denied only more years worth.
Most people statistically don't get approved with the first application and many have to wait years to get a hearing before an administrative judge for a decision. Many have died waiting for their chance to have their case heard. They wear you down hoping you just give up and many do because they don't know how the system works.

Seriously, I wish you and others would know what they are talking about if stating something like it's a fact when they have limited if any real knowledge. They think they know what they think they know. Get it? The problem is some might think you know what you are talking about and then they repeat it for others and the cycle of wrong information continues.