Short thought on labor unions and feminism

As the modern woman tries to "have it all" and ends up with nothing, people are beginning to realize more and more the importance of "mother-friendly" work. The truth is, no matter how much feminists try to push women into high-profile careers, the majority of women continue to want their own children.

The feminists use the phrase "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen," though it has greatly outlived its usefulness. The woman shrieking it in fury still thinks that it refers to a woman who is unable to go anywhere, using up her life in making her husband pleased while toiling endlessly over a hot stove. The average woman in touch with the real world pictures an idyllic moment of relaxation, connecting with the unborn dancing within while feasting upon a much-craved bowl of fresh-picked strawberries and cream, as opposed to trying to force her attention on company business as her pregnant body's feet swell uncomfortably inside rigid formal shoes and the only strawberries in sight are either freeze-dried or cost $5 for a small bowlful in the cafeteria.

The truth is that though women want children and are told that they should desire a career, the majority of actual work available for them is not child-friendly. The boss worries over how this little nuisance will impact the department's performance, while the woman looks forward to using a mechanical pump in the bathroom with a picture of her baby, who is in the care of some other woman being paid half of the mother's earnings. Working mothers have it tough. I should know... I was one out of necessity for a while, and as working mothers go, I had it easy.

How can we deal with this situation? Currently, a variety of possible solutions involve more and more regulation... rules that you can't fire a pregnant woman for being pregnant, rules that she must be given a certain amount of time in which her job is held open but empty, rules that she must be able to use "flex time" to be there when her children get off the bus, even if it means that she spends a cold and lonely Saturday making up her time.

I have a different suggestion.

Remove a few layers of regulation instead of adding more.

Why do so many women work full-time when so many want to work part-time? Part-time is getting harder and harder for employers to manage. A few years ago, I worked as a "casual employee" as a computer programmer. I was paid a set amount per hour, and that was it. No benefits. No holidays. No sick time. No vacation time. No health insurance. No retirement fund. Nothing but a simple wage for hours worked.

That situation is very, very difficult to find nowadays, thanks to a mixture of labor unions and employment law. Generally, hiring someone involves paying a salary plus significantly more for all the associated benefits. Places that seek to minimize their costs by hiring multiple part-timers without benefits are vilified, and they are becoming rare.

However, this is the perfect situation for the working mother. In most cases, her husband is working full-time and providing the family with everything from retirement coverage to medical insurance coverage. She doesn't need paid holidays. She doesn't need stock in the company. She just needs to put in a few hours when she can, to help fill in the gaps in the family budget.

I can see the justification of benefits in full-time jobs, which are usually worked by a wage-earner looking to provide for his family. Nowadays, a hefty percentage of the workforce are 'supplementary earners', and they should not be treated the same way.

The President circumvents parental authority?

On September 8th, President Obama is planning to address schools across our nation.

Now we don't know what he's going to say yet, and having the President talk to kids is not necessarily an evil thing. It's good to teach children about our country and its political process. When I was young, I wrote a letter to President Reagan. I got a lovely little courtesy book with full-color pictures of the White House most famous rooms. I have it to this day.

However, we do not know what this community organizer plans to say to our children. There is no copy circulating of the speech that I can find. The one document I was able to find, a teaching guide for the event, did not inspire confidence that this would be a simple, friendly hello. The guide can be found here.

For those of you who don't want to read it, these are the parts that trouble me:

Before the speech, third point: Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

Indeed, why is what they say important? In this country, the government is created for the people and by the people. Of course it's important to listen to what they have to say. But why is that? Do you think that the teachers will encourage students to answer that they should become involved in the political process so that they can do their best to intelligently evaluate the truthfulness of their President's speeches and speak out against them if he is wrong?

During the speech, second point: Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

This troubles me, because it is basically evidence that, when our President speaks to our children outside of our presence, he will be asking them to do something. What sort of thing will he ask them to do? What was the last thing he asked people to do? The last thing he asked people to do was to go to town hall meetings specifically to shut up the people who disagreed with his nationalized health care plan.

Some people might say, "What's the big deal? So the kids have to sit through this speech. They'll probably be bored. They'll have forgotten it by tomorrow. Just let it happen and let it fade away." Unfortunately, the teacher's guide includes a followup:

Extension of the speech, second point: Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

Everyone should find this troubling. The President is encouraging children to work for him directly, and encouraging teachers to put a system into place by which children are made accountable for their goals. I would like to point out that in our system of government, children are traditionally considered too young to enter into contracts and have them enforced. There is a reason why, for instance, there are minimum ages on marriage and on entering the Armed Forces. Further points on the same section encourage teachers to set up school-wide incentive programs for students who reach their goals and graph student progress toward these goals.

This is no longer about a student sitting through a speech and then going home. It's about peer pressure and adult pressure for a student to do what the President has asked them to do. This is serious business, whether you approve of Mr. President or not. We do not live in an authoritarian society, and our elected leaders of the country should not be directly interfering with our children's lives in this fashion.

Quite simply, this is wrong.

I personally have no worries about this event for my family. My son is homeschooled and my daughter is too young to understand speeches. Still, I would like to encourage parents of public school students to keep their children home on September 8th. If enough people do so, perhaps we can send a message.

Now let me put in my "usual disclaimer". Suppose the President merely wants to ask the students to be more charitable? To help others? Isn't this a good thing? Don't we want our children to help others? Yes, we do! We definitely do, and I entirely agree with the goal in mind. What I disagree with strongly is its implementation. Children should be charitable because their parents and community teaches them to be. Charting progress toward charity goals should be done at home, or perhaps in Sunday School. Children should not learn the lesson that they must do whatever their President requests of them. That is the road, not to genuine charity, but to tyranny and despotism.