‘Motherhood Should Come With a Warning Label'
Last year, Times Opinion asked readers to tell us about their journey to motherhood. Almost 2,000 responded, and an overwhelming number were not actually focused on the path to parenthood. Instead, readers wanted to talk about the challenges they experienced after their children arrived.
Their struggles are encapsulated well by Patsy Freeland of New Jersey, one of the dozens of women my colleagues followed up with, who said, 'I was not prepared for how inflexible work would be, how expensive it would be and how much our society and economic systems are built off of taking my labor as a mother for granted.' Her words perfectly illustrate the 'motherhood penalty' as depicted in the video above.
Technically, the motherhood penalty is the notion that when women become mothers, they earn less money and their wages tend to decrease with each child. When men become fathers, their wages increase, especially among the highest-earning men. That's the 'fatherhood premium.' Inflation over the past several years has made the motherhood penalty feel even more like a punishment.
While the motherhood penalty has been the term of art for what happens to working women when they become mothers, it does not encompass the financial hit taken by the stay-at-home parent. This financial burden isn't just temporary, either — it stretches all the way to retirement.
Mothers have less money in personal retirement accounts, and they also receive less money from Social Security because they're more likely to have gaps in their employment history, and their caregiving isn't valued by society in the way that it should be. Which is to say, caregiving is neither paid nor truly respected.
Because child care has long been more expensive than a mortgage payment in most states, many women feel that their choices are constrained. They're not always working because they want to, or staying home because they want to — they're trying to complete a financial puzzle that has several pieces missing. Of course, many fathers feel this, too, but culturally, they're pushed more into breadwinning than women tend to be (which may not be what makes them happiest, but it does make them more financially solvent).
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
18 minutes ago
- CNN
A mother thought her baby was blown out of a plane. The FAA still allows infants on laps
It was horrifying enough for anyone when a door plug popped off an Alaska Airlines flight at more than 16,000 feet last year, causing an explosive decompression. But one mother's nightmare was particularly acute, as she thought she lost her baby out of the gaping hole in the side of the plane. It's an unimaginable horror, and one that safety regulators could have prevented by requiring that parents secure infants on board planes in a car seat, as they must be when riding in a car. But despite years of calls for just such a rule, none exists. Testimony this week at the National Transportation Safety Board hearing into the incident, and transcripts of interviews with flight attendants conducted by NTSB investigators that were released this week, tell of the panic aboard the flight. Passengers' clothing was ripped off, and their phones were blown out of their hands and sent hurtling into the night by the by the rush of air that accompanied the rapid decompression. The flight attendants weren't sure whether they had lost any of the passengers until the plane had landed. Initially, they weren't even sure if the pilots were conscious or in need of medical attention themselves due to problems communicating between the cabin and cockpit. But among the flight attendants' most serious concerns were the three infants on the flight who were being held on their parents' laps, not in a car seat. And one of those parents, a mother, told flight attendants during the incident that she had lost her son and believed he had been blown outside the plane. 'I was holding her, I said, 'What's going on, what's happening?' and she just says, 'I was holding my son and I think my son blew out the window,'' one of the flight attendants told NTSB investigators, according to a transcript of the interview. 'And that's when I lift up my head and saw the hole and I just started like shaking.' 'I didn't know at that point that that mom was freaking out because she thought her son went out the window,' another flight attendant told investigators. Fortunately, the child had not gone out the hole, although the transcripts from the NTSB did not detail where the child was during the incident or give the name of the mother involved. The plane was able to land within minutes without any serious physical injuries to the 177 people on aboard, including the three infants. Among the NTSB's recommendations following the conclusion of its investigation this week was to once again suggest that the Federal Aviation Administration require passengers ages two and younger have their own seats to protect them. The NTSB does not have the power to make such a requirement. It has been asking the FAA, which is the federal regulator that sets such regulations, for such a rule for decades. Even if parts don't often fall off planes mid-flight, infants on planes are at risk of being thrown from their parents' arms by far more common turbulence, which can occur without warning. One NTSB investigator testified Tuesday about incidents in which infants were injured during severe turbulence, in one instance landing a few rows behind the child's mother in an empty row. 'I've long believed that parents of lap children do not fully realize the serious risk to which they're exposing their young children,' NTSB board member Thomas Chapman said at the hearing. 'The experts agree that the safest place for an infant is secured in their own seat. If there's turbulence or worse, you may not be able to protect your baby in your arms.' Chapman said the NTSB has been pushing for a rule requiring infants be secured in a seat but that 'we just have not been able to persuade FAA that this is an area where they should take action.' An advisory to airlines posted on the FAA's website advises that the agency 'does not require but, because of the safety benefits thereof, does encourage the use of approved child/infant seats aboard aircraft.' When CNN asked about the lack of a rule, the FAA said in a statement: 'The FAA takes NTSB recommendations seriously and will carefully consider those issued yesterday.' The statement added: 'The safest place for a child under age two is an approved child-restraint system or device, not an adult's lap. This can go a long way in keeping children safe during a flight.' But there may be a more intricate calculus involved for the FAA. An agency spokesperson told CNN it is concerned that requiring parents to buy an extra seat for plane travel will lead more of them to drive to their destinations. And the agency believes that would create a greater risk to the children and parents, since flying is a much safer method of transportation than driving. Airlines also likely worry about lost revenue from more parents opting to drive instead. Airlines for America, the industry trade group, did not directly address whether or not there should be a rule requiring infants to have their own seat in a statement. 'The safety of all passengers and crew members is always the top priority of U.S. airlines, which is why we follow federal laws and strictly comply with the guidance and rules established by our safety regulator, the FAA,' the group said. But one expert accused the FAA of putting airline profits over safety. 'The NTSB has one job, and that's to improve safety. They're not concerned about the financial impact,' said Anthony Brickhouse, a crash investigator and US-based aerospace safety consultant. 'The FAA looks at safety, but they also look at the financial impact. Safety and money have been in conflict since the beginning of time. And if you want to know the reasons for anything they do, follow the money.' Brickhouse said if the lap babies had been in or near row 26, where the door plug blew off, they likely would have be lost. 'Why is it that you're required to be buckled in a car, but mommy and daddy can hold you on a flight?' he said. 'You would think this close call could move the needle. It's frustrating to think we need to get tragedy to get change.'
CNN
18 minutes ago
- CNN
A mother thought her baby was blown out of a plane. The FAA still allows infants on laps
It was horrifying enough for anyone when a door plug popped off an Alaska Airlines flight at more than 16,000 feet last year, causing an explosive decompression. But one mother's nightmare was particularly acute, as she thought she lost her baby out of the gaping hole in the side of the plane. It's an unimaginable horror, and one that safety regulators could have prevented by requiring that parents secure infants on board planes in a car seat, as they must be when riding in a car. But despite years of calls for just such a rule, none exists. Testimony this week at the National Transportation Safety Board hearing into the incident, and transcripts of interviews with flight attendants conducted by NTSB investigators that were released this week, tell of the panic aboard the flight. Passengers' clothing was ripped off, and their phones were blown out of their hands and sent hurtling into the night by the by the rush of air that accompanied the rapid decompression. The flight attendants weren't sure whether they had lost any of the passengers until the plane had landed. Initially, they weren't even sure if the pilots were conscious or in need of medical attention themselves due to problems communicating between the cabin and cockpit. But among the flight attendants' most serious concerns were the three infants on the flight who were being held on their parents' laps, not in a car seat. And one of those parents, a mother, told flight attendants during the incident that she had lost her son and believed he had been blown outside the plane. 'I was holding her, I said, 'What's going on, what's happening?' and she just says, 'I was holding my son and I think my son blew out the window,'' one of the flight attendants told NTSB investigators, according to a transcript of the interview. 'And that's when I lift up my head and saw the hole and I just started like shaking.' 'I didn't know at that point that that mom was freaking out because she thought her son went out the window,' another flight attendant told investigators. Fortunately, the child had not gone out the hole, although the transcripts from the NTSB did not detail where the child was during the incident or give the name of the mother involved. The plane was able to land within minutes without any serious physical injuries to the 177 people on aboard, including the three infants. Among the NTSB's recommendations following the conclusion of its investigation this week was to once again suggest that the Federal Aviation Administration require passengers ages two and younger have their own seats to protect them. The NTSB does not have the power to make such a requirement. It has been asking the FAA, which is the federal regulator that sets such regulations, for such a rule for decades. Even if parts don't often fall off planes mid-flight, infants on planes are at risk of being thrown from their parents' arms by far more common turbulence, which can occur without warning. One NTSB investigator testified Tuesday about incidents in which infants were injured during severe turbulence, in one instance landing a few rows behind the child's mother in an empty row. 'I've long believed that parents of lap children do not fully realize the serious risk to which they're exposing their young children,' NTSB board member Thomas Chapman said at the hearing. 'The experts agree that the safest place for an infant is secured in their own seat. If there's turbulence or worse, you may not be able to protect your baby in your arms.' Chapman said the NTSB has been pushing for a rule requiring infants be secured in a seat but that 'we just have not been able to persuade FAA that this is an area where they should take action.' An advisory to airlines posted on the FAA's website advises that the agency 'does not require but, because of the safety benefits thereof, does encourage the use of approved child/infant seats aboard aircraft.' When CNN asked about the lack of a rule, the FAA said in a statement: 'The FAA takes NTSB recommendations seriously and will carefully consider those issued yesterday.' The statement added: 'The safest place for a child under age two is an approved child-restraint system or device, not an adult's lap. This can go a long way in keeping children safe during a flight.' But there may be a more intricate calculus involved for the FAA. An agency spokesperson told CNN it is concerned that requiring parents to buy an extra seat for plane travel will lead more of them to drive to their destinations. And the agency believes that would create a greater risk to the children and parents, since flying is a much safer method of transportation than driving. Airlines also likely worry about lost revenue from more parents opting to drive instead. Airlines for America, the industry trade group, did not directly address whether or not there should be a rule requiring infants to have their own seat in a statement. 'The safety of all passengers and crew members is always the top priority of U.S. airlines, which is why we follow federal laws and strictly comply with the guidance and rules established by our safety regulator, the FAA,' the group said. But one expert accused the FAA of putting airline profits over safety. 'The NTSB has one job, and that's to improve safety. They're not concerned about the financial impact,' said Anthony Brickhouse, a crash investigator and US-based aerospace safety consultant. 'The FAA looks at safety, but they also look at the financial impact. Safety and money have been in conflict since the beginning of time. And if you want to know the reasons for anything they do, follow the money.' Brickhouse said if the lap babies had been in or near row 26, where the door plug blew off, they likely would have be lost. 'Why is it that you're required to be buckled in a car, but mommy and daddy can hold you on a flight?' he said. 'You would think this close call could move the needle. It's frustrating to think we need to get tragedy to get change.'
CBS News
18 minutes ago
- CBS News
Jim Obergefell, whose Maryland same-sex marriage led to Supreme Court legalization, warns ruling "is not safe"
Ten years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, and the case began with a couple who got married on the tarmac at BWI Airport. WJZ Investigator Mike Hellgren spoke to the lead plaintiff, Jim Obergefel,l a decade after the ruling. He says marriage equality is under attack. Supreme Court decision day On June 26, 2015, people camped outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., waiting for the ruling that could change history. And it did. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, and the case began with a couple who got married on the tarmac at BWI Airport. CBS News Baltimore When my case number was read, I just jumped up in my seat a little bit and immediately started crying," Obergefell told CBS News moments after the decision. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, and the case began with a couple who got married on the tarmac at BWI Airport. CBS News A decade later, Obergefell spoke candidly about the impact. "I think about the families that have formed, the people who have been able to say, 'I love you, I choose you. I will love, honor and protect you,'" he said. "And I think about the kids who have a future where, before, they might not have seen one for themselves. I think about a young woman in Tennessee who told me that if it weren't for Obergefell v. Hodges – if it weren't for that marriage equality decision – she would have committed suicide." His comments come as the Trump administration recently announced the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline will end its line dedicated to LGBTQ+ youth by July 17. Married at BWI Airport The road to equality began at BWI Marshall Airport more than two years earlier when Obergefell and his longtime partner, John Arthur, got married on a medical jet on the tarmac in Anne Arundel County. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, and the case began with a couple who got married on the tarmac at BWI Airport. Jim Obergefell At the time, Arthur was in the last stages of ALS. Friends paid $14,000 to charter the plane. "The nurse and the two pilots left the airplane so we could have some privacy, and with John's Aunt Paulette officiating, we got to say, 'I thee wed,' and that's all we wanted to do," Obergefell said. "We just wanted to get married. We wanted to exist in the eyes of our government, and we wanted John to die a married man." While there were other states that recognized same-sex marriage at that time, they came to Maryland for one simple reason. "Maryland was the only state that did not require both of us to appear in person to apply for a marriage license. And for me, that really helped keep John at home safe and comfortable. I could go by myself to get the marriage license. I did not have to take John with me at that point. We did not have to find a place to stay overnight or anything else. I could get that marriage license, and then, all John and I would have to do is get to Maryland for the ceremony," Obergefell said. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, and the case began with a couple who got married on the tarmac at BWI Airport. Jim Obergefell Battle at home The couple soon discovered another problem after a civil rights attorney in their home state read about their marriage and reached out to them. "He came to our home with a blank Ohio death certificate, and he said, 'Do you guys understand? When John dies, his last record as a person—his death certificate—will be wrong because of the Ohio state-level Defense of Marriage Act. The state will completely disregard your lawful marriage in Maryland, and when they fill this out, they will say John was unmarried at the time he died, and Jim, your name will not be there as his surviving spouse.'" Obergefell and Arthur sued. "Eleven days after we got married, I was in court for the hearing on our case, and that very same day, federal Judge Timothy Black ruled in our favor and said, 'Ohio, when John dies, you must complete his death certificate correctly,'" Obergefell said. Ohio then appealed and won a victory, Obergefell recalled, "setting us up for our appeal to the Supreme Court, and Ohio fought that all the way to the Supreme Court." His husband died before seeing their victory in Washington, D.C. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, and the case began with a couple who got married on the tarmac at BWI Airport. Jim Obergefell Remembering John Arthur Hellgren asked what Obergefell wants the public to remember about his late husband. "When we decided to file our lawsuit, he gave me his ok to take time away from him. He was dying of ALS, and he was in at-home hospice care fully bedridden, and he knew doing this—filing a lawsuit—would take me away from him, but it was important for him—to him—for us to exist, so he gave me his permission to take time away to fight this fight," he said. Obergefell described Arthur as charming, funny and generous. "He just was one of those people who would walk into a room filled with others—people he'd never met—and by the time he left that room, he had talked to every single person, he charmed them beyond compare," Obergefell said. "And he just was so funny. I mean, we still laugh, friends and I. We still laugh about some of the things John would say, and I was fortunate enough to meet him, to fall in love with him and to have him love me back." In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, and the case began with a couple who got married on the tarmac at BWI Airport. Jim Obergefell "Marriage is not Safe" Obergefell is still fighting. Some conservative justices have called for the nation's highest court to review the landmark marriage decision. "We've had two Supreme Court justices point blank say they want to overturn Obergefell, so no one should think marriage is safe. We have state legislatures passing resolutions calling on the Supreme Court to overturn marriage equality. We have religious organizations doing the same thing," Obergefell said. "Marriage is not safe, and I think anyone who says it is, I think they're fooling themselves." Earlier this month, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to fight to overturn Obergefell's case no matter how long it takes. "It just makes me angry, and I simply don't understand it. Our marriages don't harm anyone else," Obergefell said. "We absolutely cannot assume marriage is settled law. People thought that about abortion rights, and after 49 years, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. So, if a right that people enjoyed for 49 years can be overturned by this court, a right we are just coming up on 10 years of having is at risk." Still, he has hope for the future—and no regrets about being the face of the case that legalized same-sex marriage. "I can't think of a single thing I would do differently," Obergefell said. "John and I reacted to a situation we found ourselves in. We made a decision—a decision we had never once in our lives considered—but it was the right decision." Obergefell said there is "power in hope." "We need to find hope these days, because there are a lot of reasons for us to feel disheartened, to feel afraid. And we need that hope," he told Hellgren. "And for anyone out there who is feeling discouraged or afraid, terrified, I understand. I get it. I'm there with you but just know that I and millions of other people are continuing the fight to make things better for others." Ruling Resonates Even today, Obergefell said the words of the ruling in his favor resonate. "That last page of the decision is something that I know by heart. I joke that it feels like there's a law that was passed that said that last page must be included in every queer marriage ceremony—and also a lot of straight marriage ceremonies. And it's a beautiful piece of writing, and what I love about it is, it talks to what marriage means and why it's important to people." He is referring to what Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his 5-4 majority opinion, "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." Marriage equality in Maryland Maryland legalized same-sex marriage in January 2013 after a statewide referendum. The fight for equality began long before that vote. Pioneering couple Gita Deane and Lisa Polyak filed a lawsuit a decade earlier. While they were unsuccessful before Maryland's highest court at the time, their legal battle laid the groundwork. The couple recently spoke to WJZ about their journey. "I think we were on an education and awareness campaign in this state," Deane said. "I think it's important for people to see that we are their neighbors. Our children are in their schools. Their own children might be LGBT, and the fear needs to go away. We can all link arms and move forward together."
