3739

Monday Memories--looking back on an employment issue

This memory is taken directly from a letter I wrote to my mother in 1991--16 years ago. We were both Democrats (I no longer am) so it wasn't unusual for me to ramble on about political things, just the way I do now with my blog. I had to give a report at my department's faculty meeting and wasn't too enthusiastic about the topic or recommendations. But given what happened last week with the Supreme Court decision about partial birth abortion, I thought I'd resurrect the letter.

"I have to report to the library faculty on Thursday on a rule change for tenure. It is to allow an extension of time for babies, child care, care of an ill person or personal illness. I was not enthusiastic about the rule, but my committee voted me down, so I have to report anyway.

Why is it I get so suspicious about all these rules that are suppose to help women when things don't get any better? Safe legal abortions were to give women a choice--well, we've aborted 25 million babies and 54% of women with children under 6 are in the labor force. In 1950, only 12% of women with children under 6 were working. There is more violence against women, more child abuse, and recently I read that the surplus of women in all age groups is shrinking, not because men are living longer, but because women are dying at a faster rate than they used to. Meanwhile, I think we inched up about 5 percentage points on closing the income gap.

The reason I wasn't enthusiastic about the rule change is because tenure is already a much too long, grueling process--this is just a band-aid on a big wound. But without acknowledging it, they are saying that Yes, all those services women supplied in the home for families in the past are important and do have to be accounted for (the rule applies to both men and women, although I don't think the men are rushing home to take care of the children.)"

Hmmm. Sixteen years. Aren't women still asking for special exceptions and exemptions on the job for family needs?