On September 6, five days ago, we wrote about a New York Times article reporting a daddy bonus and a mommy penalty. Now comes a paper by a demographer we like, Kay Hymowitz, written for Family Studies, on the same subject.
Hymowitz makes some of the same points I made last week, and adds a particularly powerful one:
Gender gap journalism often shies away from just how big a role marital status plays in all of its percentages. “Low income mothers pay the biggest price” for motherhood, she says citing Budig. No kidding. Low-income jobs have less flexibility. Just as importantly, low-income mothers are disproportionately unmarried. Married mothers can divvy up the laundry, the PTA meetings, and doctors appointments with their children’s resident dad. They also have the advantage of a second income.For 40+ years the DrsC have talked about "our income," not mine and yours. The total is what we have to operate with.
Over the past two decades the motherhood penalty has declined for married mothers. They now make only 3% less than childless women. For unmarried mothers, the penalty has increased sharply—to 10.5 percent.
Terms like “motherhood penalty” and “fatherhood bonus” disenfranchise mothers who freely choose to reduce their work. It also suggests men and women disadvantage or benefit only themselves, but that is plainly untrue for married parents. When a husband earns more partly because his wife’s hours allow her to pick up the kids, or, of course, vice versa, his or her “bonus” neutralizes his or her “penalty” in ways that render the terms misleading.
Will somebody please look at unmarried fathers with child custody to see if they also experience a wage penalty? I expect many do. If so, the correct nomenclature is "the unmarried parent penalty."
