California NOW

The Impact of the Recession on Single Mothers' Employment

Reprinted with permission from Legal Momentum.

Already High Unemployment Jumps Even Higher and More Single Mothers Reduced to Part-time Work

Single mothers have consistently experienced a far higher rate of unemployment than the population as a whole, and this pattern has continued during the economic downturn that began in December 2007. In 2007, the average monthly unemployment rate was 8.0 for single mothers compared to 4.6 for the population as a whole.1 In 2009, the unemployment rate was 13.6 for single mothers compared to 9.3 for the population as a whole. The single mother unemployment rate may have grown even higher than 13.6 in 2010.

Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will not publish the single mother unemployment statistic until the year is over, BLS does publish on a monthly basis the unemployment rate for “women who maintain families,” about two-thirds of whom are single mothers.2 The average monthly unemployment rate for women who maintain families was 11.9 in the first seven months of 2010, compared to 11.5 in 2009.3

The economic downturn has also led to an increase in the fraction of employed single mothers who work only part-time from 18% in 2007 to 22% in 2009.

1 The single mother data cited here are the data for women with own children under 18 years with no spouse present reported in Table 5 of the annual Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publication “Employment Characteristics of Families in (year)."

Total population unemployment rates are from the BLS table “Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1940 to date."

2 “Women who maintain families” include all women who rent or own a house and who live with a relative other than a spouse. The relative may be a parent or sibling, for example, as well as a minor child.

3 Unemployment rate data for women who maintain families retrieved from http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate using code LNU04000313.

Prop. 8 Federal Case: Stay Lifted, but Equality Still On-Hold

Judge Vaughn Walker, the judge in the Prop. 8 federal trial, has decided to deny the motion to stay his ruling in the Prop. 8 federal case. This means that same-sex couples can legally marry in California, unless and until the 9th Circuit Court issues an emergency stay.

Judge Walker was, in many ways, in a difficult position. Lifting the stay is the right thing to do, but plays into the anti-equality messaging that his decision in the Prop. 8 case was based on personal bias. Allowing the stay to remain would have shown a reliance on the judicial process which could have been helpful in swaying the 9th Circuit Court and Supreme Court in the inevitable appeals.

Judge Walked made it clear in his decision to deny the stay that there was no compelling interest from those who would withhold marriage equality, and that same-sex couples were entitled to marry. However, he also held off on putting the decision into effect until August 18th, giving the anti-equality forces the time to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and request an emergency stay from them, a request which will very likely be granted.

And so, in California as in so many states across the country, we still wait for the promise of equality under the law to be fulfilled.

Happy World Breastfeeding Week!

This is World Breastfeeding Week!

From the diverse health benefits, to the increased bonding experience or even the potential for weight loss, there are many reasons why women decide to breastfeed. Despite support for breastfeeding from every reputable medical organization, mothers still face discrimination and obstacles to breastfeeding.

Employers often create barriers for women who wish to continue breast feeding after returning to the workplace. Denial of breaks for pumping, lack of clean facilities, and supervisor disapproval can all make breastfeeding more difficult to continue. California NOW is supporting AB 2468 (De Leon) which would allow businesses to indicate that they are breastfeeding-friendly if they provide suitable accomodations for breastfeeding mothers. This bill has now passed the Senate Appropriations Committee, and has returned to the Senate for a third reading.

Women are also often harassed for breastfeeding in public, even though laws exist to protect the rights of women and children to nurse in public spaces. The online comic Mama Is... addresses those incidents with humor, but the fact is that breastfeeding women are being penalized for our society's sexualization of women's bodies, and specifically of our breasts. Make no mistake, as lactating mammals, women's breasts exist for the purpose of breastfeeding infants. It is ridiculous that the same society which uses pictures of breasts to sell everything from clothing, to beer, to cars, to computers, can't handle seeing them put to their original purpose. Luckily, the "lactivism" movement is growing! If you're a breastfeeding mom, you can get support for your struggles in plenty of online forums and local mothers' support groups.

Breast-pump maker Ameda has started an “I Breastfeed Because…” campaign for women to share why they made the decision to breastfeed. Mothers who are currently breastfeeding, or have in the past, can log onto www.ibreastfeedbecause.com to upload a brief video on the reasons why they chose to breastfeed and be entered in a contest. For each video, tweet or comment, Ameda will make a charitable donation to the Human Milk Banking Association of North America, a non-profit association of donor human milk banks established in 1985 to set standards for and to facilitate establishment and operation of milk banks in America.

Having known some women who experienced a lack of milk for their infants, and another couple who wanted to be able to give a adopted child breastmilk, these milk banks are important.  They are even lifesavers for some children with medical conditions that make breast milk the only safe option.  If you can't upload your own video, at least make a comment to support the cause.

Prop. 8 Federal Decision In: OVERTURNED!

The decision on the federal Prop. 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, has been released!

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional based on the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling will now be appealed, and the anti-equality proponents have already requested a stay from Judge Walker which would prohibit same-sex marriages in the interim. The Judge has issued the requested stay, and the case will now be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Take a moment and thank the couples who brought this suit.

Remember, you can find a full list of events planned throughout California and the country to celebrate this decision here. Below are brief listings of the California events, but for more details click the link above.

It's Not About Spare Change, It's About Real Change

I knew the statistics.

The average woman's household income drops 27% after a divorce. The average man's household income rises by 10%.

I knew the statistics, but they didn't prepare me for the reality.

They didn't prepare me for desperately digging for change to deposit at the bank so that I could make sure a check wouldn't bounce. They didn't prepare me for washing my daughter's clothes in the bathtub and hanging them to dry in the backyard because I didn't have two dollars for the washer and dryer.  They didn't prepare me to choose between doing those things and breaking a promise to my daughter that cost us our last five dollars.

Here's the thing about being a parent: I will choose her every time. 

I will lift couch cushions, and dig through coat pockets and unused bags, and  decide that I don't really need to keep that lucky dollar coin I've been holding on to for years. I will wash laundry in the tub, and pack homemade lunches and snacks, and only buy new clothes or shoes for myself when the old ones are so full of holes that I can't repair them anymore. I will eat plain pasta with squash and tomatoes from the garden for meal after meal after meal, and I will ask the vendors at the farmer's market if I can have their bruised fruit, and I will find new and exciting things to do with beans and rice. I will scrimp, and save, and sacrifice.

And it will be worth it.

It will be worth it, because it keeps my daughter with me, and it keeps her fed, and housed, and clothed, and happy.

It will be worth it, but that doesn't mean it will be right, or fair, or just.

It is not right that there are millions of families in our country in much worse financial situations than mine all across the country. It isn't fair that part-time childcare costs 1/7 of my monthly income, and full-time would cost 1/4 of it. It isn't just that we can't provide decent paid family leave or sick leave for everyone in our country.

It isn't right that our drop in unemployment numbers is due to a larger number of discouraged job hunters, who have given up looking.  It's not fair that Congress does not intend to extend jobless benefits, throwing millions more families into poverty. It isn't just that California's proposed budget still relies on cuts to needed social safety net programs rather than revenue increases.

And that's why I'm here, and why I do this work. Why I keep doing this work.

Because someone needs to say, "This is not right. This is not fair. This is not just."

Because it isn't about me, and my desperate search for quarters. It isn't even about the millions of families scraping by below the poverty line, or losing their homes to foreclosure, or unable to afford food for their children.

It's about us. It's about what kind of state and country we want to live in and build.  It's about what kind of world we want to bring into being.

I hope you'll join me in working towards a state, a nation, and a world that are more right, more fair, and more just.

Contact Congress about extending Unemployment benefits.
Contact your California state legislators about a family-friendly state budget. 
Attend family recovery budget events.
Ask your Senators to support the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Marriage Equality and California

Prior to 1977, former California Civil Code section 4100 read as: “Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons. . ." In 1977, however, this gender neutral provision was changed to the current gender specific language, in response, ironically, to the then-pending federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). ERA opponents at that time expressed concerns that if women were given full equality with men under the federal constitution, states would have to give gay men and lesbians equal marriage rights, and California’s then-gender neutral language appeared to permit that result.

Therefore, the legislature passed, and then-Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that added the current gender-specific terms to the definition. The 1977 gender-specific language barring same-sex marriage appears to demonstrate not only a clear recognition by the Legislature in 1977 that full gender equality would encompass the right to marry someone of either gender, but also a clear intent by policy-makers to exclude lesbians and gay men from the right to marry their chosen partners under California law. Such apparent animus against a minority, and specifically against gay men and lesbians, has been held constitutionally suspect under the federal constitution. (Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).)

In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city-county clerk's office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Although these marriages were later invalidated, they opened the door for a lawsuit which resulted in the California State Supreme Court declaring that denial of equal marriage rights was unconstitutional.  Same-sex couples were allowed to legally marry in California for approximately five months, until the passage of Prop. 8 on November 4th added marriage discrimination to the California State Constitution. A lawsuit to invalidate Prop. 8 was unsuccessful at the state level, and a federal lawsuit is currently ongoing. An initiative to undo Prop. 8 is expected on the California general election ballot in 2010 or 2012.

Prop. 8 Federal Case: Arguments Over, Waiting Begins

Now that the arguments in the federal Prop. 8 case, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, are finished, it seemed like a good time to bring back this hilarious video.



Read the full closing arguments 

You can read some analysis of the closing arguments here:
NCLR
The New York Times
Silicon Valley Mercury News

Disney Needs Adventure Girls!

Apparently Disney has decided to target its latest Princess movie to boys.  Now that it looks like the Rapunzel film isn't about Rapunzel as much as the newly created male lead, one wonders if Disney really knows how its financial bread gets buttered.

Disney has found major franchises in their Disney Princess and Disney Fairies brands.  These brands are driven by girls. It is obvious to anyone paying attention that Disney has never succeeded in creating the same kind of character-driven franchise for boys. The Pixar films are very boy-centric, but they don't have the same merchandising strength as the Princess or Fairies lines.

The decision to change Rapunzel to Tangled was apparently made because The Princess and the Frog didn't do as well financially as Disney had hoped. I can't help wondering how much racism played into that. 

I say that not just as someone who recognizes the intersections of oppressions, but as someone who stood in line, waiting to buy tickets to see The Princess and the Frog with my daughter and mother. A girl a few years older than my daughter came in with her mother and stood in line behind us.  The girl said, "The Princess and the Frog! I want to see that!" "No," said her mother, in a disgusted tone, "We are NOT seeing THAT movie."  I do not think it was a coincidence that the mother and daughter were white, and I wonder how many times that conversation was repeated in movie theaters and homes across the country.

I have numerous problems with the way Disney markets towards girls, and especially with many of the official Princess storylines, but decentering the heroine of the Rapunzel story so much that her name is no longer the title (the first time, by the way, that this has happened with one of the Princess movies), is not a solution.

In fact, if the issue is the bottom line, I'd like to propose a solution to satisfy both Disney's money-machine and my feminist mom desires.  Since it's clear that multi-film heroine groupings are a winner, I propose, Disney Adventurers! This would let Disney resurrect and cash in on some of the older characters, and appeal to parents who don't like the Princess or Fairy lines as role-models.  I know I'm not the only parent who would love to see a mainstream character line that I could support without reservations (or at least with fewer reservations). 

Now if only Disney could convince Pixar to make a movie with a female lead...

Impacts of the Proposed Budget on California Women and Families

Now that we've given you the background of the economic climate for women and their families, let's take a look at how the proposed budget cuts to health and human services programs in California will impact these families.

The Great Recession has put many California families on edge, with formerly dual-income families now relying on a single earner, often making lower wages and working fewer hours. Job losses, a difficult labor market, and medical coverage loss combine to keep families from economic stability. Because of this confluence of factors, families are relying on social safety net programs more than ever. Programs have seen an increase in demand while budgets have been cut, meaning that there are fewer resources to help those populations who have been rely on these programs for survival. Moreover, proposed budget cuts target numerous programs used by California's neediest citizens, and many families access more than one service, meaning that needy families and individuals will be impacted not merely by cuts to a single program, but will face multiple cuts to every program that helps them. Here are some of the facts, and the ways in which these families will be affected.

Yes, Virginia, the Recession Really Has Hurt Women

Today we attended a briefing from the California Budget Project releasing their analysis of how the current Great Recession and the proposed budget cuts to health and human services programs will impact women. You can read the full reports on the CBP website, but we'll bring you some of the highlights in this post and one later today on the budget cutbacks.

Despite the media narrative calling this a "man-cession" due to the higher rates of men who have experienced job losses, women, especially single women with children, have also been dramatically impacted by the economic downturn.

• This is the first recession where women have had significant job losses.
• Women's job losses have increased as the recession has continued.
• Women’s jobless rate exactly doubled between 2006 and 2009, rising from 5% to 10%.
• The employment rate for unmarried women with children declined by 4.7 percentage points between 2006 and 2009, from 67.5% to 62.8%.
• The jobless rate for unmarried women with children was 14.8% in 2009, compared to 8.8% for married women with children and 8.9% for married men with children.
• In 2009, single women supporting families worked 36.6 hours/week, on average, down from 38.6 hours/week in 2006 - the largest decline in at least 20 years.
• The number of California’s married-couple families with children relying solely on the earnings of wives increased by 77.7% between 2006 and 2009.
• The number of families supported solely by working mothers rose from 4.7% in 2006 to 8.5% in 2009.
• California’s typical working woman earned 89.1 cents for every dollar earned by the typical working man in 2009.
• Nationally, the cumulative earnings of prime-age women over a 15-year period were just 38% of those of similar men.
• Low-wage men’s inflation-adjusted hourly wage increased by 6.9% between 2006 and 2009, compared to a 0.6% decline in the hourly earnings of low-wage women.
• An estimated 1.7 million women nationwide lost their health coverage between December 2007 and August 2009, 68% due to a spouse’s job loss.