I’ve spent a good deal of time reading about how to succeed in a career as a woman, how to climb the ladder, be a boss without being bitchy, and learning when it’s time to move on.  Women often end up staying in unsatisfying jobs, often because they have earned the right to maternity leave, flexible schedules and the ability to take time off to be with family.  A few years ago I was shocked to read about the number of women who didn’t have maternity leave.  Even more shocked to learn more recently how many of my friends don’t have this seemingly basic benefit.

Learning at 30 that you will need to use your vacation time, sick time and likely go on disability seems crazy.  What’s more is how many women have to do this all the time.  A bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives almost a year ago that would require 4 weeks off for federal employees.  It didn’t go anywhere.  Many European countries have laws requiring paid maternity leave, so why don’t we?  Are we anti-family, or anti-time off?  Women make up 47% of the workforce, so what gives?

According to a report by Human Rights Watch, approximately 178 countries have a national law guaranteeing paid leave for new mothers, while more than 50 include paid time off for new fathers.

According to the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, anyone employed for at least 12 months by a business with a payroll of at least 50 employees may take 12 unpaid weeks and not lose their jobs, including federal employees.  This cuts out half the workforce, while others it does apply to cannot afford to take it. Only 16% of employers offered paid maternity leave in 2008, down from 27% in 1998.  Bottom line: The U.S. is one of four countries that doesn’t offer paid leave to new mothers.  Our esteemed list includes Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and Lesotho.

The lowest income families are the ones who hurt the most.  They often cannot afford to take unpaid leave.  However Think Progress has found in recent years, data shows that less educated women “are nearly four times more likely than college graduates to be denied paid maternity.  More women now than just a few years ago are actually foregoing a paycheck to take the time off.  For any family taking unpaid time off can create huge financial issues.  For those making minimum wage and just getting by, it can be devastating. No wonder having a baby is a leading cause of “poverty spells” in the U.S.!

Much flak has been given young women in their 20s and 30s for waiting so long to have children. How dare we put our careers and financial stability ahead of procreation!  I have friends who have spent time the last couple years trying to change jobs in order to be in a place they want to stay for awhile, where they can rack up the necessary time with the company to be able to take maternity leave, only to find it doesn’t exist.  It changes our feeling of being financially secure, and ready for children.  My question is how do we change this at the company level?  How do we lobby our employers to say we want this benefit, it’s the right thing to do, and it will likely help keep employees like us around for years to come?

Better yet, how do we make this happen at the federal level?

When the New York Times recently asked “Are You as Fertile as You Look?” the question was rhetorical. The reporter suggested womenfolk are ignorant about their declining fertility because they confuse youthful looks with having youthful ovaries. It’s easy to judge women like the ones trotted out for this piece; in their late 30s through mid 40s, they express surprise at having difficulty conceiving. After all, the fact that fertility declines with age—particularly after 35—isn’t exactly a revelation. But the conception woes of women past their fertility prime can’t be written off as a symptom of mass female stupidity. As Jessica Grose cautioned, focusing on women who think shiny hair, white teeth, and clear complexions are sign of fertility “takes away from the messy reality that most women who wait to have children aren’t doing it because they believe they are endlessly fertile. They’re waiting because they haven’t found the right partner, or they don’t have enough money, or they don’t feel ready, or a million other reasons that have nothing to do with female ignorance.”

Grose is right. The New York Times is ignoring a thornier predicament than naiveté: many women are increasingly out of synch with their biology. And no one knows quite what to do about it.

According to the census, far fewer folks are marrying than just a few decades ago. Those who do marry are marrying later, and the number of women in the workforce continues to grow at the same time that working-class men’s prospects are floundering. Culturally, we’re cheerleaders for narcissism and delayed “adulthood,” encouraging a quarter-century-adolescence, especially for men. This all but assures that fewer women will find suitable partners and start families before their fertility declines precipitously. And for those who are willing to become mothers on their own, our government doesn’t provide any of the social welfare or safety nets that protect and support women with kids, like nationalized healthcare, daycare, or even a living wage for many. How could the confluence of these factors not dramatically impact how women think about the circumstances under which they have kids? Wouldn’t you expect to see more women “waiting” for children under these circumstances?

Newsflash: Most research points to a woman’s prime fertility years being from 22 to 26. How many women that age do you know who are married or in a committed partnership, financially stable, and ready for kids? How many men? (I recognize that my upbringing puts me far outside the median, but I literally have one friend who had a child in her 20s–and she was 29).

It’s time we start talking with some sensitivity and compassion about a growing type of women’s issue: “circumstantial infertility.” It’s a term Melanie Notkin coined recently in a touching biographical piece she wrote about coming to terms with the fact that at 42 she may never be a biological mother. “Circumstantial infertility” is the name Notkin gave to the situation faced by many women who want(ed) children but never had them for reasons other than biological infertility. It is something that impacts women who hoped to be mothers but ended up missing the window (whether that’s because they never found a partner, found a partner at too advanced an age, weren’t financially secure, or encountered a host of other impediments). Two simultaneous trends are worth noting here: Many more women over 35 are having babies than just two decades ago, while, at the same time, the number of childless women overall is increasing. A 2010 Pew Report notes that one in five women has made it to 40 without ever having a child. This is an increase from the 1970s when only one in 10 women between the ages of 40-44 was childless. As might be expected, women with the most education are the least likely to have children. While we don’t know what percentage of women are childless by choice—versus biological or circumstantial infertility—I think we can agree that childless women deserve our kindness, support, and understanding.

After all, it’s not hard to imagine how women find themselves in this situation.  One day you’re busy living your life and the next you’re suddenly in a race against the clock. Just look at me. I’m 33 and have always wanted children. I’m also lucky to share my life and home with a lovely gentleman who would make a wonderful father. In fact, that’s what prompted me to inquire at a recent annual gynecologist appointment about my own fertility. My question was of a general nature, along the lines of, “If I decide to have kids in the next few years, what do I need to think about now?” Imagine my surprise when, instead of assurance that I still had plenty of time, I was told, “My best advice for you is to go home and start trying tonight.”

Reality check, anyone?

Here’s the double-whammy for many women who find themselves in this situation: The realization that you can’t slow down your biological clock often comes hand-in-hand with the acknowledgement that you can’t really speed up choosing the partner you’d like to raise children with—at least not in a particularly healthy way. My doctor may have thought she was talking about fertility, but what she was really suggesting was that I’d better figure out the future of my relationship, and fast. But can anyone really do that on command, especially in a relatively new relationship?

Making a lifetime commitment to a partner (and eventual co-parent) isn’t something that should be done hastily, and women in their 30s must often weigh difficult options: Put faith in your current sweetie and start procreating faster than you might otherwise? Head to the nearest sperm bank? Ditch your man and start auditioning a new potential life-mate? Of course, these kinds of tough choices are not new. But as the timing of landmark life events like marriage start taking place later and societal expectations around work and family change, the lives of many women are put on a collision course with biology. Of course single women can have babies alone, and many choose to do just that. But it seems uncontroversial to suggest that most women would probably prefer a co-parent and ideally a committed relationship before they have kids.

The emotion stirred by Lori Gottlieb when she told women to settle for Mr. Good Enough exemplifies the discomfort many feel when encountering the realities of pregnancy and aging. Gottlieb’s advice to “settle,” after all, was informed by her personal experience as a single mother who conceived with a sperm donor after not meeting “Mr. Right” by the time she was nearing 40—along with the subsequent challenge of raising a child alone. There was some realistic tough-love buried in her advice to unmarried women in their 30s: “If you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go.” But for anyone who has ever actually been in a nice-enough relationship with a nice-enough guy, it doesn’t feel like sound advice.

At a time when more women than ever are childless, more are having babies later, and a record four-in-ten births are to unmarried women (that’s up from 28% in 1990), we ought to think long and hard about the social, political, and emotional repercussions of our entrenched ideas about what makes—and when to make—a family. We need to understand that women who “wait” (often too long, biologically speaking) for kids are responding rationally to new paradigms that are still governed by old rules. We should talk more about options like nontraditional family units, adoption, and medical advances like IVF and do less judging and finger wagging. Our bodies aren’t changing, but the world is. Maybe it’s time our attitudes toward “circumstantially infertile” women do, too.

This piece was originally published on Role/Reboot.  Republished with permission.

Photo credit dirkoneill/Flickr

And so that’s why I’m hoping that when I get pregnant, it happens in Mississippi.  As a result of this amendment being passed, here’s what I and others are anticipating as the potential consequences:

1) Fertilized eggs could potentially inherit money.

2) Fertilized eggs could potentially be counted as part of the population for purposes of political representation in government.  Another Congressional seat for Mississippi, please?

3) I could potentially use HOV lanes during rush hour.

4) The concept of age could change.  So those who are right now 20 years old and three months are REALLY 21 years old, since we now have to count the time spent inside the mother’s body – oh wait, I mean the incubator.  Still, those new 21 year olds could now buy lots and lots of alcohol legally.  Can anyone say ‘stimulating the economy’?  I want to serve my country and be a part of that!

5) Laws all over the country would be inspired to change.  Cruel and unusual punishment will take on many more cases as we all debate whether its humane to leave a person virtually locked in a tiny cell like a womb for all that time.  Surely that’s against our moral code?  Wait, what’s that? It couldn’t SURVIVE outside the womb? Well now you’re just playing into women’s need to feel self-important.

6) Birth control could become illegal as well.  15.3 million American women use hormonal birth control, but whatevs.  This means men will need to either A) always wear condoms no matter what, B) not wear a condom, significantly increase the likelihood that their partner will get pregnant, and then provide lots and lots of money in child support.  In addition to, you know, having a child.  Which may or may not have serious mental or physical health problems.  Oh yes, and the woman could die or be seriously injured during pregnancy or birth, so you may be on your own.  But no worries.  Or C) Stop having sex unless the purpose is to procreate.  I’m guessing men will go for option C.

7) Outlawing of abortion entirely, even though it’s a right protected by the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.  I guess once other states take up this amendment too, 3 out of 10 American women will have to endure a pregnancy, give birth, and support another child they don’t feel capable of safely and successfully bringing into the world and then raising.  But that’s ok, because 61% of women who would have had those abortions already have children, so the kids’ll have company.  And it’s not like raising a kid is hard or expensive.  It’s just more work.

Oh there are so many good reasons for this bill to pass, and for me to get pregnant in Mississippi.  I’ll have many more privileges, my kid will likely have company, my partner will stop having sex with me unless it’s to have even more kids, and then I won’t need to read so many trashy magazine articles about pleasing my man, since that will no longer be the point.  I also won’t need to worry so much about my career, or pursuit of happiness, or my health, or dignity, or my own life.  So really, it’s all a blessing in disguise.

The truth is, this bill will make everyone’s lives better.

Or the opposite.

But you know, whatevs.  It only really affects women anyway.  And everyone knows that while fertilized eggs may soon be considered people, women still aren’t.

This post is part of the #HERvotes blog carnival on the Mississippi Personhood Amendment.  For dozens of more posts about the impact of this incredibly dangerous legislation, check out www.HERVotes.us.  Then, go donate to Mississippians for Healthy Families to join the fight.

I’ve had this report on my brain for days thinking about all the comparisons between Gen X and Gen Y, and the fears women in both generations have about starting down the road to motherhood.

The Wall Street Journal pointed to workplace stress as a cause.  A third of high earning Gen Xers, male and female, work an average of 60+ hours a week, which leaves little time for a social life.  Huffington Post Women spoke with Sylvia Ann Hewlett, founding president of the Center for Work Life Policy, who conducted the study, titled “The X Factor: Tapping into the Strengths of the 33 to 46 –year old Generation”.  Her analysis paints an interesting, and likely more accurate picture of what happens. Twenty-eight percent of Gen Xers work ten hours more a week than they were five years ago – part out of ambition, part out of the recession and the need to do more with less, and part due to demanding jobs.   Hewlett also suggested the decision to not have children is always theirs, but as you work to move up the ladder, or take other opportunities you suddenly reach the point where it could be too late, and the decision is made for you.

Why are Gen X women putting off having children to begin with?  Like I said earlier, it is very similar to the reasons Gen Y women choose to wait, though maybe not as long.

• Pay off student loans
• Job stability and a higher rung on the corporate ladder
• Closer to or achieving home ownership
• Credit card debt to pay off

Gen X is by far better educated than the generations before them.  Women and minorities make up 64% of graduates from the Gen X college years.  More than one third of them hold a bachelors degree, while 11% hold graduate degrees.  The side affect beings more people with student loans, which can affect your choice in job, with 43% saying the ability to pay off their loans was an important factor in their career choice.

The recession has kept a more Boomer from retiring, simply because they can’t afford it.  The result of which means Gen X workers cannot move up, leaving Gen Y employees stuck in entry level positions for very little pay, and little hope of getting ahead for either generation.  The news has been filled with stories about how both generations are feeling the crunch, unhappy in their positions, working extreme hours, for what is never enough pay, and little hope of promotion or raise.  It has pushed many of Gen Y back to school, likely to put them in a similar place Gen X is in now, with additional debt in student loans and likely, credit cards.

With additional debt, Gen X was starting to achieve high rates of home ownership just in time for housing crisis.  Now with little options in terms of financing, or facing foreclosure, added to their employment situation, Gen X is truly stuck between a rock and a hard place.  Did I mention they were also hit with a recession as they began graduating from college and entering the work force?  They will be the first generation not to match their parents’ standard of living.

My conversations with friends about when and if they will have children usually involve the big question marks of career and childcare.  “Not I make more and can afford a nanny, or great day care” and “Have you heard how much private schools costs?” are common to hear, especially as many of us plan to remain in an urban area, and as in DC and most cities, education because a huge expense none of us had thought about.  The bigger if, tends to come with “once I finish grad school” or “once my student loans are paid off” or “as long as I can do this without sabotaging my career”.

Seventy-five percent of Gen X women consider themselves ambitious.  It can be frightening to think about holding back for children, dealing with maternity leave, sick kids, changing your schedule, being torn between working an extra few hours and spending that time with your children. For a lot of women, myself included, this is scary to think about.  If you leave right at 5:30 most days will it hurt your chance for promotion, and if you stay until 7:00 what have you missed out on with your child and are hurting them in long run by doing this?

Generation Y women can learn a lot from Generation X women, and we may have already begun to just by waiting longer to settle down and even think about a family.  But will we put off or opt of children at the same rate?  Will it be decided for us if too many of us reach 40 before taking a step and saying, yeah, I really do want that.  As careers take over our lives, we need to be able to see how it works to use flex time, telecommuting and other options to see how it can free up time, and how productive it is for us career wise, family wise, and for our personal time.  Going into the new position I want to know that my personal life will be taken seriously and seen as important, otherwise how to do I know my family needs will be taken the same way.

Generation X women have made many options possible. But was it all worth it, or were their choices forced on due to a tumultuous economy, debt and the need to get ahead?  Generation Y women should watch closely, and take note.

The findings of the IWPR/Rockefeller Survey of Economic Security are quite astounding, but mostly in the sense that I am astounded by how negatively the Recession is impacting the lives of many Americans.  Generally, most Americans feel less confident about their economic security today than they did three years ago. In 2007, 38% of women and 33% of men felt they had little economic security and when asked again in 2010, the numbers skyrocketed to 77% of women and 71% of men.

Considering the news headlines of the past year, I am sure you can assume why most Americans are disheartened. Health care is in shambles, Social Security is a nightmare, the housing market is a mess, and the job market- well, we might just call that a catastrophe. The study is very comprehensive in confronting all of these issues and the responses show that many Americans are making big sacrifices in their quality of life. Americans are having difficulty paying for food (26 million women, 15 million men), health care (46 million women, and 34 million men), rent or mortgage (32 million women, 25 million men) and are not saving or saving much less for retirement (65 million women, 53 million men).

What these numbers also show is that women are having a much harder time than men recovering from the adverse effects of the ’07-’09 recession. It is no wonder that the IWPR/Rockefeller report calls this phase of economic recovery the “Mencession.” The studies tell that while men’s job losses were more than twice as large as women’s, women’s economic vulnerability has increased much more than the men. 61% of male participants indicated that they have enough savings to support themselves for two months, while only 43% of women could say the same. Although most people in our country are suffering, women have the short stick on this one simply because they, generally, make lower earnings and have a greater likelihood of raising children on their own. As a result, the study observes that more women are going hungry (16% of single mothers and 9% of married mothers) and are unable to provide for their children (43% of single moms and 42 % of married moms have not bought something their child has needed). The statistics increase among women in minority groups as well.

The Roundtable did a great job of not only highlighting the research findings of the effects of the Recession, but also shining a light on how many Americans hope to proceed in the future considering these tough times. Many Americans are ill-prepared for retirement, whether they have not saved, stopped saving or are saving very little. Also, many people expect that they will retire by the age of 70 or perhaps never at all. Because “recovery” has yet to reach many Americans, they are relying on government programs such as Social Security and Medicare for the future. With that said, the Roundtable turned to a discussion of what government and our politicians could do (or should do) based on these findings. Pretty obviously, Americans are expecting that our government will handle the economic situation and improve conditions for Americans sooner than later.

After I ended my Google Phone session with the IWPR Roundtable on Women & the Economy, I felt a little disheartened. Actually, very disheartened. I’m a law student racking up some serious debt; I am searching for jobs in a dismal job market; and while I thought the 1960s and Civil Rights helped get females to equal status as their male counterparts, being a young lady in a “mancession,” is not looking too good either. However, what I did take out of the event was that I am not alone. All Americans are suffering in one way or another and we can really benefit from this understanding. Together, we can hope that it’s only up from here.

About this Author: Maria Saab is a law student intern at Workplace Fairness. Her Bachelor of Arts in International Studies combined with her career experiences working on Capitol Hill and with then-Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008 encouraged her to pursue law school. As a hopeful lawyer, she plans on specializing in regulatory law and hopes to one day concentrate her work efforts towards policy development.  This post appeared originally at Workplace Fairness and is cross posted with permission.

On Tuesday afternoon, the UNFPA and National Geographic held a conference in Washington, DC on Unleashing the Power of Women and Girls.   Participating in the panel were representatives from the World Bank, the State Department, the International Women’s Health Coalition and The Kakenya Center for Excellence as well as celebrities. Each panelist told their story of how they work to improve the lives of women around the world.  Kakenya Ntaiya had the most striking story.  As a young woman in Kenya she told her father she would undergo FGM (female genital mutilation) if she could get an education.  What a horrible barter to make for an education.  But she was determined to get an education and live life as she wanted.   She is now pursuing her Doctorate at the University of Pittsburgh.  But along the way she returned to Kenya and established a school for girls – The Kakenya Center for Excellence –to help girls with education, self-realization and leadership.  Now, through her activism & work, no other girl in her village will be subject to FGM.

Singer & Actress Natalie Imbruglia spoke of her work  with UNFPA to end Fistula – a condition resulting from difficult childbirth that can be fixed with surgery but that leaves many women and girls isolated for much of their lives.  Alexandra Garita from the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC) discussed the need for greater sex education for everyone.

All of these people are change-agents.  They empower others to help, they inspire us to be better and work harder.  I invite you to share the videos from both National Geographic and UNFPA.   Join them in their 7 Billion Call-to-Action by sharing your story.  By forwarding a video, writing an article or tweeting, you participate in the movement.  You help raise awareness of these issues and hopefully create change for the girls of tomorrow.

This piece was written by Lauren Supina Farber

Yet one thing that cannot be disputed is the amazing progress women have made in society even from a few decades ago.  Feminist Marlo Thomas recently wrote a piece for the Huffington Post entitled Passing the Torch…Who’s Going to Run with it, in which she points out:

It wasn’t long ago in this country when, if you stood in a hospital hallway and looked through the glass window of the nursery, you could point to all the babies wrapped in pink and know exactly what they’d being doing in 20 years.

Stay-at-home mom? Teacher? The options were limited.

Twenty years ago, only the babies cocooned in blue blankets could become an astronaut, a doctor, scientist or even a solider. Today, this is clearly not the case, and it’s the women who came before us that we have to thank for clearing our path to equality and success.  As those strong and valiant women carry their torches with pride, they begin to light future generations’ torches and slowly, our light shines brighter…not just brighter, it shines ferociously.

So, who will carry the torch?  What will the next generation of feminists pursue? We’ll be joined by special guest Stephenie Foster, a Fem2 ally with over 25 years of experience advocating for women with governments and organizations all over the world.  Join us on our tweet chat using the #nxtgenfem hashtag to share a vision of the future of feminism and talk about what we should expect not just from the world, but from ourselves.

Date: Sunday August 14
Time: 9 PM EST
Place: #nxtgenfem

Image by Danielle Marks

1. No more dollar bills for your pills.

No more co-pays, co-insurance, or deductibles on any FDA-approved contraceptive methods.  Just because five out of eight hippies swear by it does not mean the government does. You can complete a transaction at the local pharmacy or behemoth chain pharmacy without reaching for your wallet. It’s a beautiful thing not to have to compromise control over your body for food, cell phone bills or other essential goods and services. However, note that you are still technically paying for services in your premium. They will be dollar-covered by your insurance company, just like other essential services and medications that do not require a co-pay.

2. Kraft still costs more than Foodtown.

Your insurance company may not cover brand-name drugs completely if there is a generic version available, as is the case with other medication. As always, consult with your medical provider to decide which is right for you. Remember that you also must have a prescription.

3. Baby already on board? HHS isn’t on board, either.

The new coverage provisions are for preventive care only, so sterilization procedures and morning-after pills are covered, but abortifacient (abortion-inducing) drugs and procedures are not covered. It should be noted that family planning counseling IS included, so if you’re expecting and need advice, you will not be turned away.

4. Praying could mean paying.

Religious institutions that offer insurance to employees have the choice to opt out of contraceptive coverage under HHS’ new provisions.   If your employer has a clear religious agenda, and hires/serves people of that religion, check with your benefits administrator to find out if their insurance will cover contraceptives.

5. We are women, and we roar at federal agencies.

HHS is allowing public comment on their ruling for the next sixty days, fifty-nine now. As we watch the systematic slashing of Planned Parenthood funding unfolding on the state level, it’s of utmost importance that we make our voices heard in support of free contraceptive services. Lawmakers and bureaucrats alike need to know that free contraceptives are the new norm, and that anything less is unacceptable.