article review

1. "Flexible policies help mothers balance work, children"
Post and Courier
May 14, 2006

The article provided statistics about the numbers of mothers that work, citing government statistics as the source. It also used Working Mother Magazine as a source, which is a publication that annually rates the top 100 companies for working mothers. It relied on evidence of improvement because of the passage of the federal Family Medical Leave act. Most of the information about conditions that these companies provide that puts them on the list was provided by Carol Evans, publisher of Working Mother Magazine. The article also went in depth with one companies policies, along with a couple of anecdotes from women who had good experiences with taking leave and using flexible hours to their advantage.
The only real objective research done was the use of the governmental statistic, the exact source of it unclear. The rest of the information for the article was from Carol Evans and the "100 best" companies for working mothers list. This information seemed to be qualitative rather than quantitative. The article did not provide an ovewhelming amount of statistical evidence on the general trends of working mothers, but instead focuses on the companies that are making positive advances.
The ideology that seems to pervade this article is a feminist perspective, since it views in a positive light companies that make it easier for women to pursue a career. Also the dominant speaker, Carol Evans, also took this same perspective.

2. "BALANCING ACT: Mom's finding support online"
The San Francisco Chronicle
May 14, 2006

This article was not one based on statistics, but on following the creation of two blog sites for working mothers called momsrising.com and mommytrackd.com. It followed Jon Blades and Amy Keroes in their decisions leading to the making of the sites. From the discovery that there was no such sites out there, to the seeking of support of others to help in its creation. Carol Evans was again turned to for commentary and feedback on the sites.
The research done for the story on the two websites seemed to be trusworthy. The creators of both sites were interviewed. The story did seem thoroughly researched, and even included a visual description of the sites created.
Again, the ideology of this article was very pro-working mother. It was a promotion of an outlet were working mothers can speak about their similar experiences, seek advice, and support.

3. "Working and Stay at Home Moms: What's your Monetary Value?"
The washingtonpost.com
May 5, 2006

The article was a question and ansnwer session based on the release of what a "stay at home mom's" salary should look like. Bill Coleman, the Senior VP of salary.com, came up with a salary of 134,000 per year for stay at home moms, and 86,000 for working mothers. There were a number of questions on how he came up with these numbers, especially regarding how to figure in overtime hours. He counted overtime hours, assuming that the mother's worked a total of 70 hours per week at the same job, not a number of different jobs. The article provided Coleman's credentials as a compensation and benefits consultant. While his method of assessing the salary seemed sound, the controversy lay in the debate over whether it is a proper assessment to begin to make when compared with other lifestyles and situations that include similiar work with no specualtion over the need for compensation evaluation.
I am unsure of the methods used to assess the outcome of the salaries that Coleman came up with, but his expertise and manner of methodical explanation to questions about overtime ect. makes me think his number is trustworthy from a purely objective standpoint.
There is not one definite perspective that can be illicited from the quantification of the work of a stay at home mother. I believe it was intended to be taken from a feminist perspective of supporting and legitimizing the work of women in the household, but some women and men took offense saying that it demeaned those who work as well as take care of children. The purpose of such a study is not clear cut.

4. "Deciphering the 'mommy wars'"
CNN.com
April 21, 2006
THis article provided a synthesis of the most current voices in the debate over the lifestyles of stay at home mothers versus working mothers. It provided some statistical anaylisis on the nubmers of women working with children and without from the Census Bureau. The article used quotes and information form Joanne Brundage, who founded the organization Mothers and More, which supports working mothers in balancing their home and professional lives.
THe article does give a source for the statistics used, as well as quote the reliable Carol Evans from Working Mother magazine. It presented a few different perspectives from the stay at home supporters and from the working mother perspectives, making it a fairly balanced article.
The article seemed to lean toward the ideology supporting the working mother by pointing out the inconsistencies in Flanagan's argument for the stay at home mother's lifestyle. Still, I think it did a good job of remaining objective, while explaining the two perspectives on the debate.

5. " Women expect to keep working, excel"
Japan Times
McClatchy Tribune- Business News
January 4, 2007

This article explained the situation of working mothers in Japan, and how the countries general lack of faith in the working mother is perilous to its economic growth. It cited statistics from the Japan Research Institute, the internal affairs ministry, and government budget plans that support creating more daycare facilities in the work place. There was also an act passed that mandates any company with more than 300 employees to draft a plan with numerical goals for child-rearing support. The suppression of women in the home becoming detrimental to the economy, the government is quickly looking for ways to reverse this stereotype of mothers in the work force.
This article relied heavily on statistics to expand upon its main argument. They all seemed to stem from legtimate sources. The article seemed to be indicting Japan's population for looking down upon working mother's and praising the government's efforts to proactively jumpstart the trend of working mothers.


There are two main controversies surrounding the issue of working mothers. The first is whether it is right for a mother to work, therefore disabling her from spending more time with her kids. The second debate is between working mothers and non-working mothers, and the guilt that is induced between the two groups. Working mothers feel the guilt of not spending the maximum amount of time with their children, and stay at home mothers often feel that they are being told their life's occupation is meaningless and boring. This debate is interesting because there is no clear cut feminist outlook on the issue. Some feminists believe that it is very important to validate and legitimize the stay at home mother's work as quantifiable while other feminists believe that it is important to integrate women into the work-force and expect men to begin to share the work-load of raising children and household chores. I think the authors' perspectives must have in some way influenced their reporting on the topic, even in the facts they chose to represent the arguments of the two different sides. All of the articles to me seemed to air on the side of the feminist perspective except for the article on the salary of a stay at home mom. I believe that my own bias towards the stance of the articles also shades my reading of them.
I think the trustworthiness of articles concerning the family cannot be taken lightly. Because the family is such a contoversial issue, it is my belief that all writing on it will have some sort of agenda. It cannot simply be an objectively reported news story. I think media coverage of family issues tends to polarize people's views into two camps, both of which in some way indict women for their role as house-wife or as working mother. This brings to light the greater issue of biased reporting of women in the media, which is prevalent in many other aspects of media coverage besides issues of the family.


-Jackie Hubbell