So I’m doing research for some magazine articles I’m writing about cutting-edge couples in a (supposed) new era of equality and came across the following:

Based on a study of 120 in-depth interviews with young adults conducted between 1998-2003, NYU sociologist Kathleen Gerson reports that 3/4 of women said they plan to build a non-negotiable base of self-reliance and an independent identity in the world of paid work.

And according to other studies, there are fewer households with highly unequal divisions of family labor and more households with equal divisions than ever before — both in the US and across Europe. Turns out, if egalitarian divisions aren’t possible, what a husband wants and what a wife wants are often at odds. According to Gerson, “If a supportive, equal partnership is not possible, most women prefer individual autonomy over becoming dependent on a husband in a traditional marriage. Most men, however, if they can’t have an equal balance between work and parenting, fall back on a neo-traditional arrangement that allows them to put their own work prospects first and rely on a partner for most caregiving.”

So, um, what might this say about who’s really calling shots in those couples featured by Leslie Bennetts where the wives are staying home? Just a thought…

(All info drawn from the special Council on Contemporary Families issue of The American Prospect last month)

There’s a savvy read of Leslie Bennett’s NYPL LIVE event this week on Gawker, by the way, for those who missed it. (Thanks to Rachel Kramer Bussell for hipping me to it.)

I’m taking the liberty of pasting Heather Boushey’s comment on my previous post up here, in case folks don’t venture into the comments down there. It is as I thought: evidence, not interpretation. Thank you, Heather, for inserting the nuance. Why doesn’t this reality seem to get through the din???

Heather Boushey’s comment:

Sure, I’ll comment … I’ve run hundreds of regressions by now trying to sort out whether there is or is not a trend of declining women’s employment *because of children.* I haven’t found any real evidence that points to women being more likely to leave employment today, compared to 25 years ago or 5 years ago, because they have children at home.

What we know is that employment rates for men and women (moms and non-moms) declined after 2000, and while women’s employment rates have almost recovered to their 2000 levels, men’s have not.

We also know that women lost more jobs during the recession of 2001 than they had in the prior two recessions. They did not lose more jobs than men, but compared to women in prior recessions, the 2001 recession was hard on women workers. I tend to think of this as women moving closer to equality to men in their vulnerability to the business cycle. (Typically, in prior recessions, men have seen greater employment losses than women during recessions.)

When we isolate the effect of children on women’s employment, there is no increase. Does this mean that women are not leaving the workforce? No, but it does mean that we cannot identify children as the cause.

There is some evidence that husband’s income may be having a slightly — very slightly — larger downward pull on women’s employment in recent years. But, that’s not about motherhood.

As a researcher whose training is of the lit crit/historical persuasion (I am NOT nor have I ever been a social scientist, though there are times when I really wish I were!), I have a question for my friends of the economist/social scientist persuasion:

For those picking up this thread today, I’ve been blogging this week about Leslie Bennett’s book, The Feminine Mistake, as I read it. Much as I may disagree on certain (key) points, Leslie Bennetts is GOOD. Every time I silently voice an objection, she addresses it on the next page. But I have a more general question about journalists interpreting data when it comes to research on women/girls/families — and maybe experts from the Council on Contemporary Families crew can help us out here and set it straight.

Bennetts writes that “some feminists have challenged the very existence of a back-to-the-home trend on the grounds that more than two-thirds of all American mothers still participate in the labor force” (7) and that “[o]ther analysts have challenged the idea that we’re witnessing a resurgence of stay-at-home motherhood by attacking the news stories describing this phenomenon” (8). She calls analyses like those put forth by Heather Boushey “arguments.” I thought they were evidence. She calls them “denials” and invokes (critically, perhaps, but I think not) Linda Hirshman who refers to it all as the “it’s not happening” defense.

Which is it? Is it happening? Or not? Is the reading of the early 2000s recession as the reason for women’s labor-force dip interpretation — or fact?

Last night’s host at the New York Public Library event primed the audience for a fight. There was none, just good ‘n lively convo. So I settled in and found myself listening to the exchange between Leslie Bennetts and Elissa Schappell with an ear for marketing. (I’m working on talking points for my own book and am obsessed with framing – can you tell?) Leslie Bennetts is a master, a natural — I say that with genuine admiration.

Some highlights from the sound bite frontlines:

-ES on mommy wars: “It’s mom-on-mom violence!”
-LB on SAHMs being left and being unable to reenter the workforce: “It’s carnage out there.”
-LB laughing at her own poor paraphrasing of an expert she talked to: “He who brings home the bacon controls the bacon.”
-LB on structure: “What’s keeping women from reentering the workforce is that no one is taking them back in.”
-LB going counterintuitive: “Staying at home is high-risk behavior. I wouldn’t put my child’s welfare at risk that way.” “Working women aren’t validated as good mothers. No one ever says working women are being good moms, taking care of their kids, by working.”
-LB on motive: “I did not think this was a book about mommy wars or feminism. Boy was I dumb.” ES: “Dumb, dumb, dumb!”

It’s interesting data to learn that many people seem not to be fully understanding “The Feminine Mistake” as a pun on “The Feminine Mystique,” and instead think that Bennetts is calling SAHMs mistakes. (Jury’s still out over here on that one – still on Chapter 1…)

Be sure to check out Rebecca Mead’s New Yorker review of Bennetts. Good stuff, and balanced. (Thanks, Helaine, for that heads up!) Mead is generally laudatory (and man, talk about a gorgeously written review). Based on what I heard last night, I sense I’m going to agree with her critiques:

[Bennetts] is short on answers for women whose budgets do not stretch to hiring a well-chosen private surrogate. And she seems impatient with anyone who has failed to find, as she has, the thrill of work, particularly work that grants a certain degree of child-friendly flexibility.

Mead does a great historical tour of the title and offers a smart compare/contrast with Friedan. When I grow up, I want to be Rebecca Mead. (Don’t we all?!).

I ‘fess up: I struggled with the tone in my post below, as my live-in editor Marco, who I made read it twice before I hit “publish” can attest. My ethics dictate that I try (at least) to take issue without trashing, cause really, who needs more trash in this world. On that note, some of the best, aka most balanced, posts and commentaries I’ve seen so far: Joan Walsh on Salon and Mojo Mom , and an interesting bit about a review Mojo submitted to Amazon which Amazon wouldn’t publish.

PS. Leslie, if you are reading, I look forward to meeting you, and to engaging in conversation not only about the issues, but about reception — an issue that intrigues me, politically and personally and professionally, to no end.

Tonight I’m going to hear Leslie Bennetts interviewed by Elissa Schappell at the New York Public Library. Bennetts is also speaking at a salon I’m a part of, next week. So, to prepare for said events, I excitedly started reading her book, The Feminine Mistake — how can anyone who has written about Betty Friedan pass up a book with such a title? But the prologue itself gives me pause. Not for the reasons expressed by the “stay at home brigade,” as Bennetts calls them in her retort on HuffPost to the barrage of opening critiques she’s received from SAHMs, but on behalf of my generation.

Well-intentioned and heartfelt, Bennett’s writing nevertheless positions younger women as in need of cautionary tales. Some of us, no doubt, do, and Feminine Mistake is full of important information about what happens when opt-out wives get left. But many others of us clamor instead for tales of workplaces that have realized women (AND men) have families. Where are the cautionary tales aimed at corporations about how bottom lines suffer when they fail to retain their women? Or the cautionary tales aimed at young husbands about how miserable they’ll be if they opt out of time at home with the kids?

Thumbing ahead, Bennetts writes about the difficulties of reentering the work force and the penalties women pay for their time out (and the need for crucial changes in the divorce laws). But the tone set early on (and Leslie, please tell me I’m off – I want to be – I’m still in the early chapters) seems to focus on personal decision-making, rather than much-needed structural (aka workplace) change.

Wait – I’m switching to second person, so let’s go with it:

Leslie, you completely have me when you wrote that the real issues behind women’s work/life predicaments have nothing to do with words like “choice” and “values.” But then you write about the “willfully retrograde choice” of women who opt out on the very next page. If you ask me, the “feminine mistake” has been — to borrow a phrase from my elders — a focus on the personal at the expense of the political, the structural. I think you and I will both agree that words like “options” are meaningless until we are talking about viable workplace options — not the “option” to work or not.

A personal postscript: Raised to be my own person and divorced at 35, I have never for a moment expected that a husband would support me for the duration. These young women who keep appearing in print are certainly not the majority. As I thought Heather Boushey of the Center for Economic Policy Research rather convincingly documented, the “opt out” phenomenon named by Lisa Belkin back in 2003 was not hard evidence of a generation bailing on work but rather a dip in women’s labor market participation due to a recession. Why do young mothers, instead, keep getting castigated, warned, and blamed? (I’m thinking of other books here…more soon.)

Attention heavily degreed women-with-babies: I love this. Caroline Grant, movie columnist for the blog Literary Mama, is coming out with a book called Mama, PhD, about, what else? Mamas with PhDs. Keep an eye out for more about it on MotherTalk.

After a successful pilot with the National Women’s Studies Association, Girl w/Pen is hitting the streets with a new training series: “Making It Pop: Translating Your Ideas for Trade.”

Here’s the why:

Public debate lacks a sensitive discussion of the complex forces shaping the lives of women and girls. Researchers, nonprofit workers, and savvy writers everywhere have the opportunity to frame public debate about these issues. Too often, however, important work fails to reach an audience outside the academic and advocacy worlds. Writing a trade book is one way to join the debate. To sell a book in today’s competitive publishing climate, one must be able to write engaging, accessible prose that will appeal to a wide audience.

 These skills can be learned.

And the what:

5-WEEK TELESEMINAR
Girl w/Pen offers an interactive tele-seminar series designed to help researchers and others cross this bridge by learning about the key elements involved in writing a book for “trade.”

A “trade book”—one written the intelligent, general-interest reader and carried by bookstores—is different from an academic book sold primarily through university presses. Participants will learn from exchanges with New York City-based agents and editors why it’s essential to think about audience and market in a different way, and why you need a book proposal. We’ll explore the differences between popular and academic writing, why a dissertation or a monograph is not a trade book, and how to write an effective book proposal—meaning one that has the best chance of being sold.

Participants will be expected to read assigned material (including sample book proposals and a book, Thinking Like Your Editor: How to Write Great Serious Nonfiction–and Get It Published), engage in an ongoing online exchange, and participate in a weekly session with the full class and instructor at an established time each week.

1/2-DAY, 1-DAY INTENSIVES
A tailored on-site version that condenses material covered in the teleseminar. Additional topics for consideration include writing articles for magazines, blogging, and op-eds.

UPCOMING SESSIONS:

May 5, 2007 – “Taking Research Public,” Council on Contemporary Families Annual Conference, University of Chicago

June 2, 2007 – “Making It Pop: Trade Books, Popular Magazines, Blogs,” National Council for Research on Women Conference, Spelman College

July 1, 2007 – “Publishing in Women’s Studies: Public Voice,” National Women’s Studies Association Annual Conference, St. Charles, IL

If you are an academic association or department or a nonprofit organization (or a member of said association, department, organization) and would like further information, please contact me directly at deborahsiege@gmail.com.

Just a quick one on this snowy Friday on the Upper West Side: HuffPost has an interesting post by Leslie Bennetts about the reception of her book, The Feminine Mistake, proving once again that sisterhood is noisy whenever one writes about women’s choices and predicaments these days. As usual, I hope that Leslie’s many important points make it through the din.