Ninety percent of working moms, and 95 percent of working dads in the US report work/family conflict–much higher than workers in other comparable countries. But of course. We work 11 more hours per week than we did three decades ago.  And, compared to other rich countries, we have fewer laws and policies regulating working time, including no federal laws on paid vacation, paid sick days, or paid parental leave. All this, according to a new Center for American Progress report by Joan Williams and Heather Boushey on “The Three Faces of Work-Family Conflict.”

I just got the report, but already there are two things I love about it: first, it focuses on social class. They separately analyze the reality facing three kinds of families: those who are low-income, those who are professionals and managers (one out of five families), and those in the “missing middle” – the 53 percent of families in between. Not surprisingly, work family conflict for those at the top–the ones that New York Times loves, loves, loves to write about in their mythological pieces on women opting-out and about how “daddy’s so baffled at home”–is different from families at the bottom or in the middle. By highlighting the differences by economic groups, the authors help us to recognize that, for example, our Family and Medical Leave Act–that gives people a “right” to unpaid leave–is a policy that only benefits families who can afford it.

Second, the report puts it all in our policy context: The authors explain that the lack of progress in the United States is a result of a conscious choice by our political leadership. Understand: the absence of work/family policies is policy. Let me quote from their executive summary:

“The United States today has the most family-hostile public policy in the developed world due to a long-standing political impasse. The only major piece of federal legislation designed to help Americans manage work and family life, the Family and Medical Leave Act, was passed in 1993, nearly two decades ago. In the interim—when Europeans implemented a comprehensive agenda of “work-family reconciliation”—not a single major federal initiative in the United States has won congressional approval. In the 110th and 111th congressional sessions, the Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave Act, which would provide four weeks of paid parental leave to federal employees, passed the House of Representatives—garnering support from 50 Republicans in the vote in the 110th Congress—but has not passed in the Senate.”

Worfamily conflict sucks. But Williams and Boushey’s report is awesome. So check it out.

–Virginia Rutter

Here again with an announcement about a conference that looks fabulous: Mothering and Migration: (Trans)nationalisms, Globalization, and Displacement, in Puerto Rico between February 19-21. The conference is organized by the Association for Research on Mothering (ARM), a research organization based at York University, Ontario. The lineup includes scholars and activists from a wide range of backgrounds and locations. Alas, a lack of funding will prevent me from attending — but I invite any conference attendees to contact me about writing a short column to share their research with the GWP community.

A few things have been on my mind recently.

One is fellow blogger and writer extraordinaire Alison Piepmeier, who posted yesterday about her newly diagnosed brain tumor. Alison, we’re all thinking about you.

The other is Haiti. I don’t have much more to add about the incalculable loss or the soul-crushing devastation, but I did want to point readers towards a very helpful essay by anthropologist Mark Schuller, a resident of New Paltz (where I teach), professor at CUNY-York College, and co-producer/co-director of the documentary Poto Mitan: Haitian Women, Pillars of the Global Economy. Mark has worked for many years in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and though he was not in Haiti for the devastating earthquake that occurred last week, he left the U.S. this morning to join a medical team to provide on-the-ground disaster relief.

Mark’s essay, “Starfish and Seawalls: Responding to Haiti’s Earthquake, Now and Long-Term,” is a must-read that provides essential information about Haiti and what we all can do. In particular, he details some central questions we should all ask when evaluating NGOs involved in Haitian relief efforts and mentions several particularly noteworthy organizations, including Partners in Health, Fonkoze, and Lambi Fund.

Last I heard, Mark had landed safely in Haiti. My thoughts are with him and everyone else in Haiti.

My daughter turned 9 this week, and she reminds me of a wave about to hit the sand, full of power and beauty at the same time. Rarely have I wanted to turn back the clock to any earlier life stage—after all, I’m learning as I go—but girlhood right now looks pretty impressive from my towel safely above the shoreline.

Number 1: Title IX Rules

Title IX became law in 1972, so I am also a beneficiary of the legislation, but I think that my daughter will reap its rewards more fully. Title IX applies to both athletics and education, but its impact on athletic particpation is especially dramatic. In 1970 only 1 in 27 females played varsity sports; the number is 1 in 2.5 today. My daughter already plays soccer, a sport that I never encountered as an elementary school student; in fact, I didn’t have any opportunities to participate in team sports in middle or high school, either.

Number 2: Girl Power Rocks

Three cheers for the Girl Scouts! My daughter joined a Brownie troop last year, and while I don’t love everything about Girl Scouting, I do love the values of leadership and social consciousness that scouting promotes. My daughter dashes out the door to Friday meetings on dark winter evenings (when a week’s worth of work and school activities leave me feeling ready to hunker down at home) and bursts into a giggly gaggle of girls who sincerlely work—and play—at building community across differences.

Number 3: It’s All About Social Justice

My son and daugther spent last week hanging environmental responsibility signs around our house: they posted reminders on bathroom doors about conserving water during showers and decorated the hamper with a sign about wearing clean clothes more than once. Today my daughter took money to donate to a Haiti relief fund at school. To be sure these efforts are small and inconsistent (we discussed contributing to earthquake relief instead of buying birthday gifts and my daughter was not quite so selfless). Yet I’m hopeful that social justice issues are woven into her home, school, and extracurricular life in ways that reflect a larger generational trend.  What do you notice about the girls in your lives, GWP readers?

Now for the 411 on “the new economics of marriage” –  a Pew study that is making its way through the media: To me the study is a good follow up on Heather Boushey’s “the new breadwinners” in A Woman’s Nation: The economic status of women has changed irrevocably, and our society generally accepts it. We rely on it too – women are breadwinners or co-breadwinners in 63 percent of families; and 43 percent of family income is from women.

Thanks to Pew, we see what this means for marriage and the balance of power and status. While 40 years ago, 96 percent of men earned more than their wives, today that number is 78 percent. Men out-earn wives, but less so than in the past. In terms of education, back in the day as today, married couples are most likely to have the same amount of education. But in 1970, whenever there was a difference in education, it was more likely to be men with more education (3 out of 10 marriages). Today, only 2 out of 10 marriages have men with more education…and 3 out of 10 have women with more education.

The question everyone is asking is how does this influence the “psychology of marriage”… by which I mean the principles that bind couples together, and the things that make marriages more likely to be happy and to last. The old wisdom is that traditional gender roles hold marriages together: in the past marriages with a more traditional structure were more stable. But that was in the past. With changing economics and culture, so the glue in marriage has changed too.

Well, it has been changing for quite some time. In the 1970s the research showed higher rates of depression for wives who were staying at home. By the early 1980s the more depressed wives were those who were doing a second shift–paid work and then work at home. More recently there has been evidence in how much more stable and satisfying are marriages where partners share housework–I mean really share housework, not this “helping” notion–but real sharing of responsibility for childcare, housework, and the administrative things of family life like list making, event planning, and gift giving. That’s the other change: men have been participating in their marriages differently, being more engaged at home.

The numbers show us that we are talking about narrowing the gender gap–at work, at home. This is a story of narrowing the gap between men and women, not of anyone losing ground–at least not men or women losing ground to each other. I did a radio call-in show with Joy Cardin this morning on Wisconsin Public Radio and the callers were talking more about their embattled families than any war between the sexes:  Where we aren’t narrowing the gap is figuring out how to create public policy–health care, day care, family leave, paid sick leave, paid vacation, or even reasonable banking policy that doesn’t sustain all sorts of inequalities that are bad for families (but I digress)–that gives these men and women the freedom to keep doing their jobs at home and at work without high levels of stress. The new economics of marriage is also the new psychology of marriage, and it has been around for a while. We’re talking about it more now, and creating more egalitarian marriages. Soon perhaps our public policies will catch on and help families as they really are out more.

-Virginia Rutter

She Writes (my new venture, with Kamy Wicoff and now a small but mighty team) is growing, growing, growing.

Psst! Please pass it on!  The search is officially open.

Position: COO, She Reads/She Writes
Reports To: Kamy Wicoff, CEO and Founder, She Reads/ She Writes
Location: New York, NY

The Opportunity: She Reads/She Writes (SRSW) is the leading online social destination for women writers and readers today. With almost 7,000 members since its inception in June 2009, professional women writers like bestselling authors Sarah Dunant, Julie Metz, Jacquelyn Mitchard, and Gretchen Rubin, and award-winning authors like Kate Christensen, Kathryn Harrison, and Francine Prose, are sharing support, their experiences – and doing business – on She Writes. She Reads will launch in the fall of 2010.

With a strong foundation meeting a highly targeted need in the market, the Company is now focused on scaling She Writes into a highly profitable online resource for women writers while simultaneously launching and growing She Reads into a thriving social network of women readers, eventually to become a publisher of original content.

The Company is seeking a founding business partner and Chief Operating Officer to further develop and refine the business side of She Reads/She Writes. Specific expertise should be in developing and growing revenue streams highly valuable to this target market, including:

•    Connecting publishing experts with authors through She Writes Services
•    Offering classes through the She Writes Studio
•    Classifieds for monetizing business transactions on the site
•    Strategic partnerships
•    Curation and publishing of original content
•    Book club services

The partner will be responsible for She Reads/She Writes financial planning and analysis, day-to-day operations, fundraising and business development.

Candidate Profile:
The ideal candidate is passionate about empowering women writers and is an avid reader her or himself. Candidate brings strong business and operational expertise in either early stage companies or within profitable business units of a larger organization. Candidate can manage the financial and accounting organizations while ensuring the company scales with a culture of respect, passion and flawless execution.

A demonstrated track record of direct deal making and negotiation is preferred.

CONTACT:
Kamy Wicoff
Founder/CEO She Writes
12 Desbrosses Street
New York, NY 10007
212-400-4839
kamy@shewrites.com

Following on Alison’s post from yesterday, I know I speak for the entire GWP community in wishing her a speedy recovery. We can’t wait to have her back. And in the meantime, Alison, we’ll be with you on this journey, to support you however we can. We are all sending you love, healing, and good vibes.

In the spirit of passing around the vibes, I wanted to share this news: Yesterday, Kathy LeMay’s book, The Generosity Plan, hit the shelves. The book is a smart, practical guide to a new kind of philanthropy, one that everyone, no matter the size their bank account, can participate in. Endorsed by Arun Gandhi, Jennifer Buffett, Eve Ensler and Sheryl WuDunn along with other activists and philanthropists, it’s a must read for anyone who wants to contribute to making a difference for our world–something our own Alison already very much does.

Visit www.thegenerosityplan.com for more.  And deep congratulations, Kathy.

Over the holidays I had several seizures, which led to me being diagnosed with a brain tumor. It’s a low-grade glioma, which is the good news. It’s smack-dab in the middle of the language center of my brain, which is the bad news.

I tell you this in part to let you know why I might not be around for the next few months. I’ll be having brain surgery in February, and I expect at least six weeks of recovery, time in which I’ll be exhausted and may not be up for blogging. I hope to bring in some fabulous guest bloggers for those weeks.

The other reason I’m sharing this, though, is because having a brain tumor in the language center of my brain has raised a lot of hard questions for me, questions that relate to the theme of this column. I’m an academic, a scholar who writes books and teaches classes. I’m the mother of a young child who is doing great but who needs more help, intervention, and encouragement than a typical child. My Ph.D. is in English. I have been a ravenous reader and passionate writer since I was a little, little kid. Potential damage to the language center of my brain feels like something that threatens the heart of who I am. Who will I be if I don’t have the fluency or facility with language that I have right now? I’ve been poking around in the academic world of disability studies for the last several months, but this diagnosis brings disability even more intimately into my life. It’s not only someone I love who’s experiencing life with a disability (my daughter); it may well be me.

Indeed, no matter what the long-term effects are (and the prognosis actually looks quite good), I certainly will be living with disabilities for the weeks and months immediately following the surgery, as I’ll have brain swelling that will lead to some language difficulties and motor function challenges. I’ll have a kind of insider’s perspective on disability.

Who will I be? It’s an academic question as well as a deeply personal one. I can go around and around in my mind, wondering–imagining what it would be like not to be able to talk off the cuff about feminism with the same ease that I do now, or to hear a sentence and not to be able to understand it immediately.  These aren’t effects that the neurosurgeons have promised; in fact, one of the frustrations has been that they can’t tell me much.  We’re very much in a wait and see mode.  One friend pointed out that this may be a great opportunity for me to learn that who I am is not the same as what I do, but she was quick to add that this life lesson is no justification for a brain tumor.

It’s really weird for me to think about so many characteristics of my life—characteristics which in some way feel transcendent or inherent—as being tied to a physical organ. It gives body language a whole different meaning.

Do you ever think, “Duh!?” when you read a news story about how fattening movie popcorn or fast food is for us? I get that same feeling when I read that yet another research study has been published proving that girls and boys are equally good at math. How much more proof do we need?

Professor Marcia Linn’s paper focuses in on why there are differences in girls confidence around the world. The answer? Social expectations. [PDF link]

A society’s gendered division of labor fosters the development of gender differences in behavior by affording different restrictions and opportunities to males and females on the basis of their social roles….if the cultural roles that women fulfill do not include math, girls may face both structural obstacles (e.g., formal access to education is limited to boys) and social obstacles (e.g., stereotypes that math is a male domain) that impede their mathematical development.

Many people like to believe that we live in a post-feminist society. The evidence includes Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and women making up half of the workforce. But girls and boys still receive messages on a daily basis that they have roles to play and only those roles. As recently as this past holiday toy buying season, Toys R Us advertised three different magnification power microscopes and  telescopes, guess which one had the lowest power? Yup, the pink one.

Some will argue that we need to pinkify science things to attract girls, but do they also need weaker microscopes too?

And that brings us to another Duh moment…Pink often does stink.

“We all live with the objective of being happy; our lives are all different and yet the same.” – Anne Frank

There are plenty of researchers publishing trendy new findings and studies on the subject of happiness: what it means to be happy today, how happy or unhappy we all are, what we can do to make ourselves more happy.  I quote Anne Frank because a lot of these articles and books, like the objective of happiness itself, are all different and yet the same.  While being marketed in separate and distinctive ways, many offer the same reductive stance on life — the modern adult is frazzled, in need of rest and recooperation from the stresses of our hectic world, and here in this text lies the cure-all/best course of action/the latest product or service to find and keep real, lasting happiness.  But what if we weren’t really looking for an easy answer in the form of a good or service?  What if the issue of happiness required an understanding of gender, race, class, and individual privilege?  Ariel Gore’s new book Bluebird: Women and the New Psychology of Happiness examines happiness from a feminist standpoint, insisting that “There is no ‘happily ever after.’  There is only meditation, action, change, friendship, idea, inspiration, creation.” 

The book follows Gore and a panel of 100 women she interviewed over the course of a a year.  Their ideas challenge gendered studies and notions of happiness, particularly the axiom that women who follow traditional patriarchal value systems are “more content” — Gore instead insists that empowerment through resistance, taking charge of anxiety, and self-care are essential to an authentic experience of happiness.  Her intersectional understanding of happiness critiques writings on happiness which ignore the many identity-based divisions of women’s lives, particularly class, as Bluebird questions the popular notion that selflessness is inherent to happiness; if women are socialized into selflessness by family and culture, is this cultivating happiness?   “If service is the secret of joy,” writes Gore, “one has to wonder why waitresses, maids, and mothers aren’t the happiest people on earth.  The answer is clear: that service has to be voluntary rather than coerced.” 

I appreciated her frankness in discussing her ambivalence toward capitalism, particularly her relationship to money as a working-class artist and a queer mother of two.   As a reader, I fully embraced her journey toward self-actualization in finding inspiration, inner peace, and hope for the future, all of which she sees as the necessary means to happiness for herself and her family.  The book bravely tackles a critical and important understanding of the specific identity politics which inhabit happiness studies and why it shouldn’t be a pursuit solely made possible by connections, wealth, or class status; if we cultivate ourselves and our communities, she argues, we can always find happiness on our own terms.  It’s an accessible, deeply thoughtful take on a complex topic and a great read for anyone in search of an intersectional and feminist approach to women’s happiness.

Bluebird: Women and the New Psychology of Happiness (Farrar, Straus and Giroux) is available on January 19 in bookstores and through online booksellers, including Powells and Amazon.