work/life

There’s an interesting trio of articles in the current issue of the New York Press: “By the Numbers” by David Crone, “Working Girls” by Marin Resnick, and “Who Needs Work?” by Gaije Kushner. I find the headline on the cover (“City’s White Collar Women Shatter the Glass Ceiling) to be at odds with the emphases of the articles (glass ceiling not so shattered). I’m all for celebrating progress, but the cover message sends an inaccurate message, one that is debunked in the issue’s very pages. What gives?

On another note, I love what they’ve done with the Rosie the Riveter image, updating her to represent the more ethnic face of New York. But wait – isn’t she wearing a blue collar, though the headline is all about white? Now I’m double confused.

(Thank you to Marco, always on the hunt for visuals, for pointing me to this cover.)

I’ve been thinking all week about that recent New York Times article by Shira Boss, titled “Wedded to Work, and in Dire Need of a Wife.” Does anyone remember an article by Judy Syfers in the premier issue of Ms. magazine, called “Why I Want a Wife?” Yes, well, that was back in 1971. Things haven’t changed that much. Except maybe our consciousness about it all.

Syfers’ article was a bit of a satire. But Jessica over at feministing has an excellent, and serious, point about the meaning of “wife” when she writes,

Now, I know the [Times] article is trying to make a point, but framing support for a spouse’s job and chores at home as “wifely” duties is not exactly the best way to hold men (remember them?) accountable for their role in the domestic sphere.

We need some new lingo. I tried to get past the old formulas in an article I wrote for July’s Psychology Today called “Two People, One Breadwinner.” After interviewing couples who could afford to have one parent staying at home with their kids while the other worked, and talking to a slew of couples counselors and psychologists for that piece, here’s what I surmised:

Breadwinner wives—still often expected by their mates to act as social director, housekeeper, and meal planner—resent stay-at-home husbands who are lax about household upkeep. Househusbands (for lack of a better term) adjusting to their new domestic roles often resent wives who tell them what to do. Primary earners of either sex can feel trapped by work, resentful that they didn’t have the choice to stay home. And primary earners can also feel let down by partners who, once professionally ambitious, now relish their domestic identities to an alienating degree.

Bottom line: regardless of who is at home and who works, tensions and resentments around the breadwinner / domestic caretaker dynamic are hardly gender specific. Of course, in the majority of American couples, both partners earn. Most of us are still trying to figure that out. But as Jessica points out, and regardless of whether couples are living off of one income or two, getting past the equation of “wife” with “domestic maid” would be an excellent place to start.

How much am I loving the Women’s Leadership Initiative at Demos? They’re sponsoring a forum on my book on July 26 in NYC (save the date!). But I also love them for highlighting “fresh thinking, research and writing by and about the importance of women’s leadership in building a strong democracy and securing economic prosperity.” I mean, what’s better than that?

If in the area, don’t miss their forum this week on Moms Who Work: Myth and Reality

Thurs., June 28, 2007
Program from 12:15-1:45 pm at Demos
220 Fifth Ave, 5th Floor
New York, NY

Here’s the deal:

Join Demos and co-sponsors for a discussion with E.J. Graff on the realities faced by working mothers (and their families) in the U.S. today. Drawing upon her article “The Opt Out Myth” published in the March/April 2007 edition of the Columbia Journalism Review, Graff will dispel myths perpetuated by misleading reporting and media hype, such as the “opt-out revolution” and the “mommy wars”– and will discuss how those storylines can harm public policy.

Panelists will respond to Graff with research, analysis, and discussion about the real issues facing various groups of working women; how advocates are creating policies to support women and their families; and what more still needs to be done: Carol Jenkins, Women’s Media Center; Linda Lisi Juergens, National Association of Mothers’ Centers (NAMC); and Lois K. Backon, Families and Work Institute. This event will be moderated by Linda Tarr-Whelan, Distinguished Senior Fellow at Demos.

Co-sponsored by: The Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University, Women’s Media Center, Families & Work Institute, National Association of Mothers Centers, The Columbia Journalism Review

Coming up for air (still high on cloud nine) to catch up on this and that and reality for a moment! I’m reading at Border’s in Marlton New Jersey on Monday at an event sponsored by the South Jersey Alice Paul Chapter of NOW. then heading to DC on Weds for a PBS taping and a reading at Olsson’s (1 DuPont Circle) on Weds night, so if you’re in Jersey, Philly, or DC, I would SO LOVE to see ya. More info bout upcoming events on my website.

So this just in from my hometown paper, The Chicago Tribune, sent via Laura over at Catalyst:

Like bickering relatives at the end of a long holiday dinner, women have been arguing about whether the gender revolution is over and more mothers are choosing to leave work and stay home with the children.

Now experts who shared their latest research at [the Council on Contemporary Families] conference in May say that far from reverting to more traditional sex roles, women and men are becoming more alike in their attitudes toward balancing life at home and at work.

Not crazyloving the bickering relatives bit, but, well, I can’t say it ain’t so. The article, by the very savvy Patricia Cohen, goes on to discuss how men’s and women’s desires when it comes to work/life negotiations are more similar than different, debunking the old Venus/Mars theory of gender that still dominate popular culture on this front. Explains Cohen,

Of course, most people recognize that mothers are working more and doing less housework, and men are working less and doing more housework and child care than a generation ago. But what much of the recent research has tried to tease out is more information on attitudes and desires. And so far, the evidence points toward men and women having increasingly similar goals.

Let’s hope this evidence, this reality, keeps making headline news. Glad it’s made its way, for instance, from the Times to the Trib of my heartland. As for the bickering, I know I’m not alone in longing for the day when women stop fighting each other, pop culture stops polarizing gender roles, and we all start fighting together for things like paid leave and subsidized childcare and eldercare and better healthcare and all that good shit. I mean, stuff.

The article originally appeared on May 31 in The New York Times. In case you missed it the first time, check the rest out here.

Perhaps, finally, we’re beginning to see a reality check on the “opt out” mythology: witness the astute coverage of recent books and articles on mom professionals who opt back in. Don’t miss Helaine Olen’s interview with Pamela Stone (author of Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home) on Babble. And check out the excellent forum with Stone, Bennetts, and others in the current issue of More, and the accompanying article by Leslie Morgan Steiner titled, aptly, “Back in Business.”

Among the enticing stack of books currently on my desk is one called Back on the Career Track: A Guide for Stay-at-Home Moms Who Want to Return to Work, by Carol Fishman Cohen and Vivian Steir Rabin–two Harvard MBAs who sucessfully relaunched after staying home full-time with their kids. And perhaps of greatest interest to Girl with Pen Terrified And Excited About The Concept of Motherhood is another one called Mothers on the Fast Track: How a New Generation Can Balance Family and Careers.

Is coverage of work/life getting slightly better out there, or am I hallucinating? Here’s a sampling from this week alone:

Newsweek reports on the slew of new books on the subject in a piece called “Trying to Opt Back In”

Fortune covers Gen Y at work in “Attracting the Twentysomething Worker”

In case you haven’t been there yet, highlights from HuffPo’s New “Living Now” Section (I love what they’ve done to the place!):

When You Work For Yourself, is “Maternity Leave” Possible? by Laura Vanderkam

Withholding What’s Needed Most by Marie Wilson

And an ole standby, just ’cause I can’t resist:

Salon’s Broadsheet sounds off on Tuesday’s dippy Supreme Court ruling re pay discrimination

I LOVE this. According to the findings of the “2007 Deloitte & Touche USA LLP Ethics & Workplace” survey, work-life balance influences positive ethical behaviors at work. Check it:

According to the survey, 91 percent of all employed adults agreed that workers are more likely to behave ethically at work when they have a good work-life balance. A combined 44 percent of workers cite high levels of stress (28 percent), long hours (25 percent) and inflexible schedule (13 percent) as the causes of conflict between their work responsibilities and personal priorities, hence contributors to work-life imbalance.

Sixty percent of employed adults surveyed think that job dissatisfaction is a leading reason why people make unethical decisions at work, and more than half of workers (55 percent) ranked a flexible work schedule among the top three factors leading to job satisfaction, second only to compensation (63 percent).

“When you think about it,” says Sharon L. Allen, Chairman of the Board at Deloitte & Touche USA, “if someone invests all of their time and energy into their jobs, it may have the unintended consequence of making them dependent on their jobs for everything – including their sense of personal worth. This makes it even harder to make a good choice when faced with an ethical dilemma if they believe it will impact their professional success.”

Amen to that, Sharon Allen. And what a great new angle for pitching the work/life story. Better balance, better ethics, better karma – and not just better bottom line (though that’s a good one too.)

The survey was conducted by Harris Interactive and released on April 16.

There’s just too much bloggy goodness going on today around the blogosphere and elsewhere for this girl to take in. So here’s my quick round-up of cheers, props, and commentary:

Cheers to Marc over at Feminist Dad for spreading the TRUTH about the opting-out (non)phenomenon. And props to Marco for his beautiful post (yes, I’m biased) over at Hokum today, which is part of MotherTalk’s Dangerous Boy Friday – a blogging bonanza in which bloggers are posting in response to that #6-on-Amazon phenomenon, The Dangerous Book for Boys.

Academia still seems to be dangerous for grown up girls seeking tenure. Caryn McTighue Musil sounds off over at Ms. on the hurdles facing women in academe, including “The Baby Gap”(women with babies are 29 percent less likely than women without to enter a tenure-track position, and married women are 20 percent less likely than single women to do so), and The Today Show this morning actually had a nice little chirpy segment on how working mothers get screwed when returning to work, facing significant salary cuts over time. But finally, there are solid messages out there now about how companies can do better – check out Sylvia Hewlett’s new book, Off Ramps and On Ramps: Keeping Talented Women on the Road to Success, and Lisa Belkin’s piece yesterday in the New York Times on the “opting back in” revolution, where she reports on corporate programs designed to recruit seasoned women with names like The Opt-In Program, as well as the new businesses cropping up to service this population, like HR Opt-In, MomCorps, and Flextime Lawyers.

Moving from work/life to writing/life, since I’m obsessed by the reception of books on feminism (personal interest, yeah, as well as professional and political yadda yadda), I’ve been following the coverage of feministing.com founder Jessica Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism with baited breath — and pretty much want to throw up. I’m sure I’ll be in for it too. Some publicists say, no such thing as bad publicity. Maybe, but my heart goes out to Jess who I hope KNOWS that she has written a fantabulous book (which is doing well, thank you very much, as far as Amazon rankings are concerned – and I urge you to buy it! buy it!). Anyway, Jill Filipovic over at Feministe has posted a passionate defense of both Jessica and her book, which has spawned over 100 comments. Here’s Jill:

Jessica wrote her book in a very particular way: She wrote it to make feminism accessible to women who might otherwise reject it. That is her purpose. Railing against capitalism and telling women that feminism is a movement which will not make your life any better doesn’t really seem to further that goal, does it? Neither does blathering on about how awesome high heels and pornography are. Jessica does neither….We need feminists like Jessica who do the very tough work of reaching out to women who are otherwise uninterested in feminism — feminists who are patient and generous, and who listen to the concerns and experiences of younger women without branding them stupid or not feminist enough.
What does Jessica get for doing that? She gets branded stupid and not feminist enough. She gets mocked by other feminists.

Amen, sister.

And to end this roundup on an up-note, if you happen to be in the Apple next week, be sure to check out:

A Reading with Girls Write Now
Thursday, May 24, 7pm
at 520 Eighth Avenue (b/w 36th & 37th sts.) on the 20th floor

Come out to hear girl writing mentors Pooja Makhijani, Maggie Pouncey, and Terry Selucky read their own fiction, nonfiction and poetry, plus special mentee emcees Phantasia Johnson, Lindsey Romain, and Briana Wilson.

GWN is a fantastic organization that nurtures and nourishes a future generation of women writers by hooking them up with mentors. The org is run by a group of women in their 20s and 30s who are unstoppable. If you can’t go to the reading, at least stop by their website and check them out. (Congrats GWN, on your new online home!)

According to my lame but stalwart built-in thesaurus, OPT (v) means “to choose something or choose to do something, usually in preference to other available alternatives.” Pamela Stone’s Opting Out? Why Women Really Quite Careers and Head Home is the book I’ve been waiting for.

Instead of focusing reductively on women’s “choices” (who has choices when alternatives are limited?), Stone charts the institutional obstacles and cultural pressures that leave even the most advantaged women feeling pushed out. Stone writes as a sociologist, a scholar of women’s careers, and a mother. But here’s why I love this book: Instead of blaming women, imploring us to “get back to work” (a la Linda Hirschman) or warning us (Leslie Bennetts-style) that we’re all making a dastardly mistake, her message is one that, as a Gen Xer staring into the crosshairs of burgeoning career and potential motherhood, is far more palatable to hear.

Stone lets her subjects — mothers in their 30s and 40s who “time out” from professional careers — describe their trajectories in unstructured interviews, giving voice to a group we have heard much about but have not heard. She lambasts the media for sensationalizing our so-called mass exodus — which, in truth, is not so massive and reflects neither a sea-change in values among feminism’s daughters nor the modernization of the feminine mystique.

Opting Out? fills a void — virtually no real research has been done before on women leaving careers — and it’s the question mark in the title that propels the book. Stone looks at who these women are who leave and head home (whether permanently or temporarily), why they walk away from years of training and accomplishment to take on “full-time” motherhood, and what happens after they do. She looks at the implications of their leaving for the workplaces they leave behind, and the impact their decisions have on other women — female coworkers and, especially, younger women embarking on careers. Loaded with facts and real data, the introduction alone is worth the price of the book.

Stone found that the women she interviewed quit as a last resort, and for reasons of work, not family. She calls their decision is “a kind of silent strike” and describes their failed efforts to re-invent the workplace in their image: “These women had alternative visions of how to work and be a mother, yet their attempts to maintain their careers on terms other than full-time plus were penalized, not applauded; it was quitting that earned them kudos.” Stone emphasizes that these women’s stories are not over, that most are still in the process of re-invention — but leaves us wondering, how will the next chapter unfold?

Anyone acquainted with the research knows that younger women and girls aspire to professional achievement. It’s made headline news. As a recent New York Times story and books like Courtney Martin’s Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters make perfectly clear, Millennial strivers are ambitious to the point of extremes. Daughters of a half-finished revolution, this generation (as well as my own) lives suspended between the expectation of a world ready to open its arms to us and the reality of a world not yet fully transformed. Books like Stone’s have the potential to rally without blaming, and incite without fear. Let’s hope it finds its audience — working women present and future pondering their limited options and the workplaces that, drained of such women’s talent, should have no choice but to change and offer us alternatives to heading home.

On Saturday, May 12, The Today Show will air a discussion about “Women Who Opt Out” of the workforce and what happens next with MojoMom, Leslie Bennetts, Lisa Belkin, Linda Hirshman, and Gail Saltz. Mojo will be the youngest of the bunch (Gen X), and adds a fresh perspective to the debate. Promises to provide good fodder for some much-needed intergenerational conversation and, perhaps, I hope, myth-busting…Stay tuned.