Diane Rehm - "Womenomics"

[MrsK]

Is anyone listening to this?

Claire Shipman & Katty Kay: "Womenomics" (Collins Business)
A recent study found a significant majority of women want a better work-life balance. Diane and her guests discuss how some are saying "no" to overly-demanding jobs ... even in tough economic times.

Guests
Katty Kay, Washington correspondent and anchor for BBC World News America.

Claire Shipman, Senior National Correspondent for ABC News' "Good Morning America" and a regular on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"

http://trueslant.com/womenomics/

[GrayMatterWife]

Oh, you'll never believe this. I was listening to NPR this morning (hence, the disbelief) and I heard Diane's coverage of this.

Oh, I don't know. I certainly understand wanting better work life balance. I made a big professional route change for that exact reason. The only problem is, I have noticed that this "work life" stuff really can hurt women who are NOT interested in that accomodation--the women who want the hard-core, hard-charging, play-hard-ball-with-the-big-boys route. Like to make partner in 8 years at a power law firm, etc. The problem is, that it is kind of assumed, when you're hired, that you'll probably want to get pregnant and have babies (and get off track) before 8 years. And they even hire based on this assumption! (They hire more people total, men and women, than they would have had they hired only men.)

And, of course, they make you suffer through endless, stupid lunches on "Women in the Law," where all the female attorneys are forced to go and eat salad. Why do the guys get BBQ for their lunches, and we get salad? Sucks. The only thing those idiotic forced meetings did for me was to cost me a billable hour--which my MALE colleagues got to work!

[MrsK]

Yeah, I think you and I discussed this before when I landed on the work/balance committee for the Women's Partners group at my firm. FWIW, I made partner in about 8-9 years -- but I married late. It happened that my engagement coincided with my promotion. Then I became a trailing spouse and now I'm pg so the work/life thing is a huge issue. I mean, I'm telecommuting! Still trying to figure out how to make it work.

On one hand, I'm relieved to be able to work from home and I'm hoping it will make things easier when we have children. But at the same time, I feel like I do not get interesting or valuable assignments and I'm stagnating. I also feel vulnerable to pay cuts and being let go because of my alternative arrangement. I feel like I have to be really assertive just to be "allowed" to stay.

I don't think the discussion was just about lawyers. The book was encompassing of all lifestyles and careers that women can have. I think it was more about opportunity vs mandated office opinion. Women *should* be able to have more leverage to work at home (at night when kids are in bed) as men should too. Women *should* be seen as an advantage vs bringing down the house. The book had research stating that companies that allowed women work flex actually increased the work productivity of the female employees. Also it stated that companies with women on staff at mid-high level positions tended to be more successful companies. But, as stated, the discussion was not just high level jobs but all jobs. So, yeah it's not a perfect world, but some men want families too and are assumed they won't want to go to kindergarten plays as much, when if fact they very may want to. It goes both ways. Dialog is always good, but really it's all about the office and who is staffed if any of this really comes to play.

[MrsK]

Oh, no. The discussion wasn't about lawyers at all. The women that wrote the book were in broadcasting. It just happens that Abigail and I are lawyers so, naturally, we are applying it to our experience.

[GrayMatterWife]

Oh, no. The discussion wasn't about lawyers at all. The women that wrote the book were in broadcasting. It just happens that Abigail and I are lawyers so, naturally, we are applying it to our experience.

Yeah, I've been subjected in many different contexts to endless whimpering and whining about work-life issues and how plighted women are with having to balance.

I apologize for the snideness. I'm just sick being assumed to be a victim. Like I need a support group. Stop wasting my time and let me get my work done, and I might have an easier time getting home on time. Stop assuming that I'm having balancing issues--that I feel overwhelmed. Stop assuming I'm such a..."girl."

While I was in practice, my life was balanced--balanced in a way that allowed me to meet the demands of my job. Just like ALL the men I worked with. I didn't leave beacuse my life wasn't "balanced"--I left because I wanted a different balance--more emphasis on my child and family. But that doesn't mean that my old job was unreasonable in the balance it demanded of me. The fact is, it wasn't the kind of job where you got ahead if you didn't work in the evenings, or if you took off Friday afternoons or if you had to stay home several days to attend to a sick child. You were expected to handle these complications in a way that did not interfere with your work obligations--men and women alike.

It speaks little of women who want all the benefits of, for example, being a partner at a prestigious law firm and the attendant respect and salary, but don't want to get there the same way the men do (and women without family obligations do). We don't want a de facto two-tiered partnership track: the people who really earn it by major personal sacrifices (mostly men and a few hard-core women) and the people who didn't (women with "modified" work schedules and men who have less ambition than the men who actually earned it). Hardly the dream of our foremothers. A kind of squishy, mushy, unempowered feminism. Sorry--it's harsh, but it's true.

[DCJenn]

That's precisely why I jumped off the track toward senior administration when I did. I knew the expectations of the job, I knew it would require 24/7 work- (much like my refrigerator, crisis in Social Services only happen at the most inopportune times) and wasn't willing to do that any more.

My boss (of course an entirely different generation- the one that really did have to choose between career and family) got to where she is because she CAN be called at 3am or 4 in the afternoon on a Sunday.

But, the key is that I had the education AND the experience to know when to jump ship. Not everyone has the luxury of saying, "no, not so much for me anymore."

I don't think you can have everything- the high powered job, the 2.4 brilliant and gorgeous children, the perfect husband who has the perfect job. It's unrealistic to expect and I do think the women of MY generation were sold a bill of goods by our mothers who were the first generation to hit the workforce en masse. (it was my generation's mothers who were wearing those hideous blouses with the floppy bows and massive shoulders- the feminine version of the power suit and woe to those who wore heels or tried to feminize the uniform) But my mother's generation felt screwed too. My mom has said that she was raised to expect to have a job, work for a bit and get married, have kids and it wasn't 'done' to return to work unless you worked for your father or your husband. Then, there she was a SAHM in the late 60s/early 70s who was suddenly made to feel like she should be resenting the fact that she was 'made' to stay home. She LIKED staying home, what she didn't like was being made to feel guilty about NOT working.

I remember back when I graduated from college the expectation was that we were going to climb the corporate ladder, make partner/chief/CEO and then have the 2.4 children, etc. However, along the way our eggs turned into raisins, we all got divorced and finally realized that late nights and early mornings would only be possible if our partners in all of this did their part too.

I credit my generation for pushing our male counterparts to be OK with their wanting to be with their families, to be OK with jumping off their corporate ladder if they want to and to embrace the journey together. Remember, I graduated from high school before some of the iMSN members were born. (1984)

My mother said that she's so impressed that Rick and my brother do so much with their kids and for the family and I just reminded her that they really have no other choice. Sure, I may have to tell him to throw a load of wash in but he doesn't bat an eye about doing it. My dad probably hasn't done a load of laundry since my mom had her tubal in the early 1980s.

The other trend that I find so fascinating because it's the absolute antithesis of how my friends and I were raised is the trend toward early marriage and early children. No one I knew got married before 30, at the earliest. (Sally is an anomaly) and NO ONE on purpose had more than two kids. Three at the most. It's interesting. Fascinating, really because when you have children in a large part does impact your career. By choice or by default, it does change how (and if) you work and when (if) you climb the corporate ladder.

The real bottom line is that we women are far too judgmental of other women's choices. The world would be a much happier place if we stopped.

[houseelf]

Jenn,

I love your analysis in all of this. I particularly was struck by:

early mornings would only be possible if our partners in all of this did their part too.

I don't think we will EVER approximate anything resembling equality until men are viewed and demand equal rights as participating parents, meaning paternity leave, flex time, etcetera. One feminist opined that in the army of parenthood, men are the volunteers and women are the conscripts. Times are changing so rapidly and we are moving towards this, but until parenting roles are equally valued, there is a long way to go.

Kelly

[GrayMatterWife]

. . . and NO ONE on purpose had more than two kids. Three at the most. . . .

That new social standard among (from what I've noticed) solidly middle class to upper-middle class folks fascinates me. I had no idea this was the assumed rule until a couple of years ago. I was with a girlfriend who'd just had her (very much wanted) fifth. Anyhow, a woman came up to us an coo-ed over the baby, and asked if it was her first. When my friend explained it was her fifth, the woman got TOTALLY offended and announced, "You know, people don't really do that anymore. Two is really the max these days. I mean, the more babies, the more carbon footprints. Most educated people know this--and know how to use birth control!" Then, before anyone could respond, she followed up with, "Are you Catholic?"

SERIOUSLY. Right to her face. I was in shock--speechless (IMAGINE!). My friend was absolute graciousness. She smiled and politely excused her (leaving me standing there, open-mouthed yet silent, physically and verbally paralyzed from the small stroke I'd just suffered).

OK, so Catholics are stupid (by the way, my friend has a Ph.D. in biology). And people--who can afford children and are loving, responsible parents--shouldn't have babies because of global warming? And someone feels free to share this judgment with a brand new mom? I think I might have whipped out my nursing boob and sprayed milk all over that idiot. My friend told me later than it was not the first time that a stranger did something like that.

Fast forward a couple of years: when I told my judge who I work for that we found out that I was carrying a girl, he responded, "Ah, wonderful. And, you're done now, since you have one of each." One of each? Kids aren't a salt-and-pepper shaker set. But, I guess the two-max standard is pretty widely accepted.

[DCJenn]

Well, for people my age who waited, it's more a matter of logistics than desire- unless you want to jump through any number of hoops to acquire children- adoption, IVF, surrogacy...

That person was an idiot. I've actually noticed quite the opposite- it's the two extremes who are having larger families- at least in San Antonio, which is skewed demographically- there are very large Hispanic families and very large Anglo families and they're either very low income or very high income.

and the other thing to remember is that my parents (and all the rest of the older boomers) were young adults in the early 1970s when there was a huge push for zero population growth in this country. We were mightily influenced by that, too. My mother even today goes on rants about people being irresponsible in the use of the world's resources by having multiple children and on and on. It was a really big deal in the 70s.

Jenn

[MrsK]

I see what you are saying and I hate to sound like a crybaby, but what happens to the organization when the balance shifts for female employees? The truth of the matter is the even if dad wants to go to all the little league games, dad most likely is not nursing, or taking care of sick children, or driving carpool, or expected at parent/teacher meetings, etc. And, sure, men that do want or expect to do all that want the flex-time too.

However, look at my situation. I worked my tush off for 11 years to become a partner in a national law firm. I sacraficed nights, weekends, etc. Married late. The whole enchalada. Now that I am married and having a baby, does my firm have to give up the investment it made in me for the last 11 years? What does that say to younger women? How does that encourage the firm to hire, retain, and promote women?

I'm not saying that I would have expected to come as far as fast if I did not open a vein 10 years ago. Honestly, I didn't expect to open a vein either. But now I'm here. Now what? How do I balance it? What is fair to my family and to my company?

The fact is that world changed when women entered the workforce. We are not men. And the latest generation of workers, men and women, are not willing to give their lives to the company. Companies are looking at ways to adapt and women are leading the charge.

[DCJenn]

Exactly.

The cover article of Time magazine, this week or last was all about the 'new' workforce.

Very interesting times ahead for men and women.

Jenn

[GrayMatterWife]

However, look at my situation. I worked my tush off for 11 years to become a partner in a national law firm. I sacraficed nights, weekends, etc. Married late. The whole enchalada. Now that I am married and having a baby, does my firm have to give up the investment it made in me for the last 11 years? What does that say to younger women? How does that encourage the firm to hire, retain, and promote women?

I'm not saying that I would have expected to come as far as fast if I did not open a vein 10 years ago. Honestly, I didn't expect to open a vein either. But now I'm here. Now what? How do I balance it? What is fair to my family and to my company?

Never sell yourself short. Even in this economy, you bring value to the table. Use it. First, you are female, which inherently is valuable. Large law firms are under huge pressure to get and keep female attorneys, because their corporate clients are often looking for firms that have women playing a big role. Second, you're experienced--you're not a second year (read: fungible) associate. Third, at your level, you probably have a client base and good relationships with client reps. I would negotiate a deal--either go of counsel or part-time partner, with the understanding that, at some time in the future, you will be ramping back up again. You could go down to a pared workload, and taking a commensurate pay cut. I would make sure that you also stay involved in nonbillable firm activities, too--to keep your tow in the right waters, and to make it clear that you're not in it just for the paycheck, but to build the firm. Fair to your family is not putting them behind your job; fair to your job is not expecting the firm to carry your weight while you take more than you give.

But I was never a partner at my old firm--I was a senior-level associate when I left. There may be partnership dynamics at your firm that I am not appreciating.

[Sheherezade]

I had only two take-aways from the limited bit I heard of the Diane Rehm interview.

1) The workforce is now 60% female; perhaps women should use that power to change workplace expectations. They mentioned that previous feminist models aimed to change job expectations to a more family friendly model when women had gained 50% of leadership positions. Now, they argue that leadership positions will be always elusive to those that want a more flexible schedule -- but that if a majority of workers DO want flex time or reduced hours, they can use the power of labor to make that happen. (Hence the "just say no" mantra issued from the book.)

2) I was struck by the one segment of interview in which the speaker said that she was happy and satisfied with the level she had acheived at her job -- but that she lost status because she wasn't interested in "climbing the ladder" for awhile. She didn't want to move. She didn't want to change her hours. She was happy. This signalled a "lack of ambition" and limited her status in the profession. That's....sad. You see it in academic medicine when a doc actually wants to see patients and not advance to administrative roles (department head). It's weird either way. You shouldn't lose value in your present job because you aren't interested in leaving it for the next rung. I know that I've worried about this with my own DH's career. I don't want him to move until the kids are done with school so we can have some family stability. We don't need the money, he's happy....so how can that be a bad career move? Still, it might be. Academics move. Often every five years. They climb to division director, department head, dean. If you stay put, you have to explain it. That probably hurts women more since they are more likely to be "satisfied" in life from the happiness in their family along with job satisfaction. Messing up the family dynamic for a career driven move better bring a REAL sweet career reward. Often it doesn't.

Anyhoo. That's all I've got to add. It was an interesting discussion ( the half I heard) but I don't think it even cracks the surface on the complicated issues.

[Flynn]

I have nothing constructive to add but this topic fascinates me.

I've had so many conflicting emotions about these issues. Even when I'm not conflicted I question WHY I'm not conflicted (to be a SAHM was basically my choice and I've never seriously looked back). Am I not as motivated as the next woman to achieve outside our family? What's wrong with me? The seemingly endless layers within this topic makes me shake my head.

When I was working I was in a job where women were at a high number and the pay was (and still is) considered on the lower end for an "educated" job (teacher). I've never been in a seemingly "male world" in the workforce. I have NO experience here other than being on the outside looking in.

Anyway, sorry for the hijack -- carry on. I'm just reading with interest.