The Downtown Women's Club womensDISH blog

Opting out of the Choice Myth

Last week, Judith Warner's column "The Choice Myth," presented one of the best overviews of the issue of women opting out that I've read since the famous Lisa Belkin 2003 NYTimes "opt out" article first introduced the concept.

In the column, Warner brings up the following points dispelling some of the "myths" about women who choose to opt out:

1.  A recent study showed that most women who "opt out" are not over-privileged, but instead low income, uneducated, foreign and for whom the cost of child care makes it impossible for them to work.

2.  In 2005, the Motherhood Project at the Institute for American Values surveyed more than 2,000 women and published a report that said most mothers, given free choice in an ideal world, would choose to be employed — provided their employment didn’t impinge excessively on their time with their kids. In other words, the more choices mothers have, the more likely they are to work.

3.  Other than the lowest-income women, the only other group opting out are the very richest.  While this is true, Warner puts this in a different perspective:

In 2007, the sociologists David Cotter, Paula England and Joan Hermsen looked carefully at four decades of employment data and found that women with choices — those with college educations — were overwhelmingly choosing to stay in the work force. The only women “opting out” in any significant numbers were the very richest — those with husbands earning more than $125,000 a year — and the very poorest — those with husbands earning less than $23,400 a year.

You might say that the movement of the richest women out of the workforce proves that women will, in the best of all possible worlds, go home. But these women often have husbands who, in order to earn those top salaries, work 70 or 80 hours a week and travel extensively; someone has to be home. Many left high-powered careers that made similar demands on their time. They are privileged, it’s true, but very often they have also been cornered by the all-or-nothing non-choices of our workplaces.

These are all great points. But, there's another twist I'd like to add to the last one:

The problem with uber-employees 

Women (and some men) who opt out for child or elder care have consequently created a species of "uber-employees."   Uber-employees can fly around the world on a company's whim, never miss a day of work for a sick child or a plumber, and entertain clients any night of the week.  How can an employee who actually has to deal with these "inconveniences" brought on by both child and elder care compete with an uber-employee? To be honest, even a single person without child/elderly care responsibilities can't always compete with an uber-employee who has someone to take his or her car to the shop or even wait for a plumber.  This may be why all those studies show that married men with a stay at home spouse have the biggest advantage at work (and are the happiest) - they have no responsibilities other than to show up and work. 

Unfortunately, there's no easy solution. Two uber-employee parents with outsourced childcare?  That doesn't sound too good for the kids.  And what about single parents?  Many of them, esp. the single by choice mothers, don't have an "other" to even have the "who should be flexible" discussion.  

How about taking turns being the uber-employee?  I've always thought it was progress that young couples were now discussing "who's career goes first?"  This sounds like a great idea on paper, ... unless the husband goes first.  In pre-recession days, husbands usually ended up on the fast-track as an uber-employee so that when it came time to make a switch, it was difficult to step off and let the wife have her turn because that usually means a steep cut in the family's income.

What can we do?

It seems that the perfect formula would be flexible employment for all + affordable childcare.  Unfortunately, these are not choices available to most people; and it's a choice that's in the hands of corporations and the government.

Nevertheless, there is hope - by 2012, some experts claim that more people will be working from home than in an office.  This, combined with a recession where some of the uber-employees have been phased out of the workforce (possibly for good), could mean some changes are in store.  At least I'd like to think so.  But, wouldn't it be great if all moms and dads (working out of the home or not) got together and solved the child care/flexible employment issue that the corporations and governments couldn't?!  Perhaps when more people are working from home, they can help create their own "village" for their children.  

In the meantime, I'll leave you with the closing paragraph of Warner's column.

When mothers can choose, they choose self-empowerment. Because they know that there is no true difference between their advancement and the advancement of their children. Why do we so enduringly deny them the dignity of choice?

Click here to read Warner's entire column.

More on Mama Obama - who says it's all or nothing?

Cali Yost had a great post this morning about the criticism Michelle Obama is facing by choosing to focus on her daughters' transition to DC.

How we perceive Michelle Obama’s choices as she moves her family to Washington, and begins her new job as first lady is a rorschach test for our post-balance approach to managing work and life.  Most of us still think in outdated “all or nothing” terms, judging Michelle Obama’s choices from a simplistic viewpoint. 

Yost talks about the myths we have about Obama's situation:

Myth #1: She’s being forced into a more “traditional” role.

Myth #2: She has “sacrificed” her career, which women are expected to do.

Myth #3:  By publicly focusing on her kids during their transition to a new home, school and community, she seems less serious and professionally ambitious which reflects badly on other working moms.

Click here to read the full article.

Obama's "First Mom" role criticized

The Boston Globe's Maggie Jackson seems to have a bone to pick with working women who "opt out" of the workforce.  Today's target:  Michelle Obama. 

Certainly, the mantra "family comes first" is valid, especially in a country that provides so few public or private supports for working families. There are times when we need to dial down or take time from work to care for a sick or disabled relative, or to compensate for the absence of a partner or spouse. While very few women can afford to step completely away from the labor force, all women - and men - deserve flexible work that respects their life as a parent or caregiver. Obama seems to speak from the heart when she expresses concern for her family life - and for the plight of working families in general.

Yet, however politically strategic and privately compelling, Obama's decision to be foremost the "first mom" potentially sends a wrong message: that high-level paid work and motherhood don't mix, or that women need to be the ones to step down to care for family.

I'm always the first to defend moms who "opt out," for two reasons: 

1. Women need choices.  To have other women dictate what they should choose, makes "choice" nothing more than an illusion.  There is no "one way" to raise a family or manage a career.
2. Children need flexible parenting.  Schools and corporations still operate on the "one parent at home full time" model.  Until this changes, parents have to explore creative options.  Yes, it's still moms who are generally stuck with having to make difficult career choices to remain flexible, but when I look around even my own conservative small town, it's becoming more and more gender neutral. I believe one silver lining of this tough economy may be that we're going to see an increase in the gender neutrality of flexible parenting.

But, to claim that Michelle Obama's choice to be "First Mom" is somehow going to set women's rights back is a bit of a stretch for me.

First, it's a unique situation. 

1. Not too many of us will ever be in a position where we are raising young children with a partner who is a world leader.   
2. There are unprecedented security/safety issues for every single member of the Obama family that surpass those of any prior First Family. 
3. Despite her "not working" role she would still be on call to counsel a world leader, make public appearances, give speeches, and manage dinners to entertain supporters and prominent leaders.
4. And, to work as an attorney or hospital administrator? How many conflicts of interest would there be for any company who had the wife of the President in their employ?

Second, if Michelle had been the one elected, or if Sarah Palin was in the VP position, I would expect their respective partners to pick up the main parenting role for those years.  It was never a question in my mind. 

Third, to compare the Obama's situation to that of a typical family or to say that it would have some bearing on our own choices is a bit far-fetched.  Perhaps a better comparision for the Obamas is Hollywood.  Why is it that we praise Hollywood stars who prioritize their families by never filming movies at the same time. We don't criticize Reese, Angelina, Madonna or even Brad, for "opting out" and putting their children first every once in a while.  Even then with dueling egos, long absences, and constant media scrutiny, very few of those families survive intact.

Stepping back from a career is never easy.  Michelle Obama is making what she thinks is the best choice for her and her family at this point in time.  I think we should give her a break.   

As always, I'd love to hear different viewpoints.  What do you think? 

Redefining success - Gen Y style

Got the heads up from The Huffington Post about a new Wellesley College survey on recent graduate expectations, which seems to be summed up by the following quote from the blog post:  To "have it all" these women are willing to sacrifice a little bit of everything.

As with all surveys of new grads, those of us who have "been there, done that" will chide them for being naive (about the economy, divorce, the ability to even find a significant other with whom to raise a child, elder-care needs, lack of daycare, etc.).  However, we didn't resolve those problems, did we?  So, who knows maybe they will.  Especially if they can convince the young men to agree with them.

Here are some tidbits from the survey:

1. To "have it all" these women are willing to sacrifice a little bit of everything. They envision a life plan in which they combine work and family while letting go of hardcore notions of success. They no longer feel forced to choose between becoming the top honcho and PTA mom of the year.
2. Interestingly, if money were not an issue 42 percent of the women surveyed thought they might be a stay-at-home mom at some point in their life. Money weighs heavily on this generation and staying at home is seen as a luxury, not a prescription.
3. Even though there has been article after study after salacious news program broadcasting the difficulties women face re-entering the workforce, these young women have strong expectations about how they will be able to become mothers and careerists.
4. These women would also be happy working part time and splitting childcare more evenly with spouses. This younger generation expects both men and women to be involved in parenting. Even without the guarantee of a top salary, most of the women expect to share childrearing and return to the labor force.
5. This home formula may be the key to the gender revolution that stalled at the threshold of the family door. While countries such as Spain have social policies requiring men to become active dads, young U.S. women are at least discussing the possibility of househusbands or partners sharing the family responsibilities.
6. Considering these work plans, it is not surprising that most of the young women think that parental leaves should be for six months to a year. If that were the case, then stay-at-home parenting might become a normal part of a work path rather than a terminating factor. It would also make the work/family juggle less stressful if all parents left paid work to care for their children.
7. While these young women may be accepting of present career ladders and expect to find individual ways to move ahead, they surprisingly imagine their children cared for in public settings. The nanny solution is not theirs. While working full-time they would like to place their youngest child in an after school program. These young women do not want to patch together care giving solutions; they want a seamless approach to raising children. Young women want their communities to play a significant role in meeting the demands of raising kids and continued employment.

Click here to read the full story.

Building on-ramps is a slow process

Whether we're talking about a public project or building on-ramps for women (and men) who take time out of the workforce, it's a slooooooooooow process.  Today's Boston Globe looks at one on-ramp program offered by Wharton/UBS to help hasten the process.  Though not boasting great success rates - 41% of the class is still looking for jobs - at least it's a start.

My suggestion -- Hey Hollywood, how about having more of your characters successfully transition back (and not as the "plot" but just as a "matter of fact.").  There was a reason Felicity Huffman's character was so great at the beginning of Desperate Housewives (before it "jumped the shark" and became beyond ridiculous).  Not all women are cut out to, or even want to stay home for more than a few years (if at all) with children/elderly parents (yes the latter pulls just as many women off the career path).  We could relate to Huffman's character ripping into the PTA, hiding in the supermarket from former colleagues, etc.  And, when she went back to work, we rooted for her because she was good at it (after all, in an earlier life, she played a kick-ass producer on one of my all-time favorite shows, Sports Night).  And, while we're at it, how about a few stay at home or non-breadwinner dads who aren't goofs.  Again, NOT as the plot, just as a matter of fact.

Why does TV/Hollywood play a role?  Because for better or worse, viewers start accepting what they see on TV as acceptable in real life.  For example, Geena Davis playing the president.  Even though it was for a single season, it meant to some youngsters that the thought of Hillary as president isn't as outlandish as their parents might think it is.  Likewise, do we seem as surprised these days to to see female cops or women in other positions of power in law enforcement?  No, because despite the fact that in reality these women are rare, they're shown in equal numbers on TV, so we no longer find it unexpected.

New Generational Survey Released

Today, the Downtown Women's Club is releasing it's latest survey on the generations.  The following are some of the key findings and conclusions. 

Download GenerationallySpeaking.pdf (full survey).

Introduction

In March 2007, DowntownWomensClub.com, a women’s network and career website, surveyed 650+ businesswomen across three generations about some of the issues facing women in the workplace.  We then compared the responses from the three generations – Generation Y, Generation X and Baby Boomers.

Key Findings

• Less than 2% of women in our survey are contemplating opting out permanently from the workplace.  Moreover, less than 10% even plan to opt out for a few years. All three generations are in agreement in their top three responses:
  • Women earned the right to choose
  • Most women don’t opt “out;” they opt “differently”
  • Corporations are too inflexible.
• The idea of “Mommy Wars” does not fit the reality that most working moms do not have schedules that allow them to even meet stay at home moms. 
  • Only 2% of working moms feel inadequate when compared to stay at home moms.
  • But, we are seeing an emerging trend that women without kids are disgruntled over having to pick up the slack for working parents.
• Despite recent studies that the gender gap starts in the first year of college, and increases for college graduates, many women still do not recognize this.
• The majority of all generations believe that overt discrimination has been reduced, yet subtle discrimination still persists, and it’s more evident at the higher levels.
• When asked to give advice to the other generations:
  • The Generation X and Y women’s advice centered around having the Boomers change their attitudes (i.e. stop labeling them as slackers, expecting them to fight their same battles, or resenting them for making different choices), as well as building bridges, mentoring and learning technology.
  • Interestingly, nearly 40% of the Boomers would not recommend that the younger women follow their path.  Despite their reluctance to mentor, they also gave much of the practical advice that the younger women are seeking from mentors.

Conclusions

1. When it comes to the top women’s issues, the generations are mostly in agreement.
2. The majority of all generations feel that the media-driven “trends” like opting out and mommy wars do not reflect reality.
3. The majority of women, especially in the younger generations, do not recognize that there is a gender gap.
4. There is a clear communication problem across the generations.

Enough with the opting out already!

E.J. Graff's post on TPM Cafe about The Opt Out Myth needs to be read in it's entirety by any journalist who insists on writing anything more about the "opt out" trend.  Some of the highlights from her article that you won't read about elsewhere:

• Only 4% of women in the US population fit the demographics of the original "opt out" article, yet because publishers and journalists belong to this class - it's spotlighted as a trend.
• "opt-out stories invariably focus on women in one particular situation: after they have ‘opted out’ but before any of them divorce."
• "Census numbers show no increase in mothers exiting the work force, and according to Heather Boushey, the maternity leaves women do take have gotten shorter.'
• "In one experiment, Correll and her colleagues asked participants to rate a management consultant. Everyone got a profile of an equally qualified consultant—except that the consultant was variously described as a woman with children, a woman without children, a man with children, and a man without children. When the consultant was a “mother,” she was rated as less competent, less committed, less suitable for hiring, promotion, or training, and was offered a lower starting salary than the other three."
• "Here’s what feminism hasn’t yet changed: the American idea of mothering is left over from the 1950s, that odd moment in history when America’s unrivaled economic power enabled a single breadwinner to support an entire family. Fifty years later we still have the idea that a mother, and not a father, should be available to her child at every moment."
• "Why can’t twenty-first century school schedules match the twenty-first century workday?"

Standing up for the working mom

DWC member, Lena West, sent in this goody by Lisa Kogan in Oprah which represents some of the issues we've been uncovering in our recent survey about what the different generations of businesswomen think about some of the major issues facing women in the workplace.

Now, I'd gladly leave it at that, but I can't very well talk about the village it takes to raise Julia without talking about the e-mail that came across my desk yesterday. You see, I recently wrote a column in which I mentioned that one of the things people need most is good, affordable day care for their kids. Here is the response I got from a 30-something Nebraska woman: "I have great news for Lisa Kogan—'safe, healthy, fun, warm-hearted day care for kids' does exist. It's called parents. By actually raising the children we choose to bring into the world, we can give our kids all this and more."

Oh, Miss Nebraska, what am I going to do with you? The old me would've simply ignored your letter (if one considers consuming 33 mint Milano cookies, two Snapples, and a 6.6 ounce bag of those little Cheddar Goldfish "ignoring your letter"), but a funny thing happened on the way to turning 45: I took a deep breath and decided I'm much too old and way too tired to keep nursing my adolescent obsession with being loved. The need to please has at long last atrophied and set me free. So, lady, this one's for you:

Lisa's answer is great, so click here to read the whole article.

To Flex or not to flex

This week's BostonWorks section of the Globe looks at flextime that didn't break the bank or end anyone's career.

For a long time, having a flexible work schedule hasn't been much of a career booster. You did it to grapple with life needs, and then contended with the raised eyebrows, wage penalties, and other downsides as best you could. Full time, full tilt was the norm.

But little by little, that bleak picture is changing. Flexibility is becoming more workable, and can even be part of a model of long-term career success. That's the clear take-home message from a Simmons College study of 400 professional women released this month that you can read at simmons.edu/som/docs/centers/insights_25.pdf .

Do you have opinion about flextime?  Or other issues like opting out and glass ceilings?  Then take our latest DWC Survey, Women in the Workplace:  Talkin' 'bout my generation.

Wharton wants women

Specifically, women who have taken a career break and are looking to return to the workforce.  UBS and Wharton Executive Education have partnered to support women in transition through a program where participants will update their business knowledge, develop transition strategies, and network with business leaders. This highly-selective program is offered at no charge to qualified applicants through funding from UBS.  Visit the Wharton Executive Education page for more information.