In this 21st Century, We, Men & Women, are Entitled to Demand "Having it All"

Just back from a trip to India, my intention was to comment on some of what I saw there… but that
will have to wait; I want to weigh in on the Slaughter article and the reactions covered by the Atlantic Monthly & the New York Times.

I agree with much, though not everything, of what Anne-Marie Slaughter writes in her article, “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All”. In the past, I have actually made many similar points in this blog. For example,

- The workplace is out of synch with the realities of non-professional life, has given into quantity of hours/face time over the high value of quality of work; that for professionals to optimize performance, downtime, and time for other aspects of life (hobby, family, leisure) are key contributors to professional performance (for men and women, with or without children). I have also proponed pursing an “integrated I” (for men & women) to counter what Slaughter refers to as a “fetish of a one-dimensional life”.
- I also agree that the expected career curve needs to be revised considering the number of
decades we’re each going to invest in our careers: the idea that a few months of maternity
leave slows a woman’s potential and/or represents a lack of investment in one’s career
(apparently it represents an 11% gap that grows over time) is a flimsy excuse, not
a reflection of reality.  It’s utter nonsense (or simply discrimination) to decide such a short
leave out of 40 years plus of work should put such a hard lid on a woman’s career
development! Especially considering that the big fad is “mompreneurs”: women who start
their own businesses in order to have the flexibility of seeing their kids and having a career.
If someone can balance the bottom line of an entire business on her own while leaving pockets of time to spend with her kids, an employee is also likely to have the capacity to handle both while remaining performing… But such is not current corporate wisdom and mothers are generally suspect unless they exhibit total devotion. This is not just a glass ceiling, this is a glass cage!
- I even go further by arguing that, beyond kids needing their parents, adults spending time with kids (their own or someone else’s) is in itself an asset in terms of the insights it brings, the empathy
& relativism it fosters, and the joy it produces (children’s laughter is infectious), not the
mention our enrichment from the questions they ask and the solutions they provoke.

To tell the truth, what really surprised me was not so much Slaughter’s propos; it’s the reactions they drew. Half the writers didn’t even get the gist of her piece, which, for me, is as follows: with societal mores so much aligned with corporate capitalistic ideals, Americans cannot hope to “have it all”… but with a little more pragmatism, these mores can evolve and create a more propitious environment for a better work-life balance for everyone.  It’s a very positive proposition, even if it will take time.  But many reactions concentrated on details… and ended up either defending the status quo (“of course you can’t do both! It’s a spoiled child’s dream of ubiquity to think you can; adults make choices and stick to them”) or arguing it’s a non issue because many already “have it all” (even though each admit to an awful lot of regrets along the way).  Over all, many reactions showcased great inertia in terms of reframing our society and the potential we want to achieve.

I am not aligned with this criticism. There is a real, fundamental problem and it’s counterproductive
to dismiss the debate for details.  What is missing from Slaughter’s analysis are testimonials from other men and women than those among the elite.  What’s missing is the voice of second and third tier classes.  People like me who have great degrees from great schools, who aren’t trying to be number one but who want to have a good job and build a career… but who face everyday discrimination and suspicion of not being committed enough because I leave work at a reasonable hour to get home for my “second shift”.  People like me who have good heads on their shoulders, have acquired experience, have real value to contribute… but who discover an exceptionally low glass ceiling because we have kids and don’t want to entirely outsource parenting.  My argument is that I don’t see why I can’t expect to have an interesting job (not spectacular!) + a decent wage + a decent life balance.  That’s what “having it all” means to me.  And any of those journalists with their cushy salaries and their flexible, mobile professions can come to me when they pretend “having it all” is a fictitious and elitist predicament.  Why should we settle for less?!  Who dare feel comfortable with the idea that I and other people like me should be sidelined only because we have multiple priorities?!  I am fighting daily in this trench.  Slaughter is touching a major need eve if she isn’t the most legitimate spokesperson.  We need a good dose of realism/ pragmatism and catapult ourselves into the 21^st century with a demand for the society we want.  A society that’s a little more lucid about what actually constitutes worth and value.  A society that believes anew in progress.

Let me know what you think. 
Talk to you next week for another bite from the apple!
- Eve

In this 21st Century, We Must Honor our Experts in Care

This week, the New York Times published an article pertaining to the increase of men working in “pink collar jobs” in the US, “More Men Enter Fields Dominated by Women”, by Shaila Dewan and Robert Gebeloff.  

The article reports that, “while women continue to make inroads into prestigious, high-wage professions dominated by men, more men are reaching for the dream in female-dominated occupations that their fathers might never have considered” – pink collar jobs like nursing, school-teaching, linked to “care”.  With the shifting economy, job growth is in the care sector as these professions cannot be off-shored.  Furthermore, men’s priorities are shifting enough for them to want to benefit from job attributes such as less stress, more time at home, and personal gratification (challenge and emotional return) beyond salary.   This shift is even taking place among uneducated men, typically associated with a higher level of male chauvinism. 

What good news!  This is precisely what I was advocating in my March 8^th blog, convinced as I am that we must have men recognize the importance and value of care before we can hope for a better work-life balance in Western societies.   Thanks to this new trend, we can hope that care issues will escape the exclusive clutches of “woman’s work” and come to the fore of men’s and women’s minds while liberating each gender to also excel in other domains.

But the article also exposes an important marker in our fight for gender equality:  even in these fields where women’s expertise is recognized, and in such a short time frame,   there is a “glass escalator”.  Glass escalator is a term coined by sociologist Christine L. Williams expressing a phenomenon in which men move up more quickly to supervisory positions thanks to their gender.  Yes, while women’s career paths are truncated by the “glass ceiling” in male-dominated professions and, as I have named, working mothers are held back by a “glass cage”, men are empowered (or abetted) by the “glass escalator”.  

Is it because of their skills / qualities vs. those of women (for example, stereotypically more authoritative and therefore more likely to lead?)?  Or is it because administrators are largely male and tend to promote talents more similar to them?  Or is it because there are fewer men in these fields and therefore more visible, making administrators notice them more?  Or is it because socially we all still defer to the man? 

In 1977, Rosabeth Moss Kanter had pinpointed “Occupational Sex Segregation”, which discriminately segregated women into lower paying positions with little training, building a self-perpetuating mechanism with which the rare women promoted were lacking in experience and skills compared to the men and whose legitimacy and chances to succeed were largely diminished. 

But this is not the case here.  In pink collar jobs, it is the men, not the women, who are lacking the experience and skills (outside of skills acquired through parenting, as men become increasingly implicated in their family lives).  So, outside of gender discrimination, women should be high on the ladder, not the newly arriving men.

This is where it gets tricky.  According the studies pursued by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, it is in part because the hands-on positions within the pink color sectors require a very high level of caring and relational skills, experience, and expertise.  Reportedly, when women have moved up and men have moved into some care positions (hospitals, for example), care recipients have complained, requesting that the women come back (whether the reason be comfort with traditional roles or a real difference in care remains to be clarified). 

So, women are thwarted when considered not skilled enough and thwarted when considered well skilled.

Beyond arguments that we have not yet attained gender equality and/or that Western culture is still largely patriarchal; beyond scientific arguments that corpulence, low voice, height, and testosterone play into the dynamics of chieftains and power politics, there’s another issue here.  For me, the crux of the matter is that there is no reason for managerial roles to be paid more or valued more than expertise roles. 

Of course management is important for an organization to run well.  Talent management and creative decision-making is key to an entity’s well-being and performance.  But the actual expertise and savoir-faire is just as key… and should be valued.  Every last ambitious business person gets their MBA (good news – the number of women enrolled in MBAs is growing) so that they can be a manager.  But a manager of what?  For what?  Shouldn’t that manager be skilled in the profession in order to optimize the quality of his or her decision making? 

Our performance society is guiding us to gut our professions of their life-force, of their specificity, in the name of process and organization… and management.  And maybe that’s necessary.  But is it necessary to the point of awarding the best salaries to the managers instead of the skilled experts?  I’m not talking about the number one creative director in an advertising agency or creative expert at an innovator like Apple, who, as few as they are, are paid handsomely (and discarded as quickly when no longer performing…). 

I’m talking about skilled workers like our pink collar workers.  Men or Women.

Yes, the good news here, despite my pushing for improvements, is that men are discovering and spreading the news that “care” jobs are challenging, rewarding, enriching, even exciting.  It’s time we started honoring the jobs which have a direct impact on our well-being rather than only the superfluous and material.  It’s time we honor our experts in care.  


Let me know what you think.
In the meantime, talk to you next week for another bite from the apple,
Eve 

Glass Ceiling? The 21st Century will be about fighting the Glass Cage

This year, Barnard College’s graduating class was addressed by Barack Obama at its commencement ceremony.  Obama made a great speech in the name of activism and collective implication, rallying the women before him to, “fight for a place at the table; to fight for a place at the head of the table.”

He’s right on!  And clearly, if he’s making a case for it, it’s because we aren’t there yet; there’s still much work to be done.

Well, I’d like to high-five him and bid even higher:  our fight must include working mothers at the table.

Currently, society is evolving towards a divide between women who devote their lives to their work vs. women who have children – whether or not they also work outside the home.  According to Rana Foroohar in Time magazine (May 21, 2012 edition), “in many wealthy, urban areas of the US and Europe, young, well-educated and (crucially) childless women now out-earn their male peers… whereas some married couples are deciding to live on one salary when the economic trade-off of lower-paying jobs, child-care costs, taxes and commuting doesn’t add up… [leaving] two extremes: those with demanding, well-paid jobs who can afford help to manage their lives, homes, and children – and those who provide that help.”

What we’re up against is a glass ceiling that’s curving into a glass cage for working mothers.

It’s to such an extent that many American women are forced into making the “choice” to stay home with their children.  But costly day-care and taxes are not the only culprits, for here in France, we have similar discrimination despite high-quality state-subsidized day care, some elderly care, and universal healthcare.  It all comes down to the fact that corporations expect absolute availability and that, as a woman, particularly suspect of disloyalty (she might have a baby or use sick days to take care of an aging parent), must do everything a man does but “backwards and in heels,” to quote Ginger Rogers referring to Fred Astair.  Sheryl Sandberg made it to the “table” but only after sleepless nights by Mark Zuckerberg’s side.  Total devotion.   Anything less, and you’re suspect of not being committed enough. 

Fine for Rogers and Sandberg, but this is unsustainable, it leaves out a lot of talent, and it leaves out the great skills acquired as a parent which could be transferred into an executive’s quality of work. 

I graduated from Barnard Columbia in 1998.  My commencement address was far more sobering.  Joyce Purnick gave us the low-down:  women, she said, you can’t Have It All!  I balked at the time… but I am still struggling to prove her wrong.   And, around me, I can see many, many women facing the same battle of “only” working 9 or 10 hours a day in order to see their children at night… only to find themselves marginalized at work, their career paths slowed because their priorities are resented. 

That’s why I’m pleading that the “glass cage” be one of the major battles of the 21^st century.   Without it, women will be forced into reductionist views either expecting women to stay home with their children or, to be a good professional, have no children at all.  Honestly, attachment parenting that’s been getting so much press is not the point, nor are questions over perfect parenting (or, rather, perfect mothering);

these are decoys stealing attention away from the larger issue of incorporating family into our career-filled lives. 

Obama’s strategy of getting more women “at the table” should help catalyze collective progress… but only if the debate stops being strictly about gender.  The women at the table must include working mothers, in addition to the childless and to the women who have decided to have their children raised by someone else (I mention them because often I have heard the most pressure and/or discrimination against young mothers trying to do both comes from older women who had to sacrifice motherhood to stay in the game:  “if I had to do it, so should you”).

The guiding principle of our aim should center on quality of life for all our citizens – children needing care, aging parents needing care… and adults needing breathing room to improve their lives (as well as the quality of the work they supply).   Our society is an ecosystem that thrives on oxygen and circulation, as does a body.  As long as we nourish only a few individuals born within the elite, there can be no lasting progress, either individual or collective.  It is time to ignite a system which includes every age and every class, so that we may all move forward, together.

Please share your thoughts in the comment below.

In the meantime, talk to you next week, for another bite from the apple,

Eve