Reply
Sun 26 Oct, 2003 11:52 am
VERY interesting article here:
"The Opt-Out Revolution" by Lisa Belkin
What do you think?
I find it interesting that this was written by a woman.
Miscellaneous other aspects I found interesting (it's another one of those giant articles, I know, sorry, but it doesn't encapsulate that well since there are so many themes):
Quote:Don't look at her as something out of ''The Bell Jar'' either. She is not trapped. This is a choice. And don't worry for her that she will have no resources should something happen to her spouse, his career or their marriage, she insists. ''My degree is my insurance policy.''
But is it enough insurance? Not only in the event that she needs to go back to work, but also when the time comes, that she wants to. Because at the moment, it is unclear what women like these will be able to go back to. This is the hot button of the work-life debate at the moment, a question on which the future of women and work might well hinge. For all the change happening in the office, the challenge of returning workers -- those who opted out completely, and those who ratcheted back -- is barely even starting to be addressed.
If that workplace can reabsorb those who left into a career they find fulfilling, then stepping out may in fact be the answer to the frustrations of this generation. If not, then their ability to balance life and work will be no different than their mothers', after all.
-snip-
But Hewlett's preliminary research makes her pessimistic about what today's women will face when they want to return to work. At any given time, she says, ''two-thirds of all women who quit their career to raise children'' are ''seeking to re-enter professional life and finding it exceedingly difficult. These women may think they can get back in,'' she said, when I told her of what I had been hearing in San Francisco and Atlanta and on my own suburban street, where half the women with children at home are not working and where the jobs they quit include law partner and investment banker. ''But my data show that it's harder than they anticipate. Are they going to live to the age of 83 and realize that they opted out of a career?''
Quote:Tilghman is now a leader. In that role she wonders how to educate women to enter this shades-of-gray world and how to create an environment for her own staff that encourages a balanced life. But Tilghman is also a scientist, and she suspects that policies and committees, while crucially important, cannot change everything. And she wonders whether evolution has done both men and women a disservice.
''My fantasy is a world where there are two kinds of people -- ones who like to stay home and care for children and ones who like to go out and have a career,'' she says. ''In this fantasy, one of these kinds can only marry the other.'' But the way it seems to work now is that ambitious women seem to be attracted to ambitious men. Then when they have children together, ''someone has to become less ambitious.'' And right now, it tends to be the woman who makes that choice.
Quote:She compares all this to a romance gone sour. ''Timing one's quitting to coincide with a baby is like timing a breakup to coincide with graduation,'' she says. ''It's just a whole lot easier than breaking up in the middle of senior year.''
That is the gift biology gives women, she says. It provides pauses, in the form of pregnancy and childbirth, that men do not have. And as the workplace becomes more stressful and all-consuming, the exit door is more attractive. ''Women get to look around every few years and say, 'Is this still what I want to be doing?''' she says. ''Maybe they have higher standards for job satisfaction because there is always the option of being their child's primary caregiver. When a man gets that dissatisfied with his job, he has to stick it out.''
This, I would argue, is why the workplace needs women. Not just because they are 50 percent of the talent pool, but for the very fact that they are more willing to leave than men. That, in turn, makes employers work harder to keep them. It is why the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche has more than doubled the number of employees on flexible work schedules over the past decade and more than quintupled the number of female partners and directors (to 567, from 97) in the same period. It is why I.B.M. employees can request up to 156 weeks of job-protected family time off. It is why Hamot Medical Center in Erie, Pa., hired a husband and wife to fill one neonatology job, with a shared salary and shared health insurance, then let them decide who stays home and who comes to the hospital on any given day. It is why, everywhere you look, workers are doing their work in untraditional ways.
Women started this conversation about life and work -- a conversation that is slowly coming to include men. Sanity, balance and a new definition of success, it seems, just might be contagious. And instead of women being forced to act like men, men are being freed to act like women. Because women are willing to leave, men are more willing to leave, too -- the number of married men who are full-time caregivers to their children has increased 18 percent. Because women are willing to leave, 46 percent of the employees taking parental leave at Ernst & Young last year were men.
Looked at that way, this is not the failure of a revolution, but the start of a new one. It is about a door opened but a crack by women that could usher in a new environment for us all.
All I can think of this early in the am is just who are these people who CAN leave?
I would LOVE to work part-time - but my mortgage and so forth decrees otherwise......
When it is good, I love my work - but I work to live, not live to work - I would happily do less of it.
I don't know any women who have "opted out" - except one teacher who went sort of nuts - and her husband is unemployed, pretty much, too - so 'twas a different situation.
If there WERE a choice - and I was partnered - it would seem fairer to me to to take turns - I cannot imagine being financially dependent on somebody else (except maybe in the first year or two after having a baby - and then - when breast-feeding stopped - wouldn't one's partner be likely to want to have a turn to be home more?)
But, then, I am older. This seems to be a young woman thing...
Sozobe --
I haven't had time to read the whole article yet, but I did read your excerpts. Here are some thoughts.
1) The observations in the article seem to correspond well with the behavior of children in Kibbuzzes (probably incorrect plural here) that was intensively studied in the 70s. Because Kibbuzzes were poor these days, children played with stones and raw pieces of wood rather than Barbie dolls and toy machine guns. The pieces would simply represent a baby, or a gun, or whatver, depending on the game that was being played. Moreover, because the typical grown-ups in kibbuzzes were socialists or something close, they a) were careful not to instill traditional role models on their children and b) encouraged their children to share their blocks of wood.
Behavioral scientists intensely studied these children to find evidence relevant to the "nurture vs. nature" debate. Much to their surprise (most behavioral scientists were on the "nurture" side in the seventies) it turned out that the same wood blocks tended to represent babies when used by girls, and either weapons or tools when used by boys. So even in an environment when children were free to choose what their toys were, and even when their parents try hard not to peddle gender stereotypes, the children turned out to behave in a way that was consistent with the stereotypes but not with the modern, enlightened views to the contrary.
I have a funny feeling that the women in your article are simply those Kibbuzz girls grown up.
2) I think the real discrimination in western societies is not against women, but against work that has been traditionally done by women. Bearing and raising children is a tremendously undervalued activity these days. The important question is how to compensate people who do it (either in status or some form of salary), not how we distribute the shortage of parenting between men and women. It's nice to see that some feminists are opening up to that thought.
-- Thomas
Girls is yukky . . . 'nuff said . . .
(Laying back in my couch anticipating the mighty bitchslap Setanta is about to get from the vengeful Soz

)
I just read the whole article. I think the most important point is that carreers have stopped being a binary choice of carreer-woman-ness versus motherhood and apple pie. It's now about a little bit more or a little bit less. The change happens through fits and starts, and the article spends a great deal of space describing these. But I think they are just child diseases of a big change for the better that is happening. They will sort themselves out over time, while the change for the better will last.
"child diseases of a big change for the better"
Nice turn of phrase, there, Boss . . .
I can run real fast, maybe Soz won't catch me . . .
"And lastly, I am very aware that, for the moment, this is true mostly of elite, successful women who can afford real choice -- who have partners with substantial salaries and health insurance -- making it easy to dismiss them as exceptions."
I think this is an important point to consider. (I haven't finished the article, yet.) Many women do not have a choice. They are single, divorced, married to a man who doesn't make enough to support the family alone... Staying home with the kids is wonderful if you can afford it, even if that means some sacrifice, HOWEVER those women who choose to work, must work, need the money, want a career are still finding a glass ceiling. Statements that "Women don't want to run the world" don't help those women. Ultimately they don't help the women who stay at home either because these women may someday change their minds and want to go back into the workforce.
"My education is my insurance policy." one of the women said. I beg to differ. The remaining women in the workforce fighting their way through the old-boys network is her insurance policy.
One more thing...
The goal of the women's movement was not just the advancement of women into the workforce. It also had a goal to bring men back into the home. Shared parenting and shared bread-winning was the ideal. Trading children for career was not the idea. It seems we still have a long way to go.
Swimpy wrote:Many women do not have a choice. They are single, divorced, married to a man who doesn't make enough to support the family alone...
For what it's worth, here is another observation. In Germany, we have universal health insurance and much lower divorce rates than in the US. But this doesn't have a large impact on the outcome. As best I can tell from my observations on frequent visits to America, the choices women make in the carreer vs. motherhood tradeoff look similar. This suggests that "not being able to" is not as important as you might think.
On a slight tangent, I can't help noticing that all these muslim third world nations, where women's rights are in so much trouble, are more likely than we are to have female heads of state. Think of Ciller in Turkey, Sukarnoputri in Turkey, Bandaraneike in Sri Lanka and Hasina Wajed in Bangladesh. Compared to that,
Female heads of state seem surprisingly scarce here in the West. This could mean that something is seriously wrong with how we view Islamic societies. But it could also mean that climbing in social rank is not as important as western feminists think it is -- as evidenced by muslim machos who let women climb all the way up.
I'd be curious to hear if feminists have a theory about this.
I remember my first job and my first boss - she was a woman and a director, the first female director of the company in its entire history. So I guess my experience of women in the workplace is particularly colored with a strong business-woman in mind. I was protected by and encouraged by her. I remember back then that sexual harassment was unheard of (at least the term) and when I came across it, it was she who threated the culprits with physical harm if they ever looked crooked at me again. I learned from her and took that experience with me into the future. That said, I am not a success-seeking, ladder-climbing female, hot to work 24 hours a day and seven days a week. I do not want to be tied to a job that requires me to carry a cell-phone into the bathroom and taking my lap-top home with me so I can continue to work my guts out for a meager salary and a ridiculous raise that wouldn't even cover the increased cost of living year to year. Don't get me wrong, I am on a good salary (I am happy with it) and I work hard for it. If I am asked to do more than I feel I can handle, I will open my mouth and say so. I am not adverse to leaving at the drop of a hat. I owe no loyalty anywhere that would not treat me well or at least as I feel I deserve. I will be paid the same as my male colleagues (or there will be hell to pay) and I will not accept abuse of any kind from an employer or co-worker, male or female. I don't want to rule the world. I have no interest in that. I rule my own little patch and that is good enough for me. I don't want to stress myself into an early grave for I believe that life is for enjoying and not pushing myself over the limits so that someone else can gain the fruits of my labors. I am not married and I have no children so I cannot comment on how I would prioritize those committments. My decision not to have children has nothing to do with a career.
Finally, I agree with Miz Rabbit, I work to live - not live to work. Everyone does not have to want to rule, there are lots of worker bees who are content to do their piece and spend as much time as possible enjoying what they have. I would be the first one to vote for a 4-day work-week and 3-day weekend if I possibly could. If employers are so competitive that they must have their businesses operated 24/7 then why not employ a full staff for 4 days and then another set of staff for the remaining 3 days. In no time at all they would have round-the-clock service/business and the entire population would be employed - male and female!
Thanks for the great observations so far, guys. I don't have time to weigh in yet but wanted to quickly acknowledge the good stuff so far.
Here's how the ever-interesting Economist sees it:
The trouble with women
Oct 23rd 2003
From The Economist print edition
Why so few of them are running big companies
THE leaders of large public companies the world over are almost universally male. In America, only seven Fortune 500 CEOs are female; in Britain, only one woman runs a FTSE 100 company. An easier route for women to the top is to inherit: family patriarchs are more likely to entrust the business to their widows or daughters than the markets are, but those companies are generally smaller.
Why so few women? One answer is obvious: women are more likely than men to care for children. But to some extent it may be a question of time: women are now reaching positions just below CEO level in greater numbers than ever before, often rising through sales, marketing or finance. They also tend to be concentrated in future-oriented sectors such as consumer products and technology.
However, women still face three big problems in climbing the corporate ladder, says Herminia Ibarra of INSEAD. First, they fail to get the really stretching jobs. One study found that companies are much more likely to ask men than women to turn around an ailing division or to start a new one. Getting into line management is important (and 90% of line managers at big American firms are male), but it is not enough: women also need tough, broad assignments to win experience and promotion.
Second, women lack networks, not because they are deliberately excluded, but because people bond when they have much in common, and gender matters here. In particular, women lack the sort of networks that combine work and social life, which have proved hugely beneficial to men. Women are more likely to separate their networks, which makes it harder to go for a drink with the boss.
Third, women find it more difficult than men to develop an image compatible with leadership. There are fewer role models, and simply adopting a male style rarely works. "Aggressive" male leaders are admired; female ones are disliked, especially by other women. A study of business owners presented at this year's meeting of the Academy of Management found that 26% of male owners but only 5% of female ones wanted to be thought of as an authority figure.
Sometimes women are their own worst enemies. A book by Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever called "Women Don't Ask" recently drew attention to their negotiating style. Ms Babcock noticed that male graduates with a master's degree from her university were paid starting salaries almost $4,000 above those of female students. On closer investigation, she found that the vast majority of the women had accepted the initial pay offer, but that 57% of the men (against only 7% of the women) had asked for more. Those who haggled raised their starting offer by an average of $4,053?-almost exactly the difference in men's and women's initial pay.
One senior headhunter says wearily that boards frequently ask her to recruit women to top jobs. "But when I get them there, the women say no. They look at what the job involves and think the price is too big to pay." Maybe women have more sense than men.