Monday, March 11, 2013

Working from Home, Leaning In, and Having it All

You can't avoid it if you want to.  The issue of women in the workplace is everywhere.

First there was Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer's announcement that she is calling an end to telecommuting.   In the memo that changed it all, she wrote:

"To become the absolute best place to work, communication and collaboration will be important, so we need to be working side-by-side.  That is why it is critical that we are all present in our offices. Some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings.  Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home.  We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together.  Beginning in June, we're asking all employees with work-from-home arrangements to work in Yahoo! offices." (Memo found here).

I'd venture to guess that this new policy will most predominantly affect women -  mothers in particular.  Ms. Mayer, a mother herself and a notorious workaholic, doesn't seem to mind.  In fact, she took her position at Yahoo when she was five months pregnant, and after having her first child, she was quickly back at work after a two week maternity leave.  (Yes, you read that right - A TWO WEEK MATERNITY LEAVE).  I suppose its not a surprise that her value system is being thrust upon the entire Yahoo workforce, but I, for one, am glad I don't work there.  (And so is Richard Branson, by the way).

Then there's Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook and mother of two, who is all over the news for her new book, Leaning In, where she argues that women are their own worst enemies - that we need to be more ambitious, more aggressive, more assertive.  That, in essence, we need to be more like men.  She's wants to start a movement, and perhaps she is the perfect person to do so - in a world where 96% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are men, Ms. Sandberg has done pretty well for herself.

In an interview last night with 60 Minutes, she stated that in the business world women "start leaning back.  They say, 'Oh, I'm busy.  I want to have a child one day.  I couldn't possibly, you know, take on anymore.' . . . . I've never had a man say that stuff to me."  She has a point, I suppose.  Neither have I.  But is there something inherently wrong with that?  I did want children.  I didn't want to take on anymore.  I wanted some semblance of a work-life balance.  What does that make me?  A failure?  A thorn in the side of this new feminist movement?

I have struggled a lot to articulate my thoughts on these subjects (this is my third blog post about it, the first two of which I have scrapped).  I don't want to sound whiny.  I made my decision to leave my biglaw job to be at home, and I am at peace with that.  These women don't owe me anything.

But when I hear them speak out - whether through an employee memo, or a soon to be best selling book, it makes me feel alone.  Alone because these women seem to have reached these amazing pinnacles of success without facing the issues I faced - or at least, not being bothered by them.

What is it like to go back to work full time, by choice, when your child is two weeks old?  What is it like to rise the ranks of corporate success, and have children, without having the urge to take on a bit less at work?  Did you yearn for more time?  Did you struggle to make it work?  Do you wish things could be different?  Surely the work-life balance must be hard, but it's not what these women prominently speak about - about the emotions and the struggle and the hard choices - maybe to do so is a bit too sappy, or feminine.

Instead, these women are setting a precedent that we women have to be just like men - perhaps even a bit more intense - to make it in the corporate world.  We don't need family friendly policies or generous maternity leaves - we just need to suck it up and work harder.  Show up at the office.  Lean in.

When I was at a law firm, one of the hardest things was the fact that I had no female role models.  There were a handful of women partners, but to be honest, I didn't want to be like them. Some didn't have any children.  Others did but spent most of their evenings in the office while their nannies put their children to bed.  I found most to be bitter and unsympathetic to my struggles and concerns.  And why wouldn't they be?  They had it just as hard as I did, if not harder.  They made, and continued to make, hard sacrifices.  But I yearned for someone I could aspire to be like - someone's footsteps to follow in.  I never found anyone.

I'm beginning to think there just aren't that many out there.

The only prominent woman I have found to really address these issues - to really delve into them - is Anne Marie Slaughter, in her article in the Atlantic.  Ms. Slaughter, the former Director of Policy Planning at the State Department who left her job to spend more time with her family, argues that women in this day and age simply can't have it all- that either a career or a family has to be sacrificed.  The male based corporate world simply doesn't accommodate a balance:  "[W]e have to stop accepting male behavior and male choices as the default and ideal," she wrote. "We must insist on changing social policies and bending career tracks to accommodate our choices, too."

The solution, she wrote, lies with women themselves: "The best hope for improving the lot of all women . . . is to ensure that women are equally represented in the ranks of corporate executives and judicial leaders.  Only when women wield power in sufficient numbers will we create a society that genuinely works for all women.  That will be a society that works for everyone."  

But what happens when those women who wield that power aren't paving the way?

It isn't their responsibility to do so.  But it would sure be nice if they did.

51 comments:

  1. Having a child is a choice. That choice comes along with sacrifices and compromises. You have made your choice, your sacrifices and your compromises. I think it's unreasonable for you to think that the corporate (or legal) world needs to make that easier for you in any way. I applaude Ms. Mayer and I do not feel like she is holding us women back in anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "But what happens when those women who wield power aren't paving the way?"

    Then we do, we make our voices heard--so that ALL women and their choices of balance are represented AS feminist and as family and SOCIETAL concerns.

    I chose to do it my way--by waiting until my daughter was older to go to law school. Believe me, I am already planning on how to make my voice heard.

    You chose to do it your way--by making a difficult choice. In your way, you have been making your voice heard, and, I imagine, will continue to make it heard.

    Others choose a different way, balancing it all in spite of all the difficulties. We need them to make their voices heard.

    We can't give up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that women should make their choices heard, but I disagree that every woman's choice ought to be represented as feminist. When a woman makes the decision to give up her career to raise her children, that is certainly her decision to make, and I don't think she should be judged for making what she believed to the best possible choice for her and her family. But that doesn't make that her choice feminist simply because she, a woman, made it. Some choices don't further the feminist movement, and it's OK to discuss the ramifications of women and men making those choices. No one makes choices in a vacuum. The world is a mostly unfeminist place and we all do what we can to fit in. Discussion without judgment is the way to make progress, I think, even if it means admitting that becoming a SAHM or changing your name to your husband's (like I did) isn't a bold step forward in the fight for equality.

      Delete
  3. I had a friend in law school whose mother was a BigLaw partner. She told me once that when she was alone in a room with her mother, it was extremely awkward because her mom was like a stranger. I thought that was so sad. I can't help but think of that as incredibly selfish. The mother completely blew off her own children for a chance at a successful career. My boyfriend and I don't plan on having children for about five years, but I'm already thinking of non-firm jobs I can apply for. I don't want to be a mother who doesn't know her children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's sad that your friend felt that way about her mother, but is it really a child's place to dictate what her parent ought to do? I can't imagine being a stay-at-home parent. Maybe it will make my future kid(s) sad when I can't chaperone the school field trips or when I miss their mid-day awards ceremony. But if working makes me happy and I know being a SAHM would make me unhappy, should I give that up because my child wants me to? There's something to be said for not losing yourself just because you become a parent.

      Delete
    2. You make being a parent a part of yourself. It's taken me 5 years to accept that part of myself (though I'm sure it's different for everyone), but I love myself and my life more now than when I was struggling daily to "not lose myself." Accept the challenge, it's worth it. What if you can keep yourself and make your child happy? It's 100% possible.

      Delete
    3. Molly needs to actually get a job and have a kid before she starts lecturing us on what it means to lose yourself once you become a parent.

      Delete
    4. HA! Sorry, Molly, that you're receiving snarky replies here, but... I totally agree.

      Delete
  4. I'm not impressed by Mayer's 2 week maternity leave. She's the CEO, her butt needed to be in the office running the show. You do what you gotta do when there's no one to cover you -- I was answering texts and emails from the delivery room, doing research at the law library days after the baby was born. I was back in the office, baby in lap, a week later, getting chewed out by a client because "ugh, my lawyer had a baby and is out on maternity leave" (hilarious, since I'm sitting in the office talking to her... and she was a pro bono client, so she can totally STFU). Because as a solo, there's no one else to get it done. There are things that can be delegated as a CEO, but the job's too important to be left to someone else for 12 weeks or 6 months, etc. Neither of us deserves an award, or criticism, for doing what we had to do to get the job done. It just is what it is.

    What is ridiculous, however, is that Mayer enjoys what most other parents don't get to enjoy -- the at-work nursery she had built into her office. She's essentially turned her office into her home, and then complained about other people working at home. For that, she should be criticized. She's increasing costs to both the company and the employees in the name of "increasing productivity," at the expense of good employees who need flexibility in their jobs, whether it's to care for children or elderly/sick family members or pets or just whether they have ADHD and can't concentrate on their work in a busy office. Simply because she's the type of manager who thinks productivity is measured by a butt warming a chair. She's short-sighted, and that's unfortunate for Yahoo.

    But what needs to be mentioned is that not everyone wants to be a CEO or climb the corporate ladder. Being a CEO sounds awful. I'm sure the pay and perks are great, but I don't want to work that hard. Even if I wasn't married or had kids, I still wouldn't want to work that hard. That's why I gladly gave up the solo gig to do the 9-5 non-profit gig instead. To hell with working all the damn time. I've got books to read. TV shows to watch. Violin to practice. Work-life balance, whatever, I just want to do my job and go home, not live at the office or for the office. Mayer wants to live at the office? Good for her. That's why she's a CEO and I'm a nonprofit lawyer. But she shouldn't expect her employees, not making the money she does, to work like she does, and that is the biggest problem with the corporate world. Most men feel the same way about work, even without families, and don't want to climb the corporate ladder. There are other things they want to do, and if they're working all the time, they can't do them. But women are the only ones who really frame it in terms of their families, and I think that's the problem. The way I feel isn't because I'm a mother, or a woman, it's because I grew up a working class American believing work is 40-hour a week gig leaving time for other pursuits. Maybe that limits my ability for further economic mobility, but so what? I have everything I need, and then some.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "not everyone wants to be a CEO or climb the corporate ladder. Being a CEO sounds awful. I'm sure the pay and perks are great, but I don't want to work that hard"

    Totally agree with that - so the question here isn't even women/men, it's *people* who are or aren't willing to make sacrifices for that corner office. And framing it all as a women's issue is, imo, bullshit.
    Show me the man who sees his kids and is partner? Or the men clamoring for it. (though many may say they'd prefer it, too) Hell, men deal with the cultural expectation still that they shouldn't mind these things, that working so hard and wanting to climb to the top is expected, and that it is OKAY to miss all of your kids games/recitals, etc. We need the same expectations regardless of the employees gender, so both parents can have time to be the parent they want to be. So until we start bashing men for going to work 2 weeks after the birth of a child, we should leave Marissa Mayer's decision to do the same alone. (FWIW, I think it's sad both ways, though would prefer the time with my kid now, nearly three years later, rather than when she was 2 weeks old - they aren't nearly as fun at two weeks.)

    The hardest part, imo, is that it is really freakin' hard to balance two careers at once (even without kids, but moreso with them, and their obligations). So decisions get made. And that's where I think Sheryl Sandberg's "Lean In" is so important. Men are not leaning in from the start (Why not? Great question. Let's look into it. For real.) Women are. If women and men both leaned in from the get-go, the decisions about whose career to prioritize when push comes to shove would be more equal, and I bet we'd see more women rising up higher/faster. But when one partner (the woman) has already been leaning out for years, once that kid shows up it becomes pretty obvious who will be back-seating the career path for a while.

    I don't think it's about women being naturally more inclined to want to see their kids. It's about that being acceptable for women, but not for men.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Simply having more women up the ranks (even those who don't go out of their way to create parent/women friendly workplaces) helps because it reminds those hiring/promoting not to be wary of hiring/promoting other women for fear that they will child-out in the near future in ways that men still generally don't. Having more women up the ladder even when they don't demand special conditions is a good thing. Which isn't to say that women who do demand special conditions don't help, too, because they do - they show that giving those special conditions is work-able, and still means a good, profitable employee, win-win, etc. It's just the other side of that is helpful, too, so I don't think we shouldn't get all fussy about women who aren't interested in promoting more flexible and/or family friendly workplaces, but who just show up and do their jobs well. They are, in fact, paving the way simply by being there and being good at their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have been struggling with this a lot lately. I also find it very unhelpful when the advice is to work really hard and be like men. The men I work with hate that they never see their families, but they (unlike me) don't perceive this as a problem they can or should try to fix. For my part, I wrote a blog post recently about how I suddenly understand how women like me leave the workforce to care for young children. I feel like there is no option that will allow me to both work and take care of my kids while keeping my head above water. If push came to shove, I would choose my kids.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The men I work with hate that they never see their families, but they (unlike me) don't perceive this as a problem they can or should try to fix." 1,000x yes to this. When we stop having ridiculosu women only conversations about this, and start some sort of movement that involves men, perhaps some progress will once again be made.

      Delete
  8. She has a private nursery beside her office with a nanny? WTF.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If she can afford, why not???

      Delete
    2. I could have read the previous poster's comment wrong, but I was incredulous because the private nursery for her child is INSIDE the building, adjacent to her office. Other employees don't have it, but now they can't work from home either. Think of the parents who suddenly have to find childcare
      arrangements, which we have long wait lists for here in SC. I can't imagine a big city. It's hypocritical of her.

      Delete
  9. Agreed SC Mom.

    I lucked into my current situation - I still consider my primary job to be an SAHM (and it IS a job, one which I intend to keep on my resume for all the skills I've learned), but I also work part-time, at home, flexible hours doing something I love to do. I get paid well, though the hours aren't enough to live on if I weren't married. And yet it wasn't just luck. It was having a skill set that was needed for a job that just happened to have those credentials. I also set boundaries - when the job started interfering with my family time more than I wanted it to, I told my boss (male) that I couldn't do that particular task, and he said okay. Note that he also works from home, full-time, and has three kids, two of which are at home full-time.

    And I think as technology keeps improving, those types of jobs will become more and more common. In fact, screw hallway conversations - what about bumping into someone on Twitter or Facebook? I realize it's completely different, and I can't entirely argue against face-to-face contact, but it's definitely not the only method. Yes, some people have to have that direct human contact, but personally, I am much more effective when I have time to think (alone) and develop a plan of action or a set of ideas that I can then share and allow others to discuss.

    There's room for us all, but we do seem to have this wee small voice in the corner because we just happen to have another full-time job that happens to take center stage over working and over politics. There are more than you think out there, they just can't be heard over their kids crying in the background :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm a man who enjoys spending time with his kids. Other men tell me it's not healthy to spend so much time with my family, that I should have a man's night out from time to time, drink scotch, smoke cigars, etc. No thanks. I love this blog!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Men should be like women and not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slight edit: Men should HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES AS WOMEN when it comes to family.

      Delete
  12. I'm kind of sick of reflecting on these issues. I'm sick of psychologists and career experts telling us what we should do and what is bad for us (it's bad to hold back, it's bad to hold yourself to male standards). I'm taking it all up into a mental ball and setting it on fire. BLAH! I honestly am going to stop listening to the "experts" and the judging. Every family is different. Every person is different. Every kid is different. Every job is different. We can't measure these things with a standard unit of measurement. Dear World, stop telling me what I want and what I should do! I'm just going to effing do it! Ok, sorry. Rant over :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. I too, am so sick of this discussion. You do what you want to do and what works for your family. What works for one family might not work for another. I work outside of the home, but with a very manageable 8 hour work-day. My daughter thrives in her daycare. My sister is a SAHM, and my niece goes to preschool a few days a week. My friend is a SAHM whose son goes to preschool every morning. Another friend is a SAHM whose daughter does not go to preschool, and whom she plans on home-schooling. And you know what? All 4 of these kids are amazing, well-adjusted kids. You just do what feels right for you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Couple of thoughts, no particular order...

    - Mayer wasn't necessarily making a broad generalization about people who work at home. She was simply trying to fix what by a lot of accounts has become a pretty unproductive situation at Yahoo, a company which needs fixing.
    - Yes, successful people with tons of money do have a lot of advice to give but as was mentioned earlier, we could all do more if we had a nursery with the kids right next door.
    - I'm sure Sandberg has some great advice for women and a lot may be valuable, but the real issue is men. Men need to change. We need to be take on more of the housework and child support so our wives/partners aren't working the second shift. If women are supposed to work the second shift, no wonder they can't do what they want in the workplace.
    - We need to stop judging other parents. Really. Enough. Let people do what is best for them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Did you read the book??? I don't think so - because in it Sheryl Sandberg talks about crying on the way to work when her maternity leave ended. She also talked about moving heaven and earth to leave everyday by 5:30. She also talked about even though she is home for dinner most night she still feels conflicted and is often jealous and intimidated by the SAHMs at her kids school. She also told a story about how when she first got her nanny one morning her kid tumbled and started crying and *reached for the nanny* and how that was a dagger through her heart. So I don't think it's fair to say that "these women seem to have reached these amazing pinnacles of success without facing the issues I faced - or at least, not being bothered by them."

    personally, I found the book really interesting and filled with useful advice. However, I have a job that is fulfilling and challenging and where I can have an positive impact on millions of people's lives and I stell spend a lot of time with my kids.

    ReplyDelete
  16. IHere's something I would find interesting....ask your husband if he ever wanted to stay home with his kids instead of working!

    You left your career; which is wonderful...but in doing that you made him the sole person who brings in a paycheck....sounds pretty stressful for him.

    If the Yahoo CEO was a man; would people still be up in arms about eliminating the work from home rule?

    Honestly; how much work is a person getting done in a day if their 3 year old is running around the house?




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i agree - if you are actually caring for your toddler regularly, you're not working.

      Delete
    2. Many companies with work-from-home have policies requiring that children not be there, or not be there w/o someone else caring for them. So, yes, you can be at home. With the washing machine, dishwasher, and oven all going, but no, you are often not permitted to also be responsible for child care during those at-home working hours.

      Delete
  17. i wish that you woud just accept your own choices instead of complaining about the choices others make. i appreciate this blog as a thoughtful account of your own story. every woman/person/professional or not has to make her own way. just because you didn't have a role model (not sure exactly what you are looking for, since it seems like you aren't comfortable as a SAHM yourself but OTOH have contempt for women who make partner), does not mean that there are not women out there doing it differently, or that it is productive to think that everyone else is doing it wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thirded. (As a OTOH working mom about to SAH.) I think your main beef is that you didn't like being a lawyer and didn't like the law firm environment but since you have a choice since your husband works, you're not doing the hard work of finding a legal job that you might like, and instead you complain. I sympathize with the gripe - going to law school was a huge mistake for me - but not the attitude.

      Delete
    2. I truly appreciate your comments, and I apologize if this post came across as a contention that certain women are doing it "wrong." There is no right or wrong way to do it. But, I think the way society is structured right now, to be successful in a corporate environment there is only ONE way to do it - work like a man. It would be nice if there was another way - one that was more flexible and more family friendly. And it would be nice if the women who have achieved such success would be the ones to help pave the way. I think everyone (women and men) would benefit.

      Delete
    3. To Anonymous 1 through 3:

      Just stop reading the blog if it bothers you. Seriously, it's a "Personal" blog. Start your own if you have this much stress.


      From Anonymous 4

      Delete
  18. there is that scene from sex and the city where charlotte is trying to get carrie to approve her (charlotte's) choice to stop working when she married trey. charlotte is like "i just want you to support me, i want you to get behind my choice" and carrie is like "YOU get behind your choice!"

    that is how i feel when i read posts like this. you get behind your choice!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a SAHM, and while I am comfortable with my choice, it doesn't mean that I don't wish things were different in the real world. I wish the workplace were more flexible, or that I could find a job in my field that was part time. Maybe I could have stayed in the workforce. But such is not the case. Given reality as is, I would rather be home. But, it doesn't mean I don't sometimes wish I could "have it all."

      Delete
    2. You mean, "I wish things were different in the real world--for me." It is impossible to say, in broad terms, that the real world in general makes it impossible for women to be satisfied with family and career. I think that is the main problem with this post. It is fine to talk constructively about what could be different, but it is also constructive to admire other women for what they are doing.

      None of us knows how Marissa Mayer feels about what she is accomplishing. I suggest that as smart, modern women, we offer her our support and respect. Just as I hope that if Marissa Mayer were to read this blog, she would feel the same sense of support and respect for the choices portrayed here.

      Finally, Mayer is not doing it "the man's way." She is doing it the CEO way. We need to stop thinking about long hours and tough financial choices as a man's thing. 16 weeks of paid/unpaid maternity leave might be great but it is not going to work for every company, or for every woman, regardless of her place in the workforce.

      Delete
  19. Americans are so misguided and believe so much in modern corporatocracy that they think 16 weeks of paid/unpaid maternity leave is generous! We get a full year paid in Canada and even that seems to fly by! I cannot imagine thinking 16 weeks is a bonus...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Whoa. So many comments.

    When I think about a two week maternity leave, I think about where I was at two weeks post partum with my kids. And I think these are things that ALL WOMEN (okay 95% of them experience)--you're very weepy, your hormones are all haywire (even if you don't have PPD), you're bleeding tremendously, your boobs are leaking everywhere unless you've bound them, and your vagina hurts/your c-section incision hurts. Hurts so freaking bad. ESPECIALLY with baby #1....

    All I wanted to do was soak my ass in the tub. And take a shower.

    So, with that backdrop, I cannot imagine working. I don't know how she did it without weeping and biting people's heads off every other second.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I had a boss that came back to work 3 weeks after delivering her son. She wasn't a CEO; but it is what she WANTED to do.

    The CEO of Yahoo came back after 2 weeks because she WANTED to; no one made her do it.

    The writer of this blog left her job because she WANTED to; although I think she feels guilty about it from reading her posts from time to time.

    While it's great that Canada gives a year of leave; I personally think it hurts the female working population. Why would a small company hire a female vs. the male if both are equally qualified? The male is the better option just because they won't need a year off for maternity leave!

    We live in the U.S.A. which gives us a ton of choices....while I may not understand a CEO who goes back to work after giving birth two weeks ago; or a lawyer that decides to stay home; or a couple who decides to have 19 children; I say "good for you". Life is short; ENJOY IT...whatever your choices maybe!


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reasoning of this response troubles me. Yes, we do have choices, but do we have enough? Does the choice have to be a short maternity leave (or none at all, as is the case for many women in American), or quit your job and stay at home????? Why can't there be MORE choices? Take a short leave, take a year leave, stay at home? That's what other countries do.

      Delete
    2. I've never understood the logic that says "my company should hold my job because I want to have a child AND I should get paid to be home with my child"....your not ill, you decided to have a baby...good for you, but a company doesn't owe you a paycheck for a year because you made that decision. Throw in the fact that MANY of the women in Canada that take that year off decide to stay home....so the company held their job for a year and then they get screwed in long run. This is a benefit for the company why?

      You do have a choice - you can take a short leave; you can take 13 weeks (FMLA); or you can stay home....or if you don't like life in the U.S.A. when there's the door I'm sure there are a ton of people in other countries that would gladly switch places with you.


      Delete
    3. Why isn't there longer maternity leaves.....here's a good reason right here:


      Should I ask HR about quitting after Maternity Leave??

      Posted 07/21/2009 I am really torn b/c I need to know all the details about what will happen if I DON'T come back to work after maternity leave. I have been sticking it out just for the benefits, but when I break the news to them that I won't be returning after the baby's born-Am I going to have to pay back the company for my time off??? I work for a very large company & was wondering if I should just go ahead & ask HR what their policy is (but my concern there is that I know they record everything & in order to "BE APPROVED" for a full maternity leave anyhow- I have to go thru this big process where my HR/ hartford company contacts my DR. and my DR. has to vouch that I have other issues for me to even qualify for a FULL leave!!! Long story short, will it hurt my situation if I mention to them that I might not come back?? I really need to know what the policy is on that!! Its a shame they dont give people documentation of this policy!! I really dont want to screw myself over in the end (by thinking I did a good thing by working as long as possible), just to find out I have to repay they for my maternity leave when I dont come back... Any suggestions??- I just dont want to hurt my chances by asking HR their policy......

      Delete
    4. A reply to her:

      Go ahead and ask. As a professional working woman, this is what makes me not want to hire (essentially) women like myself.I manage a small group and if we shifted resources to to stretch coverage for maternity, then learned that we would have to stretch even further during a hiring/training process, we (my staff included) would feel pretty put out.This practice gives us women a bad name. ..

      Delete
    5. I have heard this argument a lot about women and maternity leave - that when a woman leaves work after taking a maternity leave, that it is an affront to all women, that it is taking advantage of the employer, that it causes companies not to want to hire women, etc.

      This response implies that maternity leave is a perk - as if it's some gift we've been given that we should be ever so appreciative for. But it shouldn't be a luxury for a parent to be home with his or her child after birth, to recover, to bond, to breastfeed, etc. This is, or should be, be thought of as a part of employee compensation, the same way a bonus, or vacation time, is. If a man (or woman, for that matter) leaves a job after receiving a holiday bonus - a situation that happens ALL OF THE TIME - no one bats an eye.

      My friend and fellow blogger Valerie (http://wiw.motherscenter.org/) put it best in a recent email to me, so she has graciously allowed me to quote her here:

      "i don't care whether as a society we keep women connected to paid employment through job guarantees, or some other method - but we have to do something, because if a woman loses her connection to paid employment and sees her income - generating capacity decline with every live birth, not only will that particular woman's household be less economically secure, our national labor force takes a hit, which negatively impacts our global competitiveness. it's a lose lose lose.

      society REQUIRES that women have children. we've just privatized ALL the risks, and made all the benefits flow to the general public. that child's labor will benefit the country in taxes, that child's societal contributions will flow to his/her community, country, the common welfare. whether a bricklayer, a teacher, a truck driver, an engineer, a mother, that child's productivity will not inure to the benefit of his/her parents. the parents have no claim on the child's talents, skills, abilities, income, assets, energy. the country, the larger community benefit when that child, after years of care and expense in upbringing, borne almost exclusively by the parents, will benefit in very tangible and economic ways when that child grows into a functional, tax-paying, jury-sitting, voting, moral, conscientious adult.

      so.....have the individual employer guarantee the job. have the government provide cash assistance for every child. give moms paid leave for the time they are out. do something - taking all the benefits of a woman's children and leaving her destitute is theft, and that's what happens every day....women are made poor because as a society we have somehow collectively decided that having children is a personal choice - that happens to strengthen the position economically of every person EXCEPT the one who gave birth to him."

      Delete
  22. I totally agree with this post. In fact, I don't understand why, when discussing about this issue, people always talk about the extremes that, being extremes, do not really apply to the majority. Of course there are the CEO's and the women at home with 19 children. But why are we concentrating on them all the time? What do the majority want and, going back to the comments just above, do we have enough choices? Seeing it from a completely different perspective (I live in Germany, come from Italy, but worked for a while in the US), my feeling is that in the United States you do not have as many choices as you have in other countries and, honestly, this is a pity.
    The truth is that a lot of women with a law degree (that's what the author is talking about, remember?) would like to keep interesting legal jobs and have enough time for other things, especially, if they are mothers, for their children. I just don't understand why so many people say that it is just not possible. Why? And, most of all, does it make sense? If we look at lawyers, the percentage of female is just too high to afford to loose such a workforce, in case they would get children (and most of them will) and would like to work less. Why is part time not an option? And why is part time always considered as 50%? Why shouldn't someone work 30 hours instead of 50? What's wrong is someone works half a day from home in order to avoid the commuting and have an afternoon for all these appointment you need for yourself and your children? How dependent is a company from an individual if they can't do without them for half a day, but they have no issue in letting her go forever? Why don't you just start thinking that it is totally ok to work out different solutions? When I had to do this, ten years ago, I also wished I would have had some role models, but I didn't and it was hard. But at least I had a legal and social system that gave me some rights and the possibility to make proposals and the obligations for my employer to listen to them. And it worked out. Today, ten years and three children later, I have become general counsel. And I still don't work fulltime and work sometimes from home. For me and my company it worked out. I have to work harder than other lawyers in my staff but less than other senior managers. I know that this is how far I can go on the career ladder but this is the most I can give for my job. What's wrong with that? We don't want all to be CEO's. Where is the voice of all the women and not the superwomen? Why don't you just speak up instead of yelling at eachother? This is why I really like this blog. Someone made a choice and is happy about it, but still has the courage to question some issues related to it. This deserves respect, not mock.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sheryl Sandberg is disingenuous and self-serving. Her claim she gets home every night for dinner at 5:30 is disingenuous because for her it is similar to keeping a regular appointment. There’s no picking up the groceries, cooking, and cleaning up with screaming kids. She leaves her office probably in a company car or cab or (gasps) she may even drive herself to arrive to eat dinner. Eating dinner, mind you, something that she physically has to do unless she is a machine. And it’s very likely she is a machine to a certain extent because she has gabs of money, millions, lots of millions. Yet, she works tons of hours; so many hours that she employs multiple nannies and that her own child prefers her nanny to her. She also married really well. Her husband is a big tech person and makes millions. So she doesn’t have to lean-in in order to avoid becoming “too” lean. She just loves her job. So come out and say it. She loves her job more than she loves to be an involved mom (really, eating dinner isn’t that involved). Instead, she writes this triteful book telling all professional women to be more like her and to lean in. She is implying it is really doable, all you need to do it lean and because it is so easy to do, if you are not doing it, you are weak. It will sell books because it is insulting. But more importantly, it is completely self-serving because instead of saying she just loves her job more than spending time with her kids, she claims that she is doing all of this job-loving to lead the women of the world. It’s crap. She loves her job. She loves her kids too. But she would rather spend more time with her job. The rest of us don’t have millions, probably can’t quit, and probably would if we did. So Sheryl, good for you. But don’t speak for me. I am taking some time off to raise my kid and the person who can speak for me is Sandra Day O’Connor, who took off six years to raise her three boys. Yeah, I’m dreaming if I’m thinking I’m anything like Justice O’Connor but I am closer to her than to the Ms. Sandberg. And Justice O’Connor never told me to lean in. But then she didn’t have millions when she was pregnant nor did she have anything to “justify.” (I know, too much).

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous 12:14, I like you. That's all.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Wow, 12:14 you sound a tad bit bitter.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Is that you, Sheryl? Just say you love your job more than spending time with your kids. I won't judge you. I'd admire your honesty.

    ReplyDelete
  27. As a former private attorney and a current stay at home mom, I think that we all make the choice that we feel is best for our situation. Every firm is different. Every parent is different. Perhaps if I had been working at a different firm or in a different sector my choice would have been different. However, I will never regret the time that I spend with my children now. In the future, I may decide to go back to work and maybe one day I will be CEO of a Fortune 500. Today, however, I am happy changing diapers and playing peek-a-boo. In the same vein, Marissa Mayers may be happy working 120 hours a week and sleeping with her blackberry/iphone. If Marissa wants to live in the office, let her have it, but maybe it would be beneficial if she didn't impose that stance on others. I don't know why people have to use the phrase "have it all". If having it all requires that you be partner at a big firm while having kids that actually know and like you, then I'm sure that few pull that off. I don't think that this is a plight specific to only the female gender. Leaves me to wonder whether the answer is less judgment and a realization that it is ok to please yourself and not everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Marissa Mayer is a hypocrite of the worst kind...

    Employees will vote with their feet.

    The way I see it - the employer needs to be worthy of my services. If the employer does not respect work-life balance, I seek other employment.

    ReplyDelete


 
Copyright ©2011 Small Bird Studios| All Rights Reserved |Free Blog Templates at Small Bird Studios