Here's another guest blog from Leslie Lehr.
Last week Working Mother Magazine came out with kudos for companies on their annual 100 BEST list. Finally, there are corporate role models for businesses who can adapt to flexible work programs for mothers. Which is great, but.....
I couldn't help but feel insulted when magazine CEO, Carol Evans, spoke to me personally from the virtual reality of my computer screen to gently guide me towards a family friendly career path. And while her ideas of sequencing and sabbaticals are ideal, please tell me that giving birth does not decrease IQ points as much as our patriarchal culture seems to believe. I mean, what the heck is she telling ME this for? She's preaching to the lullaby-singing choir here. Why not tell the fathers? I wonder if any men read that link. Does Ms. Evans need to don a bikini to get a few testosterone fueled clicks of the mouse?
I don't want permission to feel okay about my struggle as working mom. I want problem-solving. I want this not to be cause for celebration. I want this to be an inaliable right for anyone who wants our species to reproduce. That includes men.
In fact, the birth rate is falling in "civilized" countries so much that the future workforce of many nations will surely be compromised. America needs children born and educated (another issue) to provide for the future of America. The federal Family Leave Act helps, but it doesn't provide for the paid job security or flexibility despite the bonus these larger corporations see in terms of loyal working talent. What will it take to get smaller companies and businesses to follow suit? Tax breaks?
We need ideas. So does the government. It's in all of our best interest. Talk about this. Not just to women.
Comments (7)
Great piece, Leslie. it is particularly shocking when the advice to stick to "the Mommy track" comes from another woman! Treasonous. As far as getting help from men-----they have not changed in 50 years---well, actually since the world began. Even in 2006 they honestly believe that women should be home caring for their children (and them) full time and not writing books or practicing law. No matter what they say. Now I must go to make a 6:30 a.m. appointment to have my car fixed so that I can get to court on time. I need a wife.
Posted by: Rachel Jeanne Lehr on October 17, 2006 04:38
A bit of topic but I just read a very interesting piece in the NY Times magazine. It was saying how far women have come in terms of politics, the workplace etc.. but mentioned that finanaces is sort of the last fronteir. ONly 4$ of dads it noted teach their daughters to be finanaically independetn wherewas 60% of women say tehy wish they had. Women tend to find investing far more complicated than men, probably b/c it has always been a male dominated feel. Anyway, just thought I woudl throw it in there as something biz related we should talk to our girls about but also find the time to get better at ourselves.
Posted by: Flavia on October 17, 2006 06:43
isn't singing to the choir status quo--look at fox news.
last week a no l-n-g rally (liquid natural gas terminal) between malibu and oxnard sang to a small choir--not the gov. ear.
Posted by: tr on October 17, 2006 12:06
Dear Leslie,
As a card carrying member of the patriarchal culture, oink, oink, I have observed high-wage earning women of my office leave for motherhood. When I ask them why, the women respond they don't want to miss out on their kids' lives and their husbands make enough money for two. I have also noticed middle to low-wage earning women stay at work and juggle day-care, sick days, husbands, boyfriends and/or divorces.
As part of the solution, I vow not to reproduce, unless I make a lot of cash.
Sincerely,
La Nuestra Senora de Guadualupe
Mexico's favorite Virgin
Posted by: La Nuestra Senora de Guadualupe on October 17, 2006 15:07
"Does Ms. Evans need to don a bikini to get a few testosterone fueled clicks of the mouse?"
Bikini...woman...must click mouse.
(slobber, slobber)
"Most men are living in the ice-age....xoxo Fran"
No wonder I'm always cold.
Sincerely,
Macho Mexican Dude
Reproducing since 1962
Posted by: Macho Mexican Dude on October 17, 2006 15:49
"In fact, the birth rate is falling in 'civilized' countries so much that the future workforce of many nations will surely be compromised."
Throw us a bone and cite your source(s) for this condescending factoid?
Posted by: Christine Bush on October 20, 2006 14:02
at the risk of exposing myself as a condescending chauvenist pig... i think flavia's point in investing is SPOT ON. for whatever reason, men still have a better handle on economics and investing, and it results in a comparitive disadvantage for women. i dare say, at the risk of having virtual rotten tomatoes thrown my way, that it shows in their voting patterns as well. educating women especially and all of us in general on economics and finance is desparately important in 21st century america.
there's also the issue of the 100 companies list. i've long argued that there's a good reason women make less than men on average, and it ain't men's evil control of and disdain for the fairer sex. it's that women DO make the choice for different careers out of their own volition. whether there are unreasonable cultural influences or not, it is the case. more of them DO choose to stay home and take care of the kids, and this DOES take them out of the workplace and make them less valuable to an employer upon their return, at least in the immediate term.
BUT...
at this point more women are in colleges than men... and even more in graduate schools. and smart companies should be recognizing this. a greater portion of the educated talent pool is going to be female in the very near future. so, the companies on that "100 best" list are acting (smartly) in their own interest. you want to have the advantage in attracting members of this emerging talent pool? you have policies in place that adapt to their needs and lifestyle. that means accomodating working mothers.
don't fool yourself, however. the average $$$ for the same position will probably never even out. women (as a whole) will always be more willing to accept less money for more flexible conditions... and that's as it should be. it's not unhealthy... it's perfectly reasonable. The companies that can adapt themselves to the 21st century workforce will get a small "discount" on their talent in return for their flexibility, and those who can't will pay premiums for folks who will accept more stringent work rules.
Posted by: rox_publius on October 25, 2006 15:28