Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: NYT: Pope Benedict tied to coverup of predator priest molestation of 200 deaf boys Previous entry: Glenn Beck accuses John Lewis of thinking he’s John Lewis

Newsweek takes a look at sexism 40 years after major lawsuit

Feminism

I know the article has nothing in it that will seem new to feminist blogging fans, but I really liked this piece in Newsweek about the continuing problems facing women in the workplace 40 years after the landmark lawsuit against the magazine for sex discrimination. It’s a great synthesis of the various ways that women with the talent and skills to compete with men are being held back, and they avoid the tendency common in the mainstream media to blame women themselves.  For instance, they note that women are far less likely to assert themselves and ask for things from their bosses, but they also acknowledge that the reason for this is not that women are weak, but because of sexism.  Women are far more likely to be considered bitchy than men for asserting themselves. 

And I think I learned something new, actually.  Or had a new perspective I hadn’t thought about before, because I’ve never faced what they describe:

In a highly sexualized, post-PC world, navigating gender roles at work is more confusing than ever. The sad truth is that when we do see women rise to the top, we wonder: was it purely their abilities, or did it have something to do with their looks? If a man takes an interest in our work, we can’t help but think about the male superior who advised “using our sexuality” to get ahead, or the manager who winkingly asked one of us, apropos of nothing, to “bake me cookies.” One young colleague recalls being teased about the older male boss who lingered near her desk. “What am I supposed to do with that? Assume that’s the explanation for any accomplishments? Assume my work isn’t valuable?” she asks. “It gets in your head, which is the most insidious part.”

I correct myself.  I have in fact faced this prejudice.  When I joined Pandagon, there were very few female bloggers in the top ranks, and the biggest one was assumed by most readers to be a man (Digby).  It’s hard to believe it now, but back in 2005, bringing a female blogger onto a blog like Pandagon was really unusual, and so Jesse and I both got some kind of weird attitudes from some people about his choice to ask me to join the blog.  We’ve joked before about how a lot of people outright assumed that I had used my feminine wiles to lure Jesse into giving me this spot, but the mundane reality is that we had never met when he asked, and I don’t think that we even knew what each other looked like.  (Pictures weren’t as big a deal online then as now.)  To make the whole situation more frustrating, these insinuations that Jesse had ulterior motives of some sort rested right next to contradictory assumptions (usually made by fanatical wingnut readers) that I was some sort of ugly beast. The sexist assumption that women are “for” sex with men underlies both accusations/insinuations.  If you’re good-looking, you’re seen as somehow exploiting men’s sexual interest, but if you’re not, it’s assumed you only work hard because your true purpose in life as a sex object has been taken from you and you’re bitter. 


But for all that this stuff will piss you off, I never actually felt compromised by the people I’ve worked with, male or female, straight or gay, because of my identity as a straight woman.  I’ve been really lucky, both in my work as a political writer and the jobs I did in my life prior to blogging.  But personal experience shouldn’t cloud understanding basic realities, and one of these is that women are still considered such an oddity in some worlds that their male colleagues just sexualize them routinely.  I can tell you that it’s hard enough to be confident when it’s coming from outsiders, but when it’s coming from the people you work with—-even if they mean well generally—-that is bound to be really unnerving. 

The other aspect well-covered in this piece is that dreaded phrase the “work/life balance”.  Whenever this is cited as something that uniquely affects women’s ability to get ahead, I have conflicting emotions.  On one hand, this is indisputably the reality on the ground.  If the workplace was more accommodating to child-rearing and other family issues, women would not have to make hard choices that sometimes take them out of the running.  But I have to point out that men don’t seem to suffer this problem in near the same degree, and it’s because often their work is balanced by women taking care of their life.  It gets a tad circular, in fact, because if a man doesn’t have a woman in his life, he doesn’t have the “life” part of the work/life balance most of the time.  He probably doesn’t have children to care for, and as a single man, his home obligations are minor, and extended family tends not to expect much from single men. But if he’s got a partner, someone takes over the newly created work for him, and her work suffers for it. 

I feel sometimes that the obsession with the work/life balance is conceding an argument I don’t want to concede—-the one over whether or not men should pull their weight at home.  A lot of women need to have more accommodation at work because they get very little at home.  Of course, we don’t want to leave the needs of single mothers out of the discussion, and talking about men doing more at home so women can be freed up to have non-family lives like men have leaves the needs of single mothers out.  But the current state of the discussion on what women needs neatly cuts out any discussion of men taking on more responsibility. 

I don’t know if I’ve told this story here, but it’s funny enough I thought I’d share.  Last Netroots Nation, we had a panel on feminism and blogging with myself, Pam, Jill from Feministe, Lindsay Beyerstein, and Samhita from Feministing.  We covered a number of issues related to holding your own online not just as a woman, but as a self-identified feminist.  The audience had great questions, mostly related to interacting in these spaces and self-promotion and promotion of your ideas.  Afterwards, an awesome writer/activist who I’ll leave anonymous joked to me that she was so grateful no one asked us about maintaining the work/life balance, a question she said she heard pointed at women in almost every panel like this, but never at men in similar situations.  I told her I was glad no one asked, either, because they probably wouldn’t like the answer, which is that none of us have husbands, which are where those work/life balance problems tend to begin.  (Pam has a wife, of course, but the rest of us are unmarried, whether partnered or not.)  And none of us have children.  No matter how devoted you are to your pets, I don’t think they present the same demands on your work/life balance.  Not to speak for anyone else, but I don’t have to worry about the work/life balance, because while I think I have a fucking great life, it’s also one that puts absolutely no demands on time that I need to be devoting to work.  Except perhaps when Molly demands I hold her so much typing becomes an issue. 

As the Newsweek writers point out, simply not having a husband or kids is not only asking something of women that’s unfair (since men can have wives and children without taking the hit at work), but it’s also not the entire story. Women with college degrees but without children still make less than their male peers.  But that the issue of the work/life balance is considered a women’s issue is, in and of itself, a serious problem.  And we as a society need to find a solution.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 04:56 PM • (108) Comments

good piece, but i’ll add that the phrase “work-life balance”, while most obviously referring to the ability of the employed to spend time with their spouses and children, also refers to the ability to spend time with significant others, friends, and generally engaging in whatever one’s non-professional interests and hobbies may be.  for instance, i’m not married and have no children, but i’d rather not have to work 60+ hour weeks all the time because i have a boyfriend and wonderful friends and i like spending time doing shit other than working.  so i’m firmly on team “work-life balance.”  i realize that my desire to have time to read books and travel and drink wine isn’t really perceived as equally important as those who have the need to raise children or care for a loved one or whatever, but i think we’re all on the same team (or we should be anyway, men included).

Comment #1: chareth cutestory  on  03/24  at  05:23 PM

You really can’t compare having a husband to having a wife in straight relationships. Men just make more work for women to do; for men, a wife does all the shit that he’s too importnant to do, so he can get ahead at work and support for her when her stupid little career phase ends. You know, when she decides to have kids like a real woman should. I trust I don’t have to put sarcasm tags on this?

  The idea that the hubbie is the big breadwinner is still around and it dovetails with another sexist notion: “But he has such a bright future!” Well, here’s his future and he has to have a staff to do his laundry, cook his meals, etc., etc.,  Men do a few hours housework per week; women do a half a work weeks’ worth.

Comment #2: ginmar  on  03/24  at  05:29 PM

Work-life balance for me is great right now - my husband is at home looking for work, but also getting kids who stay late at school, running errands, shopping, cooking, cleaning, getting his booty in sexy shape, and generally taking care of shit that I don’t have time to deal with right now.  Cash flow took a hit with the layoff, but stress levels have dropped and I have a lot more time to work out and write as well as work.

Having a wife is wicked nice.

Comment #3: Ms Kate  on  03/24  at  05:30 PM

The other side of “work/life balance” not being a male problem, is that males (hell, everybody) is expected to have nothing to balance with work.  The sexist division only benefits the bosses and the companies.  It would better for both men and women if “work/life balance” became a problem for everyone.  That’s one of the reasons I won’t stick around academia.  For all the liberal political beliefs and other generally enlightened attitudes, academia has attitudes about work and life outside work on par with investment banking or software writing.  Without the high salaries.

Comment #4: John  on  03/24  at  05:32 PM

I am glad someone is actually admitting that there is till sexism in the workplace, as it seems that many ppl want to consider it to be non-existent now that it’s so common for women to work. I work in a highly male-dominated field(sports) and I face this ALL the time.  It IS so much harder when you work closely with the ppl who are perpetrating the sexism, and it become exhausting and frustrating to try and counter it. I’m constantly being asked what’s wrong when I’m not smiling(nothing, this is what my face looks like) or why I’m in a bad mood when I’m curt b/c I have a lot of shit to do today. These are things that are not asked of men, nor are they expected to be Suzy f-ing Sunshine all the time. And it gets harder when you factor in the fact that you might not be promoted b/c of your perceived “attitude problem” when you have traits that no one would consider abnormal if you were male (like assertiveness).
So, I’ve somewhat given up, but it still bothers me as it seems like I’m conceding a point that I don’t necessarily agree with. Sorry so long and ranty, but there are few ppl to discuss this with that know what the hell I’m talking about/dealing with since ALL the ppl I currently work with are male!

Comment #5: thatsnotironic  on  03/24  at  05:36 PM

Did Newsweek point out, at all, they played a major hand in perpetuating sexism with that ‘more likely to marry a terrorist’ bullshit?

Comment #6: ginmar  on  03/24  at  05:43 PM

I second that, Chareth! Just because I don’t have or want kids doesnt mean I don’t have a life! It just means I have more choices rather than obligations to my time. It doesn’t make them any less important. And all ppl need time off work to do things they enjoy, which are not usually cleaning up after someone else. I think that by and large women suffer from burnout more than men b/c of having to work AFTER work, but we get the added bonus of social stigma if we show it.

Comment #7: thatsnotironic  on  03/24  at  05:49 PM

Dead-on about work/life balance. When someone is single, the HR/4th Purpose culture expects that work will be the focus of the employee/consumer: “No spouse, no kids? No excuses, no life.”

And the moment someone does get this “legitimate” life by marrying or becoming a parent, it’s women who get shafted work-wise since it’s assumed they’ll “betray” work in favour of life, which “of course” includes bearing the entire “life” responsibilities of the household while hubby focuses on the “work” side and brings home the bacon.

It is at the intersection of the HR Culture and the patriarchy that we see the glass ceiling, gross pay inequity, harassment and the other ugly vestiges of pre-feminist America to this very day.

Comment #8: Gracchus.  on  03/24  at  05:51 PM

Ms Kate,
We had a similar thing when I had the high-paying, long hours private sector job and my husband was in school.  When he was unemployed it didn’t work as well.  Both of us have struggled with depression when we’ve been unemployed.

Comment #9: lonespark  on  03/24  at  05:55 PM

i’ll add that the phrase “work-life balance”, while most obviously referring to the ability of the employed to spend time with their spouses and children, also refers to the ability to spend time with significant others, friends, and generally engaging in whatever one’s non-professional interests and hobbies may be

Not in the eyes of the HR/4th Purpose Culture, it doesn’t. A good, docile employee/consumer can find all the friendship and entertainment he needs within the confines of the corporation.

There was a kinder, gentler version of this going on during the dot-com era as well: “bring your dog to work! foosball! free pizza! party with and do your co-workers!” All of which ultimately turned out to be a way to cover for the sort of poor management practises that led to eternal crunch time.

Comment #10: Gracchus.  on  03/24  at  05:57 PM

Did Newsweek point out, at all, they played a major hand in perpetuating sexism with that ‘more likely to marry a terrorist’ bullshit?

They revisited this a few years ago (20 years after the original) and basically admitted it was BS.

Comment #11: Gracchus.  on  03/24  at  06:00 PM

gracchus, dead on per usual.  and yes, that’s what employers think, i was just pointing out that those of us without spouses or children also have an interest in promoting change of HR culture to allow all employees more time and flexibility to pursue whatever their outside interests and obligations are.

Comment #12: chareth cutestory  on  03/24  at  06:22 PM

chareth @ 1: that may be, but somehow men and women without family concerns seem a lot more able to have time for living and for working.  It’s only women with husbands and children to basically serve that talk up the work/life balance thing, for whatever reason.  I’m sure a lot of us would rather have more free time, but I guess since we experience it *as* free time, it’s not something that needs balancing.

Comment #13: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/24  at  06:24 PM

ginmar @ 2: I suppose I was trying to be cutesy about it, but yes, that was my point.  Five women were on the panel, with all sorts of romantic relationships, but not one of us had a husband.  And I don’t think it’s a coincidence, and why questions of work/life balance simply don’t come up.  “Life” is a euphemism for a woman’s responsibilities to care for a husband or children.  If you don’t have those, you can live more like men get to do by right.

Comment #14: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/24  at  06:30 PM

All this talk about marriage brings up a realization: women aren’t human at all until they’re attached to someone else. They have no intrinsic worth. I know Amanda’s addressed this, somewhat, in her recent thoughts on singlehood and marriage, but when you read some of this stuff in quick succession it makes it very apparent. Women are worth something only when they serve a guy or produce future men or maybe girls if there’s a shortage. But on their own? Nothing, nada, zero, zilch. Every now and then it slips out.

Comment #15: ginmar  on  03/24  at  06:30 PM

@13 -

True to a point, Amanda, but there’s also the women-vs-women workplace dynamic where the single-and-no-kids women pick up work left over when the women with families (of any configuration) invoke work-life balance and drag someone to a doctor’s appointment or whatever.

(I’ve been in the workforce for about fifteen years and only been married for about seven months of that.  “Work-life balance” means, generally, that I’m going to get stuck doing YOUR[*] work while you go rebalance the rest of your life.)

[*] Not referring to anyone here specifically, it’s just that my workload has shifted a lot this week due to other people’s premature twins, macho husbands, schoolkids with chronic conditions, other major medical issues, etc.  I’m damn glad I’m healthy because apparently if I didn’t show up there wouldn’t be anyone there do do the fucking work. This is not the first job this has happened, either.

Comment #16: Thena, Sultana of Stale Raisin Bread  on  03/24  at  06:43 PM

was just pointing out that those of us without spouses or children also have an interest in promoting change of HR culture to allow all employees more time and flexibility to pursue whatever their outside interests and obligations are.

Agreed, but it’s gonna be a slog. There’s a toxic assumption entrenched beneath the intersection of HR Street and Patriarchy Ave that people without spouses or children ought to be married to their careers, because they spend their life/free time engaged in trivial pursuits which are tantamount to “cheating” on their workplace.

Seriously, American corporate culture imagines that single people are happy to put in lots of unpaid overtime and make the company their lives because, hey, what else are they gonna do? Play videogames (men)/watch soap operas (women) and go out on dates that aren’t intended lead to the blessed marital altar? Just about the only acceptable “hobby” that corporate America recognises as legitimate is shopping.

Comment #17: Gracchus.  on  03/24  at  06:50 PM

I see that assumption, but I also see the assumption that those WITH spouses and children should be married to their careers also!

Comment #18: John  on  03/24  at  06:55 PM

All this talk about marriage brings up a realization: women aren’t human at all until they’re attached to someone else.

You want to see a example of this in action, look at the comments from “Austin Nedved” in this thread. GumbyAnne gave the best assessment: “Refreshingly honest, Austin.  Bat-poop insane, but honest.”

Comment #19: Gracchus.  on  03/24  at  06:56 PM

It’s only women with husbands and children to basically serve that talk up the work/life balance thing, for whatever reason.

That just isn’t true in my experience.  Maybe I’ve just worked in fields or cities where people care about it, and hang out with people who are really devoted to their religious groups and hobbies and stuff.  Most people I know who are even slightly liberal say family friendly workplace policies are a big thing they are fighting for.

Comment #20: lonespark  on  03/24  at  06:57 PM

I see that assumption, but I also see the assumption that those WITH spouses and children should be married to their careers also!

Yeah.  You aren’t allowed to have a life until you’re high up in management.  I have worked, and hope to work again, in consulting, and that can be really flexible, but those benefits are usually only extended to people with a fair amount of seniority.

Comment #21: lonespark  on  03/24  at  07:02 PM

My least favorite iteration of the work-life debate is when women are chided for wanting to “have it all.”  As far as I can tell, “having it all” means having both a steady job and a loving family.  When women want this, it’s called greedy and unrealistic.  When men want it, it’s called a normal life.

You see a lot of pseudo-feminist “choice” language surrounding this debate.  You have to choose!  Career or family!  You can’t have both, of course; you’re a woman.  You can only choose half a life.  But don’t you feel all empowered for having a choice?

Comment #22: Shaenon  on  03/24  at  07:03 PM

I see that assumption, but I also see the assumption that those WITH spouses and children should be married to their careers also!

True. It’s a relatively recent development, when they realised they could twist feminism into an expectation that if married men sacrifice time with spouses and kids for their careers, well hey, so should married women who decide to stay with the company.

Corporate America is nothing if not fond of having its cake and eating it, too.

Comment #23: Gracchus.  on  03/24  at  07:06 PM

I get a lot of letters and emails from people who know my work but don’t know me personally.  Sometimes they ask me the work/life balance question and I usually skip by it because I know they will not like my answer one bit.  The answer is: I’m not married, I don’t have kids (and never plan to) and I could not do the work I do, at the level I do it, if I had either.
I’m definitely not saying this is the case for everyone, but for me it’s a very plain truth.  The way things are structured right now, with the nuclear family being the only available model, and the woman being the default childrearer, and husbands, more often than not, repressenting an increase in work, not a decrease…  Well, it all contributes to a probelm that no one wants to acknowledge which is that women do have to make a choice between family and a challenging career.
I HATE the phrase “having it all”, because it seems to imply that it’s greedy or unreasonable to want both. 
Lucky for me, I was never the least bit interested in having a family or getting married, but I really feel for women who have those conflicting desires.  It shouldn’t have to be either/or.

Comment #24: nico  on  03/24  at  07:08 PM

Yeah.  You aren’t allowed to have a life until you’re high up in management.

Connecting this to comments in the earlier thread, at that point it’s not work/life but rather work = life:

certain industries expect senior executives to get married and have kids if they expect promotion in the company. The unstated goals are conformity with the corporate culture and binding the breadwinner closer to the corporation, lest his new family lose the lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed. That’s a nasty and all-too common situation.

Comment #25: Gracchus.  on  03/24  at  07:13 PM

Boy, it’s just a whirling vortex of sexist suck, isn’t it? Your pointing out of the ‘life’ euphemism reminds me eerily about how there didn’t use to be real acknowledgement of wife-beating, family abandonment, marital rape, and date rape, amongst many other things. Those were just called ‘life’ for women, and they were hooked up to an unequal culture where a woman couldn’t escape once she did took the almost-inescapable choice to get married. Marriage and children really are the ultimate trap for women, in the way the patriarchy enforces those standards. That’s why gay marriage is so important to sexists and homophobes alike: marriage exhausts women and gay marriage promotes the idea of a marriage of equals.

The thing that really pisses me off about the work/life thing is that I’ve yet to see any man be asked anything remotely like that question. Ever. And when a guy in public life says he’s quitting to ‘spend more time’ with his family, you know he resigned just ahead of a nasty revelation. Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh.

Comment #26: ginmar  on  03/24  at  07:14 PM

True to a point, Amanda, but there’s also the women-vs-women workplace dynamic where the single-and-no-kids women pick up work left over when the women with families (of any configuration) invoke work-life balance and drag someone to a doctor’s appointment or whatever.

(I’ve been in the workforce for about fifteen years and only been married for about seven months of that.  “Work-life balance” means, generally, that I’m going to get stuck doing YOUR[*] work while you go rebalance the rest of your life.)

[*] Not referring to anyone here specifically, it’s just that my workload has shifted a lot this week due to other people’s premature twins, macho husbands, schoolkids with chronic conditions, other major medical issues, etc.  I’m damn glad I’m healthy because apparently if I didn’t show up there wouldn’t be anyone there do do the fucking work. This is not the first job this has happened, either.

Be careful Theana , I got bitched at on here for bringing this exact problem up. wink

Comment #27: Danica Lefse Queen  on  03/24  at  07:18 PM

It’s only women with husbands and children to basically serve that talk up the work/life balance thing, for whatever reason.

That just isn’t true in my experience.

It isn’t true in my experience either, but I think it may well be true overall.

I’m lucky enough to have moved to a very liberal area for college and stayed there, and now work for a very liberal boss who doesn’t mind that I sometimes take a week or two of accrued leave with very little notice to take care of my mother, who has some significant health problems requiring surgery.  I’ve never had the sense that he feels in any way cheated that hiring a (single, even) male employee did not get him an employee with no family committments.

But when I do go back to take care of Mom, all my female high school friends who stayed back in our middle-of-the-road Middle-American middle-size town are so jealous that I have a boss who’s so understanding, and all my male friends who stayed behind never think to ask.

Comment #28: cminus  on  03/24  at  07:25 PM

There was a kinder, gentler version of this going on during the dot-com era as well: “bring your dog to work! foosball! free pizza! party with and do your co-workers!” All of which ultimately turned out to be a way to cover for the sort of poor management practises that led to eternal crunch time.

Reminds me of something the late great Steve Gilliard wrote on his blog (paraphrasing here):  When your employer installs things like foosball and ping-pong tables, it’s because they don’t want you to leave.

Comment #29: Linnaeus  on  03/24  at  07:28 PM

The Newsweek article mentions that the final straw for the women staffers in 1970 was when the magazine hired a reporter’s wife to write about the feminist movement, rather than giving the story to one of the women reporters on staff.  If I remember Backlash correctly, the full story is even more amazing.  Newsweek hired the woman because she was a conservative housewife and they assumed she’d turn in an anti-feminist hatchet job.  Instead, she became sympathetic to the movement while researching the story and talking to feminists, and she ended up writing one of the most positive, pro-feminist articles to appear in a mainstream magazine at the time.  Ha!

Comment #30: Shaenon  on  03/24  at  07:29 PM

I feel sometimes that the obsession with the work/life balance is conceding an argument I don’t want to concede—-the one over whether or not men should pull their weight at home.

I understand the impulse here, but the problem really is that work/life balance is seen as a women’s issue. The more it becomes normalized for men to take advantage of family-friendly policies, the better for everyone. The reason having kids (or other care-giving obligations) tends to hurt women so much and not hurt men really at all is because there is a certain amount of work - let’s call it X - that is simply unavoidable, no matter how many corners you cut, and if one person in the relationship is taking on 90 percent of X, it does start to become really difficult to maintain your career. But if both parties are doing 50 percent or even 60/40, the picture starts to look very different.

So as long as a majority of heterosexual couples continue to have children, we absolutely cannot concede this one. It’s not an admission that men won’t pull their weight at home but an assumption that that they will and should.

Comment #31: chingona  on  03/24  at  07:38 PM

“Work-life balance” means, generally, that I’m going to get stuck doing YOUR[*] work while you go rebalance the rest of your life.)

[*] Not referring to anyone here specifically, it’s just that my workload has shifted a lot this week due to other people’s premature twins, macho husbands, schoolkids with chronic conditions, other major medical issues, etc.  I’m damn glad I’m healthy because apparently if I didn’t show up there wouldn’t be anyone there do do the fucking work. This is not the first job this has happened, either.

I’m sure they had those kids prematurely just to make your life difficult. Personally, I’m really hoping my kid develops a chronic condition so I can weasel out of my work.

Comment #32: chingona  on  03/24  at  07:43 PM

It’s not just women (with kids) vs. women (without kids).  There’s a general acceptance (at least in my field) that time away from work for family is automatically legitimate.  Time away from work for a ‘serious’ relationship is mostly legitimate.  Time away from work for yourself, or friends, or dating, is illegitimate.  Those with families are just expected to spend less time at work, and somehow that’s ok.  Really damned annoying.

Comment #33: libdevil  on  03/24  at  07:48 PM

I’m sure they had those kids prematurely just to make your life difficult. Personally, I’m really hoping my kid develops a chronic condition so I can weasel out of my work.

That’s just the fight though - sure, it’s not the fault of the premature twins, and sometimes Dad has a stroke and you just have to be there for him, and under no circumstances should you be fired for that.  On the other hand, however, it’s simply not your single coworker’s problem, especially if the company is using the coworker’s “unattached” status to their advantage to get your work covered for basically free at their expense.  But like the working/stay-at-home mom debate, divide and conquer works really well here, because people stop seeing the forest for the trees.

The obvious solution is, get a temp and reshuffle the work as necessary, and even that’s not perfect.  But lots of places won’t go to the step of getting an extra person to temporarily fill the gap someone’s left.

Comment #34: Kyso K  on  03/24  at  08:20 PM

On the other hand, however, it’s simply not your single coworker’s problem, especially if the company is using the coworker’s “unattached” status to their advantage to get your work covered for basically free at their expense.  But like the working/stay-at-home mom debate, divide and conquer works really well here, because people stop seeing the forest for the trees.

Well, yeah. And my reaction would have been a lot different if the commenter had taken her employer to task instead of her co-worker. I mean, shit happens. It can happen to anyone, with any type of family situation or none. When my co-worker was out for six weeks to have chemotherapy for cancer, that, technically, wasn’t “my problem” either. But everyone - even the people with kids! - picked up extra work to keep things going. Yes, it would be nice if they would get a temp, and no, most places won’t, but the problem is not remotely limited to people with kids.

Which, to go back to my first comment, is why we’d make a huge mistake to consign work/life balance to some sort of women’s issue ghetto. This should be everyone’s concern.

Comment #35: chingona  on  03/24  at  08:31 PM

“navigating gender roles at work is more confusing than ever.”

There is one aspect of this that for me was very tough. One of my wife’s best friends started working in the same office w/me some months ago. I was excited as she is really a lot of fun and her husband and I are very close friends as well. The problem is we couldn’t joke w/each other at work as we usually do or even go to lunch together. People immediately assumed we were having an affair (although we got a laugh out of that because her husband and I have been referred to as a couple before). We’ve tried to joke about all the gossipers (or shit-stirrers as my boss calls them) and ignore them but it was really wearing on our friendship.

Comment #36: Mark  on  03/24  at  08:33 PM

@27 - Hey, I’m full of piss and vinegar this week, the worst that can happen is I’ll get banned for being an asshole and then I can go be productive or something. wink

@32 - I said nothing about weaseling.  I am absolutely delighted that (over the course of the last four years at multiple workplaces) A’s kid got their diagnosis, B got their surgeries, C got their medical problem identified and treated, D got happily married and the custody stuff sorted out with their ex, F & G are still alive and doing pretty well all things considered, H is handling the treatments, J and K are getting the care they need, L’s chemo went as well as could be expected, and M got that issue with the fraudulent accountant all sorted out.  I don’t wish anybody badly and I appreciate that my colleagues are able to tend to their families and their personal needs. 

BUT. 

There has to be a better solution to “work-life-balance” than forbidding the one person with no spouse or children from taking any time off whatsoever (except for calling in sick, and then wanting documentation) because the other three employees in comparable positions were all half in and half out at the same time due to family and personal urgencies taking them out of the office during the workday.    (I’m not at that particular office anymore.)

And, to divert from the name/shame/blame fingerpointing model, I would offer that the problem is not rooted in any one individual’s situation but goes back to what other posters have called the “HR culture” in which an employee’s (primary) role is as a cog in the company wheel, around which they are allowed to have (only) certain kinds of life which occasionally demand their attention be diverted from their work. 

The sexism comes in when women in particular are only allowed to have the kinds of life that involve taking care of other people, which seems to be the main form of life outside employment that’s allowed for low-to-mid-wage female employees.

And that is what I’m bitching about.

Comment #37: Thena, Sultana of Stale Raisin Bread  on  03/24  at  08:34 PM

A chronic illness has forced me out of the Valley and only now am I beginning to feel this incredible sense of relief to be away from it all forever, how I loathed the modern workplace.  I’m going to be my own puny small business owner, I’ll never make much but at least I’ll be away from that modern American office hell.

One thinks of the extra time to learn Spanish, smb accounting and building a web site, all of which I can easily do, and it wouldn’t come close to the massive grinds I was expected to put in at work, fifty hours a week was always a minimum.  Brutal layoffs, nauseating salary inequality everywhere.  Traffic is hell’s kitchen, age discrimination and sexism rampant.  I used to have to be dragged anywhere on vacation, I was so tired all I wanted to do was rest at home.  It certainly contributed to whatever my illness is.

One time teams of six-figure fuckups refused to admit $30 million project failure for 18 months, no lie, all the while keeping me frantically running in two environments, the new one and the old one to be replaced.  They went to a retreat instead of the unemployment office when it was finally, finally over.

What an infernal mess.  Have fun.

Comment #38: paradox  on  03/24  at  09:10 PM

“post-PC world”

I hate the term “PC” no matter how it’s used.  I’m sorry, but the right has turned that into a pavlovian hatred of anything liberal and I think we should stop using it except to express how much we don’t like the term.

Comment #39: Albert Cirrus  on  03/24  at  09:20 PM

I hate the term “PC” no matter how it’s used… I think we should stop using it except to express how much we don’t like the term.

Yeah, I’m a Mac guy too. wink

Comment #40: cminus  on  03/24  at  09:28 PM

I don’t have a husband or children but I don’t care much for the rat race either.  I hate this assumption that women must be slavishly devoted to some culturally approved activity - be it family, job, or “balancing” both.  Heaven forbid a woman not be useful to others in some way!  Idle hands on a woman are truly the Devil’s playground as far as everyone is concerned (even feminists are guilty of this dichotomous thinking).  The male slacker is practically a cultural icon but the very existence of females who aspire neither to families nor workaholism just doesn’t factor into people’s thinking (including liberals and feminists).

Comment #41: DonnaDiva  on  03/24  at  09:44 PM

Amanda wrote:

When I joined Pandagon, there were very few female bloggers in the top ranks, and the biggest one was assumed by most readers to be a man (Digby).  It’s hard to believe it now, but back in 2005, bringing a female blogger onto a blog like Pandagon was really unusual, and so Jesse and I both got some kind of weird attitudes from some people about his choice to ask me to join the blog.

Strangely enough, I thought that the things on which a blogger would be judged was his diligence at research and his ability to write persuasively; why would men have had an initial advantage over women in that?  If you’ve succeeded today, isn’t it because a lot of people like what you write and the way you write it?

I started my own poor site in late 2004, just after the election, and at least using blogspot.com, it was free; it didn’t cost a cent.  I decided soon enough that I wanted to own my domain, but even with that, the cost was minimal.  Heck, anyone with a computer and internet access can have a blog if he wants, and that was just as true five years ago as today.

By the way, were you one of the initial contributors to the old Liberal Avenger site?  I thought I saw an “Amanda” in one of their old archives, but don’t recall a last name attached to it.

Comment #42: Dana  on  03/24  at  10:05 PM

Y’know, what we’re actually talking about with this “HR Culture” thing is theft and wage fraud. It’s nice for a company when social prejudices reinforce its profit mission.

Comment #43: paul  on  03/24  at  10:40 PM

DonnaDiva nails it again:

Heaven forbid a woman not be useful to others in some way!  Idle hands on a woman are truly the Devil’s playground as far as everyone is concerned (even feminists are guilty of this dichotomous thinking).  The male slacker is practically a cultural icon but the very existence of females who aspire neither to families nor workaholism just doesn’t factor into people’s thinking (including liberals and feminists).

Related to that, here are some other characteristics (in addition to having no interest in the rat race) that will get a woman punished or aggressively ignored, but are fine for men:
1.  Funny
2.  Bored or turned off by religion, including spirituality
3.  Absent-minded
4.  Original

Comment #44: Unree  on  03/24  at  10:49 PM

Yes, to “work-life balance” only seeming to apply to people who have approved lifestyles.  A place where I used to work (a call center) actually gave their employees “work-life balance” days.  Which could only be taken when management approved. Which was only when call volume was so low they’d tell you to go home even if you did come in.  Or, if you had a problem with your kids or spouse.

I of course have no problem with people taking needed days off to take care of their family.  But this essentially resulted in my being unable to ever use this benefit that they touted as being so great to their employees.  At times, I thought about lying to them and telling them my kid was sick so I could actually have some “work-life balance”.  They didn’t know me.  For all they knew, I did have kids.

Comment #45: Denise  on  03/24  at  10:55 PM

In the early ‘70s, I was just getting into the magazine field—or rather, not getting into any magazines, unless they were deemed those for women.

Up to that point, I hadn’t even made it a habit to read women’s magazine—I’d skipped the whole teen beat, Seventeen phase, no less the fashion or housewife magazines—but those were the only magazines at which I was hired, because, well, vaginas, dontcha know.

I read The Nation, but the nation made it clear they didn’t need a girl, Newsweek and Time were notorious for allowing women on staff only to rise as high as researchers, even if their “research” went into the magazine word for word, with a male byline, of course.

The New York Times didn’t hire women reporters: one friend on staff at Mademoiselle snuck in the backdoor of the Times by freelancing for the Real Estate section, but only because that section was distained as puffery by the male writers who held sway in every other damn section.

Of course the publ9ishers of all the womens’ magazines were men (penises, dontcha know), hell, back in the 1950s the editor in chief of big women’s magazines were men, the all capable male who knew a woman’s place was in the home.

the women’s movement began to change publishing as the ‘70s wore on, and I’ve got more stories from the ‘70s segregated magazine world, and the tales told to me from the older editors of the Jean Crow earlier decades, but I’m in waikiki bitches!

for anothher day…

Met Steinem briefly, who was both a babe and an extremely inspiring smart cookie.

Comment #46: judybrowni  on  03/24  at  11:55 PM

Strangely enough, I thought that the things on which a blogger would be judged was his diligence at research and his ability to write persuasively; why would men have had an initial advantage over women in that?

Because men are assumed to be the norm (hell, you did just there with “his” diligence at research) and there are no women on the internet, dontcha know?  And of course, sexism- women writer mens “fluffy writer” to most people.  Just ask all the ones that fake male just to get the hits.

Comment #47: Antigone  on  03/25  at  01:03 AM

True to a point, Amanda, but there’s also the women-vs-women workplace dynamic where the single-and-no-kids women pick up work left over when the women with families (of any configuration) invoke work-life balance and drag someone to a doctor’s appointment or whatever.

I’ve picked up work left over from plenty of single-and-no-kids woman colleagues when they had a hangover and ‘called in sick’, or were boo-hooing over a fight with their boyfriend and were just too emotionally overwrought to lift a finger, or had a very important social event that took them on yet another vacation. I’ve covered for male colleagues who ‘called in sick’ with hangovers, or just had to take off early for the Big Game, or really just wanted to head to Cabo for a week, again. I’ve had the job where my male co-worker regularly called in with a bad case of the slacks, but I’d better not miss a minute or it would be a clear sign that I was On the Mommy Track and Not a Team Player.

Yes, it’s an HR problem. It’s also a sexism problem. And that problem is not just when women are seen as having no excuse not to work other than a husband and kids. It’s when only women are judged for having a family and kids, when a woman taking time for her family is seen as automatically dumping an unfair burden on her co-workers, when nobody notices or gives a shit about what the men are doing.

And, bluntly, when it’s OK for a woman to take care of her husband and kids because, being a female who’s a man’s property and has bred, she’s worthless anyway, so who gives a shit if she goes home an hour late? Bitch was on the Mommy Track from the first time she was dumb enough to open her mouth and admit she was some man’s property.

So if you don’t like the sexism, do yourself a favor and stop the divide-and-conquer bullshit.

Comment #48: mythago  on  03/25  at  01:28 AM

Thanks, Amanda! I wouldn’t have seen this article without your mention of it.

Comment #49: asdf  on  03/25  at  03:41 AM

I found while trying to break into a very male-dominated (and highly technical field) that my potential employers were not seeking “knowledge” or “competence” from female interviewees, but bubblebrained spokesmodels.  I got the distinct impression during more than one interview that I might have stood a chance, if only I’d scored better with the judges during the swim suit competition.

Comment #50: Zephira, Queen of the Space Weasels  on  03/25  at  04:40 AM

Re comment #44:

Oh FSM! I am in SO much trouble!

Comment #51: Samantha Vimes  on  03/25  at  07:10 AM

I am so glad to hear someone call out the issue of “work/life balance” as a euphamism for the fact that women tend to get stuck with the bulk of the work at home and are judged harshly for it at work.  This is a huge frustration for me and I don’t even have kids yet.  In fact, it’s part of the reason I don’t have kids yet. 

ANECDOTE 1:  The women’s professional association to which I belong is obsessed with “work/life balance.”  I once asked at a meeting whether there would be any way to broaden the conversation in the profession so that work/balance is not just seen as a women’s issue.  Everyone looked at me like I had three heads.  (Maybe it’s just because no one has the answer.  I certainly don’t.)

ANECDOTE 2:  At an office meeting, I advocated changing the maternity leave policy to a parental leave policy.  My company prides itself on being somewhat socially responsible, so I gave a short impassioned speech about women being hurt by gendered policies because they leave women with no choice but to be the one to stay home if necessary since the husband often doesn’t have a parental leave available to him.  The only response was a sarcastic crack by one of the guys about my clearly “strong maternal instinct.”  (This is classic, by the way.  If a woman argues for a more equitable distribution of childcare responsibilities, then she is a crap mother or lacks the proper maternal instincts.)

ANECDOTE 3:  This is the most significant one to me.  Over the years, I have realized that a major aspect of my ambivalence about having kids is a huge (and, I think, reasonable) fear that I will become a dupe, relegated to the scut work at home and the mommy track at work.  But I love kids and in an egalitarian world, there is no doubt that I would have probably started having kids 10 years ago.  Meanwhile, I have been watching the men I work with becoming fathers without all the angst and the handwringing about work/life balance.  In a weird way, while I suppose I am competitive at work, I am still second class because the guys get to be parents and I don’t—or at least not without a lot of angst and risk and personal shaming and all the baggage that goes along with being a mother, especially a working mother, in our society.

Comment #52: Laurie  on  03/25  at  08:23 AM

Antigone wrote:

Strangely enough, I thought that the things on which a blogger would be judged was his diligence at research and his ability to write persuasively; why would men have had an initial advantage over women in that? (me)

Because men are assumed to be the norm (hell, you did just there with “his” diligence at research) and there are no women on the internet, dontcha know?  And of course, sexism- women writer mens “fluffy writer” to most people.  Just ask all the ones that fake male just to get the hits.

The use of the masculine pronouns is proper because, in English, the masculine subsumes the feminine in cases where the sex of the person referred to is unknown.  If I had used the feminine pronouns, the sentence would have referred only to women.  The construction “his or her” is an abomination unto the Lord.

There are plenty of women who write things on blogs, many of which get a lot of traffic, that don’t limit themselves to “fluffy” things and get plenty of respect.  DRJ on Patterico’s Pontifications and Darleen Click on Protein Wisdom (two conservative sites I hit a lot) are taken just as seriously as the male writers, and in both cases seem to have taken on at least half, if not more, of the writing recently.

Comment #53: Dana  on  03/25  at  09:33 AM

You know, one would think that a blogger, or any kind of writer, WOULD be judged on her ability to write persuasively.  But, sadly, that’s not the case.  There is a reason J.K. Rowling’s publishers told her to use her initials rather than her given name.  This is advice women writers get all the time.  (In fact, it is not even necessarily advice.  The publishers required a friend of mine to use a male pseudonym.) 

And yes, I use only the feminine pronoun here deliberately because we are talking about how women writers are perceived.  I imagine that male writers ARE judged on writing ability. 

As for the fact that, in English, the masculine subsumes the feminine in cases where the sex of the person referred to is unknown—no shit.  That’s precisely why it’s a problem.  It is one of the myriad factors (and not such an insignificant one) that makes our presumption that the male is the default human being so powerfully internalized.  I am finicky about grammar rules myself, but I don’t think any clarity is lost when we use the “his or her” formulation.

Comment #54: Laurie  on  03/25  at  09:53 AM

The use of the masculine pronouns is proper because, in English, the masculine subsumes the feminine in cases where the sex of the person referred to is unknown.

Uh, no.  This is one of the areas where language is evolving.  Most peer-reviewed journals and law review-type journals have required non-sexist language for awhile, for example.

You do realize that masculine pronouns for subjects whose gender is unknown is a classic example of male-as-standard-female-as-deviant writ large, don’t you?  Your argument proves the very point you thought you were arguing against.

Comment #55: Richard Goblin  on  03/25  at  09:59 AM

I’ve picked up work left over from plenty of single-and-no-kids woman colleagues when they had a hangover and ‘called in sick’, or were boo-hooing over a fight with their boyfriend and were just too emotionally overwrought to lift a finger, or had a very important social event that took them on yet another vacation.

It’s a classic divide and conquer tactic by the ownership class - pitting us against each other.  Single, partnered, parents, and child-free should be working together to demand less hours, less work, more fulfilling work, more generous leave, and more money.

Comment #56: Richard Goblin  on  03/25  at  10:11 AM

I’ve long since ceased to expect anything other than uninformed taunting BS from a provincial middle aged man out of Dana, but what he’s forgetting is that the early days of the blogosphere relied on other, established bloggers to refer their readership to new ones. Weirdly, Oliver Willis first got attention by being linked to by a pre-9/11-freakout instapundit. Female political bloggers were something of an oddity back then—one didn’t get attention unless one built up “references” from the existing blogosphere.

Comment #57: Tyro  on  03/25  at  11:01 AM

That said, there were ways of gaming the system in terms of early blogospheric indexing sites that could give prominent focus to blogs whose owners properly gamed the indexing sites, no matter who you were, even if you were a woman blogger or a man pretending to be a woman.

Comment #58: Tyro  on  03/25  at  11:06 AM

Theana and Danica: Fight for your rights to a life outside work and to use your leave time without any questions, (including from you), or stop attacking other women for having a spine that you don’t.

This sounds all too much like the “the other woman my man cheated with is my enemy” bullshit.  Just makes the patriarchy smile, you know, because women blaming other women really lets men off the hook.  The real problem is a culture that says that family and children are the ONLY acceptable reason for women to “miss work” (aka “take allotted leave time”) and employers that perpetuate it.  People who actually use this time are not your enemy - you and your boss are.

Did it ever occur to you that married childed women also like to have lives and despise the notion that ALL our “vacation” time is to be spent on child care?  Hmmm?  That we shouldn’t have to have “a good reason” to take time off, like “care of children or aging parents” being the only ones, when we want to use a weeks vacation to go kayaking on the summer solstice week as far north as we can get?

Comment #59: Ms Kate  on  03/25  at  11:27 AM

Tyro, that link leads to a 404.

Gee, lookit Dana defend sexist archaic linguistic quirks that dn’t even apply to English. And gee, those conservobot bloggers totes treat women great! If…they’re docile, obedient Bagger female bloggers, that is. IF they’re liberal, DAna’s buddies seem to have no problems with rape and death threats.  Yeah, aren’t we still waiting for cites and shit from Dana elsewhere?

Comment #60: ginmar  on  03/25  at  11:28 AM

fixed link

Comment #61: Tyro  on  03/25  at  11:38 AM

Noting Denise’s comment above: part of the problem is that many employers “approve” of leave according to whatever song and dance you can sing for them.  This means that men wanting to cover school vacations don’t get to use their vacation to do so, or don’t feel they can ask for it.

That, in turn, chrunches women, who get dumped on from within their organizations as “uncommitted” or “dumping work on singles”.  Never mind that they probably DON’T take any more “time off” than any other employee, not having any different a schedule of leave.

Personally, I think it should be illegal for your employer to even ASK why you want time off - mine never does and that is a good thing!  We do talk about whether there is time to take time off, and that conversation sometimes migrates to “well, my brother is getting married in another country so I really do need to take a couple of days here ...”, but no further than that.

Comment #62: Ms Kate  on  03/25  at  11:42 AM

Ms. Kate, I think the basic problem (that I see, anyway, and in my experience) is that employers are way more understanding of, “I need to take Timmy to the doctor” than “I need to go to the doctor.”  Or “I need to pick up Timmy at school” rather than ... well ... whatever reason I would have for needing to leave somewhere early or go and come back.  (For me, probably still going to the doctor.)  As someone who is single, unmarried, but chronically ill, needing to go to the doc every once in a while or needing some flex time is stuff that would be no problem if I was raising a family, but if I want it to accommodate the illness?  Well, I should have had the good sense to choose not to have an illness. 

That’s what makes the unchilded bitter.  That even when we do speak up about wanting fair treatment, we’re told that the situation is just not the same.  It would be nice if moms and non-moms could get along, but it would also be nice if people would stop pitting us against each other in really unfair ways.

Comment #63: BonAppetit  on  03/25  at  12:42 PM

The use of the masculine pronouns is proper because, in English, the masculine subsumes the feminine in cases where the sex of the person referred to is unknown.

No, it does not.

You really are a dirtbag, Dana.

Comment #64: asdf  on  03/25  at  12:53 PM

My employer is very good about allowing both male and female employees to take time off to take care of family matters, and I got no pushback from them when I took eight weeks off to take care of my infant daughter when my wife started work again. My observation from here and other employers (I’m an onsite computer tech, so I see a lot of other workplaces in addition to my own) is that men can take occasional time off with their family and be considered “a great dad” or a “great family man”. I’ve gotten that more times than I care to admit, and while the ego-stroking is nice, I don’t feel like I deserve a fucking medal for spending time with my kids. If I didn’t want to spend time with my family I wouldn’t have gotten married and had kids.

Having said that, I think women get considered “not serious” or “not committed” if they take the SAME DAMN TIME OFF THAT I TAKE. I am fortunate that my job is easy and flexible enough to allow this.

I will, however, make the point that to advance very far in the corporate world, you pretty much have to sacrifice any semblance of a family life. The CEO or CFO of a Fortune 1000 company is going to need a spouse at home that basically takes a support role. I think men of my generation (I’m 38) and younger are increasingly comfortable with this, but men in their 50s probably are not, which is why most of the few female CEOs there are (like Meg Whitman) are childless. This is a way in which the patriarchy hurts men, too; men in corporate managent are expected to give their soul to the company and let the wifey take care off all the home stuff.

Comment #65: Norsecats  on  03/25  at  12:59 PM

@Dana: Linguistically, the feminine should contain the masculine, because biologically, humans are female until testosterone kicks in, and numerically, women are the majority on the planet and in every developed nation.

The whole *concept* that “he” contains “he or she” is a relic from a time when women were considered to be property of men. If one has to pick one or the other, the only one that makes sense is “she”, because pick a random human off the planet and slightly more than 50% of the time you’ve picked a woman. Especially when the point one is trying to make is that people would be most likely judged by the quality of their writing and not by their gender, it’s kind of laughable to fall back on this archaic and sexist grammatical rule, as it disproves the point.

@BonAppetit: What you’re overlooking is that the “understanding” that employers are giving to the mom with kids comes at a price—she is overlooked for promotions and she is paid less, because it’s understood that she’ll be taking more time. You’re breaking the rules—the man or childfree woman is supposed to be a workhorse and get the benefits of such, which is why most of the few female CEOs there are, have no kids. So they harangue you for your medical problems, because if you were strong and tough like a non-mother is supposed to be you’d suck up your medical problems and come to work anyway, whereas if you were a mom you would be expected to be weak and dependent on other’s needs and that’s why they wouldn’t give you as much money. Or be as likely to hire you in the first place.

Also, mothers do not get any more time to deal with their *own* chronic illnesses than you do. ANd they have no more time off than you get. So a chronically ill mom who also has to take time off for little Timmy gets hurt for it much worse than you do, while an able-bodied woman with no children does much better than the able-bodied mom whose time off for little Timmy you resent, and all of us fare worse than the men… who aren’t allowed to take time off for little Timmy, because can’t your wife handle that?

It is not about mothers versus non-mothers. It is about the corporate culture that says that men must be married to their jobs—and will be given a benefit for it; that women probably have children, and must be given allowances for it—and because they must be given allowances, they can’t be paid or promoted as well, and shouldn’t be hired as quickly; that women who don’t have children must be as dedicated to their jobs as the men, and will get *a* benefit, but not as good a one as the men get; that men without children have to be given more money, because they have a family to support, but they’re not allowed to take time off to spend with that family.

You deserve fair treatment for your chronic illness. So do mothers, and fathers, and childless men, none of whom get cut a lot of slack for chronic illness. Mothers deserve fair treatment for the hard work they do. Childless people deserve time off to care for themselves or loved ones, or just to wait for the plumber to come fix the pipes. Fathers deserve to be able to go home early and pick up the kids from day care sometimes. The system screws *all* of us because it assumes *all* of us are expected to handle a minimum of 40 hours a week and if we can’t, we’re not serious about work and we will be punished one way or another. We should be working a *maximum* of 40 hours, not a minimum, and that should be true of women, men, mothers, fathers, childfree people… everyone.

Comment #66: Alara J Rogers  on  03/25  at  01:02 PM

@Norsecats, doesn’t Meg Whitman have children?

Comment #67: teabea  on  03/25  at  01:07 PM

Dana, you’ve already been spanked well by others, but it is not grammatically correct to use a masculine.  Hasn’t been for decades.  MLA handbook revised that back when I was in high school.

You’re not just being sexist, you’re absolutely grammatically incorrect and archaic. 

Now, hither over yon to the latest Catholic revelations thread, or I shall dub thee “coward” ever thus.

Comment #68: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/25  at  01:32 PM

yes, what Alara said. I’m fortunate to have a truly great workplace that is generous with leave and flextime for anyone, male, female, parent, childless. It’s awesome. Husband works in a traditionally male-dominated job with traditional leave policies. He reports that it’s like pulling teeth for a male coworker to be allowed to leave early on the day the daycare closes early, for example. So if we have kids, all that stuff (doctors, sick child etc) would fall to me without jeopardizing my job. But F that. Thus, no kids so far. Fortunately he feels the same way. If we decide to take the child plunge, he’ll likely chuck the job and stay home.

Comment #69: Shiny  on  03/25  at  01:34 PM

I respect my fellow female grad students who have kids. Those women have a lot on their plate, and I sure as hell couldn’t handle it. Male grad students with kids tend to have stay at home wives, allowing them to work 80 hours a week.

Comment #70: Entomologista  on  03/25  at  01:43 PM

On the issue of language (which admittedly is OT), I find it really that terms like “Man” (to refer to all humanity) or “Mankind” are archaic now in most mainstream circles, as is the use of the masculine pronount to refer to classes of people that may include both men and women.

Many years ago, I used “he” too, just because choosing “he or she” tended to mark one as a feminist and then one had to get into a discussion about that while one’s initial point was forgotten.

Now, it is the other way around.  Talking about “Mankind” or using “he” as a universal pronoun marks the speaker as outside the mainstream.  The only people I hear using this kind of language now are either quite old or hold a specific ideological perspective.  Small victories!

Comment #71: Laurie  on  03/25  at  02:12 PM

Er, I meant to say I find it really “refreshing” that these terms are archaic.  Poor proofreading on my part!

Comment #72: Laurie  on  03/25  at  02:13 PM

My workplace is an interesting case in this dynamic because it is a call center where the employees are all women and at an age that would traditionally be considered our “child-bearing years,” so as far as social privelege goes, we are all pretty even and one of the few variables in our social lives are whether we are married or have kids.  It is also at a Planned Parenthood, so the prevailing attitude is that being a parent is something that you choose (as opposed to the larger culture that acts like parenthood JUST HAPPENS TO PEOPLE), and also that being deliberately child-free is a legitimate choice that is no more odd than having kids.  On top of that, it is a decidedly liberal workplace that strives to be family friendly and accommodate the choice to have and raise kids.

I don’t have kids myself (not yet) and any resentment I have about the leeway that parents get in the workplace comes from the fact that I know real parents who abuse that leeway.  Sometimes when they say “little Timmy has the flu” but they really just want to skip out early so they can drop the kids off at grandma’s and get an early start on that weekend in Vegas (not a straw-person, real situation at my workplace).  Or “My kid’s school called, I have to go pick them up” when you are really just suffering from the same cabin fever as everyone else and wanted to get out of this windowless office. I wish I had an equivalent unasailable alibi for every time I don’t feel like being at work.  There are parents here who I am sure would have been fired from other jobs the way they use their kids as a catch-all excuse to do whatever they want whenever they want.

I don’t know if this contributes to the discussion at all, it is just my own experience with the childed/childless divide and how pronounced it actually is even in a decidedly feminist workplace, and one where other variables like gender, age and income differences are basically removed.

Comment #73: GumbyAnne  on  03/25  at  02:13 PM

GumbyAnne, it’s called “calling in sick” or “going home sick.” Maybe you don’t do it and maybe I don’t do it, but lots of people without kids do it.

Comment #74: chingona  on  03/25  at  02:40 PM

And then if you have 2 kids, you get to do it 3 times as much: “I said Timmy was sick last week, so this week I’ll say it’s Bobby and next week it will be myself.” 

If I called myself in sick that much they would expect me to come in with a doctor’s note explaining whatever chronic condition I must have that causes me to be late/leave early/miss work more often than I actually come in and work a whole shift start to finish.

Comment #75: GumbyAnne  on  03/25  at  03:11 PM

If it makes you feel any better, women with actual sick kids get fired for that all the time.

Comment #76: chingona  on  03/25  at  03:49 PM

Why is it that even on a feminist site, we can’t have a discussion about workplace policies that does not descend into a “downtrodden and exploited single women versus the evil, exploitative mothers” contest?

So what, there are some moms out there who take advantage of having kids to leave early sometimes. I’ll bet they also made up other excuses when they were childless because that IS JUST THE TYPE OF PEOPLE THEY ARE. Somehow, if someone does it while childless or single this isn’t generalized to all single or childless women but one mother’s behavior is imputed to all working mothers. In my current job, the amount of work I have had to cover because my childless co-workers decided they were too tired to come to work or took an impromptu vacation or just didn’t feel like working that day is at least equal to the work they have had to cover for me when I or my child has been sick.  I’d say this is probably the case in most instances—that the work balances out over the long run—but for some reason people only focus on mothers.  The reality of work life is that if you show up and others don’t (regardless of the reason and who isn’t showing up) you will have to make up the workload because the boss still expects it all to be done. Mothers, fathers, women, men.  The corporate culture wants us to do more with less; they want 3 people to do the work of 6 people and if one calls out, then 2 people to accomplish it instead. 

Why is it only remarkable when mothers take time off for any reason? Why are we always focused on what individual women are doing and not on the employers?  Because of sexism.  So if you find yourself always bitching about how much time off those mothers take or how much of their work you do, rather than bitching about your employer making it very difficult for ANYONE to take time off, then you are reinforcing that sexist corporate culture. 

And on-topic:  I recently gave up on the idea of work-life balance as something I should even be striving to achieve because I realized that it was a standard set up to limit me.  The notion of “balance” assumes I cannot both be successful in my career and still be a good mother, that I have to sacrifice on both ends.  This is the new iteration of not being able to “have it all” and the guilt that is always supposed to weigh down working mothers.  Yes, being a working mother requires different compromises and struggles but I don’t see those as somehow making me a less valuable employee or less devoted mother.  I’m sick of other people trying to impose their own sexist ideas about working motherhood on me and so I work to support policies that will place limits on corporate encroachment on the personal/work life divide and be both family and people-friendly environments.

Comment #77: history_mom  on  03/25  at  04:08 PM

Right on, history mom! 

There is an old saying along the lines of the more you have to do, the more productive you are.  Working mothers get it all done because they have to.  They are often more focused and on-the-ball than the rest of us!

Comment #78: Laurie  on  03/25  at  04:21 PM

It doesn’t make me feel any better.  Don’t let my ranting fool you, I am actually glad to work at a place that is understanding and lenient about absences. 

It is the same way that I feel about social programs like welfare and food stamps.  You do see people abusing the system but for every person who abuses, there are several more who genuinely need it and it would take a real mean-spirited douchbag to honestly advocate pulling the rug out from under everyone, legitimately needy or not.  I get a little ranty about the lady who sits next to me slacking off and using her kids as cover, but that is the price I pay to not have lady across from me (who is a great worker) not get fired if her new baby has some sort of ongoing problem in the future.  Or when I have kids in the future.  Someday I will be on the other side of the devide and we’ll see how I feel then.

Comment #79: GumbyAnne  on  03/25  at  04:34 PM

Entomologista @ 70:
All the grad students I’ve know were either single, paired with other fulltime students or partnered with people who worked full time.  In the case of my own spouse, he was a fulltime grad student with a parttime job, I was a parttime student with a fulltime job, our kids were in daycare-we had lots of company on that boat.

Comment #80: helen w. h.  on  03/25  at  04:46 PM

History_mom hits it out of the park.  Yes, 100%. 

As an example:
Working moms probably “lose” much less work time to sick kids (or even just attributed to sick kids) than basketball fans “lose” to March Madness.

Comment #81: helen w. h.  on  03/25  at  04:53 PM

Comment # 77 History Mom

See, but you yourself exhibit a critical attitude against those who take time off for non-parenting related reasons:
“decided they were too tired to come to work or took an impromptu vacation or just didn’t feel like working that day”

It sounds like you think their reasons for taking time off are not legitimate.  And that somehow, just by being their coworker, you know everything about their lives and why they decided to take time off.  Who are you to judge?  No one is complaining about granting flexibility to working moms.  The complaint is that if it is given ONLY to working moms, it creates inequity.  And at least in my experience and some other posters’ experience, it is a privilege that usually is granted only to working moms and not to any other group.

You don’t know what they were too tired to come to work that day; whether their impromptu vacation was to a mental health ward; or whatever.  But you (and many people) think that there are ‘good’ reasons to take time off and bad reasons to take time off.  But until you are in someone else’s shoes, please don’t judge them.

I recently went through a trauma that made me, among other things, a temporary insomniac.  When necessary, I called in sick.  I didn’t share the exact reasons with my job because unlike ‘my kid is sick’, explaining that I am traumatized is not a ‘legitimate’ work absence reason.  So I bluffed.  I am an energetic, bubbly person at work so I’m sure no one has an incling of what I’m dealing with right n ow.  And I’m sure you would have judged me and thought that I just “decided I was too tired”. 

Thankfully your attitude (my absences are justified and yours are not) are not representative of all or even most working moms - my boss, for example, is awesome and protected me from the sniping of other coworkers about my absences.

Comment #82: Lurker  on  03/25  at  07:09 PM

And Laurie #78 - Really?  Seriously? 

You really come very close to making it sound like women with children are better than women who are childless - that motherhood grants women special powers or something.  Please, let’s neither put on a pedestal or tear down motherhood.

Comment #83: Lurker  on  03/25  at  07:14 PM

Lurker: Are you thick?  You do realize that co-workers talk about why they didn’t come to work with people other than their boss, right? That working moms were once childless people too and therefore called out or left early for a myriad of reasons in their child-free days?  Honestly, I don’t give a shit why other people call in and assume it is because they need to. But one thing I don’t do is bitch about specific people calling out or sitting there claiming martyr status for being at work when others aren’t, though I might complain about a particular day being rough because of understaffing.  My point was that it doesn’t matter why anyone is leaving early or calling out—whether to care for others or to care for yourself—that at the end of the day working moms also do their fair share of picking up the slack when other employees call out or leave early.  My point was that this isn’t an individual problem but one of institutional sexism intersecting with corporate culture.  But once again, we’re back to talking about individual workers instead of focusing on employers.

Comment #84: history_mom  on  03/25  at  08:10 PM

I think the trouble is that the individual workers are simply reflecting the attitudes projected by their respective employers.  In most workplaces, the management erroneously believes that there are good reasons (like a sick child) for employees to miss work, and there are bad reasons (like a salon appointment) for employees to miss work.

Yes, you’re correct that it’s not fair for employers to make that distinction.  Jumping all over the other commenters for repeating the distinction isn’t really productive, though.  The point is that this Fourth Purpose/HR Culture attitude - that individual members of management are endowed with the authority to decide what is a legitimate and what is an illegitimate reason for missing work - needs to stop. 

It might be that regulations (US Dept. of Labor, I’m looking at you) should simply state that all employees have the right to take a certain amount of unscheduled (calling in or leaving early, not vacations that are scheduled weeks in advance)  time off, and employers shouldn’t concern themselves with the reasons why, and that includes asking for reasons, physician’s notes, or anything else.  If someone wants to talk about why they missed work, that should be their option, but they shouldn’t be threatened with adverse employment action if they simply don’t feel like sharing private details of their lives outside the workplace. 

Anecdotally, something similar happened to me.  When I was going through a divorce, one of the associates in my office interrupted a case management meeting to ask me why we were splitting up.  I had no other choice but to turn to her and reply, “I am not going to discuss personal matters in the office.  Let’s pay attention to the meeting and focus on completing our work.”

Comment #85: Mezosub  on  03/25  at  09:08 PM

I’m sorry, but this sentence just seems judgmental:
“decided they were too tired to come to work or took an impromptu vacation or just didn’t feel like working that day”
You claim now not to care why people take time off.  If you take it back, then good.  No need to be offensive.

But if the point is that you refuse to acknowledge that much of corporate america has policies in place to make it easier for people with certain issues - like working moms & cancer patients - to take time off - then you’re just ignoring reality.  This is not to say that working moms have it easy or that all workplaces have in place policies to make life a little easier for working moms.

Not to mention the fact that for most people in the US at least, having kids is a choice, while getting sick is not.  In my moral universe, people should be more helpful towards those who misfortune befell them, rather than those who chose to expand their life (child, or start a new business on the side, etc).

Comment #86: Lurker  on  03/25  at  09:54 PM

Lurker - history_mom was responding to GumbyAnne, among others, who already were characterizing certain reasons as “good” and “bad” reasons. Like GumbyAnne has a co-worker who claims a sick kid but really leaves early for a Vegas vacation. This is “bad.” So history_mom is saying that single or childless people also take off for similar reasons, yet it is not used to smear single, childless people as a class as unreliable co-workers who dump their work on others.

As for this,

Not to mention the fact that for most people in the US at least, having kids is a choice, while getting sick is not.  In my moral universe, people should be more helpful towards those who misfortune befell them, rather than those who chose to expand their life (child, or start a new business on the side, etc).

You can fuck yourself. Seriously.

Comment #87: chingona  on  03/25  at  10:19 PM

I mean, seriously. You get cancer? Poor you. Your kid gets cancer? Well, shit, maybe you should have thought of that before you had kids? Fuck you.

Comment #88: chingona  on  03/25  at  10:20 PM

And you think history_mom was judgemental?

Comment #89: chingona  on  03/25  at  10:21 PM

Not to mention the fact that for most people in the US at least, having kids is a choice, while getting sick is not.

Oh dear. You were doing so well and then you had to go and tip your hand. If you’re going to pretend that you’re not part of the sexist problem, you really need to be a bit more subtle. Or did you forget that you jumped all over history_mom in part defending singles who take time off for “impromptu vacations”? You know, which is, like a choice.

Richard @56 - I don’t mind covering for a co-worker. That’s what you do. What I do mind is when that co-worker then turns around and bitches about having to do the same for me, because it’s so totally okay to be home nursing a hangover but not home nursing a vomiting toddler. Most of the co-workers I’ve found who have such an attitude, by the way, are either guys who just assume if they have kids they’ll have a stay-at-home wife to handle all those unpleasantness, or they’re women of the mindset that they are the only decent member of their gender. Rather a lot of the single, childless women I’ve worked with fully expect to be married and/or be moms someday, and they’re worried sick about how to handle maternity leave and juggling a career.

Comment #90: mythago  on  03/25  at  10:27 PM

OK - there are two things I was trying to say, and I should have separated them more clearly:

First, as a matter of policy, I believe, it is not my business, an employer’s business, or anyone else’s to judge the reasons for anyone wanting flexibility, personal time, reduced hours.  I have personal inclinations, but so does everyone, and so to be fair the best solution is to allow people time regardless of circumstances.

BUT, as a personal inclination, I would be more inclined as a friend to help someone who had a tragedy befall them than someone who needs help under other circumstances.  For example, I have expensive tickets to an event tonight I REALLY was looking forward to and my best friend asks me to babysit her kid, I will probably respectfully say no.  But if my best friend is having trouble walking because she has arthritis and needs me to say pick up her mother in X and drive her to my friend’s home in Y, I would do it in a heartbeat.  Same with someone who comes in late every morning because they drop off their kid and someone who comes in late in the morning because they wake up with arthritic pain in the morning.  I just don’t think the two are the same.

Mythago -the reason I brought it up was not to say that I think mothers with kids should get less support but because I thought history_mom WAS in fact sticking to “my reasons for time off are better than your reasons” and I wanted to demonstrate that it’s possible for different people to feel differently.  Lots of people prefer being busy

I should add that I consider having kids a sacred trust and something people need to consider carefully before embarking on.  Many people don’t, I know, not to the extent I do.  I think it’s very unfair that we live in a country where we make it hard for so many people to bring up kids properly and I’m doing my share to change it.  But if you don’t have what it takes to have kids, even if it’s the fault of an inequitable economy, and you have access to contraception/abortion - DON’T HAVE THEM.  It’s wrong to the kids.  I practice what I preach - I would love to have kids, and I’m in the age I still can.  But I don’t, because emotionally and financially I’m not there.  My parents abused me, and I take having kids very seriously.  There are many people who have kids, who I don’t think should have.  I think the world would be full of happier people if all those who shouldn’t have kids didn’t.  I don’t think it contradicts with feminism one bit.  I think Feminism is ultimately about treating all human beings with the dignity they deserve - kids too. 

Also, Chingona, instead of cursing, do you mind EXPLAINING to me why you think having kids and having cancer are similar?  Because I can’t help it - the first seems to me an opportunity for an incredible amount of joy and the second seems like a tragedy.  I can tell you that I want the former more than the latter.

And please, please try to understand - the only reason I (can’t talk for anyone else) am bitching about child care and cancer, is because in all the places I worked with those were the only two reasons you got any consideration and flexibility.  If you worked in places where everyone BUT mothers got flexibility, I’d understand why you’re upset but please respect the fact that it wasn’t my experience at all.  I was struggling with several autoimmune diseases and severe PTSD but couldn’t get away with anything other than regular vacations.  It seems others on the board have had the same experiences.  If I had seen people with children, cancer, MS, depression, people who needed vacation, etc all getting equal consideration I wouldn’t be complaining.  Why would I?

Comment #91: Lurker  on  03/25  at  11:46 PM

I didn’t say leaving early for a Vegas vacation was bad, just that my parent co-workers get to do it because they have kids (who they can use as an excuse) and I don’t get to do it because I don’t have kids.  I am not sure if that can be categorized as a complaint about the employee (who lied and took advantage of our employer’s sympathy for parents) or about the management (who, in your estimation, it seems, should just let us all leave two days early for our scheduled vacation for any reason or no reason). 

Maybe it could be more safely filed with all the other complaints about how people who are willing to lie get away with a lot more than people who are honest.  I certainly CAN categorize it as a complaint that I should have kept to myself if I didn’t want the hassle of hitting a nerve, apparently.

Comment #92: GumbyAnne  on  03/25  at  11:49 PM

I should add that I work in very very corporate america for the last 10 years.  (hopefully I’m leaving soon).  All the places I worked in were very risk-averse environments with large departments with Human Resources lawyers.  I worked closely w. HR for years.  HR policies are driven by legal risk - and legal risk comes from mistreating parents, people with illnesses such as cancer, and race discrimination.  So these corporations tend to protect themselves by being VERY flexible with people with those issues - but not others.  Judging by other commentators, my experience is not unique.

I totally believe that some commentators experienced different things - but that’s where I’m coming from.

Good night!

Comment #93: Lurker  on  03/25  at  11:52 PM

I am not sure if that can be categorized as a complaint about the employee (who lied and took advantage of our employer’s sympathy for parents) or about the management (who, in your estimation, it seems, should just let us all leave two days early for our scheduled vacation for any reason or no reason).

That’s not actually my estimation. I think it’s Mezosub who said we should all be able to call in for whatever reason whenever. I think your co-worker shouldn’t lie and abuse a sympathetic employer.

Vacation/personal time in the typical American job sucks, and as someone mentioned upthread, there’s a lot of wage theft and fraud that goes on, as well, in unpaid overtime and the like. I think that creates an incentive to cheat the system - I had a friend who used to call this “equifying” - taking any liberty you can when you feel like exploited.

But when someone “cheats” their employer, they’re also making problems for their co-workers. I think people should use their planned vacation time when they have something planned (spa day, ball game, vacation, whatever) and only call in sick or go home early when they’re sick or it’s an emergency.

However, I’ve seen emergencies come up for all sorts of people in all sorts of family arrangements. What is so frustrating - and really, I’m repeating myself and repeating several other commenters - is that when the topic comes up, all of a sudden you see everyone thrusting their hand in the air saying “Oh! Oh! Call on me! I worked with someone who used their kid as an excuse!”

So the pushback isn’t that that never happens ever or that kids are the only “real” reason to want to not be at work. It’s that if, as everyone has admitted when called out on it, really it’s only a few people and most working parents pick up their share of the slack and plenty of childless people also do things that create extra work for their co-workers, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU BRINGING IT UP AS IF IT WAS EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING?

I mean, you admit it’s not evidence of anything. But you just have to tell this story. Why? Please tell me why the phrase “work-life balance” immediately makes you think of the cheater, but not the 95 percent of working mothers who are terrified of losing their jobs or being permanently side-lined if the kid gets sick one more time this year?

Comment #94: chingona  on  03/26  at  12:36 AM

Reading this reminds me: back in 2005, bringing a female blogger onto a blog like Pandagon was really unusual, and so Jesse and I both got some kind of weird attitudes from some people about his choice to ask me to join the blog.  We’ve joked before about how a lot of people outright assumed that I had used my feminine wiles to lure Jesse into giving me this spot

What did you three do with Auguste?

Comment #95: Hector B.  on  03/26  at  12:49 AM

Also, Chingona, instead of cursing, do you mind EXPLAINING to me why you think having kids and having cancer are similar?

I don’t think they’re similar. I didn’t say they were similar. You seem to think having kids is similar to starting a side business. What a lot of people consistently miss here is that getting to leave work when a kid is sick or daycare is closed or whatever is not a benefit to the parent. It is an acknowledgment that children are in a dependent position.

The child cannot care for itself, particularly when sick. As a society, we’ve made a choice that responsibility for a child fails exclusively to its parents. The parents find someone to take care of the child while they are at work, but if those arrangements fall through or the kid gets sick during the day and daycare determines that, under its policies, the child cannot stay there, some adult must get the child. The child cannot be left standing on a street corner because the parents feel bad about leaving work for their co-workers. That’s why it’s treated differently - not to reward parents for having children but because we don’t really have another way to provide an adult to take care of a sick kid.

Again, in case it’s not clear, let me re-iterate that I DO NOT THINK PEOPLE SHOULD NEED TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR WANTING TO HAVE A PERSONAL LIFE, WHATEVER THAT PERSONAL LIFE CONSISTS OF. If you want to take time off, take it. If you don’t want to work overtime, don’t work it.

So, yes, having kids is a choice. But getting a call from daycare that says the kid has diarrhea and a fever of 101 and you have to come get him is not a choice, and it’s not something I can schedule, the way I could schedule a side business or a vacation. And it’s not one of the immense joys of parenthood.

Comment #96: chingona  on  03/26  at  12:56 AM

Also, Chingona, instead of cursing, do you mind EXPLAINING to me why you think having kids and having cancer are similar?

Please, don’t play dumb. chingona’s point, as you’re well aware, is that you dismissed genuine, not-lying-because-I’m-secretly-going-to-Vegas time taken off for child-related issues as unworthy because people (that is, women) choose to have kids, therefore wanting to stay home with a sick kid is exactly like the guy who regularly “calls in sick” (i.e. hung over) and sticks everybody else with his work.

If you’ve spent much time in HR you’re surely aware that the only reason HR cares about family issues or racial discrimination is that there has been and is so many problems in this areas that there are actually laws addressing them.

chingona @94, you know why. Because there are a lot of sexist fuckmuppets who truly enjoy engaging in, or encouraging, women-versus-women fingerpointing. And there are few things as typically and despicably viewed as women’s work as much as childrearing.

Comment #97: mythago  on  03/26  at  12:58 AM

I was playing dumb because Chingona cursed me and I was hoping to trigger a rational response out of her instead of more abuse.  I’m not sure why saying people who willingly and joyfully take on burdens are not the same as people who burdens fall on their laps.  That’s the distinction I am trying to make.  And that’s a distinction I made very clear is my person preference in conduct with friends rather than If another example would clarify, according to the same rule, I would be more inclined to make a sacrifice to help a friend who’s kid has cancer over a friend who is going on vacation and needs someone to feed their cat.  My point wasn’t “everything to do with kids makes you privileged” but that just because you chose to have kids, doesn’t mean it’s my moral duty to drop everything to help you the way it would be if I saw someone falling down the stairs leading to the subway.  But while that informs my personal decisions, I absolutely don’t think it should be the ground for HR policies.

Please read my comments before miscategorizing them.  I don’t think this and didn’t say this: “you dismissed genuine, not-lying-because-I’m-secretly-going-to-Vegas time taken off for child-related issues as unworthy because people (that is, women) choose to have kids, therefore wanting to stay home with a sick kid is exactly like the guy who regularly “calls in sick” (i.e. hung over)”. 

I’d really appreciate if you read my entire posts instead of tearing into me.

Comment #98: Lurker  on  03/26  at  01:11 AM

If you had extended the courtesy of actually reading an entire post to history_mom, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Comment #99: chingona  on  03/26  at  01:14 AM

Well, I have now already said uncle and wished that I didn’t say it, but I’ll quote myself (from the original comment) in my defense:

I don’t know if this contributes to the discussion at all, it is just my own experience with the childed/childless divide and how pronounced it actually is even in a decidedly feminist workplace, and one where other variables like gender, age and income differences are basically removed.

I work for Planned Parenthood and one might expect them to be an organization who would make an honest effort to be fair to all reproductive choices (they are). In my department and there are about 16 women of similar age making basically the same money who represent a variety of different choices with regards to children now/someday/never and so I thought I might offer my perspective on how that works out.  My estimation of my own unique workplace is that mothers get more flexibility than non-mothers and the Vegas example was the one than came instantly to mind.  Now I am thinking of better examples, but since I shouldn’t have even shared the first one, I’ll keep them to myself.  To be fair, I also know if a woman who gets lots of extra flexibility for being a student and abuses that as well.  She is enrolled in night classes but somehow manages to always have “school stuff” to do on the busiest mornings of the week.  I don’t know.  I’m gonna shut up and go to bed now.

Comment #100: GumbyAnne  on  03/26  at  01:20 AM

Mythago - “If you’ve spent much time in HR you’re surely aware that the only reason HR cares about family issues or racial discrimination is that there has been and is so many problems in this areas that there are actually laws addressing them.”

I only half agree.  Sure - HR cares about these things only because there are laws addressing them.  They aren’t doing it out of the goodness of my heart.  Are you suggesting that the reason there isn’t lots of legal precedent defending those with invisible disabilities & mental health problems is because they aren’t real problems?  That’s what I read in history_mom’s comments, too.  They are real problems, but there is way less awareness, and it’s less in people’s faces - it’s harder to tell - so people are generally very dismissive of issues like that.  I suspect that’s why those kinds of cases while theoretically illegal, don’t have good protections in terms of case law.

Also, for the record, I don’t believe I ever encountered a mom/parent exploiting the privileges given to them.  As far as I’m concerned, that in itself isn’t the problem.  The problem for me was seeing that some people got respect and consideration, while others - like me - didn’t.  Some problems are considered socially “real” and others aren’t.

Comment #101: Lurker  on  03/26  at  01:23 AM

Chingona -  how about you write a post that actually explains why you disagree with me, instead of insulting me?

I did read history_mom’s post, and had two problems with it: 

first, she BOTH said everyone should get consideration and mocked the reasons single people in her workplace had for taking time off work.  If you go back and read it, you’ll see that what she said was that all the time she took off for childcare was actually less than the time her coworkers spent being too tired, taking vacation or just not feeling like coming to work.  This is not something one writes if they think single people could possibly have legitimate reasons to take time off of work.  Then, instead of just responding to me along the lines of ‘that’s not what I meant, you misunderstood me/I wasn’t clear’, she asked me if I was “thick”.

second, she completely refused to accept that in some work environments, ONLY working moms/parents receive any kind of consideration.  She seems to work in a place where anyone can call in sick and get away with it, not everyone’s so lucky.  She continued the discussion as if working moms are routinely denied consideration in all working places - while ignoring my and others’ testimony that in our work, pretty much ONLY parents and cancer patients get that consideration.

Comment #102: Lurker  on  03/26  at  01:47 AM

Lurker: reading comprehension fail. 

I said that the time I needed to take off as a mother or due to my own illnesses (because the kidlet is a germy thing) was AT LEAST EQUAL to the times my co-workers have taken off for any number of reasons. As someone mentioned above, I used those specific examples as a contrast to a specific anecdote about a mom who used her kids to leave work for Vegas earlier than scheduled.  You see, there is this whole thing called a “dialogue” or “conversation” happening in this thread and comments usually touch directly upon what others have written before. Next time, I’ll helpfully blockquote so as not to confuse you.  If you read mocking in my tone, you should recognize that you are imposing that tone on my original post. This post, however, does contain mockery.

And once you have pulled out the neo-sexist “children are choice, therefore working moms should suck it” argument you should probably concede that my tone or the contents of my post have little to do with your offense.  So I guess we can continue to justify mommy-tracking and the work-life balance because having children was a choice and the large majority of women who become mothers should just accept curtailments put upon their professional success or wages without regard to their ACTUAL performance compared to their co-workers. Because we chose our second class status. 

I happened to like the way Bitch PhD has framed the “children as choice” meme that tends to get thrown about in conversations about working women.

Comment #103: history_mom  on  03/26  at  03:21 AM

Lurker. Try my comment @ 96. You’ve ignored it. Perhaps you didn’t see it. That’s really all I have to say to you because you seem very determined to find offense in comments that clearly don’t contain them.

Comment #104: chingona  on  03/26  at  10:32 AM

Anecdote: as part of the engineering program at my university, we were required to take a seminar on engineering careers, which basically involved a different engineer coming in every week and giving a lecture on his or her, but usually his, career.  Almost every single one of these mostly male lecturers was asked by mostly male students about work/life balance. 

I am not trying to say that this doesn’t disproportionately affect mothers, but that I think most men feel similarly burdened.  The expectation that professionals devote every waking hour of their lives to work may affect mothers most, but it also affects everybody else.  You would think, since pretty much everyone wishes they had more free time, there would be something we could do about it.

Comment #105: mamram  on  03/26  at  01:52 PM

The expectation that professionals devote every waking hour of their lives to work may affect mothers most, but it also affects everybody else.  You would think, since pretty much everyone wishes they had more free time, there would be something we could do about it.

This is why I am a firm believer in social conflict theory and Marxism.  The capitalist profit motive puts pressure on all firms to squeeze the maximum amount of productivity out of workers in order to keep shareholders’ investments flowing into the firms.  The employment policies used by capitalists to achieve these results is inherently exploitive.  The more the worker is at work, the more he or she is expected to be at work. 

However, people are not industrial machines.  Humans cannot run at maximum output 24/7/365, no matter how much the capitalists would like for them to.  We need a good sound labor revolution, complete with unionization for professionals.  Collective bargaining power is one of the ways to push for stronger labor regulations and enhanced enforcement of those regulations, complete with heavy fines and punitive damage awards against employers who are found engaging in discriminatory and exploitive labor practices.

Comment #106: Mezosub  on  03/26  at  02:46 PM

Lurker @101 - um, you are aware of the ADA, aren’t you? Since you worked in HR for so many years and are totally an expert on HR rules?

Your point, no matter how much you think you’re backpedaling, was indeed that “children are a choice” and therefore moms who have to deal with child-related issues “chose” them, so they should STFU because you once worked somewhere that you felt didn’t respect your own need for time off.  People are tearing into you because you’re saying bigoted, whiny things and pretending otherwise - not because they’re failing to read your posts.

People choose to have children. They don’t choose to have a kid get cancer, or fall down a flight of stairs, or develop a 103-degree fever right before Mommy has to leave for work.

Comment #107: mythago  on  03/26  at  10:01 PM

People who have kids will need more time off, on average, to deal with illness, because there are more peoples’ illnesses to be dealt with.  This is just a pure fact.  I don’t think it’s wrong to give them that time.  The work structure that demands someone be at work 40 hours a week or be considered not dedicated and perhaps unemployable is wrong.

I believe we are giving that time not to the parent to have fun with, but to the child to give it the care of an adult.  It would be very hard for me to even begin to begrudge that.

Sure there are both parents and non-parents who lie about their reasons to miss work.  I had a single male co-worker who may have been abusing his sick leave.  He was always at zero or negative hours on his sick time (we had a rather generous policy of allowing accumulation of up to six months’ worth over the years if you never used it).  It may have been because he liked staying home playing video games. 

Or it may have been because he was anxious and depressive and needed to be home and playing video games was what he did when he was home to reduce his anxiety.

Comment #108: oldfeminist  on  03/27  at  11:32 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.