Why (and how) we shouldn't have it all

Debates over whether women should lean in, lean out, have it all or just some have been raging over the last few years, with few clear answers. Should women emulate men? Adjust what they’re doing to gain power? Opt out entirely?

At this week’s WAPPP Seminar on “Different Ways of Not Having It All: Work, Care, and Gender Change in the New Economy,” NYU Sociologist Kathleen Gerson suggests that the answers can’t, and shouldn’t be that simple.

While women have made tremendous strides in the workplace and at home, we’re entering a whole new economic era, where the boundaries between work and home, local and global job markets, and part and full-time work are all blurring---to say nothing of changing gender norms in most vocations.

Meanwhile, even household norms are changing, with more women working outside the home even through a child’s life, work tensions affecting marital relationships, and greater expectations of parental involvement throughout a child’s life.

As a result, both economics and home life are changing and becoming even less secure: careers aren't quite the linear, predictable paths they used to be, nor are household expectations of, and demands on both partners.

There are three main ways that people are thinking about these changes:

• “Neotraditional” arrangements, in which both partners work and are committed to one another, but one partner “specializes” in care, while the other “specializes” in breadwinning
• “Self-Reliance,” where, even in committed relationships, both partners work to provide money and care in equal doses---without counting on the other.
• and “Gender flexibility,” in which there is an egalitarian sharing of earning and caretaking, but a vague meaning of equality: care and breadwinning are responsibilities assigned not by gender, just what needs to be done

Both men and women would prefer gender-flexibility as an ideal arrangement. But in practice, women tend to fall back to more self-reliant positions, while men reflexively tend toward neotraditional arrangements. This is partly because men are still under the subtle yet profound pressure of the male breadwinner ideal: a man who can’t support his family is unmarriageable and “isn’t a man.” Even equality is seen as chivalrous: “equality means the woman has a choice; but I don’t.”

In practice, a third of people are “neotraditionalists,” with fathers left managing time-demanding jobs. About a third of people are “on their own,” and are left to rear children by themselves or without a committed partner. One of six couples have reversed traditional roles, with women providing more financially, but this leading to resentment in the relationship. And another sixth are “equal, but exhausted.”

At the end of the day, these choices are not about gender, but universal hopes to have a balanced life with predictable work and secure relationships---all permutations of which will require trade-offs. The erosion of job and relationship security are permanent conditions with which we must all contend; to do so we may have to redefine the responsibilities of being a man and a woman in the modern world.




Photo Source

Lean Back: How do we stop working too much?

“He’s a very good employee; he works late every day.”

How many times have you heard someone say something like this, implying that the amount of time someone works is indicative of the quality of their work?

In this week’s seminar on “Imposed vs. Desired Professional Identities: Embracing, Passing, Revealing and their Consequences,” Professor Erin Reid of Boston University looked at whether this idea is true, and how workers at a competitive management consulting firm feel about it.

Professor Reid starts with the idea that the most desirable worker, according to this organization, is one that is always available for and committed to their work---a profile that is assumed to describe men more than women, who supposedly prioritize home life more. And in fact, large firms often assess their personnel based not on the quality of their output, but on the time they put in and their attitude towards doing so; the idea of “billable hours” practically imposes this on an organization.

She finds, however, that even in this competitive, demanding organization, more than 57% of the workers feel a conflict with this norm: they don’t want the time commitment to harm their family lives, they don’t want their health to suffer, and fundamentally, they don’t think putting in more hours necessary means better work or a better life.

But the way they deal with this conflict differs. Those that openly reveal their preferences for normal working hours by asking for leave or telling colleagues about their non-office priorities, were often penalized by the firm: passed over for promotions or outright fired. But others simply passed off their preferences by making others think that they were working longer than they were, or that they were committed to office work mentally even while prioritizing non-office activities. These people were often rewarded by their colleagues and by management.

In the short term, this would indicate that to get the best of both worlds, employees should just pretend to be committed to 18-hour days while actually finding ways around it---ducking out early, making arrangements to work from home, being strategic about who in the office they tell and how.

But more consequentially, this conflict speaks to an American tendency to think that “more time at work” equals “better work,” which is not necessarily true---in fact it’s often the opposite. Not only do work-life balance and social relations suffer, but the quality of work itself suffers when people are overworked and exhausted. And contrary to common perceptions, women and men are realizing this at equal rates.

While the gender equality discourse has recently been dominated by Sheryl Sandberg’s exhortation to “Lean In”---i.e. to work as hard as you must to get a place at the table---Rosa Brooks writes that “We've managed to create a world in which ubiquity” in the office and the home “is valued above all.” This is an untenable recipe for disaster.

Instead, women “need to fight for our right to lean out...If we're going to fight the culture of workplace ubiquity, and the parallel and equally pernicious culture of intensive parenting, we need to do it together---and we need to bring [men] along, too. They need to lean out in solidarity, for their own sake as well as ours.”



Photo Source

It’s as simple as it is profound...

The Woman: Melanne Verveer, U.S. Ambassador-at-large for Global Women’s Issues

Last week I had the honor of hearing Ambassador Verveer speak to a crowded room of incredibly impressive women -- the capstone to three days of events, courtesy of the Women in Public Policy bi-annual board meeting. While this post will certainly fall short of the event, I will try and capture just a smidgeon of the essence from someone whose impact is as simple as it is profound: focus on women.  

Four Areas

Ambassador Verveer stressed four areas critical to elevating the status of women: 

1. Access to education
2. Economic participation
3. Access to basic health care
4. Political engagement

These four simple criteria provide both the foundation, as well as the strategies, to gauge and increase the status of women anywhere in the world. And, unfortunately, nowhere does parity on all four of these criteria exist. 

Why are these areas important? 

Education: When women and girls are educated, it provides a positive feedback loop that breaks the cycle of poverty. Girls marry later, have fewer children, raise healthier families, and are more likely to invest in their community. It has an exponential, and extensive, ripple effect that raises individuals and communities out of poverty. It is often colloquially referred to as The Girl Effect.

Economic participation: When women have access to economic opportunities, they reinvest 90 percent -- 90 percent -- into their families, communities, and countries. They raise the standard of living not just for themselves, but the world around them. They invest in the education of their children, the resources of their communities, and their household and financial assets. In places where banking sectors are slim or nonexistent, increased assets in the form of livestock or crops often serve as a necessary form of capital to protect against financial shocks, usually for medical emergencies. 

However, it goes beyond this; in countries where women are economically empowered, the entire countries’ GDP rises. Goldman Sachs calls it “Womenomics”. At a 2011 APEC summit, Secretary Clinton remarked that, “by increasing women’s participation in the economy and enhancing their efficiency and productivity, we can bring about a dramatic impact on the competitiveness and growth of our economies.” Ambassador Verveer also gave this staggering statistic: $46 billion is lost in economic growth from restricted job opportunities for women. The numbers seem to speak for themselves, but they are infrequently echoed.

Healthcare: In addition to economic inclusion, and especially in developing counties, having access to basic healthcare services is critical to ensuring equality. Women and girls are less likely to receive necessary immunizations or medical treatment, and limited financial resources are often extended only for boys. However, when women and girls have access to basic medical care, they are less likely to die in childbirth, more likely to see their children live past the age of five, and tend to raise healthier families. It provides another mechanism to break the cycle of poverty while simultaneously decreasing maternal and child mortality rates. 

Political participation: Political engagement is paramount. In countries where women are not allowed to receive inheritance or are denied property rights, they lack the legal and political rights to change these laws and policies. Even in the U.S., women represent less than 17 percent of Congress. Holding such a minimal amount of power prevents the dialogue and discourse from tackling issues impacting 50 percent of the population -- equal pay, preventative health care, and violence against women. Outside the U.S., and in newly minted countries, constitutions are being written without a single female voice. The inclusion and acceptance of women in the political process is essential to increasing their equality.

While these four areas are essential, they are not exhaustive. Ambassador Verveer discussed several other arenas where the role of women are paramount, yet often neglected. 

Women, Peace and Security

In December of last year, the U. S. State Department released the U.S. Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security. The plan calls for women to be integrated into peace processes, conflict-prevention, transitional committees, and negotiating teams. Perhaps more importantly, it provides a bold declaration from the U.S. government that women are essential, perhaps even the crucial linchpin, to continued peace, stability and prosperity for countries. Personally, I like to believe the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates send a similar international message. 

Women are the canary

Ambassador Verveer said the State Department often views the role of women in a society as the canary. In regions where international security concerns are heightened, the role of women can speak volumes about the direction the country is headed. While the Ambassador did not mention specific situations, the metaphor easily translates: when the role of women is silenced or compromised, countries often find themselves headed towards instability.  

The importance of allies

Ambassador Verveer added an additional, often overlooked, component to the discussion - the importance of allies, specifically men, in securing the equality and inclusion of women. Allies are fundamental to encouraging this paradigm shift in women’s economic and political participation.  “Women’s issues are still perceived as ‘soft’. In reality, women’s issues are the hardest issues out there.” However, this asymmetry in power can be broken, especially when groups are familiar with the social, moral, and economic justifications of women's rights.  

Melissa Sandgren is a MPP1 at the Harvard Kennedy School and a participant in WAPPP's From Harvard Square to the Oval Office program.

*Photo cpyright World Economic Forum (www.weforum.org) / Photo Eric Miller emiller@iafrica.com