20 Oct I Cannot Unsee This… And Neither Should You
I have a family member who is a partner in a large firm. One night, during a holiday dinner he casually mentions that his firm created a special “non-equity partnership” position for peope who deserve to be partners, but for some reason aren’t able to put in the long hours. My interest was piqued and I began asking questions. He said the position is mainly for women with families and that they aren’t given equity in the firm because, as he put it, “they aren’t putting in as many hours as I am.” The firm boasts a whopping 20% female partners. This family member happens to be a single man with no kids. I kinda lost it on him. Sure, Christmas Eve might NOT have been the right venue, but this shit makes me angry. No. Livid.
A couple of weeks ago a friend on Facebook updated his status with a commentary on his venture into Crossfit. The gist of the post was that he was ashamed he couldn’t perform better than a woman. This man has two daughters.
This family member and this friend, by all intents and purposes, are well-educated, respected, productive individuals. They are nice guys who mean well and I like them both very much. And yet when it comes to the issue of gender equality, they have no clue. This is how far we have yet to go to educate our OWN nation on the skewed perceptions and inequities of men and women.
The majority of the rest of the world is worse off.
I fought my battle with goliath through the legal system over my gender and it was certainly my awakening to the realities of this issue. I can no longer stand idly by pretending these things aren’t real. More importantly, I want better for my children. I feel duty-bound to change these misperceptions however I can whether it be at the holiday dinner table, in a response on Facbeook, or here. These ideas are simply no longer acceptable in my world. They shouldn’t be acceptable in anyone’s world, and yet they are.
UN Women – and arm of the U.N. that focuses on women’s issues – created a powerful new ad campaign where they use the most widely used search engine, Google, to illustrate how prevalent sexism and misogyny are worldwide. Everyone knows that Google will automatically populate the most popular search terms when you start to type a phrase, and when you type certain terms about women… the results are no less than shocking.
When I first saw it, I thought maybe it was phony. I know a little about Google and I know they tailor some search results based on previous searches, geography, etc. But when I put the exact same phrases they used in the campaign into my own browser I literally put my hand over my mouth and gasped. THESE are real search results from MY computer. This is something I cannot unsee or unknow and you shouldn’t either. This is what the world thinks of me and my daughter. I used pictures of my daughter as a baby to mimic the original campaign and illustrate just how absurd this is.
And because I’m fair and also skeptical, I wanted to see the other side. I put the same phrases in for men. These are the real results.
Apparently the world thinks my daughter should not be a cop, a pastors, fight in combat or go to college but men should just avoid wearing shorts. Nice.
To all the people who think I’m a little too far down the feminist road; who think that just because I fought a harrowing legal battle for the right be treated fairly as a woman, that now everything looks like gender discrimination – I give you this challenge. Put these phrases into your Google search box now. Do not pretend this isn’t real.
The sad truth is, my rose-colored glasses were lifted and I’m no longer ignorant to the issue. And you shouldn’t be either. Particularly if you have children.
Realize that this is not something that only happens in developing countries with fundamentalist rulers… it’s here. I guarantee it’s in your family, around your dinner tables, in the off-handed comments and jokes of “throwing like a girl,” “crying like a girl,” or “if a girl can do it… ” This is where it persists and is allowed to fuel the world’s idea of what women are worth.
But there is a search phrase that applies to BOTH men and women. Apparently the world thinks its high time we both “grow up” and you know what? I couldn’t agree more. Perhaps peeking over those rose-colored glasses is a nice start.
genderneutrallanguage
Posted at 02:43h, 21 OctoberSo this isn’t very clear. Are you upset because the law firm isn’t pursuing “gender equality” regardless of merit. You know, because gender is more important than actual ability or dedication.
Or are you upset because the law firm is creating a partner status that will be more easily obtained by people unable or unwilling to work 80-100 hours a week, and someone had the audacity to recognize the fact that women spend less time at paid work then men do.
Shannon Lell
Posted at 03:30h, 21 OctoberGood question, it really is a difficult scenario to understand and perhaps I didn’t make it clearn enough. It’s also interesting that of all the things I wrote, that is what your question is??
However, the women in this firm clearly worked hard enough, and were capable of enough to be considered for partner. But because they have families and are either unwilling or unable to put in 80-100 hours a week, then they are not given the same equity stake in the firm. I ask you, what kind of message does this send to the value of family? Should all capable and intelligent women just stop reproducing so that they can achieve the same status and benefits as people who do not have children and/or spouses to take care of their children.
It’s more the message it sends about the value of family than anything. Also, the firm has only 20% women partners.
No comment on the Google searches?
genderneutrallanguage
Posted at 06:16h, 21 OctoberGoogle searches are very different depending on your search history. My results where very different than yours, but there is no evidence of that. This makes it sorta pointless to try and talk about since we have very different unverifiable information.
So someone working 40 hours/week deserves all the same status income benefits and entitlements as someone working 100?
The law firm sends a very bad message about the value of FAMILY. Woman =/= family. If a woman wants the high powered high paying high status job, she needs to do the same thing men do. Unload the burden of family onto someone else. Find a spouse willing to stay home and tend the kids. Hire a full time nanny. Or simply don’t have kids. These are the options that men have. Women need the same options as men, not better ones. There is nothing stopping these women from finding a househusband or hiring a nanny to unload these responsibilities onto with out completely giving up on reproduction.
Shannon Lell
Posted at 16:58h, 21 OctoberYes, but therein lies the problem. Women don’t WANT better options. Women (because we are designed to want this) want to take care of our children ourselves. Many women desire that option. It should be an option that is valued by society in large, instead it’s penalized.
Because of this, women are unable to reach the higher levels of leadership in this country and for that, we ALL suffer. I’m not about women being like men and men being like women… I’m a culture that values each inherent strength and allows those strengths in around the board room tables because they are important for a society to have both perspectives.
genderneutrallanguage
Posted at 18:38h, 21 OctoberAll real options all real choices are trade offs. Men don’t get to be equity partners in large law firms by working 40 hours a week so they have time to spend with their families, go to little Timmy’s football game and Suzies band performance. Men trade spending time with their families for power wealth and status. If anybody male, female, trans, or asexual wants the wealth power and prestige of being an equity partner it requires the same sacrifice of family time. It is not “penalizing women” to treat women the same as men, to expect the same level of dedication and performance to the firm. This is equality of opportunity, and that is real equality. Expecting equal numbers regardless of merit or choices is not equality.
I fully agree that parenting should be valued by society at large. It needs to be held in much higher regard than it currently is. Being a good parent, one that is worthy of prestige as a parent, requires sacrifices. One of the big sacrifices is career. If you are going to be a good parent, one worthy of being held in high regard and respected as a parent, you won’t have the time to pursue a career.
If women are to make gains into the top levels of business, it’s not about women. There is no shortage of women smart, strong and driven enough to be equity partners. If women are to do better “in a man’s world”, the solution is not to promote women. The solution is to break out dated dogmatic restrictive and oppressive gender roles for men. If women are really to earn the equity partner status, they need to be able to find partners willing to be homemakers. If women are to really earn the equity partner status there needs to stop being people like you saying “Women (because we are designed to want this) want to take care of our children ourselves.”
Either men and women have very similar drive desires and motivations, and so we should see equal numbers in board rooms and homemakers OR men and women have very different drives which will lead to different choice that will create very different numbers of homemakers and CEO’s
Shannon Lell
Posted at 20:19h, 21 OctoberI think we agree on a few ideas about the value of family. It is disregarded as an important endeavor in our society and should be placed my higher on the list of worthy uses of our time and resources.
But if the world follows your logic that you can’t be a dedicated parent and also rise up into leadership then our future seems bleak. I want people who are capable parents to become capable leaders. I think our world suffers when only the materialistically motivated people are the ones in control. Need we point to the recent economic crisis as it specifically pertains to the mortgage industry?
We need a balance of voices at the top. We need women (who are bioligically predispositioned to desire a family and the care of) to be able to be leaders too. If our society does not value their input, does not promote and support their rise through the ranks of business and government, then we are left with a lot of extrinsically motivated people making all the rules.
How does that make for a just world?
Linda Webb
Posted at 17:20h, 21 October“Yes, but therein lies the problem. Women don’t WANT better options. Women (because we are designed to want this) want to take care of our children ourselves. Many women desire that option. It should be an option that is valued by society in large, instead it’s penalized.”
I agree — even though there were a couple times my husband did the take the kids to the doctor thing, I hated every one of those appointments I couldn’t be at! I did want it to always be me.
Why is it wrong that my workplace compensates me differently or perceives different value from me when I want to willingly make that trade off myself?
Shannon Lell
Posted at 17:34h, 21 OctoberAs I said before… I don’t know the answers, but the results are 20% of women in the boardroom. Nationwide, the statistics are even lower. This isn’t good for our society as a whole. I’m not saying leadership positions need to be 50/50, but according the Malcolm Gladwell who wrote “The Tipping Point” you need at least 33% to affect change. When we’re talking about the people who shape our laws, we should CERTAINLY have at least 33% of women in these positions. But we don’t.
The messages and incentives are clear and they are backward.
Linda Webb
Posted at 18:08h, 21 OctoberI think I figured out my problem with your basic premise. You’re assuming position and power is the only reward and incentive that has value, but I disagree.
The reward and value I have in being a primary influence and shaper of my children is way more than I value in my role at the office. To have traded some there (at work) to be more involved at home — I think is a very life-satisfying trade.
Why is 20% a bad number? How does that harm our nation? Funny that you and I both pulled Gladwell books out in this discussion! I haven’t read The Tipping Point, although I am aware of it and the basic premise.
I think it’s the “the messages and incentives are clear and they are backward” — but the message and incentive to be involved raising your family comes from within the family unit, not the boardroom. Why would the boardroom incentivize that? It’s not the boardroom’s place to provide those incentives — but the fulfillment some women get from being highly involved wives and mothers provides plenty of incentive for those that are so inclined, does it not?
Shannon Lell
Posted at 18:35h, 21 OctoberI believe there is GREAT value in raising children. I think it is one of the most important roles we have in society. The problem is, society doesn’t seem to think so. Sure, you and I do, but the messages corporations send (perhaps not yours) is not that message.
The message is work harder, work more and you will be rewarded and promoted. If you take time off for your family or refuse to stay overtime and attend the “optional dinner” then you will be penalized.
It’s a cultural value and perception that needs to shift.
20% is bad because it takes 33% to affect change. Women and men bring different world-views to the table. They have different sensibilities and that is a good thing. The more diverse ideas you have in a system, the more likely you are to come up with original and progressive ideas. When board tables and conference rooms and even our government is represented with 20% (or less) women, then those sensibilities do not get represented. It is of my opinion that we all suffer because of it.
Change is happening, but change only happens when people stay aware and don’t hide from the issues. Same goes for anxiety. 🙂
Linda Webb
Posted at 19:27h, 21 OctoberI think the difference is that I think it is acceptable that a firm says “work more or work harder at this company and you will make more and promote further” and doesn’t say “if you have a child you can work less hours but still make more money than someone who doesn’t have a child” — how is a firm supposed to reward that? How is that “fair” ?
And I think you and I both are on the same page that rewards are more than monetary, especially when it comes to child rearing.
But I guess — it’s all in defining success and reward, isn’t it? I don’t think a woman who chooses not to have children is any less of a woman. I also don’t think if she doesn’t have pull of child rearing and can put more in her work life because that’s the balance she’s chosen for herself that she shouldn’t advance farther or faster, at least as far and fast as her capabilities and desires take her.
Most of all, I think the value of a woman, or any human, is defined other than if she has children or doesn’t have children, if she has a job or a career, or sits at a boardroom table or not. She is valuable because she exists. Her rewards in her life come from wherever she chooses to find those.
And I also think women have more influence than just in board rooms or the halls of government anyway. No, I don’t think it’s bad that we have 20% women around a board room table, or whatever percentage we have in congress nowadays, and growing — but I guess I’m saying when we apply our time and efforts to shaping future generations, we have influence there, also. Any person sitting at the table in either of those settings as a myriad of opinions and influences around them, and I daresay more than 33% or whatever magic number it is comes from females in their lives. So for the woman who pursues motherhood instead of corporate career; she’s not giving up her chance at meaningful influence and power to shape society. We have much more than you give us credit for along all walks of life!
I hope you know I totally get what you are saying; I just think I’m defining success, rewards, and power and influence in wider terms than you may be.
Shannon Lell
Posted at 20:13h, 21 OctoberYou bring up another really valid and interesting point. It DOES sound acceptable for firms to reward hard, long hours. If someone is willing to put those hours in, then why shouldn’t they benefit? I get it.
But the damage done is in the unintended consequences of that mentality. The unintended consequence is that a balanced work/home life is not seen as something of virtue worthy of reward.
And so we say that the rewards are intrinsic. The rewards we get are at home, with the close and loving relationships we have with our family. I get that too. It certainly is MY reward. And yes, I have influence within the confines of my home, and by extension, the future generation.
But our world is becoming ever more global. And I can teach my child to see the world through my lens, but I can’t prevent them from having the world project it’s own lens onto them.
How do we change the world? Education. It’s the #1 way. But if there aren’t people like me keeping the drum beating about the disparities, educating people on the reality of the disparities, engaging in thoughtful and respectful conversations about the work that is still left to do… then how do we change?
If there are more and more roadblocks for women to reach the upper levels of influence in this world because we have a skewed view on what’s important, then how is that going to allow our voices, necessary feminine voices to be heard?
People have choices. I believe in freedom of choice. If you’re a woman and want to stay home and forever be a homemaker, then do it, and be proud, don’t let anyone make you feel inferior, but be aware of, and able to accept the drawbacks that lifestyle presents.
But if you’re a woman and you want to be President, and also want to have a family, then you should be able to do that too, with awareness of what that life means and what you will give up and with JUST AS much support as the homemaker.
People shouldn’t be limited by gender in reaching places of power and with the value our society places on our traditional roles, we are. Women more often than men.
The fight for women to work and be whatever they want is over. It was won by the generations before me. The feminist discussion these days (at least in this country) are more about work/home balance and the perception of value on those roles and the ability the still have influence in high places even if you take time off to raise your kids.
pat
Posted at 08:54h, 21 Octoberbased on the way search engines work I don’t think the google autofill thing is very relevant. that’s not to deny that sexism is real, I know it is. but this is a poor way to illustrate it. protip- look at some of the results that are returned for those searches. the searches themselves aren’t really indicative of anything.
Linda Webb
Posted at 15:13h, 21 OctoberInteresting.
My first google result on “women need to..” was “…feel safe” — I am not opposed to that.
I’m not sure you can/should draw larger conclusions about our culture based on google search term suggestions.
I’ve raised both a daughter and a son, and oddly enough, my perception has been that the message to our daughter growing up has been much more “liberated” than to our son: she can like any color as her favorite (red, blue, whatever — does not have to be pink), she can be anything she wants, go into any career field, etc. The world is her oyster, there are no limits on it.
When our son was young, he had a lot of primary female influences and being the gender-neutral book-reading parents we were, we didn’t forestall his desire around age 3 to have a baby doll as a Christmas present — why not, right?
It wasn’t until he was approaching kindergarten that I realized he was full-on gender-unhappy, and he was being set up to be a social oddity — because guess what, our boys really can’t like pink or playing with baby dolls or wanting a barrette in their hair because big sissy has one, or wear a dress because it’s pretty — this is not a recipe for a happy school experience. So while our daughter can wear jeans and shorts, yes, we steered him to more appropriate masculine choices, because society would expect it of him (and we were on a path towards trans-gendered if we weren’t encouraging of his base gender.)
He’s 17 now and doesn’t even remember his early flirtation with gender unhappiness, but I know how easily it could have gone either way based on our choices as parents — and we chose to steer him back to his box of being male, which is actually a much more confining box than what we put our female children in. I know that flies in the face of what you’re saying, and maybe this one experience doesn’t mean much in the wider scope of things, but I just wanted to point out the flip side — the males in our society also have prescribed roles and some fit them comfortably, and some don’t. It’s the nature of society as a whole to make classifications and assumptions based on gender, and I think in a lot of way, women have come further than men. (How dare you be a man afraid of squishing a bug, say?)
You mention the phrase “crying like a girl” but think when that’s levied to a male, what it really says — it says they aren’t even allowed the basic emotions and expression of them. Both genders are harmed by gender assumptions and stereotypes, not just women.
But then again, I don’t mind that my husband can squish a bug, either!
Shannon Lell
Posted at 16:52h, 21 OctoberLinda, I’m so glad you left this comment because it allows me to clarify my point of views. First let me say that I agree with you, boys shouldn’t be girls or vice versa.
I’m a reluctant feminist. I didn’t seek out this newfound passion, it sought me. I don’t believe that suddenly all boys need to embrace pink and all girls need to be superheroes. I have a son and daughter who are very young and I can see clearly the differences in their preferences since birth. We are just wired differently.
I don’t take issue with the difference in strengths and weaknesses between genders. I think they are they for a reason – balance. What I take issue with is the VALUE society places on our strengths and weaknesses. In the example of the large firm; their message is loud and clear – we don’t value family, what we value is the capability to work long hours.
When someone tells a boy they “cry like a girl.” (Which is bad for both girls AND boys as you said) what they are saying is that crying is a “weak” character trait and girls are weak and boys shouldn’t be weak. Society by in large does not VALUE the inborne character traits that are women and therefore see them as less worthy.
Those search terms are based on highly technical algorithms of millions of searches worldwide. There’s an entire industry called Search Engine Optimization that does nothing but track and understand what people are searching for and so this information DOES give a very interesting purview into the ways in which people think.
Idealy, I think a world that can appreciate and celebrate the differences between men and women w/o one or the other having to be “lesser than” is the goal.
Sure, my daughter was a superhero last year for halloween. It was a costume she chose herself (however possible it is for a 3yo to chose something on their own w/o influence) but notice it was pink and purple because to quote Julia Robert’s character in Steel Magnolias, “Pink is her signature color.” 😉
Linda Webb
Posted at 17:14h, 21 OctoberWell, partly on the business world — sure. Companies are geared towards making profit, and if the perception is employees willing to be available x number of hours or y number of hours — in the self-interested world of capitalism, there will be an emphasis on rewarding that; which as you said sends an anti-family message.
Maybe.
I work for a medium sized firm in a community just south of a major city. We don’t pay big-city wages, but our workers don’t deal with big-city traffic or parking, either. And what I don’t offer in wages, I make up for in offering in scheduling flexibility. I pride myself on having a family-friendly department — I have both moms and dads (okay, a dad) who know that if there is a game or an assembly at school, just let me know ahead of time, but of course they can be there.
So there are companies that make that trade-off. I can’t speak to large law firms or fortune 100 or even fortune 500 companies, but I think people who are willing to trade wages for family time, opportunities are out there.
Maybe you think that’s unfair that there’s a trade of wages for flexibility? But I’ve never felt that way. I got to work from home 3 days a week the first 10 years of my children’s lives, and I gave up a lot of salary to get to do so, and I’d do it again every time in a heart beat.
Why isn’t that a reasonable and fair trade? I made my choice where to balance my family and work life, and I gave up some dollars and prestige to do so — but is that so awful? For me, or for the company I work for? They got a dedicated employee with some significant golden handcuffs — where else would I get that deal? Even now — juggling a longterm and eventual passing of my mother in law this year, my own mother’s stuff, my children’s various health needs, mine, and my husband’s — I know I have flexibility to schedule my workday as needed. Could I go elsewhere and make even more “big bucks” with my degree and experience? Probably. But so what, I don’t want to. I’m comfortable with my choices.
And, I don’t know that society doesn’t value what women bring to the table. Maybe not in every board room, but I know the influence I have on the raising of my kids, in shaping them to be the next generation, and also in having spent so much time volunteering at schools and around teachers, how much influence and ability I had in shaping their education as well. I’m not saying men can’t do this, but typically it’s the moms who take on this role. Do you have to be a C-level executive in order to have found value and worth in the eyes of society? I don’t think so. I think society appreciates the mom kneeling down wiping the eyes of the sobbing child in the park who just skinned his knees. And society appreciates the bond women bring to each other in their friendships and ability to relate and express emotions. I think men even appreciate this (if nothing else, so they don’t have to!)
I agree that those search terms probably reflect something worldwide, but in my corner of this society, I don’t think it’s as grim as they would paint it.
So, let me end with a really funny story. Just to make you smile!
A long time ago, our son was in fourth grade and playing on a football team. Let’s admit up front he’s not star athlete material, and our team was not made up of star athletes — every game had something to celebrate — someone made a great tackle or touchdown or catch or something — but I don’t remember if we had but maybe one win all season. We might have been at zero wins.
So near the end of the season, we were playing the team who not only hadn’t won a game, but their boys hadn’t even ever had a touchdown. So I was talking to a couple of the moms and I said something like, “I want us to win, of course, but I hope they at least score a touchdown against us so they’ll have at least gotten one touchdown this year.”
My husband turned to us and deadpanned, “And THAT is why women don’t coach football!”
Shannon Lell
Posted at 17:29h, 21 OctoberHahaha!
I’m with you on the work front. I’d trade money for flexibility any day… actually, I did. It sounds like you have a progressive firm that values the roles people play. I don’t know the answers, but the results are 20% of women in the boardroom. The nationwide statistics are even lower.
I’m not proposing WHAT we need to do. I think that’s a case-by-case basis. What I’m hoping to accomplish with this post is to show people who deny gender inequality, that it exists. And it exists in many forms, not just the obvious ones.
I do love the dialogue though!
Linda Webb
Posted at 17:41h, 21 OctoberI agree that my one story doesn’t make a trend, and yet I do find reason for encouragement in it. That I am a C-level executive who got to trade flexibility for wages over the years and not lose my ability to progress and advance — that’s a good thing. Is it happening across America? I don’t know. But clearly there may be more pockets of it than is realized, also, because the smaller and mid-sized firms don’t make the Forbes magazine articles, either.
If you look at college graduation rates, the fact that females outnumber males is going to have to play out across the corporate atmosphere at some point as well.
I enjoy the dialog also! Thanks for always bringing thought provoking material up for discussion!
Have you ever read Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink: the Power of Thinking Without Thinking” ? It’s a great book, and one of the vignettes he uses to make his point was female — trumpet players, if I recall — or at least some non-female-dominated instrument. And how women weren’t selected for the prestigious orchestras until auditions were done blind behind screens, where the maestro or selection committee couldn’t judge based on gender. Sometimes our very perceptions are colored by what we don’t realize we are thinking subconsciously, and I do think it’s this point as well that you are trying to make.
Now if only the workplace could have us all behind screens and our genders unknown?
Shannon Lell
Posted at 17:47h, 21 OctoberThanks Linda. That is the point. I think there are perceptions that we hold and we don’t know we’re holding them. I know that is true for me and I’m always trying to uncover my faulty thinking based on pre-judgements. This dialog has helped to even further clarify why I wrote this post and how I feel about this subject.
I definitely believe things are changing, particularly in this country. But I can’t ignore the places where disparities lie and I can’t ignore how they are aloud to persist. It’s easy to put on the rose-colored glasses and say “Welp, everything is getting better so….” Believe me, that WAS me, until I was sitting in a mediation room hearing things I never thought possible. Anyway… I don’t have all the answers, but awareness IS where it starts.
Thank you Linda for being a C-Level woman who is helping to make this country a better place with your wise and reasonable leadership. 🙂 And also… I bet you’re one HECK of a Mom.
Linda Webb
Posted at 18:19h, 21 OctoberOh, I agree that we are colored by subconscious perceptions all the time, and if I didn’t already believe that, Gladwell’s book makes it hugely apparent!
I don’t have a problem with progress being moderately paced, though.
I know your experiences were of the horrid sort. You fell into the worst corporate environments have to offer, and when it turned ugly, I’m sure every “blame the victim” tendency surged to the forefront. Or every “hysterical woman” charge that could be leveled. We do have lots of ground to make up on those fronts.
Or even — an aggressive woman isn’t aggressive in the work place, she’s a bitch. There are traits admired in men and despised in women. There’s also ground to make up there.
My only thing was, as I said, in thinking that there should be pay equity when a woman wants to make a choice to have more work/life balance — then I don’t think compensation for time not there should exist. Her reward is other than monetary, and each woman gets to decide for herself what balance she wants to strike on that (true equality, right?)
And as far as if I am a heck of a mom or not? I’m not so sure about that. We’ve had our share of struggles. And I bring a lot of baggage and anxiety to the mom table! But thank you for saying so. 🙂
Shannon Lell
Posted at 18:37h, 21 OctoberYes, all of those things DID happen, as you well know. But what was more shocking was what was allowed to happen w/in the management. It all started with me asking some questions about hiring policies. From there, I became a target.
Before that, I thought along the very same lines as you. Exact. But I couldn’t anymore after that experience. It opened my eyes in ways I never thought possible. It was a shock to my system. From then on, I knew I couldn’t ignore it. Thus, this post.
Linda Webb
Posted at 19:29h, 21 OctoberAnd you make a good point in that you’ve seen an underbelly to the corporate world I’ve been very sheltered from. Given the same experiences, I’d probably be breathing fire, too!
Deb @ Urban Moo Cow
Posted at 17:02h, 21 OctoberThis is pretty depressing. My results were “Women Should: not be in combat, not work, know their place” (and two about shoulder bags and tattoos…). “Men Should: always pray, be allowed to hit women, not marry” (and same shoulder bags and tattoos). “Women Should Not: be in combat, preach, speak in church, run, work.” And “Men Should Not: get married, marry, wear skinny jeans, wear shorts, wear sandals.”
I find it interesting that in both my cases and yours, the should nots for men were very trivial as if men had no true rules or restrictions. I agree with the commenter above about the restrictions placed on boys and the imperatives of masculinity in our culture. I might add, however, that the things that men can’t do (i.e., like pink) do not get in their way of pursuing powerful careers and running the world, whereas the things that women should not do (i.e., “work”) do just that, by definition.
As for your first commenter, my response is that equity should be based on merit, yes, but merit is the value of your work, not the number of hours you put in. Face time — which accounts for a good portion of the discrepancy — should not matter. Plus, the commenter’s assertion that women can just go ahead and get a house husband and a nanny belie the real institutional barriers women face in getting ahead in the workplace, e.g., the 70 cents to a dollar they make to men.
Really you shouldn’t even have gotten me started on this. 😉 Good post.
Shannon Lell
Posted at 17:10h, 21 OctoberI know right! Don’t even get me started is how I feel. But I wrote it because there is so much denial in this country that there are issues in the way we value men and women’s traits.
I’m not for making all boys embrace pink. My son is 2 and his preferences for anything with wheels and makes loud noises was very clear from early on; as were my daughter’s preference for all things pink.
We are wired differently and that is a GOOD thing. The problem is, our culture doesn’t value those differences… at least covertly we don’t in the messages we send. Giiiirrrllll don’t get me started.
Quinn
Posted at 22:30h, 21 OctoberI’m not sure why I feel compelled to chime in here, but I do. (Mostly because of the dialogue between you and neutralgenderlanguage/LindaWebb) So here goes. . . I am female with no children working in a law firm x 26 years. I fully believe in equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity and whatnot. However, I am NOT a fan of anyone – male or female – being given “special” consideration “because” they have children. I see alot of this where I work. People – male and female – are given time off work with pay “because” they have a baby. They are given time away from work with pay “because” have sick children. They are given time away from work with pay “because” their child’s school called. They are given time away from work with pay “because” the day care closed. They are given time away from work with pay “because” the babysitter didn’t show up. And on and on it goes. This is blatant discrimination – “family” vs. “individual”. And yet, it is. It exists. Life is all about choices. If you chose to have a family, IMHO – then THAT should be YOUR priority (not mine or my employers). If you chose to have a family AND climb the corporate ladder, then you – the individual – must choose your priorities. Corporations have no obligation to make those choices for you or make special concessions for you. In fact, corporations (generally speaking – like your post is written) have no obligation to you – the employee – at all. In the United States, any person – man or woman – can put up their own money – open a business – and set up shop. If they do – it’s theirs. They can run it any way they like so long as they do not discriminate as defined by federal law (age, race, gender, religion, etc.). Using the law firm example you gave, an attorney can put up their own money – hang their shingle – drum up business – grow – hire associates – grow – form partnerships – grow – and on and on. They (the original owner and partners) owe you – a female attorney or paralegal or secretary – nothing. If you don’t want to work the 100 hours a week required to make partnership (for whatever reason) – don’t. Doesn’t really matter if you are a man or a woman. But don’t then sit back and demand some special consideration “because you have children”. What sense does that make? Where’s the logic in that? Again, I absolutely believe in equality. I would advocate for ANY woman who was discriminated against in her work place because of her gender. But at the same time, I could never – in good conscience – defend your position, which seems to be that women with children are owed something “extra” by their employer. They aren’t. Off my soapbox now.
Shannon Lell
Posted at 23:07h, 21 OctoberI’m glad you commented, thank you. Your opinion is certainly valid and appreciated.
I get that. I get all you’re saying. But this thinking isn’t working anymore which is being demonstrated in the dismal representation of women in leadership positions, including our government.
Should capable, smart women just forego having children, or reaching leadership positions? Because right now, under our current value-sytem in American, it’s clearly not easy (and often possible) to do both.
As I told Linda, I don’t know the solutions, but the results of what we’ve been doing are clear.
I think families should be valued more than they are. I think the role of parent and caretaker of home and hearth are not given as much respect as the person who pays the mortgage. That belief system is deeply ingrained in everything from the way we incentivize work, to the things we say off-handed when we’re trying to be funny.
We live in a capatalistic society. By in large, I support capitalism, but not BLIND capitalism. A capitalism that disregards the unintended consequences of placing profits over any other variable. There are pirces to pay for that and I believe one of the price tags involve the lack of women perspectives in places of power.
The fact is big corporations have BIG influences in government. I don’t think anyone can deny that. And when corporations ONLY, SINGLE-MINDED, objective is profit, then we all lose. Women and the family unit happens to be one of the biggest losers.
What are the solutions? I’m all ears.
genderneutrallanguage
Posted at 02:23h, 22 OctoberI do have a solution, but it will probably be very unpalatable. Men’s Liberation/Men’s Rights. For 50 years now Feminism has fought for and won many rights for women. For 50 years now Feminism has been breaking the traditional gender roles of women. There now needs to be a real focus on positive masculinity and positive fatherhood. We need to start breaking the traditional gender roles of men.
We agree that homemaking and care giving are very important and very valuable things in society. We also agree that board members and decision making are very important and very valuable things in society. We also agree that men and women are different, that we shouldn’t see 50/50 splits if we have real equality because men and women will make different choices. You have proposed a number 33.3%. Seems a bit random to me, but it’s a fine number, I have no cause to dispute this would be “ideal”.
Men can succeed in the 100 hour/week jobs because there are plenty of women willing to be home makers and do ALL of the unpaid work from cleaning to cooking to child care to mowing the lawn. This frees their husbands to work work and only work, but gain high status and massive income.
Women need this same option. To get this option we need to liberate men from the traditional gender role of “Primary bread winner”. If you want 33.3% of CEO’s to be women, the way to achieve that goal is to stop talking about women. Women already have all the rights and education needed to do this. We need to get 33.3% of homemakers to be men so that these career women have someone to unload domestic duties onto.
In “The Myth of Male Power” Warren Farrel has a great analogy. Life is like a row boat. Someone on the left ore some one on the right ore, and the boat moves forward. With women trying to move into the board room, but men not moving into the kitchen, we have two people on the right ore and the boat just spins in circles.
genderneutrallanguage
Posted at 01:55h, 22 OctoberWish there was a like button. This really deserves a like or thumbs up or something.
Also, may I have your permittion to repost this comment on my blog. It really is that good of a comment. I won’t repost without your go ahead, they are your words.
Shannon Lell
Posted at 03:49h, 22 OctoberSure. Post away.
Nina Badzin
Posted at 03:33h, 23 OctoberI just spent 30 minutes on this post + the comments. Just wow! Lots to think about. And I’m thinking you might need to summarize it all in a follow up.
Shannon Lell
Posted at 06:32h, 23 OctoberThank you Nina. Yes! I’ve been thinking about it. I love the comments.
Deb @ Urban Moo Cow
Posted at 16:29h, 24 OctoberI agree with Nina! If I have any energy left this week I might write a post myself…
Michelle Austin
Posted at 13:47h, 30 OctoberI see many similarities to our family 10 years ago. Have you heard or seen any of Andy Stanley’s programs on marriage or family? His feelings on equality of women(as a pastor) and marriage are wonderful
Shannon Lell
Posted at 20:44h, 30 OctoberNo but that sounds wonderful. Googling now. Thank you!
karenkarnesquinn
Posted at 05:16h, 10 NovemberWhile I can appreciate all the views/opinions/philosophical differences posted here (I really can), it seems to me that there are category mistakes being made. Categories: Corporation v. Family. They are not the same. Apples and oranges. The “job” – if you will – of a corporation is to make money. Period. That’s how it stays in business. Part of staying in business (profitability), is obtaining and retaining excellent employees – women and men. I think studies have been done regarding profitability of a company – and companies that treat their employees well in terms of pay, benefits, promotion, recognition, etc. – win. . . hands down! But! Ultimately, it is not the “job” of the corporation to make concessions for women (or men) who elect to have children. Arguably, it could be in the corporations’ best interest to make those concessions (because happy employees make better employees), but it isn’t and shouldn’t be (IMHO) required. On the other hand, it IS the job of the corporation to implement rules and policies that are fair to all. No discrimination. Promoting a man or a woman into a leadership role that requires a 70 hour work week and then allowing another man or women with a child or children to promote into a leadership role and allowing them to work fewer than 70 hours because of their family obligations – is discrimination. It cannot be allowed. Either all leaders or managers of the company work the 70 hours or they don’t. Again, IMHO, the job of the corporation is to make money while at the same time treating its employees fairly – equally. The mission or goals of a family are clearly not the same as that of a corporation. Does that mean that family is not important? That parenthood is not important? No. Family absolutely IS important. Arguably more important. But the success of a family does not depend on profits and fair treatment of its members. Two categories – each with its own unique goals/rules/outcomes, etc. As for a solution? Well, as I’m sure you know, the laws of the land do not allow for discriminating practices where the corporation is concerned. Family on the other hand are not bound by those same statues and regulations. Within a family unit, mom and dad can discriminate all they want where their children are concerned. One set of rules for the boys and a different set for the girls. . . if they so desire. No one is going to get sued over it – and potentially shut down – like a corporation would be. I don’t know of an easy solution, because again I contend that the real issue here has to do with choices – of the individual. Any qualified man or woman willing to work the required hours, should be allowed to promote into high paying leadership roles. Any qualified man or woman not able to work the required hours, have to make a choice. A tough one, no doubt. Any qualified man or woman not willing or able to choose the extra hours over their children or family in general, are free to put up their own money, hang their own shingle, open their own corporation. And then they can run their corporation any way they like. . . so long as they do not implement policies contrary to law. Open your own shop and implement rules like: 40 hour work week for ALL including all management, time off work for child care issues or no child issues, bring your son/daughter to work day or bring your cat or dog or grandma if you like. . . and on and on. See that’s the thing. When it’s your company, you get the say. And you can set the company up in such a way that employees with children can climb clear to the top. . . so long as the rules for those folks are identical to the rules for childless employees. Anyway, that’s just how I see it. Thanks for the interesting subject matter. . . and playful debate.
Shannon Lell
Posted at 00:49h, 11 NovemberNothing happens in a vaccum. No one segregates their lives like you suggest. For a life to be whole you have to make room for everything to fit. It has gotten harder to make room for a family, AND a career. That’s just the facts. So when it becomes hard, we ALL suffer. You, me, kids, society, everyone. Because the people who rise to the ranks of leadership are people who are extrinsically motivated. If that’s who you want running our country and our businesses, then fine. But that scenario creates unfettered capitalism and the fallout is similar to what we’re dealing with in the mortgage crisis. Don’t you understand? That’s what happens when only a certain type of person is allowed to rise to leadership? How is THAT not descrimination?
Did you know the generation below mine (I’m 35) is leaning toward NOT having children? They also have different ideas of male/female domestic roles than my peers. This is a byproduct of the society we have become that places profits over every other possible standard of measuring success. The next generation is going to change the rules.
So the question becomes… why do we (my generation) want to support a culture where a 70 hour work week is required to be promoted to higher levels of leadership and management? We shouldn’t.
Do you know that there are MANY other places on the world who do not view work the way Americans do? Australians have a motto, “Work to live, not live to work.” And I would argue that American’s have the exact opposite motto.
And you’re right, companies can do whatever they want. But those who do not accommodate parents and families will pay for those choices in the long run. The next generation will demand it.
Stay tuned for this week’s post wherein I clarify my feminist views because I don’t think “feminism” is the right word anymore. This problem goes beyond being a woman’s issue. Thanks for reading and commenting.
karenkarnesquinn
Posted at 12:32h, 11 NovemberInteresting. You start with: “No one segregates their lives like you suggest.” To that, I say . . they absolutely do! We can speak in generalities or specifics. In your world – generally speaking – no one does this. In my world – specifically – many, many do this. In fact, it’s the norm. Does that mean that it’s “right”? No. It simply “is”. “For a life to be whole, you have to make room for everything to fit”, you continue. To that, I say – define “everything”. Again, this boils down to personal choices. No company or corporation “owes” it’s employees anything more than: pay for the work done, safety in the work place and fair treatment. Period. You write as if you have some sense of “entitlement” where business is concerned. Why do you believe are you entitled to anything more than the rest of your co-workers? More importantly, why do you feel you have any say in a company that is not yours? You also allege that “it’s gotten harder to make room for a family and a career.” This falsely held belief is – IMHO – a symptom of your age and inexperience. Additionally, the statement itself is insulting to men and women who for many, many years have done just that. You continue – “That’s what happens when only a certain type of person is allowed to rise to leadership.” I “think” I understand your point here – but, again, this statement is insulting. I don’t have children. That was a “choice”. That I might rise to a leadership role over someone with children, is not a bad thing as you so allege. And again – any competition I might have in the work place among my co-workers with children – does NOT mean that I’m a shoe-in. It simply means that my co-worker will or could be faced with a very difficult question. And that is this. . . when work calls, will they show up? Or will they spend their Saturday out on the ball field watching little league? I completely understand how “unfair” this scenario feels. But how on earth can you argue that the unfairness a mother or father is faced with is or should be the “problem” of their employer? You ask too how it is “not discrimination” to advance a parent-less employee over that of an employee with children. The question for any employer – always – is this: who is the best candidate for the job? Each and every job has certain requirements. So an employer who wants their company to be successful must decide which person brings those qualifications to the table. Where I work, we have a unit of attorneys (including management) who are REQUIRED to work Saturdays. It’s not because anyone is discriminating – it’s because the city where I live contracts with our company to work Saturdays. In other words – we – our organization – is paid to work Saturdays. Now I ask you, with our contractual obligation to the city – should my employer promote someone into the position who, because of their family obligations, is not available on Saturdays? And please don’t ignore the specifics. We can speak in “generalities” all day long, but when you get right down to it – to the specifics – how can what you are proposing ever work in the scenario I just gave?
You also ask if I am aware that there are countries who do not have the same views on employment – work hours – as Americans do. Yes, I am aware of that. Check out many Asian cultures (in some ways America’s biggest competition). They work all day and all night – far more than 70 hours a week. Check out Mexico – another major competition for the US. Substandard wages, unsafe work environments, 7 day work weeks for many – 16 hour work days for many and on and on it goes. Do you know how many US companies have moved abroad because they can pay substandard wages and benefits to the people living in those countries? So I am not impressed with your Australia example.
From where I sit, it appears that you are arguing “for” discrimination in the work place. Are you familiar with the women’s rights movement? Do you know how long and how hard your sisters of yesteryear fought so that you would have “equal” rights in the work place? Equal pay? Equal opportunity? Equal benefits? Equal opportunities for advancement? Using your arguments, employers across this great country of ours could return to the inequality that existed a mere 50 years ago. Though I have not said it before now, this was the very thing that upset me the most when I read your original post. The idea that my employer could treat me differently because I do not have children. That must never be allowed. For if it is, it is but a small step right back into the 1950’s. And before you argue that employers are discriminating against people with children, let me remind you that they are not. They are simply saying: “here is the job” . . . are you available to do it or not? No concessions.
Again, if you want special concessions, open your own business with your own money. Work as little or as much as you like. But good luck competing and staying in business if you choose to let your management and other staff go home whenever parenthood calls.
Oh and one more thing before I get off my soapbox. . . If the youth of today have plans for a better tomorrow. . . I wish them nothing but the best. But if those youth believe that they are going to open and run “profitable” corporations while their employees stay home taking care of their children, I think they are in for a rude awakening.
Shannon Lell
Posted at 18:36h, 11 NovemberPerhaps you should have children before you speak with such authority. Have a nice day.
karenkarnesquinn
Posted at 23:44h, 11 NovemberWow, really? This is how you respond to well-reasoned, logical questions? If you don’t want to debate the issues, don’t ask the questions.
Shannon Lell
Posted at 23:51h, 11 NovemberNo offense, but how can I have a well-reasoned, logical conversation when you only understand half the issue?
karenkarnesquinn
Posted at 11:20h, 12 NovemberYour post began, “I have a family member who is a partner in a large firm. One night, during a holiday dinner he casually mentions that his firm created a special “non-equity partnership” position for peope who deserve to be partners, but for some reason aren’t able to put in the long hours. My interest was piqued and I began asking questions. He said the position is mainly for women with families and that they aren’t given equity in the firm because, as he put it, “they aren’t putting in as many hours as I am.”
Because of what you wrote then and because of what you have written since, I thought the issue was this: should women (or men) with children and/or other family obligations be promoted into leadership positions in the work place if they are unable to work the same number of hours their counter-parts are required to work?
What is the other issue?
Shannon Lell
Posted at 17:21h, 12 NovemberI’m going to be completely honest with you. The moment you said that my age and lack of experience as a parent is the reason I find parenting and having a career are getting harder and harder, was the moment I stopped listening to you because that really pissed me off. Especially coming from someone who is not currently a parent. So from that moment on, I gave you short, clipped answers in the hopes that you’d just go away.
Perhaps that was wrong. Perhaps I let my emotions overshadow the debate. But do you know why? Because I have a part-time job and two toddlers and I go to school in the evenings to further my career and you know what? It’s hard and time consuming and I didn’t want to spend anymore time talking to someone who appears to just want to argue.
So I’m going to make this real simple. You seem to believe in unfettered capitalism. That profits should be placed on a higher pedestal than all else. And if you don’t believe that, you certainly believe that companies have the right to operate like that. And I will say that I agree with you. They DO have the right to operate like that. But there’s a difference between HAVING the right, and BEING right. And that is my point.
Thank you for your contribution to this important debate.
karenkarnesquinn
Posted at 12:33h, 13 NovemberI have – and have always had – compassion and respect for people – like yourself – who juggle it all. Family, career, education, life? You are right. . . it is HARD. I don’t need a child to know that. If you go back and re-read some of the things I previously wrote, you will find that I readily admitted as much. Maybe I didn’t say it strongly or eloquently enough – but it’s there. I work in a law firm where most of the attorneys are female. This is because we are a poverty firm – we represent poor, elderly, disabled – and we charge no fee. Our wages are low – because we are non profit. Because of that, it’s hard for us to draw male attorneys or attorneys of color (because they can command a higher salary elsewhere). Most of the attorneys I work with have children. And I see first hand – on a daily basis – how challenging it is for them. When court calls – they simply cannot pick up and leave if their baby is sick. And it sucks! For them! For their children! For their clients! I can’t imagine being torn between ethical obligations and sick babies. What a nightmare it must be! One of our attorneys adopted two children from China – when they were infants. She is a single parent. Doubly difficult for her because she has no partner to help her out if the children become ill or need her in some other way. I say all this just to say: I do have a heart. I do have compassion. I do have understanding. Even though I have no children.
But! You knew there had to be a “but”, right? 🙂 Regarding the other issue at hand – that of corporate America and how business runs – I will agree with what you said. . . there IS a difference between “having the right” and “being right”. I am no advocate for corporate America! Never have been and never will be! I don’t own a company – I have no say in the way or ways that others want to run their business. So your last paragraph? Sort of missed the mark. It isn’t about what “I think or believe” – it’s about “what is”. Do you see that? I absolutely agree that businesses ought to be more sensitive, caring and concerned about the needs of their employees. Personally, I believe that. But logically, I know the primary concern of any company is profit. If a company isn’t profitable, it doesn’t stay in business. Whether I like it or not, doesn’t really matter. It wasn’t my money that went into getting the business up and running – so I really don’t get a say.
My passion – the thing you saw as argument. . . “me just wanting to argue” is not about the rights of corporate America; rather, it is about fairness and non-discrimination in the work place. I was born in 1961. I grew up seeing women and people of color having to fight for equal pay, equal benefits and equal rights in the work place. It was ugly! Truth be told, I’m sure there’s still a plethora of discrimination happening today – but it’s far less than it once was. The last thing I want to advocate for is inequality. I don’t want corporate America to ever have the “right” to treat employees differently. For that is surely a slippery slope. So when corporate America sets the job duties of a particular position or positions – fairness and equality mandates that only applicants capable of fulfilling those duties be promoted or hired into the job. Do you understand my reasoning? Again, it isn’t about the “rights” of the company. . . it is about “fairness and equality” to employees.
One more thing I would like to leave you with. While you and I are free to disagree, I am an advocate at heart. Even if I do not agree with you, I would fight to the proverbial death for your right to say what you think. I’m a huge fan of “free speech”. As hard as it is sometimes for me to listen to what another is saying, I wouldn’t want it any other way.
I know you are busy. But I very much want to try – harder – to understand your view point. On this issue of promotion in the work place (like the law firm example you gave in your original post), how might that be handled fairly? How might the law firm whose partners work a 70 hour work week, make someone partner that was unavailable to work those same hours? If it were your law firm, how would you handle this?
Oh, and I agree. . . this IS an important debate. That is why I couldn’t let it go. Hope you understand. 🙂
Shannon Lell
Posted at 02:31h, 17 NovemberHi. I’m sorry it took me so long to respond. I’ve been neglecting my blog lately because, you know, life.
Okay, so I’m not advocating for some type of reverse descrimination. I don’t think companies should be “mandated” to do anything. That is the wonderful part of living in this country. We have many liberties.
I’m saying that the mindset of profits at ALL costs is one that needs to change at its core for the workplace to be a more fair place for parents. It’s a hearts and minds appeal, not a legal one.
I have an optimist. I think this IS changing. I think the bright men and women of the generation below me are going to live and work in a much kinder society than I have, but that is ONLY because people keep the torch burning for the cause.
I would not have the many freedoms, liberties and opportunities if not for the women who came before me. I stand on their shoulders and my children will stand on mine.
Ultimately, I am advocating for firms like the one I mentioned to change their way of doing business because it’s the right thing to do.
By in large mothers (and more and more fathers) will trade money for flexibility. As a parent, flexibility is priceless. But the way our corporate infrastructure is right now, if you trade anything you are putting yourself in a position to miss the mark of leadership. (As evidenced by the 16% of women in C-Level positions.)
I don’t know EVERY solution to this issue, but what I do know is that 16% of women in C-Level positions and 19% of women in Congress is not acceptable. I’m for promoting message (not necessarily laws) that support and advocate for the importance of families and the importance of having women represented in the highest levels of leadership.
Wow. Was that long enough? Thank you for sticking with me. I’m sorry I was so short with my answers earlier.
karenkarnesquinn
Posted at 12:15h, 18 NovemberI think we might have found some common ground. “Flexibility”. . . for ALL. . . without anyone having to give up any promotional opportunities. As long as the rules (flexibility, promotions, work hours and whatnot) for parents are the same as the rules for non-parents, it would be the “right” thing to do AND it would be “lawful”. Win! Win! We have a “flex” plan in our office. Our “core” hours are 9:30 – 4:00. ALL staff are required to work those hours, unless they take annual time or sick leave. One day a week, an employee can “flex” – meaning – they can leave during core hours without taking annual or sick leave so long as they make the hours up some time during the work week. No employee is denied promotion just because they use flex time on a weekly basis. Quite the opposite, actually. Our director encourages staff to take advantage of the flex policy – as often as they can. This is just our companies flex plan, but it could be expanded and adjusted in many, many ways – depending on a companies needs and the needs of their employees. Oh, and I know you will appreciate this. . . our flex policy? at my company? yeah, it came about as a result of one of those “think outside the box”. . . “youths of today”. 🙂 She doesn’t have children herself, but soon after she started with our company, she became a real advocate for “change”. She thought our “set in stone” work hours (8:30 – 5:00 – Monday – Friday) without any flexibility, was harsh, punitive and right out of the stone-age. Because. . . after all. . . life happens. . . and employers should not be willing to lose good, quality staff. . . because of that.
I think it’s awesome that you are an advocate. But might I make one – small – suggestion? And please don’t take this the wrong way. . . it is not intended as a criticism or anything like that. You’ll go far. . . if you use your voice and advocate for “all”. If you advocate for women and families alone (in the work place), those that are in a position to create real and lasting change, might turn a deaf ear to you because they may see this as a request to implement discriminatory policies. Just a thought. . .
Thanks for the opportunity to participate in this lively debate! I haven’t read your latest blog entry. . . but I surely will. Have a great day!
Shannon Lell
Posted at 18:35h, 18 NovemberI wrote the last blog entry, in part, as an answer and commentary on the discussions I’ve had through the commenters on this post.
It is EXACTLY that, I am for families, whole families. As it stands right now, women are the ones who need more help, but the overall system is flawed.
I’m all for things being fair. I think as time goes on, men are going to be raising their hands for more flexibility, too. But that isn’t going to happen if there isn’t a stream of advocates, such as myself, and clearly the co-worker at your firm who thought outside of the box. That’s awesome. Good for her.
I think corporations need to put more emphasis on productivity, not physical hours. Instead of counting an employee’s worth by face-time, how about count their worth by their production? How about making it easier to work from home? There are all kinds of unintended benefits (i.e. cost of communting) to having people work from home when and if possible. What about literal “Face Time” for meetings? That would save lots of travel expenses.
I worked for a company where middle management was basically required to travel 4-5 days a week. The only way to get to upper management, was to go through middle management. VERY few mothers went into middle management for that very reason. Might I add, it was a women’s health company. To this day there is ONE woman executive and she does not have children.
All of these things help families tremendously and would go a LONG way to getting women to the boardroom and into leadership positions.
THAT is what I’m about. Not NON-equity partners that don’t get to attend the 2-day fancy meeting in the mountains to discuss finances. But perhaps PARTIAL equity partners who get a seat at that steak and lobster laden table with a chance to raise their hand and vote.
If I’m Going to Be Labeled a “Feminist”: I Get to Define It | Shannon Lell
Posted at 19:28h, 18 November[…] post was written largely in response to this other post from a couple of weeks ago which inspired a thoughtful debate in the comments by some intelligent […]
karenkarnesquinn
Posted at 22:54h, 18 NovemberSorry, I think you lost me. You wrote, “It is exactly THAT, I am for families, whole families.” Does this mean that you advocate for whole families at the exclusion of all others?
Shannon Lell
Posted at 23:08h, 18 NovemberNope. I’m just not strictly for women.
BABY ON BOARD | Discrimination | vic briggs
Posted at 07:00h, 09 December[…] This is an abridged version of the comment. Click HERE for the full version (Quinn on October 21, 2013 at 10:30 pm.),and for the context of this […]
sothislife.com
Posted at 23:18h, 09 DecemberCan not believe what came up in google search…sad.
BABY ON BOARD | Senators and CEOs | vic briggs
Posted at 07:02h, 10 December[…] was really lost taking this post out of context. That context really addresses most of your points. What we where discussing was if women deserve special […]