Double Standard
ABC, facing a ratings disaster, has replaced Elizabeth Vargas with Charlie Gibson who will anchor the evening news through the 2008 election when Bob Woodruff, originally Vargas’s co-anchor but now recuperating from injuries suffered while on location in Iraq, is likely to take over.
ABC’s justification: she’s pregnant and is going to be a mommy.
Here's the backstory: last December, ABC announced that the youthful Vargas and Woodruff would co-anchor the ABC evening news, replacing Peter Jennings. Woodruff was tragically injured in Iraq in January and is still convalescing. Vargas announced she is pregnant shortly thereafter. Then May 16, Nielsen ratings showed ABC’s evening newscast had fallen to third place, behind CBS for the first time in five years.
Meanwhile, the baby boomers Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer were co-hosting ABC’s morning show which was also apparently in a ratings slump.
No matter. When things get tough, choose the old white guy. Maureen Dowd quoted Laurie David approvingly in the Times this morning saying something like (I threw out the paper and can’t get through Times Select), “now is not the time for Democrats to take a chance on the first woman presidential candidate.” I guess now is not the time for ABC to take a chance on the first woman anchor of an evening news show.
So, Vargas was booted (she’s to go back to anchoring the news magazine 20/20), Gibson was chosen over Sawyer and it seems that Woodruff is welcome to come back and replace Gibson after the 2008 election. “Any inference you have that I don’t expect him to come back as anchor is wrong,” Mr. Westin said.
It’s not enough that they chose the guys over the gals. What’s more offensive is that Westin thinks it’s a good idea to justify his decision by pinning it on Vargas’s pregnancy. She “has had a lot of ups and downs and turns around through the whole process,” Mr. Westin said. “She’s had a lot of responsibility and a lot of stress, and she’s done a superb job throughout. She’s been the consummate professional, but it’s taken a toll on her.”
(When asked about whether Sawyer wanted the job, Westin was equally condedscending, “Diane does a lot of thinking out loud and you never know exactly what’s very serious or what’s running things up a flagpole.” Nice.)
Vargas who, according to the NY Observer, “had been struggling to keep her job in recent weeks,” now claims her doctors had advised her to cut back on work or go on bed rest.
Oh, well then, of course she can’t keep the job if she has to cut back or even take time off... But, wait, what about Woodruff? He’s been out since January -- and will be out a lot longer according to reports. And yet, no one is suggesting that he be demoted. Hmmm.
But Vargas says it's not just the pregnancy. The woman who a few days ago was planning on a quick maternity leave now feels, “I don’t think it’s fair to a new baby to have a mom who’s off in Iraq or Iran all the time. I certainly intend to be doing that in a few years. But right now it’s not realistic for me” (from the NYTimes).
Aaaaah. So, it’s not just pregnancy. A mom can’t do this job.
What do you think? It's a tempting argument. I mean do you really think a mother of a young child should be off in Iraq?
Traditional feminists might say that if a dad can do it, so can a mom. Case closed. But a lot of people would have a problem with that.
Here's a different take: if a mom shouldn’t do it than neither should a dad. Why should any parent of a young child be in Iraq or Iran risking injury or death? Why should any parent be a trusted news-source and role-model if they’re giving their job “150%” as Vargas says the job demands?
Does that mean that all parents of young children should be disqualified from super-demanding jobs? I think once it's dads as well as moms, that as a society we'd quickly see disqualifying parents doesn't make sense -- it takes too many good people out of the running who may have important insights. And it punishes people for doing what we say we want them to do -- have and raise the next generation of citizens.
So instead maybe we need to think about cutting the jobs back for everyone or allowing them to be redefined when you have a kid just as you would redefine them for other exigencies (as ABC has for Woodruff?
But however you slice it -- the idea that only moms can’t do a demanding job is just offensive.
In general, it’s a bad idea to generalize from the examples of the super-successful, super-rich or super-attractive and Vargas is all three. But if Vargas can’t make it to the top is it any wonder other, mortal women are fired for becoming pregnant or never promoted because they’re moms?
Gibson will be up against Katie Couric, a mom who shared her personal tragedy of losing a spouse with the country and who will take the helm at CBS. I never thought of Couric as a feminist icon before. But I’m sure rooting for her now.
By posing this as a 'should'query, it makes it more difficult to answer. You move it into the realm of 'societal shoulds" vs. shoulds imposed by individuals on themselves. The latter is what the circumstances you describe depict. Vargas said what she felt personally, about what a mom 'should' do. That is her belief and her value system, which she is entitled to without judgement by you or anyone else in society, with regards to her desires for her child and expectations of herself as a mother. In short, who are you to impose your view on her personal choices? What gives you the right to make a feminist cause out of one woman's personal motherhood choices?. So, to answer your question...individuals should do what is best for them and their families based on their personal values and beliefs,not some outsider's feminist views.
Who cares what traditional feminist might say? It is not their child and they have no business even attempting to assert their beliefs on anyone, let alone a father or mother,who obvisously believe differently.
Vargas did not attempt to make this a societal choice. She said what she felt about herself and her family. She is not attempting to assert herself as some 'feminist icon'...she is living her life and making choices that work for her. Obviously, each father also has that same choice. People who are in Iraq serving our country, also had a choice to serve,knowing they were committed to go where the CinC dictated. We have both fathers and mothers who serve in Iraq, whether they believe as individuals 'parents should serve' is an entirely different matter. Their beliefs and values are superceded by the countries demands until they become private citizens again.
Since many parents have been and are 'trusted news-sources and rolemodels"that give'150%' on their job, regardless of the type of work they do.....this obviously is not the issue, but just a distorted belief run amuck on your part,by being so narrowly focused and biased. I mean GET REAL....parents who work are role models and they giving 150% on their jobs is not uncommon...so stop with the hype...geez
NO, and they are not....people who are surgeons, construction workers, miners, firemen, policemen, small busines owners, AND parents...perform demanding jobs and are parents as well.
Vargas, made a personal choice, she was not disqualified....she knew that she would have to go to Iraq once the baby was born and she chose not to do that. If you want to talk about discrimination...why was she not in Iraq to begin with, with Woodruff....why did her preqnancy EXEMPT her from doing her job? Plenty of working pregnant women are in Iraq...why did Vargas not go? Did she have a medical excusse for that? It certainly seems so.
Based on how the story reads, Vargas skipped out on her job responsibilities, by using her pregnancy. The story says,she had been trying to be a 'good soldier' while pregnant....so who knows if she ever desired to fulfill that part of her job duties. Maybe, Woodruff,would have been rotated to anchor assignment and never have been injured, if his co-worker had been able to be rotated to the field to do the job she was in. Instead, it is possible she used her pregnancy to force Woodruff to be the one to go on the dangerous assignment.
Or maybe women who want to stay at home and raise a family should have that choice. And women who do not agree with those choices should accept that. Without all this fear of how it impacts society in terms of their feminist agenda. The only thing that needs to be redefineed, is your view, that somehow one woman's choice should dictate ALL PARENTS choices. It doesn't.
If you want to work as a mom...go right ahead....and stop trying to make this a societal issue for all women.
O please, the only thing offensive here is your pathetic attempt to make this out to be some feminist issue, of societal import, when all that happened is one woman decided to go home and be a parent to her child...instead of place herself in danger to fulfill her job demands. Some people understand that parenting is a demanding job, in and of itself, and choose not to have to do TWO demanding jobs,full time. Earning a living and being a full-time parent,is something men have seldom attempted. Smart women who have choices often realize that and make a choice not to either.
I would question ABC, only if Vargas had wanted to remain..she didn't.
The only female with a valid beef here is Sawyer. She has put in time,has the experience,and motherhood would not have been an issue, if ABC, wanted to have a female anchor. Sawyer,has a real professional issue here as a women...not Vargas.
May 25, 2006 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am genuinely curious to see a citation for Vargas planning a quick maternity leave a few days ago.
May 25, 2006 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I'm just a cynic, but barring more evidence that the changes truly represent Vargas's career and personal decisions rather than the network's choices for her, I can't accept Whiterosebuddy's counter as more than an expression of the prejudices that the post finds troubling. We have the context of ratings, network jockeying, Vargas's earlier apparent choice to take the job despite planning on becoming a mother, and the network's shift from twin anchors rather than simply replacing her. In fact, we have her reassignment, suggesting that she can carry on quite well. And of course we have no end of evidence of obstacles elsewhere to women seeking both a rewarding career and parenting.
Of course, the same cynicism about network news makes me reluctant to give this a central place in the debate or to see Couric as even remotely a feminist symbol. Look, they are making choices of which actor would fill the vacuous role of talking heads in an industry that prefers vacuity to reporting or questioning the administration -- or indeed to questioning society's prejudices. So, sure enough, we get the most pandering, vacuous woman they could find over at a competing network. If that's all we have to root for, we may as well give up.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
May 25, 2006 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
When a woman is pregnant,she makes lots of choices,that she re-evaluates,the closer she gets to term. Many women,who think they are going to have a short maternity leave,come to understand that is really not going to be realistic for them. They become more attached to their child and do not want to spread themselves thin trying to do two jobs at once. They want to experience the joys of motherhood without guilt. That is a very realistic choice for many,many,many women.
Vargas, still gets to have both worlds, by doing the 20/20 job, she remains in her profession,without the added risks of war assignments. That is very very reasonable.
You have to thinkabout how impactful Woodruff's circumstances would be on a pregnant female who was not even doing Vargas' job, let alone a woman who does that could have been her over there. Those are hard and difficult choices. Yet at the end of the day, most women would choose not to place themselves in danger and leave a child motherless, or disabled and unable to care for her child.
Kornbluh, is simply insensitive to the dangers of the job that Vargas had,and the real choices she had to make. It is perfectly sensible for Vargas, not to want the job with the risks it entails. Even if Vargas had at one time 'believed' she could do a quick maternity leave and NOW to realize that even if she does a quick maternity leave,she will also have to take a DANGEROUS assignment.
Heck, that is really a no-brainer,for a smart woman with choices.
Especially when she has Sawyer for a role model. A female who took all the professional risks,made the sacrifices and did her job with aplomb, only to in the end, have someone like Vargas,get the job she earned. Vargas, knows her credentials do not come close to Sawyers. So why should she risk her life and her childs well being,for what is essentially a ratings game?
Vargas, saw the handwriting on the wall,she choose not to sacrifice motherhood for what in the end was not promised,and Sawyer was living proof of that.
May 25, 2006 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this first and foremost about ratings and thus money? Bob Schieffer who is older than a Babyboomer just moved CBS into second place in the evening news ratings. ABC may have thought a younger couple would help them in the ratings but may not think a lone woman will do so. Setting asided the dangers of going to certain spots in the world television careers based on ratings is a dangerous career.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 25, 2006 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
ABC clearly wants Charlie Gibson stem a ratings problem. They deem it so important that they are taking him off the vastly more profitable morning show.
ABC, however, wants to soften their "tough" looking business decision with the family friendly thing. That is an illogical coverup. Vargas already has children so why would another child change her view of what she wants to do professionally. She has children so had already made the traveling tradeoff decision (risk etc.). What's the new issue?
If with this bably Varga did change her mind about her profesional-personal balance I would have expected that she would speak about how/why she made the choice. Her particular explanation would be consistent with her chosen role to provide the public with insight. As a professional woman she is well aware of how her situation can be played out in public to advance other people's causes. That she did not explain a changed view on the professional-personal balance is proof ABC decided for her.
ABC's method of removal disrespects their longtime professional. Vargas is the professional by not publicly challening their disingenuous approach. She is letting it speak for itself. Good for her.
If you don't believe me, consider what would they have done if a valued anchor had to be out several months for major surgery, treament for cancer, etc. If an anchor had to adjust a travel schedule for that reason what would ABC have done? If they valued that anchor they would have done anything necessary to keep that anchor, period.
May 25, 2006 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah,
I think this is a cover story.
ABC doesn't want to admit that network news viewers aren't ready to accept anyone but a middle aged white guy reading the news to them.(remember the demographic of who watches the evening news, think Golden Girls audience)
May 25, 2006 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no question Vargas was chosen over Sawyer for the role in the first place because she's a "babe" and younger - obviously targeted for a specific demographic in the audience.
Also, I find it odd that this article starts with ABC facing a ratings disaster with Vargas alone, then converts it into an issue over her being pregnant, based on ABC's justification.
Is the issue that the ABC justification is a fraud, or that Vargas is being discriminated against just because she is female and pregnant? Or is the complaint just that ABC chose an "anti-feminist" reason for dumping Vargas? Or all of the above?
"It’s not enough that they chose the guys over the gals." And "When things get tough, choose the old white guy.
These statements seem a bit, well, partisan. Not to mention that I'm sure the marketing people have demonstrated that "old white guys" are more trusted than young females at delivering news - even if that is obviously superficial and itself should be a cause for complaints about both the MSM and the idiots in this country who listen to it.
I also question throwing in Maureen Dowd on Hillary Clinton. Was that the real point of this?
The article is also complaining about the alleged discrimination "victim" here not going along with the article's viewpoint.
"the idea that only moms can’t do a demanding job is just offensive."
Uhm, I don't see any evidence from anybody other than the author that any of that applies to the referenced situation. I don't see anybody quoted as saying that. It appears to be an assumption of the author based on the circumstances.
The presumption that Vargas "can't make it to the top" would also seem to be premature, since she isn't going anywhere.
Barbara Walters is on "The View" - did she not "make it to the top"?
Methinks this whole business is much ado about nothing. There are a lot of other things to complain about in MSM than dicrimination against female anchors - not that it isn't an issue, obviously.
I recall when, I think it was NBC, once had TWO "babes" reading the news on their morning show. That got to be TOO obvious, so they cut it back to one.
It would seem to me to be a more "feminist" issue when the networks use sex appeal - or white male primate dominance - to sell the news in the first place.
May 25, 2006 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a young female professional working in a male-dominated sector, I really appreciate this piece. Hearing stories of discrimination against mothers prepares me to stand up for myself, should I end up in a similar position when I have kids. It's hard to object to something if I don't see anyone else questioning comparable logic. Thank you, Karen, and kudos for a job well done.
May 25, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it is appropriate to express an opinion about a woman about to have a baby about what choices she should or shouldn't make about her career. We all face circumstances that involve compromise for reasons that, on an individual basis, aren't really about choice. However, the imposition of choice upon people is where the line needs to be drawn.
thepeoplechoose
May 25, 2006 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
ABC, isn't that the news corp. whose 'Newsline' presented 19 shows on the minor Monica affair in 2 years but only 3 (THREE!) shows on the CIA leak investigation in 2 years. (ref: Media Matters)
Ask me if I have any respect for them.
May 27, 2006 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink