What A Turning Point Looks Like
My role on the New School Panel was to provide a salutary reality check on the hitherto uniformly idealistic feminist discourse on women caught in the work/family vise.
If any of you had the sitzfleisch to watch the video you see me frantically pointing at my computer as Heather Boushey, author of “The Opt Out Revolution is a Myth” said aloud that the thirty year long trend of women increasing their work place participation had come to an end.
Here’s what I was pointing at. The government data shows that moment graphically, pun intended. Put another way, here’s what a crucial moment in a social movement looks like:
As the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported, the downturn in married women with children in the workplace started around 1997, when the participation of married women without children did not start declining until the recession of 2001. Although I did not start the research for my book, “Get to Work,” thinking this is what I would find, the qualitative data I turned up reflected perfectly the decline in the workforce participation of women and women with children. Boushey says the BLS statistics are wrong: the presence of children does not correlate with leaving the workforce. But the trend of the curve is NO LONGER UP. And in social movements, that is crucial.
The question is always: what is to be done?
I propose that women refuse to participate in unjust families, an act they can do on their own. In the meanwhile, Ellen and the rest can figure out a way to get paid sick leave and the rest enacted into law without the benefit of a labor movement with a detectable heartbeat. This is not an ideal answer. As an old union lawyer, I understand the value of collective action. But I have waited forty years for an organized social movement on the rise to show the political muscle to make the male bosses do what they cannot even get from the men they sleep with. Like the 87 year old lady in the Times article this morning, who’s voting for Hillary for first woman President, I would like to see women confront this issue some time before my pacemaker gives out.
Without a more detailed demographic breakdown (i.e. income level, race, age ect.) it is difficult to draw too many conclusions from this graph.
Do you think the trend is based on current economic conditions? It would seem to run counter to that.
How about this for an explanation: The women with children who are opting out of work are the children of the first generation of women who opted in.
November 27, 2007 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both of my wife's sisters opted out of the workforce because even though they had good jobs, the cost of daycare was just too overwhelming. They would have lost money for them to stay in the workforce.
But, that wasn't the main reason for her sisters wanting to stay home. Both of them despised the idea of strangers raising their children. Both of them wanted to stay home.
I'm not sure what you mean by, "I propose that women refuse to participate in unjust families". So, women shouldn't get married? Women shouldn't have children? That sounds pretty harsh and unrealistic. Is that what you really meant?
The economic realities of the free market in the determination of daycare rates are forcing the hands of many women to stay home and take care of their children, an activity that these women actually prefer to the alternative of letting a stranger raise their child. Your proposal is that they should never have had children in the first place?
November 27, 2007 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
and your wife's brothers in law? they were okay with "strangers?"
November 27, 2007 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it so clear that your wife sisters should stop working, instead of their husbands? Why can't they both work less to care for the children? The interesting information is not the percentage of women working in itself, but the ration of this and the men's number. Since we have little reason to assume that men also saw a similar decrease in participation rates, it is safe to assume that this ratio is also falling.
The good thing about high participation numbers for women is not its economic value or anything. It's the increased equality that it symbols. And this decrease suggest that either equality is decreasing again, or never was as good as we hoped it was.
November 28, 2007 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
My wife ever "opts out" of the work force, she's gonna find herself opted right the hell out of this marriage! I expect her to support me in the style to which I would like to be accustomed to, and I'm a tough customer.
In general, any woman whom she wants to opt out of paying her way, her husband ought to set her straight.
November 28, 2007 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know the opinions of my brothers in law. But, that's not the point, is it? Economic reality forced one of the parents to stay home. Their wives wanted to stay home and so their wives chose to stay home. These women didn't want strangers raising their children, an opinion echoed by my wife since the time we got married, long before any plans for our own children.
Interesting that you bring up the men in these situations. From my perspective, these men didn't have any choice in the matter since the women made their choice for them. So much for equality.
And again, I ask what you meant by, "I propose that women refuse to participate in unjust families". So, women shouldn't get married? Women shouldn't have children? That sounds pretty harsh and unrealistic. Is that what you really meant?
November 28, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of my brothers-in-law is an entrepreneur. There is no working less when you have your own company, not if you actually want to make money. His wife is a surveyor. She could leave her job for a few years and come back. If he left his job, his company would die.
Most companies require at least 40 hours a week anyway. Saying that they should just "work less" is completely unrealistic.
My other brother-in-law could have stayed home. He made just as much money as his wife, so it would have been an even trade financially. But, his wife wanted to stay home more than he did. So, she made that choice.
Feminism is about giving women choices. Why is it that some feminists can not tolerate the fact that some women choose to follow the traditional path and stay home rather than send their kids to daycare and remain in the work force? Just because it's a choice that you would not have made does not make that choice bad. Why is it that some feminists don't see women exercising their freedom of choice as a good thing?
November 28, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'd guess that refusing to participate in unjust families might have something to do with this:
You suggest that "the economic realities of the market are forcing the hands of many women to stay home." You then suggest that women prefer this to "the alternative" of "letting a stranger raise their child." (Any other alternatives there?)
You ask, then, with some incredulity, what she could possibly be proposing instead of this choice between staying at home or hiring a child care provider? That women have no children at all?
The alternatives on offer here are:
So here's the thing. The economic realities of the free market shouldn't just force the hands of women. And if you're married, you have children together.
I suppose if the three options above are the only options that one can conceive of in raising children, then "refusing to participate in unjust marriages" would equate to not having children.
But they should not be the only options.
November 28, 2007 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't they both work less to care for the children?
In a world where two-incomes are necessary to keep most of us in the middle class, it's hard - but it seems to me that for most people, less than full-time, on-site employment remains difficult to find.
My wife and I have pulled that off so far, through flex-time and consulting work - except for four months, we've both managed to be home at least one day per workweek, and one or the other of us more, so that we rely on 'strangers' only a bit (incidentally, I don't think having someone outside the family involved in raising your kids is a bad thing at all, in terms of the kids. It's hard to imagine a world where this system isn't predicated on paying relative poverty wages, though, unless we go with an all-day care system, which I would be happy with). But it's been a matter of a few hard trade-offs combined with a lot of dumb luck that we've gotten to do that. (I've made it a non-negotiable part of job negotiations, but I'm not such an irresistable commodity as all that).
November 28, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strongly agree on questioning the assumption that leaving children in the care of "strangers" is dangerous and somehow irresponsible. This is overwrought rhetoric -- and ultimately leads us down the primrose path to homeschooling for everyone which I think is foolhardy, economically dangerous, and anti-democratic. Not to mention inherently disrespectful of women who do opt to have their children in daycare. Yes, some daycare situations are probably both strange and dangerous, but blanketing ALL childcare outside the home as "strangers" is ridiculous.
I agree with Devon that at least some involvement of others in childrearing is a good thing for the kids. I know plenty of grown-ups who will tell you that they wish their mothers had spent more time outside the home. Not everyone is well-suited to be a stay-at-home mom. And, even children with moms who are good at it benefit from the exposure to other people, other habits and other viewpoints.
November 29, 2007 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes, the old "I choose my choice" move.
As if there were no social context for all this choosing. Let us look at this story. The commenter made sure his wife was committed to aborting her . . . career when their "babies" came, probably a predictable arrangement since she apparently came from a family of women all of whom freely chose to 1) take jobs that paid less than their husbands' jobs did or freely chose to preempt their equally-compensated husbands by quitting first and 2) think that day care, nannies, nursery school, public school, college? constitutes "strangers" taking care of "their" babies. The commenter can speak for his (still unheard from) sisters in law and wife, but not his brothers in law.
So the first thing I wonder is exactly how free these women (wherever they silently may be) "chose" the decisions, like studying for jobs that made less money or supporting their husbands' decision to start a company just as the babies came, that put them in this situation. The second thing I wonder is when the burden of the market economy was assigned entirely to women, enabling the men to fulfill the demands of the forty or nothing job market which means no change will ever occur. The third thing I wonder is whether the women "chose" dependency on these men such that their and their children's lives will forever be at the mercy of people like the commenter who purport to speak for them. And finally I wonder if they "chose" to make it harder for every other woman trying to rise in a profession, like, for instance, surveying, where someone might make an independent and respectable middle class living.
November 29, 2007 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Specialization. It's generally more efficient to specialize. For example, during pregnancy a woman is already making life adjustments to prepare for children while the man is probably working for job security and material wealth to support a child. Then the woman is (hopefully) breast feeding throughout the day, though it's possible to make pumps work and such, but again that's more difficult.
Point being, it can be juggled, but there are some natural reasons to specialize.
Those who rise to the top of their fields tend to be highly specialized and devoted to their work. That's not for everyone of course, there are trade offs, and not all jobs one would want to devote one's life to. But an individual in a given system shouldn't expect to have the same income as another individual who has specialized and worked more and had less leisure time.
Having said that, all US workers are getting ripped off compared with Europeans and others who have far more leisure time and equivalent or better quality of life, due to more egalitarian wealth distribution. While in the US, it's a rat race, with most of the wealth accruing to the top of the investor class, and not to workers at any level.
November 29, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of specialization and Europe, I'm told that it's common, in some Scandinavian countries where parenting leave is typically a year for both parents, for men to stay home the first year and women the second, based on evidence that maternal involvement is more important for language acquisition.
November 29, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for more time off! :)
But seriously, that has to be adopted on a wide basis for it to work, otherwise your competitor isn't taking the time off while you are, and then eating your lunch. Which means it has to be regulated to basically hold back the workaholics, and some of the most productive people and companies. Which is then going to have economic costs, which have to offset elsewhere, and having the least efficient healthcare insurance system and uncompetitive companies like GM isn't helping. then there are the issues of racism, regionalism, classism, religious fundamentalism, and so on in America which make a Scandinavian style egalitarianism very difficult.
So, we should be cognizant of just how enormous and interwoven these issues are with the entire fabric of America.
For example:
If a person works at a factory or some rote task, it's fairly straightforward to scale the workforce to allow for more time off. But there are costs, obviously. GM for example is already lacking competitiveness in many ways, from HCI costs to shitty design and an American market that's behind the global curve on consumer preferences. But regardless, unless GM can find the money elsewhere, they can't afford more time off. And, even if they could, such blue collar labor jobs aren't going to be the highest paid and most prestigious fields, so that alone wouldn't solve the gender gap in regards to top professions.
In small companies in highly competitive and creative fields like software or biotech for example, which also tend to be the most prestigious and high paying, most people simply can't take off large amounts of time and return to the workforce on the same seniority and pay track as they would otherwise. There isn't the redundancy of workforce and talent to absorb their duties. For example, many companies are only as good as their last product, research, or breakthrough, which may be developed in as little as six months. So a person taking a year off may miss an entire product cycle, and return to a very different company than what they left, lacking the skills and experience peers gained during that period.
A large and profitable company like Google, which employs thousands of people, is an example of a prestigious, top-flight, company that can probably afford better maternity leave and more European style HR policies. But, that's again going to be on a more rank and file level. Senior mngt may be less replaceable, meaning that fewer senior people will probably take extended maternity leave. And as we see in France for example, it's still women who generally opt-out of careers to raise children, despite high levels of maternity leave and other family friendly policies.
Imagine if Josh Marshall stopped blogging for a year. Could he realistically expect to come back and still be on top? Probably not. And there would be no way to regulate that. It's just a reality of a rapidly changing and creative field where one can't really take breaks and remain on top. Or for another example, imagine a biotech researcher who was a head of the lab in a key position, taking a year off to raise children, and during that time the lab loses it's edge and a competitor beats them to the breakthrough. Their competitor gets the patents and investors, advantaging them.
Another issue is of physical aptitude for parenting. Again, there are obvious issues such as breast feeding which favor women as parents. I suspect that given two parents of equal careers, in a totally gender fair society affording them both equal options, more than 50% of the time the woman would still opt to be the primary child care giver, and there would be a resulting skew in top professions as a result of time taken away from the career track.
We'd all like to have vacation all the time, and all be above average in our careers, and all be wonderful FT parents too. But realistically there are going to be trade-offs and specialization.
Presently, there are certain economic and biological factors which prefer women as parents and men for top flight careers. They range from social norms, economic pressures, and biological specialization. Some can be straightforwardly addressed, such as better breast pumps. others are more complex, such as the tradefoffs of more regulation of maternity leave and family friendly policies that have to be approached realistically and not ideologically.
I'm for more gender parity, as I do think we're failing to maximize the full potential of options, men and women, to find their own roles in ways that make sense, are good for them as individuals, their families, and their communities.
However, I tend to think that complete gender parity is an irrational goal, despite my upbringing and belief in it most of my life. Until men can actually give birth and breast feed, hormonal levels and brain development are all completely the same, and until we're all essentially asexual, it's irrational to expect meaningful differences to produce complete parity.
After considering the issue for many years, I don't see how it's a rational goal, or what is wrong with statistical bias so long as individuals have maximum free choices to do what will bring them the greatest happiness and good to the community, reality permitting.
There are conflicting objectives and there are going to be practical tradeoffs. We want children to be breast fed and nurtured to be maximally socialized, healthy, and smart. But we also want everybody to have the option for a high flying career. And we want safe manufacturing jobs that are high paid and afford security. And we want those factories to be making excellent and competative products designed bythe best and most dedicated people. And we also want everyone to have loads of vacation time. And we want everyone to have maximal freedom to excel on merits, at the same time we want to mandate that others not be workaholics and pass others who choose more vacation and child rearing.
I'm open to solutions. But there has to be trade offs. and I think it's intellectually dishonest that some feminists like Graff are basically demagogues in refusing to accept that there are going to be tradeoffs.
November 29, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be sure there are trade-offs, but I think the hard line that some take isn't to deny this, but to make it possible for individuals to choose which trade-offs they want to make.
I'm not completely sure about this, but I believe there are government subsidies under the Scandinavian system to make it possible for companies to replace workers on leave.
That said, I have heard that male participation rates are still low, and there have been efforts to incentivize taking the alloted time off. Can't say for sure whether they work.
One assumption I would question is whether or not most people are concerned about others having their lunch. Those of us who are hanging out at the Cafe (slacking off element of doing this aside) are probably fairly likely to be driven, and surrounded by driven people. But is the average American worker one who wants to be above average in their career? Maybe - I don't know - but I kind of doubt it.
November 29, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I mean. That's not making the really hard tradeoffs that have to be made, where one person's choice effects another person's options.
December 3, 2007 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this really a special case? Don't our workplace choices generally affect others options?
For instance, I used to habitually stay late, because I liked the peace and quiet of the office at 7. But when enough people do that, it puts a drag on everyone else going home - they feel pressure to stick around longer. Eventually, staying late didn't really give me much peace and quiet anymore.
Obviously, employers and supervisors choices affect others options more strongly, but general office culture doesn't always filter down. I used to work in Japan, in a particularly hard-drinking office. Many people were uncomfortable being dragged along to endless drinking events. In these situations, bosses typically leave early, so that the employees can relax. So the pressure wasn't from the higher-ups, but it was there and it was strong.
To some extent, then, aren't the options of someone who wants to work flex-time, or part-time, or take their FMLA leave, affected by your choices too? I understand that you are saying that the person in your position has to pick up the slack, but isn't why you bear that additional burden really more complicated than that ?
December 3, 2007 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Linda, exactly which commenter are you referring to here? You're quoting "babies," but nobody seems to have said that.
December 4, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink