Weekly News Roundup
Liking these posts? Follow us on Twitter or fan us on Facebook — this is the edited version of what we’re reading! (We also Tweet if we hear about a good sale.)
– New York magazine decrees the pantsuit is back.
– The WSJ's Law Blog has a “blistering critique” of working mothers at law firms.
– The WSJ tests some mail-order cupcakes just in case, you know, anyone's curious. Meanwhile, Pauline Millard considers the latest cliches in chick lit.
– Are store brands just as good? The NYT's Bucks blog considers the question.
– Oooh, and the Bucks blog also rounds up some great stories, including whether an independent advisor or broker is right for you and your money, and how to investigate a broker.
Wow, WSJ Law Blog readers sure are bitter!
Midori, I was just thinking the same thing! Whew, how nasty. I guess it’s great evidence for how attitudes towards workers with families, both female and male, hasn’t changed nearly as much as I hoped it had.
I agree. I think it’s a shame to see both sides so upset with each other. No, it’s not fair for those who are childless to pick up the slack or have to work non-flexible hours. No, it’s not fair for working parents to be given short-shrift when it comes to assignments, promotions, and compensation. Guess what? Life’s not fair! No wonder lawyers have such a bad reputation. A little compassion on both sides would go a long way to making things easier on EVERYONE.
It’s very sad to see both sides so bitter at the real or perceived slights you identified. I would be curious if any of you work for a law firm (or wherever) that seems to have appeased all.
I work for a midsized firm where they quite literally will approve any arrangement for familial obligations–whether care for child, sick parent, or sick spouse– and nobody feels slighted by their absence because we all actually like each other and realize we might need time off someday, too… but, the promotions do come far too slowly for the males and females who took time off.
Here’s another perspective I don’t recall being addressed in the many many articles about parenthood and the practice of law – the client.
Last year I had a month long trial scheduled starting when my daughter turned 4 months old. I had only been back at work for a few weeks before trial. During trial I was working & billing often times 12-17 hour days. Many nights I worked all night preparing motions which had to be submitted the next day in the trial. I worked my tushie off (BTW, it was an awesome defense win!). At the conclusion of the trial when my client received the bill, he questioned the hours because he “couldn’t believe a women with a young baby at home would work that many hours.”
I was floored! I didn’t like not seeing my children for days on end. I didn’t like having a husband disgruntled for having sole parental responsibility for a month. But, it’s what I signed up for as a litigation attorney, and it’s the job I was being paid to do. I did it with a smile (well, most the time).
So, it’s not just the other attorneys in your office who may question your “devotion” as a parent lawyer (especially mother lawyer). Be prepared for the clients as well.
Agreed
If you don’t do the cash pooling and don’t want to give trinkets, perhaps a practical gift like a Kindle, Ipod, etc. (which can also be pooled for if it is too much for your budget).
whoops, sorry this was most as a reply to Zee’s question below.
The best part about the “working mothers” article is the comments. They are awesome! Love the anti-parent perspectives.
I don’t find them as anti-parent as everyone seems to say. I mean, I agree with a lot of it. If I have to stay late and work myself half to death to survive at my firm, I don’t appreciate a mother advancing just as quickly as I do when she leaves early to pick up kids, etc.
My firm is bending over backward for a relatively new mother here (the kinder, gentler firm of 2010, I guess) and it is creating a lot of anger among other associates. We pull all nighters and stay late every day and cancel plans, etc., when she says she can’t because she has children, yet she is on the same big cases we are? That’s just not right.
I can see that it must be very, very hard to juggle a firm and children, but isn’t that the choice you make when you decide to do both? the rest of us sacrifice our social lives and marriages and fun and pretty much everything.
If you want to advance, you put in the hours. That’s just all there is to it.
btw, I do think some of the comments were just mean and (purposely) rude, but I don’t think they were all “anti-parent.”
I agree, that if two people, same experience, etc., but one works less or less involved due family obligations (regardless of whether they are for children, spouse, elderly, etc.), then ye who puts forth the house should advance sooner. If you’re a parent, and you expect otherwise, that’s unreasonable. In my opinion though, if it’s deminimous differences, then there shouldn’t be any advancement difference.
As a parent though, I get extremely frustrated with assumptions that working parents don’t put in the hours. Yes, in some incidents that true. But, at my form BIG LAW firm, many of the associate parents (male and female) would leave the office at a relatively reasonable hour (6pm) go home, enjoy dinner with the family, put the kids down, and then log onto the computer and work late or all night when necessary. They were billing same, more or much more than those who perceived that they were not. I exceeded my billing requirements (billed a 2300 year) the year my son turned one. But, many of those hours were at night from my home.
I am also frustrated with the working parents don’t work as hard assumption. I may leave at 6:00 but I am also up well past midnight and working on the weekends. I don’t necessarily see this from my childless colleagues that are supposedly “picking up the slack.” Also, my years of post-graduate experience were not suddenly devalued when I had a child.
I have yet to meet a working lawyer mom in private practice or in-house who leaves the office at 6 and calls it a day…..
If the work is getting done, it shouldn’t matter if its done in the office or elsewhere.
The problem is the assumption of a lack of dedication prior to any actual evidence of it.
We’ve all encountered slackers, and only some of them are parents….
I kind of feel sorry for them. Must have been raised by wolves. They can have their biglaw pay–I hope it’s enough to compensate for their souls!
Please help! Our (fabulous, sweet, and helpful) receptionist just announced her departure, effective next Friday. What do I get her? She’s always good for a chat or a giggle, and very professional when necessary. Also, do I get her a gift on her last day? Today since she just announced?
Budget? A Tiffany piece (you can find pendants and several other items for under $150) might be a nice parting gift – and who can deny the allure of the blue box?
Before I went to law school I was support staff at firms, and I received many lovely gifts from attorneys and administrators. BUT, at my low hourly wage, cash or cash equivalent was always much more appreciated than pashminas or fancy key fobs.
So, I recommend that you give the receptionist a gift card to her favorite lunch place. If you know where she’s going to work next, maybe a gift card for somewhere near her new office. Or even just a Starbucks card.
Do you want to give her a gift just from yourself, or have what in the UK is called a “whip ’round” (let’s have a whip around the office and collect of bit of dosh for a prezzie).
Whichever, I’d give it to her just as she’s on her way out the door. Saves her having to say thank-you every time she sees you if it’s given sooner. Or is it just me with the compulsive repeat thank-you-ing?
no, you’re totally right. A whip-around is a GREAT idea, and giving it to her as she leaves will relieve everyone of the ‘thank-you-you’re-welcome’ pressures.
But please, no jewelery, no accessories, no trinkets.
If you don’t do the cash pooling and don’t want to give trinkets, perhaps a practical gift like a Kindle, Ipod, etc. (which can also be pooled for if it is too much for your budget).
Be sure to take a cue from whatever the office tradition is for farewell gifts. At our office, you get a signed card from everyone and a farewell party …. and that’s it, unless you are retiring.
Also, where is she headed? Will she have an office there (nice piece of art)? Is she headed back to school? (Something appropriate for that)…
It’s getting almost tiresome how polarized every single issue is getting in this country. I can’t help but view the anti-child group and rabid liberal in the same light – they all seem so unhappy and angry at the world, like they’ve been wronged in some way or feel as though it is their sole purpose in life to champion against anyone who has a different, more genuinely joyful perspective on this world and life in general.
Yes, there are many career hurdles for women with families to overcome. Some families are fortunate to have choices relating to their child rearing options. But, even in my days of being staunchly “childless by choice” I never resented those I worked with for having to take time to attend to their children. I rationalized that I made MY choice to not have children, but I also rationalized that children are our societies future. So, what would I rather, children who do not have involved and available parents be my future, or appreciate the many many freedoms I enjoyed as a younger woman without children? I figured what I gave up in the working environment was balanced by the benefits I had outside of work.
I just cannot understand the venom exchanged by women against other women. Never have, never will.
That’s funny. I can’t help but view the anti-child group and rapid conservatives in the same light (after all, if we want children, shouldn’t we just stay home with them? (note: that was sarcastic)). I guess it all just depends on your perspective, but I find it funny b/c you’re calling for less polarization, but obviously demonize those with different views from yours and assume they lack genuine joy.
No, I’m not demonizing those simply because different views. I merely made a generalization with respect to personal experiences. I have personally experienced that those on the extreme left side of the spectrum acting with less “joy” in their lives than those I’ve seen on the farther right side of the spectrum. However, admittedly, I should clarify, that I see that those with rabid views (either side of the spectrum), rabid liberals and right wingnuts, appear to experience life with less joy.
I guess, it’s just because I’m associated with more people on the far left than far right in my world, so I can only speak anecdotally, which certainly is no measure of a scientific norm.
I’m just exhausted with the apparent necessity to create conflict and division in our society.
Your generalization — based on your experience — however is exactly the problem. People have no perspective. Those complaining on the WSJ boards are also just making “generalizations” based on their “experiences” with lawyer-parents. Complaining about divisiveness and then singling out one side is a little bit ‘the pot calling the kettle black,’ if you ask me.
And for the record — not sure what you define as ‘rabid liberal’ but complaining about global warming or the evils of corporate globalization hardly seems any more ‘joyless’ than stocking up on guns, ammo, and canned goods in preparation for a revolution or the end of days.
Why must everything be phrased as “women on women” venom and fighting? I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am proud of my individuality. I grow tired of some people assuming that because I am a woman I must blindly follow the mass ideals (whatever they are) embraced by “all” women — like I am some sort of voting block (or worse, a member of a cult!). Even worse, I get annoyed that because I am a woman I must graciously accept every other woman’s lifestyle/career choice without trying to debate it out.
Why can’t we say we are a group of intelligent, passionate thinkers who get embroiled in discussions on life choices? Why must it always be classified as women hating against women? I think sometimes we give the enemy (whoever it may be) more ammunition when we try to force each other into neat little packages and pretend we are all goodwill and kindness and love to our fellow woman.
I like a good argument — it brings out viewpoints I might not have considered properly. If we can’t enjoy that and insist on dismissing a logical debate as hurt feelings and venom, what’s the point of all these women blogs, etc?
sorry to rant . . . a bit punchy on a Friday night . . .
@dcm58 — Agreed. I thought several of the WSJ comments were incredibly hurtful, with language choice like “breeders,” etc. We don’t know what genders those folks are, but even as much as I love debating things like this and the opportunity it gives us to see all viewpoints hashed out, terminology like that crosses the line.
I really share your frustration at the expectation that we bundle ourselves into neat, all-accepting packages. No! Some female politicians make me ashamed of them every time they appear, for instance, and I’m sick of people being amazed that I don’t love each one of them for no reason other than our shared “womanhood”.
There is absolutely a difference between constructive dialogue and a good debate of issues. However, many of the comments are not engaging in a constructive dialogue or debate.
As to the comments – I should specify, in the WSJ site, not here. I’ve found that the comments on this site are generally more constructive and not filled with a lot of comments with the intent to undermining a constructive debate.
I agree that everything shouldn’t be characterized as “women vs women”, however, child bearing is uniquely female, no? Parenting is not, however, yet, women tend to bear the brunt of the work related negativity.
I can’t understand it either. I do want to add, however, that the “rabid liberals” aren’t the only ones looking increasingly angry, and acting increasingly polarizing. This inarticulable fury definitely transcends political party, IMHO.
mkm – I agree. My personal theory is that, consciously or subconsciously, everyone is scared witless about a really serious recession showing up in the next few years, and they’re genuinely frightened about their futures.
The comments on the WSJ blog are disgusting, but they certainly don’t surprise me; I doubt they surprise anyone with young children.
Here’s how I see the issue: I would be perfectly fine at getting less pay or promotion potential based on the perception that I’ll put in less work than my child-free compatriots…
but in return, I expect them to renege on the social security, nursing care, food, and other services which the future generation I am “breeding” will provide them when they are elderly.
Fair?
@ Sei: Love it.
Sei – applause to you. The hubs and I are childless by choice, and we’re both grovelingly grateful to the people who are raising children. It is inexpressibly important work, and not easy, and I’m glad someone is doing it. Can’t believe people aren’t willing to cut parents a little slack.
Sei — Not even remotely fair. I am not trying to engage in this debate at all. I feel for mothers (and fathers) and am trying to structure my career in a way that I will be able to manage both, and I certainly commend you on doing both, but you’re comparing apples and oranges. The things you are supplying are for the masses, and its laudable of you to contribute. But the things you are willing to give up are all personal to YOU and entirely based on YOUR performance (and, admittedly, to some extent, the perception of your performance). A promotion is not guaranteed to those who do not have children — they have to work hard & must often sacrifice other areas of their lives to get there. Your premise is flawed. You are reasoning as if anyone of the street can walk in & get your job, and then be promoted so long as they didn’t have kids. Promotions are usually tied to accomplishments; and if, for whatever reason, someone else is able to accomplish more than you, then that’s a promotion they’ve earned. That’s how it works in a meritocracy. It’s unfair, but so is life (which is why I am choosing a career path accordingly).
A much better argument is that parents do just as much work as everyone else, they just do from home, late at night, etc. That does a much better job of addressing the gripe that parents work less than what you are suggesting in your comment.
First off, I specifically stated “perception”. You seem to be suggesting that I’m working less, or producing less, or that my work is lower quality than my compatriots who don’t have children. I was hardly suggesting that people should “walk off the street” and be given a job – I DO suggest that parenthood should be considered an equity in hiring and promotion decisions.
Secondly, we have such things as the Americans with Disabilities Act, in order to recognize that people who are disabled can do the same job just as well as long as certain requirements are met. There’s no excuse in refusing to hire an associate who can’t hear, so long as there can be some reasonable accommodation so that the lawyer can do the job. But the logic of the market says it may cost an employer MORE to hire a person with a disability because of that accommodation, so why should they be forced to do so, right?
It’s because as a society we have recognized that people who are deaf can contribute, and that keeping them out of the work-force because individual employers, on an individual basis, don’t want to cost themselves a few dollars to hire deaf individuals, would be detrimental to society as a whole.
Yet there is no similar recognition of the work that parents do and the sacrifices we make for society as a whole. No, instead people call us “breeders”, make comments about “welfare queens” and “stroller nazis” and “soccer moms”, and openly vent disgust at people who have “too many” children. And, of course, they appear assume that the hours I put in at work are not equivalent to the hours that my child-free co-workers put in.
There is a heavily sexist dimension to all this, of course – I’m female, and my husband stays home with the children. I doubt my husband would have similar difficulties if our circumstances were reversed.
If our society were different, and people could not depend on non-related children to support them, give them nursing care, and so forth in their old age, then having children would be recognized as a necessary part of investing in your future. Otherwise you’d die as soon as you couldn’t get your own food anymore, or became ill and lacked the strength to recover.
Society recognized that everyone should protect the elderly, even if they don’t have their own children to care for them. That’s why we have social security and medicare, and that’s why unionists fought for pensions and other benefits; that’s why we have 401Ks and the investment structure that we do, so that people can “earn” money long after they can no longer work. That’s part of why we have hospitals instead of many private nurses in homes.
So, no, this isn’t comparing apples and oranges. I am picking up the slack, so to speak, of child-free co-workers in other arenas; I’m contributing to their retirement, whether they recognize that fact or not.
I would absolutely agree with the apples and oranges comment, even after the explanation.
Medicare & SS comes from your working contributions — i.e., your paycheck each pay period. So, 1– If you work less, you have less to contribute to social security, medicare etc. And, 2 — the lawyers & other professionals putting in crazy hours at work are generally not going to need a state handout from you & your offspring.
Plus your argument of “picking up the slack” doesn’t really work because, by the same token, childless couples are picking up the slack by having their property taxes pay for schools, health insurance/subsidies for kids in some states, etc.
It’s a silly argument to make that only makes you realize we are all interdependent. If you want to make a point, I would not use it. I think the perception argument made by other posters (and to a lesser extent implied by your frustration) is much more persuasive. If parents put in as much work — whenever that may be, at night, weekends, etc. — they should not be penalized for just being parents. I agree.
But I think that defensive attitudes like Sei’s, that frankly come off as somewhat entitled to respect just because you chose to have kids, are really contributing to hostility on this issue. Just as non-parents need to be less judgmental of people with kids, people with kids need to understand that they are not any more special than those who chose to put off having kids or chose not to have them altogether (it’s true). A little compassion would serve everyone well.
Sei — all the arguments you make are emotional. This is clearly a hot button issue for you, but as a lawyer you should know that emotional arguments are less effective. We need to all be less judgmental of the other side. It sounds like your issues are larger than just work perceptions. People are entitled to complain about strollers, or whatever else, just like you can complain about them complaining about it. Don’t take it so personally.
PS: the term ‘breeder’ came from a gay sex columnist, Dan Savage, who wanted to cheekily call straights something in response to the various derogatory names that exist for homosexuals. Not everything is a personal attack on YOU. Choosing to have kids is a great choice, and good for you, but it’s a choice. And just like any choice we make (going to law school, getting a tattoo, choosing to have desert with dinner), you have to live with the consequences of your choices — the good & the bad.
The amount of benefits that people will receive from having today’s children take care of them are SO FAR out of proportion to what you pay in school taxes and increased insurance premiums that the idea that child-free folks pay their “fair share” out of them is utterly laughable.
Lawyers and other professionals are actually going to be getting more in social security than those who make less, because they’ve put more into supporting the elderly NOW in social security. They’ll also be using more in services (most likely) and more dependent on the work of today’s children to maintain their investments. And if you seriously think that the wealthy are less likely to be using medicare when they’re older, then you haven’t done any work in estate law, much of the purpose of which is to that medicare foots as much of the bill for long-term nursing home care as possible. One of the biggest indicators of whether somebody will be in a nursing home (and using the public dime for it) if they’re older is actually the number of daughters/daughters-in-law they have.
You should know that emotional arguments are the best arguments when they speak to what the audience is feeling. Judging by some of the positive responses here, I’m not the only parent who recognizes that we’re getting shafted.
I’m not necessarily saying I’m entitled to respect simply because I have kids, but if I manage to pull my load while getting no sleep and zero down-time, then yes, I expect recognition for that, instead of an assumption that because I’m a mother I’m automatically not paying attention to my job. I also don’t appreciate being snobbily told, “That’s your bed, suck it up and sleep in it,” while other people are taking advantage of the efforts that parents make.
Finally, don’t dare tell me I’m not entitled to take offense at something which is patently being used as an insult. If the term “breeder” is used disparagingly, it most certainly IS an insult, regardless of the motives of Savage when he coined the phrase.
Despite fear of getting sucked into this, I have to say that I don’t agree that having children necessarily benefits society as a whole. It may, if the kids are productive in the future and pay their taxes and work etc. But it may not, if the kids end up in jail or not working and a drain on society. It’s just not necessarily one or the other, so while parenting is hard work and should be lauded for that reason, it’s not necessarily something that childless people should have to be grateful for.
(And in addition — the planet really is overpopulated — I’m not saying this means people shouldn’t have kids if they want them, but it cuts against the argument that having children is beneficial to society in general — after a certain number, more people means worse consequences for the planet and us (and the future children themselves).)
Sei — you say that “I’m not necessarily saying I’m entitled to respect simply because I have kids, but if I manage to pull my load while getting no sleep and zero down-time, then yes, I expect recognition for that” — and you also say above that parenting should be regarded as “an equity” — This I can’t agree with. Parenting should be regarded by the employer as neither a positive nor a negative, because it would be equally unfair to punish childless people (some of whom are not childless by choice). If we are going to take parenting into account as a positive factor that would, I suppose, increase someone’s worth and therefore pay, then it’s a slippery slope to taking other things into account — e.g., caring for a disabled or elderly relative; caring for children when there is no stay at home partner (should they then get more recognition and more pay?). Note that this is only an argument that these things should not be taken into account by an *employer* — but perhaps they should (and are) taken into account by the government, e.g. certain tax deductions.
I don’t think anyone here would disagree, though, that if a parent works equally hard then they should get equal benefits to their childless colleagues — it should not be considered a negative mark against them by the employer or their colleagues or create a presumption that they won’t work as hard or as many hours. Wasn’t that the original issue, anyways?
Sei — you seem really bitter. I hope that I never become as bitter as you, whether I end up having kids or not.
I really disagree with the underlying logic of a lot of what you say, but I am going to assume that you are mainly upset about not getting recognition for pulling your load, as you say. And, as I already said, I think that’s fair & expressed eloquently by some of the other posters.
Emotional arguments, by the way, work on juries. Less so on judges. Having gone to law school, I consider myself more on the judge side — so, the whole emotional appeal is not working for me. The fact that what you’re saying has gotten positive responses is hardly dispositive either (considering that people are also echoing what I’m saying … it brings us absolutely nowhere). I suspect lots of people experience your frustrations, and we all relate to what we know.
I could get into the various ways your underlying rationale is faulty, but I’d rather not further go down this road as quite frankly I am not sure it will lead to anything positive. Working & having kids is damn hard — you are to be commended. I just hope that you also get some enjoyment out of this life you have chosen, because here you just sound really angry & aggrieved, & I am going to stop responding b/c I do not want to contribute to any more bitterness on your part.
Sei, I don’t think you sound bitter or angry or aggrieved, for what it’s worth. Just because you point out that someone else’s premise is flawed doesn’t make you bitter.
And no, I don’t have kids.
Agreed, Sei!! Though I don’t yet have a husband or family, I certainly hope to someday, and I’ll just work off the assumption that anyone who thinks less of me or my work product for it doesn’t intend to benefit from my choices, directly or indirectly, when they’re old and decrepit :)
It depends. Can I get back all of my property taxes that pay for schools for your children to attend, and the portion of my taxes that pay for state universities that your children may attend? Can we eliminate the tax deductions you get for having children, as well as any other expenses I pay that benefit your children? Can we segregate out our medical insurance premiums?
Seriously, you’re comparing two different things. I’m child-free, and I appreciate that other people’s children will contribute to my (and the public) welfare in my old age. I also happily vote in favor of levies for public schools because I believe in ensuring a good education for future generations. But I think you’d be better served if your actual contributions were recognized rather than focusing on the benefits future generations provide without acknowledging the expenses those w/out children incur to create that benefit. I also think it’s questionable to assume that anyone who is child-free believes that parents work less. I recognize that many (but not all) of my working-mother friends work from home during evenings and weekends. I also work from home during evenings and weekends. Personally, I don’t concern myself with when or where people are actually doing their work, and my experience has been that the parties making assumptions about the contributions of working mothers are not the mothers’ peers so much as the older, male partners.
Recognition should be based on actual contribution, not perception. I would hope we could all agree on that.
oh the motherhood debate. It always comes around and I think it’s about choices and consequences. Just live with them whichever side you fall on and please schtum about it. Whichever side you fall on.
I made a choice to have a child, not to sudden have my performance evaluated under a different expectations. I put in the hours, I expect the respect accorded to my childless colleagues (or those who have stay-at-home spouses). I do leave early, but I also work late at night, after the kids are in bed.
Suggesting that I should just shut up (which is what schtum means, you know) is not cool.
Judith, is it fair that if I don’t have children & you do, and someone has to work on a holiday, I will be the one asked b/c I am perceived to have no “family obligations”?
I agree 100% that if you do the same work, you should get rewarded accordingly. But that’s not always the case; hence, the frustration.
Sigh… Well, where I work (federal government), we have a rotating holiday schedule that’s planned out far enough in advance so that those with children can make arrangements permitting them to be in the office, any and all can make vacation plans, etc. It’s a small enough unit such that, if need be, the folks who are in can work on others’ material (or at least respond competently to questions about it) for a day.
Compared to what I read elsewhere about the challenges for working parents, and the perceptions of their work, my office seems like utopia. But frankly, I think we’ve worked hard to get there. Everyone has a healthy respect for everyone else’s life choices, whether they involve procreation or not.
Developing that respect has not been an easy road — some in the past really stuck to that mentality that an employee’s brain doesn’t work unless he or she is in the office. But upon reading and evaluating work product, it became clear that all were pulling their weight and more besides.
Of course, the consensus on other blogs (I’m looking at ATL here) appears to be that government attorneys are by far the least competent of all law school grads, so I probably don’t know what I’m talking about ;) That’s yet another assumption that enrages me every time I read it…
No! Not ATL! I hate that blog with such a passion…
Seems to me Lucy that you are in the same boat as the parents…ie… perceptions around your availability/commitment based upon your parental status, and in both cases its wrong. If you don’t want assumptions to be made about your time (more available) simply because you don’t have children, then you shouldn’t want assumptions made about your peer who is a parent’s time (lack of availability).
Now if you are constantly leaned on by your superior in these situation, should you be mad at the parent, or mad at the person making the wrong assumption of both of you? And if the response is, well X is a Mom/Dad, shouldn’t your response be X is a _____ (insert job description)?
I guess I am lucky in the both up and down my work food chain are parents and we all rotate covering the holidays etc… My boss is pregnant so I am taking a late week in the summer so the attorney who reports to me can take 2 weeks (traveling abroad). I had Christmas week off last year, so I am taking T’giving week this year and will be in over the holidays. But I am in-house, so perhaps the thinking is not so individualistic.
That is exactly my point — I do not think that any assumptions about anyone’s time should be made.
You replied to my comment, not to address the merits of my point, but to make an ad hominem attack and say I sound “bitter” based on all of many twenty paragraphs on one particular topic. Nice. Can you keep the assumptions about what’s going on in my personal life out of the discussion? I think showing your stereotypes doesn’t really help.
Here’s the reality:
A parent who is putting in 40 billable hours a week (to make one example) has less free-time in which to do so than somebody who is not a parent. The parent is having to be far more efficient in their use of time; is almost assuredly sleep-deprived while doing it; is doing the equivalent of working most of the time she is at home, because even while she is sleeping she has to do it with one ear open in case the baby wakes up crying or the six-year-old has a nightmare. Most parents (and especially mothers) who work professional jobs don’t get very much time, if any, to do something as simple as sitting down and watching a single television show. It’s exhausting. Most of the parents I know who work actually consider their time at work to be their “break”.
That is the entire point of articles asking if women can “have it all” (a career plus a family) and why so many older, professional women conclude we can’t – because it takes a very, very hardworking parent to compete with professional colleagues who don’t have children, particularly if the parents have young children. Usually outside demands on a person’s life are not taken into consideration in personnel decisions, but the vast majority of outside obligations are not comparable to child-rearing. They don’t consume your entire life, they aren’t something which you can’t put down for 18+ years, and they don’t have the benefits to society which raising children does. The only outside obligation that’s usually mentioned as a possibility – caring for elderly parents – usually occurs to people substantially older and already well-established in their careers, and therefore even if their difficulties aren’t considered in management decisions (though I think they should be) it will likely impact only a relatively small number of working years.
So, you have two co-workers, one is a parent and one is childfree. They’re both putting in 40 billables a week, and the parent is working significantly harder to do so. Fast-forward twenty years, and the children are now out of the house, no longer a demand on the parent’s time. In the current situation, she is likely to not be as highly-regarded or highly-promoted as her childfree counterpart; I’m arguing that his or her capacity to manage a full-load while caring for children should be seen as an indication of his or her work ethics, abilities, and time-management skills. Maybe it’s an indication that she’d make a BETTER managing partner.
After all, the PURPOSE of taking accomplishments into account when deciding promotions is so that the hiring managers can choose the best person for the job; accomplishments themselves are one indicator, but they should be considered in the context in which they’re accomplished, and usually when a parent is reaching the height of their career the children are no longer young and no longer require so much attention. So why stall out a woman’s career in her 20s or 30s because of her children if, when taking the fact that she’s raising children into account, her abilities appear to be comparable to those of her peers?
And if a parent is putting in work product that is equivalent to those of her non-parent co-workers, wouldn’t it be beneficial for hiring and promotion decision-makers to consider that they might have a real gem?
Why should companies cut off their noses based on the perspective that parents don’t work as hard?
And isn’t it unfair to essentially make people choose between (1) a fulfilling career, and (2) parenthood and a vastly limited career? I hear a lot of people say that parents need to accept that there are “trade-offs”, as if it simply wouldn’t be fair to the rest of the world if at least one aspect of my life wasn’t harder if I have children. That attitude, though, really makes me wonder if those people understand that parents (especially mothers) already make sacrifices for their children which in any other context would be considered extreme. Why can’t those sacrifices be limited to the already-present financial, social, health, and personal sacrifices, and leave our careers out of it? I can’t help but assume it’s because historically all those sacrifices were borne by women and therefore seen to be part of a “duty” of motherhood (not parenthood, but motherhood), and therefore if we want to be able to “cut it with the boys” and be treated with equal respect, we have to prove that we are better than those boys. Same old crap, repackaged.
Having parenthood be seen as an equity in hiring and promotion decisions would not make it “unfair” to people who are childfree. It would do nothing more than even the playing field, so that the people who work hardest and are the most capable are those who are promoted to advanced positions.
NOT recognizing the realities of parenting while working leads – as I think has been shown these past few decades – to not having as many female professionals in advanced positions (partners, CEOs, etc); poverty more strongly associated with mothers than any other group; wide-spread problems with depression, anxiety, and burnout among parents, especially women; and continued sexism and gender imbalances in our society.
Usually outside demands on a person’s life are not taken into consideration in personnel decisions, but the vast majority of outside obligations are not comparable to child-rearing. They don’t consume your entire life, they aren’t something which you can’t put down for 18+ years, and they don’t have the benefits to society which raising children does. The only outside obligation that’s usually mentioned as a possibility – caring for elderly parents – usually occurs to people substantially older and already well-established in their careers, and therefore even if their difficulties aren’t considered in management decisions (though I think they should be) it will likely impact only a relatively small number of working years.
I really think this is incredibly untrue. Not only can people end up caring for elderly parents for a very long time or at younger than stereotypical ages, there are a myriad of other commitments/issues that can effect people’s time as much as parenting. People might have health issues of their own – you think someone with, say, a chronic pain condition doesn’t have a harder time putting in 40 billable hours a week? Not at all. – or their spouse/partner might have health problems. People might be intensely involved in a church or religion in a way that can’t just be left alone or dropped when work comes up. Or volunteer commitments might take that same place. Or any one of a hundred things that you might judge more or less worthy. Parenting is an awesome, wonderful thing, but it’s not the only worthwhile or necessary non-work thing people to do. We can’t sit around assessing people’s private lives and whether they deserve special credit for what they do with their free time. “Oh, well, I saw you watched TV for ten hours last week so that’s going to count against you at work because Jane Doe was spending that time with her children, so no promotion for you. No promotion for you!” Please.
I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying, but there are several flaws..
1. Becoming a parent is, at its core, a choice (yes, with the obvious exceptions of course). It should be chosen with one’s eyes wide open. It is just as much of a choice as any other pursuit outside work.
2. As v mentioned above, recognizing people’s difficulties outside of the office and promoting them based on how they deal with those can get very tricky. For example, should someone get this recognition because they conquered a mental disorder? a physical but non-life-threatening disease? a personal difficulty that they do not wish to name to their employer for privacy reasons but would now feel compelled to do so? (as mentioned above, at least parenting is a choice — a serious mental illness, for instance, is not!) And what if a parent is really not working extra hard and doing double duty — e.g., they could be a bad parent; they could have a stay at home spouse and an au pair and a private tutor etc etc, and never see their kids – so should they still get the “parent” benefit in this hypothetical promotion/recognition decision?
I see the fundamental point as this: Each person has made (or had thrust upon them, perhaps, in the case of elderly parents) lifestyle choices. These choices include spouses / partners, children, family, friends, pets, volunteer commitments, hobbies, second jobs, continued education, etc. Each person’s choice is of value and importance to her or him.
In a workplace setting, as in any group, it is very likely that the needs and preferences of one person will conflict with another. Someone’s child may be ill at the same time another is appearing in a community theatre production or a third has a continuing education exam or a fourth has plans to visit friends or a fifth had an elderly neighbor be rushed to the hospital. Each will hope that her or his need will be recognized as valid. Each will expect that her or his colleagues will recognize the importance of this need and understand that the person will require some accommodation.
Unfortunately, in my experience, these needs will never be equally valid. A child is helpless and dependent upon adults. Some may argue that friends or neighbors aren’t the same as family, pets have less “value” than people, or volunteer work isn’t the same as required work.
I suspect we would all move further along in this debate if we agreed that everyone’s choices have merit and accommodations should be considered for all. In addition, the individuals who require repeated accommodation, whether because of the number or health of their children or the needs of their parents or their own active lives, should be respectful of the fact that they may be resented not for the reasons but for the extent of the accommodation.
In the end, as others have noted, merit rewards should be based on merit performance. If there is no concrete requirement that work be accomplished at a particular time and place, then those working nights / weekends or from other locations should not be penalized.
Agreed. I’m all for equal pay (or recognition) for equal work. Where the work isn’t equal, neither is the pay, regardless of the reason for why the work wasn’t equal.
That doesn’t make less work somehow less virtuous, yo. Not all of it is the result of choice. Care of elderly parents is a good example. Sometimes, so is care of children. I, for example, did not intend to get pregnant at this time, and my religious convictions demand that I accept the child as from God (which I’m happy to do). But it’s going to force some decisions about work that I wouldn’t have otherwise made. When it comes down to it, for the most part, no one’s circumstances or even baseline intelligence and abilities are the result of choice anyway. So I think we have to be careful about attaching value judgments to the more/less work debate. It is what it is. If you’ve been blessed with the ability to work a lot, and you have the discipline to take advantage of it, you should be compensated for that. If you haven’t, or you don’t, you should get compensated for what you do, and look for further rewards in other places.