There’s a lot of talk about how to create a family-friendly workplace, and I’ve been mulling over one of the concepts in The Feminine Mistake for a while. Some of this is hers and some of it I think is mine.
We often talk about women getting to the top and then changing things, but the problem is that most women who’ve gotten to the top have had to act like men to do it. And once there, they’re not really that interested in helping other women to get to the top without paying the dues/making the same personal sacrifices that they have had to make.
Consider, on the other hand, men who have wives who work full-time, serious jobs. Two things happen (theoretically, at least): One, they have an intimate understanding of the challenges faced by a working mother. And two, without a wife taking care of everything on the home front, they themselves have more responsibility and thereby require a more flexible, humane work environment.
By this theory, the answer to developing a more family friendly work environment is not so much to have more women at the top as to have more men at the top with wives who work. (At least for the first generation. Once a generation of women who didn’t have to sacrifice everything gets to the top, they’d theoretically be more flexible for the next generation, too.)
Looking back on the senior men and women with whom I’ve worked, I’d say there’s a rough (by no means 100% consistent) alignment with this idea that men with working wives are more sensitive to the need for balance whereas the women think other women need to either sacrifice like they did or slow down their career development, at least for a while. What are your thoughts and experiences?
I actually lament that almost all (90%) of the senior executives I’ve ever worked with had stay at home wives. I hate it. I think you’re dead on – they have no idea what it takes to “live” even as a single woman. Since they haven’t done laundry or gone to the grocery store in years – and they’ll admit it.
And i’m not even a mother. I can’t imagine how much worse I would feel about it all. And more than anything, it has left me with the distinct feeling that I want a “wife.” It is tragic.
I now work with a group of men between the ages of 35-45, which is just north of my peer group – and yet the trend persists. I can’t decide whether powerful men, so to speak, opt to marry less ambitious women, or whether the money enables them to give up work earlier. It all worries me from a social progress perspective. And I try not to think about it too hard.
I am halfway through The Feminine Mistake. While I can’t say I completely agree with everything in the book (seems quite fear driven — “your man is going to leave you, one way or another” theme) but I like the advice she heeds to always be able to take care of yourself. There is power in that capability, even if you never have to use it.
The book seems directed towards working women in the business world, and it shocked me how much it all made sense. If a woman who is also a mother is given the choice to continue working 60 hours per week or not work at all … well, that isn’t much of a choice. Add to it that most women never find a job they love … why would they continue to work if they could stay home with the kids. And the bits about trying to break back in once you’ve taken time off … wow.
I am glad she is getting this message out but I seriously doubt the target audience is rushing to read this book. No one wants to hear about all the bad things that can happen to them.
And I like your way of thinking, too. A family friendly workplace would be fantastic for everyone.
I’m struggling to create a family friendly workspace of my own, and I haven’t read the book (although I’m increasingly intrigued) so I’m not sure exactly what I want to say.
I was caught short by Lily’s comment and the characterization of stay at home mothers as “less ambitious” than their counterparts who work outside the home. Since she brought up “social progress,” I’ll confess that doesn’t seem terribly progressive. The majority of the women I know who work full-time outside the home do so out of financial necessity so couldn’t one also say (playing devil’s advocate here) that perhaps stay at home mothers were so ambitious and/or fiscally responsible that they secured their family finances in order to stay at home once they had kids?
And Irish Girl, “if a woman who is also a mother is given the choice to continue working 60 hours per week or not work at all”–oh, if I could only cut my active parenting hours down to 60 hours a week, it would be a vacation!
I think the key to a family friendly space of any sort is one that stops polarizing those staying at home and those staying at work.
I really think that’s a huge idea. If the men at the top have wives that work, only then will they understand ANYTHING about being a working mother. That assumes they also have children, and that they don’t have a full-time nanny. It really seems almost insurmountable, but at the same time, with all the women working, surely it is inevitable that it happen somewhere, right?
Makes sense to me that men at the top will make more family friendly changes when they “get” what working families need. I wonder if having working wives is enough, though. This probably varies by family, but I bet that some men in that situation still bear very little of the stress of being a working family, i.e. the woman stays home when the kids are sick, is mostly responsible for hiring and communicating with day care providers, etc. etc. etc. The man is closer to that stress than he would be with a stay at home wife, but I bet there are plenty of cases where he still doesn’t get it. I still think it’s a good theory, but I think a healthy respect for the continued invisibility of women’s work has got to be in the mix.
@BG
I see your point on social progress… By some measures we’ve evolved to a place where there’s no more choice than there was in the 1950′s since most women *have* to work. And certainly from the perspective of alimony, women are way worse off than they were back in the day. My understanding is that these days a typical settlement is three years to get back on your feet, not a lifetime of support.
I think you may have misunderstood IG’s point on the 60 hours/week thing. I don’t think she (or Leslie Bennetts) meant it as a comparison of the level of difficulty or time-committment of working outside the home vs. full-time parenting. Rather, I think both were commenting on the fact that, in some industries, the typical work week is 60+ hours (and then you come home to the parenting and household stuff) and they aren’t aware of or aren’t willing to look for a job that has a more manageable time committment. (Define however you see fit. I’ll use mine, which is generally 40 hours.) So many women see only a binary decision of all or nothing, not the potential of something in between. It doesn’t mean it isn’t still the right decision for some women to be full-time parents, but isn’t it a shame that they don’t see (either because it doesn’t exist in their field or for other, more personal reasons) an option to work a job that would offer more balance?
@hydrogeek
Okay, I’m fascinated by your exlusion of working men with full-time nannies! Certainly it’s easier than daycare (I don’t even have to get Gatito dressed in the morning, never mind fed, with lunch made, and packed off someplace), but we still have to deal with schedules and house stuff and preschool decisions, etc., etc., etc.
@caro
Really good point, and fits in nicely with last Sunday’s NY Times Mag cover story. In most families, even moms who work full-time take on *way* more than their fair share of the home stuff. This is one reason women tend to make different, often more limiting career choices, whether consciously or not, that mean women are the ones that take off when the kid’s sick. So you’re right that it gets us closer but by no means all the way.
I’m not going to “defend” my use of the term “less ambitious”, but I will say, my intention was not to imply that it took less effort, stamina, strength, mental capacity, physical capacity, effort, patience or perseverance to be at home than at the office. I have taken care of children enough to know that life is home is anything but a journey to bonbonville. I was simply using the term in the context in which I typically hear it – which is “climbing the corporate ladder.” Which, in retrospect, I would have said – so “men opt to marry women who are less inclined to climb the corporate ladder.”
I assure you, it was a linguistic … mistake.
In my experience: Yes, totally. My department head has four daughters (two planned pregnancies followed by oops twins) and his wife worked outside the home. Everyone at my university comments that he is one of the few people on the entire campus, male or female, who seems to truly understand the demands faced by working parents. I meet people from other schools who say, “Oh my god, you work for Bill*? You’re so lucky!” Most faculty have one kid, or two max. He is a huge advocate for our on-site child care, part-time work schedules, professional leave: whatever it takes. And he tells his daughters (and me) that you should never quit a job you love** to stay home with kids because you can make it work and be happier in the long run with both work and family. It is really, really awesome. Sometimes people ask me if I’m going to change jobs one of these days and I always burst out laughing.
(I get an earful from him on these issues because I am the same age as his eldest and my son is the same age as her son but I am totally cool with that.)
*not his real name
**not having a crappy job is important; he’s also a big advocate for finding satisfying work
I’m so bummed that I don’t have time to read all the comments because they look great.
I actually got the most support at my old office – not from co-workers but other attorneys working elsewhere – who had SAH Wives. They all acknowledged that their wives’ job was harder than theirs when the kids were small. It’s when the kids are older that it’s easier to blow off. I have had lots of clients who were SAHMs and then the kids started going to school full time, and I would have to ask, “What do you do all day?” because I knew the judge would ask, too.
I think you’re on to something, though.
Doesn’t seem like there’s a clear pattern here. My experience is that most of the men I know don’t get it – whether or not they have children. The ones who are the worst are those with SAHWs as they just don’t see how much work goes into making those homes work (and frankly, most of those wives have staff, so they aren’t doing the same role most of the SAHMs I know are doing). Those who have working wives are fine, but again don’t really get what their wives are doing, so they are no more sympathetic to me, other than saying variously condescending things about how hard it must be.
By far and away the most help I have had is from working mothers. They have offered me advice, made opportunities open to me, chased me to go home on time. I don’t know where I’d be without them.