Quote:
Originally Posted by
wiggin
I read it. Did you? The article explicitly says this:
That's what I've been saying. She also explicitly recognizes that choosing a lower tempo job or taking off significant time early on can hurt your career. In fact, she agrees with pretty much every statement I've made here.
Depends on the perspective. ;) Lots of things "can" hurt a career, delay its progress, or even kill it. Including things we can't control, like personal illness/injury, a family crisis, a changing economy, a recession/depression, a War.....it also depends on the career, how it fits in a culture's values, and if the society has Family Friendly policies.
Quote:
Now, I personally found her article kinda offensive - because she's seeing this whole conundrum through a feminist lens. Somehow, she claims, if she doesn't make an incredibly high-stress career work with effective parenting, she's seen as abandoning the feminist cause. Yet every problem she mentions is not gender specific - guys with high profile careers have just as many challenges. In fact, I'd hazard a guess they face even more problems in some respects - if a female higher-up makes some ironclad rule about her leaving work at 5:30 to have dinner with her family (even if she continues work from home later), there may be some grumbles about her choices, but people will give her her due. If a man does it, he'll be faced with incredulity. (This isn't always the case, I recognize, and I don't want to get into an argument about it.)
Offensive? :confused: Where you see "feminist" I see "female". She wrote an opinion piece from a woman's perspective, including her age and experiences over time. Her male contemporaries had different expectations (and experiences) than many men would today. It's irritating when people play the "feminist" card any time a woman writes or talks from the gut, expresses challenges or frustrations with culturally engrained conflicts, trying to do their best while being pulled in so many different directions. If anything, that female "higher-up" would support a man's rule to leave work at 5:30 to have dinner with his family, because a "feminist" usually wants gender equity, not different sets of rules. (Not always the case, but I don't want to argue about that, either. ;) )
Quote:
Furthermore, she makes a bit of a strawman here. She tried to draw a connection between her specific high octane job at the State Department and all high achieving professional careers. That's bullshit, and she even acknowledges it - her fantastic professional career at Princeton allowed her to manage work-life balance much better, and I'd say the balance of professional careers (outside of some business and government careers) afford the same opportunities.
Didn't you make the same strawman? You claimed your professional career didn't allow for much flexibility and taking time off would be detrimental....but now you're saying that, on balance, most professional careers DO afford the same opportunities?
Quote:
She makes one reasonable point - it's about perception, though, not reality. Her points about how family-oriented workers are perceived compared to, say, the marathon runner, or the Orthodox Jew, are reasonable. But two points - first, this is a matter of perception, and perception can be managed. It's already far easier to manage work-life balance than it used to be 50 years ago, and I think we can make progress on this. Second, I'm betting that when push came the shove, the marathon runner or the Orthodox Jew would face a lot of pushback on their choices if it affected their work... just like the parent. Perceptions are one thing, but actual performance is another. A parent who turns out stellar work will be respected for their choices (and, often are - just look at the workaholic examples she writes about throughout) - just like the runner or Jew.
Look, people can have a modicum of family life while having a career. For those people who are really driven (a tiny fraction of the total professionals), they will have to make serious sacrifices. Nothing has changed about this, irrespective of gender.
I've said as much, but we started talking over one another....when I suggested that if you are in that tiny fraction of total professionals whose sacrifices would be on the career-side, you can't say the same for others. What has changed over time is the higher number of women in the total work force, and in professional careers.
Quote:
First of all, the point she made about tailoring your career path for so-called 'investments' and turning down promotions early on was laughable. She complains that all of the women raised up as role models are superheroes, and it's hard to match their accomplishments... yet then turns around and proposes a career path that would only work for the truly extraordinary. Someone who's incredibly good at what they do can turn down the prestigious promotion, clerkship, or fellowship, because they know more opportunities will come down their way. Most people don't have that luxury.
Secondly, if you think that taking two years off in your early career can be compensated for with some seminars and conferences, you're dreaming.
*sigh* She's not a 20-something writer. Her experiences (and perspective) reflects truly big changes over a few decades of time. And again, it depends on the career. Yes, it's possible to be a highly skilled physician, take a year (or two) "off" to stay home with baby (or a terminal spouse, or elderly parent), maintain skills and professional networks, and return to practice as an even more valuable professional.
Quote:
Dude, my entire peer group is currently dealing with the sticky issues of work-life balance. Obviously it's not just menial work, but frankly a lot of it is, and can be done by someone less skilled. A successful career can still have weekend and evening time for the actual parenting.
Also, what's so crazy about wanting my wife to work? She's a bright, highly educated, incredibly capable woman. Why wouldn't I want her to put all of that training and skill to good use?
Probably the most generous provisions for mothers are made in Germany, where women get unprecedented maternity benefits and are in fact encouraged (by very generous subsidies) to raise their toddlers at home even after maternity leave expires. Germany clearly favors women raising their children at home during their first few years of life, and has structured their day care and employment system to match.
Do you know the result? Huge numbers of women never go back to work after they take off their time. That, I'm afraid, is not a solution I find workable or desirable.
You do realize that budding scientists in the US are paid quite decent stipends, have subsidized transportation (and often housing), get plenty of vacation, and are paid for travel to conferences?
We had a thread about German attitudes toward parenting young children, but it was mostly about Kindergarten and early-ed. I'm not saying the US should adopt Germany's policies that discourage women to re-enter the work force. But I do favor policies that are Family-Friendly and Child-Friendly. Yeah, these issues about work-life balance are messy and sticky. And they come at a time when understanding how babies bond and children develop isn't just nature vs nurture, but the kind of nurturing, done by whom and how.
After this nice long discussion, wiggin, there's one question remaining. When you said you wanted your wife to work, I assumed you meant during/after pregnancy. That you'd prefer she returned to work ASAP, delegating the 'menial and less skilled' tasks of raising your child to someone else. Why?
