More Than Company Policy

     This article in the New York Times discusses Sweden's policy when it comes to parental leave and general accommodations for parents. As of the article's publication in 2010, 85% of fathers took paternity leave, and it is starting to become a cultural expectation. The article further discusses remarkable changes in other areas of Swedish society as a result of higher expectations and opportunities for gender equity, including the increase of paternal involvement: divorce rates went down, shared custody for divorcees increased, women are paid more, companies pay better for longer instances of parental leave, and, most remarkably, the article reports that the concept of masculinity itself is evolving drastically. With the shift towards equal opportunity and equal involvement in and outside of the home, there has also been a new element of multidimensionality to what it means to "be a man" in Sweden. Hypermasculine qualities like violence, aggression, explicit establishment of dominance, and emotional indifference are neither encouraged nor rewarded, and in their place seems to be settling a more complete, more human, and more varied definition of manhood (and personhood in general). This article in the Business Insider also praises Sweden's groundbreaking treatment of parenthood in the workplace, and echoes our textbook's criticism of America's underdeveloped or entirely absent policy. The book states that "In the United States, family policy is still an unfamiliar term, and the few policies that support families, like welfare, unemployment assistance, and tax relief, are inadequate and uncoordinated" (318).
     What do you think of Sweden's policy and its impact on their society? Do you think such a thing is desirable in America? Is it even possible? In what ways besides those discussed in the article do you think our society might change if we did implement better family policies?

Do Female CEO's Mean Family Friendly Workplaces?

In the article, Do Female CEO's Mean Family-Friendly Workplaces, Anna North starts a debate over whether having women in larger leadership roles makes a better workplace for other women below them. When looked into further not much information came up helping the issue that more female executives might help lower the wage gap, and create a more family friendly workplace. The article actually points out that a study found that when there were in fact women in higher positions they were not more likely to pay their male and female employees equally. If there are women who hold the power to change the status quo, but still can not manage to treat the women and men of their companies equally then what message does that send to women working below them? Not a very encouraging one in my opinion. This reminded me of the article we read in class, Why Women Still Cant have it All, by Anne-Marie Slaughter. There was a part in the article where she was talking about how she had her dream job but still felt as though she needed to be home with her 14 year old son. When she went on to talk to a female colleague, who held a senior position in the white house, she told her about her difficulties juggling her roles and to me the interaction they had was not an effective one. Ultimately this woman left her job and  "hurried home as fast as she could". There are not many women holding high leadership roles in companies, but if the few that are would step up and make the attempt to positively encourage the women under them then it would be beneficial for women everywhere.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/do-female-ceos-mean-family-friendly-workplaces

We Could Have Had it All... Actually No.

I have a problem with this concept of "having it all" because it assumes a ton of things that are only specific to whatever demographic the term "all" applies to in its specific context. In order for a woman (or anyone for that matter) to "have it all" they must first desire (or already have) a few things. Primarily, they must desire children, and to be the primary caregiver for their children. Secondly, they must also want a career that is challenging and financially advantageous. Thirdly, they must be in a subordinate position in their relationship through which any type of sacrifice in the relationship must come from them and not the male (their status as heterosexual is also assumed). Fourth, they must also abide by a definition of "all" that includes the preceding conditions and is inflexible to change.

This quote from the Linkon article this week illustrates this, because while she is shedding light on the working class struggle, she is still projecting her (privileged) idea of what working class women want out of life.

"...we can probably begin by speculating that “having it all” for a working-class woman would not be about professional success.   More likely, it would be about finding the balance between hours at work and hours at home, keeping a job and a steady income while being there for her kids — pretty much the same challenge that professional women face."

While many working class women may actually desire the things that Linkon highlights, even her inferences attempt to generalize the aspirations of an entire group of people without knowing them personally. I'm sure this isn't the intent of the article, but it can also be inferred that she is likening the working class experience to the experience of those in the middle class, which is faulty logic at best.  She also claims that financial stability (i.e. keeping a job and a steady income) is a goal of many women in the working class, but fails to mention any desire of upward social mobility. When considering the lack of upward social mobility in America, working class dreams of "having it all" are not likely to be realized if they include upward mobility. Even still, a steady income can mean different things to different people, (which to me) creates an idea that cannot be generalized to an entire group of people.

The concept of having it all is undoubtedly going to change for each person. For some it could be rooted in their consumptive capabilities. For others it could mean a balanced life, and in some cases it could mean spending as much time as humanly possible being with loved ones or involved in their work. People are very diverse, and so are their aspirations; which means that the concept of "having it all" will never apply to everyone at the same time. Furthermore, the ability to have it all (for women and men) assumes that at some point in life people will reach a point in which they no longer desire anything more and are completely satisfied with everything. I can understand being content with life, but I can assume (as many people do about the concept of "all") that it is difficult for almost anyone to reach a point in their life that they are completely fulfilled, satisfied, challenged, and passionate about every aspect of life. Happiness is attainable, but the idea that people can attain this dogmatic version of "having it all" is largely unrealistic.

If this issue of "having it all" is going to be addressed, then it is going to have to be done on a personal level because people need to be able to define what "all" means for themselves.

Reclaiming Housewifery

This week we talked in depth about women's role in the home, the workforce, as well as balancing the two. The idea that women can "have it all" is somewhat controversial. Many women strive to balance a full time job as well as parent and maintain a household. When confronted with all of these roles they often find themselves being forced to work a "second shift." The text defines this as when women are "employed outside the home [and] still carry major responsibility for housework and raising children." (p. 313) Having it all is a difficult thing to do. So what about housewives? While browsing the internet I ran across this blog written by a women who is advocating for housewifery. She asks, "What could possibly be more feminist than to embrace the natural female quality of nurture?" While I do have problems with that particular statement, she does make some interesting points as far as recognizing the stigma that feminists often place on stay at home moms. The text defines this sort of work of "unproductive"  because it is unpaid and "unproductive to the economy." (p. 311) Its an interesting blog with a few conflicting ideas. Read it through and share what you think!

Women are too lazy to deserve equal pay

This article further proves that negative stereotypes about women’s work ethics still exist. The mayor says men make more because they are more flexible with their schedules then women are. “Women make half of what men do because of flexibility of work, men are more motivated by money than women are.” The idea that the mayor fails to acknowledge is that men often have the luxury to work longer hours. Women, on the other hand, are seen as the caretakers so once their work shift ends their second shift begins. The second shift is often thought of as beginning when the mother then comes home to do housework and clean. Men, because they do not feel the societal pressure to complete these tasks can have more vigorous business hours. Men then are able to advance their careers, and make more money, not just because of the intellectual talent but their ability to give up more of their time. The advancement of males in the work force is further seen in the statistics from the AAUW. The group states that women on average make 23% less then men. The article then breaks down the statistics by demographic group. The way to lessen this gap is to have women and men both take on the task of raising children and housework. This way both men and women will be able to have “flexible” schedules.

http://elitedaily.com/women/republican-lawmaker-says-women-are-too-lazy-to-deserve-equal-pay/

The World's Hardest Job

About a week ago, I came across this video on Facebook and was extremely confused by the title "24 People Applying for the World's Hardest Job."  Per usual, I was very intrigued and decided to watch it. The video goes on to interview 24 different candidates for a non-specific company position. As the interviewer starts to describe the job, you can tell that the interviewee's are very concerned. He says that the job is a 24 hour thing, and that the employee will have minimal and sporadic, if any breaks, and that it requires an extreme amount of different types of skills. Oh, and it is 100% unpaid. You can see in all the interviewee's eyes that they are not happy calling this position inhumane and extremely illegal, but the best part is when the interviewer reveals who currently hold this position, and he says "mom" and you can just see all the interviewee's faces light up because it is so incredibly true. They work 24/7 to keep their kids happy doing whatever and being wherever they need to be and they get paid absolutely nothing.
As we have discussed in class a lot this week, there is this idea that household work, taking care of the kids, doing laundry, etc. is not necessarily considered work because it is not paid, but I think that most of us can agree that this is far from the truth. Mothers put in more hours of hard labor than any paid position out there and they are not paid a single penny and are usually criticized for "not having a job" even though they clearly do. "Modern day economists make a distinction between 'productive' and 'unproductive' work..." (Kirk & Okazawa-Rey, 311). Claiming that women's work in the home is not productive because it does not bring in a steady income.

http://sftimes.co/?id=493&src=share_fb_new_493

Motherhood Compensation

Being a mother is obvious a very difficult challenge that requires a lot of work and time. Motherhood is a full time job, nowhere does is say that raising a child is easy. Recently in class we read The Mommy Tax by Ann Crittenden and have discussed about compensation for mother. Although the comparison in the article might have been a little extreme, a good point was brought up about how we compensate our military members. Rightfully so, all military members should be compensated for the sacrifice's that they are willing to make. But mothers are making similar sacrifices such as leaving the work force and loosing employment status. For my discussion question I will get right to the point. Many countries in Europe are compensating and giving mothers benefits but the United States is still withholding that luxury. Do you think the U.S. should start compensating mothers? And if so what types of compensations and benefits do you believe would be fair?

http://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2012/04/15/why_taxpayers_should_compensate_stayathome_moms