tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post8525736187194048908..comments2024-03-12T22:31:46.500-04:00Comments on What Would Phoebe Do?: Second After SartrePhoebe Maltz Bovyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-62756880621188337412012-06-29T22:09:09.806-04:002012-06-29T22:09:09.806-04:00nicoleandmaggie,
Thanks! I'm always glad when...nicoleandmaggie,<br /><br />Thanks! I'm always glad when others' see why this is a problem. Which isn't often.Phoebe Maltz Bovyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-39732651109600000662012-06-29T20:19:07.639-04:002012-06-29T20:19:07.639-04:00Thank you for #2. Other than a horrified discussi...Thank you for #2. Other than a horrified discussion I had with my mom about it ("That poor kid! I/You would never do that to (my kid)/me"), you're the first person I've seen addressing that. Seriously, leave your kids out of your nationally public excuses, especially if they're underage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-22242078469225874592012-06-27T00:10:54.646-04:002012-06-27T00:10:54.646-04:00ah! Then I really am preaching to the choir. caref...ah! Then I really am preaching to the choir. careful reading is not my strong point :/<br /><br />I shrieked when I saw the pic of the little furry one sprawled out. (!!) Is there an "upward facing sprawled dog" to go along w/ "downward dog"? That could be my new favorite pose.Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-25924464486620775272012-06-26T15:14:33.381-04:002012-06-26T15:14:33.381-04:00G,
Hey!
"I wonder whether *mothers* are per...G,<br /><br />Hey!<br /><br />"I wonder whether *mothers* are perceived as less dedicated to their careers than fathers, causing them to be differently evaluated in the workplace, independent of any actual differences in productivity."<br /><br />Oh, I think so. This is along the same lines as what I say at the end of this admittedly gargantuan post - even before kids enter the picture, a man who mentions a wife is thought to be at least as good of an employee, whereas a woman who mentions a husband is imagined to be on the cusp of leaving whichever profession. Whether or not this accurately reflects how particular employers themselves behave, female employees will sometimes have the impression that having a boyfriend/husband is something to be discreet about, perhaps to deny entirely.Phoebe Maltz Bovyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-81082877927633528672012-06-26T14:49:10.182-04:002012-06-26T14:49:10.182-04:00Hey Phoeb, I actually haven't read this articl...Hey Phoeb, I actually haven't read this article (being generally not hooked in to the blogosphere, except for occasional peeks at WWPD). And I agree that it's sometimes weirdly overlooked that being a parent *is* very time-consuming and hence probably will reduce one's productivity in the workplace.<br /><br />But. I have to wonder whether there isn't an *extra* bias against *mothers* who choose to spend time that could be working child-rearing, bias that doesn't go against their (admittedly less statistically frequent) matched male counterparts That is, will a woman who spends the *exact* same amount of time parenting as some male counterpart, and who happens to be *exactly* as efficient as her male counterpart in the workplace face more difficulties than him? It seems to me this is a possibility --there's probably empirical research but too lazy to look it up. in particular, I wonder whether *mothers* are perceived as less dedicated to their careers than fathers, causing them to be differently evaluated in the workplace, independent of any actual differences in productivity. <br /><br />One explanation for this (entirely speculated) difference may be that in some professions, women are already seen as suspect because not tough or hard-headed enough. So crossing the line from being just a woman to a full-out (nurturing, mushy) *mother* might really cause problems in such a career that might not arise for (similarly child-rearing involved) *fathers* in the same career.<br /><br />btw, your post about privilege made me laugh--what a classic bit of conceptual analysis of the kind analytic philosophers LOOOOOOVE to get off on. maybe that could be your 3rd or 4th career?Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-4149394338502479032012-06-24T18:41:29.246-04:002012-06-24T18:41:29.246-04:00PG,
"While Ginsburg probably *is* some kind ...PG,<br /><br />"While Ginsburg probably *is* some kind of superwoman, I think the better solution to having a dual-career marriage is that sort of give-and-take in which sometimes one person carries more of the load, sometimes the other person does."<br /><br />I think that works when both are superstars (esp. in the same field, e.g. law, even if in different subfields) and everyone recognizes this is a power couple as such, or, conversely, when neither spouse is all that ambitious. But in more run-of-the-mill professionals' situations, alternating in this way is likely to mean losing out on whichever goals (partner, tenure, etc.) one or both spouses had at the start. Potential and current employers won't necessarily be understanding, because unless you project incredible drive, they'll have no good reason to think that your scaling back will be temporary and not permanent. (Also, employers' reasoning aside, because, in certain fields, you need to keep up with innovations/new papers, and it's hard to plunge back in.)Phoebe Maltz Bovyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-76381778422749244182012-06-24T13:54:25.086-04:002012-06-24T13:54:25.086-04:00MSI,
"There should be a descriptor for the p...MSI,<br /><br />"There should be a descriptor for the phenomenon of the permanently discoverable fact that your own mother thought you were FAILING AT LIFE at 13."<br /><br />This sort of thing just shouldn't be allowed. Not as in a law, necessarily, although I wouldn't rule it out. But as a matter of good taste, one's own inevitably-identifiable children should be kept out. There's this great big cultural conversation about how kids these days put their whole lives on Facebook and such, and how a picture of a 20-year-old holding a beer will make that person forever unemployable. But we're supposed to consider it <i>brave</i> when an adult, for a much larger audience, tells private details about a child's life, details this child would not have picked to share with anybody.<br /><br />"I also found puzzling the claim that nothing will change for women until we have a female President and 50 female Senators. Why exactly?"<br /><br />In a conversation I was having about this article yesterday, someone pointed out that this is not unlike saying that Obama's presidency has ended racism against blacks. Even supporters of affirmative action, who believe in the importance of making sure that women/underrepresented minorities have representation in the public eye, are unlikely to argue that once representation at the highest ranks matches up with the demographics of the population, the grievances of ordinary women/minorities will vanish.<br /><br />One possible explanation for the female-president-and-senators focus is Slaughter's own bias: the problems keeping women from the top positions in government are ones she knows about personally, so surely if this were solved, so too would the problems of womankind.<br /><br />I think what went wrong in this essay was, Slaughter decided/was asked to frame a piece about work-life balance in terms of her own biography. So even though the broader problems she cites are real, it's never all that convincing, from the article, that <i>Slaughter</i> has faced particular work-life challenges as a woman. I didn't quite buy that she personally had a feminist grievance, or even a grievance at all. Faced with two wonderful professional options, she chose one over the other. She couldn't be in both places, and wanted to hold onto tenure, live where her spouse and kids did, etc. As two-body problems go, 'my spouse and I both have tenure at the same Ivy, but I've been offered another exciting job elsewhere' ranks so low as to be the kind of problem where you can only possibly expect sympathy from your spouse. The non-problem-ness of her own case detracted from the many valid points she made about the situations faced by others.Phoebe Maltz Bovyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-58260858051398600472012-06-24T11:16:46.303-04:002012-06-24T11:16:46.303-04:00Good post, especially point 3. I don't really ...Good post, especially point 3. I don't really understand Slaughter's thing about "valuing" involved parents by hiring and promoting them. The workplace is not the appropriate sphere in which to "value" parenting. That comes up in many other arenas, including -- if God forbid the two parents divorce -- which parent will have primary custody.<br /><br />Re: the final paragraph of the post,<br /><br />The one female justice who has two children married someone who might initially have been seen as having the "primary" career in their household. Ruth Bader Ginsburg left Harvard Law so she could follow her husband to NYC. Hopefully Columbia Law wasn't too much of a downgrade, but she had her first kid during that first year at Harvard, while also attending class, taking notes and typing papers for her husband while he was in his last year of school (he was in treatment for cancer).<br /><br />The Ginsburgs' marriage is admired by many women in the legal profession because it ultimately seemed to balance out. She switched schools to follow him to NYC when he became a tax associate; he later switched law firms to follow her to DC when she got an judgeship. She was the primary caregiver when the kids were little, but he did all the cooking.<br /><br />While Ginsburg probably *is* some kind of superwoman, I think the better solution to having a dual-career marriage is that sort of give-and-take in which sometimes one person carries more of the load, sometimes the other person does. It also depends on what is considered "important" in a career: Mr. Ginsburg probably always made more money, but Justice Ginsburg even before becoming a judge appeared frequently before the Supreme Court to litigate some of the earliest sex discrimination cases (from back when state laws would explicitly deem women less competent), was General Counsel for the ACLU, etc. <br /><br />Without diminishing the Mr.'s contributions to tax scholarship, I think even if RBG had never become a justice, her work would have had much greater impact on others than his did. But if you want your family to have a certain income, then the career of the higher-earning spouse will probably always be treated as higher priority.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-37425778669461177232012-06-24T02:47:20.118-04:002012-06-24T02:47:20.118-04:00I have already googled this woman's children. ...I have already googled this woman's children. They seem fine. One appears to be obsessed with chinchillas. This is like the opposite of those vapidly enthusiastic LinkedIn "recommendations" from coworkers that you find when when you google adults. What is the word for the opposite of a recommendation? There should be a descriptor for the phenomenon of the permanently discoverable fact that your own mother thought you were FAILING AT LIFE at 13.<br /><br />I also found puzzling the claim that nothing will change for women until we have a female President and 50 female Senators. Why exactly? Some regional advertising firm won't give women maternity leave or let them telecommute b/c there aren't 50 women in the Senate? Maybe another instance of her confusion of the absolute highest echelons of America with normal people's jobs.Miss Self-Importanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04477849823290773026noreply@blogger.com