BlogHer - michelle obama - Comments

The problem with flex-time

PunditMom — Mon, 18 May 2009 09:01:36 -0500

You are right on this point. Many moms I know extoll the virtues of being able to leave work for sick kids or attending school functions, but the "flexibility" part is really being more available -- 24/7.

I often complain about this with Mr. PunditMom and his BlackBerry -- he might be home at 6:30 p.m. for dinner, but he's expected to stay connected with that thing until 11 p.m. or later. We need for flex-time NOT to be viewed as a workplace with no boundaries, and that may be hard to come by.

They're all about flexibility when it comes to working longer

Cat H — Mon, 18 May 2009 08:10:07 -0500

I hear you on the issues with flexible hours and realistic leave policies, but, in my experience, it's hard enough to get your employer to back off even the traditional "off" days and hours in the age of email, texting and the Blackberry.

Many employees are expected to be available to answer phone calls and email at all hours or teleconference in at night and on vacation. Many companies seem to be all about flexibility when it comes to working *more,* (taking calls, emails, etc. at home) butit doesn't work both ways.

You're right ..

PunditMom — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:33:18 -0500

...balance is needed by everyone and these are important issues regardless of family status. Thanks for pointing out Paua's post, which is fabulous, too.

It is wrong that there is an underlying current that employers, if they offer leave and flexibility, have different expectations of employees without children -- that was definitely my experience at the law firm before I was married and before PunditGirl arrived.

What puzzles me is why employers don't get how much money they would save in the long run. That's one reason the big accounting firms are so far ahead in this area -- they are number crunchers and discovered years ago that flexibility and benefits were more about retaining good employees than it was about anything else -- which, in the end, means more money for them!

Not just for families

Maria Niles — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:17:32 -0500

I suspect you've hit the nail on the head regarding CVWF. These industry groups (like similar efforts in the healthcare debate) tend to form to offer "voluntary" reform because their lobbying efforts might not be sufficient to prevent legislation from being passed that they don't want.

If a focus on families generates change, great, but we need these policies, period for all workers regardless of their family status (see Paula G's great post, policies targeted at families don't always fit gay families or singles). I forget what the percentage was but I was shocked by the very large number of workers who don't have any sick leave. This was in conjunction with a story about the swine flu scare and the very welcome recommendation that people who had the flu or symptoms stay home rather than risk infecting their co-workers. Hard to do if the trade off is risking your job at a time of massive job loss and unemployment.

Bottom line, everyone needs balance and we'd do well as a society to see people as human and not replaceable cogs.

BlogHer Contributing Editor
PopConsumer
Beyond Help

I don't disagree ...

PunditMom — Tue, 12 May 2009 10:14:12 -0500

.. I just wish that wasn't the focus of the media coverage. Maybe if the media spent less time worrying about her shoes and more time actually talking about and reporting on hunger and poverty, something would really change for those who need it.

Can you imagine Eleanor

Norma156 — Sun, 10 May 2009 19:39:40 -0500

Can you imagine Eleanor Roosevelt pulling this kind of stunt?

I hope the media continues to "shine the light" on Michelle's good works. Like starting a kitchen garden with a bunch of kids, but not letting them have any of the produce.

Love is blind, isn't it?

If Michelle had the

Norma156 — Sun, 10 May 2009 19:36:49 -0500

If Michelle had the appropriate level of sensitivity or "care" for the families, she would have known that the media, who after all, aren't all fools, would pick up on her sartorial splendor. She would have known that that would be the story. I can't remember what bread line she was promoting, but I sure do remember metallic pink sneakers. (Frankly, I'd never seen or heard of them before and I cannot imagine buying a pair under any circumstances at all since they really are awful looking.)

But wearing them in a homeless situation...jeez...come on. It's PR101.

And, yeah, I think that poor people, who are "beneficiaries" of Michelle's occasional largesse notice. I know I sure as heck would if I were in the bread line with a couple of hungry children.

Some things just aren't appropriate...like don't flaunt your wealth in front of people who are hungry or jobless.

Don't you get that? You think that's nice? Or sensitive?

It is interesting, however, to see liberals complain about media coverage of Michelle.

Tabloid obsession

PunditMom — Sun, 10 May 2009 09:30:37 -0500

Maria, You have nailed this tempest on the head. It's so much easier for the media to think up a story criticizing her shoes (which really takes no time or effort) than to get into why Michelle Obama is trying to spend time at food banks with so many Congressional spouses. Why, they might actually have to interview someone!

Or, they might have to spend some time investigating the real state of homelessness, hunger and poverty in our country. But I guess that wouldn't sell newspapers, would it?

Appropriateness?

PunditMom — Sun, 10 May 2009 09:28:02 -0500

Then where is the line on appropriateness for the media coverage? Isn't it more "appropriate" for real coverage of bringing attention to the homeless than to her kicks?

While I'm sure we won't be seeing Michelle wear those shoes out in public again anytime soon, do you really think the families who benefited from the time and effort Michelle and 100 Congressional spouses gave really care how much she spent on her shoes? It's not like she spent federal money on them.

Two words -- red. herring.

Hi LARious!

PunditMom — Sun, 10 May 2009 09:24:53 -0500

Thanks for this link to the video! So much humor, so little time to write about Michelle's "guns!"

The work

Maria Niles — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:39:23 -0500

Absolutely the work is more important than the fashion. But if the tabloid obsession mentality of the media helps shine the light of her work a little brighter by sneaking in a mention of what she was doing while wearing those shoes, then it's better than no coverage. Poverty, hunger and homelessness are growing under the current economic conditions to horrific levels. I appreciate Michelle Obama's work.

But on the lighter side, I do love Sarah Haskins and that video Jezebel linked. I'm also amused by the First Guns blog by Thunder and Lightening. Thank you David Brooks for naming her arms and as a result inadvertently pointing out the folly of your and your colleagues obsession. :D

BlogHer Contributing Editor
PopConsumer
Beyond Help

Yes, I think she has a

Norma156 — Sat, 09 May 2009 20:55:38 -0500

Yes, I think she has a personal trainer four days a week.

For a hilarious take on the

evilslutopia — Sat, 09 May 2009 20:15:39 -0500

For a hilarious take on the media's obsession with Michelle Obama's toned arms, check out the latest from Sarah Haskins. Target Women: Obama Arms

~Jezebel

The Evil Slut Clique

EvilSlutopia

The point is that she didn't

Norma156 — Sat, 09 May 2009 07:30:23 -0500

The point is that she didn't have the sensitivity or judgment to refrain from wearing $540 sneakers to a feed the hungry event. Surely the most brillant woman in the world who is married to the most brillant man in the world should have understood that it would strike a peculiar note say akin to feasting on steak while you serve your guests thin soup. Some things are appropriate. Some things aren't.

I agree so much!! I could

sevedra — Sat, 09 May 2009 01:04:21 -0500

I agree so much!! I could care less about her clothes. I am just happy to hear about what her activities are and what she is doing that is helpful. Everytime I read about her dress and her shoes, I just roll my eyes. The media is obssessed with her clothing. I don't think america really is though. The media is doing her a dis-service by making her actions the lesser part of her coverage.