Maria Shriver Says It's a Woman's Nation. Do You?
by PunditMomCalifornia First Lady Maria Shriver says we're now living in a Woman's Nation -- women make up half the work force, the majority of mothers are the main breadwinners or co-breadwinners of their families and women are in charge of 80% of the high ticket item household spending. That, says Shriver, is some power we need to grab by the horns!
So why doesn't it feel like we have more influence and gravitas when it comes to managing our lives? And why does it seem like women are still the ones doing all the juggling and compromising, both at work and at home? Is it our own fault because we don't know how to use the power we have or are things tougher than Shriver's report suggests?
To her credit, Shriver has put together an extensive report on the state of families today -- The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything -- that examines attitudes of men and women, husbands and wives, and employers and employees, about the state of our lives, with an emphasis on the role of mothers and how that's changed since her uncle, President John F. Kennedy, commissioned a White House study on women over 40 years ago. The study's main thesis, which was written in conjunction with the Center for American Progress, is this -- that the simple fact of living in a country where women make up more than half of the work force will ultimately change things for women for the better.
On Monday, Shriver talked about many of the findings in a conference call with 30 bloggers including Julie Pippert from Using My Words, BlogHer's Morra Arrons-Mele, Mary Kate Cary of US News & World Report, and Rebecca Traister from Salon, among others (and thank you to Ms. Shriver and the CAP for inviting me to participate!). She expressed her very heartfelt belief that it's time for women to stand up and use the power of their numbers, be brave and demand what they need and what her report says employers already know -- that it's in the financial best interests of businesses to allow workplace flexibility of all kinds for men and women.
But I wondered, what prompted such a report now? As Morra points at the Families and Work Institute Blog:
The report stems from the finding that women are ... as Gloria Steinem put it ... half of all workers with incomes that are necessary to 80 percent of families—indeed, 40 percent of babies are now born to single mothers—childcare is still nowhere on the list of priorities in Congress, and we have also become the only industrialized country without any requirement of paid family leave.
I asked Shriver, if women are still getting paid significantly less than men (77 cents on the dollar), carry the lion's share of family obligations AND still have voices that are heard less than men's, how can we move forward and make any real change, even if we have become a majority of workers?
Shriver's response was surprising and shocking. She said women felt afraid -- afraid to go in and ask for time off to care for someone or ask for the flexibility needed to do their jobs and care for their families. Not hesitant or cautious, but afraid. She hopes that women will overcome that fear, see that there are lots of people in the same boat and find the strength and courage to demand what they need and embrace the power of being the majority in the workforce.
I certainly get Shriver's point and agree in the abstract, but marching into your boss' office and making any sort of "demand" these days might not be the best tactic to ensure a regular income. Finesse might be a better strategy at the moment. If any worker's fear is driven by a concern about losing their job, that's certainly a legitimate concern in today's economy.
In a conversation on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, a panel of women, including financial commentator Suze Orman, were vehement in their collective opinion that one of the reasons more women are employed today has less to do with gender inequality coming to an end and more to do with the fact that women are paid lower wages than men and are less inclined to ask for a raise, and, therefore, are seen as more desirable hires in these tight economic times.
While the report is titled a Woman's Nation, it does seem very focused on families with children. A fair question was asked by BlogHer's Elisa Camahort on Twitter while some of us were live-tweeting the call, wondering whether the report shouldn't more accurately be called "A Mom's Nation," since its focus is more on mothers than on women without children who may have other caregiving obligations other than offspring. It was something that struck me and others on the call, too.
So with all the good information and food for thought contained in the Shriver Report, will it spark a real national conversation or will it fade away in a few days after Shriver's Conference on Women is over? It's hard for a cynic like me to hold out much hope. There was a time when I was optimistic about all these things -- when I was in my late teens and early twenties I thought that by the time I was a mother and in my mid-life that things would be drastically different. I envisioned that my nieces and daughter would have much smoother sailing than my generation or the ones that went before me.
During the conference call, John Podesta, the CAP's president, proudly proclaimed that the results of the report are proof that "the battle of the sexes is over." I wish I could believe that, but I have a sense that when it comes to our country truly becoming a Woman's Nation, we shouldn't get rid of our body armor just yet.
I know we're not all going to read the 400 page Shriver Report, but based on your lives and experiences, what do you think? Is the "battle of the sexes" over? Are you afraid to ask for change right now or can you live with the status quo? And if you are a breadwinner in your family, what would you tell Maria Shriver about the state of things today?
BlogHer Politics & News Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger can't help herself when it comes to writing about all things political, especially when they impact women. When she's not hanging out here, you can find her at her blog, PunditMom, and at The Huffington Post. And on Twitter, too, because she can't help herself.
Posted In
Related Topics
XML Feed Recent Comments
Mushrooms! on post Good Gravy!
Books books and more
books on post Unplug and Entertain your kids to win a $250 LEGO® Gift Card or 1 of 8 other weekly prizes!
books on post Unplug and Entertain your kids to win a $250 LEGO® Gift Card or 1 of 8 other weekly prizes!
Writing sex
scenes is all on post Writing Sex
scenes is all on post Writing Sex
BlogHer Conferences
- Home
- About Us
- BlogHer Community
- Conferences
- BlogHer Network
- Special Offers
- Contact Us
Follow us on Twitter:
@blogher @bloghersupport @blogherdeals
Become a Facebook Fan
© Copyright 2009 BlogHer | Terms of Service
Comments
Anti Human
I've been thinking a lot about this lately.
It seems to me that a lot of the things which seem to be gains for women (more women in the workplace) are not benefiting us so much as benefiting a system that needs cheap labour. How many people can afford to have only one partner earn an income? For many women, working outside of the home is not a dream realised, but a matter of survival.
My friend has to leave her 3 month old baby with strangers in day care, because she must earn money for the family. She does not have the choice. Her partner has to feel guilty for not working late nights like his colleagues, because he wants to spend time with his new baby. Having a family is just not part of the picture. Its something that your employers just dont want to know about - whether you are male or female.
I think this world is not just anti woman - its anti human.
The breakthrough is not whether more women are in the workplace - it is whether employers treat their employees like human beings who might - just might - value other things apart from their commitment to their job. And that would include not just the family isuees already mentioned - caring for babies or parents - but other aspects of life that are also important - being full creative beings.
Excellent point
The "rules" and atmosphere of today's workplace are, for the most part, not conducive to raising anyone's family. The business model most companies operate from is that if parents (mostly mothers) "take" time to deal with family issues, they are somehow also "taking" from the boss. That needs to change.
One point I think Shriver is trying to make in the report is that perhaps now that women have "criticial mass," we can start to change those rules. I hope I'm around to see that day!
PunditMom
aka Joanne Bamberger
BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor
Pressure
I agree - to a point. I'm retired now but spent 40 years in the business world. My friends who are still there unanimously agree that the pressure to produce is more severe than they have ever seen. Everyone knows someone who has been let go, even management. Fear is exceptionally pervasive right now. In fact, it is probably a worse epidemic than swine flu. Unfortunately there is no vaccine except long hours and intense focus on production, and even that is only temporary. Next month management will want more.
Unfortunately, the pressure on women is worse because most of them still have jobs. Millions of men have been thrown off the treadmill which is bad but at least a little liberating. If only men were better caregivers and women had a little more free money we could solve this problem by hiring the men to raise the kids and keep house. Trying to force the employers to give women more time to do those things will only fail, I fear, because so many employers are too weak to comply.
Critical mass?
But is there critical mass? Not when it comes to making decisions, making change and making law. That would come with equal numbers in Congress and board rooms across the country.
I'm still not sure what Shriver's whole point is, but she doesn't seem to be willing to make any great demands or changes. Only thing I've heard mentioned on national news is the need for flex time. What about equal pay? Paid sick leave? Paid caregiving leave?
I was disappointed ...
... that those things weren't addressed in the conference call, especially in response to my question. It's easy to talk about people's attitudes changing, but unless we get equal numbers in the policymaking arena, as well as the business world, we will never have equal pay, etc.
I remember when I was VERY young, I had NOW button that said "56 cents," indicating that was how much we got paid to every dollar a man made. I actually thought by this point in my life, I wouldn't need a button that said anything other than "$!."
PunditMom
aka Joanne Bamberger
BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor
Or ...
"=!"
:)
Speaking for My Generation
I graduated from college almost two year ago (I'm 23 now) and was gung ho about continuing to follow the path that has always been in front of me; elementary school to middle school to high school to college and now, to a real job. Well, the recession made it very difficult to secure a job even in a relatively "recession proof" area.
I got a retail position and worked my tail off for nine months. There was a hierarchy and you had to fight for time off. After nine months and taking on a second job for two months I quit both. I was burnt out and mentally dead. I sat back and took a poll of what I wanted, what I valued and realized that working in a business where not everyone got fair treatment was not worth it.
I'm fortunate in that my parents have been able to help me out and support me while I try to get my photography business off the ground and I work towards certification in yoga. I know several people my age who have stepped off the big business, corporate position, administrative track because the pressure is too great. It's too hard to get time off to do the things you love and see the people you love. Most places don't actively reward employees or bloster their employees to better results. At the end of the day, most people that I know have chosen positions that are not typical for college graduates. We have started our own businesses, work for franchises, volunteer, or have chosen to go back to school for things you don't need a college degree for.
I believe the work force is going to have to change before majority of my generation (especially women) will willing step into existing positions (if they ever become available since less people are retiring right now). My generation seems to value community, family, and flexibility above all else. That's not to say all of us are this way, there are plenty who are more than happy to enter the rat race. However, I see more and more people my age branching out into less typical positions or creating their own because it gives them the opportunity to live a meaningful life.
Your perspective
Thanks so much for this perspective. While I certainly remember what it was like to be 23 (!), the working world and the collective ideas about women getting ahead were much different than with your generation.
Personally, I think your attitude is a healthy one. I practiced law for 15 years because I got a law degree and that's what I was "supposed" to do, until I got brave enough to step off that track and move back to what I loved -- writing.
I'm hoping that all the generations of women we know can embrace this thinking and the increased sense of community. Maybe that will also help move us in the right direction toward a working world we can be happy with
taking the long view
Joanne, you raise some great questions and this is a subject I've been thinking about lately also. Just before the Shriver report came out, I attended an event in New York celebrating 40 years since Yale admitted women undergraduates. At that time, feminist issues and awareness seemed to be moving so fast and furiously, it never occurred to me that my classmates and I would still be discussing many of the same issues 4 decades later. And yet here we are. I'll be at the Women's conference this week, very curious to hear more.
http://blog.darrylepollack.com/
Wish I could go!
I can't wait to hear from you about that conference. If I could have justified the cost (!), I would have made the trip to the West Coast for it! But I too have been thinking about how when I was in college I just assumed that by the time I reached this point in my life, things would be different and I wouldn't have to worry about them for our daughters.
far from over...
As much as I'd like to believe that the battle of the sexes is over, i think we're far from that. And, I actually do agree that many women are afraid to ask for more, whether it's more time off to care for our families or more money. The recession is part of it, to be sure... who isn't frightened right now that if they ask for anything they'll get their name pushed to the top of the next queue of people to be laid off?
But, before the recession many women were afraid... and I think part of the reason for that is that we felt like men weren't asking for those sorts of things. Men already got paid more, so there was no need to ask for that later (a problem that stems from so many women being afraid to negotiate their starting salaries at a company - once you accept a lower salary than a man, it sure is hard to catch up) and they didn't need to go home to take care of sick kids or whatever (a responsibility that more often than not falls to the mother) so they didnt' ask for those sorts of concessions either. So, many women feel like they shouldnt' ask for time off or whatnot because men don't.
The thing I'm most curious about is if that will change now that more women than men are working. Will women get used to having their husbands home to take care of the kids? Will men realize how much time and energy their wives put into childcare/housecare that they'll bear more of the burden when they start working again? who knows?
--------------------------------------------------
Next Rich Girl, personal finance for savvy women
Jen Reads the Bible, an atheist reads the Bible from cover to cover