For the past couple of months the office where I work has masqueraded as a belly-parade: three pregnant women pace between a series of small rooms at the outer fringe of which I perch, the gatekeeper. The bellies belong to two professors and an academic administrator of the university. Fielding questions from students is my job, as is controlling who may pass into the chamber within. Tempers run short and hot among the bellies. There are a number of shadow-bellies around too. They belong to the men whose partners are belly-bumping into things somewhere other than our office. “There must be something in the water around here!” my boss exclaimed in response to the baby boom sweeping the office.

By late January, one of the bellies had been exchanged for a tiny parcel of hunger and breath: a baby boy had been born. The new parents brought him into the office for the rest of us to inspect. He was so small! Crinkly eyelids and pencil-line mouth: a little old man in a foot-long body. He slept for most of the time he was with us, and even when he was awake he hardly opened his eyes. The parents, new at the job, rocked and patted and swaddled, all with a fiery look of desperate excitement and equally desperate fear. When I was asked to hold him, I declined. The thought of dropping him, of holding on too tight, of the short, shallow breathing stopping while in my arms…he was such a tiny thing. But someone else is going to be holding him soon enough because the parents of this little person will be returning to their respective jobs within a matter of weeks. It’s work time in a busy city, in a rich country with the worst baby policies in the industrialized world.

On January 28, 2010, the British government announced plans to extend paternity leave by several months. In Britain, women already have a right to nine months of paid maternity leave, now father will be able to take up to six months of this time while the mother returns to work. However the couple works it out, British parents don’t have to leave their mini parcels of life until they are nine months old. Other Europeans have it even better. Swedes have the right to eighteen months of paid parental leave that can be split between the couple as they see fit. The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that fails to provide any paid parental leave to its citizens. The women in my office will file a few weeks as disability insurance, an odd label for the creation of new life. They will struggle to cobble together a tenable childcare solution, as money is tight and expenses only increasing with the new addition. Unlike their counterparts in most European nations, my co-workers also won’t have affordable public daycare to turn to, and no guarantee of health insurance if they or their children fall ill.

I marvel at the parents-to-be in my office and their relative calm at what I view as an unbelievable travesty. It’s not that they aren’t incensed, but they are reluctant to waste energy being angry; it is unlikely things will change. But I, an ex-pat Swede, cannot get past the irony of the enormous rhetorical emphasis on “family values” from a nation that provides the least provisions for families in the industrialized world.

What I have written in this post is not news, to you or to the Work.Life blog. But it is fueled by fresh rage. I turn 25 next month, and no longer feel like a child myself. The thought of bringing forth a child sometime in my future in a country without a humane parental leave policy is terrifying. How do you brave souls make it work?

American parents: what is your baby story? If you could wish for a changed system, what, exactly, would you wish for? And, finally, why is it that America, and Americans, are unlikely to demand or implement any serious change that would really be worthy of the slogan “family values?”

- Astri

Illustration by Gustaf von Arbin

Image via Wikipedia

When I first saw the title of this piece in the New York Times, I literally let out a faint, nerdy squeal of joy. Titled “More Men Marrying Wealthier Women,” I thought the article would be about men having a change of heart about the whole ‘I should earn more than my woman, huzzah!’ caveman bit, suddenly realizing how awesome it is to have a partner who earns lots of money (a concept women have long understood).

I was wrong. The article reports on new findings from the Pew Research Center that more men are marrying wealthier and better educated women. But the Times implies they’re not particularly happy about it. The opening scene:

Beagy Zielinski is a German-born 28-year-old stylist who moved to New York to study fashion in 1995 and stayed. Just before Christmas, she broke up with her blue-collar boyfriend, who repaired Navy ships.

“He was extremely insecure about my career and how successful I am,” Ms. Zielinski said.

Census data analyzed by Pew show that while in 1970, 28 percent of wives had husbands who were better educated, today that figure has dropped to 19 percent. Instead, now about a third of women are better educated than their husbands. Women are also contributing more and more to family finances; about one in five wives actually make more money than her husband.

The trend toward better educated and financially secure women is kind of like news of  Obama’s Nobel Peace prize. It’s great, but we’re going to find ways to complain about it anyway.

Sure enough the Times, and society, have reacted to these changes schizophrenically. While the article I’ve been telling you about frames the issue as a self-esteem problem for men–and the women who want to date them (one woman very politely tells the reporter “Money is tricky”)–another Times article highlights the “hidden” benefits of egalitarian marriages:

1) She’s not marrying you for your money. 2) One person doesn’t have to shoulder the entire financial burden of providing for a family. 3) American couples who share employment and housework responsibilities are less likely to divorce compared with couples where the man is the sole breadwinner (so much for Sandra Tsing Loh’s whiny rant, also in the NYTimes.)

It’s not all roses and sunshine, of course. For one thing, women are just as resistant to change as men. They want men to share the work at home, but complain when things aren’t done exactly how they want them.

Anyway–women work, are increasingly better compensated, and like it. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Get over it. Or, better yet, thank your lucky stars, America.

- Liz

Image via Wikipedia

Why men should get baby showers too.

I was recently given the duty, and honor, of organizing a baby shower for the several pregnant ladies at my place of work. My immediate question was: why not include the fathers-to-be (of which we have two)? This set off some questions around the water cooler. One warning gentleman said, “Careful, people can be very liberal (my office is at a university), but then be really conservative about things like marriage and babies.”

OK. I respect tradition (sometimes), but I think the idea that fathers-to-be get no part in celebratory baby showers is, frankly, disrespectful to them. The dad’s don’t have to put up with big bellies and the physical loops of pregnancy, but they are still having a baby, whether they’re the ones pushing it out or not. If we’re all going to at least play along with the contemporary idea of equal parenting (whether this actually happens or not is another question), then a man’s life is going to change a great deal with the coming of baby too. If we expect men these days to change diapers and give baths, why do we arrange a party where the mother is the sole recipient of the diapers and the rubber duckies?

Since showers are all about being showered with gifts, and those necessary baby things are so terribly expensive, I argue all parents-to-be could use a baby shower. Unless we decide it’s the physical feat of pregnancy we’re celebrating, in which case the gifts should focus exclusively on spa-treatments for the mother-to-be.

Oh, and, please, stop with the ladies-only guest list!

Why do I insist so on ruining the pink party? For two reasons. First of all, a baby shower thrown for a mother-to-be and attended almost exclusively by women sets the tone for who is really going to be changing those diapers and giving those baths: the mother. Hmm…so much for equal parenting. Secondly, isn’t it kind of unfair to start a new-dad-to-be’s parenthood path by suggesting his role in the matter isn’t worth celebrating? You devoted dads are worth sticking up for.

Let me leave you with another shower question: why isn’t there a groom shower when there is a bridal shower?

- Astri

Image via Wikipedia

Study finds Black America is in a Depression.

We know that not all groups have experienced the recession equally. Much has been written about the way the recession has disproportionately hurt men and thrust women into the workforce majority. This summer, as it became increasingly clear that men were bearing the brunt of job losses, The Times proclaimed women “victors in ‘mancession’.”

But there’s an equally descriptive and fitting headline about the recession I’m pretty sure I haven’t seen yet: “White people win!”

Perhaps more aptly, blacks and latinos are losing. In 2009, the average national unemployment rate was 8.6 percent. Whites fared better than the average American, with a 7.2 percent unemployment rate. Latinos fared worse: 11.3 percent.

But if anyone is bearing the “brunt” of the recession, it’s black Americans. For all African Americans, the average unemployment rate in 2009 was 13.9 percent, for black men it was 16.3 percent, and approximately one third of black men between the ages of 15 and 24 were unemployed. You might think that a college education would mitigate the effects of race, but this doesn’t appear to be the case: only 4.2 percent of college educated whites are unemployed, while 7.4 percent of college educated African Americans are jobless.

United for a Fair Economy found that although the U.S. has been in a recession for more than a year, people of color have been in a recession for nearly five years, and have entered a depression during the current economic crisis. Considering the figures above, this hardly sounds like an exaggeration.

So if some of America is experiencing a recession, but certain groups are at a crisis point–depresssion–what is the approriate government response? It seems that one thing the government could do is deploy stimulus funding in a way that addresses the uneven effects of the recession.

According to a report by the Kirwan Institute, that’s not happening. In fact, the bulk of the jobs created  by the initial stimulus package go to industries in which African Americans are under‐represented. Approximately $75 billion dollars, for example, has been allocated for construction projects; yet African Americans, who comprise 13 percent of the population, make up only 6 percent of construction workers.

The black job crisis needs to be a national priority for politicians, employers, and the labor movement. The disparities illuminated by the recession are too glaring to ignore.

Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and many of us are enjoying a day off from work. I’m sure the irony is not lost on those in the black community that don’t have a job to come back to tomorrow.

Image by oskay via Flickr

Study finds higher-status workers experience most work-life interference

Who’s worse off: low-wage workers or successful professionals? The former, on every measure you can think of except one. In the case of work-life interference—the feeling that your working life is spilling over into your home life, causing stress and impeding your other responsibilities—workers with higher status jobs appear to fare worse than their under-paid counterparts.

According to new study in the December issue of the American Sociological Review, workers with more authority, decision-making latitude, skills, and earnings report higher levels of interference between their work and home life.

This seems counter-intuitive. Workers with higher status jobs have more resources at their disposal: paid sick days, emergency savings, perhaps even an assistant or two. Surely, they’re better equipped to deal with other aspects of their lives than a worker who has little to no control over his work schedule or the funds for a reliable babysitter, for example.

But resources come with responsibilities and, often, strain-inducing strings attached. Yes, workers with status and authority command higher earnings and enjoy certain freedoms. They also tend to experience more pressure, commit longer hours, and encounter more interpersonal conflict at work  Having control over one’s work schedule is likewise a double-edged sword. Theoretically, it’s a great resource that allows workers to manage their work and personal lives as they see fit. In practice, it usually comes with very high expectations about workplace commitment.

As a result of this high-status paradox, employees in otherwise enviable positions are more likely to claim work impedes their home life, their family responsibilities, and their social and leisure activities. They’re more likely to think about work when they’re not technically working.

If I actually had a life (and a real job), I might be the poster child for the condition. As a Ph.D. student, I have almost complete control over my working hours. I should thank my lucky stars! Instead, I feel like I could always be working, that my potential output is infinite, and that, dammit, even though it’s 2 a.m. on a Saturday my cube-mates are still typing furiously and I shouldn’t be the first one to go home.

It’s no secret that most professionals are devoted to their work. We often blur the line between work and life intentionally. And since we all have to work, and it takes up a good part of our time, this isn’t a bad strategy. But, as the authors of this study remind us, it isn’t a stress-free one. And, in the extreme, the “work devotion” strategy may very well be detrimental to the other important aspects of our lives, like our health and personal relationships.

I know what you’re thinking. Poor little rich professional. You’re right: low-wage workers face far more dire problems. Like, you know, poverty. I’m not arguing that we all get low-status jobs or give up job control.

Although, now that I mention it, many European countries have strict laws concerning how many hours employees are allowed to work, thereby effectively abolishing one aspect of job control for some groups of workers. One result of this approach is that even Europeans in very high-status jobs, like management consultants and bankers, have no qualms about going home at a reasonable hour or taking four weeks off for vacation. Everyone else is doing it, so the pressure to prove your dedication to the job is relaxed for all. (Check out a related debate about European vs. American ”holidays” in The Economist.)

So what does this study really tell us? Work will continue to interfere with our home and family lives, especially, as it turns out, for professionals, until those at the top of the employment food chain—managers, supervisors, VPs—eschew the cult of work devotion and impossibly long hours. That’s a tall order in a crappy economy. But devotion and productivity are not the same thing. In the last decade, for example, workers in Belgium, Norway, France, and the Netherlands, where five- and six-week vacations are the norm and work weeks are much shorter, have been more productive in output per hour than workers in the United States. Some amount of work-life interference is inevitable, but there are ways to minimize the worst of it. I’m talking about collective action and progressive public policies– not America’s traditional areas of strength, I’m afraid.

If work isn’t working for those of us at the top of the jobs food chain, isn’t there something fundamentally wrong with the system? And isn’t it time we did something about it?