The Economics of Being Women
I followed some of the publicity surrounding the roll-out of the new book, “Womenomics,” last week (which is different than the website, www.women-omics.com) . I watched the authors’ interview on “Morning Joe” and the video clip of “The View” and I was left wondering how it’s possible for women to opt out of the workforce before we’ve completely opted-in?
The authors say that the more senior level female managers a company has, the more it makes. But how many companies have senior level managers? According to the Fortune list, in 2008 only six women led Fortune 100 companies and 12 women (now 13) were CEO’s at Fortune 500 companies. What percentage is that? About 2.5%? Maybe that does correlate, in this economy, with the number of companies making more money.
In the political arena, we currently have four female governors out of 50, bringing the percentage of female civic senior managers to about…well, slightly less than 5%. Two of the 50 states have never had female representation in Congress and currently 13 states have no female representatives or senators in D.C. There is one woman on the Supreme Court. We have not yet managed to elect a female president or vice-president, despite the fact that last year’s candidates never opted-out or on-ramped so there were no gaps in their respective resumes.
Keep in mind that the number of female college grads is larger than the number of male college grads and that women have achieved parity in law schools with men ( while the number of women winning MBA’s hovers around 30%) so it’s not as if women don’t have enough education to qualify for these upper level positions.
Many of these well educated women have been launching their own businesses-in fact women have significantly outpaced men in starting small businesses in the past few years. And yet…an article in USA Today several months ago pointed out that less than 7% of venture capital in 2008 went to women-owned start-ups. And those small businesses? Only 1 in five of the companies with revenues of $1 million or more are owned by women because only 3% of women-owned companies ever reach that level (half the rate for male owned firms which hit $1m).
Even worse, a lot of very small businesses are one step up from freelance-the very same companies hit hardest by the recession. In a story in the New York Times Sunday magazine this week, a freelance yoga teacher talked about going on food stamps. If the majority of women own the small and very small businesses that are failing in this economy, will we then see an up-tick in the number of working poor women? How can they possibly opt-out?
Yeah, okay so the CEO of Sarah Lee dropped out of the workforce and on-ramped to a senior level position after 7 years. But her story is more of an anomaly than a rallying cry.
I “opted out” by going freelance 19 years ago, after my older son was born. I had nurtured writing contacts on the side for years while I worked full-time and four weeks after my son was born I was able to start working for myself, as I nursed him in my lap. When he was eight and his brother was six and I was a single parent, I opted back-in and started my own business. A lot of times I had to leave them home when I traveled. I missed birthdays and first days of school. I even, because I worked a lot in Europe, missed Thanksgiving. And so one time when I was in line at Toys R’ Us at midnight a week before Christmas, I started feeling a little badly for myself. My cashier was a young woman who looked to be about 20 and also looked exhausted. We got to talking and I learned that she too was a single parent and was supplementing her 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. morning shift as a waitress by working the late shift-until 2 a.m.-at Toys R’s Us so she could buy Christmas present for her four year old.
I got over myself.
The reality was, I had the right kind of education and I worked in media-an industry prone to attracting people who don’t exactly work 9 to 5 to begin with. Not every woman is that lucky.
There are many more women like my young cashier than there are like me or the CEO of Sarah Lee.
We need a lot more women at the top to help pull up the younger women at the bottom. I get that some women don’t want to sacrifice their personal lives to do that-but some women do. And I’m not sure they are being helped by the message in “Womenomics”. Most women don’t work in media. Not all women have the educational chutzpah to be able to successfully negotiate with their employer about their hours. And many, many women don’t have flex-time husbands who can support them while they decide to throttle back their hours without losing their jobs. These are the women who can be hurt by the theories the book posits-to say nothing of the attitude of the authors.
I watched Ms. Kay on “Morning Joe” (an interview that was noticeably not conducted by Mika Brzezinski). She complained about the unattractive shoulder pads suits and string bow ties that women wore in the 80’s, the first decade that women broke through corporate, medical and legal professions in significant numbers. Ms. Kay made those women sound silly (and, seemingly worse, incredibly unattractive). Of all women, the “Womenomics” team should realize it was the women who shouldered through all those barriers who have given other women the option of whether to climb the corporate ladder or opt out and write book about it along the way.
And we need to realize that there are still too many women trapped on the bottom rung of advancement to allow anyone to decide it’s time to take our collective feet on the gas pedal and coast.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
You are right on so many counts, Nora. I’ve always been bothered by the notion that women have the option of “opting out,” when in fact most women, like most men, need jobs to support families. And even when I was working 16-hour days as a journalist, I never thought I had it as tough as the nurses and cops who were arranging their shifts so that they could care for their kids, never seeing each other. Among the many things we need to work on in this country: Providing safe, affordable child care.
Susan–you’re right. Jobs are not an option for most people, male or female, they’re a necessity. If you’re lucky, you get to love what you do which can help mitigate the stress of working long hours, esp. when you have kids.
Nora,
My first thought reading your post is—-I really needed you for my Good Morning America roundable discussion last week! I love this topic..so meaty…just a great debate. But I could not for the life of me get this side of the argument made on TV.
Anyhow—you should know that neither I nor my co-author are at all denying or making fun of or trivializing the incredible work our forbears did in breaking through the ceiling for all of us. We make that plain in our book. We are both women who love to work–where would we be without them.
I do hope, however, that we can all have a sense of humor about ugly wardrobe choices WE ourselves made. I dressed my sister in those hideous bow-tied shirts and sent her off for interviews on Madison avenue and we still cringe. Geez—I just hope it’s ok to laugh a bit.
But on the serious side–the point we are trying to make is that women have far more power in the workplace than they realize. Those studies aren’t just about women who are CEOs–that would not mean much–you are right. They are about the women who populate–in great numbers–the few levels below that. That is making a difference–those women are affecting the bottom line. That fact–and our education–and purchasing power–it’s all adding up to much more power. Power in numbers–power at the middle, if you will. We thought things would only change when we got a majority of CEO spots–we’re saying it is changing now. Women can and are using their power to reshape the workplace.
And it’s happening anyway–with or without our push. We’re just giving it the biggest shove. People want to be treated like grown-ups at work–to have their productivity and results measured–not their time in an office chair. Then we can all have better lives. Not have to miss all those holidays. Isn’t that worth lobbying for?
The fact is–the younger generations–men and women–want this in spades. It’s where the world of work is headed. So why shouldn’t women finally be able to shape the workplace in their image? In a way that works better for us?
You are right–this does not apply to many professions. Our book is probably most helpful for college-educated professional women.
But the case we are trying to make is that women don’t have to “opt out.” There are ways of staying in—dialing our careers up and down—that will allow us to keep and improve our power.
We think that’s the best solution. We don’t need a female brain drain–and that’s exactly what’s been happening.
This is a post-feminist model–the Michelle Obama model–if you will. It’s recognizing that highly educated women are feeling this tug–and are reacting to it. If there are options other than quitting–that helps us all.
Katie/Claire–not sure who is posting this. Be assured that those wardrobe choices were not our own. Those were the instructions given. And I don’t think, unless you lived through it, you know how difficult those years were.
In response to another comment. See in context »For example: Have you ever had s&m porn pix sent to you in an interoffice memo? Ever witnessed an entire department ask for reassignment because you were promoted to supervise them?
I bear no grudges, and basically view it all through the lens of humor, but I am also keenly aware that few women today know about what went before.
To women who complain that not much has changed in the workplace for women, I have two words to say: Mad Men. Watch even one episode and you will not doubt that we’ve come a very long way…
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree that a lot of people, men and women, want a more flexible schedule. The big problem is, until we have enough change in the workplace, that kind of flex-time will only include those at the top of their game–not those at the lower rung who need it as much, if not more.
I have problems with Michelle Obama as a shining example of womenomics though–she completely dropped out. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who kept her jobs throughout and did policy work in the WH (while raising a great kid), Michelle has gone the tea and cookies/fashion route. Too retro for me…
In response to another comment. See in context »I’ve seen the authors of this book interviewed a couple of times, and each time am left thinking that they are either incredibly naive, have been incredibly lucky, or just cynically decided on an idea to spin to sell a book.
I’m a 53 year old lawyer, and I can tell you that women are still lightyears from gaining parity in this profession, much less being in a postion to request/expect anything nontraditional in terms of work schedule, etc. without incurring significant negative impact on their careers.
Ten years ago you could never mention that you had children for fear of being judged…I was in a meeting the other day with a group of people–including a newborn infant. Some things are changing, albeit slowly and only with a certain age group.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes, things are slowly changing, but a lot of it is due to the fact that younger men are also wanting more of a life/work balance. If it were only women wanting it, things wouldn’t have changed even as much as they have.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes, I agree that younger men are helping to drive the change. I have two sons and there have been times–like some Thanksgivings–when I couldn’t be there. My take away was that hopefully the experiences would make them more participative and understanding of their partners’ life/work choices when they got to where I was.
Having said that, some men grow up that way and take the opposite tack, which is that they never want their wives to work at all when they have kids.
Bottom line Marina, and to your point, men are still driving many of the the changes for women in the work place….
In response to another comment. See in context »Interesting that book is “probably most helpful for college-educated professional women” — when the best and brightest opt out, doesn’t that make it tougher for the women who have to work, the women in the lower rungs? the system never changes because those in a position to (college-educated professional women) don’t force the change, they just take their ball and go home to play.
Interesting point–and in “The View’ clip I saw one of the women (the blonde conservative–sorry don’t know the name) made a similar comment about what happens if a lot of qualified women leave the workplace. The older woman (Joy?) seemed to think it meant that men would have affairs with secretaries (now you know why I don’t watch this) but the blonde pointed out that men would once again be left in charge and women could lose the gains we made because there wouldn’t be anyone in to fight for those continued changes.
In response to another comment. See in context »I didn’t see the interview but I had the suits and the big hair and the big job and the 2 year old.What I find most amusing is this “post feminist “title.Hilarious,sad,enbarressing but hilarious.The most important thing about Michelle Obama is that she is not taking policy positions,not using her degree.Puhleeze wake the f^^k up gals.I am a recruiter and have interviewed lots of woman who opted out and then years later want to opt back in.They are always surprised to hear that the world kept on moving and their highly marketable skills have been surpassed by younger,faster etc.
It’s depressing to me that only women are responding to this extremely important post. Women in the workplace does not mean women only on the issue. And why when we see it from the womenomics side do we no longer hear phrases like “brain drain” and “talent will flee”?
It is a brain drain Vickie, esp. when you consider that the women who might opt out are in their 30’s and 40’s–the time at which professionals really make advancement in their careers. When off-rampers come back on it’s rarely at the same level, hence the depressingly low numbers of female CEO’s.
Even worse, while the women are out, we’re left with a continuously male dominated work place–and a continuation of the mentality that women’s first job is in the home. A mentality currently being modeled by Michelle Obama, among others. She was given non-stop kudos for giving up her career while Palin was lambasted for not staying home with her kids.
This doesn’t feel like change.
In response to another comment. See in context »