Stop the Press Spree Against Working Moms

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Elizabeth Vargas, banished from ABC's World News Tonight co-anchor seat last May after announcing she was expecting a second child, returned to TV broadcasting last week.

While Vargas may no longer be "with child" in the biological sense, her first 20/20 story on Nov. 10 -- a report on working mothers, featuring herself as one -- is pregnant with the growing sense of working mothers' indignation.

In May, Vargas and the network said that, when she returned from her leave, she would co-anchor the Friday night news magazine, but would not return to the prestigious nightly newscast.

Though Vargas said publicly that it was a mutual decision, the nature of her come-back segment fuels my impression that her reassignment was a demotion and a negative signal to working mothers.

Vargas began her report with references to news articles about her being "dropped" from "World News Tonight" with shots of Vargas cuddling her new baby and discussing story angles for an upcoming project with a colleague.

From there she delved into the stories of three other working moms holding down demanding professional jobs, raising active kids and engaged in a daily "exercise in exhausting compromise."

Included was tape from a talk radio program, in which a female caller said her company avoids hiring working mothers or women they think will get pregnant.

Part of a Rising Tide

Vargas' segment is part of a rising tide.

Last Friday, the same day of Vargas' return to TV, Judith Warner, author of "Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety," appeared in the op-ed pages of the New York Times to challenge Nancy Pelosi and other politicians to throw their political weight behind the broad spectrum of working mothers and their families. "At every point on the socioeconomic spectrum now," Warner wrote, "it seems that American families are cracking at the seams."

The 16th annual Unscheduled Absence Survey by CCH, a leading provider of human resources and employment law information, bears Warner out. Almost 2 out of 3 employees who fail to show up for work aren't physically ill, the report finds. Twenty-four percent, for instance, are handling family issues.

As mother-of-five Pelosi takes her post-election victory lap as presumptive speaker of the house, other high-profile moms are pushing through status barriers throughout the world.

Mother-of-four Segolene Royal, another example, is currently putting the strongest pulse in the preliminaries for France's 2007 presidential election. Comfortable and confident as new heads of government are mother-of-three Michelle Bachelet of Chile and mother-of-four "Iron Lady" Ellen Sirleaf-Johnson in Liberia.

As working mothers such as these win the limelight, they can only help to illuminate the contrastingly dark realities of so many other women with children.

Off-Kilter Reporting

Off-kilter news reporting on the reasons women leave jobs, laced with amateur psychology and traces of biological determinism, have been creating a false impression about women's employment patterns, says an attention-getting report last month by the Center for WorkLife Law, a research and advocacy group at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.

"'Opt Out' -- or Pushed Out? The Untold Story of Why Women Leave the Work Force," released Oct. 17, analyzed 119 newspaper articles (excluding commentary) about women leaving the paid work force between 1980 and 2006. A great deal of this journalism, the authors find, understates the severity of the economic consequences for women who are forced out of jobs by inflexible employers and those who believe working mothers are bad for the bottom line.

Most insidious, says the report, is that reporters often depict women abandoning the workplace as a matter of their personal preference, not a symptom of a nationwide crisis for which employer rigidity and lack of family supports are largely to blame.

The "opt out" stories overwhelmingly focus on white, affluent women with white-collar jobs, a skewed demographic from which to draw conclusions about a majority of working women, given that only about 8 percent of women hold such jobs.

The articles also pinpointed the pull of family life as the main reason women quit, whereas a number of diverse sources collected by the Center -- an in-depth study of fast-track women, census data analyses, and its own research, including its 2006 report on family responsibilities discrimination, "Litigating the Maternal Wall" -- add to the mountain of evidence that affirms most women cite workplace "pushes" (such as inflexible jobs) as a key reason for their decision to leave.

Framing stories about the tension between women's work and family lives as a problem of women failing to "balance" their commitments is spurious at best, sexist at worst. By making the individual responsible, and not corporations or government, the "Opt Out story line sends the reassuring message that nothing needs to change," the report says.

In addition to the narrow framing of women and work that the Center for WorkLife Law documents, I'm convinced that much recent journalism about work-life issues fails to consider a wide range of other social concerns.

Take a good look at any one -- the alternative minimum tax, originally targeting affluent taxpayers, now inflicting pain on tens of millions of households; layoffs; poor nutrition as a result of our eat-on-the-run society; the divorce rate; traffic congestion; wage levels -- and it will likely lead you to a woman on the verge of packing it in (and no small number of men, too).

Data to Inspire Realistic Stories

The authors do not merely chide reporters. They also offer data to inspire journalists to start telling more nuanced and factually based stories that look critically at the societal effects of women's "personal" decisions about leaving the paid work force.

A 2005 Cornell University study of employers, for instance, found that 84 percent of the participants said they would only hire a woman who had no children. Only 47 percent said they would hire a woman with an identical resume who had children and that woman would be offered less in starting salary.

The authors also praise stories that probe the issue in a serious way. One example: A May 2 CNN story reported by Paula Zahn about a corporate communications executive fired while on maternity leave. Her bosses contacted her repeatedly with work-related requests while she was on maternity leave and challenged her commitment to the job before eventually laying her off before her leave ended. Her lost income cost her the house -- literally; unable to keep up her monthly payments, she lost her home.

"Simply telling reporters that they are telling the wrong story does not give them new stories to tell," write authors Joan C. Williams, Jessica Manvell and Stephanie Bornstein. "Reporters need ready access to accurate data to paint a complete picture."

In other words, the issue of employer bias against working mothers, up to now thinly explored in the press, should be a wellspring of news stories based on documented facts and trends.

Sheila Gibbons is editor of Media Report to Women, a quarterly journal of news, research and commentary about women and media.

[PlatyPius 5]

Employers are biased against males and women without children. We can't get time off like that. We can't miss one day every week because "the baby is sick" or the sitter is sick. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left there to do the working mothers' job.

This is just me speaking from experience. I'm not saying all women with spawn who work are like this. Any flames directed toward me will be used to roast wienies and marshmallows.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Employers are biased against males and women without children. We can't get time off like that. We can't miss one day every week because "the baby is sick" or the sitter is sick. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left there to do the working mothers' job.

This is just me speaking from experience. I'm not saying all women with spawn who work are like this. Any flames directed toward me will be used to roast wienies and marshmallows.

Yup. Another double standard.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

women with spawn

Spawn?

[hockeygal 0]

A 2005 Cornell University study of employers, for instance, found that 84 percent of the participants said they would only hire a woman who had no children. Only 47 percent said they would hire a woman with an identical resume who had children and that woman would be offered less in starting salary.

That is so insanely wrong, I almost can't believe it is true!

Of course, as a single, childless woman, I too have had to do the work for someone who was home with sick kids. I know, it takes a village... but when my coworker asked for that same childcare leave to watch his nieces while his sister had an operation, he was told he had to use vacation leave. Which he did, but I didn't think it was fair.

[Jenn! 918]

I don't think it's fair either. We should all have more flexibility in our work schedules. That's one of the things I hate the most about this country.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Employers are biased against males and women without children. We can't get time off like that. We can't miss one day every week because "the baby is sick" or the sitter is sick. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left there to do the working mothers' job.

This is just me speaking from experience. I'm not saying all women with spawn who work are like this. Any flames directed toward me will be used to roast wienies and marshmallows.

Yup. Another double standard.

not likely though to be demonstrations about it though

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Since Jenn brought up the need for flexible hours for everyone, this is from Forbes...

New York -

Kids change everything. An upcoming ballet recital or baseball game suddenly becomes more important than putting in crushing hours to nail the next promotion. You want to stay active in your field--and need the money--but you seek what eludes so many of us: a balance between work and home.

"Unhappy employees are generally less productive," says Laurie Lopez, a manager at Winter, Wyman HR Contract Solutions in Boston. "One employee's bad attitude can permeate the office and affect others."

In response, many companies offer flex-time, reduced schedules, telecommuting, extended vacations, flexible holidays and job sharing. Some companies offer on-site day care or kick in a portion of an employee's child-care costs in an effort to attract and retain key employees with children.

The need for a varied work schedule affects both men and women, but caring for the children still falls heavily on the mother. Nearly half of the workforce is now female, and about 85% of working women are, or will become, working mothers. This makes flex-time a key issue for many women, Lopez says.

The key to getting what you want is knowing what you need. That sounds simple enough, but many employees haven't considered their needs beyond reducing their hours and make their pitch for a flexible work schedule without knowing what their company offers, what's been done in the past or how to present a proposal to the boss.

Lopez says there are three basic steps to making a successful pitch for a non-traditional workweek:

1. Determine how your proposed schedule will improve your life at home and at work.

2. Research your company to determine what's been done for others and what might be possible for you.

3. Develop a detailed plan and put it in writing.

http://www.forbes.com/work/careers/2006/06...ngabalance.html

Edited November 29, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[pedroh 21]

i've done that too, as a married guy with no kids.. I've had to cover for someone else because the kid is sick or something like that, which, well, I kinda understand, and I would except reciprocity at some point. but it's still unfair.. I have to be here everyday, and if it's my day off and im sleeping like a lazy bum, and someone kid's sick, damn,, adieu dreams, come to work.. aghh..

lawl

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i've done that too, as a married guy with no kids.. I've had to cover for someone else because the kid is sick or something like that, which, well, I kinda understand, and I would except reciprocity at some point. but it's still unfair.. I have to be here everyday, and if it's my day off and im sleeping like a lazy bum, and someone kid's sick, damn,, adieu dreams, come to work.. aghh..

lawl

So how can people have careers and still raise a family? There's got to be a solution and already the birthrate in this country for native born citizens has dropped significantly since women have entered into the workforce.

[Irisheyes 0]

Employers are biased against males and women without children. We can't get time off like that. We can't miss one day every week because "the baby is sick" or the sitter is sick. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left there to do the working mothers' job.

This is just me speaking from experience. I'm not saying all women with spawn who work are like this. Any flames directed toward me will be used to roast wienies and marshmallows.

Time off like what??? I have to take the minimum amount of time off when I give birth, just enough to recover because the system sucks so much in this country. Most countries in the world look out for their babies, except the US that is. It makes me mad that people literally have to decide they can't do the most natural thing in life because companies lose out on too much profit and the government don't care either way. God knows I pay enough in taxes every year to pay for all the lazy b**tards who just couldn't be bothered to work, not to mention the babies they spit out on a regular basis. In this day and age, this is something we shouldn't have to worry about. I guess I'll just be dropping my "spawn" and heading off back into the paddy fields then!

[pedroh 21]

to have almost retired uber-cool inlaws.. just like mine

my MIL is just waiting for us to have a kid. I know she wouldn't mind takin care of her grand(son/daughter) whenever we have one..

[Jenn! 918]

i've done that too, as a married guy with no kids.. I've had to cover for someone else because the kid is sick or something like that, which, well, I kinda understand, and I would except reciprocity at some point. but it's still unfair.. I have to be here everyday, and if it's my day off and im sleeping like a lazy bum, and someone kid's sick, damn,, adieu dreams, come to work.. aghh..

lawl

So how can people have careers and still raise a family? There's got to be a solution and already the birthrate in this country for native born citizens has dropped significantly since women have entered into the workforce.

I don't think it's as much about tangible changes like flex time and telecommuting as it is about changing the entire attitude towards work in this country. I mean I know that we don't even compare to countries like Japan, but I still feel that it is frowned upon to put the family before the job. I think it should be encouraged and embraced, and employers will be forced to follow suit.

[Anna C. 4]

A sick kid is a lot of work! I'd rather sit in the office than being thrown up on! ;P

[hockeygal 0]

So how can people have careers and still raise a family? There's got to be a solution and already the birthrate in this country for native born citizens has dropped significantly since women have entered into the workforce.

I think it is right to acknowledge parents need time to care for kids. Why punish the kids?

But maybe it would draw less criticism if it was done in the form of "personal time" to be used by everyone. Of call it family leave, so someone without kids can care for their niece if they need to, or take a parent to the doctor. We used to have a one time marriage leave at my work, of one week. A Wedding/Honeymoon bonus. A few years ago, it was replaced as a one time leave for everyone, no longer called marriage leave. because not everyone gets married, and not everyone gets married while working here! It was the right thing to do.