Dear Sheryl Sandberg

Dear Sheryl,

Here’s my TIME.com post this morning about what a bunch of slackers we ladies are for wanting to spend more time away from our jobs. (And guys: you can be slackers too, if you just get in touch with your lazy ass inner selves.) Joke, joke… But bring on the outrage, anyway. I’m actually totally serious about all of this. I’m sick of privileging certain kinds of “work” (well compensated, male-stereotyped) over other essential adult tasks. You see, Sheryl…

Is it okay if I call you Sheryl? This is a little confessional here, but a lot of working moms  don’t want to lean in quite as much as you think we should. I hate to rain on your parade. I know you must have my best interests at heart. You spent a lot of energy making life better for women in corporate America by… advocating for better parking spaces for pregnant executives. There’s a cause I can get behind! (I had pre-eclampsia with my first pregnancy and not a single shlub (sp?) on Amtrak would give up his/her seat or help me with my luggage when my legs had swollen to elephantine proportions.) Besides, unlike most of the journalistic/pundicratic wannabes circling the internet drain, I happen to have read the entirety of your surprisingly thin, surprisingly not at all gender-revolutionary book. Sheryl, I know that my argument – LET’S NOT FORGET, MANY WORKING MOMS WANT TO WORK LESS, NOT MORE! -- doesn’t really fit with your “we need a couple hundred more billionaire female executives to sleep 4.5 hours per night or the world will implode” shtick. And remind, me, Sheryl, how – if history is any guide – a few extra extremely rich female executives are going to make a dent in income inequality, poverty, sex trafficking, maternal mortality, reproductive health care, and the like? And while we’re on-topic, how, exactly, do you propose, as you have done, that they are going to have better marital sex by waking up at 5 a.m. to answer emails and working the late shift after Jr. has gone down for the night? (Sorry, hon, but that vexing bugaboo, actual data, is not on your side on that small point.)

Why is transformative, do-gooder, people-empowering capitalism any more in a woman’s ‘wheelhouse’ than a guy executive? (And somebody please tell me why I keep hearing the word, “wheelhouse” five times a day!)  Anne Applebaum, who is pretty much the most unslackerly gal I’ve ever read,  has a fantastic exegesis of all of this in the New York Review of Books, where she argues — much better than I’m feebly paraphrasing – that Sheryl Sandberg joins a long line of successful, likable, business-memoirists trading in unsubstantiated platitudes while thinking they should be taken seriously as world-transformers. Too harsh? I don’t know. For now, I give you… my TIME.com post this morning. Consider yourself warned:

photo: TIME, Inc.

It’s almost become a cliché to note that women are still under-earning compared to men in the workforce. But maybe this reality shouldn’t keep surprising us. The recent headlines miss an important part of the work-life balance story: plenty of working mothers are earning less than men because they want the sort of jobs and working arrangements which indeed pay less.

According to a recent Pew poll, 67% of all mothers would ideally forego full-time work in favor of working part-time (47%) or not at all (20%). By contrast, only 25% of fathers would choose part-time work (15%) or not to work (10%). Among all women – mothers and women without children – who describe themselves as “financially comfortable,” only 31% would ideally work full-time and another 34% wouldn’t work at all. And among married mothers, only 23 percent would ideally like to work full-time. These are large percentages of different types of women who would choose family or personal priorities over full-time employment.

Current labor statistics bear out these fantasies: women are twice as likely as men to work part-time even though they are also more likely to be college-educated and thus more marketable.

We spill a lot of ink trying to account for this seeming failure: corporate America doesn’t do enough for families (undoubtedly true). Government doesn’t do enough for families. (Ditto.) But there’s a certain condescension in these explanations, as if we can’t quite believe a woman knows her own mind. Even in countries like the Netherlands, with a tightly woven safety net and a high degree of gender equality, the majority of mothers still opt for more time at home with their families. And why not? Maybe it’s time to stop searching for societal ills or individual pathologies to explain this fact…

 Continued at: 
http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/12/lets-not-forget-many-working-moms-want-to-work-less/#ixzz2W0lg7LBQ

The Female Labor Force Is Actually Stagnating

Here’s my view on the state of women in the workforce, from TIME.com:

The announcement last week that women now comprise 40 percent of the primary ‘breadwinners’ in American households unleashed the usual reflexive responses. Attempting what looked like self-parody, Fox News featured an all-male quartet of pundits sputtering about the decline of women’s “natural” role. Some saw welcome progress for women while others viewed the 40 percent figure as more evidence that the ‘End of Men’ is nigh. Either way, it’s hardly cause for celebration that two thirds of the female (mainly poor) primary earners are really the family’s only earner because they lack a partner or spouse to share the burden.

 

 

 

 

 

But amidst all the tumult, few paused to consider why the forty percent figure isn’t even higher. Yes, women have made major gains in the workforce compared to their participation in the labor market in the late 1960s, but much of that growth took place in the 1970s and 1980s and has stalled in more recent decades. In 1990, 74 percent of American women were in the workforce. Twenty years later, that number has only increased by a percentage point, to 75. Other countries, meanwhile, have surged ahead of us…

Continued at: 
http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/04/the-female-labor-market-is-actually-stagnating/#ixzz2VFg7e0N9

Nelson Mandela and the Invincibility Of Justice

“During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. The invincibility of our cause and the certainty of our final victory are the impenetrable armour of those who consistently uphold their faith in freedom and justice in spite of political persecution.”

- Nelson Mandela

Following Oprah Winfrey’s visit to Cambridge the other day, I was coming up with a mental list of Harvard’s most elevating and atrocious honorary degree recipients  – and for the record, I don’t think Oprah belongs in either category — and of course my mind immediately turned to Nelson Mandela as the shining examplar of the former, not for anything he actually said, though you can decide for yourself here, but for his ineffable moral ballast. Such is his gravitational pull that the university deviated from its usual protocol, which stipulates that honorary degree recipients be physically present at commencement to receive their award, and allowed Mandela to pick up his degree at a separate occasion when he was touring North America. Only two others have received that honor in Harvard’s almost-400-year history: a fellow called George Washington and a guy by the name of Winston Churchill.

I know it’s a tired cliche to cite Nelson Mandela as a personal hero, but he is mine – and has been for as long as I can remember, certainly going back to my sophomore year at Harvard when Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa came to the University, following the award of his Nobel prize, and spoke at Memorial Church.

That’s me, far left, greeting Nobel Laureate, Bishop Desmond Tutu, at Harvard University in 1984

I was an intern at the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations at the time, and thus one of the lucky students who shook Tutu’s hand (see photo at left) and felt the glow of his melting smile. We admired his humble courage and were lifted by his presence. But I think even then we knew that Bishop Tutu was a proxy for the real giant among men, Nelson Mandela, the person we were certain (at least I was certain) that the world would never have the privilege of knowing beyond prison walls.

(If I can digress for a moment, I think it’s impossible to overstate how little we thought the world was capable of changing back then. Yes, yes, Sandra Day O’Connor, the anti-apartheid movement, and so on. But virtually nobody back in the early ’80s, including experts, could have imagined a world in which the Soviet Union would topple in the quite-near future.)

As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn’t leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I’d still be in prison.”
― Nelson Mandela

In any event, just a few years after Bishop Tutu’s visit to Harvard, I was riding in a taxi in New York City with an African driver when news came on the radio of Nelson Mandela’s release from prison. I remember the day quite well because I’d gone to New York for a funeral and it was also my best friend’s birthday. My driver was from East Africa, if I recall correctly, and we had been talking about my own experience in Kenya in the summer of 1985. Mandela’s release from prison had been in the works for some time and it wasn’t totally unexpected at that point. Nonetheless, the news was truly and completely shaking. There were no handy gadgets back then, of course, so I didn’t share my excitement via cell tower. Instead, I suggested the driver pull over to the side of the street, and he did that and whispered, “Oh my Lord” in his soft lilting accent, and we both proceeded to cry.

The final page of Nelson Mandela’s four hour statement, which he presented in lieu of giving testimony, at the trial which sentenced him to life in prison (and from which he narrowly escaped execution). The handwritten addendum states, in his own handwriting: “The invincibility of our cause and the certainty of our final victory are the impenetrable armour of those who consistently uphold their faith in freedom and justice in spite of political persecution”.

Who Doesn’t Like Oprah?

I love Oprah! I do. I love her embrace of education and teachers. I love her books. I’m pretty sure I love her philanthropy, though I don’t know much about its effectiveness. I also have a subscription to her magazine. (I actually cook the recipes.) I love the interviews. I am an eager devotee of the beauty and fashion advice. And I’ve seen/heard Oprah up close, in person, three times and found her beautiful, smart, wildly charismatic (in a good way), and all things admirable.

Harvard’s President, Drew Faust, and Oprah

Just look at these photos and try to tell me you don’t love Oprah. (My favorite is the one with President Drew Faust. Totally adorable.)

And yet… I think Harvard and Oprah don’t mix. It’s true that a lot of famous Harvard commencement speakers and honorary degree recipients are a much worse fit with Harvard than Oprah, among them: the Shah of Iran and Mother Teresa. Do I think Oprah has great things to say to Harvard undergrads? I do. (But I thought her speech was a little thin and cliched, to be honest, not nearly as interesting as other things I’ve heard her say over the years or anywhere approaching the inspiration offered by J.K. Rowling, another controversial Harvard commencement speaker.)

I was moved by Oprah’s tears yesterday, and her genuine enthusiasm (which I observed close-up as she walked in the commencement parade and seemed bubbling over with childlike giddiness.) I was touched by how excited the students were to see her. I love Oprah! 

And yet… can I be a wet blanket, please? I think symbols are important, and the symbolism of Harvard anointing Oprah doesn’t sit well with me. I’m sure lots of people don’t agree with me, and that’s fine. Disagreement and dialogue are good, as Queen O. tells me all the time. So, here’s my take, co-authored with my husband, at TIME.com:

It’s possible to admire Oprah Winfrey and still wish that Harvard hadn’t awarded her an honorary doctor of law degree and the coveted commencement speaker spot at yesterday’s graduation. There’s no question Oprah’s achievements place her in the pantheon of American success stories. Talent, charisma, and a prodigious work ethic have rarely catapulted anyone as far as they have this former abused teenage mother from rural Mississippi who became one of the world’s most successful entertainment moguls and the first African American female billionaire.

Honorary degrees are often bestowed to non-academic leaders in the arts, business, and politics. Harvard’s roster in recent years has included Kofi Annan, Bill Gates, Meryl Streep, and David Souter. But Oprah’s particular brand of celebrity is not a good fit for the values of a university whose motto, Veritas, means truth. Oprah’s passionate advocacy extends, unfortunately, to a hearty embrace of phony science. Critics have taken Oprah to task for years for her energetic shilling on behalf of peddlers of quack medicine. Most notoriously, Oprah’s validation of Jenny McCarthy’s discredited claim that vaccines cause autism has no doubt contributed to much harm through the foolish avoidance of vaccines…

Continued at : 
http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/31/viewpoint-oprah-as-harvards-commencement-speaker-another-assault-on-science/#ixzz2UsGbraoW

Are The Boy Scouts Knuckling Under?

I can always count on the anti-homosexual crowd to boost my numbers. Thanks, guys! You Christians really come out for the gays. My piece at TIME.com was the second-most emailed earlier this morning, I’m proud to report. But, perplexingly, I haven’t noticed a similar bump for my stories on topics like sex trafficking or the injustice of poor sanitation. Come on, folks! Spread the outrage around a little more!

In all seriousness, I appreciate the dialogue. I really do. Here’s an exchange:

“Saw your comment on Boy Scouts. As a grandstading idealist that you seem to be, it was well written. I don’t really care if you think you are right since nothing I say will change your liberal point of view. The real issue is that no private institution should have to knuckle under to societal pressure. There is and always has been full transparencey in the BSA. Up front, what you see is what you get. Why is it that this institution has to have homosexuality crammed down it’s throat like the rest of society. Are churches next? Why is the definition of morality by the BSA not good enough? What makes it that the definition of morality can only come from journalists and liberal minded people and be deemed acceptable? If homosexuals want to choose that life, why can’t this private organization choose differently. Our freedoms under the constitution make this choice possible. Private institutions should have the right to have standards and uphold them.”

My Response:

“Dear Sir,

Thank you for not calling me hateful names. That is refreshing today, though it is always puzzling the way so many folks who disagree with me start their comments with all kinds of disclaimers about what kind of person I am and how little I am capable of listening/changing. It often feels like a projection of the commenter’s reality, not mine. In any case, you are correct that I am about 75 percent liberal, though relatively conservative on certain issues that would surprise you, personal responsibility, among them.

But to your point: You seem to misunderstand the purpose of my post at TIME.com. I agree 100 percent with you that the BSA should not have to “knuckle under” to societal pressure. They should act with their conscience, as we all should. BSA has constitutionally protected rights and I have no wish to infringe on them. Needless to say — I hope it’s “needless to say” — there are some limits to constitutional protection. I doubt very much either of us would defend the BSA’s right to promote murder, for example, nor would we easily imagine a robust defense for excluding short people or albino children. However, I agree with you that, “private institutions should have the right to have standards and uphold them.” I said that in writing and believe it. But I hope you are not suggesting that I do not have the “right” to exert any pressure I want on any institution of my choosing – again, “within reason.” This is the point of opinion pieces, commercial boycotts, protest marches, online petitions, and other forms of civil discourse. A healthy society thrives and indeed depends on the transparent airing of ideas. This can sometimes take the form of pressure. It’s how markets work, as well. Ideas need to be vetted in the marketplace, just like any other public good. There’s nothing wrong with this reality! In fact, your and my right to exercise our convictions depends heavily not only on our legally-protected rights but on a culture that values such a democratic and open enterprise and doesn’t cry “foul” the minute people speak out about things someone doesn’t like…

What the Boy Scouts Can Learn From the Girl Scouts

Here’s my take on the Boy Scouts drama here, at TIME.com:

photo: TIME, Inc.

After months of delay, Boys Scouts of America (BSA) is finally voting today to overturn its ban on “openly gay” scouts (though not scout leaders—those are still verboten.) The BSA has defended its discriminatory policy on the grounds that homosexuality is incompatible with the Scout Law, especially with the values expressed in its commitment to ‘morally straight’ and ‘clean’ living. But instead of twisting themselves into moral knots that encourage bigotry, the Boy Scouts would have saved themselves a lot of angst and controversy (and also done better by American boys) if they were more like…the Girl Scouts.

In their statement of purpose called “What we stand for,” the Girl Scouts explicitly reject discrimination of any kind and consider sexual orientation, “a private matter for girls and their families to address.” Noting their affirmation of freedom of religion, a founding principle of American life, the Girl Scouts “do not attempt to dictate the form or style of a member’s worship” and urge “flexibility” in reciting the Girl Scout Promise. (They are encouraged to substitute the word “God” for something that’s more in line with their own spiritual practice.) It’s an arresting contrast to the Boy Scouts of America, who in addition to excluding gays also refuse to hire non-believers. While the BSA employment application states unequivocally that atheists, agnostics and “known or avowed homosexuals” are in all cases barred from becoming Scout leaders, convicted criminals can rest easy that their record “is not an automatic bar to employment.”

But there’s more than discrimination at stake. The BSA’s clannish practices may harm heterosexual boys too. That’s because a body of research suggests that excluding people from groups who are different impairs creative problem-solving and critical thinking. The studies, ranging from financial trading and management practices to jury deliberations, have confirmed what most of us know intuitively: our decision-making is enhanced by a wide variety of perspectives, even from those with whom we may disagree…

Continued at: 
http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/23/the-girl-scouts-are-better-than-the-boy-scouts/#ixzz2U7YwcgeQ

Angelina and Our Altered States

My TIME.com post today on… what else?

Angelina Jolie’s disclosure of her recent preventive double mastectomy and breast reconstruction was rightly hailed as a sensible public health message to women “living under the shadow of cancer.” But the gesture may signal something else: a growing tolerance for altered bodies, and even a new standard in which beauty and disfigurement are no longer mutually exclusive.

In her article, Jolie described post-operative drain tubes, tissue expanders and nipple preservation and admitted to feeling, “like a scene out of a science-fiction film.” But it’s not science fiction at all. Millions of Americans, including scores of celebrities, have undergone similarly invasive surgeries and are living successfully with all kinds of artificial and altered body parts, eroding the distinction between the real and unreal. Some are reconstructions, like the groundbreaking artificial windpipe recently created for a two year-old girl from a mix of plastic fibers and her own stem cells. Others, such as breast augmentation, are more strictly cosmetic.

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons estimates that more than 300,000 breast augmentations were done in 2011 alone, a 45 percent increase since 2001 and the most common form of cosmetic surgery in the United States. Combined with breast lifts (100,000 per year) and reconstructions like Jolie’s (another 100,000), that’s a lot of surgically transformed breasts. This altered reality has become the ‘new normal’ to such an extent that casting directors now despair of finding actresses who look natural enough for period films.

It’s hard to remember that not long ago there was such deep aversion to body tampering that even tatoos and piercings were considered mutilations reserved for people on the margins of society, such as pirates and prostitutes. An infamous “Mad Men” episode winked at that bygone era when an ad executive was fired because he had lost a foot to a rogue lawnmower…

Continued at: 
http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/15/angelinas-surgery-altered-body-parts-are-already-the-norm/#ixzz2TSqW5Vw2