“Womenomics” Authors Say Working Mothers Should Just Say “No” To More Work
Posted by: Jessica Wakeman
Filed in:
news
12:30PM, Wednesday June 3rd 2009
“No means no” is a phrase feminists have successfully integrated into the lexicon to use in halting unwanted sexual advances. And now some feminists are arguing the next terrain for “no means no” should be for cutting back on above-the-call-of-duty hours spent in the workplace.
So says the new book “Womenomics: Write Your Own Rules For Success,” by Claire Shipman, senior national correspondent for ABC News’ “Good Morning America” and mom of two, and Katty Kay, Washington correspondent and anchor for “BBC World News America” and mom of four. Their argument, as described by Salon:
[The authors] call for women to say no to 60-plus-hour work weeks and overly demanding jobs that yank them away from their families. Instead, they urge working women to use their clout in the workplace to demand fewer hours at the office, turn down non-family-friendly assignments, and take control of their time by working from home more, checking e-mail less and avoiding meetings whenever possible.
I haven’t read Womenomics yet, but I read the Salon interview and I couldn’t agree with the writers more: Working moms and their allies have a responsibility to try to change their workplaces from the inside. After all, corporate America has never and will never come up to you and say, “Hello, dear, what can we do to make YOUR life easier?”
Before I go any further, I want to say that I know I’m privileged. I’m a white woman with a higher education and an upper-middle class upbringing. But philosophically, regardless of her class or education level, I believe women should be able to say “no.” I believe it’s more empowering for women to be assertive and to fight any consequences that may follow than it is for women juggle half a dozen balls at once, eroding their physical and psychological health.
There’s nothing empowering or feminist about working 60 hours a week, not seeing your children as much as you would like, and being unhappy about your life. Books like Courtney E. Martin’s Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters and Liz Funk’s Supergirls Speak Out have chronicled how women of our generation were told, “You can be anything!” but we heard “You have to be everything!” I think women—whether they’re the boss, middle managers or the lowest on the totem pole—would be surprised to find they could leave the office after eight hours if they just said the word “no” more often. “No, I don’t want that promotion that will pay more but will mean I have to stay here till 8 every night.” “No, I can’t go out after work for drinks with the interns.” “No, it’s too last minute for me to find a babysitter to leave town for that business trip—I need to hear about these plans in advance.”
If saying “no” sounds too harsh or negative, at the very least working mothers should be able to tell their bosses specifically what it is that they need to make parenting and money-making jive. For examples and inspiration, I highly suggest reading Deborah Copaken Kogan’s memoir, Shutterbabe, about how she struggled to get flex-time at her TV producer job.
All right, I want my bosses to stop reading this post right here. OK? Don’t read on. No, I’m serious. Stop reading.
OK, now that they’re gone, [HA!—Editor] I will be honest: I actually don’t think that only working moms should say “no” more often—everyone should, age or family-status be damned. I, personally, don’t really want to work over 40 hours a week. Even if I made twice as much money, I wouldn’t want to work twice as many hours. I like working for part of the day and then going home and having a life: taking yoga classes, talking on the phone to my best friend, cooking dinner. All that makes me happy. When I’m happy, my mind focuses primarily on my work, ideas flow more freely, and I’m more creative.
And whenever I have kids I’ll only feel this way more strongly. What the hell is the point of going through labor and paying all the expenses associated with children if I’m going to work 70 hours a week and never see them? Just so we can all wear J.Crew? Have a house with an extra bathroom? Go on annual ski trips? Those are wants, but we don’t need those things.
Of course, I realize that there’s labor abuse, especially of immigrants, and widespread poverty in this country. A 40-hour workweek is actually a luxury for some people. And I also realize that lawyers, doctors and other high-earning occasionally work 80+ or 100+ hours a week because that’s just the way their jobs are set up.
But I think Claire Shipman and Katty Kay are onto something: it’s not wrong to insist your life has balance, if balance is what you value.
- Today’s Lady News: Polanski’s Lawyer Says He’s Been Punished Enough For Drugging, Raping Teen
- Today’s Lady News: Conan O’Brien’s Fat Jokes Get Him In, Uh, Big Trouble
- Today’s Lady News: Jaycee Dugard’s Family Speaks Out Against Proposed Porn
- Celebrities Who Look Way Older Than They Are (Starpulse)
- A History: Sex Tapes We Weren't Suppossed to See (Maxim)
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
turnipgurl
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 01:10 pm: [report]
That’s all fine and dandy, but in the REAL world, most of us don’t have the luxury of saying “no.” The moms and bus-takers have fire coming out of their ass if they are at the office past 5. Who does that leave to do their work? You, yes, YOU sitting there with no husband and no kids to pick up at day care.
Flex benefits with regard to time off is for moms, they are a protected class, you singleton who just would like to be able to USE the PTO you’ve earned all year, are #&@$% out of luck. And with the job market at an all time low… you can take it with an extra heaping of hate and smile.
Jessica
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 01:16 pm: [report]
But what I’m saying is that saying “no” shouldn’t be a luxury and there’s enough of us that if we all say “no, we can’t work this way anymore, we have to do it a new way,” we can change it.
writergirl
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 01:26 pm: [report]
Wow…and women wonder why they get less pay for equal work? Really?
jojo32
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 01:30 pm: [report]
Just like anything else, it’s all in the choices we make for ourselves. Personally, this is why I’d never want to be in a ‘management’ position. I dont live to work, I work to live. I dont want all the extra responsibility. Even if it translates to more money, benefits, etc. I’m much happier being mostly poor and having more free time. I refuse to be a slave to materialism so I’ll keep my little job, little paycheck, and I’ll enjoy my little girl while she’s still just that. There’s time left for me to spend at work once she’s a teenager and wants nothing to do with me…
Rose
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 01:38 pm: [report]
I totally agree, Jessica. Not that long ago in history (and still in some places), there were no workplace safety regulations. Why did that change? Because employers said “hey, that’s wrong!”. No, because enough workers said that, and fought for them, until they became law. In much of Europe, I believe a 35 hour work week is considered normal, and those countries still function. But I think they key is that EVERYONE has to insist on humane work hours. Too often women or parents (and especially women who are parents) are considered special cases or #&@$% disturbers, when everyone has a right to a balanced life.
fallonthecity
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 01:46 pm: [report]
@jojo32: Work to live, don’t live to work - that’s practically my motto!
Jessica
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 01:50 pm: [report]
Thanks, @Rose and @JoJo32, I’m glad we see eye to eye.
Unohoo
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 01:55 pm: [report]
I agree. I am a wife and a mother that said “No” to being a working mother in my daughter’s early years. “No” meant saying “No” to new cars, “No” to a bigger house, “No” to a designer label slapped on my ass, “No” to eating out all the time, “No” to spendy vacations, and on and on. I am a working mother now - but I still say “No” in the workplace in order to remain sane and to enjoy my life that doesn’t revolve around the paycheck. I believe my family is happier for it and just as importantly, I am happier for it.
Backliteyes
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 01:55 pm: [report]
This is a really cute pipe dream. It’s probably true that if everyone said “no”, then it would really work. But realistically, that’s not going to happen. It wouldn’t just take mothers and childless women saying “no”, it would take men (fathers or not) and most of middle management saying “no” too.
Here’s the real world: There’s plenty of people (male, female, parents or not) that will say YES YES YES as long as they get ahead by doing it. If they get a promotion sooner, make or money, or even just won’t get laid off by saying yes, then they will. They deserve whatever reward they get by making that choice, and you deserve not to get those same rewards if you don’t get the same results they get by working harder.
The honest truth is no business really gives a flying whether you have kids. They care about the productivity and value contributed by worker A compared to worker B. If worker A is more productive they will favor them over worker B, the outside circumstances almost always won’t even be considered. Worker B will be promoted and get more pay, worker A will be left where they are (or maybe even demoted/laid off depending on the circumstances).
And honestly, it should be that way. It’s your choice if you have kids and make them a priority over your career in the same way that it’s your choice to not have kids and make your career your priority. Either way, it’s called a choice because you have to give something up.
writergirl
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 01:58 pm: [report]
My husband’s favorite response to me when I point out European work hours and “holiday” time, which is often, is that there is a reason the US has the highest GDP in the world. And he’s right. It’s because our economy really does drive the rest of the world. Look how quickly the world-wide recession kicked in when ours started.
I do think that working 80 hours a week is absurd—whether or not it is necessary, I don’t know. My husband regularly works 80 hours a week. I am a SAHM mom because I had no other option. If I went back to work full time I was going to be working 60 hours a week—it is what my field demands.
And like it or not, accept it or not, yeah, I may not be WANT to work the 60 hours my job requires, but you can bet there will be someone *right* behind me willing to do so. So if I really needed that job—what do you think I would do?
This culture won’t change. Unlike worker’s safety—something they could all unite behind—motherhood is polarizing in the office.
When a woman works and is a mother, it is more likely that she will take more personal/sick time than a co-worker who isn’t. Coworkers aren’t seeing the reasons behind the time off at Christmas (daycares/schools being closed during Christmas break) just that she took the week off here, and a week in January (when little Johnny had the flu) and then her regular vacation in June and a half day here because of a mother’s day event, and….you get the idea. Even if she was “working from home” there are aspects of her job that are being shuffled off on to other’s.
Men, even if they are fathers rarely take personal time to attend kid’s functions and even more rare is the father who stays home when the kid is sick. His working hours are more on-par with what is expected, where as a woman’s most times is precieved as not.
So since the perception is the working mother works less, and she leaves things in the office to be tended to by other’s—who is going to agree that the work week should be a strict 40 hours? Certainly not the people working more than 40 hours a week.
turnipgurl
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 02:01 pm: [report]
@Backliteyes
I agree. It seems in most cases, however, that company’s bend over backwards to make things “equal” and I’m sorry, but if a mom or dad chooses to work part time, or take leave, or utilize some other form of flex benefit, then they should not be rewarded with the same benefit as a full time, productive worker, albeit salary, bonus, etc. It’s most definitely not equal. People with children get a pretty good deal compared to those without, those who have no rights under the FMLA.
writergirl
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 02:02 pm: [report]
Meant to add—especially when the people working more than 40 hours a week are being compensated accordingly.
writergirl
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 02:05 pm: [report]
@turnipgirl—FMLA only covers a small percentage of workers—those in companies with 50 or more employees in a 75 mile radius. That’s rare. Most companies are small busineses employing less than 50 people.
Jessica
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 02:32 pm: [report]
Lots of the commentors keep using the word “reward”—as in, people who don’t work as long hours don’t deserve to be rewarded—but it’s funny that I never used the word “reward” at all in my piece. But the point I was trying to make was that .
@backliteyes It’s not logical to equate the # of hours worked with an employees value or productivity. I’ve sat next to people who futz around on YouTube for a few hours a day, but were hysterical when I tried to leave the office at 6pm after getting all my work done. I’m not in a management position, but personally, I would prefer to have someone who does BETTER work, rather than somebody who does MORE work. 10 to 12 hours of mediocre work would not be as appealing to me as 8 or even 4 hours of exceptional work.
In any case, I resent how some of the commentors are insinuating that I don’t have a “real” comprehension of how work works, as if I haven’t been working in offices and retail stores since I was 14.
EarthGoddess
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 02:32 pm: [report]
I’m a working mom, but I have the luxury of working mostly from home. (I have to check in at the office one morning - of my choice - per week.) Even though I make a decent salary, have great co-workers (via email and phone), and a good health insurance plan, the single greatest benefit is flexibility. Provided I let my co-workers know it advance, I am free to be away from the phone and computer for hours at a time in the middle of the day if necessary, as long as I make up the work later. (My daughter is a special needs child, so I’m at her school a lot for meetings and often have to take her to doctor’s appts.) I would take a decrease in salary if I had to in order to keep my flexibility. It’s wonderful! I seriously doubt I could go back to the 40+ hours per week I used to do when I was with previous employers.
Jessica
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 02:34 pm: [report]
Oops, my response got partially cut off. I mean to say that the point that I was trying to make was that raising a family and a happy marriage can be it’s own reward. And that each woman needs to create a value system for herself. If she values family time at a $50k/yr salary over not seeing her partner or kids at a $90k/yr salary, I think that’s great. The same goes for men, too. I think women and men with like-minded value systems need to band together and change this. Nothing ever got accomplished by saying “It’s never going to change, so let’s not even bother.”
retro chic
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 02:36 pm: [report]
A welcome article, Jessica. I think in any economy, an adult should set or negotiate boundaries in all areas of life. Dealing with a boss is an great way to practice boundary-setting, esp, for work/life balance. The worst thing that can happen is he/she will say “no” or modify your conditions. In my experience, and I learned it the hard way, is that bosses respond to the ones that speak up, whether justified or not, giving them “the oil” as it were. All they care about is getting the work done. Be ready with alternative solutions to objections that he/she may fire at you. Offer trial periods and make it work. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, approach problems in a more business-like way—personal or work—takes the baggage out of the problem-solving. But, fear and stewing about it will just continue the bad spiral and just might make yourself more tired and vulnerable, hence targeted for more workload or workplace abuse.
I currently work primarily from home, go to client sites when needed, and am available to drop off and pick up my daughter from school ‘cause that’s a priority to me. I don’t make what I used to, but have a much more fluid work/life balance. The cruel irony now is it’s worked great and I’m trying to buy a modest home, but will have to increase my hours to do so—no more than 40, and will not go back into Management. Fortunately my tweener is more independent and can handle it now, but will miss this current schedule.
Also, from my experience, while immigrants can be abused in the workplace, so can some unwittingly be the abusive bosses as they bring workplace sensibilities to the US without adapting, responding only to potential threats from Labor Board or Health Dept or legal concerns. Limited results there.
Point being, in general, (aside from immigrant issues) when interviewing for a job, I’d check to see who owns and runs the place. From the top down, they set the tone and many soft policies about how humanely people are treated there and how flexible they are in employee schedules.
shannac02
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 02:41 pm: [report]
I know I’m probably not in the right frame of mind right now, since I’m at work and all… BUT, Since when should ONLY mothers say “no” to the 60 hour workweeks? Why are fathers not being called home or urged not to participate in work orders that aren’t family friendly?
My mom was single and a small business owner the entire 18 years of my school/raising time, and no, she didn’t make it to every softball game, school program, or recital, but she made it so that I could have a decent life when my deadbeat dad decided he didn’t NEED to pay child support.
So, In theory, Mom’s standing up and saying no is awesome, but in reality, its probably not an option for those trying to make a better life for their kids. Also, hopefully these hard-working parents will instill a great work ethic in their kids and we can stop paying for these welfare sucking losers that don’t know how to put in an honest days work. Just sayin’.
Backliteyes
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 03:08 pm: [report]
@Jessica: I know you mentioned hours in your article, but I didn’t mention hours at all in my response, I talked about productivity/value. We agree here. If a manager can’t tell that someone working 10 hours a day is doing worse work than someone working 7 hours a day, they’re a bad manager. Decent managers can tell the difference, and promotions/raises/rankings come down to people who produce the same quality of work with the one putting in more time doing that level of work winning out.
“In any case, I resent how some of the commentors are insinuating that I don’t have a “real” comprehension of how work works, as if I haven’t been working in offices and retail stores since I was 14.”
The reason people are insinuating this is because the idea that enough people saying “no” is going to happen any time soon in the U.S. shows at the least some seriously wishful thinking. It’s something I would expect of someone only having worked full-time for a year or two and was bitter about having to put in extra work to get ahead (or not fall behind).
Anyway, I’m not saying people shouldn’t try to say “no”, or get other people to say “no” to effect change. Just don’t expect your employer to make that change easily or quickly, especially if the group agitating for change can be easily replaced.
Also, I have to note that I’m somewhat personally biased in this arena. I don’t have kids, and I’m saving for graduate school. If I could get a fatter paycheck by working more, I’d do it in a heartbeat and would be grateful for the opportunity. If that means undermining the lady in the next cube over that has to take a lot of time off for her sick child, tough luck. And I would fully expect someone else to do the same if the roles were reversed. This really isn’t an issue currently though, I only sometimes have a full 8 hours of work to do as it is.
Goldfinch86
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 03:41 pm: [report]
It’s amazing to see that both sides of this argument are right, we should be able to say no, but we can’t some of us don’t have that privilage. After 4 days without water in my apartment and plumbers coming this morning I was forced by my pissy gay manager to come in to work, my husband was forced to miss a conference call for work because my manager didn’t give a flying F#$*. I could have said no and been fired, I live in NY state they can fire you for any reason, my hours could have been cut back, I live in NYC I make less than 200$ a week, or just punished with bad attitudes and snotty remarks all day, also degrading. But I want to do good work do want the place I work to make money, no I’m not brainwashed I just want more hours, No is not something I can say. I get up at 4am to go to work, I had no ability to say no to a job because I had to get up at 4am and at least once a week 3am I needed that job and that is why many women will continue to work themselves to the bone and can’t afford to say no. America is the land of “I don’t give a S*%t about your problems get the work done and shut up”. Women and children will continue to be victims because men, who are mostly in charge don’t care, our political leaders don’t care either way and because we work so hard to make our American companies money they won’t ever let us have a break, because it’s bad for business.
retro chic
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 05:17 pm: [report]
I’ve lived all sides of this issue, incl the Management side. There are sacrifices and trade-offs for every employee status. I do know I got first pick and better projects, had more power/influence, incl in more meetings, choice to travel, when I worked the crazy pre-child hours. Now, I get more of the schlocky or busy work, attend less meetings that keep me in the loop, hence off the career track. But that’s the trade off.
Also, I see by some of the language between the moms vs non-moms, and those vs Management: agitator, group, change… these are all threatening to a boss, and don’t work, as it appears adversarial. It is also divisive among women who, at each end of the spectrum can help each other, rather than “undermine.” Imo, *depending on particular company size/policies,* it’s better to meet on a one-to-one basis based on your own needs with proposals and solutions in the “language” a boss speaks—business. Use metrics and examples to bolster your position. In this way we are supporting each other and effecting change no matter where you are on the food-chain, and dealing with men and bosses where they live.
It’s somewhat known that men in Management count on women to backbite, hurt, holding each other back without much effort from them (Mgmt). While they may bluster and resist, they’ll also buckle more (or go into shock) when approached by an efficient, centered woman making a firm request that doesn’t affect their bottom line. IE, make “No” sound like “Yes” with everything in your arsenal—just like a man, but better. Making a cogent request will not get you fired. They can smell seething frustrations, timidity or fear a mile away. Women will continue to be victimized by male bosses (and some female) as long as we give up as defeatist individuals. Ultimately, look for another job whose policies and Mgmt are more in step with society. They are out there, tho, I’m sure it depends on each field.
jojo32
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 07:40 pm: [report]
@ Retro - I’m fortunate to work at a place like that. I work for a non profit child care company. They are very family oriented, obviously. The first year I was employed there my daughter had COUNTLESS ear infections leading to surgery, etc. Not once did they make me feel guilty for having to leave for doctors appointments and such. And not once did I feel my job was at risk. Did anybody else take on my workload? Um, no. LOL It was still waiting for me when I got back. But that was just fine by me, because so was my job. I realize it’s probably such a rare thing, but I’m thankful for it.