Privileged Women in the Workforce

You know, I never did write anything on my blog about the whole question of elite women failing feminism by staying home with their young children.  I wrote several critical comments about the subject elsewhere and wore myself out.  I could find itself in me to feel regret that I didn't just post my comments on my blog, since Phantom got an endnote mention for her blog post on the topic, but really, I don't regret it all.

Not least because Phantom deserves, not just an endnote, but a whole book of her own.  And as soon as Toddler Blue lets up on the need for MILK, I'm enlisting you all in my campaign to convince her to write it.

Still, I think it's worthwhile, from time to time, to point out factual data that refutes well-publicized books based on false assumptions.  And when the data falls into my lap, that makes it especially easy.

With that in mind, I bring your attention to this particular bit of survey data, buried in an article about women on Wall Street, lately published in the New York Times:

In March 2005, [Sylvia Ann Hewlett] co-wrote a Harvard Business Review article summarizing the findings of a private sector task force, ''The Hidden Brain Drain: Women and Minorities as Unrealized Assets.'' The task force, which Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers sponsored, surveyed 2,443 ''highly qualified'' women -- with high-honors undergraduate, graduate or professional degrees -- about their work patterns; among the women in the survey with children, 43 percent reported that they had left work voluntarily at some point in their careers. Of those, 93 percent wanted to return; 74 percent managed to do so, though only 40 percent of that group did so full time. Only 5 percent of women looking to return to work wanted to return to the places they had left. For those returning to business jobs, however, that figure was zero.

Now, I realize that Hewlett and Linda Hirshman are hardly fellow travelers in their quest to improve women's working lives.*  Nevertheless, I think we can safely evaluate the relative values of the two populations studied here -- women whose weddings are announced in the New York Times over a period of three weeks in June; a survey population of 2400 women with top degrees -- and form our own conclusions.

On the assumption, however dubious it might be, that you credit the latter more than the former for its representation of high-status working women, I offer the following:

If 57% of high-credentialled mothers remain in the workforce (barring dismissal), and 93% of the 43% who drop out want to return, but only 74% manage to find re-employment -- and 40% of that group choose or settle for part-time work -- then the problem of women in the workforce cannot be distilled to the question of privileged mothers' choices or commitment to feminism.  Hirshman is therefore wrong to focus on women's private choices and those choices' failure to uphold feminist values.  Instead, in a world where the vast majority of highly credentialled mothers express a desire to remain in, and to return to, the workplace, feminists must expand their examination of choice to ask: what can we do to empower the choices women would already like to make?

In other words, the problem of women being under-represented in board rooms and corner law offices has been and remains a series of structural barriers against women's full participation in the paid labor market -- structural barriers against women as a class, and against parents in particular.

Highly credentialled mothers haven't failed feminism, just because the feminism that concerns itself with the workplace has not yet achieved (nor, for that matter, fully defined) its goals.

Or, to put it another way: Hirschman wrote an inflammatory book about women on the basis of exciting, debate-generating evidence that turns out to have little statistical relevance in the real world.  Its methodological flaws notwithstanding, it generated enormous publicity and a successful book deal.  What a surprise.

* Understatement.

Comments

[Maia]

I found Linda Hirschman's article frustrating in many, many ways - but you've demonstrated the most fundamental. I could not believe that anyone would consider women who had their wedding in the New York Times style section as either a representative sample of anything, or the heirs to feminism.

Have you read this article?

[Kaethe]

Brava. Well done.

[Lisa V]

Did you read Megan O'Rourke's piece a month or 6 weeks ago in Slate? It was the first time that for a second I thought Hirschman made sense. However, her sample was totally flawed and I have a hard time taking 99% of what she says seriously.

I hate to say this, because it so cliche', but it is the whole patriarchal structure of the business world and most other working worlds frankly, that don't mesh well with parenthood. Not just motherhood.Yeah, we want to work, but most of us know the sacrifices we make personally and professionally to do it. So, how do we change it? Is it too exhausting to keep working for change? Is that why some women throw up their hands and "bail" instead and make their family their career?

Great piece Jody, you always make me think.

[Laura]

Totally agree with you. You said better what I said when the article came out. And just this week I wrote about the stupid school schedule which I think is part of the partriarchal structure as well. I'm still trying to figure out a way to fight that structure.

[APL]

Hooray, great post! I'm still ticked at the WaPo for allowing Hirschman the space to write her "why does everyone hate me?!" piece, wherein she never discloses the "methodology" or "sample size" from her American Prospect piece.

[Phantom Scribbler]

The truth is that I don't really have much of an oar to row in this debate, since I never had a career to leave, really. But if you want to co-write a book, (in which you will be the go-to person for research and thoughtful commentary, and I'll be the go-to person for South Park references and generalized snark), I am so in.

[Lisa V]

No way, I get to be the go to person for snark!Can I at least have a footnote?

[Jennifer]

"the feminism that concerns itself with the workplace has not yet achieved (nor, for that matter, fully defined) its goals" - this was the key point, for me.

Feminism in the workplace seems to be either Hirshmann (those pesky mothers should stop complaining and leaving the workforce) or the rest (those horrible employers should just make the workplace family friendly already).

Making the workplace family friendly is tricky, and I wish there were more people talking about the messy nuts and bolts of it. How do you manage a team where some people want to work 60 hours a week and others 20? Particularly when you'd like to keep yourself down to 40? That's what I'm trying to do at the moment, and I wish I had more guidance from both feminists and management literature.

I noticed that article, and didn't notice the satistics, particularly, so kudos to you for pointing out the contradictions.

[Jennifer]

Sorry, just had to add that I'm looking forward to that erudite, yet snarky book from you and Phantom.

[Sandy]

Ah, this post was a joy to read this morning. You see, I just finished "Get to Work" last week. What's really sad is that the book is ever sloppier than the original article - not only are the "Sources" ridiculous (she cites Nora Ephron as a reference, but not Ann Crittenden? Arlie Hoschschild? etc.), but the link to Bitch PhD's post is WRONG. Wrong link.

Poorly edited, poorly thought-out, and not very well written. But I do like the cover a lot.

[Sandy]

Ha. I see I left a typo up there. But see, if this were a book I would have caught that error and fixed it.

I just wanted to add that I'm working on a longish review rant on "Get to Work" and will probably be able to finish it up this weekend.