What Makes It Harder for Women to “Have it All”—or Even to Have Some? The Truth Behind Disempowerment
June 27, 2012 by Anita Finlay ("Ani")
The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.
More than 70 percent of all mothers and more than 60 percent of mothers with children under 3 are in the workforce. Two-thirds of them earn less than $30,000 a year. Nine of 10 less than $50,000…. Half are their family’s primary breadwinner.
“Despite making billions last year, why do you deny the people cleaning your buildings a living wage?”
Dimon’s security guard acted as if she were bearing a deadly weapon, surrounding Dimon and moving him away, as he told her to “call my office.”
I believe in capitalism and don’t begrudge anyone making it big in this country. But is it a bit much that this man earns almost $21 million per year when Ms. Vasquez works ridiculous hours and can barely feed her family?
It is likewise troubling that JP Morgan Chase just lost $2 billion dollars because of a faulty hedging strategy (the loss will probably amount to 10 times that number because of a drop in share value) and the person fired for the “mistake” was a woman—Chief Investment Officer, Ina Drew. For 30 years, she was an ace. Not any more. The most powerful woman on Wall Street is gone and unlikely to be replaced any time soon. Yet her boss, Mr. Dimon, the man in charge of Drew and the whole shebang, still has his cushy gig and has escaped unscathed. He also recently testified before Congress wearing his ceremonial Presidential cufflinks. It’s good to be king. That is another part of the woman’s struggle that is underreported – the remaining predisposition toward the boyz network.
It is important to link the dots to these varied events because of Ms. vanden Heuvel’s next statement:
“Slaughter is smart enough to recognize that the “majority of American women face problems far greater than any discussed in this article.” She makes sure to note she is writing for her demographic, “highly educated, well-off women who are privileged to have choices in the first place.” And while she envisions more women at the top, changing workplace culture and policies, she fails to note the discrimination that still keeps so many of them from reaching those high positions. Slaughter sees the best hope for improving women’s condition as closing “the leadership gap: to elect a woman president and 50 women senators.”
I’d like to think that is true, but leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Michele Bachmann raise doubts.”
Two points scream at me. First, she mentioned two conservative women as if they are the only examples of female leadership. I gather she is intimating that they are bad choices. If her argument is that bringing more women into leadership positions would not necessarily make a difference in the plight of struggling women, this is nonsensical on its face. She covers the struggles of women but seems blind to those who have done the most to alleviate it.
In 1992, the last “year of the woman,” when we swept into office in great number, more legislation was passed to help women in the work place and protect against violence. Further, we all learn by example. When women achieve, when we stand up, it sets an example and gives courage to other women to do the same, whether or not we are on the same side of the aisle politically.
Second, vanden Heuvel says real women need to “rise up and tell their stories.” But how can they do that when it appears men in power are not interested? And right now men need to be interested because they control the narrative. The shocking 2012 study conducted by the 4th Estate, much discussed on this blog and others, revealed that men are solicited for their opinions in news articles five times as much as women – even on women’s issues! Get that? Five times as much. Not coincidentally, the ratio in Congress is five men to every woman.
Paul Farhi of WaPo said the study showed “reporters might have “an unconscious bias” when it comes to selecting people who offer expertise and opinions about the news. The thinking [among reporters] may be that men have more authority on a topic than women do.”
No kidding. That we still struggle with this in 2012 is disgraceful.
Our media is reputed to have a “liberal bias” and yet they do not grant a woman anywhere near equal credibility to men. Ms. vanden Heuvel needs to be reminded that neither side particularly gives a damn about “women’s stories,” whether it involves women juggling high powered careers and family, a female janitor wondering how she is going to afford milk for her kids or the violence still plaguing women in this country.
We have a progressive President, yet when he had a near super majority in Congress his first two years in office, he did not attempt to pass the Fair Pay Act. And sorry, the Lilly Ledbetter Act does nothing to change the current pay disparity. In an appearance on ABC’s This Week, Ms. vanden Heuvel touted the President’s ability to end “crony capitalism” and push for a “democratic capitalism that lifts all boats.” But, like the Republicans she often criticizes, Mr. Obama is just as comfortable with crony capitalism. Holding $40,000-a-plate fundraisers with the likes of Anna Wintour does alter that perception. The Jamie Dimons of this world are just as safe in the company of our current president (despite the class warfare touted in his campaign rhetoric) as with Republicans. I am not convinced either side is concerned with the problems we face here on the ground.
When are the varied struggles of women in all social strata ever to be a priority? Isn’t that the real problem here? Until we have more women in positions of power, shouting loud to do something about the issues of concern to Ms. vanden Heuvel, this will not change.
And if we don’t even see the need for greater female numbers in leadership positions in government, in business, and in media, that is unlikely to happen.
8 comments on “What Makes It Harder for Women to “Have it All”—or Even to Have Some? The Truth Behind Disempowerment”
Leave a Reply
UPCOMING EVENTS
-
April 4, 2013A Girlfriends' Guide to Making it in the Real World!
Rutgers UniversityApril 10, 2013A Girlfriends' Guide to Making it in the Real World!
Villanova UniversityJune 4, 2013National Girlfriend's Networking Day
New York, NYBuild Your Network
We’re in the media
Vanden Heuvel is just making another excuse for Democrat men. Democrat women are good at that. I do agree that men are controlling the culture and the conversation by controlling the media and because of that women’s groups should make taking out big media their first priority by encouraging women consumers to cut the cable cord. I would also say spending energy on trying to change an institution (media)so bigoted against women is probably a waste of time and it would be more effective to start a competing women’s perspective media, one that bans fashion/beauty nonsense and advertising.
I would like to see the Republicans draft Condi Rice for VP and the Democrats should dump Biden and put a woman on the ticket. Both parties ignore the real issues facing women and I am damn sick of the Democrat imaginary women’s issues campaign. Government is bankrupting the country and taking too much of my money in the process. I don’t need government to take care of me but I would like them to leave me alone. Particularly the Feds who are run by a bunch of east coast imperialists that don’t even understand the issues that exist around me.
Vanden Heuvel makes some good points but in the end she turns on other women and buys into the rich woman vs. poor woman narrative. This narrative was carefully constructed in response to second wave feminism and is a familiar divide and conquer strategy. During the backlash to second wave feminism we learnt that men cannot possibly be held responsible in any way to the social/economic inequality faced by women. Men had nothing to do with creating the social/economic infrastructure that benefits men with stay-at-home wives, to the detriment of everyone else. So who is responsible? Other women, of course. The backlash narrative is that rich women oppress poor women, white women oppress women of color, working women oppress stay-at-home women, stay-at-home women oppress working women, republican women oppress democrat women, old women oppress young women and vice versa, etc. It is taboo to mention the role of men in inequality. There is no discrimination, there is no power hoarding, there is no prejudice or bias, men are willing to pull their weight at home only if women would allow them to. Women are oppressing themselves, the stupid things.
We should not fall into the trap of this narrative. Women need solidarity to gain equality. All the data back this up. There is plenty of research out there that shows that when women are better represented at the top, women at the bottom benefit. Instead of acknowledging this research, the media is encouraging class wars between women.
I also agree with Kali’s comment.
Yes, you are both right — the women oppressing women stuff is a very convenient way to let the biased media and men who hoard power off the hook — then they can keep using tired sexist tropes to keep women out.
Except that women do sometimes oppress other women. At the moment, most of those women seem to be Republicans but I’m not letting Nancy Pelosi off the hook for her collusion against Hillary Clinton. Neither am I letting Obama off the hook but the Lily Ledbetter Act does make it easier for women to sue when they find that they are making less than men who do the same work. And Michele Bachmann, the woman who asserted that she became a tax lawyer because her husband told her to and that women should do as their husbands tell them because the Bible says so, has done nothing but oppose women’s economic and health rights for her entire career. Her presence in the political arena doesn’t help women at all except to prove that batshit crazy women can get elected just as batshit crazy men like Allen West and Rand Paul can get elected.
Men are never going to “give” women anything. We need to make it impossible for women not to be treated fairly and, as long as women depend on men like Obama or Romney to treat them with as much respect and deference as they offer men it will never happen.
This whole “have it all” concept is ridiculous. No one can “have it all”. Men can’t, women can’t. You can have both a career and be a Mom, but you get the cliff notes version of both. That is true of men too, they can be a Dad and have a career but they get the cliff notes version of parenthood and they are usually fine with that. You make your choices and you live with them and it isn’t prudent to criticize or categorize other people for the choices they make because it’s none of your business and people who do it seem childish or judgmental. “Can’t we all just get along”?
Yes, the “have it all” concept may seem ridiculous, yet men are able to work, be married and have kids and be more absent from their lives without the same guilt or criticism. I did not grow up in a standard household. My mom was the breadwinner. She was never given the respect that went with her position in the family. She worked of dire necessity and yet was plagued with horrible guilt that she was not at home with me.
I think the bigger issue is not about having it all, but getting respect for your choices — and having opportunity and flexibility. Also, to have women’s opinions count and to have representation in government so that we have a real voice on issues that matter. The lip service at election time is more than tiresome.
Men are able to be absent from their home lives without the guilt or perceiving the criticism of others because they are oblivious to reality and they have amazing powers of self delusion. They don’t have the capacity to know what they are missing. Just like low IQ people don’t worry about politics because they don’t have the capacity. And since men also consider maleness and male thinking to be normal, average, right thinking they don’t have any idea that other people have different ideas and experiences. You know all the uniform uninspired repetitive crap you see in media and how the men in charge keep saying they are merely reflecting our culture….well that is actually what they believe. They look at the same amazing world we live in and all they can see is the crap that they reflect back and they have no idea there is any different experience. There is no way women will ever get adequate representation from men in media or government (or anywhere) because men clearly don’t have the capacity to see any ones needs but their own.