The XX Factor: What women really think.

The White House: "Family-Friendly" for a Few?

I read Liza’s summary of Mimi Swarz’s take on mature women in the most powerful workplace in the world with some interest. After all, I’d previously written on the preponderance of single women in the Obama White House, lamenting the fact that a bold-face name like Melody Barnes put off marriage for years, in order to run policy in an administration poised to overhaul health care, energy action, and the economy ... (Read more at DoubleX.com.)

When Father's Day is Mother's Day

When word broke that Barack Obama is pausing his busy schedule of revamping health care and heeding climate science and not intervening in the electoral process of a sovereign nation in order to spend three hours preaching "responsible fatherhood"—why, I nearly did a jig. The celebrity-stuffed event in the East Room sheds light on a little-reported obsession of the president whose own father abandoned him when he was barely 2 years old... (To read the rest of this post, visit our new website DoubleX.com!)

Did Women Cause Edmund Andrews' Mortgage Mess?

New York Times reporter Edmund Andrews wrote a doozy of a story in a recent issue of the paper’s magazine, about how he went from a beaming homeowner and newlywed to an anxious debtor who owed hundreds of thousands of dollars on his mortgage. He described the trials and headaches of borrowing, and throughout the story, a basic disbelief that he, a reporter *who covers economics,* could have been caught up in the same overzealous swindling and poor decision-making that he wrote about for the Times.

His story may have been cause for a lot of rubbernecking and tsk-ing among readers, but Dana Goldstein and Megan McArdle have perhaps hit on... (To read the rest of this post, visit our new website at DoubleX.com!)

The Feminism of Penicillin

When we talk about barriers to the entrance of women in the American workforce in the 20th century, the story we tell is largely cultural and economic. Married women with career aspirations had to contend with wage discrimination, marriage bars, and the perception that a working woman was ipso facto a degenerate wife and mother. A neat new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that we often understate the role of basic medical advances when talking about that sudden, collective jump from home to workplace. It's easy to forget how dangerous childbirth used to be; complications associated with sepsis, toxaemia and obstructed labor could ravage a body well into middle age. "Many maternal conditions had very long lasting or chronic effects on health," the researchers report, "hindering women's ability to work beyond their childbearing years."

Using historical data to quantify the effects of various maternal conditions, economists Stefania Albanesi and Claudia Olivetti find that medical advances like the introduction of antibiotics, the standardization of obstetric practice, and the hospitalization of childbirth were absolutely critical to the rise of married women's participation in the labor market over the last century. They also find a very large effect for the introduction of formula as a mainstream alternative to breastfeeding in the 1930s. A typical woman in 1920 between the ages of 23 and 33 would be nursing for something like 40 percent of her potential working time. As Hanna has so forcefully illustrated, our cost/benefit calculations change when we start to consider the possibility that a mother's time might have some kind of value.

Did the Obamas only get a puppy because Michelle stays home? ... or, discrimination against working (dog) moms

As the entire world knows, the Obamas recently got a six-month-old Portuguese water puppy named Bo. In an exclusive, I've learned that this might be only because Michelle is a stay-at-home mom.

A friend of mine—who adopted an infant a few years ago, as a working mom—yesterday received this email when she applied to adopt a puppy:

Thank you for your interest in Good Dog Rescue. I'm afraid that our organization's policy on puppy adoptions is very stringent due to the exceptional needs of the pups. They wish for a stay-at-home mom that can help the pup grow. They feel you would qualify for one of our older dogs at least 18 months or older. I'm very sorry to disappoint you, but I hope you understand.

Remember—social workers approved my friend to adopt an infant human. Apparently policies for puppies are stricter. One concludes that, had Michelle O. held a job, Malia and Sasha would have been denied their puppy.

Would a working dad have received this email? Inquiring minds want to know.

Opted Out or Pushed Away?

Recession-Era America: Rich in Love?

Jessica nails the millionaires-playing-at-poverty trope so beloved by the New York Times Style section of late. But for sheer editorial laziness nothing beats the recession-as-moral-uplift story. Here is Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson explaining that recessions might free us from the shackles of consumerism and "expand our horizons—like an escape from the dungeon of our own desires." Here is the New York Times' Shaila Dewan explaining that forced time off might "work as a kind of recalibration" for Americans who too often choose "money over time." Here is Main Street explaining that "recessions can often bring families together."

 I suppose that some downwardly mobile families really will rally around the campfire for a recession-fueled round of "Kumbaya." But the poverty-as-familial-bonding-mechanism narrative has some serious problems, the most obvious being that divorce rates tend to jump and birth rates tend to fall during economic downturns. (Gerson's column makes a very big deal about the fact that the divorce rate fell during the Great Depression, but this is atypical.) Self-reported measures of subjective well-being have plummeted since the start of the financial decline, suggesting that partners and parents are more anxious than they were in times of plenty. And, of course, less disposable income also means less spending on family vacations, day trips, and romantic evenings out. There seems to be some idea, lodged deep in the American psyche, that moneyed people spend all of their time alone in bathtubs full of cash. As it happens, Americans spend quite a bit on consumption experiences enjoyed as families. "Cutting back" surely means cutting back on these expenditures as well. I would not pin my hopes on an upsurge in family whittling.

On Not Sugarcoating the Future

That's a good question, Dahlia, and the answer for me is definitely wanting that economic security later. I don't claim to speak for all of twentysomething ladies, but when I fantasize about my work-life balance, I want what my parents had. They're both doctors who met in med school. My mother is a psychiatrist, my father, a cardiologist. From the time my brother was born, we had a housekeeper who did not live with us, but was with the family from 9 to 5 on weekdays. When I was 8 or so, my mom went into her private practice full time, and so worked from home, though was largely not available during the day. We always had dinner as a family and when we were little, my dad did the majority of the playing with my brother and me. Also, we went to a good suburban public school, if that's relevant. My parents both still work more or less full time.

Do I expect the full time housekeeper on a writer/editor salary?  Of course not. Does it sound nice in my fantasy world? Dear God, yes. As both Dahlia and Dana expressed, I have no idea what the reality of working motherhood is like. As Noreen points out, this is all still theoretical. I agree that the scars of this financial downturn will change the way Gen-Y thinks about money, Noreen. However, I also think we're more resilient and technologically adaptable than some of the generations before us. Even before this meltdown, we didn't expect company loyalty or consistency, so beyond the cosmetic (less conspicuous consumption, botox, and $400 strollers) I don't think there will be a major restructuring of romantico-fiscal relationships (and yes, I just made that word up).

And even though I aspire to my mother's example, she still likes to tell the story about how my brother burst into tears at his kindergarten class picnic because she had to leave and go to work. "You can't leave me!" he cried. The story is told jokingly, but you can tell that 25 years later, she still feels vaguely guilty. Maybe, as Dana suggested, Obama can help move policy toward helping working women, but I'm not holding my breath. Nor am I expecting to not feel conflicted about my work-life balance. Jeez, this conversation is making me really glad that I'm living in child-free, economically unencumbered sin with my boyfriend.

The Mommy Catnip of Work-Life Balance Stories

Meghan, I think I agree with your diagnosis but perhaps not your prescription. It’s true that every woman in the public eye in America is instantly run through the sum-of-her-choices machine and found wanting. From Sarah Palin to Angelina Jolie, it seems nobody has calibrated her responsibilities to her job and her family in ways the rest of us can applaud. It’s also true that as women we run ourselves through the sum-of-our-choices machine on pretty much a daily basis. (This morning my 3-year-old’s preschool teacher handed me a laminated book of Our Feelings, in which my son is featured in a desolate-looking photo with the caption “I am sad when my mommy goes for walks and leaves me alone.” Awesome. Immortalized for life as the Mommy Who Ditches.)

I agree that any story about women and choices is mommy catnip, a way for us to check our own bargains and compromises against everyone else’s, which really increases our efficiency by allowing us to beat up on ourselves and others at the same time. But I wonder what’s required to, as you put it, “break free.” I don’t know if it requires reconciling ourselves to the choices we have made or fighting harder for better, fuller choices for women. For Michelle Obama that might mean redefining the role of first lady as something more substantial than Traister imagines. For the rest of us, it may require giving up on the idea that if we take turns in our marriages, the choices for women will get easier or better. Just ask Hillary Clinton how that worked out for her.

No More Advice for Michelle Obama! Except This.

SWF Seeks Bright Lights, Big City

This week's renewed discussions about women "opting out" of the work force—or being forced out—make me think of Joan Didion's 1967 essay "Goodbye to All That." It's about her life in 1950s New York as a twentysomething, when the city emblematized endless possibility, even though she was making very little money. She loved her career and reveled in the sensory experiences of just being there. And then her attitude toward the city soured with age, when she realized "that not all of the promises would be kept."

I was reminded of Didion's journey to disillusionment when I came across a couple studies about women's success and happiness this week. The first (which is new only to me) was a New York Times article from last summer about how young women in their twenties actually out-earn men in New York, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, and several other big cities. These women have more education than their male city peers and are less likely to be married and raising a family than their suburban female counterparts.

The second study (by USC's Richard Easterlin and Anke Plagnol of the University of Cambridge), forthcoming in the Journal of Happiness Studies, found that women overall are happier than men—until the age of 48. The authors measured happiness as a combination of financial and family satisfaction, and men exceeded women in the first category at the age of 41 and in the second at 64. This seems to suggest that somewhere between 41 and 48, women are more satisfied with their family situation than with their finances. Now add in the conclusions of the previous study of urban women—are young women happiest when facing bright prospects unrelated to their family situation or marital status? Or has the availability of greater professional opportunities simply postponed women's frustrations with the working world?

Is It "Moms Go Home"—or "Moms, Go Home!!" ?

Emily, I do understand what you and Linda are saying: It's demeaning to dismiss what women say about their lives as lying or mere rationalization. But I'm not suggesting that. I do know that both women and men say that they want to spend more time with their families (and not just when they are politicians who've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar). But for women, that explanation for leaving a job is socially acceptable, while for men it's appalling (except for the aforementioned politicians). Women are pushed in that direction by social structures, including stereotypes that have been peddled and internalized over a lifetime—for instance, by New York Times articles that say that say women leave their jobs to stay home with the kids, reinscribing that cultural narrative.

To Linda's point: I'm not proposing, as you say, that "the findings about working-class women apply to elite women." My post said nothing about your work, because I wasn't concerned with your work; my concern is with the New York Times' long history of treating women's economic lives as personal rather than public. You are writing about what elite women should and shouldn't do. I care about the pundits and policymakers who are influenced by articles about the elite women—and who make policy based on those anecdotal stories that then is applied to all women.

But news media coverage only about that side of things ignores important other factors at work, like subtle and overt discrimination, that women may be less willing to acknowledge to themselves. A story: A friend of mine got a promotion after her partner, the biomom, gave birth to their child. The co-mom concluded that her boss was a little mind-boggled about exactly how to treat her—and ended up treating her as a "dad," someone who needed a promotion and a raise to support her wife and new baby. That would be consistent with how researchers have found women and men are treated after a child is born: There's a "mommy penalty" and a "daddy bonus." For instance, in experimental reviews of comparable résumés, women with children are less likely to be hired,pare paid less, are more likely to be fired, and are allowed fewer absences or late arrivals than women without children or than men with or without children ... while men with children are treated better than men without.

The social scientists I interviewed all agreed that Lisa Belkin's "research" method—asking people after the fact why they did what they did—was invalid and would never pass peer review. (This would be true as well of Linda's questioning of NYT Styles section brides, although Linda, your goal is different than Belkin's, which is why I am not writing about your work: Your goal is to warn and counsel young elite women about navigating the hazards ahead, and you succeed admirably.) But basic social science and the new neurobiology have consistently shown that post-facto explanations for behavior are unreliable: Healthy people settle on the most livable and socially comfortable story. To find out why people actually do what they do requires prospective, not retrospective, research into what they are thinking as they are making their decisions, not after the decision has been made—as well as into studies of comparable populations' behavior with variables changed. This isn't saying that people lie; it's saying that the human psyche is complicated and resilient and that our internal story is shaped by many factors.

But here's my bigger beef with the news media on this story: Women's economic lives are covered as personal issues ... while men's economic lives are covered as public issues. Moms out of work = style section; dads out of work = business section. That's just appalling. There is no going back to June and Ward Cleaver; the American economy desperately needs to adapt to reality. Flip the issue, and consider the fact that 80 percent of American children are living in households in which all adults are in the work force. That leads to an entirely different set of public policy discussions than does the "moms just wanna go home" storyline.

I will now indulge myself and quote my CJR article here:

... yes, maybe some women "chose'"to go home. But they didn’t choose the restrictions and constrictions that made their work lives impossible. They didn’t choose the cultural expectation that mothers, not fathers, are responsible for their children’s doctor visits, birthday parties, piano lessons, and summer schedules. And they didn’t choose the bias or earnings loss that they face if they work part-time or when they go back full-time.

By offering a steady diet of common myths and ignoring the relevant facts, newspapers have helped maintain the cultural temperature for what [researcher Joan Williams] calls “the most family-hostile public policy in the Western world.” On a variety of basic policies—including parental leave, family sick leave, early childhood education, national childcare standards, afterschool programs, and health care that’s not tied to a single all-consuming job—the U.S. lags behind almost every developed nation. ... And any parent could tell you that it makes no sense to keep running schools on nineteenth century agricultural schedules, taking kids in at 7 a.m. and letting them out at 3 p.m. to milk the cows, when their parents now work until 5 or 6 p.m. Why can’t twenty-first century school schedules match the twenty-first century workday?

The moms-go-home story’s personal focus makes as much sense, according to [Boston University journalism professor Caryl Rivers], as saying, "Okay, let’s build a superhighway; everybody bring one paving stone. That’s how we approach family policy. We don’t look at systems, just at individuals. And that’s ridiculous."

Hurray again to Uchitelle and the NYT for doing it right this time.