Archive for 2006
I’ve been getting a load of traffic this week thanks to the lovely links here from Salon.com’s Broadsheet blog and Bust magazine, two of the best publications known to womankind.
If you’re new to my site, allow me to suggest a few links that may assist you in your virtual travels:
I’m relatively new to this blogging game, so I hope you’ll check back often as I continue to flesh out the site. As you may have surmised, my favorite topics include self-employment, inspiring artists and businesswomen, sexism in the workplace, and media representations of working women.
Note: If you’re one of the many people who found me through a Google search on YSL’s tux for women, this is probably the post you’re looking for.
November 14th, 2006
In case you missed 20/20 on ABC last Friday, Elizabeth Vargas — sadly, one of the decade’s shortest-lived evening newscasters — did a story called “Can Working Mothers Have It All”?
While the segment didn’t add anything new to the conversation, acknowledgment from the mainstream media never hurts. And maybe someone watching in, say, Duluth, didn’t know that America is one of four countries of 168 studied that doesn’t have a national paid maternity leave plan. (The other three countries? Lesotho, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea.)
Plus, seeing clips of syndicated radio asshat Tom Leykis saying he doesn’t want his tax dollars helping working moms was a good reminder of who women are up against. I’m not a parent, nor do I ever intend to be one. But fair flextime policies are not only good for working mothers, they’re good for working dads, people caring for aging or ailing relatives, artists and writers with creative projects outside the workplace, weekend warriors with road trip or mountaineering habits, and so on. (Of course you may be hard-pressed to find a company that will give you several weeks of paid “novel-writing leave.” Damn.)
Other recent media coverage that should make working moms stand up and cheer:
The Christian Science Monitor’s Marilyn Gardner looks at the truth behind women opting out, complete with the subhead “Two reports show a weak labor market and inflexible work policies as the main reasons women are staying home” and nuggets like this:
“Most mothers do not opt out,” says Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings. “They are pushed out by workplace inflexibility, the lack of supports, and a workplace bias against mothers.” In one recent survey, 86 percent of women cited obstacles such as inflexible jobs as a key reason behind their decision to leave. (Published 10/30/06)
ABC News’ Betsy Stark did a depressing segment on tag-team parenting — couples working opposite shifts so they don’t have to pay for pricey childcare (or worry about seeing each other Monday through Friday). I was shocked to learn that about a third of dual-income families employ the eminently more affordable tag-team tactic when it comes to childcare. Of course, the less well-off you are… well, you know the drill. (Aired 10/31/06)
The New York Times ran a piece by M. P. Dunleavey in the Business section on how this country is lagging far, far behind its European counterparts in terms of giving new parents a break. I’m glad the Times is finally starting to move past the whole opt-out thing. (Published 11/4/06)
If any of the above makes your blood boil and/or you want to do something about corporate and government attitudes toward working parents, check out MomsRising.org. You’ll find a book, documentary, and burgeoning political movement to partake in.
November 14th, 2006
Speaking of what powerful women wear their first day on the job, let’s take a brief trip down memory lane, shall we? Here’s a gem from a press conference with Katie Couric this summer.
Couric was questioned again about why she left her longtime “Today” job to take the anchor position (a rare opportunity, and nothing to do with being the first solo female network anchor, she said) and how her daughters, ages 10 and 14, received her decision (supportively).
She finally drew the line at a query about what she intended to wear on her first newscast.
“You’re kidding, right?” she replied.
“Sadly, I’m not,” said the reporter asking the question, an acknowledgment of the microscopic scrutiny given to Couric’s ascension to the ABC-CBS-NBC anchor troika.
“I’ve actually gone to Charlie Gibson’s stylist,” Couric responded wryly, referring to her ABC counterpart.
Anyone else have any gems they’d like to share, either from your own life of the lives of public figures? I’m collecting.
November 14th, 2006
Is this for real? The Washington Post devoting 1,000 words to Nancy Pelosi’s wardrobe? Sure, it’s in the Fashion section, but come on. Is anyone scrutinizing Robert Gates’ couture? Did anyone give a whit about what Dennis Hastert wore when he became Speaker?
See for yourself:
Pelosi’s suit was by Giorgio Armani — the Italian master of neutral tones and modern power dressing — and she wore it well. She looked polished and tasteful in front of the cameras. It is tempting to even go so far as to say that she looked chic, which in the world beyond Washington would be considered a compliment, but in the context of politics is an observation fraught with insinuations of partisanship and condescension.
And:
Armani stands as a kind of professional armor. It is protective but soft. Tailored but with a drape. It is the style of business dress that in the 1980s famously feminized menswear and brought masculine confidence to women’s wear. An Armani suit, for a woman, is a tool for playing with the boys without pretending to be one.
And finally:
Pelosi had to decide how a woman who will be second in line of succession to the presidency should look. And what she came up with is someone who wears a neutral-colored, softly tailored power suit. One that is accessorized with style rather than rote references to love of country. She looks dignified and serious. And in this case, she also happens to look quite good.
Thanks to Naomi, my sister, for taking time out of her busy day off in DC to call me with this, uh, news.
November 10th, 2006
While we’re on the subject of career change and the possible financial or lifestyle trade-offs that can come with it, I thought I’d share this recent article from CareerJournal.com on when relocating for a new gig is and isn’t worth it.
I relocated when I was 30, but it wasn’t such a radical move — San Francisco to Seattle. I knew Seattle well, having a sister, a college buddy, and an ex-beau up here. So I had plenty of time (years, in fact) to check out le new surroundings before packing everything I couldn’t bear to sell into my Civic and making the 850-mile drive north for good.
I must confess, my move wasn’t solely for the job; it was for the simpler, more affordable lifestyle I’d surmised Seattle would allow me. So when the job ended after a year (it was an indefinite contract job, only somewhere along the way, the company instituted a three-month “break in service” policy that meant I had to leave the gig after twelve months), I wasn’t left thinking, Damn! I moved here just for the job and now I’m hosed. Also, I had my former freelance clients to fall back on for work when I was, for all intents and purposes, laid off. So getting the axe was hardly devastating.
What do you think? Have you ever jumped ship and started anew elsewhere for a job you couldn’t refuse at the time? How did it turn out? What would you do differently if you could hit rewind?
November 10th, 2006
Happiness is waking up to Salon.com’s thrilling Broadsheet post, Most. Women. Leaders. Ever!
(Note: If you’re not a Salon.com subscriber, you likely will have to watch an ad to read the article. Or you can just amuse yourself with the excerpts and links below…)
Music to my ears:
The ascendance of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and the defeat of the South Dakota abortion ban, aren’t the only good news for American women to come out of Tuesday’s elections. As the likely first ever Madam Speaker, Rep. Pelosi will preside over a chamber filled with more female representatives than ever before, according to the Associated Press. The House will add at least three women members, and the Senate will add two, bringing the total number of women in Congress to 86 — 70 in the House, 16 in the Senate. (Women were candidates in two other tight races that were still too close to call on Wednesday.)
This veritable symphony, too:
With the Democrats in control of the House, AlterNet notes that women representatives are also poised to take other important leadership positions there, beyond that of Madam Speaker: “Most significant, New York Rep. Louise Slaughter will likely become chair of the House Rules Committee, which sets the parameters of floor debate. Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald of California will chair the House Administration Committee, which oversees federal elections and day-to-day operations in the chamber.”
Also note that if Bush and Cheney were both to vacate office (perhaps by fatally choking on a pretzel and being imprisoned for shooting a hunting buddy, respectively), Pelosi would be poised to be the first female president. Now that’s what I’m talking about!
November 9th, 2006
Besides Dems take the house, I was tickled to come across this gem today:
It’s really silly to just be a slave to work that you can do instead of want to do.
Found it in my interview notes for an article I’m writing on self-employment. The interviewee who said this is a former math professor with degrees up the wazoo. Not long after she began teaching, she found herself dreading Mondays and living for the weekends. So to make life more interesting she started her own petcare business on the side, as an evening and weekend hobby. Still, she didn’t think she could ever give up the day job she had trained so long and hard for, despite the fact that it was bleeding her soul dry. This is what I should be doing, she’d tell herself about the unfulfilling math career. And because women are so underrepresented professionally in mathematics and the sciences, she felt it was her responsibility to tough out a gig she’d grown to resent, if for no other reason than to serve as a role model for young women contemplating what career path to follow.
Somewhere along the way the weekend hobby took on a life of its own, eating up every waking second this woman wasn’t at her day job, all the while remaining a constant source of joy. It was time to choose between shoulding and wanting, and this time to choice was clear: Kick the day job to the curb, and pour her heart into her burgeoning petcare business. And so she did. And happy she remains, with a thriving new enterprise of her own.
Career coach extraordinaire Curt Rosengren first introduced me to the debilitating concept of shoulding all over oneself, though I doubt he put as ineloquently as I just did. As a roadmap of sorts for The Anti 9-to-5 Guide, I wrote an article earlier this year on ten myths of career change we women subject ourselves to. Unfortunately, when it comes to career change, shoulding is just one of the many roadblocks we set up for ourselves. You can read about nine other ways we’re our own worst enemies here. (Free subscription may be required.)
The shoulding ourselves doesn’t begin and end with career decisions though. There’s also the crippling shoulding we creative types commit when we sit down — or avoid sitting down — to work on our arty projects. While devouring all sorts of online interviews with writer Aimee Bender this week, I came across this great conversation she and Lovely Bones author Alice Sebold had with each other, on shoulding all over one’s creativity, among other things. If you’ve ever thought to yourself, I should know the work of all the literary greats before I pick up a pen myself, or I should write literary fiction as opposed to sci-fi/fantasy because everyone knows lit fiction is [insert snooty assertion here], or I should plot out every twist and turn of my novel before I actually begin writing the dang thing, read this interview.
November 8th, 2006
Don’t those words have lovely ring to them? Here’s what Time had to say about Nancy back in September:
Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats in the House, portrays herself as a polite, grandmotherly lady. She constantly discusses her five grandchildren, makes sure her office is stocked with Ghirardelli chocolates, perpetually smiles and never swears in a business in which almost everyone else does. She even has a few cute quirks she and her staff would love to tell you about: a diet consisting mostly of chocolate and chocolate ice cream, and so much energy, she rarely sleeps. Just the other night, she will tell you, she was up watching MTV after midnight.
Don’t believe it for a second. Would your grandmother ever say, “If people are ripping your face off, you have to rip their face off” (Pelosi’s approach to handling attacks from Republicans)? How about “If you take the knife off the table, it’s not very frightening anymore” (her explanation for why she won’t let voters forget George W. Bush’s unpopular Social Security proposal from last year)?
The 66-year-old San Francisco lawmaker is an aggressive, hyperpartisan liberal pol who is the Democrats’ version of Tom DeLay, minus the ethical and legal problems of the former Republican House leader. To condition Democrats for this fall’s midterm elections, she has employed tactics straight out of DeLay’s playbook: insisting other House Democrats vote the party line on everything, avoiding compromise with Republicans at all cost and mandating that members spend much of their time raising money for colleagues in close races. And she has been effective. House Democrats have been more unified in their voting than at any other time in the past quarter-century, with members on average voting the party line 88% of the time in 2005, according to Congressional Quarterly….
Right fucking on!
November 8th, 2006
I took a workshop at Richard Hugo House in Seattle this weekend with the endlessly talented Aimee Bender, author of The Girl in the Flammable Skirt, Willful Creatures, and An Invisible Sign of My Own. Reason I mention it is not because the class was eye-opening and wonderful (it was), but because toward the end of class on Saturday the conversation invariably turned to the instructor’s own creative habits.
My friend Angela has told me on more than one occasion that she’s heard Aimee Bender say in interviews that she writes two hours a day because for her, it’s “the law” — a non-negotiable rule she’s set up for herself. This of course came up in class, and Aimee confirmed that she indeed works on her fiction two hours first thing every morning, before turning on the lights or anything, often on weekends, too, except when traveling. Before she had the law to guide her, she said, she had too much angst about whether she was writing enough. In interviews, most published novelists and short story writers will tell you they have similar hard-and-fast writing rules and schedules for themselves because really, it’s the only way to get the job done. I just like how Aimee Bender calls it “the law.” It’s so resolute.
As I come off the final page proof review of my book (turned in this a.m. — yay!) and start to think about how I’m going to juggle some of my creative writing goals with the paying work I’ve signed up for this fall, Aimee’s law serves a good reminder: When juggling artsy-fartsy endeavors with bread-and-butter work, structure and commitment is everything.
November 6th, 2006
Since I’m busy reviewing my final page proofs for the book today and yesterday’s post was so agenda-heavy, here’s a little light reading for you: a Mad Libs letter of resignation by humorist Rob Bloom from the online version of Monkeybicycle, a fun lit journal I read periodically.
In case you’re not currently looking to tell your boss where she or he can stick it, Rob has thoughtfully provided other prefab letters (also written in the helpful Mad Libs style) you can use to dump your high-school flame, drop out of school, or ditch your fiance.
(Also, please vote Tuesday. And please help convince others to do so if you have the time.)
November 3rd, 2006
Next Posts
Previous Posts
