Paternity Leaves

Two friends of mine are soon giving birth, and have recently shared with me their plans for parental leave once the child is born.

What is interesting is that both plans are nearly identical, despite a large geographic distance, and different social welfare models.

Both of my friends plan to stay at home with the baby for around 6 months (a minimum sanity period, I find, in the case of sleep deprivation and/or breastfeeding logistics). Both moms then plan to return to work, and the father will take another 6-8 months paternal leave. I find this an ideal plan, as it provides both parents with hands-on experience with an infant, and respect for one of the most rewarding but also strenuous jobs in the world (in my opinion): parenting.

It's of course a luxury to stay at home for such a long period time, and a double luxury for each parent to do so. Many societies pressure moms to return to work very soon after birth, and most societies do not support paternal leave in any way. Nearly all countries that I know of punish parents with (at time substantial) losses in income during parental and in particular paternal leaves.

With the first two of my three kids, I stayed at home for 4-6 months. I then went back to study / work, and our children started daycare for a few hours a day, with my husband covering the rest of the day through partial paternal leave. With my third child, I have been working since my child turned 4 months (albeit from home). We did not have the possibility to take paternal leave this time around, and both of us regret it.

All men who have taken paternal leave that I know of have enjoyed the opportunity immensely. The careers of nearly all suffered temporarily - some had to leave jobs. The parallels to mother's career sacrifices are clear. However, by taking paternity leave, these men have provided opportunities for their wives to return to work, without feeling guilty about not being at home with the infant child. I myself am very grateful to my husband for this opportunity with my first two kids, and hope that more couples consider this aspect of parental leave.

Right Wing Politics and Women

I just shared an election poster from an Austrian Freedom Party (FPOe, successful right wing party) candidate on Facebook. The slogan is "Heimatliebe - statt Marokanerdiebe" ("love of one's home country - instead of Moroccan thieves"). 


I decided to look up what the Freedom Party thinks about women, especially since there was an interesting presidential candidate from the party a while back (Barbara Rosenkranz, who had given birth to 10 children).


Here a few quotes that I found from senior party members (rather freely translated from German):


"A woman is a woman, a man is a man. I reject equalization."


"Homo sapiens has been successful because of the division of labor between men (who hunt) and women (who take care of the home)."


"Many women do not go into politics because they are more interested in fashion, and use their time on their hairdo and cosmetics."

"Men want to be alpha males, they want to lead. If women have a lot of testosterone, they can become leaders in business, or in the women's movement. Most women want to stay at home, though."

"Women, who feel overburdened with a career, children and housework should employ maids. Men do not have time to help, as they have serious jobs."

After writing my past blog entries, these quotes do not make me angry. They make me sad. I do not for one moment believe the world should be the way that the Austrian Freedom Party (or any other right wing party, for that matter) wants it to be. But I do believe that these quotes still reflect how much of society works, right, left, or centre.

Hello, Would you Mind if I Just Talk to your Husband?

I am blessed with a number of friends who have accompanied me since kindergarten and primary school. I couldn't possibly imagine my life without them, and am every day grateful that these people are out there.

I often face a problem with a number of my new friends, though: I would prefer being friends with their husbands. It is not that these people I more recently spend time with are not nice or intelligent people. But place me at a dinner table with them and with their partners, I find myself trying to join the conversation of the men. They discuss politics, the financial crisis, financing loans. Listen to the women: they are discussing where a new fabric is available, which online catalogue is best for buying kids' clothes...

I am lucky to have some very good male friends. But I am finding it increasingly difficult to make new male friends, whereas the number of female potentials seems to be growing exponentially during this child-rearing phase. But trying to meet a husband for "coffee" or "a drink" is, well, complicated. Suggesting this to the wives / moms is not.

Maybe female friendships at this age just take more time to develop? Maybe we start off with, well, "boring" topics, and will become deep, interesting friends for life? Wonderful! But does this mean that the men will always remain just "husbands" and "partners", and will never become stand-alone friends?

A Bit of Identity Politics

The first few blog entries have been written without any qualifications, research, or referencing. Perhaps also with not all that much thinking. My aim is not to get bogged down in long justifications, explanations of counterarguments, or literary citations.

I am very aware that this leads to a simplistic, at times one-sided, often incomplete picture. I am sure that any readers of this blog (at least the ones I have shared it with) are intelligent enough to know that the big picture is always far more complicated, and full of different (often valid) views.

I do, however, want to clarify what I mean with "women" and "we". Ten years ago, when I was reading a lot of postmodern literature for my studies, I would have jumped at such simplification. There is an abundance of gender literature out there, as well as identity literature in general, arguing that identities are blurry and partly socially constructed. I agree with these arguments to some extent. As a "female" (social definition, not the biological definition of "woman"), I often feel that I have more in common with "males" than with other "females". And to take the postmodern argument one step further, I also partly agree that what makes me "female" is to a great extent socially imposed on me (the "other" defines the "us"...).

Bringing this all down to daily, practical life and my past posts: this all doesn't fit. Whatever I feel or however I subjectively try to position myself in the male-female world, I am, at the end of the day, a working mom surrounded by a lot of other part-time working moms and stay-at-home moms. Is this "identity" constructed through circumstances, i.e. our common situation?

More thoughts on this later.

A bit of background analysis

It is a known fact that women are underrepresented (relative to their proportion of the workforce) in several sectors, engineering or technology to name a few. Most women also fail to progress to become managers or leaders.

Putting glass ceilings (as well as quota debates) aside for a moment, I think a behavioral, sociological or even neuro-biological analysis are good starting points here. I don't have any expertise in any of these fields, but have generally been interested in these three fields for a number of years, and have done a small share of reading.

To start with neuro-biology, the main debate is whether we, as humans, are blank slates or genetically and/or evolutionarily conditioned (read Steven Pinker for a crash course on this topic). Could we, as women, be just as interested as men in physics and computing in theory and in practice? Or has biology and/or evolution conditioned us to be interested in other issues, e.g. to better equip us to take care of our children? Or are we just socialized this way, in order to keep us where we are? I'd like to believe in the blank slate theory, but a lot of research tends to point to at least some degree of predetermination.

Sociologically, the question is how do we deal with different interests, ways of dealing with issues, etc. Do we follow our biological instinct (if there is one)? Do we follow rigid social expectations? Are we equipped with the right strategies and tools to go against the flow, if needed?

A behavioral analysis would be a combination of the above, focusing on our interests, but also looking at what may condition these interests (e.g. legal or societal norms that restrict choices). I already mentioned the Economist's article "Nudge nudge, think think" in a previous post, but I think this type of analysis is key to moving forward. If not in opening up new fields to women (maybe we're simply not interested?), at least to remove barriers that keep us from progressing (which I think most of us would be interested in, or?).

 

Confession

After a more world-out-there blog, it's time to do some naval grazing.

This is a public confession that I enjoy reading Gala (equivalent of OK! or other celebrity magazines). I "came out" privately and to myself only a few years ago. I actually abstained from reading any such magazines until then. Why?

Until a few years ago, I had a strong (and perhaps silly) belief that so-called women's magazines numb down one's intellect and interest. For the simple reason that it's a bit of a zero-sum-game: you either spend your time leafing through such a magazine, or reading something else. My (simple) plan was to read magazines such as the Economist instead.

I am a huge fan of the Economist. But I confess that for a few years, after my first child was born and I was juggling children and studies / work, I did not have the energy to read anything very serious during my free time. I read novels and, horror of horrors, I started reading - or flipping through - women's magazines (I haven't quite gone far enough to actually buy any, though).

Maybe I have just overcome my extreme teen views, become more tolerant - or more lazy? Or, here's the naval grazing part, just accepted that it's ok that I am not keeping up to pace with the "serious" developments in the world - at all times.

I will discuss the issue of "interests" quite a few times in upcoming posts. This is just to ensure that I start with my feet on the ground, before getting too out-there-serious-worldly.

Is it Important Whether a Woman Wins?

The FT just ran a blog on the African Union's endorsement of former World Bank Managing Director and Nigerian Finance Minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, for the post of Bank President. Ngozi was one of the most admired leaders when I was at the Bank (there are three Managing Directors, under the President), and she has a great reputation outside as well. Alongside Obi Ezekwesili, who is Vice President for Africa at the Bank (tire three in Bank hierarchy), Ngozi had a reputation of being fiercely passionate about development, and had the energy of a bulldozer.

Bob Zoellick, who has headed the Bank for five years, saw as one of his great achievements that two women, and both from the South, were Managing Directors at the Bank (the other is former Indonesian Finance Minister Sri Indrawati).

Ngozi is the third female candidate for World Bank that I have read about. The other two are Hilary Clinton and PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi. Male contestants include the US's proposed candidate, Jim Kim, Jose Ocampo, and Jeff Sachs, until he stepped down to support Kim's candidacy.

What I find striking is that the three women are on par with the men in terms of reputation and career, perhaps even further. It therefore does not seem to me a contest between women and men, but of individuals. The South-North debate seems to be far more important to most commentators.

I would of course find it great if a a woman would become World Bank President. To set a precedent, to break the ice (or glass ceiling) in yet another important institution. But I find other factors more important in this race, and the answer in this case to my subject title is No. At least not in this race.

Snakes and Ladders

Everyone probably remembers playing the board game Snakes and Ladders, where you climb up levels along ladders, until you win, unless you slide down snakes, and have to start (at least part of) your climb again. A bit of a simple, and probably often used metaphor for women's careers (I haven't googled this, as whenever I do come up with a thought and google it, I realize it has been covered dozens of times, already decades ago, which is rather disencouraging). Both women and men usually start at some base level, and attempt to progress along their career ladders. There may be glass ceilings that limit the number of levels women can reach, or the length of ladders they can climb. Having kids is like hitting a snake in a career. The longer you stay at home (irrespective whether mom or dad), the longer the slide down - perhaps even off the career board. And maybe having more kids also means that the length of the snake increases, no matter how short of an absence you take. I think that many moms (and maybe also dads) at some point question whether they should re-enter the game, or climb ladders. Many women decide to stay at home (quasi-)permanently, which is a choice I have a lot of respect for, but personally would not choose. The second point is something I grapple with. How much time and effort (and limited energy) am I willing to invest into trying to climb to the next level? And would I be able to balance family and work once there? The slide is worth it each and every time. Is the (re-)climb? I guess these are questions that one can only pose if there is no real financial incentive to start climbing (e.g. a tax code that discourages married women from working, high daycare fees, etc). But I nevertheless hope that the question is whether we choose to climb those ladders, and not whether those ladders exist for us... Ps. There's an interesting "Free Exchange" column in this week's Economist on behavioural economics. I'm sure such an analysis would be key here (and if I'd google, would find out it has been done, for decades). Pps. Also from the Economist, I realized just how out of touch I am with the art world: "Zeng Fanzhi, a Chinese painter who is probably the richest artist in the world." Time to google.

When Moms Meet Moms - When Moms Meet Dads

I seem to be getting into discussions on these "female identity" issues frequently at the moment - I am probably leading conversations in this direction on purpose.

I had a very interesting discussion today with a working mom (of two kids) on why moms who get together tend to talk about a very narrow range of topics (children, moves, new haircuts...and these repetitively), whereas moms who meet dads tend to at least touch upon other topics (jobs, politics, even cars).

We agreed that we both preferred the latter topics, but end up talking about the prior ones. Why is this?

My first answer would be that this has to do with interests, or expectations of what other people are interested in. Would I dare bore my male friends with my thoughts on whether or not I can cut my hair even shorter (here a brief thanks to my gay friends, whom I can raise this topic with any time!).

A second response would be that we are all made up of different "identities", and different people trigger us to activate or live out different parts of ourselves. With moms, we discuss what unites us most - being mothers. With dads, we are forced to be slightly more creative. And looking for these different areas of interest, which are less repetitive, because they will differ from person to person, is more fulfilling and interesting, at least to me.

So, my (not very serious) suggestion today was that we should make a list of discussion topics for our next "moms' meeting". The day's Financial Times. The US election. Books. Exhibitions. The anything-but-children-childcare-etc-session. At least once in a while?

Money Money Money

Let's start from the big picture (finances and economics), where I could draw on lots of statistics to show that, at least in Germany (and probably globally), women earn less money than than men. I think it's around 23% in the EU for jobs in general, and much of this is explained by women working in sectors that pay less. But pay for "same work" is also less for women.

There is an abundance of research on this (which I have not read, at least not beyond headlines), but here are some of my thoughts.

Fair enough that women get paid less, if they are in less "productive" sectors, although the relative difference between e.g. a kindergarten caretaker (very important job) and a private sector HR manager (also important) is far too large. I also recall reading that earnings in job markets that women enter (e.g. medicine) then fall, which doesn't seem right.

Women also earn less because they fail to climb the career ladder, due to a number of factors: Glass ceilings (bad), lack of skills at elbowing your way up (c'est la vie), lack of interest in sacrificing a work-life balance (good), and pregnancy/maternal leave/childcare.

In my current situation, and receiving birth notices of firsts, seconds, and now also thirds right and left, I will focus on this last of these factors (maternal leave and childcare) first.

Ps. Just as I was getting excited about the Bank's Presidential race (admittedly, I got into it far too late), Jim Kim was nominated, which is exciting news for us who work in international health.

Constructions workers vs. laundry women

I am currently working from home, while taking care of three small children. Two of them are in daycare, the youngest has a babysitter. I work flexible hours, i.e. whenever I have childcare, or when the children are asleep.
Frequently, after picking up the older kids from childcare, I meet with other part-time-working or stay-at-home moms. I would love to meet more dads, but unfortunately, aside from short parental leaves, all dads I know work full time.
So, quite often, it's either me and my youngest, or kids and moms in our living room.
Across from our balcony, which leads out from our living room, there is a large building being constructed. We have been observing this construction site for a year now, and have seen a six-story building rise from a large pit.
I often try to explain to the kids this discrepancy: the construction workers who are male ("but in theory, women could do the work as well"), and us females indoors ("dad used to be here during his parental leave, while I worked full time"). The male construction workers working outdoors, us women taking care of the kids indoors (at least during the winter months), while cooking, tidying up, or hanging up laundry.
I have several explanations for why things have developed the way they have. Partly personal (choice, situational, interests), partly cultural (societal expectations), and partly career-related (a combination of the prior, as well as economic and financial). I will explore some of these aspects in my next posts, before hopefully moving on to something other.
Off to hang up another load of laundry...while watching the construction workers outdoors.

ps. Osborne's budget case reminded me of a McD Happy Meal box.

pps. Keenly following the World Bank's Presidential "race" - Nooyi and Sachs as interesting albeit very unlikely contesters.