Little, Middle and Big Happiness

Many of us try to optimize our "happiness" levels. There's even some discussion on this topic in politics and economics, where people are debating whether "happiness or well-being measures" should replace standard quantitative measures such as GDP.

Happiness is a very subjective issue, but there are dozens of studies that show trends, such as "people with families are happier and healthier", or "people with jobs are happier and healthier" etc.

My own approach to happiness has been working on two ends: big happiness (family, friends, health, a balanced life, etc) and little happiness (a good book, a great cup of coffee, a truffle from Brussels). But there's also a "middle happiness" - a something in between. 

"Middle happiness" is not just a combination of the big, although it can be: put me together with a great friend, a cup of coffee and some truffles, and it's pretty much as good as it gets. But more often, middle happiness is something I judge and measure at the end of each day. It's influenced by things from the big and small category, but also by many variables that are beyond these two categories, such as hormones and weather, or random social interactions during the day with people who mean little to me in the longer run, but affect my momentary well-being (such as colleagues).

Aside from slightly abstract ramblings, I'd like to be grateful today. After a few weeks where I felt like everyone wanted something from me, and I was challenged by ill health of the kids and myself, I've been receiving positive thanks and feedback this week. Not from the sources I've "given to", but at the end of the day, that doesn't really matter.

Give happiness and you will eventually be rewarded with happiness. Or something along those lines, to keep you trying to be a good person in this world….  

More thoughts on Parenting

Just in case you crave more blog posts by me (those of you who do not, have long ago dropped off this one!), I recently started co-writing a second blog with one of my dearest, most inspiring friends. We have written to each other for over 20 years, and have kept in touch through thick and thin, across streets and countries and continents. And as we are both mothers (she of two lovely boys, one my godson; me of two girls and one boy, one of my daughters being her goddaughter), we decided to make some of our exchanges about parenting public:

http://hongkong-berlin.blogspot.de

Enjoy our little multi-culti-world conversations. Two Finns, who converse only in English, and write from Berlin and Hong Kong respectively…. What a world!

And as always, please do comment or email. The more input, the more inspiration. And at least those among you whom I know, you have so much to share and inspire. Please do. We can all learn so much from it.

Is the What to do or Where to do more important?

We recently took the regional train to our weekend hideaway, an hour away from Berlin. I love traveling by train in Berlin, because many tracks are high above ground, and you get a good view of the city. We travelled East from our home in Mitte (city centre), where the tracks run along the river Spree. There's a magnificent spot around a station called Warschauer Strasse, where the river runs wide, various bridges zig-zag across the river, there's an impressive art piece in the middle of the water, and a view of the skyline and TV-tower (the "Alex"). Right there, at this spot, is a new high office building. The thought that crossed my mind was that "I'd like to work in that office right there, overlooking this view". Perhaps I've been wrong in concentrating on the "what" (i.e. substance) or work for so long, and have forgotten that I find the "where" very important as well (i.e. surroundings, people, atmosphere, even status symbols such as a nice building).

Then again, I was reading Paul Auster's Winter Journal yesterday, which is an autobiographical story about how he became what he is - and part of that includes where he lived and worked. As a young, struggling writer in New York, he lists quite a few dumps, stating that it never mattered where he wrote, as long as he had a place. So maybe it's about feeling truly comfortable about what you do, and everything else is irrelevant.

At the end of the day, substance probably trumps location for me, but the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Or in trying to have it all….

Glass Ceiling or Trap Door?

Most debates about women and the workplace focus on "glass ceilings" - social or organizational norms or traditions that bar women from advancing in their careers. Female quotas in leadership positions are a way to open up these pathways for women, as are women in leadership positions who have boxed their way through to the top, and are door-openers for generations of women to come. Female corporate leaders or heads of state are no longer a strange sight in many countries or economic areas.

But my own theory is that glass ceilings are only half of the problem. The other half is the problem of "trap doors". Trap doors open up under your feet, and you fall to a level below. I used "snakes and ladders" in one of my first blog posts to exemplify what I mean: we may have ladders to climb, but we also have snakes to slide down.

I like the idea of "trap doors", because for women as naive as I am, and having only focused on "glass ceilings" for the first 30 years of my life, these "trap doors" come unexpected. They usually hit you with the birth of a child, but I am sure that there are other situations that can catch you off guard as well, and force you to fall back in your career (e.g. weak negotiation skills or elbowing skills or willingness in the case of many women).

The sad thing is that, the more you fall through these trap doors (and with three children and my poor skills at fighting for my rights, I've fallen several times), the less you start staring at your toes - and forget to reach for the stars, and to focus on breaking those glass ceilings. "I need to avoid falling" replaces "I need to fly high".

How do we motivate women like me, no longer in their early 20s, to reach higher, and remain true to their dreams? How do women like me find the energy to climb, again and again? I haven't yet found the energy, and I'm still stuck in resignation.

For the Same Pay -> German Woman Works 80 Days More Per Year

Today is Equal Pay Day (fitting after yesterday's Happiness Day: what goes up, must come down…).

The OECD recently published data that confirms a long trend: women earn around 15% less pay for doing the same work that men do. In Germany, this gap is the highest, at 22%.

I'm a person who doesn't work well with abstract numbers, and even if you break the percentage down into euro-figures, it doesn't mean that much to me. It's less, whichever way you portray it.

But today's paper (SZ) has a fascinating graph, which illustrates the case through "more". Taking the 22%, the paper shows have many MORE DAYS a woman would have to work per year, in order to earn what a man earns. In Germany, whereas men in the calendar year 2013 stopped working on December 31st, women work until today: March 21st. In other words, they work 365 days in 2013, and 80 days in 2014, just to earn the same income as men did in 2013.

No wonder many of us women feel like we're constantly running a marathon. We're not only working more (if you include unpaid work), we're also running simply to catch up with someone who is walking - or has sat down with a newspaper 80 days ago.

(It's not simply men's fault - I'm aware of this. Apologies for simplifying. But it's just such a wonderful image. Wonderfully terrifying and depressing.)

Big fish, little fish, swimming in the water

(Listen to the song by PJ Harvey if you don't know it! I used to love it over two decades ago - gulp.)

The great thing about lying in bed for four days is that, after having slept through 72 hours, I had a day of resting yesterday - and caught up on a few "House of Cards" shows (Series 1 - as always, years and years behind any hype - but boy is it GREAT!).

The series underscores my feelings about the career world. It's a harsh place, there are lots of brutal power-struggles (for the sake of power in itself), and there are a lot of big fish and little fish, swimming in the water.

Always being years and years late on any hype (I take a long time to befriend issues, and to gather really deep, sincere interest in them - just as is the case with friendships), I'm usually years and years - if not decades - behind on any new career issue. With this I mean a theme or sector. In 2001, I listened in on a PhD seminar, where there was a presentation about HIV/AIDS in international politics. I found it so hugely exotic in that field at the time - and working on it myself the last few years, realize just how passé most of the world finds it. My blog and ideas around this topic (women and work) have led me to realize just how many thousands, tens of thousands, millions?, of initiatives there are for women and work. Of course I know it's been an issue in the making for centuries, but to realize just how much expertise, great initiatives, great thinking there is on the topic is - humbling.

The more the know the more you realize the less you know? That seems to be the lesson I'm learning, moving from having been quite a "generalist" for several work years to trying to "specialize" in issues that interest me. The more I dig, the more I realize has already been dug. I wouldn't make a good entrepreneur or discoverer.

But, to try to be optimistic, it's often not about changing a system, or causing a revolution - but about making tiny, little improvements. It's about finding that one little slot where you fit in, where you know which bolt to turn, and things may change, and you may have been useful.

I found a postcard (my absolute weakness in life, together with coffee, Viennese Sacher-cake, and good books) that says "Wait here until you are useful". I have added it to my postcard collection (best-ofs) on my door. I'm still waiting. Swimming with the tiny fish. Waiting. Waiting. And hopefully one day finding what I'm looking for.

Too Ill to Function

I've been stuck in bed for the past four days with my first flu ever. Yes, in 34 years. It's been yet another lesson in gratitude that this family runs well without me. Thanks mainly to my husband, who is running the household and kept the kids entertained all weekend - and cancelled his work trips for the week. And thanks to our babysitter, who has been available and helpful as always. Also thanks to our grandparents, who I know would travel over to help in any emergency, but thankfully we haven't had to ask. On the one hand, it's good to know that everything just keeps rolling. On the other, it makes me wonder why I find my own task-list never-ending, but once I don't do anything, no-one really notices. The world just keeps turning.

2014 has been a year of one illness after another. It has been very tough, and I really don't see how I would have been able to work more than on the little project I'm working on. Last year, when I quit my job, I didn't quit for family reasons, but for myself. This year, I think I wouldn't have been able to work due to family reasons - constantly ill kids, and now also myself. Maybe this was my punishment for thinking about myself, and only myself? And this is fate reminding me that my role is to be a mother - and perhaps without the possibility to be anything more at this point? (Note: Written when sick, tired and lousy-feeling).

What is wrong with women not working, or having their own income?

I today pitched a project proposal on this blog's topic: work+family+life (that was not the official working title). We'll see how that turns out (please keep your fingers crossed), but even if nothing comes out of it, a lot has already come out of it. As I wrote in another post, simply having an application to write and an interview to prepare for motivated me to open my eyes and think. It was an interesting experience, and I'm again a step further with my own thoughts on the issue.

My main idea is that it's impossible that we're still training (mainly) women to become (better) housewives. Research shows that education per se is a good end, and my own work focusing on developing countries shows just how important education is for the wellbeing of mothers, the household, and children (e.g. nutrition, financial management and investment, human rights). West-Germany is my "worst-case" example (and data supports this). See the slightly silly graph (thanks, Clipart!) I presented below.

What again struck me was, that out of the five panelists, the two (German) women were interested in the following. What about women who WANT to stay at home? And why is this outcome with work and income a problem, when HOUSEHOLD income remains constant? Instead of letting you know what I responded (although you will guess…), what do you think? Am I wrong to see this as a "problem"? I'd love to post a couple of your replies, so please comment or email.

Do Women Work too Little - or Men too Much?

Thanks to new OECD gender statistics and world women's day (missed it?), there have been many page-1 news articles about women and work. First was the confirmation that educated women earn 15-25% less than men (boo!). Today's headline "Women still work too little". (In paid jobs, full-time, that is - including unpaid work they work far above what men do in total per day - men have much more recreation and leisure time (boo!)). My hypothesis is that women work too little because MEN work too much. AND women are bad at outsourcing household tasks, and often unwilling to outsource (big chunks of) childcare. From my own experience, my husband working and traveling more has meant that I work less, and if I have had to or wanted to work more, we have outsourced household and childcare to compensate. He has been able to work less only in between jobs, not IN jobs. There's never really been the option - in our current work situation - for my husband to work less. This is, in my view, what really inhibits moms from getting decent jobs and advancing their careers. But can women battle thus battle for men? And would a man "help" and take part in this battle for more balanced work roles?

The Problem with "Self-Improvement" Books

Before returning to full-time work a bit over a year ago (I'm now out again), I visited a career coach for two sessions. I was struggling with whether I could work full-time while having three small kids (and a commuting husband). The advisor at the time recommended I read a career-councelling book for stay-at-home-moms, which had helped another "client" of hers. It helped me a lot with some of my own doubts, but I have to admit that, in retrospect, I didn't follow much of the advice - nor that of my councilor, who, when I told her I'd found the "ideal" job, replied that she's skeptical, because it didn't match some of my fundamental criteria for a job. The book was right - and she was right - in one particular aspect: I sold myself too low and cheap, and ended up quitting mainly because I realized that no-one would "boost me up" just because I'm so great. I was a dedicated, loyal, cheap, overqualified employee. Convenient in all aspects except that I was frustrated, and ended up quitting.

This first "guide book" I read opened me up to reading other books. Sheryl Sandberg's "Lean In" was a powerful motivator, Annemarie Slaughter's "We can't have it all" article more of an irritator ("of course we can!" I cried at the time - and now whimper "oh no we can't").

I picked up yet another guide book from the library a while back, focusing on why women fail in the career game so frequently. The main message is that women are meek in elbowing and "simply getting angry", and falsely believe that merit alone will get you promoted and responsibility. I believe this book has many true messages. My own past job experience proves it, in my view: my merit didn't get ME further, it got MY ORGANIZATION and my boss further.

The problem with this "self-improvement" books is a bit like diet books, or asking people advice. There's an example and a counter-example for everything. There's a theory and strategy that negates all others. It's, at the end of the day, one big muddle. And I'm utterly confused. Lacking any self-esteem, because, just as in the Pink song: "all they tell me, is change everything you are".

It's good to read these books, and realize things about other people, power relationships, motivations, and one's self in this puzzle. But it's also important to close these books at some point, and start following the advice along the lines of "do not do what you love, but learn to love what you do" - i.e. "do not try to become what others think will make you successful, but become successful in what you are"… or?

Fasting - and other restrictions - and rewards

Today is a day of festivities in most Christian countries, marking the last day before the 40 day fasting period before Easter. In Germany, all children are dressed up in costumes, and in South-Western Germany, so are adults. In Finland, the tradition is to eat marzipan and whipped-cream-filled buns. It's party and stocking up time before the 40-day period of calm and fast - the latter part which most people don't do, instead moving from pre-fast to normality to Easter celebrations.

I have fasted for the past ten or so years, and last year blogged about again giving up coffee for 40 days, which is for the most difficult material thing to give up, because I am literally physically addicted. Although I only drink 2-3 espressos a day, I get horrible migraine-like headaches for the first days (and nights), and last year this didn't get much better, and after day 30, I for the first time didn't make it. I may be a bit of a softy this year, and give up alcohol this year instead. I don't drink a lot, but as I go out for dinners and drinks a fair share, and we also enjoy a great glass of wine if we make a good dinner, it's not a mere symbolic act (but unlike coffee, not a physically or mentally difficult one - hence I admit, it's not really a fast this year).

This year, though, to coincide with the fasting period, I have my hay fever period. So on top of giving up something symbolic, I am quite restricted in my movements. I try to take my medicines only for a few weeks, during the worst (birch pollen) time, so until then I try not to go out to much (I have another pollen allergy before birch), and have to restrict doing strenuous sport (thankfully not yoga or my new discovery - as always years and years later than everyone else - zumba).

Some years, for the 40-day fast, I have instead of giving something up tried to go a "good deed of the day". I'll try to keep up this tradition again - or at least complain less when I feel like people on all sides expect favors from me, but are giving little back. It's party my own fault, that in periods when I'm not time-strapped with work, I offer a lot of support. But with a big network, I have a fair share of take-up on these offers, including CV and application coaching, start up and freelance support, and child care help. I also invite many more people over for brunches, dinners etc, because I miss the social part of being at work - and at conferences and meetings. All of this is "work" in some sense as well, as it involves a certain amount of chores. The rewards - as for good deeds - are not material. Sometimes there are no rewards, other than the knowledge that I may have helped someone. It's a good - but not always easy - thing to do.    

Three or four kids?

A week or so ago, some of our friends sent us articles based on a recent study that "four kids are easier than three". We'd heard it before, that three is really tough, and it's true. Going from zero to one was very tough, because everything is new, and your whole life changes. One to two was easy, and even easier, because suddenly the world didn't revolve only around one child (which never felt very healthy), and the kids could keep each other company fairly early on. Three has been a physical and organizational shock, because two kids, two hands, two parents works fairly well. With three I've often felt overwhelmed, and also feel like the third is again like a single child, although they play and bond fairly well as a three-some as well, or in different compositions (eldest-youngest, middle-youngest). In that sense, I can imagine that number four pairs up with number three, and things just roll along again. BUT, as I have discussed with several moms of three I know (and their are surprisingly many in my group of friends), we - as women - feel overwhelmed with the idea of another pregnancy (we do not feel physically strong enough anymore, as three was quite a strain on our bodies), feel like life is finally rolling again after the shock of "number 3", and also feel like we're somehow barely managing with our careers, and number 4 would be the end to that. I know that it wouldn't, and I know that we would all manage. And if nature would want it, I would be thrilled in part - a child is simply the biggest gift on earth, and I could never imagine not wanting a new little human being if it is on its way. Several of my friends with 3 are slightly older than I am (instead of mid-30s, end 30-s), so their thoughts are much more acute: it's now or never, because none of them want children later into their 40s. I still have time. We could, in theory, still go from 3 to 6…. Any articles on "six is easier than three"?