The problem with that study is that it cites CEO's and members of Congress, groups with an average age over 65. Of course women will not be equally represented in these groups. What are the numbers for middle management, junior partners, executive track positions, etc. I would bet that things are much more equal and that is more indicative of future trends.

My husband has a high intensity job and I have deliberately taken a more flexible but lower paying job do that out family life runs more smoothly and I can shift my schedule around and cover emergency child care needs. Because of that, we have less money than dual income families where both parents work high demand jobs. I don't think that the choice to take a more flexible job should always be the woman's, but I do have a problem with couples who don't make the decision to take less money and more flexibility who then complain about how the workforce is unfair. You get to have the money, so why do you think your life shouldn't be a little harder than mine.

Anonymous wrote:It would be better if we reverted back to the old ways and I didn't have to take care of a sick baby all day, and work, and then after putting said baby to bed, drive downtown and work more until 3AM. All so I can live in my 1200 square foot home.

How freaking ingenious - who is the moron who fought for my right to kill myself working and being a mommy at the same time with a child who is always sick and never well because she is in some F-ing daycare rather than with mommy? And because most women work now, home values are double what they used to be as a value of average salary compared to average home price. Today, the market expects two people will work to pay for a home.

Being a woman today rocks!

You make good points, which will be glossed over and buried by something else.

Feminism and patriarchy are two sides of the same coin. They both oppress women, just in different ways. Now instead of being a slave to your family, you can be a slave to your boss.

Anonymous wrote:The surprisings don't surprise me. Consciously or not, men whose wive SAH and assume traditional responsibilities often (not always) don't comprehend the challenges faced by dual-working couples. I've had to explain to many a well-meaning superior how our dual-income family functions, how day care works, how often kids get sick and need to go to dr appts, how high-risk pregnancies can really throw the family off, etc. I don't think these traditional men *intend* to be non-family friendly, they just really fail to understand how family life in a dual-working couple functions.

(Just as disturbing to me are the SAH partners of these men who reinforce the traditional separation of labor at their husband's place of employment. E.g., agreeing that paid parental leave is "not fair," or making the argument that if a DH makes enough money then the DW should be at home.)

NP and I totally agree with you. I worked in the worst male dominated office and all of them 'thought' they were family friendly, but constantly criticized my sick days, etc. They never could understand that since *I* don't have a SAHW that *I* have to stay home when my child is sick, has doctors appointments, etc. In fact, my office made an effort to be diverse for what I now realize was just for show. In reality if you weren't a white, male you weren't going anywhere.

I don't think it is as simple as the article points out. Maybe my life is an exception but the exceptional part is the choice my husband and I made--not us. I have an advanced degree and I chose to stay home to raise our kids. I worked with my husband for several years before we even started dating (we were both involved with others) and know that his behavior towards women was respectful and professional. I wouldn't have dated him if I had seen otherwise. After we married, we decided to live on one salary to see if we could afford to have me stay home if and when we had kids. The result is that we live in a much smaller home than many of our dual income friends and we have no plans to buy a second home. We live very comfortably and within our means on one salary. Many people see the new combined HHI and immediately make decisions that foreclose one parent or the other from staying home.

Nonetheless, women are the ones who have to take leave to have kids and that time off does impact their careers. I often had to step in and work on projects when colleagues were on maternity leave. Sometimes I got a great review for my willingness and ability to step into the breach to help out the office. That wasn't me trying to undermine my colleague as she was home with her kids but it did happen and I am sure many men have made lots of career progress as women are out on maternity leave. I don't think that is a reason not to have kids and I don't think those men are necessarily anti-working women. I just don't think it is that simple.

I know that some men are simply disrespectful of other women and in my experience it had little to do with what their wives did (stay home or work).

I agree that home values have increased to reflect a two income family. But homes/townhouses/condos do exist for those who want to have one parent stay home and raise their kids.

The surprisings don't surprise me. Consciously or not, men whose wive SAH and assume traditional responsibilities often (not always) don't comprehend the challenges faced by dual-working couples. I've had to explain to many a well-meaning superior how our dual-income family functions, how day care works, how often kids get sick and need to go to dr appts, how high-risk pregnancies can really throw the family off, etc. I don't think these traditional men *intend* to be non-family friendly, they just really fail to understand how family life in a dual-working couple functions.

(Just as disturbing to me are the SAH partners of these men who reinforce the traditional separation of labor at their husband's place of employment. E.g., agreeing that paid parental leave is "not fair," or making the argument that if a DH makes enough money then the DW should be at home.)

Anonymous wrote:Nothing "startling" about those finds. Agree with PP who said that until kiids become everyone's responsibility, nothing will change. There are many exceptions, of course, but hands down, the moms are the one whose "problem" it is when her kid needs to stay home sick. Thus her career suffers for a time.

ITA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't buy this. I have a "traditional" marriage and my husband is wonderful and supportive to all his employees. In particular the women who have worked for him have fared well with promotions even though they have taken considerable time off on extended leave and some employers hold the 1-4 months women take off on maternity..even though they shouldn't.

I find this hard to believe. Most businesses cannot survive with that amount of time off given to employees. Furthermore, is he that gracious with men who want childcare leave?

I am a different poster. But I helped run a company where we provided 12 weeks of paid maternity leave. The boss and I chipped in our own money to cover what our insurance did not. His wife was a SAHM. During that time we spread the work around. Fortunately at our size we did not end up with multiple babies at the same time in the same position.

My wife has taken long maternity leaves. It requires some juggling, but her company has made it work. They use the maternity leave slot as a way to test drive someone they are considering for promotion.

Nothing "startling" about those finds. Agree with PP who said that until kids become everyone's responsibility, nothing will change. There are many exceptions, of course, but hands down, the moms are the one whose "problem" it is when her kid needs to stay home sick. Thus her career suffers for a time.

Anonymous wrote:I don't buy this. I have a "traditional" marriage and my husband is wonderful and supportive to all his employees. In particular the women who have worked for him have fared well with promotions even though they have taken considerable time off on extended leave and some employers hold the 1-4 months women take off on maternity..even though they shouldn't.

I find this hard to believe. Most businesses cannot survive with that amount of time off given to employees. Furthermore, is he that gracious with men who want childcare leave?

I don't buy this. I have a "traditional" marriage and my husband is wonderful and supportive to all his employees. In particular the women who have worked for him have fared well with promotions even though they have taken considerable time off on extended leave and some employers hold the 1-4 months women take off on maternity..even though they shouldn't.

So, has it occurred to anyone that the real issue is competition between family and work? Not women's roles but the needs of the family? As long as this is seen as a woman's problem and not everyone's problem, things will not change. Like education, for instance. We regard public school for K through 12 as a right but there was a time when families had to take responsibility for educating their own kids.

yes, I am at work NOW. Will be for hours, and have to get up and be the primary caretaker for a sick infant who has that weeklong fever virus at 6:45AM and work all day too. Fun fun!

It would be better if we reverted back to the old ways and I didn't have to take care of a sick baby all day, and work, and then after putting said baby to bed, drive downtown and work more until 3AM. All so I can live in my 1200 square foot home.

How freaking ingenious - who is the moron who fought for my right to kill myself working and being a mommy at the same time with a child who is always sick and never well because she is in some F-ing daycare rather than with mommy? And because most women work now, home values are double what they used to be as a value of average salary compared to average home price. Today, the market expects two people will work to pay for a home.

Being a woman today rocks!

"Marriage Structure and Resistance to the Gender Revolution in the Workplace"

[T]he three researchers . . . found after a series of four studies that "husbands embedded in traditional and neo-traditional marriages (relative to husbands embedded in modern ones) exhibit attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that undermine the role of women in the workplace."
. . .

The authors arrived at these startling findings by examining the issue of "stalled progress toward gender equality" - or the fact that while women account for a growing number of advanced degrees and share of the labor force, they remain an endangered species at the ladder's highest levels: Among other notable numbers, women are fewer than five percent of Fortune 500 CEOs, occupy barely 15 percent of board seats of the Fortune 500, and make up not even 20 percent of Congress.

The researchers asked whether this lack of progress might in part be caused by "a pocket of resistance to the revolution," namely "husbands embedded in marriages that structurally mirror the 1950s ideal American family portrayed in the 'Adventures of Ozzzie and Harriet' sitcom.'" They write that a 2008 paper spurred them to wonder "'whether a domestic traditionalist can also be an organizational egalitarian?' The answer we posit is 'no.'"

. . .

"We found that employed husbands in traditional marriages, compared to those in modern marriages, tend to (a) view the presence of women in the workplace unfavorably, (b) perceive that organizations with higher numbers of female employees are operating less smoothly, (c) find organizations with female leaders as relatively unattractive, and (d) deny, more frequently, qualified female employees opportunities for promotion."


http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/im-not-your-wife-a-new-study-points-to-a-hidden-form-of-sexism/258057/


It will be good when these sexist old farts are out of the workforce. Or unemployed.