Anonymous wrote:In 2003, I was a young mom and turned down for a job in favor of a less-qualified single woman because she didn't have children.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When I was a junior associate in Biglaw in 2000, a male partner in my practice group praised one of the female partners who had waited until she made partner to get pregnant and only took six weeks of maternity leave (and worked at home during that time). There was also the legendary NY partner who was back in her office running deals three days after giving birth. The clear message was that work was first, health and family second at all times.
I switched to government, and even there it was not super family friendly in the early 2000s and 2010s. I worked for an older female boss without kids, and I traveled extensively and worked long hours when my daughters were young toddlers into elementary school.
It's really only in the past five years that I have felt comfortable turning down work and declining events for kids' activities. My default until probably 2018 was to sneak out if I had to leave early and pretend any absences were not kid-related.
These are the worst for family-friendly policies. The best scenario is involved dad with wife who earns/works more than him.
Yes, agree. Hierarchy in order of most flexible bosses, IMO:
- man with working spouse and kids
- woman with working spouse and kids
- man with spouse but no kids / woman with spouse but no kids
- man with no spouse or kids - sometimes more flexible if they had a working mom
And far the most rigid, unfortunately:
- woman with no spouse or kids
Careful. Your misogyny is showing. As an older woman, I didn't typically have any bosses who didn't have children. 80% of women will have children. The rest will most likely marry a man with children.
You left out on your list the most typical boss:
A man with a SAHM and children. LoL. Where is he on your list?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When I was a junior associate in Biglaw in 2000, a male partner in my practice group praised one of the female partners who had waited until she made partner to get pregnant and only took six weeks of maternity leave (and worked at home during that time). There was also the legendary NY partner who was back in her office running deals three days after giving birth. The clear message was that work was first, health and family second at all times.
I switched to government, and even there it was not super family friendly in the early 2000s and 2010s. I worked for an older female boss without kids, and I traveled extensively and worked long hours when my daughters were young toddlers into elementary school.
It's really only in the past five years that I have felt comfortable turning down work and declining events for kids' activities. My default until probably 2018 was to sneak out if I had to leave early and pretend any absences were not kid-related.
These are the worst for family-friendly policies. The best scenario is involved dad with wife who earns/works more than him.
Yes, agree. Hierarchy in order of most flexible bosses, IMO:
- man with working spouse and kids
- woman with working spouse and kids
- man with spouse but no kids / woman with spouse but no kids
- man with no spouse or kids - sometimes more flexible if they had a working mom
And far the most rigid, unfortunately:
- woman with no spouse or kids
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When I was a junior associate in Biglaw in 2000, a male partner in my practice group praised one of the female partners who had waited until she made partner to get pregnant and only took six weeks of maternity leave (and worked at home during that time). There was also the legendary NY partner who was back in her office running deals three days after giving birth. The clear message was that work was first, health and family second at all times.
I switched to government, and even there it was not super family friendly in the early 2000s and 2010s. I worked for an older female boss without kids, and I traveled extensively and worked long hours when my daughters were young toddlers into elementary school.
It's really only in the past five years that I have felt comfortable turning down work and declining events for kids' activities. My default until probably 2018 was to sneak out if I had to leave early and pretend any absences were not kid-related.
These are the worst for family-friendly policies. The best scenario is involved dad with wife who earns/works more than him.
Anonymous wrote:In the 1980s my mom was the first woman in her very large consulting firm to make partner.
She hid her pregnancies from colleagues. They never knew she was pregnant. Scheduled a c-section on a Friday, back to work on Monday. I met some of her colleagues when I was ten and they were shocked she had kids, they’d known her 20+ years and she never talked about us.
I also never, ever saw her. She never had dinner with us. She was gone when I woke up in the morning, and not home from work when I went to sleep. She’d often go to work on the weekend. She never attended a school event. I had holidays with her, though I remember she’d get home at 6 pm on Christmas Eve and would seem exhausted.
She also says she was constantly sexually harassed but she has no patience for the #me too movement because she thinks women just need to suck it up (!).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have a 23 and 21 year old.
In 1999 I was pregnant and up for a promotion. My boss said “you are clearly the most qualified but since you are pregnant I think your energy and attention will be elsewhere “ and he gave the promotion to a male who was way less qualified.
At the time it was legal to discriminate because of being a new mom. It was illegal to discriminate against me as a pregnant person but as a new mom it was legal.
I was recently promoted on maternity leave! We are making progress.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There wasn’t really WFH I assume.
I'm a woman in my early 50s. WFH is not having that much of an impact on women's lives. Executive women and mothers most likely need a lot of support in the home for caregiving, either through supportive spouses/significant others or through extended family or childcare services/workers. They still probably have children when they are in their 30s/early 40s instead of their late teens/early 20s. They are usually in very public-facing positions/roles, almost like nominated/elected officials. The ones I've seen rise through the ranks having very limited technical expertise, but they have excellent public speaking skills.
No WFH has a huge impact. Even for jobs where people have to go to the office every day, most can be home for an hour for dinner or bedtime and then work late at home. Previously those people couldn’t come home at all.
Also, there are lots of women just below the executive level. Middle managers, GS 14/15. Many with husbands in similar jobs. WFH makes is much easier. Of course, I know it’s not available in all fields so being able to do that is a privilege but I am sure it means more people are able to balance the various parts of their lives.
In addition to that, I don’t think I could do it without grocery delivery, Costco delivery, meal delivery, fast casual restaurants, online shopping, regular house cleaners. All of those things were not as accessible and make life much much easier. I basically only leave my house for work, kid or social activities. DH or I set up all the items above on the commute or lunch break.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have a 23 and 21 year old.
In 1999 I was pregnant and up for a promotion. My boss said “you are clearly the most qualified but since you are pregnant I think your energy and attention will be elsewhere “ and he gave the promotion to a male who was way less qualified.
At the time it was legal to discriminate because of being a new mom. It was illegal to discriminate against me as a pregnant person but as a new mom it was legal.
I was recently promoted on maternity leave! We are making progress.
Same here!
Anonymous wrote:When I was a junior associate in Biglaw in 2000, a male partner in my practice group praised one of the female partners who had waited until she made partner to get pregnant and only took six weeks of maternity leave (and worked at home during that time). There was also the legendary NY partner who was back in her office running deals three days after giving birth. The clear message was that work was first, health and family second at all times.
I switched to government, and even there it was not super family friendly in the early 2000s and 2010s. I worked for an older female boss without kids, and I traveled extensively and worked long hours when my daughters were young toddlers into elementary school.
It's really only in the past five years that I have felt comfortable turning down work and declining events for kids' activities. My default until probably 2018 was to sneak out if I had to leave early and pretend any absences were not kid-related.