Twenty one years ago, as the first wave of the Title Nine generation, I was schocked to discover as I worked (campaigned) through my first pregnancy how many unresolved issues remained in the United States regarding the issues around family and work. Naive for sure. Many articles, scars and three nearly grown daughters later and some days I feel like I am Bill Murray living my own "Ground Hog" day movie. Yet, a few days ago fellow board members -- all older white men -- solicited my advice and invited my thoughts (genuinely and with great interest) regarding diversity, inclusion and how to insure that our very traditional company could stay current in an era where the imperative for younger workers, investors and regulatory agencies all place great importance on these very issues.
I can only hope that the tipping point has finally come and I believe the force behind that much needed change can be found in market and demographic forces that are documented in this New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-having-fewer-babies-they-told-us-why.html. The United States is following in the footsteps of several other countries and we are now at the point where we are no longer having enough children to replenish our population. This has significant implications for our quality of life. Our economy cannot grow, older workers' retirements are not secure and our country cannot thrive with a baby bust. Ironically, it may be the lack of flexibility from businesses and our government in providing an easier path to integrate (my preferred term instead of balance) work and family that has finally created the climate to force those very changes. Because women are making rational choices with their fertility. Two profound moments in my own well-chronicled work-family path come to mind -- one public and one private.
The public event was when Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Ellen Goodman wrote about one of the many 'scandals' and criticism surrounding my time as "Governor Mom" nearly two decades ago. One line she wrote has always stuck with me (I guess that is why she wins awards for her writing). I think I remember it verbatim, but this is from memory: "If the choice for women is to work or to have children, then that is no choice at all." But as this New York Times article and the data embedded in it demonstrates, that is exactly the message that women have gotten from corporate and government policies and, sadly, from media coverage of high profile working mothers like me. The second private moment was when (and I might have written about this before) an older doctor sitting next to me at a dinner shared with me, with some despair, that his daughter who was a medical student, was struggling with her future residency and career choices because "she doesn't want to be you." What he meant, he explained, is that she was watching women who were combining work and family in high-achieving jobs and to them we looked miserable. Now, if you google me I can certainly see how you could come to that conclusion. And I won't lie, not every day was a garden party. But from that day on I determined to make sure I told every group I spoke to that included young women or any group that might speak to young women, that I loved my work and my kids and that I would not change my choices for anything. And I began to repeat one of my best lines which I believe even more strongly today than the day I first said it which is: I was a better Governor because I was a Mother and I was a better Mother because I was a Governor. However, clearly, I either haven't told enough young women that story (likely) or they didn't believe it (also likely).
What I told my Board Colleagues last week was that the real key to a great women's initiative is to insure it has a strong tie to business goals. Anyone who reads the New York Times or any of the other zillion articles about the birth rate should be coming to the conclusion that figuring out ways to support families to handle both their family and work responsibilities is a national imperative. That isn't to say women should have to have three or more children or any children at all. But as a society and a country we cannot have economic growth if we do not have enough future workers. Now, I also realize that over-population and immigration are issues that also need to be addressed globablly as part of this conversation. But as a country families are stretched to the limit. Housing, medical and education costs are stretching budgets, and two-adults working is not just the norm but mostly the necessity. Therefore, insuring that each family can also integrate the time to raise their families, care for loved ones -- young and old, with work responsibilites has become a key necessity for our public and private leaders. I welcome the conversation and the time for solutions is well past.
I can only hope that the tipping point has finally come and I believe the force behind that much needed change can be found in market and demographic forces that are documented in this New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-having-fewer-babies-they-told-us-why.html. The United States is following in the footsteps of several other countries and we are now at the point where we are no longer having enough children to replenish our population. This has significant implications for our quality of life. Our economy cannot grow, older workers' retirements are not secure and our country cannot thrive with a baby bust. Ironically, it may be the lack of flexibility from businesses and our government in providing an easier path to integrate (my preferred term instead of balance) work and family that has finally created the climate to force those very changes. Because women are making rational choices with their fertility. Two profound moments in my own well-chronicled work-family path come to mind -- one public and one private.
The public event was when Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Ellen Goodman wrote about one of the many 'scandals' and criticism surrounding my time as "Governor Mom" nearly two decades ago. One line she wrote has always stuck with me (I guess that is why she wins awards for her writing). I think I remember it verbatim, but this is from memory: "If the choice for women is to work or to have children, then that is no choice at all." But as this New York Times article and the data embedded in it demonstrates, that is exactly the message that women have gotten from corporate and government policies and, sadly, from media coverage of high profile working mothers like me. The second private moment was when (and I might have written about this before) an older doctor sitting next to me at a dinner shared with me, with some despair, that his daughter who was a medical student, was struggling with her future residency and career choices because "she doesn't want to be you." What he meant, he explained, is that she was watching women who were combining work and family in high-achieving jobs and to them we looked miserable. Now, if you google me I can certainly see how you could come to that conclusion. And I won't lie, not every day was a garden party. But from that day on I determined to make sure I told every group I spoke to that included young women or any group that might speak to young women, that I loved my work and my kids and that I would not change my choices for anything. And I began to repeat one of my best lines which I believe even more strongly today than the day I first said it which is: I was a better Governor because I was a Mother and I was a better Mother because I was a Governor. However, clearly, I either haven't told enough young women that story (likely) or they didn't believe it (also likely).
What I told my Board Colleagues last week was that the real key to a great women's initiative is to insure it has a strong tie to business goals. Anyone who reads the New York Times or any of the other zillion articles about the birth rate should be coming to the conclusion that figuring out ways to support families to handle both their family and work responsibilities is a national imperative. That isn't to say women should have to have three or more children or any children at all. But as a society and a country we cannot have economic growth if we do not have enough future workers. Now, I also realize that over-population and immigration are issues that also need to be addressed globablly as part of this conversation. But as a country families are stretched to the limit. Housing, medical and education costs are stretching budgets, and two-adults working is not just the norm but mostly the necessity. Therefore, insuring that each family can also integrate the time to raise their families, care for loved ones -- young and old, with work responsibilites has become a key necessity for our public and private leaders. I welcome the conversation and the time for solutions is well past.
 |
| Three generations of our rowdy Catholic family. We are a 'normal' sized family for our neighborhood and era -- four kids. I had the most children -- 3 (and truth be told only because the 2nd pregnancy was twins). My brother and sister had two each and my youngest brother had 1. Do the math .... And Thanksgivings and Christmases will be so much less fun with fewer family members with which to argue about politics! |
Comments
Post a Comment