Judging Sarah, Judging Moms

Since very soon after the news broke that McCain had chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate, we got bits and bobs of information about her in relation to how she juggled work and family. I've tried not to be judgmental in my responses -- but I have no doubt that my thoughts are informed by my own work-life challenges.

When I heard she had an infant with Down syndrome, I thought "it would be difficult to have a job as responsible as hers and actually much time left to do the day-to-day grunt work associated with an infant, especially a special needs child."

Then I saw a comment -- apparently intended to be positive-- to the effect that, "she doesn't spend much time at the office/with the legislature." The implication seemed to be that she was therefore "above politics." My analysis was, "of course she doesn't spend a lot of time at the office. She's a woman with five kids. Every mother with a job in which she has sufficient control to her time to be out of the office takes it. One's paid work can often be done while the kids are at school or after they're asleep. It's not necessarily a reflection on her attitude toward her role as governor or politics or the legislature."

One of the first stories about Palin after her selection closed with the line, "Three days after giving birth, Ms. Palin was back at work." Well, I thought, she is governor after all. With a job featuring so much flexibility, that's not a big deal. I was "back at work" answering email within three days of giving birth.

Next, in a story about the Palins' finances, a journalist noted that Mr. Palin hasn't worked as much on Alaska's north slope since his wife became governor. "He's been in charge of child care," the story said. Quite appropriate, I thought. There's a lot to do with so many kids. I'm glad to know he's adapted his work life to support hers.

Now, in the wake of Monday's disclosure that Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, the mother judges are out in full force. A story in the NYT a few days ago featured a number of telling quotes -- quotes that suggest mothers are "damned if they do, damned if they don't" with regard to how they juggle work and family. The story was headlined, "In Palin, a New Twist in the Debate on Mothers," and it was co-authored by two of my favorite NYT journalists, Jodi Kantor and Rachel Swarns. (If I recall correctly, the former recently gave birth to twins). Here is an excerpt:

It’s the Mommy Wars: Special Campaign Edition. But this time the battle lines are drawn inside out, with social conservatives, usually staunch advocates for stay-at-home motherhood, mostly defending her, while some others, including plenty of working mothers, worry that she is taking on too much.

You really must read Kantor and Swarns' entire story. There's this incredibly unhelpful quote from Jane Swift, former acting governor of Massachusetts who gave birth to twins when in that office: “I know now that it was virtually impossible for me to take advice and make decisions when I was responding emotionally as a mother, not thinking rationally as a public official.” Plus there's a zinger from Phyllis Schlafly, who helped defeat the E.R.A. amendment back in the 1970s, implying that mothers of just one or two kids are being too judgmental of Palin because they can't imagine a brood of 5.

Perhaps how Palin fares, as candidate and/or ultimately as vice president, might have some impact on attitudes toward moms who work outside the home. But I really wish for now we could get back to the issues and away from the focus on "Palin as Mom." More on the issues (and the media handling of Palin) in my next post . . .

Hurricane Palin

While I've been struggling to sort through my thoughts on the "Sarah as Mom" phenom and get my next post up, Sally Schwettmann sent along this link from slate.com. You don't have to get far into to realize it's from the "media criticism" corner.

Here's an excerpt from the piece by Jack Shafter:

Journalistic mayhem is a fine description for the last couple of days of Sarah Palin coverage. Starved to the point of collapse from the restricted-calorie diet served at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, the press needed a news feast to restore its powers. With the Republicans' convention lite staring them in the face, the ravenous press corps decided to switch the menu from St. Paul to New Orleans. The evening news anchors—NBC, CBS, ABC—were all defecting to the Gulf Coast over the weekend. But then the press scented the lard-fried Snickers bar that was Palin. Now that Hurricane Gustav has fizzled, there is only one disaster story to cover, and she's it.

Shafter notes, for example, the media's coverage of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, while linking it to the "eagerness with which politicians deploy their children as campaign props." On that note, may I say how unimpressed I was to see young Levi's photo (yes, the one you've surely all seen by now, in the hockey uniform) both in the New York Times today and on the Today Show. Give the kids a break -- which means they shouldn't be compelled to play this convention game. Why'd we have to fly this kid down from Alaska, for heaven's sake? It's looking like the Republicans using "family values" any way they can.

Women at work

Yes, former fem legal theory students, that us. OK, well, it is most of us; a few of you are men at work, but you should nevertheless read this!

Maybe by now you've seen this super-popular item in the New York Times. I first noticed it on Saturday, in the "Jobs" section in a series called "Preoccupations." It's written by 26-year-old Hannah Seligman, and the title is "Girl Power at School, Not at the Office."

I'll excerpt the closing quote first. It's from Myra Smart, a retired senior faculty member of the Harvard School of Business, who studies female entrepreneurs: "“By and large women believe that the workplace is a meritocracy, and it isn’t.”

To that I say, "duh." But I don't mean to imply that I've known this all along. I've spent the last decade learning it. Yes, it has taken me into my 40s! It took me that long because I lucked out in most of my jobs until then. By that I mean that in prior jobs, what looked like my succeeding in a meritocracy was probably my good luck, and the fact I was seen with extra value because I didn't have a family to distract me. I was able to look the part of the ideal worker -- and, in fact, to be one. I could work late every night and be put on an airplane at a moment' s notice.

But I've digressed. Let me get back to the gist of Ms. Seligson's piece. She characterizes the college classroom as egalitarian, and she contrasts how she and her female peers were empowered in college, "easily ascend[ing] to school leadership positions and prestigious internships," with their workplace experiences a short time later. Seligson writes of the "realization that the knowledge and skills acquired in school don’t always translate at the office," noting that gender dynamics are an aspect of the challenge.

I don't know if law school leaves women students unprepared for the realities of the work world in the way that Seligson suggests college does. Female graduates who worked before entering law school may already be switched on to some of the differences Seligson highlights. Of course, there is also plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that the law school classroom is not egalitarian. (See my article here, collecting sources). This may mean that women students leave law school with less confidence than when they entered.

Whatever state female law grads are in when they enter the work world, Seligson offers some pretty good advice, I think. She suggests subtle cultivation of mentors and networking; solicitation of feedback; self-promotion; risk taking; and asking for raises -- among other strategies.

Actually, I don't think the solutions are as easy and straight-forward as Seligson suggests-- especially not the asking for a raise part. What Seligson doesn't mention is that asking for more money not only doesn't always work, it can be used to portray us prima donnas, overly-ambitious, etc. Oh the stories I could tell . . .

Seligson also addresses the issue of women undermining women in the workplace. I know it happens, but I'm happy to say it has not happened to me as much as "lore" and Ms. Seligson's story suggests. In short, my advice is not to be preoccupied by the possibility.

In any event, Seligson gives us a lot of good food for thought. I especially want to emphasize the mentoring point and the networking point. I met a King Hall alum recently (at a kids' birthday party! It's fun to run into them in unexpected places) who was very focused on these in relation to each other. She is a partner in a smallish Sacramento law firm, and she said we need to mentor students to understand the need for networking and how to do it.

Of course, one way for us to get and stay networked is through this blog. So come on, alums . . . chime in. Tell your own work stories -- under cover of a pseudonym if necessary!

Let's talk about Sarah, and how the media are talking about Sarah

If McCain's decision to make Sarah Palin his running mate was an effort to attract HRC supporters, it strikes me as a ham-handed effort to do so if ever there was one.

Here's some analysis from over at the Feminist Law Prof. Blog. And here's some early analysis from the NYT. Needless to say, her stance on abortion alone is sufficient to alienate many who preferred Hillary for the Democratic nomination. Feminists have long known that just getting any woman elected to office does not advance the cause of women. Witness Margaret Thatcher, among others.

What I'm focused on right now, though, is some of the media coverage of her selection. I saw this by Timothy Egan in the NYT last night, headlined "Ms. Alaska." It was among the top-10 most emailed stories within a few hours of being posted to the website, and it still is. Here's an excerpt:

Palin eloped with her husband, Todd, a commercial fisherman, who later won the 2,000-mile Iron Dog snow machine (as snowmobiles are called in Alaska) race. * * * She’s a self-described “hockey mom,” which means something in Minnesota and Colorado, two battleground states.

As a University of Idaho graduate, a television sports reporter, a beauty queen who was Miss Wasilla and competed for Miss Alaska, Palin brings a bit of the “Legally Blonde” aspect to the race -– you underestimate her at your peril, as opponents found in Alaska, and in the movie.

I am familiar with the argument that all's fair when it comes to media coverage of national politics (witness what happened to Hillary), and I am big fan of Egan, but some of his comments overstep a line. He pokes fun at the names of Palin's children, for example. Would we do that to a male candidate? At least he notes that we underestimate her at our peril, which gives her credit for something (common sense? charisma?) and I'm moderately relieved that he or his editors didn't go with the headline, "Miss Alaska."

Gail Collins' column, McCain's Baked Alaska, is currently the most-emailed story on the NYT website. Here's an excerpt, with Collins' tongue firmly in cheek:

McCain does not believe in pandering to identity politics. He was looking for someone who was well prepared to fight against international Islamic extremism, the transcendent issue of our time. And in the end he decided that in good conscience, he was not going to settle for anyone who had not been commander of a state national guard for at least a year and a half.

Thank heavens that Collins is at least focused on ridiculing McCain, not Palin. Also note that she observes that Palin's credentials are not so different than those of Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor who was taken quite seriously as a possible running mate. Hmmmm.

The headline in today's print edition of the New York Times reads: "Alaskan is McCain's Choice; First Woman on G.O.P. Ticket." A subhead then reads: "A surprise pick" followed by "First-term governor, social conservative and Mother of 5." Now I think it would be fine if all headlines about vice presidential selections mentioned in the biographical material whether the person has children, but they don't. So, why is Palin's status as "mother of 5" in this front-page NYT headline?

More on Michelle

I was ruminating earlier this week about the intersection of race and gender in the Obama campaign's management of the candidate's wife, Michelle. A few days later I came across some scholarly analysis related to the topic. The article is titled: "Michelle Obama: The 'Darker Side' of Presidential Spousal Involvement and Activism," and it is by Gary S. Parks and Quinetta M. Roberson. Here the abstract:

Pundits and commentators have attempted to make sense of the role that race and gender have played in the 2008 presidential campaign. Whereas researchers are drawing on varying bodies of scholarship (legal, cognitive and social psychology, and political science) to illuminate the role that Senator Obama’s race and Senator Clinton’s gender has/had on their campaign, Michelle Obama has been left out of the discussion. As Senator Clinton once noted, elections are like hiring decisions. As such, new frontiers in employment discrimination law place Michelle Obama in context within the current presidential campaign. First, racism and sexism are both alive and well within the domains of politics and employment. And within both domains, the intersection of these biases uniquely handicap Black women. As such, Michelle Obama, as an individual who has broken the socially acceptable constrictions of race and gender, has suffered some backlash as a result of her beliefs and actions. Second, most racial and gender bias is not express, but unconscious. And these unconscious biases influence behavior—including voting and hiring/promotion. In that vein, there are instances during the 2008 campaign where unconscious biases against Mrs. Obama have occurred. Such instances are similar to fact-patterns in employment discrimination cases. Third, under Title VII, employment discrimination may be directed at a third party for their association with members of a disliked group. Here, some voters’ unconscious race and gender biases against Mrs. Obama likely affected/affects their voting decision vis-à-vis Senator Obama.

Also regarding Michelle, I was somewhat intrigued by this story in the ABA Journal's online edition this week. I am not sure I agree with the gist of this "most emailed" item. The story's headline is "How Michelle Obama's 'Savvy Sacrifice' Helped her Husband, " and it is based to some extent on assertions made in Time magazine last week. Here's the lede:

Working as an associate at a powerhouse international law firm based in Chicago, Michelle Obama had what many would have considered a dream job for a lawyer.

But she gave up the Sidley Austin job to pursue a public interest career. This "savvy sacrifice" has provided her husband, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, the platform he needed to run for public office, reports Time magazine.

First, I am certain that many (of you!) would agree that being an associate at a powerhouse firm is not a "dream job." It may represent a great opportunity right out of law school, but the attrition rate at large law firms is very high, and everyone knows it -- partners, associates, legal educators, other legal employers, etc. In short, it is not unusual for very talented lawyers to leave these jobs within a few years of taking them. Second, it is also not that unusual for those leaving big firms to take lower paying jobs when they go. Lawyers leave for opportunities with better, i.e., more sane, long-term prospects. That 's what Michelle Obama did. Much has been made in the media of her efforts to achieve work-life balance, so perhaps that influenced her, too. To call it a "savvy sacrifice" suggests that this was all part of a long-term strategy by the Obamas to further his political ambitions. Maybe it was -- but if so, aren't we supposed to look down on such behavior? How often have we heard Hillary criticized for being strategic and instrumentalist in her career? But then, she is most recently the candidate herself, not merely the supporting spouse.

On a related note, the "savvy sacrifice" term irritated me because it plays into gendered stereotypes that expect such sacrifice from women. Again, maybe that is how the Obamas saw it -- or maybe they were just making decisions that made sense for them at the time. Michelle Obama's career trajectory looks normal in this day and age. It also looks laudable -- but I wouldn't say sacrificial.

Finally, I have the impression that Michelle Obama has lost weight in the months since her husband's campaign really good traction and gained momentum. I don't know if she has or not, but I regret the incredible pressure she under regarding physical appearance.

Ode To HRC

My friend, a journalist wrote this... I thought you guys would appreciate it...

I want to join the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuit

Yves St. Laurent, please, plus a Prada boot

Never before has Hillary Clinton looked so good

That the old men in Washington couldn't understand, even if they should

Her speech, her sparkle, her tangerine duds

How many now wish they voted for her, instead of that stud

Perhpas she lost because of fatigue, or that damned Mark Penn

Who should have known when to say when

I hope HRC will come back in four years

Or eight if it's Obama -- but next time, no tears

And we'll look back on that night at the DNC

When the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuit launched its campaign for twenty-sixteen

-N.G.