Defining women's problems in academia and other sectors as "baby-track" issues is itself a big part of the problem. Women are systematically sidelined from having power over major resources, and even very promiment ones can be marginalized or turned into symbolic figure-heads. This happens to women without family responsibilities who do not opt out on their own. Women's groups and leaders should not join the rush to turn all issues about women's advancement into family issues.
 

Good point. Could you elaborate on the "women are systematically sidelined" part of it?
 

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Come on, folks. Don't waste my time with jibberish.
 

Richard, why do you insist on manipulating the evidence and so strenuously arguing away clear-cut evidence of sexism?

The data are straightforward: men do not have to make the choice between job and family but women do. Men can have both a good, tenure-track job and kids; they even seem to do a bit better on the job when they have a family. Women, in contrast, face a very bleak choice: go for the good job but give up family vs. have a family and accept a lower-tier job. This is a classic example of structural sexism. It is not about "couples" making choices, as you so blithely assert: the data are overwhelming in showing that women are forced into making gut-wrenching choices but men are not.

How could pointing these facts out, as Ms. does, possibly be construed as sexist!?
 

Clearly you are censoring again-not what a blog is about Richard

A new report today revealed what many of us had suspected for years, that womens' natural and inate ability to hoover, dust, cook and clean is being eroded away by over-education.

Two hundred female students were interviewed by the Government think-tank and the results were shocking to say the least.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75% of those interviewed admitted they did not know where the hoover was kept.

67% confessed to eating fast food or TV dinners instead of making a proper dinner for their boyfriends

88% told us that they would rather watch Eastenders than dust
 

Richard, I have some problems with your statement that "having a non-tenure track academic job sounds like a great way to balance work and family whether you're a woman or a man." While this might be a good solution for some people under certain circumstances, remember that it comes with costs: a non-tenure academic position has (obviously) no job security; the person holding the position remains low on the totem pole and has less input into departmental or institutional decisions; he or she may not be allowed to do certain kinds of teaching; there may be limits on the number of years the person can hold the position, and so forth. It would be interesting to know how many people in non-tenure academic jobs (and I don't mean people in tenure-track jobs who haven't yet come up for tenure) are there because they have genuinely opted for a less-demanding position to balance their family's needs.
 

Men do not have to make the choice between job and family? Nonsense. Men who choose to—or, more likely, have to—work full-time and more certainly suffer a loss of important time with their wives and children. Some men may prefer that; many don't. But unlike women, men just take that state of affairs. Staying home with the kids, or working part time, is not an option for most men. In this way, women actually have more choices than men do.

Further, the data is not straightforward. It says nothing about the motivations, the feelings, behind people's choices. It needs to be supported with interviews. The numbers in and of themselves prove nothing.
 

Whoops, sorry: This should read "But unlike women, men just take that state of affairs for granted."
 

The verb "to hoover" is a Britishism. If you want to disguise yourself, Standing Eagle, it would be better to do as the Romans do (i.e. speak Latin).
 

There are plenty of interviews out there about the unpleasant choices women in academia are forced into, Richard, don't be obtuse. There are also plentiful data showing the following: the most satisfied professors are married men with kids; the least satisfied are married women with kids; men and women without kids are in the middle. This kind of evidence strongly supports the claim that women are being forced to make choices that men are not, and that they are unhappy with the outcome. Trying to twist the facts to claim that women are lucky to have the choice of opting into a low-paying, insecure, non-tenure-track job is egregious.
 

Nonsense. What I'm resisting is the idea that you can have it all, whether male or female. Everyone with children makes sacrifices, whether personal or professional. It's the nature of human existence. Obviously, workplaces should do their best to minimize those sacrifices; it's good public policy. But some people voluntarily choose to make professional sacrifices, and their choices should be respected rather than chalked up to institutional sexism.

My point is not that there is no sexism; I'm sure there is. But rather, the reality of human lives is more nuanced than the political arguments constantly made about discrimination against women in academia.

And by the way—for those of us who don't work in academia, the whole idea of not having a tenured job—i.e., guaranteed lifetime employment—doesn't seem so outrageous, but rather, a mere fact of professional life.

And finally—show me the interviews.
 

Let's see, the system is set up so that women must choose between a tenure-track job and kids but men don't; this is directly reflected in all surveys of their satisfaction, showing that women are unhappy with this situation; but this should be interpreted as a "voluntary choice" on women's part rather than an indictment of the institutional structures that force them into this dilemma?

For a summary of interviews, start here: http://www.ucop.edu/pressummit/babies.pdf. Yale Magazine also had a very nice article with interviews of faculty parents about a year ago.
 

Anon 10:20, that link doesn't work....
 

—Let's see, the system is set up so that women must choose between a tenure-track job and kids but men don't...—

Is that a function of "the system," Anon, or of the choices that couples make? And more couples decide to have the wife make professional sacrifices and the man make family sacrifices than the other way around?

Frankly, I know plenty of women who, if you catch them at a candid moment, will tell you that they wouldn't like it if their husbands didn't work, or if their husbands were house husbands, or if they made more money than their husbands, or if the pressure of being the primary breadwinner was upon them.

Hey, I don't blame 'em.

So again, I'm not sold on the "woe is women" argument.
 

—Let's see, the system is set up so that women must choose between a tenure-track job and kids but men don't....—

Also, Anon, who says that men who pursue tenure don't have to make choices? Of course they do. They choose, for various reasons, to spend less time with their wives and children.

Now, you may devalue that sacrifice, though I know many men who are really pained by the fact that after work they come home and see their kids just in time to tuck them in.

But the point is, both men and women make sacrifices, and this is not the fault of the system, but of the fact that it's impossible for a couple to have two full-time jobs and still spend quantity time with their kids. Something has to give.
 

Richard you are absolutely on target here. Of course, these tradeoffs between parenting and work are not just for academics, but for most professionals in America. It's the reason there are so many children of highly educated families who are poorly raised, and in particular who are emotionally handicapped.

This may explain in part America's global decline. While the smarter and most educated in the US task the raising of their children to less educated individuals who do this for a fee, and often poorly supervised, in China, each child has 6 adults focusing their resources in raising them. Maybe this is the reason of so much incompetent leadership on the part of people from whom one should expect better (say Paul Wolfowitz or George Bush).

See this slide show:

http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
 

12.48... you touch on one of the most serious taboos of our times. But many children are not in the care of adults, for fee or not, rather they are on their own. This is true in low income neighborhoods and in suburbs.

But have you seen any academic studying the impact this might have on our youth drug addictions, lack of motivation to succeed or dropping our of school? Certainly not in the Ivy League.
 

From the article in MS:

"The constant assault on affirmative action has also erased or crippled one of the single most effective policies that increased women’s access to equal opportunities.

And many of the same political forces organized against affirmative action have sought to prevent collection of data on race or gender, which profoundly hinders the ability to measure equality. In California, for example, it was not until a female state legislator asked for a study that data revealed the percent of women faculty hired in the university system had plummeted by 30 percent in the three years since anit-affirmativeaction policies had been implemented."

Harvard is a perfect example of the assault on affirmative action and on preventing the collection of data that would demonstrate the inequities discussed in the article. Perhaps Drew will be able to make a difference for Harvard and, in so doing, lead the way for others.
 

9.43am above is absolutely right. Furthermore, Harvard conducted a survey some months ago to explore these issues, so they have the data to answer your questions. Why haven't these results been made public?
 

The results have not been made public because they show that women and minority are disproportinately represented in non-tenure tracks and most unhappy about it.

Harvard exploits women, it discriminates against them, and tries to hide this fact placing them in tracks that have no stability and very little power. The MS article is right on Richard. It's unfortunate you can't see it --probably because you have not seen the data which Harvard has collected and analyzed but keeps secret.
 

There are two separate issues being discussed here:

1. Women and Men face different systems of incentives and rewards in the academy and as a result they end up in different places in the institutional power and reward structure. There is evidence of the differences. There is also evidence that these differences do not reflect free choices of individuals. There is also evidence that those relevated to the lower tier are unhappy about it. This is called discrimination. This is the sole point of the article in MS.

2. BOTH Women and Men face difficult choices in balancing work and family in academia. This is painful to some of them and the choices parents make --or have to make-- may be damaging to children. This is NOT the topic of MS Magazine. It's an important topic, but for another discussion. It is not an issue that Drew Faust can do anything about. In fact Larry Summers did probably as much as any Harvard President could do with the task forces that looked into this issue. University supported changes to marginally diminish the tradeoffs may help men and women --and perhaps women slightly more-- but they won't make a significant difference in the structural sexism discussed in #1.

To confound these two issues is to obscure the serious problems of #1 and to allow them to go unaddressed. This in itself is sexist.

Can you conceive of a parallel line of argument saying that the underrepresentation of minorities in tenured positions at Harvard could be addressed if they had more options for day care available?
 

Richard, in this otherwise excellent discourse on a very important and often widely oversimplified topic, I think you're missing two crucial elements needed to enrich and appropriately complicate your own nuanced position:

1) Women at least get to choose, and men don't know they're implicitly making a choice too?

Ah, come on... Yes, that's partially true, but it's much more pernicious than that.

Society assumes men will choose not to waste time on parenting even if they become parents, and it awards them positions of prestige and power accordingly. Society assumes women can't become parents without wasting such time and thus lowers its expectations of them in the workplace from the beginning, whether or not the women actually do have or expect to have kids.

A man who *wants* to take time off to raise kids has to fight hard to do so and of course gives up prestige and power, along with the automatic reductions in income and promotion opportunities, if he makes that counter-normative choice (which is admittedly hard to make, and which admittedly many men never realize is theirs to make, however hard that may be, if they choose to do so).

But a woman who *does not want* to take time off to raise kids has already, just by being a woman, forfeited the same starting point of power and prestige before her own personal choice ever arose. She will have to fight to get as much of that back as possible, if she dares, and will have to overcome at very long odds before she can benefit from the same self-fulfilling expectations of ability and success that men can take for granted.

In other words, women are penalized up front and have to fight to overcome the penalty if they choose not to take any work time off at all to support their parenting choices; men are only penalized if they make the choice to trade work time for parenting time and otherwise can even have children without ever having to sacrifice their work lives (unless they're unlucky and have unusually needy children, such as those facing overwhelming illness, etc.).

So the difference is really this: a man can "parent" (i.e. biologically have children, and even live in a family setting with them) without sacrificing work time or society's expectations of his uninterrupted power and success. In fact, that's the norm. And in this arena, as is often (but not always) the case, norms are more friendly to men than to women. Having to fight for a self-fulfilling expectation of success is not the same as enjoying it from the beginning as well as not having to sacrifice it even if you do bring children into this world and attend their weddings and graduation ceremonies after years of earning the money and being with them solely on nights and weekends plus the occasional weekday afternoon soccer game or family vacation.

2) You're making huge, unwarranted assumptions about "non-tenure" jobs. Did you know that, at FAS, one can only be a "lecturer" for a limited amount of time, until recently 3 years and now with occasional annual extensions up to potentially 8 years (but definitely no longer, and usually not that long)??? You say that non-tenured academia looks like the ordinary work place. At how many ordinary jobs is one terminated after a (very short!) predetermined time period, despite a record of excellence and even despite even the employing department's desperate pleas of need for that person's skills)? Yes, FAS routinely turns down a department's request to keep lecturer X a little while longer because an important course can't even fit into the teaching schedule next year without him or her. Again, norms are the problem: in the outside world, the norm is not to have tenure, so no one pays an unusual penalty for not having it. In academia, the norm is for thestars to have tenure, so those who don't have it aren't stars and make huge sacrifices compared to those who do. Those same sacrifices are not exacted of the untenured in the ordinary world, because neither stars nor non-stars have tenure. So no, a non-tenured *faculty* job at a research university isn't a good option for either men or women, whether they wish to be active parents or not, unless expect to die in a few years anyway and don't need life insurance to pass on to their heirs.

Reflections about both of these points: Clearly it matters where you start, and where you start depends on how you look relative to existing norms. If you're a promising male, or if you're on a tenure track in a world where tenure is the norm for stars, you appear likely to become a star, and thus you acquire power, prestige and support from these self-fulfilling expectations even while you're only on your way. Of course, some men and some beginners on the tenure track won't eventually become stars, but they'll usually benefit at least at first from the expectation that the odds are good that they will. If you're female, though (especially promising or not), or if you're not on a tenure track in places that do award tenure to their stars, you aren't a star and probably won't be one, either (the odds are against it, even if you as an individual might eventually become an exception). That makes your world very different from day one.

Alas, norms are powerful, and they can really hurt. It's not uncommon for most of us, both those who are hurt and the luckier ones who thrive under the benefits, to be unaware of norms' pernicious effects. Even the victims often endorse the results, just because the results match our expectations and because whatever we expect has a certain ring of acceptability or even inevitability to it. That's why it's easier for men to thrive at work, even if they have kids, and why it's harder for women who might end up having kids and requiring special treatment, whether they actually do or not.
 

Interesting point, Anon 1:52. But don't you think the original Ms article "confounded" the two issues?

In any case, I certainly think it's a complicated situation and my mind is more than open on it. These are interesting posts and I welcome them. I still find a frustrating lack of hard evidence (either way) on the subject, and I'd love it if someone posted whatever data/studies/articles would be informative.
 

Sorry 1.52, these issues are not so clearly divided as you suggest. The fact that those who rise to leadership positions at Harvard --and other universities and institutions-- are not representative of the larger population is part of the problem with how these institutions end up led, and perpetuates in itself a system that makes it impossible for more representative individuals to raise to the top.

As long as it continues to be impossible for women, and men, to live balanced lives, where they can spend time with spouses and children, or engaged in their communities, or enjoying nature, institutions will be led by individuals who are handicapped by their excessive focus. It should not be surprising that these individuals make the errors of judgement that one would find incomprehensible in an ordinary person.

These paths to leadership are analogous to placing a child on a spaceship, sending them on a voyage to rise to the top, and then expect them to return to be able to lead and work with ordinary folk.

Maybe this is why we have wars decided by politicians who have lived their lives on a spaceship.
 

Terrific post, 1:59. Lots to think about.

One quick response—many universities other than Harvard are much more flexible about non-tenured positions. I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it's an interesting difference.

Anyway, thanks so much for such a valuable contribution to the discussion.
 

—As long as it continues to be impossible for women, and men, to live balanced lives, where they can spend time with spouses and children, or engaged in their communities, or enjoying nature, institutions will be led by individuals who are handicapped by their excessive focus.—

Well said.
 

Richard,

You will find interesting evidence on this site:

http://familiesandwork.org/site/about/main.html
 

Richard, where is your 2:06 quote from? I agree, "well said" -- and would like to know who said it! :)
 

Oh, sorry, I see it was Anon. 2:03 -- well put!!
 

Well said bullshit! Why in the hell do you want ordinary people to run Harvard? Are you out of your mind? Leadership is for people who are prepared to make sacrifices to rise to those jobs. This requires focus and hard work. Of course there is not time for family or children or enjoying nature. What are you? hippies?
 

I can assure you that if you run an honest survey among those leading Harvard about their satisfaction with their family lives, only a few will admit to being fulfilled. This is the price of leadership and those who are not prepared to pay it should stay out of the way.
 

Are you saying that the role models that Harvard puts in front of students are emotional screw ups?
 

Was Larry a role model for balance?
 

This link for the summary of interviews from 10:20 does work by the way. You just had to take the period off of the end. http://www.ucop.edu/pressummit/babies.pdf
 

Thanks for the link 3.11pm, it does work and the article is very informative.

You are a very thoughtful and talented woman and should have been a Dean. I hope you will still be one, ideally soon.
 

3.11, are you also the author of 1.59?
 

I agree with 3.16, we just need to hope that things will soon implode with that disaster we have for a Dean.
 

Here's the Yale Alumni Magazine article about tenure and parenting that another poster mentioned. "The Baby Gamble," March/April 2006

http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2006_03/tenure.html

Not sure whether to make anything of the fact that with one or two exceptions, almost everyone quoted is a professor of English; but presumably different disciplines present different challenges. In the sciences, the addition of a lengthy postdoc in between graduate school and junior professorship positions presents women scientists with further structural challenges.

--Former Bulldog
 

http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/
issues/2006_03/tenure.html

(Paste together as one url)
 

Fiat Lux qua Harvard
 

Exactly two years ago, the Task Force on Women Faculty chaired by Evelyn Hammonds released a report that made five key recommendations.

One of them was to launch an intensive program of Universsity Data Collection and reporting on faculty hiring and retention, as well as climate surveys of faculty at all ranks to assess their experience, concerns and perspectives.

Dr. Hammonds was appointed as Vice Provost --this was the first recommendation of the report-- but what has happened with the data collection and reporting?
 

Drew Faust was heavily involved in the Task Forces. It is troubling that there was no progres in data collection and reporting. Is this indicative of her ability to deliver?
 

Put things in perspective, she may have 'delivered' something better than a report in light of the changes subsequent to that report...
 

Be a little patient. She is not the President yet. She has all the qualities necessary for the job: a sharp analytic mind, a broad university-wide perspective, outstanding people skills and a deft administrative style that enables her to get things done. She's also not afraid to take a stand and make tough decisions.
 

London bridge is falling down... faling down... falling down... incompetents run for cover!
 

Drew is also deft fundraising, trust me. Five years ago, Radcliffe's endowment was way below that of the School of Education. Today it is much greater.
 

To Anon 3:18,

No, I'm 1:59 and am not 3:11 -- we're different posters.

But I love the report that 3:11 linked us to -- thanks.

Incidentally, can we please lay off Drew Faust a bit? Talk about expectations...(!) We're either expecting her to fail because she's a woman but not their first choice and they had to settle for her (typical norms biting her in the ankle -- almost all women face this almost all the time), or we're expecting her to save the world because she represents the escape from enslavement for her entire sex and must dazzle to hold up her end of the deal (atypical norms, which will still end up biting her in the ankle -- because no one should have to live up to messiah-like standards).

Can we just give her credit for aspiring to be an ordinarily strong president, with strengths and weaknesses but overall success in her job, just as the norm would be for men?!! Let's not make it worse for her because she's a woman. Let's stop wondering about her being a woman and start treating her, as she herself requested, not as the female president of Harvard but as the president of Harvard. Let's not make the adjective "female" a derogatory qualifier -- let's omit it entirely and let her be president without any prejudged qualifer, just as anyone else would hope to be. And when we ultimately end up praising her strengths (with an occasional regret for whatever weaknesses she ends up displaying, as all humans sometimes do, regardless of gender), let's not attribute either her strengths or her weaknesses to her gender. Let's just let her be a person, a strong one, who is likely to give much to Harvard, as all presidents (even LS!) in fact have, regardless of whatever narrow specifics of her behavior (within a larger picture of overall success) we end up celebrating or deploring from moment to moment because of our own attitudes and wishes regarding specific causes with which she must grapple.

In short, let's accord her the respect we'd accord a man. Let's award her non-gender-specific expectations -- and may all our expectations be positive and self-fulfilling ones!
 

--But a woman who *does not want* to take time off to raise kids has already, just by being a woman, forfeited the same starting point of power and prestige before her own personal choice ever arose.--

Perhaps I'm naive, but I, as a woman, don't forfeit my starting point of power and prestige until the moment I start to believe that the above is actually a true statement.
 

Dr. Hammonds, how about doing something courageous like reporting the data of the climate survey by school and type of faculty? That could be memorable, don't you think?
 

That would be great I think. How about adding the results of the staff survey to that report? Also by gender of respondents?
 

Wowww! what a day that would be at Harvard with all that transparency. How about also reporting the change in the market value of the endowment since the appointment of the respective Deans?
 

And what about student satisfaction? shouldn't that count for something?
 

5:13

Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.

Are you laboring under the assumption that the school was there for students?

No, no, no, my dear.
 

soooo... trying to fix Harvard is akin to Trix Rabbit's struggle to obtain the unobtainable? what a sad comment...
 

but accurate
 

Then let's accept what can't be changed and move on. Time to stop these futile musings about Harvard then. How's baseball?