Despite Romney's remarks, flexible work hours aren't just for women
As I watched the presidential debate last Tuesday night, I had a visceral reaction to Mitt Romney’s comments pertaining to equal pay for women. No, my reaction was not in response to the “binders full of women” nonsense that has now virally infected the online universe. I think it is safe to assume that this comment, offensive and ludicrous as it was, was (to borrow Mr. Romney’s words) “ineloquently stated."
In fact, my reaction stemmed from the comments Mr. Romney made immediately afterward when he told us why he believed he was successful in his efforts to procure “good women” on his cabinet.
He explained:
“I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, ‘I can’t be here until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o’clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school.’ So we said, fine. Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.”
It was at this point in the debate that my blood started to boil and I yelled at the TV so loudly that I woke up my sleeping, school-aged children.
You might ask why I object to Mr. Romney’s seemingly pro-woman, “willing to be flexible” attitude. Isn’t this a good thing that his female workers have his permission to leave work so they can be home at 5 p.m. to cook dinner? Isn’t this an example of progress?
Here’s why I’m furious:
What about the dads? Why don’t we create flexible schedules for fathers with school-aged children and facilitate their ability to cook dinner for their families? Why do we not expect equal household participation from men?
When we talk about “equal rights” for women in America, we are truthfully talking about extra responsibilities for women. It’s fine for women to work outside of the home — as long as they are still cooking, cleaning, and tending to the children.
Nowhere is there any mention of men’s contribution to the family unit. Nowhere does Mr. Romney speak to the role that dads can and should play in the domestic realm. Men can cook. Men can clean. Men can change diapers. Men can drive kids to after-school activities. But in Mr. Romney’s world, one assumes that this does not occur, as the men would be staying at the office until 7 or 8 p.m.
We should not be “making accommodations” for women in the workplace — as if being female was some sort of disability. Rather, if we truly believe in family values we should be crafting flexible work hours so that all parents and guardians can be available to tend to their children.
Mr. Romney may say he wants women to be professionally successful, and have all the benefits that men have in the workplace. However, as long as the domestic expectation lies squarely on women, this will never be the reality.
It is my wish that one day, men will rise up and protest unfair working conditions that keep them excluded from full domestic participation. One day men will lobby for domestic inclusion and demand adequate time to be with their families outside of the office. When that day comes, the rights and responsibilities of women and men will be truly equal.
When that day comes, we can all be home by 5 p.m.
Sonya Lewis is a physician and mother who lives in Ann Arbor with her two daughters and her husband.
Comments
vivian
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 9:08 p.m.
C'mon, Dr. Lewis, you can be honest...you weren't really considering voting for Romney up to the moment that he said that, were you? Somehow I just can't quite believe that his failure to talk about men's roles in the family--in the context of a discussion about hiring qualified women--could have budged anyone from a genuinely undecided position.
bobslowson
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 2:39 p.m.
Romney is a corporate hack jerk. Nothing more, nothing less.
slave2work
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 1:49 p.m.
Sometimes after reading comments, I feel like I have read a whole different article then the others.
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 12:44 p.m.
Sonya, your complaint that Romney didn't discuss men when the question posed to him was about women only betrays your premeditated willingness and eagerness to object. You obviously were just looking for something - anything - to complain about. Why aren't you also upset that he didn't address foreign policy during that answer? Foreign policy wasn't the question, but you don't seem to be interested in the actual context of the question, so what the heck. I think it's fairly safe to assume he is in favor of extending the same privileges to dad as he would to moms.
Veracity
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 5:22 p.m.
Mitt Romney never answered the question but decides to discuss his affirmative action on behalf of women in his cabinet when he was governor. And he did comment on his perception of the different responsibilities of men and women related to family obligations. So Mr. Romney introduced men into the discussion which makes Sonya's comments relevant. By the way, no one should ever try to assume what Mitt Romney favors or does not favor. And what he favors one day he very well may not favor the next day!
Veracity
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 12:59 a.m.
The question that was asked in the second debate regarding women and work was as follows: "How do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the work place? Specifically, regarding females making only 72% of what their male counterparts earn?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XiH5Ya4F8Q Mitt Romney's example of using binders to identify woman capable of being employed in his cabinet, nor any other comments that followed, avoided answering the question. In fact had Mitt Romney had been President in 2009 he would have not signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/mitt-romney-lilly-ledbetter_n_1973446.html Employers, who will punish women (and for that matter men) who wish to perform as responsible parents instead of devoting every waking minute to their jobs, should forbid having a family in their employees' work contracts. These employers should fire any female who dares to become pregnant. Perhaps these employers should insure their investments when hiring women by requiring that they have hysterectomies or implantation of long acting contraceptives. Mitt Romney and the Republican Party, as reflected in the Republican Platform, are not advocates for women or, as a matter of fact, for families. Hopefully, voters will recognize the Republicans recent effort at duplicity in this regard and vote accordingly.
Veracity
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 5:13 p.m.
Basic Bob - Are you sure that you attached your reply to the correct comment? Where in my comment do I suggest that "workers who are inflexible, unreliable, and less productive are paid equally to those who go above and beyond"? I don't! Your description of "less productive" would not qualify for "equal work" in the discussion of differences in pay between men and women.
Basic Bob
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 3:50 p.m.
While I don't agree with Romney, it is you who are being duplicitous in suggesting that workers who are inflexible, unreliable, and less productive are paid equally to those who go above and beyond. Not all Democrats share that value.
talker
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 12:13 a.m.
Mitt and Ann Romney are out of touch with most Americans. The way of life of most Americans is foreign to the Romneys. It was obvious when we were supposed to understand how bad she had it fighting MS while raising sons. I'm sorry she was ill, but I'm more sympathetic to moms and dads with diseases, children, no domestic help, and jobs that require many hours for average wages or less. When I heard talk about accepting women who choose to work, I sensed a time warp and misunderstanding of middle class folks. Some women and some men don't have to work, but most do have to work both inside and outside of the home. Do I marvel at how Ann Romney raised 5 sons, while her husband worked long hours and she chose not to work? Not at all. I suspect she had household servants. I think many middle class women and men realize that to have the choice of whether to work is a luxury they don't have. Sonya Lewis, thanks for the opinion piece. So far, the comments about this thoughtful piece seem to miss the point.
Basic Bob
Sun, Oct 21, 2012 : 6:24 p.m.
This flexibility in work schedules comes at a price, roughly 25% of ones potential earnings. I'm sure that there are some racists and sexists making salary decisions, but in many cases employers must decide who they can count on for unusual work assignments. Out of town travel and extended work hours are demands that some employers make, not because they are uncaring jerks but because they are needed to get the job done. I can tell you that male workers who turn down these requests even once are marginalized in future requests, opportunities, and pay increases. Those who are consistently inflexible are likely to find themselves in positions that fit their personal lifestyle, and frankly pay less.
FredMax
Sun, Oct 21, 2012 : 4:52 p.m.
If you find yourself waking up your school-age children when shouting at the TV, you should seek some help.
Eat Local A2
Sun, Oct 21, 2012 : 4:38 p.m.
It makes perfect sense to be upset about the lack of discussion on men's roles in family and society. Yet when thought through, this issue comes squarely back to policies of President Obama; not on brief remarks from Governor Romney--which cannot logically be taken to imply disagreement with the writer's sentiments--for at least two reasons. One, the immediate question was about women; Mr. Romney answered the question that was posed. Imagine that from a candidate! Wouldn't it be nice if a certain someone else talked about the current state of the economy? Two, political correctness makes it difficult to raise the issue of male responsibility. In "The Life of Julia", the only role males play in this story of Obama's vision to 'correct' America's (non-financial) deficits is when the government ensures she can leverage her father's health insurance in her twenties (by implication he is apparently good for nothing else) and when Julia has a son who grows up without a male role model sharing in raising the child, diapers and all (because there is no mention whatsoever made of a father). The issue raised is indeed a critical one in having a functioning society made better through the strength of families! The hard work in which parents must share, involving tasks both profound and mundane, cannot be replaced by a 'nanny' state. Both Senator Daniel Moynihan from a Democratic perspective and Charles Murray from a conservative perspective have written at length of the terrible consequences of marginalizing men in everyday society.
Veracity
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 1:16 a.m.
Very little of your comment makes sense: What specific policies has President Obama imposed that have a negative impact on men's roles in family and society? Furthermore, President Romney never answered the question about fair pay for women. Check my "Comment" further on for the YouTube reference to the actual question. If you have not heard the President discuss the current state of the economy then you must not be watching television nor reading news periodicals. Your discussion of Julia and her son is confusing and I am sure you meant to complete the last sentence. Finally, what suggests to you that President Obama wishes to impose a "nanny state" and how is the President "marginalizing" men? Without substance, all your allegations are vacuous.