Something to think about

Obama’s Council on Women and Girls
By Lisa Belkin

President Obama has just signed an executive order establishing the “White House Council on Women and Girls.” The purpose of the new group “is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy,” he said at the signing. “Our progress in these areas is an important measure of whether we are truly fulfilling the promise of our democracy for all our people.” He defined those areas as economic security, a balance between work and family, violence against women and women’s health.

In part the council will be a switching station for the existing bureaucracy, getting all Federal agencies to focus on “the challenges confronted by women and girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families,” the White House said. But if it goes beyond that, and creates rather than simply coordinates change, what exactly should that change be? What are the issues and policies today that affect “women and girls” to the exclusion of, or more dramatically than, “men and boys”?

There is no one more vocal than I about the fact that women and men experience the realms of family and work differently (you can find some examples of my thoughts here and here.) But I think that too many of the problems women and girls have in the world stem from the fact that the problems are considered “their” problems — “women’s problems” — rather than problems that both genders share.

Let’s review just a few:

Unequal Pay. This was the first to be tackled by the new administration with the signing of the Ledbetter Act. And certainly this is a concern for women, who still earn less, on average, than men (though the gap has narrowed sharply, and much of the difference is due to different career paths men and women take — more on that below — than on overt discrimination.) Yet to call this a “woman’s problem” is to glide over the fact that the pay difference hurts more than just women. Pay discrimination is a family issue. In a two-parent family, it reduces the income of the entire household, and is often a determinative factor in tipping a single parent family from stable to impoverished.

Maternity leave. By definition this is on a woman’s radar. And the United States lags woefully behind most of the rest of the western world in the amount of time mothers get to take off after giving birth. But we also lag woefully behind in paternity leave, too. And to compartmentalize this as a need only of women, is to leave out nearly half of all parents. Studies show that men already feel stigmatized about taking the minimal leave available to them, and that reluctance hurts who? Among others, women.

Childcare. There is no greater evidence that society still considers children the responsibility of mothers, rather than of parents, than the fact that we call childcare a woman’s issue. It is. Because that’s the way the world currently works. But if the White House council’s only role in this area is to increase child care options for women — rather than also prodding social norms so that it targets more than just women — then it will only have done part of the job.

Work/Life Balance. Today’s workplace is built for a man — requiring the fiercest hours and attention in the early years if you are going to make it up that ladder. Fine for a 1950s man with a wife at home. Tolerable for a 2000s man with a working spouse. Not really okay for a working woman, who, biology dictates, has to use those same early years if she wants to have children.

What women need is a system that allows stepping out and stepping back in without penalty. And for those of us who can’t afford to leave — and that means most of us — we need a system that allows for flexibility and control over our lives. That system must factor in periods of great ambition and achievement, mixed with periods of slow but steady work, all with the understanding that ups and downs make a career, and don’t automatically knock you off the track.

While women have had the more visible juggling act in the past few decades, and have led the demands for change, all they are really asking is to be able to earn a living and care for their children in a ratio that isn’t perfect, but is less lopsided than the status quo. Giving them that means giving it to girls AND boys, too — and to the women AND men they will grow up to be. And a system like that will change men’s lives as well.

What do you think the White House Council on Women and Girls should put on its agenda? Does it matter what the council is called? Or is it only important that they tackle broadly and wisely?

* Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
* Privacy Policy
* NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018