In a Washington Post article thick with both historical references and wonky policy recommendations, Dorothy Sue Cobble writes that women played a key role in the labor reform of the New Deal, and that they are placed to do so again. "New Deal feminists," she says, and those who took up their work-focused advocacy, spearheaded the Equal Pay Act and pushed through a child-care expenses tax reduction. They also successfully campaigned to expand health insurance. Now, says Cobble, feminists could take a cue from their forebears and focus their efforts on greater labor justice across class and gender. She writes,

We need a movement to raise income, to close the gender leisure gap as well as the gender pay gap — still stuck at 23 percent — to redesign careers for modern families and to expand health coverage. [...] But for the movement to grow, it will need to take another page from New Deal feminism: join with others concerned with economic justice and workplace transformation and pay attention to updating and strengthening labor laws. With the rise of managerial, supervisory and contingent work, the FLSA [Fair Labor Standards Act, which set up a minimum wage] and the National Labor Relations Act barely cover half of the private-sector labor force. At the same time, programs such as the child tax credit and support for early education should be extended to the middle class. As New Deal feminists knew, any women's movement that wants to remain relevant needs to advocate for the majority of women — waitress moms as well as soccer moms, corporate executives as well as the immigrant women who clean their homes and care for their children.

Cobble's argument has some troubling elements — she seems to think feminists should stop paying so much attention to abortion because "it is painfully clear that consensus in this country on the issue of abortion rights is impossible at this moment." But she's made one of the most specific and convincing cases yet for the ever-more-urgent need to reform the American workplace. And she points out that such reform should be a broad-based, including not only equal pay and improved health insurance but also flexible hours and protections for all types of jobs.

In fact, the new face of labor reform needs to be about more than labor. The recession has shown that the old model in which employees relied on companies for their health insurance and retirement benefits, and in return often signed away their family lives, doesn't really work anymore. Maybe it never did. What we need now are social programs that decouple a person's basic security from the vagaries of the job market, and a job market that takes into account the need for a balanced life. Women, who both pay more in health care expenses and spend more time caring for family members, are well-placed to advocate for both these goals. And Cobble isn't the only one chronicling their role in labor reform throughout history — David Woolner has a piece on The Huffington Post about women and workplace issues from Eleanor Roosevelt to now — and NOW.

Unfortunately, not everyone got the memo. Shaun Rein has a Forbes article titled "Why Men Don't Promote Women More," and bearing the linkbaity subhead, "Because women aren't pushy enough." He writes,

In my career, I have tended to promote more men than women. I have even generally given men higher salaries. Why? Am I sexist? Do men do a better job? The answer is a resounding no to both.

Actually, it is mostly women's fault. They simply don't ask for raises or promotions as often as men do.

Women, he says, are afraid "they could be fired if they appeared too pushy," but they just need to follow his simple tips to get ahead. One of these, of course, is not dressing too sexy. The other is to ask for a raise or promotion. His pointers for doing the latter aren't bad ones, but the reality is that women are often perceived as pushy where men would be seen as assertive. And they can face negative consequences for this perception. Is part of the answer for all women to be more assertive so that no one stands out? Maybe — but another is for people like Rein, business writers with lots of powerful readers, to examine why women might not ask for promotions rather than just telling them to do so.

Rein writes that many men "said they'd prefer a female boss, because of the greater likelihood she'd understand the need for work-life balance." And having more women in positions of power would be a great step towards the kind of "New Deal feminism" Cobble's talking about. But that's not going to happen as long as male bosses sit back and wait for women to come to them — something that's really just as passive as the behavior Rein accuses female employees of. Part of being a great boss is spotting talent throughout your organization, not just when it's yelling in your face. One day maybe women will yell as loud as men. But until that happens, male and female supervisors can advance the cause of New Deal feminism by actively looking for outstanding women, and by creating the kind of work environment where these women can shine.

It's Time For New Deal Feminism [Washington Post]
Why Men Don't Promote Women More [Forbes]

Dr. Tim Hallett, a sociologist at Indiana University, published the study in the latest issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography along with Dr. Eder and Brent Harger of Albright College. The researchers spent two years studying the group dynamics at a Midwestern elementary school, where they found that not only were the students say cruel things about each other — the teachers, when in a group, were nasty as well.

Kids being mean is one thing — the study transcribes a cafeteria conversation in which a group of eighth-grade girls talk about an overweight classmate, calling her a cow. But what happened when the teachers gossiped, and mocked the principal?

The principal felt that her authority was being undermined by gossip and retaliated against teachers she suspected (correctly) of criticizing her. Teachers and administrators fled the school, and the students' test scores declined.

While I don't condone mean-spirited gossip, I do think that gossip in the workplace can be a good thing. Because gossiping is communicating. Bonding with coworkers over the crap in the vending machine, the new lady in accounting or the new guy in the mailroom can bring you closer together. Dr. Hallett makes this point, saying, according to Science Daily, "Be aware that what is going on is a form of politics and it's a form of politics that can be a weapon to undermine people who aren't present. But it also can be a gift. If people are talking positively it can be a way to enhance someone's reputation."

Can You Believe How Mean Office Gossip Can Be? [NY Times]
Gossip In The Workplace: A Weapon Or Gift? [Science Daily]

The president, after all, is an unabashed First Guy's Guy. Since being elected, he has demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops on ESPN, indulged a craving for weekend golf, expressed a preference for adopting a "big rambunctious dog" over a "girlie dog" and hoisted beer in a peacemaking effort.

He presides over a White House rife with fist-bumping young men who call each other "dude" and testosterone-brimming personalities like Rahm Emanuel, the often-profane chief of staff; Lawrence Summers, the brash economic adviser; and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, who habitually speaks in sports metaphors.

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama's closest advisers form a boys' club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men - not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

This weekend, foreign policy aide Chief Domestic Policy Adviser* Melody Barnes was invited to the party, becoming the first woman to join the golf outings since Obama became President.

Most of the women in the administration quoted in the NYT article didn't feel as though Obama was intentionally excluding them, noting:

In interviews, five women who work in the White House or advised officials there described the culture with more of a collective eye-roll than any real sense of grievance or discomfort. One junior aide, who like the other women spoke on the condition of anonymity because of concerns about appearing publicly critical, said that the "sports-fan thing at the White House" could become "annoying" and that her relative indifference to athletics could be mildly alienating. And while this is not uncommon in any workplace, sports bonding can afford a point of entree with the boss. [...]

Other women in the administration say that any discussion of White House culture should account for how politics has long been dominated by men but is now more inclusive. Ms. Dunn, who had to take a typing test three decades ago to work for a campaign, rejects the notion of a boys' club. She calls the Obama administration "refreshingly un-self-conscious" about matters of equality, maybe to a point where they neglected the "optics" of the all-male basketball game.

Ms. Dunn said that she recently hosted a baby shower for an administration official and that no men from the office were invited. She is comfortable with that - just as she is fine with never playing basketball with the president.

"That is just part of the culture here that I am excluded from," she said. "And I don't care."

So if they don't care, should we?

I think so. I can definitely understand how many women may not be interested in playing sports at work; however, having read dozens of books, hundreds of articles, and attended conferences on how women and minorities advance in the workplace, this question shifts a little. It isn't quite a question of opportunity, as much as it is a question of access. And doing things like going golfing with the boss are part of the traditional path to access. This is one of the opportunities for your boss or potential client to get to know you outside of a business capacity, which may make a crucial difference in decisions about projects and promotions.

The Obama Administration has shown its commitment to women on many different levels, so I'm willing to assume the best on this count. But this recent attention is actually a valuable reminder to watch the traditional paths to power. After all, adequate representation is only half of the battle - do women hold enough clout and access to make major decisions and to push forward their own ideas?

*Correction - Melody Barnes' title was misidentifed in one of the source articles from this morning, and I copied that title over here. I regret the error.

Man's World at White House? No Harm, No Foul, Aides Say [NY Times]
A First For Obama: Woman Joins Presidential Golf Outing [Washington Post]

Shriver's report is fascinating, in that it shows 75% of Americans taking a positive view of an increasing female presence in the workplace, and a desire by both men and women to work together to come up with a way to balance work, childcare, and paying the family bills. Interestingly enough, "Sixty-five percent of men and women surveyed felt that the decrease in children growing up with a stay-at-home parent has been somewhat or very negative for American society," though the solution, amongst those surveyed, doesn't appear to be "Well, make the women stay home," as much as a desire for employers to consider more flexibility in hours, better benefits, and more realistic view on what it means to be an American family in today's society. As Heather Boushey, of the Center for American Progress tells Allison Linn of MSNBC, "We live in a world that is designed for one kind of family that no longer really exists."

Poll Finds Wide Support For Women At Work [MSNBC]

My first reaction was, admittedly, confusion, and also a sense that perhaps maternity leave was being played up as a vacation of sorts, as opposed to a time of adjusting to having a new child in the home and recovering from pregnancy and giving birth. However, Sam Baker of Red Magazine tells Wallop: "This isn't a working mum versus working non-mums argument. Nobody thinks maternity leave is a holiday. Employers, especially now, need to incentivise their staff in imaginative ways and that could involve offering leave. Some companies are already doing this."

Wallop sites one company, BT, that "offered its staff the right to take a year off, in return for taking a 75 per cent pay cut," a move that allows a "maternity leave" of sorts, for an extremely reduced salary, in order to cut costs for the company, allow workers to opt for time off and still maintain a job to return to—hopefully in a better economic climate. However, there is nothing in Wallop's piece about the benefits given to these employees, and I"m still not sure how, exactly, this matches up with a traditional maternity leave.

What do you think, commenters? Should a leave of absence be made available to all women, or does this make maternity leave seem like a vacation instead of a time of stress and physical recuperation? [Women Without Children Should Be Allowed Maternity Leave, Survey Says [Telegraph]

[Image via CPSU]

Reuters says the survey, conducted by at Zürich-based human resources company, found that 53% of Americans think their bosses are dishonest. Specifically, 28% think their superiors are lying about their job security. A majority also think their bosses are unfair and disloyal. Oddly, two thirds of Americans would not change anything about their relationship with their boss, implying that we're all just used to a Kafkaesque work environment of backstabbing and deceit.

Possibly lending credence to the idea that bosses suck is another survey, showing that 22% of female executives have withheld a promotion or raise because of the way an employee dressed. In the same survey, 98% of women said their appearance affects their career, and 55% said they frequently felt like they had nothing to wear.

My current work uniform includes: sweatpants, a Snuggie (oh yeah), socks (it's cold in here), and a t-shirt with a picture of a dirt bike and the phrase "Personal Watercraft: Spend money in a royal style" (it was a gift). So I guess I'm in the lucky 2% of women for whom appearance doesn't matter. Then again, Anna H. probably just made these surveys up. What is "Reuters" anyway?

Workers Think Bosses Are Dishonest, Survey Says [Reuters]
U.S. Working Women See Appearance As Key: Survey [Reuters]

In the Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Kelan's article ""Gender Fatigue: The Ideological Dilemma of Gender Neutrality and Discrimination in Organizations," cuts right to the heart of the issue:

Dr. Kelan found that workers acknowledge gender discrimination is possible in modern organizations, but at the same time maintain their workplaces to be gender neutral. The author notes, "gender fatigue" as the cause for workers not acknowledging that bias against women can occur. [...]

Employees from both companies claimed their organizations were gender neutral and that employees were evaluated based on merit. With further questioning, men and women interviewed could describe past situations where gender bias occurred against women, but limited it to happening 10 to 20 years ago, from contacts outside their own organizations (i.e. customer contacts), or to an isolated male colleague from an "older" generation. "Instead of denying gender discrimination, workers acknowledge it can happen but construct it as singular events that happened in the past, placing the onus on women to overcome such obstacles," stated Dr. Kelan. [...]

The problem with gender fatigue is that it prohibits productive discussion regarding inequalities between men and women, making gender bias difficult to address," noted Dr. Kelan. "Future studies should explore what happens to gender fatigue over time and whether practical strategies can be developed to shape the way in which people in organizations speak about gender."

In the interest of helping with Dr. Kelan's research, I'll throw this one out the room - has the perception "gender fatigue" stopped you from bringing up issues of gender discrimination?

Gender discrimination still a factor in modern organizations — 'that's what she said' [Eureka Alert]

The Good Wife, which premiers tonight, follows political wife Alicia Florrick (Margulies) as she rebounds from her husband's sex scandal. He's a state's attorney turned jailbird, and she goes from stay-at-home mom to lawyer with the help of an old friend from law school. Soon she takes on a murder case and, "baggage" aside, begins to "hunt for hair samples and missing security-camera tapes" with the best of them.

Back in real life, political wife Jenny Sanford will publish her book in May 2010. Her publisher says the memoir "will grapple with the universal issue of maintaining integrity and a sense of self during life's difficult times." Maintaining integrity may be a universal issue — but unlike Jenny Sanford (who is currently separated from her husband),many divorced women need to find a way of maintaining food on the table as well. And not all of them bounce back into the workforce as easily as Alicia Florrick.

Dana Goldstein tackles this issue in the American Prospect. She writes,

But what happens to the real-life Alicia Florricks — the women who attempt to claw back to the top after years or even decades at home with the kids? For one thing, their income suffers: A woman can expect her salary to drop by 2 percent for each year she stays home from work. That means a woman who earned $80,000 10 years ago, then quit her job, can expect her new salary to be $64,000.

Goldstein also cites Leslie Bennetts, of Feminine Mistake fame, who tells this cautionary tale about the perils of looking for work after a long time at home:

One high-powered woman had opted out of her career for a short time but started trying to get back in when her husband left her for a younger woman. Despite years of effort, she has never succeeded. She finally found a teaching job that pays one-eighth of what she was earning 20 years ago. Her ex-husband has long failed to pay the child support he owes her, a six-figure sum she is now trying to chase down with expensive legal help. She has a lot of company; nearly 70 percent of child-support cases in this country have arrears owed to the custodial parents, who are overwhelmingly female-one of several reasons why men's standard of living rises after divorce while that of women and children typically plummets.

Of course, divorce isn't the only factor now facing stay-at-home moms. As Steven Greenhouse of the Times wrote on Saturday, the recession is imperiling men's jobs and forcing more women to look for work — not always with great results. Bennetts calls the Times story a "feeble attempt at catch-up," given the newspaper's much-criticized coverage of the so-called "opt-out revolution" six years ago. She writes,

For the major media that romanticized opting out as the soothing solution to the stress of juggling work and family, the devastation that choice has left in its wake represents merely another story. But for the women who got sold a bill of goods and gambled their futures without understanding the risks they were taking, losing that bet turned out to be the biggest mistake of their lives. Those who encouraged them to do so have a lot to answer for.

There's no doubt that some women in America have lost out by opting out. And while the original Times piece could have included a little more criticism and a little less trend-spotting, the real enemy of moms both divorced and married is an economic system that forces people to choose between work and child care, and then penalizes those who have ever chosen the latter. But if the recession is indeed forcing women back to work, maybe this will change.

Like the fictional Alicia Florrick, the real Trudi Foutts Loh found a job through a law school friend after years as a stay-at-home mom. She's one of the lucky ones — but she has friends too, and maybe the recession will create a network of moms to rival the old boys. And maybe these moms will have a better understanding of how to allow their employees to have family lives, and how to use the skills of people who have been out of the office for a while. Of course, this is a long way off — but everyone from CBS to the Times is talking about women "opting back in." And if the media can influence us for ill, as Bennetts says, maybe it can also influence us for good.

The Wrong Side Of The Mommy Track [American Prospect]
Recession Drives Women Back To The Work Force [NYT]
Wife Of Scandal-Plagued S.C. Governor Plans Memoir [Reuters]
'Wife' To 'Cougar,' These Are Women To Watch [Washington Post]
Good Wife [NYT]
The Downside Of Opting Out [Daily Beast]

[Tokyo, September 15. Image via Getty]

TOKYO - SEPTEMBER 15: A child makes a hamburger as she plays the role of a hamburger shop clerk during their work experience activities at KidZania on September 15, 2009 in Tokyo, Japan. KidZania offer children more than 50 career experiences with parents not allowed to help their children during 30 minutes long activities. Kidzania have been fully booked every day since its opening in 2006. (Photo by Kiyoshi Ota/Getty Images)

First, some background. I'm generally an introvert by nature, and I converted myself into an extrovert sometime in high school. It was not a simple process, and my introvert self manifests in some weird ways. (Example: Most of my friends know that if they haven't heard from me in a few weeks, it just means I'm in need of alone time, not that I'm dead.) So, going up to complete strangers and trying to talk yourself up seemed like a horrifying proposition under the best of circumstances. Doing something like this in a work context was even more mortifying, and I openly envied the skills of my boyfriend and close friends, who seemed to have no problems at all starting up conversations with the people next to them on the bar stool, the bus, or in line at a concert.

But, unfortunately, we can't escape networking. The idea that we have to network, network, network is a staple of career advice, but they never explain exactly how we are supposed to go about this. It's great to say "be where the people are," but then what do you say to them? These career articles never seem to focus on the talking part. So, here are some quick tips on networking, from an fake extrovert who still finds herself nervously fiddling with a drink before she can put on her game face:

• Focus on Making Friends
  There seems to be this idea that networking means you always work the room, schmoozing and handing out business cards like there is no tomorrow. This does not work for me. The only time I ever feel compelled to work a room is when we host a Racialicious meet up. Other than that, I'm cool. But one of the tactics I've found to take the pressure off of networking is to go to events and try to locate one person that you want to talk to. Instead of rushing around and trying to meet everyone, focus on two to three people you would like to get to know. For example, I was at Feminism 2.0, just listening to the speakers, and heard girl pipe up that she worked in video games. After the session was over, I made a beeline to her seat and introduced myself as a fellow girl gamer.

  The person I made friends with that day was Tina Tyndal, and she ended up introducing me to her world of gaming professionals. And while I have more fun with Tina's crazy personality, it also helps that she is able to point me toward getting more involved with the gaming world.

• Use Tools
  Some times, networking isn't as much about meeting new people as it is about keeping in touch with those you already know. A while ago, I had designs on working for the Discovery Channel. They had a job that looked tailor-made for me, and I was raring to get into the company. But my resume didn't reflect my digital knowledge, and I really wanted to meet with someone in human resources there who could explain my chances. I went to LinkedIn, and searched for "Discovery Channel" to see if there was anyone close to someone in my network who worked there. Lo and behold, one of my old coworkers currently had a job there. We hadn't spoken in a few years, but it was a lot easier shooting off an email to him than to someone I had never met.

  
  

• Force Yourself to Make Three Openings
  A long time ago, when I was so broke I tried to work as a telemarketer, I learned something from the training that has always stuck with me. The trainers at the company made sure to stress that you always should attempt to get in "three asks." Before someone hangs up the phone, you need to ask them to try the product at least three times before admitting defeat. Unfortunately, I wasn't great at harassing people to purchase magazine subscriptions, so I only lasted a day. However, that three asks idea stuck with me, and I started re-inventing the rule for various scenarios.

  In networking in a new environment, I always try to make three openings. Normally, I'm slightly uncomfortable and sitting back against the wall nursing a drink. But by implementing the three openings rule, I force myself to approach three people, and try to initiate conversations with them using three different topics. (Why three different topics? The first one doesn't always catch, leaving awkward silence.) After that, if I completely strike out, I'm free to hang on the wall with my drink. But what normally happens is that at least one person is receptive to the opening, and then I have a hang buddy. Or, best case scenario, I chat up the right person who will make all the introductions for me. Sweet!

• Plan Ahead
  Before going to a conference or event, try to get some information. Who else is attending? Is anyone else you know going? Can you bring a friend? Is there anyone speaking that you are going to really want to pitch yourself/your product to? Be prepared - it's a helpful way to combat nervousness.

  
  

• Make the Most of Your Downtime
  A few years ago, I read Keith Ferrazzi's Never Eat Alone: And Other Secrets to Success, One Relationship at a Time. The book was a worthwhile read, but it was his title idea that made the most impact on me. After one particularly fruitful conference, I was having a hard time trying to remember to contact all the people I met on business cards. Ferrazzi's tip was to schedule lunch meetings, calls, and other types of relationship maintenance when you are otherwise idle. So you grabbing a sandwich turns into an hour long catch-up session at Cosi, and you being stuck waiting for the bus can be turned into time when you are talking to someone you met at an event. Quality relationships do require some nurturing, but if you are smart about your time, it's much less painful.

  
  

• Think of Networking as "Paying It Forward"
  A lot of people - especially women - have problems talking themselves up. It feels like bragging or boasting, and some people just are not comfortable with that. And that's fine. So instead of thinking about networking as a way to promote yourself, think of it in terms of being able to do favors for others. How can you help someone? Can you connect your friend who wants to do more advertising for her business with a friend that does graphic design? Or connect a show producer with someone you know would be an interesting guest? Then there you are.

  I say think of it as "paying it forward" because regarding networking as a series of favors does not lend itself to a tit for tat trade-off. Think of it as banking favors from the universe. If you have a request of someone you've done a favor for, by all means, ask them, but don't have any expectations that they will do so. Instead, focus on connecting people in need - I find that is a great way to keep people thinking of you, and trying to figure out how to repay the favor.

• Accept Invitations
  Just go. Go out. When someone says let's go somewhere, force yourself to go. A lot of times, our personal networks are limited because we just don't know that many people. So the solution to this? Meet more people. Don't worry if the first few times, you're just showing up. Get your three openers in and keep showing up. Eventually, you'll start to meet people who are moving in the same circles. I dragged my friend Tina to a writer's meet up, where she didn't know anyone and I met quite a few cool people, while reconnecting with some other folks I knew. At that meet up, I banged into Nisha Chittal, who runs Politicoholic and recently moved to the area to continue her total domination of all things tech and politics. Though I didn't know her, I remembered her photo from her site and talked to her for a few.

  The next week, Tina dragged me to a tech meet up where I thought I didn't know anyone. Then, Nisha came in through the door and introduced me to Shireen Mitchell a.k.a Digital Sista. And, as I was walking around in search of a chair, I ran into Kety Esquivel of Cross Left and NCLR, who I had last seen at South by Southwest.

  After a while, you become an accidental regular.

• If You Admire Someone, Let Them Know
  I was in the middle of working on a paper on race, video games, and digital space when suddenly my blackberry started going off. In the same day, I got five separate emails from friends and readers all asking me the same question: Did I know Celestine Arnold? One friend was even launched a playful jab - "You better get on your grind, LP, someone's about to take your spot!"

  At that point in time, I wasn't aware of any other black women talking about video games in the public sphere. So, I looked her up. She had rocked her speech at PSFK and had been making huge moves in marketing and branding. I felt a quick stab of professional envy and quashed it just as fast. That competitiveness between women and people of color is encouraged, many times in the hopes that we will focus on taking each other out. So I shook it off, googled her a bit, found her email address and shot off an introduction and congratulations. And what do you know? She wrote back, and is every bit as awesome in person as she appears online.

Any tips from your own experiences? Something I forgot to address? Leave them in the comments.

Official Site [New Demographic]
Game On! Working in the Video Game Industry [Tina Tyndal's Blog]
Official Site [LinkedIn]
Never Eat Alone [Amazon]
Official Site [Politicoholic]
Official Site [Shireen Mitchell]
Official Site [Cross Left]
PSFK Conference New York Speaker: Celestine Arnold [PSFK]

The Forbes piece rehashes what I've seen in a thousand other articles about women in the workplace. The article opens with this story:

When Marny Lifshen, a 40-year-old Texan and mother of two, began her career as a marketing and PR coordinator at a law firm some 20 years ago, she made a big mistake: not negotiating a fair salary. Her error set a precedent that followed her for nearly two decades.

"To some degree that has limited the amount of money I make today," Lifshen admits. "I didn't have the guts [to ask for more money]. I knew I was worth more."

As usual, the focus falls solely on the shoulders of Lifshen. No mention is made of the social penalty that women face for negotiating, or how aggressive negotiation may change how people perceive Lifshen at the office.

I've already come to terms with the fact that I will never be a "nice girl" (and maybe that wasn't in the cards for me anyway, considering the attendant stereotypes that hover around black women). However, the shifts in perception and attitude toward women who negotiate is more than just an annoyance: it's actually costing us money.

The Forbes piece then meanders into ideas on how women can better communicate:

One 32-year-old recruiter from New York, who chose not to give her name because she is starting a new job this month, was ostracized by many of her former colleagues because of her undiplomatic communication style.

"I tended to speak from the 'I' voice too often," she says, when calling out other people's perceived shortcomings, especially when upset. By voicing such statements as "I don't understand what you're driving at" rather than "Here's what can happen if we're not clear on this issue," the recruiter contends that she was seen as a complainer and not as an effective problem-solver, a quality closely associated with executive leadership.

Do they tell this to men? Because I have yet to work with a male supervisor who has issues using the "I" voice, as in "I see you fucked this up - go fix it."

They also warn women against gossiping at work. No, I'm not kidding.

But fine, whatever. This Forbes piece won't be the last article peddling a bunch of watered-down advice for women in the workplace. It's a little too easy to spend this whole post just nitpicking at something that has been taken down before.

So let's shift focus. I wrote a similar take down piece on the wage gap and watched the comment thread with interest.

And some of you really expressed reservations about what was covered in the wage gap post: namely being aggressive and sharing your salary information. We're going to parse this out a bit more and I will share some resources and techniques that may help you in the work place.

For Everyone

It's time to take stock. The most important thing in a negotiation is to be honest with yourself. How much money are you currently making and how much do you think you should be compensated? Don't just pull a number out of the air. Do some research on various sites to see what similar jobs pay. Go to Monster, indeed, Payscale, and Craigslist. Look at your job as well as jobs that are similar. What is the common pay range? Where do you fall?

Tap your networks. The best way to get current salary information is to actually speak to people doing similar jobs. Some of you were a little jumpy at violating company policy. But let me tell you something - it's company policy, not law. Think what you will about Penelope Trunk, but she is dead on when she says:

I mean, who is being protected by secret salaries? Certainly not the employee-the more transparent salaries are, the more accurately an employee can assess his or her value to a company.

You'd think that companies benefit from secret salaries and that's why they keep them secret, but really, if salaries were 100% accurate-perfectly pegged at the employee's worth to the company-then the company would have no problem revealing all salaries.

The only people who benefit from secret salaries is the human resources department. If they make an error, they can hide it. No one will know. And then they can make ten errors. Because no one knows if the secret salaries are hiding one error or one hundred.

Refusing to discuss your salary is not helping you. Start talking about it. However, with times as they are, there are more subtle ways to go about investigating.

Best Case Scenario: Find a close friend and confidant working in the same industry. If you can find this person at your own company, even better. This person needs to be similarly career minded, but not so competitive you try to take each other out. Discuss with them your salary, bosses, and negotiation tactics. The key to this relationship is two-fold: (1) Only engage in friendly competition - if you are actively competing for the same things without a solid base, you are on shaky ground. Friends can become enemies, so choose wisely. (2) Ensure that they are trustworthy first. If you wouldn't tell this person about your private life, don't talk to them about salary.

Next Best Scenario: Network aggressively and make sure you are involved in the world of your business. You need to be connected. This benefits you in multiple ways, not just on the salary quest. (For one thing, you can leverage your connects to help find a new job.) On this type of mission, you aren't looking for friends - you want friendly associates. Don't be shocked if most people are initially coy about how much they make. You need to establish that you are trustworthy and many people are uncomfortable discussing salary. But don't sweat that - you only need four or five people to confide a range for you to get a clear picture. At one industry meetup I attended, I learned that the average intro salary women were making in that realm hovered around 35K. The lowest paid main? About 40K. You want to know these things going in.

Next Scenario: So you are too shy to network, or you still weren't able to get a clear picture. Now you have to fall back to research. Start Googling people who work in your industry and see if any of them dropped numbers. Check message boards and gossip sites and personal blogs. Also, reach out to more outgoing friends and ask them to inquire for you. You also may want to keep up your relationships in the office. An HR clerk may keep their lips zipped while they still work at your company, but if they leave and head some where else, they may be willing to spill a bit over a drink.

In addition to salary check, you need to do a self-check. Are you really a good employee, or did you blow your last three deadlines? How much does your boss ask for your opinion on situations? Do you really need more money, or do you really just want some additional time off? Once you understand what you want and need, you can set some clear boundaries for negotiation. You also need to evaluate how much you can risk. The bigger the risk you take, the higher the potential reward, but sometimes you can't afford to gamble.

If you feel like you are not in a position to walk away from a job or offer, don't pull an all or nothing negotiation where you are trying to force your boss' hand. That only works when you have the absolute upper hand, and even then it can fail. Instead, rechannel your energy. Where can you reduce costs to put yourself in a better financial situation and what can you propose that may involve hours or workspace that would make your job easier? And if you are over a barrel, take some time to puzzle through and reflect. What is the absolute worst thing that would happen if you were fired? How would you live? How would you eat? Seriously. If you were fired, you would have to start puzzling through the problems - so get a jump on it. Looking at the worst case might actually spark some ideas on pathways out of desperation and toward a better negotiation.

For Beginners
Are you new to the world of work? Are you grappling with the knowledge that you should ask for more money or to reshuffle your workload, but can't bring yourself to do it? Do you have problems applying career advice to your life? Try checking out Ronna Lichtenberg's Pitch Like a Girl.

Lichtenberg's book is excellent for people just starting to ask themselves the larger questions about their careers. Pay special attention to her section on internalizing stereotypes, where she explains:

The stereotypes our culture has about women, both positive and negative, also have a powerful effect on how we think about ourselves and others: nurture matters at least as much as nature. Because stereotypes shape expectations and set limitations, they can, if you let them, hold you back. The weight of other people's beliefs about you sometimes feels like an anchor around your leg: the weight of "their" prospective approval or disapproval can cost you time, energy, and opportunity. That is our enemy.

Lichtenberg breaks down the common issues women have with stereotypes and internal fears. Have you ever said any of these to yourself?

"I don't deserve what I want because I'm afraid it's bad to want it."
"I don't have any accomplishments."
"If I just try hard enough, someone will notice my work, right?"
"I hate talking about money."

If you've said any of these, try Lichtenberg's book.

Advanced

Do you have a good grip on what you want and just need a little more guidance on how to get it? Do you want to learn how to take big risks? Are you intrigued by the concept of failing forward? Then you should try Christine Comaford-Lynch's Rules for Renegades.

I can't describe the book any better than Publisher's Weekly:

High school dropout turned self-made multimillionaire and five-time CEO, Comaford-Lynch presents an upbeat, irreverent business book for entrepreneurs, free spirits and eponymous renegades. Focusing on passionate young people who have grit and vision but limited experience and/or resources, the author presents practical, step-by-step advice for starting a company, making it in a cutthroat environment and reaching life goals in record time, while recounting her entertaining, often hilarious life story. To some extent, all first-time CEOs are making it up as they go along, she says. Sure enough, she's found herself brazening her way through plenty of bizarre and touching situations: hiring employees before she actually has a firm; posing as a man to score a programming job in the macho world of '80s Microsoft; dating Bill Gates to learn confidence; making (and losing) millions of dollars through guts, sales know-how and force of personality. Emphasizing visualization and self-confidence, she tackles the spiritual issues of prosperity as well as the down-and-dirty details of payroll and writing a killer business plan. Entrepreneurs and leaders at all levels of their careers will find this inspiring, rags-to-riches story as pleasurable to read as it is thought provoking. (Sept.)

Comaford-Lynch's book is on my all time favorites list for many different reasons, and, though it is geared toward entrepreneurs, career-minded corporate climbers can easily tweak her recommendations and stories to fit their needs. You can even sample what she's offering. The Rules for Renegades site has a bunch of free (with registration) resources for download, including:

• A Pitch Critique Template
• A Format for Effective Board Reporting (which can also be used for your annual review)
• A Presentation on Positioning Your Product or Service (or yourself)

If you are looking to up your game or transition into entrepreneurship, Rules for Renegades is the book for you.

These are some tactics to get around the issues of discussing salary and negotiation, one of the ways to make a dent in your own personal wage gap. Now, changing society so that we are no longer faced with this problem? That's going to take a lot more effort.

Self-Sabotage At Work [Forbes]
Salary, Gender and the Social Cost of Haggling [Washington Post]
Figure Out How Much You Should Be Paid (and Three Cheers for Transparent Salaries) [Brazen Careerist]
Pitch Like a Girl [Amazon]
Rules for Renegades [Amazon]
Resources [Rules for Renegades]

Earlier: The Truth About the Wage Gap

UPI summarizes the University of Minnesota study, which makes the point that the stereotype of sexual harassment focuses on women being manipulated by higher ups, but women supervisors seem to be bearing the brunt of the harassment:

Fifty percent of women supervisors, but one-third of women who do not supervise others, reported workplace sexual harassment, U.S. researchers said. "This study provides the strongest evidence to date supporting the theory that sexual harassment is less about sexual desire than about control and domination," study primary investigator Heather McLaughlin of the University of Minnesota said in a statement. "Male co-workers, clients and supervisors seem to be using harassment as an equalizer against women in power."

In addition to this grim news, the study also includes more disturbing information about the second most prevalent type of harassment:

The sociologists found that, in addition to workplace power, gender expression was a strong predictor of workplace harassment. Men who reported higher levels of femininity were more likely to have experienced harassment than less feminine men. More feminine men were at a greater risk of experiencing more severe or multiple forms of sexual harassment (as were female supervisors).

In a separate analysis examining perceived and self-reported sexual orientation, study respondents who reported being labeled as non-heterosexual by others or who self-identified as non-heterosexual (gay, lesbian, bisexual, unsure, other) were nearly twice as likely to experience harassment.

Strangely enough, there just is not good advice for workers dealing with harassment in the workplace. Women already have to deal with the to-bitch-or-not-to-bitch conundrum, which holds that women supervisors are too emotional to lead and when they do show initiative are seen as overly aggressive or mean. Or, we are self-sabotaging ourselves by being too nice, while we are trying to distance ourselves from the bitch label.

Even Pink, the only magazine I am aware of that focuses specifically on women in business internalizes the criticism, admonishing women to "Polish Your Act: Does Your Management Style Need a Makeover?"

These types of articles don't attack the reasons behind harassment, only noting that it occurs and it is helpful to try to deal with it as best we can. Pink published another article, specifically dealing with harassment noting:

FORGET THE TIRADE. Rather than huff and holler when slapped with a discriminatory comment, take the high road in the moment. "My goal is to appeal to the reasonable people in the room and handle myself with class," says Theragenics CEO Christine Jacobs, who recently dealt with one inappropriate remark by remaining silent at the time but later reporting the behavior to the company's chairman. Other people complained as well and the offender was reprimanded.

EDUCATE WITH EMPATHY. When confronted with an inappropriate comment, calmly reply, "How would you feel if someone said that to your daughter?" That's what one former trade magazine editor wishes she had said when her boss jokingly suggested she lay across his lap during a photo shoot. "It shook my confidence," recalls the woman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It was also revealing. I could never look at him the same way and believe he was truly championing me."

However, in the same article, an expert Pink quotes explains that men have problems seeing women outside of the realm of wives, mothers, and daughters. Would invoking the idea that men in the workplace should treat women in the way they would (hopefully) treat their daughters actually help associate women with the daughter/mother/wife roles we are trying to break out of?

The most straight forward advice about dealing with harassment comes from Penelope Trunk, who doesn't think you should report your harassment. She points out that human resources is going to try to protect the company, and most of these cases are very difficult to prove. She also warns career women about the threat of retaliation, and rightfully illustrates explaining that what you lose by taking a stand often outweighs what you gain. However, her ultimate solution leaves me cold. Trunk suggests leveraging the sexual harassment in your favor to move up the corporate ladder. But Trunk also makes the assumption that the harassment is tolerable, which may not be the case.

Ultimately, as long as sexual harassment has been a problem, I am amazed that the onus is always on women to change or adapt to the behavior. Where are the anti-harassment guides aimed at men? And where are the articles that advise men to stop using sexual intimidation to retaliate against successful women in the workplace?

Study: Sexual Harassment Not About Sex [UPI]
Female Supervisors More Susceptible To Workplace Sexual Harassment [Eureka Alert]
Polish Your Act [Pink]
Attitudes toward Women As Managers: Still The Same - Few Women Hold Executive Positions - Women In Business [BNET]
Women Managing Women - Problem Areas Women Leaders Encounter [Inc.]
Sweating The Small Stuff [Pink]
Don't Report Sexual Harassment (In Most Cases) [Brazen Careerist]

Though the job of flattering men in bars for a fee used to be stigmatized, a salary that can easily reach $100,000 a year is looking pretty good to Japan's young women — especially because they currently have few other options. "Even before the economic downturn," says Hiroko Tabuchi in today's Times, "almost 70 percent of women ages 20 to 24 worked jobs with few benefits and little job security," and things are even worse now. High school girls rated hostessing the 12th most popular profession, and a former hostess is now a member of the Japanese Parliament. Another hostess, 27-year-old Eri Momoka, is now a celebrity with her own fashion line and TV show. She says,

I often get fan mail from young girls in elementary school who say they want to be like me. To a little girl, a hostess is like a modern-day princess.

And popular hostesses do get parties thrown in their honor, free drinks, and lots of attention. Still, their job is to give attention, which can be exhausting. Though they aren't expected to have sex with clients, they do often go on after hours dates with them, and their jobs can require staying out drinking until dawn. Hostess Serina Hoshino says of her well-paid but exhausting job, "It's nice to be independent, but it's very stressful."

Although hostesses aren't prostitutes, the questions raised by their job are similar to those that surround sex work in the US. If a job entails currying favor with men, is it inherently antifeminist? What if it offers women economic independence that they wouldn't have otherwise? These questions represent something of a false choice. In any economy, there will probably be a demand for sex work, and hostessing in Japan isn't going anywhere anytime soon. But no woman should have to see either prostitution or hostessing as her only route to financial solvency. As hostess expert Atsushi Miura says, "Some people still say hostesses are wasting their life away. But rather than criticizing them, Japan should create more jobs for young women."

Young Japanese Women Vie For A Once-Scorned Job [NYT]

Smith (pictured at center, looking weirdly like a friendlier Anna Wintour) says that as managers, "hands down women are better. There's no contest." It's good to hear, especially in light of last year's study purporting to show that women have more problems with female bosses. Smith elaborates,

In my experience, female bosses tend to be better managers, better advisers, mentors, rational thinkers. Men love to hear themselves talk. I'm so generalizing. I know I am. But in a couple of places I've worked, I would often say, "Call me 15 minutes after the meeting starts and then I'll come," because I will have missed all the football. I will have missed all the "what I did on the golf course." I will miss the four jokes, and I can get into the meeting when it's starting.

Sure, she's generalizing, but her generalizations fly in the face of the idea that women are always chatting with each other instead of getting things done, and so they're kind of refreshing. She also says she's "a really good confronter," and that female bosses, "if we have a problem - again, as a generalization - we will confront the problem and deal with it head-on." She explains:

Confrontation - meaning, "You didn't do a good job. That presentation was bad. It didn't work, and here's why it didn't work" - is so much better than walking away from a sales call saying, "Great. Got to get back to the office, O.K.?" It's better for everyone and I've never understood why people won't do it.

Smith does seem, in general, to tell it like it is. In a February interview, Lauren Streib of Forbes asked her, "Do you anticipate Elle's advertising growth to continue?" Smith said bluntly,

No. That's easy. Who's growing? Where's the growth? Even Google's not growing.

And of fashion mags in general, she said,

Our spring was down 22%. I expect full year to be down 15%. I do not think we will recover for the fall. My fall issue closes right in June, and I feel as if retailers are going to keep their inventories down, which means cash is going to be limited. Bottom line: You won't see those big fat issues for a while. There are too many magazines; there are probably too many fashion brands right now. Talk about survival of the fittest.

Recent news indicates that women may actually be better confronters, especially of harsh economic realities. In a piece for Double X, Moe writes about Sheila Bair, "the only government regulator in either administration who can credibly claim to have seen the [financial] crisis coming," and about Meredith Whitney, who "declared Citigroup effectively insolvent in October 2007." Moe writes,

Whitney not only knew when the bust was coming and that Citi would be first to fall-"Hubris is the cause of management mistakes 90 percent of the time," she told Business Week in 2007-she actually had seen it coming two years before, and written about it in a comprehensive October 2005 report on the coming recession. Back then she predicted the economic downturn would be spurred by banks extending "new and unprecedented access to credit" to a swath of Americans living just above poverty level.

What tipped Whitney off? Hurricane Katrina. She said in 2006,

So many Americans saw a side of the U.S. economy that I don't think many of us had seen before or had really digested. It challenged me to drill down deeper into the analysis of who was at risk in terms of any type of consumer softening, or a potential recession.

Enron whistleblower Sherron Watkins has an explanation for why women were the first to speak out about the impending financial crisis. Moe writes that there's "a distinction between the types of risk one takes with encouragement from an audience, and the types of risk one takes in spite of the disapproval of the audience. Watkins calls these 'arena risk' and 'moral risk.' Women, she contends, are more likely to take the latter form of plunge." That is, women may be more likely to speak up in times when doing so has no direct benefit to them, when they may even incur kill-the-messenger wrath.

Moe cites a scientific study to back this up, and all makes women look pretty good — apparently, we're the ones who shout "stop!" when everyone's heading over a cliff, rather than cheerfully gunning the engine. But as a commenter points out, this may not be that fun. P Starling writes,

Look, even if it's true, let's keep it quiet. The idea of woman as moral arbiter is great in theory but in practice has gotten us the unenviable job of, say, being the desire-free sexual gatekeepers or the pedestal-dwelling Angel of the House. Can we just ignore the question of whether or not women are more ethical and focus instead on whether or not women tend to show better insight into long-term outcomes?

Being the ones responsible for taking "moral risks" also means women get all the "disapproval of the audience" and none of the "encouragement." And there's the added problem of whether their warnings are even taken seriously. I already mentioned Cassandra once today, but I'll do it again — a lot of good her "moral risk" did her or Troy. So while it's nice to think of women as being great at confronting difficult situations head-on, the more we bash men for being unable to do this, the more we claim this unenviable responsibly for ourselves.

No Doubts: Women Are Better Managers [NY Times]
Why Corporate Women Are More Likely To Blow The Whistle [Double X]
How Smith Keeps Elle Glossy [Forbes]

Earlier: Working For A Female Boss Can Be A Real Bitch

The first objectionable phrase Martin and Visconti discuss is, "You're not diverse." Visconti tells an anecdote about a hospital system employee who told him that the system was "81% diverse." She really meant it was 81% women and people of color, and Visconti uses her words to talk about the assumption that white people are not a part of a diverse workplace. Obviously diversity means including a wide variety of different groups, and if one of those groups is white men, the entire community isn't necessarily less diverse. However, this is more of an issue of language than Visconti makes it out to be — measuring the company's "percentage of diversity" is misleading, and calling a single person diverse or not diverse is just bizarre. The assumption that white people can't be included in diversity at all is a bad one, but we're not sure how often people actually make it.

Visconti also has some odd things to say about the concept of white privilege. He tells Martin,

White privilege, I tell other white people, is the most amazing thing. You can give away your white privilege by helping other people gain access, and it never diminishes your white privilege. You're born with it, and it remains with you, so it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Throughout the interview, Visconti comes across as someone who genuinely wants to work toward a more equal society. However, his idea of white privilege as a "gift" that whites can bestow on others is somewhat paternalistic. It promulgates a view of race relations in which white people "give access" to minorities, rather than everyone working together to create equal access. It also assumes that white privilege is something you can give away, when the idea that it "remains with you" is probably closer to the truth. Helping a person of color does not make that person white, and does not confer upon them all the unconscious benefits that society gives to whites. All people can work to reduce the influence of privilege, but that involves a widespread change of behaviors and attitudes — not individual "gifts."

That said, Visconti does have some good ideas about race relations. He says no one should ever say the phrase, "There's no way you as a white person can understand." He should have mentioned that people of color do have experiences that white people probably can't fully understand (similarly, a man can't really know what it's like to be a woman, nor can a woman know what it's like to be a man). However, he's right that by focusing only on differences or on what is incommunicable, "you eliminate potential allies, and you shut people down."

Many in the past have said that white people have no place in creating equality, or in erasing the wrongs they themselves have perpetrated, but Visconti makes a persuasive case for including whites in the drive to end discrimination. He mentions the many white men he has known whose lives were affected by prejudice, perhaps through an interracial relationship or a gay family member. Many of these men want to work against the discrimination they have seen, and Visconti argues that their help is valuable. Of his work for diversity, he says, "what this is all about is enabling people to bring themselves to work 100%, so they can be engaged, productive, and innovative, because their heart is in it." Despite his missteps, Visconti's heart seems to be in it too, and his message of inclusion deserves a hearing.

Diversity 101: What Not to Say to White Colleagues [NPR]
9 Things NEVER to Say to White Colleagues [DiversityInc]

Sociological Images brings us screenshots of and commentary on The Occasional Wife, which promises to "Organize Your... Home, Office, Projects, Events, Everyday Life." Services offered include "holiday decorating and un-decorating," "preparing a home for a newborn and childproofing a home," and "anything you do not have time for." Sociological Images helpfully explains:

First, the business relies on and reproduces the very idea of "wife." As the website makes clear, wives are people who (a) make your life more pleasurable by taking care of details and daily life-maintenance (such as running errands), (b) organize special events in your life (such as holidays), and (c) deal with work-intensive home-related burdens (such as moving), all in while perfectly coiffed and in high heels!

All of this seems ripe for critique — do we really want to keep perpetuating the idea that a wife is someone who does "anything you do not have time for?" We're aware that, as Sociological Images points out, "women have increasingly participated in wage labor" (their whole analysis of the socioeconomics of the family sort of sounds like it was written for aliens), and that most actual wives don't have the time or inclination to spend their days "un-decorating." But is it really that funny or cute to keep describing people who basically do our dirty work as wives? Doesn't this sort of imply that we wish we still lived in a world where marriage still provided men with someone in high heels to clean up after them? Uh, yup. Sociological Images doesn't critique The Occasional Wife's use of the term 'wife'; they just say, "it'd sure be nice to have one."

Occasional Wife founder Kay Morrison writes,

The Occasional Wife is a concept born in my kitchen [sounds messy] during a morning discussion with my husband. It was one of those days when neither our schedules nor our two young children were cooperating. At that point we realized that this family, our family, needed a wife.

Or how about better work-life balance, or more affordable childcare? Or, at least, some new words?

Wouldn't A Wife Be Great!? [Sociological Images]
The Occasional Wife [Official Site]

Choire Sicha at The Awl speculates that (Salon's) "Rebecca Traister is going to be mean to her," presumably over the sexist subtext of the notion that women can't focus, but Orchid Thief author Orlean elaborates thus,

@georgiakral I don't think it's sexist — I think men/women have different styles of focus. Women r better multitaskers, for better & worse.

Aside from the silliness of seeing a New Yorker writer spell "are" like that, this statement is still a little essentialist for my taste. While some studies suggest that women may have some advantage in multitasking, we all know plenty of single-minded women and task-juggling men. And, obviously, both focus and multitasking can be learned. But farther upfeed, Orlean writes,

But 1. Society expects women to do it all. 2. We (I) feel guilty neglecting home stuff. Men I know are more ok with that.

And,

Society would look very harshly at a woman who missed kids' events, etc; men get a free pass on that stuff.

While men don't get quite as big a get-out-of-parenting-free pass as they used to (Michael Lewis has to change diapers now), it's still much more acceptable for a man to put his personal life on hold for work than for a woman to do the same. I've had a lot of conversations with other writers about this, and women almost always report feeling guilty for placing work above relationships — not just with kids, but also with friends, parents, significant others, etc. Anna H. says that when working on her book many years ago, she "had to TELL people that I would not be calling, emailing, socializing for 7 months, and, even though I was upfront about it, I still felt very guilty." Male writers I've talked to, in contrast, sometimes view social life as an imposition, and rejecting it as an almost moral act, a la Thoreau.

Neither of these outlooks is necessarily superior to the other — I tend to view personal relationships as essential to life, and maintaining them as a joy as well as an obligation, but I also understand how being a social entity can be constricting, and how it can be rewarding and even necessary to simply live in your own head for a while. However, it's certainly true that women are largely expected to have the former outlook, and the expectation makes not just writing, but any occupation that requires occasional periods of absorption, more difficult for us.

I can think of several successful female nonfiction writers who are married with kids — Anne Fadiman, for instance, and writer/musician Kristin Hersh, who Sicha points out is currently Twittering about watching squirrels. And not having kids — as Nina Shen Rostagi of Double X reminds us — is no perfect recipe for getting work done. Still, women in general and moms in particular get a lot more criticism for saying, "go away world, I'm working."

So is this a bad thing? Yes, in that it always sucks when men get a pass and women get flak for the same behavior. But it's also true that distractions can sometimes enrich one's work. Orlean writes,

@MDTeresa Yep, and if part of your brain is remembering to buy milk, you have that much less for your writing. It is a zero sum game.

I'm not sure it really is. Some of my best ideas have come from mental digression — and from my conversations and relationships with other people. Sometimes writers need intense, isolated focus to get the job done, but sometimes they need to broaden that focus to take in the world around them. Obviously it's true that time spent caring for kids, calling your parents, and buying milk cut into your writing time. But they may make your writing better in ways you can't predict. It would be nice for female writers to be able to shut themselves off from society from time to time, without guilt. And it would also be nice for everyone to embrace a variety of different processes for writing and for work in general, and not to privilege one single-minded and traditionally male-associated approach.

Susan Orlean Needs a Room of Her Own! Or a Wife! Or Bodyguard! [The Awl]
susanorlean [Twitter]
A Room of One's Own-and No Pesky Kids [Double X]

Her lede doesn't help:

I have said about ten million times that there is no more glass ceiling, there is no more salary gap between men and women, and there is no reason to keep bitching about sexual harassment because it's merely a legal issue, not a men-are-evil issue.

While Trunk links, it isn't to outside data sets that back up her analysis — it's to her own work, in which she encourages women not to report sexual harassment because it's better to deal with it yourself; the wage gap only exists for mothers and not single women (despite my childless — and many women's childless — experience to the contrary, including Lily Ledbetter's); and there's not glass ceiling because women don't really want to be in charge. Oh, ok, well, since Trunk apparently always got paid fairly when she was childless — as far as she knows, and I'd bet Ledbetter (who only found out 30 years into her career that she made less than her colleagues) might have something to suggest to her about that — and doesn't want to run a company, apparently everyone should stop worrying about it.

But she has some suggestions about what we do want!

Women need to be compensated at a higher rate than men if they are to give up their personal lives in order to work.

Uh, what? Oh, right. Because women, of course, have to give up their extensive personal lives (read: sole responsibility for child care and household duties) in order to work, or else get paid by companies to work. Can we maybe just start with getting paid equally even when we don't have homes and kids? Pretty please?

Maybe not:

This makes genetic sense. The men had to think the kids were fine when they left the cave to hunt. Or else they wouldn't leave and no one would have eaten. The women had to think the kids always needed more attention. Otherwise, the women would say, "This is good enough" and then the kids would starve or get eaten by lions.

God knows you need a vagina to change a diaper or chase down a 5-year-old.

The other problem is that we aren't getting your rocks off enough.

People who have orgasms do better at work: they earn more, they hang out with higher powered people, they are better at public speaking, and they walk with a more confident gait, which, of course, inspires confidence.

Ah, now if I can return us all to college statistics, please repeat after me: Correlation does not equal causality. Maybe people who earn more (which is highly correlated with educational achievement, which Trunk has found evidence is connected to increased oral sex) have more orgasms, rather than orgasmic people earn more. Educated people hang out with educated people, by and large, and wealthy people with wealthy people, and so and and so forth. But Trunk thinks that getting yourself off more will increase your career advancement, because that sounds better — because it's sure as hell not because she proved it.

Also, as far as Trunk is concerned, we're all just soooo boring.

The problem is that the boys are having all the fun. Women are doing better than men in school but school is not what makes kids successful at work. What actually prepares you for life is athletics, aiming high, breaking rules, playing video games. Girls should do those things more.

Yes, goodness knows women don't play sports, attempt to "aim high" (by doing better in school, perhaps?) or break rules or play video games. Screw grades, ladies! You don't need 'em anyway.

I guess I just prefer my sexist tropes written by a man.

Why Women Can't Be Bosses [AskMen.com]
New gender gaps for the new millennium [Brazen Careerist]

Earlier: Is Cunnilingus Another Benefit To Increased Earning Power?

Clune trots out the old chestnut that women are too tired to bone after working, grocery shopping, and taking care of the kids. She also complains that, "these days women are expected not only to be the perfect wife, mother and career woman but also a naughty nymph at bedtime." But the only solution she offers is one already espoused at length by Caitlin Flanagan: "Just Do It." Though she jokingly blames her triplets on "Just Doing It," Clune seems to agree that "sex is just like jogging - you don't always fancy the idea of it, but once you start you wonder why you don't do it more often." True enough — but why do the legion of columns about busy women's low sex drive offer lying back and thinking of England as the only real fix for the problem?

Clune does name-check the recession ("money worries, redundancy and falling house prices aren't the best aphrodisiacs") — but she doesn't make the obvious connection that people's work lives are ruining both sex and sleep. Other writers on this issue — Ayelet Waldman among them — have suggested that men should shoulder more of the housework to get their wives in the mood. Equality in the home is a great idea, and, which really practiced, has probably sexed up many a celibate marriage. But individual men doing more laundry is no substitute for an examination of capitalism's demands on families. We live in a world where both parents must often work to support their kids, where maternity and paternity leave are substandard, where child care is expensive, and where women and men both suffer in the workplace when they put their families first. And the recession has not changed the mentality that the best employee — single, childless, partnered, or parenting — is one who always puts his or her personal life second. Until these things change, people will always have to make the sad choice between sex and sleep.

At least, though, the Brits surveyed had a choice. A new Australian film, My Year Without Sex, tells the story of Natalie, who suffers a brain aneurysm and is told to forgo sex or a year to avoid triggering another one. The movie shows not just how Natalie and Ross navigate Natalie's sexless year, but also how they raise their two children and interact with a richer family "who spend their time making money, arguing and shopping." Reviewer Paul Byrnes says My Year Without Sex gives viewers "a strong sense that raising a family now comes with unforeseen difficulties" and "a year without sex is actually one of the lesser challenges that [the director] tackles." Nonetheless, Natalie's plight should serve as a reminder to people prevented from screwing by the more common libido-killers of long hours and housework — sex, and a fulfilling personal life in general, is worth fighting for.

8 out of 10 Brits prefer sleep to sex [GMTV]
Is sleep the new sex? Yes! Yes! Yezzzzzz [Daily Mail]
My Year Without Sex [Sydney Morning Herald]
"Year Without Sex" proves to be time well spent [Reuters]